tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769246818135102880.post2574209562845775579..comments2023-07-16T20:34:59.414+10:00Comments on Taking Things Seriously: Perks?Bruce Yabsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769246818135102880.post-1146925756745705852007-05-05T01:44:00.000+10:002007-05-05T01:44:00.000+10:00<snark>Call me editor. Some years ago ---nev...<snark>Call me editor. Some years ago ---never mind how long precisely --- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore ...</snark><BR/><BR/>I can certainly agree that this has become a politicised matter, and that some of the rhetoric surrounding it is smelly. But in MD's defence --- and believe me, I take no pleasure in defending her --- it doesn't seem to me that this enters especially into her article. She rather takes it for granted that some people, in particular some women, ultimately want to get married; or, that this is one of the things they come to want or to value.<BR/><BR/>Empirically I think this is correct, and I don't think one has to agree with the institution or with the contemporary legal situation to see that. And once that's granted, I think her article makes sense. <BR/><BR/>I still think she makes a bad argument from that basis, and (as discussed with Eb) there's something very odd about taking "marriage", whatever that means, as a given in the midst of all of this worldly-wise calculation. Because as an institution it's neither obvious nor uniform nor uncontested. <BR/><BR/>What the <EM>legal</EM> position should or shouldn't be seems to me a separate question again ...Bruce Yabsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769246818135102880.post-67157111367729297362007-05-04T14:26:00.000+10:002007-05-04T14:26:00.000+10:00Personally, the whole concept of marriage has no a...Personally, the whole concept of marriage has no appeal: if it were just a public affirmation of committment that would be fine, but it's now been politicised in a way I find repugnant, and I've never understood why one specific form of relationship committment should be given special legal standing.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404058672200313347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769246818135102880.post-91844178145728065992007-04-23T00:48:00.000+10:002007-04-23T00:48:00.000+10:00Following MD's article, there's a wide set of poin...Following MD's article, there's a wide set of points of view on marriage (and especially when is "too young to tie the knot") on the dreaded <A HREF="http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/samandthecity/archives/2007/04/too_young_to_tie_the_knot.html" REL="nofollow">Sam and the City blog</A> on the Herald site. <BR/><BR/>(Style warning: If you are allergic to cliché, stay away.)Bruce Yabsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769246818135102880.post-42706245662036199092007-04-21T00:17:00.000+10:002007-04-21T00:17:00.000+10:00Well I do hate moving house, as you know.I certain...Well I do hate moving house, as you know.<BR/><BR/>I certainly agree that one has to ask what marriage (or even cohabitation) is about, and why one participates in it. MD's article took an external view, with such questions entirely bracketed out, and male and female interests taken for granted --- this is not invalid on its own terms, but it's not much use if one wants to make decisions for oneself, or to enquire into what someone else is thinking. If one looks at another couple from the outside, and identifies what is in it for him and for her, this is merely realistic, and a necessary part of moral evaluation; but if this is the only way one thinks about one's own relationships, it is heartless calculation. I've met people like this (maybe you have too) and they give me the creeps.<BR/><BR/>(I have no objection to being able to see what one's relationships look like from the outside: this is necessary if one is to think ethically. The problem is if the view is restricted to this.)<BR/><BR/><EM>do people value the idea that their partner is committed to the relationship, and that this commitment extends to putting effort into the relationship both now and for the long term?</EM><BR/><BR/>Yes. And yes. <BR/><BR/>But does one ask for this up-front? Women through the ages have found that getting their man to commit <EM>during</EM> the relationship can be a better strategy than holding out for a full commitment at the start. This is not an attractive phenomenon, but given the way things are between men and women it is not irrational. This is part of my problem with MD's article: she talks as if mere calculation will yield the "traditional" order, with courtship, then marriage, and only then cohabitation. Manifestly, it will yield nothing of the sort. The actual tradition includes many other, less attractive phenomena, as your grandmother (and all stories) will tell you. <BR/><BR/><EM>Would you co-habit with someone with no assurance that the person wouldn't grow tired of you tomorrow morning?</EM><BR/><BR/>I would hope not. Because, well, yuck. But there is a particular absurdity to taking a hard line on this, as a man, if one is more conservative than the woman-in-question when it comes to these matters. This is another point that MD left completely unexplored ...Bruce Yabsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769246818135102880.post-54806428090680858572007-04-20T13:39:00.000+10:002007-04-20T13:39:00.000+10:00An interesting article. I think at some point you ...An interesting article. I think at some point you need to ask the question "Why marry at all? What's it all about?"<BR/><BR/>I think her comment on "one foot out the door" is an important part of this, but I doubt that most people see it this way. Whether or not you call it a "marriage", do people value the idea that their partner is committed to the relationship, and that this commitment extends to putting effort into the relationship both now and for the long term? I suspect at some level this is desirable. (I know I value this.)<BR/><BR/>Would you co-habit with someone with no assurance that the person wouldn't grow tired of you tomorrow morning? Esp. if it meant you might need to move house at short notice! The horror! :-)Ebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18305070461972884964noreply@blogger.com