Sadie Hawkins, passivity, and the history of marriage

[impressive]

Recent threads got me thinkin' about the institution of heterosexual marriage and how it developed that women, typically, are not the ones to propose marriage. In some cultures, the families/tribes negotiate the union. In others, the man proposes. Even today, it is relatively uncommon for the woman to propose. Why?

Hmm ... I'd like to see the statistics on "infidelity" tied to which partner proposed. Just curious.

Wikipedia had some interesting information, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

[R. Richard]

The idea of monagomous marriage is usually tied to the shift from hunter-gatherer cultures to farming cultures. In a hunter-getherer culture, it is not only not too important in the scheme of things as to who the father of a baby is. In fact, the more men who are possible fathers of a baby, the more urgency there is among the men of the tribe to see that the mother and baby get fed. Aslo, since the men of a hunter gatherer tribe engage in a very high risk occupation, they sometimes do not come back from the hunt. Thus, the smart woman makes damn sure that she is not really tied to just one men, but rather to the tribe.

When a society shifts to agriculture, it becomes necessary to determine who own what land. Thus, the paternity of children needs to be determined [at least in theory] to determine who owns what land. Thus, the institution of monagomous marriage comes into being.

Since the man [farmer] supports the wife and children, it was natural for the man to propose marriage.

Just what I have read.

 

[Guest]

Well, to begin at the beginning , my guess is the first 'marriages' arose out of rape and domination by way of raids on villages, clans, etc. In more civilized times the paterfamilias negotiated the bonds. Whatever the origin of a 'marriage' tie I presume monogamy was part of the deal, at least for the 'bride'.

Perdita

 

[impressive]

Well, to begin at the beginning , my guess is the first 'marriages' arose out of rape and domination by way of raids on villages, clans, etc.

Now, at least, men usually ask -- and give jewelry -- before dominating (or, rather, attempting to do so).

But, really, the seemingly passive role of women in the history of marriage just baffles me. *shrug*

 

[cloudy]

Now, at least, men usually ask -- and give jewelry -- before dominating (or, rather, attempting to do so).

But, really, the seemingly passive role of women in the history of marriage just baffles me. *shrug*

Not in American Indian history.

Women pretty much ruled the household, and were responsible for all decisions affecting the family. Men were only responsible for the war type stuff - you know, weapons, hunting.

In some bands, children were raised by the mother's brother, not their father, since they "belonged" to the mother's family.

And, as I said in the other thread, if she got tired of being married to him, she packed his stuff, and set it outside. Voila! Divorce.

 

[Guest]

But, really, the seemingly passive role of women in the history of marriage just baffles me. *shrug*

You mean because of the millenia of women not having rights (to property, legal status, their own bodies)? You do not strike me as that naive.

Perdita

 

[Samandiriel]

Not in American Indian history.

Women pretty much ruled the household, and were responsible for all decisions affecting the family. Men were only responsible for the war type stuff - you know, weapons, hunting.

In some bands, children were raised by the mother's brother, not their father, since they "belonged" to the mother's family.

And, as I said in the other thread, if she got tired of being married to him, she packed his stuff, and set it outside. Voila! Divorce.

I believe some of that may be true for some of the Asian cultures as well.

Its an interesting topic to research and I can imagine would make a great book. As we dig further into history we can see many new cases of women who we thought were passive and in the background, were actually the backbone of many societies and families.

 

[impressive]

You mean because of the millenia of women not having rights (to property, legal status, their own bodies)? You do not strike me as that naive.

Perdita

LOL - Not exactly.

I'm really talking about the transference/abdication of power BEFORE that millenia. Where did we go wrong? In some cultures, as cloudy notes, women retained some power ... but in most, not.

It seems to even speak, peripherally, to the lack of self-esteem many women face today -- banking what little they possess on their physical beauty.

Dunno ... just rambling.

 

[Guest]

Its an interesting topic to research and I can imagine would make a great book.

I googled "courtship history" and found some pretty long bibliographies on the subject. I'm sure more books and articles are in the making. I did find some interesting facts:

"In 1228, women first gained the right to propose marriage in Scotland, a legal right that then slowly spread through Europe."

"All the Nordic countries have courtship customs involving knives. For example, in Norway when a girl came of age, her father let it be known that she was available for marriage. The girl would wear an empty sheath on her belt. If a suitor liked the girl, he would put a knife in the sheath, which the girl now wore as a sign that she was betrothed."

"Women held the power over courtship. The mother would decide which men could call on her daughter, and later the daughter could invite men she had met at dinners and dances. After a time, the man would ask her father if he could marry her, and if agreed they would walk down the aisle together."

And as opposed to courtship:
"Dating began at the beginning of the 20th century, implemented by upper class women who were moving into academic and professional circles. They demanded the right to be able to dine out with a man and not damage their reputation.
Lower class couples started to date rather than court for economical reasons - as people migrated from the countryside to the cities to work in factories rather than farms, they also had to cope with cramped living conditions or boarding houses, and without a parlour for the men to call to, going out was a more suitable option."

 

[Samandiriel]

I googled "courtship history" and found some pretty long bibliographies on the subject. I'm sure more books and articles are in the making. I did find some interesting facts:

"In 1228, women first gained the right to propose marriage in Scotland, a legal right that then slowly spread through Europe."

"All the Nordic countries have courtship customs involving knives. For example, in Norway when a girl came of age, her father let it be known that she was available for marriage. The girl would wear an empty sheath on her belt. If a suitor liked the girl, he would put a knife in the sheath, which the girl now wore as a sign that she was betrothed."

"Women held the power over courtship. The mother would decide which men could call on her daughter, and later the daughter could invite men she had met at dinners and dances. After a time, the man would ask her father if he could marry her, and if agreed they would walk down the aisle together."

And as opposed to courtship:
"Dating began at the beginning of the 20th century, implemented by upper class women who were moving into academic and professional circles. They demanded the right to be able to dine out with a man and not damage their reputation.
Lower class couples started to date rather than court for economical reasons - as people migrated from the countryside to the cities to work in factories rather than farms, they also had to cope with cramped living conditions or boarding houses, and without a parlour for the men to call to, going out was a more suitable option."

Fascinating. Especially the part highlighted. I'm going to have to do some googling later as well.

Good Call Imp.

 

[Guest]

Fascinating. Especially the part highlighted. I'm going to have to do some googling later as well.

Yes, I found that bit most interesting. Women and class structure, can't separate 'em yet .

Perdita

 

[Samandiriel]

Yes, I found that bit most interesting. Women and class structure, can't separate 'em yet .

Perdita

We go forward, we move back, its a pattern I suppose.

The history itself is amazing and worth getting to know better. I think we can all come up with some incredible facts.
Its worth the challenge.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

LOL - Not exactly.

I'm really talking about the transference/abdication of power BEFORE that millenia. Where did we go wrong? In some cultures, as cloudy notes, women retained some power ... but in most, not.

It seems to even speak, peripherally, to the lack of self-esteem many women face today -- banking what little they possess on their physical beauty.

Dunno ... just rambling.

In prehistory, you won't have a prohibition against rape. Any more than a female lion would consider herself to be raped if a new male took over the pride from her old "husband".

Males in general, are larger and more physically gifted than females. It syands to reason then, that females in early homonid development were taken sexually in accordance with the male's ability to over come resistance and his appetite.

I surmise, that the root of the dynamic was established then and has hung around ever since, enfoced in a variety of ways by manipulation of social conventions.

 

[impressive]

In prehistory, you won't have a prohibition against rape. Any more than a female lion would consider herself to be raped if a new male took over the pride from her old "husband".

Males in general, are larger and more physically gifted than females. It syands to reason then, that females in early homonid development were taken sexually in accordance with the male's ability to over come resistance and his appetite.

I surmise, that the root of the dynamic was established then and has hung around ever since, enfoced in a variety of ways by manipulation of social conventions.

That kinda makes me wonder why a "proposal" evolved at all.

Yeah, I get the bartering aspect between families/tribes, but ...

 

[Guest]

Just more interesting info. Fascinating topics, will probably read a book or two. - Perdita

Abstract: Nicole Eustace, "'The Cornerstone of a Copious Work': Love and Power in Eighteenth-Century Courtship" (Journal of Social History, Geo. Mason U.)

Examination of eighteenth-century courtship correspondence from colonial Pennsylvania reveals that men generally sent love letters to the friends and family of the women they wooed, rather than to the women themselves. Women, meanwhile, though expressive and affectionate in letters to each other, seldom if ever wrote love letters to their suitors. Analyzing who expressed what emotions when and to whom unveils much about the status calculations and power negotiations that underlay eighteenth-century marriage decisions. As young adults in their mid to late teens, both men and women stressed the importance of privacy and secrecy in courtship. Yet as time went on, women continued to emphasize privacy, while men made public declarations of love. This divergence can be explained by the different stakes courtship held for each; while men who married gained new and enhanced status as household heads, their wives contracted life-long masters. So while elite young women had incentives to delay marriage as long as they could without endangering their overall chances of marrying, young men were eager to win wives. Men's and women's unequal desire to marry conferred an unaccustomed measure of power on women during the courtship years. Young men and women alike made oblique references to this temporary reversal of gendered power in joking metaphors for marriage; young women also discussed their new power-and its fleeting nature-directly amongst themselves. Romantic rhetoric arose as a means of cloaking these tensions. Public declarations of love allowed young men to appear to negotiate with young women merely for love, not for the right to become household masters. Meanwhile, women who eventually silently accepted this love effectively renounced power for passion. Romantic rhetoric helped conceal the impact of eighteenth-century courtships on economic and community status; thus were love and power intimately intertwined.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That kinda makes me wonder why a "proposal" evolved at all.

Yeah, I get the bartering aspect between families/tribes, but ...

My guess, is beacuse desireable females were in shorter supply than males. At some point, it probably became self defeating to the tribe, clan, or village, to have disputes over fucking rights decided by mortal or at least semi mortal combat.

