|
October 22, 2005
I Guess He Touched A Nerve
Breaking into new territory (or is he?), the titanically polymathic brain of Leon Kass has a few modest proposals for the betterment of American matrimony. Reception has been mixed. The AEI, faith based, and evangelical communities are nodding their solemn approval like dashboard bobble dolls. Those of a more secular bent are taking a more judgmental stance. It helps restore my faith in popular culture. Until what seems like only yesterday, young people were groomed for marriage...at the beginning of this century, our grandfathers came a-calling and a-wooing at the homes of our grandmothers, under conditions set by the woman, operating from strength on her own turf. Well, that was then and this is now. What about today's young women? Sexually active — in truth, hyperactive — they flop about from one relationship to another...they manage to appear all at once casual and carefree and grim and humorless about getting along with the opposite sex. The young men, nervous predators, act as if any woman is equally good... Sheesh. Get him drunk enough and he may act like it. But, in all honesty, he would tell you it simply isn't so. Young men have a very discerning eye when it comes to young women, and I'm not just talking about physical appearance. But most young women strike me as sad, lonely, and confused... As numerous commenters have pointed out, perhaps this is because they are at the University of Chicago ("Where fun comes to die"), taking a course from Leon Kass. Cogent point? Cheap shot? You be the judge. Those very few who couple off seriously and get married upon graduation as we, their parents, once did are looked upon as freaks. This observation does not jibe with my own experience. After college, the scene is even more remarkable and bizarre: singles bars, personal "partner wanted" ads (almost never mentioning marriage as a goal), men practicing serial monogamy (or what someone has aptly renamed "rotating polygamy"), women chronically disappointed in the failure of men "to commit." All this time I've been pushing the bioethics angle, to little or no apparent interest, and now this comes along and blows the doors off. I would guess it's because almost everyone has personal experience of love, marriage, infidelity, and all that other fun, humanistic stuff. Let's face it. For most people science, test tubes, cloning, it can be kind of boring. But sex hits them where they live. Coming from a position of personal experience, they may feel more involvement in these particular foggy ruminations. Some women positively welcome this state of affairs, but most do not; resenting the personal price they pay for their worldly independence, they nevertheless try to put a good face on things and take refuge in work or feminist ideology. See, I've known for years about Dr. Kass's squishy, half-baked sociological notions. I dismissed them as being mildly amusing and of no account. First, because there's nothing he can do about them. Absolutely nothing. Second, even if he could, the problems he engendered would be relatively benign compared to his bioethical mischief. I've concentrated on his bioethical side because that is where he can do genuine harm to people. In the worst possible scenario, our Leon might actually manage to delay the implementation of a life saving therapy. If not, it won't be for lack of trying. If he were to succeed in his publicly stated aims, it is at least conceivable that thousands of people will die needlessly premature deaths. I find that annoying. Those who have tried to point this out to him have received more-or-less perfunctory dismissals. Our hearts go out not only to the children of failed- or non-marriages — to those betrayed by their parents' divorce and to those deliberately brought into the world as bastards — but also to the lonely, disappointed, cynical, misguided, or despondent people who are missing out on one of life's greatest adventures... Well, that's just great. But the problem with squishy, half-baked analyses is that they seldom lead to simple, concrete suggestions for improvement. What is it, exactly, that we should be doing to breast this evil tide in the affairs of men? A more discerning analysis is called for. And here it is! Here is a (partial) list of the recent changes that hamper courtship and marriage: It's a good start. Can we narrow the focus a bit? The change most immediately devastating for wooing is probably the sexual revolution. For why would a man court a woman for marriage when she may be sexually enjoyed, and regularly, without it?... Unless she can give, like, really good head... Women also lost the capacity to discover their own genuine longings and best interests. For only by holding herself in reserve does a woman gain the distance and self-command needed to discern what and whom she truly wants and to insist that the ardent suitor measure up. Whew! And that's just part one of three! Stay tuned for further developments. Here's a list of blogs that beat me to the punch. I am mortified. Letters of Marque Many of these blogs have generated insightful and humorous commentary. I urge you to check them out. Heh heh. Imagine. Some people say my arguments are ad hominem. Time presses, but when I have a chance I'll post a few serious defenses of our favorite ethicist. Seriously. Till then, let's all get out there and start re-stigmatizing bastardy.
posted by Justin on 10.22.05 at 09:58 AM
Comments
"For the first time in human history, mature women by the tens of thousands live the entire decade of their twenties - their most fertile years — neither in the homes of their fathers nor in the homes of their husbands; unprotected, lonely, and out of sync with their inborn nature" I must add that I strongly disagree with this also. Why should a grown woman live with her father? Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 22, 2005 04:54 PM This essay has been out for years. The full version can be found here: http://www.thepublicinterest.com/notable/article7.html Let me warn you, the rest of it is even more condescending than the first part you've analyzed. In his mind, it's all the woman's fault and the only way society will get better is if women seek fulfillment only through marriage. I don't agree. Captain Ned · October 22, 2005 05:33 PM "Only respectable women were respected. . ." ". . one no more wanted a loose woman for one's partner than for one's mother. . ." ". . .and in reticence in the display of her well- banked affections. . ." "Women also lost the capacity to discover their own genuine longings and best interests. . ." ". . .widespread morally neutral sex education in schools. . ." ". . .the general erosion of shame and awe regarding sexual matters. . ." I have to ask: Is Kass's picture in the dictionary next to the word "blather"? Sean · October 22, 2005 05:37 PM Is it perhaps time that we consider the destigmatization of footbinding? Eric Scheie · October 22, 2005 06:21 PM "only by holding herself in reserve does a woman gain the distance and self-command needed to discern what and whom she truly wants" Kass's position appears to be that only people who have no way of knowing what makes them happy can achieve happiness. Where have I heard this before? Ah yes, Orwell's 1984: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! I am more than ever convinced that this thanatophilic Luddite hack, this fulminating puddle of moralic acid, this Fred Phelps with a diploma, will go down in history as the worst mistake GWB ever made. Yes, Mr Kass, children nowadays are not stigmatised with the label "bastard" because of decisions taken by others. Nowadays the title of bastard is earned. And you have earned it a hundred times over. xj · October 23, 2005 08:29 PM Yet another man pretending to know what's good for women, and pretending to know that all women who don't follow his rules are sad and pathetic; and, by implication, that all women who DO follow his rules are, ipso facto, happy and fulfilled. No polling, no statistics, no research, just his neat, pretty picture, based on his neat, pretty rules; as if rules of personal conduct could be applied universally like laws of physics. Did he ever bother to ask himself -- or, better yet, to ask a woman or two -- WHY so many women might choose to live in a manner contrary to his preconceptions, if such choices make them all so sad and pathetic? This is the standard tactic of the zealot: look for some shortcoming in another person's life or attitude, big or small, and use it as "proof" that he/she is "unhappy" and will never be "happy" unless he/she converts. Or, failing that, simply define the vague term "happiness" so that only the believers will ever be happy. Parents trying to force their daughters to marry do it all the time: "Yes, you have a fun and well-paying career, and a good man who gives you great sex, and great friends, but are you really HAPPY? How can you say you're happy when you don't have...?" Raging Bee · October 25, 2005 04:16 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Jehovanists vs. Naturalists vs. Gnostics once again. Murray S. Davis's spectrum outlined in his Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology. Kass is obviously a Jehovanist. As a Jehovanistic-style Gnostic, I agree with some of what he says and disagree with others.
"the general erosion of shame and awe regarding sexual matters...."
The erosion of awe regarding sexual matters is what I most oppose about the Naturalist philosophy. Sex is awesome, sacred, Divine.
"the destigmatization of bastardy, divorce, infidelity, and abortion;"
A package-deal here, with a fatal contradiction.
I do oppose infidelity, which violates the marriage vow, and divorce, which destroys it. I'm for marriage as total commitment, eternal fidelity. The tight bondage of holy wedlock.
As for the other two, this is where the contradiction comes in. How can you possibly discourage abortion while at the same time publicly shaming both the woman and her child (labeling the child, who committed no sin, a "bastard")? This ties in with what Eric and i wrote earlier about shame vs. guilt. I far prefer the Catholic approach. If sex outside of the marriage bond is a sin, then she should privately confess her sin to the priest/ess, perform whatever prescribed penance, and be forgiven. If sex outside of the marriage bond is a sin, then it should be made clear to her that it a much lesser sin than killing her baby, which she is all too likely to do if she is publicly shamed. Also the man must undergo the same penance. Which brings me to....:
"Many, perhaps even most, men in earlier times avidly sought sexual pleasure prior to and outside of marriage. But they usually distinguished, as did the culture generally, between women one fooled around with and women one married, between a woman of easy virtue and a woman of virtue simply."
Two major errors here:
1) He sets up a vicious double standard between men and women. I absolutely oppose that. I say it is equally imperative upon the man to be chaste as it is for the woman. A man must discipline his penis. Both the man and the woman must have reverence for their sexuality.
2) The false dichotomy between "women one fooled around with and women one married" -- this creates a split, a dis-integration between body and soul. I absolutely oppose that. It is above all in the sexual embrace that one's body and soul are, must be, totally integrated, and integrated with the body and the soul of one's beloved. The woman one longs for with all one's body and the woman one totally commits to in marriage with all one's soul are, must be, one and the same woman. She is, must be, the embodiment of one's highest as well as deepest values, the image in one's eye of one's Most High Goddess.
All this applies equally, of course, to the marriage of a woman to a woman or of a man to a man.