Family values
Brian Whitaker on ‘family values’.
I always find it strange that when President Bush talks about spreading freedom in the Middle East he automatically focuses on authoritarian regimes…Yes, the regimes are a problem but families are the most basic unit of government in the region; at a day-to-day level, they are also the main instrument of tyranny and the biggest obstacle to personal liberty. I have lost count of the times I have sat in cafes – in Cairo, Beirut, Damascus and similar places – listening to complaints about the suffocating influence, not of the government, but of fathers, uncles, brothers and cousins.
Whitaker notes that Bush skips lightly over authoritarian regimes that are US-friendly, though he doesn’t actually spell out the words S-a-u-d-i A-r-a-b-i-a. But anyway, too right about families (not that Bush would ever say so, of course, being a family values kind of guy, as well he might be, since without family connections he would be the affable local drunk, not the most powerful man in the world). Families are indeed the bedrock sources of tyranny and obstacles to freedom, especially (obviously) for women. In many ways, blocking the freedom of women is what families are for.
The MCB condemned ‘honour’ killing in 2003. It said a couple of, um, interesting things in the process though.
In various countries throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East and parts of South Asia, women who bring dishonor to their families because of sexual indiscretions are forced to pay a terrible price at the hands of male family members.
Note the assumption that women do in fact bring dishonor to their families because of sexual indiscretions; note the assumption that what women do sexually is their families’ business – without any stipulation or limit, so that it applies not just to married women but to all women, so that it could include adult single women living on their own. Note the assumption that, like Islam, a family is something you’re not allowed to opt out of or leave or even be slightly independent of; note the assumption that women belong to their families and that what they do ‘brings’ things to their families. Note the claustrophobia, note the complete absence of freedom and autonomy, note the prison bars.
Islam is clear on its prohibition of sexual relationships outside of marriage. This prohibition does not distinguish between men and women…In order for a case to even be brought before a Muslim court, several strict criteria must be met. The most important is that any accusation of illicit sexual behavior must have been seen by four witnesses; and they must have been witness to the act of sexual intercourse itself.
And that applies to rape too – which of course means that women bound by these laws can’t ever prosecute a rapist. (What rapist would be insane enough ever to allow the number of spectators to swell to four?! They never ever invite more than three people to watch; if one brings along a buddy from work, no use, he can’t stay, no matter how hard he begs.) That’s not such a ‘progressive’ or compassionate rule as the MCB makes it sound.
Don’t forget that perhaps half to three quarters of these honor killings may be fathers and brothers covering up their own rape of a daughter or sister.
OB,
did you seriously expect any better from the MCB???
surely not…
The sexual affairs of priests in the US are more closely guarded secrets than the classified details of our national defense. Crime and Immorality in the Catholic Church, by Emmett McGloughlin (former Franciscan). “The crowd you will see on any Saturday night in a Catholic Church awaiting their turn to confess is enough to make you despair of modern intelligence in the mass. Remember that I was once a father confessor. They just reel off mechanically a list of lies, quarrels, thefts, drinking, etc. and in almost every case a few points about sex. And for every woman or girl who sincerely wants guidance there are fifty who just love the intimate talk about sex that is permitted with the priest in the confessional. That it promotes morals and reduces crime is bunk. The one object of it is to consolidate the power of the priest over the laity.”
The Holy Faith Of Romanists, by Joseph McCabe, historian and former Franciscan monk.
We are told that confession is a Sacrament. Well, I never! What about priestly values then? Are all men the same? Or what?
Or am I just – simply naive in asking the question?
“Families are indeed the bedrock sources of tyranny and obstacles to freedom, especially (obviously) for women. In many ways, blocking the freedom of women is what families are for.”
As the old saying goes: patriarchy begins at home.
“As the old saying goes: patriarchy begins at home”
Sharif Kanaana, professor of anthropology at Birzeit University states that honour killing is:
A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power.
Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men?
This is what it is all about – in a nutshell. Female culling!
You bet. That’s what all of this is about – it’s about ensuring that men aren’t tricked into raising offspring that aren’t theirs.
“…blocking the freedom of women is what families are for.”
Really? You mean I have been working all these years not to provide for my children but to oppress my wife? I knew there had to be a reason I was working the hours. That’s why I married her in the first place of course, to oppress her. And my dad before me who looked after my ill mother?
Well, it’s a wicked invention, this family thing, that’s all I can say. And patriarchy? Do me a favour. Apart from comfortable midle class and professional families, where is this patriarchy? Most men in my father’s family and of his class worked six days a week and handed over the cash to their wives when it came in. Then they spent what was left down the pub where their lost youth still sat wondering what had happened to them. Those who didn’t were the bad guys. They spent the family money on drink.
But then most didn’t. And it wasn’t my mother who chose the house, the decor, or made the major practical decisions? It just seemed that she made all the decisions about our environment, Obviously my father gave way in these matters just to oppress her in ever more subtle ways. Because she too worked out of the home as long as she could. And if she was at home she would have been working in the home – as she did when she was older.
