Next Card discusses the issue of the family, and the fact that marriage allows the law to decipher who is and who isn't part of a family (ie: marriage, etc.). This is to say that the law is allow to determine who can be married, therefore, determine once children are produced, what parents are actually a part of that family, legally. Parenting is a large part of marriage, and Card argues that parents are not necessarily those that are doing the parenting, rahter babysitters, day care centers, etc. She claims that the so-called access to a mother does not guarantee care taking, therefore the need for parents is not as legitimate. However, I find some things wrong with this situation. I was raised by one nanny my entire childhood. Both of my parents worked, and it was necessary for this to happen. While I was part of a legitimate, legal family, Card would argue that I was not being given love, supervision, etc, from my parents. I would disagree with this, and argue that there are ways to have the best of both worlds. Yes I was raised by someone other than my parents, but that does not go to say that my parents did not raise me as well. It is possible for parents to do all of the above, and maintain a job, and in a society where capitalism prevails all, I think that this is something that is more and more common, and if it has worked for this amount of time, I think that there is nothing, inherently wrong with it, contrary to the beliefs of Card.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Against Marriage and Motherhood (Card)
Claudia Card argues against marriage in her article titled "Against Marriage and Motherhood." It is clear that marriage is a three party relationship, including the state (law) as the third party. This makes it extremely difficult for gay and lesbian marriages to exist in our society. Claudia Card argues that there are some things that are inherently wrong with marriage, which with this realization, could lead to one of her suggestions happening. Although I do not completely agree with this suggestion, I think that Card provides some very legitimate reasons for why eliminating the rights of marriage would not be that bad of an idea. She find four problems that are inherently wrong with marriage, the first being the economic benefits that come with a legally married couple. Second, divorce can be hard, and next, legal monogamy. Lastly, the legal rights of access married partners have to one another property, etc. Marriage is clearly an issue that is involved with the state, as exemplified in these four problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is not that Card would believe that you were unloved, rather, her contention was that the state's goal in limiting who may marry whom is, in fact, circumvented nonetheless, by the employment of child care services. In other words, if it is true that a goal of the state in deciding who may marry whom is to create a family in which a particular mother is paired with a particular father for the mutual care of offspring, then such an argument no longer bears any weight given the practice of hiring others to care for our children.
Furthermore, your defense of the status quo on the basis that it has become a kind of custom is dangerous. Slavery was a common practice for centuries, but that is not to say that because it had worked for so long that there must not have been anything wrong with it. Practical considerations often compel us to stray from an ideal, but that should not lull us into subordination to custom.
Post a Comment