Thursday, April 10, 2008


Elton vs. Orwell: Elton John gave a fundraising concert for Hillary and claims that all the misogynists in America might be hindering her bid for the White House. Getting lectured by a guy who dresses like him might turn this country homophobic, but I'll go with another Brit, George Orwell, who said that the U.S. is a female-dominated country.

Here's an example of what he meant: The World Values Survey asked people in 43 countries if a woman needs a child in order to be fulfilled. Only Finland and the Netherlands had lower numbers than the United States.

7 comments:

jumpy the magpie said...

If a failure to support Clinton is an indication of “misogynistic attitudes," is Elton John's failure to support Obama an indication of racism?

Jason Malloy said...

You appear to imply that the US answer to the WVS question is wrong, but you also appear to imply that a "female-dominated country" is a country where children and motherhood are not valued - which therefore implies you believe the US answer to the WVS question is right.

So the argument you are trying to convey here is not clear to me.

Ron Guhname said...

jm: My point is that America is bad, but not bad like Elton John thinks. He thinks we hate women, but the truth is that elite women have a lot of influence here. Unfortunately that influence is often bad. Prohibition is one historical example; contemporary feminism's message that a career for a woman is key to her personal fulfillment is another.

Jason Malloy said...

Ron,

Well, I knew from your tone that you were implying that female power was bad, but I didn't see how your two premises added up to that conclusion - they appeared to contradict each other. If premise A was wrong (that is if children are essential to female happiness) then premise B would likely not be correct (that is female power would more likely result in attitudes affirming this viewpoint).

That is, if children were necessary for female psychological happiness, that would seem to imply that a society with more female power would be more pro-natal, not less, since groups generally translate their political power into the advancement of their own interests.

So the fact that female power leads to more anti-natal viewpoints suggests the American view is correct: children are not essential to female happiness.

In fact, I'd like to extend that: the evidence shows having children, on average, decreases total for both men and women. So having children is generally good for society but generally bad for the individual. This is because personal happiness is most reliably built by spending one's prime years improving one's economic self-sufficiency.

So even women with higher biological predispositions to want children end up happier if they
wait later in life to have them, after they have have ensured, among other things, that they can take care of themselves and their offspring. (being able to fully take care of one's self is superior to the vulnerable role of economic dependency on another person)

Jason Malloy said...

The above should read:

"...the evidence shows having children, on average, decreases total lifetime happiness for both men and women."

Sorry, links are a little borked, but looked ok in preview.

MensaRefugee said...

Bluntly put,
Females dont know they want children.

Just like they are easily bamboozled into free sex, even though, to the last woman, studies have shown they regret it (unlike men)

SFG said...

There's probably a distinction between high-T and low-T women here. High-T women probably want kids less. My suspicion is that the US, despite its general religious conservatism compared to Europe, favors money a lot more, so we want women to make money. Who ever said capitalism and family values went together?