Ruth Institute Blog

In the beginning, there was patriarchy.  And it was EEEEEEEEEVIL.  Under patriarchy, men were expected to get married.  And they were expected to have children soon after getting married.  You know why they had children?  Because patriarchy was oppressive and forced them to marry women.

There was not a lot of choice built into the system.  Men not only had to marry women, but they had to marry women of the appropriate station.

If Henry wanted to get married, he could marry Katherine or Anne or Jane.  That was it.

Now that the enlightened Baby Boomers have overthrown the dreaded Patriarchy, people have more choice in matters marital and sexual.  Henry does not have to confine his choices to Katherine, Anne or Jane.  He can now also marry Tiffany, Barbara, Aiko, Taliqua, or Fatima.  Not only that, in some states Henry can even “marry” James, Edward or Robert.  Or he can even forget about marriage altogether and play the field for the rest of his life.

It seems that Henry is spoiled for choice.  He must constantly frolic and rejoice to celebrate all that choice.  That’s how things work, right?  The more choices people have, the happier they are.  Right?  Right? Read more…

Fifty years ago, if you were to say that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include the union of two men or two women, you would have gotten some strange looks.

Nowadays, if you say that the definition of marriage should NOT be changed, you are immoral.  Strangely, you are NOT immoral if you harass, yell at, condemn or kick someone in the jimmies for saying that the definition of marriage should not be changed.

Does anybody else think this turn of events is strange?  How did such a strange thing happen? Read more…

Many of the discussions in the comments section of this site fall into a very familiar pattern.  Take, for instance, one issue that we here at the Ruth Institute support: lifelong marriage.  Lifelong marriage means that we are not particularly fond of divorce.  (I’m sure my opinion as a Jew differs from that of Dr. J who is Catholic, but I think we can agree that divorce is, generally speaking, a bad thing).

And these discussions are usually not very productive because they are addled with illusion.

So, we don’t like divorce.  How does this play out so predictably in the comments?  And how are the comments beset by illusion?

Read more…