Is the institution of the family fundamentally anti-feminine?

[aneeshm]

I've often come across attitudes among the self-styled "progressives" and feminists that seem to imply that the family structure which we have today is somehow anti-feminine, or a structure meant to regulate and bind the femininity of the female participants.

I've thought about how far this is true, and I've come to my own conclusions.

I would like, however, to start a discussion on this, to see other people's point of view.

[Arrian]

[BITE]

I've thought about how far this is true, and I've come to my own conclusions

Which are quite evident from your posting here at 'poly, both in prior threads and in the OP of this one.

...

The first thing that needs doing is to clearly define what you mean by "the institution of the family."

I could guess at what you consider it to be (men get jobs and make money, women stay home to cook, clean and have babies) but why jump to conclusions, eh?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

perhaps in capitalism the family is inherently anti-feminist

I don't think it is in general though

JM

[Japher]

I wouldn't so much say that the institution of marriage is anti-femmine and meant to keep the woman subserviant, more so than I would say the business world is less inclined to treat women equally as they do men, thus making the male in the relationship default as the bread earner and the woman as the children rearer.

Is this fair? No. Do I or my wife care? No. Does my wife like staying home with Josie? Yes.

[Arrian]

Josie and the pussycats?

-Arrian

[Japher]

I hate cats

[Arrian]

Evil, evil felines Plotting against us, they are.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

The traditional family struction is anti-feminist but not per se anti-female. That is, in the traditional struction, each gender had its own role: male as breadwinner, female as homemaker.

In a post-feminist age, either gender may fulfill either or both of these roles.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

Which are quite evident from your posting here at 'poly, both in prior threads and in the OP of this one.

Not really.

Originally posted by Arrian

The first thing that needs doing is to clearly define what you mean by "the institution of the family."

The system of marriage - a committed, exclusive monogamous relationship - coupled with a division of labour between the participants (and it's not necessary that the man earn and the woman take care of children - it could be that both earn, and share child-rearing duties, as is usually the default nowadays). That's the definition I use for a nuclear family.

There is also the joint family - the grandparents and other relatives who stay at the massive joint home taking care of all children, while the younger people earn, with one supreme authority to settle problems. In most places, that supreme authority is the oldest non-senile male, but it also usually includes the entire bunch of old people.

[Arrian]

It's pretty silly to have this discussion here, though, aneeshm.

By default you're going to be discussing feminism with a bunch of guys, who aren't going to be able to give you the female perspective on this (either pro or con).

Basically, wrong forum.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

In a post-feminist age, either gender may fulfill either or both of these roles.

True.

But we do need somebody to do the child rearing. What compromise is to be reached as to that end is up to each couple, of course, but I still rather like the system where the grandparents took care of children - in the modern context, it leaves both parents free to work and earn full-time, which allows them to earn enough for the entire family.

[Arrian]

The system of marriage - a committed, exclusive monogamous relationship - coupled with a division of labour between the participants (and it's not necessary that the man earn and the woman take care of children - it could be that both earn, and share child-rearing duties, as is usually the default nowadays).

So marriage + kids = family. Ok, pretty simple. What you call a "joint family" is typically called the "extended family" here.

I wouldn't say that the family as you describe it (going out of your way to say that the roles are not necessarily defined in a particular way) is anti-feminine, no. A more "traditional" family wherein the roles *are* defined and defined as "man work, woman make baby" is arguably so.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


True.

But we do need somebody to do the child rearing. What compromise is to be reached as to that end is up to each couple, of course, but I still rather like the system where the grandparents took care of children - in the modern context, it leaves both parents free to work and earn full-time, which allows them to earn enough for the entire family.

There are those who argue that the extended family is a very good thing, and its relative rarity here in the US is lamentable. They may have a point. I think my wife would be up for that sort of setup, provided her mom (not mine) did most of the rearing. Mine would to into doting grandma overdrive immediately and spoil the crap out of the kid. My father is quite old and getting pretty frail, so his input would be limited. Her father is fine, but I'd say it's rather unlikely he'd be as interested in such a role.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

I wouldn't say that the family as you describe it (going out of your way to say that the roles are not necessarily defined in a particular way) is anti-feminine, no. A more "traditional" family wherein the roles *are* defined and defined as "man work, woman make baby" is arguably so.

-Arrian

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.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

Mine would to into doting grandma overdrive immediately and spoil the crap out of the kid.

-Arrian

You need a strict grandfather, then.