१८ जानेवारी, २००६
"So then why do we need them? Why is it so bad -- in your view -- to have fatherless households?"
Salon has a big, antagonistic interview with Kate O'Beirne (about her book "Women Who Make the World Worse").
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
I'll have to read the interview to be fair and get the context, but the question you choose for your headline is so illuminating. It's the belligerent, pouty assertion of self-evident bullshit that's so marvelous.
I can't read the article but here are my reasons fathers are important.
1. As part of their character development, teenagers must fear the consequences of destructive actions. Fathers are best at instilling that fear.
2. Boys raised without a father do not have a model on how women should be treated. Thus they are more apt to treat women poorly or abuse them.
3. Girls raised without a father are more apt to be abused as adults because they have not learned how men should properly treat women.
As proof of the importance of the above items, 70% of all the men in prison did not have a father figure in their lives.
I went and read the interview. It was not that bad.
The writer did exclaim the feminists lost in the Larry Summers faux pas because he was not fired. That certainly shows her thinking.
But I love Kate O'Beirne, she is someone who knows how to have fun IMHO.
The segment on the Larry Summers/Harvard flap gave some very telling insights, too.
Summers stated some un-PC facts and wanted to discuss how to address them. O'Beirne maintians that feminists won because Summers he had his head handed to him on a platter and caved to the feminists' demands. The author is incedulous: Feminists can't have won because Summers wasn't fired for what he said!
I suppose we should ask some guys who grew up without a father in their lives if they would have wanted one, a decent one that is. I don't buy into the notion that teachers and youth group leaders and church group leaders and coaches subsitute for fathers and serve as role models for boys without fathers. Often uncles and grandfathers and good neighbors are able to take up some of the slack, but it is not quite enough.
Goesh,
No, it is not enough - those are helpful, not a solution.
Thanks for the pointer, that's a very funny interview.
Esp. the parts where the interviewer whines "But that's exactly the problem! To say that it's been true historically without exception doesn't make it right!"
Whah, whah, whah. It is. Deal with it.
The interviewer is antagonistic. " I knew that I'd found O'Beirne immensely likable -- in the way that you might find someone likable if you disagreed with every word that came out of her mouth." Likable, respectful, and antagonistic.
The question quoted in Ann's title asked by the interviewer is also antagonistic but O'Beirne answers is with aplomb: "Because there's tons kids learn from their fathers!" It's about kids' educations! Boy kids and girl kids. True feminism.
Imagine the question in reverse: "So then why do we need them? Why is it so bad -- in your view -- to have motherless households?"
The major point I took from O'Beirne is that true feminism is about equal rights and opportunities for men and women, not simply forcing men to step down in order to facilitate women's freedom to step up.
I'll read the interview at some point. I just wanted to note that I made my way through the annoying ad Salon helpfully imposes, from the ACLU, and somehow the ACLU - in comparing the lying Nixon to the lying W - manages to pick out one sentence Nixon said about Watergate that was *not* a lie.
"I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in" - that was true, wan't it? Am I wrong about that? It does happen.
Not only was the interview antagonistic, it was lousy. Time after time the interviewer broaches a topic, and then O'Bierne answered in her typically glib tone, and the interviewer would drop the subject just so she could stick to her script. At best there would be a single follow-up question here or there throughout the interview. What a mess.
I like O'Bierne and I agree with her central thesis. Sometimes her manner grates on my nervers, though. One thing that cracked me up was the note about a "sardonic glance" -- I thought this was transcribed from an audio tape? I'll have to look into the new recorders that capture facial expressions as well as the spoken word.
I thought this was transcribed from an audio tape? I'll have to look into the new recorders that capture facial expressions as well as the spoken word.
Interviewer: [to O'Bierne] "Hold that thought." [into recorder] "Please note that O'Bierne's last comment was given with a sardonic glance." [back to O'Bierne] "Okay, go on."
So it's a little unfair to isolate that quote, but not entirely. It rolled out of the context naturally, after a passage where they were talking about how men don't take to nurturing automaticaly.
But it's still an eye-rolling sort of question. It seems like an attempted "gotcha" by the overmatched interviewer that she had to know even as she was uttering it was pretty limp.
