Arthur C. Clarke, the Relationship Issue, and Science Fiction
Randy McDonald
given rasfw's position and its wide array of experts. See
<http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/798526.html> for the original
posting.
***
I've recently read Sunstorm, the second volume in Arthur C. Clarke's
collaborative series with Stephen Baxter. The first volume in this
series, Time's Eye, was a jumble at virtually all levels. Sunstorm is
more enjoyable, the story of a human confrontation with Monolith-type
entities with less than benevolent intentions. Baxter's influence is in
this theme, I believe.
While I was reading this book, something nagged me, reminding me of
Clarke's famous solo 1951 The Sands of Mars. One major character in
Sunstorm is the stellar astronomer Mikhail Martynov, a fortysomething
who had the misfortune to be born gay in the repressive environment of
Vladivostok, later in life Martynov taking advantage of his brains and
the mobility provided Russia's citizens by their countryside membership
in the Eurasian Union to flee, by which time he had lost all interest in
romantic dalliances. The major protagonist in The Sands of Mars is the
British writer Martin Gibson, an accomplished journalist who had an
affair with a young woman when he was younger, suffered a nervous
breakdown for some unspecified reason, and then went on to
international--and interplanetary--success as a happily single man.
Thinking back over the Clarke novels I've read, I find myself
hard-pressed to recall any prominently heterosexual characters. In 2001
and that books sequels, for instance, both Heywood Floyd and Dave Bowman
are written as having had heterosexual relationships safely displaced,
whether to the comfortably distant past or offstage. The only depiction
of a functioning heterosexual relationship that I can think of in
Clarke's books is in 1986's The Songs of Distant Earth, between an
Earth-born human crewman and a Thalassan colonist. (The original short
story is available here.) Even that is compromised by the crewman's
decision to leave for the distant world of Sagan Two while leaving his
lover, pregnant with his child, behind.
It isn't as if Clarke wrote more convincing gay relationships, or any
sort of convincing and enduring relationships at all, in his major
novels. Re-reading some of them recently, I've noticed that the
relationships he does show--yes, even in The Songs of Distant
Earth--strike me as hollow and unconvincing, as reiterations of
conventional wisdoms in properly purple prose. Ryan Bigge observed that
the fiction of Douglas
I have always found the weakest, vaguest sections of his novels to be
those all-too-rare paragraphs that portray male-female relationships.
(Which, obviously, is not to suggest that gay writers can't accurately
describe such relationships. To argue that being gay excludes a writer
from discussing heterosexuality is equivalent to saying that a male
author is incapable of creating a convincing female protagonist or vice
versa).
But even Doug seems to silently acknowledge his deficiencies in this
department. One tactic is evasion, evidenced by Generation X's Andy
stating "Claire and I never fell in love, even though we both tried
hard. It happens." Many Doug protagonists -- the characters most likely
to embody portions of Coupland -- are single. These supra-observant
eunuchs express their love and loss through other characters.
Another tactic of Coupland's is romance rushing, like the following
example from Shampoo Planet: "The experience had made Anna-Louise, well,
randy, and I was summoned to her apartment. By midnight, hours later, we
were both lying blissfully on her futon, under the down coverlet, her
face and body like a recently vacated carnival site, disconcertingly
unchanged by the burst of life so recently bubbling on top."
Many of Doug's characters are tentative romantics. "I would like to fall
in love again but my only hope is that love doesn't happen to me so
often after this," notes a character in Life After God. "I'm new at this
love thing," says Dan from Microserfs. (Interestingly, Dan and Karla
never consummate their relationship. But then again, it is a novel about
computer geeks. :)
Even more interesting is Bug from Microserfs. Half-way through the novel
he suddenly blurts out that he's gay: "I've been 'inning' myself for too
long," he said, "and now it's time to out myself. It's something you'll
all have to deal with, but believe me, I've been dealing with it a lot
longer than you."
(Yes, (Coupland is.) While I certainly don't claim to be as good a
writer as either man, looking back at some of the short stories I'd
written before I clued in I noticed the same kind of tendency towards a
certain flatness, an overintellectualizing of passion that removed the
emotion that my characters should have been communicating from my
readers. Things make so much more sense now.
This topic didn't attract my interest only tangentially because of
Clarke's sexual orientation. Once I noticed the pattern, it raised an
important question in my mind about the genre of science fiction. Clarke
is unquestionably a classic writer of science fiction, one of the few
writers still alive and still active in his field. Clarke, it's safe to
say, is one of the writers in science fiction's canon, a model for his
successors and contemporaries. Clarke does have his weaknesses when it
comes to relationships, for whatever reason. From my readings of other
science fiction novels--other novels by classic writers, other novels
written by my contemporaries--I think that this weakness is common to
the genre as a whole. Evasion, romance-rushing, tentative romance: All
of these tactics are common whenever science fiction writers try to deal
with romance.
This, perhaps sadly, isn't as common as it should be. Perhaps I'm
reading the wrong books, perhaps I'm jaded, but human relationships
generally seem to be neglected in science fiction in favour of exciting
ideas or new technologies. Science fiction is a literature of ideas, I
grant that, but isn't it literature first and foremost? What does it say
about science fiction's writers and readers when no one notices this?
What does it say about the future of the genre itself?
--
R.F. McDonald
r_f_mc...@yahoo.ca
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/
"What! call a Turk, a Jew, and a Siamese, my brother? Yes, of course;
for are we all not children of the same father, and the creatures of
the same God?"
- Voltaire, from _Treatise on Tolerance,_ 1763
Mike Stone
news:42CF63...@sympatico.ca...
> I thought that I'd repost an article I wrote on my blog on this topic,
> given rasfw's position and its wide array of experts. See
> <http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/798526.html> for the original
> posting.
>
> ***
> > I've recently read Sunstorm, the second volume in Arthur C. Clarke's
> collaborative series with Stephen Baxter. The first volume in this
> series, Time's Eye, was a jumble at virtually all levels. Sunstorm is
> more
> This topic didn't attract my interest only tangentially because of
> Clarke's sexual orientation. Once I noticed the pattern, it raised an
> important question in my mind about the genre of science fiction. Clarke
> is unquestionably a classic writer of science fiction, one of the few
> writers still alive and still active in his field. Clarke, it's safe to
> say, is one of the writers in science fiction's canon, a model for his
> successors and contemporaries. Clarke does have his weaknesses when it
> comes to relationships, for whatever reason. From my readings of other
> science fiction novels--other novels by classic writers, other novels
> written by my contemporaries--I think that this weakness is common to
> the genre as a whole. Evasion, romance-rushing, tentative romance: All
> of these tactics are common whenever science fiction writers try to deal
> with romance.
>
> This, perhaps sadly, isn't as common as it should be. Perhaps I'm
> reading the wrong books, perhaps I'm jaded, but human relationships
> generally seem to be neglected in science fiction in favour of exciting
> ideas or new technologies. Science fiction is a literature of ideas, I
> grant that, but isn't it literature first and foremost? What does it say
> about science fiction's writers and readers when no one notices this?
> What does it say about the future of the genre itself?
>
It suggests that sf writers/readers are more than average likely to be
"loners" who are more interested in books/ideas than in other people. As to
the future of the genre, said genre has been surviving quite well on that
basis for more than a century, so will probably do ok in the future also.
Incidentally, I agree that Clarke's weakness iro heterosexual relationships
probably has little if anything to do with his sexual orientation. Sf has
been pretty male oriented (perhaps because science and technology were seen
till very recently as male spheres) right from its beginnings. I don't
recall many female characters in Jules Verne or HG Wells (well, the time
traveller does dally with little Weena, but he seems to view her more as a
child than a woman). Even Eric Frank Russell, who was probably more
"humanistic" and less tech-oriented than the great majority of sf authors,
practically ignores the female half of the human race. _Wasp_, _Men,
Martians & Machines_, and _Next of Kin_ don't have a single female character
between them, while Moira in _Three To Conquer_ is hardly an important one.
The hero's future wife doesn't even appear till halfway through the last
chapter. He does a bit better with Elissa in _And Then There Were None_, but
about his most important female character I can recall is the little girl
(!!) in _I Am Nothing_. Poull Anderson did a little better, with an
interesting villainess in _The Corridors of Time_, an all-female spacecrew
in _After Doomsday_ and an all-female _world_ in Virgin Planet_, but most of
hios women are in pretty minor roles. Heinlein includes a mild love interest
in _If This Goes On_,and Asimov does a little better with Susan Calvin and
Bayta Darell, but about the only "classical" author who gives women a real
share of the action seems to be, of all people, Doc Smith. Why _him_ I
really ahven't the slightest idea.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.
It is essential to show some forty-twode
David Cowie
(some snippage)
> relationships he does show--yes, even in The Songs of Distant
> Earth--strike me as hollow and unconvincing, as reiterations of
> conventional wisdoms in properly purple prose. Ryan Bigge observed that
> the fiction of Douglas
>
>
> I have always found the weakest, vaguest sections of his novels to be
> those all-too-rare paragraphs that portray male-female relationships.
There appears to be something missing in the middle.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 14469:22
Will DuPower
> given rasfw's position and its wide array of experts. See
> <http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/798526.html> for the original
> posting.
Big Snip:
"Perhaps I'm reading the wrong books, perhaps I'm jaded, but human
relationships
generally seem to be neglected in science fiction in favour of exciting
ideas or new technologies".
Perhaps you are....?
Doesn't it depends on how you define science fiction? 'Hard SF' is not read
for its endearing renditions of relationships. If you broaden the
definition of sf then your claim is harder to validate.
Joe Haldeman does really nice work with human relationships. I thought his
'Worlds Triliogy, and Forever War, each in their own unique way, explore the
intracies of human relationships. Lucius Shepard is master of exploring
certain kinds of human relationships. As do Jonation Carroll, Walter Tevis,
Robert Charles Wilson and A.A. Attanasio. All these guys can be said to
write science fiction that explores relationships. Then there are the
mainstream authors who've written speculative fiction. Say, Margaret
Attwood and if you want to push it people like Doris Lessing.
Peace,
Will
rja.ca...@excite.com
> Thinking back over the Clarke novels I've read, I find myself
> hard-pressed to recall any prominently heterosexual characters. In 2001
> and that books sequels, for instance, both Heywood Floyd and Dave Bowman
> are written as having had heterosexual relationships safely displaced,
> whether to the comfortably distant past or offstage. The only depiction
> of a functioning heterosexual relationship that I can think of in
> Clarke's books is in 1986's The Songs of Distant Earth, between an
> Earth-born human crewman and a Thalassan colonist. (The original short
> story is available here.) Even that is compromised by the crewman's
> decision to leave for the distant world of Sagan Two while leaving his
> lover, pregnant with his child, behind.
I think _The Hammer of God_ has a relatively lengthy, if not entirely
realised, portrait of a marriage. In that case, Clarke seems to want
to put forward the argument, not unique, that as we live longer - and
are more affluent - we will routinely grow out of our relationships;
including parent-child - well-adjusted children won't be so damaged in
the future when one parent walks away. And anyway, they'll only ever
be a cell phone call away.
I'm not sure if the ship captain who I think has that relationship in
HoG is also bisexual, but isn't it him who has an elderly gay couple on
Earth's primary space station as close friends, fairly camp (well, they
send the captain a flirty letter) and at home to a succession of
beautiful boys (i.e. men under twenty-five)? I think that part could
be how Clarke wants to go out! And come to think, was the captain the
same guy who has a hot athlete, on the Moon...
rja.ca...@excite.com
> And come to think, was the captain the
> same guy who has a hot athlete, on the Moon...
Er, "the same guy who was a hot athlete"...
frisbie...@yahoo.com
> From my readings of other
> science fiction novels--other novels by classic writers, other novels
> written by my contemporaries--I think that this weakness is common to
> the genre as a whole. Evasion, romance-rushing, tentative romance: All
> of these tactics are common whenever science fiction writers try to deal
> with romance.
>
Yah. Science paralyzes the gonads. The only convincing romance I can
think of was an obscure novel about a love affair between an accountant
and the madam of an interstellar whorehouse.
Ross Presser
> Thinking back over the Clarke novels I've read, I find myself
> hard-pressed to recall any prominently heterosexual characters.
In Clarke's novel _Imperial Earth_, the female character known as Calindy
played a very important role. While the two men interested in her are both
written as bisexual, it's never mentioned whether she is as well; only her
heterosexual affairs are mentioned.
Randy McDonald
>
> Randy McDonald wrote:
> > Thinking back over the Clarke novels I've read, I find myself
> > hard-pressed to recall any prominently heterosexual characters. In 2001
> > and that books sequels, for instance, both Heywood Floyd and Dave Bowman
> > are written as having had heterosexual relationships safely displaced,
> > whether to the comfortably distant past or offstage. The only depiction
> > of a functioning heterosexual relationship that I can think of in
> > Clarke's books is in 1986's The Songs of Distant Earth, between an
> > Earth-born human crewman and a Thalassan colonist. (The original short
> > story is available here.) Even that is compromised by the crewman's
> > decision to leave for the distant world of Sagan Two while leaving his
> > lover, pregnant with his child, behind.
>
> I think _The Hammer of God_ has a relatively lengthy, if not entirely
> realised, portrait of a marriage. In that case, Clarke seems to want
> to put forward the argument, not unique, that as we live longer - and
> are more affluent - we will routinely grow out of our relationships;
> including parent-child - well-adjusted children won't be so damaged in
> the future when one parent walks away. And anyway, they'll only ever
> be a cell phone call away.
Um. I think I understand where Clarke is coming from, in his description
of the transience of relationships. It's not a good place.
> [deletia]
Randy McDonald
>
> [deletia]
>
> Doesn't it depends on how you define science fiction? 'Hard SF' is not read
> for its endearing renditions of relationships. If you broaden the
> definition of sf then your claim is harder to validate.
Overly broad, though, and the category loses meaning.
> Joe Haldeman does really nice work with human relationships. I thought his
> 'Worlds Triliogy, and Forever War, each in their own unique way, explore the
> intracies of human relationships. Lucius Shepard is master of exploring
> certain kinds of human relationships. As do Jonation Carroll, Walter Tevis,
> Robert Charles Wilson and A.A. Attanasio.
The problem, alas, is that with the exceptions of Haldeman and Wilson
these authors' works aren't the ones that I see being offered for sale.
Other authors, ones whose depictions of human relationships are either
bad or non-existent, tend to be the ones whose works are being bought.
Yes, there are marketing problems; there are also readership problems.
