Let me just start off with a disclaimer that I am almost universally against reality t.v. shows. By and large, they highlight humanity at it's very worst and are one of the lowest forms of entertainment for the masses. That said, I do occassionally watch American Idol (I know, I know). I just love music and I love to sing. I think they find some very talented artists on that show. So, I sometimes put aside my bias against such types of entertainment and tune in. Unfortunately, I saw something that reminded me quite clearly of why I avoid these shows to begin with. Allow me to recap.
A very nice, young man who was originally from Egypt was auditioning. As he was waiting for his turn, an (American) woman behind him asked if he had any kids. He said that, no, he didn't, he wasn't married. She, of course, started laughing incredulously and told him (and I am paraphrasing here) that he didn't need to be married to have kids...that's the only way we do it around here.
I mean, come on, what's he thinking? He's in America now, we don't mess around with any of that traditional family nonsense. Why wait until you're married to start a family when you can have scores of children growing up in single parent homes? [/sarcasm]
Now, don't get me wrong. I sympathize with those who are left to raise children on their own without the benefit of a spouse. I saw another American Idol episode that highlighted a single father trying to raise his son on his own because the boy's mother had died. Of course, my heart goes out to him and to anyone else who's left to try and take the place of both mother and father. It's the 'modern women' laughing in the faces of sweet, young men who want something better for their children, who I take issue with.
I hear all the time little analogies concerning traditional families, like 'you can't stuff that genie back in the bottle', 'you can't go back to the sixties'. Well, I'm not interested in going back to the sixties or stuffing anything back in the bottle. It's not about regressing. We would have had to have progressed in order to regress. It's about righting a wrong, curing a sickness, fixing a mistake. If we found out some revolutionary new drug was causing a horrible, malignant cancer in everything it touched, would we just say, "oh well, we can't go back...can't take back progress"?
Women wanted to be able to do what they want. If they want to have children without husbands, they should have that right. If they want to pursue careers while their children are raised by strangers in daycare, it's their life, they should be able to do it. We were so worried about whether or not we were allowed to do something, nobody stopped to check if we really should. In pursuit of our social experiment, nobody worried about what the reprecussions would be or who would pay the price for them. Well, we're all paying the price. Society, men, women, children, we're all paying for it. The problem is, those largely responsible aren't willing to admit it. While the reasons are staring us all right in the face, they try to invent scapegoats as to why everything's so screwed up.
It's time to own up. It's time to admit that the social experiment failed and to start trying to fix some of the damage we've done. Logically, I don't think it will happen. Society's so intent on having their 'Brave New World' and in such denial that it could possibly be wrong, they'll continue to invent increasingly ludicrous excuses for what ails us. All the while, the obvious solution is resolutely ignored.
As for the sweet, young man from Egypt? Honestly, I hope he goes back to Egypt. I hope he goes back while he still has his ideals firmly in place. That, or he finds some small, backwards little town that hasn't been too polluted by our pathetic concept of 'progress'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


8 comments:
i bet the poor guy was just starting to get 'full disclosure' about the way things work around here.
what that woman probably won't tell him is that he's legally better off UNmarried if he wants children in this country - at least until the kids are born: that way, if the kids turn out not to be his, he won't be saddled with backbreaking obligations to children who aren't even his own issue.
additionally, he probably comes from a country in whose legal system men still have at least a modicum of power and respect.
for entirely different reasons, then, i would, ironically enough, advocate the same conclusion: don't marry, at least not until after the kids are born, the dna tests are performed, and everything is copacetic. there are just too few women like you (kim) out there to justify acting any less cautiously.
The problem is also that a large number of men want to have pre-marital sex any way they can get it. When they leave after they have gotten what they want, the women wonder why the men left. The women never stop to think they they sold themselves short in the first place. Later, these women take their temper out on other men via feminism.
Men who are waiting for marriage to have sex are derided these days by men and women alike.
The genie is out Kim.. and he is piiissssssseeeeedddddd!
:-)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
TMOTS
@johnnyfive
for entirely different reasons, then, i would, ironically enough, advocate the same conclusion: don't marry, at least not until after the kids are born, the dna tests are performed, and everything is copacetic.
Even then, thanks to our screwed up court system, he still runs the risk of spending the rest of his life paying for children he won't get to see if his wife decides she wants a divorce. It's really a lose/lose situation any way you look at it. Until something's done about the travesty of family court and divorce laws, there is no good answer.
@ Davout
Men who are waiting for marriage to have sex are derided these days by men and women alike.
Thank you for bringing that up. While I'm on American Idol, there was another young man who auditioned that talked about how he was saving himself for his wife. Which I thought was great, and should have been applauded and admired. Instead, he was treated like some sort of weirdo. Also, noble as his intentions are, I wonder how much luck he'll have finding a young women who's held herself to the same standard.
@ TMOTS
LOL :-)
davout:
The problem is also that a large number of men want to have pre-marital sex any way they can get it.
well, that's the way it's been for the last fifty thousand years or so, and certainly the way it always will be.
it only becomes a 'problem' when the sex that traditionally plays the role of gatekeeper abandons that role, yet still expects the other sex to make sacrifices.
johnny five,
I should have added the words 'for feminists' between 'problem' and 'is'.
Men are evolutionarily driven to have sex with multiple women. Insofar as this component exists, I am wrong in phrasing this drive as a 'problem' because that assumes that the sex drive is (as the feminist would have it) purely a matter of choice.
The correctd sentence should read as:
"The problem for feminists is that a large number of men are evolutionarily driven to have pre-marital sex any way they can get it."
And I'm sure if he goes back and finds a nice local wife, him and his future children will be much happier for it.
Well those same women who deride marriage shouldn't be expecting loyalty from their live-in boyfriends since in the USA the men don't have the same legal responsibilities as a husband in a marriage does.
As far as I know I think certain countries and certain States in the USA have something equivalent to a common law marriage but for most states in the USA you have to be married to have those legal obligations.
I think those women who don't want to get married should expect men to feel bound to them in anyway.
Post a Comment