Like you, if someone else can say something better than I can I let them. And I think you've said it all. One of your best entries on anything at anytime.
I readily accept your observation that persons like Mark are in principle unconvertable. I'm perfectly willing to let them sit in the corner and idealize in perpetuity. The problem is they keep encroaching on reality and trying to bend it to their will.
I'd like to see another entry from you on a proposed remedy for this.
I don't have a remedy. And I don't really have a problem with people like Mark who wish to bend reality to their wills. Such people are necessary to the operation of a healthy society.
Except when their proportion of the population approaches or exceeds 50%.
Someone once said "My liberty is not contingent on your feelings". Mark should heed those words.
Liberalism is also a case of "Cart before the horse".
I wasn't raised in a political family. I'm not even sure if my parents ever voted. My exposure to politics is simply through trial and error. I watched what worked and what didn't and based my beliefs on that.
It's the same thing I tell people about my activism in gun rights. I didn't decide that I liked guns and wanted the laws to be made so I could continue to enjoy them. Honestly, I had my gun I took to the range once or twice a year and was happy enough about that.
It wasn't until I decided to get my CCW that I realized how far down the path people like Mark had pushed us. It was looking at the facts that turned me into what I am today.
I don't see the gun issue for what I want it to be, I see it for what it *is*. I see rights for what they are and see what happens when those rights are prevented from being exercised (you can't take them away, you can only bully people into not using them). I see what happens when we strive hard to just get the right person into office or make just the right law.
Mark is a lost cause, true. But the worst problem is that there are millions of Marks out there. Millions of people who have built that cathedral and will protect it at any cost.
A psychological profile of the great Markadelphia!!
For the record, I'm also known as Crab and I post on his blog. I'm one of Marks best buds in real life too as we hang out often. I disagree with him on most things politics, just as you all do and it gives me warm feelings in my swimsuit area to see you all giving Mark hell on here.
I'm not going to air dirt or insult him on here. Just wanted to say Hello to you all and tell you there are some very interesting discussions that happen on this blog and it makes for a good read.
Thank you for the references; they were well worth the time invested in reading them. I'm a sporadic reader-contributor to this blog, so there are many entries of which I am not aware.
Just one rejoinder: as far as I can discern, they ARE approaching or at 50% of the population, at least as far as our country is concerned. And if they're not it's incumbant on us to prevent them from creeping to within striking distance of that percentage.
Just as a matter of fairness, the basic disease- putting ideals over pragmatism to the point where "does it work" ceases to matter at all- isn't exclusive to the liberal mindset. I think it is rather less common to conservatism, but there are some positions usually held by social conservatives that are manifestations of the same problem. Mostly they have to do with sex and the laws that have to be made to deal with it and with the consequences- yes, people CAN totally refrain from having sex except in safe and approved contexts, just like they CAN refrain from ever doing violence to each other, the problem is that they won't no matter how much law or social disapproval you apply.
Ironically, in real life ALL of my best friends are somewhat to very much more liberal than I am. I'm the token conservative in all my social settings except the blogosphere. The reason the friendships work is that all my blue buddies THINK, and think well; we rarely argue politics, but when we do we usually find that either we agree or we have a difference of priorities. (Or I win. It sometimes happens. ;)) I think that's part of why I find Mark so frustrating- when the notion that your ideological opponents are mainly people who think as well as you do, just differently, is that near and dear to your social life, meeting a walking stereotype that you couldn't have dreamed up if you tried is a mind-bender.
Wow, again. Okay, I'm not going to post anymore in the thread below as it seems to have spilled over into this one...
Alright...well...where to start...
First of all, I really don't care if people call me stupid, a fool, pond scum or whatever. I am pretty comfortable in my vision of the world and I think when people react that way to me it usually means there is some truth that they are very uncomfortable in facing...struggling with....and anger is usually the result. This is true of anyone, liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
Second, right now on several liberal blogs, all of the things you say about me are being said about folks like you. So, they are all wrong and you are most assuredly right? They are deluded and you are not? When I hear people from completely different sides of the political spectrum saying the same things about each other, it gives me pause. Has everyone actually stopped thinking? Do I have to choose a side? Because I really don't want to....
Third, Interesting that you say that I "don't think" as well as you do. That's pretty....well...isn't that what liberals do to conservatives? Say they don't think? I am reminded of a recent appearance by John Mellencamp on Bill Maher which had a profound impact on me. Maher asked Mellencamp why people in Indiana were so stupid because they voted for Bush. Mellencamp replied it's not that their stupid..it's just that they take someone at their word. That's how they were raised. People, especially the President, are honest, right?
I will never call anyone who thinks President Bush is a good president "stupid" again. They just don't have the same perspective that I do. For the most part, they are coming at things from a position of what they feel is right. In other words, their intentions are good.
Fourth I have posted more than just other people's opinions. I have linked facts, research, and hard data which, if presented by someone not pre-screened by you, is deemed lies. So, then it becomes all about my point of view, which with everyone, is biased. It has become increasingly difficult for me to find information that some of you will accept. It's all a part of a massive disinformation campaign to...do what exactly? I'm not sure. So where do I go for information? It seems that many of the links you ask me to read are from other conservative bloggers. That's cool. There is some good information there....some patently false information as well. Aren't liberal blogs the same?
I've taken a lot of things said to me and about me here to heart. I feel like I am better person and certainly a more concientious debater than I ever have been. I thank all of you for that. I will continue to post as long as Kevin allows me to do so. Some of you have posted on my blog and I think it might be interesting to for you to continue or start if you haven't. I am about 2/3's liberal and 1/3 conservative.
Even better, I'd like to see Unix, DJ or LabRat find a liberal blog and post on it. Perhaps you have already? I think it would be a real eye opener :)
Mostly they have to do with sex and the laws that have to be made to deal with it and with the consequences...
At the risk of hijacking this comment thread, I'm going to respond that social liberals are equally guilty of putting ideals ahead of pragmatism with regard to behavioral things like sex. While social conservatives hold to the ideal that they can legislate virtue, social liberals believe in the ideal of unrestrained behavior in a consequence-free environment.
The fact is that social pressure does work. Uganda implemented a program to aggressively promote abstinence and monogamy, and with success: it's the only African nation to significantly slow the spread of AIDS. Meanwhile, the U.N. ignores this success and continues its humanistic endeavors to "educate" and promote "safe sex," which hasn't made any difference anywhere else in Africa.
We could go the Scandinavian route, where they have apparently figured out the "safe sex" thing and pride themselves on their low rates of STDs and abortion. But nobody is having kids. Look at any place where sexual taboos are lifted and how this coincides with reproduction dropping below replacement rate. Whole populations are dying out and being replaced with more primitive cultures that are successful in reproducing themselves.
Pragmatically, a social conservative looks at this and observes that, on the one hand we get disease, debauchery, and huge numbers of abortions; on the other, we get a culture that whithers and dies. It's not unreasonable to reject all of this in favor of almost anything else. Where they go wrong is in assuming that you can legislate your way to a better society. They ought to forget about the laws and promote abstinence and monogamy, which does work, albeit not perfectly. But this is met with a surprising amount of resistance from social liberals, because it requires an admission that the sexual revolution has been an absolute disaster. Like we see over and over with Mark, social liberals tenaciously hold on to a belief even though evidence to the contrary is all over the place. In this case it is a belief that a sexually-permissive culture is harmless (or even beneficial).
So, I agree with you, LabRat, that social conservatives have to let go of this ideal that virtue can be legislated. But social liberals have to let go of the ideal that they can engineer a consequence-free environment.
Don't disagree with you at all, Sarah. It was just the easiest example that came to mind, since that's the kind of flip-side "ideals vs does it work" argument I've had most often on the right side, as opposed to the left.
I didn't say liberals don't think or don't think as well as I do. I said YOU don't. This is an opinion I have formed over many months of interaction with you, and at this point it's highly unlikely to change unless you do. That's why I have lots of liberal friends- I like them for their minds and their personalities, not because I think I can convert them.
Just because there are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives making basically the same slurs against each other doesn't mean they're both equally wrong or right. There ARE lots of conservatives who don't think or don't think very well, because there are lots of PEOPLE who don't. I don't associate with them if I can avoid it, because I find the syndrome equally tiresome no matter whose politics it is. I don't dislike you for your politics, I dislike you because I find your "everything is determined by how you feel about something" attitude not only grating, but often personally insulting- as when you imply that the reason I don't like you is because you're a liberal. You're not only insulting me when you say that, you're insulting my friends as well.
And yes, I DO hang out in places largely populated by liberals and have political arguments there. I have a fine time at it, and over time it HAS modified my own positions- sometimes reinforcing them, sometimes softening them, and even from time to time changing them altogether. Because YOU can't manage that is NOT because it cannot be done, and it's not for lack of exposure to other well-reasoned viewpoints that my politics are what they are.
Sarah, you are failing to take into account that there are many social liberals who actually agree with social conservatives (pornography, objectification of women in our society, debauche sexuality) which I find to be very intersting. Of course, many of them are lesbians so the whole gay thing doesn't quite work out for both of them to get together :) Ah well....
In addition, your assumption that equates social liberals with "unrestrained behavior in a consequence-free environment" is a load of propaganda and, quite frankly, shit. Show me social liberals who promote this.
I think a healthy, open approach to sexuality is the best way to go. Encourage children to wait until after they are 18 and meet someone who they feel close to or love. Parents need to talk openly about sex, birth control, and not place the "guilty dirt" label on it.
Really, abstinence is a pipe dream. It's just not in our nature. It is ignoring one of the gifts that God gave us. By placing sex within the context of marriage only, your bring man made institutions (the church and government) into a rigid and outdated system of morality...and I do mean MAN made. Narrow minded, ignorant, and fearful men have created many of the "rules" we have about sex. They have demonized women and their sexuality largely because they are frightened of the sacred feminine power or goddess power that all women have...which is tied to sex.
Well, sorry you feel that way. I have quite enjoyed and even agreed with many of the things you say. And I don't think they same thing about you...
Human beings are not autonomotons. We are complex and emotional. I feel physically ill and very emotional when I see dead Iraqi children around my children's age. You are going to have to excuse me if I don't exclusively blame the terrorists but our own country as well.
Just curious, do you have lots of liberal friends because you are/were in academia? I was kind of surprised to realize that I have vastly more liberal friends than conservative friends. In fact, I'm the token conservative in almost every circle I'm in. Just assumed it had to do with the fact that I've been in the university environment for more than 10 years.
I only know one conservative outside of my family and the blogosphere. Where the heck are they all?
The biggest thing youngsters need to know about sex is that there can be life-long consequences attached to it (baby or STD). I don't see many people out there talking about them except for those stuffy conservatives you sneer at. A healthy, open approach to sex SHOULD include discussion of those consequences, and how they can impact your life, and any life you create from 10 minutes of fun in the back of your boyfriend's car.
Sarah: Yes and no. Some of it is definitely academia, but my non-gun hobbies tend to be dominated by liberals as well- dog training (most who are interested are city dwellers, as rural folk tend to have a different attitude toward dogs), most fandoms for the sci fi and fantasy I enjoy are dominated by liberals, and so forth. As for where the conservatives are... they're mostly hiding, I've found. Or in places where conservatism is the social norm, as in deepinnaheartaTexas.
KevinS: I don't sneer at "stuffy conservatives" who preach the consequences for sex. I sneer at people who want to pretend that never mentioning sex will make it (and those consequences) go away, that any discussion of safe sex (or vaccinations for STDs) is "encouraging" it, or that gay people will all collectively give up and go back in the closet- or cease to exist- if we stop "encouraging" them. The sorts of people that don't want anyone to be able to buy or sell a dildo in their state, in short.
And they are NOT the only ones that acknowledge consequences. I've been reading Dan Savage's column for years, and despite the fact that he's so damn liberal I stop reading him during election season and is published in a highly leftist "alternative" weekly, I've NEVER seen him fail to consider the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior or remind his readers of them- emotional, medical, or legal. And he's far from the only one.
The "sex is always good" and "sex is always bad unless between a married man and woman with the lights off" crowds are both extremes of their respective wings.
Lab Rat - my comments were directed at Markadelphia... and I didn't say stuffy conservatives were the ONLY ones talking about the consequences of unprotected sex. I listen to Tom Leykis sometimes and he's VERY vocal about the consequences of unprotected sex, and politically much further left than myself. As for conservatives who want to outlaw dildos and such, none of the ones I know give a crap about stuff like that.
In addition, your assumption that equates social liberals with "unrestrained behavior in a consequence-free environment" is a load of propaganda and, quite frankly, shit. Show me social liberals who promote this.
Abortion-on-demand as birth control. Talk about eliminating the consequences, and I sure don't see many conservatives promoting it.
Mark, you seem like a nice, genuine person. There are two problems I have discussing things with you: 1) you don't directly answer, either because you don't want to confront a tough point, or it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions and 2) you are very non-discerning, e.g. citing John Perkins as an economist. You could've said Zinn, or Krugman, or any number of [near-]mainstream liberal economists - but instead you picked a nutball with no economic credibility. That says to me that you don't really value reason over faith, and in that you have a LOT of company, just not me.
They have demonized women and their sexuality largely because they are frightened of the sacred feminine power or goddess power that all women have...which is tied to sex.
Please tell me you don't actually believe this twaddle, Mark. The rules were put in place to protect women, mostly from men who use this line of baloney to get in their pants.
“I don't see many people out there talking about them except for those stuffy conservatives you sneer at”
Untrue. You don’t see many people out there talking because you don’t listen to liberals. Here’s an experiment for you. Find some liberals and ask them if they buy hotel rooms, liquor, and condoms for the teenage kids.
LabRat, I agree with everything in your post regarding sex. THAT is EXACTLY the attitude people should have about sex.
“you picked a nutball with no economic credibility”
juris, Well, that’s your opinion. Again, read the books and then see what you think. Do I believe every single word he says? No, but I don’t believe every word that Howard Zinn says either. His views on WWII, for example, are completely off target.
“Please tell me you don't actually believe this twaddle”
Sarah, have ever read any books by Margaret Starbird?
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and once in awhile Mark and I will be in perfect agreement.
Not about "goddess power", though. I think the pervasive male paranoia about female sexuality that tends to crop up in various cultures from time to time (like the Middle East at the moment) can be easily traced back to two words: concealed ovulation.
(Not that I think the rules exist for solely that reason, of course.)
"I think the pervasive male paranoia about female sexuality that tends to crop up in various cultures from time to time (like the Middle East at the moment) can be easily traced back to two words: concealed ovulation."
No, I, for one, am not mystified or disgusted by or attracted to, menstrual bleeding.
I think the concern about female sexuality can be summed up in one question:
"male paranoia about female sexuality that tends to crop up in various cultures from time to time (like the Middle East at the moment)"
Perhaps THE most irritating thing to me right now about some liberals is their seemingingly purposeful ignorance of the way women are treated in the Middle East. If that same behavior occured here, men would be dead. Somehow the multi-cultural respect outweighs simple human repsect. I have had so many arguments, many way more heated than the debates I have had here, about how hypocritical these people are...they just don't see it.
"Perhaps THE most irritating thing to me right now about some liberals is their seemingingly purposeful ignorance of the way women are treated in the Middle East."
Irritating? Mystifying!
And not just "Feminists", but homosexuals and those who follow non-Christian religions,(Jews excluded).
Do they not understand their common fate under the Dar-al-Islam?
A reasonable person would suppose that they would be in the vanguard of the GWOT.
They must not know that there's a war on.
You apparently do. And are to be congratulated on this acheivement.
juris, Well, that’s your opinion. Again, read the books and then see what you think.
Mark this is just astonishing to me. The man has no advanced degree in economics, hell, he doesn't even claim to have a Bachelors. His supposed days as a Economic Hit Man were for a company that didn't even work in international finance - they were an engineering services company. The man has written on shamanic shape-shifting and time travel.
Other than he delivers a sermon that you like (evil corporations working with evil govt - and how he repented, a very key element), how the HELL do you figure that he has any credibility? There is no independent verification for what he claims about himself - none.
Now, seriously Mark, I don't expect an answer based on logic or reason. You have accepted this as an article of faith. If you could admit as much, then I wouldn't make an issue of it. And, in the future don't recommend his work as economics - it just isn't.
I don't know who Starbird is, nor am I likely to try to find out. LabRat is right: your comment is actually applicable to extreme patriarchal, i.e. Islamic, societies. But courtesy and chivalry, which are born of respect, not fear, are Christian constructs.
It might interest you to know how piggishly men behave in progressive European countries, i.e. where women are completely sexually "liberated." I have a friend who moved to Germany to go to university, and she is depressed beyond words by how horribly women are treated there. Since the expectation of sex has nothing to do with marriage anymore, young German women are regarded as little more than disposable sex objects. Ironic, isn't it, that by sexually freeing themselves, women have become so marginalized.
Bilgeman,
I don't have any blue-collar working-class friends. Are you implying that a majority of Republicans are blue-collar?
"I don't have any blue-collar working-class friends. Are you implying that a majority of Republicans are blue-collar?"
Your question was about "conservatives", not Republicans.
T'ain't necessarily the same thing.
What I AM implying is that in the blue-collar seagoing world,and the trades that support and service it, most people would self-identify as "conservative".
Kevin S.“I don't see many people out there talking about them except for those stuffy conservatives you sneer at”
Mark:"Untrue. You don’t see many people out there talking because you don’t listen to liberals. Here’s an experiment for you. Find some liberals and ask them if they buy hotel rooms, liquor, and condoms for the teenage kids."
Me: Are liberals telling kids that waiting until marriage is the only 100% sure way to avoid the problems caused by extra-marital sex?
Based on numerous news articles I've read, programs which try to teach this in schools are so vociferously opposed by leftists that they're usually shut down, resulting in the message that "sex outside of marriage is okay, normal and healthy." The answer to the risks of pre-marital sex given by those programs excludes abstinence and teaches only [partially] safe sex.
Nevermind the left-wing mainstream media which shows sex without consequences essentially everywhere, nearly 24/7. We are so saturated by that message that it is impossible to avoid it. I'm not even sure that living in a cave would be good enough to avoid all contact with this pervasive message.
I sincerely doubt that leftists are buying liquor and hotel rooms to encourage kids to have sex all the time, but they're certainly making sure condoms are freely available by making them available in the schools.
More directly, do you think kids should be discouraged from engaging in premarital sex?
"sex outside of marriage is okay, normal and healthy."
Well then call me a leftist, cause I sure as hell don't buy this load of crap. There is a world of difference in telling teenagers to wait til they are a bit more mature then telling them that marriage is the only license to recreate.
the left-wing mainstream media
As Bilgerman pointed out, the media are profit-making ventures - not usually associated with socialism/communism. They sell what the public buys.
Oh, and Ed, I made sure my son had access to condoms, rather than counting on superstition and ignorance to see him through his teen years. If he is honest with me, he chose to abstain on his own.
As Bilgerman pointed out, the media are profit-making ventures - not usually associated with socialism/communism. They sell what the public buys.
Not in all (and I would argue most) cases true.
Crowning example, the New York Times.
The reason being, the business has been overrun by the ideologues as explained by Robert Bartley, former WSJ editor emeritus:
The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers. (Emphasis mine.)
When all (or at least most) of the reporting and editing is done through an ideological lens that is divorced from that of the audience, the profit motive becomes secondary - at least for a while.
Thus the rise of Rupert Murdoch, and the hate he has inspired in the rest of the media.
You are correct that marriage isn't the only license for procreation, but it is by far the ideal arrangement. Children prosper and do best in two-parent families. There is no getting around that.
It's a testament to the power of brainwashing, vis a vis the saturation Ed described, that any woman would think she is better off creating children with a man who has not made a lifelong commitment to provide for and protect her and her young.
I don't count on superstition either. My kids are well aware that I will kick their butts if they misbehave. It also helps that they can see a clear contrast between our lives and those of some of our friends. Failing to keep their pants on has caused massive destruction in several families that our kids know while our own family is quite stable.
I'm willing to kick their butts to keep them in line because I'm well aware that the consequences of even "safe" extra-marital sex are far worse than anything I would do to them. The result is that not only do my kids avoid extra-marital sex as thoroughly as they avoid sticking things in electrical sockets, they also have helped some of their friends also avoid stupid risks.
"When all (or at least most) of the reporting and editing is done through an ideological lens that is divorced from that of the audience, the profit motive becomes secondary - at least for a while."
That's why the New York Times' circulation and stock value has been dropping for the last several years.
You're absolutely right. I can't imagine any woman willingly signing up for the "single with children" life if she actually knew what that meant for her and her children.
Y'all are talking as if having children is the only reason ever to have sex, which, sorry, I disagree.
Having sex before you're married doesn't ruin your life any more than having a joint will lead directly to injecting heroin into your crotch. It's a lie, and kids know it- and it leads them to assume you might have been lying about the other big, bad dangers out there- even if you weren't.
No sex is 100% safe, but shooting isn't 100% safe even if you do everything you're supposed to either, and driving a car, which we start letting kids do at sixteen, is much more dangerous, assuming "taking all the right safety steps" conditions.
My parents gave me the safe sex talk, made sure I could get birth control if I needed it (and yes, told me that abstinence was the only 100% way too), and I'm married to the man I lost my virginity to. I didn't keep my legs closed because I was frightened, I did it because of something else they taught me- self-respect, careful judgment, and that no matter what the media told me, sex is not the be-all and end-all of the world. It's not scary-forbidden-fruit, but it's not that great either unless it comes along with other things, like love and trust.
I respect people who abstain for religious reasons and that's fine- but acting as though it's the ONLY way for young adults until they find someone they want to marry because of the dangers involved is overstating things more than a bit given the danger levels of life in general.
I never slept around because that's not who I am. I've known people who slept around and were totally, utterly miserable and it's obvious it was making them miserable. I've known people (and yes, they were both women) who slept around a lot- safely and with the understanding that that's what it was, no more and no less- and were some of the happiest and most well-adjusted people I've ever known. Sex outside of marriage doesn't make you miserable, irresponsibility and dishonesty with yourself and others about what it is you really want and need makes you miserable- and not everyone wants and needs the same things at the same time.
Having children is indeed not the only reason for sex. However, it is an empirical fact that people who have had sex before getting married get divorced at much higher rates than those who wait until marriage.
Sexual mores have direct effects on the stability of the reproductive superstructure.
It's an empirical fact that people who wait until they get married are also strongly religious at much higher rates than people who don't, and such religious convictions tend to go hand in hand with a greater dedication to preserving the marriage no matter what.
If you're going to hit me with statistics, use ones with less obvious flaws for the argument you're making. I agree that sexual mores have a direct affect on stability, but there's a difference between acknowledging that and insisting that waiting until marriage is the only way to have a healthy, stable love life. There's a hell of a lot of middle ground between blind promiscuity and total chastity until marriage.
"When all (or at least most) of the reporting and editing is done through an ideological lens that is divorced from that of the audience, the profit motive becomes secondary - at least for a while."
Really? It wasn't just the business of journalism that I was speaking of.
See, they might be a total fishwrap, just this side of People's World Daily...but they STILL have advertisers, don't they?
There are still businesses that choose to give their advertising dollars to them.
This is of a piece with a conundrum that I've wrestled with since I began 2nd A activism:
Why is the traditional center of firearms manufacturing in this country,(i.e. New England...the Connecticut River Valley), also the region that is the most hoplophobic?
This seems rather like Virginia and North Carolina deciding to become the most "smoke-free" states in the Union.
And...here's the other half. Why would firearms manufacturers choose to remain in a region where their products are so actively legislated against?
LabRat:"It's an empirical fact that people who wait until they get married are also strongly religious at much higher rates than people who don't, and such religious convictions tend to go hand in hand with a greater dedication to preserving the marriage no matter what."
Me: That certainly seems to be the case today in this country. But that certainly wasn't the case prior to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce. Do you have evidence that religion was a statistically significant factor is successful marriages before that time?
Or are you arguing that people should become christians and live by the Bible because the outcomes are better? ;)
That certainly seems to be the case today in this country. But that certainly wasn't the case prior to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce. Do you have evidence that religion was a statistically significant factor is successful marriages before that time?
No, but before that time a lot of other things were different, too. Women had far fewer options for living independently of men (especially after a divorce as opposed to being seen as waiting for marriage), there was infinitely more social pressure to stay married at any cost, cheap, reliable, and available birth control was not a reality, and so on.
It does depend on how you define "success", as well. I don't define a marriage in which one or both partners are miserable as such, but in an environment in which divorce is seen as a total meltdown catastrophe that could result in wide social ostracism- especially of the woman- that could be the case. I remember my grandmother's intense pressure on my mother to do anything it took to "get him back" when my father left my mother, and whatever else I may think of my parents' divorce, I can easily see in retrospect that it could never have worked out with both of them remotely happy if they had stayed together. It was a very basic incompatibility that only became sharper the longer they stayed together.
I do believe that the goal of every marriage should be "forever", and I find discussions of things like "starter marriages" personally revolting. But that's just not how all marriages CAN be, which is why I waited until I was more than sure that the partner I chose could be "forever" before I married him- long after sex entered the relationship.
Between the medical factors and the social factors, comparisons of divorce rates then and now are apples and oranges. Some of it is a cultural lack of respect for the institution, yes- but some of it is simply the fact that people who would otherwise have stuck with their partners because they couldn't survive on their own can, now. It's impossible to tell from the statistics which are which.
Yes, and how are things going for the Old Gray Lady these days?
Is there editorial bias, and journalistic group-think? You betcha. But when it hurts the bottom line, editors get replaced. Since selling advertising is the real business of the media, they have limits in that they can't afford to offend too many advertisers and/or readers.
I mean, c'mon, even Mother Jones has an advertising department, and companies promote their wares there. Gotta love free markets.
But that certainly wasn't the case prior to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce.
To amplify on a key point LabRat made - women didn't have near as much choice several generations back. That is an aspect of capitalism - creative destruction as Schumpeter put it - that most social conservatives often overlook. The free market is not a 'conservative' institution.
Reliable birth control and greater economic opportunity gave women more choice about what to do with their lives. Ironically, neither the traditionalist pole nor the radical camp embrace that full spectrum of possibility.
"do you think kids should be discouraged from engaging in premarital sex?"
Yes, anyone 17 or under should be told to wait to have sex. That's what I tell kids who ask me. I even go further and tell them to wait until they get into college...early 20s..., are more mature, and are with someone they are committed to in a relationship. I strongly discourage promiscious sex and try to explain that it is something to not enter into lightly.
Lab and juris, great points. I wholeheartedly agree.
True, children aren't the only reason for sex, but look what happens in places where sex is effectively divorced from child-making. Birth rates fall below replacement rate, and either the population slowly dies out or else unassimilating immigrant populations take over. I mentioned this before, and no one commented on it. If things continue as they are, in a few more generations places like Europe and Canada will look a lot more like Asia, the Middle East, or North Africa. Does this concern any of you?
The other thing that happens is that men and women become increasingly alienated from each other. The situation is already bad in Canada (where I grew up), and even worse in Europe (where my husband grew up). Romance is gone, and replaced by "hooking up" and guilt-free one-night stands. Unlike LabRat, I've experienced the sexual minefield: I had several boyfriends (and all that connotes in this day and age) before I settled down and married. For a long time I felt pretty scarred by those experiences, and it is something I've had to overcome for the sake of my marriage. In fact, in all my years I have yet to meet a single woman who feels that her life has been enriched by such experiences.
I'd like to ask a question of those here who are not traditional religious folks: what do you think the solution to this is? In a prosperous, sexually permissive society, how do you motivate people to marry, stay together, and have children?
Make having children economically beneficial rather than a liability.
In "poor" cultures, aside from the fact that sex is one of the few recreations available, children can be used as income producers - working from a young age, even begging in some cultures.
In prosperous societies, children cost a lot of money - clothing, food, medical care, education, etc. - and once they're adults they're sent off into the world with little to no expectation that they will pay back any of the expense to the parents.
There is no economic incentive to have children. There is, in fact, a strong disincentive.
Oh, you just HAD to go and ask a HARD question I couldn't easily poke holes in, didn't you?
The answer boils down to "I don't know". I do think, however, that the cause of plummeting birth rates can't just be the sexual revolution; it's a values shift in Western culture in general. Even in Italy, the very heart of Catholicism, the religion that technically bans both birth control and divorce, birth rates are the second lowest in the Western world, so it can't just be a lack of a traditional religious atmosphere. I think at least one root of the problem is economic- having and raising children is very expensive in modern Western societies, especially to do it "right". And not only is it expensive, but the amount of time and effort parents must devote tends to take them off the market as the highest earners; at least part of America's booming economy is owed to workaholic yuppies who've decided to sacrifice family for career. It works the other way 'round, too- societies where a big part of your personal status is how many children you have tend to be among the poorest and least advanced.
With more choices has come more people who've decided to forgo children (or more than one child) for other opportunities; kids used to be pretty much a given, and enormous pressure was brought to bear on those who chose not to have them. And ethically speaking, I can't really accept a stance that boiled down to advocating limiting people's choices for the sake of out-breeding "the competition"- especially since I think such a mindset would take our individualistic, choice-based Western culture in a direction very much like what we dislike in that competition.
As for the original topic of discussion, I don't like the vapid, soul-destroying "hook-up" culture any better than I like "no premarital sex or you'll be miserable." I feel there has to be- and is, because I lived it and know others who do- a happy middle ground, just as there is between being an alcoholic and being a teetotaller. It requires people to be responsible and honest, which is why it's hard to find, but then again pretty much any aspect of life requires responsibility and honesty for happiness and health.
On a more personal note, it is interesting how our pasts define what we'll see as the biggest problem. I sometimes think the only reason I can manage a functional relationship today is that I had such a wide variety of negative examples to choose from; my mother never had a remotely functional relationship after my father, and my father promptly went out and settled down with the first woman who would have him... who openly despised me and I suspect has serious psychiatric problems. He never left her because he was determined not to be a two-time loser. He committed suicide in 2004.
Most of the heartbreak I've seen and experienced has had more to do with superficial notions of how a marriage should work that completely failed to take into account the people involved, or with the idea that you should stay together no matter what- not from the notion that you should bang anyone cute. The latter causes just as many problems, but not the ones I've experienced most directly.
In socialist welfare societies where success is a zero-sum game and everybody gets the same marginal things divvied-out that everybody else already has, children are additional competition for "scarce" resources.
Birth rates fall below replacement rate, and either the population slowly dies out or else unassimilating immigrant populations take over.
Sounds rather Darwinian.
Is that a problem in the U.S. vice Europe? I don't think so. The U.S. isn't an ethnic nation - we are united by ideals (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.). People really don't emigrate here as an extension of life in the 'old country'. After all, if life was good back there, there would be no reason to come here. Europe also has more trouble assimilating because those countries aren't based on immigration; a Turk doesn't ever really become a German - no matter the status of his citizenship.
we were united by ideals (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.). People really do emigrate here as an extension of life in the 'old country'.
There, fixed it for you.
While what you (originally) stated is still perhaps mostly true, much of what is happening in Europe wrt immigrants is increasingly true here. Many of our immigrants (especially the illegal ones) are not coming here with any intention to assimilate. They're just here for the job opportunities - and they like their old culture just fine. Prefer it, in fact, to our godless, pornographic, money-worshipping one.
KevinS: I don't sneer at "stuffy conservatives" who preach the consequences for sex. I sneer at people who want to pretend that never mentioning sex will make it (and those consequences) go away, that any discussion of safe sex (or vaccinations for STDs) is "encouraging" it, or that gay people will all collectively give up and go back in the closet- or cease to exist- if we stop "encouraging" them. The sorts of people that don't want anyone to be able to buy or sell a dildo in their state, in short.
Labrat
About sixty years ago, one of my father's high school classmates bragged about how he had been conceived - strained through a handkerchief in the old town cemetery. This was in a small Iowa farming town, as conservative as you can find. Stories like that are far more effective at conveying the dangers than anything adults tell kids (even when the kids don't catch you lying or exaggerating), and yet high school couples were still sneaking off to the old cemetery and making out. I myself was raised in a small conservative town, where getting a girl pregnant meant you had to marry her, drop out of school, and basically you "ruined your life", but knowing that (and having condoms and the pill available) didn't stop it from happening.
I agree we shouldn't encourage kids to have sex, but you have to recognize that some of them will no matter what they are told or how they are raised. So in addition to telling them about the consequences, you must also give them some information on how to reduce the hazards when they go ahead and do it anyhow.
Or, you could follow the "destroy the village in order to save it" approach Georgia seems to prefer - even after the legislature reformed the laws, teenagers can still go to jail for having sex. It's the opposite of protecting the kids, but it seems to make certain religious nuts happy.
As for conservatives who want to outlaw dildos and such, none of the ones I know give a crap about stuff like that.
Kevin S.
And yet they are still banned in several states, with new laws being passed just last year in at least two states.
"I don't have any blue-collar working-class friends. Are you implying that a majority of Republicans are blue-collar?"
Your question was about "conservatives", not Republicans.
T'ain't necessarily the same thing.
What I AM implying is that in the blue-collar seagoing world,and the trades that support and service it, most people would self-identify as "conservative".
Bilgeman
Blue-collar workers do tend to be socially conservative, and usually economically conservative but supportive of unions. The Democratic party's move to the left (until 1960 it was overall more conservative than the Republicans) has posed quite a problem for the blue-collar unions.
The Dems welcome their votes and the campaign contributions from the unions, but don't agree with them on much else. OTOH, the Republicans just want to break up the unions (or at least split them up where they seek to form monopolies on labor within an industry). So the blue collar unions reluctantly support the Dems. The white-collar unions, mostly representing government workers, are wholeheartedly Democratic; socialist programs make more jobs for them.
"will look a lot more like Asia, the Middle East, or North Africa. Does this concern any of you?"
Sarah, why does this concern you?
Because Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa are not America. Her point is that these people are coming here with no intention of assimilating into the American culture.
Mark, I just picked up a book I think you ought to read. I have absolutely no doubt that you will take from it things that I do not, and vice-versa, but I believe it is a very important book that everyone needs to read and think about: Walter Russell Mead's God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World.
Make having children economically beneficial rather than a liability.
OK, but this has the character of Mark's magic solutions to war and whatever. How exactly do you do make it beneficial? What's your plan? This bothers me, because it has the whiff of social engineering. In a nonreligious society, how do you incentivize child-making without government interference? I don't think you can. In religious cultures children are seen as blessings from God, which is why Christians have children even though they're a huge pain in the neck and very costly.
I recall that quite a while ago you promised an essay about why you think nature seems to require humans to believe in something that doesn't exist in order to reproduce. Survival of the fittest appears to work in strange ways, no? :-)
LabRat,
All of northern and central Europe, including Italy, is de facto humanist. While northern Europe has all but abandoned its Protestant roots, many places like Spain and Italy still retain a facade of Christianity, but this is something that is embedded in the culture and I would argue that it is more out of tradition than actual belief. One of my good friends is from Dublin, and he went to church for about the first year he was here for grad school, but without the societal traditions he was used to in Ireland, he soon dropped all of his church activities in favor of socialist political activism. Scratch a Catholic and you'll often find a humanist just under the surface. Which is why nominally Catholic France is the humanist capital of the world.
I'm very sorry to hear about your father, by the way. That sounds pretty rough. As you say, it is interesting to note how personal experience shapes one's views.
Mark,
What Kevin said. In America, where people were once forced to assimilate to a large degree, you got a beneficial blending of the two culture's best characteristics. It's like a crucible where all of the unbeneficial characteristics get burned away leaving only what works. But in places like France, Sweden, and my husband's native Finland, where people are not forced to assimilate, you get a nasty hybrid of the worst characteristics of the two cultures. For example, you take the traditional patriarchal aspects of Islam and mix it with the sexual openness of European culture and you end up with a population of very misogynistic, sexually-aggressive, promiscuous young males. Unfortunately, the rape rate has gone up in these places significantly, and especially in Scandinavia where people are used to being quite safe, they don't know what to do about it.
In religious cultures children are seen as blessings from God, which is why Christians have children even though they're a huge pain in the neck and very costly.
...many places like Spain and Italy still retain a facade of Christianity, but this is something that is embedded in the culture and I would argue that it is more out of tradition than actual belief.
Ergo Italian Catholics aren't really Christians? Or aren't really religious? I think perhaps you should talk to some Italians about that.
WRT social engineering, it was the unintended consequences of affluence that made having children a financial burden rather than a boon. It was the unintended consequences of the welfare state that has resulted in increasing rates of out-of-wedlock births. As Reagan put it, if you want more of it, subsidize it.
Want more kids without "social engineering"? How 'bout let's have a war and kill off 60% of the males of breeding age. Or a plague. That generally does it.
Many of our immigrants (especially the illegal ones) are not coming here with any intention to assimilate.
And you've ascertained this by discussing it with how many of them?
Or, alternatively, what evidence do you have of this aversion to assimilation?
A friend of mine says the surest way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico (which is what we're really talking about here) is to throw the border wide open. When the Mexican elite is threatened with losing ALL of their peons, with no repatriation of funds, THEY will build a wall to keep them in.
"Want more kids without "social engineering"? How 'bout let's have a war and kill off 60% of the males of breeding age. Or a plague. That generally does it."
Or we could all put down the computer and pick up the tools of agriculture.
Within 3 generations, my own family line went from siblings of 13 to 4 to 2.
And yes, we were, and are, "Subcutaneous Humanists".
Also, the advent of motion pictures, radio, and Tee Vee gave us all some OTHER forms of leisure time entertainment.
I venture to guess that if 60% of the males of breeding age died off, or if we had a major plague, then the vast majority of us would HAVE to put down the computers and pick up the tools of agriculture if we didn't all want to starve.
Or, alternatively, what evidence do you have of this aversion to assimilation?
As trite as it sounds, "Para español, prensa dos" is one good indication. Demands for Spanish (and other) language assistance from businesses by force of law. Banks that advertise the ease with which money can be sent "home." Azteca América, Galavisión, Mun2, Telefutura, Telemundo, Univision, LATV, TúTV, CNN en Español, MTV Tr3s, Discovery en Español, Discovery Viajar y Vivir, Sorpresa, GOL TV, Fox Sports en Español, and NY1 Noticias.
MEChA, National Council of La Raza, etc.
There are a bunch of people out there who are NOT INTERESTED in assimilating, and worse, they're told not to by our "intellectuals" and theirs. I suggest you pick up a copy of Victor Davis Hanson's Mexifornia: a State of Becoming if you doubt this.
A friend of mine says the surest way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico (which is what we're really talking about here) is to throw the border wide open.
Err... by definition this would eliminate "illegal" immigration.
There are, obviously, many Catholics who are religious. But many are not. It's sometimes hard to distinguish, because, unlike Protestants who, when they reject religion on a national level (cf. Scandinavia) rid themselves of virtually all veneer of their former religiosity, Catholic nations hold on to their traditions much more. The true test is to remove individuals from their cultural or family environments and see what happens. If they stick with the practices, then they're probably believers. If they don't, like my parents and my Irish friend, then it was cultural, not religious.
Want more kids without "social engineering"? How 'bout let's have a war and kill off 60% of the males of breeding age. Or a plague. That generally does it.
Unfortunately, it looks like the former is a distinct possibility.
Demands for Spanish (and other) language assistance from businesses by force of law.
I haven't noticed this in CA, is there a law (or proposal) to do this in AZ? Anywhere else? Otherwise you are complaining about businesses advertising in order to win more business; nothing wrong with that - in any language.
No one would be coming here if they weren't wanted (for their cheap labor).
"I venture to guess that if 60% of the males of breeding age died off, or if we had a major plague, then the vast majority of us would HAVE to put down the computers and pick up the tools of agriculture if we didn't all want to starve."
That's a good guess for an "if-then" scenario.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, about 97 out of 100 people in this country worked in agriculture, i.e. growing food for everyone to eat. In 1900, it was about 40 out of 100. Now it's about 3 out of 100.
I was raised up on a dairy farm. I was in my teens before I realized that most people didn't work in agriculture, as until then, most everyone I knew personally did.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/10/idealists-without-illusions.html (72 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I have more of a Churchillian aversion to communism then Randian.
But I'm new to these parts.
(Fixed) Edited By Siteowner
Kevin,
Like you, if someone else can say something better than I can I let them. And I think you've said it all. One of your best entries on anything at anytime.
I readily accept your observation that persons like Mark are in principle unconvertable. I'm perfectly willing to let them sit in the corner and idealize in perpetuity. The problem is they keep encroaching on reality and trying to bend it to their will.
I'd like to see another entry from you on a proposed remedy for this.
Ballistic:
I don't have a remedy. And I don't really have a problem with people like Mark who wish to bend reality to their wills. Such people are necessary to the operation of a healthy society.
Except when their proportion of the population approaches or exceeds 50%.
Read my post
Liberal vs. Conservative: Both are Necessary on that subject. Or, for that matter, Reasonable People, linked in this piece. Hell, read 'em both.
Someone once said "My liberty is not contingent on your feelings". Mark should heed those words.
Liberalism is also a case of "Cart before the horse".
I wasn't raised in a political family. I'm not even sure if my parents ever voted. My exposure to politics is simply through trial and error. I watched what worked and what didn't and based my beliefs on that.
It's the same thing I tell people about my activism in gun rights. I didn't decide that I liked guns and wanted the laws to be made so I could continue to enjoy them. Honestly, I had my gun I took to the range once or twice a year and was happy enough about that.
It wasn't until I decided to get my CCW that I realized how far down the path people like Mark had pushed us. It was looking at the facts that turned me into what I am today.
I don't see the gun issue for what I want it to be, I see it for what it *is*. I see rights for what they are and see what happens when those rights are prevented from being exercised (you can't take them away, you can only bully people into not using them). I see what happens when we strive hard to just get the right person into office or make just the right law.
Mark is a lost cause, true. But the worst problem is that there are millions of Marks out there. Millions of people who have built that cathedral and will protect it at any cost.
A psychological profile of the great Markadelphia!!
For the record, I'm also known as Crab and I post on his blog. I'm one of Marks best buds in real life too as we hang out often. I disagree with him on most things politics, just as you all do and it gives me warm feelings in my swimsuit area to see you all giving Mark hell on here.
I'm not going to air dirt or insult him on here. Just wanted to say Hello to you all and tell you there are some very interesting discussions that happen on this blog and it makes for a good read.
Kevin,
Thank you for the references; they were well worth the time invested in reading them. I'm a sporadic reader-contributor to this blog, so there are many entries of which I am not aware.
Just one rejoinder: as far as I can discern, they ARE approaching or at 50% of the population, at least as far as our country is concerned. And if they're not it's incumbant on us to prevent them from creeping to within striking distance of that percentage.
Just as a matter of fairness, the basic disease- putting ideals over pragmatism to the point where "does it work" ceases to matter at all- isn't exclusive to the liberal mindset. I think it is rather less common to conservatism, but there are some positions usually held by social conservatives that are manifestations of the same problem. Mostly they have to do with sex and the laws that have to be made to deal with it and with the consequences- yes, people CAN totally refrain from having sex except in safe and approved contexts, just like they CAN refrain from ever doing violence to each other, the problem is that they won't no matter how much law or social disapproval you apply.
Ironically, in real life ALL of my best friends are somewhat to very much more liberal than I am. I'm the token conservative in all my social settings except the blogosphere. The reason the friendships work is that all my blue buddies THINK, and think well; we rarely argue politics, but when we do we usually find that either we agree or we have a difference of priorities. (Or I win. It sometimes happens. ;)) I think that's part of why I find Mark so frustrating- when the notion that your ideological opponents are mainly people who think as well as you do, just differently, is that near and dear to your social life, meeting a walking stereotype that you couldn't have dreamed up if you tried is a mind-bender.
Wow, again. Okay, I'm not going to post anymore in the thread below as it seems to have spilled over into this one...
Alright...well...where to start...
First of all, I really don't care if people call me stupid, a fool, pond scum or whatever. I am pretty comfortable in my vision of the world and I think when people react that way to me it usually means there is some truth that they are very uncomfortable in facing...struggling with....and anger is usually the result. This is true of anyone, liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.
Second, right now on several liberal blogs, all of the things you say about me are being said about folks like you. So, they are all wrong and you are most assuredly right? They are deluded and you are not? When I hear people from completely different sides of the political spectrum saying the same things about each other, it gives me pause. Has everyone actually stopped thinking? Do I have to choose a side? Because I really don't want to....
Third, Interesting that you say that I "don't think" as well as you do. That's pretty....well...isn't that what liberals do to conservatives? Say they don't think? I am reminded of a recent appearance by John Mellencamp on Bill Maher which had a profound impact on me. Maher asked Mellencamp why people in Indiana were so stupid because they voted for Bush. Mellencamp replied it's not that their stupid..it's just that they take someone at their word. That's how they were raised. People, especially the President, are honest, right?
I will never call anyone who thinks President Bush is a good president "stupid" again. They just don't have the same perspective that I do. For the most part, they are coming at things from a position of what they feel is right. In other words, their intentions are good.
Fourth I have posted more than just other people's opinions. I have linked facts, research, and hard data which, if presented by someone not pre-screened by you, is deemed lies. So, then it becomes all about my point of view, which with everyone, is biased. It has become increasingly difficult for me to find information that some of you will accept. It's all a part of a massive disinformation campaign to...do what exactly? I'm not sure. So where do I go for information? It seems that many of the links you ask me to read are from other conservative bloggers. That's cool. There is some good information there....some patently false information as well. Aren't liberal blogs the same?
I've taken a lot of things said to me and about me here to heart. I feel like I am better person and certainly a more concientious debater than I ever have been. I thank all of you for that. I will continue to post as long as Kevin allows me to do so. Some of you have posted on my blog and I think it might be interesting to for you to continue or start if you haven't. I am about 2/3's liberal and 1/3 conservative.
Even better, I'd like to see Unix, DJ or LabRat find a liberal blog and post on it. Perhaps you have already? I think it would be a real eye opener :)
Mostly they have to do with sex and the laws that have to be made to deal with it and with the consequences...
At the risk of hijacking this comment thread, I'm going to respond that social liberals are equally guilty of putting ideals ahead of pragmatism with regard to behavioral things like sex. While social conservatives hold to the ideal that they can legislate virtue, social liberals believe in the ideal of unrestrained behavior in a consequence-free environment.
The fact is that social pressure does work. Uganda implemented a program to aggressively promote abstinence and monogamy, and with success: it's the only African nation to significantly slow the spread of AIDS. Meanwhile, the U.N. ignores this success and continues its humanistic endeavors to "educate" and promote "safe sex," which hasn't made any difference anywhere else in Africa.
We could go the Scandinavian route, where they have apparently figured out the "safe sex" thing and pride themselves on their low rates of STDs and abortion. But nobody is having kids. Look at any place where sexual taboos are lifted and how this coincides with reproduction dropping below replacement rate. Whole populations are dying out and being replaced with more primitive cultures that are successful in reproducing themselves.
Pragmatically, a social conservative looks at this and observes that, on the one hand we get disease, debauchery, and huge numbers of abortions; on the other, we get a culture that whithers and dies. It's not unreasonable to reject all of this in favor of almost anything else. Where they go wrong is in assuming that you can legislate your way to a better society. They ought to forget about the laws and promote abstinence and monogamy, which does work, albeit not perfectly. But this is met with a surprising amount of resistance from social liberals, because it requires an admission that the sexual revolution has been an absolute disaster. Like we see over and over with Mark, social liberals tenaciously hold on to a belief even though evidence to the contrary is all over the place. In this case it is a belief that a sexually-permissive culture is harmless (or even beneficial).
So, I agree with you, LabRat, that social conservatives have to let go of this ideal that virtue can be legislated. But social liberals have to let go of the ideal that they can engineer a consequence-free environment.
Don't disagree with you at all, Sarah. It was just the easiest example that came to mind, since that's the kind of flip-side "ideals vs does it work" argument I've had most often on the right side, as opposed to the left.
Mark,
I didn't say liberals don't think or don't think as well as I do. I said YOU don't. This is an opinion I have formed over many months of interaction with you, and at this point it's highly unlikely to change unless you do. That's why I have lots of liberal friends- I like them for their minds and their personalities, not because I think I can convert them.
Just because there are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives making basically the same slurs against each other doesn't mean they're both equally wrong or right. There ARE lots of conservatives who don't think or don't think very well, because there are lots of PEOPLE who don't. I don't associate with them if I can avoid it, because I find the syndrome equally tiresome no matter whose politics it is. I don't dislike you for your politics, I dislike you because I find your "everything is determined by how you feel about something" attitude not only grating, but often personally insulting- as when you imply that the reason I don't like you is because you're a liberal. You're not only insulting me when you say that, you're insulting my friends as well.
And yes, I DO hang out in places largely populated by liberals and have political arguments there. I have a fine time at it, and over time it HAS modified my own positions- sometimes reinforcing them, sometimes softening them, and even from time to time changing them altogether. Because YOU can't manage that is NOT because it cannot be done, and it's not for lack of exposure to other well-reasoned viewpoints that my politics are what they are.
Sarah, you are failing to take into account that there are many social liberals who actually agree with social conservatives (pornography, objectification of women in our society, debauche sexuality) which I find to be very intersting. Of course, many of them are lesbians so the whole gay thing doesn't quite work out for both of them to get together :) Ah well....
In addition, your assumption that equates social liberals with "unrestrained behavior in a consequence-free environment" is a load of propaganda and, quite frankly, shit. Show me social liberals who promote this.
I think a healthy, open approach to sexuality is the best way to go. Encourage children to wait until after they are 18 and meet someone who they feel close to or love. Parents need to talk openly about sex, birth control, and not place the "guilty dirt" label on it.
Really, abstinence is a pipe dream. It's just not in our nature. It is ignoring one of the gifts that God gave us. By placing sex within the context of marriage only, your bring man made institutions (the church and government) into a rigid and outdated system of morality...and I do mean MAN made. Narrow minded, ignorant, and fearful men have created many of the "rules" we have about sex. They have demonized women and their sexuality largely because they are frightened of the sacred feminine power or goddess power that all women have...which is tied to sex.
Lab,
Well, sorry you feel that way. I have quite enjoyed and even agreed with many of the things you say. And I don't think they same thing about you...
Human beings are not autonomotons. We are complex and emotional. I feel physically ill and very emotional when I see dead Iraqi children around my children's age. You are going to have to excuse me if I don't exclusively blame the terrorists but our own country as well.
LabRat,
Just curious, do you have lots of liberal friends because you are/were in academia? I was kind of surprised to realize that I have vastly more liberal friends than conservative friends. In fact, I'm the token conservative in almost every circle I'm in. Just assumed it had to do with the fact that I've been in the university environment for more than 10 years.
I only know one conservative outside of my family and the blogosphere. Where the heck are they all?
The biggest thing youngsters need to know about sex is that there can be life-long consequences attached to it (baby or STD). I don't see many people out there talking about them except for those stuffy conservatives you sneer at. A healthy, open approach to sex SHOULD include discussion of those consequences, and how they can impact your life, and any life you create from 10 minutes of fun in the back of your boyfriend's car.
Sarah: Yes and no. Some of it is definitely academia, but my non-gun hobbies tend to be dominated by liberals as well- dog training (most who are interested are city dwellers, as rural folk tend to have a different attitude toward dogs), most fandoms for the sci fi and fantasy I enjoy are dominated by liberals, and so forth. As for where the conservatives are... they're mostly hiding, I've found. Or in places where conservatism is the social norm, as in deepinnaheartaTexas.
KevinS: I don't sneer at "stuffy conservatives" who preach the consequences for sex. I sneer at people who want to pretend that never mentioning sex will make it (and those consequences) go away, that any discussion of safe sex (or vaccinations for STDs) is "encouraging" it, or that gay people will all collectively give up and go back in the closet- or cease to exist- if we stop "encouraging" them. The sorts of people that don't want anyone to be able to buy or sell a dildo in their state, in short.
And they are NOT the only ones that acknowledge consequences. I've been reading Dan Savage's column for years, and despite the fact that he's so damn liberal I stop reading him during election season and is published in a highly leftist "alternative" weekly, I've NEVER seen him fail to consider the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior or remind his readers of them- emotional, medical, or legal. And he's far from the only one.
The "sex is always good" and "sex is always bad unless between a married man and woman with the lights off" crowds are both extremes of their respective wings.
Lab Rat - my comments were directed at Markadelphia... and I didn't say stuffy conservatives were the ONLY ones talking about the consequences of unprotected sex. I listen to Tom Leykis sometimes and he's VERY vocal about the consequences of unprotected sex, and politically much further left than myself. As for conservatives who want to outlaw dildos and such, none of the ones I know give a crap about stuff like that.
Sorry Kevin, my apologies.
In addition, your assumption that equates social liberals with "unrestrained behavior in a consequence-free environment" is a load of propaganda and, quite frankly, shit. Show me social liberals who promote this.
Abortion-on-demand as birth control. Talk about eliminating the consequences, and I sure don't see many conservatives promoting it.
Mark, you seem like a nice, genuine person. There are two problems I have discussing things with you: 1) you don't directly answer, either because you don't want to confront a tough point, or it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions and 2) you are very non-discerning, e.g. citing John Perkins as an economist. You could've said Zinn, or Krugman, or any number of [near-]mainstream liberal economists - but instead you picked a nutball with no economic credibility. That says to me that you don't really value reason over faith, and in that you have a LOT of company, just not me.
Hey, Kevin, did you ever suspect this post would settle into a discussion of Mark and sex in the same sentence?
Nope. These discussions do take interesting turns, don't they?
Kevin, this is why I keep coming back to your pages.
You attract the most interesting people.
They have demonized women and their sexuality largely because they are frightened of the sacred feminine power or goddess power that all women have...which is tied to sex.
Please tell me you don't actually believe this twaddle, Mark. The rules were put in place to protect women, mostly from men who use this line of baloney to get in their pants.
“I don't see many people out there talking about them except for those stuffy conservatives you sneer at”
Untrue. You don’t see many people out there talking because you don’t listen to liberals. Here’s an experiment for you. Find some liberals and ask them if they buy hotel rooms, liquor, and condoms for the teenage kids.
LabRat, I agree with everything in your post regarding sex. THAT is EXACTLY the attitude people should have about sex.
“you picked a nutball with no economic credibility”
juris, Well, that’s your opinion. Again, read the books and then see what you think. Do I believe every single word he says? No, but I don’t believe every word that Howard Zinn says either. His views on WWII, for example, are completely off target.
“Please tell me you don't actually believe this twaddle”
Sarah, have ever read any books by Margaret Starbird?
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and once in awhile Mark and I will be in perfect agreement.
Not about "goddess power", though. I think the pervasive male paranoia about female sexuality that tends to crop up in various cultures from time to time (like the Middle East at the moment) can be easily traced back to two words: concealed ovulation.
(Not that I think the rules exist for solely that reason, of course.)
LabRat:
"I think the pervasive male paranoia about female sexuality that tends to crop up in various cultures from time to time (like the Middle East at the moment) can be easily traced back to two words: concealed ovulation."
No, I, for one, am not mystified or disgusted by or attracted to, menstrual bleeding.
I think the concern about female sexuality can be summed up in one question:
"Is that child mine?"
Sarah:
"I only know one conservative outside of my family and the blogosphere. Where the heck are they all?"
How many of the blue-collar working-class do you count as friends?
"male paranoia about female sexuality that tends to crop up in various cultures from time to time (like the Middle East at the moment)"
Perhaps THE most irritating thing to me right now about some liberals is their seemingingly purposeful ignorance of the way women are treated in the Middle East. If that same behavior occured here, men would be dead. Somehow the multi-cultural respect outweighs simple human repsect. I have had so many arguments, many way more heated than the debates I have had here, about how hypocritical these people are...they just don't see it.
Mark:
"Perhaps THE most irritating thing to me right now about some liberals is their seemingingly purposeful ignorance of the way women are treated in the Middle East."
Irritating? Mystifying!
And not just "Feminists", but homosexuals and those who follow non-Christian religions,(Jews excluded).
Do they not understand their common fate under the Dar-al-Islam?
A reasonable person would suppose that they would be in the vanguard of the GWOT.
They must not know that there's a war on.
You apparently do. And are to be congratulated on this acheivement.
juris, Well, that’s your opinion. Again, read the books and then see what you think.
Mark this is just astonishing to me. The man has no advanced degree in economics, hell, he doesn't even claim to have a Bachelors. His supposed days as a Economic Hit Man were for a company that didn't even work in international finance - they were an engineering services company. The man has written on shamanic shape-shifting and time travel.
Other than he delivers a sermon that you like (evil corporations working with evil govt - and how he repented, a very key element), how the HELL do you figure that he has any credibility? There is no independent verification for what he claims about himself - none.
Now, seriously Mark, I don't expect an answer based on logic or reason. You have accepted this as an article of faith. If you could admit as much, then I wouldn't make an issue of it. And, in the future don't recommend his work as economics - it just isn't.
Bilgeman: that's what I said. Ovulation != menstruation.
Mark,
I don't know who Starbird is, nor am I likely to try to find out. LabRat is right: your comment is actually applicable to extreme patriarchal, i.e. Islamic, societies. But courtesy and chivalry, which are born of respect, not fear, are Christian constructs.
It might interest you to know how piggishly men behave in progressive European countries, i.e. where women are completely sexually "liberated." I have a friend who moved to Germany to go to university, and she is depressed beyond words by how horribly women are treated there. Since the expectation of sex has nothing to do with marriage anymore, young German women are regarded as little more than disposable sex objects. Ironic, isn't it, that by sexually freeing themselves, women have become so marginalized.
Bilgeman,
I don't have any blue-collar working-class friends. Are you implying that a majority of Republicans are blue-collar?
Sarah:
"I don't have any blue-collar working-class friends. Are you implying that a majority of Republicans are blue-collar?"
Your question was about "conservatives", not Republicans.
T'ain't necessarily the same thing.
What I AM implying is that in the blue-collar seagoing world,and the trades that support and service it, most people would self-identify as "conservative".
Kevin S. “I don't see many people out there talking about them except for those stuffy conservatives you sneer at”
Mark: "Untrue. You don’t see many people out there talking because you don’t listen to liberals. Here’s an experiment for you. Find some liberals and ask them if they buy hotel rooms, liquor, and condoms for the teenage kids."
Me: Are liberals telling kids that waiting until marriage is the only 100% sure way to avoid the problems caused by extra-marital sex?
Based on numerous news articles I've read, programs which try to teach this in schools are so vociferously opposed by leftists that they're usually shut down, resulting in the message that "sex outside of marriage is okay, normal and healthy." The answer to the risks of pre-marital sex given by those programs excludes abstinence and teaches only [partially] safe sex.
Nevermind the left-wing mainstream media which shows sex without consequences essentially everywhere, nearly 24/7. We are so saturated by that message that it is impossible to avoid it. I'm not even sure that living in a cave would be good enough to avoid all contact with this pervasive message.
I sincerely doubt that leftists are buying liquor and hotel rooms to encourage kids to have sex all the time, but they're certainly making sure condoms are freely available by making them available in the schools.
More directly, do you think kids should be discouraged from engaging in premarital sex?
"sex outside of marriage is okay, normal and healthy."
Well then call me a leftist, cause I sure as hell don't buy this load of crap. There is a world of difference in telling teenagers to wait til they are a bit more mature then telling them that marriage is the only license to recreate.
the left-wing mainstream media
As Bilgerman pointed out, the media are profit-making ventures - not usually associated with socialism/communism. They sell what the public buys.
Oh, and Ed, I made sure my son had access to condoms, rather than counting on superstition and ignorance to see him through his teen years. If he is honest with me, he chose to abstain on his own.
As Bilgerman pointed out, the media are profit-making ventures - not usually associated with socialism/communism. They sell what the public buys.
Not in all (and I would argue most) cases true.
Crowning example, the New York Times.
The reason being, the business has been overrun by the ideologues as explained by Robert Bartley, former WSJ editor emeritus:
The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers. (Emphasis mine.)
When all (or at least most) of the reporting and editing is done through an ideological lens that is divorced from that of the audience, the profit motive becomes secondary - at least for a while.
Thus the rise of Rupert Murdoch, and the hate he has inspired in the rest of the media.
juris,
You are correct that marriage isn't the only license for procreation, but it is by far the ideal arrangement. Children prosper and do best in two-parent families. There is no getting around that.
It's a testament to the power of brainwashing, vis a vis the saturation Ed described, that any woman would think she is better off creating children with a man who has not made a lifelong commitment to provide for and protect her and her young.
Juris,
I don't count on superstition either. My kids are well aware that I will kick their butts if they misbehave. It also helps that they can see a clear contrast between our lives and those of some of our friends. Failing to keep their pants on has caused massive destruction in several families that our kids know while our own family is quite stable.
I'm willing to kick their butts to keep them in line because I'm well aware that the consequences of even "safe" extra-marital sex are far worse than anything I would do to them. The result is that not only do my kids avoid extra-marital sex as thoroughly as they avoid sticking things in electrical sockets, they also have helped some of their friends also avoid stupid risks.
"When all (or at least most) of the reporting and editing is done through an ideological lens that is divorced from that of the audience, the profit motive becomes secondary - at least for a while."
That's why the New York Times' circulation and stock value has been dropping for the last several years.
Sarah,
You're absolutely right. I can't imagine any woman willingly signing up for the "single with children" life if she actually knew what that meant for her and her children.
Y'all are talking as if having children is the only reason ever to have sex, which, sorry, I disagree.
Having sex before you're married doesn't ruin your life any more than having a joint will lead directly to injecting heroin into your crotch. It's a lie, and kids know it- and it leads them to assume you might have been lying about the other big, bad dangers out there- even if you weren't.
No sex is 100% safe, but shooting isn't 100% safe even if you do everything you're supposed to either, and driving a car, which we start letting kids do at sixteen, is much more dangerous, assuming "taking all the right safety steps" conditions.
My parents gave me the safe sex talk, made sure I could get birth control if I needed it (and yes, told me that abstinence was the only 100% way too), and I'm married to the man I lost my virginity to. I didn't keep my legs closed because I was frightened, I did it because of something else they taught me- self-respect, careful judgment, and that no matter what the media told me, sex is not the be-all and end-all of the world. It's not scary-forbidden-fruit, but it's not that great either unless it comes along with other things, like love and trust.
I respect people who abstain for religious reasons and that's fine- but acting as though it's the ONLY way for young adults until they find someone they want to marry because of the dangers involved is overstating things more than a bit given the danger levels of life in general.
I never slept around because that's not who I am. I've known people who slept around and were totally, utterly miserable and it's obvious it was making them miserable. I've known people (and yes, they were both women) who slept around a lot- safely and with the understanding that that's what it was, no more and no less- and were some of the happiest and most well-adjusted people I've ever known. Sex outside of marriage doesn't make you miserable, irresponsibility and dishonesty with yourself and others about what it is you really want and need makes you miserable- and not everyone wants and needs the same things at the same time.
LabRat,
Having children is indeed not the only reason for sex. However, it is an empirical fact that people who have had sex before getting married get divorced at much higher rates than those who wait until marriage.
Sexual mores have direct effects on the stability of the reproductive superstructure.
It's an empirical fact that people who wait until they get married are also strongly religious at much higher rates than people who don't, and such religious convictions tend to go hand in hand with a greater dedication to preserving the marriage no matter what.
If you're going to hit me with statistics, use ones with less obvious flaws for the argument you're making. I agree that sexual mores have a direct affect on stability, but there's a difference between acknowledging that and insisting that waiting until marriage is the only way to have a healthy, stable love life. There's a hell of a lot of middle ground between blind promiscuity and total chastity until marriage.
Kevin:
"When all (or at least most) of the reporting and editing is done through an ideological lens that is divorced from that of the audience, the profit motive becomes secondary - at least for a while."
Really? It wasn't just the business of journalism that I was speaking of.
See, they might be a total fishwrap, just this side of People's World Daily...but they STILL have advertisers, don't they?
There are still businesses that choose to give their advertising dollars to them.
This is of a piece with a conundrum that I've wrestled with since I began 2nd A activism:
Why is the traditional center of firearms manufacturing in this country,(i.e. New England...the Connecticut River Valley), also the region that is the most hoplophobic?
This seems rather like Virginia and North Carolina deciding to become the most "smoke-free" states in the Union.
And...here's the other half. Why would firearms manufacturers choose to remain in a region where their products are so actively legislated against?
LabRat: "It's an empirical fact that people who wait until they get married are also strongly religious at much higher rates than people who don't, and such religious convictions tend to go hand in hand with a greater dedication to preserving the marriage no matter what."
Me: That certainly seems to be the case today in this country. But that certainly wasn't the case prior to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce. Do you have evidence that religion was a statistically significant factor is successful marriages before that time?
Or are you arguing that people should become christians and live by the Bible because the outcomes are better? ;)
That certainly seems to be the case today in this country. But that certainly wasn't the case prior to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce. Do you have evidence that religion was a statistically significant factor is successful marriages before that time?
No, but before that time a lot of other things were different, too. Women had far fewer options for living independently of men (especially after a divorce as opposed to being seen as waiting for marriage), there was infinitely more social pressure to stay married at any cost, cheap, reliable, and available birth control was not a reality, and so on.
It does depend on how you define "success", as well. I don't define a marriage in which one or both partners are miserable as such, but in an environment in which divorce is seen as a total meltdown catastrophe that could result in wide social ostracism- especially of the woman- that could be the case. I remember my grandmother's intense pressure on my mother to do anything it took to "get him back" when my father left my mother, and whatever else I may think of my parents' divorce, I can easily see in retrospect that it could never have worked out with both of them remotely happy if they had stayed together. It was a very basic incompatibility that only became sharper the longer they stayed together.
I do believe that the goal of every marriage should be "forever", and I find discussions of things like "starter marriages" personally revolting. But that's just not how all marriages CAN be, which is why I waited until I was more than sure that the partner I chose could be "forever" before I married him- long after sex entered the relationship.
Between the medical factors and the social factors, comparisons of divorce rates then and now are apples and oranges. Some of it is a cultural lack of respect for the institution, yes- but some of it is simply the fact that people who would otherwise have stuck with their partners because they couldn't survive on their own can, now. It's impossible to tell from the statistics which are which.
Crowning example, the New York Times.
Yes, and how are things going for the Old Gray Lady these days?
Is there editorial bias, and journalistic group-think? You betcha. But when it hurts the bottom line, editors get replaced. Since selling advertising is the real business of the media, they have limits in that they can't afford to offend too many advertisers and/or readers.
I mean, c'mon, even Mother Jones has an advertising department, and companies promote their wares there. Gotta love free markets.
But that certainly wasn't the case prior to the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce.
To amplify on a key point LabRat made - women didn't have near as much choice several generations back. That is an aspect of capitalism - creative destruction as Schumpeter put it - that most social conservatives often overlook. The free market is not a 'conservative' institution.
Reliable birth control and greater economic opportunity gave women more choice about what to do with their lives. Ironically, neither the traditionalist pole nor the radical camp embrace that full spectrum of possibility.
"do you think kids should be discouraged from engaging in premarital sex?"
Yes, anyone 17 or under should be told to wait to have sex. That's what I tell kids who ask me. I even go further and tell them to wait until they get into college...early 20s..., are more mature, and are with someone they are committed to in a relationship. I strongly discourage promiscious sex and try to explain that it is something to not enter into lightly.
Lab and juris, great points. I wholeheartedly agree.
True, children aren't the only reason for sex, but look what happens in places where sex is effectively divorced from child-making. Birth rates fall below replacement rate, and either the population slowly dies out or else unassimilating immigrant populations take over. I mentioned this before, and no one commented on it. If things continue as they are, in a few more generations places like Europe and Canada will look a lot more like Asia, the Middle East, or North Africa. Does this concern any of you?
The other thing that happens is that men and women become increasingly alienated from each other. The situation is already bad in Canada (where I grew up), and even worse in Europe (where my husband grew up). Romance is gone, and replaced by "hooking up" and guilt-free one-night stands. Unlike LabRat, I've experienced the sexual minefield: I had several boyfriends (and all that connotes in this day and age) before I settled down and married. For a long time I felt pretty scarred by those experiences, and it is something I've had to overcome for the sake of my marriage. In fact, in all my years I have yet to meet a single woman who feels that her life has been enriched by such experiences.
I'd like to ask a question of those here who are not traditional religious folks: what do you think the solution to this is? In a prosperous, sexually permissive society, how do you motivate people to marry, stay together, and have children?
Make having children economically beneficial rather than a liability.
In "poor" cultures, aside from the fact that sex is one of the few recreations available, children can be used as income producers - working from a young age, even begging in some cultures.
In prosperous societies, children cost a lot of money - clothing, food, medical care, education, etc. - and once they're adults they're sent off into the world with little to no expectation that they will pay back any of the expense to the parents.
There is no economic incentive to have children. There is, in fact, a strong disincentive.
Oh, and I've been meaning to ask "Crab":
How did I do with the psych profile?
Oh, you just HAD to go and ask a HARD question I couldn't easily poke holes in, didn't you?
The answer boils down to "I don't know". I do think, however, that the cause of plummeting birth rates can't just be the sexual revolution; it's a values shift in Western culture in general. Even in Italy, the very heart of Catholicism, the religion that technically bans both birth control and divorce, birth rates are the second lowest in the Western world, so it can't just be a lack of a traditional religious atmosphere. I think at least one root of the problem is economic- having and raising children is very expensive in modern Western societies, especially to do it "right". And not only is it expensive, but the amount of time and effort parents must devote tends to take them off the market as the highest earners; at least part of America's booming economy is owed to workaholic yuppies who've decided to sacrifice family for career. It works the other way 'round, too- societies where a big part of your personal status is how many children you have tend to be among the poorest and least advanced.
With more choices has come more people who've decided to forgo children (or more than one child) for other opportunities; kids used to be pretty much a given, and enormous pressure was brought to bear on those who chose not to have them. And ethically speaking, I can't really accept a stance that boiled down to advocating limiting people's choices for the sake of out-breeding "the competition"- especially since I think such a mindset would take our individualistic, choice-based Western culture in a direction very much like what we dislike in that competition.
As for the original topic of discussion, I don't like the vapid, soul-destroying "hook-up" culture any better than I like "no premarital sex or you'll be miserable." I feel there has to be- and is, because I lived it and know others who do- a happy middle ground, just as there is between being an alcoholic and being a teetotaller. It requires people to be responsible and honest, which is why it's hard to find, but then again pretty much any aspect of life requires responsibility and honesty for happiness and health.
On a more personal note, it is interesting how our pasts define what we'll see as the biggest problem. I sometimes think the only reason I can manage a functional relationship today is that I had such a wide variety of negative examples to choose from; my mother never had a remotely functional relationship after my father, and my father promptly went out and settled down with the first woman who would have him... who openly despised me and I suspect has serious psychiatric problems. He never left her because he was determined not to be a two-time loser. He committed suicide in 2004.
Most of the heartbreak I've seen and experienced has had more to do with superficial notions of how a marriage should work that completely failed to take into account the people involved, or with the idea that you should stay together no matter what- not from the notion that you should bang anyone cute. The latter causes just as many problems, but not the ones I've experienced most directly.
Oh, SURE Kevin, explain it much better and in fewer words. I'm sure it was just to make me look bad. ;)
In socialist welfare societies where success is a zero-sum game and everybody gets the same marginal things divvied-out that everybody else already has, children are additional competition for "scarce" resources.
Birth rates fall below replacement rate, and either the population slowly dies out or else unassimilating immigrant populations take over.
Sounds rather Darwinian.
Is that a problem in the U.S. vice Europe? I don't think so. The U.S. isn't an ethnic nation - we are united by ideals (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.). People really don't emigrate here as an extension of life in the 'old country'. After all, if life was good back there, there would be no reason to come here. Europe also has more trouble assimilating because those countries aren't based on immigration; a Turk doesn't ever really become a German - no matter the status of his citizenship.
we were united by ideals (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.). People really do emigrate here as an extension of life in the 'old country'.
There, fixed it for you.
While what you (originally) stated is still perhaps mostly true, much of what is happening in Europe wrt immigrants is increasingly true here. Many of our immigrants (especially the illegal ones) are not coming here with any intention to assimilate. They're just here for the job opportunities - and they like their old culture just fine. Prefer it, in fact, to our godless, pornographic, money-worshipping one.
KevinS: I don't sneer at "stuffy conservatives" who preach the consequences for sex. I sneer at people who want to pretend that never mentioning sex will make it (and those consequences) go away, that any discussion of safe sex (or vaccinations for STDs) is "encouraging" it, or that gay people will all collectively give up and go back in the closet- or cease to exist- if we stop "encouraging" them. The sorts of people that don't want anyone to be able to buy or sell a dildo in their state, in short.
Labrat
About sixty years ago, one of my father's high school classmates bragged about how he had been conceived - strained through a handkerchief in the old town cemetery. This was in a small Iowa farming town, as conservative as you can find. Stories like that are far more effective at conveying the dangers than anything adults tell kids (even when the kids don't catch you lying or exaggerating), and yet high school couples were still sneaking off to the old cemetery and making out. I myself was raised in a small conservative town, where getting a girl pregnant meant you had to marry her, drop out of school, and basically you "ruined your life", but knowing that (and having condoms and the pill available) didn't stop it from happening.
I agree we shouldn't encourage kids to have sex, but you have to recognize that some of them will no matter what they are told or how they are raised. So in addition to telling them about the consequences, you must also give them some information on how to reduce the hazards when they go ahead and do it anyhow.
Or, you could follow the "destroy the village in order to save it" approach Georgia seems to prefer - even after the legislature reformed the laws, teenagers can still go to jail for having sex. It's the opposite of protecting the kids, but it seems to make certain religious nuts happy.
As for conservatives who want to outlaw dildos and such, none of the ones I know give a crap about stuff like that.
Kevin S.
And yet they are still banned in several states, with new laws being passed just last year in at least two states.
Sarah:
"I don't have any blue-collar working-class friends. Are you implying that a majority of Republicans are blue-collar?"
Your question was about "conservatives", not Republicans.
T'ain't necessarily the same thing.
What I AM implying is that in the blue-collar seagoing world,and the trades that support and service it, most people would self-identify as "conservative".
Bilgeman
Blue-collar workers do tend to be socially conservative, and usually economically conservative but supportive of unions. The Democratic party's move to the left (until 1960 it was overall more conservative than the Republicans) has posed quite a problem for the blue-collar unions.
The Dems welcome their votes and the campaign contributions from the unions, but don't agree with them on much else. OTOH, the Republicans just want to break up the unions (or at least split them up where they seek to form monopolies on labor within an industry). So the blue collar unions reluctantly support the Dems. The white-collar unions, mostly representing government workers, are wholeheartedly Democratic; socialist programs make more jobs for them.
"will look a lot more like Asia, the Middle East, or North Africa. Does this concern any of you?"
Sarah, why does this concern you?
Lab, sorry to hear about your dad. My father was also very troubled and basically killed himself through drinking when I was 21.
"will look a lot more like Asia, the Middle East, or North Africa. Does this concern any of you?"
Sarah, why does this concern you?
Because Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa are not America. Her point is that these people are coming here with no intention of assimilating into the American culture.
Mark, I just picked up a book I think you ought to read. I have absolutely no doubt that you will take from it things that I do not, and vice-versa, but I believe it is a very important book that everyone needs to read and think about: Walter Russell Mead's God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World.
Check into it.
I will read it, sir!
Kevin,
Make having children economically beneficial rather than a liability.
OK, but this has the character of Mark's magic solutions to war and whatever. How exactly do you do make it beneficial? What's your plan? This bothers me, because it has the whiff of social engineering. In a nonreligious society, how do you incentivize child-making without government interference? I don't think you can. In religious cultures children are seen as blessings from God, which is why Christians have children even though they're a huge pain in the neck and very costly.
I recall that quite a while ago you promised an essay about why you think nature seems to require humans to believe in something that doesn't exist in order to reproduce. Survival of the fittest appears to work in strange ways, no? :-)
LabRat,
All of northern and central Europe, including Italy, is de facto humanist. While northern Europe has all but abandoned its Protestant roots, many places like Spain and Italy still retain a facade of Christianity, but this is something that is embedded in the culture and I would argue that it is more out of tradition than actual belief. One of my good friends is from Dublin, and he went to church for about the first year he was here for grad school, but without the societal traditions he was used to in Ireland, he soon dropped all of his church activities in favor of socialist political activism. Scratch a Catholic and you'll often find a humanist just under the surface. Which is why nominally Catholic France is the humanist capital of the world.
I'm very sorry to hear about your father, by the way. That sounds pretty rough. As you say, it is interesting to note how personal experience shapes one's views.
Mark,
What Kevin said. In America, where people were once forced to assimilate to a large degree, you got a beneficial blending of the two culture's best characteristics. It's like a crucible where all of the unbeneficial characteristics get burned away leaving only what works. But in places like France, Sweden, and my husband's native Finland, where people are not forced to assimilate, you get a nasty hybrid of the worst characteristics of the two cultures. For example, you take the traditional patriarchal aspects of Islam and mix it with the sexual openness of European culture and you end up with a population of very misogynistic, sexually-aggressive, promiscuous young males. Unfortunately, the rape rate has gone up in these places significantly, and especially in Scandinavia where people are used to being quite safe, they don't know what to do about it.
In religious cultures children are seen as blessings from God, which is why Christians have children even though they're a huge pain in the neck and very costly.
...many places like Spain and Italy still retain a facade of Christianity, but this is something that is embedded in the culture and I would argue that it is more out of tradition than actual belief.
Ergo Italian Catholics aren't really Christians? Or aren't really religious? I think perhaps you should talk to some Italians about that.
WRT social engineering, it was the unintended consequences of affluence that made having children a financial burden rather than a boon. It was the unintended consequences of the welfare state that has resulted in increasing rates of out-of-wedlock births. As Reagan put it, if you want more of it, subsidize it.
Want more kids without "social engineering"? How 'bout let's have a war and kill off 60% of the males of breeding age. Or a plague. That generally does it.
Many of our immigrants (especially the illegal ones) are not coming here with any intention to assimilate.
And you've ascertained this by discussing it with how many of them?
Or, alternatively, what evidence do you have of this aversion to assimilation?
A friend of mine says the surest way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico (which is what we're really talking about here) is to throw the border wide open. When the Mexican elite is threatened with losing ALL of their peons, with no repatriation of funds, THEY will build a wall to keep them in.
Kevin:
"Want more kids without "social engineering"? How 'bout let's have a war and kill off 60% of the males of breeding age. Or a plague. That generally does it."
Or we could all put down the computer and pick up the tools of agriculture.
Within 3 generations, my own family line went from siblings of 13 to 4 to 2.
And yes, we were, and are, "Subcutaneous Humanists".
Also, the advent of motion pictures, radio, and Tee Vee gave us all some OTHER forms of leisure time entertainment.
Bilgeman:
I venture to guess that if 60% of the males of breeding age died off, or if we had a major plague, then the vast majority of us would HAVE to put down the computers and pick up the tools of agriculture if we didn't all want to starve.
Or, alternatively, what evidence do you have of this aversion to assimilation?
As trite as it sounds, "Para español, prensa dos" is one good indication. Demands for Spanish (and other) language assistance from businesses by force of law. Banks that advertise the ease with which money can be sent "home." Azteca América, Galavisión, Mun2, Telefutura, Telemundo, Univision, LATV, TúTV, CNN en Español, MTV Tr3s, Discovery en Español, Discovery Viajar y Vivir, Sorpresa, GOL TV, Fox Sports en Español, and NY1 Noticias.
MEChA, National Council of La Raza, etc.
There are a bunch of people out there who are NOT INTERESTED in assimilating, and worse, they're told not to by our "intellectuals" and theirs. I suggest you pick up a copy of Victor Davis Hanson's Mexifornia: a State of Becoming if you doubt this.
A friend of mine says the surest way to stop illegal immigration from Mexico (which is what we're really talking about here) is to throw the border wide open.
Err... by definition this would eliminate "illegal" immigration.
Sorry, that's a non-starter.
Kevin,
There are, obviously, many Catholics who are religious. But many are not. It's sometimes hard to distinguish, because, unlike Protestants who, when they reject religion on a national level (cf. Scandinavia) rid themselves of virtually all veneer of their former religiosity, Catholic nations hold on to their traditions much more. The true test is to remove individuals from their cultural or family environments and see what happens. If they stick with the practices, then they're probably believers. If they don't, like my parents and my Irish friend, then it was cultural, not religious.
Want more kids without "social engineering"? How 'bout let's have a war and kill off 60% of the males of breeding age. Or a plague. That generally does it.
Unfortunately, it looks like the former is a distinct possibility.
Sarah:
" Catholic nations hold on to their traditions much more. "
Bingo is fun...and it gives Grandma a way to hang out with her friends without her losing her Social Security check.
Demands for Spanish (and other) language assistance from businesses by force of law.
I haven't noticed this in CA, is there a law (or proposal) to do this in AZ? Anywhere else? Otherwise you are complaining about businesses advertising in order to win more business; nothing wrong with that - in any language.
No one would be coming here if they weren't wanted (for their cheap labor).
"I venture to guess that if 60% of the males of breeding age died off, or if we had a major plague, then the vast majority of us would HAVE to put down the computers and pick up the tools of agriculture if we didn't all want to starve."
That's a good guess for an "if-then" scenario.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, about 97 out of 100 people in this country worked in agriculture, i.e. growing food for everyone to eat. In 1900, it was about 40 out of 100. Now it's about 3 out of 100.
I was raised up on a dairy farm. I was in my teens before I realized that most people didn't work in agriculture, as until then, most everyone I knew personally did.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>