So I've been looking into working as a representative for an elderly care facility and they have a lot of tender, touching articles related to senior care. Don't worry- I'm not gonna make you cry, but I AM going to draw some correlations between senior health and the healthcare of a single person. Turns out, socializing at meals is GOOD for seniors- and I suggest that it's good for US, too. (Yaaay, for positive socializing to create healthy habits. Science probably eats a protein bar by himself in the basement.) Anyway, this article provides suggestions for how to better care for the nutritional needs of your senior. I think it sounds like a great idea for EVERYONE- senior or not. We make better choices when we have others around to hold us accountable and to inspire us to take our time and enjoy our food, as opposed to simply grabbing whatever's faster, easier and closest to the tv.
So go ahead and make a lunch date. Invite a friend or two for dinner. Share your food. Take some time to reconnect and talk over a real meal instead of hovering over the sink and eating that leftover cake from Saturday night's wedding. (Maybe I take some of my own advice sometimes, OKAY?!?) And what better excuse is there for a simple date than meeting up during the work week to have sandwiches outside together?
And, if you're asking, I'm totally down for eating whatever you're cooking. Seriously. Call me.
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Singleness: Hazardeous to Your Health
Now I've heard this argument attested to by my sworn enemy, Science, before. He is relentless in proving that being single is hazardous to one's health- particularly a woman's health. I had to re-read this article just to be certain it wasn't published 30 years ago in a weak attempt to oppress and demean women. But, no! It's from January of this year- 2010. Herein, Science "proves" that single people take more sick days and particularly single women suffer more injuries in a year than those who are married. What my loathed nemesis, Science, is trying to "prove," is that we'd all be healthier if we were married (particularly women). Clearly this study doesn't get out much. My much more logical assessment of the statistics suggest that single people as a whole are likely just using their "sick" days as "play" days.
A (single) friend commented, "I can't think of the last time I took a sick day and was actually sick." As a general, most single people are accrueing those sick days for amazing adventure vacations and random days for irresponsiblity. Those who are divorced in the article are likely dealing with children, family emergencies and tending to business/errands that require personal time. As for the widowed, there are far more women likely to outlive their husbands, so the "scientific" deduction that widowed men fare better, I would respond, "there are probably 4 women taking care of that man and each one of those women outlived their own spouse to begin with!" (Eat THAT, Science.)
As for these single, female journalists who maybe "protest too much" to this Stephan Mason, PhD, maybe they're percieved that way because, as ANY of us (male or female) can attest, somehow, our marital status (or lack thereof) seems to be a HUGE issue to non-involved parties as a topic of discussion or debate. (see: family reunions, holidays, dinner parties, church, basically anywhere people who are married and over 30 mill around.) I almost never encounter this question in the workplace, as it has no effect on my efficiency, productivity, competency or sense of humor and adeptness within social situations. Perhaps this is why so many single people are able to focus on their careers without distraction or obligation external of their own chosen social events. Perhaps that busyness is why we are not dating as much and have chosen to stay single until we meet someone as fulfilling as our work results. Surprisingly enough, Science has turned a blind eye into inquiring WHY there would be such a result.
O, Science. You lazy bastard. No wonder why you're still single.
A (single) friend commented, "I can't think of the last time I took a sick day and was actually sick." As a general, most single people are accrueing those sick days for amazing adventure vacations and random days for irresponsiblity. Those who are divorced in the article are likely dealing with children, family emergencies and tending to business/errands that require personal time. As for the widowed, there are far more women likely to outlive their husbands, so the "scientific" deduction that widowed men fare better, I would respond, "there are probably 4 women taking care of that man and each one of those women outlived their own spouse to begin with!" (Eat THAT, Science.)
As for these single, female journalists who maybe "protest too much" to this Stephan Mason, PhD, maybe they're percieved that way because, as ANY of us (male or female) can attest, somehow, our marital status (or lack thereof) seems to be a HUGE issue to non-involved parties as a topic of discussion or debate. (see: family reunions, holidays, dinner parties, church, basically anywhere people who are married and over 30 mill around.) I almost never encounter this question in the workplace, as it has no effect on my efficiency, productivity, competency or sense of humor and adeptness within social situations. Perhaps this is why so many single people are able to focus on their careers without distraction or obligation external of their own chosen social events. Perhaps that busyness is why we are not dating as much and have chosen to stay single until we meet someone as fulfilling as our work results. Surprisingly enough, Science has turned a blind eye into inquiring WHY there would be such a result.
O, Science. You lazy bastard. No wonder why you're still single.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
VOTE.
Like I said- I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just trying to make sure we have a greater understanding of each other's motivations.
Either way.
Get out and let your voice be heard.
Either way.
Get out and let your voice be heard.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Polygamy and Gay Marriage-
I didn't say that "because they are black they are facing these challenges." I just gave one relevent example of a community hit particularly hard by this issue as noted lately in press. Again, of course I don't think all black men are irresponsible.
As for generalizations - if we are to be intelligent at a macro (societal) level, we all must make generalizations to inform public policy. We'd be ignoring facts and intelligence if we didn't. An example - people in Mississippi tend to be more overweight than people in Colorado; what can we learn from this to address obesity in this country? It doesn't mean we're saying all Mississippans are fat. Or, gay Americans smoke cigarettes more often than their straight counterparts, a generalization we've been able to build massive and directed campaigns against smoking on. There's no hate there.
If we incite hate or *unfair treatment* based on generalizations, that's when it *can be* bad. I think that's where you and others can make good, sound counterpoints to me. There's no foul in the generalizations themselves - you disagree with my conclusions. And that's fine and that's your right and how we all get more clarity about each other's viewpoints.
An example when *unfair treatment* based on generalization is *good* in my opinion: A man wants to marry two women. He has beautiful, loving relationships with each. This happens today - I've heard stories on NPR where actors in these relationships (woman, woman, man) talk about how wonderful it is, how steeped in love it is. And yet, we say no. Why do we say no? I mean, many past and current cultures have/do condone this exact thing. Because even though three well-developed, great examples of people could pull this off and make it work, in *general* we know this to be bad for women and bad for our society - that most cannot pull this off. Right?
(Please - nobody say I'm equating polygamy to a gay relationship - I'm *not* - this is purely an *overt* example to illustrate a point.)
Nate in particular, and everybody else, it's obvious that being friends of Bradley and participating one way or another on this thread that you all have beautiful motivations and good hearts. It has been stimulating to talk with you all.
Thanks,
Jordy
I absolutely disagree with you Jordy about using race, gender, or sexual-orientation generalizations to dictate public policy. You may say that there's no foul in the generalizations themselves, but you're using those very same generalizations to justify certain public policy, and your position on Proposition 8. That's not fair. It's one thing to use data about certain segments of the population to form awareness campaigns aimed at those very segments, but by the logic that you're using to justify your position on Proposition 8, then all black people should be denied the right to marry as well. If there's a higher incidence of irresponsible parenting in the black community, then should divorce be illegal for black people? Or, should they really be denied the right to marry? Of course not. And, I'm assuming that you would think that's preposterous as well. In other words, why should all gay people be denied the right to marry just because there's a higher incidence of failed relationships in that community? By denying those rights, we're not getting to the root of the problem -- failed relationships. We don't need to punish everyone of a certain group, just because some individuals in that group don't exhibit what's "best" for the entire group. If that doesn't make sense, I'm not too sure how I can present my argument more clearly.
In terms of polygamy, it was banned in society because it is the currently held belief among the majority of Americans that it's not good for ALL of society. Trans fats aren't just banned in fat communities in Mississippi. And, they're not just bad for fat people. They're bad for ALL people. If smoking is banned in public places, they're not going to only ban smoking in gay public places just because there's a higher incidence of smoking in the gay community, they're going to ban smoking in ALL public places because it's bad for ALL communities. Do you get it? The root of the problem is smoking and addiction, or consumption of trans fats. Polygamy wasn't banned in only the Mormon community, just because there may be a higher incidence of polygamous relationships among people of that religion. That would be making an unfair generalization about that religion and letting that generalization dictate public policy. Polygamy was banned because right now a majority of the people believe that it's not beneficial to society as a whole, and everyone is denied that right. If people feel that their rights to a polygamous relationship are being denied of them while at the same time public opinion changes about the nature and consequences of a polygamous relationship, then we should reexamine the public policy that's been put in place. I'm not advocating polygamy, nor am I saying that it should necessarily be legalized, but if we're ignoring the collective morality of society, and using generalizations to create laws, or deny certain rights, then we've failed as a society to include the critical values of any legal system, which are impartiality, neutrality, certainty, equality, openness, flexibility, and growth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_(law)
-Nathan
As for generalizations - if we are to be intelligent at a macro (societal) level, we all must make generalizations to inform public policy. We'd be ignoring facts and intelligence if we didn't. An example - people in Mississippi tend to be more overweight than people in Colorado; what can we learn from this to address obesity in this country? It doesn't mean we're saying all Mississippans are fat. Or, gay Americans smoke cigarettes more often than their straight counterparts, a generalization we've been able to build massive and directed campaigns against smoking on. There's no hate there.
If we incite hate or *unfair treatment* based on generalizations, that's when it *can be* bad. I think that's where you and others can make good, sound counterpoints to me. There's no foul in the generalizations themselves - you disagree with my conclusions. And that's fine and that's your right and how we all get more clarity about each other's viewpoints.
An example when *unfair treatment* based on generalization is *good* in my opinion: A man wants to marry two women. He has beautiful, loving relationships with each. This happens today - I've heard stories on NPR where actors in these relationships (woman, woman, man) talk about how wonderful it is, how steeped in love it is. And yet, we say no. Why do we say no? I mean, many past and current cultures have/do condone this exact thing. Because even though three well-developed, great examples of people could pull this off and make it work, in *general* we know this to be bad for women and bad for our society - that most cannot pull this off. Right?
(Please - nobody say I'm equating polygamy to a gay relationship - I'm *not* - this is purely an *overt* example to illustrate a point.)
Nate in particular, and everybody else, it's obvious that being friends of Bradley and participating one way or another on this thread that you all have beautiful motivations and good hearts. It has been stimulating to talk with you all.
Thanks,
Jordy
I absolutely disagree with you Jordy about using race, gender, or sexual-orientation generalizations to dictate public policy. You may say that there's no foul in the generalizations themselves, but you're using those very same generalizations to justify certain public policy, and your position on Proposition 8. That's not fair. It's one thing to use data about certain segments of the population to form awareness campaigns aimed at those very segments, but by the logic that you're using to justify your position on Proposition 8, then all black people should be denied the right to marry as well. If there's a higher incidence of irresponsible parenting in the black community, then should divorce be illegal for black people? Or, should they really be denied the right to marry? Of course not. And, I'm assuming that you would think that's preposterous as well. In other words, why should all gay people be denied the right to marry just because there's a higher incidence of failed relationships in that community? By denying those rights, we're not getting to the root of the problem -- failed relationships. We don't need to punish everyone of a certain group, just because some individuals in that group don't exhibit what's "best" for the entire group. If that doesn't make sense, I'm not too sure how I can present my argument more clearly.
In terms of polygamy, it was banned in society because it is the currently held belief among the majority of Americans that it's not good for ALL of society. Trans fats aren't just banned in fat communities in Mississippi. And, they're not just bad for fat people. They're bad for ALL people. If smoking is banned in public places, they're not going to only ban smoking in gay public places just because there's a higher incidence of smoking in the gay community, they're going to ban smoking in ALL public places because it's bad for ALL communities. Do you get it? The root of the problem is smoking and addiction, or consumption of trans fats. Polygamy wasn't banned in only the Mormon community, just because there may be a higher incidence of polygamous relationships among people of that religion. That would be making an unfair generalization about that religion and letting that generalization dictate public policy. Polygamy was banned because right now a majority of the people believe that it's not beneficial to society as a whole, and everyone is denied that right. If people feel that their rights to a polygamous relationship are being denied of them while at the same time public opinion changes about the nature and consequences of a polygamous relationship, then we should reexamine the public policy that's been put in place. I'm not advocating polygamy, nor am I saying that it should necessarily be legalized, but if we're ignoring the collective morality of society, and using generalizations to create laws, or deny certain rights, then we've failed as a society to include the critical values of any legal system, which are impartiality, neutrality, certainty, equality, openness, flexibility, and growth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_(law)
-Nathan
Challenge-
I'm sorry Farrah, but did you not read anything I mentioned in my e-mail?
You're being manipulated and lied to. This has NOTHING to do with your faith or your tolerance and acceptance of gays. If Proposition 8 is defeated, your church, your religion, your marriage and your life will not change AT ALL. In fact, the constitution will not change at all either. The "What is Prop 8" website that you included a link to is full of misinformation and lies. It says that churches may be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriages. Think VERY carefully about how well crafted and deceptive that statement is. Sure, churches MAY be sued, but that doesn't mean that the law suit will be settled in favor of the plaintiff. In other words, same-sex couples are welcome to try to sue churches for discrimination, but religious freedom will prevent those couples from winning their cases. Once again, the crux of your reasoning for voting Yes on Proposition 8 is based on lies and misinformation. If logic and truth don't matter to you, then we're not even going to be able to have this discussion.
-Nathan
Karn and Nathan, my friends, you have depicted me as racist and sexist among other things. Those of you whom know me (Karn!) know that there is not a spec of me that is either of those - never has been and never will be. Nathan, you prescribe straw man arguments to me that I never even made and are preposterous. Do not embellish my points and put words into my mouth - take my points for what they are or ask for clarification. Karn - your lecture to me about the need to accept difference? Your accusation that I think gay men are perverts! How insanely innaccurate...and you know me! If I'm *that* guy you describe, it's amazing we've been close friends for so long.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is not a *single* observation I made in my e-mail that you won't find observed in mainstream media, on NPR, on public tv, in Newsweek. Nathan, among the biggest insults or condescensions I've possibly ever received is your lesson on Blacks when you tell me, "it has nothing to do with the fact they are Black." It's sickening how you claim to have gotten that from me. I made no such claim and anybody who reads what I said will see that. In fact what I said isn't even my original statement! Black leaders speak of this issue in our communities. Columnists speak about it. Obama has given speeches related to this, and praise him for that!
I abhor racism and sexism and evil. I am passionate about making our society good. These are my opinions. Disagree with my conclusions, please. But do not publicly hang me under false accusations.
Nathan, consistent with your responses up until this one, there are some interesting points you make in your reply to me (in between the false accusations) that I'll give some thought to. Thanks for those. Also Nathan, I think you assume that I'm straight in your "this won't affect my marriage." Not so. And I know other gay men who also want to keep marriage as traditionally defined for similar reasons as mine - i.e. even some gay men are for 8.
-Jordy
I will say it once again -- you've been lied to and mislead. Freedom of religion will not be affected. The government will not be allowed to alter "God's law". That's why in this country we have separation between Church and State. "God's law" has been interpreted and perceived in so many different ways by so many different religions that it would be not only be an impossibly huge task, but it would be fundamentally wrong for government to even begin to get involved. By saying that "God's law was here before our laws of the land" is essentially saying that God's law trumps state and government laws. Are you sure you're willing to stand by that statement? As I said, God's law has an infinite number of versions, yet you're clearly combining Church and State and stating that your God's laws overpower all other laws. You say that you're not judgmental, but I'd suggest that you be extremely careful about assuming that your savior, your God, and your religious views are superior to any or all others. I'm sure you'll agree that no single religion should dictate the law of the land. Therefore, no single religion, or group of religions, should be given a monopoly on the concept of marriage, the institution of marriage, or the word "marriage". By definition, "marriage" is NOT religious, and separate-but-equal institutions are wrong. That's what this all boils down to...
-Nathan
PS-
Jordy,
I don't think you're racist or sexist, but you admitted yourself that your statements are generalizations about race and gender, and you're clearly using those very generalizations to justify your position on Proposition 8. The "straw man" arguments that you claim that I prescribe to you were simply provided as counterpoints to seemingly one-sided arguments that you presented -- that's why I made those types of statements and posed those questions at all -- to highlight the nature of the perspective that you were presenting. Sorry if you felt that I was putting words in your mouth. Hopefully it's apparent to everyone else that I wasn't.
The observations you made may in fact be accurate, but once again, they are generalizations, and in my opinion shouldn't be used to inform public policy. Hopefully that was clear and the point was emphasized by the counter-examples I provided. Obama has given speeches about how the black community is suffering from the absence of fathers, and I commend him for that as well. I'm not denying that it's an issue. What I'm saying is that it's not because they're black that they're facing these challenges. It's because in those segments of society, among other things, responsibility for one's actions is not being encouraged. They just happen to be black segments of society. Just because all the irresponsible men in those communities are black doesn't mean that all black men are irresponsible. Get it? That's all I was trying to say. We have to be careful about racially, or sexually profiling people. I'm not saying that you're advocating that we do. I'm just saying that by using race/gender/sexual-orientation generalizations to inform public policy, we run the risk of that happening...
Sorry if it seemed like I was making false accusations. And, I honestly don't care if you're straight or gay. I was simply trying to provide a more balanced perspective and challenge your perceptions. :)
-Nathan
You're being manipulated and lied to. This has NOTHING to do with your faith or your tolerance and acceptance of gays. If Proposition 8 is defeated, your church, your religion, your marriage and your life will not change AT ALL. In fact, the constitution will not change at all either. The "What is Prop 8" website that you included a link to is full of misinformation and lies. It says that churches may be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriages. Think VERY carefully about how well crafted and deceptive that statement is. Sure, churches MAY be sued, but that doesn't mean that the law suit will be settled in favor of the plaintiff. In other words, same-sex couples are welcome to try to sue churches for discrimination, but religious freedom will prevent those couples from winning their cases. Once again, the crux of your reasoning for voting Yes on Proposition 8 is based on lies and misinformation. If logic and truth don't matter to you, then we're not even going to be able to have this discussion.
-Nathan
Karn and Nathan, my friends, you have depicted me as racist and sexist among other things. Those of you whom know me (Karn!) know that there is not a spec of me that is either of those - never has been and never will be. Nathan, you prescribe straw man arguments to me that I never even made and are preposterous. Do not embellish my points and put words into my mouth - take my points for what they are or ask for clarification. Karn - your lecture to me about the need to accept difference? Your accusation that I think gay men are perverts! How insanely innaccurate...and you know me! If I'm *that* guy you describe, it's amazing we've been close friends for so long.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is not a *single* observation I made in my e-mail that you won't find observed in mainstream media, on NPR, on public tv, in Newsweek. Nathan, among the biggest insults or condescensions I've possibly ever received is your lesson on Blacks when you tell me, "it has nothing to do with the fact they are Black." It's sickening how you claim to have gotten that from me. I made no such claim and anybody who reads what I said will see that. In fact what I said isn't even my original statement! Black leaders speak of this issue in our communities. Columnists speak about it. Obama has given speeches related to this, and praise him for that!
I abhor racism and sexism and evil. I am passionate about making our society good. These are my opinions. Disagree with my conclusions, please. But do not publicly hang me under false accusations.
Nathan, consistent with your responses up until this one, there are some interesting points you make in your reply to me (in between the false accusations) that I'll give some thought to. Thanks for those. Also Nathan, I think you assume that I'm straight in your "this won't affect my marriage." Not so. And I know other gay men who also want to keep marriage as traditionally defined for similar reasons as mine - i.e. even some gay men are for 8.
-Jordy
I will say it once again -- you've been lied to and mislead. Freedom of religion will not be affected. The government will not be allowed to alter "God's law". That's why in this country we have separation between Church and State. "God's law" has been interpreted and perceived in so many different ways by so many different religions that it would be not only be an impossibly huge task, but it would be fundamentally wrong for government to even begin to get involved. By saying that "God's law was here before our laws of the land" is essentially saying that God's law trumps state and government laws. Are you sure you're willing to stand by that statement? As I said, God's law has an infinite number of versions, yet you're clearly combining Church and State and stating that your God's laws overpower all other laws. You say that you're not judgmental, but I'd suggest that you be extremely careful about assuming that your savior, your God, and your religious views are superior to any or all others. I'm sure you'll agree that no single religion should dictate the law of the land. Therefore, no single religion, or group of religions, should be given a monopoly on the concept of marriage, the institution of marriage, or the word "marriage". By definition, "marriage" is NOT religious, and separate-but-equal institutions are wrong. That's what this all boils down to...
-Nathan
PS-
Jordy,
I don't think you're racist or sexist, but you admitted yourself that your statements are generalizations about race and gender, and you're clearly using those very generalizations to justify your position on Proposition 8. The "straw man" arguments that you claim that I prescribe to you were simply provided as counterpoints to seemingly one-sided arguments that you presented -- that's why I made those types of statements and posed those questions at all -- to highlight the nature of the perspective that you were presenting. Sorry if you felt that I was putting words in your mouth. Hopefully it's apparent to everyone else that I wasn't.
The observations you made may in fact be accurate, but once again, they are generalizations, and in my opinion shouldn't be used to inform public policy. Hopefully that was clear and the point was emphasized by the counter-examples I provided. Obama has given speeches about how the black community is suffering from the absence of fathers, and I commend him for that as well. I'm not denying that it's an issue. What I'm saying is that it's not because they're black that they're facing these challenges. It's because in those segments of society, among other things, responsibility for one's actions is not being encouraged. They just happen to be black segments of society. Just because all the irresponsible men in those communities are black doesn't mean that all black men are irresponsible. Get it? That's all I was trying to say. We have to be careful about racially, or sexually profiling people. I'm not saying that you're advocating that we do. I'm just saying that by using race/gender/sexual-orientation generalizations to inform public policy, we run the risk of that happening...
Sorry if it seemed like I was making false accusations. And, I honestly don't care if you're straight or gay. I was simply trying to provide a more balanced perspective and challenge your perceptions. :)
-Nathan
Acknowledging Sin is NOT "Discrimination."
Nathan-
Favourite point EVER:
"separate but equal" is wrong, immoral, and unjust, no matter how you try to rationalize it. Just because odds are stacked against a certain group doesn't mean that they should be denied certain rights. As I said before, by that flawed logic, the same rights should then be denied to ALL couples that the odds are stacked against. Nobody is saying that anyone HAS to get married. It's simply an option, for those that believe that they're ready to enter into a committed, legally-recognized relationship.
I completely agree. That's why it's so difficult when I consider Prop 8 is about marriage- I completely agree with you. I would hope any logical person would see that. What worries me is that Freedom of Religion- to allow churches to practice their faith without the goverment redefining "sin" as "discrimination." To those of us who are people of faith, "sin" is not necessarily something to be feared- just as homosexuality is not something to be feared. But while we are not to fear or discriminate because of sin, does that mean we say that sin is no longer valid in a church? If there is no sin, there is no repentance and if there is no repentance there is no need of a Savior. But there is sin, and there is redemption. By failing to acknowledge the one, we diminish the power of the other.
My other concern is the Freedom of Speech- that suddenly to SAY "homosexuality is a sin" from the pulpit becomes hate speech or denying to acknowledge a union which defies the sacred institution of marriage becomes discrimination, well- in my view, God's law was here before our laws of the land. I'm not about to throw a tantrum just because my church won't allow me to marry within it's sacred temple if I have chosen not to keep the commandmants. But should Prop 8 fail, legally, the government would have the right to alter God's law. I do so love your comments. I wish I had more of them. All of you. Thank you for putting forth such thoughtful and articulate comments. I may repost them on my blog to share. Would that be okay with you? I'd like people to hear more than just my side: http://farrahspot.blogspot.com/2008/10/like-dead-horse.html
Night-Night.
-f.
Favourite point EVER:
"separate but equal" is wrong, immoral, and unjust, no matter how you try to rationalize it. Just because odds are stacked against a certain group doesn't mean that they should be denied certain rights. As I said before, by that flawed logic, the same rights should then be denied to ALL couples that the odds are stacked against. Nobody is saying that anyone HAS to get married. It's simply an option, for those that believe that they're ready to enter into a committed, legally-recognized relationship.
I completely agree. That's why it's so difficult when I consider Prop 8 is about marriage- I completely agree with you. I would hope any logical person would see that. What worries me is that Freedom of Religion- to allow churches to practice their faith without the goverment redefining "sin" as "discrimination." To those of us who are people of faith, "sin" is not necessarily something to be feared- just as homosexuality is not something to be feared. But while we are not to fear or discriminate because of sin, does that mean we say that sin is no longer valid in a church? If there is no sin, there is no repentance and if there is no repentance there is no need of a Savior. But there is sin, and there is redemption. By failing to acknowledge the one, we diminish the power of the other.
My other concern is the Freedom of Speech- that suddenly to SAY "homosexuality is a sin" from the pulpit becomes hate speech or denying to acknowledge a union which defies the sacred institution of marriage becomes discrimination, well- in my view, God's law was here before our laws of the land. I'm not about to throw a tantrum just because my church won't allow me to marry within it's sacred temple if I have chosen not to keep the commandmants. But should Prop 8 fail, legally, the government would have the right to alter God's law. I do so love your comments. I wish I had more of them. All of you. Thank you for putting forth such thoughtful and articulate comments. I may repost them on my blog to share. Would that be okay with you? I'd like people to hear more than just my side: http://farrahspot.blogspot.com/2008/10/like-dead-horse.html
Night-Night.
-f.
Aligning Ourselves in Peace.
Wow.I am so super in love with you guys.
Seriously.
I so appreciate having a thoughtful, sincere and articulate conversation about an issue which most people discard with intolerant, impassioned remarks, with now real concern for mutual understanding or respect. I'm only sad I was out all day and missed the conversation as it happened! To those of you who contributed, I appreciate your respectfulness and tolerance for a different point of view. It's important to me that my friends and loved ones on the opposing side understand why I would vote Yes on something that appears to be advocated mostly by religious zealots or extreme conservatives. And I would hate to think that- on any level- anyone might believe that I would ever remotely desire to discriminate or demean another human being.
I'm extremely uncomfortable with most of the arguments advocating Prop 8. I neither fear nor feel threatened by the increase of understanding and advocacy laws for gay unions. In fact, I am a proponent of such education. I think educating children is the best way to begin an accepting and understanding atmosphere for the future. I also feel that it needs to be recognized that there is a great deal of intolerance and cruelty toward those who are religious, conservative, or supportive of traditional marriage and family. Rather than feeling threatened or fearing one another, I think the best thing to do in such a difficult argument is to remove emotions and consider the legal consequences if Proposition 8 does not pass.
The major points on this Prop 8 website were what truly resonated with me. http://whatisprop8.com/ That is- politically, legally and financially- there are negative consequences if Prop 8 fails which will discriminate and legally create religious intolerance within our country.
To those of you who suggest I am intolerant, discriminatory or ignorant; you don't know me. Those who do know me, know that I support, love and respect others- even when they live by standards different from my own. I wrote about my own expectations within my religious institution and remind you that even I - a faithful and active Mormon- would be denied marriage in the sacred temple if I chose not to live according to the spiritual laws and doctrines of our faith. I don't consider this discrimination. It is my choice to live worthily to enter the House of the Lord or to not. To those of you who are not religious, suggesting that "sin" suddenly means one is looked upon as "less than" and therefore discriminated against or looked down upon or unwelcome in a church, is simply misguided. I wouldn't go to church if that's how I felt, either! (In fact, it was Christ who said, "They who are whole need not a physician," (Matthew 9:12) According to my faith, if we did not all sin, there would be no need for a Savior and therefore, no Christianity. We all sin; so to look down on another is ridiculous- the most we can do is love and accept one another and allow the Lord to make us whole.) Since this is becoming largely recognized as a political stand the Mormon faith has become affiliated with, as a faithful Mormon in good standing, I would like to be one to stand up and say that not everyone (and in fact the majority) advocating this proposition are not doing it to be discriminatory, nor to inflict fear or homophobia into the world. Personally, I've have had trouble aligning myself with a side which touts points I find to be completely irrelevant and even officious (what's so wrong about teaching children about gay marriage? Of COURSE gay unions are to be respected as traditional marriage!) However, when I hear my church leaders speak about this issue, their advocacy of traditional marriage as a union between a man and a woman to create families comes from a place of such love and kindness and acceptance...It's just painful for me to think anyone could think I would vote yes for any other reason than to uphold the standards of my faith and protect the freedom of religion and free speech.
So far, most intolerant comments I've heard come not from the advocates of Prop 8, but from those who persecute people of faith. I know my friends who may disagree with my vote couldn't possibly think I would desire to put them in a position of defensiveness or discriminate against them- I simply ask that we understand that maybe each side may require a little more tolerance and a little more understanding.
I'm not trying to change anyone's vote. I'm just trying to make mine understood by those whom I love.
Peace.
-Farrah.
Seriously.
I so appreciate having a thoughtful, sincere and articulate conversation about an issue which most people discard with intolerant, impassioned remarks, with now real concern for mutual understanding or respect. I'm only sad I was out all day and missed the conversation as it happened! To those of you who contributed, I appreciate your respectfulness and tolerance for a different point of view. It's important to me that my friends and loved ones on the opposing side understand why I would vote Yes on something that appears to be advocated mostly by religious zealots or extreme conservatives. And I would hate to think that- on any level- anyone might believe that I would ever remotely desire to discriminate or demean another human being.
I'm extremely uncomfortable with most of the arguments advocating Prop 8. I neither fear nor feel threatened by the increase of understanding and advocacy laws for gay unions. In fact, I am a proponent of such education. I think educating children is the best way to begin an accepting and understanding atmosphere for the future. I also feel that it needs to be recognized that there is a great deal of intolerance and cruelty toward those who are religious, conservative, or supportive of traditional marriage and family. Rather than feeling threatened or fearing one another, I think the best thing to do in such a difficult argument is to remove emotions and consider the legal consequences if Proposition 8 does not pass.
The major points on this Prop 8 website were what truly resonated with me. http://whatisprop8.com/ That is- politically, legally and financially- there are negative consequences if Prop 8 fails which will discriminate and legally create religious intolerance within our country.
To those of you who suggest I am intolerant, discriminatory or ignorant; you don't know me. Those who do know me, know that I support, love and respect others- even when they live by standards different from my own. I wrote about my own expectations within my religious institution and remind you that even I - a faithful and active Mormon- would be denied marriage in the sacred temple if I chose not to live according to the spiritual laws and doctrines of our faith. I don't consider this discrimination. It is my choice to live worthily to enter the House of the Lord or to not. To those of you who are not religious, suggesting that "sin" suddenly means one is looked upon as "less than" and therefore discriminated against or looked down upon or unwelcome in a church, is simply misguided. I wouldn't go to church if that's how I felt, either! (In fact, it was Christ who said, "They who are whole need not a physician," (Matthew 9:12) According to my faith, if we did not all sin, there would be no need for a Savior and therefore, no Christianity. We all sin; so to look down on another is ridiculous- the most we can do is love and accept one another and allow the Lord to make us whole.) Since this is becoming largely recognized as a political stand the Mormon faith has become affiliated with, as a faithful Mormon in good standing, I would like to be one to stand up and say that not everyone (and in fact the majority) advocating this proposition are not doing it to be discriminatory, nor to inflict fear or homophobia into the world. Personally, I've have had trouble aligning myself with a side which touts points I find to be completely irrelevant and even officious (what's so wrong about teaching children about gay marriage? Of COURSE gay unions are to be respected as traditional marriage!) However, when I hear my church leaders speak about this issue, their advocacy of traditional marriage as a union between a man and a woman to create families comes from a place of such love and kindness and acceptance...It's just painful for me to think anyone could think I would vote yes for any other reason than to uphold the standards of my faith and protect the freedom of religion and free speech.
So far, most intolerant comments I've heard come not from the advocates of Prop 8, but from those who persecute people of faith. I know my friends who may disagree with my vote couldn't possibly think I would desire to put them in a position of defensiveness or discriminate against them- I simply ask that we understand that maybe each side may require a little more tolerance and a little more understanding.
I'm not trying to change anyone's vote. I'm just trying to make mine understood by those whom I love.
Peace.
-Farrah.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Better/Different?
Jordy,
To be quite frank, and I'd like to convey this with genuine respect for you as a person, and not come across as insulting in any way, but most of your arguments and justifications don't carry much weight. I understand that you've admitted to making generalizations, but since you made the statements to begin with, I feel an obligation to comment. Ok, here goes... :)
If men and women are so "fundamentally different", then why should there be an institution of marriage at all? I mean, as you said, ALL men obviously only want sex and have no coupling or familial instincts whatsoever, right? Do you really think that the men that do enter into a marriage only do so because they were forced into it, against their will? And, are you including yourself when you're talking about writing on walls of bathroom stalls? What about the women that can't curb their husband's sexual desires? What about the women whose sexual desires overpower those of their husband's? We can't start using faulty logic and passing judgment on individuals solely based on their gender or sex-drive. I'm sure you'll agree that not all men are pigs, and that not all women are angels... :)
I agree, monogamous couples are probably better for families, and children. In that case, should married couples be required to apply for a license to have children, or be required to stay together for the sake of the children or society's sake? would that mean that divorce should then be outlawed? In my opinion, that's going a little too far. It restricts our freedoms and allows government to get too entrenched in our personal lives and decisions... The black community is facing challenges due to the absence of fathers not because they're black, but because the fathers aren't taking responsibility for their actions. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're black. we need to get to the root of the problem and not try to pass judgement based on race or use flawed deductive reasoning.
In terms of straight couples having better "success" than gay couples, it may in fact be statistically accurate, but is that any reason to deny the right of marriage to a gay couple that DOES exhibit monogamy and commitment and wants to have a family? By your logic, we should also deny marriage to young, drunk college students that decide to get hitched in Vegas on a whim -- and all other relationships that are statistically destined to fail (i.e. celebrities)... We have to be careful not to use unsound deduction and pass judgement on whether or not a relationship or marriage will last. That becomes very risky and intrusive... The rights should be afforded to those that wish to exercise them. It's as simple as that. And in terms of a man and a woman, or a man and a man, it would be sexist to assume that one couple would last longer -- it depends on so many other factors besides gender. what i would put money on though is that the man and the man couple would have a lot more sex... ha! :)
Sure, men and women each offer unique things to children, but it's not our place to say that moms should teach children how to sew and cook, and that dads need to teach children how to throw a baseball and fish. Once again, it's sexist to make those types of assumptions. I'm sure that most gay couples with children make a concerted effort to expose their children to as many different types of familial relationships and roll models as possible -- whether they be men or women, straight or gay. A lot of single heterosexual mothers and fathers do the same, if they have time... And, with regard to Freud, I don't even know where to begin with that. It's a little off topic, but over the past several decades, Freudian psychology has dramatically affected American, mostly for the worse. If you're interested in seeing how pervasive and devastating Freudian psychology has been, and how it's been used by those in power to control the masses, check out the following fascinating BBC documentary series, "The Century of The Self": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151
Yes, admittedly so, you've made generalizations about gay and straight couples, and about men and women, but I think you're still not realizing that "separate but equal" is wrong, immoral, and unjust, no matter how you try to rationalize it. Just because odds are stacked against a certain group doesn't mean that they should be denied certain rights. As I said before, by that flawed logic, the same rights should then be denied to ALL couples that the odds are stacked against. Nobody is saying that anyone HAS to get married. It's simply an option, for those that believe that they're ready to enter into a committed, legally-recognized relationship. We don't live in a country where arranged marriages are the norm -- hopefully people get married because they want to, not because they have to. Once again, do you believe that my identical twin brother's relationship should be recognized by society under one institution, but my relationship be recognized under a separate, but "equal" institution? No, because that implies that the circumstances and quality of my relationship are different from that of my brother's. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to drink from a different water fountain, even if that water flows through the exact same pipes...
What are you so afraid of, honestly? Gay marriage won't affect your marriage, or ability to marry in the slightest. In fact, gay couples put an extreme amount of thought and planning into having a family (they have to, because they can't just "accidentally" get pregnant like straight couples can). Therefore, I'd be willing to say that gay couples could in fact provide more of an inspiration, and serve as societal models for how to plan ahead for taking on the serious responsibilities of having a family. But, it's NOT because they're gay that this could be the case. It's because emphasizing the importance of monogamy and commitment, planning ahead for having a family, exposing children to adult male and female role models, understanding the consequences of a divorce, and taking responsibility for one's actions are the RIGHT THINGS TO DO -- gay or straight, black or white, male or female... Right? :)
Peace and Love,
-Nathan
Hi,
After reading your arguments about gay men, Jordy, I felt speechless. I know whatever I say will not change your mind. However, I do need to say my peace because I know some on this list personally. It's easy for me to explain your motivation but your comments are extremely hurtful - to me and my friends.
After reading everything over and over, to me, your entire argument is based on the idea that gay people are different, perverted, and they are not to be treated equally.
Personally, I think the real issue here is fear - the fear of those that are gay. We need to get beyond our fears and stop fearing those that are different.
Being different inspires me. Yes, I wasn't born in the US. Yes, I look different. Yes, I have a different life style than most of you - heck I am hardly in the US these days. Yes, today I still face discrimination wherever I go. Yes, I have had people come up to me asking me to go back to my home country. But If prop 8 passes this year, I still know in my heart that we will keep on fighting and it's only a matter of time. Change is coming. To me, I don't want the next generation to be afraid of being who they are, beaten up because they are different, getting kicked out of the house because they are gay. I have had my shares of trying to help those kids. Enough is enough! I want my kids - your kids, to be treated equally, regardless of whether they are black, white, brown, yellow, gay, fat or ugly.
Anyhow, at the end of the day, Marriage is a commitment. Love is something that is a long hard road. If you don't want gay marriage, don't get married with a person of the same sex.
Yes, we can to justice and equality…
-Kang
To be quite frank, and I'd like to convey this with genuine respect for you as a person, and not come across as insulting in any way, but most of your arguments and justifications don't carry much weight. I understand that you've admitted to making generalizations, but since you made the statements to begin with, I feel an obligation to comment. Ok, here goes... :)
If men and women are so "fundamentally different", then why should there be an institution of marriage at all? I mean, as you said, ALL men obviously only want sex and have no coupling or familial instincts whatsoever, right? Do you really think that the men that do enter into a marriage only do so because they were forced into it, against their will? And, are you including yourself when you're talking about writing on walls of bathroom stalls? What about the women that can't curb their husband's sexual desires? What about the women whose sexual desires overpower those of their husband's? We can't start using faulty logic and passing judgment on individuals solely based on their gender or sex-drive. I'm sure you'll agree that not all men are pigs, and that not all women are angels... :)
I agree, monogamous couples are probably better for families, and children. In that case, should married couples be required to apply for a license to have children, or be required to stay together for the sake of the children or society's sake? would that mean that divorce should then be outlawed? In my opinion, that's going a little too far. It restricts our freedoms and allows government to get too entrenched in our personal lives and decisions... The black community is facing challenges due to the absence of fathers not because they're black, but because the fathers aren't taking responsibility for their actions. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're black. we need to get to the root of the problem and not try to pass judgement based on race or use flawed deductive reasoning.
In terms of straight couples having better "success" than gay couples, it may in fact be statistically accurate, but is that any reason to deny the right of marriage to a gay couple that DOES exhibit monogamy and commitment and wants to have a family? By your logic, we should also deny marriage to young, drunk college students that decide to get hitched in Vegas on a whim -- and all other relationships that are statistically destined to fail (i.e. celebrities)... We have to be careful not to use unsound deduction and pass judgement on whether or not a relationship or marriage will last. That becomes very risky and intrusive... The rights should be afforded to those that wish to exercise them. It's as simple as that. And in terms of a man and a woman, or a man and a man, it would be sexist to assume that one couple would last longer -- it depends on so many other factors besides gender. what i would put money on though is that the man and the man couple would have a lot more sex... ha! :)
Sure, men and women each offer unique things to children, but it's not our place to say that moms should teach children how to sew and cook, and that dads need to teach children how to throw a baseball and fish. Once again, it's sexist to make those types of assumptions. I'm sure that most gay couples with children make a concerted effort to expose their children to as many different types of familial relationships and roll models as possible -- whether they be men or women, straight or gay. A lot of single heterosexual mothers and fathers do the same, if they have time... And, with regard to Freud, I don't even know where to begin with that. It's a little off topic, but over the past several decades, Freudian psychology has dramatically affected American, mostly for the worse. If you're interested in seeing how pervasive and devastating Freudian psychology has been, and how it's been used by those in power to control the masses, check out the following fascinating BBC documentary series, "The Century of The Self": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151
Yes, admittedly so, you've made generalizations about gay and straight couples, and about men and women, but I think you're still not realizing that "separate but equal" is wrong, immoral, and unjust, no matter how you try to rationalize it. Just because odds are stacked against a certain group doesn't mean that they should be denied certain rights. As I said before, by that flawed logic, the same rights should then be denied to ALL couples that the odds are stacked against. Nobody is saying that anyone HAS to get married. It's simply an option, for those that believe that they're ready to enter into a committed, legally-recognized relationship. We don't live in a country where arranged marriages are the norm -- hopefully people get married because they want to, not because they have to. Once again, do you believe that my identical twin brother's relationship should be recognized by society under one institution, but my relationship be recognized under a separate, but "equal" institution? No, because that implies that the circumstances and quality of my relationship are different from that of my brother's. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to drink from a different water fountain, even if that water flows through the exact same pipes...
What are you so afraid of, honestly? Gay marriage won't affect your marriage, or ability to marry in the slightest. In fact, gay couples put an extreme amount of thought and planning into having a family (they have to, because they can't just "accidentally" get pregnant like straight couples can). Therefore, I'd be willing to say that gay couples could in fact provide more of an inspiration, and serve as societal models for how to plan ahead for taking on the serious responsibilities of having a family. But, it's NOT because they're gay that this could be the case. It's because emphasizing the importance of monogamy and commitment, planning ahead for having a family, exposing children to adult male and female role models, understanding the consequences of a divorce, and taking responsibility for one's actions are the RIGHT THINGS TO DO -- gay or straight, black or white, male or female... Right? :)
Peace and Love,
-Nathan
Hi,
After reading your arguments about gay men, Jordy, I felt speechless. I know whatever I say will not change your mind. However, I do need to say my peace because I know some on this list personally. It's easy for me to explain your motivation but your comments are extremely hurtful - to me and my friends.
After reading everything over and over, to me, your entire argument is based on the idea that gay people are different, perverted, and they are not to be treated equally.
Personally, I think the real issue here is fear - the fear of those that are gay. We need to get beyond our fears and stop fearing those that are different.
Being different inspires me. Yes, I wasn't born in the US. Yes, I look different. Yes, I have a different life style than most of you - heck I am hardly in the US these days. Yes, today I still face discrimination wherever I go. Yes, I have had people come up to me asking me to go back to my home country. But If prop 8 passes this year, I still know in my heart that we will keep on fighting and it's only a matter of time. Change is coming. To me, I don't want the next generation to be afraid of being who they are, beaten up because they are different, getting kicked out of the house because they are gay. I have had my shares of trying to help those kids. Enough is enough! I want my kids - your kids, to be treated equally, regardless of whether they are black, white, brown, yellow, gay, fat or ugly.
Anyhow, at the end of the day, Marriage is a commitment. Love is something that is a long hard road. If you don't want gay marriage, don't get married with a person of the same sex.
Yes, we can to justice and equality…
-Kang
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Facts and Faith-
To all who are reading or contributing to this thread - I just want to say I've rarely seen such eloquent, respectful and factual discussions over such a heated topic before - on e-mail no less. This is truly great, a class act, and we are all doing our part in bringing about clarity. As for me, I fully own my belief that gay couples should be treated with respect and dignity and should have equal legal rights - nobody can minimize that for me. At the same time, I admit both Leslie and Nathan have valid points. Am I saying equal rights or unequal? I can't have it both ways.
Let me ask this: Given that gay couples in Cali already have the same legal rights as straight couples do, isn't the crux of this conflict about the symbolism of marriage? That seemingly tiny but in reality defining (or redefining) moment in our society?I believe most proponents of gay marriage see this redefinition as an unprecedented proclamation that it is no better for members of a society to marry those of the opposite sex than it is the same sex. Either way is identical, equal; there is zero difference.
I believe most opponents of gay marriage say no - as a society, gay and straight marriage is actually not equal. Straight marriage is better for society than is gay marriage.I submit that it boils down to that difference. And it is in that context that it makes sense for me to say - disagree as you will - that gay couples deserve legal rights, respect, rights to adoption, encouragement of monogamy, and similar but that we should and must also keep opposite-sex marriage as special with its unique designation; marriage.
If I were going only by compassion, and Kira gave a compelling argument for compassion among other things - I would say yes, gay couples who have fought for equality and acceptance should be granted it. But I must also consider society and how we influence it with our laws and thus our values.
A quick defense of straight marriage as better for society and deserving of a unique designation. I do not think any honest person can disagree with the answers to the below questions, though I can understand the disagreement with the conclusion:
- Are men and women fundamentally different? It is so obvious the answer is yes, by so many measures. Just as it relates to sex, look at a men's restroom wall virus a women's? Look at porn use by men versus women, romance novels read by men versus women.
- Are monogamous couples better for families and thus for society than broken couples?Yes. Children can suffer tremendously from broken households where mother and father aren't present. The Black community, for example, is facing horrific challenges due to the absence of fathers.
- Do straight couples have better success rates than gay couples?Yes, absolutely. Among the reasons is surely societal pressure on gay men, but much of it also goes to my first point - men are more sexual than women. Women tend to hold relationships together and balance men's sex drive. Seriously, honestly: A woman and a man; a man and a man - which do you put your money on lasting?
- Do men and women each offer unique and important things to children?Of course. Freud and so many others acknowledge children's development processes, male and female, as being shaped by both men and women.
All of the above is *general.* The fact that straight couples can be horrible parents, gay couples can be amazing parents, that there are so many unwanted children who need homes; all of this and other reasons are why I support gay civil unions and equal legal rights. But the odds are stacked more in favor of straight couples than gay couples to create solid families. And solid families are the foundation of society. Thus, the importance to society for keeping same-sex marriage as its special designation. I appreciate you listening and granting my viewpoints respect on this forum.
Thanks, everyone.
Jordy
Let me ask this: Given that gay couples in Cali already have the same legal rights as straight couples do, isn't the crux of this conflict about the symbolism of marriage? That seemingly tiny but in reality defining (or redefining) moment in our society?I believe most proponents of gay marriage see this redefinition as an unprecedented proclamation that it is no better for members of a society to marry those of the opposite sex than it is the same sex. Either way is identical, equal; there is zero difference.
I believe most opponents of gay marriage say no - as a society, gay and straight marriage is actually not equal. Straight marriage is better for society than is gay marriage.I submit that it boils down to that difference. And it is in that context that it makes sense for me to say - disagree as you will - that gay couples deserve legal rights, respect, rights to adoption, encouragement of monogamy, and similar but that we should and must also keep opposite-sex marriage as special with its unique designation; marriage.
If I were going only by compassion, and Kira gave a compelling argument for compassion among other things - I would say yes, gay couples who have fought for equality and acceptance should be granted it. But I must also consider society and how we influence it with our laws and thus our values.
A quick defense of straight marriage as better for society and deserving of a unique designation. I do not think any honest person can disagree with the answers to the below questions, though I can understand the disagreement with the conclusion:
- Are men and women fundamentally different? It is so obvious the answer is yes, by so many measures. Just as it relates to sex, look at a men's restroom wall virus a women's? Look at porn use by men versus women, romance novels read by men versus women.
- Are monogamous couples better for families and thus for society than broken couples?Yes. Children can suffer tremendously from broken households where mother and father aren't present. The Black community, for example, is facing horrific challenges due to the absence of fathers.
- Do straight couples have better success rates than gay couples?Yes, absolutely. Among the reasons is surely societal pressure on gay men, but much of it also goes to my first point - men are more sexual than women. Women tend to hold relationships together and balance men's sex drive. Seriously, honestly: A woman and a man; a man and a man - which do you put your money on lasting?
- Do men and women each offer unique and important things to children?Of course. Freud and so many others acknowledge children's development processes, male and female, as being shaped by both men and women.
All of the above is *general.* The fact that straight couples can be horrible parents, gay couples can be amazing parents, that there are so many unwanted children who need homes; all of this and other reasons are why I support gay civil unions and equal legal rights. But the odds are stacked more in favor of straight couples than gay couples to create solid families. And solid families are the foundation of society. Thus, the importance to society for keeping same-sex marriage as its special designation. I appreciate you listening and granting my viewpoints respect on this forum.
Thanks, everyone.
Jordy
Power and Fear-
Power does not always corrupt. Fear corrupts…mostly the fear of a loss of power over others. Enslave no one. Vote No on 8.
