🙦 The leaves have not quite fallen yet, but this month we celebrate the inner autumn of the soul. All things fade and die! Hurrah! Poems: Trickertreat — Ava Hixson; Albion — Michael Thomas Jones Essays: Some Reflections on the Dating Culture — Nathan Stenzel
I think you excelled in your point about "wife hunting" not being itself a problem. I am told (I cannot access it myself) that the original article spent a long time on the other two points - career interruption and extended dating. While I agree with your rebuttal on those topics, these rebuttals are disproportionately brief, consisting only of the 2nd to last paragraph. Brevity, however, was your friend - it always is when responding to rants. Perhaps you could have more evenly distributed your arguments in the same short space?
I also think you gave an exaggerated dismissal of the flaws at some points which clearly contradicted other statements where you rightly acknowledged these flaws. For instance when you say "these flaws, real or imagined, are simply the byproducts of a correctly-oriented dating culture." Real or imagined? You should not introduce the notion that these flaws are imaginary. You yourself do not believe they are imaginary. The admission that, 'yes, there are flaws,' builds your credibility and proves you are not ranting. Excess is, after all, the very thing you are saying is wrong.
Thank you for this essay. It was a joy to read, and I think that despite possible flaws, your response is overall, like NSA dating culture, very healthy.
Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful interaction. You may be right about the proportions of my arguments—I probably could have spent more time on the other two points (derailed careers and truncated engagements). I would, however, have said many of the same things that I'd already said about the "wife hunters," so I decided to leave it there.
Best part:
"Nathan Stenzel is a junior at New Saint Andrews College and a former wife hunter. His wife hunt was successful."
Mr. Stenzel, your argument is very good.
I think you excelled in your point about "wife hunting" not being itself a problem. I am told (I cannot access it myself) that the original article spent a long time on the other two points - career interruption and extended dating. While I agree with your rebuttal on those topics, these rebuttals are disproportionately brief, consisting only of the 2nd to last paragraph. Brevity, however, was your friend - it always is when responding to rants. Perhaps you could have more evenly distributed your arguments in the same short space?
I also think you gave an exaggerated dismissal of the flaws at some points which clearly contradicted other statements where you rightly acknowledged these flaws. For instance when you say "these flaws, real or imagined, are simply the byproducts of a correctly-oriented dating culture." Real or imagined? You should not introduce the notion that these flaws are imaginary. You yourself do not believe they are imaginary. The admission that, 'yes, there are flaws,' builds your credibility and proves you are not ranting. Excess is, after all, the very thing you are saying is wrong.
Thank you for this essay. It was a joy to read, and I think that despite possible flaws, your response is overall, like NSA dating culture, very healthy.
Brutus -
Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful interaction. You may be right about the proportions of my arguments—I probably could have spent more time on the other two points (derailed careers and truncated engagements). I would, however, have said many of the same things that I'd already said about the "wife hunters," so I decided to leave it there.
Thanks for reading!
Nathan Stenzel