Marriage and modern womanhood

[johan]

:laugh:

 

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

 

I don't know why it should be centered on the concept of submission. Not that much anyway. There are other aspects I would be focused on. Like easy sex and a clean kitchen.

[Ariadne]

(Btw, I just asked my mom, my grandma had 11 children and died at 90)

[Storyrider]

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.

 

I actually agree with you that this is one example of the negative fall out from "women's liberation". Abortion actually cuts both ways. Men don't have to worry so much about the consequences of using women so long as abortion is available. Then again being "abandoned" by a man isn't as life shattering now that women can support themselves.

 

 

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.

 

Your grandmother sounds like a great woman. She also had the advantage of relatively modern healthcare, which helps a lot.

 

Do you think everyone would be happy with 11 children, though? I think I would end up in a straitjacket.

[johan]

(Btw, I just asked my mom, my grandma had 90 children and died at 11)

 

Are you sure?

[melodymatters]

I don't know story, I am very pro marriage, but somehow I always end up with men for whom I have to be the primary breadwinner. I think this is in part because I am attracted to exteremly warm, open, non controlling men, and those guys aren't exactly running a fortune 400 corporation.

 

I've never looked at marriage as a finacial deal though. I wanted the person who was best at giving and recieving love. To me thats the primary role of a "love" relationship. If I wanted money, I'd form a business partnership with the shrewdish man or woman I know.

 

So in my case, if I "submitted" we'd be living in carboard boxes.

 

If I submitted in my first marriage, either I or my child might be dead, due to his, aqquired after marriage, alcohol and drug problems and the violence they wrought. AND I wouldn't have been able to get a job !

 

I've heard of great aunts and such, who had to take their children and walk the streets or hide them, so they wouldn't get hurt.

 

The olden days weren't so great, and as a natural alpha female, it only makes SENSE for me to be the head of household in most cases. As long as my partner does the other half of what makes a relationship work, so that I'm not resentful about having to do everything, I think this way is MUCH more " evolved"

[Ariadne]

Are you sure?

 

Haha nevermind.

[Storyrider]

Thanks Mel. Yes, that was definitely a problem in the past, that the men weren't worthy of their roles and frucked it up. I think that was a big cause of the women's movement in the late 60s. Men were absent or cheating or mean, and women had had enough and figured they could do a better job themselves.

 

And I understand what you're saying about the breadwinner stuff.

 

By submission, though, I'm also talking about a spiritual and emotional attitude towards the other person, where your personal desires are subsumed to the needs of the marriage and family.

[You'reasian]

Do you think everyone would be happy with 11 children, though? I think I would end up in a straitjacket.

 

That sounds tough!

 

But most women whom have 11 kids are probably tough too.

 

Why not have 1-2 kids and just 'practice' making 1,000s of others?

[anne1707]

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.

 

 

More hunter/gatherer than income provider.

 

 

 

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.

 

Define modern. Is that the last 50 years or the last 2,000 years?

 

 

What if the main thing that held marriages together up to this point was female dependency?

 

 

The main thing that held marriage together was survival. A woman would have to have many children to hopefully guarantee that some would survive to adulthood. Life expectancy for those who survived childhood was significantly lower. e.g. 25, hence marriages did not last 40 years plus. Marriages were for 10 years or so hence affairs/divorce etc was not an option for the overwhelming majority. To say marriage does not work only really applies to the last 50 years or so as it has worked for 1000s of years.

 

However it does still leave us with what next for marriage? It is not as simple to say that it is because women want an equal say. There are other factors. E.g. the 50 year old man will have an affair with a 30 year old woman because she is fertile (reproduction being a basic human need). Or a woman will have an affair with her boss because he is a better provider (i.e. hunter/gatherer) than her husband.

[You'reasian]

 

By submission, though, I'm also talking about a spiritual and emotional attitude towards the other person, where your personal desires are subsumed to the needs of the marriage and family.

