Marriage is underrated for its social and political benefits

The more freedom we have, the more there will be very feminine and masculine subcultures too, and this might explain a great deal of recent political developments — in particular the campus identity politics movement and the alt-right. The former is heavily female, while the latter is overwhelmingly male — in fact, not just male, but populated by men who seem to have difficulties with women…

Single women tend to be politically very liberal, voting for the Democrats in huge numbers, while in Britain Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has overwhelming support among young women, the vast majority of whom are unmarried. Generally speaking, the culture wars are far more intense between women because women have to make more sacrifices — whether children or career — and this inevitably influences their worldview. Political liberalism, with its strong relationship between the state and the individual, favors single women, while conservatism, with its emphasis on monogamy and support for the nuclear family, speaks to their married equivalents. And while married men with children are also more conservative than single ones, the difference is not as pronounced.

So what happens when fewer people get married and, indeed, spend time with the opposite sex? Gender-segregated politics it seems.

That is from Ed West, via Ilya Novak.


So what happens when fewer people get married and, indeed, spend time with the opposite sex? Gender-segregated politics it seems.

Don't they just get taken over by more patriarchal cultures, whether from within or without?

You can't castrate all the men in your society and turn them into eunuchs. You need men around to do the real work and military age males to do the fighting. You can't run a society with HR departments, makeup tutorials, camwhoring, nail salons, and whatever else it is that women do.

Of course the problem for a decadent elite is that empowering the men and military aged males in society has its own risks. It means more competition. Or even worse, it means curtains for them. That's sort of the chief dilemma for them: they need some men around to keep things running and to be their dogs of war, but there's a chance they may usurp their status or turn on them.

90% support staff to 10% ballsy idiots works well in today's capital intensive armed forces.

Patriarchal cultures tend to be incompetent (relative to more egalitarian cultures) since they sideline half the human race. This may not have mattered when every culture was patriarchal but it does now. Patriarchal cultures either fall behind egalitarian cultures (which, yes, has military consequences too) or they reform to be less patriarchal, as seen in East Asia. Moreover as even warfare goes high tech (which requires an economy to match) just having a bunch of angry young men around doesn't provide much advantage in war.

My comment was meant as a response to Bob.

Just curios, how are you measuring "patriarchal"?

Japan, for instance, strikes me as quite patriarchal, and was certainly far more so than the west in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Yet it easily at least caught up to Western Europe and certainly did not "fall behind". Similarly, the Republic of China was much more patriarchal the People's Republic in the early Mao period ... yet the ROC, confined to Taiwan, ended up racing ahead of the PRC. Shockingly, it was only after the PRC began curtailing egalitarianism, according to Chinese feminists, that it began catching back up to the ROC.

So how exactly are you measuring this? It seems very much at odds with actual Asian history.

See the "Womenomics" set of policies implemented in late 90s Japan designed to reduce gender gaps in the labour market. Sure, it remains an intensely patriarchal society, but the point stands that reform to be less patriarchal has been underway for a while now.

Sorry, I am confused. Japan passed a set of anti-patriarchal policies in the 90s, after it had grown past a number of far more egalitarian societies. Once passed, these reforms lead to Japan ... having terribly unimpressive growth and slipping relative to China or ROK.

I do not dispute that much of the world is becoming less patriarchal. I am merely questioning the thesis that egalitarian societies are more competent or otherwise pulling ahead.

Arguably the least egalitarian of the rich societies are pulling ahead today. Arguably societies like China began to grow faster once they became more patriarchal.

The big change in Japan occurred under the Occupation with women receiving equal rights, as understood by the occupuers at the time. And probably I should explain that I mean "less patriarchal" than in its own past, not relative to other contemporary nations.

Today's "capital intensive armed forces" don't win wars.

Yeah, right. There is only one country that could successfully occupy this country and that is the United States. Russia could murder a large portion of the population with atomic weapons and China or France could attempt the same. But, thanks to this large blue wobbly thing between us and other countries, the United States is the only nation that could take and hold ground here. Of course, if their goal is to occupy rather than the extermination of the population (turnabout is fair play) then they will have problems as occupation is difficult.

If occupation is the goal then the US needs a firm alliance with a large country that can supply boots on the ground without worrying much about losses.

Trump’s supporters would say that the US has been successfully occupied by rapist and murders from Mexico. Of course, to quote Mel Brooks’ classic Blazing Saddles, they are good people.

My family survived in Nazi occupied Europe, so I would say any Americans who believe they have been occupied by swarthy criminals are engaging in a childish role playing game where they try to feel better about themselves by pretending people they don't like are baby eaters.

You can't castrate all the men in your society and turn them into eunuchs.

Not all, but some.

It would appear that the women in the identity politics movement seem to have difficulties with men…

As Gerald Ford said, "As Henry Kissinger said, there will never be a final victor in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much fraternizing with the enemy."

From "Real Men":

"...and if there's war between the sexes then there'll be no people left"

"Of course the problem for a decadent elite is that empowering the men ... has its own risks ... worse, it means curtains for them. That's ... the chief dilemma for them: they need some men around to keep things running and to be their dogs of war, but there's a chance they may usurp their status or turn on them."

You can count on it. It's just a matter of time, just a matter of time ...

Painfully lacking in any rigor of thought. Absolutely just talking out of his ass

Angry single girl detected

Cuck detected.

u should be on "the view"
still the stupidest show on television!

I don't watch television myself, but the NYT Magazine ran this cover story a few months ago: “How ‘The View’ became the most important political TV show in America.”

we read that article and it was pretty funny
how the praised that low brow b.s. as "important"

I've not really noticed that young women tend to be more enthusiastic for Corbyn's proposed vast nationalisations, crushing of private education etc. That tends to be wonky young men who seem to have difficulties with women.

I'm not sure that young women are more intensely inclined towards a Woke worldview because they make *more* sacrifices, but because they make fewer; the sum total of social expectations on women seem fewer, as a barrier to mating and partnership (men are pretty laissez faire about behaviour and achievement in potential partners, women less so), which allows more self indulgence.

Men are laissez faire about that stuff when they want to get laid. When it comes time to marry, that all matters. Or at least, it should.

I wouldn't say propose men are totally indifferent and certainly not at the point of marriage and real commitment. But it is seems maybe less difficult to get a "foot in the door" with men, for women?

What if campus identity politics and the alt-right are just support groups to cope with their failures?

gender studies -at kennesaw state u. it is apparently a coerced/mandatory
support group for college credit!

Thread winner, +10 internet points.

That's exactly what those groups are, safe spaces for whiny snowflakes.

Regarding the tagline ("Marriage is underrated for its social and political benefits"), I would tend to reject it.

Men don't go bonkers in high male ratio societies (sex selective abortion) with lower marriage rates, women don't go bonkers in postwar societies with male dead and so low marriage rates. The marriage rate itself has little effect. Underlying issues in the rich democracies today are probably about high housing costs (which itself is upstream of marriage) and crazy politics on the campus (probably driven by a demographic shift that manifests as a takeover there most strongly) and attempts to limit the spread of this. If there were higher marriage rates, you'd see only the same pressures manifest through a different filter.

In 19th century Australia men would typically have to build up physical or human capital or both to marry. First age of marriage would typically be high for men and low for women and 19th century death rates among these men meant many women could be married more than once. But a great deal of evil was perpetuated on indigenous Australians as a result of the sex imbalance. That is, in addition to the evil that would have been perpetrated anyway.

Depends on how you define "bonkers".

I refer to:

The association between uneven sex ratios and violence: Evidence from 6 Asian countries.

Long story, short shows a strong correlation between imbalanced sex ratios and rape rates (of both men and women). Men is gender imbalanced countries are also much more likely to have violent altercations, particularly involving weapons.

I have read plenty of scholarship that has made some interesting claims about rates of female infanticide correlating nicely with about a 20 year lag for the major revolutions of Imperial China (i.e. some of the bloodiest conflicts in world history).

