Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage

The Financial Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Richard Tomkins

[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.

[RHINO369]

Well you must be a good teacher! My opinion is probably biased because i went to a good school system, but i don't think you can teach your child as well as people who are experts in that field. I think when your child enters high school there's no way you can keep up with people who have masters degrees in what they are teaching.

BTW Einstein is an anomaly, he is at a level you and i cannot comprehend. You can't teach an Einstein, or a Telsa, or a Newton.

[exnavychick]

And once they are doing college prep stuff forget about it, can you really explain how the Reformation help spread the Enlightenment to Northern Europe. Or the effects of the destruction of the Spanish Armada on Imperialism?

Wow, I am trying very hard to not be offended that you would assume that I am either ignorant of these things and/or incapable of communicating to my children the importance of those events. OR that I wouldn't be able to educate myself (you know, taking some classes of my own!) in order to do so, or that my husband would be unable to. That's a pretty large leap to be making.

Public school (or schools in general) are not the be-all end-all of socializing your children. Besides which, I was educated in public schools, and still was uncomfortable with my peers. I didn't shed that until I grew up and went out on my own. Some folks are just naturally shy or introverted and never WILL be comfortable around others.

However, I think we are in danger of hijacking this thread, so if you care to reply, I suggest FReepmail, and I will respond that way as well. :)

[justshutupandtakeit]

I agree. Freepers who home school are a cut above.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It certainly will get you a s.s. Even insufficiently enthusiastic comments have had me fielding bombs right and left.

But what many are talking about is as much home DIRECTED schooling as actual teaching. They counter the obvious objections you raise by pointing out that they enroll them in community colleges for those subjects. Which begs the question as far as I am concerned.

[Tax-chick]

can you really explain how the Reformation help spread the Enlightenment to Northern Europe. Or the effects of the destruction of the Spanish Armada on Imperialism

I don't need to. My children can read, and they have library cards. They can check out books that will explain those concepts, and then they can check out more that will discuss whether the Reformation and the Enlightenment were a net gain or loss for humanity, and how ten different authors feel about Imperialism.

A child (or an adult) with good reading comprehension and a library card is a free educational agent, with no restrictions on what he can learn other than his own will. It's the difference between "schooling" as a tool of the state, and Education as the passion of a life.

[RHINO369]

Im sorry i offended you but most americans don't even know what the hell the Spanish Armada is. But like i said theres is no possible way for most people to teach their kids Calculus. I couldn't teach a person Calculus even though I got the highest possible score on the AP calc test, and I've taking 3 semesters of it plus a semester in Differential Equations.

Let me try to half a.s.s segway this into the real topic!

If the only socialization your kids get is threw youth groups, and you have a large amount of control over them, they will have a fun freshman year at college. The girls at school at the beginning of the year who were completly protect until then, ended up doing some of the most dangerous things I've ever seen people do. Trust me they will rebel like you wont believe. I've seen alot of nice girls (parton my french) become huge sluts. That kind of behavor is hard to stop and can lead to her not wanting to get married because getting drunk 5 nights a week is much better than having kids. Well that is until she gets pregnant and the kid has no father.

[papertyger]

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.

With men it's called ego. With women it's called vanity.

[HitmanLV]

I still get a kick out of it! ;-)

[Bon mots]

I agree with you. I benefit a bit from looking younger than I am - people tend to figure me for late 20s or so. I benefit also from genetics (I have all of my hair, and more), my macho good looks (of course), as well as never drinking or smoking in my life (though I enjoy a good cigar maybe 12-15x a year these days). I was never a big boozer, partier, etc, and that does make a difference in looks to an extent.

Do you really think it's your looks? Come on now!

Spot the Rich Guy in this Photo:


We all know what the girls really want.
If that photo doesn't post, Here's another version of the same photo

[justshutupandtakeit]

Free Trade keeps economies competitive. Without it nations become economic backwaters. As the trade cycle works jobs move around or die. Imposing "fair" trade i.e. taxing all other workers to support those endangered just means the jobs will leave the country a little later.

Horse and buggy manufacturers were very upset by the automobile. Laws were passed to require a flagman to walk in front of the cars so as to not upset the horses. Your trade prescriptions are similiar.

[Fred Hayek]

National Socialism being called right wing actually originated from Stalin's propaganda organization shortly after Hitler betrayed Stalin, invading the Soviet Union. Many of the Nazi's, and Mussolini's Fascists for that matter, got their start in the Communist movement. The more correct view of the political spectrum is left being more government control, right being less. On the far left are the Communist regimes, and other dictatorships with government run command economies, including fascism and national socialism. On the true far right is anarchy - complete lack of government. Neither extreme works. For a further explanation of this, read Friedrich A. von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. F. A. von Hayek was from the Austrian school of Economics, which called for the minimum of government involvement in economics, which ran completely against the philosophy of either Hitler or Stalin. Hayek's colleague Ludwig von Mises did not get out of Austria in time, was imprisoned by the Nazi's, and later died in the Soviet GULAG.

[papertyger]

Your feeding analogy would make my wife Kim Jong Il!

A good and satisfying marriage is still workable for you, but you MUST win concessions from her or it will eat you up. If you let her define all the issues, not only will you have a bad marriage, she'll hold you responsible for it.

[Tax-chick]

Your typing is awful. Your spelling is very poor; did you know Free Republic has a spell check function? You either have no concept of homophones, or you're just playing "homophonia" to amuse us; King Prout is much better at it.

May we deduce that you're a graduate of a fine, government school, as are most Americans ... those folks who don't know what the Spanish Armada was?

[brownsfan]

"Horse and buggy manufacturers were very upset by the automobile. Laws were passed to require a flagman to walk in front of the cars so as to not upset the horses. Your trade prescriptions are similiar."

Geez, alright with the horse and buggy! Can't you do better than that? That analogy damages your credibility. Not to say you aren't credible, but it makes it seem as if you are regurgitating the party line.
You don't know my prescriptions for trade, you assume. You are probably right, but it's not good to assume.

[HitmanLV]

Hahaha now that';s a great photo! But don't be so cynical: my guess is that he 'makes her laugh' and that captured her heart.

As for my looks, I do look younger than I am but otherwise I was just hamming it up! Truth is, looks rarely work against a man when it comes to attracting and keeping a woman. It's only really a factor if a man is notably repulsive, which is in fact very rare.

;-)

[HitmanLV]

Hahaha now that';s a great photo! But don't be so cynical: my guess is that he 'makes her laugh' and that captured her heart.

As for my looks, I do look younger than I am but otherwise I was just hamming it up! Truth is, looks rarely work against a man when it comes to attracting and keeping a woman. It's only really a factor if a man is notably repulsive, which is in fact very rare.

;-)

[Tax-chick]

It's only really a factor if a man is notably repulsive, which is in fact very rare.

Just brush your teeth, take a bath, and do your laundry :-).

[Bon mots]

...as are most Americans ... those folks who don't know what the Spanish Armada was?

Hey, knock off the anti-Americanisms. We do too know what the Spanish Armada was. I just don't like to dance. But if I must dance, I prefer the Brazilian Lambada.
;-)

[HitmanLV]

No kidding, the threshold for the way a man looks for a woman is almost rediculously low. You are right - just cover the basics as you said, dress ok, and be manly and that's 95% of the attraction game.

[Tax-chick]

LOL! Bons mots, dude :-).