Althouse: "Ban all performative weddings, ban all crazy expenditures... Ban the marriage pages in The New York Times."

September 29, 2012

"Ban all performative weddings, ban all crazy expenditures... Ban the marriage pages in The New York Times."

"Ban those things that turn otherwise sensible people to start buying into that fantasy," says Virginia Rutter — great name — a professor of — take a guess — sociology, quoted in a NYT "Fashion and Style" piece, written by Matt Richtel, who's mostly airing his own "whimsical" notion that marriage could be a 20-year renewable contract.

Richtel quotes another a professor of — take a guess — sociology, Pepper Schwartz — great name — saying, “We’re remarkably not innovative about marriage even though almost all the environmental conditions, writ large, have changed... We haven’t scrutinized it. We’ve been picking at it like a scab, and it’s not going to heal that way.”

But wouldn't being innovative be picking at it? What's Pepper planning to do to this scab? Sociology professors... can we just pick at them?

As to Professor Rutter and her objection to "performative weddings"... well, I'm more concerned about her attraction to the word "ban"... she decries emotionality while sounding utterly emotional. And who are these "otherwise sensible people"? Human beings get involved in all sorts of ideas and practices entailing love and beauty and religion and hope and sex and money. There's no stripping away of all that. It is humanity itself, not a fantasy (or a scab!).

41 comments:

KLDAVIS said...: "[S]he decries emotionality while sounding utterly emotional."

This is a little too on the nose for a description of the last day or so of this blog, don't you think?; 9/29/12, 11:47 AM
Brent said...: Here's a discussion topic for this post:

Does Ann have as much of an emotional response to this as she does her racist posts.

If these marriage pages are banned in the New York Times, will Ann then emotionally vote for Obama?

Discuss; 9/29/12, 11:47 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Human beings get involved in all sorts of ideas and practices entailing love and beauty and religion and hope and sex and money. There's no stripping away of all that.

Sure. Keep it up - and great way to change the subject.

You're clowning yourself now,...; 9/29/12, 11:48 AM
Brent said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/29/12, 11:49 AM
Brent said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/29/12, 11:49 AM
Ann Althouse said...: You made your point, Brent, now, back to the topic. No hijacking.; 9/29/12, 11:52 AM
edutcher said...: With a name like Rutter, I would have thought her field was animal husbandry.

but, if marriage is going to be a 20 year renewable contract, isn't that going to make "performative" weddings a bigger thing?

I mean, think about having 2 or 3 (or even 4 - discounting daughters') weddings in your life, most of which you'll have to pay for.

It's the new economic recovery.; 9/29/12, 11:52 AM
David said...: Ban the banns!

There's a slogan.; 9/29/12, 11:54 AM
shiloh said...: Ban all political blogs ...; 9/29/12, 11:56 AM
pm317 said...: Great, back to inane topics!

When are you going to put up a post decimating Obama WH for its coverup of Ambassador Stevens assassination by Al Queda, the latest twist in the plot is its DNI clueless Clapper falling on his sword about defective intelligence?

While you are at it, ask the most important question, nothing related to race BTW, why, just why, Stevens was in Benghazi on 9/11 without any security? Who sent him there and for what?; 9/29/12, 11:57 AM
Leland said...: The first sentence explains the decline of the New York Times:
IT makes little sense to explore a new era of family values based around Hollywood couplings.

Yep.

Yet, the NYT editorialist then explores. And the regular NYT reader, emotional rather than sensible, goes to the last sentence on page one:
After all, should we take cues from the star of “Mission: Impossible”? Instead of answering the question, the NYT reader clicks to page 2 to be told what to think. Again, if you read the first sentence, you already know the answer without clicking to page 2.; 9/29/12, 12:01 PM
shiloh said...: Althouse, I'm feelin' a lot of con love for you the past (2) days. Hopefully you can harvest all the good cheer to form a more perfect union!; 9/29/12, 12:01 PM
Jana said...: Well hells bells, while we're banning frivolous things, let's ban Sociology departments.; 9/29/12, 12:11 PM
Patrick said...: Ignore would be better.; 9/29/12, 12:30 PM
Anonymous said...: I love how she sees marriage as a twenty year ordeal. The kids turned 18, yeah f@#k them now, they are on their own, and who needs an intact family anyways. That's pretty much how my parents looked at it. Now my mom has her new family with her new husband, from which my family is mostly excluded. Any important life event or get together requires a choice of which perpetually adolescent parent I can invite, because they are both so childish that they can't just suck it up and realize that everything is not about them. Oh yes, being an adult child of divorced parents is just so wonderful.

My family is forever. I am not just going to ditch them and stop being a mom just because they turn 18. Hopefully they will have a real intact family to come home to for as long as my husband and I are alive. The least I can do is give them better than I have.; 9/29/12, 12:38 PM
Brent said...: Ann,

If you choose to vote for Obama because he aligns with your values, fine. Conservatives that post here will understand even if we don't agree.

But when you threaten to vote for Obama - If people in the middle — like me — get the impression that fear of black people is supposed to be the reason to vote for Romney, we're going to vote for Obama. - for the specious theory you listed in your first Obamaphone post and continue to defend it so emotionally and irrationally, we feel like the rug's been pulled out from underneath our understanding and admiration of you. An admiration based not on agreement but on cogent, rationally stated views.; 9/29/12, 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm with Jana on banning Sociology departments. The least they can do is mind there own business. They are free the f@#k up their own lives however they wish. I just ask they leave my family alone.; 9/29/12, 12:41 PM
Paddy O said...: We're not innovative about marriage?

We're utterly and entirely innovative about marriage.

How marriage is understood in our society is vastly different in many ways than how marriage has been understood throughout history.

The simple distinction is that now marriage is seen as a romantic comedy while traditionally marriage was a partnership. There's always been a mix of both, but the ratio has really changed over the last century or more.

People can partner with the government, after all, to get their goals and desires met, but can't cozy up to the government on a Friday night.

Really this is all summed up in the debate over contraceptives.; 9/29/12, 12:43 PM
Brent said...: Hey - why is it that Titus can post stuff that doesn't relate to the topic at hand

and Shiloh can just come and berate conservatives apart from the topic

but others get removed for "being off topic"?

Cruel neutrality?????; 9/29/12, 12:44 PM
rhhardin said...: Performative weddings are the only kind you can have.

Otherwise they would be descriptive.; 9/29/12, 12:47 PM
Paddy O said...: Hey - why is it that Titus can post stuff that doesn't relate to the topic at hand and Shiloh can just come and berate conservatives apart from the topic but others get removed for "being off topic"?

It's a teacher thing. Blog triage of sorts. You treat the ones who can contribute, you ignore the ones who are too far gone.

Someone who usually does good work is often graded harder--to push them into being better. To focus.

Some commenters, however, are just fluff, not adding and no one expects them to add anything. Background noise. Weeds.

That's my suspicion. Getting edited out for a slight mistopic is, curiously, then a sign of actual respect.

Keeping the conversation on track for people who matter and pushing those who matter not to get caught among the weeds.

Weddings are the same way. Some people are just about the fluff, so drift wherever and such people can't see why it matters to anyone. Meanwhile, some take it seriously so are likewise treated more seriously in both the ups and the downs.; 9/29/12, 1:07 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I wonder how much Rutter spent on her education in sociology. I bet it was pretty crazy.; 9/29/12, 1:13 PM
Synova said...: 20 years is a really odd notion. Why on earth would anyone sign a limited domestic contract and set it at 20 years?

Science fiction often speculates about developments where marriage comes in a number of time limited exclusivity arrangements, often with reproductive sub-clauses setting out support responsibilities. So, one year with options to extend the arrangement, or seven years or ten. Or else the elusive but profound "lifetime." But 20 years?

If I marry at 20 that means I'm out on my butt at 40, and I can plan on that. At which point my options for a second 20 year relationship are what? If I marry at 30, as many people do, I'm out on my butt at 50.

I can see even reproductive partnerships set at 5 or 7 years for a child or two, both parents "at home" for baby and toddler years and amicably parting with pre-set support and custody arrangements when the kids start school.

Maybe it's a typo and instead of 20 he meant 2?

I'm going to have to read the stupid article, aren't I. Bleh.; 9/29/12, 1:15 PM
Synova said...: "Performative weddings are the only kind you can have.

Otherwise they would be descriptive."

Heh. ;); 9/29/12, 1:15 PM
Synova said...: Well okay then.

Marriages used to be economic contracts but have been romanticized and perhaps it would be okay to view them as economic contracts again.

I think that's probably the theme statement for the article.

I would respond that marriages have been romanticized since the sexual revolution precisely to excuse those who break their contracts. They fell in love so all was excused.; 9/29/12, 1:25 PM
shiloh said...: "but others get removed for "being off topic"?"

Because I'm harmless and not angry like many of her con brigade.

Plus I tell the truth and Althouse likes me, she really likes me!

>

But Brent, I feel your pain ...; 9/29/12, 1:28 PM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: Virginia Rutter — great name

Sounds like a breed of hog, to me.; 9/29/12, 1:30 PM
ken in tx said...: I think a reasonable marriage contract should be five years. I first two marriages lasted exactly that long each. My current marriage is 28 years and still OK. I think I learned a little bit from the first two. BTW, I frequently comment off-topic and I have never been deleted. I think it's because I am good looking.; 9/29/12, 1:32 PM
Chip S. said...: Hey - why is it that Titus can post stuff that doesn't relate to the topic at hand

and Shiloh can just come and berate conservatives apart from the topic

but others get removed for "being off topic"?

Cruel neutrality?????

Affirmative action.; 9/29/12, 2:00 PM
Synova said...: "I think a reasonable marriage contract should be five years."

And defines the conditions of the end of the contract before it begins.

Maybe people would be less likely to think, like that lady Penguin Publishing is suing, that infidelity and dissolution of the contract without warning are expected and worked into the business model.; 9/29/12, 2:07 PM
somefeller said...: I guess the famous line about all the world being a stage didn't touch Professor Rutter's heart. What a pity.; 9/29/12, 2:34 PM
edutcher said...: Whatever.

shiloh said...

but others get removed for "being off topic?

Because I'm harmless and not angry like many of her con brigade.

As a spreader of FUD (among other things), that makes the little weasel an insidious agent of the Left.

And, considering he's more obsessed with dredging up incidents from decades ago than actually addressing an issue, I'd say the little animal is angrier even than Diamond.

He's mad because nobody (surprise!) takes him seriously.; 9/29/12, 3:03 PM
tim maguire said...: If marriages are to last only 20 years, then we better be popping those kids out fast if we want to raise them together. As my (recently, sadly) late father in law, a tenured sociology professor at a major canadian university, liked to say, "sociology is a crock of shit. Nothing new or important has ever been done in this field."; 9/29/12, 5:10 PM
Howard said...: Hell hath no fury like a chickenhawk scorned.; 9/29/12, 5:28 PM
Nomennovum said...: Fuck it. Ban marriages. Their time is past anyway.; 9/29/12, 5:47 PM
Seven Machos said...: What is keeping anyone from marriages that expire in 20 years. You can have one for an additional cost of about $200 -- the cost of a happy no-fault divorce. Or, you can renew if you want. Nobody cares.

Why does the left (I assume, quite rightly I am sure, that these sociologists are goofy leftists) need society to approve all their stupid shit?; 9/29/12, 6:42 PM
Howard said...: Siete Pinche Cabron says: Why does the left (I assume, quite rightly I am sure, that these sociologists are goofy leftists) need society to approve all their stupid shit?

Because they don't watch televangelists or listen to Rush to get their marching orders?; 9/29/12, 8:18 PM
William said...: There should be a luxury tax levied on extravagant weddings. The money raised could be used to fund divorces for poor couples.; 9/29/12, 10:25 PM
Seven Machos said...: Wow, Howard. Failure to understand where your own argument leads is a sign of stupidity. You think about that, as you think about where your own argument leads.; 9/29/12, 10:49 PM
Alex said...: Some commenters, however, are just fluff, not adding and no one expects them to add anything. Background noise. Weeds.

Pretty much describes Ritmo & Shiloh to a tee.; 9/29/12, 11:37 PM
SGT Ted said...: She wants to ban freedom, like most idiotarians on the left.; 9/30/12, 10:30 AM