From 2007. New posts return next week.
Jill has a post up this week: I’m Never Getting Married. It opens
I actually don’t know if that’s true (her claim in the title of the post), but the closer I get to standard marrying age, the less I think it’ll ever happen — first because I think marriage is kind of a crock, and second because I’m becoming fairly certain that there just isn’t anyone out there who I want to be forever bound in marriage with.
It’s an interesting and lengthy post, though Jill doesn’t spend as much time on the second part of her reasoning (the near-certainty that there is no one out there whom she wants to marry) as she does on her first. Part of Jill’s criticism of marriage is directed at engagement and wedding ritual; she specifically calls out diamonds and bachelor parties. She makes some excellent criticisms of both (particularly the anti-feminist implications in the former and the horrifying behavior of many men at the latter).
Back in 2004, when I was engaged but not yet wed, I posted about diamond rings here. I noted that while I bought my wife an engagement ring, she bought me one as well. Here’s an excerpt:
…it’s important to remember that the origins of our traditions do not dictate their contemporary meaning. There is little doubt that the practice of having a father walk his daughter down the aisle to her groom (rather than having both parents escort her) is rooted in notions of the marriage as property transfer. But in the modern world, we are free to take older traditions and remake them, transforming their meaning as we please. What was once oppressive need no longer be so. I’ve known some strong women who walked down the aisle on Dad’s arm dressed in white — and they weren’t property (and they sure as hell weren’t virgins). At some point, oppression is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and these women didn’t feel oppressed by the ritual itself.
It is absolutely true that folks will make judgments about a man’s wealth and status based upon the size and perceived expense of his fiancee’s engagement ring. But again, their perceptions do not determine the exclusive meaning! For me, the engagement ring does not symbolize wealth or ownership; rather, it symbolizes sacrifice and enduring commitment. In many traditions, it is customary for a man to say to his bride “with all my worldly goods I thee endow”. In the modern world, that means he is surrendering his financial (as well as his sexual) autonomy in order to build a blended life with his partner. That’s no small sacrifice for either party when it is genuinely meant! The engagement ring symbolizes his commitment to share all that he has with her. (I suppose she could wear his 401K plan as a doily, but that wouldn’t be nearly as appealing.)
As for bachelor parties that involve strip clubs or other forms of sexualized entertainment, I’m obviously appalled by them. (I’ve had small bachelor parties before each of my weddings, though a number of them have consisted of just hanging out with a group of friends of both sexes. None involved strippers.) I’ve posted many times about the sex industry in all of its forms, and won’t repeat those posts here. I do want to offer a ringing endorsement of what Jill writes on the subject:
Bachelor parties where the boys get together and go fishing or out to a nice dinner are one thing. But the “take the groom-to-be out to watch naked women dance around†is problematic not only because of the feminist issues with paying women to strip, but because it strikes me as a direct statement of power over his to-be wife — the message is that marriage is such a burden and a bore that he has to get all of his youthful energy out before he enters into it, even at his fiancee’s expense.
There’s no question that going back for more than a century, pop culture has set men up to believe that marriage means the end of “fun”. The jokes about “the old ball and chain” go back to the furthest extent of living memory. And of course, there’s a small grain of truth in all of this ugly humor. If your definition of happiness is the pursuit of everlasting novelty, then yeah, marriage will be dull by comparison. If your definition of freedom is the freedom to sleep with as many women as you can, then yes, marriage will seem confining.
But I’ve already written my paeans to monogamy; I’ve already said (to the exasperation of many of my readers) that I consider monogamous marriage to be the best vehicle I know for personal growth. (See my marriage archive if you want more of that.) I’m not going to repeat myself here, though I will say again that I know plenty of very evolved, interesting, compassionate people who have chosen alternatives to monogamy. To paraphrase Symmachus, there are many roads…
I respect Jill’s reasons for — at this stage of her life — rejecting marriage. But in her post, I don’t read the reason I hear from many young women (and not-so-young women) for their wariness. Whenever I launch into my glowing defense of marriage as a vehicle for personal transformation, someone (invariably a woman) remarks that in most marriages she’s seen (or been in) one partner is shouldering considerably more of the burden of creating that change. Almost always, that partner is a woman.
