This is topic Souder resigns over affair with woman he made a pro-abstinence video with in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
The only part that shocks me is that he resigned. It seems that lately the politicians try to wait out the controversey.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
facepalm
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm shocked. He's not gay.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm shocked. He's not gay.
lol, end thread
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm shocked. He's not gay.
This made me laugh.
It does make me wonder though.... There are what... 435 House and 100 Senate seats right now. Almost every month we hear of another affair. Kind of makes you wonder just how many are fooling around.
At least now we know why they don't get much done Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ah, but he didn't resign because of his affair.
"In the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process."
Clearly it was all Washington's fault.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, in a way. I mean, washington doesn't *have* to hold him accountable for his stated opinions and supposed beliefs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, "Washington" doesn't really care about his hypocrisy. They would make a big deal out it, not because they care all that much, but because it works to their advantage to do so. Except for the other "Washington" who would try to downplay it and protect him - again, not because they care, but because it serves their interests.
Somewhere in all of this, I think it sort of gets lost. It's a really bad thing to cheat on your spouse. Not because it gets you in trouble, which seems to be the takeaway that most people seem to get from it. And not just for the negative aspects of betraying your spouse or breaking commitments that you swore to, but for the positive aspects that you were apparently missing in your marriage.
It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I really do believe that a lot of the problems we have with our government come about in large part because most of them are the sort of people who will cheat on their spouses. Government should be entrusted to people who are honorable and trustworthy. And people who are in good, supportive marriages where they are putting in the needed effort are (all other things being equal) better off than people who aren't and are more likely to use this strong foundation for the good. These may sound like quaint ideas, but dammit, there are people out there who have these qualities. It really bugs me that so few people seem to care about them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Squicky, AMEN!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: These may sound like quaint ideas, but dammit, there are people out there who have these qualities. It really bugs me that so few people seem to care about them.
I think, in general, we vote for these kind of people because that's all we're presented. The men and women out there that are truly family/spouse-oriented may be less likely to run for office.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It might make some sense to examine why monogamy is so difficult. Does it really work for everyone? Should it be the ideal?
This does not in any way excuse promise-breaking or dishonesty or hypocrisy, but when so many people have trouble with this, despite enormous and heartbreaking consequences, it makes sense to look at the question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
, and it is stuff like that that
quote:It might make some sense to examine why monogamy is so difficult.
One thing which helps monogamy get so difficult is when social conservatives try to sustain outdated and unrealistic social models such as abstinence before marriage, which is one of the reasons why red states have significantly more family instability and fewer successful marriages than blue-staters.
High-level conservative diehards acting as sort of a demonstration of that helps. The whole self-loathing self-criminalizing gay conservative is weirder situation entirely though. haha.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:why red states have significantly more family instability and fewer successful marriages than blue-staters.
Or, because abortion is more acceptable in blue states.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:why red states have significantly more family instability and fewer successful marriages than blue-staters.
Or, because abortion is more acceptable in blue states.
Abortion is a factor but in no scenario does it cause the prior reasons to vanish, so you can't look at the argument and conclude with leaving abortion as the overriding factor that makes blue-state marriage better.
It's sociopolitical: in traditional red states which promote abstinence and traditional family values, you end up with people marrying at younger ages, not getting college educations sometimes on account of that fact, and having children early. The lack of education hampers the ability for the husband to find a job that pays enough for the wife to stay at home to raise their children. These marriages are more likely to dissolve.
In blue states, people wait and marry later, after completing college, and have children when they are older. Women in these states have more access to contraception as well as abortion. Both men and women are more likely to complete college and have more financial stability.
However straightforward this revelation is, this is not going to stop proponents of the outmoded social models from tripping over themselves to take studies like those published in the 'Red Families v. Blue Families' book and try to discredit them with simplistic counter-analyses.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: , and it is stuff like that that
quote:It might make some sense to examine why monogamy is so difficult.
One thing which helps monogamy get so difficult is when social conservatives try to sustain outdated and unrealistic social models such as abstinence before marriage, which is one of the reasons why red states have significantly more family instability and fewer successful marriages than blue-staters.
High-level conservative diehards acting as sort of a demonstration of that helps. The whole self-loathing self-criminalizing gay conservative is weirder situation entirely though. haha.
I'm sorry Samp but the data simply does not support your conclusions. People who attend church regularly, regardless of denomination, are 35% less likely to get divorced than people who don't.
Those who abstain from sex before marriage are less likely to divorce, not more likely.
The strongest predictor of divorce, is poverty -- not abstinence.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay, both of you are stating things that seem contradictory. I'm rather curious, so if you two could please back up your statements...?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well. There's this:
quote:Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.
quote:Religion % have been divorced Jews 30% Born-again Christians 27% Other Christians 24% Atheists, Agnostics 21%
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sorry Samp but the data simply does not support your conclusions.
lol. Which conclusions? How about the part where blue states have longer, happier marriages and greater family stability? The data doesn't support that?
quote:The strongest predictor of divorce, is poverty -- not abstinence.
Interesting! Now, who's saying that abstinence is the strongest predictor of divorce?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Those who abstain from sex before marriage are less likely to divorce, not more likely.
In point of fact, I believe what Samp wrote was that the social model encourages marriage *at an early age*, which causes family instability. Not that lack of getting laid before marriage causes instability. While the two are related- ie, you are more likely to marry young if it is your only chance to have sex, nevertheless early marriage is also part of a culture which may encourage early marriage in lieu of long term cohabitation. That same culture also looks upon marriage as a reason or at least not a discouragement from having children- meaning that a culture that encourages young marriages (for whatever reason) also probably encourages having children at a younger age. Marriage at a young age correlates very strongly with divorce, so what you end up with is more divorces, and more children of divorced parents.
In that case, the couple that waits to get married until their both 30 year old virgins doesn't really factor. They've beaten the odds, the horny old goats.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
There are two big surprises in that story. First he actually resigned and second his affair wasn't with a boy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:People who attend church regularly, regardless of denomination, are 35% less likely to get divorced than people who don't.
I'd think that regular church attendance might be a good indicator of the stability of a marriage, not necessarily the cause of said stability.
quote:atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.
Which further suggests to me that "attends church regularly" is a proxy for "participates in activities together".
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: These may sound like quaint ideas, but dammit, there are people out there who have these qualities. It really bugs me that so few people seem to care about them.
I think, in general, we vote for these kind of people because that's all we're presented. The men and women out there that are truly family/spouse-oriented may be less likely to run for office.
