We need money to stay online, if you like the forum, donate! x

rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one. x


Game isn't enough. Bring back patriarchy. [long]
#21

Game isn't enough. Bring back patriarchy. [long]

Quote: (01-31-2015 12:01 AM)Luvianka Wrote:  

All civilization is centralization. So, to have it, some kind of restrictions in every sense of life, including the sexual market, must be imposed by a stronger agent -The State.
Now, call me crazy, but I guess that the key element which brought civilization as we know it was a Communist principle: Marriage.
As we know, women are hypergamous -they look for the dominant males to mate. In a free sexual market, a tiny number of dominant males would hoard most of the women, and would father most of the children. In a society where mating and procreating goes through the institution of marriage you are promising every man, no matter how beta or omega he is, to have sexual access to at least one woman. The price to pay? To support that woman and the children he procreates with her. Ever heard about a more a Communist an Institution as Family?
I recommend you "The Ancient City" by Fustel de Coulanges. It's a study of the roots of Western law in primitive pagan religion.
Marriage in its original form was not at all communal. It was an alliance between elite men. It was hard bartered thing.
The custom of meeting your fiancee's father, talking to him and shaking his hand was originally the engagement itself. The dowry offered by the father was a major incentive. And most importantly, only the father of the woman could decide who she married.
It used to be that only men were citizens of a Greek or Roman tribe. Boys, girls were minors, subject to the paterfamilias (= father of the family) women remained children forever. Marriage was a kind of sexual adoption.

I get your point about polygamy versus monogamy, but there's another factor: If you freely maintain a dozen wives, then why would a smaller cheese use your marriage of his daughter to cement an alliance? He may as well be sending you a fruitbasket. By maintaining only one wife, you concentrate your allegiances. It's better bait for powerful friends. Better to marry the daughter of a bigwig than clutter your house with the daughters of farmers who bred more than they could feed.

Further, there was the custom of the family gods. The Greeks and Romans believed that the dead needed to be tended with offerings of wine and prayer. When a Roman patrician worshipped at his household altar, he was effectively laying flowers on the grave of his forefathers.
To make sure the spirits would be tended for all time, he wanted to keep his family as intact as possible. Having dozens of sons from a dozen wives would lead to chaos; his own spirit would wander the earth and starve as his sons fought over his holdings. Daughters would worship at the altar of another family once they were married.

This is all very picturesque, but the practical evolutionary result was that Greek and Roman men felt a religious compulsion to have male children, and to keep their properties intact through primogeniture (eldest son inheriting.) Monogamy meant less inheritance squabbling back in the days before people could calculate dates accurately.

This had the advantage of making their Y-chromosomal heritage steadily richer and more powerful through time, sowing many wild oats and impregnating many slaves and mistresses; all the while making useful allegiance-marriages and passing the house on from eldest male to eldest male.
The lands were not split up, so having more sons meant sending them out into the world to colonise it; a Patrician family was like a volcano of YDNA, scattering it far and wide, all while remaining central, steadfast, and singular.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)