Destroying Tradition

by Fascistsmasher

Tradition: Arguments to Defend the Destruction of a Tradition

tra?di?tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tra-dishun)

n. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.

A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See Synonyms at heritage.

A body of unwritten religious precepts.

A time-honored practice or set of such practices.

What is tradition? That is a question that many radio and TV pundits, specifically right wing pundits, have been answering through their own opinions for the last couple of years. But do they really know what they are talking about or defending? This is what I am going to attempt to explain through this paper. I am going to describe tradition, in an attempt to explain why we need to change tradition at least wedding tradition, in defense of changing tradition on both the topics of what women face now and historically and also on the topic of gay marriage.

Tradition is a very strong word in America, so strong in fact that many people are willing to follow something just because it is "traditional". But what is this tradition, more importantly where have these traditions come from? Why is tradition such a powerful idea? These question will be answered, at least through my perspective, throughout the following pages. While answering these question I will describe numerous things about tradition. First I will give a working definition of tradition, that slightly differs from the one on the cover page. Next I will explain some of what tradition is, what it has meant throughout the years. Contained within the topic of definition and history I will give some examples of former US and world traditions that have proven not only detrimental to society but also incredibly stubborn and hard to change. After that I will get more specific and explain from a world and historical prospective what marriage is and what it means/meant for people. Included in this area will be specifics from our own country, the United States. Finally I will elucidate upon why this institution (that of marriage) needs to adapt, change and progress even if society hasn't.

The topic of marriage has been chosen for this paper, even though tradition has been used to thwart the attempts of many reformists and revolutionaries throughout the entire range of human relations. The reason for this is that marriage is at the top of the battle for complete freedom and equality right now. Therefore there is a need for this topic to be brought to light, not the 60 watt bulb of a living room, but the 150 watt bulb of a traditional police interrogation room.

Tradition: Definition and Historical Overview

Tradition as defined by dictionary.com (as shown on the cover page) is somewhat drab and dispassionate, not that a dictionary entry should be partisan but this word, in the current vernacular, is and therefore the definition used by this author will be partisan. That is why throughout this paper I will be referring to this definition of tradition, - elements of culture, passed down throughout generations used most often to defend subjugation and/or oppression. This definition may turn off some traditionalists but for the topic of this paper it is most pertinent.

Still, I understand how this can make the rest of the paper seem extremely biased and hard to read impartially. This is why I am going to explain what tradition is to me, what it has meant historically. Historically tradition has had less societal meaning and has had significantly more religious undertones. For instance the arguments in favor of slavery hinged upon not only tradition, but also the religious thought of the time, that White men were superior and that Black and other "colored" people where inferior and in need of White mans domination. This was the natural order, in deed it was heeded by numerous founding fathers. G-d was seen as passing down a somewhat favorable view of slavery as it is mentioned without any real incident throughout the bible. The one exception, the one case where G-d was against it was when "his" people the Hebrews were enslaved. Being that Christianity of the time espoused the view that Christians were the new chosen people it is unsurprising that arguments in favor of racism and slavery cropped up that were based upon the belief that Whites, specifically European, Christian Whites where the superior people and it was therefore their right, nay their responsibility to enslave the inferior "coloreds". Funny also is the fact that these men got what being chosen means all wrong. Had they consulted a rabbi, the teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus) or any other religious authority that had some grip on what being chosen means they would have realized that they are not superior. In fact, as Jewish wisdom teaches being chosen means not superiority but more responsibility, the responsibility to follow all of G-d's 613 mitzvah.

What is funny is that tradition, now and then has and still does have religious undertones. This tradition is espoused and advocated by those typically of the religious right wing who typically have no idea what it is that G-d actually said. In fact ignorance of the Judeo influence on the original Christian religion is the norm. So it's no surprise that these people don't understand the context of many old testament prohibitions. These people, these religious fundamentalists comically enough ignore both the word of G-d in the old testament and the words of Yeshua in the new testament. Instead the very base of their thoughts are based upon the teachings of a man of neither heavenly origins nor of prophet status. This is why tradition has become religious and why religion has become muddled. When you consider that Paul himself wrote many of the words that are used to condemn feminism and woman's equal rights. Though he wasn't alone, many writers of the Torah or old testament are to blame as well. Still reliance on sketchy references to support "tradition" is worrisome.

