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.
Agreed 100%. I am an attorney and started my own practice and would never look back. I had a few WASP SOB bosses I wanted to strangle and then flew the coop. I love my life now and do whatever I want, pretty much when I want.
My GF is a divorce and probate attorney. I sometimes wish she would quit and do something else as it is a terrible way to earn a living.
Heaven knows, I'm hungry all the time. ;-)
Yep. The problem in a nutshell. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
Heaven knows, I'm hungry all the time. ;-)
And what is the necessity of that? My children were born when their mother was 32 and 34 respectively, and it hasn't been a complete disaster.
I think you have summed up the article, and the problem. You say it better than I do. More higher educated women are demanding men more educated than they are,but there are fewer males who are better educated than females, not more.
You forgot the most important one: Marriage should be saved, because in this crazy, messed up, cruel world, there is no sanctuary like a happy marriage. Nothing else even comes to that particular balm.
"Being a Pittsburgher (yes I'm a Steeler's fan B-D) and coming from working class roots, I don't deny my economic centrist views come from that but yeah, I'd like to do a study on free-trade vs. fair-trade on the basis of current jobs and family background."
I'm not a psycho... being a Steelers fan is just a Browns fan who likes Black and Gold, (and has had a lot more success lately!).
It's funny how free traders wrap themselves in the flag. They are every bit as dangerous as some of the looney left. They don't care about their country, or about their neighbors or about anything but their portfolio. How shallow, how devoid of vision.
Glad there are a few like us here.
I'm too old, and too married... maybe you are young and single enough? SandyB needs a guy like one of us. ;)
fascism is a far right extreme right wing ideology. It is politically opposite to communism the left wing extreme
what on earth is that supposed to mean? did you even read the thread?
Unless she insists on having them scratched without bearing the responsibility of telling you where they are, and reserves the right to punish when you get it wrong.
Well, that should mean that uneducated females are having a field day.
They always have. Same thing with short women. Short women who are not educated, have a bigger selection to choose from.
Whereas: a tall, highly educated, high paid conservative woman only has about 11 single men out there to choose from.
You guys keep saying that, and I keep repeating, "Divorce is a symptom, not the problem.". The problem is that married couples are seeking divorce, not that divorce is available. You'd just have a slightly different problem if these couples were seeking divorces, and they weren't available. The goal should be to reduce the number of unhappy marriages, not to bar the exit.
ROFLMAO!!!
//snort|| thanks.
Just curious, but what generation do you call your own? If you pre-date the boomers, I'll consider your opinion as valid, If on the other hand you're just another bitter xer that hates everyone born before you....well...it goes without saying.
Explain this further. You can't seriously expect us to beleive that 3/5 of your kid's classmates are gay or leaning that way. How do you judge the leaning that way kids anyway?
I dunno boys are more and more and more girlish these days...
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.