Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:29:16 PM
Did I commit a blogging faux pas? "denelian" left a pair of comments here on a recent entry of mine, which analyzed criticism of something else I wrote. Got that? I will quote denelian exaclty.
you are quoting from
Personal Failure's blog, yes - but at least two of those quotes were
from me. and a couple from a few othe writers and its kinda hard to not
be irritated that you are not properly attribiting them.
I didn't want to link the blog entry,
due to all of the profanity, among other things. And since I didn't
link, I didn't want to use the handles of the writers. It was more
about the statements being made, not about who made them – just like
when I write about bad arguments I often come across, I usually don't cite a specific person making them because they are rarely original.
but that aside - did
you NOT understand what you quoted by me? when i say that many women do
not want to "settle" for a man, i really meant that.
And did I say there was anything
wrong with that? No, I didn’t. Marriage isn't for everyone.
Relationships of this sort aren't for everyone. Sharing a home isn’t
for everyone. My advice to anyone is DON'T GET MARRIED unless you are ready to be a spouse and you actually want to be a spouse. But don't make babies if you're not going to give them a marriage as a foundation.
look, PF and i both have the same disease that will kill is if we attempt pregnancy.
I'm very sorry to hear that you are dealing with a disease.
Pregnancy isn't for every woman. Neither is motherhood. I never implied otherwise.
we are both in long term, loving relationships - she is married, i am engaged.
Great. Good for both of you. I'm being sincere.
should i not marry because i can't bear children?
I never implied that. (Thanks for
bringing these questions to my attention so I can make sure to state
clearly my positions here.)
If someone wants to marry, they
should only refrain from doing so because one or both of the following
is true: 1) he or she is unprepared or unwilling to be a good spouse;
2) he or she has not found a compatible person who is prepared and
willing to be a good spouse.
That you can't safely carry a
pregnancy should not prevent you from marrying, if that is what you
desire – as long as your intended spouse understands and accepts this.
Does that reduce the number of potential spouses? Likely, but then
there are people who do not want to have children, or don't want their
wife to go through pregnancy, so that reality in your life and the
lives of other women is a plus to them.
that seems to be an issues those on the RIght have.
There do seem to be people – not sure
they are all on the Right – who think everyone should get married and
make babies. I disagree strongly with those people.
"Gay Marriage" is wrong because two men cannot have children.
That's a bad argument and I never
make an argument like that (and I wish others on "my" side wouldn’t,
either). First, there are different issues involved here. If we are
talking about whether or not same-sex couples (neither person actually
has to be homosexual) should be able to obtain a state marriage license
together (without someone of the opposite sex involved), the issues for
me are 1) who decides and 2) why should
state marriage licensing be changed in that way? I do believe that,
wherever possible, it should be directly up to the voters whether or
not that change is made – not judges. As a voter, I fail to see a
compelling reason for us to make that change. One of the reasons the
state is involved in marriage licensing in the first place is that
marriage is the kind of relationship that naturally produces children.
If
we are talking about a religious ceremony, well, I don't know of the
religious scripture or tradition that recognizes a brideless or
groomless union as marriage. Certainly there are ordained clergy
personnel who perform religious ceremonies of this nature, but they are
breaking with tradition in doing so.
I do believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and harmful, and so I can't endorse it in any way. I don't
think our government should try to stop people from engaging in it in
private on their owner property, or on the property of anyone else who
consents. But then I also don't think it is the government's place to
provide health insurance or health care, so if someone injures
themselves or catches a disease engaging in homosexual (or
heterosexual, for that matter) behavior, it wouldn't be my concern as a
taxpayer. I should be out of someone else's bedroom. And so should my
wallet.
neither can i. so should i not get married??
You can't because of an illness. Two
men or two women (or one man alone or one women alone) can't be their
very nature. While not all both-sexes pairing produce children, they
are the only kind that can. That one or both
individuals in some couples has a disease or injury or something that
prevents conception and healthy pregnancy to viability does not negate
this. No same-sex pairing (or trio, or quartet, or quintet...)
produces children, no matter how much fun they have "trying".
Regardless, even without producing children, marriage unites both basic
classes of individuals that make up all of humanity – men and women.
even MORE, though, God
granted me a BRAIN. a brain that finds tensor calculus boringly easy. a
brain that tests much too high on IQ tests. a BRAIN I WAS GIVEN TO USE.
Good.
so i WILL NEVER marry a man who wants me to be a stay at home mom.
You don't think SAHM's use their
brains? That's a rather bigoted view, don't you think? And I never
said you had to marry such a man.
i have more important things.
You have different things, things that are more important to you.
I can't agree that raising and nurturing the next generation of
citizens, soldiers, investors, consumers, taxpayers, voters, judges,
doctors, scientists, firefighters, teachers, Broadway musical writers,
LPGA players, WNBA players, etc. is unimportant.
there are many women who enjoy momhood, enjoy being a SAHM. i will never be one of them.