Nor were my parents in any way unusual. Quite representative. Her will generally ran the show. That too I think is a reasonable bet in some 50% of cases.
But then the answer is simple. Separate development. No partnerships, no children. Or if one must have children let them be born out of test-tubes.
“Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men?”
Yes, and guess who was in the factory, 7am-7pm. I don’t think my dad gave two hoots about patrilinear power,
But I guess you are going to tell me different, right?
There is of course a patriarchy, just as there is a matriarchy, but the ones who talk most about either are and always have been pretty comfy. Little about the struggles of working class and lower middle class families.
In light of George S’s post a shared prosperity ie a welfare state loosens the family. I remember describing to a woman brought up in Franco’s Spain how I had left home on a University grant (they paid you to go to Univesity those days), got a flat to share – in fact embraced freedom at 17. She said that the family had been for them shelter from an oppressive state. I said that the state via school and university had been shelter from dependence on the family. The easiest way to freedom for anyone, male or female, is being able to earn your own living. And being educated enough so that you have a chance to earn a decent living.
George – dirty pool. That ellipse is dirty pool – the omission is of the qualification that makes your comment supererogatory. The whole sentence reads ‘In many ways, blocking the freedom of women is what families are for.’ It’s dirty pool to drop the qualification and then quarrel with what’s left! I simply didn’t make the grandiose comment you attribute to me. Quarrel with what I did say, not with what I didn’t.
“Most men in my father’s family and of his class worked six days a week and handed over the cash to their wives when it came in”.
If women in those days were not suppressed they would have been earning their “own money” instead of having to depend on money being handed out to them by the men. Women then were treated as mere chattels.
An extention to men.
“Then they spent what was left down the pub where their lost youth still sat wondering what had happened to them”.
They sat in the pub wondering what had happened “to their youth” [but not that of their offspring,] after spending their day out of the house working. While at the same time the women was in all probability were left in the house minding the children. The men had it all their way.
There was a time not so very long ago when women could not even enter pubs.
Yeah, it was a man’s world!
Ah, so good to have the luxury today to sneer at the ways of the past. In my parents time there was one choice of higher education for a girl – under government bond to become a teacher, or be a nurse. That was a choice not forced by deliberate oppression but by poverty. Two generations earlier no-one but the rich could get a better education than that. So good to be a rich society now, and so good that our previous generations made so many choices along the road to prosperity and freedom of education.
Blow the qualification, Ophelia. It makes no real difference. Try “in many ways, taking over the world is what Jews do…”
I think I have made my last posting here.
I think George S is right. We can all – must all – condemn patriarchal families that oppress women, condone rape, etc etc, but to deduce from this some essentialist conclusion about what ‘the family’ is for is nonsense. We can all discuss the origins of the family, but we won’t come to any real conclusion because not even anthropologists agree on this.
In the end, what families are for depends on the motives of those who create them. I know what my family is for, i.e. stuff like love, mutual support, etc. And the reason I know this is that this is what we – equally and mutually – decided that it was for when we went into it. And I suspect that that’s what most people, at least in our society, start families for.
Our condemnation of truly repressive family structures is only weakened when we issue a 1970s style rad fem condemnation of all families regardless. It’s a bit like condemning a dictatorship and then saying ‘well I suppose all governments are dictatorships really’. It just takes the heat off the real dictatorships.
Oh, thank you, George, that’s nice. I’m an anti-Semite because I think one major purpose of the family is to block the freedom of women. How kind of you to say so.
I also think one major purpose of the family is to block the freedom of men. That’s obvious enough isn’t it? But I also think it blocks more of women’s freedom – for reasons that are mostly biological and hard to get around.
“but to deduce from this some essentialist conclusion about what ‘the family’ is for is nonsense. We can all discuss the origins of the family, but we won’t come to any real conclusion because not even anthropologists agree on this.”
But that doesn’t make it nonsense, it makes it contested. I don’t agree that it is nonsense, not in the qualified form I gave it.
I also, oddly enough, don’t think it’s equivalent to anti-Semitism.
It’s my last word on this, Ophelia. No, you are not an anti-Semite, I did not suggest such a thing and you must know that. What I do say is that a mild qualification does not make much difference to a statement of the sort you made. That I do think it is an unthinking equivalent to any kind of nasty -ism.
I have had thirty odd years of this abstract slagging off (oh it’s never me personally, you understand, it’s just my kind) and I have simply decided not to turn the other cheek on it anymore. You said nothing about marriage blocking the freedom of men in your piece. Bit late to mean it now.
My personal position, for what it’s worth, is that life can be very hard for both men and women but that men and women can live together, love each other, undertake this or that role and continue the human race as best as possible. Happiness requires some luck and a certain stoicism. We strive to make life as good for both as possible, but the conditions of life often leave people with much less choice than we imagine. It is good to strive for choice. It is good to resist opposition to choice. I am delighted my daughter is an intelligent independent being. I am glad economic circumstances are such as to allow her to exercise her intelligence. I think political and econimc circumstances are always up for discussion and improvement. They don’t necessary improve, but on the whole they seem to have.
The point is not that we should not be married, not that we should have no role – mothers do after all have a certain closeness to their children in the early years, having carried them and provided milk for them. You try telling them they don’t! Fathers do as a consequence have a certain obligation to provide, though I can assure Marie-Therese that most men have not had glittering careers but have done long slavish exhausting repetitive jobs in which they had neither choice nor prerogative, after which they tended to die pretty early. I think that’s down to class and industry and such things and I scarcely feel original in pointing it out.
The point about choice is that we should not force people into roles they have neither the wish nor the aptitude to take, especially when they have the ability to do other things that they prefer and may excel in. It is about external coercion, and there I am entirely with you.
As for the rest I do think it’s essentialist high-horse stuff and I’m afraid I do get angry and pretty unapologetic about it.
That’s another fallacy. What’s that one called? I have no idea – but it sure is an obnoxious one. Taking a criticism of an institution personally and then using that bizarre move to justify unapologetic fury and vicious charges of slagging off people by kind. I wouldn’t have expected such a thing from George S – it’s a trollish move. It’s an attempt to shut down debate by invoking shame and guilt over charges of racism or Islamophobia or whatever it is. What next? Shouts that criticism of capitalism is slagging off people who buy things? That criticism of the fashion industry is slagging off people who wear clothes?
Actually, yes, you do hear that kind of thing – from advertisers and PR people and such, who like to charge critics with elitism.
Whew. I need a shower.
OB, I think it’s pretty clear that despite the weaknesses of George S’s argument, he wasn’t accusing you of anti-Semitism. He even explicitly said that you are *not* an anti-Semite. I believe that he was just comparing “blocking the freedom of women is what families are for” to “taking over the world is what Jews do…,” saying that whether either statement is prefaced with “In many ways” is largely irrelevant, because in his opinion, both are ridiculous statements.
I happen to agree that the family is instituted the way it is, to a certain extent, because of the desire of the patriarchy to control women, but George S appears to disagree, without, though, calling anyone an anti-Semite.
Doug, I know George S explicitly said ‘you’re not an anti-Semite’ (after having made the implication) but he also said he didn’t suggest such a thing, and I disagree with that; I think he did. Why else mention ‘the Jews’ at all? Why use that particular example? Why use a bad analogy? Why compare a phrase about an institution with one about a group of people?
Anyone can say anything, but one is not required to believe it; I don’t believe that statement ‘I did not suggest such a thing’ any more than I believe ‘it’s not personal’ or ‘the donation will not affect my vote.’
Sorry; I don’t like to think it of George S; but I think the intention was just as nasty as it looked.
“that most men have not had glittering careers but have done long slavish exhausting repetitive jobs in which they had neither choice nor prerogative, after which they tended to die pretty early”.
So too did women die – in childbirth having given birth to eight or more children. I call that very hard work. She was not asked as to whether she wanted eight children or not. She had no say in the matter. She was the property of the men – and the church.
My own grandmother died along with her eight month baby in her tummy. So I speak from firsthand experience.
Actually, on second thought, I’ll amend that; I don’t think he suggested I was an anti-Semite, but I do think he suggested that what I said was the same kind of thing as anti-Semitism, that I was engaging in the same kind of unjustified wholesale slagging off of a large group of people as is involved in anti-Semitism. I think he meant to poison the well with the association. I don’t think people should argue in that way – poison the discussion by making bogus associations. ‘In many ways, blocking the freedom of women is what families are for’ is not the same kind of assertion as ‘in many ways, taking over the world is what Jews do’ and I think it’s wrong to pretend it is.
How disappointing people can be.
You honed in on the nub once again, OB. You’re so right.
“taking over the world is what Jews do…”
And taking over women is what most Asian men do…”
“Yes, and guess who was in the factory, 7am-7pm…[B]ut I guess you are going to tell me different, right?
No, but I will remind you that when men of his ilk came home from the factory/pub They also worked long hours in a human factory…and were adquately rewarded, I might add – at the expense of women.
“And it wasn’t my mother who chose the house, the decor, or made the major practical decisions?”
No because women of her era [more than likely] never even had their names on the property. Everything was owned by men to be handed down to men in the events of men’s death’s. Women were nonentities. They had no rights. They had to take to the streets to fight for their rights.
When women were eventually allowed into pubs, they had to sit in separate rooms. Just like the woman in SA who was asked to enter the women’s section of Starbucks.
“The family is an inherited, natural formation, for the protection and raising of children, and is probably pre-programmed into most of us through millions of years of evolution, since well before we became human”.
