#MeToo: Fallout from the Sexual Revolution

The #MeToo campaign has far-reaching implications for both feminism and the so-called sexual revolution to which feminism gave rise.

First, today’s  feminist affirms a model of womanhood that is, or is supposed to be, radically at odds with what she takes to be the traditional, patriarchal stereotype from which feminists have (allegedly) liberated women. Feminist Woman is strong and self-sufficient; she is large and in charge, no one’s victim. Non-feminist Woman, in stark contrast, is said to be weak, needy, and forever at the mercy of her male oppressors.

Yet as the #MeToo campaign has made abundantly clear, Feminist Woman is a mirage, an illusion.

She is a Big Lie.

The vast majority of women on board the #MeToo train travel in left-leaning circles. They are Feminist Woman. Yet here they are revealing to the world that they are every bit as much in need of protection as Non-feminist Woman, though they certainly are much louder about it. As to strength, the evidence does not suggest that Feminist Woman has the advantage, either.

There is nothing strong or self-sufficient about a woman who, upon being sexually harassed or assaulted, remains silent in exchange either for accepting hush money or otherwise advancing her career, thereby making it easier for other women to fall prey to the same predations to which she claims she was subjected.

There is nothing strong or self-sufficient about a woman who, after having remained silent for decades, in many instances, decides to level allegations of sexual abuse only after many others came forward beginning the trend that makes it attractive and, in some cases, even profitable to do so.

Such a woman is nothing if not at the mercy of men.

Feminist Woman is strong, self-sufficient, and no man’s victim—except for when she is weak, needy, and the victim of predatory men. 

Repudiating the West’s Dominant Ethic
Second, Feminist Woman’s position on sexual morality is as self-contradictory as her position on women.

Classical Marxists once equated traditional Christian sexual morality with a form of “bourgeois” repression. Feminist Woman, exposing unmistakably her Leftist pedigree, regards the Christian sexual ethic as an instrument of misogynistic, “heteronormative” oppression. Thus, the sexual revolution that broke loose some 50 years ago was self-consciously meant as an unequivocal repudiation of the West’s dominant, traditional ethic.

This ethic affirms the virtues of modesty, self-discipline, self-love, and mutual respect between men and women. It prescribes chastity until marriage, which is considered a sacrament, the lifetime covenant that a man and a woman enter into with one another and with the God who instituted marriage for the essential purpose of begetting and raising children. Feminist Woman and her fellow “revolutionaries” have spent over a half-a-century doing whatever they could to hack this ethic to pieces. Its virtues Feminist Woman has transformed into vices. Along with her fellow sexual revolutionaries, Feminist Woman has derided and mocked the Christian sexual ethic.

For humility and self-restraint, she has substituted ostentatiousness and self-indulgence. Feminist Woman has jettisoned commitment in favor of convenience. Marriage she wrote off as nothing more or less than a “social construct” that was devised by heterosexual males for the sake of bolstering their “hegemony” over women and sexual minorities (homosexuals, the “transgendered,” etc.), and sex, far from serving a larger common good like the production and nurturing of a family, exists first and foremost for the sake of bringing pleasure to those who indulge in it.

As long as the sex is consensual (however individual feminists define this), it matters not with whom, where, when, or how it occurs.

This is the anti-Christian ethos within which the #MeToo campaign has taken flight.

The Revolution Eats Its Own
In short, the sexual revolution has proven to be not very liberating after all. It has turned on itself, cannibalizing its own.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the “revolutionaries” who have been harmed. Most tragically, untold numbers of children, both born and unborn, are casualties of this systematic assault against traditional sexual morality. The rate of children born out of wedlock has risen astronomically, as has the rate of divorce, and the phenomenon of the “broken home” is now commonplace.

And since the early days of the revolution to the present, tens and tens of millions of children have been denied the opportunity to leave their mothers’ wombs, killed by their mothers in the name of a “woman’s right to choose.”

To be clear, once convenience trumped commitment and the pleasure of the individual assumed categorical importance, the child in the womb became a “fetus” and the killing of that child an “abortion.”

Given its dependence upon a deceptive vocabulary, the sexual revolution, like feminism itself, reveals itself as a Big Lie.

Yet it is a most dangerous lie. It has resulted—and continues to result—in the mass destruction of lives, including and especially the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us, those who have never and could never “consent” to the sexual revolution, and who are unceremoniously ignored by the #MeToo campaigners.

About Jack Kerwick

Jack Kerwick earned his doctorate degree in philosophy from Temple University. His areas of specialization are ethics and political philosophy, with a particular interest in classical conservatism. His work has appeared in both scholarly journals and popular publications, and he recently authored, The American Offensive: Dispatches from the Front. Kerwick has been teaching philosophy for nearly 17 years at a variety of institutions, from Baylor to Temple, Penn State University, the College of New Jersey and elsewhere. His next book, Misguided Guardians: The Conservative Case Against Neoconservatism is pending publication. He is currently an instructor of philosophy at Rowan College at Burlington County.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

8 responses to “#MeToo: Fallout from the Sexual Revolution

  • The difference with conservative women is you hear something different:
    “No, really.”
    (sound of round being chambered in her CCW). “No, and you really don’t want to argue or press the point”.

  • I see the “me too” movement as an affirmation of Feminism. It is also an act of Misandry (hatred of men). The “me too” movement is instilling fear among men, not confidence that he is still the stronger gender. The open threat is that any action a woman perceives as an act of molestation will be brought against that man. Any action however old, however slight, and done with innocence is turned into a weapon to attack and destroy. In that sense the “me too” is probably the most destructive expression of Feminism. It is so powerful in its destructive act that the Feminist movement itself is damaged by her sheer hatred of those men.

  • I am reminded of a Hindu Myth where the Gods unable to defeat the demons unleash Goddess Kali who in her immense power and blood lust destroy not only the demons and their abode but turn on the Gods and their abode. She is finally silenced by Vishnu’s disc that shatters her. Another version is that her consort Shiva ‘dies” at her feet shocking her back into sanity
    Kali and the Hindu Goddesses represent “Shakti” the primordial Feminine force of the Universe and is considered equal to that of the Gods and in some case Greater.

  • I resent the obvious “all right and no responsibilities” of the female left. I am a woman. I think that we should think long and very hard before we support any of this #MeToo campaign. Men are discriminated against enough without another round of unfairness against them. We already have a MGTOW movement. There will be no babies to save, the way this is going.

  • So, when does a pat on the shoulder and a pat on the @$$ constitute sexual assault? It’s still all in the eye of the beholder and the woman can blame anybody for whatever and be trusted? Really?

    There should be a statute of limitations on accusations. And PROOF that a sexual assault took place before someone is to be totally believed. What’s to prevent any female who may want John Doe’s corner office from pointing a finger at him, getting him fired so she could move up the ladder? Apparently nothing. And don’t you think for one second a woman isn’t capable of such a thing. There are plenty out there.
    Another thing: If Jane Doe took “hush money” to stay silent about her involvement in a certain activity, but regrets it later – say 20 years or so – that case…and her accusations should be thrown out of any reasonable court. Who remembers what happened 20-30 years ago anyway? Not very many, I’ll wager…if they are HONEST.

Comments are closed.