Mary Eberstadt is the senior research fellow at the Faith & Reason Institute and an insightful conservative observer of all things Americana. Her numerous books have outlined the increasingly evident (in hard data, not to mention public anecdote) paradox between the freedom Americans crave and the unhappiness which results when they get it. Her 2012 book Adam and Eve after the Pill rested squarely on broad sociological data that the economic freedom women gained with reliable cheap birth control (i.e., the Pill) had come with concomitant costs in terms of relationships and happiness. Her latest work reviews the continuing data supporting her hypothesis (more on that) and extends her analysis to the implications for the family, the nation, and the Church.
Eberstadt is no throw-back conservative polemicist pining for the golden age of the 1950s. She simply accepts that the Pill was perhaps the greatest change-agent in recent human history, then goes on to show “to what effect?” While some feminists reject anything other than worshipful consideration of birth control, Eberstadt puts forward the data and the stories (or narratives if you prefer the modern term), which are damning.
The Pill made the world safe for casual sex. Without the consequence of pregnancy, both premarital sex and marital infidelity rates rose. Accelerating infidelity undermined existing marriages, sparking a wave of divorces and ushering in “no fault” laws to streamline the process. Men were relieved of the quaint (but historical) need to take responsibility for their actions, since it was “her body, her choice.” Likewise, there had to be a fall-back in case contraception failed, which necessitated legalized abortion; after all, an unwanted child was the worst possible outcome for all concerned. All of these trends and repercussions undermined traditional family formation (i.e., a married husband and wife raising their biological children). Men questioned the need to get married in the first place, reminding all of the eternal joke about “free milk and a cow.”
Eventually, divorce rates decreased, but only because marriage rates collapsed first. Alternative family structures developed (so-called “chosen families”) to replace the traditional model. Most of the advantages accrued by traditional families (e.g., more resources, less poverty, better educational attainment, less truancy, less drug use, less unintended pregnancies, less self-harm, less suicide, etc.) were greatly reduced in the “chosen” models, regardless of composition. Women seeking motherhood increasingly did so in the absence of a stable male relationship, so much so that this is as common a parenting situation today as not.
Now all the chickens have come home to roost, with men reporting an unwillingness to have relationships other than for casual sex, and unhappy even then. They also complain about a lack of purpose, or of being unclear when their masculinity becomes “toxic.” Women report a lack of acceptable male life-partners and more fear of violence in their personal relationships. People in general are more unhappy and having sex less often, with the latest battlefield being the notion of “sexual consent.”
Eberstadt connects the dots from the Pill to the collapse of the family, the ongoing war between the sexes, and the decline of organized religion in the United States. Her style is witty if at times biting. The footnotes and links are all there if you want to dig deeper into the data. She rarely pronounces judgments since the data is convincing on its own. The exception is perhaps her section of the fate of “Christianity Lite”, the American Protestant sects which chose to jettison Biblical, historical, and moral opposition to contraception in favor of siding with the Spirit of the Times. Eberstadt cautions Catholic proponents of a similar rapprochement that all of these sects are on a steep and accelerating decline which means there won’t be any Episcopalians, Methodists, or Presbyterians around in America in five decades or so. The Spirit of the Times is a harsh god, indeed.
Regardless of how you view contraception (or religion), Eberstadt’s work demands your attention. So many of my friends and acquaintances look at the world around us and think “how did we get here?” Since time immemorial, successful society has linked sex with marriage and monogamy; those that didn’t perished. One fine day in the 1960s, science made it possible to change all that. It seems cognitively dissonant to suggest that this change didn’t play a major role in “how we got here.” It’s worth it to consider the possibility.
I’ll start by acknowledging I haven’t read the work in question. Eberstadt may have addressed the points I’ll make; if so–in rhe words of Rosanna Anna Danna–never mind. And with that caution I will proceed.
I suspect Eberstadt’s analysis, as you report it, of confusing cause and correlation. Trying to pin the collapse of the family, etc, on a 1962 FDA decision is a stretch when you consider that birthrates were plumering in the developed world decades before 1962. Any number of contributing factors leap out at you when you look beyond the “pill.”
Up to and well into the industrial revolution, children were an economic asset. They were cheap to raise, plentiful, and replaceable. They were most families’ retirement plans and and a ready labor force. As society urbanized — starting in the 1700s and really picking up steam over the following century — children became less a necessity. As a middle class formed and grew, and people began having expectations for a better life to be had by themselves and their descendants, children and families became more expensive and families became smaller.
During the same period, improvements in living conditions, and advances in medicine (including vaccinations) meant reduced infant and child mortality and less need to grow large families as a means of ensuring enough children to work the farm or man the shop.
Condoms have been with us for centuries, even millenia. However a confluence of events in the early 20th century popularized and normalized their use. Post World War I saw a syphilis epidemic sweep Europe and North America. This coincided with an ability to mass produce and mass market condoms, and to mass communicate their value in both STD prevention and contraception. As a public health effort went, it was quite successful. It also cemented the idea that one could have sex without having babies.
The introduction of Enovid as a contraceptive probably did accelerate trends that were already underway. It certainly had the effect of putting the burden of contraception on the woman, which coincided with a general attitude that it was time to lift the restraints that “burdened” society. It didn’t hurt that it took men off the hook, or so it seemed at the time. But those underlying changes were well underway before 1962.
As I recall from reading synopses of Humanae Vitae in the late 60s and early 70s, many of the problems Eberstadt discusses were warned of by the Holy See. One of the things I haven’t understood is that the one method of contraception the Vatican allowed — so called Rhythm — involved parents making a decision to have sex sans conception by gaming the gestational calendar. It seems to me the intent of the rhythm method was the same as taking the pill or using a condom, it just wasn’t very effective. Did the high likelihood of failure exculpatory the “sinful” intent?
This article addresses the question you ask :https://ccli.org/2017/07/contraception-vs-nfp-whats-the-difference/. NFP (Natural Family Planning) is different than the ¨rhythm¨ method. The rhythm method isn´t based on individual cycles, but averages.
The long-term trends you mention were about the decline in family size. Eberstadt points out that things like marriage rates, divorce rates, or abandonment of pregnant women by the child’s father all changed suddenly and consistently after the pill. And it exacerbated the decline in births, giving us today’s demographic challenges. The pill is and was amazingly effective, more so than any other method except abstinence.
You are spot on about Humanae Vitae: it highlighted these trends and others (treatment of women as sex objects, pornography, etc) and predicted what happened. It amazes me that some people continue to see Humanae Vitae as out of touch, when it was so right so early.
As to NFP, the easiest way to show someone the difference is this: No one seriously advances the rhythm method any more, as it was just based on mathematical averages which were way too imprecise to work except for a woman of incredibly consistent periods. NFP on the other hand, approaches the efficacy of the pill when practiced properly (which is always the caveat, isn’t it, even for the pill!). Here’s the kicker. Couples going for fertility treatment are most often told to employ NFP in reverse as the best means to ensure conception before moving on to more extreme IVF techniques. In the field of reproductive science, NFP has stood the test.
On the intent piece, books have been written about it. My dear wife and I taught at Catholic pre-Cana sessions years ago, and I remember a priest explaining that if the couple had “a contraceptive mentality” (that is, they had decided they were not open to a child at that point, no matter what), then even NFP was immoral. The problem was their intent, not the technique. NFP requires a great deal of cooperation and restraint, and the faithful couples employing it are reminded to always be open to the possibility of life.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary!
Apologies. I mixed up my Gilda Radner characters. It wasn’t Rosanna Anna Danna, it was Emily Litella who ended her expositions with “never mind.”
After the research and “mile stones” pointed out it’s not a difficult flowchart to follow.