HereAndGone
12hr ago
Dear sir, if you genuinely believe women end up in lunatic asylums after getting pregnant because their over-developed brains have leeched the phosphates from their systems, I look forward to your opinions on reducing the superfluity of yellow bile in the choleric.
HereAndGone
12hr ago
Tsk, you kids who don't even remember why silver nitrate eye washes were given to newborns!
But kindly also note the double standard: women must be virgins upon marriage, and married off at eighteen (the maximum limit at which nature intends them to be single) else men will be having sex outside of marriage. That men should not be having sex outside of marriage? Well, uh, that's different.
Dr. Mr. Smith also expects the eighteen year old wife to get knocked up pretty darn soonish and produce six to eight kids. I wonder how he'd feel about today's view of "we can't have kids yet, they're too expensive and too much of a drag"? And even those advocating for "why yes, women should be married off fast", how many of you boys want eight kids to support?
The argument is sometimes used that it is better to have only one child and bring it up with extraordinary care than to have six or eight children brought up with ordinary care because in the latter case the mother's attention is divided. But this is a fallacy. Everybody knows that the one child of the wealthy and highly educated couple is generally a spoiled child and has as a rule, poor health; while the six or eight children of the poor and moderately educated woman are exceedingly strong and lusty.
Fortunately, we poor feeble creatures have helpful guides to advise us regarding suitable grooms 😁
HereAndGone
12hr ago
But the phosphates, Breaker, the phosphates! Top Men of the "women and their funny little diseases" club agreed about the phosphates! In the struggle of Brain versus Baby, who will win? She with the dumbest brain and the mostest phosphates, that's who!
HereAndGone
12hr ago
Right just lemme take a note here.
Say you are looking forward to women being forced into destitution: a-okay to say.
Quote historical real actual content of the same kind: how dare you be sarcastic!
Interesting view of life you got there, mod.
HereAndGone
16hr ago
And yet somehow it fell out of the air that a man was found guilty of not recognising a ceremony that was, at the time, illegal in his state and punished for the same. Schrodinger's gay wedding: it both exists and does not exist? Fail to recognise that you should celebrate what is technically non-existent and feel the consequences?
Some lawyers help me out here: if something is not permitted by the state constitution, does that make it illegal/a crime, or just "no don't do it but we won't stop you"?
In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
What does "prohibited" mean here? And if you don't agree to be complicit in a prohibited act, how come you are the bad guy?
Gentlemen of The Motte! We have often been led into discussion about What Is Wrong With Women Today? arising out of topics from directly dealing with the current crisis of male loneliness, female pickiness, and TFR decline to discussion of recent election results, leading to the happy dreams of an economic crash that will finally put women in their proper place:
Women might finally, F-I-N-A-L-L-Y be required to either suffer from economic destitution or make some concessions to men to obtain the support of a good one.
Well, you may be heartened and warmed to know that this is not a new problem, nor are the proposed solutions new either! Back in the November 1904-April 1905 issue of Popular Science Monthly, a learned gentleman (both a BA and an MD, so qualified to speak for both the arts and the sciences) diagnosed the ills of the day due to the pernicious habit of educating women, and shewed forth the path of ruin that society would continue to tread if matters were not taken in hand.
Alas, the gentleman of a bygone day was proven lamentably correct, but you can take solace from knowing you are not alone, and that women have been ever thus. I myself was introduced to this gem via a Tumblr post and I humbly link it here, while extracting some plums for the delectation of the superior sex. Though I am too agéd and raddled with the ill-effects of promoting independent mindedness in the feeble brain of a female via excess of schooling, mayhap it may save some younger woman from the travails of pride and neglecting her womanly destiny! (While the scholarly concern of the paper also touches lightly and briefly on the adverse effects of extending higher education to the common class of men as well, I am assured the audience of The Motte are of a finer fabric and thus well deserving of the benefits of this, and so at no danger of ill-effect):
HIGHER EDUCATION OF WOMEN AND RACE SUICIDE
BY A. LAPTHORN SMITH, B.A., M.D.
MONTREAL.
'You can not have too much of a good thing' they say, and the very highest possible degree of education for women is none too good or too great for them. But to those who look beyond the present and only a little way into the future a great danger is gradually arising, a danger which will go on increasing until it brings about a revolution the signs of which are already beginning to be seen and which will effectually put an end to the evil which is to form the subject of this paper. The author will limit himself principally to a discussion of the harm resulting from too high an education of women, because on that part of the subject he has had exceptional opportunities for observation and for drawing accurate conclusions; but, incidentally, he will take the liberty of questioning the advisability of affording higher education freely to the people at large, of the male, as well as of the female sex.
Brace yourselves for some hard biological facts which only a medical man can speak on with assurance: higher education renders women insane! Yes, due to the strain it puts upon the delicate female brain, the added stresses of maternity leave what reason a woman may possess overturned!
...He will endeavor to show, as he believes to be the case, that the higher education of women is surely extinguishing her race, both directly by its effects on her organization, and, indirectly, by rendering early marriage impossible for the average man.
First of all, is education being carried on at present to such a degree as to at all affect the bodily or physical health of women? This is a very important question, because the duties of wifehood, and still more of motherhood, do not require an extraordinary development of the brain, but they must absolutely have a strong development of the body. Not only does wifehood and motherhood not require an extraordinary development of the brain, but the latter is a decided barrier against the proper performance of these duties. Any family physician could give innumerable cases out of his experience of failures of marriage, directly due to too great a cultivation of the female intellect, which results in the scorning to perform those duties which are cheerfully performed, and even desired, by the uneducated wife. The duties of motherhood are direct rivals of brain work, for they both require for their performance an exclusive and plentiful supply of phosphates. These are obtained from the food in greater or less quantity, but rarely, if ever, in sufficient quantity to supply an active and highly educated intellect, and, at the same time, the wants of the growing child. The latter before birth must extract from its mother's blood all the chemical salts necessary for the formation of its bony skeleton and for other tissues; and in this rivalry between the offspring and the intellect how often has not the family physician seen the brain lose in the struggle. The mother's reason totters and falls, in some cases to such an extent as to require her removal to an insane asylum; while in others, she only regains her reason after the prolonged administration of phosphates, to make up for the loss entailed by the growth of the child. Sometimes, however, it is the child which suffers, and it is born defectively nourished or rickety, and, owing to the poor quality of the mother's milk, it obtains a precarious existence from artificial foods, which at the best are a poor substitute for nature's nourishment. The highly educated woman seems to know that she will make a poor mother, for she marries rarely and late and, when she does, the number of children its very small.
You see? It is more advantageous for women to be lightly educated to a basic level but remain somewhat ignorant and indeed be slightly dumb (but strong as ox) in order to better fulfil their wifely and motherly duties. Science has proven it! And who can gainsay what Science has said?
But read on! The dreadful custom of late marriage has both rendered women incapable of performing their natural functions, and imperilled not alone the health but the souls of men:
...But even supposing that the highly educated woman were able and willing to bear and rear her children like any other woman, she has one drawback from having a fairly large family, and that is the lateness at which she marries, the average being between twenty-six and twenty-seven years. Now, as a woman of that age should marry a man between ten and fifteen years older than herself, for a woman of twenty-seven is as old as a man of forty for the purpose of marriage, both she and her husband are too old to begin the raising of an ordinary sized family. Men and women of that age are old maids and old bachelors. They have been living their own lives during their best years; they have become set in their ways, they must have their own pleasures; in a word, they have become selfish. And, after having had one or at the most two children, the woman objects to having any more, and this is the beginning of the end of marital happiness.
...At a recent meeting of a well-known society of specialists for obstetrics and diseases of women, one of the fellows with the largest practise in the largest city on this continent stated that it was physically impossible for the majority of his patients to have a natural labor, because their power to feel pain was so great, while their muscular power was so little. On these two questions the whole profession is agreed, but I am bound to say that there is a difference of opinion as to the reason. Several of the most distinguished fellows of the above society claim that the generally prevalent breakdown of women is due to their inordinate pursuit of pleasure during the ten years which elapse between their leaving school and their marriage. This includes late hours, turning night into day, insufficient sleep, improper diet, improper clothing and want of exercise. The writer claims that most of the generally admitted poor health of women is due to over education, which first deprives them of sunlight and fresh air for the greater part of their time; second, takes every drop of blood away to the brain from the growing organs of generation; third, develops their nervous system at the expense of all their other systems, muscular, digestive, generative, etc.; fourth, leads them to live an abnormal single life until the age of twenty-six or twenty-seven instead of being married at eighteen, which is the latest that nature meant them to remain single; fifth, raises their requirements so high that they can not marry a young man in good health.
If your daughter refuses to wed straight out of high school (should you even permit her to attend such an institution), then it is her fault and none other if Roistering Ralph, a slip of a youth of thirty, engages in drinking, smoking, gambling, and patronising ladies of the evening. He, poor chap, cannot help himself; it is the duty of young ladies to lead, guide, and control the menfolk.
...We all want to be happy, and to that end we all want to be good ; and, I have already said, we want our children, especially our boys, to be good and happy. But those who know anything about virtue in the male know that the marriage of our young men under twenty-five, to a woman with a sound body about eighteen years of age, is almost, if not the only, means of preserving the virtue of the rising generation of men. People, and even mothers, speak lightly of their daughters at twenty-six or twenty-seven marrying men who have sown their wild oats; but one must reap what he sows and do they realize what an awful misfortune such a harvest has brought to the character of the man, and will almost surely bring to the health of the innocent woman? If one has any doubts on this subject they would soon be set right by the testimony of any physician who has made a specialty of attending men, or who has devoted his practise especially to women.
Over-education makes women picky, fastidious, fussy, and renders them unable to appreciate a good, decent man:
...Another way in which the higher education is making people unhappy is in the cultivation of the powers of analysis and criticism. When the power of analysis is applied to one's own self it is especially unfortunate, for then it becomes introspection, a faculty which is carried so far with some women that their whole life is spent in looking into themselves, caring nothing for the trials or troubles of those about them. This produces an intense form of egotism and selfishness. These people are exceedingly unhappy, very often suffering from what is wrongly called 'nervous prostration,' but which should rather be called ' nervous prosperity.' When the wonderful power of criticizing is applied to others it takes the form of fault-finding. Such a woman must have many victims ; will she make them happy?
Even if these harpies deign to wed, they then impose impossible demands upon their husbands in order to maintain luxurious and idle lifestyles:
...There is another aspect of the question, which is not often discussed, but which has an important bearing upon it. The very essence of cultivation of intellect to its highest point consists in raising the standard of one's requirements. A contented mind makes a man happy. Does a high education make one's mind contented, or does it make it discontented with the present, and ever struggle towards a higher ideal in the future? Is the woman who is versed in art and literature contented with a simple home, or must she be surrounded with objects of art and more or less costly books; and, if so, is she satisfied with her lot when she marries an average man, who is able to provide for her all the necessaries of life, but is not possessed of sufficient wealth to provide those things which would be useless luxuries to a woman of ordinary education, but which are necessities for her? Not only must the highly educated woman have an artistic home, large enough to hold her artistic and literary collections, and roomy enough in which to entertain her artistic friends, but she must have a certain number of expensive and highly trained assistants, to keep these large collections in proper order. In plain language, she must have servants to clean them and move them about without destroying them. Can such a woman, anxious and worried over the care of several thousands or hundreds of objects of art, devote the same care to the bearing and bringing up of her family as the woman whose ordinary education has made her feel no need of possessing such objects, but who, on the contrary, is content with a home and furniture which she herself is oftentimes alone capable of taking care of?
In short, better a content, submissive, stupid woman as wife even if she is inferior to you in social class:
There is no doubt that women can do everything that men can do, and a great deal more; but the knowledge of their ability brings with it an aggressive, self-assertive, independent character, which renders it impossible to love, honor and obey the men of their social circles who are the brothers of their schoolmates, and who in the effort to become rich enough to afford the luxury of a highly educated wife have to begin young at business or in the factory, and for whom it is impossible to ever place themselves on an intellectual equality with the women whom they should marry. These men are, as a rule, refused by the brilliant college graduate, and are either shipwrecked for life and for eternity by remaining single, or are only saved by marrying a woman who is their social inferior, but who, by reason of her contented mind, in the end makes them a much better helpmate than the fault-finding intellectual woman who is looking for an impossible ideal.
Women, do your duty to avert the perils of race suicide! Men, be stalwart as fathers to guide your daughters in the way they should go!
.... It is well known that were it not for the enormous immigration pouring into America day by day and week by week, the population of this continent would have died out ere now. And it is generally admitted that the original American people have almost died out. Even the foreigners who are so quickly assimilated soon learn the practise of race-suicide, although never to the appalling extent of the native-born Americans. As far as my experience goes, the crime is most prevalent among the highly educated classes, while it is almost unknown among those with an ordinary education.
HereAndGone
17hr ago
You can roll with it once the guy is in the same boat and you both have to make the best of it and can rub along in a friendly manner.
But I'm old enough that I remember, for instance, episodes of a late night (late night for Ireland back then) chat show talking about the children's allowance being paid without being means tested, and this being defended as a way to give married women money when their husbands (middle class as well as the dregs of society) would absolutely refuse to give them any money for housekeeping. Even respectable middle-class married women, so it was accepted, could be living lives of abuse and neglect due to abusive husbands.
The days of "yeah I can beat you and nobody will interfere because that's a domestic dispute, yeah I can control the purse strings and you have no options outside the home" are within living memory for some of us.
HereAndGone
17hr ago
No one's asking religious people who are against gay marriage to get gay-married against their will.
Yeah, I remember that line. And the companion line about how gay marriage was not going to affect your (straight person's) life at all. Funny how soon it morphed into "bake the cake, bigot!"
Just try the line "hey, if you don't want to own slaves, nobody is forcing you to do so" and see how far it gets with regards to "this law will not impinge on you" and "you can't legislate morality". Owning slaves is bad on the face of it, and we cannot permit people to have their own opinions on whether it's a sin or not, or if they are good, kindly slave owners or not. This is the law and you cannot be an exception to it.
HereAndGone
17hr ago
HereAndGone
17hr ago
Heck, I kind of like Dan Schutte and Marty Haugen
There is only one thing I can say to that.
Just don't tell me you like John Rutter's music! Incredibly popular, especially now that Christmas is coming so it'll be non-stop on our classical station, incredibly treacly that makes me gag. He should be writing Disney soundtracks, though that's probably insulting to Disney soundtracks.
HereAndGone
20hr ago
Married women are happy when they are treated as partners, not dogs on a leash.
Do you think concessions in a marriage are a bad thing?
No. I don't think there's such a thing as the romantic soulmate, the twin flame, or whatever other nonsense new term is floating around. There is no perfect Mr or Ms Right out there waiting for you. Settling is not a bad thing, and both of you need to work at the marriage to make it work. It's not going to be perfect bliss all the time, and probably yeah both of you will wonder about the other guy/gal you could have married at least sometime.
But that's not at all the same thing as "finally women, under the threat of starvation, will be forced to marry men they don't want or like". Men, too, can be forced into undesired marriages. I don't think forcing anyone is a good thing. And if you find out your spouse only married you as a meal ticket, what then? Do you demand they love you like the perfect romantic lover you dreamed of, in addition to being your coerced bondservant? People want to be valued for themselves. Being realistic about your chances and your options is not the same as being coldly calculating or dreaming of finally being able to force those haughty bitches who turned you down in high school to fawn on you for scraps.
To quote Tolkien from a letter to his son Michael in 1941:
A man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or he can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). This is a fallen world. The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been 'going to the bad' all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the 'hard spirit of concupiscence' has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell. We will leave aside the 'immoral' results. These you desire not to be dragged into. To renunciation you have no call. 'Friendship' then? In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a 'friendship' quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by 'falling in love'. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want 'friendship', even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Allas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says. Then if he is a Christian and is aware that there is such a thing as sin, he wants to know what to do about it.
There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).
...No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that — even those brought up 'in the Church'. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it. When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soul-mate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only —. Hence divorce, to provide the 'if only'. And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the 'real soul-mate' is the one you are actually married to. You really do very little choosing: life and circumstance do most of it (though if there is a God these must be His instruments, or His appearances). It is notorious that in fact happy marriages are more common where the 'choosing' by the young persons is even more limited, by parental or family authority, as long as there is a social ethic of plain unromantic responsibility and conjugal fidelity. But even in countries where the romantic tradition has so far affected social arrangements as to make people believe that the choosing of a mate is solely the concern of the young, only the rarest good fortune brings together the man and woman who are really as it were 'destined' for one another, and capable of a very great and splendid love. The idea still dazzles us, catches us by the throat: poems and stories in multitudes have been written on the theme, more, probably, than the total of such loves in real life (yet the greatest of these tales do not tell of the happy marriage of such great lovers, but of their tragic separation; as if even in this sphere the truly great and splendid in this fallen world is more nearly achieved by 'failure' and suffering). In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean heart, and fidelity of will
Since I was nine years old, I have known I never wanted to get married. And every time I revisit that and wonder "what would it have been like to get a partner/spouse?", some guy comes along with "women should be forced by the threat of actual starvation to marry me because that means I have the whip hand in that situation, and if you think that's a metaphor you aren't reading what I'm writing".
Thank God for spinsterhood, say I!
we will still know that if we ever loosened their leashes
You should hear the cursing and swearing I'm doing right now. But okay, guys, let's cosplay Gor and force women into subordinate sexual service complete with leashes. Women can make themselves widows, and the rate of poisonings will go zooming upward. Be forced into a marriage, wait a little, disencumber yourself of the tyrant, and be a free widow. This worked in the Classical world and you want that back in the modern world?
We will see the return of veneration of St. Uncumber!
Wilgefortis (Portuguese: Vilgeforte) is a female folk saint whose legend arose in the 14th century, and whose distinguishing feature is a large beard. According to the legend of her life, set in Portugal and Galicia, she was a teenage noblewoman who had been promised in marriage by her father to a Moorish king. To thwart the unwanted wedding, she had taken a vow of virginity, and prayed that she would be made repulsive. In answer to her prayers she sprouted a beard, which ended the engagement. In anger, Wilgefortis' father had her crucified.
...While venerated by some Catholics, Wilgefortis was never officially canonised by the church, but instead was a popular intercessor for people seeking relief from tribulations, in particular by women who wished to be liberated ("disencumbered") from abusive husbands.
You want adultery and uncertain paternity to skyrocket? Because that's what you get when forcing women into unwanted marriage. Read the Canterbury Tales and all the jokes/stories about younger wives cuckolding their elderly, jealous husbands.
HereAndGone
21hr ago
Christianity is not social work, but a lot of hard work has gone in to watering down the message to "Just be nice" (and as a Catholic, it's really ironic to get lectured about works over faith, lemme tell you) 😁
Christianity has a meaning, or it has nothing. Strip out everything doctrinal and we're left with playing dress-up in empty buildings once a week, and what remains fades into generic do-goodery, which soon turns into "that's the job of the state, not my job". Even the Effective Altruists need some set of foundational beliefs as to what they are doing and why!
HereAndGone
1d ago
But this is what writers do. They use everyone and everything in their lives as raw material. It's long been a complaint! Some do it consciously, some do it unconsciously, but if a writer hears a good story or something that strikes them as interesting, it all goes into the little filing cabinet of the imagination to be re-arranged and turned into a story later. They even write about how they do this!
I think the author is honest, as far as it goes, that she didn't write a direct "this is the story of Jack and Jill, only the names have been changed". She took the base story, mixed it with her own experiences, and translated it into a short story. That people then come along later and say "This was based on our true story" is not evidence she is deliberately lying.
Plus, there are always people eager to find out "but what is the real story behind this?" especially when it's this kind of sudden successful tale that is irresistible to imagine must be based on "this is Jack and she is Jill". And people do find parallels between "hey this happened to me and that event is in this story, so it must be about me!" even in cases where this is not so. There have been examples where authors wrote about George Fotheringham and then a real George Fotheringham turns up and says "all my neighbours think this is based on me, please change this". (That helped explain to me why some character names in early 20th century fiction were so unrealistic; you can't just write about Bill Shaw the villain of your murder mystery for fear of a real Bill Shaw popping up to sue you for libel, so he has to be Porteus Manglefig instead).
HereAndGone
1d ago
Funny, I could have sworn I heard something - ah well, must have imagined it!
HereAndGone
1d ago
Which is a very different thing from liberal social norms!
HereAndGone
1d ago
where he can be the primary breadwinner without needing a second job or for the wife to work full time.
I would like to see that happen, but I'm dubious for a couple of reasons. First, we've set up our economies so that isn't really a runner, anymore. Unionised jobs which did provide good benefits and you could be the single breadwinner became corrupt and atrophied (see the fairly recent example of the longshoremen, for one). Industries collapsed during the 80s and the salvation was to outsource to cheaper labour and resources abroad, and to get more women into the workforce.
Second, a strong male-led household can be one where the man runs them into debt and other problems, or where the ostensible male head is weak and incapable. To work at its best, marriage should be a partnership. "This happens because I say so" can only work where "I say so" is reasonable and not "I've decided to take out loans, mortgage the house, and put all our savings into this sure thing a guy told me about, and if you don't like it, here's a black eye for you".
HereAndGone
1d ago
Women might finally, F-I-N-A-L-L-Y be required to either suffer from economic destitution or make some concessions to men to obtain the support of a good one.
Golly gee, I wonder why those uppity females are not rushing out to marry men who think they should have the right to beat and rape them just like the Good Old Days when the choice was between economic destitution or making concessions regarding marriage.
This is why there was a whole thing about women having careers of their own, so there wouldn't be the risk of economic destitution. This kind of statement is one step away from "and in fact being enslaved was better for the slaves because owners were obliged to feed and shelter them".
You are not going to solve the problem of "why are men and women not getting on? why isn't marriage and children happening?" by telling one side "we want to force you into marriage with someone you would not choose and who can be abusive thereafter, because the alternative is indeed literal starvation and he knows you will be trapped".
Why the hell are you making it "being a whore is better for me than being a wife"? Don't we want women to choose to be wives and mothers, instead of "well if it's sex for meat, then at least let me not be tied to one provider"?
HereAndGone
1d ago
because Millennials are the new boomers
(sigh) GenX erasure never ceases!
HereAndGone
1d ago
I doubt it - the mayor just doesn't have that many powers to ruin something that fast.
Yeah, I think that's the most likely outcome. Come into office on a slate of promises. Some get watered down, because he has to compromise to get them passed. Some get junked, because they were only campaign promises, ha ha did you really think you were going to get a pony for your birthday? And some will go nowhere, because he's butting right up against institutional inertia, 'this is the way we've always done it', entrenched power blocs, and "you gotta find the money to grease the palms somewhere, Zohran, or else nothin' doin'".
Like free bus services. First, that will have to jump through sixteen hoops, on fire, then swandive into a coffee cup just in order to get past everyone who wants it to die or they want too big a slice of the pie for it to work. Second, it will be tried. Thirdly, after ten minutes it will crash and burn and be quietly sidelined.
HereAndGone
1d ago
but empirically it seems to me that Catholicism is far worse at teaching proper catechesis than evangelicals.
Oh, yeah.
But the other problem is a deeper one: Christianity is not about "let's all be charitable and help the needy", it's about "let us love, obey, and serve God" primarily. So we get the conflicts over "sorry, we won't foster children out to gay couples"/"okay you're losing your state funding" and the Little Sisters of the Poor case and the likes of that, and then people finger-wag over "but Jesus said be nice!" as if that was the whole of the Gospel.
So trying to build influence based on "But Christianity will be so nice for the social fabric" is going nowhere. There will be offensive doctrines and practices ("what do you mean you don't ordain women, you bigots?") and it will be either give in on these and be empty buildings kept up as historical and artistic show pieces, but nobody goes to church because spiritual not religious, dude or keep the doctrines and be out of step with the world and keep shedding membership.
HereAndGone
1d ago
Evangelical Protestantism is the youngest tradition of the three and has developed under conditions of American liberalism. It is therefore the most comfortable with liberal norms.
Define your liberal norms, first! I agree that Evangelicalism has caved in on things like divorce and contraception, while abortion is a wavering standard. But what I've seen of the splits (as an outsider) is that the mainlines have indeed gone very much to the liberal side and are being shaped by, rather than shaping, the Zeitgeist. However, when it happens to the various Evangelical churches and non-denominational churches, they tend to either go "prosperity Gospel" megachurch where there's a thin veneer of Christianity over secular values (like the liberal mainliners) or they try and knuckle down to conservative theological principles, which may or may not adhere (see the struggles within the Southern Baptist Convention over trying to address perceived flaws and problems).
So it does depend what you mean by liberal values, and if you mean that the Evangelicals can influence wider society more easily since they are "most comfortable with liberal norms", or if they will go the same way as the mainlines, becoming more and more liberal in line with social changes while becoming less and less influential as religious institutions.
Well, you know, some university course on how we need to be decolonised of our racist appreciation of this event is probably lurking in the wings somewhere, but until then it's a kickass song and a kickass video using footage from a movie about the battle 😁
More options
Context Copy link