…there is a kind of relentless spirit of androgyny pushed in our intellectual culture, where manliness is actively discouraged and disparaged and womanliness is taken to be a kind of servitude from which women must be delivered. The goal seems to be to make men more like women and women more like men, so that, by their eventual blending together, they become indistinguishable. The result, of course, is that male and female become morally insignificant distinctions in our minds.
The insignificance feeds the notion that there is really nothing wrong with endless technical manipulating of our sexuality and reproduction.
But there is another related sense of obsolescence because the spirit of androgyny takes flesh in the actual culture and through real social and educational institutions and policies. If the distinct aims of manhood and womanhood, fatherhood and motherhood are removed as the proper and good goal of boys and girls, then what, precisely, do boys and girls aim at? They are each taught to aim at the exact same target: becoming self-supporting, individual moneymakers.
The guiding assumption that a boy becomes a man precisely in becoming a husband and provider for his family has been replaced by an entirely indistinct, androgynous image of a large boy making money by himself, for himself, and for the satisfaction of his own pleasures. The guiding assumption that a girl becomes a woman by becoming a wife and mother has been replaced by the same indistinct, androgynous image of individual moneymaker working by herself, for herself, and for the satisfaction of her own pleasures.
Little wonder, given this image, that when men and women do decide to become a couple, the marriage would have as little moral meaning to them as divorce.
This is a veiled condemnation of capitalism.
It’s also the essence of Huxley’s [i]Brave New World[/i], which, although it has something of the capitalist spirit (references to “Our Ford,” for example), is at least as much a critique of radical individualism.
To be fair, it’s some of both.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
There is way more here than a “veiled condemnation of capitalism” — although you are right that there is a grain of that here. The capitalist West was happy to have Pope John Paul II speak out against the evils of communism, but tried to overlook his critique of the dehumanizing excesses of capitalism. Perhaps because capitalistic ideals dominate most of the world today, the writer chose to dwell on its “end game” results.
It is amazing how quickly the ideals of western life have changed over the past few decades. Whereas men and women used to transition fairly quickly from biological adolescence into early adulthood, characterized by commitment (how ever imperfectly) to a spouse and parenthood, functional adolescence is now drawn out into the early 30’s. Couples who choose to marry and reproduce before their late twenties are now seen as bizarre, whereas forty years ago any woman giving birth to her first child after 30 (or even 28) was given the medical term “elderly primigravida.”
Our family recently listened to “Brave New World” during a long car ride, and our sons were amazed at Huxley’s insights in painting a picture of the future: everyone “happy” through medication, sex separated from both commitment and reproduction, technology as the arbiter of social norms. And of course Christianity overcome to get to this utopian state.
Hursley’s wife
Sorry Jeremy. You got your comment in while I was composing mine. Guess it proves a point, though.
Isn’t it interesting though that blue states have lower divorce rates than red states and that those androgynous upper middle class yuppies who marry relatively late have more stable marriages than “traditional” couples? Here’s a link: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html[/url]
I’ve been married 37 years as of last June 10.
On the other hand …
[url=http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/2008cohabreport.html]Cohabitation, Marriage and Child Wellbeing[/url]
Yet cohabitation in place of marriage should be considered a major societal concern. For one thing, marriage typically brings with it, according to an abundance of research, many benefits for those involved. Married people tend to be happier, healthier, wealthier, and they live longer. The available empirical evidence suggests that these benefits of marriage diminish considerably if the marital bond is replaced by non-marital cohabitation. Moreover, the evidence is now clear that people who marry after cohabiting (assuming that they are not already engaged or committed to each other when they first cohabit) tend to have a higher chance of breakup.[7]
Of even greater societal concern, however, should be the negative effects of cohabitation on child wellbeing. More than 40 percent of cohabiting couples today have children, and the percentage is growing partly due to a declining propensity of cohabiting couples to convert to marriage.[8] Cohabiting couples have a significantly higher dissolution rate than married couples, thus putting more children through the stress of family break up and the probable loss of one residential parent. One recent study found that [b]“children born to cohabiting versus married parents have over five times the risk of experiencing their parents’ separation.â€[/b][9] Cohabiting couples also fail to measure up to married couples in many other respects. They tend to have higher rates of child abuse and family violence, for example, and significantly lower incomes. [10]
The Red/Blue state point is bogus because it’s about income and education. Apples to Apples, please.
LogicGuru:
Perhaps “sophistguru”. Your reference being the N.Y. times, I checked further. If you look at the [i]Marriage[/i] Rates too, (which the NYT reporter you referred to neglected for some reason) Most of the difference disappears.
[blockquote]If you look at the Marriage Rates too, (which the NYT reporter you referred to neglected for some reason) Most of the difference disappears.[/blockquote]
What an interesting idea we liberal Yuppies have: don’t get married until, or unless, you’re willing and able to commit for a lifetime. As opposed to conservative defenders of “family values”: marry early so that you can have sex legally (or because you’re already pregnant)–you can always get divorced if it doesn’t work out.
You can niggle about whether the lower divorce rate for liberals is a consequence of higher education or lower marriage rates or whatever. What I DO NOT see is any empirical evidence that androgyny destabilizes marriages or undermines the family. Unless of course you redefine “family” to mean a non-androgynous arrangement in which men and women play traditional sex roles and make the claim tautologous. Now that would be sophistry.
I was simply pointing out that a look at the actual numbers tends to indicate that the denizens of the blue states tend to marry less, obviously reducing the divorce rate, since marriage is the prime cause of divorce. The NYT reporter made the implication that that made states such as Massachusetts somehow more virtuous.
The article is a sophism ( in the modern usage): “A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone”.
As I have vowed not to troll, I will now unsubscribe.
Looking at the actual numbers, the reason Blue states have lower divorce rates is simple — they have lower marriage rates. Both rates are calculated against simple per capita — the divorce rate isn’t based on people who were once married. So yes, less marriage == less divorce. Nothing to be proud of. (see cdc.org for data)
That said, I think it’s perfectly understandable that educated folks who marry later in life (aka maturity) are far more likely to stay together. Has it ever been otherwise?
#11. I think it also implies less hypocrisy.