“Consult not your fears but your hopes and your dreams. Think not about your frustrations, but about your unfulfilled potential...
Concern yourself not with what you tried and failed in, but with what it is still possible for you to do.”
“Distrustful souls see only darkness burdening the face of the earth. We prefer instead to reaffirm all our confidence in our Savior who has not abandoned the world which he redeemed... The church best answers its critics when it remembers that its mission is to preach hope, not fear."
Pope John XXIII: Clenched Conservatism Is Motivated By Fear
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/06/fr-james-martin-sj-8-minute-video.html
***
Dear Fred,
I am working on my response to "The Oh, So Stressful Suburbs." http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/06/the-oh-so-stressful-suburbs/
In the meantime, I draw your attention to The Thinking Housewife's "featured post," "Why We Must Discriminate." http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/07/why-we-must-discriminate/
"Discriminate" is quite good, although limited by the presumed superiority of "The Past," when that same past -- like most patina-ed "Golden Ages" -- was not as golden as it seemed.
"Discriminate" is quite good, although limited by the presumed superiority of "The Past," when that same past -- like most patina-ed "Golden Ages" -- was not as golden as it seemed.
You needn't reach farther back than "living memory" to find grinding poverty from sea-to-shining-sea; legions of destitute seniors; multitudes of women trapped in brutal and brutalizing marriages; almost no specific cure for any human ailment; normalized racism replete with lynching and KKK terror tactics; horrible workplace conditions; 12-16 hour work days; grotesque child labor practices; no "weekend" and almost no Middle Class.
Wall Street magnates ruled the roost and, unable to see beyond the coddled condition of their own kind, promoted an "Official Story" ignoring The Great Depression they were already engineering. (The Great Recession reprized this same plutocratic ignorance. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2011/10/daily-dose-october-152011.html)
In 1858, Walter Bagehot observed that "poverty is an anomaly to rich people. It is very difficult to make out why people who want dinner do not ring the bell." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Poverty (Italian Proverb: "A full belly does not believe in hunger.")
"God was in His heaven" and his millionaire minions on Earth guaranteed that The Invisible Hand would bless all "the worthy." (The unworthy deserved death, damnation or both. See Indiana GOP Candidate: ‘No One Has The Guts" To Let Poor People "Wither And Die"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/06/indiana-gop-candidate-no-one-has-guts.html)
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/06/indiana-gop-candidate-no-one-has-guts.html)
The Belligerent Backdrop To "All This"
Who Are The Terrorists?
See: "Terrorism And The Other Religions"
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
What we refuse to see in ourselves, we lay at the door of others.
***
Laura looks back on the tapestry of America and sees ubiquitous marital bliss, smiling children and large servings of apple pie.
All homemade.
All homemade.
The first half dozen lengthy "comments" appended to Laura's essay are also good.
Just before Laura closes her follow-up "discussion" she says: "If sex discrimination were permissible, businesses would be free to hire men and women as they saw fit. They would be free to hire all women if they wanted, from the bottom ranks to the top executives. ("Companies With Most Women On Board Trash Performance Of Those With Least"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/12/companies-with-most-women-on-board.html) But obviously in order for anti-discrimination laws and regulations to be overturned, major cultural changes would have to occur first. The repeal of those regulations would be an after-the-fact event. Businesses would be free to react to these cultural changes, which would probably include a major retreat from careerism by women and a greater appreciation for the male provider role. I don’t believe these developments are on the horizon. Why bother even talking about this? Why bring it up? We’ve come a long way in a hundred years. The most popular women’s organization at the turn of the century was the National Mother’s Congress (which evolved into the Parent Teacher Association), and it explicitly supported the male provider role and fought to protect it. It’s wrong to misread our predecessor’s motives. They thought of jobs as limited resources and had high regard for the welfare of children. If nothing else, it’s important to discuss this issue to gain a better understanding of the past. I also think we should consider what’s ideal whether it’s attainable or not. Thanks to all who have sent their thoughtful reactions, both pro and con, to this proposal."
I entirely agree with Laura's core ideal - that one stay-at-home parent should be available to young children.
The best way to realize this ideal is parents' conscious commitment to "voluntary poverty" which would guarantee sufficient "savings" to enable one stay-at-home parent - and often both!
Preferably Mom and Dad would alternate childcare to insure well-rounded "parenting" whose benefits I detail below.
Preferably Mom and Dad would alternate childcare to insure well-rounded "parenting" whose benefits I detail below.
***
'It's That Simple': The Real Secret Of Voluntary Poverty
http://ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/its-simple-real-secret-voluntary-poverty
Simple Living
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living
Reducing Consumption, Work Time, Possessions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living#Reducing_consumption.2C_work_time_and_possessions
My Catholic Worker friends in nearby Garner often feed their families
-- and their communities -- by supermarket dumpster diving.
Someone should relay this idea to Francis. He'll love it!
Someone should relay this idea to Francis. He'll love it!
***
Follow the money Fred! It usually ends up in the pockets of avaricious capitalists, most of them "conservative," all of them promoting The Seven Deadly Sins to sell their product.
"Plutocracy Triumphant"
***
If God is "in control," then those "at the top" must be "good people" and not the piggish slop-slurpers revealed by casual examination.
Although I was blessed with a loving mother whose Depression-era thrift made our family thrive, I would have delighted in more hands-on "fathering" - just as my son delights in my role as (sometimes) stay-at-home Dad.
I have also seen too much maternal smothering -- particularly of daughters -- to look upon motherhood with Laura's gauzy gaze.
There is also the matter of women's marked susceptibility to neurosis, anxiety and depression (including, but not limited to, post-partum depression), and a general tendency toward "fussy whining" and "gossip."
These susceptibilities further recommend child-rearing by both parents to buffer the psychological instability/peculiarity of so many women.
These susceptibilities further recommend child-rearing by both parents to buffer the psychological instability/peculiarity of so many women.
I know fatherhood from the inside out. And I know I can raise children at least as well as most stay-at-home Moms.
