Is the institution of the family fundamentally anti-feminine?

[Arrian]

It's sort of a chicken and the egg thing, isn't it? How much is "concious acceptance" and how much is social conditioning? That goes for pretty much anything, of course.

People should be able to make their own choices about such things, IMO. If they want to go the "traditional" route, good for them.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm




You need a strict grandfather, then.

None available

My dad is pretty lenient (I was a bit spoiled myself, though I ended up ok) and he's 81. Her dad is pretty lenient as well. Her mother is the most likely to enforce discipline, albeit in a very calm manner (a good thing, obviously).

My mom is just dying for us to produce a grandchild, and if we do... oh my. It'll be a little dress up doll! ****.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


None available

My dad is pretty lenient (I was a bit spoiled myself, though I ended up ok) and he's 81. Her dad is pretty lenient as well. Her mother is the most likely to enforce discipline, albeit in a very calm manner.

-Arrian

You need some male figure which can be projected as a Supreme Authority, with Godly Immense Powers. It doesn't matter how much power that person actually has, but it's a very comforting and disciplining presence nonetheless.

[Cartimandua]

I am a female and willing to discuss how I feel about this question. I feel that each woman is different and all of our opinions are different. Personally I love the idea of women staying at home with their children if that's what they choose, but if couples choose to have children I feel that they have a responsibility to raise the kids themselves, whether it's the father or the mother that stays home with them.

I am currently a career woman, but when I have children I know that I will like staying home with them and my husband supports me in that decision and is willing to be the bread winner. I don't feel that this arrangement is anti-feminist or degrating in the slightest. It is what we both want and we look forward to that time.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cartimandua
I am a female and willing to discuss how I feel about this question. I feel that each woman is different and all of our opinions are different. Personally I love the idea of women staying at home with their children if that's what they choose, but if couples choose to have children I feel that they have a responsibility to raise the kids themselves, whether it's the father or the mother that stays home with them.

I am currently a career woman, but when I have children I know that I will like staying home with them and my husband supports me in that decision and is willing to be the bread winner. I don't feel that this arrangement is anti-feminist or degrating in the slightest. It is what we both want and we look forward to that time.

Whatever you choose, as long as you've chosen it consciously and without pressure, more power to you.






Also, I thank you for the insight.




Do you think that the current structure of society is wrong - that the choice women are forced to make should not be forced on them, as it is today?

[Japher]

each woman is different and all of our opinions are different

some women have different opinions depending on when you ask them

[Jon Miller]

The number of girls I know who have went from "never" for the question of having kids to "I plan to have one/I am pregnant" when they hit the low 30s is suprisingly high.

JM

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by aneeshm
What happens when both the man and the woman have consciously decided to embrace the "traditional" roles, and to pass on the same values to their children?

This is quite an interesting question, because the world's societies face it right now.

Most feminists would be up in arms....because they've forgotten the original purpose of feminism: to give women as many life choices as possible.

If a couple wants a traditional marriage, that's their choice. If they want to pass their values onto their children, that's one of the functions of a family.

[Cartimandua]

Do you think that the current structure of society is wrong - that the choice women are forced to make should not be forced on them, as it is today?

I think that no matter what the situation is people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Social pressure or expectations should not influence whether women work or stay home. Everybody has the right to choose the way they want their life to be. Being in the career world I actually feel pressure NOT to stay home with my family. Other women look down on you when you say that you want to have kids. I personally don't care what people say, I do what I want to do anyway.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cartimandua


I think that no matter what the situation is people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Social pressure or expectations should not influence whether women work or stay home. Everybody has the right to choose the way they want their life to be. Being in the career world I actually feel pressure NOT to stay home with my family. Other women look down on you when you say that you want to have kids. I personally don't care what people say, I do what I want to do anyway.

Would you like to live in a society where caring for your children and working as a career women (or the equivalents of the two choices) were not mutually exclusive (assuming for a moment that such a society were possible)?

[Dis]

depends on your defininition of feminine.

most feminists are not very feminine. They only seek ways to justify their way of life seeing as they can't get any man.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You need some male figure which can be projected as a Supreme Authority, with Godly Immense Powers. It doesn't matter how much power that person actually has, but it's a very comforting and disciplining presence nonetheless.

Oh really?

-Arrian

[Cartimandua]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Would you like to live in a society where caring for your children and working as a career women (or the equivalents of the two choices) were not mutually exclusive (assuming for a moment that such a society were possible)?

Actually I think it is very possible to have both, however, it requires sacrifice on both ends. It would be foolish to try to give 100% to your family and 100% to your job all the time. This may require a person to cut down on the hours they work or what activities they do with their families, but it is possible to do both. I would actually prefer that balance. Having a spouse that is willing to pick up the slack when you cannot is also very helpful, whether that means watching the kids or working more hours themselves.

[Heresson]

Re: Is the institution of the family fundamentally anti-feminine?

Only when between 2 men

[DaShi]

http://htc.anu.edu.au/pdfs/Gupta1.pdf

Pattern 1 societies

This discussion of Pattern 1 societies is based on Northern European peasant societies which had impartible inheritance and nuclear or stem families. It is based primarily on Berkner’s(1972) study of eighteenth–century Austrian peasant households, but also uses similar accounts emanating from nineteenth–century Scandinavia (Gaunt 1987; Plakans 1989;Sorensen 1989) and from nineteenth–century Austria (Sieder and Mitterauer 1983).

Under this family system, property and managerial power were retained by the head of household until he retired. Retirement and property transfer typically took place at the time of the heir’s marriage. It was common for a retirement contract to be drawn up, specifying wherethe old couple would live, and what obligations the heir had for providing the retired parents with food, fuel and other material support (Berkner 1972).

For the new couple, this meant that they started out with an independent economic base, and were in control of all decisions relating to their household. For the old couple, of course, it meant a very sudden reduction in power and status. The strong intergenerational conflict out of this sharply discontinuous system of transfer of property and authority is discussed and illustrated with contemporary accounts by several historians, and summarizedby Plakans (1989:177):

‘...there is now something like a consensus that the treatment of the old was harsh and decidedly pragmatic. Dislike and suspicion, it is said, characterized the attitudes of both sides’.

This discussion of intergenerational relationships focuses on the relationships between men, which follows from the fact that these societies were patrilateral in terms of inheritance and patrilocal in residence. This did not extend to having patrilineages, in the sense of corporate groups. Land was passed on to a son, so the tension over retirement contracts revolved essentially around the father and son. Much less information is available on how women fared under this system: ‘the sources speak most revealingly of men and mention spouses as an afterthought and female heads as a transitory phenomenon’ (Plakans 1989:191). However, it seems that the mother was also centrally involved in her role as the wife of the retiring farmer, who would share with him the comforts or discomforts of retired life.

The incoming wife was of course an outsider to the household. Depending on how faraway her own family was, she might have considerable or negligible contact with them. Indescribing the position of the new wife in mid-twentieth century rural Ireland, Arensberg and Kimball (1968) recount how strongly some of these women missed their homes and the familiar people there. However, the emphasis on a strong conjugal unit facilitated the woman’s situation:

'Nevertheless, stranger as the new woman may be, the norms of the community in ordinarycases demand that the young husband take the part of his wife. The bond between them isstronger than that between son and parent' (Arensberg and Kimball 1968:128).

Thus the independence of the new couple meant that the woman had a high degree ofautonomy in household matters, subject only to her husband’s acquiescence.

Of course, there was considerable variation over time and place in the details of the operation of kinship and inheritance in Northern Europe. A somewhat stylized version of it has been presented here, highlighting its essential features in order to throw into relief the contrast with inheritance and household formation patterns in Northern India. Others have earlier found it useful to draw stylized contrasts between these systems (Goody 1990; Hajnal1982). Moreover, only the lifecourse of the landowning peasants is discussed here. The lifecourse of those lower down in the socio-economic hierarchy could be entirely different: for example, the high prevalence of non-marriage meant that many never established ahousehold of their own.

From the point of view of health and demographic outcomes, the important contrasts with Northern India hinge around the strength of the conjugal bond on the one hand, and the extent of intergenerational bonding on the other hand. Amongst these Northern European peasants, the conjugal unit seems to have been the most important in economic, social and emotional terms. The viability of the farm itself depended on the joint viability of the couple in charge. The couple was the joint enterprise, recruiting help as needed through childbearing and hiring servants. Though women might come as strangers into their husband’s home, they came as the important and explicitly-acknowledged partner in the husband’s enterprise. The strong focus on the conjugal bond was paralleled by weak and inherently conflict-ridden intergenerational links.

Pattern 2 societies

This discussion of Pattern 2 societies is based largely on contemporary rural Northern India. Occasional references are made to Bangladesh and to China, as their family and inheritance
forms have much in common with Northern India. Household formation in such societies follows the model of the multiple or joint family (Laslett 1972), in which the transfer of managerial power and property is made gradually as the head of household ages. The sons work the land along with the father, then gradually take over managerial decisions, and finally the property is transferred to them, frequently after the father’s death.

The gradual nature of the transfer of power and authority makes for much less intergenerational conflict than is described in the case of Northern Europe. The new coupletypically lives with the husband’s parents and does not have an independent economic base of its own. Bonds between patrikin are strong, both intergenerationally (between parents and children) and intragenerationally (between siblings). Concomitantly, there is far less emphasis on the conjugal unit. Indeed, the marital bond is viewed as a potential threat to these other bonds, and is not given much opportunity to thrive. The basic unit is the joint-household, and not the couple, as it is in Northern European peasant societies. These contrasts are essentially those between what Linton (1936) called the ‘conjugal’ versus the ‘consanguinal’ family.

The position of women in Northern Europe and Northern India have some commonalities. They are clearly in a subservient position to men. Sons ensure the continuance of the family line. An extreme but nevertheless telling example of this in Northern Europe is given by Sorensen (1989:201):

'... a particular property in Hessen, Germany, was occupied continuously for more than 400 years... by a Johannes Hoss. This remarkable stability was achieved by naming all sons in the family Johannes (with varying second names to provide individual identification) through this whole period.'

These similarities highlight the differences in women’s position in the two settings. The emphasis on the marital bond and weakness of intergenerational ties meant that the Northern European peasant wife had considerable autonomy in the running of the household and could care for her own and her family’s health as best she could. In Northern India, women have highly limited autonomy in these matters until late in their life course. Close bonds between patrikin work to marginalize the young married woman.

Another factor contributing to this difference in autonomy is the age at which women typically married in these two settings. In Northern Europe the age at marriage was higher than in Northern India, and marriage was a contract between two adults. However, the marginalization of the bride continues even when the age at marriage rises: the data presented here showing the negative health outcomes of low female autonomy are based on Punjabi villages where women’s average age at marriage is close to 22 years.

It can be hypothesized that to the extent that gender-based discrimination might have existed in Northern Europe, it is likely to have been volitional in nature. For example, a man might choose to mistreat his wife, or parents might choose to favour boys over girls. In Northern India, there would in addition to this be non-volitional forms of discrimination, leading to unintended negative outcomes. For example, in caring for a cherished son, a woman and her in-laws may share the same goals but fail to reach them because of poor communication.

The rest of the article concerns the health concerns of Indian women in the pattern 2 family with additional comments on autonomy.