"The Authoritarians" A free ebook worth a read

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think I have any particular business telling people how to manage their marriages, as long as they're not hurting anyone.

Fair enough. Thanks Ramo for answering my question.

I'm not surprised that of all my opinions the one that would catch the most flack is on marriage. I think that if someone sincerely believes that it doesn't matter what goes on in a marriage, or how women and men arrange themselves, that they would not be shocked at all to hear someone say that wives should obey their husbands and that husbands should love their wives enough to die for them.

Obviously this isn't the case. I think most folks here sincerely believe along with Kontiki, that men and women are interchangeable and that they should have absolutely identical roles in marriage.

[LDiCesare]

Drug use is up,

Nice replacement for alcohol.

more people are getting divorced,

Instead of just cheating on their wives or living with someone they came to hate.

more kids grow up without a mom or a dad,

Compared to children born in 1930-1940 whose father died at war I suppose?

more crime is around then in previous.

Per capita?

[Ramo]

I think that if someone sincerely believes that it doesn't matter what goes on in a marriage, or how women and men arrange themselves, that they would not be shocked at all to hear someone say that wives should obey their husbands and that husbands should love their wives enough to die for them.

Perhaps I should've been more clear. I was using "hurt" in a more generalized sense. I do believe that marriage should not be based on a disparity of power. The idea that there should be fixed gender rolls within a marriage, with the man in a dominant position, is positively repugnant.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Tuberski


So, the current definition doesn't fit his perceptions, so he goes back centuries to find a correct usage.

This book is obviously not worth reading, unless you are a Communist Philosophy student. ;p

ACK!

Groan...

Does it really matter what he calls them? They exist, and the vast majority of them are political conservatives.

Someone else mentioned some conservatives trying to distance themselves from the Bush admin. That's sort of the point of John Dean's book: to separate the non-authoritarian conservatives from the nutters.

And the test is in the book, but taking it out of the book yields mixed results since it's not being taken in a proper test setting (i.e. we've just been primed with a load of information about authoritarians).

[Ramo]

BTW, John Dean's book is a good read.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Which is why I suppose the kerfluffle only applied to Totem Park which is just across from Wreck Beach. I was there, the plan had the full support of the university and the students until one of the folks from Wreck beach piped up and the plan was kiboshed.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what happened - one dissenting voice crushed the whole plan.

Instead they tore down my old dorm, which just happened not to face Wreck Beach. They don't really care about the building heights, so long as it doesn't impinge on Wreck Beach.

I don't see how any of this contradicts what I said. I don't know where you're getting the nudity angle from, though. It's always been a public beach, and there's always been boat traffic. No one's trying to stop them from looking at people sunbathing nude, they're trying to stop towers from spoiling the natural beauty of the beach. Now whether or not you find that a good enough reason to stop development is another debate, but I can guarantee you no one on either side gives a rat's ass about being able to see nude people from what's actually quite a distance away.

In any event, I also fail to see how any of this has to do with nudist camps which are private areas.

I have admitted to not being married, nor have I claimed any special revelation. However, I do not see how we can lay a burden on men in terms of their role, while at the same time not have similar expectations for wives.

What burden? See, this is where you views on marriage are ridiculous. It's not a burden, it's a sense that comes along with having intense feelings for someone. It can equally apply to family or really close friendships.

To say that men ought to die for their wives, is biblical, so why not accept the teaching in whole, not just the parts that you like, or seem to 'fit in' with the teachings today.

Ah, there's that Christian righteousness - that could never be arrived at without the Bible. Just like the Golden Rule is inconceivable without the Bible.

I don't believe we can pick and choose, and that we are going to see it less and less that men will love their wives to that extent.

The second part of that statement doesn't follow the first, nevermind that I think "picking and choosing" is utterly irrelevant.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but I don't think your views are 'scary', they are all to common today.

Probably because they're common sense to most people who don't feel that marriage has a pre-determined rule book that must be followed and necessarily involves huge sacrifices.

Ok. But you see my point? I take it you don't disagree that all these other things have gotten worse in 50 years?

Actually, I do disagree on some of it and on others I don't see them as a decline in morality. For example, I don't see drug abuse as immoral per se, just stupid and quite often harmful to society.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo
BTW, John Dean's book is a good read.

All of them.

[Agathon]

In other news... Canada has a nudist beach...

WTF.... my testicles are heading upwards just thinking about it.

FTR Ben's views on marriage are not that strange. The core of the dispute is between people who see marriage as a contract between two self interested individuals, and those who see it as an institution that transcends one's own self interest. The Christian rules of marriage make much more sense when you see marriage in the second way, whereas they appear merely oppressive to those who understand it the first way.

[Elok]

Hmm, Aggie, have you mellowed a bit during your break from Poly? I know the old you would have critiqued Ben's responses by calling them an appeal to anachronistic anti-intellectualism and followed up by inciting us to round up all the Gideons and shoot them without a trial. Now I'm not entirely certain you're even thinking about killing the Reactionary Elements.

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps I should've been more clear. I was using "hurt" in a more generalized sense. I do believe that marriage should not be based on a disparity of power. The idea that there should be fixed gender rolls within a marriage, with the man in a dominant position, is positively repugnant.

Well some would see it as disparate that the woman isn't expected to love her husband enough to give her life for him.

I'm not surprised it's such a 'repugnant' viewpoint, I was sincerely interested in the response of poly to this point of view.

As for it being a disparity of power, well some women like to be protected. They like the fact that different things are expected and they want a man who will be strong enough to provide for her and make a home safe from other people. I've seen some women who are quite happy and would be horrified with how some of the women treat their men these days.

Now, I don't see marriage as a power struggle. If a man truly loves his wife he will not hurt her but love and care for him, and she will love and care for him too.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Agathon
FTR Ben's views on marriage are not that strange. The core of the dispute is between people who see marriage as a contract between two self interested individuals, and those who see it as an institution that transcends one's own self interest. The Christian rules of marriage make much more sense when you see marriage in the second way, whereas they appear merely oppressive to those who understand it the first way.

I'd disagree on what you see as the core of the dispute, because I too see marriage as an institution that transcend's one's own self interest, but that doesn't make Ben's views seem any less strange to me. My problem is that Ben seems to think of marriage as some sort of magical transformative event with a playbook that wouldn't be followed without it - sort of putting the cart before the horse. I'm very happily married and every bit as committed to my wife as Ben mythologies in the ideal marriage, and I'm quite sure my wife feels the same way. The thing is, nothing about our feelings or commitments changed because of the marriage, but rather we got married because we already felt that way. There's no "burden" or "sacrifice" or "commitment" that exists now that didn't before.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd disagree on what you see as the core of the dispute, because I too see marriage as an institution that transcend's one's own self interest, but that doesn't make Ben's views seem any less strange to me.

It's all together for me, the union, the teachings on marriage. Where the two become one flesh, is a symbol of that union.

My problem is that Ben seems to think of marriage as some sort of magical transformative event with a playbook that wouldn't be followed without it - sort of putting the cart before the horse.

Literally that's what it is to me. A sacrament. It's like calling plays from a playbook. The plays are not arbitrary, they are tailored for the team and the strengths of the team. I believe that the christian teachings on marriage are the same, they are a playbook that are tailored to help for a better marriage, even if I don't necessary understand why they work.

I'm very happily married and every bit as committed to my wife as Ben mythologies in the ideal marriage, and I'm quite sure my wife feels the same way. The thing is, nothing about our feelings or commitments changed because of the marriage, but rather we got married because we already felt that way. There's no "burden" or "sacrifice" or "commitment" that exists now that didn't before.

I guess I need to rephrase. I see it as reciprocal, sharing each other's burdens. This reciprocity is part of why the two are connected to one another. I see a sacrament, as marriage is as both a sign of the relationship that already exists as well as how to explain this, it provides continuing assistance while you are married.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kontiki

I'd disagree on what you see as the core of the dispute, because I too see marriage as an institution that transcend's one's own self interest, but that doesn't make Ben's views seem any less strange to me. My problem is that Ben seems to think of marriage as some sort of magical transformative event with a playbook that wouldn't be followed without it - sort of putting the cart before the horse. I'm very happily married and every bit as committed to my wife as Ben mythologies in the ideal marriage, and I'm quite sure my wife feels the same way. The thing is, nothing about our feelings or commitments changed because of the marriage, but rather we got married because we already felt that way. There's no "burden" or "sacrifice" or "commitment" that exists now that didn't before.

Well then, I guess you are disagreeing with him on a fairly narrow basis. I think I agree with you that marriage as a piece of paper or ceremony is essentially pointless compared to the prior commitments of the people involved, and that self interest is a bad basis for a marriage.

But once we abandon the idea that marriage (or companionship, or whatever) ought to be founded in self interest, then the usual justification for equality in marriage (the equal worth of the interests of the respective parties) will not apply. Nor will most liberal ideas, since liberalism as an ethical and political philosophy is founded upon the voluntary interests of individuals (e.g. Kant).

There are a variety of ways one might go (including some that may preserve equality). One might determine that there is a social interest at work in marriage, or some other anti-individualist reason or set of reasons. Ben has gone one particular way, but we don't have to agree with him, although we can, and should, I think, agree with him in rejecting the liberal 'theory" of marriage. That puts us in the same book as the conservatives, but not necessarily in the same chapter.

I've always thought that expressed self interest was a poor basis for a marriage, since there are no doubt some people hunt out relationships that are destructive, not only for themselves, but for the other person and society.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's all together for me, the union, the teachings on marriage. Where the two become one flesh, is a symbol of that union.



Literally that's what it is to me. A sacrament. It's like calling plays from a playbook. The plays are not arbitrary, they are tailored for the team and the strengths of the team. I believe that the christian teachings on marriage are the same, they are a playbook that are tailored to help for a better marriage, even if I don't necessary understand why they work.



I guess I need to rephrase. I see it as reciprocal, sharing each other's burdens. This reciprocity is part of why the two are connected to one another. I see a sacrament, as marriage is as both a sign of the relationship that already exists as well as how to explain this, it provides continuing assistance while you are married.

I figured you'd say this Ben, and I respect your beliefs.

But I still am overwhelmingly convinced that a couple of hours with a naked and willing Mariah Carey would do you a world of good, and provide some perspective.

[Kuciwalker]

Should we start a fund?