Doug, I agree and disagree (hee, hee, hee, how's THAT for a pomo
answer?). Seriously, though, I think for women in the United States it is
easier to enter and leave marriage than it was 15 or 20 years ago. And I do
think that patriarchy has diminished in many areas of our society with women
inhabiting many new spheres. That said, allow me to add serious qualifiers:
1. A big problem with the reduction of marriage is that the responsibility
for BOTH reproduction in the home and paid labor force participation has
shifted to the shoulders of women. Men have not picked up their fair share
of the burden. So, whenever anything goes wrong, we tend to blame the women
involved. By not being there, men are not blamed. We see this is child
abuse cases where it is frequently the woman who gets arrested. On the one
hand, yes, the woman directly abused and/or abandoned the child, but on the
other hand, the man left before the point where he could be legally held
responsible -- BUT, shouldn't we consider him morally and ethically
responsible as well? From an economic stand point, the statistics are
difficult to argue with. Even with huge errors, MOST people living below the
poverty level are women with children. MOST men who become divorced see an
increase in spendable income and MOST women see a decrease. The implication
of this is that men are economically better off without marriage.
2. Outside the U.S. there are serious infringements on women's lives which
continue with very little attention from the rest of the world. Most women
in Afghanistan are virtual prisoners these days. Genital mutilation
continues in many countries as a common practice. Since genital mutilation
generally leads to bleeding whenever women engage in sex throughout their
lives, this practice is probably in part accountable for the huge spread of
aids amongst African women (blood-semen contact). ... There are many
examples, you get the idea.
maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 96-11-27 11:03:07 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood)
writes:
>
>For sure. But isn't that less & less true? Aren't women freer to enter and
>leave marriages than they were 15 or 25 years ago?
>
>Along those lines, there's a pull-quote in the new issue of Socialist
>Review that describes capitalism as more racist and patriarchal than ever.
>Is that really true? On a global scale, Third World elites are being
>brought into the club, and in the First World, women are increasingly all
>over the place. I certainly don't mean to argue that racism and patriarchy
>have disappeared - obviously they haven't - but isn't the trend away from
>them?
>
>Doug
>
>-
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-11-27 11:03:07 EST
At 9:53 PM 11/26/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So, generally, even in an equitable relationship, a woman can be
>severely constrained by marriage. Of course, one can always find the
>occasional exception.
>
>Put another way, I don't think it is necessarily always individual men who
>constrain women in marriage, but marriage as structured by the society at
>large.
For sure. But isn't that less & less true? Aren't women freer to enter and
leave marriages than they were 15 or 25 years ago?
Along those lines, there's a pull-quote in the new issue of Socialist
Review that describes capitalism as more racist and patriarchal than ever.
Is that really true? On a global scale, Third World elites are being
brought into the club, and in the First World, women are increasingly all
over the place. I certainly don't mean to argue that racism and patriarchy
have disappeared - obviously they haven't - but isn't the trend away from
them?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
