Pages

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Equalitarianism And Shared Parenting

Wanderling replies to my question, "how does equalitarianism deliver shared parenting to the half million or so child victims of divorce per year?", thusly:
As I have already outlined, equalitarianism will enable men to do equal parenting, and in fact, women, particularly working mothers, have been pushing men to do that for a considerable amount of time.
Women have proven they can work equally as hard, and often, better, than men, in fields that do not rely on physical strength.
If women can do tasks traditionally performed by men, then the converse can also apply.
And this is already the case, of all the families I know, in 50% of them the woman is the primary breadwinner and the man stays home and raises the children. Of course, those families are still intact. But it's still pertinent. In situations where fathers aren't alcoholics, lazy entitled idiots or criminals, there is no reason why men should not be expected to actually do 100% of parenting for 50% of the time, as opposed to 14% of the time, which frankly, is pathetic.
Feminism has enabled women to go to work and inadvertently enabled men to assume greater responsibility for child-rearing based on necessity, considering women aren't superhuman nor personal slaves who should be expected to just take care of everything. I agree that not all men lack motivation to take proper care of their children or spend time with them. 
There are plenty of great fathers are around. There are also plenty of lazy fathers who contribute nothing other than money when it comes to raising their children and that's the way they like it. The children certainly wouldn't suffer from not seeing these fathers very often because such fathers don't provide adequate parenting when they see their children anyway.
While I find this comment amusing on a number of levels, theoretically, Wanderling is correct: if men and women are equal in all respects, and if society is therefore structured around these theoretical equalities, then it follows that men and women as individuals should be willing and able to perform equally as parents* if afforded the opportunity to do so.  Unfortunately for a hypothesis to be true, its component propositions must be true, and that is where this equalitarian fantasizing stumbles.  For men and women are not equal, not biologically, not in behavior, and not in inclinations.  Nor is society organized around equalitarian principles; were it so, MRAs would have little to complain about as women would not be socially and legally supreme but are instead peers. In addition, the data suggests women, while they often can work as hard as men, do not do so, even in jobs that do not rely on physical strength.  Furthermore, once again, Wanderling's anecdotal experience does not extrapolate to the wider population; indeed, the 50% rate of  SAHDs she cites in her social circle is nearly 4x that of the general population.

In these four ways are the propositions undergirding equalitarianism falsified, leading me to conclude that pursuing policies of equalitarianism are not likely to deliver to minor victims of divorce equal access to both mothers and fathers.

* I use "parents" loosely in this sense, for if men and women were truly equal, then there would no need for the sex differentiation other than straight-up reproduction.  In application, we all know where declaring men and women to be equal leads, of course...one sex is superfluous, the other necessary. To matrifocal families, loose harems, serial and parallel polyandry, and hordes of unattached and un/disenfranchised males for whom it doesn't matter if they father their children or not, "because such fathers don't provide adequate parenting when they see their children anyway". In other words, the very same set of conditions that Wanderling herself lends her stamp of approval to.  And the very same set of conditions we see far too much of today.

Going away from facts and figures to the normative world, it is entirely unreasonable to expect men to do 100% of the parenting for 50% of the time, when it is clear that women--for a number of reasons--don't do 100% of the wage-earning 50% of the time. As I wrote in my review of "A Woman's Nation, the Shriver Report":
[W]hen one adds up the hours invested by married men and women in the whole of household support...lo and behold, one finds that married men invest an average of 7.82 hours per day [while] women invest an average of 7.94 hours per day, a difference of 7 whole minutes. Widening the aperture to include between men and women not legally married to each other or single/divorced Americans yields a shocking 9 minutes in favor of women. Clearly, the data suggests that the feminist "second shift" narrative is a lie.
But the dissonance between the reality and the propaganda doesn't stop there. Drilling down into the notes that accompanied the BLS data, one acquires even more nuance. Specifically, one discovers interesting nuggets like this:
Primary childcare activities include time spent providing physical care; playing with children; reading to children; assistance with home-work; attending children's events; taking care of children's health needs; and dropping off, picking up, and waiting for children. Passive childcare done as a primary activity (such as "keeping an eye on my son while he swam in the pool") also is included [emphasis mine]. A child's presence during the activity is not enough in itself to classify the activity as child-care. For example, "watching television with my child" is coded as a leisure activity, not as childcare.
Secondary childcare is care for children under age 13 that is done while doing an activity other than primary childcare, such as cooking dinner. Secondary childcare estimates are derived by summing the durations of activities during which respondents had a household child or their own nonhousehold child under age 13 in their care while doing activities other than primary childcare. It is restricted to times the respondent was awake. Secondary childcare time for household children is further restricted to the time between when the first household child under age 13 woke up and the last household child under age 13 went to bed. 
So here we see that activities that involve significant amount of leisure for women have the potential to be coded as "work" by statisticians [and] what housewives consider to be "work" and what the reality of "work" is for blue-collar men and pink-collar women are very different things indeed.
With equalitarianism thus demonstrated as pretty fiction, I find it very difficult to see how equalitarianism could possibly be expected to ensure 50% parental contribution to parenting before there is a divorce, let alone after one.

35 comments:

newrebeluniv said...

Imagine that. Wanderling equates taking care of your own kids with slavery.

odinslounge said...

I find it amusing that talk of alcoholic, useless, horrible dads is commonplace, but nobody ever thinks that a mom could be equally as bad.

Maybe she's not an alcoholic, but surely there is equally comparable destructive behavior by moms. Maybe judgementalness, materialism, best-friend syndrome for just a few.

ClarenceComments said...

Your numbers are wrong.
It's definitely more than 3.4 percent:

"This isn’t the first time stay-at-home dads have felt overlooked by the census either. The population count finds 174,000 at-home dads nationwide. That’s remarkably few, but it’s because the census counts only fathers who don’t earn a single dollar. "

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/lifestyles/ludwig/10937609-452/census-ignores-stay-at-home-dads.html


"In the last decade, though, the number of men who have left the work force entirely to raise children has more than doubled, to 176,000, according to recent United States census data. Expanding that to include men who maintain freelance or part-time jobs but serve as the primary caretaker of children under 15 while their wife works, the number is around 626,000, according to calculations the census bureau compiled for this article. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/fashion/dads-are-taking-over-as-full-time-parents.html?pagewanted=all


It's not that I disagree with the main conclusions of your article its that your article , by taking census figures uncritically, seems to neglect the tremendous changes that have occured in the American family over the past 40 years, and also seems to imply that men have some weird aversion to childcare.
Indeed, if you go by the most generous definition (mom works once a week and dad watches kids once a week) this applies to over 30 percent of all fathers.

Captain Capitalism said...

The fool ignores the division of labor.

Both parents are going to stay at home and work?

Yeah, that'll be efficient.

She lost any credibility saying of "all families" precisely 50% of the families she knows the man stays home.

That is an outright lie and she knows it.

Ecclesiastes said...

Except, of course, that the entitlement princess that wrote this screed ignores ( and hopes we ignore ) that the daycare worker is actually doing well over half the parenting and she's only putting in 14% herself.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SINGLE WORKING MOTHER. There is only a woman hiring a 'mother', simulating a working father, and whining about it all the time.

ar10308 said...

"In situations where fathers aren't alcoholics, lazy entitled idiots or criminals, there is no reason why men should not be expected to actually do"

So if you are an alcoholic, lazy entitled idiot or criminal, then you have a justifiable reason to get out of parenting 100% for 50%.

Pardon me while I go rob a liquor store followed by taking a nap.

ray said...

wanderling?

oh yeah, i recall, this is the feminist who posted that women were not the primary abusers of children, causing the preponderance of severe damage and/or death

when i pointed out the clear error (well, lie, actually) of the feminist, i was put in my place by the Great Wapiti, with a jump-in from pal Professor Hell ah, Hale

so, know what? you deserve wanderling and her fake-equalitarian feminist gulag, you deserve barack o bumble and his feminist hatefest, and you deserve ruth badass gynsburger and her eight co-justicesses, soon as they can manage it boyos, and it wont be long either

think theyre gonna let you keep "your" jobs and sons after that? :O)

your sons, to be sure, do not deserve all these things, but advocating for them requires fighting off both enemies and "friends"

so Go Wanderling! Go! more lies! more mancages! Equality hooray!

Elusive Wapiti said...

Thanks Clarence. Looking at the numbers you cite from the NYT article, it appears a broader (and arguably more accurate) definition of SAHD results in four times as many SAHDs.

newrebeluniv said...

Hey Ray,
There is room in the internet for you to BOTH be wrong. This isn't a competition.

wanderling said...

@EW, amusing? Amusing to consider how many haters you could draw out of the woodwork using my post like troll bait?

@NRU, what I actually equated slavery to was working full time and doing the majority of child-rearing, if not all of it, due to men failing to pull their weight. A man who doesn’t help out equates in a woman’s mind, to just another body to have to pick up after. In other words, a burden. The woman’s housework is much reduced by not having him around, considering he doesn’t do anything but cause more mess for her to clean up. And here’s a hint, sane women loathe housework just as much as men do. Just because we likes things neat and tidy doesn’t mean we actually like doing the cleaning and the tidying.

@Odin, maybe she is judgemental, materialistic and I whatever your made up BF syndrome is, but are you seriously equating these to be as detrimental to children as a disease (alcoholism)? By the way, last time I checked, being judgemental wasn’t a crime. Seems to me you haven’t put any thought into the kind of parenting that an alcoholic father presents. Alcoholic mothers are also bad news, so don’t think I’m preferencing women here.

@Clarence, thanks, although I know you just want to advocate for SAHD.

@Cranky Capitalism, I never said that both parents are to stay home and work. I am assuming both parents work. I don’t know any mothers or single women who don’t work or who only work part-time, they are all in full time paid employment. Nor do I know any SAHD who don’t work. All the SAHD I know also work part-time. If either a SAHD or SAHM is not in part-time paid employment, then yes, it would be foolish to assume the working parent should do as much childcare as the stay at home parent. But of course I never said that. As for the number of families and SAHD I know, just because you personally don't know as many as I do, that doesn't mean I’m lying. Try not to extrapolate your personal experiences and social circle onto everyone else. I am equal to you, but I am not the same as you.

@Ecclesiastes, see my post to Cranky above.

@arl, haha. It’s not a justifiable reason, it’s an enforceable reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think (1) alcoholics, (2) lazy entitled idiots or (3)criminals should be allowed anywhere near children.



Elusive Wapiti said...

Re: troll bait. No, not really. It's just that your assertion(s) is/were so easy to dialectically dispatch.

Arguments that you completely failed to address in your emotional response above. Examples:

"men failing to pull their weight"

Perhaps you missed the latter 50% of the post where the relative household contributions of men and women were discussed.

" just because you personally don't know as many as I do, that doesn't mean I’m lying. "

No, it doesn't mean you are lying and he didn't accuse you of that.

What did happen is that you damaged your credibility by applying an anecdote, the composition of your social circle, to the behavior of a population as a whole.

Even with Clarence's correction that boosted the number of SAHDs by 400%, your social circle is still not representative.

Overall, had you argued from logos as opposed to ethos or pathos, I suspect the response would have been different.

In your response to Captain Capitalism, you wrote:

"it would be foolish to assume the working parent should do as much childcare as the stay at home parent."

This was precisely your argument as written, which is one reason why it was rejected.

"Try not to extrapolate your personal experiences and social circle onto everyone else."

Pot, kettle. See above.

Care to try again, Wanderling? Or will you continue to concede defeat by not even bothering to address the argument presented avove?

Bowers said...

How about that it's women who desperatley want kids & have to nag or trap a guy into fatherhood - you wanted them or convinced us to make one with you, so you raise the creature, we'll help out by thelling the kids how the world really works when they become old enough to see through the crap you tell them.

The dumb guys who fall for this are more than doing their part by paying for it all, including your state funded 'career' which is paid for by private (men's) taxes.

Emilee said...

I don't understand why an egalitarian family is so impossible to imagine?

Ecclesiastes said...

@Emilee

Because 'egalitarian' only addresses relationship between people as equals, and the family is - by definition - a group of unequal people. No person in any family is equal to any other person in that family. In a family, even twins are unequal.

That's why it's impossible for me to imagine.

The reason you don't understand is that you have a mental block, or an idée fixe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idée_fixe_(psychology)


Emily2651 said...

That's not a very satisfying argument. For one, "a collection of unequal people" is quite an odd definition of family. For two, I suppose it's true that the people in my family -- for example -- aren't perfectly equal, sure, but my husband and I do approximate each other quite well. We are, of course, precisely equal in value as human beings. We are roughly equal in intellect, education, earning capability, and talent for parenting.

This is quite a common arrangement in my experience. Not in yours?

Ecclesiastes said...

@Emily2651

That was perfect.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Emily2651 said...

I get it that you are mocking me but I don't really understand the joke?

wanderling said...

EW,

"men failing to pull their weight"

"Perhaps you missed the latter 50% of the post where the relative household contributions of men and women were discussed."

No, I saw it, and when I also saw that you conceptualised secondary childcare activities such as cooking dinner as “leisure time” for women, I didn’t feel the need to comment on such an erroneous and ridiculous post.

" just because you personally don't know as many as I do, that doesn't mean I’m lying. "

"No, it doesn't mean you are lying and he didn't accuse you of that."

He did actually ie. “That is an outright lie and she knows it.”

"What did happen is that you damaged your credibility by applying an anecdote, the composition of your social circle, to the behavior of a population as a whole. Even with Clarence's correction that boosted the number of SAHDs by 400%, your social circle is still not representative.Overall, had you argued from logos as opposed to ethos or pathos, I suspect the response would have been different."

I doubt it, and so what if my anecdote isn’t representative of the population in the US. I don’t live in the US and even if I did, there are always exceptions. You can’t generalise from data to any one particular case. See now, if you had counterargued based on science, maybe you would have won this point.

"In your response to Captain Capitalism, you wrote:

"it would be foolish to assume the working parent should do as much childcare as the stay at home parent."

This was precisely your argument as written, which is one reason why it was rejected."

Wrong again. My argument was in the context of parents who both work full-time. My argument is that there is no reason why a working man should not do as much child-rearing as a working women, and that if she can both work and raise kids, then so can he, in other words, egalitarianism. The fact I bitched about men who only engage in child-rearing for 52 days per year should have tipped you off to the fact that I think men can do a lot better than what many absent fathers choose to do.


wanderling said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wanderling said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elusive Wapiti said...

Emily,

Did you mean 'equalitarian' when you wrote egalitarian? The two are related but are not the same.

Ecclesiastes said...

@Emily2651

What I said to Emilee, whom I assume you aren't, right after the part you quoted, was:

"The reason you don't understand is that you have a mental block, or an idée fixe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idée_fixe_(psychology)
"

Your first paragraph illustrates the problem: you can't see what I'm seeing.

I, however, looking through your ... Idée, see the same thing as you do.

It is without mockery that I say were I to try to explain what I see that it would frustrate both of us to no likely success.

The antlered one suggested reference to rigorous definitions, but it would have been more appropriate to address it to me than to you. I see the difference between the terms to be one without distinction.

@Wapiti,

For emphasis:

The family exists because of differences between its members; it exists entirely and only for those differences. If there were egalite' or equality, then the family would cease to exist - or exclude the redundant member as disruptive.

The most common example of a family structure presuming any equality is Islamic polygamy. It demands that all the wives are equal. It works *only* because the husband can divorce the disruptive with caprice and a single spoken sentence, while a wife can't divorce at will at all.

You might like this too:

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-infidelity-nieces-nephews-men-genes.html





ClarenceComments said...

wanderling:
Please don't assume you know what my motiviations are without asking me. I find that personally offensive. Thank you.

For your information: you are wrong about my motivations.

ClarenceComments said...

EW:
Thank you for accepting my clarification of the numbers in the spirit in which it was intended, and without any pushback even though it seemed to "help" wanderlings argument a little bit.

I first encountered this issue a few years ago when I learned that men and women who cared for children were treated differently by the US census which has some questions/policies set up based on assumptions of earlier times. If you are interested I might look up a bit more on this: I know there was something I saw that went into detail on this last year but I can't remember it very well.

Emily2651 said...

@EW, wiktionary suggests that equalitarian and egalitarian are synonyms. Verbatim definitions. The OED similarly does not suggest a distinction (although the definitions aren't exactly identical). You'll have to explain to me the distinction you're making. I suppose you're referring to the idea that I found on the front page of a MRA yahoo group suggesting that egalitarian means political enforcement of equal outcomes and equalitarian means equal rights and responsibilities? In that case, yes, I mean the latter, but assert that the words are actually synonyms given their definition in the OED.

@Ecclesiastes:

1. Emily=Emilee. Sorry about that. I changed my blogger profile after my first comment when I realized it included more personal information than I had remembered. I assumed that blogger would update my prior comment, but apparently not.

2. I'm interested in "seeing what [you're] seeing". I'm intrigued by the assertion that my everyday experience of life (which is both egalitarian and exceedingly happy) is a delusion. Try me.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Hi Clarence. For me, facts are facts, no sense pushing back on them. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, or not quite correct. And thanks for the clarification.

Ecclesiastes said...

@Emily

I'm having a hard time writing dialog for a character I have to destroy, so why not?

We're going to examine your question and my assertion.

Your question, roughly, was why I can't imagine an egalitarian marriage?

My reply was that the very reason a family exists is because its members aren't equal.

For you, the differences don't exist or are irrelevant. For me the differences are required.

Now, the differences aren't going to be in dispute ( I don't think ). I'll pick things that are too big to not see.

A couple of things are going to happen. You're going to say something like "Well, of course, but that isn't important." You will find ways to minimize the importance of the difference.

It will be beneath consideration, or
it wouldn't matter if the difference was present or not, or
there are so many more important things, or
even if the difference does matter that it shouldn't, or
there are families in which it doesn't appear to matter, or
If one of the persons who are different didn't exist it wouldn't matter, or
in the extreme, that I'm wrong, that the difference doesn't actually exist, or
maybe you'll think of some reason of your own.

For your position to win, the family has to come together and continue when we remove the difference, proving that the difference doesn't exist or doesn't matter ( a difference of zero ).

For my position to win, the family does not come together or is deliberately transformed into a physically different arrangment or comes apart when we remove the difference ( a difference of one ).

At the end, either there will be a draw, where we aren't talking about it anymore, or I will see that the differences don't exist or are irrelvant, or you will see that the family wouldn't exist without the differences - that equality or egalite' would *destroy* the family.

Are you ready Emily? I suspect you already know the some of differences I will pick. I further suspect you already know - as I do - how this will all turn out and that we don't have to have this conversation at all.

But I could be wrong. Are you ready Emily?

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Emily,

Other definition sources agree with what you write above, that the terms are largely synonymous and what differences that do exist are minor.

For simplicity's sake, let's say the two terms are interchangeable.

So: to your question: complete egalitarianism/equalitarianism is by definition impossible. It's premises are false, therefore anything built on those premises are also false.

What I think you are describing about your family and social circle is partial egalitarianism, or perhaps 'practical egalitarianism', built more on complementarity than on sameness.

Granted I don't know you at all, but I suspect that if you were to look closely at what you and your husband do in the family, yes, you both parent, but you parent differently. Moreover, you both likely have different inclinations, skills, talents, etc., some by virtue of being male and female.

These characteristics, gifts, talents, and proclivities express themselves in different behaviors and, for better or for worse, laws and social policies.

For example, I observe that both men and women are inclined to protect women from bad events. People quickly come together to help women, mothers, choice mother families, etc. Female misbehavior is excused, soft-pedalled, etc. Female criminals are given more lenient sentences for the same crimes. I could go on, but my point is that both men and women do not extend the same caring hand of protection to other men.

This is why I contend an equ/egalitarianism cannot be reasonably expected to produce 50/50 outcomes for remunerated employment and childrearing, before or after a divorce. It is because these differences are expressed in how we act, how we interact, and the laws/social policies that are written to codify this culture.

Equ/egalitarianism of the post-Christian Western variety attempts to use the same woman-shaped cookie cutter to shape men and women into the same product. And why not? With distinctions removed, the family unit is reduced to the most basic biological parts (eg, mother and child(ren))...the social part (fathers) having been defined out of existence.

It is entertaining on a tragic level to watch society attempt to reconcile egalitarianism with biological and social reality.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and I look forward to dialoguing further.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Ecclesiastes

"The family exists because of differences between its members; it exists entirely and only for those differences. If there were egalite' or equality, then the family would cease to exist - or exclude the redundant member as disruptive."

Agreed completely. I add that it is exactly this phenomenon that we are seeing underway in our culture and in our families at this very moment.

Emily2651 said...

@Ecclesiastes: you seem to be a very strange person. I’m not interested in arguing with you for the simple sake of having an argument (I have my four-year-old for that!), or with the likely delusional expectation that I’m going to convince you of anything (idee fixe, indeed), so maybe you’re right that an extended conversation would be pointless. I stumbled through the looking glass into this odd MRA world entirely by accident yesterday and I was just flabbergasted by what I was reading. My initial question was in that vein. I’m generally curious, and I’m interested in people, and I’m intrigued when people hold ideas orthogonal to my experience of the world, so I waded right in … that’s about the size of it, honestly. I don’t have an ax to grind. We can call it a day.

