tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post2426187090713900449..comments2024-01-25T15:09:03.714-08:00Comments on Whiskey's Place: Beyond Gay MarriageWhiskeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-33570407217133408112009-08-20T01:44:46.474-07:002009-08-20T01:44:46.474-07:00That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single ...<i>That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single motherhood, where guys come and go, and the important thing is mother-child. </i><br /><br />Women could then demand government subsidy and tap the wealth of <i>all</i> men, not just the father of the child. Ideal, as far as feminists are concerned. As a bonus, they could crow about how independent they are. Seriously, I've seen welfare mothers say that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-87483481016504524002009-08-20T01:38:26.648-07:002009-08-20T01:38:26.648-07:00Whiskey said...
Realist --
I'm not sure. Cha...Whiskey said... <br />Realist --<br /><br />I'm not sure. Charles Murray (Bell Curve) has posted on the AEI blog that his preliminary research shows 20% of births among White Middle Class women are single mothers, and 40% among Working Class White women are single mothers.<br /><br />That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single motherhood, where guys come and go, and the important thing is mother-child. Like the Ghetto Black community, basically, or British Chav.<br /><br />I don't think we are there yet, but trend lines seem indicate that is the destination.<br /><br />So people divorce only because woman must have higher status male? I don't think so. Women divorce from their men because they (men) are not reliable or the marriage does not work in some other way. Cheating is one major reason why people divorce.<br /><br />Of course there are women (somewhere) out there who have too high expectations towards men but I don't think these are majority. If I look at the people I know for example, I notice that ordinary people have formed couples with other ordinary people, and there is no a single woman who excepts her man to be a millionaire. And I don't know any woman who has given birth to her child without having a man besides her. No one.<br /><br />And many of the single mothers who make kids outside marriage are often those who fall in "bad boys". And those bad boys definitely are not men with lots of money and powerful position.<br /><br />RealistiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-82155066580944715352009-08-19T14:10:47.213-07:002009-08-19T14:10:47.213-07:00On the USSC, here is a recent article by the relat...On the USSC, here is a recent article by the relatively liberal Ca. Bar Association:<br />http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/July2009&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2009-08_TH_01_supremecourt.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines<br /><br />J. Kennedy is a moderate conservative, in line with a lot of that generation of California Republicans; I wouldn't classify him as a liberal. Swing partially bche's a moderate conservative unlike J.Scalia or J.Thomas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-38887949686240092842009-08-18T17:36:27.709-07:002009-08-18T17:36:27.709-07:00Realist --
I'm not sure. Charles Murray (Bell...Realist --<br /><br />I'm not sure. Charles Murray (Bell Curve) has posted on the AEI blog that his preliminary research shows 20% of births among White Middle Class women are single mothers, and 40% among Working Class White women are single mothers.<br /><br />That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single motherhood, where guys come and go, and the important thing is mother-child. Like the Ghetto Black community, basically, or British Chav.<br /><br />I don't think we are there yet, but trend lines seem indicate that is the destination.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-44914286289589212362009-08-18T03:13:50.458-07:002009-08-18T03:13:50.458-07:00Puma said...
Realisti -
It's about time you s...Puma said... <br />Realisti -<br />It's about time you stop painting the myth of the heroic monogamous woman. Here, read these Yahoo Answers posts by armies of women who are discussing their affairs, and their planned ditching of hubbies in exchange for higher-status lovers:<br /><br />Yeh when it is about AFFAIRS and LOVERS. But how about when it is about FAMILY LIFE, kids and serious commitment? Then it won't work anymore. Then it's not nice anymore. Besides for the men. Majority of women get married (like men too) and they are just happy with their average guy who is not a millionaire.<br /><br /><br />RealistiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-85947344434645564002009-08-18T03:06:51.293-07:002009-08-18T03:06:51.293-07:00Whisky:
"Men like say, John Edwards. Or Tony ...Whisky:<br />"Men like say, John Edwards. Or Tony Villaraigosa. Or Gavin Newsome. Or Bill Clinton, who won more admiration from women post-Monica Lewinsky than before her. Women like soft-polygamy, because it allows them to "share" the men they want. Women unlike men will share mates. They don't like it, they'd rather have exclusive access, but they would rather have a portion of Bill Clinton than all of say, an average guy."<br /><br />Yeh, I got what you mean. But when it is about HARD polygamy, then it is not so nice anymore...I am 100 % sure that if Lewinsky would like to have a family with kids and a REAL relationship she would not settle for polygamy relationship. She would rather take a man who belongs only to herself and her kids. I think that soft polygamy might work for a romance/an adventure, but not anymore when it is about family life and serious commitment.<br /><br />And by the way...Lewinsky (not to mention about Hillary Clinton) got emotionally really hurt by that "adventure." She told that afterwards. And Hillary did not let Bill to sleep in the same bed...was it for a year? At least it was a long time.<br /><br />RealistiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-71989944333948005252009-08-18T02:51:34.380-07:002009-08-18T02:51:34.380-07:00Whiskey said...
Anon-Realist --
"The parado...Whiskey said... <br />Anon-Realist --<br /><br />"The paradox is that Western women and feminists NEVER complain about Islamic polygamy or restrictions in their lives. For example, British swimming pools now have restricted to "women only" swimming hours for Muslim women, and non-Muslim women MUST wear the burqini, that covers all skin. Including a swimming cap. Feminists applaud this, as they do polygamy (see Ehrenreich along with other feminists) and indeed Islamism."<br /><br />To be honest, I have been wondering the same thing. But...I have also noticed (even more)that many feminists and women seem to IMAGINE that when muslims arrive to Europe they change their values like they would put a new shirt on. I mean that many feminists and women seem to think that: "oh, they have a little bit patriachal culture now but when we nurture them enough they will be just as secular as we are and share the same values of equality."<br /><br />I listened one radio programme yesterday and there was one woman talking about muslims and their attitudes towards women and integration overall. 20-30 minutes of the programme was reasonable speech (equal society is a great thing and should be susteined) but then she started to say things like that all borders of countries are artificial and every person should have a right to live wherever he wants. So how can we keep our equal society this way if every person has a right to come here? How can this stay the same if we don't strain people who come here and simply let those out who don't fit our norm?<br /><br />That is the problem with many women. They are too naive when it comes these things. Many women seem to think that no matter how much we take people from Middle East our country still will be the same and we somehow manage to integrate them. (Truth is that people from certain cultures just can not be integrated, no matter how much we want that. Of course there are exceptions but still).<br /><br />So I would not say that women necessarily applaud for ex.muslims' polygamy. (not at least I ;)) They just imagine in a naive way that every person will be like us. And they also think that if we keep out mouth shut all those problems will go away...But it won't happen. I think that most women just don't have balls to raise these issues on front. Instead they make new rules about what is not allowed to say...Christianity can be critisized because it's not racism...<br /><br /><br /><br />RealistiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-71257028879905249282009-08-17T14:32:27.360-07:002009-08-17T14:32:27.360-07:00Anon-Realist --
The paradox is that Western women...Anon-Realist --<br /><br />The paradox is that Western women and feminists NEVER complain about Islamic polygamy or restrictions in their lives. For example, British swimming pools now have restricted to "women only" swimming hours for Muslim women, and non-Muslim women MUST wear the burqini, that covers all skin. Including a swimming cap. Feminists applaud this, as they do polygamy (see Ehrenreich along with other feminists) and indeed Islamism.<br /><br />Feminists and women in the West don't find Islam a threat. Despite its very restrictive attitudes towards women's sexuality and freedom. Rather they find Christianity a threat, wanting to eliminate the ability to "share" dominant, Alpha men.<br /><br />Men like say, John Edwards. Or Tony Villaraigosa. Or Gavin Newsome. Or Bill Clinton, who won more admiration from women post-Monica Lewinsky than before her. Women like soft-polygamy, because it allows them to "share" the men they want. Women unlike men will share mates. They don't like it, they'd rather have exclusive access, but they would rather have a portion of Bill Clinton than all of say, an average guy.<br /><br />Women who actually live under hard polygamy despise it. They are its harshest critics. It is indeed harmful to women. But Western women are different, and find they share an enemy with Islam: traditional Christianity and the Beta Male. Both of whom most single young women hate. Lady Gaga in my new post is probably representative of most young single women -- they'd love to turn most beta men gay.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-21206497887712335532009-08-17T09:11:18.191-07:002009-08-17T09:11:18.191-07:00Realisti said, "Monogamy is not natural.
In...Realisti said, "Monogamy is not natural. <br /><br />In your dreams. Majority of women will never say yes to that kind of things. But of course you can dream of having some harem. It just won't happen in real life"<br /><br />Fwiw. I was referring to primative cultures--not modern ones. The argument is that today's hook up culture is reverting to soft polygamy and serial monogamy. My point is that men are born to chase women and traditonal Christian teaching deals with that issue. I'm married to one woman and I like it that way.Raynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-29505061771151787162009-08-17T09:10:33.146-07:002009-08-17T09:10:33.146-07:00Realisti -
It's about time you stop painting t...Realisti -<br />It's about time you stop painting the myth of the heroic monogamous woman. Here, read these Yahoo Answers posts by armies of women who are discussing their affairs, and their planned ditching of hubbies in exchange for higher-status lovers:<br /><br />http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylv=3?link=list&sid=396545437Pumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-30924706918702262652009-08-17T07:03:03.133-07:002009-08-17T07:03:03.133-07:00ray said...
Monogamy is not natural.
In your dr...ray said... <br />Monogamy is not natural. <br /><br />In your dreams. Majority of women will never say yes to that kind of things. But of course you can dream of having some harem. It just won't happen in real life.<br /><br />RealistiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-13933942297013639532009-08-17T06:58:26.931-07:002009-08-17T06:58:26.931-07:00Here has been talk about women with high salary an...Here has been talk about women with high salary and how they don'<br />t want less earning men.First: I don't think that it is important which one EARNS more but HOW MUCH this more earning person makes. There are lots of women who make more than their man but it does not bother them because the difference is not so BIG. <br /><br />Secondly: I don't believe that majority of the CEO:s etc. will be women. Men have so big ´thrill to get to the top. And there is already talk about what to do with the decreasing number of boys in universities. Here in Finland some people have suggested that maby it would be good to have boys' schools again, where boys would be compared to other boys, not to girls.<br /><br />And have you ever thought how much it hurst women, when they have to share their husband? Women don't want to share their husband because they don't want to share his ASSETS (time, money etc) with other women and their children. Jealousy is as common in areas, where it has been polygamy for generations, as it is in areas, where it has never existed.<br /><br />And you know what? Saudi-Arabia is a place where polygamy exists. And do you know what ISLAMIC FEMINISTS want to do? Limit it. Give a woman right to repudiate her husband if she takes another wife. Polygamy has also been limited in other muslim areas immediately when women have got more power. You know why? Because it hurts women. <br /><br />RealistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-12046803622101386802009-08-17T03:05:26.577-07:002009-08-17T03:05:26.577-07:00This will bring a whole new meaning to "The G...This will bring a whole new meaning to "The Gay Divorcee"SavvyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380401063646153237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-66410816427463106862009-08-16T19:02:08.884-07:002009-08-16T19:02:08.884-07:00Randian -- women are already getting sued for Pali...<i>Randian -- women are already getting sued for Palimony, and having to settle for substantial sums. </i><br /><br />I thought those were divorce settlements, not palimony.<br /><br />A step in the right direction, though I wonder whether those sums are comparable to what men of similar financial means are ordered to pay. Looking at Charisma Carpenter's $300/month child support payment, I suspect not.<br /><br />There is also the matter of mainstream (read: female-dominated) media has to say about the matter, which is always "it's bad for women and therefore wrong". It's never "women <i>should</i> be paying what men do" or "if it's wrong to do this women perhaps it's also wrong to do it to men".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-88862837846296692692009-08-16T16:31:00.467-07:002009-08-16T16:31:00.467-07:00Randian -- women are already getting sued for Pali...Randian -- women are already getting sued for Palimony, and having to settle for substantial sums. Madonna, Christina Applegate, Charisma Carptenter, face substantial payouts to get out of their marriages, and IIRC a few female Hollywood producers also face big charges. Novaseeker had something on his blog about female lawyers facing large outlays after their cohabitation with lower earning guys who were "hot" but made little money dissolved.<br /><br />There's a built-in mechanism to keep things that way: the interest of trial and divorce lawyers who can extract lots of money from breakups as money shifts to women. This includes of course, female lawyers themselves.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-31857050816540025162009-08-16T11:39:51.183-07:002009-08-16T11:39:51.183-07:00"That is inconceivable. No social or legal in..."That is inconceivable. No social or legal institution in our society works like that; all such conflicts lead to double-standards in favor of women. By what means do you expect this to change?"<br /><br />I don't think he means officially sanctioned consequences, he probably means problems which arise as inherent parts of co-habitation, and which can only be "fixed" (in favor of women, of course) so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-68556428626112787832009-08-16T11:21:52.581-07:002009-08-16T11:21:52.581-07:00leads to precendent establishing that in co-habita...<i>leads to precendent establishing that in co-habitation which is a two edged sword against women as well as for them.</i><br /><br />That is inconceivable. No social or legal institution in our society works like that; all such conflicts lead to double-standards in favor of women. By what means do you expect this to change?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-6326732536795893532009-08-16T11:18:58.144-07:002009-08-16T11:18:58.144-07:00As is increasingly the case, female dominance of g...As is increasingly the case, female dominance of government will lead to the universal application of palimony-style laws. No man must be allowed to escape expropriation of his wealth and labor by women just because he refuses to marry. England is already considering this, if it has not already done so.<br /><br />Polygamy is merely the nose of the camel when it comes to Islam. In addition to demanding recognition of Islamic marriage norms, the disintegration of culture will lead Muslims to ever bolder demands for the norming of Islamic social customs and the application of Sharia law, despite their moral repugnance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-84228161182349829672009-08-15T21:43:27.078-07:002009-08-15T21:43:27.078-07:00I mostly lurk but very much enjoy this blog and yo...I mostly lurk but very much enjoy this blog and your commentary overall; I agree with the thrust of your argument that the current trends, including Gay Marriage are driving a decline in keeping marriage attractive to most men. I don't think though that marriage is going to end up being seen as a Muslim/Gay phenomenon exclusively. No matter what society at large does about marriage or how it markets marriage, groups like Orthodox Jews or Mormons or the Amish are not going to abandon the institution. What would probably be a clearer way to frame the situation is to say that marriage and those who desire it will be seen as fringe elements.Brooklynnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-45223501051368885742009-08-15T18:54:11.347-07:002009-08-15T18:54:11.347-07:00BTW, regarding the "stupefying drug" com...BTW, regarding the "stupefying drug" comment, alcoholism and vodka consumption among males in Moscow is rampant, and the average life expectancy for a Muscovite male is 55.demosophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677722726429563710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-64937352800488146202009-08-15T18:49:05.180-07:002009-08-15T18:49:05.180-07:00It seems rather unlikely that current trends will ...It seems rather unlikely that current trends will continue unless there's some new stupefying drug that dulls the pain of existence for most men, or some diversion that's personally rewarding. In a few debates with Betty Friedan S.M. Lipset observed that if males decided to put a stop to the progressive trends she was advocating they wouldn't face much difficulty. Moreover, he also pointed out that her advocacy of "the poor" wasn't productive since if the poor vote they usually vote conservatively. The idea is that if you're in a leaky boat you don't want anyone rocking out.<br /><br />All told, I'd say that these observations imply your last ditch solution is a bit more likely than you indicate.demosophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677722726429563710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-32031935040194228672009-08-15T16:42:23.640-07:002009-08-15T16:42:23.640-07:00Especially considering that the most precious pet ...Especially considering that the most precious pet minorities of the left are for the most part virulently anti-gay, and increasing in number.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see how the left and liberals in general will change attitudes towards, say, hispanics once they have the numbers to seriously threaten gay marriage in states where it would normally be a shoe-in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-54901006779979830282009-08-15T11:45:41.358-07:002009-08-15T11:45:41.358-07:00Gay marriage is not inevitable everywhere. It'...Gay marriage is not inevitable everywhere. It's currently legal in 6 states. It will almost definitely become legal in a few more (NY, NJ, CA) but after that it will be a fight. And our side has to be ready to kick ass.Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-78518659626615474552009-08-15T07:14:22.070-07:002009-08-15T07:14:22.070-07:00It's not really going to be possible to preven...It's not really going to be possible to prevent poly marriages indefinitely once gay marriage becomes legally recognized everywhere.knightblasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03042581488365314771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-55230494937781144082009-08-15T06:54:28.281-07:002009-08-15T06:54:28.281-07:00The weird thing about this is that the main reason...The weird thing about this is that the main reason people are pushing for recognition of gay marriage (spousal health benefits) is going to seriously conflict with poly-marriage. Will it be legal to discriminate against a woman with two dependent husbands? Is it legal now to discriminate in hiring based on how many dependents the employer will have to insure? I don't know, but if not it seems like a good way to get all of those 50 million people insured. They can <i>literally</i> get married to the State!<br /><br />By the way, as I was typing this an ad came on for a new show called "Househusbands of Hollywood". Amazing, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com