|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central government control of the economy, communism, has been shown to be a total failure. What we are now seeing in the US, is that government control of human relations is failing for the same reasons: the government cannot micro-manage the populace without destroying necessary freedom, and without economic incentive, people don't perform.
The complete elimination of all alimony and child support would create a great incentive for families to stay together. Wives and children would have an great incentive to behave reasonably and support the success of the family unit. Working together to enhance the lives of all family members is the whole purpose of a family. Everyone's contribution is required.
Similarly, all long-term welfare must me phased out. This year in Georgia, 71% of black children will be born out of wedlock!
Finally, micro-management of human relations with overly broad and vague "sexual harassment" laws has become nothing more that the persecution of heterosexuals and has severely damaged workplace efficiency.
The solution is to get government out of our personal lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've written an article against alimony, and I almost have it done, I'll be posting it in a few days hopefully.
BTW Men being economically marginalized is a huge issue we have to face, An issue that should be at the fore-front of things we discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with your presumption that wives and children should "behave" under threat of no support in the event of a divorce. This retro way of thinking is a throwback to women being virtual endentured servants of men in order to ensure support of the kids. Both parents should have incentives to stay together, not just one, but incentivizing marriage under financial threat to kids is not the answer.
However, I would like to see less government control provided people prove they can iron out their differnces in a fair equitable way. There is no reason the courts need be involved at all if people can reach their own agreements in the event of a marriage break up or in the event of a child born OOW.
To me the answer lies in the legal concept Rebuttal Presumption of Joint Physical Custody (RPJPC). This presumption meand the the physical custoy and responsibility for care of childrenn is assumed to be exactly equal 50/50 straight down the middle. This is the default.
From there, parents can re-arrange and trade off responsibilites (similar to how they its done in marriage anyway) for the child based on mutal goals. This need not involve the courts at all since the 50/50 default is assumed to be in place until such time as the parents cannot reach an agreement in which case they can petition the court to intervene.
Under RPJPC the responsibilites to the child are similar to marriage. No "divorce" occurs regarding the children. The parents are presumed to be sharing equal responsibility for the care and support of the child(ren). Therefore the children are less likely bo become pawns.
Now in real life, an even 50/50 split in each and every responsiblity toward a child is not very likely (it doesn't occur in marriage usually common. Usually one person is involved with more hands-on childcare and the other with more financial support in a team effort). However, in RPJPC that is the default and from there the parents have to work out an arrangement. If the larger wage earner cannot be involved as full-time daily hand's on caregiver, then he/she has to trade off time for money. And vice versa. If they are both wage earners and the child is in school or daycare, then it is more like 50/50. The diffeence then would be after work/school hours and who is willing and able to put in the majority time/effort supervision there. It could be this is 50/50 as well, many people have managed to work this out. If not, it is presumed to be 50/50 unless or until the parents petition the courts (I would suggest arbitration) to help them come up with a workable arrangement.
But throught, the underlying premis is the 50/50 default in all things parental responsibilities.
This gives both PARENTS (not just wives) incentive to behave reasonably and cooperate for the for the welfare of the child(ren). The incentive for both is that if they don't want the courts involved thier personal life, they'll work out an arrangement on your own and stick to it.
Also it RPJPC gets rid of the presumption of sole custody. Sole custody would ONLY occur if both parties agree to it mutually, or in extreme cases of danger or harm to the children.
In my view there is not enough cause to have the rates of sole physical custody of children we have today. I'd like to move toward the 50/50 default being the norm in society and any deviation from that is by mutual agreement between the parents for practical purposes. (For example if one parent wants to move to another location, obviously 50/50 physical custody is less workable, though not impossible).
Re: alimony. I would like to see more people sign pre-nuptial or even post-nuptual agreements. Especially if one spouse has agreed to forgo career and educational opportunities to focus on childcare, some financial protection should be involved. Rather than alimony, how about a marriage contract which spells out the rights and responsibilites of each partner in marriage and in the event of a divorce?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: alimony. I would like to see more people sign pre-nuptial or even post-nuptual agreements. Especially if one spouse has agreed to forgo career and educational opportunities to focus on childcare, some financial protection should be involved. Rather than alimony, how about a marriage contract which spells out the rights and responsibilites of each partner in marriage and in the event of a divorce?
Judges have a bad habit of tossing out pre-nups if they feel the woman isn't going to be supported somehow by the man after divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nightmist,
Hey this is totally off the subject, but I just got done reading your essay on the ifeminists website, and I wanted to extend you a pat on the back. Good job, brother...
hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't come to the chat tonite. I'm in Finals Hell (I guess Scott's there too--good luck on your finals, Scott!).
My comments:
I agree with DaveW completely. More gov't intrusion into child support will not help, it will make it worse. It was gov't intrusion that messed it up in the first place. A lot of people are frightened of abolishing alimony and child support because there will undoubtedly be children who fall through the cracks. Well, guess what? There are lots of them falling through right now, and the gov't has hurt these kids far more than they've helped them.
There is no perfect solution, but I think if we got rid of alimony and child support, there would be *fewer* falling through than currently. Both women and men would make more sound choices in regards to marriage and reproduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the early 70's, mainstream feminism became the application of communistic principles to the social sphere, thus accelerating the problem. Instead of "capitalism being an evil system by which the rich oppress the masses," the line is "patriarchy is a system by which males oppress the females." In both cases, big government micromanagement was touted as the answer to the supposed problem. In both cases, it has utterly failed.
Many people will not behave responsibly without financial incentive. Government and court-ordered payments eliminate this incentive.
Welfare has enabled illegitimate births to explode. If a person wants to have a child, let that person support the child, not parasite off of the taxpayers in the form of welfare. Removing the cost burden has removed the incentive for responsible behavior.
In the case of alimony and child support, the system encourages women to be con-artist/whores--pretending to be interested in a committed relationship, then running out once the gravy train is secured. The law removes their incentive to stay and contribute. Men then are forced to pay without getting the family support they need to be productive. Payments are mandated; income is not. Marriage becomes a hit-and-run, with men left bleeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave I share many of your "less government" positions but not your pessimistic view of people in general and women in particular. No one should be obligated to stay in an unhappy marriage based on financial considerations. That is indentured servatitude.
I agree both parents who create a child need to support that child. But many cannot. Some will not. We must have some kind of system to protect children from abject poverty and society from the consequences of such. If you travel to countries with no social welfare systems AT ALL it is not a pretty sight. There is NO proof that no social safety net prevents OOW births. My guess is Americans can't stomach the results of such a draconian policy as you propose.
I certainly don't subscribe to your one-sided view of women as con-artist/whores. There are an equal number of men who will dump a wife and mother of his kids for another woman or who would take advantage of an unequal financial situation. Both these numbers are small IMO. Marriage contracts would prevent both situations of power abuse.
The vast majority of people enter into marriage with honest hopes and aspirations. I don't think your overly harsh demonizing view of women is particularly helpful to the discussion.
What did you think of the RPJPC proposal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage contracts would prevent both situations of power abuse.
What did you think of the RPJPC proposal?
My thought is that if the courts enforce such marriage contracts, RPJPC would be unnecessary. Knowing the contract will be enforced gives couples ALL of the incentives you mentioned to work with each other if they decide to split. A good contract would spell that out anyway. It's the expectation by one side or the other that a court would favor them in a settlement that makes them unwilling to compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
Your RPJPC proposal has some good ideas. The problems with no safety net are serious. In reality, there is no perfect solution.
It seems to me that your solution suffers from these flaws:
1. "If a marriage is unhappy, end it." This concept is flawed because it presupposes that marriage is supposed to be fun and meet all a persons emotional needs. Marriage should be seen as a duty. Expecting all one's emotional needs to be met for life by another is not realistic for many people. The natural state for humans, both male and female, is monogamy combined with adultery. As a society, we need to grow up and accept our natural state. Then, marriage can persist because it's not expected to be a panacea or the eternal fantasy of romance stories.
2. Children need a stable environment for emotional health. Being shuttled between households in joint custody is bad for them. They need the stability of a single physical environment and a single social environment at home. Many behavioral and emotional problems are created by joint custody situations.
3. Even a 50% subsidy is enough to make many people abandon a marriage when times get hard or when a better deal seems to come along. They need maximum incentive to stick with their commitments.
Again, I agree with your concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave___ If you don't mind I'll flesh out my thoughts on RPJPC using your list of flaws.
1. I certainly agree with you that people get divorced much to easily. But with RPJPC there is no "divorce" really as concerns the children. The parents are obliged to cooperate and work together for the benifit of the kids, they simply cannot ignore each other or exlude each other from their lives like the present system allows. Therefore, if you have to deal with your former spouse everyday, day in and out, and maintain a civil workable co-parent relationship, then there is little incentive to divorce to begin with. You are not jetisoning many marital aspects permanently (none as pertains to the kids). RPJPC is virtually a non-divorce decree with respect to offspring and the parent can only make the "divorce" permanement including the kids by mutual agreement. Otherwise, you're stuck with each other. If you're stuck with each other anyway, then you'd be better off working out your personal differences and staying married. In a way it is the same "incentive" you imply, only the incentive is not provided by threat of money being leveraged back and forth. Money and time are a presumptive 50/50 by default. More people would say, "Hey it's not worth it to divorce if we're joined together for 18 years of cooperation for the kid(s)". Only those really committed to divorcing would weigh the pros and cons and divorce.
Likewise if RPJPC was mandated in OOW situations, the two people might say "You know, we're bound together by law to cooperate and have a co-parent relationship for the sake of the kids, so we might as well enjoy the benifits of marriage". In this way marriage is encouraged, but not mandated or coerced by financial threat or diminished by financial welfare. (Welfare benifits would be split 50/50 between the parents)
2. I agree being shuttled between households is in general a bad idea. But luckily it is also inconvenient; a major hassle and time waster for the parents who would be bound by a 50/50 caretaker obligation under RPJPC. So again, the parents would have to work together to resolve these practical matters and hassles of the RPJPC law; two homes, two sets of kids stuff, shuttling back and forth, and not being able to move far away from your co-parent, all major hassles built into the system. This gives further incentive to "work it out" and stay married or get married. Bein married you'd have greater flexibilty and greater convenience.
3. I don't know what you mean by a 50% subsidy. But under RPJPC no one is subsidizing anyone. Both parents have the presumptive 50/50 financial responsibility in addition to the 50/50 caretaker responsibiity. Once again, divorcing would not absolve them of either 50/50 presumption. So as a practical matter both may decide that staying together is a better deal for each, both financially and time-wise.
Example: If by divorce the primary earner (let's say the father) knows that he will be required to provide 50% of the money and 50% of the time/effort that is childcare (I could make a separeate list of all this entails). Then he might say "Hmmmm. I'll have to cut my hours at work. I may have to take a cut in pay and not be eligible for promotion. We're all better off staying married".
Likewise the other parent (let's say it's a stay at home mom) faced with a divorce decision realizes she will be required to pay 50% of the cost of child support. She realizes that she'll have to get a job to meet this requirement as well as carry 50% of the caretaking responsibiites. Plus she realizes the primary earner will have less money to contribute to the family because of his 50% childcare obligation. She then might say "Hmmm, divorce doesn't look as attractive to me. Maybe we're all better off staying married."
Only in situations where the cons outweigh the pros by a large margin would divorce be an attractive option. Also in OOW situations, the presumptive obligations on BOTH parents might encourage more a practicle workable arrangement like marriage. If not then at least the child will be attended to by two parents, not one, by law.
Aside: Are you advocating marriage with the partners having adulturous affairs on the side? I'm not sure this is good for the kids or the marriage. Can you explain your position on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
Re: RPJPC, marriage, and adultery
Your ideas are well thought out. It seems that it would be great for some states to use your plan for a few years to test its effects. There is no reason why every state needs to be the same. It's time to try some different things.
It seems to me that the purpose of marriage should be to create an institution for child rearing and to preserve family wealth for future generations. If, as a bonus, one is blissfully happy for life with one's spouse, great! For many people, this bliss simply cannot happen because they are created by nature to need more sexual contact than one person can provide. Also, health and other issues can render one's spouse inadequate. For these people, there needs to be a socially acceptable solution other than divorce.
