Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, March 30, 2009 2:38:14 PM
My discussion with "denelian" continues after she left comments on this previous posting. Everyone should feel welcome to post as many comments as needed here on my blog, as long as they meet with Townhall.com’s rules. It is their dime, after all. They do limit the length of comments, so making multiple entries is not out of line.
I do believe that there are some gender roles that are typical - some of which are "mandatory" and some of which aren't. Certainly for some couples with children, it is preferable that the wife keeps a career and the husband stays home. That is negotiable, though not as common as the reverse. But a man can be a father, not a mother, and a woman can be a mother, not a father.
I do believe that the state should treat individuals equally, and I do not think that a man is inherently superior - or inferior - to a woman. But men and woman are not interchangeable and it is impossible to achieve complete legal and social equality in a sense of identical treatment. For example - a man's choice about whether or not to be responsible for a child ends the moment sperm leaves his body, but a woman has many legal options after that point - regardless of what the man wants. There is no escaping the fact that woman naturally have ovaries and a uterus and mammary glands and a different center of gravity than men, who have different plumbing. Men and women literally tend to think differently. Women can perpetrate paternity fraud, while men can't perpetrate maternity fraud. No man ever gets impregnated by a rapist. A man can get killed and his child will still be born nine months later. Not true for women, unless we're talking about a donated egg or embryo. Men tend to die younger. More men are incarcerated. Women attend to outnumber men on the college campus. On average, men are taller and physically stronger.
Motherhood is not a woman's only real gift. I do believe a woman can lead a full life and contribute much to society without ever being a mother. Same with men and fatherhood. The notion that a man has to be married to be settled down is not something I embrace.
in the case of widows/widowers, is the parent left "bad" for not immediately getting remarried?
Actually, these days, they probably shouldn't remarry until their minor children are grown. While it would be great for the children to have both parents, one of the problems with divorced or never-married parents dating also applies here – the child has lost one parent and needs more attention from their remaining parent. That child does not need to be exposed to "possible" stepparents coming into and out of their life at their parent's will. Such a situation increases the risk that the child will be abused. Throw in new step and half-siblings, and things can get very rough for the child. I know this talk is heresy these days, as everything is supposed to take a back seat to the sexual desires of adults, but I dont think it is right for the child.
While they usually don’t have the same situation as someone who has divorced, if someone is left a widow or widower because they picked someone prone to taking needless (and fatal) risks or engaging in needlessly risky behavior, or someone who was fatally depressed, they are likely to keep picking someone like that until they realize what they are doing and why, and how not to do it again. In other words, if someone is a widow because some idiot drunk driver killed her husband by crashing into him, that's a little different from a woman being a widow because she married a coke addict who snorted himself to death. Ideally, the family should move close to an aunt/uncle or grandparent household so that the children can have more family around.
in the case of abusive parents, is the non-abusive parent "bad" for taking the child away from the abusive parent?
Certainly not. They are obligated to protect their children. We also have an obligation not to make (more) children with an abusive spouse.
in the case of natural, if "being gay" is so unnatural, why is it that 3%, at a minimum, of any significant mammilian population will be gay?
I didn't say "being gay" is unnatural. I said in human beings, homosexual behavior is harmful and immoral.
in the case of the thousands of children who need good homes *NOW*, what do you think about states that have, or are trying to create, laws that prohibit anyone but married people from adopting those kids?
I disagree with laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples. However, that position is different from saying that unmarrieds or same-sex couples should have the exact same access to adopting as a married (bride-groom) couple. Married (bride-groom) couples should be given preference, all other things being equal.
Birth mothers are to be commended for giving their child up for adoption rather than keeping the child in a bad home, or killing their child. It would have better not to conceive a child at all if not prepared to provide that child with a good married home, but once that train has left the station adoption can be best for the child. And yes, birth mothers should be helped to move on. I don’t think it is the government’s place to do that, though.
in the case of SAHMs, how many do you *really* know? and by that i mean, how many would have agreed to be a SAHM and give up their careers if they had had another choice?
I know some. Too many people have bought into the falsehood that both parents need to work outside the home. The government doesn't discourage this, because it provides income tax money and labor. But when you factor in things like the higher taxes, wardrobe, transportation, child care, etc., sometimes that second income is nearly spent on costs that wouldn't be there without the commitments needed to obtain the second income.
