|
|
Sunday, July 31
The Myth of Marriage
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 31 Jul 2005 01:00 PM CDT
 The Myth of Marriage
by Monica Mehta, AlterNet.org
A radical new book debunks the concept of marriage as a time-honored institution, and argues that we need to loosen up about it.
The institution of traditional marriage is in a state of crisis.
There's
a misstatement in that sentence. But it's not that marriage is in
crisis. It's that the institution of marriage is, or was at any time,
traditional. As Stephanie Coontz reveals in her new book, Marriage, A
History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage,
human unions have gone through a number of evolutions. We would be
remiss to think that it was ever a stable institution. Instead, it has
always been in flux....
Coontz describes her thesis:
The
basic argument for this book is that what we think of as the
traditional marriage - the marriage based on love, and for the purpose
of making peoples' individual lives better - this was not the purpose
of marriage for thousands of years. Instead, marriage was about
acquiring in-laws, jockeying for political and economic advantage, and
building the family labor force. It was only 200 years ago that people
began to believe that young people could choose their own mates, and
should choose their own mates on the basis of something like love,
which had formerly been considered a tremendous threat to marriage. As
soon as people began to do that, all of the demands that we now think
of as radical new demands - from the demand for divorce, to the right
to refuse a shotgun marriage, to even recognition of same-sex relations
- were immediately raised.
But it
was not until the last 30 years that people began to actually act on
the new ideals for beloved marriage. Social conservatives say that
there has been a crisis in the last 30 years, and I agree with them,
that marriage has been tremendously weakened as an institution. It's
lost its former monopoly over organizing sexuality, male-female
relations, political social and economic rights, and personal
legitimacy. Where I disagree with them, is in how to evaluate that
change and its consequences. I agree that it poses tremendous
challenges to us, the breakdown of this monopoly of marriage, but I
disagree with the idea that one could make marriage better by trying to
shoehorn everyone back into the older forms of marriage. Because the
main things that have weakened marriage as an institution are the same
things that have strengthened marriage as a relationship. Because
marriage is now more optional, because for the first time ever, men and
women have equal rights in marriage and outside it. Because women have
economic independence. This means that you can negotiate a marriage,
and make it more flexible and individualized than ever before. So a
marriage when it works is better for people, it's fairer, it's more
satisfying, it's more loving and fulfilling than ever before in history.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Newsworthy Notes from the Blogosphere
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 31 Jul 2005 04:00 AM CDT
 Newsworthy Notes from the Blogosphere
Hey, Look at This! Gordon Fischer has a Blog!
Gordon, you sly dog, why didn't you mention this when you wrote me the other day?
Gordon Fischer, former head of the Iowa Democratic Party, says of his new blog, Iowa True Blue:
 One of the principles guiding this Blog is the concept of personal responsibility.
For Iowa's public servants, that means being accountable for their
votes, the contributions they receive, and the leadership they choose.
On the topic of Congressman Tom Delay, Iowa Republicans appear to have
a great deal of explaining to do.
Couldn't agree more, Gordon. Without accountability, we've got NOTHING.
So, if
you're into Iowa politics (and why are you reading Blog for Iowa if you're not?), definitely check out Iowa True Blue.
It ought to be a good read. And I love that great graphic
depiction of Ol' Gordo! (pictured above on the right) Nice start, Gordon!
And speaking of accountability . . .
From Sirotablog, 7.28.05
by David Sirota
Pelosi Demands Accountability from the "CAFTA 15"
Roll
Call has a new report up about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)
holding an emergency meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee
tonight to discuss formal sanctions against the 15 Democrats who sold
out their party and voted for the corporate-written Central American
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Pelosi raised "the likelihood that
defectors' committee assignments would be reviewed at tonight’s meeting
of the Steering Committee." That's absolutely necessary - why should
Democrats who undermine their party be given plum committee assignments
over other, far more loyal and principled Democrats? Pelosi should be
commended for her courage - and now she needs to back up her words with
action.
The
story goes on to note that "Several Democratic sources said Pelosi and
other House leaders are particularly upset with New York Reps. Greg
Meeks and Ed Towns, members of exclusive committees with safe seats,
who voted for CAFTA."
Meeks
had the nerve to say that he "voted my conscience" on CAFTA, despite
his long history of selling off his votes on trade to the highest
corporate bidder.
From Yellow Dog Blog, 7.29.05
by Bob Geiger
And for MORE Democratic Straight Talk . . .
Democrat
Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who is running for Congress in Ohio's
second district – the election is Tuesday – appeared on "Hardball" with
Chris Matthews last night. Hackett appears to be following some
of DNC Chairman Howard Dean's lead, giving straight answers and
refusing to back down from his criticism of [George W. Bush] and
calling Bush a "chicken hawk."
Here are excerpts:
MATTHEWS: What is a chicken hawk?
HACKETT:
Chicken hawk is somebody who is not willing to fight the fight of their
age, their generation, and speaks brashly and with unnecessary bravado
when they're sending other kids and other sons and daughters, other
folks' sons and daughters, off to war.
It is --
encompasses language like, bring it on. It encompasses language like,
you're with us or you're against us and we're going to take it to you.
And I think that's dangerous. And I've got to tell you, you know, when
we're over there fighting in Iraq, Marines and soldiers, and we hear
language like, bring it on coming from the Oval Office, that's a
danger. We don't need that. That's encouraging an...
MATTHEWS: Paul, why did you call [Bush] -- why did you call [Bush], whose office you respect, a chicken hawk?
HACKETT:
I respect the office of the president of the United States. I said
those words. I meant them. I stand by them. I would say them again.
|
|
