edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (10/08/85)
There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the fact that the divorce rate has increased greatly in the past few decades. Ray Frank blames the liberation of women and the discarding of ``traditional values'' as the cause of this. I agree, 100%. The increasing life-span is only a minor factor in comparison, at least in recent decades. But I differ most strongly from Ray that this is a necessarily bad thing. Fewer women (and men) are choosing to suffer in bad relationships. Women are asking for more out of marriage, and often aren't getting it--and so are moving on. Ray thinks this is self-centeredness. I think it is self-respect. I think Ray is being self-centered by expecting other people to live according to his expectations. We are in a transitionary generation. Old institutions aren't working very well (in many cases they never did, dispite what people think-- human memory is always selective). We flounder sometimes in attepts at forming new institutions. We mix old and new in ill-fitting ways. We learn by doing. Sometimes we make mistakes, and have to back out and try again. Thus, I think that the high divorce rate is a natural result of transitions from old ways of doing things to new (and eventually better) ways of doing things. When have people not been self-centered, especially in times of change? It takes time for self-awareness to develop beyond self-obsession. Change is inevitable. The symptoms of change are anathema to those who fear it, as Ray appears to. But we are very far from anarchy. I fear pessimism such as Ray's far more than the forces of change, because such pessimism poisons the future, and represents a lack of faith in human ability. Enough people with such attitudes create a self-fullfilling prophecy. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/17/85)
> There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the fact that the divorce > rate has increased greatly in the past few decades. Ray Frank blames > the liberation of women and the discarding of ``traditional values'' as > the cause of this. I agree, 100%. The increasing life-span is only a > minor factor in comparison, at least in recent decades. [ED HALL] Ray really did that? Gee, I *should* read this group more regularly (if only the word "women" didn't begin with a "w", ...). How typical. How expectable. Ray is doing his job as a satirist. > But I differ most strongly from Ray that this is a necessarily bad > thing. Fewer women (and men) are choosing to suffer in bad > relationships. Women are asking for more out of marriage, and often > aren't getting it--and so are moving on. Ray thinks this is > self-centeredness. I think it is self-respect. I think Ray is being > self-centered by expecting other people to live according to his > expectations. It's "self-centeredness" by people other than his own "kind". By his reasoning, any group other than his own which is somehow taken advantage of expressing "self-centeredness" (really, as you say, self-respect) is a heinous evil to be gotten rid of because it destroys the precious fabric of society. Only HIS kind have the right to be self-centered. Anyone else seeking that same level of self-respect is evil and horrible. A woman. A black. A Jew. A member of any number of other minorities. How horrible that they DARE to assume that same level of expectation for respect that Ray demands! Do you recognize that this is the very sort of backlash to be expected from "haves" when "have-nots" assert their dignity and humanity? This whining about "going back to the old ways" when things were better (for them!). (I should shut up---the last time I presented this position, Don Black magically appeared! :-( ) But, seriously, is that "fabric of society" more important than the dignity of individual members of that society? > We are in a transitionary generation. Old institutions aren't working > very well (in many cases they never did, dispite what people think-- > human memory is always selective). We flounder sometimes in attepts at > forming new institutions. We mix old and new in ill-fitting ways. We > learn by doing. Sometimes we make mistakes, and have to back out and > try again. I think most generations are transitory in some form or other, ours perhaps more so than most prior to it owing to the "fast pace" of our age. One thing I learned the other day was the notion of goal vs. process: we (and I'm not sure who "we" is, though I think it refers to western civilization at large) seem to be more interested in reaching a goal, achieving the results, rather than the process that gets us there. I'm sure some people will say that that's an "eastern" way in opposition to the "western" way, and Sunny may even chime in by claiming that it's a female rather than a male way, but no matter. (Frankly I don't believe either perspective.) But both process and goal are important, and we may often forget the effect that simply getting the result may have on people. Bussing to get to integration alienated a lot of people, for example. The result is often more important than the effect that getting that result may engender. We need to pay a lot more attention to the process of transition from one set of norms (outdated and oppressive) to a new one (less so). But I feel little or no sympathy for those who simply are boldly insensitive to the demands of those people who are merely seeking an equivalent level of respect, simply because they would prefer that things would remain the same (or go back to the way they were) for their benefit. Conservatives feed on the uneasiness of people in these sorts of times, heralding a move back to the old ways as a panacea. > Thus, I think that the high divorce rate is a natural result of > transitions from old ways of doing things to new (and eventually better) > ways of doing things. When have people not been self-centered, > especially in times of change? It takes time for self-awareness to > develop beyond self-obsession. I've said a lot of other random garbage, but one thing I haven't said yet is "Very well said, Ed!" -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
> There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the fact that the divorce > rate has increased greatly in the past few decades. Ray Frank blames > the liberation of women and the discarding of ``traditional values'' as > the cause of this. I agree, 100%. The increasing life-span is only a > minor factor in comparison, at least in recent decades. [ED HALL] Ray really did that? Gee, I *should* read this group more regularly (if only the word "women" didn't begin with a "w", ...). How typical. How expectable. Ray is doing his job as a satirist. > But I differ most strongly from Ray that this is a necessarily bad > thing. Fewer women (and men) are choosing to suffer in bad > relationships. Women are asking for more out of marriage, and often > aren't getting it--and so are moving on. Ray thinks this is > self-centeredness. I think it is self-respect. I think Ray is being > self-centered by expecting other people to live according to his > expectations. It's "self-centeredness" by people other than his own "kind". By his reasoning, any group other than his own which is somehow taken advantage of expressing "self-centeredness" (really, as you say, self-respect) is a heinous evil to be gotten rid of because it destroys the precious fabric of society. Only HIS kind have the right to be self-centered. Anyone else seeking that same level of self-respect is evil and horrible. A woman. A black. A Jew. A member of any number of other minorities. How horrible that they DARE to assume that same level of expectation for respect that Ray demands! Do you recognize that this is the very sort of backlash to be expected from "haves" when "have-nots" assert their dignity and humanity? This whining about "going back to the old ways" when things were better (for them!). (I should shut up---the last time I presented this position, Don Black magically appeared! :-( ) But, seriously, is that "fabric of society" more important than the dignity of individual members of that society? > We are in a transitionary generation. Old institutions aren't working > very well (in many cases they never did, dispite what people think-- > human memory is always selective). We flounder sometimes in attepts at > forming new institutions. We mix old and new in ill-fitting ways. We > learn by doing. Sometimes we make mistakes, and have to back out and > try again. I think most generations are transitory in some form or other, ours perhaps more so than most prior to it owing to the "fast pace" of our age. One thing I learned the other day was the notion of goal vs. process: we (and I'm not sure who "we" is, though I think it refers to western civilization at large) seem to be more interested in reaching a goal, achieving the results, rather than the process that gets us there. I'm sure some people will say that that's an "eastern" way in opposition to the "western" way, and Sunny may even chime in by claiming that it's a female rather than a male way, but no matter. (Frankly I don't believe either perspective.) But both process and goal are important, and we may often forget the effect that simply getting the result may have on people. Bussing to get to integration alienated a lot of people, for example. The result is often more important than the effect that getting that result may engender. We need to pay a lot more attention to the process of transition from one set of norms (outdated and oppressive) to a new one (less so). But I feel little or no sympathy for those who simply are boldly insensitive to the demands of those people who are merely seeking an equivalent level of respect, simply because they would prefer that things would remain the same (or go back to the way they were) for their benefit. Conservatives feed on the uneasiness of people in these sorts of times, heralding a move back to the old ways as a panacea. > Thus, I think that the high divorce rate is a natural result of > transitions from old ways of doing things to new (and eventually better) > ways of doing things. When have people not been self-centered, > especially in times of change? It takes time for self-awareness to > develop beyond self-obsession. I've said a lot of other random garbage, but one thing I haven't said yet is "Very well said, Ed!" -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/20/85)
> > There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the fact that the divorce > > rate has increased greatly in the past few decades. Ray Frank blames > > the liberation of women and the discarding of ``traditional values'' as > > the cause of this. I agree, 100%. The increasing life-span is only a > > minor factor in comparison, at least in recent decades. [ED HALL] > I don't remember ever mentioning women's lib in any of my postings concerning the question of the rising divorce rate. Parhaps the author of the above posting feels that way, but I have never indicated in my postings dealing with divorce rates that women's lib was causing the problem. I have also never mentioned that I believe women's lib was not causing the problem. In other words, I simply never brought up that issue.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (10/29/85)
In article <12490@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> > There has been a lot of back-and-forth about the fact that the divorce >> > rate has increased greatly in the past few decades. Ray Frank blames >> > the liberation of women and the discarding of ``traditional values'' as >> > the cause of this. I agree, 100%. The increasing life-span is only a >> > minor factor in comparison, at least in recent decades. [ED HALL] >> >I don't remember ever mentioning women's lib in any of my postings concerning >the question of the rising divorce rate. Parhaps the author of the above >posting feels that way, but I have never indicated in my postings dealing with >divorce rates that women's lib was causing the problem. I have also never >mentioned that I believe women's lib was not causing the problem. In other >words, I simply never brought up that issue. > I've not monitored all your postings, so I'll take your word for it-- at least in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, you've been discussing the changes from traditional sex roles that have been a part of the women's liberation movement, and so in the broad sense what you've written has a lot to do with it. Also, like it or not, posting in net.women assumes that you are talking about feminism and sexism. I'm sure you (and everybody else :-) ) realize this. (This isn't the group to report a byte order problem in sendmail frozen configuration files.) -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall