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.
I think you mean my text book dictionary definition, alas you are failing to see that it is your definition and terminology that is at fault. Feminism has a different meaning to what you are describing, if you want to appear knowledgeable on this subject call them by their proper names. They are extremists NOT feminists
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Yawn.
Only if you disregard the American Dictionary, what part of "this is the dictionary definition" do you not understand????
Would you like to get a copy of his rap sheet?
It doesnt matter how smart they are, if they are unskilled and uneducated. OVer the centuries, there have been lots of smart people who were uneducated and unskilled, and they never amounted to much.
I never said I was gleeful, I am an observer. It is not my fault that young men are not getting high paying jobs in new factories, are not going to college, are not going into the military, are not going into law, vetinary science, denistry, or medical school, etc.
Anyways, it doesnt matter why males are not going after high paying careers, but they arent - and women will have the money, and the control in the future - like it or not.
Again very poor interpretation I am afraid, activity on behalf of women rights does not imply or mean extreme or promoting ahead of male rights as you are suggesting. This does not help your argument
The "defined" word is not always the "reality." You didn't know that?
"Yawn."
Typical woman. I wonder if that's a factor in your divorce?
No. I want to read his side of it.
You hit the nail on the head. My wife and me are putting off having kids for a few more years because we are not ready for such a drastic lifestyle change. That probably means we'll end up having only a couple of kids, rather than 3-5.
The problem is, medical science hasn't figured out (yet) how to routinely extend fertility into a woman's 40's.
Do you know what the text book definitions of most slang words are? Not very relevant to their applied use. if you're looking for text book feminism go to college, I'd rather talk about the real word where feminism is erasing the family unit as a valid piece of society and promoting single mothers, promiscuous one night stands, and divorce.
the definition makes no claims as to the extremism or not of womens' rights activities.
LOL your definition is erroneous this is the reality.
Whatever and how ever many extreme viewpoints and interpretations there are on women's rights does not change the meaning and terminology of the written language.
In practice there are a lot of extreme viewpoints concerning feminism this has led to a divergence from feminism to extreme and new perspectives.
This is a complete and accurate statement on the subject.
No, it's not. But you prove my point.
President Bush: Islam is a religion of peace.
Cheers.
LOL give me a text book definition of a slang term? What you are struggling to say to me I think is that you believe the "defacto" situation is different and that extremism is far more prevalent. Again this does not change the meaning of the word feminism. By implying feminism is all about gender reversal you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest, or ignorant which is it?
"Anyways, it doesnt matter why males are not going after high paying careers, but they arent - and women will have the money, and the control in the future - like it or not."
My comment about intelligence is only to further underline the danger. An under employed, self loathing, intelligent group is a danger. Like it or not.
Honestly, it's not a big deal to me. I'm educated, and far along in my career. Younger people will have to deal with this situation.
The feminist arguement is valid for men here. Do you really want to lose 1/2 your work force? If you have men not competing, do you really want to lose what they contribute. Like it or not, men and women have different gifts. Perhaps some activism for men is called for here?
Finally, I think you would be less than honest if you didn't admit to a certain amount of satisfaction over this turn of events.
I do not want kids, so I guess that makes me selfish and shallow. You live in your world and I will play in mine. We will never agree on the fact that a woman has to have kids to be a "real person" or a "good/fulfilled person".
Precisely so why are YOU introducing it?
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.