azurelunatic: Vivid pink Alaskan wild rose. (Default)
Azure Jane Lunatic (Azz) 🌺 ([personal profile] azurelunatic) wrote2004-02-27 02:32 pm

On Orson Scott Card's take on marriage

1) Didn't you see this coming? In one of his latest books, the hammer that he hit people over the head with was that the meaning of life, the sole mission in life that people have, is to have babies. Not to educate children, not to take care of children so much, but to have babies. He got removed from my buy-on-sight list for this; he's read-first-then-buy-if-appropriate.

2) I skimmed the first page of his essay/rant thing, and decided that for the peace of my soul, I was not reading any more of it. Not because I was afraid it would convince me that he is Right and I am Wrong, but because I know enough to avoid material that will anger me to no good end.

3) Az-the-Elder has a very good essay/rant/open letter, well-reasoned and not particularly flamy, speaking from experience on what happens when a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman get "married", and why this is a bad idea.

4) I feel very strongly that sometimes divorce is necessary. I also feel that many divorces could be prevented by making a marriage more difficult to obtain, and that education on the fact that it takes more than just blind love to keep a marriage together is necessary. Some people may pick up the skills that it takes to keep a marriage together directly from the blind love stage without education, or have them without knowing that they have them, but people relying on love and love alone to keep them together are, for the most part, in deep trouble.

5) I think that in most cases, it takes more than one person to raise a child. These people need not be in a marital or romantic relationship with each other, but must all be devoted to doing their best to raise the child. Pressuring someone who is unprepared and unwilling to take on the responsibility of a child to become responsible for a child may result in them becoming responsible, or may more likely result in them becoming bitter and resentful of the situation. If someone engenders and then abandons a child, and is unwilling to wholeheartedly devote themselves to the day-to-day well-being of the child, then they should not be pressured to spend time with that child as a caregiver. A caregiver who resents the situation will probably resent the child, and a resentful caregiver is not a healthy person to have raising a child. Someone who engenders and abandons a child should be pressured to provide financial support for the child and another caregiver in their stead. No amount of financial support can replace a willing full-time long-term caregiver, but financial support can aid in finding a replacement. Someone who is unprepared to care for a child, but is willing to do their best and learn how to do a good job of it should be given support and education in how to do it better, and should not be forced to do it alone. It is not necessary for a long-term caregiver to be genetically related to a child to be a good caregiver for it; it is advisable that a caregiver be long-term to best know the child to raise it.

6) Long-term caregivers of a child need not be of opposite sexes in order to provide a child with a wide enough experience of people in order to function well in the world. A child should be exposed to more adults than just their long-term caregivers on a regular basis, and a child should have playmates with diverse interests as well as common interests. The broader the array of cultures and people a child is exposed to on a regular basis, the better adapted they will be to function in the adult world. The media (television, movies, books, newspapers) is not an effective subsititute for regular diverse human contact, but is better than isolation. Allowing a child contact only with people who hold one specific viewpoint on the world does not serve a child well, because the child generally does not become prepared to deal with people who do not think in the same way.

[identity profile] ataniell93.livejournal.com 2004-02-27 03:06 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree with most of this. There are situations where I don't believe people should be pressured to provide financial support for "their" children, however, and I am disheartened that current law doesn't take this into account. If, for instance, a woman has reneged on a negotiated agreement that there would be no children out of a given relationship, I don't believe in forced abortion, but I believe in forced fatherhood no more than I believe in forced motherhood. And also, there are women who decide to have children 'all by themselves' and never tell the sires of their spawn that they are pregnant, until they run into financial trouble. I know a guy this happened to, and I'm not sympathetic to the agreement that he could have chosen not to have sex, or that he could have chosen to have 'outercourse' (god what a stupid word)--that's the same argument that anti-abortion people use to tell women who are knocked up that they shouldn't be able to have abortions, and it's spurious, especially when applied to a guy who can barely support himself.

[identity profile] boojum.livejournal.com 2004-02-27 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Where is this latest? I'm not surprised, not after the essay in Maps in a Mirror where he decries gay people, athletes, and another group I'm not remembering, because they're being nasty and cliquish and excluding him; and not after the book of the Bean series where Petra goes on and on and on about how she wants to have his babies. I'm not surprised, but I am sort of train-wreckishly curious.

[identity profile] dustraven.livejournal.com 2004-02-27 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm going through a divorce involving a seven-year-old boy. The mother's got custody, and I'm okay with that. At present, I'm not even remotely capable of caring for him full time. If I were... but that's another issue.

Because we are not living together, even though we aren't divorced yet, I'm forced to pay child support. It doesn't matter to the state that I continue to spend time with my son, or pick him up from day care or school. It only matters that I don't live with him.

I'm all for seeking out deadbeat fathers who skip out on their families and picking their pockets for child support. But I don't think that should apply to parents who just can't get along with their spouse anymore, but still remain a major influence in their children's lives. Maybe it's just a personal bitch, but I don't like being treated like a deadbeat.

[identity profile] dustraven.livejournal.com 2004-02-27 09:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Bad memcache! No doughnut!

Why is my post appearing 7 hours into the future?

[identity profile] dustraven.livejournal.com 2004-02-27 09:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Not the local time? That's weird. At least it shows when I post an entry on my journal in the local time.

[identity profile] thette.livejournal.com 2004-02-28 01:55 am (UTC)(link)
Well, hormonal implants right next to the ovaries might be a good idea.

[identity profile] crisavec.livejournal.com 2004-02-28 03:09 am (UTC)(link)
Actually with some of the S2 styles, comment time is in UTC. If it were server time it'd actually be an hour behind your post time.

Child rearing

[identity profile] hasfartogo.livejournal.com 2004-02-28 07:48 am (UTC)(link)
Where I used to work, my co-workers said my girlfriend June was lucky to have me as a friend. I took her kids to the movies, watched movies at home with them, taped shows for them, and had them over for sleep overs. It never occurred to me that I was being nice or helpful above or beyond the call of duty, it was something I just did to give her a hand.

[identity profile] raaven.livejournal.com 2004-02-28 10:21 am (UTC)(link)
Orson Scott Card is a devout Mormon. While I really like reading much of his fiction, I long ago decided that he and I will never agree politically...his religious views preclude it.

[identity profile] boojum.livejournal.com 2004-02-28 12:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Not only is his grasp of the soft sciences alarmingly poor, he's even more of a prick than I'd thought.

[identity profile] lizw.livejournal.com 2004-03-04 08:05 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, but it's such a disappointment to come from reading Speaker of the Dead, with its eloquence and sympathy for a culture almost entirely alien to us, to that twisted little rant with its muddled logic and lack of compassion for a subculture right on his own doorstep. I particularly dislike the way he insists in his response that his point was only that US marriage laws should only be changed by the legislature, not the judiciary, when the original article goes way beyond what is necessary to make that point. As you say, the motivation is probably religious, and it would be more honest if he would just say so.

[identity profile] raaven.livejournal.com 2004-03-08 05:10 pm (UTC)(link)
I chose not to read the actual essay/argument; as [livejournal.com profile] azurelunatic says, no need to make myself angry (paraphrasing).

I agree though. It's a shame that someone who can imagine and write such a beautiful diversity of possibility, cannot promote it in real life. Note that even in Speaker for the Dead, the primary religion that comes under examination (IIRC - it's been awhile since I've read that series) is Catholicism - not Mormonism. I wonder who shaves the barber in OSC's case - or if the barber is (metaphorically, of course) a very, very hairy man?