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.
You have been watching too many 1950's TV shows.
Yep, and now that she sees that your market value has increased, you are more desirable to her.
My husband is 13 years older than I am-- 59 to my 46-- and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he outlives me. He's strong as an ox and his father is close to 90. I can assure you a woman doesn't have to worry about an older husband who keeps himself fit. Of course, if he's going to sit around in the Lazy-Boy eating junk food, that's another story.
That's a character issue, though, and character is ALWAYS of the first importance.
What made you select him in the first place?
That question is best read as rhetorical.
This MIGHT work if you have no children. Add another 40 - 50 hours of work if you do.
You can't deny mens' biology. To do so is pure folly and a losing battle.
I've switched nothing, and yes women file 2/3rds of the time...that's an unrelated issue. Many women rent a guy for a few years, then purposely become an intolerable overweight anchor, one day announce they're bored and steal half his estate, future income, and retirement. Then they get thin again and start over. In the real world many would consider this theft by deception.
I'll bet it's higher then 50% that think of it as giving up freedom.
You sound like my husband, he wanted a family and kids. He didn't view it as a sacrafice, thank goodness.
It's a sad world when people can only see the things they had to "give up" to have kids rather then the things they gained.
Becky
"The traditional family structure is just not compatible with a society in which every woman works in the market place."
While I agree with you, how do we reverse the trend of the current generation of men that want it all and want it now (McMansion, two or more cars, kids, electronic gadgetry) that require two incomes to support? You can't possibly blame the "wants" of one sex on the other. Granted, women can be willing accomplices in the "gimmies" but unless you marry someone that lives simply in the first place, how do couples get around the Two Income Trap?
It's taken me nearly 10 years to rein in my husband's spending. Whereas I can live on little, he is one of those "it's only money, I'll make more" types.
My solution was getting my own financial house in order, cutting up my credit cards, paying off my car; basically being debt-free myself then dropping out as an "income source" for all of his stuff.
Harsh? Yes. Eye-opener? Yes. Was I initially guilty of being a "spending enabler" to my husband? Yes. Did it work for us? Yes.
I've never relied upon anyone else's income to support me, nor will I ever unless I'm disabled in some way. I worked at least part time when my boys were small. They turned out fine. Two are college bound, one is finishing high school.
Kind of OT from the article, but the important point in my rambling is to not let the "wants" of your spouse jeopardize your own financial well-being, or the bottom line of the family as a whole. Learning the fine art of Money Management can go a long way towards keeping a marriage together, one income or two.
Most (but not all) homeschoolers are notably devoted to the practice of religious faith; and faith provides a metastory, a framework, in which the virtues of marriage and family make sense. More religious devotion = more marriage. Less religious devotion = less marriage. It's not true in every case, but overall, it's a solid sociological fact.
And why do we WANT to have a marriage norm: more people married, and in strong, durable, function-rich marriages?
Because it's pleasing to God and good for people. It helps you become mature, wise, unselfish, healthy, and happy. And it produces the kind of children we think are delightful, the kind of teens we think are hopeful, the kind of people-on-the-street and people-in-the-neighborhood and people-at-the-workplace we rely on to be sane and stable. The bricks. And without marriage and family--- without the bricks --- societies collapse.
We all make poor choices sometimes, this was one of the poorest I ever made. I have reaped many horrible consequences of that fateful decision. I am just now trying to regain what I have left of my life and love on. I am not sure what I can salvage but I hope I can.
Sure, but just as many men land a woman and let themselves go to heck.
There's no way to limit this sort of lousy behavior to only one sex.
I think you will probably be right in your expectations - when the man is able to carry their "fetus" to term on his liver.
Seriously, I don't think your vision of the future is ever going to come to pass because it flies in the face of reality. The "equal" women you are looking forward to won't have any children. This is already happening. They are being replaced, by nature, by women who will raise many children.
As a parent, you can relate to mother bears. 8-)
HUH.
And it is a sacrifice.....of time, effort, money, care, etc.
A willing sacrifice, I might add, if one's heart is truly motivated to bring & nurture new life into this world.
My sil & hubby didn't.....they wanted all the time for themselves and their hedonistic activities.
But they are honest enough to admit it.
Maintaining and pursuing a good marriage is sacrifice too!
Sacrifice & compromise from both partners.
But it can work.....and like anything that's worthy....it takes trial & error, lots of forgiveness and IMO, a good Biblical foundation.
it is a fair point you make there
:-)
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.