 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Women have a higher sexual value than men do, by socially pushing 'open' relationships you just exacerbate the problem. The top men will have their picks of women who are willing to share them and the 'undesirable' men will become an angry, bitter underclass. We see it already in the man child "beta male" who wont work full time, lives with parents and spends all their time on hobbies and frivolous pursuits. The problem comes when it's not passive types who are left on the shelf but the angry and violent ones. Monogamy is exactly what society came up with to mitigate this issue, it creates stability, productivity and purpose. Sure our primitive biology doesn't exactly like it but it's the best way to ensure a stable, prosperous society. |
I guess it's interesting to specify what you mean by 'society' here (where I've bolded it): we know that monogamy definitely isn't a universal trait of human civilisation – as noted, polygyny and even polyandry are present in some if not most primitive societies, and the so-called Judaeo-Christian tradition is of course rife with it. I'm hesitant to impose any other just-so story (such as patriarchal control of women's sexuality) on how it's become the norm in 'modern' societies, but I must confess to being a little sceptical about your theory: is it really about spousal redistribution as a means of maintaining social order, or more the notion of discrete home and family brought about by post-agricultural societies? In that sense, the old conservative notion that marriage is primarily about maintenance of the family makes a little more sense to me, and equally it would make sense that attachment to monogamy is breaking down in more liberal, individualistic cultures.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's hard to maintain brevity and also get across exactly what I want to, I always err on the side of 'less is more' when social media or forum posting.
I guess I'd say that even polygamy can work when it's used as a family structure. I would guess that it would be most common in warlike cultures where young men are prone to early deaths and you end up with a society with more women than men. I guess one answer to the 'lonely angry young man' is to send him and his ilk to war. Doesn't really fly these days.
You use the term patriarchy like it's a bad thing. What does a father want for his children? To keep them safe, happy, fed. That's what a patriarchy aims towards. It protects women and children while men work and defend. Men are repaid in this society with knowledge that they will have a mate and offspring of their own (again this is a general statement).
You also say that such a society "controls women's sexuality" (again like its a bad thing). It of course also controls men's sexuality, probably more so. Men's biological inclination is to father as many children as possible while expending as few resources as possible. This either means having lots of children with as many different women as possible or having children with a single woman that the male knows are his and ensuring they thrive (while trying to use strategy A in the background). Women want to nail down someone to provide for and protect their offspring while ensuring those offspring have the best genes possible; they want a stable provider who thinks children are his when they really come from the best man the woman could sneak away with.
These competing strategies have been playing out since the dawn of man, and socially we're better off when male strategy B is enforced and female strategy is suppressed. We see what happens when modern society devolves back; for example Black America. Men are having children and leaving them with single mothers (who are provided for by The State). These children's outcomes aren't great and the social structure of Black American continues to degrade generation upon generation.
So yes, marriage is about maintenance of the family and maintenance of the family is about stability and prosperity of societies.
It's true that liberal social orders and individualism are breaking this down, much to our detriment and if history is any guide probably to our social collapse or a civilizational stagnation. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | Depends on the 'old maid' I guess. When it's a woman who really wanted a family and husband and goes off the deep end with 100 cats it's legitimately sad. Some people though are just happier by themselves, not many, but some.
You have to by necessity talk in generalisations when discussing entire societies and social structures though.
I think with the rise in men not engaging in society and marriage and women spending their prime years 'partying' (yes that's a euphemism) we'll end up with a lot of bitter, alone old people who thought that multi partner relationships or playing World of Warcraft until they're 40 being supported by mum and dad were positive life choices. |
interesting. your male post just reminded me of criminal minds, thats the profile right there! i know its a tv show, but when you watch a few docos on the likes of Dahmer, Gacy, its freaky, although it doesnt explain Ted Bundy.
not that im suggesting all single people are serial killers!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | It's hard to maintain brevity and also get across exactly what I want to, I always err on the side of 'less is more' when social media or forum posting.
I guess I'd say that even polygamy can work when it's used as a family structure. I would guess that it would be most common in warlike cultures where young men are prone to early deaths and you end up with a society with more women than men. I guess one answer to the 'lonely angry young man' is to send him and his ilk to war. Doesn't really fly these days.
You use the term patriarchy like it's a bad thing. What does a father want for his children? To keep them safe, happy, fed. That's what a patriarchy aims towards. It protects women and children while men work and defend. Men are repaid in this society with knowledge that they will have a mate and offspring of their own (again this is a general statement).
You also say that such a society "controls women's sexuality" (again like its a bad thing). It of course also controls men's sexuality, probably more so. Men's biological inclination is to father as many children as possible while expending as few resources as possible. This either means having lots of children with as many different women as possible or having children with a single woman that the male knows are his and ensuring they thrive (while trying to use strategy A in the background). so they dont just want to get their rocks off??
Women want to nail down someone to provide for and protect their offspring while ensuring those offspring have the best genes possible; they want a stable provider who thinks children are his when they really come from the best man the woman could sneak away with. thats a really degrading statement!
These competing strategies have been playing out since the dawn of man, and socially we're better off when male strategy B is enforced and female strategy is suppressed. We see what happens when modern society devolves back; for example Black America. Men are having children and leaving them with single mothers (who are provided for by The State). These children's outcomes aren't great and the social structure of Black American continues to degrade generation upon generation. thats just a WTF! do you think the men planned it that way??
So yes, marriage is about maintenance of the family and maintenance of the family is about stability and prosperity of societies.
It's true that liberal social orders and individualism are breaking this down, much to our detriment and if history is any guide probably to our social collapse or a civilizational stagnation. |
man you have some very old fashioned views.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Only intellectually, I mean it's not like I can reverse the sexual revolution. I'm also a stay at home dad who's been the primary carer since Dante was 4 months old and had custody of my older daughter for the last 4 years. My partner is a professional and can earn a lot more than me, so that's what we do. Hardly traditional, and even progressive by today's standards (only something like 2-4% of men stay home with babies). |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Only intellectually, I mean it's not like I can reverse the sexual revolution. I'm also a stay at home dad who's been the primary carer since Dante was 4 months old and had custody of my older daughter for the last 4 years. My partner is a professional and can earn a lot more than me, so that's what we do. Hardly traditional, and even progressive by today's standards (only something like 2-4% of men stay home with babies). |
cheers, im not much into tradition!! Go you xxx
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Only intellectually, I mean it's not like I can reverse the sexual revolution. I'm also a stay at home dad who's been the primary carer since Dante was 4 months old and had custody of my older daughter for the last 4 years. My partner is a professional and can earn a lot more than me, so that's what we do. Hardly traditional, and even progressive by today's standards (only something like 2-4% of men stay home with babies). |
I've known a few couples like that. Simple financial choice, the one who can earn the most works full time while the other is the stay home parent.
On the Ployamory thing, the Aboriginals would be a fascinating study as they seem to have differing models in different nations.
In some "marriages" were arranged often between different mobs, but short lived, basically long enough to get the woman pregnant then the bloke left.
The primary male role model in this situation was the womans brother, the childs Uncle and the older women beyond childbearing were the "Aunties"
This is one reason why Aboriginal geneology is matrilinear as the woman may have serveral children to different fathers and the men many children to different mothers.
In other areas where mobs settled into smaller family groups, you'd have more like a monogamous situation but brothers and sisters were banned from even speaking to each other let alone being in each others company between onset of puberty to onset of grey hair.
Some of the cultural practices were damn complicated.
An Aboriginal guide I met in the NT was born in Kakadu but his father was an Arnem land man. Different nations, the east Alligator river was the boundary between the 2 nations.
The guy knew of his father, shared his totems and by virtue of his father was permitted to enter Anhem Land without requesting permission but was a Kakadu man. Complicated.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
