The Case Against Traditional Marriage
April 5, 2010
OUR INDEFATIGIBLE defender of feminism, Maggie Fox, responds to comments in the previous entry. She argues that traditional marriage, in which a woman relies on a man for financial support and the man relies on a woman for non-financial support, “thwarts romance” and should not be publicly promoted. I have interspersed my comments with hers because she makes so many points.
Mrs. Fox, a corporate manager who has been married since 1997 and has no children, writes:
I stand by my statement that power corrupts. I have personally experienced the temptations of power. How easy it is in a position of power to arrange matters to suit one’s own convenience! How easy it is to become arrogant, or give short shrift to people who need things from you! [Laura writes: You said earlier there should be no male providers because of the temptations of power. Do you believe your own position should be abolished?] Certainly, conscientious people (including male “heads of household”) can try to avoid these traps through constant vigilance and self-questioning. [So it’s okay if a man works hard to support his family but only if he engages in “constant vigilance and self-questioning.”] But it isn’t easy and I doubt anyone manages it perfectly all of the time. Indeed, if the world were entirely patriarchal, I think many men would fall into temptation not only in their roles as household leaders, but in their roles as leaders of society. [I recommend Kristor’s essay on power.] It is easy for even the best-intentioned men to put women’s needs and concerns on the back burner (or remain blind to them) when there are no women or few women in the legislature, the courts, the corporations, etc. [Laura writes: In other words, men only care about “women’s needs” when forced to by courts or government, not when men are intimately bound to them as husbands, sons, brothers and friends.]
Hmmmm. So do I understand correctly that Ms Fox married for love and didn’t have to concern herself with her husband’s earning potential and yet by her own admission, he is her safety net if she loses her job?
I would contend that her being in a marriage with a dual income lifestyle causes her to be almost as dependent on her husband’s income as a stay at home wife is. Perhaps though, she is an outlier with such a high paying job that a job loss by her husband wouldn’t make a dent in their household economy but if this is the case, it’s irresponsible to promote this to the average American woman, who doesn’t have this freedom.
Thank God for the Internet. In the past, many of us poor commoners read these types of articles in newspapers and magazines run by elites and (foolishly) tried to emulate the lifestyle choices of people with financial support we could only dream of. Today we can skip over this irrelevant drivel and get real, uncensored thoughts and advice from people more like us who have some of the same challenges we do. Yay!
Lainey Serjenna writes:
I’d quite like to read Maggie Fox’s replies to you without your interjections, in bold, like some sort of interrupting child disturbing grownups trying to have a conversation. You don’t give anyone who agrees with you that sort of treatment. It’s very rude.
Laura writes:
That’s not true. I have interjected my own comments in the remarks of people who agree with me. Generally, I don’t like to do it but Maggie makes so many points and it would take me too much time to respond to them all below her comments. Besides, I have given her views plenty of uninterrupted and prominent exposure. And, its not like you have never heard this argument before, is it? We’ve all been fed intravenously on it. Unless you have just emerged from hibernation, you too must be very familiar with it.
So in essence my reply to you is: Tough luck.
MarkMark writes:
I just wanted to say that you did a splendid job of tearing up Ms. Fox’s BS. That was just beautiful, just beautiful! You tore through her garbage like a chain saw through hot, melted butter.