Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage
The Financial Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Richard Tomkins

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: feminism; genderwars; marriage; metrosexual; metrosexuals; sensitive; sissies; snag; swishy; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 881-900 next last
To: Brilliant

not wanting women to work is quite sexist. I think that for a family to work well, a parent needs to be at home. however, saying that because you view women as weak that the woman has to be at home is just wrong. IF you want, why dont you stay at home? A woman has just as much right to work and have the other parent stay at home - women dont have a monopoly on being able to raise children.


541 posted on 07/05/2005 3:31:37 PM PDT by senateforcaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chris1
In fact, mens' needs are often diminshed and made to seem insignificant and laughed at.

Only if they bring them up on the first date. ;~D

542 posted on 07/05/2005 3:33:19 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Thanks! And Happy Anniversary to you and your wife, too. :) Mr. Ex and I are hoping to renew our vows in a church on our 10th...we eloped. :)

Yes, it's sad, and you could see the difference. Not to brag, but my son was/is well behaved, polite and articulate. Those girl's children were a bit more on the wild side...I felt sorry for them. I was lucky, though, I had had plenty of experience with small children, so it wasn't as hard for me to adjust to being a mom.


543 posted on 07/05/2005 3:33:26 PM PDT by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

I truly believe that if men didn't cheat on their wives so much and leave them home alone all day with the children. ....that women wouldn't have been brought up to get 'educated before marriage'.


544 posted on 07/05/2005 3:33:42 PM PDT by Fawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Sorry for the confusion, thought everyone knew what effeminate meant.  According to dictionary.com:

ef·fem·i·nate  ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-fm-nt)
adj.
Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men. Characterized by weakness and excessive refinement.

545 posted on 07/05/2005 3:36:03 PM PDT by softwarecreator (Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

Heh...you can thank Martin Lawrence for that one, I think. :)


546 posted on 07/05/2005 3:37:53 PM PDT by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
I do not want kids, so I guess that makes me selfish and shallow. You live in your world and I will play in mine. We will never agree on the fact that a woman has to have kids to be a "real person" or a "good/fulfilled person".

I won't sling any perjoratives your ways but this isn't a minor split, it's a major one. There is a reason most people in your situation seek fellowship with other childless couples and singles, while most families seek the same with other families. At some point you're just going to have understand that the majority of people simply cannot understand why anyone wouldn't want a family, and with that lack of understanding there is going come some snap judgments.

547 posted on 07/05/2005 3:39:52 PM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
I truly believe that if men didn't cheat on their wives so much and leave them home alone all day with the children.

Then your beliefs are truly antiquated. You need to get out more.

548 posted on 07/05/2005 3:40:09 PM PDT by papertyger (Power concedes nothing without a demand. – Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Fawn

Uh-huh. Like the possibilty of being widowed young and having small children to support wasn't a factor, either.

Sheesh.


549 posted on 07/05/2005 3:40:09 PM PDT by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Fawn
Well, first of all, women staying home with children is not the root cause of a divorce. Some women don't disdain household 'drudgery' like NOW wants us to. We're very lucky to be in America where we have a choice.
Gender is not the biggest problem in any failing marriage; Men are not predestined to cheat on their wives, that's a character flaw; not all women are faithful, or good wives, or easy to live with. It's more complicated than Man={Evil}...
550 posted on 07/05/2005 3:40:45 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs ("Se habla, MoFo!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I do not want kids, so I guess that makes me selfish and shallow

Do you think she truly believes this?

551 posted on 07/05/2005 3:43:14 PM PDT by papertyger (Power concedes nothing without a demand. – Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

LOL!


552 posted on 07/05/2005 3:44:03 PM PDT by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: SandyB
You dont need to read a book to see why women made less than men in the 1950's, there were virtually no women in professions, no female doctors, no female lawyers,no female computer engineers, and men greatly outnumbered females in college.

Do you know that in the early 20th century, it was said that women lacked the intelligence to be good secretaries? The profession was traditionally a male one, and there was a huge hullaballoo when women entered secretarial school.

553 posted on 07/05/2005 3:44:40 PM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: exnavychick

Well "Ripley" is still in the top five, but I think "Madeleine" is probably a stronger contender ;o)


554 posted on 07/05/2005 3:51:45 PM PDT by papertyger (Power concedes nothing without a demand. – Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
I agree, young men aren't pursuing a career as aggressively as they once did. Would any of this have it's genesis in the modern male stereotype? You know, the one where we've gone from a benevolent, wise father figure, (Ozzie Nelson, Andy Griffith, Ward Clever), to the inept, stupid father figure, (Ray Barrone, Homer Simpson, Al Bundy)?

Why is it you guys always leave out the positive father figures in modern TV shows when you make these comparisons? Heathcliff Huxtable, Eric Cramden, and Jonathan Kent to name a few always seem to be left out. Ray Barone isn't that much of a bumbling father btw, seems like a fairly realistic portrayal to me.

555 posted on 07/05/2005 3:53:07 PM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Melas

My personal favorite...

556 posted on 07/05/2005 3:57:13 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs ("Se habla, MoFo!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

I'm going to have to agree with Kelly_2000, you aren't describing any feminists that I know personally. You might be describing some that I've read about, like Susan faludi or Andrea Dworkin, but few real life feminists are like that, if any all outside the famously weird.


557 posted on 07/05/2005 3:57:46 PM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

GO RED!


558 posted on 07/05/2005 3:58:25 PM PDT by papertyger (Power concedes nothing without a demand. – Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

And it's a wonderful one, too. :) LOL, of course, that name was on my short list. :)


559 posted on 07/05/2005 4:00:13 PM PDT by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Not really, we just want so much more. If you lived as a family in the 1950s did, you'd be surprised at just how cheaply you could live.

Look at:

Square footage of housing. They lived in cracker boxes back then.

Appliances owned

Vehicles owned and annual mileage

Clothing owned

Extras like gym memberships

Eating out

I think you'd find we could all squirrel away fortunes if we lived as spartan a lifestyle as they lived then.

560 posted on 07/05/2005 4:06:44 PM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 881-900 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson