Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage

The Financial Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Richard Tomkins

[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.

[AmishDude]

OK, but I don't really need to know. The point I really want to make is that what often makes some men appealing to women is precisely what makes them dangerous. I want to make the case for the beta-male.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"You probably dodged a bullet."

I know I did. His outrageous spending was nearly a deal-breaker for us.

[Tax-chick]

Yes, one of our sayings is, "It's not a home if nobody lives there."

[Nov3]

The basic, simple, biological reality is that women need to be having children when they're 18 - 25 and not when they're 30-45, and they need to be able to do that without having to marry men who are ten years older than they are. If our society is going to survive, that has to become possible again. What we're doing now clearly does not work.

Unfortunately the economic realities are that the vast majority need two incomes to just live early on. Regardless of what anyone says food, shelter, clothing, and transportation have vastly outpaced increases in entry level income from 1960 on. You can post statistics until you are blue in the face but the vast majority of society is going backwards at an ever accelerating rate.

[Aquinasfan]

since women have expanded the labor market, the purchasing power of a single salary has gone down precipitously.

But this has come about largely because of the increased tax burden since WWII. In real purchasing power, the income of a one-breadwinner family in 1950 is about what it is now for a dual-income family.

[Tax-chick]

Very good comments, digitalman.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

Because of my sharp, logical mind?

That's a given, isn't it? ;-)

Seriously, I think it's great that you have such a large family. And your children are beautiful. I wish that I could have had a bunch more myself.

[Conservatrix]

Well then they shouldn't whine when they screw up the marriage.

You should change your screen name from "Bon mots" to "Bone Head."

[Nonstatist]

Women have to "change" to expect less from a man, to expect a less educated, a less paid partner. ..men will have to do the more meaningless tasks in a marraige because womens time will be worth so much more than a mans time. When a woman manager or physician or attorney or biologist, etc comes home from a long day at work making mega bucks, she will expect dinner and a clean house

LOL!! You're hilarious. .. So , women's liberation means women will be more liberated and men less so?

You might see this incidently, but I think its fair to say that if the human being who produces the offspring isnt willing to stay home and take care of them, there will be far less offspring. WHich is exactly whats happening all over the Western world.

The societies that promote "tradidionalism" in family life will be the ones that take over. Sounds unfair, but... thats life!

[YankeeGirl]

Position: Wife

Duties:

Cooking: Prepare one meal each day. Cleaning: Keep house in order. Vacuum and dust 1-2 per week, wipe down kitchen and bathroom daily. Laundry: 2-3 times per week.

Think you missed a couple of things.

You forgot calling kids' schools/coaches/doctors for various things, shopping for household supplies, getting estimates from contractors for the roof, driving, driving, driving, sorting & prioritizing mail, banking and bill paying, reviewing and updating family's investment portfolio, managing family social calendar, yard work and landscaping.

Oh yeah, many more women than men are volunteering in church, school and community activities. Count those hours in.

Now try doing all that and then add in the part-time or full time job!

[Nowhere Man]

While I agree with you, how do we reverse the trend of the current generation of men that want it all and want it now (McMansion, two or more cars, kids, electronic gadgetry) that require two incomes to support? You can't possibly blame the "wants" of one sex on the other. Granted, women can be willing accomplices in the "gimmies" but unless you marry someone that lives simply in the first place, how do couples get around the Two Income Trap?

Good points. I'm reminded of the time when we got our first color TV in 1971, I still vaguely remember the days when color TV was somewhat rare. My aunt always had a color TV as long as I can remember, I was born in 1966 and turn 39 this week on the 8th, she had one since the early 1960's when they were expensive, an RCA "roundie" (round screen). We had a 1959 Philco B&W TV, before our 1970 Zenith (I still have the Zenith BTW) so as I got older, I asked Mom, why didn't we get a color TV like my aunt." She said, "there was nothing wrong with the Philco until it started to go bad to the point to where we needed to get a new TV." I think that's it in a nutshell, in addition to being more of a selfish society, it affects all, men and women, we have become much more of a "keep up with the Joneses" society. People are apt to toss things inthe garbage that is still in perfect working order. On Audio Karma (AK), another forum I hang out on (I like old electronics), there was a story where someone put out an RCA Color-Trak TV, 1989/90 vintage so one of the AKer's picked it up to take it home to fix. He plugged it in just to see if it works and it worked perfectly but it was tossed, maybe to make room for a new TV. I know myself, I still watch our 1982 Zenith to this day (and hopefully get the 1970 Zenith back online), the same set since I was a sophomore in high school. I think we live too much in a greedy, throwaway society and this is part of the selfishness we have today.

[Sundown2005]

In the end, it's all about money and how much the divorce lawyer makes, isn't it?

[najida]

And altho I do believe people who don't want children because of the "sacrifice" 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.

I have a couple of friends, and two siblings (and to a certain degree myself) who consciously decided NOT to have kids. It wasn't a selfish decision. Every one of them looked deep into themselves, their past parenting experiences and who they really are. They sincerely believe they would be bad parents and that a child deserves better.

You know you shouldn't be a parent if you know you have a quick temper, that you are prone to lash out verbally and evey physically when frustrated. That you are an extreme loner, or so introverted that a bomb could go off and you wouldn't notice. That you consistantly lack patience and forbearance. Yeah, it's a pretty brutal look inside yourself. You can 'fix' these things, but until they are fixed, another person shouldn't be the victim of your path to wholeness. And the end result is you save a child from yourself.

It's a pity more people don't think that way.

[kharaku]

Most women I meet who harp on about how bad men are have the worst tastes in men. Still if it weren't for feminism turning women into self centered pigs, and men abandoning masculism to get in touch with their feminine side (you know the one feminists purport not even women should possess) there'd be lot's of normal candidates for marriage. My advice for folks dissatisfied with the pool of candidates here is to look abroad to cultures that still embrace marriage. That does little to help the fact though that there's just tons of losers not fit for, or intent on marriage thoughout America and West Europe.

[AmishDude]

I wasn't placing blame, certainly the tax burden plays a big role. But it's also not a zero-sum game. The expansion of the labor market also increases productivity and efficiency, which also increases purchasing power. If every woman today were to quit her job, salaries for men would not double, either in dollars or in purchasing power.

[digitalman]

Yes, I have noted the Alaph males on the thread.

There are good cases why a bata male is better. Bata males can be more of a man than an alaph male, which you are correct alpha males can be a dangerous mate

[LongElegantLegs]

WELL PUT!

But you're going to get flamed for saying it. :-)

[Tax-chick]

Thanks for the compliments! They are beautiful, for some reason :-).

I'm sure I wouldn't have them all if I'd married a Navy man, though! I turned down those offers.

[digitalman]

Thank you, it has to do with down home thinkin' my long passed relative valued, lucky for me I was around before they passed!

[brownsfan]

"You should change your screen name from "Bon mots" to "Bone Head." "

I haven't been following your argument with bon mots, but I will make this observation. It is typical of the females I've been around to attack personally in frustration over an arguement. Arguing with a woman can be very dangerous if she knows anything about you. Women I have known, can, and will use any means available to them in a disagreement.

Even though it says:

Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.