Religiously condoned slavery and female subjugation are modern Traditions, there are plenty of others that have also proven quite detrimental to society as a whole. Though they are all of some religious consequence. Take for example the tribal tradition of Africa, called genital mutiliation in the States, this is the procedure (done to ensure a girls virginity at marriage) in which a clitorectomy is preformed and afterwards the girls labia is sewn shut, save for a small opening, large enough for fluids to be expelled through. Often though the opening is not large enough and injections, sometimes deadly, ensue.

There are other rituals as well such as the tradition in some cultures of giving birth at very young ages, these births lead to vesicovaginal fistula. Which is a condition that leads to continuous discharge of urine in women. So not only are the trying to care for a child at 12 years-old they also have to deal with urinary incontinence. There are also the traditions of marriage, numerous as they are the largely revolve around the man taking his wife as property, with which he has the right to do basically anything with (marital rape is still legal in 14 US states).

Traditions: Focus on Marriage and Feminism

That brings me to the intended topic of this paper, marriage. What is marriage? How does it differ around the world? Exactly what is tradition in the United States when it comes to marriage? All of these questions will be answered in the following pages in an attempt to show that not only is marriage wide and varied throughout the world but that the historical and current trends of what marriage is and the consequences for both men and women can be horrendous and life altering (aside from the obvious).

So what is marriage, today in the US it basically means a legal contract between two parties (one male and one female) stating their intent to be partners for the rest of the natural lives baring any unforeseen circumstances. The reality however smacks of traditional misogyny and heterosexism. Take for example the wedding, the woman's family traditional paid for the wedding (a dowry of sorts) and the woman typically planed it. Notice that there wasn't marriage between men and men or women and women. Not only does she do all the wedding work, but when they "get home" it is her responsibility to take care of the household, even if she happens to have a job outside the house. This form of marriage stems only slightly from an American tradition but mostly it is reflective of the thoughts of the leaders at that time. This definition and its ban on same sex couples, however, doesn't even seem to extend from any tradition except that of American heterosexism. In many cultures marriage had nothing to do with love as it does in the western world to day. In these cultures marriage was a union created to bond two families together, not just two people, and its sole reason for existing was, aside from the bonding of families, procreation. In fact many traditional societies, such as the !kung of the Kalahari Desert, encourage people to explore their sexuality when they are young, this includes having multiple sex partners before marriage and also extends to acceptance of homosexual play or sex. In fact not unlike many modern societies extramarital affairs were condoned as long as it was discrete. This changed as do most things with the introduction of Christianity with it focus on one partner for life.

Marriage in the US does not only discriminate against gays based on a tradition that in fact most likely replaced an older more accepting tradition, it also segregates what happens within the marriage based upon the precepts of an ancient civilization. Men and women are to have sex for the sole purpose of procreation (in the actual Hebrew tradition however having joy through sex wasn't as discouraged as the Catholic church and its offspring have made it). Women, because they apparently are inferior to men (inferred from the Torah and Paul but not really stated that explicitly aside from certain comments Paul made) are forced to do the child rearing, the house keeping the meal cooking and about every other facet of actual house life. This can be said to have originated from the original stratification by gender found in the earliest of societies and in fact makes sense from the prospective. After all in those times babies nursed for many years, this required women to stay in or near the home often gathering (though hunter-gathers relied mostly on gathered food) and nursing the babies. This strategy of nursing babies until they were 4 or 5 years old lasted for millenia and is one of the reasons given for women's historical household role.

But we do not rely on hunting and gathering any more. We live in a society that is based upon intensive agriculture and mechanization. Child are typically nursed for only the first few months, sometimes extending further but rarely. Women are forced by the society to work outside the home, if they want to or not, and yet they still have to shoulder all of their responsibilities from the past as if they are super beings. They have to work outside the home because the economy dictates things that way, but they have to work inside the home because society and tradition dictate that real men don't do housework.

