Am I Being An Asshole? Or Criminally Naive?

Marriage has been on my mind lately and I've been seeing some discussions of divorce.

There's a feeling today, that to disapprove of divorce is a terrible, oppressive thing to do.

I'm all for the legality of divorce and utilizing divorce when a marriage is abusive (of course!) in any way or simply terminally unhappy or someone falls seriously and terribly in love with someone else. Go for it. People should be happy.

Yet.

How can there not be a moral disapproval dimension to divorce unless we assign no value to marriage?

A marriage happens when you make a promise to someone else. You promise them forever. And usually, you promise it in front of your friends and family and a representative of the state, you ask them to witness your promise and support it. Then you go around telling everyone you meet that you've made this promise to this person ("This is my husband") and expecting them to treat you and your spouse as if they believe you will keep that promise.

If you get divorced, you lied. You made a mistake, you should never have made that promise, that commitment. This doesn't mean you should be ostracized from society, or made to feel badly for the rest of your life. Doubtlessly you've suffered far more for this mistake then society or any bystanders. However, it is a moral failing. You did fuck up. Society gets to think that.


I'm all for making time limited contracts ("I commit to you for the next five years") or maybe contracts with different terms ("I promise to be good to you for as long as we are together"). However unless we get rid of the promise of forever, I don't see how getting rid of the disapproval of divorce makes any sense. The promises of marriage are borderline insane, and everyone who makes them should damn well realize it.

Marriage

I had hoped that Proposition 8 would not pass and had underestimated how upset I would be when it did. I wasn't quite expecting us to loose but I am not shocked that we have.

This is a post that I probably would not write if this blog had a large audience because it's not a post helpful to marriage equality or eradicating sexual orientation based discrimination and I would not want to damage those goals for anything. However, I felt the need to share my opinion with the internets, especially since I haven't seen it expressed elsewhere. Here it goes.

The other side has a very valid point. Marriage for same sex couples will lead to more societal acceptance for homosexuality. I believe that more acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexual couples.

I believe (and I know that others disagree, and that this isn't proven by any scientific evidence but also that lots of others do share my opinion) that something like 10% of people are straight, 10% are gay, and the rest are some variety of bisexual. Now, part of my belief in this might be that I'm bi and that to imagine that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a person of a particular gender is as difficult for me as imagining that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a redhead when they prefer blondes. It's weird. The fact that different cultures have wildly varying incidents of homosexuality is fairly convincing that genetics are not the only factors (while the fact that homosexuality exists no matter how terribly it impacts the quality of life of individuals is convincing that individuals often can not control whom they find attractive).

So, if there are a lot of bisexuals out there, people who are equally attracted, people who are repressed, men who might prefer men but find women occasionally attractive, women who lust after both but can only 'connect' with a man, etc. then social acceptance of same sex pairing will likely lead to many more same sex romances. It logically follows that those people who think gay relationships are inferior in any way or that being gay is undesirable (if occasionally unavoidable) will not want homosexuality to be socially acceptable (and thus will have reservations against same sex marriages). Most people in the United States today, even most people who are 'accepting' and would never try to make life difficult for gay people as a general matter of course, who would accept a family member that was gay and wish them happiness and love would really prefer that no one they care about be gay. These people don't want their children growing up in a world where they see marriage as a contract between two people , who see nothing wrong with same sex relationships because then these children might go ahead and find out whether that passing fancy for that pretty girl could be something more real instead of obediently redirecting all impulses.

I don't think there's anything inferior about being homosexual or same sex relationships. I want them to be socially accepted and marraige equality is an important step for that. But truthfully? to deny that this all leading down a certain path? is disengineous. All revolutions are step by step and we'll fight this one a step at a time but the other side isn't being irrational in seeing what we're aiming for and the natural consequences. (No more so then sexists were irrational when they fought so hard against every gain for women, they knew it was going somewhere, and it is, toward equality).

ETA: Of course, today I see this, where Amanda says the same thing. (Could have saved me the time!) :)
ETA2: Oops, the above link is the second half of the post that was in my head but on second thought it doesn't mirror what I actually wrote above.

Charlie Huston

I love books. Reading is my first and most favorite hobby, though I still haven't found a spiffy way of slipping this into casual conversation. Somehow, sometime in my twenties 'reading' stopped being a decent answer to the 'what are your hobbies' question, I've no idea why.

Anyway, I love good books. Good writing, good plot and great characters all in one manuscript. So rare, so delicious. I'll take two out of three when I must (often) and sometimes even one out of three but oh when I can get all three! (I do a little dance). The only way to make this even better? An author that is a decent bloke. An author I can like and admire and possibly even adore just a little. (What's worse then finding out the author you've been crushing on is a total homophobic asshole? Yes, yes, I am bitter, virtual cookie if you guess which authors have broken my heart.)

The prose style is distinct and unique, the character is engaging and recognizably different from the male protagonist of the author's other series (do you have any idea how rare that is?). The world is gritty, violent, fascinating and set in NYC.

This is Charlie Huston's Caught Stealing.

It is available for free in pdf form! Right now! For a limited time only! Go!

The two sequels will also be available soon. (Why the hell is this website so ugly and difficult? No fucking idea. But worth it for the great book for free!) How is that now the awesomest thing you've heard this month? (Well, second awesomest, I'm still feeling the afterglow of Nov. 4).

Why is Charlie Huston himself awesome? Because he writes without sentimentality but with great empathy. Because he offers us all new and original writing on his blog for free (a sure way to my heart). Because I love the way he talks about his family and himself. Why don't you go find out for yourself?

P.S. Dear Charlie, if you could only clean up your blog you would have an officially awesome online presence. Yes, I know you're very busy right now, what with baby and books and books and baby. But Srsly. Srsly!

P.P.S. I actually adore his Joe Pitt series a tiny bit more but Hank Thompson is very very cool.

Palin, 2

After the past couple of days I feel like I have to add to my recent post. Given the complete and total ignorance of Sarah Palin about the world and the United States of America I'm kind of less glad about her being nominated. I mean, in order for her nomination to have any kind of positive effect it has to be credible right? And this is freaking ridiculous.

Supreme Court decisions and newspapers for heavens sakes! I know it's shocking, but some actual knowledge (that's knowing stuff, like facts, as in separate from opinion or what kind of person you are) is required to do a high profile job in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government. Come on.

P.S. I think Katie Couric is similarly outraged.

"Prominent Conservative Women" or "Ideology Bends to Reality – Longterm"

The problem with sexism (one of the problems with sexism) is that it is impractical. If you want a conservative woman as your flag bearer you're going to have to deal with the fact that she isn't going to be living the conservative life style, because it is an impossible life style for prominent women to lead. A women should be attractive and young, but such a woman should have a family and be taking care of them. Yeah, Sarah Palin has lots of kids, but she's not the one taking care of them, she's not 'mothering' them in the conventional sense of the word.

Sarah Palin makes me happy. I dislike all of her positions (or at least all of her positions that I know of) and I even dislike all that I know of her personally. I vehemently hope that she will lose the general election and that the ideology that she espouses loses, both in November and long term. However, I'm thrilled that she is part of the national discourse, I think it immensely useful for feminist goals.

The current single largest barrier (not to diminish a variety of other barriers also present) to equality in the United States is the presumption of women as primary caretakers. Being a primary caretaker for children is extremely time consuming and for years at a time a full time occupation. It's also one of those things that while very difficult to do very well is simple to perform to a minimum level. (Like cooking actually). There are no special skills or training required. (I'd argue the need for heroic patience and large doses of empathy but it's all mostly debatable). A group of people (a class if you will) that is presumed to have a job that requires minimum skills, a lot of time, and no pay during some of the most productive years of a person's life, with a similar part time job in later years, is handicapped in the ability to achieve financial security or excess and great achievements of any kind. This is simple logic, if you do A you can't do B at the same time, if you don't do B now the total B that you do decreases.

Today, a substantial portion of society thinks women should have economic and political equality with men. Often, even men who espouse this view will not be eager to shoulder more work in the childcare department, this is, unfortunately, simply rational behavior on their part. However, as the view that women should be seen in political life permeates society and even conservatives feel the need to have women representing them, the basic incompatibility of the full time caretaker model (especially with the multiple children far right conservatives would have all of us have) with a competitive career becomes inescapable.

Sarah Palin, whatever else she is or isn't, is not the primary caretaker for her young children. The simple, brutal calculus of time does not allow it. Someone else is doing the majority of the diaper changes, the majority of the rocking to sleep or quite, the monitoring that the baby doesn't fall out or the toddler doesn't eat something toxic, and all that. I don't think there is anything wrong with this. I just want more women to have that choice, without facing shame or obstacles.

Rich women have always been able to break conventions, when the stars aligned just right in family connections and talent. There have always been exceptions and they have rarely done much for women as a group. Conservatives (and lets be fair, human beings) have always had a large tolerance for hypocrisy (maybe even a taste for it?). Sarah Palin though, is not particularly rich (though she is certainly well off) or terribly well connected (as far as I can tell). So, I think it a good sign. Queen Elizabeth didn't do much for society's view of women. No one women can or will. But there must be a critical mass, a time when there are enough women to point to and say “hey, she did this, and you think she's a good person, a good woman, why can't I?” that it will make a difference.

None of this will stop conservatives from trying to shame and tar liberal women by saying they're bad mothers and bad women for not being primary caretakers or for being outspoken or ambitious but the more Sarah Palins there are the more ammunition we have to go “R U Serious? Really?” And every non prominent conservative that votes for Palin is endorsing her lifestyle and though he may see no contradiction in his 'values' and his vote for Palin eventually these contradictions will seep through.

It makes the conservative arguments harder, and sooner or later they are abandoned. The overtone window moves.