My last piece was way over the top and I had some things that were blatantly wrong. In the first place; the Male White Majority doesn’t really exist as I described. As my critics pointed out, the old dominant power structure has been instrumental in removing the obstacles to self-fulfillment. I have been caught up in the struggle for 50 years to remove social injustice in our society and have lost sight of what has been actually accomplished. But that doesn’t negate the fact that there is still more to do to finally remove all the societal obstacles that are still in place.
Our society, as well as the global society, is under tremendous pressures to make adaptations that will enhance everyone’s ability to handle what the future has to offer. This ranges from economics to education and social structures. In looking at the big picture, I failed to recognize what was happening on my own doorstep.
One of the first challenges that I have had to reevaluate is my position on women. I have long been an advocate, that women could “have it all.” In this, I have forgotten one critical variable; women’s biology. Our evolutionary development has accounted for the social organization required to accommodate the differences in the genders and the obvious roles that have developed. Even though women are as capable as men and are open to pursue whatever choices they desire, for many their own biology becomes self limiting. As a father of three daughters, I am fully aware of this thing they call a “biological clock” that ticks away reducing their fecundity. As focused as they are on their education and careers, the clock is always ticking in the background. At some point for women who are focused on achieving success, there comes a instance where they must make a tough choice. This is a choice that males don’t encounter in quite the same manner as women.
The “Gordian Knot” facing women can have only three choices; the “I can have it all choice,” the traditional choice of mother, or the choice of an interrupted career path. For many women they have no choice and they are thrust into the role of single parenthood whether that is what they desired or not. That is an issue for a separate discussion. However, biology will always be a permanent obstacle that women must deal with. Social policies can help ease the financial burdens to some extent for those who make the Motherhood Choice, but it can’t eliminate it. Therefore, I must admit that the position of “I can have it all” is pretty much mythical.
The next item that I have readdressed is that of underclass socialization. With the African American Minority, they have not been fully assimilated into mainstream American society. Many of the community have become part of the permanent underclass or the culture of poverty. The question centers around why other minorities have been able to advance themselves in spite of the obstacles set before them and African Americans are still facing the challenges of obstruction to advancement. Luke has been instrumental in my revisiting this question and I have to admit that we have been addressing the issue incorrectly. Changing the socialization of the community is the area to focus our efforts. We have removed many of the barriers to advancement, but we haven’t done a good job of teaching how to advance. This begins wirh early socialization through the education process and must be reinforced all through childhood into adulthood. No ethnic minority is expected to give up their cultural identity, but there is a proven path to assimilation and upward mobility. Now I am not so idealistic to think that this will occur overnight, but finally approaching the problem in the correct manner will eventually result in the full sovereignty of this significant minority.
The final issue that I readdressed was the progressive means of achievement. In our efforts to correct the social injustices of our society, we often have not done a good job in limiting change and understanding the consequences. What comes to mind is the issue of affordable housing and the pathway to home ownership. We all are aware that “red lining” had been going on for decades. It was a particular egregious covert means of maintaining racial segregation. The progressives pushed to curtail this practice through legislation, but didn’t see the downside of the opening up of the system. This allowed for the unscrupulous to take advantage of it. Based on the ideal of all Americans should participate in home ownership, regulations and policies were adopted as to allow for abuse. The result has been a collapse of the real estate market, fueling the Great Recession. In hindsight we now know that even a good thing must be properly regulated and adapted as time goes on. The statement made by conservatives that progressives led to the real estate bubble, is partially correct. Our sin was initiating change, but not monitoring it.
As issues come up and I am forced to reevaluate my positions, I will take the time to share. The ability to count critics input is an important means of seeking the truth and participating in the critical thought process. Once again — a thank you to my critics.
There is a social contract in place between the people and the government, whereas the government will provide for the common good. In the case of healthcare, it is addressing a higher good and therefore is acceptable and in compliance with the overriding social contract. This is in agreement with the principle of moral utility where the needs of many outweigh the needs of the individual. It is certain that the ease of communications is having an affect on overall awareness, but we must still act locally to incorporate any better actions or ideas if they should arise. Freedom of speech and expression is a value of a successful society. It allows for the progression of addressing problems as they arise. It also helps regulate a society from becoming too erratic and dysfunctional. That is why progressive societies adopt free speech early on and protect it, almost to the exclusion of everything else.
You are right to quote Plato, but Plato also believed in a structured society with slaves at the bottom and a "Philosopher King" at the top. By his reference to the Philosopher King, he was referring to those that possessed the knowledge to understand. He also stated that no one should seek the job, since it is a dreadful duty. The mob represents social chaos and ultimately results in destruction of any stable society. That is precisely why we have all forms of checks and balances built into our social system. This is why I am always wary of single party control within the government. To protect from tyranny, there must be someone watching for the tyrant and to provide opposition. That is why Wisconsin is not served well under single party control. too much mischief is possible.
As for health care: Justice Kennedy is the one who openly questioned the idea concerning the relationship between the federal government and the individual. The Feds can certainly tell you not to do something, but can it forcefully compel a person to purchase a commercial product for what it sees as the common good? What else can the federal government compel you to buy? The point is- which moral standard do we go by? Does the federal government have the right to set moral standards, or does the individual set the standard by taking care of his own affairs? Again, moral concepts are being dictated by the state, What happens if it changes its mind 5 years from now? As for keeping moral codes local: this is no longer possible. There iare good and bad influences affecting us every day that come from afar. This will inevitablly grind away at our nobler ideals. Such is life.
That is a loaded question. How does anything cause harm? Is it not true that in a society that has determined its own morals, the idea of harm is a selfish one based on the individuals desire to live? If my neighbor is a jerk, what is the true harm to society as a whole if I end his life? Society will continue, the world keeps spinning and the universe will go on unchanged tomorrow. Your assertion of morality says that society has desired self preservation and therefore forbid others from following with what they may feel is right. In the 60's, it is was your generation that turned the culture of their parents on its ear. They believed in a morality that was not in line with that of their elders and rejected it. The baby boomers were able to do this under the assumption that morality was fluid and had not core. Many of your parents generation believed what the boomers were advocating would lead to bad things. Now the inner city is rejecting the even more of what was the morality of your parents generation and the progressives are attempting to say it is wrong. How can you claim any version of morality is wrong? You can claim it impacts society, but to what end? If the society of the inner city deems their lifestyle is right how can you claim, in a world where morality is fluid, that they are wrong?
How could the responsible commitment of marriage be bad for society simply because it involves two people of the same gender?
The USA might be historical a melting pot of cultures but I think it should still be correct to embrace one single language.
The progressive process is to examine, challenge and change that which needs to be changed. The consensus of the majority determines societal acceptable standards. Just as I indicated that the recognition of gay marriage causes no harm to society, the issues of the culture of the underclass does create harm. This requires social intervention to change this dysfunction. We have a responsibility and right to impose such interventions, not punishments, but interventions.
I never made a claim it did not exist. However, as we have entered a time when morality is decided by man it has gotten worse because man's morality is subjective. If marriage was so discriminatory, why not end the recognition of it within the government and make it a purely religious sacrament?
That was a question I asked, not a statement. If the act of marriage was discriminatory, then why not ends its recognition by the government? I am not advocating for it, but asking you. It would have ended the discrimination and made it a private matter, right? Like whether or not you play on a softball league for your local tavern.
In a society where morality is subjective, how do you determine what is dysfunction? Considering the movement within your generation start with a minority of people who were looked at as if they were dysfunctional, why are you challenging the actions of the inner city?
Ironically,. there are some religious denominations that will marry same-sex couples. If your church frowns on such unions, they don't have to perform those ceremonies. Where is your problem with issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples?
