I think that the pill combined with the culture of greed and materialism has robbed women of much of their potential and happiness.

Women now take the pill, advance their careers so they can, with or without a spouse, get that modern waterfront apartment and BMW, then they quickly have children which they just as quickly deposit at a childcare institution each morning, rush to work, then come home exhausted to face grizzly children and a worn-out husband.

This kind of lifestyle, to me, borders on madness. It's a situation where no one wins. The biggest losers are the children although these part-time mothers miss out on a lot too.

You can't have it all!

What a refreshing voice on the deep and vastly unrecognised effects that the pill has had over the past 50 years! Am I grateful that I, a young woman, have no fear of applying for any job I please? Yes. But when friends of mine who are successful young lawyers, doctors and finance workers whisper to me that they would really love to have a family and would not mind giving up their perfect careers to do so, as if they fear being despised by society for desiring such treacherous things, I wonder just what price we are paying, and whether it is all worth it.
A balanced article. Thank you

Firstly it is worth noting that Amy Vierboom is paid by Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney and works for their Life, Marriage and Family Centre.

Secondly – I find it hysterically amusing that Amy believes that other women believe that her ‘fertility is some sort of disease that needs to be “managed”’. Hugh!!?? I don’t think anyone else is interested in the slightest. Don’t wanna take the Pill? Don’t!

I could go on – but frankly I don’t care enough about the authors personal hang up’s and total historical ignorace.

The role of the pill is overstated, given the many other changes in society in the last 50 years, and the other ways people - especially young people - can engage in sex per se.

"sexual freedom of expression" is a conflation of number of concepts, to the point of confabulation.

""Surely feminism should be about femininity? I’m not talking about the perfect housewives of 1950’s advertising. Admittedly, it’s difficult to work out the hard and fast rules of what is feminine as opposed to masculine." This is bordering on 'reductio ad absurdum'

and this is a non-sequitur - ""If we let women be women, it will not only give men the chance to be the men"

Something else happened during the Whitlam years. The orphanages were quickly emptied of babies. The stigma of bastard births was removed. I can still remember going through St Anthony's, Sydney in 1950. There were large wards of up to twenty cots of babies waiting for adoption if they were lucky. These institutions closed down quickly when women for the first time had a real choice of keeping their babies or not. The illegal and backyard abortion centres also were no longer needed, saving many lives. Mr. Whitlam might have been a failure but many of his changes still survive today as far as woman is concerned.

Yes I agree that the pill has altogether been bad news.

Yes this will be, and is the favourite topic of the self-righteous catholic moralists all over the world. Remember too they staunchly advocate their archaic dogma that ALL forms of "artificial" contraception are an unforgivable mortal "sins"--even on a par with murder. Of course many ordinary catholics ignore the advice of these pooh-bar moralists.

And yes emotional-sexual confusion AND IGNORANCE is a seemingly unsolvable problem. A problem which the old catholic pieties are incapable of really addressing or solving.

Plus catholics are in the absurd situation wherein CELIBATE priests are the supposed "authorities" on emotional-sexual matters!

Indeed the old pieties, or rather puritanical double-minded ignorance, is very much a principal cause of the widespread ignorance and confusion. Indeed this puritanical double-mindedness IS the ROOT cause of ALL of seemingly intractable social problems, including global warfare.

The only real answer to all of this is a comprehensive non-squeamish emotional-sexual education which emphasizes how to take full responsibilty for ones sexuality and reproductive potential.

This book describes what is thus required. It is the product of hundreds of hours of very frank non-squeamish considerations.

http://www.dabase.org/small.htm

This reference gives a glimpse of the method used in such consideration.

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#prologue

It's a bit unfair to bag the author too much. After all, she is clearly very young, and has little understanding of sex, or relationships in general.

This is where it became clear for me that we were listening to someone with little or no experience.

