Like any good apologist, Loh comes up with several examples of people and books that suggest marriage might not be the best way to maintain stability for modern American couples and their children. It's true that some studies have shown we aren't exactly wired for monogamy, and I think there are many reasonable arguments to be made on how to change the American family to better suit our lifestyles. However, Loh uses all this information for the exclusive purpose of justifying her actions. Even as she admits her "failure as a wife", she claims that an outdated norm is responsible for the misery of her and so many others. Loh is a performance artist, a regular on NPR, a contributor to The Atlantic, and a finalist for the National Magazine award, and yet she cannot find it in herself to "'work on' falling in love" again with her husband. This seems to be an increasingly common form of cowardice, reserved for those who didn't think about their needs, wants, goals, and ambitions before they lept into a long-term commitment of the highest caliber.
Note: I'm regretting not finishing this post in one sitting... the two comments made before I started writing again this morning covered a lot of what was on my mind before I called it a night.
Before anybody starts accusing me of wanting everyone to mimic the Cleaver family from television, it should be noted that I could not care less how people handle their relationships, as long as they do it responsibly. I would have gladly given my approval to Ms. Loh's story if it had described long discussions with her husband about possibly branching out to different people for physical relationships. This kind of responsible planning and exploration might not have alleviated all of the problems that drove Loh and her husband to divorce, but it surely would have made it seem more reasonable. In her article, Loh asks,
"Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance."No, Ms. Loh, I don't understand. You entered into a binding emotional contract - the legal aspects of which I will disregard for this article - with a person who, regardless of their feelings now, loved you and wanted to spend the rest of their life with you. The fact that you were too weak or overcome with passion to think clearly about the consequences of marriage does not excuse your infidelity or the impact it will have on your family. And just so we're clear, I feel that way about anyone who cheats on their significant other. If marriage is truly as outdated and misrepresented as Loh claims, then surely she had some hint of this when she got married 20 years ago.
Marriage statistics dating back 20 years are the subject of some of the most common and thorough studies performed in this country. Many people like to cite a number in the range of 50-60% when referencing the divorce rate in the United States, but, as the Census Bureau points out, the actual numbers are far different. In 2004, the average divorce rate for men was 20.7%, with 9.3% divorced at the time of the study. Women had been divorced at a slightly higher rate - 22.9%, with 10.9% divorced at the time of the study. On top of these lower numbers, it turns out that first marriages that end in divorce typically take an average of 8 years to do so. More than 95% of both genders are married by the time they reach the age of 70, so there must be something about marriage that continues to bring people together.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development tracked marriage as well. Between 1970 and 2007, crude marriage rates fell from about 11 people per 1000 getting married per year to about 7 per 1000. People are still getting married, though at a lower rate than before, which implies that Americans are already revaluating what marriage should mean. Where this reformation takes us is unclear, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will include both a push for equal rights for the LGBT community and a significant shift in the responsibilities of men and women in the home. This could be particularly beneficial to women who are struggling to balance the professional and domestic aspects of their lives.
Do I expect everyone to be perfect? Of course not. I'm in no way suggesting that divorce be made illegal or otherwise more difficult to obtain, and I see a plethora of benefits to changing the expectations of men and women in the household. I freely admit the the point Sandra Tsing Loh is trying (badly) to make is a valid one: marriage isn't necessarily for everyone, and people should do what they feel is best for the stability of their family and relationship. However, the flippant and casual nature with which Sandra Tsing Loh explores this issue offends even the most sincere advocates of changing marriage and family. Take it from me, a man who got (happily) married at 22: to disregard the level of responsibility that any emotional bond requires of both partners seriously detracts from the quality of the relationship and the ability of those involved to be themselves.
7 comments:
Hello Dan! Nice blog! Keep up the writing and you'll reap the benefits.
As for the marriage thing, I haven't read the article you're talking about, but the whole "institution of marriage thing" is a bit of a myth. On the one hand, yeah, people need to tough it out, have some patience, and raise their children in proper families. On the other hand, the modern nuclear family isn't some sacred institution. Whenever anyone talks about it, they conjure these 1950's era images of dad reading a newspaper while mom does the dishes and the son plays with toy trains, but the reality was closer to frustrated housewives and drinking husbands. I guess the question is, how can you strive for an ideal, family oriented society while also maintaining individualism and personal freedom?
In Japan, families are a legal entity of great importance, but the result is that if dad commits suicide not only are his kids without a father, but the family is disgraced and they have to pay the bills for the damage he did to the train / pavement / etc. Their situation isn't really any happier or better than America's.
I think, long story short, the image of what a married couple should be is wrong. Or at least emphasizes points that need not be emphasized. The typical image of 1950's married life cited above shows a home builder of a mother, cooking and cleaning. Revisions to this now include her doing all previous work plus a full time job of course, whereas the man brings home the proverbial bacon and little else really.
In that way men look for attractive home builders and women look for attractive butchers, but neither sex is looking for a friend. When you enter into a relationship and you're not friends with the person it wont work. There is very little to build upon, sure with work you could make it work, but you shouldnt want to make a relationship work. You should want the relationship to be, there should be no thought to it, it should be natural. When you work at something, that something will tire you. You'll never tire of eating (as long as you do so at regular intervals) but you will tire of cooking. One is work, the other just is...
Once people start looking at their husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend as one of their best friends and not as an associate...
Once people stop trying to "like who they love" and start trying to "love who they like"
Until that happens, I think the institution of marriage will always be weakened. Its like me not being friends with my best friend and wondering why we stop talking.
:shrug:
(I didnt read the article)
First of all, Alain: Right on. If you're with someone who doesn't fit with you, and it's constant toil just to keep it running, it can never last! I would like to add, though, that even a great relationship needs the occasional tune-up. My car runs wonderfully with very little effort most of the time, but sometimes I have to get the oil changed, you know? People change over time and must learn to compromise over new challenges. But you're right - if they continue to treat each other as friends (that is, with respect), then it won't be arduous.
Having read Sandra Tsing-Loh's article and foamed at the mouth, I'll sum it up for those of you who haven't: I'm getting a divorce because I cheated. My husband's really nice, so I felt kind of bad, but then I remembered that I'm busy and a mom, and marriage is stupid anyway. See, my friends' marriages are bad too! I bet they'll all get divorced based on my good example. Marriage didn't work for me, and it won't work for you either.
My problem here is not her thesis. I'm just disgusted that she betrayed her husband's trust in such a huge way, but the institution is to blame, not her. So what if she cheated? Marriage is too much work anyway. Definitely too much work to end it and THEN start sleeping around, especially for a busy mom. So for her to write this mess telling everyone else that marriage doesn't work is kind of revolting. Maybe if she included a disclaimer saying that her rant only applies to selfish middle-aged children, I'd feel better. To instead apply her own pathetic experience to everyone involved in the institution is insulting. And the whole dear diary entry is just to make her feel better about herself, anyway.
Dan this is an excellent article (that you wrote). Keep it up!
I love the contradiction between the sub title/text and the first sentence of her article. "The author is ending her marriage. Isn’t it time you did the same?", followed by: "Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing."
She blames marriage the concept for her problems with being married... which is dumb. Yes. But it seems as though she is upholding her commitment as a mother, and remaining civil if not friends with her ex. So I mean... other than them not being married.. it doesn't seem as though much of their relationship will really change from the perspective of the children. I don't think she's a much of a terrible person as you portray her to be.
I also think this would have been a great time to mention suitable alternatives to monogamy or marriage, but she really doesn't touch on what she plans on doing with her new unmarried life. My guess is she'll get married again.
It's interesting, this marriage thing. Sure, it dates back millennia, and it has ties to law and religion, but it is ultimately a human invention. Considering how jealous we people can be -- especially when it comes to matters of love -- I can't help but think of marriage as a defense mechanism we created to protect ourselves from being hurt. It's quite selfish, really.
Now, I guess the exception would be when those young, love-dazed couples, still high on the novelty of having found their "soul mates," decide that they are so in love that they must get married in order to prove to themselves, one another, and everyone that they know, that they will be together forever. That's cool if it works for you, but most people are not static, unchanging entities. Most of us aren't the same now as we were ten years ago, yet we are willing to commit to spend out lives with the same person forever? Why in the hell would we do that?
We grow and change throughout our entire lives, and there is nothing we resist more than confinement. When marriage becomes confining, forget about it. Marriage can change from being a comfort to being a trap, and that's a shame. It's such a shame because that same special person might not have become part of the marriage trap had it not been for the marriage. I guess that's why so many couples who live together happily for years before tying the knot end up divorced. But it's immoral for people to live together and raise families without being married...right?
Very interesting topic. Permit me to offer some observations from the same generational perspective as Ms. Loh. As a justification for having an affair, her article is a joke. But I suspect there's a lot of info here we're not getting. In fact, we learn a lot more about her friends' marriages than her's. Yes, not wanting to "work" at a marriage is a ridiculous, lazy excuse - but there's a lot in this article that is worth a serious discussion - and a lot of it is being discussed by late-Boomer, early Gen X women. The whole role of marriage is changing. What is it good for? Who benefits from it? The state of marriage is and always has been an obligation, originally to family ties, then protection - and often involving money. Now the wealthy don't really need marriage (look at Ken Russell and Goldie Hawn). Those who do marry sign pre-nups protecting their individual assets. Marriage doesn't help the poor much, in fact, it can make it much harder to get social services. And many women are choosing not to wait to find "the one" before having or adopting a child (a subject for a whole different discussion). Then there's the Darva Congers of the world (remember Marry a Millionaire?) who make a total mockery of the institution but get to enjoy the legal benefits denied the many emotionally committed (i.e., what I consider truly married) gay and lesbian couples. It is time to look at what marriage is and should be - and this is just one more point on the discussion chart. Cheers.
Having been happily married for 24years and bittery divorced I see that many people too often and too easily blame the institution of marriage for their problems -- as if they were locked into a vault and were powerless to change. It's easy to duck personal responsibility and claim the system is broken.
I sometimes find myself wondering if serious relationships have a limited life span, and with our increased life expectancy maybe a contractual relationship makes sense. But that denies the whole essence of love. Love doesn't make sense! It's not logical. It's not predictable. ...and that's what makes it wonderful. It is a tremendous risk, with serious heartache even in good times. Eliminating marriage minimizes the risk, deletes the commitment, and reduces the highs and lows to a manageable means. Who wants that in a love life??? Yes, it does allow for an easy exit. However, to simply walk away because a relationship seemingly doesn't work is a recipe for social disaster. Look at the children of abandoned spouses. But let's take this idea to other areas in life. Your doctor gives up in the middle of an operation because it's too difficult or she's tired. Your employer decides to stop paying your payroll taxes because he thinks it's the same old thing. I'm not denying that there are times when it's best to end a relationship. But to say that marriage is the cause of the problem and is thus outdated and unnecessary sidesteps the issues. Marriage is neither a guarantee nor a trap. It is an opportunity. And like any opportunity, what you do with it is entirely up to you.
Post a Comment