"Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Your favorite books and links
User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

"Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Stahlmann »

I'm discussing in the other part of the internet with some aspie coach about above position.

As in - everything happened and somebody wrote book about it - I'm on my way to find a way to avoid working for rest of my life :-DDD. I searched through summary from this guy and unfortunately there isn't any solution to my problem. Meh.

chenda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by chenda »

I'm not sure what you're asking here babe...

User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Stahlmann »

Book provides overview role of marriage through centuries in different cultures.
It could be interesting position to discuss among online nerds.

Cynic me gonna scan this position sooner or later to see if there were times/settings in the human history where larger part of "financial" existence was on shoulders of women (then I could replicate this). Prolly not as men were more powerful-biologically predisposed-culturally favoured to "earn more" (don't crucify me for incorrect order or weight of given factor).

Gigolo role sounds interesting, but is prolly outside of the scope of the book.
It's also hard to maintain for somebody who is IXXX.

chenda
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by chenda »

Well maybe you could give us a brief summary of the books conclusions if you have read it ?

User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Stahlmann »

Nope, I discussed with said coach about MGTOW/Redpill/"stereotypes" and he pointed me to this book.
So I turned to guys who have a lot of more free time than average population due to their choices :lol:

What I know for this moment:
Regarding the marriage itself, here we should expect further consolidation of new patterns. What does it mean? Marriages made out of love, but kept only if that love remains. At the same time stronger and more fragile. Stronger - because when they work, they work wonderfully for everyone involved. Fragile - because when they do not work, they will end without any pressure.

Therefore, further blurring of the family model should be expected. Let's be honest - the nuclear family, mother + dad + kids - will cease to be not only the standard, but even the majority (where it is still). Situations like dad + child from the first relationship + children from the second relationship + third partner + her children from previous relationships + his former partners + her ex-partners will appear more and more often. I doubt that in my lifetime it would lead to dramatic legal changes, but I would not be surprised if in about 100-150 years it would lead to quite significant legal modifications that would somehow include such complex families into one system. (Well, I wouldn't be surprised if I lived to see it, even as a head in a jar;)).

theanimal
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by theanimal »

Why would knowing that there was the existence of a different societal structure from a book have any bearing on what your life is now?

Even if you find it to be true, it doesn't change society's current structure. Finding the female equivalent of a sugar daddy sounds like an incredibly tough task and one that is much harder than just doing the work and freeing yourself.

bigato
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by bigato »

Self reliance on a small homestead in cheap land, exchanging goods and services with the local community., is surely less trouble. Specially if you are an aspie like me.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 1268
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am
Location: India

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by fiby41 »

An origin story
I think it was Nachiket who asked his dad where his mom was going with another man. Dad assured she'd be back after her passions satiated. Import is marriage is not for exclusive sexual enjoyment of each other but for upbringing resultant children.

Scope of application
Just like ERE its definitely not for everyone.

Svayamvar (lit. selfselection, compound word meaning selection by oneself) is a method employed by brides who can afford it. A competition of feats of strength. The bride has the veto regardless of the outcome as was exercised by Draupadi. In other cases the outcome is predetermined and hosting a Svayamvar is a public way of asking does anyone object? If so speak up now or forever maintain your silence...

Marriages of the Pishach kind are when atleast one party was intoxicated while entering a sexual relationship. More recent cases where "but he promised to marry me" also fall in this category.

Rākshasaik or demoniac is the practice of taking warbrides where in the prospect of certain defeat brides self-immolating themselves in the medieval era than letting even their dead bodies be desanctified by Islamic invaders.

Gandharva marriage is born out of mutual affection for each other and in this type pre-marital consummation is allowed per Taittirīya Saṃhitâ branch contained in the Kṛṣṇa (Black) portion of the YajurVeda. All inheritance laws applicable to children born out of this arrangement. More recent suits where live-in arrangements that exceed a given number of months considered legally as marriage.

Kṛṣṇa Himself implicitly sanctioned polyandry in one situation.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Well, there is some evidence that in Hunter-Gather societies, the usually female gatherers actually bring home more Kilocalories than the usually male hunters. Also, they generally do most of the food and material processing work while the males spend their time chewing psycho-active leaves and bragging about the one that got away. When the men do participate in gathering activities, they are generally assigned the "dominant", often less strenuous,role; for instance, the man remains standing and hits the tree branches to knock down the fruit or nuts, and the females bend down and gather them. Thus, because he is then "paid" more for actually doing less work "measured in Kilocalories burned", it becomes necessary for social survival that he shares some of his take with the females and children. Of course, in order for this hierarchical structure to be maintained, it is also necessary that quite a few of the "excess" young men are killed in conflicts with neighboring tribes. In peaceful societies, like modern-day Denmark, where these conventions have been thoroughly discarded post-post-modernist analysis, women generally no longer choose to marry.

User avatar
Lemur
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:40 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Lemur »

@7Wannabe5

A guilt pleasure of mine is watching Naked and Afraid ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_and_Afraid_XL

I do find it sort of hilarious in most of the tribes, the men (not all men but usually the ones not trained in survival strategy) spend most of the time trying to fulfill ego tasks (getting the big deer kill to feed the whole village) while the females are usually the ones trying to come up with strategies on getting consistent food sources and doing most of the real work.

ertyu
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by ertyu »

theanimal wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:16 pm
Why would knowing that there was the existence of a different societal structure from a book have any bearing on what your life is now?

Even if you find it to be true, it doesn't change society's current structure. Finding the female equivalent of a sugar daddy sounds like an incredibly tough task and one that is much harder than just doing the work and freeing yourself.
Idk why people overlook that being the supported partner in a sugar daddy or cougar situation is actual sex work. In other words, it -is- "doing the work." It is providing companionship, ego-stroking, makeshift therapy, in addition to actual sexual services. You also need to do the work of maintaining yourself in a given physical state: exercise, do your make-up, manscape, or whatever there is appropriate. Only your mom will support you just because.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Homo economicus at Level 4 is gender-neutered and efficient. All traditional subsistence cultures are gendered. Therefore, at Level 5 means of support tend towards being re-gendered and complex.

According to Illich in “Gender”, the roughly 500 years before the Industrial Age was a period in which gender in the West was mediated by the Church towards the Nation-State. Before this time, the married couple was not the primary economic unit. In feudal times, men and women were taxed separately and differently, because they produced different goods. For instance, a man might owe 20 days labor and a woman might owe 10 chickens. It was only when marriage became sacrament that the couple became thevtaxable unit with the man given responsibility for paying the household tax.

My point here being that when, as we have in our near post-industrial society, you convert all activities into $$/hour, gender- neutering is maximized. Ergo, relationships which are stable yet not financially egalitarian are more likely to be re-engendered. IOW, less likely to be like business partnerships, more likely to be like a dance.

theanimal
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by theanimal »

@ertyu- No disagreement with what you're saying. I think that further emboldens what I was saying. Stahlman needs to get there on his own and stop looking for get rich quick schemes.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by C40 »

I think the best you (Stahlman,... and, really, most all of us) can or should reasonably hope for (financially) is to live long-term with a partner and share the housing costs. Expecting to 'get' anything more, especially as a man, is unreasonable.

If you want to get some financial benefit/help from a relationship:

** If you live in an area where women typically care for the children and manage the household (and do not do (much) paid work)... It's possible to get 'more' than that by marrying a woman who is a more "boss"/entrepreneurial type. Or who does work in a specialized field. More likely the woman will be more independent, possibly less agreeable,.. and you'll do more housework and child-rearing than if you go the 'traditional' route.
** In places with more 'progressive' gender roles - where more women work and make more money - it is important to find a woman with similar financial mindset. It's often the case that while women make more money, they also spend more money (in many cases on things like clothes, beauty/health products, etc. The cost of those is unlimited). So, focus on finding women who make decent money and manage it deliberately, saving a significant portion.

For you (Stahlman) personally, and others in similar states, I think you should just focus on developing relationship skills. If you don't yet have the skill and experience to start and maintain relationships, don't worry much yet about trying to figure out how to optimize relationships for financial reasons.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by classical_Liberal »

C40 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:15 pm
...can or should reasonably hope for (financially) is to live long-term with a partner and share the housing costs. Expecting to 'get' anything more, especially as a man, is unreasonable.
Disagree, because this:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:19 pm
Ergo, relationships which are stable yet not financially egalitarian are more likely to be re-engendered. IOW, less likely to be like business partnerships, more likely to be like a dance.
What is it worth when, after I found a rental 25% below market rates, I got super pissed because the management company was giving me the runaround about a move in date for two weeks. Then, when I was dialing the number, ready to tear them a new a**hole and cancel the whole deal, my GF took the phone from my hand. She politely asked to speak to the lady we had met at application, remembered her and her frigg'en dog's name, made some small talk, and got her to meet us at the apartment an hour later for move in paperwork.

What's it worth when we are at walmart buying a couple pieces of patio furniture that are display pieces. I ask the 20-something male, somewhat nerdy looking sales associate what type of discount they offer for display items and he tells me 10%. Then my GF jumps in, gives him one of her cute little crooked smiles, and says "you can do better than that". Bam! 25% off.

The better I get at learning when to let her lead in our dance, the more I can expect to get.

Otherwise, I agree with C40's advice in the last paragraph.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@classical_Liberal:

Very good example of what I meant. In fact, because I seem to specialize more in "cool feminine energy" (as opposed to "hot feminine energy", except in particular contexts ;) ) this was exactly the sort of service I provided for my ENTJ "ex" on many occasions involving some fairly major business dealings. However, because we did have separate financial accounts, he felt compelled to transfer money to me. Whereas, if we had married young and held joint accounts, the transfer wouldn't have been necessary. This is one of the reasons why I believe that if you are choosing to marry, you might as well choose to go "all in." Otherwise, it's like you are adding inertia to your potential to benefit through the "dance" or collaboration. That said, "The Brady Bunch" was just a TV show, so it is very easy to "age" out of best case scenario benefits of lifetime committed monogamous collaboration. Still, my advice to my own kids would be "Give it a go." The downside of one bad divorce is less than the upside of a successful "all in" marriage.

Because I have been in fairly serious relationship with men from different cultures or sub-cultures/generations, and with different personality types, it is my opinion that personality type trumps gender/sex (not the same thing!) which trumps culture, but this is not a straight-forward hierarchy because gender is informed by culture and may or may not be in alignment with your personality type. For instance, having an interest in watercolor painting and engaging in the practice of hugging other men would be regarded as more masculine in Persian culture than American culture. Also, the older you become, the more personal experience will trump all of these other factors. If your personal experience tends towards "learning" then you will tend towards becoming more flexible and/or tolerant in your "dance" with others.

When I was in relationship with a very charming affluent-class American white liberal male ENFP (like your GF), I found it somewhat difficult because I more often had to dance the more decisive, less romantic/emotive part. OTOH, when we were together in public setting, we almost came off like an aging Disney movie couple. Strangers would comment on how sweet we looked together. Little did they know that he was actually married to a much more decisive/superficially hard-cased than me female EXTJ workaholic mortgage broker :lol:

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

nietzsche was never married but said, i think accurately, that it’s not a lack of love but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages. i can attest, especially when you define “love” as carnal attraction.

i’ve been in quite a few horny, hateful entanglements in my day. or infatuations that turn into disappointment and hurt. also, froendships ruined by sex. but i thank my lucky stars now, my wife is also my best friend. this thing we have couldn’t possibly work otherwise.

also many marriages stupidly break up because of immature grown-ass people insist on wanting to be “in love” like a couple of teenagers.

also, everyone should read strindberg or go see some of his plays performed before even thinking of getting married :lol:

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Alphaville:

I agree so long as option to get laid elsewhere if not on the tap at home is part of friendship pact. IOW, you need to have clear contract/boundaries for if/when relationship becomes very sex-dead. No tension/risk in relationship is almost guarantee that this will happen.

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:33 am
@Alphaville:

I agree so long as option to get laid elsewhere if not on the tap at home is part of friendship pact. IOW, you need to have clear contract/boundaries for if/when relationship becomes very sex-dead. No tension/risk in relationship is almost guarantee that this will happen.
well, a marriage is more than a friendship, but it’s not the same as “just a friendship”. but a good friendship is an essential requirement to a good marriage. without it, you end up killing each other, no matter how heavy the attraction.

also, if i can give any advice to the kids (lol) is “don’t fuck your friend.” :lol:

when i was a kid my parents gave me a sex book that said it was okay to fuck your friend. in theory— sure. in practice, you might break your friend’s heart and kill the friendship.

sometimes people who offer “just casual sex no strings attached” are lying :lol:

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Very true, but mostly or especially when you are young. When both partners are older, it’s much more likely that they are both capable of being their own designated driver on the infatuation/heart-break trip. More likely to find yourself having coffee with a man the morning after and talking about how he feels very loving/protective towards you, like he wants to make you a coffee to go and ask you to text him when you arrive home safe, but he recognizes and, of course, you also recognize that these feelings don’t mean that he is actually looking for a serious relationship just 5 months out from his divorce. And assorted variations on theme at this level.

Post Reply