I received quite a few messages privately ("off-list") from people who chose not to speak in the public forum. Many of those comments were cogent and, I believe, worth considering here. Therefore, I include among the reprinted messages from the list many of these off-list responses, with the confidentiality of the respondents protected by removing all personal information from the messages (indicated by a double elipsis--... ...). Names and identifying information remain for those messages which were posted directly to the list.

Other than that, I engaged in no further editing of the messages. (I even avoided the temptation to copy-edit.) Generally, the messages are listed in the order in which they were posted, although in some instances I paired messages where one was specifically responding to the other.

The result is a group of thoughts, arguments, misunderstandings, digressions, attacks, and opinions that ended only when end-of-semester madness altered our priorities. The discussion today will revisit parts of that earlier discussion, and it will move onto other topics as well. The purpose is simply to allow us to think seriously about the issues involved in the ever-changing definitions of the word "family."

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:59:40

From: Gale Summerfield <gsummer@ix.netcom.com>

Subject: Re: Who'll make the home if not homemakers?

The arguments about how children will do better in single-parent homes than in dysfunctional two parent families make a lot of sense theoretically and may be true, but there seem to be many complicating factors in the real world. I read a book a few years ago called Second Chances by Judith Wallerstein where she raises a lot of issues, to at least be considered, about the impact of divorce of kids. One thing that happens is that sometimes the kids idealize the absent parent, but that may be mitigated by having some contact with him/her. Frequently the male children ended up replaying some of the violence that their dad had done to their mom or them, and often directed it at their moms. So the dysfunctional part of life doesn't stop with the divorce. She also mentioned that children are more affected by dysfunctional families when the attacks are directed at them instead of arguments just between the adults.

The children who do best after divorce are in situations where there is a lot of cooperation between the divorced parents and they are not trying to get the kids to side with one against the other. But often the parents don't cooperate at all after divorce and at times the situation is a lot scarier because the divorced partner resorts to threats and violence against the others.

Wallerstein briefly mentions that she isn't saying that people should never get divorced, especially when physical abuse is involved, but that they should be aware of the damage it often does to the kids and not rush into divorce.

Anyway, I agree that the right control groups are never used -- as also suggested by others on this list. It would be interesting to see how that affects results. The family is an involved, complicated institution and perhaps we can use this information to make our studies more nuanced.

Gale Summerfield

Monterey Institute of International Studies

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 2

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:25:24 (EST)

From: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: who'll make the home

I would amend Gale Summerfield's comment that people should not rush into divorce by stating what ought to be obvious but is too often ignored: people should not rush into marriage and, more important, into becoming parents. Although my knowledge is anecdotal, I have seen far too many people get married whose relationships were obviously doomed from the start, only to see them then have children as a way to "save the marriage." Even people who start off a marriage with reasonably well-founded hopes for happiness will often have children as a way to enforce their commitment to the marriage, often after one or both partners has been involved in extra-marital sexual affairs. If we're talking about the social question of what to do (if anything) about children of divorce, it seems to me that we're focusing the analysis too late in the game. (This is not to say that we should ignore the later part of the story, but that we should broaden our analysis to how to get people to stop doing the destructive things that they do at every stage of their lives.)

This leads me to a question that derives from my personal feelings and background; so please indulge me as I describe a few relevant things about myself. First, I grew up in an idyllic middle-class middle-American WASPy family, the youngest of five children of a Protestant minister father and Choir director/homemaker mother in a middle-class suburb. Both parents were very involved in child-rearing. The "good old days" did exist, at least in isolated instances; and I'm very lucky to have been in such a situation. (You might well wonder how I ended up a feminist lefty economist, but that is another story.) Second, I am now 36, and I have never been married nor had children--which shows that I practice what I preached above! Third, nevertheless, I still want to get married and be a father (in every good sense of the word) some day soon in a two-career, loving family.

So far, so good? Here's the difficult part. Contrary to my personal history and aspirations, much of the discussion about parenting here and elsewhere among feminists argues (convincingly, I think) that men are or should be irrelevant to the parenting process. One way to characterize the argument might be: "It's nice if he sticks around; but, realistically speaking, a woman needs to be prepared to parent alone. A man should therefore be made expendable." If this is an accurate description, should I then accept as fact that my family background is so much of an aberration that I should not try to replicate it?

To put it slightly more strongly: If the reality is that most men cannot be relied upon to be committed partners/parents, then it seems that the best thing we can do is to figure out what women can do to deal with that situation. Unfortunately, that conclusion seems to leave me (and men like me) in the unhappy situation of arguing for our own euthanasia. If that is necessary as part of a general social change that would help to reduce violence against women, neglected children, financial distress among single mothers, etc., then my euthanasia might be worth it. For obvious reasons, though, I'd like to be sure that there aren't alternatives.

I hope that this is not too personal or inadvertently unenlightened; but I have been thinking about this question for quite some time now. The members of this list seem particularly well-suited to discussing these issues.

Neil H. Buchanan, Resident Research Associate

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 3

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:11:34 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject: your question

I tell my students that everyone who has children should be prepared to parent alone, and should also have no more children than they think they can support on their own, if it comes to that. My research on child support opened my eyes to the rhetorical trashing of dads, but even more shocking to me, was the stuff put out by the father's rights movement that tells dads how to escape their child support obligations. amazing. Then there are the folks running around working for "male choice" which would let a man disavow a child at birth, since men "can't choose abortion like women can!" amazing stuff. your post is likely to get a lot of responses...it isn't often that single, seemingly well-adjusted heterosexual men from stable backgrounds and hoping to have children(i.e., this group knows the statistics about parent's divorces leading to children's) advertise that fact on the list. so look out! and good luck.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 4

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:24:06 (EST)

From: Neil Buchanan

To: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject: Re: your question

Thanks for your response. I, too, have seen the "New Men's Movement" stuff, and it is truly appalling. Ellen Goodman had a good op-ed piece comparing the message of male responsibility for African-American men at the Million Man March with the message of male responsibility for white men from the New Men's Movement: both say essentially, "We've been bad masters; now let's be better masters." Nobody seems to grasp that partnership, sharing, and equality are the appropriate goals--not benevolent dictatorship.

Among the more absurd things I've ever seen along this line was a Reading in Harper's a few years back, which reprinted a newsletter for divorced men, called (if I recall correctly): Screw the Bitch! Even more than the animalistic misogyny that the newsletter oozed, the amazing thing was that the "strategies" that men were being offered to avoid paying their alimony and child support payments included LITERALLY impoverishing oneself. Not impoverishing oneself on paper, as men do all the time in these situations; no, they were advising men to actually quit their jobs and give away everything they own (to strangers, if necessary) in order to prevent the ex-wife from getting anything. Now THAT's amazing stuff.

I appreciated your supportive comments, and I too expected my posting to create some kind of response. You probably share my surprise that virtually nothing has been said so far in response. I'm planning to wait until Monday, and then I'll post another request for comment. I honestly want to hear what people have to say. I wonder why the silence?

A "seemingly well-adjusted heterosexual" man,

Neil

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 5

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 21:33:55 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: your question

Neil

" they were advising men to actually quit their jobs and give away everything they own (to strangers, if necessary) in order to prevent the ex-wife from getting anything. "

I think that they are making that a simple equivalent to the figurative act of impoverishing themselves by giving ANYTHING to the ex--that they would rather be poor but in control of their own lives (as if they are) than under "someone else's control. "

I should have emphasized the seemingly only because all things on the iNTernet aren't what they seem, and the rest is all supposition based on what you said. (grin) who knows anything about their neighbors?

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 6

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:35:57 +1300

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: who'll make the home

I don't think we need to get rid of you Neil. Only of the assumption that all men are like you and that the natural, desirable, way of organising the world is for women to be dependent on men. This assumption leads to the view of some men that their wives owe them various services and that they have the right to punish them if they do not deliver.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 7

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 15:33:13 (EST)

From: Neil Buchanan

To: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject: Re: who'll make the home

Thank you for your message. I couldn't agree with you more. I am constantly appalled at the women-as-property attitudes that permeate so many laws, customs, attitudes, etc. A similar pseudo-legalistic attitude toward gender relations was encapsulated most perfectly by the infamous Camille Paglia, who claims that date rape is not possible, since "any woman who chooses to be in a room/apartment alone with a man is consenting to have sex with him." In other words, "You signed a contract, baby; now put out!" That women are real people, who can feel pain and who have free will, is essentially irrelevant to many people. It's 1995, yet even "advanced" societies have not fully acknowledged that women are human.

Neil

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 8

Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 15:51:38 +1300

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: who'll make the home

I think it was Camille we saw an interview with on our television - early this year? - She goes over the top of course, but I could relate to some of what she was saying. She said (paraphrased from memory!) 'We fought for women to be allowed the freedom to be out of college dormitories any hours they choose: for women to be allowed to take responsibility for themselves. Now women are turning round and saying we want protection.'

Rape is rape and women are entitled to the protection from it through the law but in those cases when women said 'no' before they were drunk but appeared to say 'yes' when under the influence I think they have to bear some responsibility. People need to take responsibility for their own intoxication, whether it be in dating situations or in driving situations. We know the dangers of drinking, we should not do it except in 'safe' environments.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 9

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 19:44:37

From: Ane Quade <ane@saclink1.csus.edu>

Subject: Re: who'll make the home

Responding to Neil's comment on male expendability:

I don't think the issue -- here or elsewhere -- is how to make men expendable. It's how to make them dependable, without making women dependent.

Barring that, we have to admit that folks who have kids -- men and women alike -- should be prepared to parent alone, whether with or without custody. It's part of the theory of the second best; until we fix the underlying problem, we have to do stopgaps. I speak as a former single parent of one, post-divorce, with a long-time, permanent partner and a second teenager ( as of this past September). Aside from the health and life choice issues, it's a big reason to prevent kids from having kids. They can't possibly be prepared to parent alone, and a lot of them will. To the extent that single-parent kids drop out more, my guess would be that this is the group from whence they come. Kids whose parents valued childbirth more than they valued education are likely to grow up with similar values.

A bit of a ramble. Oh well.

Ane

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 10

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:13:45

From: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Women and men and children

Dear FemEconers,

Last week, I posted a set of questions regarding the role of men in the rearing of children. I was mentally prepared, upon posting my message, for any of a variety of responses--up to and including outrage. What I was not prepared for was silence. However, with the exception of one message on-list (and three very supportive messages off-list), my comments and questions elicited no response.

I had to ask myself why this was so. One possibility was that people were too busy to comment; another was that my comments were so absurd as to be beneath response; yet another was that no one found the questions interesting; and I'm sure that there are more possibilities. Nevertheless, I have decided to try again, in the process expanding and clarifying my original points. While my original posting might have made it seem that my interest in this is purely personal (in my role as a potential father), I believe that a more general social issue is at stake.

To summarize my previous posting, my basic concern was whether or not there would be any role at all for men (or, more generally, for a "second" parent) in a hypothesized world where one parent assumes--as a matter of realistic self-protection--that their partner is likely to walk out at any time. In the context of current reality, of course, it is understood (and, one hopes, deplored) that this is not a gender-neutral phenomenon: that it is women who are most often abandoned with their children, whom they must then single-handedly care for. Apparently, a large number of men feel little concern about leaving their partner and children, perhaps because they know that their now-former partner would never leave the children completely abandoned. (Obviously, this imputes to the deserter more concern for his children than he might actually possess.)

As I stated in my earlier posting, I cannot look at this situation without reaching the inexorable conclusion (reached by many others, and articulated at various points on this list) that any woman/mother who is not self-deluding should always be prepared for their partner to exit. My questions from my previous posting, then, were designed to use that conclusion as a starting point and to explore the consequences of that undeniable logic.

Specifically, if any woman with whom I might be interested in forming a family must assume that I might abandon her and our children one day, I cannot blame her for preparing herself (financially, emotionally, etc.) AND THE CHILDREN for that eventuality. Assuring her that I would never dream of doing so, in fact, would be in some sense irresponsible on my part. (That I must also plan for the less-frequently-observed possibility of being a man abandoned with his children is also part of this.)

If every man is confronted with such a situation, however, are we not setting up a self-fulfilling cycle? What's to stop men from thinking: "They can do fine without me; so, if I want to skip town, where's the harm?" And even if this generation of men doesn't think that way, why wouldn't such a message become embedded over time? In short, if a person feels expendable, will they not act expendable?

Ane McQuade's suggestion that we should worry about making men "dependable, not expendable"--while a laudable goal in and of itself--is thus not really what I'm concerned about. The question is whether or not women's "rational" preparation for the reality that some men will never be dependable makes two-parent families obsolete. To push the point to a potentially-logical extreme: if I want to be a loving father, must I then find a woman who WANTS to abandon me, so that I can be the single parent?

I do not mean these questions to be rhetorical. They are simply the current forms of questions that seem to me to be implied by solid feminist reasoning about unpleasant social realities. I am hopeful that others on this list either have better answers than I have come up with, or that we can converge on some reasonable conclusions together.

Neil H. Buchanan

P.S. I hope that this message makes it clear that I am not a representative of the "New Man's Movement," as some responses implied. While I am glad that some men want to learn greater personal responsibility, I'm not at all impressed with a group of people who seem more interested in re-creating a mythical 1950's patriarchal ideal than in dealing with reality.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 11

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:44:04 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject: Men and children

Sorry you are feeling ignored. I hope you will find some more response to your second message. I did not reply because ... ..., however, here is a very brief answer.

Having looked at systems in Eastern Europe which used a variety of subsidies and support payments to relieve much of the economic pressure on families and/or single parents and also removed most of the logic of inheritance, I believe that it is possible for different patterns to appear. The one we assume to be "normal" is (I think) very strongly conditioned by a lot of the economic structures in which relationships and families exist. That said, it is also probably normal for some proportion of relationships to break up, but some or a good deal of the bitterness can be prevented by removing economic considerations from divorce.

I've been looking at East and West Germany. In the East, women contributed 40% of household income, there was extensive child welfare support and after divorce, child-support was deducted from the father wages automatically and deposited in the mother's bank account. In the West, women earned about 12% of household income, insignificant child-welfare and child-support arrangements similar to the U.S. The East had a higher divorce rate and a much higher remarriage rate. Remarriage patterns show men moving into relationships with women with children already present, in some cases bringing their own children with them. West shows pattern similar to U.S. with men leaving older wife and children to begin new family with younger wife. As far as men participating in child care and housework, seems to depend more on age (younger men more active), but greater participation in the East, possibly because most women worked and cooperation was a pragmatic necessity.

This hardly says that relationships last forever, but they can be improved by social structures which encourage voluntary participation. Put in another way, perhaps "rational choice" is only rational within a pretty warped system.

regards,

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 12

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 8:55:43 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject: Men and Children

Hi!

I am one of the probably hundreds of observers on femecon who do not actively participate except to read messages. However, for some as yet uncertain reason, I feel compelled to respond to your message (albeit it privately). I fear that you have taken an entirely too pessimistic view of the potential for successful fatherhood.

Here's the analogy - although not perfect. We are all faced with the certainty of death (unlike a less than 100% probability of divorce). To live our lives in a negative way, because of that eventuality, would be to waste the precious gifts of life. In other words, to refuse to buy a nice car when you are 60 because you might not live to get the full use of it is wrong, I believe. To say, "what's the use in trying to improve myself, when we're all dead in the end" - is wrong. On the other hand, to remind yourself to eat less fat and get regular exercise because these can help you live a healthier, longer life, is prudent.

So, what's the connection with marriage? To give of oneself less freely, to hold love back because your partner may leave you some day is wasting the precious gift of love and marriage. To say, "I won't be fully committed to him because he will leave me some day", may be a self fulfilling prophesy. On the other hand, to make sure that you invest in an education and keep yourself employable, is prudent, I believe. I was painfully reminded of that when my next door neighbor died suddenly last month, leaving behind three children between the ages of 9 and 15, and a wife who had not worked since the first child was born.

What's missing in your hypothesis? The notion of love and trust. It is vital in a good marriage. If you love and trust your husband, you believe he will not leave you and your children. If you make sure you are employable, for yourself as well as your family, then you will not be so devastated should it happen. And, if you so choose, you may be able to remove yourself from an abusive or unhappy relationship if you have financial independence.

I'm not sure this is much help. But while I haven't made any great study of divorce, I myself was divorced when my daughter was 3 months old, and we were financially abandoned by my ex-husband. I finished my Ph.D. anyway, and I remarried and have had a second child. My husband adopted my daughter. I have never, nor will I ever, suggest to my children that their father may some day walk away. To do so would diminish the cohesion, trust, love -whatever it is that binds a family together - that we share.

I don't believe that my case is really that unusual.

Good luck to you!

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 13

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:07:11

From: Janet Netz <netz@mgmt.purdue.edu>

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

To put in context: Neil, I found your initial remarks interesting and thought-provoking, but I fall into that "too busy to comment" group. But I'll take the time now.

I think you have a point. I don't know what the solution is. And as a potential complication (or maybe this is simpler) is the chance that the other parent will die, in which case the remaining parent still must cope on their own.

But perhaps that offers a solution. In terms of death, we have life insurance, to help both the remaining spouse and children. What if a family could arrange "divorce insurance" in a manner consistent with emphasizing the family. What I'm trying to suggest is some arrangement made by *both* partners at the beginning of a relationship. Perhaps a special savings account, or a legal agreement that the non-custodial parent pay a certain amount. Something arranged for when the relationship is going well, that is legally binding, that protects both partners.

Of course, (1) this only really addresses the financial aspect of divorce, not being emotionally prepared to be a single parent, and (2) some will argue that this will encourage divorce as a "solution" to marital problems.

Not very well put, too much work -- Janet (netz@mgmt.purdue.edu)

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 14

Date: Tue, 05 Dec 95 08:43:00 PST

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject: response to your request

greetings. i think it might be a good idea for you to peruse the evolutionary psychology and sociology literature to get some more insight into your concerns. Trivers book on social evolution might be provide some helpful insights for your questions. additionally, the literature on cooperation and game theory could be helpful, since you suggest that males will "cheat" and leave the family unit. in other words, you basically make an assumption that it's rational for a male to leave the family unit because 1) the family doesn't need him, or 2) (you didn't mention this, but i assume) he finds another more attractive female.

i would dispute this initial assumption, which you carry to its logical extreme, and suggest that for the evolution of the species (which richard dawkins suggests is our only reason for existence), it would be relatively illogical for both parties in a marriage to constantly prepare for this inevitability.

the idea is that a woman spends time assessing the genetic improvements that a male can offer to a relationship before settling on a male. one of the important characteristics that a potential mate can offer is the investment that a father makes in training, feeding, and providing for his children. thus our species has evolved to increase male investment, and the percentage of outliers is going to be few enough to, at the same time, increase a woman's trust of a particular male's investment in the relationship. otherwise, we'd never get married or pair up monogamously in the first place. additionally, the male makes a genetic investment in his children, which encourages him to have altruistic, clan-maintaining behavior. the families of both parties will support the altruistic behavior on the basis that their genes are being replicated in some measure through these children. furthermore, it is in the interest of the evolution of the species for people NOT to constantly reflect or prepare for the leaving of one party from a relationship, especially once children get involved. many women, for example, will ignore signs that the male is cheating in order to convince themselves that he is faithful. (you did briefly address this.) i think what you address is the exception rather than the rule, and while certainly, it behooves a woman in this day and age to maintain a degree of independence, the fact that folks still get married or pair off in some way must mean something about the cooperative and altruistic nature of the human species. i agree that it would be interesting to determine motivations among people who leave relationships as well as the level of pre-leaving awareness among people who have been left. speaking as one who has left (admittedly for what comes down to the potential genetic improvements a man could offer) relationships, i notice that the other party is relatively unaware until the bomb drops. i wonder if this is the case more often.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 15

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:40:27 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

I guess I don't see what the problem is. If your hypothetical wife and kids have to keep a backup strategy in case you turn out to be a jerk, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off with the actual you, a pretty reliable guy. It doesn't mean they wouldn't suffer, emotionally or economically, if you cut out. All you miss is the idea that they can't imagine life without you. so go ahead and be as nice as you want. do you really need our permission? Besides, I would hope there would be some pleasure for you in it as well. I think the population that would really be affected by this question would be the half-jerks--irresponsible enough to run off if their wife and kids could get by some how without them, but not if they would flat out starve.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 16

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:50:25

From: Joan Combs Durso <combsj@acasun.eckerd.edu>

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

In phrasing his question the first time out, Neil made reference to self-euthanization, or euthanizing men as unnecessary, etc. While this choice of phrase was probably made to emphasize his point, it instead may have raised flags in list members' minds that would cause them to regard it as "non-serious", likely to result in flame wars on the list, and thus not worth responding to. It also echoed recent on-line interactions which have caused some members to feel that the list is no longer their own place to discuss serious, professional topics of interest to feminist economists and others who hang out here.

Neil's question, if taken to the extreme, blames the abandoned spouse and children for their abandonment. Indeed, increasing the probability of men leaving their families is one argument that has been used against Wisconsin-model and other child support programs which provide some government support of the abandoned. (Echoes of the welfare-reform debate, here, too.)

But to get at the issue of whether parents become expendable if their partners take precautionary financial measures against the financial consequences of divorce, look at the use of prenuptial agreements. when women were not so likely to have financial assets and net worth of their own, you mostly heard of prenuptial agreements being demanded by the families of heiresses and by rich men marrying less well-off women, and the popular consciousness of these was mostly raised by the use of the agreements as plot tricks in old movies. Now, any woman who has a decent retirement account of her own, or other assets, or the prospect of other assets, had best not bet the bundle on the outcome of the marriage. (The latest example, the Coke stock heiress in the papers today, with $7 million at stake)

As Maggie, Mary and others here have pointed out before, it is not so long since most marriages ended with the early death of one or both spouses, and the likelihood of a parent being forced to raise their children without the financial support of the other one was therefore very high.

If the child support laws are fairly applied and enforced evenly, they should act as a deterrent of greater consequence than the incentive offered to the prospective abandoner by the thought of the abandonee being somewhat able to be financially able to care for the children on their own. (And I will defer here to Barbara Bergmann's writings on this matter, as being more eloquent than my comments here. maybe in The Economic Emergence of Women?)

And being sensible and pragmatic about one's own financial affairs does not mean one prepares one's children to be abandoned by their other parent, but that one instead prepares one's children to be sensible and pragmatic in their own future financial affairs, as well. I don't know of people who "psychologically prepare their children for abandonment", just in case, unless the family has some serious problems already.

I guess I don't see how feminist theory leads to Neil's conclusion, but we had better figure it out and debunk it before this, too, appears in the Contract on America.

Joan Combs

Eckerd College

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 17

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:44:24 (EST)

From: Neil Buchanan

To: Feminist Economics List <femecon-l@bucknell.edu>

Subject: euthanasia

I just wanted to make one point of clarification. When I used the term euthanasia, I was thinking of Keynes's "euthanasia of the rentier" as a literary reference. That this word choice evoked more negative thoughts in many readers minds is very unfortunate, but totally unintended. If I should have known better, then I apologize for my ignorance.

Neil H. Buchanan

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 18

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:12:12

From: MDIMAND@PCI.ALBION.EDU

Subject: Re: Women and men and children -Reply

I would like to second Joan's extremely sensible posting.

Mary Ann

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 19

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:54:14

From: "Barbara R. Bergmann" <BBERG@american.edu>

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

Neil Buchanan should not be surprised at the silence that greeted his raising of the topic of long-term relationships and fatherhood. Virtually all of the topics I assumed to be interesting and controversial that I have introduced have had the same fate. Gone into a black hole! I have not done any systematic analysis, but casual observation suggests that the number of responses on FEMECON may be inversely related to the importance of the topic. For example, one topic that never fails to trigger 20 excited responses is including housework in the GDP. That plus 75 cents will get any woman a cup of coffee. I expect 20 rebukes for the above sentence.

As to Neil's substantive point, breakup of relationships is a frequent thing, and everybody knows it. People are sensible to have it in their contingency plans, and there is no way to avoid it. You might say that knowing a breakup is possible helps women to prepare themselves for independence, and that is not a bad thing. It gives them some power in the relationship if they are less than totally dependent, both emotionally and financially.

HOWEVER....a good loyal man is a great treasure and every heterosexual woman knows it. So a man who values loyalty and commitment will most often find it in return, if he looks for a woman devoted to the same values. I believe more women want life-long relationships than men.

The problem is with men, and the ball is in their court. What is needed is for men to turn back in their culture to commitment to lasting relationships. What might bring that about?

Barbara R. Bergmann

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 20

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:59:32

From: BIngram@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu

Subject: Women and men and children

I guess I fall into the "too busy" category, too, but I'll add my opinion, FWIW. Just because it makes economic sense to insure against the possibility that a spouse may die or leave doesn't mean that it makes sense to monopolize child-rearing so that the spouse becomes irrelevant before he or she leaves. I could certainly take care of my two children by myself, and support the three of us, but I would be a basket case by the end of the week if I didn't have my husband around to take half of the child care responsibilities. In other words, if forced to, I could manage on my own. That doesn't mean that my husband is currently irrelevant, or that I act in a way that makes him irrelevant so that, if he were to leave, I would not have to adjust as much. In the short term, that kind of behavior on my part is just too costly.

I hope this helps.

Beth Ingram

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 21

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 23:04:17

From: Neva Goodwin <ngoodwin@emerald.tufts.edu>

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

Here's one reason for not answering your earlier posting: I was in a hurry that day, and thought this was much too important a topic to address in haste. I printed it out, to wait for a more leisured time, but then I had to go out of town for several days, and am only now catching up with the backlog -- so I was glad to see the issue raised again. Here's another reason: I don't know of any really good answers. However, I do want to try to think out loud about it (so to speak). First of all, while the current form of the problem is new in many ways, I think it goes back a long ways -- probably throughout our history as mammals, at least through our history as primates. Look at lions, or wolves, or other (than human) primates. The mothers are clearly nervous when the father's around the kids. The male lion, of course, may well kill them if they're not his own kids. Male monkeys and apes probably don't know whether they're their own, and sometimes show signs of wanting to be nurturing -- but the females don't trust them.

Relating this to our own species, and to personal experience, I know that one of the strains on my first marriage, which produced two children, was that I didn't know of any way of including my husband within a Family. A Family, as I knew it, consisted of a mother and children. This in spite of the fact that my own father was certainly in no way a deserter of his wife or children -- my parents' marriage is a very good one, and he is among the mildest of men -- but, as I look back on it, I realize that my mother was doing that same atavistic thing -- get between the father and the kids so that he can't hurt them. This memory was reinforced recently, when I decided to get books for my nieces and nephews for Christmas, and read or skimmed a bunch of them. It's surprising how often the Family is defined as a mother and children, with the father having died.

With all this said, do we have to accept this as the inevitable picture? Certainly not. We've learned to eat with knives and forks, or chopsticks; to spend our days on chairs in front of computers, instead of running down prey; to refrain from hitting people -- even people smaller than ourselves -- when we don't like what they've done. There's no reason to think that we have to accept all the roles and responses that were shaped by our evolutionary past. All the same, it can be useful to be aware of what our instincts may be assuming or expecting.

The other thing we ought to be aware of is contradictions in ourselves, as individuals and as members of a species. We've got all those responses that are examined with the sociobiological lens, to show that the goal of the selfish gene is to maximize its representation in future generations (hence the unpleasant behavior of the male lion). And we also have a lot of behaviors that don't fit the past especially well, but that may be evolving because they fit better into the circumstances of civilization that we've been trying to invent for several hundred generations. There's a lot of wiggle-room in evolution.

The personal goals that come through in your question sound to me like the ones we ought to be gathering our forces to foster. How can we help? (That's a rhetorical question.) It seems to me to be critically important for women to recognize the kinds of problems that we help to perpetuate, e.g., by being unwilling to help fathers find their place in the family. To be sure, there is the stark issue you raised, about the reasonableness for a woman to have economic and emotional independence, given the probability of divorce. But let's do a probabalistic quasi-cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand, if a woman does really accept a man as an integral part of a family (including child[ren]), there is the possible emotional hurt to herself if the marriage breaks up; and she will be in a lousy economic situation if she hasn't made herself economically viable. On the other hand, the marriage may not break up (surprise! more than half of all modern marriages stay together). By creating a self-fulfilling prophecy -- e.g., keeping the man as an outsider -- she does greatly increase the likelihood of loss of a valuable relationship. Most important, it is important for children to have a father (two parents really are better than one). I assume that most women, and most men, hold the welfare of their children as one of the most important goals. And that economic independence that the woman is going to need so badly if the marriage breaks up is much harder to gain, while doing a good job of child rearing, if the father doesn't play a significant parenting role.

To me it's pretty obvious that rationality, as well as sentiment, are strongly on the side of urging women to overcome any atavistic possessiveness they may feel (doubtless there's wide variability in this, and probably many women don't feel any of this) of the exclusive nurturing role. That may be a useful conclusion, but it still leaves a basic question unanswered: how can modern marriages work, knowing the odds? People in their twenties often seem to have abandoned the last-ditch effort at romantic denial that was common among my peers. We tended to say --"I know there's lots of divorce, but this marriage is special -- we're different -- it won't happen to us." The healthier alternative is one that I'm just beginning to glimpse. It says, with a lot of humility, "we can't know what's going to happen; we need to be prepared for all the possibilities (maybe even write a pre-nuptial agreement) -- but we will put genuine, trusting effort into working for the best outcome."

That takes a lot of sophistication. The human race is having to grow up much more than some of us feel prepared for. But evolution is far from over. The Freudian revolution has, for example, given a dramatic new depth to consciousness, in creating an increasingly broad acceptance throughout society of the concept of an unconscious mind. The kind of awareness and understanding possible to people who have grown up with that assumption is a big step forward over the pre-Freudian consciousness. Democracy is another promising (relatively) new idea. We haven't got it right yet, for sure -- but give us another couple of hundred years, and we may really get the hang of it.

I know you don't want to wait a couple of hundred years to get married --I was getting carried away there, in the long sweep of history. But you were asking a very large question, about what's reasonable and what's possible. My answer to you is that it is both reasonable and possible to look for a good, committed marriage in which both people play a very meaningful parenting role. There's no guarantee of what will happen, but your chances of a happy life are higher if you're willing to accept the risk of possible loss than if you decide to place narrow limits on your commitment -- and the same goes for any woman.

One last thought. There probably are some truly unlimited commitments, but I don't think they're common, nor that that is the goal. It's a question of balance. For a good love or marriage there is usually some degree to which each individual reserves privacy in his/her thoughts, maintains a sense of self that is independent of the other, etc. There's probably quite a wide range between the extremes of "too much reserve" and "too much loss of self". The practical realities of modern marriages that you have so well described make it more obvious how critical it is for each person to find a reasonable place within -- rather than outside of -- that range. All the same, that isn't new; finding one's place there has always been one of the critical tasks of becoming a mature person.

Thanks for raising this important question -- and for sticking with it.

With best wishes -- Neva Goodwin

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 22

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:06:24

From: SHAWC0722@uni.edu

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

I liked Neva Goodwin's posting. However, one has to be careful when comparing human behavior to that of other animals, even if we limit the comparisons to other advanced mammals. (I believe this is called the "zoopomorphic fallacy," opposite of the "anthropomorphic fallacy.")

There are many factors which influence the behavior of male lions; such as the need to prevent a surplus of lions. Many more lion cubs are born than are needed to maintain the lion population; and, in fact, I read somewhere that when a large number of cubs are claimed by draught or famine, male lions are less aggressive towards those that survive. Therefore, the aggression of the male lion is geared towards preventing excess competition for food, mates, etc. amongst the lions which survive to maturity. He is also more apt to kill male cubs than female cubs; a surplus of male lions is very dangerous for lion society. In other words, the behavior of the male lion leads to "social" and "economic" stability.

In addition, since the majority of female lions have determined him to be the superior male (the one most apt to produce superior characteristics in their offspring--like large size and ferocity, lions being, after all, animals which survive by killing other large animals), by culling cubs sired by inferior male interlopers he is actually reinforcing the consensus biological decision reached by the *female* lions.

Human beings don't exist in an environment which requires such survival tactics, obviously, nor do primates in general, not being predators. Therefore such behavior on the part of human males should not be credited or compared to male lions, or thought to be derived from them. In other words, such behavior in humans is a social problem rather than a part of the natural order.

Another important difference between humans and other mammals, such as lions, is the fact that (biologically speaking) the female is receptive to mating year-round as opposed to seasonally. The importance of this distinction cannot be overestimated.

Anyway, my point is to be extremely judicious when comparing human behavior to that of other animals, particularly where sex and the raising of young are concerned.

Chuck Shaw

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 23

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:15:41

From: Ane Quade <ane@saclink1.csus.edu>

Subject: Re: Mr. Shaw on Women and men and children

Frankly, I doubt that lions are able to predict the survival rate of their offspring in a given year with any degree of accuracy. I also doubt that female lions choose mates based on their evaluation of the males as genetic carriers and their own desire to have perfect little Lion children. Ane

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 24

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:40:07

From: SHAWC0722@uni.edu

Subject: Re: Mr. Shaw on Women and men and children

Ah! Be forewarned -- I've been reading everything I could get my hands on about big cats since I was nine years old!

Actually Ane's right: recent literature suggests that female lions choose mates not on the basis of genetic evaluation, but on the basis of common interests in film, literature, and music. Religion, apparently, is no consideration at all.

Chuck

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 25

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:48:20

From: Neva Goodwin <ngoodwin@emerald.tufts.edu>

Subject: Re: Mr. Shaw on Women and men and children

The point I originally wanted to make wasn't about lions: it was about my observation that women often (not always) behave as though carrying an atavistic (though sometimes contemporarily appropriate, too) fear that males, including their own mates, are dangerous to children. I mentioned lions and other species to back up an hypothesis that there is reason, given our evolution, for females to have such a fear. My main point, though, was that such a fear is usually not justified, and that it is important for conscious, civilized modern human beings to overcome a variety of atavistic relics -- whether they result in inappropriate behavior of females towards males, or vice versa, or stereotypical beliefs, etc.

Neva Goodwin

Coda: My maternal grandmother, whom I detested, had brown "liver spots" all over her hands. As I look at my hands, typing, I see the same appearing. I had always determined not to be like her -- I don't think this means I have to be, though.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 26

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:50:19 -0700 (PDT)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

I suspect that you got few replies because of the limit to one post per day, and the desire most of us feel to expend that reply on women's issues rather than men's insecurities.

