Here you go. ;)
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.
Adultery is a crime and should not be rewarded, IMHO. You are taking the "no fault" divorce track, when there is fault. That's a bad thing in my opinion.
If your wife throws away her oath of marriage (which is where the 50% is established), then I don't understand why she would be entitled to it after taking a sledgehammer to the oath she made.
If she wants to sleep with the UPS man instead of you, she would still be out of your life, albiet without half of the marital assets, and should be prosecuted for adultery. Again ... out of your life and not holding you back.
That's like saying if I give every mugger I see $100, they are out of my life and the won't hold me back. While true, I would hardly advocate it.
Paying people to commit adultery seems more than a little nutty to many people, and will only lead to more people using this method to obtain their desired result, further bastardizing the instituion of marriage (which I suppose is the goal).
Personally, I think you're "reading in." But whatever.
"The reason marriage is waning is the women's movement. The traditional family structure is just not compatible with a society in which every woman works in the market place."
Agreed. And unfortunately the same men who are whining about women stepping out of traditional roles are the same men forcing their wives out in to the workforce, even when it isn't a financial necessity. (And they complain that women "want it all".)
She doesn't watch those shows, but she does watch TV and goes to movies. She however understands that neither are real.
She knows that Arnold Swartzenegger isn't really an android.
I am not convinced.
It doesn't matter if she watches those specific shows or whether she beleives tv is real, it is inherit in all American programming for those age groups. Even if she doesn't watch tv, her freinds will hold these same notions. Unless you are actively pointing out to her that it's propaganda, chances are at least some of the feminists agenda is indoctrinating your daughter to their ideals.
My basic point is that two things can be equal by a variety of measures without being copies of one another, feminist seem to have glazed over that math lesson.
You are right, many men want their wives to work. Look at comments here on FR. Some complain bitterly about their ex's not working or only working part-time. And some of the younger guys claim they only want to marry someone who has a career, e.g., lawyer, doctor, so they won't have to pay alimony. Let's not even think about those who want to buy their wives in Russia and the Phillipines. LOL
LOL!! WOW....I guess I can blame my parents for this then....NEVER did they EVER say anything like this to me. What a crock.
I wish someone would post a picture of a typical 50 year old man and typical 50 year old women. Then I can justify why men cheat (more).
I must have missed the "I love public education" threads which might prove your point.
I didn't exactly go on strike, but I went over seas to find a wife.
I saw it, and I call it the circular thinking of big government. It does not take into account government getting out of the way, reducing taxes, reducing smothering regulation (some is necessary, even Hayek stated in his writings). The circle view completely neglects a shift toward small l libertarianism.
There's a "positive about public schools" ping list. I forget who runs it.
Of course, if you take a principled objection to a massive government program as a personal attack on your family, then you'll never be happy.
How is that I point out there's TV propaganda, and you start blaming your parents???
Here you go. ;)
LOL!
Me too. I went to New Europe and got a great one.
No whiney, high-maintenance New Yawk wife for me.
Fireproof suit: ON
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.