Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Marriage is for white people"

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#21

Post by TomOfTTB »

DaniFong wrote: post #20
TomOfTTB wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…

That's a pretty warped depiction of 'the feminist narrative,' and in any case exceptions don't make the rule. In California, in the 1850's, for example, it was determined that any property of a married woman's was legally the property of her husband. Therefore the hundreds of entrepreneurial and successful women land or business owners were suddenly rendered legally and financially dependent on their husbands. Only s…

How is my view "warped" when nothing you said contradicts it. What I said was that women initially chose the role of home maker and then it became their accepted role and that was a problem. I specifically said...

"They became the original feminists and rightfully won the ability to do whatever they want."

The reason I brought up the feminist narrative is because the lie of "women were never in power" allows them to claim women would never choose to be a housewife which in turn allows them to claim it's somehow an inferior way to live one's life.

As for the book, I will check it out. But there is a view of male nature accepted by the majority of the scientific community and that's what I was quoting.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#22

Post by msluyter »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #19
arien wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I believe that it has to do with the role of women in the current society, not exactly with the race. I don't live in America, but I think the trend is present in most western countries anyway. We're jumping from the "dependant housewive" to the "independent worker". I remember my mom used to say when I was a kid that I had to find a good husband. But now I have my own house and a good job... I don't need…

That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…

It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them).

Actually, as I understand it, current evo-psych holds that men (and women) have dual evolutionary strategies. One, as you imply, is to play the field as widely as possible. But the other is to invest one's energy in a single woman/family in order to increase the chances for a particular set of offspring. (Note, it's possible adopt these simultaneously if you, say, have a wife and mistresses on the side.)

I first read this in Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal," where he argues that the institution of monogamy actually benefits poor/lower status men the most.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#23

Post by cgranade »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #19
arien wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I believe that it has to do with the role of women in the current society, not exactly with the race. I don't live in America, but I think the trend is present in most western countries anyway. We're jumping from the "dependant housewive" to the "independent worker". I remember my mom used to say when I was a kid that I had to find a good husband. But now I have my own house and a good job... I don't need…

That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…

Your claim that somehow marriage is against "men's evolutionary nature" is a pretty strong one. Certainly, widespread attempts at reproduction (screwing everything that moves) is one strategy, but it's not at all clear to me that such a strategy is favored by our human instincts honed by evolution.

Frankly, your use of the word evolution seems to be to justify preconceived notions of male and female roles in society.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#24

Post by emmett »

rdouble wrote: post #16
emmett wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First - great collection of links. The history of slavery deserves a more thorough understanding than what's normally taught in high school. And yet, it was not the Irish who couldn't vote as late as the 60s, nor were the Irish the ones in segregated schools through the 70s, nor were there Irish divisions of the armed forces in World War II sent on the most dangerous missions. There were not masses of Irishmen enslav…

First - great collection of links. Eternal World Television Network, Rasta Livewire and the Gerry Tobin Irish Language School is a great collection of links?

Hmm...good point. I take it back. Bad collection of links!

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#25

Post by Mz »

"How have we gotten here? What has shifted in African American customs, in our community, in our consciousness, that has made marriage seem unnecessary or unattainable?"

Well, for one thing: Welfare. Welfare was created at a time when most poor, single moms were "the deserving poor" -- ie widowed -- and having a child out of wedlock was a big taboo and hardly done. Welfare, while well-meaning, was (unfortunately) designed in a manner that rewards women for becoming poor, single moms -- and thus actively grew the population that fits this profile by changing the social contract. Although (iirc) most people on welfare are white, the small amount of money involved in getting food stamps and welfare is more alluring to people who are very poor and live in neighborhoods where the mentality is one of hopelessness, with no expectation that one can get ahead honestly. Add in the fact that blacks are "last hired, first fired" and the tendency for young black males to be the biggest victim of that reality, and you have a situation ripe for developing a culture where a woman has a baby by one man, gets on welfare, breaks up with him and then finds a different boyfriend -- in part because a father is expected to provide for his kids (and gets booted out the door when he cannot) but mom's new boyfriend is seen as generous for doing anything for the kids, even if he doesn't actually provide for them. "Gifts" are enough.

There are some books, articles and studies about such things. I've read a fair amount of stuff like that over the years.

