Women "Genetically" Wired for Housework?

Alan Franks must've lost a bet. Why else would the junior economics and business major at Mercer University's Stetson School of Business and Economics send the op ed, Housewife economics keep women at home for publication in today's Telegraph? (Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.) This is the editorial equivalent of having to wear your underwear on the outside of your pants at the formal. I suspect that women are going to be giving him hell about this for the foreseeable future.

Franks makes the argument that simple "laws" of economic make it more sensible for women to do the housework while men bring home the bacon. Read the whole piece, but be prepared to pick your jaw up off the floor, several times. As I read it, I initially thought that it was a witty, tongue-in-cheek piece, but no, I think the poor guy really means it. Here are a couple of money quotes:

Genetically, women are more apt to perform longer, less intense tasks, whereas men are genetically programmed to perform shorter, more intense tasks. But beyond genetical and sociological reasons, there is an underlying economic theme that supports the notion that a woman contributes more to society by performing duties that we stereotypically view as "housewife" activities.

.....

In the arena of home chores, the typical wife gives up less effort than the husband would in performing basic home activities. Whereas it takes an equal effort from both the husband and wife to bring in a supportive income, the man would have to put forth much more energy than the wife to accomplish the same home chores with the same quality. Simply put, a woman's place may well be in the home, but not because the male is better at bringing in a supportive income. Rather, wives often find themselves at home because of the economic laws of competitive and comparative advantage. Housewives around the world, smile, because you are queen for a good reason.

If you ask me, poor Alan is going to an awful lot of trouble to avoid washing the dishes. There's some good news for him though, I sure that Albert Mohler will have a job for him once he graduates.

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, my God! I Agree With Albert Mohler

What a nightmare this election must be for "evangelical voters." More than once, I have written here about some ridiculous thing Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has said. Today, I find myself sort of agreeing with at least one of his statements:

If a candidate cannot keep and honor marital vows, why should voters believe that he or she would show greater fealty to an oath of office?

Perhaps Dr. Mohler will join me in supporting John Edwards, fellow Christian who has been married, happily, to the same women for 30 years.

In Mohler's further assessment of the field, he expresses what must be keeping the religious right up at night:

Will the 2008 presidential race change this landscape? The three leading Democratic contenders are all married to their first spouses (though the Clinton marriage must be considered a thing unto itself -- in any event the public is hardly unaware of the complications.)

On the Republican side, the picture is very different. John McCain has been married twice, as has Fred Thompson. Both divorced their first wives and married younger women. In McCain's case, the divorce and remarriage took place many years ago. Thompson's is more recent. Meanwhile, Rudolph Giuliani is on his third marriage and the circumstances of his second divorce are certain to raise particular concerns, as is the fact that he lived for at least some time with a gay couple while between marriages. Did he think New York was in France?

Add to this the fact that Mr. Giuliani's adult son is, or at least has been, ardently opposed to his candidacy and it becomes clear that Americans are waking up to a new political culture. Among the three leading Republican candidates, only Mitt Romney presents a picture of marital fidelity, with his wife and five adult sons all eagerly supportive of his candidacy. Evangelical voters, who in recent cycles have seen the Republican Party as the party of family values, are left wondering what happened to the family values of its leading candidates and why the only leading candidate that represents the right family and marriage profile is a Mormon.

Sphere: Related Content

Breeding the Kingdom?

Be very careful when taking a specious argument to its logical conclusion. Albert Mohler, who is the President of Southern Seminary, is fixated on the idea that, in order to keep the denomination's pews, and presumably coffers, full, Southern Baptists need to get busy and breed. Mohler uses this as an argument against choice and for women being pregnant, submissive homemakers. I've always thought Mohler's argument was creepy, insulting and demeaning to women, but today I came across a new wrinkle that is just plain scary.

I was reading a post by Bob Allen over at Ethics Daily about Mohler's argument that Christians (like his fellow Baptist Al Gore) should be more concerned about saving souls than saving the Earth. The planet was given to humans to dominate and is destined to be destroyed by fire any old way, so why bother?

I was going to post on that nonsense and went over to Mohler's blog to read the post Allen referenced, and I came across this shocking entry: Falling Birthrates, Empty Cribs and Collapsing World Views. Holy cow. Mohler reflects on the work of Steve Ozment who has written about the growth of the Muslim population in Germany. Ozment opines:

In Germany's large Muslim communities, speaking German and mastering the German Basic Law are proving to be effective tools not only for immigrant assimilation to German culture, but also for the ascendancy of immigrant culture over German. With the continuing growth of these communities, and the construction of mammoth mosques within them, will come increasing demands by the inhabitants to govern by sharia law rather than by German Basic Law.

And, Mohler elaborates:

This leads to two related developments. First, these secular worldviews do not encourage large families. Second, this weakening of the family among non-Muslims comes as immigrant Muslims re-assert their commitment to the traditional family and multiple children. An Islamic domination of the culture is just a matter of time.

"Immigrant assimilation" - "Ascendancy of immigrant culture" - "Encourage large families" What????? Where have I heard this argument before?

I half-expected Mohler to end his piece with a proposal to bring back the Mother's Cross.
Mohler seems to be making the dangerous argument that Christians need to out-breed Muslims. The inference is that Christian babies are more desirable than Muslim babies. And that is some scary theology. I, for one, don't think that we can breed our way into the Kingdom.

Sphere: Related Content