The Psychology of Amatonormativity (men, dating, woman, mom)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So in light of another thread, I wanted to open up another conversation. I'll try to keep this brief.
So as you read the title, I'm sure a lot of you are probably like what the heck is amatonormativity? Or you maybe you came here mistakenly thinking that I'm going to be talking about antatomy or something lol. Okay bad jokes aside: The definition of amatonormativity is the set of societal assumptions that everyone prospers with an exclusive monogamous romantic relationship. And what's "wrong" with that you may ask?
Well for one it tends indirectly and directly alienates those who are happily single, aromantic (don't experience romantic attraction), asexual, polyamorous, and just people in general who live their lives in an "untraditional sense." Our society is built around heteronormative ideals and expectations. If you are not married or don't have kids by a certain age, society tends to side eye you. People may ask intrusive questions (most of time with somewhat good intentions and just casual conversation), try to set you up, even go on long spiels about how love is the pinnacle of human happiness.
Now there is nothing wrong with experiencing romantic love and wanting companionship. It's extremely valid. But expecting/encouraging everyone to go about the same way is problematic in a lot of ways that need to be addressed. There are a lot of social and financial implications that are related to relationship/marital status. Our own government incentivizes us to pair up and have families with tax breaks and insurance benefits. Socially, romantic relationships/marriage are thought to help build stable communities, create a sense of belonging, and building stronger bonds. In certain careers you are more likely to be taken seriously if you are married and have kids. This can create "pressure" on those who may not want to take that route.
Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of flaws within this system that go completely unnoticed and/or are blatantly ignored. This can have negative impacts mental health, friendships, and romantic relationships. I have more to say but this post is already getting too long so I'll stop here, and point out more things later on in the thread. But I would like to have an honest, open, and CIVIL conversation about this topic. So if you feel up to it, please share your thoughts.
Here are some intersting links related to what I have mentioned here:
We still live within the confines of a lot of pervasive WASPy and primitive biological norms in this country (and elsewhere around the globe).
I understand the reasoning behind incentivizing the pairing up of one man, one woman. As a species, we have a survival instinct. We do this by procreating and passing on our genes to future generations.
The intellectual side of me agrees more with your perspective. The deck shouldn't be stacked against singles, nor should we be forcing others into our idea of normalcy. Even from a financial standpoint, people in a lot of metro areas need to pair up in order to afford the steep COL. While I love my spouse and have every intention on carrying out my vows 'till death do us part', the idea of being on my own does terrify me. Where would I live? What could I afford? What sort of lifestyle could a single person pursue? That's not even addressing the awkwardness of being the single person amid a sea of married friends.
So in light of another thread, I wanted to open up another conversation. I'll try to keep this brief.
So as you read the title, I'm sure a lot of you are probably like what the heck is amatonormativity? Or you maybe you came here mistakenly thinking that I'm going to be talking about antatomy or something lol. Okay bad jokes aside: The definition of amatonormativity is the set of societal assumptions that everyone prospers with an exclusive monogamous romantic relationship. And what's "wrong" with that you may ask?
Well for one it tends indirectly and directly alienates those who are happily single, aromantic (don't experience romantic attraction), asexual, polyamorous, and just people in general who live their lives in an "untraditional sense." Our society is built around heteronormative ideals and expectations. If you are not married or don't have kids by a certain age, society tends to side eye you. People may ask intrusive questions (most of time with somewhat good intentions and just casual conversation), try to set you up, even go on long spiels about how love is the pinnacle of human happiness.
What exactly is 'society'?
I forget which thread I was on, but I posted an article that described how about half of the single people over 40 had no desire to 'pair up' with anyone. Aren't those people who don't wish to pair up, also part of 'society'?
Quote:
Now there is nothing wrong with experiencing romantic love and wanting companionship. It's extremely valid. But expecting/encouraging everyone to go about the same way is problematic in a lot of ways that need to be addressed.
THAT I agree with. Then again, not everyone who's paired up will expect or encourage singles to do the same. The sphere of influence seems to mostly come from parents/friends.
