Jim has a post bagging on men’s rights advocates, commonly refered to as “MRAs” but there is a larger point here as well.
The 60′s were supposed to be about freedom. Freedom for blacks, then freedom for women. But what about everybody else? Sexual freedom! Freedom for homosexuals, then freedom for everybody else.
The idea of transitioning from a society based on tradition to one based on freedom was popular not only with leftists but with libertarians. Rather than living by paternalistic rules, that restricted us with the idea of protecting us, we would now do as pleased and deal with the consequences. For intelligent, capable people that seems like a reasonable way to go.
But the part about “dealing with the consequences” was not part of the deal. There would be freedom for blacks, women and homosexuals. They would not deal with the consequences. AIDS should have been a wake up call on anal intercourse, but became in a year or two a civil rights issue, with little opposition.
But the point is most clearly made with women. Nobody is really willing to let women face the consequences of their actions, because deep down everyone regards them as children, do not want to see them suffer even if they deserve it, and do not want to see their children suffer.
But a “free” society can’t work like that. As it stands now groups deemed to have the right to freedom- blacks, women, and gays- do as they please and others pay for it. We are dealing with the consequences. The mostly libertarian society imagined by conservatives is not going to come to pass, so the only alternative is traditionalism, in which all members are restricted and the more childlike and incompetent- blacks, women, gays- are even more restricted.