The terms we use to describe something reflect our perception of that thing, and may alter that perception. It needs no explanation that when we use a racial slur or epithet we have no respect for an individual. However, when we address people politely, or with the use of titles, this influences how we perceive these individuals, whether we deliberately intend so or not.
Most people know that the modern armored division is a product of British and German theoretical exercises in the 30s, followed by extensive development in WW2. The optimum ratio of armored to infantry units is 2:1. Many ratios have been tried, with early units being all armored. These units were quite bad at assaulting towns and certain other obstacles. The optimum number of tanks has also fluctuated. In early WW2 a German panzer division had 300 tanks, and this number, more or less, is the number in most armored divisions today.
Now, how are those two paragraphs related, let alone related to families? Here is how. Germany doubled the number of its panzer divisions in 1941, but did not double its tank production. German panzer divisions now had about 140 tanks, and were correspondingly less powerful and had far less combat endurance. And yet they were still called panzer divisions, and because of the name commanded the same respect without the same abilities.
And so it is with families. I read this article from the NYT today-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It describes a deep divide between the poor and other groups- single motherhood. 70+% of infants born to poor whites are to single mothers, a number comparable to the black poulation. In contrast, only about 10% of babies born to college educated whites are to unmarried women. This divide continues to accelerate, with married whites being much more likely to have college degrees, less likely to divorce, and so forth. the net result is a society divided more by marital and sexual behavior than by race or even income. Poverty is a part of the background of many single mothers, but it is the near ubiquitous future of these women and their children.
Now, what is the point? In reading about families, I read about the 'nuclear family'. This refers to married parents with children living with them. This term appeared in the very early 20th century, describing independently living and self-supporting families employed by factories. The term has remained as a description of ideal family structure.
Prior to industrialization the family was more extended. Married young people lived far more frequently with their parents, a pattern still seen in Japan and China. Given the age of marriage, childbirth and death, the time of sharing a home was brief, but there was a rather more extended family that included grandparents and in some cases masters with married apprentices.
At no time in history, however, has deliberate single parenting been a desired or accepted part of social structure. Indeed, until the last 50 years, single motherhood was a deep shame. Women were sent to special boarding schools to conceal their pregnancies. Men who impregnated women were expected to marry them or were considered pariahs. And this was not the fantasy of hollywood filmmakers; these were the standards or all strata of society. The illegitimate birth rate was extremely low, less than 2% among all but the poorest parts of society. Among blacks it was rather higher, even in 1960, being about 30%. This number, however, must be considered in light of a matriarchal structure of black society emerging out of the family dislocations of slavery.
But no one praised single parenting, or considered any structure other than the nuclear family as ideal. As noted in passing above, the children of single women were illegitimate. In prior years they were bastards if the parents were unmarried. There was a marked stigma against such individuals, who could not inherit property and were ashamed of their status. Even if a woman was not 'sent away' for her pregnancy, there was no party, no baby shower, no birth announcement. No man boasted of being the proud father of children without marriage let alone of fathering numerous such children by various women.
Now, in reading about the nuclear family, far different terms are found. It is described as arising from a 'theocratic social structure' or as patriarchal, an extension of male chauvinism. The nuclear family has been criticized by the LGBT community, who have extended the term to mean any two cohabiting adults, whether married or of the same gender. The term 'familialism' has been coined to describe support for the nuclear family, with the clear extremist association that any 'ism' has. Here is the introduction to Wikipedia's article on familialism-
"Familialism is an ideology that promotes the family of the Western tradition as an institution.[1] Familialism views the nuclear family of one father, one mother, and their child or children as the central and primary social unit of human ordering and the principal unit of a functioning society and civilization. Accordingly, this unit is also the basis of a multi-generational extended family, which is embedded in socially as well as genetically inter-related communities, nations, etc., and ultimately in the whole human family past, present and future.
"Familialism advocates Western "family values" and usually opposes other social forms and models that are chosen as alternatives (i.e. single-parent, polygamy, LGBT parenting, etc.). A typical trait of familialism is the insistence that "normality" resides in the patriarchal nuclear family.[2]
"Familialism is usually considered conservative or reactionary by its critics who argue that it is limited, outmoded and unproductive in modern Western society. As a social construct imposed on non-Western cultures, it has been criticized as being destructive. Its prevalence in psychoanalysis has been criticized, and its antagonistic relationship with LGBT culture has been noted."
And this article is NOT flagged for bias or other sociopolitical slant. The editors of Wikipedia consider this to be a perfectly rational, fair description of familialism.
Now perhaps you see the point about panzer divisions. The German political hierarchy blithely assumed that twice as many panzer divisions meant twice as much strength, when in reality it was less than the same strength, since these divisions had less endusrance. Just so we are engaged in an extended social delusion that nuclear families are patriarchal and bad, and that single parenting and LGBT couples are just as good for children. We casually accept this blather from news organizations and certain activist groups, apparently wanting to be sure we are not seen as homophobic or God forbid androcentric, chauvinist or western. After all, does not a woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle? (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/414150.html)
Really? We are engaged in a large social experiment to test these beliefs. So far the outcomes are not promising. I wonder when we will be able to say again that children need fathers, that stable, married homes are good, that it is not OK for same sex couples to be 'parents', that daycare is not the same as home, that those who do not honor the commitments of parenthood are cads and tarts.
As a resident I was the only OB chief in some time not to get a party. A couple of months later the third year, who was supposed to organize the party but didn't like me much, came up and apologized. She was then experiencing a really bad chief, as opposed to a hard one, and said to me 'you were a really good chief after all'. Yes I was. Low section rates, no maternal or fetal deaths, clinic finished on time.
Everybody came to recognize the needs of armored divisions too. They need infantry. And engineering battalions, because tanks can't cross rivers by themselves, and repair battalions, because tanks break down even today on average every 90 miles. Germany invaded Russia with more than 20 of the lesser strength panzer divisions. 4 years later they had been crushed, with nearly 2 million soldiers killed.
We need to own up to our social mistakes, and admit that married fathers make a big difference to children, and not just in income. And pretending that two moms or two dads is the same is just an extension of the idea that men and marriage are irrelevant to families. We aren't and it isn't. If that makes me an antediluvian conservative chauvinist I wear it with pride.
Ted
Most people know that the modern armored division is a product of British and German theoretical exercises in the 30s, followed by extensive development in WW2. The optimum ratio of armored to infantry units is 2:1. Many ratios have been tried, with early units being all armored. These units were quite bad at assaulting towns and certain other obstacles. The optimum number of tanks has also fluctuated. In early WW2 a German panzer division had 300 tanks, and this number, more or less, is the number in most armored divisions today.
Now, how are those two paragraphs related, let alone related to families? Here is how. Germany doubled the number of its panzer divisions in 1941, but did not double its tank production. German panzer divisions now had about 140 tanks, and were correspondingly less powerful and had far less combat endurance. And yet they were still called panzer divisions, and because of the name commanded the same respect without the same abilities.
And so it is with families. I read this article from the NYT today-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It describes a deep divide between the poor and other groups- single motherhood. 70+% of infants born to poor whites are to single mothers, a number comparable to the black poulation. In contrast, only about 10% of babies born to college educated whites are to unmarried women. This divide continues to accelerate, with married whites being much more likely to have college degrees, less likely to divorce, and so forth. the net result is a society divided more by marital and sexual behavior than by race or even income. Poverty is a part of the background of many single mothers, but it is the near ubiquitous future of these women and their children.
Now, what is the point? In reading about families, I read about the 'nuclear family'. This refers to married parents with children living with them. This term appeared in the very early 20th century, describing independently living and self-supporting families employed by factories. The term has remained as a description of ideal family structure.
Prior to industrialization the family was more extended. Married young people lived far more frequently with their parents, a pattern still seen in Japan and China. Given the age of marriage, childbirth and death, the time of sharing a home was brief, but there was a rather more extended family that included grandparents and in some cases masters with married apprentices.
At no time in history, however, has deliberate single parenting been a desired or accepted part of social structure. Indeed, until the last 50 years, single motherhood was a deep shame. Women were sent to special boarding schools to conceal their pregnancies. Men who impregnated women were expected to marry them or were considered pariahs. And this was not the fantasy of hollywood filmmakers; these were the standards or all strata of society. The illegitimate birth rate was extremely low, less than 2% among all but the poorest parts of society. Among blacks it was rather higher, even in 1960, being about 30%. This number, however, must be considered in light of a matriarchal structure of black society emerging out of the family dislocations of slavery.
But no one praised single parenting, or considered any structure other than the nuclear family as ideal. As noted in passing above, the children of single women were illegitimate. In prior years they were bastards if the parents were unmarried. There was a marked stigma against such individuals, who could not inherit property and were ashamed of their status. Even if a woman was not 'sent away' for her pregnancy, there was no party, no baby shower, no birth announcement. No man boasted of being the proud father of children without marriage let alone of fathering numerous such children by various women.
Now, in reading about the nuclear family, far different terms are found. It is described as arising from a 'theocratic social structure' or as patriarchal, an extension of male chauvinism. The nuclear family has been criticized by the LGBT community, who have extended the term to mean any two cohabiting adults, whether married or of the same gender. The term 'familialism' has been coined to describe support for the nuclear family, with the clear extremist association that any 'ism' has. Here is the introduction to Wikipedia's article on familialism-
"Familialism is an ideology that promotes the family of the Western tradition as an institution.[1] Familialism views the nuclear family of one father, one mother, and their child or children as the central and primary social unit of human ordering and the principal unit of a functioning society and civilization. Accordingly, this unit is also the basis of a multi-generational extended family, which is embedded in socially as well as genetically inter-related communities, nations, etc., and ultimately in the whole human family past, present and future.
"Familialism advocates Western "family values" and usually opposes other social forms and models that are chosen as alternatives (i.e. single-parent, polygamy, LGBT parenting, etc.). A typical trait of familialism is the insistence that "normality" resides in the patriarchal nuclear family.[2]
"Familialism is usually considered conservative or reactionary by its critics who argue that it is limited, outmoded and unproductive in modern Western society. As a social construct imposed on non-Western cultures, it has been criticized as being destructive. Its prevalence in psychoanalysis has been criticized, and its antagonistic relationship with LGBT culture has been noted."
And this article is NOT flagged for bias or other sociopolitical slant. The editors of Wikipedia consider this to be a perfectly rational, fair description of familialism.
Now perhaps you see the point about panzer divisions. The German political hierarchy blithely assumed that twice as many panzer divisions meant twice as much strength, when in reality it was less than the same strength, since these divisions had less endusrance. Just so we are engaged in an extended social delusion that nuclear families are patriarchal and bad, and that single parenting and LGBT couples are just as good for children. We casually accept this blather from news organizations and certain activist groups, apparently wanting to be sure we are not seen as homophobic or God forbid androcentric, chauvinist or western. After all, does not a woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle? (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/414150.html)
Really? We are engaged in a large social experiment to test these beliefs. So far the outcomes are not promising. I wonder when we will be able to say again that children need fathers, that stable, married homes are good, that it is not OK for same sex couples to be 'parents', that daycare is not the same as home, that those who do not honor the commitments of parenthood are cads and tarts.
As a resident I was the only OB chief in some time not to get a party. A couple of months later the third year, who was supposed to organize the party but didn't like me much, came up and apologized. She was then experiencing a really bad chief, as opposed to a hard one, and said to me 'you were a really good chief after all'. Yes I was. Low section rates, no maternal or fetal deaths, clinic finished on time.
Everybody came to recognize the needs of armored divisions too. They need infantry. And engineering battalions, because tanks can't cross rivers by themselves, and repair battalions, because tanks break down even today on average every 90 miles. Germany invaded Russia with more than 20 of the lesser strength panzer divisions. 4 years later they had been crushed, with nearly 2 million soldiers killed.
We need to own up to our social mistakes, and admit that married fathers make a big difference to children, and not just in income. And pretending that two moms or two dads is the same is just an extension of the idea that men and marriage are irrelevant to families. We aren't and it isn't. If that makes me an antediluvian conservative chauvinist I wear it with pride.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment