Does Feminism Undermine Family Life?

Recently, the Abigail Adams Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute worked together to organize a debate on the titular question: “Does Feminism Undermine Family Life?” On one side of the debate, Dr. Scott Yenor, a professor at Boise State University who teaches political philosophy and political science, argued that feminism will always detract from family life. On the other side of the debate, Erika Bachiochi, legal scholar and author, argued that the two could be reconciled.

Dr. Yenor spoke first, asserting that “feminism necessarily undermines the family.” It is no secret that men and women are very different; they have different personalities, biologies, temperaments, strengths, weaknesses, etc. The way that society has managed to reconcile these differences in interests and characteristics, allowing for children to be raised together and for a common life to be fulfilled in unity, is through marriage.

Dr. Yenor continued, stating that ‘marriage’ isn’t merely automatic; it is the undertaking of a massive social project, around which are built laws, manners, and customs. In other words, it is a “scaffolding, that when replaced leads to less good things and more bad things.” Feminism, he argued, has corrupted and replaced our previous sexual constitution, laws, family life, etc. As a result of this corruption of the previous framework, the good way of life is complicated.

Dr. Yenor argued that feminism is fundamentally a rejection of the traditional ideal woman and the promulgation of a new ideal woman. This new woman is supposed to be, among other things: independent, free, and equal. Feminism attempts to solve the problem of men and women being different by trying to make men and women the same.

Erika Bachiochi spoke second, and made one central distinction between what modern people mean by ‘feminism’ and what she called ‘true feminism.’ Bachiochi explained that the origins of feminism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries differ from the modern interpretations of feminism. 

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, a major societal shift occurred from agrarianism to urbanization. As a result, the wives of wage-earning husbands became more vulnerable than ever before to male abandonment, neglect, and abuse. Women had no formal vote in their husbands’ decisions, and nothing could stop them from being the victims of their husbands’ squandering of the family’s wealth in the brothels and bars of the city. This was different from the agrarian status quo because the land that the family lived on and worked was their wealth; it was a non-fungible asset. 

Because of this new vulnerability, women started advocating for property rights so that they wouldn’t be thrust into financial ruin by their negligent husbands. Then, they pursued custody rights to allow a mother to protect her children from their abusive father, anti-prostitution legislation to prevent their financial exploitation and the exploitation of their irresponsible husbands, and eventually, voting rights.

This is what Erika Bachiochi calls “true feminism;” the feminism that defended women’s dignity and advocated for their safety in the wake of the industrial revolution. Her perspective differed from Dr. Yenor’s view that feminism corrupted the modern world by positing that modern, “autonomy feminism” corrupted “true feminism.” 

She argued that it wasn’t until Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) began advocating for changing women’s bodies with pills, potions, contraception, surgeries, and abortions in the 20th century that feminism started to go downhill.

Ultimately, the central issue of the debate seemed to boil down to the following question: when did feminism start being less about upholding the sanctity of marriage, family life, and the traditions surrounding them, to idolizing the concept of a new, lonely, and sterile woman?