Has the Sexual Revolution Devalued Women?
My take on Candace Owens’ Surrounded debate.
Jubilee Media recently released a video with political commentator and author, Candace Owens.
Disclaimer: if you haven’t already watched the video, you should do so before reading this article. I wouldn’t want to influence your perception prematurely. That and the video offers contextual understanding to the points I’ll be presenting here.
The video follows a series of conversations hosted by Jubilee — a brilliant idea, in my opinion. Through this series, aptly titled Surrounded, Jubilee facilitates dialogue between people with opposite views. The conversation is set up such that a primary debater sits in the middle of a circle, and along the circle’s circumference are 20 debaters with an opposing viewpoint. Since starting Surrounded, Jubilee has hosted conversations between Atheists and Christians, LGBT+ Activists and Conservatives, pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The list is long.
Despite this long list of what should be constructive conversations, I find that people are not listening. After watching my fair share of Surrounded videos, I recognise how the initiative can ignite empathy between opposite camps, more so in a polarised and polarising world. But the overwhelming unwillingness to listen to disagreers mean you’ll find debaters in the show arguing with the aim of scoring points for their camp. As a result, conversations become frustrating and unproductive. Frustration aside, I believe regular conversation between opposites is necessary.
Cue in Candace’s conversation with 20 feminists.
***
To Candace’s credit, she was well-comported throughout the conversation. While her frustration was obvious at different points, I’ll say she handled interruptions and smugness from her co-debaters quite well.
I promise I tried to listen to Candace despite my disapproval of her conservative bent. Off this effort, I can admit that she raised salient points. Never mind that, a few of her prompts caused me to think about what I would’ve said in response if I was in the room with her. One such prompt was her first one when she said, “The sexual revolution has devalued women and made them infinitely less happy”. The first half I agree with; the second, not so much.
I want to start by defining keywords in this prompt to articulate why I agree with Candace that “The sexual revolution has devalued women”. My keywords here are ‘sexual revolution’ and ‘devalue’.
Sexual revolution: a social and cultural movement that challenged traditional norms around sex and sexuality. Essentially, a liberalization of attitude towards sex.
Devalue: to underestimate (minimize, sell short, hold cheap) the worth or importance of something.
No doubt, the sexual revolution of the 60s led to some of the access women enjoy in modern society, including personal say in reproductive choices and — quite frankly — sexual pleasure. Even so, there’s no arguing that it has led to the commercialisation of sex. I am aware liberals will recoil at that statement because it disregards their belief in sexual freedom. But if they were being honest, they would admit that the sexual revolution robbed society of something (the mystery of sex, the exclusivity of sex, something, never mind my inability to articulate what exactly was lost). The liberalising creed of the sexual revolution has led to years and years of meaningless (and often dangerous) sex.
This liberalization has cost sex its sacredness. Perhaps then, I should say the sexual revolution has devalued sex, not women.
Heterosexual men in the dating scene know they can get non-committal sex if they so wish; non-committal as in don’t-have-to-be-married, will-abort-if-a-baby-happens sex. As such, sex, once prized as the exclusive reserve of marriage, has become a pedestrian act, easily obtainable at no cost.
When Candace offered that prompt, I readily agreed as I was thinking about how much less work men do to win a woman’s attention. Where women were once socialised to offer sex as a reward for a man’s commitment, they’re now socialised to use a man’s body for pleasure. And in a world where men and women use each other’s bodies for selfish pleasures, men are becoming less willing to do the (once hard) work of wooing and earning a woman’s body. In this way, the cost to access a woman’s body has been severely devalued. Candace mentioned how the sexual revolution devalued women by making them overtly sexual. But I can make the same claim for men and their bodies too. Yes, men are not as objectified as women are in the media today. Even so, I’d argue that men are objectified more than they were 50–100 years ago. Men are increasingly judged by their muscles and height so that they now feel self-conscious if they’re anything less than 6’0 — you saw Tinder’s recent announcement.
Never mind men’s notoriety for uncommitted sex, I believe their bodies are just as valuable as women’s. Thus, I’d go so far as to say the commoditization of sex has devalued their bodies, more so if we consider their flippancy in impregnating women.
As these men acquire multiple baby mamas, they fragment their legacies. They leave disjointed family lines in their wake, bearing children who’re disconnected from the essence of their lineage — I suppose it doesn’t matter, anyway. It’s not like people in the 21st century care about lineage like dynasties did in ancient times. What a waste! That these men are indifferent. That they do not care to instil the values that shaped them into the next generation of men and women who will continue their bloodline.
Even to myself, I must admit that I sound like a queen’s maid from the Victorian era. But until this essay, I never really articulated what I had against men who make babies like they’re sharing fliers on the high-street. I just thought of such men as irresponsible. Now, I see I’m irritated at how easily their irresponsibility can devalue (or muddle) their children’s identity. But I digress.
My point is: the sexual revolution started a journey towards the devaluation of not just women’s bodies but men’s and men’s biological legacies.
***
Which brings me to the second half of Candace’s prompt, that “the sexual revolution has… made women infinitely less happy”. I see where Candace was coming from, but I disagree simply because I believe the sexual revolution (more so feminism) gave women a priceless gift: the ability to exercise personal agency.
I don’t know one person who became miserable when allowed to exercise their agency. Not one.
By personal agency I mean the capacity to act independently and make one’s own choices. The ability to influence one’s environment, as in the ability to vote, own properties, work in any sector, and seek protection against domestic abuse. How could that possibly make women “infinitely less happy”? Candace’s argument to this claim was that family makes women happy. You’ll find an echo of this sentiment in her next claim that “no career will give women as much joy and fulfilment as raising children”. Like one of the debaters submitted, the million of women who go to work daily is all the evidence against Candace’s claim. Although Candace rebutted by submitting that the growing population of working women is a matter of economic necessity, I would argue, based on existing research, that working women have more life satisfaction than non-working women. In a peer reviewed 2023 research, it was discovered that employment offers women benefits like self-achievement, social engagement, and identity development. These benefits contribute positively to working women’s mental health.
In fairness to Candace, the unhappiness she referred to stems from the rejection women feel after offering sex cheaply. In that regard, her argument is coherent. Men (often) want non-committal sex. Women (often) want committed sex. Therefore, casual sexual encounters inevitably leave men sated and women unfulfilled. I hear it and agree that it can lead to unhappiness. Even so, my measure of human happiness is purpose and meaning, as in, do you feel like you are contributing something to the world? A question typically answered through a career. I believe this to be true for both men and women.
Then again, our relationships determine how happy we feel. If I said it didn’t, I’d be dishonest. Despite this admission, I disagree that nursing biological children is the ultimate means for relational fulfilment. Indeed, the Institute of Family Studies showed that married mothers are happier than unmarried childless women. Yet, it identified marital status as a higher predictor of happiness than parenthood — influenced by additional factors like income and educational achievement. Another research showed that the more children parents have, the lower their level of happiness. Their happiness only starts to increase again past the age of 40 — I imagine because the kids are older.
While Candace is right that parenting offers happiness, it is not the ultimate instrument for feminine fulfilment.
***
The last prompt I want to respond to is Candace’s third prompt that “We live under a matriarchy, not a patriarchy.” Now, I found that to be a bold claim. Very bold.
A matriarchy is ruled by women, and I’m looking around to see if I missed a matriarchy somewhere. Where?! How?! When did the rampancy of casual sex result in a matriarchy? If that’s what it took, surely there should be far more women in public office than there are men. Men should be the overwhelming victim of domestic violence and systemic discrimination. They should be scared to walk down the street shirtless because women would grope and slut-shame them. Alas, the opposite is obtainable, which presents undeniable evidence that… We. Live. In. A. Patriarchy!!!
A matriarchal society would protect and benefit women above men. That’s not the case in the world. Even the sexual revolution Candace based her argument on has not offered huge sexual benefits to women — according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Centre, in the U.S., 91% of rape victims are female and only 9% are male. Despite the hesitance of male victims to disclose their experience with sexual assault, women remain the overwhelming victim of sexual assault. As such, Candace’s claim that our society is matriarchal is too far of a reach.
***
I wrote this essay because I was inspired by the debate, I also wrote it to share my ideas. While I have tried to articulate my perspective as logically as possible, I recognise that my arguments are not final. As such, I welcome more conversation about the topic of feminism and the impact of the sexual revolution on the world as we know it today.
Thank you for reading.