Marriage and alimony - Dr Soin's fallacy

Andy Ho wrote a half decent commentary of Kanwaljit Soin's recent rant to grant alimony for men. Not so sure I agree with him though. And certainly not with her that men and women are equal and that 'In this era, maintenance should be on the basis of need and not on the basis of sex.' (I think she meant gender.)

It is an important discussion, because it will help us come to terms with what the institution of marriage really is. This does have repercussions for the future, because the earning power of men and women will become less (although I think not for a long time more), and also when the same sex marriage people start pushing their agenda. Actually I am not to sure how much Dr Soin's push for 'gender equality' comes from her close association with AWARE and her ideas of a genderless marriage. This is certainly not advancing the cause of women, but reducing the approriate consideration of the gender based disadvantage that women have in the marriage relationship.

Marriage to my mind is, and will remain an equal partnership where the partners bring different assets and resources into the relationship and are intrinsically unequal. This cannot be denied. On one hand, women tend to marry up (yes, yes, there are exceptions, I know), they bring their womb and eggs and commit to being a mother (and yes, of course there are exceptions!) and by and large, they tend to step down their ambitions and career advancements to look after the home. To this end they become more of a dependent than a provider. This is a reality, and in her push to advance the idea that women are as masculine as men, Dr Soin should not forget this.

But having come into the partnership as non-equals, marriage is an equalizer, and the partnership becomes an equal partnersip, where both have equal responsibilities for the family and child rearing (should there be children). Best of all, family wealth become equally shared.

Within the institution of marriage, there are three recognizable elements should a marriage dissolve:

a] sharing of conjugal property
b] mainenance of the wife as a dependent (in recognition of her dependent status during marriage)
c] continued shouldering of the parental roles, fiscally and functionally.

These are not gender equal, and it is right that the Women's Charter continue to protect the rights of women with respect to these issues. It is true that in some isolated situations, the roles may somehow be reversed, in part of in whole, and the courts should have some leeway in determining how to vary the outcomes accordingly. But these would be by far, the exception than the rule.

Dr Soin, in her attempt to be progressive should not quickly barter these away. Marriage is an equal partnership, but needs to recognize that the individual partners are not true equals.

Above all marriage is not genderless.

Government, homosexuality and AWARE

So the government has broken its silence on the issue. There's fairly wide coverage of this in the Straits Times today, so go read.

Whatever we may often criticise the gahment for, I must admit that at the crucial moments, they have been able to step in and provide the calming leadership that is required. This has been one such occasion. So I applaud the government for the very even handed way that they have now dealt with this issue. There have been a couple of slaps on the wrists where they have been needed, but I don't think anyone would dispute that they were justified. I don't think anyone would be shouting 'referee kelong'.

But here's a thought worth pondering....I think.

We don't really want religious groups muscling into what we perceive as public space, and imposing their views on a secular activity (really? how about schools and hospitals? But I digress....). The public reaction against the perceived Christian takeover of AWARE was very clear even though it was really not a church-backed 'takeover', rather one that was coordinated by a group of like-minded people from the same church. But the message was unmistakable. But how about if so-called secular groups like AWARE were taken over by a group of like-minded activists of LBGT leanings? Shouldn't we be equally concerned?

Shouldn't we?

AWARE? Quo Vadis?

Paul Jacobs, Dy Political Editor of Straits Times, wrote a pretty balanced editorial on the issue. I can't reproduce it here, so I suggest you go read for yourself. It's on pg A2 of today's issue.

from My Sketchbook

Nature and infidelity - a venus and mars thing?

There was a report in today's My Paper (yes, yes...I read My Paper...'cos it goes well with my teh see siew dai!!), about a kinda pointless study done in the Virginia Commonwealth University about men and infidelity, and such...The New Scientist reported on it as well.

"Paul Andrews at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and colleagues gave 203 young heterosexual couples confidential questionnaires asking them whether they had ever strayed, and whether they suspected or knew their partner had strayed. In this, 29 per cent of men said they had cheated, compared with 18.5 per cent of women.

The men were better than women at judging fidelity. "Eighty per cent of women's inferences about fidelity or infidelity were correct, but men were even better, accurate 94 per cent of the time," says Andrews. They were also more likely to catch out a cheating partner, detecting 75 per cent of the reported infidelities compared with 41 per cent discovered by women (Human Nature, vol 19, p 347). However, men were also more likely to suspect infidelity when there was none."

Kinda silly and pointless because you don't really need to do expensive research to tell you what you already could have figured out.

Considerations of love and such aside.... the females of our species are biologically more concerned about raising their offspring. Once they got the sperms they want, all they are interested in is to ensure that her offsprings are adequately resourced and can be raised safely. That's really all they need the males for. And if they are unfaithful, they are not likely to fess up and risk losing their source of support. They are also not very hung up on the fidelity of their male partners...as long as their family resources are not compromised.

The males of our species however, are really only interested in sowing their oats. If they are unfaithful they are not shy about advertising it...kinda like a badge of honour. What they are concerned about really is that their women are faithful...because they are concerned about whose children their women are bearing. Hence the fidelity of their partners are paramount.

Hence men are biologically more likely to confess their infidelity and also more sensitive to the spouses' infidelity. Women however, hide their infidelity and forgive their spouses' sins, as long as they are able to preserve the family integrity...and resources.

Common sense.

But we humans are complex creatures. We layer our biology with things like love and respect...and ideas of morality. We regard much of our biology as part of our animal and baser instincts....that have to be suppressed. What is sin but that deep dark biological urge that must be kept under control?

But it is love and morality that keeps order in our lives, and generally keeps us sane. 

Funny thing this thing called love.