And in the Darkness Bind Them?
Watching a few re-runs of Bill Maher’s "Real Time" last night, I was inspired by a comment made by conservative think-tanker David Frum. He was pretty directly assaulted by the combination of self-proclaimed libertarian Maher, Democratic mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin and recording artist John Legend throughout the entire episode. To Maher’s credit, most of the childish yelling and booing from the audience was met with calls for quiet. The guy was putting himself out there by appearing on that show. Creating an interesting dialogue between people with harshly divided viewpoints is good for everyone, and shutting him up by calling out “Bush sucks” is just crude.
Frum was asked point blank what he believed about homosexuality, and given no alternative but to answer simply whether he believed in gay marriage. What he said—and keep in mind Frum worked for the American Enterprise Institute; (their record speaks for itself) was that he believed that (paraphrasing) we need to work on heterosexual marriage before we try experimenting. Experimenting was his word. He was cut off by reactions from all around him at that point, and the idea of "working on" it was not further explored.
The US divorce rate is the world's highest, and probably still climbing. A very large portion of children are born out of wedlock (almost forty percent, per the USA Today), and even more are raised by single parents or some variation of time-share custody. I won’t say that’s automatically a bad thing, and I won’t pretend to know how that feels (I’m one of those freaks with happily married fifty-something parents). But let’s talk about "working on heterosexual marriage," since so many people think it's important.
The old trope is that “the American family is our greatest strength.” Do we actual derive any benefit, as a country, from the idealized nuclear family unit? The perspective of evolutionary psychology would have us believe that families are an extension of our very important hard-coded genetic desire to exist in groups. Sensibly, of course. We have a number of adaptations for working in teams and organizing.
Standing in line at Trader Joe’s last night, I engaged in a conversation with the two people ahead of me. One of the two expressed what I thought was some pretty overwrought frustration with “shopping couples.” Have you seen this? It’s a smart tactic. The two gather the majority of their groceries together, then one gets in line with the cart while the other procures some of the hard-to-find or far-flung items.
I have my doubts that this is what Neoconservatives are getting at when they call families “our greatest strength,” but that illustrates the basic concept that teams can achieve more than individuals. For decades women stayed home and raised children while men earned money to support the group. There are disadvantages to this (Jesus Christ, are there ever disadvantages. If I ever have kids there’s no way I’m leaving them for ten hours a day every day. I can’t see any lifestyle more likely to cause both parents to resent the other), of course, but it does maximize the utility of both adults.
These days, most families find that both parents need to go out and work in order to earn enough money to support children. This is a fundamental breakdown of that so-called “tried and true” family unit. More than two parents are necessary to provide money, attention and love to children. I’m going to say that fundamentally and without exception, and I’ll accept the consequences. How many families rely on day care or grandparents to keep children safe during the day?
How do we work on marriage? Why don’t we find ways to make staying together beneficial? If you truly believe that marriages are important, and the law needs to be a part of that relationship, the law needs to create incentives to stay married. This isn’t Moral Decline, it’s basic economics. When both parents have the capacity to support themselves, and even together *do not* have the resources to support children in all the ways they'd like, the two don’t need each other. Overcoming the barbaric practice of enslaving one partner to the other in a gender-biased fashion has led us to a state of being where the dissolution of a union is a decision that only involves emotional concerns. Staying together “for the children” isn’t important when they’re already raised by a third party.
The American nuclear family unit is the biggest weakness our state faces. Innovation and freedom are more important to us than the nuclear unit. People's lives are more fluid. Commitments to companies and organizations are shoreter term. Cooperative theorists have proposed that larger units could function in today’s economy by allowing, for example, five out of seven adults to work, while the remaining two take care of children, maintain the home and fend off predators…
Ok, not that last one, but that's my direct allusion to tribal life in the survival environment. That's where all those instincts and behaviors for group living come from, after all. And, hell, in the modern workplace with the average length of employment decreasing, switching off responsibilities is a possibility. (Yes, I admit, one probably fraught with ugly domestic disputes, but a definite possibility.)
Our notion of the nuclear family is powerful, but everything can change. Either the underpinnings of our successful, mostly free, world-class economy will change, or the family will. Divorce will become more common. People will cling to whatever rock they can to avoid the crushing expense of childcare. Say what you will about the American people: they might not know a lot of facts or do very well on tests, but they figure out their own best interest eventually. Laws change, morals are discarded and life goes on. Is it an important use of national resources to protect and improve marriage in the United States? Probably not. Is it important to make sure that kids have loving, available, attentive parents? Of course.
Fight the sickness, not the symptoms.
Frum was asked point blank what he believed about homosexuality, and given no alternative but to answer simply whether he believed in gay marriage. What he said—and keep in mind Frum worked for the American Enterprise Institute; (their record speaks for itself) was that he believed that (paraphrasing) we need to work on heterosexual marriage before we try experimenting. Experimenting was his word. He was cut off by reactions from all around him at that point, and the idea of "working on" it was not further explored.
The US divorce rate is the world's highest, and probably still climbing. A very large portion of children are born out of wedlock (almost forty percent, per the USA Today), and even more are raised by single parents or some variation of time-share custody. I won’t say that’s automatically a bad thing, and I won’t pretend to know how that feels (I’m one of those freaks with happily married fifty-something parents). But let’s talk about "working on heterosexual marriage," since so many people think it's important.
The old trope is that “the American family is our greatest strength.” Do we actual derive any benefit, as a country, from the idealized nuclear family unit? The perspective of evolutionary psychology would have us believe that families are an extension of our very important hard-coded genetic desire to exist in groups. Sensibly, of course. We have a number of adaptations for working in teams and organizing.
Standing in line at Trader Joe’s last night, I engaged in a conversation with the two people ahead of me. One of the two expressed what I thought was some pretty overwrought frustration with “shopping couples.” Have you seen this? It’s a smart tactic. The two gather the majority of their groceries together, then one gets in line with the cart while the other procures some of the hard-to-find or far-flung items.
I have my doubts that this is what Neoconservatives are getting at when they call families “our greatest strength,” but that illustrates the basic concept that teams can achieve more than individuals. For decades women stayed home and raised children while men earned money to support the group. There are disadvantages to this (Jesus Christ, are there ever disadvantages. If I ever have kids there’s no way I’m leaving them for ten hours a day every day. I can’t see any lifestyle more likely to cause both parents to resent the other), of course, but it does maximize the utility of both adults.
These days, most families find that both parents need to go out and work in order to earn enough money to support children. This is a fundamental breakdown of that so-called “tried and true” family unit. More than two parents are necessary to provide money, attention and love to children. I’m going to say that fundamentally and without exception, and I’ll accept the consequences. How many families rely on day care or grandparents to keep children safe during the day?
How do we work on marriage? Why don’t we find ways to make staying together beneficial? If you truly believe that marriages are important, and the law needs to be a part of that relationship, the law needs to create incentives to stay married. This isn’t Moral Decline, it’s basic economics. When both parents have the capacity to support themselves, and even together *do not* have the resources to support children in all the ways they'd like, the two don’t need each other. Overcoming the barbaric practice of enslaving one partner to the other in a gender-biased fashion has led us to a state of being where the dissolution of a union is a decision that only involves emotional concerns. Staying together “for the children” isn’t important when they’re already raised by a third party.
The American nuclear family unit is the biggest weakness our state faces. Innovation and freedom are more important to us than the nuclear unit. People's lives are more fluid. Commitments to companies and organizations are shoreter term. Cooperative theorists have proposed that larger units could function in today’s economy by allowing, for example, five out of seven adults to work, while the remaining two take care of children, maintain the home and fend off predators…
Ok, not that last one, but that's my direct allusion to tribal life in the survival environment. That's where all those instincts and behaviors for group living come from, after all. And, hell, in the modern workplace with the average length of employment decreasing, switching off responsibilities is a possibility. (Yes, I admit, one probably fraught with ugly domestic disputes, but a definite possibility.)
Our notion of the nuclear family is powerful, but everything can change. Either the underpinnings of our successful, mostly free, world-class economy will change, or the family will. Divorce will become more common. People will cling to whatever rock they can to avoid the crushing expense of childcare. Say what you will about the American people: they might not know a lot of facts or do very well on tests, but they figure out their own best interest eventually. Laws change, morals are discarded and life goes on. Is it an important use of national resources to protect and improve marriage in the United States? Probably not. Is it important to make sure that kids have loving, available, attentive parents? Of course.
Fight the sickness, not the symptoms.
Labels: Bill Maher, Divorce, Marriage, Politics
posted by Maximillian @ 12:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home