Furthermore, well-rounded, fully-competent fathers are a growing "tribe."
Laura's ferocious determination to promote child-rearing by "mothers alone," reveals a significant admixture of ego involvement.
I disagree emphatically with the assumption that women, ipso facto, can raise children better than men. (Although it's just a single anecdote, check out the "mothering skills" of revered Saint Helena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great#Executions_of_Crispus_and_Fausta)
I disagree emphatically with the assumption that women, ipso facto, can raise children better than men. (Although it's just a single anecdote, check out the "mothering skills" of revered Saint Helena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great#Executions_of_Crispus_and_Fausta)
Sure, many men -- like the culture itself --- have catch-up to do.
But parenting is not rocket science.
It is mostly loving-kindness combined with willingness to be available - to be present.
It is mostly loving-kindness combined with willingness to be available - to be present.
There is also this...
Except during the first four or five years of a child's life, there are nearly seven hours every day when children are "at school," a circumstance providing significant opportunity for parents to have a "career" while simultaneously staying home. (I imagine that Laura's blog accomplishes this very end.)
Sure, one can sing the praises of homeschooling, but if children are at home around-the-clock, all the more reason mothers and fathers should "tag team" to avoid "an overdose of Mom."
Sure, one can sing the praises of homeschooling, but if children are at home around-the-clock, all the more reason mothers and fathers should "tag team" to avoid "an overdose of Mom."
"Overdosing on Mom" is, of course, another story, a story that many (most?) daughters can tell full well.
My Dad believed that the purpose of Civilization was to diminish the number of hours we humans must labor, thus freeing time for creativity and family/community fun.
***
"Automation, Robotization, Software-Enhanced Productivity and Permanent Job Loss"
If conservatives were not such puritanical hard-noses, determined to keep "menial" workers "on the treadmill" (with no "dependence-inducing" benefits from "The State"), the 8 hour work day that Dad enjoyed as a Kodak engineer would already be down to 6 hours so that, even now, there would be ample time for both career (or passionate amateurism) plus child-rearing.
For me, ideal parenting encompasses the integration of mothers and fathers as equal partners, rather than the lopsidedness of "just Mom," or "just Dad." (I should point out that "Moms" and "Dads" can also "go it alone.")
It will take time to adjust to this new "ideal," just as it took time for humankind to adjust to other epochal changes.
Until 1750 A.D. half of all human beings died by age 8.
Until 1850 A.D. humans lived half their lives with toothache.
***
"Colonial Dentistry And George Washington's Teeth"
"Colonial Dentistry And George Washington's Teeth"
***
Conservatives are absolutely convinced that "everything of value" has already been accomplished (or revealed) and thus they look to "the past" for all that is good.
Liberals realize that "the past" was even more brutal than the present, and therefore -- imbued with the Christian virtue of Hope (starkly different from the abject and increasingly violent desperation of American "conservatism") -- look to "the future" to find remedies not yet imaginable.
***
George McGovern: "The case for liberalism: A defense of the future against the past"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/01/george-mcgovern-case-for-liberalism.html
***
"I am in my Father and my Father is in me. If you can’t believe that, believe what you see — these works. The person who trusts me will not only do what I’m doing but even greater things." The Gospel of John 14:12
"Even greater things."
Co-creative children of God -- open to inspiration and collaboration -- will work these greater wonders.
Christ’s Body
St. Symeon the New Theologian
We awaken in Christ’s body
as Christ awakens our bodies,
and my poor hand is Christ, He enters
my foot, and is infinitely me.
as Christ awakens our bodies,
and my poor hand is Christ, He enters
my foot, and is infinitely me.
I move my hand, and wonderfully
my hand becomes Christ, becomes all of Him
(for God is indivisibly
whole, seamless in His Godhood).
my hand becomes Christ, becomes all of Him
(for God is indivisibly
whole, seamless in His Godhood).
I move my foot, and at once
He appears like a flash of lightning.
Do my words seem blasphemous? — Then
open your heart to Him
He appears like a flash of lightning.
Do my words seem blasphemous? — Then
open your heart to Him
and let yourself receive the one
who is opening to you so deeply.
For if we genuinely love Him,
we wake up inside Christ’s body
who is opening to you so deeply.
For if we genuinely love Him,
we wake up inside Christ’s body
where all our body, all over,
every most hidden part of it,
is realized in joy as Him,
and He makes us, utterly, real,
every most hidden part of it,
is realized in joy as Him,
and He makes us, utterly, real,
and everything that is hurt, everything
that seemed to us dark, harsh, shameful,
maimed, ugly, irreparably
damaged, is in Him transformed
that seemed to us dark, harsh, shameful,
maimed, ugly, irreparably
damaged, is in Him transformed
and recognized as whole, as lovely,
and radiant in His light
he awakens as the Beloved
in every last part of our body.
and radiant in His light
he awakens as the Beloved
in every last part of our body.
St. Symeon the New Theologian, (949-1022)
Published in The Enlightened Heart: An Anthology of Sacred Poetry, edited by Stephen Mitchell.
St. Symeon's Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symeon_the_New_Theologian
Pax on both houses,
Alan
If I were to wager my eternal soul on the ideological merits of one particular pope, it would not be Paul IV; not only because he originated the social techniques that preceded and facilitated The Holocaust, but because -- once we set aside the "human traditions" of the church -- it can be convincingly argued that Yeshua's followers are known by this: "they love one another." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+13%3A35&version=MSG If "God is Love" and Yeshua the incarnation of that Love, I see no need for prissy, exclusionary rules that only preach to the choir: "Outside the Church nothing is healthy" (literaly "Outisde the church, nothing is healthy"). Jesuit Tom Weston suggests a plausible underpinning to this perceived need: 'You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do.'" Almost always, insistence on exclusivity arises from the haughty compulsion to exclude, to shun, to anathematize, to condemn... coupled with the conviction that "the provably righteous" can now relax in their self-satisfaction, confident that triumphalist damnation of others warrants their own salvation. Time out of mind, there has been no more dependable way to "feel good about oneself" than "kicking the dog." On the other hand, if Love is truly "the measure" -- and, on that foundation, the Church were to posit (incorporating Yeshua's own words) that there is "No Salvation unless we love our enemies," then the self-righteous would lose their self-justification and much that is wrong with the world would be righted. However, when papal formulae become the measure of salvation and we are seduced into believing that "laws, rules and verbal credos" are salvific, at that very moment we embark the high road to "perdition." (Arguments on grounds of "absolute authority" are intrinsically muddled. There are, for example, a number of enduringly conscionable questions: "Are not Yeshua's own words of higher authority than papal and conciliar pronouncements?" And... "If papal infallibility has only been exercised twice -- and conciliar pronouncements have been internally inconsistent as we can observe in the unfolding conciliar treatment of slavery - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery -- then why such self-certainty among many Catholics concerning the inerrant determination of Absolute Truth?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church It can also be argued that church councils have not been valid since the Protestant Reformation when Christianity suffered a schism that is still in need of dialectical resolution.)
The following translation of Luke 6 does a fine job distinguishing between "the lawyers" and "the lovers." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+6&version=TLB
Luke 11 provides further revelation: "Fools! Didn’t God make the inside as well as the outside? Purity is best demonstrated by generosity." (Alan: I have long considered "greed" the deadly sin most characteristic of American conservatives. But no longer... I now believe their pathognomonic sin is "wrath." Almost universally, American conservatives are wrathful people - vindictive, vengeful and violently punitive. They cannot even ape happiness unless they (or their political representatives) are beating someone into submission. Remarkably, American conservatives are oblivious to the moral peril of such behavior. Wrath does not appear on their moral compass. Conditioned by their concubinage with greed, conservatives do not consider wrath a bad thing, not even in theory. Rather, wrath -- especially "the wrath of their putatively loving God smiting the ungodly" -- is a virtue. A "virtue" at whose altar they first genuflect, then make the sign of the cross. Love? Mercy? Compassion? Forgiveness? Right.)
Matthew 15
1 Some Pharisees and other Jewish leaders now arrived from Jerusalem to interview Jesus. 2 “Why do your disciples disobey the ancient Jewish traditions?” they demanded. “For they ignore our ritual of ceremonial handwashing before they eat.” 3 He replied, “And why do your traditions violate the direct commandments of God? 4 For instance, God’s law is ‘Honor your father and mother; anyone who reviles his parents must die.’ 5-6 But you say, ‘Even if your parents are in need, you may give their support money to the church instead.’ And so, by your man-made rule, you nullify the direct command of God to honor and care for your parents. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, 8 ‘These people say they honor me, but their hearts are far away. 9 Their worship is worthless, for they teach their man-made laws instead of those from God.’” 10 Then Jesus called to the crowds and said, “Listen to what I say and try to understand: 11 You aren’t made unholy by eating non-kosher food! It is what you say and think that makes you unclean.”
***
Tzedakah: Judaism's Fusion of "Righteousness," "Justice" and "Charity"
***
Finally...
If, as Laura proposes, discrimination is again legalized, where would discrimination stop? How would it be possible -- by any respectable judicial principle -- to codify Law that would permit work-force discrimination while simultaneously preventing the restoration of apartheid, anti-miscegenation laws and re-establishment of Pope Paul's ghettos?
***
Why We Must Discriminate
Laura Wood, The Thinking Housewife
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/07/why-we-must-discriminate/
Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural devastation of femininity and motherhood. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind. In order to reverse this state of affairs, a profound change in attitudes and prevailing mores is necessary. It’s not a question of returning to a former time, such as the 1950’s or the Victorian era, but of returning, as Richard Weaver put it, to the center of things, to the essence of who we are.
Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural devastation of femininity and motherhood. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind. In order to reverse this state of affairs, a profound change in attitudes and prevailing mores is necessary. It’s not a question of returning to a former time, such as the 1950’s or the Victorian era, but of returning, as Richard Weaver put it, to the center of things, to the essence of who we are.
Attitudes are not all. We need ultimately to reverse existing laws and practices. First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.
It will take many years to recover the sensibility that sanctions a form of discrimination that was once common. It’s important to begin laying the groundwork. The essential foundation of change is a renewed understanding of ideas and practices that were once so basic and unspoken we did not feel the need to make them explicit or to defend them. Let’s begin this task together by clarifying the issue.
What is customary discrimination?
Customary discrimination, in relation to the sexes, is the voluntary and informal practice of favoring men over women in hiring. It is not encoded in law or enforced by regulation. It exists as a result of a common understanding that men must support families and cannot adequately do so if they compete with large numbers of women, a form of competition that lowers their wages and reduces their marketability. The relative stagnation of men’s wages in the last 50 years proves the point.
Why and when did customary discrimination end?
Customary discrimination came to an official end with the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made discrimination against women in hiring unlawful, and its subsequent enforcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. At the time the 1964 legislation was adopted, there was not widespread agitation for a change. The bill was the work of a relatively small minority. However, given the subsequent change in attitudes regarding sex roles, this radical experiment in social change was inevitable. It wasn’t dissatisfaction with home life so much as the novelty of the unknown and the romantic fantasies of the minority of feminists temperamentally unsuited to domesticity that convinced impressionable women to pour into the market for careers.
Businesses have profited from the end of discrimination as it opened up the pool of available labor and provided a check on wages.
Why would American businesses and government ever voluntarily return to a state of affairs that is not in their interest?
Though businesses profit from a larger labor pool, they also suffer costs due to more women working. Women, over the course of their careers, have higher absentee rates; are more easily distracted because of family duties and greater sociability; require expensive services such as day care; and file costly discrimination and harassment suits. Men are naturally more suited to competitive work and a collegial atmosphere. In many fields, the working environment would be more collaborative, focused, and placid due to smaller numbers of women, especially women who are unstable or unhappy due to the conflict between work and home.
Obviously, women would still be present in some numbers in all fields, especially at lower levels. With the removal of anti-discrimination laws and a renewed sensitivity toward the obligation of businesses to reinforce family life –similar to the awareness they now hold regarding the natural environment – the economy would gradually arrive at a smaller and reasonable number of women in the workforce.
Does a return to customary discrimination mean women never hold jobs?
No. Women even remain a majority in certain fields, such as education, low-level office work, psychology and nursing. These fields are suited to the interruptions of family life, to the years before marriage, and to the natural skills of women. Business and institutions would be as free to favor women as they were before, but would violate an unwritten code if they favored anything but exceptional women in lucrative fields.
Especially gifted and ambitious women, generally those who will not have families, will still be exceptions in all fields, as they were before the feminist era. There will still be women doctors, lawyers and professors, just far fewer of them. Ambitious women will not find it as easy to make their way as they do today.
America needs the labor of women. We cannot afford to go back in a global economy.
Competition in the world economy is not the first and most vital task of the American market. Given its size, the American economy has vast potential for serving itself and Americans alone. In any event, our economy requires a healthy, moral and educated workforce. It also requires a large number of consumers within its own borders. Consumers are born, and raised, not manufactured.
America cannot have this adequate workforce without healthy families. The dramatic increase in divorce, the decline in the health and literacy of children, the increase in unethical business practices are all directly related to the departure of women from their main function in the home. The dramatic drop in fertility is also a result of this loss of function. Fewer children mean fewer consumers. We face economic crisis because of an end to customary discrimination, not the other way around.
Doesn’t this mean poverty among women will increase as those who are divorced or single won’t be able to support themselves or their families?
Divorced women would still receive the support of their husbands. However, parallel changes in divorce law are necessary to make for less incentive for women to divorce. Women should generally face the loss of child custody and a serious decline in income if they initiate divorce, except in the event of proven malfeasance on the part of the husband. Single women will still be able to find jobs and receive help from fathers and extended family. Most of them will not be rich.
Why would women ever accept a return to discrimination?
The end of customary discrimination was never in the interests of women. It has forced the majority to help support their families while raising their children and managing a home. The experiment was tried. The apple was eaten. Women now see that careers come with personal costs and that many jobs are not as thrilling as feminists claim. They are ready to embrace discrimination again.
Won’t there be fierce competition among women for high-earning men? And, won’t women become obsessed with men’s careers?
There is competition for high-earning men now. They have always been desirable mates for some, not all, women. Most women will be able to find what they cannot find now: a man who can support them and their children in reasonable comfort for many years.
It’s true that when women are not focused on career, they focus more on the careers of their mates and prospective mates. In some, this focus becomes excessive and neurotic. Such is the price to pay for a return to sanity for many. Though they won’t be caught up in building their own careers, women will find much that is satisfying to absorb their minds and express their varied interests. The rewards of larger families, domestic crafts, volunteer work, artistic pursuits and vigilance toward the elderly will be rediscovered. Instead of being openly disparaged by our opinion-shaping institutions, these will be embraced and publicly celebrated.
Won’t American families always be tempted to increase their incomes, and thus their buying power, by sending wives out to work?
With a greater awareness that the short-term luxuries purchased with a second income come with long-term costs, this practice would decline. Also, prices would eventually return to a one-income standard. To arrive at this event, there would be an inevitable period of sacrifice, perhaps a lengthy one. Would men and women accept this burden? Americans have accepted and endorsed many changes in recent years to protect the natural environment, having realized the consequences of not protecting it would be catastrophic. The same change in awareness could occur regarding family life and the culture at large. People could come to admit what they already know: that a country and an entire culture are quickly decaying. If we continue as we are, it’s not a question of if but of when we will not possess the luxury of turning back.
- Discussion -
Mark P. writes:
This is an interesting article, but I disagree with the beginning: “Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural ruin of its women. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind.” The reality is that the cultural ruin of America was caused by women. Specifically, women’s political, sexual and financial freedom is largely responsible for the decline of the West and not some abstract “culture.”
We harp a lot on liberalism, but what is liberalism but female thinking unbounded? I finally understand what that famous author meant when he said that civilizations die by suicide. Every civilization at the peak of its power, prosperity and wealth, and in a moment of decadence, emancipates women and, in a few short decades or centuries, it collapses. Babylon did it. Sparta did it. Rome did it. Now America will do it.
The basic problem with cultural discrimination is that it requires a theory or theories about how the world works. To have theories about how the world works requires making generalizations that are tested by, and adjusted to, reality. Women are diametrically opposed to generalizations. Why? To avoid having the analytical power of the generalization applied to womens’ physical appearance or other characteristics.
What all women implicitly understand, but are loathe to admit, is that 90% of a woman’s value is embedded in her physical appearance. Men choose women largely on looks based on a sliding scale of what men want and what they can get. The problem for women is that physical appearance is not only determined at birth, but it has a limited shelf-life. Whatever advantages women derive from looks do not last.
Now, when women were married at 20 and, a short time later, busy with their own children and families, the impact of this knowledge was limited. Family life occupies its own sphere and kids suck the narcissism out of women. With women competing in the world with men, this worry about appearances blooms to a neurotic high. Women are never certain if their success is the result of “who they are” or how they look. Consequently, this neurosis permeates every sphere of life within which women operate.
This is how you get a female police officer telling an investigator in the Berkowitz case that “Jews and Italians date, too.” Or, Maureen Dowd’s permanent screams on why society no longer finds her attractive. Or, the articles about the new standards of (chocolate) beauty established by Michelle Obama.
Women are at war with themselves and their short-term, pragmatic, narcissistic neuroses have swallowed the Western world.
Laura writes:
Thank you for your interest.
You say, “The reality is that the cultural ruin of America was caused by women. Specifically, women’s political, sexual and financial freedom is largely responsible for the decline of the West and not some abstract ‘culture.’”
