They go together like a horse and carriage.
A very interesting question was posed to me yesterday: has the divorce rate increased in recent years because there aren't so many societal restrictions placed upon it, or because the recent generations have a fear of commitment? I responded to the querrant in an email which reads as follows:
I'm going with fear of commitment. Sort of.
I've always had a big problem with the term "irreconcilable differences." Just what in the hell is THAT supposed to mean? You're two people. You're going to have differences that can't be reconciled. I would think you might have figured that out PRIOR to the wedding. It's such a generic term, and people seem to use it as a cop out because god flippin' forbid they actually put a little effort in to their relationship. Are those differences going to go away? Maybe, but probably not. And that's not the point. The point of a marriage is to ACCEPT those differences, to LOVE the person you're with enough to WORK AROUND THEM.
Money, sex, child-rearing - last I checked, these are the top three reasons people get divorced. Unless we're talking EXTREME situations (your wife blows $5000/month and doesn't want to get a job; your husband is in to some extremely kinky stuff that you just can not bring yourself to engage in; your significant other doesn't just spank your kids, but beats them and verbally abuses them), then those problems don't quite seem big enough to end a marriage. Oh, and even that kinky husband thing - if you're comfortable with it, then give him a free pass to sleep with an escort or an individual you both agree on, maybe once a month. Is this an ideal, typical, cookie-cutter marriage? No, maybe not. But if it solves the problem and you're both happy, your relationship can only BENEFIT.
Speaking of infidelity - unless it's a chronic thing that happens constantly, cheating is always a sign of something else being wrong. Always. As much as women would like to believe that men are just bastards who cheat on them based solely on physical attraction, that's not always true, particularly not in a marriage. Many times, it's because the woman has stopped giving her husband as much attention as she used to, she's let herself go physically, the sex has gotten either boring or non-existent, the kids are stressing him out and all the wifey does is nag him as soon as he walks in the door...do any of these reasons JUSTIFY cheating? No. But if your husband starts nailing his secretary, maybe as a wife, you should step back and ask yourself WHY. What is it about YOUR relationship that drove him to cheat? Not what's wrong with him or with you, but what's wrong with the two of you as a collective unit. Because that's what a married couple is - they are a unit. What one does directly affects the other, always. People seem to forget this.
Of course, I can totally see the logic in the "back in the day" angle. Things were much different in the beginning of the century, all the way up to Free Love era, maybe even a little past that. You didn't GET divorced. As a woman, if your husband was cheating on you and you knew about it...well, gee, sugar, that's just too damn bad. Wash the damn dishes and keep your mouth shut. This can be widely attributed to the importance of religion in early 20th century American society, particularly the huge influx of Irish and Roman Catholics. There wasn't all this marriage counseling, there was no Dr. Phil. If you were married, you stayed that way. Period. Not because of any law (unless you count religious doctrine. I don't), but because it just wasn't socially acceptable to get a divorce.
So the question then becomes: if it HAD been acceptable, would people then have gotten divorced at a higher rate? Mmm...probably not, no. Because the social issue goes beyond the basic dilemma of "is divorce okae or not okae?" Women and men had entirely different roles in society back then as well, and the prospect of a woman getting a divorce could be incredibly daunting, particularly if she had children. As a woman's place was largely in the home, your average domesticated American female probably wouldn't be able to sit down at a typewriter and tear it up. They were paid less. They had fewer rights. There weren't as many social programs available for single mothers, like child-care for example. Faced with that many obstacles, I can certainly see how a lady might prefer to stay in a loveless marriage than risk the well-being of her children by starting over fresh, sans-hubby.
And yet, while these roles may provide substantial hurdles in regards to post-divorce life, they are also the primary foundation for why people DID stay married. It's because they had some freakin' convictions, you know what I mean? A man was a man. A lady was a lady. The man took care of the woman. The woman stood behind her man. The father disciplined the children, the mother coddled them. It was very simple, very cut and dry, and it was something that was understood by both parties upon exchanging vows.
This theology has often been thought of as chauvinistic, sexist, degrading, etc. I call bullshit. You can't dispute basic human physiology - women have been raising children while the men go out and work (or hunt) LONG before the idea of societal constructs and gender roles came about. Generally speaking, it is the nature of the respective gender to behave in a certain manner. Why do you think it's usually a woman that coos over a baby in the supermarket? Why is it instinctive for a man to come to a woman's aid even if he doesn't know her? Would you first notice the woman in the jogging suit or the woman in the cocktail dress? And would I notice the shirtless man rebuilding a classic Chevelle, or will I notice the shirtless man planting daisies? (And by notice, I mean 'will be attracted to.')
I swear, this rant is bringing me to a point and that point is: presently, Americans have turned their backs, albeit superficially, on these gender roles in an attempt to re-write eons of neurological programming.
Let's take a fake couple: Bob and Sue Smith. Sue works, Bob stays at home with the kids. They are miserable and they fight constantly. Bob doesn't mind staying home with the kids and knows that Sue would be unhappy staying at home, so he doesn't want her to quit. So why, exactly, are Bob and Sue falling apart?
Just because Sue is working and Bob stays at home, this doesn't mean that Sue has become the "man" of the house. Sue is still very much a woman and Bob is still very much a man; even though their commonly accepted societal roles have been switched, their basic psyches most certainly haven't. Maybe their problem would be solved if Sue came home and cooked Bob dinner every once in a while or threw on something provocative in the bedroom. Maybe Bob should buy his wife a little something pink and sparkly, rub her shoulders, or draw her a bubble bath. Chicks love bubble baths.
Anyway - marriage has virtually no importance to anyone anymore. It's not that people are afraid to commit to a PERSON, it's that they're afraid to commit themselves to overcoming DIFFICULTIES. We don't want problems. We don't want irreconcilable differences. We want Slappy Happy Fun Time, and that's just not always what a marriage is. So when an issue comes along, we blow it up in to this ridiculous, unmanageable, chaotic mess because fighting is often much simpler than fixing.
While it's true that historically, marriage was more significant as a means of obtaining political leverage or power or as a religious rite, at some point, people DID start marrying for love.
And isn't THAT the concept that you want to be invested in when you think about marriage? Shouldn't it be a union that represents your twin desire to devote your lives to maintaining that love? It's not "to have and to hold until one of you gets fat," it's not "for richer or poorer, unless we have to file bankruptcy," it's not "for better or for slightly less than better," and it's not "for as long as I can put up with you."
Your turn. -=0D
I'm going with fear of commitment. Sort of.
I've always had a big problem with the term "irreconcilable differences." Just what in the hell is THAT supposed to mean? You're two people. You're going to have differences that can't be reconciled. I would think you might have figured that out PRIOR to the wedding. It's such a generic term, and people seem to use it as a cop out because god flippin' forbid they actually put a little effort in to their relationship. Are those differences going to go away? Maybe, but probably not. And that's not the point. The point of a marriage is to ACCEPT those differences, to LOVE the person you're with enough to WORK AROUND THEM.
Money, sex, child-rearing - last I checked, these are the top three reasons people get divorced. Unless we're talking EXTREME situations (your wife blows $5000/month and doesn't want to get a job; your husband is in to some extremely kinky stuff that you just can not bring yourself to engage in; your significant other doesn't just spank your kids, but beats them and verbally abuses them), then those problems don't quite seem big enough to end a marriage. Oh, and even that kinky husband thing - if you're comfortable with it, then give him a free pass to sleep with an escort or an individual you both agree on, maybe once a month. Is this an ideal, typical, cookie-cutter marriage? No, maybe not. But if it solves the problem and you're both happy, your relationship can only BENEFIT.
Speaking of infidelity - unless it's a chronic thing that happens constantly, cheating is always a sign of something else being wrong. Always. As much as women would like to believe that men are just bastards who cheat on them based solely on physical attraction, that's not always true, particularly not in a marriage. Many times, it's because the woman has stopped giving her husband as much attention as she used to, she's let herself go physically, the sex has gotten either boring or non-existent, the kids are stressing him out and all the wifey does is nag him as soon as he walks in the door...do any of these reasons JUSTIFY cheating? No. But if your husband starts nailing his secretary, maybe as a wife, you should step back and ask yourself WHY. What is it about YOUR relationship that drove him to cheat? Not what's wrong with him or with you, but what's wrong with the two of you as a collective unit. Because that's what a married couple is - they are a unit. What one does directly affects the other, always. People seem to forget this.
Of course, I can totally see the logic in the "back in the day" angle. Things were much different in the beginning of the century, all the way up to Free Love era, maybe even a little past that. You didn't GET divorced. As a woman, if your husband was cheating on you and you knew about it...well, gee, sugar, that's just too damn bad. Wash the damn dishes and keep your mouth shut. This can be widely attributed to the importance of religion in early 20th century American society, particularly the huge influx of Irish and Roman Catholics. There wasn't all this marriage counseling, there was no Dr. Phil. If you were married, you stayed that way. Period. Not because of any law (unless you count religious doctrine. I don't), but because it just wasn't socially acceptable to get a divorce.
So the question then becomes: if it HAD been acceptable, would people then have gotten divorced at a higher rate? Mmm...probably not, no. Because the social issue goes beyond the basic dilemma of "is divorce okae or not okae?" Women and men had entirely different roles in society back then as well, and the prospect of a woman getting a divorce could be incredibly daunting, particularly if she had children. As a woman's place was largely in the home, your average domesticated American female probably wouldn't be able to sit down at a typewriter and tear it up. They were paid less. They had fewer rights. There weren't as many social programs available for single mothers, like child-care for example. Faced with that many obstacles, I can certainly see how a lady might prefer to stay in a loveless marriage than risk the well-being of her children by starting over fresh, sans-hubby.
And yet, while these roles may provide substantial hurdles in regards to post-divorce life, they are also the primary foundation for why people DID stay married. It's because they had some freakin' convictions, you know what I mean? A man was a man. A lady was a lady. The man took care of the woman. The woman stood behind her man. The father disciplined the children, the mother coddled them. It was very simple, very cut and dry, and it was something that was understood by both parties upon exchanging vows.
This theology has often been thought of as chauvinistic, sexist, degrading, etc. I call bullshit. You can't dispute basic human physiology - women have been raising children while the men go out and work (or hunt) LONG before the idea of societal constructs and gender roles came about. Generally speaking, it is the nature of the respective gender to behave in a certain manner. Why do you think it's usually a woman that coos over a baby in the supermarket? Why is it instinctive for a man to come to a woman's aid even if he doesn't know her? Would you first notice the woman in the jogging suit or the woman in the cocktail dress? And would I notice the shirtless man rebuilding a classic Chevelle, or will I notice the shirtless man planting daisies? (And by notice, I mean 'will be attracted to.')
I swear, this rant is bringing me to a point and that point is: presently, Americans have turned their backs, albeit superficially, on these gender roles in an attempt to re-write eons of neurological programming.
Let's take a fake couple: Bob and Sue Smith. Sue works, Bob stays at home with the kids. They are miserable and they fight constantly. Bob doesn't mind staying home with the kids and knows that Sue would be unhappy staying at home, so he doesn't want her to quit. So why, exactly, are Bob and Sue falling apart?
Just because Sue is working and Bob stays at home, this doesn't mean that Sue has become the "man" of the house. Sue is still very much a woman and Bob is still very much a man; even though their commonly accepted societal roles have been switched, their basic psyches most certainly haven't. Maybe their problem would be solved if Sue came home and cooked Bob dinner every once in a while or threw on something provocative in the bedroom. Maybe Bob should buy his wife a little something pink and sparkly, rub her shoulders, or draw her a bubble bath. Chicks love bubble baths.
Anyway - marriage has virtually no importance to anyone anymore. It's not that people are afraid to commit to a PERSON, it's that they're afraid to commit themselves to overcoming DIFFICULTIES. We don't want problems. We don't want irreconcilable differences. We want Slappy Happy Fun Time, and that's just not always what a marriage is. So when an issue comes along, we blow it up in to this ridiculous, unmanageable, chaotic mess because fighting is often much simpler than fixing.
While it's true that historically, marriage was more significant as a means of obtaining political leverage or power or as a religious rite, at some point, people DID start marrying for love.
And isn't THAT the concept that you want to be invested in when you think about marriage? Shouldn't it be a union that represents your twin desire to devote your lives to maintaining that love? It's not "to have and to hold until one of you gets fat," it's not "for richer or poorer, unless we have to file bankruptcy," it's not "for better or for slightly less than better," and it's not "for as long as I can put up with you."
Your turn. -=0D