Berry relied on his wife to type his essays. Instead of expressing gratitude for his wife’s labors, he accused his feminist critics of a weak argument, and said that he preferred an old-fashioned marriage to the modern one of “two successful careerists in the same bed, and on the other hand a sort of private political system in which rig…
Berry relied on his wife to type his essays. Instead of expressing gratitude for his wife’s labors, he accused his feminist critics of a weak argument, and said that he preferred an old-fashioned marriage to the modern one of “two successful careerists in the same bed, and on the other hand a sort of private political system in which rights and interests must be constantly asserted and defended.”
I enjoy many of his essays, but his stance against abortion and his insistence that national laws are worthless compared to community-based norms seem to me now to feed into the rural, tradwife libertarianism that has contributed to where we are now. His theories are sound, but his solutions are impractical for the world we live in.
Concerned about egg prices? Just get your own backyard chickens! (Bird flu be damned.)
He is not some otherwise globalist liberal who was made some accidental error on and opted for the rural viewpoint on some small front. He is an advocate for the rural, plain and simple.
> Concerned about egg prices? Just get your own backyard chickens! (Bird flu be damned.)
Bird flu would be nigh impossible to spread if people opted for backyard chickens. It's the mass production of eggs, and the close promixity of tens of thousands of chickens in huge units, plus the subsequent remore shipping of eggs, that makes it possible to spread and thrive.
You miss my point. Emphasis is on libertarian tradwife-ism. The reason why family farms are failing isn't that they're not working hard enough in community. They're failing because the federal government has failed to reign in the excesses of our modern economy. No amount of supporting each other in community will make up for environmental regulations on PFAS, for example.
Again, lots of amazing ideas. Very inspirational, but definitely some blind spots.
It's not environmental regulations or PFAS. It's the lack of antitrust enforcement that allowed a handful of companies to roll up all the grain processing, all the meat processing, all the egg processing and so on. Those big corporations set the terms under which all smaller farmers have to operate unless they go artisanal which takes a whole other set of skills. Every year, they tighten the screws. Farmers used to be independent businessmen. Now, they're gig workers for megacorps. Try to fight them, and you're blacklisted. Of course, the they'll blame pronouns in the schools or something.
You're both right, and both wrong. Recently, I've been using AI to look at ways in which the European farmers have been shafted. It's partially because I dislike the unfairness of governments compulsory purchasing (our equivalent of eminent domain) at levels substantially below market value (before planning uplift). Most agricultural areas outside Europe and the US enjoy a cost advantage of between 20% and 100% due to agricultural regulations imposed by government. The rate depends upon the type of agricultural good produced and the level of compensatory subsides.
This realisation makes a mockery of economists who argue for the Doha Round. In almost every instance, if farmers in Europe and America were able to freely compete against the rest of the world, free from both unnecessary regulations and subsidies, they would literally wipe out the rest of the world in any area the rest of the world was forced to compete.
The other problem is that the regulatory cost burdens apply internally as well and many of the costs can be somewhat eliminated at scale. Kaleberg is also correct though. Almost every example of animal contagion in farming has been caused by operating as scale. With Mad Cow in the UK, not a single case was ever detected within either organic or prime beef herds- but they were slaughtered nonetheless, due to bureaucracy.
The other consequence is that small farms tend to be value farmers. With the Labour Party's punitive inheritance tax raid on small farms paired with a desire to steal their land at below market rates for housebuilding, Labour won't significantly be hitting volume. None of the volume suppliers are vulnerable to inheritance tax, because they're all corporations, and almost all of the wealth of the families which shifted their farms to the corporate model has long since been offshored.
But the farmers who will be hit will be the value farmers- the small farmers who grow or rear outside the conventional mass production model. Durum wheat and Einkorn. Higher quality watercress and other speciality crops. Angus beef and orchard pig. Shetland, Wensleydale, British Merino, and UK Alpaca sheep reared for speciality wools. It's basically anything supplied for speciality markets, artisanal or higher quality restaurants. The UKs cheese landscape will be particularly hard hit.
An interesting example of the flaws of operating at scale relates to Coleman's Mustard. They spent decades selecting for a branded taste to their mustard. Unfortunately, such a selective criteria for a specific crop also has vulnerabilities. When a particular form of contagion hit, the entire crop was wiped out in the UK. Luckily, they had an extensive seed bank based in Norwich. They were able to reconstruct their signature flavour by breeding from previous generations of mustard seed, but with the vulnerability selectively bred out of the crop.