When I speak of women’s fall, I don’t mean a careless accident or an event imposed by others. I mean their moral downfall. I think my meaning was clear, or perhaps I assumed it was clear given the consistent argument put forth throughout this site. Women have freely chosen their own ruin and have caused an entire society’s decline. I agree that female thinking “unbounded” is catastrophic. My point that men must have economic primacy over women supports that view.
You say we cannot apply any form of working generalizations to the economy or society because women are incapable of generalizations. Women are less capable of generalizations than men, and are more wary of them. A society run by women is less capable of the abstractions needed to ensure its own survival. This is all the more reason why male thinking should assert itself in the economic sphere, which is my point in this article.
I do not agree that women shy from generalizations primarily for fear of their application to physical appearance. It’s a novel argument. Their general disinclination for abstraction lies more in biology and maternal solicitude. You say, “What all women implicitly understand, but are loathe to admit, is that 90% of a woman’s value is embedded in her physical appearance.” This is an overstatement which I hardly think you yourself believe. Perhaps for that portion of women seeking to be soap opera stars or to work as super models, 90 percent of their worth is in their appearance. Perhaps for that lonely segment of modern society that possess no family or friends or community ties, 90 percent of their worth is in their physical appearance. Perhaps for those young women currently seeking a mate, 90 percent of their worth is in their physical appearance when they are in the company of men for whom 90 percent of a woman’s worth is in her physical appearance. For women in general, I would say the figure ranges somewhere between 20 and 60 percent, depending on the particular circumstances in which she lives. Most women possess a network of social ties that shows considerable attention to their appearance, but sees more.
I doubt we will agree on the nature of female psychology. I do agree with you, however, that whatever neuroses women have about their relative appearance is exacerbated in a world where their entire value – arguably 90 percent of their value – is linked to their economic performance. I agree with you that “women are at war with themselves.” They are on the verge of schizophrenia. The attempt to be both man and woman at once is a psychological calamity. It’s an experiment women have chosen and men have supported.
I’m not sure you have addressed my main point, that customary discrimination can and should be restored. You seem to be saying it can’t be restored because women and their neuroses already dominate society. Men are passive victims, and it is too late. Do you really think we shouldn’t even try?
Karen Wilson writes:
I enjoyed reading your posting but I think the failure of Western family life has deeper roots than the feminist movement and financial independence of women and a return to discrimination in favour of men in the work place will not change that. In fact it may exacerbate it. I have had a career in Medicine and have worked with many Asian and Arab physicians and lived in Asia. Comparing the West with the East, I would say that the cause of the collapse of family life in Western society is a consequence of marriage losing its traditional role as the foundation of society and the means of preservation and transmission of its culture, tradition, values and beliefs. Western marriage has become essentially a civil partnership based on mutual attraction. Founded on such flimsy roots, it soon runs into trouble.
In the East, marriage is a serious business with considerable care taken over the selection of life partners. The union is not just one of a couple but one of 2 families who must be of the same ethnic, religious and socioeconomic standing. Likewise the partners must share the same criteria and same educational and social level. Thus a sound foundation for the marriage is established and the pool of potential partners defined. The idea of people marrying someone of a different ethnic group or social class on the basis of “falling in love ” is unthinkable and strongly discouraged as it is believed that such a marriage would be built on unsound foundations and eventually fail. In the West by contrast, little consideration is given to the selection of a life partner and people marry on the basis of mutual attraction which is often fleeting and superficial. Thus many Western marriages are doomed from the start and when tensions emerge, they easily fracture. As the social and religious backgrounds of many Western marriage partners is different, there is little family support for the failed marriage.
In short, the state of Western marriage is more akin to homosexual civil partnerships than to traditional marriage. Superficial unions entered into for superficial reasons. You mentioned the fact of women competing for high earning men in Western society. This is illustrative of the superficial basis of Western marriage. A union founded on eonomic consideration only without regard for social, educational,religious and ethnic compatibility. Marriage is about committment and compatibity and should not be based on competition. The majority of women are unsuited to be the wives of high earning men as they lack the social and educational background. They should be discouraged from seeking such unions and focus on building relationships with men of their own level with whom they can build solid marriages and families. The idea in Western society that anyone can have anything they want regardless of their own personal qualities (and ability to pay) has been one of the major causes of its destruction and the instability in marriage.
In Asian families, most high earning and highly educated men are married to similar women (indeed the idea of an Indian doctor not marrying a women doctor or similar professional is socially unacceptable) and these marriages are very successful with low rates of divorce and marital disharmony. Their children also demonstrate higher academic success than Western children. There is a high degree of committment to family values, educational excellence and financial success. This is still achieved with Asian wives working in demanding professional jobs. Asian families expect women to be highly educated and have careers and it has not disrupted their family life or resulted in a reduction in births. The problem of family breakdown and falling birth rates is almost exclusively a Western one and and is caused by a lack of committment to family life.
The divorce rate among university graduates is the lowest in society. Most divorce is initiated by women who don’t work. For example the divorce rate among doctors who marry other doctors or professionals is low, most marriages are a personal and professional success. On the other hand, the divorce rate among doctors who marry nurses and less qualified women is high as is the rate of marital dysharmony and dysfunctional offspring. Thus the marriage of people who are not socially and educationally compatible leads to social and financial decline for many men. This is a situation which our Asian colleagues very successfully avoid.
I think the solution for Western family life is a return to the traditional view of marriage as a foundation of society with the preservation of traditional values and perhaps the start of arranged marriages? (They were common in France until the early 20th century).
Just noted another comment “They are on the verge of schizophrenia. The attempt to be both man and woman at once is a psychological calamity. It’s an experiment women have chosen and men have supported. “
Why is this happening with Western women whilst women in other parts of the world are coping very well with careers, marriage and families? Benazir Bhutto was beautiful, educated and had a career without developing a psychogical calamity.Likewise many women all over Asia are doing so. In Asian countries women are encouraged to be highly educated and have successful careers and it enhances their marriage prospects. Likewise with Asian women in America and Europe. They are surpassing their white western colleagues. If this is an experiment, they are certianly doing it very well.
Laura writes:
Thanks for your comments.
I agree with your point that Western society is suffering from a marriage crisis and would benefit from some of the pragmatism of the East. But, arranged marriages violate the Western tradition. The guidance of the older generation does not. Parents and relatives are mostly cheering bystanders today. It would be nice if they’d help more with the mating free-for-all.
The dual-income model adopted by Asian families has indeed had an effect on their birth rate and traditions. There are many Asian families in this country. Most are dual-earning couples and few have more than two children. The absence of traditional mothers and the preoccupations of professional women have led to an obsessive careerism in their children. Education is a relentless series of hurdles to overcome with little joy in learning and a contempt for the Western humanities, which are considered pointless and decadent. Many of the children excel in music and are excellent students, but they represent a culture which will never be ours. They have little or no religious acculturation and the boys spend all their spare time with electronic games. These families do divorce far less frequently than American families. I’m not sure that’s the influence of tradition or simply the higher intelligence of the women. Asian women may be capable of grasping the abstract, long-term rewards of marriage in a way Western women are not. Nevertheless, the divorce rate has increased significantly among Asian women as well.
You say, “Benazir Bhutto was beautiful, educated and had a career without developing a psychogical calamity.Likewise many women all over Asia are doing so.” Many women in the West have managed to have successful careers and family lives. It does not create psychological calamity in all and in many it creates only a hidden psychological calamity. In other words, often all appears well from the outside. Things are smooth and the woman beautiful and collected. But, domestic unhappiness or chaos lurks in the background. Nevertheless, my interest is not in individuals, but on society at large. Radical individualism in the West comes with widespread divorce, neglect of children, falling birth rates, and a decline in civility at all levels of life. It would be nice if we could say, “Let those who can have careers and healthy families do it. Let those who can’t, stay home.” Unfortunately, civilization doesn’t work that way. Young people make decisions about their family lives when they know nothing about family. They are guided by working models. Society flourishes on notions of duty and sacrifice that are radically opposed to feminist self-fulfillment. Look at Russia, and its catastrophically low birth rate, and one can see the effects of the separation of women from a feminine ethic. Regardless of whether Asian society can sustain long-term feminism, and I doubt that it can, Western society clearly cannot. The evidence is already in.
Steven Warshawsky writes:
I am sympathetic to the concerns driving Laura Wood’s discussion of how to re-orient the economy towards a male-dominated workforce. Yet upon inspection, her argument utterly fails as a piece of economic and political analysis. Significantly, she offers no theoretical or empirical support for her many assertions about the role of women in the economy, and in the end offers no persuasive reasons why American voters should support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which apparently she supports.
The major premise of her argument appears to be that allowing women to enter the workforce in large numbers increases competition in the labor market thereby reducing men’s wages, which she asserts have experienced “relative stagnation” over the past 50 years. This is much too broad an assertion to be accepted at face value. Yes, there is empirical research showing that immigration has reduced the wages of younger and lower-skilled workers in America. There may be some industries where the entry of women has had a similar effect on men’s wages. Which? But the notion that men as a group have experienced “relative stagnation” compared to women is far-fetched. The last 50 years in this country have witnessed an explosion in the average man’s (and woman’s) standard of living, i.e., his (and her) productivity and purchasing power have increased enormously. What stagnation is Ms. Wood referring to? She is projecting her ideological assumptions onto the economy, without any evidence to support her position.
The next major premise of her argument appears to be that, if women are excluded from the labor market, the remaining jobs will pay a sufficiently higher wage to enable men to support their wives and children “in reasonable comfort for many years.” Again, she offers no empirical evidence for this dubious position. Wage rates are influenced by the supply and demand of workers, of course, but they are primarily determined by the value of the output that workers produce. Take a married couple where both the man and woman work, e.g., the man is a lawyer and the woman is a teacher (one of the professions that Ms. Wood assumes will continue to be dominated by women). Will the man’s productivity and income increase if the wife stops working? And will that increase, if any, be greater than the loss of income caused by the wife’s unemployment? Highly unlikely. If this were true, there would be many more one-income families in the country.
It is unclear if Ms. Wood recognizes that excluding large numbers of women from the economy will result in significantly less economic growth and material prosperity. Perhaps this is a trade-off she is willing to make. But, if so, she has neither acknowledged the scope of the economic harm her proffered policy would entail, nor has she identified the concrete benefits that supposedly outweigh these harms. My own view is that she too quickly dismisses the economic value, and need, of having two incomes in a family. It is not merely a question of being able to afford “short-term luxuries.” For example, what if two incomes are needed to be able to afford to live in a safer neighborhood or send a child to a better school? Should only the very top earners – who can afford these kind of advantages on a single income – be allowed to enjoy their benefits? Why?
Perhaps most importantly, Ms. Wood has not explained why individual workers and businesses should not be free to make their own decisions and trade-offs in this area. Even if Ms. Wood believes that employment laws have tilted the playing field in favor of women (an argument that, while plausible, requires elucidation), I think it is fair to say that, even on a level playing field, women will continue to play a major role in the economy (especially in the cognitive professions like medicine and law, where physical strength is not necessary). Few businesses will engage in “voluntary and informal” discrimination against women to the extent Ms. Wood envisions. Rational employers will continue to hire women in large numbers. Which suggests that Ms. Wood’s preferred economic arrangements will never occur under a regime of individual liberty. Does she therefore support a statist solution to the problems she highlights?
Laura writes:
Excellent points. Mr. Warshawsky asserts my argument is based on wild economic assumptions. For the sake of brevity, I omitted some of the economic facts. He presumes I am unfamiliar with them. I was not writing a full-blown treatise, but stating an argument succinctly.
Women have been far and away the primary beneficiaries of any gains in real wages over the last 25 years. From 1979 to 2006, real wages of men declined by two percent, while they increased by 24 percent for women. (See chart on median incomes here.) The differences are the most dramatic at lower income levels, with male high school graduates experiencing drops of 15 percent and comparable women’s wages rising by four percent. Wages for college graduates rose by 17 percent for men and 32 percent for women, as women became more numerous in higher paying jobs. Economists dispute how much the stagnation of male wages at the lower end has influenced – and been influenced by – employment gains by women.
Mr. Warshawsky commits a common fallacy of fiscal conservatives. If the economy is free, society is sustained. But, no economy is free of cultural assumptions. These guide individual choice. The cultural assumption that women’s labor is not needed in the home or for child-rearing or to mantain the birth rate has affected the economy. The large numbers of dual-earner families have led to a spike in the costs of basics, such as housing and education. Under the influence of prevailing cultural assumptions, community has changed to the extent that many parents now put their children in almost constant paid activity when they are not in school. They have no choice. A way of life that was once supported by non-working women has vanished and thus families are no longer free to choose an inexpensive way. Women are forced to work. The careerism of women has certainly led to increased taxes, as we pay for more social programs that provide what was once offered by families and as we continually increase the expense of education to meet parents’ babysitting needs. The freedom Mr. Warshawsky envisions does not exist. Women who are careerist are free, but those who wish to support their families in non-economic ways or to have larger families are hampered by the changed economy at large.
Mr. Warshawsky asks why businesses would voluntarily change their practices. As I said, there are some economic incentives to employing fewer women. Businesses currently shoulder the expense of filling gaps while women are on maternity leave and are taking care of family interruptions.They also often lose women whom they have spent years training to motherhood. Many employees conduct personal business on the job that was formerly taken care of in the home. Think of the taxes that go to support day care and ballooning education. Furthermore, in the years ahead, there will be more awareness of the effects on the economy of the lower birth rate, particularly among educated women. An economy is also supported by the sheer number of productive citizens it has. Obviously, businesses don’t think that long-term. It’s not worth their while to encourage fecundity. But, the larger culture presumably does have some ability to think in the long-term. Business generally respond to the attitudes towards women’s work at large. If fewer women offered themselves for committed career, obviously business if they were free to discriminate would respond in focusing more on men.
Mr. Warshawsky says: “My own view is that she too quickly dismisses the economic value, and need, of having two incomes in a family. [empasis added] It is not merely a question of being able to afford “short-term luxuries.” For example, what if two incomes are needed to be able to afford to live in a safer neighborhood or send a child to a better school? Should only the very top earners – who can afford these kind of advantages on a single income – be allowed to enjoy their benefits? Why?”
Surely, Mr. Warshawsky agrees economic ‘need,’ once food, shelter and medical care are provided, is a subjective phenomenon, a thing greatly influenced by cultural standards. Given the freedom for women to work and the eagerness of employers to benefit from both a larger work pool and the compliant work style of women, what is to stop cultural definitions of need from being continually re-defined to adjust to the reality of working women? Further, whether women work or do not work, there will never be equity in purchasing power or living conditions. The most important thing here is that those changed standards in recent years have had a particularly egregious effect on the middle and working classes. The doctor/lawyer couple can afford to smooth over the edges of a dual-income life with nannies and paid services. The middle class family comes home at the end of the day to cold pizza and kids unraveled by ten hours in day care. Many of these families end up in divorce court. Mr. Warshawsky is utterly blithe about their welfare and apparently does not see the effects of the absence of parental care on our everyday culture. He has not noticed the increase in unruly children, the greater obesity in children and adults, the decline in manners and overall civility, and the ever-pervasive loss of literacy, reflection and thoughtful civic participation. All is well as the engine of economic prosperity churns forward. At what point, I ask, does the economy itself come to a screeching halt? At what point is it turned into a swamp overseen by the lucky few on the shores, like a river overloaded with industrial pollutants?
My point is that all of this has changed - our economy and our culture - because of ideas and values. These are the ideas and values embraced by the minority of individuals who lead and who shape public opinion. A minority disdainful of family and of community embraced liberalism and feminism, bringing an entire culture under its sway. They brought ruin onto the less fortunate. I would say they brought ruin onto themselves as well. I see a precipitous decline in family happiness at all levels of society. An economy supports more than material needs. It both determines and expresses a way of life.
Rose writes:
I enjoyed your wonderfully revolutionary post, but I believe that ultimately you fall into the same trap as many conservatives who believe that only ideas drive culture without adequately acknowledging changing technological circumstances. We must always keep in mind that the triumph of feminism is also a result of the twentieth century removal of the body from work. Prof. Kenneth Minogue is another anti-feminist piece who explores this issue. In Why Civilizations Fail, Minogue quote’s Diana Schaub’s essay On the Character of Generation X:
“[Betty] Friedan was right that the malaise these privileged women were experiencing was a result of ‘a slow death of the mind and spirit.’ But she was wrong in saying that the problem had no name — its name was boredom. Feminism was born of boredom, not oppression. And what was the solution to this quandary? Feminists clamored to become wage-slaves; they resolutely fled the challenge of leisure.”
He himself goes on to say,
“In earlier centuries, the project of getting women into the labor force would have been visionary, partly no doubt because no one thought in terms of a labor force. For one thing, women were necessary to keep the home fires burning. In any case, the world of work outside the hearth was hardly inviting. Ploughing the land required relentless physical input beyond the strength of most women; nor were they keen to exercise the broadsword…In the modern world, however, getting women out of the home and into work was not at all visionary, since the thing called ‘work’ was now largely done in centrally heated offices in front of a computer. In the push-button world men had created, physical strength was hardly ever needed, especially in the more attractive jobs. Work had been the curse of Adam, parallel with childbirth as the curse of Eve, but work now turned out to be a rather agreeable shuffling of symbols in an office full of friendship and event.”
The importance of sex differences becomes ever less important in a society coddled by its own technology. It requires vigilance on the part of moderns to maintain something that to earlier generations was simply the natural outgrowth of their material situation.
Laura writes:
Technology has made it easier for women to separate themselves from family. Feminism would never triumph in agrarian societies in the same way. But, modern society isn’t unique in facing threats to family and to social stability. Ancient Greece and Rome were enervated by lowered birth rates and a decline in family life. Slavery separated aristocratic women from children and moral decadence weakened marriage. The human race has maintained an ongoing battle against order, civility and prosperity. I don’t think these things are ever, as you say, ”the natural outgrowth of their material situation,” but certaily modern society and technology present unique challenges and have facilitated feminism.
While sex differences are less important in the modern workplace than they were on the farm or in the medieval village, there is one major factor that has remained unchanged and offsets this loss of significance to sex differences elsewhere. That is the universal need of children for stable family life. Given the sophistication of society and the large demands placed by higher level work on mental acuity and psychological stability, this need is arguably greater than ever. While a child who had a haphazard childhood in former times may have been able to function well tilling a field or welding iron, he cannot function well in a world that demands intiative, concentration and higher literacy. The absence of parents from the home and the raising of children by institutions does not satisfy the basic needs of children in an advanced society. Again, this works out better for children of the wealthy, who can be provided with individual care, if not the care of their parents, and with schools which lavish them with attention, albeit the attention of strangers. They too, however, experience high levels of divorce in a world that denigrates sex differences and this indisputably affects their psychological welfare, as numerous studies have shown, and influences the entire tenor of society.
Karen writes, replying to Laura’s earlier comments:
Thanks for your reply. Just a few points – arranged marriages don’t violate Western tradition. They were the norm in France until the twentieth century and in other parts of Europe too. They are still common with Orthodox Jews. In Catholic Europe there is still significant family influence over marriage partners.
The dual income model has not signifantly impacted Asian family tradition. High caste families always had smaller families and many Asian families have more than 2 children. On average they have a larger family size than whites. Among many Asians especially Muslims, 4- 6 children is quite common. Asian children do study hard and value education and they are achieving more than whites. Obsessive careerism is preferable to the lack of it common to whites. Many whites are studying useless degrees (Black studies, Media Studies etc) and regard university time as entertainment rather than personal development. The Asian children generally have more religion in their families than whites do. Adherence to Islam, Hinduism or Christianity is usual and more common than in white families. Asians can never be Western people but they are well on the way to superseding Western people both in the USA and UK and in the global economy at large. Many white children spend all their time with electronic games and are indeed less well socialised than many Asian children. Divorce rates among professional Asians are very low and people weather the storms of marriage better because they have stronger cultural ties than just mutual attraction.
“It does not create psychological calamity in all and in many it creates only a hidden psychological calamity. In other words, often all appears well from the outside. Things are smooth and the woman beautiful and collected. But, domestic unhappiness or chaos lurks in the background” This is untrue. Most psychopathology and emotional distress is seen is non working women. It is very rare indeed to see any form of psychological calamity in women who have professional careers.
Radical individualism in the West comes with widespread divorce, neglect of children, falling birth rates, and a decline in civility at all levels of life. It would be nice if we could say, “Let those who can have careers and healthy families do it. Let those who can’t, stay home.” Unfortunately, civilization doesn’t work that way. Young people make decisions about their family lives when they know nothing about family. They are guided by working models. Society flourishes on notions of duty and sacrifice that are radically opposed to feminist self-fulfillment. Look at Russia, and its catastrophically low birth rate, and one can see the effects of the separation of women from a feminine ethic. Regardless of whether Asian society can sustain long-term feminism, and I doubt that it can, Western society clearly cannot. The evidence is already in.
The cause of widespread divorce is due to liberalism and inappropriate choice of partner. Its solution is in a return to traditional marriage and refutation of liberalism. Russia’s low birth rate is not due to feminism. Women can combine a feminine ethic with careers and family life. Asian society is coping very well and will indeed sustain itself. All the evidence shows that Asia is set to overtake the West and and Asian families within the West will dominate the West. Their family tradition provides a stronger framework for success on an individual and societal level and has emerged clearly as superior to the Western model.
Laura writes:
First, I agree with Karen’s point about the decadence of Western childhood and the shabbiness of educational standards. But, Karen seems to say this is not influenced by women in the workforce. In other words, the upbringing of children has been unaffected by the absence of mothers from the home. Children who are raised in institutions or in empty homes with only computers for company face conditions that are as wholesome and conducive to their welfare as children who once returned to neighborhoods where they could play and congregate with other chidren under the watchful eye of mothers. Children who spend their formative years in public schools from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., as the offspring of working parents in my area do, are no different in their potential than children who spend time in their actual homes.
Karen says Asian families are unaffected by feminism. Here’s one blogger who disagrees. I have to ask Karen this, “Do you believe that infancy and early childhood spent in day care centers is harmful to children?” Regardless of what the absence of mothers means to Asian families, who may because of the relatively short span of feminism over the course of the generations still have extended family members who can care for children, in Western society it necessitates day care for all but the wealthy and the lucky few who live near non-working family.If Karen believes the effects of day care are negligible, I recommend the studies of Jay Belsky (link will be provided) which showed that day care causes increased aggression, learning problems and family instability.
While Western society does have a tradition of arranged marriage, it seems unlikely to be reborn any time soon. In Western society, arranged marriages occurred in the context of female pre-marital chastity and a way of life that kept unmarried women in the homes of parents. In any event, the notion of arranged marriages is foreign to Western societies today. Too high a value is placed on individual love, and I think that strongly distinguishes Westerners from Asians, who altogether place a higher value on conformity and collectivity.
Karen and I disagree on a remedy for the decline of marriage. The psychological atmosphere of sexual egalitarianism is destructive of Western marriage, which is heavily dependent on the amity and spirit of cooperation between husband and wife. Career women, understandably so, are more fixed on their own needs and unable to spare the energy to maintain this spirit which is the natural province of women. Feminism has turned marriage into a battleground. Daily life with children becomes a series of tedious and draining negotiations between competing demands. Nothing occurs naturally. Sex falters and the number of children declines.
No comments:
Post a Comment