A perilous enterprise

I was listening yesterday to some minor celebrity who had gained the wrath of the feminist church for reminding women that they should focus more on the bodies ability to bear children.  That the fertility clock was ticking against them if they left it too late because of postponing,  for a whole raft of reasons not least the woman's need to put in the years as she attempts to rise in the world of  business. In the subsequent panel discussions there were many women who were quite strident about the importance of their role as careerer people and their right to be respected for their decision. The question of maternal instincts was obviously argued and here somehow the men got a bit of a bashing for not supporting their women in this business of having children whilst at the same time enabling the women to follow their career path.
Of course they had a point and one often hears of of the house husband who takes on the job of looking after the children whilst mummy is out earning the bread. In the ghastly world of equality for equalities sake where structure is torn down on the alter of political correctness and nurture becomes little more than a function which can be carried out by a surrogate, we are asked to believe that there is no difference between the male and the female and either is suited.
The question of marriage and the roles men and women play in the contract has veered a long way from what it was 50 years ago. The confusion this brings to gender identification has been one of the damaging effects that modern society is now struggling with and it seems to me there are no winners in the present set up. Tradition still plays a huge part in our lives and we are largely what are culture teaches us. It is not to say that the traditional view is always right but tradition usually comes about through a process of trial and error where society forms rules of conduct based on the need to modify our actions for the good of the whole. Marriage was just one of these social developments that came into being to protect the participants, the husband as bread winner, the wife as a mother, and the child. The protection given to the mother was particularly important since in her primary role of giving birth and raising the next generation she was vulnerable.
It seems that this concept of motherhood as a gender specific function doesn't sit easily in today's 'have it all' brand of feminism and men whose own concept of gender positioning has been radically altered by the lack of the sort of work which the more powerful sex used to perform, the work in the factories for instance. The blurring of who is the bread winner has cast a shadow over many and we have yet to resolve the issue since civilised society won't accept the law of the jungle. 
Mentioning Law. There is of course a great deal of acrimony in the break up of marriage where tradition seems to take hold again and women are respected for their supposed frailty and, in need of societies protection.
If men were to consider their position when marrying the love of his life, (men marry for love, women for security) in that his home and the children he has come to love (in no less a way than his wife), are at the whim of his wife temper which is often bruised when a marriage comes to an end. He might think twice before engaging virtually the whole of his adult life in such a perilous enterprise.            

http://twocents2012.blogspot.com.au/