Marriage, Institutionalised Jealousy?

[furikoneko]

I'm currently (still) reading Why We Get Sick - The New Science of Darwinian Medicine by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams. The book is some ten years old but still incredibly interesting, making many lucid points about how our bodies and minds work in the face of illness.

Not only dealing with infections, cancer and genetic disorders, they

Comments

Trigger

[ungulata]

I consider myself a biologist by training and I feel that it is arrogant indeed to assume that humans are 'above their own biology'.

The authors are skimming the issue when they state that "culture and the legal system exaggerate a biological tendency". It is language and sedentary living that exaggerate culture and permit male aggression to usurp the female matriarchy.

Re: Trigger

[furikoneko]

Definitely arrogant, and so easy to disprove it's just ridiculous. And yet, some people will lynch you for suggesting there's biologically founded behavioural differences between men and women. Much like Intelligent Design is just creationism in disguise, gender as social construct is just the blank slate revisited.

Don't really know much about your exact stance when it comes to male aggression and female matriarchy so I've no idea if I really agree with you there. I do know that the authors are skimming the issue, because the book isn't about marriage, it's about evolution, disease and medical care. They only deal with jealousy in particular for two pages or so.

Re: Trigger

[ungulata]

I personally would not discuss marriage and culture without discussing the effect of language and a shift to a sedentary existence on social behaviour and the balance of power between the sexes. Namely: the development of language has caused human culture to out-strip evolved behaviours by leaps and bounds. Language facilitates alliances and ritual, giving aggressive males the tools necessary to overthrow female matriarchies. A shift to agrarian subsistence hammers home the concept of possession and makes it easier to herd and contain women.

That, in a nutshell, is my stance on male aggression and the fall of the matriarchy.

[alias_sqbr]

Certainly I agree that it's silly that marriage is still implicitly (and often explicitly) expected to be a for-life monogamous heterosexual thing despite all the successful long-term-committed relationships which are only some, or none of these things. I'm very much monogamous by nature, but that's as a result of being rather uncivilisedly possessive, and can only respect people who can get past that aspect of human nature. Sorry, tired, not sure this is very clear :) Anyway, yes, marriage in a lot of ways is a throwback to Nature Red in Tooth and Claw. But I'm doing it anyway cos I get a pretty white dress :)

[furikoneko]

I'm not opposed to individuals getting married. In my opinion, people can do whatever the hell they want, as long as it's consensual. I AM opposed to the general assumption that you get married if you're going to spend your life together. And other assumptions associated with it; such as that one partner's immediately going to quit their job and stay home with the children (usually the female...). Also, of course, that not anyone can get married, and that marriage has been a religious ceremony for so long that it's difficult to think of how to do it differently. Same with funerals, really.

[alias_sqbr]

Guh, don't get me started on funerals, my grandad died recently and despite being quite vocally atheist was given a rather smugly religious ceremony, though since the priest had met him he acknowledged he didn't believe in any of it but still made all these comments about "finding peace in heaven" etc Then again my dad and all his siblings are pretty devout.

But yes, the assumptions about marriage are dumb. I check some marriage forums every now and then and they're sometimes like this archaic museum of outdated customs. Asking the fathers permission indeed. Pfft. I think things would be a lot better if there was a stronger disjoint between the legal recognition of a contract between two (or more) people to share resources etc, and the traditional (or not) ceremony you perform to celebrate your relationship and if you swing that way get it recognised by God etc.

[londubh]

the religious/devil's advocate side of me wants to say something along the lines of "It's ok if you don't believe in God, He still believes in you..." ( ^)> But seriously, the thing you have to realize is that, except when following the explicit wishes of the deceased, a funeral isn't for the dead, but rather the living. It's a coping mechanism, a way for everybody to say goodbye.

[londubh]

People who think that laws should oppose our more destructive biological tendencies would presumably want to change the social system in ways that would discourage divorces based on infidelity.

wait, what does this mean, precicely? That the aformentioned people would preffer to allow or disallow unfaithful people to get a divorce?

Interstingly, this would also explain why women who have many partners are considered to be whores/sluts/[sexual epithet], while guys who do the same thing are considered either neutrally or with esteem: Guys have no way of knowing the kid's theirs if the woman sleeps around, and therefore wouldn't want much to do with her except for the immediate pleasure (ie, it might be mine, but good chance it's not, so i'm not helping her & somebody else's kid). If a guy sleeps around, however, that implies that he is capable of providing for all of his children, or believes himself to be (kind of like a social version of conspicuous consumption [antlers, plumage, etc]).

Re: Trigger

[furikoneko]

Actually, a guy who sleeps around wouldn't need to provide for all his children. He'd just assume the females would, and although he might have weaker individual offspring compared to a monogamous male, on average (because he wouldn't be providing resources), this would be far outweighed by the sheer numbers of children he could father if he slept around rather than stayed with one woman. Of course, contraceptives changes the equation somewhat, as sleeping around no longer means having a lot of babies. Perhaps this'll put a selection pressure on men to become more monogamous by nature, who knows. ;)

And the authors aren't proposing anything, they're just saying that the logical position for people who think we should fight our own biology is to oppose divorce on the grounds of infidelity.

Re: Trigger

[londubh]

no, he wouldn't Need to, but does that mean he wouldn't? My point was that it seems similar to conspicuous consumption. I mean, look at a peacock. Yes, if you can waste that much of your bodily resources for an otherwise useless display of plumage does that necessarily mean you'll be able/willing to provide for your offspring? No. But it does imply that you might have the resources to do so, and/or that your children are capable of handling themselves.

And as to contraceptives, no, that takes some pressure Off of both parties, as they're not as worried anymore about Having to try to provide for their offspring in such situations. Contraceptives mean No offspring to make a male stay with Any female, as she has no offspring of his to provide for... No, i think i'm going to have to say that contraceptives hurt even short term monogamy.

Re: Trigger

[furikoneko]

You're thinking of this from an individual perspective, not considering what will happen over evolutionary time. Contraceptives lower your fitness because they mean less babies. A man who stays with one woman and has children with her and does EVERYTHING to provide for those children will have higher fitness than a man who sleeps around, not providing for any children, or perhaps only half-heartedly providing for a child or two he got with a woman he pretends to be monogamous with. Hence, in today's society, it's concievable that being strictly monogamous may provide a fitness advantage. Of course, it's rarely that simple, but it's an interesting thought experiment