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.

[papertyger]

Is this a reason to back off from wanting equal pay, etc.?

Is get equal pay not a reason to back off, or is not backing off a bid to expand the franchise?

[Melas]

I'm familiar with the elected ones myself. However, we're back to a case of people I've read about, but have never personally encountered. I don't think you'll find many women of any political stripe, in urban or suburban America that any of these women truly represent.

CO is my home state, and I lived there for 30 years. In all that time, I never met a Susan Faluditype. I'm sure they exist, but they exist in miniscule numbers.

[Melas]

Largely true. But no-fault divorce makes divorce much easier

Absolutely true. I'm just not convinced that making divorce more difficult will fix marriage. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that it wouldn't.

[Melas]

Actually, for the wealthy, they're paying less now than 50 years ago. Our tax rates aren't nearly as progessive as they once were.

[Melas]

Damm, another great post! Too many women think they are really sexy when they are really not and look down on many decent guys that show interest. I have seen so many slobs think they are good looking when they are really not and act like they are.

A rather judgmental post condemning judgmental behavior. Is that the aroma of hypocrisy I smell? On the one hand you're condemning women who judge guys and reject them, but on the other you're writing them off as slobs.

[HitmanLV]

The idea of locking people up for breaking their marriage vows serves no legitimate public purpose. The idea of elevating that moral failing to a criminal level doesn't make any sense. It's a reason for the other spouse to dump them, it's not a reason to get criminal courts and DAs involved.

Saying that once you get married you should do everything to make it work doesn't make much sense either. Most people have never done everything possible towards any end in their lives: why should marriage be different? Marriage requires a similar worldview and aligned goals, as well as aligned values. To me, saying that someone should do 'everything' possible, in light of the fact that overwhelmingly nobody does everything possible towards any goal in their life, makes it an unrealistic standard.

I think people should do a lot thats practical, but that's different than saying they should do everything that's possible.

Nobody needs to have sex outside of marriage, certainly. But that's not to say it doesn't happen. And in separating needs from wants, maybe somebody genuinely needs the emotional and physical affection that their spouse isn't giving them (for whatever reason). I agree its wrong, but don't overstate it. The fact that a man cheats on his wife means that he made a very bad decision, but that very bad decision doesn't necessarily mean that his wife is a completely innocent victim.

I agree we should strive for personal excellence, though thats not to say personal perfection. But that has almost nothing to do with this. The fact is that people cheat for all sorts of reasons, and many people who do cheat didn't set out to. It's a bad decision, and there are better alternatives, but in most cases cheating has much more to do with opportunity than it does with a 'cheating' personality or worldview.

A person who is a perfectly good spouse for a decade or more, loyal and sincere, can make some very bad choices for very bad reasons, for example, and enter into a relationship with another person. I don't think that automatically makes them a vile and subhuman person, nor do I automatically think that their cheated-upon spouse is necessarily an innocent victim.

The repercussions for doing a wrong thing (like cheating on my wife) is that she leaves me and costs me that marriage. That's perfectly fair and legitimate. Like I said, there is no benefit nor penalty financially to what I am saying: each party gets the 1/2 they already owned anyway. Why is this controversial?

I agree its best to break up before entering a new relationship, but what's best doesn't always happen. Why should this be a financial matter?

And why is there a presumption that a cheated-upon spouse somehow deserves some benefit above and beyond the 1/2 of the property that they already own, anyway?

You are giving too much credit to a cheated upon spouse. They get what they deserve, nothing more. This dynamic works to both spouses advantage. It is fair.

[papertyger]

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)

Amen to that!

And did you note the pre-emptive excuse for posting the picture? Who do these women think they're fooling?

Or maybe I'm just noticing the hypocrisy because I'm bitter, though married to the same first wife for twenty years.

[papertyger]

Since the men of the future will be less educated and less paid, women will either have to adjust/change, or else neither the less educated man or the excess educated woman will find someone.

Or the less educated man married a younger woman and educates her, as in my case ;o)

[Cincinna]

"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."

Why would any woman, marry a man like that?

Conservative women know better.

Rather spend life alone with my poodle than with one of those described.

[T. Jefferson]

I'm just not convinced that making divorce more difficult will fix marriage. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that it wouldn't.

The no-fault divorce and matriachal court system is what destroyed marriage. Simply follow the money. The courts favor the woman financially in 90% of the cases, which is why women file two thirds of the time, with an avg time 3 years. All she has to say "we're not compatible" and the courts arrange the seizure of 1/2 a man's assets, retirement, and a healthy forward income. Divorce to many women is winning the lottery. Women would never sign a marriage document if the man faced no financial consequences and she faced fifty percent seizure.

Solution: no transfer of assets unless the marriage lasts say 7-10 years. The estate you create you get back proportionately what you earned, if the woman doesn't work you arrange the payout in a non-negotiable pre-nup.

Remove the money, and marriage AND divorce rates would plunge fifty per cent easy.

Women love to turn a blind eye, but they've now burned too many men, and yet still complain they can't "marry well", i.e., find a wealthy man for a potential payday. Ask any random guy and he can tell half a dozen horror divorce stories about predatory females. It's no surprise marriage rates have dropped drastically, men have caught onto the charade, and "the catches" chose to either stay single and date early 20's girls who aren't damaged goods yet, or marry overseas. Not to worry, there's still plenty of suckers out there pushing a broom.

[papertyger]

Have you read Christina Hoff Sommers "The War Against Boys?" It is about nothing BUT pedagogy.You seem to want to blame boys for the institutional impediments arrayed against them

[LongElegantLegs]

60k a year is chump change.

It must be nice to be able to say that.
No flames here, I just wasn't sure what your 'idle hands' comment was all about.

[MayflowerMadam]

"Idle hands do the devil's work."

Chapter and verse on that, please? You might want to read I Timothy 5:8, which basically says that if a man doesn't provide for his family, he's worse than an unbeliever. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." So I hope you posted in jest. A woman taking care of the home rarely has idle hands.

[papertyger]

Agreed. And unfortunately the same men who are whining about women stepping out of traditional roles are the same men forcing their wives out in to the workforce, even when it isn't a financial necessity. (And they complain that women "want it all".)

Do you really think your wishing this were true has anything to do with objective reality?

I thought one had to go to DU to find this level of self delusion.

[chris1]

You know what I am talking about.

Call it judgemental or what. A friend of mine weighs 350 lbs and is as fat as a whale. He always goes after hot chicks and gets rejected. He had one girl and broke up with her stating she was too big for him.

Geez - look in the darn mirror I told him!!!!

[papertyger]

I never met a Susan Faluditype. I'm sure they exist, but they exist in miniscule numbers.

Unfortunately, those miniscule numbers are damn near dictating educational policy in this country. Your local feminist doesn't have to act like a barking moonbat because the Faludi types have already provided title 9-like rules for them to enjoy and build on. Again, I recommend "The War Against Boys."

[papertyger]

I'm just not convinced that making divorce more difficult will fix marriage. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that it wouldn't.

Would you share your reasoning for that conviction?

[xVIer]

You will have to clarify...I don't know what franchise you are talking about...and as far as the definition of feminism...I think you UNDERSTOOD what Kelly MEANT but chose to make an arguement out of it rather than accept what she meant and go from there.
My opinion is...men need to change , masculinity is not what it used to be. Men used to have manners and I think thats why people no longer marry and have any family values...its all your fault! What ever happened to feeling secure when a man was around, whether you were sleeping with him or not. There is alot to be said for the strong silent type. Men today and their unrealistic fantasies are whats wrong with society in general. There are too many perverts. HOW IS THAT FOR PROVACATIVE?!

[MayflowerMadam]

"...wishing this were true"? "...objective reality"?

You're guilty of over-analyzing a simple statement. There's really nothing to analyze; I stated a fact, and you can read it (or not) and move on.

[marajade]

"Women will certainly be able to mold many men into househusbands. And then they will feel empty, wishing they had a man in the old style mold of a man.
Just my guess."

Women feel the same. I hate doing the cooking (besides being bad at it) and cleaning bit and find those chores very restrictive.