People break marriages for reasons of sex and infatuation. Marriage should be much more serious than that.
So, my position is that marriage should be taken as a serious duty and not broken. But, it should not be made into something more than is realistic, thus dooming it. Limit expectations to the realistic and necessary, then take the responsibility seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveW___ Intersting POV on marriage. How do you think marriages which would include these extra marital liasons would affect children in their relationships with the parents? Would the liason relationships be open with the children or hidden? (I'm of the opinion that secrets destroy family cohesions).
I'm not necessarily opposed but I'm not convinced this arrangement would strengthen marriages or family commitments. What happens if the extra-marital relationship turns into something both parties want to persue full time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The natural state for humans, both male and female, is monogamy combined with adultery.
>As a society, we need to grow up and accept our natural state.
I disagree. I believe that *some* people are naturally polyamorous, and some monogamous. I do believe it is an orientation, like hetero- or homosexuality, that cannot be altered. I have poly friends who tried monogamy and failed miserably. Now that they have embraced The Lifestyle (they call it "The Lifestyle"), they are more happy and fulfilled.
However, I also know people who are monogamous who tried polyamory and failed miserably. I had a poly boyfriend who very much wanted me to be poly. I tried to make myself like it, but sex with multiple partners was just against my nature. He admits now that trying to convert me to polyamory was wrong. Likewise I admit trying to convert him to monogamy was wrong. We made each other completely miserable trying to get the other person to be something they weren't. Notably we are still friends. We are of different orientations and simply did not belong together in a relationship, anymore than I belong with a gay man.
My (male) partner experienced something very similiar with ex-girlfriends who tried to get him to live The Lifestyle. He tried swinging and didn't like it. He says he did not get the fulfillment he gets from a monogamous relationship.
I think it is natural for our society to have both polyamorous and monogamous humans. I accept my poly friends and they me. We don't try to convert each other.
Perhaps monogamous people are in the minority; I really don't know. I know we definitely exist, and we have our niche in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A discussion of monogamy vs. polyamory might make an interesting chat topic. Are humans naturally monogamous, with polys the abberation, or is it the other way around? Are monogamy and polyamory, as I believe, unalterable orientations set at birth? Are more men than women polyamorous, or are poly women simply more afraid to express their poly desires?
Is a philanderer (of either sex) really scum? Do they really have "committment issues," or are they simply trying to conform to something that is unnatural to them, much like gays and lesbians who enter heterosexual marriages in an effort to "be like everyone else"?
Is The Lifestyle the answer for men who find themselves unhappy and feeling trapped in monogamous relationships?
Most controversial, are polyamorous unions superior to monogamous unions?
For more, visit
http://www.polyamory.org
http://www.lovemore.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are discussing several different things:
- Human sex drive--more versus less
- Human sex orientation--heterosexual or homosexual
- Human reproductive strategy
Humans contain the potential for a great number of reproductive strategies:
- monogamy
- monogamy with adultery
- polygamy
- polyandry
- serial monogamy
- everyone available to anyone
- etc.
The favored mode depends on circumstances:
- very limited resources and no enemies = polyandry
- limited resources, lots of enemies, and great disparity status between males = polygamy
- vast resources, limited enemies = female adultery
- vast resources, lots of enemies = male adultery
- unlimited resources, no enemies = everyone available to anyone
My point is that during the last 60 years in the US, the most common reproductive strategy for those who want children has been monogamy or monogamy with adultery.
My other point was that the urge for adultery is a bad reason for divorce when children are involved. Get it out of your system and stay married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great questions and great topics for discussion, Claire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I think it would make an interesting chat, and perhaps Scott will take the suggestion under consideration!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK I think I side with Lorraine on this issue.
her idea is excellent at least in theory.
I have a few problems to bring up with your complaints though.
"Marriage should be seen as a duty."
The problem with this is the concept of duty strips rights away from people. Duty is the a social demand, rights give people the ability to choose.
Yes marriage is sometimes difficult and people might give up to easy but the statistics show that the majority of marriages that end in divorce are usually childless.
Sticking with a commitment is fine but there is always a time in any commitment that logic should dictate. There is never a reason to put up with mental or physical abuse. Noone would ask a person to hold on to a stock when the company was obviously bankrupt the same is true for any relationship. As one of the great ones said, "You gotta know when to hold them and know when to fold them."
"Children need a stable environment for emotional health. " I agree with you here but, "They need the stability of a single physical environment and a single social environment at home. " not here.
The idea of a neauclear family unit can handle raise a child alone is a pipedream. There is no single enviornment that can raise a child. Society as a whole should take responsibilty and raise the expectations of everyone.
(note: i do agree with your monogamy/adultery comment. people in America are far to uptight about sex.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...people in America are far to uptight about sex"
While I agree with this statement we can't ignore the puritanical underpinnings of our society and just say marriage w/ adultry on the side will have no consequences. The social stigma attached to infidelity to one's spouse won't be erased overnight.
It would be nice if it worked out that Joe and Sally meet every week Wednesday for hot sex while their spouses met with others for the same thing(if nothing else babysitters would get a lot of work). But I'm not convinvced a lot of Joe's and Sally's won't end up wanting to ditch their spouse and stay with each other. In which case we'll have more divorce and "blended" families. Back to square one.
I'm not opposed to the idea on moral grounds (especially if it became the norm and there were no social stigmas), but even then I just don't see how a marriage/adultery combination it will strengthen commitments to family and children. It seems more likely to be divisive.
Besides that, not all marriages break up over infidelity which is the operating premis behind Dave's suggestion that the marriage/adultery combination will reduce divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm for letting the market decide what happens to the family: we have been doing that.
I consider getting married and having children so risky that I've avoided it altogether. Much of the discussion assumes the desirability of getting married and raising families. If we're moving in the direction of increasing government control over all of our lives, then it's unfair for the government to even allow parents custody of their children if the rights and responsibilities of parents are dictated by the government to them on feminist ideological terms.
We ought to move closer to the Republic of Plato, in which the state would assume custody of children. In this way, the state would not be lying when it claims to be the jealous guardian of the best interests of the child; at the present, the slogan "the best interest of the child" is often the government's excuse to reduce men to economic slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars:
I more or less agree with you as well.
