TED Conversations

joy faber

recycling artist, Read "Write" Literacy of Torrance County


This conversation is closed.

Do you think marriage, as a social commitment device, still works? Or did it ever work?

I'd like to see what people think of marriage as a social commitment device.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 22 2011: Without marriage, wouldn't we inevitably leave the state to raise our children? Does that sound like a good idea?
    • Dec 24 2011: How did you reach that conclusion?
      • thumb
        Dec 24 2011: Because, as a broad generallity, if men could have children with women, leave them, and not lose half their stuff... They would. The marriage contract is designed to protect women from the fact that men care about women, not children. It is obvious, that not all men fall into this category, but it is biologically built into us to desire as many sexual partners as we can get...

        If women let us... They'd be single parents, who have to work... So who would raise the children? Again, I'm not saying this is all men, or inescapable, but enough men would choose anonymous sex, and leaving their children fatherless, that we felt the need for the state to contract men to pay for their children whether they stay with the woman, or not.

        If a woman is a single parent, and has to work 40-80 hours a week to support their child, isn't the state raising them?
        • Dec 27 2011: Mr. Hamilton,
          On several threads I have seen you express sentiments which call into question the premise of 'gender equality' by stating emphatically that the two genders are different in needs and desires, unique, and complementary of each other.

          Speaking as one romantic to another (for who appreciates the feminine mystique but romantics?) - am I alone in thinking the sole redemption of this tragedy is it's beauty? Once women take the stage, we men feel compelled by the sheer pleasure of the spectacle to allow the show to run its course, even if the plot is lacking for any purpose. That the feminist movement, despite its waging war on all that I feel elicits value in woman, above all is interesting gives me hope that the allure I cherish might persist in some, albeit diminished, form.

          But, really, has the time not come for us to rise from our seats, shout down the music and cut on the lights? Is it not time to take them off the stage and to take them - back home? Are we not responsible for saving them, like children, from themselves?

          What I find most puzzling is this: if woman wishes to 'better' herself can she not find a better goal to ascertain than manhood? And is the fact that woman defines her equality under masculine pretenses not indication at just how psychologically dependent woman is on man? Woman gives man's world substance, man gives woman's world shape.

          To construct a political movement to imitate masculinity seems to be a bit of superfluous flattery on their part, in my opinion.

          The music is so nice. The dancers so pretty. And ironically the program states the show is being performed in - honor of us.


          *I tried sending this as email but it was too long and have thus posted it here instead.
      • thumb
        Dec 27 2011: This is a particularly well written line, that I've always had difficulty expressing to female counterparts "What I find most puzzling is this: if woman wishes to 'better' herself, can she not find a better goal to ascertain than manhood?". I would wholeheartedly agree yes, of course... But, there's a part of me, that would actually argue, they already had a better place in society, then manhood ever represented, they were our parents.

        I think you and I may disagree in two major ways however. One, is that, I don't think there is anything inherently limiting a woman, from being a brilliant leader, from being on a stage, and granting it both form and function. I believe women had the right to fight to put their best and brightest, center stage. I think there are women, that really do deserve positions of leadership, and can actually be competent "world shapers", in some ways even enhanced by their femininity. Women are better multi taskers than men, and historically they are more open to unusual ideas, their egos tend to get in the way less. Again, and this may be where we have subtle differences, I don't believe any generallity about men and women can be applied to the individual.

        I don't want to take women off the stage... I want the women that want, and deserve to be there to be there... Just as I want the men that want and deserve to be there, to be there... but I want to stop pretending that it's a better place to be, for everyone.

        When I talk about gender neutral single parent incomes, what I'm trying to create is a society where lots of women will choose to go back home and raise children... but also men will have that opportunity as well. All men aren't "world shapers", lots of us are just little narcissistic, emotional jerks.

        It's not easy or fun to truly put the weight of the world on your shoulders, but if women are willing to help us lift the burden, I'd be happy to benefit. I don't think we've really been honest in presenting that choice
      • thumb
        Dec 27 2011: Another place we may disagree, is that I truly acknowledge, that it is at least theoretically possible, that women will make better men then we ever did... I doubt it, and I understand why most "old school" men, completely ignore that possibillity... but I don't think we have yet proven they can't.
        • Dec 27 2011: David Hamilton and Seth Powell, your premises about gender identification and roles, and their results, are stunning.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.