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.
No, I'm calling the people who actually MATTER on exactly what they are DOING. Agencies claiming to be feminists agencies, taking federal cash to do what they do. Looking at anything else would be at best obtuse. The people & agencies called feminists, the ones having a measurable impact on society. That is the feminist movement, if you don't like that then go pick up a picket sign and protest them at their gatherings. But don't go ignoring that they exist because that is it, that is feminism, right there, unshaved armpits and all.
"No, it's not. But you prove my point."
I'll be kind here... you're overexposed.
I hope things get better for you.
You don't seem to be very happy.
I believe that most business startups today are either by women or immigrant males. I think "native born" american males are a minority of new business startups.
Whatever...
I never said that.
Becky
... because it means that ALL womens' rights activism comes under that definition's rubric, be those activities moderate or extreme.
Thoroughout most of american history, certainly until the 1950's or 1960's, at least, most people were uneducated, and it was no danger, no reason why that should change.
True, we had alternatives back then, good paying jobs in factories that have now moved overseas, but that is another topic.
I agree with you concerning extreme interpretations of women's rights. It is a bad thing as is the equivalent male extreme viewpoint. What I dislike is the incorrect labeling.
This would be the equivalent of a Nazi, KKK or a White Supremacist Movement member being called a conservative because he has right wing views. When in reality he represents the extreme viewpoint of the right wing.
Not anymore.
no female lawyers,
Not anymore.
no female computer engineers
Uh...
It is always implied by those who preach as those of us who do not want children.
That would be in conflict with the first point of that same dictionary reference that states equality is promoted. You are not making any sense the context is clear by the first point. the second point is making a description of an application
There are Alpha females also.
Alpha females whether right or left make it difficult on other women.
Extremism is hardly the point. Moderates did not start, continue, nor do they continue to perpetuate the agenda of the feminist movement. Would you write a book on the revolution ignore all the extreme elements like Paul Revere and Sam Adams? No, you'd write about the actual movement and not concern yourself with the lofty ideals of self identified moderates.
both points 1 and 2 are two separate definitions of the word... that's why they have "1" and "2" before them, so readers know that there are these TWO SEPARATE definitions of the word "feminism".
1. What do you base that belief on?
2. Immigrant males are males.
3. Very few startups go on to succeed financially.
4. It is irrelevant to the 'education/jobs' issue.
"True, we had alternatives back then, good paying jobs in factories that have now moved overseas, but that is another topic."
It seems to me that this is no concern to you, whereas I believe it should be. No matter. You'll have to deal with it, I, most likely, won't.
You're analysis is incomplete. In the past, throughout history, the uneducated begat more uneducated. This is a case where you have sons of doctors, lawyers and engineers choosing not to compete. It's a loss to the country in terms of what is otherwise good "raw material". But it's more dangerous because these are people who were once well to do.
You have an interesting outlook. One I have seen before.
"True, we had alternatives back then, good paying jobs in factories that have now moved overseas, but that is another topic."
It seems to me that this is no concern to you, whereas I believe it should be. No matter. You'll have to deal with it, I, most likely, won't.
You're analysis is incomplete. In the past, throughout history, the uneducated begat more uneducated. This is a case where you have sons of doctors, lawyers and engineers choosing not to compete. It's a loss to the country in terms of what is otherwise good "raw material". But it's more dangerous because these are people who were once well to do.
You have an interesting outlook. One I have seen before.
Ahh OK now we are getting somewhere when you start introducing language like , moderates and extremists then you will get my attention again.
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.