Saturday, July 18, 2009

the whole gay marriage thing (part 2)

.

[the typical part 2 post, in which mkf strays from the topic at hand and goes all general (even though everybody knows he'll somehow manage to tie it all up in a nice, neat bow by the time he gets to the end of part 3 like always, right?)

yeah, maybe--we'll see.]

disclaimers:

1. this is one of those "when i was a kid, things were different" posts that people my age tend to write when they get drunk.

2. for those of you who haven't figured this out already, i am judgmental as hell.

3. everything i'm about to say has probably already been said better by smarter, more eloquent and qualified people than me--but they're not here, are they?

4. this is a long one--feel free to skip it if it's not your cup of tea.

* * * * *

i've lived through a very interesting time in western civilization--i was born in america in the repressive nineteen-fifties, grew up in the crazy, emergent flux of the sixties, and came of age in the anything-goes seventies. and now i find myself in the waning days of the first decade of the new millennium, looking around at the smoking wreckage of our culture and trying to figure out what the fuck went wrong.

and while i could go on endlessly about all the myriad ways in which western civilization is falling apart (and often do just that), today i'm gonna confine myself to talking about marriage and family.

i'm one of those people who believes that--all the bells, whistles and ipods aside--we're really not very far evolved from those cavemen huddled around their communal campfires 10,000 years ago, no matter how technologically advanced we've become in the meantime.

my belief is supported by any number of twentieth-century [i.e., the first time in history in which this even became a debatable issue] studies which have shown, time and again, the importance of such contributing factors as family, community and continuity to the overall health and well-being of the individual, not to mention society at large.

and while i can't speak from first-hand experience about what's happened over the majority of recorded civilization, i can sure as hell give you my impressions of how drastically the concepts of family, community and continuity have diminished in the scant 52 years of my lifetime.

let's begin, shall we?

* * * * *

i was twelve before i ever met a kid from a broken home.

today? a kid could easily go twelve years before he met another kid whose parents had not only bothered to get married before he was born, but were actually still together.

i was at least twenty before i came across my first out-of-wedlock kid.

today? taken as an average, a kid's chances are close to 50/50 of being born a bastard in america [but of course we don't use that word anymore, because that would be judgmental]. and if a kid's black? try at least 70% and climbing.

when i was a kid, most families in the neighborhood had at least two kids, and usually more like three or four. and women didn't bitch or complain about how hard it was back then--they just had 'em and raised 'em.

today? if a woman somehow manages to squeeze out one kid (after extensive fertility treatments, more often than not), she then spends the remainder of its childhood whining constantly about how "exhausted" she is all the time--you know, from shuttling its ass back and forth to day care.

when i was a kid, the only mother i knew who opted to work rather than raise her own kids was my aunt anna (which, btw, everyone agreed was best for all concerned).

today? stay-at-home moms are the rare exception, routinely vilified by feminists (and feeling-guilty working moms) as stupid brood cows who've sacrificed their personal development and innate rights as liberated women for something as trivial and menial as childcare--especially since everybody knows day care's just as good.

when i was a kid, most families had small houses with one mortgage, one car (my dad had a company car, thank god), one television, one telephone, small bathrooms, strip closets, and savings in the bank.

i'll let you fill in the "today?" part of this one for yourself.

when i was a kid, when two people came together and made a family, the dad went to work every day even if he hated his job, the mom stayed home and raised her kids even if it bored her, they didn't routinely fuck other people, and they tended to stay together even if they drove each other crazy.

today? none of that's true: marriages tend to splinter apart at the first provocation, with both partners happily heading off to begin new families, oblivious of the damage such action might do to their children.

* * * * *

if i'm in the car when she's on, i'm generally listening to dr. laura.

over the course of the twenty years i've listened to this harsh, brilliant woman, i can't tell you how many of her calls have come from casualties of broken homes.

they all tend to follow predictable patterns: the mothers and fathers recover fairly quickly and move on to their next marriage--their calls tend to be about how they can't understand why their (or their new spouse's) kids can't adjust to the new reality as quickly as they, the grownups, did.

it's the kids that get to me (and her): the boys who lose their fathers to some other woman and then have to live with some clueless stranger-stepfather who's suddenly fucking their mother--and in their impotent, testosterone-fueled reactive rage, fuck up their own lives in often irreversible ways.

or the girls who lose their fathers to a bitchy stepmother who shuts them out of "her" home and forces them to look for fatherly validation in the arms of some guy who knocks 'em up and leaves 'em.

and then there's the calls from the lost ones whose mothers never gave 'em a father in the first place.

* * * * *

when i was a kid, my father killed himself.

as hard as that was on me and everyone else he left behind, you know what would've been worse?

i'll tell you what: if my father had done what most dads do today--i.e., left my mother and gone and married some other woman and raised her kids and/or had new kids with her, and then my mother had married some other guy and had kids with him, and i was shuttled between the two households--a visitor in both, belonging to neither--and they were all too busy working, buying shiny, useless crap and raising their new kids to pay any attention to me.

that would've definitely been worse.

* * * * *

as i look around at all the young, vacant-eyed sociopaths wandering the streets and malls of america today without even the slightest notion of what family, community and continuity mean--you know, the bright, young hopes of our future--i can sorta understand why the muslims hate us.

i can also sorta understand why adulterers were once stoned, bastards were once shunned and women were once subjugated to barefoot-and-pregnant existences--there was totally a method to that old madness.

(that's not too strong, is it?)

[part 3 to come]

17 comments:

Horrified said...

This is fucking brilliant.

judi said...

i understood it all until you brought up Dr. Laura. My father claims that she spews out a lot of common sense advice, but anything I've ever heard her say has not only gone against conventional wisdom and common sense, but it's gone against everything i ever learned in college.

And you *can't* judge someone simply because they made a family, realized they made a mistake marrying their spouse and left--whether it was 6 months or 6 years. I'd rather not live in the misery of a household where there's no love. It's far harder, emotionally, on a child to live in a loveless house even if the parents are around.

mkf said...

horrified: thanks for that--you are too kind.

judi: you'd have to give me some specific examples--yeah, she goes against the grain (and has paid dearly for it), but i'd say i'm with her about 80% of the time.

as for your second point, of course i can judge people who walk away from their obligations as soon as they're no longer "happy"--hell, that's why we're in such a mess, and what this post is all about. far as i'm concerned, soon as you make kids, your obligation is to the family's happiness, not yours. people give up way too easy these days.

judi said...

Sure, you can judge people all you want--that's your right as a human being. But as that child whose parents tried to make it work far longer than they should have, I can tell you that it was incredibly detrimental to me that my parents stayed married as long as they had.

And make no mistake--my father did it for me. Because he feels the way you do--that his obligation was to me, 'cause I didn't ask to be born, blah, etc, whatever.

But don't think for one minute that it was an easy decision or that he walked away the second he was no longer happy. At some point staying together for the sake of the kids just isn't healthy for the kids.

noblesavage said...

OK guttermorality...so you are judgmental about people just like "dr" laura (to my knowledge, she is not currently licensed in either psychology or LCSW or anything else...but she does have a ph.d in physiology).

What does that have to do with gay marriage? If two women want to commit themselves to marriage, isn't that a good thing then in guttermorality land?

Will said...

I'm with a lot of what you say until you say you can understand the shunning of bastards--penalizing the child for the sins of the parents, no?--or subjecting women to the barefoot-and-pregnant syndrome--how does abusing women and forcing them to produce platoons of unwanted children address the problem? In fact isn't that a cause of the problem?

Yes, divorce is being abused flagrantly but there are families, mine very much included, in which "staying together for the sake of the child" was the worst possible course of action as the child had to watch his father attempt to strangle his mother on more than one occasion and observe her descent into terminal alcoholism without any hope of getting help because if she got help, then "everybody will know".

There are times when divorce is, if not the answer, at least a partial escape from/solution to the problem.

Chuck in PA said...

Nowdays, things are made to be broken and costly to repair. Why try and fix something old, when it will probably be cheaper to buy a new and improved version? It's hard to advance in one's workplace nowdays, so, quit your job and get another one. Your relationship is stale and has problems, so, find another partner. Trust, loyalty, and the golden rule are considered outdated. People accept being treated as commodities that can be replaced.

I agree that friends, family, and community are important, but, I don't get how you prefer your father being dead than potentially happier with another woman.

Dr. Laura makes me ill.

WAT said...

I'm the product of a very broken home, but that's for another day. Dr. Laura is a major c*nt in my book. But whatever. Interesting points sir, AND YES THEY ARE PRETTY HARSH AND STRONG! LOLOL!

mkf said...

judi: i'm generalizing here--i find it's a useful way to discuss broad patterns of human behavior--but i'd never dream of applying such broad generalizations to any individual marriage.

noblesavage: (a) you know i'm no blind, adoring fan of the woman; and (b) i'm not talking about lesbians here--hell, i expect their marriages will be more stable then either heteros or gay men.

chuck: i didn't prefer my father dead; the point i was making was, it's often much harder on a kid having to deal with abandonment, new (and often hostile) step-parents and -siblings, and having two half-homes rather than one real one, than losing a parent to death.

wat: thanks for reading and being amused, even if you don't agree.

mkf said...

oh, and will: boy, everybody took this post really literally, as if i'm advocating policy here; on the contrary, this post was meant to provoke thought. i guess i didn't do a very good job.

i would never dream of imposing archaic standards of morality on current society; i was merely saying that, having personally witnessed the aftermath of such a relaxation of standards, i have a much better understanding of why they used to exist in the first place.

as for applying my blanket generalizations to individual families--again, each case is different; all i'm trying to do here is address statistically obvious patterns.

Chuck in PA said...

I would think if two parents get a divorce, the child can still talk to them and come to some degree of closure and adjustment. The child can ask his parents if he had anything to do with their seperation.
If a parent commits suicide or leaves with no explaination, I would think that would leave the child in limbo and be harder for the child to deal with.

The fifties were a time when people kept secrets and pretended as if everything was o.k. Things were swept under the carpet. Priests molested children, unmarried women became pregnant and had to leave town, gays and lesbians lived double lives, etc. The thing is, that once a secret is out, there is no turning back.

Present day, is a time when, secrets are not allowed. People live much of there lives infront of cameras or exposing every detail of their lives on the internet. Anyone holding something back is considered suspect.

Hopefully, the future will be a time of adjustment.

judi said...

that's ridiculous, Chuck. Think about it...do you really think a child should know that they're the reason their parents broke up? Furthermore, it's *never* the child's fault, period.

that said, Mikey, I'm a little frustrated with you right now. You've presented us with your completely judgmental stance, and we've collectively had a different reaction/response to your words.

You didn't just provoke thought, you provoked the indelible memories (scars in some cases) that we all, as children of horrible divorces, carry with us.

am i to believe that you didn't want that reaction from us? or were you just not expecting the majority to have the same reaction?

Now, because of the traumatic divorce my parents (and my husband's) put us through, I did take my marriage vows a little more seriously. everything was worth working on, 'cause we weren't going down like our parents.

Chuck in PA said...

judi-
Exactly. It is never the child's fault and a parent should make a point of explaining that to their child instead of disappearing.

Personally, on my father's side, his grandmother died and so his grandfather put my grandfather in foster care because (he was a jerk) and that is what men had to do in those days.

My grandfather got divorced and so my father was forced to live on a neighbor's farm where he had to work or he wouldn't eat. Basically, he was a child slave.

When my father went to serve in the Army during WWII he sent money to his father's house for them to save until he got back. So, his father's new wife took that money for herself and when my father came back from war he was penniless.

When I grew up, I always had a sense that there was something my parents weren't telling me. So, when I came out to my father he told me he had a secret too. He then told me how he had been married before my mother and had a daughter. He got a divorce and tried to get custody, but, the courts didn't care about a father's rights back then. My mother had demanded my father to keep his previous marriage secret from my brother and I.

I look back in anger, not nostalgia. Many people I know have stories similar to my own.

Currently, I am in a 13 year relationship with a member of the same sex and we aren't monogamous. But, I believe we should be allowed to legally marry. I think our relationship is just as valid as a heterosexual one.

The secret is out and the past you see on old tv shows never existed. We used to believe in Santa Claus or pretended to believe in him. Nowdays, no one believes in Santa Claus, but, we believe, we worship, the material things that came with Santa Claus. Instead, what we should be doing is following the golden rule and the selflessness act of giving. We should be believing in things that bring people together, regardless of gender.

It's late. Hope I made sense.

mkf said...

chuck in pa: as for your first point, yeah it's possible, but far more likely to play out the other way.

as for your second, of course you're right--the repressive fifties had its own set of problems. in fact, i'm really surprised you're the only one who pointed out that flaw in the "perfect" picture i painted.

and yeah, you're also right that even if we wanted to, there's no going back.

judi: this post was intended to make people think about how we got from there to here, and the prices we've paid along the way.

the last thing i intended to do was dredge up unpleasant memories for anybody reading this--my own memories provoke no emotion in me whatsoever; they might as well have happened to somebody else. i sometimes forget that everybody's not like me.

judi said...

and remember, Mikey, my there to here never involved the 50s.

I grew up in the nonrepressed 70s, where Gloria Steinham ruled my mother and her friends with an iron fist, my father wore the ERA bracelet and "Free to be, you and me" was the mantra.

We're also (my generation), I believe (and I haven't looked up the statistics) the first have this mass exodus from marriage.

In the 70s it was no longer okay to stay married to someone you didn't love--the sake of the children was no longer at stake. In fact, someone finally figured out that it was most likely more detrimental to us kids for our parents to stay in wholly loveless marriages.

So no, we're not all like you.

The only price I've paid along the way is my father's first marriage. To my mother. Isn't that price enough?

And it's not unpleasant memories--it just is what it is.

Anonymous said...

Hi !.
You may , probably curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you need
AimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!

I`m happy and lucky, I started to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct companion who uses your savings in a right way - that`s it!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://wurudefyma.maddsites.com/irywywe.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money

Anonymous said...

Good day !.
You re, I guess , probably curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may commense to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The company represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your chance That`s what you desire!

I`m happy and lucky, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s it!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://vifoqeduq.lookseekpages.com/tahofug.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to become rich