Well, I never – somebody in the past should have told that to the Irish Government/Judiciary/Roman/Catholic Church who treated children abominably.
Children were to them like playthings. Such as footballs, puppets, toys, to be bounced/toyed with whenever it took their fancy.
Although I disagree with George.S take on what O.B. said(which was nothing like the statement about Jews)I do sympathise with the general sentiment he expresed about men especialy white men being treated as whipping boys,it ticks me of as well!I also knock my pipe out six days a week with my head in other peoples toilets to provide for my family(all female) who then make most of the decisions about how the loot is spent for me!
Well isn’t that fascinating, but since I wasn’t in fact treating men (‘especially white men’) as whipping boys, I fail to see the relevance.
Jeezis, spare me the angry male routine, all of you. If you can’t figure out from the rest of B&W what I’m talking about, go join Pissed Off Fathers or whatever it is.
Well as the fella’ says; put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Ouch! That hurts!
When you have finished smoking your pipes. You could all check this out.
“LE BOURGET, France (AFP) – The European Space Agency (ESA are calling for applications for one of the most demanding human experiments in space history: a simulated trip to Mars in which six “astronauts” will spend 17 months in an isolation tank on Earth.
It has been said by John Gray that Men are from Mars. You wont have to worry about having to bring home to your Venus’s in blue jeans your hard earned wages. Would that not be just terrific freedom”. YEAH, INDEED! To hell with the institution of marriage and to Mars with love.
I think you misunderstood me O.B. I was trying to say that George.S was firing at the wrong target,as a regular visitor I am very aware that you are not the kind of man hating femenist that G.S.was trying to paint you.
“There is also a belief that families must work as a team and help each other – not a bad idea in theory”
Is that so? If that is the case. Well, let us start with wiping out the residue of the patriarchal control of the ancient past that exists deep down in men’s psyches as well as men’s lives. If the “I am the Boss” mindset could be – by men – done away with wholly – there could be the prospect of unadulterated, unmodified; untainted wholesome family teamwork.
It would a grand idea in reality.
Women, in every, competency of life should be on an equivalent footing with men – wherever they live on this planet.
There should be utterly no segregation/discrimination/domination/misogyny/bigotry/violence against women.
Men, since ancient times, have the monopoly of this planet and it is about time that cartel – changed.
They do not own the planet. It belongs to every single creature that walks mother earth. It is not called mother for nothing. [That connotation has significant symbolism attached.] Yeah, and that includes animals/children and women. The latter have for too long been treated as if they were sub-species.
Wake up lads all over the world and smell the cocoa!
It is catching up time. It is pay back time. It is time once again for women to stand up and for them to – be counted.
“In Roman law, a woman was completely dependent on her male relatives. If married, she and her property passed into the power of her husband if unmarried, she was (unless a vestal virgin) under the perpetual tutelage of her father during his life, and after his death, control passed to her nearest blood relations. If there were no close blood relations, the extended family would be responsible for her upkeep.
The wife was the purchased property of her husband, and was, like a slave, acquired only for his benefit. A woman could not exercise any civil or public office. A woman could not continue a family, for she was caput et finis familiae suae. She could not be a witness, surety, tutor, or curator; she could not adopt or be adopted, or make a will or contract. She could not succeed ab intestato as an agnate, if further removed than a sister could. A daughter might be disinherited by a general clause; a son had to be disinherited by name. Furthermore, women could not obtain Roman citizenship, which provided exemption from scourging and crucifixion, gave the right to appeal before Caesar, and provided legal immunity from jurisdictions outside Rome.
Where did I leave the mop and bucket?
“There is also a belief that families must work as a team and help each other – not a bad idea in theory”
Is that so? If that is the case. Well, let us start with wiping out the residue of the patriarchal control of the ancient past that exists deep down in men’s psyches as well as men’s lives. If the “I am the Boss” mindset could be – by men – done away with wholly – there could be the prospect of unadulterated, unmodified; untainted wholesome family teamwork.
It would a grand idea in reality.
Women, in every, competency of life should be on an equivalent footing with men – wherever they live on this planet.
There should be utterly no segregation/discrimination/domination/misogyny/bigotry/violence against women.
Men, since ancient times, have the monopoly of this planet and it is about time that cartel – changed.
They do not own the planet. It belongs to every single creature that walks mother earth. It is not called mother for nothing. [That connotation has significant symbolism attached.] Yeah, and that includes animals/children and women. The latter have for too long been treated as if they were sub-species.
Wake up lads all over the world and smell the cocoa!
It is catching up time. It is pay back time. It is time once again for women to stand up and for them to – be counted.
“In Roman law, a woman was completely dependent on her male relatives. If married, she and her property passed into the power of her husband if unmarried, she was (unless a vestal virgin) under the perpetual tutelage of her father during his life, and after his death, control passed to her nearest blood relations. If there were no close blood relations, the extended family would be responsible for her upkeep.
