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.
So tell me how women were able to turn the tables on men when they had little formal education, and more domestic career aspirations?
A lot of women think that way, no question.
Good for you! :)
Yeah, its funny to me the number of couples who seem to have found the 'ho hum' partner of someone else ;)
I just report what i hear. Many prostitutes, in fact, don't actually have intercourse with their johns. Often it's one or two tasks that the men want, and the rest is therapy.
Sounds kooky but word on the street is that it's true.
"most people are in favor of free trade. That large pool of males who left high school and got good high paying jobs with lots of beneifits and pensions and medical insurance, etc, that enabled them to support a non-working wife and 3 kids doesnt exist anymore. "
It's a by-product of free trade, one the free traders don't want to acknowledge. Aside from the drop outs. There are males who just aren't suited for college. Men who are bright, good, decent people who just aren't suited for college. They used to get factory jobs, became good husbands, and raised kids who became good decent doctors, lawyers, and engineers.
The free traders would tell you those folks need to hustle and start their own business. Otherwise, they have no right to reproduce.
You are feeling the effects of this.
I wonder how many free traders had factory worker parents?
Exactly. My friends and I had a conversation about this, and were overheard by our significant others, unknowingly by us, and were nearly crucified.
They could not handle the truth. I told mine to simply read Dr. Laura's book about men and that would answer everything.
I don't know why women work so hard, either. Men work for women. If modern women don't want men anymore, the motivation to succeed is precisely zero.
Sadly, since women (but not men) have a genetic inclination to marry "up", status-wise, and our society considers a college degree a mark of status, that means that millions of these young college-"educated" women will NEVER find a man that meets their "standards". I've also known ultra-successful career types who kept meeting men who ought to have been good matches, yet, somehow they just "couldn't" find any of these decent middleclass men attractive. They were holding out for men of their own "class", but those men are all dating 20 year old models. Oops.
Agreed...and my daughters are the ones who are paying the price.
Scatching your lady's itches is a lot of fun. ;-)
I can’t believe (actually I can) that on a topic such as this, with the people involved in the conversation, we all resort to the blame game.
“It’s all because of women!”
“No! It’s all because of men!”
You all can sit back and get mad at each other and further the detriment to the institution of marriage by bad mouthing the opposite sex, but I will not. Those with the social agenda to end marriage are also trying to make the behaviors that are contributing to the downfall of marriage acceptable. (infidelity, dishonesty, selfishness, etc.) I’m sure they are sitting back laughing when they can turn those such as Freepers on their own. It is not the fault of men or women solely. There are cases where it has been the fault of the man or woman but is not always the fault of one sex or the other all the time. If you believe that it is, then you have been truly brainwashed (or perhaps it is just a defense mechanism for your own mistakes). The infighting has to stop if we are save the institution of marriage, or any other sacred establishment that is endangered. We have everything to lose, they have everything to win, why help them to defeat us?
This is very true in many cases. There is a pervasive mindset out there that a woman's needs are largely valid, while a man's needs are a bit excessive (and sometimes even suspect). While I don't doubt there is at least some truth to that (as far as sex, us guys can be very demanding - I know I am), it's overstated to the point of not being very helpful to the relationships between the sexes.
Th problem with marriage? Slidden morality. Money is the god to almost everyone these days, whether they realize it or not. Was marriage begun as an economic union? No. Marriage was meant as a 3 way spiritual agreement between a man, a woman and God. God promised to meet our needs if we abide in Him. God's precepts mean nothing to people any more. We are not a moral people any more, so freedom, marriage or any other thing relying on accountability, faith or sacrifice are impossible. We have also given an unholy beurocracy control of divorce and child custody making a slave of one of the divorcees, usually the man.
By in large, that's pretty much the only need a husband can't have satisfied ethically by contracting it out, yet the majority of women are so self-absorbed they can't even get that right... then they wonder why their husbands are so passive!
You're very right. It isn't like 'our team' is better than 'their team' between the genders.
These threads are fun to watch because you do see what rattles some people's cages, what they want, what their fears are, how they see the world and the opposite sex. It's a learning experience. The bitterness in some breaks my heart.
Bottom line, we can't exist without each other (OK, one generation can) but then we're kaput. We truly do need to learn to get along ;)(Oh is that gonna get me ragged!)
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.