Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Women, love, divorce, and western society.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Women, love, divorce, and western society.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have noticed as i have been growing up. Divorce has been something i have seen people go through. And i usually asked people what their insight was on this phenomenon, and i primarily came to a few conclusions. One of the easiest that many people have came to was that women want more ( in the sense of power), and the argument is made because women are becoming more equal. But when you think about it they are not fiscally or culturally ( we look at their worth in the sense of their look). So i made the ultimate conclusion that commercialism and capitalism have made women, marry for money, instead of doing the "EQUAL" thing and work and study.

So to look at this on the individual scale , you can look at this situation with two fictional characters

Male=Cody
Female=Jane

Cody and Jane think they love each other so they try to spend every moment with each other (they are in high school). Jane is beautiful, and many guys look at here. Cody just wants too work to be happy with her. All the other nerdy boys go off to college. 6 years come and Jane wants things, she never got educated, so she wants a that nerdy man who is making 6 figures

Males in the U.S. divorce because of many different reason, but i think the major reason is due to the commercial identity women have, which in essence is a living blow up doll. And since men want change they will get a different girl get caught and all hell is being brought up on this life

So to put the male part of this equation into the senario, The nerdy man didnt get what he wanted until later in life becuase he got money, so then a hot secretary want his nuts, so he has hot dirtty sex many times, then Jane find him

and the rest of this story is pretty much america

Please give me some insight on this Laughing

@SummyF,

Back in the day, marriage was seen as some kind of spiritual connection; a transcendental union between two individuals that make up one being, til death do them part.

Now marriage and divorce are as common as boyfriend/girlfriends breaking up. Maybe it's the liberal attitudes we've adopted in Western society, but I don't know. Just call me an old romantic.

@Victor Eremita,

It probably looks that way at this point. But the more you experience, meet people, have relationships and travel I think you'll probably find...

... as many women marry for money as they do for love
... folks marry for the very reasons others refuse to
... as many men marry for security as they do for trophy-hunting
... none of us are consciously-aware our own motivations for pair-bonding

The more I see and know, the more I see many of these steriotypes just don't hold. Limited experience and sitcoms may make it look that way, but the immense diversity of the truth (in my experience) shatters almost all steriotypes.

Not sure this helps, just my two cents :shifty:

@Khethil,

I wouldn't know for i am only 16 and am the son of a happily married couple of about a billion years. (lawl i just called my parents old) Also i don't know many divorcees. So ahhh ya..... i don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation. I know that when and if i marry i WON'T be divorcing them. I'm not going to even date a girl until i find one i could see myself being with for more than a year. The way young people date these days disgusts me, growing up watching disney movies and what-not describing love as this beautiful thing and then going out with my friends to hear that so and so broke up with so and so after 2 days of dating.

Its like having what you think is the best thing in the world just to find out its not that great after all. :disappointed:

@Psychonaut,

i wonder if the nature of dating has been steered in a different way? each party tries to adjust or compromise in order to prove that they 'fit' or 'not fit' each other's company. then after marriage, they allow themselves to find and 'be' who they truly are. Hence, leads to divorce. wouldn't it be easier if the expectations of dating and marriage is flipped? sorry khethil,another generalization of mine.

@oxherder,

SummyF,

By saying that women want more power you imply that men have most of it. Is it so bad that men and women should have an equal share in "power?" But your conclusion is in a sense bias. Women do not have the luxury of working from their own system. They (women) have to work within a male system. It is extremely difficult for them.

I would point out that your fictional story is a perfect example of a male notion of females within a male normative framework. There are preconceived notions at play that make the analogy bias. Not all women are money grubbers or lazy nor are all men hardworking, selfless beings.

The male divorce in the US and female commercial identity is another preconceived notion. It is bias. But you put such a spin on the male perspective that men cannot hardly be blamed for infidelity. Cheating is wrong.

That the nerdy guy got the hot girl in the end is this simple. Pay now, play later. A lot of people prefer the other approach. Play now, pay later. You work hard now, you get to enjoy a lot more later. Honestly, who could blame Jane? Some would call that strategic placement.

That the rest of the story is pretty much America is not right. It's stupid people in particular. There are stupid people all over the world from what I understand. Thank god we are all of a cognitive mind frame.

GENERAL THOUGHTS ON DIVORCE

One thing I can point out about divorces is that people cannot really differentiate between infatuation and love. Besides the obvious philosophical implications of these emotions, there are other reasons. Dare I say it, there may be some biological reason. I remember reading somewhere that infatuation is in fact linked to a biochemical in the brain that apparently wares off after two years. That infatuation is filled with preconceived notions of the other and illusory ideas about the other person. But once that infatuation wares off per se, all your left with is the substantial relationship, which was either nurtured or left to alone to its own devices.

@VideCorSpoon,

Romantic love is an addiction. Get over it.

Look for companionship. A good friend. Ah, but people have become some individualistic, less and less concern for society and family. They have a few problems and get divorced. When you spend vast amounts of time with someone, you will have problems. Tough. Get over it.

@Didymos Thomas,

At the risk of stating something too obvious....

I think it's important to keep in mind that when we say "this happens cuz <yada>", we're doing so from our own perspective - and humans have a bad habit of imposing their perceptions on the motives of others. The longer I live and the more I learn on relationships, the more I see that although some patterns do exist, the motivations are almost always more complex and varied than we think.

... lest we fall deeper into steriotyping or pigeon-holing.

@Khethil,

I think you raise a good point, Khetil. No relationship is the same as another, and no individual is the same as another, however similar.

One note about marriage: marriage is a social arrangement. In the past, marriages were arranged for the sake of a community (be it for the sake of the two concerned families, or for the sake of the larger community, like the marriage of two royals for peace). In the modern, industrialized world, marriage is a social arrangement for the sake of the two individuals. Marriage has lost much, if not all, of it's communal purpose and is now a very self-interested arrangement between people. This is what I was hinting at above.
Because marriage is now a selfish arrangement, and not a community-focused arrangement, people make and break the arrangement for selfish reasons. Marriage has become about "me" as opposed to being about a larger "we". A big part of this is due to the shift in modern living - where in the past we depended on some community, family and village, we now depend upon ourselves. The real heartbreaker is the influence this extreme individualism has on children.

@Didymos Thomas,

Divorce is a breach of contract. The most profound contract that we make. Divorce is fraud. Unless the marriage is itself a fraudulent marriage, in which case annulment is appropriate. And one of the parties is then guilty of fraud.

If people cannot abide the most important promise they will ever make, on an ever increasing scale, then our society will simply collapse. What chance do the little promises have, if the big ones are tossed aside with such carelessness?

The world is complacent. I predict that Islam will be the next world superpower; even though I am Christian. It may take another 20 years or so, but unless the breach is sealed, our fate will be sealed.

Society only functions because of relative honesty.

@Poseidon,

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Poseidon,

Divorce is a legal allowance and an entitlement for the breach of a marriage contract. But I think you think of marriage in the strict terms of religious imperatives and not in the social sense.

Am I speaking strictly of the causal effect of breaching the longest lasting contract that we can make.

The law says this yes, but it denied me the right to make my case, and treated me as the culprit, when the woman concerned destroyed my livlihood; websites; stole from me and as a result of her and her families lies; I lost my job. Then the lawyer took my money and told me "I can see you have a case, but you are just not important enough; and by the way homosexual marriage is now the in thing. (knudge knudge wink wink). Were I not a Christian I would have encouraged him to meet his maker.

Quote:

This is certainly not the case. Two types of contracts exist, one social and one religious.

I see only one type of contract. Spiritual=social. A contract is a contract is a contract. And the law cares nothing except for stealing from the ordinary person; under the pretense of 'justice'

Quote:

The two must certainly never mix. A corporeal life is separate (to a point) from the incorporeal spiritual life in regards to contractarianism.

The mind and the world are unified through the body. If you break a contract that binds society together; and this is multiplied throughout society; then society itself becomes unbound.

Quote:

But I would say that society does not function because of relative honesty. In fact, relative honesty is a key issue that Pope Benedict underlines as one of his core concerns (if you buy into that religious dogma).

By relative honesty; I was making a pun on the term 'relative'. I could have said 'society must be relatively honest'. Ie we do not have to be absolutely perfect, just mostly so.

Anyone that has read the Bible would know that the bible is the defining manuscript that speaks out against dogma. (In countless places) Wether that dogma be 'religious' or 'science' is mere labelling.

Quote:

Society functions because we have contracts and we fear the repercussions of breaking those contracts. We could say the same of religious contracts.

I disagree. Society is dysfunctional. It may have been functional in the '50s, but resting on those laurels is a time bomb ticking away.

Quote:

China is more top heavy than the west. The way they rigged the olmpyics should be enough evidence of this.

I could quote Shakespeare and call the law an 'ass', but that would be an insult to the ass, as the ass knows what hard work is.

@Poseidon,

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I would say that it is in fact the social contract that is the longest contract we make. That contract is made before we are even born. Marriage contracts are nothing compared to that contract.

A bit of chicken and egg here. It is marriage that gives rise to viable children.

Quote:

Further, they would be nothing without that contract. In the legal case, it is (in western society) tailored to protect the female side of the marriage from infidelity.

In my experience, it has become a means for the father of the girl to use it as a weapon against the husband. (3 generations +) Your explanation proves the bias against males. Which IS fuelling western male respect for Islam. And thereby ultimately undermining women. Which, seeing as though they just do whatever daddy tells them anyway, it will be their karma. False rape claims are more the norm than real rape claims by 4 to 1. Yet no feminist ever bats an eyelid. They just want dominance, not equality; which is why they always end up dominated.

Quote:

I agree that there is indeed some bias, but considering the framework of society, its only fair.

Bias is the antithesis of fairness. As a young male; I can asure you; the bias is on favour of young woman, and old men. I have never seen a young male earn the same as a young female. Because the old guys like to surround themselves with pretty girls. The young men are given menial jobs or sent to the military.

Quote:

As to the contract is a contract is a contract, I agree. But you strike on an interesting point about the law stealing from the ordinary man. A contract can be made between anybody as long as the contract contains a legitimate offer, acceptance, capacity, consideration, and legality. Break these and your in trouble. The law exists to enforce that contract. That's perhaps why people have such a bad impression of the law and lawyers. If you break the law, there are consequences.

And yet the law never seems to abide by its own laws. For example if someone is falsely imprisoned, the police and judge responsible never sit time for this? They are themselves above the law. See apartheid for instance, which was all ratified by 'law'. There are countless other examples.

Quote:

Yes, but this is exactly the opposite of what occurred, in reality.

Quote:

That the mind and the world are unified through the body is certainly a Cartesian notion. I disagree that a marriage contract binds society together.

The majority of problem (violent) youths all have in common this: absent father syndrome.

Quote:

About relative honesty, that's relative! LOL! But seriously, honesty in itself is relative to the person being honest. All cultures have different ideas of honesty to some degree.

No.
A lie is a lie is a lie.

Quote:

Also, anyone that has seriously studied the theological and philosophical implications of the bible can say that the Bible is itself a dogma.

The Bible has been used as dogma. As has philosophy and science, and all other bodies of knowledge. This does not make it dogma initself. Only a person can be dogmatic. A book has no personality of itself.

When Christ says 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath', he is seriously questioning the dogma of the religious establishment.

I have studied the bible from cover to cover more than four times. Have you studied it once? (As an adult)

Quote:

To say its ALL relative is a non-relative statement!
Surely you cannot be prescribing moral relativism? Has that not been destroyed in logical debate on this forum already?

Quote:

That society is dysfunctional, I disagree. Let's keep in mind that the 50's was a time of segregation (in both the U.S. and Africa), still oppressive to women, and oppressive to many other minorities. Those "good 'ole days" were great for the average white male, but a real heart ache for 80% of the world's population.

Good point. I said 'may have been thus'.
But it was white males that earned the right to their power by defeating the axis. It certainly was not black women being killed by the million.

Quote:

Well time will tell. It remains ridiculous that they could win so many medals so SUDDENLY like that.

China has the fasting increasing gap between wealth and poverty. And in comparrison to Islam, if there were a war between the two, it would be NO CONTEST.

China owns 40% of America. OK. But, between wwi and wwii the Jews owned a substantial amount of Germany. Guess what occurred next?

@Poseidon,

@VideCorSpoon,

Postivism is scientific. It is not relative. Science is absolute.

The reason why women do not (should not) serve in the military, is purely pragmatical. If the majority of males get wiped out (France wwI) the population can bounce back in a single generation. If the majority of females get wiped out, it takes centuries for the population to recover. Pretending otherwise is a recipe for disaster.

South Africa receives its legal dictates from America. Like homosexual adoption, and abortion. How and why, is anyone's guess. But it does happen that way.

Society is biased in favour of the legal caste. And, in favour of old men and young women. Young men are always the cannon fodder, conveniently for the old legal proffesionals who get to keep all the young girls, by default.

Western society has always drafted young males into its war-death machine. To suggest that young males benefit from this ... is just ... well ... words fail me for a sufficient metaphor.

Quote:

On what happened to the Jewish people comment, consider revising that. From that logic, it sounds like America will exterminate the Chinese.

I cannot revise logic. Logic is absolute. Wishful thinking cannot chage the way the world is. I fear, then, the moment for turning America back to a positivist position, is perhaps lost. I hope not.

America bailed my grandad out of Hitler's and Mussolini's concentration camps (twice). So that is why I am making every effort to return the favour. By pointing out, the dangers of ethical relativism (it is illogical, and therefore doomed to failure); and especially the socially destructive nature of atheist feminism.

But. I am deeply concerned that you do not believe a lie is a lie. Thats absurd. Thats the kind of talk that atheist women convince men to believe in, in order to undermine them. But it undermines everything.

A lie is not the truth.
Are you suggesting a lie is the truth?
That's just a lie. Surely!

In mathematical (logical, positivist, scientific, non-relative) terms :

x = x
x <> -x
-x = -x

(let x = truth; let -x = lie)

Thank you for your in depth discussion. I am sure the guests reading this appreciate it as much as I do.

@Poseidon,

Quote:

If the majority of males get wiped out (France wwI) the population can bounce back in a single generation.

Hotdamn, Posideon! That's pure Strangelove!

"Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided."

"How long would you have to stay down there?"

"I would think that uh possibly one hundred years."

"You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?"

"It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided."

"Well I... I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down."

"Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years."

@Victor Eremita,

@VideCorSpoon,

x <> -x

I'm a computer programmer.
In VB, this says

x is different from -x
or
x is not equal to -x

Possibly it is ambiguous with some other logical language
I certainly did not mean anything about if and only if.

@Poseidon,

personally i think that divorce is a bad thing for the children. Children are the continuance of the parents after all. Totally agree with the contract thing.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Women, love, divorce, and western society.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Women, love, divorce, and western society.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know