This is an edited version of a response to an email query about feminism:
As a historian and as comparative social scientist, I had problems with three thoughts:
the nuclear family is “traditional.”
The nuclear family is in many ways a fairly modern construction. The extended family was the primary family unit in many pre-industrial/urban-era societies and in many places continues to be one (Japan has only experienced the switch from extended to nuclear families in the past half-century or so, and is struggling with the disintegration of many core, cherished values in the process. In fact many of the costs you associate with the apparent deterioration of the nuclear family conservative Japanese connect to the rise of the nuclear family). Even these families are defined in a host of different ways (think of Abraham’s family, or African-American matriarchal families, or Chinese families with the grandparents raising the children while both parents work or study). Attitudes towards marriage have varied as well. It was fairly common for Puritans, for example, to get married when the woman became pregnant.
when the nuclear family has prevailed, life was somehow better.
For example, in times and regions where the nuclear family structure is strong, women have/had less economic freedom, and therefore are/were less likely to leave situations where husbands where abusive to them or to their children. While things are still bad today, there is a lot more freedom for women to leave bad situations, because it is much more socially acceptable for them to be living and working outside of marriage. I agree with you that the changing social structures create new problems, but they also create opportunities and sometimes reduce old problems.
feminists want equality but not in the military.
Once again, you have to be careful attacking the entire feminist movement, because of the diversity of opinions within it. Some feminists advocate an expanding female role in the military. Some view the Israeli army as a model. The strongest opponents of a mixed military are anti-feminist conservatives (it was one of the main reasons the Mormon Church fought the ERA in the seventies). But other feminists feel that the military reflects a more aggressive, “masculine” way of dealing with problems, where a more “feminine” approach would emphasize dialogue and community-building.
To answer your “burden” question [i.e. feminists want the privileges but not the burdens of men in patriarchy], most feminists see women as bearing the greater weight—why would they ask for more at this point? It would be like slaves arguing to take on heavier burdens.
Anyhow, a lot of this seems academic, and my feminism is based less on ideals than on observation, news, and experience. The reality is that women are more likely to be raped (date and otherwise), women are more likely to die from domestic violence, women are more likely to suffer from eating disorders as they struggle to conform to the impossible demands of a sexist society. While men suffer from all of these problems, the ratios are off by an order of magnitude‚Äîthese are overwhelmingly female problems [and nobody wants these awful problems in our society–I don’t understand why the people who attack feminism don’t spend more time and energy attacking these societal evils. More damage has been done to society by abusive men than by vocal feminists.].
I have a daughter who’s growing up in this world, and I’m conscious that her opportunities are more constrained than her brother’s. Even if she chooses not to have children, she is statistically less likely to become a political, academic, religious or business leader and to get paid less and do more housework than a husband in the same position. These are probably the main reasons I feel that there are fundamental systemic problems that affect women and that these problems need to be highlighted in such a way that we’re made aware that women are the victims—therefore I call myself a feminist.
12 responses so far ↓
1 PodMonkeys // Jun 21, 2006 at 3:32 am
If I remember correctly, we have the 50’s and post WWI 40’s to thank for much of the Nuclear Family woes of today. (or is that Nucular?
) Wasn’t everything better in the Cleaver household?
I’m still of the, “If we can just treat everyone equally, and teach others to treat everyone no different than anyone else, then the world will be a better place.” No preferential treatment for anyone. No division of toys based on sex. etc. etc. If we start on the kids from age 1 and teach them to be open, equal, and to recognize sexism, even at the toy level, then we can start making a difference for the future. But that just may be my ideal. I like to think it could work.
2 Caroline T. // Jun 21, 2006 at 5:51 am
Amen for dismissing the nuclear family as the “traditional” familial unit. When I was growing up, my maternal grandmother was the one who greeted me from school every day and who cooked meals for me. That’s the way things have been done in China for centuries. The nuclear family is really a modern idea (and one with its own problems).
It makes me sad that the word “feminism” has almost become a curse word in our society. Feminism now connotes extremism and man-hating rather than equality and tolerance. The 19th century pioneers of feminism championed the woman’s right to vote. In the sixties and seventies, feminists worked to achieve equal pay and work opportunities. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to vote, wanting to obtain a higher education, or wanting to be paid the same salary as a man.