I don't think monogamy has ever been as common as we like to think. Politicians have always had mistresses. It's just a lot harder to keep secrets now. The press used to cover for politicians in the past as well. Plus the moralists open themselves to hypocrisy and everyone likes tearing that down.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:People who attend church regularly, regardless of denomination, are 35% less likely to get divorced than people who don't.
I'd think that regular church attendance might be a good indicator of the stability of a marriage, not necessarily the cause of said stability.
It's also going to have a lot of overlap with subcultures which are much more stigmatizing of divorce. So you just don't divorce even when the marriage is unhappier. This 'solves' the whole issue of divorce, you just get unhappier marriages in general instead. Oh, and the more people who get married without actually having sex beforehand, the more marriages you get with large degrees of what ultimately counts as sexual incompatibility and dysfunction. Which is why I would hardly be surprised if states like Utah are still the porn and antidepressant capitals of the nation or something.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Which further suggests to me that "attends church regularly" is a proxy for "participates in activities together".
That would be reasonable and consistent with a linked study from that page that notes:
quote:A 1993 study published in Demography showed that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) were the least likely of all faith groups to divorce: After five years of marriage, only 13% of LDS couples had divorced. But when a Mormon marries a non-Mormon, the divorce rate was found to have increased more than three-fold to 40%. Similar data for Jews were 27% and 42%. 8
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Let's bring in antidepressant use patterns too, for some really good fun.
Just kidding. Let's not. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:A 1993 study published in Demography showed that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) were the least likely of all faith groups to divorce: After five years of marriage, only 13% of LDS couples had divorced. But when a Mormon marries a non-Mormon, the divorce rate was found to have increased more than three-fold to 40%. Similar data for Jews were 27% and 42%.
This is unsurprising. The LDS church is particularly bad about touting the supremacy of relationships between "worthy members". I'm sure it's very encouraging to those who fit the mold, but it's dismaying to those of us in "mixed" marriages. In many cases the LDS half of such marriages believes that they are missing out on something vital which they cannot obtain in their present, inferior marriage.
It's fairly common for a divorce to result from one spouse in a two-member marriage becoming inactive in the church.
[ May 18, 2010, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: It is also quite common in mixed marriages for the active LDS member to go inactive.
Not trying to criticize your marriage. Just mentioning that it's a phenomenon I've seen many times as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It might make some sense to examine why monogamy is so difficult. Does it really work for everyone? Should it be the ideal?
This does not in any way excuse promise-breaking or dishonesty or hypocrisy, but when so many people have trouble with this, despite enormous and heartbreaking consequences, it makes sense to look at the question.
It really does sound to me as though there is a contradiction in this post, kmbboots. It's not 'in any way' excused if it's very difficult for 'so many' people, and monogamy might not be the ideal we should be going for? That's sort of excusing language, it sounds to me. Not fully excusing, not simply writing it off, but still, it really does sound like it's there to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It is also quite common in mixed marriages for the active LDS member to go inactive.
Yeah, but that's an effect of marriage on such arrangements, not an effect of those arrangements on marriage.
Regardless, if that's what's necessary to resolve any tensions so that the marriage can succeed, then great. I put my marriage before any external concerns. It let's me have a little silent response in my head to the "Well *we* were married in the temple" people: "Oh yeah, well *my* marriage is more important to me than *God*!"
[ May 19, 2010, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It may not help that we expect our representatives to look like Us- not the Us with the frighteningly high rates of divorce and infidelity, but the TV-approved version of Us, always immaculately dressed, spouse and children gazing up at Us adoringly as we stand in front of the gently waving flag.
I agree with Mr. Squicky that there might well be something in someone who remains faithful in marriage that would make them similarly faithful to the vows that make them a servant of the people, even when it's similarly difficult to keep those vows (or similarly easy or convenient to break them.) But I also think we might be better off if we could stop stamping so many of our politicians out of the exact same mold and then being surprised when some of them come out with chips and cracks, so to speak. Maybe we could use a few more people who have struggled through their flaws and mistakes and come out wiser and stronger, rather than people who have been pushing an image of perfection for so long that it's all they're really good at (and the strain is starting to make them crack, besides.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In my experience, the believing spouse is asked to change for the non-believer (go inactive) an order of magnitude more than the non-believer attends church with the believer. So really, the believer is putting their marriage before their religion. The non-believer is putting themselves before their spouse.
The best situation I've seen is a solid every-other-week thing, they both do together what the other one would like to do. But it doesn't generally work that way - instead, one person is forced to choose between their spouse and their religion.
[ May 19, 2010, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I suspect that in many cases, the sort of person driven enough to seek power or fame may also going to be the sort of person arrogant enough to think consequences don't matter. (Here I'm thinking Tiger Woods; don't know the current situation, it might be love for all I know.)
I'm of the opinion that as long as the politician does the best he or she can for his or her constituents, state, country, and party (in that order), I really don't care what they get up to in the evenings. Just don't be hypocritical (and stupid) and become a public figure known for railing against the very thing you'll be caught doing someday.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Well. There's this:
quote:Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.
quote:Religion % have been divorced Jews 30% Born-again Christians 27% Other Christians 24%a Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Those numbers are meaningless for 2 important reasons.
1. They don't take into account the % of people who have ever been married.
2. They report religious affiliation at the time of the study not at the time of the divorce.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It might make some sense to examine why monogamy is so difficult. Does it really work for everyone? Should it be the ideal?
This does not in any way excuse promise-breaking or dishonesty or hypocrisy, but when so many people have trouble with this, despite enormous and heartbreaking consequences, it makes sense to look at the question.
It really does sound to me as though there is a contradiction in this post, kmbboots. It's not 'in any way' excused if it's very difficult for 'so many' people, and monogamy might not be the ideal we should be going for? That's sort of excusing language, it sounds to me. Not fully excusing, not simply writing it off, but still, it really does sound like it's there to me.
Not really. There is a significant difference - at least to me - between questioning whether or not it is right/smart/realistic/good to expect people to conform to certain societal expectations and to excuse people for lying and cheating once they have promised to do so.
To elaborate, there is no sin in saying, "I love you but monogamy is not something I can do; can we make some other arrangement?" There is sin in lying. As a society, though, we don't make that first option possible. We expect that love means monogamy and I am not at all sure that is true.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Well. There's this:
quote:Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.
quote:Religion % have been divorced Jews 30% Born-again Christians 27% Other Christians 24%a Atheists, Agnostics 21%
Those numbers are meaningless for 2 important reasons.
1. They don't take into account the % of people who have ever been married.
2. They report religious affiliation at the time of the study not at the time of the divorce.
OK, Here are some numbers on marriage rates
quote:In addition to finding that four out of every five adults (78%) have been married at least once, the Barna study revealed that an even higher proportion of born again Christians (84%) tie the knot. That eclipses the proportion among people aligned with non-Christian faiths (74%) and among atheists and agnostics (65%).
Combining the two sets of numbers I get that percent of 32% of atheists who have ever been married, have been divorced and 32% of Born Again Christians who have ever been married have been divorced.
It appears that difference in divorce rates between Born Again Christians and Atheists can be explain entirely by differences in the marriage rates.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Let's bring in antidepressant use patterns too, for some really good fun.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Combining the two sets of numbers ...
Technically, you can't just combine the numbers. The study I linked to is from 1999. Yours appears to be this from 2008.
The newer study still shows a 2% increase when going from non-religious to born-again (30% vs. 32%) or 3% when going to the general population (30% vs. 33%), although they argue that that is within error.
Also, asians FTW Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Interestingly, their "Training" and "Store" pages reveal a profoundly pro-Christian bias as do their founders page, which makes that counter-intuitive result all the more amusing)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In my experience, the believing spouse is asked to change for the non-believer (go inactive) an order of magnitude more than the non-believer attends church with the believer. So really, the believer is putting their marriage before their religion. The non-believer is putting themselves before their spouse.
:snort: Yeah, that's a reasonable way of looking at it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is, in fact. It isn't the only way, but when one person strongly believes and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't demanding the other give it up rather than working out a half-time compromise seems really selfish.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:In my experience, the believing spouse is asked to change for the non-believer (go inactive) an order of magnitude more than the non-believer attends church with the believer. So really, the believer is putting their marriage before their religion. The non-believer is putting themselves before their spouse.
Do you literally mean the non-believing spouse asks the churchgoing one to quit going to church? That is surprising. How many times have you seen this happen?
If this does indeed happen it seems pretty selfish as you have said. I'm not a fan of trying to control the spouse's behavior when it goes beyond a basic expectation of living up to marriage vows and contributing to the family's well being.
It wouldn't surprise me if it happened this way: the nonbeliever says "No, I'm not going to church." And the believing one is too embarrassed or whatever to go alone. (It makes obvious that the marriage is inferior from the orthodox perspective.)
In that case it's quite a bit less skewed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"I am not going to go to church and I resent you spending Sunday away from me. I know there are things I could do to support you in your wish to be active, but I'm not going to because I'd be happy if you gave it up."
I've definitely, definitely seen that, quite a lot. And yeah, I think it's pretty selfish. Lots of things in a marriage are compromise and I most definitely do not blame the believing spouse for choosing their marriage over their faith or covenants. I even think that that's the Lord would have them do. But I do blame the non-believing spouse for not supporting the believer's attempts to live their religion.
I have also seen mixed faith marriages where it really works and only one spouse is active. It looks to me like the difference is the behavior of the non-believing spouse.
-----
This doesn't come from nothing. My parents were a mixed religiousity for a while, and I'll always respect the one who didn't want to go to church for doing everything s/he could to support the one who did want to go.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Combining the two sets of numbers ...
Technically, you can't just combine the numbers. The study I linked to is from 1999. Yours appears to be this from 2008.
The newer study still shows a 2% increase when going from non-religious to born-again (30% vs. 32%) or 3% when going to the general population (30% vs. 33%), although they argue that that is within error.
Also, asians FTW
Mucus, Look at the numbers of people interviewed before you start to gloat. They only interviewed 128 Asians. They only interviewed 269 atheists. Applying some simple counting statistics, none of the groups they studies have a divorce rate that differs statistically significantly from the average. Most of them aren't even more than one standard deviation apart.
Based on the results of this study, we can conclude that religion and ethnicity have little impact on divorce rates.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In my experience, the believing spouse is asked to change for the non-believer (go inactive) an order of magnitude more than the non-believer attends church with the believer. So really, the believer is putting their marriage before their religion. The non-believer is putting themselves before their spouse.
My experience is quite the opposite - in every case where I personally know of a couple where one spouse is LDS and the other is atheist/agnostic/"not religious", the LDS member has more or less maintained the same activity level they had when they got married. Obviously well get nowhere with battling anecdotes, though, so it's probably not going to be profitable to continue on this line.
That's sort of beside the point though, as I was attempting to explain why such a high percentage of mixed marriages with one LDS spouse fail compared to other religions. Which spouse is forced to compromise and in what manner is different issue from what causes the stress in the first place - the preferential status given to marriages of the proper configuration and the repeated refrains about the superiority of this configuration.
It's demeaning to have people express pity to you for your unfortunate circumstances when, from your own perspective, you have an ideal relationship.
This is the only strongly negative experience I have with the LDS church and the only thing that would make me prefer that my wife didn't attend. The fact that she has a different existential philosophy is not a problem. The fact that said philosophy requires regular attendance at an institution where our relationship is demeaned is.
Given that, I think this is unfair, or at least incomplete:
quote:So really, the believer is putting their marriage before their religion. The non-believer is putting themselves before their spouse.
If I were to try to change my wife's behavior it would not be because I was choosing myself before my spouse, but because I feared the church was a threat to my marriage. Both sides of that equation would be "put marriage before religion."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:what causes the stress in the first place - the preferential status given to marriages of the proper configuration and the repeated refrains about the superiority of this configuration
I don't buy this at all. The stress in a mixed marriage is definitely not all because some rude people act smug. People act smug about all sorts of crap all the time - you can't blame stress in a relationship on other people who generally aren't even related. Even when they are, unless they live in the same house, there's no way that's the main or even primary reason.
If someone is looking for an excuse, there is always someone acting tacky and human to blame. And this is coming from someone who not only didn't married in the temple, I'm not married at ALL. Sure there are rude people - my sister-in-law has no idea many times she's escaped being clobbered - but that's not a good reason to leave my religion or for someone to ask me to.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:People act smug about all sorts of crap all the time - you can't blame stress in a relationship on other people who generally aren't even related.
It's not the smug idiots that's the problem. It's the institutional reinforcement of those attitudes. Just a couple weeks ago someone read out of a lesson manual in Sunday School that a successful marriage was only possible through faith in Christ. (paraphrasing)
If you have your own theory for why mixed LDS marriages are uniquely poised to fail?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Uniquely? As opposed to temple marriages, or as opposed to the general population?
