Deconstructing Options
February 14, 2011
David Mills
“I gave him exactly a year, and if I decide it’s not working I’ll leave,” said the young woman walking behind me, naming the date she would leave and indicating that she would just walk out without explaining. Talking loudly enough to be heard on a crowded sidewalk, speaking in a brisk hard voice, she listed her demands, which included feeling completely satisfied with the arrangement and a high degree of personal autonomy to pursue her own goals.
She’d clearly conducted an impressively hard-nosed slash-and-burn job negotiation. She gave no details of her demands but made clear that she would get everything she wanted and to the degree of perfection she required or she would bail out and not look back. (I think that’s a mixed metaphor, but let it go.) Her friend made “way to go” type noises.
As we got to the corner, she and her friend walked in front of me, and the friend said, nodding her head slowly, “Living together is a good way to test a relationship.” I hope the poor sap being tested is not forking out for a dozen long-stemmed roses for his new roommate on Valentine’s Day, thinking they had begun a romance, but being a male, he probably is.
This young woman, who looked to be about thirty, knew what she wanted, though maybe she was just trying to act as if she did. In either case, her coldly contractual approach to romantic relationships does not seem to be the dominant one, even among people who are not restrained by a traditional sense of morality. Most people expect, if the popular magazines and the highest grossing Hollywood “rom-coms” present their hopes and dreams accurately, that they may do what they want with anyone they like, until—still at an age to have children—they find the One for them.
But it usually doesn’t happen like that in real life, which is one reason so many single women complain that all the good men are taken, judging from the cover story for the Valentine Day’s week issue of The Village Voice. The Voice is one of the propaganda organs for the world the sexual revolution created—nine of its 68 pages consist of ads for “escorts,” for example, and half a page in this article is given to an ad for a store selling sex toys—and yet even it now questions the way that revolution has worked out.
But they don’t question it fundamentally. “There was (and still is), something wrong with me,” and with women like her, writes Jen Doll, one of the weekly’s staff writers, in “The Plight of the Single Lady” (an interesting editorial choice, the title “lady”). “We don’t know what we want. And so we want a little bit of everything, over and over again. . . . We’re free and ‘grown up’ and independent; we can do what we want, sexually and otherwise. Which is part of the problem, if you’re going to call it that.” She continues:
If you’re like me (and I think a lot of us are), you might say you can’t stand drama and that all you want is a nice, stable relationship with someone who loves and treats you well, but “nice” and “stable” have hardly the appeal of words like “exciting” or “passionate” or, well, “drama.” Our status as single, independent, financially solvent New York City women in the year 2011 has us sitting on a mountain of unprecedented options.
Options: Those are exciting. So we want all the options, bigger and better and faster and shinier, or taller or sexier or stronger or smarter, and yet somewhere also different and completely our own. We want the tippy-top of what we can get—why shouldn’t we?
Not surprisingly, as she notes, “Somewhere along the way, ‘settling’ became a dirty word.” Admitting that you married not for “love” but for a practical reason, like wanting to have children, will make people look at you “with a horror akin to what you might bestow upon a person admitting to murder.”
There is a cost to wanting the tippy-top, even Doll admits—beyond the decreasing likelihood of having children, which so many women of her sort still want. The problem “is about having all of these options, and not knowing how to choose from among them, or whether we even want to. It’s about the years of being told we can have it all, and suddenly being deeply afraid to admit that that house of cards has been a sham all along because no one really gets to have it all.”
Doll’s answer is to keep going the way she’s been going, because she still (she seems to be in her late thirties or early forties) can't decide what she wants, and though she’s written as if she and her peers had been going in the wrong direction. “There is nothing wrong with taking your time and sampling liberally from the buffet.” Every man “has a place in your dating life. Don’t regret them.” And most of all,
Once you know what you want, narrow the options, make your choices, and go for it. But until you do, embrace not knowing. Make new York your playground and stop complaining about how single ladies have it so hard in this city.
She sounds so common-sensical, so realistic, so hopeful. And I suppose she is, within her way of looking at the world, in which marriage is closer to something you acquire than something you do. It is a life-style option, not a vocation. It is not the channel for sexual intimacy but one among many applications of such intimacy, and not one you would choose for any reason but personal desire.
If you think of marriage this way, you might as well stay outside playing games on the playground rather than go inside for the dull casserole and the dreary homework and the oppressive chores, since you have no parents to make you come inside and set to work. You might as well wait till you decide what you really want to do—keep open those exciting options—because you can always decide tomorrow, or the day after, or next week, or next month, or next year, or just keep going till you decide without actually deciding.
But of course those who stay on the playground don’t learn what they would have learned had they gone inside. They remain essentially alone, no matter how many "relationships" they have, because they have chosen a very bad imitation of marriage over both marriage and the fruitful life of celibacy. They do not do the great thing they could have done.
This life does not build. That's the problem with the imitation marriage made up of serial and short-lived commitments. You start one house and after putting up a few bricks, or maybe even a wall or two, maybe even a few walls and a roof, abandon it to go start another.
Marriage is a gift of addition, of multiplication, of construction. You begin with a couple who make the wild and dangerous commitment to each other till death do them part, and on that commitment build a family, a small community, the village it takes to raise a child. In marriage you create something permanent, something eternal, because you give up the exciting options, which aren't nearly so exciting as the bet you make when you say "I do."
David Mills is Deputy Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
David Mills' Choosing Love and Making Life.
Mary Eberstadt's The Will To Disbelieve and What Does Woman Want?.
Comments:
2.14.2011 | 8:55am
Tony Christian says:
By Jove! I think you've got it!
2.14.2011 | 9:43am
Anonymous 3 says:
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7515/Truly-priceless-St-Valentines-Day-gifts.aspx - Good article on what The Church celebrates today - Feast of St.Valentine ; what causes all the cancers and depravation in marraiges and remedy for same so that couples can be drawn back into what they had been meant for - to reflect the holy outpouring of the light of divine love into each other !
The truth of each of us belonging to God and how offenses against that truth is an offense against God that need to be repented at that level is easy to forget in our culture and thus many choosing the mistakes of slavery to the enemy , with all the resulting confusion as 'freedom ' - even till the last moment when that enemy can come with its claims !
May God in His mercy free many , into accepting all the worthwhile and holy challenges of faithful God ordained love and relationships , to be led by The Holy Spirit alone and receieving the bliss of same through all eternity !
May all the Father - Mother love made available to us , through our Triune God , Bl.Mother , all holy saints and angels be the healing balm !
The truth of each of us belonging to God and how offenses against that truth is an offense against God that need to be repented at that level is easy to forget in our culture and thus many choosing the mistakes of slavery to the enemy , with all the resulting confusion as 'freedom ' - even till the last moment when that enemy can come with its claims !
May God in His mercy free many , into accepting all the worthwhile and holy challenges of faithful God ordained love and relationships , to be led by The Holy Spirit alone and receieving the bliss of same through all eternity !
May all the Father - Mother love made available to us , through our Triune God , Bl.Mother , all holy saints and angels be the healing balm !
2.14.2011 | 10:14am
Spencer says:
I guess things haven't really changed that much in the last 30 years. Back in 1980 I spent a month in the Philadelphia area getting valuable job training. I remember an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that basically covered the same subject. It was a rant about why were all the good men either gay or married? What was a young single woman to do?
The answer must be serial monogamy, an up-to-date (!) version of musical chairs where men have the chair part. The feminist revolution has come a long way. Where men used to be the driving force in serial monogamy, now women hold the keys. Ah, progress.
The answer must be serial monogamy, an up-to-date (!) version of musical chairs where men have the chair part. The feminist revolution has come a long way. Where men used to be the driving force in serial monogamy, now women hold the keys. Ah, progress.
2.14.2011 | 10:15am
Keith Wommack says:
David, Thank you for this grand post. It is perfect. I appreciate the last paragraph wrap-up so much. Powerful. True.
Marriage, to me, is a safe harbor where new and old have the opportunity to grow together spiritually. Spiritual maturity is needed to keep the shingles from flying off the roof and the bricks from crumbling in place.
Thanks again.
Marriage, to me, is a safe harbor where new and old have the opportunity to grow together spiritually. Spiritual maturity is needed to keep the shingles from flying off the roof and the bricks from crumbling in place.
Thanks again.
2.14.2011 | 10:45am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Very good and very insightful.
This is really the malady of our age and it is not limited to marriage. The same applies to careers and material property. Our parents (I'm a late baby boomer) were happy to have well paying work (and often just for the husband, at least once the children began to be born), a loving and devoted spouse, children, a small, comfortable home, an serviceable automobile and, when it came along, a small black & white TV. The baby boomers wanted professional careers, trophy spouses, 2.1 children, a McMansion, luxury automobiles and media rooms with big screen TVs and surround sound. The next generation doesn't know what it wants. It can't be content with what made their grandparents content nor can they even joyfully wallow in what their parents gave up so much in contentment to achieve and acquire. They want it ALL, but don't really know what it ALL is and so don't know how to get it and wouldn't know it if they had it.
This is the world we've created for our children. Yet another reason why they have every reason to damn us.
This is really the malady of our age and it is not limited to marriage. The same applies to careers and material property. Our parents (I'm a late baby boomer) were happy to have well paying work (and often just for the husband, at least once the children began to be born), a loving and devoted spouse, children, a small, comfortable home, an serviceable automobile and, when it came along, a small black & white TV. The baby boomers wanted professional careers, trophy spouses, 2.1 children, a McMansion, luxury automobiles and media rooms with big screen TVs and surround sound. The next generation doesn't know what it wants. It can't be content with what made their grandparents content nor can they even joyfully wallow in what their parents gave up so much in contentment to achieve and acquire. They want it ALL, but don't really know what it ALL is and so don't know how to get it and wouldn't know it if they had it.
This is the world we've created for our children. Yet another reason why they have every reason to damn us.
2.14.2011 | 11:34am
Christopher Landrum says:
Both the "Village Voice" and "First Things" agree on one thing: it is entirely in the writer's interest to avoid discussing the plight of beta-man and their manhood.
I am neither looking for an outsider's pity, nor a love-doctor's prattle but remain absolutely confounded: is there any serious work being done on the subject of American beta-manhood? Are there any proposed solutions? Has any recourse (conservative or liberal or Christian) been identified or studied? Is it even a topic of research that merits interest?
Most of the non-morbidly obese, post-religious, lower-middleclass-yet-still-employed males of sound hygiene who I know are absolutely clueless as to how to improve their romantic and (a)sexual lots. We are not "Forty-Year-Old Virgins" but we are no less awkward. We are not Pavlovian patriarchs seeking sex slaves. Yet we ARE a bunch of prudes who would never discuss our circumstances among ourselves (even after extreme inebriation).
I am neither looking for an outsider's pity, nor a love-doctor's prattle but remain absolutely confounded: is there any serious work being done on the subject of American beta-manhood? Are there any proposed solutions? Has any recourse (conservative or liberal or Christian) been identified or studied? Is it even a topic of research that merits interest?
Most of the non-morbidly obese, post-religious, lower-middleclass-yet-still-employed males of sound hygiene who I know are absolutely clueless as to how to improve their romantic and (a)sexual lots. We are not "Forty-Year-Old Virgins" but we are no less awkward. We are not Pavlovian patriarchs seeking sex slaves. Yet we ARE a bunch of prudes who would never discuss our circumstances among ourselves (even after extreme inebriation).
2.14.2011 | 11:35am
Stuart Koehl says:
There are no golden ages, and each era has its own set of problems, most of which were shaped by the constraints under which people of that time had to function. Greg, for instance, has a very rosy view of middle class life in the late 1950s-early 1960s, where people were satisfied with relatively meagre (by current standards) possessions. He ignores, of course, several factors that acted as constraints upon consumption: first, there really weren't that many things from which to choose, but of those things, there was considerable competition to have the latest and the best--particularly in automobiles. Contrary to popular belief, cars of that era were essentially junk, and one that made it to 100,000 miles without a major rebuild were rare (today's cars routinely last well beyond 200,000 miles, which is why the auto industry is in trouble). People tended to replace cars every two or three years, and usually got new ones. When color television came in, black and white went out the door. Mom wanted and got a new mixer, a new fridge, a new toaster oven. The phrase "keeping up with the Joneses" dates to our childhood, Greg--not the grubby, materialistic present.
As far as housing went, houses were small mainly because mortgages were hard to get. Most of those small houses did not remain small, but became the subject of endless additions and remodeling (in my neighborhood of 1943-vintage Cape Cods, not one is in its original condition, and some have expanded well beyond twice their original floor space). They didn't have "media rooms" only because media didn't exist--but the first thing Dad did was finish the basement and turn it into a den/rec room/family room, where the family actually spent most of its time, the living room and dining room upstairs being relegated to holidays and visitors.
On to marriage: Greg and others need to recognize how anomalous the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s really were for the United States. Only the dominant economic position held by the U.S. as a result of World War II (which left all other economic competitors either bombed out or bankrupt) allowed for the situation in which someone with a high school education could go to work in a high-paying semi-skilled job right after graduation, marry his sweetheart and expect to work 30 years in the same place, followed by a nice, comfy defined benefits pension package. Once the rest of the world caught up (around 1968-70, as luck would have it), the plush days were over, and U.S. workers had to compete once more. This meant a return to a more usual pattern of men marrying in their late 20s--after they had established a stable career and built up a nest egg on which to support a family.
The big change is on the distaff side. Historically, most women married in their early 20s (the 1950s being anomalous, in that the average age for first marriage dropped to about 19). Today, men and women both tend to marry for the first time in their late 20s. Marriage in the past was pretty much a straight economic transaction for women (though they may have viewed it through romantic, rose-colored glasses). Since women had limited economic opportunities, the economic viability of the prospective spouse was an important consideration.
Today women have approximately the same economic opportunities as men, so the calculus has changed, but women still do the calculus with a different set of variables. Since women really don't need men in order to survive, they look for traits that will allow them to thrive--to live fulfilled and happy lives. Companionship becomes much more important. There is no way to end this other than to make women economically dependent upon men once again--but that is trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. The reason many women and men are unhappy is not so much that they want too much, as they don't really know what they want at all. That's a spiritual, not an economic or material malaise. But the only reason it did not manifest itself earlier was the difficulty of obtaining a divorce, and the inability of women to survive except under the care and protection of a man.
As far as housing went, houses were small mainly because mortgages were hard to get. Most of those small houses did not remain small, but became the subject of endless additions and remodeling (in my neighborhood of 1943-vintage Cape Cods, not one is in its original condition, and some have expanded well beyond twice their original floor space). They didn't have "media rooms" only because media didn't exist--but the first thing Dad did was finish the basement and turn it into a den/rec room/family room, where the family actually spent most of its time, the living room and dining room upstairs being relegated to holidays and visitors.
On to marriage: Greg and others need to recognize how anomalous the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s really were for the United States. Only the dominant economic position held by the U.S. as a result of World War II (which left all other economic competitors either bombed out or bankrupt) allowed for the situation in which someone with a high school education could go to work in a high-paying semi-skilled job right after graduation, marry his sweetheart and expect to work 30 years in the same place, followed by a nice, comfy defined benefits pension package. Once the rest of the world caught up (around 1968-70, as luck would have it), the plush days were over, and U.S. workers had to compete once more. This meant a return to a more usual pattern of men marrying in their late 20s--after they had established a stable career and built up a nest egg on which to support a family.
The big change is on the distaff side. Historically, most women married in their early 20s (the 1950s being anomalous, in that the average age for first marriage dropped to about 19). Today, men and women both tend to marry for the first time in their late 20s. Marriage in the past was pretty much a straight economic transaction for women (though they may have viewed it through romantic, rose-colored glasses). Since women had limited economic opportunities, the economic viability of the prospective spouse was an important consideration.
Today women have approximately the same economic opportunities as men, so the calculus has changed, but women still do the calculus with a different set of variables. Since women really don't need men in order to survive, they look for traits that will allow them to thrive--to live fulfilled and happy lives. Companionship becomes much more important. There is no way to end this other than to make women economically dependent upon men once again--but that is trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. The reason many women and men are unhappy is not so much that they want too much, as they don't really know what they want at all. That's a spiritual, not an economic or material malaise. But the only reason it did not manifest itself earlier was the difficulty of obtaining a divorce, and the inability of women to survive except under the care and protection of a man.
2.14.2011 | 12:15pm
jason taylor says:
Any merchant can tell the problem. If you underprice your wares you can't blame your lack of profit on customers not paying more. If one is willing to give sexual favors for the sake of temporary pleasure should one expect devotion?
2.14.2011 | 1:29pm
Earl Bohn says:
Whenever this topic comes up, I can't help recalling a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald. "Never marry for money. Go where the money is and marry for love." Whatever qualities you want in a mate -- whether related to finance, faith, or fidelity -- gravitate toward the people who display them. Socialize. Get involved. Then let yourself fall in love. Start there. Work hard. Enjoy your blessings where you find them. Constantly remind yourself that a wonderful love is a priceless gift, and treat it as such.
2.14.2011 | 1:54pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
For an interesting take on the subject, see "Why You're Not Married", by Tracy McMillan @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html
While I wouldn't exactly call her or the Huffington Post sources in line with First Things, I think see hits some nails on the head with her somewhat coarse and blunt analysis.
While I wouldn't exactly call her or the Huffington Post sources in line with First Things, I think see hits some nails on the head with her somewhat coarse and blunt analysis.
2.14.2011 | 1:55pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Any merchant can tell the problem. If you underprice your wares you can't blame your lack of profit on customers not paying more. If one is willing to give sexual favors for the sake of temporary pleasure should one expect devotion?"
In societies where men significantly outnumber women, women can afford to be picky; there are definite advantages to holding back one's favors and waiting for the right choice to come by.
On the other hand, where women significantly outnumber men (as is the case in our society), then women's chastity is devalued--men can afford to be picky, and also to differentiate between passing flings and serious courtships. An extreme example might be found in contemporary Russia, where, for various reasons. male life expectancy is very low (59) as compared to female life expectancy (72). The result is a shortage of young men, which in turn has led to a high rate of female promiscuity.
In societies where men significantly outnumber women, women can afford to be picky; there are definite advantages to holding back one's favors and waiting for the right choice to come by.
On the other hand, where women significantly outnumber men (as is the case in our society), then women's chastity is devalued--men can afford to be picky, and also to differentiate between passing flings and serious courtships. An extreme example might be found in contemporary Russia, where, for various reasons. male life expectancy is very low (59) as compared to female life expectancy (72). The result is a shortage of young men, which in turn has led to a high rate of female promiscuity.
2.14.2011 | 2:28pm
Christopher Landrum says:
Gregory K. Laughlin's link proves that "Huffington Post" is also on the same page as "Village Voice" and "First Things" concerning this issue: whenever discussing modern romance, a writer must emphasize children and women and negate any concern for men.
Why should heterosexual beta-men be pro-life or pro-choice if indifference to either choice offers us the most benefits? Why should we invest time and attention for (or against) gay marriage if there are no bottom-line benefits either way?
Why should heterosexual beta-men be pro-life or pro-choice if indifference to either choice offers us the most benefits? Why should we invest time and attention for (or against) gay marriage if there are no bottom-line benefits either way?
2.14.2011 | 2:45pm
Fornication is sin.
God hates divorce.
Be fruitful and multiply.
Obey God, thrive. Disobey God, suffer. What's not to understand?
God hates divorce.
Be fruitful and multiply.
Obey God, thrive. Disobey God, suffer. What's not to understand?
2.14.2011 | 2:58pm
DBP says:
Perhaps it's the "post-religious" part that prevents Christopher Landrum from seeing a fruitful connection between his "beta-man" plight and First Things.
2.14.2011 | 3:11pm
David Mills says:
Christopher Landrum: You really ought not to generalize. Writing on one subject and not another does not even suggest an indifference to the second. In my case, the subject was purely the result of having no subject in mind as the deadline rushed closer and picking up the *Voice* and finding the lead article, which provided one.
But you raise a good question, and as the father of two sons as well as two daughters the place of men in this new way of understanding commitment and marriage is one I've pondered.
But you raise a good question, and as the father of two sons as well as two daughters the place of men in this new way of understanding commitment and marriage is one I've pondered.
2.14.2011 | 3:13pm
Christopher Landrum says:
Thanks, DBP, I never thought of that. Problem solved. By that leap of faith, I'm led to believe there is no such thing as a religious beta-man, because according to you if he's religious, he simply can't be beta. The more I think about it, I've never even run across a Christian beta-male in real life--in fact, I've never heard of Christian men having any romantic problems whatsoever. I better go return to the rock I crawled out from under, thanks for the heads up DBP.
2.14.2011 | 3:15pm
David Mills says:
Jason Taylor: The article included some material supporting your point:
// As Tamsen Fadal, relationship expert and the female member of "America's only husband-wife matchmaking team" told us, "New York is like a candy store to men. If they think, 'This girl's not giving me what I want, or pushing things too quickly,' they find someone else. It's an unlevel playing field." . . .
When asked what he thought about the "plight of the single lady"—and women who blame men for the state of dating in the city, a single New Yorker in his twenties admitted, "I see where they're coming from, but, in a lot of ways, they bring it upon themselves. I think if girls were more withholding, boys would be more likely to commit, but because boys can get most of what they want without having to commit, they do. That implies that all boys want is to hook up, which I don't think is true, but I think that is a lot of it. That's why when a girl says, 'Oh, sure, we can hook up and I won't be weird about it,' they end up yelling at you a week later."
// As Tamsen Fadal, relationship expert and the female member of "America's only husband-wife matchmaking team" told us, "New York is like a candy store to men. If they think, 'This girl's not giving me what I want, or pushing things too quickly,' they find someone else. It's an unlevel playing field." . . .
When asked what he thought about the "plight of the single lady"—and women who blame men for the state of dating in the city, a single New Yorker in his twenties admitted, "I see where they're coming from, but, in a lot of ways, they bring it upon themselves. I think if girls were more withholding, boys would be more likely to commit, but because boys can get most of what they want without having to commit, they do. That implies that all boys want is to hook up, which I don't think is true, but I think that is a lot of it. That's why when a girl says, 'Oh, sure, we can hook up and I won't be weird about it,' they end up yelling at you a week later."
2.14.2011 | 5:01pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I see where they're coming from, but, in a lot of ways, they bring it upon themselves. I think if girls were more withholding, boys would be more likely to commit, but because boys can get most of what they want without having to commit, they do."
See my point regarding the relative numbers of single men vs. single women.
See my point regarding the relative numbers of single men vs. single women.
2.14.2011 | 5:54pm
Skylark says:
Sadly, even when these "want it all and want it right now" types decide to
quit the circus and settle down and have "the 1 1/2 kids" they inevitably
put the "kids" into day-care ( often as soon as the maternity leave ends) and
head back for more of the same....Selfish is as selfish does...again and again
and the statistics of divorce, etc bear this out! These women are just little
gilrs who never grew up and haven't a clue what they want...only what they
don't want! I feel sorry for today's young men...they are being so taken in
by this ultra-feminist palaver...and many of their lives have been ruined forever.
quit the circus and settle down and have "the 1 1/2 kids" they inevitably
put the "kids" into day-care ( often as soon as the maternity leave ends) and
head back for more of the same....Selfish is as selfish does...again and again
and the statistics of divorce, etc bear this out! These women are just little
gilrs who never grew up and haven't a clue what they want...only what they
don't want! I feel sorry for today's young men...they are being so taken in
by this ultra-feminist palaver...and many of their lives have been ruined forever.
2.14.2011 | 6:38pm
Fred says:
This is an excellent article, highlighting a sad state of affairs. Allan Bloom points out in The Closing of the American Mind that this state of affairs creates its own problems that are grounded in the tension between freedom and equality. Bloom:
"The change in sexual relations, which now provide an unending challenge to human ingenuity, came over us in two successive waves...The first was the sexual revolution; the second, feminism. The sexual revolution marched under the banner of freedom; feminism under that of equality. Although they went arm and arm for a while, their differences eventually put them at odds with each other, as Toquville said freedom and equality would always be. This is manifest in the squabble over pornography, which pits liberal sexual desire against feminist resentment about sterotyping....In the background stand the liberals, wringing their hands in confusion because they wish to favor both sides and cannot."
The problems are not just on the individual level (say, the problem of living a serious life and all the while thinking of one's life as a more or less arbitrary collection of 'values' and 'lifestyles'); on the level of principles, the problem is the incompatability of freedom understood as license and equality understood in the most leveling sense.
"The change in sexual relations, which now provide an unending challenge to human ingenuity, came over us in two successive waves...The first was the sexual revolution; the second, feminism. The sexual revolution marched under the banner of freedom; feminism under that of equality. Although they went arm and arm for a while, their differences eventually put them at odds with each other, as Toquville said freedom and equality would always be. This is manifest in the squabble over pornography, which pits liberal sexual desire against feminist resentment about sterotyping....In the background stand the liberals, wringing their hands in confusion because they wish to favor both sides and cannot."
The problems are not just on the individual level (say, the problem of living a serious life and all the while thinking of one's life as a more or less arbitrary collection of 'values' and 'lifestyles'); on the level of principles, the problem is the incompatability of freedom understood as license and equality understood in the most leveling sense.
2.14.2011 | 7:15pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Christopher Landrum says:
"Gregory K. Laughlin's link proves that "Huffington Post" is also on the same page as "Village Voice" and "First Things" concerning this issue: whenever discussing modern romance, a writer must emphasize children and women and negate any concern for men."
I don't think you read the Huffington Post article very closely. She was telling women why they are not attractive wife "candidates" from men. Its mostly about what men are looking for in a wife.
Actually, I still believe that the demand for real men (men who are faithful to their wives and don't whine about their concerns being met all the time -- self-sacrificing for their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church) is far greater than the supply. Be a man and finding a wife won't be a problem.
"Gregory K. Laughlin's link proves that "Huffington Post" is also on the same page as "Village Voice" and "First Things" concerning this issue: whenever discussing modern romance, a writer must emphasize children and women and negate any concern for men."
I don't think you read the Huffington Post article very closely. She was telling women why they are not attractive wife "candidates" from men. Its mostly about what men are looking for in a wife.
Actually, I still believe that the demand for real men (men who are faithful to their wives and don't whine about their concerns being met all the time -- self-sacrificing for their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church) is far greater than the supply. Be a man and finding a wife won't be a problem.
2.14.2011 | 7:25pm
Christopher Landrum says:
David Mills: Yes, I concede you are correct on two counts: one, I shouldn't generalize so much and two, the lack of (x) in a particular equation does not inherently imply an indifference to (x).
2.14.2011 | 8:49pm
Anonymous 3 says:
Apologies - The ( Roman ) Church celebrates today the Feast of the Apostles to The East - Sts Cyril and Methodious ; read how not much is known about St .Valentine and of the others like him whose Feast Day used to be today - martyrs who have been worthy , valiant and strong !
The strenght to offer up the many little martydoms that single or married lives bring us , trusting that our Lord would use it all when given to Him , to free enemy holds and thus the peaceand sense of unity from such offering up - may many more young women and men be blessed so !
The strenght to offer up the many little martydoms that single or married lives bring us , trusting that our Lord would use it all when given to Him , to free enemy holds and thus the peaceand sense of unity from such offering up - may many more young women and men be blessed so !
2.14.2011 | 9:13pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Actually, I still believe that the demand for real men (men who are faithful to their wives and don't whine about their concerns being met all the time -- self-sacrificing for their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church) is far greater than the supply. Be a man and finding a wife won't be a problem."
Actually, Greg, such men are always in short supply. In the past, just about everybody married because that's what people did. They stayed married because it was difficult and expensive to get divorced, and people whispered behind your back. But were all marriages happy and fruitful? Were all men satisfied with their wives and vice versa?
Probably not--history is replete with the wreckage of human relationships, broken marriages and families, unhappy and desperate men and women. A lot of people drank themselves to death, or killed someone (or themselves), or ran away, or simply endured in silence. They didn't obsess over their situation, because "Those Were the Facts of Life". The difference between them, and many people today, is the inability to deal with The Facts of Life. Having many more options open to them, people avoid getting into situations where they have to bail out. It's just a different way of dealing with the same flawed human nature.
Which is why J.M. Barrie was right: "This has happened before, and it will all happen again".
Actually, Greg, such men are always in short supply. In the past, just about everybody married because that's what people did. They stayed married because it was difficult and expensive to get divorced, and people whispered behind your back. But were all marriages happy and fruitful? Were all men satisfied with their wives and vice versa?
Probably not--history is replete with the wreckage of human relationships, broken marriages and families, unhappy and desperate men and women. A lot of people drank themselves to death, or killed someone (or themselves), or ran away, or simply endured in silence. They didn't obsess over their situation, because "Those Were the Facts of Life". The difference between them, and many people today, is the inability to deal with The Facts of Life. Having many more options open to them, people avoid getting into situations where they have to bail out. It's just a different way of dealing with the same flawed human nature.
Which is why J.M. Barrie was right: "This has happened before, and it will all happen again".
2.14.2011 | 9:55pm
DBP says:
I'm not sure what leap of faith you believe that I have promoted, Christopher Landrum, or where I've said or implied anything concerning the impossibility of being both religious and a "beta-man."
What I did do was quote your own description as "post-religious" in order to suggest that such a person may have trouble finding a consonant perspective to their relationship questions from a publication whose purpose is "to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
That said person is also a beta or alpha or gamma or delta seems immaterial to the point.
What I did do was quote your own description as "post-religious" in order to suggest that such a person may have trouble finding a consonant perspective to their relationship questions from a publication whose purpose is "to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
That said person is also a beta or alpha or gamma or delta seems immaterial to the point.
2.15.2011 | 10:48am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
"Actually, Greg, such men are always in short supply. In the past, just about everybody married because that's what people did. They stayed married because it was difficult and expensive to get divorced, and people whispered behind your back. But were all marriages happy and fruitful? Were all men satisfied with their wives and vice versa?
Probably not--history is replete with the wreckage of human relationships, broken marriages and families, unhappy and desperate men and women."
Stuart, you seem to operate under the false notion that because there has never been a golden age, we cannot critique to particular maladies of our own. Everyone here will concede that since the Fall, there has been no golden age. And everyone will concede that there have always been fornication, adultery, unhappy marriages and a whole mountain of woes. That is not the issue. The issue is that today many women (and men) don't marry because they are (1) too picky, (2) too self-centered, (3) too indecisive, etc. That was not always the case and it is to be lamented. Now, if we were discussing legalized segregation based on race or ethnicity, I would laud this age over our grandparents' time. But that is not the subject under discussion. And if I were condemning hypocrisy, I might also laud our age, though I might argue that hypocrisy has at least the virtue of acknowledging the virtues by feigning them.
So, your constant rejoinder that there is no golden age, while true, is irrelevant. You might as well argue that the Scriptures, which call men to righteousness while being filled, cover-to-cover, with accounts of man's unrighteousness, is being unrealistic. It was Our Lord, after all, who commanded, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
Probably not--history is replete with the wreckage of human relationships, broken marriages and families, unhappy and desperate men and women."
Stuart, you seem to operate under the false notion that because there has never been a golden age, we cannot critique to particular maladies of our own. Everyone here will concede that since the Fall, there has been no golden age. And everyone will concede that there have always been fornication, adultery, unhappy marriages and a whole mountain of woes. That is not the issue. The issue is that today many women (and men) don't marry because they are (1) too picky, (2) too self-centered, (3) too indecisive, etc. That was not always the case and it is to be lamented. Now, if we were discussing legalized segregation based on race or ethnicity, I would laud this age over our grandparents' time. But that is not the subject under discussion. And if I were condemning hypocrisy, I might also laud our age, though I might argue that hypocrisy has at least the virtue of acknowledging the virtues by feigning them.
So, your constant rejoinder that there is no golden age, while true, is irrelevant. You might as well argue that the Scriptures, which call men to righteousness while being filled, cover-to-cover, with accounts of man's unrighteousness, is being unrealistic. It was Our Lord, after all, who commanded, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
2.15.2011 | 12:09pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Stuart, you seem to operate under the false notion that because there has never been a golden age, we cannot critique to particular maladies of our own."
Of course we can. But we should not do so by making invidious comparisons between our nostalgic recollections of the past and our all-too-concrete perceptions of the present. Moreover, in evaluating the present, we should never elevate outliers to the norm. Thus, from reading the pages of First Things or Touchstone, for instance, one might get the impression that sexual morality, particularly among the young, is worse today than it was forty years ago--yet objective evidence tells us this is not so, and that my generation of college students behaved far more like the protagonist of Tom Wolfe's "My Name is Charlotte Simmons" than do the vast majority of undergraduates today. We might also note that rates of teeenage pregnancy, abortion and other measures of morality are all better today than they were even two decades ago. So, nil desperandum!
"The issue is that today many women (and men) don't marry because they are (1) too picky, (2) too self-centered, (3) too indecisive, etc. That was not always the case and it is to be lamented."
It was always the case, but society and technology did not leave people the ability to opt out. Man and women were always picky, self-centered and indecisive, but in the absence of alternatives, what choice did they have but to go along to get along? As I said, a woman could not truly be financially independent of men, except in a limited range of professions, and in the absence of reliable contraception had no acceptable outlet for sexual desire except marriage. Men had alternative outlets through prostitution (and the number of brothels in most major cities gives lie to the chastity of our male forefathers) but for the middle class, at least, respectability demanded marriage, and failure to marry resulted in suspicions about one's masculinity--unless one maintained the hearty "confirmed bachelor" stereotype). In the end, it was economics and social stigma that required men and women to marry, and absent that, how would the present situation been repeated a century ago?
Other than moral regeneration, which must proceed one soul at a time, and cannot be coerced, the only way to reverse the present situation would require massive social dislocation and a degree of government intervention that would and could not gain any degree of legitimacy in a democratic society. One would have, effectively, to bar women from the professions, to make contraception illegal, to criminalize a range of sexual behaviors that have just been decriminalized, to make inheritance contingent upon legitimate birth, and above all, to regenerate the social stigma that used to accompany cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth (though, mind you, this was only the case among the middle and upper classes--the lower classes always rutted like stotes, because, well, there was no economic incentive for them not to do so).
" And if I were condemning hypocrisy, I might also laud our age, though I might argue that hypocrisy has at least the virtue of acknowledging the virtues by feigning them."
Ah, now you have hit upon something important: this age, for all that it touts "authenticity", is just as hypocritical as past ages--or, to be more specific, the elites, who form social mores, are just as hypocritical. Now, in the Victorian Age, hypocrisy took the form of the upper classes pretended to a high degree of sexual propriety while living rather dissolute lives in which lovers and mistresses were very common indeed. But for the sake of propriety, discretion and certain conventions were maintained: one did not flaunt one's lover or mistress; one did not embarrass one's spouse; one did not divorce; and one did not take a lover until such time as one had spawned an "heir and a spare" by one's own wife--after which you an she were free to make whatever "civilized" arrangement one wished (including living in monogamous fidelity). The forms were obeyed because (a) social stigma could undermine one's place in society; and (b) the elite recognized that while they could do these things with impunity, they had to set an example for the lower orders who could not.
Today, the situation is reversed 180 degrees: the elites preach the virtues of free love, toleration, and alternative family arrangements, but they themselves live lives of bourgeois sobriety. The upper classes are far more likely than the lower classes not to have sex as teenagers, not to get pregnant out of wedlock, and to get married and remain married to the same person. One might ask why, and the answer would be the rise of the meritocracy: social status today is not a matter of birth, but of educational accomplishment, of receiving a degree from a prestigious institution and then moving on to a career in a high status profession (law, finance, politics, medicine, etc.). There is a definite cursus honorum of personal achievement that one must climb to get there, and this, in turn, requires the old virtues of prudence, frugality, diligence, frugality and delayed gratification.
Men and women who have done this seek out partners with similar backgrounds; their marriages can be viewed as intergenerational enterprises in which they have a deeply vested interest, which divorce or sexual irregularity would shatter. In short, both husband and wife invest too much of themselves in their marriages to see them fail--or to see their children fail. Hence, they instill similar values in their children, who in turn grow up to be the kind of diligent drudges who get 2400s on the SATs, write killer admissions essays, have great looking extracurriculars and never do anything that would disrupt the mold of the "perfect applicant".
On the other hand, those not on this track increasingly find no particular reason to get married, or if married, to stay married. They don't see any downside to having children out of wedlock, and they don't instill the bourgeois virtues in their children.
Ironically, if you take polls, it's the lower classes who are the more overtly religious, the upper classes more agnostic or openly atheistic. But in their personal behavior, the upper classes conform more to the traditional norms than the lower classes do.
The killer, though, is the failure of the upper classes to impose their own personal values on the lower classes in the name of "nonjudgmentalism", thereby undermining the foundations of the society of which they are the nominal leaders. This is a classic "trahison des clercs"--or as Chistopher Lasch called it in his book, "The Revolt of the Elites". Something similar happened in the last decades of the 18th century, in France: the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, who stood at the apex of French society, in their boredom and disillusionment with life began subverting the very order of which they were the guardians. The result was the French Revolution, which both groups tried to control, but which eventually turned on both. In the end, an authoritarian regime was needed to restore social and moral order.
Transforming the present situation will require the reform of the elites first, or, alternatively, their replacement with another set of elites. This was very much the mode of social reformation in 18th and 19th century Britain. For all that Wesley and Wilberforce were able to do through their preaching and agitation, their movements were marginal until the values they espoused gained the backing of the top rank of society--particularly Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Through their control of patronage and prestige, they could make and break people in society; rakes were out, reformers were in (though note that the same sort of behavior that went on during the Regency continued under Victoria--but in a more covert, underground manner). And the lower classes aped the behavior of their social better then, just as much as they do today. A fish rots from the head down, but it also regenerates in the same manner.
Of course we can. But we should not do so by making invidious comparisons between our nostalgic recollections of the past and our all-too-concrete perceptions of the present. Moreover, in evaluating the present, we should never elevate outliers to the norm. Thus, from reading the pages of First Things or Touchstone, for instance, one might get the impression that sexual morality, particularly among the young, is worse today than it was forty years ago--yet objective evidence tells us this is not so, and that my generation of college students behaved far more like the protagonist of Tom Wolfe's "My Name is Charlotte Simmons" than do the vast majority of undergraduates today. We might also note that rates of teeenage pregnancy, abortion and other measures of morality are all better today than they were even two decades ago. So, nil desperandum!
"The issue is that today many women (and men) don't marry because they are (1) too picky, (2) too self-centered, (3) too indecisive, etc. That was not always the case and it is to be lamented."
It was always the case, but society and technology did not leave people the ability to opt out. Man and women were always picky, self-centered and indecisive, but in the absence of alternatives, what choice did they have but to go along to get along? As I said, a woman could not truly be financially independent of men, except in a limited range of professions, and in the absence of reliable contraception had no acceptable outlet for sexual desire except marriage. Men had alternative outlets through prostitution (and the number of brothels in most major cities gives lie to the chastity of our male forefathers) but for the middle class, at least, respectability demanded marriage, and failure to marry resulted in suspicions about one's masculinity--unless one maintained the hearty "confirmed bachelor" stereotype). In the end, it was economics and social stigma that required men and women to marry, and absent that, how would the present situation been repeated a century ago?
Other than moral regeneration, which must proceed one soul at a time, and cannot be coerced, the only way to reverse the present situation would require massive social dislocation and a degree of government intervention that would and could not gain any degree of legitimacy in a democratic society. One would have, effectively, to bar women from the professions, to make contraception illegal, to criminalize a range of sexual behaviors that have just been decriminalized, to make inheritance contingent upon legitimate birth, and above all, to regenerate the social stigma that used to accompany cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth (though, mind you, this was only the case among the middle and upper classes--the lower classes always rutted like stotes, because, well, there was no economic incentive for them not to do so).
" And if I were condemning hypocrisy, I might also laud our age, though I might argue that hypocrisy has at least the virtue of acknowledging the virtues by feigning them."
Ah, now you have hit upon something important: this age, for all that it touts "authenticity", is just as hypocritical as past ages--or, to be more specific, the elites, who form social mores, are just as hypocritical. Now, in the Victorian Age, hypocrisy took the form of the upper classes pretended to a high degree of sexual propriety while living rather dissolute lives in which lovers and mistresses were very common indeed. But for the sake of propriety, discretion and certain conventions were maintained: one did not flaunt one's lover or mistress; one did not embarrass one's spouse; one did not divorce; and one did not take a lover until such time as one had spawned an "heir and a spare" by one's own wife--after which you an she were free to make whatever "civilized" arrangement one wished (including living in monogamous fidelity). The forms were obeyed because (a) social stigma could undermine one's place in society; and (b) the elite recognized that while they could do these things with impunity, they had to set an example for the lower orders who could not.
Today, the situation is reversed 180 degrees: the elites preach the virtues of free love, toleration, and alternative family arrangements, but they themselves live lives of bourgeois sobriety. The upper classes are far more likely than the lower classes not to have sex as teenagers, not to get pregnant out of wedlock, and to get married and remain married to the same person. One might ask why, and the answer would be the rise of the meritocracy: social status today is not a matter of birth, but of educational accomplishment, of receiving a degree from a prestigious institution and then moving on to a career in a high status profession (law, finance, politics, medicine, etc.). There is a definite cursus honorum of personal achievement that one must climb to get there, and this, in turn, requires the old virtues of prudence, frugality, diligence, frugality and delayed gratification.
Men and women who have done this seek out partners with similar backgrounds; their marriages can be viewed as intergenerational enterprises in which they have a deeply vested interest, which divorce or sexual irregularity would shatter. In short, both husband and wife invest too much of themselves in their marriages to see them fail--or to see their children fail. Hence, they instill similar values in their children, who in turn grow up to be the kind of diligent drudges who get 2400s on the SATs, write killer admissions essays, have great looking extracurriculars and never do anything that would disrupt the mold of the "perfect applicant".
On the other hand, those not on this track increasingly find no particular reason to get married, or if married, to stay married. They don't see any downside to having children out of wedlock, and they don't instill the bourgeois virtues in their children.
Ironically, if you take polls, it's the lower classes who are the more overtly religious, the upper classes more agnostic or openly atheistic. But in their personal behavior, the upper classes conform more to the traditional norms than the lower classes do.
The killer, though, is the failure of the upper classes to impose their own personal values on the lower classes in the name of "nonjudgmentalism", thereby undermining the foundations of the society of which they are the nominal leaders. This is a classic "trahison des clercs"--or as Chistopher Lasch called it in his book, "The Revolt of the Elites". Something similar happened in the last decades of the 18th century, in France: the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, who stood at the apex of French society, in their boredom and disillusionment with life began subverting the very order of which they were the guardians. The result was the French Revolution, which both groups tried to control, but which eventually turned on both. In the end, an authoritarian regime was needed to restore social and moral order.
Transforming the present situation will require the reform of the elites first, or, alternatively, their replacement with another set of elites. This was very much the mode of social reformation in 18th and 19th century Britain. For all that Wesley and Wilberforce were able to do through their preaching and agitation, their movements were marginal until the values they espoused gained the backing of the top rank of society--particularly Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Through their control of patronage and prestige, they could make and break people in society; rakes were out, reformers were in (though note that the same sort of behavior that went on during the Regency continued under Victoria--but in a more covert, underground manner). And the lower classes aped the behavior of their social better then, just as much as they do today. A fish rots from the head down, but it also regenerates in the same manner.
2.15.2011 | 2:27pm
Lewis says:
“the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, who stood at the apex of French society, in their boredom and disillusionment with life began subverting the very order of which they were the guardians. The result was the French Revolution, which both groups tried to control, but which eventually turned on both. In the end, an authoritarian regime was needed to restore social and moral order.”
Now there’s a unique bit of revisionism: the French Revolution was caused by bad social behavior. I guess hunger, a regime bankrupted by its love of war, and a middle and working class tired of aristocratic and clerical corruption were minor factors.
And the solution was the iron hand of an authoritarian regime, not reforms that gave the middle class more freedom and working classes more security.
Now there’s a unique bit of revisionism: the French Revolution was caused by bad social behavior. I guess hunger, a regime bankrupted by its love of war, and a middle and working class tired of aristocratic and clerical corruption were minor factors.
And the solution was the iron hand of an authoritarian regime, not reforms that gave the middle class more freedom and working classes more security.
2.15.2011 | 4:29pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Now there’s a unique bit of revisionism: the French Revolution was caused by bad social behavior. I guess hunger, a regime bankrupted by its love of war, and a middle and working class tired of aristocratic and clerical corruption were minor factors."
A regime not suffering from serious moral disintegration would have been able to meet the challenges of 1789. Consider that in the 1770s-80s, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie were absorbing--and applauding--Beaumarchais, Chloderos de Laclos, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot. . . all of whom either ridiculed the ruling class or called for its overthrow. I remember seeing something quite similar in the 1980s at a performance of Les Miserables on Broadway. It was not a cheap show, and the front row seats went for close to $1000 each, so the people in those seats might be considered representative of the urban elites. When the ensemble went into "Can You Hear the People Sing", which is a revolutionary anthem (the red flag being waved by the mob might have been a clue), those idiots in the front row did not for a second give any consideration to the lyrics, which essentially called for people like them to be strung up from lamp posts. Instead, they stood up and cheered wildly.
Well, back in the day, the Aristos of France were similarly cheering on Figaro and devouring Les Liaisons Dangereuse, thereby undermining their own authority and moral position, so that, when challenged by the mob in 1792, they were helpless to resist it.
"And the solution was the iron hand of an authoritarian regime, not reforms that gave the middle class more freedom and working classes more security."
That's right. Napoleon stood for order. After a decade of civil strife, terror, massacre, and war on a scale the Ancien Regime could never even contemplate, the French welcomed Bonaparte with open arms. His reforms were authoritarian: at the end of the day, all power emanated from Paris (as is still the case today in France, the world's most convivial police state) and the rights of workers were strictly circumscribed, but in return the French got efficient administration and a reasonably equitable system of justice (within the limits of personal freedom allowed under Napoleonic rule). One might well wonder if the French thought it was worth the trouble by 1815--a year that saw the second restoration of a Bourbon regime even more reactionary than the one overthrown in 1792.
A regime not suffering from serious moral disintegration would have been able to meet the challenges of 1789. Consider that in the 1770s-80s, the aristocracy and bourgeoisie were absorbing--and applauding--Beaumarchais, Chloderos de Laclos, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot. . . all of whom either ridiculed the ruling class or called for its overthrow. I remember seeing something quite similar in the 1980s at a performance of Les Miserables on Broadway. It was not a cheap show, and the front row seats went for close to $1000 each, so the people in those seats might be considered representative of the urban elites. When the ensemble went into "Can You Hear the People Sing", which is a revolutionary anthem (the red flag being waved by the mob might have been a clue), those idiots in the front row did not for a second give any consideration to the lyrics, which essentially called for people like them to be strung up from lamp posts. Instead, they stood up and cheered wildly.
Well, back in the day, the Aristos of France were similarly cheering on Figaro and devouring Les Liaisons Dangereuse, thereby undermining their own authority and moral position, so that, when challenged by the mob in 1792, they were helpless to resist it.
"And the solution was the iron hand of an authoritarian regime, not reforms that gave the middle class more freedom and working classes more security."
That's right. Napoleon stood for order. After a decade of civil strife, terror, massacre, and war on a scale the Ancien Regime could never even contemplate, the French welcomed Bonaparte with open arms. His reforms were authoritarian: at the end of the day, all power emanated from Paris (as is still the case today in France, the world's most convivial police state) and the rights of workers were strictly circumscribed, but in return the French got efficient administration and a reasonably equitable system of justice (within the limits of personal freedom allowed under Napoleonic rule). One might well wonder if the French thought it was worth the trouble by 1815--a year that saw the second restoration of a Bourbon regime even more reactionary than the one overthrown in 1792.
2.15.2011 | 6:21pm
Bill R says:
"Marriage is a gift of addition, of multiplication, of construction."
This is the key thought I took away from David's post. I think too many young adults look upon marriage as an obstacle, or at any rate a hindrance to the goals they set for themselves. The problem is that young men continue to think this way long after the young women wake up and ask, "My Gawd, what's this thing ticking away inside of me?!" If you look at marriage as a goal 'way off in the distance, you may well lack the foundation necessary to accomplish the rest of the tasks on your "list."
This is the key thought I took away from David's post. I think too many young adults look upon marriage as an obstacle, or at any rate a hindrance to the goals they set for themselves. The problem is that young men continue to think this way long after the young women wake up and ask, "My Gawd, what's this thing ticking away inside of me?!" If you look at marriage as a goal 'way off in the distance, you may well lack the foundation necessary to accomplish the rest of the tasks on your "list."
2.15.2011 | 6:22pm
Lewis says:
"A regime not suffering from serious moral disintegration would have been able to meet the challenges of 1789."
How? By stringing the rebels up?