The other issue is land management. Smaller farms tend to be more flexible, innovative and less ruled by accountants. They are willing to try cover crops, regenerative farming, break crops and 'no till' systems. One local farmer operates in collaboration with a local wildlife trust and university. He has a map for insect populations (important for native bird species) and plans his crops accordingly. The corporates just pay consultants for the cheapest option available at scale, to follow the letter of the regulation, whilst paying no heed whatsoever to the underlying intention.
Basically, government has a nasty habit of creating exploits for shrewd investors willing to operate both at scale and amorally. In both Britain and America the message to small farmers is clear- go big, or go home (and adopt the soulless corporate model in the process). The best models for regulators tends to be regulators willing to operate in good faith, without deference to a legalistic or rules-based format set in stone, and with broad discretionary powers. Unfortunately bureaucracies loathe such systems, because they require promotions be merit-based, particularly in terms of knowledge and experience- anathema to the ideologically driven or political tribes.
I'm not fond of the current agricultural system, but I've learned to live with it. I know a number of local farmers who sell artisanal products, but this is just a luxury I can afford. Modern industrial farming isn't going to go away, not with half the population dependent on industrial nitrogen for survival. We'd have to accept a dramatic plunge in population along with a collapse in living standards. (Granted, we might have to accept that anyway.) We can make the system work better, but that just means more bureaucracy and regulation. I don't believe in magic. I've seen all too much havoc released in the name of deregulation.
Sure, I broadly agree with you. Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution are unjustly maligned, given that he generally features in the top 10 list of scientists who have saved the most lives in history. Plus, it's worth noting that according to our World in Data, since 1961 American synthetic fertiliser usage hasn't really increased, despite substantial gains in yields, and in Europe it's reduced whilst maintaining yields. Most of the increase in global synthetic fertiliser usage globally since 1961 has been in the least economically developed countries. Also, there is something deeply immoral about wanting to deprive the world's poorest countries of 30% to 50% of their grown agricultural production (crops destined for animals), just so petty authoritarians can feel good about forcing other people to switch to a plant-based diet in order to 'save the planet'.
That being said, value creation is value creation. If people want to buy delicious, but overpriced, vegetables, meat, cheeses, etc, why should government make the lives of the poor farmers that much harder? Government in particular should be punitively subject to Coase Theorem when it decides to deprive entrepreneurs with a family history of working the land for decades or centuries of their lands and businesses, just because it happens to fit the ideological fad or craze of the moment.
You're both right, and both wrong. Recently, I've been using AI to look at ways in which the European farmers have been shafted. It's partially because I dislike the unfairness of governments compulsory purchasing (our equivalent of eminent domain) at levels substantially below market value (before planning uplift). Most agricultural areas outside Europe and the US enjoy a cost advantage of between 20% and 100% due to agricultural regulations imposed by government. The rate depends upon the type of agricultural good produced and the level of compensatory subsides.
This realisation makes a mockery of economists who argue for the Doha Round. In almost every instance, if farmers in Europe and America were able to freely compete against the rest of the world, free from both unnecessary regulations and subsidies, they would literally wipe out the rest of the world in any area the rest of the world was forced to compete.
The other problem is that the regulatory cost burdens apply internally as well and many of the costs can be somewhat eliminated at scale. Kaleberg is also correct though. Almost every example of animal contagion in farming has been caused by operating as scale. With Mad Cow in the UK, not a single case was ever detected within either organic or prime beef herds- but they were slaughtered nonetheless, due to bureaucracy.
The other consequence is that small farms tend to be value farmers. With the Labour Party's punitive inheritance tax raid on small farms paired with a desire to steal their land at below market rates for housebuilding, Labour won't significantly be hitting volume. None of the volume suppliers are vulnerable to inheritance tax, because they're all corporations, and almost all of the wealth of the families which shifted their farms to the corporate model has long since been offshored.
But the farmers who will be hit will be the value farmers- the small farmers who grow or rear outside the conventional mass production model. Durum wheat and Einkorn. Higher quality watercress and other speciality crops. Angus beef and orchard pig. Shetland, Wensleydale, British Merino, and UK Alpaca sheep reared for speciality wools. It's basically anything supplied for speciality markets, artisanal or higher quality restaurants. The UKs cheese landscape will be particularly hard hit.
An interesting example of the flaws of operating at scale relates to Coleman's Mustard. They spent decades selecting for a branded taste to their mustard. Unfortunately, such a selective criteria for a specific crop also has vulnerabilities. When a particular form of contagion hit, the entire crop was wiped out in the UK. Luckily, they had an extensive seed bank based in Norwich. They were able to reconstruct their signature flavour by breeding from previous generations of mustard seed, but with the vulnerability selectively bred out of the crop.
The other issue is land management. Smaller farms tend to be more flexible, innovative and less ruled by accountants. They are willing to try cover crops, regenerative farming, break crops and 'no till' systems. One local farmer operates in collaboration with a local wildlife trust and university. He has a map for insect populations (important for native bird species) and plans his crops accordingly. The corporates just pay consultants for the cheapest option available at scale, to follow the letter of the regulation, whilst paying no heed whatsoever to the underlying intention.
Basically, government has a nasty habit of creating exploits for shrewd investors willing to operate both at scale and amorally. In both Britain and America the message to small farmers is clear- go big, or go home (and adopt the soulless corporate model in the process). The best models for regulators tends to be regulators willing to operate in good faith, without deference to a legalistic or rules-based format set in stone, and with broad discretionary powers. Unfortunately bureaucracies loathe such systems, because they require promotions be merit-based, particularly in terms of knowledge and experience- anathema to the ideologically driven or political tribes.
I am not sure where you get the idea that he did not express gratitude for his wife's work. For those interested in how Wendell Berry actually responded to criticism about his wife supporting his work, see this excerpt from"The World-Ending Fire":
"I understand that it is impossible to make an adequate public defense of one's private life and so I will only point out that there a a number of kinder possiblities that my critics have disdained to imagine: that my wife may do this work because she wants to and likes to; that she may find some use and some meaning in it; that she may not work for nothing."
A fetus ain't a baby, kiddo. You're abusing language to make an invalid point. A woman has a right not to be pregnant, and if you don't like that, you can lump it. And, your comment is off-topic.
A woman also has a right not to have unprotected sex.
Why the unnecessary rudeness? Your comment could have stopped here: "You're abusing language to make an invalid point. A woman has a right not to be pregnant,"
Free speech has nothing to do with an abuse of language here. I never condemned the poster's free speech rights. I simply pointed out that a fetus (or an embryo) is not a baby; the only way the poster has an argument is to conflate a fetus with a baby. Say whatever you want, and think what you like.
Exactly 100% agree. As long as there is full agreement with your arguments and conclusion, then free speech does not apply since there would be no dissention. Since all here agree with your thesis, then you are correct and I failed by promoting abuse of language as being conflated with free speech.
You misunderstood what I said (or undersstood it, but are having trouble processing my freedom of speech), and then double down by trying to funny. There is no "thesis," and saying dumb things with your freedom of speech will often invite a rebuttal.
you say you know that he didn't express gratitude for his wife's labours?? where do you get this from?? b.s. if you ever read a book by wendell berry you'd have a very different viewpoint on the man..
I did read his books. And then I got to the point where he strenuously defends his position on abortion and I was like, wait, what? It was so bizarre. Then I went looking for more information and critiques and found them. Here's a little bit more discussion on how we reconcile his insistence on woman's traditional role: https://www.morningsideinstitute.org/cal-fall-2019/2019/11/4/berry
I mean, I wish I had a wife to do all my typing and manage my household so I could write full books without touching a computer, and travel to give paid lectures while she makes sure the animals are fed. What a life!
you are saying he didn't express graitutude towards his wife... that is bs!! if you want to talk about his views on abortion - that is another matter... you didn't read his books or get anything from him based on your derogatory commentary here.. that is really too bad..
that is so true kate.. thank you for saying this! - ''we receive much more from giving'' then many people realize.... and that is what wendell berrys life has been too - one of a great generousity and giving of his spirit.. i really admire him and all he has done to enlighten me over the years..i've probably read 20 or more of his books and he is someone i aspire to..
Maybe she wants to do that shit?(idk a thing about them, but if theyre happily married theres a chance she does) What a life indeed! Two people supporting each other however the hell they want!
Berry relied on his wife to type his essays. Instead of expressing gratitude for his wife’s labors, he accused his feminist critics of a weak argument, and said that he preferred an old-fashioned marriage to the modern one of “two successful careerists in the same bed, and on the other hand a sort of private political system in which rights and interests must be constantly asserted and defended.”
I enjoy many of his essays, but his stance against abortion and his insistence that national laws are worthless compared to community-based norms seem to me now to feed into the rural, tradwife libertarianism that has contributed to where we are now. His theories are sound, but his solutions are impractical for the world we live in.
Concerned about egg prices? Just get your own backyard chickens! (Bird flu be damned.)
> seem to me now to feed into the rural
The "rural" is Berry's whole point.
He is not some otherwise globalist liberal who was made some accidental error on and opted for the rural viewpoint on some small front. He is an advocate for the rural, plain and simple.
> Concerned about egg prices? Just get your own backyard chickens! (Bird flu be damned.)
Bird flu would be nigh impossible to spread if people opted for backyard chickens. It's the mass production of eggs, and the close promixity of tens of thousands of chickens in huge units, plus the subsequent remore shipping of eggs, that makes it possible to spread and thrive.
You miss my point. Emphasis is on libertarian tradwife-ism. The reason why family farms are failing isn't that they're not working hard enough in community. They're failing because the federal government has failed to reign in the excesses of our modern economy. No amount of supporting each other in community will make up for environmental regulations on PFAS, for example.
Again, lots of amazing ideas. Very inspirational, but definitely some blind spots.
It's not environmental regulations or PFAS. It's the lack of antitrust enforcement that allowed a handful of companies to roll up all the grain processing, all the meat processing, all the egg processing and so on. Those big corporations set the terms under which all smaller farmers have to operate unless they go artisanal which takes a whole other set of skills. Every year, they tighten the screws. Farmers used to be independent businessmen. Now, they're gig workers for megacorps. Try to fight them, and you're blacklisted. Of course, the they'll blame pronouns in the schools or something.
You're both right, and both wrong. Recently, I've been using AI to look at ways in which the European farmers have been shafted. It's partially because I dislike the unfairness of governments compulsory purchasing (our equivalent of eminent domain) at levels substantially below market value (before planning uplift). Most agricultural areas outside Europe and the US enjoy a cost advantage of between 20% and 100% due to agricultural regulations imposed by government. The rate depends upon the type of agricultural good produced and the level of compensatory subsides.
This realisation makes a mockery of economists who argue for the Doha Round. In almost every instance, if farmers in Europe and America were able to freely compete against the rest of the world, free from both unnecessary regulations and subsidies, they would literally wipe out the rest of the world in any area the rest of the world was forced to compete.
The other problem is that the regulatory cost burdens apply internally as well and many of the costs can be somewhat eliminated at scale. Kaleberg is also correct though. Almost every example of animal contagion in farming has been caused by operating as scale. With Mad Cow in the UK, not a single case was ever detected within either organic or prime beef herds- but they were slaughtered nonetheless, due to bureaucracy.
The other consequence is that small farms tend to be value farmers. With the Labour Party's punitive inheritance tax raid on small farms paired with a desire to steal their land at below market rates for housebuilding, Labour won't significantly be hitting volume. None of the volume suppliers are vulnerable to inheritance tax, because they're all corporations, and almost all of the wealth of the families which shifted their farms to the corporate model has long since been offshored.
But the farmers who will be hit will be the value farmers- the small farmers who grow or rear outside the conventional mass production model. Durum wheat and Einkorn. Higher quality watercress and other speciality crops. Angus beef and orchard pig. Shetland, Wensleydale, British Merino, and UK Alpaca sheep reared for speciality wools. It's basically anything supplied for speciality markets, artisanal or higher quality restaurants. The UKs cheese landscape will be particularly hard hit.
An interesting example of the flaws of operating at scale relates to Coleman's Mustard. They spent decades selecting for a branded taste to their mustard. Unfortunately, such a selective criteria for a specific crop also has vulnerabilities. When a particular form of contagion hit, the entire crop was wiped out in the UK. Luckily, they had an extensive seed bank based in Norwich. They were able to reconstruct their signature flavour by breeding from previous generations of mustard seed, but with the vulnerability selectively bred out of the crop.
The other issue is land management. Smaller farms tend to be more flexible, innovative and less ruled by accountants. They are willing to try cover crops, regenerative farming, break crops and 'no till' systems. One local farmer operates in collaboration with a local wildlife trust and university. He has a map for insect populations (important for native bird species) and plans his crops accordingly. The corporates just pay consultants for the cheapest option available at scale, to follow the letter of the regulation, whilst paying no heed whatsoever to the underlying intention.
Basically, government has a nasty habit of creating exploits for shrewd investors willing to operate both at scale and amorally. In both Britain and America the message to small farmers is clear- go big, or go home (and adopt the soulless corporate model in the process). The best models for regulators tends to be regulators willing to operate in good faith, without deference to a legalistic or rules-based format set in stone, and with broad discretionary powers. Unfortunately bureaucracies loathe such systems, because they require promotions be merit-based, particularly in terms of knowledge and experience- anathema to the ideologically driven or political tribes.
I'm not fond of the current agricultural system, but I've learned to live with it. I know a number of local farmers who sell artisanal products, but this is just a luxury I can afford. Modern industrial farming isn't going to go away, not with half the population dependent on industrial nitrogen for survival. We'd have to accept a dramatic plunge in population along with a collapse in living standards. (Granted, we might have to accept that anyway.) We can make the system work better, but that just means more bureaucracy and regulation. I don't believe in magic. I've seen all too much havoc released in the name of deregulation.
Sure, I broadly agree with you. Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution are unjustly maligned, given that he generally features in the top 10 list of scientists who have saved the most lives in history. Plus, it's worth noting that according to our World in Data, since 1961 American synthetic fertiliser usage hasn't really increased, despite substantial gains in yields, and in Europe it's reduced whilst maintaining yields. Most of the increase in global synthetic fertiliser usage globally since 1961 has been in the least economically developed countries. Also, there is something deeply immoral about wanting to deprive the world's poorest countries of 30% to 50% of their grown agricultural production (crops destined for animals), just so petty authoritarians can feel good about forcing other people to switch to a plant-based diet in order to 'save the planet'.
That being said, value creation is value creation. If people want to buy delicious, but overpriced, vegetables, meat, cheeses, etc, why should government make the lives of the poor farmers that much harder? Government in particular should be punitively subject to Coase Theorem when it decides to deprive entrepreneurs with a family history of working the land for decades or centuries of their lands and businesses, just because it happens to fit the ideological fad or craze of the moment.
You're both right, and both wrong. Recently, I've been using AI to look at ways in which the European farmers have been shafted. It's partially because I dislike the unfairness of governments compulsory purchasing (our equivalent of eminent domain) at levels substantially below market value (before planning uplift). Most agricultural areas outside Europe and the US enjoy a cost advantage of between 20% and 100% due to agricultural regulations imposed by government. The rate depends upon the type of agricultural good produced and the level of compensatory subsides.
This realisation makes a mockery of economists who argue for the Doha Round. In almost every instance, if farmers in Europe and America were able to freely compete against the rest of the world, free from both unnecessary regulations and subsidies, they would literally wipe out the rest of the world in any area the rest of the world was forced to compete.
The other problem is that the regulatory cost burdens apply internally as well and many of the costs can be somewhat eliminated at scale. Kaleberg is also correct though. Almost every example of animal contagion in farming has been caused by operating as scale. With Mad Cow in the UK, not a single case was ever detected within either organic or prime beef herds- but they were slaughtered nonetheless, due to bureaucracy.
The other consequence is that small farms tend to be value farmers. With the Labour Party's punitive inheritance tax raid on small farms paired with a desire to steal their land at below market rates for housebuilding, Labour won't significantly be hitting volume. None of the volume suppliers are vulnerable to inheritance tax, because they're all corporations, and almost all of the wealth of the families which shifted their farms to the corporate model has long since been offshored.
But the farmers who will be hit will be the value farmers- the small farmers who grow or rear outside the conventional mass production model. Durum wheat and Einkorn. Higher quality watercress and other speciality crops. Angus beef and orchard pig. Shetland, Wensleydale, British Merino, and UK Alpaca sheep reared for speciality wools. It's basically anything supplied for speciality markets, artisanal or higher quality restaurants. The UKs cheese landscape will be particularly hard hit.
An interesting example of the flaws of operating at scale relates to Coleman's Mustard. They spent decades selecting for a branded taste to their mustard. Unfortunately, such a selective criteria for a specific crop also has vulnerabilities. When a particular form of contagion hit, the entire crop was wiped out in the UK. Luckily, they had an extensive seed bank based in Norwich. They were able to reconstruct their signature flavour by breeding from previous generations of mustard seed, but with the vulnerability selectively bred out of the crop.
The other issue is land management. Smaller farms tend to be more flexible, innovative and less ruled by accountants. They are willing to try cover crops, regenerative farming, break crops and 'no till' systems. One local farmer operates in collaboration with a local wildlife trust and university. He has a map for insect populations (important for native bird species) and plans his crops accordingly. The corporates just pay consultants for the cheapest option available at scale, to follow the letter of the regulation, whilst paying no heed whatsoever to the underlying intention.
