Sorry guys,
Please take a look at http://socscilaw.blogspot.in/ to read my comments on this case.
Please take a look at http://socscilaw.blogspot.in/ to read my comments on this case.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Family, Marriage, Patriarchy and a whole bunch of useless things
Why do we need love?
What is this concept of monogamy, having to find one person to spend the rest of your life with? Why do we need marriage?
Owing to intense familial pressure on these matters, one can't help but think about these things.
Human beings have always been fascinated with having a better life. More is usually better. Would you like to eat two candies instead of one? Would you rather have the same pasta for breakfast, lunch and dinner? Variety, change and having more of a certain thing is something that is so natural for an average human being to aspire for.
All our other relationships are not limiting, I can have multiple friends. There might be some that I like more but I have a friend for each situation - if I need a girls night out, call the fun girls. If I need a serious talk, call the awesome agony aunt who solves all your problems. If I need some time to chill and unwind, call the dudes. Whatever.
Our romantic relationships, on the other hand, are meant to be singular, monogamous and sometimes 'commitment for life'. Why is it that we try to limit these relationships? Why is it not okay to date or have sex with more men than one? Why is there so much pressure to marry and settle with one mate?
Social conditioning has informed us that marriage and family are essential for everyone. Everyone should get married, have kids and what-not. Why? Because you need companionship. I can get that companionship from a friend! The only reason you may not get the companionship is because people shift focus after they have a family. So if you're the only single person wanting friends for companionship, you're most probably deprioritised. Secondly, they think that a male-female-marriage
I'd like to challenge both these reasons that are used to justify marriage/family: The reason you even need a designated companion is because you started creating designated permanent companions for everyone and you'd be left out alone if you're the only one to make that choice. If everyone was just single or polygamous, you wouldn't need that shit.
Secondly, who said child rearing is better with just two people being assigned with that responsibility? If you had a community instead of a nuclear set up, trust me, those children will be brought up much better. Just like you have rule systems forcing two people to take care of their children, ensure that the community is assigned responsibility to foster children. The responsibility is shared - Jim takes care of child's financial needs, Kate takes care of assignments and academics, Kranti does the extra curricular work, Preeti takes them all to school and back, Vani gets them clean and ready, Rebecca, whatevs - you get the drift. It's no longer a fulltime job. Children are then exposed to a wide variety of individuals, opinions and views at a very young age. Decision making? Leave it to each person's domain.
One last pointer - because of our obsession with ONE person, we expect that idiot to have everything. This perfect mofo does not exist, by the way. Super nice, must be able to dance, must be intelligent, successful and fun. People try to look for all of that in one person, are you kidding me, that's impossible unless I clone myself. Heehaha. Ok, it's also too much pressure for everyone. Isn't it a lot more awesome if you just had a dance-buddy, an intelligent conversation buddy, and whatever else buddy. You have an argument with one, you don't ruin the rest of your day because of excessive importance being placed on that one person.
My take: Don't marry. It's stupid. Think about it, if no one had to marry - Life is just one long party. Earn money, buy nice things, party, succeed in life, help society, date or build relationships when you want to. You can still have babies with just quarter of the responsibility (assuming society takes up this really wonderful community model). You can take on more if you want.
What does social conditioning do to relationships?
Beca
Women are pressured at an earlier age to find someone. Families start insisting when you're in your early twenties that you get married. That's the bloody time you're supposed to be spending making your career better. Not clicking pretty pictures of yourself and sending it to your parents or trying to find potential partners. It's such a waste of time and mental energy.
Nevertheles
Hell, women want to acquire a prize too. By prize, I'm NOT talking about a sugar daddy or a rich guy. The so called potential, interesting person who you are attracted to as well. According to some, for women, it's like making a prospectus for other people to invest in you. You need to make yourself seem like a perfect investment destination and hope for the best investor. You're not supposed to invest in other ventures yourself or solicit investments or these ventures might think you're too needy. See how ridiculous that analogy sounds? Exactly my point.
If I was turned down, I can deal with it. What I can't deal with is the way women are shamed for attempting it. "Oh but you're so pretty, you don't really need to go ask a guy out". It's not a need. It's what you want. I'm not allowed to do go after what I want. If I did, subsequently, I'm considered to be 'too easy'. They want to acquire something, not just get it. Why don't you think about the fact that you probably got it because you're good? Are men really that insecure that they think they're worthless, that any woman who pursues them must be crazy and that they'd need to convince someone for several months to get them to want them?
Bah.
What is this concept of monogamy, having to find one person to spend the rest of your life with? Why do we need marriage?
Owing to intense familial pressure on these matters, one can't help but think about these things.
Human beings have always been fascinated with having a better life. More is usually better. Would you like to eat two candies instead of one? Would you rather have the same pasta for breakfast, lunch and dinner? Variety, change and having more of a certain thing is something that is so natural for an average human being to aspire for.
All our other relationships are not limiting, I can have multiple friends. There might be some that I like more but I have a friend for each situation - if I need a girls night out, call the fun girls. If I need a serious talk, call the awesome agony aunt who solves all your problems. If I need some time to chill and unwind, call the dudes. Whatever.
Our romantic relationships, on the other hand, are meant to be singular, monogamous and sometimes 'commitment for life'. Why is it that we try to limit these relationships? Why is it not okay to date or have sex with more men than one? Why is there so much pressure to marry and settle with one mate?
Social conditioning has informed us that marriage and family are essential for everyone. Everyone should get married, have kids and what-not. Why? Because you need companionship. I can get that companionship from a friend! The only reason you may not get the companionship is because people shift focus after they have a family. So if you're the only single person wanting friends for companionship, you're most probably deprioritised. Secondly, they think that a male-female-marriage
I'd like to challenge both these reasons that are used to justify marriage/family: The reason you even need a designated companion is because you started creating designated permanent companions for everyone and you'd be left out alone if you're the only one to make that choice. If everyone was just single or polygamous, you wouldn't need that shit.
Secondly, who said child rearing is better with just two people being assigned with that responsibility? If you had a community instead of a nuclear set up, trust me, those children will be brought up much better. Just like you have rule systems forcing two people to take care of their children, ensure that the community is assigned responsibility to foster children. The responsibility is shared - Jim takes care of child's financial needs, Kate takes care of assignments and academics, Kranti does the extra curricular work, Preeti takes them all to school and back, Vani gets them clean and ready, Rebecca, whatevs - you get the drift. It's no longer a fulltime job. Children are then exposed to a wide variety of individuals, opinions and views at a very young age. Decision making? Leave it to each person's domain.
One last pointer - because of our obsession with ONE person, we expect that idiot to have everything. This perfect mofo does not exist, by the way. Super nice, must be able to dance, must be intelligent, successful and fun. People try to look for all of that in one person, are you kidding me, that's impossible unless I clone myself. Heehaha. Ok, it's also too much pressure for everyone. Isn't it a lot more awesome if you just had a dance-buddy, an intelligent conversation buddy, and whatever else buddy. You have an argument with one, you don't ruin the rest of your day because of excessive importance being placed on that one person.
My take: Don't marry. It's stupid. Think about it, if no one had to marry - Life is just one long party. Earn money, buy nice things, party, succeed in life, help society, date or build relationships when you want to. You can still have babies with just quarter of the responsibility (assuming society takes up this really wonderful community model). You can take on more if you want.
What does social conditioning do to relationships?
Beca
Women are pressured at an earlier age to find someone. Families start insisting when you're in your early twenties that you get married. That's the bloody time you're supposed to be spending making your career better. Not clicking pretty pictures of yourself and sending it to your parents or trying to find potential partners. It's such a waste of time and mental energy.
Nevertheles
Hell, women want to acquire a prize too. By prize, I'm NOT talking about a sugar daddy or a rich guy. The so called potential, interesting person who you are attracted to as well. According to some, for women, it's like making a prospectus for other people to invest in you. You need to make yourself seem like a perfect investment destination and hope for the best investor. You're not supposed to invest in other ventures yourself or solicit investments or these ventures might think you're too needy. See how ridiculous that analogy sounds? Exactly my point.
If I was turned down, I can deal with it. What I can't deal with is the way women are shamed for attempting it. "Oh but you're so pretty, you don't really need to go ask a guy out". It's not a need. It's what you want. I'm not allowed to do go after what I want. If I did, subsequently, I'm considered to be 'too easy'. They want to acquire something, not just get it. Why don't you think about the fact that you probably got it because you're good? Are men really that insecure that they think they're worthless, that any woman who pursues them must be crazy and that they'd need to convince someone for several months to get them to want them?
Bah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)