| Author |
Message |
    
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:02 pm: | 
|
We live in an age of the following:
*Burgeoning technology/machinery
*Woman's lib, feminism, emergence of womanists, ERA
*Women in the workplace
*The birth control pills, both pre' and post' ("morning-after")
*Generally available legal abortion
*Virtually nil divorce restrictions
*Tighter, more effective child support enforcement
*Lessening influence of Christianity
*Surrogate motherhood
*Growing acceptance of homosexuality
*Greater %'s of women starting businesses & earning more money and education than are men
*Cloning/eugenics & sperm banks
*Growing acceptances of out-of-wedlock child birth/rearing
As a consequence of these developments, women have much many more choices and latitude for what & how they will will. Consequently, the traditional reasons for customs of marriage and marital practices appear to be growing obsolete and anachronistic. Might this eventually result in the majority of Americans choosing to discard the venerable institution of marriage?
Do you foresee in the near future that marriage will soon go the way of the tragic dodo bird...which flew away forever? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:30 pm: |
|
ABM:
Marriage is primarily to tie bloodlines and to establish claims through relation and heirship to property.
The rights and duties of parties to marriage may change--it is no longer considered lawful to beat your wife, though, at law it once was, but it will not go away at least for propertied people --two clans seeking to tie their fortunes and family lines together will still use it, as will persons seeking to establish a property right in a spouse's estate (by right of having been a true and faithful spouse) |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:04 pm: |
|
Chris,
You are probably right about the rhyme and reasons for why wealthy people marry (although you could probably further restrict that to ol' monied folks). But what about when issues of properties/estates are of lesser worth/relevence?
What about the +75% of everyone else? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:14 pm: |
|
They'll probably shack and pack. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:27 pm: |
|
ABM:
Marriage was also about sustaining and maintaining cultural and ethnic groups via, as CHris H says, bloodlines and heirship.
Interesting question. No, i think marriage will remain....Besides the issue of security, ie wealth, property, etc.., people also get married for love....though i tend to think folk forget that love is often not enough to sustain a marriage.
Also, i tend to think that the changes in human history that pertain to women can/should make marriage better and more fulfilling....many men, like yourself(ABM), want professional, successful, money-earning women. Also, many men should not question their "manliness" just because the woman makes more money! Thats stupid!
A slight twist to your question/comments:
In consideration of the gender discussion of the other thread and the changes in women in the workplace and stricter child support as well as the other things you mentioned in this thread, Why do many women feel less "womanly" if they don't have a man or have not been asked to be married?
|
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 06:21 pm: |
|
For women, marriage can be a status symbol. And it at one time represented security, back when it was frowned upon for a them to work outside the home. Marriage is also an societal institution that supposedly fosters the perpetuation of the family unit. This is not to say that it's all good. Never under-estimate the advantages of personal freedom, or are commitment and polygamy necessarily compatiable with human nature. Living together ain't much better, either, because it still involves obligations. Also, consider the - dare I say - "sexist" implications of the negative connotations associated with the term "old maid" as opposed to the tolerant attitude associated with the word "bachelor." A situation that can drive a women to marry for the wrong reason; she should never allow herself to be defined by her marital status. But more and more women are liberating themselves from the need to go from Ms. to Mrs., as it should be. Personally, I think marriage should be a contract that if not renewed every 10 years, can be automatically dissolved. And don't get me started on the subject of kids. It always amuses me how parents with kids resent couples who have opted not to have children. When the lifestyle of those with kids is voluntarily rejected by others, those with kids are miffed because they want childless couples to envy them.(And misery loves company. ROTFLOL.) And those frazzled fertility-pill-taking women who end up with 6 and 7 babies deserve what they get. Can you say "adopt." Well, I didn't mean to get carried away here, but - whatever. And, yes, I have a husband and kids which is why I spend all my time on-line, surfing the net. LOL) |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:30 pm: |
|
Cynique:
This is funny!...I don't ever recall you writing more than the above..LMAO! |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:55 pm: |
|
Just for the record, I meant to say "monogamy" instead of "polygamy when talking about what is not necessarily compatiable with human nature. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Yukio,
If changes for women are to make marriage better, why are there so many couples that are floundering and bailing out? Is it because more freedom => more desires/cravings => more demands => more arguments => more dissension => more heartache => more breakups?
I don't think most professional men necessarily require that our mates be of a certain socio-economic background. What guys want most from a wife is PEACE. Most guys I know would rather marry a secretary with whom he can peacefully coexist than he would her high-earning, but shrill boss with whom he might quarrel with constantly.
And on a more personal note: When I married, my wife did not have much dough at all. She mostly managed the household and kids (To which I am eternally grateful for.) But, being the bright/energetic person that she is, she started a business at home, which has now grown into an increasingly lucrative enterprise.
To answer your question: I think women seek marriage because they want someone that they feel that they can love, rely on and build a solid home, hearth and family with. Also, being asked for your hand in marriage is direct confirmation from at least one person that you matter, that are at least to one person the most important person on earth. Men, as well as women, want to feel that.
Cynique,
You have some very insightful and humorous viewpoints on marriage (especially concerning kids). I find it interesting that there is so much hand wringing over how uniquely concerned women should be about being married when those are men that women are marrying. Men are just as enraptured by matrimony as women. In spite of what is routinely advertised, men deeply value being married (even if we hardly know what the heck we are doing.).
It’s also ironic that in spite all the "torture" married women allegedly endure, I read that they outlive single women and single/married men.
About kids: I don't resent childless couples. I do, however, think that having kids forces you to productively confront things about yourself that you might not have ever considered being concerned about sans kids. I also think that responsible parenthood, more than any other institution, forces people to be more considerate/protective of, concern about and invested in their others. And I can appreciate people opting to use drugs to facilitate procreation. That is for most one of life’s most compelling desires. Although I agree that no extra consideration should be afforded the families of artificially engendered sextuplets.
It's funny that you (mistakenly) mentioned polygamy. A few months ago, my wife and I had an interesting discussion with a single female friend of hers who for the >1hr seemed to quite aggressively extol the many benefits of a "closeted" arrangement of sharing husbands (e.g., resolve man shortage, less sexual pressure on 1 woman, more kids have active fathers, fewer men sneaking around, etc.). It's funny. I viewed the talk to be simply a controversial conversation. My wife, however, viewed it to be a blatant solicitation.
I don't think that they have talked since then.
PS: Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think that "Arranged Marriages" might not have been such a bad idea after all. |
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 06:06 pm: |
|
Arranged marriages...
ABM...my Mahdi Pappuh (which means my God, my father) "purchased" my mother from the Gisi-Waaq clan when she was 14 (actually he put the down payment at 14 and collected her a few years later--because he was Arab 'white' man--the Africans charged him 3 times the normal cost--which must be paid in "cattle").
ALL MEN in Sudan must pay a dowry for their wives and can only have one.
My parents had one of the most loving, intimate and effortless relationships that I have ever witnessed in my life. Although, now that I'm grown, I do lament Mommysweet's having no say in the matter...and the fact that she was basically property. But in her case...she got lucky. Pappuh treated her like gold and spoiled her rotten.
I think because he was an archeologist attempting to "restore" his racial bloodline (he wanted "black" sons so desperately)...he saw Mommysweet as a SYMBOL rather than as a person. So she was sort of a "sacred holy figure" to him. Placed on a pedestal.
I don't think she spoke more than ten sentences the entire time that I knew her (6 years). People thought she was a mute. But she was spoiled and pampered and greatly loved by Pappuh.
My BLACK AMERICAN adoptive parents...are Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee people. They have been married about 40 years now and spent the entire 1960's embroiled in civil rights movements. I cann't say that their union is as "harmonious" on a daily basis as my birth parents...but hey...they're still together.
In America...it's almost impossible to have a good marriage. But in Africa, the majority of marriages are quite good--I guess because the society considers wifery "a career". Much preparation and study goes into "being a wife ONLY". Ofcourse, African men are notorious cheaters...but they tend to treat their wives very well and "divorce" rate is about 1%. A single mother is almost unheard of.
For instance...back home, if Thomas died...then his oldest brother (or best buddy) would "inherit" me and my children.
College educated African women are the NEW VOGUE, ofcourse, but most of them still get married and have kids and put their degrees on the wall.
ME BABY:
As I told you, already, I have at times contracted co-wives for Thomas...but only because of physical limitations due to genital circumcision. MANY African women (100 million on the continent are "cut and sewn") have favored polygamy...usually ONLY for that reason. Sex on a nightly basis can cause swelling...that can take weeks to go down. During pregnancy is impossible.
Thankfully...younger women are fighting against circumcision now.
There is also a tribe in SUDAN where the women have multiple husbands. I believe several tribes in West Africa also favor women with multiple husbands.
I myself had times in my life where enjoyed being single...living by myself...and have LOTS of boyfriends at the same time. That was a lot of fun and it made my ego giant.
I would recommend all young women to be bachelorettes for as long as possible. I would want my daughter to sail the seven seas and have many lovers.
Before marriage.
|
Troy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |
|
ABM:
Your list was quite thorough but you may as well add these to the mix
*Marriage Penalty (married people often pay more in taxes)
*You can buy sex more easily than a pack of cigarettes (sometimes it less it expensive)
*promiscuity is encouraged all over the media
*Prominent leaders/role models frequently engage in extra marital affairs
*people getting married for profit (ex. help others gain citizenship)
*Majority of marriages end in divorce (while a significant portion of those that don’t should)
There is no doubt in my mind the institution of marriage is going the way of cave wall painting and mastodon hunting. Indeed, it already has.
This is not to say that I think marriage is a bad idea. I just don’t think all of us are cut out for marriage. We live in a society in which literally everyone is expected to get married. In today’s world this is simply ridiculous. And the government should definitely get out of the business of licensing the arrangements between adults. Is there anyone reading this post, who is married, that truly believes that they can not live under the same conditions without a marriage license issues by the state?
People are doing what they want anyway – let them have at it!
Arranged marriages are even more anachronistic. No one should be able to make that kind of decision for another individual.
ABM: Odds are your wife was absolutely correct about the solicitation to share husbands. Your spidey sense was probably out of order that night.
Kola that co-wife thing is interesting. Where does one find a co-wife? Do they just move it and service the man like a call girl would or does the man have to romance them like one would a regular wife?
|
Kola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 01:33 am: |
|
Troy...a co-wife lives in the home. I always get a pretty young African (or Asian) college girl who needs boarding and spending money. "African" or "Asian" because she already understands the role of a "co-wife"--which is quite limited and has a cultural code of ethics.
Thomas prefers girls from either Eritrea or Senegal--so I am trying to find one now. My screening process is quite rigorous and thorough. USC and UCLA always have plenty of good girls to choose from.
When I was 22...I WAS A CO-WIFE for an Egyptian couple for about 4 months. The wife was a wonderful woman and it was a heavenly vacation for all of us.
It's very complicated and would not be well understood in the context of American culture--which "dirties" everything about sex that makes sense. America is a "victorian-based" society...not a natural one.
During my pregnancies, I usually have a co-wife (who resides in the guest room) and is there to service Thomas's sexual needs...because I simply cannot for 6 to 10 months (by which time I will have used 2 co-wives).
Their interraction is limited to "sex only", although..I usually become very attached to the co-wife and she will end up playing Gin Rummy with us...or Pokemon Stadium. We become three friends for a time.
The two are NEVER to act intimate or make eye contact in front of the wife.
In my case...Thomas will go to her room late at night, long after I've put the boys to sleep. He will ofcourse...return to the wife's bed to sleep the rest of the night.
In Africa...some women don't allow the co-wife to sleep with the husband. They use the co-wife to tend the babies, clean the house and do to the cooking.
I however can't stand another woman tending my house or in my kitchen.
Thomas (because he's a Christian and from Belize) has always felt very conflicted about the situation of a co-wife (embarrassed and awkward)...but for my own peace of mind, I have to insist on the arrangement.
I know that he "loves me"...and ONLY me. And the hilarious thing is...he treats me so much better when there's a co-wife in the house. It's as if I can do no wrong. He jumps at my every whim. It's not because I'm pregnant. It's because he feels like he's "cheating". He's so pathetic!! LOL
As I already explained to ABM (who asked what happens if Thomas falls for the co-wife and runs off with her)....he cannot go more than two weeks without my cooking or he becomes physically ill. I make the cereal that he eats from scratch...I make his bread from scratch. Without my cooking, he turns into a big grouchy baby.
ABOUT 3 MONTHS after my new son is born...I will resume my wifely duties and we return to our regular lives.
At some point, as we age, Thomas MIGHT take a mistress. But I already told him that if he does...I will get a 19 year old Stud and leave him.
For now...he worships me. And has always been the ONLY MAN that I ever loved. Thomas loves me "devoutly".
|
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 11:08 am: |
|
Troy;
But what about the money? Many states do not recognize commonlaw marriage. A woman could live with a man 50 years, raise children, grandchildren and not even be entitled to stay in their house when he died, much less any other properties he owned or was entitled to at his death. |
Cynique
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 11:59 am: |
|
The Social Security Adminstration recognizes common-law marriage, so a woman can at least draw survivors insurance. |
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 09:14 pm: |
|
ABM:
I think men and women are in a transitional state. Eventually, men will adapt to all these changes. Perhaps, in the next 50yrs, these issues will not be so unpeaceful...lmao! Consider that if you had 100 men(of course, you want a variegated population), and you asked them how they felt about professional women you would have a diversity opinions. Then 25 or 50yrs later, do the same questionaire, and things may be different, since these issues wouldn't be so new, unpeaceful, and emasculating.
Consider that there are black and white children growing up together like racism never existed, though it remains imperturbable. The culture has changed, so much that i fear that our children's children will never know and appreciate that they have a culture, that they affirm their blackness, that they'll think as "Americans," but not as African Americans, with an ear and foot in the Continent and the Americas.....i've gone off the subject...sorry! |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 03:54 pm: |
|
Yukio,
I agree the state of relations between males and females is in flux, that we are, often painfully, learning how to best relate in a relentlessly dynamic, continually changing world. I, however, find it interesting that you seem to consistently excuse females for having helped to make decisions about how the world was crafted. Or, you conveniently excuse women for having helped decide to make the "mess" in which we currently wallow. Do you believe that it is only recently - maybe the last few decades - where woman have had a material hand in helping to steer the ship? Do you predict that when us backward males finally ascend to some higher state of consciousness and finally concede to the superior way and purpose of the female that all will be much better and brighter than it currently is?
Hmmmm.
Well, perhaps that you should also consider that part of what MANY men resent and thus resist about women is all of the blaming that men are made to bear? Or do you ever consider that much of the dissension between men and women stem from many women not really knowing what the heck that they want. So you are hyper-critical (& hypercritical) of us, and you don't know what you want for yourselves. That makes it nearly impossible for any man to meet your insanely voluminous mating criteria. Is it possible that many of today's woman are so insanely shrill, inane demanding that a lot of guys reasonably conclude, "Hey! I done done the best I can do here and it ain't workin'. Enuff of this nonsense! Go on and do yer thang and let me do mine."
Yukio, I think that that if you are blessed enough to live another 25 - 50 years to see a great improvement in male/female relationships, you might be quite surprised to find that the women had to evolve as much as much as the men. |
Troy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 04:27 pm: |
|
Chris:
What about states that do have common law marriage rules; and you have some lazy woman who never did a damn thing in the house, constanly nagged, slept around, drank and was even physcially abusive from time to time. The hen pecked huband had such low self esteem he did not have the fortitide to fight back or other wise free himself of this evil woman. After 7 years she can throw him out and be enttitled to his house and financial support.
There are other ways to ensure your partner gets or does not get the house after you are gone -- without the government getting involved.
|
Yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 01:27 am: |
|
ABM:
I haven't excused women. No where does it say that i excuse women. I suggest, again, that you ask questions before you make allegations.
Now, women have been complicit in gender relations....power relations are always relational, where contenders fight for power...some are complicit and others resistant...humans clearly do both. Recall elsewhere, that i mentioned that women teach their boys how to be "manly" and "women" how to be "woman," this behavior is learned through the parents, and like most cultures, our children are mostly reared by women....these goes ya assumption...lol!
Of course women are evolving(now is this progress is another story...perhaps the better word could be "adapt" rather than "evolve"...as men are. Indeed, women are adapting as much as men are to the changes in women's history, but since men's manhood is what has been challenged(and they are in power), they seem more vocal. I'm sure there are many women who believe a women's place is in the kitchen, men should be the head of the household, that women should be taken care of, etc....also, i'm sure women are quite selective about when they want to be "traditional" and "liberal." Like i said, men and women are in a transitional state....no doubt this confuses men, as it does women, but that is how it is...culture changes, since we are participating in this change and living it...it is quite uncomfortable for some(older), normal for others(new jacks!), and monumental for others(mid-aged)....of course these generational signifiers are not always accurate...you could have a 75 yrs who is more liberal than a 25yr...race, religion, region, gender, sexual preference, etc...are also determinants of one's values...but i think u get my point.... |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:54 am: |
|
Yukio,
I was making allegations.
I was simply commenting on own "July 13, 2003 - 09:14 pm" post that said:
"I think men and women are in a transitional state. Eventually, men will adapt to all these changes. Perhaps, in the next 50yrs, these issues will not be so unpeaceful...lmao! Consider that if you had 100 men(of course, you want a variegated population), and you asked them how they felt about professional women you would have a diversity opinions. Then 25 or 50yrs later, do the same questionaire, and things may be different, since these issues wouldn't be so new, unpeaceful, and emasculating."
Couldn't a person reasonably extrapolate from that paragraph that you mean it is males who must change in order for relations to improve? If not, then what do you mean by "Eventually, men will adapt..." or men of the future finding the issues to be less "...unpeaceful, and emasculating."?
But I think that I was being a too selective in what I used to categorize your opinions. And what you assert in the second paragraph of your last post provides a somewhat fuller, more balanced view of how gender characteristics and relationships are formed.
Thanks for helping me to better understand you. |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 09:56 am: |
|
I meant to post "I was NOT making allegations."
Sorry. |
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:16 pm: |
|
ABM:
You state the following:
"Couldn't a person reasonably extrapolate from that paragraph that you mean it is males who must change in order for relations to improve? If not, then what do you mean by "Eventually, men will adapt..." or men of the future finding the issues to be less "...unpeaceful, and emasculating."? "
Well, i guess you could interpret the statement as you did, but remember that that particular post was the continuation of earlier posts, which specifically addressed how the changes in women's history shaped/influenced men(7/10/03), suggesting that some men liked the changes. Then you partially agreed, but asserted that these changes were actually causing breakups(7/11/03). So if you consider our larger conversation, which are available in earlier posts,(btw, i would assume that u could also consider my posts in other threads) you would not believe that I suggested that only men needed to change. In other words, since you, I and others consistently post(often directly to eachother), i believe(d?) that we don't/didn't have to be so explanatory, since the other posts provide a template in which you can draw from.
Thank U asking for explanation and giving me the chance to respond. Understanding is a two way street, and miscommunication is as much the fault of the communicator as it is the receiver. Have a great day! |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 02:07 pm: |
|
Troy:
I think your scenario is highly unlikely. She couldn't just throw him out unless she made recourse to the spousal abuse laws, and from your scenario, she would be the one to be thrown out. Besides, people like to play their little games, and just because you would not like a woman to treat you like this doesn't mean there aren't guys who would. I personally know of a case that lasted much longer wherein the woman did all this and more to the guy, and she wound up having to get rid of him--there was no way he was going to leave her--it got too GOOD to him. Hell, if he hangs around for 7 years taking all this, he must have liked something that was going on--after all you don't allege even in your scenario that he was tied up and held captive in the basement. So she could argue that he did take some benefit and enjoyment from the union, even if, to us that enjoyment must have been a masochistic one.
|
yukio
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 02:30 pm: |
|
Chris Hayden:
I don't think the man "enjoyed" his abusive experience(nor does anyone who is abused...i don't think it's so simple that one is abused and either you leave or stay...and staying means u like it and leaving means that you don't..for give the simplification if u feel this is what i'm doing), but he probably did get something that affirmed him in some way.... |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 02:52 pm: |
|
Yukio:
There are unfortunately, people who like being abused. This even goes to the macro level, where whole populations grovel under the boot of a ruthless leader--I don't think it's healthy, and I don't like or understand it, but there it is. The man I knew in the abusive relationship with the woman bore every humiliation cheefully --you know what almost killed him? When she left.
Different strokes. She always treated me fine (and still does and asks about him--of course she don't take the time to check on him herself--a little guilt?) |
|
Email This Page