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.
Don't sell yourself short. I feel the same way, and we have no children yet.
I prefer to think of it as wisdom from experience. As I told my wife of twenty years recently, "they look like children with big racks to me."
After the honeymoon, mine was damn near intolerable until she hit her mid-thirties. Who wants that again?
She's probably thinking something similar about you!
It's funny how evasions and excuses tend to get more sophisticated and nuanced as the woman does.
I would have to say that's not necessarily true. Mr. Ex takes our minivan while I stay home with the kiddos (all 5 and under, down to three weeks old.) He asks me every day if I need the van, and if so, I simply use it and then have him take us home on his break from work. Of course, it helps immensely that we only live 6 minutes from his place of business! :) But we've gotten by with only one vehicle before, and while we were BOTH working, no less. It just takes some flexibility and creativity. Plus, if you were as poor as we were, that's pretty motivating, lol.
Ignore the heat, you're doing fine. ;) Our culture is biased in favor of same-age relationships, and has been since the fifties (I blame mass media, particularly the movies.) I think that's at least part of the reason for the divorce rate. I can say for sure that I benefit enormously from my husband's 13 year age advantage on me-- he's always been calmer, kinder and more loving and more forgiving than any young man I ever knew. In fact, I've learned a lot from him about how to be.
Nazism was a Left wing ideology in no way was it conservative. Nor was Fascism. Both were REVOLUTIONARY and intended to change everything not conserve.
Feminism as it is known today has little in common with the ideals of Susan B. Anthony. It has been taken over by the Lesbians and for the last two decades or more if you do not promote lesbianism you are not considered a true feminist by the leaders of the movement. Someone asked earlier to name some of the moderate true feminists you claim are representative. I haven't seen a list.
Like Bogart/Bacall films? ;)
I don't know what age Bogie and Bacall were, but wasn't that really the 40's? I'm thinking more of the high school/college romances with Doris Day and various forgettable males. Beach Blanket Bingo?
Trust me on this one; it wasn't her philosophical model that was validated by the years.
It really doesn't occur to the women I used to work with that men would find legitimate reason to reject them. I don't know where that kind of ego comes from. It's wild.
Butting in here, sorry.
I am considering homeschooling my boys, and thought of this problem myself. I am an admitted failure with math. However, I discussed it with my husband, and he's agreed that he would help me teach the boys Calc, physics, ect if it came to that. English and History are my strong points and interests, so that would be my purview. If it was unworkable for some reason, there are educational co-ops that can help with the short falls. Plus, I have an advantage in that my children have many years to go before they are ready to tackle that kind of material, so I have time to educate MYSELF in order to teach it to them.
It isn't insurmountable, if you are willing and/or able to put forth the time and effort required. Sometimes it's not possible, but otherwise...why not go for it?
Your feeding analogy would make my wife Kim Jong Il!
This is my exact quote, as you can plainly see it says "SEEMS", I never said I was an expert on the subject and it is not based on any scientific theorems. It is just my opinion and I think I can tell the difference between a boy who has masculine characteristics and one who displays very effeminate qualities.
It *was* actually the 1940s, but aside from films about teenagers (which you have to admit are more likely than not to be biased towards relationships among people roughly the same age), the notion that "mass media, particularly the movies" have somehow been discouraging age-gap relationships is pretty funny.
I'm with you. I like the freshness and vitality of a younger woman - though still keeping it relatively reasonable. I find large spreads in ages to be mildly creepy, and they get creepier as the spread widens. 5, 10, 15 year spreads is fine and based on what I have witnessed, works just fine.
I'll keep it up. ;-)
Homeschooling does make for an immensely enriched homelife. It can also lead to greatly improved skills in self-teaching (my son Ben taught himself Algebra I and scored at the 96 %ile in the State of Tennessee standard normed tests)--- and you might want to look up what Einstein said about how "school" almost drove him away from Physics permanently!
Some students manage to avoid the toxic elements and have a wonderful classroom experience. To them I tip my hat and say, more power to you.
The big boon to home schooling is your kid may not end up as smart but they will also escape the manditory psychological problems. Personally we're strongly considering private school in Russia to avoid subjecting our children to American schools, and there's no way we'd opt for public. (Our children aren't of school age as yet).
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.