November 23, 2014

"In her 1970 book The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer dreamt of creating a communal collective of well-heeled young mothers..."

"... at a farmhouse in Italy 'where our children would be born. Their fathers and other people would also visit as often as they could... The house and garden would be worked by a local family...'. Charming. In an issue of Shrew magazine in 1973, a contributor asked 'Are Fathers Really Necessary?' and concluded 'they are more trouble than they are worth and likely to abuse children sexually.' That sort of contempt towards men and marginalisation of fathers rings down the decades of the last half century and it finds non-stop expression and repetition everywhere you look in our mainstream culture – from children’s stories and TV soap operas to mass market advertising, newspaper columns, Woman’s Hour and the rest."

From a UK Telegraph article headed "Is Gillian Wearing's family sculpture offensive to fathers?/A sculpture depicting a 'real Birmingham family' has caused controversy due to its absence of men. Why are fathers increasingly marginalised in mainstream culture, asks Neil Lyndon." I ran across that searching for the Germaine Greer quote about female artists that's paraphrased in an article blogged in the previous post.

Why interpret a sculpture of 2 women (one pregnant) with 2 children as an expression of hostility toward fathers? The sculpture only seems to say this, too, is a family. It promotes inclusion of gay people, not the exclusion of men. To see an exclusion-of-men message is, ironically, similar to an argument I have heard from gay-rights proponents: The pervasive images of heterosexual couples in our culture send a message of marginalization toward gay people, telling them that they are less-than-ideal or outsiders.

49 comments:

Laslo Spatula said...

I figured the fathers were out working to support the family when the sculpture was made. Nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous said...

Inclusion, exclusion, seclusion, occlusion, reclusion, conclusion, blah blah blah.

Yawn. It's a monument to social dysfunction.

Ann Althouse said...

To my eye -- more importantly -- it's a bad sculpture.

Most public sculpture these days is bad. There is so much wretched crap cluttering our shared space. That it reveals an attempt to indoctrinate is -- to my mind -- just one way in which it is bad.

Quite aside from the message!

Jaq said...

I agree with Althouse here. A gay couple, or a single mother are both "ideal" types of parents, millions of years of human history notwithstanding. Because we want it to be true... so much.

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

The pervasive images of heterosexual couples in our culture sends a message of marginalization toward gay people, telling them that they are less-than-ideal or outsiders.

Also, the pervasive image of university professors as a positive force in our culture is a gross stereotype and tells people unable to afford their validation a message of marginalization, telling them their views are less worthy.

Laslo Spatula said...

""In her 1970 book The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer dreamt of creating a communal collective of well-heeled young mothers at a farmhouse in Italy 'where our children would be born."

"Well-heeled": of course. This only works when the elites do it. And: a farmhouse in Italy": how chick-flick of Greer: Tuscany, no doubt.

So, basically: a bunch of rich, presumably New York-ish women with endless Unicorn Money will raise kids in a land where they do not speak the language (we all know the elite women took "French" at Wellesley), because it would be so literary. They will all have to write memoirs, of course: that will be their REAL work.

As for the actual day-to-day drudgery of life: they can have the 'non-elite' from the quaint village down the road handle any real work, because that is what the non-elite are there for, of course. And -- by being in Italy -- the non-elite Italians still have a romantic air about them, even the swarthy ones.

It makes me want to lick sensuously a Georgia O'Keeffe painting until it has an orgasm.

I am Laslo.

SGT Ted said...

It's all about propaganda.

If it's heterosexual or male only, it is exclusionary. If its gay or female only, it is celebratory.

What it all actually *is*?

It's female sexist pig bullshit.

Anybody that has observed the behavior and interactions of an all female barracks knows it's bullshit.

Eleanor said...

I think fathers, unless they're gay fathers, have been deemed irrelevant by a large portion of the population. We've replaced "father" with "baby daddy". But I'm not sure it's having the idyllic results Greer expected it would. A lot of women who want a father for their children and a husband for themselves are settling for a baby daddy, but it isn't what they would prefer. Unfortunately, women like Greer never asked them they wanted.

traditionalguy said...

I see fathers excluded because the reason gay people have a gay lifestyle IS to exclude Fatherhoods.

Motherhood sure, but Fathers are always the enemy of gay lifestyle in all its forms.

Can I help it if I am right.

Moose said...

Quite banal - both the sculpture and the your comment. However I think Chicklit nailed it.

The Drill SGT said...


The Life of Julia.

In Italy

mesquito said...

Why Italy? Why not Arkansas?

Sebastian said...

"The sculpture only seems to say this, too, is a family."

In other words, art as propaganda.

I invite you to think deeply about why your BS detector doesn't work here.

Rae said...

There is an ongoing, uncoordinated campaign in Western culture to devalue fathers, and men in general, and replace them with Sugar Daddy Government.

And I agree that most public sculpture is terrible these days. Although I'm not sure it was ever good. Looking back historically, good art is produced spontaneously, or commissioned by someone who has veto power.

Now public art is just another form of welfare.

Geez, I'm cynical this morning. And according to autocorrect I can't spell.

Ann Althouse said...

"In other words, art as propaganda. I invite you to think deeply about why your BS detector doesn't work here."

I invite you to read and understand my comment at 8:39.

It's bad art and it's bad because it is an attempt to indoctrinate. It is propaganda. The post is to point out something about the interpretation of the message. It takes a leap to regard it as an expression of contempt or exclusion toward men, and if you in fact do make that leap, you are, ironically, in the company of the people who read depictions of heterosexual couples as excluding gay people.

Ann Althouse said...

"And I agree that most public sculpture is terrible these days. Although I'm not sure it was ever good. Looking back historically, good art is produced spontaneously, or commissioned by someone who has veto power."

Nothing more spontaneous than a Gothic cathedral or a Roman fountain.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Nothing more spontaneous than a Gothic cathedral or a Roman fountain."

Roman Fountains may not be spontaneous but Roman Golden Showers can be.

I am Laslo.

Anonymous said...

Gays do not want to get rid of Fatherhood. Many of us would like to be fathers, but males don't get any reproductive rights, only females do. Because equality.

This sculpture should offend gay men as well as straight.

Psota said...

Shrew Magazine?? Who says the old-school feminists lacked a sense of humor?

Jupiter said...

"The pervasive images of heterosexual couples in our culture send a message of marginalization toward gay people, telling them that they are less-than-ideal or outsiders."

"You can drive Nature out with a pitchfork..."

chillblaine said...

Thanks for giving me something to stew over in the kitchen today.

I wanted to respond to your "wretched crap cluttering our shared space," comment.

There are few more wretched than our own UCSD Sun God. I will admit that thirty years later it is just starting to grow on me.

Unknown said...

----The pervasive images of heterosexual couples in our culture send a message of marginalization toward gay people, telling them that they are less-than-ideal or outsiders.---

The most substantial studies tell us that homosexuals are about 3 percent of the population. In statistical terms they are outliers, or in your terms outsiders.

We live in an age where marriage are being broken and men are being driven from women. Man-Woman are the foundations of our ongoing population and civilization.

If art happens to reinforce the ideals and dreams of 97 percent of the population, that is as it should be.

Fred Drinkwater said...

chillblaine: I've got one. The "sculpture" of Quetzlcoatl in San Jose, CA, sometimes known as the dog turd, is worse. Also, of course, it bears no resemblance to the draft presented by the artist to the city to get the commission.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The fathers are dead, detained by other wives, or pursuing friendship with benefits outside of matrimony. The sculpture is an expression of anguish in single motherhood and the de facto normalization of dysfunctional, unproductive, and fetish behaviors in the wake of war, planned parenthood, or progressive morality.

Titus said...

I came from not elite-I am still not elite-but run in elite circles. My hubby is "light skinned"-indian, very important-and with green eyes-equally important. He also comes from the highest caste in India.

I love elite.

But I am able to become non elite when I go to Wisconsin-don't you know.

kiss kiss

richard mcenroe said...

LGBTUVWXYZ's are 3% or less of the poulation. By DEFINITION they are outside the mainstream culture...That doesn't preclude them from participating anymore than being straight precludes me from dressing well (when I feel the need) or liking show tunes; I recommend the first-act finale of "Wicked").

n.n said...

Human life divorced from humanity: A tale of womb banks and anonymous sperm depositors

n.n said...

richard mcenroe:

There are diverse letters selectively excluded from that community of letters. Colorful bands selectively excluded from the rainbow. It's a profane and flickering exhibition of moral hazards.

Michael Ryan said...

So Greer was riffing on The Decameron?

William said...

Why are puppies, shepherds, and children only immortalized in porcelain? Why are there no life size statues of these creatures set in bronze? This is a step forward.....Doesnt portraying outsiders as life sized figures outdoors in some way emphasize their outsider quality. Where is the pedestal for these figures?

Douglas B. Levene said...

According to the NIH, gays, lesbians and confused gender people amount to 2.6% of the population. That's not "normal" in the statistical sense. it's outside of two standard deviations from the mean. Why all the concern about whether or not they feel marginalized? They are marginal.

jr565 said...

The one positive is that it's unlikely Greer spreads her genes. And I do kind of like the idea of her and all her buddies segregating themselves in the Dyke House. That way you instantly know who they are & what they represent and can avoid any interaction.
this is the face of Feminism and why many women do not identify as such.

jr565 said...

That woman knocked up in the sculpture was not knocked up by her partner thsts for sure.

jr565 said...

what of there was a sculpture of three women walking around with kids?.One of them knocked up? Wouldn't thwt TOO be a family?

tim maguire said...

The title invites the criticism. Better to have been titled something like "this too is a real Birmingham Family."

chickelit said...

tim maguire said...
The title invites the criticism. Better to have been titled something like 'this too is a real Birmingham Family.'

That would have invited people to think rather than to react. Is that what good art does?

Darleen said...

The pervasive images of heterosexual couples in our culture sends a message of marginalization toward gay people, telling them that they are less-than-ideal or outsiders.

Gay people aren't less than ideal, but same-sex couples are, by definition.

Any sense of "marginalization" in a culture that has now idealized homosexuality into cult icon status (to the point that young people feel that gays are 25% of the population) is entirely the responsibility of the person feeling such marginalization.

A "family" of two females plus kids or two males plus kids isn't possible without the invisible Other just off stage -- their absence cannot be ignored.

The ideal IS mom, dad and kids. Just because some people can't or won't ever reach that ideal doesn't negate it.

chillblaine said...

"A Real Birmingham Family," is asking us to examine both what is seen, and what is unseen and must be inferred.

The most powerful figure is the pregnant woman, in her womb lies her unborn, our unborn, unseen, representing the potential energy. The kinetic energy is supplied by the children.

The viewer is free to make inferences about what is unseen, such as a male figure. I infer from the absence of the male figure that society itself is the provider, protector, the male energy.

chillblaine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chillblaine said...

Thanks, @Fred! I googled the image and I can't decide between execrable and fascinating. Considering the piece was financed by tax assessments, leaning toward the former.

chickelit said...

I infer from the absence of the male figure that society itself is the provider, protector, the male energy.

A statist phallacy

Anonymous said...

But gays ARE "less-than-ideal and outsiders". They're about 3% of the population, and they provide very few of the kids who will keep Social Security, Medicare, and our whole society going.

If fathers were important to the people paying for the sculpture, they'd be in the sculpture. Message received.

Bob Loblaw said...

But gays ARE "less-than-ideal and outsiders". They're about 3% of the population, and they provide very few of the kids who will keep Social Security, Medicare, and our whole society going.

Is it your contention there aren't enough children being born, or that somehow not perpetuating doomed Ponzi schemes for a few extra years makes you an "outsider"? Who decided that?

As a childless person, are you more of an outsider than someone who refuses to work and contributes nothing but broken children?

I haven't exactly signed on to the gay agenda, but this is just specious.

Darleen said...

As a childless person, are you more of an outsider than someone who refuses to work and contributes nothing but broken children?

Incomplete & possible incorrect comparison. Two non-working people, one childless one not, it is the latter who makes a bigger contribution by having children.

Every childless person depends on someone else's children - even discounting stuff like SocSec* -- especially in senior years when they have retired from the work force. Someone else will still have to do the yard work, cook in restaurants, staff the hospitals and police stations, etc. A younger generation is always needed.

*the average current retiree applying for SocSec will not get back in benefits what was taken from them during their working years. SocSec is now less a Ponzi scheme but more a wealth redistribution one.

Peter said...

I see the SF novel The Shore of Women by Pamela Sargent is back in print, at least as a Kindle Edition. Although it seems a stretch to call it "feminist" SF.

http://www.amazon.com/Shore-Women-Pamela-Sargent-ebook/dp/B00J90CEX8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416841483&sr=1-1&keywords=the+shore+of+women

Trashhauler said...

"The sculpture only seems to say this, too, is a family."

Actually, as the story text points out, the sculpture is of two unmarried sisters and their children. So, it is actually two families and not representative of a gay family at all.

The idea of the gay family is somewhat overdone, as one might expect from the concerted effort to explain that "they are just like everyone else" (TM). Only 5% of gay male couples have children. Only 22% of lesbian couples have children and they are often from previous marriages to heterosexual partners.

Trashhauler said...

"... a communal collective of well-heeled young mothers at a farmhouse in Italy 'where our children would be born. Their fathers and other people would also visit as often as they could... The house and garden would be worked by a local family...'"

Rather exclusionist, isn't it? Not to mention awfully elitist. Someone's idea of a very special snowball.