Shat
terd
Men
The hidden half of domestic violence
Children Raising Themselves
Source:
http://www.policyreview.org/OCT01/letters.html
Sir, - Mary Eberstadt writes wistfully on the crisis of families from a
mother-centered perspective typical of academia, one that is part of
the problem
instead of part of the solution. She is certainly correct that
there is a "cultural code of silence" on issues raised by the movement
of mothers into the workplace in the last 30 to 50 years, but she herself
is curiously silent on the equally important issue of a previous movement
of fathers into the workplace in the last few centuries, as mankind
(particularly in the West) shifted from a family-centered Agricultural Age
to an Industrial Age where most of the "work" of mankind was concentrated
in factories and offices. What we have been witnessing in family policy in
the past 30 to 50 years is mostly the effect of a shift to a post-Industrial
Age, in which women are equally qualified for most jobs, as artificial
energy sources increasingly replace the need for human muscle-power
in providing for
the material needs of mankind.
In this light, the deepest force driving the crisis of families is not
cultural evolution or minor technical advances like the birth-control
pill, but the laws of free-market economics. As for the pill, mankind
has known about and practiced various forms of birth-control since
the dawn of human history. The pill may be convenient and relatively
safe, but abstinence remains the best form of birth control ever devised.
Abstinence is also the basis of stable families and a core issue of morality,
a common sense observation on which Eberstadt is also curiously silent.
Eberstadt dances around this issue in expressions of concern about
unsupervised latch-key children experimenting with sex and the influence
of pornography on the internet. The whole point of her article is concern
about the need of children for adult guidance, but she herself is unwilling
to stake any claim to the moral authority that is the only possible
justification for
adult guidance of children.
It may be that the traditions of academia properly emphasize
"professional objectivity" over its antithesis of moral authority, but the
fact remains that adults generally have more experience of life than
children (most of it hard-learned). A cultural evolution that places
barriers of time and distance between parents and their children can
only impede transmission of hard-learned lessons of life to the next
generation, and appears to be part of the process of breakdown of
social order and a descent into barbarism that we are witnessing. If
the cause of this process is primarily economic, guilt-tripping mothers
to stay home with their children is unlikely to have significant impact
on decisions
mothers make.
But a more significant factor that Eberstadt's analysis remains
almost silent on is that the post-Industrial Age also offers opportunities
for fathers to reengage with their children, as the drudgery and exhaustion
of factory and office life are replaced by a decentralized economy of
individual initiative, many of whose functions can be performed full- or
part-time by computers from the home. While Eberstadt's mother-
centered analysis appears to be "progressive" in a certain sense, at its
core lies the chauvinistic assumption that mothers are the primary source
of civilizing effects on children. Her comments about "maternal instinct"
indicate awareness that mothers have an important role to play here, but
she appears oblivious to the possibility that fathers might have equal
"paternal
instincts."
Indeed, in her comment about "problematic 'male instinct' " and
fatherhood as a "social construction" in the following passage, she
is speaking about
fathers almost as if they were aliens on this planet:
"Much has been made, particularly in an era enamoured of
evolutionary psychology and related reductionist theories, of
the "social construction" of fatherhood - meaning the way in
which cultural norms must step in to fill the gap between
problematic "male instinct," on the one hand, and what society
believes to be proper paternal care of one's offspring, on the
other. Perhaps something unexpectedly profound has come
to be taken
for granted here."
In the view of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, we don't
see any "problematic male instinct." Most fathers are still doing what
they have always done since the dawn of human history, going out into
the world to bring home the bacon and protecting their families as best
they can from the slings and arrows of fortune. If any problem exists,
it is mostly in the minds of the radical feminist movement, with its
glorification of women and paranoid disconnect from the ordinary reality
of most men, as well is its disconnect from the ordinary reality of most
women.
If any problems exist in potential malfunctions of "male instincts," they
are certainly no more severe than comparable malfunctions of "maternal
instincts," where mothers sometimes drown their children in bathtubs,
or by driving into a lake. But fortunately the overwhelming majority of both
mothers and fathers are not mentally ill, and these extremes don't tell us
much about ordinary reality for either gender.
The radical feminist movement is primarily an artifact of the Industrial
Age, in which the demands of factory and office life separated fathers
from their families for long periods of time, and broke channels of
communication between mothers and fathers, as much as it broke
channels of communication between fathers and their children. In the
Agricultural Age that preceded the Industrial Age (and that still dominates
most of the Second and Third Worlds), a mother knew perfectly where the
father of her children was: out in the fields near home working to feed his
family. The older children were out there, too, or home with their mother
cooking and weaving. At times of high labor demand such as harvest,
the whole family would be out in the fields together, including mothers
and young children. The modern radical feminist movement was
impossible in the
Agricultural Age, because most women knew too
much about the
reality of the men in their lives to fall into the paranoid
vilification of
men. Even today, although most women (as well as most
men) support equality for women in the workplace, most women (as
well as most men)
reject radical feminism as "going too far."
Most men regard the claims of radical feminism with a kind of mild
amusement, because they can't believe that any intelligent person
would take it seriously, and because they simply don't have time to
waste talking endlessly about the "oppression of women." They are
too busy working
to support their families.
Meanwhile, an elephant is sitting on the table that Eberstadt fails to
notice, namely that the most serious problem of latch-key children is
not mother-absence, but father-absence. By far the greatest untapped
resource for much needed increased contact between parents and their
children is fathers. Until we grant fathers comparable rights to be in the
family that we have granted to women in the workplace, we should not
expect to see the
current slide of Western culture reversed.
David A. Roberts
President
American Coalition for Fathers and Children
Arnold, Md.
Feedback? Email
polrev@hoover.stanford.edu.
Policy Review Home:
http://www.policyreview.org/
(please click above to vote for this site)
JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month