Rome, Italy, Jun 8, 2017 / 02:58 am (CNA).- What started as a means to liberate women seems to have taken an ironic twist.
The past century has witnessed the widespread normalization of artificial contraception, with its promise of empowering women and teenage girls to gain freedom over their bodies and fertility, along with a level of sexual liberation equal to that of men.
This freedom has emerged from what is seen as a longstanding culture of misogyny – exemplified by the so-called “1950s housewife” – where women were expected to marry young and dedicate their lives solely to homemaking, placing the comfort and desires of their husbands before their own interests.
Thanks to contraception, its proponents say, women no longer need to be controlled by a society ruled by the expectation to marry and have a family rather than have a career. In other words, with contraception, women can finally achieve their true potential and earn the respect they deserve.
Yet, little more a decade into the 21st century, the sexual exploitation of women and girls is at an all-time high, and the dream of woman’s liberation – as promised by contraception – seems to be falling far short of the reality.
Provocatively-clad women are regularly used in advertising campaigns to sell everything from car insurance to sandwiches. Studies reveal an alarming percentage of young teenage girls being forced or coerced into sexual activity with their boyfriends, with similar trends colloquially seen among adult women. Victims of “rape-culture” at universities are speaking out in increasing numbers about widespread sexual violations on their campuses.
Then there’s the pornography industry, which has so normalized depictions of degrading and aggressive sexual acts toward women that mainstream films and television shows are following suit for the sake of entertainment.
All of this begs the question: Did the 1950s housewife in fact have it better than women of the 21st century when it comes to sexual freedom and respect? And, could contraception be at least in part to blame for the current climate?
One expert who believes that contraception is actually damaging to woman’s freedom in society is Fiorella Nash, a Catholic novelist and researcher for the London-based pro-life group, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC).
Instead of liberating women, a culture which readily encourages the use of contraception in fact “undermines female autonomy,” Nash told CNA in an interview last year in London.
“We’ve sort of created a situation where, in order for women to be equal to men, they have to make their bodies a little bit more like men.”
Ironically, this discrepancy between contraception’s promise of freedom and the tendency to make women more susceptible to coercion begins with their fertility. Nash cited the example of the “Pill” which is widely prescribed to treat a host of conditions, from painful periods to acne, while the core causes of these ailments are routinely neglected.
“It suggests that women can’t look after their own fertility,” Nash said. Consequently, many women are uneducated when it comes to their own bodies.
“Fertility is very essential to women’s lives, and it ought to be something that we work with, rather than (something we’re) constantly trying to manipulate,” she explained.
“There is something very patronizing to me about the fact that we circumvent knowledge by giving an artificial way out, almost as if women need a cure for being female.”
Contraception is often touted for its role in opening the doors to greater sexual freedom. However, rather than being a means of empowerment, Nash explains that contraception, in fact, makes women more vulnerable.
While it is not a new phenomena for men to be non-committal, or to abandon women they have gotten pregnant, Nash said, “the contraceptive culture has given men a license to do that.”
“Why should you stand by a woman if she gets pregnant? If she had only read the instructions on the package, she might not have gotten pregnant. And, there’s always abortion, so there’s a way out, isn’t there?”
“It’s almost allowed men to get out of their responsibilities, a lot more so than women,” she said.
Nash cited the reassurance men often give to their pregnant girlfriends – “I’ll support you whatever you decide” – which, she says, is simply the man passing on his responsibility.
“They’re really saying: ‘Actually, I can’t be bothered. I’m not going to make any kind of a comment here. I’m going to leave you to go through it. I’ll sort of make reassuring noises, before I disappear into the next adventure.’”
“The contraceptive culture has completely destroyed any respect for women,” which in turn has “left women a lot more vulnerable,” she said.
Going beyond relationships, the acceptance of contraception has wider implications in society as well, Nash suggests: for instance, its role in the breakdown of marriage, the increase of recreational sexual activity, the objectification of women – even violence.
“A book like 50 Shades of Grey would never have been produced in a culture that respects women,” she said. “The whole story behind it – if you can call it a story – is very reflective of a society that does glorify the abuse of women.”
This mentality translates into the so-called “rape-culture” at universities, Nash suggests. On the one hand, she did stress that it is important understand the context of the situation; for instance, taking into account the increased tendency to report assault cases, and a better overall understanding what constitutes a sexual offense, etc.
However: “If you create a culture where women are regarded as objects for sexual gratification, and where there’s always an assumption that that’s what girls want, the onus is always going to be on the women to explain that she’s not interested, rather than onus being on the man to ensure that the woman is consenting.”
Films, like the James Bond franchise, have contributed to the confusion with regard to boundaries and consent, Nash said: for instance, a scene which shows Bond walking into a woman’s shower and having sex with her, without her objecting.
This phenomena places “a huge burden on women,” she said, because it occurs within a culture where men “believe that they have a right to take what they want.”
“If we were really so emancipated, if women were so empowered, it really shouldn’t be happening as much.”
Along with cases of serious assault, women and girls, in turn, are often pressured into sex with their partners. Nash cited a recent study in the United States that revealed a high proportion of teenagers being forced or coerced into sex, often out of fear of losing their boyfriends, having to prove themselves, etc.
“It does raise the question about how much coercive sex, at least, is going on in society…because, they feel the need to keep hold of a boyfriend, because they feel the need to do the right thing by their husband, etc.”
In another example, Nash spoke of the UK TV personality Davina McCall, who reportedly said a wife must satisfy her husband in the bedroom “even if you’re absolutely exhausted.” If not, “he will go somewhere else.” Following the statement, many critics compared McCall to a “1950s housewife.”
“Actually,” Nash said, “that’s not a comment from the 1950s. That is the sexualized 21st century speaking.”
“There’s nothing that odd about her saying that within the context of a very sexualized society that says people have a right to sex, they have a right to sexual gratification, and therefore, frankly, women should just be expected to deliver it.”
“Is this really what emancipation was about? Is this really what the suffrage movement was fighting for a hundred years ago? How much progress have we really made?”
Although she acknowledges the extensive progress that has been made in the area of woman’s rights, Nash nonetheless holds that contraception and abortion have in many ways increased the challenges for women.
“Once you throw ‘choice’ – or, it’s really a false choice – contraception into the equation, then everything’s a woman’s fault.”
This article was originally published May 19, 2016.
[…]
Lord have mercy. Just more evidence of the “evangelization through marketing” mindset.
If these absurd proposals are being seriously considered, it is nothing short of disgusting. This church is a house of worship for a specific religion, that of the Catholic church. There is no good reason to use lights, projections of foreign languages and other touristy gimmicks to lure visitors and non-catholics. Nor to turn it into the equivalent of a shopping mall or commercial building lobby, with just as much emotional appeal. This is not THEIR church. Nor should they install modern atrocities of “art” such as faceless and twisted lumps of steel which are supposed to represent saints, such as those I have seen elsewhere. Most of these are non-inspirational pieces of junk that could be replicated by the average artistically unskilled 8 year old. Something you could never say about a Michaelangelo. I would have imagined that falling attendance numbers and low collection plate hauls would have been enough to notify the woke clergy that leftist “one size fits all” attitudes, and modern global “renovations” are not welcome in their church structures. It’s as if they intend to appeal to everyone in the whole world, EXCEPT those who will actually worship here. How sad that they are so convinced of their own self-righteousness that they can’t understand this. I think they had better replace Father Drouin immediately, if not sooner, before he effects any permanent damage with this nonsense. Disgusting.
Calm down LJ. If the French ministry of culture doesn’t like it, detracting from the historical significance of the structure itself, it won’t get approved. If there is a public outcry anger reopening, they will change it.
They claim they will incorporate biblical verses. There are many that invoke warnings against vanity. Maybe the first verse they might use were they to take seriously enough the Catholic principle of never presuming superiority to the peoples of the past, hopefully leading to an reconsideration to cancel their whole stupid project would be: “What is man, that thou are mindful of him?”
In the French Revolution of 1789 the bloodthirsty and atheistic mob installed a naked prostitute on the high altar of Notre Dame as the “Goddess of Reason.” In 2021 the same bloodthirsty and atheistic mob want to exceed this blasphemy by turning all of Notre Dame into a Pachamama temple devoted to the worship of its Marxist this-world materialism, ecologism, modernism, and cultural and sexual “diversity.” This is occurring under the direction of an Archbishop of Paris who has been accused of fornication and adultery with a married woman.
How about some facts to attest to your statement that the Archbishop has been accused of fornication and adultery. Who made these charges and what is the level of trust you place on this source?
The French magazine ‘LePoint’ made the accusation. NCR followed: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/paris-archbishop-offers-resignation-pope-francis-following-reports-questionable
When the cathedral was torched in 2019 conscientious people knew what would transpire — not the restoration of a timeless work of ecclesiastical architecture but the sacrilegious desecration of a consecrated church. Then we were assured that would not happen — and now here it is. I never believed it would be otherwise. A temple to earth goddess Pachamama is announced just days after Macron visited the South American Jesuit pope in Rome.
Hopefully, if this cannot be adverted, the ruin will collapse.
“What they are proposing to do to Notre-Dame would never be done to Westminster Abbey or St. Peter’s in Rome.” Really? We’ve seen nothing yet. We are in the hands of demonic liars in both Church and society.
I agree entirely. I am.utterly convinced that the burnig down of Notre Dame was deliberate and is extremely significant, a warning in fact to Europe and the world. Such desolating times,and yet a wonderful opportunity to keep the faith and by that I mean in Jesus Christ.
In the modern era, the persistent glory of French cathedrals has always been that as part of the national architectural heritage, whose maintenance is the responsibility of the state, they are mostly immune to the ravages of post-conciliar “renovators.” For many years, I have told my students that the worst thing that could ever happen to a French cathedral would be to transfer its custody to the French Catholic Church, instead of keeping it in the hands of the French government. I explained that the Church authorities would immediately set about “updating” the interiors in the same manner that German, Austrian, Swiss and American churches have very often been destroyed. Now, we are about to witness the truth of this in the tragic “Disneyland renovation” of Notre Dame de Paris.
In most nations, the liturgy was turned into an amusement park first, and the Churches wrecked afterwards, to better reflect the nonsense taking place in the interior. Since “wreckovation” has mostly been impossible in France, the dignified interiors have worked to check the worst abuses of liturgy. However, once Notre Dame’s interior is destroyed, it will become just another site for pantheistic expression, with Pachamama soon making her demonic presence on the altar.
He said that side chapels would feature “portraits from the 16th and 18th century that will be in dialogue with modern art objects.”
Vacuous and yet revealing. No sensible person speaks this way.
Nu-Church—destroying Catholicism since 1964.
Charcuterie, fondue and a sampling of regional French wines also provided and served on the altar like a brassarie I assume.