A Follow-Up: Finger Prints on Wedding-Bands

A follow-up was finally made to the issue I discussed awhile ago in the post Fingerprints on Wedding Bands (I/II). In that post I contemplated the fact that marriage taken out of its designer’s context—Christ’s—is quite redundant because it is the union of two lives as one and not simply a contract. With the ideal of evolution, it seems odd that people would evolve to develop such a “conservative” public status as marriage even beside the fact that there are only two genders. The desire to be so committed to one person seems far too credible and if anything—farther evolved than what we even would be at this point in the culture of an evolved humanity. Considering the fact that society is agreeably and curtly becoming more and more “secular” as a general rule and partially supported by the fact that homosexuality is becoming legalized. Relationships are occurring out of wed-lock where a couple abides together and perhaps have sexual relations before they are married.                                                                        
             What I learned is that this is a supported, integral claim. My youth pastor brought up the point to me that marriage among the state is really more of an issue about concrete situations like dependence with insurance living and what not. Really, it is true that our marriage licenses are simply files of the government. In terms of the original American government establishment in relation to legalized issues such as marriage licensing, it is historically accurate that it be a Government Issue because America was founded “under God” (and protestant ideals). Marriage isn’t simply the physical agreement of commitment (or whatever marriage entails under secular belief), but it is rather an agreement and undefiled commitment ordained and publically declared under God.
              If we were to zoom into the future and assume that gay rights were passed in all states and that people of any age could be married……

Social Skills in the Making? II

During that era were the first experiences of child glorification. Parents of the baby-boomers who grew up during WWII were products of a war-time economy where a paternal figure was lacking in the lives of many who were fighting continentally. When the war’s ceased and the economy was rejuvenated—for many in their consciousness and lifetime, the economy was made favorable and the nation broke into a passionate state of love with an abundance of children as the product. Ever-instilled hard work ethic meant that large, nuclear families could thrive with the mother at home. That was the first point in American culture where children became glorified. That point in time marked the beginning of advertisement as it stands and is ever-revolutionizing toward today which is so geared toward teenagers. Entertainment was becoming more and more family oriented. With the out-break of television, cartoons became an obvious craze consuming a great amount of broadcast time. The nuclear family with the stay-at-home mom who would devote all of herself to raising her children was now no longer a luxury but a social expectation.

Although the coining of Dr. Sears’ term did not occur until several decades proceeding, attached parenting began with the start of a cultural revolution where children and teenagers propel culture. Perhaps this is the result of attached parenting that Sears either expected or that occurred in effect of those aspects of Sears’ideal that have yet to be discovered. It will be interesting to see how these play out in adult culture as these generations from the seventies on will contain characteristics exclusive to this style of up-bringing. I would be just as curious to find out whether this style will become more or less popularized, especially as it is used by people who aren’t even aware of attached-parenting as a practice. This lends to the fact that it is probably becoming more and more ingrained in culture.

Social Skills in the Making? I

As a bit of a follow-up to my thoughts on feminism which favored the claims of a society shifting to a less specified feminine, gentle, and maternal figure being that undoubtedly of the woman, I came across a time article about Dr. Sears and his idea about attachment parenting. In the 1970’s, he published a bestselling book which caught the attention of many mother’s making them aware of a parenting—or rather, mothering—which was to support better child development. It created a standard which almost required women to commit to a stay-at-home lifestyle spent completely devoted to children to the point of complete attachment, and literally too. Since then, a few scientific discoveries proved some of Sears’ ideal wrong, but many remain strongly supported if not 100% proven. Near constant sling carrying, advanced-stage breast-feeding (beyond 6 months), and frequent night crashes in the parents’ bed are all aspects of Sears’ plan. These things are supposed to contribute to better social skills. 20 percent of parents follow this routine today, which may either be a large surprise or none at all. I think most parents practice what would be considered a partial variation of this—which in fact has an official term, which I am oblivious to at the moment. It is probably Sears’ most effective extreme which is least likely to seem appealing to most people. Yet the minority is quite existent and surprising in its quantity, especially with the modern –day working mom. Despite the spoilage of the baby-boomers come the fifties, it would seem “feminism” chased maternal closeness from common-hood.

The Clash of Modern-day Culture's Opponents Two

 The single identifier that created conclusiveness to my claim were the recent and honest comments attached to an active video which is currently a hit music title. Interestingly enough, the song was one of a few that had probably made it on the charts by way of the hipster category of people. It was selected—according to the majority of the comments as well as from personal experience and my own public observation—for its genuine, timeless music quality, interesting and dynamic tune, as well as for uniqueness and probably its lyrics alongside. As has this been the basis of selection for most of these seemingly unlikely, but reasonably credible hits. Anyway, the comments on the page seemed a typical battle for this situation between “mainstreamers” and “hipsters”. The top comments included several which were blunt and that evaded the attack of the mainstreamer, but which used counter to show favor to the hipster reasoning for partiality to the catchy music. Others are less persuasive, grammatically accurate and their authors simply object to bring peace to the dispute and which encourage listeners to enjoy the music amongst one another’s difference in view on the object of shared likeness. Then there are the commentators who are clearly high strung on the music and, expressing their newfound love in the music. The difference between them—and this situation appears on many of the videos of songs which fit this profile—is that the ones whom would label themselves hipster are sincere about the music, and have and will continue to be. The carefree, lustful comments are representative of those who discovered the music by way of the true praise and popularity the song gained by listeners who could appreciate and recognize the quality of the music. They would discover it because of the rage over it and then become tasteful toward it for that reason and not because of the music itself.

With that as both an example of opposing aspects between the two types on a subject that is very relevant, and as an analogy also, most situations to follow may be fairly easy to differentiate about this same process. Perhaps it would not be even obvious to select these two types as the opposing, single people groups. Never the less, it may be idealized.

The Clash of Modern-Day Culture's Opponents

Well I think that I’ve come to a general conclusion about America in terms of society (As cliché as this is for the fact that this diary of internet essay’s is themed by society, I do not claim to have figured people-and-the-most-important-thing-about-them-that-most-seem-to-want-to-know out). I will state plainly my thesis: the new generation is divided whether equally or not into “hipsters” and mainstream. Now this is an interesting debate here because using the term hipster as a type is completely contradictory to its definition, which is to be odd and edgy to a point of slight discomfort, but mainly for the hope of being different and not nearly as much for the pain of it. The latter is hardly independent of the former. Mainstream by definition, also loses its meaning in this context when compared side-by-side with the term “hipster”, because if the two do indeed take equal symbiosis to the other, then mainstream is not a majority type as its coining intended to specify. 

Even the same, I examine these two from a point of equal insight and on behalf of both selections. As far as the ratio of them in the population, I do not know as I have become aware of a distinguishing  factor among society favoring these groups. Then again, it may be that I see them as prevalent divisions because coming of possible currency, or because I am in the midst of transferring to the other side of that which I used to maintain as sole. With some consideration to that possibility, I remain unbiased—also supported by my impartiality.

The Effect of Feminism on Chivalry iiiil

Most effectively of all, even aside from the way that the revolution of women has played on the general aura between the two sexes and the way that has transcribed in powers of relationships, is the physiological effect and thus the attitude and role of males. In society, men are typically stereotyped as lazy, sarcastic, and brain-less. Not to mention specific situations such as where a man gives in to his demanding, controlling wife —a characteristic of the modern-day female stereotype— without hesitant comply, and is immediately considered “whipped”. Along those lines, it should barely matter that a man be the underdog in the relationship between him and a woman, because he hardly interested in anything more than sex. Although these claims and types are not true half of the time, there is a reason for their presence in modern societal perspective. How true and prevalent these ideas are is not for sure, but the one thing that is for sure is that they are completely contradictory to the design of humanity in specificity to males.  

As men are to be protectors, providers, and preservers as well as the leader among a relationship with a woman, they are often taken out of context for that which they are absolutely intended to be. Especially with the rise in homosexuality, the role of a man has become quite warped. However, it isn’t to say that chivalry is extinct. In fact I believe that chivalry in a man is a very distinct aspect. Even though men can and have attained the stereotypes which they have in addition to their actual terms as lazy or possessing, it is only because of the certain wealth which males are formulated with which is wonderful in assuming the strength and solid presence they are supposed to, its just that the magnitude of which can be taken in the absolute opposite direction so that it is more of a harm than the wonderful, effective good that it ought to be. In fact, chivalry is nowhere near extinct, just wrongly focused; there are many men who are gentlemen today. I am actually surprised by the amount and quality of chivalry among my own younger generation especially, at present. And it isn’t even to say that women are complete, control-freaks and petty, demanding, horrors, which would seem the extreme required to create that described by the male stereotype mentioned, but I believe that with this almost the case as a general rule, the men who truly want to be the man they are made to be, will assume that position. I give props to many guys who have probably only by training themselves to do so, have stepped up to their position aside from the distractions that surround them in modern day culture as chivalrous men.