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.
come on grow up anyone promoting non equality is not a real feminist. Sounds like you are talking about a lesbian not a feminist IMO
Sorry with that statement you just disqualified yourself as someone knowledgeable in this area.
fine, keep playing semantic games then
Thanks - I do delegate, although that still leaves more work than the poster's "one meal a day," etc. For example, "Nurse new baby 18 hours out of 24."
My daughters are smarter than that. After all, they're my daughters.
We all make poor choices sometimes, this was one of the poorest I ever made.
SINGLE MOTHER OF SIX"
Your post gives me pause because you are publicly bashing someone who has no ability to defend himself. Now he might truly be all the terrible things you allege, but at this point I would like to read his side of it.
There's some selfishness in any decision, not that there's anything wrong with that.
And it's not because I don't think I'd be a good parent or find joy in it, or that I don't want to make any sacrifices. One look around at the way I change my life and limit what I do for my animals would show you that. And I like kids, as visitors. It's just that I'm not sure I want that lifestyle. If things had gone like the rule book said, and I'd have married at 18 or 25 instead of 36, maybe I'd feel different, and my kids would now be 10 and able to ride that silly pony I'm not sure why I own ;~D But at this point....
Well, I guess you sort of granted me the point about aggression. In fact, I maintain a lot of the PC crap we get shoved down our throats these days is a product of a strong feminine influence in the work place.
I agree, young men aren't pursuing a career as aggressively as they once did. Would any of this have it's genesis in the modern male stereotype? You know, the one where we've gone from a benevolent, wise father figure, (Ozzie Nelson, Andy Griffith, Ward Clever), to the inept, stupid father figure, (Ray Barrone, Homer Simpson, Al Bundy)?
Young men are either demoralized, or lazy, or both, I'm not sure. So, you have a couple of unappealing prospects for the future. First, digging ditches all day won't supress a guy's aggression, trust me on that one. Second, if a guy can't get women to notice him because he digs ditches, that won't help calm him down.
With a large number of men in this position, you have the potential for a huge violent crime problem.
I'm not sure what else will happen, but be aware, not all of these undereducated men will be stupid. Hmmmm, intelligent beings with high aggression and low self esteem.
You had better hope things don't go as you so gleefully seem to wish they are headed.
Visit American Heritage Dictionary fem·i·nism (fm-nzm) KEY NOUN: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. The movement organized around this belief.
Name some feminists, popular ones you beleive are the real deal. The fact is the key palyers in the feminist movement, the actually folks pouring money into scholarships, school books, tv ads, tv programs, etc etc. Are launching a massive propaganda effort against traditional female roles and a massive effort for women in traditionally male roles. You're quaint idea of what feminism 'really is' is irelevant because the people in the movement moving it forward do not share you're happy 'we can all get along' attitude.
Not all blindspots are formed by romance!
True ... some are formed by excessive FReeping.
True...but only in the employment arena.
An uneducated person (with some testosterone) can start a business or sell a product or service and make substantially more money than any doctor or lawyer or corporate manager.
It is a big world out there. This whole 'job' thing is relatively new in the grand scheme of things.
College is not only unnecessary to succeed financially, it is now becoming a hindrance. In the end, the strongest and smartest will survive. They will not necessarily be the most educated. The educated will probably be working for them and earning a decent salary.
"Well if that is the case, you ought to follow an argument"
Hmmmm... so there is a context to the rule? Personal attacks are allowed when you decide they are? Is that a right given to the women here, or do we all just decide when it's appropriate to attack?
That is true, but for the most part, the more educated you are, the more professional of a degree, the more money you make.
Uneducated males who make lots of money are exceptions, and will be even less so as the world economy gets rid of over paid factory jobs - plus there is more competition these days. In the old days, an uneducated male could start a business and have lots of opportunity, now with record immigration, lots of immigrants are starting businesses, and women out number males in owning their own businesses also.
You dont need to read a book to see why women made less than men in the 1950's, there were virtually no women in professions, no female doctors, no female lawyers,no female computer engineers, and men greatly outnumbered females in college.
That has now been reversed - shoe is on the other foot.
Anyways, I never said I liked what is happening, I am just observing what is happening. High paid factory jobs are disappearing in this country. Males are not going to college, males are not going to professional schools, grad schools. Women and immigrants are the majority of new business owners. Men are not going into the military like they used to.
The consequences and future are inevitable, like it or not.
That ranks along the lines of "I'm from the Government. I'm here to help."
These key players by definition are not feminists then. What is at fault here is your broad stroke "tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush" definitions.
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.