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.
Good points you make Nowhere Man and pretty much in line with my own thoughts on the matter :-)
and that is where your argument falls apart, it is not my definition at all. It is the field of sociology and the dictionary definition. So if you have a problem I suggest you write a white paper with your hypothesis and we can see if that survives peer review (which i doubt). In the meantime we use the definitions that exists. Not the ones we WISH to exist.
No problem mon ami :-)
That is my take on the situation also. I think because he misinterpreted my stance on this subject, he decided to attack me as a let wing lesbian supporter. Which plainly as a staunch conservative I am not
I've no idea what the purpose of marriage would be in your world. Your definition renders it completely moot, and no different than dating. If there is no such thing as an "innocent" person, then nobody should ever get married, because as imperfect people, absolutely nobody deserves a faithful spouse.
I'm sorry you find my view on adultery "infantile", but I belive that grown adults know right from wrong, and should act accordingly. If that is infantile, then I wear the label proudly.
Adultery is wrong, and while some people may bend over backwards to do what they can to rationalize it (and call themselves "mature" while doing so), other people consider knowing right from wrong, and acting accordingly a sign of true maturity. I fall into the latter camp.
I think everyone reading this thread can point to 100 flaws in their spouse, and make a reasonable case why their adultery could be excused ... and while the fact is that most people act upon it, I respect the people who take their spouse for better or worse. Nobody said it was easy. In fact, it's hard.
You are either capable of handling it, or not.
I think we have too many people getting married who so not have the maturity level to handle the institution of marriage. This is what the divorce and child support industry thrive upon.
Anyway, good luck.
When did "paying for stuff" = "respect" outside of the prostitute/john transaction?
The flames were justified. I have no problem with your opinion that your wife should not work outside of the home. I am a stay-at-home Mom myself. And what you and your wife choose to do is none of my business anyway.
My problem with your remark was that it was insulting to men like my husband and your refusal to acknowledge it further justifies my condemnation of it. You could have been a gentleman and apologized for it, but you didn't. And that speaks volumes.
I don't see what you see at all. As a matter of fact, almost without exception, all of the working class people I know are hooked up with somebody. The way you tell it, only the "successful" have a chance in the dating market, because women are all secretly planning to leave and take half.
$60K a year is well above the average. It might pale before what you make, but it's far from chump change. To a Democrat elitist who pays lip service to the working man, it's chump change. Don't join that crowd.
There isn't much in here that would help the normal conflicted marriage. They wouldn't be able to hear it.
For the fair to decent marriage, they might learn something about fairly balancing the load.
I'm not elitist, I am not going to sell the mother of my children to an employee for that money. It's not worth it. What for? To buy more 'things'. No thanks. Mom is busy with the home, kids, remodeling...
Maybe when the kids are grown.
Nothing worse than a perpetually insulted woman fishing for unwarranted apologies.
LOL Are you using a script or is this completely ad libbed?
Women take responsibility????? Yeah and monkeys will be flying out of my butt!
"Bitter Boys Handbook"
Chapter 1- All Females Are Evil, Lie and Only Want Money
Chapter 2- See Chapter One
You live in the sticks, I live in the big city. It's been in my face 24/7 in the dating world for two decades. One has to be naive or blind not to see it. There are diamonds in the rough, but they are rare. Beyond dating, I've seen more than a dozen marriages fail due to women changing. They become condescending, unsupportive, intolerable beeatches who gain 30-50% bodyweight within a few years. The men go years without sex. When you see family members and best friends lives destroyed by predatory females, you develop an educated opinion firsthand, something you obviously have never seen. No big deal, you've witnessed plenty of things that I haven't. It's a big planet.
In my world, I see pretty women on the arms on all kinds of guys. The mechanic I use is married to a knockout, the bike mechanic I use has a knockout girlfriend.
Like most of my best friends, I've experienced that my entire life, whether I was making 6 figures or unemployed. I had a girlfriend of 2 years who turned down Playboy. Any man with player skills, a sense of humor and some looks is surrounded by women, regardless of money. These are all things a man can perfect, if he puts an effort into it.
I don't see what you see at all.
Very true, so don't pre-judge what you have not witnessed. Like they say, before you pre-judge a man, walk a few miles in his shoes. That way, if he gets pissed off, you miles away and you've got his shoes.
The way you tell it, only the "successful" have a chance in the dating market.
Nonsense. Looks, youth and charm will get you in most any woman's door. As for longevity, no money no honey. They sell their goods to the highest bidder in the long run. Where I live the good looking women ALL date 3-5 guys at a time. I'm platonic friends with many great looking US women, it's no big deal for them to discuss it. They brag bout the ever changing fleet of men, it's a source of humor. The older affluent men take them to dinner and events, but it's Biff the janitor on the side who gets the goods. He gets replaced on a weekly basis.
If you've read my previous posts, I caught on to the games early, and have only dated Latinas for 14 years now. Lots of them. They're all women, none of this dishonest, selfish feminist attitude. If they start to americanize, I move on.
LOL
All new members of the He-Man Woman Haters Club receive that book when they sign up.
(By the way, my husband says that he needs to see evidence that you can in fact do a back bend. ;->)
oh i'm gonna need this one. bump for later...
he he he,
If I tried one right now I'd fall on my head.
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.