"And so we’ve arrived at the point where I’ve now lost count of the number of girlfriends of mine who can’t understand why their boyfriends haven’t popped the question. For some of them it has meant trading in the dream of a white wedding and moving in as a compromise. But for many others it has merely built a culture where sex is little more than a recreational activity, having little to do with love and therefore difficult to refuse, even when it isn’t wanted."

There is a distinct air of "young fogeyism" here.

The reference to "popping the question". How quaint.

The idea that a white wedding is still somehow the epitome of a loving relationship. How chocolate box.

And the enormous stretch of logic that takes her from the concept of sex as a "recreational activity" (wha'?) to conclude that the act is somehow "difficult to refuse".

I suspect we are seeing the exercise of a young and confused imagination here, rather than reportage. Or alternatively, as has been hinted, echoes of those Catholic pamphlets on saving yourself for the wedding night.

For an article supposedly about the 50th anniversary of "the pill", it says far more about the author than the topic.

Thanks, Amy. As a husband and father of four daughters, as well as a brother to three wonderful sisters, I've often asked myself these questions. I too found your article to be a balanced questioning of the issue. It is good to know that there are young women like you who are prepared to stand outside the feminist square, contemplate contemporary societal issues and put the results of your thinking in front of others for our consideration.

How anybody could describe the points you make as 'moralising' is beyond me.

Hmmmm... very naive opinion.
Why is it that the pill has anything to do with the 'choices' that women make with respect to the types of relationship (sexual or otherwise) that they enter in to. There is always a choice to engage in sexual activity whether on the pill or not.
Also have no idea where the notion comes from that the only feminine thing that is available to a women is bearing children. What about all the other very positive impacts a woman can have in corporate environments, government, non-profit organisations and even the family home irrespective of whether they are a mother. And what about women who are unable to bear their own children - are they therefore not women?
It is also unfortunate that your doctor / lawyer / etc. friends feel they are unable to have children. It would seem they believe it is a career-limiting step. There are other options that don't involve child-care such as the partner / husband remaining at home to be the main care-giver and allowing them to continue their careers. Surely this is no less feminine than the alternative.

What crap Amy. Feminism has not made motherhood a second-rate option. In every country where women have choices, even those where feminsim has not had a strong influence, you will find a drop in the birthrate. Thats because when women have a choice they choose to have less children. Many feminists are mothers too!

The pill is about choice.

Having children is a massive life time commitment, and certainly not one you want thrust on you after a single indiscretion.

Before the pill women's choices were extremely limited, and usually meant early marriage and child bearing. Education and careers were seldom wasted on young females, as unless they were in the tiny fraction of those who could remain celibate, pregnancy was only a matter of time.

Unwanted pregnancy was the single highest cause of female drop outs at university, with the result that female made up about 25% of graduates. This is now closer to 55%

While there are some who look back and wish for a different life choice, there are many more who don't. That some regret the choices they make does not make the ability to choose bad.

The catholic church is the last to be able to define either femininity or feminism

thanks Amy for an interesting article. It highlights that much of what the feminist is about is selfishness. The pill certainly has not reduced mothers killing their own babies.

Runner, selfishness is what drives most people in this greed-driven world. We now live in an environment where things, careers and social climbing are much more important to many people than their own children.

What sort of parents will these children grow up to be?

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

DavidG you write

'Runner, selfishness is what drives most people in this greed-driven world. We now live in an environment where things, careers and social climbing are much more important to many people than their own children.'

Could not agree more. Thank God for Jesus who has always been the answer to corrupt human nature.

"If we’re going to be true feminists, should this not mean upholding femininity? Should we not be embracing womanhood and what makes women women - and raising those characteristics up as worthy of respect and honour."

You go right ahead, sweetie. Nobody's stopping you, as far as I know. Look, love, I'm even doing my best to adopt the patronising patriarchal tone that housewives were addressed by in the 50s when women were women and a man knew he could come home from work to an adoring family, a beer and a roast dinner. And if you want to live that way, and you can find a man who is willing to foot the bill, then good luck to you. Personally I'd rather have the second income and an intelligent engaged companion.

