Duties of Husband and Wife

So much for their duties that be further off from equality in the family, as parents and children, masters and servants. Now those that are more equal are husband and wife, whose duties are either common to both, or more particular to either of them. The common duties. First, they must love one another with a pure heart, fervently. This duty both husband and wife must perform mutually one to another, which that they may the better strive for, let us consider of some excellent commodities that will proceed from this love.

First, this benefit will certainly ensue: if there be fervent, and dear, and matrimonial love betwixt themselves, it will preserve and guard them from all unchaste actions and strange lusts, as appeared, Prov. 5:19-20. Rejoice with the wife of thy youth, delight in her love continually. For why shoulders thou delight in a strange woman, or embrace the bosom of a stranger? As if he had said: if thou do not love they wife, thou wilt look after harlots, or at least art in danger so to do, but if thou love thy wife truly, thou art strengthened against lusts and temptations to adultery.

And so it may be said of the wife concerning her husband. For it is not the halving of a husband that makes a wife chaste, and kept her from filthiness, but the loving of her husband is it that will keep her. And likewise it is not the halving of a wife that makes a man honest and preserveth him from adultery, but it is the loving of his wife that will do it. For many married men and women live filthily and impurely; but if they did love one another, they were safe from this fault.

This then is one benefit; it is a most sure defense of one’s chastity, to love each other. Another benefit that constant love will bring is that they shall be very patient. Abundance of love brings abundance of patience, for love hopes all things, and suffers all things, and love is not provoked. But where there is little love, there is little bearing, and little hoping, and there they be quickly provoked. Upon every light and small defect or fault, they grow to brawls and chasing. And then, whoever was troubled with such a husband, or such a wife?

Nay, they might rather say, who ever had such an unloving and unkind heart as I? For if there were that love that should be, and in that measure that it ought, they would bear with patience, and with meekness such infirmities, and would not be so quickly provoked to bitterness. As the mother that dearly loves her little child, though it cry all night, and break her sleep, and disquiet her very much; yet she will not throw it out of doors, nor lay it at the further end of the house, but she useth it kindly, and will do what she can to still it when it cries.

And in the morning they will be as good friends as ever before, and she feedeth it and tendeth it never a whit the less for all the night’s trouble. One that were not acquainted with the love of a mother would wonder at it. Did it not disquiet her all night, and can she be so merry with it now? Yea, she can, for she loveth it, and hath forgotten all the night’s griefs in the morning. And so indeed, could the husband and wife love one another with a pure and Christian love, they would bear much, and endure much, and not suffer their affections to be diminished.

For love is alway a breastplate against distemper, discord and bitterness. A third profit that springs from love is that it edifies, and seeks not his own things: therefore if they love one another, they will in all things seek the good of one another. And then, if the husband see a fault in his wife, he will admonish her of it meekly and gently, and labor to bring her to amendment. And if she see any fault on his part, she will with all reverence and humility tell him of it.

But on the contrary, where there is not love, they will regard their own ease more than the salvation of another. Then if the husband see his wife in any fault, he thinketh, Indeed it is a sin, but if I should tell her of it, she will be in a passion and chafe. And so the wife: I confess this sin is dangerous to my husband’s soul, but if I should speak of it, he is so froward, that he would be bitter and furious against me presently. But now here is a great want of love in either party. For, what though your wife will be in a passion?

He that loveth his wife had rather she should be in a passion against him for a little time, than God be angry with her forever. And the wife that loveth her husband would more willingly suffer her husband’s displeasure for a while, for well doing, than that he should suffer God’s wrath, for ill doing. But for want of this Christian and sincere love, they suffer grievous sins to grow and break out one in another, which by wise and godly admonition might have been stayed and cured. A fourth fruit of love is that it armeth us against jealousy and unjust suspicions.

For all ill jealousy and causeless suspicion ariseth of one of these two grounds: either that one is or hath been wicked himself, and having been faulty and naught, he is ready to judge others by himself, and to measure all with his own measure, or else from a doting affection, that he maketh his wife a god, and would have her to do the like to him, and this is not true love. So when the wife doteth foolishly upon her husband, and maketh an idol of him, then is she quickly ready to be jealous, whereas true and sound love would work the contrary effect in her.

So for matters of goods, he that trusteth in them will trust nobody with them, neither wife, neither servants, neither children, nor any, but is always suspicious, not because they would not deal faithfully, but because he maketh that his god, and therefore is immoderately afraid to lose it. But where there is a pure and a fervent love, that will cut off all needless misdeemings, and cause us to believe and hope all good of others. This is the first duty that is common to husband and wife. And first, the wife must fear her husband, as is commanded in Eph. 5:33. Let the wife see that she fear her husband. And I Pet. :2, the apostle requires a conversation with fear. So, if ever the wife will be comfortable, and profitable to her husband, and do any good in the family, she must have a care of her heart, and look that she carry an inward fear to her husband. For the husband is the wife’s head, even as Christ is the head of the church. And even as the church must fear Christ Jesus, so must the wives also fear their husbands. And this inward fear must be shewed by an outward meekness and lowliness in her speeches and carriage to her husband. As in the place above named out of Peter, he saith they must be attired with a meek and quiet spirit.

She must not be passionate and froward to him or any of the family, specially in his sight, but she should have such a regard of his presence, as that she should govern her tongue and countenance so, that it may not be offensive or troublesome unto him. And for her speech, neither when they be kind and loving together, must she grow into such gross terms, nor if any jar or offence come, rush into tart and sour words, to ease herself upon her husband, whom she should fear. Thus must she imitate Sarah and good women, as Peter saith, and in so doing she shall prove herself to be a daughter of Sarah, a true Christian.

But contrarily, if she behave herself rudely and unmannerly in her husband’s sight, to grieve him and offend him, she faileth in the first and main duty of a good wife, and so far shall surely come short of all the rest of the duties that God requireth of her. For if there be not fear and reverence in the inferior, there can be no sound nor constant honor yielded to the superior. The second duty of the wife is constant obedience and subjection. Now in what things and after what manner this obedience is to be performed, the Holy Ghost doth declare.

For in general, there is no woman almost so rude, but she will yield that she must obey her husband. But in the particular, and in the manner of it, there is the failing. Therefore the apostle (to put all out of doubt) hath set down both the matter and the manner, in Eph. 5:24. As the church is in subjection to Christ, so let the wife be to her husband in all things. For the things wherein she must obey, he saith in all things, meaning in all lawful things. For the commandment of the husband is as it were the stamp of God set upon the things commanded, and if she rebel against his commandment, she rebels against God.

The wife then must persuade herself that her husband’s charge is God’s charge, and when he speaks, God speaks by him, and that which was a thing indifferent before the husband required it, is now become a bounden duty unto her, after the husband hath once enjoined it. And therefore she must resolve to obey him in all things. Now follow the special duties of an husband, for he hath not all these privileges for nothing, and those consist in two major points, in governing her wisely (by cohabitation and edification) and in performing all due benevolence.

First, for cohabitation. The first duty of the husband is to dwell with his wife, that sith there is a near and dear society between them, and of all other the nearest (for she is to him as the church is to Christ, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone), therefore he must be willing constantly and kindly to converse with her, to walk with her, to talk with her, and let her have a comfortable familiarity with him, that she may see he delights in her company, and may well know that of all others she is his most loved and welcome companion.

And so in the Law it was commanded that the first year wherein anyone is married, he must dwell at home, and rejoice with his wife for that whole year. Whatever affairs of the commonwealth, or wars were abroad, yet he was by God’s Law freed, so that none might command his service from home, but he must dwell with his wife, that she might have experience of his love, and have comfort by him, that by long continuance and society their hearts might be so nearly joined, as nothing might rend them asunder afterwards.

This reproveth those foolish men (indeed not worthy to carry the name of husbands) that can take more delight in any vain, riotous and unthrifty company, and take more pleasure in any lewd exercises, than in the society of the loving and kind wife, that are never so merry as when the wife is absent, and never dumpish and churlish but with her. Such also as dwell with hawks and hounds and drunkards and gamesters, not with their wives: these shall carry the brand and name of fools, so long as they have no more care to prevent so much ill, and to do so much good as (if they had any godly wisdom, or love to their wives) they might.

For what do they but throw themselves into danger, and lay their wives open to Satan’s temptations? Yea, and give just occasion to them to think that they love them not. But they will say, We must have our delights and follow our sports. And why you more than the wife? Might not the wife say, I must have my delight also, and part of the recreation as well as part of the trouble is mine? Yet this would not be counted a good excuse for a woman to be ranging abroad all day long, and part of the night, upon no just occasion. But they look that she should accept their company, and be willing to be with them.

And why should not they then be as willing to dwell with their wives according to God’s commandment? So that the husband must dwell with his wife, and never depart from her but upon a lawful and good calling and cause, and then also, so as that she may perceive that his heart is still with her, and that he carrieth but a part of himself when he goeth abroad, for still he leaveth his affection at home with his wife. Secondly, he must dwell with her as a man of knowledge, and edify her, both by his good example, and also by good instructions.

For his example: first, he must carry himself so wisely, and so holily, as that she may see in him a pattern and image of grace and wisdom. He must be a glass unto her, by looking into which she may learn to attire herself in all holy discretion and conversation. Therefore he must neither be froward, testy, nor lumpish, for then he shall be hated; nor light, vain, and foolish, for then he shall be despised. He must not be base and niggardly, for then his base heart will breed a base estimation of him. Neither must he be prodigal and unthrifty.

For then he shall so pinch himself with want and necessity, as that he shall not be able to relieve and refresh his family, and so he much depriveth himself of his reverence. For want of this wise and holy carriage, it cometh to pass that many can speak much of the weakness of women, and make large discourses of the impotence of that sex, when indeed it is long of themselves. As if the head should lead the body among briars and thorns, and dash it against every wall, and then complain of the hurt and frailty of it.

So many foolish men, when they should frame themselves in such sort as they might draw their wives to godliness and reverence by their example, they (by rude and absurd behavior) draw themselves into contempt, and put undutifulness upon their wives, as it were perforce, and then are ready to complain and exclaim of them, when they should rather cry out of their own folly and sin. Next, the husband must edify his wife by instruction: for so, I Cor. 14:25, the apostle saith, If women will learn, they must ask their husbands at home.

The husband then must be so well furnished with sound knowledge, as that he must be able to teach his wife, and sow the seed of godliness in her conscience. And one special and chief part of wisdom in the husband, by which he must learn to frame his instruction, is to observe those good things which he seeth in his wife, and to cherish them. For nothing is more forcible to encourage a woman in any good thing, than that she perceiveth that her husband doth mark and approve those good things which are in her, as well as the faults, to reprove them.

And for want of this encouragement, that men are continually chiding, and never go about to nourish any good thing, it falls out that many women, which by good usage might be brought to godliness, grow to great distemper and passion. And as he must labor to increase the good things that are in her, so also he must seek to amend and cure those things that are faulty, wherein she doth amiss. And for ordinary infirmities, he must pass by them, only praying to God for her.

But if her soul be sick of a disease that needeth physic, and must have medicine, a wise governor will choose his fittest time, and consider the nature and disposition of his wife: that if she be of a gentle spirit, he may use gentle means, which will then do most good, but if she be of a more hard nature, stronger means must be used, and she must be dealt withal after a more round manner. But always provided, that it never be done in passion, and before others, but with a quiet and merciful heart, that she may see that he seeketh her salvation, and not disgrace, nor to ease himself upon her, but to convert her soul unto God.

But if the husband be violent in company to reprove, of bad he will make her worse, and more alienate her from him, because she seeth that she hath a foolish head, that is not a saviour, but a destroyer. And for want of this diligent care in choosing time and place, and observing the nature of the party, it cometh to pass that rebukes, which in themselves are good and ought to be performed, do more hurt than good, because he observeth not where he doth it, but reproves her before company, to which he should not disclose his own and her shame, and them also most unseasonably and untimely.

For when she is out of temper, and passion hath already overcome her, then he falleth to administer his physic, as it were upon a full stomach, whereas he should patiently have waited for a fit time, and not be so foolish, as when she is gone, and anger hath overcome her, then to look that she should upon a word’s warning, return and come again into her right mind, and upon the sudden reform all that is amiss. But what? Shall one let his wife go away so, and take her course? No, he must at that instant speak to God for her, when she is not fit to be spoken to.

And after, when she is come again to herself, and all is quiet, then with a loving heart and good countenance (and yet with plain and evident proofs and reproofs out of God’s Word), he must show her fault, that godly sorrow may bring her to repentance and amendment. And by these measures he may govern well. Another duty of the husband consists in giving her all honor and due benevolence, which stands in two things. First, in giving and allowing her all maintenance and meet helps, both for necessity, and also for honest and Christian recreation and delight, so far as his estate and hers require, and their abilities do afford.

And he must do this willingly, liberally and freely, not tarrying till it be begged or gotten from him by importunate entreaty, as if one should wring it out of Nabal’s hand, like as if it were water out of a flint stone. For this giveth cause of great suspicion of want of love, for love is alway bountiful. And besides, it lesseneth the benefit by the one half, when it must be wrested (as it were by main strength) from him. Therefore he must consider, and before he be asked, provide what he seeth necessary for her, and what may be (after a Christian sort) delightful unto her, and prevent her with the gift.

Even as a father that loves his child will not tarry till the child come and beg apparel, or meat, but he doth cast beforehand how to help him, and unrequested gives him things that be needful, much more then must he do thus to his wife, which is the one part of himself, and nearer, and should be also dearer unto him than any other. A second work wherein this due benevolence must show itself is in giving her due employment; he must mark and observe the gifts of wisdom and government, or whatever else God hath graced her with, that he may set them on work and employ them.

And hereby he shall show his love unto her, and the confidence he puts in her. For it is said of a good wife in the Proverbs, chap. 32, that the heart of her husband trusts in her. And this is a means also to keep her from discouragement and idleness: and besides, it will turn to the great good and profit of the family. Which reproves the practice of many foolish husbands, that be busy-bodies, and will have all come through their own hands, and then indeed nothing goeth well through any hand, because of this disordered confusion.

As if the pilot would both hold the stern, and hoist up the sail, and be upon the hatches, and labor at the pump, and do all himself, it must needs go ill with the ship. Even so in the family, when the husband taketh all upon himself, it is the next way to overthrow all. Therefore those gifts that God hath given the wife, the husband must see them put to the best use, and then she shall be a fellow helper to him, and bring a blessing upon the family by her labor.

And so much for the duties of the husband and wife, which I do not so speak of as though it were in the power or nature of any man or woman to perform them; nay, by nature we be all inclined to the contrary. The wife is naturally disobedient and stubborn, prone to condemn and despise her husband; and he is ready either to be out of her company without cause, or, being with her, to be light and foolish, or else sour and churlish, and to do her hurt by his example, and make her worse rather than better.

And both of them naturally are destitute of all true and spiritual love one to another. But God showeth these duties in his Word, to the end that we, seeing our sins and our weakness, might bewail our wants before God, and beseech him that requires these things at our hands to work these graces in our hearts, and as he hath given us these good commandments, so to give us good hearts to keep the commandments.

But if any be so blind and so unacquainted with the wickedness of his own heart, as that he dreams of some strength in himself to do these duties, it is certain he never performed any of them in truth, nor shall ever, till he do lament his wants with unfeigned grief before God, and desire him to make him obedient, as well as to give him a charge of obedience *Rights & Responsibilities Of* Husband and Wife So you’re married. You’ve completed one half of your Deen. You’ve got your arents off your back and now you’ve got a lifetime to look forward to with the love of your life. You’re sorted innit? Ah, but are you clued up on the rights your partner has over you and the rights you have over your partner? Yep, ‘rights’! In order to make your marriage a success Allah (swt) has prescribed a list of guidelines for husbands and wives, which if followed properly can lead to marital bliss and fewer nights banished to the sofa. Islam teaches that marriage is ‘half of Deen’ because it fulfils so many basic needs of an individual and of society.

But y’ know, most of the problems in Muslim families nowadays are to do with marriage, coz we don’t have a clue how to get married Islamically and as a Muslim partner what our rights and responsibilities are. Well ladies & gents, don’t worry, as you will learn all this right here, right now! So what rights does the wife have over the husband? Islam has honoured woman and granted her an equal status with man. It’s only ignorance and cultural practices that prevent women from receiving the rights that they’re entitled to.

It was Islam and not the Spice Girls that brought true Girl Power to women alright! A wife has a right to choose her husband. If she doesn’t want to get married to someone her parents want her to marry then she has a right to refuse. So no woman can be forced to get married in Islam – this is her basic right! If she doesn’t like her husband due to valid reasons then she may also get a divorce and re-marry someone else. Similarly, a widow may re-marry someone else as well. She has a right to be a lady of leisure. Yep, seriously!

In Islam, a husband has a duty to provide for his wife and should not force her to work to earn money- this includes clothing, food, accommodation and general care etc, and she should not be forced to work to earn money. She also has the right of Mahr (wedding gift) and inheritance. However, if she chooses to work, any money that she earns is her own and she has a right to spend it as she wishes. Now that is what I call Girl Power! She has a right to keep her surname. Nowadays most women across the world lose their surname to their husbands’ name, but Islam gives the wife the choice and power to keep her surname. How cool is that?

She has a right to be treated with kindness. Allah (swt) knows that by nature woman are more sensitive and gentle. This is why the Prophet {draw:frame} told men to treat their women nicely. (Tirmidhi) The Prophet {draw:frame} advised men: “The best amongst you, are the best for their wives, and I am the best of you for my wives. ” (Tirmidhi) What rights does the husband have over the wife? Of course, men have rights too. It’s not all about the women y’ know! A husband should be respected by his wife in every way. Unless of course it conflicts with an Islamic obligation or goes against an Islamic teaching.

The husband has the right to a trustworthy and honest companion. (The same here goes for the wife too). For example, she should not lie about using birth control to stop him having a child… that would be naughty now wouldn’t it? The husband has a right to sexual intimacy with his wife. She should not refuse him this right – unless of course refusal is due to medical reasons in which case the husband should be caring and considerate. As they say, if you don’t get any action at home, you’re gonna play away. So this is in reality a right and responsibility for both the husband and wife.

If the husband doesn’t like someone, then the wife shouldn’t allow them to come to their house, she also shouldn’t accept presents from such people. This is to avoid jealousy and friction between the couple. The husband’s possessions are his wife’s trust. She needs to safeguard his property and possessions. The Prophet {draw:frame} said: “The woman is the guardian of her husband’s house and is responsible for it. ” (Bukhari) The reward for fulfilling these rights is immense! The Prophet {draw:frame} said: “Any woman who dies while her husband is pleased with her, she will enter Jannah. (At-Tirmidhi) The Best Husband: Shows good character and good manners towards his wife. Doesn’t slack when it comes to the rights of his wife. Does not check out any other woman other than his wife. Learns and practises Islam and teaches his wife too. Is there for his wife during times of distress. Keeps his cool even when his wife hurts his feelings. Appreciates his wife and forgives small mistakes. Helps out with household chores and doesn’t just leave them to the wife. 9. Does his best to raise their children in an Islamic way. The Best Wife: Listens to her husband and does her best to please him.

Always considers her husband’s well being. Does not give the husband stress but gives him peace of mind. 4. Does not spend more than her husband earns. 5. Helps her husband at the time of problems. 6. Has patience when the husband does not treat her justly. 7. Behaves and dresses modestly. 8. Learns and practises Islam and teaches her husband too. 9. Does her best to raise their children in an Islamic way. *Top Ten Tips On* How To Be A Successful Husband/Wife Dress up for your partner and look clean and smell good. Make an effort in your appearance so that you are always desirable and attractive for each other.

Just like the husband wants his wife to look nice for him, she also wants her husband to dress up for her too. You know a bit of bow cha ka wawa does no harm when you look at your partner! Remember that the Prophet {draw:frame} would always start with Miswak when returning home and always loved the sweetest smells. Use the best names for your partner. Call them by their most beloved names (such as baby and honey! ) and avoid using names that hurt their feelings i. e. fatty, onion breath etc! If you see anything wrong with what your husband/wife does, as long as it doesn’t contradict the Shariah, try being silent and don’t complain!

This is one of the things the Prophet {draw:frame} used to do when he saw something inappropriate from his wives. It’s a skill that Muslims need to master! Instead try to appreciate and focus on all the good your partner does. Smile at your partner whenever you see them and embrace them often. Smiling is an act of Sadaqah (charity). Also, tell your partner that you love them regularly, don’t assume they already know! At least once a day say something kind or complimentary to your partner. This might sound a bit cheesy but give it a try! Ask your husband/wife to write down the last ten things you did for them that made them happy.

Then go and do the same for them again. It may be hard to recognize what gives your husband/wife pleasure but you don’t have to play a guessing game, ask him/her and work on repeating those things for them all the time. Don’t belittle his/her desires. Comfort them. Sometimes the men may look down upon the requests of their wives. The Prophet {draw:frame} set the example for us when on numerous occasions he comforted his wives. Be humorous and play games or sports with your partner. The Prophet {draw:frame} would race with his wife ‘Aisha (ra). When was the last time you did something like that? You should be having the time of your life.

Do things together. Have fun for crying out loud! Go out for a meal. A weekend away. As long as it’s Halal then go for it! Be romantic! Think about all the small things your partner does for you and then show some appreciation in return. And don’t forget those anniversaries! Some guys are extremely generous when it comes to their friends or family but for some reason can’t even bring themselves to buy their wife a box of chocolates! Spoil your partner with affection and treat each other to a surprise every now and again to keep that fire burning! Trust and honesty is the key to a successful marriage.

If something is harming or damaging your marriage then be open and honest with your partner. It won’t just go away. Keeping secrets from one another or hiding stuff from your partner is one of the main reasons why a marriage can go wrong big time! If you have done something wrong then admit it! Apologise sincerely to your partner and then try to make it up to them by doing something you know will make them happy. Never both be angry at the same time and don’t go to bed upset with one another. Marriage is an enormous responsibility but also a great joy. Allah (swt) said that the husband and wife should be like ‘garments’ to one another.

The point of a garment is to give warmth, protection, decency, intimacy and comfort. Allah (swt) has created all life forms in pairs and when something is created as part of a pair it is clearly incomplete without the other. But in order for a husband and wife to find perfect peace and harmony with each other, they need to be prepared to fulfil each other’s rights. Now all that sounds quite straight forward doesn’t it? If you try to act upon all of the above then Inshallah your marriage will be great, long and Islamic *Family Obligation Among* Children in Immigrant Families Project

In T. L. E. III (LESSON 16) Prepared by: Christina Marie de Vera Project in T. L. E. III Prepared By: Pauline Bianca Biala III-Dahlia Prepared To: Mrs. Espartero Monogamy An estimated 90 percent of all bird species are monogamous. Monogamy is defined as one male mating with one female and forming a “pair bond. ” That bond may last for a single nesting (House Wrens), an entire breeding season (most bird species, including most passerines), several successive breeding seasons (observed in some pairs of American Robins, Tree Swallows, Mourning Doves, etc. , or life (albatrosses, petrels, swans, geese, eagles, and some owls and parrots). Presumably monogamy evolved in situations where young have a much better chance of surviving if both parents cooperate in rearing them. Nonetheless, the amount of time and energy invested by monogamous male parents varies greatly. The Willow Ptarmigan male serves only as a sentinel watching for danger. The Eastern Bluebird male provides a site for the rearing of young (by defending a territory containing a nest cavity), but experimental removal of males has shown that they are not essential for successful brood-rearing.

In some monogamous species, the male defends a territory in which his mate collects the food required by the offspring, but does not himself feed the nestlings. Levels of male parental investment are even higher in most passerines, where males feed brooding females and/or help to feed the young. In herons, egrets, some woodpeckers, and others, males not only provide food for the young but share in incubation as well. The ante is raised even further in such ground-nesting birds as geese, swans, gulls, terns, and shorebirds in which males also commonly place themselves in danger by vigorously defending the nest and young from predators.

