There's an interesting article in this month's Atlantic by the notoriously pithy and unsentimental Sandra Tsing Loh called "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off." In it, she reveals that she is getting a divorce from her husband of 20 years, over an affair, but even more it seems, because the passion had just petered out of the marriage and Loh didn't feel inspired to work to get it back. She springs off from her own predicament, however, and examines this country's paradoxical relationship with marriage:
Americans hold two values at once: a culture of marriage and a culture of individualism. Or is it an American spirit of optimism wedded, if you will, to Tocquevillian spirit of restlessness that inspires three out of four Americans to say they believe marriage is for life, while only one in four agreed with the notion that even if a marriage is unhappy, one should stay put for the sake of the children. If America is a 'divorce culture,' it may be partly because we are a 'marriage culture,' since we both divorce and marry (a projected 90 percent of us) at some of the highest rates anywhere on the globe.
She goes on to explain how The-Marriage-Go-Round, Andrew J. Cherlin's new book, argues that it isn't divorce that's bad for kids, it's our constantly changing family dynamics. In other words, if one, two, or heck fifteen people raises a stable family, it doesn't matter whether they're married or divorced, just that they provide consistency. She explains, "Hence Cherlin's cautionary advice consists of two words--'Slow down'--his chief worry about our frenetic marriage-go-round being its negative impact on our children."
Setting Loh's TMI style aside, which I find kind of grating, I think that she touches on a lot of really important points in this piece--starting with her analysis of Cherlin's smart book. One of the reasons I've resisted marriage, besides solidarity with friends who can't legally participate in the institution (becoming more and more hazy), is this sense of hypocrisy. We pressure young people--especially women--to get married, then act shocked when they jump into promises they can't keep; the allure of being "princess for a day" and/or having the false security of a marriage certificate pushes so many people into marriages that won't last. Even worse, the disintegration of these marriages is framed as a failure, even when it's the best thing for everyone involved (including kids).
Where Loh and I part ways is in her analysis of changing gender roles and their effect on the longevity of people's marriages. In essence, she argues that husbands who cook and care take end up neglecting their wives' sexual needs, causing even more distance, leading to divorce. Of course this is based on her two best friends, not some sort of sample size, so it comes off as baseless albeit titillating. It also sounds eerily similar to a lot of anti-feminist blather. Part of why I like Loh is she's such a bold writer, unafraid of saying unpopular things. Part of why she annoys me is that she sometimes misses the wider context for her claims. In truth, men who take responsibility for raising their kids and cooking a meal now and again have happier wives and more functional marriages, as so many studies have proven.
We've been mulling over the idea of doing a forum on marriage here at feministing, since so many of us editors have different takes on the issue. Stay tuned for that...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A New Take on the Ol' Marriage Debate .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14375
Thanks so much for posting this Courtney. My friends (and mother) and I have been discussing Loh's article for the last 24 hours. We all have different things to say, both negative and positive on her thoughts, but at the end of the day, I think it really comes down to something you alluded to. We give young women this grand idea of the wedding day and the idea that you'll be in love with someone for the same way forever, etc. etc., but I just don't think that's fair. I don't think married people, as a sector of our society, will ever be happy until they start getting all the tools and information needed to communicate and evolve with one another.
I'll really look forward to the Feministing editor's marriage forum at some point.
And kudos to everyone on the party last week, it was so much fun! (Sidenote: can Feministing let us know how to get some video/cds for Saffire?! Their website is pretty sparse and they were wonderful!)
thank you for writing about this. I also had really mixed feelings about the article-on the one hand, I agree with her, the only definition of success for a marriage isn't being married til you both die. On the other, I quibble with exactly what you talk about. I think she explicitly says that power difference is sexy, and without that, marriages aren't as much fun. Which just, no, the times I've been least in the mood for sex are with the biggest power differential. want to try again?
okay, no, that was a summary that I saw somewhere else, not specifically Loh.
a marriage forum would be great! i'd love a parenting forum, too.
i for sure agree with the assertion that the collision of the culture of individualism and the marriage culture is responsible for increasing number of divorces. i, however, see this as a good thing. i know, in addition to many other socializing factors, kids are told that they can do anything they want to with their lives, that they can be anything they want to be. (whether or not this is true is a whole other can of worms, but the rhetoric starts early.) it makes sense that people, especially women, would then be quicker to get out of a bad marriage.
my grandfather's sister got married young, and divorced shortly thereafter because he beat her. my family wouldn't even *talk* about the divorce, and when she wanted to remarry, numerous churches wouldn't perform the ceremony. contrast to now, when there's the idea of the "starter marriage".
Thank you so much for a great article, Courtney! When people hear that I'm divorced (going on 12 years) they invariably say they are sorry and make "oh, poor you" faces. I got married way too young precisely because of these kinds of pressures and the divorce was the best thing that could have happened to me.
I couldn't agree more with this. Actually, I could-- I don't think it's stability that's the most important, but that your parent(s) are loving no matter what's going on. My parents divorced when I was 10 because my dad came out of the closet. They got remarried when I was 14-- to each other-- because my dad decided he still loved my mom and was really bi. My mom... well, I'm not sure what she decided, because it was (and still is) always my dad making the decisions. He was controlling and frequently abusive, and THAT was what made my childhood traumatic.
Yes! I am 22 years old and SO MANY people my age are engaged or getting married! And there is so much pressure, if not to be engaged or married, than to at least NOT be single. Sometimes I honestly don't think that some people realize that wedding vows say FOREVER (whether taken seriously or not) and that marriages are actually hard work. As a young person, I have so much I want to do before I enter into something as serious as marriage. A marriage forum would be wonderful!
I'm 25, and firmly with you. People get awfully defensive if you inquire as to how they can know what they'll want when they're 65. If I was benevolent dictator, there would be tax incentives or something to delay marriage until at least after 30...
If you become benevolent dictator by democratic process, I'll vote for you.
I'll take one of those tax incentives...
Thank you! I'm 23, and a number of my friends (most of whom aren't engaged....yet) have recently told me that the person they are currently dating is the person they are going to be with "forever".
...
I just don't understand how so many people my age can be talking about "settling down". I feel like we haven't even had time to be up yet. How can we settle down?
What do you mean by "I feel like we haven't even had time to be up yet. How can we settle down?" I think you mean, "I feel like I haven't even had time to be up yet." It's not your place to judge whether everyone else your age has lived enough yet to get married. I'm happy that you have decided to wait to get married and that is working for you, but please do not apply your feelings to everyone else.
I don't feel I was. I honestly feel that my age is too early to get married. I know other people don't agree with me, and that's fine. But, since I started the comment with "I feel," I think it's clear I'm talking about my own opinion, not anyone else's.
I'm with you on this one, ItsJustMe.
Why and how come is after 30 suddenly a recommendable age to wed? Trust me on this, 30 is not a magic time in one's life where she or he knows who their lifepartner should be. If someone is 30--it doesn't make them automatically more responsible within partnerships or nec mean that they have had "enough time to play around".
I resent the insinuation that if you're 30 and single you are a failure in life and there's something wrong with you. This 'its fine after 30' biz mos def adds to this mentality--makes it seem everyone SHOULD marry at or around that age.
If you haven't figure it out--I'm 30;)
Why, because you have decided this is what's best for everyone else? Please show me the research to back this up. Some research shows that couples married in their 20's are much happier than if they are married at 30+. Other research shows the opposite. The only thing currently agreed on is that getting married as a teenager is 2 to 3 more times likely to result in a divorce.
I have an even better idea, how about if you become a dictator you refuse to do what every other dictator before you has done and you don't apply your own personal beliefs to everyone else on personal matters?
I had exactly the same experience reading this article as you, Courtney. The opening section analyzing the issues with marriage was excellent. Then Loh kind of lost the thread and degenerated into a wistful reminisce about how wonderful the gender roles of yesteryear were. What I found particularly interesting was that many of the marriages she examined were just as sexist as the "traditional" 1950s-housewife type. Except instead of relegating the wife to "unimportant" duties, like housework, sex, and child-rearing, the man in question does everything himself because his wife, being a mere female, can't do anything right.
Contrary to her longing for Real Manly Men, I think the solution is less traditional gender roles.
I could not agree with you more, npilon.myopenid.com. Marriage, historically, has actually been able to encompass the binding together of two AND leaving individualism intact for men. This part still lingers, if not in law and practice, then in emotion and commitment, in too many instances. Traditional marriage is the message that the woman surrenders all of her identity, rights, and independence to marriage, and the man remains an individual whose sole purpose is to "provide." That's why battery and rape in marriage were ignored for years. A man was a good husband so long as he "provided." There was no emotional demand on men, even though some individual men really did love their wives and treat their children and wives well. It was not expected. Marriage cannot keep its ability to do the both / and with merging two and maintaining independence when both people want both things. That's why a new kind of thing is just a really good friendship with the legal extras of health benefits-- traditional marriage is a total set up for women.
Yes, marriage forum, please! It's been heavy on my mind lately, and the more I ignore it, the louder my lack of resolve around the issue becomes.
I am please to report I am in a pretty egalitarian, happy, fulfilling childfree (for the moment) marriage. We've been married 4 years but together for the better part of a decade, most of which has been spent living together. I am still crazy in love with him. And yet, who knows what it would take to unravel us? I like to think nothing. But who knows?
It's a crap shoot. However, I felt bitterness and sadness all over that article. It wasn't so much an argument against marriage as it was someone very disappointed with how their own life has turned out and using limited, anecdotal evidence to make a pretty damning argument against marriages where the child rearing and housekeeping is divided. I think that's a tricky and dangerous argument to make.
I'm all for a marriage forum.
I don't know -- something else bugged me about that article. I felt like that article was about life excesses and self-inflicted and unnecessary chaos more that it was about relationships.
Yeah, I'm talking in part about a certain level of financial privilege---obviously if you are scraping to get by you are not living a life of excess, but your life may still be be complicated and stressful in other ways.
I sat through 2 articles (there was another one there about sexless marriages from 2003) and they just made my brain hurt with all of the details of material life.
How much unhappiness in these articles is based on the sort of middle-to-upper class (or aspiring to be) "have it all", keeping up with the Joneses lifestyle that has become so ubiquitous? I don't know. I mean I've done my fair share of traveling and people can be pretty darn content and mellow with a lot less shit that we Americans act like it takes us to be content--of course, the kicker is we don't seem all that content.
And I'm not saying it's anymore rosy anywhere else or that other cultures don't divorce and have affairs, lol. It's just well, different.
So I wonder: Our mantra of work-work-work and then spend-spend-spend might be good for the economy, but is it conducive for long-term committed partnerships? Are people really telling me that the wasteful excesses -- of which we are now legendary -- and the resultant chaos doesn't squash desire? I mean to me this seems more of an obvious source of marital stress and loss of desire than your husband doing chores or whatever the argument was.
Very insightful response, and I agree about the materialism/excess. People get so caught up in their things and their hobbies and the chaos of consumerism that they often lose sight of the "important" things.
I completely agree. Marriage and/or money (stuff) don't guarantee happiness at all.
Thanks! I was so happy to read your post. I interpreted the article as being against the idea of the married couple with children, not against marriage, whether that was the intent or not. It seemed that having children negatively impacted the couple's frequency of sex, their energy, socializing with friends, and having time for themselves. Everyone felt overworked and under appreciated. I think the idea that you can be anyting you want to be in America is kind of in conflict with the idea of being everything your kids want, and everything you think society expects from you as a parent.
For an interesting and intellectually-stimulating read about marriage politics and the restructuring of American relationships, check out Nancy Polikoff's book: Beyond (straight and gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law.
http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1867
She is an incredible and accomplished scholar and her book sheds light on the deconstruction of marriage in a way I have never seen before. Great conversation starter...!
Another great read on this subject is Against Love: A Polemic, which basically questions the whole premise of domestic couplehood, married or not. I've been telling all of my single and coupled friends to read it--whether you agree with it or not, it's a great opportunity to question so many of the things that so many people take for granted about "love," monogamy, and relationships.
If everybody in the us would stop to marry, how exactly would that be bad ?
stop to marry? huh? you could be onto something, but I'm confused. stop what to marry?
This is all pretty interesting. I'd love to see a marriage forum. It's a bit of a debate with my friends/family. I'm Canadian, and have been married (to another woman) for almost 3 years, we've been together for 6.5 years now - I'm 28. I have a lot of what some might say are conflicting thoughts about marriage - I don't think marriage has to be monogamous, or last forever, or that everyone should get married or be in serious relationships. But I still decided to get married - we tried to make it clear what our opinions are in our vows, without being too preachy (ie. no mention of 'forevers' or obeying or 'forsaking all others' anything like that...lots of talk about the importance of community, etc), and I do get a kick out of referring to my partner as 'my wife'. We got married for a whole bunch of reasons, including legal reasons. We decided to have a big (well, 75 people) wedding, and it was actually super fun (thankfully, we didn't deal with too much family pressure, so we were able to make it what we wanted to...I've heard/seen horror stories from friends with parents who take things over...sigh). We had a blast - having a big party for all of our friends and family - we live in a small place so we aren't even really able to have many people over. And it was honestly insanely special to me, to have both of my parents there, because it was a long journey for them to accept me as a queer woman.
I'm all over the place here, so I'm going to stop now.
Why is this even a debate?
People get married because they want to.
People get divorced because they want to.
There is nothing wrong with marriage.
There is nothing wrong with divorce.
(Yes, I know people get pressured in marriage and tormented into divorce and every one of these acts can be an emotional and financial landmine - but so can business partnership or buying property or... any one of a thousand things we try to work out with other people. The problem isn't the action - it's the other people!)
Marriage gets a special place in our angst list because of "the children" but this makes no sense. People can have children regardless of married (or divorced) status.
I personally would be just as happy to forget both marriage and divorce, but as long as these exist? (And I do know that there are positive aspects to the institution of marriage. People do chose it for real reasons.) I have no problem with people getting married as often as makes them happy. I also have no problem with those same people getting UN-married when being married is no longer working for them. If anything, making the shift of state easier, more accepted, and more acceptable should mean people change faster and thus spend more time in the state that makes them happiest.
Emotionally abusing people? Extorting people? Throwing parties you can't afford? Those are bad ideas with or without state paper - but they are also a separate issue.
Right on Courtney! My fav lines are these:
"To a certain extent, men today may have more clarity about what it takes to raise children in the modern age. They don’t, for instance, have today’s working mother’s ambivalence and emotional stickiness." Really??
I can't see past a lot of the classism and materialism located within the article. Nannies. Kitchens modeled after Tuscany. My guess is that money can't buy me love...or at least not a lifetime commitment.
I would also love to see a marriage forum on this site. I am divorced because marriage just isn't for me. I am not monogamous and I like my privacy. I thought I was the only woman who felt this way. I think that some women throughout history have probably felt this way too, but were too afraid to admit it.