An email discussion list I'm on alerted me to this posting from Anthony Bradley's Christian-themed (but not religious right) blog. Are things really this bad for heterosexual men? Bradley paints a depressing picture. Here's an excerpt:
Families like the Keatons and the Cosbys (like the Cleavers and Nelsons of a previous generation) were presented as the pinnacle and fullest expression of life on earth. This is what you want fellas, a beautiful wife, a few kids, a nice house, a good job...then comes retirement, grandchildren and you die a fulfilled man. Ahh, what a life!
Guess what? Lots of guys are finding out the hard way that in the real world having the perfect "American family" image is the rare exception.
Here's the truth: lots of guys I know are in completely miserable marriages, many (I mean MANY) wives have committed adultery, kids have chronic illnesses, guys hate their jobs are stuck because of debt, divorced (even though they swore they were not going to do what their parents did by splitting up), many wives want to leave their husbands because they don't make enough money, lots of "great guys" never marry, many can't get over addictions because after praying for 12-15 years they've discovered that it "doesn't work," depression, dealing with their own sexual abuse at a late age, mulling over a very long list of regrets, wanting to pack it all up and go "into the wild," your daughter has a reputation for being a "slut," your son's already a pot head, etc.
And for guys that I talk to who aren't Christians or part of any religious tradition some of the issues are worse than these.
I know, this is not a cheery Yule Time/New Year's message. But it did strike me that gay people, as do other minorities, sometimes focus a bit too exclusively on our own travails and challenges (as if, say, straight people are the "haves" and we are the "have nots"). There's some truth to this perception, especially in terms of government discrimination and legal inequality. But we should always remember that what unites gay and straight men (as men), and gay and straight women, and all of us together, is the shared challenges of the human predicament.
15 Comments for “It’s Not Easy Being Straight”
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Men of all cultures in this world have largely forgotten how to take charge of their lives, sometimes even thinking they have done so by acquiring money, the ability to intimidate, or some other outward accomplishment. Moreover, men in all kinds of relationships too often let the other party do the thinking. At the same time, men are spiritually malnourished but, in the case of Christians in this country, subject to institutional religions that run on an inherently female mindset.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Strangely enough, what I think this reflects is that the vast majority of men and women in the United States have no concept of what a two-parent, still-married household looks like……except on TV.
Given that, no wonder they think their lives are rotten. I don’t know a soul who, like the Keatons and Huxtables, has all of their problems wrapped up in twenty-two minutes (eight for commercials), or in really extreme cases, an hour.
Furthermore, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the only thing they know how to do in relationship to a relationship is to end it. That’s all they’ve ever seen. They can say, “I’m not going to do what my parents did by splitting up,” but knowing what you don’t want to do is a lot different than knowing what you should do.
Finally, to be honest, why should people marry? There really is no tax or financial advantage to it in our two-income society, there’s really no social stricture against not doing it, and all that it does is require you to make a binding commitment with consequences if you break it and have sex with only one person.
posted by Brian Miller on
the vast majority of men and women in the United States have no concept of what a two-parent, still-married household looks like
What a load of bollocks.
Finally, to be honest, why should people marry? There really is no tax or financial advantage to it in our two-income society
Not only is that technically incorrect — there are all sorts of little government bennies (and a few very large ones), but more importantly, it underscores your lack of understanding of the basis of a trusted relationship of any sort.
The reality is that we live in a perpetual victimhood culture, and straight white guys have decided it’s time for *them* to indulge in it. Ergo, the complaining and sense of utter “oppression.” Once we’re divided into several dozen little overwhelmed groups counting on ND-30s Big Daddy government (or the Dems’ Big Mommy government) to save us from ourselves and others, society’s easy to control.
posted by Richard on
I do not see how many of these listed social problems are unique to people of a certain sex or sexual orientation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Not only is that technically incorrect — there are all sorts of little government bennies (and a few very large ones), but more importantly, it underscores your lack of understanding of the basis of a trusted relationship of any sort.
Funny, I was under the impression that one can trust and have a trusting relationship with someone else regardless of whether or not they are legally bound.
What you’re saying is that the only way to ensure any sort of trust or trustworthiness in a gay or lesbian relationship is to place a legally-binding contract on the people involved.
Therefore, since gays and lesbians can’t marry now, are we to assume that no gay or lesbian couple has a “trusted relationship” — since you claim it’s an impossibility without a legal contract?
posted by Jim Peck on
I’d re-title the essay — “It’s Not Easy Being Human.” We form relationships of all different kinds in part because we hope companionship will help make it easier. Sometimes, thankfully, it does.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I think guys get along better with guys. I think a lot of guys marry women because that’s what they’re expected to do, but they’d rather be in relationships with men. I think men make better decisions together and would be able to bring up children better. I think if men saw being gay as being masculine, as two buddies building a life together, then a lot of men would find a happier life. I think that if gay sex is all that’s making men squeamish about gay partnerships, we should rebrand gay sex as “Ultimate Fighting–Naked, with An Orgasm.” That’s pretty much what it is, after all, and that would make it sound more manly.
posted by Carl on
-And for guys that I talk to who aren’t Christians or part of any religious tradition some of the issues are worse than these.-
Is the person who wrote this implying that straight non-religious men have worse problems than straight men who are religious?
I also wonder what that part is about men who pray for 12-15 years and their “addictions” don’t go away. Is homosexuality part of that?
Everyone has problems. If straight men now feel devastated because heterosexual male life is not what they expect, then that is the fault of a society where straight men have routinely told everyone that things will be wonderful as long as you believe in “traditional family values”.
The other question I have is if a very religious heterosexual man read a long list of complaints from a gay man about how hard his life is, what would his reaction be? Would he feel sorry for the gay man? Or would he just start going on about this is proof of the gay lifestyle being horrible and how everything would be better if he tried to be straight?
posted by Carl on
I should point out that I really don’t disagree with all of what this man’s blog post says, and he seems to be a fair enough person. I hope everything works out for him. I’m just going more on the general idea of how the church and society views and shapes roles.
posted by Brian Miller on
I was under the impression that one can trust and have a trusting relationship with someone else regardless of whether or not they are legally bound.
He certainly can. Of course, the institution of government that seeks to nullify that bond through legislation targeting it for exceptionally negative treatment is clearly undertaking an effort to undermine that relationship.
Your party has been leading the way in the government’s campaign to do so.
Thus, your claims of being in favor of LGBT relationships are rather blinkered, as you’re a passionate defender of your party’s efforts to undermine those relationships.
posted by Jorge on
There aren’t many “perfect families” in my extended family. At least three couples co-habiting before marriage, one currently co-habiting couple, three divorces, at least two domestic violence relationships, one patriarchal traditionally married couple with children, one mutually powerful traditionally married couple with children. Very few of them currently unhappy: so they resolved everything in twenty-two years instead of twenty-two minutes.
I haven’t met many “not perfect” families that don’t try and find some way to adjust, to be a real family, and most succeed. Marriage is important, but there are a lot of couples that are married without the ring, and you can tell they’re married. It’s that people get taught dumb ideas about relationships and life because they read too much Cosmo and listen to too much music.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, the institution of government that seeks to nullify that bond through legislation targeting it for exceptionally negative treatment is clearly undertaking an effort to undermine that relationship.
Of course, using that logic, I am, in the area of welfare benefits, “targeted for exceptionally negative treatment”, since my income makes me ineligible to receive them.
Relationships exist independently of the government. Trust exists independently of the government.
You saw it here, folks; gay “libertarians” like Brian Miller insist that, in order for a gay relationship to exist and be trusting, the government must approve and sanction it.
posted by Brian Miller on
using that logic, I am, in the area of welfare benefits, “targeted for exceptionally negative treatment”, since my income makes me ineligible to receive them.
Your comparisons are increasingly bizarre. Welfare benefits are entitlement payments — marriage is a legal status. You might as well compare apples and moonrocks.
Of course, you continue to dodge the fact that your Republican Party is the party that is insisting that government is a necessary component of relationships that last. Your Republican Party is the party that creates roadblocks big and small to gay couples, from customs forms saying they’re not families up to tax treatment that penalizes them. And your Republican Party continues to actively work against the longevity of LGBT couples across the entire country.
gay “libertarians” like Brian Miller insist that, in order for a gay relationship to exist and be trusting, the government must approve and sanction it
Another lie. You’re good at those. As you well know (and have criticized me for in the past), I am in favor of getting government out of the marriage business entirely — a position you attacked me for in the past.
