I Don't, Do You?

I've wanted to write this for a long time but I've just had things to do and it's quite important to me so I wanted time to get it right. Well, now I've got that time, let's see if I can manage it.

Firstly, let me just explain that I'm against marriage. Mostly because of arbitrary reasons, either because I feel that it's pointless (1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, it's no longer a serious commitment) and secondly, because I don't feel I need someone to officiate over my relationship (whether it's the Church or the State I don't really feel I require their validation to enjoy my life).

However, this post is my more concrete thoughts on marriage, what it is, where it's come from, and hopefully, why you shouldn't be enamoured with it either.

Firstly, I'm going to explain how it is the least feminist institution going, derived entirely of patriarchal oppression and male dominance, and I'm going to do it without even mentioning that marriage was originally a ceremony to signal the transfer of a woman's ownership from father to husband (oops).

No, I'm going to steer clear of the marriage particulars, and instead look at how marriage came to be in the first place. I mean, I assume that at one stage we were just savages, not far derived from apes in terms of sociability and cultural customs. Therefore, let's turn to biology for a few answers.

Primate reproduction 101
If there's one thing that endless hours of David Attenborough and Steve Irwin (not so much) teach you, it's that only the best get laid. It's practically the founding block of evolution. It's also a biological fact that, due to a primate's lengthy gestation period and relatively instantaneous refraction time, one male could impregnate all females in a given society at any one time.

So, if the females are so choosy, and the men are so promiscuous, what do the non-elite males do? Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a population of 100 males and 100 females (I could draw a diagram, depends on how bored I get later).

Those 100 females each choose one of the top 5 most gorgeous, handsome, strong, reproductively attractive males to have relations with. And the males, being males, don't say no. Therefore, 100% of the females get some action, while only 5% of the males get busy too.

This leaves 95% of the males with nothing to do but hit the gym, get disgruntled, and play football (that's what sexual frustration does to a man). Eventually, tired of this arrangement where they don't get any, and sick of watching the exhausted elites strut about with their smugly satisfied faces, this 95% decide enough's enough. They decide that the arduous task of impregnating the females should be split equally and, being the larger part of the stronger sex, they get their way.

Yes, it's unnatural, yes, it's 'might is right', yes, it's inherently male oppression, but hey, that's monogamy. And to ensure the continuation of this system, they introduced the institution of marriage, binding one woman to one man for their natural life.

"But!", I hear you cry, "this is surely a fairer system, I can't see how you can claim it's disadvantaging anyone."

Well, no, culturally and socially it's impeccable. It is now so much an ingrained aspect of our society that the idea of polygamy is abhorrent.

But biologically, it is the product of male force (that disgruntled 95%) removing the ability of women to choose their favourite male to mate with, ie. the epitome of male-female oppression.

And that is why feminism and marriage cannot be reconciled.

Yes, Sir, No, Sir, I will obey, Sir

The News
The British Government have recently unveiled their plans to give members of the Armed Forces 'a fast-track route into teaching', essentially giving retired veterans the opportunity to turn their hand to education even if they do not possess a university degree.

My Take
While many have objected to the British arrangement on the grounds that it devalues the education system and insults current teaching professionals, I would argue that this is one of the least-concerning aspects about this proposition. I think a far more terrifying facet is the prospect of placing our next generation in the thrall of excessively violent and nationalist puppets.

Advocates insist that the military ethos of quality leadership, discipline and obedience is ideally transferable to the classroom, and would instil in the next generation similar values of citizenship. However, given that the primary purpose of education is to open the minds of the young, to encourage them to think for themselves, and to equip them with the tools to do so in later life, the prospect of ex-military personnel in the classroom is disturbing to say the least. It is all too apparent how their narrow-minded dogma would stunt the growth of a young person's intellect and stifle their ability to mature.

Of course, it is also easy to see why the Government would want values such as unquestioning obedience, civil discipline and societal sacrifice drummed into the young and impressionable. To have the obedience of the next generation, to have them all united behind one banner (theirs) would effectively silence opposition and greatly improve the ability of the Government to act unilaterally and dictatorially. Worryingly, this is clearly the intention of this fast-track plan. In the Armed Forces there is a reluctance, a squeamishness if you will, to criticise the Government. Similarly, outside the Armed Forces, there is squeamishness to criticise the men and women who sacrifice for our 'protection'. If the next generation were to be raised by such squeamish people, we would reach a situation where those in power need never fear such criticism.

If this is not enough to convince you of the proposal's deficiencies then just bear in mind that it is an adoption of a plan already  implemented in America, (with the difference that across the pond over 99% of participants already had a degree) therefore aligning us worryingly closely with the Yanks 'unthinking glorification' of their Armed Forces.

And we all know how well that's working out for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan