Carrie Lukas on political correctness, equity feminists, divorcing Uncle Sam, and her new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism
by Carrie L. Lukas
Regnery Publishing, Inc. (May 1, 2006)
Ppbk., 240 pgs.
ISBN: 1596980036
Carrie Lukas is the author of an outstanding book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism that was released earlier this year. I found the work to be clever, concise, and authoritative. Mrs. Lukas also has a multitude of other publications to her credit such as Dependency Divas: How the Feminist Big Government Agenda Betrays Women and Recess from Reality: The Feminist Failure to Embrace School Choice, which were authored in her role as Vice President of Policy at the Independent Women’s Forum. Mrs. Lukas is an increasingly well-known personality who expresses her views on media outlets like National Public Radio, Janet Parshall's America, the Glenn Sacks Show, CNBC's The Dennis Miller Show, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, and MSNBC's Scarborough Country. The interviewer knows her best from the pieces she posts at the National Review website. She is a holder of degrees from both Princeton and Harvard.
* * *
BC: Mrs. Lukas, let me express my gratitude up front for writing this invaluable book. For readers who aren’t familiar with the series, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism is a volume within Regnery’s Politically Incorrect Guide collection. Other editions include works by Dr. Thomas Woods on American history and Tom Bethell on science. First off, let me ask what you would say to those who dispute that such a thing as political correctness even exists?
CL: I would tell them that they haven’t been on a college campus in a very long time! Anyone familiar with your average college campus knows that some things simply aren’t considered appropriate topics of discussion. Think about what happened to former president of Harvard, Larry Summers: he merely mentioned the possibility that innate differences could partially explain why there are fewer women at the top of science than men. He was censured by Harvard’s faculty and eventually lost his job. Political correctness is definitely no myth.
BC: Now with your ideological orientation, am I correct in saying that, just like the interviewer, you are an equity feminist? I know that many men don’t like any association with the F-word, but, according to the distinction made by Christina Hoff Sommers, most of us fall in that category as we believe in equal rights and equal pay for all. Do you like and make use of Sommers’ equity/gender delineation?
CL: Absolutely. The original goals of feminism were noble, and they have been realized in America. Just about everyone in this country agrees that women absolutely need to have the opportunity to pursue any career or education that they wish and deserve equal treatment under the law. The problem is that the traditional women’s groups have abandoned this vision of feminism and instead push big government and a women-as-victim mentality.
BC: You are the Vice President for Policy at the Independent Women’s Forum; can this organization be described as an equity feminist group? What exactly does it do?
CL: IWF is definitely an equity feminist group – we are the voice for mainstream women who believe in personal responsibility and who know that big government isn’t the solution to every problem. We try to educate women — particularly young women on college campuses — about how free markets and less government can improve all of our lives.
One really important part of IWF’s mission is to advance women’s rights overseas. Anyone truly concerned about women should focus their attention on the women around the world who are truly suffering. It’s ridiculous, in my mind, that groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) waste their time on issues like whether ABC is going to cut a television show starring Geena Davis as Commander in Chief (they seriously did launch a campaign to try to save this show). IWF is working with women in Iraq — educating them about the principles of democracy, limited government, and private property — so that they are prepared to help build and sustain a democratic Iraq. The real battle ground for women’s rights isn’t in the U.S., it’s around the world.
BC: Early in your book you make the argument that the sexual revolution was fought and women turned out to be its losers. How so?
CL: During the sexual revolution, many feminists pushed the idea that women and men are the same when it comes to sexuality. Basically they argued that the social conventions that had made women’s chastity more prized than men’s was a tool of the patriarchy meant to keep women from having fun. But the truth is that women are very different than men when it comes to sex. First of all, women are more physically vulnerable to the consequences of sex: not only do we get pregnant, women are more likely to contract STDs and many STDs have more serious consequences for women. Women are also more emotionally vulnerable. Women release different hormones than men do during sex which makes it harder for women to keep it casual.
BC: We find out in the “Fertility Facts” chapter that many women are quite confused about their own biology. Is this primarily due to their being misled by the media or due to a disinterest in finding out the truth for themselves?
CL: I don’t think the media has purposefully set out to confuse women about their biology, but I definitely think that women often get the wrong impression from what they hear and read. For example, you often read stories about a 50-year-old giving birth or celebrities having babies late in life. What those stories don’t mention is the extreme measures needed to help these women get pregnant. There are fertility treatments that can certainly address some problems, but it’s important for women to know that they are often costly and not fool proof.
BC: In the chapter, “The Myth of Having it All,” you examine why it is that some women have been deceived, or deceived themselves, into thinking they can have it all as if a great family, a great career, a great sex life, eternal romantic love, and presumably free shoes on Tuesdays come as a birthright. Are these fantastic expectations a direct result of our culture actively promoting female superiority and supremacy? When a woman fails at something does she not have discrimination, a glass ceiling, or misogyny to blame?
CL: Certainly much of the media creates unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement. But the problem women face is that we often having conflicting desires. I talked to a lot of college women in the course of writing my book, and it was very common for these intelligent, ambitious, young women to tell me that they expected to both be full-time stay-at-home moms and CEOs of major companies. Now, I’m not saying that no woman can accomplish both of these goals, but she’s going to have a tough time doing both of them at the same time. Often times, women’s studies classes and groups like NOW make it seem as though the problem women face in balancing work and family is caused by bad public policy or men who won’t do their share of the housework. But the real problem is simply a consequence of being human: we can’t be two places at once and there are only 24 hours in a day. That means we are going to face tough decisions and real tradeoffs about how to allocate our time.
BC: You are a strong proponent of marriage, and present a well-developed case for it in your book; however, in light of the way government has interjected itself into our personal relationships (and effectively chosen sides by punishing men habitually during divorce and custody proceedings) why should the average man even consider entering into the state of matrimony? What is the upside? Why should we buy the milk when we can have the cow for free?
CL: Men get big benefits from marriage. Just like women, men are healthier, happier, and better off financially when they are married. And most men know this. Many people are surprised by the fact that women are more likely to initiate divorce than men. This may in part be due to the fact that men often lose more when getting divorce — particularly because divorce can mean they lose considerable access to their children. Both men and women need to hear more about the costs and consequences of divorce. Until I started researching for this book, I didn’t realize just how often people regret getting divorced. Divorce may seem like a solution to an unhappy marriage, but oftentimes when people divorce they just trade one set of problems for another.
BC: I have to say that my favorite part of your book is the final chapter entitled, “Divorcing Uncle Sam.” It outlines a seldom cited cause behind our ever-expanding Nanny State. You point out that women who don’t marry men sometimes end up marrying the government. For those unfamiliar with your work, why is that the case?
CL: This is one of the primary ways that groups like NOW have really walked away from the concept of true independence for women. They want to free women from having to depend on voluntary relationships – families and husbands – but want Uncle Sam to take care of them. Think about it: NOW wants government-run healthcare, government funding for childcare, more government workplace regulations, and expanded welfare benefits; NOW opposes economic reforms that return control to individuals – they oppose personal accounts in Social Security and school choice; they want higher taxes. Simply put, they want government to control more, and individuals to control less. That’s really not independence.
BC: Along these lines, what do you think of the idea that women naturally gravitate towards socialism due to its “claim” of taking care of everyone. Despite both of us understanding that socialism is about as useful as owning a timeshare in downtown Bagdad, why might women be more naturally fooled by this fallacious claim than men?
CL: Women tend to be more concerned with making sure that everyone has basic necessities, and can be persuaded that government is the best safety net. Also, free market supporters often don’t do a very good job explaining how their policies translate into better lives for individuals. We tend to focus more on the big picture — we talk about economic growth and principles like individual freedom — but fail to highlight the experience of individual people. I think that we are making improvements though, and better showing the costs and consequences of government actions. Consider the case of welfare. One might assume that the welfare system would appeal to women because it served as a safety net for individuals in need. But of course, the welfare system was really a poor safety net and instead trapped individuals in poverty. Women came to understand this and the system was reformed. I think that many women are increasingly skeptical of government’s ability to solve our problems.
BC: Also, do you think that women tend to be more conformist than men? Personally, I think this is the case. Possible reasons for this could be due to a greater need for social connection, along with higher levels of sociability and extroversion. I understand though if you disagree (as you’re obviously no conformist).
CL: I don’t think that women are more conformist necessarily . . . Women are empathetic and more risk adverse. Anytime we hear stories about a family in trouble, we immediately consider how it could be our family and wonder what we would do, how we would react. Big government can sound tempting. That’s why supporters of limited government have to make the case that we are better off — not just richer, but safer — when civil society is more robust and individuals have more freedom.
