In the distant primordial past, men took care of women, and mothers took
care of children. Men produced, women reproduced.
That basic social contract was simple as it was profound: Men were
responsible for protecting and providing for the family. And women took
care of the childbearing and childrearing part. It was the proto-nuclear
family.
That social arrangement allowed the human species to multiply and
thrive. It worked so well that over the last 100,000 years, homo sapiens
spread from Africa to the farthest reaches of the world.
So what would happen if that ancient social contract were radically
reworked over the course of a few decades?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was men who decided one day
to abandon the old ways. What would the new social contract look like?
Bear with me as I lay it out.
First, let's pretend that some wondrous invention relieves men of the
obligation to provide for and protect their families - no more demands
to work sunrise to sunset or to fend off the ever-lurking saber-tooth
tiger.
Next, some mad scientist comes along and clones a female uterus. So now
men have the choice to become pregnant and bear children.
Actually, that idea is not as outrageous as it sounds. Biomedical
cloning has advanced much farther than most persons realize --
scientists have already proven they can sustain a uterus
outside a
woman's body. Now, some say it's just a matter of time until we begin implanting
wombs in men.
As improbable as the previous three paragraphs may sound, what I have
just described is the social equivalent of what has happened to women
over the past 44 years.
Because on May 21, 1960, the FDA approved Enovid as the first birth
control pill. In addition, lower mortality rates of their offspring
allowed women to conceive only two or three children without threatening
the survival of the species. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger argues that
those two medical advances liberated women from their biological
destinies much more than feminism every could.
In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision took things even further by granting
women legal control over reproduction. And three years later in Danforth
v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court ruled that a wife could obtain
an abortion even without consulting her husband.
In his dissent from that landmark opinion, Justice William Rehnquist
argued that the State should recognize "that the husband has an interest
of his own, which should not be extinguished by the unilateral decision
of the wife." In other words, Rehnquist was saying that this decision
was tantamount to the biological disenfranchisement of fathers.
Now, women were no longer bound by the age-old social obligation to bear
and raise children. Instead, women were encouraged to pursue fame and
fortune.
This had the unfortunate effect of displacing men from their traditional
roles as provider and protector. Dislocated from their traditional
family roles, many men became dispirited and marginalized. Many younger
men opted out of marriage altogether.
In hindsight, we now see that we have engaged in an extraordinary social
experiment. The rapid rise in divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and
fatherless families reveal the effects of altering that timeless social
contract.
And women are discovering that the provider/protector role is more
onerous than they had imagined. Working the corporate grind is not as
glamorous as Cosmo once made it out to be.
And our children - does anyone truly believe that a child prefers to
come home from school, only to find a note from mom with preparation
instructions for tonight's microwaveable meal?
To be sure, dramatic reductions in infant mortality rates have
thankfully relieved women from the burden of non-stop procreation. So
this essay is not a sentimental appeal for a return to the days of rigid
and outmoded sex roles.
Rather, this column is a call for an honest appraisal of whether
feminism has fulfilled its own promises of creating a kinder, gentler,
and more egalitarian society - not just for women, but for men and
children, as well.
