posted
I recently started watching on DVD this HBO series about a polygamous family. It's a surprisingly good show.
Having seen five episodes, I like how the writers don't take cheap shots. They don't vilify the Bill Baxton character. He's kind and caring and responsible and all his wives look up to him. He has a loving relationship with all of them. He's also a pretty successful businessman and ambly provides for his large family.
Some people are vilified, however: polygamists who live on a compound to where at least one of the wives comes from and in which the Bill Baxton character grew up in. The polygamists who live there are more regressive, more religious, more creepy than our more enlightened central characters who are merely partaking (in a responsible fashion) a form of marital arrangement that has been around thousands of years.
Because it hasn't aggressively criticized polygamy, the show has been accused of glorifying it. In fact the creators of the show are male gay partners who have expressed sympathy for polygamy as another lifestyle choice that's unfairly discriminated against. But I wouldn't say they glorify the practice so much as depict a successful instance of it.
But the show has made me wonder why polygamy is illegal: what right has the government to dictate the number of wives a man can have? If, as liberals argue, the gender of the partners shouldn't matter, why should the numbers involved matter? Indeed, if gay marriage goes through it's only fair that polygamists get their way as well. Sure, it would be messy to legally deal with these sort of situations but I think that's just another argument for having government step out of the marriage business.
But beyond the questions it raises, "Big Love" is simply good drama. The polygamous situation is simply a rich source for it. There's the fear of getting found out by coworkers and neighbors, and all the tension between the wives. Moreover, the acting talent involved is high class: In addition to Baxton, there's Chloë Sevigny (who infamously almost ruined her career by starring in the most explicit sex scene in a film called "The Brown Bunny"), Jeanne Tripplehorn as the mature first wife, and Ginnifer Goodwin as the youngest (and prettiest) of the wives. Harry Dean Stanton is the villain who runs the polygamous compound and is involved in shady business dealings. There's also that dumb chick from Mean Girls as one of the daughters. In conclusion, Big Love is a Big success.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say watch a few more episodes. I've only missed the most recent episode or two of the current season and I can't stand Bill anymore. He's a selfish and deluded man who seems determined to destro his family.
You'll also notice that there are fewer children around with each new season. Exaggerated drama, rather than an honest look at modern pologamy, has become the focus of the show and there are just way too many secondary characters I couldn't care less about.
I won't touch pologamy as a topic because I haven't made up my mind one way or another. But the show does nothing for me when it comes to promoting pologamy. Too many unhappy women and children.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first season was decent, and unique, but ultimately I found I didn't care what happened next. Nothing about the show itself, I suspect, just a general lack of caring of what happens in their world. I think it was just the general conflict the characters were facing didn't pull me in by the end of season 1.
Maybe one day I'll give the next season a chance, but I wouldn't care much about spending money on it. If you enjoy it, that's awesome, too. Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be against polygamy for two reasons, both of which are intended for the betterment of society on the whole. I don't have anything against polygamy in a vacuum, but I don't think it can work in any large capacity a healthy society.
The first reason is that it often times amounts to child slavery. Young girls are raised in an environment where the only way to move up in society is to marry a much older man, who already has many wives. I realize that this is a matter of contention, and it isn't always the case, but it seems very common in all the examples I've seen, and I don't think it serves anyone's best interests except the old, rich, powerful men who want many young wives/servants.
The second reason is that marriages stabilize society. They give young men a legal and social responsibility to care for and raise a family. In a society where a few, powerful men have many wives, you're left with a socially and emotionally poor class of young men with no hope of marrying, and as a result with a much greater propensity to behave in ways that are bad for society as a whole.
It might sound good on paper, but it's something that can only work in small, secluded enclaves, because the women who are going to accept it have to be raised in the circumstances that make them think it's a good idea, and the young men who are going to compete for the available young women need to be cast out to find women elsewhere.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polygamy would work well in regions with lots of war that predominantly kills young men.
I like Big Love, but right now, none of the wives are happy. My husband doesn't get why the wives don't all leave him for someone better. They could all do better than Bill. I also thought they made several people on the compound sympathetic (like the brother and his wife).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen Big Love in so long. Maybe I should get it on DVD. It's an interesting show. I read several books about polygamy. It's not really very healthy on a lot of levels. You get young girls who have to marry mostly older men, they don't have much of a choice. There's tons of children, and with just one man and 7 wives, they don't get all the attention they need. Unless a person is wealthy, restricts themselves to just 2 wives, it's hard to make it work because there's all of those kids to feed, wives who need attention from their husband and don't get it. I'd read- Shattered Dreams Cult Insanity Stolen Innocence Escape and several other books
Then you have to wonder if polyandry would be allowed, If I want to marry both Kaoru and Johnny Depp, why shouldn't I be able to? But again, there's that intimacy to consider. I hate to sound all OSCian, but maybe monogamy is better, but unlike him, I'd say gay monogamy is OK and good too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I want to marry both Kaoru and Johnny Depp, why shouldn't I be able to? But again, there's that intimacy to consider.