3 Caroline // Jun 21, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Awesome post, John.
Regarding women and the military, I always thought it would make sense to draft both men and women, if a draft is necessary. And if the woman didn’t meet certain physical requirements, then she could have the option of serving in some diplomatic post. Likewise for a man who didn’t meet certain physical requirements.
4 PodMonkeys // Jun 22, 2006 at 3:33 am
The way the military currently works, is you have to pass a medical exam on entry. If you don’t pass, you might be able to get a waiver if its something like one bad eye. If that doesn’t work, you’re not allowed into the military.
If you do pass the exam, theres a level of passing for various factors. (eye sight, hearing, physical limitations, etc) This “profile” limits what military job specialties you can have. pilots need perfect vision, artillary needs to be able to lift heavy objects, etc.
After that, you also have to pass the ASVAB, which determines your mental skills in a variety of categories. This also helps determine what jobs are available for you? Score very low, and you’ll probably be infantry. Score very high, and you’ll get your choice of about anything. (depending on physical profile) And then there are other tests for if you go into a language specialization, etc.
So that long bits said, it’s not as easy as “if you don’t pass medical, you get a diplomatic position.” I agree, It does make sense to draft men and women. And there are lots of non-combat roles women can serve in. (not just medical and food service) Civil Affairs and PSYOP are probably some of the more important ones these days. My wife used to be a Russian translator in the Army. Personally, I think if a woman wants to serve as infantry, she should be allowed to.
5 Craig // Jun 23, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Military Service
The major problem with the draft is making it fair to all. In Vietnam, only a portion of available males were drafted, and huge numbers of (wealthier) young men were excused for attending college. Others, like VP Dick Cheney, got out by having children. During the Civil War there were major draft riots, partly because some people (rich, of course) could be excused by paying $300.
Conscription is always unpopular, but it’s particularly unpopular when it isn’t reasonably fair. Today, because of women’s rights, “fair” would probably require conscription of both genders.
As far as health requirements go, the military today is probably too strict. I’ve seen some data that show that something like over 50% of young men can’t join due to health reasons. These are *very minor* reasons sometimes. As an 18 year old I was denied entry into the Army Reserve despite getting 99th percentile on ASVAB. They’re passing up reasonably healthy and intelligent young men and taking high school dropouts. Do you wonder why they have so many PR disasters?
6 Craig // Jun 23, 2006 at 1:07 pm
The Nuclear Family
I’ll take the nuclear family over the extended family any day of the week.
If you don’t like Republican family values, then you’ll loathe “extended family” values. The extended family is one reason why so many female infants in China are murdered each year. It’s one reason so many Muslim women are considered property. The extended family provides a gang that an abusive husband can use to push around his wife. They’re really big in the Middle East.
Did you know that 55% of Pakistani marriages in Britain are between first cousins? Why? Extended family values. Papa Pervez wants daughter Fatima to marry his brother Mohammed’s son back in Karachi, so that his brother’s family can come to England, too. How nice. Doctors in the Isles are seeing recessive diseases in the Pakistani community that they’ve never even heard of.
Extended family values are nice if you associate them with Christmas get-togethers and family reunions. They *ain’t* about that. Successful nations rely on people taking their family loyalties beyond the tribe and into the larger community, not shrinking into primitive tribalism. Can you name a single country with extended family values that you’d like to live in?
7 Craig // Jun 23, 2006 at 1:13 pm
I have a daughter who‚Äôs growing up in this world, and I‚Äôm conscious that her opportunities are more constrained than her brother‚Äôs…she is statistically less likely to become a political, academic, religious or business leader and to get paid less and do more housework than a husband in the same position.
You’re assuming that this is due to culture. This would likely be the case if it occurred in just a few nations, but when it occurs all over the world it’s a rather naive assumption. And why denigrate child-rearing? A person might be perfectly happy doing it until someone comes along and tells them its “beneath them.” Now *that* is a cultural message.
8 John // Jun 23, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I’ll take the nuclear family over the extended family any day of the week.
Thanks to Craig, we now have the cons of “extended family values” and thanks to Caroline T., we have one of the pros. I myself was raised in part by my grandparents and an aunt in Japan, and found the situation to be more emotionally nurturing than the one in the nuclear family of my youth. I believe there are pros and cons to each. I appreciate the sense of connection of the extended, and the relative autonomy of the nuclear.
But that’s assuming that there are only two systems. My point was to counter the assertion that the nuclear family somehow transcends historical and cultural boundaries. It’s as human as any other system, and has its own relative merits and problems.
Can you name a single country with extended family values that you’d like to live in?
Yes. Japan, in the countryside, where the extended family still prevails, and where my Grandma and aunts still live.
9 John // Jun 23, 2006 at 5:40 pm
And why denigrate child-rearing?
I’m not. I’m responding to cultural norms that say that women are less valued when not bearing and raising children. I think that child-rearing should be more highly prized and that more men would find validation in raising their children. That ain’t the case, unfortunately.
10 PodMonkeys // Jun 23, 2006 at 7:27 pm
I think we need to differentiate the usage of “extended family” to describe close ties of non-immediate family living in seperate households, versus the usage of “extended family” (better described as the complex family) where multiple generations or more than 2 adults live in the same household.
It may not seem like much of a difference, but the Pakistani example can just as well apply to “nuclear families” as well as “complex families”.
What the argument was started on was about “family units”. Generally the family unit is described as living in the same household, under the same roof. Extended family may have ties, obligations, and may even be close, but generally it is the household (ie: roof) that deliniates the family units.
I think the Pakistani example is an example of using familial bonds and obligations to force marraiges between seperate family units. If the man, his brother, his daughter, and his brother’s son all live in the same house, then they are one extended/complex family unit. If they live in 3 seperate houses, then they are 3 nuclear families. If the daughter moves in with the son’s family, they are now a complex family unit, and the daughter’s father’s family remains a nuclear family.
I’m not saying the Pakistani argument is a bad argument. In fact, theres a lot of good points. Its just that we’ve started with talking about family units, and moved beyond that into family/social ties and pressures. So the argument of the “nuclear family” being better is only comparable to an argument about a “complex family” that does not include outside familial forces. Once you throw in “extended family” (members outside the household), you’ve basically thrown external variables into the experiment. We’re no longer comparing apples to oranges.
That was way too long to get at what I was trying to point out, and it still doesn’t seem like I made my point well. Basically “Extended family” means 2 things, and instead of arguing meaning 1, we’ve moved on to meaning 2.
The other point made, however is generally easy to argue. The “nuclear family” being the “traditional family unit” is not true. (I made a typo by saying post WWI 40’s…. Thats WWII 40’s.) If I remember correctly, the term only dates back to around 1947. Medieval europe never saw a nuclear family unit.
11 Miko // Jun 28, 2006 at 11:06 am
While this (http://csmonitor.com/2006/0627/p20s01-lifp.html) is actually an article about baby carriers, it gives a good glimpse of the African extended family: everyone (though most often the female family members) pitches in to raise & care for children. I’m not saying that I would give up internet or indoor plumbing for this familial change, but it certainly sounds better than the way I was brought up.
12 Miko // Sep 11, 2006 at 9:35 am
I thought about posting a link to the AlterNet article about “masculinity” (as macho-hood) and how it hurts both men & women but then decided against it. Then I saw a link to it on Feministing. The Metaverse wants me to link to this. What does anyone here think about this, especially in light of the redefining of them/ourselves by some women feminists as macho women?
At the rist of spoiling the thrust of the article, I have found that warrior is an architype that resonates very strongly with me. This has caused me to project myself, at times, as “macho”. Is this a selling-out to the Patriarchy by fashioning myself as a man in order to compete with other men? Or can it be a valid choice for men & women alike without invalidating other choices such as nuturer? I find that in my explicit incarnation as warrior when I do martial arts, the battle is not on the outside but on the inside. I find strength when I stretch myself beyond what I normally do or what I thought I could do, rather than by “beating” someone. I know my sister finds strength when she successfully sends her husband and children off to their days well prepared (by a good sleep and a good meal) and by receiving them home (to a place of safety & love). Perhaps we can find a way to remove the warrior architype as the only valid architype but still allow it to remain valid. Thoughts?
Leave a Comment