Because I think the big exception is not that mixed marriages fail more, but that temple marriages fail much less.
But in both cases, in my personal opinion, it seems that while opposite attract, similiar people stay together. The more you have in common with your spouse, the more ties there are. For temple marriages, you have to have, at least if both are being honest (they aren't, always), a whole lot in common off the bat.
quote:Just a couple weeks ago someone read out of a lesson manual in Sunday School that a successful marriage was only possible through faith in Christ.
David O'McKay said that no earthly success compensates for failure in the home. Considering my life consists solely of earthly success, that could really hurt.
I am not talking about your marriage in particularly - I don't know you. I do know that while everyone from my father to random strangers have expressed an opinion on me not being married - especially since I've been engaged three times, it isn't for lack of opportunity - the only opinion that matters is the Lord's. Since none of them were right for me, my life is pleasing to him. That's all that matters. (As a side note, I figure that if the Lord really wants me to get married, he can send someone that I can marry that won't make me cry and will make me happy. Since that hasn't happened, it can't be that important to him. )
I also think that a real sealing consists of the physical ceremony and the sealing by the Holy Spirit. Just like there can be temple ceremonies that are spiritually empty, there are can be families sealed by the spirit that are missing the ceremony.
In my total personal opinion, that kind of family includes supporting each other's personal beliefs and helping the other to live up to them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I don't buy this at all. The stress in a mixed marriage is definitely not all because some rude people act smug.
I don't think smugness is required at all. The doctrine is pretty clear that if you aren't married in the temple, you won't get to have exalted life as a family unit. In other words, doctrinally, a "mixed" marriage is worse than a sealed one. I can understand why the unbelieving spouse would be concerned about this teaching - from his/her point of view, their marriage is as good as anyone's, and the implicit denigration of their union is a factor that could convince their spouse otherwise.
I don't think it's a good enough reason to get divorced, but it certainly is a factor that could come into play, even if the judgment of others is completely ignored.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:People act smug about all sorts of crap all the time - you can't blame stress in a relationship on other people who generally aren't even related.
It's not the smug idiots that's the problem. It's the institutional reinforcement of those attitudes. Just a couple weeks ago someone read out of a lesson manual in Sunday School that a successful marriage was only possible through faith in Christ. (paraphrasing)
That's an interesting point Matt. I need to chew on that one for awhile.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have also seen mixed faith marriages where it really works and only one spouse is active. It looks to me like the difference is the behavior of the non-believing spouse.
This reasoning seems suspect to me. Cannot the believing spouse be at fault somehow through their behavior?
Furthermore, how representative do you think your experience is?
quote:"I am not going to go to church and I resent you spending Sunday away from me. I know there are things I could do to support you in your wish to be active, but I'm not going to because I'd be happy if you gave it up."
How connected are the first and second statements here? What 'things I could do' are there that the non-believing spouse is unwilling to do that means the gesture (or non-gesture) is selfish?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm sure that the peer group of the religious partner puts pressure, both openly and more subtle, on both partners and on the couple to "reform."
Any relation under constant stress must find a resolution to the situation to become healthy. So either the non-religious partner needs to convert, the religious partner needs to leave the church peer group, or the peer group needs to stop inflicting pressure.
Since the peer group's disfavor is institutionalized, only convert or leave are available options to remove the negative pressure.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What 'things I could do' are there that the non-believing spouse is unwilling to do that means the gesture (or non-gesture) is selfish?
Help get the kids ready. Read what scriptures they do share in common together. Not schedule things for Sunday so they constantly have to choose. Not be resentful or grumpy or begrudging about it. Treat the other person's beliefs like an integral part of them that they love as part of them rather than an inconvenience. Not criticize the church so the believer has to be on the defensive. Maybe not NEVER criticize the church, but this is definitely a "pick your battles" situation, and rarely pick that one because it SUCKS to be blamed as a member for other member's actions. You can't change their actions, you can't apologize, but you're put in the position where the only way to soothe the hurt is join in the criticism, and then you find that your spouse has put you in the position of choosing them over church, and that just sucks.
And in return, the believer should never make their spouse feel like they are less, or missing anything. Should respect the non-believer for the goodness in them, and accept them and be happy in the relationship as it currently is. Not definitely express a wish that the non-believer would change. Show appreciation and love for the things the believer does to support them.
I knew one family where the non-member spouse would attend sacrament meeting - not all three hours, but enough - so the member didn't have to spend 100% of their time kind-wrangling. And for my own parents, when the one was lonely or discouraged, the other would encourage, because they knew the member and knew the conversion was real, but everyone needs propping up sometimes.
[ May 19, 2010, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Help get the kids ready. Read what scriptures they do share in common together. Not schedule things for Sunday so they constantly have to choose. Not be resentful or grumpy or begrudging about it. Treat the other person's beliefs like an integral part of them that they love as part of them rather than an inconvenience.
Everything else sounds good, but the part in bold really doesn't fit with your own description. In the case of a believing and non-believing couple, the believing spouse has already scheduled something for Sunday-all Sundays in fact. Does the non-believing spouse not have the same right? I don't see any problem with the couple arriving at the decision that, for one of them, Sundays are for church-but I'm leery of the suggestion that if the other spouse wants to do something different on Sundays, they are the one scheduling something and thus being selfish.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Based on the results of this study, we can conclude that religion and ethnicity have little impact on divorce rates.
Religion? Most likely, I agree with what MattP on that one and share his doubt about your interpretation of the 35% number.
Ethnicity? I disagree. This is but one of many studies on this subject I have come across and Asians show a consistently lower divorce rate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Church is only three hours long. Making other plans during that time only once in a blue moon, when there is no other time to do it, would be a real show of support. Only rarely MUST things occur at 11:00 on Sunday morning. The member can't reschedule church, so it forces the choice. It would be very supportive to be very selective about when you force that choice.
quote:the believing spouse has already scheduled something for Sunday-all Sundays in fact. Does the non-believing spouse not have the same right?
That's treating the believer's religion and wish to be active in it like a burden and inconvenience - like it is a personal affront and something you wish would go away. It's the oppositive of supportive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What about if the non=believing (or otherwise believing) spouse also had a Sunday commitment? Say, one Sunday a month her family got together for brunch?
Or if, rather than religion, one spouse always spent Sundays with his family or friends. Would a spouse be expected to be supportive and schedule around that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... Or if, rather than religion, one spouse always spent Sundays with his family or friends.
