From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: reverence for women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:10:59 GMT

In <1992Apr4.030349.26983@panix.com> uunet!cmcl2!panix.com!jk@ncar.ucar.EDU (Jim Kalb) writes:

[Jim and I go back and forth]

>I don't object to two hearts beating as one, but I would prefer a
>system that works even when two hearts don't beat as one.  What seems
>to be needed in order to raise children well is for mothers and
>fathers to have stable relationships in which they can work together
>in a reasonably pleasant way.  Clear responsibilities within the
>relationship makes it more likely that will come about.

But the basis for these responsibilities is based on one's gender.
There is an irreconciliable difference between the two of us if you
think this division is defensible.  Women do bear the children; after
that, everthing else is negotiable.

>Also, I don't see how clearly-defined responsibilities make it more
>difficult for the parties to a relationship to get to know each other.
>On the contrary -- if nothing is fixed and everything is subject to
>negotiation people tend to trust each other less than when it's clear
>how everything stands.  That's the way things are in other situations,
>so why not in marriage?

As I recall, it hasn't worked terribly well in the private sector,
either.  More companies are experimenting with alternative methods (eg
Saturn) becuase the *traditional way* is *not working*.

>Some would, many wouldn't.  Whatever the goal and whatever the
>circumstances, many people get by very well and most get by after a
>fashion.  My point is that in the absence of something like the
>traditional family the circumstances would be much less favorable to
>raising children well.  Some people would, of course, triumph over
>circumstances.

I don't think this is the case.  The family, and the concept of
divisions of labor have not always been in this particular
"traditional" set up you keep advocating.  Throughout history,
families and their roles have been redefined again and again: when
conquered by a different culture, when the renaissance swept through
the middle ages, when the black death decimated europe in the fourteen
century, when industrialization began.  And I haven't even touched
non-western setups.  This nice "traditional" set up of yours has only
been possible (and widely used) in the last 50 years in an era of
unprecedented growth where only person could provide income needed for
a family.  This prosperity has faltered badly in the last decade.

You only need to look at the volumes of _A History of Private Life_
and _The Kindness of Strangers_ (boswell) to understand 1) the
definition of family has changed many times and 2) that children have
gotten the short end of it for the most part.  Even the children of
the last 50 years have had their problems: who admitted to child abuse
and incest at all, even though the numbers drastically increased in
that time span?  I don't mean to say that children should never get a
break, but I am pointing out that previous "traditional" arrangements
havne't done any better at treating them either.

As for assumptions making a marriage, I'm sorry: I've seen more
marriages destroyed over assumptions than anything else.  Period.  The
old saw: "Don't assume: it makes an ASS out of U and ME." comes to
mind.  Remember, during the period of time of your ideal "traditional"
set up, divorce was unthinkable, no matter how unpleasant the marriage
was, especially when there were children.  That inevitably distorts any
attempt to quantify how assumptions affected the marriages back then.
And what do children in such a family learn about marriage?

--Cindy
--
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.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism