Cassandra over at Villainous Company offers some thoughts on men & marriage. (H/t Glenn.)
Overall, she makes some great points, but I still notice how no MEN are actually writing about this. So, to wit:
I am in my mid-40s, married for 16 years with three kids, two dogs and a house in the 'burbs. I waited until I was 28 to get engaged and it happened rather quickly. (When you know, you know.) Our marriage is not perfect, but I would not trade it for anything.
That said, I would never get married again.
This is not to say I regret my decision (I don't), but that absent this particular woman and the kids, I do not find the prospect of marriage to have any upside to me and I do see plenty of downside. I am not at all concerned about lacking for sex and if I want companionship, I'll get a dog. Thankfully, I can afford the maid service to keep the house in order and anything more complicated than a sandwich, I can order in or dine out. Finally, I am willing to admit that I take great pleasure in material things.
Okay, so why. Simply because (and I am generalizing here) men want the most from the least. I am lazy; I don't want to work hard. Women are hard work. ALL women. George Bernard Shaw said, "Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else." How true...
Actually, to be clear, I work hard all day. My job is stressful (though I enjoy it) and involves near constant conflict or conflict resolution. I want my home life to be tranquil. It won't be. Why? Because I would also admit that I am hard work...if you are interested in changing me into some domestic lapdog or having me conform to the "Unrealistic Marriage Template" Cassandra talks about.
I certainly agree that there are tons of really wonderful women out there. So again, this is not to say I do not enjoy the company of women, but I would want the option of walking away at the end of the night.
More to follow...
Tdub???
UPDATE: Sorry, link fixed.
UPDATE II: See this post by William Voegeli...
2.11.2008
2.08.2008
2.07.2008
My Advice to McCain
Okay, with Govenor Romney gone, McCain makes his first speech as the nominee. My advice to him is to point out the different roles that a Senator and the leader of a Party play.
When John Paul II died, I wrote a quick post on how different I would be if elected Pope (go with me on this). The point is that sometimes, your role is bigger than yourself. Sometimes, in some positions, you represent something else. As a CEO of my company, I did not feel I could just clown around as "one of the guys"; as Pope, I could not maintain certain views that I have (say euthanasia) because the Vicar of Christ needs to defend life.
Senator McCain needs to draw a distinction between being one of 100 and being the Leader of the Free World. And he needs to be clear that he means it.
When John Paul II died, I wrote a quick post on how different I would be if elected Pope (go with me on this). The point is that sometimes, your role is bigger than yourself. Sometimes, in some positions, you represent something else. As a CEO of my company, I did not feel I could just clown around as "one of the guys"; as Pope, I could not maintain certain views that I have (say euthanasia) because the Vicar of Christ needs to defend life.
Senator McCain needs to draw a distinction between being one of 100 and being the Leader of the Free World. And he needs to be clear that he means it.
Mitt Quit
Or actually "suspended his campaign." Too bad, I think he would have been a very good President, but the numbers were hard to overcome. Ultimately, Governor Huckabee was the cause of Governor Romney's demise, stealing social conservatives who would otherwise have voted for Gov. Romney.
Admittedly, I view Gov. Huckabee's with distain. It is a classic ego driven no-chance effort that aggravates intra-party divisions. His stupid statements on foreign policy and making the Constitution match the Bible made a mockery of conservative ideals and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
Idiot.
Yet, he soldiers on and Governor Romney bows out for the good of the country.
Admittedly, I view Gov. Huckabee's with distain. It is a classic ego driven no-chance effort that aggravates intra-party divisions. His stupid statements on foreign policy and making the Constitution match the Bible made a mockery of conservative ideals and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
Idiot.
Yet, he soldiers on and Governor Romney bows out for the good of the country.
Around the (Political) Horn
For a guy that loves politics, I have not had much to say on the blog as of late. Part of that was an early recognition that Super Tuesday was the first clarifying event of the political season (it was...kinda) and partly because my early choice, Fred Thompson never took off.
But here we are. First off, for the Republicans, John McCain seems to be the choice - not a total lock, but pretty much so. Ultimately, I think McCain will be a good choice and I simply do not have the trepidation that other conservatives have.
Why? Because post-Reagan conservatism rests on three "types" of conservative positions. The first is fiscal conservatism; the second is nationalism (or foreign policy conservatism); and finally, social conservatism. Very rarely (and certainly not in Reagan's or the Bushes' cases) does a Republican nominee embrace all three. Social conservatism was not a priority for Reagan and fiscal conservatism is not a priority for the current President Bush. All three, one could argue, were foreign policy conservatives first and foremost.
McCain is a foreign policy conservative first and foremost with small government instincts. He is not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. (Note that one socially conservative principle is to appoint judges who follow the Constitution, which is often a point where non-social conservatives - such as your humble narrator - find common ground with SC.)
For me, fiscal conservatism is first; foreign policy conservatism is second and, excepting judges, social conservatism does not move the needle at all. The fact that McCain has flipped my first two priorities does not really bother me. The fact that he pisses Jim Dobson off might be a feature rather than a bug. (I want Jim Dobson's morality foisted upon me as much as I want Gloria Steinem's.)
For the Democrats, things are far dicier. Barack Obama is an interesting candidate - for 2016. I concede he is inspirational and a great speaker, but he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and has promised to raise my taxes. Not endearing. I think his message is one that will attract attention, but he simple does not have any real experience and his resume does not compare to Senator McCain. I also think that most people will vote substance - not style - in the private confines of the voting both.
Then there is HRC. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure with all Bill's baggage and none of the charm. She is one VERY smart lady - give her credit - but does not have the touch of a true politician. But she has shown she will do anything - anything - to win. And that sort of viciousness should never be under estimated. Is the country ready for another dose of Clinton mores?
But here we are. First off, for the Republicans, John McCain seems to be the choice - not a total lock, but pretty much so. Ultimately, I think McCain will be a good choice and I simply do not have the trepidation that other conservatives have.
Why? Because post-Reagan conservatism rests on three "types" of conservative positions. The first is fiscal conservatism; the second is nationalism (or foreign policy conservatism); and finally, social conservatism. Very rarely (and certainly not in Reagan's or the Bushes' cases) does a Republican nominee embrace all three. Social conservatism was not a priority for Reagan and fiscal conservatism is not a priority for the current President Bush. All three, one could argue, were foreign policy conservatives first and foremost.
McCain is a foreign policy conservative first and foremost with small government instincts. He is not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. (Note that one socially conservative principle is to appoint judges who follow the Constitution, which is often a point where non-social conservatives - such as your humble narrator - find common ground with SC.)
For me, fiscal conservatism is first; foreign policy conservatism is second and, excepting judges, social conservatism does not move the needle at all. The fact that McCain has flipped my first two priorities does not really bother me. The fact that he pisses Jim Dobson off might be a feature rather than a bug. (I want Jim Dobson's morality foisted upon me as much as I want Gloria Steinem's.)
For the Democrats, things are far dicier. Barack Obama is an interesting candidate - for 2016. I concede he is inspirational and a great speaker, but he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and has promised to raise my taxes. Not endearing. I think his message is one that will attract attention, but he simple does not have any real experience and his resume does not compare to Senator McCain. I also think that most people will vote substance - not style - in the private confines of the voting both.
Then there is HRC. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure with all Bill's baggage and none of the charm. She is one VERY smart lady - give her credit - but does not have the touch of a true politician. But she has shown she will do anything - anything - to win. And that sort of viciousness should never be under estimated. Is the country ready for another dose of Clinton mores?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)