Why Get Married? (Part 2: Definition & Historical Context)

wantonton · 2015-03-05T21:13:34+00:00

Pre-Industrial Revolution, most work was manual labor. Women are not built for it, can't do it or won't do it, nor do men wish them to participate in such activities ... In other words, women were completely reliant on men to survive beyond impoverished levels. (This why family was extremely important.)

I understand you're trying to offer up a very simple assessment of a complex system spanning thousands of years, but what you wrote simply isn't correct.

Women could and did perform manual labor work. They could do it just fine and they could do it at levels that placed them above mere subsistence and poverty. No, men didn't have them sit in the house to preserve their femininity. Look at the Amish. Their women work and work hard. So, why the division of labor?

First, yes the labor was divided. This means women took roughly half the share of work. The whole women needed to preserve their softness was never a thing (until very recent). There was a class distinction between those people, men and women, who believed manual labor was beneath them. This also lead into conspicuous consumption (buying goods to prove you could afford to waste the money) and then styles of dress/appearance the purpose of which was to show you did not perform manual labor.

Back to the division of labor. The division lines fell not along capacity, but efficiency and return on investment. When a group of people grew up performing manual labor, their bodies became optimized for such work, and testosterone allowed men's capacity to greatly exceed women's. So, men could be far more productive doing certain jobs than women doing those same jobs. So, it was always a matter of return on investment.

This efficiency determined labor divisions, not just capacity. A woman could run an ox plow, but it might be more lucrative for her to instead let the man do it, since he can do it twice as fast, and let her bake pies to sell, since he could bake only at the same speed. If, however, they needed all of the fields plowed, say before the rains, and they had the gear to do it, both would plow. This is why you see everyone involved at harvest-a small window before rot or frost or bugs hit.

In short, a man's labor was utilized first, to maximum efficiency. Then, of the work left to be performed, the woman's efforts would be utilized. This resulted in men primarily being responsible for heavy work jobs and women for jobs requiring manual dexterity instead of strength. In short, a woman could work a farm and make it profitable. It would not however, be nearly as profitable as if a man was working it and a man and women working it was always more profitable than a farm just being worked by the man.

What women, generally, couldn't do was protect themselves from aggressive men. So, not only did a man allow maximization of difficult jobs, he offered protection against other, aggressive males. This, in my opinion, is why I hold the opinion that originally men did benefit from marriage, they rarely benefited anywhere near as much as women did. That's also why women who could offer "extra" benefits to make her man happy did better than others. Chances are her manual labor didn't add much to the consideration, but her other favors likely added a lot.

Invalidity · 2015-03-06T00:17:09+00:00

Marriages made some sense back in the day because both sides (men and women) had a bargaining chip. A marriage was and is still a contract. Men would provide for the family with income earned through work. Women would support their husbands and bear children for the family.

So the trade-off: women get resources, men to get to start a family. It made sense in the past because women had limited access to resources. They could find a man to take care of them provided that they demonstrated the capacity to be good wives/mothers. It doesn't make sense any more because women don't need access to more resources. They work for their own money.

Besides, if a woman wanted children, she could get knocked up easily. She no longer has to worry about who will provide for her and her children because in essence, she can do it herself.

Now, all women want are either 1) the most attractive men with whom they can take genetic material from for their offspring or 2) the most wealthy of men with whom they can elevate their status and/or acquire even more resources with/from.

Both types of men are scarce. They're also very unlikely to commit to just any woman, even if they are above average women.

So you get a whole bunch of disgruntled single women, who end up becoming single mothers because they still want to have children (tick tock), but they no longer want to be associated with men of low stature.

mrp3anut · 2015-03-06T02:29:18+00:00

You are way off so far.

Marriage was practiced because society needs family units to prosper. Guys here seem to think that they would all be the top 20% alphas getting laid by harems of women back in the day. This is ludicrous, the only reason you can "alpha up" now is due to the average man being so beta that a little muscle definition, decent clothes, and a hint of masculinity now make you top 20%.

Either way, this "marriage in all forms past and present" being some grand feminist plot is getting played out.

MattyAnon · 2015-03-06T14:53:36+00:00

Also factor in that women had 5+ children back then (necessary because of large numbers of kids dying young). That's 5-10 years giving birth to kids plus 15 more supporting the family.

And running a home back then was hard. 5 kids (some die young, this is brutal). By the time you're down to 2-3 kids, they're older and require even more work (clothes to repair, more food to eat). But there are no microwaves, electric cookers, washing machines, tumble dryers, fridges. It was a lot of work to maintain a family and a husband (who needs food and clean clothes at least).

Marriage 1.0 was a fair division of labour with established responsibilities for each partner.

NeoreactionSafe · 2015-03-05T23:30:24+00:00

The sacred eternal nature of marriage for the benefit of the family no longer exists in Marriage 2.0.

I mean come in... two dudes can get married now... what kind of a joke is that?

So with sacredness lost, all that remains is a business contract and it's a terrible contract for men.

Simple logic... don't sign a bad contract. Don't marry with the present contract.

kevkos · 2015-03-05T21:58:29+00:00

I disagree that marriage is a great deal for women completely. Financially...maybe. But to have a great relationship, the woman loses out by bringing in contracts and government into the equation. Better to have it be a purely voluntary relationship, where both partners are actually showing up every day because they want to, and do not need a legally binding contract to ensure this.

RELTIH88 · 2015-03-06T03:21:16+00:00

Marriage does have its benefits for society today, just not for the husband. I do not want single mothers raising the majority of children in this country.

Title	Why Get Married? (Part 2: Definition & Historical Context)
Author	dr_warlock
Upvotes	11
Comments	46
Date	March 5, 2015 8:42 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2y27r7/why_get_married_part_2_definition_historical/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/why-get-married-part-2-definition-historical.29883 https://theredarchive.com/post/29883

Comments