Posted on 07/05/2005 5:31:57 AM PDT by Bon mots
Is marriage, as a social institution, doomed? As recently as 50 years ago, it was the norm for people to get married and have children. But now, at least in the west, we are seeing record numbers of people divorcing, leaving marriage until later in life or not getting married at all. In Britain, I was amazed to learn the other day, the proportion of children born outside marriage has shot up from 9 per cent to 42 per cent since 1976. In France, the proportion is 44 per cent, in Sweden, it is 56 per cent and even in the US, with its religious emphasis on family values, it is 35 per cent.
|
|
I suppose we must blame the rise of selfish individualism. People are a lot less willing to sacrifice their independent lifestyle and become part of a couple or family unit than they once were. And if they do marry, the importance they place on their right to a happy life leaves them disinclined to stick around for long once the initial euphoria has worn off.
I wonder, though, if there is another possible explanation: that, frankly, a lot of women do not like men very much, and vice versa? And that, given the choice, a lot of women and men would prefer an adequate supply of casual nookie to a lifelong relationship with a member of the opposite sex?
Choice, after all, is a very recent phenomenon. For most of human history, men and women married not because they particularly liked one another but out of practical necessity: men needed women to cook and clean for them while women needed men to bring home the bacon. It is only in very recent times that women have won legal independence and access to economic self-sufficiency - and only recently, too, that men have been liberated from dependency on women by ready meals and take-away food, automatic washing machines and domestic cleaning services.
During the times of mutual dependency, women were economically, legally and politically subservient to men. This had a number of repercussions. One was that, lacking control over their own lives, women could justifiably hold their husbands responsible for everything, resulting in what men around the world will recognise as the first law of matrimony: "It's all your fault." Second, while men ruled the world, women ruled within the home - often firmly, resulting in the age-old image of the nagging wife and hen-pecked husband. And third, understandably resenting their subjugation outside the home, women took pleasure in characterising their oppressors as selfish, insensitive, lazy, lying, feckless, incompetent scumbags.
Fair enough. But in the last 30 years, relations between men and women have undergone a greater change than at any time in human history. Women have not reached full equality yet, but they are getting close. And now the economic necessity for getting hitched has died out, marriage is on the rocks.
What can be done to save it? My interest in this was provoked by an article I read online last week by Stephanie Coontz, an author of books on American family life. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, she said an important principle was that "husbands have to respond positively to their wives' request for change" - for example, addressing the anomaly that women tend to do the larger share of the housework.
So, husbands have to change. Does this sound familiar? Of course it does, because it is another repetition of the first law of matrimony: "It's all your fault."
I could quibble with Ms Coontz's worries about the uneven split in the male/female workload. In the US, according to the latest time-use survey from the bureau of labour statistics, employed women spend on average an hour a day more than employed men on housework and childcare; but employed men spend an hour a day longer doing paid work. While this may be an imperfect arrangement, it hardly seems a glaring injustice.
But my point is this. Yes, men must change; indeed, they are changing, which is why we hear so much about new men and metrosexuals and divorced fathers fighting for custody of their children. But are women so perfect, or so sanctified by thousands of years of oppression, that they cannot be asked to change even the tiniest bit, too?
If economic necessity is not going to bring and keep men and women together in marriage, then we are going to have to rely on mutual affection and respect. And there is not going to be much of that about as long as women - assisted by television sitcoms and media portrayals in general - carry on stereotyping men as selfish, insensitive, lazy, lying, feckless, incompetent scumbags, even if some of them are.
So, my timorous suggestion is that it is time for women to shrug off the legacy of oppression and consider changing their approach to men and marriage. First, with power comes responsibility, which means it is now all women's fault as much as men's and, hence, the end of the blame and complain game. Second, if women are to share power in the world, men must share power in the home, which means that they get an equal say in important decisions about soft furnishings.
Most of all, it is time for the negative stereotyping to go. I know women will say: "But it's true!" If so, then marriage certainly is doomed.
But whose fault is that? If you treat all men as selfish, insensitive, lazy, lying, feckless, incompetent scumbags, you should not be surprised if that is what they turn out to be.
"Prepare one meal each day." ???
I deduce that you do not have 8 children.
Actually, the economics would tell you that, since women have expanded the labor market, the purchasing power of a single salary has gone down precipitously. It's a spiral, the more two-income families there are, the less one income will buy.
Harsh? Yes. Eye-opener? Yes. Was I initially guilty of being a "spending enabler" to my husband? Yes. Did it work for us? Yes.
You probably dodged a bullet. My sister has bill collectors calling her or showing up at her house every week. She got out just before her ex cleaned her out completely.
bttt
"...So, in that spirit, women are all bitches that henpeck us." ~rolls eyes~
What a whiner.
What there is, in this country, are a bunch of people of both sexes that lack commitment within relationships, and some who think that commitment entitles them to be mean to the other.
Vastly under-valued benefit of homeschooling.
After all, it is a documented fact that children raised by fathers in motherless homes do much better than those raised without a father present.
Would that be because fathers raise the kids anyway?
That is a myth that has been busted up by this fascinating book. Written by a past board member of the NOW and the preface written by a past president of the same group, I was pleasantly shocked at their findings.
Wow. I envy you. :-)
Er, what planet are you on? Here is my job dscription: SINGLE MOTHER OF SIX Duties: Cooking: 3 meals a day for 7 people plus snacks Shopping: several stores a week for bargains and various staples, 4-6 times a week to and for errands Cleaning: 5 bedrooms and two bathrooms, yard and porch. Cycles of dishes 3 times a day. Laundry: 2-3 loads A DAY (not per week) Schedule: Get up an hour before kids to shop if necessary, run errands, check email, BEFORE the day starts with all the other things Boss: God Almighty Subordinates: 6 busy, active, intelligent children needing guidance, direction, discipline, acitivites and affection Perks: Get to love a large family of beautiful kids Other jobs: two part-time teaching jobs, job searching for full-time job Wait until your imaginary "wife" has kids-- I am sure her job description would be quite different. And you forgot one for your list: Other duties: suffering with living with a bonehead
Saying marriage is about compromise is one thing, saying it is sacrafice is another. I believe it is about compromise, but if you view that compromise as a sacrifice, I think you could get resentful towards your spouse.
And altho I do beleive people who don't want children because of the "sacrfice" they would have to make are very selfish people I do admire them for having the courage to admit it, and do feel sorry for them because they just don't understand that not having children is a bigger, true sacrifice then having them. They must be sad shallow people to not be able to love without viewing it as a sacrifice.
Becky
Well then they shouldn't whine when they screw up the marriage.
I will send you a private reply on this.
AMEN.
Here is another prospective:
I try to be patient, and realize most people views are taken from a narrow perspective; usually the prospective of their life time.
For a few of the macho men of the board, lets take a look at this perspective, for a good portion of our nations history, man did not bring home the bacon,, for most American’s the bacon was on the family farm. Mom did as much work as Dad did, junior also got up for chores. The family was home with each other, bonding, working side by side, with occasional ‘outings’ among neighbors. If Pop went off to war, or had to be gone, Mom worked the farm, as hard as any man.
Then the family moved to the ‘city’, mom, home bound, pop new role ‘bread winner’. Dad has a different out look on Mom at home as he goes off to the city earning a “liven”, and socializing among the town folk. Mom’s value dropped in the eyes of her man.
Hope your starting to get the picture here, I would hate to have to spell it out more for you.
It’s not matter of ‘girly men’ it is a matter of putting your ‘thinking’ cap on’
The author of the articles views are narrow in perspective.
There are several ways to tear down our society one is to male bash the other is to 'woman bash'. To less the value of women in the home, in marriage and society is to damage our nations as much as any insurgent.
Some males on the board need stop whinning like spoiled children who's mommy is not taking care of them, and look at men who have keep their marriages in tact, and a good healthy family, and wife. Note the word difference 'males' vs. 'men'.
Because of my sharp, logical mind?
Jk, you're very kind! The 8th one hasn't been born yet, actually, so it's very quiet and doesn't produce any dirty dishes or laundry!
Wooo Hoo go girl :-)
Marriage is a financial union CONTRACT! A contract where the guy will be royally screwed if anything goes wrong... regardless of who is at fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.