Marriage and modern womanhood

[Storyrider]

Lets face it, for most of the history of marriage, women were dependent on and obedient to men.

 

Marriage was never intended to be an equal partnership, but was founded on the premise that men provide income acting as head of household while women bear and raise children.

 

We've tried to update that concept over time so that it conforms with modern sensibilities and men and women are equal partners.

 

But many of the problems in modern marriages would never have come about, if women were still dependent on men and had to do what we're told. Without having the superiority card to play, there isn't much a man can do when women, for example, don't want to have sex. Marriage never had to involve compromise in the past because women didn't have an equal say.

 

Nowadays, modern culture tells us that women do have an equal say.

 

I wonder lately whether marriage is ultimately compatible with female autonomy. What if the main thing that held marriages together up to this point was female dependency?

[Storyrider]

Let me ammend to say "marriage never had to hinge on compromise". Of course, compromise was always a factor. But someone was ultimately in charge.

[johan]

This is an argument in favor of partial de-evolution. We'll become like animals, such as the mountain lion. Essentially individuals, except we'll pair up when it amuses us. Then when the babies are born or the amusement has passed, we'll split up. Nothing long-term. Those incapable of "pairing up" occasionally will be left out of the future gene pool.

 

You can't tell a female cougar from a male just by looking. Same goes for polar bears, grizzlies, etc. That's what we'll become. Indistinguishable.

[Ariadne]

for most of the history of marriage, women were dependent on and obedient to men... Without having the superiority card to play, there isn't much a man can do

 

This is only an illusion.

 

Ask any man who is the boss.

 

Women have been ruling since the beginning of time and men just worked for them.

[Storyrider]

This is an argument in favor of partial de-evolution. We'll become like animals, such as the mountain lion. Essentially individuals, except we'll pair up when it amuses us. Then when the babies are born or the amusement has passed, we'll split up. Nothing long-term. Those incapable of "pairing up" occasionally will be left out of the future gene pool.

 

You can't tell a female cougar from a male just by looking. Same goes for polar bears, grizzlies, etc. That's what we'll become. Indistinguishable.

 

So when you use the term de-evolution, are you saying this is a step in the wrong direction? If so, how would you solve it? Should we go back to more traditional sex roles?

[johan]

So when you use the term de-evolution, are you saying this is a step in the wrong direction?

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Just more animalistic in some ways. Maybe it's for the better.

 

How would I solve it? We'll I don't know what's better. I'm not sure I want a dependent wife and kids hanging around making me feel like I'm just repeating the lifestyle of generations before me. I wouldn't refer to that as de-evolution, but more as stagnation.

 

What I would probably try to solve is the heartache that comes from expecting something different. Sometimes society changes faster than the people in it.

[Storyrider]

This is only an illusion.

 

Ask any man who is the boss.

 

Women have been ruling since the beginning of time and men just worked for them.

 

I see what you're saying, but this may just fuel my argument. Women's power in the past was through things like sex, influence within the household, influence over the children, etc.

 

But we didn't have the vote, we couldn't bring in a substantial income, we couldn't have sex without risking pregnancy.

 

Now that we have all those things we don't need to rule the roost anymore. We can just go off and get our own roost if we want.

 

I think marriage was based on those dependencies and based on women needing a man.

[Storyrider]

What if women really are intended to be subordinate to men? My ego and desire for freedom makes me want to reject the idea out of hand, but then, things seemed to run more smoothly for society for so long as that was the case.

[johan]

What if women really are intended to be subordinate to men?

 

Where would you find out whether this is true?

 

My ego and desire for freedom makes me want to reject the idea out of hand, but then, things seemed to run more smoothly for society for so long as that was the case.

 

In some ways it was better. Maybe in Ward Cleaver's household. If you visited a dysfunctional, abusive household in the 50's run by a domineering, deadbeat "father" then you would think it would be better if women could provide for themselves and weren't dependent on men. People idealize the way things were too much. There were not fewer frustrations then. There wasn't more happiness. People didn't live as long, were not as healthy, had fewer resources.

 

People are wired to never appreciate what they have too much, but to always think something different would be better. I used to think this was an argument against Heaven, because we'd all end up resenting the guy on the highest or whitest cloud with the nicest harp, or whatever.

[Tony T]

I wonder lately whether marriage is ultimately compatible with female autonomy. What if the main thing that held marriages together up to this point was female dependency?

 

The question should probably be: Is the person, male or female, compatible with the modern requirements of matrimony? The answer is not many are.

 

Fact is, marriage absolutely requires two people who are unselfish, open-minded, flexible in thinking, kind, considerate, thoughtful, forgiving, not given to string out disagreements into five-course meals, etc. People with those qualities are rare.

 

Marriage, like life itself, is ever changing. People are ever changing. If the individual is not mature and flexible enough to mesh into the current marriage landscape, it just won't work. That's why great marriages are rare and many struggle through their lives in quiet desperation. It doesn't have to be that way. Selfishness is a DECISION that people make. If they just decide on some give and take...to accommodate each other to help make each others' lives a lot easier...marriage would be a piece of cake.

 

I think cats and dogs work harder at making life easier for their owners than individuals do in making life easier for their partners.

[Tony T]

People are wired to never appreciate what they have too much, but to always think something different would be better.

 

So very true...and I think this is a part of human nature that will never change. Find a person who appreciates all the good out there...all the things that flow to him or her...and you will find a very happy person.

[johan]

Find a person who appreciates all the good out there...all the things that flow to him or her...and you will find a very happy person.

 

You should be able to find such a person in the loony bin. Outside the loony bin, you should only be able to find such a person on their way to the loony bin.

[Storyrider]

Where would you find out whether this is true?

 

Good question. I don't know--I guess it would have to be a matter of faith, which is why I put this under religion.

 

It seems to me, in a world where women are as capable as men in most things, religion would be the only way to keep women believing this. In fact, traditional religious practice seems to hold this as a premise, subtly if not overtly. It is just not practical to put the genie back in the bottle, though. And I don't think most women would want to.

 

 

In some ways it was better. Maybe in Ward Cleaver's household. If you visited a dysfunctional, abusive household in the 50's run by a domineering, deadbeat "father" then you would think it would be better if women could provide for themselves and weren't dependent on men. People idealize the way things were too much. There were not fewer frustrations then. There wasn't more happiness. People didn't live as long, were not as healthy, had fewer resources.

 

When my H was interviewing for his job here, he was asked to sign papers swearing his allegiance to the Church. When we were invited to eat dinner at the home of some prospective colleagues, I remember wondering whether my being Jewish might be a red flag to them.

 

With this concern in mind (and unprompted by my H) I made a comment to the effect that he was the spiritual head of our household, and that although I was Jewish, I always deferred to him in spiritual matters when it came to the kids, etc.

 

Five years later, I couldn't say the same thing. I'd rather have the freedom to formulate my own opinions on things. But part of me wonders if it is just my ego.

 

This couple who hosted us for dinner that night have a mentally retarded child who is now ten. This child has severe problems and always will. I marvel at the woman's ability to handle the hardships of this, as I know it is more than I could ever or would ever want to handle. But she doesn't really have a choice. This was the lot she was given and so she's handled it with grace.

 

I just wonder whether our rejecting of standard female sex roles is analogous. That being female is the lot we've been given, and we're trying to reject what it means to be female because we're selfish.

 

It seems like religion is all about submission. Submission to the will of God, knowing that His plans for you won't always match up with your own dreams and plans.

 

I don't want to believe that, because I want to be free. But I'm afraid it is true.

[Ariadne]

we didn't have the vote, we couldn't bring in a substantial income...Now that we have all those things we don't need...I think marriage was based on those dependencies and based on women needing a man.

 

Yes, now women can go and work for some 9 to 10 hours a day and support themselves and not have any children.

[Storyrider]

And then again, I think my husband would say that marriage is an act of submission to each other.

 

Maybe my problem is that I don't want to submit and I don't want someone to submit to me.

[You'reasian]

Nowadays, modern culture tells us that women do have an equal say.

 

I wonder lately whether marriage is ultimately compatible with female autonomy. What if the main thing that held marriages together up to this point was female dependency?

 

I think there's an interdependency between a man and a woman that needs to happen since women and men are almost equal.

 

Women haven't quite reached parity in terms of income, but have equal access to opportunities and are also chosen in leadership (corporations, non for profit etc).

 

The interdependency means that we need to be able to work and operate on our own, but we still love, care, take care of and need each other. Trust and respect have to be there - and if you can get that, then you could be apart for work or whatever and still have a burning desire to be together and want each other.

[Storyrider]

Yes, now women can go and work for some 9 to 10 hours a day and support themselves and not have any children.

 

Not necessarily an improvement, I know, to go sit in a cubicle 9 hours a day. This goes back to what johan was saying about envying what others have. But women should still have the freedom to choose what they want, whereas before it wasn't an option.

[johan]

But women should still have the freedom to choose what they want, whereas before it wasn't an option.

 

They could choose the curtains and the wallpaper.

[Storyrider]

They could choose the curtains and the wallpaper.

 

:laugh:

 

Do you think marriage is about each person submitting to the other?

[Ariadne]

But women should still have the freedom to choose what they want, whereas before it wasn't an option.

 

Women always had that freedom but they didn´t buy it.

 

The most important thing for women back in time was to marry well, and to do so as soon as possible and have children.

 

Because they knew that the longer they waited the men would be taken away (at least the good ones) their looks would fade (what men want the most) and the children bearing age would pass.

 

To be a spinster was not an option but a disgrace. Still they managed if they had to, they lived with their mothers, worked, etc.

[Storyrider]

Women always had that freedom but they didn´t buy it.

 

The most important thing for women back in time was to marry well, and to do so as soon as possible and have children.

 

Because they knew that the longer they waited the men would be taken away (at least the good ones) their looks would fade (what men want the most) and the children bearing age would pass.

 

To be a spinster was not an option but a disgrace. Still they managed if they had to, they lived with their mothers, worked, etc.

 

Exactly! The most important thing a woman could do up until recently was attract a good man. Later, after she had about eight kids, she would die in childbirth or from exhaustion anyway, so it wasn't as though she was worried about a career.

[Ariadne]

Btw,

 

One other result of this "women liberation" movement, is that men don´t want to have any responsibility/commitment whatsoever.

 

And if they ever have something resembling a relationship, they expect you to pay your way.

 

That is not an option anymore.

[You'reasian]

 

Do you think marriage is about each person submitting to the other?

 

Well, its certainly not best suited when you spend time arguing - marriage is afterall a relationship and you want to care for and love the woman you are with.

 

You have to be able to compromise from time to time, communicate etc.

[Ariadne]

Exactly! The most important thing a woman could do up until recently was attract a good man. Later, after she had about eight kids, she would die in childbirth or from exhaustion anyway, so it wasn't as though she was worried about a career.

 

They had all those many kids because they could.

 

They had all the time in the world to nurture them.

 

My grandmother had 11 children and died at 83.

[Storyrider]

Well, its certainly not best suited when you spend time arguing - marriage is afterall a relationship and you want to care for and love the woman you are with.

 

You have to be able to compromise from time to time, communicate etc.

 

I know, but there is a difference between being both independent and interdependent with your spouse, and the idea of submission, or mutual submission.