Mister Mom

As a man who is the homemaking arm of his marriage (what I whimsically call a "house-spouse"), I can't avoid a feeling a faint annoyance about the new NBC program, Mister Mom. More than that, though, I feel a bit of bewilderment and wonder at the extent of cultural stratification, and the frequency of my wife's and my situation relative to that portrayed in the show. Sure, no one in her family or mine is in a marriage in which the wife works and the husband stays at home, but we know several other couples -- including that of our pediatrician and our next-door neighbors -- that are. More broadly, I don't know any husband in my generation who is helpless when he has to take care of the house and the kids. To be honest, I'm not anywhere near as effective or efficient a homemaker as my mom was: too many distractions (this blog, exhibit A). But I don't think advertisers would buy time for a half-hour of watching me tend to the home.

So I'm left to marvel at the fact that somebody at NBC thinks that a show portraying the stereotypical image of a husband who, gee whiz, never realized how much work it was to keep house or tend the children would have mass appeal. Golly, is Mattel going to buy time to advertize its Teen Talk Barbie (remember, "math is hard") during the program? Maybe some of the wives could dress up as men and infiltrate the lodges of their husbands' fraternal organizations -- wouldn't that be a hoot? For those wondering, incidentally, the cinematic Mr. Mom, starring Michael Keaton, came out in 1983. A television movie, Wait Till Your Mother Gets Home!, came out the same year. Teen Talk Barbie was introduced in 1994, and it was highly controversial. The premise of the new NBC show seems about as fresh and relevant as a mullet.

Even on the nanny shows (Nanny 911, Supernanny), most of the couples seem to divide the housework and childrearing at least to some extent other than the grilling-on-Sundays, wait-till-your-father-gets-home demarcations. Where the hell are these husbands who are sufficiently helpless to provide entertainment value?

A prediction on John G. Roberts

With the announcement today of John G. Roberts' nomination to the vacant Supreme Court seat, I have a prediction -- note that this is predicated on his appointment, which I view as highly probable. I have no illusions that my expectation here is novel or unique. So here it is.

Within a year, one or more states will pass legislation outright banning abortion. An appeal against one shall go all the way to the Supreme Court, which last ruled on such a case in 2000 (Stenberg v. Carhart), deciding 5-4 against Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban (O'Connor was in the majority). The Supreme Court will uphold the law, 5-4 (with Roberts in the majority), and every red state in the union will pass laws against abortion, while most if not all blue states will narrowly defeat such legislation. Given that I doubt that Republicans'll maintain their Congressional majority in 2006, I don't think a federal law shall follow. Then again, I could be wrong about that, so if I turn out to be, I think it almost certain that a federal law shall pass, following revision of the Senate's cloture rules by the majority Republicans.

So then what? Those wealthy enough will fly to Europe, as they did before 1973, so there may suddenly be executive, if not legislative, action to bring about surveillance of women travelling abroad, or attempts to get medical records of facilities in European countries that perform the operation. Those not wealthy enough for that trip can go to Canada or Mexico, leading to border checks, maybe, or similar pressure on the Mexican and Canadian governments. Not that I think any of those countries'll cave, but this administration'll (and that of a 2008 Republican president elect) try to do it. Those who lack the money even for a road trip will probably find the sorts of services available in the 1960s, plus smuggled RU-486 or whatever.

The effects? I don't know: I just thought I'd put this out there. More births to single mothers? Unclear: the rates of out-of-wedlock births rose from 1950 to 1994 (remember that abortions have been legal since 1973), dropping slightly until 2002 (I haven't seen any data on more recent years --the percentage of unwed births in 2002 was 4.36% of all births, versus 1.41% in 1950 and 4.69% in 1994). More injury and/or fatality from "back-alley abortions"? Also unclear. More litigations? Undoubtedly: of folks from doctors and "doctors", pharmacists and "pharmacists", and chauffeurs to women themselves. And more snooping and other inappropriate expressions of government power from the feds. At least until the Democrats regain control of the legislature and, using the revised cloture rules, ram through a repeal of the federal law, maybe even overriding a veto if a Republican is in the White House.

At this point, I'll restate my own position on abortion. Given that:
1) individuals have the right to only such sovereignty over self and property that they can exercise and sustain without depriving another of such, and it is immoral to use force, the threat thereof, or deception to deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property;
2) a fetus, while still a human, cannot effectively sustain his or her sovereignty without depriving the mother of nutrients, health, and even life in some circumstances; using the violence that parasites use against their hosts to take these resources;
3) unlike other dependent individuals, like children, mentally-retarded/developmentally-disabled (MRDD) individuals, and demented seniors, a fetus can be sustained only by his or her mother, and no other individual can assume that role during the pregnancy; removal of the fetus from the womb of an unwilling mother, unlike the removal of a child from a neglectful or abusive home or the care of a senior in a long-term care facility, kills the fetus;

it is an illegitimate expression of government power to use force to compel a mother to sacrifice even one calorie or one minute to sustain the life of the infant in the womb. I recognize that the mother cannot exercise sovereignty over her body in this case without without depriving the fetus of life, but the fetus doesn't have the unqualified or absolute right to life anymore than an individual has the right to steal from another to sustain his life.

It's problematic at best to have the government dictate medical procedures or pharmaceuticals, or to presume on the basis of anything other than age that a person is not competent to make a decision regarding a medical procedure or pharmaceutical. That may be enough to prevent abortions for minors, given that abortions are medical procedures, and minors cannot give consent for medical procedures: they cannot be held culpable for a self-destructive decision. But that wouldn't apply outside the jurisdiction of the government body in question.

But try telling that to Bush, DeLay, or Roberts. . . .