I don't even know what to do with this article, which argues that in order to reverse American demographic decline, we MUST reinstate patriarchy. Did I fall asleep and get time-traveled back to 1904, or something? Is the ghost of TR bending over me, tickling me with his bushy spectral moustache?
Excerpt: "Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options -- be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children -- has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline."
Friday, April 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Oh, were that you had ONLY traveled back to 1904.
For as the author states: "But with the coming of the Neolithic agricultural revolution, starting about 11,000 years ago, everything changed. The domestication of plants and animals led to vastly increased food supplies. Surplus food allowed cities to emerge, and freed more people to work on projects such as building pyramids and developing a written language to record history. But the most fateful change rendered by the agricultural revolution was the way it turned population into power. Because of the relative abundance of food, more and more societies discovered that the greatest demographic threat to their survival was no longer overpopulation, but underpopulation."
There is no way I can face down this logic. Somebody should write something about conservatives who use macro-history to support their micro-selfish, regressive goals. Somebody probably already has...
Stop avoiding the facts Rebecca. As patriarchy ebbs, global warming, war, plagiarism, and asthma flow. Case in point. Period.
Oh, have you read Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors?
Yep. We just talked about it in Janet's Social Movements class. It was my second time reading it, and this time I managed not to blow my gasket every time I opened it.
Post a Comment