Conservatives should reflect upon these figures as they provide an explanation with regard to the rise of Feminism in the 20th Century.
As I've mentioned before, women are intensely social creatures and their preferences for things can be modified by social pressure so the figures should be interpreted with that in mind. Still, the data was obtained from Britain where domesticity still has some credence amongst women, especially amongst the trend setting.
As Ms Hakim has pointed out, women today quite literally have the freedom to mix work and domestic duties without stigma to the degree which they feel comfortable. What the figures above thus represents is the natural temperamental distribution with regard to woman's desire to stay at home as a full time homemaker. What we see is that amongst the British population at least 80% of women would like at least some type of work outside the house. The majority of women do not want to be at home all the time.
For the Aspergy out there, this does not mean that these women wanted careers, what it means that most women wanted some form of employment outside the home as a result of their natural temperaments.
Prior to full scale implemenation of the industrial revolution with subsequent urbanisation, life was agricultural, communal and short. A woman was meant to pull her weight on the farm by assisting in the farming duties and raising the children (frequently with the assistance of an extended family). The lot of these women was frequently no different to men.
With the advent of the industrial revolution the resultant increase in wealth and urbanisation resulted in women being relieved of their agricultural duties, and given the traditional conceptions of womanhood, these women were left with nothing to do but look after the husband and children. The forced domestication of these women by traditional society's failure to adapt to social changes ensured that there was an extremely large pool of legitimately dissatisfied women in the late in the early 20th Century.
Of course, the group most motivate to speak about this unsatisfactory state of affairs was the group most afflicted by it, those women whom were temperamentally career orientated. And given the herd wiring of the female mind, these women claimed to speak on behalf of all women, shaming those who disagreed. The rest, as they say, is history.
Just as good marriage will factor in hypergamy so will a good marriage factor in this desire for woman to do other things than just solely look after the husband and the children. The problem is though, that traditionalists did not want, or more probably were incapable of, factoring in this facet of female nature into their conception of marriage.
Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so in the absence of good thought, bad thought will seep in. The midwife of feminism was traditionalism, which by failing offer any alternative to the social pressures that had been formed enabled a quack remedy to take its place. Feminism was the product of traditionalist failure.
Traditionalism failed because:
1) Whilst human nature remained the same, the intersection of human nature and new social circumstances generated profound dissatisfaction which it refused to recognise.
2)Its understanding of female nature was wrong.
3) It did not provide a satisfactory solution to the problem.
9 comments:
Yes, I've long held that industrialism and urbanism are the root causes of much of the hell of modernity. Sure, we may have gained a little comfort from these developments but the community, family, and traditional social arrangements we lost were worth a lot more than indoor plumbing. I don't blame women one bit for rebelling against the conditions created by the IR any more than I blame men like the Luddites for rebelling.
Most women should probably be primarily home makers, with part time jobs when they can swing it.
Brandon
Yes, I've long held that industrialism and urbanism are the root causes of much of the hell of modernity.
Before the industrial revolution got into full swing, life was nasty, brutish and short. Reversing the clock with regard to industrialisation would probably knock off at least 3/4 of the global population. Not to mention the reintroduction of lots of disease and suffering. No, the industrial revolution was on the whole a good thing. The problem is that our traditional society failed to adapt (refused to) and social problems were solved by radical solutions.
SP
Are overpopulation and environmental degradation not going to lead to a whole lot of disease and suffering in the future anyway? It seems that Globalism will, in the not to distant future, effect a global disease epidemic never seen before in history. Is the Industrial Revolution even sustainable? What is your position on Peak Oil?
I really don't see how society could of reacted any other way to the IR, when it effected massive centralization of power, the dictatorship of commerce which makes all men and women cogs in it's wheel, the divorcement of people from the land and herding them like cattle into the cities. Capitalism and Industrialism are not pro-family, in a traditional, or even loosely conservative sense. All must be sacrificed to the Gods of Almighty Mammon and all people, traditions, cultures, and families must be fractured into interchangeable parts in the great consumer machine.
If I am wrong, I will consider it, but I would like to know how. Being a conservative (pro-family) and capitalist, to my mind, is an utterly incoherent position.
What we have now is a movement of so-called "crunchy conservatives" who want combine the best of the post-industrial era with the best of the pre-industrial era.
IE less rabid commercialization, outsourcing of education, and slow food.
It has now given rise to what some call "radical homemakers" which is really the only kind I support..as anything else is clearly stifling to any half-way intelligent woman.
I think that we agree more than we disagree... I just tend to use a more reactive and anti-feminist tone...particularly in the article you linked to.
Sorry Brandon but missed your comment.
I'm not an unrestrained capitalist. I believe in the social market economy or ordoliberalism. It acknowledges the benefits of the free market whilst acknowledging its faults. And therefore puts checks and balances on the market. For example, unrestrained capitalism can lead to monopolies, ordoliberalism aims to inhibit these.
Are overpopulation and environmental degradation not going to lead to a whole lot of disease and suffering in the future anyway?
This is a complex question but broadly speaking the world would not be able to sustain a U.S. "quality of life". Interestingly I note that the latest U.S. life expectancy prediction has fallen by 0.1yrs despite increases in health spending.
That's not to say that there aren't other lifestyles that are sustainable. For example, bringing back traditional town planning makes cars difficult and expensive to maintain (NYC) and encourages pedestrian activity (see Jane Jacobs about all of the benefits).
With regard to peak oil, we're there or nearly there, so what? There is still tons of carbon that can be burned in the form of coal and shale, in a addition a lot of this can be converted to diesel if the price is right. There's going to be plenty of fossil fuels for a long time.
Still, I'm actually prejudiced against fossil fuels and pro-nuclear.
@SP
Fair enough. I can dig ordoliberalism.
However, not so sure about the pro-nuclear position what with recent events in Japan. Nuclear energy appears to be a dangerous beast.
What he contends is something I was thinking last night – most problems in modernity derive from urbanism and industrialism.
At the moment I wasnt thinking of feminism, I was thinking about tribalism (by virtue of the norse shooter).
SP is correct. Industralization altered the context in wich the traditional family was found, and the inability to respond to the circumstance created insatisfaction with the family model.
He didnt say, however, what could have been done.
I can say WHY I think nothing was done: because traditional family was not a engineered institution, but a sponteneous development, therefore it wasnt conceived like a machine that needs to be upgraded, it was conceived as “the normal way of living”.
What could have worked? I believe, the promotion of communal activities that envolved sociality. Charity through religious institutions is one. A NGO now here envolves a good number of women in a program to integrate and entertain old people. Delegate to women activities like promotion of festivities, and envolve them in activities of urban beautyfication (make the city a giant garden, etc) could been another good idea.
At the end, with men in the industry, women would have the extra-domestic role of promoting communitary life and make the urban environment more pleasant (two things they are very good at).
Interestingly, these measures would have made feminism unthinkable for them – you would never convince a mass of women busy with gardens promoting festivities and cultural events, to leave it and go to inospit industrial plants.
Sorry for the bad english, I am Brazilian and speak portuguese.
What he contends is something I was thinking last night – most problems in modernity derive from urbanism and industrialism
Firstly,thanks for your comment. I assure you that your English is better than my non-existent Portuguese.
I don't think the problems is industrialisation as much as it is our adaptation to it. Industrialisation is not just urban slums and on line porn. It's also medicines, CT scanners, efficient food distribution, sewerage and fresh water. All these things are part and parcel of idustrialisation.
The question is how to adapt within the Christian context?
He didnt say, however, what could have been done.
We've got to agree on a diagnosis before we can commence effective treatment.
Interestingly, these measures would have made feminism unthinkable for them – you would never convince a mass of women busy with gardens promoting festivities and cultural events, to leave it and go to inospit industrial plants.
The problem of the early industrial age was the grinding poverty to which many families were subjected. Poor women have always worked. The women's liberation movement was an upper middle class thing. Traditional society did not allow an affluent woman any "escape" from the home.
I think that the best "solution" in this instance would have been to recognise that women should participate actively in the community life to a degree which conforms with their nature. (I'm not a big fan of women in the military, police forces or building trades.)
Once again thanks for dropping by.
Post a Comment