37472Re: [evol-psych] marriage -- who benefits
- Jul 30, 2005That is my argument for why hominids have pair bonding. As soon as our ancestors stood up, if there were 2 children who could not run or could not fend, then two parents would do better than one. There would also be more food. Yes I know men eat more.My best,
Michael Lamport Commons, Ph.D.
Assistant Clinical Professor
Program in Psychiatry and the Law
Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
The Massachusetts Mental Health Center Academic Division of Public Psychiatry in the Department of Psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
234 Huron Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-1328
Telephone (617) 497-5270
Facsimile (617) 491-5270
http://dareassociation.org/----- Original Message -----From: Kathryn CoeCc: eas32004@...Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 11:55 AMSubject: RE: [evol-psych] marriage -- who benefits
I hesitate to reply, as a thousand stones seem to fall on my head when I do, but if a mothers interest is her child, then isnt it in their (the mothers and the childs) interest that a male stay around and help provide for those children.
Kathryn Coe, PhD
Director of Shared Service for Special Populations
Arizona Cancer Center
Assistant Professor, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health
1515 North Campbell Avenue
P.O. Box 245024
Tucson, AZ 85724-5024
Fax (520) 626-0197
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Ryan
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 2:40 AM
Subject: [evol-psych] marriage -- who benefits
Ed Stand wrote:
What's the evidence that "for thousands of years marriage was set up
to benefit men more than women"? This in a book entitled The Myth of
An interesting question for evolutionary psychology is why such
nonsense can become so prevalent. Perhaps competition among males
for females in the EEA has created in men fear of offending women and
fear of women's relational hostility. That fear may be justified in
some cases. Yet its intensity among intellectuals is striking. Is a
good explanation that male intellectuals are much more vulnerable to
female hostility than males less concerned about social reputation?
I'd suggest that it depends on what you mean by that problematic word, "marriage" and how many "thousands of years" you have in mind. If you're talking about Helen Fisher's "marriage," which is presumably universal and existed in the EEA, then I'd say you're right to reject that. But if you're talking about post-agricultural "marriage" (a more accurate use of the word, as I argue elsewhere today), then I'd say that this sort of Old Testament marriage was, in fact, skewed toward the interests of men -- due to the simple fact that it was (and is) based upon a perceived need to ensure that the children resulting from that union were the man's. The only way to do that would have been to completely control the sexual behavior of the woman, of course. So, I'd say that she's right that "for thousands of years marriage was set up to benefit men more than women," but not for tens of thousands, which seems to be how you read it.
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 94 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer and any network to which your computer is connected.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>