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.
I was adopted by my parents when they were in their 40s, so I guess I was raised with the values of a different generation. My Mom and Dad both played the traditional roles and I never heard from them any complaints about the other. They commited, they stuck to it and did their best. I really think its this disposable/ have it all society, people don't value each other enough. Everbody these days are too greedy and selfish for marriage to work anymore...and if its a free-for-all get what you can can world, women better change and start demanding more and becoming as selfish as men... who want a friend/ equal partner/ dynamo in the bed/ perfect mother / housekeeper and nights out to chase after girls... WOMEN...ACCEPT NO LESS FOR YOURSELVES THAN WHAT THEY EXPECT OF YOU! My experience tells me that the human race is doomed if women were ever so selfish as men.
Try looking at the antecedent in the sentence. If that don't work, try the dictionary.
.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.
And I think Kelly was trying to equivocate by fixating on a distinction without difference instead of addressing discrepancies she understood perfectly well in modern parlance.
I have a thesis. It goes like this:
In the zeitgeist we currently live under, those positive aspects of behavior classicly associated with women are widely publicized and rightly celebrated. Those positive aspects of behavior classicly associated with men are largely ignored, and when they are acknowledged they are treated as individual anomalies.
In the zeitgeist we currently live under, those negative aspects of behavior classicly associated with women are largely ignored and when they are acknowleged they are treated as individual anomalies. Those negative aspects of behavior classicly associated with men are widely publicized and rightly condemned.
You and yours do a fine job of supporting my thesis.
If it's a fact, document it.
"You and yours do a fine job of supporting my thesis."
Preaching to yourself... how appropriate!
That will not affect American Freepers to any degree. If we run out of eligible US women, there's loads of Latina women available.
[post 745]:And when it does change and it is the woman who has the good job, and makes most of the money, it will be the woman who is in control of the relationship (because she is the one with the money)
The woman is already in control of the relationship, even when she makes less money. The person in control of the relationship is the person most willing to terminate the relationship if her desires are not met. In the US today, because of the way divorce laws lean, that is the woman. Women initiate the vast majority of divorces in the US, and usually get the kids and the house and the lions share of the assets.
You assume that making the major share of the money will put the woman more in charge than she already is. You seem to like the idea of men being more subservient to their women. I don't think it will happen. The man will have less to lose in a divorce.
I'm reminded of a woman I used to work with. She was very gung-ho about making lots more money, thinking that this would make men more likely to want her, and overlook her being a 50ish overweight neurotic drama queen. Didn't work.
The average man would much rather share a small apartment with a reasonably attractive, sweet-tempered woman with a high libido, than share a mansion with a woman with a permanent feminist chip on her shoulder
When they "marry up", they gain a half share (more likely more than half) ownership of the man's assets and income When they "marry down", the man gets a half share of HER income and assets. Crucial psychological difference
When they "date down", the man is still traditionally expected to pay for the date.
Women have always been immeasurably MORE selfish than men. They just tweak the definition of "selfish" when it come to their own behavior. (Do you really think we still buy that crap like "I keep your house" as if women did it for men's benefit?)
What would really doom society is if all of a sudden the avarice and narcissism of women were coupled with the assertiveness of men. Oh? Wait....
I never cease to be amazed at the ubiquity of women who expend so much energy convincing themselves how illegitimate, nay criminal, it is to require more than they are willing to give for any particular benefit.
I will agree with you to an extent.
Though many will immediately fall back on claims of "women were oppressed for so long and could not contribute" the fact is, Western society HAS allowed contributions from women, culturally, for some time now.
And yet, development of and focus on the 'big picture' themes of human existence seem to still be dominated by men. It is men who, as children, hunger to become heroes and fight for a just world(though it would be true the definition of such might be less 'just' or 'right' for one child's learned patterns than another's) and who find most resonant the themes of redemption and honor and even love(allegedly the purview of the feminine.)
I think, though, much of this comes from the more recent political drive of feminism and victimology, wherein stories with wider appeal and thematic content are pushed aside(before even finding expression) in favor of PC self-pity novels and "women being oppressed by the man in her life" Lifetime flicks(or more artful but still distastefully anti-male/female-exclusive films.)
I'd also point out that men are the sacrificers in society. They work the most dangerous jobs, they fight for their country(be it right or wrong in a particular case) and ideals and even a cursory glance at single-parent families reveal that it is the lack of a good FATHER that destroys the child's future, not the lack of a mother(assuming the father or father-figure is there.) And that goes for children of both sexes.
I will agree with you to an extent.
Though many will immediately fall back on claims of "women were oppressed for so long and could not contribute" the fact is, Western society HAS allowed contributions from women, culturally, for some time now.
And yet, development of and focus on the 'big picture' themes of human existence seem to still be dominated by men. It is men who, as children, hunger to become heroes and fight for a just world(though it would be true the definition of such might be less 'just' or 'right' for one child's learned patterns than another's) and who find most resonant the themes of redemption and honor and even love(allegedly the purview of the feminine.)
I think, though, much of this comes from the more recent political drive of feminism and victimology, wherein stories with wider appeal and thematic content are pushed aside(before even finding expression) in favor of PC self-pity novels and "women being oppressed by the man in her life" Lifetime flicks(or more artful but still distastefully anti-male/female-exclusive films.)
I'd also point out that men are the sacrificers in society. They work the most dangerous jobs, they fight for their country(be it right or wrong in a particular case) and ideals and even a cursory glance at single-parent families reveal that it is the lack of a good FATHER that destroys the child's future, not the lack of a mother(assuming the father or father-figure is there.) And that goes for children of both sexes.
It's not limited to women. It's part of the socialist creed, but I've found many women who have the attitude "If I want it, SOMEBODY better supply it, and don't bother me with any drivel about how I need to do anything to earn it!"
Of course they will; women have always used their generally superior verbal skills to manipulate circumstances to their liking.
It is only when they are faced with equivalent verbal dexterity as with another woman, or a particularly gifted man that they become sputtering harpies.
Note how many women blame men for the drudgery of shaving legs and armpits when the practice was more likely started by one woman trying to beat out another for the attention of men. Do they ever mention the widespread insistence men shave off their natural "plumage" because women find it abrasive?
My husband is in the military and has been for almost 20 years and that's around what he makes. He puts his life at risk for people like you every time his submarine submerges. He busts his a$$ for that "chump change" that you referred to so condescendingly.
I do not claim this assumption of entitlement is limited to women, only that women are its most doctrinaire practitioners.
Thank you BOTH for your service.
Thank you. You've made me feel much better. I was about to blow a gasket. :-)
Thank you so much. And my thanks and appreciation to your family for their service.
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.