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.
Ah...I'm so jealous, lol! Mr. Ex was going to let me take one this am before he went to work, but the best laid plans...:)
I would agree with your statement 100%. If someone can't stop partying, or doesn't really want to is quite likely not ready for either marriage or parenthood. Some folks wise up after the fact, but of course it's better to be ready in the first place and spare yourself (and your loved ones) your growing pains.
Extreme youth isn't just for folks that are -um- chronologically challenged, so to speak, heh heh. My husband and I got married at 23 and 24...too young in a lot of people's minds. Had children right away, too. Oh...you wouldn't believe the hand-wringing! :)
But we're celebrating our 6th anniversary later this week. Not a huge amount of time, but longer than other folks I know.
Well, piffle! I thought I was being original!
Congratulations on your anniversary! I was 22 when I got married, and Der Prinz was 26. Anoreth was born when I was 24, followed by all the others :-).
Your last sentence is a huge insult to the men fighting in Iraq. I would estimate that 95%+ are graduates of public schools. It is a silly myth that is very popular here that public schools are so terrible. They are one of the reasons America is the most powerful nation in the world.
How is it that foreign kids can come here, go to public schools and suceed?
Im sorry i offended you but most americans don't even know what the hell the Spanish Armada is.
The point was that he was criticizing educational alternatives, while at the same time denigrating the results of his favored option.
Your last sentence is a huge insult to the men fighting in Iraq.
I'm puzzled by this. Has there recently been a poll of our fighting men, asking them to identify particular historical facts? YOU seem to be suggesting that ignorance of the Spanish Armada would somehow make our soldiers less brave, diligent, or patriotic.
I guess that all depends on what you mean by girlish.
Man, I hate to say it, but I think that would take an entire cultural overall. If there is an area where other cultures have us beat, and a lot of cultures have us beat on this issue, it's being satisfied. We've created a culture where we're never satisfied with anything. We're the ultimate consumers, always wanting more.
You have to let them ripen in the workplace for five or ten years, by then if they're going to get their wits back, it will have happened.
The greatest thing that ever happened to me was my wife becoming a manager: especially over women.
That's when it became in BOTH of our interests to analyze methods and tactics of female conflict.
LOL! Then you know very well what I was talking about. :) It didn't help matters any that people often think Mr. Ex is about 10 years older than he is (he takes that very hard, too, poor guy!) and I look -supposedly- about 10 years YOUNGER than I am. That got us some strange looks, too, heh heh.
BTW, Anoreth is an absolutely beautiful name. May I ask the origin? I'm too lazy to google today. :) Plus, I've got some spaghetti to finish, as my boys are reminding me.
It is remarkable that you believe there are not millions of teachers working in the public schools who believe the same thing.
They are almost all public school grads.
Anoreth is her FReep name. She got it from a fantasy novel. Her real name is Josephine, after her Sicilian grandmother :-).
So am I. That neither proves nor disproves knowledge of the Spanish Armada, nor has the relevance of this knowledge to the war in Iraq been demonstrated.
I'm just goofing with y'all, anyhow. Hot day here.
Hope you don't mind me butting in here, but as both a veteran AND a public school grad...I found myself thinking the exact same thing Tax-chick stated.
Not all public schools are bad, of course, and graduating from one doesn't make someone automatically ignorant, by any means. But he was kind of contradicting himself. BTW, I learned about the Spanish Armada, ect. in public school. I learned more by reading on my own, however.
Ping for later.
How old are you? You must be very young and inexperienced, or you're very naive and live with lots of cats.
Both names are great! :)
*sigh* I had so many beautiful girl's names picked out, and never got to use one, lol. Even my cat is male!
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.