Quote:
There are a lot of social and financial implications that are related to relationship/marital status. Our own government incentivizes us to pair up and have families with tax breaks and insurance benefits. Socially, romantic relationships/marriage are thought to help build stable communities, create a sense of belonging, and building stronger bonds. In certain careers you are more likely to be taken seriously if you are married and have kids. This can create "pressure" on those who may not want to take that route.
I agree that our government does play a significant role in 'encouraging' (cough, cough) people to marry by giving economic incentives. To me, it's unfair.
I recall my mom telling me that in the 1950's/early 60's, that my father was chosen for a job simply because he 'had a family to support'. Meanwhile, he was not nearly as qualified as some of the other applicants, and at that point, he only had a wife...who WORKED full time, and no kids (yet).
But here's the thing: It's not just government. (will get to that in a moment...)
Quote:
Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of flaws within this system that go completely unnoticed and/or are blatantly ignored. This can have negative impacts mental health, friendships, and romantic relationships. I have more to say but this post is already getting too long so I'll stop here, and point out more things later on in the thread. But I would like to have an honest, open, and CIVIL conversation about this topic. So if you feel up to it, please share your thoughts.
Here are some intersting links related to what I have mentioned here:
I think SOME people tend to look at their own situation, and project it onto others. If *they* are happily paired-up (at least, for NOW), then EVERYONE 'should' have the same 'wonderful' experience.
I recall reading a book about relationships a few years ago (can't recall the name of the book or the author). He dedicated a few pages to the 'joys of singlehood'. Went on and on about how some singles can be absolutely happy without being coupled up. I remember thinking, "Great! Someone who gets it!"
Then, I turned the page...
He asked, "But why would you WANT to be single when being WITH someone can be SO MUCH BETTER?"
Yeah, that author lost my attention at that point.
I don't want this thread to become a 'religious' thread, but I DO believe that there is some religious influence regarding this thinking. After all, the bible says, "Go forth and multiply." And some people use that as the reason to marry/have children (because God said so!) Of course, they ignore what Jesus said about marriage, in that (I'm paraphrasing) not ALL would do so.
As Forrest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about THAT."
I believe that there are those who have been, throughout history, in positions of power and influence, who saw themselves as shepherds to the human flock. I don't think that the use of those words in the Bible is an accident. I think it's been like that going back as far as you like with societies of any size, and especially with some of the really big empires and nation states.
It's this notion that some few people believe they know best how to set things up so that humanity will prosper. And then all they have to do, is figure out how to structure an institution to convince the populace to not only comply, but self-enforce.
Religion was one way to do that. Then of course there are strict regimes where entire ideologies are enforced by state violence. It is in my opinion why America was such a bold experiment in self-rule...at least in theory, and with of course the "*" of how imperfectly it was done and who was considered to be a whole person deserving of a voice. But at least we started off trying to get rid of the idea that a government or a religion had a right to tell everyone exactly how to live their lives.
Our framers loved the idea of "freedom" and freedom means choices. Doesn't mean no consequences for your choices...sometimes, freedom means the freedom to fail...but it does mean being allowed to make them.
And now I've been hearing a disturbing number of people here talk about how "the problem with democracy is all the people, people are stupid"...I have to say that I vehemently disagree. In fact, I need to have a conversation with a relative later on today about having said that and what I read into it. But I digress.
In the United States we see our "shepherds" operating within a capitalist framework. Need loads of people, preferably an ever increasing number, to generate an ever increasing amount of productivity and economic activity, every moment of which generates revenue that for the last 40+ years here has mostly flowed straight into their hands. Community support is bad for this, because if you can count on your community of neighbors to support you in hardship, you won't take out a nice fat loan with a nice fat interest rate to pay money to the bank, will ya? So many parents take on massive debt just trying to fit the American idea of what a good parent looks like. And then when they are struggling to pay the bills, the shepherds have good and brainwashed many to tut-tut and say, "well you just were not responsible, smart or hard working enough..." Never challenge the system. NEVER. Its shills will leap at you like the antibodies of its immune system.
