The Sanctity of Marriage
by Giulianna LamannaNo matter what topic you’re researching, the Internet is guaranteed to supply you with a goldmine of completely unsupported and inaccurate information on the subject. If wedding traditions are any different from other subjects in this regard, it’s only because the amount of bad information increases - and then goes on to grace the pages of infinite, expensive, well-packaged fluff books. The origin of the wedding ring in particular is frequently explained - sometimes seriously, sometimes as a joke - as a remnant of barbaric primitive times, in which horny cavemen kidnapped helpless, unsuspecting maidens and tied their feet together so they couldn’t escape. The story usually continues to claim something along the lines of the woman’s feet first being bound together by vine, then by wood, then by iron, then by bronze, then by silver, then by gold. And of course, by that time, civilization has become so advanced and pro-woman (unlike those violent, anti-feminist foragers) that the shackles have now become delicate gold rings.
Naturally, there’s absolutely no evidence for any of this, and, in fact, the evidence that exists contradicts the idea of a stupid, violent caveman dragging a woman back to his cave by her hair. On the contrary, the typical foragers are notably egalitarian and peaceful, particularly when compared to our civilization. But to someone indoctrinated to believe in the idea of “progress,” (a currently acceptable remnant of social Darwinism), it feels right. It feels like it makes sense, because that’s the story we’ve all been told: we started out as stupid, violent, barbaric foragers who tied our slave-women’s feet together with vines. Then, slowly, we became nicer and gentler and more cultured and came up with better, more efficient ways to reign in the people we enslaved. And then! Well, then we just got so gosh-darned smart and nice and wonderful that we decided that it was wrong to enslave people at all! And the shackles became rings that women wore voluntarily, because they just loved these new enlightened civilized men so gosh-darned much.
This is the kind of assumption that makes some otherwise well-read anarchists like Adrien Rain Burke believe that marriage is an inherently patriarchal institution. I reject this common (among leftists) stance for a number of reasons. For one, marriage is found in every society ever studied, patriarchal or not. The institution of marriage has traditionally been patriarchal in our society because our society is patriarchal. Look outside our culture and you will find many of the same institutions - family, religion, etc. - practiced very differently. And for each society, theirs is the only proper way of doing things. Marriage equals our culture’s marriage; everything else is just demented babbling.
In this way, getting married can be seen as implying your approval of your culture’s definition of marriage. Since getting engaged, I’ve noticed that I’m suddenly seen as allied with people whom I’d rather not have anything to do with. While looking for baking pans at Giant Eagle, a nearby woman notices my ring and notices the aisle I’m in and starts singing my praises. How wonderful that I’m getting married, even during these dark times when those filthy liberals and perverted homosexuals are trying to destroy America’s families. How proud she is of a good godly girl like me, who saves herself for submissive Christian wifehood even though maybe her boyfriend can’t afford a proper diamond ring (I swear to God, she actually said this), and so on and so forth. And I think, lady, if you’d met me before I got engaged, you would have labeled me a terrorist-loving, tree-hugging, fag-enabling feminazi. But now that I have bling, suddenly I’m the vanguard of conservative Christian values. Of course, I don’t actually think that as she’s ranting at me. My mind reels, and then I leave the store, and then I come up with some really hilarious one-liners as I’m walking back home. Somehow, people like this woman haven’t turned me off from marriage entirely. Meanwhile, others look at the history of civilized marriage and the cultural expectations connected to it and reject the entire idea of marriage as - well, as exactly what Crazy Giant Eagle Woman thinks it is.
Maybe it’s because I was raised a liberal, with a salvationist view of “progress,” that I can separate the idea of marriage from the practice of it. The argument goes something like this: not too long ago, marriage was little more than the exchange of a woman from man to man, with the bride having no say in what was going on. Now look - marriage has become a union of love, with both parties having equal say in the matter. There are still a few kinks to work out, but mainly, it’s getting better and better, and it’s going to continue getting better until it’s absolutely perfect and everyone’s equal in every way.” The fictional history of wedding rings from vines to gold echoes this sentiment. Though I now see the concept of “progress” for the wrongheaded, racist idea that it is, I still see marriage as something to be changed - or, if necessary, reinvented - rather than tossed out entirely.
It was this desire to bring a little tribal egalitarianism into civilization’s version of marriage that led to me researching the origins of various wedding traditions - and finding only cutesy non-answers like the one that starts off this article. Not only does the wedding mark the beginning of a marriage, but it provides a reflection of everything a given culture believes about what marriage means. I wanted to know what everything - white dress, veil, cake, flowers - represented so I could know what to keep and what to throw out. I know little more now than I did before I started doing the research, and I’ve come to virtually no conclusions except that conservatives and anarchists both fall for utter lies about where various wedding traditions came from.
It’s very difficult to redefine an inherently conservative institution; to replace your culture’s definition of something with one you prefer. But it’s vitally important for me - and everyone else in the tribe of Anthropik - to do just that. So that’s what I’ll do. And although getting married may imply my approval to some people, redefining marriage through my own actions makes more sense to me than boycotting marriage because it’s not presently what I want it to be. Lucy Stone, an early feminist, understood this when she married Henry Blackwell in 1855. Together they drafted an announcement that was read at their wedding, which outlined essentially everything I want to say about my own marriage (fast-forwarded a century and a half, of course) just in its first sentence:
While we acknowledge our mutual affection by publicly assuming the relationship of husband and wife, yet, in justice to ourselves and a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to, … the present laws of marriage…
Although it feels good to pointedly not get married in protest of the current marriage laws (the way it feels right that wedding rings would follow man’s ascent from brutality to civility), it ultimately accomplishes nothing. Wait, I take that back - it deprives you of 1,049 federal rights, benefits, and privileges. (I like anything that will give you the opportunity to declare your love and leech off the government simultaneously.) Alternatively, getting married can give you street cred, so to speak, when you fight for greater equality in marriage. When a single person argues that the institution of marriage isn’t harmed by the inclusion of gays and lesbians, what does it mean to conservatives arguing the opposing position? What would a single person know about marriage? It’s far more effective for a married couple to cut in and say, “That’s bull and you know it. Our marriage isn’t harmed by this and you know it. So why don’t you tell us the real reason you’re protesting this.” (A humorous example of this was published last year, in the form of a blog post written by Brad Hall and Julia Louis-Dreyfus.)
Although Adrien Rain Burke entitled her article, “The Anarchists’ Wedding Guide,” implying that no anarchist would ever have anything to do with weddings or legal marriages, I stand by all the social and political implications of my marriage. When people like Jason and me enter any conservative institution, it changes automatically (for the better, in my opinion). If all of us threw the baby out with the bathwater, the baby would never get any cleaner.
I have heard there are matriarchal cultures. I think the person said they were in the Amazon or something. I don’t know if that’s true. She said the men have to focus on looking good I guess by being muscular and the women don’t care what they look like.
I also heard that different primitive societies have different tendencies of pairings. Tropical ones have more polygamist relationships. Ones farther from the equator have monogamous ones because they have to in winter to take care of the baby. Probably heard it here. I don’t know.
It’s a paltry squabble about “defending marriage” and all seeing as society is about to collapse, but I’m still interested and get insensed when I hear like a radio commentator say something about these political things even though it doesn’t matter because of that. They defend it by saying it’s a benefit to society because it brings a consumer/producer into the world. Well, your kids I’m sure will be real consumer/producers in the world in the natural sense instead of the economic, as you help them find their ecological niche in life and carry your forethoughtful, surviving genes to mix into the resilient and strong and beautiful tapestry of humanity left in the world.
Comment by planetwarming — 19 January 2006 @ 11:41 PM
And there are other matriarchal cultures where the women own everything and thus get lumbered with doing all the work, whereas the guys just bludge about hoping to cadge a meal and a shag. (In China, the Mosuo). Matriarchy sounds good, huh, guys? I just can’t understand why there are so many supporters of patriarchy about with deals like that going.
Seriously though, marriage in our culture is exceptionally hard work, perhaps because we have overlaid the reality (the creation of a production/consumption unit)with so much touchy-feely romantic BS that will not bear the touch of long work weeks, children, demented consumption binges, overdue bills, and so on. I have now reached the considered opinion that all ‘romantic’ entertainment content should be supressed as vigourously as porn used to be - impressionable young minds just should not see that sort of crap. They should see (our) marriage stripped bare for what it really is: capitalist industrial society getting cheaply maintained current and future workers.
The really weird thing is that as we are growing up, all of us have living examples of how horrible it is, in our parents and our friends’ parents. But somehow most of us manage to conclude that they are just sad middle-aged f*ckups, and we won’t turn out like that when we get married. Well guess again, suckers. There’s a reason those people turned out sad middle-aged f*ckups, and it’s called ‘marriage’.
I say all this fresh from the aftereffects of yet another vile and pointless argument with my SO at three in the morning…
Comment by Eric — 20 January 2006 @ 1:41 AM
And with mallards the guys gets all gussied up in vibrant colors and the girls sit around all drab. If anything our current standing of the girls attracting the guys is the oddity, both among humans and among many species. The male having to attract the female makes a lot of sense when you remember the equipment that comes attached.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 20 January 2006 @ 1:52 AM
If you mean the female contains the egg and this is a precious resource that needs to be competed for… we get this reversed through the institution of patriarchal property. With us, ‘The equipment that comes attached’ is money. Hence, the girls compete for the guys. Beautiful women are much more common than even small or piddling fortunes, after all.
Comment by Eric — 20 January 2006 @ 2:23 AM
“The really weird thing is that as we are growing up, all of us have living examples of how horrible it is, in our parents and our friends’ parents. But somehow most of us manage to conclude that they are just sad middle-aged f*ckups, and we won’t turn out like that when we get married. Well guess again, suckers. There’s a reason those people turned out sad middle-aged f*ckups, and it’s called ‘marriage’.”
Do you really think the marriage changes you, or does it just bring out those parts of you that you’d rather not see, as does any close relationship. My parents have a pretty damn healthy relationship, sure they fought when I was a kid, but not really all that much, and most of their fighting was instigated in some way by me. I recently returned to live with them for three months, with my new wife in fact. Yes it was hell for me, but not because they had a bad marriage (it just wasn’t any fun living at home again, for a number of reasons. They almost never fight now.
Even though they are both deeply immersed in the system and are sickening workaholics (my mom works 60 hours a week and then comes home and does constant home-improvement projects) they have a great relationship. Rather than taking their stress out on eachother, they help release it. In fact, their healthy marriage is probably the only reason my mother hasn’t suffered a total nervous breakdown or died of a stress related illness. They are a living example of a great marriage, and I can’t say that mine compares so far, but that is completely my fault, not the result of my upbringing, or the institution of marriage. In the end, marriage, as with most of life, is what we choose to make of it.
I guess that is just a really long winded way to say, take some responsibility for your own mental space. It is not the marriage that is flawed, but the way you relate to your wife.
Marriage can be a powerful and sacred union. Turn it into spiritual practice, i.e. in communion with your spouse, you will find true union with yourself and god, for in the end “I am Thou”
Oh, and Giuliana, don’t get so worried about the meaning of different parts of the ritual, especially if nobody remembers what they originally stood for. Symbols mean exactly what we percieve them to mean, so pick what you like and let it symbolize anything you want. My personal advice would be to keep anything you don’t explicitly dislike. Why, you ask? Though your conscious, rational, intellectual mind may not believe in any given symbol, your unconscious mind is much less flexible and is still powerfully influenced by any indoctrination you received as a child. You’ve got to keep it happy too, and it thrives on ritual and symbol, which were encoded more deeply than you realize earlier than you might have thought.
Another interesting note, I am currently in Central Illinois. Even in this bastion of the Christian right my wife never got that kind of approach (crazy giant eagle lady), but my guess is that it’s because she is only 1/4 northern european (the rest being hawaiian, japanese and portuguese). When my daughter was born the nurse asked my wife “Are you black or hispanic?” When I told her the mix she said, “Oh, white.” I said not really, but she informed me that the only distinction made for that particular birth record was black or white, and up to 1/32 black was recorded as black. Not really related, but kind of strange.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 2:42 AM
I wouldn’t say that the women have to do all the work of attracting mates in this culture either. Do a poll sometime, who has an easier time getting laid, women or men. Even relatively unattractive women can get sex pretty much whenever they want, it just won’t be with the NBA star in his new NSX.
The difference is guys don’t need to worry as much about how their body looks, they just have to worry about how expensive their clothes and car and house look. How many guys would drive porsches if it was easier to get laid in a Geo Metro?
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 2:48 AM
The real question is how much would the Geo Metro cost?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 20 January 2006 @ 5:26 AM
Limukala, I believe you are quite wrong on this. Divorce rates in the US are, what, fifty percent? This is because people do not take responsibility for their mental space? Or is it because the institution is deeply and severely flawed (like many of our social institutions are)? Remember that marriage as it exists for us moderns is particularly weird. I think it is quite out of place to suggest that problems individuals experience with marriage arise from an improper mental adjustment on their part. This is analogous to saying that someone who hates industrial-era work simply has an attitude problem and has to get with the program. By the fact that you are browsing this site, I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with that kind of proposition when it comes to work relations, so I don’t see why you accept it for marriage.
Unrelated to your points, it has just occurred to me that marriage is not a social universal. I understand there were many societies in the past where there was no marriage (the male contribution to child-rearing was provided by the maternal uncle).
Comment by Eric — 20 January 2006 @ 8:08 AM
I read an article about in a primitive tribe in Africa the men let the babies suckle their nipples when the mother is away. I guess that’s why we have nipples too maybe. To assist and form a bond even though it doesn’t have a physical utility. It soothes the baby until they can be fed. I guess the modern replacement is the pacifier. Interesting.
http://www.afrol.com/articles/16592
Comment by planetwarming — 20 January 2006 @ 9:54 AM
There was a theory, developed by nineteenth-century social theorists, that matriarchy was one of the earliest “stages” of human society. The thinking of early anthropologists was heavily influenced by this, and they would often identify matrilineal societies as being matriarchal, when they were in fact egalitarian or patriarchal. (Of course, it didn’t help that these anthropologists were coming from a particularly oppressive patriarchal society, so anything less extreme than what they had must have seemed like it was run by women.)
A true matriarchy has never been studied by Europeans. It may be that one once existed and we killed them off before the idea of anthropology was invented. It may be that they were killed off before we even got to their land. But most respectable scholars will agree that matriarchy is absent from every society we’ve studied.
I think the culture you’re thinking of is the Tchambuli of New Guinea… right? The fact that the men acted more like our culture’s women and the women acted more like our culture’s men doesn’t imply that the women were in control. We associate those traits with being in power because those are the traits we currently expect men in power to have. What if the Tchambuli had been discovered in the 1700s? It would have been no shock at all - a patriarchy for sure. Of course the men would be concerned about their appearances and be sensitive and emotional and write poetry! That’s the nature of a man.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 10:27 AM
Actually… well, yes. That’s exactly what I’d argue. You present THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE as some monolithic being that can come into your home and beat you up or something. But it’s not. Marriages are made up of people. A marriage is a relationship. Would you say that because many friendships eventually fall apart, the concept of The Friendship is inherently flawed and any acquaintences that stupidly decide to become friends are doomed to failure?
Actually, I think you hit it on the head when you started talking about love and romance. I think oftentimes the reason that some marriages don’t work out is because the two partners have been trained to expect constant lovey-dovey ecstasy and no hardships at all. That, and there’s a cultural expectation of marriage. If you’re not married by a certain age, there’s something terribly wrong with you (especially if you’re a woman) and people start asking questions. Whereas when you get married, people start showering you with the praise and love and appreciation (Crazy Giant Eagle Woman) that is otherwise so lacking. So people may marry someone they’re infatuated with for no other reason than to fulfill cultural expectation and to feel like they can have a nice Hollywood ending. Of course, not nearly all marriages that end in divorce start like that. Like friendships, sometimes the married people simply drift apart. Sometimes they change in ways that don’t necessarily complement each other. Sometimes one becomes abusive. But I digress.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that rate of divorce is not necessarily rate of failure unless the purpose of marriage is to stay together for a lifetime, happy or not. Really, that’s only a virtue in cultures that obsess over virginity and the evils of sex. (Or cultures for whom marriage is largely a way of securing economic or political power.) I’m much more fond of the neo-pagan concept of handfasting, in which two people can vow to stay together for a year and a day, or five years, or ten years, or an entire lifetime, or anything else they can come up with. “Till death do us part” is not a vow that most people are capable of making, especially now that we live so much longer. But I’m not about to run around telling a bunch of newlyweds that they’re probably going to split any more than I’m going to run around telling small children that guess what? You’re NOT going to be “Best Friends Forever”!!! HAHAHA!!! Little bitches!!!
Um… every anthro book I have ever read completely contradicts that statement.
Could you name them, please? If not for me, than for all those anthropologists going around claiming that marriage is a cultural universal.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 10:45 AM
Hey –
Actually Guili, I think that is correct — that not all societies have ‘marriage’. Jason, for one, is fond of commenting on the New Guinea culture where everyone lives relatively solitary lives, leaving thier children to fend for themselves after age three… Jason, help me out here?
Aside from that one aberration, I think you can say that all societies have some sort of bonding structure to enable effective childrearing. In most cases, this is some sort of marriage, but there a few other variations. Unfortunately, I have to leave the ‘evidence’ to someone else, because all I know is that I have been pounded with contrary examples when I tried to claim marriage as universal
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 January 2006 @ 11:05 AM
It’s not. There’s never been a matriarchal society. There are matrilineal societies, and matrilocal societies, but no matriarchal societies. Some feminists like to construe egalitarian cultures as “matriarchal,” but that’s just a misrepresentation of what “matriarchy” means. I’m something of a feminist myself, but it’s not the pater that offends me nearly as much as the archy–a matriarchy is equally and oppositely bad. But, none has ever been documented, and claims otherwise have more to do with First World politics than anthrpological reality.
Now that is true, though it has less to do with latitude than how you make your living (though, that is somewhat influenced by latitude, isn’t it?). There’s even a very few number of polyandrous cultures–but they’re all pastoralists.
The root of all misogyny reveals itself once more.
Bingo.
I think it’s because so many people enter a marriage with unrealistic notions. We have this idea that love is all fireworks and butterflies, that indescribable “spark.” Well–that fades. We think love is something that “happens” to us, and one day, it stops “happening.” So, we start towards divorce.
I don’t believe that. Fireworks and butterflies are nice–and Giuli & I have plenty of them, thank you very much–but they don’t last. They never last. They can’t. I think it was Michael who told me once, love is an emotion–and emotions come and go. I’m sure there will be fireworks when Giuli & I are 50 every once in a while, too, but even now, there are times I come home tired and cranky.
But “being in love,” if it means anything at all, indicates a choice. I wake up every morning, and for a few seconds between the Dreamtime and entering Meatspace, I have to remember all that I am. And when I roll over and see Giuli lying next to me, I decide to remember how much she means to me–and I decide to be in love with her for one more day. If that ever changes, it’s not because some magical force withdrew itself from me–it happened because I decided not to be in love with her anymore.
To me, marriage is just a commitment to make that choice every morning the same way, and no matter what else might happen, that’s a promise I can honestly make.
Your example is true, but irrelevant. Ideas of what marriage means vary widely, but every known culture has some form of it. Polygamy or monogamy of every kind; serial monogamy; gay marriges … but all of them are marriages. In many, many cultures, the primary disciplinary duties fall to the maternal uncle, but the parents are still usually married.
That, and, everything my beautiful blushing bride said with far more grace and eloquence.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 11:27 AM
I think you mean the Ik, of Uganda. They don’t really have any functional tribal or village life left. The only level of society they really respect is, well, the married couple. They kick their kids out, but they do get married.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 11:29 AM
If you can’t promise to stay with your partner for the rest of your life, then what’s the point of marriage? If all you’re saying is, “I vow to stay with you until I get bored and find someone else,” then nothing’s really changed, so there’s no reason for a wedding.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 11:45 AM
I’d argue that, if nothing else, at least it’s more honest than promising to stay together for the rest of your life, then not doing it. But you’re right - it’s not really a good thing in and of itself, is it?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 11:47 AM
Hey –
Jason — Hmmm… okay, my bad
Mike — this is a little off the beaten path, but there is a fantasy fiction author that I read one time with an ‘elven marriage’ ceremony. Obviously, in that context, its a little different as the particular elves are immortal, but nonetheless…
In the ceremony, the couple pledges to support on e another in all things so long as thier paths continue to coincide. Personally, I like that idea in that it acknowldeges that not one of us can say for sure who we might be next year, next decade, much less in fifty years. So wherein lies the greater (and more reasonable) promise… you can say A) I’ll stay with you til I die, even if we hate each other… or you say B) so long as we are together, I will devote myself to your needs, keep your trust, do all that I can to be honest, forthcoming and involved…
I prefer B).
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 January 2006 @ 11:52 AM
Actually, that’s a good point. What is the point of marriage? Is it just to stay together until you die, even if neither of you is happy, or does it have more to do with treating each other well?
Handfasting is also more restrictive than the fantasy “elven marriage” vow that Janene mentioned, because a handfasting couple is not just promising to treat each other well until they separate, but also promising to stay together for an agreed period of time. (One year, five years, ten years, twenty years, etc.) There’s no guarantee that a couple promising to stay together for, say, ten years won’t start to dislike each other after three years. So it’s not quite the same thing.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 12:18 PM
The point of marriage is that you always know who your mother is–there’s always a question about the father. Every male has a secret, genetic terror of being cuckolded–because if you are, you run the risk of spending your time and resources looking after the survival of somone else’s genes. Marriage is all about the virginity and such because it’s the closest thing to a guarantee a man can get that he’s not being played for a fool, and his whole life isn’t being used for someone else’s gain. Which is pretty hefty stuff.
Handfasting is a good option to have on the table. This is why Jesus said people shouldn’t get married–because so few are up to making a promise like that. But I don’t think handfasting should be the only option. Handfasting should probably be used more commonly than marriage, since so few are ready for that, but for those who are able to make that kind of commitment, then we should be able to recognize that as a different class altogether.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 12:25 PM
Well, eric, everyone else already did a good job, so all I need to say is that there is a big difference between your job and a personal relationship, and that is choice. Most people don’t have a whole lot of choice regarding there work environment. That’s the nature of hierarchy. In a personal relationship between two equals, the quality of that relationship is entirely the product of choice. Marriage is exactly what you make it. The decisions you make are probably influenced by the culture you are in and the history of the institution of marriage, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your own behavior. (I’m not trying to say I’m perfect or that I’ve found marriage easy, but by blaming the problem on society, you avoid the issue and more importantly, give up any chance of a healthy relationship).
btw, I don’t think I said this yet
CONGRATS Jason and Giuli.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 12:58 PM
I’ve been hearing a lot over the past few years of a marriage strike by males in both the USA and Canada. Apparently Gen X and Y males are beginning to view marriage as basically a no-win proposition for themselves. From personal experience, I’d agree that marriage is not all that it’s cracked up to be. The novelty wears off quite quickly. I also don’t know very many happily married men. (In fact, I can’t think of any at the moment.)
In The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell observes that single men tend to look a lot younger than their married counterparts of the same age. There are very good reasons for this.
After a few years of marriage you feel as if you’d give almost anything for a good night’s sleep in your own bed and the ability to have some quality “me time” in the evenings, without being constantly disturbed.
I have come to classify people into two basic categories. There are those, such as myself, who really appreciate solitude at times. Then there are those who are constitutionally incapable of being alone for more than 5 minutes at a time. The latter always manage to have another to share their misery with.
If we’re honest, we have to admit that all relationships have finite shelf-lives. It’s unrealistic to expect them to last forever.
Comment by Peter — 20 January 2006 @ 1:02 PM
Well, if you want to go all the way back…
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 1:03 PM
Peter: Like Eric, you’re painting every marriage with a single broad brush and blaming the concept of marriage rather than the people that are involved. If a man can’t have some quality “me” time in the evenings without being disturbed, how is this the fault of The Institution of Marriage? Isn’t it more the fault of the wife for constantly bothering him instead of taking up a hobby of her own? Or both of their faults for marrying each other even though their personalities clash dramatically?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 1:07 PM
Let’s not forget that, in spite of all the talk about how sexist and patriarchal marriage is, the whole point is to take care of women. The consequences of marriage have to be permanent so that men can’t just say, “Our paths no longer coincide,” or in non-fantasy terms, “I like you, but there’s this hot piece of ass over there who looks better in a bikini than you do,” and leave their wives destitute.
Frankly, women have a hard enough time in our society. We could probably do without putting the idea in the heads of all of my old friends’ new husbands that those vows they took don’t really count. If it were up to me nobody would get married. But if you’re going to take those vows you damn well better mean them. We’re not talking about high school romances, deciding to go steady, or giving your girl a damn promise ring. Marriage is the big time. And if you’re not cut out for it, then you have no business getting in the game to begin with.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 1:08 PM
Once again, that’s true in patriarchal societies (i.e., societies that don’t allow women to earn their own living outside the home), but in forager societies everyone shares everything anyway, so a married woman isn’t any more or less supported than a non-married woman. To say that the “whole point” of marriage is to take care of women ignores forager societies - the kind of societies that we’re trying to create.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 1:33 PM
Giulianna,
I had an odd experience two Decembers ago with a male friend of 18 years.
Before I get into that, let me say that I have seen many relationships end because one or both partners became bored with the other over time. I have even had a relationship or two end because I had apparently “become boring”. (I confess that this is true. The ideal evening for me, in most cases, consists of reading on the sofa.) So I have come to view simple boredom as one of the more popular reasons women use to leave marriages and relationships. I don’t hear men leaving due to boredom. Maybe they do leave from boredom but call it something else?
Now back to my opening point. Last December I had a fight with this long term male friend and decided that there was no point in trying to resuscitate the friendship. Why? It had grown boring over time! Over the years we had turned into a straight male version of one of those constantly bickering old married couples that stays together simply out of habit. I felt a genuine sense of relief when I was finally honest enough to admit to myself that I didn’t want this friendship any longer. It had become a constant source of minor irritations and petty arguments.
Like I said, most relationships have a fixed shelf-life. Enjoy them while you can but don’t try to hold onto them after they sour.
Comment by Peter — 20 January 2006 @ 1:40 PM
Ah, the mysteries of marriage…
I can’t help but wonder, given the great breadth of differences out there, if marriage as an institution isn’t all about (a) who takes care of the kids [primarily] and (b) the responsibilities of two (or more) people having consistent sex [since sex is a powerful thing, it seems wise to have structures in place to make sure their coupling is socially harmonius].
Oh, and for fun, this was a writeup of a marriage ceremony we performed for a same-sex couple at the local college. Though one of us is an ordained minister (thank those internet churches!), the ceremony of course isn’t legal in this state.
WEDDING RITUAL
Celebrated when two people wish to marry.
Pacific Coast, Northern Hemisphere: Performed preferably in mid-afternoon (after the heat is starting to dissipate.
Auspice: Two people wish to be married.
Patrons: Heaven and Earth, God and Goddess, One and the Other.
This is a marriage ceremony, pure and simple.
First Movement
Dress
Formal dress.
What to Bring
An arch for the ceremony, preferably composed of two bent branches bound in the middle (symbolizing two people joining as one).
For Participants:
Each person should bring a gift for the bride and groom.
Perform a Standard Opening:
If this is not for members of the faith, then the following sections may be done solely for the officiant.
Cleanse the Self
Needed: Bowl of pure water, sage, fire (to light the sage), [ash,mud or clay]
The chosen Voice for the ceremony goes first to cleanse. The Voice invokes a blessing for the sage.
VOICE
Mother, hear this small voice. Bless this sacred plant and those that receive it.
The Voice is smudged with the sage and smudges the officiant (if the officiant is someone different). The sage is offered to anyone who wishes to use the sage. A bowl of water is brought to the Voice as everyone is smudging.
VOICE
Mother, hear this small voice. Bless this water and those that receive it.
The Voice washes both face & hands with the water and then deals with the officiant. The bowl is then offered to anyone who wishes to wash. As everyone is washing, the Voice invokes a blessing for the earth (either ash, mud, or clay).
VOICE
Mother, hear this small voice. Bless this earth and those that receive it.
The Voice is anointed with the earth (a circle, cross or dot is drawn on the forehead) and then anoints the officiant. The earth is then offered to anyone who wishes to use the earth.
Cleanse the Space
The Voice takes the used sage and smudges around the boundaries of the areas to be sanctified. Then, the bowl of used water is taken and sprinkled around all of the areas to be sanctified. Finally, earth is sprinkled around the boundaries of the area.
The families of the groom and bride are then brought up to offer their blessing to the officiant. The officiant must go to each member in turn and ask the same question.
OFFICIANT
May I have your blessing to conduct this ceremony, that joins your children in this sacred union?
FAMILY
Yes.
If someone in the family says ‘no’, the ceremony is stopped until the situation is worked out.
Set the Boundaries
The officiant sets the boundaries with the bridesmaids and groomsmen. The partner already at the altar simply watches.
OFFICIANT
Heart to heart.
The officiant touches their heart with their right hand.
OFFICIANT
Hand to hand.
The officiant takes the hands of the people near him
OFFICIANT
We make this place a sacred space.
The next person does the same thing, copying the movements as they say:
BRIDESMAID/GROOMSMAN
Heart to heart. Hand to hand. We make this place a sacred space.
Once everyone has joined hands, the officiant lets them bow their heads and says:
OFFICIANT
We thank the forces that have brought us together as friends, family, and community. One heart, one soul, one voice. So must it be.
CHORUS
(responding)
So must it be.
The hands are released as they await the second partner’s arrival.
Second Movement
The officiant signals for the wedding march. The second half of the couple comes in and joins their partner at the altar.
Call the Primals
(Optional for members of the faith…)
OFFICIANT
We call to the forces of the six directions. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces north.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Northern Rain. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces east.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Eastern Winds. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces south.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Southern Sun. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone faces west.
OFFICIANT
We call to the Western Lands. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Call the Eternals
(Optional for members of the faith)
Everyone looks up.
VOICE
We call to the Heavens, to the source of Creation! Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Everyone looks down.
VOICE
We call to the Sacred Earth, from which all life springs. Hear our call.
CHORUS
Hear our call.
Perform the Working
OPENING HOMILY
OFFICIANT
We are gathered here to witness the joining of this couple into Holy Union. This is a sacred and joyous covenant, which should be entered into reverently, that each partnership may give to each other companionship, help and comfort in times of prosperity and adversity.
Into this sacred covenant this couple now desires to enter. The commitment of this couple has called us together because this union touches each one of us. A new family is established in our midst, and we celebrate that relationship.
QUESTION TO COMMUNITY
The officiant addresses all of the family.
OFFICIANT
Will the families and friends of these couples please join hands?
The officiant waits until the families and friends have joined hands.
OFFICIANT
This union brings together different traditions in the hope that a new community will arise, strong and fruitful. Theirs is a personal choice and a decision for which they’re primarily responsible, yet their life will be enriched by the support of the families and friends from which each comes. Therefore I have these questions for you:
The Officiant looks to the families and friends.
OFFICIANT
Do you affirm your continuing support and love to these couples as they grow in their respective unions?
FAMILY & FRIENDS
We do.
OFFICIANT
Do you celebrate with them the decision they have made to choose each other?
FAMILY & FRIENDS
We do.
OFFICIANT
Do you offer to them the best of your care and counsel in their times of struggle and your celebration with them in their times of joy?
FAMILY & FRIENDS
We do.
OFFICIANT
We recognize the sacred vow you’ve all taken as friends, family, and community. Remember what you’ve promised here and take it with you when you leave.
AN “ADMONITION” ABOUT THE NATURE OF LOVE & MARRIAGE
OFFICIANT
Love is a difficult thing. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
Sometimes it’s a fire, burning with passion. Other times it’s slow, like a river winding its way through your souls. Sometimes, it shrinks so small it’s voice can barely be heard. In other times, it is so overwhelming you feel you could burst. But by taking this step today – by committing to each other – you have dedicated your life to love, in all the good times and the bad times, in all life’s splendor and all it’s ordinariness. You’ve dedicated your life to love and that is a special thing.
Remember part of that dedication is to nurture your love. Don’t let time go by without appreciating each other, without watering your love with the sound of laughter or the motions of joy. Don’t hesitate to tell your partner just how much they mean to you. Don’t hesitate to show that you care. Remember that we’re all in this craziness together and when things get bad, sometimes it’s just enough to hold one another. Nurture your love and it will never die.
Yes, love is a difficult thing. Don’t let anyone tell you differently. But that’s what makes it so special and that’s why we do it.
VOWS
The officiant turns to the couple.
OFFICIANT
So, having considered alone and together this commitment, are you ready for your vows?
The officiant waits for the couple to agree and then addresses the first partner.
OFFICIANT
Do you take this person to be your Partner, promising to provide sustenance, to console them in times of sorrow, to strengthen them in weakness, to share with them your happiness, and to keep their trust?
FIRST PARTNER
I do.
The officiant then addresses the second partner.
OFFICIANT
Do you take this person to be your Partner, promising to provide sustenance, to console in times of sorrow, to strengthen them in weakness, to share with them your happiness, and to keep their trust?
SECOND PARTNER
I do.
THE RING(S) EXCHANGE
The officiant addresses the first partner.
OFFICIANT
You have a ring? Would you put it on (his/her) finger and repeat after me: I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
FIRST PARTNER
I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
The officiant then addresses the second partner.
OFFICIANT
You have a ring? Would you put it on (his/her) finger and repeat after me: I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
SECOND PARTNER
I, _____, take you, _____, to be my Partner, and with this ring, I commit to you and join my life to yours.
A PRAYER
The officiant addresses the audience.
OFFICIANT
I would like to now join together in a moment of silence, for regardless of tradition – be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Pagan – everyone recognizes the love that these people share for each other.
A PRONOUNCEMENT
The officiant turns back to the couple.
OFFICIANT
May the love that you feel and share today continue to grow deeper and stronger all the days of your lives. Having declared yourselves to each other among your families, friends, and community, you are now joined as one.
PRESENTING THE COUPLE TO GUESTS
The Officiant has the couple turn around to face the audience.
OFFICIANT
Ladies and gentlemen, assembled friends and family, I am proud to present to you, our newly joined couple.
He turns to the couple.
OFFICIANT
You may now kiss.
Final Movement
Release the Powers
VOICE
We thank those who have contributed to this blessed. May your well-wishes become a strong guide for this couple’s future.
Release the Boundaries
VOICE
Thanks to the forces that brought us together, as friends, family, and community. One heart, one soul, many voices.
Release the Chorus
(Optional for members of the faith)
While speaking, the Voice must tap their staff (or stomp hard) three times to ground out the circle.
VOICE
The circle is broken but never forgotten. So must it be.
CHORUS
So must it be.
The newly joined couple is sent away to music and the rite is over.
The final movement is done
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 20 January 2006 @ 1:46 PM
You can spend your whole life getting to know someone, and they’ll still surprise you. Because they change. They’re changed by knowing you, just as you’re changed by knowing them. In a very real way, you create each other.
I agree, a lot of people give up on relationships because they “become boring.” They’re boring, though, because somewhere along the line, one, the other, or both, decided that they knew everything about this person, and there was nothing new left. They lost their ability to appreciate the other. Instead of deciding that morning that this is someone they appreciate, they decided they’re not. That’s okay, in general. I decide many people every day are one-dimensonal, boring, and not worth my attention. That’s not true, of course, but I decide it anyway, because no one can appreciate everyone like that.
When a marriage dissolves because it’s become “boring,” I think there’s an unacknowledged choice in there–the choice not to consider how that person can be appreciated, to foucs on the annoying quirks rather than the redeeming virtues. People are like those pictures of the two people kissing–what you see depends entirely on what you decide to focus on.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 1:53 PM
I don’t know how many parents are here, but if you think marriage is difficult, trying having kids. It’s frustrating, difficult and about 20 times as hard to have a good night’s sleep or quality “me” time. For someone who loves solitude (like me), this can be very challenging, but does that mean the institution of child-raising is deeply flawed and should be abandoned?
I’d go so far as to say the primary purpose of marriage is not for the man to take care of the woman, rather it is for both parents to take care of their children. Marriage is about family, not about “me”.
I know, someone is going to say mention couples that choose to not have children, but let me promise you, that is a very modern aberration from the true cultural purpose of marriage. Until very recently, a married couple without children was seen as a failure, and pitied or despised accordingly.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 2:03 PM
I do have to point out that child-rearing, as frustrating as it can be, is easier in a tribal construct.
My wife & I & 3 kids live with a close friend and also my wife’s father. They’ve been invaluable in freeing up our time and energy.
Now, we’re planning on constructing an eco-village with a number of friends, some of whom have families. Letting our kids out to play in a safe area with people they know… oh man, I had a taste of it at a pre-school co-op I belonged to and there is no feeling quite like it. You know your kids are safe and loved and enjoying themselves and learning and…
And people wonder why I fight so hard for tribal living!!!
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 20 January 2006 @ 2:16 PM
Well, it’s too bad that’s not the world we live in. But in this day and age, making marriage out to be the relationship equivalent of a best friends forever necklace is probably not the most responsible suggestion to make. A marriage is two people promising to stay together forever. Not two people promising to stay together until they decide it’s time to start seeing other people. The second one is what we call “dating.” That’s not a marriage.
Besides, you know that even in foraging societies, men still have a competitive advantage. In non-civilized societies, the majority of a person’s diet comes from meat. Meat that comes from animals. Animals that are hunted by men. That means that the men essentially control the food supply. If women get some, it’s because the men chose to share it with them. But really, what’s to stop the men from keeping the resources for themselves? Or from using their superior physical strength to overpower the women?
And finally, let me just say that “boredom” is an absurd reason for ending a relationship. If you only knew how many people out there would kill to know someone well enough to be bored by them, it wouldn’t be something you’d be complaining about.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 2:16 PM
First of all, the world we live in does allow women to make a living for themselves. So no, in the world we currently live in, a married woman isn’t any more protected than an unmarried woman. Second of all, the world we live in is going to end in less than a decade, to be replaced largely by the world I’m talking about. And third, I think I made handfasting very clear when I posted this:
In my ideal world, you’d have the option of making a vow to spend the rest of your lives together… or the next year together or the next ten years together, etc. etc. It’s not “until we get bored with each other,” because a twenty-year commitment is still taken seriously even if you grow apart after five years. I don’t understand why death should be the only cut-off point, or why it has to be all or nothing.
There is no statistical correlation between contribution to food supply and gender equality.
– Anthropology: A Brief Introduction, by Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember, page 252
Well, that should be obvious. If women don’t get any food, they starve to death, and then there’s no one to pass on the men’s genes. The tribe is wiped out. And because everyone takes care of the children (not just the biological parents), including unmarried women, that means that it’s only practical to share your food with everyone - not just your wife.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 2:43 PM
For me the concept of marriage (or friendship) comes down to one of family. Marrying someone is my way of saying, “I now consider this person to be a member of my family.” I have a similar view toward friendship. There are a few friends in my life that I would consider to be a part of my family, though unfortunately there is no kind of ritual or ceremony acknowledging this (yet). This kind of marriage is a lifelong commitment for me, although the nature of our relationships might change. But when I commit to a “family” friend or partner, I am indicating that I will play a physically and emotionally supportive role in their lives and expect the same commitment from them. I see it as similar to maybe the kind of relationships that tribal members have. They work together to maintain a solid support network for each other. Sure, it’s possible to leave such a group. But you’d be giving up a LOT - your whole way of life and livelihood. It’d be much easier to work things out. Maybe that means you can’t live in the same house. Maybe certain tasks or relationships need to be changed. But the bottom line is that the person who decides to abandon ends up being the more abandoned. In this society, that’s not really true. Whoever chooses out still has plenty of options - culturally, occupationally, residentially, emotionally.
I think that this culture’s emphasis on the nuclear family unit also puts a ridiculous strain on marriages. The parents are expected to fulfill nearly every role that was traditionally spread out among a much larger community. (And I think this is true of married couples without kids as well. Often they are expected to provide too many needs to each other.) With the switch to a double-income household (which has now become the norm to the point where most parents can’t not work), it’s a wonder more marriages DON’T end in divorce. And it’s one of the reasons why I can’t imagine having kids at this point. Because I don’t think the responsibility of raising a child should rest solely on two people whose only option is paid help.
Comment by Raku — 20 January 2006 @ 2:43 PM
All depends on how “modern” you mean. For instance, a married couple without children being seen as a failure is, to me, “modern”–only as old as the Agricultural Revolution, and the shifting needs of society towards an r-selected strategy. Children were desperately needed to offset the high agrarian mortality rate. Here’s what Brown wrote in he Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity:
Among foragers and horticulturalists, however, we see gay and otherwise “non-productive” marriages being accepted and even honored, such as among the Etoro, or the Nadleeh of the Navajo. So, marriage is about children only in those societies that require a high birth rate.
Overloading disciplinary duties to the maternal uncle is probably one of the main reasons that children in those societies have so much less seething hatred for their parents. The duty of raising children in a tribe is not solely that of the parents–the whole tribe helps.
And no, public schools are not a reasonable facsimile, no matter what proverbs Hillary decides sound really cute.
The fact that women are perfectly capable of feeding themselves if you choose to be an asshole about it. Self-sufficiency is the cornerstone of forager society. The community improves everyone’s life, but nobody is dependent on anyone else.
I think, given how many times I’ve been cuckolded in the past, Mike may be more than a little peeved to see his brother getting married to a woman who’s going on at such length, publicly, that it’s absurd to expect a woman to remain faithful her whole life. He knows me well enough to know I mean it when I promise something for the rest of my life, and I think he’s reacting emotionally because you’re making him doubt here whether or not you mean it, too.
Frankly, after all this, I wouldn’t mind hearing that kind of commitment from you, either–I mean, for someone who’s getting married, you sure are spending a lot of time talking about how marriage is impractical and handfasting would be better….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 3:00 PM
Definitely child-rearing would be much less of a burden in communal life. Actually so would just about everything, since its about the same amount of work to cook for 15 as it is for 3, and its even easier to watch kids if they have someone to play with (a lot less demanding from you). Same goes for almost all aspects of life, including and especially marriage in general.
I could write about 10 pages explaining why, but I’m sure I don’t need to.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 3:02 PM
Okay, just to clear everything up: I don’t feel very comfortable publicly talking about my feelings. So in order to avoid that, I’ve gone to great length to separate my personal views on marriage from my philosophical views on marriage. Personally, I am unquestionably willing to make a lifelong commitment to you, Jason. Philosophically, I’m opposed to any society that forces everyone - i.e. people who aren’t us - to make just that one kind of commitment. But I certainly don’t mean to say that marriage is impractical or that it’s absurd to expect a woman to remain faithful to anyone her whole life (Peter and Eric have been the ones saying that - I’ve been refuting them); I’m just saying, there should be other options for other people.
I can understand how that could have gotten mixed up. I hope things are a bit clearer now…
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 3:10 PM
I’d wager that those societies you mention, where non-productive marriages are honored, are the exceptions rather than the rule. The point of marriage is, like raku said, family. Specifically it is about raising children together. You don’t need to get married to live with someone the rest of your life, but it may take some sort of commitment to agree to raise children together.
Also, as far as the fear of being cuckolded goes (which seems like you argued earlier that children were the primary concern of marriage), as long as were countering our own arguments, there are plenty of nature based cultures where wife-sharing was permitted and encouraged as a kind of social glue.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 3:16 PM
Married ten years and counting. Smartest, healthiest, most fulfilling commitment I’ve ever chosen for myself.
We’ve both grown and changed tremendously throughout that time; It works because we’ve encouraged, supported and accepted each other unconditionally. We don’t lie or hide anything from each other - make that a central tenant of any relationship you value.
And with our unconditional support & confidence we’ve developed over the years, it’s allowed us to begin to expand love and extend love in other ways, with other people - healthy “hedges” and redundancies against the fear of being without love (for whatever reason or turn of events).
I believe that love can be unrestricted and limitless - fully renewable and not subject to diminishing returns - that behaves the opposite of entropy.
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 20 January 2006 @ 3:17 PM
Well, now that the natally-obsessed agricultural societies have come with their zillions of baby soldiers and wiped them all out… yes, now they’re the exceptions rather than the rule.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 20 January 2006 @ 3:20 PM
Here’s an interesting stat that I keep coming across: 90% of all divorces are initiated by women. The most common excuse given is boredom or “the magic is gone”. To me these are the same thing.
I personally know quite a few men who were given this bad news. What’s their response? Typically, it’s, “Well, what did she expect after 15 years of mariage? I work 60 hours a week and I’m supposed to be Mr Exciting at the end of the day?” If women expect too much from marriage then men probably expect too little.
I’m not blaming any one sex more than the other for the high divorce rate.
The real problem is in expecting two living, evolving people to stay joined at the hip forever. A few can do it, but most can’t. If the latter do stick it out to the bitter end, it’s because they were in a rut they couldn’t climb out of.
For me the best relationship is one where both parties have the freedom each and every day to decide if they want to remain in it. This freedom also ensures that both stay motivated in keeping the relationship interesting.
About 15 years ago I decided that the three most important words in life are “You godda wanna.” Talk is cheap. Don’t tell me; show me.
You want to work for me? You want a relationship with me? You have a dream you want to pursue? Shut your pie-hole and show me that you have the “godda wanna” burning desire.
If both parties have the “godda wanna” the marriage certificate becomes superfluos.
Comment by Peter — 20 January 2006 @ 3:52 PM
Doesn’t really work like that. Women are mostly involved in gathering–fruits, nuts, and the like. That constitutes maybe 40% of their diet. It would be pretty hard to live off of that. But even if they could survive on their own, that still doesn’t stop the men from overpowering them physically and forcing them to do whatever they want.
Nope. Not good enough. That only explains how things work, not why things work.
And if someone actually thought like that, it would be the first case in human history where a man took his own best interests into consideration when dealing with the opposite sex. Besides, men don’t have to kill the women to force them to do what they want. Men may be horny, but I bet even the worst of us can go without sex longer than a woman can go without food. And actually, since men are stronger, they don’t even have to go without sex.
So I’ll ask again. You’re a woman. I’m a man. I’m stronger, and I have greater access to essential resources. What’s to stop me from doing whatever the hell I want?
The answer, for those of you who are curious, is family. It’s the fact that she’s got a posse of her own who can kill me if I treat her in a manner that displeases them. And since we’re better working together anyway, why don’t we all just along?
Marriage protects women and children. That’s it. What’s so wrong with expecting a man to uphold that commitment? What’s wrong with a society that says, “This woman is your responsibility now, and if you don’t treat her like a princess, we’re going to come kick your ass?” Maybe if we had more of that in our own society, we wouldn’t have the problems we do with divorce, abuse, and deliquent teenagers who end up on the street because mommy and daddy didn’t love them enough.
I mean, I know everyone here likes to rage against the machine. But maybe we should consider the possibility from time to time that things we consider conservative have been conserved for a good reason.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 4:07 PM
“I’d wager that those societies you mention, where non-productive marriages are honored, are the exceptions rather than the rule.”
“Well, now that the natally-obsessed agricultural societies have come with their zillions of baby soldiers and wiped them all out… yes, now they’re the exceptions rather than the rule. ”
I’m talking about forager societies too. How many examples of gay marriage can you tell me of in a forager culture? Homosexuality was often accepted, but gay marriage? The communal nature of the societies often meant that often aldultery was more tolerated, but marriage in most societies, be they forager, horticulturalist, pastoralist or agriculturalist, was between a man and a woman, and usually implied the beginnings of a family (children). You’re going to have to find more than two examples where that wasn’t the case if you want to build a convincing argument.
You talk about the “romantic” ideals being the killer of marriage, but what is a non-productive marriage if not a romantic fairy-tale. Strip out the romance and what do you have? Family. If you want to say, mutual support or something like that, you have to remember that in a forager society, the whole community is very supportive, so there is no need for a non-productive marriage.
Comment by limukala — 20 January 2006 @ 4:08 PM
Even if men and women possessed exclusive skills in forager societies (which they don’t–men can gather, and women can hunt, they just don’t emphasize it as much), your case would still falter on your misunderstanding of nutritional guidelines. I see I finally sold you on the 60% meat thing, but I never said that 40% vegetables wasn’t important. They give you micronutrients. You don’t need a lot of them, but you do need some. If the woman is as incapable of hunting for herself as the man is for gathering, then the man will probably start to contract rickets and scurvy well before the woman starves eating only plants.
Women really only need protection in agricultural societies.
Oh–well … that’s just wrong. Pretty much all the North American tribes had some notion of the “third gender,” and most foragers have separated marriage and child-rearing pretty completely. Gay marriage is really more common than not; our refusal to accept it marks us in a minority of cultures. Non-productive couples are very frequent among foragers. Foragers look on child-bearing as a very mixed blessing. Among the !Kung, a woman in labor goes into the bush. Maybe she comes back with a baby, and maybe she doesn’t. Either way, nobody asks any questions. She’s still a good wife so long as she doesn’t cheat on her husband (adultery’s usually the one major problem primitive societies run into). A good marriage is judged on the basis of fertility only in agricultural societies–it’s one of thier most unique peculiarities.
Quite so. But “family” need not be defined in terms of reproduction. Foragers and horticulturalists respect a family of two as being just as important as a family of five. Only agricultural societies denigrate them in such a fashion.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 4:27 PM
That’s a brilliant plan. I don’t know why abused women in our society never think of it. All they have to do is deprive their husbands of fruit in the hopes that they’ll develop scurvy. Then all they have to do is wait until he dies, and they’ll be able to escape just in time to die themselves of old age.
And that’s not the point anyway. I know how to draw. That doesn’t mean I can be an artist for a living. What do you think the chances are of a single woman surviving completely on her own? You know what happens to the lone wolf, don’t you?
Besides which, you’re ignoring the fact that all men need for women to be controlled is for them to be within swinging distance.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 6:16 PM
Indeed–because men can provide for themselves. Just like women can. You notice the absurdity of a woman trying to starve a man by withholding her food, because a man can gather–why can’t a woman hunt? They do, after all. The division of labor by gender in forager societies is a matter of emphasis, not exclusivity. Our society uses exclusivity–that’s the basis of all power relationships, from abusive husbands to the President of the United States.
Who said anything about surviving alone? We’re not talking about someone kicked out of the tribe, we’re talking about a grievance between two married people in that tribe. It’s not the whole tribe who’s suddenly abandoned her, it’s one man in it. But yes, a woman on her own has about as much chance as a man on his own.
Just like you’re ignoring the fact that all women need for men to be controlled is for them to be within swinging distance–specifically, with a sharp piece of obsidian. I like to call it the Lorena Bobbitt Principle of Extreme Gender Equality.
Yes, we can hit things–but they can manipulate the hell out of us. So who’s really the one with the innate power, here?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 January 2006 @ 6:26 PM
Hey –
One other thing to keep in mind — in cultures where women are not presupposed to be ‘the weaker sex’, wome are perfectly capable of swinging back. Sure, men have the advantage of being naturally, more likely to be more muscular. But that does not mean that women are helpless, even in the face of a man’s rage.
the Lorena Bobbitt Principle of Extreme Gender Equality.
hee hee hee that’s pretty good, J
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 January 2006 @ 6:35 PM
The men need sleep too. If one cannot trust a woman one is sleeping with, he is in a bad shape indeed.
Comment by _Gi — 20 January 2006 @ 7:09 PM
Jason, there have been matriarchal civilizations. Like African queens. Maybe, that doesn’t count. I mean, if Hillary became president, America wouldn’t suddenly become matriarchal. But maybe it was different. I found a writing how prehistorical societies weren’t really matriarchal like you said: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html
Comment by planetwarming — 20 January 2006 @ 8:32 PM
I’d love to see the day come when the tables are turned in the name of sexual equality and it’s the women who are expected to blow three months worth of salary on something so utterly useless as a diamond ring.
But I’m not holding my breath.
Comment by Peter — 20 January 2006 @ 10:39 PM
Well…equality yes. But no salary, and any diamond ring will be fight to the death or up for grabs.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 20 January 2006 @ 11:34 PM
>hee hee hee that’s pretty good, J
Mutilation is never funny. No matter which sex does it. It’s a horrific act. Both John Wayne and Loreena should have done some serious jail time for their criminality.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 2:26 AM
And how well has that principle worked historically? Are there a lot of guys filling up the battered husband shelters?
And even if you’re right, all that means is that the protections provided by marriage are even more important. Because whether you’re talking about protecting the women, the men, or the children, the principle is still the same. Marriage is about creating enduring social connections. If it’s not enduring, it’s not terribly useful.
Does anyone else realize how absurd this is? You’re talking about creating tribes of people when you can’t even accept the idea of committing yourself to one person. What do you think that does for your credibility? What happens when you get bored with the other members of your tribe? Are you going to just pack up and leave?
Marriage is not an item on a menu. It is not a matter of, “I’m not really in the mood for cheesecake today. Can I please see your selection of pies?” If you actually care about a person, you cannot treat them that way. They deserve better. They deserve to know that you’re going to be there for them. And if you’re not, then they deserve to know that too so that they can make other arrangements. Do not treat them like they’re the evening’s dessert.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 January 2006 @ 10:44 AM
Hey –
But WHY does it HAVE to be forever? The Christian/Euro tradition of marriage is soundly founded on the concept of women as belonging to the husband… chattel and all that. I think that is why it is treated as permanent — after all, once a man has ‘invested’ in the dowry why would he want to ‘give away his property’. At the same time, a women is treated as useless if she is unmarried and not a virgin. So what man would take a women that has committed the sin of escaping her slavemaster?
That’s all sort of harsh and I know it is not what you are advocating, Mike, but there is some validity to it from a historical perspective.
So my question to you, is what is wrong with accepting a marriage as a functional tool to help accomadte child rearing? Perhaps an agreement to stay together as an ‘exclusive’ couple so long as there are children to consider. Then, each partner can evaluate thier lives once the children have grown up and make a conscious, honest choice about where they want thier lives to go next.
Looking at that as something ‘wrong’ seems to me to be either
a) Treating people like they are immutable
b) Treating sex like it is exceptionally sacred
OR c) even the previous two are false, then people must suffer for thier poor choices (ie being unable to accurately predict thier TOTAL FUTURE LIVES)
Is there any other reason that I am not considering?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 21 January 2006 @ 11:06 AM
“The Christian/Euro tradition of marriage is soundly founded on the concept of women as belonging to the husband… chattel and all that. I think that is why it is treated as permanent — after all, once a man has ‘invested’ in the dowry why would he want to ‘give away his property’.”
Just out of curiosity, what century are you posting from? 12th maybe?
My calender shows that it’s 2005.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 12:37 PM
Hey –
Nice Peter. I specifically said it was historical… and ‘a little over the top.’
So what’s with the hostility?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 21 January 2006 @ 12:40 PM
No hostility at all. Just don’t see any point to confusing the present with the ancient past. Things have changed over the last few centuries.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 12:50 PM
Mike, I don’t understand why you find this so anti-tribal. As we were discussing last night, in foraging societies, divorce is easy and more socially accepted than in our culture. The Inuit wife-swap and divorce at the drop of a hat. And yet, they’re still tribes.
Moreover, you’re dramatically exaggerating our actual stance in order to make us look worse. The fact that you keep repeating “You’re just saying everyone should just stay with someone else until they get bored and dump them!!!!!” doesn’t make it true. I think I’ve repeated my stance enough times that anyone reading this has got the idea.
You’re putting way too much emphasis on the man supporting the woman and the possibility of the woman being abused, etc. etc. etc. These things simply are not a concern in foraging societies. Like I said, everyone provides for everyone, and everyone in a given foraging band is ALWAYS blood-related. How far do you think some asshole would get trying to convince the other guys in a band not to give food to their mothers, grandmothers, aunts, wives, nieces, cousins, and daughters? Why the hell would they do that? You can claim that no man’s ever done anything in his own self-interest when dealing with a woman. But for what reason could men in foraging societies hurt half their population just to show that they can? How is that in their self-interest? How does that gain them anything at all? Harming the powerless to prove that you have power is a strictly civilized activity, because all of us are so powerless in this system. And yes, although they won’t quote Richard Dawkins passages at length, they will say something like, “But she’s raising my children!”
That’s how a tribe is. Everyone in a tribe knows that they’re going to be supported. But no one’s foolish enough to think that they’ll be supported by the same people in the same ways for their entire lives. A playful friendship might turn into a more serious friendship as two people get older; they go from joking around to having philosophical discussions. A love relationship might turn into a regular friendship. And yes, married people divorce and become “just friends.” All of this, and everyone’s still there for each other.
You know what? I don’t understand what you’re saying anymore. You keep saying here that you shouldn’t just stay with a person until you get bored with them and leave. But last night, you said no one should get married, but dating and co-habitation is fine. Dating and co-habitation IS staying with a person until you get bored with them and leaving!!!! What the hell is the difference?! I’m arguing for many different levels of commitment, where you tell each other, “I’m going to be there for you in this way for this length of time.” That length of time could be five years, ten years, twenty years, the rest of their natural lives, etc. But unlike dating and co-habitation, this plan has EXACTLY what you claim to want: security. It keeps them together for a certain period of time. It’s a commitment that they HAVE to fulfill.
Lord. I don’t even know what your argument is anymore. I think I’m going to go cool off.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 January 2006 @ 12:58 PM
Oh, and Peter? Stop being an asshole.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 January 2006 @ 12:58 PM
Wow, someone’s in a bad mood today.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 12:59 PM
Peter –
Everything that we believe, as a culture, is intimately tied up with the history of what we believe as a culture. Why has it been so difficult to change the status of women and minorities? Because we are fighting against thousands of years of recieved wisdom.
Understanding the path of that recieved wisdom (and accepting that history for what it is) can help us to overcome our most deeply held prejudices.
What is the quote? “Those who do not understand thier past are doomed to repeat it” (or something like that) Same way, those who do (and, more importantly, internalize what that means) are better able to choose another path.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 21 January 2006 @ 1:39 PM
Janene,
No need to tell an avid history student such as myself about what history can teach us. Right now I am reading everything I can dig up on how people survived earlier depressions and catastrophes.
However, we also need to let go of some things from the past and move on. I am referring to the things that are no longer relevant. For example, all too often of late the discussions here get bogged down into a Womyn’s Studies like flame war over how women may or may not have been treated 500 or 50,000 years ago.
Do we really have time for this? Humanity is facing it’s biggest $%#@*! crisis ever. I think we need to switch the focus to either solutions or mere personal survival. Right now I am focussed on solutions at the community level despite being a grim realist. Maybe I’ll switch to survival mode in the future. Who knows?
At least I’m trying to do something constructive in the present instead of engaging in seemingly pointless rhetoric about what may or may not have happened in the distant past.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 2:06 PM
Peter, first of all, your only role in this thread has been that of an obnoxious little troll. All you’ve done in this thread is say, “Marriage is bad! Women are bitches! Not that I’m saying that women are bitches. But marriage is bad! And also, you’re stupid!” So don’t you talk to Janene about pointless rhetoric.
Second of all, the history of marriage explains why so many people (Mike included) feel that marriage HAS to be for a lifetime. All sorts of irrational beliefs have roots in some not-so-nice history. And the decision we come to in this argument is going to effect how the tribe of Anthropik views marriage - and personal relationships. Views that we’ll pass on to the next generation, and the next, and the next. Views that will shape the form of our tribal cohesion, which will in turn effect our survival.
You want to form a tribe with no culture, no identity, no beliefs? You want to try and form a community with nothing to base it on but the desire to stay alive? You go ahead and do that and see how long you survive.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 January 2006 @ 2:13 PM
“Peter, first of all, your only role in this thread has been that of an obnoxious little troll. All you’ve done in this thread is say, “Marriage is bad! Women are bitches! Not that I’m saying that women are bitches. But marriage is bad! And also, you’re stupid!” So don’t you talk to Janene about pointless rhetoric.”
Please point out to me where I said women are bitches.
Please.
I’ll sit here patiently waiting for you to do so.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 2:16 PM
“You want to form a tribe with no culture, no identity, no beliefs? You want to try and form a community with nothing to base it on but the desire to stay alive? You go ahead and do that and see how long you survive.”
Again, please point to where I said or implied or hinted that there’s no need for a new culture.
I’ve got all day.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 2:18 PM
“Peter, first of all, your only role in this thread has been that of an obnoxious little troll. All you’ve done in this thread is say, “Marriage is bad! Women are bitches! Not that I’m saying that women are bitches. But marriage is bad! And also, you’re stupid!” So don’t you talk to Janene about pointless rhetoric.”
One of the sad points about this site is that some people make these patently false accusations against others and then, when called on it, never retract or apologise.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 2:21 PM
“Marriage is bad!”
That’s another thing I never said. You’re really on a roll today.
What I said was that it’s unrealistic for most people. Based on my personal observations, about 20% of marriages are what could be described as happy constructive ones. Since we know that 50% end in the divorce, we can deduce that the remaining 30% are of the living hell variety where people only stay together for the kids or because they believe it’s too late to start over.
We can also be pretty certain that the 20% in happy marriages grew up in families with happy parents who served as positive role models for the institution. Unfortunately, most people didn’t grow up in that type of home.
So marriage is not bad in itself. The problem is that most people are not emotionally and mentally suited for success in it.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 2:47 PM
Ok, so, Peter? My man. I’m sorry that your post got cut off. You were saying, “Wow, someone’s in a bad mood today.” I believe that you were going to end it with, “So I’m going to keep pissing you off until I introduce a new example of genital mutilation into the American consciousness.” I’m sorry for for inconvience.
For the record, when I first heard of marriage contracts for a determinate amount of time, with renewal subclauses, I thought “well, that makes sense.” When people get married expectations change, which causes even people who had lived together for years then get divorced. But, ok, we’ll get married for a year and a day, then decide whether to add three years, etc. In a tribe marriages are for children, not support. Support is a given. So, once the children are grown, the marriage takes on a new point. Stability? Love? Could be many things. If none of them are there, then why keep people unhappy?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 January 2006 @ 4:13 PM
“Ok, so, Peter? My man. I’m sorry that your post got cut off. You were saying, “Wow, someone’s in a bad mood today.” I believe that you were going to end it with, “So I’m going to keep pissing you off until I introduce a new example of genital mutilation into the American consciousness.” I’m sorry for for inconvience.”
I am at a complete loss as to what you’re trying to say here. What post got cut off? It wasn’t any of mine. Who is trying to piss off who?
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 4:21 PM
Ok, Peter. You upset Guili. You observed this. And then continued to do the same kind of thing that was upsetting her to begin with. That was my way of kindly reminding you to mind your Ps and Qs when in someone else’s house.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 January 2006 @ 5:01 PM
I wasn’t aware that I had upset her. That wasn’t my intention at all. My erroneous assumption was that we were having an open and candid discussion about the institution of marriage.
All I’m saying is that it works for some but not for all.
My apologies to Guili.
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 5:30 PM
Peter –
So, what? The only relevant history is that which YOU have chosen to pursue?
We are concerned here with more than simply ’surviving’ — we are concerned about creating functional, sustainable, ‘good’ lives for ourselves and our chldren. so excuse me if I look at more history than simply ‘how [civilized] people survived earlier depressions and catastrophies’
Interesting, seeing as how the only discussion of the treatment of women 500 or 50,000 years ago that I am aware of is the single comment I made that set you off. Hardly a flame war (until you tried to turn it into one)
Ah, I see. You have a majick ball telling you that you alone have anything useful to contribute, and you alone are doing anything worthwhile. Noted.
And the response:
I’d love to see the day come when the tables are turned in the name of sexual equality and it’s the women who are expected to blow three months worth of salary on something so utterly useless as a diamond ring.
But I’m not holding my breath.
________
So, you are correct that you never uttered those particular phrases… but the tone and tenor of all of your comments have been decidedly unfriendly t both women in general and marriage in particular.
BTW, exactly where have you heard that 90% of divorces are initiated by women? And how many of those filings are in response to a cheating spouse?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 21 January 2006 @ 6:04 PM
Giulianna Lamanna# says:
January 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Oh, and Peter? Stop being an asshole.
# Peter says:
January 21st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Wow, someone’s in a bad mood today.
# Benjamin Shender says:
January 21st, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Ok, Peter. You upset Guili. You observed this. And then continued to do the same kind of thing that was upsetting her to begin with. That was my way of kindly reminding you to mind your Ps and Qs when in someone else’s house.
# Peter says:
January 21st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
I wasn’t aware that I had upset her.
Do you just study history or do you rewrite it as well? Because you seemed perfectly well aware of it at 1:00, but come 5:30 you have no clue and never had one? Sorry, don’t buy it.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 January 2006 @ 6:35 PM
If you ask yourself the question “Who benefits at whose expense?” it should be fairly apparent that marriage, monogamy, romantic love etc. are intrinsically matriarchal scams by which women get to live parasitically off men. The ideal to which marriage has traditionally aspired is that the man has to indulge in slave labor in order to support his female overlord in fine fashion as well her children, whom the man has minimal contact with and may not even be biologically related to. The woman gets to isolate and brainwash the children, thereby cementing her authority over the next generation. That anyone could narratize this arrangement as “patriarchal” is a testament to the effectiveness of the brainwashing of male children by their female custodians.
This should be fairly obvious as it pertains to most marriages but is blindingly obvious as it applies to marrying Western women in the West, given the appalling quality of most Western women and the appalling treatment of husbands and fathers by Family Kangaroo Courts. It is absolute madness for a man to seek such an arrangement. You’d be better off simply finding a monstrously fat, ugly, shrewish harridan you despise and then buying her a house, thereby cutting out all the intervening unpleasantness.
http://www.nomarriage.com/
*****
“Are there a lot of guys filling up the battered husband shelters?”
No, for the simple reason that there are no battered husband shelters because in keeping with the stridently matriarchal nature of this stupid society, no-one gives a rat’s ass about battered men. This is despite the fact that practically every study on the subject of domestic violence in the last 30 years has shown that most domestic violence is committed by women - yet another reason not to get married.
Comment by Anonymous — 21 January 2006 @ 7:13 PM
“Do you just study history or do you rewrite it as well? Because you seemed perfectly well aware of it at 1:00, but come 5:30 you have no clue and never had one? Sorry, don’t buy it.”
I did pick up on the anger–finally–with the “asshole” remark. Ironically, I thought you were the one pissing her off.
Look, I hate to burst your bubble but my life is not centered around this blog. It’s maybe one of ten blogs and 5 boards I will post on daily. Once I make a post I tend to not dwell on it.
If it will make things better, let me retract everything I have said above about marriage and replace it with this:
Marriage is the most important thing in a boy’s life. Every boy grows up dreaming of his wedding day. It’s the most important day of his life. Most boys start planning their wedding day at about 8 or 10 years of age. Boys love the idea of being tied to the same woman for life because, by nature, they are monogamous and have no curiosity about other attractive females.
There. That’s as PC as I can get.
Happy?
Comment by Peter — 21 January 2006 @ 7:53 PM
Ecstatic.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 January 2006 @ 8:25 PM
If you ladies are done flaming now, I’ll return to the topic at hand…
Except that if it were simply a matter of women being viewed as property there would be no reason for marriage to be permanent. Are there any social obligations requiring you to keep your car your entire life? Will you be excommunicated if you throw away your old chair?
This isn’t about property, even in the most oppressive socieities. It’s about providing a support mechanism. The bride price (not a “dowry,” which is when the bride’s family gives a gift to that of the groom) is simply a way of compensating the woman’s side for the loss of a valued family member.
Looking at that as something ‘wrong’ seems to me to be either
a) Treating people like they are immutable
b) Treating sex like it is exceptionally sacred
OR c) even the previous two are false, then people must suffer for thier poor choices (ie being unable to accurately predict thier TOTAL FUTURE LIVES)
Is there any other reason that I am not considering?
Well, people always have to suffer for their poor choices. But that point notwithstanding, there are already provisions for the scenario you’ve outlined. It’s called divorce.
You’re talking about not being able to make a lifetime commitment to the person you supposedly love, and you don’t understand why that’s anti-tribal? Guess what? Being a member of a tribe is a lifetime commitment. There’s such a thing as loyalty. If you can’t stay with your own spouse because you got bored, give me one good reason why I should trust you to be there for anyone else.
Disregarding for the moment the fact that the Inuit are about the worst example you could possibly use for what constitutes a typical foraging society, that’s completely beside the point. You’re talking about divorces that happen on a case-by-case basis after the marriage has already happened. What we’re talking about is how a marriage is defined to begin with.
And the fact that you can take one line out of everything I’ve written and present it as my entire argument doesn’t make what you’re saying true. It’s just setting up a straw man to make it look like what you’re saying is true.
Airplanes allow pilots to fly through the air. Therefore, the laws of aerodynamics are simply not a concern for pilots.
Why would men want to have more power? Let’s see. I’m racking my brain to solve this riddle…
Of course. One need look no further than the great Baboon Civilization of Africa.
That said, while it is, in my experience, rare for a man to end a relationship with a woman simply because she is hurting him, I know of a number of cases of men breaking off their pursuit of a woman because she has a boyfriend or an older brother. So that should tell you a little bit about the role that self-interest plays in the relationship between the sexes.
I never said there’s anything wrong with dating and co-habitation. If that’s what you want to do, then fine. Go do it. But it’s not a marriage. And trying to pretend that it’s on the same level as marriage is nothing more than a desperate plea for gifts and attention. So don’t expect me or anyone else to get excited about it.
Let’s try to remember that we’re talking about human beings here, not a subscription to People Magazine. So now who’s treating wives like property? If you can find someone who’s actually willing to go along with something like that, then good for you. But most of the people I know would be insulted by that kind of offer, and they have every right to be.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 January 2006 @ 10:32 PM
Peter, will you marry me?
Both Giuli and Janene have turned me down. I am a 40 year old virgin and I am getting desperate for a housewife.
Love,
Paleo Boy
Comment by Paleo Boy — 21 January 2006 @ 11:02 PM
You are confusing marriage and pair-bonding. They are not the same. Pair-bonding is universal, but marriage is not. Marriage is a social institution that exists in some cultures but not others.
I have been married for eleven years, and believe me, I know all about the ‘choice’ and ‘responsibility’ aspects of it. Put it this way: I was once unmarried, and I have stood where you have. But it appears that you have yet to stand where I do. You may speak very differently about things in future.
In closing, I resent being called a misogynist, even in jest.
I cannot help reflecting at this point on the arrogance of the young (and I am still young myself).
Okay, I’m out. I won’t bother you people again.
Comment by Eric — 22 January 2006 @ 3:28 AM
Hey –
….dowry…. :-0 my bad. Now that i look like a moron, we can continue
lol
There have been, traditionally, obligations of the slave owner to his property, however. Sure, a master can kill his slaves, if he deems it neccessary, but he cannot simply abandon them. So yes, there ARE social consequences involved.
Now, I am still not saying that this is the world we live in… but it is a piece of the background mythology that you can still shadows of in our culture.
hmmm. Maybe that’s the point then. See, I DON’T believe in divorce. If you make an oath, you KEEP it, damn it. What’s the point of an oath to stay together forever, when both parties know that they can always change thier mind. I prefer the honesty of some of the other systesm. The honesty of saying ‘I don’t know what the future holds, but I WILL do X and then we’ll see what’s next…’
Janene
Comment by Janene — 22 January 2006 @ 10:17 AM
I would think the men were the slaves, however much the situation was explained to humor them. Slaves go out to work in the fields while masters stay indoors. Usually the men had to go out to work while women stayed indoors. Slaves had to hand over a portion of the goods they produced to their masters. Men had to support their wives. The religion and other beliefs of the masters were passed on to the slaves. In mixed marriages it is almost always the woman’s religion that is passed onto the children. Combine this with the cultural heritage we have handed down to this day whereby pretty much any interaction between the sexes is expected to be based not on compromises but concessions, and men are expected to make all of them, and it is fairly clear who the slaves have always been.
Comment by Anonymous — 22 January 2006 @ 3:07 PM
Here, let me try to shift this conversation to something more useful. As amusing at it is…to me at least, this thread is getting kind of long and doesn’t seem to have actually gone any where yet.
Ok, we seem to be confusing three issues as if they were one, mostly because of the nature of language.
1) paleolithic marriage customs
2) neolithic mariage customs
3) post-collapse marriage customs
Each are different. And we can even subdivide these to the extent of insanity. However, it makes more sense to just realize that we’re calling all of these marriage, and are talking about at least three different things.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 22 January 2006 @ 5:24 PM
“Here, let me try to shift this conversation to something more useful.”
Here’s my gut feeling on all this post-apocalyptic gender relationship rules and regulations stuff: it will all work itself out naturally over time, if you simply let adults of both sexes agree on what works for them. You don’t need to work out the details for them at this stage. In fact, you can’t.
Did our prehistoric predecessors demand that a set of by-laws for tribal living be etched in stone before they agreed to join a tribe?
I don’t think so. They evolved over time.
There are so many far more pressing survival-related issues to take care of at this stage of the game if you sincerely see yourself living tribally in the next few years.
Here’s one: right now you will have a major challenge in simply finding enough early-adopter female participants so that the male-female ratio isn’t skewed heavily towards males. Who would want to belong to a tribe where there are ten males for every female? Ever see that classic photo from a few years back of the attendees at a Linux convention? (It’s the unforgettable one with all the nerdy geeks including Torvald and a bearded old man wearing a propeller beanie. Not a woman in site.)
That’s a far bigger challenge for you to work on right now.
If I saw myself as having to live in tribe of hunter/gatherers in a few years, I’d be honing my hunting and outdoor survival skills right now. If I was single, I’d also be thinking about how to increase my probabilty of having women in my life. However, I’d have complete faith that we could work out our own relationship rules or agreement once we agreed to be together. (I just wince at words terms like “relationship rules”. Ugggh!)
Comment by Peter — 22 January 2006 @ 6:43 PM
Uh, yeah, no. We need a jumping off point. Nothing too rigid, plenty of room to adapt and change as needed. But there is no point in just throwing a bunch of people together and labeling it tribe. Far too many such communities fail because people don’t want to handle the real world first. Great intentions are one thing. But its better to have everyone know what they’re getting into. No one wants to jump in without knowing what they’re getting themselves into. But worse would be jumping into something and only thinking you know what you’re getting yourself into.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 22 January 2006 @ 6:57 PM
Forming a tribe is a lot like starting a company. The business you have six months down the road will bear little resemblance to the one you described in your business plan.
I can agree with you on the need for communicating clearly at the onset what will be expected of tribe members in terms of, say, contribution of labor to the daily operations and feeding of the tribe. But when you start trying to define how personal relationships will work between the sexes, you lose me.
Good luck with that one.
Comment by Peter — 22 January 2006 @ 8:05 PM
Theoretical ratios (assuming sufficient food availability):
10 women:1 male = population explosion problem
10 men:1 female = no explosion problem, but possible population replacement problem
Comment by JCamasto — 22 January 2006 @ 8:16 PM
“10 men:1 female = no explosion problem, but possible population replacement problem”
Yes, instead we have the men killing each other for the woman. Can’t think of a worse nightmare scenario.
Comment by Peter — 22 January 2006 @ 8:29 PM
Or you have to learn to share
Comment by limukala — 22 January 2006 @ 11:53 PM
Too bad Americans are taught from birth not to share. Oh well. It suppose it’s time to activate project obtain women. I hope it’s successful. Plan B involves a club and a cave.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 12:39 AM
I can’t think of a single period in history in which a master couldn’t do practically anything he wanted with his slaves. That includes killing them, neglecting them, or releasing them from his service. Typically, a master would make sure his slaves are taken care of. But that has more to do with business than anything else. A slave is an investment. And if you don’t keep him healthy, he’s not going to be able to work for you very well. That’s very different from what goes on in a marriage, even an abusive one.
The problem with that is that once your ten year contract is up, you no longer have any obligations to each other. The consequences of marriage, on the other hand, are permanent. Even if you end up getting a divorce, that divorce will almost always take into consideration the needs of all the parties involved. And the way you cut down on divorces is by letting people know upfront that marriage is a serious commitment that shouldn’t be taken unless they know for sure what they’re getting themselves into.
You’re just activating it now? Ben, my whole life is Project Obtain Women.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 10:41 AM
Hey Mike –
Agree to disagree on the slave master vs historical husband, thing. I have neither the time nor inclination to rigourously research the topic, and wouldn’t have any use for the information once our discussion was completed
Here is a question for you… do you prefer to make a promise that you may not be able to keep, or would you prefer to make a smaller promise that you KNOW you can keep and that offers no choices except to keep it?
I just feel like modern divorce changes the way people view marriage: marriage is forever, well, unless its not and then its no big deal. I prefer a bonding tradition that brooks no ‘change of heart/mind’ yet that understands that people change constantly throughout thier lives and therefore, it is impossible to know who any given two people will be twenty years hence.
Any bonding tradition would HAVE to include a tradition for dealing with what occurs when a couple separates. That’s a given. What it looks like would have to be based on the values of the culture, and thier ‘evolution’ of what works…
But how do you ‘let people know that marriage is a serious commitment’? Our culture has carried that meme for thousands and thousands of years. Now a new meme has popped up and added ‘unless you divorce’. How do you put that new meme back in the box? And so long as it exists, how do you ‘force’ people to think long and hard? And what about those that are TRULY earnest, yet still grow apart in time?
It is terribly sad to me that two people can grow apart and decide to separate — all amicably — but then get caught in the cycle of divorce and hatred… some couples avoid it, and I don’t think it is inherant in the separation process… but again, its a meme that has been ‘released’ and people pay the price for that every day.
In any case, I’m not trying to convince you that this is THE way… especially since I am not and never will be a member of Anthropik… but I am trying to express the reasoning behind these ideas hoping that some day it may expand the possibilities that you see
Janene
Comment by Janene — 23 January 2006 @ 10:58 AM
You answered your own question. Lots of patriarchal societies have had the occasional female ruler, but none of them were matriarchies. Hatshepsut ruled Egypt, but she wore a fake beard and was addressed ceremonially as a male to do it.
Well, there would be, if there were battered husband shelters, or a social recognition of that fact. There have only been battered women’s shelters for a short time, and that’s only because of that milder form of chauvanism called “chivalry” that you’ve been preaching to us, Mike. The “you have to sleep sometime” approach has been a constant check against male abuse. Attila the Hun was brought down by such an example, and stories abound in patriarchal societies warning men to beware of what their mistreated women might do to get back at them. Greek mythology especially is full of that stuff. Myths serve a purpose–in this case, warning men of a very real threat, and why they should, at the very least, keep their abuses to a tolerable minimum.
Hierarchy is always a matter of abuse–not just when it cuts across gender lines. But you just don’t see much in the way of domestic abuse in egalitarian societies–unlike hierarchcial ones, where abuse is endemic at every level of society. Giuli pulled some pretty extreme examples of fluid relationships from the Inuit, but most foragers are either polygamous or serially monogamous. The !Kung, if I recall correctly, get married for a specified number of seasons–just like the handfasting bit.
A commitment is a commitment, and breaking it always has serious reprecussions. But I think you’d see more people upholding their commitment if they had the option of making one they could reasonably uphold. Telling someone you’ll be with them forever, and then dumping their ass ten years later is a very different thing from telling someone you’ll be with them, no matter what, for ten years, and when those ten years are up, telling them your feelings have changed and you want to move on. Those two are worlds apart. I can respect the latter–I can’t respect the former.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 11:42 AM
In my article, I disparaged reactionary thinking - automatically dismissing everything within a culture you didn’t like. This is very common. Too often, when disagreeing with something, a person can become equally radical in the other direction. If that doesn’t happen, another problem can arise when that person emphasizes the disagreement to the extent that people think he’s being more radical than he actually is.
That last part, I think, is what happened here. I think I’m being clear in what I’m saying, so I get lazy. My brain adds modifiers to statements that my fingers forget. I don’t respond to some absurd comment because I don’t want to dignify it with a response, so people end up assuming that I agree with what’s been said. And at the end of the day, I end up with a very different idea of what I’m saying than everyone else.
So I’m going to cut the debate right now and go back to the beginning. I’m going to state my opinion as clearly as possible. Mike, I hope you do the same because I don’t think I understand what your position is, either. So here I go:
In my ideal society (which would be a foraging society), there would be many different levels of commitment possible. This would be loosely based off of the neo-pagan concept of handfasting. What with handfasting being a very new idea (the idea’s been around for only about 100-200 years, and it’s only been seriously practiced since the 1970s or so), there is only one term for any level of commitment (five years, ten years, twenty years, a lifetime) and that’s “handfasting.” My ideal society would change that. There would be a different name for each level, and with it, a different level of ritual surrounding each. The most serious commitment you could possibly make would be a lifetime one; this would be accompanied with the greatest amount of pomp, circumstance, and ritual that the society could afford.
Although dating and co-habitation would be allowed, after a few generations, it would probably be frowned upon because it would be more responsible to just commit to staying together for a year and a day. Divorce from a lifelong commitment would probably also be frowned upon, because the couple could have just chosen a shorter length of time to be together and should have put more thought into it.
I, in my own personal life, see no problem in making a lifelong commitment to another person and keeping that commitment. But not everyone can or is willing to do that, and I’m loath to force every other person in the world to make the same promises that I can (and want to) make. I’m also against divorce, but how can I force other people to stay in an unhappy situation? Likewise, I’m against abortion, so unless my life is threatened, I am not going to have one. But I’ll fight like hell for any other woman’s right to. I’ll hold myself to one standard, but I’ve seen what happens to societies that hold everyone to the same, ridiculously strict standard.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 3:41 PM
I estimate that 98.4% of all statistics cited in this thread were extracted anally, so let’s stop pretending that any of those have any relationship with reality. You made them up, and we all know it.
No, there’s no confusion here at all. Pair bonding is universal across all sexual animals. Marriage is ritualized pair bonding. Marriage is when society sanctions pair bonding. That is universal across all human societies. There has never been a human culture that did not have some recognition of pair bonds. And why not? Food and sex are the essentials of life; culture is primarily a food strategy, but if it can help sex along, then those that do will survive more frequently than those that don’t.
Some form of marriage–that is, some form of ritualized recognition of pair bonding–is universal.
Been a bad decade, Eric? You certainly don’t make the past eleven years sound like very happy ones while you’re warning us away from making a choice that, apparently, you feel to have been disastrous for you, personally. Might that have had less to do with marriage itself, and more to do with you and your wife? Might it not have been your own views on marriage contributed? “There is no good or bad, but thinking makes it so … I might be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.”
I had to take that a bit out of order, in order to establish the difference between pair-bonding and marriage, so that I could turn to Mike’s comments.
Marriage is not about a support mechanism. Tribes are about support mechanisms. With that removal, civilization needed to provide some alternative for women in a patriarchal system. Marriage became an exchange of property. I wouldn’t call marriage much of a support mechanism, though, since it’s historically led more to abuse than protection from it. Until recently, a woman turned out by her husband could simply return to her family, so it had little to do with seeing that the helpless woman was supported by a big, strong man. It had to do with cementing family alliances and business deals, it had to do with sex and inheritance, and it had everything to do with politics, but it really has never had much of anything to do with support.
Boredom is a shitty excuse, but you’re conflating Giuli and Peter. Unfortunately, Giuli didn’t want to dignify Peter’s comments with a response, so your confusion is understandable. Peter talked about leaving people because you get bored. Giuli believes that marriage is possible, and a good thing. She wants to keep it. The original article was taking reactionaries to task for their wholesale rejection of marriage. Giuli herself is going to be making such a lifelong commitment in the next year.
BUT–that’s not for everyone, either. Perhaps there should be recognized forms of pair-bonding between a lifelong commitment, and simply “living in sin.” Perhaps we could get more support if it wasn’t “all or nothing.” Most people can’t promise it all. What if, instead, you can promise ten years of commitment? From your own view of “marriage as support mechanism,” Mike, which do you think is preferable: ten years of committed support, or none at all? I, for one, tend to think we should recognize at least as much flexibility in our personal relationships as we do in computer warranties.
Marriage should definitely remain an option, but maybe some of those people who aren’t cut out for it might deal better with something more limited?
I think that might restore the “sanctity of marriage,” frankly. It’s hard to take it seriously as the lifelong commitment it’s meant to be when there’s a 50% divorce rate, but maybe if there was some other way to have your relationship recognized as more than just an idle fancy or adolescent dating, we might see people treating it with the respect that level of commitment deserves, and more people only making the commitments they’re willing and able to keep?
Baboons, like so many of our primate relatives, are strictly hierarchical.
Humans, like bonobos, are not. We form egalitarian groups.
Orange, meet Apple. Apple, Orange.
And there’s the problem. A couple living together for ten years in a committed relationship but still not sure if they want to spend the rest of their lives together is an entirely different thing than two teenagers that go to the movies and make out once a week. Our society has reduced the vast spectrum of human sexual relationships to a simple black-and-white dichotomy: married, or unmarried. Nobody’s saying it’s marriage. Nobody’s pretending that handfasting is the same thing as marriage. We’re saying that marriage and dating are two poles, but maybe we should recognize more colors in that rainbow than just “black” and “white.”
No. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in … minutes. Go away.
Giuli & I have the onerous distinction of having the first marriage in the Tribe of Anthropik. There’s no dictates about how others will have to relate, and nobody has to listen to us. But to make our marriage work, there are certain decisions we need to make, and like it or not, those decisions will set a precedent, and the beginning point of our tribe’s traditions. We’re going to be writing about these things, because this is a major point in the development of our tribe, and we feel a need to help other tribes by providing a glimpse of how others have done it. It’s an open source, tribal revolution, and we’re releasing our “code” early and often.
Now, if you don’t like the way Giuli & I do it, fine, don’t. Don’t use our code. Or, if you like part of it and not the rest, then use that part. That’s open source. But as for us, we’re going to remain mindful of the fact that we are setting a very important precedent here. George Washington didn’t leave any dictates for future presdients, either, but much of the precedent he set became unquestioned as “how it’s done.” We find ourselves in a similar position, we’re mindful of that, and we’re going to continue keeping that in mind and trying as best we can to set as good a precedent as we are able.
So, instead, your ideal world just has a mess of unrecognized relationships, pair-bonding without any kind fo social expectation (since society doesn’t even recognize 99% of them), nearly all babies born out of wedlock, and total chaos because it has to be all or nothing, with everyone cut out because they can’t live up to such a high ideal?
What’s so wrong with high ideals for those that can live up to them, and an alternative for those who want to express a commitment more than “let’s go steady until I get bored with you,” but still aren’t quite ready for “till death do us part”? Recognizing red, purple and blue does not mean that red, purple and blue are all green.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 3:49 PM
“Boredom is a shitty excuse, but you’re conflating Giuli and Peter. Unfortunately, Giuli didn’t want to dignify Peter’s comments with a response, so your confusion is understandable.”
Just what is so wonderful about staying attached to the same person for life? I don’t get it. Once the “juice” runs out, it’s really hard to get it back.
You guys are mostly in your twenties. Try being in a relationship for ten years and see what happens in most cases. Then come back to me and tell me that my observation about what happens in upwards of 80% cases doesn’t deserve a reply.
Right now you two are planning a marriage, so I understand your need to have a very positive mindset.
I hope it works out for you.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 3:58 PM
Let me add this. Since I’m may be twice as old as the average poster here, it means that many of the couples I’m using as my data points for this observation are in their forties and even early fifties. I’m not basing my opinions on doe-eyed 25 year olds day-dreaming about a life of bliss with their current boy or girl-friend. Trust me, most couples are bored out of their minds but they stick together for the kids or because they dread the idea of being single again after 40. Go have a beer after work with the older guys and listen to what comes out eventually.
At rock bottom marriage is a financial partnership which can be exceedingly expensive and difficult to extract oneself from when the time comes. A lot of young guys (
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 4:13 PM
Ooops….
A lot of young guys (
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 4:19 PM
There appears to be a bug on the board.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 4:20 PM
Hey Petey,
You know, I’ve been married for 14 years now, known my wife for 18 years. I’ve got married friends, I’ve got single friends, I’ve got divorced friends. So I think I speak with some authority, at least through experience.
Jason & Guili are right. You are wrong. There are more colors in the rainbow of relationships. There are more ways to deal with life rather than the black and white of married/unmarried. While you can go through rough patches where you want to throttle your spouse (metaphorically), you can get through, thanks to that commitment. The 80% failure is nonsense
And hey, Jason?
I appreciate a comment you made, waking up every morning making / renewing the choice to stay with someone. It’s what has kept my marriage strong, healthy and (to mis-quote Petey) “juicy” lo these many years. And, damn it, led to three kids too :(P
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 23 January 2006 @ 4:21 PM
Assuming “juice” is what you’re after. Obviously, this isn’t something for you. Fine; there should be alternatives open to you.
But boredom is a shitty excuse to break a vow. What’s “so wonderful” about keeping true to a vow you make is, well, keeping your word. Once you’ve made a vow, you better damn well keep it.
Which is why I agree with Giuli, that people should be able to make different kinds of vows, that they are willing to keep.
Another statistic cited from the OoMOA Institute?
That’s “Out of My Own Ass,” byt the way. Made up statistics may be the most frequent kind, but they still don’t count.
I have. And I know plenty of people who’ve been married for decades, and still think their mate is the most fascnating person you’ve ever met.
Personally, I think even the most boring person possible is made up of infinitely diverse, interesting levels and layers. I think anyone you get to know well enough, you will love.
But that doesn’t necessarily imply “juice”–or fireworks, or butterflies in the stomach, or any kind of “spark.” That fades, and if that’s your definition of “love”–if it’s something that “happens to you,” then yes, you’ll be disappointed. And I know many such people, too. Their relationships failed because they went in with unrealistic expectations from movies and books of what “love” means.
But when all that fades, you find something far more interesting: another human being. Someone to share your life with–the good and the bad. The name of the game isn’t ecstasy, but contentment. I’ve felt plenty of passion, but that’s not all there is to love. It’s the quiet moments, too. It’s the feeling when you’re with that person that, no matter where you are, you’re home.
“Juice” is a measure of lust. That’s not a bad thing–but it isn’t the only thing, either.
Bill — thanks.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 4:27 PM
“Usually the men had to go out to work while women stayed indoors. Slaves had to hand over a portion of the goods they produced to their masters. Men had to support their wives.”
“No. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in … minutes. Go away.”
What kind of reply is that? If you are going to take this attitude to people generously trying to help you by giving you pause for thought before you enter into a form of slavery likely to turn your life into a smoking ruin then you deserve everything you get. In fact, I hope you are driven to bankruptcy, jail and suicide; just like thousands of other men who fell for marriage scams. However, I still hope to raise awareness of the situation so that the less deserving will not be dragged down with the likes of you.
Comment by Anonymous — 23 January 2006 @ 4:51 PM
“I appreciate a comment you made, waking up every morning making / renewing the choice to stay with someone.”
Actually, I am the one that said that.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 4:57 PM
To each his own.
I have married friends and single friends. For most people the grass is always greener on the other side. Married people wish they were single again. Single people wonder if they’d be happier married.
On average, I’d say my single friends are 7.4% happier than the married ones. (That stat is for you, Jason.)
:o)
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:05 PM
Bill said:
“Hey Petey”
Actually Bill, I prefer “Peter” as you could easily deduce from the way I identify myself here. It’s odd that you chose to mangle my name.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:07 PM
Peter, you said this?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY BED, YOU SICK BASTARD?!?!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 5:09 PM
…
No. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in … minutes. Go away.
Though, I have spent many an hour laughing hysterically at the nonsense at no-marriage.com over the years. I remember when I first saw it … MetaFilter I think. Oh man, good times. Some of the best comedy on the internet.
Oh … wait … you actually meant t?
Shit … somehow, that makes it even funnier!
Dude, you’ve got some serious memory problems cropping up here. First you parsed “Peter, stop being an asshole,” to think that Giuli was upset with Ben, now you’re confusing my words with your own. I wrote:
The word “morning” has been used six times in the thread: first, Eric’s “I say all this fresh from the aftereffects of yet another vile and pointless argument with my SO at three in the morning,” then three by me, and then Bill’s mention that you quoted.
The truest thing you’ve said all thread.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 5:11 PM
Hey –
As another ‘elder’ I need to pipe in here…
Obviously you DON’T get it, Peter. My ‘husband’ (we are legally un-married by choice — but pair bonded in every sense of the word) and I have known each other for over twenty years, and we have been together for the last 14 of those years… and YES, sometimes it is hard. Sometimes we lose our way, sometimes anything you might think of. But we are still together for the indisputable fact that it si a love relationship. Rather than simply a hoped for fairy tale or a desire to get laid regularly.
It doesn’t deserve a reply.
At rock bottom a ‘marriage’ (regardless of court documents, titles or pre-assumptions) is about two (or more) people sharing thier lives together. So long as both (all) individuals are getting what they need and giving what they can, the ‘marriage’ will be healthy.
That was a brilliant reply, IMHO
Janene
Comment by Janene — 23 January 2006 @ 5:13 PM
Am I a jerk to point out the longest threads at Anthropik always include some massive battle between the way one person experiences life and the way another experiences life?
Don’t forget history is just as often used as a weapon as it is used as a tool. Feminists have been using it to emasculate innocent throngs based on history as often as men have used history to destroy the personhood of women.
But the real question is, are we facing collapse in sexual insitutions?
Some sex practices are based on the mythology of the time. Some sex practices are reasoned by the environment and sanitary concerns. Some sex practices are completely magic.
If I have the desire to have sex with any woman that desires me, am I a pig, a slave to biology, or a class-war hero trying to break the bonds of victorianism?
Is our desire to have a regular sex practice even necessary, or is hedonism merely dysfunctional?
How do we go from here to ritualize our sex practices now that we have history, prudeness, and our partners working against us?
I think this is why most cult memebers end up being castrated or celibate.
TonyZ
Comment by TonyZ — 23 January 2006 @ 5:14 PM
No Giuli, I said this above:
For me the best relationship is one where both parties have the freedom each and every day to decide if they want to remain in it. This freedom also ensures that both stay motivated in keeping the relationship interesting.
I have noticed that in these long threads people quickly forget who said what and begin to ascribe positions to others that they don’t really hold.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:17 PM
Um… Peter, somehow I don’t think that was what Bill was referring to, seeing as how
1. He specfically referred to elements in Jason’s post absent in yours
2. He was addressing Jason
Why are you assuming that he must be wrong and must be addressing your very different comment?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 5:19 PM
Jason jumped in with: “Dude, you’ve got some serious memory problems cropping up here. First you parsed “Peter, stop being an asshole,” to think that Giuli was upset with Ben, now you’re confusing my words with your own.”
Read my above quote of what I said, Jason. I said what I said.
Moreover, I knew the “asshole” remark was directed at me and not as Mike. But I thought Mike was the one pissing her off in the thread. Scrool to the top and start reading over and you will see why.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:22 PM
I was also pissed off at Mike. But I was pissed off at you as well. And also… Mike isn’t Ben.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 5:24 PM
Giuli,
If you are in agreement with me that couples should have the freedom to decide how to structure their relationships, then we are really not at odds here.
There are many people like me who after divorce decide to stay unmarried.
I wish that I knew more happily married couples, but I don’t. They are as scarce as hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods. It’s probably different in your region.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:28 PM
Hey, how about this. If you want to get a divorce you have to climb a mountain, butt naked, in winter. No matter the outcome you aren’t married anymore.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 5:30 PM
“No. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in … minutes. Go away.
“Though, I have spent many an hour laughing hysterically at the nonsense at no-marriage.com over the years. I remember when I first saw it … MetaFilter I think. Oh man, good times. Some of the best comedy on the internet.
“Oh … wait … you actually meant t?”
***
The fact that you can only respond to objections with lame and insulting attempts at humor demonstrates the weakness of your position, as well as your generally poor character. You should be grateful that people who have seen past a bit more of the bullshit of civilization choose to contribute to try to help you. If you are going to be rude to them for doing so, I suggest you eliminate the comments section of this blog to avoid further revolting and alienating your own supporters. You can’t expect all the posts to be from stooges telling you how great you are, you know.
I also suggest that before you enter into marriage slavery you follow the nomarriage.com suggestion of travelling overseas to see what real women are supposed to be like. If, after doing so, you are still determined to go thru with it, then at least you’ll be doing so from a better-informed position.
Comment by Anonymous — 23 January 2006 @ 5:32 PM
I’m not against your freedom to divorce or remain unmarried. But I take offense at the ridiculous and profoundly inaccurate assertions that are coming out of your keyboard.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 5:32 PM
Because “in these long threads people quickly forget who said what and begin to ascribe positions to others that they don’t really hold.”
For my part, Peter, I don’t care what you believe. Never have. I just respond to what you say.
BEN IS NOT MIKE!!!!!
Mother of all the….
And, again, Bill referred very explicitly to something I said. Yes, you said that we should have an opportunity to kick our partner to the curb every day, but that’s not what Bill was referring to when he referred to what I said….
But oh man, having the NoMarriage.com guy here took me down memory lane. I brought up ye olde MeFi thread to reminisce….
This guy sure must brighten every room he enters…
He sure does, sharky! He sure does….
There’s little there in terms of rethinking human relationships, but there’s plenty of “my marriage sucks so yours should, too” anecdote.
For a moment I thought I’d accidentally logged onto another one of my favorite sites, Cruel Site of the Day.
Perhaps this individual has had troubles in relationships because he is an enormous asshole. But at least he has realized that because of his hatred of women, he shouldn’t have a relationship with a woman. Unless she’s foreign, of course.
Reading this guy’s site, I am reminded of a certain little rascals episode. What a loser. No wonder he has a hard time with chicks.
If you pick a woman for her bra size instead of her character, and then expect to treat her like a household appliance with sexual privileges, don’t come crying to me.
It must suck to have a small penis.
(Yes, I’m being an asshole to Mr. NoMarriage.com guy, but in my defense, I have a lower stupidity threshold where I stop responding to someone’s stupidity and instead just mock them mercilessly until they run away. Now you know where that threshold is.)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 5:33 PM
Anonymous: Do you remember me? Some time ago, I e-mailed you countering every one of your objections to “American women” (i.e., your strawman) with actual data and statistics. I finally fought you down to, “Well, when I said American women, I actually meant liberal, blue-state women.” Then I countered all of your objections with more statistics. You never e-mailed me again.
I believe that I have earned the right to respond to you with amused silence, outright mockery, or anything in-between. And although my intelligent and well-read boyfriend has never bothered to debate you directly (he has better things to do with his time), you can be assured that he has earned that right as well.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 5:36 PM
Oh for the love of….
I know foreign women. They’re … exactly the same as women everywhere else. What the hell is wrong with you?
Your claims are so ridiculous they don’t deserve a reply. You rank in the top 10 idiots I’ve ever had to deal with, and your violent wishes underscore that.
Go away now, son, the grown-ups are talking.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 5:36 PM
Giuli,
My bad. I did for a moment confuse Mike with Ben. I participate on numerous boards and blogs so sometimes it’s hard to remember the precise details of a particular discussion on one board.
I also readily acknowledge that my views of marriage are colored by my life experiences. I’m not just an “only child”, but I’m also one who grew up from the ages of 1 through 5 in an area without any kids my age. So I learned to entertain myself early on. During my 6 year marriage, I frequently felt a sense of privacy deprivation. It drained me emotionally over time.
Now that I’m single I can choose when to have company.
I’m also considerate enough not to inflict myself on another human being 24/7.
I wish you and Jason the best of luck.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:38 PM
Thanks, Peter. I think if anythng, we’re probably on the same side, in that Giuli & I would like to see a much wider spectrum of recognized relationships, and it sounds like that’s something you’d prefer, too. But just because marriage isn’t for you, that doesn’t mean it’s not for anybody. Just like I, personally, want a monogamous relationship, but I can see where that’s not a very good society-wide policy, so, too, you should be able to see that marriage should exist as one of many options, even if it’s not your option.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 5:42 PM
Could I ask everyone to identify who or what they are responding to? Please use a name or partial quote, so that we can all follow along in these ginormous flamefests.
TIA.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:43 PM
I usually quote the section I’m referring to first. Identity doesn’t mean much to me–what they said is what matters. Others put the name first, but everyone has their own way of identifying who they’re talking to, if you pay attention.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 5:45 PM
I do respect marriage as an option, Jason.
For the record, I tend to have long term monogamous relationships even when single. I’m not a “playa”. Never have been. Never had any desire to be. I prefer one-on-one relationships where you really get to know someone.
Unfortunately, most of my relationships ith women come to an end after a few years.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 5:49 PM
Good–your initial comments seemed to indicate that you thought marriage was a bad idea for anyone, such as when you said, “After a few years of marriage you feel as if you’d give almost anything for a good night’s sleep in your own bed and the ability to have some quality “me time” in the evenings, without being constantly disturbed.”
Or when you said, “The real problem is in expecting two living, evolving people to stay joined at the hip forever.”
Or when you said this, which is apparently dripping with sarcasm, “Marriage is the most important thing in a boy’s life. Every boy grows up dreaming of his wedding day. It’s the most important day of his life. Most boys start planning their wedding day at about 8 or 10 years of age. Boys love the idea of being tied to the same woman for life because, by nature, they are monogamous and have no curiosity about other attractive females.”
This is where people got the idea that you didn’t have much respect for marriage as an option. But if that was all misinterpreted, and you’re able to respect our decision, then we can move along to bigger and better things.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 5:57 PM
You know, with everyone so vicously denying that Mike and I are the same person someone is bound to become suspicious.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 5:58 PM
Shut up, Mike!
I mean… oh, dammit.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 5:59 PM
“You know, with everyone so vicously denying that Mike and I are the same person someone is bound to become suspicious.”
I do find it odd that you two are never seen together.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 6:01 PM
Yes, Jason, I did say those things as well because they happen to be true.
I’ll repeat my position one final time as we are now just spinning our wheels here. Marriage works out great for a minority of couples.
Maybe 20.75%, since you like my stats so much. :o)
I just happen to think that expecting most people to “stay attached at the hip forever” is unrealistic. So sue me.
If you can’t reconcile my two statements at this point, then you never will.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 6:06 PM
I can, and I agree with you. I’m just pointing out where your statements were ambiguous at best, and contradictory to your actual beliefs at worst. As I told Giuli over lunch today–people respond to what you say, not what you think, because we don’t know what you think. We only know what you say.
(Giuli has the same problem sometimes, and this thread was really bothering her.)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 6:09 PM
Life is ambiguous. Every human being is seemingly full of contradictions.
Let me add this, I used to envy old married couples who seemed happy. I’m talking about the ones in their seventies walking slowly down the street holding hands.
Now I no longer envy them. (Nota bene: the word is “envy”.) I now respect them them for pulling it off. But why should I envy something that’s not suited for me? The answer is that I shouldn’t.
For a while I too fantasized about a life long marriage but learned the hard way that I value that quality “me time” too much.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 6:17 PM
Here, here.
I’m more, well, “clingy.” I need to have someone in my life, and I feel very little need for “me time,” so I don’t think your problems will be my problems.
I’ll have unique problems all my own.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 6:20 PM
Jason,
I ask myself sometimes why I hang out here.
The best answers are:
1. The writing is excellent. I majored in business but have been interested in history since I first learned how to read. By the first grade, I was coming home with a big stack of books from the neighborhood library every week. So this site is a fantastic place for readers.
2. The notion of belonging to a community with strong bonds appeals to me. What form it will take I don’t know yet. I can’t see myself going tribal because while I am pretty fit and healthy, I do have one health issue that would cause problems if I didn’t have regular access to a well-stocked pharmacy.
I’ll add that for the past 8 years I have been pretty rootless and nomadic. Community is what I now crave. I want roots again like I had in the past. I’ll take strong tribal-like community over marriage anyday.
But that’s just me.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 6:31 PM
Well, as aggrevating as you can be sometimes, I think your contribution here is much more positive than negative. And life would be boring if we all agreed all the time, so we’re happy to have you around.
Though, your malady may have other treatments. I can’t say specifically without knowing what it is, but it’s something you should look into for yourself, since I doubt it will be much longer before regular access to a well-stocked pharmacy ceases to be an option.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 6:41 PM
Unfortunately, there is no alternative to my life-long problem.
“Well, as aggravating as you can be sometimes, I think your contribution here is much more positive than negative.”
I am cursed with the ability to see both sides of almost any issue. This includes their plusses and minuses.
This means that I piss off everyone. People on the right think I’m a raving leftie. Ultra-liberals think I’m a neanderthal.
Maybe that’s why I’m alone?
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 6:48 PM
Probably not–I have the same affliction.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 7:09 PM
Here’s an old timers perspective. Although this is my second marriage, this May will be our 30th anniversary. It is not the institution or the sanctity of marriage that is important. It is the relationship between the partners, which must be built on mutual love. Both must consider the happiness and growth of the other as important as their own. What binds you together when things get difficult is not vows, but your strong desire to preserve the relationship and regain the happiness that comes with understanding and being understood. Sharing and solving problems also strengthens the relationship. I realize my wife and I are very fortunate and that our situation is rare.
I think the commitment that is made is between the individuals involved and there should not be any “traditional� requirements. Others should respect their relationship regardless of the kind of commitment they have made to each other.
It is true that we cannot foresee the future and that every one does change. I don’t think it’s possible to vow to maintain a relationship for a lifetime without possibly subjecting one or both partners to suffering or breaking the vow. It’s also not reasonable to contract for a number of years. A person should not have to serve the remaining years because of an obligation. Children are not a good reason to keep a couple together. Children are usually hurt more by the negative behavior of unhappy parents than by their separation. I guess what I am saying is that people should not be bound together but cling together because they want to. I would say the same thing about tribal relationships. I would not want some members to remain because of loyalty.
A loving, exciting, and friendly relationship that lasts for decades is the greatest treasure I have known. I wish that for Giuli and Jason.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 23 January 2006 @ 8:37 PM
I have watched my grandparents for the past 7 years love each other more than I ever believe love could exist.
Their love is what I want for my life.
They were married 52 years ago and my grandmother passed away from lung complications due to the cancer she has been battling for 7 years moving to her lungs in a matter of days. She died on their 52nd anniversary.
childhood, highschool, college, lifetime sweethearts.
Marriage or no marriage, I want a lifetime love like that.
There has never been a divorce in my family, and if I ever do get married, I would want it to be a lasting thing, not a commitment that is, well, if it doesn’t work out…who cares? we can get divorced!
i like the idea of handfasting, agreeing to be with someone for a certain period of time, though I don’t think that would be for me ultimately.
my point?
On to it!
For Jason and Giuli, I wish for you the kind of love and happiness my grandparents had. That’s it. Marriage or no marriage, I don’t care who you are, be happy, have love. Everything else is details.
Comment by Miranda — 23 January 2006 @ 9:11 PM
“Yes, I’m being an asshole to Mr. NoMarriage.com guy, but in my defense, I have a lower stupidity threshold where I stop responding to someone’s stupidity and instead just mock them mercilessly until they run away. Now you know where that threshold is”
***
Just to clarify, I am not the publisher of nomarriage.com, but I applaud the guy for having the courage to post some common sense on the gender issue. I don’t mind your being an asshole because I’m smugly content that your politically correct outlook will come back to bite you in the ass in short order. However, it is disappointing that your intellectual development has ceased at some point and you are now hysterically rejecting anything outside the received thinking of civilization that you still buy into, just like any other common organ-bank in the street.
As to the relative horribleness of Western women, we should all know that most of them are the result of a 40 year social engineering experiment designed to produce the most dehumanized people possible that has unfortunately succeeded wildly, shouldn’t we? I know that pointing this out will offend most people, but what should offend them more is that it’s true. When I returned to the West after spending several months in a country where women still looked and acted like women, I was shocked to find that most Western women were boorish, loudmouthed, graceless, fat & ugly if over 30 and, if under 30, either dressed like cheap whores or slovenly men who had just woken up in their clothes after a night on the piss. That is to say nothing of their general hatefulness and emotional instability. I had noticed this before of course, but having no frame of reference I thought it was normal. Thankfully, it is not. Here and here couple of articles on the subject.
This is not to say that Western women aren’t good for a few rolls in the hay (which is easier to obtain than ever given the desperately hedonistic sluts that many of them are), but to MARRY one of them, AND thereby accept a legal status akin to that of a convicted murderer on life parole, is just bizarre. I accept that any man has a right to do this, just as he has a right to stick his dick in a food blender if he so desires, but sheesh, this is buying in to the worst that civilization has to offer.
Comment by Anonymous — 23 January 2006 @ 9:24 PM
“You know, with everyone so vicously denying that Mike and I are the same person someone is bound to become suspicious.”
The only solution for this problem is to have one you change your name. It’s just too confusing having a Mike and a Benjamin on the same board.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 9:25 PM
Yeah, that’s us. Always unquestionably agreeing with everything civilization tells us. We lurves our civilization, mmhmm, yes we do.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 9:43 PM
*snicker*
Yes, ’cause everyone knows about my completely conventional, pro-civilization mentality.
Absolutely! And I think we all know who’s to blame, too — those damn alien communists putting fluoride in our drinking water!
It’s kinda cute, having you around preaching “the truth” about those damn girls and their cooties, seeing as how you’ve never actually spoken to one.
i.e., served me as house appliances with sex organs….
Yee haw for outright misogyny!
Well, naturally. Everyone knows that 98% of all women suffer from some sort of emotional disorder.
I would also like to add that every man I’ve ever met has been kind, gracious, emotionally well-adjusted, well-mannered, mildly spoken, graceful, and just oh so sexy.
To quote anti-gay crusader Dr. Paul Cameron: “It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything. … Martial sex tends toward the boring end… Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.”
You, my friend, need to first take a cold shower, and then comes to terms with yourself and accept yourself for who you are, mm’kay? I know you think vaginas are icky, but that has nothing to do with the nature of women. That’s just because you’re a homosexual.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 9:52 PM
HEY! I take issue with that. Most closeted, repressed gay men are far more reasonable and well-spoken than Anonymous.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 23 January 2006 @ 9:57 PM
Most, yes … but then again, most American women are “boorish, loudmouthed, graceless, fat & ugly if over 30 and, if under 30, either dressed like cheap whores or slovenly men who had just woken up in their clothes after a night on the piss.”
Of course, you have to wonder about how dressing like a man is an insult if you’re not holding some kind of double standar… ohhhhhh….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 10:02 PM
I thought Anonymous was reading that whole rant to a mirror…
Comment by JCamasto — 23 January 2006 @ 10:08 PM
“The only solution for this problem is to have one of you change your name. It’s just too confusing having a Mike and a Benjamin on the same board.”
How about “Dutch”? Good manly name. Easy to remember.
One you becomes “Dutch” and the problem goes away.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 10:17 PM
“When I returned to the West after spending several months in a country where women still looked and acted like women”
“i.e., served me as house appliances with sex organs….[..] I know you think vaginas are icky, but that has nothing to do with the nature of women. That’s just because you’re a homosexual.”
***
So you’re so desperate to avoid the awful truth of the situation that you are plumbing the depths of racism and homophobia eh? (Personally I wish I were gay.)
Comment by Anonymous — 24 January 2006 @ 12:07 AM
Yes, the awful truth of slavery to women. Where men have to wait on their every desire, day and night. Sleep with them. Eat their food. Hmmmm……yeah, sounds like you’re gay.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 January 2006 @ 12:25 AM
Yup, that’s me. Raging homophobe. Like my militant stance against gay marriage, or my refusal to associate with any of them.
This is like arguing with a Klansman. OK, well, I wouldn’t say I’m “arguing” with him. It’s really more like a cat playing with a dead mouse….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 January 2006 @ 8:43 AM
I just find it hilarious that he keeps coming up with these insults that are completely, 100%, couldn’t-be-more-wrong wrong! Next he’s going to accuse you of being a slave to Microsoft.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 24 January 2006 @ 10:11 AM
Yup, that’s me. Raging homophobe. Like my militant stance against gay marriage, or my refusal to associate with any of them.
***
You clearly are anti-gay because you are using allusions to homosexuality as an insult to fend off threats to your bigoted worldview. The clear implication is that there is something wrong with being gay. Do you not think this will be obvious to people? If you have previously written pro-gay stuff then that just goes to show what a hypocritical nutcase you are.
You should be ashamed of yourself. When you try to help the sniveling multitudes by pointing out aspects of the civilization bogosity that you’ve seen thru, what do most of them do? - hysterically reject whatever you’re saying and diagnose you with various disorders, of course. When more knowledgeable and less brainwashed people than yourself try to help you by pointing out other aspects of the bogosity that they’ve seen thru but you haven’t (such as the marriage/monogamy bullshit, the notion that civilization is patriarchal, the idea that androgynous Western entities shaped vaguely like women compare to the real thing etc.) what do you do? - hysterically reject whatever they’re saying and diagnose them with various disorders, of course. If anything you are worse than other members of the herd because you are more hypocritical than them.
Of course you would never consider that anyone might know something you don’t and actually think about or check out what they are saying. For example, even if you didn’t want to travel overseas you could easily check how Western women compare to foreign women by going on an ESL forum or other expat forum and asking about the subject. I predict you would get chapter and verse on just how delightful foreign women are to be around and how much Western women suck in comparison. In fact scores of thousands of men have fled the West for that very reason. Were you not aware of this? But lets say for the sake of argument this weren’t the case and I were wrong. So what? How would I not still be doing you a favor by bringing the issue to the table for your consideration before you potentially ruin your life?
Do you not realize how bad your behavior in this thread has made you look? You have blown your chance to be regarded as a true intellectual and the chances of bigots like you surviving the collapse of civilization are remote.
Comment by Anonymous — 24 January 2006 @ 5:19 PM
No, it’s just obviously an issue you need to deal with, rather than pouring all this self-recrimination you’ve got bottled up into this whole misogynist screed you’ve got going, and all your paranoid delusions thereof.
No, they generally respond with something in the range from “That’s sensible, but I’m not sure I agree,” to, “Yes, I believe you are correct.” There are outliers, to be sure, but that’s the response that you get when you’re not a raving lunatic.
No, I laugh at you. There’s nothing hysterical about my response at all. I think of you less as a person, and more as a caricature. I’m responding to you primarily to amuse myself, because everything you say is so outrageously stupid t’s really some of the funniest stuff I’ve read since … well, since the last time I visited NoMarriage.com!
The really funny thing is, I’ve talked about polygamy before as being much more suited to the natural disposition of the sexes as a compromise, and monogamy as something strangely suited towards female interests, but when you go and equate male domination of the public sphere with “slavery,” and such slavish devotion to misogynist ideals like “what a woman is supposed to act/dress/talk like” and all of this other raving lunacy, what can I do but laugh at such unsubstantiated idiocy? And to then clothe one’s misogynistic lunacy in such condescending language about revealing “the Truth!” well … it doesn’t get much better than that, does it?
Why do I listen and respond civilly to so many people who disagree with me, but laugh at you? Why am I answered with respect, while you are answered with scorn? Because my points are well-researched and backed up with evidence. Yours are, well, the raving lunacy of a bitter misogynist.
Yeah, I’ve never done that before.
Yes, son, I’ve been to college. I’ve met foreign women. I’ve dated foreign women. They’re … exactly the same as women anywhere else.
How is this different from the obvious superiority of pure-blooded Aryans to all other, inferior races? Same type and amount of evidence, I see.
Yes, let’s.
Because you’re an idiot, and it’s a point so simplistic it takes about 0.24 seconds for someone of average intelligence to settle?
Though, you have done me a favor. You’ve given us the gift of humor. Thank you for that. I haven’t read anything this funny since … well, I already said that.
No, tell me.
Oh yeah, I can see that.
You’re right. The all-male, no-girls-allowed Tribe of Cootie-Warriors will no doubt have a much higher survival rate. Especially in the second generation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 January 2006 @ 5:35 PM
I don’t know which is funnier - the unabashed misogynist accusing you of being homophobic, or claiming that you will no longer be respected as an intellectual if you don’t unquestioningly accept everything he says.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 24 January 2006 @ 5:52 PM
I think the funniest part is that he being homophobic makes him an astute observer of civilization’s lies, while Jason being homophobic makes him stupid and gives him the survival rate of a past ripe banana.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 January 2006 @ 5:58 PM
No, Ben, don’t you see? He’s not homophobic, because being homophobic is wrong. He accepts all people just the way they are, as long as they agree with everything he says and unthinkingly do his bidding.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 24 January 2006 @ 6:05 PM
Somehow, I doubt most people who have been through a divorce would agree with your characterization of it. The consequences of marrying and then getting a divorce are far more serious than simply deciding not to renew a contract.
I really don’t think that has as much to do with cultural memes as it does with cognitive dissonance. If you’re going to suddenly end a relationship with a person you’ve invested so much of your time in, you need to come up with some way of justifying it to yourself in your mind. So you tell yourself, “She’s just being a bitch,” or, “He’s just a bastard.” Convincing yourself of that makes it easier to separate yourself from the person and move on with your life.
Frankly, I don’t know how much culture can do to really change that.
Did you just call me a chauvinist? I know I’m not perfect, but I don’t think chauvinism is really one of my failings. What reasonable definition of the term is there that I would fall into?
As far as shelters go, it doesn’t have anything to do with chivalry. It has to do with the fact that women are, overwhelmingly, the ones in need of such a service. Even taking into account the fact that men tend not to report abuse, women are still the victims of the vast majority of cases of domestic abuse.
When it’s all just theory, it’s easy to talk about how easy it is for abused women to get back at their husbands. But in reality, that’s just not what happens.
Even the !Kung practice of bride service I’m not sure is really comparable to handfasting. Bride service takes into consideration the needs of the entire family. It’s not just a matter of, “Well, our subscription is up. That’s the end of that.”
I don’t consider upholding one’s marriage vows to be an unreasonable thing to expect of a person.
How does recognizing marriage as a permanent commitment “force” anyone to make that commitment?
Perhaps, but the woman’s parents are likely to die before she does. Maybe she has a brother that will take care of her, but he likely has his own family to support. This is especially problematic if an ex-wife is left with children to support. Marriage is quite obviously the best option there.
I think you’re conflating the politics that came later with the original purpose. Marriage is about building social networks. In our own society, these networks became involved in business and politics as the people in them rose through the hierarchy. However, even in the most cutthroat families, marriages still provide a vital support system.
Okay. Then why is making a lifetime commitment such an impossible task? And, more importantly, why should I trust someone to be there if their own spouse can’t even trust them to be there?
Actually, none would almost be better. Let’s say you enter into one of these ten-year deals in your early twenties, and at the end of it your partner decides he’s bored now and wants to leave. So now you’re in your early thirties. At this point, it’s significantly more difficult to attract a partner, and many of the people in that age range are no longer available. On the other hand, if you had simply made no commitment to begin with, you would have been free to pursue other options at the time.
Frankly, if you’re not able to make a commitment to a person after a certain amount of time, you never will be. And you have no right to waste any more of that person’s time with the hopes of something that’s never going to happen.
Of course, because what woman doesn’t swoon at her partner thinking of her in the same way he thinks of computer hardware?
Or maybe the reason for the 50% divorce rate has more to do with people in America not respecting the permanence of marriage to begin with. Maybe it has to do with people like ultra-liberal college students and neo-pagans trying to stick it to the Manâ„¢ by telling everyone who will listen about how marriage is a sham. Maybe it has to do with the fact that most Americans would rather pretend their lives are a script for Sex and the City than accept their relationships for what they are. Or the fact that anyone who wants to can get married by Elvis to a person they’ve never even met in one drunken weekend in Las Vegas. Maybe that number wouldn’t be so high if we actually took a little bit of a stricter stance on the permanent consequences of marriage, because then people would stop and think a little harder before actually saying, “I do.”
Well, you’ll note that I wrote that in response to Giuli’s statement that, “Harming the powerless to prove that you have power is a strictly civilized activity.” Logically, all I have to do to disprove this statement is to show one example of a case in which members of a non-civilized society harm the powerless to prove that they have power. This I have done. Any other difference there may be between humans, baboons, and any other species of mammal you care to name is meaningless.
Furthermore, as I tried to explain to Giuli, simply reciting the mantra of “Forager societies are egalitarian” is thoroughly meaningless when we’re discussing what makes them egalitarian. It’s like answering the question “Why does a ball drop when I let it go,” with, “Because balls drop when you let them go.” We already know that the ball drops. But that doesn’t explain why the ball drops.
That is a horribly inaccurate way of describing how our society views relationships. We in fact recognize a wide variety of relationships. Just because we don’t have a ritual for all of them doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge their existence. Really, how materialistic do you have to be to declare what a society recognizes in terms of relationships based solely on when they give couples gifts? I’m happy you gave your girlfriend a promise ring, but I’m not throwing you a party for it.
Saying that categorizing people according to “married” or “unmarried” is somehow limiting is like saying that categorizing food according to “cooked” or “uncooked” is reducing the vast spectrum of culinary thermal states to a simple black-and-white dichotomy. It’s about what information is significant to the person you’re talking to. An unmarried person may be involved in any number of other kinds of relationships. But if you’re interested in that person, you’re probably interested primarily in whether or not he or she is married.
That doesn’t mean that two people who have been living together for ten years without getting married are going to be branded with a scarlet U. It doesn’t mean that friends-with-benefits are going to be run out of town by an angry mob with torches and pitchforks. All it means is that this is the point in a relationship that we consider to be the most significant. What’s wrong with that?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 24 January 2006 @ 6:09 PM
Oh, that part was sarcastic. It’s hard to tell. By in large I would have usually labeled the whole thing as a satire. But having to take any of it seriously hindered my ability to observe genuine sarcasim.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 January 2006 @ 6:16 PM
Actually, the most offensive thing about that is that we actually allow disgusting little worms like yourself to talk like that without being ritually beaten with baseball bats and put on display in the center of town to serve as a warning for all to see of what we do to misogynist jackasses like yourself. Fortunately for you, we don’t live in my ideal society. But I will say this. I’ve ignored your previous posts because they were simply too absurd to even dignify a response. But now you’re over the line. And while my comrades might find your particular brand of imbecility humorous, I’m not laughing.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about your hardluck stories of how you can’t get any without leaving the country. I don’t care that you’re reduced to sitting in your mom’s basement posting pathetic sexist trash on the internet because you can’t get it up. When you come to this site, you take your Viagra, and you keep a civil tongue in it.
I don’t want to see any more trash like the hate-filled vitriol you just vomitted up here on this site.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 24 January 2006 @ 6:34 PM
Actually, we all know that it is pussified girlymen like you who aren’t getting any. I should be applauding your actions given that it means there are legions of wives and girlfriends bored with thier sexless freak doormat husbands and boyfriends who need servicing by real men. However, I though I would generously take the time to share my insight on the subject with you given that most people here have their heads up their asses on the subject. Unfortunately you are obviously emotional cripples incapable of having a civilized discussion. I note that, much like the nazis, you would rather use violence against those whom you disagree with than explore their ideas. I’ll bear that in mind should we meet, although I anticipate that you will be too pathetically gutless to dish it out in person.
To think I was offended by people calling you cultists. Man, did I pick the wrong side.
Comment by Anonymous — 24 January 2006 @ 9:07 PM
“Why do I listen and respond civilly to so many people who disagree with me, but laugh at you? Why am I answered with respect, while you are answered with scorn? Because my points are well-researched and backed up with evidence. Yours are, well, the raving lunacy of a bitter misogynist.”
**
And how do you come to that conclusion? Have you examined any evidence or asked me for any? No, it is just a case of knee jerk rejection of ideas because you are emotionally opposed to them, just like the “trolls” you complain about. Like I said, you are even worse than them and deserve everything you get from your voluntary servitude.
Comment by Anonymous — 24 January 2006 @ 9:14 PM
158 comments before a nonsensical reference to the NAZIs. Not too bad.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 January 2006 @ 9:41 PM
The guy wants people who say things he doesn’t like ritualistically beaten with baseball bats and the reference to nazis is nonsensical? Oh, that’s right, they would have used rubber truncheons. Sorry, my mistake.
Comment by Anonymous — 24 January 2006 @ 10:46 PM
It’s bad compared to Anthropik’s previous track record, but certainly an excellent standard for the rest of the Internet. Although unfortunately, Anonymous has broken Godwin’s Law, and therefore, this conversation is automatically over. So let me end it with a few observations:
A man comes onto an anarcho-primitivist blog and starts repeating the civilized party line word for word, then accuses Jason of being brainwashed by civilization. This blatant misogynist comes in and accuses Jason of racism and homophobia. He makes broad, sweeping generalizations about 50% of the human population while offering no backing evidence except a website cobbled together from various Internet message board rantings, then informs Jason that no one will ever take him seriously as an intellectual because he won’t accept this man’s hyperbolic, completely unsupported ramblings as truth. He ends by comparing a group of people who don’t approve of the idea of hierarchy to fascists.
Ladies and gentleman, Andy Kaufman is still alive. And he’s posting on our blog. Let’s all give him a big hand!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 24 January 2006 @ 10:48 PM
“A man comes onto an anarcho-primitivist blog and starts repeating the civilized party line word for word”
What civilized party line? Could you link to the pro-civ passage that I’m quoting. It should be easy to google it since I’m apparently quoting it word for word. In fact, I’m coming out against one of the keystones of civilization, as should be obvious.
“This blatant misogynist comes in and accuses Jason of racism and homophobia”
Because his passage, notwithstanding his lame attempts to backpedal, clearly indicated racism against non-Western women and homophobia. I mean, do you seriously not believe he didn’t intend accusing me of being gay as an insult?
Also, why do you keep calling me a misogynist? Please paste the passage where I’ve demonstrated this misogyny. I’ve only expressed two positions on women. One is that civilization is set up to cater to their interests, which obviously doesn’t indicate that I don’t like them. Do you accuse people who believe civilization is patriarchal of being misandryst? The other is that foreign women tend to be more likable and attractive than Western women. This is a purely relative statement comparing one group of women to another, with the additional virtue of being true, which is, once again, obviously not misogynist.
Are you completely irrational or just lying and hoping that no-one will read the previous posts?
I started posting in this thread perfectly amicably and was insulted merely because you and Jason are emotional cripples who didn’t want to hear what I was saying. You are a disgrace.
Comment by Anonymous — 25 January 2006 @ 3:37 AM
I had to ask Giuli where the hell you were getting “racist” from. Then she explained to me that when you described your ideal woman, and I characterized that ideal as “an electric appliance with sex organs,” you decided I was characterizing foreign women. No, no, no, son, I’ve met enough foreign women to know you’re using the wrong end of your alimentary canal for communication–I was commenting on your unrealistic, misogynistic ideal of “what a REAL woman is like.”
(Actually, I had a chance with an Asian girl once … passed on it. She was too traditional, acted like a doormat. I, unlike some more insecure men, don’t want a doormat. I want a partner–someone who’s willing to be herself, and speak up for herself, and doesn’t just go along with anything I say, and doesn’t see herself as my subject.)
As far as homophobia, well, anyone who can’t accept who they are winds up doing some pretty ridiculous things. Being gay is fine. Not being able to come to terms with the fact that you’re gay will make you wind up like … well … you. That’s not fine.
Your stance on gender relations and what they “should” be is the civilized party line. Men should be in charge, women should be subservient. If women do start to act like equals to men, you characterize them as, “boorish, loudmouthed, graceless, fat & ugly if over 30 and, if under 30, either dressed like cheap whores or slovenly men who had just woken up in their clothes after a night on the piss.” Because your expectation of them is to be demure, quiet, acquiescent to their Male, and doll themselves up for your pleasure in the manner you find most pleasing. When they either fall short of those expectations–or outright defy them–then you get the response that you’ve articulated for us in such detail. That’s misogyny.
Just like holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic, and people who go on about how slavery was so great for them Negroes are racists, so too are you a misogynist. The complete and utter domination of the public sphere by men is “slavery”? I’m reminded of one of Michael’s comics, only dealing with Pat Robertson’s claims like, “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”
“It’s like Rome … only with executive suites instead of deadly lion pits.”
If you want to talk about wage slavery, I’m there. But to pretend that this society is anything other than a patriarchy … what next, the Jews were really the ones in charge of Nazi Germany? You might have a stronger argument with that one….
Speaking of Nazis … we’re against any kind of government, because they’re inherently oppressive. But Mike wailing on your ass for being a dipshit would never be fascist, because Mike is not a state. Mike is an individual, and his individual right to wail on your ass for being a dipshit is the glue that holds an egalitarian society together.
But violence against people who disagree with you is wrong. I mean, what kind of person would hope someone to be driven to bankruptcy, jail and suicide just for disagreeing? Mike–I hope you learned your lesson.
And it’s just as obviously, empirically true that chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream, and I hope anyone who prefers vanilla ice cream is driven to bankruptcy, jail and suicide for their evil choice.
OK, enough of this. You amused me for a time, Anonymous, but Mike is right–our tolerance of your screeds is becoming a disgrace for the Tribe of Anthropik. I haven’t heard any comments about my reputation as an intellectual, but I have gotten a lot of complaints that our tolerance of your bitter misogyny makes us look really, really bad. So, that’s it. Playtime’s over. You post anonymously, and your IP keeps changing, so I can’t really ban you, but whatever you post here again I’ll keep labeling as spam until either my Bayesian filter learns to recognize you, or you just give up. Goodbye, Anonymous–enjoy your bitter, celibate life.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 10:48 AM
Oh yes, of course. I’ll just go find T3h Big Book of Civilized Beliefs and find that passage on women right away. Silly me, I just assumed that, because women only recieved the right to vote, the right to work outside the home, and the right to be acknowledged as individual human beings as opposed to property of their husbands within the last hundred years, it was just a teeny weeny bit obvious that maybe they don’t run the entire world. Seeing as how, you know, we’ve still never had a female president and women are still paid less than men for the exact same work. But then again, I guess if you date the beginning of civilization to the beginning of the feminist movement… you’d still not have any kind of a point at all.
No, I don’t believe that. I believe he was making fun of your obvious closetedness. Homosexuality is not a bad thing. But blatantly closeted homosexuals running around projecting their misery onto others is really, really funny. I think he was addressing that.
And don’t try to shove your own stereotypes onto Jason’s shoulders. It took me several minutes to figure out where he’d said something racist. When I finally found it, I just rolled me eyes. Here’s how, in your mind, he’s a “racist:”
YOU: Stereotypes all non-American women as being the exact same submissive housewife
JASON: Points out that your ideal woman is a household appliance with genitals
YOU: Accuses Jason of racism because…
…He called all foreign women household appliances with genitals? Um, no. He was making fun of your ideal woman as having no mind of her own. You were the one projecting your vision of the ideal household appliance - I mean, woman - onto every non-American woman in the entire freaking world. (And by the way, it’s no less racist to claim that black people can play basketball really well or Asians are good at math.)
I bet you use that ridiculous little attempt at a trick in every “debate” you enter. You come in talking about how all foreign women act like women should act. Someone points out that your vision of how women should be is abominable. You then accuse them of racism. Because, obviously, if they’re making fun of your idea of how women should act, then they must be making fun of every woman outside of America. Because as we all know, they all act exactly the same way. They’re actually clones of the same person - little Stepford and Steppenfreud and Al Step Fadas wives, all standing ready to give our brave, beer-gutted American men handjobs and hot meals.
If you don’t know by now, I’ll let you fend for yourself in the future. Expect a lot of face-slapping. But then again, I guess you’ve probably been slapped in the face by enough women already… naaaah, what am I saying? “Enough?”
Is this another one of your statements that you’re reading to a mirror?
Yes, you were completely amicable coming in and telling Jason that he was wasting his life being with me because I was loud-mouthed, boorish, fat, ugly, dressed like a whore or a slovenly man, emotionally unstable, hateful, and was going to make Jason a slave to me whilst turning his own children against him. Do you want to ruin our whole plan for world domination?
I’ve put up with you long enough, Anonymous. At first, I found your meddling annoying. Then funny, even. But now you threaten my power. I shall have to inform my coven; they will deal with you. If I don’t deal with you first. You and all your kind, cleverly disguised as Internet loonies, are too close to the truth. The Matron Mothers are getting worried - very worried.
To tell you the truth, I always had my doubts. Men did everything for us, and how do we repay them? Voting… marching up and down the street… It’s disgraceful! I would have shot Susan B. Anthony to death, but I realized that men have better aim. I miss being subservient to my husband. There was an element of danger to being married that was so exhilarating… the fact that he could kill me and the law would do nothing… the fact that I could kill him and the law would kill me… the fact that if I didn’t or couldn’t bear children, I’d be replaced. I was all so fun and excit - no. No, stop! STOP! AAAAAH!!!!! WHY, WHY?!?! AAAAAAH!!!!
Ahem. But the Matron Mothers showed me the light. As they showed America. As they will soon show the world. Soon there will be no more real women left! Only us! And we shall rule the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 25 January 2006 @ 10:54 AM
Hey, I’d be careful about agreeing with Anonymous if I were you. Might make you look bad.
And where’s this idea that I’m advocating violence toward people for disagreeing with me coming from? I mean, I know that’s what Anonymous thinks because he’s jackass. But I really think I made my position quite clear. I disagree with people all the time, and I’m fine with that. I actually enjoy discussing opposing views with other people. You don’t see me talking about how we should beat up Tucker Carlson, after all. I’m not declaring my support for violence against people who disagree with me. I’m declaring my support for violence against misogynist pieces of shit. Who can’t get it up. That’s a huge difference.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 11:07 AM
:::stage whisper::: Mike… Mike… he’s being sarcastic. Follow the link.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 25 January 2006 @ 11:13 AM
Point, point.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 11:20 AM
Mike,
Who do you trust more, the person who makes a vow without considering it, or the person who considers the vow and decides not to make it?
For the record, I’ve been married for 7 years and it’s great. Most of the people I see who have marriages that don’t work either fail to communicate or fail to compromise. There is also a set of people who fail to grow. If you get bored in a relationship that says just as much about you as it does your partner. Do something new, learn something new.
Comment by JimFive — 25 January 2006 @ 11:25 AM
What makes you think that people who get married take their vows without considering them? You should consider a vow before making it. I never suggested otherwise. However, unlike others in this thread, I don’t believe that upholding your vows is a superhuman feat.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 12:48 PM
So, what about the person who wants to make some kind of commitment to another, but isn’t sure he can make a lifelong one? He knows this is a woman he wants to be with for some time, and he wants everyone to know that. He’s committed enough to say ten, or even twenty years, but a whole lifetime…? A life is a long time … he’s not ready for that.
Your response to someone who’s willing to commit two decades of his life to a person, is that that relationship should be counted as the same as two teenagers who go out every other weekend to watch a movie and hang out? I think there’s something wrong with that.
Make vows that you can consider and commit to. I don’t think it’s a superhuman feat to commit to someone for the rest of your life, but it’s not for everybody. The spectrum of possible commitments is infinite, but so is the spectrum of colors, or the spectrum of states of consciousness. Every society divdes these spectra into a discrete number of observed states. Our society breaks the entire spectrum of commitment into binary poles: black, or white. I’d just like to acknowledge a few more colors in between.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 1:14 PM
Well, now you’re just repeating the same points I’ve already responded to. Neither I nor anyone else in our society considers two people living together for twenty years to be the same thing as two teenagers hanging out every other weekend. Just because we distinguish between married and unmarried people doesn’t mean that we don’t recognize any other kinds of relationship. To suggest that “our society breaks the entire spectrum of commitment into binary poles” is just dishonest.
And frankly, someone who decides to be in a relationship with someone for twenty years without getting married is simply being irresponsible. If it takes you that long to decide whether you’re ready to make the commitment, you’re never going to be ready. So shit or get off the pot.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 1:25 PM
But we do! They’re not a formalized couple. Society must first recognize a couple, before it can treat them any differently. There are 1,049 rights given to married couples that are not available to unmarried couples–things like power of attorney, visitation rights, etc. Every society needs to recognize couples for this kind of thing.
And that’s why we need to break the spectrum down a bit. Longer commitments get more rights, and maybe then marriage would be given the respect it deserves. As it is, so many people enter into it because it’s the only way to formalize their relationship, with every expectation of eventual divorce. Divorce should be the exception, not the rule.
Au contraire–it is dishonest to pretend that we do distinguish. Two women are in the hospital. The first has been with the same man, living together, for 25 years. The other has a boyfriend she made out with last Saturday. The hospital will treat them exactly the same way–they’re both unmarried boyfriends.
Wouldn’t it be better if there was some formal recognition that a couple was committed, though perhaps not for life, and we gave them some of the more basic rights, like visitation?
You’re coming from the perspective that either of them want a lifelong commitment. Maybe they’re both of the “take each day as it comes” camp, and neither one wants to make a commitment. How is that irresponsible? I could see your argument if one or the other was looking for an eventual commitment, but that’s not always the case.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 1:36 PM
Maybe different social contracts? friend, boyfriend, fiance, husband, father, brother, etc are all relationships, but involve different social contracts. Perhaps something between marriage and fiance?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 25 January 2006 @ 1:56 PM
Hey –
hmm… thanks
No, really, how do you then address people like Jim and I who ARE fully committed, but feel that ‘marriage’ as it is established in our culture is not… appropriate for us to support? Quite frankly, neither of us believes that the government should have anything to say about who we sleep with… and we have no church… so who would ‘marry’ us?
This is part of why I am so interested in this topic. Assuming, just for a second, that I agree with your assessment of our culture recognizing many levels of relationships… what would you call us?
Really, this whole argument, in some ways, comes down to legislation. Custom is one thing — it can adapt when needs change, or for particular circumstances… but is Tribe Anthropik going to enforce ANY sort of ‘legislation’ or ‘codified rights’ based upon different relationships? If not, perhaps the point is moot until a situation — a real life situation with real life people — comes along where it needs to be addressed…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 25 January 2006 @ 2:05 PM
Now you guys are talking about legal definitions of marriage. That’s a very different thing from what a society recognizes in terms of relationships, which is what we’re talking about. The role of government is not to legislate social norms and values. And I’m not sure it could even if it wanted to.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 2:15 PM
It certainly tries.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 3:02 PM
I’m not.
I agree. But we’re starting from a blank slate here, right? Everyone is. So, why not create more than just “not married” and “married.” Maybe marriage is a very sacred relationship, and one that not everyone is capable of. Others make do with something else. Cohabitation, children, etc. But it’s not marriage. It’s a pale imitation of the exalted state, which not everyone can acheive. Naturally, such a union is permanent. Just a thought. With brand new cultures in brand new situations we get to make our own rules and starting points.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 25 January 2006 @ 3:04 PM
Perhaps we should clue-in the NSA that Osama is in da house… The reward could buy a lot of land.
Comment by JCamasto — 25 January 2006 @ 3:17 PM
Not really. All of us are a product of everyone who came before us. Do you really think people are going to just give up what they believe about relationships just because they’re gathering their food instead of growing it?
And perhaps an even is better question is should people be so willing to abandon the norms and values they grew up with? Societies are strong because they are developed over the course of thousands and millions of years. Now of course, you can make up new rules if you want. But I’d be a bit more cautious about it if I were you. “Made up” cultures tend to be much more lacking in strength and richness than “real” cultures.
That would certainly explain his attitude toward women.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 3:52 PM
I consider everything from civilization guilty until proven innocent.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 4:03 PM
Civilized societies have an awful track record when it comes to… well, when it comes to pretty much everything. The tendency in personal relationships is to demand a single, usually arbitrary standard of everyone, then kill or hide under the rug anyone (i.e. the majority of the population) that doesn’t meet that standard.
I’m not advocating tossing out everything willy-nilly. But I just can’t see the virtue in trying to force all of human nature into two boxes.
And yes, people in this culture treat committed, non-married couples differently. They ask them, “Why aren’t you married? What the hell is wrong with you? Are you stupid or immature or what? Get with the program and step into one of our two restrictive boxes RIGHT NOW!” That’s not exactly what I’m looking for.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 25 January 2006 @ 4:16 PM
Mike:
The answer to that question is obviously no. But I thought that the Anthropik Tribe intended to be egalitarian. As Jeff explained in his book, there can be no force in a rhizome. Rules about relationships are enforced by peer pressure in this civilization but should not be in a tribe. In an egalitarian society relationships are voluntary. Only the persons involved in a relationship can determine its form. For a couple this means two people. The respect a couple receives from other members of the tribe will be gained by how their behaviors are perceived over time. Since the tribe will not be very large this should not be difficult.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 25 January 2006 @ 5:14 PM
There’s a world of difference between enforced laws, and social expectations. Every society has norms, standards, and expectations. That’s not the problem at all. The problem is when those expectations are both rigidly enforced, and far too narrow. Rules about relationships are enforced by force in this civilization–in a tribe, it’s cajoling and yes, peer pressure.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 5:20 PM
Groups are not egalitarian simply because they are small and don’t have specified leaders. I have seen tyrannies develop in such groups. A charismatic non-leader whose opinion is supported by a click often has his opinions adapted because dissenting members don’t want to deal with the peer pressure against dissent. In order to be egalitarian a group needs to be composed of individuals who are opposed to all forms of oppression and will defend others if necessary. It would be oppressive for the entire group to try to determine the conditions of a relationship between two people. This would deny their autonomous right to make that decision themselves. Cultural mores can be oppressive to later generations who should have the right to decide their own moral values.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 25 January 2006 @ 6:14 PM
I agree with you that you can approach tyranny just with a Big Man. I’ve seen it, too. But one person gathering power through manipulation and grandstanding is a very different thing than social expectations and people being pressured to conform to them.
Egalitarian societies live off of rumor, gossip, collusion, peer pressure, cajoling, joking, argument, banter, inveigling, wheedling, persuasion, ribbing and maneuvering. We’re social beings. We take an interest in the affairs of others. Ayn Rand once characterized civilization as freeing men from the interference of other men, and for once, there’s something to the cold bitch’s ramblings. Civilization divorces us from that kind of community and gives us isolation instead. That kind of “freedom” is a species of death.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 6:26 PM
i must say i much prefer latinas to american gals. not easy or submisive just more feminine and friendly and easier to be with. if american gals want to get fat and ornery then all power to em but for marrying rather yall than me. Just my $.02
Comment by James — 25 January 2006 @ 8:10 PM
That’s because you’re a fucking pig.
Sayeth the fat ornery bitch.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 25 January 2006 @ 9:05 PM
Maybe you should find anonymous and serve him a subpeona under the new federal law outlawing annoying anonymous posts.
Definitely annoying. I just can’t believe how long it went on.
Comment by limukala — 25 January 2006 @ 9:20 PM
I can’t believe this conversation is still going on. Ok, now that we got rid of the interloper, back to the topic at hand. What aspects of marriage are a part of any healthy society and which are civilized nonsense designed to destroy the inner soul of humanity?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 25 January 2006 @ 9:32 PM
Perhaps. But assuming that there’s nothing of value to be learned from any society is foolish. And assuming that a handful of people can simply “create” their own set of social rules that will work better than those that have been developed over thousands of years is just the height of arrogance.
That’s because committed, non-married couples ARE different from married couples. That statement could just as easily be turned around to say, “People in this culture treat committed, married couples differently.” And yes, there are certain social pressures pushing for people to get married. But that doesn’t mean that society doesn’t recognize other types of relationships.
As Jason has already pointed out, it’s simply not true that tribes don’t use peer pressure. Other societies may not use physical force. But the idea that there’s some culture out there in which nobody uses any force to influence others is just a fantasy.
Hmmm…tempting. I guess the only problem with actually enforcing that law, though, is that he’s sort of…anonymous.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 9:40 PM
Anonymous can be credited with inflaming a great passion of answers! But do agree this person has cluttered these ideas with a sideshow. Don’t know about most of you, but I have a full time work and only have so much time to spend reading..
Been married 27 years and would not think for a second that just living with a woman would be a sincere commitment. The answer to the male + female equation is children - and this deserves only a lifetime commitment.
Comment by Rick Larson — 25 January 2006 @ 10:19 PM
Do you see anyplace where I have assumed this?
First of all, civilized society hasn’t developed in the same way as primitive societies. You could argue that primitive societies work because they’re shaped over thousands - if not millions - of years. Civilization isn’t the same way. It’s been around for a microscopic speck of human existence, and the only reason it’s changed at all is because it started out from such a horrific place that eventually, through thousands of years of oppression, a small group of people every once in a while got too pissed off to take it anymore. It’s still a horrible, oppressive society, and the aspect of it that you want to keep (lifelong marriage and dating and absolutely nothin in-between) stems from the worst part of it.
What I want to know is, why? It’s not like I’m tossing out traditions without thinking here. I’m willing to keep the good and throw out the bad. But you haven’t given me a good reason why there should be no level of commitment between a lifelong commitment and none at all. WHY is this good? WHY is everything else bad? What would you like our tribal beliefs and traditions to be regarding this? You’ve never fully explained this.
Oy. I said that in response to you saying that they were treated differently. I said, “Yes, they’re treated differently.” That’s not a complaint - that’s agreement.
“Certain social pressures”? Dude. You proved it yourself when you said it was irresponsible to not get married to the person with whom you spent twenty years. You share society’s view: if you don’t get married for life, you’re irresponsible. Society recognizes other types of relationships, all right. They recognize them as worthless.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 25 January 2006 @ 10:37 PM
ahem… “Civilized societies have an awful track record when it comes to… well, when it comes to pretty much everything.”
You act as though civilization just suddenly popped into existence 10,000 years ago. That’s not how it works. Civilization didn’t appear out of a vacuum. The first civilized societies were merely modifications of the cultures that came before them. So while civilization itself may only date back a few millennia, its cultural heritage goes back millions of years.
And even if civilized culture has only been around for 10,000 years, that’s still 9,980 more years than you’ve been around for.
Finally, your characterization of how society changes is a bit inaccurate. All societies change. And civilization, though unique in certain respects, is still a society. There is a tendency for civilization to be more violent, but that doesn’t mean that that is the only way for change to occur. More often than not, change is a response to economic constraints. In fact, civilization tends to change much more rapidly other societies.
First of all, you still haven’t shown how your characterization of the way in which our society views relationships is in any way accurate. Second, how is marriage the “worst part” of civilization?
I’ve actually given several reasons for my arguments. But that’s irrelevent anyway. I’m not the one who has to give a reason. As I said, societies don’t just appear out of a vacuum. The norms and values we have are developed over thousands of years according to the needs of the culture. So the default assumption should be that what we have now works for us. If you want to make these kinds of artificial changes to what society believes, then the burden of proof rests on you. I’m under no obligation to prove why they shouldn’t be used. It’s your responsibility to prove why they should be used. And so far, you simply haven’t proven that.
This is another mischaracterization. First, I never said that people who don’t get married for life are irresponsible. I said it’s irresponsible to stay in a long-term relationship if you are unable to make a lifetime commitment.
And saying that society considers all relationships other than marriage to be worthless is simply untrue as well. We may hold marriage in a higher regard than other kinds of relationships. And after all, why shouldn’t we? It is about the most serious commitment you can make to another person. But that doesn’t mean that no value is placed on other kinds of relationships. Even the most conservative marriage fanatic would disagree with that assessment.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 12:40 PM
Mike, first you wrote:
Then, immediately thereafter and in the same comment, you said:
How do you reconcile those two statements without your head exploding? Or is the “value” we place on other kinds of relationships that they’re “irresponsible” and they should be destroyed? You do realize that you’re telling Janene that her relationship with Jim is irresponsible, right?
As far as civilization and cultural change, civilization made an enormous, abrupt change with the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, and with that came an enormous, abrupt break from all its previous development. Had to, just to make such a radical change work. Civilization is radical; we’re the ultimate conservatives.
Patriarchy definitely qualifies as some of civilization’s worst, but Giuli’s absolutely right that most of our perceptions about gender roles and sexual relationships are rooted in the worst our society has to offer. Rather than a type of social glue as it is in forager societies, marriage in civilization became a means of protecting women. Patriarchy, and the right of men to beat and kill women without reprecussion, was something new that came out of hierarchy and the notion that some people are more equal than others. With that came a need to protect our baby machines, not because they count as people, but because a continually high birth rate is necessary to offset the astronomical death rate that comes from so much death and misery.
That’s the argument you’ve been making, but it doesn’t make any goddamn sense unless we’re talking about a patriarchal society where women need to be protected in the first place, and where such a premium is placed on reproduction (which is a function of such high mortality rates–you need to, just to keep your head above water). Without those–that is, without civilization–your argument has no basis.
Now, in an egalitarian society where people aren’t dropping like flies, marriage is something completely different. It’s a type of social glue that unites families, bands, clans and tribes. It’s politics, it’s commitment, it’s forming new families and realigning old ones. It’s not about anyone’s security (since everyone already has plenty of security), and it’s not about seeing how many kids you can pop out. It’s not even really about raising children, which is something that’s generally seen to more by the tribe as a whole than the parents specifically. It’s the basic unit of social configuration and reconfiguration, and as such, it is far more adaptive to recognize a wide variety of such possible configurations, than to force everyone into one of two possible arrangements. Just like it’s more adaptive to recognize more colors than just “black” and “white.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 12:55 PM
I agree with everything Jason said except the bit about marriage protecting women. Throughout most of civilized history, a woman’s life was more endangered by being married than not. That’s largely because her husband, who ended up with her for political or economical reasons as opposed to any kind of love or affection, was much more likely to kill her than her family members, with whom unmarried women would live. As for spousal abuse, that pretty much just went without saying. Of course you’re going to beat your wife. Otherwise, how will she learn to respect your authori-tah?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 26 January 2006 @ 1:14 PM
And, before you say it, for most of civilized history, nothing would happen to the husband for killing his wife. It wasn’t illegal, and the family usually wrote it off as the cost of doing business. If the family did try to retaliate, that would be a crime.
So … yeah. Lots of protection there.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 1:20 PM
I may not entirely understand your argument. Like I said in a previous post, I often think I’m being very clear when in fact no one else understands a word I’m saying. When I noticed you mischaracterizing my stance, I tried to mend things up with a post explaining my ideal situation. I really would like you to do the same. I think it would help clarify some aspects of this discussion and make the exchange of ideas go a lot more smoothly.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 26 January 2006 @ 1:43 PM
Then, immediately thereafter and in the same comment, you said:
How do you reconcile those two statements without your head exploding? Or is the “value” we place on other kinds of relationships that they’re “irresponsible” and they should be destroyed?
So considering one particular kind of relationship to be irresponsible means that one must consider ALL relationships to be irresponsible? I mean, you realize that what you just said is basically like, “x is y. Therefore, everything is y.” And you think I’m the one who’s forcing the entirety of human relationships into one of two categories?
I’m not telling her that at all. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. But I don’t know enough about Janene’s relationship to make a judgment one way or the other.
And by the way, making emotional appeals to a particular individual isn’t the way to win a debate.
So does that mean the first people to farm had no culture whatsoever prior to farming? Civilization was founded by a group of pod people?
That IS my point. Marriage is the glue that holds societies together. And all I’m saying that superglue works better than paste. Because if you want a society that’s going to endure, you don’t want its concept of marriage to be as weak as you can make it. You want it to be as strong as you can make it.
Our society may have some unfortunate ideas about hierarchy and gender roles, but that’s different from marriage. They may be closely associated with marriage. But they’re not the same thing. And I don’t see anything inherently wrong with marriage as we have it now. So why not just keep that custom as it is and deal with any problems that might arise as they come rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
Back in the 1600s, a doctor performed the first fully documented blood transfusion. He gave a 15-year-old boy blood from a sheep. The boy, not surprisingly, died. I mean, it was sheep blood for God’s sake. But at the time, they didn’t know anything about blood types. All the doctor knew was that the kid needed blood. The sheep has blood. Problem solved. Except he didn’t have an appreciation for just how complex the human body is. So in trying to fix one problem he ended up making things even worse.
Societies are entities that are every bit as complex as any organism. Tinkering with something as fundamental as marriage is likely to have more far-reaching consequences than any one person is able to consider. So when you talk about how we’re going to “make our own rules,” I think you’re playing a dangerous game with something you don’t really understand.
When it comes to social norms and values, the general rule should be, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
You know, you can’t win an argument just by repeating the same line over and over again. Not everything is a spectrum. I can create a spectrum wherein all pandas fall somewhere between spork and peppermint, but that doesn’t mean that the world really works that way.
There is no relationship spectrum. Relationships are not colors. They simply are what they are. Every relationship is different and must be judged on its own merits.
Well, that’s just not true. Women have historically been far better off getting married. Women who were unmarried without anyone to support them were pretty much as good as dead.
First of all, if a man is willing to beat his wife, what makes you think he’ll be any less likely to beat his children? Secondly, a woman’s family of origin can only support her for so long.
What’s an ideal situation? How about one in which society recognizes that people have a responsibility to more than just themselves? How about a situation in which we actually enforce the idea that when you get married you have permanent responsibilities to your spouse, and if you’re not going to get married, then you have no right to waste your partner’s time? Frankly, I don’t see what the problem is with that.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 6:55 PM
Hey –
I may be wrong… but I don’t think I am hearing either Jason or Guili advocating ‘getting rid’ of marriage. The suggestion has been that if you want to make marriage stronger perhaps you can give people other choices as well — so that when people get married they are doing so for all of the RIGHT reasons, rather than for any number of not-so-good reasons. (Like social expectations, ‘because everybody does’, because it is the only way to gain some set of rights or abilities, etc…)
Janene
Comment by Janene — 26 January 2006 @ 8:09 PM
Mike:
I wasn’t talking about some culture out there, but about the Anthropik Tribe. You can use force to influence other members, but if you do, I and many others that advocate egalitarian organization and anarchy, would not consider this tribe to be such. Of course no real group of humans can be absolutely anti-authoritarian as we have many ways of manipulating each other. To facilitate individual autonomy it’s necessary to strive to avoid compulsion at all times.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 26 January 2006 @ 8:29 PM
… it would explain Cher…
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 26 January 2006 @ 10:34 PM
Living together without marriage is possible because civilization allows it. Having children out of wedlock, or the countless divorces, are only because it is easy to survive.
In a hunter/gatherer setting the focus will be towards training the child how to survive.
Again, male + female = child. No children = no hunting, or gathering.
Comment by Rick Larson — 26 January 2006 @ 11:38 PM
The “one particular kind of relationship” that you have deemed illegitimate is any long-term relationship that isn’t married. So, under your terms, all long-term relationships must be married ones. But you also said, “that doesn’t mean that no value is placed on other kinds of relationships.” What, so long as those relationships all make sure to be terminated before they reach whatever threshold you’ve deemed to be “irresponsible”? No, anecdotal evidence isn’t persuasive in a logical argument, but I’m hoping that personal examples can be a bit more glaring for you to realize that something is seriously screwy with your logic. I often can’t refute the logic of a progressivist case, except for the fact that it just don’t work like that. However intricate the logical models you build, Janene and others are living proof–it just don’t work like that.
Might as well have been–they jettisoned nearly all of their previous culture within a few generations. Almost nothing survived.
Heh … that was the suggestion that got me labelled a traditionalist in my soon-to-be mother-in-law’s book. Needless to say, I agree. I don’t want to throw out marriage. Giuli wrote this article as an answer to those who are arguing to throw out marriage. But, it is just as obviously not sufficient on its own. We need other arrangements, in addition to marriage, not to the exclusion of it.
When marriage is the most sacred, most profound of several related, recognized forms of relationships, then perhaps it will finally be treated with the respect it deserves. People won’t enter into it because they’re “supposed” to, or because they have to choose between ending a relationship both parties are perfectly happy with because their families think it’s “irresponsible” of them to live their lives in the way that they both find fulfilling. Then maybe we won’t see 50% divorce rates, serial monogamy, or this idea of marriage just for the legal perks. Maybe then it will mean something again, once everyone who’s really not interested in marriage has an alternative that better suits what they really are after.
If you want them to stick together forever, yeah. But sometimes that’s not what you want at all. Sometimes you want to maybe seperate them later. Maybe you don’t want to be stuck forever, just for a little while. Then, paste is much better.
By that logic, there should only be one type of glue in the world, one TV channel, one pizza topping, one religion, one culture, one emperor, and one god.
Your knowledge of ancient and medieval Europe must be faulty there, because Giuli’s got you nailed on this point. “Old Maids” were protected by their birth family. When the parents died, she had brothers, and if it came to it, nephews to look after her. Men beat their wives routinely–and children too, but never to death. Children could farm. Women were for producing children; if you broke this one, you could always get another.
There’s only one problem I see in that … you’ve assumed that one party is looking for a lifetime commitment, and the other is not.
That’s not the situation we’re talking about at all.
We’re talking about the situation where both parties find their relationship fulfilling, but neither one wants to commit their entire lives to it, at least not ritually.
You know, the “irresponsible” ones, like Janene….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 11:44 PM
Among hunter-gatherers, child-rearing is an activity of the band as a whole, not so much of the parents individually. So, among foragers, marriage has diddly-squat to do with child rearing. Only in the isolated compartmentalism of civilization do you see that trend.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 11:46 PM
Jason, I think you came close to what Mike is thinking when you said,
A different way I would say marriage - for life - is akin to the priesthood among relationships.
It was thirty-four years ago my girlfriend and I really enjoyed each other’s company and conversation and felt love for one another and wanted that to last, so we got married. Two years later I found out there were some things about which we had strong and opposite opinions - that was during the campaign of Nixon vs. McGovern.
Over the years we’ve been stuck together with two good children, and a mortgage, and still enjoyed being together … sometimes, but we’ve grown apart by sex, politics and religion.
Since there’s no way to legislate wisdom in youth nor is it appropriate to punish for the unforseen future, in our new culture I would like to see something like Giuli’s handfasting, and celebration of monogamous relationship promises where the ultimate, the priesthood is marriage.
Comment by Kurt — 22 February 2006 @ 10:26 PM
It sure is a pain when you think of all the good one-liners after it’s too late to respond to the person who insulted or infuriated you. But that’s life.
I’m really impressed by the site, and by the quality of your writing. But I’d still like to know which of your characters is going to be murdered. Seems like there are several who are ripe for it.
Also, I was kinda hoping my grandma would be immortalized on the cover of a series, even if she didn’t write it.
This is the correct web site. The other one is kind of dead, though it does link to Evelyn’s wedding pix.
Dave
Comment by Dave Gordon — 27 February 2006 @ 6:17 PM
Hey, Uncle Dave! Originally, I was going to kill Asher off. Now Jesse (the Main Character Formerly Known as Asher) isn’t going to die, but I’m still going to do horrible, horrible things to him.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 27 February 2006 @ 6:38 PM