Was the sexual revolution a mistake? From the 1960s through today, the majority of feminists would instantly answer “no.” Easier access to contraception, the relaxation of divorce laws, the legalization of abortion, less emphasis on virginity, reduced stigma around unmarried sex—all of these have been hailed as liberating for women.
But in the past few years, an emergent strand of feminism has questioned these assumptions. “Reactionary feminism”—the name was popularized by the British writer Mary Harrington—rests on a premise that sounds far more radical today than it once did: Men and women are different. In her 2022 book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry argues that individual physical variation “is built upon a biological substrate. Liberal feminists and trans activists may do their best to deny this, but it is still true that only one half of the human race is capable of getting pregnant, and—failing the invention of artificial wombs—this will remain true indefinitely.” Perry also argues for “evolved psychological differences between the sexes.” Men are innately much hornier, more eager for sexual variety, and much less likely to catch feelings from a one-night stand, she believes. Modern hookup culture serves men very well but forces women to deny their natural urges toward seeking commitment, affection, and protection.
These are heretical thoughts. For more than a decade, the dominant form of American feminism has maintained that differences between the sexes—whether in libido, crime rates, or even athletic performance—largely result from female socialization. Anything else is biological essentialism. The feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon recently declared that she did not want to be part of “a movement for female body parts … Women are not, in fact, subordinated or oppressed by our bodies. We do not need to be liberated from our chromosomes or our ovaries.” This view extends to the assertion that male and female bodies do not differ enough to justify strict sex segregation in sporting competitions or prisons, domestic-violence shelters, and public changing rooms. Recently, a reporter asked the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, for a response to parents who worry about the safety of daughters competing in sports against genetically male athletes. Jean-Pierre responded with a terse smackdown. The reporter’s question, Jean-Pierre said, implied that “transgender kids are dangerous” and was therefore itself “dangerous.”
The sexual revolution of the 1960s brought about significant changes in societal attitudes towards sex and gender, with its impact still resonating today. Traditionally, feminists have hailed the revolution as liberating for women, citing advancements such as easier access to contraception, the relaxation of divorce laws, the legalization of abortion, and the reduced stigma around unmarried sex. However, a recent strand of feminism called “reactionary feminism” challenges these assumptions, asserting that men and women are fundamentally different. This article delves into the growing debate surrounding the sexual revolution, exploring the arguments put forth by reactionary feminists and the responses from the dominant feminist perspective.
- Challenging Biological Realities: Louise Perry, in her book “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution,” argues that there are inherent physical and psychological differences between men and women. She contends that only women can get pregnant and that this fundamental biological difference shapes their experiences and needs. Perry suggests that men are biologically inclined towards greater sexual variety and are less likely to seek commitment, while women have natural urges for affection, protection, and commitment. Reactionary feminism questions whether modern hookup culture caters more to men’s desires while suppressing women’s innate needs.
- The Dominant Feminist Perspective: For over a decade, the prevailing form of American feminism has emphasized that differences between the sexes primarily arise from societal conditioning rather than biological factors. This view, often labeled as social constructionism, rejects biological essentialism. It asserts that women are not oppressed by their bodies and that liberation should not involve denying or erasing biological differences. This perspective extends to domains such as sex-segregated sports, prisons, domestic violence shelters, and changing rooms, where strict sex segregation is seen as unnecessary or discriminatory.
- The Tensions of Transgender Inclusion: The debate around the sexual revolution and gender differences intersects with discussions on transgender rights and inclusion. Some argue that concerns over the safety and fairness of allowing genetically male athletes to compete against females are valid, while others perceive such concerns as dangerous and transphobic. This issue highlights the complex and contentious nature of the debate, where multiple perspectives clash.
- The Heretical Nature of Questioning: Questioning the assumptions of the sexual revolution and the prevailing feminist narrative is considered heretical within mainstream feminism. Dissenting voices, such as reactionary feminists, face criticism and accusations of perpetuating harmful stereotypes. This challenges the idea of open dialogue and exploration of alternative viewpoints within the feminist movement.
Conclusion: The discussion surrounding the sexual revolution and its impact on gender equality is complex and multifaceted. While traditional feminism has celebrated the advancements brought about by the revolution, a growing strand of reactionary feminism questions its premises. The notion that men and women are fundamentally different, both biologically and psychologically, challenges the dominant feminist perspective. As society grapples with these differing viewpoints, it is essential to foster constructive conversations that allow for a deeper understanding of gender dynamics and the nuances of individual experiences. By engaging in respectful dialogue, it is possible to evolve the feminist movement and address the concerns raised by those questioning the outcomes of the sexual revolution.
