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.
Take a stroll through college engineering, mathematics, software or MBA classes (the job creating fields) and you'll find the exact opposite is true. Doctorates in sociology or nuanced psychology look great on the living room wall, but they don't put create thousand employee companies. Female (and male) lawyers cost jobs, they don't create them.
Longevity in school does not equal higher IQ. If it did, "higher educated" women should question the fruits of their endurance in a desk. After all, every single Fortune 500 company was started by a man. Entrepreneurial success rates have little correlation to the highest "education" level. It takes street smarts, guts, luck, ingeniuity, establishing connections, and unplanned risk management to succeed, none of which can be taught in the classroom. Many of today's most successful and brilliant people, Gates, Dell, etc., dropped out of college, and are a product of adapting, surviving, innovating in the trenches; not years of term papers and brown nosing elitist professors.
Work is highly stressful for alot of men. Who wants to come home to a second job battling it out with a high stress type A self proclaimed "higher educated" woman? Men want to come home to a sexy, younger, supportive woman who appreciates him for who he is, has her own interests, and doesn't seek out needy, imaginary crisis and conflicts.
She claims to be 47. I had the same reaction to her last week... LMAO!
What do you think of "Ripley" for a girl?
So I guess this means women will have to change tires, take out the garbage and 'date below there social status'?
Glad you cleared that up for me.
LOL
I've long since known that looks have nothing to do with attracting women. I'm as far from good looking as a man can possibly be. I'm short (5'1"), I'm dark, I'm bald (shave the rest), I'm tattooed, both of my ears are pierced, I'm scarred, and built like a tank. I've still never lacked for a date. I have good money that says you could lose your hair, your physique, and your youth, and still be attractive to women.
I date a woman in her early 30s who is very goodlooking: she is a musician and shuttles a lot between LA and NYC. We speak daily and see each other for a long weekend every 3 to 4 weeks. That suits me just fine.
That's part of the reason you're more comfortable with younger women. Your ideal relationship with a woman is more playtime than it is familial. Huge chasm between semi-committed and married with kids. You have to have lived in both places to fully understand it.
I don't date women close to my age nor older, sorry. ;-)
Don't apologize to me, I really don't care. The love of my life happened to be almost 4 years older than I am. I can't imagine being with anyone else.
Well, at least you're still married.
It just seems like most people with negative/cynical/unhealthy attitudes towards marriage are those who've brought it on themselves via sex outside of marriage and/or divorce.
Talk about a sexist! One doesn't usually hear that sort of anti-male vitriol from a girl older then eight or nine...Or a hardcore, rode-hard'n-put-away-wet feminist nutcase.
I hear that. The best years seem to be in front of me. I wouldn't want to go through the tough years again.
Maybe I'm just not understanding. What effiminite qualities are you seeing in these young boys?
HA! What I wouldn't give for a babysitter at least once a week for a date with Mr. Ex! No dice, however. If I'm lucky, we MAY have one lined up later this week so we can go to dinner to celebrate our anniversary. Only dinner, though, I don't want to leave the new baby for long. :)
That being said...I WAS a young, single mom. I had my eldest son at 19 and I rarely if ever went out, even when I was of age. However, what you say is true...I knew a few other moms in the same boat as me, and if you didn't know them, you wouldn't know they had a child, they went out so much. :(
Hey, Sigourney Weaver ROCKED in those movies, heh heh. It's not a name I would personally choose, having so many boys. I would rather have a name that was obviously very feminine. :)
LOL. Mostly dogs actually......and what's the difference....dogs, cats, men. Cleaning up, feeding, buying for, making them take a bath, taking to the vet and just caring for them......except...pets don't talk back or burp.
Wow---why so nasty? Did I hit a nerve?
Oh, no! I was thinking more like Shanaynay. LOL (Not sure how to spell it :))
However, what you say is true...I knew a few other moms in the same boat as me, and if you didn't know them, you wouldn't know they had a child, they went out so much. :(
Happens all the time. Sad isn't it?
Precisely! Daddy's little girl doesn't know it yet, but she better be able to strip and clean a glock, shoot the nuts off a squirrel;), and articulate the value of critical thinking if she wants the 2015 equivalent of an ipod!
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.