> All these guys can be said to
> write science fiction that explores relationships. Then there are the
> mainstream authors who've written speculative fiction. Say, Margaret
> Attwood and if you want to push it people like Doris Lessing.
You can, if you want, stretch the boundaries of the category that far.
By doing so, you make the category meaningless.
> Peace,
>
> Will
Randy McDonald
I'm skeptical of that. In most bookstores I've seen, science fiction has
a smaller amount of shelf space than romance or mystery. Worse, the
books that are being sold are increasingly media tie-ins; original
fiction is becoming more difficult to find. Science fiction risks
becoming a ghetto, with an aging readerships and writers interested in
the genre leaving for other genres.
> Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
>
> Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
> everything is not a task for cowards.
>
> It is essential to show some forty-twode
--
Mike Stone
> Mike Stone wrote:
> >
> > "Randy McDonald" <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:42CF63...@sympatico.ca...
>>>Perhaps I'm
> > > reading the wrong books, perhaps I'm jaded, but human relationships
> > > generally seem to be neglected in science fiction in favour of
exciting
> > > ideas or new technologies. Science fiction is a literature of ideas, I
> > > grant that, but isn't it literature first and foremost? What does it
say
> > > about science fiction's writers and readers when no one notices this?
> > > What does it say about the future of the genre itself?
> > >
> >
> > It suggests that sf writers/readers are more than average likely to be
> > "loners" who are more interested in books/ideas than in other people.
As to
> > the future of the genre, said genre has been surviving quite well on
that
> > basis for more than a century, so will probably do ok in the future
also.
>
> I'm skeptical of that. In most bookstores I've seen, science fiction has
> a smaller amount of shelf space than romance or mystery. Worse, the
> books that are being sold are increasingly media tie-ins; original
> fiction is becoming more difficult to find. Science fiction risks
> becoming a ghetto, with an aging readerships and writers interested in
> the genre leaving for other genres.
>
My heart bleeds. When I first became an sf fan (as a kid in the 1950s) it
was hard to find a bookshop that had sf at all. And "getting out of the
ghetto" was a major issue in editorials and letter columns _then_.
This yiounger generation has been spoilt rotten <g>
--
rja.ca...@excite.com
Randy McDonald wrote:
> rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
> >
> > Randy McDonald wrote:
> > > Thinking back over the Clarke novels I've read, I find myself
> > > hard-pressed to recall any prominently heterosexual characters. In 2001
> > > and that books sequels, for instance, both Heywood Floyd and Dave Bowman
> > > are written as having had heterosexual relationships safely displaced,
> > > whether to the comfortably distant past or offstage. The only depiction
> > > of a functioning heterosexual relationship that I can think of in
> > > Clarke's books is in 1986's The Songs of Distant Earth, between an
> > > Earth-born human crewman and a Thalassan colonist. (The original short
> > > story is available here.) Even that is compromised by the crewman's
> > > decision to leave for the distant world of Sagan Two while leaving his
> > > lover, pregnant with his child, behind.
> >
> > I think _The Hammer of God_ has a relatively lengthy, if not entirely
> > realised, portrait of a marriage. In that case, Clarke seems to want
> > to put forward the argument, not unique, that as we live longer - and
> > are more affluent - we will routinely grow out of our relationships;
> > including parent-child - well-adjusted children won't be so damaged in
> > the future when one parent walks away. And anyway, they'll only ever
> > be a cell phone call away.
>
> Um. I think I understand where Clarke is coming from, in his description
> of the transience of relationships. It's not a good place.
Actually, I consider the modern increase in marriage breakup to be only
partly due to non-enforcement of the death penalty for adultery, and
more because marriages aren't ending so often with death of wife in
childbirth or of husband in work-related accident or of either from
transmissible disease. We have more time to get around to failing at
marriage. Maybe less time, in busy lives, to get it right.
Wayne Throop
:: Actually, I consider the modern increase in marriage breakup to be
:: only partly due to non-enforcement of the death penalty for adultery,
:: and more because marriages aren't ending so often with death of wife
:: in childbirth or of husband in work-related accident or of either
:: from transmissible disease. We have more time to get around to
:: failing at marriage. Maybe less time, in busy lives, to get it right.
: Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com>
: Exactly - it's like the way diseases associated with old age are
: becoming more common now that more people reach old age.
That doesn't hang together for me a a prime cause (though it could
be a contributory factor). Because even if men and women dropped
dead in their early 30s, that doesn't explain the increase in
divorce among 20-somethings. Nor does it explain the number of
folks in the old days who, having survived a few more decades,
nevertheless mostly went on in lives of quiet desperation even
if their marriages weren't working so well.
My suspicion is that it's the economics that have changed,
more than can be explained by improved survival rates.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Charlie Stross
as <thr...@sheol.org> declared:
>: Exactly - it's like the way diseases associated with old age are
>: becoming more common now that more people reach old age.
>
> That doesn't hang together for me a a prime cause (though it could
> be a contributory factor). Because even if men and women dropped
> dead in their early 30s, that doesn't explain the increase in
> divorce among 20-somethings. Nor does it explain the number of
> folks in the old days who, having survived a few more decades,
> nevertheless mostly went on in lives of quiet desperation even
> if their marriages weren't working so well.
>
> My suspicion is that it's the economics that have changed,
> more than can be explained by improved survival rates.
Divorce is not cost-free today, despite the wishful thinking
of the religious social conservatives who blame every
ailment of society on its availability. The legal fees
associated with an uncontested divorce are at least as great
as those that go with buying a house, and when there are
children involved the economic consequences are subjectively
bad for both parties.
On the other hand, I ran across a study a couple of years
back that concluded the average duration of a marriage in
Victorian England was just 12 years. (Men married older,
having to take time to accumulate the resources to support a
wife and family; women had a higher mortality rate in
childbirth: life expectancy was generally shorter than it is
today.) Whereas in the UK today, the average duration of a
marriage is ... 12 years.
I suspect the 20-something divorce figures simply reflect
early relationships that don't work out, and that are easier
to disentangle due to the relative lack of shared property
and the absence of children. That is a new phenomenon; but
not, in my books, one that is necessarily bad.
But getting back to the topic in hand: it looks, on the
basis of those statistics I've seen, as if the average
duration of human marriages is about 12 years (with a high
proportion foundering in the first couple of years, and a
significant number surviving the early difficult times and
continuing for life). I'm not sure longevity would change
this. What I *can* see longevity, and specifically medical
procedures for preventing aging, changing, is patterns of
child-rearing: if we ever get to the point where we have
unlimited life expectancy in good health, then the pressure
on young women to have babies will disappear. And the
long-term economic and social consequences are going to be
interesting.
-- Charlie
Par
> On the other hand, I ran across a study a couple of years
> back that concluded the average duration of a marriage in
> Victorian England was just 12 years. (Men married older,
> having to take time to accumulate the resources to support a
> wife and family; women had a higher mortality rate in
> childbirth: life expectancy was generally shorter than it is
> today.) Whereas in the UK today, the average duration of a
> marriage is ... 12 years.
> basis of those statistics I've seen, as if the average
> duration of human marriages is about 12 years (with a high
> proportion foundering in the first couple of years, and a
> significant number surviving the early difficult times and
> continuing for life). I'm not sure longevity would change
How does the distribution look? It might be that the 12 year average
(did they give the median?) is totally fictious. Also, one might want
to separate out the marriages that end by one of the parners death.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"The thing you don't check is the thing that will kill you."
-- Rick Grant (quoting RCAF pilot training)
Omixochitl
news:slrnddkk3l....@hunter-gatherer.org:
> Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org>:
>> On the other hand, I ran across a study a couple of years
>> back that concluded the average duration of a marriage in
>> Victorian England was just 12 years. (Men married older,
>> having to take time to accumulate the resources to support a
>> wife and family; women had a higher mortality rate in
>> childbirth: life expectancy was generally shorter than it is
>> today.) Whereas in the UK today, the average duration of a
>> marriage is ... 12 years.
>
>> But getting back to the topic in hand: it looks, on the
>> basis of those statistics I've seen, as if the average
>> duration of human marriages is about 12 years (with a high
>> proportion foundering in the first couple of years, and a
>> significant number surviving the early difficult times and
>> continuing for life). I'm not sure longevity would change
>
> How does the distribution look? It might be that the 12 year average
> (did they give the median?) is totally fictious. Also, one might want
> to separate out the marriages that end by one of the parners death.
It's prefectly relevant to *not* separate those out. If you're trying to
keep track of things that prevent divorce, then leaving out things that
cause widowhood and widowerhood will just mess up your data.
Par
> > How does the distribution look? It might be that the 12 year average
> > (did they give the median?) is totally fictious. Also, one might want
> > to separate out the marriages that end by one of the parners death.
>
> It's prefectly relevant to *not* separate those out. If you're trying to
> keep track of things that prevent divorce, then leaving out things that
> cause widowhood and widowerhood will just mess up your data.
I'm not sure I agree, but that might depend on whatr the original
question was. Marriages can end in two ways:; divorce or the death of
(at least) one of the partners. Each marriage is in one of theee
states at any point in time (post-nupial):
A. Still married
B. Divorced.
C. Death of partner.
What I would like to see is (tabulated both for age of participants and
years PN (post-nupial) is the percentages of those three cases.
My gut feeling is that you will find that there is a "peak" of B/(A+B)
(peak as in rate of change!) 1-3 years PN, then a steady increase in
B/(A+B) up to somwhere 10-15 years PN. After that I would expect that
most marriages would last until C, with perhaps a small peak again 19-22
years PN (children left home, no reason to stay). The rate of C would of
course be strongly correlated with age, and mostly reflect the age of
marriage. But without actually seeing the raw data (or such a study)
there is no way to know.
I also would like to test for how "age of marriage" correlates with
B/(A+B).
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
Four wheel drive allows you to get stuck in places even more inaccessible
how...@brazee.net
On 17-Jul-2005, Par <use...@hunter-gatherer.org> wrote:
> > But getting back to the topic in hand: it looks, on the
> > basis of those statistics I've seen, as if the average
> > duration of human marriages is about 12 years (with a high
> > proportion foundering in the first couple of years, and a
> > significant number surviving the early difficult times and
> > continuing for life). I'm not sure longevity would change
>
> How does the distribution look? It might be that the 12 year average
> (did they give the median?) is totally fictious.
True.
< Also, one might want
> to separate out the marriages that end by one of the parners death.
Why? If marriages should last as being the best way to prepare the next
generation, failure due to death hurts the children at least as much as
divorce does.
Dean White
news:Xns9696714B...@213.155.197.138...
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in news:11215...@sheol.org:
>
>>:: "rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
>>:: Actually, I consider the modern increase in marriage breakup to be
>>:: only partly due to non-enforcement of the death penalty for
>>:: adultery, and more because marriages aren't ending so often with
>>:: death of wife in childbirth or of husband in work-related accident
>>:: or of either from transmissible disease. We have more time to get
>>:: around to failing at marriage. Maybe less time, in busy lives, to
>>:: get it right.
>>
>>: Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com>
>>: Exactly - it's like the way diseases associated with old age are
>>: becoming more common now that more people reach old age.
>>
>> That doesn't hang together for me a a prime cause (though it could
>> be a contributory factor). Because even if men and women dropped
>> dead in their early 30s, that doesn't explain the increase in
>> divorce among 20-somethings. Nor does it explain the number of
>
> divorce in their 20s, it's the ones who dropped dead in their 20s or
> teens.
>
> For example: someone who was underfed as a child, got her first period
> at 17, got married a few months later, still hadn't grown wide-enough
> hips 9 months later, and died of childbirth wouldn't get a divorce at
> age 25.
>
>> folks in the old days who, having survived a few more decades,
>> nevertheless mostly went on in lives of quiet desperation even
>> if their marriages weren't working so well.
>>
>> My suspicion is that it's the economics that have changed,
>> more than can be explained by improved survival rates.
>>
But you are leaving out the other major factor, men and women who just up
and leave the marriage. In this case divorce is not allowed a lot of the
time and up till the last 75 or so years there was almost no chance of
tracking the absconding spouse.
James Nicoll
would appear to be of interest to Randy.
The bit I just finished involved one character trying to
figure out whether the long distance relationship that he is involved
in is just friendship or love. Since his view of what love must be like
is very narrow (and not, I think, overburdened with actual experience)
he decides that the relationship that his life is increasingly centering
on, that he is willing to bend affairs of state to accomodate, must just
be a friendship.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Wayne Throop
: It's not the ones who dropped dead in their early 30s that avoided
: divorce in their 20s, it's the ones who dropped dead in their 20s or
: teens.
That still doesn't seem to hang together numerically,
for the reasons already stated. People then lived through
their twenties. But the proportion of people who lived through
the twenties without getting a divorce in their twenties is not
the same over time. Therefore, I conclude that simple survival
is not the only think skewing the statistics.
J.B. Moreno
> But you are leaving out the other major factor, men and women who just up
> and leave the marriage. In this case divorce is not allowed a lot of the
> time and up till the last 75 or so years there was almost no chance of
> tracking the absconding spouse.
This is not that uncommon in the Philippines now -- divorce is illegal,
but there's nothing saying you have to stick around and can't shack up
with another person. Some social pressure, but that's only if they
know.
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
how...@brazee.net
On 17-Jul-2005, pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote:
> This is not that uncommon in the Philippines now -- divorce is illegal,
> but there's nothing saying you have to stick around and can't shack up
> with another person. Some social pressure, but that's only if they
> know.
This reminds me of a statistic that showed the number of pre-marital
pregnancies in the U.S. in the 1940s was the same as in the 1990s - the
difference is that pregnancies back then usually resulted in marriage.
William December Starr
cha...@antipope.org said:
> Divorce is not cost-free today, despite the wishful thinking of
> the religious social conservatives who blame every ailment of
> society on its availability. The legal fees associated with an
> uncontested divorce are at least as great as those that go with
> buying a house,
Whoah. I think that's *heavily* dependent on (1) how amicable the
breakup is and (2) how much property there is to be divided up.
In my case, (1) was high and (2) was low, and the costs were...
well, I can't remember whether there was a nominal fee to file the
court papers, but if there was then that was all there was to it.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com> said:
> For example: someone who was underfed as a child, got her first
> period at 17, got married a few months later, still hadn't grown
> wide-enough hips 9 months later, and died of childbirth wouldn't
> get a divorce at age 25.
Historically, what was the survivability of events like that for
the children? (I'm trying to look at this in evolutionary terms
-- if these most children died with their mothers then we might
expect the genetic pattern associated with "able to become
impregnated more than one gestation cycle before being able to
safely give birth" to have been filtered out -- but I don't have
enough data.)
