Not only is Western marriage based upon romantic love, this is a key attribute that distinguishes Western civilization from most other cultures.

"Individualistic Marriage: Consent, Love, and Companionship as the Basis of Marriage

"The rise of the simple household based on consent between the partners meant that personal qualities of the mate became more important compared to the situation where families are enmeshed in extended kinship relationships. In situations where the extended family reigns supreme, marriage is typically consanguineous and affected by family strategizing. In the simple household system, the personal characteristics of the mate become more important, i.e., all those characteristics on which humans choose mates, including intelligence, personality, psychological compatibility, and socioeconomic status.

"While collectivist societies emphasize genealogy and degree of genetic relatedness in marriage, individualist societies tend to emphasize personal attraction, e.g., romantic love, common interests. John Money has noted the relatively greater tendency of Northern European groups toward romantic love as the basis of marriage. Frank Salter has suggested that Northern European groups have a number of individualistic adaptations related to sexual behavior, including a greater tendency toward romantic love and genetic rather than social control mechanisms to prevent cuckoldry. At the psychological level, the evolutionary basis of individualism involves mechanisms like romantic love in which adaptive behavior is intrinsically rewarding rather than imposed by family strategizing or coerced, as in collectivist cultures. It is the difference between individual courtship between freely consenting and more or less equal partners, versus institutions like the purdah of Near Eastern civilization where the woman is sequestered and controlled by her male relatives until an arranged marriage is concluded.

"There has been a trend, beginning in the Middle Ages, toward the companionate marriage based on affection and consent between the partners, eventually affecting even the marriage decisions of the high aristocracy. 'Whereas in industrial Western societies the emotional relationship between man and wife is primary, it is not the pivot of social structure in the majority of societies.' Indeed, this is a general point of contrast between Eastern and Western stratified societies. The idealization of romantic love as the basis of monogamous marriage has also periodically characterized Western secular intellectual movements, such as the Stoics of late antiquity and 19th‑century Romanticism. It’s not that love and affection between mates do not exist in other societies; it is just that there is greater emphasis on this in Western societies.

"Individual consent to marriage, a characteristic of Western marriage since the Middle Ages, is expected to result in individuals weighing more heavily the personal characteristics of a prospective mate. One effect of this is greater age parity in marriage partners. Relative age parity of spouses combined with a late age of marriage is a mark of the Western European system of marriage. The age of marriage for women was higher in Western Europe than elsewhere in Eurasia or Africa, including peasant societies characterized by joint families. Indeed, in a large English sample from 1550-1775 the average age of marriage for females fluctuated around 26 years of age until 1675, when it began a decline to slightly above 24 years of age in 1800.

"Another consequence of the simple household was that affection and pair bonding became the basis of marriage. Marriage became much less a matter of political alliance between and within kinship groups or a purely economic affair, or simply an aspect of sexual competition, and became based on interpersonal attraction, including affection. Affection within marriage became a cultural norm with the rise of the simple household. The Western phenomenon of courtship (unique among the cultures of Eurasia and Africa) provided a period in which prospective mates could assess personal compatibility; in Malthus’ terms, an opportunity was given for both sexes 'of finding out kindred disposition, and of forming those strong and lasting attachments without which the married state is generally more productive of misery than of happiness.'"
--Kevin MacDonald, "What Makes Western Culture Unique?," The Occidental Quarterly, Vol2No2

Raina, where is MacDonald's source to show that marriages in the Middle Ages were not arranged by parents? :p

Read the whole article. The sources are available at http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html#_edn1

If you have trouble understanding some of the larger words, I can help you.

"Another consequence of the simple household was that affection and pair bonding became the basis of marriage. Marriage became much less a matter of political alliance between and within kinship groups or a purely economic affair, or simply an aspect of sexual competition, and became based on interpersonal attraction, including affection."

Got it?

Raina, that is called an assertion. What you need here are scholarly refutations of the Middle Ages "Arranged Marriages Myth". A refutation of the "Arranged Marriages in the Colonies Myth" would be neat too.

I dont know, but Susan Renyolds might have dealt with this topic in her books on Medieval society. If I have an oppurtunity I can check.

That sounds interesting. I will wait for Perun's source.

Raina, that is called an assertion. What you need here are scholarly refutations of the Middle Ages "Arranged Marriages Myth".Kevin MacDonald is a scholar and expert in this topic. You are not. Indeed, you clearly know virtually nothing about this topic.

Drawing from the research of many other scholars, MacDonald refutes your nonsense many times over in this essay.

"There has been a trend, beginning in the Middle Ages, toward the companionate marriage based on affection and consent between the partners, eventually affecting even the marriage decisions of the high aristocracy....Another consequence of the simple household was that affection and pair bonding became the basis of marriage. Marriage became much less a matter of political alliance between and within kinship groups or a purely economic affair, or simply an aspect of sexual competition, and became based on interpersonal attraction, including affection. Affection within marriage became a cultural norm with the rise of the simple household."

No doubt many of these words appear big and scary to you. Do you know what "companionate marriage" means? It means marriage based upon companionship, i.e. mutual affection. Do you know what "mutual affection" means? It means the partners involved love one another, and the feeling is entirely mutual. That means I was right in pointing out that romance is integral to Western marriage. It means you are wrong when you say otherwise, and have been using unreliable Leftist sources. "Unreliable" means that you can't count on them to back you up.

Raina is using discredited, anti-semitic sources, which clearly show a pro-Nazi sympathy. :D

That sounds interesting. I will wait for Perun's source.Isn't it interesting that Edana dismisses Kevin MacDonald, John Money, Frank Salter, et al out of hand? Instead she holds out for Susan Reynolds.

"While collectivist societies emphasize genealogy and degree of genetic relatedness in marriage, individualist [i.e. Western] societies tend to emphasize personal attraction, e.g., romantic love, common interests. John Money has noted the relatively greater tendency of Northern European groups toward romantic love as the basis of marriage. Frank Salter has suggested that Northern European groups have a number of individualistic adaptations related to sexual behavior, including a greater tendency toward romantic love and genetic rather than social control mechanisms to prevent cuckoldry."

Raina is using discredited, anti-semitic sources,Such as? :D

Reynolds is a historian who writes books on Medieval society.

Kevin MacDonald is an evolutionary psychologist who made some assertions in an article.

Hmm, which should I take more seriously...

Such as? :D

Self-hater!

That you so casually dismiss Kevin MacDonald's well-researched work (which draws from hundreds of historians and other scholars) shows that your "argument" is not worth taking seriously.

Let's see what Reynolds has to say about the issue. Even I do not know what she has to say, though I would be very surprised if she claims that marriage was not arranged in the Middle Ages. The custom even survived to the English colonies.

Let's see what Reynolds has to say about the issue. Even I do not know what she has to say, though I would be very surprised if she claims that marriage was not arranged in the Middle Ages. The custom even survived to the English colonies.That some loveless arranged marriage has existed in the West (and even exists today) does not negate the GREATER tendency toward romantic love that helps to define Western societies.

Were the English colonists "anti-Western" for arranging marriages? :p

"In addition to its policy on consanguinity, the Church’s doctrine of consent in marriage acted as a force against extended kinship relationships. "The family, the tribe, the clan, were subordinated to the individual. If one wanted to marry enough, one could choose one’s own mate and the Church would vindicate one’s choice." Marriage came about as a result of consent and was ratified by sexual intercourse. By removing the fundamental nature of marriage from the control of the family and the secular lord to the individuals involved, the Church established its authority against the traditional ties of kinship and family. Freedom of choice of marriage partner was the rule in England throughout the modern period and that parental control was exercised only in the top 1% of the population." (MacDonald, Noonan, MacFarlane)

Maybe it would have been better if your parents married you off to some 40 year old stranger. That way you could see what a terrible thing it is that you are promoting. Oh, you also wouldn't be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Oh yes. Edana really knows what she is talking about. :p

"The family ways of the Puritans came out of their religious convictions. Family relationships were covenants that could be broken....The average age for marriage was higher than in any other group of immigrants. For men it was age 26 and for women age 23...The Puritans married for love--there were no arranged marriages. Courtship practices were strict and weddings were simple affairs. Banns had to be posted before a marriage could take place. First cousin marriages were forbidden and second cousin marriages were discouraged."
Fischer, David Hackett, Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America, Oxford University Press, 1989

The Evidence from Guilford, Connecticut.” William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd series 39(January, 1982)1:64-86. A very sophisticated article, which concludes that in eighteenth-century Guilford, Connecticut, “the persisting families were those with one or two male heirs or stem families with a chosen male heir. Such families composed the major part of the landed taxpayers in Guilford at all times. It was the majority, those families with more sons and daughters than land or cattle for marriage portions, that supplied the migrants. The strategies of farm families, as revealed in arranged marriages between cousins, marriages of siblings between families, and generational transfers of land, yield persuasive evidence that these New Englanders valued above all households of fathers, sons, and related females.” (p. 65)

http://www.ctheritage.org/biography/topical_society/cliometric.htm

From Encarta:

The overwhelming majority of New England families lived on farms. Within these farm families, and English families in other regions as well, husbands had virtually complete legal power over the property and person of their wives. At marriage English women lost their maiden names and their legal identity; in general, they could not own property, file legal suits, or participate in political life. The prescribed social role of wives was to bear and nurture healthy children and to work as helpmates to their husbands. Most women diligently carried out these duties. In the mid-18th century, New England women usually married in their early 20s and bore six to eight children, most of whom survived to adulthood. Farm women also provided nearly all of the goods used by their families—spinning yarn from wool and knitting it into sweaters and stockings, making candles and soap, and churning milk into butter and cheese.

Most New England parents tried to help their children establish farms of their own. As sons and daughters reached the age of marriage, fathers provided them with gifts of land, livestock, or farm equipment. Parents also selected the marriage partners of their children, so that their children would have hard-working spouses who would maintain or increase the family's farm property. Despite this custom of arranged marriages, parents usually allowed their children to refuse an unacceptable match.

Maybe it would have been better if your parents married you off to some 40 year old stranger. That way you could see what a terrible thing it is that you are promoting. Oh, you also wouldn't be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Please point me to the post in which I claim to support arranged marriages.

Thanks.

"Despite this custom of arranged marriages, parents usually allowed their children to refuse an unacceptable match."

