I can show plenty of examples where rights were extended to women in marriage before they were shown to divorced or single women. That is because marriage promotes equality, not oppression. Here I present two...
A while back a commenter presented two cases which he proposed showed that marriage was an institution of oppression. He showed as evidence the state of Kentucky where women weren't recognized as owning property. But what undermined that claim was that the status was changed, first for married women. The people who voluntarily voted in that recognition were their husbands.
For woman's suffrage, it was a bloodless revolution. I do not know of another case in history where power was shared so voluntarily as the husbands shared voting power with women. If women had a better conduit to gain that power then their marriage, you tell me what that was.
My premise is not that marriage itself brings equality. Its not just a name or title or the fact there are two people heading a household. My premise is that integration brings equality, in this case the integration of two distinctly different types of people -- men and women. However superficial and deep the distinctions are between them, they are obvious.
Neutered marriage is not integration, its neutralizing the expectation of integration. Another case of integration was how the civil rights movement insisted schools have both black and white students even at the cost of busing children around the city. Naturally some cities had to try harder to integrate then others. But now imagine with all of the gains that movement has had since that change, if we then decided that an all-white school was now in an of itself an entity which needed integrating with integrated schools. Imagine if the all-white school was now considered just as integrated and equal as the integrated class.
As people point out with marriage's integration of gender, or our efforts to integrate races educationally, integration has provided many opportunities for dominance of one group over another. And that makes sense, I mean you can't have dominance of one over the other if they don't share the same space at all, right? So I think its a fools paradise to think that integration prevents oppression, however over time integration can and has promoted equality. Over time it has encouraged people to love, tolerance, and respect. It has made civilizations more equal.
And marriage is simply the oldest, most battle torn, institution of integration there is. But it is also the most important, and the one with the most potential to change society into being more loving and respectful.
[Update: Some discussion has lead to even more supporting facts...]
Social activism and cultural change bring equality. Attempting to harness equality to marriage seems a stretch.
ReplyDeleteYour premise here is that because husbands voted for women's suffrage, it was their interaction with their wives that led them to do so. What evidence to you present? If this were true and the leading factor in one place, wouldn't it also be so in others?
Marriage has been around in Arabian culture longer than the United States has existed - yet where is the equality there?
Women first obtained suffrage in the US in New Jersey in 1776; however, "since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified" to vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage That right was taken away by the votes of husbands in 1807. I guess women only started interacting with their husbands long after the first Women's Rights Convention in 1848?
In any case, relating "integration" in marriage to racial integration is like relating pumpkins to asphalt. They're different issues, with different dynamics. You're relating a personal relationship between consenting individuals to social group relationships of specific, differing groups. Even with complete racial integration of schools, the workplace, and society, people would still choose their individual relationships based on other factors, and many of those relationships would be same-race.
The other aspect of your premise here, appears to be that the 2 to 4% of marriages that would be same-sex would somehow overpower the 96 - 98% of hetero marriages and lead to dis-equality for women. But in fact, even if it were true that the state of being married led to women's equality, this would still be irrelevant to the argument of whether to allow same-sex marriage or not. That equality having been, to some extent, achieved, extending equality to gays and lesbians would not, presumably, affect the rights of women, since the vast majority of marriages would still be heterosexual.
Using this argument as a tactic to usurp equality for the forces of discrimination is an interesting exercise; however, in the end it's just another case of an error in the premise leading to an error in the conclusion.
The other aspect of your premise here, appears to be that the 2 to 4% of marriages that would be same-sex would somehow overpower the 96 - 98% of hetero marriages and lead to dis-equality for women. But in fact, even if it were true that the state of being married led to women's equality, this would still be irrelevant to the argument of whether to allow same-sex marriage or not. That equality having been, to some extent, achieved, extending equality to gays and lesbians would not, presumably, affect the rights of women, since the vast majority of marriages would still be heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteSeda, before I explain what I think is wrong with that argument, let me ask you what you want the cultural understanding of marriage to be.
Do you want it to become the general cultural understanding that "marriage is between any two persons"? Or do you want it to be that "marriage is between a man and a woman, unless...."?
Perhaps you should read this before answering:
http://www.vtmarriage.org/resources/mstewart_duke_glmarriage_elision.pdf
I don't want to pile on. I'd rather you respond to R.K.'s question first, I for one am interested in your answer.
ReplyDeleteThe following is not too important...
Social activism and cultural change bring equality
Not true. Consider the example of the Fascist states of the middle of the 20th century, the monarchies of the middle ages, Soviet Russia, the warring states of Africa and your example of Muslims.
In each, social activism and/or cultural change acted against and suppressed equality.
Your premise here is that because husbands voted for women's suffrage, it was their interaction with their wives that led them to do so.
Actually Chairm seems to be trying to make it sound that way, which is why I'm personally disappointed in his latest writing.
My thrust is different, if you feel there was a better conduit for women to influence men to bring about such a peaceful sharing of power, I want to know what it was. I doubt it was social activism, though I think it played a role.
What is interesting to me is that women wanted the right to vote (for the most part) so they could enact prohibition. Or at least that is how I read the rise of the temperance movement out of woman's sufferage. Women wanted to hold their husbands more accountable, to rid them of an influence that was taking them and their money out of the home.
If you find social activism as a more important conduit, you'll have to explain the contradictions of how it has failed or retarded marriage equality. Especially in your example of the very socially active middle eastern Muslims.
Marriage has been around in Arabian culture longer than the United States has existed - yet where is the equality there?
The problem in your analysis has always been how it resorts to guilt by association. Marriage is in every culture, so to say that you can find a culture that is unequal in its treatment of participation of each gender in each marriage is hardly surprising. Its hardly a contradiction to my point.
Its also historically naive for you to say that because the USA is earlier then Islam that its marriage tradition is earlier then in Islam. The earliest I've seen anthropologists place marriage is hundreds of thousands of years ago, at or before the great expansion of homonids out of Africa.
We all likely have the same roots in our marriage culture. In the case of Europe, its marriage culture came primarily from the same Judaic/middle eastern roots as Islam.
Every time you show a place where marriage is not equal, it simply shows how important the fight for marriage equality is. Every time you point to where the man or the woman dominates over the other, it shows an inequality which we should condemn, and by extension condemn equating the all-male or all-female arrangement as equality.
In any case, relating "integration" in marriage to racial integration is like relating pumpkins to asphalt.
Your analogy is a stretch. Women's equality was always preached as a matter of integration, so was racial equality. If you disagree on that conjunction then perhaps they are pumpkins and asphalt.
But that shows your disagreement, not historic understanding.
Anyway, please follow along with R.K's questions. Your attempts at criticism and my counterpoints are just quibbling in comparison.
Fitz,
ReplyDeleteIf you are reading this, could you add RK's PDF to our marriage resources? We've noted the elision of facts in marriage before, so it might be there in another name. If so, don't worry about it, but the article would be a great addition otherwise.
Thanks,
Seda and On Lawn, I have not said and do not agree that "because husbands voted for women's suffrage, it was their interaction with their wives that led them to do so".
ReplyDeleteI did explicitly say that Seda favorably cited a philospher whose marriage and whose wife directly influenced his writings on the subjects of marriage and women -- and liberty and equality.
The conjugal type of relationship may (or may not) be a conduit for influencing men in particular ways, but it certainly is the context in which the sexes integrate at multiple levels -- including but not limited to the private and sexual in this or that particular relationship.
Marriage is a public type of relationship with personal aspects. It could not be otherwise.
As for the influence on men and on women, the marriage idea has shaped fatherhood for millennia. Fatherhood and motherhood unite the sexes in myraid ways that necessitate the interaction between the sexes. Neither fatherhood nor motherhood is a purely private deal, of course, as per the anthropological record.
Does such interaction between men and women impose upon the sexes some sort of modern test of equality that has applied throughout human history? Nope.
But the anthropological record shows that the interaction is inevitable and of great societal significance. One way or another a civilization must grapple with sex integration. No outcome is guaranteed.
We do have modern day examples of regression in terms of sex equality, in termsm of the protection and elevation of women, in terms of fatherhood, and on and on. Marriage is a social institution that does change even as its core remains constant. How a civilizaton handles that core will vary, of course.
Review the history of Islam -- not just within the Arab context -- and you will discover that the societal importance of sex integration, and of the 'hothouse effect' of the social institution of marriage.
Comparing cultures -- past and present -- may not show a clear path to what in our context we might refer to the ideal of sex equality, but it does show that marriage's influence, as a foundational social institution, extends to both sexes, combined, rather than each sex, seperated.
I have not said and do not agree that
ReplyDeleteI'll take that to be as close to an appology as I'll get. In the future, especially when you don't see the difference between what you manipulate my quote to mean, and what I wrote it to mean, does not give you the license to persist in that mis-quoting.
If you give yourself enough respect to make such a distinction, you can extend that at least to myself as well as others also.
Does such interaction between men and women impose upon the sexes some sort of modern test of equality that has applied throughout human history? Nope.
The question, as stated, would lead to a positive answer. However, I suspect you may have meant to say that what is equality today has not always been considered equality, thus our tests of equality should not be presumed as the tests of equality to other cultures and historic periods... but then maybe not. You'll have to clarify that for us.
If so, I would agree that answer is no. In fact, that marriage equality evolves each time to fit (and hopefully improve) the quality of each gender's participation in ensuring the rights and entitlements of the children they have together, is a great example of marriage as an influence on culture.
Perhaps this points to how marriage should be judged in the context of the culture it exists in, always. At least to the purpose of determining its influence on that culture.
It doesn't seem effective to take marriage from one culture and compare it to the tests of equality of another culture, to determine the effect on that particular culture. It is more meaningful to observe how marriage afforded entitlements and rights recognition of women vs those that were not married. And how over time the women who were married were able to affect change in society to improve their status compared to unmarried women -- though the latter is dangerously subjective.
Either way that is why to say sex exuality or gender equality also misses the mark. That would be more culturally broad then what I think is key to my post. It is specifically "marriage equality" which observes and speaks to the inherent ground that procreation puts each gender on -- and seeks to equalize that with obligations and rights recognition of the other. That is where and why marriage equality has influenced gender equality, but I think you'll find that its effect outside of marriage (as important social a goal as it is) as gender equality was always secondary to the effect inside of marriage to the benefit of the children who necessitate it.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of marriage equality, as you know - the inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution of marriage.
As for this thread's argument, J.S. Mill's marriage doesn't have anything to do with it, except as an example of how feminist men may influence culture. Through all time and in all cultures there have been men who recognize the inherent spiritual and mental equality of women, and who thus champion women's rights. In some cultures the numbers of such men reach the point that they shift the culture; others, they don't.
Again, in some cultures women are already equal, or even hold the upper hand in marriage - such as the Iroquois. If marriage leads directly to women's rights, why do the widely varying practices of marriage so often preclude any of women's rights, even to the point (as in New Jersey above) of specifically taking them away?
Sada said:
ReplyDeleteR.K.,
I am in favor of marriage equality, as you know - the inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution of marriage.
Not an answer to the question at all. Seda, please, read the question I posed above again, and try to understand it and answer it as best you can. If you need me to clarify further, let me know.
OnLawn said in his post he wanted to be told a better conduit for women to gain power than marriage. Wouldn't education be a better conduit?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't education be a better conduit?
ReplyDeleteSure, and I bet the vast majority of the education that influenced equality happened in the walls of their home in their marriages.
It is such an important conduit for those humanitarian values of love, tolerance, support and respect that we should recognize in each marriage the expectation of love, tolerance, support and respect of each gender that combined (or potentially combines) to create each child.
RK
ReplyDeleteThat's the answer you've got.
Onlawn,
I'll take you up on that bet. A huge chunk of education happens before marriage - much of that from the parents' relationship, which, I suppose, may often teach equality from the negative! The values of love, tolerance, support, and respect are neither gender-specific, nor do they require gender opposition or "integration" to teach, learn, or manifest. In general, the gays and lesbians I know exhibit those for the members of the other primary sex more clearly and completely than the non-feminist heterosexual couples I've seen - the idea that for some reason they can't teach such to their children within the context of a same-sex parenting couple is as ridiculous as the notion that my parents couldn't teach me respect for blacks just because they aren't black. And haven't you noticed the divorce rate?
Besides, those values, while vital for relationships, don't teach the practical skills that enable a woman to partake in the moneyed economy on an equal basis.
Twisting history and the nature of relationships into a specious support for preventing same-sex marriage is an interesting tactic, but it leaves one with the sense that your arguments aren't able to stand on their own merit. You'd be better off, I think, to stick to your legitimate arguments.
Jim: Wouldn't education be a better conduit?
ReplyDeleteInane. Marriage is not the opposite of education. There is no dichotomy here.
Seda: Twisting history and the nature of relationships...
This from the person trying to argue marriage was about subjugating women.
...it leaves one with the sense that your arguments aren't able to stand on their own merit.
Yes, it does. Now, is there anyone out there arguing to neuter marriage who does not also argue marriage is historically evil?
RK
ReplyDeleteThat's the answer you've got.
See what I mean? This is the kind of thing I always get when I ask this simple question.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, Seda, but that's an evasion.
My question, again, was:
Do you want it to become the general cultural understanding that "marriage is between any two persons"? Or do you want it to be that "marriage is between a man and a woman, unless...."?
Seda, I believe that the legal definition of marriage will affect the cultural understanding of marriage. But the latter is not exactly the same thing as the former, and my question specifically concerned the latter, not the former.
How hard is it to simply state what you want the cultural understanding of marriage to be? Or what you think it will be once SSM is legal? That is, how the general society will think of marriage. This is not the same thing as talking about the legal definition, as much as one may affect the other.
Again, if you think my question needs clarification, please say so and I'll do my best to clarify it.
I have the bad feeling that people don't want to talk about this because they don't want this aspect of the issue to be brought to the undecided or easily swayed part of the public.
If you want the general cultural understanding to be that marriage is just "between any two persons" regardless of gender, just say so. But then don't scream "unfair", "irresponsible", etc., when we refer to it as neutered marriage, because that's what it is...a cultural concept of marriage stripped of all reference to gender. The reaction of most SSM advocates to the term, I feel, is not due to their disagreeing that this is what is being advocated, but to their desire that it not be presented to the undecided public as such.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm calling Seda's attempt a duck too, RK.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly doesn't pass, and it makes me wonder if Seda expects a real degree of ignorance from people who would accept such an answer, here's why...
I am in favor of [...] the inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution of marriage.
The most immediate problem with that as a statement is that it is, well, all about the same-sex couples. The result only cares about same-sex couples.
If a politician from the 1800's south wanted to pull the same trick, they might also try to narrow down the scope of the results. They might defend slavery with the stated purpose, "I only want to make cotton and rice more affordable to clothe the poor".
One could imagine a humanitarian (who by definition wants to look circumspectly at the whole human population) of the time asking, as you did RK, at what cost to our humanity. I assume such a question would be met with the same arrogant self-serving response, "That's the answer you've got."
I see your question as very relevant, because it asks, "how" or "at what cost to humanity" that this change is made.
Seda,
As I just outlined to RK, your answer was a cheap evasion. It was then compounded with a rude dismissal.
The errors in your last post continue your trend of ignorance of history (cf: urban legend of "rule of thumb", stating Queen Elizabeth was married, etc...) but they are only distractions to RK's point. I'll forgo outlining them to help maintain focus on RK's question.
No, RK, it’s not an evasion, it’s an avoidance – or, if you prefer, a rejection. I don’t see the relevance that cultural assumptions of marriage have to this discussion, which is about how and where women obtain rights; and I have absolutely no desire to expand the discussion to definitions of or assumptions about marriage, which would inevitably give y’all one more opportunity to equate homosexuality with bestiality, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, and whatever other abusive relationship you can come up with. (I will, however, respond to op-ed’s mischaracterization of my statements.) You know my stand. If you want to know my opinions on marriage in greater depth, look on my archives, under labels such as “marriage” or “marriage equality.”
ReplyDeleteAnd don’t assume that if I did engage in this new discussion, I’d choose either one of your multiple choice options.
Op-ed,
Marriage is not about subjugating women. It never has been; I sincerely hope it never will be. It has, however, been used partly for that purpose or has provided a platform for it - and in some cultures still does.
Neutering marriage is your term, not mine. And marriage is not historically evil. It never was. Marriage has always been a blessing, an essential element in the stability of society and the establishment of home and family. And lesbian and gay couples deserve to have their families join in that blessing and institution.
The subjection, oppression, and abuse of any individual is an evil, including when it is done under the auspices of marriage.
And BTW, y’all, your arguments against marriage equality can stand on their own merit. Many of them are valid and should be considered deeply by everyone involved. You don’t need to try to usurp feminism and twist social equality and women’s rights into a characteristic or manifestation of patriarchy. To do so is a lie; and even if you convince others to believe you, it will still be a lie.
Well, Seda thanks for your frank admission...
ReplyDeleteNo, RK, it’s not an evasion, it’s an avoidance – or, if you prefer, a rejection.
I said just before you typed this that I thought your dismissal was arrogant and rude. I don't see doubling down on either is a good idea.
How do you expect to win over people by rejecting any attempt to double check the process behind your presumed results?
His question is fair, your dismissal is far from it.
I don’t see the relevance that cultural assumptions of marriage have to this discussion
I do, and I'm the one who framed the discussion. He's nailed the heart of the discussion, and I've said that before. Perhaps you need to recheck what this discussion is about.
So, once again, instead of evading actually thinking about what is going on (yet again), give it some consideration and let us know.
Its okay, give it some time. We are patient.
Earlier, Seda said:
ReplyDeleteThe other aspect of your premise here, appears to be that the 2 to 4% of marriages that would be same-sex would somehow overpower the 96 - 98% of hetero marriages and lead to dis-equality for women. But in fact, even if it were true that the state of being married led to women's equality, this would still be irrelevant to the argument of whether to allow same-sex marriage or not. That equality having been, to some extent, achieved, extending equality to gays and lesbians would not, presumably, affect the rights of women, since the vast majority of marriages would still be heterosexual.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that for the 96% to 98% of people who are heterosexual....or at least identify themselves as such (assuming that that percentage stays that high post-SSM, which I strongly doubt), the cultural understanding of marriage will be just as it has been before.
If, however, the cultural understanding of marriage is changed for the heterosexual majority by the legalization of SSM, then indeed the 2 to 4 percent or whatever of those who take advantage of this will have affected heterosexuals, and heterosexual marriages, as well.
So the question is indeed relevant to this discussion.
Also, Seda, have you read the article I linked to yet?
If so, let me know what you think. I do not expect conversion on the SSM issue by any means. But if you find the article weak or unpersuasive, can you tell me what the more specific argument is that he is making (not SSM, but an argument relative to it and very related to this discussion), and why you feel that he is failing at that argument?