What's to stop men from feeling expendable? The same things that stop women from feeling expendable. Love, responsibility, concern, and actual supportiveness. In other words, dependability. It really is the same issue.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 27

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:12:45 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

While I agree with someone who said your argument could be taken to a ridiculous extreme, almost any argument can, and it was beyond me how that led to the conclusion that your topic wasn't worth responding to.

I think that your issue at the family level is similar to an issue many people go through in relationships. Your first relationship is all roses, then you break up and are sort of jaded. Go through several relationships, and it's hard to be vulnerable and open for fear of being hurt, which just reinforces the likelihood that the relationship won't work.

My husband really dislikes what I think is pragmatism in terms of my making sure I am economically viable on my own. It's hard for him to accept that it's not a reflection on him or our relationship. A friend informs me (from what source I do not know) that the majority of wives have a stash of money hidden in the event of divorce.

I hope that others on the list take your query seriously and discuss it.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 28

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:02:32

From: Gale Summerfield <gsummer@ix.netcom.com>

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

This is a terribly busy time but it's good to take some moments to think about issues of importance.

The more caring, committed adults that a child has in her or his life, the better. Usually the committed ones are family members but there are many types of families; no one is irrelevant. Let's remember grandparents, significant others, and all. It would be devastating to a child to think that a caring adult might disappear at any moment. Even if the parents divorce at some point, both parents hopefully will maintain caring, involved relationships with the children. I see this often with divorce parents taking turns or both coming to their kids' soccer games, for example.

I am interested in work on reformulating the institution of the family, so that it provides love, comfort and security for people without oppressing some of the members. If a woman can earn an income, the family is more able to adjust to fluctuations in the economy or able to try different things as well as the woman being able to support herself if her husband leaves or dies. Having equal partners can strengthen the family and expand its strategies or options.

Some material has been written on these issues such as in Folbre's book Who Pays for the Kids? in an article by Jane Jaquette in 1993 [I don't have the reference in front of me].

Gale Summerfield

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 29

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:57:23

From: BILL WALLER <WALLER@hws.edu>

Subject: Re: FEMECON-L digest 774

The issue of preparing for the likelihood of divorce and the financial and emotional needs of the family members after the dissolution of the marriage can be separated into two issues--the financial and the emotional consequences. This separation is, of course, false in lives as people live them, but the problems call for different (though connected) solutions. Survival requires financial consideration be addressed--that is why the state is involved. Insurance schemes, child support, alimony payments and prenuptial agreements are all structures designed to deal with the financial problems of divorce and support. We can design others, for example requiring prospective husbands and wives to post large surety bonds prior to marriage. We could examine the role of bride price and dowry in other cultures as mechanisms to provide for financial support in the event of dissolution. I would only note that human beings are very good at avoiding these structural impediments to irresponsible marriage and marriage dissolution behavior when sufficiently motivated.

The discussion of the emotional consequences of marriage dissolution seems to be a good example of how feminist economic discussions occur in a vacuum. There is a large literature on this in sociology. The research of Terry Arendell (I don't have citations handy) would be a good place to start. There are a few things we know: Non-custodial parents usually have very limited contact with their children and a very large number lose all contact. The likelihood of significant contact between children and non-custodial parents is increased when there are others who can support and mediate the relationship. If grandparents will mediate the relationship the likelihood of continued contact increases. If the mother does not remarry and is willing to mediate the relationship between non-custodial father and child the likelihood of continued contact is increased. If the non-custodial father does remarry and the new wife is willing to mediate the relationship the likelihood of continued contact is increased. Of course civil relations among the parents always helps. Non-custodial parents who remain in regular and frequent significant contact with their children are more likely to pay child support. Geography and the age of the children is important. It is very difficult to have an phone conversation with a two year old. Maintaining contact over great distances with very young children is a problem for non-custodial parents.

A simple observation is that the emphasis on the nuclear family unit in social policy is short sighted if we are really concerned about supporting members of families after the dissolution of a marriage. After dissolution the emotional well being of all involved is heavily dependent of close personal relationships with others outside the nuclear family experiencing dissolution. Avoidance of financial responsibility occurs because of the lack of support and mediation of the relationships by others who care about all of the members of the dissolving family _and_ the inability of members of the dissolved family unit to provide the financial support. The conjunction of these two reasons for non-support is crucial. The media loves to focus on the wealthy men who do not support their children. It is often the case that these folks have lost contact with their children. Moreover, by definition (since they are wealthy), they constitute a very small percentage on non-supporting non-custodial parents. My only point is that these are the least important group for whom new social policy to address the problem of non-support is needed--find 'em and put 'em in the slammer. The more serious problem is addressing the non-custodial parent who is incapable of providing support because of the inability to earn a living wage. In a society with no jobs or incomes policy and that is going to decrease it support for poor families, this problem will only worsen. Poor parents cannot support their families whether married or not. Poor non-custodial parents who cannot financially provide may also be unable to provide emotional support for their children because of punitive social policy. There is no single mechanism or financial incentive structure that will repair this. The financial mechanisms of prenuptial agreements, alimony, child support etc. can address the needs of the affluent, but they are all predicated upon the presence of the means of support.

Bill Waller

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 30

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:58:52

From: SKTaylorNC@aol.com

Subject: Re: men, women and children

Will the "rational expectation" (sorry) of supporting one's children alone for at least part of their growing-up years contribute to family breakup? Perhaps, but not by keeping significantly more men in bad marriages. Men who would seriously consider staying in marriages because their spouse and children would be poor are also the ones who keep their financial responsibilities to their children after a divorce. Instead, financial independence may lead to net family breakup because independent income allows more women to leave bad marriages.

Economic independence provides a balance of power, meaning that BOTH people can stay in a relationship because some piece of their emotional/social/spiritual/sexual/intellectual needs are met there, not because their alternative--their personal poverty or their children's poverty--is too grim to consider. This is the real issue, as I see it: how sad it is IF we have defined a man's role in the family as financial dominance so exclusively that if that role is removed, the man has no role strong enough to bind him to his family. This topic reminds me of a paper I saw presented at a seminar a few years ago, which was subsequently published in the AER. Written by a woman whose name I will not mention here, lest I be accused of bad-mouthing, this "study" examines marriage decisions based on a utility function that explicitly includes the disutility to the woman of the likelihood of physical abuse. The mathematical conclusion of the paper is that women, on average, need financial incentive to stay in marriages. The policy conclusion was that we should raise MEN's incomes to induce women to stay married. I asked why we should not raise women's incomes instead so they will not need to stay in abusive marriages, but was told, "We don't know how to raise women's incomes." "What do we know about raising men's incomes that we don't know about raising women's incomes?" I asked. The response: "Don't worry honey, you'll get a man someday." I swear this is true--incredible, but true.

And, of course, that study was simply the middle-class version of the popular argument that the way to induce low-income, unmarried teenage girls not to have children is to improve the marriage market by increasing the job opportunities of men in their communities.

Susan Taylor

PS (for personal statement?): Friends just had their second child. Their first bears the father's last name, but the second is to bear the mother's last name. Somehow I find this choice unspeakably heartening.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 31

Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 13:25:07 (EST)

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

Subject:

dear Neil:

There are, I suspect, two reasons for the reaction you are getting. The first is theoretical and therefore interesting. The neoclassical approach is ill suited to answer the question you posed in a feminist way. The actors must behave rationally and pecuniary value remains central. The institution you are analyzing is probably the least rational in our society. Moreover I would argue that it involves values different from if not antagonistic to pecuniary valuation. The second reason is ... ... The inability of neoclassical approaches to address your question gave readers three options: ignore it, read it as another angst-ridden male asking for help, or engage the question. I think you have probably gotten all 3 responses. I would ignore the complaints or respond in private indicating that the question might have appeared personal in nature but you were actually looking for substantive discussion of how different models address this issue and how these problems play out in real life. In any case your question sparked some very interesting discussion.

Best wishes,

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 32

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 19:11:23

From: SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

Barbara Bergmann commented that "a good loyal man is a great treasure ..."

Hmmm. The problem here, from anecdotal evidence, is loyalty-signaling. That is, I think many young women have a great deal of trouble correctly perceiving the desertion- and cheat-risk involved in any single potential mate.

Loyal men are not properly rewarded because they are not easily recognized as such BEFORE marriage, and AFTER marriage they are, obviously, loyal.

Oh, someone with more math skills than me could SURELY make up a good model for this. Next issue of Feminist Economist, Diana?

---------

Satire aside --

I did not respond to the posting because my first response was WHAT???? HUH???? WHAT is he TALKING about?

It is one of those cases where "feminists want" or "feminists cause" does not fit the second half of the sentence.

This particular feminist has been happily married for twenty years to a hubby who has been an active and present partner in raising our two children. And it shows in their happiness and self-confidence. We decided some time ago to try for two academic positions -- he could have earned more working for a bank, I could have earned more if I had gone into law school instead of graduate school in history. We figured we could follow what we liked to do best, and each of us still have time to be with our kids, and be able to earn a decent income. (That last made possible because of his fortuitous choice of finance as a specialty ...) Worked great. But it was not easy to pull off.

I wish there were more options out there for young families. To repeat, the stress of the burden of child-raising falling totally on the young parents in this society is far too great. I think there would be fewer break-ups if they did not have to carry so much of that load by themselves.

But I want to air out something that always bugs me about this stuff.

It's claimed that "feminists" "caused" the sexual revolution. And divorces.

Oh yeah? When did Playboy start publishing, eh? (early '50s). What was the Playboy mentality, eh? Ever watch those slick `50s movies with their not-so-subtle messages about sex? The au courant guy GOT some. And with the "liberated" woman (thanx to the Pill, not to feminism -- the Pill arrived ca. 1960; the new women's movement ca. 1970) -- well, if single women were able to do "it" without consequences, then WOW. The au courant male could get him some MORE.

But I think we have the order of causation in the wrong direction here. Which cultural change came first, eh?

-- Mary Schweitzer, Dept. of History, Villanova

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 33

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:55:56

From: Biju Rao <Vijayendra.Rao@williams.edu>

Subject: Re: Women and men and children

Actually, someone has:

Colin Camerer, "Gifts as Economic Signals and Social Symbols," American Journal of Sociology, Vol 94, Supplement 1988.

Biju

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 34

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 10:23:00 PST

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan <buchanan@levy.org>

Subject: who'll make the home

I am just catching up on reading FEMECON messages.

I'm another person who grew up in a "middle-class middle-American WASPy family, the youngest of five children of a Protestant minister father." Lutheran, in my case. Alas, my mother did not lead the choir.

On the issues you raised, I thought the comment by some else about "dependable men without dependent women" was right on the mark. I would make a distinction between economic independence, which I think is a good goal for any able-bodied adult, and the condition for being able to make choices about one's life, and emotional independence. I think of (the potential for, if not at every moment actual) economic independence as a prerequisite for healthy emotional interdependence. Families that stay together only because one or more members are threatened by poverty are not likely to be healthy in other ways.

________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE # 35

Date: Tue, 18 Jun 96 15:04:59 PDT

From: [Off-list response; name withheld]

To: Neil Buchanan <buchanan@levy.org>

Subject: Families with two earners

Dear Neil:

I am a sociologist with some interest in the topic you will be discussing at the IAFFE conference. ... ... yes, probably economic independence does mean that women leave a relationship that does not work (men probably too). Just what the far right has been saying all along????? (sorry, but it is a pet peeve of mine that the right often picks up the most crucial issues, but we tend to dismiss them and we should not. As the saying goes: audite et alteram partem (somebody posted that a little while back and I liked it for its radicalism given the current climate)