A Modest Proposal as to a Solution of the Plight of Women

Even after the enactment of equal rights laws for women, prohibiting many forms of official and unofficial discrimination; even after decades of efforts by leagues of feminists to attack sexism and misogyny in society; even after women, living and competing as de jure equals among men, do we find a lingering disparity between the sexes in American society. Unequal pay is merely the harbinger of what lies beneath the surface, in the minds of men and, indeed, many woman—a society where woman are still subjected to injury and perversion before altars and in bedrooms. The American society maintains a culture than housing artifacts of previous eras, so that now women are still, more often than not, portrayed submissive and docile, to defer to their bold, courageous, decisive men. Then, with this private sexism, it is only inevitable that it should spill into public and professional behavior—which it does, running the gamut from “glass ceilings” to workplace sexual harassment.

Nor should we expect that these evils of mankind shall come to pass soon. The height of feminism has come and gone. American conservatism, even if weakened in this economic downturn, has seen a rebirth ever since Reagan, and, while maintaining comparable existence in the wax-and-wane cycle of politics, has since has moved farther towards the right, where in the final analysis, platforms on “family” or “traditional” values will inevitably seek turn the clock back on the feminism. Feminism, too, has become negatively stigmatized and has even perhaps lost its stomach when facing a less and less egregious state of misogyny and discrimination, where finer distinctions are the subject of increased debate and litigation. If advocacy and politics have been the sources of positive change for women, then women face a serious crisis.

Women, if they are to protect themselves—for that, in essence, is the purpose of our rights and freedoms—must do more than “find a new tack.” There is nothing more I believe we can do to advance the feminism along the path it has taken without inciting damaging reactions against feminism. Heretofore, women have asked men to change themselves or force other men to act differently. But change is the source of the feminist reaction—and we cannot alter this fundamental aversion of man to change. Women, then, must protect themselves without inducing change. Let, then, men be themselves.

Women demanded rights and equality to protect them while under male domination, and perhaps men did not treat them fairly. There was, after all, neither a complete liberation of women nor a complete subjugation. Where liberation has to be achieved, subjugation might be realistic and successful, as it only reverses the fragile, resented liberative changes in society, returning to the comfortable subjugate attitudes that have dominated much of history, with the sole exception that men must be much more careful to treat women as they deserve. It would be self-defeating if women were allowed any semblance of recognized rights or dignity, for then that would negate the nature existence of such.

For example, any reasonable proposal (for, given the degree to which society has assimilated feminine involvement, however resented, there may be, justly so, competing plans as to the actual defemininezation of America) would probably keep women at home for most of their lives, where they might clean houses, please husbands, and bear children. Certainly such a demand would automatically resolve much of our sexist issues. If a woman is not to leave her house, then she does not obtain work—unequal pay and discrimination will no longer be an issue. If she does not receive an education, then concerns over opportunity and equality are moot. Not only is this extremely simple to implement, but also, in terms of women, the protection from the ills of society are only heightened through repression. In any state between the extremes of liberation and repression—such as the state of feminism in our society—women may be granted work or an education, but, being unequal in treatment in these places, women might suffer as they face the cruel world while it is slanted against them. On the other hand, if women, in the words of the great statesmen Adlai Stevenson, are “in the living-room with a baby in…[the] lap or in the kitchen with a can opener in…[the] hand,” their husbands inevitably provides for them and thus eliminate women’s perils of an independent existence.

Similarly, we might expect reductions in violence or harassment against women through their suppression. For example, in concurrence with many a expert opinion, I might suggest that women be reduced to the level of private property, on the thinking that men will treat them better, and defend them better, than if women were independent. If women are considered independent entities of their husbands, then a man can strike a woman; the woman is the only victim. But if women are extensions of their husbands—or, more appropriately, owners—like all other private property, then the man, if he should abuse his woman or allow other men to do so, would be, in effect, a victim through the damage of his property. Facing this sort of personal injury, he might vigorously protect and defend the women in his possession.

A Danish acquaintance of mine, a good-humored gentleman of much learning, upon hearing my suggestion for women, recommended that we ought to keep them in cages, releasing them only when needed, as has been common practice in Denmark for generations. And, as I told my good friend in earnest, while I respect the good Danish people and their nation, it was my feeling that women, even confined within the household, contributed much to the economic productivity of the country. At home, by cleaning, cooking, and tending to the children, women under my scheme would be freeing men from such responsibilities and thus allowing men to work longer and harder. In addition, with one of the primary responsibilities of women being to bear children, keeping women in cages might increase stress during pregnancy, and would also reduce, by their confinement, their physical health—for even the Spartans of antiquity trained their daughters vigorously so that strong women might bear strong children.

Some have questions the nature of my proposal and its similarity, in one respect, to that of the current situation of feminism. They note that, in both cases, women place their ultimate fates in men, and imply that perhaps women should assert control over their own fate—that in a move of solidarity, women quit crafting the image of allure and otherwise playing into the male fantasy; that they should show strength and dignity in place of vulnerable lewdness; that through what they do by themselves as women, they make themselves free as fact, not as a condition of male courtesy. As great as this potential state might be, I find little faith in the human will and determination, that it should run counter to currents and against what nature or practice would have them. And even if I could have such faith, what good would it be if I, a man, were to make such a scornful suggestion of women, only to be rejected in my ideas and ostracized as an individual? Thus, I resign and place my hopes not in men or women, but in the frailty and sentiments of humanity, whose natural course, I pray, might deliver men and women from the injustice in the sexes’ relations.