So right after mentioning her new book in the post below, I noticed that NRO has posted a fine interview with Mary Eberstadt, in which she implies that, just as the medical facts about cigarettes’ harm eventually came to be undeniable, so will the sociological facts about the sexual revolution’s harm.
An exaggeration for rhetorical effect, no doubt. Because we are never going to be able to return to an era where non-marital sex is looked down upon in the (quite double-standard-governed) way it was pre-1966. And no democratic governments will ever again try to ban contraceptives the way Connecticut’s did (Not that there’s anything Unconstitutional about that! )prior to Griswold v. Connecticut. That toothpaste is out of the tube, and so the incentive for denial about the sociological evidence will remain high.
But all that is besides the main point. On the basis of her devastating 2008 essay in FT, “The Vindication of Humane Vitae,” which is less about the papal teaching than a comprehensive review of the now-overwhelming evidence of the sexual revolution’s net harm to humanity, I’m willing to bet her new book is an essential read.
You should at least read the FT essay.
July 23rd, 2012 | 2:30 pm
Wonderfull Interview and a important new book that I just bought online..
It seems Marys critiques are content to prove her points for her…and almost immediatley as well..
In the interview Mary is talking about those secular liberal academics who dare defend the traditional family or simply point to the objective evidence that has resulted from the sexual revolution.
She writes
Mary Eberstadt…
“…. The few hardy souls who do venture into Sorokin’s territory constantly risk becoming pariahs. Witness the unhinged ferocity of some of the attacks on recent work by social scientist Mark Regnerus.”
In response a poster proves her point for her by saying…
[Poster in response]
“The near universal condemnation of Mark Regnerus’ “study” of gay parenting deserves the scorn that it’s being met with. It is possibly the most shoddily conceived and executed sociology study of the last 25 years.”
To further prove her point about the stridency of the left on these issues….another poster chimes in with this…
[Poster in response #2]
“Eberstadt and K-lo distort the facts, as always, in their neurotic war against sex, and against women.”
Its rather nicew when one’s opposition is content to offer up vindication of ones veiws. The Regnerus study is the largest & only radom sample study to date and suffers no flaws that social scientific studies in general are not always subject to.
To date it has suffered under a scorn of criticism seeking to repudiate its findings not through refutation & science… but through smearing and blacklisting.
Mary apparently has plently of willing subjects ready to reinforce her theisis.
July 25th, 2012 | 1:01 am
[...] Carl’s comments regarding Mary Eberstadt’s new book Adam and Eve After the Pill got me wondering. Was this book truly a game changer in the debate regarding the consequences of the sexual revolution (and “full modernity” as he puts it) or not? So I went out and bought the book and read it. In answer to that question I have to say no. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact