Comments on: The Wrong Priorities http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/05/the-wrong-priorities/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:02:13 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: jaloren http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/05/the-wrong-priorities/comment-page-1/#comment-13643 jaloren Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:07:20 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/05/the-wrong-priorities/#comment-13643 "...”how is she going to take care of her children and do this job?”), but the concern was fundamentally moral. It was the answer to the practical question, which they already knew (”she isn’t, someone else is”), that prompted this concern." Let's push this a littler further. So someone is going to take care of her children. Why doesn't anyone who that is going to be? After all, the answer is self-evident--Todd Palin. I believe that anyone who would ask this line of questioning doesn't have a problem with single-parenting, but with stay-at-home fathers as such. Which leads me to ask: what empirical evidence is there that ovaries make a the mother by definition the better care giver (Yes, this completely ignores tradition and religion, I'd prefer to stay away from "because the Bible says so arguments")? More generally, the conservatives objection to feminist's distortions of the sexual revolution and the pretense that there were no meaningful differences between the sexes is itself a distortion. No feminist says there are no differences between men and women (Go ask a feminist, he'll tell you there are many). Rather feminists are arguing that reproductive organs do not <em>by definition</em> justify traditional gender roles. The female reproductive organ does not <em>by definition</em> make women ideally suited to be the primary care giver for their children, and the converse is true for men as the bread winner. And shockingly enough this non-strawman feminist argument has a great deal of merit to it. Surprisingly enough it turns out that our brains aren't located in our reproductive organs and that women can be just as good as men when it comes to commodifying their intellect. “…”how is she going to take care of her children and do this job?”), but the concern was fundamentally moral. It was the answer to the practical question, which they already knew (”she isn’t, someone else is”), that prompted this concern.”

Let’s push this a littler further. So someone is going to take care of her children. Why doesn’t anyone who that is going to be? After all, the answer is self-evident–Todd Palin. I believe that anyone who would ask this line of questioning doesn’t have a problem with single-parenting, but with stay-at-home fathers as such.

Which leads me to ask: what empirical evidence is there that ovaries make a the mother by definition the better care giver (Yes, this completely ignores tradition and religion, I’d prefer to stay away from “because the Bible says so arguments”)?

More generally, the conservatives objection to feminist’s distortions of the sexual revolution and the pretense that there were no meaningful differences between the sexes is itself a distortion. No feminist says there are no differences between men and women (Go ask a feminist, he’ll tell you there are many).

Rather feminists are arguing that reproductive organs do not by definition justify traditional gender roles. The female reproductive organ does not by definition make women ideally suited to be the primary care giver for their children, and the converse is true for men as the bread winner.

And shockingly enough this non-strawman feminist argument has a great deal of merit to it. Surprisingly enough it turns out that our brains aren’t located in our reproductive organs and that women can be just as good as men when it comes to commodifying their intellect.

]]> By: tenaciousd http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/05/the-wrong-priorities/comment-page-1/#comment-13619 tenaciousd Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:03:27 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/05/the-wrong-priorities/#comment-13619 It's an interesting connundrum (sp.?). Even as a Democrat, I have long recognized that "feminism" is mostly just the masculinization of women. You'd think a working political woman might fight for extended maternal (excuse me, "parental") leave and decent pre-K child care (even via market forces in the case of a Republican). But, I think political women are actually scared to be pigeon-holed into "women's" issues except in the cases that are of little or no consequence--for example, establishing the "right" to breast-feed in the workplace or some such thing. Anyhow, I was struck by your following remark: "This is the illness that drives people to Washington to 'do something' rather than remain at home preserving and creating the sane culture they claim to desire that the politicians praise and do nothing to protect." I recently read the Chollet/Goldgeier book "The Time Between the Wars" and was struck by how--when it comes to foreign policy--Democratic and Republican policymakers alike are so prone to declare: "America needs a new mission." or "Americans need a new global calling." Etc. Then, I think, "Really?" I suppose they think we are lost without their Olympian agendas. Heaven forbid I should be able to go out with my five-year old son and teach him how to ride a bike without wondering if some nitwit President 13 years down the road is going to get his legs blown off in Central Asia for no good reason. It’s an interesting connundrum (sp.?). Even as a Democrat, I have long recognized that “feminism” is mostly just the masculinization of women. You’d think a working political woman might fight for extended maternal (excuse me, “parental”) leave and decent pre-K child care (even via market forces in the case of a Republican). But, I think political women are actually scared to be pigeon-holed into “women’s” issues except in the cases that are of little or no consequence–for example, establishing the “right” to breast-feed in the workplace or some such thing.

Anyhow, I was struck by your following remark: “This is the illness that drives people to Washington to ‘do something’ rather than remain at home preserving and creating the sane culture they claim to desire that the politicians praise and do nothing to protect.”

I recently read the Chollet/Goldgeier book “The Time Between the Wars” and was struck by how–when it comes to foreign policy–Democratic and Republican policymakers alike are so prone to declare: “America needs a new mission.” or “Americans need a new global calling.” Etc. Then, I think, “Really?” I suppose they think we are lost without their Olympian agendas. Heaven forbid I should be able to go out with my five-year old son and teach him how to ride a bike without wondering if some nitwit President 13 years down the road is going to get his legs blown off in Central Asia for no good reason.

]]>