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.
Well, that's romance, I suppose... ;-)
Don't be too hard on your friend. Some of us are better equiped to lead a family life than others. History is repleat with men, often great men who weren't cut out for marriage or children.
DINGDINGDINGDING! We have a winner. Now comes the easy part... how do you make people satisfied with what they've got?
Excellent post. I think you hit the nail on the head. Although I'm divorced myself, I can't argue with a word of it. Luckily for me though, soon after leaving my disasterous first marriage, I met a wonderful woman, and we're working on 15 years of marriage now.
I don't have any, um, excrement to fling, but if you appreciate research instead of volleys of fragmentary impressions and subsequent shitstorms, I have something worth looking at:
* The largest data set on the academic success of the home educated reveals positive things. 16,311 students from across the country were tested with the nationally normed Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The nationwide average for the homeschooled on the Basic Battery (i.e., reading, language, and math) was the 77th percentile. They were at the 79th percentile in reading, the 73rd in language, and the 73rd in math. (The national average is, by definition, the 50th percentile.) 1
* Canada's largest study of its kind revealed similar findings on the academic success of the home educated. Dr. Brian Ray found the students scoring, on average, at the 80th percentile in reading, the 76th in language, and the 79th in math. Students whose parents were certified teachers did no better than the other students. 2
* Dr. Steven Duvall compared the academic engaged time (AET) and basic skill development of learning disabled students who were home educated to those in public school special education programs. Higher rates of AET and greater academic gains were made by the home educated. "... parents, even without special education training, provided powerful instructional environments at home..." (p. 11). 3
* Repeatedly, across North America, the home educated score as well as or better, on average, than those in conventional schools. 4
* Drs. Paulo de Oliveira, Timothy Watson, and Joe Sutton studied Christian college-age students at a large liberal arts, Christian university. They compared four groups - those who had graduated from two types of private schools, from public schools, and those from homeschools. There were no statistically significant differences in various critical thinking skills among the student groups. That is, the home educated did as well as the others. 5
* Public school, conventional Christian school, and homeschool graduates at a large, Christian liberal arts university were examined and compared for their college academic preparedness and college academic achievement. Dr. Rhonda Galloway found that the home educated performed as well or better than the others on these measures.6
* Dr. Gary Knowles, of the University of Michigan, explored adults who were home educated. None were unemployed and none were on welfare, 94% said home education prepared them to be independent persons, 79% said it helped them interact with individuals from different levels of society, and they strongly supported the home education method.7
Endnotes (Full citations are in the Home Centered Learning Annotated Bibliography available from NHERI):
1. Home School Legal Defense Association, 1994.
2. Brian D. Ray, 1994.
3. Steven F. Duvall, 1994.
4. Brian D. Ray, 1992.
5. Paulo Oliveira, Timothy G. Watson, & Joe P. Sutton, 1994.
6. Rhonda A. Galloway, 1994
7. J. Gary Knowles, 1991.
The National Home Education Research Institute gathers and distributes a wealth of information and NHERI is actively engaged in collecting and analyzing original research data.
NATIONAL HOME EDUCATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Brian D. Ray, Ph.D., President
PO Box 13939, Salem, Oregon 97309, (503) 364-1490, fax (503) 364-2827, www.nheri.org
Beyond this, the average hmeschooler gets MORE outside-of-school socializing and recreational actiities than does the typical public school student, including Scouting, church youth groups, music, art, and sports activities.
See?
No negative prejudicial impressions, no shit storms.
Cordially,
Mrs. Don-o
In short, 10 years is more often than not a considerable gap in where two people are in life. I wouldn't recomend it.
"Actually, the economics would tell you that, since women have expanded the labor market, the purchasing power of a single salary has gone down precipitously. It's a spiral, the more two-income families there are, the less one income will buy."
I find that very interesting. Where did that data come from? On one hand, it makes sense, but how would an expanded workforce, whether it were men or women holding the jobs, cause our purchasing power to decline?
I think there's not enough money in two-income homes due to the "wants" I elaborated on above, and the fact that there's less saveable or debt-reduction income to go around because that second income also has to cover things like daycare for the kids, work wardrobe, maybe a second vehicle, extra payroll and income taxes, after-school care for the kids, more expensive convenience foods rather than cheaper home cooking, lunches away from home, an extra bottle of Scotch for the "weekend recouperation period," etc.
When I sat down and crunched the numbers, it was absolutely NOT worth the time and money for me to work fulltime outside of the home; and I was making really good money. I was getting burned out when my son hit Junior High age, and he was struggling in school, so that's when I quit my Corporate Career to be a SAHM/Classroom Mom. I know I stated earlier that I would never live off of another person's earnings, but I did make the exception for those few years there when the kid needed an extra helping hand and we lived on DH's income alone. I was basically working for FREE when there were more important matters at hand, which was the STUPIDEST thing I ever did, LOL!
Wonder how many millions of second-earners are doing the same right this minute? Hey you Cubicle Dwellers! Crunch the numbers and go home if you can. ;)
And of course they will slap a coat of make-up on it, and call it something other than "hypocrisy."
It's just a bit on the creepy side now when you're 37. You can probably even hold on to it well into your 40's. When you're seriously middle aged and beyond though, you'll really be looked at as a sick freak.
I'm 41, and I find the idea of relations with a 23 year old to be totally repugnant. Then again, my step-daughter who I raised from the time she was 12, is 26, so that probably has a lot to do with it.
Funny stuff, although that was already considered a joke when it was printed.
I agree with you. I benefit a bit from looking younger than I am - people tend to figure me for late 20s or so. I benefit also from genetics (I have all of my hair, and more), my macho good looks (of course), as well as never drinking or smoking in my life (though I enjoy a good cigar maybe 12-15x a year these days). I was never a big boozer, partier, etc, and that does make a difference in looks to an extent.
Also when it comes to women, in the age group that I like and even more so with older ones, a lot of the seduction game has to do with having a very good rap and distuinguishing yourself from other males out there. I do both easily, so having a lady companion has never been a problem for me in my adult life.
I date a woman in her early 30s who is very goodlooking: she is a musician and shuttles a lot between LA and NYC. We speak daily and see each other for a long weekend every 3 to 4 weeks. That suits me just fine. I agree that I naturally feel more comfortable with her (a 5 year spread in ages) than I would with a girl who was 23 or 24. But its negligible - if a woman is mature and has her act together, it tends to not matter to me very much that I'm older.
I don't date women close to my age nor older, sorry. ;-)
You are right in that there is a cost associated with working outside the home, if one has children and I've heard others make the same calculation, but usually with pre-school aged children. Some of your costs depend on living conditions. The second car is usually always needed unless the breadwinner commutes via public transportation, etc.
For a bunch of really together, progressive, independent minded, agressive, successful, smart women, they tend to not take criticism too well... ;)
Ah, and ain't that the crux of the matter? Most folks don't get married thinking "Oh, I can always get divorced if things don't work out", after all. They love each other...I just think a lot of folks get caught up in the mundane, day to day routine and mistakenly assume that by changing their partner - either the one they have or simply getting another one - will magically cure what ails them.
They forget...bored people are often boring themselves, and looking outside the marriage for a way to fix the problems IN the marriage is just ASKING for trouble, imo.
For the record, that seems to be an ailment suffered by a lot of men and women both...it just gets acted on differently.
I put a copy on the refrigerator for the lady of the house. She has a good sense of humor. ;P
Nobody wanting the nightlife should marry at all. But in my generation (I'm 46), most women wanted a baby by age 25, which is just about perfect.
I am so sorry for your loss.
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.