@EW: I suppose you’re right that complete egalitarianism is impossible, but that’s trivial. (Yes, Ecclesiastes, you called it. What can I say, it IS trivial.) Yes, my husband is taller than I am; yes, he reaches things on the top shelf when he’s in the room and otherwise I get the stool. Trivial. What matters, of course, is your practical egalitarianism – I like that term! I’m going to start using it. What matters is that adult people have the same rights and responsibilities, and the same expectation of meaningful engagement in both the private and public spheres. (As an aside, the emergency example doesn’t exactly apply to us; my husband is an experimental physicist and I am a subspecialist physician – in an emergency, I imagine both our skill sets would be called on to protect the family unit – to what degree which was needed would depend on the emergency. But I do give this serious thought; for example, at one point we had in our family emergency supply stash a collection of antibiotics most useful during the likeliest types of bioterrorism attacks. Obviously that was my doing.)

You’re right, of course, that we parent somewhat differently, my beloved and I. But we are fungible in the sense that either one of us *could* accomplish the task of raising our boys to men. I have no doubt, none in this world, that if I die tonight, my husband will step ably into the breach. I would be missed, of course, but in the end, my sons would be adult men of kindness and character. No doubt. I also believe that I could do the same, but after reading more of your blog, suspect that you disagree with me about that. (Note that I’m not talking about single parenting after divorce, as I do think the willful dissolution of a family does adversely affect children. But if my husband died, I could and would parent my sons ably. I am sure of that.)

The bit about redundancy being pointless or “disruptive” (what does that even mean?) … that strikes me as complete nonsense. Redundancy of critical tasks is the opposite of pointless, it is prudent. I have trouble coming up with examples that aren’t from medicine, so you’ll have to excuse me for that … but there are two kidneys and two lungs for a reason. And for the exact same reason, my husband and I have crafted our family specifically to have built in redundancy for critical tasks. Either adult is positioned to earn an income to support the entire family (and the family finances are constructed to rely only on one income, although we have two). Either adult can ably care for children. Etc. This may not be the most “efficient” but it is just plain smart.

I understand that I am entering mid-conversation here … obviously there is a shared language and literature that I am not familiar with. Thanks for letting me wade into the fray. I have to admit, I am fascinated by your blog and this MRA business. Not something I've ever encountered before.

wanderling said...

Clarence. To be honest, I really couldn't care less how sensitive you are. Most people don't have the time or inclinitation to test every single hypothesis they might form about another. If you want to live in a world, where everyone is constantly telling every one else what they assume the other person thinks or why they did something, followed up by a question, "is that right?" then good for you. Personally, I don't and I'm sure the majority of people aren't that interesed in doing so either.

Ecclesiastes said...

@Emily

So far so good. We have at lease reached the point that we aren't going to defeat each other. That will forestall the worst of any flame war.

Let's take up this idea you had about every member having equal rights and responsibilities.

My point is that the family only exists because none of the members have equal rights or responsibilities.

The difference between parent and child is obvious enough - as long as they are a child. How about when the child grows up?

Were a son to attempt to be the equal of his father, one of them has got to go. Men are obvious in that way.

Let's take up the case where I am weak. Can a daughter and mother the equal and they both stay? You know, sign on the same bank accounts? Rearrange all the furniture? Have boyfriends? Have friends stay overnight?

I'm pretty certain that the only way a daughter and a mother can co-exist is that they are NOT equal. Equal would mean that not only can't the daughter usurp her mother's role, but also that were the mother to act like the daughter then she'd be removed.

The only way I can think of that the both got to stay, with equal rights responsibilities authority and privilege, would *force* the father to be unequal to either one.

What do you think?

Ecclesiastes said...

subscribe

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Emily,

"I understand that I am entering mid-conversation here … obviously there is a shared language and literature that I am not familiar with. Thanks for letting me wade into the fray. I have to admit, I am fascinated by your blog and this MRA business. Not something I've ever encountered before."

Your responses suggest I need to do a better job connecting the dots, for I think what appear to be trivial differences result in quite powerful forces that render the entire political experiment of egalitarianism a failure.

I'll accept that challenge for a later post.

As for the MRA world and the manosphere in general, I encourage you to explore around. The links bar on the side is a good start. I'm not your typical MRA--if there is such a thing. I profess Christianity (but represent my King poorly); most MRAs as far as I can tell do not. I am a right-illiberal, where as most MRAs I've read are right-liberals. I am married with children, support marriage in general, and encourage marriage in limited circumstances for certain demographics. Most of the MRA set has rejected what is colloquially known as Marriage 2.0 as a trap, preferring "MGTOW"--there's that shared literature,lol--instead.

Ecclesiastes said...

Re: marriage

Dressing up civil law in ecclesiastical language doesn't make it Holy. In the breech, marriage is the creature of lawyers and politicians.

I believe in the vow, not the institution.