which created so many waves and wavelets and memories and cross currents in my mind I hardly knew what to do. Two things: one is that our current dire shortage of caregivers for the ill and elderly is directly related to this. Sure, pay people more if there is anyone needing care who can afford it, but don't forget, we disempowered homemakers and caregivers by not recognizing their worth, long ago, as an unintended consequence of the women's movement. So are we really surprised that no one seems to feel that good about doing this work? If we paid women - and men- more for doing that work, does that mean we value that work more, or do we only value what we painfully pay for, does it mean the work is ennobled if it's receiving monetary compensation, or is that value system really not applicable when it comes to humans caring for other humans or for any creature or piece of land or anything? The other thing is that not everything is a choice. I am by nature an artist and solitary person- yet, thanks to providence and my own unchartable trajectory, I had a lot of children. I've never been that happy- life, liberty, and the pursuit of something or other are what the US constitution guarantees me. My artistic aspirations are not fulfilled, and coming from a family of non-commercial artists, all of us seekers after something or other, I haven't mourned not being seen or sought after. Don't get me wrong- I mourn. But it's not because I made bad choices, or the system oppressed me; it's because life is inherently quite difficult, if not disappointing, and we are all dealing with our gifts and aspirations, our dissatisfactions and thwarted desires, in one way or another. Thank you for a really wonderful discussion. I hope to read more.
Harrington has some interesting points to make, but I strongly disagree with her claim that progress over time is questionable and perhaps impossible to define, except in some rarefied philosophical sense violently at odds with common sense. For example:
~48% of children died by age 15 throughout human history before 1800. ~4% of children worldwide now die before age 5, and many fewer in the industrialized West.
The chance of a mother dying as a result of pregnancy or childbirth was approximately 0.7-1% until 1870. It is now about 0.2% worldwide, and about 0.01% in the USA.
If Harrington is confining her remarks to expressing her personal recommendations about what she thinks is the best course of action for women's self actualization, then she is one more among many social commentators.
However, if she were to cross the line into supporting legal restrictions on abortion, access to contraception, or the removal of legal protection from same sex marriage, then she needs to be vigorously opposed.
It's one thing to advocate for a rollback of attitudes. It;s quite another to advocate for a rollback of legally available choices.
In such a case, then, let their be dialogue between ideologically social conservatives and ideological social liberals, with both side recognizing that the police power of the state should not become involved in prohibiting people from making personal choices on these matters that others disapprove of.
This is a really interesting conversation. I would like to ask a technical question. Why are there so many edits in Mary Harrington’s statements? I realize that they’re not meant to alter her remarks or anything like that, and I gather that they’re meant to compress a lot of discussion into half an hour. Nonetheless, I find them really jarring, especially since the rhythm of her speech and her thinking is already very fast.
This is a very good dialog, really a worthwhile read- in other words I appreciated it personally. Last week I read this article in the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/t-magazine/mothers-artists-working-women.html
which created so many waves and wavelets and memories and cross currents in my mind I hardly knew what to do. Two things: one is that our current dire shortage of caregivers for the ill and elderly is directly related to this. Sure, pay people more if there is anyone needing care who can afford it, but don't forget, we disempowered homemakers and caregivers by not recognizing their worth, long ago, as an unintended consequence of the women's movement. So are we really surprised that no one seems to feel that good about doing this work? If we paid women - and men- more for doing that work, does that mean we value that work more, or do we only value what we painfully pay for, does it mean the work is ennobled if it's receiving monetary compensation, or is that value system really not applicable when it comes to humans caring for other humans or for any creature or piece of land or anything? The other thing is that not everything is a choice. I am by nature an artist and solitary person- yet, thanks to providence and my own unchartable trajectory, I had a lot of children. I've never been that happy- life, liberty, and the pursuit of something or other are what the US constitution guarantees me. My artistic aspirations are not fulfilled, and coming from a family of non-commercial artists, all of us seekers after something or other, I haven't mourned not being seen or sought after. Don't get me wrong- I mourn. But it's not because I made bad choices, or the system oppressed me; it's because life is inherently quite difficult, if not disappointing, and we are all dealing with our gifts and aspirations, our dissatisfactions and thwarted desires, in one way or another. Thank you for a really wonderful discussion. I hope to read more.
Harrington has some interesting points to make, but I strongly disagree with her claim that progress over time is questionable and perhaps impossible to define, except in some rarefied philosophical sense violently at odds with common sense. For example:
~48% of children died by age 15 throughout human history before 1800. ~4% of children worldwide now die before age 5, and many fewer in the industrialized West.
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality#key-insights
The chance of a mother dying as a result of pregnancy or childbirth was approximately 0.7-1% until 1870. It is now about 0.2% worldwide, and about 0.01% in the USA.
https://ourworldindata.org/maternal-mortality
The literacy rate in Western Europe was perhaps ~10% in 1500. The rate worldwide is ~86% today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
Indeed community values influence how we weigh the realities of life in different eras, but ...really? No progress?
If Harrington is confining her remarks to expressing her personal recommendations about what she thinks is the best course of action for women's self actualization, then she is one more among many social commentators.
However, if she were to cross the line into supporting legal restrictions on abortion, access to contraception, or the removal of legal protection from same sex marriage, then she needs to be vigorously opposed.
It's one thing to advocate for a rollback of attitudes. It;s quite another to advocate for a rollback of legally available choices.
Luckily, I found an article in which a right wing Christian criticizes her for opposing the "banning of anything." https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/17-march/features/features/mary-harrington-interview-the-failure-of-liberation
In such a case, then, let their be dialogue between ideologically social conservatives and ideological social liberals, with both side recognizing that the police power of the state should not become involved in prohibiting people from making personal choices on these matters that others disapprove of.
This is a really interesting conversation. I would like to ask a technical question. Why are there so many edits in Mary Harrington’s statements? I realize that they’re not meant to alter her remarks or anything like that, and I gather that they’re meant to compress a lot of discussion into half an hour. Nonetheless, I find them really jarring, especially since the rhythm of her speech and her thinking is already very fast.
Why answer a question in 50 words when 500 will do?
Thanks, Yasha, for trying to summarize the wordy onslaught.