Scott Peterson, Eh?
So, let me get this straight: If a man doesn't consent to get married, have babies right way, and work himself into a early grave by taking two or more jobs, then he is no better than Scott Peterson, a convicted murderer. So many hints, so many suggestions, so much painting with the broad brush strokes, so much tiresome guilt-by-association from the pundits in the Marriage Mandate Movement.
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 7:07 PM
22 Comments:
That's not really what Suzanne meant. She is saying how negative (as well as demeaning and consumeristic) views on human life, including women and children brings the worse out of men, potentially ending being the next Scott Peterson and reducing marriage and sexuality as nothing more than a commodity.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-04-013-v
Songbird:
First, I think that Suzanne could have easily made her point without invoking Scott Peterson. The only reason I can think for doing so would be to cast her targets in the worst possible light.
That aside, your observation is something Maken and her disciples need to take to heart as well. Maken et al come off as seeing men as little more than a means to an end, that end being fulfillment of female needs and desires. Further, those needs and desires must be attended to, regardless of whatever concerns men may have. Hence the constant dismissal or minimization of male concerns. Indeed the expression of such concerns is regularly cast as subterfuge. Not a very promising sign in a prospective wife.
I would argue that Maken has a 'demeaning view of men which brings the worse out in women, potentially reducing marriage and sexuality to nothing more than a commodity (e.g. satisfaction of female demands).
And all too often, even in the church, if those demands aren't met satisfactorily, the commodity of marriage can be easily exchanged for the commodity of divorce.
I'm not saying that Maken is encouraging divorce; only that the whole mentality of entitlement that she promotes can easily (though not necessarily) lead to it. After all, if 'her' demands and needs are not being met to her satisfaction, the man clearly lacks biblical masculinity and thus might well be unworthy of her company. There is little reason to expect that such a temperament in a single woman will magically evaporate at the alter.
One of the things I find endlessly frustrating about Maken et al is that they are constantly applying (or misapplying, as the case may be) scripture to men, but very seldom to women (at least as regards responsibility). Thus, in her latest post, while Maken mentions that God has commanded men to love their wives because it is 'easy to forget', you'll find no mention of the reciprocal command, in the same passage, to wives.
As Emmerson Eggerichs points out in his book Love & Respect, God, in the same passage, commands her to respect her husband. Eggerichs points out that here, too, it is something that is easy to forget.
But such considerations apparently have little to no place in Maken's world. In fact, it might be a worse problem. No one is ignorant of the command to unconditionally love one's wife (regardless of how well men live up to that standard), as there is no end of such teaching regarding marriage.
Eggerichs points out, though, that the command to unconditionally respect one's husband is rarely or never mentioned, making it more 'invisible'. Indeed, when he and his wife teach this at their conferences, they regularly get a measure of negative feedback on it from women. I think this is indicative of a ‘female problem’ that needs to be addressed by others as well as Eggerichs. Maken is in an ideal position to address such an issue; it’s just too bad that she virtually denies the existence of any uniquely female ‘relationship problems’.
Wombatty,
Very well said.
The teaching of women's biblical responsibility is very often overlooked. One cannot remind perfect creatures of their duties! /sarcasm
It does stifle discussion when Maken continues to universally paint unmarried men as either lacking leadership or maturity. Ironically, this is the case in many Indian families in which the boys are considered "princes" and "kings". A vast number of Indian males are "momma's boys" without a lot of grooming ability or social skills. Many don't marry because they get enough emotional support from their Moms.
As an Indian, I know what Maken is talking about when she refers to the immaturity of men, but she is referring to Indian men and her own personal experience.
Of course secular trends have nothing to do with her viewpoint. Of course feminism is a distraction. This is a book from an Indian and it is directed to Indian women dealing with Indian men.
Everything in the book is subjective to her situation and cultural experience. Indian men are immature due to the babying they get from their mothers. They do put off marriage and lack social skills. Everything Maken says in her book is true if you are only talking about Indian culture and dating.
For the rest of the people out there, it seems overly general and dishonest. See the book as a book for Indians dealing with an Indian dating culture and it will make more sense.
Thanks for the insight Vikram; very interesting
"Indian men are immature due to the babying they get from their mothers. They do put off marriage and lack social skills."
Thanks for not generalizing.
Most Indian men are married by 30.
Raj Sharma
Raj,
Most Indian men are married by 30.
Raj Sharma
Lol, just barely before thirty:
http://www.shaadibliss.com/research/average-first-marriage-age-statistics.html
PuritanCalvinist
Quite a few Indian men are single for a very long time. It's funny how much sons are valued over daughters in Indian culture. Just by an accident of birth are boys worshipped while girls are ignored.
My name means "glorious king" and even the common "raj" means king. Very often, women are very disappointed giving birth to girls and simply adore their sons. The over-parenting and emotional closeness between Indian boys/men and their mothers create a dynamic where many stay single a long time or only have a true emotional connection with their mothers.
Anyone who claims that all Indians marry young and have healthy relationships is dreaming. I'm part of this culture and much like Chinese culture, we are very pro-sons and very much anti-daughters. It is a sick system, but it is part of Indian culture.
If Debbie Maken was so ready to marry any Christian, why did she go back to the Indian matchmakers for a momma's boy Indian man? Why not marry a white man? A black man?
Debbie's book is for Indians only.
Vikram Erandawane said...
