As someone who has been married 85% happily 15% rough times for 26 years, this is spot on. I didn't realize the risk thing until you said it, but it's so true! We've moved 16x, jumping into new adventures all over the place, have gone from poor to bankruptcy to upper middle-class throughout our marriage. It never mattered because we saw ourselves as partners in crime (not real crime, maybe) and we basically compete with each other to win the best spouse award because we are naturally competitive. Really enjoyed this. Sending to my son.
Several narratives/ideas are being pushed to the detriment of those attempting to form or maintain relationships:
1. Self-actualization (whatever that phrase is worth) or fulfilling ones potential is only possible either as a single or after a celebratory divorce in which one can "live their best life" free from the concerns or desires of another
2. Women's empowerment is achieved through getting men to do ones bidding and achieve the status of unquestioned and unchallenged supreme being, which, as you discuss, women don't actually want. What's the prize of having won a sniveling yes man who won't challenge me to better? (The minute Jamie from Outlander starts kowtowing to Claire she's hitting that time portal. And, to disclose, this was an area I had to wrap my head around to improve my own marriage)
3. The ideas associated with critical theories being incorporated into a relationshop between two people often results in an exhausting exercise in vigilant score keeping.
"A good partnership will fulfill needs and complete lives, but, like good cardiovascular health, these things come as a by-product of other activities that are not always easy or pleasant. You can’t buy romantic bliss off the shelf at the mate store. To get what you want, you must build the thing that can meet those needs: the team."
This is great and it stinks that the idea of changing or growing (with someone else in mind) is perceived as a subordinate act or proof that one doesn't have enough self-love. The same growth, empowerment, whatever buzz word is only worthy is it's done completely independent of others which is just bonkers.
Life is short and often shitty and peddling the idea that other people just get in the way of your good time is...cruel?
Not just cruel, but counterproductive (at least in situations that aren't actually wars--and even then, your team mates make the difference between victory and defeat).
I don't know how to properly express my disdain for score-keeping in relationships. If someone is cheating (through freeloading or otherwise), it's going to become obvious and it won't take very long. Score-keeping is one of those tactics that *causes* the problems (resentment and false-dealing) that it is ostensibly meant to prevent.
Always a pleasure to read your comments, Sarah. Thank you!
I have one question that I'd appreciate your view on as it is more likely it will be high on historical reference and low on ideology in favor of either camp...
Does the blurring of responsibilities in many heterosexual couples make it difficult to appreciate them in either party? In another way, when each person is seen as contributing the same thing, does that make it more or less likely each member feels valued? It may very well be that this is a "it's different for different kinds of people" kind of question but it feels important to ask it honestly.
The attenuation of gender-specific roles definitely has an erosive effect on the mutual admiration that stems from the division-of-labor, but as far as I can tell that comes at least from an erosion of the general ability of humans to work in teams (as opposed to groups) as it does from higher rates of childlessness or of feminist ideas or women's liberation or any of the other usual suspects.
Of course, the movement towards groups and away from teams *could* be read as a "feminizing" tendency (and it may be), but I suspect that it's actually, and ironically, a side-effect of the commercialization of individualism.
To explain:
For a team to function, you need both a good division of labor (i.e. everyone must have an important function that is deserving of esteem). Say, for example, in a small game hunting party (rabbits, grouse, etc.), you might have a tracker, a spotter, a flusher, and a shooter (or all parties might be shooters). You *need* someone who's good at each role, and if you have specialists for each role, you tend to get better results than if you're one dude going alone. If you have generalists for each role, but they divide labor well, then each person is responsible for their role and receives honor for their part of the operation--and, you *still* generally get better results than you get alone (expert solo hunters aside). This is still true if you're a single person and your tracking, flushing, and spotting is being done by dogs--they are still each doing their job, dividing labor, and working as a team.
A group, on the other hand, is a bunch of people...and that's it. You can go berry picking in a group--it's an activity where having company makes it easier to stay out longer and get more berries--but if you went berry picking in a *team* you wouldn't get much benefit from it.
Humans, being social creatures, can work well in both teams and groups, but mass manufacture, marketing, politics, and bureaucracy is much more profitable if it suppresses teams and encourages both groupishness and atomized individualism, and this is reflected in our educational system.
When you were assigned homework in school, you never got team work. You got individual assignments, or group work. In group work, everyone winds up with the same grade, so invariably the most motivated and/or gifted team member does the project and everyone else free-rides. A team assignment would give each team member their own grade for a component of a project, then maybe bonus points for the overall project if it's being done in competition with other teams.
Team sports--including ad-hoc team sports like pick-up basketball and football--have been declining in popularity for a long time, and (among children) in acceptability. Who in their right mind would let their children do a team sport without adult supervision, after all? And what adult wants to supervise children without lots of insurance, etc.?
From the POV of an employer, or a marketer, or a politician, having everyone you work with function as a fungible part that you can plug into your business or customer base. You appeal to people's individual greed and desires, and you get compliance of a sort that allows you to interact with them as a group (which is simpler, cheaper, and very scalable).
On the other hand, a good team forms a power base, making for a population segment (of workers, customers, or constituents) that you can't easily push around--their primary loyalty is to one another because they are part of a team, not to themselves and to those groups with which they identify (i.e. those groups from which they draw their sense of individuality).
Without practice in making teams (situations in which you collaborate, but you are non-fungible), the ethos of teams doesn't develop. Instead, culture-wide, you get a situation where everyone wants groups, but in those groups every individual is out for themselves. It should be no surprise, then, that we see this dynamic percolating into romance.
Anyway, that's my take. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
I wonder how much choice fatigue plays a part. When, for the majority of us, we have an unprecedented number of choices to make from how we spend our time to who we spend it with to where we spend it...this seems to invite self-centeredness. When the majority of humans spent every day managing to meet basic needs of warmth food, shelter, and safety I would imagine people fell into the rhythms and devotions of teams more naturally? In this way too it is perhaps not a result of "feminism" directly but, more choices for women,I believe (correct me if needed) evolved to more "choices" for men to meet their desires and needs in more "free" ways, with both men and women feeling less beholden to one another, and losing sight of what was good and meaningful in those relationships independent of them being necessary for survival.
Im also thinking of the less intense level of responsibility one feels to a group versus a team. While one can argue allegiance to groups is very important today as divergence risks banishment, the result may simply be a loss of popularity (though perhaps a job in some cases) and a switch to another group. I am replaceable to the group and groups may he interchangeable for me. This is a low level of risk and I can trick myself into self-importance without the commitment I must make to actually be important. (Fungible was a new word for me, thanks!)
I'm also thinking of another narrative going around that it takes a long time to find oneself and know what you want and thats why waiting to get married is a good idea. I don't know the specific divorce statistics on that but many of my most.... I'll say content or peaceful friends married and had children relatively young. This shares the table with the notion that growth happens independent of other people (so I better get pretty far ahead before signing myself over to stagnation in a marriage).
Somewhat disparate thoughts, often after reading your posts/notes I let them marinate and see what flavors are most pronounced!
Curious if this is an example of the difference between group and team allegiance in the way you're describing:
Women who raise their young sons as if they are already a part of a sexist, misogynistic adult male group. (Prioritizing their in group membership to feminist/empowered (whatever descriptor one wants to use) women and adopting a guilty by default stance toward their sons
As someone who has been married 85% happily 15% rough times for 26 years, this is spot on. I didn't realize the risk thing until you said it, but it's so true! We've moved 16x, jumping into new adventures all over the place, have gone from poor to bankruptcy to upper middle-class throughout our marriage. It never mattered because we saw ourselves as partners in crime (not real crime, maybe) and we basically compete with each other to win the best spouse award because we are naturally competitive. Really enjoyed this. Sending to my son.
Several narratives/ideas are being pushed to the detriment of those attempting to form or maintain relationships:
1. Self-actualization (whatever that phrase is worth) or fulfilling ones potential is only possible either as a single or after a celebratory divorce in which one can "live their best life" free from the concerns or desires of another
2. Women's empowerment is achieved through getting men to do ones bidding and achieve the status of unquestioned and unchallenged supreme being, which, as you discuss, women don't actually want. What's the prize of having won a sniveling yes man who won't challenge me to better? (The minute Jamie from Outlander starts kowtowing to Claire she's hitting that time portal. And, to disclose, this was an area I had to wrap my head around to improve my own marriage)
3. The ideas associated with critical theories being incorporated into a relationshop between two people often results in an exhausting exercise in vigilant score keeping.
"A good partnership will fulfill needs and complete lives, but, like good cardiovascular health, these things come as a by-product of other activities that are not always easy or pleasant. You can’t buy romantic bliss off the shelf at the mate store. To get what you want, you must build the thing that can meet those needs: the team."
This is great and it stinks that the idea of changing or growing (with someone else in mind) is perceived as a subordinate act or proof that one doesn't have enough self-love. The same growth, empowerment, whatever buzz word is only worthy is it's done completely independent of others which is just bonkers.
Life is short and often shitty and peddling the idea that other people just get in the way of your good time is...cruel?
Thanks for another great article!
Not just cruel, but counterproductive (at least in situations that aren't actually wars--and even then, your team mates make the difference between victory and defeat).
I don't know how to properly express my disdain for score-keeping in relationships. If someone is cheating (through freeloading or otherwise), it's going to become obvious and it won't take very long. Score-keeping is one of those tactics that *causes* the problems (resentment and false-dealing) that it is ostensibly meant to prevent.
Always a pleasure to read your comments, Sarah. Thank you!
Yes! Counterproductive!
I have one question that I'd appreciate your view on as it is more likely it will be high on historical reference and low on ideology in favor of either camp...
Does the blurring of responsibilities in many heterosexual couples make it difficult to appreciate them in either party? In another way, when each person is seen as contributing the same thing, does that make it more or less likely each member feels valued? It may very well be that this is a "it's different for different kinds of people" kind of question but it feels important to ask it honestly.
The attenuation of gender-specific roles definitely has an erosive effect on the mutual admiration that stems from the division-of-labor, but as far as I can tell that comes at least from an erosion of the general ability of humans to work in teams (as opposed to groups) as it does from higher rates of childlessness or of feminist ideas or women's liberation or any of the other usual suspects.
Of course, the movement towards groups and away from teams *could* be read as a "feminizing" tendency (and it may be), but I suspect that it's actually, and ironically, a side-effect of the commercialization of individualism.
To explain:
For a team to function, you need both a good division of labor (i.e. everyone must have an important function that is deserving of esteem). Say, for example, in a small game hunting party (rabbits, grouse, etc.), you might have a tracker, a spotter, a flusher, and a shooter (or all parties might be shooters). You *need* someone who's good at each role, and if you have specialists for each role, you tend to get better results than if you're one dude going alone. If you have generalists for each role, but they divide labor well, then each person is responsible for their role and receives honor for their part of the operation--and, you *still* generally get better results than you get alone (expert solo hunters aside). This is still true if you're a single person and your tracking, flushing, and spotting is being done by dogs--they are still each doing their job, dividing labor, and working as a team.
A group, on the other hand, is a bunch of people...and that's it. You can go berry picking in a group--it's an activity where having company makes it easier to stay out longer and get more berries--but if you went berry picking in a *team* you wouldn't get much benefit from it.
Humans, being social creatures, can work well in both teams and groups, but mass manufacture, marketing, politics, and bureaucracy is much more profitable if it suppresses teams and encourages both groupishness and atomized individualism, and this is reflected in our educational system.
When you were assigned homework in school, you never got team work. You got individual assignments, or group work. In group work, everyone winds up with the same grade, so invariably the most motivated and/or gifted team member does the project and everyone else free-rides. A team assignment would give each team member their own grade for a component of a project, then maybe bonus points for the overall project if it's being done in competition with other teams.
Team sports--including ad-hoc team sports like pick-up basketball and football--have been declining in popularity for a long time, and (among children) in acceptability. Who in their right mind would let their children do a team sport without adult supervision, after all? And what adult wants to supervise children without lots of insurance, etc.?
From the POV of an employer, or a marketer, or a politician, having everyone you work with function as a fungible part that you can plug into your business or customer base. You appeal to people's individual greed and desires, and you get compliance of a sort that allows you to interact with them as a group (which is simpler, cheaper, and very scalable).
On the other hand, a good team forms a power base, making for a population segment (of workers, customers, or constituents) that you can't easily push around--their primary loyalty is to one another because they are part of a team, not to themselves and to those groups with which they identify (i.e. those groups from which they draw their sense of individuality).
Without practice in making teams (situations in which you collaborate, but you are non-fungible), the ethos of teams doesn't develop. Instead, culture-wide, you get a situation where everyone wants groups, but in those groups every individual is out for themselves. It should be no surprise, then, that we see this dynamic percolating into romance.
Anyway, that's my take. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Much to sift through here...
I wonder how much choice fatigue plays a part. When, for the majority of us, we have an unprecedented number of choices to make from how we spend our time to who we spend it with to where we spend it...this seems to invite self-centeredness. When the majority of humans spent every day managing to meet basic needs of warmth food, shelter, and safety I would imagine people fell into the rhythms and devotions of teams more naturally? In this way too it is perhaps not a result of "feminism" directly but, more choices for women,I believe (correct me if needed) evolved to more "choices" for men to meet their desires and needs in more "free" ways, with both men and women feeling less beholden to one another, and losing sight of what was good and meaningful in those relationships independent of them being necessary for survival.
Im also thinking of the less intense level of responsibility one feels to a group versus a team. While one can argue allegiance to groups is very important today as divergence risks banishment, the result may simply be a loss of popularity (though perhaps a job in some cases) and a switch to another group. I am replaceable to the group and groups may he interchangeable for me. This is a low level of risk and I can trick myself into self-importance without the commitment I must make to actually be important. (Fungible was a new word for me, thanks!)
I'm also thinking of another narrative going around that it takes a long time to find oneself and know what you want and thats why waiting to get married is a good idea. I don't know the specific divorce statistics on that but many of my most.... I'll say content or peaceful friends married and had children relatively young. This shares the table with the notion that growth happens independent of other people (so I better get pretty far ahead before signing myself over to stagnation in a marriage).
Somewhat disparate thoughts, often after reading your posts/notes I let them marinate and see what flavors are most pronounced!
Curious if this is an example of the difference between group and team allegiance in the way you're describing:
Women who raise their young sons as if they are already a part of a sexist, misogynistic adult male group. (Prioritizing their in group membership to feminist/empowered (whatever descriptor one wants to use) women and adopting a guilty by default stance toward their sons
You were far kinder than I would have been. ;-).
Forwarded to my 16 year old.
I've wasted so much of my life lifting weights! All this time I could have crushed a ton of ass with a Hobbit Bod.
Also, St. Paul, the greatest marketing genius ever?
There is a good case to be made!