You cannot change my position from page to page and exhibit any sort of integrity.
I am for equal treatment under the law. You (and the Republican Party) are against that — even as a transitional step.
I am ultimately in favor of getting government out of the marriage business altogether. You (and the Republican Party) are also against that.
I am opposed to using government power to punish gay families and render them unequal under the law in even the most basic of financial and other transactions. You (and the Republican Party) are passionate defenders of codifying enduring bigotry against gay families in both statutes and the Constitution.
It really is that simple.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As you well know (and have criticized me for in the past), I am in favor of getting government out of the marriage business entirely — a position you attacked me for in the past.
Which makes your insistence that the government must be involved in order for a gay relationship to be “trusting” or valid all the more peculiar. You insist, for example, that gay and lesbian relationships have no “longevity” unless they are governmentally-sanctioned.
You cannot change my position from page to page and exhibit any sort of integrity.
Problem is, I haven’t changed your position. You have — when you realized that your demands for “getting government out of the marriage business” because it was unnecessary ran counter to your current insistence that gay relationships cannot exist without government validation.
I am opposed to using government power to punish gay families and render them unequal under the law in even the most basic of financial and other transactions.
And again, by that logic, I am being “punished” and “rendered unequal” because I am ineligible to receive welfare benefits due to my lack of HIV infection and my high income.
What you are demanding are the entitlements of marriage. You can have a health care proxy, you can write a will, you can have a financial proxy, all of these things by simply filling out the appropriate legal instruments. And indeed, if your point is to get government out of the marriage business, you ought to work on making these instruments more accessible to all.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Whenever I hear one of the anti-gay messages about how gays can allegedly “change,” I think, why would I want to become a straight guy? So I can move to the suburbs, resent my wife for restricting my freedom, drive a minivan and spend as much time as possible playing golf to avoid my responsibilities?
Now, not all marriages are like that, but the cultural expectation of marriage, IMHO, pushes a lot of people into relationships that may not be the best for them. Add to that the problem that no one teaches people how to build and maintain strong relationships, and it is pretty easy to see why so many marriages fail. But I personally know many people in relatively “happy” marriages, both gay and straight, (e.g., not perfect, but providing sufficient contentment and fulfillment) and am continually amazed at how much work they really take to be successful. Watching my own sister and brother-in-law build their family and relationship has been both heartening and amazing.
As for cultural representations of marriage, you tend to get either the courtship, and then the couple lives “happily ever after,” story or the story of conflict within a relationship. This shouldn’t be surprising, as conflict is always more interesting than harmony. Certainly shows like “the Dick Van Dyke Show,” or “Mad About You,” demonstrate it is possible to create a fantastic story about people who truly love one another, without resorting to the old “battle of the sexes” schtick, but it is difficult.
And again, by that logic, I am being “punished” and “rendered unequal” because I am ineligible to receive welfare benefits due to my lack of HIV infection and my high income.
What you are demanding are the entitlements of marriage. You can have a health care proxy, you can write a will, you can have a financial proxy, all of these things by simply filling out the appropriate legal instruments. And indeed, if your point is to get government out of the marriage business, you ought to work on making these instruments more accessible to all.
Actually, you are being treated exactly the same as any other member of society. Entitlements are meant to provide stability to society (by avoiding some of the extremes of poverty that can exist in a market-driven society) and support members of the community in need. When you have that kind of need, you qualify for the benefits. Disability benefits, for example, are available to anyone who has 1) pain into the Social Security system and 2) has a demonstrable disability that prevents them from working. Those benefits are doled out based on clearly defined individual circumstances, not based on arbitrary characteristics that automatically disqualify one, no matter what the need.
The marriage license provides a proxy mechanism for governmental recognition of all the benefits you rightly indicate can be obtained otherwise (not to mention many others, like the right to refuse to testify against a spouse in court, that cannot be replicated). Anyone two unrelated adults can get a marriage license, but it is being arbitrarily denied to those couples who happen to be of the same gender. Such restrictions are not placed on any of the entitlements you mentioned.