Take-Down of the Day

Jessica Grose has a nice rebuttal to Lori Gottlieb's unabashedly ego-stroking "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough." I haven't read the book, but I did read the article it's based on, and I was unimpressed. Authors should be smart enough to know when they're projecting and not writing solid, research-based content.

Time Travel Exists!

It must, because tonight feels like it's straight out of 1955. This stuff still happens. I'm always surprised by things like this, and then I think about them for more than 5 minutes, and the surprise is reluctantly replaced by a sense of resignation.

The fact that Keith Bardwell managed to say "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," and not have his brain explode is both amazing and a little disappointing. The most aggravating thing about this is that the only reason he'll get in trouble is for ignoring his responsibilities as a justice of the peace. There are private racists who espouse far more dangerous rhetoric in their homes and among friends, but never carry it into the public arena. In your face, First Amendment. Hopefully, Keith Bardwell will suffer consequences and be removed from office immediately.

For context, here are the parts where he's quoted or referenced in the AP article:

“I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

I added the bold formatting to the quotes because I think those portions add up to something very important (but also fairly obvious) about the way Americans discuss race: he obviously believes that he's doing the right thing. Since Americans associate the term racist with burning crosses and hooded thugs, anything less than a lynching isn't racism, and therefore Bardwell or those who hold similar ideas aren't racists. To Bardwell (and many others), the incompatibility of black and white people in a romantic context is a simple fact of life that can bring all kinds of trouble to those foolish enough to get involved in an interracial relationship (in Lousiana). After all, he's just trying prevent the suffering of biracial children.

By attributing his actions to observation and discussion with an unknown audience (how much variety of opinion can there be in Tangipahoa Parish?), Bardwell shows that this is clearly a personal (or local) ideal that somehow managed to trump the basic consitutional rights of American citizens that went to him for assistance.

It is still rare that blacks and whites are involved in interracial marriages, but that doesn't mean that Bardwell's points have any merit.

The Sad State of Marriage

JUST in case anybody had managed to convince themselves that the institution of marriage wasn't a trampled, tattered shadow of its former self, feel free to read this article by Sandra Tsing Loh. I first read the article on The Atlantic Monthly's website about two weeks ago, but the article has quickly made its rounds on the internet. If you're too tired to read the entire article, know that even the jaded and often spiteful readers of FARK.com couldn't believe how poorly this woman had handled her affairs. Loh's article pretends to be a "coming of middle-age" expose. In reality, her article is a 4100-word farce; an embarassingly public and desperate attempt to rationalize immaturity and irresponsibility. She blames mental exhaustion and a father prone to wrath before finally taking aim the classic target of every guilty lover's frustration: the society that forced her into a monogamous life-long relationship.

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.