Opinion: "Saving" America With Misogyny?

As a young person who has recently started university, I have been thinking a lot about my future -- how I can make the most out of my time as a young adult with the privilege of a robust education, what kind of career I want to pursue, and when I might want to start a family. However, at the same time, I have often felt like the world is on fire and all of my career planning and reading and writing are me trying to put this fire out with a water gun.

If I'm honest, anecdotes about how people with biochemistry degrees are working as bartenders, how people at the Indian store are being zip-tied, and how everyone only a few years older than me is interning at Google or Apple have kept me in a state of anxious paralysis over the past few months. The way I'm inundated with information and horrifying news stories at the tap of a finger has caused me to become somewhat numb, save for a feeling of constant existential dread.

Until today.

Today, I came across something that sparked genuine, concrete fear for my future within me. Namely, an Instagram reel (part of my nightly masochistic doomscroll of my incredibly depressing feed) talking about this document.

"Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years" is a recent report by The Heritage Foundation, the same organization that authored the infamous Project 2025. Broadly, it proposes actions that the government should take to push contemporary American society to subscribe to the ideals of a traditional nuclear family. It is a 168-page atrocity that I read through, and would like to share my thoughts on.

My analysis of (and fears evoked by) this document come from a feminist lens--although, aside from misogyny, this document notably also features other problematic themes such as the denial of global climate change, religious nationalism, anti-intellectualism, and homophobia. In addition to this disclaimer, I admit that I come from a place of limited knowledge. I am not familiar with economic policies, and cannot comment on any of the extended discussion that this report creates around government welfare programs, economic policies, etc. As such, if you have the patience to read it, I would encourage you all to read this report for yourself to come to appropriate conclusions.

The authors of this report begin by lamenting about how "the median age of first marriage has gone up by about eight years for women (to 28.6) and about seven years for men (to 30.5) in a generation," calling these statistics "sobering." Further, the authors assert that:

"The disruptions to American family life caused by bad public policy in the 1960s were exacerbated by cultural upheavals that radically changed social norms around sex, sexuality, marriage, children, and gender roles. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution promoted an individualistic, child-free, marriage-free, sexual 'liberation' that promised to lead to an unparalleled era of consent-based human happiness and fulfillment. Over the course of 60 years, casual sex, abortion, childlessness by choice, and no-fault divorce became normalized, while marriage and the natural family became stigmatized " (3-4).

The authors assert that the "natural family [has become] stigmatized," which is simply untrue. Aside from this gaping, inaccurate claim, however, I cited this passage for its opinion of feminism. This passage portrays policies like sexual freedom, abortion, and no-fault divorce as unwelcome consequences of the movement, not its very goals. However, it is really the context of this passage with a later passage that clarifies the intent behind this report:

"If women view marriage and children as disrupting their careers or straining their finances, they may forgo or delay marriage and choose not to have children or to have fewer than they would otherwise. Women now make up just over 47 percent of the labor force. This greater female workforce participation has put downward pressure on fertility, while on the flip side of the coin, lower fertility can be said to have put upward pressure on workforce participation" (73).

Given that a central assertion of this report is that Americans should procreate more, and younger, this portrayal of a very real issue implicitly expresses discouragement towards women's pursuit of professional advancement. They have a similar stance on women pursuing higher education:

"Indeed, delayed marriage alone tends to lead to a delay in having children. Since 1990, the median age of women at the time of the birth of their first child has increased by three years, from 27 to 30. This delay could be explained in part by increases in female college enrollment. As analysts at the University of Pennsylvania explain, ‘Women who complete 4 years of college are less likely to have a child, while completion rates of 4 years of college rose 10 percent for women over the past decade’" (82).

It is evident, then, that the fundamental principles on which the authors' claims rest have no room for women to be individuals. Rather than being sovereign entities who may choose their own priorities in life, women are once again reduced to whether they produce children or not. Combined with the authors' distaste of policies that allow women to have agency over their sexual and reproductive habits -- such as the aforementioned access to contraceptives and no-fault divorce policies -- it is easy to see that these policies are more about controlling and exploiting women rather than encouraging community-building through family. These authors indirectly discourage women from pursuing financial freedom via education and profession, setting them up to be dependent on future male partners. It is worth noting, that the authors of this article do not criticize men for delaying procreation and prioritizing their careers in any way. Knowing this, it could not be clearer that this document argues for a return to the traditional family structure at the cost of women's autonomy and rights.

Another telling point worth noting in this report is the authors' views on surrogacy. The authors say that:

"A culture of surrogacy thus perpetuates the original sin of the sexual revolution that has led to the near dissolution of the family. In this way, it could very well undermine long-term efforts to achieve a central goal of pro-family policy—to encourage a social ecology suited to the formation of natural families who will bear and raise children" (85).

The authors also go on to discuss a hypothetical technological marvel that could function as a womb and absolve women of all of the risks associated with pregnancy, arguing that it would be:

"...dystopian, and for good reason: Such technology would destroy the natural ecology of the family in the most radical sense. From the procreative act of husband and wife, to the unique bond between a mother and her gestating and then nursing child..." (85).

These passages make it clear that these authors' misogynistic principles rely on a woman's suffering. For instance, they fault surrogacy -- an arrangement in which all parties truly want the child to be born, and the biological mother is compensated for her troubles, which she willfully undertakes. If the baseline assertion of this report is to be believed -- that the authors want children to have loving homes and communities to create a stronger America -- then they would not be against surrogacy, which is ideal for creating a loving, community environment. However, they cite it as a "sin" and "dissolution of family," in a lofty attempt to mask their misogyny. This passage, coupled with their opinion of a hypothetical womb, shows that what they truly wish to preserve is a lack of autonomy for women. In both situations, were they to happen, women would have full agency over their reproductive processes. In addition, families would welcome children, having had full autonomy over their decision, strengthening the filial bond. However, the authors' condemnation of these processes evidences that what they truly seek is to do is usurp women's agency.

There are many more passages I could cite for your reading displeasure, but I feel I have made my point. For me, the bottom line is that I am worried and afraid.

There are many people who would argue that none of these assertions could ever manifest as enforceable policies. Although this is debatable, it isn't the issue in my eyes.

Even if this document does not lend itself to policy change, which is very much a plausible outcome, the authors have penned propaganda that will affect how people think. For instance, many readers will most likely not read the entirety of the document -- they'll skim the takeaways and maybe glance over notable passages. No one will distill the hidden misogyny behind the words being marketed as "family values."

Except the stakeholders. Politicians, policymakers, and corporations that benefit from a more gullible, hierarchy-obeying workforce will read the entirety of the document. And they will make these words more palatable and digestible for their audience, and infuse them with even more political tribalism. In this way, these beliefs will not only become more widespread and acceptable, but then will ultimately affect election results and laws.

We are already starting to see a change in what is considered to be publicly acceptable in this country -- from traditional gender roles being marketed as 'divine feminine' and 'divine masculine' online to politicians shooting their pets and giving reporters a middle finger. The more that we ignore and refuse to think about what is happening in our world, the easier it becomes for those in power to manipulate our beliefs.

Therefore, as always, I implore you to use your voice and get educated.

Bibliography:

Severino, Roger. “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years.” The Heritage Foundation, 2019, www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/saving-america-saving-the-family-foundation-the-next-250-years