Posted on 12/14/2001 3:21:12 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
I generally agree. In general, the time frame marks the beginning of an era in which instantaneous gratification was expected, or became so, however unrealistic that expectation remains.
Perhaps the spectre of nuclear destruction posed by the posturings of the Cold War, or the imminent possibility of being drafted played some small part.
However, at the same time, there was an ardent assault on the former norms which provided a semblance of stability to our society. While there may have been some good effects (nominally, in the area of civil rights), on balance, the destruction of many of those norms was reflected in legislation crafted by politicians eager to capture the votes of the 'young and disaffected'. A group which was significantly amplified in scope by the media of the day.
With the legal means to seek abortion, people became less careful, with the pill, less chaste. With divorce easier to obtain, and the former social stigma removed, as much by the offspring and descendants of television shows like 'Peyton Place', the cultural norm shifted, and the result has been disastrous.
Add these factors together:
An anticipation that a good marriage will develop easily, begun on little more than superficial attributes--or that the marriage will be easily terminated.
Decay of the supportive structures' prominence in our culture: the extended family, church, and community.
Removal of legal impediments and the social stigma associated with divorce.(Not to mention the Social Services' willingness to present women as abused victims and counsel for divorce rather than continued marriage, even when there has been no abuse or other improper behavior.)
A general trend away from situations in which people in a neighborhood or small town were aware of each other and each other's behaviour: anonymity.
The increased role of the State and its minions in marital discontent: Lawyers who seek to eat at the trough of a divorce, and may actually foment discontent where none existed; Counselors who work for state agencies which base their budgets on the number of 'victims' which can be manufactured for their case files.
That fewer and fewer children are growing up in stable homes and going on to found stable homes of their own, simply because they have no experience or realistic expectations on which to base their own enduring marriage.
Certainly, abuse, addiction, and adultery may play some role. Money may readily become a bone of contention. The first three are the product of looser mores and lower expectations, despite all the psychobabble about self-esteem. The latter can be worked through, but the tools of decency, honesty, compassion, and communication must all be present.
One other thing I have noticed. Regardless of what one person is willing to do to make a marriage work, if both partners are not willing to go the distance, one will suffer or the marriage will break up.
In my own little universe, I am also a parent. My daughters have experienced and learned the concept and apply it very well in their lives.
You didn't mention your daughters ages, but the kids love this one:
You remind me of a man. What man? The man with the power. What power? The power of hoodoo. Hoodoo? You do. Do what? Remind me of a man. What man? The man with the power...
Historically speaking...anti-father liberalized divorce has been instituted for 30+ years. Look at what has happened to society in the exact same time period: crime, teen pregnancy, drugs...
The time periods don't coincide coincidentally.
It's cause and effect.
Comments?
Curtesy of Gary Grant.
If you are looking for the origins...
World War II
Millions of men left home for years. The women who stayed at home were needed in the work place to replace the missing men. Women learned they could do something of value besides or in addition to being a housewife and mother. Women learned they could survive without men.
The men returned home. The economy was good. Life was good. Life was better if the families made more money. Working women made more money for families.
Working women who had learned they could survive without men grew less tolerant of men who did not behave realtive to their expectations.
And this is about where your theory comes into play.
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.