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.
>>>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.
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....
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.
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???
I think it is.
mc
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
You mean the only thing that isn't Bush's fault is a woman's fault? Figures! ;)
"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!"
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.
Amen.
More!
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.
mark
You haven't been paying attention, have you.
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.