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.
Actually I am in a minority of Freeper men in that I think that dividing marital property upon divorce is fine. A lot of men (Freeper and otherwise) look at marital property as 'ours' when times are good and 'mine' when times go bad.
That's silly, as I have said many times on FR. Once you get married, it all becomes 'ours.' If after 8 years my honey decides she would rather take naps with the UPS guy than me, well what can I say - I'd be mad, upset, angry, etc, but I'd still be standing.
In that case, or any case, each party gets 1/2 of the marital property, which is to say they get 100% of the portion they already owned, anyway. It's fair, if unseemly at times.
Men who are bitter about this have no sympathy from me. Seems to me like a small price to pay to get ride of someone (legally) who is distracting you and holding you back.
Wait, something just hit me -- I don't go to the east 50s very often -- is Kaufman's Pharmacy still there?
Whoa! I like to use the word 'escorts,' or 'call girls,' or after a drink or two, maybe 'party girls.' I find the word 'prostitute' so...judgmental. ;-)
With the Population growth since the 50-60's, no doubt there is more.
It's easily expected with population growth that the numbers would be higher.
As such, nothing has changed sexually. What has changed, is relationships.
And the teachings of relationships. Back in the day's children were taught
respectfully to marry and have children. Now, it's taught in schools to Explore
and find themselves.
An unnecessary evil created by the liberal colleges that teachers are born from.
Sexuality has been exploited by the minorty. And it's own sick twisted way,
become mainstream.
Perversion..
I dunno where is (or was) it, exactly?
I think my point was -- back in the day it was more accepted. Today there's a stigma attached to using escorts. Old guys I've met still talk fondly of going to Pauline's (is that the right name?) over in west 50s during the the 1940s in groups of a half dozen or more.
I am 40...if something happened and I am suddenly single and most men thought like you I'd be looking at being lonely forever...is this supposed to make me feel better? Is this a reason to back off from wanting equal pay, etc.? au contrere! I damn well better fight for my rights ! B/c of my age I doubt I'll ever find another man...woe is me...(NOT!!!)
Kaufman's was in the 50s on Lex. It was where Dustin Hoffman goes to get palm oil in Marathon Man...old quaint place. Duane Reade probably put them out of business. I'll have to check...
Hey, how would I know what that bordello was called? :-)
I hear you, though. I think it was more accepted, especially out west as you noted. In fact, its still more accepted out west (I live in Las Vegas, nuff said).
I like to talk with old timers too and they have a matter-of-fact approach to the issue, so you are right in that regard.
What did I say that was so off putting? I was speaking of my worldview - I don't doubt that there are plenty of men out there for women of all ages in every stage of their life.
I'm just not that man, that's all. ;-)
DR would be is damn close - like 49th or so on 3rd. I used to work at 900 Third Ave just down the lane, and later on 599 Lex just around the corner.
Kaufman's is still in business. I found it on a web travel guide.
Pauline's (or whatever it was called) was a landmark in its day. It was also a speakeasy whose main competitor was the 21 Club. I've seen old guys' eyes get misty when talking about the place.
You worked over by Clarke's then -- as an FYI, they opened a new dining room upstairs.
Hey, I'm getting misty-eyed talking about the place, and I'm 37 and never been there! ;-)
I explictly said 'anyone in their right mind.' Clearly, there are many men out there out of their minds. They would be for those older women. See, I didn't suggest there would be nobody for people in that spot.
Oh, and one more thing:; BOTH men and women, should plan to be FAITHFUL, when they enter a marriage. Once you commit to another, that is IT, no more "side dishes", at least, that is the way it should be. It was that way for my parents, and it WILL be that way for me, if my time ever comes.
Yep, and I certainly never suggested otherwise.
I think you answered your own question twice! I personally don't know why you're so "off-putting"...either its b/c your foot is in your mouth or, even though you deny it, your one of those angry freeper men you spoke of earlier! I can't believe I'm spending so much energy on a man who catagorizes women by age...its not b/c I am old...I would have said the same thing when I was 20!
Nah.
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.