The traditional view of why more or less permanent monogamous bonds are formed is changing, as interest has become focused on the parentage of offspring reared by “monogamous” pairs. Increasingly, ornithologists and behavioral ecologists have come to view monogamy as part of a “mixed” reproductive strategy in which matings may occur outside the primary pair bond, but both members of the pair still contribute substantially only to the care and feeding of the young from their own nest.

Some species are viewed as facultatively monogamous; that is, if released from certain environmental constraints, they would typically exhibit some other form of mating system such as polygyny (one male mating with more than one female) or promiscuity (mating without forming pair bonds). According to this view, for example, North American dabbling ducks are monogamous only because males are unable to monopolize more than one female. These ducks breed synchronously and their populations typically contain more males than females. Two lines of evidence have contributed to the shift in viewpoint about the nature of monogamy.

First, ecologist Yoram Yom-Tov showed intraspecific nest parasitism (“egg dumping” by females in nests other than their own) to be much more frequent than previously assumed. Consequently, females of birds as different as Common Goldeneyes, Cliff Swallows, and Savannah Sparrows may often incubate clutches containing one or more eggs laid by another female that may or may not have been sired by her mate. The parasitic female may be monogamous, but she is “stealing” parental investment from another pair. Therefore the situation is not one in which mated pairs rear only their own offspring, as traditional use of the term monogamy has implied.

Second, a few recent studies employing new techniques of genetic analysis have allowed investigators to determine whether one or both members of a pair are the parents of all of the nestlings or fledglings they are rearing. Investigations of cooperatively breeding Acorn Woodpeckers and “monogamous” Eastern Bluebirds demonstrate conclusively that clutches with mixed parentage (containing offspring of more than one female, more than one male, or both) are not infrequent, indicating some infidelity by either or both sexes and/or egg dumping by females.

Because so few species have been investigated using this technique, the results of future analyses may lead to a further reevaluation of the evolutionary significance of monogamy. At the moment it is perhaps best simply to consider monogamy as a social pattern in which one male and one female associate during the breeding season, and not to make too many assumptions about fidelity or parentage. amily denotes a group of people or animals (many species form the equivalent of a human family wherein the adults care for the young) affiliated by a consanguinity, affinity or co-residence.

Although the concept of consanguinity originally referred to relations by “blood,” anthropologists have argued that one must understand the idea of “blood” metaphorically, and that many societies understand ‘family’ through other concepts rather than through genetic distance. One of the primary functions of the family is to produce and reproduce persons, biologically and socially. Thus, one’s experience of one’s family shifts over time. From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially, and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization. 3] From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation the goal of which is to produce and enculturate and socialize children. [4] However, producing children is not the only function of the family; in societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between two people, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household. [5][6][7] A conjugal family includes only the husband, the wife, and unmarried children who are not of age.

The most common form of this family is regularly referred to as a nuclear family. [8] A consanguineal family consists of a parent and his or her children, and other people. A matrifocal family consists of a mother and her children. Generally, these children are her biological offspring, although adoption of children is a practice in nearly every society. This kind of family is common where women have the resources to rear their children by themselves, or where men are more mobile than women. Economic functions

Anthropologists have often supposed that the family in a traditional society forms the primary economic unit. This economic role has gradually diminished in modern times, and in societies like the United States it has become much smaller — except in certain sectors such as agriculture and in a few upper class families. In China the family as an economic unit still plays a strong role in the countryside. However, the relations between the economic role of the family, its socio-economic mode of production and cultural values remain highly complex. Extended middle-class Midwestern U.

S. family of Danish/German extraction On the other hand family structures or its internal relationships may affect both state and religious institutions. J. F. del Giorgio in The Oldest Europeans points out that the high status of women among the descendants of the post-glacial Paleolithic European population was coherent with the fierce love of freedom of pre-Indo-European tribes. He believes that the extraordinary respect for women in those families meant that children raised in such atmospheres tended to distrust strong, authoritarian leaders.

According to del Giorgio, European democracies have their roots in those ancient ancestors. Kinship terminology Main article: Kinship terminology Archaeologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) performed the first survey of kinship terminologies in use around the world. Though much of his work is now considered dated, he argued that kinship terminologies reflect different sets of distinctions. For example, most kinship terminologies distinguish between sexes (the difference between a brother and a sister) and between generations (the difference between a child and a parent).

Moreover, he argued, kinship terminologies distinguish between relatives by blood and marriage (although recently some anthropologists have argued that many societies define kinship in terms other than “blood”). Morgan made a distinction between kinship systems that use classificatory terminology and those that use descriptive terminology. Morgan’s distinction is widely misunderstood, even by contemporary anthropologists. Classificatory systems are generally and erroneously understood to be those that “class together” with a single term relatives who actually do not have the same type of relationship to ego. What defines “same type of relationship” under such definitions seems to be genealogical relationship. This is more than a bit problematic given that any genealogical description, no matter how standardized, employs words originating in a folk understanding of kinship. ) What Morgan’s terminology actually differentiates are those (classificatory) kinship systems that do not distinguish lineal and collateral relationships and those (descriptive) kinship systems which do. Morgan, a lawyer, came to make this distinction in an effort to understand Seneca inheritance practices.

A Seneca man’s effects were inherited by his sisters’ children rather than by his own children. Morgan identified six basic patterns of kinship terminologies: Hawaiian: only distinguishes relatives based upon sex and generation. Sudanese: no two relatives share the same term. Eskimo: in addition to distinguishing relatives based upon sex and generation, also distinguishes between lineal relatives and collateral relatives. Iroquois: in addition to sex and generation, also distinguishes between siblings of opposite sexes in the parental generation.

Crow: a matrilineal system with some features of an Iroquois system, but with a “skewing” feature in which generation is “frozen” for some relatives. Omaha: like a Crow system but patrilineal. [edit] Western kinship See also: Cousin chart Most Western societies employ Eskimo kinship terminology. This kinship terminology commonly occurs in societies based on conjugal (or nuclear) families, where nuclear families have a degree of relative mobility. Members of the nuclear family (or immediate family) use descriptive kinship terms: Mother: a female parent

Father: a male parent Son: a male child of the parent(s) Daughter: a female child of the parent(s) Brother: a male child of the same parent(s) Sister: a female child of the same parent(s) Grandfather: father of a father or mother Grandmother: mother of a mother or father Such systems generally assume that the mother’s husband has also served as the biological father. In some families, a woman may have children with more than one man or a man may have children with more than one woman.

The system refers to a child who shares only one parent with another child as a “half-brother” or “half-sister. ” For children who do not share biological or adoptive parents in common, English-speakers use the term “stepbrother” or “stepsister” to refer to their new relationship with each other when one of their biological parents marries one of the other child’s biological parents. Any person (other than the biological parent of a child) who marries the parent of that child becomes the “stepparent” of the child, either the “stepmother” or “stepfather. The same terms generally apply to children adopted into a family as to children born into the family. Typically, societies with conjugal families also favor neolocal residence; thus upon marriage a person separates from the nuclear family of their childhood (family of orientation) and forms a new nuclear family (family of procreation). However, in the western society the single parent family has been growing more accepted and has begun to truly make an impact on culture. The majority of single parent families are more commonly single mother families than single father.

These families face many difficult issues besides the fact that they have to raise their children on their own, but also have to deal with issues related to low income. Many single parents struggle with low incomes and find it hard to cope with other issues that they face including rent, child care, and other necessities required in maintaining a healthy and safe home. Members of the nuclear families of members of one’s own (former) nuclear family may class as lineal or as collateral. Kin who regard them as lineal refer to them in terms that build on the terms used within the nuclear family:

For collateral relatives, more classificatory terms come into play, terms that do not build on the terms used within the nuclear family: Uncle: father’s brother, mother’s brother, father’s/mother’s sister’s husband Aunt: father’s sister, mother’s sister, father’s/mother’s brother’s wife Nephew: sister’s son, brother’s son, wife’s brother’s son, wife’s sister’s son, husband’s brother’s son, husband’s sister’s son Niece: sister’s daughter, brother’s daughter, wife’s brother’s daughter, wife’s sister’s daughter, husband’s brother’s daughter, husband’s sister’s daughter When additional generations intervene (in other words, when one’s collateral relatives belong to the same generation as one’s grandparents or grandchildren), the prefixes “great-” or “grand-” modifies these terms.

And as with grandparents and grandchildren, as more generations intervene the prefix becomes “great grand”, adding an additional “great” for each additional generation. Most collateral relatives have never had membership of the nuclear family of the members of one’s own nuclear family. Cousin: the most classificatory term; the children of aunts or uncles. One can further distinguish cousins by degrees of collaterality and by generation. Two persons of the same generation who share a grandparent count as “first cousins” (one degree of collaterality); if they share a great-grandparent they count as “second cousins” (two degrees of collaterality) and so on.

If two persons share an ancestor, one as a grandchild and the other as a great-grandchild of that individual, then the two descendants class as “first cousins once removed” (removed by one generation); if the shared ancestor figures as the grandparent of one individual and the great-great-grandparent of the other, the individuals class as “first cousins twice removed” (removed by two generations), and so on. Similarly, if the shared ancestor figures as the great-grandparent of one person and the great-great-grandparent of the other, the individuals class as “second cousins once removed”. Hence the phrase “third cousin once removed upwards”.

Cousins of an older generation (in other words, one’s parents’ first cousins), though technically first cousins once removed, often get classified with “aunts” and “uncles”. Similarly, a person may refer to close friends of one’s parents as “aunt” or “uncle”, or may refer to close friends as “brother” or “sister”, using the practice of fictive kinship. English-speakers mark relationships by marriage (except for wife/husband) with the tag “-in-law”. The mother and father of one’s spouse become one’s mother-in-law and father-in-law; the female spouse of one’s child becomes one’s daughter-in-law and the male spouse of one’s child becomes one’s son-in-law.

The term “Sister-in-law” refers to three essentially different relationships, either the wife of one’s sibling, or the sister of one’s spouse, or, in some uses, the wife of one’s spouse’s sibling. “Brother-in-law” expresses a similar ambiguity. No special terms exist for the rest of one’s spouse’s family. The terms “half-brother” and “half-sister” indicate siblings who share only one biological or adoptive parent. Among the two forms of polygamy, polygyny is by far the most widespread. Several different schemes have been proposed it explain its incidence. Some people suspect that a desire for numerous sex partners is built into basic human biology, a factor that would explain the almost its universal occurrence, but not the exceptions or variations.

Other theories based on population and ecological factors explain it as a response lengthy periods of sexual abstinence that women must follow after child birth in some cultures. This practice reduces population growth, but drives husbands to acquire additional wives to meet unfulfilled sexual needs. Demographic theory suggests that polygyny may occur because of a surplus of women that results from a high incidence of male warfare. However, polygyny occurs in many situations of relatively balanced gender ratios or even, as in the case of the Yanomamo, where males outnumber females. Accordingly, some men accumulate two or more wives only at the expense of others who never marry, or, much more usually, marry at a later age than women do.

As such, the society becomes divided between young bachelors, who may remain single into their thirties and older polygynists. This arrangement may occur informally or may become a marked feature of the social structure. For example, in some South African societies, such as the Zulu, all young men in their twenties were organized into military “age regiments” and were not allowed to marry until their term of service ended. A s we have already suggested, differences in marital age are also created by bride wealth requirements. The social division between polygynists and bachelors points to another prevalent theory of polygyny, which is based on social stratification.

In societies where men are not distinguished by differences in access to productive resources, such as land and capital, status distinctions are mainly attained and expressed through direct control over people. This goal is most obviously acheived through incorporating many women into one’s domestic group and expanding it by fathering a large number of children. Traditional South African marriage structures again provide an appropriate example. Most societies were divided into commoner, noble, and royal strata. Commoners usually were able to marry only one wife, nobles supported several, and royals could boast numbers that reached over a hundred.

A stratificational theory of polygyny also accounts for its greater incidence in comparison to polyandry, since men tend to occupy higher statuses than women in the majority of societies. Bigamy is the actual legal term used in law. The legal “offense” of bigamy is defined as being when a person has obtained “legally recognized” marriages to more than one living mate at the same time. The root-word, “bi”, in the word, bigamy, refers to two. But it does not mean only two mates. A bigamist is NOT simply a polygamist with only two mates. Rather, bigamy, in terms of law, refers to any additional and secondary would-be “legally recognized” marriage which comes after the only, first, government-allowed, one “legally recognized” marriage. This is reflective of the “thinking” behind the (anti-polygamy) bigamy laws.

When someone has obtained more than one would-be “legally recognized” marriage, each additional would-be “legally recognized” marriage is deemed as “secondary” to the only one government-allowed “legally recognized” marriage. Hence, any third, fourth, fifth, etc. would-be “legally recognized” marriages would all individually be deemed as separate “secondary” so-called “legally recognized” marriages. (The second would be deemed as “secondary”, the third would be “secondary”, the fourth would also be “secondary”, and so would the fifth, etc. ) That’s how the “bi”, meaning “two”, comes into the meaning of “bigamy” here. It is the government’s perception of “secondary” in these matters which makes the definition.

Accordingly, a single count of “bigamy” is charged against an accused bigamist for each “secondary” would-be “legally recognized” marriage —one charge each for each additional “legally recognized” marriage beyond the “first” and government-allowed “legally recognized” marriage. For example, a man with three would-be “legally recognized” wives would be charged with TWO counts of bigamy. This would be due to the “second wife” being considered as one “secondary” wife and the “third wife” being considered as a second “secondary” wife. This would be all due to the government’s perspective that there can be no more than one government-allowed “legally recognized” wife at the same time.

The difference, then, between a polygamist and a bigamist is NOT the number of mates. The meaning of bigamy and its application in (anti-polygamy) bigamy laws shows that its meaning is about any number of multiple “secondary” would-be “legally recognized” marriages after the “first” would-be “legally recognized” marriage. Thus again, bigamy does NOT mean simply a “polygamist with only two mates”. Bigamy is the actual term used in law, pertaining to the act of obtaining any number of “secondary” would-be “legally recognized” marriages beyond the “first” government-allowed one, at the same time. With that understood, there are then actually two distinctly separate classifications of accused “bigamists”.

Dishonest Bigamists – Accused of bigamy for turning secret affairs into secret “secondary” would-be “legally recognized” marriages beyond the “first” government-allowed one, at the same time, and being DISHONEST, as their other mates do not know of each other. and Honest Polygamists – Accused of bigamy for obtaining any “secondary” would-be “legally recognized” marriages beyond the “first” government-allowed one, at the same time, yet being HONEST, with all the family knowing of each other. Truly, the matter of “Dishonest Bigamy” is certainly in a separate classification by itself. The deceitfulness of such a situation has nothing to do with the true marriage matters of bona fide polygamy. And the matter of “Honest Polygamy” does not become a basis for being accused of bigamy if one does not obtain any secondary “legally recognized” marriages .

So, here again, it is clear that being a “bigamist” does not automatically mean that one is a bona fide “polygamist”. And vice versa. The two words clearly have separate meanings. In the final analysis, therefore, as long as an “Honest Polygamist” does not obtain any form of “legally recognized” marriage with any mate after the first “legally recognized” marriage, then no law in these modern times has been broken and the polygamist is NOT a bigamist at all. Since most polygamists thereby never commit the actually legally-defined “offense” of bigamy because they do NOT seek any such “legally recognized” marriages anyway (beyond the first one, if at all), then no (anti-polygamy) bigamy law in these modern times is being broken by such polygamists anyway.

The traditional view of the family was founded on a somewhat naive and one-sided conception of history. The knowledge of the past was confined to the history of classical civilization and to that of the Jews, in both of which the patriarchal family reigned supreme. But when the European horizon was widened by the geographical discoveries of modern times, men suddenly realized the existence of societies whose social organization was utterly different to anything that they had imagined. The discovery of totemism and exogamy, of matrilinear institutions, of polyandry, and of customs of organized sexual licence gave rise to a whole host of new theories concerning the origins of marriage and the family.

Under the influence of the prevalent evolutionary philosophy, scholars like Lewis Morgan elaborated the theory of the gradual evolution of the family from a condition of primitive sexual promiscuity through various forms of group-marriage and temporary pairing up to the higher forms of patriarchal and monogamous marriage as they exist in developed civilizations. This theory naturally commended itself to socialists. It received the official imprimatur of the leaders of German Socialism in the later nineteenth century, and has become as much a part of orthodox socialist thought as the Marxian interpretation of history. It was, however, never fully accepted by the scientific world, and is today generally abandoned, although it still finds a few supporters among anthropologists.

In England it is still maintained by Mr. E. S. Hartland and by Dr. Briffault, whose vast work The Mothers (3 vols. , 1927) is entirely devoted to the subject. According to Briffault, primitive society was purely matriarchal in organization, and the primitive family group consisted only of a woman and her offspring. A prolonged sexual association, such as we find in all existing forms of marriage, except in Russia, is neither natural nor primitive, and has no place in matriarchal society. The original social unit was not the family, but the clan which was based on matrilinear kinship and was entirely communistic in its sexual and economic relations.

The family, as we understand it, owes nothing to biological or sexual causes, but is an economic institution arising from the development of private property and the consequent domination of women by men. It is “but a euphemism for the individualistic male with his subordinate dependents. ” But in spite of its logical coherence, and the undoubted existence of matrilinear institutions in primitive society, this theory has not been borne out by recent investigations. The whole tendency of modern anthropology has been to discredit the old views regarding primitive promiscuity and sexual communism, and to emphasize the importance and universality of marriage.

Whether the social organization is matrilinear or patrilinear, whether morality is strict or loose, it is the universal rule of every known society that a woman before she bears a child must be married to an individual male partner. The importance of this rule has been clearly shown by Dr. Malinowski. “The universal postulate of legitimacy,” he writes, “has a great sociological significance which is not yet sufficiently acknowledged. It means that in all human societies moral tradition and law decree that the group consisting of a woman and her offspring is not a sociologically complete unit. The ruling of culture runs here again on entirely the same lines as natural endowment; it declares that the human family must consist of the male as well as the female. 1 It is impossible to go back behind the family and find a state of society in which the sexual relations are in a pre-social stage, for the regulation of sexual relations is an essential pre-requisite of any kind of culture. The family is not a product of culture; it is, as Malinowski shows, “the starting point of all human organization” and “the cradle of nascent culture. ” Neither the sexual nor the parental instinct is distinctively human. They exist equally among the animals, and they only acquire cultural significance when their purely biological function is transcended by the attainment of a permanent social relation. Marriage is the social consecration of the biological functions, by which the instinctive activities of sex and parenthood are socialized and a new synthesis of cultural and natural elements is created in the shape of the family.

