I ran into Julia Shaw's two year old essay on why
marrying young was a good idea (at least for her):
Marriage wasn’t something we did after we’d grown up—it was how we have
grown up and grown together. We’ve endured the hardships of typical
millennials: job searches, job losses, family deaths, family conflict,
financial fears, and career concerns. The stability, companionship, and
intimacy of marriage enabled us to overcome our challenges and develop
as individuals and a couple. We learned how to be strong for one
another, to comfort, to counsel, and to share our joys and not just our
problems.
Marriage, as she sees it, is a strength in her own life. So, go, her, though it appears her marriage just proves a rule from recent research that there's considerable evidence that
marrying or cohabiting before age 23 is likely to result in a breakup, while marriages/cohabitations set up after that age are statistically much stronger. But mostly, what I wanted to treat was Amanda Marcotte's predictably silly reaction to Shaw's essay, and in particular, this:
Not that any of this matters anyway. Watching conservatives desperately
try to bully women into younger marriage with a couple of promises and a
whole lot of threats is highly entertaining but clearly not persuasive.
The word I take issue with there is "bully". How is Shaw "bullying" anyone? Is she harassing Marcotte, or anyone else for that matter? Or is it simply that arguing in favor of a life you have led and love that has brought you happiness you wish to share with others amounts to contradicting Marcotte's third-wave feminist narrative, and thus wrongthink? Feminism has become totalitarian and expansionist in its dotage, as witness
this cartoon about makeup (!); "the personal is the political" is really just another way of saying, "get in line, you".
No comments:
Post a Comment