The wife was the purchased property of her husband, and was, like a slave, acquired only for his benefit. A woman could not exercise any civil or public office. A woman could not continue a family, for she was caput et finis familiae suae. She could not be a witness, surety, tutor, or curator; she could not adopt or be adopted, or make a will or contract. She could not succeed ab intestato as an agnate, if further removed than a sister could. A daughter might be disinherited by a general clause; a son had to be disinherited by name. Furthermore, women could not obtain Roman citizenship, which provided exemption from scourging and crucifixion, gave the right to appeal before Caesar, and provided legal immunity from jurisdictions outside Rome.
Where did I leave me mop and bucket?
Marie.T. I dont think you will find many men these days with an I am the boss mentality(dont work like that in my house)but one thing you will never change is the position of the man as the ultimate protector of the family,when the family is under threat it is always the men on the ramparts!
Richard, Testosterone rules and testosterone abuses! Yeah, without it the family would categorically be under threat from extinction. [I think]
Testosterone until the end of time has the superior hand.
“I am the boss” mentality – by a extensively global integer of those from the lesser elusive gender – is to be had – in every sphere of life. We do perceptibly – not – inhabit the same planet.
Men around the globe assume they are the penultimate Homo sapiens.
They think they alone have possession/protection of the planet.
They think they are the protectors of all the other inferior beings that roam the planet. – women/childen are adjuncts that need to come under their protective thumb.
Women/children are just subservient to them in every way.
However, you know,
Women are as strong as men are, are they not? In other capacities!
Richard,
Nonetheless, just because men are physically stronger does not mean that they should have one up on women, by thinking they are sole protectors.
What an illusion!
“Protection needs come under a multitude of banners.
So why should “physical protection needs” take precedence over mental
Psychological and emotional ones etc, etc, eh?
I am losing my train of thought here. I wonder is there a man about that will protect and come to my aid?
We must look to the bigger biological testosterone picture indeed!
Testosterone, [like the stick] does not of “itself” abuse. You know what I mean…etc!
My wife has many more talent than me,she is smarter than me,she is probably a better driver than me but if our house was burgled she would automaticly turn to me for reasurance,it is just human nature Marie
And so would the other females in my family.
Richard, you are so right here. My wife is intelligent and rather athletic, but I have not the slightest doubt that she would look to me to defend her in a case of physical threat.
P. I agree and that is not because you are superior to her it is because in many ways humans are programed to act that way,it basicly goes back to the stone age the man finds the cave and then stands at the entrance to guard the family!there is a tendency these days for people to say that men and women are the same,that is ridiculous because we are not! for instance hand your wife a box of matches and ask her to strike one,I would bet that she would strike away from herself but you would probably strike the match toward yourself. that is because men and women react diferantly to fire.
“But if our house was burgled she would automatically turn to me for reassurance, it is just human nature”
Richard;
And that would be the accepted thing to do. After all you both made a concordat to ‘uniformly’ care for each other. You both bought into the institution of marriage and you are both from that perception respectfully and submissively bound to ‘equally protect’ each other. Ostensibly, there are some men who imagine themselves to be the dominant, prevailing, overriding vigour/strength /power within associations/partnerships,
marriages. But if the truth was indisputably told [from behind the keyholes of both partners shared domains] one would unearth – that some men in fact were the ones wearing the apron strings.
I commit to memory – asking my mother;
“why do some men try to control some women? – and why do some women allow some men to control? She replied;
“Some women, only [operative two words here, being ‘only, give’ some men the illusion that they are controlling some women. When in fact it inclusively is the opposed truth of things! She said some men are like children who feebly in this respect live in a fool’s paradise when it comes to grasping the bona fide nature/strength of women. If your house was burgled your loved one would also turn to the Gardai/Bobby/
neighbours friends/other family members for some consolation – if you were unavailable. That is what becomes of belonging to part of the larger organised “programmed” establishment. Not a soul, but not a soul on this planet is indispensable. Human nature [being socially dependable beings] depend on the superior – not just on one sole human being for survival
reassurance.
Family values…?
“Unconditional love goes out the window when poverty strikes”!
In short, Richard, you’re pointing out that (most) men are stronger than (most) women. No argument there. But so what? What’s your point?
How often does a modern family even need a ‘protector’? How often do tigers drop in for a snack?
I know men who spend a lot of time ‘protecting’ their families from nothing in particular – they kind of go into automatic protective mode whenever they’re all outside the house, as if there were bears wandering the streets. I hate to tell you, but it’s kind of ridiculous. (Yes yes, I know, it would come in handy when a bear did appear, and then I wouldn’t be so superior. Yes, yes, yes. But until then…)
O.B. P pointed out that his wife was an athletic type but would turn to him so I dont think physical strength is the only criteria,it is also genetic programing that is in all of us,did you try the match thing by the way?I think some women are incapable of admiting that there is diferance between men and women because to do so would be weakness.Tigers may not often drop in but houses quite often are burgaled and women always feel violated men just get angry and protective,woe betide the husband or boyfreind who burst in to tears after the house has been burgaled his partner will loose all respect for him!