Before I had children of my own, only a few years ago, I had female coworkers of mine – some of them "progressives", mind you – who expressed disappointment in another woman in the office because she wasn’t staying home with her daughter. We all knew her husband was earning enough. I just shut up and let them talk, interested in their reasoning. Since I have become a father, I've had female coworkers ask me what my wife does. When I tell them the story, they express excitement and admiration for my wife. Now, I understand that they are not likely to badmouth my wife in front of me, but they could have just as easily have said, "Oh, you poor thing – having to take on all of the earning burden." Instead, they go on and on about how lucky my children are to have their mother.
European countries manage to have many, many mothers stay in the workforce, and those women don't lose their seniority, their place on the career ladder, just because they choose motherhood. what will you, personally, do about that particular injustice?
What injustice? People make choices in life. Do you really think I haven't made sacrifices, including professional, as a father? My advice to any man aiming high professionally is to hold off on marriage and family until he is clearly on track to reaching his goal. In today's professional world, for many careers, men (and women) need to be able to relocate, work long hours and extra days, and engage in "social" activities (lunches, happy hours) that are really opportunities for professional bonding and networking. Who wants to be married to someone who is never around?
in the case of a gay person who managed to make a child in the "natural" way, how do you feel about this?
If someone is not passionate about someone of the opposite sex and building a life with them, they shouldn't conceive children with them. Once they have, they have an obligation to raise that child within a marriage.
a lesbian is raped. or steels herself for something she thinks is horrible for the reward of a child (an exercise that appears to have been common a century ago, if the autobiographys can be believed). in either case, she and her female partner raise the child. is that *bad*?
If someone is raped, as with any other circumstance, it is up to her whether she raises the child or not. Giving a child up for adoption isn't easy, but it can be the right thing to do. It is bad to treat children like rewards, prizes, pets, or whatever.
do you know how MANY Native tribes actively encouraged gay couples (not called "gay" at the time, of course, but generally something that translates as "two souled") so that there would always be a family to take in orphans?
Granting that this was the case, it is irrelevant to this discussion, unless you want to talk about what kind of culture is more likely to survive than another.
would you *really* have given up all your years of hard work, to take a 5 or so year "break" from your career, knowing that when you do try and go back to work every potential employer is going to look at that gap and wonder if you are reliable?
Yes, to raise my kids I would have. Heck, I gave up the autonomy of living alone in large part because I wanted to raise kids in the best environment possible. Giving up my career would seem a minor change compared to giving up living as an unmarried man. And whatever my wife would be earning would be half mine. More, if we had made a pre-nup to that effect. I enjoy my career, but nothing compares to raising my own child. We have a division of labor. My earnings are not just my own – they are ours.
because that is what you are saying *all* mothers should do.
Yes, unless they want their husbands to be the ones at home instead, or unless they want to work in shifts different than their husbands. Otherwise, don't bother to have kids. Why bother to have kids if you don't want to raise them?
women are socialized to think what we want isn't as important as what men want.
To what country in which century are you referring? Certainly not present-day America, unless you are talking a handful of religious subcultures. The workplace, academia, most mainstream media – all are arranged towards the sensitivities and wants of women. Same with the social climate. Whether or not what a man says is okay or is wrong (or even actionable) depends on whether the woman hearing it likes it or not. Men are socialized to protect, sacrifice for, and earn for women. Heck, we've even supposed to pay for the food, drink, and entertainment of women we don't even know – even though they can earn their own money. Women file for divorce far more often than men.
In general, people, regardless of gender, who know what they want are usually given deference. So if a woman is married to a man who knows what he wants and she isn't sure what she wants, yes, she is expected to go with what he wants. As much as some feminists hate to hear it, some women prefer a man that takes charge. That is the kind of man they choose. My wife and I make decisions together, because she knows what she wants.
And spouses should be focusing on the needs and wants of each other, and that works out pretty well, as long as neither spouse has a personality disorder. I wouldn't recommend marrying someone with a personality disorder.
The problem is, people - especially women, have been told they can and should have it all and do it all well. They can be the good mother, the successful career woman, and the good wife while married to a guy who is a successful career man and a good father and a good husband - or not married at all. That never really works, and it is frustrating to people who believe it is possible and try to do it. The kids need someone there for them. The spouses need each other, not some tired lump that happens to share the same bedroom.
I'm not advocating that women lose their choices, but they must make choices, just as men should make choices.
We are probably not so far apart as you may think. I believe men and women should both be responsible for their own choices, and I do believe that both mother and fathers are important to children and not interchangeable.