She probably doesn't believe the BS that the question in isolation implies. But after all, Ann was just using it as a teaser.
btw, paulfrommpls, I think you are right - Nixon had no prior knowledge of the break in. His crime came in the coverup.
Asking the question "So then why do we need them..." was perhaps meant to be merely provocative and hyperbolic, but I think not.
It's been quite evident over the past 10-20 years that the darker visions of the far left are now bearing fruit. The death of the nuclear family has been an element of radical feminism for many years. So much so that Traister asking "Why do we need them?" or Dowd wondering "Are Men Necessary?" are barely scandalous. (And it's surely no secret to men that they are needed "like a fish needs a bicycle.")
What I like about O'Beirne is that she is a true economist, pointing out that our choices have consequences, there is no free lunch, and the unchangeable part of human nature can't be ignored.
Meade -
Thanks.
What a buncha maroons. This is our go-to juggernaut for civil liberties expertise? "I don't think so."
As someone earlier mentioned, I think the interviewer was just outmatched. She had very few searching or insightful questions, just knee-jerk, antagonistic ones--like the one in Ann's headline.
The suggestion that there should be all sorts of tax credits or incentives, government programs, etc. to subsidize ANYONE'S choice of whether to work or stay home is stupid. Make your decision, ladies, and live with it. And there's no *perfect* answer by the way... whether you decide to work or to stay home, you're sacrificing something really important. And if you can get your job to let you work "part-time," consider yourself LUCKY LUCKY LUCKY!!!
(sorry for the rant.)
As to why I pulled that quote. I originally intended to write a longer post, but then I almost didn't post at all because I didn't find the interview that interesting. I just wanted to point you to the interview, and I needed a title, so I just looked for a good quote. I thought that quote was tantalizing. The notion that I'm trying to make the interviewer look as though she is asserting that men are unnecessary is just weird. It's a question, not an assertion, and it obviously implies that O'Beirne just said something that prompted it. You have to go there and read to figure out how that came to be the next question. That's why it's tantalizing. Toadlady is just looking for trouble.
The stats about children raised by a single paret not doing as well is kind of misleading if you apply it specifically to a lack of fathers. I mean you've got ONE person vs. TWO, regardless. It would be interesting to see how two-parent households made up of a mother and a grandmother, auntie, lesbian lover, whatever, stack up against the mother/father households.
Of course it is harder for one person to raise children than two.
me said... "you shouldn't have to choose between a job and your children."
huh? "shouldn't have to" on what planet? There is no easy solution. There never will be. This is not "bleak" --it's reality. This is not wrong or unfair, it's life! And if it makes you feel better, know that being a parent will pay you back in countless ways.
"Frankly I have no idea how I'm going to balance work and family"
I can sympathize with you, believe me.... but why would you ever think you can have a child--and life just smoothly goes on, everything and everyone just adjusts perfectly to your liking and convenience?
Expecting "equal opportunity" is good! Expecting the world to be re-arranged perfectly according to your circumstances and your choices is, well, delusional.
Re: Harkonnendog's comment about comparing the outcomes of mother/father households with mother/grandmother, Auntie, lesbian lover etc. households.
No academic with a career to lose would even consider such a study.
This is the problem with political correctness. It stifles the search for the truth about novel social arrangements and their effect on children.
I might be wrong on this and I'll defer to Ann's opinion. She's closer to academia than I am.
Back to the book and its marketing, is this a new genre? "Women Who Make the World Worse" joins "100 People Who are Screwing Up America" and "Lying Liars. . . ."
Why not title them all "Our side Good; Other Side Bad." Do people read these books, or do they just buy them for the titles?
Instead of advancing the "great man" theory of history, O'Beirne is presenting the wicked woman theory of history.
O'Beirne joins Schlafly as one of those women with advanced degrees and professional achievements outside the home who attack women with advanced degrees and achievements outside the home.
Part of the problem with this whole issue is that women tend to get defensive no matter what choice they make.
So you get these duelling victims, where women who stay at home claim that they are looked down on, and women who choose to work claim that *they* are, in fact, the ones who are being attacked.
It's ridiculous. Feminism allowed us to have the choice to do one or the other. The fact that we are still complaining strikes me as whiny.