Maybe if Johnny likes Kaoru too, there's a simple answer.
Today I was wondering whether I could come to love (and you know, "love") Colin Firth. Since my wife really likes him. I figured it's probably a lot likelier than Mr. Firth opting in.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Then you have to wonder if polyandry would be allowed, If I want to marry both Kaoru and Johnny Depp, why shouldn't I be able to? But again, there's that intimacy to consider. I hate to sound all OSCian, but maybe monogamy is better, but unlike him, I'd say gay monogamy is OK and good too.
Well, if nothing else, marriages among multiple partners would create a lot of messy practical issues that would need to be dealt with.
Off the top of my head: Is the marriage itself a collective thing, or is it considered several separate marriages. Ie, if A & B are married, does C join in to the existing marriage? Or does C instead singly marry A or B or both of them.
On the same line, if B wants to divorce C, can A still be married to C?
A is incapacitated and a judgment call needs to be made regarding medical treatment. B and C disagree. Whose advice takes precedence.
So even if plural marriages did otherwise work out ok, I think there'd still be enough tricky issues that I'd be hesitant to support legalizing it.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Put me in the camp of people who think that polygamy isn't inherently bad, but that when it becomes an intrenched institution it easily lends itself to a lot of bad side effects.
I've read a few different blogs about people who are part of or who sympathize with poly relationships. One in particular (goes by the name "The Ferrett") has posted several interesting pieces on their experiences. I'm not sure where I make the connection/line between poly-dating and poly-marriage.
posted
From other threads we've had, I got a very strong sense that polygamy and polyamory were opposite concepts.
Polygamy seems to be the creation of a closed family unit with more than two spouses. Even if some of the members are not involved sexually, they're still family. Hence, the sister-wife moniker.
Polyamory is more an out growth of the Free Love movement. It sounds more like a tenuous web of relationships. A is dating B and C, but B is with A and D, and C is with A and D and E. None of the relationships are dependant on each other, and everyone is free to date whomever they see fit.
There was a thread on the idea several years ago with a good link.
And a more recent conversation: thread Some personal experiences shared and a couple good links. I realy enjoyed the one on Tibetan polyandry, myself.
Somewhere there was a good thread with a link explaining the phrase "Unicorn Hunter" that I thought gave a really good look into the mindset of the polyandry community, but I can't find it now. If you can turn it up, that one to me really explains the differences between polygamy and polyamory best.
It's about getting what you want versus being open to what you may find, as far as I can tell.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The post I wanted to find by the Ferrett (couldn't find it unfortunately) was the discussion of how monogamy-proponents liked to dis poly-relationships because most of them "ended in failure," and his retort was that most monogamous relationships also end in failure, but that monogamy happens to have marriage as a default example of "what it looks like when you do it right," and there is no such counterpoint for a poly relationship.
I realize that poly (as most commonly practiced) isn't very similar to polygamy, but I also think that if poly were to gain widespread approval and become common, situations would crop up more and more where you did have little groups of 3-4 people who really did commit to each other and would benefit from having legal sanction to their union. (if not tax benefits than at least visitation rights). When/if that happens 60 years from now, what do you do?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Huh? I meant the U.S. as a whole in terms of what we should do, legal-wise. Is avoiding the risk of oppressive polygamist cults worth denying the rights of genuine, healthy poly-groups getting recognition and legal rights?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Huh? I meant the U.S. as a whole in terms of what we should do, legal-wise. Is avoiding the risk of oppressive polygamist cults worth denying the rights of genuine, healthy poly-groups getting recognition and legal rights?
I guess it's just too hard to raise the age of marriage to 18 everywhere in the US.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what, make it illegal for parents to give their teens permission to marry? Because most states already have 18 as the age at which no parental permission is required.
quote: Exaggerated drama, rather than an honest look at modern pologamy, has become the focus of the show
Agreed. I'm a sucker for drama so I'm still watching, but the show is not as good as it used to be. I loved seasons one and two but it's been downhill since then.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Huh? I meant the U.S. as a whole in terms of what we should do, legal-wise. Is avoiding the risk of oppressive polygamist cults worth denying the rights of genuine, healthy poly-groups getting recognition and legal rights?
I should have used a smilie.
I found your last sentance to be humorously worded, that's all.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's indicative of why two gay male partners would make a show about polygamy:
Quote:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
quote: None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.
Of course it would.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, what's the *straight* divorce rate? around 50%? Hmmm... nothing undermining marriage already then is there?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we need to know how many straight people cheat. Except apparently, gays have figured out a way to not let non-exclusivity destroy their relationship. So, wouldn't that indicate a more stable, forgiving relationship?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm sorry, what's the *straight* divorce rate? around 50%? Hmmm... nothing undermining marriage already then is there?
Divorce isn't undermining marriage -- it's the things that cause divorce that undermine marriage, and the main culprit is obviously the erosion of gender roles. But that 50% of straight marriages fail is an irrelevant rejoinder (it should also be pointed out that only 1/3rd of first time straight marriages fail, and the other 1/6th comes from serial divorces), because straight people still attempt lifelong fidelity whereas in the gay community, a significant portion of the community (greater than 50%) rejects fidelity on principle. They have a fundamentally different conception of marriage.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Get the government out of the marriage business and let people enter in polygamous/gay marriages all they want. As it stands the attempt to legalize gay "marriage" -- when gays clearly aren't the same as heterosexuals in their conception of marriage -- is nothing but an attempt to force acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal on the populace as a whole.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: ... it's the things that cause divorce that undermine marriage, and the main culprit is obviously the erosion of gender roles.
Please show your work.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think there is reasonable documentation that that IS the case (though I don't have a link ready) - because women have a role other than bearing children, and because they are no longer tied to men economically, and because life expectancy is higher, allowing people to live a long time after their last child leaves the house, women are free to leave marriages they are unhappy with rather than being stuck with them as they had been for hundreds of years.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: ... it's the things that cause divorce that undermine marriage, and the main culprit is obviously the erosion of gender roles.
Please show your work.
Divorce was low pre-60s. Then second wave feminism happened and women attained economic parity and partially usurped men's natural "breadwinner" roles and therefore destabilized the natural arrangement. Divorce rates have been increasing since.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: women are free to leave marriages they are unhappy with rather than being stuck with them as they had been for hundreds of years. [/QB]
That's the generous explanation. The likely truth is that they are more likely to leave if their men aren't socially superior to them. Women have evolved to mate with the man who has the highest status, the one who could provide the most resources. A man of equal status isn't superior and therefore gets deserted.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what do you do with the data that suggests that the couples most likely to stay together in today's society aren't those with "traditional" gender roles. The more established a woman is in her career and education before she gets married the less likely she is to get divorced. Postponing having children also boosts the success rates of marriage. Both of those stats seems to contradict the theory that if woman married men and remained mother's and housewives, the end result would be a healthier marriage.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: But what do you do with the data that suggests that the couples most likely to stay together in today's society aren't those with "traditional" gender roles. The more established a woman is in her career and education before she gets married the less likely she is to get divorced.
The more successful she is, the more likely she is to marry someone more successful than herself. In this way the relationship still retains a semblance of the traditional arrangement.
quote:Postponing having children also boosts the success rates of marriage.
The women who have established a career/have post-undergrad degrees are of course far more likely to have delayed having children, so it's really just saying the same thing.
quote: Both of those stats seems to contradict the theory that if woman married men and remained mother's and housewives, the end result would be a healthier marriage.
I didn't say it would be that simple. Suppose an average man and woman get married and decide that she will stay home and they'll live on his income of $50,000. They can certainly do it, but they both know that things would be easier for them financially if she works as well, so pretty soon she's working too, except she now has the same income and begins to view him as less of a man, less of a provider, even though his contribution is still substantial. Now if anything else goes wrong in the relationship there isn't as much of an incentive on her part to fix it, or, hell, it'll become an excuse to ditch him and try to find another man who can make her feel like a woman (i.e, have higher status than her and with a dominant personality.)
There are significant economic pressures acting against the "stay at home wife" model which is why more people don't opt for it. The best alternative seems to be: She works, but he has a better job.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: But what do you do with the data that suggests that the couples most likely to stay together in today's society aren't those with "traditional" gender roles. The more established a woman is in her career and education before she gets married the less likely she is to get divorced.
The more successful she is, the more likely she is to marry someone more successful than herself. In this way the relationship still retains a semblance of the traditional arrangement.
You need to provide an argument or data for this. Your conclusion is counter-intuitive in the sense that the more successful a woman is, the fewer men there are who are more successful than her. My experience is also at odds with your conclusion.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say it would be that simple. Suppose an average man and woman get married and decide that she will stay home and they'll live on his income of $50,000. They can certainly do it, but they both know that things would be easier for them financially if she works as well, so pretty soon she's working too, except she now has the same income and begins to view him as less of a man, less of a provider, even though his contribution is still substantial. Now if anything else goes wrong in the relationship there isn't as much of an incentive on her part to fix it, or, hell, it'll become an excuse to ditch him and try to find another man who can make her feel like a woman (i.e, have higher status than her and with a dominant personality.)
Translation: economic dependence makes women put up with more crap?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think it could very well be a true statement. "Economic dependence makes women put up with more crap", that is. Or put in terms that Clive would probably like more, "Male-concentrated earning ability made it more difficult for women to leave a marriage."
The weird thing is that this observation is used as an argument. Just because certain conditions make divorce less feasible or attractive doesn't mean those conditions are better. Heck, we could just pass a law that says nobody can get a divorce ever, right? Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that irritates me most about these pseudo-evolutionary arguments about how women and men should relate to each other is that they almost invariably discount the idea of meaningful emotional bonds.
"A woman needs a provider" - how many stories do you know of the deadbeat whose wife/girlfriend stays with him anyway?
Even if we were able to somehow show that all else being equal, a woman would prefer the man with better providing ability (which is reasonable enough except for the idea that you can equalize the product of all the subtle factors of attraction and compatibility)...even if we could do that, the theory that a woman will leave a marriage or long term relationship because she's started to earn more money than the man seems to presuppose that the woman won't feel any pain or grief from leaving a relationship, that she doesn't care for any kids that will be affected, that there are no other meaningful barriers. That's ridiculous.
The gold digging spouse is a risk for rich people. Not the standard marriage paradigm.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A British intelligence service said it's discovered that gel and saline implants may be used by al-Qaida to make bombs, Houston TV station KPRC reported.
British spy satellites have intercepted terrorist communications from Pakistan and Yemen, talking about women suicide bombers getting explosives put inside breast implants.
Former Houston FBI Director Don Clark said he believes U.S. Homeland Security is taking this threat very seriously.
quote:I'm sorry, what's the *straight* divorce rate? around 50%? Hmmm... nothing undermining marriage already then is there?
Arguing that other forms of marriage either wouldn't hurt, or would improve the state of marriage is a reasonable argument. Saying that marriage is already in a bad place and so it doesn't matter what we do to it anymore is silly.
quote: it'll become an excuse to ditch him and try to find another man who can make her feel like a woman (i.e, have higher status than her and with a dominant personality.)
posted
What the hell does feeling like a woman mean anyway? I don't want someone to dominate me! I hate dominating people. It's like dealing with... MY MOTHER or something. ARG! Why would I want to deal with that from someone I'm married to? Dang it. I hate hate HATE HATE HATE EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY/Psychology, with every fiber of my being. Especially when folks try to force these points of view down the throats of people like me who do NOT fit neatly into these norms! Folks gender biases are NOT science!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring entirely that Clive's argument is yet again unsupported postulation wrapped in a generally neurotic estimation of the female gender:
The structuring, complexity, and framing of his arguments have changed drastically, both in terms of his presentation as well as his vocabulary tendencies. Compare it to his earlier posts when he was insisting that women should not be allowed to serve in the military, or when he was redefining 'rape' to include things that are not rape but which he would like to be legally allowed as 'rape' because it is something he hates that women do.
I hate to join the position of assuming that clive is a smurf, but the timeframe is not indicative of someone evolving as a poster. It's indicative of someone dropping their affected cover mannerisms.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Arguing that other forms of marriage either wouldn't hurt, or would improve the state of marriage is a reasonable argument. Saying that marriage is already in a bad place and so it doesn't matter what we do to it anymore is silly.
Thank you, Hobbes. That's what I used to find the most insulting about the old gay marriage threads here. How can anyone in good conscience advocate for something on the grounds that it doesn't work anyway so who cares? It's just rude.
I think what I find most interesting about recognizing alternate marriages is the emotional aspect. It's not my strong point, so I've gotten as far as recognizing that it's very important to some people on an emotional level but not why.
Then again, I lived with my now-husband for six years before I got around to marrying him, so maybe I'm just not the right person to get it. There's a definite element here that I'm missing, though.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its funny. Ray implies, I think ironically, that divorce rates went up because woman were able to move onto something better. Clive makes the same argument, non-ironically.
In other words Clive seems to be arguing that Divorce rates went up because women were financially and socially able to get out of marriages they didn't like. To make things better, Clive argues, women should continue to suffer. Men can get divorces as they need, but women should suffer in silence.
I guess "funny" was the wrong word. I find that a sad point of view.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually was not making the argument ironically, just with the opposite frame of mind as Clive. It's based off an article I read a while back that made sense to me at the time. A more detailed description is that historically, people have only lived X years, and they spent most of those years having children and raising them, which helps gives couples something to tie them together.
Women have historically been economically and socially powerless, and much of their perceived value was in raising children. On top of that divorce was simply taboo. Do you really think there WEREN'T a bunch of women who would have divorced if it had been feasible?
Today, most people don't have as many children, and women aren't judged solely on how well they raise them, and if their husband is abusive (or if they simply realize they married too young without really knowing anything about each other - it's not like marrying young is a new phenomenon), they can leave without worrying where their food and shelter is coming from.
I don't think these are the only reasons, but I think they are significant to the point that hanging on to the older assumptions about marriage - that it lasts forever and that it's the "default" goal for most people - is not necessarily practical.
This applies to both genders - men also have social norms they have to conform to even if they usually benefitted more from it. With childrearing in general being less of a focal point, the traditional family structure simply isn't as defining.
[ February 13, 2010, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would mention further that the stigma attached to divorce having been removed, has allowed women and men stuck in bad relationships to find it within themselves to leave. In addition to that however, it has also encouraged people who teetered on the precipice of divorce to split rather than work out their differences.
I bet there are more than a few marriages that have ended in divorce because it has become so permissible in our society, but might have survived and even flourished had it been discouraged. I don't know that either extreme is better than the other, but I would argue that allowing for divorce is not by nature better than discouraging it.
posted
Something about the grammar of your first sentence is wrong but I can't quite figure out how to fix it.
I agree with Blackblade's statement to some degree. I think making Divorce easier makes people more likely to jump into marriages that you weren't ready for and less likely to work at marriages instead of giving up. However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Or rather, I think it's a bad thing but I think the issue is not that divorce is made so easy but that marriage is made so desirable.
People are conditioned from early childhood to look forward to a magical wedding day and to live happily ever after and there's an implication, to some degree, that people who don't get married have failed as human beings. I think fixing that situation is more important that discouraging divorce.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Something about the grammar of your first sentence is wrong but I can't quite figure out how to fix it.
I agree with Blackblade's statement to some degree. I think making Divorce easier makes people more likely to jump into marriages that you weren't ready for and less likely to work at marriages instead of giving up. However, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Or rather, I think it's a bad thing but I think the issue is not that divorce is made so easy but that marriage is made so desirable.
People are conditioned from early childhood to look forward to a magical wedding day and to live happily ever after and there's an implication, to some degree, that people who don't get married have failed as human beings. I think fixing that situation is more important that discouraging divorce.
Or perhaps, a greater emphasis could be made on, for lack of a better word, integrity, when it comes to committing to a marriage. Both partners have made a commitment, and making the marital commitment more closely resemble the dating model is something I think ought to be discouraged.
You don't just get a divorce, like you break up with a bad SO. If children enter the equation, then the commitment should be even stronger.
I suppose I agree with you, and I'm just not doing a good job in saying so. I got married when I was 25 which is smack dab on top of the national average, but when my brother wishes he was already married at the same age, I tell him to cool it, and to stop stressing.
Encouraging people to marry when they are ready, making sure those who are unmarried are not ostracized, and discouraging those who have married from hastily divorcing, I think are concepts we can promote equally and at the same time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I think we do agree with each other. For marriage to be meaningful, it needs to be a stronger and more carefully approached commitment than what people treat it as, but if that's the case than we need to accept that many (perhaps most) people won't get married.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say it would be that simple. Suppose an average man and woman get married and decide that she will stay home and they'll live on his income of $50,000. They can certainly do it, but they both know that things would be easier for them financially if she works as well, so pretty soon she's working too, except she now has the same income and begins to view him as less of a man, less of a provider, even though his contribution is still substantial. Now if anything else goes wrong in the relationship there isn't as much of an incentive on her part to fix it, or, hell, it'll become an excuse to ditch him and try to find another man who can make her feel like a woman (i.e, have higher status than her and with a dominant personality.)
Translation: economic dependence makes women put up with more crap?
Or, women have evolved to love more the men whom they're economically and socially dependent upon.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
