The World Family System
May 18 2005, 15:23 EDT [updated May 18 2005, 17:18 EDT]
The Nation writes a review of Between Sex and Power, a study of "patriarchy, marriage and fertility" 1900-current. Excerpt:
    At the beginning of his story, around 1900, patriarchy in this classical sense was a universal pattern, albeit with uneven gradations. In Europe, the French Revolution had failed to challenge it, issuing in the ferocious family clauses of the Napoleonic Code, while subsequent industrial capitalism--in North America as in Europe--relied no less on patriarchal norms as a sheet anchor of moral stability.
I call bullshit. Quoting my favorite dead Frenchmen (there are very few) writing in the mid 1800s:
    In France, where remnants of every age are still so strangely mingled in the opinions and tastes of the people, women commonly receive a reserved, retired, and almost cloistral education, as they did in aristocratic times; and then they are suddenly abandoned, without a guide and without assistance, in the midst of all the irregularities inseparable from democratic society. The Americans are more consistent. They have found out that in a democracy the independence of individuals cannot fail to be very great, youth premature, tastes ill-restrained, customs fleeting, public opinion often unsettled and powerless, paternal authority weak, and marital authority contested. Under these circumstances, believing that they had little chance of repressing in woman the most vehement passions of the human heart, they held that the surer way was to teach her the art of combating those passions for herself. As they could not prevent her virtue from being exposed to frequent danger, they determined that she should know how best to defend it; and more reliance was placed on the free vigor of her will than on safeguards which have been shaken or overthrown. Instead, then, of inculcating mistrust of herself, they constantly seek to enhance their confidence in her own strength of character. As it is neither possible nor desirable to keep a young woman in perpetual or complete ignorance, they hasten to give her a precocious knowledge on all subjects. Far from hiding the corruptions of the world from her, they prefer that she should see them at once and train herself to shun them; and they hold it of more importance to protect her conduct than to be over-scrupulous of her innocence.

    Although the Americans are a very religious people, they do not rely on religion alone to defend the virtue of woman; they seek to arm her reason also. In this they have followed the same method as in several other respects; they first make the most vigorous efforts to bring individual independence to exercise a proper control over itself, and they do not call in the aid of religion until they have reached the utmost limits of human strength. I am aware that an education of this kind is not without danger; I am sensible that it tends to invigorate the judgment at the expense of the imagination, and to make cold and virtuous women instead of affectionate wives and agreeable companions to man. Society may be more tranquil and better regulated, but domestic life has often fewer charms. These, however, are secondary evils, which may be braved for the sake of higher interests. At the stage at which we are now arrived the time for choosing is no longer within our control; a democratic education is indispensable to protect women from the dangers with which democratic institutions and manners surround them.

A long quote, but the take away is that a Frenchmen did indeed see a very different dynamic when visiting the more religous US. So by an odd combination of factors the deeply religious New Worlders generated more independent women by a Frenchman's own estimation than those of France. I have only read the book review & summary and not the book, but the reviewer suggests European and American Protestantism are in the same bucket as far as the book is concerened, but history says it just ain't so.

[I don't normally like to post a simple cut-n-paste, but if you think I'm going to try and compete with Tocqueville you are crazy]

On a personal note, my great aunt (grandfather's sister) was born in ough-three and got a master's degree in the twenties (as well as participating in the roaring twenties). One hell of a woman. My take on women and feminism over the last hundred years is tinted by her views so I tend to discard theories of oppression and timidity. A more intelligent and willful woman you have never met. Last weekend, at the age of one hundred and two she acquiesced to being moved from her apartment into a retirement home. To paraphrase a John Stewart joke (pre daily show?) "things that have come and gone since Babs graduated high school" include the Soviet Union [his was about Strom Thurmand]. Imagine my delight at getting a call from your Aunt on your birthday that leads into a discussion about pre-Castro Cuba from someone that flew there just twenty years after the plane was invented. May we all live as long and as well.

0.10 seconds
jackdied.com 2003-2007