I have broken from the didactic strategy I began with, to free-write some of the latest posts here. I think it has garnered a better reader response as well as freeing me from doing as much research. I want to break again today and who knows, it may become the main style from here on...
So, let's start with marriage because that is the most recent thing I have been thinking about. I was talking with my friend [edit] this weekend about dating and marriage. He said he would probably never get married and asked me about how things like relationships normally work in nature. I told him that the male of ANY species is designed to spread the seed, to perpetuate its (his) lineage. That started me thinking about how marriage is such a falsehood. It eventually led me to realize WHY 1 in 2 (50% is a fail in anyone's book, without a curve) marriages don't work. They are not evolutionarily viable. Any endeavor can work half of the time. I, as a scientist and you, as an informed being, should know that just because something works once doesn't mean it will ALWAYS work. I mean, how much sense does it make--from a natural standpoint-- for one man to mate with one woman for a "lifetime"? That only decreases the robustness of the gene pool. A more robust gene pool, or men mating with many women actually bolsters the insurance of survival. The more females that carry the seed, the more likely he and those women are to have viable descendants. I also read about some Indian cultures in a book called A People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn. He explained that the women and men in one particular culture were allowed to move in with anyone they chose. They were also free to leave that household whenever they pleased with no repercussion. That sounds like a wonderful place to me; a place with no marital pressure from society and freedom of choice with no time constraints as it pertained to male/female relationships. What do you think?
I was also thinking about a way to break away from the greater American society. Here's what I thought: buy plots of land in a central location. The land has to be arable and away from cities. I would then put a planned community there, based on basic principles of living. The only work one would have to do is toward producing food, clothing or shelter. All of the rest of your time can be dedicated to anything you like. How does that sound?
There was something else I was thinking about last week, but it's not coming to me now, so I'll end here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I disagree on the whole monogamy thing. Acknowledging all that may be true about biology and evolution, humans are also capable of emotion and connection. Not only are they capable of it, but its what has predominantly distinguished humans from other animals – the capacity of our brains to feel and react to emotions. I read in a book recently that the reactors in the brain that fire in physical pain are the very same reactors that fire when we experience social pain – pain of exclusion. And they also fire when others feel pain – demonstrating our capabilities for empathy. Human emotions are very complicated and I don’t think can be taken out of the equation when it comes to how we socialize, mate, etc. Not many living beings raise their young for the extended time that is required of humans. Especially given the type of education our kids receive, most wouldn’t be prepared to be independent and self-sufficient until out of high school. Someone needs to be around to nurture this child. Having more than one “someone” around gives a child a better chance through having more social interaction and guidance.
ReplyDeleteI realize much of what you write is in keeping a different kind of society in mind – one that doesn’t rely on 9-5 jobs, houses in the suburbs separated by miles from our work lives, and disconnected from our neighbors, but I think that in the society we have currently, family units of some sort are necessary to survive. Whether your family unit is “traditional” or something else - you & your sister living close together helping eachother out with kids, chores, whatever - people need to rely on eachother to be able to successfully raise children in this world. In the societies Zinn speaks about, the child-rearing was probably much more of a tribal responsibility. We, however, have become much more independent and self-reliant, and need our immediate families, and often a partner to get through the day. And not just to “get through” it, but to enjoy it!
I’m not going to say that marriage is the only way to go, by any means. Especially since marriage is so tightly defined in most states to the union of a woman and a man, period. I think people have the ability to make many sorts of relationships work, and for various amounts of time. Sometimes it works for people to be married, sometimes it doesn’t. And, its only in the past, I don’t know, 20 years or so that marriages have been failing exceedingly. Our parents & grandparents had it figured out somehow. I’m definitely not a traditionalist; I just don’t think their success is something to be ignored. People make all sorts of relationships work. I think the pressure on young people to get married is not helpful, but I also see that pressure dwindling as the years go by. Maybe if that’s the case, people that want to be married can be – and will make it work, and marriages will be more successful because only those who really want to be in that commitment will feel the desire to go through with it. And those that don’t want to be married will find whatever sort of level of commitment that works for them, and be happy in that path.
I’m just not going to back down from my statement that people need connection to survive. In my opinion, they’re welcome to find that wherever they can, for whatever duration works for them. Given how long it takes for someone to find a trusting, intimate, good relationship, however, I think a life-time commitment can only be powerful, wonderful, and very worthwhile if people are willing to put in the effort to make it work. On a personal note, and I think this is what makes this commitment worthwhile – I’ve found the more you put into something, the more you get out of it. If this is true for a lifetime commitment, I can only imagine the results. That sounds cheesy – but that’s the romantic/idealist side of me which doesn’t often come out.
Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteYour final point, is my point exactly. People should be able to choose the duration and intensity level of their relationships at their discretion. I don't think marriage is a norm as the myth goes in our culture.
As for your point that our parents and grandparents seem to have had it figured out, I looked at the statistics on divorcemag.com, and the divorce rate in the 1970's was much higher (my parent's got married in 1970) at about 72%. Records weren't kept like this during our grandparents time, at least not in any centralized location. I imagine, though, that divorce rates were relatively high then as well. As a matter of fact, the last recorded data for 2005 found the divorce rate at 38%, although the marriage rate was down as well.
I guess a lifetime commitment could work, but strictly speaking of a society that I imagine is in our future, that would be up to those people involved. Also, the tribal modus operandi of a village raising the children would be commonplace and thus lessen any necessity for a two parent household. In our current society, when the mother can't raise the child, NO ONE ELSE WILL. That is, unless grandma sucks it up and takes over. In a community like the one I imagine, there would be a laundry list of people to pick up the slack.