This synthesis differs from anything that exists in the animal world in that it no longer leaves man free to follow his own sexual instincts; he is forced to conform them to a certain social pattern. The complete freedom from restraint which was formerly supposed to be characteristic of savage life is a romantic myth. In all primitive societies sexual relations are regulated by a complex and meticulous system of restrictions, any breach of which is regarded not merely as an offence against tribal law, but as morally sinful. These rules mostly have their origin in the fear of incest, which is the fundamental crime against the family, since it leads to the disorganization of family sentiment and the destruction of family authority.

It is unnecessary to insist upon the importance of the consequences of this fear of incest in both individual and social psychology, since it is the fundamental thesis of Freud and his school. Unfortunately, in his historical treatment of the subject, in _Totem and _Tabu, he inverts the true relation, and derives the sociological structure from a pre-existent psychological complex instead of vice versa. In reality, as Dr. Malinowski has shown, the fundamental repression which lies at the root of social life is not the suppressed memory of an instinctive crime — Freud’s prehistoric Oedipus tragedy — but a deliberate constructive repression of anti-social impulses.

The beginning of culture implies the repression of instincts, and all the essentials of the Oedipus complex or any other complex are necessary by-products in the gradual formation of culture. 2 The institution of the family inevitably creates a vital tension which is creative as well as painful. For human culture is not instinctive. It has to be conquered by a continuous moral effort, which involves the repression of natural instinct and the subordination and sacrifice of the individual impulse to the social purpose. It is the fundamental error of the modern hedonist to believe that man can abandon moral effort and throw off every repression and spiritual discipline and yet preserve all the achievements of culture.

It is the lesson of history that the higher the achievement of a culture the greater is the moral effort and the stricter is the social discipline that it demands. The old type of matrilinear society, though it is by no means devoid of moral discipline, involves considerably less repression and is consistent with a much laxer standard of sexual behaviour than is usual in patriarchal societies. But at the same time it is not capable of any high cultural achievement or of adapting itself to changed circumstances. It remains bound to its elaborate and cumbrous mechanism of tribal custom. The patriarchal family, on the other hand, makes much greater demands on human nature. It requires chastity nd self-sacrifice on the part of the wife and obedience and discipline on the part of the children, while even the father himself has to assume a heavy burden of responsibility and submit his personal feelings to the interests of the family tradition. But for these very reasons the patriarchal family is a much more efficient organ of cultural life. It is no longer limited to its primary sexual and reproductive functions. It becomes the dynamic principle of society and the source of social continuity. Hence, too, it acquires a distinctively religious character, which was absent in matrilinear societies, and which is now expressed in the worship of the family hearth or the sacred fire and the ceremonies of the ancestral cult.

The fundamental idea in marriage is no longer the satisfaction of the sexual appetite, but, as Plato says: “the need that every man feels of clinging to the eternal life of nature by leaving behind him children’s children who may minister to the gods in his stead. “3 This religious exaltation of the family profoundly affects men’s attitude to marriage and the sexual aspects of life in general. It is not limited, as is often supposed, to the idealization of the possessive male as father and head of the household; it equally transforms the conception of womanhood. It was the patriarchal family which created those spiritual ideals of motherhood and virginity which have had so deep an influence on the moral development of culture.

No doubt the deification of womanhood through the worship of the Mother Goddess had its origin in the ancient matrilinear societies. But the primitive Mother Goddess is a barbaric and formidable deity who embodies the ruthless fecundity of nature, and her rites are usually marked by licentiousness and cruelty. It was the patriarchal culture which transformed this sinister goddess into the gracious figures of Demeter and Persephone and Aphrodite, and which created those higher types of divine virginity which we see in Athene, the giver of good counsel, and Artemis, the guardian of youth. The patriarchal society was in fact the creator of those moral ideas which have entered so deeply into the texture of civilization that they have become a part of our thought.

Not only the names of piety and chastity, honour and modesty, but the values for which they stand are derived from this source, so that even where the patriarchal family has passed away we are still dependent on the moral tradition that it created. 4 Consequently, we find that the existing world civilizations from Europe to China are all founded on the tradition of the patriarchal family. It is to this that they owed the social strength which enabled them to prevail over the old cultures of matrilinear type which, alike in Europe and in Western Asia, in China and in India, had preceded the coming of the great classical cultures. Moreover, the stability of the latter has proved to be closely dependent on the preservation of the patriarchal ideal.

A civilization like that of China, in which the patriarchal family remained the corner-stone of society and the foundation of religion and ethics, has preserved its cultural traditions for more than 2,000 years without losing its vitality. In the classical cultures of the Mediterranean world, however, this was not the case. Here the patriarchal family failed to adapt itself to the urban conditions of the Hellenistic civilization, and consequently the whole culture lost its stability. Conditions of life both in the Greek city state and in the Roman Empire favoured the man without a family who could devote his whole energies to the duties and pleasures of public life. Late marriages and small families became the rule, and men satisfied their sexual instincts by homosexuality or by relations with slaves and prostitutes.

This aversion to marriage and the deliberate restriction of the family by the practice of infanticide and abortion was undoubtedly the main cause of the decline of ancient Greece, as Polybius pointed out in the second century B. C. 5 And the same factors were equally powerful in the society of the Empire, where the citizen class even in the provinces was extraordinarily sterile and was recruited not by natural increase, but by the constant introduction of alien elements, above all from the servile class. Thus the ancient world lost its roots alike in the family and in the land and became prematurely withered. The reconstitution of Western civilization was due to the coming of Christianity and the re-establishment of the family on a new basis.

Though the Christian ideal of the family owes much to the patriarchal tradition which finds such a complete expression in the Old Testament, it was in several respects a new creation that differed essentially from anything that had previously exi