I'm not sure if this was brought up in any previous discussions but I thought that I would see what other people's experiences were.
I recently sent an e-mail to a woman expressing interest and she just replied "Had me till I read you didn't want any kids".
This really sucks!
I'm 30 and most women in the 25 to 35 year old age range either have kids or want them at some point.
This is the second time you have accused my of being ignorant of biology.
I assure you, I am well-read on the subject.
Can you show me where I have made an incorrect statement on the subject, or is this simply argumentative flailing?
Monogomy is only one way to provide resources, love, and support. Some would argue that it hasn't actually been all that successful on these criteria and that there are other more effective means. For an example (sadly difficult to find via google, but referenced in the book "Sex at Dawn"), is the concept of partable fatherhood. There have been cultures in which it was believed that every person had multiple fathers and that it was in fact desirable to have multiple fathers. Different fathers had different roles in fathering a child (yes, that means sex) and women would seek out various individuals with desirable characteristics to contribute to the child. If one father died, that child would still have access to resources, love, and support from its other biological fathers.
Obviously, such cultures were terribly mistaken on the science of conception. However, our culture may be terribly mistaken on the naturalness of monogamy, although in reality, it doesn't matter how incorrect our assumptions are if most people accept them. They simply become the new reality. Like a flat earth.
"monogamous father figure, is to provide resource stability"
Well what this means is that children without this suffer. If this is so, then its the fault of all of us because it is happening on our watch.
We should not use the welfare of children to be trying to keep their parents in harness, just as we should not be using children to negotiate the politics of a marriage. Children should not be used at all.
So what I want is the emancipation of children. No child should have to depend on its parents or be trapped in a family domicile. No child should be disadvantaged because of shortcomings on the part of its parents.
How could this come to be? It will be by attacking the Family System. It will be those of use who are congnizant of the ways in which we were used who lead it.
Fight for the emancipation of children, and for holding parents accountable.
"Paternity is a social fiction."
Indeed, nuclear families (in the large sense vs the last half century sense, of close relatives raising the family) has only been around since the patriarchal system dominated societies. According to most anthropologists, before the patriarchal system, children were not raised by immediate family (males/females) but by the extended community which consisted mostly of females, since males were often away hunting and warring and discovering new lands.
Given that our modern system of raising children is very much broken... I still prefer a child have two parents, rather than none... or being a perpetual homeless fosterchild.
I can't see us returning to community raising of children any time soon. However it has been tried here and there, to near catastrophic results... Hari Krishnas, Mormons, Monasteries and long term warring cultures where children are coopted for war. As a modern society, when children aren't raised by close parents, they end up being used and abused to an extreme degree by our capitalist system. In the end it's all a matter of profit.
I could not find any anthropolocigal research suggesting a cause-effect relationship between patriarchal systems and the rise of the nuclear family. Encylopedia Brittanica mentions historical evolution of nuclear families in both patrilineal and matrilineal cultures: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421619/nuclear-family.
(Notice how I CITE ACTUAL ARTICLES, rather than fabricating the support of non-existent experts?)
Most likely the nuclear family developed due to the transition from disorganized hunter-gatherer societies to more structured agricultural or nomadic societies.In short, the development of the nuclear family had nothing to do with patriarchy.
And indeed, there's no reason to think the advantages of a nuclear family would not be found in matriarchal societies.
So, wrong again TNT666. But I suppose that if your only answer to absolute any question is "patriarchy", we can't expect you to be right very often.Still, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, so keep trying.
Reading this thread has made me appreciate finding my life partner (who, like myself, cares little for children and doesn't want them) all the more. Thanks!
My own experiences have been very harsh. I've lived in Utah for the past 38 years, and let me tell you, if there's ANY environment on the face of this planet that is "child-/family-friendly" to the point of nausea at best, and breederville at worst, it's Utah.
Folks, take it from me. They are out there, even (believe it or not) here in the land of Zion. It might seem like they are in the minority (and let's face it, they are), but they DO exist.
Be selective, and stick to your guns. Turn the tables around, cut straight to the chase, and be the aggressor. "Do you want children? Yes? Oh, that's unfortunate. I'm sorry, but a life-long relationship would not be possible between us." Remove your "do not want children" status from your dating profiles and be the first to ask. Don't give them the opportunity to hurt you.
You have every right to be selfish about this. YOUR happiness is what's important.