Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Bring Back the Dowry
Source: UncleBob's Treehouse
URL Source: http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2013/02/bring-back-dowry.html
Published: Feb 11, 2013
Author: Bob Wallace
Post Date: 2013-02-11 14:57:06 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 2553
Comments: 73

At one time I was mystified why dowries were paid. A woman got married and her parents gave money and other material possessions to the groom? What was up with that? There had to be some sort of rational explanation for it.

One explanation is that the dowry was "seed money" for the groom. Since men have traditionally supported women (since women got pregnant and squeezed out the babies), the dowry was a leg up to get the family established. That made a great deal of sense.

Gary Becker applied economics to dowries and came up with some interesting conclusions. Where there a shortage of men, dowries are paid. Where there is a shortage of women, bride prices are paid.

These days many women are whining there is shortage of "good men." (My standard answer is they are right where you left them - back in your 20's.)

Maristella Botticini and Aloysius Siow, back in early 2002, claimed "the modern disappearance of dowries is due to a change in the environment for producing bridal wealth and not to a change in the relative values of brides versus grooms. Thus brideprices do not have to appear when dowries disappear."

In other words, when women make more money, the dowry disappears. However, these days women make as much (and sometimes more) money than men not because they qualified, but because of Affirmative Action and the fear of lawsuits.

While dowries have disappeared, bride prices have not - to women. That will change, too. And is changing, since so many men have decided it's no longer worth it to get married. They will no longer pay the bride price, which means there is no longer a shortage of women and instead there is a shortage of men. At least, a perceived shortage of certain men.

These changes, of course, have caused major changes in the marriage market, since women are complaining they are educated (actually "schooled") and make a good salary, so where are all the acceptable men? Kicked out of schools and high-paying jobs by government edict, that's where.

Women who don't believe this might want to talk to men. I have seen it happen to my friends and to many men who are just acquaintances.

In other words, there is a shortage of men acceptable to these women. These women (and this is both amusing and tragic) don't have a clue as to what the real problems are. Typically, they blame everything on men, which is one of the major flaws of women.

However, since there are more "schooled" women than men, the logical conclusion is that since there is a shortage of men, the price of men goes up, so women have to pay more to get them. Hence, bring back the dowry.

Of course, this will never happen, no matter how logical it is.

Actually, I'm not serious about this, but it is fun bringing these things up with women, some of whom get completely outraged because it intrudes into their groovy little fantasy worlds and the cognitive dissonance makes their brains blow up.

What really makes them throw seizures is when I tell them they should save up $20,000 or so and use it as a dowry to pay for a husband. I have found that is a really good one.

Instead, all those lazy slackers out there are supposed to crush themselves going to college, then graduate with even more crushing debt, somehow find a high-paying job when they are damned scarce...and when this doesn't happen, it's all their fault.

But it's not. Wages stopped going up in 1973, courtesy of our meddling government and most especially because of the inflationary policies of the completely illegal Federal Reserve Bank. So, unless a man gets a degree in STEM (science, technology, engineering, science) or else works his butt off establishing a business, he's pretty much fucked. Unlike women with worthless degrees (teaching, human resources) who get handed high-paying jobs over more-qualified and more competent men.

For that matter, if there is such a shortage of men, men should not ask women out, or pay their way, or any of the other things men traditionally do. Let women do these things.

Of course, that's not going to happen, and I'm not serious about it, anyway. But it is an amusing thought-experiment, and proves (to my satisfaction) that a fair number of women want the advantages of both men and women and none of the responsibilities.

And what are they supposed to get out of all this? Women who aren't worth it, and don't even know it. And when told about it, certainly aren't going to believe it.

What to do? Women can lower their standards (snicker), they can support men (that won't last, because no man wants that, except for the lower-class ones), or men can be paid a lot more than women (which is what again is going to happen in the long run, after everything collapses).

Feminism doesn't need to be slain. Just take away government support from it (that's how it got going in the first place). It'll die a natural death, if you can consider a vampire evaporating in the sunlight a natural death.

In the meantime, women are going to continue in the frustrations, ending up as bitter spinsters with cats or big male dogs, blaming all their problems on men, and never understanding what the problem is.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Turtle (#0)

In China, the Grrrrls are doing "Rent a Date", and pay for everything, including a fee to find a date to an agency. www.examiner.com/article/...d-a-new-booming-business- with-no-strings-attached

Ah the sands, they can shift quickly.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-11   16:34:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Turtle (#0)

Today a woman's education is her dowry. She pays her own way and doesn't need a male to support her.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-11   17:43:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Lysander_Spooner (#1)

Interesting in light of the one child per family policy resulting in a 1.2-to-1 male to female ration.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-11   17:44:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Ada (#3)

I hear ya'

Had me wondering also, perhaps there are so few quality males that the ladies are fighting over the few.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-11   17:47:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Ada (#2)

Today a woman's education is her dowry.

Absolute proof that they're dumbing us down.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-11   19:09:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Lysander_Spooner (#4)

Two generations ago these women were at the disposal of their fathers who arranged marriages, sold them into concubinage or sent them to be servants. This generation works in factories and has a little bit of disposable income. Being able to control the dating situation is an enormous luxury for them. (The person who pays for the date gets to pick and choose.) Nothing like having a bit of money to make a person picky.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-11   19:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: noone222 (#5)

Would you rather marry a woman educated to be a doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc. or an uneducated woman with a $100,000 dowry? KIM that in the Arab countries a woman's dowry is her own to spend as she likes and can take it with her in the event of divorce.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-11   19:21:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Ada (#7)

Would you rather marry a woman educated to be a doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc. or an uneducated woman with a $100,000 dowry?

Please, the "M" word gives me a rash.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-11   19:41:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: noone222, Ada (#8)

Don’t Marry Career Women

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women–even those with a “feminist” outlook–are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse’s parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married–it’s just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.

To be clear, we’re not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a “career girl” has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research).

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do “market” or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do “non-market” or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases–if, for example, both spouses have careers–the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women’s work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men’s work hours often have no statistical effect. “I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed,” Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”

The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they’ll meet someone they like more than you. “The work environment provides a host of potential partners,” researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, “and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals.”

There’s more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

And if the cheating leads to divorce, you’re really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on “Marriage and Divorce’s Impact on Wealth,” published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.

So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual “happiness.” There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled “What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?” marriage is positively associated with “better outcomes for children under most circumstances,” higher earnings for adult men, and “being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality.” In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.

A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it’s important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn’t mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.

1. You are less likely to get married to her.

So say Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite of the University of Michigan’s Michigan Retirement Research Center. In a paper, “Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses”, published in April, 2000, they found that for white women, higher earnings, more hours of employment and higher wages while single all reduce the chances of marriage. “This suggests that (1) success in the labor market makes it harder for women to make a marital match, (2) women with relatively high wages and earnings search less intensively for a match, or (3) successful women have higher standards for an acceptable match than women who work less and earn less.” Some research suggests the opposite is true for black women.

Source: “Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses,” Lee A. Lillard, Linda J. Waite, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center, Working Papers, April, 2000.

2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women’s work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men’s work hours often have no statistical effect. “I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed,” Johnson said. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”

Sources: “A Treatise On The Family,” Gary S. Becker, Harvard University Press, 1981; “Do Long Work Hours Contribute To Divorce?” John H. Johnson, Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2004; “Wives’ Employment and Spouses’ Marital Happiness,” Robert Schoen, Stacy J. Rogers, Paul R. Amato, Journal of Family Issues, April 2006.

3. She is more likely to cheat on you.

According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) One April, 2005 study, by Adrian J. Blow for the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy summed it up: “If a woman has more education than her partner, she is more likely to have a sexual relationship outside of her primary relationship; if her husband has more education, she is less likely to engage in infidelity.” Additionally individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat. “In a more general sense, it appears that employment has significantly influenced infidelity over the years,” Blow said. “The work environment provides a host of potential partners, and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals.”

Source: “Infidelity in Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review,” Adrian J. Blow, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, April 2005.

4. You are much less likely to have kids.

According to the National Marriage Project, the incidence of childlessness is growing across the socioeconomic scale. In 2004, 20% of women over 40 remained childless. Thirty years ago that figure was 10%. But the problem–and it is a problem because the vast majority of women desire children–is much more extreme for career women. According to Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, only 51% of ultra-achieving women (those earning more than $100,000 a year) have had children by age 40. Among comparable men, the figure was 81%. A third of less successful working women (earning either $55,000 or $65,000) were also childless at age 40.

Sources: The State of Our Unions 2006: Life Without Children, The National Marriage Project, July 2006. Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Miramax Books, 2002.

5. If you do have kids, your wife is more likely to be unhappy.

A 2003 study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family concluded that wealthier couples with children suffer a drop in marital satisfaction three times as great as their less affluent peers. One of the study’s co-authors publicly speculated that the reason is that wealthier women are used to “a professional life, a fun, active, entertaining life.”

Sources: “Parenthood and Martial Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell, and Craig A. Foster, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003; “Money doesn’t mean happy parenting,” USA Today, July 21, 2003.

6. Your house will be dirtier.

In 2005, two University of Michigan scientists concluded that if your wife has a job earning more than $15 an hour (roughly $30,000 a year), she will do 1.9 hours less housework a week. Of course, this can be solved if the husband picks up a broom.

Source: “Data Quality of Housework Hours in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Who Really Does The Dishes?”, Alexandra C. Achen and Frank P. Stafford, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, September 2005.

7. You’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you.

You aren’t going to like it if she makes more than you do: “Married men’s well- being is significantly lower when married women’s proportional contributions to the total family income are increased.”

Source: “Changes in Wives’ Income: Effects on Marital Happiness, Psychological Well-Being, and the Risk of Divorce,” Stacy J. Rogers, Danelle D. DeBoer, Journal of Marriage and Family, May 2001

8. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.

According to the authors of a controversial 2006 study: “American wives, even wives who hold more feminist views about working women and the division of household tasks, are typically happier when their husband earns 68% or more of the household income.” Reason? “Husbands who are successful breadwinners probably give their wives the opportunity to make more choices about work and family–e.g., working part-time, staying home, or pursuing a meaningful but not particularly remunerative job.”

Sources: What’s Love Got To Do With It? W. Bradford Wilcox, Steven L. Nock, Social Forces, March, 2006; http://www.happiestwives.org.

9. You are more likely to fall ill.

A 2001 study found that having a wife who works less than 40 hours a week has no impact on your health, but having a wife who works more than 40 hours a week has “substantial, statistically significant, negative effects on changes in her husband’s health over that time span.” The author of another study summarizes that “wives working longer hours not do not have adequate time to monitor their husband’s health and healthy behavior, to manage their husband’s emotional well- being or buffer his workplace stress.”

Sources: “It’s About Time and Gender: Spousal Employment and Health,” Ross M. Stolzenberg, American Journal of Sociology, July, 2001; “Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses,” Lee A. Lillard, Linda J. Waite, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center, Working Papers, April, 2000.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-11   22:54:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Lysander_Spooner (#9)

This is not the '50s. In the average family the wife's job/career is a financial safety net for the family which takes pressure off the husband.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-12   8:13:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Ada (#10)

1. This is not the '50s. 2.wife's job/career is a financial safety net for the family which takes pressure off the husband.

1. Thank Gawd, the 50's music sucked, sucked, sucked, did I say succckkk?

2. Not in more than 50% of the so-called families, the wife bolts, takes the man's stuff, or kicks him out of his own house, then there are liars(lawyers), custody battles, alimony, child support. The net worth of a man after divorce is reduced 77%, some effn help is a wife, and a career gal increases the likely hood of wifey bolting.

Quite frankly the deal feminism and traditionalism have given men, sucks like 50's music.

"You can't live with them and you can't live with them".

I have concluded the only solution, if you get involved with one of them, is to have them live down the road.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-12   17:21:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Lysander_Spooner (#11)

The net worth of a man after divorce is reduced 77%, some effn help is a wife, and a career gal increases the likely hood of wifey bolting.

All the more reason to marry a woman with a good job/career. If she makes more than you, she isn't going to ask for alimony. If fact, she'll be worried that you will. You might even be able to collect child support.

Divorce happens when one party wants to remarry. If neither do, simply live apart and avoid one another.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-12   18:32:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Turtle (#12)

This is off topic, Bob, but I have a challenge for you. Here is a link to a documentary that I would like for you to watch. This presentation is superb and I believe you will be favorably impressed. My challenge to you is this: please watch and then tell me if you can STILL validate your assertion that conspiracies do not exist.

Definition of conspiracy- 1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators
b : a group of conspirators syn see plot

http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie

christine  posted on  2013-02-13   21:42:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Lysander_Spooner, Ada (#9)

The social environment these days is not conducive to a happy family situation. Family requires sacrifice that many adults aren't ready to make. The disposable age has made divorce acceptable and relatively easy even though it's expensive. The damage to a family by divorce cannot be easily accounted because sometimes it doesn't show up for many years when the children of divorce get married.

A large majority of women never learn to deal with their menstrual cycle (and neither do most men). Besides being nearly insane for 2 weeks per month the additional stress caused by the demands upon a professional woman make a happy home less likely than could be had in an economy where one person's income is sufficient to support the household. On top of that, whether right or wrong, the woman is still expected to perform the duties of a housewife which alone are a full-time profession and critical to instilling values for the future of their children.

Children need the discipline and love of a full time parent in the home, otherwise they get a good deal of their upbringing from other kids whose parents aren't at home either. It's no accident that teen-age suicide rates are higher, as are most other adolescent delinquency rates. I think parents are being taxed out of the home. One parent has a difficult time providing for the family - AFTER TAXES ARE EXTRACTED. [Lawmakers continually make or expand laws that prevent parents from properly raising their children or alter educational standards to indoctrinate immoral / depraved social behaviors].

If we're only talking about a couple without the intent of having children then none of the above really matters. But what we have today is a situation where in the majority of cases it takes two adults to support a family and people have children that do not get the necessary attention that they truly need. That's why the rates of abortions or illegitimate children amongst whites has reached the same pathetic level as was/is the rate amongst blacks that have suffered the lack of a male/father figure in their homes since LBJ and the Welfare System created by the GREAT SOCIETY removed them.

I can't help thinking that while we've made much progress technologically that should and in most cases does lighten our daily load, we've lost some of the interaction between family members that was required in the past to make things work and at the same time built the bonds that made the family and the nation strong.

I don't have anything against women in the work place, equal pay for equal production, or any of the issues related to making it fair for women to earn a living or pursue a profession. The raising of children changes everything (IMHO).

There's a war on for our children's minds and souls. Families with both parents working definitely operate at great disadvantage. Destruction of the family leads to the destruction of the nation.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-14   6:49:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: noone222 (#14)

the woman is still expected to perform the duties of a housewife which alone are a full-time profession and critical to instilling values for the future of their children

The modern husband does at least some housework these days--usually not 50% but at least some. And I know at least one househusband.

If you were to draw up a marriage contract, what would you include as grounds for divorce, if any, and the division of property?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-14   13:29:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Ada (#15)

If you were to draw up a marriage contract, what would you include as grounds for divorce, if any, and the division of property?

I wouldn't. Dissolution is far too easy and makes a mockery of the contract.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-14   13:42:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Ada, noone222, 4 (#15)

One thing that I'd do differently is to NOT have the state involved with my marriage.

To ask permission of those ass-hats is just insane, I learned too late...

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2013-02-14   14:04:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Ada (#12)

more reason to marry

There is no reason to marriage, it is an instrument of the State.

"(It) is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force" - G. Washington

I prefer freedom.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-15   10:21:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: noone222 (#14)

Destruction of the family leads to the destruction of the nation.

I'd say it is pretty much mission accomplished.

The State, has in far too many so-called families replaced Dad, and the assault continues with VAWA, so-called Family Court, welfare(something like 90% of single mothers get welfare, bye Dad), etc., etc. etc.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-15   10:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Lysander_Spooner (#18)

There is no reason to marriage, it is an instrument of the State.

There were people marrying before there were states; but, yes, the state has put its oar into what used to be a contract between two families. I might agree if you say the state is an unwanted third party to the contract.

Children must be protected somehow. We are social animals and without children society will die. In a matriarchal society, fatherhood (and therefore marriage) is unimportant because the mother's clan protects the children. The mother's clan includes males who protect and provide.

Today we have an underclass of females and children who are essentially married to the state. No males present. I suspect that you do not approve.

Question is how would you order society to suit your libertarian outlook? Abolish children?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-15   20:06:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Ada (#20)

Question is how would you order society to suit your libertarian outlook? Abolish children?

Abolishing children certainly would solve many of man kinds problems....lol.

I think the Child Catcher in the old movie "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" already tried that, but without much luck.

I think replacing Dad with The State has really worked out smashingly well for all those empowered, awesome, independent and full of potential women and children ;)

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-18   14:24:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Lysander_Spooner (#21)

I think replacing Dad with The State has really worked out smashingly well for all those empowered, awesome, independent and full of potential women and children ;)

How about orphanages? Might be neater than foster parents. Of course, its still the State raising the children and you can't depend on it to inculcate libertarian virtues.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-18   19:26:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Ada (#20)

In a matriarchal society

Never existed and never will.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-18   21:37:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Turtle (#23)

Never existed and never will.

I disagree unless you are defining matriarchal as the direct opposite of patriarchal. Matriarchal is where property is descended through the female line. These societies (like the Iroquois)develop where the males are primarily engaged in warfare and the women have to keep society together.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-19   14:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: noone222 (#16)

I wouldn't. Dissolution is far too easy and makes a mockery of the contract.

Contracts are dissolved all the time but that doesn't make them invalid. Marriage contracts, now very popular for second marriages and some first, are difficult to challenge and generally ironclad unless signed under duress.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-19   14:32:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Ada (#25)

unless signed under duress.

That's the only way I'd ever sign one.

We should all be livid. Stop acting like docile, mentally castrated pussies and grow a pair. It's time to get in their face. Why should we speak in hushed tones and act all polite when we are being raped every day?

noone222  posted on  2013-02-19   14:33:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Lysander_Spooner (#18)

I prefer freedom.

We all love freedom. Every knucklehead, in fact, loves freedom.

No one particularly loves duty. I believe that our forebears on this continent has as high a regard for the latter as they did the former.

That may not be quite as true of the general run of Americans as it once was.

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2013-02-19   15:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: noone222 (#26)

That's the only way I'd ever sign one.

Its usually women who sign a marriage contract under duress. The rich would-be groom arrives in the church vestibule with his lawyers and tells the would-be bride that the ceremony is off unless she signs. So she does but it won't hold up in court.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-19   21:08:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: randge (#27)

Marriage is just another form of slavery today and I'll have nothing to do with it.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

Marriage secrets

THE PAIR-BOND IS NOT MALE MONOPOLY BUT A ‘GUARDING’ SERVICE TO THE FEMALE, AND A SHACKLE NOT ON THE WOMAN BUT ON THE MAN. It’s always been assumed that marriage – the cultural ‘encoding’ of an underlying evolved universal facility to pair-bond that underpins any form of non-casual sexual partnership (and not just in humans but generically across nature) – is all about the male securing control over a female’s reproduction; her fertility. Supposedly, the woman is shackled from having sex with other men, providing the husband with a reasonable guarantee than any children are his.

So much for assumption: it’s false. ‘Marriage’ is now being revealed actually to be much more in line with how men have suspected it really works all along.

There would seem to be two complementary aspects underpinning the human pair- bond. First, there is male mate-guarding (to use the biological term). Male mate-guarding is not to keep the female on a tight leash; at least not for the male’s benefit. If functions instead as a service to the female: to keep away ‘losers’. It hardly can be as usually conceived, given that a female has little problem having sex outside the partnership with a male of her choosing when she really wants to.

To read the rest:

www.avoiceformen.com/women/hypergamy/marriage-secrets/

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-20   17:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Ada (#25)

Marriage contracts, now very popular for second marriages and some first, are difficult to challenge and generally ironclad unless signed under duress.

You are delusional, have you never heard of No-Fault Divorce.

Marriage as a contract is a complete and utter farce.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-20   17:40:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Ada (#22)

Not sure if you knew I was being completely sarcastic with that post.

The State should not raise children in my view, it shouldn't raise anything, not even a flag.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-20   17:43:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Lysander_Spooner (#30)

You are delusional, have you never heard of No-Fault Divorce.

I was thinking of a pre-nup which sets out what happens in case of divorce. It primarily protects property but can also affect custody of children. Sometimes protects the potential inheritance of adult children from a first marriage.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-20   18:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Turtle (#0)

However, these days women make as much (and sometimes more) money than men not because they qualified, but because of Affirmative Action and the fear of lawsuits.

Stopped reading right there.

Ya fell off your rocker horse, man.

"Satan / Cheney in "08" Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

tom007  posted on  2013-02-20   18:32:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Lysander_Spooner (#31)

The State should not raise children in my view, it shouldn't raise anything, not even a flag.

I would agree but somebody or something will have to do it.

Difficult to pin down libertarians regarding children. I had one tell me that children could be independent at the age of 5. Currently with our high illegitimacy rate many children are raised by single mothers and not all of them are on welfare.

Maybe the Spartan way is the way of the future.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-20   18:33:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: tom007 (#33) (Edited)

Ya fell off your rocker horse, man.

Start applying for jobs and see what happens.

HR is a worthless degree. And see how many times you are interviewed by clueless women and not men.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-20   19:44:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Ada (#32)

pre-nup

OK, sorry about the delusional comment.

But, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on, often cost $3-5K and judges routinely throw them in the trash prior to the so-called No-Fault Divorce.

If you want to protect your children's inheritance, put it in a will, and don't get married.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-21   14:33:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Ada (#34)

Spartan way

At age 7, give the child to the State, not the answer.

Today, most give their children at age 5, kindergarten, the results have been dismal.

I would say, my answer to orphans, would be Charity, and to disengage the State.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-21   14:38:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Lysander_Spooner (#36)

But, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on, often cost $3-5K and judges routinely throw them in the trash prior to the so-called No-Fault Divorce.

Not any more. These days properly drawn prenups are rarely thrown out by the judges. (See http://www.carolannwilson.com/articles/divorce.prenuptial.html)

Ask Donald Trump :-)

Ada  posted on  2013-02-21   17:34:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Lysander_Spooner (#37)

I would say, my answer to orphans, would be Charity, and to disengage the State.

Those Spartan children were not orphans. Mom was there (her husband might be away with the military for 20 years so she availed herself of a helot) but was not into child rearing.

So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-21   17:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Ada (#39)

So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?

Again, Charity.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   10:29:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Ada (#38)

But, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on, often cost $3-5K and judges routinely throw them in the trash prior to the so-called No-Fault Divorce. Not any more. These days properly drawn prenups are rarely thrown out by the judges. (See http://www.carolannwilson.com/articles/divorce.prenuptial.html

Well, I'm not Donald Trump.

In my personal experience, for example a friend of mine, same profession, had a pre-nup, cost him $4000, wifey finds a lawyer, isn't haaaaappy, sues for divorce, she is not supposed to get anything from him, no alimony, no kids-no child support, married 2 years, the judge tosses the pre-nup, he is ordered to pay her $40,000 and alimony for 1 year.

Quite frankly, marriage is dead, and The Statists and the Feminists, or do I repeat meyself, killed it.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   10:35:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Ada (#39)

libertarian

You know, I am not so sure about that label.

I vehemently disagree with gay marriage, and with abortion, and this open immigration thing isn't looking so hot either, so not sure I qualify for the title.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   10:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Ada (#39)

So, again, libertarian: How do parasitical children fit into a libertarian society?

Murray Rothbard said fetuses were parasites and could be aborted because of that fact. As for children, sell 'em if you don't want 'em.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-22   10:43:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Lysander_Spooner (#42)

You know, I am not so sure about that label.

Your handle is that of the US most prominant libertarian. Some libertarians oppose abortion because its aggression. If you oppose marriage, then should should also oppose gay marriage.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:05:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Turtle (#43)

Murray Rothbard said fetuses were parasites and could be aborted because of that fact.

Old people might be parasites too. Live children are parasites until they can earn their own living, and child labor laws ensure that doesn't happen until they are well into their teens.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:08:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Turtle (#43)

As for children, sell 'em if you don't want 'em.

That's just kicking the can down the road unless you mean sell them into slavery or worse.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:11:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Lysander_Spooner (#41)

In my personal experience, for example a friend of mine, same profession, had a pre-nup, cost him $4000, wifey finds a lawyer, isn't haaaaappy, sues for divorce, she is not supposed to get anything from him, no alimony, no kids-no child support, married 2 years, the judge tosses the pre-nup, he is ordered to pay her $40,000 and alimony for 1 year.

The lawyer seems to have written the prenup to please the client with no regard to its legality. From the terms it might be that the wife did not have her own lawyer review and approve it. If so, not surprised at the judge's decision. Your friend should have sued the lawyer for damages.

Few years back judges were more apt to toss out prenups because they thought they violated the sanctity of marriage. Not so anymore.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:16:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Ada (#46)

That's just kicking the can down the road unless you mean sell them into slavery or worse.

You should be able to part them out like cars and sell their organs. Anyway, when I read that Rothbard said fetuses were parasites that's when I decided to take everything he wrote with a boulder of salt.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-22   11:18:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Turtle (#0)

MY wifes Dowry was every single episode of the sci fi show "Babylon Five".

__ Their are only two kinds of americans left in the USA those opposed to the tyranny and those that are wrong. Resist propaganda, Support strict constitutional adherence!

titorite  posted on  2013-02-22   11:19:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Turtle (#48)

Rothbard's was just following most abortion law re fetuses. Legally a woman can abort up until the time the child can live independently, i.e., can breathe on its own.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:25:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: titorite (#49)

MY wifes Dowry was every single episode of the sci fi show "Babylon Five".

Some men might be quite pleased.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   11:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Ada (#44)

Lysander_Spooner

Was an Anarchist.

I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   12:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Ada (#47)

Few years back judges were more apt to toss out prenups because they thought they violated the sanctity of marriage. Not so

I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-22   12:26:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Lysander_Spooner (#53)

I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.

Does this mean if two people don't get married but live together and sign a pre-nup it will stand up in court?

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-22   19:21:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Lysander_Spooner (#52)

I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.

State sanctioned marriage is relatively recent and no reason why it cannot be abolished. Used to be marriage was enforced by families but around the 10th-11th centuries the Church decided it was in charge and started making rules.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-22   20:35:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Ada (#44)

Some libertarians oppose abortion because its aggression.

exactly!


A study group recently released its findings as to the best presidents of the United States of America.

Obama has been rated as the 4th best president ever:

Reagan and 9 others tied for first, 15 presidents tied for second, 18 tied for third, and Obama came in fourth.

farmfriend  posted on  2013-02-23   1:15:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Lysander_Spooner (#52)

I oppose State sanctioned marriage, of whatever stripe.

Do you support marriage at all?

Ada  posted on  2013-02-23   14:43:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Lysander_Spooner (#53)

I still take exception to this, and would advise anyone of sound mind to not sign a marriage license.

An argument for marriage:

Married couples are richer

By Judy Martel · Bankrate.com

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Whatever your feelings are about taking a trip down the aisle, being in a long- term marriage could leave you up to four times richer than your single or divorced peers.

NBC News reports that there are a variety of reasons for this. Married couples can take advantage of economies of scale, allowing them to build wealth faster. Couples can also divide and conquer when it comes to household and financial responsibilities, while sharing the expenses. For example: When one spouse helps with household duties, the other can concentrate on getting ahead in a career.

Couples who stay married could end up four times richer than their single or divorced peers.

Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at The Ohio State University, told NBC that his research shows people in long-term marriages each have about twice as much wealth as single people who never married. Together, a couple's wealth is four times that of a single person's. He added that the key is to stay married. In his research, those who get divorced see a dramatic decline in wealth, leaving them in worse financial straits than those who never married.

Interestingly, couples in a committed relationship, but not married, don't fare as well as married couples, Zagorsky says. He believes it's because they don't fully commit to sharing their finances and expenses.

Finally, there's also a demographic element behind the statistics: Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, says the people getting married are more affluent to begin with, and more educated. They are also less likely to get divorced, perhaps because they don't have the financial pressures of less educated, financially strapped couples.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/married-couples-are- richer/#ixzz2LpDwMv7a Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

Ada  posted on  2013-02-24   9:05:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Ada (#57)

Do you support marriage at all?

I believe marriage is a sacrament, an agreement between two people and their God.

If one does not believe in God, it is simply a contract.

Modern State sanctioned marriage has destroyed the sacramental nature of marriage and the contractual aspect of marriage.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-25   10:55:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Turtle (#54)

"...if two people don't get married but live together and sign a pre-nup it will stand up in court?"

Yes it will, it is called a "Rental Agreement".

A pre-nup without the "nuptials" would not.

A pre-nup with the "nuptials" will on occasion, if the woman gets her "equality", which means, the man gets the shaft. If it is actually reasonable, or the woman gets little or nothing, count on the "circular file" toss from the so-called judge.

Lysander_Spooner  posted on  2013-02-25   11:07:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Lysander_Spooner (#59)

Modern State sanctioned marriage has destroyed the sacramental nature of marriage and the contractual aspect of marriage.

Before the Roman Church declared that marriage was a sacrament, it existed under law. Even the Muslims had to declare, "I divorce thee" three times in order to terminate the marriage. The Hebrews had a written contract that was placed on the wall of the house; and if it was lost or misplaced, there was no marriage, particularly no sex, until it was found or replaced.

