Domesticity – Page 6

The Revolution That Wasn’t

Surprise, surprise: The opt-out revolution is bunk.

Yale University’s Women’s Center released a survey last week finding that just 4.1 percent of Yale women plan to stop work entirely after having children, compared to 0.7 percent of men. A vast majority of women — 71.8 percent — reported they would take less than one year off work after their children were born.

Four percent does not a revolution make. via Feministing.

Defending Marriage

And by “marriage,” we actually mean “the right to beat the shit out of your partner.”

When a raft of state defense of marriage amendments (DOMAs) passed in 2004, observers (including yours truly) warned that such amendments would not just ban gay marriage but also imperil domestic partnership agreements, next-of-kin arrangements and domestic violence protections for unmarried people. Right-wing backers dismissed such concerns as left-liberal paranoia. Well, I normally love to say “I told you so,” but in this case it brings me no pleasure. Nonetheless, I told you so.

Ohio was one of 11 states to pass DOMAs in 2004, and pundits alleged then that “State Issue No. 1,” as it was called on the ballot, played a major role in John Kerry’s defeat. Whatever the case may be (and let’s hope the ballots are still around to see), one immediate fallout is clear: domestic violence protections for unmarried women.

In late August, Ohio’s Citizens for Community Values (CCV), a right-wing organization devoted to promoting “Judeo-Christian moral values,” filed an amicus brief on behalf of an alleged domestic abuser. For the past 25 years, Ohio’s domestic violence law has covered married couples as well as unmarried and divorced individuals. According to CCV, such protections run afoul of Ohio’s DOMA, which bars the state from recognizing any legal status for unmarried people that “intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” If CCV has their way, “persons living as a spouse” (i.e. unmarried, live-in partners) would no longer be protected under Ohio’s domestic violence statute. Apparently, it’s more important for CCV to preserve the distinction between married and unmarried couples (and pre-empt gay marriage) than it is to prosecute domestic abusers. So much for Judeo-Christian values…

Is anyone actually surprised?

What These Guys Are Really Afraid Of

The Forbes story that won’t die (not to mention the lame efforts by Forbes to send the story — and an earlier one by the same author that began, “Wife or whore?” — down the memory hole) are given the Rebecca Traister treatment here.

Traister hits on something that I wanted to address yesterday when I read Jill’s piece below and then about how money affects divorce rates: these retrograde articles trying to push women back into the kitchen and get them married and pregnant and keep them that way are motivated by one thing: fear.

Not Getting It

Slate’s defense of that Forbes article: It’s gender-neutral, we swear!

The blogs entries collected by Technorati accuse Forbes of culling the academic literature for fodder that will shove women back into the kitchen; send them back to the 1950s; and force them to put their buns in the oven and get their buns in bed.

But I’ve yet to read a blog item or a protesting e-mail from a reader that convinces me that the article—as opposed to the deliberately provocative headline—really insults women, career or otherwise.

Point one: The headline. “Don’t marry a career woman” sounds fairly insulting to career women — it says that there’s something sufficiently wrong with them to avoid marriage. If the article were titled, for example, “Don’t marry Jack Shafer,” I could see why Jack Shafer would find it insulting, even if the reasons given for not marrying Jack Shafer could apply to all Slate employees, or all journalists, or all people.

Some of the sensational findings presented in the Forbes piece appear to be gender-neutral and hence don’t bait feminists at all. For instance, Noer holds that the literature indicates that “highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex,” and “individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.” So, if career women are bad marriage bets, so are career men. It’s a wash.

Well, no. Because the article wasn’t about how career people are bad marriage bets. It was specifically about how career women are bad marriage bets, even if the reasons that it gave to support that assertion could be applied just as easily to men. I would even argue that the fact that the statistics behind the author’s assumptions are applicable to working people in general underlies feminists’ point that the article is deeply sexist — the writer takes what are often gender-neutral findings and applies them only to women, as evidence for why men should avoid us. That does bait feminists, and it is misogynist.

Noer also cautions against marrying career women because it’s “financially devastating.” “[D]ivorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.” But if your overall net worth is going to drop an average of 77 percent, wouldn’t you want your net worth to be higher, which it could be if you marry a career woman, as opposed lower with a non-career woman?

Um, yeah. But he uses that as another reason why you shouldn’t marry a career woman. And this is where Shafer misses the boat through the rest of his piece. He’s making a lot of the same arguments that feminists are — that the Forbes article sites studies that could be interpreted in lots of different ways, and that the reasons they give for not marrying career women aren’t very good at all. Shafter seems to think that this somehow delegitimizes feminist anger over the piece, when in fact feminists are angry because it’s yet another article that reinstates traditional gender roles and seeks to remind us that if we’re successful or employed or at all independent, men won’t want us. It emphasizes the idea that male approval is the most important goal for women. And it takes, as Shafer points out, relatively gender-neutral observations and uses them as weapons against women in particular. That’s why it’s sexist, and that’s why we’re angry.

I’m also irritated at Shafer’s condescending tone and use of the word “careerist,” but that’s another matter. I should probably stop typing now, as I wouldn’t want to break a nail.

Why You Should Marry a Doormat*

Or, Forbes explains why smart men everywhere** should avoid those nasty career women.

1. You are less likely to get married to her.

And I thought that men were marriage-phobic and had to be corralled into the chapel. So wouldn’t this be a reason to date career women? We’re mixing up our masculine stereotypes here, folks, and it’s just not right.

Forbes is quick to note (in the last line) that the opposite may be true for black women — that having higher earnings and more working hours translate into easier marriagability. But, you know, black women don’t really count, so we can discount them in the headline and the rest of the article.

2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.

Women’s work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men’s work hours often have no statistical effect. “I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed,” Johnson said.

From the Special Moderation Queue

MRA edition. This one’s just so perfect, because it hits every! single! point! in the MRA agenda.

I have no problem with women working. Although I do have a problem with paying child support and alimony to ex-wives that no longer put out, or do anything for their ex husbands. It is a waste when that money should go to support the new children and wife in the next relationship. Children should automatically go to the father, and our famous feminist bitches would figure out a way to save the marriage. Perhaps she would cook more, put out more, do the duties of a good wife, more, etc.

Nowadays having the children go to those who can least afford it, is, well a complete disaster. Men are being treated like sperm donors and wallets, I’m sick of it. I want a bitch that is loyal to me, and the family. Not a woman that just needs a sperm donor, or a wallet. To me that is heartless, despite the fact said behavior happens with reckless abandon.

I just can’t imagine why his wife left him.

Though he does lack a certain flair. But maybe our friend who wanted to cut off feminists’ “tittes” set too high a bar.

Pressure To Marry

I’ve been in a solid relationship for about two years now and I’m finding that Chef and I are under considerable pressure to marry. It began awhile back when we talked about the possibility a few times and we discussed our discussions with various folks, never meaning it to take on more weight than, “We talked about the possibility of this a few times.” Suddenly everyone began to freak out, get moony-eyed or squinty-eyed skeptical, and ask when it was going to happen. When? Is it time yet? Yes? Are you guys going to do this? Why the hell are you guys going to do this? My folks began to prod, and his began to plan for grandbabies, and all of a sudden this weird het-marriage-excitement-beast was out of our control, dragging 1000-page bridal magazines behind its vintage white stretch limo (tasteful, of course, not gaudy). Needless to say, it has added stress to the relationship that just doesn’t belong.

I had been pressured to marry once, to Ethan’s dad during and after my pregnancy, and I believe both of us are glad that never happened. I have a first-generation Chinese-American friend who was told she would be disowned by her folks if she married someone outside of her race, and have watched friends in interracial relationships grapple with the pressure not to marry, “for the kids,” of course. One of my single mom friends noted that her pressure to marry was based on the supposed illigitimacy of everything she did that didn’t have a man attached — and once she got engaged she found that she was on the receiving end of some serious esteem. And resented it. A divorced friend expressed frustration at being expected to date and remarry stat before the social ruin kicked in. My old boss used to complain about his mother constantly asking why he never brought anyone home with him anymore, which was based completely on her frantic questions about whether or not this date was The One. Many people are irritated that they are seen as defective or *gasp* teh gay if they aren’t married by a certain age. Or tire of being grilled by others after living with a partner past some acceptable point on an arbitrary timeline.

Another thing that has come to my attention is the low esteem in which I would be held if I ever had a long-term partner with whom I lived but didn’t marry — say for some reason a parent in this position ended up in custody court, would a common-law partnership be taken as seriously as a bonded legal marriage? What if this person were held up against a married parent?

One of the things I find so interesting about this phenomenon is that the feelings that result from the pressure are not only norm-affirming and strikingly “traditional,” but also largely gendered. The straight men I know balk at the implied expectation that they must become big man commitment provider, and the women I’ve talked to express the fear of having their freedoms limited or being expected to start having babies directly after the honeymoon. This isn’t always the case, of course, but in my environment the kids I grew up with are pairing off and getting engaged in their mid-20s, if not before. Still unmarried, or not on the way to married by 30? Damaged goods. Something is clearly wrong with you. In more urban/professional areas the expectations are different, but that doesn’t help one escape the pressure for too long, based on the personal accounts I’ve read.

I realize this is a largely heteronormative question but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. Lend me your experiences: Have you ever been under considerable pressure to marry? Or not to marry? From the outside? From the inside? Was it gender-based? Age-based? And then?

I Prefer Zoloft, M’self.

Paul the Spud is a bit irked:

Okay, I realize I’m getting way too worked up over a stupid puff piece. But this is just, well, fucking stupid.

Feeling Blue, Say ‘I Do’

Uh-oh. This doesn’t sound good. From the article:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Lonely? Feeling low? Try taking a walk — down the aisle. Getting married enhances mental health, especially if you’re depressed, according to a new U.S. study.

The benefits of marriage for the depressed are particularly dramatic, a finding that surprised the professor-student team behind the study.

As Paul says, looking to marriage as a form of anti-depressant seems a bit irresponsible. Not to mention, well — if you’re depressed, are you attracting the sort of person who will be good for your long-term mental health?

(I should also mention that I just love these studies and articles and whatnot that prescribe marriage as good for what ails ya — they make it sound so easy to find a spouse. What about those of us who have learned to lower our expectations so that a second date is a big accomplishment, let alone a wedding?)

And then there’s the issue of what’s being measured here. Is it getting married that increases happiness or being married? Because a wedding and honeymoon, as most married people will tell you, do not a marriage make. Newlyweds may very well feel happy because they’re getting all sorts of societal approval and attention for being newly married. But ten years down the road, nobody’s throwing them parties or making wink-wink-nudge-nudge comments about how much sex they must be having.

In any event, this is kind of funny:

“We actually found the opposite of what we expected,” said Adrianne Frech, a PhD sociology student at Ohio State University who conducted the study with Kristi Williams, an assistant professor of sociology.

They expected to find that one spouse’s depression weighed too much on the marriage, but “just mattering to someone else can help alleviate symptoms of depression,” Frech said.

Part of the reason people who are depressed show more of an increase in happiness than those who are not depressed is, well, they just have more room to make an improvement: if someone’s already happy, there’s really nowhere for them to go but down.

And that’s apparently what happens with non-depressed people who marry, particularly those who marry depressed people:

On the other hand, if you’re not depressed, marriage could have the opposite effect, Frech said.

People who were happy before getting married and end up in a marriage plagued by distance or conflict — qualities associated with a depressed spouse — might be better off single.

“It seems right to say that people who are not depressed are at risk, that if they marry a depressed person this could be a bad deal for them,” Frech said.

Hey, even if you’re miserable, at least your spouse is happier!

Because It Seems To Be Asshole Day Today

Check out this dipshit’s article in the Daily Mail:

A true Amazon couldn’t stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.

Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won’t be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.

“Women love abuse!”

They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they’ve had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.

I’m always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.

“I’m an abusive prick of a husband, but my wife thanks me for it. Bitch, get in the kitchen and get me a beer.”

While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it’s a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.

Ah, yes, the old “men are logical, and women are ruled by their emotions” canard. Not like we’ve ever seen any man making emotional arguments just to argue, nosirreebob.

I have a very low boredom threshold; I can’t bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I ‘are going’. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed ‘He said, she said’ monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.

I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.

Not strong enough to leave his passive-aggressive ass, apparently.

Oh, and this is priceless:

I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.

“Whereas I just trash her in a national news article and let the world know that I regularly tell her to shut up and force her to make all the decisions because I like to be manipulative and controlling.”

And this is fun: “I know What Women Want, but I don’t pretend to understand them because they are inscrutable and mysterious creatures”:

But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.

They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there’s a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn’t afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.

The truth is, a real man doesn’t care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.

Real men don’t pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don’t take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.

“Women are easily exploitable!

“And the way to do it is through the orgasm”:

A man who is too in awe of his woman isn’t going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn’t going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife’s ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.

My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.

The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.

Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I’d been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I’d been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.

I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: ‘Who’s the boss?’

The question threw her. Initially she wouldn’t give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. ‘You are,’ she finally gasped. ‘You are!’ I am a very difficult man to be with. I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not – I cannot be anyone other than myself.

Meaning: “I will always find an excuse not to examine my behavior and attitudes, because I can’t change who I am. And who I am is a weaselly, manipulative, passive-aggressive cheating turdgobbler with a vastly inflated sense of his own sexual prowess. Oh, and by the way, that thing where I said I was a true feminist because my wife is strong and independent? I can pretend that’s true because I never let her get too strong or independent before bringing her back ‘down to earth.'”

What’s A Dude to Do

When he’s facing middle age without a college degree and without a wife?

Once, virtually all Americans had married by their mid-40’s. Now, many American men without college degrees find themselves still single as they approach middle age.

About 18 percent of men ages 40 to 44 with less than four years of college have never married, according to census estimates. That is up from about 6 percent a quarter-century ago. Among similar men ages 35 to 39, the portion jumped to 22 percent from 8 percent in that time.