»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Leave it to Beaver
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Leave it to Beaver |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
"Though rejecting feminist politics and lesbian posturing, American culture has absorbed the underlying ideology like a sponge. The principal tenets of sexual liberation or sexual liberalism--the obsolescence of masculinity and femininity, of sex roles, and of heterosexual monogamy as the moral norm--have diffused through the system and become part of America's conventional wisdom." George Gilder Amazon link You can pretty much tell where Gilder is coming from by reading the reader reviews. Compared then to how it was, what did the women’s movement do more, liberate women or free men? [This message has been edited by Ron (11-27-2004 02:37 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I think the woman's movement liberated women to a certain extent. And made men more uncertain of themselves in the long run. What I'd like to see is a human liberation movement focused on freedom and equal rights for EVERYONE. There is still so much that needs to be done in the world to make sure everyone is treated equally, it's time to stop fighting for the rights of individual groups and band together for total liberation. (I mean old people, young people, different religions, different races, different sexes or different sexual preferences) How can I truly be 'free' when my fellow humans are not? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Both have been liberated. The mistake everyone made is that they thought it would automatically make everyone happier. That's a different can of worms. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
PdV, everyone being treated equally is a nice thought, though an unattainable one. It's all well and good in theory, so long as people aren't involved. Once you add humans, it all goes to pot. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Teenage boys, goaded by their surging hormones run in packs like the primal horde. They have only a brief season of exhilarating liberty between control by their mothers and control by their wives.” Camille Paglia So I take it, nobody is buying into George’s idea that men are now more apt to run amok free from the social conventions that bound their identity and self-esteem as men to their roles as husbands and fathers. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
With all possible respect to those from whom you derive your philosophies, neither is fully right nor fully wrong. There will be those of both genders that run far from their supposed life roles, albiet some eventually come back of freewill or not to fulfill those said duties in some form or fashion with varying levels of success. Personally, I don't care what Gilder, Paglia, or any other 'professional' says. They couldn't possibly know in full every single dynamic or paradigm, only what they think to be true and valid, and only what fits snugly into their own mentality and/or agenda. Or whatever sells. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, “With all possible respect to those from whom you derive your philosophies” First off, they’re not my philosophies. Personally I couldn’t be happier that I wasn’t born in my father’s time. The Gilder book is an updated version of something of his I read while at university. Both he and Paglia, echo something I read decades ago in a Newsweek or Time article. In it the author claimed that the institution of marriage and roles like husband and father needed strong social support as they provided a success structure for those, (whom he saw as the majority), who lacked the ability or talent to creatively distinguish themselves as individuals. In the absence of such support, he saw confused young men and women resorting to often self destructive behavior as an alternative. Let’s face it, we’ve all seen people do some pretty stupid things in an effort to “find” themselves. And as the point was made earlier, who is happier? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I think it did both, but maybe not in the way you (or the author) is suggesting? The feminist movement freed men to seek alternatives beside husband and father in the traditional sense. I know stay at home dads, and families where the mom makes more. I guess I'm not seeing how it's a bad thing that men aren't bound to being the breadwinner and man of the house? It just provides more opportunities for both sexes. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
hush, “I guess I'm not seeing how it's a bad thing that men aren't bound to being the breadwinner and man of the house? It just provides more opportunities for both sexes.” How about not being around at all? The point that the authors are making is that without a culture that particularly esteems the man’s identity within the family context, there’s less, little, or no social incentive for him to remain or begin in the first place. It is estimated that some forty percent or more of America’s children are being raised by a single parent and guess who overwhelmingly that is. As a guy, I’m dancin' in the streets. But as a society, the authors’ point is to be considered. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Was there ever? The answer, of course, is to pass a law or something to simply force men to be the way you want them to be, John. Problem solved. And it will be no less invasive than any other external pressure brought to bear to accomplish your goals. Until that family context is defined internally, one kind of coercion is no different than another. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, I can remember, with fear, growing up in a community where there was pressure to “do the right thing”, whether is was marrying a girl you got pregnant, or staying in a marriage that was at best unsatisfying for the children’s sake. Yes, it sucked, and, as I intimated earlier, I’m happy that sort of environment is now infrequent, but mothers had husbands and children did grow up with fathers, (the right thing also included not beating up on anybody in exchange; the stoic was the ideal). The forty percent or more children in America being raised by a single parent, (dramatically different from 1950 as a comparison), is not something I created; everyone knows about it. Our generation got free; the authors’ point is about the cost. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Did anyone ever think there wouldn't be a cost?  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, Oh, I think there were more than a few utopians who did. John |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Who's talking about a law? If discussion/ persuasion is coercion then we're all coercive. To the question, "was there ever" ... many feel that the answer is "yes". The increase of "Dead-Beat-Dads" is a direct outgrowth of the feminist ideology. Women wanted absolute autonomy, equality, and freedom. But what's good for the goose had to be good for the gander. Women, with feminist ideology in their mouths, have nothing with which to upbraid men who want to shirk their fatherly responsibilities. The question is, whether this autonomy, or separation from traditional gender roles, is good for either men or women ... and especially for children? Sometimes nature dictates. Sometimes it strongly persuades. What happens when we rebel? I smile when Hush suggests that the only thing the feminist movement did, was incline men to try different roles, such as being stay-at-home Dads. Though I'm not entirely in agreement with what Alan Bloom says about this subject, I think he sees much that should make us think ... quote: Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: John, I wonder what "sucked" about it, other than being burdened by the feeling that there really was such thing as honor and rightness, and that they, at least sometimes, went contrary to our own immediate personal desires and goals? You certainly see that much of the havoc we see now is the result of a lack of self-sacrifice? I know it sounds sometimes like a poor prospect to talk about sacrifice always in those terms ... but there was a wise man who once said that in losing our lives, we would find them. The outcome is often different than we think. At least today, you can see that many, in finding their own lives, are losing them? I'm jealous of those days you speak of, despite their blemishes. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: They sucked, Stephen, because the honor and rightness you applaud were applied at the wrong stage of life's journey. There is nothing honorable or right about two people marrying simply because one of them got pregnant. The application of those very noble sentiments needs to be applied before satisfaction of those personal desires and goals, not as a correction for them. Sadly, people make mistakes. But, even murderers are rarely sentenced to life terms. Defining marriage as a punishment for irresponsibility doesn't magically make people responsible. It usually just makes them miserable and hateful, and is a poor answer to what I think a very different problem. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: The way I see it, pregnancy is a reality check, and a wake up call. Two people engaging in activities that should be reserved for covenant marriage, resulted in something awe-inspiring and wonderful, the birth of a human being. This new life is best nurtured in an unbroken, loving family. Of course this awe-inspiring and wonderful thing, can be scary and terrible when it happens out of this secure context. When a young man was urged to be honorable and own up to what he'd done, he was merely being asked to be responsible, in my opinion. That doesn't guarantee a good marriage, or even a good life for the kid. But it sure is a chance to make right, and to take up a more mature responsibility. The other alternative is not being responsible and leaving a trail of human wreckage behind. I guess it all relates to the idea of what "love" is anyway. Is it the fuzzy, feeling of infatuation, that makes someone walk ten feet off the ground? Or is it a devoted commitment, a learned thing ... something as much of the will as it is of the heart? If it's just as much the will as the heart, then no I don't think a cultural expectation for young people to grow up and be responsible is necessarily the bogey you make it out to be. It's the idea of the willful aspect of choosing love, which has functioned in societies where arranged marriages are the norm. Am I suggesting that arranged marriages are the best? No way. But I am saying that that principle must be present even for American self-arranged marriages to work. And I'm also saying we shouldn't have the chronological snobbery, or the cultural superiority complex, which refuses to acknowledge what they see. The principle isn't taught anymore. We aren't taught what love is about. And "for the sake of community, and for the kids", isn't really the worst reason for making a go of it. Rampant individualism and selfishness hasn't really produced a better net result in our present experiment. And even though John might not see it my way, he concedes that families generally stayed together more, and were happier for it. You may say that they were all suffering submissively with smouldering misery, living under the tyrrany of societal pressure, but I don't really believe that. I'm all for cleaning up the abuses of the past, but we tend to drown our guardians along with our tyrants in the bathing process. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"there’s less, little, or no social incentive for him to remain or begin in the first place. It is estimated that some forty percent or more of America’s children are being raised by a single parent and guess who overwhelmingly that is." I just love the unspoken assumption everyone has that single parents (i.e. single mothers) are a bad thing. Look, if the only reason a husband would marry me is because he thought he had to take care of me, that's not a marriage I want. Marriage should be freely chosen and equally beneficial on the context of love, not financial need or social responsibility- the latter are just going to end up breeding resentment on both sides. "I smile when Hush suggests that the only thing the feminist movement did, was incline men to try different roles, such as being stay-at-home Dads" Stephen, I must admit that I smile when I read this... because I don't recall ever saying that. I did say: "The feminist movement freed men to seek alternatives beside husband and father in the traditional sense. I know stay at home dads, and families where the mom makes more." I don't recall ever saying it was the only thing the feminist movement did? If someone uses common sense, it would logically work out that if women are no longer dependent on men, men are no longer bound to "take care of" women. We wanted our autonomy and we got it, and I, for one, am happy with the results, because I can share a bed, unwed, with relatively little scrutiny. And if he decides to leave me one day, well, I'll be crushed, but it's his choice. He's not bound to me- I have a job and I can take care of myself. And if for some reason he left me, a single mother- I would hope he'd have enough love in his heart to still see the child, and participate in its upbringing, but all he's legally obliged to do is financially help me with the child he helped to make, and I think that's okay too. You can't force anyone to love a woman or a kid. As for your quote: " Laws can enjoin men to take paternity leaves, but it cannot make them have the desired sentiments. Only the rankest ideologue could fail to see the difference between the two kinds of leave, and the contrived and somewhat ridiculous character of the latter." What on Earth is ridiculous or contrived about a paternity leave? Are men just supposed to not care that their wife had a child, and not want to spend time with them? No, they don't have the physical recovery to attend to, but they should be given that same opportunity to stay home and bond with their new child. " A dependent, weak women is indeed vulnerable and puts herself at men's mercy. But that appeal did influence a lot of men, a lot of the time. The cure now prescribed for male irresponsibility is to make them more irresponsible. And a woman who can be independent of men has much less motive to entice a man into taking care of her and her children." boy Stephen, that makes me a little sick. Is the answer that we women should give up our careers and independence, just so men can be comfortably chained back by our sides? Force women to give up dreams, hopes, and autonomy, so men have to give up their ability to choose the bachelor life over married life? I'm sorry, but that suggestion just disgusts me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: While Bloom's statements could be taken to mean that women who are weak and anemic can hold men in check, out of guilt and a sheer sense of duty, I think you're mistaking his facetious terms for what he's really trying to describe. There is a kind of strength in allowing oneself to properly "need" another. It is proper in the same way that one lifted in a dance, shouldn't be criticized for not pulling her weight. Men also need to be needed. Far from staying by a woman out of guilt or sheer duty, a man who feels needed stays because he sees a woman who knows how to hold so-called weakness in an exquisite way. It helps him to become all he should be ... and makes him love someone who holds the mystery and paradox of softness and power, vulnerablility and strength. A woman who is unthreatened by a degree of submission in marriage and family, is stronger (to me) than a woman who feels greatly intimidated by the arrangement. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, “A woman who is unthreatened by a degree of submission in marriage and family, is stronger (to me) than a woman who feels greatly intimidated by the arrangement.” INCOMING!!! John |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
" A woman who is unthreatened by a degree of submission in marriage and family, is stronger (to me) than a woman who feels greatly intimidated by the arrangement." Whoa, submission? Sorry Stephen, John was right, you better duck. The first time a husband of mine tells me to submit to him or his demands will be the last, because then he'll see me walk out the door. A woman who is unthreatened by a degree of submission is a woman who will believe "Honey, I lost my temper, it'll never happen again, I promise" as she mends her busted lip; she is a woman who will believe her husband was just out with his friends at the bar until five in the morning. I know this isn't what you meant or intended, but you must understand that not all guys are as loving and (generally) fair as you. There are men who will (believe it or not) take advantage over a woman's willingness to please him. And the same goes for overbearing women and submissive men. I do find it interesting that you pay no mind to a woman's need to feel needed, or a husband's duty to foster that. What is the proper way for a man to need a woman, and a woman to need a man? Because I think there are more ways to do that than to have the woman smile at all the right times and cry and be needy at all the right times, and having the man hold the woman and tell ehr she's pretty at all the right times. Maybe it works just as well when the woman says "thanks honey for taking the kids to the zoo while I finish my proposal" and the husband says "You're welcome honey, I know you'll get the promotion." Maybe it works just as well when a woman has a means to make a living if her husband leaves, or dies, instead of being destitute as well as alone. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Speaking from a Biblical viewpoint on the subject, submission is mutual. In addition to the wife being admonished to submit to the husband, the Bible also admonishes couples to submit to each other, and admonishes the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church (now that's a tall order, to say the least). I believe that one's focus is best if 'other' centered, not 'self' centered, as in what are my partner's needs, not what are my needs. That's the ideal, of course, a goal to follow after that can bring true contentment, despite problems. What if your partner is a self-centered jerk who just doesn't get it? My view is that if you are married, and as long as the partner is not physically violent, you stay and fulfill your responsibility to love and submit in the marriage, with the help of God, and let God deal with the jerk. The one person's failure doesn't relieve the other of their responsibility to do what is right. And I think mutual submission is a principle that makes for strong marriages whether someone has a religious belief or not. I think it is a sound relationship principle, in general. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Denise, “What if your partner is a self-centered jerk who just doesn't get it? My view is that if you are married, and as long as the partner is not physically violent, you stay and fulfill your responsibility to love and submit in the marriage, with the help of God, and let God deal with the jerk. The one person's failure doesn't relieve the other of their responsibility to do what is right.” Oh yes, I can recall the Sisters now, leading children to the show to see “The Ten Commandments.” And what’s Father doing? He’s blessing the dead. John |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Denise, most people today recognize that physical violence is the least destructive form of abuse. Bruises and broken bones, after all, eventually heal. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “most people today recognize that physical violence is the least destructive form of abuse. Bruises and broken bones, after all, eventually heal.” Sticks and stones Ron. That “most people” have probably never experienced more than the physical pain of overeating. John |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I've experienced both forms of abuse, Ron. I'd say the physical abuse was far worse than the emotional and mental abuse. The former almost killed me, the latter made me a stronger person. And with physical abuse, you also have emotional and mental abuse tied together with it (all in one package! ), which is not the case in situations where there is no actual physical abuse. You can have the emotional and mental abuse without the physical abuse. I can't imagine someone who has experienced physical abuse thinking it the least destructive. I'd wager that the ones who say it's the least destructive haven't experienced it personally. All forms of abuse need to be dealt with if they exist in a relationship. And if they can't or won't be dealt with, the relationship will eventually end. But physical abuse is far more serious in that it is literally life threatening, which is why I would encourage those experiencing it to get out immediately. I would encourage others in relationships with emotional/mental abuse issues to seek counseling in an attempt to salvage the marriage if possible. But that's just how I see it. Everyone has their own personal breaking point and everyone has their own ideas on how they should deal with relationship problems. I just wanted to share the general biblical principle of mutual submission, and an 'other' focused relational perspective as oppossed to a 'me' focused relational perspective. I've found that being focused more on 'others' than on 'me' brings more personal contentment. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You would lose that bet, Denise. Which would you consider worse, I wonder? A father who takes the advice, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" to extremes many would probably consider illegal today? Or the father who spends eighteen years convincing a child they'll never amount to anything? You're right, Denise, that physical abuse is usually accompanied by psychological abuse as well. And, yes, the former can kill people. But only the latter can destroy them. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of people beating people. I'm just saying no one needs to wait until they've been hit in the face before saying enough is enough. quote: Then why leave a physically abusive relationship? Isn't that decision also the result of focusing on "me" instead of on others? Where is the line in the sand where those on one side place their importance on another and those on the other side focus more on self? More importantly, perhaps, who gets to draw that line? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “Which would you consider worse, I wonder? A father who takes the advice, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" to extremes many would probably consider illegal today? Or the father who spends eighteen years convincing a child they'll never amount to anything?” That’s easy; the former, because he is not only saying it, he is physically painfully demonstrating it. John |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I drew the line at the precise moment when I realized that my life was actually in danger, when I saw that the violence was only getting progressively worse over time. I decided that my children would be better off with me alive rather than dead, even though I wished I were dead because the depression became so bad. Both situations are bad, physical and psychological abuse. The physical is just more dangerous physically in that it could cause death and therefore requires a more expeditious resolution, i.e., separating the abuser from the abused, to prevent that, in my opinion, whereas there is more latitude in the psychological abuse situation, absent the life and death urgency of the physical abuse situation, to give counseling a try, if the parties are agreeable to that, in my opinion. That would be my advice if I were asked. Everyone has to draw their own lines, no one can or should do it for them. People can seek advice and counseling, but they still ultimately have to decide for themselves what they are going to do, what the best course of action is for them. And I agree, no one has to wait around for fists to start flying before they say enough is enough, everyone has their own breaking point and they know it when they reach it. And generally speaking, people know pretty early on in a relationship if physical abuse is a likelihood or not, so if someone does decide to wait, they won't be waiting too long. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
