Heteromonogamy is really just another way to waste women's time, isn't it?

Stormingly brilliant point SheCutOffTheirTails. The propaganda for lurve, monogamy, "soul mate" one and only, life partner, goes alongside the lies that the media constantly tell about how outcomes for the children of single parents are shit compared to those from two parent families, when what we know is that the only reason outcomes are shit, is because of money. So if we can make it as difficult for women to function in society as mothers without the co-operation and financial assistance of a man, we can control their fertility much more effectively.

Agree Belle!

Nothing to add at the minute but this is very interesting to me.

I think one way that it wastes women's time is that it creates the cultural (and moral?) expectation that a woman must jump through the monogamy hoop before having children.

A lot of women are having babies in their late 30s because it took until then to "find a man who would commit" or to convince their long-term boyfriend to agree to TTC.

It's a new way of controlling women's fertility - you may have the pill, sperm banks, child benefit and tax credits, but you have to wait for something you have no control over (meeting someone who wants to marry you - and let's be clear, it's that they are willing to marry you that matters. If you ask for commitment, you are crazy and desperate) before reproducing.

So you are in a race against time - have children before your fertility runs out, but not until you've got through the "find a man who will commit to you forever without prompting" obstacle course.

I'm quote willing to admit that I've been brainwashed too .

Just lucky it's turned out well for me.

Completely irrelevant but I bloody love you lot... Great debate and it's only 10am on a Monday morning.

Agree with poncey it is very easy to just blanket state relationships that are good equal and do not compromise you in any way esp if you have never experienced it.

Yes, snowmama it's about it being idealised and sold as 'the right way'

Himalaya that argument doesn't really work in that the 'media' claims all sorts of things sell, like the 'Lolita' look or impossibly thin/young looking women or the page 3 girl etc. Saturation by theses images and ideas normalises them and pressurises individuals to conform and strive towards them

I have no issue with heterosexuality and/ or monogamy, and know several couples who live very happily within these setup.

I do have an issue with combination being held up as the singular ideal to which I must aspire, and the underlying assumption that the set up is automatically of benefit to women.

Surely magazines publish whatever sells? Their agenda is to sell magazines and advertising.

Plenty of predominantly male pastimes can also be described as timewasting - football, fishing, computer games, getting excited about transport (cars, trains etc...)

The modern condition is trying to find prposeful ways to waste our time given that we don't have to spend 100% of it on survival anymore.

I agree magazines are generally shit though, and I have given up reading them.

@ banning monogopamy. No - it certainly wouldn't happen, it benefits the patriarchy too much.

I do agree that the creation of the 'nuclear family' in particular is very detrimental but although, I agree that monogamy (and I'm separating it from the sexuality just to be clear that it is the constructed arrangement I am talking about) on the whole disadvantages women more than men, not in the least because they tend to be the ones to stick to the rules, I am quite comfortable with my personal situation.

iYCSWIM?

Polygamy is not unassociated with downsides for women - I suspect that if you look at all polygamous relationships worldwide in most of them the women get the shitty end of the stick but that doesn't mean that either polygamy or monogamy are the problem - it means that women worldwide get a crappy deal.

It seems as if we are mostly agreeing so I'm not sure how we are managing to argue.

People should be free to choose to be homosexual or hetersexual or bisexual, to be monogamous (with or without cohabiting) or whatever the word is for the opposite of monogamous. As long as all involved parties are aware of the setup and willing participants.

Do we all agree on that?

Finding "the perfect relationship" is not a very good hobby, and magazines promoting it as an important way to spend your time is a bit shit.

Do we agree on that one?

One person within a relationship being responsible for all of the emotional responsibility, the responsibilities for children, career changing, domestic labour, social arrangements, thinking of birthdays and presents etc, buying clothes and on and on and on. (to quote SAF) is also shit.

Do we agree on that one?

So, er, where exactly is the problem?

If people could choose to be monogamous or not without all that shit it would be great.

I don't like the idea of attacking monogamy as if being in a relationship with/living with/raising children with one person is in itself a bad thing.

The thing for me is though, that Iquite like my heteromonogamous life and you quite like your's being not so, sAf, so it is very difficult for me to argue entirely unemotionally about it. No?