The Sex-Change Society

Book by Melanie Phillips
(Social Market Foundation, 1999)
Reviewed by Cameron Watt on 11 August 2001

"A set of false assumptions about the family, men and sexual identity has become embedded in political and cultural discourse to such an extent that its distortions and evasions are not only unrecognised but to point them out invites derision and disbelief. Demonstrable facts are denied and turned on their heads; common sense about the family is hung with a placard marked 'reactionary' and paraded for public opprobrium. It is the gender equivalent of Stalinism's big lie."

KEY POINTS

·    Feminism has mutated from a quest for equality to a crusade to impose sameness.

·    The feminists have been extremely successful in imposing their worldview on society through public policy. Men have been demonised as inherently violent and feckless while women have been portrayed as paragons of virtue.

·    The public policy implemented to placate the feminists has had devastating consequences for society. Women are encouraged to work at all times, whether they want to or not. Men have been subjected to systematic injustice. Divorce rates have soared. Many children's lives have been shattered. Marriage, the most important institution for raising happy, healthy children, has been greatly undermined.

·    Policy makers need to acknowledge the damage that has been caused by androgynous public policy. A new approach is needed which acknowledges that men and women, although equal in status, are fundamentally different. Public policy must recognize the different needs and desires of men and women. Strengthening marriage through reform of divorce law and the tax and benefits system is an urgent priority.

Myths exposed by Phillips

·    Men and women are not the same. Government social policy is premised on the fallacy of androgyny. Women and men should aspire to the same roles, particularly in relation to work and child-rearing.

Phillips asserts that this is wrong; the fundamental differences between men and women cannot be ignored. As well as the obvious physical factors, there are fundamental differences in emotions, behaviour and aspirations between the sexes. This cannot be ignored or wished away.

·    Domestic violence is not exclusively male. Men have been demonised in what Phillips calls a 'gender vendetta' against men, who have been demonised as inherently violent, feckless and irresponsible. Women, on the other hand, are presented as paragons of unimpeachable virtue. Nowhere is this demonisation more acute than on the issue of domestic violence. Research is wilfully twisted to produce misleading statistics such as one in four women are battered by their husbands.

On the contrary, women are at least as violent as men, if not more so, Phillips contends. Although they tend to inflict less damage then men because of their relatively lesser strength, there is evidence of widespread female physical abuse directed at men. Children are more at risk from physical violence inflicted by women than men.

·    Most women do not want to work when children arrive.

·    The traditional division of labour is not oppressive to women, nor do most couples consider it such.

·    Dependency is not something to be ashamed of, nor can it be abolished. "Without dependency, there can be no responsibility. If everyone really is self-sufficient, why should they need anyone else at all? Without responsibility, why should there be such a thing as society.... Lone mothers are being encouraged to go out to work on the basis that it will make them independent. Independent, though, from whom or what?.... If they work, lone mothers will mainly stay poor; the only difference will be that they become the working poor.... they will still be dependent on the state which will be subsidising their jobs and the substitute child care needed to enable them to go out to work... Women will become independent, but not of the state. They will instead become independent of men."

Public policy implications

·    The influence of gender feminists on public policy

A relatively small number of 'gender feminists' have been influencing public policy since the 1960s. They have successfully undermined the institutions of marriage and pursued an effective attack on men. Whereas the Thatcher and Major governments may have unwittingly allowed them a high degree of influence, New Labour policy is consciously shaped by its precepts - indeed a number of the gender feminists such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt have held Cabinet positions since 1997.

·    Marriage is vital to the health of society

"The married family based on monogamy and sexual fidelity must be at the centre of any claim to progressive politics. It is the only family structure that nurtures the political instincts that deliver freedom and social justice. It's the best guarantee of keeping families together and producing strong ties of kinship necessary to produce self-reliant, inner-directed individuals and social bonds. It is the crucible of social values such as trust, fidelity, loyalty, commitment, self-discipline, compassion, negotiation and compromise. It teaches us how to live with others. Marriage is an institution with a public dimension because of the consequences for children and society when it fails. When it breaks down, it mainly leaves a legacy of distress, turmoil and insecurity. It is thus the core institution of society. It is not an optional extra or a minority pursuit. It is unique, and its terms are not negotiable."

·    Marriage in Britain has been dangerously undermined.

The new social and sexual order is one in which stable marriages are eroded. People are no longer courting for marriage but dating for mating; lone motherhood is viewed as every woman's right. Ours is a hedonistic society in which relationships have been re-defined in terms of personal fulfilment, especially sexual fulfilment. Child-rearing becomes only one facet of this quest for personal fulfilment and happiness. Marriage is considered irrelevant, only the 'quality of relationships' matters.

·    Marginalisation of marriage hurts the vulnerable most

It those at the bottom of society who have suffered most from these developments; they do not have the resources to mitigate the worst effects of the crisis. As a result of vastly increased female working, unskilled men find themselves marginalised in the labour market. Wages are depressed by the increased availability of workers leaving many men with the unenviable choice of a 'McJob' or life on benefits. Neither of these options offer the prospect of earning a 'family wage'. Thus such men are emasculated as the breadwinner role they would have once performed in the family is supplanted by women and the state. Men are told that they are no longer needed or wanted. Can we be surprised that so many disadvantaged men tend toward anti-social and destructive behaviour in such a climate?

·    Mothers are often the best carers of children.

Much substitute care is of poor quality. 'Good quality, affordable child care' is a contradiction in terms There is an increasing body of research emerging from the United States about the adverse impact of day-care on children.

·    Divorce laws punish virtue and reward vice

Conduct has been all but eradicated from divorce proceedings. As a consequence, a man who has conscientiously provided for his wife and family can be easily divorced by an unfaithful wife, secure in the knowledge that she is likely to be awarded the children and the house. Meanwhile she and her boyfriend can enjoy the fruits of her divorced husband's labours as he is forced by the Child Support Agency to pay a substantial chunk of his income in maintenance payments for children he can rarely, if ever, see.

·    Interests of children are not best served in all kinds of relationships.

There is overwhelming evidence that co-habitation is not equivalent to marriage. On almost every indicator, co-habiating relationships are worse for adults and children than marriage.

Policy Proposals

"Social Justice must entail a judicious balance between freedom and constraints without which freedom cannot thrive. This means establishing three crucial concepts:

·    Restoring proper freedom of choice

·    Giving incentives for social rather than antisocial behaviour

·    Re-establishing the link between conduct and consequences"

Phillips despairs about the state we are in as a nation, but she is not without hope. The current malaise is not set in stone: if there is a willingness on the part of society and its policymakers to address these problems. To this end, Phillips advocates a number of general and specific policy proposals that could start to make things better.

These proposals are all underpinned by "putting muscle back into marriage":

Reform the anti-marriage iniquities of the tax and benefits system.

"Woman should be given real choice about whether or not to work. At present the tax system forces women who want to stay at home to look after children into work. Families whose income derives from one earner pay much more tax than dual-earners. For example, sole breadwinner Family A earning a gross income of £20,000 pay £3,483 in tax and national insurance net of child benefit. Dual-earning Family B, where one spouse earns £16,000 and the other £4,000, pay £2,258 tax. So even though the families' earnings are identical, Family A is £1,200 worse off than Family B. This discrimination is greatly re-inforced by subsidised child-care for dual-earner families.

Using transferable allowances and other mechanisms, the marriage tax penalty should eliminated and marriage should be positively privileged in the tax system, in order to recognise the unique benefits marriages bring society. Rather than heavily subsidise child-care, mothers should be given child-care credits to cover either staying at home or paying for substitute care if they want to go to work."

 

Re-introduction of conduct into divorce proceedings.

"It is hard to overstate the importance of conduct-neutral divorce in producing the destructive shambles of contemporary sexual relationships. Divorce was central because it created the climate in which family breakdown became an individual's right rather than a misfortune.

Only if conduct is re-established in divorce can the custody of children be resolved in their best interests and in the interests of justice. There should not be a presumption that the mother will get custody. The mother's conduct should be considered in deciding which of the child's parents is better fitted to have the children."

Introduction of 'covenant marriage'.

With extremely liberal divorce laws, marriage does not now offer people the security they crave, because vows can be broken with impunity. To help counter this, we should adopt the policy operating in two US states whereby couples can opt for a tougher marriage contract. This gives greater security to those who want it, without compromising free choice. The hope is that this option will gradually win public approval, thus changing the whole cultural climate.

'Principled Populism': Reaffirming the importance of full-time fathers.

Conservatives must not be afraid to acknowledge the importance of the continued presence and involvement of fathers in the successful up-bringing of children. It is no longer contentious to recognise that the absence of this vital male role model hugely disadvantages those without it, especially young men in hard-pressed communities. This insight should colour all family policy, especially in custody cases after divorce, where significant access by fathers should be guaranteed unless there compelling reasons to the contrary.

Comments

[Chat]

I’d be interested in an updated GoogleAnalytics chart (may be two with about six weeks coverage), just to see if the effect did wear off after a while and also, did others link to your new name with the same link-text (allinurl:…). I hope you will publish a follow up.