A good discussion is emerging in the comments below yesterday’s post and that of the day before.
Several commenters below the post about "Scarlett" suggest I’m conflating "emotional maturity" with "willingness to marry". Guilty as charged, folks. Here’s where my evangelical Christianity trumps my feminism. I believe God calls all of us to one of two states: monogamous marriage or celibacy. Indeed, one of the reasons I am so strong a supporter of gay marriage is because I want to see the value of lifelong monogamy publicly exalted in the gay and lesbian community over all other alternatives!
Yes, I know, I’ve been divorced multiple times. But my failings — and the failings of those to whom I was married — do not undermine the inherent value of the institution. My divorces say nothing about marriage itself; they say a heck of a lot about me and the man I used to be.
I am eager and excited to marry again because I believe that God has called me to marriage. I believe He calls most people to marriage, except for a few to whom he gives the very special gift of celibacy. (Here’s where I think Protestantism falls down: too much anti-Catholic bias has left too many in the evangelical camp denying the very special value of celibacy that Paul celebrated.) But I am not merely eager to comply with God’s will. I believe monogamous marriage is a vehicle for personal growth and transformation unlike any other. I believe the experience of marriage changes us and deepens us and challenges us in ways that nothing else (cohabitation, polyamory, promiscuity) can.
Every older man in my life I deeply admire is either married or celibate. I do have friends who are still single in their thirties and forties. One or two are desperate to find the right woman (or man) and settle down. I encourage them and support them in that search. But I have other friends who are –for all appearances — blissful in being neither married nor chaste. Though I love these men as well, I see that almost every one of them is remarkably self-involved! In my experience, men who stay single too long simply don’t mature and develop as much as those who marry, even those who marry multiple times. God knew what he was talking about in Genesis 2:18.
My married male friends are not perfect husbands, by any stretch of the imagination. But I watch them push themselves and push themselves and respond to the challenge of monogamy, commitment, and in many cases, fatherhood. Many of them I’ve known since before they were wed and before they became daddies, and I can see the way in which they’ve deepened, softened, and developed. They know that only marriage reveals their deepest flaws, and only marriage provides sufficient incentive to overcome them. (One said to me several years ago: "Getting married was like pouring Miracle Grow on my defects of character." He was grateful, though pained, to have his sinfulness really exposed. He’s grown a lot since then.) Long-term monogamous relationships expose our weaknesses — but also provide the opportunity to overcome them. Marriage, done right, strips away a man’s selfishness and self-absorption like nothing else. Permanently directing all of his sexual energy to one person frees him to be a safe, loving man in the lives of those around him.
When should a man marry? Obviously, that depends on the person. We do mature at different rates. But if we wait until we are "settled" and "know who we are" we miss the point completely. Marriage isn’t for those who already know themselves, marriage teaches us who we are! We don’t get married after we become who we were called to be, we become who we were called to be through marriage!
Look, I know this post will infuriate many folks who support me on other issues. I am open to the possibility that marriage can be extended beyond the traditional man-woman dyad. But I am not open to the suggestion that marriage will ever become irrelevant or unnecessary. Indeed, I remain convinced that save for those happy few called to celibacy, marriage is the finest choice we can make for ourselves and the world around us.
I understand why marriage is useful from a legal point of view (the right for one’s partner to be considered next-of-kin, etc), but I doubt I’ll ever really “get” why it’s so essential otherwise. I’m in a monogamous long-term relationship. What’s the difference, other than the legal stuff?
Also, I think that when relationships don’t work out (and divorces happen) it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, relationships may end due to selfish, unfair reasons, but what if the people involved have just grown apart? I believe that we’re constantly growing and changing and emphasising the need for lifelong monogamy may stifle people by trapping them in relationships that no longer work. A relationship that’s ended isn’t necessarily a failure, if it was good for both participants at the time.
Maybe I should write a post on why marriage makes me uncomfortable…
Hi Hugo,
I find statements like (you)“Marriage, done right, strips away a man’s selfishness and self-absorption like nothing else.”, (various feminists) “marriage ‘civilizes’ men,” etc., to be astoundingly simplistic, derogatory and insulting. It’s exactly analogous to telling women that they are incomplete without a husband, only worse because instead of being merely ‘incomplete,’ in the eyes of you and other feminists, men who do not have wives (or SSDPs) are “selfish,” “self-absorbed,” “uncivilized,” etc. In other words, unmarried men are hopelessly ‘broken’ and only a woman (or another man, presumably gay) can ‘fix’ us.
Like I said, I find that characterization of umarried men to be thoroughly insulting, obnoxious and tremendously simplistic and shallow.
Wonder of all wonders, I find myself agreeing with Mr. Bad here; I don’t see much difference from assuming that an unmarried adult man must have something “wrong” with him, or that he is less mature, than the flipside of “you’re nothing without a man” foisted on women.
Not only that, but aren’t you reading a little bit much into the marital status of adults? Especially male adults, who are still raised with the sexist notion that they are supposed to be the providers? Back in the day, it was possible for an eighteen-year-old man, fresh out of high school, to get a job with the type of pay and benefits that provided for a family. That situation doesn’t exist anymore, and it is perfectly reasonable for both men and women to postpone marriage until their schooling is completed and they have gainful, steady employment.
Where I live, it’s common for people to be married with three children before the age of thirty. Yes, even the men! I used to be able to count on one hand the number of my union brothers who reached the age of thirty without being married; now I don’t think I can even do that, as one of our most notorious bachelors just tied the knot, and another is engaged! I can rattle off at least a couple hundred names of union brothers under thirty who are married. Most of them specifically waited until they were at least halfway through the apprenticeship program, so they were taking home a family-supporting amount of pay. A guy on the college track will be taking a little longer to get that type of pay, even though he may earn more in the long run. Sure, you can marry before you really have enough money to run a household, but it’s more difficult. It’s hard enough to balance work and study, without adding marriage and family into the equation. What’s so bad about wanting to take a slower pace, and easing into that delicate balance?
And remember–where you live tends to be more expensive than many areas of the country, especially housing. I think that skews the stats a bit.
Some scattered thoughts:
I wonder how you can possibly claim to know what other people are “called to,” especially since you seem to be drawing from anecdotal evidence gathered from the people you actually know. Just curious– do you know anyone who’s polyamorous, or in a committed long-term unmarried relationship? If you’re only comparing married men to those who are heavily into casual dating, the maturity imbalance is understandable (not that everyone who dates casually is immature, but that lifestyle may have more appeal to the stereotypical commitmentphobe than other lifestyles); however, you can’t generalize from them to people who choose other alternatives to marriage, because being unmarried is really all they have in common. (There may be some perception bias going on here as well– if you interpret an unwillingness to “settle down” as immaturity and selfishness, which you admit at the beginning of this entry that you do, of course you’re going to see people who aren’t seeking marriage as immature and selfish.)
You also seem to be really into the “marriage as vehicle for redemption” interpretation, which is fine, but I don’t think it’s the only one. Certainly any relationship (monogamous or not, married or not) should be one in which the partners grow together and support each other, and healthy relationships should encourage the development of maturity and concern for others; however, I don’t think everyone needs that encouragement equally, nor do I think men can’t become “safe and loving” without it. (I’m also dismayed that this post has gotten me to agree with Mr. Bad about something, but yeah, he has a point in that the “men need women to ‘tame’ them” stereotype is annoying and insulting to men.)
Finally, I don’t think you should’ve been so quick to dismiss that feminist perspective– there are a lot of reasons that promoting marriage for everyone is really problematic from a feminist point of view. Your arguments in favor of marriage conspicuously lack any mention of benefits for women; it seems you think that marriage is first and foremost an opportunity for men to work the flaws out of their personalities. If that’s all marriage is about, why should women sign on for the unpleasant task of whipping immature men into shape? Especially when studies support your unbalanced portrayal and suggest that marriage is statistically far more beneficial for men than women? I’m not actually against marriage, for the record, but I don’t blame women who are. Saying that “everyone” is called to marriage and then going on to talk only about how great it is for men just perpetuates the idea that women are insignificant except when their presence benefits men.
Some scattered thoughts:
I wonder how you can possibly claim to know what other people are “called to,” especially since you seem to be drawing from anecdotal evidence gathered only from people you know. Just curious– do you know anyone who’s polyamorous, or in a committed long-term unmarried relationship? If you’re only comparing married men to those who are heavily into casual dating, the maturity imbalance is understandable (not that everyone who dates casually is immature, but that lifestyle may have more appeal to the stereotypical commitmentphobe than other lifestyles); however, you can’t generalize from them to people who choose other alternatives to marriage, because being unmarried is really all they have in common. (There may be some perception bias going on here as well– if you interpret an unwillingness to “settle down” as immaturity and selfishness, which you admit at the beginning of this entry that you do, of course you’re going to see people who aren’t seeking marriage as immature and selfish.)
You also seem to be really into the “marriage as vehicle for redemption” interpretation, which is fine, but I don’t think it’s the only one. Certainly any relationship (monogamous or not, married or not) should be one in which the partners grow together and support each other, and healthy relationships should encourage the development of maturity and concern for others; however, I don’t think everyone needs that encouragement equally, nor do I think men can’t become “safe and loving” without it. (I’m also dismayed that this post has gotten me to agree with Mr. Bad about something, but yeah, he has a point in that the “men need women to ‘tame’ them” stereotype is annoying and insulting to men.)
Finally, I don’t think you should’ve been so quick to dismiss that feminist perspective– there are a lot of reasons that promoting marriage for everyone is really problematic from a feminist point of view. Your arguments in favor of marriage conspicuously lack any mention of benefits for women; it seems you think that marriage is first and foremost an opportunity for men to work the flaws out of their personalities. If that’s all marriage is about, why should women sign on for the unpleasant task of whipping immature men into shape? Especially when studies support your unbalanced portrayal and suggest that marriage is statistically far more beneficial for men than women? I’m not actually against marriage, for the record, but I don’t blame women who are. Saying that “everyone” is called to marriage and then going on to talk only about how great it is for men just perpetuates the idea that women are insignificant except when their presence benefits men.
Keri, I really really agree with your last paragraph, thanks!
Hi Keri,
You said: “Your arguments in favor of marriage conspicuously lack any mention of benefits for women; it seems you think that marriage is first and foremost an opportunity for men to work the flaws out of their personalities. If that’s all marriage is about, why should women sign on for the unpleasant task of whipping immature men into shape? Especially when studies support your unbalanced portrayal and suggest that marriage is statistically far more beneficial for men than women?”
Perhaps, but not all studies. Some also show that it’s quite beneficial for women as shown in the following excerpt from The Wall Street Journal (sorry I can’t post the whole article - copyright issue forbid it):
–Begin excerpt–
The Wall Street Journal
16 June 2005
ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR MARRIAGE
WORK & FAMILY: Another Argument for Marriage: How Divorce Can Put Your
Health at Risk
By Sue Shellenbarger
When my creaky joints ache in the morning, I blame a lot of things - too hard a workout at
the gym, drizzly weather, advancing age.
It never occurred to me to blame my divorce - until now.
The breakup of my marriage five years ago could actually be fueling my
persistent aches, new research suggests. A study to be released next week at a national
marriage conference shows that being divorced for long periods is linked to higher rates of
chronic illness and loss of mobility later in life.
Coining a new term, “marital biography,” to denote your entire lifelong experience with
marriage, divorce and remarriage, the study’s co-authors, University of Chicago’s Linda Waite
and Duke University’s Mary Elizabeth Hughes, will show how that history has a cumulative
effect on health. Indeed, your marital biography has an even bigger impact on long-term
health than whether you are married or divorced at any particular time.
The longer you spend in a divorced or widowed state, the higher the
likelihood of heart or lung disease, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke and
difficulties with mobility, such as walking or climbing stairs, according to the 2005 study
of 8,652 people age 51 to 61. The research, funded by the National Institute on Aging, will
be presented a week from today at a Dallas conference of the Coalition for Marriage, Family
and Couples Education, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit organization.
People who were married at the time of the study and had never been divorced or widowed had
20% fewer chronic conditions, based on participants’ reports of doctors’ diagnoses, than
individuals who had been divorced, after controlling for age, gender and race. That suggests
the stresses of divorce and its aftermath have health effects that may not show up in a
person until years later.
“Our marital biography writes on us and scars us,” Diane Sollee, coalition director and
founder of SmartMarriages.com, a marriage-education Web site, says of the study results.
“It’s a slow burn.”
The researchers measured marital disruptions by calculating the percentage of the years since
first marriage that were spent in a divorced or widowed state. In my case, I married once, in
1979, and divorced in 2000. Thus I’ve spent 20% of the time since I was first married in a
state of marital disruption. That increases by 6% the number of chronic health problems I
might expect to develop, compared with my risk if I’d never divorced.
–end excerpt–
I also think the various benefits from marriage for men and women are highly dependent on the working definitions one uses. I just can’t believe that there is such a profound differential between the benefits for men vs. women in marriage; many men would argue that marriage is much more beneficial for women than men, and they’d be right based on their working definitions of “benefit.”
Ugh. I disagree so much I don’t know how to respond.
What happened to “becoming increasingly tolerant of radical relativism” or some such thing? :)
You sound like my dad telling me about how much his wife has made him a better person. While I’m all for growing through relationships, I’ve noticed that men are the ones who get to grow and women are the vehicles of their transformation. I reject that model of a relationship–it strikes me as more “women nuture, men lead” stuff. I am not a tool; I am a woman. When my dad rhaposodizes on how women make men better, I get irritated.
I’m sure you don’t mean it that way, but your focus on the male benefits of marriage strike me as close to the old, “Marriage is to civilize men, marriage is so men can grow, marriage is to create a home base for men so they can go out and fight tigers, etc.” thinking. Marriage isn’t for women yet, and I’m hesistant therefore to embrace it.
Here’s how I ultimately probably agree with Hugo’s post: I think that we are most honest about our “true” selves when we realize we won’t find that self through separating ourselves from others (which you can’t do really anyway) but rather through paying close attenion to the intimate bonds that make us who we are.
Marriage has been wonderful for me because of the emotional work my partner and I do; it has also been wonderful for me as a form or ritual because it helped me gain more perspective on where I am on life’s long path–and that I am a part of the cycle of live and love and death that all creature’s on the Earth share. (That’s my secular way of putting some of the advantages that others understand religiously). To this extent, it has indeed made me more mature.
But! Here is how I disagree with Hugo’s post. Marriage cannot do these things for you if you are not ready. Being ready means a lot of things: it means having trust in your practical ability to navigate the world, it probably means spending time living alone and learning some things about yourself, and it definitely means having more than one intense emotional and physical (not neccesarily sexual, I suppose) relationship.
Too many young people rush through these things. They get married because they think they should (to prove, perhaps, that they are mature). They get married because they are scared, and want to feel settled (rather than working through their fear). They take too much comfort in marriage as a ritual–and don’t realize that marriage does help you along, but it can’t help you if you weren’t already doing the work of helping yourself.
Taking a long time to get married, I guess, is not to my mind a sign of immaturity. It is a sign of humbleness and of patience.
As I said at the beginning, folks, this is where my faith trumps my feminism. I know that’s maddening to non-believers, and ultimately, it’s issues like this — and the reasoning that we use in debating these issues — that exposes the huge rift between the secular and the religious left.
I assure Keri, however, that I have friends who are
a. polyamorous
b. living in long-term unmarried relationships. Lord knows, my position is not based on ignorance of the diverse ways in which human beings arrange their families. (Heck, I lived in a co-op in Berkeley for three years, people!)
I find it telling that Mr. Bad has found new allies here on this issue! It’s the one thing I’ve noticed that both the MRAs and many secular feminists agree upon: a rejection of the idea that marriage is the primary vehicle for human happiness. I don’t know what to make of that unity, but there it is.
I wrote about marriage as a vehicle for growth for men. But I did not mean to imply that it cannot be that for women as well! (So often, I’m accused of being “harder” on men than on women here on this blog; you’d think my pro-feminist credentials would get me some slack.) All of us, men, women, straight, gay, lesbian, do our best growing when we — after reaching adulthood — begin to live our lives within the terms of serious, permanent, commitments to one other person. I believe that’s true psychologically, I believe it’s true Scripturally.
Also, as a postscript, I’ve had many conversations with my grandmother about her experience of being a WWII veteran’s bride. Although she loves my grandfather, she is still angry about how much pressure she and her peers felt to, as she puts it, “Shut up and marry a veteran.”
Most of her peers got married right after the war, and she says she thinks most of them have very bad, silent relationships. But she’s very quick to say why she thinks (again, my GRANDMOTHER is saying this) there was so much social pressure to marry: during the war it seemed like there was going to be a lot of social change. Men travelled and were exposed to other cultures; women worked and had lives without men. But the nation needed a solid workforce. So marriage! It makes men settle down and work, and it makes women get out of the workforce to make places for men.
Which is fine, but it’s not emotional or spiritual maturity. And I know that’s not an original point, but it’s one that my grandmother feels very personally and very keenly.
And lets remember that another one of those brides from the 40’s and 50’s was Betty Friedan! She might have some idea about whether that mode of marriage was great for women…or, by extension, for men.
Altmama, I’m not advocating folks rush into marriage willy-nilly at 18! I am suggesting that far too many people put it off for far too long.
Since we’re quoting grandparents, let’s quote one of mine: “Having the same experiences with different people does not lead to growth. Having different experiences with the same person does.”
:)
Yeah, my parents say that too. I think they are right in most ways.
I guess part of the confusion grows from mixing up theory and practice, or ideal and example.
What I mean is: marriage, clearly, is great.
Except for all the people who think marriage will be more or different than what it is, in which case it usually stunts growth rather than aids it.
So then the interesting question becomes, how do we all, as friends and mentors, praise the importance of marriage while also making our listeners feel content to wait, wait, wait? That becomes hard to do (and here I’m just nitpicking with your rhetoric, not with your ideas) when we start speaking nostalgicly of the “emotionally mature” WWII era marriages, or talking about marriage in context of 21 year old women who want to “settle down.” (I don’t actually usually think that the 17-21 years are as emotionally important as the post-college years, but maybe that’s just me).
Anyway, sorry to jump on examples rather than ideas. That’s not very helpful of me!
Yeah…um…not so much.
I think that we become more who we already are through marriage because we are primarily relational beings. This is not an issue of extro/introversion. It is an issue of being in relationship. Think of it in terms of the Trinity and God being God’s self in relationship.
So, I am not a different person now that I am married, more complete. But I am more myself…I am more myself in the same sense as I am when I take any relationship seriously.
I think that you might want to speak to intentionality of relationship than marriage per se. A successful marriage is an intentional relationship bent on the growth and happiness of those involved. It is not an accident. It is not to be culturally de facto.
And if intentionality is the issue, than such growth could be found in many other relationships as well.
I don’t wanna diss what you are getting at Hugo. I just think your focus is too narrow.
Tripp, I’m curious to know what other relationships, besides marriage, provide an opportunity for comparable sacrifice, discovery, and above all, comparable growth? I can certainly think of certain kinds of cohabiting relationships (such as those where marriage is not possible or inadvisable due to Social Security issues) that can lead to this kind of growth, this “becoming more who we already are” as you nicely put it.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were ignorant, Hugo; I just wasn’t sure exactly what you meant when you talked about men who are “blissful in being neither married nor chaste.” Admittedly, I also find it very hard to believe that you don’t know a single unmarried man who isn’t “self-absorbed,” particularly if you have as much diversity among your unmarried friends as you claim. Even one example would be enough to poke holes in your assertion that everyone is better off married, wouldn’t it? (And to echo what The Birdwoman said way up there, what’s so different psychologically about a long-term committed relationship and a long-term committed relationship that’s been state-sanctioned? Particularly among secular folks, I just don’t see how the marriage certificate changes anything, and I certainly don’t see why a couple can’t begin down the path to wisdom and maturity without it.)
As for MRAs and feminists, I think we find common ground in our misgivings about marriage because both groups are highly aware of the possible disadvantages involved in heterosexual relationships. Of course, we’re approaching it from drastically different perspectives– I disagree with most MRA critiques of marriage (which tend to portray it as a vehicle for women to manipulate and take advantage of men), just as I’m sure MRAs disagree with most feminist arguments against it (which focus on the historical implication of women as property, sexist traditions like name-changing, husbands expecting wives to work as unpaid maids, etc). But despite our huge difference of opinion about what the disadvantages are and who bears the lion’s share of them, both groups recognize that gender relations being what they are, relationships between men and women can be painful and damaging to either or both parties; in that light, it makes sense for us to at least agree that opting out of marriage is the best choice for some people.
I’ve never suggested, Keri, that everyone is better off married. Again, I really do believe that some folks are called to celibacy! As far as long-term commitments short of marriage, I suppose it depends on the reason. Is it fear? An unwillingness to say “forever”? Then, IMHO, that falls short of the mark. Is the reason financial? Is it — like a couple I know in Washington — out of solidarity with gays and lesbians who cannot marry? Those are different concerns, and there I would see no block to “wisdom and maturity”.
A very nice analysis, Keri, of why MRAs and feminists might both be leery of marriage. Well put.
Hugo, stop taunting us about our convergence of opinion with MRAs. It’s not nice.
a rejection of the idea that marriage is the primary vehicle for human happiness.
I suppose I am doing that, yes. But the word that does that sentence in isn’t marriage, of which I very much see a great deal of value and strong appeal. If you think we’re denigrating or disrespecting marriage, I think you’re wrong, at least in my case. The word that puts me off is “primary.”
There is an interesting divergence between us that probably has a lot to do with secular/religious split (although, for the record, I don’t much care for the label “secular” for reasons similar to those in William Connolly’s marvelous book _Why I am not a Secularist_, but I don’t have a better label, so…). I am more than willing to entertain lots of relativism about “the good” but I have a very hard time swallowing relativism about “the right” whereas you tend in the opposite direction. My way makes so much more sense to me it’s really hard to wrap my mind around the reverse angle. Liberalism (of the philosophical variety, to which I really don’t think you subscribe) requires faith too, we just don’t care to admit it.
I know that’s maddening to non-believers
There you go with “non-believers” again. And it’s not “maddening.” It’s disappointing that you can’t manage to square your faith and your feminism. Do you really think there are topics where God says “No feminism here, Hugo”?
Correct me if I am wrong, but Paul thought marriage was a poor second choice compared to celibacy; marriage was certainly better than eternal damnation, if you just couldn’t keep it in your pants like you ought.
And there is a big, big difference between believing God wants us to marry, and spewing sexist garbage about how marriage creates maturity and (as Amanda said) women are just the vehicles for men’s transformation.
First, to Keri. You said in regards to the downside of marriage for women: “…which focus on the historical implication of women as property, sexist traditions like name-changing, husbands expecting wives to work as unpaid maids, etc.”
The first two can indeed be seen as sexist using contemporary standards, but you need to remember that they were the customs back then and there were definitely just as many sexist disadvantages from marriage for men back then too. For example, men were held solely responsible for their wives behavior, debts, crimes, etc. However, re. the allegation that husbands expected their “wives to work as unpaid maids, etc.,” I say bullshit. You’re ignoring all the perks that the wives got, e.g., a roof over their heads, food on the table, access to the bank accounts, etc. If the maid model were really true, then the wives would have had to pay the husband for their room and board, would not have had access to the family funds, etc. Sorry, but in the past women were treated just as well in the institute of marriage as men were.
Now to Hugo: The more I read this and other posts and your responses in the various threads on your blog, the more I’m coming to the understanding that you have absolutely no clue about what constitutes healthy masculinity and what the vast majority of normal, oridinary men are like. For example, you continually characterize men as “immature, self-absorbed, narcissistic, adolescent, irresponsible,” etc. But frankly, you’re not describing average, normal, ordinary healthy men at all; fact is, I think you’re indulging in transference and/or projection.
Just look at your blog: Almost every day you post something about yourself, often times shallow and/or silly, and usually relating to your body with a healthy dose of your feelings thrown in. For this reader, you come across on this blog as having a very strong “mirror, mirror on the wall…” princess approach to your life. So, considering that your professinal focus has been on women and homosexuals, I humbly suggest that perhaps that’s the basis for the model you’re projecting as the “typical” male you keep trying to offer up. And because of this, you’re missing the mark vis-a-vis typical men by miles and miles.
Oh, I thought the huge benefit of being permitted to sleep inside was the “payment” for the sex and the child-bearing, Mr. Bad.
Hugo,
You make some points that are very similar to those espoused by Gary Thomas in his book Sacred Marriage.
I’ve been at all ends of the map in almost 39 years, Hugo: single and wanting to get married for many years, then single and satisfied to the point of believing that I probably had the gift of celibacy. But surprising turns happen, and I got engaged last week. I don’t know for sure about the truth of your comments, Hugo, but I suspect they’re close to the mark, and I’m about to find out.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
I think you’re indulging in transference and/or projection
Dagnabit, I *just* got this irony detector re-calibrated!
Well, good. The temporary rapprochement between feminists and MRAs has come to a spectacular end.
There’s so much I could say to Mr. Bad — but it’s Saturday, the day is beautiful, and I’m tired from an eleven mile run (on no carbs and about 800-1000 calories a day the past ten days) with two other triathlete/ultrarunner guys. Of course, filled with self-loathing as we are, we bemoaned our external appearance and our inner superficiality as we made our way up and down the White Saddle trail above Monrovia. Now, a brief rest before sallying forth to plot ways to cast aspersions on my brothers.
Oh, and Chip: congrats, brother!
Ah Hugo, your most recent post proves one of my points spectacularly - it’s all about you. There’s no substance, it doesn’t address the topic of the thread.
Perfect!
You said: “There’s so much I could say to Mr. Bad”
Then why don’t you? You’ve taken the time to stroke your ego, brag about your workout, slap your buddies on the back, so you have at least a little time. Ah, but instead, once again you go on about yourself.
Yet you have the nerve to generalize that all men are “self-absorbed,” “narcissistic,” etc. Like I said, transference and projection Big Guy.
Checkmate.
Like I said, I think that you should stick to what you know, i.e., feminism and homosexuality, and leave healthy, normal masculinity to those of us who understand it.
And this: “Well, good. The temporary rapprochement between feminists and MRAs has come to a spectacular end.”
You actually celebrate discord between groups instead of finding common ground? That’s twisted.
Once again, another fine example of the best feminism has to offer our society.
Two questions, Mr. Bad:
1. Why shouldn’t I ban you? (A very different question from “Why shouldn’t you be banned?”
2. Where have I ever said that ALL men are self-absorbed and narcissistic?
Amanda said: “Oh, I thought the huge benefit of being permitted to sleep inside was the “payment” for the sex and the child-bearing, Mr. Bad.
So let me get this straight, you see women in the past as nothing more than prostitutes and brood mares?
Good God, no wonder feminism has become an “f-word.”
Hugo asked two questions:
“1. Why shouldn’t I ban you? (A very different question from “Why shouldn’t you be banned?”
Because I provide balance, “diversity” if you will, to this blog. The threads that I participate in are the most active and IMO enlightening.
Now, I understand that you might be personally offended by what I’ve said here, but nevertheless I think it’s valid. You, Michael Kimmel, et al., have a very inaccurate, uninformed and distorted view of healthy, normal masculinity. You (and he) instead are much more attuned to feminist and homosexual (i.e., gay and lesbian) issues than most people. There’s nothing wrong with that - in fact it’s necessary and informative - but the fact remains that IMO you’ve shown yourself to be clueless on the topic of normal, healthy masculinity.
“2. Where have I ever said that ALL men are self-absorbed and narcissistic?”
I’ve been around here long enough to see the pattern vis-a-vis how you view men. To my knowledge you’ve not stated outright that all men are self-absorbed and narcissistic. However, e.g., in this thread you stated that men who aren’t partnered (with women or gay men) are self-absorbed, narcissistic, immature, etc. And it’s telling that I’m not the only one who saw this; your feminist allies saw this too, so it’s not just Bad Old Me, the mean MRA picking on you.
Hugo, go ahead and ban me if want - hey, it’s your blogspace. But then you just go the same way of all the other feminist BBs, i.e., non-diverse, heavily censored, and prove to all who care that feminism can’t withstand an honest, open debate.
Nice response, Mr. B. Can you suggest a resource to help me learn about normal, healthy masculinity? I’ve done all-male retreats and workshops. I was — God help me — a Boy Scout (who left after Tenderfoot.) But clearly, I’ve missed something invaluable! Is Men’s News Daily a good example? I’m asking a serious question, actually, and would like a serious answer.
People who were married at the time of the study and had never been divorced or widowed had
20% fewer chronic conditions, based on participants’ reports of doctors’ diagnoses, than
individuals who had been divorced, after controlling for age, gender and race.
The people that were married all that time didn’t actually live longer, it just seemed that way to them..
Hi Hugo,
Thanks for not banning me (really!).
As for sources re. healthy, normal masculinity, I’m not an expert - I don’t believe I’ve ever said I was. What I do know is that most normal guys don’t talk about themselves very much (if at all), worry much about their bodies (much to their disadvantage vis-a-vis morbidity and mortality), etc. On the other hand, men are usually quite mature and serious about a great many things in life, for example, things like commitments and marriage. Perhaps this is why women percieve them as “afraid of commitment” re. marriage, because IMO men are lot more thoughtful, careful and serious about it and thus do not dive into it as quickly or readily as women do. And perhaps this explains why it is indeed women who are more prone to leave marriages. IMO women are not as serious about the commitments they make - future or present - as men are.
I don’t know Hugo, re. people with clues about normal, healty masculinity you might try Warren Farrell, Stu Goldberg, C.H. Sommers. You know, the usual suspects. :)
But guys like Kimmel, Michael Flood, et al., are IMO clueless - heck, Kimmel’s even admitted that for most of his life he’s been very uncomfortable around men, to the point that he had to leave his first undergrad college and take refuge with the girls in a newly co-ed woman’s school. So IMO guys like Kimmel have some really serious issues and baggage, and thus out on the lunatic fringe relative to the topic of men and masculinity.
One more thing Hugo,
Seriously, I think a great place to learn about normal, ordinary men is at the standyourground.com BB. No doubt you will be appalled and insulted by much of what goes down there due to the anti-feminist nature of many there, but still, IMO it’s a very good place to get a realistic view of what normal, healthy men are thinking vis-a-vis feminism and gender issues in general.
Ah Hugo, your most recent post proves one of my points spectacularly - it’s all about you. There’s no substance, it doesn’t address the topic of the thread.
Time for a clue-stick, Mr. Bad. Ahem! This *is* Hugo’s blog. It’s a place for him to write about *HIS* thoughts and feelings. You may or may not post in response. Your choice.
Seriously, I think a great place to learn about normal, ordinary men is at the standyourground.com BB. No doubt you will be appalled and insulted by much of what goes down there due to the anti-feminist nature of many there, but still, IMO it’s a very good place to get a realistic view of what normal, healthy men are thinking vis-a-vis feminism and gender issues in general.
Mr. Bad, I read this to my husband, who was a SSgt in the USMC, is very definitely a “man’s man,” and is most definitely an “alpha male” type (most medics, firefighters, and rodeo hands are alpha-types, and it shows). He mentioned something about gagging.
Most men, or “average men” or whatever aren’t particularly feminist, Mr. Bad, you’re correct about that. (What we should infer from that fact is another matter altogether…) But neither are most men MRAs. A miniscule of men in this country post on Standyourground, listen to Glenn Sacks, let alone belong to the various MRA organizations. I’m sure that like most people MRAs tend to associate with those who share similar interests and concerns, and that might lead them to think that their “concerns” about the evils of feminism are keeping men awake at night across the country, but as far as I can tell, you’ve got no actual evidence for that. I the following things are pretty self-evident: 1) neither Hugo nor Warren Farrell much resembles a typical model for masculinity or a widespread perspective on feminism and gender relations, and 2) nothing normative regarding either of their perspectives and projects can be derived from that fact. This just isn’t a productive or interesting topic, and your or I or Hugo or anyone else speculating about what “normal masculinity” is *really* like (and, in the end, promoting our credentials about all the “normal men” we’ve known and interacted with) is likely to be extraordinarily unhelpful and unrevealing. And that’s fine–see (2). We can talk about what’s healthy, what’s right, what’s just, and what’s good without constant double-checking with public opinion polls. THere’s a million things wrong with the MRA line on gender politics, from where I sit; the fact that their views aren’t widely held, while gratifying, isn’t part of the case against them.
The threads that I participate in are the most active and IMO enlightening.
I can certainly see why it might seem that way to you. To many of the rest of us, your presence tends to turn threads toward issues far broader than the post intended–in general, you frame so many of your comments as indictments against feminism in general that it’s quite distracting to those who hoped to discuss more specific issues. As you seem to live for meandering arguments about the (lack of) validity of feminism, it works fine for you. Many of us find that topic tiresome.
Hi Caitriona,
You said: “Time for a clue-stick, Mr. Bad. Ahem! This *is* Hugo’s blog. It’s a place for him to write about *HIS* thoughts and feelings. You may or may not post in response. Your choice.”
News flash: Caitriona, I know this. I was using the history and the pattern of his web site to point out that his depiction of the ‘average, ordinary, normal’ unmarried guy looks more like a self-portrait than the general case. And trust me, when the topic isn’t of interest to me, I don’t post. Or haven’t you noticed this?
You also wrote: “Mr. Bad, I read this to my husband, who was a SSgt in the USMC, is very definitely a “man’s man,” and is most definitely an “alpha male” type (most medics, firefighters, and rodeo hands are alpha-types, and it shows). He mentioned something about gagging.”
Well, I don’t know anything about your husband but I do know that the men and women at StandYourGround tend to be complex, deep thinkers, something that macho, knuckledragging ‘jarhead’ military types are not known for. Now, like I said, I don’t know your husband but perhaps this explains the disconnect?
Hi djw, you said (in response to my comment about threads I participate in): “I can certainly see why it might seem that way to you.”
I base this claim on the fact that the threads that I get involved with tend to have more activity than others. I’m assuming that if a thread isn’t interesting then people don’t post to it.
Continuing: “To many of the rest of us, your presence tends to turn threads toward issues far broader than the post intended–in general, you frame so many of your comments as indictments against feminism in general that it’s quite distracting to those who hoped to discuss more specific issues.”
This site is devoted to the feminist perspective on the issues to discuss, so IMO it’s impossible to not critique feminism when critiquing the various perspectives and theories presented here. If this site wasn’t so politicized (i.e., feminist) my responses wouldn’t reflect the inherent politics.
“As you seem to live for meandering arguments about the (lack of) validity of feminism, it works fine for you. Many of us find that topic tiresome.”
I know, but I think that feminists have had it far too easy vis-a-vis being able to present their dogma in an insulated, unchallenged arena. I figure I’m just making up for lost time. And if it’s so tiresome then perhaps those who find it so should take Caitriona’s advice and not read my posts? Just a thought.
Most men, or “average men” or whatever aren’t particularly feminist, Mr. Bad, you’re correct about that. (What we should infer from that fact is another matter altogether…) But neither are most men MRAs. A miniscule of men in this country post on Standyourground, listen to Glenn Sacks, let alone belong to the various MRA organizations.
I would say that most men aren’t card carrying “Feminists†or “Pro-Feminists†for those of you that demand the distinction. However, I do think that the vast majority of men support the parts of feminism that promotes equality between men and women. The “miniscule†of men in this country that you speak of are the ones who might hold with the antiquated gender roles that I often see presented here and on other pro-feminist blogs as majority male opinion.
MRA’s indeed are a small group of men, however, many many more men, while not professing to be MRA, can relate to and even support at least some of the concepts espoused by the “Glen Sacks types.†I think MRA complaints usually fall into a few categories:
1: Inequality in Child Support/ Custody Issues:
2: The tilting of laws and institutions towards the favoring of women
3: Women’s denial that many defined gender roles have benefits for women
4: Women’s denial of all of the above issues
Most men will agree in principle with these four issues whether they are “MRA’s†or not. They are issues of fairness and equality, which feminists claim to profess, but don’t always seem to follow in a consistent way.
The vast majority of MRA’s (going by the various blogs I read) do not:
1: Want to deny women equality in work and academics
2: Want women to return to some kind of antiquated gender role
3: Control women’s reproductive rights (forced pregnancies or abortions)
4: Support deadbeat dads or moms (Deadbeat defined as able but unwilling)
MRA’s have their fringe element, just as feminists do. But rarely do I see MRA’s trying to suppress women or their roles in society or denigrating women in general and calling it a part of masculism.
And Mr Bad has a point in that the feminists here tend to have a tilted view of what men are thinking and why we do what we do. Hugo included. But Mr. Bad is in that list as well. 90% of what I read here is anecdotal. And how can that be of help, when like women, there are as many different kinds of men and masculinity as there are stars in the heavens. I disagree with a lot of definitions of masculinity for this very reason. Hugo’s standard of masculinity is no more valid than Mr Bad if you are drawing generalities. There are just too many different kinds of men.
I have no problem with Hugo pointing out men’s faults. As a man, he comes from a better perspective than most feminists. I might not agree with him a lot of the time, but it does make me look at my own interactions with women in a different light, as does some of the other great posters here, including Mr Bad. Introspection is a good thing for everybody. As a self confident man, I can take it.
