If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[Skylar]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

It might be. But it would be a pretty rough transition. As there are all sorts of questions that a 3 or 4 person marriage creates that 2 person marriage never does. Questions that caselaw simply doesn't have the answers for. And those issues get more complex as the number of people grow.

All new caselaw would need to be created 50 of 50 times. It would take about a decade or so.

It will take time, but once the definition of marriage has been opened to change, there really is no moral reason to stop.

The definition of marriage has been changed all the time. It used to be an unequal relationship dominated by men where women had little if any rights. It then became a partnership of equals after its definition was changed. Polygamy didn't follow.

It was restricted according to race. With whites only allowed to marry whites and blacks only allowed to marry blacks. It then became open to any racial combination after its definition was changed. Polygamy didn't follow.

It was restricted according to gender. With men only allowed to marry women. And women only allowed to marry men. It became open to any gender combination after its definition changed. Polygamy hasn't followed.

Polygamy may come....but it will be because the people want it. And so far, they don't seem to. However, the millennials have much less concern for relationship boundaries than the 3 generations that preceded them. So it may be less important socially as these generations pass.

 

[Skylar]

The permissive roaring 20s gave rise to the restrictive 50s.

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

 

[Moonglow]

The permissive roaring 20s gave rise to the restrictive 50s.

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

 

[Skylar]

The permissive roaring 20s gave rise to the restrictive 50s.

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

It might be. But it would be a pretty rough transition. As there are all sorts of questions that a 3 or 4 person marriage creates that 2 person marriage never does. Questions that caselaw simply doesn't have the answers for. And those issues get more complex as the number of people grow.

All new caselaw would need to be created 50 of 50 times. It would take about a decade or so.

It will take time, but once the definition of marriage has been opened to change, there really is no moral reason to stop.

The definition of marriage has been changed all the time. It used to be an unequal relationship dominated by men where women had little if any rights. It then became a partnership of equals after its definition was changed. Polygamy didn't follow.

It was restricted according to race. With whites only allowed to marry whites and blacks only allowed to marry blacks. It then became open to any racial combination after its definition was changed. Polygamy didn't follow.

It was restricted according to gender. With men only allowed to marry women. And women only allowed to marry men. It became open to any gender combination after its definition changed. Polygamy hasn't followed.

Polygamy may come....but it will be because the people want it. And so far, they don't seem to. However, the millennials have much less concern for relationship boundaries than the 3 generations that preceded them. So it may be less important socially as these generations pass.

I believe in the coming years people will want it, because open relationships will become more and more accepted. Once that happens, and they are more out in the open, it will be just a matter of time that those involved will demand equality as far as marriage rights go.

 

[Moonglow]

The permissive roaring 20s gave rise to the restrictive 50s.

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender roles, sexual taboos and relationship standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

Don't worry, the latch key kid generation is rather hung up on religious and social limitations, although I am not that whey, I am a minority..I have kids which are X's and Millennials, they are definitely staying out of the crying game as far as what was preached to us as kids, get a job, get married have kids....I am fine with that..They have less destabilization that occurs from relationships with contracts and licenses...

 

[Skylar]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

It might be. But it would be a pretty rough transition. As there are all sorts of questions that a 3 or 4 person marriage creates that 2 person marriage never does. Questions that caselaw simply doesn't have the answers for. And those issues get more complex as the number of people grow.

All new caselaw would need to be created 50 of 50 times. It would take about a decade or so.

It will take time, but once the definition of marriage has been opened to change, there really is no moral reason to stop.

The definition of marriage has been changed all the time. It used to be an unequal relationship dominated by men where women had little if any rights. It then became a partnership of equals after its definition was changed. Polygamy didn't follow.

It was restricted according to race. With whites only allowed to marry whites and blacks only allowed to marry blacks. It then became open to any racial combination after its definition was changed. Polygamy didn't follow.

It was restricted according to gender. With men only allowed to marry women. And women only allowed to marry men. It became open to any gender combination after its definition changed. Polygamy hasn't followed.

Polygamy may come....but it will be because the people want it. And so far, they don't seem to. However, the millennials have much less concern for relationship boundaries than the 3 generations that preceded them. So it may be less important socially as these generations pass.

I believe in the coming years people will want it, because open relationships will become more and more accepted. Once that happens, and they are more out in the open, it will be just a matter of time that those involved will demand equality as far as marriage rights go.

Then its their desire for polygamy that drives the change. Not 'allowing the definition of marriage to change'. As the definition of marriage has changed repeatedly without polygamy following. Demonstrating that your cause and your effect have no intrinsic connection.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then the future isn't polygamy but nothing. No marriage and no permanent relationships. At least until people start disgusting themselves. We have had permissive societies before. Many times. Then it changes.

 

[Skylar]

Then the future isn't polygamy but nothing. No marriage and no permanent relationships. At least until people start disgusting themselves. We have had permissive societies before. Many times. Then it changes.

I disagree. The future is likely more choices. And among them will be marriage. It will likely be a pretty popular choice as well.

 

[martybegan]

The permissive roaring 20s gave rise to the restrictive 50s.

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

 

[Moonglow]

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

They are, through migrants..

 

[Katzndogz]

Ahhh the future of the Handmaid's tale! Children will be conceived in laboratories and gestated by professional carriers. At least until an artificial womb is invented.

 

[Skylar]

Then why didn't the permissive 60s give way to the restrictive 90s?

You can dream of a historical regression if you wish. But its historically unlikely.

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.

Utility is the driver in most cases.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.

 

[martybegan]

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

They are, through migrants..

Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?

Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.

Is that happening?

 

[Skylar]

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

They are, through migrants..

Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?

Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.

Is that happening?

Life is change. American culture is always changing.

 

[martybegan]

There was no shortage of trim in the 1990's..

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.

Utility is the driver in most cases.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.

We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.

Combine smaller families with less people actually having kids, and you run into a situation where you either have to accept a shrinking population (Japan) or make it up with immigration.

And what if those immigrants aren't on board with gender equality?

 

[martybegan]

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

They are, through migrants..

Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?

Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.

Is that happening?

Life is change. American culture is always changing.

Not the type of change Europe is going to see.

America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.

 

[Skylar]

Having experienced the 90s first hand, there really wasn't.

There hasn't been in the last 40 years that I've been playing John Appleseed...

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

Reproduction itself is often driven by necessity. If infant mortality is high, lifespans short and human muscle the primary source of labor.....having large numbers of children make sense. But if infant mortality is low, life spans long and technology makes human muscle less important.....having large numbers of children makes less sense.

Utility is the driver in most cases.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

Its the diminishing utility that is driving most of these changes. The reduction in gender roles is a product, not a cause.

We aren't talking families with 7 or 8 kids, the problem is the best educated among us, and the people that support the whole concept of equality aren't the ones reproducing in sufficient numbers to maintain population, never mind about expanding it.

Its not conceptions about 'equality' that drive fewer children. You're placing causation in the wrong place. Its the utility of having children. The utility is vastly diminished over what it was in a technologically primitive society with high infant mortality, and short lives.

With lower utility comes lower reproduction. Equality ideals, reductions in marriages, reductions in gender roles, etc.....these are all symptoms of the reduction in utility.

 

[Moonglow]

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

They are, through migrants..

Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?

Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.

Is that happening?

Life is change. American culture is always changing.

Not the type of change Europe is going to see.

America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.

It's hard to resist the global leader in kewlness..Plus, many folks that get to come here get to see how well people can and do get along, and that the major drive in the community is job, family and personal life..Not only to mention, you can lose your job or income by doing things which go against the sectarian society..

 

[Skylar]

Utility is usually what forces gender roles, social norms, relationship standards.

In a technologically primitive agrarian society without birth control, firm gender roles make sense. Women are more or less constantly pregnant, can feed their children with their bodies and have less physical strength and endurance. It makes sense to put women into a caregiver role and men in a hunter/gatherer or farm worker role. And so it was almost universally so.

But in a technologically advanced society with birth control...firm gender roles make less sense. As a backhoe can be run equally effectively by a man or a woman. Women only have children when they want to and are no longer constantly pregnant. And technologically advanced societies tend to be more risk averse and compliance rewarding. Both of which women tend to do. So in a level playing field they tend to flourish.

Ergo, gender roles break down.

Firm gender identity roles, sexual taboos, relationship standards, even military standards tend to go the same way. Upheld to the extent that they are useful. And abandoned when they aren't.

The problem is societies where gender roles are breaking down are also failing to reproduce themselves.

We seem to be taking the good stuff of equality and ignoring the repercussions of not meeting population replacement numbers while doing it.

They are, through migrants..

Do the migrants share the same goals and views of the original residents?

Replacing people through migration and keeping the society you started with (or close enough not to matter) only works if you assimilate them as they come in.

Is that happening?

Life is change. American culture is always changing.

Not the type of change Europe is going to see.

America is far better at assimilating immigrants and getting them to go along with the base concepts of american democracy and society.

America has better quality immigrants, in my opinion.