On the female side of the equation, ehh, there was some interesting data suggesting that sexual liberalization was correlated with war dead in WW1. Certainly after the massive blood letting we did some major changes, like a massive wave of female immigration out of male-poor areas, that also correlated with changes in sexual mores.

As far as marriage, even when you control for SES, marriage has a major effect on something. After all, married people live longer, in every demographic bin, than single people. Their kids also have better outcomes. And while all of this diminished when you control for wealth and similar proxies, the relationship typically remains significant.

Hmmm.... I had thought the China data recently (missing girls and all) was pretty "not so much" in terms of violent disturbances, life satisfaction etc. (A typical example of pretty much everything I've read on the topic - - "study has found that a male-biased sex ratio does not lead to more crime ... Rates of rape, sexual assault and homicide are actually lower in societies with more men than women, the study found. ").

Some diachronic studies on Australia seemed to point only to ( historical male biased regions showing less female progression in work, traded for more leisure. Nothing bad.

Re; sexual liberation, eh, maybe you could find *something*. But we've had brutal wars with WWII like death rates for pretty much forever. We've only had one contraceptive pill.

But anyway, the main point is that the recently emerged problems we have in society today probably aren't much related to that. Would we in general have fewer problems with more marriages? I'm not enough of a soc con to find that plausible; I don't think you can get around all the selection confounds with marriage and divorce demographics shaping who opts in and out (needless to say, I expect you to argue vociferously for the reverse!).

Not desiring to dive into methodology of all the studies, suffice it to say, there evidence is at best mixed about overall crime rates. Certainly we have seen some societies with shortages of women see increases in rape rates. Is that cause or effect? Much harder to tell, but asserting no relation seems quite bold.

As far as women, you will note that I said WW1. The flapper era was a far more dramatic break with historical sexual norms in Europe than anything that happened with WWII. There was no pill at that time, and more importantly there were raging syphilis epidemics. Yet, somehow, women in Europe not only engaged in more sexual contact, they also cast off traditional fashion, social respectability, and roles. Something changed, dramatically, in the 20s that lead to women doing things like smoking, drinking in public, having an order of magnitude more premarital sex, and cavorting with unrelated males ... activities which were all downright anathema to earlier generations of women.

At the end of the day, female syphilis rates doubled among women for some reason after the Great War. What is your theory? Do also recall that we saw a similar bump immediately after WWII that was, thankfully, cut short by antibiotics.

I don't really know about the epidemiology, but doubt it was caused by vast changes in sexual behaviour which don't exist in mass sexual life history self report data (you will of course argue for the reverse as part of your general "Most disease is caused by patient behaviour" argument).

Gender politics question that never seems to be asked: why is that, in terms of political attention, college-educated women seem to dominate over blue-collar women but blue-collar men seem to dominate over college-educated men?

By "dominate", I mean which group seems to get all the attention, is the most vocal, and/or is seen as most culturally representative of their gender. So, "women's issues" are the issues that *educated and professional* women care about, e.g., campus identity politics. "Masculine" subculture, however, is the alt-right, i.e., culture of blue-collar men.

Blue collar men get dominated by white collars at most functions I go to. Bankers and techies have lots of money to spend to signal their wealth and they end up with the attention and the hotter wives. A woman with an education tends not to date uneducated men. Brutal but true.

There's endless outrage over "campus rape culture" that ignores the fact that young ladies that have skipped college and entered the work force face the same situation when they troll saloons after work in search of adventure or a husband.

I'm surprised no one mentioned the equality dimension yet. The left tends to bash capitalism for raising inequality. However, the main reasons for people falling into poverty are divorces and being a single parent. I'm convinced that strengthening marriages could help to decrease inequality. After all, a marriage is like a small communist cell in which all incomes and responsibilities are shared in solidarity. Seeing it that way, it should be the socialists who like marriage and families, and not the conservatives.

Good point. Socialism has never proven its value as a way to run a country, but it is the only way to run a family. This is true not just for married couples with children, but for broader extended families.

" should be the socialists who like marriage and families, and not the conservatives."

It should be, if all they cared about is the welfare of people, but they also care about being in power and they know that poor people and single women tend to vote for socialists.

Conservatives have it easier: They are for strong, intact families as a basic principle. Such families breed conservatives. Win, win.

Anyone remember the Life of Julia?

The state is assuming the role of fathers and husbands. Women with children have fewer financial incentives to stay with their husbands when things get difficult. I believe more women than men file for divorce.

Simple explanations for a complex world. In the ancient world, gender roles were more certain. For the female gender, life consisted of sex, birth, death, and decay (so many mothers died in childbirth), the only escape the monastery (nunnery). The female gender was expected to make the ultimate sacrifice for the survival of the tribe. For the male gender, physical strength and number of offspring determined his status in the tribe. Fast forward to today and gender roles aren't so well defined. Sally Rooney captures the complexity in her stories: young females searching for their proper roles in a changed world. Many young males prefer the more certain gender roles of the past. Online computer games capture their preferred gender role. As one might expect, religion is in the middle of this social evolution, many clinging to the certain gender roles of the past. As for our politics, nothing could be clearer, with one major political party clinging to the certain gender roles of the past while the other major political party reflects the complexity and uncertainty of gender roles today.

Rates of usage for psychiatric medication suggest all is not well in this brave new world where we put prospective spouses in brutal economic competition with each other. Also, as you observe, computer games and entertainment (Game of Thrones, 50 Shades of Grey) suggest preference for traditionally masculine and feminine roles remains strong.

A large number of women fantasize being taken by virile men, hence the sales of "bodice rippers". Some (many?), even married, women act on those fantasies.

I don't think number of offspring mattered at all. Even in royal houses an "heir and a spare" and a daughter or two for marriage alliances was deemed sufficient.
What did matter very much, beyond even physical strength, and still matters today is wealth.

Are you kidding?

Heir and spare is terrible odds. During the early modern era we saw between 1/3rd and 1/2 of children die. Even we cut those numbers in half for royalty there is monarch on earth who would court 3% odds of massive civil war.

Charles VII had 2 sons and 7 daughters (and more bastard daughters). He himself was the 5th son in an 11 child household.

Louis XI in turn had 8 kids of whom 5 where male.

Charles VII had 7 kids of whom 4 were male and none survived to adulthood.

Louis the XII had 6 children, 4 male (none of whom survived) along with a bastard son.

Francis I had 7 kids, 3 male.

Henry X had 10 kids, half male, and several bastards.

Every single Valois king had far more than your mythical four children unless he died early in his marriage or was incapable of having heirs at all.

Nor were the Valois unique in this regard. Queen Victoria had 9 children and would have potentially had more had husband not died. Frederick I of the Holy Roman Empire had 8 sons and 11 children.

Having more children, and particularly sons made was so common that many sons had younger sons in both the Church and the army.

Nor was this limited to the nobility. Colonial New England, for instance, had an average of over 8 children per union.

For most of human history, and I would argue today, children have been a net boon the family. For most of human history, and certainly not today, families simply tried to have as many children as they could manage. Birth rates were vastly higher in the past.

As far as status goes, most Christian communities before the 19th century looked at children as sign of divine blessing. Having many children was indeed a source of social prestige.

An excess of sons could be problematic as it created problems with inheritance (not enough to go around). Ditto daughters and dowries. Of course extraneous children could packed off to the Church, but that meant, in principle, no further lines of descent from those offspring.

There is a reason why most of Europe adopted primogeniture laws for inheritance. Again, though you do not get to 10 children by being worried about having too many sons, let alone daughters.

So show me your daughter, which European royal families limited their fertility to anything below national average until say 150 years ago?

If small families were so idealized by royalty, why did the harems abound with fertile women and the rulers favorites often being the ones to deliver the most sons?

If royals were worried about a surfeit of sons, they certainly made a lot of odd procreative choices.

Due to arranged marriages and the difficulty of divorce plenty of ruling lines died out. The Ruriks of Russia, the Piasts in Poland, the Spanish Hapsburgs, the Aviz of Portugal, the Valois of France, the Tudors in England, the Swedish Vasa.

Also primogeniture applied to the entailed estates of titled families. Other properties could and were distributed to multiple heirs. There were plenty of inheritance disputes in noble families in history. Kings might even divide up their patrimonies among multiple heirs: hence the division of the Hapsburg lands by Charles V when he abidcated.

My two-bit theorizing: young women have a surplus of empathy, compassion, and nurturing instincts which are crucial for successful child-rearing, but which they aren't at present using. Quite frankly, both they and society are better off when that emotional energy is channeled into something productive like starting a family and focused on specific individuals than it is, ya for Jeremy Corbyn and spending other people's money for the feels.

Some women channel that evolutionary desire to mother into cats, sometimes man cats. Ever notice the prevalence of "cat ladies"? I haven't seen any cat men.

"I haven't seen any cat men."

There are certainly guys with dogs. But is it more prevalent among single men? I don't know.

It has been many years since it was first observed that there were more pet dogs than children in San Francisco. Understandable perhaps, given the quality of the s

The proffered framing makes the victimization of children look practically inevitable.

--which may yet complicate the functionality of America's celebrated "cult of eternal youth".

"So what happens when fewer people get married and, indeed, spend time with the opposite sex? "

From the Mike Pence school of logic.

So what happens when fewer people get married and, indeed, start consuming cyanide en masse? Mass suicides it seems.

Pence has 3 kids and 30+ yr marriage. He's the one who's got it right.

Be like Mike.

Isn't there an identification problem here?

Causality from single-hood to politics/culture? Might women who have progressive tendencies tend to be more likely to be single, either by choice or because they can't find a man who would put up with them?

Age might be a factor. Younger women more likely to be single (and Left) but older women more likely to be married (and Right). I would like to see an age breakdown. How do the votes of 50 year old women compare, never married vs steadily married/

Some fine tuning, please. Do women who are divorced and remarried have different politics than married-never-divorced or never married?

How do politics differ among women, not-married-no-kids vs. not-married-with-kids?

Do married gay couples vote differently from straight couples? Do not-married gays vote differently from married gays?

And these days, how do we separate cohabiting couples from married couples?

Is religion the latent factor, where those who are devoutly religious being more likely to get married, stay married, have kids, and vote conservative?

Does race matter? American blacks are more likely to vote Democrat. Are black women less likely than white women to be never married?

At least in the US religious belief and affiliation barely matter in the divorce stats.

If by "barely matters" you mean varies four fold, perhaps.

Only 5% of Hindus and 7% of Mormons are divorced for instance. In contrast 22% of African Methodist Episcopal or National Baptist congregants are divorced per Pew.

When it comes to specific belief and praxis, last research I saw but regular praxis and conservative belief as lower divorce rate by something like 1/3rd to 1/2 compared to non-belief. Maybe that is chump change to you, but for most affects we say that's real (e.g. that's larger than most all of the physical male/female sexual dimorphisms in humans).

The real magic is in the number of marriages with there being massively larger numbers of never married individuals in some denominations and among atheists. If we use anything akin to the old common law definitions of marriage, we find that separations are much more common among the less religious.

I was talking about mainstream churches, not small sects or recent foreign transplants not yet assimilated. The LDS is maybe mainstream these days, but divorce is hardly unknown there.
It's also not unusual that a divorce precipitates an exit from the religion (perhaps migration to another church, perhaps not).

AME is the largest African American denomination in the country with 2.5 million members. If you prefer would talk about the Eastern Orthodox, who have a 6% divorce rate. Looking only at Christian groups who affirm the traditional creeds in some manner ... we still see a 3 fold difference.

Further while divorce can precipitate an exit from religion, it can also precipitate an entrance or migration to a new denomination. For instance, the "non-denominational" movement has a very large divorcee population, yet it is often the divorce that triggers people to seek out such churches as they offer large support communities for such divorcees.

Frankly, if we are going to look at conversion effects, I am often reminded of the old saw that of course one finds "sinners" in church, it is like finding sick people at a hospital.

At the end of the day religious praxis is highly correlated with lower divorce rates. At the end of the day, non-believers separate from their partners at much higher rates than the religious ... they just get married so much later these separations are not flagged as divorces. And while such separations are less costly, it has been my experience that patients can treat them as just as debilitating as regular old divorce.

The sexual revolution was mistake. Now the pent up energy of women which were being reserved for child rearing is being vented to create a vast regulatory state. I fully blame women for the temperance movement and the prohibition which resulted, the violence it then created and then the fire arm and prostitution bans which were also instigated by women. Women are the single biggest reason the classic liberal ideals are no longer possible in modern western societies.

The biggest challenge of our times is a return to feudalism and a slowing down of growth yet women insist on creating a massive regulatory state to stifles the last remaining bit of growth. We are all flying planes that basically are 90% identical to the beijing 707 of the 50s, we are rising metros and cars which have hardly changed in 50 years. With the fear of AI and the threat of the left to breakup tech companies, we are about to stifle the only segment of the economy with some innovation left.

Men are risk takers, and women running things have made risk taking illegal and as a result societies have stopped progressing and will revert to the feudal court infighting of the old.

No, the reason for lack of further technological progress is a lack of surplus capital- because we're hitting the Malthusian limits with our huge population and our resources are largely deployed in keeping famine and pestilence at bay. If some new Black Death wiped out a major fraction of us we'd likely see a huge spurt in innovation like the Renaissance and early modern era once things settled down.

"lack of surplus capital" How does this square with the low returns on capital? I'd think if there were a shortage, the returns would be higher.

Both TL and JonFraz here are completely off base. There is a capital glut (JonFraz), and since women have become more equal humans the world has only gotten wealthier and healthier (TL)

If there's a capital glut why isn't it being invested productively? Meant as a serious question. It seems that either A) the glut is a phantom or B) investors have begun acting out of extreme and unprecedented risk adversion.

But one theory is the lack of productive investments available: the great stagnation. The evidence for the capital glut is low to negative interest rates worldwide. If that money could do better, it would.

"If there's a capital glut why isn't it being invested productively? "

That's classic marginal returns on investment. The more you have to invest the lower the returns are for each succeeding investment. Aren't record low Bond rates pretty good evidence to a glut of money.

Women don't make more sacrifices, they make different sacrifices. Tool.

Identity politics and the alt-right appeal to the lesser side of their constituency. Always and everywhere. The difference between them is that one is subscribed to by people near our cultural control centers and the other is decidedly outre, almost underground.

Yes. " women have to make more sacrifices — whether children or career " Sounds like they have more choices.

Yeah, they have to choose one or the other. Men don't.

LOL, because there are no successful career women with children.

But not nearly as many as successful career men with children. Aren't conservatives the ones saying women need to choose to stay at home with the kids?

First you post an absolute, now you are moving the goal post to "not nearly as many".

"Aren't conservatives the ones saying women need to choose to stay at home with the kids?"

Aren't liberals the ones saying women don't need to have children to live a satisfying life?

Is that just a liberal thing? Do conservatives without kids not have satisfying lives?

Wrong. Men pay a price to stay home with kids.

Wake up and be real.

Isn't that what the 'gender pay gap' is all about?

Hi mouse.

You missed the point, as usual.

Women have a choice between motherhood and career. Men do not. For both men and women fewer years in the workplace can mean lower earnings. For men, there is a stigma attached to staying home with kids - they may never break back into their old career and will be viewed with suspicion by other men who have not taken that choice. That is a high price to pay.

As gender expectations continue to equalize, both men and women will have those choices without stigma. That makes feminism beneficial to men as well.

And I'm not 'mouse'. Not every post that doesn't give you a blowy is that guy. He's way up in your head.

Gotta say, I don't like the notion that "masculinity" is the province of internet trolls, as if it should be the key descriptor of a small minority of male idlers - don't give them that! (Nor indeed the term "alt-right" as if it's principally an online fringe phenomenon: 90% of what gets labeled "alt-right" is simply the commonsense right, independent of the internet.)

Here's a hyper-masculine guy I see all the time: in his free time, he patiently goes everywhere with his family in a single vehicle (often wife drives), everybody yielding to whichever activity has been deemed the priority, whether it be of greater male or female interest, instead of scattering. (This interest is often shopping, and not infrequently leads to: his standing sentinel outside the ladies' dressing room, watching the little kids, while the women try on clothes.) Weekend after weekend, this guy and his buddies may be seen ferrying huge rolling coolers, down a path too rocky for rolling, to the riverside, as well as a grill, a shade structure, assorted floats, a boombox, and possibly a pinata if it's somebody's birthday; and reversing the process 6 hours later. Sometimes, of a workday, you'll see him taking a break from the camaraderie of his all-male worksite to physically touch base with the wife and kids who have brought lunch.

I'm describing Mexican guys. Or at least, married Mexican men outside of Mexico, which is the extent of my observation. Sure, I might wish they wouldn't have so many kids. Or rather, I wish they'd have them back in Mexico. But I will say this for them: for a group often accused of "machismo" - a quality with good and less-good aspects, like most human qualities - they manage to behave in ways which would be inconceivable to my supposedly less-macho Anglo male relations. Mexican guys spend plenty of time with women, and with children, and no one would accuse them of being insufficiently masculine. And moreover, their masculinity would never in a million years have anything to do with typing nasty slurs directed at the female sex, to which Mary Mother of God belonged, on the internet.

Absolutely, American men are under constant wearying attack. But don't thereby surrender the definition of masculinity. Whatever needed corrective there may be - in the unlikely event there should be one before the whole cultural experiment plays itself out - it will certainly not come from any quarter of the internet. And it would be stupid, not to mention offensive to the men in my life, to attribute "masculinity" of all things to unhinged internet ranters who have nothing but space dust under their fingernails.

But Mexican men live in a world where they can expect women to behave like women, say it, and expect to be supported for it. Moreoever, the majority of society supports a great deal of anti-feminist behavior and doesn't tolerate single middle-aged women screaming about entitlement and patriarchy. It's easier to be supportive and constructively masculine if it is congruent with societal demands and responsibilities on both sides. Moreover, anti-Catholic ranting is kept to a fringe and it's not taboo to at least pay lip service to Christian values especially by those who violate them in secret.

I don't disagree with you, but I find this a rather fraught topic: I was never enough like other girls to really enter into their feelings, women in some ways remain opaque to me. So I've always been inert with respect to feminism, tending to notice it only when it was at its most actively hostile to life as we know it; mostly enjoying, only occasionally, latterly, regretting, the easy path of self-indulgence it's laid for me.

I'd suggest the childless middle-aged screamer, particularly if she's screaming about the right to abort babies, perhaps has her male analogue in the fellow who was only too happy with the advent of the sexual revolution. That fellow, in the moment, didn't care about the bounty he was placing on his sons' heads, if indeed he knew his sons at all. Forget woke, we're living in a world made by people generations ago, at this point; we're strangely stuck.

As for "it's not taboo to at least pay lip service to Christian values especially by those who violate them in secret": now you're describing my City on a Hill. Moderation in all things: the Christians, the violations, the lip service, even the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is much overrated as a concept. What people admire and are taught to admire is what's important.

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

Your 90% figure is way too high.

Rich old white women in affluent communities are the most ignorant of the lot. They watch The View and take every word at face value. Conservative views are assigned a cynical purpose, deconstructed and disbelieved.

Does this statement apply to you? :

"Old white men in rural and suburban communities are the most ignorant of the lot. They watch Fox News and take every word at face value. Progressive views are assigned a cynical purpose, deconstructed and disbelieved."

In other words, don't be yet another partisan hypocrite.

And no, EdR, I'm not your bete noire 'mouse'

If marriage is good, then restore its status as an enforceable contract with penalties for breach.

...should be mandatory and permanent.

Who is doing the "underrating?" Does it even make sense to "rate" an outcome instead of a policy?

Comments for this post are closed