The Pill is a product of science not feminism. It gives men and women more choice about parenthood and it took the fear out of having sex. Young people were having sex pre-pill, hence the high rate of abortions among Catholic women and high adoption rates prior to the pill and to the Single Parent Pension.

For economic reasons some people put off having babies and for some of them it will be too late from a fertility aspect.

The problem lies mainly with our economic system and consumerism. The push to create 'working families', contributors to the economy first and foremost. The value of parenthood is a low priority unless it is talked about in terms of growth. It it is wrong to blame feminism and the pill.

There is no creativity or flexibility in the nature of work. The economy could be shaped to ensure greater choice for parents. Childcare is not for everyone and IMO I think it is to our detriment when institutionalised child care is the norm rather than the exception.

Even Joe Hockey at the Press Club was willing all female workers back at work after a short period post-birth. No concerns at all about a six week old baby being separated from its parents for large periods of time. We have more material things now though much of it due to debt, but less choice about family life. We used to be able to live on one income so in many ways we are actually worse off.

No it has nothing to do with the pill, it is about productivity. When did we ever see a Treasurer talk about helping SAHPs. Recently Abbott raised it and was shouted down by his own Shadow Cabinet.

The cost of childcare is subsidised, there is parental leave but not much in the way of assistance for other types of families. Personally I believe we should live with our choices working or not with assistance only for those on low incomes, rather than more and more money being thrown at the middle classes for votes.

What sort of parents will these children grow up to be?
David G,
The ones we have been seeing for the last twenty years. ! But that is not the real question we should be asking. We should ask those social engineers & Professors of sociology etc. from a couple of decades ago & how they think now. Surely, there's plenty archival stuff of these morons mouthing off in the media.

Why is it that almost all of those "really" concerned about Raunch culture seem to be also pushing a broader morals barrow? Has the broad levels of harm being done by raunch culture been confirmed by those without particular moral concerns? Could it be that teen's have almost always tended to push boundaries and do things that appear destructive to older wiser heads yet most survive the experience and go onto be relatively sane adults?

If people are not marrying because they have access to contraception which reduces the likely hood of an unplanned pregnancy that's probably a good thing. Marrying because someone is pregnant or because sex is otherwise in short supply is hardly the basis for a healthy relationship.

The pill has contributed to massive changes in society, not all have been universally wonderful but the thing about it is that there is choice. Not always easy choice but choice all the same.

R0bert

Deary me, not the Catholics again. They just can't get over their
guilt about sex.

I guess consumer response has given it's verdict. When the pill
was banned in Italy and Ireland, smuggling became a hugely
lucrative industry in those countries.

The pill is about choice. Even married women need to use a form
of contraception, as you will find out one day, Amy.

The pill has nothing to do with women going out to work etc. If
women were still content with the 12 square fibro and a battered
old Holden, they might not need to. Instead today, Australians
live in the world's largest houses and in my experience its women
who generally call the shots in that dept.

In fact the common marriage complaints are that men would like a bit
more sex and women would like more money. Going out to work a bit,
even if part time, makes perfect sense. Pill or no pill.

The Pill didn't "promise" anything, it simply made choice possible - it certainly didn't make "motherhood out to be a second-rate option" as the author contends.
While I agree with the author that society should respect and value mothers more - by providing paid parental leave for example - she seems to be blaming the Pill for what she sees as negative changes in society in the late 20th century.
The Pill has had a profound effect on society by making parenthood a considered choice for the majority of people. The profound effects are still working their way through society and are certainly not all negative. In its first decade or so the Pill was responsible for fewer abortions and less physical damage to young women from botched abortions; fewer unwanted children being born hence fewer "orphans" available for adoption and children being valued more, hence the disappearance of things like orphanages and corporal punishment in schools. In later decades the Pill was responsible for more women having tertiary education and careers; cohabitation of couples prior to marriage becomng the norm; date of first marriages being pushed further and further back, and marriage becoming synonomous with the decision of a couple to buy a house and/or start a family (commitment only being necessary with responsbility).
Overall, the Pill has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on society: we should never want to return to a world where unwanted children were plentiful, women died or were injured from botched abortions, and women's life choices were severely restricted by an inability to control their fertility.
CK John J's spouse

