What If Pregnancy Came With a Pink Slip?

[Gingersnap]

I hope you're not suggesting the societal pressure to be middle class and acquire all of those material items associated with the middle class is somehow "forcing" women to give up their maternal values and instincts. It's very, very easy to walk away from the house in the suburbs, the 2.1 brats, the 2 SUVs, the dog and the cat, the Pleasant Valley Sundays. The door's always open to those with the imagination and the courage. Society doesn't force anyone to do anything. People make those choices and those compromises.

I guess I am, up to a point. I've certainly talked with a lot of women who have enough insight to make that connection in their own lives. They are well aware that if they were willing to trade down materially, they could trade up in terms of emotional satisfaction. They think about it and it troubles them but they also want to provide the best they possibly can for their kids. They don't always make the leap that a materially average childhood with emotionally above-average parents is worth the risk.

Women do not find it very, very easy to walk away from their home and family. That's simply a fact. Nor do most of them want to do that. What they want (some of them anyway) is to take care of their families in a hands-on way without being either a Domestic Goddess or a Gender Traitor.

[stsinner]

Having read through the rest of this thread, I'd say the Good Ship "Pressure Women to Stay Home When They Become Mommies" has SAILED. Bon Voyage! :p

Women shouldn't need to be pressured into raising their children.

[Odysseus]

Yes, indeed. Wives now, along with blacks, have the right to vote. They have complete control over their property. Their young children are prohibited from working 60 hours a week in manufacturing. Ah, longing for the good old days is a lot of fun, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to go back to the familial and societal structures of 1909. And those were all corrected by the crusades and efforts of those family-value social conservatives, right? Oh, wait. Maybe not.

It never fails. Mention one good thing about the past and you're accused of wanting a return to segregation, female subjugation and every other evil of that past. This is such an obvious straw man argument that I'm amazed that it didn't start belting out "If I Only Had A Brain." My point, which you've distorted beyond recognition, was that the family of today is less stable than the families of the previous century. Every benefit comes with a cost, and the cost of the changes in society has been that families no longer have the same cohesion that they used to. Like it or not, that's a fact, and with that lack of cohesion come problems. For one thing, children are often raised by single parents, which corelates with increases in child poverty and abuse. These, I would think, are negatives. The point is not to turn back the clock to a mythical golden age, but to make an intelligent assessment of the costs and benefits, something that liberals are loathe to do since it invariably exposes their agenda.

Let me get this straight. You're comparing the women's rights movement in the US which has allowed women to enter the marketplace and realize careers equal to men to the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland? Okiley, dokiley.

The term is reductio ad absurtium, reducing an argument to it's logical and absurd conclusion. In your case, we were to stop questioning the agenda of the activists because it supposedly impacted on their "aspirations" (a much more high sounding word than "demands"). I simply pointed out that not all aspirations are valid, which should have brought you back to debating the merits of that particular argument. I should have known better.

I haven't been back to Saudi in 12 years, but I do read the papers from that area (online) and it appears that women are being allowed into some professions. With the advent of satellite communications, the system is doomed. It's just a matter of how long.

And between now and then, expect a lot of very bloody upheaval. Societal change is nasty, even when the results are ultimately beneficial. The emancipation of Saudi women will be a long time coming, and it will be accompanied by vicious, panicked reactions from the Wahhabi, who see women as the repository of their family honor. You know what Saudis will do to avoid or avenge shame. Now, do I oppose the emancipation of Saudi women? Hardly, but it goes back to that whole cost/benefit thing. What costs will accompany the obvious benefits of that upheaval and what can we do to ensure that the death throes of Saudi male supremacy don't cause us significant grief.

Yes, in those glory years, a century ago, all was right with the American family until those evil suffragettes came along and screwed everything up. Women getting the right to vote was clearly the first step in the secularzation of American morals and the decline into our current sick society. Opposition to women's suffrage took on a hauntingly familiar form...
Sound familiar, anyone?

You're quoting high school term papers?

I hope you're not suggesting the societal pressure to be middle class and acquire all of those material items associated with the middle class is somehow "forcing" women to give up their maternal values and instincts. It's very, very easy to walk away from the house in the suburbs, the 2.1 brats, the 2 SUVs, the dog and the cat, the Pleasant Valley Sundays. The door's always open to those with the imagination and the courage. Society doesn't force anyone to do anything. People make those choices and those compromises.

People do make choices, but the cultural and economic pressures on women to leave the home in the last forty years have been immense. Feminists told them that they weren't fulfilled without being the equal of men in all areas, the economic pressures forced them to work and the complexity of our economy created demands for more skills, which take time to acquire. Many woment delay marriage and childbirth for years while they establish themselves professionally, often getting advanced degrees and competing with men who are not subject to the same pressure to be tied to the home. Women have gone from a minority of degree holders to a majority within a couple of generations, and there are those who have achieved success are certainly going to be conflicted about giving it up to raise kids, and who can blame them? But pretending that those pressures don't exist is more dishonest than demanding that every woman give in to them.

Having read through the rest of this thread, I'd say the Good Ship "Pressure Women to Stay Home When They Become Mommies" has SAILED. Bon Voyage! :p

Once again, the arguments get oversimplified to the point of incomprehensibility. Whether or not you think that women are better prepared by nature to nurture children, certainly someone has to raise them. The best results generally come from a two-parent home in which both parents are biologically connected to their children. The worst involves dropping them off in the woods and hoping that a wandering wolfpack will take them in. Between those two extremes, there are lots of variables, but ultimately, I think that you'll agree that a child is going to get more focused attention from a parent than from a stranger in a room full of kids. Whether that parent is the father or mother is probably best left to them to decide, but ultimately, it comes down to this: Women have babies. Men don't. The plumbing goes one way and that's not open to debate. If a woman is going to have children, then, as the abortion advocates love to point out, she has a choice, or actually, lots of choices. First, she can choose to raise the child or put him/her up for adoption. If she chooses to raise the child, then she has a responsibility to make sure that either she or the person with whom she is having the child are prepared to devote the time and effort that this will take. Having children changes everything in your life, and anyone who isn't prepared to make those changes and accept the responsibility is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If that means that she doesn't advance at work at the same speed as her coworkers, well just remember that those coworkers are picking up the slack at that office while she's on maternity leave. Every benefit has its associated cost, and one of the requirements of adulthood is that you examine them before you choose.

You know what's most amusing? People here, particularly when speaking of gay marriage or of abortion, often hearken back to the days when the American family was so wonderful (Ward and June style). I had always assumed they were referring to that brief period after WWII depicted here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKu2QaytmrM

But, according to Odysseus, that's not right at all; this "perfect family unit" existed prior to WWII. So, I'm just wondering when. During the Great Depression when men were abandoning their families to seek work elsewhere? During the "immoral" age of F.Scott Fitzgerald and the flappers? Prior to that when women were denied the right to vote, did not have control of their own property, watched their children toil in manufacturing factories? Just when did this ideal family (and concept of marriage) exist?

Once again, not what I said, nor my intent. I realize that it's far easier to respond to points that I haven't made, but you really should try to read what I write and actually think about it.

Women shouldn't need to be pressured into raising their children.

Agreed. Perhaps the one good thing about abortion is that those women who are too self-centered to have children end up not having them. Of course, the cost is morally and ethically outrageous, but there is that benefit.

[Water Closet]

It never fails. Mention one good thing about the past and you're accused of wanting a return to segregation, female subjugation and every other evil of that past. This is such an obvious straw man argument that I'm amazed that it didn't start belting out "If I Only Had A Brain." My point, which you've distorted beyond recognition, was that the family of today is less stable than the families of the previous century. Every benefit comes with a cost, and the cost of the changes in society has been that families no longer have the same cohesion that they used to. Like it or not, that's a fact, and with that lack of cohesion come problems. For one thing, children are often raised by single parents, which corelates with increases in child poverty and abuse. These, I would think, are negatives. The point is not to turn back the clock to a mythical golden age, but to make an intelligent assessment of the costs and benefits, something that liberals are loathe to do since it invariably exposes their agenda.

What you fail to recognize is cause and effect. The primary reason the family of 1909 was more "stable" than that of 2009 is that there was a single point of authority, the man. Women and children were, effectively, his property over which he had sole control. Any situation like this will, of course, lead to a short-term version of stability. It is not a sustainable model, however. As soon as women had choices, the model began to break down. I did not pick the suffrage movement by accident, as this really signalled the advent of the breakdown of what you term stability, but what was, in fact, single person control.

The term is reductio ad absurtium, reducing an argument to it's logical and absurd conclusion. In your case, we were to stop questioning the agenda of the activists because it supposedly impacted on their "aspirations" (a much more high sounding word than "demands"). I simply pointed out that not all aspirations are valid, which should have brought you back to debating the merits of that particular argument. I should have known better.

Aspirations of individual choice and freedom equate to aspirations to be free to dominate others? There's a significant qualitative difference which makes your rambling about lebensraum nonsense.

And between now and then, expect a lot of very bloody upheaval. Societal change is nasty, even when the results are ultimately beneficial. The emancipation of Saudi women will be a long time coming, and it will be accompanied by vicious, panicked reactions from the Wahhabi, who see women as the repository of their family honor. You know what Saudis will do to avoid or avenge shame. Now, do I oppose the emancipation of Saudi women? Hardly, but it goes back to that whole cost/benefit thing. What costs will accompany the obvious benefits of that upheaval and what can we do to ensure that the death throes of Saudi male supremacy don't cause us significant grief.

Possibly, possibly not. There's a whole class of Saudi men who are educated, international, and do not regard women in the same light as the traditionalists. Moreover, unless a saviour arises from its ranks, the House of Saud is dying. Are you suggesting that a whole class of people shouldn't seek their own freedom simply becuase of the inconvenience it might do to others?

You're quoting high school term papers?

Are you disputing the research or simply attacking the author. It's better written and researched than 75% of the posters here could accomplish.

Once again, not what I said, nor my intent. I realize that it's far easier to respond to points that I haven't made, but you really should try to read what I write and actually think about it.

Once again, I ask you to point to the time period wherein this "stable" family existed. When you do, look at the other societal frameworks that provided for such and, I think you'll find, that they were all based upon denying the rights of large classes of people.

[Odysseus]

What you fail to recognize is cause and effect. The primary reason the family of 1909 was more "stable" than that of 2009 is that there was a single point of authority, the man. Women and children were, effectively, his property over which he had sole control. Any situation like this will, of course, lead to a short-term version of stability. It is not a sustainable model, however. As soon as women had choices, the model began to break down. I did not pick the suffrage movement by accident, as this really signalled the advent of the breakdown of what you term stability, but what was, in fact, single person control.

Or not. My wife and I have a very stable family. Of course, the single person in control is her, but that's beside the point. In fact, I do understand cause and effect, but it is you who is reversing the two. The destabilization of familiies actually began with the urbanization of industrial societies as well as the mass immigration of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. The rise of factories meant that physical labor became subordinate to skilled labor, and women were able to work outside of the home for the first time in history, while mass migration to cities broke up extended families. The advent of cheaper and faster transportation (railroads, cars, airplanes) accelerated this trend, with the result being a radically different society in terms of female autonomy and independence that preceded the suffrage movement, in fact causing it, rather than being an effect of it. It was the independent, urban Gibson Girl of the 1890s and 1900s who demanded suffrage, rather than a subservient housefrau, dependent upon her husband for all of her decisions. Regardless, the issue, which you keep skirting (no pun intended), is that these changes had consequences, specifically how these changes impact relations between the sexes at home and in the workplace, and most importantly, how they effect child rearing.

Aspirations of individual choice and freedom equate to aspirations to be free to dominate others? There's a significant qualitative difference which makes your rambling about lebensraum nonsense.

Au contrair. If there's one thing that the last hundred years have taught us, it's that every movement eventually becomes a power grab. The feminists weren't content to open up the workplace and have legal and civil equality, they have come to demand equality of result, regardless of common sense and reasonable physical standards to the contrary (my favorite example being the physical test for the NY Fire Department that had to be made far easier in order for women to be accepted). The Civil Rights movement began as a legitimate demand by African-Americans for the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution, but after the 1964 Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, it devolved into a racial spoils campaign in which the major issues are no longer equality of opportunity, but quotas and set asides that do little to alleviate the economic conditions of the ghetto, but have done a lot for the middle class children of black professionals. As for gay activists, we've gone from a demand for tolerance of a lifestyle that was once referred to as "the love that dare not speak its name," but is now "the love that just won't shut up for a second," especially if you decline to pay sufficient obeisance to its latest cause celebre, gay marriage.

Possibly, possibly not. There's a whole class of Saudi men who are educated, international, and do not regard women in the same light as the traditionalists. Moreover, unless a saviour arises from its ranks, the House of Saud is dying. Are you suggesting that a whole class of people shouldn't seek their own freedom simply becuase of the inconvenience it might do to others?

I would have thought that my comment, which explicitly stated that I favored the emancipation of Saudi women, would have been sufficient answer to that, but since it wasn't, allow me to highlight it:

The emancipation of Saudi women will be a long time coming, and it will be accompanied by vicious, panicked reactions from the Wahhabi, who see women as the repository of their family honor. You know what Saudis will do to avoid or avenge shame. Now, do I oppose the emancipation of Saudi women? Hardly, but it goes back to that whole cost/benefit thing. What costs will accompany the obvious benefits of that upheaval and what can we do to ensure that the death throes of Saudi male supremacy don't cause us significant grief.

In other words, I support the emancipation of Saudi women, but I also know that it will be accompanied by some serious turmoil. And while you are correct that the House of Saud is dying, you have to look at what will fill the power vaccuum when it goes. The strongest hand in Saudi Arabia right now is the fundamentalist Wahhabi clerical community, which has the capacity to provoke tremendous violence, and has shown a desire to do so outside of the kingdom. It is unlikely that they will forego the opportunity to take power if the royal family loses it, espcially in view of their cooperation with Iran. And before you say it, yes, I know that Shia and Sunni don't care much for each other, especially the Wahhabi (who consider the Shia little more than idolaters, but the fact is that Al Qaeda has had no problem working with the Iranian mullahs to defeat common enemies. Remember that Hamas is a Sunni group and Iran has been assisting them with training and munitions for years. A collapse of the Saud dynasty will not likely usher in a more liberal regime as a more fundamentalist and repressive one. And yes, there are some Saudi men who don't see women as chattel, but those men pay homage to the mullahs who do, at least in public. One doesn't hear much from them in the debates on women's rights, at least not in the western media. If I seem more cautious than you, remember that I'm not paid to be optimistic.

Are you disputing the research or simply attacking the author. It's better written and researched than 75% of the posters here could accomplish.

I had intended to read the entire paper, but when I saw that it was a collection of high school term papers, I was momentarily surprised. Still, if you vouch for it, I'll read it and respond.

Once again, I ask you to point to the time period wherein this "stable" family existed. When you do, look at the other societal frameworks that provided for such and, I think you'll find, that they were all based upon denying the rights of large classes of people.

First, understand that I said that families were "more stable," not that there was a golden age when the family was everything. In fact, that's pretty much what you have in clan/tribal societies where there is no authority above the tribes and clans and disputes cannot be resolved except through satisfaction of clan honor. My point was that families on the whole were more stable, that is, less likely to collapse into their component parts, a century ago. You've made lots of points about why you don't care for the period, but you've never answered my one question, which is, "Do you acknowledge that families were more stable a century ago than they are now?" Without hemming, hawing or accusing me of wanting to turn back the clock to a time when men were men and sheep were nervious, just answer that question and we can address the underlying causes after the fact.

[MrsSmith]

Interestingly, the best way to build a stable family is outlined very clearly in the Bible. The man is the authority in the house, and both wife and children are to respect him. In return, he is commanded to love his wife as his own flesh, treat her as a co-heir to salvation, and lay his life down for her at need, as Christ did with His church. Upon the man rests all the responsibility to build and maintain a happy family...or die trying.