Marriage Mirage
Marriage Mirage.
What is it? Why is it? Who benefits and for how long?
Marriage as a union has been in existence for some 2500 years, noted in a number of cultures around the world and has carried with it a variety of functions to mark its recognition. Although the term ‘marriage’ may not have been conceded as the governing expression throughout all this time, the term did however develop into a legitimate form that became useful by a few ruling person to stamp their legitimacy of action within a cultural frame. The ‘legal’ institution of marriage is estimate to have started about 1500 years ago by the collaboration of churches / religions and state. The first early record of marriage, called as such in the UK was in about 1200AD (?).
Although much earlier liaisons were in evidence; there is no irrefutable verification that ‘marriage’ was a normal practice for the vast majority of populations. The purpose of these official marriages seemed to have been for the establishment of family liaisons that gave strength to the joining and often was for the benefit of the male lineages, with the intention of the securing of assets and power. It was for all practical purposes a business arrangement that generated some form of kudos or influence and the practice was made formal under ‘official’ patronage. The officiated arrangement was recognised to be a good (male) thing but it was an arrangement that was principally carried out by a few powerful family interests. Church and Religions condoned the practice as it also gave them some authority being associated with the powers of the land and being as they were the representation of god on earth! However there is scant substantiation that the regular practice of marriage was wide spread in the general world population and often for most people it was no more than a formed liaison, not officiated into law or religion and was simple a matter of convenience within a social structure that linked two people together and it may have helped reinforce extended family relationships.
In the UK it was quiet common for informal liaisons and so called ‘fleet marriage’ to become notoriously normal within affluent society, this was not a legal or an enforceable arrangement but was probably just a matter of making a statement of possession. Sex of course was a primary driver to such deals and to secure the desired means solely for individual use, an arrangement like a fleet marriage commitment was a useful tool to stave off other predatory interloper as well as later meeting some element of social respectability. Apart from securing assets, family power and sexual favours, the eventual production of offspring’s was likewise just a convenience to maintain power and influence within a family lineage. However in the days before sex control and common high infant deaths, baby making was just a useful (or in poverty an inconvenient) by product for many and not linked to any form of social idealism.
More often than not the evidence for the use of marriages officially recognised in laws was for the benefit of the male. In marriage females often gave up their own possessions to the safe keeping of the male and in doing so became chattel. Females were seen as a necessary breeding attachment but in order to make the arrange ‘marriage’ work a bribe was often passed from the brides family to the grooms as he was to take on the burden of looking after the female from the marriage point onwards. It was irrelevant that the dowry may have been in a few privileged cases of a substantial nature, or that the female had some resources of her own; once the marriage was formed the male became the predominant regulator of all the joint resources.
From the above background of the institution of ‘marriage’, it might be argued that it has been about the acquisition of assets and ownership, a situation that was of benefit at least for the male up to the 20th century. For the female the benefit was illusory in only gaining some element of balanced security in the face of male dominated structures. In nearly all cultures the female has been a practical element of chattel that was to be used according to the male’s desires and restricted in the scope of their role to house keeper, child rearing, and a kept metaphorically prostitute of considered limited intellect. This was the process in many patriarchal structures and from the social drivers prevalent in the times, the created institution of lawful marriages and supporting laws stemmed, all to reinforce the minor status of females.
In a few minor ‘backwards’ social structures that followed a matriarchal form, the power and property were held by women and the power this gave was only passed on by matrilineal decent with the male providing a supporting role but not dictating any pecuniary terms. In the ‘enlightened’ west and eastern cultures this limited social stricture was not followed, the emancipation of women was not seen as a priority even though a few women riled against the inequality of females in society.
Perhaps unfortunately up to the 19th century love was not the overall illusive iconic state that dominates the direction of marriage now, it may perhaps have played a part in the need to formalise it but on a practical level the strictures of social order may not have recognised love as a prerequisite for marriage. Marriage was though in the early agricultural and industrial century’s an arrangement that may have suited both parties for convenience albeit that the female often gave up the limited independence to gain recognition in a dominated patriarchal systems, systems in which the males controlled all the functions of state which frustratingly provided very little outlet for any resourceful female. In such a resource controlled system many females were simply being forced to follow the path of marriage to avoid hardship. It may also have been an acceptance of the realism of life in an unequal poverty driven social system that required a greater degree of effort to maintain a family system by keeping house and children.
Marriage was a very convenient arrangement that greatly suited the industrial revolution up to the late 20th century. It was eminently practical as it legalised offspring’s, allowed males to dominate the whole economic production process, provided a house keeper and baby maker/minder with females having very little choice to achieve independent success other than fall into the subservient role of supporter.
Despite the obvious unfairness of marriage arrangements, the west adopted the continuance of the idea of formalised marriage and it became the accepted norm in all secular cultures with the mating of one on one. Although over time a certain amount of equality of understanding was created, the laws governing it continued to favour male dominance possible up to the later part of the 20th centaury. But despite the ubiquitous nature of marriage, its associated idealism and the creeping equality of resource commitment, marriage and the reason for it are changing rapidly.
The laws that have developed around marriage have been largely devised to suit the west patriarchy structure of society, which up to recently were supported by churches doctrine built on Christianity; such a structure are also more pressingly perverse in Islamic and Judaism all of which place constraint on the ability of females to be independent, equal in law and the making or breaking of marriage. Patriarchal power is still very much in evidence in all eastern and some western diffident countries with the Islamic followers leading the march
While these patriarchal arrangements suited the social structure of times past in that it spilt the effort required in bringing up a family with one party becoming bread winner and the other the home maker, it was a useful arrangement that very occasionally also offered some degree of security for females in the event of break up. In such a situation this generally required the male to provide resource for the female to live and perhaps support the residual off springs. Over the 20th centaury and up to recently there appeared the sense that males were being treated harshly in the splitting up of resources with females getting the best of the deal. This was and is an erroneous idea that stemmed from a few notable cases of divorces in which rich males were ‘forced’ to part with substantial resources too females (as in the recent Mc Cartney case circa 2007) but it was a compounding feature one that slowly became accepted as being prevalent and unfair. The unfairness of divorce was in a sense seen as being against males and was in a subtle way an attempt and extension of male’s power to wish to continue to dominate and control a relationship beyond its usefulness.
In the late part of the 20th century a number of things happened that may have altered the idealism of marriage, one brought on by male’s dominance of the marriage arrangement and constant patriarchal direction, this though was countered by the slow emancipation of females to enter into the dominance of the males domains and their own increased financial resources. Also the hyped miss conception and illusion of cinematic love and marriage as displayed by celebrity media. These two, love and marriage do not always go together well.
Love has been glorified and often wrapped in popular media that paints a rose tinted life style and injects attributes that do not match the reality of marriage. Love does not require marriage; marriage requires love/sex but can survive without. There is the casual affection of sex often confused with love; there is the story book vision of love without the pain and cooperative work to sustain it either in or out of marriage. There is the actual emotional and non emotional drive of love that superseded the superficial attraction of a perhaps temporary physical draw. Sex and love need not go together, both can be satisfying in their own right, it may be seen to be good if both are engage at the same time perhaps linked to marriage yet it is not essential as they can individually also be indulge in without the unjustly sense of guilt that might infect the straight jacket of marriage, if undertook in the right acquiesced situation.
Irrespective of the reasons for marriage, the first immense progressive change and which was of greater importance upon it, was the effect in the UK of two wars that took out manpower that had to be replaced with women power. From this and over the past 90 years came greater assertiveness of females who did not simply accept the continuing subordinate position in society or marriage, expectations matured as their status and financial strength increased. The aggregated impact on the social structure and the reduction of male control has helped balance the marriage contract but a price. It is no longer usual for women to get marriage at any cost or to be treated as chattel, they have gained the financial security to choose when and if they want to make a marriage commitment. Many are choosing not to become burdened with off springs too early, but are choosing to gain a material quality of life. This choice is being made by males and females and is noticed in the falling off of the number of marriages taking place but marked with an increase in divorce and independent living. This is a phenomenon that is increasing as the wealth and social ability of being independent increases. Aiding this process and also accelerating it has been the intervention of sex controls that now allows willing party’s to indulge in sex without the liability marriage, of having off springs, or consequently the legal attack of providing financial support on dissolving relationships.