Basically, government has a nasty habit of creating exploits for shrewd investors willing to operate both at scale and amorally. In both Britain and America the message to small farmers is clear- go big, or go home (and adopt the soulless corporate model in the process). The best models for regulators tends to be regulators willing to operate in good faith, without deference to a legalistic or rules-based format set in stone, and with broad discretionary powers. Unfortunately bureaucracies loathe such systems, because they require promotions be merit-based, particularly in terms of knowledge and experience- anathema to the ideologically driven or political tribes.
I am not sure where you get the idea that he did not express gratitude for his wife's work. For those interested in how Wendell Berry actually responded to criticism about his wife supporting his work, see this excerpt from"The World-Ending Fire":
"I understand that it is impossible to make an adequate public defense of one's private life and so I will only point out that there a a number of kinder possiblities that my critics have disdained to imagine: that my wife may do this work because she wants to and likes to; that she may find some use and some meaning in it; that she may not work for nothing."
Gracey Olmstead wrote an essay in the Front Porch Republic on "Tanya Berry's Faithful Art". https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2020/06/tanya-berrys-faithful-art/
Why are all USA young women obsessed with killing babies.
A fetus ain't a baby, kiddo. You're abusing language to make an invalid point. A woman has a right not to be pregnant, and if you don't like that, you can lump it. And, your comment is off-topic.
A woman also has a right not to have unprotected sex.
Why the unnecessary rudeness? Your comment could have stopped here: "You're abusing language to make an invalid point. A woman has a right not to be pregnant,"
So no one ever explained to you where babies come from. Aw.
And the original pro-abortion comment was on topic?
is free speech really an abuse of language?
Free speech has nothing to do with an abuse of language here. I never condemned the poster's free speech rights. I simply pointed out that a fetus (or an embryo) is not a baby; the only way the poster has an argument is to conflate a fetus with a baby. Say whatever you want, and think what you like.
Exactly 100% agree. As long as there is full agreement with your arguments and conclusion, then free speech does not apply since there would be no dissention. Since all here agree with your thesis, then you are correct and I failed by promoting abuse of language as being conflated with free speech.
You misunderstood what I said (or undersstood it, but are having trouble processing my freedom of speech), and then double down by trying to funny. There is no "thesis," and saying dumb things with your freedom of speech will often invite a rebuttal.
Absolutely no problem at all processing your freedom of speech! That is my entire point...thank you for making it perfectly clear!
They are not, Jane.
In 2022, the abortion rate in the UK was 21.1 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 while in the US it was just 11.2 per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
It was just the Camel lady then
I hope you will explain your thinking on this a little more: "the rural, tradwife libertarianism that has contributed to where we are now. "
Not sure, but it is possible that you have misread WB. Or maybe I am misunderstanding "rural, tradwife libertarianism."
This isn't really relevant to the article. No need to politicize things. (And being pro-life is not exactly a fringe position.)
Good points.
you say you know that he didn't express gratitude for his wife's labours?? where do you get this from?? b.s. if you ever read a book by wendell berry you'd have a very different viewpoint on the man..
I did read his books. And then I got to the point where he strenuously defends his position on abortion and I was like, wait, what? It was so bizarre. Then I went looking for more information and critiques and found them. Here's a little bit more discussion on how we reconcile his insistence on woman's traditional role: https://www.morningsideinstitute.org/cal-fall-2019/2019/11/4/berry
I mean, I wish I had a wife to do all my typing and manage my household so I could write full books without touching a computer, and travel to give paid lectures while she makes sure the animals are fed. What a life!
you are saying he didn't express graitutude towards his wife... that is bs!! if you want to talk about his views on abortion - that is another matter... you didn't read his books or get anything from him based on your derogatory commentary here.. that is really too bad..
that is so true kate.. thank you for saying this! - ''we receive much more from giving'' then many people realize.... and that is what wendell berrys life has been too - one of a great generousity and giving of his spirit.. i really admire him and all he has done to enlighten me over the years..i've probably read 20 or more of his books and he is someone i aspire to..
I don't always agree with his politics, but what an inspirational human being!
Hannah Coulter is one of my favorite books.
thanks kate - i highly recommend any of his books! cheers james
I guess this is like "if you don't like abortion, don't have one." If you don't want to mind the farm and type, don't.
Um, so he was pro-life . . . so what? Most of the country is opposed to abortion after the first trimester.
Maybe she wants to do that shit?(idk a thing about them, but if theyre happily married theres a chance she does) What a life indeed! Two people supporting each other however the hell they want!