On the upside, I've seen some stuff that indicates that black women tend to have more say in how the money is spent when they are part of a couple than white women do. The paychecks of black women are more needed for a black couple to make it at all. The paycheck of a married white woman who has kids is more likely to be seen as "fun money" -- something the family can spend on vacations and other extras but not really needed for basic necessities -- and this tends to carry with it less "voting" power when financial decisions are made.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#26

Post by jacquesm »

lionhearted wrote: post #7

> Sex, love and childbearing have become a la carte choices rather than a package deal that comes with marriage. The American legal system right now is absolutely draconian and broken to men. A man can try to be a good father and husband, do nothing wrong except be a bit of a putz, then his wife divorces him, gets full custody of the kids, and 30-50% of his after-tax income. She receives more money if he doesn't get…

The American legal system has lots of things that are very hard to explain to foreigners. The sheer amount of case law and the jury system make for lots of income for lawyers and very little justice.

Child support should be limited to what it actually costs to rear a child, not some arbitrary multiple of that.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#27

Post by jacquesm »

nopassrecover wrote: post #10

What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of living etc. etc.).

That's definitely not uniquely American, racism is unfortunately alive and well all over the world.

Skin colour is the single item you can tell about a person at 100 meters distance, even before you can tell their gender. That makes it a prime candidate for differentiation and differentiation is a first step towards racism.

If everybody would be born exactly the same shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure we'd focus on hair colour next. And anybody with red hair knows how true that is.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#28

Post by TomOfTTB »

cgranade wrote: post #23
TomOfTTB wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…

Your claim that somehow marriage is against "men's evolutionary nature" is a pretty strong one. Certainly, widespread attempts at reproduction (screwing everything that moves) is one strategy, but it's not at all clear to me that such a strategy is favored by our human instincts honed by evolution. Frankly, your use of the word evolution seems to be to justify preconceived notions of male and female roles in society.

Are you kidding? Look, you can argue there are varying opinions. I have no problem with that. But the majoirty opinion among people who study male nature is that our instinct is to "spread our seed" as widely as possible because or evolutionary purpose is to further our own lineage.

You see this in pretty much all primates. Silverback Gorilla's have whole tribes that are made up of the women they have sex with and their children. Because even in modern primates the males nature is to breed with as many women as possible.

Also, I said nothing about male and female roles in society. My entire argument is based around male and female instincts and I've said there are exceptions (again look above where I say feminism exists because there are exceptions and it's a good thing)

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#29

Post by TomOfTTB »

msluyter wrote: post #22
TomOfTTB wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were alway…

It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). Actually, as I understand it, current evo-psych holds that men (and women) have dual evolutionary strategies. One, as you imply, is to play the field as widely as possible. But the other is to invest one's energy in a single woman/family in order to increase the chances for a partic…

I've never heard of this occuring at a primitive level (which was what I was referring to). I know there are primates where females are considered the "leaders" such as Gibbons and monogamy has been observed in them but I've never seen a male dominated society of primates where monogamy was naturally occuring.

Again, I'm not disputing the fact that men can want to be monogomous or realize it's the best way to breed. I'll even concede it occurs in non-primates such as birds. But I don't see any examples where a primate male's nature is to be monogamous without female influence.

Edit: You know, I'm thinking on this and it doesn't even make sense. Lets say its true and we have dual evolutionary natures one of which is to seek out means to create a paticular type of offspring. How is that contradictory to polygamy? Couldn't you hunt down every female in your area with those desired traits? More to the point wouldn't it be smart to do just that in order to increase your chances of generating that preferred off spring (assuming primates didn't have in depth knowledge of genetics and passive traits)?

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#30

Post by magus_pwnsen »

lionhearted wrote: post #7

> Sex, love and childbearing have become a la carte choices rather than a package deal that comes with marriage. The American legal system right now is absolutely draconian and broken to men. A man can try to be a good father and husband, do nothing wrong except be a bit of a putz, then his wife divorces him, gets full custody of the kids, and 30-50% of his after-tax income. She receives more money if he doesn't get…

Alimony is such a perverse fail. If women really want to be seen and treated as equals, they'll come out full-stop in favor of abolishing it.
Post reply on HN