What is Marriage?

Imagine, if you will, a species that is divided into two distinct types. Imagine that each of the types has (on average) different traits. Imagine that the species produces these types in approximately equal numbers. And imagine, if you will, that in order for this species to reproduce, it takes one of each of the types…

What is ‘marriage’? I’m not asking, here, the philosophical and religious question that I address in my ‘What is Marriage?” series. For this, the Patriarchy is Inevitable series, I am asking the much more practical question of what has to happen in order for the human species to reproduce? I’m writing about the issue of sexual reproduction, addressing the issue that it takes two to tango, and looking at what the various social adaptations to those facts have meant and do mean in society.

A society which does not sexually reproduce will not survive as a society. And for humans, as social animals, successful reproduction includes not just the brute fact of a baby being born, nor even the pragmatic facts of the baby being fed and clothed and housed and physically protected until they can do these things themselves; but also the social ‘reproduction’ of the child being inculcated into the values of her society. In order for a society to survive, all of these things have to happen, and on a large scale, and on a continual time frame.

Intro

JS Kasimir has published their next post in the ‘Inevitability of Patriarchy’ series, and I will be addressing many issues from that post below. In the core of this post, however, I wish to build on my case. JS has already proved my case, but there may be others reading who are still on the fence.

In this post I am going to address the issue of ‘marriage’. And for the purposes of this post, and this post alone, I am going to define marriage as, “Any societal system that promotes and provides for successful reproduction.” Specifically, three things:

1. Sexual contact leading to pregnancy and birth,

2. Physical support for the growing child,

3. The inculcation of societal values into that same child.

All of which lead to a society which is at the very least remaining stable demographically, and one which is remaining stable in its social values.

Thus I am not using the term ‘marriage’ for this post for any system which does not produce a stable or growing population and a stable set of societal values. I am not (for this post) casting any value statement on how a society arrives at that.

There are, broadly speaking, two ‘marriage’ systems which have produced this result over the ages: monogamy and polygamy. However even in polygamous societies monogamy has been the rule, polygamy the exception. So there has been, basically, only one system which, if we are measuring by centuries or generations, has produced this result. Let us call it ‘monogamy with exceptions’. These ‘exceptions’ can include polygamy, concubinage, or prostitution… but in any case the majority of children in any successful society have been born knowing, or strongly assuming, who their father is.

JS states that in monogamy the father is more likely to know which children are his, but I am a little confused as to what the other system is? What successful system has ever operated where the father is usually or even often unclear as to who their children are? Not polygamy, certainly. Polygamous societies often take even more care than a monogamous society in guarding their wives (and daughters) from sexual contact. Harems (meaning women closed off and protected from sexual contact) are not typical of monogamies, but of polygamies.

Now if instead of ‘monogamous’ systems, what was being compared was  ‘patriarchal’ systems, that would have made a good deal of sense. The more patriarchal a system is, the more they care whose children are whose.  Indeed in one form of a ‘meritocratic’ system there might be almost zero emphasis on this. But the result would be that there would also be almost zero emphasis on the father’s role in supporting and raising the children. (One reason why, improperly defined, a meritocratic system will be doomed to failure.)

Power Imbalance

So if monogamy (with exceptions) is the basic system a society must use to reproduce itself, and if a society can only survive if it reproduces itself, this means that in every successful society there will be a living unit, a marriage, which will typically have a large power imbalance.

Both the mother and the father are larger, stronger, more intelligent, and have more experience than their children. But, to a lesser extent, this same imbalance will (on average) exist between the mother and the father. The father will be larger (on average), stronger (on average), have more contact with the outside world (on average), be freer with his time (on average), etc etc.

Inevitable

One huge problem in this discussion is that JS and I seem to be discussing two different things. The actual question on the floor, the one we agreed to debate, has to do with ‘inevitability’ and ‘the intrinsic human condition’. It doesn’t have to do with what we would like to be, what we wish to work at being, or what we complain about. It has to do with brute facts of the universe that push us in certain directions.

I disagree with many people on matters of sex. This is because I seek a world in which humans have the most reasonable freedom.

JS Kasimir, Of Merit and Men

I conceded, in my first post, that these brute facts will never produce the exact same result in every society, to the same extent, etc etc. But not because that is not ‘what I seek’, but because of the facts of the matter.

Every time we make a moral argument, every time we pass a law, we are admitting that what we desire is not ‘inevitable’. We don’t make laws telling gravity how hard it may pull us, or what the value of ‘pi’ is… because we can’t. We only pass laws where there is something about the human condition that moves us toward a certain result, and we (or some of us) don’t like it. We pass laws against murder, because it is inevitable that some people will get angry and try to kill others. We pass laws against theft because some people get jealous and try to take other people’s stuff. We pass laws against tax evasion because most human beings don’t want to pay taxes.

So what is ‘inevitable’ whenever you have a social system that puts people with very different attributes into a semi-permanent, or at least dramatically intimate, relationship? Well, it is inevitable that those differences will make differences. It is inevitable that, over long years and longer generations, societal customs will arise which take account of those differences.

Conclusion

So my argument so far in this thread consists of:

1) Defining the Definition. Pointing out that I am not using the word ’patriarchy’ as the word is used in general modern discourse, but the type of ‘patriarchy’ that I believe is inevitable. It is not ‘rule by male’, still less is it ‘tyrannical and ‘dehumanising’. It is the historically normal concept that power will naturally gravitate toward the male head of successful families with large number of successful children.

2) Pointing out Pregnancy. Any successful society must have a system for producing pregnancies. Pregnancy, nursing, raising, and training the next generation. Without that the most successful society is just a flash-in-the-pan dead end. All the wishful thinking in the world won’t eliminate this basic fact. Any proposal must take that into account. And pregnancy, lactation, and related issues will tend to produce a power imbalance between sexes.

3) Mentioning Marriage. In order for any society to successfully reproduce itself it must first solve the problem of sexual relations. Men and women must get together. Not merely for a few times needed to produce a pregnancy, [see my dystopia contract marriage] but it seems that all successful societies have produced a form of ‘marriage’ where a man and a woman (with some exceptions) get together in a long-term sexual relationship that includes producing, caring for, and training children.

So far JS, far from disagreeing, actually concedes my point:

Patriarchy is only inevitable for those who allow themselves to be ruled in such a manner. However, in doing this, they risk exposing themselves to dehumanization and the rule of tyrannical father figures.

Basically this (and the rest of the post) is a concession that there are many powerful drivers of human society which push toward patriarchy, and that the only way to avoid ending up there is to constantly push in the other direction. The argument so far is “I really want a certain system” and “we need to all work together to implement my preferred system.” My point is that something resembling my preferred system is where humanity tends to go. On its own. Naturally. Intrinsically.

In my previous post I mentioned ‘running like the Red Queen’, and that is what is being suggested here. Turning into the prevailing wind of the way men and women are created, the way families work, and running flat out to avoid the natural trend. Because that is the only way to avoid blowing with the wind and ending up in… patriarchy.

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty:

for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD,

and thou art exalted as head above all.

I Chronicles 29:11

What is Meritocracy?

Now that we are past the conclusion of this part of my argument, we can begin addressing some of the issues that JS raises. And for me to repeat my question, “What is Meritocracy?” Cause really all we have gotten for far are goal statements, not system descriptions.

A political, social, or economic system in which individuals are assigned to positions of power, influence, or reward solely on the basis of their abilities and achievements and not on the basis of their social, cultural, or economic background or irrelevant personal characteristics.

Definition of Meritocracy, as quoted by JS Kasimir in ‘Of Merit and Men’

The kind of meritocracy that I would really get behind, one where we could really test out some of JS’s proposals, would be one where the hundreds of labour laws were gotten rid of. That would produce a meritocratic system that I could really get behind… one with strong patriarchal elements. But is that what JS is proposing? Or the opposite?

Inheritance

He and I both agree on the removal of the death tax',

JS Kasimir, On Merit and Men

Let’s take one of the most patriarchal elements of society: Inheritance. It is easily possible to see inheritance as either meritocratic, or anti-meritocratic. But it is impossible to see it outside of a system of laws or customs that either support or destroy it.

I might end up making this a whole post, but one thing that society inevitably produces is ‘inheritance’. Not just ‘daddy is dead so I get some money’ inheritance, but an enormous variety of ways that a child is advantaged or disadvantaged depending on who their parents are or were.

Are we going to take children away from their mothers at birth and raise them in creches? Cause even if we do, the child will still inherit genetically. And if we don’t, then, for every minute we leave them in their family, they will inherit in a hundred different ways: moral teachings, intellectual teaching, intellectual and moral environment, socialisation… A child who is raised with six siblings learns different things than a child raised with one or none. The child raised by artists, or engineers, or writers, or pastors, or missionaries… all of them learn things during their upbringing that will be different from their peers.

Dozens of studies have pointed out the differences that having two parents makes, how much a child is read to, what diet they are given…

Now let’s start spending some money. On better toys, books, art, music, training…

Then let’s talk about education. Don’t tell me that children with different parents go to the same schools. Private schools, home schools, moving to a better district… even parents being more involved with the schooling ups the education game.

How about work? What advantages can the right kind of parent give you when you hit the job market? Who knows who, who talks to who, who eats at what restaraunt a lot (I once got a job like that. I wasn’t very good at being a busboy.)

Early career and family life? Co-signing on a house? Parents available to babysit? A home to go to for holidays…

Even before we get to what most people think of as inheritance, parents influence us in hundreds of ways. How do we deal with that in a ‘meritocracy’? Is that allowed, or forbidden? What would it take to forbid it? And if it isn’t forbidden, than is it a meritocracy?

That depends on how we define ‘merit’.

Defining ‘Merit’

the one with the most abilities would be the one who is most capable of accomplishing a specific task.

JS Kasimir, Of Merit and Men

Suppose that you cook great hot dogs. And suppose that you wish to start a hot dog stand. Well, in a completely free market you would start up your stand…

Well, no. You would first have to buy your stand.  A two-by-four frame and some plywood and paint, or some wheels and a metal box… And then you would need to buy (or already own) the stove, the hot dogs, the ketchup…

And you would have to have access to some location…

Depending on your definition, none of these are ‘merit’. And suppose that you were missing some of them, and you came to me, and I gave you the money to buy them, and made myself half-owner. Does that count as me having ‘merit’? Because I had the capital?

We tend to focus purely on our skills and education or whatever when we think of ‘merit’. But we also speak of ‘how well they can do the job’. Well, a person with lots of money, or good connections, might be able to ‘do the job’ better than a person who has lots of skill and education… because they use their money and connections to ‘get it done’. So we have to define ‘merit’ for the purposes of a ‘meritocracy’.

Lawfare

Once you have answered those questions, you then have to deal with the question of laws. How much is your system dependent on law? It is all very good to preach ‘merit’ from your substack pulpit… what would it take to put it into practice in the real world?

Let’s suppose that the hot dog stand guy hired a few cute waitresses… cause his view of ‘merit’ is ‘cute waitresses who attract customers’. Let’s suppose the hardware store owner only hires men for certain jobs because, “Men feel more comfortable asking men about hardware questions”.¹ My question here isn’t ‘should’ he do that… its “What are you going to do about it?”

If JS is merely pointing out that there may be great female hardware helpers, and missing out on them will make the business less efficient… then we can both agree to let the hardware store owner try out his system… as well as the hot dog stand owner.

If the hot dog stand owner got his money from his parents, and is operating out of a lot that his parents own, using hot dog cooking skills he got from his mother, and business skills that he got from his father, and cute waitresses he hired on the open market, and getting a lot of business from his father’s employees… is that meritocracy?

And if it isn’t… what are you going to do about it?

The Heavy and Stupid Hand of the Law

Cause if your answer is, “I’m going to pass laws and start a bureaucracy that will enforce it,” then I’m going to start writing another dystopia. Can you even imagine how awful that would be? “I hereby certify that this cute chick I hired to be my secretary was actually the best qualified…” How many ways could that be perverted? Is the government going to hire mind readers?

Or, worse, are they going to go for ‘disparate impact’? Well, we know that JS rejects that:

He and I both agree on the removal of the death tax', or that there is nothing inherently wrong with more men choosing to become engineers.

JS Kasimir, Of Merit and Men

So we agree, at least, that people should not be forced into a role that they don’t want to do. Where the question still lies is whether employers should be forced to hire people they don’t wish to, or to not hire people they wish to. And even hide what they wish, since if anyone found out they could be sued!

Where do we draw the ‘merit’ line?

The problem in proposing a ‘system’ is that you can’t merely handwave objections. You have to propose systemic answers to them. Look at the rules for baseball sometime, and you will see that they are voluminous. They have to cover every possibility. And they have to cover them within the concept of baseball. You can’t suddenly have touchdowns showing up.

So when I asked about showers and teams, the answer can’t merely be ‘that’s different’. The answer definitely can’t depend on how we do things now. For most of history girls didn’t have sports teams, and there weren’t public bathrooms.

If a boy wants to play on the girl’s field hockey team because he can win there, or a girl wants to use the boy’s bathroom because the girls’ is too crowded, there has to be a systemic answer that tells them why we can’t. Our current system is broken in exactly that area. The definition between boys and girls has been broken down.

If we are going to force meritocracy on everyone by law, then it will have to be defined with more detail than the rules of baseball, and enforced with more draconian actions than the IRS.

Age of Marriage

JS brings up the question of the age of marriage. But the question raised answers itself. In order for a man to have many successful offspring and have influence over them, marrying young and marrying a young wife will both be useful. But they are not the only measure.

The man must marry successfully. And that will depend upon his wife (and him, although few people object to males marrying young on moral grounds) having the physical and psychological maturity to make a success of the marriage and eventual family.

Ironically, our society treats it as perfectly normal for very young girls to be sexually active, many of whom end up pregnant. But somehow that looks shockingly different to them than if they were married at that same age.

Missing Measures

I read through JS’s post a couple of times, and it seems to me that the issue of demography is missing. Maybe I just missed it but…

Are we agreeing or disagreeing that a society which does not reproduce itself will fail? Over what time period are we measuring ‘successful’? What are the goals it must reach? For me, at the very least, a society must:

1. Physically reproduce itself over several generations.

2. Socially reproduce itself over those same generations

3. Produce economically enough to sustain itself, ditto

4. Produce militarily enough, ditto

Any society which does not do those things I am defining as a ‘flash in the pan’ and unsuccessful. It might gleam brightly for a cosmic instant (perhaps even a hundred years), but it is an overall failure. What price ‘the west’? We have abandoned patriarchal values over the last eighty years or so, slower in some areas, faster in others… and we can already hear our death knell playing.

Forgetting the Goal

The most problematic part of JS’s post is that of ‘forgetting the goal’. The debate we are having is ‘Is Patriarchy Inevitable?’. It helps the cause not one whit to respond ’I prefer meritocracy’. Unless JS is God, or has some special in with God, that preference is irrelevant.

The question on the floor has to do with human beings, how we were created (you can substitute the word ‘evolved’ if you wish, but that makes it worse), and how their physical and psychological attributes will naturally work out in forming societies.

There certainly is a certain natural tendency toward meritocracy. If someone can do something well, and they are allowed to do the something, and the something is of benefit to their group… then their group will get stronger. But that is not the only natural tendency. Groups will tend to obey natural leaders, and one form of natural leadership is fatherhood.

To the extent that ‘meritocracy’ means minimal laws, patriarchy will thrive. Strong families will support their members and will crush the disorganised opposition. All forms of inheritance will propel the patriarchal unit head and shoulders above its crushed opposition. This is the lesson of history.

Links

Of Merit & Men

The (In)Evitability of Patriarchy

Patriarchy Schmatriarchy

1. I live in small town Texas, and there is a very successful hardware store in our town which has operated on that principle for years and years.They have some women employees up front, with the candles and pots and pans and one cash register, and the men in the back with the paint and plumbing. And it works.