This blatant misogyny is most likely the reason that gay people are having their right to get married preemptively stripped out of their grasp. Why is misogyny used to deny men and women rights? We need look no further than the Catholic church which in a recent encyclical condemned feminism for ruining the world and creating effeminate men. They reasoned that the more effeminate that men become the more gay people there will be which is also their reason as to why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. The feminization of men is the great fear of white men in power. They reason that if women become equal then there is nothing standing in their way from destroying male privilege.

Religion and its resurgence in the United States is the main reason the gay people are feared. Gay men destroy traditional precepts of what masculinity is which can, they reason, create effeminate men who will fold at any external threat. Lesbians on the other hand are stepping out of line and proving to other women that men aren't a necessity for survival.

The debate about gay marriage is not about tradition no matter what those in power want us to think, tradition is as varied as there are people on the earth. In fact the supposed sanctity of marriage has been under attack by much worse things than a gay couple. Our divorce rates stand at 50 percent, celebrities rush into marriage without thought often reneging on their "contract" for little reason other than personality clash. Shouldn't they have done something to find out if their personalities clashed before getting married? Nay, the attack on gay marriage has little to do with tradition, traditional marriage in America is slowly dieing (household life, however, is not). What the attack on gay marriage boils down to are two things. Religion, which has been misused, misinterpreted and selectively used for centuries and fear.

Conclusion: Tradition; Fear, Change and consequence

The fear is not that gay marriage will destroy our society but that it will change the way traditional households are run. There will be an erosion of "male" and "female" roles in the household because more people will be doing "opposite gender roles". This is the great fear, tradition as we have seen is not really about real tradition. Real tradition is varied and has changed numerous times without negative impacts on human life. Just look at the tradition of human sexuality, in the past the full spectrum of sexuality was embraced, then this old and most likely original tradition dissolved to make way for repressed sexuality. This repressed sexuality which allowed only for relations between and man and wife and also allowed for the man to decided when to have sex. The female was given no say in the marriage. This repressed sexuality has changed in many cultures and we are in the middle of a change right now in the US (after all we can look at the marital rape laws like this, out of 50 states only 14 make marital rape legal now and most of those are in the south).

Things change, people change and cultures change. It is an inevitable process and if we look at history there really is no such thing as on single tradition, there are no traditions that have remained intact throughout the millenia. So why do people push so hard to keep current traditions? It all boils down to social power. Those with the power are those most threatened by change because they will be affected. Suddenly their de facto status of being those the determine what happens will change. They may have to face new laws, or new realities that they don't like. Like all of those in power the fear progress because progress brings social change and social change is typically not friendly to those that were in power formerly.

In Conclusion gay marriage is not only a right, the tradition that condemns it is entirely wrong. The tradition is based on something that is not an original human thought or tradition. Neither is modern marriage of love. So why not adapt the laws for changing attitudes, attitudes that are changing back to what the originally were? For if marriage in the US is no longer based on procreation and based upon love why not allow all those in love regardless of sexuality to get married? If however marriage in the US is still based the traditional role of procreation as some claim then why are we giving people benefits for simply being married and not procreating? If we continue to look down upon adultery and reward married couple regardless of if they procreate or not we clearly look at marriage in a non-traditional way. The only real option is to force society to either see marriage in the traditional way which would abolish rewards for being married, condone discrete adultery and focus much more on procreation (affairs are about love in this configuration). Or we need to open our closed minds, realize that we haven't given heed to traditional marriage for years and change our laws so that gay people can get married. Tradition holds its strength because it has existed for many years and because people see tradition as a dictate from the deity whom or whatever that may be. But America doesn't hold to the historical or religious text of marriage anymore so why are we allowed to ban people from getting married because of these ideas if the majority don't hold to them?

www.mayoff.com/ weddings.html (accessed Nov. 22, 2004)

Backlash, The Undeclared War Against American Women, Faludi, Crown Publishing, 1991

Example of the !Kung taken from the Motion Picture N!ai The Story of A K!ung Woman Copyright 1980