That's a pretty weak "custom" if the parents allow their children to refuse. I see that you ignored my cite showing that arranged marriages were nonexistent among the Puritans.

So? Puritans were not the only people around, silly.

Since arranged marriages apparently were quite widespread in the Middle Ages, I wouldn't say that the New Englanders who practiced them are "anti-Western", but just very old-fashioned. :cool:

It figures that you would believe feminists and leftists over distinguished scholars like Kevin MacDonald, John Money, David Fischer, Frank Salter, etc. Romantic love has always been a strong tendency in the West. If you actually read the MacDonald excerpt (which draws from many historians) then you would grasp this by now.

And FreeRepublic is the true Liberty Forum.

And FreeRepublic is the true Liberty Forum.What does that have to do with anything?

Are you dense enough to believe that ONE PERCENT (at most, and even then often halfheartedly) of an entire society constitutes a norm?

"In addition to its policy on consanguinity, the Church’s doctrine of consent in marriage acted as a force against extended kinship relationships. "The family, the tribe, the clan, were subordinated to the individual. If one wanted to marry enough, one could choose one’s own mate and the Church would vindicate one’s choice." Marriage came about as a result of consent and was ratified by sexual intercourse. By removing the fundamental nature of marriage from the control of the family and the secular lord to the individuals involved, the Church established its authority against the traditional ties of kinship and family. Freedom of choice of marriage partner was the rule in England throughout the modern period and that parental control was exercised only in the top 1% of the population." (MacDonald, Noonan, MacFarlane)

Most of the world, including within the West, had longstanding traditions of arranged marriages. I've occasionally wondered if we'd have been better off sticking with that model, because the key word in this discussion is "individualism." Individualism is a factor that leads to the erosion and atomization of societies and peoples.

Arranged marriages would have cut down on the "date rape" problem we have today. We'd likely have a much cleaner popular culture. And if you're a feminist, you might like the situation of not having to make oneself an object on the "meat-market" in the great competition for mates. No more degrading cosmetics ads in the magazines--what would be their purpose? No more pressure to have boob-jobs at the hands of the plastic surgeon. There are benefits.

Raina, I am discussing the European Middle Ages and you have an assertion about England in the Modern Period.

Raina, I am discussing the European Middle Ages and you have an assertion about England in the Modern Period.

lol

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/6316/cottonpickers8xr.jpg

Most of the world, including within the West, had longstanding traditions of arranged marriages.Kevin MacDonald points out that marriages based upon romantic love have always been far more normal in the West. It is true that most societies throughout history have lacked such a strong romantic tradition. The same societies were/are polygamous as well.

I've occasionally wondered if we'd have been better off sticking with that model, because the key word in this discussion is "individualism."For Western Civilization, romantic love has always been the prevailing model. Individualism is fundamental to Western Civilization. As MacDonald points out, a Western society is an "individualist society." If you have a problem with such individualism, perhaps you should just be honest and admit that you don't like Western civilization.

Individualism is a factor that leads to the erosion and atomization of societies and peoples.So how can it be that individualist America dominates the world?Arranged marriages would have cut down on the "date rape" problem we have today.How so?We'd likely have a much cleaner popular culture.You can see that in Saudi Arabia. Of course, they also lack much of ANY literary tradition, other than a few religious texts. And if you're a feminist, you might like the situation of not having to make oneself an object on the "meat-market" in the great competition for mates.Now that is simply ridiculous. Arranged marriage takes away freedom from women. Women cannot even choose their partners. A thirteen year old girl can be sold off to some 40 year old man with whom she has nothing in common. Societies that practice arranged marriages are overwhelmingly polygamous societies. While many women are whores in our own society, the situation is far worse in a society where arranged marriages are the norm. At least in our own society, a non-whore woman is free to find a man who loves her for who she is. In our own society, it is true that people use prostitutes, porn, and such. These serve as a "pressure valve" of sorts to help maintain the dominant social system. Yet in a polygamous society where arranged marriage is the norm (a good modern example is the aformentioned Saudi Arabia) most women are reduced to chattel.

Raina, I am discussing the European Middle Ages and you have an assertion about England in the Modern Period.We have also been discussing the marital practices of more modern British, including colonists in America.

lol

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/6316/cottonpickers8xr.jpgEdana is the only one who has been pwn3d in this discussion. Kevin MacDonald (and others) utterly debunk her idiotic assertion that Western marriage is not based upon romantic love.

We have also been discussing the marital practices of more modern British, including colonists in America.

Colonists in America? What was that, the 17th and 18th century for the most part? I doubt few historians would describe this as the "modern period".

Edana is the only one who has been pwn3d in this discussion. Kevin MacDonald (and others) utterly debunk her idiotic assertion that Western marriage is not based upon romantic love.

My actual assertion was that parents arranged marriages in the Middle Ages. You have yet to debunk this.

Colonists in America? What was that, the 17th and 18th century for the most part? I doubt few historians would describe this as the "modern period".And you would be wrong. In the broadest sense, "modern" means "after the Middle Ages." For example, the period between c.1485-1800 is often referred to as "Early Modern History."

My actual assertion was that parents arranged marriages in the Middle Ages. You started dwelling on that when it became clear your earlier assertion had been debunked. You have yet to debunk thisWhy do I need to refute that? Some parents did. Some parents also arrange marriages today. The fact remains that Western marriage is generally defined by romantic love. MacDonald, an expert on social structure, describes how this was true in the Middle Ages.

"There has been a trend, beginning in the Middle Ages, toward the companionate marriage based on affection and consent between the partners, eventually affecting even the marriage decisions of the high aristocracy....Another consequence of the simple household was that affection and pair bonding became the basis of marriage. Marriage became much less a matter of political alliance between and within kinship groups or a purely economic affair, or simply an aspect of sexual competition, and became based on interpersonal attraction, including affection. Affection within marriage became a cultural norm with the rise of the simple household."

Sorry, until it's debunked, arranged marriage was the norm in the Middle Ages.

You started dwelling on that when it became clear your earlier assertion had been debunked.

What is this "earlier assertion"?

Do you have a quote of mine where I support arranged marriage yet?

It's already been debunked. Like I've said before, you have a problem admitting when you are wrong.

"Individual consent to marriage, a characteristic of Western marriage since the Middle Ages, is expected to result in individuals weighing more heavily the personal characteristics of a prospective mate."

"Individual consent" means that the choice is up to the individual. That means parents aren't making the final decision.

That is not a debunking. That is an assertion by an evolutionary psychologist. It does nothing to prove that arranged marriages were not a norm in the Middle Ages.

Many sources assert that the Victorian Era is when love became a primary consideration in marriage as a norm.

That is not a debunking. That is an assertion by an evolutionary psychologist.It is a conclusion based upon reviewing a huge volume of evidence. MacDonald draws from hundreds of historians and other scholars.It does nothing to prove that arranged marriages were not a norm in the Middle Ages.You have done absolutely nothing to prove that they were. I think MacDonald has rather more credibility than you do on this subject. Many sources assert that the Victorian Era is when love became a primary consideration in marriage as a norm.You have never named any of these "many" unnamed sources. I have named highly reliable sources showing that romantic love has been integral to Western marriage since the Middle Ages.

"While collectivist societies emphasize genealogy and degree of genetic relatedness in marriage, individualist societies tend to emphasize personal attraction, e.g., romantic love, common interests. John Money has noted the relatively greater tendency of Northern European groups toward romantic love as the basis of marriage. Frank Salter has suggested that Northern European groups have a number of individualistic adaptations related to sexual behavior, including a greater tendency toward romantic love and genetic rather than social control mechanisms to prevent cuckoldry. At the psychological level, the evolutionary basis of individualism involves mechanisms like romantic love in which adaptive behavior is intrinsically rewarding rather than imposed by family strategizing or coerced, as in collectivist cultures. It is the difference between individual courtship between freely consenting and more or less equal partners, versus institutions like the purdah of Near Eastern civilization where the woman is sequestered and controlled by her male relatives until an arranged marriage is concluded."

I posted sources and you dismissed them as "Leftist" flimsily based on an excerpt from a conservative columnist.

I posted sources and you dismissed them as "Leftist" flimsily based on an excerpt from a conservative columnist.They generally are Leftist and none of them proved that arranged marriages were the norm throughout the Middle Ages.

Raina, prove that you are being serious. :p

I was wondering the same about you. Were you serious when you casually dismissed Kevin MacDonald and all my other sources? Do you seriously believe it wasn't normal for medieval Europeans or American colonials to fall in love and get married?

I am seriously dismissing your MacDonald quote as a refutation of the claim that arranged marriage was the norm in the Middle Ages.

Prove that you seriously believe that arranged marriage was not the norm in the Middle Ages. :|

I am seriously dismissing your MacDonald quote as a refutation of the claim that arranged marriage was the norm in the Middle Ages.Then you haven't read the excerpts I've posted. Or perhaps you haven't comprehended. Do you understand the material in question?

I have read them numerous times. You have spammed them, because it is all you have.

Perun will probably have better material. Good thing, since you are pretty boring right now.

I have read them numerous times.If so, you certainly have not comprehended. You have spammed them, because it is all you have.False. I've quoted from more sources than you have. This is further evidence that you haven't read them, or you would know. Perun will probably have better material.I've posted a great deal of material from multiple sources. You dislike it only because you 1) don't comprehend it and/or 2) don't like the fact that it debunks your "arguments." Good thing, since you are pretty boring right now.History and anthropology are boring to dull people.

Kevin Macdonald is a crank information contortionists on the issue of jews, and hes a crank on this issue.

Basically the diffrence between arranged marriage in the West and places in the world where women had lower status is the parents made sure the couple didn't really really hate each other before going ahead( and I believe they watched the ah post wedding entertainment in some cases to make sure the man could get it up).

Kevin Macdonald is a crank information contortionists on the issue of jews, and hes a crank on this issue.

Basically the diffrence between arranged marriage in the West and places in the world where women had lower status is the parents made sure the couple didn't really really hate each other before going ahead( and I believe they watched the ah post wedding entertainment in some cases to make sure the man could get it up).


And you arrive at that conclusion about MacDonald how???


-----

An interesting Roman epitaph posted by wintermute.

