It is not at ALL like a heterosexual relationship. The woman becomes the baby’s mother in that relationship and the husband sees her and loves her in a whole new way after she becomes the mother to his children. Comparing the two is disgusting.
It is not at ALL like a heterosexual relationship. The woman becomes the baby’s mother in that relationship and the husband sees her and loves her in a whole new way after she becomes the mother to his children. Comparing the two is disgusting.
Ok that's a very idealistic way of looking at it from a very modern day first world norm. That's really not how it is half the time in human history and half of the world. I'll begin with pointing out Exhibit #1 when Melania Trump was pregnant, Donald Trump saw it as time for him to go have a fling with Stormy Daniels, leading to us having a national crisis today. /s. And throughout history and even now in many places, wives are just the means of producing a male heir. It may not be surrogacy, but families and producing children have always been an arrangement if not an outright transaction involving money.
For the record I'm against surrogacy the more I learn about it. And I actually agree the ideal you present is the best case scenario. I find the examples I gave to be sad states of human nature and wish it ain't so. But what you describe just can't be stated as fact.
I am a wife and mother of 2 boys who experiences this every day with my husband. And our friends all feel the same way. Additionally, we learned this from generations of men who felt the same way about their wives and mothers to their children. I don’t know where you are living, but what you are describing sounds a lot like woke ideology without a real grasp on traditional family dynamics handed down through many generations that has worked for a very long time to produce healthy, thriving children.
How am I describing woke ideology? Family as an institution historically around the world was an arrangement to protect inheritance of property. Historically in most parts of the world two people who marry had no say in who their marital partner would be. The parents or even more senior family elders decide based on need to form alliance of two families, for mutual protection of properties and otherwise. Look at the European aristocracies and royal families. Marriages were formed for political alliances and determination of the male heir. This practice was (and still is in some places) widespread to general populations in Asia and Africa too. And in many cases families involved polygamy, with one husband having multiple wives. This was the norm of traditional family around the world. And you accuse me of having no grasp of "traditional family dynamics"?
Even for people of labor classes where properties weren't a major consideration, people chose marital partners based on necessities. Young women married a man who could best provide for them who might be older, and men chose women who could take care of their house, contribute to work in needed, and give him children. Arranged marriage was a very real thing in most parts of the world historically speaking. Husbands and wives didn't necessarily like each other much, and the ideal of husband adoring and looking the wife in a new way doesn't quite jive with reality of history.
People forget that free love and marriage based on free love a very recent concept that came about circa turn of 20th century. To say the kind of family you have and describe was handed down through many generations--well I guess that depends on the definition of what "many generations" mean. Many generations in recent times, yeah. But nothing compared to the 5000+ years of human history.
I'm not denigrating the kind of family you describe. In fact, I'm glad families have progressed to this form as the norm. That's true human progress. It just always strike me as myopic when people talk about family and marriage as if it has always been like this, when it's a pretty new norm in the course of human history, and not even the norm still in so many other parts of the world.
Woke has nothing to do with what I said. Woke people hate history so many likely don't even think much about this.
Your comment is generally, historically false. The family unit is as old as the human race itself. Pointing to aberrations as the norm is silly. The scholarship on this topic is widespread; and yes, some scholars have agendas, particularly those that wish to pretend that all kinds of "families" work and the idea of the nuclear family is "modern".
Just to take one example, why not mention the Church's ancient canon law of marriage, whereby all that was required was mutual consent notwithstanding any objections by family? Where's the "inheritance" concern in that? That's more than 1,000 years ago.
It is not historically false, unless you're focusing only on European families. You're all having Woke Derangement Syndrome as for some reasons, you all seem to think I'm talking about some new variations of family the left pushes for. Though I don't blame you all for being that way since the left has lost their plot when it comes to family and family cohesion, and their failure to see how the destruction of family has led to a whole load of problems today. Of course you can point out the Church's cannon law of marriage. I don't deny that at all. But if we do that we can also point to the Old Testament and how families generally entailed polygamy. Polygamy in fact has been a widespread cultural norm throughout human history everywhere. I personally don't think polygamy is good at all; in fact I find it highly destructive to human well-being (and FYI if you don't know already, the left today is also pushing "polyamory"). But I'm not going to deny that it was very much a norm in many places, and is still so in some places today.
You’re description of history sounds very “women were oppressed” by men. Factually, around marriage, every point you raise is true. But that doesn’t mean people didn’t learn to love each other within those marriages, especially after a child is brought into the world. And it doesn’t mean women didn’t wield other types of power in that relationship. Money and land are not the only things we have power over. Losing sight of that is why women are so depressed these days. There is power in providing for a family which is not materialistic. I am not commenting on why or how people got married. I am commenting on the bond that forms between a man and woman when the woman carries a child who then becomes a part of their family. Arranged marriages still go on today for reasons you have noted. I know a few of these people and I have seen how love grows. If both people respect marriage and the importance of growing a family with values, it doesn’t matter if they fell in love magically to begin with or if they grew into that love when the child was born. And that is the beauty of bringing a child into the world out of husband and wife to create father and mother.
To conflate the act of carrying some random persons baby, to two people creating a child of their own and what that does to the bond between a husband and wife is missing the key ingredient of what is produced after that baby is born. Regardless of how that marriage started. “Wokeness” always wants to blame power dynamics for why things are the way they are, and that’s something that really irks me because life is so much more than that. That’s the only reason I am pushing back here.
Ok so you're the one who brought up the "women are oppressed" thing because that's how you chose to read what I said that way, and wokeness is on your mind or something. Historical facts are historical facts whether women or whoever were oppressed or not. I shouldn't have to worry about woke crap when I'm talking about history. I said nothing about oppression one way or another, nor was I even thinking about that when I commented. You're now saying you're commenting only on the bond between a man and a woman. Well I was only commenting that this idealistic way of looking at families creating children is just a modern phenomenon and in fact not a historical norm as many people today think it is. I'm not denying that this modern norm is in fact what is considered ideal in most first world countries today.
I just feel based on everything I know about human history globally, this bond you're talking about was not highly valued in many cases, enough to evidence that a norm also existed (and still existing) where there was no such bond.
I do apologize if my comments irked you. That wasn't my intent. But I do always find talks about marriage and families to be continually incomplete because the way people describe it, especially the way conservatives describe it, tend to be idealized and disregard a lot of history. And also, that doesn't mean I agree with or support in any way how the left wants to destroy contemporary norms either.
I think unintentionally you have identified what separates conservatives from the rest and explained why there is a chasm which cannot be healed. You have also made it very clear which side of the chasm you are on. While you think you are just reciting history, what you did was recite historical facts colored with your biases and prejudices. There is nothing wrong with doing so. There is something wrong with insisting that this is some sort of universal truth. It is not. It is merely your POV.
I didn't say what I described was universal. In fact, my original comment and replies consistently affirmed that what Alex described is in fact the norm in first world countries today. I'm not on any "side". She presented one type of marriage and family. I agreed that type exists and is good. And since I already agreed that that type exists, there is no dispute there, so nothing more to talk about. The dispute is the other different types, which you and her are for strange reasons don't want to acknowledge or give credence, and which is why these other types are the ones I'm continuing to discuss. Seems to me it's your biases and prejudices that are at work here.
Oh I definitely have biases and prejudices. I also comprehend that I have them and readily acknowledge them. I am blessed to have been born into the time, place and culture I was and I embrace it.
Right. And I don't deny that I have my biases and prejudices either. It's just that I honestly was talking about global history of marriages as I know it and was not taking any side as to our current social discourse today. Moreover, I am in total agreement with you that we're born into the time, place and culture we are right now. I think a lot of liberals, in their "all roads to hell are paved with good intention" desire to be "inclusive", moronically undermine and discredit how much traditional family, even in historical times when things weren't great for men and women like today, was the foundation to social cohesion and welfare of children.
It is not at ALL like a heterosexual relationship. The woman becomes the baby’s mother in that relationship and the husband sees her and loves her in a whole new way after she becomes the mother to his children. Comparing the two is disgusting.
I see this as one more reason for the societal divorce.
Ok that's a very idealistic way of looking at it from a very modern day first world norm. That's really not how it is half the time in human history and half of the world. I'll begin with pointing out Exhibit #1 when Melania Trump was pregnant, Donald Trump saw it as time for him to go have a fling with Stormy Daniels, leading to us having a national crisis today. /s. And throughout history and even now in many places, wives are just the means of producing a male heir. It may not be surrogacy, but families and producing children have always been an arrangement if not an outright transaction involving money.
For the record I'm against surrogacy the more I learn about it. And I actually agree the ideal you present is the best case scenario. I find the examples I gave to be sad states of human nature and wish it ain't so. But what you describe just can't be stated as fact.
Not sure if that’s our National crisis today.
It was a joke. Hence the "/s" (ie sarcasm)
Yes half the world's women are former models married to a billionaire human Cheeto that have the means to pay a porn star for sex.
I am a wife and mother of 2 boys who experiences this every day with my husband. And our friends all feel the same way. Additionally, we learned this from generations of men who felt the same way about their wives and mothers to their children. I don’t know where you are living, but what you are describing sounds a lot like woke ideology without a real grasp on traditional family dynamics handed down through many generations that has worked for a very long time to produce healthy, thriving children.
How am I describing woke ideology? Family as an institution historically around the world was an arrangement to protect inheritance of property. Historically in most parts of the world two people who marry had no say in who their marital partner would be. The parents or even more senior family elders decide based on need to form alliance of two families, for mutual protection of properties and otherwise. Look at the European aristocracies and royal families. Marriages were formed for political alliances and determination of the male heir. This practice was (and still is in some places) widespread to general populations in Asia and Africa too. And in many cases families involved polygamy, with one husband having multiple wives. This was the norm of traditional family around the world. And you accuse me of having no grasp of "traditional family dynamics"?
Even for people of labor classes where properties weren't a major consideration, people chose marital partners based on necessities. Young women married a man who could best provide for them who might be older, and men chose women who could take care of their house, contribute to work in needed, and give him children. Arranged marriage was a very real thing in most parts of the world historically speaking. Husbands and wives didn't necessarily like each other much, and the ideal of husband adoring and looking the wife in a new way doesn't quite jive with reality of history.
People forget that free love and marriage based on free love a very recent concept that came about circa turn of 20th century. To say the kind of family you have and describe was handed down through many generations--well I guess that depends on the definition of what "many generations" mean. Many generations in recent times, yeah. But nothing compared to the 5000+ years of human history.
I'm not denigrating the kind of family you describe. In fact, I'm glad families have progressed to this form as the norm. That's true human progress. It just always strike me as myopic when people talk about family and marriage as if it has always been like this, when it's a pretty new norm in the course of human history, and not even the norm still in so many other parts of the world.
Woke has nothing to do with what I said. Woke people hate history so many likely don't even think much about this.
Your comment is generally, historically false. The family unit is as old as the human race itself. Pointing to aberrations as the norm is silly. The scholarship on this topic is widespread; and yes, some scholars have agendas, particularly those that wish to pretend that all kinds of "families" work and the idea of the nuclear family is "modern".
Just to take one example, why not mention the Church's ancient canon law of marriage, whereby all that was required was mutual consent notwithstanding any objections by family? Where's the "inheritance" concern in that? That's more than 1,000 years ago.
It is not historically false, unless you're focusing only on European families. You're all having Woke Derangement Syndrome as for some reasons, you all seem to think I'm talking about some new variations of family the left pushes for. Though I don't blame you all for being that way since the left has lost their plot when it comes to family and family cohesion, and their failure to see how the destruction of family has led to a whole load of problems today. Of course you can point out the Church's cannon law of marriage. I don't deny that at all. But if we do that we can also point to the Old Testament and how families generally entailed polygamy. Polygamy in fact has been a widespread cultural norm throughout human history everywhere. I personally don't think polygamy is good at all; in fact I find it highly destructive to human well-being (and FYI if you don't know already, the left today is also pushing "polyamory"). But I'm not going to deny that it was very much a norm in many places, and is still so in some places today.
You’re description of history sounds very “women were oppressed” by men. Factually, around marriage, every point you raise is true. But that doesn’t mean people didn’t learn to love each other within those marriages, especially after a child is brought into the world. And it doesn’t mean women didn’t wield other types of power in that relationship. Money and land are not the only things we have power over. Losing sight of that is why women are so depressed these days. There is power in providing for a family which is not materialistic. I am not commenting on why or how people got married. I am commenting on the bond that forms between a man and woman when the woman carries a child who then becomes a part of their family. Arranged marriages still go on today for reasons you have noted. I know a few of these people and I have seen how love grows. If both people respect marriage and the importance of growing a family with values, it doesn’t matter if they fell in love magically to begin with or if they grew into that love when the child was born. And that is the beauty of bringing a child into the world out of husband and wife to create father and mother.
To conflate the act of carrying some random persons baby, to two people creating a child of their own and what that does to the bond between a husband and wife is missing the key ingredient of what is produced after that baby is born. Regardless of how that marriage started. “Wokeness” always wants to blame power dynamics for why things are the way they are, and that’s something that really irks me because life is so much more than that. That’s the only reason I am pushing back here.
Ok so you're the one who brought up the "women are oppressed" thing because that's how you chose to read what I said that way, and wokeness is on your mind or something. Historical facts are historical facts whether women or whoever were oppressed or not. I shouldn't have to worry about woke crap when I'm talking about history. I said nothing about oppression one way or another, nor was I even thinking about that when I commented. You're now saying you're commenting only on the bond between a man and a woman. Well I was only commenting that this idealistic way of looking at families creating children is just a modern phenomenon and in fact not a historical norm as many people today think it is. I'm not denying that this modern norm is in fact what is considered ideal in most first world countries today.
I just feel based on everything I know about human history globally, this bond you're talking about was not highly valued in many cases, enough to evidence that a norm also existed (and still existing) where there was no such bond.
I do apologize if my comments irked you. That wasn't my intent. But I do always find talks about marriage and families to be continually incomplete because the way people describe it, especially the way conservatives describe it, tend to be idealized and disregard a lot of history. And also, that doesn't mean I agree with or support in any way how the left wants to destroy contemporary norms either.
I think unintentionally you have identified what separates conservatives from the rest and explained why there is a chasm which cannot be healed. You have also made it very clear which side of the chasm you are on. While you think you are just reciting history, what you did was recite historical facts colored with your biases and prejudices. There is nothing wrong with doing so. There is something wrong with insisting that this is some sort of universal truth. It is not. It is merely your POV.
I didn't say what I described was universal. In fact, my original comment and replies consistently affirmed that what Alex described is in fact the norm in first world countries today. I'm not on any "side". She presented one type of marriage and family. I agreed that type exists and is good. And since I already agreed that that type exists, there is no dispute there, so nothing more to talk about. The dispute is the other different types, which you and her are for strange reasons don't want to acknowledge or give credence, and which is why these other types are the ones I'm continuing to discuss. Seems to me it's your biases and prejudices that are at work here.
Oh I definitely have biases and prejudices. I also comprehend that I have them and readily acknowledge them. I am blessed to have been born into the time, place and culture I was and I embrace it.
Right. And I don't deny that I have my biases and prejudices either. It's just that I honestly was talking about global history of marriages as I know it and was not taking any side as to our current social discourse today. Moreover, I am in total agreement with you that we're born into the time, place and culture we are right now. I think a lot of liberals, in their "all roads to hell are paved with good intention" desire to be "inclusive", moronically undermine and discredit how much traditional family, even in historical times when things weren't great for men and women like today, was the foundation to social cohesion and welfare of children.
100% agree.
This is absolutely true. I’ll never forget how my view of my wife changed when our first was born.
You, sir, are denying the truth that diversity is our strength. Please learn to trust the science.
I am reporting you to DHS for transphobia and calling your employer.
I’m a woman lol
*womxn
You’re simply a very meaningless ideologue. No one should take your comment seriously. What happened to you?
Trans rights are women’s rights, Greg.
Kevin, one of your primary skills is revealing satire-impaired people.
😇😇
Your on quite the roll this morning!
😂😂😂
Kevin, you’re cracking me up this morning.
Kevin always does 😂😂his posts are often tonic for the day.
That’s funny? Maybe to you.