From: ae1c@dlrvms.go.dlr.de
Subject: Re: Reverence for women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:22:37 GMT

Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) and I go back and forth:

>>Why cannot the social expectation dealing with family be simply
>>revised to "when a woman and a man marry, they *both* agree to
>>*equally* support their children and their family financially,
>>morally, emotionally and physically" . . .

>The first two sentences I quote aren't consistent.  I take it that a

yes they were (I've ommitted the 2nd sentance for space).

>better statement of your proposed rule would be: "When a woman and a
>man marry, they agree that between them they will support their
>children financially, morally, emotionally and physically, but how
>they divide up the responsibility is entirely up to them and nobody
>else has a right to any views on the matter".

I wouldn't call that a "better" restatement, but it is reasonably
acccurate surprisingly enough.  Although one should say that "and
nobody else has a right to any views on *how they divide up the
responsibility*."  (Other people do have a right to a view on "the
matter" if you define "the matter" to being the fact that they will
support their children and not as the division of this labor.)

>One problem with a social expectation that's so abstract is that it's
>quite unclear when someone is living up to it.  Each spouse can blame
>the other, and it's no-one's business but theirs anyway who does what,
>so the function of social pressure in keeping people in line is lost.

Here's where you go astray: The social pressure that you so desire is
*still* there.  Society "expects" that PARENTS will care for and
provide for their children.  If the parents do not do this; if the
parents leave the children unattended to (in whatever way) then
"society" *will* backlash and the social pressure will be there on the
parents.  ie, concerned neighbor says to John and Jane: "Whatever is
wrong with you two!?!  I see that your 5 year old comes home from
kindergarten every day alone for 2 hours before either of you get
home.  That is shameful.  Something could happen to the poor child!
You must arrange that the child is cared for during that time!"  The
difference from this expectation and the one that you expect is not so
big as you make it out to be.  It is not an insurmountable obstacle
for the average person, and in fact I *have* heard such a scenario
actually occur.  The only difference is that now (and I do mean now,
present tense, as in actually happening) when a concerned neighbor
intervenes on behalf of the kids, *both* parents are held responsible
instead of just one or the other depending on the crime.

>Also, where there's more for the spouses to decide it's less likely
>that they'll be able to come to an agreement and (having agreed) stick
>to the agreement and interpret it in the same way.

Here and elsewhere you seem to be so concerned that under the *worst*
circumstances, when the spouses actually hate each other and cannot
have rational discussions, that sex-role stereotypes must protect the
children.  In my view, two people get married at all becuase they love
and respect each other.  They can have intelligent discussions with
one another.  If life with one another is so unbearable that they
cannot have a civil discussion and resolution, then they should
re-think remaining together, whether there are children involved or
not.  Of course, there will always be bad times for relationships
(I've lived through one with my husband) and then it is more difficult
to come to terms with one another, but it should still be possible
(just perhaps with a bit more yelling :-).  But nonetheless, a large
portion of married people's lives are spent in much better than the
"worst" conditions -- where discussion and resolution are daily events
and where they *trust* and love one another and coming to and keeping
agreements is what it's all about. (and is a positively reinforcing
cycle)

And also, in all the couples that I know with children (ranging from
my friends in academics to relatives in blue-collar jobs) *both* of
the parents *love* their children, even when they aren't getting on so
great with each other.  And I just cannot see how your opinion of the
average person is so low that you think that without sex-role
stereotypes the parents will *abandon* their children.  It just isn't
true in *any* of the cases that I've seen.  Even if the parents *are*
arguing about who has to take Alex to the doctor -- Alex gets taken to
the doctor, s/he doesn't just lay at home in the sickbed and die
becuase the parents are of differing opinions.

>... It seems to me that people's
>actions are determined far more by their expectations and habits, by
>impulse, by what seems likely to avoid trouble, and by the attitudes of
>the people around them.  ....  Traditional sex-role stereotypes
>promote that desirable result.  In their absence the situation becomes
>rather hit-or-miss.  In some cases -- you and your husband may well be
>one -- childcare will be very good.  Usually, though, it will suffer.

Says you.  And you alone.  I repeat, parents *love* their children.
And they will care for them.  There are _already_ "social expectations"
in existence for families where both parents work. The majority of
families with younger children (meaning parents who are in their 20s
and 30s, not in their 50s) comprise this group, so the expectation has
already been formed (sorry you missed it).  Society expects that the
*parents* will care for their children.  Unfortunately, society still
expects a little more from mom than from dad in the realm of nurture,
but it is changing.  And that is what we have been trying to convince
you should continue changing and that it is a change for the better.
Maybe I should get my husband to write you a note about why he thinks
that this is a change for the better from a male perspective and what
benefits he sees that his father did not enjoy.

>>Many people already raise their children in a stable environment that
>>does not include mom staying home; the parents are happy, the kids are
>>happy.  And they all lived happily ever after.
>
>Rising divorce and illegitimacy rates and the declining well-being of
>American children over the last 25 years lead me to think that in
>general it's been a different story.

Are you saying that divorce is due to women working???  Are you saying
that illegitimate children are a product of day-care???  Come now.
And you had better come up with hard proof first that the well-being
of american children is declining and second that the well-being of
children in homes where the mother works is less than that in homes
where the mother is only a homemaker, before I'll believe a single
syllable of that last statement.  And you'd better define "well-being"
pretty carefully too while you're at it.  I've read studies that
indicated that children were better off living with only one parent
(usually mom in the past) becuase of a divorce than living in the
warlike environment of the home prior to the divorce.  And this *even
though* the standard of living for the children (as in how much money
they had) was *less* after the divorce (becuase mom got reamed) and
even though most of these mothers were then working after the divorce.
At any rate, "well-being" of children is not simply defined by how nice
an apartment they can afford to live in or by two parental units
sleeping in the same bed in said apartment or by the female parent
staying at home instead of working.

Cate "ae1c@dlrvms.go.dlr.de"

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.