So the rigid roles of past iterations of marriage have left many trapped, as you say, and oppressed those who didn’t wish to/couldn’t conform. But then you reference a gender-egalitarian utopia as a goal – what about those don’t wish to/can’t conform to that – do you think they, too, will be oppressed if gender-egalitarian marriage becomes an overwhelming norm? Just curious…(happily married at age 24 with a MA, so I don’t think I have a dog in this fight)
Heterosexual Janes and Johns are also reshaping holy matrimony: they’re marrying later, they’re marrying less, and for reasons other than having children. And it’s making them (and their kids) happier and healthier. I am skeptical about the last sentence, does it mean Americans are getting healthier, or just the kids of married Americans are getting healthier. All the other reports about health predict doomsday scenarios with increasing obesity, and other lifestyle related diseases. It would be premature to celebrate the demise of traditional marriage, for the simple reason that, the civilization we have right now is a direct result of the oft derided traditional family. And no evidence exists that it will continue to exist without it for long.
So women still do most of the housework, still get paid substantially less for their work outside the home, still do most of the childrearing, still can’t marry someone of the same sex if they so choose, still end up eating cat food in their dotage because of the wage gap and the caregiving gap, still get beaten by their partners in epic numbers, still get raped within their relationships, and still don’t even freaking come as often when they have sex with men. And we’re supposed to celebrate “the death of marriage” because…it’s going away and taking none of the problems of patriarchy with it. This is also a spectacularly classist article, but you know, that’s kind of par for the course around here.
So how about what I said? If all that is still no better, isn’t rejoicing over this “death” nothing but pointless spite? Aren’t we kind of screwed if marriage is “dead” but we still have to deal with all the problems we thought it caused?
My point was that actually, many things are better. They are far from perfect, but it’s not terrible to look at how things have improved. And I didn’t say marriage was dead. I said a certain model of marriage, which never existed for most people and has been idealized by conservatives even though it was largely terrible, is dead.
So, wait, we should be celebrating because something that barely existed in the first place… doesn’t exist? The 50s ideal (and let’s face it, it was an ideal, and not even close to reality for most couples, even middle-class white ones, unless my grandparents are weirder than I thought) was a historical anomaly, dependent on not just social expectations, but a specific set of historical circumstances. The 50s-style marriage was possible because of a postwar boom economy, and the fact that it doesn’t exist during a terrible recession should be unsurprising. Rather than dancing on the grave of something that barely needed to be buried in the first place, why not try for a more compelling argument against the conservative idealism? Also, I hate to break it to you, but the “choice” to delay childbirth isn’t made in a vacuum. Economic and social pressures make people delay having kids as much as whatever form of liberation we’re celebrating. Throughout the ’20s, women were offered a variety of new roles and lifestyles, but the low birth rate throughout the ’30s sure wasn’t all that liberation finally kicking in.
The evidence mustered doesn’t support that “traditional marriage” is dead. What is “dead” is the overwhelming dominance of “traditional marriage” as the default. A lot of people still have traditional marriages. It simply is no longer the default option to the point where you are strange if you are not in one.
McSnarkster: […] The 50s ideal (and let’s face it, it was an ideal, and not even close to reality for most couples, even middle-class white ones, unless my grandparents are weirder than I thought) was a historical anomaly, dependent on not just social expectations, but a specific set of historical circumstances. As Jill aptly pointed out in the article. Judging my the comments in the Guardian though, a lot of people didn’t even read the article, they just jumped off the head-line.
I really would like to hear your response to my comments. I listened to some of your conversation with Michael Medved on radio on March 30 about traditional marriage being dead. It might be dead, but you still need to instill in young adults that there needs to be two people to raise a child. We have to teach teenagers the consequences of their actions. If they chose to have sex a child might be a consequence and that is a huge undertaking. I’m from a traditional marriage and my wife is the bread winner in the family and I have a part time job. When the kids arrive home from school at 2PM I’m home for them. Do you realize that most students are only in school 180 days per year. What is a single person going to do the other 180 days of the year? Who takes care of the children after school? Helps them with their homework if a single parent is working? I could go on, for now I would really like to read how you plan to solve these issue? Remember that I have 13 years of actual experience.