Monday, March 9, 2009

The problem with men

Sorry to say it, but no, we're not perfect. But is that the point? Well...yes, actually. I'm here to talk about marriage and other such friendships. After reading The Fox and the Hound, the novel...okay, don't read it, it'll make you depressed for weeks afterward and there are some awkward scenes...but back to the point!

In said book, Tod's range is infected by modernity, factories, suburbia, the whole bunch. Eventually, there's only twenty or so acres of woodland left, which he clings to as his home since his childhood. However, the entire place is populated by a different kind of fox, more cat-like, all of them ungroomed and such because they've learned to scavenge the dumps and trash cans. How does this relate to marriage? Well, these fox's do not hunt, in fact they couldn't catch a mouse if they needed to, because they're so used to scavenging for their food from the rubbish piles of humanity. Food was easy to find, and the dog foxes did not have to support the vixens or the pups because all could pick and choose from the trash as they pleased. The male and female needed each other no farther than temporary sexual pleasure. There was no need whatsoever for monogamy! Because of this, even though the population flourished, this generation of foxes was stupid -- utterly useless beyond their pitiful scavenging. And now how that relates to modern humanity...

It's quite a similar state. First, I'll start with a...oh, I'll just give an educated guess as to how a colonial household was structured. The woman stayed home. Why? Because the man provided. Because the man provided, the woman stayed home to raise the children and keep clean the household, because the man was -- guess what? Providing for his family. The man needed the woman just as much as the woman needed the man, and this need brought the two closer together. Now, let's consider the average marriage nowadays. Man thinks girl is pretty. Girl thinks man is hot. They say they love each other a thousand times, but they both work. That need for each other is not established because they know they can exist apart. The government intervening with the public school system doesn't help much, either. They hardly use their house aside from sleeping in and making coffee in the morning, so there's hardly any need for the woman to clean and maintain the household. The man isn't attracted to the woman outside of the bed because he knows he isn't providing for her. They're only together for however long their individual beauty to each other lasts, and then they divorce and repeat the process.

That said, I am against women having jobs, because it prevents an ideal relationship. Providing, of course, that the woman decides she is called to the single life. It is only ideal that men work, too, since they are essentially built for the working life -- their mindsets, that is. Perhaps I'll post again on this subject later, since I can never cover the entire thing in one swoop.

~Sam

9 comments:

Lillian said...

Well...

I agree, I think that men are chiefly for the work, that is going to work... I certainly won't want to, if was married (not that that's any time soon). *g*

Women have quite a big job at home... They have to work at home, which *is* a job... *g*

When my mom first was married, she worked for HP. Once she had my two older sisters though, she decided she couldn't have a job and be a mom at the same time. It was just too much to handle.

But if the family is huge and all, and they don't have enough money, of course, the woman has to get a job, too.

That book sounds strange and uninteresting...

Turner Guy said...

Oh dear, I believe I went off on a tangent bordering on heresy! *gasp*

The relationships between foxes may be based off the two's need for each other, and that need for each other formed a bond between them. That bond kept colonial families together, and is reflected in the average Catholic family today. One thing one of my friend's pointed out is that the human relationship is [i]nothing[/i] without mutual love, which is lacked in many "marriages" today because again the relationship is based off mere sexual desire. See? I said I left stuff out. :P

Yes, it is a rather strange book, though hardly uninteresting. I'm not saying it was bad...in fact, if I had merely not read the ending, I'd be very happy with it. ;) My love of foxes and the fact that Tod got killed threw me into depression, then followed by the seemingly unnecessary death of Copper seemed to me just plain meanness on the author's part. Even still...don't read it. It takes a special taste, one that I fear I may not have entirely. =3

Lillian said...

*gasp* Hah. *covers mouth* *yawns* :D

Yes, yes, I know, I know.

I'm just picking because you don't like Where the Red Fern Grows. :P
*g*

Nora Roisin said...

Ooh, Where the Red Fern Grows is a nice book. Even if it is sad. :/

I don't know that I fully agree with you, Sam.

I find that I'll probably be a teacher of a sort when I grow up, and isn't being a teacher a job? Not just of your own children, but of other's children and also just other people.

I will probably also make things and sell them.

I think it's fine for women to do jobs, but I'm ton sure that I have a way of countering your belief.

And I don't mean to bash you, either. :) You may believe that if you want.

However, your look at family structure is pretty much what I'd want in my family, although I'm considering that I'd love to teach online (hopefully on Scholars Online! Ee!), and I also want to do a little bit of shoppe-sort-of-stuff.

But those are my weird ideas. I think there are places where woman can work, and I don't think I'm against women working at all, as long as they can handle homemaking too.

However, I don't think I should go on. :P

Lillian said...

Agreed, Rette. You've written it down beautifully. I mean, I don't think a mom should go out and have a full time job as an engineer or anything, but yeah... You've got it down perfectly. =)

Sam Ignes said...

Yay! A comment! I've been waiting...

Actually, I have more info on the subject now after some Q&A with my parents and friends on 3A (Three Anachronisms -- the other blog I have yet to post on). So lemme explain first...

Women would not be working today if it weren't for WWII. Why? Because the government had made it law for companies to let women work because all the men were over in Europe having fun with their wars and such. Not much fun, but I'm feeling uninventive and sarcastic. But I digress...

The only reason women are working now is because teh governmentz wants more people working so that more people are buying stuff and paying taxes. So, in short, it's all in their plan.

One of the larger reasons I support this is because a lot of people around me right now, family, friends, etc. are having their parents divorced, and I don't like it. Not all of the women worked in those, but I'm highly aware that women having jobs is a massive contributor to divorces, as afore-explained. I bid ye good evening...

Lillian said...

Sam, I'll have to disagree with you more. Women DID work. They taught. There were lots of women teachers, which is the job Ami was talking about. Thus I conclude.

-Lilly =)

Anonymous said...

So a man can't love a woman if he doesn't do all the providing? This is silly. Sounds like a man with a big ego if he HAS to be the one providing. Of course woman aren't smart enough or strong enough to work. They can't be truly loved unless they are at home cleaning and cooking....

Lillian Taylor said...

Anonymous...I love you. XD We are not smart enough, nor are we strong enough, but we should be allowed to.