Iqra’i

Either I’m being thoroughly straw-manned, or I was incredibly unclear. I think it’s the latter (or, at least, choose to believe that so I don’t have to start knocking heads), so I shall clarify:

The purpose of society is to mold and influence our souls. Contemporary American society does this, but in bad ways. The solution isn’t to make society less influential in our lives (or, in Freudian terms, to stop repressing), but to change society so that it shapes our souls in better ways. Tradition qua tradition doesn’t destroy women’s souls; if societal repression does that, we need to work within our societal framework to reform it, rather than uprooting the whole thing because it’s been tainted by the touch of oppression. Tradition does hurt women disproportionately; I don’t really see how anyone can argue with that. (Of course, you could claim that that’s a good thing…)

In short, as the RE put it, “if traditional gender roles are in danger of destroying ‘women’s ambitions, rights, and very souls,’ this means that tradition has already failed.”

That’s what I was trying to say.

Policy questions about the role of women in the workplace are also interesting, but I like theory better than policy. (Surprised?) Still, for Noah, I’ll add the following: social systems where it’s affordable (both economically and psychologically) to spend time with one’s children make people much more likely to have children. Paid family leave, reproductive choice, &c., contribute to a world where women can be better mothers. It’s frankly not affordable for many families to get by on one income, and plenty of women wouldn’t be happy staying home even if they could afford to. (Cf. Freidan.)