 

I think you need external assistance keeping each other responsible for each others happiness to suppliment the motivation each of you has to be a good partner for the other.

 

It could come from one's religion, or from both families.

[Storyrider]

Hi Anne,

 

Yes, I meant the last 50 years. I'd say reproduction is a drive more than a need, but I get your point.

 

I agree that there isn't one simple cause for the weakening of marriage.

 

I do wonder about the assumptions people have had traditionally about why we're here, what life is all about, and whether those assumptions work any more.

 

I don't believe life is all about reproduction and I don't think most modern people do, but for thousands of years, as you say, that was indeed the case.

[fral945]

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

 

You've hit the nail on the head there. The modern adaptation is a far cry from how cultures originally created it. I've read a few books on the history of marriage. From what I can tell, the only purpose of marriage that has been common to all cultures throughout history has been:

 

1) Creating and/or keeping family ties

2) Having children

 

You could argue women being submissive has something to do with it, but marriage has changed in so many other ways; submission is only one part of it. I would say the biggest factors are:

 

1) Increased expectations & standards - people want love, sexual and emotional compatibility, and a whole host of other things. In the past, the individuals in the marriage had less say over what they wanted (i.e., see arranged marriages). It was more about what was best for society. Now it is more about what is best for each individual.

2) Increased independence (especially with regards to women) - Women can now support themselves and get out of bad marriages if they choose to do so. Divorce is a viable option nowadays and not as stigmatized

3) Increased lifespans - Remember the phrase "until death do us part?" That was much more apparent when women died in childbirth and men died at war, or a partner died of what we would consider mild conditions now (i.e., diarrhea). Now we can live with partners 50+ years. Lifespans have increased dramatically just in the past 100 years.

4) Increased options available - we live in a more global world, so we have access to more people and we see now there are more and better options available that the girl or boy next door. Why settle when there is always someone better around the corner?

 

Basically, one of my core beliefs is that human beings are insatiable and selfish by nature (i.e., we have to be taught unselfishness and to accept certain things). That is exactly how capitalism succeeds, it feeds on the human being's insatiability and selfishness, their constant desire for more and better. But applying this selfish view to an institution like marriage (which is reliant on interdependency) is doomed to fail. We are more individualistic and less interdependent now, and that is showing in our relationships. I think it is a bigger reflection of society as a whole.

[Storyrider]

Hi fral. Those are all excellent points.

 

Do you think that one reason the Religious Right has become so much more vocal is to try and stop the slide away from these traditions, as individuals find fewer and fewer reasons to stick with marriage?

 

Marriage is still far and away the best thing for children, obviously, which is the best thing it has going for it.

[anne1707]

Hi Anne,

 

Yes, I meant the last 50 years. I'd say reproduction is a drive more than a need, but I get your point.

 

I agree that there isn't one simple cause for the weakening of marriage.

 

I do wonder about the assumptions people have had traditionally about why we're here, what life is all about, and whether those assumptions work any more.

 

I don't believe life is all about reproduction and I don't think most modern people do, but for thousands of years, as you say, that was indeed the case.

 

But those drives have been there for 1000s of years and are still with us at a sub-conscious level. So even if we do not consciously think, we sub-consciously act.

[melodymatters]

[quote=Storyrider;1980385

 

By submission, though, I'm also talking about a spiritual and emotional attitude towards the other person, where your personal desires are subsumed to the needs of the marriage and family.

 

I think this, as Tony T said ( either in this thread or another) is the KEY to why marriages work, or don't. I personally don't like even the word submission unless used in dog training, but yes, if you want a marriage and family, the "Teams needs", need to come before your personal ones.

 

So, think carefully folks !

[Trialbyfire]

Sexless marriages aren't a recent development. They happened in the past. This usually meant that one or both partners found affair partners. The only difference is that divorce is now a relatively unstigmatized option, one I gladly embraced.

 

As for submission being necessary within a marriage, I couldn't disagree more. I hate that word, be it applied to men or women. Compromise isn't submission. Unselfishness isn't submission.

[Storyrider]

Words have a strong effect on me, so distinguishing the difference between compromise and submission is important.

 

I'm all about compromise and cooperation, but submission I cannot do.

 

I still think religion is largely about submission. That is why Marx called it the opiate of the people, because he wanted them to submit to Marxism instead!

[Trialbyfire]

Sexless marriages aren't a recent development. They happened in the past. This usually meant that one or both partners found affair partners. The only difference is that divorce is now a relatively unstigmatized option, one I gladly embraced.

Oops, I should clarify that my ex-marriage was far from sexless. Just that my ex cheated anyways and divorce gave me the out.

[Storyrider]

Sexless marriages aren't a recent development. They happened in the past. This usually meant that one or both partners found affair partners. The only difference is that divorce is now a relatively unstigmatized option, one I gladly embraced.

 

As for submission being necessary within a marriage, I couldn't disagree more. I hate that word, be it applied to men or women. Compromise isn't submission. Unselfishness isn't submission.

 

I can't help but wonder about several LS posters in marriages (including mine) where religion is primary in the household, the man sees himself as the traditional head of household and the marriage is sexless due to reticence from the wife.

 

I wonder how this relates to the idea that religion presents marriage as an act of submission to God and the spouse. Perhaps one of the parties is balking.

[fral945]

Hi fral. Those are all excellent points.

 

Do you think that one reason the Religious Right has become so much more vocal is to try and stop the slide away from these traditions, as individuals find fewer and fewer reasons to stick with marriage?

 

Marriage is still far and away the best thing for children, obviously, which is the best thing it has going for it.

 

I'm not sure. I think the religious right (i.e., conservatives) are more scared of the unknown. The definition of a conservative, after all, is someone who is resistant to change.

 

I agree, a good marriage with a mother and father is probably the best thing for kids. I had that growing up and I feel lucky. I have to admit, though, I'm starting to wonder. Since marriages are failing so much, maybe the most important thing is to ensure that every child has a strong male and strong female role model. If it's the actual parents that would be best, but it could be a grandfather, teacher, family friend, etc.

[Storyrider]

It is tricky to change standards to fit what individuals are choosing. I often think it is best to maintain a higher standard than most can acheive.

 

I wonder though, also based on what Anne said, whether our value of 50+ year marriages is misplaced. Not sure what the value is, necessarily of something lasting a long time that is unsatisfying to one or both parties. Kind of like in years gone by, someone staying at the same job for 50 years was honored, whereas now they'd be viewed as a lunatic.

[fral945]

I wonder how this relates to the idea that religion presents marriage as an act of submission to God and the spouse. Perhaps one of the parties is balking.

 

I think there is a correlation between the decline of religiosity among highly industrial societies and the decline of marriage in those same societies. After all, many of the most compelling reasons to get married are religious. For those non-religious (like myself) there are no real compelling reasons to get married. The risk is greater than the reward.

[Storyrider]

I think there is a correlation between the decline of religiosity among highly industrial societies and the decline of marriage in those same societies. After all, many of the most compelling reasons to get married are religious. For those non-religious (like myself) there are no real compelling reasons to get married. The risk is greater than the reward.

Kids are the main reason, as well as having someone to depend on in hard times.

[fral945]

Kids are the main reason, as well as having someone to depend on in hard times.

 

Kids I would agree with. But there are more and more couples nowadays who don't want to have kids. And the most developed societies (see Western Europe) have more safety nets and basically take care of you from cradle to grave.

[Storyrider]

Kids I would agree with. But there are more and more couples nowadays who don't want to have kids. And the most developed societies (see Western Europe) have more safety nets and basically take care of you from cradle to grave.

Good points. Someone should start a poll thread asking people their reasons for wanting to get married. I'm curious what the answers will be.