Has feminism contributed to the breakdown of family life?

By KIMBERLEY HIBBERT

MANY people have thought as much, but two years ago British politician Diane Abbott created some controversy by suggesting that feminism has played a part in the breakdown of the family, leading to serious social problems.

Abbott, a feminist, told The Guardian, UK that “as a feminist, perhaps we have been ambivalent about families”, something Bishop Dr Alvin Bailey, president of the Jamaica Evangelical Alliance, says he understands.

“In situations where feminism is prominent, it is often anti-men and consequently equates to a kind of structure, dominance and leadership, which are the things the males would bring forth from the union, and feminism has undermined that,” Dr Bailey told All Woman.

He said the analogy that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, used by some feminists and alluded to by Abbott, suggests that a woman can be completely and absolutely independent without a man in her life.

But he explained that most of the functions of a woman are complemented by men and that’s how God intended it to be.

“If you are talking about it in the context of the family, then the male complementing the female in her role as a mother and a caregiver is significantly undermined with his absence,” said Dr Bailey, who is also principal of Jamaica CAUSE (Churches Action Uniting Society for Emancipation), a local church group that, among other things, urges Jamaicans to stand up for a strong and healthy family structure.

“I’m not anti-feminist,” he maintained. “But the overt proponent of these philosophies sometimes breaks down traditional and healthy institutions that we need for healthy families and healthy individuals.”

Dr Bailey said feminism has the potential to create dysfunction, especially for the children.

“So if you’re to take a woman who plays the traditional role alone, and a woman who plays the feminist role alone, the child coming out of the home that is overtly feminine is more likely to be a dysfunctional child and the woman who plays the traditional role alone is more likely to have a well-rounded child,” he said.

“Feminists seem to scoff at the traditional role of a woman and consider it enslavement, and the traditional role and function of a woman in a family is that she will provide a healthy child and a healthy family. I’m not giving any kind of credibility to feminism especially in its overt form which undermines the traditional role of the woman in the home or the involvement of the man or male in the family. It undermines the role of the man.”

He made it clear that he supports women who stand up and oppose the negative treatment and perception of other women, but anything that undermines the role of the male in the family will lead to dysfunctionality as children will grow up and not respect the role of the male in their development.

Educator Antarrio Clarke concurred that feminist tendencies have emphasised the independence of women to the extent that many women have departed from their roles as women and mothers within family structures.

“The career woman is not necessarily the best mother, simply because there might not be a grey area that allows her to juggle career and family,” Clarke explained.

“In the case of Jamaica there are families that have the children calling the helper mama, aunty or mummy while the career woman is called by her first name.”

Clarke noted that the feminist outlook that tells women they don’t need the support of men is also destructive.

“It cannot be ideal for women, including those in lesbian relationships, to raise children on their own. No woman can father a child, and no man can mother children. The natural order of creation at all levels, even in the animal kingdom, shows different roles that are combined for the best results. It is often said that men and women are wired differently, and as such rewiring through feminism is dangerous and destined to destroy core family functions.”

But clinical psychologist Dr Pearnel Bell said it was because of some of the issues affecting women as a result of being oppressed by the system that feminists have said they can play many of the roles in their families.

“Women’s roles decades ago were clearly defined. Even here in Jamaica, women were not seen back then as the people who would be the breadwinners of the family. They were seen more in a supportive way to the men where they would wash and do the more domesticated roles while the man was the major breadwinner,” she said.

She admitted that where feminism says that the woman’s role is not purely domestic, this will create and present difficulties, because the kind of quality care and attention that was given to children before would not be fully maintained.

“In a situation where women are now outside of the home and are also the major breadwinners, and the fact that many of the homes have changed in terms of single family and the mother becoming the father, mother and breadwinner, it could compromise the value and quality of childcare,” she said.

“I’m not saying women should go back to that domesticated way of life, but within the mix of trying to balance all of the things, the importance of family should be paramount.”

Bell maintained that if feminism means that the role of a man in the life of his family is going to be negated, then it cannot be a good thing.

“If there is a radical side to it that says we are not submitting to the authority of men, it could have some negative impact, because there needs to be somebody who is leading in the family, and while the leader of the household doesn’t need somebody who is an authoritarian, it needs someone in the lead to collaborate and make decisions,” she said.