Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kathleen Parker has a piece in WaPo today dealing with the malevolent consequences of the decline of marriage and child-rearing within stable marriages. The bottom line is that the research is increasingly conclusive that in the U.S. 1) marriage is broken, 2) children raised outside of marriage suffer.
Parker's piece is essentially her reply to the recently-released State Of Our Unions report (the pdf is accessible from the main page), which apart from providing an accessible summary of these findings, also at several points sums up the problems as stemming from "divorce, unmarried births, and unmarried cohabitation" [DUBUC].
But if something close a scholarly consensus has emerged around DUBUC as a serious problem, the actual policy solutions are more elusive, essentially because any serious policy approach will gore oxen. An interesting blog post by Amber Lapp at FamilyScholars.org concludes (scroll way down) with a survey of some policy prescriptions, and the discussion in that post shows just how controversial proposed solutions can be.
Of all controversial solutions to DUBUC, possibly the most controversial is hinted at in remarks posted by Charles Murray (no stranger to controversy) at the American Enterprise Institute's public policy blog (and commented on here at FamilyScholar).
In essence, some research seems to suggest that old-fashioned patriarchal "gentlemanliness" (what sociologists term "benevolent sexism"), with its implication of male superiority over, and protection and leadership of, females, makes people of both sexes happy. In the language of the academic article to which Murray is replying, "benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men...The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level".
To be scrupulously fair, it must be pointed out that Murray is simply commenting on the article, not offering anything remotely like a full-fledged policy prescription. But what if this research is pointing to something useful? What if the solution to DUBUC rests on a "Grand Bargain" which would have been familiar to our grandparents?
What if the way to promote healthy child-rearing within lasting marriages depends on a fundamental inequality between the sexes: male superiority acknowledged yet limited by ingrained duty expressed by a "code" of a gentlemanly behaviour, in return for stable families and all the benefits which plentiful research points as flowing therefrom?
I think it's a little overthinking here. The only people that seem to care about these things are the ones who want to smash gender roles and western family norms.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it...Women and Men are physiologically and psychologically different.
That's pretty much what academic sociologists are paid to do, isn't it?
Quote:
The only people that seem to care about these things are the ones who want to smash gender roles and western family norms. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it...Women and Men are physiologically and psychologically different.
I think, to be fair, the case needs to be stated pretty baldly: we have a problem with DUBUC. Most academics, and probably the majority of the general thinking population, acknowledge the problem and are willing to find solutions, as long as any solution offered accommodates gender equality.
But there is a possibility that it's one or the other: either you get gender equality or you get DUBUC.
If you're ready to accept that proposition, then one way out might be a "gentlemanly" inequality which, being "benevolent", is a reasonable or at least acceptable compromise.
Of course, it's not that simple. How we encourage (restore?) a gentlemanly code is a hard one. And as the article in Psychology of Women Quarterly (to which Murray responds) goes on to point out, even if "benevolent sexism" is an acceptable solution to DUBUC, it isn't without a down-side. The article cites research showing that gentlemanly "benevolent sexist attitudes" are associated with "beliefs that excuse sexual harassment", that "individuals who endorse benevolent sexism tend to hold beliefs justifying spousal abuse", and that "men who possess benevolently sexist attitudes reacted negatively to female rape victims who violate traditional feminine norms" among other things.
These research findings are perhaps not conclusive, but certainly suggestive. So if gentlemanly "benevolent sexism" is the solution to our DUBUC problem, no one should believe it's an easy one or doesn't come at a price.
But then, we - and our children - are already paying a high price for DUBUC in the first place.
Unfortunately too many men believe if they open the door for women, the women owe them something (more than a thank you). Or if they have a female boss or are forced to compete with women in the workplace, then they cannot be gentlemen. Or if women don't need men to support them, then why bother being polite or chivalrous to them. It seems much of the time the benevolence is more about paternalism with the attached conditions.
tamajane, I'd guess that lots of women (and men) would agree with you, and maybe also with this comment (from the AEI comments):
Quote:
Woah, what a bunch of messed up women these are! The best thing in the world is for a man to treat a woman right, as opposed to the “50 Shades of Gray†trash. I feel sorry for all you so-called ladies that do not want men to treat you like ladies. You are missing out, and will always have that void in your soul for love and respect. Sad, sad, sad.
What strikes me, though, is the statistics in the State Of Our Unions report which show significant disparities in the attitudes of teen boys and girls toward marriage and DUBUC issues: boys are significantly less optimistic about marriage and raising children within it.
Several threads in this forum recently, around the man's involvement in decisions about having (or aborting) a child, and then supporting it, have popped up recently, often with remarks like "What's in marriage for men now?" If teen boys are coming to the same conclusion, that marriage and married child-rearing has "nothing in it" for them, I think we'd all agree that we're heading for trouble: more and worse DUBUC.
Was "benevolent sexism" what men got out of marriage before? Is that what it takes to keep people from DUBUC? If so, is it a price worth paying, considering the very clear ill-effects on both women and their children from DUBUC?
That's pretty much what academic sociologists are paid to do, isn't it?
I think, to be fair, the case needs to be stated pretty baldly: we have a problem with DUBUC. Most academics, and probably the majority of the general thinking population, acknowledge the problem and are willing to find solutions, as long as any solution offered accommodates gender equality.
But there is a possibility that it's one or the other: either you get gender equality or you get DUBUC.
If you're ready to accept that proposition, then one way out might be a "gentlemanly" inequality which, being "benevolent", is a reasonable or at least acceptable compromise.
Of course, it's not that simple. How we encourage (restore?) a gentlemanly code is a hard one. And as the article in Psychology of Women Quarterly (to which Murray responds) goes on to point out, even if "benevolent sexism" is an acceptable solution to DUBUC, it isn't without a down-side. The article cites research showing that gentlemanly "benevolent sexist attitudes" are associated with "with beliefs that excuse sexual harassment", that "individuals who endorse benevolent sexism tend to hold beliefs justifying spousal abuse", and that "men who possess benevolently sexist attitudes reacted negatively to female rape victims who violate traditional feminine norms" among other things.
These research findings are perhaps not conclusive, but certainly suggestive. So if gentlemanly "benevolent sexism" is the solution to our DUBUC problem, no one should believe it's an easy one or doesn't come at a price.
But then, we - and our children - are already paying a high price for DUBUC in the first place.
Well, it's just a fundamental problem here.
The dilemma is you absolutely cannot propose a solution for this matter that doesn't utilize propaganda. I subscribe to gender equality being a false premise. We aren't inherently equal... So, and this won't be a favorable line of logic, in order for us to receive the same benefits of equality through gender norms....I think we need to address the core values that differentiate gender norms as well..
For example, everybody wants to hold that preference that women should hold equal footing and equal pay scale in similar job fields. After all, we are all human, right? But nobody wants to address the fact that more men enlist in maths and science studies at higher learning institutions and women tend to lean towards the path of least resistance which usually end up in help sector jobs. Was this a natural progression or an engineered one?
And as far as cultural norms, men tend to indulge in tech savvy or skilled trade hobbies. How many female electricians have you met in your life? I can count them on one hand. Now, this may or may not be a result of the prescriptive norms themselves. But as you alluded to, many women and men I know seem to have no problem with this.
But here is the crux of my argument AGAINST propaganda and indoctrination to re-route the roles of gender norms.
I hold the belief that gender norms arose naturally in society because the inherent physiological and psychological differences between men and women were realized, observed and accepted.
As far as gentlemanliness, I think it originated as an empathetic gesture and general recognition that men were overly dominant and could submit a woman at will. But it has evolved into a tool used by females to exploit men in a society where such actions cannot are not feasible without dire consequences.
As far as physical abuse, there is no room for that to be accepted within norms at all.
EDIT: As far as family is concerned.... well, I see family as an individual. Whatever works for a family is fine for that family. Gender roles reversed, whatever works.
What if the way to promote healthy child-rearing within lasting marriages depends on a fundamental inequality between the sexes: male superiority acknowledged yet limited by ingrained duty expressed by a "code" of a gentlemanly behaviour, in return for stable families and all the benefits which plentiful research points as flowing therefrom?
You men go right ahead and have those babies, then.
Since you're so superior and all.
If something 'depends' on inequality then it is intrinsically bad. JMO
What if the way to promote healthy child-rearing within lasting marriages depends on a fundamental inequality between the sexes: male superiority acknowledged yet limited by ingrained duty expressed by a "code" of a gentlemanly behaviour, in return for stable families and all the benefits which plentiful research points as flowing therefrom?
I don't know if it does. Historically strict laws were what kept people in marriages and stuff like domestic violence was essentially ignored by law enforcement. All sorts of stuff made homes broken it was just that folks couldn't get out of the situation and society hid it away. I honestly also don't know if there ever was any ingrained duty of gentlemanly behavior. The only law I can think of to try and enforce gentlemanly behavior on men was prohibition and that failed miserably. I think promoting responsibility is great, but I doubt promoting gender inequality will do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
