quote: Marriage, she suggests, belongs on the junk heap of human folly. It is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs.
This seems like a very silly thing to say. I think that the problems in marriage today, and indeed at any time in history are likely due to the attitude that some glorify in as illustrated in the following quotes:
quote: Kipnis' answer is that marriage is an insidious social construct, harnessed by capitalism to get us to have kids and work harder to support them.
quote: The connection between sex and love, she argues, doesn't last as long as the need for each. And we probably shouldn't invest so much of our own happiness in the idea that someone else can help us sustain it—or spend so much time trying to make unhappy relationships "work." We should just look out for ourselves, perhaps mutually—more like two people gazing in the same general direction than two people expecting they want to look in each other's eyes for the rest of their (now much longer) lives.
Anybody recognize some of Ayn Rand's silly philosophy in there? The "me-generation" is stuck on "entitlement" and the pursuit of transitory happiness now more than ever.
I'll reveal a big secret here: no lasting happiness is possible without commitment and responsibility. Responsible people often do things they don't particularly enjoy because it is necessary. In the nightmare Lathe of Heaven picture this author apparently paints, who cares for the children? Instead of marriage till "death do us part" she would have marriage till death, bad cooking, unfulfilled lust, or minor inconvenience do we part.
The foundation of any society is the basic social unit: the family. Take that away and see just how long the rest of the world stands.
posted
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to agree with her stance here, but there are some aspects of marriage that are damaging to the humans that make up a society. And thus at least potentially damaging society as well.
To me, the point at which she is most wrong is the view of child rearing. Ideally, a person decides to have children because they really want them. Then it's not a matter of sacrifice but of choice of what to do with ones time and resources.
The problems with marriage arise, I think, when it is viewed as a once-and-for-all-times thing. If one or the other "partner" ceases to be a partner, they should not be protected in the relationship by societal pressure on the other spouse to put up with it.
Worse, if someone becomes outright abusive towards their spouse or their kids, society's pressure to remain married is not just negative, but dangerous.
quote: Anybody recognize some of Ayn Rand's silly philosophy in there? The "me-generation" is stuck on "entitlement" and the pursuit of transitory happiness now more than ever.
I thought that myself early this morning when I read the article. Also, I wonder how her life is. Why this subject?
I haven't found marraige to be a prison, nor any commitments I have made in life. Isn't this a pretty bitter outlook to have made on relationships?
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, she sounds like a person who has been hurt deeply, so deeply by love that she refuses to ever love again. Reading the review, it didn't sound like she was against marriage, but against enduring love.
posted
Anything is a prison if you allow yourself to only see the restricting qualities and blind yourself to the possibilities for growth and wonder.
I get the same feeling I got when I first read Andrea Dworkin, the same thing jeniwren talked about. Something hurt this person badly, and she now appears incapable of believing that marriage by itself isn't anything. Marriage is a reflection of the people in it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a child of divorce, I think I'm adequately qualified to comment on the negative impacts of failed marriages on families.
Except in extreme cases of abuse and neglect, children are never better off after a divorce than living with parents struggling to "make it work." Stability is a neccessary, neccessary thing for a child.
If marriage is a "prison" - you have no one to blame but yourself for ending up there. You signed the lease. You made the promises.
And just ask people who've had to spend their lives either unmarried or divorced... see how truly happy with that most of them are.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, I have seen the flip side to your argument. My wife's grandparents should of divrced. They fought constantly and when they were tired of fighting each-other they fought with the children. Most of the kids grew up to continue this practice.
My wife's parents divorced and her mother remarried someone much better. He raised my wife as his own and finally adopted her.
Kids deserve a loving realtionship. If the biological parents cannot give them that together then they need to seperate and find it. It is better for kids to see two working relationships then one that does not.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And just ask people who've had to spend their lives either unmarried or divorced... see how truly happy with that most of them are.
Er...I know this might come as a shock, but it is possible to be quite happy without being married to someone. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Based on my experience, it is infinitely better to be happy single than unhappily not single.
My step-mom stay married for over thirty years to someone she knew on her wedding she shouldn't marry. They had kids, she stayed for them and to try and make it work - marriage is very important to her. She finally got divorced after both her children were grown and married on their own. Within a year and a half, she was remarried to my dad, and so much happier.
It's more complicated, I think. Heck, I don't know. I definitely don't agree with this baloney of an article, but divorce isn't always completely horrible.
Having kids does make it a much, much bigger deal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My parents pretended at a marriage for 22 years. Now they stopped pretending and completely became the self-absorbed individuals that they had the potential to be. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, IMO, a "marriage" certificate and legally bound relationship debases and degrades romantic love between two people. Why do they need a piece of paper and the law to tell them that they are together?
The only purpose of marriage as apart from two lovers living together is that the marriage makes it harder for them to break up. WHY would you want to do that??? It only makes people stay in crappy relationships longer. If someone wants to get out of the relationship they should do it ASAP.
Now, I've heard the counter argument to this, saying, marriage makes it harder for people to make "irrational" decisions, but why would you want to be with someone who would make an "irrational" decision about their love for you anyway? Also, its their life, don't attempt to cage them in and claim them as your property. Marriage is purely a religious, archaic artifact that has certainly outlived its usefullness. I know both heterosexual and homosexual Life Partnerships that have no binding terms and can be disolved at any time in which the people are much happier than most married people I see.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, definitely. I think saying marriage is a prison is saying a bit much, but I do think that marriage is not for everyone. I also think that sometimes people put way to much pressure on themselves to be married so they can be happy, when it should be exactly the opposite.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as Marriage being a prison. I think it's great. My best friend is there when I get home. She tells me when I do something stupid. She laughs at my funny jokes and groans at the stupid ones. My best friend wven gets to spend the night every night.
If both people are commited to making the other happy, then it does not matter the differences.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the positive things that people claim about marriage on this thread are present with two lovers living together.
I still have yet to see something positive that marriage offers that a non-binding life partnership doesn't.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I know what Caleb was talking about in that email Katharina. I offered a serious viewpoint which you didn't like so instead of treating me like I have something intelligent to say you merely put me down. You really are vicious.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duragon: more incentive to stay together when it's not so easy anymore. You've made a commitment, a very public one, and breaking away isn't as easy as saying "Later" and packing up your half of the CDs.
Also, I would greatly appreciate it if, in the future, when making statements like this, you preface them with "I think." You may think that marriage debases and degrades a relationship, and that's fine. Marriage improved my relationship with my lady, so right off the bat I have to dismiss your flat statement as bunk. Had you expressed it as an opinion, we could discuss it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage was created as a stabilising institution, in order to unhold morales that in many cases (but not all) are completely irrelevent today. A lot of people still look on marriage as an important religious and moral connection.
Marriage may not be necessarily for a couple without children, but I think that knowing their parents are joined in a way that is potentially permenant is comforting to a child. To a child's eye, Daddy or Mummy cannot just pick up and disappear completely because they have been linked. Of course, it is quite easy for parents to leave without getting a divorce, but to most children this is inconceivable.
I still think marriage, through all its faults, plays a very important role in the way society works nowadays.
If society were to change, and children were to expect father or mother to be away some of the time, and having a bunch of half-brothers and sisters, then marriage would be obselete. Stability would be in the fact that no one had contracts, instead of in everyone having contracts.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure it's very positive for children to know that either of their parents could leave at any moment because they have a non-binding committment.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina: Exactly, see what I mean? It's already been established I'm not him, so thanks for helping me to make the choice to just scroll past your posts from now on. There's no point in me conversing with someone who has a warped view that I am not who I say I am and am just saying things to piss them off. What an arrogant and self-absorbed view that is.
Chris: I did preface it with an "IMO." I went out of my way to put it there. You must have missed it.
[ September 05, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, I don't know if that's Ced or what. I don't really care. But I do have to say that I don't see how Duragon was being trollish in his statements.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See though, romantic relationships are usually deeply emotionally involving, even without marriage. It's not like most people who have been together for a significant amount of time would just get up and walk out with a whim. People in normal relationships rarely even do that.
It's fairly self evident that when someone wants to really leave a relationship they have put some thought into it. Why make it harder and make both people miserable?Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Romance" doesn't equal "commitment." If two people are in a relationship for the romance, where's the incentive to stay when the romance fades? Where's the incentive to plan for the future, to take care of each other?
When you're in a romantic relationship, there will always be the temptation to get out if the relationship is no longer what you wanted. When you're married, it's tougher to do that, and the incentive to work things out becomes greater. A single person doesn't have the same incentive to grow as a person, to adjust and adapt, as a married person. "If you don't like me anymore the way I am, I'll go find someone who does!" Which is fine, unless you're a jerk. In which case, being married and being forced to come to terms with yourself is a necessary thing.
I was a jerk for the first five years of my marriage, and this was after we had been dating and then living together. At its worst point, if I could have easily separated my life, finances, and responsibilities and leave, I would have. Instead I stuck around and we finally started communicating the way we should have from the start. The relationship I have now is infinitely better than anything I could have found if I had left, and it was only my commitment that kept me there long enough to let it happen.
If I had stayed single, by now I'd likely still be a jerk, one that cycled through girlfriends every year or so and wondered why they were all so picky.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why make it harder and make both people miserable?
Because often there is more than just the two people to think about. I don't believe people in a truly horrible marriage should stay together "for the kids," but I also don't think people in a fixable relationship should bail just because things got tough. Kids need the stability.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either people should are committed to each other, or they aren't. Often times just because people are married it does not mean they are any more committed to each other than if they weren't. Like I said earlier, IMO, its easier for people in a non-binding LP to be committed to each other than a couple officially married who have their binding contract and social pressure and reprocussions to bog them down and degrade their relationship and their love.
If you are a jerk then it is your choice to be, the purpose of a relationship should not be to change you, because often times the spouse trying to initiate change will only make things worse.
Kids do not need stability at the cost of feuding parents who hate each other and who WILL involve their children in the disputes. Kids can be cared for equally well be divorced or single parents. The argument that people should stay together for the kids is incredibly ironic, since it will do more damage to the kids than if they seperated.
[ September 05, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do they need a piece of paper and the law to tell them that they are together?
I'm not just saying this because OSC said it, even though he did, but marriage isn't just a promise between two people. It's a promise between two people and their community. A promise that they are now officially and forever unavailable. A promise that they are no longer a threat. A promise to be a building block of the community.
IMO, just living together doesn't have the same permanence. There's always that chance that someone just "won't be there" the next day. Of course, there is a similar chance with a marriage, but not if the spouses take their wedding vows seriously.
Annie, I agree with you. In most cases, parents do have a responsibility to put the best face forward that they can for their children. They represent the foundation of their children's lives, and when you uproot that foundation, the building cannot stand. (Not to say that NO kids have ever survived.) This of course does not apply to cases of abuse and similar. But I do believe that when you choose to join your lives, and then choose to bring children into it, you owe it to them to do your very best to keep their lives stable. Even if it means you have to "pretend" to love your spouse. Besides, love is mainly action anyway. If two people decide to actively do their best to be civil to each other and "love" each other through actions, they can often build an amazing friendship that will hopefully grow back into love. My parents fought like cats and dogs and would have been better off if they had never married, but it didn't help me at all that they divorced. They weren't doing it for me. It was a completely selfish decision in which I wasn't considered at all. And I should have been. Keeping a marriage going strong is only between the two that are married, but when it starts to fall apart, everyone in the family is involved.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said though, if someone wants to leave, and they are determined, then they are going to leave. Marriage will only make it harder, and cause more social havoc -- the very thing marriage purports it is trying to prevent.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately no one can see the future and we are very imperfect creatures.
So basically it is a given that things will arise and now that people are living on average 70 to 90 years, life long relationships are no longer the 30 or less year fling they were designed to be when lead and refined sugar were killing people off at middle age.
Edit: I think Kim Stanley Robinson demonstrated how archaic marriage was and will be in her Mars books. In the books people were living to ages of 10K years. They had multiple partnerships and multiple children by each. Often time the partnership was only expect to last for x amount of years, and therwere never binding contracts to lock the people in.
[ September 05, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's okay...life expectancy should start going back down anytime now. I think we're at the peak.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duragon, I know you must be playing at facetiousness here, but I have to point out that while diseases and other premature deaths killed us young more often in earlier times than they do now, there has always been a recognizable percentage of individuals and couples living to be 70-90 years old, in every society throughout history. Marriage WAS designed to apply to those people as well as to plague victims.
It's true that REALLY REALLY determined people will do what they want. Determined selfish jerks will leave a string of broken hearts behind them, and determined relationship builders will stay commited, no matter what you do. But most of us fall somewhere in between the two extremes, so the decision we have to make is, do we want to frame our society to encourage relationship-building, or selfish jerkiness? I know the latter choice is the easiest way to go, and the one that will lead to the least whining from jerky people, but is it really the best?
posted
Ah, so if they want to leave they are selfish jerks? Relationships are about one thing, making yourself and the other person happy. It is partly by nature what you would call "selfish."
If ALL you want is children, there is always adoption. Any relationship formed between two people which primary purpose does not include either of those people as the direct, primary long term goal is ridiculous. It reduces romantic love to breeding couples.
[ September 05, 2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't even get into the selfishness paradox. No, I'm not saying that people who end relationships are jerks. I've ended relationships before, and I think it was a good idea for both parties involved. I know lots of people who have ended relationships for good reasons. But the reasons that you (and the writer of the thingie that started this thread) keep citing ARE the selfish ones.
I notice that your "reasoning" (I use the word loosely) includes no consideration of ideal child-rearing environments. If it were to be demonstrated to you that it is detrimental to a child for its natural parents to abandon it, detrimental for a woman to lose the support of her child's father, and detrimental to a man to continually go through the motions of abandoning another human being, would you be so cavalier about the worthlessness of marriage?
Whether you want kids or not (and I hope to God the answer is "not"), SOMEONE needs to have them and raise them. I'd rather that the next generation be raised in a stable, positive environment, and not by a toss of the dice.
posted
Actually I haven't given any reason for exactly why people would leave relationships, just the plausible consequences of what would happen if they wanted to and still stayed out of obligation. Given that I have stated no specific motivations for leaving relationships, I don't see how those non-existant reasons could be selfish.
[ September 05, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If ALL you want is children, there is always adoption. Any relationship formed between two people which primary purpose does not include either of those people as the direct, primary long term goal is ridiculous. It reduces romantic love to breeding couples.
This is true. But very few people would ever get married just because they wanted kids. People usually have kids as a result of their love and commitment for each other. (Or faulty birth control. )
And if someone does get married to have kids, that's just a good argument for knowing yourself and your motivations before entering into any type of commitment.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you kind of gave us was the idea that people should be free, without constraint, to leave marriages and families whenever they feel like it, which to me sounds like a pretty broad representation of all selfish reasons Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any time you do anything it is because you felt like it. You may not like it, but everything you do is because you want to do it. I'm not trying to be anal, I'm just stating the obvious and trying to clarify my earlier post for you.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duragon, you seem to be basing your model of human relationships on the most perfect and optimistic ideals of human behavior — basically, the idea that anything someone wants at any given moment is what is most healthy for them to have. Now, I'm not about making sweeping decisions about "what's best" for other people, particularly when it comes to specifics. But when we're setting up totally voluntary social structures like marriage and family, I see nothing wrong with proscribing certain "right" and "wrong" behaviors, and with making "wrong" behaviors more difficult to enact.
I mean, it's not like we're forcing everyone to get married. People get married when they feel ready to take on a certain level of responsibility. If they're not actually ready for it, then marriage itself can do a pretty good job of training them and helping them live up to the ideal THEY set by tying the knot. If they refuse to get any better, then if they are determined, they can get out.
At no point along this path is anyone getting hurt by marriage. The only people getting hurt are the ones who entered into a marriage or family contract with an undependable person, and were disappointed when that person was unwilling to do what it took to live up to their commitments.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And marriage is what is locking that undesirable person up a little more with the person affected than just a non-binding romantic relationship.
It is my opinion that people should never be forced to stay with each other or have it made harder to seperate because it is their feelings and their lives that is the issue. Marriage, is IMO, harmful because it hinders healthy social interaction. There is nothing a marriage provides that is good that a loving partnership can't provide.
[ September 05, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Duragon, it looks like the problem is, you personally dismiss the value of all the things marriage provides, and are only concerned with the discomfort of the commitment. That's fine for you. I hope you're never married. But for the rest of us, who DON'T dismiss these things out of hand, marriage can be wonderful, and we're going to keep doing it
posted
Well, I wish I were "creative" enough to think of a reason to defend Mr. Mikado, but I just want to add that I find your opinion that obligation by itself makes things unbearable/unpleasant to be ridiculous. It's like your whole definition of pleasure is based on the forbidden.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