Marriage is indeed a contract between two people or two families and enforced by some governing body. The civil government recently decided to be a third party to that contract but the reason for this might be obsolete. (I read somewhere that marriage licenses originated in the South to prevent mixed marriage and it wasn't until 1924 that the requirement reached all states.)

Marriage can be enforced without marriage licenses by laws against bigamy, fraud, etc. You might remember that Benjamin Franklin was not officially married to his "wife" because her husand had abandoned her and they were afraid that he might come back and charge her with bigamy.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-25   12:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Ada (#61) (Edited)

the women had been simmering for a couple years, ever since eve got those tits... oh my, she was lovely, and the guys couldnt get enough of her...

...well, yes they could, because there comes a point when your equipment fails, and that means you've had enough... but that also meant that the rest of the women in the band had to do without, and they were getting cranky... sexually deprived, etc etc etc

so the women finally boiled over and invented marriage, which meant, theoretically at least, they'd get laid once in a while...

this "marriage" business kinda put a kink in the women's philandering, but there were always workarounds

...and men were willing to go along with it, because they did a certain amount of philandering themselves...

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-25   12:13:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: lead.and.lag (#62)

Every so often an rich, famous male with a trophy wife gets caught with a mistress. Generally, the mistress is not half as attractive as the wife (think Prince Charles) The tabloid readers cannot understand it.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-25   15:12:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Ada (#63) (Edited)

paternity was not much of an issue for a long time... people did not have many inheritable possessions because they didnt need them... there wasnt much question about who your mother was, of course, but there was always some wondering about your father, but it didnt matter.

sooner or later, though, property became an issue, and that was the beginning of all kinds of shit...

people noticed that the richest men got the best looking girls, and so on, so men started competing for property --egged on by their wives, who were always looking ahead at potential breeding opportunities for their children... the richest children would attract the most most attractive and/or most prosperous mates, and so on.

but, given that the paternity of a child was always so iffy --given the porousness of the marriage enforcement procedures-- it was obvious that the culture would have to be matrilineal and matriarchal...

that didnt work so good, because the men, already insecure about the paternity of their children, over compensated by going off to bomb iran or invade afghanistan and whatnot

.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-25   17:59:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: All (#64) (Edited)

wars were ritualized into stuff like american football, hockey, soccer, stick fighting, whatever, but that wasnt enough...

so the women set up faux patrilineal societies, and assigned maleness to their gods in an attempt to reassure males...

well, that didnt work either, because technology arrived that gave powerful psychopaths of both sexes a disproportionate amount of power...

so the wars continued, and although the wars provided many an opportunity for satisfying amounts of wailing, tooth gnashing, hand wringing and whatnot, and great opportunities for the advancement of cheerleaders and rally girls, war was destroying too much wealth... even though the psychopaths, drama queens and mamas' boys got rich from the wars.

.

*shrug*

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-25   18:28:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: lead.and.lag (#64) (Edited)

The social status of the mother was important. Abraham's heir was the son of his prime wife not his concubine's. (Sorry Muslims). Cyrus I of Persia had a perfectly good son by his wife but once he conquered the country and married the king's daughter there was no question that her son would be his heir.

Just like the children of alpha females among the animals have higher social status and more advantages than those of the scrubs.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-25   20:24:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Ada (#66)

men have always been hobbled by this "women and children first" mentality, havent they?

as it becomes more obvious that we dont need women as breeders, and we dont need more children, then what?

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-25   21:24:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: lead.and.lag (#67)

as it becomes more obvious that we dont need women as breeders, and we dont need more children, then what?

If not women, who? Children, true, are now a liability rather than an asset but that's another question. The best that can be said is that we need some group to pay for the debts we are racking up. Its either them or illegal immigrants and I don't think our little brown brothers are going to want to pay for our Social Security.

Ada  posted on  2013-02-26   11:00:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Ada (#68) (Edited)

pay for our Social Security

well, as a diehard libertarian, i think we should let the market's invisible hand deal with old people...

it ought to be fairly easy to quantify... once your upkeep costs more than you produce, you are sent to the recycling center.

.

and speaking as a diehard feminist.... there's something else here, too, about breeding better people... what we should do is collect semen from every male once he's old enough to ejaculate, then freeze the stuff and file it away...

...give the kid... say, 30 years to prove himself... if he hasnt emerged as a world beater by then, dispose of this sperm.

meanwhile, of course, nobody would be allowed to breed on their own hook... once young men had deposited their sperm in the bank, they'd be vasectomized, so people could fuck to their hearts content and not have to worry about kids.

the computers would determine the number of kids necessary to keep the system running, and superior women would be inseminated with sperm from the bank...

with any luck at all, we'd be able to develop reliable ways to clone women, and then there'd be no need for men, at all.

.

on the other hand, the sperm banks could become a great new revenue stream for the non-existent libertarian government, as the price of sperm would be regulated so only the richest --aka most worthy-- women could afford sperm.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-26   11:10:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: lead.and.lag (#69)

you are sent to the recycling center.

Soylent Green. Hmmm...they can be turned into some kind of paste squeezed out of tubes.

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2013-02-26   11:19:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Turtle (#70) (Edited)

Soylent Green

well, admittedly thare's a few cultural taboos that will have to be dealt with.

shouldnt be any problem once the internet is sanitized and the big media is standardized.

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-26   11:21:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: All (#71) (Edited)

the big problem, apparently, will be convincing the rest of the world to go along with this grand plan...

...but that's what our nuclear primacy is about, isnt it?

lead.and.lag  posted on  2013-02-26   11:39:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: lead.and.lag (#72)

he big problem, apparently, will be convincing the rest of the world to go along with this grand plan...

The Indians figured it out a while back:

At Largest Religious Festival, Some Abandon Elderly

At the Maha Kumbh Mela in India, families ditch older relatives in the crowds. .

Lost Hindu pilgrims wait for their relatives in a camp south of the eastern Indian city of Kolkata.

Photograph by Parth Sanyal, Reuters .

Laura Spinney

for National Geographic News

Published February 22, 2013

Every 12 years, the northern Indian city of Allahabad plays host to a vast gathering of Hindu pilgrims called the Maha Kumbh Mela. This year, Allahabad is expected to host an estimated 80 million pilgrims between January and March. (See Kumbh Mela: Pictures From the Hindu Holy Festival)

People come to Allahabad to wash away their sins in the sacred River Ganges. For many it's the realization of their life's goal, and they emerge feeling joyful and rejuvenated. But there is also a darker side to the world's largest religious gathering, as some take advantage of the swirling crowds to abandon elderly relatives.

"They wait for this Maha Kumbh because many people are there so nobody will know," said one human rights activist who has helped people in this predicament and who wished to remain anonymous. "Old people have become useless, they don't want to look after them, so they leave them and go."

Anshu Malviya, an Allahabad-based social worker, confirmed that both men and women have been abandoned during the religious event, though it has happened more often to elderly widows. Numbers are hard to come by, since many people genuinely become separated from their groups in the crowd, and those who have been abandoned may not admit it. But Malviya estimates that dozens of people are deliberately abandoned during a Maha Kumbh Mela, at a very rough guess.

To a foreigner, it seems puzzling that these people are not capable of finding their own way home. Malviya smiles. "If you were Indian," he said, "you wouldn't be puzzled. Often they have never left their homes. They are not educated, they don't work. A lot of the time they don't even know which district their village is in."

Once the crowd disperses and the volunteer-run lost-and-found camps that provide temporary respite have packed away their tents, the abandoned elderly may have the option of entering a government-run shelter. Conditions are notoriously bad in these homes, however, and many prefer to remain on the streets, begging. Some gravitate to other holy cities such as Varanasi or Vrindavan where, if they're lucky, they are taken in by temples or charity-funded shelters.

In these cities, they join a much larger population, predominantly women, whose families no longer wish to support them, and who have been brought there because, in the Hindu religion, to die in these holy cities is to achieve moksha or Nirvana. Mohini Giri, a Delhi-based campaigner for women's rights and former chair of India's National Commission for Women, estimates that there are 10,000 such women in Varanasi and 16,000 in Vrindavan.

But even these women are just the tip of the iceberg, says economist Jean Drèze of the University of Allahabad, who has campaigned on social issues in India since 1979. "For one woman who has been explicitly parked in Vrindavan or Varanasi, there are a thousand or ten thousand who are living next door to their sons and are as good as abandoned, literally kept on a starvation diet," he said.

According to the Hindu ideal, a woman should be looked after until the end of her life by her male relatives—with responsibility for her shifting from her father to her husband to her son. But Martha Chen, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University who published a study of widows in India in 2001, found that the reality was often very different.

Chen's survey of 562 widows of different ages revealed that about half of them were supporting themselves in households that did not include an adult male— either living alone, or with young children or other single women. Many of those who did live with their families reported harassment or even violence.

According to Drèze, the situation hasn't changed since Chen's study, despite the economic growth that has taken place in India, because widows remain vulnerable due to their lack of education and employment. In 2010, the World Bank reported that only 29 percent of the Indian workforce was female. Moreover, despite changes in the law designed to protect women's rights to property, in practice sons predominantly inherit from their parents—leaving women eternally dependent on men. In a country where 37 percent of the population still lives below the poverty line, elderly dependent relatives fall low on many people's lists of priorities.

This bleak picture is all too familiar to Devshran Singh, who oversees the Durga Kund old people's home in Varanasi. People don't pay toward the upkeep of their relatives, he said, and they rarely visit. In one case, a doctor brought an old woman to Durga Kund claiming she had been abandoned. After he had gone, the woman revealed that the doctor was her son. "In modern life," said Singh, "people don't have time for their elderly."

Drèze is currently campaigning for pensions for the elderly, including widows. Giri is working to make more women aware of their rights. And most experts agree that education, which is increasingly accessible to girls in India, will help improve women's plight. "Education is a big force of social change," said Drèze. "There's no doubt about that."

Ada  posted on  2013-02-26   17:37:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest