The Vatican, Gender Equality, and Fettering in the Family Structure
The Vatican has released a report suggesting that certain strands of feminist thought pose a threat to the traditional family structure. I have to be fair by admitting that I have not read the report and do not intend to, but I agree with many of its findings. However, I reach somewhat different conclusions.
I have argued in the past that one of the main threats posed to the antiquated family structure is the socio-economic equality of women. This structure was one that developed on many assumptions of woman as a subordinate gender. Without going into details, because in many cases they are self-evident, changing attitudes about the role of women, sexuality, and woman's entry into the employment market have refuted these assumptions and shaken the very foundations of antiquated marriage. Now, women are expected to work in a dual capacity, once in the marketplace for a devalued salary and once at home in indentured servitude. This places an unreasonable burden on the woman that raises the possibility of straining relationships both at home and in the workplace, and this is just one of many examples.
A quick look at the formal or traditional aspects of marriage that we still carry with us show the subordinating tendency of the antiquated family structure. For instance, there is the "tradition" of taking the male's surname in marriage, a tradition that nobody can doubt was borne of an attitude that women were the socially inferior gender in the marriage. Initially, it was a means to determine patrilineal descent of property (since, absent science, the only "natural" way to determine descent is matrilineally since we can see what mother a child is born to). Then when we decided that patrilineal property descent was not the American way and was a denial equal opportunity, the male's surname was kept because he was the contracting and professional spouse. Now with no social or economic reason for such a practice we rely on that last bastion of idiocy, "tradition," a word that is easily coded for repression.
Never accept a "tradition" blindly, all a tradition is many times is the semi-empty form of historical subordination. I say semi-empty because there is still subordination involved in the mere taking of a name. After all, we are "naming creatures", and as Sartre says, by naming, we change the thing. Words make a difference, oftentimes language is our key tool for structuring the world around us, but this is getting off point and if someone wishes to take me to task on the danger of naming then I would be glad to write a short book in response!
The point is that the antiquated family structure is certainly in trouble, it fails at near 50%, and, as I have said in the past, if the airline industry reported crashes at anywhere near 50% of its flights then none of us would be boarding planes. High rates of failed families have much more widespread implications than plane crashes because they affect more lives and tend to reproduce themselves in their offspring. The family is the basic "building block" of our civil society and it is almost 300 years past due to begin discussing ways to reform it. I argue that the solution does not lie in a rolling back of the liberties gained by women (this is currently underway whether you like it or not, the women's movement is in fast retreat), and the solution certainly will not be found in denying homosexuals equal protection of the laws. Its time to crack open our closed little American minds and begin considering real ways to adjust our civil forms to meet their real, material circumstances. The antiquated family structure is fettering the family's ability to carry out its roles as a basic organizer of civil society, and it is fettering the march toward equality by women and others.
I am glad the Vatican agrees with me, that gender equality and historically unequal institutions do not mix well. I strongly oppose the suggestion that this means we ought to continue rolling back gender equality, "putting woman back where she belongs." I think denying rights to homosexuals is at best a non sequitur, and at worst an outward, politically-motivated lie (apparently the way to win elections in America today, in both parties, is to pander to the lowest common denominator...make appeals to racist, sexist, and narcissistic xenophobics, these must be the "swing voters" who apparently do not have much of a mind to make up). Its time we begin considering how to evolve the family unit so that it is not an anomaly within a liberal democratic society.
John Dewey said that in our institutions, particularly in the civil society, we still carried the remnants of authoritarianism...we lack the "democratic faith" required to truly democratize society. I call for a little more democratic faith and a reform of the fettering, antiquated family unit. "Faith" seems to be a word of great currency today, but it often means faith in one type of person's authority over other types of persons...faith in narcissism is not much faith at all. True faith, in the Kierkegaardian sense, requires a leap, a teleological suspension, or at the very least a belief in something that is not easy to believe in...we need a little bit more democratic faith. Ultimately, victory in an ideological "war on terror" will be won in part by a strengthening of the defenses that lie throughout our civil society.
I have argued in the past that one of the main threats posed to the antiquated family structure is the socio-economic equality of women. This structure was one that developed on many assumptions of woman as a subordinate gender. Without going into details, because in many cases they are self-evident, changing attitudes about the role of women, sexuality, and woman's entry into the employment market have refuted these assumptions and shaken the very foundations of antiquated marriage. Now, women are expected to work in a dual capacity, once in the marketplace for a devalued salary and once at home in indentured servitude. This places an unreasonable burden on the woman that raises the possibility of straining relationships both at home and in the workplace, and this is just one of many examples.
A quick look at the formal or traditional aspects of marriage that we still carry with us show the subordinating tendency of the antiquated family structure. For instance, there is the "tradition" of taking the male's surname in marriage, a tradition that nobody can doubt was borne of an attitude that women were the socially inferior gender in the marriage. Initially, it was a means to determine patrilineal descent of property (since, absent science, the only "natural" way to determine descent is matrilineally since we can see what mother a child is born to). Then when we decided that patrilineal property descent was not the American way and was a denial equal opportunity, the male's surname was kept because he was the contracting and professional spouse. Now with no social or economic reason for such a practice we rely on that last bastion of idiocy, "tradition," a word that is easily coded for repression.
Never accept a "tradition" blindly, all a tradition is many times is the semi-empty form of historical subordination. I say semi-empty because there is still subordination involved in the mere taking of a name. After all, we are "naming creatures", and as Sartre says, by naming, we change the thing. Words make a difference, oftentimes language is our key tool for structuring the world around us, but this is getting off point and if someone wishes to take me to task on the danger of naming then I would be glad to write a short book in response!
The point is that the antiquated family structure is certainly in trouble, it fails at near 50%, and, as I have said in the past, if the airline industry reported crashes at anywhere near 50% of its flights then none of us would be boarding planes. High rates of failed families have much more widespread implications than plane crashes because they affect more lives and tend to reproduce themselves in their offspring. The family is the basic "building block" of our civil society and it is almost 300 years past due to begin discussing ways to reform it. I argue that the solution does not lie in a rolling back of the liberties gained by women (this is currently underway whether you like it or not, the women's movement is in fast retreat), and the solution certainly will not be found in denying homosexuals equal protection of the laws. Its time to crack open our closed little American minds and begin considering real ways to adjust our civil forms to meet their real, material circumstances. The antiquated family structure is fettering the family's ability to carry out its roles as a basic organizer of civil society, and it is fettering the march toward equality by women and others.
I am glad the Vatican agrees with me, that gender equality and historically unequal institutions do not mix well. I strongly oppose the suggestion that this means we ought to continue rolling back gender equality, "putting woman back where she belongs." I think denying rights to homosexuals is at best a non sequitur, and at worst an outward, politically-motivated lie (apparently the way to win elections in America today, in both parties, is to pander to the lowest common denominator...make appeals to racist, sexist, and narcissistic xenophobics, these must be the "swing voters" who apparently do not have much of a mind to make up). Its time we begin considering how to evolve the family unit so that it is not an anomaly within a liberal democratic society.
John Dewey said that in our institutions, particularly in the civil society, we still carried the remnants of authoritarianism...we lack the "democratic faith" required to truly democratize society. I call for a little more democratic faith and a reform of the fettering, antiquated family unit. "Faith" seems to be a word of great currency today, but it often means faith in one type of person's authority over other types of persons...faith in narcissism is not much faith at all. True faith, in the Kierkegaardian sense, requires a leap, a teleological suspension, or at the very least a belief in something that is not easy to believe in...we need a little bit more democratic faith. Ultimately, victory in an ideological "war on terror" will be won in part by a strengthening of the defenses that lie throughout our civil society.
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I am confused by the new vatican message...what is it?
A recent, and unfortunately short, SD Union Tribune article, quoted the new document (written by the Pope's aid-because who knows what a 104yr/old man, other than Mr. Burns, thinks?: "From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are different, and will remain so for eternity."
Although I agree that family structure has been declining, but what does proclaiming individual roles for men and women solve? If the Vatican council is worried about the sanctity of marriage and the family, does it matter which parent is at home with the kids? Traditional families produce equally screwed up kids as "dysfunctional" and/or non-traditional families. (also- I love the cartoon of ADAM AT HOME- the cool stay-at-home computer job Dad)
I refuse that designating roles for each gender will "protect" families, whether they may Christian or not.
I have obviously only viewed a small fragment of the 37 page document, but the part that claims a there is a difference between men and women seems to be a failed attemopt at a powerful statement for "family protection" by the Vatican council-
Looking back, this comment is confusing and ambiguous too...
Punch line: The church is forcing marriage into politics and suggesting 'separate but equal' agendas for families. It seems that when the church is aligned with the state, there is no room for new thought- and the future parallels the past- guided by traditions etc... The Vatican is accusing feminists of wrongly equalizing the roles of men and women in famillies.
I fear the consequences of the church's influence over family structure from of a legal side, rather than a spritual side. I think that how families can best function is unrelated to deignated roles, or the biological differences between men and women (because I disagree there are many more)- but rather families are protected by a much more simple phenomena of whether or not kids are wanted before and after there birth, and given a balance of physical and emotional resources from both parents in an equal manner.
What the hell was I trying to say again? Boo recent religious documents in Italy...
ECStanton- are you reading the report? i ought to but i am consumed right now in readings. if you read it tell me what you think and how it differs from the media coverage. i was basing my post on media coverage and we all know how objective that can be in the age of partisan-everything.
my impression was that the church was suggesting a kind of "natural" role for men and women ("natural" is an even more propagandized term than "traditional!"). certain strands of "radical" feminism urge women to reject their natural role and weaken the familial institution. this is, to be certain, not the entire paper, but what is essentially of interest in it to me from what i have glossed in media reports.
i agree that one thing that is hurting the "traditional" family unit is the increase in women's liberty and equality. my suggestion is that women's liberty and equality are hurting the family's ability to subordinate women, and that the traditional family unit relies on an inferior role for the female gender. so if you look at it as a two-way street, nothing is quite so simple, then the vatican wants us to go back to a role for women that better comports with the traditional family, and i urge that the family move forward to an arrangement better suited for women's equality.
i do not know how the vatican makes its argument for the different roles of men and women...biologically, spiritually, etc... furthermore, the biological essence of gender is beyond my education, i am sure there is some, however small, biological difference but that does not really concern me. i feel quite confident that the social "essence" of gender roles is either largely or completely constructed.
i do not believe that the traditional family unit is a "natural" arrangement, but also one that is socially constructed. i reject any argument that calls for a stripping back of liberty and equality to save institutions. institutions that rely on authoritarianism and inequality are not suited for democratic society.
i am certain that the vatican is trying to couch this in a "separate but equal" approach, but separate will always lead to inequal when it comes up against the material reality of the world. in addition, any separate but equal argument for different social gender roles is at best kidding itself..."traditionally" the family survived on separate and unequal roles for man and woman.
i have to wonder how much of an impact the vatican still has on social and political happenings in the united states. the church has not needed much help wildly discrediting itself lately, although the whole timing of this is a bit peculiar since we are hardly in the midst of a gender revolution.
i wonder...if the "traditional roles" assigned to genders are inherently unequal (and of course they are) and these roles are socially constructed (to a large extent they probably are, but there are limits, see Demonic Males for instance, as a pretty damn persuasive argument against socially constructed ideas of gender, there is a limits to how much these things can be socially constructed, for instance there is a ton of evidence to suggest that men are more violent and aggressive than women, due not to social constructs but biological imperatives) then isnt the idea of the inferior position of women as much a social construct as the rest? isnt this the idea that causes feminism to interpret increased equality for women as the ability to act like men? just some thoughts...
i realize i may not have been clear...
the currently inequality of women is of course not a social construct, but is this due to the institutions or the mythos that surround them? part of the work that needs to be done, i think, is simply shaping the idea of what marriage is. i dont know what can be done materially to these institutions to make them less inequal other than to change people's attitudes about them.
so saying "stay at home mom's are inherently unequal" is, in a strange way, part of the problem. it merely enforces the inequality.
Yes, i think "the idea of woman as subordinate" is a construct, it is part of the hegemonizing ideology of male centered societies. But one must name a faulty center before one can hope to attack of manipulate it.
I will not suggest that there are no biological differences, because i do not know much biology, but i will argue that these differences are not very relevant to the issue. nothing in woman's genetic make-up requires that she be paid less than man for equal jobs, that she be treated differently by the laws of society (criminalizing the victim's of rape), etc... i think most of the relevant "differences" are constructed...
it has not always been the case that societies were headed by men, originally many/most were headed by women until property institutions began to devise methods for passing property through the man...these were devices created by human ingenuity and are just one of many examples of how woman began to be "created" inferior or different, not by the almighty God, but by her fellow man.
Man is a peculiar beast in that he has an ability to work on his own consciousness with the unique tool of language, so "ideas" and language are often the primary weapon for carving out inequality in social settings. material factors play as well, but often in a complex, interrelated fashion with ideological tools like language (language is really matter too though, i believe saussure argued this).
as for approaches, the resolution will lie in a multi-faceted and radical approach that is not neutralized by male-centered ideology or material circumstances. i can think of several ways to help change the family materially as an institution, like moving toward more communal family settings...these will appear absurd and radical because it is cast in the light of hegemony, but this is a view that traditional christian fellowship supports, that more "traditional" family structures were modeled after (the communal family is probably more traditional than the modern "traditional family")...
communal family settings, good idea! see a movie called Together please. it's wonderful and about the need for family, in a broad sense.
yes yes yes otherwise. all agreeed
it occurs to me also that the authors of Demonic Males propose a form of communal living to basically keep male power in check--as it nullifies the natural power imbalance that one man has over one woman.
I am unfamiliar with the communal family living situation- but the thought sounds interesting- is that the main idea in the movie Together?
I still think the best way to protect traditional families is to stop everyone from having kids- so there will be fewer non-traditional families- and society can encourage more adoptions! -which SEEMS to happen rarely enough that it is so far non-traditional and can't be touched by religion :) ( Just kidding- I know that adoption still doesn't solve the 'separate but equal attempt'- but it might help the over-population and unwanted children problems)
Post a Comment
<< Home