|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do you have to be married to be normal?
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
Just heard a programme on BBC Radio 4 about Ted Heath.
In a nutshell, it claimed that it will be impossible for an unmarried person (gender unspecific) ever to be PM in the future, presumably because of a perception that they are sexually deviant by definition.
Heath may, or may not, have been a paedophile. But the assumption seems to have been made that unmarried = not normal.
There was also an odd assertion made that Ed Miliband was perceived by the electorate to be "not normal" and therefore not PM material, irrespective of his policies, competence and character.
Very depressing.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The whole idea is rubbish. Not being married is normal. There are plenty of reasons why people don't get married and it doesn't mean they're players, or paedophiles or gay or whatever.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Some of the most normal people I know are unmarried. Some of the most unstable people I know are married - sometimes serially.
As for unmarried politicians, Pierre Trudeau was unmarried when he first became prime minister, marrying only later in his first term of office - at 51.
One of the most notorious Liberal prime ministers who held office, with one five year break, between 1921 and 1949 was William Lyon Mackenzie King. Ok, he had a short break in 1926 during a constitutional crisis but he wiggled bsck in by playing a deft hand of political poker,
He was a mother-idolator, medium following complex man, but he was one adept politician.
During the 5 year break a Tory prime minister, Richard Bedford Bennett had the misfortune to guide Canada during the worst of the Great Depression. He led the Tories in 1935 to their worst-ever defeat at that time, promptly moved to the UK and became a Viscount. He was also unmarried, and lived his entire term of office in a suite of rooms in a hotel next to the parliament building. He was rich enough to afford it, and the hotel probably gave him a big discount.
Besides Harper, our current prime minister, is dragging out his family to provide backdrop for this election. What a bunch they all are!
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think that underlying this prejudice is a sense that sexual desire will out, one way or another. Celibacy as a choice is seen as implausible, or a sign of unusually low libido, but not the sort of choice that "normal" people would make. Singleness, likewise, cannot be seen as a choice, more a misfortune. Single people must, therefore, be frustrated and a need of an outlet. Therefore any allegations of unusual sexual activity (whether lawful or not) are seen as more plausible. "Surely they need to do something with their desire?"
We live in a highly sexualized culture, which provides the backdrop for these assumptions and prejudices.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Lloyd George, anyone?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Maybe that's why people keep shipping him with Mary Magdalene ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that underlying this prejudice is a sense that sexual desire will out, one way or another. Celibacy as a choice is seen as implausible, or a sign of unusually low libido, but not the sort of choice that "normal" people would make. Singleness, likewise, cannot be seen as a choice, more a misfortune. Single people must, therefore, be frustrated and a need of an outlet. Therefore any allegations of unusual sexual activity (whether lawful or not) are seen as more plausible. "Surely they need to do something with their desire?"
We live in a highly sexualized culture, which provides the backdrop for these assumptions and prejudices.
There is also an association with weakness.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Maybe that's why people keep shipping him with Mary Magdalene ...
I've always thought that that whole Holy Blood Holy Grail/Da Vinci Code thing, far from being the radical takedown of patrirchy that its fanbots take it to be, is essentially just saying "See? Jesus wasn't some wierdo celibate like the Bible says, he was a married family man just like every other normal person! Wife, kids, picket fence, the whole deal."
Even if that's not what it explicitly says, I think that's part of its psychological appeal, especially in a protestant culture trained to regard celibacy as a strange Catholic importation. Sorta like the evangelical book I once read which argued that Jesus was really drinking grape juice at Cana, because as we all know, a morally upright person would never touch wine.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Now, don't get me wrong. I like girls. I like women. As far as I am concerned, the world would be a better place if there were more females, and more of those in positions of power and influence.
But marry one? Again? For a second time, having discovered the disadvantages? That would be a truly be a triumph of hope over experience. I'm content to be single, footloose and fancy-free, and admire the fair sex from afar.
Best wishes, PV.
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Ted Heath was, I suppose, asexual. That is a part of the "normal" range of sexuality.
I think that, while the legal position of homosexuals has significantly improved, and the acceptance of them as a)existing and b)valid has increased substantially. But I don't think that they are accepted as "normal" yet. What is more, I don't think other sexualities have been included (transexual, pansexual, asexual, any others I have not yet heard of).
There is also an idea that sexual deviancy is something associated with single people - ignoring the fact that most abuse happens within families. Ignoring the fact that families are not always the safe places that we wish they were.
I think this is something pushed by this government-of-the-entitled. They assume, as so often, that all families are as privileged as theirs. They also push the "happy families" image as a good Christian value. Ignoring the fact that a) Jesus was single and b)most biblical families were abusive, broken, damaged, corrupt and f*cked up.
The biblical picture of families is, I think, the accurate one. as Douglas Coupland said "All families are psychotic". Being married is pushed as "normal". Being part of a family is pushed as being "normal". Being in a good job is pushed as being "normal". This is a way of disempowering those who do not fit into this image.
It makes me sick. It reminds me of the Radiohead song - No Surprises. I think we need to both reject this cosy, middle-class image of normality, as well as rejecting the idea that normal is an aspiration. I don't want to be normal (despite the fact that I am by this definition!). I want to be honest.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I think this line demonstrates the true attitude of various institutions, including the vast majority of churches.
Sexuality is the universal problem in their eyes. It's a problem however it is expressed. If it is physically expressed, then it is automatically out of control. If it's not physically expressed, then the person is not normal.
Marriage is a means of control, not of sexual expression. I'm sorry if this offends those who are married; that is not my intention. My intention is more to posit that the intense richness of your marriage, the enrichment it brings to your life, has little to do with the institution. It has to do with your love of your partner, the mutual appreciation and regard between you, and of course your sexual compatibility. The social structure is designed to extend societal control into the private, domestic sphere; to make the private public, in other words. That way, the guardians of the social structure in question, in this case the church, get to dictate how the private, which would normally be outside their control, live their lives. Or at least, that is the intention.
The celibate evade the structure of social control, and are therefore equally stigmatised. They're weird, out of control again - this time it's not just their sexuality that's out of control, it's the whole of their personality. Their failure to participate either in sexual activity or in marriage challenges the guardians of social structures on two levels; they are not caught up either in the universal problematisation or in the associated control structure. This is simply not allowed.
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
Marriage, of course, has many other roles in the lives of those who are married. But this, to my mind at least, is clearly its role in the life of religious institutions, and the level on which it connects to their views of themselves and of the people within them. These views are, I believe, utterly pernicious and inimical to human flourishing. This whole culture is in need of profound change if the church is to survive. I am convinced that a perfectly correct appreciation of this perniciousness is a major element in social currents which reject organised religion.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I think order rather than control is a more appropriate word.* For one, the same pressures exist for non-Christians. Even <gasp> atheists! And <whispers> homosexuals.
Order and place are important to humans. Marriage/recognised commited relationships fill in several blanks. We "know" things about that individual.
We have many shortcuts we assign people based on indicators such as this. It is the way our brain works. And our minds are not comfortable with unknowns.
*Not that religious institutions have not used this as control.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
...and from the addiction to order comes the conviction that sexuality is essentially disorder. The red herring in part of the current debate about human sexuality is the idea that only homosexuals are intrinsically disordered, according to certain strands of religious opinion. Human sexuality is intrinsically disordered, and requires the long pair of tongs provided by marriage or other social institutions.
Patterns are marvellous things and can tell us a lot. Addiction to patterns is terrible, and narrows the potential range of human life and experience to a terrible degree.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
Just as an aside, I think the evolution-psychological explanation of marriage is that both sexes gain benefit. Men get a degree of certainty that the brats they are bringing up are, actually, their own offspring, and women get some assurance that while they are pregnant and otherwise involved with rearing their children, someone will provide them food, clothing and shelter.
The moral arguments around the benefits of marriage seem, from this perspective, somewhat spurious. If you don't want rug-rats, why involve yourself in a life-style compromise?
Cheers, PV.
[ 09. August 2015, 17:25: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Jesus was not 'normal'?
I would certainly hope he wasn't, or we're all wasting our time following him!
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.
Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Patterns are marvellous things and can tell us a lot. Addiction to patterns is terrible, and narrows the potential range of human life and experience to a terrible degree.
No argument on this from me. Though I word emphasis how it allows us to be manipulated.
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Just as an aside, I think the evolution-psychological explanation of marriage is that both sexes gain benefit. Men get a degree of certainty that the brats they are bringing up are, actually, their own offspring, and women get some assurance that while they are pregnant and otherwise involved with rearing their children, someone will provide them food, clothing and shelter.
Well, no. Established relationships have these benefits. A paper or ceremony adds no more certainty.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, no. Established relationships have these benefits. A paper or ceremony adds no more certainty.
Well, yes, actually. A socially recognised, legally sound, conventionally solid, morally approved relationship, such as marriage, has considerably more traction on society than 'shacking up' for sexual convenience.
Cheers, PV
--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The term "Institution" has been used and that reminds me that Edward Heath was asked why he hadn't married and he replied that he regarded marriage "as an institution and I'm not ready for one of those yet".
He did however have his enthusiasms, notably yachting and music, both of which he took seriously and to a high standard. There probably wouldn't have been room for a wife, let alone a family.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Socially recognised. Check.
Legally sound. Why?
Conventionally sound. WTF?
Morally approved. As in whose morals?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There probably wouldn't have been room for a wife, let alone a family.
Probably more likely he considered those more important than marriage. But this is all our trying to find a fit, a reason rather than just accepting.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Lloyd George, anyone?
The P.M following Thatch anyone.
You lot all go 'Back to basics' with your family values while I have some extra-marital bed-action a fellow M.P.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
A few decades ago I read a book about marriage or or dating or something, written by a supposed expert in counseling. He flat out stated anyone not married by age 25 has psychological problems. My friends and I were in late 20s and had a good laugh at that. But yes it's exactly the way some, even some professional psychologists, think.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is clearly not normal not to have at least one long term relationship / serious relationship in the course of your life - in that the vast majority of people do.
However "not normal" is not the same as "bad" or "perverted".
In the course of conversation the other day I mentioned to a colleague that I have been single for 20 years - and never in a serious relationship - she was extremely surprised. She has now taken me on as a matchmaking project - I have no objection but also no very great expectation of success.
Somewhere along the line I have not learned how become close enough to someone to have a relationship. I am not sure why not, but I don't think it is about sex, I think it is about how willing - or not - am to allow myself to be psychologically/emotionally vulnerable with another person.
To a certain extent I am willing to accept that constitues a psychological problem - it is certainly not a choice, in the sense that I have thought - actually I don't want a life partner.
Politicians are almost by definition not normal, I think the attempt to pretend they are - especially those who end up in significantly powerful positions - is largely suprious. it would be better to be clear on which points of difference matter and which don't.
Successful politicians will be ambitious, obsessive, charasmatic and likely to put their career first. I can live with that, I want to know that they are not criminal, sociopathic or currupt - for senior posts I would like them to be of above average intelligence and have some ideal which they hold more important than their own self-interest. Anything else is neogotiable.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Lloyd George, anyone?
The P.M following Thatch anyone.
You lot all go 'Back to basics' with your family values while I have some extra-marital bed-action a fellow M.P.
But he was married, which is all that mattered. Cameron could be gay or a paedophile, but at least he is married, so he is "safe".
Never mind a single PM, when we we have a gay PM (married or not)? When will we have a divorced PM? When will we have another female PM? When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
When will we have a divorced PM?
1955 & Sir Anthony Eden (though he had re-married).
quote:
When will we have another female PM?
Theresa May in 2020?
quote:
When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.
Never, because most people are?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If Theresa May becomes Prime Minister I will emigrate to the newly independent Scotland.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Ted Heath was, I suppose, asexual. That is a part of the "normal" range of sexuality.
I think that, while the legal position of homosexuals has significantly improved, and the acceptance of them as a)existing and b)valid has increased substantially. But I don't think that they are accepted as "normal" yet. What is more, I don't think other sexualities have been included (transexual, pansexual, asexual, any others I have not yet heard of).
There is also an idea that sexual deviancy is something associated with single people - ignoring the fact that most abuse happens within families. Ignoring the fact that families are not always the safe places that we wish they were.
I think this is something pushed by this government-of-the-entitled. They assume, as so often, that all families are as privileged as theirs. They also push the "happy families" image as a good Christian value. Ignoring the fact that a) Jesus was single and b)most biblical families were abusive, broken, damaged, corrupt and f*cked up.
The biblical picture of families is, I think, the accurate one. as Douglas Coupland said "All families are psychotic". Being married is pushed as "normal". Being part of a family is pushed as being "normal". Being in a good job is pushed as being "normal". This is a way of disempowering those who do not fit into this image.
It makes me sick. It reminds me of the Radiohead song - No Surprises. I think we need to both reject this cosy, middle-class image of normality, as well as rejecting the idea that normal is an aspiration. I don't want to be normal (despite the fact that I am by this definition!). I want to be honest.
Don't confuse asexuality with celibacy - I don't know enough about Ted Heath to say either way, but many asexual people marry for companionship and have sex in order to have children. Asexual people are not automatically celibate, just as celibate people are not automatically asexual.
Also, being transgender is to do with gender and is totally separate from sexuality. Trans people who prefer transsexual are referring to sex as a biological category, not sexual orientation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Never mind a single PM, when we we have a gay PM (married or not)? When will we have a divorced PM? When will we have another female PM? When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.
Some people do say that Edward Heath was gay.
As for the rest, we live in a society where same sex marriage, sex of whatever type without marriage, and divorce are all relatively commonplace. It's ironic, therefore, that only someone in a straight marriage would be deemed 'normal' enough to become our PM.
Maybe it's a matter of aspiration. People regularly fail at marriage these days (or fail to marry at all), but want to fantasise that a long and happy marriage is possible. Or it could be that in a world of celebrity pop stars and actors are expected to be liberated and uninhibited in their private lives, while top politicians are expected to prove their steadiness and trustworthiness in a stable, straight marriage.
And image is so important these days. In the past, politicians could get away with much more in privacy because the media and public couldn't necessarily follow their tail. Today, we all demand openness, and then pass judgement on what we find.
[ 09. August 2015, 21:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Never mind a single PM, when we we have a gay PM (married or not)? When will we have a divorced PM? When will we have another female PM? When will we get away from the hetero-normal assumptions of our society.
Perhaps even one who doesn't burn under a strong florescent bulb? When will we get away from the paleo-normal assumptions of our society?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.
Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?
I assume ThunderBunk is referring to 1 Corinthians 7, which does indeed see marriage as a form of weakness, and which (in the Authorised Version) includes the line about better to marry than burn. Although all modern translations seem to interpret this as 'burn with passion' (which may also be how ThunderBunk reads it) rather than 'burn in Hell'.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.
Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?
I assume ThunderBunk is referring to 1 Corinthians 7, which does indeed see marriage as a form of weakness, and which (in the Authorised Version) includes the line about better to marry than burn. Although all modern translations seem to interpret this as 'burn with passion' (which may also be how ThunderBunk reads it) rather than 'burn in Hell'.
If this was the reference, Thunderbunk seemed to be suggesting that the extreme version of Paul's view was shared by people who actually get married - that's what I find bizarre.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
It is interesting that most of the examples people have given of single political leaders have been from quite some time in the past. There really does seem to be a fair degree of pressure/expectation today that a political leader will present with a supportive spouse and ideally a few children to show that they have those good "family values." And I'm not sure this is even about heteronormativity -- I'm willing to bet the first time an LGBT person is in the running to become the leader of his or her country, they will also be expected to show up with a smiling partner and perhaps even a couple of kids.
I do think people might be less accepting today of a single politician as a potential leader than they were in the days of Mackenzie King or Pierre Trudeau (and in the case of Trudeau, despite the Trudeaumania and his dashing persona as a single man, how happy the country was when he acquired that lovely wife and started having beautiful children!) I'm only familiar with the Canadian examples given here and can't comment much on the British ones, but I do think in any country today, singleness would be, not a deal-breaker but certainly a stroke against an aspiring leader.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To be normal, I am suggesting, is to be caught in a catch-22 situation. You are married, because it is better to be married than to burn. But by getting married you are also declaring your sinfulness, and therefore in need of the control of the guardians.
This view sounds bizarre to me.
Who exactly are these people who get married for fear of hell and consider marriage to be a declaration of sinfulness?
I assume ThunderBunk is referring to 1 Corinthians 7, which does indeed see marriage as a form of weakness, and which (in the Authorised Version) includes the line about better to marry than burn. Although all modern translations seem to interpret this as 'burn with passion' (which may also be how ThunderBunk reads it) rather than 'burn in Hell'.
If this was the reference, Thunderbunk seemed to be suggesting that the extreme version of Paul's view was shared by people who actually get married - that's what I find bizarre.
I think that in the U.S. among the population that sport chastity rings, young adults have been known to marry early in order not to "burn". Not really widespread but it happens.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think the voting population as a whole would probably quite happily accept a single person as leader. The real problem might be a single person getting the nomination and election as party leader, because the process is so much of compromise. If they could achieve that, the population would probably vote for them as much as anyone.
