[lbo-talk] Urbanization, Industrialization, and Feminism (was incentive to have big families)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 5/9/06, Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> me:
> > >in addition, the subordination of women is much worse in many
> > >societies than in the US or  Europe. There, the men often get the
> > >benefits of large families (a large number of sons) without suffering
> > >the costs (death in childbirth, etc.), encouraging population growth.
>
> Jenny wrote:
> > And what exactly is that male motivation to have a large number of children
> > (sons) if these are not contributing economically and it's a hardship to feed
> > them?  These concerns I listed impinge on both men and women.  Other things
> > impinge mostly on women, but not the factors I mentioned.
>
> It's probably largely cultural, varying between countries and areas.
> Fathers want heirs in societies in which only men can "truly" inherit
> property and position -- and one has to keep trying in order to make
> sure that a son is born and actually survives. (The daughter can
> inherit, as with Queens Mary and Elizabeth, but it's uncomfortable and
> may require legal/theological gymnastics.) Sons are useful in war and
> status competition. Many see them as more useful in farming in the
> pre-tractor era (since they typically have more upper-body strength).
> Daughters can be "married off," but an expensive dowry may be
> required. Etc.
>
> in general, the logic is the same as that behind targetted
> infanticides in China (killing female fetuses).
> --
> Jim Devine / "Sanity is a madness put to good use." -- George Santayana.

Under capitalism, feminism and environmentalism may be at odds with
each other: urbanization and industrialization usually are necessary
conditions for the development of feminism (beyond the elite) and
gender equality; but urbanization and industrialization tend to bring
more energy-intensive lives and push up per capita energy use.  It may
be possible to urbanize and industrialize without wrecking the
environment under another mode of production; but it must be noted
that historical socialist records on the environment are on the whole
unpromising.  In any event, it doesn't look like we can switch from
capitalism to a higher mode of production before capitalism really
aggravates global warming.  The only (inadvertent) "solution" on the
political horizon in the United States is higher oil prices, but even
higher prices are only temporary: higher prices will eventually bring
about attempts at conservation, but conservation attempts appear to
end as soon as prices go down substantially.

--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>