On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ss <[email protected]> wrote: > Support through > physical illness and other times of stress (such as unemployment) is much > better from the family unit rather than the individual unit. ... > Pregnant women, and women with infants need support from others > and "independence" is not possible. For the purpose of procreation and > maintaining a stable human population - pregnancies and women and the > accompanying dependence are unavoidable. When women become independent, > their independence is held to ransom by the forced dependence that pregnancy > and childbearing causes.
None of that implies lifetime one-man-one-woman marriage though. In particular, it would seem to argue for larger multiple-adult support units. The joint/extended family is certainly one proven model, but it would seem to me that other multi-adult family structures could well be equally effective. In particular, while women physically bear the children, there's no obvious reason why that would prohibit women from being otherwise independent, any more than any other short term physical disability. > And as Western populations are allowing female > independence in this way, it is being accompanied by a fall in fertility as > women choose to have fewer babies. It seems to me that, at least for now, overpopulation is a more serious threat to sustainability. > My personal ... ideal ... > freedom for the woman as well as protection for the (legally binding) > institution of marriage (which forms the basis of the family). I accept that > the family is important and IMO irreplaceable, but ideally, not at the cost > of female slavery. As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies marriage, or even traditional family. -- Charles
