This got long...
>
> Hmmm. This sounds like a pointer to a problem with the institution of marriage. Now
>THAT is an interesting subject. All cultures through time have [had] some ceremony
>by which two individuals are bonded to each other. Do you think humanity's
> 'global' culture (did I say global?) is growing away from single partner marriages?
>In the United States I think marriage is still seen as a hierarchical structure. The
>keyword is, of course, hierarchy. Must such an institution, if it exists, be
> hierarchical? There are other social and economic factors--of which I'm not well
>versed--that would enforce this hierarchy, at leas in the United States.
>
> What I'm getting at is that there is little reason to load balance the rearing of
>children (it seems to me). Unless, the parents are agreeing to share and meter the
>results and adjust accordingly. I know there are many families that do this. The
> primary reason this occurs, I /think/, is because two people agree to it. There is
>little support from most work environments for fathers to be fathers. Working
>mothers, likewise.
>
> This is the first time I've really thought about this, so please be gentle when
>correcting facts and recognizing opinion.
>
> abs
Another question is, has society grown past the need for marriage? From
an anthropological standpoint, the need to have a male in the family
cluster arises from the long maturation period of human beings, let alone
the lengthy and debilitating gestation period. A small family cluster
needs a certain number of healthy strong members to hunt and defend. A
pregnant woman, after a certain point, is certainly not able to
effectively fill those roles, no matter how strong she is.
As repayment for defense and food, the human male has come to expect that
the offspring that he takes care of will be his, and he will therefore
fulfill his evolutionary destiny by passing on his genes. In the wild,
this exchange was enough. The female of most species has the final say in
mating, female humans not being an exception.
Human societies have evolved in such a way that the female-male
relationship has a 1 to 1 ratio, unlike other mammals. This guarantees
that more males will be satisfied to stay with the clan unit, rather than
leave to find females elsewhere, as lions and horses may do. This has the
advantage of having more able bodies around in times of crises, and
providing for more offspring in the clan. (which is a good thing when
infant mortality gets out of hand - it's good evolutionary practice)
Marriage is really just the socialization of this relationship as our
culture has moved to a less primitive economic base. It has evolved in
such a way as to remain desirable for both parties, given that they are
socialized in a certain way. But now our society is
evolving further, into an era that allows for more economic specialization
and more dependence on services.
When it comes down to it, we expect the nuclear family to consist of a
mother, father, and children, but our economic atmosphere is such that a
family can exist as one or more parents of any gender, their children, and
people who care about and for those children, be they extended family or
service providers or teachers.
Marriage is a socialized institution hanging on from a time when explicit
roles were necessary; it has embedded itself in our laws and religions.
The same economic freedom that gives a single man the ability to have
multiple wives that he could never defend in an attack allows women to
live their lives without being dependent on men. It's no longer a life
and death situation. It's now about conditioning and societal prejudices.
Not like it's going to change anytime soon; it's probably been in motion
for hundreds of thousands of years, but marriage is certainly not as
necessary as it was a couple millenia ago.
--mandi
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
