Of course women were strong- but only in spite of, not because, it was a defined part of the relationship.
....
We admire those women; we do not want to be them. We see them as pioneers, but only in the sense of fighting the male dominance and succeeding in the face of societal
opposition.
This is in response to what I posted about my grandmothers, I'm sure. As it happens I lived with my grandparents for weeks or months at a time till about 12 so I know very well what they and their lives were like and what their relationships with their husbands, families, others were like. And they weren't strong and worthy individuals 'in spite' of anything. They didn't fight male dominance or have to succeed over social opposition as women. Any woman today would do very well to be like them.
I think this feminist rhetoric assumes a lot of things that just weren't and aren't real for most people.
--------------------------------------
I am not fighting your values, Brumar. They are how I have lived my life and raised my family.
Oh, I know that and recognize it. Even many people who forswear - not meaning you - traditional morality as silly live by it and raise their families by it. I think thats hypocritical, but ...
But I am not clinging to an outmoded form of them. I recognize the need for redefinition to allow them to move forward.
How should traditional morality be redefined and why should it? And does redefined morality work - in terms of allowing people to live good lives?
--------------------------------
Getting back to morality and the poor:
Traditional morality is vitally important for poor people. Because the consequences of immorality and irresponsibility are much more ruinous for them than for those with financial resources.
Consider the criminal justice system - traditional morality will keep you out of trouble with the law! That is an undeniable fact.
But when people do break the law, the rich can hire the best lawyers and often escape punishment - consider O. J. Simpson, the 'Berettta' actor (name slips my mind right now, Claus von Bulow, Ted Kennedy - these people literally got away with murder (or manslaughter in Kennedy's case). The rich can also post bail and let their money sit hostage for them till their trial.
Middle income people are more likely to have to use a bail bondsman which will require them to pay 10% of the bond amount - which they won't get back - plus sign a lien on a car or house.
Poor people sit in jail till their trial date. Then when the date rolls around their court appointed counsel tells them if they plead guilty they'll get time served plus a fine. So they do and get out asap. But now they have a record - or a longer record - which prospective employers, landlords, and lenders will see for years. And while they were in jail, they may have felt they needed to hook up with a gang for protection, so now they have nice criminally minded friends to get them in more trouble. And while they sat in jail, they listened all day every day to endless conversations of their cellmates talking about one thing - how high they're going to get as soon as they get out. After listening to that for months, a person may come around to that frame of mind.
Consider common 'minor' vices like smoking, drug abuse, or drunkiness. Traditional morality, if its followed, will prevent drug or alcohol abuse. Another simple undeniable fact.
In the case of drug/alcohol abuse - the rich, when they are forced by a judge (as a general rule, no user ever gets counseling unless they're made to) to get into a counseling program instead of going to jail or prison can afford a nice cushy private program. Everyone else will go to a county financed program in a slum - there is one on I45 in Houston right between a head shop and a motel frequented by hookers - I notice the big '440' sign on the head shop every time I drive into downtown. How's that for a choice location?
If they get a DWI arrest as drunks and dopers are likely to, the rich can fight it with a lot more chance of success than others. A few weeks ago, the daughter of Houston's mayor was arrested for DWI. She was out the next morning and the family is going to 'support' her and fight the charge, according to the news media. I'd bet they have a real chance of getting her off.
Smoking - this isn't even thought of a moral issue of course. But in a way it is. Did you know poor people are much more likely to smoke? That many poor people spend 10% of their income on smokes? Sounds kind of morally irresponsible, doesn't it?
Consider unwed pregnacy. It's much easier for people with lots of financial resources to balance earning an income with caring for a family. Hollywood stars have kids without being married all the time. But consider only the issue of child care: The rich can afford nannies - middle income folks can afford decent day care though its a financial burden - the poor can afford neither. Maybe there's a grandma or aunt who can fill in, but probably not. So the kids go home and run around the apartment complex or neighborhood with other poor kids like themselves and get into whatever trouble they want to.
Consider sexual immorality - this leads to STD's (of which there are many types, not just the one that is fatal that everyone knows about) and family breakups - no one is so liberal that they're okay with a cheating spouse.
Teaching people that morality isn't important is the biggest crime committed against the poor. Everything we do that tears down traditional morality hurts the poor and makes more of them.
When we teach kids, 'we know you're going to have sex, so here's what you do to have safe sex', you hurt kids. Because if you are sure that they're gonna have sex, you can be even more sure if they do have sex, it will be unprotected some of the time - and once is all it takes. Not to mention that the protection you're teaching about isn't 100% effective if used. If the odds of 'protection' failure is tiny for one time, as the number of times increase the odds of an eventual failure keep growing and growing until eventual failure is likely.
When you teach kids science has proved life just happened, you're teaching them there isn't a God who cares what you do. So who cares about moral laws - they weren't given by any God. God doesn't exist. So do whatever you want.
People think traditional morality is just a conspiracy by patriarchal authorities to 'control' others. Or it is just silly rules by sexually repressed puritans who don't want anyone else to have any fun either. But even if people don't recognize that traditional morality was given by God as rules to live by, they should recognize traditional morality is a set of socially evolved rules that allow humans to live good lives. And it will be outdated only when human nature changes and it doesn't seem to have changed in thousands of years.
The struggle to live by traditional morality isn't a new modern issue:
"What's happening to our young people? They disrespect our elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets, inflamed w/wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?" Plato wrote that.
This is from a tablet found in northern Mesopotamia dating to 2800 BC: "Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common."
I know of some more on the subject I will post on this thread. |
