I Now Pronounce You Government and Wife

Article here. Excerpt:

'I go to dinner with a bunch of Hollywood Republicans every month or so and I’ll tell you one thing, the women are easy on the eyes, none more conservative or good looking than my Beloved. Republican women are happy, they don’t mope around like victims or screech about how terrible men are for being men. The men at these get-togethers are happier and generally sport less hair product. Married men are polled to have more sex and more satisfying sex than singles so Republican men have another great quality over their unmarried Democrat counterparts.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The day politics became personal is the day this kind of distinction started to get made. My issue is not that there is a greater or lesser commitment issue with Reps. vs. Dems. The divorce rate for Reps and Dems is largely the same. My issue is around consistency of expectation and behavior. A woman who says she is "a liberal" and "a feminist" but expects a man to open doors, pay for dates, fund "her decision" to stay home and raise kids (probably not even his, given the high divorce rate) is clearly operating with two different value systems split down the middle-- that middle being exactly where her self-interest begins. And indeed, she is likely to complain incessantly anyway since she is fundamentally a self-centered person incapable of self-examination (otherwise she would have done so and adjusted her behavior or values accordingly).

Conservative women, genuine ones anyway, at least have a consistent world-view around things. They may believe that it's better for men to work and women to stay at home, but also appreciate the man's role (as oppressive as it is-- for him) in their relationship. Indeed they are much less likely to be whiny and victim-oriented. However I have met women who were genuine liberals and also agreed that they should be as responsible for themselves as they expect their husband/bf/mate of whatever kind to be. This in any case is behavior consistent with values, not behavior and values picked cafeteria-style based on self-interest.

My own take: People have to decide what sort of mate they want for themselves, and whether or not that person is behaving consistently with their stated values. This match-up of behavior and values is what is called "character", even if it doesn't match with one's own. Picking a person with character and with a character that is compatible (or at least reasonably compatible - one never gets a perfect match at anything this subjective in life) with one's own is, in my judgment, the hardest part of finding a relationship that is likely to work out in the long run. Of course, that's not all there is to it. There are the many other factors that are not nearly as objective (well, as objective as one can make it) as character evaluation. But if it were easy, everyone would have a good relationship with their mate (or have one at all), and we all know this isn't the case.

Like0 Dislike0

...that makes it hard for the men's movement to get anywhere. Very disappointing to see this here.

Like0 Dislike0