The decline of Asian marriage

[Isha]

I am sure that many women in the past got married since they needed a husband as a provider or their parents forced them into marriage.

That's true nowadays too.

[GuyInTaiwan]

Trubador, I like your post but I wonder if the old ideas actually provided fulfillment. I would guess that many people were not fulfilled by marriage and family but that it was the cultural norm and hard to not be part of.

I am sure that many women in the past got married since they needed a husband as a provider or their parents forced them into marriage.

From the studies I've read about (I can't provide any links), it seems that modern women are not particularly fulfilled though. Likewise with modern men.

This aside though, I place the relevance of a cultural practice on how well it leads that culture to survive. If a cultural practice actively works against reproducing said culture (and I'd say the fertility rates in East Asia, and to a slightly lesser extent, those in Europe, are pretty alarming), then I find it highly suspicious.

It may be that the old ways were flawed. However, they occurred over a much longer time period, and were, to some extent, a suitable cultural adaptation. To throw them out and not replace them with a suitable alternative is extremely dangerous and short-sighted, I believe, though perhaps it will always take a couple of generations for the dust and blood of a revolution to settle.

[steelersman]

Trubador, I like your post but I wonder if the old ideas actually provided fulfillment. I would guess that many people were not fulfilled by marriage and family but that it was the cultural norm and hard to not be part of.

I am sure that many women in the past got married since they needed a husband as a provider or their parents forced them into marriage.

From the studies I've read about (I can't provide any links), it seems that modern women are not particularly fulfilled though. Likewise with modern men.

This aside though, I place the relevance of a cultural practice on how well it leads that culture to survive. If a cultural practice actively works against reproducing said culture (and I'd say the fertility rates in East Asia, and to a slightly lesser extent, those in Europe, are pretty alarming), then I find it highly suspicious.

It may be that the old ways were flawed. However, they occurred over a much longer time period, and were, to some extent, a suitable cultural adaptation. To throw them out and not replace them with a suitable alternative is extremely dangerous and short-sighted, I believe, though perhaps it will always take a couple of generations for the dust and blood of a revolution to settle.

Actually, I think that people in Asia not producing is a good thing. Less people on earth thus putting less strain on limited resources. One should applaud lower birth rates in Europe and Asia.

[GuyInTaiwan]

steelersman: No, they shouldn't. Great civilisations should not go silently into the night. Fifty years from now, Europe will be a mere shadow of its former self, barely recognisable as the place that produced Da Vinci and Newton. It will enter a new Dark Ages. Likewise, what of the glorious civilisations of East Asia that will wither away? Populate or Perish.

[steelersman]

In the future there may be many more interesting civilizations to talk about. There are many great ancient civilizations that we don't know much about.

[GuyInTaiwan]

In the future there may be many more interesting civilizations to talk about. There are many great ancient civilizations that we don't know much about.

Isn't the second one my point though? In some cases they were eclipsed by something better. In some cases they were merely eclipsed by something stronger. The barbarians who crossed the Rhine and the Danube destroyed a higher, yet weaker, civilisation. It took Europe about one thousand years to rise out of those Dark Ages.

[finley]

steelersman: No, they shouldn't. Great civilisations should not go silently into the night. Fifty years from now, Europe will be a mere shadow of its former self, barely recognisable as the place that produced Da Vinci and Newton. It will enter a new Dark Ages. Likewise, what of the glorious civilisations of East Asia that will wither away? Populate or Perish.

Pure population numbers don't make a great civilisation though. Look at China and India. A couple of billion dolts, mostly, who would pick up a gun and fight with other dolts if they were told to. I agree that Europe will probably become a shadow of its former self, but not because they don't have enough people. The population of Europe in the 15th century was about one-tenth of what it is now, and most of them were dolts too. There just happened to be a culture that allowed outstanding people to flourish. Who knows - maybe the 'big fish in a small pond' had a lot to do with it. As for Asia, is there really anything much left of the culture worth preserving? Most of the more valuable aspects have been corrupted beyond repair, and there are plenty of other aspects that thoroughly deserve to die in a historical ditch.

Anyway, surely the main point of marriage is that it provides a stable environment for kids to grow up in, and as far as that goes, it worked. Other aspects of the marriage "contract" are theoretically pretty flexible. If you've read Ursula K LeGuin's science fiction, she has a bit of a preoccupation with that particular topic. Some of the things that people point to as "unfulfilling" - such as the perceived need to conform with middle-class suburban expectations and "settle down" - are actually nothing to do with marriage at all.

People whine far too much about the "rights" of parents to work ungodly hours and leave their kids with strangers, to raise a child in a single-parent or single-sex family, with the kid being treated as little better than a pet or a piece of property to be fought over during the divorce, or as something to fill a hole in the parent's flawed psyche. The depressing thing is that (as per tommy's post the other day) it's the people who are least suitable parents who insist on actually breeding.

[GuyInTaiwan]

steelersman: No, they shouldn't. Great civilisations should not go silently into the night. Fifty years from now, Europe will be a mere shadow of its former self, barely recognisable as the place that produced Da Vinci and Newton. It will enter a new Dark Ages. Likewise, what of the glorious civilisations of East Asia that will wither away? Populate or Perish.

Pure population numbers don't make a great civilisation though. Look at China and India. A couple of billion dolts, mostly, who would pick up a gun and fight with other dolts if they were told to. I agree that Europe will probably become a shadow of its former self, but not because they don't have enough people. The population of Europe in the 15th century was about one-tenth of what it is now, and most of them were dolts too. There just happened to be a culture that allowed outstanding people to flourish. Who knows - maybe the 'big fish in a small pond' had a lot to do with it. As for Asia, is there really anything much left of the culture worth preserving? Most of the more valuable aspects have been corrupted beyond repair, and there are plenty of other aspects that thoroughly deserve to die in a historical ditch.

Sure. I'm not talking about actual numbers. I'm talking about relative numbers, especially within societies. Europe has run a social experiment with multiculturalism that has failed dreadfully. Even politicians are beginning to admit this now. It has also run a terrible social experiment with its indigenous chav population.

Anyway, surely the main point of marriage is that it provides a stable environment for kids to grow up in, and as far as that goes, it worked. Other aspects of the marriage "contract" are theoretically pretty flexible. If you've read Ursula K LeGuin's science fiction, she has a bit of a preoccupation with that particular topic. Some of the things that people point to as "unfulfilling" - such as the perceived need to conform with middle-class suburban expectations and "settle down" - are actually nothing to do with marriage at all.

I have read several of her books. I first read The Dispossessed and really liked it. The others I have read were not so good.

What I would say about marriage in the modern age is that it isn't providing a stable environment for kids to grow up in, both here and abroad. In this respect, I would say that the U.K. is actually one of the worst countries. The U.K. has fostered a completely dysfunctional society, as shown by those riots last year. Teaching in schools in London, I often felt that I was in the middle of a war zone. I also felt the less safe in the U.K. than anywhere else I've been because violence in the U.K. is so random. Service and general daily interactions with strangers were also really horrible far more often than elsewhere that I've been.

People whine far too much about the "rights" of parents to work ungodly hours and leave their kids with strangers, to raise a child in a single-parent or single-sex family, with the kid being treated as little better than a pet or a piece of property to be fought over during the divorce, or as something to fill a hole in the parent's flawed psyche. The depressing thing is that (as per tommy's post the other day) it's the people who are least suitable parents who insist on actually breeding.

I agree entirely.