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.
My best friend is a bicycle mechanic at a local bike shop, and his main squeeze is a Phd, and is the principal of local school.
No, you're suppose to reply cogently instead of affecting the drama queen and spouting inane platitudes. A good start would be to try something other than equivocating the obvious.
Call me when they get married, and have kids.
They have a 5 year old boy.
I guess one out of two is good enough, these days ... consider me semi-squelched.
Thanks for that interesting explanation, and glad to have spoken with you. I will look up that book on amazon
Take care
kelly
They are not people I share any ideological viewpoint with either. I am in no way interested in them.
"But, they ARE feminists",p> By definition they are NOT feminists they are extremists
"Hmmmm sweetums"
If you knew anything about me you would realize how ridiculous trying to patronize me is
Well said and 100% correct
seems like a vast difference to me?,p. Also what about the uber mensch and Aryans race philosophy? they believed they where genetically superior? this has no commonality with communist philosophy?
I think you misunderstood, I was discussing a proper definition of feminism according to text book and dictionary. My whole issue is that representation is stereotypical and high profile "feminists" that are no more than left wing lesbians dressed up as something else are making this situation worse. A TRUE feminist is probably not in the public eye and does not promote any agenda. What you see in the public eye is a perversion
We are no longer only consumers of goods and services, we have become consumers of each other.
"If it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck or look like a duck, then it ain't a duck....."
Same goes for men stereotyping is on both sides of the fence, this thread is a perfect example of that
I completely agree with you and have expressed the same sentiment many times on FR.
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.
Again, no disagreement from me. I want a wife and family someday and hope I am successful in that area. But, I'm in no great rush either.
Me too! Well, not in the chest. Maybe two bullets in the shoulder or arm, or maybe one bullet in each leg... ;-)
Say, has anybody seen my Sweet Gypsy Rose? Here's a picture when she was my sweet Mary Jo... ;-)
In most cases you'll always fund a supporting woman behind every man's success.
The travesty is that given the current standard's, most women supporting a man
in a career are lambasted for being a sellout, or worse.
Bash away.
Ultimately that's what it comes down to. It's ok to be demanding to an extent, but it helps a lot if a person brings something to the table that the other side wants. Plenty of men and women have lots of stuff, but it's not much of what the other party is looking to buy into.
So everybody goes home unsatisfied.
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.