Like dim sum on Sunday mornings, big cultural tradition *drools*
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My husband's family does dim sum when church is over. But our church is over by noon. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's treating the believer's religion and wish to be active in it like a burden and inconvenience - like it is a personal affront and something you wish would go away. It's the oppositive of supportive.
Cannot the same thing be said in the reverse, is my point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is, in fact. It isn't the only way, but when one person strongly believes and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't demanding the other give it up rather than working out a half-time compromise seems really selfish.
I was more objecting to your characterization of whatever experience you had as the norm. You don't know what's normal, you know what happens in your church. You also don't know the dynamics of these people's relationships. Another way of looking at it, equally reasonably (which is to say vaguely) is to say that the people who marry outsiders put themselves before their church, and by not going, but their spouse before their church as well. I'd say if you choose to marry someone not of your church, claims of victimhood over these types of disagreement are not so strong. It comes with the territory, and if you don't know that going in, then you're not too bright. So really, it's the couple putting their marriage before anything else, and one of them making a sacrifice.
Meh. Maybe the outsider sacrifices golf or late nights partying- it's not like you would say the spouse who doesn't party is putting him/herself first by insisting that the other *not* go out and party every week. Marriage is two people- there are lots of sacrifices, I'm sure. Maybe you need the athiest to be selfish and self-centered, but that's kind of your own baggage. If I ever get married, I'll marry someone who is aware of what I need from them, not someone who I will then become a burden on and an embarrassment to, which seems to be pretty much your idea of a mixed marriage.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think the bigger problem comes when one person changes religious affiliation after the wedding (for example, after having children, crisis of faith, whatever). In that, both people thought they had picked one life, but things change and adjusting to that change can be hard.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In that, both people thought they had picked one life, but things change and adjusting to that change can be hard.
Yep. The messiest situations I've seen are when a LDS couple turns into a mixed couple. I don't actually know directly of any marriages that started out mixed that didn't work out (so far).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't actually know directly of any marriages that started out mixed that didn't work out "
My parents started marriage with different religions. Didn't work out for them, though it took a while (but I think my mother's approach to religion was part of the reason why).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps people shouldn't marry if they have such different religious beliefs. My quibble was with the idea that this is the fault of the non-believer, and not the believer. Seems to me that if two people choose to get married, they ought to get their crap sorted first. After that it's pretty much everybody's fault if things go south later on.
ETA: and as for changes later on, well, that's why I still believe in divorce. People change. People make the mistake, or have the misfortune, of marrying someone who isn't satisfied with the way their lives have turned out. Whether that means somebody starts going to church, or somebody stops going, the problem is with both people if they can't adapt to their new circumstances together. Probably if that happens, it was *always* going to be a problem. That doesn't seem like fault to me, that seems like life. Why blame the heathens for that? Religious people should be immune to such discourtesies of human nature?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Perhaps people shouldn't marry if they have such different religious beliefs.
That's an idea that religions have often espoused, and people often think it's because religious folk are so smug they like isolating themselves from everyone else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* I've always felt that it was a fairly understandable adaptation against conversion and/or assimilation.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Yeah, I don't know about smug, but isolating? Sure.
Personally, I think relationships between people should be the first priority. I like the idea of the most important entity in the world to me being another tangible creature like myself. When religions come between relationships, it's doing it wrong.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Personally, I think relationships between people should be the first priority."
Well, to be fair, if there WAS an omnipotent deity that demanded our attention, created us, and gives us our very existence essentially as a whim, and you believe this being is also good, then putting him/her/it first makes a sort of sense.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The whole topic of what one owes to a creator and whether said creator deserves worship is really a separate conversation. Suffice to say that I wouldn't demand that *my* kids put me before their spouses.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes. And neither would I. Of course, I highly doubt either of us are very much like the judeo-christian god.
I suppose it is a separate conversation, but it's still an interesting one, or at least it's a relevant one, when considering mixed marriages of this sort.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
I don't know how relevant this is but i think that the statistical data about "being a Christian" might be a little off in that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christians. In fact i've had several people respond to inquiries about their religious affiliation with "Of course I'm Christian, I'm American."
This seems especially prevalent among the poorer less educated people i've talked to who don't seem to have any rational behind their beliefs other than that it was the way they were raised, what they were told was right or what was most convenient. This may just be common to southern state culture though as i've lived in the south all my life.
I of course do not know what methods the researchers used to try to account for this sort of groupthink or perhaps embarrassment of "if i don't mention I'm a christian they might not think I'm a true American." So maybe this concern is not well founded.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Depends on the pollster and on the user-side, what data is available.
I personally prefer questions like "How important is religion in your life?" For instance, Gallup sometimes uses a religiosity index which incorporates that, how often a person worships, and whether they have confidence in religious organizations.
Actually, Barna which was the pollster that I linked to before has this odd unique category of "notional Christian" which appears to be "someone who claims to be Christian but we've (Barna) have decided isn't really Christian enough" which tipped me off to their background as targeting evangelical Christians.
So basically, it depends (and on what question you're asking). For example, it appears that you're claiming that many people in the South are Christian because they're badly educated and poor. I fully agree Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
well, i suppose part of the claim i was making is that if one is poor they tend to be religious because it helps to ease their mind about their worldly disadvantages. If one is uneducated they have no idea why they believe what they believe and so their belief is (or seems) inherently useless. The other part would be that in the south it seems that the term "American" is just as synonymous with "Christian" as it would be with "Hard Working" or even "good" (us policing the world and going against that whole axis of evil thing.)
It reminds me of a conversation i had with a (very)liberal feminist friend i have. One of her female friends was hit by her husband, this couple claims to be conservatively christian. My friend saw this as representative of conservative christian males displaying his dominance and "God given" rights to control his woman. I see that the couple is poor, both are alcoholics, both were married at an early age (right out of high school) and that though both claim to be Christians they go to church rarely. So basically i just see a violent, immature douche.
I worry when i see statistics about different groups (ethnic groups, gender groups, religious etc.) that they may be using to broad a data set for the statistics to reflect accurately on the target group.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Gordon Allport was among the first psychologists to really systematically study the psychology of religion. He wrote about his studies in his 1950 book The Individual and His Religion, which I'd still recommend people interested in the issue give a read.
One of the things that he was trying to deal with was the pretty clear evidence that, taken as a whole, "religious" (at the time this really meant Christian) people were significantly inferior to non-religious people on several major aspects of morality, prejudice probably being his major concern (He also wrote The Nature of Prejudice - again, an important read).
Allport was religious himself and was aware (as I think most of us are) that there were some pretty terrific religious people out there. So he set out to determine what differences there were between these people and the religious who were among the most prejudiced (and a host of other "bad" things) in American society. He initially discovered a curvilinear relationship between dedication to religion and these things. That is, in general, people who had little to no dedication did pretty well, people who had moderate dedication did very poorly, and people who were highly dedicated did even better than the people with no dedication. (sidenote: A really good determiner of a "bad" Christian is someone who really wants the 10 commandments posted on public property but can't actually tell you what the 10 commandments are.)
With successful refinements to his studies, he was able to move from this to shared characteristics and traits of people that correlated better with these things.
It's really an error of statistical grouping to talk about all religious people in regards to a lot of things. There are, as Allport discovered, very different populations among religious people. The reason why "religious" people, as a whole, look worse is because the people that do worse than the baseline population far outnumber the people who are greatly superior to the baseline population.
Interestingly, the characteristics and traits that he identified are very often better determiners for these sorts of things than is a person's actual religion. Their effect cuts across religion.
Further studies have shown that it cuts across things other than religion as well. I don't know of any reputable studies on this, but empirically, it's been pretty obvious to me that evangelical atheists who have the characteristics Allport identified also have the other "bad" things that he showed correlated with these traits.
Again, the specific content of the belief is often much less of a determiner than the structure of the belief and how the belief is held. I don't expect nearly any of that other bit to stick, but that's the takeaway I'd love to leave people with.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
hmmm, well generally I've never had much interest in psychology, probably because i don't like feeling like everyone is so easily group-able and easily explained. I am going to have some reading time this summer so i might have to check those books out because they do sound interesting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: When religions come between relationships, it's doing it wrong.
This. And there is scripture to back that up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: ... if one is poor they tend to be religious because it helps to ease their mind about their worldly disadvantages. If one is uneducated they have no idea why they believe what they believe and so their belief is (or seems) inherently useless.
For the former, there is a pretty good poll on Gallup showing a good correlation between poor economic circumstances and the satisfaction that people derive from religion (as well as the amount of), not just in the South of the US but throughout what is sometimes called the 'Global South'.
You can reason to this conclusion in a number of ways, yours, mine, Marxist reasoning about religion as an 'opiate of the people,' etc.
As for the latter, I would just basically say that 'if it quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck.' In other words, if someone like you describe claims they are a Christian with "God-given rights" and all, acting in the way they think is Christian, I have no reason to question that.
That cuts both ways actually, I look with extreme doubt towards those those Christians that try to define Mormons as non-Christian. I'm inclined to take people's word for who they are themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Actually, maybe another takeaway is to ask, in a long running series of discussions about religion, where we have a group of people who claim to value science over any other way of knowing about things and seem to be very invested in the topic of religion, why am I the only person who knows about these things?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: When religions come between relationships, it's doing it wrong.
What are your religious beliefs/affiliations, Matt?
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
For the most part i tend to believe what people say about their beliefs. I suppose i question some people's genuineness because i do know many Christians that are quite moderate and rational people and so i (perhaps wrongly) accept that since the larger group of people who claim this belief are this way and have a generally well defined set of beliefs that those who do not are outliers.
This could be a flawed assumption because generally i like moderate, rational, and stable people and so am not around too many people that are terribly polarizing. The actual majority of Christians may not be anything like the majority i know.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Allport was religious himself and was aware (as I think most of us are) that there were some pretty terrific religious people out there. So he set out to determine what differences there were between these people and the religious who were among the most prejudiced (and a host of other "bad" things) in American society. He initially discovered a curvilinear relationship between dedication to religion and these things. That is, in general, people who had little to no dedication did pretty well, people who had moderate dedication did very poorly, and people who were highly dedicated did even better than the people with no dedication. (sidenote: A really good determiner of a "bad" Christian is someone who really wants the 10 commandments posted on public property but can't actually tell you what the 10 commandments are.)
Interesting stuff. As a result of this discussion I've been looking at a variety of studies that have been done looking at the correlation between religion and various indicators of health, stability and happiness. I've been musing over the fact that studies which look at very general indicators of religiousity (like membership or stated religious preference) tend to find either no significant difference religious and non-religious people or a negative effect of religion. But studies that use a more stringent criteria for religiosity (such as regular church attendance, volunteering of time, adherence to religious restrictions, financial contribution etc) tend to find a strong positive effect of religion.
It occurred to me that one obvious implication of this, is that (for the religious average to be the same (or worse) than the non-religious average, "bad" Christians would have do worse on average than people with no religion. Which correlates very strongly with Allport's study.
I've been musing over what this means and don't really have a clear answer yet. It may mean something simple such as that people who are by nature willing to honor their commitments to a religion, are the same kind of people who are willing to honor commitments to marriage, family, education and career.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's simpler than that. I think attending church regularly means that you have a tighter social circle on which you depend, and moreover trains you to have a certain level of discipline in your daily life. Both these things are enormous assets.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's simpler than that. I think attending church regularly means that you have a tighter social circle on which you depend, and moreover trains you to have a certain level of discipline in your daily life. Both these things are enormous assets.
That explains the first part, but doesn't explain the second. It doesn't explain why people who profess religion but are not dedicated to it do worse than those who are not at all religious.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think "worse" is highly subjective based on what you personally value and weight certain outcomes. That said, accepting the proposition for the sake of argument and only for the context of North America, I suspect that identifying yourself as non-religious is a very conscious choice and demonstrates a level of dedication to being non-religious which is higher than the average level of dedication to be religious.
Ecthalion is not wrong when he goes over the social pressure to identify as religious.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One could even assert that in the East Asian context, the lessened importance of religion is replaced with secular ways of tightening social circles (less individualism and more emphasis on family) and secular ways of training discipline (Confucianism). So I think there is truth in TomD's assertion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: I suspect that identifying yourself as non-religious is a very conscious choice and demonstrates a level of dedication to being non-religious which is higher than the average level of dedication to be religious.
I think that is true of those who consider themselves to be atheists. In my experience it is not at all true of most people who consider themselves agnostic or non-religious.
Its worth noting that Allpart didn't describe people as atheists or non-religious, he described them in terms of dedication to religion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: One could even assert that in the East Asian context, the lessened importance of religion is replaced with secular ways of tightening social circles (less individualism and more emphasis on family) and secular ways of training discipline (Confucianism). So I think there is truth in TomD's assertion.
First off, I think its misleading to talk about East Asians with regards marriage since there are significant cultural differences between countries. Attitudes towards marriage in Japan, Korea and China are very different. If you throw Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines into it, you've got more diversity than you do in Europe. And that's without touching on South Asians. For example the marriage rate in Japan is substantially lower than in China. The divorce rate in the Philippines is officially zero since divorce is illegal.
To some extent, the low divorce rates in parts of East Asia are reflective of oppressive attitudes towards women and restrictive divorce laws. I worked closely with two women who immigrated to the US from China and then divorced their husbands. They were the ugliest divorces I've ever seen. Both women received death threats. I had to help one of the women go into hiding to avoid her abusive husband. I asked one of my male Chinese colleagues about this and he laughed. He said it was a expected response. He even said if his wife left him, he might threaten to kill her (although he probably would stop with threats and wouldn't actually kill her). At any rate, since that time I am no longer impressed by low divorce rates in China or among Chinese immigrants to North America. Low divorce rates do not necessarily translate to high rates of stable happy families.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think "worse" is highly subjective based on what you personally value and weight certain outcomes.
No argument there, but the studies I've been seeing are looking and objective criteria like divorce rates, longevity, and financial stability. When I said moderately religious people "do worse", it was with regard to these objective measures.
Unless you want to move to arguing about whether or not high divorce rates are a bad thing, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In my experience it is not at all true of most people who consider themselves agnostic or non-religious.
In my experience, it is. That simply reflects how strong the default presumption of being religious is and the associated cultural bias.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In my experience it is not at all true of most people who consider themselves agnostic or non-religious.
it's the case here and I live in one of the more culturally expressive and liberal areas of america.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In my experience it is not at all true of most people who consider themselves agnostic or non-religious.
In my experience, it is. That simply reflects how strong the default presumption of being religious is and the associated cultural bias.
I don't know what your experience is in this area. I've spent most of my adult life in academic circles where the default assumption is that people are not religious so I tend to assume that people are non-religious until I find otherwise. Since most people know I am religious, I do end up being asked about it fairly frequently. The most common attitude I've found among the non-religious is apathy not antipathy. Its not something they care very much about one way or the other.
The experience I've had with LDS people who no longer go to church is pretty similar. There are those who have some antipathy toward the religion or to particular religious individuals, but by far the most common attitude is apathy. They just don't care enough about religion to be concerned about it.
It doesn't surprise me that other peoples experiences differ but I suspect there is a strong selection bias. People who are apathetic about religion, don't general get drawn in to religious discussions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you throw Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines into it, you've got more diversity than you do in Europe. And that's without touching on South Asians. For example the marriage rate in Japan is substantially lower than in China. The divorce rate in the Philippines is officially zero since divorce is illegal.
First off. Most of this is simply irrelevant. When I say East Asia, I mean East Asia. So no Philippines, no Thailand, no Malaysia, no Vietnam, no Laos, and no Cambodia.
South Asia is right out. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. (I'm not even sure why you would remotely think that I think Confucianism would have any relevance to South Asians)
quote: Low divorce rates do not necessarily translate to high rates of stable happy families.
I don't believe I've ever said anything about happiness. In fact, I only got drawn into this since you touted low divorce rates as a benefit of regularly attending church and I found it amusing that Asians beat you on your own measure. Now, you're moving the field.
That said, I think you understand if I am as unimpressed by your *two* anecdotes as you would be if I used Ecthalion's example of a man beating his wife using his God-given rights to portray Christians as a whole.
Instead, simply let it be said that growing up here, I've seen my share of marriages from both cultures and my experience is the opposite of yours.
Lastly, I was following up with TomD who AFAIK was talking about the whole range of indicators for judging doing "better."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
mucus,
First, I started by addressing Samp's claim that
quote:One thing which helps monogamy get so difficult is when social conservatives try to sustain outdated and unrealistic social models such as abstinence before marriage, which is one of the reasons why red states have significantly more family instability and fewer successful marriages than blue-staters.
So family stability and sucessful marriages have from the start been the baseline for this discussion not divorce. Samp is the one who presented the divorce statistics. I just pointed out that they don't mean what he claimed. There has been no moving the target, except perhaps by you.
Second, Asians don't beat me at my own standard which would be Mormons who marry in LDS temples who have a divorce rate of 6%, significantly lower than that for Asians.
My only reason for entering into this discussion was to rebut Samprimary's still completely unsupported assertion that an emphasis on abstinence before marriage results in unstable unhappy marriages.
Its my understanding that until very recently, premarital sex was considered highly unacceptable in China. Is that incorrect?
Finally, My three (not two) anecdotes about the Chinese and divorce were all involving immigrants from the PRC. If I remember correctly, you and your family are from Hong Kong as are the majority of Chinese in the Toronto area. In my experience, there are some very significant cultural differences between immigrants to the west from Hong Kong and the PRC and that those from Hong Kong have signficantly more liberal attitudes toward women than are common in the PRC.
This was part of my objection to you lumping together all East Asians in one group. East Asia is a very diverse region (even if you exclude South East Asia). (Although I should add the study you were referencing referred to Asians so it presumably included all of Asian, not just East Asia). If you are talking about Hong Kong, talk about Hong Kong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Instead, simply let it be said that growing up here, I've seen my share of marriages from both cultures and my experience is the opposite of yours.
I'm curious. Why do you suppose that my male colleague (immigrant from the PRC) would tell me that my experiences were expected based on typical chinese male attitudes? His statements were pretty consistent with what I have read about more traditional attitudes toward women in China. Is it a myth that women have historically had very limited rights in China? I know that currently women are offered full rights under Chinese law but peoples attitudes about such things commonly lag behind the laws, particularly when we are talking about marital roles.
I mean, I really expected my colleague to say something like "Those men were totally *#$&@#$." I was really rather taken back when he laughed and sad that was just part of chinese culture.
[ May 20, 2010, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why do you suppose that my male colleague (immigrant from the PRC) would tell me that my experiences were expected based on typical chinese male attitudes?
Because it is. It is also part of typical white male attitudes which it would be reasonable to assume he is less familiar with.
For example:
quote:The findings of this study suggest that although factors such as the relationship between victims and abusers or the type of abuse experienced do not vary greatly by race and ethnicity, the path into services and the service needs of groups tend to differ somewhat depending on such demographic characteristics.
quote:12.8% of Asian and Pacific Islander women reported experiencing physical assault by an intimate partner at least once during their lifetime; 3.8% reported having been raped. The rate of physical assault was lower than those reported by Whites (21.3%); African-Americans (26.3%); Hispanic, of any race, (21.2%); mixed race (27.0%); and American Indians and Alaskan Natives (30.7%). The low rate for Asian and Pacific Islander women may be attributed to underreporting.
(And I would add, maybe, maybe not )
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Mucus, I know that spousal abuse is not absent in American culture, but honestly I can't imagine any American born PhD level scientist, working at one of Americas premier Universities, laughing it off as something that men just do. One reason he wouldn't be familiar with this kind of thing among whites, is that whites (and most other Americans) go out of their way to hide it from everyone because it isn't socially acceptable. I can't imagine any American born person with that level of education so freely admitting that they would do the same sort of thing if their wife divorced them.
Which suggests to me that this part of Chinese culture is much more widely accepted, even among the highly educated "enlightened" Chinese than it is in America.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It suggests to me that hiding personal information is part of white culture which is much more widely accepted, even among the highly educated who one would hope would hide the truth less.
Edit to add: And more seriously, I think it is common knowledge that Chinese culture is more tolerant of personal questions. It should also be uncontroversial that political correctness is simply alien to Hong Kong and very new to China. Do the math and you will find that Chinese people will admit to all sorts of personal questions that white people won't.
Example: Go do a random survey of Chinese people, ask them point blank how much they make. Do the same with a bunch of white people. I'm fairly certain that absent institutional policy, the former will answer much more readily. This doesn't mean much about how much the two groups make in terms of income though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Are you saying that if a Chinese person is doing something that is highly socially unacceptable, they'd freely admit it in public?
I find that rather hard to believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Since most people know I am religious, I do end up being asked about it fairly frequently. The most common attitude I've found among the non-religious is apathy not antipathy.
They may be politely concealing their antipathy. I do this pretty regularly, depending on company.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Are you saying that if a Chinese person is doing something that is highly socially unacceptable, they'd freely admit it in public?
No. I'm assuming that despite your antipathy toward Chinese culture, you didn't literally ask him a "Do you beat your wife?" question. More likely you asked a, "if you were in that situation, would you?" type question (i.e. there but for the grace of god). In that case, you bet.
You're basically assuming two things. First, that people from different cultures admit to things at roughly the same rate. Second, that what people say is an accurate representation of what people would actually do. Let me put it in Western terms. If that were the case, in the other thread, anti-gay Republicans would be the straightest of males. Instead, their ranks are probably more gay than a gay pride parade.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here we go, something data-based as well. Different study, Chinese specifically, and with a plurality of PRC immigrants. Lower rates of domestic violence.
quote:Prevalence rates of physical violence from the 1985 National Family Violence Survey are commonly cited because it is one of the few national surveys on family violence that has been implemented in the United States (Straus & Gelles, 1986).
...
The survey also found that 30% experienced a violent event over the course of their relationship. These rates are higher than those indicated by Chinese Americans in this sample. Less than 10% (6.8%) and only 18% of Chinese Americans disclosed experiencing some form of physical aggression by a spouse/ partner in the last 12 months and during the course of their lifetime, respectively.
One explanation for the lower rates is that there may be less domestic violence in the Chinese American community. Hall and Barongan (1997) noted that there appear to be lower rates of sexual aggression in Asian- American groups, and they attributed this to the collectivistic orientation of the Asian culture. In collectivistic cultures, individual goals are relegated to the group, social support is high, and shame is used as a deterrent to deviant behavior (Hall & Barongan, 1997).
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: His statements were pretty consistent with what I have read about more traditional attitudes toward women in China.
As opposed to:
quote:Contrary to the feminist literature on domestic violence, gender role beliefs was not related to physical intimate violence. Acculturation, however, significantly predicted severe physical violence experienced during respondents' lifetime.
In other words, domestic violence increases while assimilating to become more like the surrounding population, not less.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No. I'm assuming that despite your antipathy toward Chinese culture, you didn't literally ask him a "Do you beat your wife?" question. More likely you asked a, "if you were in that situation, would you?" type question (i.e. there but for the grace of god). In that case, you bet.
I didn't ask him anything at all and there wasn't any discussion of wife beating. These women left their husband, filed for divorce and then were stalked, threatened with death, slandered, and harassed in ways I would never even have imagined. When I shared my concern over thesetwo friends with my colleague, this man's response was to laugh and say "Oh that's what most Chinese men would do. If my wife left me, I'd threaten to kill her too." That, to the best of my recollection, is exactly what happened. The implication was that a woman didn't have the right to leave her husband and if she tried, she should be punished for it.
I'm not assuming anything. Here. Just reporting my experience. I'm not making any assumptions about whether or not these men would really have killed their ex-wives given the opportunity. I know only that the women were legitimately terrified, to the extent that one of them sought my help to go into hiding for several months. Those are the facts. Assume what ever you want from them.
Based on my Chinese colleagues comments, I assumed these experiences were indicative of Chinese attitudes toward divorce. I've also read a number of things that support that conclusion.
[ May 20, 2010, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... "Oh that's what most Chinese men would do. If my wife left me, I'd threaten to kill her too." That, to the best of my recollection, is exactly what happened. The implication was that a woman didn't have the right to leave her husband and if she tried, she should be punished for it.
Actually, thats your interpretation.
The bare facts unless you left something out is that your colleague believes that the probability that a threat would occur in such a situation is high.
There is nothing in what you have quoted about "should" or about rights. Nor is there any statement that North American men would act any differently. Also, again, the above is just anecdotal, so I probably won't address it any further.
Let me emphasize, it is no tea party either way. However, the *actual data* suggest that the larger worry is contemporary North American culture, not traditional Chinese culture.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: To elaborate, there is no sin in saying, "I love you but monogamy is not something I can do; can we make some other arrangement?" There is sin in lying. As a society, though, we don't make that first option possible. We expect that love means monogamy and I am not at all sure that is true.
Changing rapidly though. I recently made it unabashedly public information that I was in an open relationship.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:His statements were pretty consistent with what I have read about more traditional attitudes toward women in China.
"Traditional" views towards women in China are the same in that respect as "traditional" views towards women everywhere. Including America.
Newsflash, women were oppressed and are oppressed by societies around the world. You act like oppression of women and treatment of women as property is a quaint 'exotic' custom or something. No.
But it is always easier to see these sorts of things in another culture than one's own.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)