"Short is my stay, O stranger. Stay and read.
This tomb is not fair, but fair was she it holds.
By her name her parents called her Claudia.
Her husband she loved with all her heart.
She bore two sons, and one of them she left
On earth, the other in the earth she laid.
Her speech was pleasing and her bearing gracious.
She kept house: she spun her wool. I have said. Farewell."

Kevin Macdonald is a crank information contortionists on the issue of jews, and hes a crank on this issue.How about this: Kevin MacDonald can be insightful, even if he is not the Angel of Infinite Wisdom.
Basically the diffrence between arranged marriage in the West and places in the world where women had lower status is the parents made sure the couple didn't really really hate each other before going ahead( and I believe they watched the ah post wedding entertainment in some cases to make sure the man could get it up).Even if the vast majority of medieval parents were so heavy-handed in choosing marital partners for their children (which I very much doubt)...

...what about orphans? You say the Middle Ages were Hell on Earth. Horrible, just terrible, starving carcasses dropping like flies when not chopping each other into confetti. You use this belief to justify your idea that arranged marriage was the overwhelming norm. But you can't have it both ways. If there was such an huge mortality rate, that means there were a shitload of orphans. How can parents arrange marriage if they are dead? Seances? Did some other party step in to arrange the marriage? Every time?

I really enjoy arguing different positions. It's fun.

To be honest I think there's truth to both our positions. There is plenty of evidence to support both. So it's silly to assume ONLY one or the other is true. Even in our own society, parents often have influence over who their kids date, which can in turn influence marriage. Sometimes they will even exercise direct influence over who their kids marry.

In the Middle Ages or Colonial America, I am 100% sure that arranged marriage was not some overwhelming norm. There is just too much evidence of people falling in love and marrying. At the same time, of course many parents had a say in who their kids married. Some were heavy handed and downright forced them to marry, while some were more flexible, while some just gave advice.

I think many people have a tendency to rush into believing one theory or another. Reality is usually more complicated.

It's alot like the whole monogamy vs. polygamy vs. promiscuity vs. etc. debates. Obviously humans have ALL these tendencies to some extent or another. So it's silly to pretend that only ONE of these is "natural."

I see you are slowly trying to wiggle out of your claims by pulling the "I was just faking" schtick (which was already known - when are you not faking?) instead of just coming up with a good refutation of the historical claim that arranged marriage was the norm in the Middle Ages. Raina also implies various strawmen - that I was supporting one type of marriage, that I only think one type of marriage is natural, ETC. LOL, instead of just providing proof that arranged marriage was not the norm in the Middle Ages, she claims she was just providing some deep point to "show" that there is not only one type of "natural" marriage, even though that was never the argument!

The custom of arranged marriage has even survived longer than the Middle Ages in various segments of the West. Therefore, the claim that everyone who supports practicality-based Marriage is anti-Western is silly and a typical Raina smear-attack. A society may even have non-arranged practicality-based marriage. The claim that societies in which marriages are a matter of practicality are all polygamous is also shown to be silly.

I see you are slowly trying to wiggle out of your claims by pulling the "I was just faking" schtick Not true at all, which you'd know had you the slightest degree of reading comprehension. Your claim that "Western marriage has traditionally not been based on romantic love" IS idiotic and remains so. So are many of your other claims that you repeat in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.(which was already known - when are you not faking?)I'm far more real than you. For example, I don't make stupid assertions like "Western marriage has traditionally not been based on romantic love" and then deny ever having made them twenty minutes later. I'm also not a young housewife who claims to know more about medieval history than Professor Kevin MacDonald. I don't befriend Jew-haters who argue that pogroms are a good thing and then claim not to be neonazi. I don't marry a man I love and then argue that romantic love is an aberration. No. You have no room to talk when it comes to faking.

instead of just coming up with a good refutation of the historical claim that arranged marriage was the norm in the Middle Ages.That claim has been refuted not just once, but repeatedly with multiple sources. You simply dismiss or ignore them. Raina also implies various strawmen - that I was supporting one type of marriage, that I only think one type of marriage is natural, ETC.You would know all about using strawmen, such as implying that I want to "abolish the family."LOL, instead of just providing proof that arranged marriage was not the norm in the Middle Ages, she claims she was just providing some deep point to "show" that there is not only one type of "natural" marriage, even though that was never the argument!Bullshit. Your original claim was that "Western marriage has traditionally not been based on romantic love." Your absurd claim has been refuted so many times that it's laughable. The custom of arranged marriage has even survived longer than the Middle Ages in various segments of the West.Rape, incest, and murder have even survived longer than the Middle Ages everywhere in the West. The fact remains that "mutual affection" and "romantic love" (MacDonald, et al) have traditionally been the basis of Western marriage. Therefore, the claim that everyone who supports practicality-based Marriage is anti-Western is silly and a typical Raina smear-attack.You'd know all about silly statements. Arranged marriage does not equal practicality based marriage. Marriage can be based upon both love and practicality. The claim that societies in which marriages are a matter of practicality are all polygamous is also shown to be silly.Again, arranged does not equal practicality. You have NEVER given even one example of a non-romantic society that is classified by anthropologists as non-polygamous. You are a young housewife who thinks she knows more about anthropology than Professor Kevin MacDonald. You have no room to talk about "silly."

Raina is a fan of these tactics:

Guilt By Association

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy
Description of Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).


Ad Hominem
Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


Raina is also a fan of the other type of Guilt by Association, in which a person becomes a particular ideology just by associating with someone. If I am friendly to a National Socialist, I am a Nazi. If I am friendly to a Marxist, I am a Marxist, if I am friendly to a dozen libertarians, I am an anarcho-capitalist. If I am friendly to Ixabert, I love Stalin. It is quite a bigoted "Witch Hunt" mentality, which I oppose. Witch Hunts have no appeal to me.

Raina is also using these tactics in the discussion:

Appeal to Authority

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Straw Man
Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Instead of spamming the thread with bulky block quotes, why don't you point out specific examples of where I use these tactics. But that's the thing. It' s easier for you to keep spamming than to address my refutation of your argument.

*yawn*

This forum needs a flagging feature, so I could ask Perun to flag me when he gets on it. Until then, ta-ta. :cool:

*yawn*Ad hominem via bodily reflex.

Not only is Western marriage based upon romantic love, this is a key attribute that distinguishes Western civilization from most other cultures.

Marriage is a state, not a cultural occurence.

Romantic love is not based on fact, and cannot be measured as such.

There is no such thing as western marriage.

This forum needs a flagging feature, so I could ask Perun to flag me when he gets on it. Until then, ta-ta.
FLAG

Hello there; it's too bad that this thread is gummed up, because it actually covers an interesting issue which serves as the focal point for my book.

Firstly, I can't imagine why you see Kevin MacDonald in a disrespectful light. While I find him dry and long-winded, I think he brings enough evidence to the table to support any assertion he has ever made, even if it isn't always enough for the occasional skeptic.

Secondly, if I were the one who started this thread, I'd insist that the whole subject of arranged marriage isn't the point. One of the most interesting things about Western civilization is the way it treats its women, which is all part and parcel of its people's curious psychological makeup. Western nations are known to be high on psychometric Openness, when compared to other nations, which in layman's terms means essentially what MacDonald claims here (http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html) about western culture, which has:

A tendency toward monogamy.

A tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family.

A greater tendency for marriage to be companionate and based on mutual affection of the partners. (These are his words: "greater tendency;" MacDonald's arguments apply regardless of whether or not marriages were arranged.)

A de-emphasis on extended kinship relationships and its correlative, a relative lack of ethnocentrism.

A tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science.


Ultimately, these things are, I now suspect, various expressions of one and the same thing:

Sexual habits.

It seems that Westerners have a hypertrophic sense of inbreeding and avoid even cousin-marriage, while other races are far more willing to marry within the family. (This page (http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/inbreeding.html) explains the situation rather concisely.) A population which practices heavy consanguinity will be filled with genetic "pockets," where like alleles will cluster heavily in sharp contrast to unlike alleles nearby. In such a heterogeneous society, ethnocentrism and tribalism are very useful from a Darwinistic standpoint, because they ensure the survival of the alleles in each pocket. But Westerners marry away from their families and so disperse their alleles throughout the entire population. There is less evolutionary pressure for him to favor his next door neighbor at the expense of his neighbor on the other side of the hill, because he isn't any more related to one than the other.

The obvious result for populations which strongly avoid inbreeding is a relative decrease to ethnocentrism, and thus to everything that goes along with ethnocentrism. Since ethnocentrism is strongly inversely correlated to imagination, artistic appreciation, individualism, and interest in science, it follows that all of these things change as ethnocentrism changes. This is the best and only explanation which I have ever found that can explain

* the dysfunctionally low ethnicentrism of modern Euros
* the economic success of modern Euros which outstrips their intelligence
* the scientific innovation of Euros which outstrips their intelligence
* the notably low levels of consanguinity in Euro societies across the globe
* the near-hysterical Euro aversion to polygamy
* the conspicuous lack in Euro cultures of traditions which mutilate women (foot binding, genital mutilation)
* the curious hyperliberalism of modern Euros
* the pervasive stereotype of Euro creativity (contrary to modern misconceoptions, stereotypes can be very informative, although this would require another thread of its own to appropriately substantiate), and most importantly
* the fact that European-derived nations score high on Psychometric Openness (and related scales such as Field Independence).


--Mark

Nachtwolf almost always agree with you but no on MacDonald... I read his jews were responsible for the 1965 immigration act subsection of his book.

It doesn't show why they were nessecary in any way to cause LBJ and the liberals in congress to vote the way they did.

And I would like to see some documentation that any more than an insignificant % of marriages were "by choice/romantic" before the 1st world war.

Multicultural society + lack of parental control over marriage partners = lots of interracial marriages

Mark, I do not see Kevin in a disrespectful light. I just do not see any real scholarly work that conclusively shows that the majority of the marriages in the Middle Ages were not arranged.

Well I checked Renyolds books, she only mentions how marriages related to certain legal issues. She makes no mention of marriages being based on either romantic love or being arranged.

I do know that much of our concepts of romantic love originated in the Middle Ages, especially with the concept of Courtly Love.

Nachtwolf almost always agree with you but no on MacDonald... I read his jews were responsible for the 1965 immigration act subsection of his book.

It doesn't show why they were nessecary in any way to cause LBJ and the liberals in congress to vote the way they did.
You may agree with me more than you think.

I haven't read MacDonald's books, so I won't make any attempt to defend or attack him; I do think the Jews were very likely involved in the immigration act, but from my standpoint the focus on their activities and their effects on policy is totally misplaced. The Jews are such a tiny minority that to grant them responsibility for the events of the last fifty years of Western history is to turn them from men into gods. This may have been feasible when studies of their intellectual acuity were still scant, and it was believed that their average IQ could have been 115; we now know that their IQ averages no better than 108, and is likely little better than 100 flat (although they do have disproportionately well developed verbal ability; for more information see my recent posts here (http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=448)).

It makes far more sense to view the European ethnie's betrayal and self-destructiveness as an expression of traits inherent to Euros themselves. It takes two to tango, so to speak; even if the Jews are "responsible" for the death of the West, what other majority ethnic group has this peculiar parasite/host relationship? This is precisely what I am arguing in my previous post - ethnic Euros are predisposed towards psychometric Openness and all that it entails.

And I would like to see some documentation that any more than an insignificant % of marriages were "by choice/romantic" before the 1st world war.
Impossible to provide, and pointless to discuss seriously, except as idle speculation. Most individuals throughout Western history were peasants who lived and died unrecorded lives. I would be surprised if arranged marriage was unknown to these people, but I would also be surprised if arranged marriage were the norm outside of the nobility. Nobles had a strong incentive to arrange marriages for diplomatic and strategic reasons; peasants lacked similar incentives. I think it very likely that a good deal of marriage in medieval Europe was based neither on love nor familial arrangement but on the simple, silly necessity to avoid a scandal on the morning after.

But simple statistics on arranged marriage are unnecessary when trying to determine to what degree marriage in medieval Europe was companionate, in light of the information at our disposal:

* Euro societies give a remarkably high status to women, in comparison with other societies.

* Euros are instinctively and pathologically adverse to the concept of polygamy and vehemently oppose anyone who tries to quietly practice it amongst themselves.

* Euros traditionally and currently arrange their lives around nuclear families rather than extended kin groups. The nuclear family itself is evidence for companionate love in marriage, and also raises questions about the abilities of the extended family to enforce marriage arrangements.

* There is definitely an ideal in Western culture for mariage to be companionate and based on love. This ideal probably would not likely exist without some sort of basis in reality.

In closing, here is a brief quote from my book:

Plutarch records that when a Roman centurion raped the Celtic woman Chiomaria, and then found her to be of high rank, he negotiated her peaceful ransom and return. But while the centurion was collecting his gold, Chiomaria had him decapitated, and took his head to her husband Ortagion in proud savage style. Her husband halfheartedly admonished her, saying, "Woman, a fine thing [is] good faith," to which she answered him:

"A better thing only one man be alive who had intercourse with me!"


--Mark

* the near-hysterical Euro aversion to polygamySome people point to mistresses, prostitutes, swinging, pornography, and extramarital affairs as counter-evidence. However, I will point out that none of these things is equivalent to polygamy. Too many people confuse polygamy with promiscuity. One is having multiple wives, equal in that they all have spousal status. The other is just having some ass on the side. I think that together, the aformentioned phenomena act like a pressure valve to help preserve the Western system.* the conspicuous lack in Euro cultures of traditions which mutilate women (foot binding, genital mutilation)Thank heavens for that.
Impossible to provide, and pointless to discuss seriously, except as idle speculation.Actually, there is plenty of available evidence and research on these topics. The "Dark Ages" weren't all about "darkness" as many people believe. There is much literature from the period that focuses on the peasant classes. Check out my excerpt from Patricia Crone's research on the subject.

"It is possible that the Germanic invaders brought the so-called European, or more precisely north-west European, marriage pattern with them, though this is not yet certain. However this may be, northwest Europe was or eventually became unique by its practice of delayed marriage for men and women: both sexes would postpone marriage until their twenties or even thirties, and a considerable proportion would not marry at all....Delayed marriage for men was the Roman pattern, and it was practised in Europe too: it lies behind the endless fun poked at old husbands cuckolded by young wives in medieval fabliaux...

"Whatever the date and origin of the European marriage pattern, it is said to have had two consequences of major importance. First, it enabled Europe to escape the so-called malthusian cycle....Secondly, the European marriage pattern made for, or indeed was a manifestation of, individualism. It assumed that children were independent individuals who must leave home to accumulate funds of their own before they can start raising families, as opposed to members of a landholding corporation to which they would offer their labour, from which they would derive their access to land and by which they would be married off as soon as they could procreate, being maintained by it if necessary. Where marriage was delayed, men and women of peasant origin would typically accumulate their funds by working as servants (or so at least from the later Middle Ages onwards). Pre-industrial Europe is unique in that service came to be part of the life-cycle, and the promenance of hired servants in the household is the domestic counterpart to the prominence of feudal retainers in the political sphere: in both cases, recruitment was by contract rather than by kinship.

"Since children left home, earned their own money and married late, their choice of spouses tended to escape parental control. Marriage was of the companionate type, based on affection between the spouses rather than family needs; or rather, this type of marriage was surprisingly common."

Crone, Patricia. Pre-Industrial Societies: Anatomy of the Pre-Modern World (One World Publications, 2003).

Here is the link -

One World (http://www.oneworld-publications.com/samples/pre-industrial-societies.htm)

The actual physical book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1851683119/102-3162774-0284909?v=glance) is better. :D

Well I checked Renyolds books, she only mentions how marriages related to certain legal issues. She makes no mention of marriages being based on either romantic love or being arranged.

I do know that much of our concepts of romantic love originated in the Middle Ages, especially with the concept of Courtly Love.

Can't say that I've read much of the literature on the subject but, to the best of my knowledge the rise of courtly love, amongst the European nobility, in areas such Acquitaine and Provence, is frequently argued to have been an import from al-Andalus (specifically erotic/love poets such as Ibn Hazm - 11th century). Given the Christian "West's" "renunciation of the body" (see Peter Brown on this) and the relative absence of a tradition of ars erotica in the societies of Christendom I find the thesis, superficially at least, credible. Also, romantic love was certainly an elite construct in the West (as is evident in the chivalric literature of the Middle Ages).

"It is possible that the Germanic invaders brought the so-called European, or more precisely north-west European, marriage pattern with them, though this is not yet certain. However this may be, northwest Europe was or eventually became unique by its practice of delayed marriage for men and women: both sexes would postpone marriage until their twenties or even thirties, and a considerable proportion would not marry at all....Delayed marriage for men was the Roman pattern, and it was practised in Europe too: it lies behind the endless fun poked at old husbands cuckolded by young wives in medieval fabliaux...

"Whatever the date and origin of the European marriage pattern, it is said to have had two consequences of major importance. First, it enabled Europe to escape the so-called malthusian cycle....Secondly, the European marriage pattern made for, or indeed was a manifestation of, individualism. It assumed that children were independent individuals who must leave home to accumulate funds of their own before they can start raising families, as opposed to members of a landholding corporation to which they would offer their labour, from which they would derive their access to land and by which they would be married off as soon as they could procreate, being maintained by it if necessary. Where marriage was delayed, men and women of peasant origin would typically accumulate their funds by working as servants (or so at least from the later Middle Ages onwards). Pre-industrial Europe is unique in that service came to be part of the life-cycle, and the promenance of hired servants in the household is the domestic counterpart to the prominence of feudal retainers in the political sphere: in both cases, recruitment was by contract rather than by kinship.

"Since children left home, earned their own money and married late, their choice of spouses tended to escape parental control. Marriage was of the companionate type, based on affection between the spouses rather than family needs; or rather, this type of marriage was surprisingly common."

Crone, Patricia. Pre-Industrial Societies: Anatomy of the Pre-Modern World (One World Publications, 2003).


No dowries?

I'm guessing that the marriage pattern here is highly determined by land distribution.

Also, romantic love was certainly an elite construct in the West (as is evident in the chivalric literature of the Middle Ages).That is not sufficient evidence to conclude romantic love was constructed by the Western elite. Indeed, all the conclusive evidence points in the opposite direction. People in the Middle Ages were people, after all: they were just as capable of love as their modern counterparts. Contrary to mistaken belief, delayed marriage was very common in medieval times.

A stereotype commonly held today (represented by AntiYuppie, Edana, and otto_von_bismarck on this forum) is that most medieval people married early at the behest of their parents. Yet the historical record shows otherwise.

Hajnal describes traditional European marriage as characterized by three general tendencies. These rules have been most evident in Northwestern Europe with their influence felt throughout the continent. "First, both women and men married several years after reaching sexual maturity (women at 22 or older, men at 26 and over) and a fair proportion never married; second, marriage usually coincided with the formation of a nuclear family conceived as a self-supporting economic unit; third, before marrying, young adults spent many years as domestic servants in urban or rural households." (Claude Morin, "Women's Employment, Marriage-Age and Population Change," speech at the University of Delhi, Developing Countries Research Center, March 3-5 1997)

See John Hajnal, "European Marriage Patterns in Perspective," in Population and History: Essays in Historical Demography, ed. D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (London: Edward Arnold, 1965), 101-43; John Hajnal, "Two Kinds of Pre-Industrial Household Formation System," in Family Forms in Historic Europe, ed. Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 65-104.

"Studies of later medieval peasant populations in Europe corroborate the likelihood that Anglo-Saxon women would have married at a relatively late age." Sally Crawford, Childhood in Anglo-Saxon England (Gloucestershire: Sutton, 1999).

Thus medievals tended to marry all grown up and away from their parents' immediate control. Therefore the idea that arranged marriage was some prevailing norm for medieval Europeans is utterly ahistorical.

Contrary to AntiYuppie's caricature of medieval Europe as a society that "kept women in their place," records from a 1377 polltax indicate that more than 30% of adult women in England had never been married. See Maryanne Kowaleski, "Singlewomen in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: The Demographic Perspective," in Singlewomen in the European Past, 1250-1800, ed. Judith M. Bennett and Amy M. Froide (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), p. 46.

In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, many Italian women chose to forgo marriage altogether in favor of a life devoted to scholarly learning. See Margaret L. King, "Book-Lined Cells: Women and Humanism in the Early Italian Renaissance," Beyond Their Sex: Learned Women of the European Past, ed. Patricia H. Labalme (New York: New York University Press, 1980), pp. 66-90.

Obviously, none of this would be true in a society where forced marriages were the norm.