Remarriage

[Guest guest]

On 21 Dec 1998, Radha-Krishna das wrote:

> Based on the original posting ("A woman who remarries has no incentive to

> preserve her former husband's DNA") I would like to restate my basic point:

> That human beings are more into transmitting values instead of DNA.

 

That may be the goal, but there is no guarantee that that will work

out. The only thing that is guaranteed is the transmission of DNA.

 

> Of

> course the DNA thing is there as a starting point but there is much more

> than that in civilized parenting.

 

I'm not convinced that the modern world is composed solely of

examples of "civilized parenting." I just spent some time looking

at the last US Census. Almost half of all black children in the US

and about 20% of all US children grow up in a mother-only

household. If we have to assign blame, I'd bet that most of those

cases are the fault of a useless man. It's enough to convince

me that DNA-only parenting is far more common than we might be

willing to admit. (It's certainly far more common than female

abortion or infanticide in India, but those topics seem to get

more attention for some reason.)

 

> The argument that a remarried woman has no incentive to preserve her former

> husband's DNA is flawed also because experience has shown that a single

> mother, as a norm, looks for relationships that give security to her and

> her kid(s), not relationships at the expense of the kids.

 

"Looking for the relationship" happens before she has kids with the

new man; what happens afterward?

 

> > Yes, there's altruism everywhere, even among animals. However, it's

> > invariably the exception, not the rule.

 

> If you say that altruism is everywhere, even among animals, then it is the

> rule not the exception.

 

I don't see why you say that; there's left-handedness everywhere,

but it's still the exception. Most people are right-handed, and

most people act for their own good almost all of the time.

 

> YS RK Mex

 

YS VP Tex

[Guest guest]

On 22 Dec 1998, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> In an age when men have no sense of duty and leave women with children

without

> means of support, the fittest women may be those who remarry in order to

> secure economic stability for their children. It is either that or take

> roles

> traditionally thought of as male, i.e. being the breadwinner, so that their

> children may survive.

 

If we accept the "maataa shatrur vyabhichaariNii" argument,

though, then the latter of those choices (taking on a "male" role)

certainly seems preferable. Regardless of whether or not we accept

that argument, though, the situation you've described above is an

"apa-dharma" situation; generally, one can do anything if it's a

matter of survival (even eat dog meat). However, that doesn't mean

that we should eat dog meat for fun or when it's not a matter of

survival. Further, such incidents of dog-meat-eating should be

considered only in their given context, not accepted as general

rules.

 

The second consideration is whether all women who remarry are doing

so only for the sake of the survival of their children (that

was the main point that continued in the other paragraphs of

your note, which I've snipped). If a woman were really motivated

by that alone, she could consider marrying a homosexual; that way,

she gets a man's protection and income without the possibility of

producing competitors to her own children (and she might finally get

a husband who is interested in shopping!). As far as I know, though,

women who remarry make every effort to marry heterosexual men.

Again, this isn't to condemn women who remarry, only to point out

that it's not as black-and-white as you've made it sound above.

 

> As Ajamila said, you do need to look at individual cases.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

YS, vp