The times, they are a changin'
Jun. 20th, 2008 08:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbCome mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand.
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly agin';
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a changin'.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g798CHaazwkE1E0TMQv8AZ60Bj1wD91DKPI00
Like all really inevitable and natural development, this one surprised everybody, including me. Well, what the Hell did we all expect? People like babies. Women particularly like babies. Girls - with a few exceptions in whose personal history it is all too easy to read the emotional reasons - intensely love babies. You cannot introduce a baby among a group of schoolgirls without being practically drowned by cooings and bursts of wonder at the cuteness of them. Nobody should have expected that this natural instinct could be for ever silenced by an artificial image of a brilliant career woman, something which, for nine women out of ten, has no reality at all. Women look at Sex and the City with its childless, unmarried, rich, elegant forty-years-old, as they read Hello magazine: as a kind of fable. I do not understand the appeal myself, but I very much doubt whether it has anything to do with daily or real life. Women read their glossy magazines in ordinary, sometimes drab homes, and do not seem to make much of an effort to imitate them. It all seems to me to live in a special space of the mind dedicated to unreality. If any woman identifies with the Sex and the City characters, it cannot be because of their surroundings or careers; it is more a matter of the common complaint about weak, shiftless, commitment-phobic men - which, whether or not it is true, is at least a commonplace female whine. The idea that millions of schoolgirls go out into the great wide world in the hope of becoming top corporate lawyers, marketing VPs, or even fashion designers or Hollywood actresses, seems to me naive in the extreme. Some of them may dream of such things; most of them know that they never will happen. And the universal cultural pressure on girls to regard babies as obstacles in the way of their careers is increasingly nullified by the fact that, across the advanced world, the vast majority of women know that they will have no careers. The idea of spending one's life moving forwards in a job until one achieves a high and permanent rank is outdated, not only for the majority of women, but of men too. The same people who tried to scare us with the fear of being hobbled to babies for life also informed us, in the same breath, that the notion of jobs for life is an outdated superstition.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide;
The chance won't come again.
And don't speak too soon
For the world's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin';
For the loser now will be later to win,
For the times, they are a changin'.
It is a case study in the power and limit of cultural consensus. They removed the stigma from illegitimacy; these days, most people who call someone a "bastard" (and weirdly enough, it is a popular insult) do not know what is meant to be insulting about the term. But they could not remove the attraction from babies, or the magnetism from sex. Every attempt to make maternity unattractive or dreaded must founder on the reality of human nature. A number of people will no doubt absorb these attitudes: they are the kind who, for one reason or another, deviate from the human average. The majority may well learn to repeat them by rote, but will never internalize them; their emptiness will become manifest - they will vanish like mist in the sun - at the sight of a single real baby. You have made it easier, not harder, for your children to have babies. The result, as I said, should have been expected; it is only the result of our universal attachment to statistics - which are, after all, always yesterday's news - that kept us from seeing the obvious.
I am not saying that there will ever be a fad for having babies as such among sixteen-year-olds. One good (or rather bad) experience of childbirth would knock that sort of nonsense on the head, and at any rate even sixteen-year-olds are not that silly. The point is rather that the coming generation is beginning to instinctively see its future, not in terms of career - they learned at the cradle how difficult and fickle a thing it is - but in terms of children, of family, of heirs. These girls know that in nine times out of ten, what will give their lives continuity and content will not be the ever-changing, mostly frustrating, sometimes dangerous and unwelcoming, reality of work, but their families; that their real life is apt to be at home, with a husband or partner if they are lucky, but with a baby anyway. And like young people across the world, they are impatient to start.
The line, it is drawn.
The curse, it is cast.
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'.
AND THE FIRST ONES NOW WILL LATER BE LAST -
For the times, they are a changin'.
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand.
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly agin';
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a changin'.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g798CHaazwkE1E0TMQv8AZ60Bj1wD91DKPI00
Like all really inevitable and natural development, this one surprised everybody, including me. Well, what the Hell did we all expect? People like babies. Women particularly like babies. Girls - with a few exceptions in whose personal history it is all too easy to read the emotional reasons - intensely love babies. You cannot introduce a baby among a group of schoolgirls without being practically drowned by cooings and bursts of wonder at the cuteness of them. Nobody should have expected that this natural instinct could be for ever silenced by an artificial image of a brilliant career woman, something which, for nine women out of ten, has no reality at all. Women look at Sex and the City with its childless, unmarried, rich, elegant forty-years-old, as they read Hello magazine: as a kind of fable. I do not understand the appeal myself, but I very much doubt whether it has anything to do with daily or real life. Women read their glossy magazines in ordinary, sometimes drab homes, and do not seem to make much of an effort to imitate them. It all seems to me to live in a special space of the mind dedicated to unreality. If any woman identifies with the Sex and the City characters, it cannot be because of their surroundings or careers; it is more a matter of the common complaint about weak, shiftless, commitment-phobic men - which, whether or not it is true, is at least a commonplace female whine. The idea that millions of schoolgirls go out into the great wide world in the hope of becoming top corporate lawyers, marketing VPs, or even fashion designers or Hollywood actresses, seems to me naive in the extreme. Some of them may dream of such things; most of them know that they never will happen. And the universal cultural pressure on girls to regard babies as obstacles in the way of their careers is increasingly nullified by the fact that, across the advanced world, the vast majority of women know that they will have no careers. The idea of spending one's life moving forwards in a job until one achieves a high and permanent rank is outdated, not only for the majority of women, but of men too. The same people who tried to scare us with the fear of being hobbled to babies for life also informed us, in the same breath, that the notion of jobs for life is an outdated superstition.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide;
The chance won't come again.
And don't speak too soon
For the world's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin';
For the loser now will be later to win,
For the times, they are a changin'.
It is a case study in the power and limit of cultural consensus. They removed the stigma from illegitimacy; these days, most people who call someone a "bastard" (and weirdly enough, it is a popular insult) do not know what is meant to be insulting about the term. But they could not remove the attraction from babies, or the magnetism from sex. Every attempt to make maternity unattractive or dreaded must founder on the reality of human nature. A number of people will no doubt absorb these attitudes: they are the kind who, for one reason or another, deviate from the human average. The majority may well learn to repeat them by rote, but will never internalize them; their emptiness will become manifest - they will vanish like mist in the sun - at the sight of a single real baby. You have made it easier, not harder, for your children to have babies. The result, as I said, should have been expected; it is only the result of our universal attachment to statistics - which are, after all, always yesterday's news - that kept us from seeing the obvious.
I am not saying that there will ever be a fad for having babies as such among sixteen-year-olds. One good (or rather bad) experience of childbirth would knock that sort of nonsense on the head, and at any rate even sixteen-year-olds are not that silly. The point is rather that the coming generation is beginning to instinctively see its future, not in terms of career - they learned at the cradle how difficult and fickle a thing it is - but in terms of children, of family, of heirs. These girls know that in nine times out of ten, what will give their lives continuity and content will not be the ever-changing, mostly frustrating, sometimes dangerous and unwelcoming, reality of work, but their families; that their real life is apt to be at home, with a husband or partner if they are lucky, but with a baby anyway. And like young people across the world, they are impatient to start.
The line, it is drawn.
The curse, it is cast.
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'.
AND THE FIRST ONES NOW WILL LATER BE LAST -
For the times, they are a changin'.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-20 03:03 pm (UTC)Unfortunately yes.
I'm all for parents devoting themselves to their children's education though. I've read studies on how children do better if they are looked after full-time by a parent for their formative years. But I don't think this job should automatically fall back on the woman. What if she's has a better job?
Imo, having children is a huge decision and people should be ready to make sacrifices. But they should be sensible sacrifices that are logical.
It's not too bad in France, but it's really bad in Germany in that respect: there if you're a working mother, you're a bad mother for a lot of people.
Eeek. That sounds awful! My mother basically went back to work a month or so after she had me. Then again, we were in China at the time, so she just left me with my grandparents as goes the custom.
If it's not a paid job, then at least you should be part of an association or be active in politics or something but you know, you should care for things outside your own house.
I agree completely. Only then can you actually care about the world as a whole (the 'bigger picture' as it may). I mean, we might not be able to affect the world as a whole, but it's good to try! And most women can damn well contribute more than our wombs.
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-20 03:22 pm (UTC)And why do you refer to "your wombs" as if it was something second-rate? Whatever else anyone can contribute to society, there is only one thing that can give it life. It ought to be a token of special honour; whereas you speak of it as if it was less important and significant than the choice to be swindled by Politician A instead of being defrauded by Politician B.
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 12:57 pm (UTC)"I agree completely. Only then can you actually care about the world as a whole (the 'bigger picture' as it may). I mean, we might not be able to affect the world as a whole, but it's good to try! And most women can damn well contribute more than our wombs."
I think you're making a pretty narrow minded and unkind assumption here. I would think a young woman who wishes to be able to make decisions about her own life and body without pressure and judgement from "society" would extend the same courtesy to women who may make different decisions than you. And I assure you any child bearing woman damn well contributes more than her womb when she conceives, carries, bears, and raises children. Women have to have babies or the human race dies out; how women choose to do this(or not) and live their lives should always be her choice, and should be respected by others.
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 01:02 pm (UTC)Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 01:18 pm (UTC)Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 01:23 pm (UTC)I'm fully in support of somebody's ability to have a choice. But do I have to agree with it too?
I'm supportive of people being religious and believing in a higher power. But it doesn't stop me from believing that it is ridiculous.
Would you stop me from having the ability to air my views on the matter? I'm not criticizing somebody's ability to choose to live their life however they want, nor am I criticizing them airing their opinions on the matter. I'm merely criticizing the choice itself. Just like you (or anybody else) has the right to criticize my choice not to have a baby.
Arguably, there might be a problem if I went to somebody's personal journal and told them that I DISAPPROVE OF YOUR CHOICE NOT TO HAVE A CAREER. But I haven't done that and I never would do that.
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 01:53 pm (UTC)My basic point is I think it's crappy to judge people and their choices when you know nothing about the person or their life. And it bugs me for women to have so little respect for other women. Again, totally your prerogative, I just think it's crappy.
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 01:57 pm (UTC)In any case, I don't have automatic respect for anybody, so it's more of a case of ... a lack of respect for the human race? I would have respect for somebody who could hold up a coherent and logical argument (such like you have).
My basic point is I think it's crappy to judge people and their choices when you know nothing about the person or their life.
Hey, if I did get to know them and their reasons for their choices, I probably would have respect for them. :) I don't automatically have respect for people who choose a career as their number one goal in life either...
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 02:09 pm (UTC)I can and do accept that!
Re: women and babies
Date: 2008-06-21 02:10 pm (UTC)