Well... The woman was lookin' for a fight. You can see the corners of his mouth torquing, Ekman-style, throughout the clip.
In the most literal hearing I could take, the host said it's "not true" that a mother could 'stay home if she wanted to.' Categorically; never. That's silly, but...
After looking up a few things for a comment about Hitchens the other night, I've concluded that he was a much better speaker and debater than writer. (He was certainly a brilliant reader, too.)
This was a talk-show professional, giving 'em what they wanted.
To get a sense of how he viewed himself as a father one should watch from around the 15 minute mark (although the entire interview is interesting and worthwhile).
He believed that he was an exceptionally poor father during the infant stages of his children's development (this is his own description, not mine). He stated that he drove himself into work at that stage of their life primarily because he was marking time until the children were old enough to hold a conversation. This is hardly the typical response to fatherhood and he acknowledges as much.
As a result it is difficult to know for sure just how universal/general his stance is on this issue is. It seems like if he had it all to do over again he would have chosen to be more involved as a father.
Falling short in this area of his life was apparently one of his great regrets.
Artemis
at January 14, 2014 1:24 AM
Yeah... It's funny how many men I've admired have been so theatrically blunt about that. In retrospect, I mean.
Remember that Indy Jones movie? "You left, just as you were becoming interesting…"
I'm genuinely confused. What is wrong with saying Women can work if they want to but they don't have to?
Brian
at January 14, 2014 7:55 AM
As with many indignant folks, I don't think she was really listening to what he said.
Now, it could also be that he has said similar things in the past that were sexist; but, I don't see it this time.
So, she simply is carrying a bit of baggage there which is keeping her from truly listening.
Charles
at January 14, 2014 8:24 AM
I'm genuinely confused. What is wrong with saying Women can work if they want to but they don't have to?
This was my reaction also, although I'm wondering if her response wasn't more because it sounds like he is saying that if she doesn't want to work after having a baby, her husband (or at least the father of the baby) should work and take care of her and the child.
If we women allow men to take care of us, why, we're allowing the patriarchy to continue. If we choose not to work, and our husbands choose to support us, then we are all, both men and women, but especially women, dumber than cows. This goes doubly if we've had children. Because *there is nothing better for a child than to see their single mother struggle to support herself and the child, without any help from a father.* /sarc
*This is a sentiment I've picked up on from some feminist acquaintances. I do not know that it has ever been stated outright, or if is an "accepted" pillar of feminism.
Jazzhands
at January 14, 2014 9:15 AM
I enjoyed the full-length interview - thanks for the link and the tip about skipping the first 15.
A woman shouldn't have to work? That was only ever a case for the rich. Poor women like poor men have always worked. One way or another.
Matt
at January 14, 2014 11:54 AM
Hey, Crid - are a mother and father still better parents than a pair of homosexuals if the mother is a feminist?
Radwaste
at January 14, 2014 3:55 PM
"This is hardly the typical response to fatherhood"
I know for myself I was waiting around until he was old enough to learn how to throw a spiral. Just sort of keeping the couch warm until he needed more than what mom had to offer.
My modern day middle class version of Hitchens' sentiment would be, "no mother of my child will get less than three months off for maternity leave, unless of course she wants to go back to work earlier." A little more realistic for people who want to own a house out west and all the trappings, which generally takes two incomes.
smurfy
at January 14, 2014 5:11 PM
> are a mother and father still better parents
> than a pair of homosexuals if the mother is
> a feminist?
What's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father.
We, especially Stateside, have seen that the most loving fathers are those who select & woo brassy, clear-headed women as mothers for their children; and that such women tend to be feminists, just as they're leading lights in so many social realms, just as are the fathers themselves; and that the resulting families outperform historical norms in all measures of kindness, achievement, and charity.
So that would be "Yes."
It's very important that you continue to consult with me on such matters... Good going, Raddy.
I am totally pleased to validate your opinions, dear - even in this case, in which I initially assumed that there was a level of feminism which would prove toxic to children.
Radwaste
at January 14, 2014 11:17 PM
Muffin, the hazard is the level of stupidity to which a child might be exposed...
