"woman was to be obliged to provide herself with other ways of earning a living; marriage was to be based on a free agreement that the contracting parties could break at will; maternity was to be voluntary, which meant that contraception and abortion were to be authorised and that, on the other hand, all mothers and their children were to have exactly the same rights, in or out of marriage; pregnancy leaves were to be paid for by the State, which would assume charge of the children, signifying not that they would be taken away from their parents, but that they would not be abandoned to them."
Many of these aspects would seem as though they would lead to an egalitarian society, though in practice it may not fully deliver. First she mentions that maternity is to be voluntary, with contraception and abortion allowed. Were this to be a true society of equality between the sexes then paternity would also be voluntary. I would not argue that this would be a just scenario, though a truly equal society would by its nature have to give men equal say in the carrying and raising of a child. That brings me to my other problem with this visualization. If the State were to assume charge of the children then they would have a significant influence in the raising of children. Since the governments of the world are for the most part under the control of men then men would have greater control over the raising of children, thereby making the society unequal in that regard. Based on human history seems as though there will always be differences between men and women that will never be fully reconciled due to actions and expectations by both parties. Beauvoir thinks that skeptics will always believe that "women will always be women" though it may be more accurate to say people will always be people.
You know what, you raise some very interesting points in your analysis of the quote you made, because it is still true that there are biological and psychological differences between the genders. What is interesting is trying to thread the needle of equality around these differences which Beauvoir admits and accepts.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting is how large a difference there is not just amongst feminists but also anti-feminists on many of these issues. An anti-feminist "complementarian" egalitarian (usually religious, with both conservative men and women supporting this) point of view would be that men shouldn't have very much say at all in the raising of children because that is historically, divinely, biologically, and psychologically the domain of women, and would argue that government's shouldn't get involved in anything to do with raising children or the material support there of because men who are historically/divinely/biologically/psychologically meant to be the breadwinners and should be able to work and bring in enough support for the family no matter what the mother of the child has to do. The other view is sort of the crazy secular "men's rights" and "masculist/masculinist" group that are nearly 100% men and who complain about inequalities in divorce, paternity, child support and often other similar issues. They would probably not share the same view as the previous view I just outlined.
What I also find interesting is the issue of government having measures to bring about equality in the family and making raising children easier is that the United States is the only western country that has no government-paid maternity leave. Each employer with the exception of a small handful of states is left on their own to determine if it has a policy on this issue and if so for how long and if they keep paying the employees or not. In fact, California is the only state that provides for paid family leave and even then only for six weeks, which is substantially less than most European countries. In all other states there are either no laws on this issue (most states) or a few that have laws requiring that employers for some minimum time allow employees to leave without firing them, but no requirement to pay.
It's interesting you bring up the idea of voluntary paternity. In 49 out of 50 states in the U.S., paternity is voluntary - but only for the mothers. This was a law brought about to ensure mothers have their unborn children in a safe environment and that they don't "get rid" of them after birth. On one hand, I see this law as reasonable. It creates a scenario in which if a mother saw herself unfit to care for a child, she could hand over custody to the state, or the father. The intent of this is an honest one, however, it brings up a subject that has plagued the family unity for as long as divorce has been an option in this country: custody rights.
ReplyDeleteIf a woman were to take this option after delivery, she would effectively be given a ree ticket out of parenting, while the father is charged with 18 years of childcare. Of course, if there was no other parent, the child would go to an orphanage.
This law reflects a macrocosm of archaic family-based laws that serve as a detriment to "de-sexualizing" parenthood in this country. For example, unless there are some extraordinary circumstances involved, most of the time in divorces the father loses full custody of the child, and half of all of his assets are transferred to the mother's ownership.
Laws such as this reflect a hypocritical double standard that no longer belongs in the current day and age.
I completely agree with what Chris is saying, and find it particularly interesting that he brings up the "mens-rights" movement that has surfaced in response to the double-standard I addressed earlier. While the mens-rights group is still a small minority of people, they effectively represent several of the issues that I brought up earlier.
As for government being involved in a child's rearing, as with everything, I believe there are benefits in moderation. There should be government imposed standards of living so children don't grow up with holed clothes and less than 3 meals a day. There should be a stature in place that ensures children aren't being neglected, and that they are receiving the proper care a human being needs to develop into a fully functional adult. I think something people worry about when it comes to government intervention is the idea of "how far is too far?" An unfortunate truth to this is, we already have these standards in place to a certain degree, and fail to meet them.
This is almost entirely the fault of the government, as it fails to provide the Dept of Social and Human Services the adequate funds and manpower to actually ensure that individuals are keeping good on their roles as parents. Further, once poor parenting and abusive conditions are revealed, the only thing a DSHS employee can do is report it to law enforcement, move the child to a second unti of care (whether that be an orphanage or 2nd family member), and hope something good happens as a result.
The reason I bring this up is because it serves an example of what a failed government institution looks like in terms of government-led child rearing. It can work, but more often than not as in our case, we are left with a bureaucratic nightmare while the people who really need help are left to fend for themselves.
Tom, do you think the other 49 states will follow California's lead, or do you think we are too conservative as a nation to both agree to have a new government program and to make life comparatively easier for working moms (who will then be able to work and have paid time off to spend with children) than stay-at home moms who do the raising the whole time and get no compensation?
ReplyDelete