Without wading into the other dynamic in this thread, I'd express partial disagreement with this. The notion or sentiment of romantic love has been in existence for a long, long time. It's conceivably a "relatively new idea" in geologic terms. The actual practice of marriage has, as you have pointed out, when circumstances forced the matter, been subject to various pressures and forces, including among some classes political considerations. As those other forces and pressures waned in importance, however, romantic satisfaction rose. And unless you believe that human beings are capable of creating entirely new emotions in the course of history, romantic attachment and desire has been an enduring part of the human condition.
No, I don't think that human beings created new emotions. I am saying that the driving reasons for why human beings get *married* has changed over time, and only recently has it been mainly for the purpose of romantic love. In other words, human beings have created new cultural mores over time, and romantic love being essential in marriage is one of them. The change didn't happen all that long ago. See for example,
this paper, which describes a study where the authors found that women in the 1960s were more willing to get married for reasons other than romantic love compared to women in the 1980s. That's an attitudinal change in *one generation*.
I think Excelsius's point was that, overall, men and women have a general desire for stable romantic companionship, and have had so throughout history. As with all desires, though, other circumstances and forces can require compromise, or complete unfulfillment, on the matter.
So, you are each partially correct.
That wasn't what I took away from his post at all. And I'm not sure that I agree with this idea of people historically wanting "stable" romantic relationships, although I'll concede that *modern* people do want this. My point of contention is that romantic love was historically often found outside of marriage. In other words, you marry the person you have to marry, then have affairs on the side based on romantic love. (Let's face it, even in modern times when people marry more often for love, extramarital love affairs have that extra quality of romanticism that intramarital love lacks.)
But, looking to the larger issue, remember that your original point was that women only chose marriage historically because of a dearth of other options. So we would expect, then, if we limited our sample to women raised to be independent, with numerous options, that the proportion of women who desired marriage would be lower.
It *is* lower. Some stats based upon the US 2000 Census:
Marriage and Family
51% The percentage of women 15 years old and over in 2000 who were married and living with their spouse. Of the rest, 25 percent had never married, 10 percent were divorced, 2 percent were separated and 10 percent were widowed.
25.0 years The median age at first marriage for women in 1998, more than four years older than the 20.8 years just a generation ago (1970).
22% The proportion in 1998 of 30- to 34-year-old women who had never married triple the rate in 1970 (6 percent). Similarly, the proportion of never-married women increased from 5 percent to 14 percent for 35-to-39 year olds over the period.
15.3 million The number of women living alone in 1998, double the number in 1970 7.3 million.
9.8 million The number of single mothers in 1998, an increase of 6.4 million since 1970.
30.2 million The number of households in 1998 about 3 in 10 maintained by women with no husband present. In 1970, there were 13.4 million such households, about 2 in 10.
1.9 The average number of children women 40 to 44 years old in 1998 had by the end of their childbearing years. This contrasts sharply with women in 1976, who averaged 3.1 births.
19% The proportion of all women ages 40 to 44 who were childless in 1998, up from 10 percent in 1976. During the same time, those with four or more children declined from 36 percent to 10 percent.
So, American women are marrying later (or not at all), divorcing more frequently, becoming single mothers more frequently, having children later (if at all), and having fewer children when they do have them.
If in fact the proportion is still quite high, then that would be a mark in favor of Excelsius's underlying contention that women generally prefer to have a marriage, even if he is incorrect in assuming that the PARTICULAR marriages in which oppressed women find themselves are desired by those women.
That's a pretty ambiguous (and therefore unfair) standard to hold me to. First of all, how do you define "quite high?" Is the 51% of married American women "quite high?" Particularly when you compare it to statistics from even 30 years ago, I'd argue that it isn't. In addition, the circumstances and forces you mentioned before still operate. They may be less powerful, but they're still there. My guess is that the 51% would be even lower if there were no societal expectation whatsoever for women to get married.
You know, based on what I know about you and the things you have done in the past, I am somewhat surprised by some of the things you keep reiterating and arguing. You say this is an argument, but I am not even trying to argue with you.
I don't mean that kind of argument. I'm talking about having an
argument in the logical sense, not in the personal sense. In other words, a debate, where you take up one position and I take up another one.
All I am saying is that we might have a different point of view on few things in life. Why then come out and try to argue that somehow my point of view is not right?
Well, if we have different points of view, then I must necessarily think that yours is wrong.
Did I say anything to you about the morality of your opinions? No.
No. Nor did I say anything to you about the morality of *your* opinions. Not sure what this has to do with anything.
The argument is very one sided because I don't particularly disagree with anything you say, but you are trying to find a point of dissent. Why is that?
Because we're having an argument. In other words, we're debating our points of view, because I *do* disagree with some things you say.
I mention about the prevalence of love in true relationships, and you bring up some country in the Middle East or Africa. Do you really think that adds anything to your argument at all? Or do you think that no one knows that there are some cultures who could kill a woman if she dances in public or mutilate her genitals as a "tradition"?
The reason I brought up other cultures is because you did. To quote your previous post (emphasis is mine):
Excelsius said:
I would be willing to bet you that if you took a survey of any population of women almost anywhere in the world, the vast majority would say that they married and had children because they wanted to.
If you wanted to limit the debate to American women, then why did you invite me to survey women almost anywhere in the world?
If you believe in evolution, then if you go far enough, you might find that we were monkeys.
Suggesting that we were ever monkeys shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution says. According to evolutionary theory, monkeys are our far, far-removed cousins descended from a common ape ancestor; thus, we were *never* monkeys.
Are you going to survey Neanderthal females about love to prove your point? How about mutilated women?
My point is that I *can't* sample these women, and therefore I can't meet the conditions you outlined before (i.e., surveying any population of women almost anywhere in the world).
Ironically, I can prove to you that the real sampling bias would be in your own suggested samples, not mine.
Please do. I can't imagine how you could, but I'd enjoy seeing you prove me wrong.
Your reasons for bringing up these weak, dilapidated "arguments" seem to be just for the sake of the argument.
Well, yeah. I mean, the reason why you argue (debate) things is for the sake of the argument. It's not like I'm hoping to save the world through debate or something.
I mean you come up with something that I don't disagree with, present it as if I do disagree with it, and then go on to argue and imply how your opinion is right and therefore I am lacking morality or intelligence!
I'm not trying to make an argument where none exists; I genuinely don't think you agree with me. I certainly don't agree with you! Not sure why you concluded that I think you lack intelligence, although I do think you lack information (education). That's not the same thing. Suggesting that I think you lack morality is completely off base. Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I think you're an immoral person.
Baby seals are helpless and vulnerable. If you are trying to proselytize me, a club is not going to help you.
No, I'm not trying to proselytize you. I'm trying to say that sometimes I feel like I'm attacking a defenseless creature when I discuss things with you.
What you really need are rational arguments, open-mindedness, and not taking every said word out of context as an insult to your personal or cultural background.
I'd argue that my arguments *are* rational, and I am making some attempt to support them with evidence (although admittedly wiki is not the most reliable source out there). If you would do the same to help support your opinions, that would be awesome. Seriously. Whatever info you're using, link it to your posts so that I can read it too.
Also, I do not think anything you are saying is an insult to my personal or cultural background. Good arguments (debates) are, by their very nature, impersonal and rational. (Note that this does not preclude them being heated, which is not the same thing!) I have my opinions. You have yours. You present your position and argue for it, and I do the same. Granted that discussing opinions with people may not change anyone's mind, but it often gives you something to think about, even if it only forces you to re-examine your own point of view and confirm that you still hold it.
As a point of curiosity, if you find no value in arguing with me, then why do you continue to do it?
Nevertheless, I believe that the only way you can judge someone is by meeting him/her. There is so much room for miscommunication via a written medium that one can rarely get a good idea about a given screenname. Notice that we are not really disagreeing on anything. I never said that a woman "must" have a child. There are some women who have reasons for not having a child and it often requires an understanding SO to discuss the reason behind it. You can't force a fear away. You must work through it. Neither did I define success by having a child, which is why I said that if you love someone, a child is not going to make or break a relationship. I agree with Freud that in any relationship your SO must be number one, and the child second - that's how a strong family forms and remains. Too many couples here are doing "all for the children" and they end up divorcing.
I'm sorry, I have no business posting in this thread, but this cracked me up. Excelsius I would suggest that before posting again in this thread, you think about the following questions:
