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.
Oh BS.
You don't need money to attract women. I'm living proof.
I'd have to agree. Most feminists are not hard-core theoreticians insulated from the consequences of their ideas.
In my experience, most feminists are simply opportunists looking for political positions that will give them the greatest advantage.
YOu are looking at history, sure the 500 companies were started by males, back in the days when males went to college, and when males started their own businesses.
Bill Gates was interviewed and directly asked if he would hire himself if he applied to microsoft. Gates said that although he would like to hire himself, or someone like himself, he would not, because, as a dropout, he would never make it past the HR department.
Sigh I know what it means....I was hoping, obviously in vain, for specifics. You know, like, "This one kid carries a purse and wears lavender pants" or "My sons friend wears lipstick and go-go boots". The point was that I was trying to get more information so I could evaluate your claim.
If a man has a job or financial security, looks okay and is not deep in debt he is considered prime. I'm going to enjoy the situation and make it plain that marriage is something I did and did well but I'm not doing it again.
ho hum.
My word, that's tacky! I have heard similar stories, too, though. *shudder*
I can't imagine where you circle of info resides to come up with the all men skip college and no longer create businesses theory. Do you tall girls only hang out in bowling alleys?
: )
average Federal personal income tax: $100.00
maximum annual social security tax: $45.00
average state personal income tax: $ 0
property tax: $40.00
sales tax: 2%
medicare tax: $ 0
credit card debt: 0
total federal debt: $257 billion
gasoline tax: 2 cents a gallon
cigarette tax: 5 cents a pack
Number of personal bankruptcies in 1950: 25,040
Those houses from the 1950's are still here, still around, and some of them are for sale - people still want to live in them. What you call a "cracker jack house", bought for $6 - 8000 in the 1950's, is now currently selling for $200,000 - $400,000. They also have real plaster on the walls, fancy woodwork, glass doorknobs, wood floors, etc.
They aren't selling for near that here. Here, $200,000 through $400,000 buys you a McMansion the size of a small bank.
Is this a scientific fact? no.
Did I consult a sociologist on my claim? no.
Did I commission a Gallup Poll on it? no.
Did I commission a RL Polk survey? no.
Will this hold up in court? no.
Did I question the youths about their sexual orientation? no.
Is there a +/- ratio of error? yes.
Could the results be exaggerated? yes.
Hope this helps!
Women now make up a majority of college students, a trend expected to continue as high school girls outperform boys in the classroom.
National college enrollment (two- and four-year colleges) Females: 56% Males: 44% **
U.S. high school students who... Ranked in top 10% of class Females: 56% Males: 42%
Maintained an A average Females: 62% Males: 38%
Natural Sciences Males: 46%; Females: 54%
Math Males: 45%; Females: 55%
Foreign Languages Males: 39%; Females: 61%
Also...any women today that doesn't get some kind of education before getting married and having kids is a fool.
the $6000 houses in my old neighborhood are now all currently selling in excess of $200,000, most of them, the "cracker jack" type, go for about $200,000 to $250,000. The 1955 house next door just sold for $240,000.
My friends from California tell me that their old houses are selling in excess of $400,000.
Cute, and irrelevant, particularly the Gates comment
Gates didnt think it was irrelevent. He was making a point that today it now takes more than what he had (and what he did not have - a degree).
Well said.
Are you daft?
That's not the point he was making.
If there's any point at all to hiis statement, it's that you can't blaze trails through well travelled ground!
SEE!
You fear commitment...
My, you've thought alot about this without any real experience, haven't 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.