BC: What are your plans for the future? Do you have another book in the works?
CL: No book in the works right now. I’m enjoying writing columns and papers for IWF, and am also busy chasing around my one-year-old! I feel like I have my hands full!
BC: Thank you very much for your time, Mrs. Lukas.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism is available on Amazon.com.
“Many women are quite confused about their own biology.” On the contrary, women understand the basic axioms of reproductive biology. And, the primary axiom is that the most important player in reproduction is the woman, not the child, not the man. Conceiving, carrying and raising children depend exclusively on the health, emotional well-being and economic security of the mother as a first premise. Women also understand that having children is their option, and their option only, under the sexual freedoms gained in the last 50 years. The issues within feminism all revolve around this basic truth and NOW has performed admirably in securing the “it’s all about me and my well being” rights and benefits.
The government didn’t force legal and economic benefits on women: they wanted them and worked hard to secure them. As Ann Coulter pointed out, abortion is exclusively a woman’s issue. If women wanted the laws changed to prevent abortion or reduce the number of abortions, a “10 million women” march on Washington would have changed the laws long ago. The issues were never about abortion, the issues were about securing emotional and financial benefits under the law related to reproductive and child rearing issues. The majority of American women support abortion and will continue to do so.
True independence was never the goal; women consistently rejected any roles as combat soldiers and focused instead on equality of economic opportunity in the military, without any downside risks. The aforementioned isn’t an indictment of women, but rather a realization of the special needs and the unique role women play in the reproductive process. Women understand this to a far greater degree than men and feminism is the logical outgrowth of a matriarchal society. Pretending otherwise, as this interview seeks to do, destroys any basis for dialog or understanding the core issues.
So the goal of fanatical, activist feminism is for women to be able to have thier proverbial cake and eat it too? Well gee, who knew! Glad you were here to clear that up for us. Did you read the article?
To Patrick Mulligan, thanks for your comment on my comment and I may be having a senior moment, but I do recall reading the article carefully. However, you only got half of my comment right; feminism is all about “having your cake and eating it too”, but I didn’t mention anything about “fanatical, activist feminism”. In fact, there is no difference between radical and conservative feminism, there’s just feminism. The fanatical part is your interpretation.
NOW did do an admirable job for American women. Their tough, battered, old leaders would make outrageous demands and statements while the majority of women sat safely back to gauge the public reaction. NOW didn’t achieve every goal, but you might have noticed that compromises reached always advanced the political and economic status of American women relative to the previous status quo. NOW’s political tactics aren’t even original, they’ve been successfully practiced in various cultures over the past few centuries.
The Ideal Feminist (the article’s title) concept is a myth and the paragraph in the article about how men exist in a form of contented slavery illustrates the emotional dynamic employed by the author. Any man fortunate enough to have a loving wife and able to fully participate in raising children is happier, healthier, wealthier and more spiritually fulfilled, regardless of how the politics are viewed. This book is obviously aimed at conservative men; the male interviewer is a dead giveaway. It’s intended to relieve the emotional threats felt by men over the political gains of women. Men can read the book and laugh at the foibles of feminism and gloat over the unavoidable, downside consequences which are always a byproduct of new political freedoms. This book’s “politically incorrect” approach to the argument is a subtle attempt to manipulate the male viewpoint. My concluding comment was that all this subtlety isn’t really necessary; men should insist on hearing obvious truths within the public dialog and recognize their existing social position for what it actually is.
Pat makes an outrageous assertion – “…there is no difference between radical and conservative feminism, there’s just feminism.” Ordinarily, Mr. Mulligan is more than capable of dealing with these kinds of absurdities, but I just had to jump in.
There is a fanatical feminism out there, the kind that believes that all sex is rape, that all men are potential abusers, that men are always at fault in divorces, and that the purpose of society is for patriarchal men to keep women as second class citizens.
Radical feminists have hooked up with an extreme liberalism that most people, men and women, find repugnant. They believe in big government, socialized medicine, pacifism and abortion on demand.
True feminists want equality and fair treatment. Radical feminists want payback. They hate men, or more precisely, they hate men who won’t kow-tow to their shrill demands. They spout incomprehensible rhetoric about “gender politics,” “power and class vs. the femine ideal,” and being “liberated by lesbianism.”