In some way it is also being recognised that marriage is a very expensive arrangement on two fronts. In a cases where one of the party has considerable greater resources that the other and a break occurs, there is generally a unresolved sense of a grievance that one party is forced to hand over a portion of their assets to the other who may not have directly helped amass the resources in the first place. Also the raising of children has become much more expensive and affects the ability to finance them, live a selfish consumerist life style and which for most people now requires the input of two incomes. These perceived difficulties attached to the potential cost of a break up may also be holding people back from making a marriage commitment. It is right and proper that provision is made for the up keep of any off spring and support given for the authorised carer up to the stage that they become self supporting or if they never can be self supporting. That is the primary deal of having sex and producing offspring.
Such accumulated negative aspect of marriage may be a situation that has become prevalent with the antics of the rich or self considered affluent as they may seem to have the most to loose however it cannot be true of most (working class) females or males who do not have such large resources to part with, yet even these seem to making the choice of marriage abstinence.
So what of the future of marriage? It would appear that as a culture matures and the essence of equality in all things becomes much more influential in the application of laws and practice, that marriage as form of institution and ceremony seemingly designed to secure rights to the resources of one over another, will become less popular, meaningful or relevant. There will be little value in having a formalised arrangement that afterwards requires a long complicated process to dissolve it, as is the case now and the risk attached to one party being forced to overly compensate the other will, (as both male and female achieve self sufficiency) be eliminated. Much is being made of pre nuptial agreements not recognise in the UK yet, but it will increasingly be called for to support and safeguard certain aspect of legal marriage in some situations.
The diminishing status of marriage and the requirement for inbuilt safe guards is a slow development that is occurring now but its extension will only be possible in a secure affluent confident culture. If though the economics of a culture is placed under stress and society became insecure, the strength of marriage in the shared application of resource, family ties, extended family relations etc can redeveloped to counter social fragmentation and could be part of the prime buttress that is the bed rock of successful marriages, apart from the influences of the initial emotive drive.
It is against this changing background that a different legal statute needs to be formed that is seen to be much fairer to both parties that sign up to a ‘marriage’ commitment. This statute should recognise the resources that both have attained prior to attachment and can be used as a bench mark from which to assess any additional resources that accumulate from the marriage and parenting. It ‘marriage’ then becomes more like a business and societal relationship, very similar to how the whole mess started.
© Renot 2007
What is it? Why is it? Who benefits and for how long?
Marriage as a union has been in existence for some 2500 years, noted in a number of cultures around the world and has carried with it a variety of functions to mark its recognition. Although the term ‘marriage’ may not have been conceded as the governing expression throughout all this time, the term did however develop into a legitimate form that became useful by a few ruling person to stamp their legitimacy of action within a cultural frame. The ‘legal’ institution of marriage is estimate to have started about 1500 years ago by the collaboration of churches / religions and state. The first early record of marriage, called as such in the UK was in about 1200AD (?).
Although much earlier liaisons were in evidence; there is no irrefutable verification that ‘marriage’ was a normal practice for the vast majority of populations. The purpose of these official marriages seemed to have been for the establishment of family liaisons that gave strength to the joining and often was for the benefit of the male lineages, with the intention of the securing of assets and power. It was for all practical purposes a business arrangement that generated some form of kudos or influence and the practice was made formal under ‘official’ patronage. The officiated arrangement was recognised to be a good (male) thing but it was an arrangement that was principally carried out by a few powerful family interests. Church and Religions condoned the practice as it also gave them some authority being associated with the powers of the land and being as they were the representation of god on earth! However there is scant substantiation that the regular practice of marriage was wide spread in the general world population and often for most people it was no more than a formed liaison, not officiated into law or religion and was simple a matter of convenience within a social structure that linked two people together and it may have helped reinforce extended family relationships.
In the UK it was quiet common for informal liaisons and so called ‘fleet marriage’ to become notoriously normal within affluent society, this was not a legal or an enforceable arrangement but was probably just a matter of making a statement of possession. Sex of course was a primary driver to such deals and to secure the desired means solely for individual use, an arrangement like a fleet marriage commitment was a useful tool to stave off other predatory interloper as well as later meeting some element of social respectability. Apart from securing assets, family power and sexual favours, the eventual production of offspring’s was likewise just a convenience to maintain power and influence within a family lineage. However in the days before sex control and common high infant deaths, baby making was just a useful (or in poverty an inconvenient) by product for many and not linked to any form of social idealism.
More often than not the evidence for the use of marriages officially recognised in laws was for the benefit of the male. In marriage females often gave up their own possessions to the safe keeping of the male and in doing so became chattel. Females were seen as a necessary breeding attachment but in order to make the arrange ‘marriage’ work a bribe was often passed from the brides family to the grooms as he was to take on the burden of looking after the female from the marriage point onwards. It was irrelevant that the dowry may have been in a few privileged cases of a substantial nature, or that the female had some resources of her own; once the marriage was formed the male became the predominant regulator of all the joint resources.
From the above background of the institution of ‘marriage’, it might be argued that it has been about the acquisition of assets and ownership, a situation that was of benefit at least for the male up to the 20th century. For the female the benefit was illusory in only gaining some element of balanced security in the face of male dominated structures. In nearly all cultures the female has been a practical element of chattel that was to be used according to the male’s desires and restricted in the scope of their role to house keeper, child rearing, and a kept metaphorically prostitute of considered limited intellect. This was the process in many patriarchal structures and from the social drivers prevalent in the times, the created institution of lawful marriages and supporting laws stemmed, all to reinforce the minor status of females.
In a few minor ‘backwards’ social structures that followed a matriarchal form, the power and property were held by women and the power this gave was only passed on by matrilineal decent with the male providing a supporting role but not dictating any pecuniary terms. In the ‘enlightened’ west and eastern cultures this limited social stricture was not followed, the emancipation of women was not seen as a priority even though a few women riled against the inequality of females in society.
Perhaps unfortunately up to the 19th century love was not the overall illusive iconic state that dominates the direction of marriage now, it may perhaps have played a part in the need to formalise it but on a practical level the strictures of social order may not have recognised love as a prerequisite for marriage. Marriage was though in the early agricultural and industrial century’s an arrangement that may have suited both parties for convenience albeit that the female often gave up the limited independence to gain recognition in a dominated patriarchal systems, systems in which the males controlled all the functions of state which frustratingly provided very little outlet for any resourceful female. In such a resource controlled system many females were simply being forced to follow the path of marriage to avoid hardship. It may also have been an acceptance of the realism of life in an unequal poverty driven social system that required a greater degree of effort to maintain a family system by keeping house and children.
Marriage was a very convenient arrangement that greatly suited the industrial revolution up to the late 20th century. It was eminently practical as it legalised offspring’s, allowed males to dominate the whole economic production process, provided a house keeper and baby maker/minder with females having very little choice to achieve independent success other than fall into the subservient role of supporter.
Despite the obvious unfairness of marriage arrangements, the west adopted the continuance of the idea of formalised marriage and it became the accepted norm in all secular cultures with the mating of one on one. Although over time a certain amount of equality of understanding was created, the laws governing it continued to favour male dominance possible up to the later part of the 20th centaury. But despite the ubiquitous nature of marriage, its associated idealism and the creeping equality of resource commitment, marriage and the reason for it are changing rapidly.
The laws that have developed around marriage have been largely devised to suit the west patriarchy structure of society, which up to recently were supported by churches doctrine built on Christianity; such a structure are also more pressingly perverse in Islamic and Judaism all of which place constraint on the ability of females to be independent, equal in law and the making or breaking of marriage. Patriarchal power is still very much in evidence in all eastern and some western diffident countries with the Islamic followers leading the march
While these patriarchal arrangements suited the social structure of times past in that it spilt the effort required in bringing up a family with one party becoming bread winner and the other the home maker, it was a useful arrangement that very occasionally also offered some degree of security for females in the event of break up. In such a situation this generally required the male to provide resource for the female to live and perhaps support the residual off springs. Over the 20th centaury and up to recently there appeared the sense that males were being treated harshly in the splitting up of resources with females getting the best of the deal. This was and is an erroneous idea that stemmed from a few notable cases of divorces in which rich males were ‘forced’ to part with substantial resources too females (as in the recent Mc Cartney case circa 2007) but it was a compounding feature one that slowly became accepted as being prevalent and unfair. The unfairness of divorce was in a sense seen as being against males and was in a subtle way an attempt and extension of male’s power to wish to continue to dominate and control a relationship beyond its usefulness.
In the late part of the 20th century a number of things happened that may have altered the idealism of marriage, one brought on by male’s dominance of the marriage arrangement and constant patriarchal direction, this though was countered by the slow emancipation of females to enter into the dominance of the males domains and their own increased financial resources. Also the hyped miss conception and illusion of cinematic love and marriage as displayed by celebrity media. These two, love and marriage do not always go together well.
Love has been glorified and often wrapped in popular media that paints a rose tinted life style and injects attributes that do not match the reality of marriage. Love does not require marriage; marriage requires love/sex but can survive without. There is the casual affection of sex often confused with love; there is the story book vision of love without the pain and cooperative work to sustain it either in or out of marriage. There is the actual emotional and non emotional drive of love that superseded the superficial attraction of a perhaps temporary physical draw. Sex and love need not go together, both can be satisfying in their own right, it may be seen to be good if both are engage at the same time perhaps linked to marriage yet it is not essential as they can individually also be indulge in without the unjustly sense of guilt that might infect the straight jacket of marriage, if undertook in the right acquiesced situation.
Irrespective of the reasons for marriage, the first immense progressive change and which was of greater importance upon it, was the effect in the UK of two wars that took out manpower that had to be replaced with women power. From this and over the past 90 years came greater assertiveness of females who did not simply accept the continuing subordinate position in society or marriage, expectations matured as their status and financial strength increased. The aggregated impact on the social structure and the reduction of male control has helped balance the marriage contract but a price. It is no longer usual for women to get marriage at any cost or to be treated as chattel, they have gained the financial security to choose when and if they want to make a marriage commitment. Many are choosing not to become burdened with off springs too early, but are choosing to gain a material quality of life. This choice is being made by males and females and is noticed in the falling off of the number of marriages taking place but marked with an increase in divorce and independent living. This is a phenomenon that is increasing as the wealth and social ability of being independent increases. Aiding this process and also accelerating it has been the intervention of sex controls that now allows willing party’s to indulge in sex without the liability marriage, of having off springs, or consequently the legal attack of providing financial support on dissolving relationships.
In some way it is also being recognised that marriage is a very expensive arrangement on two fronts. In a cases where one of the party has considerable greater resources that the other and a break occurs, there is generally a unresolved sense of a grievance that one party is forced to hand over a portion of their assets to the other who may not have directly helped amass the resources in the first place. Also the raising of children has become much more expensive and affects the ability to finance them, live a selfish consumerist life style and which for most people now requires the input of two incomes. These perceived difficulties attached to the potential cost of a break up may also be holding people back from making a marriage commitment. It is right and proper that provision is made for the up keep of any off spring and support given for the authorised carer up to the stage that they become self supporting or if they never can be self supporting. That is the primary deal of having sex and producing offspring.
Such accumulated negative aspect of marriage may be a situation that has become prevalent with the antics of the rich or self considered affluent as they may seem to have the most to loose however it cannot be true of most (working class) females or males who do not have such large resources to part with, yet even these seem to making the choice of marriage abstinence.
So what of the future of marriage? It would appear that as a culture matures and the essence of equality in all things becomes much more influential in the application of laws and practice, that marriage as form of institution and ceremony seemingly designed to secure rights to the resources of one over another, will become less popular, meaningful or relevant. There will be little value in having a formalised arrangement that afterwards requires a long complicated process to dissolve it, as is the case now and the risk attached to one party being forced to overly compensate the other will, (as both male and female achieve self sufficiency) be eliminated. Much is being made of pre nuptial agreements not recognise in the UK yet, but it will increasingly be called for to support and safeguard certain aspect of legal marriage in some situations.
The diminishing status of marriage and the requirement for inbuilt safe guards is a slow development that is occurring now but its extension will only be possible in a secure affluent confident culture. If though the economics of a culture is placed under stress and society became insecure, the strength of marriage in the shared application of resource, family ties, extended family relations etc can redeveloped to counter social fragmentation and could be part of the prime buttress that is the bed rock of successful marriages, apart from the influences of the initial emotive drive.
It is against this changing background that a different legal statute needs to be formed that is seen to be much fairer to both parties that sign up to a ‘marriage’ commitment. This statute should recognise the resources that both have attained prior to attachment and can be used as a bench mark from which to assess any additional resources that accumulate from the marriage and parenting. It ‘marriage’ then becomes more like a business and societal relationship, very similar to how the whole mess started.
© Renot 2007
posted by Renot at 5:48 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home