It is one part of crumbling bond within our society. Marriage was a union that couples used to show commitment they gave to each other and their family. It was a union that was occasionally flawed by human selfishness; however, its failures were not tolerated by society. This meant that those engaged in marriage took the union seriously. Within the last 50 years much has been done to remove the the stigma of marriage failures and to allow the selfish desires of ones own interests to destroy the commitment it was established to represent. Obviously this led to a culture that included broken families, broken relationships and broken lives. In response many young couples began living together, began 'testing' their partner out or began thinking the answer lie in sowing ones wild oats prior to marriage. This lead to problems of its own (won't discuss here as not to distract from the theme). Each one of those marriage alternatives has weakened the overall need for that commitment. Then we throw in the economic benefits to a marriage we can effectively take the commitment out of some of those relationships as a marriage can be nothing more then shallow sex and money. Now we have marriage, once a union held with regard within society for ability to create stable families and have reduced it to a piece of paper or an extra slice of money pie. At that point, the original intent of commitment is not only meaningless, but almost irrelevant. (Cont)
The consequences bearing out most heavily on the next generation who has a distaste for marriage because society placed a higher value on selfish desires rather than the goal of long term commitment. As for same sex marriage, I do believe that gay couples experience love, can be committed and raise children; however, since very little remains of the original marriage ideal the addition of non-hetero relationships into the mix only confuses the intent of marriage. It removes the assumption of family out of the original two part marriage equation. I understand that some marriages happen without children; but in comparison that is far more likely that same sex marriages exist without children. Religiously, I don't believe same sex relationships are ok. That being said, if we had not already destroyed the commitment portion of marriage, I would take a 'live and let live' approach to same sex marriage. This is less about homosexuals and more about marriage needing to be valuable to society. In my original description of marriage I said there were two main principal that society relied on marriage for: commitment and family. As we see, much of that has been destroyed. All this destruction is mainly the result of progressive ideology and the fluid morality Lyle is presenting.
Keep to your guns. As long as we have people of principle, then we still have hope.
Me, I've been married in a civil ceremony since 1979, and I consider that promise just as binding as any religious one. Some people take promises seriously and other don't. So don't lecture me about how society is going to hell because of premarital sex and gays wanting to marry. What your post said was, basically, you disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds so you're going to rationalize how it's bad for society as a whole. I disagree. Eliminating civil marriage certainly is not good for society either.
Excellent response! Now we are back to where I was with Lyle. You are stating the my position on marriage is wrong because it is, as you asserted, founded on my own religious beliefs and therefore holds no meaning with regards to the whole of society. Fine. Then please tell me why Lyle can expect to make changes to the inner city? Aren't his idea of what is wrong based on his own beliefs and may not reflect the beliefs of those in the inner city? In fact, every liberal who claims that the inner city community simply requires better education is simply forcing their own way of life on these residents. As a liberal enjoying a morality that fluid, should you be encouraging the inner to city to develop their own culture as they have and establish the morality that best suits them? PS - This excuse 'it happened before' is lame considering everything has happened before. Which when you extend your argument it means nothing should be prohibited.
As far as commitment and bonding, that is an entirely different story and extremely complex. It has nothing to do with the social structure. This has more to do with people's psychosocial development and preparation for a long term commitment. Social values, folkways and mores do determine people's understanding of the terms and commitments in long term relationships. Successful long term relationships has more to do with maturity of the participants than any kind of ceremony and legal recognition.
Are you saying that the citizens of the US are less mature then citizens of the 50 years ago? They must be since divorce in on the increase and marriage is on the decrease. Then can we grade ones maturity based on their marriage record? As for folkways and mores, you can only make that claim with the assumption that moral has a constant core. Up till this point you have made the point that it is fluid. Just because one society has accepted that certain actions are wrong, why can't a branch of that society determine it those actions should be considered appropriate. Wouldn't that be how culture with differing views originated? If morality is a product of social cohesion, then within the inner city, they feel their actions are keeping their society together. Which explains why very few inner city leaders ever speak out against those actions. You are expecting them to engage in something they don't want because of your beliefs.
As far as people being more mature 50 years ago, what do you mean by maturity? People have a great more freedom today than they did 50 years ago and as such have more choices. Marriage and divorce is not a good overall measure of the health of a society. There are other measures that function better as indicators. Since we are freer now than before, wouldn't you as a conservative cheer less government intervention in our personal lives?
I saw people of the Greatest Generation having a hard time with marital fidelity and marriage commitment once the old rules were relaxed back in the 70s, just as much as we see it today. Maybe we should begin to pay more attention to the larger principle of 'Thou Shalt' rather than the thous shalt nots.