A manly look at feminism Pt2

We all have cherished beliefs that we can't really defend and we all get defensive and angry when we are called on to defend one of these positions. Ann Althouse hit one of those limits last week. She expressed a lack of sympathy for men who end up paying child support and got a whole lot of pushback in the coments at her blog and elsewhere. And this was her argument in response:

You are free, you need to think about how you use your freedom, and don't just think about your own perspective as you make arguments that law and society ought to be arranged to facilitate your choices. I'd say I'm being quite libertarian. And as for social connishness, I support abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and — it's right there in my quote — I'm not out to punish those who decline to channel their sexuality into committed relationships with child-rearing. I'm just defending legal and political decisions that center on protecting the interests of children rather than the ability of males to avoid the consequences of procreation, consequences that occur even though the male power over reproduction ends — because he controls only his body and not the woman's — at an earlier point in time than the woman's.

She's more interested in "protecting the interests of children rather than the ability of males to avoid the consequences of procreation"? I don't believe that. I suspect she believes it but that is because she isn't being honest with herself about this.

Her problems starts with the line "... consequences that occur even though the male power over reproduction ends — because he controls only his body and not the woman's — at an earlier point in time than the woman's." Let's spell this out. A man controls reproduction by either using contraception or not having sex in the first place. The woman on the other hand has those options plus the additional option of having an abortion if she gets pregnant. In fact, she can have an abortion for any reason at all. She can get pregnant intentionally, change her mind and get an abortion.

So, here is the first question, why should he feel any responsibility for a child that she can unilaterally kill or not at her will? It's not his child anymore once you make that step. Yes, it will become his child if he helps raise it but up until the moment of birth, you can't hold him responsible for something he has no say in.

Imagine what would happen if we gave the man the option of signing off. It should be the woman's responsibility to inform the man that she is pregnant and he should be given the option of signing a form saying, "Yes, I accept the responsibility for raising this child," or "No I do not accept the responsibility for raising this child." And the form should also include an option for his accepting on the condition of a paternity test.

That would even things out. It wouldn't limit her "rights over her own body" in any way. She can still have the child or not. He isn't forcing her either way. (I suspect that one embarrassing consequence of such a step would be a significant drop in the number of accidental pregnancies.)

But that's only the first step. The next problem is no fault divorce. because she can end the marriage any time she wants and be relatively certain that she will get sole or shared custody rights. Plus she gets support payments enforced by law but (and this is very important) she is in no way accountable to him as to how she spends those support payments. In Canada, he isn't even allowed to ask for an accounting which means that in cases where the "support" payments are very large, the woman can spend it on spa visits or a vacation with her new boyfriend.

The point being that the incentives for marriage for men have been severely reduced. Not surprisingly, men are taking this into account in making their life choices.

It's interesting by the way, to see how different groups are responding to this. Men I know who are over the age of 40 or so are often quite angry about it. They grew up with a certain set of expectations and now the carpet has been pulled out from under them. Interestingly, this has effected men who embrace traditionalist values least. They have tended to marry women who embraced the same values as they do. But others can be quite bitter about it.

Younger men, on the other hand, seem to be quite enjoying it. There is a guy we know who lives in a van. He travels all around the country being a photographer. He even has gotten arts grants to do this. There is woman here in the neighbourhood he stays with for a few weeks every summer and winter on his way through. She's a massage therapist, which I expect makes her pretty good in bed—sex and a massage. I doubt very much that she is the only such woman on his circuit.

It's a pretty good deal. You may say, "But it won't last forever." That's true but when he gets to be old enough that he is going to have to settle down he is going to be in a stronger bargaining position that any of the single women available to him. He'll probably be able to marry a woman younger than the ones he is having sex with now.

More likely, he'll just move in with her

And it's hard not to suspect that is why Ann Althouse is a little touchy on this subject.

You are free, you need to think about how you use your freedom, and don't just think about your own perspective as you make arguments that law and society ought to be arranged to facilitate your choices.

That's true enough but if you change the basic social contract, even if you do so for the best of reasons, you have to expect that there will be multiple effects and that you aren't going to like some of them. And don't turn around and try and beat us into submission with a lot of talk about the interests of the child. Between abortion and no-fault divorce it has been made very clear to us that we have no say in those interests beyond paying court-ordered support. Don't expect us to care.

Celebrating: the Patron saint of discount retail

Today is the feast day of Francis de Sales. Always the "de" and never translated as "of" for reasons that are kind of funny if you think about it. I own five books of saints and every single one of them unhesitatingly prints "Francis of Paola" but then "Francis de Sales". This says a lot about our idea of saints, and not just the way Catholics think about saints; it tells us that no one wants to suggest, even accidentally, that there might be a patron say of discounted retail prices.

Well, there ought to be and I hereby, on the basis of no legitimate authority whatsoever, add this to his patronage. Retail sales are a very good thing and the world is a better place for them. Those who hold them and those who attend them now have a patron saint.

And it seems to me, in that regard, entirely fitting that his most famous quote is: "Whoever preaches with love preaches effectively." And anyone who doubts that we live in a debased age, compare that believe with these sentiments where all distinction between moral persuasion and moral manipulation is obliterated.

In his honour, I give you this fascinating discussion:



Lots to comment on here, but for now I just want to highlight this fascinating tidbit from the above:

Ann Althouse: "It might be that there is something at a biological/sexual level with most human beings where they are more satisfied with the man in the dominant role."

Emily Bazelon: "Um, I don't now, you have to cite me some really solid study or else it is going to sound like [inaudible] baloney to me. How can we be wired for men to be in the dominant role."

Ann Althouse: "No, no, no listen to me, In. The. Actual. Sex. Act."

Emily Bazelon: "Oh, Oh I missed that part."

After which they proceed, Ms. Bazelon having no trouble accepting that possibility.

The thing that I have been highlighting in these "celebrating" posts is what has changed and what has not. In the 1980s, that discussion between two self-identified feminists was unthinkable.