« Follow-up on forgiveness, and anti-Semitism, and sharing one's life narrative | Main | Thursday Short Poem: Spacks' "Pedagogical Guest" »

September 21, 2005

Comments

jaketk

“I counterclaimed that men are as guilty of getting benefit from the Hugh Hefner ‘Playboy culture’ as it enabled men to get more casual sex; thus they are guilty of harming society using the same criteria…”

Back up for a second. Men were doing that *long* before Hefner. You’re merely creating a strawman. My point is that in order to live as a playboy, you kind of to have a *lot* of money. But that’s much different than the average guy having casual sex.

And don't women also have casual sex? Wouldn’t those women be benefiting from men allowing themselves to be used as well? Or is there a double-standard at play?

“I consider Rome to be our historical ‘parent’ so as goes Rome so goes the US, Europe, Austrialia, New Zealand, Canada and any other spinoff of western civilization...

Regarding your comments about soldiers, monks, etc., my point still holds. These communities of single men whether soldiers or monks are sources of instability for their societies. Thus governments like China in 842-45 were dissolving monasteries and forcing monks and nuns to reintegrate themselves back into society and become ordinary tax-paying citizens.”

Okay, I literally slapped my forehead when I read this. You're contradicting yourself. Rome maintained its power and stability through its military force and its method of allowing conquered states and people to govern themselves under Rome’s guidance. I can assure you people did not allow Rome to conquer them, and many did just let Rome walk in, because of Rome’s stance on marriage, but because Rome had enough military power to lose 50,000 soldiers without batting an eye and replace those men with 100,000 more. How long was Rome stable? What caused Rome to collapse? The same holds true for Sparta, which our military is based on. Ironically, Spartan men spent far more time with other men, particularly their young wards, than their wives, and yet their society lasted for 400 years.

The Chinese were dissolving those monasteries because of the economic power they had gained through tax exemption, not because they weren’t getting married.

Check it out, it’s in the middle of the page. Honestly, if you’re going to cite something like that, you should at least present the reasons why those things were done, not just that they happened.

“Oh now it’s moving the goalpost I see…I have to show it’s marriage and NOTHING ELSE that contributes to society being stable, otherwise, the whole thesis is invalid and marriage is not a force for stability anymore for men…”

But your argument is that marriage is a force of stability for society, not just men, and that if men are not married then society is or will become unstable. Your position, as you have presented it, is that marriage and marriage alone causes such stability. You’ve dismissed religious stations. You’ve dismissed military service. You’ve flat out ignored social, economic and governmental climates. What else is there?

jaketk

"This is the drumbeat of the "traditionalist" anti-feminist movement--read Mona Charen simpering about how 'marriage civilizes men' if you want a particularly nauseating example.

not her again. she takes herself *way* too seriously.

mythago

Or is there a double-standard at play?

Got it in one.

The Gonzman

Hugo *is* a Christian, y'know. It's not merely a matter of adding up costs of tax savings vs. possible spousal-support payments for him. Gonzman, if you are in fact a traditional Catholic, then why are you extolling one of the virtues of singlehood being unfettered skirt-chasing? I thought your faith believed in chastity outside of marriage.]

Well, in fact, I do, but I am also one of those rad-trad "No salvation outside the church" types. I don't believe the government has the power to sanctify or perform a sacrament of the church; and I'd take vows taken in the church much more seriously than I do a civil or secular bit of hokum. If you want the truth, In Gonz's perfect world, the church would divest itself of secular property, work out of donated sites held privately, and drop its tax exempt status - then, having no property or income to TAX, it could preach about things of import, and criticise the government with impunity.

That said, simple fornication doesn't even hit the top twenty on the list of sins as far as I can tell, depending on the circumstances around it. And whetherone chooses to believe me or not, I find the devaluing of marriage to be a pretty sad state of affairs, but one we have to deal with. And if that means turning away from civil marriage as a matter of the government hijacking and bastardizing the sacrament, so be it. I find a lot of advantages to it. I think the government, in a fit of pique, would refuse to get involved in any CS issues or such arising from a purely religious marriage, forcing the people involved to work it out among themselves a lot more - and get divorced less.

mythago

That said, simple fornication doesn't even hit the top twenty on the list of sins as far as I can tell, depending on the circumstances around it.

It's a sin, and it's clearly forbidden in the writings of Paul.

A purely religious marriage is, in the eyes of the government, not a marriage at all. If it is what you and your intended find better for you, mazel tov, but do realize that "the paperwork doesn't cover it all" is one of the reasons there is such a fight for same-sex marriage.

The Gonzman

Well, never claimed total moral perfection, but as long as you're also arguing in favor everything Paul wrote about, (like in Romans 1) I guess I can take you seriously.

Whther the "government" recognizes a thing or not is really pretty immaterial to me, as the government, and its intendant bureaucrats and bureaucracies is really far down on my list of loyalties. At the very least, wat the government offers is some ersatz legal contract which is unilaterally disposable, and which they call marriage. In my eyes, marriage is a sacrament of the church, and if people eligible for the sacrament take their vows at the altar of God, that's it for me - the piece of paper from the county is an hoop-jumping rendering unto Caesar, and if the government does not recognize it it the same manner, an irrelevant and futile one at that.

NYMOM

"Back up for a second. Men were doing that *long* before Hefner. You’re merely creating a strawman. My point is that in order to live as a playboy, you kind of to have a *lot* of money. But that’s much different than the average guy having casual sex."

NYMOM said: No. You created the strawman by bringing up a Mansion and Playboy bunnies as if that had to be a requirement to participate in the Playboy culture. Have you ever even read any old issues of Playboy? Were you around then to see men's reactions to this?

Where are your citations and stats like you're always asking people for, to prove what you say about a time you weren't even born? Can you prove any of what you claim? That men were always engaging in casual sex BEFORE the sexual revolution which Hefner (as well as feminists I'll admit) was a big factor in.

BTW, many ordinary men buy subscriptions to Playboy, it's not just a rich man's magazine. AND you're wrong with the casual sex business as well. Men did NOT go in for much casual sex before, unless it was with paid prostitutes. Generally when I was growing up if you were having sex with someone, a woman expected a marriage proposal. Most of the time if you were having sex before marriage, that was expected and both of you knew it...AND it was expected SOONER rather then LATER. Not this stuff where you live together for ten years and three kids before you finalize decide to propose to a woman.

Since if you got pregnant, the man married you as well before delivery, not whenever he got around to it. This was the way it was BEFORE THE PLAYBOY CULTURE and Feminism.


"Okay, I literally slapped my forehead when I read this. You're contradicting yourself. Rome maintained its power and stability through its military force and its method of allowing conquered states and people to govern themselves under Rome’s guidance. I can assure you people did not allow Rome to conquer them, and many did just let Rome walk in, because of Rome’s stance on marriage, but because Rome had enough military power to lose 50,000 soldiers without batting an eye and replace those men with 100,000 more. How long was Rome stable? What caused Rome to collapse? The same holds true for Sparta, which our military is based on. Ironically, Spartan men spent far more time with other men, particularly their young wards, than their wives, and yet their society lasted for 400 years."

NYMOM said: What in the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about ROME passing laws to force men into marriage because Augustus Caesar and men like him who RAN EMPIRES and KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT believed marriage was a force for stability in their societies.

For your information, Rome did not just rule because they could beat up everybody else on the block as population wise, Rome was smaller then many other great powers then, just as Greece was before Rome. Persia had a force of almost a million, when Athens (w/o the aid of Sparta, who showed up late, defeated them)... I don't even think Athens had 200,00 men under arms w/o Sparta...

Sparta, as much as you appear to be admire her, was not really such a big deal as you think. Athens, Thebes, Corinth, there were many other Greek cities that had far more to offer culturally then Sparta did and were still able to field a healthy army to protect their rights. AND she wasn't even much of a Greek ally since frequently she either didn't show up at all for major battles or showed up with a small force. Eventually even the Greeks got sick of her and she was overrun by another Greek city and destroyed.

So military power is just ONE component of a successful society. I mean even look at the US and Europe, Greece and Rome's heirs. We are the smallest of ALL the great powers today; yet there is no question of our status or impact upon the world.

Obviously Western Civilization offers something to people that they value, it's not just successful because we can beat everybody else up, although I'll admit that is some part of it...

AND you asked how LONG was ROME stable...It's still stable. Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all are the heirs of the Roman Empire...most school children know that...

Greece and Rome were the forefathers of western civilization...where have you been under a rock for your entire life???

If you believe that the ONLY reason that Western Civilization is so successful is because we can beat everybody else up, well then you sure didn't have much of an education in Western Civilization...

Maybe you need to take a few more college courses on it.

"The Chinese were dissolving those monasteries because of the economic power they had gained through tax exemption, not because they weren’t getting married."

The Chinese were dissolving those monasteries because they were becoming a counterforce to the Chinese State, which is what groups of unattached single men are wont to do when they aren't settled down with wives and supporting their families or as we call it here MARRIED...

I included them in my reply regarding the thesis of "Bare Branches" because you included them in your response when you said I was telling falsehoods. Claiming that communities of unmarried single men were NOT a force for instabilty anywhere and for me to show where this happened historically...

So I showed you...historically it happened in China, where large communities of unmarried single men were a force for instability in their societies.

As they will be today in China as well...

Do yourself a favor: read Bare Branches and also learn a little bit more about Western Civilization BEFORE you start accusing people of telling falsehoods.


Hugo

Jaketk and NYMOM, in the future, if you could keep your comments concise, I am sure everyone would appreciate it. 100-150 words ought to take care of things.

NYMOM

It probably could if he's quit accusing me of telling falsehoods...

jaketk

it is perfectly acceptable for you to have your own opinions. it is not acceptable for you to use your opinions to distort history. it is clear you have a bias towards men, and that taints your perceptions. it is also clear that you filter history through these preconceived notions, therein misrepresenting basic elements of historical fact. seriously, when you study history, do so objectively. do not nitpick history to find instances to support your claims while ignoring the factors that contributed to those instances.

jaketk

i thought that this was an interesting counterpoint to men avoiding long-term relationships. Women bypass sex in favour of 'instant pregnancies'

NYMOM

"...it is perfectly acceptable for you to have your own opinions. it is not acceptable for you to use your opinions to distort history. it is clear you have a bias towards men, and that taints your perceptions. it is also clear that you filter history through these preconceived notions, therein misrepresenting basic elements of historical fact. seriously, when you study history, do so objectively. do not nitpick history to find instances to support your claims while ignoring the factors that contributed to those instances..."

NYMOM said: I do not NITPICK history.

Really you do.

You are determined to believe that large groups of unattached males have never been seen as a threat to society when in fact they ALWAYS have been. Even today...

Marriage stabilizes men.

You wish to distort history to deny that fact...

Even the fact that you mentioned the Spartans, out of all the Greeks they were the 'lowest' achievers. Yet you mentioned them because they were a society that elevated men and devalued women. Well guess what, they suffered for it. Their all-male warrior society was finally killed off by another Greek city-state and even before that they were the lowest achieves of culture, arts, archecture, everything then even the smallest of the other Greek states...

I'm ending this because Hugo asked me to be brief, but it's you who distort history, my friend, you...not me...

Hugo


Well, you both need some remedial history. Come to my lectures on the Peloponnesian War; I may elevate your view of the Spartans, NYMOM!

BritGirlSF

What puzzles me about this whole discussion is why anyone would think that a group of feminists would be interested in persuading reluctant men to get married. We're not much of a ra-ra marriage group in general (religious folks like Hugo or Lynn excepted). Personally, I think that anyone who doesn't want to get married is probably better off not doing so. Why enter into a situation that you don't feel comfortable with if doing so can be avoided? Why would anyone else want to persuade someone to do so?
Also, even for those feminists who are pro-marriage it should be noted that most of us wouldn't consider an MRA to be ideal husband material. Why then would any of us want to persuade Gonzman, or any other MRA, to get married? He's happier the way he is, most of us would hate to be married to someone who holds his kind of opinions anyway and would not envy any woman who was married to an MRA, so what would be the point in our trying to persuade him that marriage is a desireable thing to do?
I don't buy NYMOM's theory that men need to be married lest they wreak havoc upon society either. There are certain societies where a significant proportion of the male population has traditionally remained unmarried (Tibet comes to mind, with it's huge population of monks) where the presence of significant numbers of unmarried men has in no way led to the breakdown of civilised society. Why should we assume that it would be a problem here if men suddenly stopped getting married? Not that I think there's any real sign that that's happening anyway - I know three men who got married within the past year within my inner circle alone, and all of them are very happy about it. None of them needed any persuading.

jaketk

the men mentioned in the article that began this discussion aren't necessarily involved in the men's movement. the women mentioned in the article aren't necessarily feminists either. i think the issue is simply that fewer men are willing to get married than before. some would hate being married to feminists because of their views on men. but most, i think, simply opt not to get married because there is less pressure, or need, to do so, and probably because of their experiences with marriage as children. i don't think that means men won't get married. and i don't think it means men who support men's rights won't get married. my foster father and mother have been married for nearly twenty years, they got married right out of college, and neither of them had to persuade the other, and neither of them support feminism. of course, they have four sons and a daughter together, so i can understand why.

mythago

jake, that article is about a step above fantasy. Women don't have time for sex, but they do have time for expensive, uncomfortable and medically-assisted IVF? (Nor are we given any real data to back up the idea that any significant number of women are skipping sex for syringes. But it fills column inches!)

but as long as you're also arguing in favor everything Paul wrote about, (like in Romans 1)

Hey, if you follow a religion that holds all of Paul's teachings to be true, I'm not going to dis you because some of them are teachings with which I disagree. I just don't get the idea of taking some of the big ones (like chastity outside of marriage) and saying yo, it could be worse.

jaketk

"Well, you both need some remedial history. Come to my lectures on the Peloponnesian War; I may elevate your view of the Spartans, NYMOM!"

i read thucydides' "The History of the Peloponnesian War" a couple of years back. very hard read. xenophon and plutarch were much easier for me to read, though that might simply be the translation. i haven't gotten to herodotus yet, though i did get through half of plato's republic before i got side-tracked by lord of the rings, and then baudrillard, descartes, and hume thanks to the matrix. i'm not bragging or anything, just demonstrating that i have a wider range of interests than you might think.

jaketk

"jake, that article is about a step above fantasy. Women don't have time for sex, but they do have time for expensive, uncomfortable and medically-assisted IVF? (Nor are we given any real data to back up the idea that any significant number of women are skipping sex for syringes. But it fills column inches!)"

i don't disagree with you. it's just interesting how differently men and women are portrayed when they make similar decisions.

NYMOM

"Well, you both need some remedial history. Come to my lectures on the Peloponnesian War; I may elevate your view of the Spartans, NYMOM!"

NYMOM said: Well why don't you video them and put them on the site. Then I'll watch...

Anyway, everybody has their own opinion on the Spartans' contribution to Greek history. I happen to believe Athens contributed far more then Sparta in everyway including their most valuable contribution, which was the idea of democrary itself. Sparta contributed little to this as she was little more then a military dictatorship with unelected 'Kings' as her leaders...

I won't say Sparta contributed nothing, but it was far less then most of the other Greek states...

But what bothered me about the whole discussion is how this Jaketk suddenly comes up with I'm a liar because he doesn't like my opinions. I've used selective sources he claims. This is very typical by the way of him and his other associates...Ask for sources to shut people up and even if you produce them, they still won't accept them..

AND I still stand by my original statement which is that groups of unmarried men are sources of instability in every society where they exist in large numbers.

Sorry but history has shown us this, whether or not people here want to accept it...

The Gonzman

Well, Myth, it's kind of hard to be married when you have a society which really doesn't offer what you recognize as marriage.

The Gonzman

Where this whole thread is rooted in is the spate of articles bemoaning the plight of thirtyish women who suddenly now want to get married, and the common thread running through them is that it has nothing at all to do with the poor, faultless, and blameless dears, but is, of course, the fault of immature and commitment phobic men. I present the alternative view, Brit, that (1) maybe these women are no prizes themselves and are now complaining about having to sleep in the bed they made, and (2) that marriage itself, thanks in no small part to the "We must abolish the nuclear family" goals of early feminism, has been made meaningless and unattractive to men.

I've been beating the men and fathers aren't disposable drum for twenty years or more. I predicted the so-called marriage strike years ago when I was teaching and many of the boys from divorced families - as young as ten - were talking about never marrying after seeing what their dads were put through.

You can attack the messenger all you want, but I seriously doubt that this much international newsprint has been spent on a phantom phenomenen.

mythago

jaketk, the media 'portrays' women as selfish, evil career women when making those decisions, too.

Well, Myth, it's kind of hard to be married when you have a society which really doesn't offer what you recognize as marriage.

Gonzman, you're kind of skipping around the point. You offered, as one of the benefits of remaining unmarried, the freedom to cat around. Your professed faith strongly condemns sex outside of marriage, much less catting around. I don't understand how "well, there are worse sins" or "civil marriage doesn't match my faith's kind of marriage" excuses sleeping around; I also suspect that your church does not condemn civil marriage.

(I mean, it's one thing to have slipped up. We're all human. It's another thing to say, in essence, that marriage is a pain because it gets in the way of sinning. That, you'll have to explain to me.)

but I seriously doubt that this much international newsprint has been spent on a phantom phenomenen.

Surely you're not this naive. Newspapers write about "phantom phenomenon" all the time--if you're at least my age, you've read some Vance Packard and have an idea about how the media manufactures (and creates) nonexistent trends out of anecdotes and PR releases. Even if you're a whippersnapper, you're undoubtedly familiar with the Me and My Friends Equals A Nation style of journalism practiced by pundits from Maureen Dowd to George Will.

Another "alternative view" is that the dolorous bell of warning women that they will end up lonely spinsters gets tolled fairly predictably.

jaketk

Mythago, certainly the media does that, but it is counter balanced by most daytime shows and many segments on cable and basic news magazines, along with print articles. Such a counter balance does not exist for men, and when someone attempts to provide do so, the respond is often the same as you see on this thread.

mythago

but it is counter balanced by most daytime shows and many segments on cable and basic news magazines

*What* is counter-balanced? Stereotypes about the genders? You'll find both good and bad stereotypes depending on where you look and what you want to hear.

jaketk

How women are portrayed when they make decisions about their careers and family compared to how men are portrayed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004