An interesting and amusing article in the New English Review on bachelorhood and the pursuit of the life of the mind. The author suggests women in the modern world are more adaptable to being single because they form deeper relationships and are “not haunting discotheques in a vain attempt to hook up with 19-year-old bimbos”.
I think they call them clubs now. The final lines of this essay reminded me of another recent post of mine. Seems like one of the main rationales for marriage and lifetime union is so someone is there to nag you on your death bed. Important point, n’est pas?
Via Arts & Letters Daily.
July 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm |
A better title for that article would have been “How to Romanticize the Misanthropic Misogynist.”
July 11, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
Fair enough.
July 20, 2008 at 10:44 am |
Burton says, “Consider withal how free, how happy, how secure, how heavenly, in respect, a single man is.”
Ah, but a single man has to make decisions; a married man does not.
July 26, 2008 at 10:58 pm |
AMF: I like making decisions. A lot…
July 29, 2008 at 4:39 am |
Wow…that article seems like someone tapped into your brainwaves. It’s really insightful though…reminds me quite a bit of a paper I wrote for a class on Rousseau talking about the role of women in the state of nature, and I recently read a piece by Tickner that reflects a similar idea: male notions of objectivity, or this idea of independence are shallow and empty — no one is independent; rather it’s a question of dynamic objectivity — independence that is dependent upon interdependence…men still haven’t figured that out I guess.
July 29, 2008 at 11:54 am |
“Dynamic objectivity” — I like that. A sociobiologist (like E.O. Wilson, the guy who really likes ants) would say that men are somewhat programmed not to figure that out. Then again, that’s a scientifically rooted justification. And we all know science tends to be another masculine purview, right?
All I can say about that is when Katie Couric suggested the other day that women were subject to more injustice than black men in modern America she was clearly reflecting on the outcome of the Democratic party candidacy thing, and not thinking of, say, the corner of Farrell and Leavenworth in downtown San Francisco. Or West Philly…
July 29, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
I agree and disagree: Science and objectivity go hand in hand with reductionism — which does seem to have roots in a particular understanding of the world…It’s not possible to step away from one’s own perspective EVER — making objectivity impossible as participant-observer effects have shown (what the bleep?).
Furthermore — as far as Katie Couric is concerned…men do stupid shit and get thrown in jail — women get stuck at home with 4 babies, the baby’s daddy in jail sans marriage certificate and benefits, 3 jobs, no health care and no responsible male in sight…men get out of jail and pretend they have no children…and the women are still at home feeling maternally obligated to take care of the children they helped bring into the world…are you kidding?? Sure fine I will be a white female…but you’re crazy if you think being a black female is easier than being a black male in the US.
July 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm |
If you measure these things objectively (i.e. life expectancy), then it is easier. But I get your point completely, and agree. Guess that’s why as much as Obama represents change (as he is constantly busy reminding us), a black woman running for president would be a REAL switch…
July 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm |
Hmmm…I am always right…lol.
July 29, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
And clearly dynamically objective about your rightness… ;)
July 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
Its true! My assertion of rightness was (at least in this case) contingent upon your declaration of agreement — so in fact it is dynamic objectivity. But I would argue objectively it’s also true, which is to state that even when you do not agree, I am still right. But you knew that already.
July 30, 2008 at 9:03 am |
I did? Huh.
July 30, 2008 at 9:24 am |
Marriage does not allow one the luxury of being self absorbed. Therefore, what greatness can come of it?