Dr. Dave
> In article <Xns9696714B...@213.155.197.138>,
> Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > For example: someone who was underfed as a child, got her first
> > period at 17, got married a few months later, still hadn't grown
> > wide-enough hips 9 months later, and died of childbirth wouldn't
> > get a divorce at age 25.
>
> Historically, what was the survivability of events like that for
> the children? (I'm trying to look at this in evolutionary terms
Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
mothers were equipped to provide.
On the other hand, I don't buy the "wide enough hips" thing above.
Poor nutrition meant late menses, yes, but not late osteological
maturity. I suspect that undernourished prehistoric women were more
likely to be physically capable of bearing children (though not of
getting pregnant) than modern teenagers are.
David Tate
phil hunt
>
>But getting back to the topic in hand: it looks, on the
>basis of those statistics I've seen, as if the average
>duration of human marriages is about 12 years (with a high
>proportion foundering in the first couple of years, and a
>significant number surviving the early difficult times and
>continuing for life). I'm not sure longevity would change
>this. What I *can* see longevity, and specifically medical
>procedures for preventing aging, changing, is patterns of
>child-rearing: if we ever get to the point where we have
>unlimited life expectancy in good health, then the pressure
>on young women to have babies will disappear. And the
>long-term economic and social consequences are going to be
>interesting.
Economically, it'd be a blessing. As people get older they
accumulate experience, which in many fields of work makes them more
productive. If people can continue gaining experience without
becoming infirm or senile, the average skill level of the workfiore
will increase.
With no retirement and a smaller proportion of the population being
children, the dependency ratio will be a lot less.
--
Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk
phil hunt
One would assume that evolution would tend to make people unable to
become pregnant if they are unlikely to survive the experience.
(Which of course, it does to some extent).
phil hunt
>
>Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
>whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%.
I suspect it was somewhat higher than that -- masybe 5-10%.
>Newborns require
>a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>mothers were equipped to provide.
Or aunts, etc.
>On the other hand, I don't buy the "wide enough hips" thing above.
>Poor nutrition meant late menses, yes, but not late osteological
>maturity. I suspect that undernourished prehistoric women were more
>likely to be physically capable of bearing children (though not of
>getting pregnant) than modern teenagers are.
Are we talking about farmers or hunter-gatherers here? Bear in mind
that farmers would be much more likely to be undernourished.
(However humans have been farming long enough that we've probably
evolved the capability to get by with less food than h-g's needed).
Dorothy J Heydt
phil hunt <zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2005 10:06:32 -0700, Dr. Dave <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>>
>>Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
>>whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%.
>
>I suspect it was somewhat higher than that -- masybe 5-10%.
>
>>Newborns require
>>a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>>mothers were equipped to provide.
>
>Or aunts, etc.
There's a scene in one of Alexander MacKenzie Smith's Botswana
novels (whodunits starring Mma Ramotswe) in which a small group
of Basarwa, who are still living the hunting-gathering life in
the Kalahari, camp for the night and in the morning wake up to
discover one of their number is dead of snakebite.
This woman had a daughter of six or seven (IIRC) and a newborn
son. The tribe does what is always done in such cases. They dig
a shallow grave and bury the dead woman and her son along with
her, because no one can take care of him. Then they move on.
(As soon as no one is looking, the woman's daughter runs back and
uncovers her brother, who is still alive, and runs away to
civilized places, where they both become continuing characters.)
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
John Schilling
says...
>William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <Xns9696714B...@213.155.197.138>,
>> Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com> said:
>> > For example: someone who was underfed as a child, got her first
>> > period at 17, got married a few months later, still hadn't grown
>> > wide-enough hips 9 months later, and died of childbirth wouldn't
>> > get a divorce at age 25.
>> Historically, what was the survivability of events like that for
>> the children? (I'm trying to look at this in evolutionary terms
>Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
>whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
>a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>mothers were equipped to provide.
Are you at all familiar with the historical institution of the wet nurse?
Arranging the continued survival of an otherwise healthy baby whose mother
did not survive childbirth, requires nothing more sophisticated than finding
an otherwise healthy mother whose baby did not survive childbirth. In most
historical societies, neither of these things would be in terribly short
supply.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Dr. Dave
> In article <1121706392.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Dr. Dave
> says...
>
> >William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article <Xns9696714B...@213.155.197.138>,
> >> Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> >> > For example: someone who was underfed as a child, got her first
> >> > period at 17, got married a few months later, still hadn't grown
> >> > wide-enough hips 9 months later, and died of childbirth wouldn't
> >> > get a divorce at age 25.
>
> >> Historically, what was the survivability of events like that for
> >> the children? (I'm trying to look at this in evolutionary terms
>
> >Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
> >whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
> >a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
> >mothers were equipped to provide.
>
> Are you at all familiar with the historical institution of the wet nurse?
Yes, I am. But we were talking about pre-historical, not historical.
> Arranging the continued survival of an otherwise healthy baby whose mother
> did not survive childbirth, requires nothing more sophisticated than finding
> an otherwise healthy mother whose baby did not survive childbirth. In most
> historical societies, neither of these things would be in terribly short
> supply.
In practice, you need a lactating kinswoman with milk to spare.
There's certainly a potential window of opportunity there, sometimes,
but I'm not convinced that it "wouldn't be in short supply".
Especially in hominids living on the edge of starvation all the time.
But you're right that "essentially 0%" is probably too low. I'll
moderate my claim to "too low for killing your mother in childbirth to
be selected for by evolution".
David Tate
phil hunt
>John Schilling wrote:
>> In article <1121706392.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Dr. Dave
>> says...
>> >whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
>> >a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>> >mothers were equipped to provide.
>>
>> Are you at all familiar with the historical institution of the wet nurse?
>
>Yes, I am. But we were talking about pre-historical, not historical.
Then you should have said "pre-historically" not "historically"; I
correctly guessed what you meant, but others didn't.
>But you're right that "essentially 0%" is probably too low. I'll
>moderate my claim to "too low for killing your mother in childbirth to
>be selected for by evolution".
Indeed not. Unless the choice if the baby'sd life of the mothers, in
which it *might* be possible that genes in the baby's body would
prefer it to live. (I say "might" not "will" because the mother is
of course related to the baby).
Dr. Dave
> On 18 Jul 2005 16:47:17 -0700, Dr. Dave <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >John Schilling wrote:
> >> In article <1121706392.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Dr. Dave
> >> says...
> >> >Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
> >> >whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
> >> >a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
> >> >mothers were equipped to provide.
> >>
> >> Are you at all familiar with the historical institution of the wet nurse?
> >
> >Yes, I am. But we were talking about pre-historical, not historical.
>
> Then you should have said "pre-historically" not "historically";
Go back and check the context. I was replying to William, who said:
> Historically, what was the survivability of events like that for
> the children? (I'm trying to look at this in evolutionary terms
...which I quoted in my reply. I said 'historically' to make it clear
I was responding to his question, then qualified it with "on an
evolutionary scale" to make it clear that you can't really mean
'historically' if you want to talk about the evolution of hominids.
> I correctly guessed what you meant, but others didn't.
Then others should also have read it in context.
> >But you're right that "essentially 0%" is probably too low. I'll
> >moderate my claim to "too low for killing your mother in childbirth to
> >be selected for by evolution".