I would guess at that point, some system had to be worked out. Since you werem in effect, depriving a family unit of one of it's lanborers when you married, it probably became customary for the groom to be, to provide an offer of compensation. At that point, you would surely have fathers comparing offers to get the best deal, that's human nature. So the combats ceased to be corporal and became a combat of who could proide the better goods and or services.

When warfare ceased to be of the primitive tpe, waged on a whole caln or tribe, you suddenly had a reversed situation demographically. Men died off at a greater rate than women, so the dowry came into being. Basically a reverse of the old modle of bartering for a bride.

I think you will find social convention is talored to fit the needs and wants of those exercising power. the passitivity of women, is more or less, enforced by social convention. Since men started in the dominant position due to physicality, I think you will see they have maintained that position by manipulating social convention to keep them in power ever since.

 

[impressive]

My guess, is beacuse desireable females were in shorter supply than males.

If that was the case, then I'm ashamed of my gender for not capitalizing on the situation more effectively. Sheesh! I mean, they should've formed a union or somethin'

Meanwhile, women who eventually silently accepted this love effectively renounced power for passion.

And they really called it "love," too.

Fascinating.

 

[Samandiriel]

In prehistory, you won't have a prohibition against rape. Any more than a female lion would consider herself to be raped if a new male took over the pride from her old "husband".

Males in general, are larger and more physically gifted than females. It syands to reason then, that females in early homonid development were taken sexually in accordance with the male's ability to over come resistance and his appetite.

I surmise, that the root of the dynamic was established then and has hung around ever since, enfoced in a variety of ways by manipulation of social conventions.

I thought it was just because males can't even go by a knothole without getting aroused?

 

[neonlyte]

But, really, the seemingly passive role of women in the history of marriage just baffles me. *shrug*

It might just be that 'history' is largely written by men (or the conquerer - take your pick). I suspect, without evidence, the role of women in all societies is historically diminished by the perspective of our still largely male dominated society.

Rape, as a criminal offence, only entered statute law about a century ago, prior to that rape was punished through the Ecclesiastical Courts, with a pay scale for the offender based on the social class of the woman. Prior to the Ecclesiastical Courts the abduction and rape of a woman was the way to acquire land, and through land, power. In 12 Century Britain some single landed women chose to be interned alive within the walls of their Parish Church rather than risk the fate of abduction and rape. The Church encouraged this behaviour, and acquired vast tracts of land in the process.

It appears that for many centuries the marriage contract was based upon penetration, (or internment - some might care to argue the difference) the inconvenience of this process may have in turn led to negotiated marriages between families that were little more than a land trade in times when currency was is short supply and unstable. I suggest 'proposals' of marriage only began to make an appearance when both land supply had fragmented and money brought a limited degree of choice.

 

[impressive]

... prior to that rape was punished through the Ecclesiastical Courts, with a pay scale for the offender based on the social class of the woman.

Which makes it rather hypocritical to view prostitution as a crime, eh?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Might we also ask why it is that men are usually the ones who start sexual negotiations as well? Could it be this sexual behavior that sets the pattern for negotiating what's essentially a socially sanctioned mating arrangement?

It could just be that men just want women more than women want men, and so men end up doing the pleading.

 

[impressive]

It could just be that men just want women more than women want men, and so men end up doing the pleading.

But that would seemingly elevate women to a position of power in society. While (aside from rape, of course) I agree with the generalization that a woman decides when/if she'll have sex, this certainly hasn't translated to social stature. Colly's post rings true re manipulation of social convention.

 

[zeb1094]

Might we also ask why it is that men are usually the ones who start sexual negotiations as well? Could it be this sexual behavior that sets the pattern for negotiating what's essentially a socially sanctioned mating arrangement?

It could just be that men just want women more than women want men, and so men end up doing the pleading.

Most times on hands and knees. Go figure!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In prehistory, you won't have a prohibition against rape. Any more than a female lion would consider herself to be raped if a new male took over the pride from her old "husband".

Males in general, are larger and more physically gifted than females. It syands to reason then, that females in early homonid development were taken sexually in accordance with the male's ability to over come resistance and his appetite.

I surmise, that the root of the dynamic was established then and has hung around ever since, enfoced in a variety of ways by manipulation of social conventions.

I'd be careful about this. Even in modern apes you find rather rigid social structures and rules about who's allowed to mate with whom. They just don't go around grabbing females and screwing them when and wherever. The key to sexual success for your average male ape is to become top ape, not top rapist.

I've got no real proof, but I suspect the image of men as natural born rapists is a bit overdone. Certainly rape happened, but it was probably limited to warring tribes. You wouldn't rape someone in your own clan without serious repercussions. All social animals have their rules and hierarchies and taboos, and I imagine we had social structures even before we had stone tools.

Furthermore, I suspect that war between groups was probably rarer than peaceful co-existence, given equal access to resources. There's evidence now that even Neanderthals had pretty impressive trading networks in paleolithic Europe, which suggests some sort of economic cooperation and trust between different groups.

 

[impressive]

The key to sexual success for your average male ape is to become top ape, not top rapist.

I'm hearing "Rape Ape, Rape Ape"

http://www.stagenine.com/catalog/images/TW1083-The-Great-Grape-Ape.jpg


Sorry