-Thomas
i'd also like to applaud farrah for speaking out about her beliefs, to what is no doubt a largely hostile audience. i didn't feel like her arguments were terribly clear to me (maybe because i can't get past the idea that someone can really love a person and still want them to be denied the right to do what makes them happy) but i do find it admirable that she took the opportunity to open the issue up for discussion. was is voltaire who said he may not agree with what you said, but he'd defend to the death your right to say it? yeah, me, too.
i listened to a radio discussion on the topic the other day. it was on the local npr affiliate, kqed, and it was a debate between the pro and con sides for prop 8. the speaker in favor of proposition 8 (a gentleman from an organization called catholics for the common good) brought up similar issues to the ones farrah addressed - namely the fear that people would have their right to be haters abridged (freedom of speech), and he also addressed the concern of churches being forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples who might get their gayness inside the pristine religious houses (freedom of religion.) icky!
the woman who spoke against proposition 8, kate kendell (executive director of the national center for lesbian rights and member of the executive committee of the "no on 8" campaign) said, on the air, that if anyone was aware of such a lawsuit being brought against a church, her organization would represent the aggrieved church in the lawsuit, because that is NOT what the law provides for, nor is it what we are in store for if prop 8 passes. if a spokesperson for the anti-8 campaign was willing to offer her obviously gay-centered legal firm's help to any church that experienced reverse discrimination as a result of prop 8 being defeated, i find it hard to imagine that this is a real issue. it seems like a classic bait and switch, where one part of an issue is highlighted so no one pays attention to another, less savory, more sticky part.
by trying to reframe this proposition as a religious freedom issue or a freedom of speech issue, people who are juggling faith and the reality of living in a modern world are allowed to make decisions they can justify, rather than admitting they just believe that gay people, while often nice and lovely people, are also wrong and their lifestyles are morally reprehensible. love them at parties, doing my hair, on tv, but not in my church or my afterlife! in the modern world, where being gay is certainly more acceptable than it has been in previous times, it isn't possible to run a campaign with the message "i'm so sorry, but you're an abomination and god is going to punish you!" so we get the more snappy and "sexy" idea of free speech and freedom of religion and the super vague idea of protecting "traditional family values." (what are those, exactly? overworked alcoholic dads who are absent from their children's lives? moms who define their worth by the success of their children, while having no interests or passions of their own? how does adoption factor into that? what about a few families living together in the same house? is it only 2 opposite sex parents with some kids? does the tradition include being a happy household, or is that negotiable? traditions change. why can't we change our idea of a traditional family to mean a household filled with people who love and respect each other?)
no one is trying to keep religious people from tsking over the eternal damnation of people who "choose" to be gay. and, all snarkiness aside, i can really understand how hard it would be to reconcile a religion that clearly tells you what to think about a class of people with your own experiences of those people. i fully respect religious faith as a valid and important foundation for some people to make their decisions from. i find blindly following a religion that runs contrary to your own feelings (love gays but hate their gayness because god told me to) to be difficult to swallow and morally icky TO ME, but i don't disdain anyone for making decisions based on what their faith leads them to.
but the defeat of this proposition isn't going to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do, aside from allowing a large group of people do something that makes them happy, and will hurt NO ONE. if two consenting adults want to get married, it's not really any of your business, anymore than it's my business what you do in your church. if i don't like it, i can stay away, and so can you. truly, it doesn't matter how lovely the separate types of union are - it doesn't matter how many rights they afford to gay couples in their domestic partnership or how much people try to play up that it's just as good. what matters is that you're saying "THIS union is only for us, not you." if it's so great, how about we abolish marriage altogether and have EVERYONE get awesome, fair, just-as-good civil unions?
abridging the rights of people for less hateful reasons than the other guy still results in the same thing. you are literally taking rights away that have already been given. that has never happened before. you're not preventing something that might happen, you're saying "yeah, that thing you really wanted, and fought really hard for, for a long time, and then finally got? oh, yeah, you can't have that anymore." imagine trying to defend doing the same thing to a person of another race. or someone who is disabled.
i would like to applaud nathan for his diplomacy and strongly encourage anyone concerned about freedom of speech and/or religion issues to check the website he included (http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction) because it addresses point for point every concern you guys brought up. it's a shame that this thing might pass because people are being fed false information and aren't clear on the facts.
sincerely,
kira
-Thomas
i'd also like to applaud farrah for speaking out about her beliefs, to what is no doubt a largely hostile audience. i didn't feel like her arguments were terribly clear to me (maybe because i can't get past the idea that someone can really love a person and still want them to be denied the right to do what makes them happy) but i do find it admirable that she took the opportunity to open the issue up for discussion. was is voltaire who said he may not agree with what you said, but he'd defend to the death your right to say it? yeah, me, too.
i listened to a radio discussion on the topic the other day. it was on the local npr affiliate, kqed, and it was a debate between the pro and con sides for prop 8. the speaker in favor of proposition 8 (a gentleman from an organization called catholics for the common good) brought up similar issues to the ones farrah addressed - namely the fear that people would have their right to be haters abridged (freedom of speech), and he also addressed the concern of churches being forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples who might get their gayness inside the pristine religious houses (freedom of religion.) icky!
the woman who spoke against proposition 8, kate kendell (executive director of the national center for lesbian rights and member of the executive committee of the "no on 8" campaign) said, on the air, that if anyone was aware of such a lawsuit being brought against a church, her organization would represent the aggrieved church in the lawsuit, because that is NOT what the law provides for, nor is it what we are in store for if prop 8 passes. if a spokesperson for the anti-8 campaign was willing to offer her obviously gay-centered legal firm's help to any church that experienced reverse discrimination as a result of prop 8 being defeated, i find it hard to imagine that this is a real issue. it seems like a classic bait and switch, where one part of an issue is highlighted so no one pays attention to another, less savory, more sticky part.
by trying to reframe this proposition as a religious freedom issue or a freedom of speech issue, people who are juggling faith and the reality of living in a modern world are allowed to make decisions they can justify, rather than admitting they just believe that gay people, while often nice and lovely people, are also wrong and their lifestyles are morally reprehensible. love them at parties, doing my hair, on tv, but not in my church or my afterlife! in the modern world, where being gay is certainly more acceptable than it has been in previous times, it isn't possible to run a campaign with the message "i'm so sorry, but you're an abomination and god is going to punish you!" so we get the more snappy and "sexy" idea of free speech and freedom of religion and the super vague idea of protecting "traditional family values." (what are those, exactly? overworked alcoholic dads who are absent from their children's lives? moms who define their worth by the success of their children, while having no interests or passions of their own? how does adoption factor into that? what about a few families living together in the same house? is it only 2 opposite sex parents with some kids? does the tradition include being a happy household, or is that negotiable? traditions change. why can't we change our idea of a traditional family to mean a household filled with people who love and respect each other?)
no one is trying to keep religious people from tsking over the eternal damnation of people who "choose" to be gay. and, all snarkiness aside, i can really understand how hard it would be to reconcile a religion that clearly tells you what to think about a class of people with your own experiences of those people. i fully respect religious faith as a valid and important foundation for some people to make their decisions from. i find blindly following a religion that runs contrary to your own feelings (love gays but hate their gayness because god told me to) to be difficult to swallow and morally icky TO ME, but i don't disdain anyone for making decisions based on what their faith leads them to.
but the defeat of this proposition isn't going to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do, aside from allowing a large group of people do something that makes them happy, and will hurt NO ONE. if two consenting adults want to get married, it's not really any of your business, anymore than it's my business what you do in your church. if i don't like it, i can stay away, and so can you. truly, it doesn't matter how lovely the separate types of union are - it doesn't matter how many rights they afford to gay couples in their domestic partnership or how much people try to play up that it's just as good. what matters is that you're saying "THIS union is only for us, not you." if it's so great, how about we abolish marriage altogether and have EVERYONE get awesome, fair, just-as-good civil unions?
abridging the rights of people for less hateful reasons than the other guy still results in the same thing. you are literally taking rights away that have already been given. that has never happened before. you're not preventing something that might happen, you're saying "yeah, that thing you really wanted, and fought really hard for, for a long time, and then finally got? oh, yeah, you can't have that anymore." imagine trying to defend doing the same thing to a person of another race. or someone who is disabled.
i would like to applaud nathan for his diplomacy and strongly encourage anyone concerned about freedom of speech and/or religion issues to check the website he included (http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction) because it addresses point for point every concern you guys brought up. it's a shame that this thing might pass because people are being fed false information and aren't clear on the facts.
sincerely,
kira
Friday, October 31, 2008
"Seperate but Equal" Bigots-
Once again, I will ask -- Since when does religion have a monopoly on marriage? If you believe that the government, and society, should recognize a gay couple's union as "equal", then why create a separate institution? Separate but equal does not work, and it's wrong, no matter how you try to justify it. Did we not learn our lesson from when we tried to create separate but equal institutions when it came to race? It's ironic that the very people that are denying gays the right to marry are actually the ones doing WAY more harm to the "institution" of marriage. If marriage isn't extended to gay couples, a separate institution and label will be created, and there's no way that it will only be accessible to gays. Because right now, straight couples can form a domestic partnership, and I'm sure a lot of straight, non-religious couples will want to be "unioned" (or whatever they end up calling it besides "marriage"), because it's basically "marriage" minus the religious connotations. Sounds fantastic! :) I know my atheist, straight, identical twin brother would love to get "unioned" to his wife some day. :) So, you see, by not including gays, the institution of marriage will be fragmented and splintered. Maybe that's the way it should be? Because you know that even if there is a separate institution created, we're all still going to call it "marriage" anyway. Ha! :)
-Nathan
Again with the double-speak and convoluted logic. You can’t have it both ways as in “feel equal rights should be granted to same-sex couples” but unwilling to “redefine marriage”. If don’t believe gay people have the civil right to marry, you do not support equal rights. But keep on patting yourselves on the back for not being like those “bigots who support prop 8 out of hatred towards gays”. Seems like you keep throwing in a lot of that to make yourselves feel better about your vote.
-Leslie
And, in Farrah's defense, I don't think her logic is convoluted at all. It would actually be a valid concern in my opinion -- if it weren't COMPLETELY based on lies and misinformation.
-Nathan
Thanks for your response below. It’s an interesting POV, and I disagree with you completely for reasons similar to what Nathan laid out, but I’m proud of you for standing up for yourself. If Prop 8 passes, it will be a devastating blow to the overall gay rights movement nationally, and I don’t see how religious institutions are currently affected by the gay marriage law in effect in California. Gays will always be different from heteros, but the semantic insinuation that gay ‘marriage’ vs. ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ will help normalize gays in the eyes of straights. California enacting gay marriage is a small step forward in providing gays equal rights, as it puts pressure on other states to provide similar rights to gays (or in some cases limit the rights to gays in states that have already altered their state constitutions limiting marriage to be between a man and a woman), and puts pressure on the federal government to consider doing the same at some point.
I could go on and on, but I plead with you to reconsider your stance. If Prop 8 passes, I, Bradley Matthews, won’t have the right to get married in California…so throw an old friend a bone.
-Bradley
Perhaps convoluted logic is not the correct term. But it seems to me that there is some twisting around of who is really being discriminated against. And justifications to separate out what Farrah and Jordy see as the Good Prop 8 Yessers from the Bad. (!!!!) However, a Yes on Prop 8 is a Yes on Prop 8, regardless of how one comes to that conclusion. The “I accept gay people but…..” argument doesn’t make the Yes vote bottom line inequality go down any better in my opinion. It will amend the California State Constitution in a way that will be very difficult to change. And it will continue to further divide us on our differences rather than recognize how we are all a blend of similarities and differences.
Thank you Nathan for providing facts.
-Leslie
-Nathan
Again with the double-speak and convoluted logic. You can’t have it both ways as in “feel equal rights should be granted to same-sex couples” but unwilling to “redefine marriage”. If don’t believe gay people have the civil right to marry, you do not support equal rights. But keep on patting yourselves on the back for not being like those “bigots who support prop 8 out of hatred towards gays”. Seems like you keep throwing in a lot of that to make yourselves feel better about your vote.
-Leslie
And, in Farrah's defense, I don't think her logic is convoluted at all. It would actually be a valid concern in my opinion -- if it weren't COMPLETELY based on lies and misinformation.
-Nathan
Thanks for your response below. It’s an interesting POV, and I disagree with you completely for reasons similar to what Nathan laid out, but I’m proud of you for standing up for yourself. If Prop 8 passes, it will be a devastating blow to the overall gay rights movement nationally, and I don’t see how religious institutions are currently affected by the gay marriage law in effect in California. Gays will always be different from heteros, but the semantic insinuation that gay ‘marriage’ vs. ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ will help normalize gays in the eyes of straights. California enacting gay marriage is a small step forward in providing gays equal rights, as it puts pressure on other states to provide similar rights to gays (or in some cases limit the rights to gays in states that have already altered their state constitutions limiting marriage to be between a man and a woman), and puts pressure on the federal government to consider doing the same at some point.
I could go on and on, but I plead with you to reconsider your stance. If Prop 8 passes, I, Bradley Matthews, won’t have the right to get married in California…so throw an old friend a bone.
-Bradley
Perhaps convoluted logic is not the correct term. But it seems to me that there is some twisting around of who is really being discriminated against. And justifications to separate out what Farrah and Jordy see as the Good Prop 8 Yessers from the Bad. (!!!!) However, a Yes on Prop 8 is a Yes on Prop 8, regardless of how one comes to that conclusion. The “I accept gay people but…..” argument doesn’t make the Yes vote bottom line inequality go down any better in my opinion. It will amend the California State Constitution in a way that will be very difficult to change. And it will continue to further divide us on our differences rather than recognize how we are all a blend of similarities and differences.
Thank you Nathan for providing facts.
-Leslie
Farrah,
I have some good news for you. You don't need to worry any longer, because you've been completely mislead and lied to -- common nefarious acts of the Yes on 8 campaign. I can understand your concern about freedom of religion, but nowhere does it say that religions will possibly face lawsuits if they decide to discriminate against gays. If you can find any documentation or proof to the contrary, PLEASE share it with the group. Since you won't be able to find any, you might want to post a link to this website on your blog -- it dispels all the myths about Proposition 8:
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Religions have, and will always have the right to discriminate and deny marrying anyone they want, including homosexual couples, without them increasing their risk of being sued. Yep, you've been lied to, and it's so unfortunate that you believed it because it's obvious that you're a really smart girl, but I'm concerned that people less intellectually gifted will fall victim to the lies even more easily. But, as they say, the truth will set you free...
Seriously think about it... Does it really make sense that the state would deny religions the right to discriminate? That would mean that two Catholics could sue a Mormon church for deciding to not marry them. Really??? Marriage and religion are not married. Since when does religion have a monopoly on marriage? I'll repeat myself -- Since when does religion have a monopoly on marriage? Two atheists can get married, and be legally recognized by the government as a married couple, right? I'm sure their marriage wouldn't hold up in most churches... but does that really matter? No, because it holds up in court. Like atheist couples, a gay couple simply wouldn't go to a church that doesn't recognize their marriage. In fact, they probably wouldn't go to a church at all. Imagine that -- marriage without a church! :)
Also, consider this: My identical twin brother is straight and I'm gay. We were raised by the same parents and have identical DNA. Why should I be denied the same rights that he's afforded?
With all due respect Farrah, if in fact you are an ardent supporter of gay rights, or civil rights in general, you should seriously reconsider your position because you've been straight-up lied to. And you wouldn't want a lie to be the reason you voted in favor of discrimination, would you?
-Nathan
I have some good news for you. You don't need to worry any longer, because you've been completely mislead and lied to -- common nefarious acts of the Yes on 8 campaign. I can understand your concern about freedom of religion, but nowhere does it say that religions will possibly face lawsuits if they decide to discriminate against gays. If you can find any documentation or proof to the contrary, PLEASE share it with the group. Since you won't be able to find any, you might want to post a link to this website on your blog -- it dispels all the myths about Proposition 8:
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Religions have, and will always have the right to discriminate and deny marrying anyone they want, including homosexual couples, without them increasing their risk of being sued. Yep, you've been lied to, and it's so unfortunate that you believed it because it's obvious that you're a really smart girl, but I'm concerned that people less intellectually gifted will fall victim to the lies even more easily. But, as they say, the truth will set you free...
Seriously think about it... Does it really make sense that the state would deny religions the right to discriminate? That would mean that two Catholics could sue a Mormon church for deciding to not marry them. Really??? Marriage and religion are not married. Since when does religion have a monopoly on marriage? I'll repeat myself -- Since when does religion have a monopoly on marriage? Two atheists can get married, and be legally recognized by the government as a married couple, right? I'm sure their marriage wouldn't hold up in most churches... but does that really matter? No, because it holds up in court. Like atheist couples, a gay couple simply wouldn't go to a church that doesn't recognize their marriage. In fact, they probably wouldn't go to a church at all. Imagine that -- marriage without a church! :)
Also, consider this: My identical twin brother is straight and I'm gay. We were raised by the same parents and have identical DNA. Why should I be denied the same rights that he's afforded?
With all due respect Farrah, if in fact you are an ardent supporter of gay rights, or civil rights in general, you should seriously reconsider your position because you've been straight-up lied to. And you wouldn't want a lie to be the reason you voted in favor of discrimination, would you?
-Nathan
The First Response-
I for one applaud Farrah for having the courage to state her opinion among a group I assume mostly disagrees with her, and furthermore to back her opinion with a well thought-out and compassionate argument. I did not find Farrah's argument convoluted at all, even though I've not personally validated them. There is even precedent mentioned in Canada and Boston to add strength to her argument, which any of us could look up.
As with intellectual discussion, nobody on here has to agree with Farrah. What we should strive for is clarity on where we disagree through respectful and elevated discourse such as this. This is democracy.
I support prop 8 as well. But I will add that I fully support same-sex couples who seal their relationships and make them sacred and monogomous as married straight couples do. I fully support equal legal rights, including adoption. California, fortunately, already grants domestic partner registration and it absolutely should. (For those who know me, you know I may someday make use of domestic partnership registration myself.) But I do stop short of redefining marriage.
I understand Bradley and others being scared shitless by this. For those bigots who support prop 8 out of hatred towards gays, I have nothing but hate right back at them. I hope it makes it a little less scary to know that a majority of people in this country (according to past polls I've seen) feel equal rights should be granted to same-sex couples, i.e. these people are not coming from a place of hate. They are just unwilling for various reasons, like Farrah and me, to redefine marriage.
Jordy
As with intellectual discussion, nobody on here has to agree with Farrah. What we should strive for is clarity on where we disagree through respectful and elevated discourse such as this. This is democracy.
I support prop 8 as well. But I will add that I fully support same-sex couples who seal their relationships and make them sacred and monogomous as married straight couples do. I fully support equal legal rights, including adoption. California, fortunately, already grants domestic partner registration and it absolutely should. (For those who know me, you know I may someday make use of domestic partnership registration myself.) But I do stop short of redefining marriage.
I understand Bradley and others being scared shitless by this. For those bigots who support prop 8 out of hatred towards gays, I have nothing but hate right back at them. I hope it makes it a little less scary to know that a majority of people in this country (according to past polls I've seen) feel equal rights should be granted to same-sex couples, i.e. these people are not coming from a place of hate. They are just unwilling for various reasons, like Farrah and me, to redefine marriage.
Jordy
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Introduction to Group:
Recently a dear friend of mine emailed a plea to his closest friends and family, begging for us to vote NO on Prop 8. In response, I emailed what you read the other day on my reasons for advocating Prop 8 (Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech). From my response came a discussion I found enlightening, thought-provoking and genuinely constructive in nature. I asked the group if it would be alright to share their comments.
Please feel free to add constructive and thoughtful, factual comments as we elaborate this discussion and grow in respect and understanding for one another.
Thanks.
-f.
Please feel free to add constructive and thoughtful, factual comments as we elaborate this discussion and grow in respect and understanding for one another.
Thanks.
-f.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Like a Dead Horse-
When I first heard of Proposition 8, I was deeply offended and shocked that not everyone viewed this clearly as a human rights issue. If you were to ask my opinion of the definition of marriage; marriage in this country is a joke. With a growing 50% divorce rate and most people not even bothering to be wed before moving in or having children, marriage has become a societal JOKE. Additionally, with the rampant report and unreported incidents and habitual forms of physical, mental and spiritual abuse within the home, abandonment and abuse of children and spouses, the definition of FAMILY seems to have become nothing more than a traditional philosophy more than an actual, respected practice within the United States. At this point in our county's history, if ANYONE desires to commit themselves to fidelity, financial responsibility and family to another, I am all for it. It's great to know there are still people who WANT to take responsibility for one another.
I have prayed, fasted and spent many hours wrestling with the concept of supporting Prop 8. In my desire to understand the proponent's side, I even attended meetings to discuss the Proposition and in attempts to be helpful and prepare the proponents for concerns and sensitivities the opposing side might have, I ended up being personally attacked and scorned. Even though I had already said that- for my own personal reasons- I was choosing to support the campaign! But because I was sensitive to certain phrases or points that I felt expressed fear or ignorance, I became the enemy among my own constituents! I left feeling sick that I would actually CHOOSE to align myself with those who supported the Proposition that would hold such ignorant and insensitive perspectives. But I pressed on with the knowledge that certain individuals, as offensive as I might find their views, were just trying to do what they felt was right.
Personally, I'm not threatened by same-sex unions. As I told one of my best friends who is homosexual, I WANT my children to know him- I want my children to recognize him as part of my family. And certainly, when he finds someone he wants to commit the rest of his life to, I will absolutely support him. I have a great love for my friends, several of whom are gay, and I am delighted when they find someone who loves and believes and trusts in them enough to want to form a commitment and form a family together.
So why am I voting for Proposition 8?
My support of commitment and gay marriage aside, the implications of what Proposition 8 will do to affect Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech is what concerns me. There are much deeper issues present than the ones which are easily and simplistically conveyed through the various emotionally charged propaganda from both sides on TV. The fact is, Prop 8 does not ask to take away any of the rights gay couples have to commitment; unfortunately (as we saw in the 60s and 70s Housing Discrimination Act) the failure to follow up and prosecute those not upholding the laws and rights of gay unions are what's holding us back. Until we have lawyers and individuals tenacious enough to demand that their existing rights be enforced, there will be discrimination. However, concerning Prop 8, those rights ARE there.
As for my opinions on Human Rights, when an individuals rights seemingly come in conflict with Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, I'm going to have to rule with the latter two. Let me give an example: I am Mormon. It is my goal to be married in the sacred temple. However, merely a desire to be married in the House of God is not enough; I must abide by certain laws of the church and if I choose not to live according to those doctrines (the Word of Wisdom, sexual purity and morality, the Law of Tithe, etc.), I should not expect nor demand to enter the sacred ordinance of marriage in the temple. As a practicing Mormon in good standing with the church, I accept this as my choice to live in accordance with God's laws in order to be found worthy to enter the sacred temple. However, should Prop 8 fail and a homosexual couple approach the temple and request a marriage ceremony and they are refused- all of a sudden, that denial can be LEGALLY interpreted as discrimination and the entire worldwide church can be sued. The same will go for other churches whose doctrines denote that homosexuality is a sin and not in accordance with their spiritual laws; should the church deny the right of marriage to those who (under the SPIRITUAL law) are found unworthy, they can legally be held for discrimination practice and will be forced to either change the doctrine of their church, or close their doors. No matter that there are plenty of other denominations who DO support and perform gay marriages; if Prop 8 fails and you approach a church which does not condone homosexual practice, that church will be forced to conform to a government law over their spiritual laws and the church has now become subject to the government. Separation of church and state is typically considered a safety for the churches to not dictate government law, but what are we suggesting if we allow the government to create new doctrines for the church contrary to their beliefs? Furthermore, churches and non-profits who do not condone homosexual practice or marriage would legally be liable to lose their tax-exempt status if they choose not to modify their spiritual laws to the laws of government. Churches, adoption agencies and private schools in Boston and Canada have already chosen to close their doors, rather than alter their fundamental spiritual doctrine of recognizing marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Likewise, while I fully expect to educate and introduce my own children to my homosexual couple friends and do not fear nor find offense on this discussion in their classroom, I do not think that forcing private or religious educational institutions to teach something outside of their practice or doctrine is acceptable for the government to dictate. Nor do I think those private/religious institutions should be expected to either/or the situation; either teach homosexual practice in the classroom or be found guilty of discrimination and close your doors. If people CHOOSE to have their children in a private school, they have the right to dictate what is taught there- be it creationism or marriage between a man and a woman only. If you don't like the idea of that, don't send your kid to a private Catholic school. Furthermore, should Prop 8 fail and parents, teachers or religious institutions uphold standards of traditional family values (as in marriage between a man and a woman), they can legally be found guilty of performing hate speech and speaking up for traditional family values suddenly becomes a hate crime.
While I am very much an advocate for equal rights, human rights and civil rights, I am also very aware that our actions all have consequences. And that when human rights have the potential to discriminate and persecute Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech- two primary principles our country was founded for- I must say; there is a better way. Let's increase the awareness and enforce the laws of civil unions we currently have and hold our government to the promises that were made to protect homosexual couples from discrimination NOW, without persecuting those who have traditional values and who are not discriminating, but living according to their eternal spiritual laws.
And on this note, let me be clear: If you are a proponent of Proposition 8 for ANY OTHER REASON than because you want to stand up for Religious Freedom and tolerance for traditional family values, if your stake in this is to persecute the homosexual community or to throw fear or hate into our churches, schools or community, PLEASE; DO NOT ALIGN YOURSELF WITH ME. I would rather stand alone in my declaration to support Proposition 8, than to have the support of those who are doing this for evil, ignorant or discriminatory reasons. Please. If you support Proposition 8, I ask that you do it with love and the understanding that this is to uphold traditional family values, not persecution of those who are different from you. Likewise for those who do not support Proposition 8, we need to prevent the persecution of traditional family values and increase our love and tolerance for those who may uphold values different from our own with the understanding that they are simply trying to live their standards in accordance with their own values. That neither of us is a threat to the other, but that we all deserve a little more understanding and a little more kindness.
Please, I ask that you forward this to your friends, family, re-post this article as much as you like. I'm not saying everyone needs to agree; I'm just asking that we try a little better to accept and understand one another. Please remember to vote November 4th.
Peace.
-f.
I have prayed, fasted and spent many hours wrestling with the concept of supporting Prop 8. In my desire to understand the proponent's side, I even attended meetings to discuss the Proposition and in attempts to be helpful and prepare the proponents for concerns and sensitivities the opposing side might have, I ended up being personally attacked and scorned. Even though I had already said that- for my own personal reasons- I was choosing to support the campaign! But because I was sensitive to certain phrases or points that I felt expressed fear or ignorance, I became the enemy among my own constituents! I left feeling sick that I would actually CHOOSE to align myself with those who supported the Proposition that would hold such ignorant and insensitive perspectives. But I pressed on with the knowledge that certain individuals, as offensive as I might find their views, were just trying to do what they felt was right.
Personally, I'm not threatened by same-sex unions. As I told one of my best friends who is homosexual, I WANT my children to know him- I want my children to recognize him as part of my family. And certainly, when he finds someone he wants to commit the rest of his life to, I will absolutely support him. I have a great love for my friends, several of whom are gay, and I am delighted when they find someone who loves and believes and trusts in them enough to want to form a commitment and form a family together.
So why am I voting for Proposition 8?
My support of commitment and gay marriage aside, the implications of what Proposition 8 will do to affect Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech is what concerns me. There are much deeper issues present than the ones which are easily and simplistically conveyed through the various emotionally charged propaganda from both sides on TV. The fact is, Prop 8 does not ask to take away any of the rights gay couples have to commitment; unfortunately (as we saw in the 60s and 70s Housing Discrimination Act) the failure to follow up and prosecute those not upholding the laws and rights of gay unions are what's holding us back. Until we have lawyers and individuals tenacious enough to demand that their existing rights be enforced, there will be discrimination. However, concerning Prop 8, those rights ARE there.
As for my opinions on Human Rights, when an individuals rights seemingly come in conflict with Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, I'm going to have to rule with the latter two. Let me give an example: I am Mormon. It is my goal to be married in the sacred temple. However, merely a desire to be married in the House of God is not enough; I must abide by certain laws of the church and if I choose not to live according to those doctrines (the Word of Wisdom, sexual purity and morality, the Law of Tithe, etc.), I should not expect nor demand to enter the sacred ordinance of marriage in the temple. As a practicing Mormon in good standing with the church, I accept this as my choice to live in accordance with God's laws in order to be found worthy to enter the sacred temple. However, should Prop 8 fail and a homosexual couple approach the temple and request a marriage ceremony and they are refused- all of a sudden, that denial can be LEGALLY interpreted as discrimination and the entire worldwide church can be sued. The same will go for other churches whose doctrines denote that homosexuality is a sin and not in accordance with their spiritual laws; should the church deny the right of marriage to those who (under the SPIRITUAL law) are found unworthy, they can legally be held for discrimination practice and will be forced to either change the doctrine of their church, or close their doors. No matter that there are plenty of other denominations who DO support and perform gay marriages; if Prop 8 fails and you approach a church which does not condone homosexual practice, that church will be forced to conform to a government law over their spiritual laws and the church has now become subject to the government. Separation of church and state is typically considered a safety for the churches to not dictate government law, but what are we suggesting if we allow the government to create new doctrines for the church contrary to their beliefs? Furthermore, churches and non-profits who do not condone homosexual practice or marriage would legally be liable to lose their tax-exempt status if they choose not to modify their spiritual laws to the laws of government. Churches, adoption agencies and private schools in Boston and Canada have already chosen to close their doors, rather than alter their fundamental spiritual doctrine of recognizing marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.
Likewise, while I fully expect to educate and introduce my own children to my homosexual couple friends and do not fear nor find offense on this discussion in their classroom, I do not think that forcing private or religious educational institutions to teach something outside of their practice or doctrine is acceptable for the government to dictate. Nor do I think those private/religious institutions should be expected to either/or the situation; either teach homosexual practice in the classroom or be found guilty of discrimination and close your doors. If people CHOOSE to have their children in a private school, they have the right to dictate what is taught there- be it creationism or marriage between a man and a woman only. If you don't like the idea of that, don't send your kid to a private Catholic school. Furthermore, should Prop 8 fail and parents, teachers or religious institutions uphold standards of traditional family values (as in marriage between a man and a woman), they can legally be found guilty of performing hate speech and speaking up for traditional family values suddenly becomes a hate crime.
While I am very much an advocate for equal rights, human rights and civil rights, I am also very aware that our actions all have consequences. And that when human rights have the potential to discriminate and persecute Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech- two primary principles our country was founded for- I must say; there is a better way. Let's increase the awareness and enforce the laws of civil unions we currently have and hold our government to the promises that were made to protect homosexual couples from discrimination NOW, without persecuting those who have traditional values and who are not discriminating, but living according to their eternal spiritual laws.
And on this note, let me be clear: If you are a proponent of Proposition 8 for ANY OTHER REASON than because you want to stand up for Religious Freedom and tolerance for traditional family values, if your stake in this is to persecute the homosexual community or to throw fear or hate into our churches, schools or community, PLEASE; DO NOT ALIGN YOURSELF WITH ME. I would rather stand alone in my declaration to support Proposition 8, than to have the support of those who are doing this for evil, ignorant or discriminatory reasons. Please. If you support Proposition 8, I ask that you do it with love and the understanding that this is to uphold traditional family values, not persecution of those who are different from you. Likewise for those who do not support Proposition 8, we need to prevent the persecution of traditional family values and increase our love and tolerance for those who may uphold values different from our own with the understanding that they are simply trying to live their standards in accordance with their own values. That neither of us is a threat to the other, but that we all deserve a little more understanding and a little more kindness.
Please, I ask that you forward this to your friends, family, re-post this article as much as you like. I'm not saying everyone needs to agree; I'm just asking that we try a little better to accept and understand one another. Please remember to vote November 4th.
Peace.
-f.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Janice Dickinson is Thin.
Janice Dickinson is insane.
This is not a shocking statement. What IS shocking is how she gets away with being cruel, humiliating and an all around harpie. She has her own tv show about models and she just yelled at a model for being "fat." "Fat," meaning she isn't starving herself anymore or living in the gym. The young model explained that she's more interested
in being healthy this year, and that she wasn't happy making herself hungry. Janice flew into a rage (probably because SHE hasn't eaten anything since 1972) and forced her teen model to trade skirts. "If you can fit into my size 4 skirt, I'll eat my #&*$% words."
in being healthy this year, and that she wasn't happy making herself hungry. Janice flew into a rage (probably because SHE hasn't eaten anything since 1972) and forced her teen model to trade skirts. "If you can fit into my size 4 skirt, I'll eat my #&*$% words." Dramatic Pause. (In this dramatic pause, I'd like to insert that I don't look terribly thin, and even I am a size 4. So I don't know what this woman is talking about. The girl was hardly fat. She simply looked HEALTHY.)
The model fit.
Janice, shocked, ate her words. Figuratively, of course. I don't think she'd be bothered to actually EAT anything (especially after that rant).
My question is, as I see these beautiful people clinging to their most personal parts, crying and mumbling, "I'm not fat, I'm not fat..." I'm wondering how- in this day and age- verbal harassment and physical abuse works in the professional world- or any world at all! Now, I'm not going to attack Ms Dickinson's physical appearance. That would be far too easy. But forcing a bunch of tweens to pose nude for a senior citizen's art class...somehow I doubt that has anything to do with booking them a shoot and more to do with the fact that Janice's ratings probably required showing blurred body parts of young, beautiful people squirming self-consciously before the geriatrics.
Further, the boasting and bravado Janice has for herself and her work is so inflated, it absolutely reeks of desperation. She continually touts the "well-known"ness of various magazine's she's booking for, even though no one has ever heard of it before. The shoot itself ended up looking more like dime-store soft-core porn rather than front cover fashion.
The artifice of fame, the mad clawing for attention, the pathetic wimper for recognition; it's all of the culture we've created to legitimize our existence without actually producing something from ourselves. This dependancy upon validation from external sources has got to stop. Or we may all end up looking like, or looking toward pleasing, someone like Janice.
I can live in Hollywood. But I'm so damn glad that I'm not of Hollywood.
I can live in Hollywood. But I'm so damn glad that I'm not of Hollywood.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Truth.
Sometimes I feel like I was injected with truth serum. Only it's not so much an injection, but it's that I have it running through my veins. Honesty. Just. Flows. And it's not verbal diarrhea; I don't have a need to talk about nothing for no reason constantly. It's just that when someone asks me a question, I give them an answer. An honest, straightforward answer with no thought of cushioning or softening the edges or disguising my opinion to something they might prefer. Just. Plain. Truth.
Example:
I am at an event where a guy I've met several times approaches me. He's nice, attractive, fun; but even though he got my number months ago, he's never called or talked to me outside of incidentally bumping into me at random parties, and even then, the conversation must remain shallow, since he needs to focus on looking at any other girl who may be passing by. I run into him again and he asks me about a girl I don't know.
He: So, what do you know about her? Do you think you could hook me up?
Me: Well, I don't know her, so...no.
He: But she lives by you! You know everyone!
Me: uhhh...actually I don't, and as I said, I don't know her. I may have seen her before, but I certainly don't know her well enough to set her up with someone. Nor do I know you well enough to set you up with someone. Particularly someone I've never met.
He: Well. Hey- why don't you call me and let me know when there are parties happening!
Me: um...No, thanks.
He: Why not? Do you even have my number?
Me: No.
He: Well...don't you want to get it?
Me: Not really.
He: ?!?!
Me: Well, realistically, if there's something happening down the street from me, it probably wouldn't naturally occur to me that I should call you, since we really never talk or hang out anyway. It's not really high on my list of things to do; call people who don't live by me or don't talk to much to invite them to a party I probably won't stay at for longer than 45 minutes. But you're welcome to call me anytime if you want to hang out with me, or if you want to head over to my area, I can tell you what's going on that night. And if there's nothing going on, but you want to head over, we can always make something happen.
He: uhhh...but don't you want to get my number so you can call me?
Me: Well, I probably won't. I mean, I'm totally open to making something happen if you want to call me, but I can't honestly say that I would think to call you if something random were happening up the street from me. But you're always welcome to call anytime.
I'm being realistic here. Who has time to create activities to occupy or entertain someone they barely know who has made next to zero effort in becoming a friend or acquaintance of any kind? I mean, at this point, is there really anything more that can be said? Here is someone who clearly has no interest in hanging out with me, beyond using me to look busy during a party so he can check out other girls; and is thereby someone who has made it clear he wants association with me purely for his own benefit, giving nothing in return with no suggestion of friendship or a reciprocal relationship at any level.
Walking away from that conversation, I realize that I could appear to be rude. But isn't it poor etiquette to approach someone merely to use them? And wouldn't it be more inconsiderate, ultimately, to promise or feign the intention to call when I already know that I won't? Say what you say, but if you ask me, I'd rather be honest in my dealings at all times. Even if it may temporarily bruise an ego that (let's be frank here), really had no concern for my own.
Usually I attribute such behavior to the East Coast in me. (East Siders, feel free to disagree.) It appears common habit to the West to say such things as,
"Call me!"
"I'll call you!"
"We'll do lunch!"
"We have to hang out!"
"O! I love you! You're the BEST!"
or something along those lines.
The reality? You usually just see them again by accident. Eventually it will get awkward or frustrating because you never know if they're just gladhanding you to feel good about themselves or to make you feel falsely good about yourself. And eventually, you never really know if that person is trustworthy, dependable, or a real friend after all.
Where I'm from, you don't say things you don't mean, and you don't make promises or suggest actions you don't intend on following through with. You will always know where I stand, and if you ask my opinion, you will get an honest answer. Like it or not, you will always know that what I've said is true. If you choose to, you can always know exactly where you stand. When I get your number, it's because I intend to call. When I say I will be somewhere or do something, it's because I have set aside time so that I may do so. And when I say, "I love you," it's only because I really, truly, honestly mean it.
And isn't that worth risking the reputation of being rude?
So can you kick it? Yes. You can.
Example:
I am at an event where a guy I've met several times approaches me. He's nice, attractive, fun; but even though he got my number months ago, he's never called or talked to me outside of incidentally bumping into me at random parties, and even then, the conversation must remain shallow, since he needs to focus on looking at any other girl who may be passing by. I run into him again and he asks me about a girl I don't know.
He: So, what do you know about her? Do you think you could hook me up?
Me: Well, I don't know her, so...no.
He: But she lives by you! You know everyone!
Me: uhhh...actually I don't, and as I said, I don't know her. I may have seen her before, but I certainly don't know her well enough to set her up with someone. Nor do I know you well enough to set you up with someone. Particularly someone I've never met.
He: Well. Hey- why don't you call me and let me know when there are parties happening!
Me: um...No, thanks.
He: Why not? Do you even have my number?
Me: No.
He: Well...don't you want to get it?
Me: Not really.
He: ?!?!
Me: Well, realistically, if there's something happening down the street from me, it probably wouldn't naturally occur to me that I should call you, since we really never talk or hang out anyway. It's not really high on my list of things to do; call people who don't live by me or don't talk to much to invite them to a party I probably won't stay at for longer than 45 minutes. But you're welcome to call me anytime if you want to hang out with me, or if you want to head over to my area, I can tell you what's going on that night. And if there's nothing going on, but you want to head over, we can always make something happen.
He: uhhh...but don't you want to get my number so you can call me?
Me: Well, I probably won't. I mean, I'm totally open to making something happen if you want to call me, but I can't honestly say that I would think to call you if something random were happening up the street from me. But you're always welcome to call anytime.
I'm being realistic here. Who has time to create activities to occupy or entertain someone they barely know who has made next to zero effort in becoming a friend or acquaintance of any kind? I mean, at this point, is there really anything more that can be said? Here is someone who clearly has no interest in hanging out with me, beyond using me to look busy during a party so he can check out other girls; and is thereby someone who has made it clear he wants association with me purely for his own benefit, giving nothing in return with no suggestion of friendship or a reciprocal relationship at any level.
Walking away from that conversation, I realize that I could appear to be rude. But isn't it poor etiquette to approach someone merely to use them? And wouldn't it be more inconsiderate, ultimately, to promise or feign the intention to call when I already know that I won't? Say what you say, but if you ask me, I'd rather be honest in my dealings at all times. Even if it may temporarily bruise an ego that (let's be frank here), really had no concern for my own.
Usually I attribute such behavior to the East Coast in me. (East Siders, feel free to disagree.) It appears common habit to the West to say such things as,
"Call me!"
"I'll call you!"
"We'll do lunch!"
"We have to hang out!"
"O! I love you! You're the BEST!"
or something along those lines.
The reality? You usually just see them again by accident. Eventually it will get awkward or frustrating because you never know if they're just gladhanding you to feel good about themselves or to make you feel falsely good about yourself. And eventually, you never really know if that person is trustworthy, dependable, or a real friend after all.
Where I'm from, you don't say things you don't mean, and you don't make promises or suggest actions you don't intend on following through with. You will always know where I stand, and if you ask my opinion, you will get an honest answer. Like it or not, you will always know that what I've said is true. If you choose to, you can always know exactly where you stand. When I get your number, it's because I intend to call. When I say I will be somewhere or do something, it's because I have set aside time so that I may do so. And when I say, "I love you," it's only because I really, truly, honestly mean it.
And isn't that worth risking the reputation of being rude?
So can you kick it? Yes. You can.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
PSA.
I like to think of Blogg as an opportunity to put some good in the world. To lift up the downtrodden, give the brilliant a better reflection of themselves and even, if you so choose to be brave- even to change the world we live in.
I felt this was one of those opportunities.
Hi Steve,
One of your friends has sent you this message from StopForwarding.Us, a website that allows individuals to anonymously email their friends and politely ask that they stop the habit of sending forwarded emails or FWDs.
Please do not forward chain letters, urban myths presented as truth, potentially offensive jokes, videos or photos without being asked or first receiving permission. If you find something that is funny and it is clean and you genuinely think the recipient will enjoy it then forward it to that person only (not in an email blast to all your friends and family) and include a personal note about why you enjoyed it and why you think they will too. Avoid sending forwards to friends or relatives that you've grown distant with. It can be frustrating for the recipient when the only correspondence you have with someone is via impersonal, unwanted email.
For more tips on email etiquette, visit StopForwarding.Us/etiq.html
Thank you,
A Friend (via stopforwarding.us)
I felt this was one of those opportunities.
Hi Steve,
One of your friends has sent you this message from StopForwarding.Us, a website that allows individuals to anonymously email their friends and politely ask that they stop the habit of sending forwarded emails or FWDs.
Please do not forward chain letters, urban myths presented as truth, potentially offensive jokes, videos or photos without being asked or first receiving permission. If you find something that is funny and it is clean and you genuinely think the recipient will enjoy it then forward it to that person only (not in an email blast to all your friends and family) and include a personal note about why you enjoyed it and why you think they will too. Avoid sending forwards to friends or relatives that you've grown distant with. It can be frustrating for the recipient when the only correspondence you have with someone is via impersonal, unwanted email.
For more tips on email etiquette, visit StopForwarding.Us/etiq.html
Thank you,
A Friend (via stopforwarding.us)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
SETTLE(!/?/.)
Clearly I have been slack, due to unforseen circumstances (ie: homelessness, living in 3 places all at once, continued house-hunt, a cold I just can't kick, a string of really fantastic weather, booking talent I am unfamiliar with but accepting that they're famous, so that's all that matters, painting my toenails, unflattering lighting, etc.) I am posting this article which has been much buzzed about. In fact, I'm really flattered to have had several people ask if I have read it, and could I post my response on Blogg? Well, it's nice to know you care to hear what I have to say. For now, go ahead and read it yourself so you'll have something to say when I make an offensive, generalized statement you'll find amusing but far too scary and honest to say yourself. I've got to blow my nose.
The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough
by Lori Gottlieb
Marry Him!
About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket at the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their kids picnicked nearby—mothers munching berries and lounging on the grass, fathers tossing balls with their giddy toddlers. My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right yet, surveyed the idyllic scene.
“Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: we’d both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
To the outside world, of course, we still call ourselves feminists and insist—vehemently, even—that we’re independent and self-sufficient and don’t believe in any of that damsel-in-distress stuff, but in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family. And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.
Oh, I know—I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, there’s good reason to worry. By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?
My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)
Obviously, I wasn’t always an advocate of settling. In fact, it took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option, and even though settling is a rampant phenomenon, talking about it in a positive light makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment, the way a child might look at an older sibling who just informed her that Jerry’s Kids aren’t going to walk, even if you send them money. It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it’s downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality.
Even situation comedies, starting in the 1970s with The Mary Tyler Moore Show and going all the way to Friends, feature endearing single women in the dating trenches, and there’s supposed to be something romantic and even heroic about their search for true love. Of course, the crucial difference is that, whereas the earlier series begins after Mary has been jilted by her fiancé, the more modern-day Friends opens as Rachel Green leaves her nice-guy orthodontist fiancé at the altar simply because she isn’t feeling it. But either way, in episode after episode, as both women continue to be unlucky in love, settling starts to look pretty darn appealing. Mary is supposed to be contentedly independent and fulfilled by her newsroom family, but in fact her life seems lonely. Are we to assume that at the end of the series, Mary, by then in her late 30s, found her soul mate after the lights in the newsroom went out and her work family was disbanded? If her experience was anything like mine or that of my single friends, it’s unlikely.
And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier? She and Ross have passion but have never had long-term stability, and the fireworks she experiences with him but not with Barry might actually turn out to be a liability, given how many times their relationship has already gone up in flames. It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, only to end up with the more exciting but self-absorbed Mr. Big, will be better off in the framework of marriage and family. (Some time after the breakup, when Carrie ran into Aidan on the street, he was carrying his infant in a Baby Björn. Can anyone imagine Mr. Big walking around with a Björn?)
When we’re holding out for deep romantic love, we have the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make us happier. But marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion. Madame Bovary might not see it that way, but if she’d remained single, I’ll bet she would have been even more depressed than she was while living with her tedious but caring husband.
What I didn’t realize when I decided, in my 30s, to break up with boyfriends I might otherwise have ended up marrying, is that while settling seems like an enormous act of resignation when you’re looking at it from the vantage point of a single person, once you take the plunge and do it, you’ll probably be relatively content. It sounds obvious now, but I didn’t fully appreciate back then that what makes for a good marriage isn’t necessarily what makes for a good romantic relationship. Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.
I don’t mean to say that settling is ideal. I’m simply saying that it might have gotten an undeservedly bad rap. As the only single woman in my son’s mommy-and-me group, I used to listen each week to a litany of unrelenting complaints about people’s husbands and feel pretty good about my decision to hold out for the right guy, only to realize that these women wouldn’t trade places with me for a second, no matter how dull their marriages might be or how desperately they might long for a different husband. They, like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone, because they, like me, realize that marriage ultimately isn’t about cosmic connection—it’s about how having a teammate, even if he’s not the love of your life, is better than not having one at all.
The couples my friend and I saw at the park that summer were enviable but not because they seemed so in love—they were enviable because the husbands played with the kids for 20 minutes so their wives could eat lunch. In practice, my married friends with kids don’t spend that much time with their husbands anyway (between work and child care), and in many cases, their biggest complaint seems to be that they never see each other. So if you rarely see your husband—but he’s a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own—how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?
It’s not that I’ve become jaded to the point that I don’t believe in, or even crave, romantic connection. It’s that my understanding of it has changed. In my formative years, romance was John Cusack and Ione Skye in Say Anything. But when I think about marriage nowadays, my role models are the television characters Will and Grace, who, though Will was gay and his relationship with Grace was platonic, were one of the most romantic couples I can think of. What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime. Someone who knows your day-to-day trivia. Someone who both calls you on your bullshit and puts up with your quirks. So what if Will and Grace weren’t having sex with each other? How many long- married couples are having much sex anyway?
“I just want someone who’s willing to be in the trenches with me,” my single friend Jennifer told me, “and I never thought of marriage that way before.” Two of Jennifer’s friends married men who Jennifer believes aren’t even straight, and while Jennifer wouldn’t have made that choice a few years back, she wonders whether she might be capable of it in the future. “Maybe they understood something that I didn’t,” she said.
What they understood is this: as your priorities change from romance to family, the so-called “deal breakers” change. Some guys aren’t worldly, but they’d make great dads. Or you walk into a room and start talking to this person who is 5'4" and has an unfortunate nose, but he “gets” you. My long-married friend Renée offered this dating advice to me in an e-mail:
I would say even if he’s not the love of your life, make sure he’s someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you … I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).
She wasn’t joking.
A number of my single women friends admit (in hushed voices and after I swear I won’t use their real names here) that they’d readily settle now but wouldn’t have 10 years ago. They believe that part of the problem is that we grew up idealizing marriage—and that if we’d had a more realistic understanding of its cold, hard benefits, we might have done things differently. Instead, we grew up thinking that marriage meant feeling some kind of divine spark, and so we walked away from uninspiring relationships that might have made us happy in the context of a family.
All marriages, of course, involve compromise, but where’s the cutoff? Where’s the line between compromising and settling, and at what age does that line seem to fade away? Choosing to spend your life with a guy who doesn’t delight in the small things in life might be considered settling at 30, but not at 35. By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?
Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better. It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?
Back when I was still convinced I’d find my soul mate, I did, although I never articulated this, have certain requirements. I thought that the person I married would have to have a sense of wonderment about the world, would be both spontaneous and grounded, and would acknowledge that life is hard but also be able to navigate its ups and downs with humor. Many of the guys I dated possessed these qualities, but if one of them lacked a certain degree of kindness, another didn’t seem emotionally stable enough, and another’s values clashed with mine. Others were sweet but so boring that I preferred reading during dinner to sitting through another tedious conversation. I also dated someone who appeared to be highly compatible with me—we had much in common, and strong physical chemistry—but while our sensibilities were similar, they proved to be a half-note off, so we never quite felt in harmony, or never viewed the world through quite the same lens.
Now, though, I realize that if I don’t want to be alone for the rest of my life, I’m at the age where I’ll likely need to settle for someone who is settling for me. What I and many women who hold out for true love forget is that we won’t always have the same appeal that we may have had in our 20s and early 30s. Having turned 40, I now have wrinkles, bags under my eyes, and hair in places I didn’t know hair could grow on women. With my nonworking life consumed by thoughts of potty training and playdates, I’ve become a far less interesting person than the one who went on hiking adventures and performed at comedy clubs. But when I chose to have a baby on my own, the plan was that I would continue to search for true connection afterward; it certainly wasn’t that I would have a baby alone only to settle later. After all, wouldn’t it have been wiser to settle for a higher caliber of “not Mr. Right” while my marital value was at its peak?
Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option.
I’ll be the first to admit that there’s something objectionable about making the case for settling, because it’s based on the premise that women’s biological clocks place them at the mercy of men, and that therefore a power dynamic dictates what should be an affair solely of the heart (not the heart and the ovaries). But I’m not the only woman who accepts settling as a valid choice—apparently so do the millions who buy bestselling relationship books that advocate settling but that, so as not to offend, simply spin the concept as a form of female empowerment.
Take, for instance, books like Men Are Like Fish: What Every Woman Needs to Know About Catching a Man or Find a Husband After 35 Using What I Learned at Harvard Business School, whose titles alone make it clear that today’s supposedly progressive bachelorettes aren’t waiting for old-fashioned true love to strike before they can get married. Instead, they’re buying dozens of proactive coaching manuals to learn how to strategically land a man. The actual man in question, though, seems so irrelevant that, to my mind, these women might as well grab a well-dressed guy off the street, drag him into the nearest bar, buy him a drink, and ask him to marry her. (Or, to retain her “power,” she should manipulate him into asking her.)
The approaches in these books may differ, but the message is the same: more important than love is marriage. To achieve that goal, women across the country are poring over guidebooks that all boil down to determining, “Does he like me?,” while completely overlooking the equally essential question, “Do I like him?” In other words, whatever compromises you have to make—including, but not limited to, pretending to be or actually becoming an entirely different person—make sure that you get some schmo to propose to you before you turn into a spinster.
Last year’s Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women makes the most blatant case for settling: if women were more willing to “think outside the box,” as one of the book’s married sources advises, many of them would be married. The author then trots out tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse. The moral is supposed to be “Don’t be too picky” but many of the anecdotes quote women who seem to be trying to convince not just the reader, but themselves, that they haven’t settled.
“I should be with some guy with a vast vocabulary who is very smart,” said Heather, a 30-year-old lawyer turned journalist. Instead, she’s dating an actor who didn’t finish college. “My boyfriend is fun, he’s smart, but he hasn’t gone through years of school. He wanted to pursue acting. And you can tell—he doesn’t have that background, and it never ever once bothered me. But for everyone else, [his lack of education] is what they see.” Another woman says she dates “the ‘secrets’ … guys other women don’t recognize as great.” How’s that for damning praise?
Meanwhile, in sugarcoating this message, the authors often resort to flattery, telling the reader to remember how fabulous, attractive, charming, and intelligent she is, in the hopes that she’ll project a more confident vibe on dates. In my case, though, the flattery backfired. I read these books thinking, Wait, if I’m such a great catch, why should I settle for anyone less than my equal? If I’m so fabulous, don’t I deserve true romantic connection?
Only one popular book that I can think of in the vast “find a man” genre (like most single women confounded by their singleness, I’m embarrassingly well versed) takes the opposite approach. In He’s Just Not That Into You, written by the happily married Greg Behrendt and the unhappily single Liz Tuccillo, the duo exhorts women not to settle. But the book’s format is telling: Behrendt gives perky pep talks to women unable to find a worthy match, while Tuccillo repeatedly comments on how hard it is to take her co-author’s advice, because while being with a partner who is “beneath you” (Behrendt’s term) is problematic, being single just plain “sucks” (Tuccillo’s term).
Before I got pregnant, though, I also read single-mom books such as Choosing Single Motherhood: The Thinking Woman’s Guide, whose chapter titles “Can I Afford It?” and “Dealing With the Stress” seemed like realistic antidotes to the faux-empowering man-hunting manual headings like “A Little Lingerie Can Go a Long Way.” But the book’s author, Mikki Morrissette, held out a tantalizing carrot. In her introduction, she describes having a daughter on her own; then, she writes, a few years later and five months pregnant with her son, “I met a guy I fell in love with. He and my daughter were in the delivery room when my son was born in January 2004.” Each time I read about single women having babies on their own and thriving instead of settling for Mr. Wrong and hiring a divorce lawyer, I felt all jazzed and ready to go. At the time, I truly believed, “I can have it all—a baby now, my soul mate later!”
Well … ha! Hahahaha. And ha.
Just as the relationship books fail to mention what happens after you triumphantly land a husband (you actually have to live with each other), these single-mom books fail to mention that once you have a baby alone, not only do you age about 10 years in the first 10 months, but if you don’t have time to shower, eat, urinate in a timely manner, or even leave the house except for work, where you spend every waking moment that your child is at day care, there’s very little chance that a man—much less The One—is going to knock on your door and join that party.
They also gloss over the cost of dating as a single mom: the time and money spent on online dating (because there are no single men at toddler birthday parties); the babysitter tab for all those boring blind dates; and, most frustrating, hours spent away from your beloved child. Even women who settle but end up divorced might be in a better position than those of us who became mothers on our own, because many ex-wives get both child-support payments and a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover. Never-married moms don’t get the night off. At the end of the evening, we rush home to pay the babysitter, make any houseguest tiptoe around and speak in a hushed voice, then wake up at 6 a.m. at the first cries of “Mommy!”
Try bringing a guy home to that.
Settling is mostly a women’s game. Men settle far less often and, when they do, they don’t seem the least bit bothered by the fact that they’re settling.
My friend Alan, for instance, justified his choice of a “bland” wife who’s a good mom but with whom he shares little connection this way: “I think one-stop shopping is overrated. I get passion at my office with my work, or with my friends that I sometimes call or chat with—it’s not the same, and, boy, it would be exciting to have it with my spouse. But I spend more time with people at my office than I do with my spouse.”
Then there’s my friend Chris, a single 35-year-old marketing consultant who for three years dated someone he calls “the perfect woman”—a kind and beautiful surgeon. She broke off the relationship several times because, she told him with regret, she didn’t think she wanted to spend her life with him. Each time, Chris would persuade her to reconsider, until finally she called it off for good, saying that she just couldn’t marry somebody she wasn’t in love with. Chris was devastated, but now that his ex-girlfriend has reached 35, he’s suddenly hopeful about their future.
“By the time she turns 37,” Chris said confidently, “she’ll come back. And I’ll bet she’ll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids.” I asked Chris why he would want to be with a woman who wasn’t in love with him. Wouldn’t he be settling, too, by marrying someone who would be using him to have a family? Chris didn’t see it that way at all. “She’ll be settling,” Chris said cheerfully. “But not me. I get to marry the woman of my dreams. That’s not settling. That’s the fantasy.”
Chris believes that women are far too picky: everyone knows, he says, that a single middle-aged man still has appealing prospects; a single middle-aged woman likely doesn’t. And he’s right. Single women are painfully aware of this. I hear far more women than men talk about getting married as a goal to be met by a certain deadline. My friend Gabe points out that this allows men to be the true romantics; when a man breaks up with a perfectly acceptable woman because he’s “just not feeling it,” there’s none of the ambivalence a woman with a deadline feels. “Women are the least romantic,” Gabe said. “They think, ‘I can do that.’ For a lot of women, it becomes less about love and more about what they can live with.”
Not long ago, Gabe, who is 43, dated a woman he liked very much one-on-one, but he broke up with her because “she couldn’t be haimish”—comfortable—with his friends in a group setting. He has no regrets. A female friend who broke up with a guy because he “didn’t like to read” and who is now, too, a single mom (with, ironically, no time to read herself) similarly felt no regrets—at first. At the time, she couldn’t imagine settling, but here’s the Catch-22: “If I’d settled at 39,” she said, “I always would have had the fantasy that something better exists out there. Now I know better. Either way, I was screwed.”
The paradox, of course, is that the more it behooves a woman to settle, the less willing she is to settle; a woman in her mid- to late 30s is more discriminating than one in her 20s. She has friends who have known her since childhood, friends who will know her more intimately and understand her more viscerally than any man she meets in midlife. Her tastes and sense of self are more solidly formed. She says things like “He wants me to move downtown, but I love my home at the beach,” and, “But he’s just not curious,” and “Can I really spend my life with someone who’s allergic to dogs?”
I’ve been told that the reason so many women end up alone is that we have too many choices. I think it’s the opposite: we have no choice. If we could choose, we’d choose to be in a healthy marriage based on reciprocal passion and friendship. But the only choices on the table, it sometimes seems, are settle or risk being alone forever.That’s not a whole lot of choice.
Remember the movie Broadcast News? Holly Hunter’s dilemma—the choice between passion and friendship—is exactly the one many women over 30 are faced with. In the end, Holly Hunter’s character decides to wait for the right guy, but he (of course) never materializes. Meanwhile, her emotional soul mate, the Albert Brooks character, gets married (of course) and has children.
And no matter what women decide—settle or don’t settle—there’s a price to be paid, because there’s always going to be regret. Unless you meet the man of your dreams (who, by the way, doesn’t exist, precisely because you dreamed him up), there’s going to be a downside to getting married, but a possibly more profound downside to holding out for someone better.
My friend Jennifer summed it up this way: “When I used to hear women complaining bitterly about their husbands, I’d think, ‘How sad, they settled.’ Now it’s like, ‘God, that would be nice.’”
That’s why mothers tell their daughters to “keep an open mind” about the guy who spends his weekends playing Internet poker or touches your back for two minutes while watching ESPN and calls that “a massage.” The more-pertinent questions, to most concerned mothers of daughters in their 30s, have to do with whether the daughter’s boyfriend will make a good father; or, if he’s a workaholic, whether he can provide the environment for her to be a good mother. As my own mother once advised me, when I was dating a musician, “Everyone settles to some degree. You might as well settle pragmatically.”
I know all this now, and yet—here’s the problem—much as I’d like to settle, I can’t seem to do it. It’s not that I have to be dazzled by a guy anymore (though it would be nice). It’s not even that I have to think about him when he’s not around (though that would be nice, too). Nor is it that I’m unable to accept reality and make significant compromises because that’s what grown-ups do (I can and have—I had a baby on my own).
No, the problem is that the very nature of dating leaves women my age to wrestle with a completely different level of settling. It’s no longer a matter, as it was in my early 30s, of “just not feeling it,” of wanting to be in love. Consider the men whom older women I know have married in varying degrees of desperation over the past few years: a recovering alcoholic who doesn’t always go to his meetings; a trying-to-make-it-in-his-40s actor; a widower who has three nightmarish kids and who’s still actively grieving for his dead wife; and a socially awkward engineer (so socially awkward that he declined to attend his wife’s book party). It’s not that these women are crazy; it’s that the dating pool has dwindled dramatically and that, due to gender politics, the few available men tend to require far more of a concession than those who were single when we were younger. And while I have a much higher tolerance for settling than I did back then, now I have my son to consider. It’s one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it’s quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child. So while there’s more incentive to settle now, there’s less willingness to settle too much, because that would be a disservice to my son.
This doesn’t undermine my case for settling. Instead, it supports my argument to do it young, when settling involves constructing a family environment with a perfectly acceptable man who may not trip your romantic trigger—as opposed to doing it older, when settling involves selling your very soul in exchange for damaged goods. Admittedly, it’s a dicey case to make because, like the divorced women I know who claim they wouldn’t have done anything differently, because then they wouldn’t have Biff and Buffy, I, too, can’t imagine life without my magical son. (Although, had I had children with a Mr. Good Enough, wouldn’t I be as hopelessly in love with those children, too?) I also acknowledge the power of the grass-is-always-greener phenomenon, and allow for the possibility that my life alone is better (if far more difficult) than the life I would have in a comfortable but tepid marriage.
But then my married friends say things like, “Oh, you’re so lucky, you don’t have to negotiate with your husband about the cost of piano lessons” or “You’re so lucky, you don’t have anyone putting the kid in front of the TV and you can raise your son the way you want.” I’ll even hear things like, “You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.”
The lists go on, and each time, I say, “OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!”
Not one person has taken me up on this offer.
The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough
by Lori Gottlieb
Marry Him!
About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket at the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their kids picnicked nearby—mothers munching berries and lounging on the grass, fathers tossing balls with their giddy toddlers. My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right yet, surveyed the idyllic scene.
“Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: we’d both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
To the outside world, of course, we still call ourselves feminists and insist—vehemently, even—that we’re independent and self-sufficient and don’t believe in any of that damsel-in-distress stuff, but in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family. And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.
Oh, I know—I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, there’s good reason to worry. By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?
My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)
Obviously, I wasn’t always an advocate of settling. In fact, it took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option, and even though settling is a rampant phenomenon, talking about it in a positive light makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment, the way a child might look at an older sibling who just informed her that Jerry’s Kids aren’t going to walk, even if you send them money. It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it’s downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality.
Even situation comedies, starting in the 1970s with The Mary Tyler Moore Show and going all the way to Friends, feature endearing single women in the dating trenches, and there’s supposed to be something romantic and even heroic about their search for true love. Of course, the crucial difference is that, whereas the earlier series begins after Mary has been jilted by her fiancé, the more modern-day Friends opens as Rachel Green leaves her nice-guy orthodontist fiancé at the altar simply because she isn’t feeling it. But either way, in episode after episode, as both women continue to be unlucky in love, settling starts to look pretty darn appealing. Mary is supposed to be contentedly independent and fulfilled by her newsroom family, but in fact her life seems lonely. Are we to assume that at the end of the series, Mary, by then in her late 30s, found her soul mate after the lights in the newsroom went out and her work family was disbanded? If her experience was anything like mine or that of my single friends, it’s unlikely.
And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier? She and Ross have passion but have never had long-term stability, and the fireworks she experiences with him but not with Barry might actually turn out to be a liability, given how many times their relationship has already gone up in flames. It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, only to end up with the more exciting but self-absorbed Mr. Big, will be better off in the framework of marriage and family. (Some time after the breakup, when Carrie ran into Aidan on the street, he was carrying his infant in a Baby Björn. Can anyone imagine Mr. Big walking around with a Björn?)
When we’re holding out for deep romantic love, we have the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make us happier. But marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion. Madame Bovary might not see it that way, but if she’d remained single, I’ll bet she would have been even more depressed than she was while living with her tedious but caring husband.
What I didn’t realize when I decided, in my 30s, to break up with boyfriends I might otherwise have ended up marrying, is that while settling seems like an enormous act of resignation when you’re looking at it from the vantage point of a single person, once you take the plunge and do it, you’ll probably be relatively content. It sounds obvious now, but I didn’t fully appreciate back then that what makes for a good marriage isn’t necessarily what makes for a good romantic relationship. Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.
I don’t mean to say that settling is ideal. I’m simply saying that it might have gotten an undeservedly bad rap. As the only single woman in my son’s mommy-and-me group, I used to listen each week to a litany of unrelenting complaints about people’s husbands and feel pretty good about my decision to hold out for the right guy, only to realize that these women wouldn’t trade places with me for a second, no matter how dull their marriages might be or how desperately they might long for a different husband. They, like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone, because they, like me, realize that marriage ultimately isn’t about cosmic connection—it’s about how having a teammate, even if he’s not the love of your life, is better than not having one at all.
The couples my friend and I saw at the park that summer were enviable but not because they seemed so in love—they were enviable because the husbands played with the kids for 20 minutes so their wives could eat lunch. In practice, my married friends with kids don’t spend that much time with their husbands anyway (between work and child care), and in many cases, their biggest complaint seems to be that they never see each other. So if you rarely see your husband—but he’s a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own—how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?
It’s not that I’ve become jaded to the point that I don’t believe in, or even crave, romantic connection. It’s that my understanding of it has changed. In my formative years, romance was John Cusack and Ione Skye in Say Anything. But when I think about marriage nowadays, my role models are the television characters Will and Grace, who, though Will was gay and his relationship with Grace was platonic, were one of the most romantic couples I can think of. What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime. Someone who knows your day-to-day trivia. Someone who both calls you on your bullshit and puts up with your quirks. So what if Will and Grace weren’t having sex with each other? How many long- married couples are having much sex anyway?
“I just want someone who’s willing to be in the trenches with me,” my single friend Jennifer told me, “and I never thought of marriage that way before.” Two of Jennifer’s friends married men who Jennifer believes aren’t even straight, and while Jennifer wouldn’t have made that choice a few years back, she wonders whether she might be capable of it in the future. “Maybe they understood something that I didn’t,” she said.
What they understood is this: as your priorities change from romance to family, the so-called “deal breakers” change. Some guys aren’t worldly, but they’d make great dads. Or you walk into a room and start talking to this person who is 5'4" and has an unfortunate nose, but he “gets” you. My long-married friend Renée offered this dating advice to me in an e-mail:
I would say even if he’s not the love of your life, make sure he’s someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you … I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).
She wasn’t joking.
A number of my single women friends admit (in hushed voices and after I swear I won’t use their real names here) that they’d readily settle now but wouldn’t have 10 years ago. They believe that part of the problem is that we grew up idealizing marriage—and that if we’d had a more realistic understanding of its cold, hard benefits, we might have done things differently. Instead, we grew up thinking that marriage meant feeling some kind of divine spark, and so we walked away from uninspiring relationships that might have made us happy in the context of a family.
All marriages, of course, involve compromise, but where’s the cutoff? Where’s the line between compromising and settling, and at what age does that line seem to fade away? Choosing to spend your life with a guy who doesn’t delight in the small things in life might be considered settling at 30, but not at 35. By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?
Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better. It’s like musical chairs—when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you’re not left standing alone?
Back when I was still convinced I’d find my soul mate, I did, although I never articulated this, have certain requirements. I thought that the person I married would have to have a sense of wonderment about the world, would be both spontaneous and grounded, and would acknowledge that life is hard but also be able to navigate its ups and downs with humor. Many of the guys I dated possessed these qualities, but if one of them lacked a certain degree of kindness, another didn’t seem emotionally stable enough, and another’s values clashed with mine. Others were sweet but so boring that I preferred reading during dinner to sitting through another tedious conversation. I also dated someone who appeared to be highly compatible with me—we had much in common, and strong physical chemistry—but while our sensibilities were similar, they proved to be a half-note off, so we never quite felt in harmony, or never viewed the world through quite the same lens.
Now, though, I realize that if I don’t want to be alone for the rest of my life, I’m at the age where I’ll likely need to settle for someone who is settling for me. What I and many women who hold out for true love forget is that we won’t always have the same appeal that we may have had in our 20s and early 30s. Having turned 40, I now have wrinkles, bags under my eyes, and hair in places I didn’t know hair could grow on women. With my nonworking life consumed by thoughts of potty training and playdates, I’ve become a far less interesting person than the one who went on hiking adventures and performed at comedy clubs. But when I chose to have a baby on my own, the plan was that I would continue to search for true connection afterward; it certainly wasn’t that I would have a baby alone only to settle later. After all, wouldn’t it have been wiser to settle for a higher caliber of “not Mr. Right” while my marital value was at its peak?
Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option.
I’ll be the first to admit that there’s something objectionable about making the case for settling, because it’s based on the premise that women’s biological clocks place them at the mercy of men, and that therefore a power dynamic dictates what should be an affair solely of the heart (not the heart and the ovaries). But I’m not the only woman who accepts settling as a valid choice—apparently so do the millions who buy bestselling relationship books that advocate settling but that, so as not to offend, simply spin the concept as a form of female empowerment.
Take, for instance, books like Men Are Like Fish: What Every Woman Needs to Know About Catching a Man or Find a Husband After 35 Using What I Learned at Harvard Business School, whose titles alone make it clear that today’s supposedly progressive bachelorettes aren’t waiting for old-fashioned true love to strike before they can get married. Instead, they’re buying dozens of proactive coaching manuals to learn how to strategically land a man. The actual man in question, though, seems so irrelevant that, to my mind, these women might as well grab a well-dressed guy off the street, drag him into the nearest bar, buy him a drink, and ask him to marry her. (Or, to retain her “power,” she should manipulate him into asking her.)
The approaches in these books may differ, but the message is the same: more important than love is marriage. To achieve that goal, women across the country are poring over guidebooks that all boil down to determining, “Does he like me?,” while completely overlooking the equally essential question, “Do I like him?” In other words, whatever compromises you have to make—including, but not limited to, pretending to be or actually becoming an entirely different person—make sure that you get some schmo to propose to you before you turn into a spinster.
Last year’s Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women makes the most blatant case for settling: if women were more willing to “think outside the box,” as one of the book’s married sources advises, many of them would be married. The author then trots out tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse. The moral is supposed to be “Don’t be too picky” but many of the anecdotes quote women who seem to be trying to convince not just the reader, but themselves, that they haven’t settled.
“I should be with some guy with a vast vocabulary who is very smart,” said Heather, a 30-year-old lawyer turned journalist. Instead, she’s dating an actor who didn’t finish college. “My boyfriend is fun, he’s smart, but he hasn’t gone through years of school. He wanted to pursue acting. And you can tell—he doesn’t have that background, and it never ever once bothered me. But for everyone else, [his lack of education] is what they see.” Another woman says she dates “the ‘secrets’ … guys other women don’t recognize as great.” How’s that for damning praise?
Meanwhile, in sugarcoating this message, the authors often resort to flattery, telling the reader to remember how fabulous, attractive, charming, and intelligent she is, in the hopes that she’ll project a more confident vibe on dates. In my case, though, the flattery backfired. I read these books thinking, Wait, if I’m such a great catch, why should I settle for anyone less than my equal? If I’m so fabulous, don’t I deserve true romantic connection?
Only one popular book that I can think of in the vast “find a man” genre (like most single women confounded by their singleness, I’m embarrassingly well versed) takes the opposite approach. In He’s Just Not That Into You, written by the happily married Greg Behrendt and the unhappily single Liz Tuccillo, the duo exhorts women not to settle. But the book’s format is telling: Behrendt gives perky pep talks to women unable to find a worthy match, while Tuccillo repeatedly comments on how hard it is to take her co-author’s advice, because while being with a partner who is “beneath you” (Behrendt’s term) is problematic, being single just plain “sucks” (Tuccillo’s term).
Before I got pregnant, though, I also read single-mom books such as Choosing Single Motherhood: The Thinking Woman’s Guide, whose chapter titles “Can I Afford It?” and “Dealing With the Stress” seemed like realistic antidotes to the faux-empowering man-hunting manual headings like “A Little Lingerie Can Go a Long Way.” But the book’s author, Mikki Morrissette, held out a tantalizing carrot. In her introduction, she describes having a daughter on her own; then, she writes, a few years later and five months pregnant with her son, “I met a guy I fell in love with. He and my daughter were in the delivery room when my son was born in January 2004.” Each time I read about single women having babies on their own and thriving instead of settling for Mr. Wrong and hiring a divorce lawyer, I felt all jazzed and ready to go. At the time, I truly believed, “I can have it all—a baby now, my soul mate later!”
Well … ha! Hahahaha. And ha.
Just as the relationship books fail to mention what happens after you triumphantly land a husband (you actually have to live with each other), these single-mom books fail to mention that once you have a baby alone, not only do you age about 10 years in the first 10 months, but if you don’t have time to shower, eat, urinate in a timely manner, or even leave the house except for work, where you spend every waking moment that your child is at day care, there’s very little chance that a man—much less The One—is going to knock on your door and join that party.
They also gloss over the cost of dating as a single mom: the time and money spent on online dating (because there are no single men at toddler birthday parties); the babysitter tab for all those boring blind dates; and, most frustrating, hours spent away from your beloved child. Even women who settle but end up divorced might be in a better position than those of us who became mothers on our own, because many ex-wives get both child-support payments and a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover. Never-married moms don’t get the night off. At the end of the evening, we rush home to pay the babysitter, make any houseguest tiptoe around and speak in a hushed voice, then wake up at 6 a.m. at the first cries of “Mommy!”
Try bringing a guy home to that.
Settling is mostly a women’s game. Men settle far less often and, when they do, they don’t seem the least bit bothered by the fact that they’re settling.
My friend Alan, for instance, justified his choice of a “bland” wife who’s a good mom but with whom he shares little connection this way: “I think one-stop shopping is overrated. I get passion at my office with my work, or with my friends that I sometimes call or chat with—it’s not the same, and, boy, it would be exciting to have it with my spouse. But I spend more time with people at my office than I do with my spouse.”
Then there’s my friend Chris, a single 35-year-old marketing consultant who for three years dated someone he calls “the perfect woman”—a kind and beautiful surgeon. She broke off the relationship several times because, she told him with regret, she didn’t think she wanted to spend her life with him. Each time, Chris would persuade her to reconsider, until finally she called it off for good, saying that she just couldn’t marry somebody she wasn’t in love with. Chris was devastated, but now that his ex-girlfriend has reached 35, he’s suddenly hopeful about their future.
“By the time she turns 37,” Chris said confidently, “she’ll come back. And I’ll bet she’ll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids.” I asked Chris why he would want to be with a woman who wasn’t in love with him. Wouldn’t he be settling, too, by marrying someone who would be using him to have a family? Chris didn’t see it that way at all. “She’ll be settling,” Chris said cheerfully. “But not me. I get to marry the woman of my dreams. That’s not settling. That’s the fantasy.”
Chris believes that women are far too picky: everyone knows, he says, that a single middle-aged man still has appealing prospects; a single middle-aged woman likely doesn’t. And he’s right. Single women are painfully aware of this. I hear far more women than men talk about getting married as a goal to be met by a certain deadline. My friend Gabe points out that this allows men to be the true romantics; when a man breaks up with a perfectly acceptable woman because he’s “just not feeling it,” there’s none of the ambivalence a woman with a deadline feels. “Women are the least romantic,” Gabe said. “They think, ‘I can do that.’ For a lot of women, it becomes less about love and more about what they can live with.”
Not long ago, Gabe, who is 43, dated a woman he liked very much one-on-one, but he broke up with her because “she couldn’t be haimish”—comfortable—with his friends in a group setting. He has no regrets. A female friend who broke up with a guy because he “didn’t like to read” and who is now, too, a single mom (with, ironically, no time to read herself) similarly felt no regrets—at first. At the time, she couldn’t imagine settling, but here’s the Catch-22: “If I’d settled at 39,” she said, “I always would have had the fantasy that something better exists out there. Now I know better. Either way, I was screwed.”
The paradox, of course, is that the more it behooves a woman to settle, the less willing she is to settle; a woman in her mid- to late 30s is more discriminating than one in her 20s. She has friends who have known her since childhood, friends who will know her more intimately and understand her more viscerally than any man she meets in midlife. Her tastes and sense of self are more solidly formed. She says things like “He wants me to move downtown, but I love my home at the beach,” and, “But he’s just not curious,” and “Can I really spend my life with someone who’s allergic to dogs?”
I’ve been told that the reason so many women end up alone is that we have too many choices. I think it’s the opposite: we have no choice. If we could choose, we’d choose to be in a healthy marriage based on reciprocal passion and friendship. But the only choices on the table, it sometimes seems, are settle or risk being alone forever.That’s not a whole lot of choice.
Remember the movie Broadcast News? Holly Hunter’s dilemma—the choice between passion and friendship—is exactly the one many women over 30 are faced with. In the end, Holly Hunter’s character decides to wait for the right guy, but he (of course) never materializes. Meanwhile, her emotional soul mate, the Albert Brooks character, gets married (of course) and has children.
And no matter what women decide—settle or don’t settle—there’s a price to be paid, because there’s always going to be regret. Unless you meet the man of your dreams (who, by the way, doesn’t exist, precisely because you dreamed him up), there’s going to be a downside to getting married, but a possibly more profound downside to holding out for someone better.
My friend Jennifer summed it up this way: “When I used to hear women complaining bitterly about their husbands, I’d think, ‘How sad, they settled.’ Now it’s like, ‘God, that would be nice.’”
That’s why mothers tell their daughters to “keep an open mind” about the guy who spends his weekends playing Internet poker or touches your back for two minutes while watching ESPN and calls that “a massage.” The more-pertinent questions, to most concerned mothers of daughters in their 30s, have to do with whether the daughter’s boyfriend will make a good father; or, if he’s a workaholic, whether he can provide the environment for her to be a good mother. As my own mother once advised me, when I was dating a musician, “Everyone settles to some degree. You might as well settle pragmatically.”
I know all this now, and yet—here’s the problem—much as I’d like to settle, I can’t seem to do it. It’s not that I have to be dazzled by a guy anymore (though it would be nice). It’s not even that I have to think about him when he’s not around (though that would be nice, too). Nor is it that I’m unable to accept reality and make significant compromises because that’s what grown-ups do (I can and have—I had a baby on my own).
No, the problem is that the very nature of dating leaves women my age to wrestle with a completely different level of settling. It’s no longer a matter, as it was in my early 30s, of “just not feeling it,” of wanting to be in love. Consider the men whom older women I know have married in varying degrees of desperation over the past few years: a recovering alcoholic who doesn’t always go to his meetings; a trying-to-make-it-in-his-40s actor; a widower who has three nightmarish kids and who’s still actively grieving for his dead wife; and a socially awkward engineer (so socially awkward that he declined to attend his wife’s book party). It’s not that these women are crazy; it’s that the dating pool has dwindled dramatically and that, due to gender politics, the few available men tend to require far more of a concession than those who were single when we were younger. And while I have a much higher tolerance for settling than I did back then, now I have my son to consider. It’s one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it’s quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child. So while there’s more incentive to settle now, there’s less willingness to settle too much, because that would be a disservice to my son.
This doesn’t undermine my case for settling. Instead, it supports my argument to do it young, when settling involves constructing a family environment with a perfectly acceptable man who may not trip your romantic trigger—as opposed to doing it older, when settling involves selling your very soul in exchange for damaged goods. Admittedly, it’s a dicey case to make because, like the divorced women I know who claim they wouldn’t have done anything differently, because then they wouldn’t have Biff and Buffy, I, too, can’t imagine life without my magical son. (Although, had I had children with a Mr. Good Enough, wouldn’t I be as hopelessly in love with those children, too?) I also acknowledge the power of the grass-is-always-greener phenomenon, and allow for the possibility that my life alone is better (if far more difficult) than the life I would have in a comfortable but tepid marriage.
But then my married friends say things like, “Oh, you’re so lucky, you don’t have to negotiate with your husband about the cost of piano lessons” or “You’re so lucky, you don’t have anyone putting the kid in front of the TV and you can raise your son the way you want.” I’ll even hear things like, “You’re so lucky, you don’t have to have sex with someone you don’t want to.”
The lists go on, and each time, I say, “OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!”
Not one person has taken me up on this offer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)