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.
Idle hands do the devil's work.
OK..thanks. My point has been made.....
I got some really good flames too! Ouch! Turn down the heat on those flames ladies! :-)
No, men simply won't marry. Or won't marry those womyn.
You have taken the point and expressed the sense of it very nicely.
When you say "That is the problem, and it will have to change someday", you begin an analysis that I don't think can be supported. It assumes that men and women can change. It assumes that men will no longer be attracted by a women's sexual nature, that men will abandon their deepest needs, to provide and protect. And what about women? In the sense men see women as 'sex objects' (a phrase I have problems with), women see men as 'strength objects'. You're a woman; can you imagine experiencing real romantic love with a man lesser than yourself? In her heart of hearts, a woman wants a man she can look up to.
As a man, I would unhesitatingly choose to live alone, in reduced circumstances, rather than occupy the role of male wife, and any man worth his salt will feel the same.
The main hinge of your scenario for the future is that men and women must change their basic natures for everything to work out nicely; therefore, they will change their natures. Not logical
I propose an alternate hypothesis: Our instinctive nature's will not change, because they can not change, but the rest of your scenario plays out: Women will have most of the best jobs and be better educated. The net result will be fewer marriages and less love, based on the number of men who are educated well enough and are successful enough to win the heart of an educated, successful woman.
As women become 'taller' in societal status, and men become 'shorter', there will be ever fewer men that a woman of a given status can 'look up to'. In the future, men and women will bond and create families as they have always done, according to their basic natures, but there will come into being two large groups of 'leftovers' without marriage partners: the highly-educated successful women and the less successful, uneducated men. This scenario has already played out in the African-American community, where the two leftover segments account for, what, 70% of that whole group? No reason it can't happen to society at large.
Too bad for all of us.
I'll also add that it also encourages men to dilly dally around....they're not angels.
I'll certainly agree that these hit shows send equally bad messages to males.
Well, I never said anything bad about public schools...after all, as I said before, I attended one.
The contradiction in his remarks is what was pointed out. Nobody was slamming public schools. Maybe you should lower your antannae just a little bit. :)
So...You want a woman who is traditional, motherly, and nurturing, who pulls down 60K a year?
So in essence, you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck. Well, ok. I can live with that.
Nonsense. You simply refuse to accept your definition of feminism is no longer applicable. You might as well be arguing the term "gay" doesn't REALLY have anything to do with homosexuality.
You can flounce and hold your breath all you want, but your insistence doesn't change colloquial usage. Whether or not the term has been coopted or not is irrelevant. It has a specific meaning in popular culture NOW.
60k a year is chump change.
You've surely heard the description of the perfect wife... no flames please, it's a kind of joke...
She's a combination of a best-friend, mother and wh*re. She doesn't have to bring home any money. That's my job.
I disagree. However, I do concede that your opinion is in the majority, and I think it is a large part of what has lead to the decline of marriage. Adultery is indeed, a crime. If you want to F whoever you want, don't get married. Once you are married, it should indeed be a crime because the ramifications and damage to others are immeasurable. Marriage should not be taken lightly. When you enter it, you do EVERYTHING to make it work. That is the committment you made. Wen you decide to destroy it, it should be a crime every bit as much as beating someone about that head.
I think a lot of folks have a very immature and unrealistic view of adultery.
I don't. Nobody NEEDS to stick their penis into nother person's vagina, and vice-versa. We are seperating needs and wants here. Sometimes I want something that my spouse cannot provide. What do I do? I do without it ... I don't break my marriage vows because I want it. Marriage imposes some restrictions on our abilities to pursue wants, and sometimes a spouse cannot meet a want. That is the risk you take when you enter marriage. I think your view of adultery is immature, IMHO. It's this "me first" mentality that has led to divorce rates approaching 50%. you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you just might find, you get what you need. Maybe the woman down the street would really rock your world if your spouse got ill. That doesn't make it right.
And the fact that "everyone isn't a saint" isn't an excuse. Strive for personal excellence despite the flaws of others. You might find that you can be a better person than you had initially thought.
The truth is that adultery is a lot more complex. What I am saying makes sense, it benefits both men and women. For example, if my bride emotionally and physically neglects me, and becomes cruel, I could rationally come to the decision that I don't want to be married to her anymore.
Then make a case for fault and get divorced before you start nailing everything that walks. In 90% of divorces, there is fault. We have to quit pretending that there isn't. If someone is that fickle, don't marry them. Wait until you know them for awhile. We are better judges of character than we think, we just like to ignore it. Maybe there should be a 5 year waiting period between marriage license and marriage. It's too disposable nowadays.
What you are arguing for is basically the dissolution of the whole institute of marriage. Under your system, what would the point of marriage be? I can't see one benefit.
Then again, maybe I could find myself drawn to a better woman before I could break up the marriage. Yes, it's wrong, and not the best thing to do, but it happens.
There should be repurcussions for doing "wrong" things. No? If you know it is wrong before you do it, it is "premeditated" and even more wrong (ie. not like spilling a glass of water). Take responsibility for your actions. "I'm not perfect" doesn't absolve resonsibility.
Why should the fact that I cheated on someone who mistreated me somehow cause a financial 'sudden death' or give my bride an undue financial benefit?
Because you had the choice not to do it, and you deemed in advance some illicit nookie worth it. Pay up. Adultery shouldn't be without strong consequences to the person who commits it.
It makes no sense - I get the 1/2 that I already owned anyway, so does she, we say 'adios,' and I can a life and so can she.
If you believe in deterrents, it makes perfect sense. Say adios before cheating, and don't treat marraige as a disposable entity ... or better yet, don't get married.
There is a strong paradigm that the cheated upon and replaced spouse has the moral highground. That's not necessarily true - just the fact that they were not the one to cheat doesn't entitle them to any kind of undue benefit.
I think the victim of a crime deserves compensation, and the perpetrator punishment. If one robs a bank because the CEO of the bank is corrupt, should the robber go free? You say yes, I say no. An apparent irreconcilable difference.
Fair's fair.
Indeed.
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.