"I consider getting married and having children so risky that I've avoided it altogether."
Excellent point.
Marriage was inititally a political/economic institution, it was used by families combine assets and end wars. In many countries affairs are perfectly acceptable. Everyone understands that sex is just that sex not some higher moral issue.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An eminent mathematician turned his attention one afternoon to the problem of the men's movement and, in a trance-like state of inspiration, hit upon the following mathematical statement:
The total expected income after marriage must be reduced by the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce.
He checked this result with his colleagues, one of them a probabilist from Yale University, who pondered the result and then exclaimed, "Yes, the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce must be one of the first order terms of the expected income after marriage." Another good analyst from Princeton University burst out laughing when he realized he had no argument against it. A New York University psychiatrist was dismayed: the formula threatened his livlihood. "Are you reducing the decision to get married to a formula?" he asked. "Given that the probability of divorce is over 50%, it's a bad investment for all but the very rich," the mathematician replied.
Of course, the men's movement seems to assume the desirability of getting married, at least to females of the same culture, which happens to be an ideologically feminist culture--at least as far as marriage and child support is concerned. The probabilities might be more favorable if one were to turn one's attention away from Americanized caucasians, or at least to women from other cultures. I can hear the complaints, "you guys aren't man enough for us. A real man would marry us, father our children, allow us to throw him out of the house, accuse him of abusing his family, pay all our legal and child support expenses, and subsidize our new, improved boyfriend and then go to debtors prison, because we're worth it"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You got a good way of putting things Mars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Mars, what if you wrote up a small essay on how you derived that formula and apply it to a real-life example, then submitted that explanation as an essay for our masculist anthology?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on your last two sentences I'd say you sure have a horrid view of women and their opinion of "real" men. Perhaps if you got out more. I hear Church is a good place to meet quality women with a positive outlook toward men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only mentioned two groups infected with a certain ideological plague--it's wrong to assume that all women comprise those two groups, and I optimistically held out hope that women from other cultures would be more suitable, on the average.
I'll tell my girlfriend about your advice to get out more, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on your last two sentences I'd say you sure have a horrid view of women and their opinion of "real" men. Perhaps if you got out more. I hear Church is a good place to meet quality women with a positive outlook toward men.
No offense, wiccid stepparent, but I find it difficult to evaluate an individual's entire concept of and opinion of people based upon but two sentences. I didn't get hatred out of Mars' statement at all. I got frustration with the many women out there these days who are the way he describes.
You're not going to see me dog a man who makes the choice to be a husband, father, and provider, but you're also not going to see me dog Mars for choosing not to be such and refusing to be intimidated by those who tell us that's what we're supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got hatred out of it, and his belief that "all" American women want to treat men like rugs. I suppose I am glad that I don't hang out with the same women he does. The ones I know are wives and mothers with a great deal of respect and admiration for their men. Sure there are a few "bad apples" in every barrel, but most of us are just trying to get along here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got hatred out of it, and his belief that "all" American women want to treat men like rugs. I suppose I am glad that I don't hang out with the same women he does. The ones I know are wives and mothers with a great deal of respect and admiration for their men. Sure there are a few "bad apples" in every barrel, but most of us are just trying to get along here.
OK, WS, I'll believe that where you live you don't know any opportunist/abusive women. I'll grant you that, but I still don't think Mars' statement equals hatred, and I'll tell you why by telling you a little secret about myself.
It should be pretty obvious to anyone who's been reading this site for any length of time that I harbor absolutely NO hatred nor ill will toward members of the opposite sex. Hell, I was one of the biggest supporters of getting ifeminists.com involved with mensactivism.org, because I know not all women are sexist sow bigots, and we need those who aren't on our side to make the changes that need to be made.
OK, so I don't hate women. Here's the secret: earlier this year, just prior to my discovery of the Men's Activism News Network, I had almost *no* respect for women anymore, particularly American women, and I harbored *a lot* of resentment.
Why? Well, because I felt the constant seething hatred of me in their breath every time they spoke to me. I saw the "jokes" they passed around via e-mail, plotting my murder as a man. I saw the television commercials, where an innocent brother of mine was pushed off a balcony, or made to look the fool.
Now, when you're pounded with these images and "jokes" 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, you're *going* to start resenting it. And it's *going* to appear to you that every female in America is against you, harbors hatred for you and plots your death because you are male.
I understand that you don't get it. I understand that you don't know what it feels like to feel this way, but I do, and I have. And just because *you* haven't experienced it doesn't invalidate my experiences.
It is *very* easy for a man these days to lose all respect for women, and, honestly, women who consistently male bash and treat men that way *really* shouldn't expect to be respected by men.
Anyway, I don't harbor much in the way of resentment toward women who male bash anymore. I pity them for their lack of intellect and human compassion. I also don't harbor specific resentment against American women, because I now know that not all of them are male bashers. I largely have ifeminists.com and the Independent Women's Forum to thank for assisting me in that realization.
I will not deny to you that there are American men out there who hate women, but I will say that they would be much fewer and farther between if it weren't for the saturation of American culture with hatred for men.
Anyway, I stand by my opinion that Mars' comments weren't hate-filled. Just because he prefers women from other cultures doesn't mean he "hates" American women. Nor do the final statements he made in quotation marks infer that *all* American women are that way. Many are, though. Many are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aren't on our side to make the changes that need to be made.
Sigh. That should've been that ARE on our side.
I think I'm all typed out today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me the diffence in outlook is a simple diffence of optimism vs. pessimism. Since I am more of an optimist, I believe the vast majority of people are decent and do not harbor ill intent to one another, I find myself more alamed by those at the extreme ends of the continuum who imply otherwise. Those who claim that ALL, or even MOST women/men are x,y or z (usually something really really horrid).
In any case, what is the difference between male extremists claiming women are opportunistic monsters plotting men's demise....and female extremists claiming men are violent or rapists? They are both extremists, alarmist, reactionary forces. In a war they would cancel each other out by killing each other (hopefully leaving the middle people in peace). Unfortunately in society we aren't that lucky. We must deal with their zeal to spread hate and pessimism to everyone.
As long the extremists realize they are sharing the same ends of the poles with those they despise, it's their business I guess. It is depressing listening to them. More maddening to me personally is the hypocrisy of implying one extremist viewpoint is valid and justified and the other extremist viewpoint is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More maddening to me personally is the hypocrisy of implying one extremist viewpoint is valid and justified and the other extremist viewpoint is not.
Yes, but you have to understand that, even though there are men who are extremists and hate all women, that my story about my own resentment and fears was not out of hate, but out of the culture of hatred toward me in which I found myself entrenched.
There is a difference between acting out in hatred and being acted upon. All the hate toward men spewing from mainstream feminism and the media is bound to take its toll on many men. It *had* taken its toll on me.
These days, women are more often painted in a strong, positive light by the media, and men are afraid to say anything remotely negative at all about them, especially in the workplace (thanks to unfair sexual harassment/hostile work environment policies), so the hate of the extremist feminist is particularly irrational, in my opinion.
Speaking of speaking negatively, I've even noticed a few times on this site when someone says something even mildly negative about women, they get jumped and accused of hatred. Meanwhile, it's still OK to say anything you want about men and manhood.
Political correctness sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I never made any statement of the forms you suggest, since I was careful to qualify my terms, and my intention was to give voice to a fear engendered by widespread socially sanctioned misandry, if I somehow managed to achive the notoriety of Andrea Dworkin or Katherine McKinnon, that would be an accomplishment. Perhaps you'd probably prefer to see me as an obscure misogynist masculist extremist, but this perogative would be mistaken.
I'm not an extremist at all, but I am willing to express some of the darker irrational thoughts that assail one's mind in the face of so much contempt. I don't claim that the points of view expressed are equal or superior in some sense to the misandry of Andrea Dworkin, for example; on the contrary, it's my intention to show the effect that cultural blindness to misandry can have; whether the reader wishes to let matters rest or not is entirely their decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it's not women that make marriage or the prospect of fatherhood so risky, it's the institutions that take their inexorable anti-male course in the 50% chance that relationships go sour that introduce the risk and engender fear. The irrational component of the fear of getting married or fathering children is its misogynist component, but the fear that one will lose one's rights as an economic slave in the event that a marriage dissolves has some basis in institutional realities and is not misogynist.
We've been reading horror stories of punitive child support awards documented on this site and elsewhere. I once spoke with a bureaucrat who work for family services and mentioned that I was unwilling to become a father because of the often punitive child support awards imposed by agencies such as hers. Her response underscored the bureaucrat's eagerness to mete out condign punishment: "you have reason to believe that you won't meet your obligations?"
"What obligations? I don't have children, and I won't be bullied into assuming responsibilities that might give some bureaucrat like you control over my life."
The fear of getting involved doesn't mean one has to hate women at all--that would be willfully missing the point; there are genuine institutional disincentives for avoiding trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I see it more as a kind of Mexican standoff. Kind of like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Both sides have a point but neither one is willing to trust the other. Each one has valid concerns but most people really want to live in peace and harmony. It's the extremist on both sides that pull everyone else to the extreme poles, rather than the majority pulling the extremists to the middle and compromise.
I guess I get frustrated about that is all. I wouldn't have said anything at all but that I really really feel most people don't spend their lives plotting to take advantage of their neighbor or their boyfriend or girlfriend, or wife or husband. That sort of thing.
I'm thinking of a quote by Mark Twain?... can't find at the moment but I'll paraphrase from memory:
Don't attribute to malice what is simple ignorance
Something along those lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist,
Your experience of growing up in a misandrist culture sounds very much like mine. I had feminist parents, who hung out with feminist friends. I spent many years working in universities where gender feminist philosophy is the norm. Until my mid 20's (around 1985) I was more or less a male feminist. I read MacKinnon, Dworkin, Firestone, Schaef, Brownmiller, French, Morgan, and a lot of others. These writers, along with more recent ones, I now realize were just spewing out fear, rage and hatred. Unfortunately, as Patai, Farrell, Nathanson & Young (Spreading Misandry), Sommers, Lessing, Schwartz(Revolt of the Primitive) and many others have pointed out, this hostility for men is now a central feature of our culture.
On the other hand, my experience with equity feminists (Young, Patai, Sommers, McElroy, Paglia, Roiphe, LaFramboise, K.Parker, and a dozen others who I regularly read) is very positive.
But, one little caveat... I see fairly often, even among truly committed equity feminists, the tendency to minimize my experience of misandry. It often seems that they do not really believe that it could be all that big a deal. I recognize that it is difficult to put oneself into others shoes, but over the last 30 years men have had to do that for women. I feel as though women's concerns have been crammed down my throat non-stop just about everywhere I turn. I'd like to see a _serious_ attempt by women to understand where men are, without telling us where we ought to be. One of the main frustrations I have with equity feminism is that it is still (as far as I can see) a woman-run project. It doesn't seem to me that too many equity feminists are very comfortable about _really_ hearing men or working together with them. (McElroy is one obvious exception.) For example, based on Cathy Young's comments on the men's movement, her "gender equity" movement seems as though it is going to be run by women or perhaps some men who toe her line. Sort of a very benevolent dictatorship. It seem as though some equity feminists are mostly comfortable making their own analysis of gender feminism and trying to fix things according to their own perceptions of what should be done. It almost seems as though some equity feminists are afraid of how men might feel or what men might want. Some seem to believe that complaints by men about the results of misandry are nothing more than attempts to achieve victim status, just like everyone else seems to be doing these days. I look forward to being shown wrong about this. I hope that the interaction between Ifeminists and MensActivism will be the start of better understanding between men and women committed to equity.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I get frustrated about that is all. I wouldn't have said anything at all but that I really really feel most people don't spend their lives plotting to take advantage of their neighbor or their boyfriend or girlfriend, or wife or husband. That sort of thing.
I understand that, and I will say that I actually agree with Mars' explanation above that it's not really the fault of women that men get a shoddy deal when marriage turns to divorce, but the fault of the institutionalized punishment of men *for* divorce, children, etc., by the justice system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I look forward to being shown wrong about this. I hope that the interaction between Ifeminists and MensActivism will be the start of better understanding between men and women committed to equity.
Hi, Will. I agree that it is, even still, difficult to convey the message about misandry to equity feminists, even though they do tend to support doing away with misandry through their fight against gender feminism.
Here's the thing, though, both equity feminism and individualist feminism are movements centered around equality and women's issues, so they have every right to focus their attention to that end of the spectrum. We, on the other hand, are a site about men's issues, so we have every right to support equality, but focus on the masculine side of it.
Although Cathy Young has said some things about the men's movement that I find *really* annoying and offensive (she tends to want to classify the men's movement as the masculine equivelant of gender feminism, which it most certainly is not), I do support her efforts to make certain equality for women does not equal privelege and superiority over men.
Thanks for your comments. Keep your chin up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I *DO* know personally two men who were physically abused by their spouse or girlfriend, and it was women like myself - their sisters and female friends, not their brothers and their guy friends - who assisted them in getting out of the abusive situations. It was the GUYS they knew who scoffed at the notion that a man could be abused by a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was the GUYS they knew who scoffed at the notion that a man could be abused by a woman.
Indeed. That, unfortunately, happens quite a bit because men (as well as women) are taught that men can't be victims, or that they deserve to be victimized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see fairly often, even among truly committed equity feminists, the tendency to minimize my experience of misandry. It often seems that they do not really believe that it could be all that big a deal. I recognize that it is difficult to put oneself into others shoes, but over the last 30 years men have had to do that for women. I feel as though women's concerns have been crammed down my throat non-stop just about everywhere I turn. I'd like to see a _serious_ attempt by women to understand where men are, without telling us where we ought to be.
This is my experience also. It's true that after 30 years, having long since internalized and accepted the notion of gender equality, and having been told--since we were children--that men are responsible for all of the evil in the world, we're still being treated as if the women's movement were late breaking news.
I remeber listening to women's programming on WBAI in New York City when I was in my teens in the 70's. On the one hand I was aware that the women's movement was historically very important, but I was also emotionally aware of what I later came to articulate as anti-male bigotry. There I was, a shy, socially withdrawn teenager who bothered no one, and already I was accused of being an oppressor and responsible for the oppression of women throughout history on account of being male. I reject this kind of gender bigotry as morally equivalent to racism, and I was determined, even then, to argue against this kind of prejudice.
I've been accused of hypocritically spewing the same kind of nonsense in retaliation for an ancient perceived slight, but my point is that at this stage it doesn't matter if the overwhelming majority of women are basically good, if the judicial system, the child support agencies, and the police are anti-male. It's simply too risky to get married or father children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Meanwhile, it's still OK to say anything you want about men and manhood."
Who is saying negative things about men and manhood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Meanwhile, it's still OK to say anything you want about men and manhood."
Who is saying negative things about men and manhood?
Advertising agencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist,
I was not clear about what I meant here regarding men's participation.
I am definitely not interested in butting into the equity feminist movement uninvited. But when Cathy Young says that we need a gender equity movement, she is talking about something that is NOT feminism. She is talking about something that is for BOTH genders. This is where I find things confusing and contradictory.
From Young's writing it appears that this movement for both genders is not to involve any input from masculinists of any stripe. In fact, it appears that she regards any claims made by men regarding misandry or lack of fairness as victim-mongering. It would appear that she wants to retain for women all the benefits that came from feminism (just excluding the excesses that have harmed men). But apparently the opportunity for men to do this same sort of thing is a no-no. As far as I can determine from her writing, it seems that men are to settle only for the elimination of feminist extremism, as female equity feminists define it. This does not sound like a partnership to me. It IS a good and worthy pursuit but it is NOT a gender equity movement. A real gender equity movement would involve listening to men. After 35 years of our listening to women with very little of the reverse, a gender equity movement would involve LOTS of listening to men.
Here's a less clear cut situation: Some other equity feminists seem to be implicitly calling for men's participation, but have not been clear as to what that would look like. My point to these folks is this: When you start getting into how males are treated in our society, and how this has affected them, it would seem that some discussion with males would be a sensible thing. There is nothing "bad" about having this be an all female discussion, but I find it a bit odd. My experience is that going off to fix something without talking to a large class of presumed beneficiaries often results in a mess.
In both of these cases, it appears that a "partnership" is being proposed, but with the agenda to be defined by only one half of the partnership. Leaves me confused! I would like to have this cleared up because I am all for a real partnership.
I hope that clarifies it. Thanks for your response.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on your last two sentences I'd say you sure have a horrid view of women and their opinion of "real" men. Perhaps if you got out more. I hear Church is a good place to meet quality women with a positive outlook toward men.
One more thing: the fear many modern American men have of being taken to the cleaners by a woman is a valid fear. It happens all the time. I've seen it happen. It hasn't happened to *me* because I've stayed away from marriage. And I generally dump women I'm dating when they start behaving in a manner which leads me to believe that any future with them is likely to end up with myself and my wallet being painfully manipulated.
Case-in-point: I once stopped dating a girl because she only ever called me when wanted a favor. She'd call me and tell me "We need to go out," or somesuch. I'd agree, and then a couple of days later (prior to the "date") she'd call me up and ask me for some huge favor.
I don't appreciate being used that way, and I certainly didn't appreciate her thinking I'm that stupid.
Men these days have to be careful. Mars was, in my opinion, expressing the concerns many men have today about relationships (and it doesn't mean we hate women). If you simply look at the statistics concerning divorce, child support, and the rape of the American males wallet, you can't deny it's not happening... and happening a LOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you simply look at the statistics concerning divorce, child support, and the rape of the American males wallet, you can't deny it's not happening... and happening a LOT.
That should've said: "you can't deny it is happening." :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your tale of the woman who only called you when she wanted a favor reminds me of the boy I dated in college who only called me when he wanted sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might write the story of how I happened upon my mathematical relation. I believe I owe the inspiration to pursue such a formula to Scott Mann, whose website has become the nexus of internet activity for the men's movement.
Also, I don't mean to stereotype all women, most of whom claim they want the husband for good, without the intention of throwing him out and alienating him from his children when he's served his drone-like functions, despite the innumerable commercials that illustrate exactly that. The reality is often different, and I was giving voice to a fear strong enough to be decisive for many men. If the advertisers are freely bashing us without fear of losing customers, we should fear that maybe we are suckers who deserve to part with our money as soon as possible.
We grew up hearing idological feminism tell us--since we were children, and presumably too young to be oppressors--that we are the cause of all the evil in the world. You can't expect to tell generations of men this without at least one of them objecting to it, without someone devoting some part of his life to setting things right, to expose this kind of misandry for the moral equivalent of racism that it is.
We've long since internalized and accepted equal rights for all genders, yet we're repeatedly reminded to re-examine our expectations of women, as if our consciousness were never raised. We're sick of the fatuous presumptuousness of it all.
And if marriage means the oppression of women, and so many of us are instinctively revulsed by the a priori attribution to us of the role of oppressor, then it should come as no suprise that many of us chose not to get married, lest we become oppressors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I need the ability to edit my own posts ex-post-facto. Strike the slovenly business about commercials in the second paragraph--this requires a separate argument.
A polemicists work is never done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your tale of the woman who only called you when she wanted a favor reminds me of the boy I dated in college who only called me when he wanted sex.
Hopefully you dumped him. At the same time, my story was illustrating the larger point that a man has to worry about his life being destroyed these days by an unjust system of divorce and child support, as well as because society at large doesn't care if he's hurt because he's a man, and men are oppressors, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I think if we all look deeper into our ingrained cultural attributes we'll start to see some of the roots of the mistrust and feelings of oppression.
For example: Little boys are brought up not to cry and to internalize a lot of things they might otherwise prefer to stand up against. It's culturally ingrained to the point were all our cultural institution support this view of males as
being the one to take the hit. Males are rewarded with praise for accepting the model. Everyone subscribes to it, even most males and so it gets passed on. Females and males are complit.
Another example: Litte girls are taught that they must barter they affection and love and looks for material goods. I saw this very clearly with my own daughter. From the time she was 2,3,4 both her grandfathers would say things like "Give me a kiss and I'll give you a piece of candy" or "I'm buying you some ice cream because you look so pretty today". Things like that. This IMO warped view of rewarding someone for looks and affection starts very early. Females are rewarded for accepting the model. Males and females are both complicit. It made me think about the long term implications.
There are probably thousands of other examples but I think you see what I mean. Culture is not "done to" one sex to the other. It is a complex interconnected dance. Most people aren't aware of the implications of what aspects of culture they are passing on and sustaining in society. I know I sure didn't until recently. And there are probably many cultural things we are not aware of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are probably thousands of other examples but I think you see what I mean. Culture is not "done to" one sex to the other. It is a complex interconnected dance. Most people aren't aware of the implications of what aspects of culture they are passing on and sustaining in society. I know I sure didn't until recently. And there are probably many cultural things we are not aware of.
All of what you say is true... but male bashing hasn't always been a part of this culture. Likewise, the cultural attitudes toward women are rapidly changing. The cultural "suck it up and tough it out" attitudes toward men still exist. That's why some people get so pissed off when men complain about male bashing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cultural "suck it up and tough it out" attitudes toward men still exist. That's why some people get so pissed off when men complain about male bashing.
Or else they resort to competitive feminism, which is attempt to divert attention from some problem affecting men by an equal or greater evil affecting women, on the premise that for every problem affecting men, there is a far greater injustice done to women, and all such injustices must be remidied before any alleged problems of men can be considered. That's a very typical response, and we've seen it in this thread (in the exchanges on dating users).
In any case, the point of these discussions is to bring to light cultural biases, and not to minimize the ones we find on the theory that far greater ones await our discovery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I don't think the cultural attitudes on sex roles have changed all that much. Not the deeply ingrained ones at least. It's 2001 and my daughter is still being indoctrinated that her looks are her most valued asset for example. I'm sure little boys are still being indoctrinated as well. The surface aspects of culture have changed but IMO the deeply ingrained cultural aspects haven't changed all that much.
This is what is creating so much tension which gets expressed as "male-bashing" and "anti-feminism". The outward culture is changing too fast for the deeply ingrained cultural roles to catch up. This creates strife. Just my opinion.
For what it's worth, I think male-bashing will slip away. Especially with groups like this bringing it to the fore. However, the underlying resentments between the sexes will remain until we can reconcile our cultural ideals with the deeply ingrained cultural biases we all have.
Like I said its a Mexican standoff. If both sides could just magically give up all their gender cultural baggage it would be the impetus to move forward. For example, if people were rewarded for cooperation instead of for following eons old gender models we might be able to break free. But realistically, that is not going to happen. Deeply ingrained cultural attitudes move slower than continental drift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I don't think the cultural attitudes on sex roles have changed all that much.
I think they've changed dramatically for women. Look at the workplace, for instance. More and more women. Not only that, more women are starting their own businesses these days than are men. That's quite a barrier-breaking.
Likewise, look at the way women (compared to men) are depicted in advertising: strong, athletic, independent. Men: buffoons, dependent upon the (smarter) female, selfish, lazy.
Now consider that girls are also encouraged to play with "traditionally" male toys these days. You find that all over, even in holiday ads. Have any of you seen the ad for that X-box game in which the little girl, swinging on a swing next to a little boy, manipulates the swing so that she can forcefully kick him in the chest and out of his swing? (Note that she does this in spite of the fact that he's done nothing to her). At the end of that commercial, she has him tied and duct-taped to a chair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem as I see it is, it's the people that are following the rules that are getting hurt because of the people who are not following the rules. The unjust system of divorce and child support originated because there were some men who were leaving their families and not financially supporting their minor children - those "deadbeat dads". Or, men who were impgegnating women they were not married to and then leaving them upon conception. Yes, that does happen. Men who were honestly trying to support their children after divorce were unfairly penalized because those men who ducked their responsibilities. Then, of course, there were some women who perceived that they could punish their ex-husbands and/or fathers of their children through alimony or child support, which further deepens the backlash against child support.
Personally, I think that if a family has agreed that the wife (or husband) be a stay-at-home parent and then the couple divorces, the stay-at-home parent should be entitled to some amount of alimony for a set amount of time, the time needed to secure a job with which they can support themselves. Someone who has been out of the workforce for several years isn't going to walz into the employment office and come out with a job. There should be a cut-off date after which the former stay-at-home parent should expect alimony will be cut-off. In couples where both parties are working, I don't see why alimony is needed.
I don't think we should abolish child support. But definitely it should be overhauled so that the child is adequately supported but neither parent is financially screwed. And never, ever, ever should children or financial support of children be used as pawns in a marriage breakup. I loathe former couples who use their children against one another, or withhold support or visitation as a form of punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your tale of the woman who only called you when she wanted a favor reminds me of the boy I dated in college who only called me when he wanted sex."
I just noticed something about your posted comment above. I assume you are equating sex with doing someone a favor.
Lorianne pointed out in post #52 that women are trained in this culture at an early age to barter their looks and gender specific attributes for things.
quote from her post:
>Another example: Litte girls are taught that they must barter they affection and love and looks for material goods. I saw this very clearly with my own daughter. From the time she was 2,3,4 both her grandfathers would say things like "Give me a kiss and I'll give you a piece of candy" or "I'm buying you some ice cream because you look so pretty today".
Your comment paralleled lorianne's statement so much that I had to point it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ Yes more and more women have careers and starting their own businesses. But deep down culturally they are still valued for beauty and sex appeal and extreme youth. Look at your favorite reference, media. Look at pop culture, men's mags, talk radio etc. women aren't valued for their work or contributions to society. And look at the cosmetic and reconstructive surgery industries. Women get the message loud and clear what is valued in our society and it's not finding a cure for cancer or making a lot of money. I often hear men critize a successful woman based on her looks or age. Janet Reno, Madeline Albright for example. Basically their accomplishments mean little culturally as women, though we give lip service to them. I've never heard John Ashcroft being critiqed on his looks. I have heard people say approving things about Condoleeza Rice's appearance more often than her intelligence and the tremendous amount of effort she put into getting to where whe is.
It's the same only reversed for men I think. The cultural attributes of provider/protector are still the most highly prized characteristics. Men idolize sports heroes who represent the elite hunter/warrior in society. We elevate making money to a godlike status in men, the man with the most money is idolized and seen to be the "winner", the one who can afford the hottest looking "babes" (who are again "rewarded" for being babes, nothing else). Ordinarly working men with families and who take care of children are looked upon as "losers" in the sense of not achieving the culturally sanctioned title of top money maker and babe magnet (as in rock stars, super rich athletes, super rich actors, and Trump/Heffners). Yet ordinary family men are the backbone of our society. They are the ones being shortchanged in media when we elevate the super rich men to cult status. To me, this is "male bashing" in a more insidious form.
So even though on the surface some changes have occured, underneath we still value and prize the old gender roles more than the new. That is why I don't think things have changed so much.
No I haven't seen the x-box commercial you described. It sounds horrid. I really can't fathom why this would appeal to anyone, let alone sell the product. Culturally, this type of ad seems to perpetuate the concept of the zero sum game; that for someone to do well or "win", someone else has got to do poorly or "lose" (or get his ass kicked). This logic is so banal and stupid I'm at a loss to comment further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes more and more women have careers and starting their own businesses. But deep down culturally they are still valued for beauty and sex appeal and extreme youth."
This is a very tricky area to discuss. First attractiveness is NOT socially defined. I have at least 5 studies that show there is a physical standard everyone, worldwide, considers attractive. What we consider exotic does vary from society to society though. One of the major functions of beauty is to potray health and in turn good health increases the chances of successful childbearing. This is innate something that is just part of the sexual dance. The biological fact is women are only capable of reproducing for a short period of time, men are not. It is only in the last century that the increase our lifespans have created a problem in this natural attraction. We are dealing with it but it takes time to change millions of years of genetic programming.
Also I would like to point out that attractiveness matters to women more and more now. As women are becoming more finacially independent the need for a mate that is finacially secure is becoming less important. Take a look at the soap operas, sex in the city and other women's programming and you will notice that the typical man is attractive. The fact that attractiveness and youth is becoming an important factor for men in our society is also seen in the dramatic increase in male plastic surgery (including chest/pec implants) over the last two decades. (a good book on this is "The Adonis Complex")
"I often hear men critize a successful woman based on her looks or age. Janet Reno, Madeline Albright for example. Basically their accomplishments mean little culturally as women, though we give lip service to them. I've never heard John Ashcroft being critiqed on his looks."
Women and men are critized for their looks and anything else that can be used as a target. We have a nasty habit in our society to love the underdog but the minute that "dog" is the topdog they are a legitimate target and we try to undermine them.
In closing, many of our stereotypes have a basis in fact and a function. The trick is to recognize the reason why stereotypes came into being and seperate the good and bad points.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony__ Another good book on this subject [the changing cultural role of men] is Susan Faludi's STIFFED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read that one too but it is not focused on men and social pressures to confrom to an ideal of physical attractiveness.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I just noticed something about your posted comment above. I assume you are equating sex with doing someone a favor."
Not equating it with doing a favor, per se, but equating the method - calling someone only when you want a favor, or calling when you are hoping for sex. But not being interested in the person - just the favor, or the sex. In both cases, this is "using" the other person. Don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being as I don't want children, never have, I would be reflected across the x- or y-axis.
>The probabilities might be more favorable if one were to turn one's attention away from
>Americanized caucasians, or at least to women from other cultures.
Before me, my partner was with one of those women from another culture. She was not a function, for a function must be 1-1. She was most certainly not 1-1. In addition, she had no solution in the reals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will have to disagree with you Dave. The freemarket solution (ie pure market economy) has led to many abuses in the country. While in theory all political systems promise to solve all society's problems when it comes to actual functioning in a working society they fail miserably. In my opinion the best systems currently operating in the world seems to have a mix of democracy, free-market economy and socialism. (I suggest checking out the site www.politicalcompass.com and see where you stand on the spectrum.)
The idea that marriage will solve all the problems of childrearing is also a theoretical ideal that fails when it comes to practice. While marriage does help with some issues it also creates its own.
I agree with your idea "Everyone's contribution is required." I feel that the ideal is the recognition that it takes more than one, two or even three peopl, it takes a community to raise a healthy child to adulthood. Isn't a government based on democracy a large community, at least in its ideal form?
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alimony is, at least theoretically, based upon a marriage contract. Child support isn't.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
