Men, women, and theories about the 51% single solution
Hugo Schwyzer brings up this morning's New York Times that says for the first time 51% of American women are now single. The article says women are marrying later, living with unmarried partners, surviving longer than their spouses, and, especially being much more reluctant to marry after divorce. Hugo reflects particularly on the after-divorce part.
In a world where women have access to education and income, it's axiomatic that men need to bring more to the table than their ability to provide. Our desirability as husbands is increasingly linked to our ability to provide enduring emotional, sexual, romantic, and spiritual satisfaction; our relational skills now matter more than our earning potential. Those of us who are fierce defenders of marriage argue that true fulfillment can be found with just one other person -- but we must also accept that in our world, where increasing prosperity has made lifelong singleness or serial monogamy more feasible than ever, the case for marriage is less and less compelling. The only way to shift that, I think, is to create a world where folks see the emotional benefits of marriage as outweighing all the potential negatives. And that's going to require some changes, and from the statistical evidence, it may mean more change on the part of men.
I'm not sure marriage is for everyone. For me, it's a vehicle for personal transformation and growth, a crucible in which one's own selfishness gets melted down, a refiner's fire that purifies. I like that sort of thing, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. I've gotten married again and again because I'm relentlessly optimistic, relentlessly hopeful, relentlessly committed to growth. And while much growth can happen in solitude, and much growth can happen in extended families and communities of friends, I am convinced that my own particular growth can best be achieved through marriage. I'm in a happy, challenging, joyous, purifying marriage today. It's a hell of a lot of work and it's a hell of a lot of fun.
Hugo mentions, but dismisses, the anti-feminist trope that feminism's "disappointment with men" is responsible. He also dismisses the idea that men are eager to remarry mainly because they know women do more housework. I think he's absolutely right that both accusations are off the mark, but still germane.
"I'm not sure marriage is for everyone. For me, it's a vehicle for personal transformation and growth, a crucible in which one's own selfishness gets melted down, a refiner's fire that purifies."
I'm not sure I'd be comfortable marrying someone as a vehicle for my own transformation. At least not without her express consent. And if that were the institutional intent of marriage it would explain its precipitous decline.
Regarding "disappointment in men," consider that is just a product of the old two-sphere gender model. In that model married women were relegated to, at best, "behind every great man" roles. If women had to rely on men to manifest their own accomplishments disappointment becomes inevitable. If they are now able to not only provide for themselves economically but also to become established themselves then the effort they previously would have had to invest second hand in "improving" their husbands can now put directly into their own aspirations.
Also, while it's probably insulting to suggest that divorced men want to remarry to get *housework* done, if the notion is expanded to include men's unwillingness to invest in their own personal development then that assessment it might not be too far off the mark.
People get into marriage for all sorts of reasons. I wonder what, in the end, is the "right reason".
I suppose everyone does it because they want to, need a partner, etc... I know my reasons for marriage, the second time, were very different then the first time.
I definitely think that marriage is not for everyone, and should this marriage not work out, I don't intend to do it again.
[I think it's fine to get married, and there are some great reasons for doing so. I'm just not sure most of the reasons enumerated in tradition are actually very flattering. Or fulfilling for one or both parties. Thanks, Autumn. --fl]
I think the reasons for marriage change with time and the stage of our life. My definition of a good relationship now is one where the people can explore and improve their ability to learn, love and feel and thus have a better relationship and become better people. When I was in my 20s I was looking for someone who would be a good father and husband and a good provider for the family (while I looked after the kids).
[Thanks, Avalon. --fl]
While I wouldn't disagree with any commments you have made I would caution against reading too much into the figures presented by the New York Times. They appear to cover all age ranges from 15 upwards so will include 85 years and over where women outnumber men by about 2 to 1. It's going to skew those percentages. Sorry, I know, I'm a data freak.
I think Avalon has it right by saying reasons for marriage change over time. In my own case our Venn diagram spheres started off with a fair amount of overlap, separated out over the child rearing years, and have gradually reconverged again until the overlap is greater than ever. Luckily we have both been happy and able to adjust to the changes.
The term for overlap when using Venn diagrams is "union" - that appeals to me in this context.
[I had been thinking mainly about why men seem more inclined to remarry than women after divorce, and the same factors *might* play into women's decisions to wait longer to marry at all. But aging population also plays a large role, although naturally I hope the geriatric gender gap will have begun to normalize by the time I reach my 80s! (By normalize I mean I hope men will begin living as long as women. The reverse wouldn't be so hot.) Thank you, A. --fl]
If it's true (as recent research seems to say) that women tend to live longer than men because they have more close friends with whom they can share their emotions, and that married men live longer than unmarried men because their wives tend to take that role on for them (as confidante and balm to emotional hardship), then maybe men remarry more often because there's an unconscious need to fill that gap in their social structure. I wonder if men that have close friends with whom they can talk frankly about how they're feeling are as quick to remarry as those that don't, or whether there's anything there at all.
People talk a lot about women who go from relationship to relationship to fill emotional voids in their lives; it seems likely to me that men are just as suseptable to that as women. But I feel like men are pressured to seal the deal more than women are (certainly in business, so why not in life (I know I'm told to "go home and think about [a big purchase], where I feel that I wouldn't be told that were I male)).
[Yeah, I think maybe we wouldn't talk up the big differences between men and women if the differences really were that big. We're trained from birth to talk this way or that but deep inside we seem to need so many of the same things. We're taught to express them so differently, though, to tough it out, pretend we don't feel what we do feel. I dunno. I think you're on to something, Colette. Part of being real adults means getting over the ew-yuk-boy/girl-germs games we play in elementary school. And too often never grow out of. Thanks. --fl]