Women’s Studies 101: You get an A if you do not marry
Women have to be conned into institutionalized marriage and motherhood. . . . She has to be taught that without a man at her side she is incomplete, and without marriage and motherhood she can find no lasting fulfillment. Her desires and life chances thus narrowed, a woman is primed not to rebel against domestic inequities. Feminism promotes such a rebellion.
—Mary F. Rogers and C.D.
Garrett, Who’s Afraid of
Women’s Studies: Feminisms
in Everyday Life
Cohabitating relationships also fail to provide the security of marriage since they are, by their nature, inherently less secure than marriage. Morse uses the metaphor of taking the relationship (or the other person) out for a “test drive.”27 You are expected to try to act exactly as you would if married so that the other party can assess your suitability as a spouse. If you in some way don’t measure up to your partner’s expectations, you can be returned and there aren’t supposed to be any hard feelings. Of course, it’s hard to act exactly as you would absent the actual commitment—you may attempt to put on a good performance in order to be judged “marriage material” or to withhold some of yourself so that you’ll feel less vulnerable if you are ultimately judged unworthy.
It’s become politically correct for society not to differentiate between those couples who are cohabitating and those who are married. Yet it’s important for young women to recognize that cohabitation and marriage are not equivalent. Cohabitation doesn’t provide the same benefits as marriage and may put women on an unwelcome path toward an unwise marriage, or no marriage at all.
More than just husband and wife
Marriage does more than just benefit those who choose to wed: it also affects society. One reason why marriage is celebrated in cultures around the globe.
The celebration surrounding marriage receives some of the harshest complaints from feminists. Jaclyn Geller’s hostility to marriage centers on what she sees as the inflated importance society places on the union, showering those who choose to make this decision with gifts, parties, and attention. No other relationship receives such outward approval and support.
In The New Single Woman, E. Kay Trimberger, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Sonoma State University, celebrates the lives of single women and encourages society to recognize and validate the choices that women make in choosing to forgo marriage.28 Unlike Geller, Trimberger isn’t hostile to marriage and simply seeks to eradicate the lingering social stigma and stereotypes associated with being a single woman. Trimberger makes many valid points and celebrates the important roles that friendships and families can play in creating a rich life for those who choose not to marry.
But Geller and Trimberger ignore the unique benefits that marriage affords society. Marriage is unlike any other relationship: it’s a contract that carries a host of legal and social obligations that affect everyone.
Spouses are legally obliged to assume financial responsibility for each other. As discussed previously, Warren and Tyagi highlight how spouses are essentially an insurance policy, in case one loses a job or becomes ill or disabled. This not only benefits those spouses, but the rest of society, which may be compelled to come to the aid of someone who suffers such a loss.
The New Single Woman highlights how single individuals create relationships based on mutual trust and interdependence that share important similarities to marriage. This is certainly true, but those relationships don’t compare to the legal and social obligations borne in a marriage. There may be tremendous examples of generosity and commitment between friends, but those relationships are not as dependable as marriage.
Trimberger dedicates a chapter to how communities of friends help each other through illness and even death. Yet she emphasizes the importance of building a larger community of individuals for support since it’s “unrealistic” to assume that a best friend is going to be able to meet all of one’s needs in such a time of crisis.
This is a striking contrast to marriage. Of course, a spouse won’t necessarily be able to fulfill all of his or her partner’s needs and will benefit from the love and support of an extend network of family and friends. But it’s taken for granted that the spouse is responsible for tending to their sick husband or wife and will shoulder the primary burden. It would be socially unacceptable to do otherwise. A woman who chooses to abandon her husband when he is struck by illness would face significant social pressure from disapproving friends and family. There are times when spouses fail each other, but for the most part the vow of “in sickness and in health” is taken seriously. Society enforces this expectation not just for moral reasons, but because it helps preserve order and reduces the burden on everyone.
A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read
Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World, Jennifer Roback Morse; Dallas, Spence Publishing Company, 2005.
Society also has an interest in upholding the importance of marriage because of marriage’s unique role in nurturing the next generation. The evidence is overwhelming that children raised within a stable marriage are less likely to commit crimes, abuse drugs and alcohol, have out of wedlock births, and drop out of school than peers raised outside of marriage. In short, children from married couples are far less likely to end up as drains on society and are more likely to be productive citizens. It’s in all of our interest to encourage stable marriages to increase our society’s long-term welfare.
This doesn’t mean that those who are single should be stigmatized, but it does help explain why marriage holds a special place in our culture. It isn’t simply that we love a wedding and want to celebrate an occasion that promises to bring two individuals happiness: it’s in our collective interest to perpetuate a culture that values healthy marriages.
Conclusion
Marriage isn’t for everyone. Single women can and do lead fulfilling lives. But young women who seek a stable marriage should know that their impulse is not simply a result of an oppressive society—it’s a natural goal consistent with long-term happiness, financial security, and good health.
Chapter Eight
DIVORCE
Most of popular culture acknowledges the desirability of getting married, but says little about the importance of staying married.
It’s now commonly accepted that a marriage should be maintained only for so long as the couple finds that it brings them happiness. Divorce is seen as the appropriate ending to marriages that aren’t bringing personal fulfillment.
Divorce is sometimes unavoidable. It’s a step, however, that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Young women contemplating marriage may see divorce as the equivalent of a “do-over”—an easy way to reverse the decision to marry if the relationship doesn’t turn out as they had hoped. But divorce isn’t a do-over. It’s no guarantee of future happiness, and many women find that they trade one set of problems for another.
And while it is no longer politically correct to encourage a couple to consider how divorce may affect their children, parents weighing whether to end their marriage should be aware of divorce’s potential long-term impact. Research suggests that children whose parents divorce face immediate problems due to their parents’ break up, and continue to suffer the effects of the divorce throughout their lives.
Guess what?
Many women experience regret after divorce and wish they had given their marriages another chance.
Divorce is a big gamble for women seeking long-term happiness.
Surveys regularly show that children of divorce are more likely to suffer from pathologies and exhibit antisocial behaviors.
Society’s changing attitudes toward divorce
Society has increasingly accepted divorce, even when it involves families with children. In 1962, just half of women disagreed with the statement “when there are children in the family, parents should stay together even if they don’t get along.” Fifteen years later, more than eight in ten
mothers surveyed disagreed with this statement—in other words, fewer than two in ten thought that a couple should stay together for the sake of the children.
Divorce has become a regular, unremarkable event in popular culture. From Brittany Spears’ twenty-four-hour Vegas marriage to the carefully chronicled saga of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston’s breakup, tabloids and entertainment magazines cover like a sport celebrity marriages, the divorces that quickly follow, and the next relationships that often begin before the first ends. Divorce is common in movies and television; often, these media showcase divorce’s dramatic affects on family members, but rarely is the decision to split questioned.
The movie Stepmom, for example, focuses on the tumultuous aftermath of divorce. The father Luke (played by Jack Harris) struggles to bring his new love, the significantly younger Isabel (played by Julia Roberts), into his children’s lives, while his ex-wife, Jackie, (played by Susan Sarandon) finds out that she’s terminally ill with cancer.
Stepmom explores the changing relationship between the two women, as well as the difficult adjustment the children face as they cope with a new family member entering their lives as their mother exits. The children express great frustration at their helplessness—their parents’ divorce and father’s remarriage occurred without their consultation. But the adults watching are expected to understand that this marriage was doomed, divorce was necessary, and the kids will be ultimately better off because their parents ended an unhappy marriage.
It isn’t just Hollywood movies or flighty superstars that make divorce seem the natural end for marriages that aren’t blissful. Even prominent Christian vocalist Amy Grant, who divorced her husband of sixteen years, received advice from a counselor that marriage should be maintained only so long as both partners are happy. In an interview conducted by ChristianityToday, Grant explained:[God] didn’t create this institution [of marriage] so He could just plug people into it. He provided this so that people could enjoy each other to the fullest.” Grant herself adds: “If you have two people that are not thriving healthily in a situation, I say remove the marriage. Let them heal.1
Clearly, divorce—once seen as taboo and an absolute last resort for the truly miserable married couple—has become commonly accepted as the appropriate outcome for imperfect marriages.
Facilitating divorce; changing marriage
Not only has the stigma associated with divorce been lessened if not entirely eliminated, but laws have changed to facilitate divorce. During the 1970s and 1980s, all fifty states adopted “no fault” divorce laws that gave couples the ability to file for divorce without claiming that the other spouse had in some way “broken” the marriage contract by committing adultery, a felony, or being abusive.
As divorce became easier, it became more common. Since 1960, the number of divorces has skyrocketed—more than doubling over fifteen years. The divorce rate peaked in 1980 and has slightly declined in the last twenty years.2
Changes in the divorce law aren’t entirely responsible for the rise in the numbers of divorces; numerous other factors—from the sexual revolution to the increase in women’s employment and financial independence—also played a role in making divorce more prevalent. However, certainly these changes in law helped make divorce a more convenient option for many married couples.
At the Movies
“You never asked me if I wanted a new mother. You never even asked me if I liked her!”
—Anna Harrison, Stepmom
This growing availability and acceptance of divorce undeniably has had some positive results. It gave some women and men in truly unhappy or abusive relationships greater opportunity to exit the situation and a new chance to seek love and happiness. However, the divorce revolution also has imposed extensive costs on society and families.
At its core, marriage is a contract. This contract’s importance becomes clear when couples reach a courtroom seeking divorce; but it also affects how couples behave during and before they enter into their marriage. In a marriage, individuals make substantial investments in each other. They intertwine finances, and both partners make decisions in the interest of the marriage, not merely for themselves. This is particularly true for women who make substantial personal sacrifices, such as forgoing a career to care for children, to benefit the couple with the understanding that their husbands will provide financial support over the long-term.
Even some women’s studies textbooks admit that the increased ease of divorce has been a mixed-blessing for women. The following reveals a bias that assumes that the woman is the innocent party, but the logic holds true for a wronged wife or husband:Although this change has made divorces easier to obtain, these procedures have pitfalls. Consider the homemaker who has been victim of cruelty or who finds out that her husband has been having affairs. In earlier days, she could have charged her husband with the fault and then sought a divorce. As the innocent party, she would probably have been awarded a considerable portion of the couple’s property. Under the current system, if that same woman and her husband divorce on no-fault grounds, there is no reason for the court to award her any more than her basic share.3
Government may have created a new, easier way to dissolve a marriage through no fault divorce, but in the process it eliminated an option: People no longer could enter into a marriage contract that limited the ways that the union could be dissolved.
Some states are attempting to address this problem by offering alternative marriage contracts. In 1997, Louisiana passed the covenant marriage law which gave couples the option of entering into a marriage contract that has more restrictions on how the contract can be dissolved. Several other states have followed suit.
Before considering how public policy might reduce the number of divorces, we must determine whether divorce is really a problem. If the increased ease of divorce means that people are finding greater happiness, then the rise in divorce may not be of concern. If children whose parents divorce really are no worse off, then society need not be concerned about their fates and should assume that happier parents equal happier children.
Yet as the rest of this chapter reveals, research evaluating the impact of divorce on former spouses and their children suggests that there is reason to be concerned that divorce harms many adults and their children.
Does divorce improve a woman’s chance for happiness?
The politically correct view of divorce is that once women get through the initial turmoil of a heart wrenching break up, they’ll be better off having rid themselves of the unhappy relationship. It’s commonly known that women often face serious financial hardship after a divorce, but there’s an expectation that women’s personal lives usually improve after the break up.
Cutting Loose: Why Women Who End Their Marriages Do So Well showcases how divorce benefits women. The author, Ashton Appleton, interviewed fifty women who had initiated their divorces. She states upfront that the women interviewed were self-selected, responding to advertisements or through word-of-mouth, and therefore were in no way statistically representative of the female divorced population as a whole. However, she uses their stories to construct the case that women who divorce tend to be empowered by the experience, leaving them with happier, more fulfilling lives.
From Friends
Ross: First divorce: wife’s hidden sexuality, not my fault. Second divorce: said the wrong name at the altar, kind of my fault. Third divorce: they shouldn’t let you get married when you’re that drunk and have stuff drawn all over your face, Nevada’s fault.
Appleton’s view of traditional marriage is bleak: “These women came to realize that traditional marriage serves the husband, the wife serves the marriage—and that independence beats servitude.”4 She describes the toll that marriage takes on many women’s sense of self: “Marriage reduces many women, who willingly, often unthinkingly, embrace a peculiarly circumscribed identity and set of priorities when they give up being single.”5
The book does describe some of the difficulties wom
en face during divorce; from the challenge of navigating the legal terrain to the many worries, including a fear of losing control of their children, new financial problems, and insecurities about finding new loves and relationships. But ultimately, Appleton emphasizes the many rewards that women receive after breaking free of a troubled marriage, the pride of taking back their lives, independence, and happiness: The end of a marriage is a loss, but not a failure. On the contrary it is a victory—over inertia, terror, conformity, insecurity, and countless other demons. Every woman who speaks in these pages has suffered enormously. Many wish they had left their marriages sooner, but had to wait until they had marshaled the financial or emotional resources. They are proud of themselves for having gone through with it, and not one regrets it.6
Is the experience of Applewhite’s subjects emblematic of the experience of most women?
The truth is divorce is a big gamble for women seeking long-term happiness. One group of researchers assessed data from the National Survey of Families and Households (a national representative survey) to evaluate if divorce was generally associated with an increase in happiness. They focused on spouses who had rated their marriages “unhappy” in an initial interview and were re-interviewed five years later. During that time, some had divorced, some had separated and some had remained married.7 The researchers concluded that: “Unhappily married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stayed married. Even unhappy spouses who had divorced and remarried were no happier, on average, than unhappy spouses who stayed married.”8
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism Page 10