"In fact the common marriage complaints are that men would like a bit
more sex and women would like more money. Going out to work a bit,
even if part time, makes perfect sense. Pill or no pill". Yabby.

Oh Yabby, never believe everything you hear, it is the reverse, according to the many women I am friends with and friends of friends.The men wanting more sex would get it, if they put in the effort that women do.

We are unique:".The men wanting more sex would get it, if they put in the effort that women do."

So you see sex as a quid pro quo for "putting in an effort"? Essentially, you believe marriage to be a contract in which the woman exchanges sex for a man's productive efforts?

A prostitute here in Brisbane costs $120 or so for half an hour. By your reckoning the average bloke should be able to reasonably expect at least 3-4 really good sweaty sessions a week from the missus at that rate. I think it's about time I put in a complaint about the ex to Fair Trading...

The pill was an enabler of Feminism as it is done today. With effective control of their fertility women were freed to compete with men on an equal footing in some limited ways. As the author points out, however, that freedom comes with a price, which is the abrogation of their maternal drive. Most women I have ever spoken to expect and want to have children, even those who don't want to have anything to do with men. The use of the pill doesn't change that, it merely gives them an opportunity to determine more readily when they will do so.

I agree with the author that Feminism has become mostly about women who don't want to be mothers.There is a huge set of social structures designed to make it easier for women to use their womb then pass the child to someone else to raise. It's the "all care, no responsibility" model that was once the sole preserve of lawyers, but is now part of most women's reasonable expectations. To achieve that it has been necessary to place ever more responsibility on men.

Would I prefer the pill had not been invented? No. Would I prefer that we had a more equitable accommodation for the social impacts? Absolutely. Authority without responsibility leads inevitably to what Orwell predicted - the pigs have theor noses in the trough and rely on the loyalty of the favoured dogs to keep the rest in line.

A good article. In a follow-on article, the author may consider addressing the virtually hidden side of the pill's history, namely the damage done by the adverse side effects of the pill. I say hidden, as the contraceptive pill manufacturers do their best to suppress any unfavourable comments about the pill. It would not surprise if statistics showed a marked increase in the incidence of breast cancer in the past 50 years, compared with the previous 50 years. How much infertility is caused by the pill, leading to higher demand for IVF treatment? Then there is the lack of general knowledge, or should I say suppression of such knowledge, about the side effects of the pill on children born to the pill takers, e.g. reduced fertility.
What is the cost to the taxpayer of subsidising the prescription of the pill? As total public health expenditure appreciates at more than twice the general price inflation rate, why should the taxpayer continue to subsidise the pill? There would be substantial Budget savings from stopping this subsidy. With the pill allegedly assisting women to spend more time in the workforce and thereby to earn more income, there is a strong case for them to bear more, if not all, of the cost of the pill.

pmsl Antiseptic; a huge gulf exists between many blokes in their 40's and 50's regarding sex in relationships compared to guys in their 20's and 30's. Rarely do I hear from guys in their 30's [with older partners] complaining about sex in their relationships. Next time around I will definitely be with a younger bloke/guy; according to friends "they put themselves out and put the effort in".

Raycom

“pill manufacturers do their best to suppress any unfavourable comments about the pill.”

Wow – I’d like to see any credible evidence of this. All the side effects and risks printed on the product details sheet usually under the title “possible side effects” that accompanies the pills in the box. Too assert that “side effects of the pill on children born to the pill takers, e.g. reduced fertility.” is just plain ludicrous, (and outside of any evidence based realm).