Angry with the burgular by the way.
Marie yes you are right my wife could turn to those people for comfort there is no one I can turn to men just have to suck it up and deal so they can reasure the rest of the family.
Richard — OB is right that our physical superiority is applicable only rarely. I’d almost say that it’s irrelevant, except that… Ya ni znáiyu kak skazátyi yeyóh na anglíyskom yazykyé. Sorry, too nuanced for my English.
I totaly agree with the sentiment even though I dont have a clue what it means!it looks like something I might say if I could speak Ukrainian.
>>> Actually, on second thought, I’ll amend that; I don’t think he suggested I was an anti-Semite, but I do think he suggested that what I said was the same kind of thing as anti-Semitism, that I was engaging in the same kind of unjustified wholesale slagging off of a large group of people as is involved in anti-Semitism. <<< Respect for amending your point after reflection. However I still think on this one issue you have misinterpreted. As at least one other poster has said, he is not (IMHO) implying that what you said was like anti-semitism. He is saying that *weakly* qualifying an (arguably) unreasonable claim doesn’t make the claim reasonable. He gave “jews taking over the world” as an alternative unreasonable claim. The unreasonable nature of it is all that it had in common with your original statement. As a data point, you might like to be aware that I needed a double-take after reading your original comment. I’ve read enough of your opinions to have a (very) high degree of respect for them and you generally, but I was still taken aback by the “in many ways […] families are for” line. Your later comment that you apply this to men as well as women helped settle my unease, but I’m still not entirely sure of your meaning. Now, my “high degree of respect” combined with the principle of charity mitigated somewhat, but I was still a tad disturbed as it wouldn’t be the first time someone I’d previously admired had turned out to be a loon in some areas (smiley necessary?). The later clarification was therefore quite welcome, but a further expansion on the whole “what families are for” bit would be even more so. (Perhaps it’s so obvious to you that you can’t see my confusion. Do you mean, for example, that families are a social construct *designed* to reduce women’s freedom, or is it that one of the effects of the biological/evolutionary aspects of procreation is to restrict women’s freedom as a side-effect? Does my question even make sense?)
Hey, I missed this the first time around. The argument seems to have got a bit mixed up as between the various contributions of nature and nurture.
If, to start with, we take “the family” at its most minimal to mean both parents putting significant time and effort into raising their offspring, then it is NOT “for” blocking the freedom of women. It evolved because of the specific ecological niche of human beings; offspring with a very long period of dependency, living in conditions where food was not so reliably abundant that a single parent could reliably cope until the offspring were independent. So at it’s most basic, the family is FOR raising offspring. The control of women’s fertility came afterwards (logically, not temporally necessarily; the two things probably co-evolved); if men were going to need to put lots of effort into feeding offspring, they wanted to make sure they were actually theirs.
This isn’t all Just So stories, because we do know a considerable amount about cross-species comparisons (of offspring-rearing patterns in different ecological circs etc).
George S need not feel so affronted at what is essentially a biological claim. Becasue we have biological tendencies to certain sorts of behaviour doesn’t mean to say we “don’t really” feel what we think we feel. We have biological tendencies to love our children and partners too. The claim about families would be that men (on average) have a biological tendency to feel responsible for looking after their children and partners, and to feel jealous of their partners’ sexual favours, neither of which seems terribly outrageous.
On the other hand, ‘In many ways, blocking the freedom of women is what families are for is a reasonable cliam only as long as we acknowledge that another, and more fundamental, thing that families are for, is the co-operative raising of offspring. I say more fundamental because male sexual jealousy of females (or sometimes vice versa) is certainly not something that requires a family. It’s more that the particular forms that male sexual jealousy takes in Homo sapiens is because we have to (or had to) have families. In particular, sexual jealousy is more focussed and longterm than in many species, partly because the male investment in a child is much greater (than in chimps, say) and partly because we evolved concealed oestrus.
I’m not ignoring the cultural overlays to all of this, but there is plenty of discussion of same already in this thread.
Yeh – I meant what potentilla said, only in a much more crude and offhand version. I basically meant that marriage is (along with much else!) the human version of, say, bull elks gathering females into harems and keeping them there. Of course, ‘the human version’ means it’s very very different – but the keeping track of who fertilizes the egg is part of the picture. Even with all the necessary changes having been made, few married men are pleased to learn that their wives are pregnant by someone else – that’s not usually the plan. I thought that was sufficiently common knowledge that I was surprised by George’s reaction.
Owen,
“Do you mean, for example, that families are a social construct *designed* to reduce women’s freedom, or is it that one of the effects of the biological/evolutionary aspects of procreation is to restrict women’s freedom as a side-effect?”
The second, mostly. The first too to some extent, especially historically and with the added qualification that families are (sort of) designed to reduce the freedom of women and men. (That is largely what divorce law is about – isn’t it? Isn’t that the issue Milton was wrestling with in the 17th century? And perhaps Jesus in the first? He outraged fellow Jews by saying men couldn’t divorce. That is a curtailment of freedom isn’t it?)
I still don’t altogether see what the ‘Not in my family!’ objection is meant to be about. In many families it is still the case that women’s freedom is more curtailed than men’s, especially globally. In many families, women work two shifts while men work one. In many families, women aren’t allowed to leave the house or the country without male permission. Pointing this out is not meant as an insult to people who live differently.
About the “Jews” example, again – sorry, but I still don’t think it was just a neutral random alternative example; if it were, why pick “Jews”? Why not pick a much less fraught example?
In conclusion: I am, of course, a loon in some areas. (I laugh like a drain at ‘Maximum Exposure’ for instance.)
Richard, yes I understand all that but you didn’t answer the question: what is your point? So what? Men are ‘more protective’ than women, or ‘men are the natural protectors of women’; so what? What follows from that? Women are therefore subordinate? Inferior? What? What exactly is your point?
To put it a bit bluntly, I think there’s something a little pathetic about that. Okay the tigers are gone, but hey, burglars break into occupied houses often, so men can keep this one last little outpost of superiority. Women think they’re so equal and independent and autonomous but hey, when that burglar shows up in the bedroom doorway at 4 a.m., they realize they need Mr ProtectoMan, so ha.
What nonsense. We all need protection: via laws, customs, cops, soldier, fighter jets (I heard one patrolling the otherwise silent empty sky over Seattle the night of September 11-12 2001), diplomats, the UN, sanctions, inspectors, spies; all sorts of things. Not to mention medical research, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical factories; not to mention agriculture, transport, distribution. We all need all sorts of protection; protection against the 4 a.m invader of the bedroom is pretty low on the list, so it’s a pretty goofy place to stash your ego.
Perhaps George S was not thinking biologically. Much as I wish that everyone was literate in evolutionary psychology, ’tis not so. What you said sounds much shriller if one is not aware of that body of work (or aware of it, as seems sadly frequently to be the case) only in a very Daily Mail sort of way).
I should think he picked Jews because it was the first example that came into his head of a group who had suffered from consistent prejudical generalisations (were he American he might have said blacks) and he was angry, so he did not reconsider.
I guess not. I just assumed the biological aspect was obvious, but maybe it’s not. I think George also wasn’t thinking globally though, because there certainly are places where family is quite openly about controlling women. I’m afraid the angry guy schtick of taking that as an insult to his personal family is…how shall I say; a Bad Move.
“Even with all the necessary changes having been made, few married men are pleased to learn that their wives are pregnant by someone else”
Men can kill women for this reason alone.
Those who grew up in institutions – like Goldenbridge – could tell you all a myriad of ghastly, horrendous grossly violent stories of how they were treated and despicably despised by men who had married their mothers. All because they were the biological offspring of the mothers! The animalistic belligerence truly shows itself in men when it comes to these categories of situations. You had better believe it…They are electrifyingly frightening.
Men can kill women for these reasons [some women] alone. Family values can go out the window when the offspring of one enters.
The wicked step-parents portrayal in the fairy tales really exist
Just so. And male lions, gorillas, bears among other animals often kill infants and juveniles fathered by other males. Who fertilizes the egg really does matter and really does shape a lot of behavior and thinking, even among humans. That fact alone necessarily creates pressure to limit the freedom of females. Humans can take thought and decide to transcend that, or work around it, or modify it, but not all of them do.
“Who fertilizes the egg really does matter and really does shape a lot of behavior and thinking, even among humans. That fact alone necessarily creates pressure to limit the freedom of females. Humans can take thought and decide to transcend that, or work around it, or modify it, but not all of them do.”
Well said, especially that last sentence.
I always liked the ways that families tend to be portrayed in the better American Westerns, especially some of John Ford’s later films. They’re the source of great good and great evil, and for many of the same reasons. For any member of a family, one’s parents and siblings can provide protection from external threats, but also repression of individuality perceived as dangerous to the family. There are some understood “freedom from’s,” in Isaiah Berlin’s term, but a limit on some of the “freedom to’s.” And there are all kinds of genetic/evolutionary reasons why this is true, all of which interact with and underpin the cultural basis of the family. What results is a complex, malleable mixture of benfits and detriments.
But like OB’s last sentence says, there is a certain amount of trancendance we’re capable of. Being fully aware of the negative aspects of the family and their evolutionary and cultural origins doesn’t in any way make me love my wife or daughter any differently or less. If anything, I think it’s especially important to understand these issues if one is determined, as I am, not to perpetuate some of the more pernicious aspects of family life. And I guess that’s why I ultimately don’t agree with George S’s conclusions, even if I do have some sympathy for his position. I just don’t see why it’s a bad or offensive thing to argue that ONE of the things families do is limit the freedom of its members, for the reaons that a) they most certainly have functioned this way quite often, b) I know that critical discussions of families in general don’t have anything to do with mine in particular.
Phil
>>> The second, mostly. The first too to some extent, especially historically and with the added qualification that families are (sort of) designed to reduce the freedom of women and men. (That is largely what divorce law is about – isn’t it? Isn’t that the issue Milton was wrestling with in the 17th century? And perhaps Jesus in the first? He outraged fellow Jews by saying men couldn’t divorce. That is a curtailment of freedom isn’t it?) <<< Thanks for the clarification. I think I’ve just figured out why I’m uncomfortable about what you’re saying. It’s not that *families* are designed to reduce female (and male) freedoms — that’s what *marriage* is for. If you’d said, “in many ways (and in most (all?) cultures), blocking the freedom of women is what marriage is for”, I don’t think I’d have much objection. The point of “families” (scare-quoted because I’ve just realised I don’t know exactly what you mean by that) is one mechanism to provide the protective environment needed to allow offspring to develop. Marriage is then a way of making sure the male sticks around long enough to help, and that he can be reassured the offspring he’s helping out with are indeed his own. Are you being a little sloppy with terminology, or am I being overly picky (quite possible)?
>> there certainly are places where family is quite openly about controlling women << Argh. I think I have been missing the point a bit. For me, right now, with a heavily pregnant wife and a gorgeous three-year-old girl, I’m focusing too much on what *my* family (wife, child, child-to-be) is all about. And that certainly was *not* about reducing my wife’s freedoms. But you’re talking about family as an institution (as in fact you say elsewhere!), not the family as a small unit of mother-father-child(ren). Dowries, giving-away-the-bride, honour-and-obey, not two people coming together in love to share their lives (and other romantic nonsense!). Perhaps I reacted emotionally. Now I consider it, perhaps George S had a similar reaction? By thinking too personally about “family”, we’ve taken your negative comments about the *institution* of family as a personal attack on *our* families. D’oh. Best stop now.
Heh!
Well, clearly, it’s a minefield. And no doubt I put it too strongly – which was at least partly in reaction to the whole ‘family values’ thing here (in the US). Anyway, joy to impending new baby and all the rest of yiz.
>>> Anyway, joy to impending new baby and all the rest of yiz. <<< Many thanks!
O.B. I wasnt trying to make any point other than men will always exibit certain behaviours as will women,I was realy just making observations not trying to win arguments.I am not sure that many men hang there egos on being a protector of the family(the thought that it might land on me some day fills me with dread)but physical strength does demand that if something requiring just physical strength happens it is my job and on the flip side if brains are needed it is my wives job.
I am not sure the fighter jet ect analogy works O.B. a home invasion would be very personal the other forms of protection are more abstract,although just as necesary.
Richard, but there’s a difference between making a point and winning an argument. What was the point of the observation? It wasn’t just random (was it?) so what was your point in making it? You sort of go on to indicate what it was, but it’s still not explicit.
You weren’t just making an observation, your comment was preceded by a ‘but’; you were making a point, and disputing one.
“I dont think you will find many men these days with an I am the boss mentality(dont work like that in my house)but one thing you will never change is the position of the man as the ultimate protector of the family,when the family is under threat it is always the men on the ramparts!”
Whether you realize it or not you are arguing something there, but it’s not clear what.
About the impersonal v personal protection: yes I know they’re different: that was my point.
Q. “So it’s a pretty goofy place to stash your ego”.
A. Is it really? Pray tell me more, where is this goofy place at all?
Erm…[frantically scratching the head].
Q. Is it…?
A. No! Not down the lavatory…!
Q. Is it…Maybe…?
A. No, no! Certainly not down the drain…!
Q. Could it possibly be…?
A. No, no, no! Definitely not down the pub…!
Q. Last guess…Would it be…?
A. NO! NO! NO! NO! For once and for all. Not at B&W…
Q. Hold on – I think I have it — [whispers]… Might it be…!
A. Yeah, yeah. You almost have it…!
C’mon, out with it…!
Q. Is it stashed right down your goofy ego stashed t……s?
A. Bingo! Yes! By Jove you have got it at last.
What an immense relief.
(:~)
I’m off before B&W stone-throwing/mud slinging sessions begins.
Oh dear,sometimes coming to this site is like entering an ass kicking competition with a porkupine(you cant win)I better quit this one while I am behind!
The quill in this instance is mightier than the asses roar [from the kick]. Did you also know that the owners of the quills are related to the shrew. Now, coming from a hmmm, perceived [subliminal message] man-hating feminist perspective would not taming same [even for “Me – Tarzan”] be a job and a half to handle.
Kicking asses , now that is sheer cruelty is it not? He -Haw! Watch! Your behind?