…Or did you regard the television hostess above as a feminist example?
The hostess -- heaven help me if that was sexist -- is endlessly immune to the bloody obvious: in Hitchens view, women as mothers are so important that they should not dissipate themselves in wage labor if they choose otherwise.
Of course, that sort of sentiment absolutely requires the fainting couch.
[Crid:] I've concluded that he was a much better speaker and debater than writer.
I have two or three books of his collected essays, and his autobiography. His depth and breadth of knowledge was practically incomprehensible, and his style nearly unsurpassed in my lifetime.
Since your readerage may vary, IMHO, of course.
Jeff Guinn
at January 15, 2014 2:11 AM
He stated that he drove himself into work at that stage of their life primarily because he was marking time until the children were old enough to hold a conversation. This is hardly the typical response to fatherhood and he acknowledges as much.
Posted by: Artemis at January 14, 2014 1:24 AM
___________________________________
It may be more typical than you think. I don't know when this New Yorker cartoon is from (I read about it in the new Michael Kimmel book), but in it, a young executive is asking his boss: "My wife is about to have a baby, so could you arrange for me to work late for the next 18 years?"
_________________________________
A woman shouldn't have to work? That was only ever a case for the rich. Poor women like poor men have always worked. One way or another.
Posted by: Matt at January 14, 2014 11:54 AM
___________________________
Exactly. Any sensible person should know that. Miss Manners, too, has emphasized that part of history more than once. Bottom line: You can never be sure you won't be poor someday or that your loving spouse won't get hit by a car and become a quadriplegic (or get cancer), so never assume it's OK to let your marketable skills wither. THAT'S what feminists have tried to emphasize; even women who have always wanted to be housewives cannot prevent such disasters, and they have to acknowledge that. Besides, plenty of men just don't WANT stay-at-home wives these days - it puts too much of a burden on the men.
(I haven't watched the video yet.)
According to one source, even in Iran, they don't want upper-middle-class women to be SAHMs. Also, quote:
"There are two species of Iranian dowry:
#1. Household goods: carpets, furniture, DVD player, whatever
#2. Professional degree: medicine, law, engineering, whatever
"The idea behind #2 is that an engineer need not bring fancy furniture into the new family when she's already bringing the high social status and future earnings of her tenure-track career."
lenona
at January 15, 2014 6:41 AM
> His depth and breadth of knowledge was
> practically incomprehensible, and his
> style nearly unsurpassed in my lifetime.
When reading with an ear for sarcasm, you seem to agree with me...
I recently took another crack at his memoir, and it's essentially impenetrable. Anecdotes that flew briskly off his tongue just plod and burp and stain the page listlessly.
He's changed my mind on important things with his writing (e.g. cap punishment) but he should be glad he did so on the first pass.
#1. Household goods: carpets, furniture, DVD player, whatever
#2. Professional degree: medicine, law, engineering, whatever
"The idea behind #2 is that an engineer need not bring fancy furniture into the new family when she's already bringing the high social status and future earnings of her tenure-track career."
Posted by: lenona at January 15, 2014 6:41 AM
Reminds me of my husbands time in engineering school. There was an Iranian woman who was a senior in engineering and she was approaching American male engineering students in the hallway, asking them point blank if they were interested in getting married so she would not have to return to Iran.
I guess she didn't have time to sit around the student union waiting for some guy to chat her up, and select for sexual combustibility.
I hope she found one.
Isab
at January 15, 2014 7:14 PM
lenona Says:
"It may be more typical than you think. I don't know when this New Yorker cartoon is from (I read about it in the new Michael Kimmel book), but in it, a young executive is asking his boss: "My wife is about to have a baby, so could you arrange for me to work late for the next 18 years?"
Out of curiosity, what percentage of fathers do you believe actively try to remain uninvolved in the raising of their children until they are old enough to hold a conversation?
I remain unconvinced that this is typical (i.e. representative of fathers in general).