If Debbie Maken was so ready to marry any Christian, why did she go back to the Indian matchmakers for a momma's boy Indian man? Why not marry a white man? A black man?
An even more pertinent question, at least as regards her book, is this: Why didn't she follow her own advice in her search for a husband? She suggest women hide themselves from men & severely restrict social contact with them, move back home (if possible) and force their parents to manage their personal lives, and otherwise sit there waiting for their prince to come along. Maken did none of these things, instead, with her mother, took a proactive role in finding a husband.
Maken's followers should reconsider the advice she dispenses in this light. If such an approach wasn't good enough for Maken herself, why is she trying to pass it off on others?
Vikram,
If you are going to pretend to be an Indian, please at least pick an Indian last name.
GH
GH,
Shows what little you know. Erandawane is a Marathi name, as in Maharastra State. It's in India if you didn't know.
Of course if you are so much smarter than me, please give me a list of all the "real" Indian names so I'll know which one to "pretend" to be in the future.
GH,
Erandawane is most definitely an indian name. We are from Phaltan District in Poona and there are several families we know named Erandawane.
Actually, there are Erandawane's and Erandavane's with either a "v" or a "w".
Just like there are Barve's and Barwe's. Dixits and Dikshits. Vags and Wags.
I guess you get the picture...
The following is my response to the article. I doubt they will have the nads to publish it.
The problem with marriage is not the way it is presented in jest. The very real problem is that men are always always always castigated for their not taking "responsibility" when they elect to opt out of the institution. There is not one word in the original article nor in any of the responses here about what a wife's responsibility is to a marriage. It's all about what men should be doing for their families.
For many men in ever burgeoning numbers, the question must be asked "What is in it for me?". The answer is not terribly forthcoming. I know of no man who wakes up every day and asks "Gee, what can I do to submerge my identity, squash yet another personal dream or conviction, or otherwise sacrifice my well-being for other people?" It's high time that men be regarded as something more than wage slaves and pack mules for the whims of women, and that they are human beings equal in value to any woman. The laws certainly don't reflect this attitude, and virtually every woman I have ever met has only spoken praise of the man in their lives in terms of what his presence means to them; never about the kind of man he is.
And let us not forget that women joke and chide and admonish men every bit as much as you accuse pastors of doing. The only difference is, women call it empowerment when they do it.
A sensible man would call it mean.
Finally, it is grossly unfair and irresponsible to compare men who seek more out of life with the likes of Scott Peterson. Correct me if I am wrong, but Scott Peterson was married and had a child on the way.
So much for the great prize that is marriage.
The point has been very well made that her book is really a good guide for Indian women trying to find a husband among the many Momma's Boy type Indian men. I think that assessment is accurate.
Her book should have been titled: Converting Momma's Boy into Marriage Material: Rethinking Indian family Dynamics.
Chandana Maken (Indian, but no relation; ;)
What a bunch of racist pricks.
Get a life!
Any man who disagrees with Debbie Maken is a racist!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree Dee.
It seems that if you dare say that people have influences that are effecting the way they are looking at the Bible and church history, then you are accused of hating the people who have those influences.
Of course, to be consistent, we would have to say that Debbie Maken hates everyone in modern western culture, as she thinks that modern western culture is a major cause of "protracted singleness." Right????
Well...I'm asking for consistency, and I don't think I am going to get it from these folks.
God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist
I'm glad to see the discussion is still going on.
I have another example for you. My cousin Abijit was one of the "immature, social skill lacking" men Debbie describes. He was a brilliant engineer and was making a good salary. The problem was his complete lack of interest in playing the "impress the ladies" game.
Finally, his family taught him to wash his hair more than once every two months and be active in meeting women. Before long he met his wife Sarita and now they are married going on four years.
I've been talking about Debbie Maken's book with more Indians and they almost always laugh when I say these silly white women think it's about them. It isn't. It really is a book by an Indian written for Indians.
Too funny!
Vikram Erandawane,
I appriciate your comments. I too have found that much of Debbie Maken's viewpoint comes from Indian culture.
You have to understand, however, that folks like Albert Mohler and James Dobson as well as the folks over on the Boundless blog are actually giving this message to single white and black males. Thus the arrows are heading our way, whether or not it is a valid criticism of us or not. Hence, we have to respond to them.
God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist
PuritanCalvinist (6/26/07 3:31 PM) said:
"You have to understand, however, that folks like Albert Mohler and James Dobson as well as the folks over on the Boundless blog are actually giving this message to single white and black males. Thus the arrows are heading our way, whether or not it is a valid criticism of us or not. Hence, we have to respond to them."
==You know how we avoid their error or any error for that matter? The Word of God. Anyone who takes the Word seriously is not going to fall for Maken's circus theology. Theological and grammatical back flips are entertaining but spiritually dangerous.
As for Mohler and Dobson. I am not a fan of James Dobson and his psychobabble (I will stop there). I do like Dr Mohler but on this issue I have great disagreement with him. I think Mohler's concerns are more sociological then theological.
Martin
I think Mohler's concerns are more sociological then theological.
Indeed, Martin, and therein lies the crux of the problem. If the Marriage Mandate crowd would admit that there concerns were sociological, I could pack up my military gear and go home. But as long as they attempt to speak ex cathedra on behalf of God, then I have to the keep the cannons manned.
Post a Comment
<< Home