Families are important the way molecules are important. They're the first building block to bigger, more complex things. In families we have our first defined roles and responsibilities, which we will need when we form bigger, more complex things.
There is tension about how bonds exist, about whether uniformity is better, in cultures, and there are molecules that are more or less useful to bigger more complex things, but I think the metaphor holds.
My personal take is that it barely matters what atoms the molecule is made of, as long as it holds together and contributes (who evaluates that is tricky) - Quick story: There is an iron mine in the Adirondacks which proved to be a financial bust in the 19th century because there was a persistent impurity they couldn't smelt away. Turned out it was titanium. Metallurgy and cultures need evolution to improve.--
The second facet isn't about families at all. It's about politics. Is the king a lesser king/man because he has children on the wrong side of the bed? Is infidelity a sign of something deeper, like lack of integrity in general. After all, what is marriage other than a contract, a set of public promises? And if you can't keep those, wtf.
This question in isolation isn't really a moving target. Can these men be trusted? In my view, no. Just no. The fundamental selfishness it reveals is anathema to the trust inherent in the office. Does this disqualify Kennedy and Johnson and Bush and Clinton and Trump. Yes.
The moving part of the target is whether it disqualifies Roosevelt. The nature of marriage as an arrangement, either before adulthood where you don't get a vote, or as part of the social contract for Henry VIII, has shifted in terms of the amount of agency someone has as well as the stigma connected to leaving such a contract. (Not, in general, a fan of contracts that last forever. They violate the laws of physics and inhibit evolution).
This breaks our thread into at least two further pieces: The nature of that contract, and the cost of leaving it. To stay to the point, Trump could have easily divorced Melania, as evidenced by his marital history, but he was a liar and slave and chose to cheat instead.
Clinton had no history of breaking contracts, probably should have.
So far, I have omitted a rather important variable: Her choice.
The structural error is that in a country founded on separation of church and state, we let the church be our primary broker of marriage. It brings in all sorts of unpleasant baggage in order to do that. It was an oversight of men for whom fidelity was a variable, personal choice, but for whom, generally public contracts were important. Disengagement from church involvement would instantly make clear many of our marriage conflicts. Racial, gender, etc issues would evaporate, at least in the law.
I don't have a good metaphor for the kind of solution/media we atoms and molecules are surrounded by, but it absolutely encourages some reactions while discouraging others. Mostly without regard for how productive they will be.Statistics: Posted by bralbovsky — Sun May 06, 2018 10:27 am
]]>