Okay, fine. I'm certainly not someone who would fault you for that. Your beef in this area is not with me.
when i say that women
have problems finding men for long term relationships, the thing i was
refering to (you included it in your post, even) was that too many men
expect the WOMAN to give up her career.
How sexist of those men. I'm sure
none of the women they encounter expect the man to slave away to
provide for her financially even if it is a job he hates (and to pay
off debts she incurred before they even met), to buy her a diamond
ring, or protect her… or reach, open, or move things for her. That
would be sexist of her in the same way.
Early on in dating the
woman who became my wife, I told her that when I had kids, strangers
would not be raising them. I deliberately put it that way, because
that left the possibilities open. After all, she had a career going,
and I was perfectly willing to give up working outside the home to take
care of our kids and the home, and be there for her when she came
home. Some women can’t handle that idea. They can't seem to respect a
man who stays home, or earns less than they do.
My wife, no shrinking violet or docile type, nevertheless insisted that she
would be the one who put her career on hold and raise the kids. Funny,
thing, too... as it was much easier for her to breastfeed than it would
have been for me, and her hips made it easier for her to carry a child
around with her just so. There were also things about her voice and
her personality that make her a better caretaker of young children than
I could be – but I'm sure that's just the way we are and had nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman and I'm a man.
to lose their personhood, in a VERY real respect.
Putting a career on hold causes
someone to lose their personhood? Perhaps for some people – regardless
of gender – it feels that way. A very successful woman I admire
greatly, who was one of my bosses at one time, liked to point out to
people she recruited that work was "what we do, it isn’t who we are."
motherhood is important. motherhood is hard.
Agreed.
MEN CAN DO THE SAME THING, men are 100% as capable of taking care of a baby once its been born.
Men can hold a bottle, spoon in food,
give baths, change, dress, hold, and watch and protect babies, true –
and it does work out for some couples to have the man stay home and the
woman earning the income. In general, however, women are better
equipped to nurture babies than men. And no man can be a mother, just
as no woman can be a father.
that if a woman cannot find a man "to take care of her"
Marriage is a two-way street when it
comes to taking care. It is also a two-way street when it comes to
social and personal limitations, sacrifices, and obligations. That is
why some men have gone on a marriage strike – they perceive that their
commitments and obligations are not worth what they'd get in return
with too many of the women they encounter in today's legal and social
climate. Life is full of choices. That we have many things we can choose does not mean we can do all of them, and do them all well.
which means her giving
up the entirety of the life she built for herself before him - her job
goes, her education no longer applies to anything, because all she can
do in this is be a SAHM
Not true. First, if a woman is
marriage-and-family-minded, her education and her job can help prepare
for that (just as her experience in being a wife and mother can help
her professionally later on), both in things she learns and what she
earns. Secondly, most SAHM are more than "just" mothers. They are
voters, consumers, investors, and citizens in general.
if a woman cannot find
a man who wants a woman who has a brain and a great job and paycheck
and is able to support herself, you say she doesn't "deserve" a baby.
Nobody deserves a baby. People can naturally produce babies, but my point has been that child deserves
a mother and a father, not a woman who went to a sperm bank and is gone
most of the child's waking hours working, and tired out when she is
home; nor a motherless existence so that two guys can be parents
together.
Some women using sperm banks cite time as a reason, or
not wanting to deal with a partner. That is why I say they are bad
candidates for motherhood. Motherhood takes time, and it takes dealing with someone else in your home.
unless she was raped.
or got drunk. or had BC fail. at which case it goes from "deserve" in
the sense of a reward (for giving up everything for the horrible life
and ennui of motherhood) to the she "deserves" to be PUNISHED with
babies.
I don't agree with President Obama that babies are punishment.
Hey,
there's also this really neat thing called adoption. Heck, there’s
"safe surrender" in many places, including California, where a baby can
be dropped off NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
if you REALLY cared
about all those children in foster care, or temporary care, or in
orphanages or juvinile detention, you would STOP trying to prevent GOOD
DECENT HARD WORKING LOVING FAMILIES from rescuing those children. even
if its two wives - two wives, two mothers, is still 1000% better than
NO parents.
I agree, and have said so. If the alternative is a group home/orphanage,
then I'd rather the child have two men or two women as guardians. If,
however, there is a married bride and groom who want to adopt, they
should get preference. And no, that doesn’t mean if one of them is a
serial killer, they are to be preferred over two model citizen gay guys.
My
points still stand: parents have obligations to their children,
including, but not limited to 1) not killing them; 2) raising them in a
peaceful, married household, meaning with both a mother and a father;
3) being healthy for their children.