NOW and its clones have never been about feminism. They have always been about liberal politics. Ask a radical feminist if they would support a conservative women’s group and they would laugh at you.
Mountain Man, apologize for not being clear in my statement that there is only feminism, but if you can bear with me for a few paragraphs, I can explain. Feminism is a political movement that grew out of basic female psychology. “It’s all about me and my well-being, all the time” defines their frame of reference. Women have the more important role in our society (from their perspective); namely, making sure it continues to create new generations of citizens. And, to support that role, feminism is the logical, political engine.
You’re correct that NOW and other feminist organizations make outrageous demands and statements and it’s done deliberately to anger you. But, that’s very necessary to make the tactic work – drama and conflict focus attention. The old dragons that define and direct feminist politics are aware of how effective such tactics are for obtaining political power and economic security for their constituents; the tactics are proven, they worked for the Civil Rights movement and have been adopted by the Gay Rights movement. They follow the same pattern in the various movements, even down to the use of demonizing labels for opponents; “white racist”, “male chauvinist pig”, “homophobic heterosexual male” for example.
And, the tactics aren’t meant solely to focus attention on their demands, they are deliberately constructed to pave the way for eventual compromises that will enact new laws and grant special economic privileges (for women only, of course). The conservative feminists act as the psychological counter to the so-called radicals and play their role in legitimizing the need for compromise. The resulting compromises always advance the feminist cause, even when the original demands aren’t fully met. Despite the moderating role adopted by the conservatives, the new rights and special privileges gained are never repudiated by either group, women as a whole benefit.
Abortion is the ultimate example of this, as Coulter pointed out. Coulter thought it was hypocritical of conservative feminists to lecture others on the immorality of abortion, solely for the purpose of drawing attention to themselves, since they obviously had no intention of doing anything concrete to eliminate or reduce abortions. This may seem counter-intuitive, but actions, or inaction in this case, speak louder than self serving rhetoric.
American males have their part to play, even when it’s not obvious. Feminism isn’t tolerated in certain societies; witness the boogeyman of Muslim “enslavement” of women. Even tough minded intellectuals like Coulter become slightly hysterical when contemplating what would happen if Islamic fundamentalism continues to spread through western societies. American men are expected to stand by the philosophy of feminism and provide the brute force to counteract the reactionary practices of patriarchal societies.
Apologize also for this long response, but I don’t see the necessity of pretending that women are seriously divided over feminist politics and goals in any meaningful way; there’s just no evidence that is the case.
Pat,
Again it seems that you want to obfuscate the issues. Your last sentence is emblematic of the situation. You say, “I don’t see the necessity of pretending that women are seriously divided over feminist politics and goals in any meaningful way” as if women were some sort of seamless bloc and were all moving the same general direction with the only difference being tactics.
Once again I will say, this is absurd. 150 or so million women in this country, and every one of them feminists marching in lockstep towards the same goal? Preposterous!
The “tactics” used by radical feminsts are not advancing the cause of feminism (as if the cause of feminism itself contained a uniformity of philosophy). Radical feminism is a destructive influence in society, simply because they do not intend to advance feminism, they want to advance leftism.
The whole discussion by Pat emphasises the real problem with feminism as a whole-it is devisive. Pat points out in the 1st comment that the woman is “the most important player” in reproduction. That is a feminist teaching, and is patently false. The truth is she is an equal player in reproduction: she can’t concieve without the male, birth and raising are infinitly easier with the father in the picture, and support of the offspring-both financial as well as emotional-is better achieved in partnership with the father. But feminism teaches women don’t need men, she can do it all herself, obstensivly with the government’s help.
What we, and a new feminist movement, need to do is concentrate on the benefits of working together. Marriage is best, and history has shown that the best husbands are the one’s who don’t have the “fun” the feminists accuse us all of having.
I agree with Mount. Man;all women are not in lock-step with feminism. Pat’s assuretion to the contrary show an obvious naivte; Pat must’ve been raised in a place like NYC’s east side of Cambridge: areas where the only peoplee present, academically and ideologically, are the ones who believe the same. Pat is a idealogic hick-so far out in left country that it’s clear everybody knows these things. I know lots of women who disagree with you, Pat, and I don’t mean the few I know personally. I know of millions of women who decry the feminist religion, but because of the media and academic bias in this country, their voices are shushed and belittled into silence.