Hi, I am defending Hitchens here and I basically said in a nutshell, that all he is doing, in is usual witty way, is providing for his family and that his wife can choose to work if she wants but doesn't have to. I see noting wrong with that, but would like other peoples opinion. I also added that any of these accusations about misogyny and sexism doesn't outweigh the many things he said about the fight for women's equal rights and the empowerment of women.
Here is what the guy said about this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQas34criFo
[i]"A man who says women's innate qualities means they are better off staying at home rather than working is simply a sexist by any definition of the term. Since modern atheism is rife with sexism, it's not surprising you refuse to see that simple fact."[/i]
My potential response would be well women are better suited to take care of children and Hitchens said before that, men often look at in awe and wonder at how a female can inherently know what to do with a newborn. And I believe this is backed up with evolutionary studies. (If anyone has citations or peer reviewed papers on this, much appreciated.) His point wasn't that the half of the human race known as female should not work ... his point was that his wife will not need to do so though she has that option.
and If he was in some sort of way sexist, he wasn't sexist in a bad way. He had an opinion that has valid arguments and points behind it and never forbid any woman to not go to work, he in fact said he would be "thrilled if they want to". If so, I can argue that his point has merit and not forcing women to do anything AND that the guy who I am debating against intentionally or unintentionally didn't clarify that Hitchens had good intentions behind that remark.. and everyone can agree it wasn't sinister and probably the mildest remark that people are throwing way out of proportion. What am I trying to say, if it is a form of sexism, it is probably too quaint and mild to delve any deeper, ya know?
EDIT: Really appreciate any help to argue for my position on this and briefly on what he implied by "modern atheism is rife with sexism" :)
I don't think it is, there may have been a few remarks, often taken out of context, but as a whole it is not in any 'atheist doctrine'.. has we don't have any not like the religious who condemn women to beasts of burden. Side note: Hitchens was against women to being child bearers and slaves, in the interview above he said they can work if they want to, that I believe is advocating freedom of choice and equal rights.
Thank you :D
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
fruyian - "My potential response would be well women are better suited to take care of children"
See, now you are sexist too! It's OK; I'm sexist as well and also a bit of a xenophobe. The best we can do is recognize our biases for what they are, and try to minimize their effect on our decisions.
I suppose you are correct. And one of those ways could be like what Hitchens said, he doesn't care if his wife works or not and can if she so wishes. All his point was he will be the provider of the family and fulfil the fatherly duty. I do recognise that women are better carers of children, it's more or less hardwired in their DNA, after all there is this thing called motherly instincts. If that is sexists, so be it. I am not advocating that women should stay home, and I think Hitchens pretty much implied this, but woman do not have to work if they choose not to and vice versa. Same with men, if they want to stay home and take care of the children I have no problem with that.
What do you think?
Oh I guess I agree. Except for possibly the statement "[women are better carers of children is] more or less hardwired in their DNA". If by that you mean in a way that men are not, I'm not sure if that is true or not. Let's say I'm skeptical.
I'm skeptical, as well, that there is some sort of child-rearing gene present in women but not in men.
If viewed historically, it's fairly easy to see why those gender role views exist. When making a living included hoisting a spear and then carting the large dead critter home, extra upper body strength made sense as a job prerequisite. Before canned infant formula was available in the quickie mart cave down the road, it made sense for those who lactate to tend to raising kids.
Now, however, those things aren't required but, obviously, we haven't gotten past that way of thinking.
I have also heard Hitchens say women are not funny and make lousy comedians. He also said this directly to a female interviewer and had the same devilish look in his eyes. I lean towards irony in trying to understand the man. I have read and heard interviews with Carol Blue. She seems like a strong and independent human being . Certainly no push over.
Hitchens was still a savage, hitchslapping any fool.
Atheism isn't anymore rife with sexism than any other demographic, probably even less so on average. The idea that women don't have to work is ridiculous. Most couples I know the woman makes more than the man and they depend on her salary. I have a neighbor whose wife makes over 100k per year. He is a cop and makes considerably less. BTW I have found that when given the opportunity men are just as capable as any woman in caring for babies. The only thing that men cannot do is breast feed and you need the mother for that but only that. A man can do any other job necessary and just as well.
Child care is a cultural thing and only a cultural thing. Women are better at it on average because they have been institutionalized into that role.