"Beaumarchais, Chloderos de Laclos, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot. . . all of whom either ridiculed the ruling class or called for its overthrow"
And for good reason.
"His reforms were authoritarian"
He ended aristocratic privilege, gave freedom of religion, and ended feudalism.
"all power emanated from Paris"
Replacing petty dictators ruling by divine right and aristocratic privilege with at least some notion of a social contract.
"the world's most convivial police state"
Hardly.
"the rights of workers were strictly circumscribed"
Not more than they were before.
How? By stringing the rebels up?
"Beaumarchais, Chloderos de Laclos, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot. . . all of whom either ridiculed the ruling class or called for its overthrow"
And for good reason.
"His reforms were authoritarian"
He ended aristocratic privilege, gave freedom of religion, and ended feudalism.
"all power emanated from Paris"
Replacing petty dictators ruling by divine right and aristocratic privilege with at least some notion of a social contract.
"the world's most convivial police state"
Hardly.
"the rights of workers were strictly circumscribed"
Not more than they were before.
2.15.2011 | 6:47pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
"Greg, Stuart,
Keep it up. This is most enlightening!"
I think I'll pass, Bill. It is too exhausting and I have my oldest daughter's basketball playoff game to attend, which is of far more importance.
Keep it up. This is most enlightening!"
I think I'll pass, Bill. It is too exhausting and I have my oldest daughter's basketball playoff game to attend, which is of far more importance.
2.15.2011 | 7:26pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Lewis is being unserious. I don't have historical discussions with unserious people, and besides, his comments are not relevant to the subject of the discussion.
2.16.2011 | 7:14am
Stuart Koehl says:
"This is the key thought I took away from David's post. I think too many young adults look upon marriage as an obstacle, or at any rate a hindrance to the goals they set for themselves."
But in the past (and with the exception of the period from 1950-70), men always waited to establish a career and build up a nest egg before marrying. That's why men typically married in their late 20s--no self-respecting woman would have a man who could not support her. When people did marry young, it was usually because someone had put a bun in the oven.
"The problem is that young men continue to think this way long after the young women wake up and ask, "My Gawd, what's this thing ticking away inside of me?!" If you look at marriage as a goal 'way off in the distance, you may well lack the foundation necessary to accomplish the rest of the tasks on your "list.""
This problem tends to affect only upper middle class women, because they are the ones pursuing professional careers that require four years of college and perhaps a post-graduate degree. Men like to marry women who are several years younger than they are, but they also like to marry women with similar interests and educational attainment. The two objectives are not compatible, hence the dilemma of the young urban professional single in New York (or any other big city).
For working class and middle class women, this does not seem to be the case. They do marry younger, and they do tend to have children at an earlier age. On the other hand, and as I noted, they also seem more inclined to divorce and to have more children out of wedlock, and their children tend to follow the same pattern of behavior.
This would appear, then, to be a problem in our educational priorities: our public school system is a mess, which means employers use a 4-year college degree as the equivalent of a high school diploma forty years ago. Our President insists on saying that every kid should go to college "to get a good job", but all the evidence points to too many people going to college, a waste of their time and money. If, instead, we could provide those who do not have the intellectual ability and introspective disposition to benefit from college various alternative paths to a career--paths that would cost less and require only a couple of years on top of high school--then we might see a reversion to earlier patterns. Men might still marry in their late 20s, but the age at which women would marry would drop back to the early 20s.
Of course, a social welfare system that does not penalize promiscuity and illegitimacy only makes matters worse, but you have to deal with one issue at a time.
But in the past (and with the exception of the period from 1950-70), men always waited to establish a career and build up a nest egg before marrying. That's why men typically married in their late 20s--no self-respecting woman would have a man who could not support her. When people did marry young, it was usually because someone had put a bun in the oven.
"The problem is that young men continue to think this way long after the young women wake up and ask, "My Gawd, what's this thing ticking away inside of me?!" If you look at marriage as a goal 'way off in the distance, you may well lack the foundation necessary to accomplish the rest of the tasks on your "list.""
This problem tends to affect only upper middle class women, because they are the ones pursuing professional careers that require four years of college and perhaps a post-graduate degree. Men like to marry women who are several years younger than they are, but they also like to marry women with similar interests and educational attainment. The two objectives are not compatible, hence the dilemma of the young urban professional single in New York (or any other big city).
For working class and middle class women, this does not seem to be the case. They do marry younger, and they do tend to have children at an earlier age. On the other hand, and as I noted, they also seem more inclined to divorce and to have more children out of wedlock, and their children tend to follow the same pattern of behavior.
This would appear, then, to be a problem in our educational priorities: our public school system is a mess, which means employers use a 4-year college degree as the equivalent of a high school diploma forty years ago. Our President insists on saying that every kid should go to college "to get a good job", but all the evidence points to too many people going to college, a waste of their time and money. If, instead, we could provide those who do not have the intellectual ability and introspective disposition to benefit from college various alternative paths to a career--paths that would cost less and require only a couple of years on top of high school--then we might see a reversion to earlier patterns. Men might still marry in their late 20s, but the age at which women would marry would drop back to the early 20s.
Of course, a social welfare system that does not penalize promiscuity and illegitimacy only makes matters worse, but you have to deal with one issue at a time.
2.16.2011 | 6:51pm
Bill R says:
Well said, Stuart. You're right: I was thinking largely of professional women, those such as my daughter (and yours) who find themselves under pressure to choose career or marriage. Men may face similar pressures and respond in many cases by marrying late, an option fraught with too many problems for young women.
3.6.2011 | 8:02am
Tajuana Cadwallader says:
Actually, I still believe that the demand for real men (men who are faithful to their wives and don't whine about their concerns being met all the time -- self-sacrificing for their wives as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church) is far greater than the supply. Be a man and finding a wife won't be a problem." When asked what he thought about the "plight of the single lady"and women who blame men for the state of dating in the city, a single New Yorker in his twenties admitted, "I see where they're coming from, but, in a lot of ways, they bring it upon themselves. I think if girls were more withholding, boys would be more likely to commit, but because boys can get most of what they want without having to commit, they do. That implies that all boys want is to hook up, which I don't think is true, but I think that is a lot of it. That's why when a girl says, 'Oh, sure, we can hook up and I won't be weird about it,' they end up yelling at you a week later."
3.12.2011 | 6:07pm
Marguerite Wixted says:
The truth of each of us belonging to God and how offenses against that truth is an offense against God that need to be repented at that level is easy to forget in our culture and thus many choosing the mistakes of slavery to the enemy , with all the resulting confusion as 'freedom ' - even till the last moment when that enemy can come with its claims ! Transforming the present situation will require the reform of the elites first, or, alternatively, their replacement with another set of elites. This was very much the mode of social reformation in 18th and 19th century Britain. For all that Wesley and Wilberforce were able to do through their preaching and agitation, their movements were marginal until the values they espoused gained the backing of the top rank of society--particularly Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Through their control of patronage and prestige, they could make and break people in society; rakes were out, reformers were in (though note that the same sort of behavior that went on during the Regency continued under Victoria--but in a more covert, underground manner). And the lower classes aped the behavior of their social better then, just as much as they do today. A fish rots from the head down, but it also regenerates in the same manner.
