Why Women Must Change Too if we are to Rescue Marriage

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.

You live in the sticks, I live in the big city.

Dallas is the sticks? We're the 8th largest city in the United States, which is in itself deceptive as we're the 5th largest metro-area in the USA behind only New York, L.A., Chicago, and Philly. I hardly live in the sticks.

Beyond dating, I've seen more than a dozen marriages fail due to women changing

I've noticed that it's always the women who're screwing things up in your post. I think even the most casual contemplation of relationships would yield a red flag over this one.

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.

Curiouser and Curiouser. If everyone you know is so good with women, why are you witnessing so many relationship woes? The ideas here aren't jiving. Unless of course it has something to with the whole "player" mentality as indicated by your use of the phrase "player skills" isn't condusive to long term relationships? Maybe, just maybe, you're watching all of your friends' relationships fail because they aren't particularly good at maintaining long term relationships themselves? Maybe just maybe, they're responsible for 50% or more of these relationship woes?

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.

Utter Bravo Sierra. You're projecting. You in essence believe all women are whores, so you invent scenarios (like the one above) where all women are whores.

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.

Oh trust me, I've noticed that you're not in a real relationship, yet continue to dish out marital advice. That especially hasn't been lost on me at all. I've noticed from your posts, that despite your self-proclaimed trade up to Latinas, you've still yet to make a relationship work. Unfortunately, plenty of blind men without a clue have probably read the pablum and willing allowed their blind selves to be led by the blind.

Telling someone their firsthand experiences over 20 years never occurred unless viewed through your own prism of thinking is quite an achievement. Word parsing to make petty, inaccurate analysis to make yourself feel better about your life is yet another. There are many adjectives to describe this attitude, and none are complimentary. Whatever floats your boat. You sound exactly like alot of US women I know : )

I'm happily single, and my best friends are as well. Four to six months a year I travel throughout CA and So. A fishing, golfing, windsurfing, exploring etc. The relationships I enjoy are exactly what I choose, and they're very healthy, warm, long distance, and part-time. I prefer the latin culture, their women, and their attitude towards men, and plan on moving down here. People's lives, preferences and views will often differ from your own. The fact you put them down, get defensive and make wild, false commentary should tell you alot you about yourself. Funny stuff.

Contraire, I'm not putting you down. I'm putting things into perspective. I'd say you're probably damned near expert at wooing South American girls and getting you what you want out of them. I give credit where credit is due. I'm sure "The Hedonist", which I gather that you authored is full of useful information, provided hot sex with South American women and prostitutes is what you're after. I'm not even putting that pursuit down (but I should) thus far.

However, you've spent a great deal of this thread commenting on marriage and long term relationships. Areas in which I won't give you credit for much expertise. In short, you simply don't know a damned thing about marriage or being married.

I don't claim to know jack about being a rich playboy windsurfing in Argentina. I'll leave that to you. I do however know what it's like to be in the room when your children are born. I know what it's like to rush to the hospital in a blind panic because your wife has rolled her car and the ER nurse wouldn't tell you about her conditition over the phone. I know what it's like to pace the halls of a hospital with that same wife because the child of that union is having surgery. I know what it's like to go shopping with your wife, for your first grandchild. Even still, I look at people way past my own age, who've been married much longer than I've been married, and I realize that I don't even come close to knowing what they know about marriage.

You might be some kind of expert on "dating" if that's what you call it, but giving credit where credit is due, I know things about marriage and committment that your mind hasn't even begun to comprehend, and my experiences with marriage are meager compared to some. Just checked, this thread was about marriage. A subject you know nothing about, despite thinking you know everything about it. Sad really.