I think its time for the feminist movement in the U.S. to turn its efforts to the women in the third world, where women truly are victims of often brutal "patriarchies."
Geo, if you'd read the interview you'd know it was a marketing ploy by the publicist.
Elizabeth,
You missed the ending to your post, "who then go on to attack women who stay home and take care of their kids and family."
I know it makes it a bit more real and not as biting, but it does add a sense of context and reality.
knoxgirl said...
... I think its time for the feminist movement in the U.S. to turn its efforts to the women in the third world, where women truly are victims of often brutal "patriarchies."
Very well said, Knoxgirl. Let altruism trump the narcissism that has trumped feminism.
me: Again, I sympathise with your desire for there to be a more family-friendly solution to working and being a mom. But most employers simply cannot afford to suddenly let any employee who has a child go part-time, telecommute, work from home, etc. It's not because they are stuck in a "model" from the 50's... it's because they are businesses and they have to function.
For example, if everyone I work with who has a child started doing this, the business would go under, no question.
In some circumstances, especially large corporations, certainly it is more feasible. But you seem to be claiming that some huge change needs to be made in the way that businesses run in order to serve all the people who want to stay home. This is unrealistic.
Also: I believe that you start to run into a dangerous territory where there simply aren't enough good child-care providers to take care of all the children whose parents work. In fact, I think we are probably already there! Where would all these people come from if even MORE women went back to work, even part-time?
Anyway, it sounds like we are both somewhat in the same boat. I am lucky enough to work 4 days a week and have family provide my child care. Good luck to you when you reach this point. And I admire your work for women less fortunate than us!
I worked with the Feminist Majority Foundation to help women in Afghanistan in the late 90's when the Taliban was in power Me: you've obviously missed the accepted belief by some of the constant commenters here that feminists don't ever do anything to confront sexism and oppression of women by Islam.
Tidalpoet: yeah, sure, feminists hate women who stay home with their families. That's why we're for changing Social Security benefits to accommodate them, despite their not being in the public workforce. That's why we're for better and more affordable health insurance for families. The reality deficit is not on my part here.
Elizabeth,
it's the sad truth that a lot of women sneer at housewives. I'm not even on the receiving end of it and I see it. I have found that a lot of these same women call themselves "feminists."
Say what you will about their desire for social security or health care reform, the above is true.
me: I do think you're right, that it's relaxing a bit, and our generation is not as judgmental as the boomers were.
Geoduck2,
Not sure what discussion you and I have had before, but I can assure you that I never clap my hands over my ears and sing "Nah, nah, nah, we can't hear you."
A) I prefer a more catchy tune.
B) I can't sing, so even if I were to prefer a catchy tune, I'd not sing it, perhaps humming would work?
C) Your response and attempt at levity was amusing, so it worked.
But, really, NOW isn't exactly an unbiased organization in the gender war front. NOW's stance on Social Security is hardly a backing for stay at home mothers. That's a ridiculous assertion.
NOW is a left wing organization that opposes the entire philosophy of the right. Look at their issue sheet, you're a member, you probably already have it memorized. Do you see an issue there that isn't a platform plank of the Democrat party?
Heck, one of the issues is "Fighting the Right."
For you to sit there and say what you have, is to basically say that if I'm not a member of the left, I'm anti-women(s) rights. Sorry, I won't let you tar me with that label.
I won't agree that NOW hoping to end oppression (of women in particular it seems) in third world countries and opposing Social Security reform is somehow a backing for stay at home mothers.
That also ignores the other fact that NOW is not the sum total of all Feminist movements that exist today. I do hope you have more than that to back up your statements.
"So if a particular home in 1980 sold for $100K, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it sold today for $254K.
I also wouldn't be surprised if it cost more than that to build the same size house on the same sized lot, today..."
That's pretty much what I thought would be the reason for that; it's not always that people of today have given in to extravagant indulgences in the area of housing. Many times, they're looking for things like good schools, a neighborhood in which they'll feel safe, etc., and lately, those type of neighborhoods often feature a "super-sized" house. I feel lucky that I found a smaller one in a good neighborhood for under 100K a few years back.
geoduck,
I like your sense of humor.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा