I think monogamy was invented by men to control women and to validate their claims of owning land and space that actually belongs to a community.
Women tend to do really well in open nonmonogamy and men sometimes not as good. Like in modern times, think of an orgy - women are usually at the center of these and men at the outskirts. If every man agrees to just take 1 woman, then that’s a good deal for men. But maybe not what women naturally want. So we compel women’s behavior by withholding capital and needs from them and their children unless they comply.
Eventually over time, this lead to what you’re talking about - the wealthy and inheritance rights. But I think monogamy came before that and actually caused it. (Which is why full service sex work is illegal/taboo and why it threatens capitalism and the patriarchy itself). I think marriage is a form of soft slavery for women and has been for thousands of years.
Different ages had different reasons, but in general women indeed weren’t seen as equals.
Also let’s not forget that having multiple wives or concubines was quite popular in parts of the world not Europe and still is for some.
Despite the commodification of women having a long and constant history, I can’t help but doubt monogamy’s exact role in it.
The European modern marriage is still only some centuries old.
If i recall the story right, it began with merchant houses trading daughters and signing it as contract on paper/leather. And slowly evolved from there.
The peasantry was far more fluid in their cohabitation arrangements and feuding families needed workers/warriors, so back then there was little time for pleasure and was more a matter of survival.
I believe it was the church that eventually shackled the peasantry in monogamous relationships, for control, puritanism, to attack the nobility or whatever other reasons.
So I don’t see monogamy as a direct assault on women, but rather a welcomed side effect by those who implemented it for other selfish reasons.
I disagree on that. Monogamy was invented by rich people to secure inheritance rights.
so…control. yep.
But this was more against each other than against the lower class.
I think monogamy was invented by men to control women and to validate their claims of owning land and space that actually belongs to a community.
Women tend to do really well in open nonmonogamy and men sometimes not as good. Like in modern times, think of an orgy - women are usually at the center of these and men at the outskirts. If every man agrees to just take 1 woman, then that’s a good deal for men. But maybe not what women naturally want. So we compel women’s behavior by withholding capital and needs from them and their children unless they comply.
Eventually over time, this lead to what you’re talking about - the wealthy and inheritance rights. But I think monogamy came before that and actually caused it. (Which is why full service sex work is illegal/taboo and why it threatens capitalism and the patriarchy itself). I think marriage is a form of soft slavery for women and has been for thousands of years.
Different ages had different reasons, but in general women indeed weren’t seen as equals.
Also let’s not forget that having multiple wives or concubines was quite popular in parts of the world not Europe and still is for some.
Despite the commodification of women having a long and constant history, I can’t help but doubt monogamy’s exact role in it.
The European modern marriage is still only some centuries old. If i recall the story right, it began with merchant houses trading daughters and signing it as contract on paper/leather. And slowly evolved from there.
The peasantry was far more fluid in their cohabitation arrangements and feuding families needed workers/warriors, so back then there was little time for pleasure and was more a matter of survival.
I believe it was the church that eventually shackled the peasantry in monogamous relationships, for control, puritanism, to attack the nobility or whatever other reasons.
So I don’t see monogamy as a direct assault on women, but rather a welcomed side effect by those who implemented it for other selfish reasons.