Let's Blame the Women: Why Sabrina Schaeffer is an Anti-Feminist

For all you straight ladies out there who were happy that some gender equality had finally infiltrated heterosexual romantic relationships, you shouldn't be, or so says Sabrina L. Schaeffer of the National Review. In fact, she finds the very idea that women should act like "one of the guys" repulsive for the sole reason that it overlooks "important differences between the sexes." So all you women shouldn't go pursuing guys. Don't ask guys out. Don't show interest. Don't participate in "laissez-faire sexual culture" because when you do, you're encouraging the type of scandal that has plagued American politics in the last 20 years.

From Anthony Weiner, to Bill Clinton, to Arnold Schwarzenegger, to John Edwards, to Eliot Spitzer, the infidelity of men can be directly tied to women who, brainwashed by "modern feminism," believe that their sexual pleasure should be satiated as well. Women, it's your fault. If we were serious about removing these type of sex scandals from our politics, the only thing we would need to do would be to provide women with compulsory morality training to teach them about how to control their sexual impulses. The training would go something like this.

Don't want. Don't desire. You exist for the pleasure of your husband. You've been duped by modern feminists into thinking that you want to experience orgasm when having procreatory sex with your husband, but this is a myth. Not only will it inhibit your ability to conceive a child, it is morally abhorrent. Cook, clean, and raise the children. This is your role, mandated by God when he designed the sexes in their different ways with their different strengths.

It's amazing to think that despite the advancement of gender equality on so many fronts (yes, I know there are many more to go), arguments like this one that seek to define the role of women are still around. Of course I have exaggerated Schaeffer's stance. She does not think that women shouldn't work professionally, but the idea that there are inherent differences between the sexes and that they should behave differently in their sexual encounters is not only a historical anachronism, it's patently absurd.

Is Schaeffer right to point out that there are problems in the way gendered interaction takes place? Of course she is. A cursory glance at the rate of sexual assault is enough to demonstrate that. But her solutions are to return to some no-longer-salient past that has defined roles for women and men. So in her fight to liberate men from bearing the brunt of the blame for sexual infidelity, by constricting the role of women she also constricts the role of men. If there is only one role for women, men must fill the opposite role - the gatekeeper and the hunter. Ironically, it is only through women's liberation that men can hope to be liberated from the hunting mandate.

So am I recommending that all you women go out and find a married man to have an affair with? Of course not. A healthy stable relationship is something most people desire. But to suggest that there is a particular way such a relationships should look is offensive at best and downright oppressive at worst. Schaeffer hints at the attack on marriage at some point, which given the heteronormativity of the rest of the piece, may well be an attack on homosexuality. In the end, we must love how we want to while being open with our partner(s) about the choices we are making. In a system of perfect information, it seems foolish and constricting to suggest that relationships should be this way or that way. So go home Ms. Schaeffer, and take your antiquated ideas about romantic relationships and gender norms with you.