But even in a non-capitalist framework you would still have the shepherds needing the flock to breed. Loads of peasants to work the fields and go to war and such. The one thing that doesn't matter at all is their quality of life...if they breed enough, then they're expendable. So. Breeding among the livestock is important. Increase thy herds. K. Thus the justification of "what's good for the children"...maybe whether it is or not.
At the zoomed in, micro level of human experiences and mental, emotional, physical and spiritual health...I do not buy the common line that One Mother and One Father are the gold standard of child rearing. I have seen PLENTY of such families brutalize their children, have some great examples of it in my own family history on both sides and my own life was not necessarily better when my parents were married. "Well of course you need healthy individuals..." Right but that is a big IF because tons of people are not.
I'd say, if you are lucky enough to have sane, loving, functional parents, then two of those would probably be a lot better than just one. What about three such glorious people? Is it simply that such a number is straining the odds, pushing one's luck? Suppose a group of three happy, healthy, loving individuals were raising kids together. Well, if they are sexually involved with one another, cue the moral outrage, pearl clutching and squawking. Feathers in the air, oh my! OK, well, what if it isn't like that though? Suppose the third adult is an auntie or uncle, a member of extended family or community who is able and willing to be a supportive part of the household? Could work. Of course, assuming everyone is a good person and behaving correctly. But isn't that always the crux of it?
But if you aren't so fortunate in the character of your parents? I don't see how having two screeching lunatics to contend with is any better than having one necessarily. Though often enough a child will be so unfortunate just for economical reasons...the household needing two incomes to get by.
What is really "best for the children?"
I just cannot believe given how many man-woman led families I've seen that were disasters, that it's automatically the one and only answer. I mean. I was one of those on board too when my friends were saying years ago that gay marriage was not a threat to the institution of marriage, the straights were making a mess of it just fine from what I could see. If half ended in divorce and some % of those that didn't were abusive then you've got a pretty serious failure rate there.
So I'm gonna say it's more like...
1. Adequate resources such that not only do the children have survival security (food, shelter, health care, etc) but such that the parents are not in constant high stress, overworked, not caring for their own health, not sleeping enough, etc. A situation more conducive to the mental and emotional health of the adults...who are not, in fact, robots capable of any feat with no input of rest or nourishment required. Much as society seems to want to act like we should be.
2. If perhaps either society (community?) got involved with those who chose to have kids, especially lots of kids, to help ensure that they had what was needed to help #1 be most likely.
3. If those who know that they have serious problems they don't want to pass down to the next generation, perhaps do not have kids at all...and/or...if those who are able to have healthy, loving, wholesome households, raised more of them? But there you get into some eugenics type stuff almost and I really don't want to go there. Like maybe better educating our daughters growing up about what traits to look for in men both to red light and green light their dating decisions...and I would say from my own situation, support daughters in young adulthood if need be to prevent them from desperate choices with men who fasten on to their lives. It's harder to say no when you are starving and the rent is due and you think perhaps this man who wants to be with you might help you survive. No 18, 19, or 20 year old girl should be in such a situation.
It probably looks like I did a truly Sporktastic job of wandering on strange and irrelevant tangents here. But there was a point relevant to the subject... If you want to challenge the foundational ideology that has been promoted by the "shepherds" who wrote the religious texts and who push the basic "rules" about how people live life into the mainstream consciousness... You then have to do the work of contemplating, "what is the alternative?"
It's the question my husband challenges me with any time I get to complaining about the status quo of society and how a lot of what doesn't look great to me, seems we ought to be able to make it all so much better... He'll let me go on a whole rant about the exploitation of the proletariat and then say, "OK. So what is the alternative?"
We still live within the confines of a lot of pervasive WASPy and primitive biological norms in this country (and elsewhere around the globe).
I understand the reasoning behind incentivizing the pairing up of one man, one woman. As a species, we have a survival instinct. We do this by procreating and passing on our genes to future generations.
The intellectual side of me agrees more with your perspective. The deck shouldn't be stacked against singles, nor should we be forcing others into our idea of normalcy. Even from a financial standpoint, people in a lot of metro areas need to pair up in order to afford the steep COL. While I love my spouse and have every intention on carrying out my vows 'till death do us part', the idea of being on my own does terrify me. Where would I live? What could I afford? What sort of lifestyle could a single person pursue? That's not even addressing the awkwardness of being the single person amid a sea of married friends.