Artemis
at January 16, 2014 4:31 AM
OK, "typical" may have been the wrong word. After all, that implies we're talking about the majority. "Common" may make more sense. (But only if we're talking about a secret fantasy on the part of the fathers - not someone who actually refuses to be around his kids until they're at least four.)
Even so, this reminds me of what journalist/humorist Jane Walmsley wrote in "Brit-Think, Ameri-Think":
"Years ago, Victorian (British) parents did not formally meet their children until they'd reached seventeen. The legacy of this system remains in many households."
On the flip side, parents of either sex should NOT feel compelled to be their kids' constant playmate. While it's true that kids very much need regular playtimes with PEERS, they also need to learn to entertain themselves whenever necessary - and not with video games! Why do so many educated parents fail to realize that last part? Not to mention that parents can do chores together with kids and call that quality time, because teaching kids to work without complaining IS quality time. So is reading aloud, of course - though, sourpuss that I am, I suspect that the publishers of Little Golden Books (mostly brain-dead pablum, for those who don't remember) are heavily to blame for all the middling parents out there who hate reading to their preschoolers; they can't grasp that they have no obligation to buy such books just because they're popular. Why not read Aesop's Fables instead?
lenona
at January 16, 2014 7:26 AM
And keep in mind that what Walmsley said is pretty close to how humorist P.G. Wodehouse (1881-1975) grew up. From Wikipedia:
"When he was just three years old, Wodehouse was brought back to Britain and placed in the care of a nanny. He attended various boarding schools and, between the ages of three and 15 years, saw his parents for barely six months in total."
lenona
at January 16, 2014 1:41 PM
Lenona,
The lifestyle you are talking about where children are essentially wet nursed from birth,raised by nanny's, educated in boarding schools and only interacted with their parents at special social events wasn't in any way common from a historical perspective.
That was the lifestyle of aristocrats and the extremely wealthy, which almost by definition would constitute a very small percentage of the overall population.
I find that when people discuss historical times there is a tendency to normalize the experiences of the financially elite. Average parents simply couldn't afford to send their children away to boarding schools for a decade (even if they wanted to).
Artemis
at January 17, 2014 2:24 AM
Yes, well, middle- and working-class people have often tried to imitate the rich in any way they could (though in the case of the Brits, I'm guessing the POOR were taught not to "ape their betters"), even if it was just a few items of food and clothing. Not to mention certain manners, for better or for worse. Not being able to afford boarding school for one's kids wouldn't necessarily mean not copying other upper-class parenting styles - whether it was good for the kids or not.
(I have to wonder if those rich parents who chose to do what Wodehouse's parents did ever WANTED to be parents in the first place - it may have been their way of saying "we love you enough to give you a good education, but heaven forbid we should have to be around you regularly and do the drudge work of RAISING you. If we'd had real birth control available, we'd never have had you.")
And regarding my first paragraph:
From the "Adrian Mole" diaries (Adrian is in his mid-teens, in the early 1980s):
(Adrian is always reading and one day brings home Friedrich Engels' 1844 "The Condition of the Working Class in England." Dad sees him reading it.)
" 'He said: "I don't want that Commie rubbish in the house.'
"I said, 'It's about the class you came from yourself.'
"My father said, 'I have worked and slaved and fought to join the middle classes, Adrian, and now I'm here I don't want my son admiring proles and revolutionaries.'
"He is deluding himself if he thinks he has joined the middle classes. He still puts HP sauce on his toast."
lenona
at January 17, 2014 9:33 AM
Haha, classic adorable Hitchens. Answering to the point, not apologizing for his views, and not rushing off to say the flip side of his argument which is "Men can work if they want to but they don't have to!". The interviewer "gave him one last chance" to regret his words but he simply declined.
Love how he asks "that was *ist*, wasn't it?" when the interviewer called him "sexist". "You had to say *ist*... thanks a lot".
Well... The woman was lookin' for a fight. You can see the corners of his mouth torquing, Ekman-style, throughout the clip.
In the most literal hearing I could take, the host said it's "not true" that a mother could 'stay home if she wanted to.' Categorically; never. That's silly, but...
After looking up a few things for a comment about Hitchens the other night, I've concluded that he was a much better speaker and debater than writer. (He was certainly a brilliant reader, too.)
This was a talk-show professional, giving 'em what they wanted.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 13, 2014 10:23 PM
Christopher Hitchens did an interview at the New York public library that is relevant here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39k-u_kJ2ZM
To get a sense of how he viewed himself as a father one should watch from around the 15 minute mark (although the entire interview is interesting and worthwhile).
He believed that he was an exceptionally poor father during the infant stages of his children's development (this is his own description, not mine). He stated that he drove himself into work at that stage of their life primarily because he was marking time until the children were old enough to hold a conversation. This is hardly the typical response to fatherhood and he acknowledges as much.
As a result it is difficult to know for sure just how universal/general his stance is on this issue is. It seems like if he had it all to do over again he would have chosen to be more involved as a father.
Falling short in this area of his life was apparently one of his great regrets.
Artemis at January 14, 2014 1:24 AM
Yeah... It's funny how many men I've admired have been so theatrically blunt about that. In retrospect, I mean.
Remember that Indy Jones movie? "You left, just as you were becoming interesting…"
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 14, 2014 2:24 AM
I'm genuinely confused. What is wrong with saying Women can work if they want to but they don't have to?
Brian at January 14, 2014 7:55 AM
As with many indignant folks, I don't think she was really listening to what he said.
Now, it could also be that he has said similar things in the past that were sexist; but, I don't see it this time.
So, she simply is carrying a bit of baggage there which is keeping her from truly listening.
Charles at January 14, 2014 8:24 AM
I'm genuinely confused. What is wrong with saying Women can work if they want to but they don't have to?
This was my reaction also, although I'm wondering if her response wasn't more because it sounds like he is saying that if she doesn't want to work after having a baby, her husband (or at least the father of the baby) should work and take care of her and the child.
If we women allow men to take care of us, why, we're allowing the patriarchy to continue. If we choose not to work, and our husbands choose to support us, then we are all, both men and women, but especially women, dumber than cows. This goes doubly if we've had children. Because *there is nothing better for a child than to see their single mother struggle to support herself and the child, without any help from a father.* /sarc
*This is a sentiment I've picked up on from some feminist acquaintances. I do not know that it has ever been stated outright, or if is an "accepted" pillar of feminism.
Jazzhands at January 14, 2014 9:15 AM
I enjoyed the full-length interview - thanks for the link and the tip about skipping the first 15.
Michelle at January 14, 2014 10:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/01/14/christopher_hit_2.html#comment-4199079">comment from BrianI'm genuinely confused. What is wrong with saying Women can work if they want to but they don't have to?
This is the sort of horrible discrimination that allows a woman to have a writing or painting career without all the economic suffering.
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2014 11:54 AM
A woman shouldn't have to work? That was only ever a case for the rich. Poor women like poor men have always worked. One way or another.
Matt at January 14, 2014 11:54 AM
Hey, Crid - are a mother and father still better parents than a pair of homosexuals if the mother is a feminist?
Radwaste at January 14, 2014 3:55 PM
"This is hardly the typical response to fatherhood"
I know for myself I was waiting around until he was old enough to learn how to throw a spiral. Just sort of keeping the couch warm until he needed more than what mom had to offer.
My modern day middle class version of Hitchens' sentiment would be, "no mother of my child will get less than three months off for maternity leave, unless of course she wants to go back to work earlier." A little more realistic for people who want to own a house out west and all the trappings, which generally takes two incomes.
smurfy at January 14, 2014 5:11 PM
> are a mother and father still better parents
> than a pair of homosexuals if the mother is
> a feminist?
What's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father.
We, especially Stateside, have seen that the most loving fathers are those who select & woo brassy, clear-headed women as mothers for their children; and that such women tend to be feminists, just as they're leading lights in so many social realms, just as are the fathers themselves; and that the resulting families outperform historical norms in all measures of kindness, achievement, and charity.
So that would be "Yes."
