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.
Indeedy. The poster seems oblivious to the fact that breadwinners are traditionally treated very poorly. ;-)
I agree and go a step further - that's a major reason (but not the only one) that so many women are dissatisfied, and loud about it. When they do get a man and subjugate him, they grow emotionally and sexually frustrated with the relationship. Millions of years of evolutionary encoding can't be overcome by a few books and magazine articles, and women acting cute aping men. Deep down, there really is only one kind of man that, on balance, captivates them and can keep them satisfied.
In alienating that kind of man, they really just do themselves a disservice.
Like I said several times, I don't want a mate that has huge work and time commitments. I reject them as a matter of course. I don't expect her to put up with that kind of scheduling and unreliability from me, why would i want to endure that, especially since there is no shortage of attractive and appealing women who do offer me what I want?
Feminism was the ultimate swerve. When women began misunderstanding the dynamics between the sexes, enough of them began giving guys what we wanted all along - shallow physical relationships that were short to medium term, easy to get into and out of, and on top of it all we didn't have to go through hoops of decorum in order to get access to sexy women's sexual goodies.
The logjam broke: the average guy can get and enjoy romantic companionship with attractive women without promising exclusivity, marriage, or even a basic standard of gentlemanly conduct. While many women still do insist upon a more traditional approach, they are competing with many many women who have just given up the store. For short term fun, that's a hard act to compete with.
As granny said, why buy the cow when the milk is free? I benefited from being raised by a Sicilian mother and grandmother, which means that while I was raised with good morals, I was also taught to not be a fool: if a hot girl wants a piece, don't just stand there, give it to her.
Can't fault that, really. ;-)
I'm with you, LEL! :-)
That depends on the people involved
Melas is quite macho, RCA2000. That's a well known fact on FR, brother!
it would be a mistake to blame these conditions on women wanting equality, rather it is plainly obvious that [promiscuity is a result of a moral vacuum created by the new generations leaving behind family values and Christian principles of fidelity and chastity. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding between the genders.
I see all people as equal. There are mean people of both sexes. Why specifically should women change? I wouldn't say men should change, its just not nice. I have been a stay at home Mom and I have worked when my children were older. I believe in equality and thats it...the rest is a human condition we all suffer from time to time. Biologically we are different but in spirit we all have the same feelings. This thread seems like a bunch of angry men saying things like more marriages would survive if brothels were legal and that women have a shelf life...what the hell is that for? Is it true? I read that you only claim to date much younger women...why is that? Don't think younger women aren't aware of your shelf life, whether they say so or not!
What is that supposed to mean?
Are you against women supporting their man in his career?
Please clarify,
Thank you in advance.
No I am not against women supporting men in their career at all, why would you think that?
You can't turn back the clock. What worked well in 1890 or 1950 would be a disaster in 2005.
Yes I agree with that, but this is not a mainstream viewpoint for women. So it cannot therefore explain the high failure in marriage and the downturn in morality resulting in quick fire short term relationships that are not lasting longer than breakfast.
"The fact that enough women give away their sexual goodies even though they expect a pitifully low standard of conduct from the men in their lives (at least in comparison to the standard of conduct expected in 1890, 1910, 1930, 1950, etc) does have something to do with general decline in morals, it also has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding of what they really want in a relationship."
This is a good point you make but again the cause is IMO based on a lowering of expectation ON BOTH sides. in other words the morality benchmark has been lowered in society. Standards where higher in the past behavior from those courting and those being courted was different. THAT is what has changed the dynamics of marriage and long term relationships.
You answered my post with this statement,
That depends on the people involved.
I only asked you to clarify. It's ok if you cannot.
Just curious, but how do you know the morality benchmark has been lowered?
Who do you think lowered the benchmark on the Female side?
I see vague male-bashing in your writing. Care to elaborate?
Hi Kelly!
Fancy meeting you here! I agree with all your statements... that you had to spend so much time earlier defending the definition of feminism should have been a tip-off that these guys would argue with a sign post!
This was a qualitative statement and observation not a quantitative one. By looking at how men and women courted , first date second date, no sex before marriage, church going etc. Steady relationships, married for life, these practices are not observable as mainstream anymore in the 50s and 60s maybe. The reality today is based on one night stands, teenage pregnancy, lowering in the age of girls having fist time sex. Serial dating is much more mainstream, this represents a shift in behavior and moral standards. Let me know your take on this
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.