Gay marriage isn’t a radical step; it’s just the next step.
| September 20th, 2005From today’s New York Times:
There’s nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.
The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year’s vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.
As a Republican leader explained in justifying his vote switch: “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before.” A Democrat attributed his change of heart to the beneficial effects he saw “when I looked in the eyes of the children living with these couples.”
The anti-marriage equality people aren’t done in Massachusetts yet, of course; they have a new ballot measure to ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions, which the voters will get to consider in 2008. But a March 2005 Boston Globe poll found that 56% of Massachusetts voters favor same-sex marriage, and that percentage will only increase over the next three years. I expect that the numbers that favor civil unions, which the ballot measure will also ban, are even higher. Unless equality advocates in Massachusetts totally mess things up, I don’t see how they can lose in 2008.
The anti-equality line in Massachusetts has now been defeated in both the courtrooms and in the legislature. When it gets defeated in a voter ballot in 2008, what new excuse will equality opponents find to refuse to acknowledge legitimate government actions?
I was particularly struck by the Republican the Times quoted, who said “Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry who could not before.” Damn straight. The odd thing about the fight for marriage equality is that, in and of itself, it won’t change very much.
Don’t get me wrong - for those lesbian and gay couples who want to get married, it’ll be a huge difference, and I’m outraged at the injustice done to same-sex couples unfairly barred from equality.
Nonetheless, marriage equality is not a radical change, in and of itself. Marriage equality is just the latest step of two long-existing trends.
One trend is the increasing gender neutrality of marriage; although there’s still a long ways to go, the “separate spheres” that once defined marriage have become overlapping spheres. Although stay at home dads are still a small minority, their numbers are increasing, and the idea no longer seems outlandish. The number of households in which both mom and dad contribute to the homemaking and the breadwinning has increased to the point that it’s probably the norm (although most mothers still do an unfairly large share of the shared labor).
There have been a number of laws that have changed as this trend towards greater sex equality has continued. Wives can now own property independently, have the right to refuse sex with their husbands, and women in general have many more protections from discrimination in the marketplace and workforce.
As marriage becomes less and less about “wives and husbands fulfill two strictly-bounded separate roles,” the rule that only women may marry men and vice-versa has lost its basis in our society.
The second trend, of course, is the increasing acceptance of sexual minorities as equal human beings and equal citizens. The increasing acceptance of queer equality has been going on since the Stonewall riot, at least, and marriage equality is just the latest phase of this long-term movement.
Both sex equality and queer rights are important long-term movements in our society - and both of them, over the last several generations, are radical changes. Same-sex marriage, however, is just one more effect of these larger social movements. Gay marriage isn’t a radical step; it’s just the next step.
September 20th, 2005 at 12:54 am
The next step toward what?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 2:31 am
The next step toward what?
Equality for all.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 2:35 am
Equality for all? Like, “Harrison Bergeron” or what?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 4:34 am
Robert, I think you’ll find that Kurt Vonnegut understands that equality is not the same as everyone exactly the same If you really don’t comprehend that, I recommend to your attention Madelaine L’Engle’s novel A Wrinkle In Time, where she uses Camazotz to mock the idea that for everyone to be equal, complete conformity must be imposed.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 4:35 am
(Indeed, recalling Camazotz, isn’t it strange how at-home the homophobes who oppose same-sex marriage would be there?)
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 7:19 am
Admittedly some straight people are slow on the uptake, but this isn’t really the time to be cursing them, is it? :-)
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 7:35 am
OK, so if not everybody the same, then what does it mean?
Example. I’m better looking than Amp, in most people’s eyes. Nothing against Amp, it’s just that I am fine. This means I have more opportunities than he does, in multiple arenas.
How do you resolve that, in the interests of equality?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 7:54 am
What on earth does that have to do barring a specific group of people from the same rights as another group, Robert?
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:19 am
I do think parts of the right are abandoning their opposition to gay marriage. Frankly, I think it’s because they’ve other battles they want to fight. They see much more important problems with marriage than letting gay people participate in it - such as no-fault divorce. As they see it, letting gay people get involved is minor compared to other issues.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:29 am
OK, so if not everybody the same, then what does it mean?
No, no, it’s definitely “Harrison Bergeron”. It couldn’t possibly mean equal treatment under the law.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:38 am
Well, clearly, since some people are better looking than others, we shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to marry. After all, equality is impossible.
Also, since we can’t all be “equal”, certain folks shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
This comment was written by acallidryas.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Robert, you are so helplful in prompting us to flesh out our reasoning.
Why can’t we give everyone the exact same mate-attraction opportunity? Because it’s unreasonable to scar all pretty people. It would reduce the total prettiness in the world. Your prettiness cannot be taken from you and given to me, no matter how much I might deserve to be pretty. We can knock you down a level, but I can’t reasonably be brought up a level. We don’t level the dating field by making pretty people ugly- it reduces the net amount of pretty. (We don’t offer all ugly people plastic surgery vouchers because the cost is prohibitive and there isn’t the technology to make it practical. Someone with a radical reparable looks disadvantage sometimes can get plastic surgery through charity or good insurance.)
If we tax people and then give the taxes out as welfare, at least there’s still the same net amount of money. If we tax people so much that they don’t want to work because it doesn’t really make them any more money, we’ve screwed up- reduced the supply of good things.
Marriage equality is better than either of these things: we can give everyone all the marriage they want without reducing the supply! If you see a reduction to the value of marriage, I would want to argue that it is small compared to the value of the increased number of marriages. (We’re not here to make every single opportunity for all people identical, only the one we can equalize without notably reducing overall.)
Of course, I guess I’m not really going to win you over with “It beats facial scarring and welfare.”
This comment was written by Olive.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Not sure where you’re headed with this, but I’m intrigued.
Admittedly, people have different attributes, some more adaptive than others. Government intervenes to help people overcome some challenges but not others, and the distinctions can seem arbitrary. (Tom Lehrer quips that the army has gone so far in helping people overcome challenges that it promotes people without regard to race, creed, religion or ability.) Even the choices about which attributes are governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act can seem arbitrary.
But where government imposes discrimination, government often has a duty to remedy. I suspect that the Equal Protection clause does not obligate government to help blind people cross the street. A blind person might sue, arguing that sighted people can cross streets safely and that she lacks that same opportunity, but I suspect the argument would not prevail on Equal Protection grounds. But if government passed a law saying blind people couldn’t enjoy the same benefits of marriage as sighted people, an Equal Protection argument would likely succeed. True, government did not create the condition of blindness, but government chose to link that condition to some kind to government benefits. Absent the usual Equal Protection showings (legit government interest linking blindness and marriage, narrowly-tailored policy to promote that interest, etc.), the policy would fail. Government imposed unjustified discrimination; government would have a duty to fix it.
The challenges faced by same-sex people who wish to marry is not a function of the people; it is a function of the law. As Massachusetts and various foreign nations demonstrate, once the legal obstacle is removed the marriages proceed just fine. With this empirical evidence, it grows increasingly difficult to argue that the obstacle to SSM lies with the SS couples themselves. That is, in part, what Massachusetts’ legislators have discovered.
But these are fine legal distinctions. Don’t worry your oh-so-pretty little head over such things…. :-)
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 9:43 am
I suspect that the Equal Protection clause does not obligate government to help blind people cross the street.
No, that would be the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 9:49 am
This argument certainly appeals to the libertarian in me. Two quibbles.
1. Marriage is more like welfare than people want to admit. Marriage results in certain wealth transfers to the happy couple: a spouse gains access to a partner’s Social Security death benefits, etc., which ends up imposing a cost on the rest of society. Thus, a GNM policy is not costless, and there are at least theoretical reasons to question how much “marriage” our society can afford.
2. I’m really hung up on the Equal Protection argument, so forgive me when I say that I don’t give a rat’s ass how much SSM costs. If SSM costs too much, then the nondiscriminatory remedy is to repeal civil marriage entirely or reduce the benefits of civil marriage to the point where we can afford to distribute them on a non-discriminatory basis.
Yes, letting blacks go to lousy schools is cheaper than integrating the schools; TOO DAMN BAD. Equal Protection means EQUAL protection, and cost does not justify withholding it. While I suspect that the social benefits of marriage outweigh its costs (and that the benefits of SSM will outweigh its costs, too), ultimately it does not influence my opinion of this matter one way or the other. Expensive policy, cheap policy, beneficial policy, harmful policy - those are matters of legislative prerogative; but EQUAL policy is a Constitutional mandate, and fundamental to the rule of law.
Pray for wisdom. Demand equality.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:05 am
“Example. I’m better looking than Amp, in most people’s eyes. Nothing against Amp, it’s just that I am fine. This means I have more opportunities than he does, in multiple arenas. ”
Actually you have less “opportunities” since you have the privilege of being married, thus significantly reducing your “opportunities” to the grand sum of one.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:28 am
I think the correct Wikipedia link to Harrison Bergeron is this one.
I think Olive has nailed this argument. More marriage for everyone!
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Well, I’m confused.
The answer was “equality for all”. Is this answer being moved to “equal treatment under the law”? Because those two things don’t have a whole lot in common.
I can get all over equal treatment under the law.
But is that the goal?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:48 am
I think equal treatment under the law is the goal, if what we’re discussing is the narrow question of SSM (aka marriage equality, aka gender-neutral marriage, etc).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Robert: The answer was “equality for all”. Is this answer being moved to “equal treatment under the law”? Because those two things don’t have a whole lot in common.
*blinks*
If you think that “equality” doesn’t have even “a whole lot in common” with “equal treatment under the law”, but instead means “everyone forced to be exactly the same”, I think you need to go do some remedial reading, Robert, and that’s not sarcasm: if you’re honestly so confused about the meaning of “equality” that you can’t see any connection between it and “equal treatment under the law”, then your understanding of the English language is mediocre at best, distorted at worst.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Jesurgislac, I wrote specifically and accurately. If you do not understand the rich differences between “equality for all” and “equal justice under the law”, I recommend any of the classical liberal works which form the sadly-neglected foundation of your own (apparent) political position.
Amp, OK, that’s the narrow goal; I had that figured out. But you tagged your post with “[SSM] is not a radical step, just the next step” - and I’m asking, the next step towards what, exactly? Your myrmidons appear to be confused on the issue. :)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Robert: Jesurgislac, I wrote specifically and accurately
*shrug* If you think Like, “Harrison Bergeron” or what? is “writing specifically and accurately” I reiterate my wish that you should do further study. In particular, you need to understand that equality and everyone exactly alike really have nothing in common, whereas equality and equal treatment under the law have… well, a vast degree in common. Your entire argument in this thread appears to be based on your confusion on these points, which rest not on the law, but on a basic understanding of logic and the English language.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Robert: Your myrmidons appear to be confused on the issue. :)
Since you appear to be the only person on this thread confused on this issue, are you then “Ampersand’s myrmidons”? I should tell you, then, that “myrmidon” is a plural noun (the “s” on the end is the clue) and since you should know that you are confused on the issue, a better way to phrase this comment would be “Your myrmidon is confused on this issue”. :-)
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
nobody.really-
Just for the record, I want to be clear that reasons of equality under the law, fundamental moral values, and the inappropriateness of this discrimination are plenty for me personally : ). I think it’s worth note that there are more than one complete arguments for equal rights to legal marriage. (Another argument over what rights are appropriately bundled together under the label “marriage” might be worth having for your first quibble.)
But hey, Robert wanted a discussion about why we might advocate one opportunity equalizer but not another.
This comment was written by Olive.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I agree that SSM is part of the trend towards gender equality in marriage, but I also constantly have to remind myself that many people’s discomfort with SSM stems from their desire to maintain traditional gender roles in heterosexual marriage. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that not legalizing SSM will prevent the shift in gender roles that is already occurring in marriage. It’s also wildly discriminatory to allow the marriages of straight couples with non-traditional gender roles but not to allow the marriages of same-sex couples with non-traditional gender roles.
And speaking of non-traditional marriages, I’d like to take issue with the comment:
With the happy consent of everyone involved, I happen to have both a husband and a boyfriend. So “equal” certainly doesn’t mean “the same,” since my marriage is obviously quite different from the marriage of a monogamous heterosexual couple; yet the law affords my husband and me equal rights to our monogamous married friends. Affording same-sex couples equal protection under the law is the next step towards diversifying the institution of marriage to more fully include the variety of long-term commitments people choose to make to one another.
This comment was written by dryad.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
The next step towards a nonsexist, nonhomophobic society.
I can’t claim to know what the next steps will be; if you had asked me four years ago, I wouldn’t have forseen that SSM would be the next step.
Personally, I’d like to see more child-friendly workplaces, more men taking care of their children, a smaller wage gap, and an openly lesbian President of the USA, among other steps.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Only if, for the sake of your argument, we assume the lights are on.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Only if, for the sake of your argument, we assume the lights are on.
Looks this good don’t rely on any second-hand photons, baby. I glow. There’s a reason I got the womens lining up to be oppressed in my patriarchial dictatorship, ya know.
…towards a nonsexist, nonhomophobic society.
Nuts. I was hoping for the more-easily-destroyed equality-at-all costs answer, but oh well. Now I have to do it the hard way. (”It’s hard work!”)
How will a nonsexist, nonhomophobic society culturally perpetuate itself?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Why can’t we give everyone the exact same mate-attraction opportunity? Because it’s unreasonable to scar all pretty people.
No. We can’t give everyone the exact same mate-attraction opportunity because “all men are created equal” doesn’t mean “all men will end up equal”. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal outcome. The philosophy of our system of government guarantees everyone the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. It doesn’t guarantee that they get it. It also doesn’t view the role of government as helping people attain those goals; government exists to secure rights, not to guarantee the outcomes when we exercise them.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Personally, I’d like to see … an openly lesbian President of the USA ….
I’m not sure if you’re advocating this, Amp, but the day that this country elects a President because of their sexual orientation and expecting certain desirable changes to occur thereby is the day we’ll will have officially gone off the deep end.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
With the happy consent of everyone involved, I happen to have both a husband and a boyfriend. So “equal” certainly doesn’t mean “the same,” since my marriage is obviously quite different from the marriage of a monogamous heterosexual couple; yet the law affords my husband and me equal rights to our monogamous married friends.
Should you have kids, and should some meddling person decide that living in such a household constitutes child abuse, I wonder if you would find out differently. Let me be perfectly clear that I would not be that meddling person, nor would I advocate it. And maybe this has been adjudicated somewhere and I’m absolutely full of it. I imagine the state courts of Massachusetts vs. those of Utah would rule differently on the subject.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Same Sex Marriage changes a basic human societial institution that has not admitted of such a change from it’s inception 1000’s of years ago. Just because a change seems to be progressing smoothly doesn’t mean it’s not radical. Especially when enough states to pass a Constitutional amendment are on record as opposing it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Robert,
I _know_ you have more brains than that, otherwise you wouldn’t have used the word ‘myrmidons’ (well, unless you just looked it up or something) and I’m left with the choice to assume you are being deliberately obtuse. Since I also assume you grew up here in the U.S. and not France ;), you also grew up in our culture and know that when Americans speak of ‘equality’ in the political and even social landscape we speak of “equality in our standing before the law.” We aren’t Communist (though I know you conservatives like to label us thusly), or even French for that matter ;).
I don’t know about Ampersand (really, i’m not one of his myrmidons, though I’ve applied at the main office), but to me its the next step towards full _equality before the law_ for all people, we’ve been on that ladder for a long 230 years. We’ve come a long way (considering that getting rid of the official and legal class system we had called slavery was a big step), but we have a ways to go still.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
RonF: but the day that this country elects a President because of their sexual orientation and expecting certain desirable changes to occur thereby is the day we’ll will have officially gone off the deep end.
You do realise that this has already happened?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
RonF: but the day that this country elects a President because of their sexual orientation and expecting certain desirable changes to occur thereby is the day we’ll will have officially gone off the deep end.
jesurgislac: You do realise that this has already happened?
yeah, we keep electing straight men because they are straight and men and aren’t gay or women and it doesn’t seem to be working. We must really be desparate.
This comment was written by trey.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
you also grew up in our culture and know that when Americans speak of ‘equality’ in the political and even social landscape we speak of “equality in our standing before the law.”
No, I don’t know that.
I know that there are probably a fair number of people who think that this is true of themselves, but it does not appear evident in their political/social behavior.
To make the easy case in point:
1) Do you believe that all Americans should be equal in standing before the law?
2) Do you support the existence of governmental affirmative action?
I would give long odds that you answer affirmatively to both questions. And then the handwaving and the “yes but” begins, and so forth. People who talk about “equality” generally - not always, but generally - are in fact talking about equality of outcomes, not equal standing. If blacks and Asians are both welcome to apply to UCLA Law and are both judged on the same standing, then there is equal standing before the law - but most advocates of “equality” would find that outcome abhorrent.
People who believe in formal equal treatment before the law are (mostly and broadly) libertarian or conservatives. People who believe in “equality” are (mostly and broadly) liberal. There really isn’t much overlap in the concepts, but it is rhetorically and politically important for liberals to claim there is, because of the beating that “equality” as a concept has taken in the public mindshare. Thanks, as you note, to the Communists and other extreme fringers. You say “We aren’t Communist” - but I’m afraid that quite a number of you are, or were. (Not any particular “you” - the left in general.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Oooo, the plot thickens! Robert keeps the thread alive with two provocative arguments.
Uh … the same way that sexist, homophobic societies do, but with a little less sexism and homophobia? It is clearly unfair to complain that Robert hasn’t contributed enough to the discussion, but post like this leave me itching to learn how sexism and homophobia are necessary for cultural perpetuation. Or are you simply sayng that human societies will never stamp out prejudice completely?
So Affirmative Action is the target? Got it.
Of course, not all libertarians/conservatives oppose skewing government policy to promote the interests of minorities at the expense of majorities.
And I expect that even libertarians and conservatives would agree with the brilliant commentor above who noted that “where government imposes discrimination, government often has a duty to remedy.” After all, what property-rights-loving American would deny that when a police car crashes into you, you should be compensated? Where AA is understood as compensation for government-inflicted harm, and not everyone was equally harmed, then unequal treatment is justified, no?
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Uh … the same way that sexist, homophobic societies do, but with a little less sexism and homophobia? … this leave[s] me itching to learn how sexism and homophobia are necessary for cultural perpetuation.
Culture is passed on through education. The subjects for the education are either born into the culture, or choose to voluntarily adhere to it.
A nonsexist and nonhomophobic culture may be extremely admirable from a moral point of view. However, the cultures that are moving in that direction are also the cultures which are not bringing new children into the world, or convincing members of other cultures to jump ship.
Sexism and homophobia appear to be cultural markers which are somewhat linked to cultural vitality, and their opposites appear to be somewhat linked to cultural decline. I don’t applaud this but I do observe it. It’s great that Amp and his circle of like-minded folks seek egalitarian outcomes in life. Amp and his circle of friends have practically no children. My egalitarian friends have practically no children; my non-egalitarian friends have plenty of kids. Members of other cultures do not come to America and say “hooray, hard-left egalitarianism” and give up going to the mosque - there’s not much of a conversion going on there. There are some “flips” in the university system, where the left-egalitarian memes are fairly dominant - but those flips are rarely deep or permanent. People tend to go back to the values in which they were raised. Late-teen rebellion is not a stable matrix on which to build a new culture.
So - in a world positively teeming with Mormons, hardcore Catholics, Muslims, and evangelical Protestants, how exactly is this wonderful equal culture going to propagate itself?
In a world where no other cultures exist or are conceivable, sure. But in a world with competition from other groups? Don’t see it happening.
So Affirmative Action is the target? Got it.
No, just the easiest example.
Where AA is understood as compensation for government-inflicted harm, and not everyone was equally harmed, then unequal treatment is justified, no?
Surely. But that’s handwaving that obscures the central point: lip service to the philosophical ideal, but actual commitment to an equal-outcome philosophy that goes unarticulated.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Same Sex Marriage changes a basic human societial institution that has not admitted of such a change from it’s inception 1000’s of years ago.
So you also abhor changes in the law that criminalize wife-beating and rape, give women the same rights under the law as their husbands, and allow children born out of wedlock to inherit from their fathers, right?
So - in a world positively teeming with Mormons, hardcore Catholics, Muslims, and evangelical Protestants, how exactly is this wonderful equal culture going to propagate itself?
Public education. Not quite the answer you were hoping for, I’m sure.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
Sexism and homophobia appear to be cultural markers which are somewhat linked to cultural vitality, and their opposites appear to be somewhat linked to cultural decline. I don’t applaud this but I do observe it. It’s great that Amp and his circle of like-minded folks seek egalitarian outcomes in life. Amp and his circle of friends have practically no children.
Could it be that in modern western civilization that the egalitarian seeking philosophy happens to often be paired with a belief that we are already overpopulated and, thus, having children at this point in time, in this culture is an immoral act that will lead to the end of our current culture? Just because a culture is currently reproducing below replacement level doesn’t mean that a culture will always reproduce below replacement level. Could there be any of a number of reasons for this phenomenom that you observe?
What is that oft repeated saying about causation & correlation?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Robert,
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments you have ever made.
Comparing today to 100 years ago, would you say that there are more people or less people who believe that men and women are basically equal, and that gays should not be prosecuted and persecuted? Compared to 100 years ago, do you think there are more or less people who reject the idea that women give up the right to refuse to have sex when they get married?
100 years ago, your views (for instance, I think you would be very happy if either of your daughters grew up to be a doctor, or a lawyer or a banker) would have been fairly radically egalitarian. Now they are merely the mainstream muddle.
Given that egalitarian culture has expanded extensively in the past 100 years, your fantasy that culture is replicated almost entirely through having children is simply bizarre. Did Brazil criminalize honor killings in the mid nineties because the anti-honor killing portions of the population had out-reproduced the pro-honor killing portion of the population? Has the massive expansion of women’s suffrage over the past century really been the result of a global population shift in which a pro-suffragist ethnicity has expanded (by breeding) to take over the whole World. Is the ever-expanding movement for Gay Rights being spread predominantly by gay-friendly parents raising their kids to be gay-friendly? Do you think my attitudes towards gays mostly reflect those of my Sicillian ancestors? Come to that, does much of anything in my cultural make-up reflect that of my Sicillian ancestors (since we foreigners are so difficult to assiimilate into the dominant American culture)?
Sheesh!
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Going in order of length:
Public education.
Sure. That train has about reached the last station, I think. Publicly-funded education will be with us always; public education setting the cultural agenda, I think not. Public educators had a big window of opportunity (and they used it) for cultural indoctrination, when they were
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Charles wrote:
Stick around, I’m sure we can count on him to top himself any minute, but that’s all right– As the best-looking person on the thread, it’s okay for him to be dumb. That way, we ugly smart people won’t have as much cause to be jealous.
BTW, I had no idea you were Sicillian. Can you call me and say, “I will BURY YOU,” on my answering machine like Yaphet Kotto’s character used to do on *Homicide* ? That would be cool.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
Some kind of Firefox explosion there. Sorry. Let’s start over.
Going in order of length:
Public education.
Sure. That train has about reached the last station, I think. Publicly-funded education will be with us always; public education setting the cultural agenda, I think not. Public educators had a big window of opportunity (and they used it) for cultural indoctrination, when they had a captive audience of semi-literate farmers and mass immigrants. They now face an uphill battle.
My kids, by the way, aren’t in public school. Nor shall they be. Seen a trendline of homeschooling lately?
Could it be that in modern western civilization that the egalitarian seeking philosophy happens to often be paired with a belief that we are already overpopulated and, thus, having children at this point in time, in this culture is an immoral act that will lead to the end of our current culture?
It could be, but that would be a profoundly stupid belief. “If we replace ourselves, we’ll die!” OK, then. Fortunately this is one of those self-correcting problems.
And finally Charles:
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments you have ever made.
That has to be worthy of some kind of commemoration. How about a flashing gold star next to the comment,Amp?
Comparing today to 100 years ago, would you say that there are more people or less people who [have a broadly liberal view of various things]
In absolute terms, more people. In percentage of the species terms, less. The green revolution (not the hippie kind, the awful one with chemicals and population growth) did not multiply the population of the liberal West tenfold; it multiplied the rest of the world. You got a lot worse demographic slice now than you did then, chief.
your fantasy that culture is replicated almost entirely through having children is simply bizarre
Or voluntary adherence; your Sicilian ancestors, and mine, signed on to America. Those are the only mechanisms I know of; whatcha got up your sleeve, paisan?
Given that egalitarian culture has expanded extensively in the past 100 years…
You’re confusing cultural change with cultural survival. I don’t argue against the proposition that there have been major cultural changes in an egalitarian direction among most Western societies - changes that, as you note, even a rabid old crank like myself often approve. I’m arguing against the proposition that the logical extreme ending point of those cultural changes is a culture that can sustain itself.
In purely demographic terms, egalitarian culture is smaller now than it was in the past. In geographic terms, it’s considerably smaller, and on a shrink curve, not a growth curve. Europe is very egalitarian - but in 40 years, it won’t be, because the nice social democrats who believe in rights for gays aren’t having any kids, and they are importing Islamic fundamentalists to do the work of those kids. Whether that’s good or bad probably depends on whether you’re a European social democrat or an Islamic fundamentalist, but either way, in 2045 we don’t end up with gay marriage in Vienna. They’re already bringing in Sharia law in neighborhoods throughout Europe, Charles.
True, it’s not a pure baby race. Cultures can adapt and change, and perhaps someone will hit upon a way to let a gay-normalized, androgynous, pacifistic culture of sub-replacement birth rates sustain itself against a world full of hungry fundamentalists with nukes. I don’t see it happening, but I’m not God.
In the meantime, my only real point here is that it does not appear to this observer that the desired end-product of the left-egalitarian mindset is a survivable culture.
If you know of a way for that to happen, I’d be very interested in hearing it, of course. Right now it seems like you’re just denying that there’s a cultural competition at all.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
As the best-looking person on the thread, it’s okay for him to be dumb. That way, we ugly smart people won’t have as much cause to be jealous.
I’m just better looking than Amp. With Charles, it’s a horse race; he’s a good-looking fella, if you like ‘em weedy but cute. The rest of you, I don’t know personally. Post pictures and I’ll tell you.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
…because the nice social democrats who believe in rights for gays aren’t having any kids…
Really? I had no idea that social democrats weren’t having any kids.
But seriously, folks. It’s nice to see the racist scare tactic of “sharia law in Europe” gaining ever more popularity. “Breed, white men, the fundamentalists are coming!” is nothing more than thinly veiled fundamentalism itself.
By the who, we are replacing ourselves. We just aren’t doing it at a 2 to 1 ratio. One would suspect that, like most animal populations which go through periods of both growth & decline, that humanity might do the same.
You seem to suffer from the basic problem that dooms capitalism as it currently exists. That is the belief that the economy (or population) can grow indefinitely. Resources are finite and, thus, cannot sustain infinite economic (or population) growth.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 20th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Seen a trendline of homeschooling lately?
And you believe that this trend will continue indefinitely? Homeschooling, like many other practices goes through periods of increase & decrease.
What percentage of homeschooling families do so for mainly religious reasons? IME, it is well over 80%, but that’s just anecdotal. What percentage of children are homeschooled today? What was that percentage 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 100 years ago? 150 years ago?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 12:11 am
Jake:
It’s nice to see the racist scare tactic of “sharia law in Europe” gaining ever more popularity.
Being concerned about the importation of sharia law to the heart of the Enlightenment is racist?
Hey, there’s another oppressive fundamentalism whose expansion into the state causes concern for a lot of people in the West - and some of that fundamentalism’s followers are black, too. Is pretty much everybody on this blog site a racist for being worried about that?
By the way, “scare tactic” is generally employed to denote the use of a chimerical danger to alarm an audience - the witches are coming, etc. It stops becoming a scare tactic when it’s an actual reality. And it’s an actual reality that sharia law is gaining a foothold in Europe.
Your guesses on homeschooling are off base; I’ll leave it at that.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 12:57 am
I’m just better looking than Amp.
Where can I find a picture of you, Robert? I am curious.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 1:04 am
Hmm, don’t think there’s a recent photo of me anywhere online. I used to have one on a Yahoo profile, but that was just a successful ploy to get married . You can extrapolate a generation backwards and older from this.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 1:09 am
Robert: However, the cultures that are moving in that direction are also the cultures which are not bringing new children into the world, or convincing members of other cultures to jump ship.
*giggles unstoppably*
Why on earth do these people make this patently untrue claims and expect to be listened to?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 1:19 am
Adorable. But no. :) I know lots of adorable kids with very homely parents. Based on the evidence, Amp wins. I have seen pictures of him. He is darned cute and cuddly to boot. He could eat crackers in bed any time he wanted to.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 1:29 am
You are, of course, entitled to your completely insane opinions, mousehounde. ;P
Jesurgislac, I don’t “expect” to be listened to. Your behavior is entirely of your own volition.
If you have some indication or evidence that there is a positive correlation between gay- and feminist-friendly social policies and birth rate, I would be delighted to review it.
We all know, or should, that the European nations in the vanguard of these policies have low, and in some distressing cases, overall negative birth rates. And we know that our own country has reduced its birth rate among (I think) all demographic groups except perhaps some small indigenous groups, at the same time as women’s rights and tolerance of gays has grown. So that is some data, at least, pointing to a negative correlation: nicer to women/gays -> less babies.
(I hasten to note that although guesses about causation are just that, I would be very surprised to find there is much, if any, causal link between the tolerance of gays and declining birth rates. Maybe a little one. It would seem logical that a causal link, if there is one, would be connected to women directly somehow).
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 2:47 am
Robert: We all know, or should, that the European nations in the vanguard of these policies have low, and in some distressing cases, overall negative birth rates.
Really? Let’s take a look at some of these countries.
The Netherlands has 11.14 births/1,000 population, 8.68 deaths/1,000 population, and a population growth rate of 0.53%. (Life expectancy at birth: 78.81 years: infant mortality rate: 5.04 deaths/1,000 live births)
Belgium has 10.48 births/1,000 population, 10.22 deaths/1,000 population, and a population growth rate of 0.15%. (Life expectancy at birth: 78.62 years: infant mortality rate: 4.68 deaths/1,000 live births)
Denmark has 11.36 births/1,000 population, 10.43 deaths/1,000 population, and a population growth rate of 0.34%. (Life expectancy at birth: 77.62 years: infant mortality rate: 4.56 deaths/1,000 live births)
Sweden has 10.36 births/1,000 population, 10.36 deaths/1,000 population, and a population growth rate of 0.17%. (Life expectancy at birth: 80.4 years: infant mortality rate: 2.77 deaths/1,000 live births.)
Norway has 11.67 births/1,000 population, 9.45 deaths/1,000 population, and a population growth rate of 0.4%. (Life expectancy at birth: 79.4 years: infant mortality rate: 3.7 deaths/1,000 live births.)
In short, all of these countries have more babies being born than people dying, low population growth rates, and people living long and healthy lives. You see this as a bad thing why?
Comparitive figures for the US: 14.14 births/1,000 population, 8.25 deaths/1,000 population, and a population growth rate of 0.92%*. (Life expectancy at birth: 77.71 years: infant mortality rate: 6.5 deaths/1,000 live births.)
People in civilised countries, where women are not abused, expect to live long and healthy lives; and if they have children, to see their children grow up and have grandchildren. Population growth is stable.
I picked out these five countries because they’ve been in the vanguard both for equal rights for women and for gays: you really need to go check your facts from a neutral source before making fantastic claims. The point is not to have “more babies”, as if that were an accomplishment in itself: it’s no use having more babies than your neighbors if more of them die in infancy, is it now?
*Significantly higher migration rate than for any of the European countries I looked at.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 3:58 am
Robert,
Has India gotten more or less progressive in the past hundred years? How about China? How about South Africa? For that matter, how about Kenya or Indonesia? I mentioned Brazil earlier. Did you disagree? Or are you only claiming that a sub-culture that does not have children will necessarily vanish? A strange claim, are there really fewer people not having kids now than there were a hundred years ago? While the act of not having kids may be a genetic dead end, the idea of not having kids is transmitted by other means. Has Catholicism died out because its promulgators and developers don’t have children?
The history of the last two hundred years makes at least as much sense read as: technological advance leads to progressive cultural advances (less sexist, more homophobic), and also leads to a drop in population growth rates, as less children are required to ensure that you have someone to look after you in your old age (if each child has a 50% chance of dying before you reach old age, you need a bunch of children to be reasonably sure you have some left to take care of you in your old age, if each child has a 5% chance of dying before they can take care of you, you can roll the dice on only having one, etc. ), each child can produce more surplus to support you, and the birth control tech gives you the choice of still having sex and not getting pregnant. While the areas that advance fastest technologically see a drop in population, this is not because they have become some sort of bizarre progressive death culture, and they don’t particularly have to worry about becoming progressively rarer, so long as the same technological advances are spreading globally, allowing other cultures to also drop there growth rates and become progressive or so long as they are supportive of immigration, and therefore bring in ever more people to become technologically situated to become low reproducers and progressive.
Furthermore, since nowhere in the progressive industrial nations (including Japan) is radically below replacement or not likely to stay there perpetually, the idea that we progressives are just going to vanish is out-right silly. Likewise, the idea that those scary Islamicists will take over Europe ignores exactly the idea of “buying in” that explains why I don’t speak Italian (or why I am even here at all - I was cheating, I’m only a quarter Sicilian, so it was the Americanization of my Sicilian ancestors (who were hard-core assimilationists) that led my parents to be easily culturally compatible and unremarkable as a couple (and explains why I can’t do a decent mafioso impersonation for alsis)). I suspect that far more first generation Jewish immigrants to the US strictly observed Halachic law than modern American Jews do. Although the European situation of Muslim immigrants is obviously different, I suspect that similarly assimilation and integration are possible for Muslims in Europe (the massive growth in the Islamic population of Europe is still a relatively recent phenomenon - lots of fine conservative Anglo culture mavens were screaming about what the horrid Italians would do to the rest of my family’s glorious WASP culture when my great grandfather and great grandmother were fresh off the boat).
Also, the US population went from 76 million to 272 million during the 20th century, while the world population went from 1.6 billion (approx) to 6 billion. In both cases, this is a little less than quadrupling. Even if we pretend that all of those heathen non-Westerners have stayed frozen in their opposition to gay marriage (which is manifestly untrue), I feel confident that the massive increase in support for it here has easily made up for the tiny decrease in US population as a percentage of the World population (and plenty of those conservative new immigrants in the last hundred years have had progressive children, so the fact that the US has maintained near parity through immigration doesn’t seem to have mattered at all) .
Meanwhile, Denmark has gone from 2.5 million to 5.4 million, so its demographic fraction has dropped noticeably. Since it is still above replacement, but only barely, it will probably be reduced to 1/3 its 1900 fraction of the world population by the time we stabilize at 9 billion.
Does this demographic decrease really warrant fantasies of Danish progressivism vanishing from the world through demographic forces? I really don’t think so.
And I really don’t think its a good idea for Amp to mess with the php to give your dumbest comment a gold star :) It would probably overload the servers and lead to the shutting down of the site.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 4:30 am
Oh, come one, RonF!
Marriage, you claim, has not changed in thousands of years. Well, George Bush may claim to have a degree in history but clearly you don’t - or in anthropology, or in literature. What are you, a mathematician?
In my lifetime the proportion of women not marrying at all has increased, the incidence of divorce has increased, the proportion of babies born to a single parent or unwed couple has increased, maternal deaths and infant mortality have gone down, tax and benefit rules have changed - in most of the developed world. And bans on inter-racial marriage in the US were ruled to be unconstitutional. But nothing changed? OK, I’ll try to believe you.
But then we come up against the fairly large chunk of my brain which studied sociology, has always loved social history, has read much of the literature in English of the past 3 centuries plus, of course, takes in the evidence of my own eyes.
I’m not going to do you a reading list precicely because for someone who can make that assertion it would be a waste of time. Just read Anne Bronte’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall - it’s quite slim - then come back and tell us that nothing has changed!
This comment was written by maureen.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 4:31 am
Robert said: Cultures can adapt and change, and perhaps someone will hit upon a way to let a gay-normalized, androgynous, pacifistic culture of sub-replacement birth rates sustain itself against a world full of hungry fundamentalists with nukes.
Well (ignoring Robert’s unrealistic fantasies about “sub-replacement birth rates”) if we look at his assessment of the EU as a “gay-normalized, androgynous, pacifistic culture” and the US as a culture of “hungry fundamentalists with nukes” then it all makes sense. Sort of.
The problem is that the EU:
-has “gay-normalized” laws (of the twenty-two countries now providing equal or near-equal civil rights to same-sex couples/mixed-sex couples, the vast majority are in Europe),
-lack of military spending compared to the US (which may be why Robert thinks of it as “pacifistic” - no, Robert, I think it’s that the majority of people in the EU have either direct experience of war or parents/grandparents with direct experience: which is not true of the majority in the US),
-progress on equality for women and men (which is presumably what Robert thinks of as “androgynous culture”)
and yet, the EU is presently the only global power which may yet challenge the US as a global superpower, that land which Robert thinks of as “hungry fundamentalists with nukes”.
Sooner or later, Robert, you have to learn that just because your country is run by “fundamentalists with nukes”, hungry for power, it won’t automatically win over countries which are, in your view, “gay-normalized, androgynous, pacifistic”. The fundamentalistic aspect of US culture, the right-wing “Christians”, may run the country, but their culture is not popular outside of American borders.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 7:21 am
…- lots of fine conservative Anglo culture mavens were screaming about what the horrid Italians would do to the rest of my family’s glorious WASP culture when my great grandfather and great grandmother were fresh off the boat).
This, Robert, is an example of a racist scare tactic. It has been used in the USA during every wave of immigration. It was said about the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Koreans and on and on. Now we hear the same things about Arabs in Europe.
By the way, “scare tactic” is generally employed to denote the use of a chimerical danger to alarm an audience - the witches are coming, etc. It stops becoming a scare tactic when it’s an actual reality. And it’s an actual reality that sharia law is gaining a foothold in Europe.
Yes, and it was actual reality that Jewish (and Irish & Italian) culture was gaining a foothold in the USA in the late 19th & early 20th centuries. “Sharia in Europe! Ahhhhh!” is indeed use of a chimerical danger to alarm an audience that those others are really, really scary.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 7:46 am
May I ask how you envision SSM as providing “equal protection” for gays and lesbians? I see that SSM would make certain benefits of marriage available to gays and lesbians, but I think it is a stretch to imply that it will offer protection. I am assuming that by protection you mean some of the grosser forms of civil rights abuses that homosexuals still face (i.e. housing, employment, hate crimes).
Changing the nature and institution of marriage only serves to change the nature and institution of marriage. I refuse to buy that in the future I would have to get married in order to have equal civil rights to heterosexuals. That’s putting the most obvious heteronormative expectations and “rules” on my homosexuality that I can think of. You might think you are radically changing some portion of marriage by having a husband that allows you to have a boyfriend, but I hate to break it to you — that is the nature of marriage, and has been since the institution began. Terms like “mistress” help to dispell the myth that you are doing something revolutionary for the good of all gays and lesbians.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 7:48 am
If you have some indication or evidence that there is a positive correlation between gay- and feminist-friendly social policies and birth rate
If you have any evidence at all that “gay-friendly” social policies affect the birth rate one way or the other, do share. I mean, one does hear anti-SSMers arguing that SSM would lead to more queers having babies, which is naturally a terrible thing for the children, and so we should not permit it.
Public educators had a big window of opportunity (and they used it) for cultural indoctrination, when they had a captive audience of semi-literate farmers and mass immigrants. They now face an uphill battle.
Other than simple assertion, can you explain in what way it is an uphill battle now and wasn’t then? Legally, students are still a “captive audience”–perhaps more so now that we have better means of tracking down recent immigrants, and greater incentive for them to attend and stay in school. (America is no longer a place where anybody with a strong back can quit school in eighth grade and make a family wage.) And we do, as we did then, have “semi-literate farmers and mass immigrants” flocking to the schools.
I’m all for homeschooling, but there really hasn’t been and isn’t going to be a tectonic shift in the educational system where everyone turns to it.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 7:55 am
RonF writes:
Men have traditionally had lovers/mistresses outside of their marriage contract… why do you envision that a “meddling” person would find this to be an abusive situation for children?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 9:43 am
May I ask how you envision SSM as providing “equal protection” for gays and lesbians? I see that SSM would make certain benefits of marriage available to gays and lesbians, but I think it is a stretch to imply that it will offer protection.
Absolutely correct, Q Grrl. And that, I think, is why Marriage Rights (the thing formerly known as SSM) is not a radical step. It doesn’t provide equal protection, it merely opens up one set of governmentally recognized privileges/benefits to a minority to which it was previously denied. But it is another incremental change in the direction of equality to the status of lesbians and gays in the USA.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 10:10 am
Oh, never underestimate Sydney!
Oh, never underestimate Robert!
Robert, didn’t I JUST say not to do that? (It’s like I’m talking to Sydney….)
Yeah, prediction is hard. Both columnist Thomas Friedman and Rabbi Harold Kushner had expected fundamentalism to disappear from an increasingly rational world. But as social change accelerates and people have fewer things that they can count on, the appeal of certainty increases. “Fanatic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt; it is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure.” (Niebuhr)
I suspect we are more willing to entertain discretionary concerns - including the concerns of anyone other than ourselves - when we’re not preoccupied with some larger threat to our way of life. The Civil War, the world wars, the McCarthy-era Red Scare, and the current War on Terror promoted conformity. Periods between these national emergencies - the 1870s, the 1920s, the 1960s and the 1990s - were marked by greater tolerance for people who did not conform.
A social safety net reduces social anxiety. And stability, not necessity, is the mother of social innovation. The US and French revolutions did not occur when the rebel leaders were destitute; they occurred when the leaders were secure enough to demand more. In contrast, I may not really believe that gay marriage will destroy society, but if I’m just barely hanging on to my job and my family as it is, can I afford to take that chance?
The people most opposed to gay marriage live in areas most hurt by social change: outsourcing of low-skilled jobs, increasing divorce, growing drug addiction, violent crime, immigration, the Iraq War, etc. Like the fundamentalist Muslims in the Arab world, they are anxious. They fear - with some justification - that other people look down on them and blame them for their own problems (the “dignity deficit”). They pine for the Good Old Days when things were better, and they curse things associated with the modernity that has robbed them of their rightful place in the world. With so much divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, and indecency in the media, how could anyone possibly think is was a good time to liberalize sexuality? We desperately need to return to traditional ways when things were better, whether as a natural result of our more responsible behavior or as a result of God’s favor. This is no time to parse out individual aspects of traditional morality for the benefit of yet another minority group. After all, this PC concern-for-minorities is just more “modernity” crap that’s brought us nothing but grief.
The more people fear, the greater their emotional need for a vision that offers certainty and hope, and the more tenaciously they cling to that vision regardless of evidence. (Allegedly, the juror who most fears rape it the juror least likely to vote to convict; that juror has an emotional need to deny that rape really happens.) And it is our needs, not our evidence, that drives our beliefs.
Here’s my prediction: If Europe can maintain its safety net, Europe will maintain its progressive politics as well. If the US can enhance its safety net, the US will have more tolerance for social innovation as well. Short of that, I predict tolerance to follow the regional economic booms and busts of the majority of people.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 10:40 am
Other than simple assertion, can you explain in what way it is an uphill battle now and wasn’t then
Propagandizing depends on being able to override or bypass the mind’s instinctive defenses and learned defenses. The public school movement of the 1920s had a very naive and uneducated mass of folk to work on. The public school movement of today does not.
To put it another way, who would it be easier for me to convince of (say) the rightness of barring gays from marriage? You? Or your great-great-great grandmother, fresh off the boat from Ruritania?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 10:45 am
Robert: To put it another way, who would it be easier for me to convince of (say) the rightness of barring gays from marriage? You? Or your great-great-great grandmother, fresh off the boat from Ruritania?
Are people that age eligible to go to public school?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 10:54 am
I do think there’s a causal connection between women’s rights and fewer kids; in cultures where women have more wealth, power and freedom of choice, they rarely choose to have five kids. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, and the claim that liberal cultures dwindle down to zero doesn’t seem well-supported by evidence.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
September 21st, 2005 at 11:04 am
Robert: The public school movement of today does not.
Hm. Joking apart, it’s an interesting question: how much better informed, really, is your average 5 year old today than your average 5 year old of a hundred years ago? To a certain extent, you have to allow for people in general being more widely informed - yet, as we’ve seen, the Internet in many ways simply enables gossip and misinformation to an even vaster degree. Television is a great informant - but TV news in the US is notoriously soundbites. How much of that, anyway, would a first-grader be taking in? Not a lot, I really believe. I grew up in a politically-aware family, with well-informed parents who listened to the news regularly and bought (and read) newspapers: but under a certain age, a child simply doesn’t take anything in that isn’t presented at a child’s level.
Parents can (and do) propagandize to children: a racist’s child is more likely to grow up a racist, a homophobe’s child more likely to grow up a homophobe. A child locked inside their parents’ world, not permitted access to any other, will tend to believe that their parents view of the world is the only view of the world.
A good public school (any good school) will provide windows into other views of the world. Appropriately, Creationist parents can and should tell their children that God created the world in six days 6000-odd years ago. Appropriately, schools should teach all children that the scientific evidence says that the world came into existence about 5 billion years ago, life came into existence as soon as the planet had cooled enough, evolution explains how come we’re not all amorphous green-blue blobs, and that we have evidence of human beings using tools from about ninety thousand years ago: and they should explain, too, the history of religion that leads some people to believe differently.
Parents may teach their children that black people are naturally inferior: schools should teach children that “race” is an ideological creation, that there is no scientific evidence that the amount of melanin in people’s skin affects their abilities or intelligence.
Parents may teach their children that women are inferior to men, that girls do not deserve the same educational or career opportunities as boys: schools should teach children that neither sex is inferior to the other, and that people deserve the same educational and career opportunities regardless of gender: and the exciting and marvellous history of feminism, the longest and most successful revolution the world has ever known.
Parents may teach their children that being gay is perverted, or that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married: schools should teach children that normal human sexuality ranges from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual, and that both same-sex couples and mixed-sex couples can have equal civil rights.
It is part of American history that once women were legally inferior to men, and feminists have campaigned to change this: it is part of American history that once whites enslaved blacks, that once (and still) white people treated blacks as inferiors, and that the US civil rights movement worked and works now to change that.
Children will then have the choice to follow their parent’s beliefs or not, not blindly and in ignorance but freely choosing. It is choice that schools give children. This does not change with time: it only changes when public schools are afraid to teach children anything that challenges the view of the world their parents want to give them.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.