Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Marriage a most unnatural state of affairs?

164 replies

MiniTheMinx · 06/07/2012 22:03

The monogamous family seems to me to uphold patriarchy better than any other institution. Men have for thousands of years sought to control women's reproduction as a means of controlling wealth. The most obvious way in which they have done this is through marriage.

Having read quite a lot and of course experiencing first hand the joys and the lows of monogamy, with all the emotional fall out, the sense of ownership but also support, the security but also the boredom! (at times) I question just how natural monogamy is.

Women are brought up to believe in fairy tale endings, white weddings and happy retirements, men, meanwhile we are told are naturally less inclined towards faithfulness. Their behaviour proof of biology, our faithfulness and commitment is likewise biologically driven.

I don't believe biology drives our desire for monogamous relationships and think this a materialist social construct which can be accounted for by the study of our material and economic history.

www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/04/feminism_and_re_1

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

jezebel.com/5339211/is-non+monogamy-a-feminist-relationship-choice

I am interested in hearing what others of you think, is marriage and monogamy an unnatural state of affairs?

OP posts:
GothAnneGeddes · 07/07/2012 18:23

Mini - I think post-war reconstruction is far more complex then you're making it out to be. Cities were dirty, slum filled places. People, especially women were very glad to move into spacious suburbs with better bathrooms, hot water etc.

scottishmummy · 07/07/2012 18:23

im monogomous by choice. im unmarried by choice
i think your op is gallingly clichéd and full of assumptions.
Whilst im not married i dont think every bride is driven a frothy hazy of tulle and romance. evidently you do

GothAnneGeddes · 07/07/2012 18:18

Actually talking of people raising children, here's a question:

What does it take to love a child?

If you go on the step-parenting board there are plenty of people who live and often care for children but don't love them.

Likewise children in foster care and especially in local authority care are not usually cared for by adults who love them.

This lack of love is often hugely detrimental to children.

However there are people who come into a child's life and love them very much. Why does this happen in some cases and not others?

MiniTheMinx · 07/07/2012 17:41

From my understanding, the government appointed Bowlby to write several reports after the war. His theory of attachment was seized upon as proof that women were best to spend their time at home engaged in childcare, within the nuclear family. No doubt this had the added benefit that women in post war Britian/USA became consumers. Rebuilding houses and reshaping the built environment further isolated women from work. Much building concentrated in suburban areas, where women and children lived, far from where men worked. Women became the driving force for all sorts of capitalist expansion.

OP posts:
Dahlen · 07/07/2012 17:11

Of course, I was being facetious. The divorce stats aren't though.

exoticfruits · 07/07/2012 17:08

You have to bear in mind that people post on relationships when things go wrong. If I went on and said I have a lovely one-people would call me smug or worse!! It is like MILs-read MN and you get the impression they are all 'difficult' and yet in RL I find that people actually like their MIL!

SeratoninIsMyFriend · 07/07/2012 16:57

minnietheminx could you explain more about the misinterpreting of Bowlby; I can't think of criticisms you might be referring to? Thanks.

Dahlen · 07/07/2012 16:55

Have you been on the relationships board recently? Wink

Most people don't enter marriage thinking it's a repressive institution. Most people (well, in the western world, anyway), do so because they're madly in love and either want to make a legal commitment or a religious one. Nowt wrong with that at all.

Doesn't mean a significant proportion of those loved-up newlyweds don't find marriage repressive once they've been in it a while though. Sadly, plenty of men seem to think that marriage gives them rights over a woman's body and behaviour. It can work the other way round as well of course, though less often. Count yourself lucky you don't know anyone in that situation (though you may and just not realise it).

This is NOT an attack on marriage. No one is calling for the abolition of marriage; just the ending of holding it up as the ideal when clearly for many it is far from it.

exoticfruits · 07/07/2012 16:47

*I know of precisely NO men to whom this applies. Control of women's reproductn as a means of controlling wealth ? In Britain today ? Are you serious?
*

Seems mad to me too. It didn't even apply to my grandparents. I don't find marriage repressive in general and I can't understand why you would enter into it in the first place, if you feel like that.
It is a choice!

maybenow · 07/07/2012 16:28

sorry, i'm not trying to derail, i know this is the feminist theory bit.. i just struggle with having a husband i love very much and parents with a very strong marriage which really enabled my mother to make her own choices - i can't really 'de-personalise' and agree with the theory about marriage being repressive to women 'in general'.

sorry, i'll leave now...

LineRunner · 07/07/2012 16:24

Yeah, right, love is in the air.

maybenow · 07/07/2012 16:23

oxytocin is released with every orgasm (although that does assume you are orgasming with your monogamous partner!)

LineRunner · 07/07/2012 16:16

The chemical high doesn't last more than 2 years, apparently.

maybenow · 07/07/2012 16:13

i think that monogamous sexual-pair-bonding is pretty natural. sex releases hormones including oxytocin that encourage bonding feelings. i think this is pretty necessary to live with somebody and raise a child - people find it easier to live with people they "love" than with people they don't.. i certainly do.

i also think that in 21st century britain there isn't the same issues around marriage. my marriage protects me as the person taking maternity leave more than it empowers my husband.

Feckbox · 07/07/2012 16:04

I was talking about the UK .
Travelled plenty thanks

MiniTheMinx · 07/07/2012 16:02

Haven't travelled much then feck???????

OP posts:
Feckbox · 07/07/2012 16:01

"Men have for thousands of years sought to control women's reproduction as a means of controlling wealth. The most obvious way in which they have done this is through marriage. "

For a moment I thought I was back in 1974 at my sociology lectures at university.
I though this notion was absurd then and it's even more absurd now.

I know of precisely NO men to whom this applies. Control of women's reproductn as a means of controlling wealth ? In Britain today ? Are you serious?

On the other point, monogamy does not come naturally to many. Works great for many others.

exoticfruits · 07/07/2012 15:54

It doesn't really matter who the 'parents' are, but they need to be committed to the DC from birth-for ever (or at least until they are independent) This is most easily achieved by those that are married-or in a legal arrangement that isn't that easy to get out of. Two people are better than one-they are less likely to both die together. Obviously if the birth parents are toxic it isn't a good thing, which is why it is best to have families where the other adults love your DC enough to rescue them first in a fire i.e. grandparents.
Marriage may not be perfect, but it is better than a commune where the others might not even like your DCs-never mind love them.
(You can only speak generally-there always exceptions to the rule) If, for some reason, my baby had to be adopted I would want him/her to go to a married couple-who intended to take their marriage vows seriously.

monsterchild · 07/07/2012 15:32

Dahlen I agree, I think healthy families can take many different shapes, but as long as it means healthy children, then I'm not sure I care what that shape is.

i know I brought up the evolutionary biology but there's a lot more to people than that, and one of the constraints of living however you like in a healthy way is the government and cultural pressures. (I will say that stepfather step child relationship is tough)

Many more people than you may imagine live in communal groups, where I live (western US) it sometimes looks like ranches, or family compounds or just like-minded people living together. usually in their own spaces, but the houses are near (or within a wall/fence like a true compound), but have shared outdoor areas. It's not really different than a small village, except there's perhaps more harmony because people have for the most part chosen to live there rather than being born into it for generations. And there are usually fewer people.
But as Dahlen points out, the individual groupings within this community are all at the comfort level of the individuals. there may be pair bonding, or not.
And it seems to work ok, as long as the people in it are trustworthy...

MiniTheMinx · 07/07/2012 14:46

Unfortunately Bowlby is still very much misinterpreted too. The study of developmental psychology if you do social work, still covers Bowlby but attachment theory states that children are born to expect and seek out security from a main carer. The main carer is usually, as biology would dictate the mother but doesn't have to be. According to attachment theory the child needs a secure attachment to the main carer for approximately the first five years.

It is possible to see how a predominantly male state has taken up this idea to shackle women to the nuclear family. Single mothers are seen as a burden upon the state and it's tax payers so the only socially sanctioned choice is the nuclear family.

OP posts:
Dahlen · 07/07/2012 14:26

Quote (which is significantly condensed from the full report):

A child's relationship with their parents is key to them having a good childhood. The Children's Society recognises and supports the wide diversity of family structures and significant relationships in which children are raised.
Of greatest importance is a lifelong commitment to children by those adults with primary care and responsibility for their care and upbringing. We recognise the change in our society and culture; policies and attitudes need to keep up with these changes.

I think the only thing that makes clear is that the people responsible for the care and upbringing of a child have an important role and that society and culture are changing and this doesn't necessarily mean two married parents.

Parent does not necessarily mean biological parent, nor does it mean a heterosexual relationship, nor does it mean living in the same dwelling as the child.

Lottapianos · 07/07/2012 14:13

My parents have been married for 30+ years . They are both narcissists and their marriage is utterly miserable, with infidelity on my dad's side. But they stayed together 'for the children', they are also Catholics and very hung up on keeping up appearances. It has meant that my siblings and I have grown up feeling fully responsible for our parents' happiness and knowing that they stayed together for us has been a huge burden to carry. I've been in therapy for the last two years and it's helping me to get my head around the situation and realise that it's not actually my fault that their relationship is so unhappy.

I am sick of hearing that marriage is the best environment in which to bring up children. Apart from my own experience, I work with parents and children every day and the healthiest families have been the ones where the adults are capable of putting the children's needs first when necessary, and where the adults communicate well with each other. IMO, the relationship between the adults really doesn't matter - it could be mum and dad, mum and nan, mum and new partner, dad and auntie, whatever. Or as another poster said, a lone parent who has a good support network of other adults around them. Marriage does not necessarily mean stability, happiness or security for anyone.

exoticfruits · 07/07/2012 14:08

Really?

A child's relationship with their parents is key to them having a good childhood.
Of greatest importance is a lifelong commitment to children by those adults with primary care and responsibility for their care and upbringing.
Parents and other significant adults in children?s lives need to maintain their commitment to their children and endeavour to get along in the interests of the child, even when faced with the most challenging and stressful personal circumstances ? including when couples separate.
How separations are handled, how well informed and included children are about what?s going on and how much conflict they see between their parents all contribute to how secure and happy they feel at this time

Dahlen · 07/07/2012 13:58

That page neither confirms nor denies either viewpoint. But if you read the entire research, it makes very interesting reading.

I'm glad you're happy with your own family set up but you can't possibly use it to extrapolate and make a judgement on all single parent families and how they compare to all 2-parent families. The plural of anecdote is not data.

exoticfruits · 07/07/2012 13:48

I can't see that the children's society disagreed with me see here
Obviously it is easier if both parents live with the child. It is perfectly possible for parents to separate and put the children first-but you only have to read step parenting threads on here to know that many parents fail in the ideal-their own feelings come first. I have been a single parent and did a good job but it wasn't the same and DS definitely felt it wasn't.

Swipe left for the next trending thread