Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage

The Financial Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Richard Tomkins

[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.

[HitmanLV]

Some single women over 40 feel a tremendous urge to marry and the demographics don't favor their chances.

I know many single women over 30 who are alone and with no prospects. Many feel that urge you are talking about, but the problem is that along the way they have alienated a lot of men. That's ok, it happens, but they can't legitimately expect to enjoy the benefit of a good relationship with a good man at a later stage in life when they have spent a decade or more alienating and not cultivating relationships with those men.

While some of them offer a lot in a relationship, most don't offer men anything genuine and unique that a younger woman can offer them. It's a no-brainer: deal with the pushy 35 year old or deal with the pushy 25 year old. Many men just gravitate toward the freshness and vitality of youth. I know I do.

[ladyjane]

You fear commitment...

LOL! Very funny. Actually if you have a wonderful marriage it's hard to imagine having something like that again with anyone else in the world.

You probably can't have something like that again. But you might have something really good - but different.

[SauronOfMordor]

I know this is going to get me a shit storm, but home schooling is probably the worst way to educate a child. If you have a crappy school public school send them to private. Most home schooled kids end up in a public highschool because their mom's can't teach them Chemistry, Physics, US History, Calculus etc etc, and when they do its a disaster. The kids are terrible at socializing, and are usually werid. There were two home schooled girls at my Highschool and they were not right socially.

My eldest daughter has been homeschooled since 2nd grade. You're right in that her mom couldn't teach her advanced math and science. So I did.

For the courses that required lab work, I let her take classes at the local community college. She took a full-time credit load there this year, and is transferring to a 4-year college in the fall as an engineering major. This summer she's volunteering as an EMT and taking classes to get her EMT-Basic certification.

She's 16

[Eaker]

My point was that if men didn't cheat, there would be less divorces

News flash!!

Women cheat too.

Women also do all kinds of things that ruin marriages. Of course they simply don't blame themselves for the failure. Just like men.

Women are no more or less honorable than men, but they indeed are different. I wanted to spend my 20th aniversary with my wife and she wanted to spend it with me. She doesn't want diamonds, she wants healthy and happy children and a happy home. She has the first part and I do the best I can to deliver the second.

I'd take two bullets for her and only one for my closest friends. Hell, I'd probably take three for her in a pinch.

[SauronOfMordor]

I've found the analogy that seems to work best with women is that a man's sex drive is like being hungry almost all the time. If by marrying a woman I'm agreeing to be fed only by her then she needs to live up to her end of the bargain and feed me when I'm hungry!

Exactly. I like you're analogy. A woman who refuses to be accomodating has no basis for complaint if the guy finally decides to get his needs satisfied elsewhere. Fortunately, my wife is very accomodating, so I don't have that issue.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Wow! Not to horn in on your conversation, but what a terrific daughter you've raised! You have every right to be proud, because it is not easy to raise a kid these days.

My son starts college this fall. He's as ready as he'll ever be, and while he's not the high achiever that your daughter is, he'll get by. Not everyone can be a Leader. The world needs a few loyal Followers and Worker Bees as well. ;)

[Dave Elias]

"These questions beg the central question, which is, Why should marriage be saved?"

Rubbish.

[Rca2000]

I have sat here, reading all of your posts. I see how you seem to RELISH in telling us all here, how "men don't go to college, and are uneducated, nowdays", and how "60% of college grads are women, blah.. blah.. blah... You leave out ONE little factor-- MOST OF THE "BIG LEAGUE" COLLEGES YOU SPEAK OF ACCEPT ONLY ABOUT one MAN, FOR EVER 3 or 4 WOMEN, "to make things fair" . So, what do you expect to see, in that regard???

Then, you jabber on, about "how men are going to have to change, to become the "househusbands", and to have supper ready, for the woman, who "brings home the bacon". AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, EXCEPT for the kind of men, who wear skirts, perfume, and makeup!!!! If THAT is the kind of man, you want, I'm sure you could find one, a Linguini-spined, , emasculated, feminized man, who is afraid to speak, without his "wife's" permission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT.. as for the rest of us "real men", we will NOT do a "role reversal", and become a woman's "slave", or "plaything". We will simply find other things to occupy our time, and replace the need for a "partner".

However-- I am willing to BET, that you feel that a "strong , educated woman", is one that will trick a man into a marriage, get him to "donate a sperm", (as I am sure you don't think of using the term "father"), and THEN-- leave him, saying "I want the house, car, bank accounts, your retirement, and you can have the mailbox, and everything that comes in it, each day" . Then,this "strong, educated woman", would move on, and do this again, a couple of more times---- NEVER TAKING THE TIME TO WORRY ABOUT HOW MUCH PAIN SHE HAS CAUSED THE"MEN" in her life(after all, the career is most important, isn't it, NOT love,family, or anything else, those are distractions, to "having it all"!!!!!)

THIS are what I was speaking about , several months ago, when I said "some so-called "conservative" women, here on FR, wish to espouse the tenets of feminism, at the same time, as being "conservative". For this, I was called all sorts of names, and "making all men (in general) look bad".

[Eaker]

LOL!!

[SauronOfMordor]

It is supply and demand, and more educated higher paid women are demanding males that are paid better and educated better than they are, but males are reducing themselves making the available male pool smaller when it should be getting larger.

In economics, the only "demand" that is relevant is the demand that reflects itself in a willingness and ability to pay a high price to the supplier.

A homeless bum may "demand" a Porche all day long, screaming his wishes up and down the street, but his desire does not translate into the economic term "demand" until he has the required amount of cash to make the purchase.

Likewise, a woman may jump up and down and say she demands a high-status man, but her desires are worthless unless and until she backs them up with the ability and willingess to pay the required price

[Rca2000]

ping( see my comments)

[Chunga]

Why do you "highly recommend" not getting married and why should anyone heed your recommendation?

[Nowhere Man]

Man, I hate to say it, but I think that would take an entire cultural overall. If there is an area where other cultures have us beat, and a lot of cultures have us beat on this issue, it's being satisfied. We've created a culture where we're never satisfied with anything. We're the ultimate consumers, always wanting more.

I think you said it all. It seems like most people here want more and more and this is part of the financial problem people get into when they go into hock to buy more and more. I'm reminded of a children's book I read as a kid where the kid was so hungry, he just ate and ate, never being satisfied and he ended up eating the whole Universe. I have nothing against a consumer driven economy or culture but when it becomes pathological, it does cause a lot of problems, especially when you combine it with the "only me" mentality and "I want it now" thinking.

[Tax-chick]

Wow. Are you free to teach at my house? The Chickadees all need remedial math this summer :-(.

[CajunConservative]

We are seeing the fruit of secular humanism.

[xVIer]

I read this thread today and it felt like witnessing an argument between some old, disatisfied married couple!
I think the thread was provacative to begin with and the women who responded had no choice but to be on the defensive. I have lost respect for a number of those men here today and some women also...but mostly I feel sad that we are all so disposable to each other. I've been married for 25 yrs. by the way ... and it ain't been easy on either of us, but we try.

[MichiganCheese]

30 years! That's wonderful. We have a few more to go to reach that milestone. Sir SuziQ must realize what a prize he has.

[kharaku]

I have met plenty of feminist who insist to me that feminism is about equality. However then the prattle on about how awful all men are, how superior women are, and they rarely bother to keep up their appearance, dress femininely, or act feminine. Most don baseball-caps, big sweatshirt and jeans. They talk about men who can stay home and cook while they aspire for their careers but hope that their man can keep pace with their toys. That is feminism. Sex in the City without the sexiness.

[GOP_Thug_Mom]

Women are now the breadwinners and should be treated as such, as breadwinners used to be treated.

I thank God and my husband that I get to stay home and be "everything" to our children, while he goes to "bring home the bread". I get hugs and kisses while he gets the butt-chewings, etc. Would I trade positions to receive his treatment? Not on your life!!

[kharaku]

Let me paraphrase how Tarkovsky described man's quest for the cosmos. (See the films Solaris, and The Mirror) Women (Western at least) are not looking for true love within existence. Women have no need for love, or respect. Women have no use for men. Women are searching for a mirror.

Bottom line is women are being propagandized by society to act like men, and to desire female traits in their partner, and to be promiscuous. Feminism is the reason, and thus the reason for the decline of the family. Freud may have been a fruit loop when he discussed penis envy, but today that observation could ring no more true.