In my own life, I have ALWAYS known the "real value of money", since I have had to make my own, since I was a teen. So, I have NOT had the luxury, to EVER say to someone" cost is not an issue", and instead, tend to look for the best deal, for the things I purchase. For example, I have several stereo systems, and many separate pieces of stereo equipment around my house and storage areas, BUT, in virtually EVERY case, I paid a few cents on the dollar, for them, BY LOOKING A LITLE, such as finding things on sale, on-line, at sales, auctions, flea markets, and so on, and getting non-working electronic things, and fixing them, for little of nothing.Some will look at this and say"Ewwwww... I would NEVER lower myself, to get a (fill in the blank) that another person owned, or to buy a used car, house, tv, stereo, Air conditioner, etc, I am too GOOD for that, i'll just buy new!! well, that kind of attitude is foolish and dumb. Fox example, I have a small air conditioner, i use in my room. Someone was throwing it away, in 97 , IIRC, and I got it. Nothing wrong with it, they were moving out, and did not want to take it along. It works very well , easing the burden on the Central A/C, and hence the electric bill. To me, this seems logical, but Rich folks look down on people who have to make do, with other peoples "left-overs" .

Well said. Also if something still works it can be made to work with some work, why should it tossed? This is one thing I actually agree with the greenies on to where I think we have become too wasteful as a society. Yes, I know the old saying from the Bible, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust," applies to objects as well as human, plant and animal bodies so there will be a time when something is so shot, it can't be fixed anymore, but most of the time, things could be brought back to service.

I'm in the same boat as you, someday if my ship comes in and I make 60K, 60K would be very rich to me, although it would be chump change to another.

I know myself, I do give a home to old electronic equipment (and cats too, I have eight cats), a lot of times for nothing. My father didn't want his 1963/64 Sony Tapecorder 600 and Sherwood stereo amp anymore so I have it. It is quite useful, plus if I use the 3.75 IPS setting and a long reel, I can tape a whole show of Rush, Hannity, Art Bell, Savage, etc., if I wanted to. KDKA is 85 years old this year and I like to tape the tribute and old clips they play when and if theyh ave it so it will come out again. I do have some reels of tape my parents used to tape off the TV in the 1960's, I have the "This is Barbara" (Streisand) CBS TV special from 1965 and a Frank Sinatra TV special from November of 1968.

Other stuff I have gotten was a Panasonic RA-6500 cassette and AM/FM stereo, 1970's vintage (there was an 8-Track version made too, the RA-6600 IIRC), a JVC JIL-S100 stereo receiver (1973 vintage), an FM only radio from KLH Laboratories called the KLH-21 (1967) that I use when I'm down in the cellar and want to listen to some Michael Savage. I still watch the same TV I did when I was in 10th grade in high school, a 1982 Zenith System 3 and would like to get my 1970 Zenith Chromacolor back into service. I still use my grandfather's 1953 Philco radio, I even saw a pic of my mother listening to it as she did her homework at that time. B-) Other things I like to score is old transistor radios, the crown jewel is a Magnavox 8-Transistor AM only radio from circa 1965 that I use a lot.

If you want a real trooper when it comes to this stuff, there is an amateur radio operator in his 90's (born in 1914) who I see driving around and he still yaks on the ham radio and drives at the same time. Last time he bought a new car was a 1964 Rambler American that he still drives to this day. I know someone else who drives a 1971 Ford LTD from when it was new and still drives it today.

I know what scarcity is, so like you, it drives me nuts when people think you have to have the newest things. My aunt is like that, she had to have the best in everything such as a color TV, a roundie, in the early 1960's, I think it could have been a CTC-14 from RCA. I have no problem with buying the newest and latest if you can afford it without going into dangerous debt and the family is fed and sheltered. I think that touches on the problems we have in society to when people get into trouble by trying to "keep up with the Joneses" by buying the latest things and getting into financial trouble. HDTV to me is not a lot different from the 1982 Zenith I watch, then again, it still has an excellent picture, although I plead guilty to being terminally nearsighted (-6 to -7 diopters). B-) I've also seen excellent picture quality on some of the old "roundies" too. 60K a year to me would be like Bill Gates. B-)

Everytime this comes up, I keep thinking of Polaraman's (on Audio Karma) story of picking up a 1989/90 vintage RCA ColorTrak put out to trash to fix up and when he got it home, it worked perfectly even though it was going to be tossed. Something is wrong with this picture, we are too wasteful as a society.

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.