Thanks for the response.
Resonation doesn’t equate to being "emotional" or picking a side. It’s offering a viewpoint based on experience.
You seem determined to see selfishness in her expression based on your moral absolutes. I recognize that while morals are absolute as you said, how one person defines their moral obligation does not determine how another person does. I also recognize that her expression and the language she’s using is not coming from a place of selfishness, but profound relief and gratitude that a long ordeal is over. It’s a moment in time, she won’t stay in that moment any more than that hypothetical political prisoner would stay in a state of jubilation upon release. Life goes on. It will for her as well. It seems out of place to deride her for "selfishness" when her decision to leave was based on survival.
You also keep coming round to the idea that her leaving him will mean his relationship with his kids will be crippled. That’s only true if he’s put the onus of his own parent-child relationships on her and continues to do so. That’s a choice, his choice. He can whine and complain about it, or he can pick up the phone and start learning a new skill set. The phone works the same way it did yesterday so there’s no reason not to use it. I have a relationship with both my parents that we each contribute our share to. They don’t speak to each other. It hasn’t affected either one’s a ability to have a relationship with me. My dad never chose to take a back seat and throw it all off on my mom because of some false notion that "women are just better at nurturing".
In my own relationship with my child I do both "traditional" role jobs, like a whole lot of single mothers. I don’t let the fact that I’m female prevent me from doing all I can for us because men might tend to be better at X on average. I’m not particularly musically inclined either but that wouldn’t keep me from learning to play decently enough with time and practice. It’s a social choice, not an evolutionary specialization advantage.
Many social constructs are erroneously tied to Darwin’s evolutionary theory by social science. But Darwin and others' work were jaded by Victorian era androphilic constructs and thinking. His theories considered a particular male view but did not rightfully or correctly consider the female one because he attributes human female behaviors of that time period to the natural world at large. Much of the early work is and has been reconsidered, though unfortunately, the reevaluations haven’t trickled down enough.
The result: social constructs were used to define a new scientific theory of biology—evolution. Evolutionary theory was then used to defend and define social constructs as well as argue against the need to change them because the conditions that gave rise to them had changed. The tail has wagged the dog.
That’s nothing to do with political correctness. The same thing happened applying evolutionary theories like “survival of the fittest” to business modeling without considering the overlap of ecosystems. Its been a disaster that is razing the economic landscape to the ground. Wobbly and misunderstood science theories misapplied to other arenas that have nothing to do with biology will tend to do that.
Before you dismiss that out of hand, I should tell you that I have a BS in Wildlife Management from Auburn University and have taken two graduate level courses in systemic evolution and evolutionary theory. The lines of thought you’re advocating are confusing physical or behavioral specialization based on evolution with social adaptation. They are NOT the same thing. Better examples of behavioral specialization would be bower building or nest building architecture based on available resources in birds, defense strategies to protect young based on environment in herbivores, etc. Behavioral specialization is not even a concept generally applied to the rearing of young. It’s usually considered around issues of food choice, mate selection, and habitat selection.
Social specialization, however, is defined as a structural adaptation of a body part to a particular function or of an organism for life in a particular environment (emphasis mine). An example would be dominant side extreme muscle development in archers and blacksmiths, or the shortening of jaw morphology in urban foxes, etc. Social specializations are temporary and will fade and reemerge as environmental conditions warrant.
Our social construct worked well when we were a primarily agrarian society. During that time, the work of women was valued and prized in 19th century America. You see the regard in diaries and journals from the era. Industrialization both devalued the work of women and disenfranchised them. As a result, regard for the value of women in general has plummeted. You see it in commentary, media, and discourse. Yet we have to adapt because the social environment we occupied is gone and it’s not coming back. So we have to socially despecialize to thrive. Women have and continue to do that in droves. How men respond will determine whether or not we all despecialize or if there be a push toward a different social adaptation, like the dissolution of social bonds between men and women and the formation of nursery pods between women, like dolphins, for child rearing.
You can call it Nazi Feminism or whatever all you want, but it’s already happening. That’s a professional observation, not a feminist wish. None of us get to choose the social and environmental pressures we will face. We only get to choose how we will respond.