Oh and there is no evidence of the pill being linked to infertility. FYI: 50% of couples fronting for IVF treatment do so because of male infertility. Only a small percentage can be attributed to both male and female delayed child production. Rather - Infertility has become more visible in society of over the last 20 years as it is nolonger a subject of pity and shame. Thank God the days of women ‘visiting’ their mother and arriving back 6 months later with an (adopted) “baby” and having to hide the fact of the adoption from the everyone including the child. Also - since treatments for infertility have become more available society has become more knowledgeable and aware of the subject.

And the increased incidence of breast cancer? Nothing to do with the pill. More women are now living long enough to succumb to this cruel disease and the diagnosis rates are rising in line with the aging population. Oh and the rising rates of diagnosis among younger women can more reliably attributed to known links such as more women being overweight and eating more heavily meat based diet. Oh – and this is another condition we able to talk about now. 20 years ago if a woman died of breast cancer – no one said breast cancer – rather just “cancer”.

Oh and you’d be surprised to learn that a woman’s chance of developing ovarian cancer is dramatically reduced if she takes the pill for about 7 years of fertile period. This is the only know way of reducing the risk of developing this deadly and silent killer.

I was having Mother's Day lunch with a friend of mine. She is 46, not married and doesn't have any children. She finds Mother's Day pretty hard, because she has come to the realisation that she probably won't have children. She said that for all the freedom she found in her younger years, she wishes someone would have told her what life would look like now...

My friend asked whether I thought that young women would listen to her story and maybe think twice about contracepting and aborting their way through their 20s and 30s. I told her they probably wouldn't, because we value "freedom", even if it is just captivity in disguise, too highly.

I might send her a copy of this article... maybe there is some fertile ground for her story out there (pardon the pun). Thanks Amy.

Monica, what you are implying is that some women simply don't
know what they want from life.

You can't blame the pill for that.

Yes, our present society gives us freedoms like never before,
which many of us cherish.

But in the end, we are responsible for our own actions and choices.

It sounds like your friend simply did not do enough soul searching
before she hit menopause. She can only blame herself for that,
not the pill, or society, or anyone else.

Perhaps its time that she bought a dog :)

Well done Amy for speaking out on a contentious issue. It could be said that the Pill is just like any of the other contraceptives in existence, but its symbolic value in the Western World certainly makes it unique. This is partly due to its prolificness, but it also due to its links with the “sexual revolution”. Whether the Pill’s introduction in the 60’s is a coincidence with or a causator for the revolution is another matter, but what is more important is the question of what the consequences (positive and negative) of the revolution have been.

Many say that the sexual revolution has brought freedom. What freedom? Freedom to act on your impulses, with no regard for long term consequences? Freedom to engage with another person in a most intensely personal way, only to walk out the next morning, hoping never to see them again? Freedom to end the life of an unborn because their very existence is inconvenient to you? This is not the sort of freedom we need; rather than set us free it enslaves us in a dark world of broken hearts, disappointment and guilt. The invention of the Pill was certainly not our finest hour, and I see no need to celebrate it.

Finally, to address some of Amy’s detractors:
- Amy’s age is of no ill-consequence. She is old enough to vote, old enough to marry and old enough to be a mother. She most certainly is entitled to hold and profess a well-informed opinion on this issue, in fact everyone of mature age should!
- Whilst it is true that Amy is employed by the Catholic Church, she has written this article in a public forum of her own free-will. She has not mentioned the Church at all in her article, and is presenting her own honest opinion. Moreover, she has based this on an appraisal of the challenges faced by women in a post-sexual-revolution world. She has applied reason to form her opinion, and she certainly isn’t just spinning some propaganda to impress her employer.

Keep it up Amy!

*This is not the sort of freedom we need *

Err speak for yourself, Dominic P, for the rest of us might agree to
disagree. We know very well, the sorts of hangups and guilt that
the Catholic Church tries to enforce on people, when it comes to
matters of sex.

Luckily these days, the wings of the church have been clipped,
they cannot burn people at the stake anymore, for disagreeing with
them.

But for the flock of true believers, hey, whatever, believe what
you will.

Just don't ever again try to enforce that dogma on the rest of us.

Fact is, even when it comes to the pill, most Catholics take no
notice of the Vatican bleatings. No wonder that those church pews
keep emptying in the West. The church is largely out of touch with
its members on this issue.

A woman's life is not black and white as you depicted above Yabby. If only as cut and dried as you describe in your remarks. It takes a good 20 years for a woman to educate and work herself along in her career greatly contributing to society. Sometimes women have tried on many occasions to find their right partner while working long hours in their jobs, travelling overseas in their positions, representing their workplace by participating on many Boards Committees and Meetings. Do not forget the voluntary organisations many women get up and running over the years during what would be their social hours. I work with many of these women who simply have not had the time as a result of their work to meet their Mr Right.

Before they realise, a good 15 years lived and the biological clock has expired, with menopause stepping in earlier than expected [women cannot plan or KNOW when menopause will hit Yabby; likewise for you. What a hard hearted mean spirited statement, particularly in view of the fact that you are not walking in womens' shoes and dont endure half the crap we do. At least talk on something you have experienced; unless you are a transvestite your comments are clearly sexist.

*A woman's life is not black and white as you depicted above Yabby.*

It is as black and white as a man's life. I know an awfull lot
of women who knew exactly what they wanted, then went out and
achieved it, family, kids, career or whatever.

This has nothing to do with sexism at all, apart from your
implication that women are a confused lot.

Some people still don't seem to get it: the Pill PREVENTS abortions. If you prevent pregnancy, then you won't need an abortion. All people who are worried about abortions, including Catholics, should be busy encouraging the use of the Pill, condoms et etc. But of course Catholics are also in knots about the Pill - such a pity, when it's a historical fact that the Catholic Church came very very close to approving the Pill - if there had been a different Pope at the time, there probably would have been a different church decision, saving a lot of people a lot of bother over the last 50 years. Most Catholics have been using the Pill regardless (especially in Italy and Spain which have the lowest birth rates in Europe).
As to questions about the health costs of the Pill - health statistics are very clear that giving birth to a baby is much more dangerous than either taking the Pill or havng an abortion.
As I said in my previous post, in the world without the Pill many many children (enough to fill institutions) were unwanted. Sad stories about women who now end up in their 40s with no children are the result of a combination of life choices and circumstances, not the Pill: these same women would not want to relive their life story changing it to include an accidental pregnancy at the age of 16. I feel sorry for them, but that doesn't change my view that the Pill has had an overwhelmingly positive effect on society.

The point of my previous remark Yabby; another generalised sexist comment made and disappointing when you are highly intelligent regarding economic and other issues. Don't let yourself down in the gender arena Yabby; heal your heart, be a bit compassionate, and look at the reasons why women you have come across, may be confused at times. It is termed "getting to know people".

You are clearly missing the point completely, yet it was the point
on which this thread was built.

The pill is responsible for little but giving women a choice.
They can't blame it for not having children or any other excuse
they might make, as has been alleged.

One of the most difficult things for many people is to finally be
honest with themselves, in some kind of an objective way. I see
it every day. Yet its a human foible. A foible which, if we can
overcome, we start to make some real progress.

People commonly blame everything and everyone for their failings,
but themselves. In psychology its called rationalisastion and its
highly irrational. Follow your feelings, then think of a reason to
justify it. It doesent work.

At some point in our lives, we need to face reality, admit our
mistakes and weaknesses and deal with them. Only then can we move
on. Blaming the world for our own failings might make us feel
better right now, but its the easy cop out and leads nowhere,
other then even more problems.