Here is the chronological order in which states granted women the right to vote
ReplyDelete1. Wyoming (1869)
2. Utah (1870)
3. Colorado (1893)
4. Idaho (1896)
5. Washington (1910)
6. California (1911)
7. Arizona (1912)
Kansas (1912)
Oregon (1912)
10. Alaska (1913)
Illinois (1913)(Presidential only)
12. Montana (1914)
Nevada (1914)
14. New York (1917)
Nebraska (1917)(Presidential only)
North Dakota (1917)(Presidential only)
Rhode Island (1917)(Presidential only)
Arkansas (1917)(Primaries only)
19. Michigan (1918)
Oklahoma (1918)
South Dakota (1918)
Texas (1918)(Primaries only)
23. Indiana (1919)(Presidential only)
Iowa (1919)(Presidential only)
Maine (1919)(Presidential only)
Minnesota (1919)(Presidential only)
Missouri (1919)(Presidential only)
Ohio (1919)(Presidential only)
Tennessee (1919)(Presidential only)
Wisconsin (1919)(Presidential only)
19 states then in the union had not given women the right to vote at all yet by the time the 19th Amendment was passed. They were:
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Note: only one of the states (Iowa) in which SSM is presently legal, as well as Maine, had given women the right to vote before 1920, and both of them did so only in 1919 and with Presidential voting only. (Though California was one of the early ones, if you want it to count).
Note that of the states in which SSM is either presently legal or set to become legal, four (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) had not given women the right to vote at all by 1920.
And note the four states which had granted women full suffrage before 1900. Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Idaho. Yes, Utah, with those nasty Mormons who still so believe that gender is so important in marriage, was the second state to give women the right to vote.
Boy, we can all see real correlation between the time states grant women the right to vote and the time they neuter marriage, can't we?
Seda: It [marriage] has, however, been used partly for that purpose [subjugating women]...
ReplyDeleteAnd marriage is not historically evil. It never was. Marriage has always been a blessing...
The subjection, oppression, and abuse of any individual is an evil, including when it is done under the auspices of marriage.
Who can point out Seda's inconsistency?
how is it relevant?
ReplyDeleteSeda, is it your argument that legalization of SSM could not possibly change the cultural understanding of marriage for heterosexuals, or is it your argument that even if it does this cannot possibly have any effects for them?
ReplyDeleteIt is my argument that women's rights are not a direct result or consequence of marriage. In this thread I haven't been making any argument for or against marriage equality, beyond the simple statement that I support it. Nor do I want to get into that subject, which has been worn thin, exhausted, and beat to death.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, there is an interplay between culture and marriage. Cultural shifts have already changed the shared understanding we (as a collective society) have of marriage. The debate over legalizing gay marriage affects our culture and our understanding of marriage, regardless of whether it ever becomes law throughout the land, or is prohibited where it is now legal. Legalizing gay marriage will shift both our culture and our understanding of marriage in an interplay that will continue over time.
That doesn't answer your question, I know. That's because I don't want to mess around and be drawn into an argument about whether to allow gay marriage or not, or even what marriage means today, or should mean. A discussion like that can expand into many questions, issues, and speculations, going on over a long time and taking a lot of care and thought, and don't want to commit that time. I really don't enjoy this blog very much. I was triggered by OnLawn's assertion that women's rights are a direct result of marriage, which is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. And I'm going to keep my discussion to that, until either OnLawn admits he's wrong (as I did regarding my historical errors earlier), or I get tired of knocking my head on a brick wall and say to hell with it.
A quick parable.
ReplyDeleteA philosophy professor, for his final examination, went to the front of the classroom. At the front he pulled out his chair and stood on it to write:
"For the final examination, disprove the existance of this chair"
While all the students toiled feverishly until the end of the alloted time, one student finished early with just one sentence -- and got the highest grade in the class. The student wrote:
"What chair?"
RK, please don't make the mistake of the professor in this parable and assume a question is an argument. Especially one that at its premise is simply an admission to ignorance of things so evident.
In this thread I haven't been making any argument for or against marriage equality, beyond the simple statement that I support it. Nor do I want to get into that subject, which has been worn thin, exhausted, and beat to death.
ReplyDeleteWell, you certainly did enter into the subject in your very first comment on this thread, and the subject was part of On Lawn's original post, so I don't feel that it was a distraction or a going off on a tangent for me to respond to that aspect. Still, if you don't want to discuss it any further, I'll leave it to others. The question still is relevant, and still needs to be directed to, among others, the voters of Maine, which I don't think it really has yet.
I was triggered by OnLawn's assertion that women's rights are a direct result of marriage
But that's an oversimplification and distortion of On Lawn's argument. Read it again.
It is my argument that women's rights are not a direct result or consequence of marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhat a poor view you must have of the power of integration, and the love and tolerance that fosters. No direct results or consequences that benefited the womens rights movement? I've disproven that by noting again how married women consistently obtained more rights, more entitlements, then unmarried women in the very same cultures. One such case was Arkansas which extended the right to own property to married women even before widows and spinsters.
In this thread I haven't been making any argument for or against marriage equality, beyond the simple statement that I support it.
Supporting segregation as "equality" to integration is a blow to equality everywhere. More on this later...
That's because I don't want to mess around and be drawn into an argument about [...] what marriage means today, or should mean.
If you didn't want to argue about it, you wouldn't have made the statements above about my understanding of marriage. Like you repeated in a following sentence...
I was triggered by OnLawn's assertion that women's rights are a direct result of marriage [..]
Perhaps It is simpler and more honest to say that you have made such statements already, but do not want to be drawn into supporting them or defending them from scrutiny.
By your actions you've certainly made such arguments. By your actions you've simply refused to support them. However you have been gracious enough to admit the majority of the evidence you presented so far has been wrong.
I should also correct you by saying my assertion is that marriage, its expectation of integration, provided a conduit for them to persuade men to share their power with women, to gain an equal recognition of rights with men. My premise is not simply that it was a conduit, but that it was the most accessible and useful conduit for women to use.
The historic evidence provided has been mine, and its not been challenged by you to my knowledge. Surely none of it was shown to be wrong, like you're use of urban legend as fact, or historic errors you've presented.
You really don't seen the real disparity between your attempts and mine. Like your admitted rude rejection of RK, your inability to see or comprehend something is only an admission of your own ignorance and uncaring. It is not an equalizer of the effort both of us have put into this debate.
Its not that I'm so stubborn, its that facts are stubborn things. And I simply let you beat our head against them.
One more while I'm at it. This was in one of your posts that I skipped over in hopes that you would treat RK with courtesy.
I edit only with clarification on what marriage is and means...
Marriage [the expectation of equal representation of each gender in each formation of a family with the potential to create children] has always been a blessing, an essential element in the stability of society and the establishment of home and family.
That part was definatly true. The next however is simply a contradiction:
And lesbian and gay couples deserve to have their families join in that blessing and institution.
No, their children deserve to have their parents taught and recognize the importance of their mutual tolerance and support of each other by entering into that blessing of the institution of marriage.
But that requires tolerance, love, and respect for the other gender.
Is it the law, or some other entity that claims that a gay or lesbian is unable to love, honor, and cherish someone of another gender in any meaningfully marital way. Because which ever entity is making that claim, is the entity preaching segregation.
[continued...]
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us back to RK's question...
Do you want it to become the general cultural understanding that "marriage is between any two persons"? Or do you want it to be that "marriage is between a man and a woman, unless...."?
That is an either-or question -- not multiple choice.
Either marriage changes to be the same meaning and understanding for everyone, or it means something for heterosexuals and homosexuals are given an exception. Either the inclusion happens as an exception to the understanding of marriage, or it changes the understanding of marriage.
Which, was followed up by an even simpler question:
is it your argument that legalization of SSM could not possibly change the cultural understanding of marriage for heterosexuals, or is it your argument that even if it does this cannot possibly have any effects for them?
Either it has an effect, or it doesn't. Its not multiple choice, as far as I can tell.
RK, sorry we cross posted. You put it much more succinctly then I did. Had I saw it first, I would not have felt the need to elucidate so much.
ReplyDeleteRK,
ReplyDeleteI did read the article, and found it very interesting. I will print it out, and read it again with more care. However, on first reading one thing stuck out - the deep and articulate thought behind the Fourie decision. The judges recognized the need and injustice of the legal provisions for gays and lesbians, and sought to address it.
It is this balance that seems to me to be missing from the debate in our country. An example is seen right up the coast in Washington, where "marriage defenders" are fighting just as hard to eliminate domestic partnerships as they are in Maine to re-redefine marriage.
I have on rare occasion seen a "marriage defender" in this country recognize the need. Even more rarely, I've seen one recognize the injustice. Never have I seen one seek to address it.
Seda,
ReplyDeleteNow you are just lying.
You've seen plenty of people address it, and we can show (and have shown) where you've commented on such posts at Opine, Self-Evident-Truths, Pearl Diving and others.
Ultimately this is uninteresting though. Not as interesting as you ignoring the concerns brought up in this thread, over and over, that have been in your words "rejected" rudely by yourself.
There is a difference between people who want to circumspectly review the concerns of everyone involved, and those who care only for a narrow group of individuals to the exclusion of the concerns of others.
There are concerns to address in the GLBT, especially the higher rates of abuse among their members towards each other in domestic violence. Concerns about the propagation of social injustice against people outside the GLBT in vandalism, violence, and shady judicial and legislative action.
And concerns about being able to freely assign mutual respect and trust with someone in a domestic setting is not exclusive to GLBT members, though their solutions like Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are egregiously exclusive.
See, looking at this from all angles (meaning anything which can look outside of the narrow echo-chambers of the GLBT community centers) we see many needs that need to be addressed. Are you willing to make progress today by addressing them too? Or are you going to simply openly and unabashedly reject these concerns?
Seda, are you referring to Reciprocal Beneficiaries? Most of us here have supported them.
ReplyDeleteOr are you referring to Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships?
Well, Connecticut had Civil Unions, and look what happened next.
Vermont had Civil Unions, and look what happened next.
New Hampshire had Civil Unions, and look what happened next.
California had full Domestic Partnerships, and look what happened next (though Prop 8 overturned that, for now, at least).
Clearly, Reciprocal Beneficiaries are what we can agree upon....if GLBT groups would agree to them. Clearly, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are just stepping stones to the total neuterizing of marriage.
I would be willing to work with you and others for Reciprocal Beneficiaries plans. No stepping stones.
Thanks, R.K.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to respond to this with a post on my own blog. Please be patient. I don't have much time to devote to it, and don't know for sure how long it will take. I will, however, try to get it out before the end of the month - and before the election.
On Lawn, I take it seriously when you say you feel I've not extended respect to you on this matter. I believe you are sincere. I do not doubt you are in earnest. I assume that we respect each other more than enough to clarify this type of concern you've expressed.
ReplyDeletePlease cite or link the misquote (and persistent misquoting) that is at the root of your concern with my comments.
* * *
Seda said: "Your premise here is that because husbands voted for women's suffrage, it was their interaction with their wives that led them to do so."
Seda, presumuably you got that impression from something On Lawn said.
Seda, you proceeded on the basis that it was On Lawn's premise. As he has explained, it is not his premise. Nor is it mine, as I've explained.
I did not say it was On Lawn's premise. You said that, not I.
* * *
On Lawn, how did it come to sound differently to you? Where is the disconnection between us on this matter? I ask because I sincerely do not see the source of your stated concern.
Respectfully,
Chairm
op-ed,
ReplyDeleteOf course my comments are inconsistent! How can you accurately represent the myriad effects of marriage through history without it? Where is the consistency between a marriage like J.S. Mills and one where the woman is abused and battered continually? Even looking at my parents' marriage, it was both a blessing and a curse.
OnLawn,
Fannie's pretty much closed the book on this argument, so I won't argue the point any more. She said exactly what I've been trying to, much more effectively and with citations. Works for me. http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2009/10/historical-revisionist-fun-with.html.
R.K.
Be patient. I'm in a major cram right now in several different parts of my life. I'll get to that post, but it may not be until the middle of November. Sorry for the delay.
Seda,
ReplyDeleteIts simply amazing how much you struggle with this discussion, even after making such mistakes in
1) Historical facts
2) Absolute, yet inconsistent statements about history
You've lost credebility, and haven't added anything new to the discussion since displaying your ignorance and self-assured innaccuracies.
Telling us you have something just later, or Fannie (who's been shown to be almost as bad as you've been) doesn't help.
Honest.
On the interent, no one can tell if you are a dog. But we can certainly tell when you are not credible.
I only say that because I don't want the continued dialog on this discussion to be an implicit endorsement of you or an inadvertant white wash of your failure here.
I should also add Seda, you also lost credibility when you lied about what marriage defenders have not addressed.
ReplyDeleteJust for you though, because I expect at one point you were genuinely interested in understanding both points of view, I've provided counter-arguments to Fannie.
To be honest, most of her stuff discredits itself. Her writing is the trash-talk of the internet, and will only attract flies. I can, and have, almost effortlessly pointed out Fannie's problems. I could do it for any of the times she obsesses or stalks Opine, but then she might get an over-inflated sense of worth from in how people constantly clean up her messes.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteIf you ever come to Oregon, please look me up. I'd like to buy you a cup of tea and give you empathy. It doesn't appear to work over the blogosphere, but I think you'll be surprised at how healing it can be face-to-face.
Since you say I lie when I say y'all have only recognized the injustice of discrimination against gay people, and haven't addressed it, would you be willing to point out a few of those efforts to address it? I don't recall them.
If you ever come to Oregon, please look me up. I'd like to buy you a cup of tea and give you empathy.
ReplyDeleteA gracious offer to be sure. However, I will respectfully decline.
Having some prior history with you, I will be honest in that I anticipate you would use that opportunity like Joe Keller (cf: "All My Sons" by Arthur Miller) playing cards with his neighbors.
I say y'all have only recognized the injustice of discrimination against gay people, and haven't addressed it
And from that statement it looks like your intention amounts to the cartoon of the self-important dinner guest who says, "enough about me talking about myself, what do you think about me?" Even then, both you and I know we've addressed it, and I have quotes in other discussions you've participated in where marriage defenders have addressed it.
You either 1) are disingenuously ignoring this outreach to inflate your self-appointed status of victim or 2) gaming the demands of what it takes to address the injustices you (again selfishly) see.
I mean, have you recognized the injustice that the GLBT are perpetrating against marriage equality? Which harms most the people who depend most on equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of each gender in combining to potentially create and raise children?
Have you addressed the injustice that you once feared, the injustice of the GLBT against its own members who are concerned with real marriage equality and the protection it seeks to give children? A member of the GLBT (especially lesbians) are more likely to experience violence from another member of the GLBT then any one outside of it -- have you addressed that?
And even if you want to play self centered, "so what do you think about me", please answer these questions:
What specific injustices do you want to see addressed again? And what is the difference between addressing it and simply recognizing it? (legitimate question)
And... what is the difference between recognizing the same issues globally vs only for the GLBT in your mind? (An even more legitimate question)
Just like your use of an urban legend as fact before, you persist in false conclusions like Dan Rather and his "fake but accurate" memos which sank his career. You apologized for being wrong, (though haven't had any comment on Fannie closing the book on her own fingers), but you've not seen what being wrong means to your accusations about me.
Its beyond the point of credibility, to be honest.
Hey, R.K., I posted it. http://silknvoice.blogspot.com/2009/11/marriage-whats-going-on.html
ReplyDeleteSeda, thank you for your response, and for the honesty and respect displayed in your blogpost. I will have a longer response to it shortly.
ReplyDeleteFor the record here, Seda has fraudulently declared that responsible procreation is
ReplyDelete"a smokescreen because I have yet to see a 'marriage defender' use it for anything other than justification for discrimination."
And:
"Yet “responsible procreation” is used only to deny gays and lesbians, and their children, the rights y’all take for granted. It’s a smokescreen for bias. I have yet to see it used in the gay marriage debate for anything except to cover a person’s personal dislike of homosexuality, and justification for an unequal application of law. Even David Blankenhorn, who calls himself liberal and pays lip service to granting equal rights to gays, will not suit actions to words."
Seda's remarks emonstrate a high degree of intellectual dishonesty and a fake concern for civility borne of a displayed intent to deceive and misrepresent.
As I told Seda,
"Frankly, Seda, it brings disgrace to you -- at least to your blogospheric persona -- to have described responsible procreation as a smokescreen. Especially since you posed as understanding it quite differently than in your [recent] account ..."
See here:
http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2009/09/kerry-pacer-gay-person-of-year-gone.html?showComment=1253950782377#c9159158633401392911
Until this pattern changes, I can no longer consider Seda (at least the blogospheric persona) to be a sincere participant in discussions of marriage and related issues.
Funny, responsible procreation is for the protection for children and benefits each spouse. I don't remember it being for denying something to someone, but something worth protecting for all the benefits it presents to society.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Seda is lashing out with recklessness and aggressiveness.
Hey, OnLawn, I just want to apologize for my comment about giving you empathy. I think it sounds really condescending, and I regret making it.
ReplyDeleteHey, Chairm, thanks for including the link, so that people can see the context in which I spoke.
ReplyDeleteSeda, the gist of what you said about responsible procreation was not pulled out of context. I provided the link to back that up. You disagraced yourself. Your pose is fraudulent.
ReplyDeleteFunny, the problems I would expect you to apologize for are, "You either 1) are disingenuously ignoring this outreach to inflate your self-appointed status of victim or 2) gaming the demands of what it takes to address the injustices you (again selfishly) see."
ReplyDeleteThat you apologize for your misdirected offer to soothe is nice but still a misdirection.
Your problems here have been far too poignant to assume that empathy is the cure. Try personal integrity instead. To thine own self be true, and if you can't do that who can you be truthful with?
Since you say my two errors of historical detail destroy all credibility of understanding the concept, let the words of someone else stand in my place: J.S. Mill, from The Subjection of Women:
ReplyDeleteMen do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments. All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of women wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to effect their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by self-control, but the submission, and yielding to the control of others. All the moralities tell them that it is the duty of women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their affections. And by their affections are meant the only ones they are allowed to have – those to the men with whom they are connected, or to the children who constitute and additional and indefeasible tie between them and a man.
Mill was writing, of course, in 1869, when women did not have the vote, and laws placed their property under control of their husbands. So what did Mill say of their growing equality?
In the first place, a great number of women do not accept [the power of men over them]. Ever since there have been women able to make their sentiments known by their writings (the only mode of publicity which society permits to them), an increasing number of them have recorded protests against their present social condition: and recently many thousands of them, headed by the most eminent women known to the public, have petitioned Parliament for their admission to the Parliamentary Suffrage. … Though there are not in this country, as there are in the United States, periodical conventions and an organized party to agitate for the Rights of Women, there is a numerous and active society organized and managed by women, for the more limited object of obtaining the political franchise. Nor is it only in our own country and in America that women are beginning to protest, more or less collectively, against the disabilities under which they labour.
The response of the times? From the Introduction of my copy: … ‘Subjection’ inspired more antagonism and abuse toward Mill during his lifetime than any of his other challenging works. … The exception, as you might expect, was the women’s suffrage movement. … Elizabeth Cady Stanton paid the philosopher this supreme tribute: “I lay the book down with a peace and joy I never felt before, for it is the first response from any man to show he is capable of seeing and feeling all the nice shades and degrees of a woman’s wrong….”
I stand by my original assertion: that the rights of women, and their equality, are born not in marriage and the “integration of the sexes,” but in their own political activism.
not in marriage and the “integration of the sexes,” but in their own political activism.
ReplyDeleteYet the historic data of where the changes happened and why show otherwise.
You can fight against marriage equality, and our need to continue to foster it by expecting not only integration in each marriage, but the equal prospect of recognition of rights and responsibilities of each gender and the child they potentially have together.
But... it only discredits you, it only makes you look like the segregationists, misogynists and feminists who have done nothing to promote equality other then give an example of the inhumanity that exists without it.
Quotes like the one you provided...
The masters of women wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to effect their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by self-control, but the submission, and yielding to the control of others.
The facts are clear, political activism as a bunch of rioting in the streets (which is effective to a degree) was far less effective then women who simply held the men they married to accountability to marriage equality.
As you quote:
Ever since there have been women able to make their sentiments known by their writings (the only mode of publicity which society permits to them), an increasing number of them have recorded protests against their present social condition: and recently many thousands of them, headed by the most eminent women known to the public, have petitioned Parliament for their admission to the Parliamentary Suffrage.
This does not mention effectiveness, however, which is the central focus of my thesis. Luckily we can review the effectiveness in historic movement on this front. Even as evidence provided by Fannie's source, of all places.
Let me come at this another way. Women needed to become active in their cause, there is no doubt about that. Their political activism was in the streets, but it was also in the home. Your point would be valid as countering my hypothesis if political activism didn't happen in the family, just as the previous point about education would contradict my thesis if it didn't happen within the home also. Since it does we need to look at where the activism and education was most effective, the streets of the village or in the home?
Again Fannie quoted someone who was convinced to vote for enfranchising women by his mother.
History bears out that it was the personal aspects, the expectations brought to their integration, where women and men held held each other to the standard of mutual respect and dignity.
Another way of looking at the data that perplexed the scholars Fannie points to is that the homestead sovereignty of the west far exceeded that of the industrialized factory drones of the east. Not just women, but men were expected by their task managers to perform without question, to simply be happy they were being taken care of. That women fell to the bottom of that totem pole says much of the social values rolling down hill. The west had much less of that (a key ingredient to Democracy, by Frederick Jackson Turner's historic thesis).
Every point you raise where marriage has not been as equitable as you or I would like, I file under "inequality needs fixing". Marriage equality -- the quality of participation from each gender -- has made great strides but still needs work.
The beauty of the argument you make here is that the integration of the sexes – that is, heterosexual marriage or relationship – is so ubiquitous that, in any case where women gain equality, and their rights are supported, there will be a correlation between that integration or marriage and their equality. Of course, the obverse is also true. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a sustainable society that doesn’t have a high, or at least significant, degree of sexual integration. After all, if men and women don’t interact intimately, there won’t be many children.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Mill, he claims to have entertained his opinions on the situation of women from his earliest memories, undoubtedly as a child. The implication seems to be that he learned it from his parents, very likely both mother and father – but I don’t know about that, it could be he learned it more from one than the other, or a different source. He honed that through life and experience, certainly including his relationship with Harriet Taylor, and “Dr. Alice S. Rossi makes a strong case for Mrs. Taylor as the ‘idea person’ behind Mill’s convictions on equality for women, a tribute that Mill himself acknowledged…” – which supports your thesis. However, “Harriet Taylor emerges as an independent thinker standing noticeably to Mill’s ideological left, putting forward the idea of divorce by consent, arguing forcefully for the full and equal participation of women in all areas of employment, and showing unusually strong disdain for maternity ‘and its consequences’ as a woman’s proper destiny” – which reveals her as a political activist, supporting mine.
In any case of a heterosexual woman’s political activism, it seems certain that her activism will cause effect in her male significant other in one of two ways: it will either mitigate any patriarchal tendencies he has, bringing him into support (or perhaps merely non-opposition) for her rights (and supporting your thesis), or it will incite resistance, either by separation or by his extension of physical or other force to prevent her rights.
In his book The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn goes to some effort to show that marriage between a man and a woman, or sexual integration, is common to all cultures in all time throughout history. (He also ignores, or doesn’t know, that same-sex marriage also appears to have been accepted in at least one culture: Barcheeampe, the ‘Woman Chief’ of the Crow, is reputed to have had five wives.) Therefore, in the social equation, marriage is a constant, whether the woman has prestige and power, as in Iroquois culture, or she is oppressed and tyrannized, as in Saudi Arabia – and it cannot also be the variable that brings equality to women in society. What, then, are the variables?
(to be continued)
One is ratio of men to women. In the settlement of the American west, there were initially a higher number of white men than white women. Despite the subsequent reduction in marriage and the integration of the sexes, this appears to have been an incubator of equality; the first woman governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross, and the first congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, both came from this area. Indeed, Wyoming claimed the nickname, “the Equality State,” due to its early adoption of woman’s suffrage. (There also seems to have been at least tacit acceptance of homosexuality in the region, based on evidence from the research of people like Marcia Meredith Hensley, author of “Staking Her Claim: Women Homesteading the West.”) This would appear to refute your thesis; however, this situation appears to be an anomaly, and I think it would be dangerous to draw the conclusion that a reduction of sexual integration brings equality. A more likely conclusion would be that the hardships imposed by the landscape brought out the competency of women and the co-dependency of women and men, in tandem with the egalitarian, independent nature of the settlers in general, inspired this change – and yes, that includes relationships within marriages, which tends to support your thesis. Again, I have the sense that those factors cancel out, especially as there may well be other variables at play, including interactions that people had with Native Americans, a greater amount of choice among women whether and who to marry, and so on.
ReplyDeleteAnother variable is political activism of women, and I think a case can be made that nowhere has women’s equality been enhanced without it. Even in the West, without conventions and marches and so on, women did take an active stance; if their activism was quieter, it was in no way less real. However, it is also true that political activism is suppressed in totalitarian political systems, and can actually lead to a reduction in freedom and equality, as you have mentioned, and as we see in Iran. Activism is no guarantee of equality – which, of itself, appears to refute my thesis, though the first part supports it.
Which brings us to political systems. I think the case can safely be made that tyrannical political systems do not support women’s equality, regardless of form. We see, of course, extremes of oppression in the theocracy and Iran and the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, even as the military dictatorship of Saddam, and communism in China, mitigated the oppression of women – relative to men – in some degree. Equality of oppression can hardly be considered a desirable outcome.
In democratic systems, however, we do see a correlation. The establishment of the first modern democracy in the United States was followed by the establishment of parliamentarian systems in Europe, and the first convention on women’s rights in 1848. Political freedom appears to have freed women to engage in political activism, and while the oppression of women lasted much longer than the political oppression of their husbands, it did free women to seek to mitigate their oppression. So perhaps I am wrong also, and it is democracy that brings equality to women. Certainly democracy was a characteristic of the American West.
Which leads to the variable of equality among men, regardless of women. I can think of no case where each man, regardless of how poor, considered himself the equal of all others, regardless of wealth or power, than in the American West (though, as you’ve pointed out, my knowledge of history is less than perfect). Perhaps equality breeds equality, and respect, respect. As men respect each other, they also come to respect women.
(to be continued)
Another variable is economic system, and wealth. But again, equality depends more on the political system than the wealth within it; Saudi Arabia is a rich nation, its king a wealthy man, and there is no equality, while in the USA, there is also wealth and yet a high degree of equality. However, nations in poverty tend to have lower degrees of equality, so perhaps it is possible to make a case that, while wealth does not necessarily bring equality, poverty suppresses it.
ReplyDeleteI speak here of macro-variables, but of course there are also micro-variables. In any relationship between a man and a woman, there will be more or less equality depending on the nature each member of the union, regardless of the culture in which they inhabit. In this case, a tyrannical husband will be more or less tolerated, depending on the understanding of his neighbors and the protections, extant or not, in his political system.
No doubt there are other variables, as well. Drawing out each one, and its influence on equality, is a worthy exercise.
On one thing we can certainly agree – “inequality needs fixing.” For me, that means any inequality, for anyone. So the man is not the head of the household, but co-head, in tandem with his wife; that women are full social and political equals with men; that they own their own property, and have sovereignty over their lives, co-equally with their husbands according to the individual compromises that best meet the needs of the couple; that either party may, and any point, say “no” – permission must be granted in each case, and is never a given; and that force and abuse, from either partner, is not acceptable. This is feminism, and I am a feminist.
I make no argument here for or against same-sex marriage. My argument here is solely for the equality of women, both within and without marriage. Your own statements indicate that you, also, support equality, love, tolerance, and mutual respect. I also have no doubt that marriage is a platform on which equality may be built. Indeed, shared understandings have great potential to grow between men and women in intimate relationships. This is true, I think, whether they are married or not. Because of this, I think there will always be plenty of evidence that “marriage brings equality.” However, the ubiquitous nature of marriage, and the prevalence of inequality within it, will also provide plenty of evidence to the contrary. The trick is to isolate the variables and determine the constants. I make no pretention to have done a thorough job here. It would probably take a complete book, perhaps multiple volumes. And there are so many variables, that another author may take the opposite tack and build an equal case.
Seda
ReplyDeleteJust a quick rejoinder...you have made "equality" a totem... Securing marriages for men and women itself must be a good. Its no mistake that in an age of supposed "equality" more marriages break up and many less more marriages are ever formed to begin with...This is called family breakdown sand it is a massive and destructive trend tied to feminism and its radical quest for "equality".
At the best we have made the perfecxt the enemy of the good.
The more important objective is to establish the base equality of intact stable marriages so children can be raised in households with their natural mother and father...
Any ideology that is capable of ignoring this obvious social problkem and instead concentrates on some utopian ideal of ultimante "equality" cannot see the forrst for the tree's
He also ignores, or doesn’t know, that same-sex marriage also appears to have been accepted in at least one culture: Barcheeampe, the ‘Woman Chief’ of the Crow, is reputed to have had five wives.
ReplyDeleteOr doesn't care. Seriously what one person thought they did in a remote tribe is not by any means a culture. Nor is your ability to anachronistically subject your own understanding onto their cultural understanding. (Your example suffers from both issues).
He goes over that in his book, IIRC.
which supports your thesis. However, [...] supporting mine.
I'm not concerned with "ideological left" or right.
You'll note that what supports my thesis belies effectiveness. What you claim supports yours only notes her thrust, not her means or effectiveness.
Remember, my thesis is about the effectiveness of various conduits of education and activism.
Even in the West, without conventions and marches and so on, women did take an active stance; if their activism was quieter, it was in no way less real.
Actually, in measuring effectiveness, it was more real then marching in the streets, etc...
I'm going skip the diatribe on totalitarianism, though many mistaken assumptions abound in it, it is superfluous. Because when you say:
In democratic systems, however, we do see a correlation.
... I think there is a much more direct correlation between women getting the right to vote, and having a democracy.
The part about wealth is indeterminate to me also for the reasons you mention. I suggest if you are interested in wrestling with that ambiguity, read "Eat the Rich" by PJ O'Rourke.
This is feminism, and I am a feminist.
More accurate to say that as far as equality is the goal of feminism you are a feminist. And so am I.
I also second Fitz's point by extending marriage equality to always include (equally) the interests of those potentially created by the man and woman. As Blankenhorn noted, the interests of the children to see their parents be equitable, mutually tolerant respectful and cherishing, more precisely point to the measure and need of marriage equality.
sorry, "belies" above really should be "underlies" as in supports.
ReplyDeleteFitz,
ReplyDeleteThe more important objective is to establish the base equality of intact stable marriages so children can be raised in households with their natural mother and father...
Exactly. In reality, too often they are not. But how do you create those stable, equal marriages, where the people involved have the resources to raise children? Eliminate no-fault divorce? That only returns us to the problems that no-fault divorce alleviates, and in any case is probably impossible. You say that allowing same-sex marriage will make the problem worse, and perhaps you are right (though I don’t see it happening). That is good reason to oppose SSM, but it still does nothing to make the problem better. You point out the destructiveness of family breakdown, and its link to feminism, and you are right; feminism has made mistakes in its zeal for equality. It is incumbent on feminism to support the family, equality, and children, and true feminism does so. But that family breakdown trend is also linked (probably more so) to economic factors, racism, classism, and to the patriarchal resistance to feminism. It is a complex problem that requires a multi-pronged approach, and simply opposing gay marriage does nothing to address it. Opposing domestic partnerships/civil union equality for gay people, as “marriage defenders” did so ardently in Washington last month, only makes it worse. Because, like it or not, gay people have families, too. And establishing that stability in gay, adoptive, and step families, whether the natural mother or father is there or not, is also a goal worth striving for.
I don’t know what you have proposed to deal with this problem, beyond, I believe, ending no-fault divorce and preventing gay people from marrying. Probably you’ve done more, and I’m just not aware of it. I don’t believe either of those strategies is effective. And I don’t have any large-scale answer. I don’t know enough about the variables, and I don’t personally know how to be effective in a legislative sense. I do, however, have one thing I can do: I support my feminist co-parent, Kristin, in her work teaching parenting classes with Nonviolent Communication (NVC, www.cnvc.org) – and I know that that is effective. Because of the hours I dedicate to paid employment, she is enabled to dedicate her hours to parenting our children, to teaching and counseling other parents and partners, and to her sideline as a birth doula. I have seen countless families benefited by her work, and several marriages saved. One particularly poignant case was a couple that had lost their only child in an auto accident. The grief they shared was driving them apart, and they were at the edge of divorce when they attended Kristin’s class. Through that class they re-connected, healed much of their grief, and re-committed to each other; a few months ago they birthed another child, and invited Kristin to be their doula. Kristin teaches these classes regularly in a local non-profit called the Q Center, which is an organization of LGBT people dedicated to supporting gay rights. Though the vast majority of her students are straight, she teaches gay couples and parents with equal care and support. It may not be much, but if we all do what we can where we are, it will revolutionize the world.
If your concern is supporting children and families, we are not enemies, we are allies.
So I will ask you – and all opiners – directly: Is defending traditional marriage more important than assuring that gay people and their families are not fully accepted into society? Would you trade supporting age-appropriate educational tools (such as the book “Heather Has Two Mommies” and movies like “Southern Comfort”) for teaching your children, and prominent, visible support for the passage of ENDA and fully equal civil unions(including federal tax benefits and interstate recognition) on your blogs, for visible support from LGBT people in opposing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage?
Strange request Seda.... First you say your for intact natural families and then you say you dont know exactly what to do about it...
ReplyDeleteThen you go on to exonarate "real" feminism from any real responsibility.
"But that family breakdown trend is also linked (probably more so) to economic factors, racism, classism, and to the patriarchal resistance to feminism. It is a complex problem that requires a multi-pronged approach, and simply opposing gay marriage does nothing to address it."
This is B.S. - Family breakdown started in the 1960's with the sexual revolution. Race and class did not prohibit black americans from having a LOWER illegitamacy rate than whites during the height of Jim Crow.
So much clap trap you have been fed.
We have multiple ideas to address multiple pronged problem (as you say)
The first thing you dowhen your in a hole is stop digging.
Gay marriage is still digging....
The nerve to request that we sign onto your agenda when you know the cultural left thinks marriage is outdated and patriarchal.
On Lawn, you are correct about Seda's speculative remarks regarding Barcheeampe.
ReplyDeleteBesides, there is scant historical evidence upon which to speculate in favor of Seda's claim about a culture. This 'next-to-nothing' is supposed to outweight everything else.
The point of Seda's prickly remark, of course, was to attempt to discredit Blankenhorn's account of marriage; but Seda misrepresented Blankenhorn's view, as stated in the very book that Seda cited.
The intellectual dishonesty on display in Seda's remarks goes much further, as you and Fitz have noted.
* * *
Regarding Blankenhorn:
If I recall correctly, Blankenhorn supports all of what Seda listed with the exception of the SSM merger. This is what caused his reluctance to publicly defend marriage; on the other hand, his extgensive knowledge of the social institution and his profound conviction that marriage is the most pro-child social institution we have -- this is what moved him to make what would be an upopular stand among some of his acquaintances and friends and colleagues.
In his book, in his subsequent writings about marriage, in his in-person appearances in public forums, Blankenhorn has gone far out of his way to empathize with the SSMers and to publicly express his pro-gay views.
Simply put: He defends marriage and for this Blankenhorn is villified by the SSMers. His example teaches that appeasement does not satiate gay identity politics.
I don't know if Blankenhorn considers his pro-gay view to be appeasement, as such, and indeed I doubt his pro-gay view is anything but sincere. I disagree with most of that view, but he is not hiding his pro-marriage view under a pro-gay cloak.
Blankenhorn goes so far as to disagree with the religous teachings of his church when it comes to "homosexual love". That's must be a personally painful thing to do.
Seda shows no empathy even as Seda poses as the Empathizer who seeks to heal all wounds with ample empathy. No -- that is a fraudulent pose intended only for empathy in one direction.
No matter. This emotionally pained and intellectually honest appraoch of Blankenhorn is not enough for SSMers.
His example then takes on the sad picture of appeasement that feeds the demand for yet more concessions based on nothing more than virulent ritualistic drum-banging by SSMers.
SSM cannot be stood-up on its own two feet so a great deal of propping is done to shield it from its absurdities.
Seda's illiberal notions are not the touchstone of liberalism. Blankenhorn's liberal views are not extremist but to the narrow-minded Modern Liberals (illiberals through and through) -- self-styled keepers of the new faith -- nothing is more derided than an authentic liberal view of identity politics -- SSM included.
Likewise, Seda poses as one who values responsible procreation while he (Seda) guts it of its meaning; similarily Seda -- as SSMers tend to do reflexively -- devalue the societal significance of sex integration at the core of marriage and does so in the name of sex equality. And in the mix manages to also turn feminism (a much larger tent than Seda's extremist remarks suggest) into a narrow umbrella for identity politics.
It goes one and on. Anything that does not conform to gay identity politics must be twisted out of shape and appropriated to prop-up SSM. There is no end to it and that's the point of the Seda's not-so-vieled assertion of supremacy in the name of gay identity politics. SSMers who are bound by this fraudulent pattern (exhibited here by Seda) do not retreat to that intellectualy dishonest and morally cowardly cave; they angrily reside in it as an imagined fortress.
Fitz, I certainly agree that the first thing to do when you're in a hole is stop digging.
ReplyDeleteI actually didn't see my two questions as requests, but merely as questions. Did you mean by your response an emphatic "NO!" to both questions? Do all you other opiners agree with Fitz?
Family breakdown has been going on as long as families have existed. There's no doubt that the increase that began in the '60's was partly the fault of feminism. But there were a lot of other factors involved, too. Discounting them in order to blame everything on feminism just means that those factors won't be accounted for in solutions, and dooms such solutions to failure. And as a feminist, I certainly hope and believe that feminism has learned, grown, and become more holistic in our approach. While feminism has made mistakes, it has also done much to alleviate and correct injustices of the past. The solution is to correct our mistakes. Rejecting feminism based on them merely moves us back to injustice and oppression. Onlawn himself has signed onto a large part of the feminist agenda. It has become so mainstream, that often it appears to be invisible.
And a point of clarification: I said I don't know what to do about family breakdown at a large scale, at the legislative level. As related, the actions I take locally do have an impact, both here at home, and also nationally and internationally, as one of Kristin's projects is teleclasses that have included people from Australia, Ireland, Canada, and across the country. Those actions are specific and concrete.
He also ignores, or doesn’t know, that same-sex marriage also appears to have been accepted in at least one culture: Barcheeampe, the ‘Woman Chief’ of the Crow, is reputed to have had five wives.
ReplyDeleteSeda, this is an exception which proves the rule, not one which negates the rule.
A chief or any other kind of head of a culture is very often able to do whatever they want to do, and frequently the culture allows them to do that because they are the chief.
What has to be asked is whether or not same-sex "marriage" was allowed throughout the culture, for the common people, not just people with power. And this leads to another question: Why, if it was allowed for the leaders (indicating at least that the idea had occurred to them and thus negating the frequently held excuse that "no culture before had even thought of it"), was it not also allowed for the common people?
What advocates of SSM need to show is that there was a culture which: 1) allowed same-sex "marriage" not just for those in power, but for the common people; 2) let anyone in the culture choose such a "marriage" if they wished, rather than just declare it for certain persons like berdaches; 3) made no distinction between such "marriages" and heterosexual marriages.
Regarding Barcheeampe, the assertion that she had female wives was made more positively than that "the rule of thumb" was an urban myth. Though it may be that she was considered a man within her culture - as you point out, I certainly don't know enough of the Crow culture of the time, and perhaps, at this point, no one does. It appears that she did, however, wear women's clothing throughout her life.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember Blankenhorn bringing this up in his book. And while one exception does no more than prove the rule, it also brings up the question, how many exceptions were not recorded in history?
What's your response to my two questions, Chairm?
...the assertion that she had female wives was made more positively than that "the rule of thumb" was an urban myth.
ReplyDeleteThat's total apples and oranges, Seda. I'm not even disputing what you say about Barcheeampe.
Regarding your questions about what we would support in exchange for the agreement among GLBT groups not to seek neutered marriage, I have already stated my answer in my 10/19 1:01 post above in this thread. And I would be very willing to work to enable it so that any benefits of substance (as opposed to mere symbolism) needed could be attained under RBs. (I will say "no", however, to "Heather Has Two Mommies" and other such books).
But Seda, I know you don't speak for the whole GLBT movement. Have you asked them what they would support from us in exchange for their agreeing to end the crusade for same-sex marriage? Whatever you and I might agree to, I don't have any reason to believe that that would be binding on all other SSM advocates. Let me know if in your discussion with others you are able to discern any general consensus about what they would be willing to drop the movement for neutering marriage in exchange for. If anything. Or if such an agreement would only be used as a stepping stone.
I will have a longer comment on your response to my previous question which you linked to as well.
@Seda: Onlawn himself has signed onto a large part of the feminist agenda.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, the part of the feminist agenda that you and Fannie have been bent on attacking, (hypocritically even).
@Seda: If your concern is supporting children and families, we are not enemies, we are allies.
Well at least we should be. We share the goals of feminists as far as they promote marriage equality (the quality of each gender's participation in each marriage). But as we bring up that point, you complain that is re-making feminism. So how is feminism incompatible with real marriage equality? I don't know. But the contradiction is apparently obvious to you too.
If you are allies with us, then do so. If not, it will be obvious.
@Seda: There's no doubt that the increase [in family breakdowns] that began in the '60's was partly the fault of feminism.
Yet you are the one (and Fannie before you) who complain bitterly at our presentation of feminism as just gender equality. Complaining that, as I read it from my side of the fence, marriage equality movement over the recent centuries pales in comparison to lesbian activism and that feminist agenda is freedom from gender equality and integration -- not adherence to it.
@Seda: But that family breakdown trend is also linked (probably more so) to economic factors, racism, classism, and to the patriarchal resistance to feminism.
That is like the Israeli/Middle East conflict where each complain that the damage is done simply when the other side resists and fights back.
I have to admit, the feminist pejorative "patriarchy" is a dangerous paradigm as much as "feminist" as a pejorative. Yet both will exist as much as the goal of either is to take from the other freely as an act of independence from the other. And the collateral damage is the institution which integrates them in the hopes of establishing equality for them in how we create and raise children -- marriage.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteThat comment was intended for Chairm. We apparently cross-posted, as I didn't notice your comment until long after I'd posted mine.
Regarding Barcheeampe, 1) the Crow, as I understand it, were an egalitarian culture. If something was available to one person, I'm pretty sure it was available to all. 2) I have no idea whether Barcheeampe was considered, within her culture, as two-spirit, lesbian, or whatever term we would use today. Only that she dressed in women's clothing, yet had the career/life/job description of a man. I would guess that anyone could choose that, but I don't know. 3) It appears that there was no distinction, but that may well be because she was considered a man. Wish I knew which pronouns she used - if the Crow had gendered pronouns. That would answer some questions, I imagine.
***
You did answer my second question, but not the first. I'll repost it below.
I actually saw the idea floated on another blog that civil unions would be adequate, if they were truly equal, and gays were accepted in society. So, while you're right, I speak only for myself, I carried the idea from others. I'm pretty sure that an agreement between two bloggers such as I suggested would not be honored by all, on either side. I would expect such to be limited to only those who actually make the agreement. Whether it would catch on over time, and become popular, I don't know. I think it's possible, though. I think whether it became a stepping stone or not would depend on how well it actually met the needs of our community. If it were relegated into some kind of "separate but equal" in the sense of a Jim Crow school system, I can't imagine that we'd be satisfied. If gay people felt that they were safe and welcome in society, and that they were treated as well as straight people throughout, and that "civil union" was just a way to differentiate between relationship types and grant clergy the choice of which ones to officiate over, I think we would be satisfied.
What would be your objection to allowing books like "Heather Has Two Mommies?"
I'll look forward to reading your response on my blog.
Did you ever consider starting your own blog? I'd like to get to know you better, and your comments here don't quite suffice.
Here's the questions again, so y'all don't have to scroll up forever to remember them:
Is defending traditional marriage more important than assuring that gay people and their families are not fully accepted into society? Would you trade supporting age-appropriate educational tools (such as the book “Heather Has Two Mommies” and movies like “Southern Comfort”) for teaching your children, and prominent, visible support for the passage of ENDA and fully equal civil unions(including federal tax benefits and interstate recognition) on your blogs, for visible support from LGBT people in opposing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage?
@Seda: Regarding Barcheeampe
ReplyDeleteFor the last time, A non issue. Blankenhorn was (IIRC) explicit in that he was not discussing individual self-interpretations of marriage which he considers a liberty to exercise.
You've buried that point, which is the most important to quibble over what you absolutely know nothing about.
@R.K.:
While we are working on getting you to be able to post at Opine, feel free to post your answer in the comment section and I'll post it to the front page.
My answer is on the front page. RK, I'd like to put whatever answer you have on the front page also. And all Opine Editors who wish to answer should do so in their own front page post, or as a comment in my effort to answer.
ReplyDeleteBarcheeampe - For the last time, A non issue.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Finally. I mentioned it in passing - y'all just kept bringing it up.
R.K.
ReplyDeleteI'd very much appreciate it if you would post either your answer, or a link to in, on my blog. I guarantee you'll be treated with respect there.
Thank you! Finally. I mentioned it in passing - y'all just kept bringing it up.
ReplyDeleteYou could have dropped it at any time. Instead you headed into the weeds of anachronism and conjecture for cover. You probably should have dropped it sooner.
I'm just reminding you that more conjecture doesn't solve the inconsistency in your point to begin with.
I guarantee you'll be treated with respect there.
Add integrity (to thine own self be true) to that list of goals, will you?
In this thread you claimed I signed off on a large part of you and Fannie's goals of Feminism. What I did was show a foil to your claims that you and Fannie are about gender equality by noting that I am for that and you two continually deride that aspect of my advocacy.
You keep substituting our promotion of Reciprocal Beneficiaries program with the GLBT exclusive Civil Unions program.
You also underhandedly took a swipe at Blankenhorn with an orthogonal reference to anachronistic historic fiction, as Chairm and RK and I have noted.
You also made your usual set of wild accusations which Fitz and RK have both brought to light.
You have promoted teaching homosexuality to elementary school students, alluding that anything less then that is denying full acceptance of homosexuality.
I think you would agree that truth, honesty, and integrity are more important then respect. Respect without integrity is just a con-artist routine.
I'd very much appreciate it if you would post either your answer, or a link to in, on my blog.
Again this gaming of results.
Seda, I will post a response on your blog (and on this one) very soon. I do have quite a lot to say and haven't been able to spend as much time in front of the computer as I'd like the last few days. Bear with me.
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn, I will also post my response to Seda's question here very shortly.
By the way, On Lawn, just so you know, I can now receive E-mails again, so if there's anything you'd like to send please feel free to.
rk ... done, please confirm
ReplyDeleteSeda, when I comment on your remarks, I do so to correct your errors and not to engage you in discussion.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of readers I'll say this once again:
Until the pattern of dishonesty in your behavior changes for the better, I will not consider you a trustworthy participant in the discussion of marriage and its related issues.
Case in point: see my previous remarks about how you belittled Blankenhorn's pro-gay opinions and yet continue to pose as someone keen on giving and receiving empathy.
We could also discuss a few other prominent defenders of marriage whose liberal and, yes, feminist views have been belittled by SSMers far and wide -- for no other reason than the SSMers disagree with them on marriage. If someone is gay and opposes the SSM merger they enjoy the same absurd treatment.
Forget about demanding that people submit to a litmus test in the name of gay identity politics. Try making SSM stand on its own two feet.
Another case in point: You already have my answers to questions you've asked.
You've participated in comments sections where these have been discussed. You also have access to our archives and the search feature at Opine. Yet you scratch your head and wonder how we could not have covered this ground before you showed up with your phony pose.
Improve your behavior, Seda, and then I might take your queries with a corrresponding degree of seriousness.
Seda @ 11/13/2009 06:31:00 AM
ReplyDeleteIn his book The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn goes to some effort to show that marriage between a man and a woman, or sexual integration, is common to all cultures in all time throughout history.
1. We've talked of sex integration, not "sexual integration". Blankenhorn uses other language to describe the integration of man and woman within a foundational social institution. In his book, the public sexual aspect is discussed in that context.
2. Seda has misread Blankenhorn or he is here deliberately misrepresenting what Blankenhorn did write in The Future of Marriage. I think the latter closely fits Seda's pattern.
One example from Blankenhorn's book provides more intellectual honesty than Seda has provided in thousands of pixels in discussion here at Opine:
Blankenhorn:
Searching for the core meaning of human marriage, we have puzzled over some evidence from the prehistory of our species. We have visited the two river valleys where marriage as an institution first appeared in recorded history. And now we have traveled to the South pacific and glimpsed the tradiitonal way of life among some people on a few islands off the mainland of New Guinea, primarily in order to see what marriage looks like in a society that, as much as any society on earth, is unmarked by the patriarchal distortion regarding the origin of children. In the tobriands w have learned that human beings across time and cultures have developed richly diverse ideas about where children come from, and that these ideas significantly influence how societies treat marriage, gender roles, and social structure.
[...]
Here is the rule: For every Trobriand child, both a mother and a father, via marriage. On this matter the Trobrianders are quite firm. This fact is all the more interesting -- and all the more relevant to our search for marriage's essential, cross-cultural meaning -- in light of their remarkable matriarchal bias and their generally strong emphasis on mother-right.
[...]
[In the search for the core meaning of marriage] we have seen a fascinating variety of aprticulars. [...] But underneath these amazing and diverse particulars, there is a foundational human institution, called marriage.
I'll add another quote from Blankenhorn's book regarding Seda's specific misrepresentation.
ReplyDeleteSeda said @ 11/13/2009 06:31:00 AM
In his book The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn goes to some effort to show that marriage between a man and a woman, or sexual integration, is common to all cultures in all time throughout history.
Actually, contrary to Seda, Blankenhorn surveyed the anthropological record to discover the core meaning of marriage. He sought the universal features and the essentials that make marriage, marriage. His effort was not to impose upon the evidence what was not there. His effort was linear -- from history, he asked, what can we learn about the social institution?
From his book, Blankenhorn:
"[Marriage is] a way of living rooted in the fundamental physiological and biochemical adaptations of our species, as developed over the course of our long prehistory. [...] It is constantly evolving, reflecting the complexity and diversity of human cultures. It also reflects one idea that does not change: For every child, a mother and a father.
The exact wording of this definition [...] rests on a large and growing mountain of scholarly evidence. It incorporates widely shared conclusions about the meaning of marriage reached by the leading anthropologists, historians, and sociologists of the modern era. As a result, I don't think that the essence of this definition [See Blankenhorn's book for the details] should be controversial.
[...]
The evidence that marriage as defined here is a universal human institution is overwhelming. In fact, especially in light f the vastness of the human historical record and the variety of human sexual experience, the power and prevalence of this one sexual institution across time and culturesis so noteworthy, and so empirically incontrovertible,, that I am tempted to simply say "all human societies." Tempted, but not finally persuaded.
At issue are a very few hard cases and close calls. Let's review the most importantn of them, starting with the hardest.
* *
Note that Blankenhorn discusses how these examples diverge from his stated definition of marriage but also how key apects of these divergences reinforce the definition to a considerable extent.
Then Blankenhorn proceeds to the second half of his book -- and describes the starting place for a forthright and thorough discussion of the future of marriage. I think it is worth quoting this part extensively here:
ReplyDeleteI believe that we have found the core meaning of marriage. Can it serve us as a guide for the future?
[...]
The rest of this book is about the future of marrige in the United States. What are the institution's strengths and weaknesses? Can it remain -- can it more fully become -- our society's most pro-child way of living? [...] Is it possible to reconcile our desire for equal treatment for same-sex couples with our desire to protect and renew marriage as our primary social instituitn?
Discerning the core meaning of marriage does not provide us with answers to these questions. understanding our inheritance does nto tell us what to do with it. At the same time, surely the understanding helps. It tells us what the stakes are. it contributes to moral and intellectual seriousness. As we debate the future of marriage in one society, surely recognizing the basic structure of marrige as a human institution offers us the right starting point, the best place to stand in order to gain the clearest view ahead and try to take our best steps forward.
At minimum, we ought to consign to the cultural dustbin those comically inadequate definitions of marriage that currently dominate the debate in the United States. [...] All of these definitions make the same basic point; Marriage is a private relationship based on mutual caring. Next they say that marriage in former days was really terrible; it was racist and sexist, and mostly it was all about property. From these insights, the conclusion is obvious: If the deepest meaing of marriage is that marriage is always changing, and if marriage historically has been pretty awful and crass, then why not say that marriage today is whatever we want it to be -- especially if this formulation might help us achieve some useful social goal?
[...]
Apart from the deplorable history of slavery in the United States, there is no evidence that a married American woman could ever legitimately be treatedby her husband, or by anyone, as "chattel" or personal property. We have seen that a society's marriage system can be an excellent barometer of prevailing gender roles and treatment of women, as demonstrated by a comparison of patriliny and father-right in Mesopotamia and the Nile Valley with matriliny and mother-right in the Trobriand Islands. the anthropological record also clearly suggests that in no socieyt anywhere has it ever been normativfe to treat a spouse as a thing.
Finally, to say tha tmarriage is a "relationship pf love and dedication" is sweet but virtually meaningless. I have precisely such a relationship with my parents and with several freinds from chidhood, but I am not married to any of them. So unless Evan [Wolfson] can explain why and in what ways marriage is not merely a relationship of love and dedication, he has next to nothing to say about what marriage is.
I don't mean to single out as unusual, or as particuarly flawed, this one description of marriage by Evan Wolfson. Countless others are equallyh flawed, and in pretty much the same ways. the result is a generalized conceptual disaster such that on one of the key issues of our day, we as a society often seem literally not to know what we are talking about. If this book captures with any accuracy what marriag eis, the dominant definition of marriage in today's public debate is all but worthless. We must toss it out and start over. Then and only then can we dream mearriage's future.
* * *
Blankenhorn was meticulous in his account of marriage. And very generous toward SSM argumentation (and toward the group of individuals who give it voice) that depicts marriage as sex neutral.
SSMers do their thinking in the other direction when they discuss the history of marriage. They begin with a pro-SSM conclusion and then go to lots of effort to read into the historical and anthropological record what is not actually there.
ReplyDeleteThat effort -- to show that cultures and laws had such a thing as SSM on par with marriage -- remains unconvincing and ultimately produces ahistorical accounts of marriage.
But, as in the case of Seda, such accounts of marriage are designed to attack strawmen.
* * *
Blankenhorn looked for the core meaning of marriage and tested what he found by comparing that meaning with several hard cases and close calls.
If there was such a thing as SSM, it doesn't show up.
He was not really searching for SSM. He was searching for the essentials of marriage.
* * *
The best that SSMers have come up with is the occasional apparent exception which is really just a product of speculation and very little hard evidence. It is apparent if one presses into the record the current pro-SSM agenda. And even at that, it would be more like an exemption than an exception to the rule.
* * *
I say it is best to let the evidence leads us, rather than be led around by the nose by advocates of an agenda-driven exageration.
The available evidence is a "growing mountain" of evidence, as Blankenhorn discovered. But the pro-SSM claims don't amount to a glint of a needle in a haystack.
So SSMers sprinkle their rhetoric with anemic speculations based on very little, if any, evidence and expect each of these to be discussed by marriage defenders lest we be deemed ignorant of some significant supposed exception.
Rather than prove what they claim, SSMers fold their arms and pretend that what they claim must be disproven or taken as historical fact. That's how Seda operates in comments. It is the reverse of what Blankenhorn has done in his book.
Case in point:
Seda @
I don't remember Blankenhorn bringing this [Barcheeampe] up in his book.
And I don't recall Seda citing primary sources; instead Seda vaguely referred to convenient speculation that does not amount to what he has asserted about a particular culture.
Of course, Blankenhorn did not dedicate hundreds of pages to the discussion of each and every pro-SSM speculation.
He chose the hardest cases vis-a-vis the core meaning that is plainly in the anthroplogocial reocrd; and he carefully discussed those with the intention of testing that core meaning.
Seda's remark misrepresented this in an attempt to undermine Blankenhorn's actual writings.
It is dishonest for Seda to try to minimize the adverse impact of that error on Seda's account of Blankenhorn and, for that matter, on Seda's account of a particular culture.
Seda brought up Barcheeampe to serve an obvious purpose and not merely "in passing". This is par for the course. Bad facts, on the part of Seda, make for badly formed comments and poor arguments. There's not much point bothering with the arguments if the facts don't say what Seda's arguments need them to say?
I have tried to engage Seda on substance and reasoned argumentation, but have become convinced that a profound lack of intellectual honesty defines Seda's pattern of behavior on marriage and related issues. This is true to the form of SSM argumentation anyway. It is not so unusual, unfortunately.
Speculation about Barcheeampe is certainly not an issue, otherwise.
There is no wiggle room for SSMers to claim as fact what has not been established as fact.
Speculation, sure. Conjecture, sure. Wishful thinking, sure. Discussion of such for what they are, sure. These have their place but not at the cost of intellectual honesty.
In light of some new information I found, I briefly revisited this issue. I'm not looking for any particular reaction, but do think it's respectful to inform someone when I've posted on them or something they've said.
ReplyDelete