Incidentally, I was not equating asexuality with chastity. I was trying to indicate that the range of sexuality now acknowledged in some areas should be an indication that married (hetero or homo) may be usual, but is not the only definition of normal.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Julia Gillard became Prime Minister of Australia.
Julia Gillard was a childless, unmarried woman (though she did have a boyfriend by that time).
Julia Gillard copped some nasty pieces of shit because of the undercurrent of bias against her. One of those was when it was basically suggested that she couldn't understand what life was like for families because she had chosen to be barren.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
SC wrote: quote:
I was trying to indicate that the range of sexuality now acknowledged in some areas should be an indication that married (hetero or homo) may be usual, but is not the only definition of normal.
Is there a different definition of normal? Surely there is a pretty strong bond to it being something to do with a measure of central tendency - a norm. Isn't the problem the unstated importation of value to that? It bears a remarkable similarity (in reverse) to the use of "extreme" (see Mudfrog thread), which is simply an observation about something being distant from such measures of central tendency.
It's all rather underhand. I guess if you can say something "is not normal" without anyone hearing an implied "it's a bit weird", then all will be OK. Until then it remains a rather problematic word if you want to avoid value judgements being smuggled in.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
'Normal' and 'norm' can have very different meanings. Insofar as it's common in most human society for people to marry, we could say that marriage is a 'norm' for human society. But for many people marriage might not be at all 'normal' for them for many reasons.
Would I have felt more 'normal' if I had happened to find someone who loved me, and whom I loved, and mutually wanted to spend our lives together? Well, that would've been a normal thing (though not necessarily the only normal thing) to do.
But so far it hasn't happened to me, so it feels completely normal for me to remain unmarried.
In macro-view, I look around me at the apparent predominance of married couples in society, and I can see that marriage is a 'norm'. But that doesn't and shouldn't dictate what is normal for most, let alone all, of humanity.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think we need to distinguish between:
This action is normal: most people do this, or enough that it's not seen as odd.
(Contrariwise, This action is not normal: few people do this, and there's something wrong with the ones who do, somehow)
This person is normal: this person has no psychological or sociological disorders
This action is normative: People SHOULD do this.
This action is the norm: This is what most people do.
Human beings and human societies (all that I know of) are hetero-normal, in that it's normal to be hetero, in that most people are in fact hetero and there's nothing seen to be wrong with it.
But hetero-normativity is the idea that people SHOULD be hetero, and people who are not are doing something wrong, or there is something wrong with them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It is interesting that most of the examples people have given of single political leaders have been from quite some time in the past.
My grandmother said a man who does not marry is admirable, but a woman who does not marry is wrong. (That was back when living together in sin was admitted only by scandalous Hollywood stars.)
That societal attitude may have applied to politicians who were single, may even have made them seem "admirable." Today a man over 30 not married is not admired for that, but more often shied away from, he seem a little weird, something's probably wrong with him.
As to women, UK has had several queens as good as or better than some of the historical kings, which I would think quiets a lot of the "women aren't as good as men" or "women should stay home rearing kids" we still hear from parts of USA culture.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Some known gay men have gone quite far up the ladder in British politics in all the major parties. I imagine, though, that the first gay (male) PM could be a Tory, perhaps one of the posh types. This is because the Tory party appears to have a higher tolerance for 'unusual' candidates (Disraeli - Jewish, Thatcher - female, Heath - single and possibly gay) so long as they are otherwise strongly conservative. That's my theory, anyway....
As for divorcees, the front runner in the Labour leadership battle is the twice divorced Jeremy Corbyn. His age also goes against the trend for younger party leaders and MPs. (Being fairly old also gives him the opportunity to have a much younger wife, which I think would be less acceptable for a middle aged high achieving politician.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think you're right about the Tories' greater acceptance- now- of gay men (and I imagine lesbians). I think there are two things at work here. one is a strong pragmatism- as you say, being strongly Conservative outweighs a lot of other factors. The other is that just as the Conservatives have become economically (neo)-liberal they have also become socially liberal. This is turn has two further elements: if you believe in liberty in the economic field you might well believe in liberty in perosnal relations; and secondly, in fact, objections to sexuality (etc) are to be dismantled because they get in the way of economic functioning. Plus of course there is a generational thing, which affects Consservatives as much as anyone else.
Labour, by contrast, still have elements of working-class (often Roman Catholic) sexual and social prudery, alongside the middle-class liberalism.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
@Belle Ringer
I'm feeling that I've known many more socially accepted single women (or living together women) than I've known men...
Not statistically sufficient to disagree with you but enough to think that I might like more data...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Order and place are important to humans. Marriage/recognised commited relationships fill in several blanks. We "know" things about that individual.
We have many shortcuts we assign people based on indicators such as this. It is the way our brain works. And our minds are not comfortable with unknowns.
Yes, this is what I was thinking. Society's definition of 'normal' tends to be recognised, established things that people can identify with and feel they understand. As a single person with no children, with no desire to marry or have children, I find a lot of people are a little uncomfortable around me because of this, and don't see me as quite normal. I'm not sure that asexual is seen as normal, as someone said earlier - many people don't seem to believe I'm asexual (or that asexuality exists) and I have often been told that everyone is sexual, that we are sexual beings, that I simply am not aware of my sexuality, or maybe I have something wrong with me and I should go to the doctor.
So yes, from that angle, if you want to be seen as 'normal', and to have people feel more comfortable around you, being married is an advantage. Although there are surely other ways to establish that impression of 'normality' - other 'norms' people can relate to. I was reading one of Maya Angelou's autobiographies, and she was saying that one time when she was working with the actors and directors for a play she had written, people were uncomfortable around her because she was the only black person, and they weren't used to black people (so being white is another way to be seen as 'normal', in a predominantly white society), and the actors didn't want her on the set. She was so miserable that her mother came along to support her, and she found that when her mother was there, people's attitudes towards her changed - they were friendlier to her, let her on the set, seemed more comfortable around her. And she reckoned it was the simple fact that she had a mother, and her mother was there for people to see - people could relate to having mothers.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Society's definition of 'normal' tends to be recognised, established things that people can identify with and feel they understand.
Got to give people something to connect with when you are "different". Maya Angelou's experience is sad, especially for the why of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm feeling that I've known many more socially accepted single women (or living together women) than I've known men...
'Cause they are less "dangerous", even when they are weird.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Looking at marriages themselves, both same sex and opposite sex, it seems to me that they come in a wide variety of expressions, e.g., "open" marriages, sexless marriages, marriages for money, marriages "made in Heaven", lifelong marriages, serial marriages, common law marriages).
What is a "normal marriage"? Is possession of the marriage license the only thing we look at? Do we base the answer only upon externalities? Can something called a marriage be further outside the norm of society as a whole the simply unmarried?
[ 11. August 2015, 01:48: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
For example, in the U.S. a polygamist would be much further from the statistical and "moral" norm than would be someone who has never married. The opposite, of course may be true in some other countries.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I am reminded of the lecturer on the cruise I have just been on, having galloped from the settlement of Iceland to the end of WWII in the first lecture, he did the second from there to the present.
On the last Prime Minister, he announced "I will tell you about her and leave you to make up your minds what you think about her." Which I thought might be regarded as code for "I don't like her or her politics, and I expect you to agree with me." And I was right.
I thought at first it was Johanna Sigurdardottir's left-wing politics, honed in the trades union movement*, but though that may have contributed, his last PowerPoint slide, showing her with the person she married (carefully omitting pronouns until he showed it) revealed the real problem. He did not think her "normal" even though married, because her partner is also a woman. (She had divorced her husband in 1987 and joined her partner in 2002 - even Wikipedia elides the intervening years.)
*His politics had showed in his asking if we thought that the political setup of the Viking Settlement might have led to anarchy, since they made such a point of renouncing kingship and a hierarchical society. That the same criticism could have been made of the United States, also setting up a republic, did not see to occur to him.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
SC wrote: quote:
I was trying to indicate that the range of sexuality now acknowledged in some areas should be an indication that married (hetero or homo) may be usual, but is not the only definition of normal.
Is there a different definition of normal?
I think there is an important difference. Usual is more like a statistical issue - it means that this is the majority state, with no judgement, just the fact that many people fit this.
However, people can not fit into this image, whatever it is, and still live a life that is "normal", but different.
If you image a small community, where a large proportion of people have brown eyes. The "usual" would be then to have brown eyes. However those with Blue or Green eyes would also be normal, just different. At the same time, it might be that having yellow eyes is abnormal.
Not being married is not "abnormal". It may be different, but it is a perfectly reasonable version of normal. the problem is that married is seen as "safe".
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
