In passing to a larger point, Echidne of the Snakes raises one of those questions popular with (real, anti-feminism) anti-feminists that rather begs a different one
When I first read about their principles I came across a defense of the female subjugation they demand. It went like this: “Is it so much to ask women to subject themselves to men’s leadership? Consider that these men are willing to give up their lives for their families if asked! Compared to that, what’s a little oppression?”
But… but… considering that women have to be willing to give up their lives just to fucking have a family is it too much to ask men to share leadership? And last I heard there were no Supreme Courts or state legislatures requiring men to give up their lives for their families the way they seem willing to mandate it for women. Which leaves one wondering — if willingness to sacrifice one’s life for one’s family is should be the metric for family leadership — whether women should have to share at all.
Of course it’s actually a really stupid argument. In the first place there’s no reason to imagine that families require top-down as opposed to, say, consensus leadership in the first place. And in the second place, willingness to base leadership on the by-definition lower continuity criteria of who’s most likely to die and thus leave a leadership vacuum is just bad management!
Submitted by 2949 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-05-18 15:46.
It's "good" to know the conservative rhetoric is the same the world over - I heard similar arguments last week when the Australian government made a commitment to paid parental leave.
And last I heard there were no Supreme Courts or state legislatures requiring men to give up their lives for their families the way they seem willing to mandate it for women.
This point in particular is brilliantly put.
[Thank you, Rachel. --fl]
Submitted by 2949 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-05-18 16:36.
When I first read "give up their lives" I was thinking that meant "be willing to risk death in order to keep one's family alive" as if there were bears and murderous psychos wandering the streets. Probably because it would be an understandable attitude if some people believed that were true. (Obviously, I wouldn't necessarily agree with it even if it were true.)
[It's even dumber than that. They generally mean "willing to serve in the military." Although while some do mostly (see nearly every member of the Bush administration) they don't. Although for a period roughly from 1800-1950 there was a sort of militant bachelorhood where men believed that getting married was giving up the *good* life in order to support a family... sort of the flip side of Victoria's "lie back and think of England" advice for women. Not coincidentally that 150 year period, well, coincided with the semen-conservation belief that "even 10 ejaculations a year" could be fatal to the average healthy man! Go figure. Thanks, Nightfall. --fl]