Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
A new post by The New York Times‘ Tara Parker-Pope discusses the Unites States’ shift from a country of child-centered marriages to adult-centered marriages. Indeed, children rank only eighth on the most essential elements, behind things such as fidelity, good sex, sharing of housework and high income. Only 41 percent of respondents to the survey Parker-Pope cites say that children are essential to marital bliss, which is down from 65 percent in 1990. Parker-Pope goes on to quote several “experts” who moan about how a lack of family values are leading to a breakdown of traditional marriage (of course, the gays are not helping, since they supposedly never have or raise children). What I think Parker-Pope and the people she quotes from are missing is that people no longer have to have children, since there are many other ways to become fulfilled than there used to be. This contemporary societal structure makes it advantageous to focus on career first and children later.
In my grandparents’ generation, it was of primary importance to get married and have children at a relatively young age. Along with this, it was expected that men would pursue some schooling in order to become the family’s breadwinner, while women would drop any educational or work goals in order become homemakers. Marked shifts in women’s opportunities during the baby boom generation allowed many women to get out of the house and into the office (and also allowed them more choices in who and when they could marry). While some conservatives blamed this on the laissez faire parenting of the 1960’s and encouraged helicopter parenting and a strong, traditional family structure, many women and men saw this as a chance to pursue what they truly desired and what they were interested in without immediately “settling down.” That is not to say that they stopped having children; they just decided to wait until they had put themselves on better financial and personal footings. I would argue that this provides a good explanation for the rise in incomes of baby boomers and the record numbers of their children (myself included) that have been able to go to college.
Indeed, there is no lack of children being born and those marriages that end in divorce often do so because partners feel overwhelmed by social and professional pressures — thus for some, it may make sense not to have children if they feel that it will end up destabilizing their relationship.
Thus, any whining about the decline in family values is rather misguided, as those that want children will still do what they can to have them and those that do not (and perhaps should not have them) will do so less often. This, in my mind, will lead to a strengthening of marriage. While I would argue that children are not essential to a happy marriage, if they can be had and raised in a situation in which both parents feel that they have been able to accomplish their goals without being rushed into marriage, the benefits to both children and parents can be tremendous.
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
48
I think that when there were fewer choices in life, people were less likely to either be unhappy, or probably just less likely to express their unhappiness. It’s not like you had another option, so you might as well make the best of what you have.
There were also likely to be fewer conflicts in marriage, since the roles were already laid out, both partners knew what was expected of them, and again other options weren’t really there.
BUT
That is not any reason to go back to that time.
I think the freedoms both men and women now have to choose the life they want, whether with or without kids, or delaying kids, or alternating primary care, or to both have careers or not, and all, are wonderful.
I think the possibilities are now excellent, as you can find someone with similar values, and if you want to get married and have eight kids, you can, but if you want to get married, have no kids, and go work in Tunisia, you can do that too.
Kids are important to a happy marriage IF one of the partners finds children to be important to their happy life. If neither partner wants children, then their marriage can happily last without them (probably more happily).
I think it will just take time to adjust. The baby boomers married expecting one form of life, and then so many things changed. I think today’s young people expect different things out of marriage than did their parents. And they have the option to simply not get married.
It may take another generation after this, but I think that in time, as people realize they can have anything they want, but not everything they want, and that they can make their marriage into whatever they want, IF they are willing to talk about it and find a person with similar goals, then marriages will be even better and stronger for it.
We’re just in transition right now.
The gays addition is utterly stupid, as I think we’ve all been through. If you want to ban gay marriage, you’ll have to find a better reason. Declaring that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they cannot naturally procreate together would only work if you want to force everyone to have fertility tests, and ban marriage between any other infertile couples. And I haven’t yet heard a good argument for that ridiculousness…
Bill O’Reilly liked (possibly still likes to, I’m not sure) rationalize not allowing gays to marry by saying it would lead to his favorite slippery slope argument; that it would lead to legalized polygamy. I don’t see why it’s so difficult to say that one human being may marry another, single human being. Gay marriage has nothing in common with polygamy.
I don’t see an issue with polygamy, to be honest.
As long as it works for the people involved, who cares?
And if you do, why?
Its ironic that you can live with as many women that you’d like,and have a family with them and no one will bother you until you try to make it legal thru marriage. Go figure.
Hell yeah. If you can find more than one person you want to be with forever, do it.
I can’t imagine the mess that would result from legal polygamy. How en earth would you divide assets at death? What kind of custody would be arranged at divorce within that monstrous web of a family? And I see no reason to believe it would not end up as a trap where 16-year-olds are forcible married to 50-year-old perverts. In communities where polygamy is illegally practiced, this is EXACTLY what happens, and I see no reason to believe it wouldn’t foster rape, abuse and child slavery. Polygamy has no place. If you want to be with more than one person, deal with an open relationship or don’t shackle yourself with that “heinous, traditionalist” single-person marriage.
Divide the estate the way they do it under Napoleonic code in Louisiana–every survivor gets an equal share of what’s left. In other words, if you have a house and a wife and 6 kids survive and you didn’t have a will specifying that everything would go to the wife, then the house would be divided 7 ways.
Most of the crimes against young girls are committed because of the secrecy in polygamous societies.
The kids that are being abused don’t reach out because they are afraid that every family in their society will be ripped apart if police are brought into the situation. If polygamy is legal, there is no reason to fear the government and a greater likelihood that victims will come forward.
There’s no reason at all to believe that making polygamy legal would lower the age of consent for marriage, so the “more girls forced into marriages” thing makes no sense at all.
AND, if they stopped making stupid prosecutions for bigamy, they could concentrate their forces on the abuse, instead of the proxies. Would be far more productive.
I actually think there is some credence to that. It was once one man, one woman. If you can change the components, why not be able to change the number?
But I don’t see a problem with that.
And if you want to make that argument, it is separate from the ‘non-breeders can’t marry’ one.
Actually, while secrecy causes the abuse to continue, a lot of the violence (sexual or not) in polygamist societies are caused by logistical problems. Humans reproduce in a roughly 50/50 split between males and females. So, if you need 3+ females to every male, you’re going to run out of women. To even the numbers out, you have to start taking girls from the next generation, leading to younger and younger girls being married. Physical dominance from a young age is what makes all these women obedient to an outnumbered husband when they grow up.
They just run out most of the boys.
Polygamy doesn’t create pedophiles. Secret societies protect them though.
That’s the thing – these are secluded polygynous groups. All sorts of abuses go on because no-one has contact with the outside world, and is afraid to speak to anyone with the power to stop it.
If polygamy were permitted, that would be one less reason to hide away in secrecy, and they might be better able to deal with the real problems.
There are also (not many, but some) people not involved with such groups that just happen to prefer multiple people. While my views on marriage are totally different, I think it logically consistent with current mindsets that if you can marry anyone, why not any number.
If you are a guy and don’t want or already have kids, you have no reason to incur the risks of divorce by getting married.
My grandfather told me long time ago. “If they had birth control in my younger days, your father wouldn’t be here today.” (He was second to the youngest)
Family court is a sewer.
Since a divorce is so easily attainable now, I think the significance of “marriage” in society has been lessened. It used to be that once married always married.
Absolutely right. None of my gay friends want to get married. As my childhood pal put it, “I don’t want the government up my ass when I get tired of something else up there…”.
My husband and I are sharing something really special with our son. It’s honestly something we had never experienced before he was born.
That said, we wouldn’t have missed it if we’d never had it. We enjoyed each other quite a lot before my unintended pregnancy changed our lives.
Having experienced it, I can honestly say that having a baby with your partner does add something to the relationship that nothing else can. But it’s not necessary to experience it in order to have a happy marriage.
Unless somebody in the marriage really wants a baby. That could break up a marriage. But that’s more a matter of being unfulfilled and that feeling could be caused by things other than the lack of a baby.
I would definitely agree that a child adds something not comparable by any other means. Though I would say it’s not a good addition for everyone.
I think it would be easily generalizable to say that if one partner is unfulfilled, the marriage will not go well. Some things can be worked by compromise, some can’t. ie. “if you’re going to be a ski guide, you can be on trips half the time, but you need to be spending every other weekend at home, because I need togetherness” vs “okay, you have a child, and I won’t”. :D
“okay, you have a child, and I won’t”. :D
Haha!
Children are a true godsend. It is a wonderful gift to see my daughters find themselves in the world as they grow up.
Family life is great, but the death of the traditional family is central to the business model of countless “professionals”, and social pressure and economic incentives for women to divorce make it a relict specie in the ecology of social arrangements.
Isis – you are giving me a headache from all of the involuntary eye rolling your comments inspire me to do.
Wisdom has that affect on some people.
Why are you so bitter all the time? Putting people down by the opinions they share…that’s sad. Who are you to judge what they say, it is their opinion, their ideas and thoughts. If you have a counter argument, then by all means say it! But don’t eye roll your way through life (I mean the comments) because that only makes u seem like a bitch.
IF your remark made any sense at all, Why – I would give you a serious answer.
However, you have apparently not been reading the articles presented and the responses given.
I don’t give passes to morons. I don’t play with trolls.
If this makes me a bitch, I am completely fine with that.
When you have something concrete, something intelligent and interesting to share, please share. Until then, I’ll just sub file you in the “wanna-be-a-big-girl” file. It’s right there with the mini troll file.
I think that you mean *you*, not “u”.
Two extra keystrokes, 20 IQ points.
How’s that for bitch?
Trolls deserve scorn. And mocking. :D
you think you’re soooo smart and witty. well you’re not, you are just a pathetic old hag with too much time in her hands and a need to put people down. well, good for U, whatever rocks your boat. I, particularly, could not care less, I was just calling you out for what you are: a bitch. yet live your life like that i’m sure you’re very happy and all (yeah right).
and it’s getting kind of lame how you cry troll every time you don’t agree with something.
anyways, i’m off to a party, where I have actual friends and a bf, and blah blah blah my life is so much better than yours, how’s that for a troll?
don’t bore me with a response, im done here.
So there, Blurry…she told you! Now off to party with friends. And she’s got a BF and you probably don’t!!! *grin*
If you’re a pathetic old hag, what am I?
On second thought, don’t anwer that!!
That is so damn funny – especially since I wasn’t calling her a troll…
We can’t help being bitter, old, loveless (am I leaving anything out?) hags, can we now? See what you’ve gotten yourself into by being my twin, V?
I get to be the evil twin! YES!
Now something’s really wrong. Replying to Blurry’s apparent ‘bitterness’, and my namecalling, she seems to have confused the two of us into one entity.
Now that’s whacked…
It has that effect, as well. (I am so ashamed…)
[...] Are Kids Still Important To A Happy Marriage? – Zelda Lily [...]
[...] Are Kids Still Important to a Happy Marriage? | Zelda Lily: Feminism in a Bra [...]
No, I don’t think kids are important to a happy marriage. I think open and honest communication is one of the most important things to a happy marriage.
My parents would have been a lot happier without kids and with more open and honest communication. I know my sister and I were the only reason they were married for 25 years; they didn’t want to raise kids in a ‘broken home.’ Once we were both out of the house, my mother divorced my father, largely because they had never established truly open and honest lines of communication between each other. Had they been truly open and honest with each other from the beginning, things would probably be different between the two of them.
I disagree. I think children are essential for a family unit. They tighten the bond between two people and give them a new outlook on life.
So the infertile really are doomed…
They may be critical to your family unit, as if they are critical to your personal happiness, then it certainly matters that your guy agrees.
But while children can tighten the bond, they can absolutely put all sorts of cracks and dents and holes in the bond as well.
And that new outlook on life will not be a positive for everyone.
Many people would prefer their new outlooks to come in different forms.
People are different.
My husband and I have been married for 12 years and we don’t have kids. We don’t want them. I don’t feel like I’m missing anything nor do I gloat over my friends with kids when we travel to Europe. I think it’s sad that we’re still stuck in this discussion and making something so biologically natural and primal into something so much more than that.
Babies aren’t miracles, they’re what our bodies are designed to do. It’s one of the absolute most natural things we can do. But part of being a civilized society is that we can choose not to do it, too.
AMEN! Choosing not to have a child needs more representation here. Use ethics, your education, and the power of reason guide you if you want to raise a child and adopt!!
I can’t even imagine how my life would be without my kids.
Then again, I was very happy before I had them, too.
Yep, and I am also happy now that they have left the nest.
I finally get my 7 year old grandson for 2 weeks in July. He’s no old enough to fly by himself. He just called me a few dayws ago wondering if Darwin (the genini pig) can come also!
I see my edit feature worked real good.
I don’t think children are essential to a happy marriage. In fact, I’m worried about ever having children because I don’t want the bond and relationship I have with my fiance to be strained by having kids. I’ve seen a lot of couples fall apart because they have children and forget about one another and in some cases they forget about their own identities. I don’t know if I want to risk that.
Kids definitely cause strain on relationships. Luckily, for the most part, they bring their own happiness that offsets the strain. Plus, the hardest parts of parenthood tend to get easier after the first 5 years and it becomes much easier to concentrate on yourself and each other again.
But if you truly hate the idea of having kids, don’t do it. Otherwise the happiness won’t be so happy and the cracks will get deeper without the healing that comes from enjoying the child together.
Well, do you *want* kids? If you want them enough, it will be worth it. You don’t /have/ to lose your own identity, and if you’re determined to make sure you still get some personal time and some couple time from the beginning, you can definitely make it happen.
On the other hand, if you don’t feel any particular personal pull to procreated, don’t let societal expectations push you into it.