User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 79

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I think conservatives think that basically kids need a stable environment to grow up in which is the problem they see with it. I'd agree with that, but I think it's more a matter of as we get wealthier we are less interdependent on one another. Historically, though we may not like to admit it, marriage has been an economic institution as well as a social one. As those economic ties become more tenuous the forces they exerted in keeping marriages together are not in force. Now, where I disagree with conservatives is in the idea that we should go back to the old ways. If we did that, it would just create the same repressed emotions in women that existed before. We really just need a whole new way of being where both sexes can be happy and if they desire raise children together in a healthy manner. I think none of us really knows what that is yet so we continue to play our little games with one another until we find someone whose crazy matches our crazy. Of course, some women still are dependent on men and many men are allowing themselves to become dependent on women which strikes me as sad. The people at the top play the same games they've been doing since the dawn of empire, basically exploiting one another for mutual pleasure until that is no longer possible. Humans need to evolve /shrug
    I'm not sure about talk about old or new ways, given that in any era or epoch that's going to be defined differently.

    A conservative could criticise this trend, mentioned in the article from the perspective of cultural changes perhaps but it fiscal conservatives wouldnt criticise it surely, which is one of the reasons I think that feminists should criticise rather than embrace these sorts of trends, exploitation sold as freedom and emancipation.

  2. #22
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Rosin's Atlantic article is worth reading for context.

    From Rosin herself:
    For college girls these days, an overly serious suitor fills the same role an accidental pregnancy did in the 19th century: a danger to be avoided at all costs, lest it get in the way of a promising future.
    From Dalton:
    One other point about Ms. Rosin’s article. As her quote above shows, she is glad that these young professional women, by forgoing real relationships for a series of casual affairs, can keep themselves free to focus on their studies and their career. Most of them have already left the places they grew up far behind; now they can keep themselves from being limited by a person, too.
    If (if!) young women are inclined to think this way, I wonder if it's part of the natural oscillation that comes with attempts to establish rights, equality, etc. in general. If it's true, young women might be balking now at the notion of being committed because marriage, to them, at least partially represents being tied down and kept under a man's thumb.

    When that connotation eases up--when being tied down is no longer (or, more importantly, is no longer seen as) a personal sacrifice--so should this sentiment.

    --

    Also: c'mon. Rosin's 'celebrating being compared to a prostitute' is probably intended to be catchy and thought-provoking, at least as much as the title of the book itself is.

  3. #23
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    If (if!) young women are inclined to think this way, I wonder if it's part of the natural oscillation that comes with attempts to establish rights, equality, etc. in general. If it's true, young women might be balking now at the notion of being committed because marriage, to them, at least partially represents being tied down and kept under a man's thumb.
    That's the problem!

    We have a society that emphasizes rights and has a poor understanding and lack of appreciation for duty and commitment. So, such women do not understand or appreciate the benefits of "being tied down and kept under a man's thumb."

    This applies equally to the many men who think along the same terms.

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #24
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    That's the problem!

    We have a society that emphasizes rights and has a poor understanding and lack of appreciation for duty and commitment. So, such women do not understand or appreciate the benefits of "being tied down and kept under a man's thumb."

    This applies equally to the many men who think along the same terms.

    Well the only real attempt to frame a constitution on the basis of duties and obligations as opposed to rights and entitlements was attempted by Simone Weil to my knowledge, dismissed as too religious or mystical at the time, I think TS Eliot loved it because of his own conservative suspiscions about rights vs. duties, I'm not sure if the book The Need For Roots is a reproduction of the ideas exactly or not.

    There were some good debates about this within feminism at one time, about the male/female, oppressore/oppressed, subject/other dichotomies and whether feminists or women generally were identified with one or another, ie was womans liberation just "being more like men" or "having what men have" or something else.

    Although a lot of those debates are long forgotten and were very different in different parts of the world, I used to think that feminism was one of the more interesting modern political ideologies because of the amount of critical reflection and thinking it generated, it was one of the few ideologies that seriously dealt with the idea that it no longer was representative of its core constituency and became something its constituency couldnt identify with, for many from its outset. I used to say that if you were going to criticise or attack feminism, particularly in the way that some of the more cliched butt hurt males did, then feminism would have furnished the tools in the first place for you to do so, often the language itself about sexism etc. was feminist in origin.

    I dont really do that anymore because despite what it could've generated academically or among activists a lot of people read old sources and old material as though it were just as relevent and just as fresh today as the day it was written, perhaps in some contexts but those contexts are often totally culturally different from those in which the original critiques arose anyhow too.

    There's also the whole contradiction that goes with being pro or anti in an ideological sense, its not long before the opposite arises and a strange symbiotic relationship develops, each existing and feeding off one another, each revitalising one another when the passage of time would just have lead to sensible innovation or change being integrated and equally sensible organic tradition continuing too.

  5. #25
    Retired Nicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    I think I just threw up a little.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,232

    Default

    So what's the point of this article?

    Everybody should get married and be responsible adults and have little children of their own?

    Fuck that.

    Consider it, "natural selection" and the uncivilized don't make the cut.

  7. #27
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Well the only real attempt to frame a constitution on the basis of duties and obligations as opposed to rights and entitlements was attempted by Simone Weil to my knowledge, dismissed as too religious or mystical at the time, I think TS Eliot loved it because of his own conservative suspiscions about rights vs. duties, I'm not sure if the book The Need For Roots is a reproduction of the ideas exactly or not.
    i've never heard of simone weil until now. i appreciate your post.

  8. #28
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    @Lark

    Yeah, thanks for bringing up Simone Weil. The power to impose duties is a great power and I prefer institutions that have that power not to also have guns. In other words a dual system where the state protects rights with guns and the church inspires a dutiful spirit in the people is ideal. That being said I must say I find even just the title of her book, The Need for Roots: prelude towards a declaration of duties towards mankind, very intriguing. Especially given the circumstances she wrote under given that France was dealing with occupation.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #29
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    That's the problem!

    We have a society that emphasizes rights and has a poor understanding and lack of appreciation for duty and commitment. So, such women do not understand or appreciate the benefits of "being tied down and kept under a man's thumb."

    This applies equally to the many men who think along the same terms.
    I agree that contemporary culture places less emphasis on the benefits of duty and commitment (though I think it's more effective legally to restrict as opposed to prescribe). It probably has to do with how humans are very good with short-term reward and very bad with long-term reward as well; commitment takes a lot more work and yields less immediately available benefit.

    I think couples also face the challenge of dealing with gender role expectations. There are so many cultural subtleties in elements within a relationship - paying for dinner, opening doors, cooking, driving. My boyfriend was raised more traditionally than myself, and we had a period of time where we really had to work through what we agreed as a couple would be fair and appropriate. It's surprising how strongly these seemingly "minor" issues are tied to our values and feelings of self-worth, and I think it's often when partners have mismatched expectations of gender roles that trouble arises.

  10. #30
    Senior Member _eric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFj
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death View Post
    So what's the point of this article?

    Everybody should get married and be responsible adults and have little children of their own?

    Fuck that.

    Consider it, "natural selection" and the uncivilized don't make the cut.
    So people who want to get married and have children are uncivilized? Got it.

Similar Threads

  1. The Demise of Guys
    By Salomé in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 484
    Last Post: 02-17-2013, 12:41 AM
  2. The Demise of Zergling
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 444
    Last Post: 10-25-2011, 07:04 PM
  3. How the youth of today refer to the ladies
    By BerberElla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 12:02 PM
  4. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO