This has been an interesting series. I appreciate how well-read you are in women's perspectives.
Only in my 30s did I discover how personally meaningful and fulfilling motherhood and the domestic sphere are, to say nothing of their objective importance. They're not something most girls are taught by the community of women how to manage or value anymore. Nor, of course, do modern schooling, art, stories, books, songs, etc. valorize them.
So while I take a very dim view of historic restrictions on women's participation in the public sphere, I also take a dim view of the modern tendency to uplift women by means of evacuating us from our own bodies and traditions. In either case it amounts to viewing female and feminine things as inferior. That's no way to live, psychologically.
I am reminded of this quote by G.K. Chesterton. Although I dislike his characteristically catchy rhetorical style, I agree with his point here:
“How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A mother’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity a mother for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”
I had a lot of sociology schooling, and while that field is probably unfortunately beyond redemption now, I have perpetual fantasies that we'd #bringbackfunctionalism...
Brilliant!
I am afraid, only the center-right side of Substack will read it, as left has their much larger bubble:
https://principlesvstribes.substack.com/p/no-you-wont-make-money-running-a TDS Substack.
How I wish they would read and internalize your posts!
Thank you, and yes. As it happens, my next post will touch on that.
Exactly! REALITY must always be a CURTAIN, behind which lives the Wonderful Wizard, pulling the LEVERS. They even make a movie about it:
"We're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of OZ! Because, because, because, because ...., because .. because!"
Something like that.
This has been an interesting series. I appreciate how well-read you are in women's perspectives.
Only in my 30s did I discover how personally meaningful and fulfilling motherhood and the domestic sphere are, to say nothing of their objective importance. They're not something most girls are taught by the community of women how to manage or value anymore. Nor, of course, do modern schooling, art, stories, books, songs, etc. valorize them.
So while I take a very dim view of historic restrictions on women's participation in the public sphere, I also take a dim view of the modern tendency to uplift women by means of evacuating us from our own bodies and traditions. In either case it amounts to viewing female and feminine things as inferior. That's no way to live, psychologically.
I am reminded of this quote by G.K. Chesterton. Although I dislike his characteristically catchy rhetorical style, I agree with his point here:
“How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A mother’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity a mother for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”
I had a lot of sociology schooling, and while that field is probably unfortunately beyond redemption now, I have perpetual fantasies that we'd #bringbackfunctionalism...