Thank you for your honesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
What exactly is 'society'?
I forget which thread I was on, but I posted an article that described how about half of the single people over 40 had no desire to 'pair up' with anyone. Aren't those people who don't wish to pair up, also part of 'society'?
THAT I agree with. Then again, not everyone who's paired up will expect or encourage singles to do the same. The sphere of influence seems to mostly come from parents/friends.
I agree that our government does play a significant role in 'encouraging' (cough, cough) people to marry by giving economic incentives. To me, it's unfair.
I recall my mom telling me that in the 1950's/early 60's, that my father was chosen for a job simply because he 'had a family to support'. Meanwhile, he was not nearly as qualified as some of the other applicants, and at that point, he only had a wife...who WORKED full time, and no kids (yet).
But here's the thing: It's not just government. (will get to that in a moment...)
I think SOME people tend to look at their own situation, and project it onto others. If *they* are happily paired-up (at least, for NOW), then EVERYONE 'should' have the same 'wonderful' experience.
I recall reading a book about relationships a few years ago (can't recall the name of the book or the author). He dedicated a few pages to the 'joys of singlehood'. Went on and on about how some singles can be absolutely happy without being coupled up. I remember thinking, "Great! Someone who gets it!"
Then, I turned the page...
He asked, "But why would you WANT to be single when being WITH someone can be SO MUCH BETTER?"
Yeah, that author lost my attention at that point.
I don't want this thread to become a 'religious' thread, but I DO believe that there is some religious influence regarding this thinking. After all, the bible says, "Go forth and multiply." And some people use that as the reason to marry/have children (because God said so!) Of course, they ignore what Jesus said about marriage, in that (I'm paraphrasing) not ALL would do so.
As Forrest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about THAT."
Thanks for your repsonse Mink. Among a lot of people in this forum, you're one of the few who "get it." When I said society, I was referring to the media and the norms a lot of countries are built around. As far the study you're talking about, I have not seen that. And will look into it. Thinking about the bible I think there are also some passages encouraging people to stay single. So I agree, it contradicts itself in a lot of ways too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
It's the question my husband challenges me with any time I get to complaining about the status quo of society and how a lot of what doesn't look great to me, seems we ought to be able to make it all so much better... He'll let me go on a whole rant about the exploitation of the proletariat and then say, "OK. So what is the alternative?"
Thanks for your response Sonic. It is a lot to chew on for sure. What isn't acknowledged cannot be changed, let alone resolved. Which is why I wanted to start this thread, to start a conversation. A lot of things continue to go on because no one talks about it or calls it out. It's complex because it's so easy to go with the status quo and just suck it up.
Going into some ways amatonormativity has affected me personally. It has caused a lot of awkwardness in my relationships and interactions with people. I'm someone who is primarily platonic. I don't go into any situation with romance in mind. I'm just social and enjoy casual hang outs and conversations. However, with some people this can be misinterpreted as "flirty" or that I'm showing interest. Another problem I've had is losing friendships. Whether it be because men were using it for the soul purpose of feigning true interest for deeper intimacy or because I was being "left behind" for a different type of relationship. For a lot of people expected and even encouraged to pull away from single friends once someone is married and embarks on the path to having a family. As if the single person is a negative influence or a threat to their new path. I can remember a few occasions where I was treated with "suspicion."
It's depressing as I mentioned before, I value friendships and prioritze platonic relationships because I'm just not someone who needs anything beyond that. But living in a world that prioritizes romance above everything else, it can be difficult to find "your tribe." In my ventures to other forums and other places on the internet, I have seen a lot of people talking about this. But rarely in the real world. I get that sense that some people use their friends as "place holders" until they find their person. Which is disheartening. As I mentioined socially, there are a lot of incentives for relationships. People want to be able to go on double dates with friends, plan more social events with other couples, and because most people want to be apart of couple, it's easy for singles to be put the side. I have no interest in getting a "date just to fit in." But that seems to be expected, at least the feel I get with a lot of the people I come across.
^Agreed. I could have written this post. A lot of people don't understand that when you're being friendly, you're not being flirty and have no ulterior motive. I know it's difficult for many people to believe, but some of us aren't constantly on the hunt for a romantic connection. I can't tell you how many times a woman or a wife would be threatened simply by my presence somewhere, not to mention actually speaking with her partner/husband completely platonically. Forget about being invited places. Too many insecure threatened people. The situation I'm in now, my housemate's g/f is very secure in herself and their relationship. In my experience, this not the norm.
^Agreed. I could have written this post. A lot of people don't understand that when you're being friendly, you're not being flirty and have no ulterior motive. I know it's difficult for many people to believe, but some of us aren't constantly on the hunt for a romantic connection. I can't tell you how many times a woman or a wife would be threatened simply by my presence somewhere, not to mention actually speaking with her partner/husband completely platonically. Forget about being invited places. Too many insecure threatened people. The situation I'm in now, my housemate's g/f is very secure in herself and their relationship. In my experience, this not the norm.
Yes, my friends are married, they have no problem with me hugging, having a conversation, sarcasm, with their husbands. I'm in no way interested romantically with any of my friends husbands. My friend that moved to Fl a few years ago, is coming up here today, for a week and staying next-door at the Winery House. I can't wait to banter with Joe, we do that a lot. The one thing about being single is there is not a lot of touching, I mean I hug my Dad, my Brother, my cats, lol. My brother is coming up tomorrow with a friend, Johnny and I hug him when I see him, he's been a good friend to me and my Dad. I guess what I'm saying is that it's nice to get a hug from a Man once in a while.
It's depressing as I mentioned before, I value friendships and prioritze platonic relationships because I'm just not someone who needs anything beyond that. But living in a world that prioritizes romance above everything else, it can be difficult to find "your tribe." In my ventures to other forums and other places on the internet, I have seen a lot of people talking about this. But rarely in the real world. I get that sense that some people use their friends as "place holders" until they find their person. Which is disheartening. As I mentioined socially, there are a lot of incentives for relationships. People want to be able to go on double dates with friends, plan more social events with other couples, and because most people want to be apart of couple, it's easy for singles to be put the side. I have no interest in getting a "date just to fit in." But that seems to be expected, at least the feel I get with a lot of the people I come across.
I don't know if you're familiar with the "Call Your Girlfriend" podcast that ended a couple of years ago, but the hosts wrote a book about friendship and changing the narrative of how we look at friends. As a single person, why are we pressured to set aside a 20 year friendship for a guy you've known for three months? Obviously you get different things from different relationships, but that doesn't mean that a romantic or sexual relationship is better than a close sibling relationship, or old friends.
I don't know if you're familiar with the "Call Your Girlfriend" podcast that ended a couple of years ago, but the hosts wrote a book about friendship and changing the narrative of how we look at friends. As a single person, why are we pressured to set aside a 20 year friendship for a guy you've known for three months? Obviously you get different things from different relationships, but that doesn't mean that a romantic or sexual relationship is better than a close sibling relationship, or old friends.
Right, and another thing that has happened to me is that I've stayed friends with 2-3 men I had a relationship with in the distant - very distant - past (hometown high school, college, etc.) They somehow feel the need notify people close to them that there was a relationship, when really those relationships were youthful nothingburgers. To me, that's private and I would have liked to be informed that they were going to talk about it. It's not relevant to the present and is not a threat to their current relationship. As Auraliea said upthread, she is very platonic in her approach to socializing, and that's how I am. I don't give off signals because I have no desire to.
Of course there have always been people with different approaches and preferences. Nothing new there. And America's selling point is personal freedom and liberty. No one is restricted in what they do, as long as it is legal. But that doesn't mean others are to also be in agreement with the unique choices. That's never been a right or expectation.
So just because there is a 8% (or whatever) that might represent the exceptions to cultural norms, doesn't mean the majority can or should do things different. That never would never fly in any country or nation. That seems to be the premise in the opening thread.
Human traits that have existed for thousands of years are not going to get somehow reengineered now just to please the few who are different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
