hold the phone!
pixie, this is how you feel: "I am personally against marriage"
"and love alone is not reason for a lifetime committment."
what is going to hold the two of you together when the shit hits the fan. what is going to keep you committed if it is not love? it's not how much you like partying together, and it's not how much you have in common. . . all of that stuff, including your interests, changes. . .
i know couples who have lost babies, weathered jail times, lost jobs, gotten over drug and alcohol addictions, seen major physical changes in each other, had affairs, the only thing that kept them together was love . . . and sometimes it was the memory of it, like i know i loved you, i remember when . . . and that tides them over. but that is it for the couples that i know who have made it. they love each other.
there is a definition of love that the hubby read to me when we got married. and if that is not the sure fire way to stay committed i don't know what is. the hubby is very good at it:
love is patient. love is kind. love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. it does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrong doing, but rejoices in the truth. it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. love never ends.
I'm engaged
Yeah, this is good stuff, Sarah. I hate to relate it all back to Scritti Politti again but I've been scrutinizing the lyrics for the new album and thinking how even though he tries to make the lyrics strange (and they often are) it still comes through how much in love he is (he recently got married).
I think it does speak volumes that love was not one of the original reasons Pixie named. I think Sarah is probably more idealistic about this kind of thing than I am, but I still think love ought to be reason #1 for getting married, even if it really can't be the only reason, otherwise everyone would get married too soon!
I think it does speak volumes that love was not one of the original reasons Pixie named. I think Sarah is probably more idealistic about this kind of thing than I am, but I still think love ought to be reason #1 for getting married, even if it really can't be the only reason, otherwise everyone would get married too soon!
Pixie, speaking as someone in a relationship that many have doubted and misunderstood for a long time, I say only you can decide if marriage is right for you.
I agree with all of the concerned people who have urged you to think it through bofore jumping into marriage, but don't let anyone other than yourself tell you it's wrong.
I agree with Sarah that the only thing that really matters is love. If you have that you can make it through anything. If you don't, you might not bother to try.
Too young is never a real argument, if you truly know you want to be with someone. My parents got married at 20, and are still deeply in love 52 years later, after lots of life and changes. But again, the common denominator is LOVE.
Don't be an idealist, but don't be a pragmatist either. Just be yourself, and think it through, then jump into your decision with both feet.
I wish you alot of happiness and luck.
I agree with all of the concerned people who have urged you to think it through bofore jumping into marriage, but don't let anyone other than yourself tell you it's wrong.
I agree with Sarah that the only thing that really matters is love. If you have that you can make it through anything. If you don't, you might not bother to try.
Too young is never a real argument, if you truly know you want to be with someone. My parents got married at 20, and are still deeply in love 52 years later, after lots of life and changes. But again, the common denominator is LOVE.
Don't be an idealist, but don't be a pragmatist either. Just be yourself, and think it through, then jump into your decision with both feet.
I wish you alot of happiness and luck.
-
TragicPixie
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 831
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:19 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
Don't be an idealist, but don't be a pragmatist either.
I fall somewhere in the middle.
But no, I don't think most people have a healthy concept of "love" ... It's not that I blame them, but for girls especially young girls, "love" is actually very harmful the way our culture constructs it.
I don't actually believe in that sort of love, and I don't actually believe that marriage is even about love except for in the most very recent idealization I suppose? That's not the right word, but I can't find the right one. And the only way I think culturally to justify marriage is about love is when we as a nation recognize gay marriage.
I say this because when you look at marriage historically it was never about love: It was about economics. even in the 1950s.
When marriage started it was also, not about love, it was about family (which is not necessarily historically based on love either) but ownership and entitlement.
Now - I actually have a great respect for love and family both: but that doesn't mean that I think what I personally believe about these things are true except for in how I practice them. Culturally, we have a LOT of baggage about marriage, love, and family. Marriage functions purely as a social custom and cannot be seperated entirely from what it originally is and has functioned in society to be.
Afterall, a mere 50 years ago, I couldn't take out a student loan (assuming of course I went to a university) in my own name - have a credit card or appear in a workplace in maternity clothes (and most certainly not if I were not married).
Having credit, someone to support you (if a woman) or someone to manage your household and have your children (if male), and becoming a functioning memeber in society is afterall what marriage was not even 100 years ago.
I fall somewhere in the middle.
But no, I don't think most people have a healthy concept of "love" ... It's not that I blame them, but for girls especially young girls, "love" is actually very harmful the way our culture constructs it.
I don't actually believe in that sort of love, and I don't actually believe that marriage is even about love except for in the most very recent idealization I suppose? That's not the right word, but I can't find the right one. And the only way I think culturally to justify marriage is about love is when we as a nation recognize gay marriage.
I say this because when you look at marriage historically it was never about love: It was about economics. even in the 1950s.
When marriage started it was also, not about love, it was about family (which is not necessarily historically based on love either) but ownership and entitlement.
Now - I actually have a great respect for love and family both: but that doesn't mean that I think what I personally believe about these things are true except for in how I practice them. Culturally, we have a LOT of baggage about marriage, love, and family. Marriage functions purely as a social custom and cannot be seperated entirely from what it originally is and has functioned in society to be.
Afterall, a mere 50 years ago, I couldn't take out a student loan (assuming of course I went to a university) in my own name - have a credit card or appear in a workplace in maternity clothes (and most certainly not if I were not married).
Having credit, someone to support you (if a woman) or someone to manage your household and have your children (if male), and becoming a functioning memeber in society is afterall what marriage was not even 100 years ago.
Lie to me, it takes less time to drink you pretty.
the hubby and i are back from the lake. it was not great and it was not terrible. it was good for the hubby though . . . he needed some time off to relax, for me, it was an exercise in compromise.
so,
"But no, I don't think most people have a healthy concept of "love" ... It's not that I blame them, but for girls especially young girls, "love" is actually very harmful the way our culture constructs it."
what is your concept of love and what's j's?
"I say this because when you look at marriage historically it was never about love: It was about economics. even in the 1950s. When marriage started it was also, not about love, it was about family (which is not necessarily historically based on love either) but ownership and entitlement."
the first americans did not work this way. of course, we never mean the first americans when we speak of history. it is a shame we don't study them and learn their traditions.
yep, colonial history, yep, the setting up of an empire, yep you better well damn believe that in the great spread of capitalist society owenership and entitlement were and are the motives behind most things.
so,
"But no, I don't think most people have a healthy concept of "love" ... It's not that I blame them, but for girls especially young girls, "love" is actually very harmful the way our culture constructs it."
what is your concept of love and what's j's?
"I say this because when you look at marriage historically it was never about love: It was about economics. even in the 1950s. When marriage started it was also, not about love, it was about family (which is not necessarily historically based on love either) but ownership and entitlement."
the first americans did not work this way. of course, we never mean the first americans when we speak of history. it is a shame we don't study them and learn their traditions.
yep, colonial history, yep, the setting up of an empire, yep you better well damn believe that in the great spread of capitalist society owenership and entitlement were and are the motives behind most things.
Str, yes that is a good point. People do most everything for economics. We are all whores in the respect.
I don't think people commonly married for love until the 18th century.
I think you have to ask yourself today... with the all the negative associations about marriage... what is the point?
Are the positives going to outweigh the negatives?
I agree that girls seem to always have this romantic notion about marriage that men don't seem to fathom at all. Marriage seems almost the opposite of romantic to men. It is something to dread.
I used to say that if you loved someone, the last thing you would ever do it marry them. I still agree with that a little. Marriage can be a selfish act. But there is a time and a place for everything.
I don't think people commonly married for love until the 18th century.
I think you have to ask yourself today... with the all the negative associations about marriage... what is the point?
Are the positives going to outweigh the negatives?
I agree that girls seem to always have this romantic notion about marriage that men don't seem to fathom at all. Marriage seems almost the opposite of romantic to men. It is something to dread.
I used to say that if you loved someone, the last thing you would ever do it marry them. I still agree with that a little. Marriage can be a selfish act. But there is a time and a place for everything.
"Marriage can be a selfish act."
true, but within a marriage you can witness the most selfless acts. sometimes the hubby has amazed me. when i left him, the hubby became physically sick, he did not want a divorce, he didn't marry me to divorce me, but he did not whine and complain . . . he did not call me up and beg me to come back, he just said, okay, if that's what you really want, but i don't and i'm going to come check on you from time to time, and if you want me back i'll be here. i guess i know who is selfish in our relationship, and it's not him. and he never told me how much it hurt him until later . . . he could have easily "guilted" me into coming back, he knows my personality very well, but he just let me go b/c i told him that's what i wanted. i have unfairly and i guess unwittingly tested the hubby and he always passes. he tells people about things i've done for him that he thinks are selfless, so i mean yes in a way marriage can seem selfish, but then in a way it's just a committment between two people who want to make it to the rocking chairs together because they don't want to be there with anyone else.
pixie, i've been researching some of favorite people for you, those of the iroquois nation. I wish, if you haven't read about their history, you would . . . It is American history. There is a great article in an old National Geographic by Joseph Bruchac (vol 180, no. 4/ october 1991: "1491 America Before Columbus") who is an excellent writer of native american stories and history . . .he is native american. A great deal of the Iroquois nation was based on their women. And even before the Iroquois Nation / Confederacy the Mohawks or Onkweh-Onweh "real human beings" based a great deal of their society's structure around women; marriages were to keep peace and keep one clan or one nation from dominating the other; very different from post-columbus america. (and i'm not saying that these marriages were more about love, many of them were about keeping peace, but they weren't about jane austin's england or kate chopin's new orleans or the 1950's leave it to beaver)
it is this history of american women, which makes me very sad that so many of our "feminist" instructors don't teach.
true, but within a marriage you can witness the most selfless acts. sometimes the hubby has amazed me. when i left him, the hubby became physically sick, he did not want a divorce, he didn't marry me to divorce me, but he did not whine and complain . . . he did not call me up and beg me to come back, he just said, okay, if that's what you really want, but i don't and i'm going to come check on you from time to time, and if you want me back i'll be here. i guess i know who is selfish in our relationship, and it's not him. and he never told me how much it hurt him until later . . . he could have easily "guilted" me into coming back, he knows my personality very well, but he just let me go b/c i told him that's what i wanted. i have unfairly and i guess unwittingly tested the hubby and he always passes. he tells people about things i've done for him that he thinks are selfless, so i mean yes in a way marriage can seem selfish, but then in a way it's just a committment between two people who want to make it to the rocking chairs together because they don't want to be there with anyone else.
pixie, i've been researching some of favorite people for you, those of the iroquois nation. I wish, if you haven't read about their history, you would . . . It is American history. There is a great article in an old National Geographic by Joseph Bruchac (vol 180, no. 4/ october 1991: "1491 America Before Columbus") who is an excellent writer of native american stories and history . . .he is native american. A great deal of the Iroquois nation was based on their women. And even before the Iroquois Nation / Confederacy the Mohawks or Onkweh-Onweh "real human beings" based a great deal of their society's structure around women; marriages were to keep peace and keep one clan or one nation from dominating the other; very different from post-columbus america. (and i'm not saying that these marriages were more about love, many of them were about keeping peace, but they weren't about jane austin's england or kate chopin's new orleans or the 1950's leave it to beaver)
it is this history of american women, which makes me very sad that so many of our "feminist" instructors don't teach.
pixie, i'm going to put a link here to the oral history of iroquois women and their men. i hope that more young women are taught the ways of the iroquois women . . . they are about empowerment, not oppression:
one deals Tsikonsaseh, she is the partner of The Peacemaker, the man known in his tribe as Aiontwatha, and probably to you if you know of him at all as Hiawatha. Tsikonsaseh is important to understanding the role of women in the Iroquois nation because she sort of sets the stage for all other women . . . she works together with Hiawatha, very much as his partner.
The Iroquois Nation / Confederacy is the First Democracy of this country. Its history is the first history of this place where you live and were probably born. It is very embarrassing to me that americans and especially american women do not know their own history, and it is because the teachers have failed to teach it.
http://members.aol.com/Akalem1/Legend1.html
one deals Tsikonsaseh, she is the partner of The Peacemaker, the man known in his tribe as Aiontwatha, and probably to you if you know of him at all as Hiawatha. Tsikonsaseh is important to understanding the role of women in the Iroquois nation because she sort of sets the stage for all other women . . . she works together with Hiawatha, very much as his partner.
The Iroquois Nation / Confederacy is the First Democracy of this country. Its history is the first history of this place where you live and were probably born. It is very embarrassing to me that americans and especially american women do not know their own history, and it is because the teachers have failed to teach it.
http://members.aol.com/Akalem1/Legend1.html
This is your history, pixie, the history of american women; don't ever let someone tell you differently. The women of this country have a great legacy . . . Equality with their male partners since the very first democracy -- the rest is HIStory --how to be oppressed and owned; that's not your story -- the first feminists weren't interested in that. . . They were interested in how to be free: “If Iroquois women could be equal partners with men, then so could white women, asserted suffragists in the mid-1800s looking to Native Americans for inspiration in seeking women's rightsâ€
“Iroquois Women Inspire 19th Century Feministsâ€
http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-99/iroquois.html
“Seneca Falls exhibit shows how Iroquois women influenced U.S. feministsâ€
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/9 ... hibit.html
“Iroquois Women Inspire 19th Century Feministsâ€
http://www.now.org/nnt/summer-99/iroquois.html
“Seneca Falls exhibit shows how Iroquois women influenced U.S. feministsâ€
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/9 ... hibit.html
“The Untold Story of the Iroquois Influence on Early Feministsâ€
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/wagner2.html
""I say this because when you look at marriage historically it was never about love: It was about economics."
pixie, this is NOT what the early colonial feminists learned from the first americans!
this IS what the first colonial feminists learned and recorded:
“THE PERSISTENCE OF AN IDEA“
Marriage, among the Iroquois, appears to be a verbal contract between the parties, which does not affect the rights of property. Goods, personal effects, or valuables of any kind personal or real, which were the wife's before, remain so after marriage. . . . Marriage is therefore a personal agreement, requiring neither civil nor ecclesiastical sanction, but not a union of the rights of property. Descent being counted by the female may be either an original cause or effect of this unique law.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nat ... chp11.html
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/wagner2.html
""I say this because when you look at marriage historically it was never about love: It was about economics."
pixie, this is NOT what the early colonial feminists learned from the first americans!
this IS what the first colonial feminists learned and recorded:
“THE PERSISTENCE OF AN IDEA“
Marriage, among the Iroquois, appears to be a verbal contract between the parties, which does not affect the rights of property. Goods, personal effects, or valuables of any kind personal or real, which were the wife's before, remain so after marriage. . . . Marriage is therefore a personal agreement, requiring neither civil nor ecclesiastical sanction, but not a union of the rights of property. Descent being counted by the female may be either an original cause or effect of this unique law.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nat ... chp11.html
str, you may be happy to know that Sweden (the country I live in) is the most equal in terms of men/women in the world. You sound a bit like a feminist (and in a way so am I) so here you go:
These things DO NOT happen by accident. They are the product of many years of struggle and sacrifice by open minded people.
Recently there has been a large movement by muslim immigrants to petition the government to restrict the rights of women in Sweden based on 'moral grounds'. Of course the government spokesman laughed in these peoples faces.
The official stated policy of Sweden:
* Women and men shall have the same opportunities, rights and responsibilities in all significant areas of life
* Equal division of power and influence between women and men.
* The same opportunities for women and men to achieve economic independence.
* Equal terms and conditions for women and men with respect to owning their own business, work, employment conditions and career development opportunities.
* Equal access for girls and boys, women and men to education and the development of personal ambitions, interests and talents.
* Shared responsibility for work in the home and with children.
* Freedom from sexual (gender-related) violence.
These things DO NOT happen by accident. They are the product of many years of struggle and sacrifice by open minded people.
Recently there has been a large movement by muslim immigrants to petition the government to restrict the rights of women in Sweden based on 'moral grounds'. Of course the government spokesman laughed in these peoples faces.
The official stated policy of Sweden:
* Women and men shall have the same opportunities, rights and responsibilities in all significant areas of life
* Equal division of power and influence between women and men.
* The same opportunities for women and men to achieve economic independence.
* Equal terms and conditions for women and men with respect to owning their own business, work, employment conditions and career development opportunities.
* Equal access for girls and boys, women and men to education and the development of personal ambitions, interests and talents.
* Shared responsibility for work in the home and with children.
* Freedom from sexual (gender-related) violence.
pixie, i do admire what you said about gay marriage, last month was pride month btw 
-- this is not a direct quote of you, but the "if gays can't marry for love then i won't either" line of thinking is admirable. although i really would say that's extremely idealistic reasoning.
it's just odd how native americans had such differing views of marriage and i wonder if we weren't taught them as america's traditions or ways more . . . it might change our perceptions of things.
in some tribes, not in the iroquois nation that i know of, but in others marriage was as easy to dissolve as living together, you don't like it, you walk away. . . you never learn these things in school, and apparently despite the work of howard zinn, you still don't learn them in college either. i didn't. but somehow you do learn all the oppressive ways of the colonials . . . why?
"As you can probably guess... Sweden used to be very old fashioned and finally 'had enough of the bullshit'.
When is this going to happen in the States?
BTW... in case you are wondering... gay couples can get married in Sweden and everyone thinks that's normal."
yes, good for sweden. it should be normal. i don't know when we'll change; it is a slow process. the us is comprised of so many traditionalists -- and we must change the way we think b/f we change the way we act.
thinking about gay marriage for instance is very very slowly changing. we'll get there eventually. if the governator hadn't been in cali, we'd already be there in one state. . . and without bush in office i can only imagine how much further we'd be:
"Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage
Bush: 'Marriage ... between a man and a woman'
From Rose Arce
CNN
Friday, February 6, 2004 Posted: 5:57 PM EST (2257 GMT)
Massachusetts is the first state to rule that gay couples have a right to marry.
(CNN) -- Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution."
i think there are quite a few problems though. the country is huge. opinion on such a thing has to be considered if you are an elected government official. the opinion of your constituency may be very different from the opinion of the this other person's constituency . . . so unanimous decisions that will change laws for the entire country, that's slow going.
but it would seem obvious that denying a person a right based on religion is denying a person a right period.
i have no guess as to where else the arguement against gay marriage comes from, it's no different than those muslims in sweden trying to stop women's rights. it's stupidly based not on the rationality of the issue, but on some religious thing . . . and in the us where we're supposed to be a melting pot of many differing religions, it's impossible to make laws that encompass all of them.
BUT i don't think nixing religion from our lawmakers decision making process is in the majority . . . yet. they use it when they want to get their constituency really behind them, then they'll toss it. it became an issue here with the death penality, the current governor was like, no no i'm against it, it's against my religion, but i'll uphold the state's constitution . . . makes me wonder how it got in the state's constitution to start with.
and i could go the opposite way to say that if you use christ to create laws there is not a lot to fear. Christ said that all laws hung on two commandments they both were commandments to love. um, i see no conflict between that and a law allowing gay folks to marry -- but i'm not a fan of making laws based on religion, really because of the vastness of differing interpretations; someone could pull something out of the torah/ old testament, like a good old fashioned stoning, and well that is in a religious text. in iran b/c of religion it is still legal to put someone to death because they are homosexual, so people can go crazy with their interpretations of these things. it's like making a law based on what you read in the lord of the rings!
-- this is not a direct quote of you, but the "if gays can't marry for love then i won't either" line of thinking is admirable. although i really would say that's extremely idealistic reasoning.it's just odd how native americans had such differing views of marriage and i wonder if we weren't taught them as america's traditions or ways more . . . it might change our perceptions of things.
in some tribes, not in the iroquois nation that i know of, but in others marriage was as easy to dissolve as living together, you don't like it, you walk away. . . you never learn these things in school, and apparently despite the work of howard zinn, you still don't learn them in college either. i didn't. but somehow you do learn all the oppressive ways of the colonials . . . why?
"As you can probably guess... Sweden used to be very old fashioned and finally 'had enough of the bullshit'.
When is this going to happen in the States?
BTW... in case you are wondering... gay couples can get married in Sweden and everyone thinks that's normal."
yes, good for sweden. it should be normal. i don't know when we'll change; it is a slow process. the us is comprised of so many traditionalists -- and we must change the way we think b/f we change the way we act.
thinking about gay marriage for instance is very very slowly changing. we'll get there eventually. if the governator hadn't been in cali, we'd already be there in one state. . . and without bush in office i can only imagine how much further we'd be:
"Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage
Bush: 'Marriage ... between a man and a woman'
From Rose Arce
CNN
Friday, February 6, 2004 Posted: 5:57 PM EST (2257 GMT)
Massachusetts is the first state to rule that gay couples have a right to marry.
(CNN) -- Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution."
i think there are quite a few problems though. the country is huge. opinion on such a thing has to be considered if you are an elected government official. the opinion of your constituency may be very different from the opinion of the this other person's constituency . . . so unanimous decisions that will change laws for the entire country, that's slow going.
but it would seem obvious that denying a person a right based on religion is denying a person a right period.
i have no guess as to where else the arguement against gay marriage comes from, it's no different than those muslims in sweden trying to stop women's rights. it's stupidly based not on the rationality of the issue, but on some religious thing . . . and in the us where we're supposed to be a melting pot of many differing religions, it's impossible to make laws that encompass all of them.
BUT i don't think nixing religion from our lawmakers decision making process is in the majority . . . yet. they use it when they want to get their constituency really behind them, then they'll toss it. it became an issue here with the death penality, the current governor was like, no no i'm against it, it's against my religion, but i'll uphold the state's constitution . . . makes me wonder how it got in the state's constitution to start with.
and i could go the opposite way to say that if you use christ to create laws there is not a lot to fear. Christ said that all laws hung on two commandments they both were commandments to love. um, i see no conflict between that and a law allowing gay folks to marry -- but i'm not a fan of making laws based on religion, really because of the vastness of differing interpretations; someone could pull something out of the torah/ old testament, like a good old fashioned stoning, and well that is in a religious text. in iran b/c of religion it is still legal to put someone to death because they are homosexual, so people can go crazy with their interpretations of these things. it's like making a law based on what you read in the lord of the rings!