It's very important that you continue to consult with me on such matters... Good going, Raddy.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 14, 2014 6:51 PM
I am totally pleased to validate your opinions, dear - even in this case, in which I initially assumed that there was a level of feminism which would prove toxic to children.
Radwaste at January 14, 2014 11:17 PM
Muffin, the hazard is the level of stupidity to which a child might be exposed...
…Or did you regard the television hostess above as a feminist example?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 15, 2014 12:49 AM
The hostess -- heaven help me if that was sexist -- is endlessly immune to the bloody obvious: in Hitchens view, women as mothers are so important that they should not dissipate themselves in wage labor if they choose otherwise.
Of course, that sort of sentiment absolutely requires the fainting couch.
I have two or three books of his collected essays, and his autobiography. His depth and breadth of knowledge was practically incomprehensible, and his style nearly unsurpassed in my lifetime.
Since your readerage may vary, IMHO, of course.
Jeff Guinn at January 15, 2014 2:11 AM
He stated that he drove himself into work at that stage of their life primarily because he was marking time until the children were old enough to hold a conversation. This is hardly the typical response to fatherhood and he acknowledges as much.
Posted by: Artemis at January 14, 2014 1:24 AM
___________________________________
It may be more typical than you think. I don't know when this New Yorker cartoon is from (I read about it in the new Michael Kimmel book), but in it, a young executive is asking his boss: "My wife is about to have a baby, so could you arrange for me to work late for the next 18 years?"
_________________________________
A woman shouldn't have to work? That was only ever a case for the rich. Poor women like poor men have always worked. One way or another.
Posted by: Matt at January 14, 2014 11:54 AM
___________________________
Exactly. Any sensible person should know that. Miss Manners, too, has emphasized that part of history more than once. Bottom line: You can never be sure you won't be poor someday or that your loving spouse won't get hit by a car and become a quadriplegic (or get cancer), so never assume it's OK to let your marketable skills wither. THAT'S what feminists have tried to emphasize; even women who have always wanted to be housewives cannot prevent such disasters, and they have to acknowledge that. Besides, plenty of men just don't WANT stay-at-home wives these days - it puts too much of a burden on the men.
(I haven't watched the video yet.)
According to one source, even in Iran, they don't want upper-middle-class women to be SAHMs. Also, quote:
"There are two species of Iranian dowry:
#1. Household goods: carpets, furniture, DVD player, whatever
#2. Professional degree: medicine, law, engineering, whatever
"The idea behind #2 is that an engineer need not bring fancy furniture into the new family when she's already bringing the high social status and future earnings of her tenure-track career."
lenona at January 15, 2014 6:41 AM
> His depth and breadth of knowledge was
> practically incomprehensible, and his
> style nearly unsurpassed in my lifetime.
When reading with an ear for sarcasm, you seem to agree with me...
I recently took another crack at his memoir, and it's essentially impenetrable. Anecdotes that flew briskly off his tongue just plod and burp and stain the page listlessly.
He's changed my mind on important things with his writing (e.g. cap punishment) but he should be glad he did so on the first pass.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 15, 2014 10:10 AM
There are two species of Iranian dowry:
#1. Household goods: carpets, furniture, DVD player, whatever
#2. Professional degree: medicine, law, engineering, whatever
"The idea behind #2 is that an engineer need not bring fancy furniture into the new family when she's already bringing the high social status and future earnings of her tenure-track career."
Posted by: lenona at January 15, 2014 6:41 AM
Reminds me of my husbands time in engineering school. There was an Iranian woman who was a senior in engineering and she was approaching American male engineering students in the hallway, asking them point blank if they were interested in getting married so she would not have to return to Iran.
I guess she didn't have time to sit around the student union waiting for some guy to chat her up, and select for sexual combustibility.
I hope she found one.
Isab at January 15, 2014 7:14 PM
lenona Says:
"It may be more typical than you think. I don't know when this New Yorker cartoon is from (I read about it in the new Michael Kimmel book), but in it, a young executive is asking his boss: "My wife is about to have a baby, so could you arrange for me to work late for the next 18 years?"
Out of curiosity, what percentage of fathers do you believe actively try to remain uninvolved in the raising of their children until they are old enough to hold a conversation?
I remain unconvinced that this is typical (i.e. representative of fathers in general).
Artemis at January 16, 2014 4:31 AM
OK, "typical" may have been the wrong word. After all, that implies we're talking about the majority. "Common" may make more sense. (But only if we're talking about a secret fantasy on the part of the fathers - not someone who actually refuses to be around his kids until they're at least four.)
Even so, this reminds me of what journalist/humorist Jane Walmsley wrote in "Brit-Think, Ameri-Think":
"Years ago, Victorian (British) parents did not formally meet their children until they'd reached seventeen. The legacy of this system remains in many households."
On the flip side, parents of either sex should NOT feel compelled to be their kids' constant playmate. While it's true that kids very much need regular playtimes with PEERS, they also need to learn to entertain themselves whenever necessary - and not with video games! Why do so many educated parents fail to realize that last part? Not to mention that parents can do chores together with kids and call that quality time, because teaching kids to work without complaining IS quality time. So is reading aloud, of course - though, sourpuss that I am, I suspect that the publishers of Little Golden Books (mostly brain-dead pablum, for those who don't remember) are heavily to blame for all the middling parents out there who hate reading to their preschoolers; they can't grasp that they have no obligation to buy such books just because they're popular. Why not read Aesop's Fables instead?
lenona at January 16, 2014 7:26 AM
And keep in mind that what Walmsley said is pretty close to how humorist P.G. Wodehouse (1881-1975) grew up. From Wikipedia:
"When he was just three years old, Wodehouse was brought back to Britain and placed in the care of a nanny. He attended various boarding schools and, between the ages of three and 15 years, saw his parents for barely six months in total."
lenona at January 16, 2014 1:41 PM
Lenona,
The lifestyle you are talking about where children are essentially wet nursed from birth,raised by nanny's, educated in boarding schools and only interacted with their parents at special social events wasn't in any way common from a historical perspective.
That was the lifestyle of aristocrats and the extremely wealthy, which almost by definition would constitute a very small percentage of the overall population.
I find that when people discuss historical times there is a tendency to normalize the experiences of the financially elite. Average parents simply couldn't afford to send their children away to boarding schools for a decade (even if they wanted to).
Artemis at January 17, 2014 2:24 AM
Yes, well, middle- and working-class people have often tried to imitate the rich in any way they could (though in the case of the Brits, I'm guessing the POOR were taught not to "ape their betters"), even if it was just a few items of food and clothing. Not to mention certain manners, for better or for worse. Not being able to afford boarding school for one's kids wouldn't necessarily mean not copying other upper-class parenting styles - whether it was good for the kids or not.
(I have to wonder if those rich parents who chose to do what Wodehouse's parents did ever WANTED to be parents in the first place - it may have been their way of saying "we love you enough to give you a good education, but heaven forbid we should have to be around you regularly and do the drudge work of RAISING you. If we'd had real birth control available, we'd never have had you.")
And regarding my first paragraph:
From the "Adrian Mole" diaries (Adrian is in his mid-teens, in the early 1980s):
(Adrian is always reading and one day brings home Friedrich Engels' 1844 "The Condition of the Working Class in England." Dad sees him reading it.)
" 'He said: "I don't want that Commie rubbish in the house.'
"I said, 'It's about the class you came from yourself.'
"My father said, 'I have worked and slaved and fought to join the middle classes, Adrian, and now I'm here I don't want my son admiring proles and revolutionaries.'
"He is deluding himself if he thinks he has joined the middle classes. He still puts HP sauce on his toast."
lenona at January 17, 2014 9:33 AM
Haha, classic adorable Hitchens. Answering to the point, not apologizing for his views, and not rushing off to say the flip side of his argument which is "Men can work if they want to but they don't have to!". The interviewer "gave him one last chance" to regret his words but he simply declined.
Love how he asks "that was *ist*, wasn't it?" when the interviewer called him "sexist". "You had to say *ist*... thanks a lot".
Swapnaa at October 13, 2014 8:29 PM
Leave a comment