Women

I wrote, "If a woman chooses a career that is incompatible with motherhood, then if she is rational, she won't have any children that need raising." Hong replied,

Gosh, Bill, the way you so lightly brush off the woman's choice of motherhood indicates to me that you haven't got slightest idea of the problems that are facing today's women every day. I will not discuss these issues with you any further.

Hong, where have I "brushed off" a woman's choice of motherhood? I indicated that I fully support that choice. But I also support a woman's choice to pursue a career that does not involve motherhood. Are you against that? I'm absolutely baffled by your response! If a woman doesn't want to have children, then she can choose not to have them. Many women make that choice in favor of a professional career. The statement you quoted was in response to your argument that children need a mother, because they can't raise themselves. But if the woman doesn't have children to begin with, then that problem doesn't arise. What is it about this that you don't understand?

- Bill

Post 41

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 4:37pm

I find Sharon's statement that "modern societies have not valued children or housework" hard to credit. Up until a few decades ago, and to a great extent even today, child-raising and homemaking have been the most revered jobs anyone could do. The contemporary disdain for housewifery comes from Betty Friedan and the women's movement, whom Sharon seems bizarrely to admire. This is a head-on contradiction if one thinks contemporary culture ought to put a higher value on motherhood.

Peter

Post 42

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 5:43pm

Peter,

I admit to a bit of over-generalization; probably from growing up with this little ditty in my ears. "A man may work from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done"; and the wages weren't so hot either.

Are you aware of the unpaid work that many women still do, Peter?

Perhaps you grew up in an upper middle class home with a housekeeper.

I am shocked still, at the low wages that some people, even professional women, have the nerve to offer for child care and housework. In my own teenaged years, the boy who mowed someone's lawn, earned twice the wages of the babysitter, who also prepared the children's meal and kept the house tidy. Supposedly, the babies were the family's highest value; but their care was worth a lesser investment than the garden.

Women lived with benevolent dictators before Betty Friedan gave women the confidence to stand up and say, "I'm doing too much; and not getting paid enough; and I want a change." Some women still don't have the confidence. Their families have socialized them to make nice and to not make waves.

And I thought the fight was over. You were just yanking my chain, weren't you Peter.

Sharon, bizarre indeed

Post 43

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 6:49pm

Regarding my support for a woman's right to pursue a professional career in lieu of raising children, Hong wrote, "I see from your profile that you don't have any child." To which John responded, "...don't you think you're getting a little too personal with Bill about this? Hong replied, "Nope. I just think that we should get out of abstraction, and get real."

So, according to Hong, unless I've had children, I'm in no position to say that women should be free to choose whether or not to bear children and raise a family. Otherwise, I'm ignoring reality and engaging in a floating abstraction. And, of course, the same argument would apply to women. Unless they too have had children, they're in no position to say that they should be free to choose whether or not to bear children and raise a family! Speaking of floating abstractions, good luck anchoring this line of reasoning to reality!

- Bill

Post 44

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:32pm

It is true that Objectvists defend equal rights, generally. However, it is a little inconsistent that Rand said she wouldn't vote for a woman for President and that she thinks the role of a woman is to surrender to a man. Do you think she was wrong about this?

I think that she was right for her in her own life, but her views are not my views, and my life is not her life. I have my own views, my own mind, my own choices. I don't choose for myself to have a need or a goal or a "rule" to surrender to anyone.

Jenna, I was making a pass at you, asking you, in a subtle way, if you would date an older man. Be gentle.

Ummm... I actually haven't thought much about dating anyone in any sort of seriousness for the past 1.5 years or so. Right now I'm immersed in intellectual pursuits, such as grad school. But thank you.

Post 45

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:33pm

Good reasoning Bill! You have a very sharp intellect!

Post 46

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:34pm

��a career that is incompatible with motherhood��

��a woman's choice to pursue a career that does not involve motherhood.�

��that choice in favor of a professional career.�

��a professional career in lieu of raising children��

Bill,

I think the disconnect here is that you keep referring to an either/or choice between motherhood and career, while Hong is talking about the challenges faced by women who want and have both. From what I�ve seen thus far, you truly know nothing about and haven�t anything worthwhile to say about those challenges.

I can attest to them, as I see them in my wife�s experience everyday. If I am wrong, and you really do know something about those challenges, then let us hear what you know about them. If all you have is the nth iteration of �well, then, don�t have children,� then I think it safe to say you�ve expended your usefulness on this topic.

Post 47

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:08am

Jon, you might want to familiarize yourself with the context. Hong's remarks were specifically in response to my Post #18, in which I referred to Objectivism's endorsement of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique. In that post, I did not address what you're addressing. Nor was it clear from Hong's response that she was. But if she was, then her response was completely irrelevant to the point I was making. My later posts were solely an effort to clarify the point I was making in that original post to which her objections were quite simply bewildering.

- Bill

Post 48

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:09am

And you might want to *expand* your sense of context, Bill.

Your post 18 was specifically in response to her post 16.

Your post 18 could not have been more off-topic, as it started out promising to respond to the sexism she objected to in her post 16, but turned out having nothing to do with her objection. You write, �In that post, I did not address what you're addressing.� Exactly! Nor what she was addressing! You merely stated that her objection is funny and then you launched into Betty and �But to view women's role as solely or primarily mothers (and housewives) is what Objectivists have been opposed to from the very beginning.� As though Betty or that ugly view of a women�s role was somehow a response to Hong�s post 16.

Then her post 21, where she objects to your implication that women�s lib, careers, somehow frees women from domestic servitude, which it largely hasn�t for working women with children.

Then I hit on her with success and all you offered from then on is a dichotomy between women with careers and women with children.

Post 49

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:19am

A better post 16 would have read, �Oh? What about Ayn Rand?�

A better post 18 would have responded to that with, �Exactly, Hong!�

Post 50

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 7:29am

Jon,
But Hong didn't say that in post #16. She said:

Huh?? Just look at yourself. Without women, there will be no men.

I took her to be joking, as did Bill, because I can't imagine anyone saying something like this as a serious response to the statement:

One has to look around a lot to find something to which women contributed.

Frankly, I'm really confused by Hong's reaction to Bill's post #26. I consider Bill's statement that

If a woman chooses a career that is incompatible with motherhood, then if she is rational, she won't have any children that need raising.

to be true by definition of "incompatible" and "rational". I guess I would add the following: "Whether the two are incompatible depends on the individual." But, I think this consideration is included in being rational. Clearly, Hong doesn't consider them to be incompatible, since she is doing both. But, my wife and I decided that they were incompatible for her (us). She is in the same field that Hong is, but we decided a long time ago that both of us couldn't have careers and raise children. It wouldn't work for us, where it has worked for some of our friends.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 51

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 7:51am

I wasn't clear in several of my previous posts but Jon has been speaking my mind.

As for the "...incompatibility of career and motherhood", let's not to talk in abstraction and get real - can anyone name a single career that's intrinsically incompatible with motherhood? What about men? Are there any career that is incompatible with fatherhood? If not, and then why should there be one incompatible with motherhood???!!!!

I would like to go to the extreme by saying that talking about women's choice in isolation, like - "oh, it all up to the women", is just boloney. The women's so-called choices are always influenced by her economical situation, her family, her marital state, and the altitude of her husband.

Post 52

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 8:47am

Hong asked:

Are there any career that is incompatible with fatherhood?

How about a eunuch?

Seriously, since we're getting real; to the question

... can anyone name a single career that's intrinsically incompatible with motherhood?

I would answer: any career which requires the woman to work 16 hrs a day, seven days a week. And these careers do exist. I'm sure there are people here who have had or know people who have had this kind of career. When she was a post doc and an assistant professor, my wife worked nearly those hours. That was her choice. That's what she thought was necessary to be successful.

You can say that that isn't incompatible with being a mother, but since we're getting real, I'd say it is. If you are working those hours, you aren't being a mother; someone else is. And the same goes for being a father.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 53

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 9:47am

Hi Glenn,
I understand everything you said. But I disagree that if a woman does not spend a big chunk of the day with her kids, she would be a lesser mother. In my Chinese tribal tradition, kids are routinely raised by grandparents and relatives, which in most cases dose not diminish the significance of mother in their lives. My son had also spent most of his day time with baby sitters and in pre-schools when he was little. I was with him about 2 hours everyday (well, most of the days) in the evening. I think this is a perfectly acceptable form of motherhood. I have only one kid. Not exactly my choice but the best I (and my husband) can do given our situations.

What I object to from the beginning of this thread is the inconsistency between the typical American view on motherhood and the complain that one has to look hard to find women's contribution in society.

PS. Just to add that if we leave men out of the equation, and leave a supporting system out too, then I'd say that almost all jobs are "incompatible" with motherhood.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 8/02, 10:49am)

Post 54

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 10:38am

Glenn, you wrote:

�She said:

Huh?? Just look at yourself. Without women, there will be no men.

I took her to be joking, as did Bill, because I can't imagine anyone saying something like this as a serious response to the statement:

One has to look around a lot to find something to which women contributed.

I am open to learning that I am failing to follow you, Glenn. Can you explain why you can�t imagine it? I�ll explain why I can.

She finds,
�One has to look around a lot to find something to which women contributed�
to be a sexist, false assertion. She responds to it with,
�Just look at yourself. Without women, there will be no men.�

Doesn�t she simply mean that a woman or women raised Nick, Bill, yourself, likely every last one of us here, and that this act should count toward, �something to which women contributed�? A woman raised Ayn Rand. Should that count as something contributed?

Genuinely trying to nail the disconnect.

Post 55

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 10:50am

Jon, again, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks.

Post 56

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:17am

You�ve never felt this well understood in your life have you, Hong?

Yeah, I get that reaction often.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 8/02, 11:19am)

Post 57

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:25am

Okay, besides men, to what have women contributed? I'm not trying to be sexist here. I am pointng out a problem in society. I am advocating for women, not trying to put them down.

I did point out that there have been women leaders. Someone on another board pointed out to me that Celtic women fought beside their men and even led them in battle. there are examples of women who have accomplished a lot, and we are seeing more and more women as doctors and lawyers and physicists and philosophers. I think they should be allowed in ground combat jobs in the military. I'm disagreeing with Rand and saying there is not much, other than child birth, that seperates women from men.

Am I being called sexist for saying one has to look far to see what women have contributed? Wouldn't a feminist say the same thing?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 58

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:46am

Jon, do you have to gloat all the time? I am actually luckier in life than you thought. :-)

Post 59

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:00pm