I also have no problem with the concept, that how we behave as men, both in a secular way, as well as in our religious beliefs, have direct effect on the women in our lives, sometimes in negative ways, that we as men, have to look at. That’s the perspective his blog generally takes. I don’t agree always with that either, or more likely, it doesn’t apply directly to me, but it too, provokes interesting self introspection and lively conversation in our household..
Just because Hugo points these things out, doe not mean that women and feminism automatically default to being perfect or that all men are somehow emotionally defective. Nor does the sin of omission mean that there is no concern for a particular issue or that someone or some group is blameless.
The threads that Mr. Bad participates in are indeed more lively. He presses all those feminist buttons that bring you gals out of your shells.. Getting off the thread concerns aside, your replies to his posts are often the more interesting of the reading….
I’m sure that like most people MRAs tend to associate with those who share similar interests and concerns
This is why I firmly believe that normal, healthy masculinity and normal, healthy femininity are best exemplified by computer nerds. That’s what most of the normal, healthy people I associate with every day are like. Non-computer nerds are weird, abnormal outliers.
Perhaps this is why women percieve them as “afraid of commitment” re. marriage, because IMO men are lot more thoughtful, careful and serious about it and thus do not dive into it as quickly or readily as women do.
On what basis do you make this pronouncement, other than your constant desire to play some kind of grownup version of boys-against-girls?
I guess not, Mr. Bad. You’re right. They were nothing but badly paid maids.
Amazing how you pretty much loathe women until you can pretend you’re defending them against the eeeeeevil feminists, Mr. B.
You also wrote: “Mr. Bad, I read this to my husband, who was a SSgt in the USMC, is very definitely a “man’s man,” and is most definitely an “alpha male” type (most medics, firefighters, and rodeo hands are alpha-types, and it shows). He mentioned something about gagging.”
Well, I don’t know anything about your husband but I do know that the men and women at StandYourGround tend to be complex, deep thinkers, something that macho, knuckledragging ‘jarhead’ military types are not known for. Now, like I said, I don’t know your husband but perhaps this explains the disconnect?
LOL… Mr. Bad, I like your humor.
I figured by now you’d have read a few times that my husband left the USMC after 15yrs because his “complex, deep thinking” led him to become a conscientious objector. This was after about 5 years of studying Zen Buddhism. After much time, research, and deep contemplation, he became a Mennonite. BTW, I truly hope that you don’t run into any “knuckledragging” medics. I’d hate to think how they were able to make it through their EMS classes if they lack the ability to think.
Michael listed a few issues the MRAs have:
1: Inequality in Child Support/ Custody Issues:
2: The tilting of laws and institutions towards the favoring of women
3: Women’s denial that many defined gender roles have benefits for women
4: Women’s denial of all of the above issues
On the items listed:
1: My husband went through 4 divorces before we met. He and our 3 older children were left by his previous wives. If any man has a reason to see women in a bad light, it is my husband. Yet he doesn’t. As far as the courts are concerned, he was given custody of all 3 children. In addition, he chose to forgive quite a hefty amount of back child support owed by the children’s mothers.
2: I asked him about laws and institutions. He said he doesn’t feel that they are tilted in favor of women. I’m trying to get him to log on here to discuss the matter, but he’s looking at tartans instead.
3: Hmmmm… guess it depends on the woman. Yes, some women chafe at the old defined roles of womanhood. But some women relish the thought of living a more traditional life. Like anything else, it depends on the person. Trying to pigeonhole people is a dangerous game.
4: I guess it depends upon what region you’re from whether or not the above listed complaints are valid issues. Some parts of the country have traditionally held men in a much higher rank than women. To argue that that doesn’t happen doesn’t make it go away.
Now, back to the subject of ‘Marriage and Miracle Grow.’ The only Miracle Grow I know of for marriage is increasing closeness between the husband and wife. Each must be willing to grow and to become a better person, and to become one with his/her spouse. I know that’s a concept that bothers a lot of people. (It *really* bothers one young lady at our church.) But that’s been the key for our marriage. None of us are finished growing and learning. To insist that our partners do all the growing and changing, while we remain the same, doesn’t work. To stifle the growth of our partners also doesn’t work.
I don’t see how anyone treating his/her partner with an attitude such as some that have been expressed here, by ultra-MRAs on one side and by ultra-feminists on the other, could be healthy at all in a relationship. But that’s just me. I know it would drive me absolutely bonkers, and I don’t see how I’d be able to maintain a relationship if I treated another that level of cynicism.
I’m puzzled as to where this ‘denying benefits to women’ comes from. Of course women benefit from sexism–that’s why so many ‘traditionalist’ women fight tooth and nail against things like the ERA. The issue isn’t that men have ALL the benefits and women ALL of the drawbacks of sexism; but men gain far more than women do, and have fewer negatives.
mythago about sexism: men gain far more than women do, and have fewer negatives
Again, it’s a YMMV-type situation. There are things that I see as “common courtesy” that some people see as “sexism” (see previous discussion re: men pulling out chairs for women). There is a certain way of life my husband and I are moving toward that some people here would see as sexist. But then again, there are things I do on the farm that most feminists I know would never try (pulling stock trailers, herding livestock, pulling calves/kids/lambs if necessary, working with a couple of headstrong fillies who are far too spoiled and have lost their manners, butchering chickens, etc).
Different people live different lives. I’ve never understood why people worry more about “common courtesy” vs “sexism than they do about actual human rights abuses.
1: My husband went through 4 divorces before we met. He and our 3 older children were left by his previous wives. If any man has a reason to see women in a bad light, it is my husband. Yet he doesn’t.
Exactly my point Cait. (I love anecdotal evidence by the way). I don’t believe the vast majority of men, MRA or not, hate or generalize women as bad because of their belief in the four things I mentioned. MRA’s are just taking a lead in recognizing them. Whether you personally agree or not, it is their right in a free society.
To hate 51% of the population for the perceived sins of one person is about as fringed an element as you can get.
To hate 51% of the population for the perceived sins of one person is about as fringed an element as you can get.
Which is why I so strongly disagree with the stance of the MRA’s whose views I’ve read. Hate solves nothing; it only makes things worse.
The following is a list of overused, overly wordy and ambiguous, and often ironic phrases found in this thread:
• I think you’re indulging in transference and/or projection. [Mr. Bad]
• vehicles for men’s transformation [Mythago]
• stereotypical commitmentphobe [Keri]
• perception bias [Keri]
• “”Our marital biography writes on us and scars us,” [Quoted by Mr Bad]
• radical relativism [djw]
• interesting divergence [djw]
• historical implication of women as property [Keri]
• Dagnabit [Mythago again with the big words]
• temporary rapprochement [Hugo]
• inner superficiality [Hugo again]
• Checkmate. [Mr Bad]
• celebrate discord [Mr. Bad]
• There’s no substance [Mr Bad again]
• very definitely a “man’s man,” [Caitriona]
• nothing normative [djw]
• Time for a clue-stick [caitriona]
• eeeeeevil feminists [Amanda]
• Mr. Bad, I like your humor [Caitriona (award for funniest sarcasm)]
Notable omissions to this list:
Conflation
Cognitive Dissonance [my personal award for most overused phrase]
Michael, when it comes to substance-free non-sequitors (does that make the list?) , your post is certainly one of them.
Michael, when it comes to substance-free non-sequitors (does that make the list?) , your post is certainly one of them.
Oooh.. your right, that is a good one. I’ll have to submit that one to Readers Digest.
Thanks for the Kudos.. You’ve made my day!!!
[quote]Correct me if I am wrong, but Paul thought marriage was a poor second choice compared to celibacy; marriage was certainly better than eternal damnation, if you just couldn’t keep it in your pants like you ought.[/quote]
Correction (you are wrong.) There is NOTHING in Corinthians 7 which indicates that marriage was a “poor second choice.” Not even close. He was not delivering a command but a concession, knowing that not all were like him. Paul was also a devout Jew and would never have contradicted God’s holy ordination of marriage in GENESIS for heaven’s sake, by making any claim which approximated that of marriage being a “poor second choice.” Nor did he ever suggest that they all “ought” to keep it in their pants. In fact much of Corinthians 7 is devoted to pushing the married folk NOT to keep it in their pants, and to continually fulfill their marital duties toward one another.
That said, that Hugo could apply the principal of Genesis (it is not good for the man to be alone) to relationships that are clearly biblically prohibited, and also fail to mention that the REMEDY God devised so the man wouldn’t be alone was a WOMAN (duh) - and to then claim that this is where his CHRISTIANITY trumps his feminism. Well that’s a hoot and a freaking half. It would be hilarious if it weren’t blasphemous to the nth degree.
Hugo, you will, and I say this without equivocation, burn in hell.
you will, and I say this without equivocation, burn in hell.
Ya know, I’ve found that it can be rather dangerous for we humans to make declarations of what God’s determination will be on any given instance. There is that one directive, after all, that says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” If I were telling others that they would “burn in hell,” I’d be afraid that I was determining my own fate.
Marriage is no better than what the spouses make of it. An immature a**hole is unlikely to be improved by his saintly wife unless HE gains insight into his own character more or less through his own initiative. A person who recognizes that he is unlikely to either be happy within marriage or to make another happy by marriage is not selfish or immature, but quite the opposite. Whether he or she is celibate seems to be none of anyone else’s business.
I had 7 great aunts (yes, 7) and 2 great uncles who never married and they were variously happy or miserable, generous or stingy with other members of their family based on intrinsic personal qualities that seem unlikely to have changed or improved by way of marriage.
The cultification of marriage is bizarre, particularly since there is NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that the marriage project was intended for human self-improvement or happiness along the lines that we imagine it should be today. Rather, enjoining good treatment (respect) for the female spouse was simply a concession, and apparently a rather radical one at the time, which appears more than anything else I can think of to be a true indication of the status that wives were actually accorded at the time.
I believe monogamous marriage is a vehicle for personal growth and transformation unlike any other. I believe the experience of marriage changes us and deepens us and challenges us in ways that nothing else (cohabitation, polyamory, promiscuity) can….Marriage, done right, strips away a man’s selfishness and self-absorption like nothing else. Permanently directing all of his sexual energy to one person frees him to be a safe, loving man in the lives of those around him.
Not called to celibacy, I could not countenance not being monogomous–other ways of living did not work for me, and I found that out rather early on. My commited partnership has been a place of much growth in faith, in seeing my gifts and faults, in learning to love. The. And frankly, the best sex is in a monogomous relationship in my opinion because of that safety and ability to be vulnerable–naked. As a friend of mine remarked after not seeing me for several years and meeting my partner for the first time: “With him, you’re becoming more yourself.”
Paul was also a devout Jew and would never have contradicted God’s holy ordination of marriage in GENESIS for heaven’s sake
Funny, but Paul seemed to say a lot of things that did not follow the standard practice of Jews at the time.
I realize it’s foolish to argue theology with someone who thinks they know God’s plan and who will and won’t be saved, mind you.
4: I guess it depends upon what region you’re from whether or not the above listed complaints are valid issues. Some parts of the country have traditionally held men in a much higher rank than women. To argue that that doesn’t happen doesn’t make it go away.
Cait,
When I mentioned traditional women’s roles in society, I meant (but did not specify) contemporary society. Certainly some antiquated notions of women’s roles have held this view. For the most part, those notions have gone the way of the outhouse.
In your opinion, which region(s) of the country hold men to a higher rank than women? Not trying to nitpick your statement. Nor denying that some minority of knuckle draggers, as you call them, hold this view. I’m genuinely curious about drawing this conclusion about a specific region.
Actually, with that post of mine, I didn’t want to drag the thread off topic, I just wanted to point out that many men, myself amongst them, support many feminist ideals. We are not fringe element MRA’s. And, we don’t hate women. We adore yall. And we do want to form lasting partnerships with you. We want equals, not servants. My wife is my best friend. Not my property and not my maid. We work *together* to achieve our common goals (much as I hear about your family goals which I envy). I would think the majority of men feel this way, as do the majority of women willing to marry them.
Here it is, the NIV version:
Corinthians, Chapter 7, verse 8:
“Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. So Snowglobe, the passage is, how shall I say, at least open to interpretation.”
But ideally, of course, it is best if one controls one’s passion and doesn’t require marriage to keep it in check. Which is to say that Paul views marriage as better than fornication or prostitution. Which is not saying a whole lot when you think about it.
And of course that says nothing about Jesus’s notion of the hierarchical value of family in the rank of discipleship, from Matthew 19:28:
“28Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.”
This is what one of my great-aunts (a trust funder) told me, and that’s why she never married: Because marriage was a kind of tyranny that was antithetical to personal development and because she was not economically dependent, she had a choice.
None of which is to say that people didn’t make the best of their available choices, or work hard to promote emotional happiness within marriage. But the idea of marriage as personal fulfillment came to us by way of the Enlightenment not by way of Genesis or the New Testament. It has increased commensurate with our increasing economic status, and it has nada to do with the faith laid out in the Bible.
I just got back from a backpacking trip where this topic came up. I liked Hugo’s thoughts, and also found many of the comments thought-provoking (if a few were venom-laced). For the record, I’m deeply committed to saving sex for marriage. I think that tossing around all the symbols of commitment and union without making the actual commitment is emotionally precarious. I also believe that marriage is the strongest building block for learning, growth, and societal stability. The fact that many couples treat the marriage commitment lightly, to the point of infidelity or quickie divorces, does not change the validity of the institution. Nor do the sins of an abusive and domineering spouse of either gender in a particular marriage invalidate the benefits of the institution generally.
That said, I’ve seen lifelong commitment occur outside of marriage–not often, but I do know a few older couples who chose cohabitation and are permanently committed. They buy and build up homes together and plan their lives together. I’ve also seen some great people who have dated each other for years, and seem emotionally healthy and stable. But this seems exceptional rather than regular. Like Altmama, I do believe that marriage is a vehicle for personal growth on the part of both man and woman. In an extramarital relationship, either partner can leave without warning and without reason. This provides an easy escape for those who hesitate to do the personal work necessary to forging lasting interpersonal bonds–and may prevent partners from taking the risk of trying to forge these bonds, since the effort could be easily sabotaged by the impunitive flight of a partner who, at least in the eyes of society, owes no commitment to the other.
For most people, the act of committing to marriage is a visible and legally binding symbol of union that can remind a couple, when times get tough, that they are part of a family unit and owe their best efforts to making it work. And through these efforts, they grow emotionally and mature substantially.
Amanda wrote: “Amazing how you pretty much loathe women until you can pretend you’re defending them against the eeeeeevil feminists, Mr. B.”
Amanda, I honestly don’t have a clue as to where you can justify your personal attack that I “loathe women,” nor where you get the silly idea that I consider women so weak and helpless that they require my assistance in defending themselves against the likes of you and your ilk. I would never insult good, decent women in such a way.
Yes, I’ve had much to say that might make feminists (female *and* male) angry, but that’s very different than misogyny. As far as I can tell, this latest post of yours is just a personal attack on men with no substance. When I did this to you (and Annika) in another thread re. your new “religions” Hugo censored my post.
Sigh. The fact that your personal attack remains unchallegened by Hugo and uncensored must just be more evidence of that “male privilege” stuff I keep hearing about.
Hi Caitriona,
You said: “I don’t see how anyone treating his/her partner with an attitude such as some that have been expressed here, by ultra-MRAs on one side and by ultra-feminists on the other, could be healthy at all in a relationship.”
I personally don’t have any problem with marriage, and I don’t believe I ever said that I do. In fact, I believe that committed monagamous relationship between partners (hetero- or homosexual) is most often a very rewarding and helpful thing. I personally believe that it makes both partners stronger in the sense that as a pair they are ‘greater than the sum of the individuals.’
What I did have a big problem with is Hugo’s misguided and IMO uniformed characterization of men as “immature, self-absorbed” and basically ‘broken’ people, whose only hope is for a woman or gay male to come and resuce them from their terminal adolescence. I also had just as big of a problem with some feminsts’ theories that somehow marriage was a lot better for men than women, and that women got pretty much nothing but a raw deal out of it. I say bullshit to that too - there is a lot of give and take for both men and women in marriage, and IMO it pretty much evens out; otherwise it wouldn’t have lasted as a social institution for as long as is has.
Miichael said: ” I just wanted to point out that many men, myself amongst them, support many feminist ideals. We are not fringe element MRA’s. And, we don’t hate women. We adore yall. And we do want to form lasting partnerships with you. We want equals, not servants. My wife is my best friend. Not my property and not my maid. We work *together* to achieve our common goals (much as I hear about your family goals which I envy). I would think the majority of men feel this way, as do the majority of women willing to marry them.”
As hard as it will undoubtedly be for many to believe this, I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with what I quote Michael saying above. I couldn’t have put it better, nor add to it.
Ya know, I’ve found that it can be rather dangerous for we humans to make declarations of what God’s determination will be on any given instance.
Google my biblical name ‘Uzzah’ see what happens to people who make such presumptions…
Well, Mr. Bad, I see that you believe gay men are not really men. And i would like to think you agree with Michael’s sentiments, but I find it hard to square with your earlier pronouncements that you warn young men about the evils of females and that men are more responsible and thoughtful than women.
Michael, I admire your sentiments–but I’m not sure how many people really share them. Being true equals requires us to get rid of the stupid gender-role stuff (man leads, woman tries to rule from ‘behind the throne,’ antagonism is sexy, blah blah). People don’t like being out of their comfort zones, and when that means your wife not backing down from an argument or your husband expecting you to be the breadwinner, those ideals can go out the window.
Michael,
I’ll get back to your comments this evening, if I can. Been driving myself nuts looking for a file that was tucked away in the door pocket of my truck, because I was going to try to work on it on the road to pick up sheep Saturday. OI!!
Killed all my time. Gotta go grocery shopping now.
Michael, I admire your sentiments–but I’m not sure how many people really share them. Being true equals requires us to get rid of the stupid gender-role stuff (man leads, woman tries to rule from ‘behind the throne,’ antagonism is sexy, blah blah). People don’t like being out of their comfort zones, and when that means your wife not backing down from an argument or your husband expecting you to be the breadwinner, those ideals can go out the window.
Very much agreed, Mythago. People are so resistant to change. Certainly the new gender roles being formed these days ( from the perspective of an old guy like me) can be a source of much confusion and hurt. Certainly it complicates transforming yourself from a lifestyle where you are merely responsible to yourself, to one that demands that you be responsible (or share responsibility) for others, which can be pretty unsettling. I realize my own personal ‘anecdotal evidence’ blurs my vision of society as a whole. But I guess I am a pretty lucky guy. My wife and I don’t really have those picky types of control issues. We are comfortable in our respective roles. We were able to iron out those issues in a constructive and positive way long ago.
I know that it is a difficult issue for a lot of people to get past, that is, the ‘I will not be controlled’ aspect of a relationship. But at some point, you and your SO got to get it together and trust each other, and decide what goals you want to achieve, and what sacrifices you are willing to make to achieve them. If you can’t do that before you marry, then don’t. You are just setting yourself up for a lot of BS.
As for your notion that ‘antagonism is [perceived as] sexy’. I see what you mean, but sheesh.. After you’ve been with your partner for a while, antagonism really loses it’s appeal.. Maybe that is why my wife and I do so well. Antagonism is a lot of wasted energy and we have better things to do with the limited energy we have..
Michael,
Forgive me if I typo on your name. I have to watch myself. I keep doing the transposition to Micheal that I’ve done since 1st grade. Luckily, I married a Micheal instead of a Michael.
You said, In your opinion, which region(s) of the country hold men to a higher rank than women?
A few places where this particular gender relation still exists are “traditionalist” Mormons in Utah/Arizona and some Old Order Amish/Mennonite communities. The places where I’ve seen it personally have been more amongst *portions* of local sub-culture. To a degree, it is seen in many Christian churches - women shouldn’t be preachers, lay-speakers (my grandmother and uncle would have a fit if I told them I’m the lay-speaker scheduled for July 3 - topic = bringing peace to the world), etc. Not all of the people who hold this view are the “knuckle draggers” Mr. Bad mentioned.
I kinda *like* gender roles, to a point.
I like the fact that “The One-Armed Guy” prefers his old “Girl Crew” on the fire dept than all the guys he has to work with. He says we actually knew how to follow directions and didn’t second guess the IC (incident commander).
For the most part, I like being the main person doing the cooking. I like being the one organizing most of our children’s educational opportunities. I like *helping* with the animals, fencing, etc, but not being in charge of getting it all done.
I like *not* being the sole provider anymore, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity I have to be a WAHM, something I was never able to do before. I appreciate my husband *helping* with cooking, dishes, general household clean-up. I like us each knowing what we need to do for the household to function.
He and I do things differently. If we were equally responsible for organizing the kitchen (or other areas), we’d probably kill each other, because we organize things differently. And if I were primarily responsible for the livestock, they’d drive me batty
Case in point: Tonight, I wound up with all 3 dozen head of sheep, plus the 3 goats (sold 2 last week!) all around my legs while I was trying to put out the horses’ feed. That’s *not* how things usually go. (Usually have the sheep & goats in the corral, out of the way.) By the time I got the horses’ feed out, got unwound from the sheep & goats, and rescued a 5 wk old kitten from getting stepped on by the larger animals, I was a *not* a happy camper. None of this would have bothered my husband in the least.
We’ve different skills and different tolerance levels. I get very frustrated when people say that we should share equal responsibilities in all things. There’s absolutely *no*way*. I’m better with kids and teenagers. He’s better with livestock.
Hmmmm… maybe that should be, “I’m better with 2-legged animals, he’s better with 4-legged animals.”
I get very frustrated when people say that we should share equal responsibilities in all things.
You do have equal *levels* of responsibility, don’t you?
Nothing wrong with playing to your strengths. But that’s different than falling into gender roles without much thinking about them, and then getting defensive because they’re comfortable.
Nothing wrong with playing to your strengths. But that’s different than falling into gender roles without much thinking about them, and then getting defensive because they’re comfortable.
But if a couple has fallen into gender roles without much thinking about them, and they are comfortable with those gender roles, why should people outside that relationship tell them they are wrong? If they are both comfortable in their roles, then it is right for them, even if it’s not right for others.
why should people outside that relationship tell them they are wrong?
Are we now debating whether others have the moral right to be busybodies?
That aside, is it ‘right’ to make choices thoughtlessly and out of habit?