Depressing News
New research suggests that sexual experimentation leads to depression in adolescent girls. Another triumph for the proponents of female sexual "liberation."
Some commenters to this post seemed to think that my criticism of feminism was not logically linked to the new status quo where young girls are almost expected to be sexually active.
Well, here's how it works. The feminists (and cultural liberals generally) were convinced that females of all ages were being oppressed by hegemonic, phallocentric male domination, wherein men were anxious to keep women chaste because they were seen as "property" (their daughters, wives, etc.). So the feminists pressed for sexual liberation.
The sexual "liberation" has trickled down even to middle-school-aged girls -- and behold the results: Not just heartache, not just the potential for STD's, but an enhanced risk of depression (not to mention the less-than-chivalrous treatment that today's "bitches" and "ho's" endure at the hands of some men and boys alike).
Perhaps we've "come a long way, baby" -- but sometimes, where we're headed doesn't look all that great.
Some commenters to this post seemed to think that my criticism of feminism was not logically linked to the new status quo where young girls are almost expected to be sexually active.
Well, here's how it works. The feminists (and cultural liberals generally) were convinced that females of all ages were being oppressed by hegemonic, phallocentric male domination, wherein men were anxious to keep women chaste because they were seen as "property" (their daughters, wives, etc.). So the feminists pressed for sexual liberation.
The sexual "liberation" has trickled down even to middle-school-aged girls -- and behold the results: Not just heartache, not just the potential for STD's, but an enhanced risk of depression (not to mention the less-than-chivalrous treatment that today's "bitches" and "ho's" endure at the hands of some men and boys alike).
Perhaps we've "come a long way, baby" -- but sometimes, where we're headed doesn't look all that great.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:08 PM
6 Comments:
Some conservatives were convinced that children were being corrupted by hegemonic liberalism in the public schools. So they decided to insulate the children and school them at home.
Behold the results of the home-school movement: Lamb and Lynx Gaede, Aryan singing sensations and Olsen Twins of the White Nationalist Movement.
No less flimsy.
Duke-stir: Not all homeschooling parents choose to homeschool to "insulate" their children. Some parents choose that option because they wish to "educate" their children. Some also hope to "preserve innocence" for a year or two longer than if the child had entered public school. Innocence can only be lost once.
The Gaede girls are the exception and not the rule in homeschooling.
I fully agree, Ruth Anne.
My point was that the argument Carol made about the feminist movement and sex in the hallway is no less flimsy than the home-school movement/Aryan twins one.
Both situations are the result of bad (or no) parenting.
duke-stir:
You are mistaken.
The examples you used for homeschooling are extremely rare. On the other hand, increased sexual activity and the resulting problems are much more prevalent in public schools.
Your analogy is flawed.
The problem that Carol is pointing out is that there is tremendous public pressure on teens (and younger) these days to be sexually active. The sexual revolution and femminism in general ought to take their share of responsiblity for this situation.
These are social changes that have taken place over time and ARE NOT simply a matter of changing parental techniques.
I agree with you, however, that good parenting is the critical ingredient to raising healthy, well-adjusted children - especially these days.
I agree with Carol's implicit point that our psychological states are affected by (I would say derived from) our moral condition. As St. Augustine says "Thou [God] hast made us for thyself, and our heart is restless till it rests in thee." So we would predict that objective guilt would produce subjective feelings of depression. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to argue that to avoid the effect, we should correct the cause.
The trouble is, the only actual data is the subjective feeling and feelings can have more than one cause. A secularist could easily (though incorrectly) argue that the sexual promiscuity is natural and beneficial and the depression is caused by all this misguided talk about morality. So, to them, pointing out the bad effects of their policies only further confirms them in those same polices.
The only way to truly perform the experiment would be to completely eradicate all moral talk from society and see if the depression persists. Since this isn't (by God's grace) likely to happen, the dispute will remain unresolved. Which is why I generally prefer to make the moral case directly, rather than reason backwards from effects to cause.
Points noted Carol. I'm not going to defend misogyny 'n da hood anymore than you. However...
rewind a century.
How happy was the woman of 1900. Remember this was NOT a time of single women supporting themselves in the workplace. Imagine the woman who was unlucky enough to have married and had children with a wife beater (and there were many).
She couldn't divorce him. SCANDALOUS.
She couldn't report him.
NO CREDIBILITY.
She couldn't leave him.
NO MONEY, NO FOOD, NO PROSPECTS FOR WORK, NO CHILD CUSTODY.
She had no choice but to live with it. Day in Day out.
Now, what were you saying about depressing?
Post a Comment
<< Home