A good friend of mine, several years older than Jill, is recently divorced. She pledges never to remarry, saying: “In the end, most men expect women to take care of them once they’re married. I don’t mean financially, I mean enotionally. I’m just tired of thinking about someone else’s needs all the time, particularly an adult’s. I’m prepared to take care of a baby. But I don’t want my first-born to be my second child!”
My friend isn’t describing every American man. But she’s describing all too many. And it’s not just a reference to housework she makes. All of the research shows, of course, that even when both parties in a marriage work an equal number of hours outside the home, the woman tends to spend more time on domestic work. But the problem my friend is really focused on is less about doing the dishes and more about emotional intelligence (what’s often called “EQ”). Far too many men fail to do adequate self-care when they are in relationship with women. Far too many men becoming enormously reliant on their girlfriends or wives to urge them to see a doctor, to be the sole source of professional encouragement, to monitor their alcohol intake or the content of their diets. Far too many men unintentionally turn their girlfriends or wives into mother figures; in a sense, they outsource their emotional maintenance.
Every romantic partnership ought to be just that, a partnership. And while the partners are rarely going to be equally adept at every physical and spiritual and emotional task, it is important that the overall psychic workload of their union be shared fairly. Too often, women like my friend feel that when they marry, they end up focusing all of their time and energy on meeting the needs of their husbands. And while there is an element of need in even the healthiest of marriages, too often many women begin to feel that they are doing for their husbands what they damned well ought to be doing for themselves. Men can wash dishes (with hot water and detergent). Men can talk about their feelings with their friends just as so many women do, and thus alleviate some of the emotional burden many wives feel to be their husband’s sole source of psychological support. Men can stay faithful in body (and in fantasy), even when their wives don’t feel like having sex every night of the week.
Of course women have a huge part in this as well. Far too many women have traditionally derived their sense of self-esteem from their skill at providing pleasure and happiness to others. Some women deliberately seek out men who will be emotionally needy; part of the “bad boy” syndrome is sometimes less an attraction to the “bad” than it is to the “boy” who, beneath his truculence and his self-destructiveness, just “needs a little special TLC”. Both women and men can be architects of their own adversity in this regard. I am not absolving women of all responsibility here.
But in the end, I’m convinced that a great many women (not necessarily Jill) are reluctant to marry (or marry again) because they believe that their are relatively few men worth marrying. Many women look at the colossal sacrifices other women make in marriage, they look at the legions of husbands and fathers who are emotionally distant or desperately dependent, and they say to themselves “no thanks.” They are legitimately concerned that when they marry, a part of themselves will disappear; they fear — sadly, often rightly — that they will be forced to neglect their own growth to focus on enabling the growth of their husbands and their children.
I am not a perfect husband. One of my most important jobs as a husband, however, is to strike a balance between genuine intimacy and interdependence on the one hand, and emotional self-sufficiency on the other. Even now, at 40, after four marriages and a decade of therapy (including two years of formal analysis), after a dramatic and enduring spiritual conversion, after years and years of serving as a mentor and a counselor and a gender studies professor, I still have work to do. I still have to be vigilant not to slip into a pattern in which my wife ends up doing for me what I ought to do for myself. It’s not my wife’s job to make sure I eat right and get enough sleep, it’s not my wife’s job to tell me that I need to cut back on the exercise. If I am to be the man God calls me to be, I cannot outsource my self-care to my spouse.
My wife and I are trying to save chinchillas, trying to bring about social change, trying to plan for our own futures, trying to be agents of justice and love in the world. And we’re trying to have fun while we’re doing it. We rely on each other for encouragement, for comfort, for friendship. We focus our romantic and sexual lives on each other, knowing that if we put all our intimate energy into our relationship, we will emerge from our private moments recharged and more ready than ever to do the important work we are called to do.
So what’s the bottom line? There are many reasons not to want to marry. But one big whoppin’ reason for many women is that they’ve seen the available men. And while these lads may be cute, sexy, witty, kind, and bright, far too many of them strike the women around them as poor long-term investments. Far too many seem as if they’d end up being sons rather than husbands. And if we who believe in marriage want to see the institution thrive, we need to work on getting our brothers to grow up.
Note: This is an-MRA free zone, folks. No anti-feminist bromides permitted.
This mirrors the MGTOW movement and the marriage strike, on thae part of men who fel the same way on the women available for marriage. it’s sad that it has come to this.
I would argue that women also need to work on their need to fix, their willingness to give up their own identity and self-hood for a marriage. But this is risky, emotionally difficult work.
Beyond the gender wars, however, I would say that for marriages to really work, they have to provide a space in which it is safe to be humble – where it is safe acknowledge that I was wrong, or that I acted out of ignorance or pain, or that I just suck at certain things. If I am always “right†and my husband is the one who needs to do all the work, then there is a power imbalance. If I allow that he has work to do, create a space for that, but focus on my own work, then I am taking an enormous risk. I am taking the risk that when things get rocky he will use my admissions against me, to say that marital problems are my fault. I risk that he will share that intimate information outside of marriage, and expose it to another person’s scrutiny out of context. It is so much easier to point to his obvious problems and insist that he fix those. After all, mine are a lot easier to hide to the general public. And if we fail, I can blame him.
Marriage is risky when you play by the rules of radical vulnerability. But I am discovering that those rules are what unleash its transformative power. I am learning that something truly magical, truly wonderful happens when we stop keeping track of who was right, who was the rescued and who was the rescuer, who is the truly f’ed up one and who is the sane one. In those moments where you hold your partner’s naked soul in your hands, and you treat that vulnerability with respect and shower it with love, those moments are sacred. If there is a God, s/he lives in moments such as those.
I honestly think a pretty large percentage of people shouldn’t get married at all or have serious monogamous relationships at all. Too many people just suck at being a partner or don’t really want to prioritize their SO or family ahead of their individual goals, even though we are all told that it’s something we should all strive for. Women are just recently figuring out that having children is an option and not mandatory to have a full life. I think it’s time for everyone to think about if being a part of a couple is really the best thing for them. I just don’t see what the point is of championing just one sort of living arrangement when there are so many kinds of people.
On a different note, my husband and I bought each other engagement rings too. We picked them out together too and it was a natural extension of how we wanted our marriage to be: a joint effort, an uplifting of each other, and a commitment to do things our own way.
I felt as though I married a child, but through understanding, humility, and patience it is slowly changing (all qualities I thought I never had..LOL!). The burden when you look at the blame cycle or who inevitably takes responsibility can breed resentment which is poison to ANY relationship. I sincerely think empathy can be taught from example, and the more I “say my piece” and then sympathize with my husband, the more he understands how to do it too…it’s a long journey, but well worth it to have someone who understands you and loves you as you love yourself. Even if the journey I travel now is skewed, the payoff is the ultimate for both of us…if it’s in my nature or socialization that makes me subordinate, doesn’t matter to me because I see a greater goal the real meaning of self-sacrificing love (which isn’t giving the child his way, as that is a much easier journey but still with hardships).
Just read the diamond post. There is also the fact that children die and lose limbs in the procurement of diamonds.
ElleDee, I agree that marriage isn’t for everyone. But I think that it is important that people put themselves in positions where they will be challenged to grow, to assert themselves, to find that sweet spot between giving too much and giving too little. Part of our purpose, surely, is to transform ourselves — and intense and enduring relationships characterized by conflict and commitment and cooperation can be remarkably effective vehicles (though by no means the only vehicles) for doing that work.
And I agree completely, Bill, no conflict diamonds.
FWC, that whole comment is beautiful. It really is all about trust and being wioth someone you can trust like that. The trust you are speaking of is so much deeper than sexual faithfulness or really any other kind.
“If there is a God, s/he lives in moments such as those.”
Like a baby in a manger, crapping in the hay.
And the way engagement rings have evolved, with the girlfriends all fawning and awwwwing over them – do people really do that or is that just marketing BS – it reminds me of a male bower bird holding up shiny objects he has collected to a prospective mate to impress her.
Jim, almost every girl I talk to about marriage makes a big fuss over the ring…I personally never saw the value in it..give me something useful over jewelry any day…or just be dedicated to the relationship..that would be much more ideal to me.
Much more beautifully stated than I could write FWC!
Some of us are tryin’ Hugh. Honestly we are.
Jim, I would normally agree with your crap in the hay philosophy of spirituality. But I may need to change my beliefs to match my experiences. I have experienced goodness, beauty and love that I cannot account for using my knowledge of humanity or our society. I have to admit that I have experienced some pretty remarkable stuff in my marriage in the past week, and that might be unduly influencing my feelings about the possibility of something divine. So, I may feel differently next week or month or year. But for today, I am willing to suspend my doubt.
In one of my first relationships, which was also my longest, I dedicated myself to the relationship, putting all my energy and love and need into my partner. Helping her with her goals and growth was my priority, to the point where I neglected my own growth and goals. And this is why she dumped me. She didn’t want to have a spouse who didn’t have their own drives and goals, who couldn’t take care of themselves because they were too busy taking care of others. Ironically, I taught her that, but again, my life was about her growth, not mine.
Now I’ve gone the other way. My life is about my growth and goals, and pursuing my own path. I’ve had some relationships and lovers along the way, but I honestly feel as if asking them to sacrifice any of their own goals for me is wrong. If they can pursue their lives while being a part of mine, things seem to work out, but I’ve had to break some hearts of people who just wanted to jump onto my path.
I’m very protective of my path. It’s mine. I don’t mind sharing, but I can’t stand the thought of letting someone else lead or having them spend all their time following. Consequently, this means being responsible for my path. No one else is responsible for my growth as a human being. They can help, sure, but my main charge is to myself.
I don’t want to rely on someone else, and I don’t want someone to rely on me. Finding a full-time partner would be nice, but having this attitude and being so fiercely protective of it doesn’t make it easy.
” But I may need to change my beliefs to match my experiences. I have experienced goodness, beauty and love that I cannot account for using my knowledge of humanity or our society.”
FWC – We think alike. I cannot account for any of the decency I see in people by my knowledge of humanity. As far as I am concerned humans are called to be higher than the angels and tend to fall lower than the animals. Any decency is due to some outside influence, and I see it everywhere at work in all sorts of people without regard to thier tradition or lack of one. For what that’s worth.
kristina – Thanks for that. What a shame.
1. Men are emotional human beings, just as women are. I don’t think what you’ve described here — needing prodding to go see a doctor, not being able to handle basic household tasks, eating a sensible diet, exercising, etc. — qualify as “emotional.” I believe men should be able to help out inside the house — and women should be able to help out with the yardwork.
2. Many men have the sexualized bachelor party you’ve described, but many bachelorette parties fall along the same lines, so we need not let them off the hook. (Likewise, from what I’ve seen, women are often the ones in a marriage demanding to know why their husbands aren’t “in the mood.”) I’ve never been to either type of party, but am relieved to know that bachelor parties need not involve the inaptly named “gentlemen’s clubs.”
“(Likewise, from what I’ve seen, women are often the ones in a marriage demanding to know why their husbands aren’t “in the mood.—
I am guilty of this on occasion myself which just leads me to the conclusion that PIV is NOT just about physical pleasure for men garnered or NOT garnered by exercising their “power” over women’s sexuality. If my husband was strictly using PIV for pleasure why wouldn’t he want PIV when he is hurt, feels sick, etc. surely the mental connection between PIV and pleasure would provide an urge to satisfy even a temporary physical well-being. Most of the time when he is sick and I am not, he chooses to opt out of PIV, (even if I initiate) in his worry that I will get sick too. One could argue that he is just exercising his “power” to pick and choose when he has PIV, and in consequence put me in an oppressed position that also shames my sexuality, but that would largely be ignoring the issue that perhaps he isn’t using PIV as a means to gain pleasure from my “pain”. Bottom line: it’s not just about examining my desires, and his desires…it’s about examining how these desires can work together.
Jim- My husband absolutely insisted on a ring..not much thought behind it except for the sake of tradition..I’ve been asked a million times over how big the diamond was, and been made to feel like my husband doesn’t love me as much as so and so’s because they have a huge diamond… I just roll my eyes… I have to tell people over and over how I think spending a ton of money on a ring is a TOTAL waste, and they look at me like I have three heads. I always say, look I’m a very physically active person if that diamond fell out I’d freak at the tremendous loss of money, also that the amount of money my husband spends on me in my perception is more indicative of what he thinks he can get away with than what he actually feels about me (that may not be a man’s real intention..but my husband knows my perception on the issue and didn’t push getting a large diamond on me…part of the whole respect for each other and ACTUALLY listening thing that we do)
I’ve seen dozens of marriages that didn’t work out and a LOT of them involved a big ol’ diamond or similar stone..it’s not the symbolism that some people feel it holds (the larger the stone the larger the commitment) that I have a problem with (although it is problematic when that symbolism leads to ownership)…it’s the people that don’t uphold that symbolism that is the issue.
About a ring, I had one rule: when my engagement ring went on, my fiancée, now husband’s, ring also went on. It was a symbol of commitment, not ownership.
Interestingly, I was in an academic department not long ago in which it was not okay for women to wear wedding rings. I was the only woman who wore a ring that was an overt symbol of commitment, and I was assumed to be highly conservative because of it. I would obviously not get much support, which I would have needed, if I had stayed and worn my ring. Btw, this was not a women’s studies department either.
A decade into our marriage, my husband and I had to renegotiate what our symbols of commitment would be based on how that choice might reflect on my career.
kristina, I am big into symbols too. ican certainly see a man insisting on it.
FWC, I like the recipricity of that gesture.
I have a litle theory about these wedding symbols. I think that the newer ones have progressively pushed the older oens to the periphery of the festivities. We are talking here about Anglophone customs, Brtian, so here goes. The newest part of the ceremony is the wedding vows, the Christian part. (No, the Abrahamic Traditon and the Bible are not foundational to European cultures or civilization. Not foundational, in any way. That’s a Protestant fantasy.) Although in this case, the vows appear to be of Roman origin. (And no, Roman culture is also not foundational to Western European cultures either; that’s a wannabe fantasy of colonialist and imperialist eras in these cultures. It most certainly is a very significant adstrate, but not a part of the foundation.)
The wedding ring seems to be Germanic, and in that context it has noting to do with marking property (WTF anyway – you give jewelry to property?) Kings gave rings to their warriors to signify their bond with them. One kenning for “king” in Norse poetry is “ring-giver.” This is definitely subordinating, but there is no way to spin it as some kind of claim on property. Note that teh ring comes after the vows in the ceremony, kind of wedged into the proceedings.
Then there’s the Celtic custom of eating from the same loaf. that’s shoved all the way out into the reception, the part where the bride and groom feed/jam cake at each other.
kristina, the last part of that post at 9:28 should be archived under “Get Your Ideology Off My Life.”
And you probably already know this, but all things being equal from a man’s point of view, even a gay man in a straight marriage, sexual attention from your wife is about the most validating proof of real love and interst and value that a man can get, whether he is well, sick or starting into a death rattle. Flowers, back rubs, dinner and dancing, remembering a birthday and especially cards (eeewwwwww) don’t even stand in the shadow of that.
So keep it up.
3 items.
Ambrose Bierce defined Marriage as “The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.”
Gloria Steinem’s quoted as saying, when people asked her why she wasn’t married, “Because I don’t mate in captivity!” But then she ruined her reputation by actually getting married.
And back when Ms Magazine had a discussion board, I can remember a debate there about whether marriage was a bad deal for women. Consensus was that it was indeed bad for women, but nevertheless a man who was willing to do it was better than one who wasn’t.
Jim, think you’re getting into a little YMMV territory there.
I value Hugo’s opinion and I think he’s usually right but honestly, one area in which I’ve always disagreed is his analysis of spousal relationships. Do some husbands act like immature man-boys? I’m sure some do. Probably too many. But I don’t think it’s the most common form of relationship. I have no hard statistics or anything, but it often feels as though Hugo draws his conclusions about husbands and wives from Homer Simpson and fat, dumb sitcom fathers. In general, that’s not actually how it works, Hugo.