TW: Mentions of Sexual Assault.
Let’s establish one thing: as a feminist, I ardently believe that women are entitled to make whatever life choices they want. Feminism isn’t rejecting patriarchal femininity, nor is it embracing it. Feminism isn’t shaving your legs, nor is it growing out your hair. In a society fundamentally molded by patriarchy, no choice made to conform or flout social norms is inherently “feminist.”
The truth is this: everything a woman can do – breathe, suffocate, walk, lay down, smile, cry, work, stay home, have sex, stay a virgin – is inherently sexualized under a patriarchal society. There’s an excellent quote by Margaret Atwood, one which you may have even seen in my own articles before, that discusses this very ideology.
“Male fantasies, male fantasies, is everything run by male fantasies? Up on a pedestal or down on your knees, it’s all a male fantasy: that you’re strong enough to take what they dish out, or else too weak to do anything about it. Even pretending you aren’t catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you’re unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur.”
I find this quote important to reiterate (as it ties so closely to my own beliefs) before moving into my argument. Since 2007, the birth rate in the United States has dropped roughly 20%. There has been no explanation for this change based on demographic, economic, nor policy changes, which essentially implies this: more women are having less children, or no children at all… which is good, good news for feminism. In all honesty, it may appear that me stating the positivity in the decline of the birth rate sounds contradictory to my values. I ought to say this – neither a woman’s choice to have children nor a decision to avoid motherhood are fundamentally grounded in any compelling feminist ideology.
However, it does contribute to her role within the patriarchy. It’s crucial to note here that I say all of this as a woman who hopes to, and plans on, having many children one day. I embrace motherhood and find it to be a beautiful process of life. That being said, it is tied much, much too close to the validity of a woman’s citizenship.
Carole Pateman, an applauded feminist theorist, once analyzed Thomas Hobbes Leviathan in “God Hath Ordained to Man a Helper.” For context, in Leviathan, Hobbes suggests that power can be ordained to a man through one of two ways: one being conquest (of a city, town, state, etc.) and the other being inheritance (i.e., a monarchy, nepotism, etc.). He explains that a woman’s role in the acquisition of power is thus to be a conduit from which man is born. A woman’s citizenship and the validity of that citizenship is grounded in motherhood.
Pateman conducts an analysis of this ideology and its implications in modern society. She suggests that this mode of thinking is a foundation for something called “conjugal right.” To be concise, conjugal right is cornerstone to rape culture. It suggests that, because a woman’s citizenship can only be validated by motherhood, men are entitled to sex with women – especially husbands. Pateman explains that in theory regarding the family, the husband is master of his wife. Moreover, we rarely even hear the word “wife” being used at all. It is always “mother.” Thus, if a woman wants to be considered a person, she needs to have a child; to have a child, she needs to have sex.
For those who think that “conjugal right” has no presence in modern society, think again. Although spousal rape is finally illegal in all 50 states (it wasn’t until the mid-90s), there are millions of loopholes that still entitle husbands to the bodies of their wives. For example, in Michigan, spousal rape is not rape if the victim is “mentally incapable or mentally incapacitated” (Section 750.520l). It also does not matter if the substance (including narcotics and anesthetics) incapacitating the victim was administered with or without consent.
Similar loopholes exist in Mississippi, Oklahoma (which also doesn’t persecute even if the victim was unconscious), Rhode Island, South Carolina, and more. In fact, a multitude of states only consider sexual assault towards a spouse sexual assault if both parties were sober and there was a clear threat or exertion of force and physical violence.
This is even more disgusting when one considers the fact that child marriages are still legal in many U.S. states. In fact, in 20 states, there is no minimum age for legal marriage so long as there’s a parental or judicial waiver. Common-law marriages in many states also result in situations where older men with groomed, live-in girlfriends that they rape can rely then on loopholes in laws regarding spousal rape.
Beyond spousal rape laws, we still see the implications of conjugal right in everyday life. Most college women have at one point or another had an interaction with a man who felt entitled to their bodies. Whether that’s date rape, catcalling, being groped in clubs, being sent unwarranted nude photos, having your own nude photos shared, or more – conjugal right, as antiquated as it is, still has a presence in youth culture.
My point? Maternity rates lowering slowly is breaking these norms. When less women have children, their role in society is slowly removed from ‘motherhood’ and is thus transitioned to ‘personhood’ instead. It also removes the idea that sex, for women, is for conception and conception alone. When less women engage in motherhood yet more women have sex, it goes with the implication that women can use intercourse for personal enjoyment rather than a means to an end.
Consider this: when we look at male sex workers, many often jump to the conclusion that that man is ‘living the dream–’ yet when we look at female sex workers, even wealthy or famous ones who partake in it on their own fruition, we observe them as ‘oppressed’ and ‘degraded.’ This comes from the sole idea that women cannot (and should not) enjoy sex. Sex is for motherhood. Sex is for reproductive purposes alone. Women are not allowed to have sex for fun.
This is why participation in hookup culture, despite its caveats and flaws, can ultimately be a good thing. The feminine role as a mother is so deeply ingrained in society that we cannot look at a woman who has lots of sex (or partakes in sexual conduct for a living) and think ‘wow, she must be enjoying that!’ However, as the maternity rate declines and more women become overtly sexually active, sex becomes separated from motherhood. Sex becomes fun. Sex becomes an exciting part of life, and college a time for experimentation rather than “finding a husband.”
When less women are mothers, motherhood is no longer the defining female role in society. When women no longer need children (and, for that matter, sex from a man) to validate their existence as a person, the notion of a “conjugal right” slowly fades out, thus improving the lives of all American women, whether they choose to have children or not.
The decline in birth rates also comes with the insinuation that women who have children will be having children because they want them and they are ready – not because motherhood is their societal role. It removes the aspiration of domesticity for domesticity’s sake and compels the American woman to focus on herself and what she wants, if becoming a parent is that goal – excellent! And if it’s not – that’s excellent, too!
At the end of the day, the birth rate lowering isn’t a harbinger of some no-kids, all-sex era. However, it ushers in a new freedom of choice for women, proclaiming, “partake in motherhood if you’d like, but in the meantime, do what makes you happy!”