>
> Indeed not. Unless the choice if the baby'sd life of the mothers, in
> which it *might* be possible that genes in the baby's body would
> prefer it to live.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, nor even whether you are
agreeing or disagreeing with me. Which makes me exceedingly cautious
of taking your advice on how I should have expressed myself to make my
point more clear.
David Tate
Mike Schilling
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:dbhbg...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
>>a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>>mothers were equipped to provide.
>
> Are you at all familiar with the historical institution of the wet nurse?
Way OT, but this is my one of my very favorites:
So, the Rabbi is explaining about miracles. "Once, a woodcutter was walking
in the forest, when he heard a baby crying. He found it lying next to his
poor, dead mother. There was no one else to save the baby, so God performed
a miracle: he made the woodcutter grow women's breasts so he could feed the
baby."
A student interrupted. "Why didn't God just cause the woodcutter to discover
a hidden sack of treasure? With 10 rubles he could have hired a wet-nurse."
"Yes, the other students began to murmur. "Wouldn't that have made more
sense?" But the Rabbi was unfazed.
"If God can perform the miracle of causing a man to grow women's breasts,
why would he lay out 10 rubles in cold cash?"
Daniel Silevitch
>
> Way OT, but this is my one of my very favorites:
>
> So, the Rabbi is explaining about miracles. "Once, a woodcutter was walking
> in the forest, when he heard a baby crying. He found it lying next to his
> poor, dead mother. There was no one else to save the baby, so God performed
> a miracle: he made the woodcutter grow women's breasts so he could feed the
> baby."
>
> A student interrupted. "Why didn't God just cause the woodcutter to discover
> a hidden sack of treasure? With 10 rubles he could have hired a wet-nurse."
>
> "Yes, the other students began to murmur. "Wouldn't that have made more
> sense?" But the Rabbi was unfazed.
>
> "If God can perform the miracle of causing a man to grow women's breasts,
> why would he lay out 10 rubles in cold cash?"
In a similar vein (one of many many variants):
A Jewish man named Jacob has fallen on hard times; he has lost his job,
and goes to the synagogue to pray.
"God? Could I please win the lottery?"
He doesn't win the lottery, and not too much later his house is broken
into, and everything of value is stolen. Visibly upset, he goes to the
synagogue again.
"God, I have done a lot for you, and I don't ask for too much. Please, I
beg you, please let me win the lottery."
This week, not only does he not win the lottery, but his house burns
down and his car is destroyed by a hit and run driver. Again he goes and
prays.
"God, I have served you my whole life, and I don't ask for too much at
all. I have taken good care of my wife and children, and I want this
money for them and not just for myself. I do so much and ask for so
little. Please, God, please, can't you let me win the lottery just this
once?"
The voice of God booms forth, and fills the synagogue, saying,
"Jacob, meet me half way on this one. Buy a stupid ticket!"
-dms
W. Citoan
IIRC, an analysis of marriage and birth records showed very high numbers
of pre-marriage pregnancies in the Puritan colonies. The theory given
was that this was how couples could ensure they married who they wanted
in a society that gave most of the control to their parents. Couldn't
get dad's blessing? Then get pregnant...
- W. Citoan
--
Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
-- Thomas A. Edison
ruth
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> In a similar vein (one of many many variants):
>
> A Jewish man named Jacob has fallen on hard times; he has lost his job,
> and goes to the synagogue to pray.
> "God? Could I please win the lottery?"
>
> He doesn't win the lottery, and not too much later his house is broken
> into, and everything of value is stolen. Visibly upset, he goes to the
> synagogue again.
>
> "God, I have done a lot for you, and I don't ask for too much. Please, I
> beg you, please let me win the lottery."
>
> This week, not only does he not win the lottery, but his house burns
> down and his car is destroyed by a hit and run driver. Again he goes and
> prays.
>
> "God, I have served you my whole life, and I don't ask for too much at
> all. I have taken good care of my wife and children, and I want this
> money for them and not just for myself. I do so much and ask for so
> little. Please, God, please, can't you let me win the lottery just this
> once?"
>
> The voice of God booms forth, and fills the synagogue, saying,
>
> "Jacob, meet me half way on this one. Buy a stupid ticket!"
>
> -dms
Eventually ,if it goes on long enough, this thread will contain someone
telling "The Aristocrats".
Maybe not.
phil hunt
>I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, nor even whether you are
>agreeing or disagreeing with me. Which makes me exceedingly cautious
>of taking your advice on how I should have expressed myself to make my
>point more clear.
Fairy nuff.
James Nicoll
have isolated an enzyme whose defective varient is thought to be responsible
for fetal growth restriction, a leading cause of miscarriages (although only
about 3% of women have this problem with pregnancies, they can have multiple
failed pregnancies because of it). It may be treatable with gene therapy,
ow that we know what chemical mechanisms are involved.
Duke of URL
> Eventually ,if it goes on long enough, this thread will contain
> someone telling "The Aristocrats".
> Maybe not.
http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4917
* * *
A talent agent is sitting in his office. A family walks in: man, woman, two
kids, their little dog.
The talent agent goes, "What kind of an act do you do?"
At the father's signal, Gottfried said, the family disrobes en masse.
"The father starts fucking his wife," he said. "The wife starts jerking off
the son. The son starts going down on the sister. The sister starts
fingering the dog's asshole."
Gottfried's voice was growing stronger. "Then the son starts blowing his
father."
The Hilton's ballroom filled with the sounds of sudden exhalations. The
comedians on the dais were bug-eyed with laughter and recognition. Some of
the men had dropped to all fours. Mr. Gottfried was beaming. "Want me to
start at the beginning?" he asked.
He kept going, turning the joke into an extended bacchanal of bodily fluids,
excrement, bestiality and sexual deviance. Gottfried plumbed the darkest
crevices he could find. He riffed and riffed until people in the audience
were coughing and sputtering and sucking in great big gulps of air. Tears
ran throughout the Hilton ballroom, as if he had performed a collective
tracheotomy on the audience, delivering oxygen and laughter past the grief
and ash that had blocked their passageways.
Then he brought it home.
The talent agent says, "Well, that's an interesting act. What do you call
yourselves?"
Gottfried threw up his hands. "And they go, 'The Aristocrats!'"
There was a sound in the room that went beyond laughter.
Gottfried had gone to "The Aristocrats," the comedy equivalent of the B-flat
below high C that Leontyne Price had sung at Carnegie Hall on Sunday. "The
Aristocrats" is one of the definitive inside jokes among comedians. It is so
definitive that comicPaul Provenza and performance artist Penn Jillette are
making a digital documentary about the joke. "Every comic makes it their
own," Mr. Provenza said. "The set-up is the same and the punch line is the
same," but the comic puts his or her "own stamp" on the material in between.
[Y'know, I've read that several times, and STILL don't see anything funny
about it.]
ruth
"Duke of URL" <MacB...@kdsi.net> wrote:
> ruth wrote:
>
> > Eventually ,if it goes on long enough, this thread will contain
> > someone telling "The Aristocrats".
> > Maybe not.
>
"Every comic makes it their
> own," Mr. Provenza said. "The set-up is the same and the punch line is the
> same," but the comic puts his or her "own stamp" on the material in between.
> [Y'know, I've read that several times, and STILL don't see anything funny
> about it.]
I know. But apparently when one sees the movie about it ( which is also
very much about free speech) one is reduced to many giggles. It is a
joke that has been around in the stand up comedian world for about 70
years and is generally passed from comic to comic , almost as a magician
teaches an apprentice the secret to a trick, and each comic tries to
outdo the others in sheer grossness. The movie, according to a friend
who saw an advance screening, is about the joke, life , jazz, and
freedom of expression. He also said it was completely disgusting and he
laughed helplessly through the entire thing. Sounds right up my alley.
ruth
ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:
>
> I know. But apparently when one sees the movie about it ( which is also
> very much about free speech) one is reduced to many giggles. It is a
> joke that has been around in the stand up comedian world for about 70
> years and is generally passed from comic to comic , almost as a magician
> teaches an apprentice the secret to a trick, and each comic tries to
> outdo the others in sheer grossness. The movie, according to a friend
> who saw an advance screening, is about the joke, life , jazz, and
> freedom of expression. He also said it was completely disgusting and he
> laughed helplessly through the entire thing. Sounds right up my alley.
Responding to my own post because I can
I should also mention that the comedian who tells the most vile version
of this joke is , of all people, Bob Saget, of wholesome terrible sitcom
fame.
John Schilling
>>> >Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
>>> >whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
>>> >a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>>> >mothers were equipped to provide.
>>> Are you at all familiar with the historical institution of the wet nurse?
>>Yes, I am. But we were talking about pre-historical, not historical.
>Then you should have said "pre-historically" not "historically"; I
>correctly guessed what you meant, but others didn't.
And for that matter wet-nursing probably dates well back into
prehistory, or history-on-an-evolutionary-scale; it's just hard
to find evidence one way or another.
>>But you're right that "essentially 0%" is probably too low. I'll
>>moderate my claim to "too low for killing your mother in childbirth to
>>be selected for by evolution".
>Indeed not. Unless the choice if the baby's life of the mothers, in
>which it *might* be possible that genes in the baby's body would
>prefer it to live. (I say "might" not "will" because the mother is
>of course related to the baby).
And it's hard to imagine a circumstance where the mother's life can
be *exchanged* for the baby's, in an evolutionarily significant
context. Cases where the mother is for sure going to die but the
baby might be saved, yes, or vice versa, but harder to arrange one
where there's any *choice* as to who gets saved.
So certainly, there's not going to be much evolutionary pressure for
mothers to die in the course of bearing healthy children. That's a
bug, not a feature, of human physiology. Sorry if I ever suggested
otherwise.
rja.ca...@excite.com
It's been argued recently that human mother and baby are in competition
for the mother's own resources during pregnancy, but I only saw it on
telly a few years ago and I can't really vouch for it. However, I
think high blood pressure and diabetes are amongst the illnesses
allegedly inflicted on the mother partly as side-effects of specific
hormones, or whatever, generated by the foetus.
The basis of this, I suppose, is that the mother's optimum strategy is
to have several pregnancies and not necessarily more than three
surviving healthy children, and she "wants to" conserve resources,
whereas the foetus only gets one shot. The genetic game-theory of it
depends also, of course - partly - on whether the mother is likely to
become pregnant again by the same father. On the other hand, a sibling
surviving still isn't as good as you surviving.
Robert Hutchinson
None of that explains the punch line. Maybe I'm dumb.
--
Robert Hutchinson | The Twenty is just so evil. The very name gloats
| over our suffering and powerlessness. It's a
| boot stomping on a human face for twenty minutes.
| -- Shaenon K. Garrity
Dr. Dave
> "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in news:1121706392.271389.296850
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On the other hand, I don't buy the "wide enough hips" thing above.
> > Poor nutrition meant late menses, yes, but not late osteological
> > maturity. I suspect that undernourished prehistoric women were more
> > likely to be physically capable of bearing children (though not of
> > getting pregnant) than modern teenagers are.
>
> obstetric fistula. Some of them die of it even today, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if it was less survivable back in the day.
But the point is that, the later the onset of menstruation, the more
likely it is that the pelvis will be fully mature. Very young wives
get obstetric fistula because they are fertile at a young age, which is
far less common with poor nutrition.
> It's not about how late you reach menarche relative to your birth, but how
> late you reach it relative to your hip development.
Are you seriously claiming that hip development is independent of age?
David Tate
Par
> This reminds me of a statistic that showed the number of pre-marital
> pregnancies in the U.S. in the 1940s was the same as in the 1990s - the
> difference is that pregnancies back then usually resulted in marriage.
Yes, the well known fact that a bride who was so enthused that they got
marries rather quickly naturally could also produce a child in slightly
less than 9 months.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
One merely has to remember that in cybersapce, "bugger off" is a
form of greeting.
-- Andy Woodward
Mike Schilling
"Cheryl Perkins" <cper...@mun.ca> wrote in message
news:dblcq7$ktu$2...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
> Par <use...@hunter-gatherer.org> wrote:
>> how...@brazee.net <how...@brazee.net>:
>
>>> This reminds me of a statistic that showed the number of pre-marital
>>> pregnancies in the U.S. in the 1940s was the same as in the 1990s - the
>>> difference is that pregnancies back then usually resulted in marriage.
>
>> Yes, the well known fact that a bride who was so enthused that they got
>> marries rather quickly naturally could also produce a child in slightly
>> less than 9 months.
>
> large and well-developed for a preemie.
obReal Life: Patti Davis.
Wayne Throop
: You left out the part of my post which showed how some people then did
: not live through their twenties:
Largely because it's irrelevant to the point I was making.
For it to be relevant, there'd have to be a selection effect
such that all the people who *did* live through their twenties
happened to be those that had happy marriages, so that now that more
people live through their twenties, there's a higher percentage of
people-who-have-liveded-through-their-twenties who are also still
married. And this seems prohibitively unlikely.
The point is, take a matched group of post-20s people now and then,
more now are getting divorced. So unless the act of selecting
post-20s people is skewing it, there's something other than simple
survival skewing the statistics.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Danny Sichel
>>>>Eventually ,if it goes on long enough, this thread will contain
>>>>someone telling "The Aristocrats".
>>>>Maybe not.
>> "Every comic makes it their own," Mr. Provenza said. "The set-up is the same and the punch line is the
>>>same," but the comic puts his or her "own stamp" on the material in between.
>>>[Y'know, I've read that several times, and STILL don't see anything funny
>>>about it.]
>>I know. But apparently when one sees the movie about it ( which is also
>>very much about free speech) one is reduced to many giggles. It is a
>>joke that has been around in the stand up comedian world for about 70
>>years and is generally passed from comic to comic , almost as a magician
>>teaches an apprentice the secret to a trick, and each comic tries to
>>outdo the others in sheer grossness. The movie, according to a friend
>>who saw an advance screening, is about the joke, life , jazz, and
>>freedom of expression. He also said it was completely disgusting and he
>>laughed helplessly through the entire thing. Sounds right up my alley.
> None of that explains the punch line. Maybe I'm dumb.
It's meta-humor. The gag is that the joke is full of horrible horrible
horrible grotesque vomitousness, and you think it's building to a
punchline so you're listening to it, absorbing all the details... and
then it completely fizzles.
It's not an "anecdote*-type joke, it's a *prank*-type joke, but it's
done *in the style* of an anecdote.
I saw an interview once with Dave Thomas (the comedian, not the
restauranteur) where he said that once he tried to mock Jerry Seinfeld's
style of observational humor, but it didn't work because the audiences
didn't find it funny. "You ever notice how... when you leave your socks
on the floor in the morning, when you go to work... they're still there
when you get back? WHY IS THAT?"
rja.ca...@excite.com
> "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in news:1121706392.271389.296850
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On the other hand, I don't buy the "wide enough hips" thing above.
> > Poor nutrition meant late menses, yes, but not late osteological
> > maturity. I suspect that undernourished prehistoric women were more
> > likely to be physically capable of bearing children (though not of
> > getting pregnant) than modern teenagers are.
>
> Actually, the "wide enough hips" thing is why a lot of very young wives get
> obstetric fistula. Some of them die of it even today, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if it was less survivable back in the day.
>
> http://www.endfistula.org/q_a.htm#q4
> http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/0504/editorials/178.html
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
> 10.1371/journal.pmed.0010002
And more than I wanted to know on today's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/midweek.shtml -
RealPlayer audio stream available indefinitely - courtesy of Dr
Catherine Hamlin of the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, Ethiopia, who
apparently also has a charity (Hamlin Churchill Childbirth Injuries
Trust) and "Her story is told in The Hospital By the River: A Story of
Hope, published by Monarch Books, at £7.99."
(I wondered why Dr Hamlin spent so much of the time talking about
fistulas. AIUI, from her, a competent midwife or a doctor will move
the baby for successful natural delivery, or organise a Caesarean
section, as appropriate.)
Did you hear about the "Make Poverty History" thing? And that
governments are backing away from the deal that supposedly was made
this month in Scotland?
But one point, the way this horror story is told, I don't think that
"back in the day" can be much worse than it happening now, since for
practical purposes we're apparently discussing people living in the
Stone Age /now/.
Mike Schilling
"Danny Sichel" <dsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:AzyDe.7629$je2.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I saw an interview once with Dave Thomas (the comedian, not the
> restauranteur) where he said that once he tried to mock Jerry Seinfeld's
> style of observational humor, but it didn't work because the audiences
> didn't find it funny. "You ever notice how... when you leave your socks on
> the floor in the morning, when you go to work... they're still there when
> you get back? WHY IS THAT?"
That would be finny. Once.
Robert Hutchinson
> Danny Sichel wrote ...
> > I saw an interview once with Dave Thomas (the comedian, not the
> > restauranteur) where he said that once he tried to mock Jerry Seinfeld's
> > style of observational humor, but it didn't work because the audiences
> > didn't find it funny. "You ever notice how... when you leave your socks on
> > the floor in the morning, when you go to work... they're still there when
> > you get back? WHY IS THAT?"
>
> That would be finny. Once.
Hey, I'm laughing.
Robert Hutchinson
> It's meta-humor. The gag is that the joke is full of horrible horrible
> horrible grotesque vomitousness, and you think it's building to a
> punchline so you're listening to it, absorbing all the details... and
> then it completely fizzles.
Well, there's my problem. With a joke like that, I'm expecting a sharp
left turn for the punchline, not for the entire car to disintegrate.
--
And you smell smoke, and you look in the back seat ...
Wayne Throop
: The impression I had was that no more now are ending their marriages, it's
: just that more now end their marriages by getting divorced and fewer end
: their marriages by dying or becoming widows/widowers.
As may be, but it still doesn't explain why the ones who are now surviving
are also disproportionately the ones who would have wanted a divorce
had they survived.
r.r...@thevine.net
>William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <Xns9696714B...@213.155.197.138>,
>> Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>> > For example: someone who was underfed as a child, got her first
>> > period at 17, got married a few months later, still hadn't grown
>> > wide-enough hips 9 months later, and died of childbirth wouldn't
>> > get a divorce at age 25.
>>
>> Historically, what was the survivability of events like that for
>> the children? (I'm trying to look at this in evolutionary terms
>
>Historically (on an evolutionary scale), the survival rate of children
>whose mothers died in childbirth was pretty near 0%. Newborns require
>a lot of intensive care and specialized diet, that (historically) only
>mothers were equipped to provide.
>
>On the other hand, I don't buy the "wide enough hips" thing above.
>Poor nutrition meant late menses, yes, but not late osteological
>maturity. I suspect that undernourished prehistoric women were more
>likely to be physically capable of bearing children (though not of
>getting pregnant) than modern teenagers are.
>
Data point. Apparently it is still common in some less-developed
societies for pregnant women to deliberately eat less than they
should, in order to have under-weight babies. It makes delivering the
baby easier on the mother.
Rebecca
Velk
Wayne Throop wrote:
> : Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com>
> : The impression I had was that no more now are ending their marriages, it's
> : just that more now end their marriages by getting divorced and fewer end
> : their marriages by dying or becoming widows/widowers.
>
> As may be, but it still doesn't explain why the ones who are now surviving
> are also disproportionately the ones who would have wanted a divorce
> had they survived.
>
Are they ? I haven't noticed anyone provide any particular statistics.
That death provides for a significant shift in itself is a reasonable
hypothesis if the divorce statistics are percentages of the total
number of marriages rather than the number of marriages which did not
end in death for one or more parties.
E.g. working from total number of marriages - 100 marriages, 50 deaths,
30 divorces = 30% divorce rate, where 100 marriages, 60 divorces = 60%
divorce rate.
If you compared them on the basis of survivors only, they are both 60%.
I freely admit to having no idea what the statistics are, but in the
absence of quoted numbers ( and the means used to derive them ) I can't
see anything unreasonable about the initial statement.
ruth
Cheryl Perkins <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
> r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
> > Data point. Apparently it is still common in some less-developed
> > societies for pregnant women to deliberately eat less than they
> > should, in order to have under-weight babies. It makes delivering the
> > baby easier on the mother.
>
> Wasn't that kind of under-eating recommended in North America in the
> 1950s? I can't remember the details, but there was some idea that too much
> weight gain in the mother made for fat, unhealthy babies, and some doctors
> had very rigid ideas on exactly how much weight gain was permissable for
> the mother.
Oh yes. I remember my mother in law saying that she wasn't supposed to
gain more that 15 pounds.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Velk wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote:
> > : Omixochitl <omixoch...@yahoo.com>
> > : The impression I had was that no more now are ending their marriages, it's
> > : just that more now end their marriages by getting divorced and fewer end
> > : their marriages by dying or becoming widows/widowers.
> >
> > As may be, but it still doesn't explain why the ones who are now surviving
> > are also disproportionately the ones who would have wanted a divorce
> > had they survived.
> >
>
> Are they ? I haven't noticed anyone provide any particular statistics.
>
> That death provides for a significant shift in itself is a reasonable
> hypothesis if the divorce statistics are percentages of the total
> number of marriages rather than the number of marriages which did not
> end in death for one or more parties.
I don't see what else the stats can be as, presented. Married until
death / marriage terminated before death. Of course there's also
separation and desertion, but it seems contradictory not to put those
in the "divorced" bin or the one next to it. Or it could be "still
alive and married after 5 / 10 / 25 years".
For that matter, are we talking about actual statistics, or made-up
figures used by demagogues with an argument to prop up? I suppose you
can count the actual divorces (and alimony cases) going through courts,
but that doesn't tell you the rest of the epidemiolog
Come to think, "murdered by partner" should really fall on the
"divorce" side of the table as well.