My personal favorite...
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.
not wanting women to work is quite sexist. I think that for a family to work well, a parent needs to be at home. however, saying that because you view women as weak that the woman has to be at home is just wrong. IF you want, why dont you stay at home? A woman has just as much right to work and have the other parent stay at home - women dont have a monopoly on being able to raise children.
Only if they bring them up on the first date. ;~D
Thanks! And Happy Anniversary to you and your wife, too. :) Mr. Ex and I are hoping to renew our vows in a church on our 10th...we eloped. :)
Yes, it's sad, and you could see the difference. Not to brag, but my son was/is well behaved, polite and articulate. Those girl's children were a bit more on the wild side...I felt sorry for them. I was lucky, though, I had had plenty of experience with small children, so it wasn't as hard for me to adjust to being a mom.
I truly believe that if men didn't cheat on their wives so much and leave them home alone all day with the children. ....that women wouldn't have been brought up to get 'educated before marriage'.
ef·fem·i·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-fm-nt)
adj.
Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men. Characterized by weakness and excessive refinement.
Heh...you can thank Martin Lawrence for that one, I think. :)
I won't sling any perjoratives your ways but this isn't a minor split, it's a major one. There is a reason most people in your situation seek fellowship with other childless couples and singles, while most families seek the same with other families. At some point you're just going to have understand that the majority of people simply cannot understand why anyone wouldn't want a family, and with that lack of understanding there is going come some snap judgments.
Then your beliefs are truly antiquated. You need to get out more.
Uh-huh. Like the possibilty of being widowed young and having small children to support wasn't a factor, either.
Sheesh.
Do you think she truly believes this?
LOL!
Do you know that in the early 20th century, it was said that women lacked the intelligence to be good secretaries? The profession was traditionally a male one, and there was a huge hullaballoo when women entered secretarial school.
Well "Ripley" is still in the top five, but I think "Madeleine" is probably a stronger contender ;o)
Why is it you guys always leave out the positive father figures in modern TV shows when you make these comparisons? Heathcliff Huxtable, Eric Cramden, and Jonathan Kent to name a few always seem to be left out. Ray Barone isn't that much of a bumbling father btw, seems like a fairly realistic portrayal to me.
My personal favorite...
I'm going to have to agree with Kelly_2000, you aren't describing any feminists that I know personally. You might be describing some that I've read about, like Susan faludi or Andrea Dworkin, but few real life feminists are like that, if any all outside the famously weird.
GO RED!
And it's a wonderful one, too. :) LOL, of course, that name was on my short list. :)
Look at:
Square footage of housing. They lived in cracker boxes back then.
Appliances owned
Vehicles owned and annual mileage
Clothing owned
Extras like gym memberships
Eating out
I think you'd find we could all squirrel away fortunes if we lived as spartan a lifestyle as they lived then.
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.