tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post2443542581926343268..comments2024-03-28T14:16:42.371+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Parental choice determines mating/ marriage in most historical societiesBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-14173661170060151942013-09-06T19:49:59.454+01:002013-09-06T19:49:59.454+01:00*I would be astounded if they were *the same*, giv...*I would be astounded if they were *the same*, given how different men and women are physically and psychologically, and in terms of investment of resources into offspring and sexual strategies.Also the fact that they are trying to evaluate quite different attributes.<br />*<br /><br />Perhaps from a secular perspective. But from a Christian perspective, where the object of marriage is to form a happy, godly family, the number of disastrous female and male choices is exactly the same, as long as monogamy obtains.Adam G.http://www.jrganymede.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-63035481032841414512013-09-06T05:43:55.514+01:002013-09-06T05:43:55.514+01:00@sc - And I suppose the opposite applies in some m...@sc - And I suppose the opposite applies in some modern families - parents do exert power on choice. When human relationships are involved, there is not likely to be a clear cut system. Nonetheless...<br /><br />"I would be astounded if either the male or female sex were, from an impartial view, shown to be significantly better or worse at choosing mates than the other sex."<br /><br />I would be astounded if they were *the same*, given how different men and women are physically and psychologically, and in terms of investment of resources into offspring and sexual strategies.Also the fact that they are trying to evaluate quite different attributes.<br /><br />(The standard view would be...) Perhaps it is easier for a man, in reproductive terms he would seek a healthy young woman of steady character; a woman would need to try and find a man of high status potential - which is probably harder to estimate, hence the need for male competitions.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-15350475614044490202013-09-06T03:57:08.175+01:002013-09-06T03:57:08.175+01:00I am currently (slowly) reading Clarissa Harlowe, ...I am currently (slowly) reading Clarissa Harlowe, which stresses the veto power women had or should have had over parental husband choice ... in statistical, or game theory terms, that veto power might count almost as much, or more, when distributed over the generations, than the designation power parents are said to have had.<br />Based on personal recollection (of several hundred friends and acquaintances born in the US between 1950 and 1975) I would be astounded if either the male or female sex were, from an impartial view, shown to be significantly better or worse at choosing mates than the other sex.stephen cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-4848910448369340372013-09-05T14:42:36.596+01:002013-09-05T14:42:36.596+01:00@SJ "It's become common knowledge in the ...@SJ "It's become common knowledge in the alt-Right that women are poor choosers"<br /><br />Actually they are wrong, because they say *women* (per se) are poor choosers, whereas this is a culture specific phenomenon - and should be interpreted as indicative of societal breakdown rather than revealing something about how women 'really' are. <br /><br />"Maybe men today are better mate-choosers than women today..."<br /><br />Not sure about this, but probably to a degree this is true; some of the data on fertility suggests that women are more disorientated by modern society (especially the mass media) then men - but I'm not even sure about that.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-22135283145779344362013-09-05T14:04:11.150+01:002013-09-05T14:04:11.150+01:00Maybe men today are better mate-choosers than wome...Maybe men <i>today</i> are better mate-choosers than women <i>today</i> because men were historically heads-of-family and thus the mate-choosers for their offspring, more than women were.Samson J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-24380688382494944702013-09-05T13:36:38.907+01:002013-09-05T13:36:38.907+01:00Further, that humans are not 'well evolved'...<i>Further, that humans are not 'well evolved' to choose mates for themselves</i><br /><br />Interesting. It's become common knowledge in the alt-Right that women are poor choosers. I wonder if men are too, more than we've realized, and in what ways that manifests itself.<br /><br /><i> it was the possession of physical and psychological traits that appealed to your future in-laws (and not to your future spouse) which was probably most important in the past</i><br /><br />This is certainly obvious. Many, many of the things that men are told today are "attractive" to women are actually attractive to her father.<br /><br />I wonder to what extent we reactionary Christians should be endorsing a return to parent-arranged marriages. At this time, I don't think I want fully arranged marriages in the South Asian style, but I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that Christian parents, and churches, should be involved in courthsip in ways that they aren't now.<br /><br />Something I was thinking about the other week: when (and why) was the transition point in Anglo culture between heavy parental involvement and full independent selection of mates? On the one hand, we've got <i>Pride and Prejudice</i>-style courtship in the early 1800s, which everyone is familiar with; on the other hand, I feel almost certain that men and women were selecting their own mates by the Edwardian era. When and why precisely did the transition happen?Samson J.noreply@blogger.com