Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage

The Financial Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Richard Tomkins

[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.

[durasell]

You would prefer that he categorized women by credit rating score?

"Man, look at her! She must be a 720!"

[xVIer]

NO! Based on each person individually...without prejudice.

[HitmanLV]

Yeah!!!! ;-)

[HitmanLV]

I want to be clear. When I said I preferred the romantic company of younger women, for the reasons I stated, I didn't mean to suggest that their age was the only criteria.

Nope, I factor in a whole lot of other stuff. Age is just a threshold matter - I still evaluate each person individually.

They are not inconsistent principles.

[HitmanLV]

And I find lots of oldr women sexually exciting, by the way. Take Witchiepoo, for example...

[durasell]

Well, that's not going to happen. It isn't in man's nature.

Also, I'll say what nobody else here will say -- in choosing a mate men want something of value. That means looks, professional accomplishment, educational background, social graces, etc. etc. and, of course, a bit of money in the bank doesn't hurt, either.

The trouble is, men have no shorthand for these things, like women do. Women can say, simply, "he's a good provider" and other women know the guy works his but off to keep the wife in scented candles and day spas.

[Rca2000]

Personally, I would have no problem, dating, or even marrying a woman older than me( I have had women in my life, from 1/12 to 6 years older than me, in the past), and IMHO, the "young ones", (18-30), tend to bore me, as they are usually very liberal, and only concerned with sex, shopping, fashion, hollywood, and other such "fluff". Give me a chioce between a 25-year-old blond bombshell, who cannot even name the vice-president, or a 40 year-old, who is somewhat attractive, but not a beauty(on the OUTSIDE), BUT who is warm, caring, conservative,HONEST, and who can carry on a reasonable, meaningful conversation with me, about world affairs, politics, religious issues, economy, etc. ANYTHING, other than what Ben Afleck or Paris hilton is up to, or other useless drivel)...

I would pick the 40 yerar-old , IN A HEARTBEAT!!!!!!!!

[HitmanLV]

Like I said, when I say i have a preference for a woman with more youth, that's not to say I am looking for any young woman. I agree with your analysis, but it's not adressing what I said, really. That is, for me the question is not as you posed, but rather 'Give me a choice between a 25-year-old who is somewhat attractive, but not a beauty (on the OUTSIDE), BUT who is warm, caring, conservative,HONEST, and who can carry on a reasonable, meaningful conversation with me, about world affairs, politics, religious issues, economy, etc., or a 40 year-old, who is somewhat attractive, but not a beauty(on the OUTSIDE), BUT who is warm, caring, conservative,HONEST, and who can carry on a reasonable, meaningful conversation with me, about world affairs, politics, religious issues, economy, etc.'

All I am saying that given that choice, I'll swing with the 25 year old.

Unless the older woman is Witchiepoo - then all bets are off!

[SauronOfMordor]

Wow. Are you free to teach at my house? The Chickadees all need remedial math this summer :-(.

The quality most needed is a passion for ensuring the kid learns, which in most people is easier to develop for your own kid than for someone else's

In my case, it helped a lot that I had an engineering education, but the main thing needed was the attitude "I don't care if you think you can't do it, you WILL learn this @#%$ if it kills the both of us !!!"

In addition to that, the main thing you need is the understanding that math is a progression that depends on the full understanding of the earlier fundamentals. Meaning if you cover topics A, B, C and hit the wall at D, then you need to go back and review A, B, and C to find out what was not fully understood, instead of both of you getting frustrated at D. In other words, the trouble comes from the earlier material that the kid thought he understood.

[SauronOfMordor]

My little girl.

Cool! You take her to Civilian Marksmanship Program matches too?

[Kelly_2000]

"...I didn't send it to be mean...but men have 5,000,000,000 of these images...yet they get TOTALLY bent when we have one..."

Too true :-)

[Kelly_2000]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, and I agree you would be a minority perspective. But I think the party that has the most to lose and has provided the majority of the joint property and wealth is always going to feel hard done by, this applies to male and female

[Kelly_2000]

"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."

OK we agree 100% then :-)

"An unnecessary evil created by the liberal colleges that teachers are born from. "

AMEN:-)

Sounds like we are on the same page, we agree more than we disagree.

FRegards

Kelly

[SauronOfMordor]

While some of them offer a lot in a relationship, most don't offer men anything genuine and unique that a younger woman can offer them. It's a no-brainer: deal with the pushy 35 year old or deal with the pushy 25 year old. Many men just gravitate toward the freshness and vitality of youth. I know I do.

Even without the youth angle, a lot of older professional women have huge chips on their shoulders, a sense of entitlement that will not be satisfied by the set of men that may be interested in them.

Most men, myself included, would be more satisfied with a relationship with a woman who loves and cares for them, than with somebody who makes good money but is perpetually unsatisfied, critical, and likes taking it out on you

[SauronOfMordor]

News flash!! Women cheat too.

Of my divorced friends, it generally was the woman who was cheating

I've been reading research articles showing that, based on DNA testing, around 10% of children are not biologically related to their "official" dads.

[SauronOfMordor]

Or be worthy

Being worthy was the essense of the "price" I was talking about. I wasn't thinking that a woman would buy a man with cash

[shaggy eel]

men tend to be led by their hormones and visual temptations and that screws them up that way, preventing them from making good partner decisions.

,,, first time round, I'd agree. No more Ford Pintos on two legs for me in the marriage game though. Second time round, the big head did the thinking. So far, so good.

[SauronOfMordor]

Or: to put it another way, as I used to say in High-School: It is like a Nuclear reactor, in a meltdown event:: once the process goes so far, NOTHING will stop it-- and I feel that is where we are today. It would take a REVOLUTIONARY change, to return things to the way things should be-- and VERY few MEN or WOMEN, would be willing to do the things to effect this positive return to morality

Once a society has rotted from within, it may continue for a while (like the Roman Empire did), but its final fate is to be conquered and overrun by a more vigorous culture.

The doom of a society occurs when its men are no longer motivated to defend it

[SauronOfMordor]

...I didn't send it to be mean...but men have 5,000,000,000 of these images...

Funny, I've seen that pic before and I don't consider the pic to be anti-male and I've sent it to women whose egos I've judged to be in need of deflating.

Take another look at it. What's more sad than a woman who spends her life deluding herself that the guy on the left is going to show up and sweep her away, when the only guys who ever display any interest in her are like the one on the right? There are many women out there with self-esteem problems, but with too many, the problem is TOO MUCH self esteem (where self-esteem is defined as your sense of how much you are worth and deserve to get)

[Bon mots]

In most cases you'll always fund a supporting woman behind every man's success.

Hmmm...
Sounds logical. A successful man always ends up funding a woman.