The first Carnival of the Feminists of ‘07 is up at Girlistic. Please have a visit.
Others are responding to the New York Times article about the decline in marriage. My post yesterday is below, here’s Figleaf’s and Amanda’s.
Amanda does a fine job of fisking the lamentable Mona Charen’s brief response to the report at National Review. Charen wrote of the decline in marriage:
The New York Times cheerleads for social trends that may make some upper West Side New York women happier, but leaves children, and most other women in America, far worse off.
Now, here’s where I break with both Amanda and Charen. Unlike Amanda, I am a cheerleader for marriage because I see the tremendous possibilities the institution still has to serve, as I’ve said again and again, as a vehicle for mutual personal growth. Actually, to be fair, my attachment is less to marriage itself and more to the idea of enduring monogamous commitment. Whether that commitment is formalized or not is less important than whether it is made in the first place, and whether the two people making that commitment are willing to challenge each other and sacrifice together.
But as passionate as I am about marriage, I dislike the conservative embrace of the institution as a solution for serious social problems. The conservative formula, made clear by everyone from Maggie Gallagher to Wade Horn to Warren Farrell to Mona Charen, is this: with the decline in marriage, the obligation of the state to care for its most vulnerable citizens has increased. If couples would only marry and stay together, if women would only learn to endure once again the infidelities and petty cruelties of their spouses, then we could further cut the social spending that supports single parent (read: single women) households. If wives would go back to dutifully caring for their own (and their husbands’) aging relatives, we wouldn’t have to spend so much on Medicare and Social Security. How great and glorious it would be, the right fantasizes, if we could transfer the social costs of caring for the vulnerable away from the public and back on to the shoulders of wives and mothers!
Marriage, for many social conservatives, is less a choice than it is a collective responsibility. Only by marrying — and delaying sex and reproduction until marriage — can the poor and the aspiring middle class hope to rise up the socio-economic ladder. “Don’t ask the state to replace a husband”, the right sneers, because the right continues to be enchanted by the fantasy of the family as both the primary source of women’s happiness and the sole source of her economic stability.
One reason why my feminism and my vague socialism mesh together is because I am so interested in seeing family bonds become less obligatory for own survival. When people agree collectively to provide for the common welfare, when we fully fund child-rearing and education, when we see the broader community as responsible for offering opportunity to all, then we liberate everyone to have relationships that are based on affection, based on choice, and based on the desire for personal growth. Perhaps it’s my own upper-middle class male myopia, but real love and neediness strike me as fundamentally incompatible. While we will all have our moments of vulnerability where we long for the care of our loved ones (infancy, old age, sickness), I am convinced that the healthiest society is one where the burden of providing that care is shared by the state as well as by the family. (Most child and elder care, historically, has been done by women. It may be joyous work at times, but it can be dull and painful and exhausting as well.)
Many of my feminist colleagues rightly distrust marriage because of what it has meant for women for centuries. Many of my conservative friends celebrate marriage because they see it as part of God’s plan for our lives and because they view it as a panacea for innumerable social ills. I am familiar with both arguments, and accept that both have their merits. I love marriage and I love being married. But it was only after three divorces that I found the right marriage, and it was only after breaking commitments and promises that I learned how to keep them. I would suggest that marriage, done right and entered into freely, offers to many the opportunity for great joy and growth and comfort. I do believe, unlike some of my friends, in the redemptive possibilities within lifelong monogamy. But I shudder at the idea of using marriage as a tool to address serious social problems.
Holding up marriage as a vehicle for personal growth is one thing. Holding up marriage as a vehicle into the middle class is quite another. Those who advocate the latter are usually those most eager to cut the social spending that allows women (and men) to move up the ladder without having to rely on potentially abusive or loveless marriages. And when I read the sort of rhetoric I read regularly from the Mona Charens and the Maggie Gallaghers, I’m reminded of why I’m still a progressive Democrat!
When the village accepts its responsibility to raise children and care for the vulnerable, then everyone (not merely the prosperous) can afford to explore marriage as a personal choice rather than as a necessity for survival. And though it may be thoroughly ahistorical to say so, I find little possibility for growth, redemption, and joy in what is forced.
If you like marriage, then cheerleading people into it is the worst thing possible. The less coercion into the institution, the more likely the people who enter it do so freely for the right reasons.
I certainly don’t have a problem with the notion that we as a society have a responsibility to help care for our most vulnerable citizens, but I don’t think any social program, however well intentioned, can be a replacement for a stable family. Coercing people is wrong, encouraging someone to stay in a marriage that is abusive is also wrong, but encouraging, offering support and counseling to save a troubled marriage, may well be less costly in the long run, and provide the best environment for the care of children and elderly relatives.
Hey Hugo - I think you hit the nail right on the head when you summarized for the right - if only women would take on all the social responsibilities and menial household work they used to, everything would be alright. That is what they say. They also say “if every household had a father, everything would be perfect.” That one always cracks me up. I’m a self-proclaimed socialist, and if we define government as “us” then I think we do need a government administered social program, but a missing element in this discussion is extended family. No single person can raise a child completely on their own, and I really don’t think any two people can do that either. You need aunts and uncles and grandparents and best friends next door and GOOD QUALITY DAYCARE Workers, and a social network that is supportive when those people aren’t in place or are unable to help. And just to clarify, yes I am saying that family should be expected to take on the responsibility of helping out their loved ones, and that includes men. By relegating that responsibility entirely to the government / a handful of trained government workers, the majority of us would lose the ability to nurture - or never have the chance to learn.
Ok, I’m going to try to draw a quick comparison that I’m getting in part from a 1984 Paula Baker article I just read.
In the early 19th century, the doctrine of republicanism emphasized the (American) state’s separation from public welfare, social programs, etc. Instead of the community as a whole taking care of individuals’ needs, women–as mothers, wives, and contributors to charitable organizations–were expected to fulfill those needs. This led to the explicit “separate spheres” ideology, where men were in charge of the economic, and women in charge of the social/domestic care of the household. BUT, as soon as women came together to organize around charitable work and “feminine” causes like temperance, they also started agitating for suffrage. Baker argues that as women’s suffrage became more of a foregone conclusion, the state was held more responsible for public welfare.
This is to say that I think conservatives who hold up marriage as a social panacea are working within an ideological framework that assumes women have no place and want no place in the public sphere, because separate spheres ideology is the only one under which marriage promotes those benefits. And I think that framework is not only sexist, but also untenable.
Food stamps are not a replacement for a stable family. Food stamps help families be stable by feeding them.
Thank you, Norab; can you send me a cite for the article?
Sorry, meant to include it in the first place for reference.
Paula Baker, “The Domestication of Politics…” The Journal of American History 89.3 (1984)
Um, oops, The American Historical Review…:(
Most child and elder care, historically, has been done by women.
First, I would like to see some proof of this very broad statement. Some cross-cultural anthropological data would be helpful here, as would more precise definitions of the terms “child care” and “elder care.” It’s a common feminist error to ignore the contributions that men make to families; feminists conveniently ignore the great sacrifices men make for their families and pooh-pooh men’s gifts of time, talent, and treasure to their families, often because some of men’s contributions may have a more indirect and less visible nature. Such intellectual dishonesty and lack of precision are some of the reasons I–and many other men–take neither feminism nor women’s studies seriously.
Holding up marriage as a vehicle for personal growth is one thing. Holding up marriage as a vehicle into the middle class is quite another.
Both viewpoints have their problems. Primarily, marriage is neither about “personal growth” or “entry into the middle class.” Fundamentally, marriage is about reproduction and an attempt to create stable families–something humans have valued for a long time. Personal growth, including economic advancement, is nice, but I think it’s silly to act as if that is the main reason for having the institution.
If people want to get rid of marriage, then they can propose that and we can have that discussion. (Many MRAs would be pleased to see the collapse of marriage.) However, to try to hold on to marriage and then sell it as some tool for “personal growth” or a means to attain “middle class” status seems really silly.
You finally posted something that’s aimed dead-on at why I disagree with you on so many issues.
One reason why my feminism and my vague socialism mesh together is because I am so interested in seeing family bonds become less obligatory for survival.
And I would say the exact opposite:
One reason my religiousness and my libertarianism mesh together is that I’d like to see voluntary groups become more important, and coerced groups less important (and all governments, everywhere, are coercion-based), for survival.
“…the obligation of the state to care for its most vulnerable citizens has increased.”
As most analysts of the 51%-single finding point out that increasing economic parity, combined with feminism- and technology-inspired private-sector affordances such as flex time and telecommuting are *beginning* to make it possible for single women to support their families *without* direct state aid.
I did say “beginning to.” But then the number is currently only 51%. Presumably some large fraction of women who are married remain married or seek remarriage out of economic necessity rather than for personal-fulfillment. Consequently ‘wingers who fret about taxpayer burdens would be smart to press for *further* social and economic equalization. (That they’re not suggests that they’re less worried about tax burdens than they are about maintaining gender hierarchies.)
“…real love and neediness strike me as fundamentally incompatible.”
I agree. To break it out a little further, resentment and love are incompatible. Neediness tends to breed resentment (witness conservative disdain for charitable works.) Therefore love and neediness are incompatible.
Nice post, Hugo.
“Drivel,” this social conservative sneers. (Since, apparently, we do that all the time.) Ideology trumping facts — and a raging case of false choices. Social conservatives do not believe that marriage cures everthing, they look at the stats and say, “You know, on the whole, marriage is a good thing for society.” Of course, we are then accused of saying, “if every household had a father, everything would be perfect.”
Blah! Blech! Pthoooey!
Stephen
Sam, I’m glad this post had a clarifying effect. Honestly, many of the differences between us can be summed up by your response. I think that for many people, especially women, it is the family — not the state — which appears to be oppressive and obligatory. Compared to traditional mores and the straitjacket of separate spheres, a “nanny state” with high marginal tax rates is infinitely more liberating.
Stephen, my dear old friend, I was uncharitable to accuse the right of always sneering. I know your heart as you know mine, and we both share a commitment to justice, a commitment to children, and a commitment to ordering our desires for the common good. We differ, however, in the roles that traditional marriage and the state are to play in achieving those good ends.
The Sam vs Hugo is interesting. And parts of my upbringing were definitely “oppressive and obligatory,” though I suppose everyone agrees that children are a special case.
But let’s not forget that billions of our brethren and sisteren are blessed to dwell in regions with totalitarian governments AND stifling conventional social structures, going as far as arranged marriages.
And Hugo (and the rest of you all)–don’t get me wrong; voluntary communities can do a rather stunning amount of damage; I know that by personal experience. (I left/was expelled from a conservative Plain church in my early 20’s; I survived that version of hell. I had friends who didn’t, or who took enough damage to never really get over it.) So, Compared to traditional mores and the straitjacket of separate spheres, a “nanny state” with high marginal tax rates is infinitely more liberating–I agree; it certainly was for me.
BUT THE PLAIN WORLD WAS ESCAPEABLE; the modern state isn’t. And when states go wrong, they go much wronger than voluntary communities can.
When I get my paycheck Friday, I’m going to tell my husband he’d better appreciate the “time, talent and treasure” I bring to the family. He may not be all that impressed after a 12-hour day running a household and dealing with children, but you know how feminists are–ungrateful.
Which is why, Sam and K, I favor democratic socialism rather than Stalinist authoritarianism.
When I get my paycheck Friday, I’m going to tell my husband he’d better appreciate the “time, talent and treasure” I bring to the family. He may not be all that impressed after a 12-hour day running a household and dealing with children, but you know how feminists are–ungrateful.
I certainly hope he does appreciate your contribution. Many feminists are indeed ungrateful, but that–as well as your husband’s potential lack of gratitude–is not the point here.
In my first comment, I challenged Hugo’s claim that “Most child and elder care, historically, has been done by women.” That statement may be true or it may be false. It is, however, a fairly common claim and I would like to see some evidence for it. There are many limitations to history as a discipline and such a claim about child care and elder care is reckless and irresponsible. If we want to discuss a particular period in human history, then perhaps we can agree on some terms that would facilitate such a discussion. However, once again, a feminist statement is challenged and turns out–so far, at least–to be made of straw for lack of defense.
Of course, I may well be banned from this thread or the entire blog for daring to question well-accepted, if utterly unfounded, dogma. After all, in an earlier comment on the thread that immediately preceded this one, Hugo stated:
If the “basic principles of feminism” comprise a set of dubious claims that blog commenters must be afraid to question (for fear of banishment), then you really have a case of the blind leading the blind, the delusional leading the delusional. Someone could just as easily publish a blog wherein he claimed that the sun revolves around the earth. Visitors who wanted to post comments to the blog would have to subscribe to the geocentric model of the universe. The blog publisher could say:
The blogger could use that philosophy to ban a visitor who mentioned, say, Nicolaus Copernicus in a comment. The blogger certainly could do that; after all, it’s his blog and his rules and I certainly support his right to freedom of speech. Would such an approach lead to truth? I’ll let you and your fellow feminists decide that for yourselves.
Tom, do any cite search on medieval, ancient, or early modern child rearing practices. Review the vast literature, too vast for me to cite here. Start with Childbearing in American Society, 1650-1850 by Catherine Scholten, a dry but scrupulously written work loaded with citations.
Men were distinguished more by their absence than by their presence — that’s one clear conclusion from Scholten et al. The revisionist work, Family Men by Shawn Johansen, suggests that men were more present — but even Johansen, as close to a friend as MRAs will find in family scholarship, concedes that the bulk of child rearing was done by women.
Hugo, while I thank you for the information, I received exactly what I expected: a reply that merely strengthens my argument.
Tom, do any cite search on medieval, ancient, or early modern child rearing practices. Review the vast literature, too vast for me to cite here.
Telling me to use a search engine is not terribly persuasive. Moreover, searching for child-rearing practices will not tell me anything about elder care practices, will it? I’ll accept your concession that you cannot prove your point.
Start with Childbearing in American Society, 1650-1850 by Catherine Scholten, a dry but scrupulously written work loaded with citations.
This is an obscure text, written more than 20 years ago, and seemingly out of print today. Even if I were able to find it readily, even assuming that this text does support your claim, and assuming that its title accurately describes its contents, it would apply at best to a tiny period of time (200 years) to the experiences of a tiny fraction of humanity’s population (people who lived in “America” [the area now that now comprises the United States?] during those 200 years). As such, it is unreasonable to assume that this one text will tell us much about “most” child care “historically.” Furthermore, again, this text would probably not tell us anything about elder care, would it?
Men were distinguished more by their absence than by their presence — that’s one clear conclusion from Scholten et al.
Since you don’t say to whom “et al.” refers, I have no way of verifying this claim. All I have are the name of some obscure tract and its author.
The revisionist work, Family Men by Shawn Johansen, suggests that men were more present — but even Johansen, as close to a friend as MRAs will find in family scholarship, concedes that the bulk of child rearing was done by women.
It is unclear here whether you are using “revisionist” in a pejorative sense. if you are, then I suspect you’re using “revisionist” to mean someone who does not agree with the standard feminist approach. At least I can find this text relatively easily. I looked it on amazon.com, and I’d be very surprised if Mr. Johansen made such an unqualified concession in the book.
Again, even if your claims were true, Johansen’s book applies to an even more limited period of time–the late 1700s until around 1860–than does Scholten’s book. You have offered no reason whatsoever for me to believe that the overlapping time periods–1650 to 1850, on the one hand, and the Antebellum Period in the United States, on the other hand–in the area now constituting the United States accurately represent all of human history with respect to child care and elder care.
Once again, I must conclude that feminist theory cannot stand up to careful scrutiny. It is clear that this blog is not about seeking truth. It is about chatter among people who unquestionably accept unverifiable assumptions and present arguments that would not pass muster even in a 100-level undergraduate course.
Most women who aren’t independently wealthy are going to be dependent at some point in their life because of childbirth and childrearing. Feminists don’t like this if it takes the form of dependence upon their husbands, because as you say they have to endure a lot of stuff. That’s all fair enough.
But the proposed solution is that we publicly fund child-rearing and opportunities liberate women from this. Why?
I agree we should look after the vulnerable, but I don’t think women fall into this group. They are able bodied adults and should look after themselves. Having children is voluntary, and they really only have themselves to blame if this causes them problems. I can’t see why they should externalise the costs of their choices on to the rest of us.
Unmarried parenthood is undoubtedly a cause of poverty. But the only reason your post works is you frame the question as if the only alternative to this is parenthood non-poverty and a loveless or abusive marriage justified by a fantasy of the family. It isn’t: they could have not got pregnant.
Tom, are you looking for every single title in family scholarship? There are literally thousands, as any family scholar will tell you. Name the period you wish to know about, and if it’s in European or American history, I’ll name you an excellent text. (I appeal to others on African or Asian history, that’s outside my field). If you can find ONE English-language scholarly text that supports the argument that men were evenly involved in child or elder care in Europe or America in the last thousand years, name it.
But this is not a post about family history, and we need to get back on topic in this thread. You are free to email me with queries about further reading. I’m always happy to recommend texts.
Blogging is not scholarship, nor does it pretend to be. I’ve published scholarly articles (if you’re clever, you can find them; hint, they’re in English medieval history) and the writing one does for those is very different. Blogging is information-sharing, a blend of the personal and the political. Standards of academic evidence do not apply, nor does any reasonable person expect them to.
James,
Okay, well since child bearing is purely a personal thing, we wouldn’t want to externalize either costs or benefits. Surely then, anybody who doesn’t contribute to the next generation (either physically or financially) shouldn’t expect to benefit from them. This works fine for a while, as long as you are younger than the vast majority of mechanics, servers, entrepreneurs, ceos, doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, real estate agents, etc, you shouldn’t have any problem only being served and enriched by the previous generation, but then it’s probably a good idea to plan on dying before you get too far past our median age…
It isn’t: they could have not got pregnant.
Am I to understand that you’re placing blame for pregnancy solely on women? I doubt that was your meaning, but what are you trying to say?
. Having children is voluntary, and they really only have themselves to blame if this causes them problems. I can’t see why they should externalise the costs of their choices on to the rest of us.
So according to James, women have figured out how to reproduce by parthenogenesis! Congratulations, ladies, males have been rendered completely superfluous. Now you have ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME if you have kids. Also, in James’ world, unplanned pregnancies don’t happen. Condoms never break and pharmacists never refuse to dispense EC! It’s a feminist utopia!
The rest of us. Like the guys who donate half of the child’s DNA? The ones who leave their own kid in poverty because they won’t pay child support? (If paying child support causes you problems, you only have yourself to blame. Having children is voluntary.)
Hugo,
I put up a “me too” post at Gay Spirituality & Culture. Thanks for your thoughtful wisdom once again.
http://gayspirituality.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/the_universal_v.html
joe
Stella and Acer erect the Strawman, summarized by Stella here: “So according to James, women have figured out how to reproduce by parthenogenesis! “
Nope, however, women can and do enjoy the services of sperm banks. Further, and I think that this is where James is coming from, women most certainly do have sole control of pregnancy and childbirth. Once sexual intercourse (and potential fertilization) occurs, men have absolutely no say in the matter, and therefore women are solely responsible (or at least should be) for pregnancy and childbirth. However, as we all know once the child is born men are held responsible for at least half of all support (monetary and otherwise) and oftentimes moreso for the resultant child from a pregnancy and birth that the man had absolutely no say in.
In other words, men are exactly one-half responsible for sexual intercourse and potential pregnancy (with women being responsible for exactly the other half), but women are fully and solely responsible for pregnancy, carrying the child to term, and childbirth.
As for child and elder care, I have to agree with Hugo that it probably was women who did the majority of this. But as usual, feminists using the ‘gender lens’ see a limited and distorted picture (an apt metaphor because after all, lenses are designed to do just that, limit the field of view and distort, e.g., magnify, the image). What Hugo and others fail to mention is that men did the vast majority of the work outside the home, which in most cases was at the very least as tedious, and almost always more dangerous, physically-demanding, etc., as housekeeping. And while housework has become much, much less burdensome and time-consuming, work outside the home has remained much the same, therefore, we see the increase in standard of living for women but not so for men.
Anyway, to the topic at hand: All this lovely talk about “democratic socialism” (an oxymoron if ever there was one), “the Village” model of childrearing, etc., fails to take an important consideration into account, i.e., that while women have enjoyed a phenomenal increase in opportunities re. family, work outside the home, etc., men have not seen a concomitant increase in freedom to work as homemakers, parents, etc. Men still are seen as little more than wage slaves and beasts of burden by society, people whose sole purpose is to provide labor and financial resources for women, children and the government (whether that be a “Nanny State” or not). Further, despite the feminist rhetoric that feminism ‘works to change the social system for men too’ they fail miserably when it comes time to deliver. In fact, it is indeed feminism that creates the most serious obstacle for men to become meaningful members of the family other than as the aforementioned wage and labor slaves: At every turn feminists eagerly jump on any chance to portray men as either 1) wife beaters, 2) sexual predators of children (even their own children), and/or 3) irresponsible losers who are such morons that leaving kids in the care of men should be considered child endangerment. I’m sure that most of the feminists here will offer up the standard argument from their book of talking points vis-a-vis ‘well, feminism is a big tent, and none of the feminists that I know are like that,’ yadda yadda yadda, but the fact is, of the people who do berate men thusly, it is almost exclusively feminists who do so. Therefore, feminists are squarely to blame for the very thing that they complain so loudly about. And that is some rich irony, to be sure.
Mr. Bad, the average work week in the factories in early Industrial America was 84 hours, without benefits, in brutal conditions. It is manifestly absurd to suggest that work outside the home has not gotten easier in much the same way that domestic work has, at least for Americans.
But let’s not thread drift.
Is Sweden not a democracy? Is Norway a failed state? I’ve been — have you?
My two bits in the Tom and Hugo debate. Stephanie Coontz, in _Marriage, a History_, mentions that in much of the world, even in much of Western history, children automatically went with the father rather than the mother when there was a divorce. However, to say that therefore children should automatically go with fathers would be as short and narrow as saying they should default to their mothers. Instead if there really can’t be joint custody they should go to the parent who provided the most custodial care regardless of gender.
—
Incidentally, Hugo, I’m reading Edmund Leites’ _The Puritan Conscience and Modern Sexuality._ Fascinating discussion on different approaches to marriage and sanctity in Christian traditions. Leites asserts that Puritans were among the first to insist that spiritual bonds took precidence over economic/extended-familial bonds in marriage. Between this book and Coontz’s, and maybe Esther Perel’s _Mating in Captivity_, I get the impression we’re putting more into (and demanding more out of) marriage than at any other time in history.
figleaf
Hugo said: ”
Mr. Bad, the average work week in the factories in early Industrial America was 84 hours, without benefits, in brutal conditions. It is manifestly absurd to suggest that work outside the home has not gotten easier in much the same way that domestic work has, at least for Americans.”
Good point. And housework back then was truly monumental as well, nothing like what we have now.
However, I wasn’t thinking that far back - I was looking at the post-WW-II era in America. After all, I would dare to guess that there is not a person here who was born before 1950 (I’m a 1950s baby and probably one of the oldest here). And I’m here to tell you that in that time period what I said is absolutely true. I was there - were you? (paraphrasing you below)
Continuing: “Is Sweden not a democracy? Is Norway a failed state? I’ve been — have you?”
Both of those states have gender quotas for political parties, electoral candidates, public offices, etc., so no, I would not consider them true democracies. True democracies don’t put race-, ethnic or gender-based restrictions on who can run for elected office, who can serve, who can be employed, etc. Such practices are for totalitarian or Fascist states, and I would consider both countries to be the latter, albeit a ‘kinder, gentler,’ decidedly feminist fascism.
And no, I haven’t been to either country, nor have I been to Europe at all. I’m not that well-to-do, nor do I come from such a family. We’re just ordinary middle-class folk, one side of the family being first-generation immigrant Americans.
Hugo,
My point isn’t that there’s something wrong with Norway or Sweden (although there is). My point is that even if I prefer “democratic socialism with lots of personal liberties” to “lots of political liberty”, the historical odds say that I’m more likely to go to “not much of any liberty”.
IOW, divide ‘the number of people with substantial liberty in any sphere who have voted at least once’ by ‘the number of people who have voted at least once’; the number you get is small. Divide ‘the number of people with substantial liberty’ by ‘the number of people with substantial liberty who live in a society with strong protections for property’, and the number is much higher.
Such practices are for totalitarian or Fascist states, and I would consider both countries to be the latter, albeit a ‘kinder, gentler,’ decidedly feminist fascism.
If that’s your definition, I am happy to be a “kinder, gentler, feminist fascist.”
Hugo! Put that on a bumper sticker!
Tom, in my writing class, it was said that if something could be independently verified by three external sources, it didn’t need to be cited. That women do the majority of childcare can easily be verified by three sources, ergo, you are being annoying for the sake of being annoying.
Mr. Bad, this is extremely off-topic, but you never struck me as that old. Interesting.
Hmm. Another comment deleted. Feminism cannot survive in an open debate!
” . . . women most certainly do have sole control of pregnancy and childbirth. Once sexual intercourse (and potential fertilization) occurs, men have absolutely no say in the matter, and therefore women are solely responsible (or at least should be) for pregnancy and childbirth.” - Mr. Bad
The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.
Despite protests to the contrary, women have tremendous power in Western culture along the lines of reproductive choice, raising children, teaching children in academic circles, and creating the internalized value systems in their formative/developmental years before adulthood—which has implications that impact the greater whole of society. Men still don’t have as much an influence, but are still required to support and fund these decisions. To have final and ultimate decision is profound, whether it is regarded as latent or manifest. What I find intriguing is that the past sentiment from disdaining the traditional nuclear unit and freeing women from the norm (housewife, lack of earning potential or career mobility, the stereotype of being “barefoot and pregnant”) has shifted to an utterly fierce devotion to defending, legalizing, and giving license to women’s choices while men’s generally haven’t gone in a similar direction (Such as the recent “Roe versus Wade for Men” as an example).
Sexual power is political power.
“What Hugo and others fail to mention is that men did the vast majority of the work outside the home, which in most cases was at the very least as tedious, and almost always more dangerous, physically-demanding, etc., as housekeeping.” - Mr. Bad
And men often needed to enter into professions that consisted of long hours, bad conditions, and energy-draining fields into order to keep the bills paid and their families clothed and well fed. While there has been strides to insure workers are better protected (OSHA and what not), the hard sacrifices men make for there wives and children are incredibly overlooked or considered just a given, just “Stuff that men do,” even now, and as you pointed out:
“Men still are seen as little more than wage slaves and beasts of burden by society, people whose sole purpose is to provide labor and financial resources for women, children and the government . . . ”
Exactly.
Mr. Bad, I think you’re confusing democracy with freedom. Freedom and socialism are oil and water, but democracy and socialism are not - at least not in countries where large voting blocs are foolish enough to admire socialism.
I may be going out on a limb her, but it is my observation that on average those who benefit from a fascist system, are generally more accepting of it than those subjugated by it.
No cite on that of course..
Hugo said: “If that’s your definition, I am happy to be a “kinder, gentler, feminist fascist.”
Well of course - this is one of those things that make me go “duh.”
And frankly, I can relate. Whenever I hear feminists bleating about “the Patriarchy” I think to myself “When feminists whine about ‘patriarchy’ they’re bemoaning the well-established, time-tested societal system that has been shown over several millenia now to be most efficient, productive, and advanced social system in the history of mankind. And these folks want to chuck it for, what, a system that has also been shown to be a disaster (see inner-city African American families)?” Sounds to me like your approach to socialism, only without the long history of success associated with what you folks call “patriarchy.” In fact, the history of socialism is littered with the likes of Stalin, Castro, Kim, Hitler, et al. I’ll take Churchill, Washington, Gandhi, et al. any day.
To each their own Hugo.
“So according to James, women have figured out how to reproduce by parthenogenesis!“
Mr. Bad has the wrong idea about where I’m coming from. I don’t see women as solely responsible for pregnancy and childbirth.
I didn’t mention men simply becuase Hugo didn’t. The topic was about women in poverty, financial conditions ‘forcing’ women into marriage, and whether state support could stop this. Men don’t come into it, you’ve just brought them up as a distraction. My point again: financial conditions brought on by children don’t force women into marriage - they can always not get pregnant and not have children cause them problems.
And you overlook things relating to men. It’s perfectly fair to force men to support their children, but there’s no reason they should support their children’s mothers. And even if we accept that fathers should be responsible for their ex-partners financial situation, the fact is that most men simply do not earn enough to maintain two households. Parenting apart puts women and men in poverty simply because money goes less far when you’re splitting it in two.
If women parent alone, and do this because they choose to or undertake a child rearing project without getting commitment from a partner who then leaves them, then I do see them as responsible for their own condition. Feminists do have a victimhood ideology where they blame ‘men’ for victimising unfortunate women. But having kids is essentially voluntary and these women brought it upon themselves.
james, apologies for being incorrect re. where you are coming from. My mistake.
That said, I don’t think that you and I are all that far apart vis-a-vis our POV re. this this topic.
Mr. Bad, the socialism of Sweden, Norway, and much of Western Europe bears no more resemblance to that of Kim Jong Il than the teachings of Benedict XVI do to those of Fred Phelps, or that Warren Farrell does to Marc Lepine.
james, how do women “always not get pregnant”? Is there a magic fairy that dispenses 100% effective contraception, prevents all possible rape, and hands out free abortion should said fairy err on the first two counts?
That said, many women do, in fact, decide that getting pregnant is a very dumb idea. There’s a lot of panic in countries with below-replacement birth rates as a result of this.
(And Tom, while my husband certainly appreciates my contribution, what I am doing is not primarily childrearing. I am supporting the family financial; that is important, but it is not the same as what he is doing.)
Hugo said: “Mr. Bad, the socialism of Sweden, Norway, and much of Western Europe bears no more resemblance to that of Kim Jong Il than the teachings of Benedict XVI do to those of Fred Phelps, or that Warren Farrell does to Marc Lepine.”
Ok, then we can stick with the socialism of Stalin and Hitler, a couple of solidly-European socialists.
The point, Hugo, is that socialism has been tried and has failed every single time. IMHO it’s only a matter of time before Norway and Sweden implode socially, and already both countries have become economic disasters from a global perspective primarily because of their fascist social policies (e.g., gender quotas in the private business and public sectors) and welfare-state approach. The only truly competitive and significant economic power in the region is Finland, and they’re a decidedly free-market capitaliist society.
“james, how do women “always not get pregnant”? Is there a magic fairy that dispenses 100% effective contraception, prevents all possible rape, and hands out free abortion should said fairy err on the first two counts?”
There probably are one or two women who were raped, unable to get contraception, unable to get an abortion, and were then prevented from getting their child adopted. But in 99.99% of cases women in the situations I’m talking about have themselves to blame for their situation.
I don’t think we should subsidise the 99.99% of people who got in that situation though their own actions because of the 0.01% of genuine victims, for the same reason we shouldn’t let everyone out of jail because there are probably a few people in there who have been wrongly convicted.
That’s a pretty solid number, james; how did you calculate it?
It’s just a guestimate. Do you think there’s a large number of women who’ve had and are raising unwanted children? I think childrearing is voluntary enough for my argument to stand.
If that was enough for your argument to stand, why throw in garbage statistics “proving” your point? What’s a “large number”? You were presenting supposed math to show that it would be foolish to try to help the deserving without sufficiently punishing the foolish.
The only truly competitive and significant economic power in the region is Finland
I had to read this several times over to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. The only major economic power in the EU is Finland? According to Wikipedia, the GDP of the EU in millions of international dollars is a little less than 14 million (that is, 14 trillion international dollars), making it the single largest economy in the world. Finland contributes a little less than 180 thousand (180 billion international dollars) of that. That’s about 1.3%. In absolute terms, Sweden and Denmark both contribute slightly more than Finland, and France and Germany both contribute more than ten times what Finland contributes. Finland’s contribution to GDP per capita is higher than France or Sweden, but it’s also less than Denmark. Do you honestly believe the moderate but strong projected economic growth in the EU (2-2.5%) is going to be driven entirely by Finland’s relatively minor contribution — and that Finland’s growth will be enough to more than counteract the economic collapse you predict for Norway and Sweden (and France and Germany and the Netherlands and so on)? There seem to be two possibilities here: either Finland is also an `economic disaster’ (and being an economic disaster is not particularly bad), or Finland is experiencing economic growth literally never before seen in the history of humanity.
And, of course, none of this shows that libertarian social policies foster high standards of living in the long term. Are you familiar with the work of Amartya Sen? He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his analysis showing that, for example, the democratic socialist (and, incidentally, strongly feminist) social policies of Kerala, India, were some of the most important factors in that state’s dramatic standard of living increases (measured in terms of things like life expectancy and access to education) over the past several decades. I highly recommend his Development as freedom.
It’s not a real statistic - it’s just a literary device used to suggest a non-specific but very large proportion. That’s okay, I realise English might not be your first language. When people say 99.99% they don’t really mean 99.99%, they just mean to imply everyone else is in a very small minority.
Actually, James, it’s a literary device used to suggest that the speaker is actually basing his argument on something other than guesswork, or vague terms like “large” or “very large”. But you knew that.
Yeah, the nation that produces Volvos is sure a nation of economic disasters. I mean, what shoddy cars socialism produces. Nothing compared to a solid capitalist Ford.
james said: “It’s just a guestimate. Do you think there’s a large number of women who’ve had and are raising unwanted children? I think childrearing is voluntary enough for my argument to stand.”
Actually james I think that there probably are a lot of women raising unwanted children; those kids start out as wanted and then when the woman discovers something called ‘parental responsibility’ and all of the attendant sacrifices that go with it, those kids then become ‘unwanted.’ ‘Unwanted’ status is highly dependent on what point in the child’s life you make the determination.
One reason why my feminism and my vague socialism mesh together is because I am so interested in seeing family bonds become less obligatory for own survival. When people agree collectively to provide for the common welfare, when we fully fund child-rearing and education, when we see the broader community as responsible for offering opportunity to all, then we liberate everyone to have relationships that are based on affection, based on choice, and based on the desire for personal growth. Perhaps it’s my own upper-middle class male myopia, but real love and neediness strike me as fundamentally incompatible.
Yes, it’s myopia. Your standard would rule out love between man and God; between children and parents; on the part of elderly people or handicapped people who are dependent on others. There are many stages of our lives where we depend on the care of other human beings, and at all stages (for the Christian) we depend on God.
Yet you’re saying that love is “fundamentally incompatible” with those relationships. Do you realize what a radical statement that is, especially for a professed Christian?
Family bonds, when “obligatory,” can be experienced as repressive, to be sure. Yet it is only in taking responsibility for and caring for others that we become decent human beings. Your receipe for society seems to be this: 1) None of us can give or experience love through much of our lives (because we need other people); 2) Only during a few decades in adulthood can we truly experience love; 3) Our experience of love occurs when we are radically atomised individuals who show love and help other people only when we feel like it (”choice”) and only insofar as it furthers our own self-improvement (”personal growth”); 4) Instead of being caring and devoted parents/spouses because it’s the right thing to do, we should shunt off our family responsibilities onto the state.
Commenters: As someone whose family was severely decimated by REAL fascism and REAL Stalinism, I find the frivolous comparisons to feminism here very offensive. I am sure I’m not the only one. Could you please not use those terms as fifty-cent buzzwords? Thank you.
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! fedyggnqazm