Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage
The Financial Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Richard Tomkins

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: feminism; genderwars; marriage; metrosexual; metrosexuals; sensitive; sissies; snag; swishy; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 881-900 next last
To: Bon mots

>>>Don't forget, women demand equality in the workplace... or they'll sue.>>>

Yeah, as if that is wrong.

If I do YOUR work, I expect YOUR pay. Not all women are mothers, or should be held back because some are.


21 posted on 07/05/2005 6:01:39 AM PDT by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

This trend is partly a result of the fact that baby boomers are a spoiled, self-obsessed bunch of brats (and I say that as one of them). Parents deprived during the Great Depression and WWII spoiled their kids rotten.

It may take a couple of generations and may already be happening that young people are themselves determined not to have children, then divorce like their parents did, but instead want their marriages to last. That's partly the reason why young adults are waiting longer to get married and have children.

My two cents....


22 posted on 07/05/2005 6:04:58 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyB
When the male female earning power drastically changes into being lopsided the other way, with women outearning men the way men used to outearn women in the 1950's, a basic flip flop of roles would be expected, and certainly after womens "time" becomes worth so much more than mens time, women will have to give up all the menial unpaid tasks that they used to do - esp around the house.

Then in these cases, the men get custody of the children and alimony in the event of divorce? 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.

23 posted on 07/05/2005 6:07:17 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
... stop telling little suzy to put away that vile toy stove, and pick up a toy jack hammer, and the gays stop telling little bobby that it's just dandy to wear pink sweaters and frollic with the boys

You got it exactly right.  My kids are in the age range of 20 to 11 and it seems like every 3 out of 5 of their classmates (mostly the boys) are either gay or it won't take much to convince them to switch sides.  When I was their age there was maybe 1 out of 100 that was a "bit strange" but now ... woah.  I went into a store the other day and all five of the "male" employees were totally flaming!

What is going on???

24 posted on 07/05/2005 6:08:16 AM PDT by softwarecreator (Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

I think it is.

mc


25 posted on 07/05/2005 6:11:02 AM PDT by mcshot (Boldly going nowhere with a smile and appreciation for life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

I thought it would be fun to point out on this thread that Mrs. MichiganCheese and I are celebrating our anniversary today! Do we have wedded bliss every waking moment of our lives? No we do not. Do we have full, satisfying lives together full of love and respect? Absolutely! I wouldn't change anything.

Too bad the feminists are tearing apart what the very things they say they want. The will never get love and respect unless they are willing to give it. They will never get love and respect from their life-long series of one night stands, or from their lesbian flings or from taking everything they can in a divorce or whatever else they think will make them happy.

Selfishness never brings fullfilment, giving does.


26 posted on 07/05/2005 6:13:08 AM PDT by MichiganCheese (If Hillary is the answer, it must be a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Moral laws are like physical laws - they work whether you "believe" in them or not. A society that abandons Christian marriage and family is a society that will fail.


27 posted on 07/05/2005 6:16:42 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("I am saying that the government's complicity is dishonest and disingenuous." ~NCSteve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
I didn't read the whole article. This sentence stopped me:

People are a lot less willing to sacrifice their independent lifestyle

GGGRRRRRRRRR. Well no wonder no one wants to get married with this attitude. "SACRIFICE"

I had a conversation with a friend the other day about having children. He viewed having children as "giving up you freedom". This attitude astounds me. No doubt, getting married, and havinhg children change a persons lifestyle. But to view those changes as "sacrifice" and "giving up freedoms" is, IMO, a truly selfish, horrible attitude. And to go around saying things like that were young people hear it is what is turning them off to having a family. Why not speak of the wonderful gains of having a family rather then talking about so called sacrifices.

Becky

28 posted on 07/05/2005 6:17:33 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain (Don't be afraid to try: Remember, the ark was built by amateur's, and the Titanic by professionals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
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.

This raises a fascinating question, since the U.S. appears still to be on the trailing edge of change. Taking Sweden as the "leader", if you'll pardon the expression, the US is at 38% less, 21% less than France, and 17% less than Britain.

But this is deceptive, because some demographic groups tend to breed more bastards than others and a different breakdown might be more useful.

In other words, the U.S. may be in much better shape than it appears, or worse, depending on your point of view.

29 posted on 07/05/2005 6:17:36 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
This must be a male thread. ummm, errrr guys don't mean to give you a curve ball, but the name of the author is a 'male' one.

The break down is marriage is due to more than just women not changing. Women do suffer economically after the marriage ends. Many women are single moms, and usually with jobs which pay less than the males.

To blame everything on the the changing of the male roll and not being 'needed' to bring home the bacon, is taking the easy way out. A friend I had lunch, told of her 'religious' hubby coming home from work, stating divorce was nothing all the 'men' do it, (not sure where this guys religion, probably in his butt).

The truth is marriages are braking down because they are not valued in society. People believe what they read, all they hear from the friends, and yes, even sometimes 'bad' advise from 'not well intended' family members.

There was an article which I came across, it stated something about people were never inteneded to live as long as they do, more divorces will happpen in older years, because of a longer life span. Well, now people will read that and believe this also. Another excuse.

Truth is it is because as an American society we do not value marriage (yep, even many religious dudes give lip service on this, and I do mean 'lip service'). America is about money, self centerness. ( this gives control freaks added fuel to a marriage brake down) It is nothing for people to have two, three and even four spouses in America (at seperate times, I laugh when these people say look at those men in the middle east, I usually think to myself, heck bud, at least they are still with him, and he's supporting them, you have had the same number yourself).(((that statement will make a lot of people angry, it is stated to make ya angry, and to make you think!!!!))))) And no I am not for polygamy, and not for serial polygamy, oh, sorry, think that is call serial monogamy.

It is not just about women changing, it is about the American society will all the lip service of 'families' the reality is it is not, the values among it's people is money and self interest focused. can't let the fellow males wimp out blaiming it on the 'little woman', it is more complex a problem than that.
30 posted on 07/05/2005 6:19:19 AM PDT by digitalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: softwarecreator

How else can teens today rebel against the baby boomers? The one thing that BB did not do when they were young is act out homosexually en masse.


31 posted on 07/05/2005 6:29:43 AM PDT by mlmr (CHICKIE-POO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

You mean the only thing that isn't Bush's fault is a woman's fault? Figures! ;)


32 posted on 07/05/2005 6:32:06 AM PDT by Chgogal ("Congressmen who willfully...during war...damage moral...should be arrested, exiled or..." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
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.

"She said" is a very revealing part of that statement, for therein lies the fallacy that there is any unfairness.

My experince has been that, in fact, the women do a disproportionate amount of the work around a household, but a moot point has always been that they also "invent" a much more disproportionate percentage of the " must do list": a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Are necessary" and "I decided it must be done" are two entirely different things.
e.g. "I decided to install chintzy dust-collecting ugly curtains on every opening in the house, including the chimney!"

33 posted on 07/05/2005 6:34:09 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahotdog

Yes, many on this thread are still arguing for equal pay or equal division of the spoils in divorce - alimony, furniture etc. We should all be aware by now that, that is not working.

The point is that women are still better suited to be home with young children, making a home if you will, while the presence of testosterone - never mind cultural conditioning - makes men better at supporting that family.

This is not going to change for vast numbers of people even though they may be trying to live their lives according to the NOW agenda.

Men are not the enemy unless you insist on making them so.


34 posted on 07/05/2005 6:35:48 AM PDT by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Amen.


35 posted on 07/05/2005 6:36:50 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
More!

More!

36 posted on 07/05/2005 6:36:54 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Attitude amounts to so much. Many women I meet have a tewrrible attitude about men, that we are hear to cater to every whim, every complaint, evey nuerotic belief, and should get nothing in return.


37 posted on 07/05/2005 6:37:47 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
Men are not the enemy unless you insist on making them so

Excellent way to put it!

susie
38 posted on 07/05/2005 6:39:08 AM PDT by brytlea (Yes, there are Republican teachers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

mark


39 posted on 07/05/2005 6:40:17 AM PDT by sauropod (Polite political action is about as useful as a miniskirt in a convent -- Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digitalman
This must be a male thread. ummm, errrr guys don't mean to give you a curve ball, but the name of the author is a 'male' one.

You haven't been paying attention, have you.

40 posted on 07/05/2005 6:41:37 AM PDT by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 881-900 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson