The facts are there, but Noer’s analysis still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the whys.


—————————————————————-

The facts are there, but Noer’s analysis still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the whys.
mikki0000

In essence, what Noer’s article confirms is that increasingly women today, in particular the career women discussed in the article now have the advantages and disadvantages in a marriage (in terms of various types of security and insecurity) that men have had for years. And that this necessarily means more hard work and competition (in the relationship) for the man! As well as a subsuming of their ego in many ways that they have been brought up to believe is their right.

Of course everyone prefers to be lazy and have someone else pick up after them… this article is tailor made for those people šŸ™‚ In addition, I think attitudes in divorce and marriage have less to do with facts (woman has a career) than expectations (because woman is working hard outside, she wants to share the burden of the work and if she is with someone who doesn’t help out, she has the financial independence to be able to call the shots – either staying in it for her own reasons, or walking out). This is the basic problem with the article – too much correlation of unhappiness with statistical facts, rather than attitudes. While the sociological phenomenon of marriage and divorce has a lot to do with not only the expectations of the people involved but the general norms of societies as they have evolved.

So to me the article can be summarized thus: Guys, marry someone who is younger than you, financially dependent on you, and likes to take care of the kids and stay at home, so that she can never leave you and you will never have any competition in any way. (But of course depending on your mentality, you can leave, cheat, never help out in the house or with the kids etc… because you are in control of the purse strings). Of course this is very convenient, and coming from a culture that encourages marriages based on convenience rather than love (I’m Indian) I know that innumerable Indian men do just that.

However, I guess I am one of those people that believes it is a wonderful thing when people are in a relationship not out of need or necessity, but choice. Perhaps we are in today’s day and age exploring a new dimension of “love”. One that is based on equality, and completion, and not dependence and insecurity. Of course this comes with its fair share of growing pains… but as pioneers perhaps we shall see in the end that it is all worth it.

Mallika

08-24-2006 09:31 AM

—————————————————————-

Re: The facts are there, but Noer’s analysis still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the whys.
duerra

mikki0000, I have to agree with you for the most part. The thing is, that power women have more of since becoming more financially independent really *is* a threat to men, because it really allows the woman to call all the shots, as you say. Not only do they now have the ability to walk out, but they also control the sex in most cases. I think this is highly underlooked. Women today are sexually in control, and if they are in control of the rest of the relationship as well, that can be a *very stressful* thing for the man. Yes, men need to adapt to be able to deal with these things better, but the entire tide can’t be in favor of the woman, or we will be in a hell of a mess, rendering men with no tools to be able to fall back on. Relationships need to be balanced in order to work. In more recent history, the man would hold the financial power, while the woman would hold the sexual keys. This allowed the relationship to balance itself out a little more. If the woman now holds both the keys, how much more difficult is it for the relationship to still maintain and *both* partners be happy?

08-24-2006 09:56 AM

—————————————————————-

Re: The facts are there, but Noer’s analysis still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the whys.
mikki0000

I completely agree with you on the balance issue, that it needs to be achieved somehow. But to that I would say that the “balance” that is achieved by financial power (vs need) on one side and sexual power (vs need) on the other is neither agreeable nor advisable, at least in a marriage (in other situations, sure – happens all the time!) One clear reason is that financial power can and has always been able to purchase sex, leading to an inbuilt inequality. Another is that sexual needs change/ dissipate/ become less urgent over time and with age, while financial needs actually build up! Another inequality.

A good mix of both on both sides sounds like the way to go.

M

08-24-2006 11:24 AM

—————————————————————-

Re: The facts are there, but Noer’s analysis still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the whys.
duerra

You make a good point as far as sexual need dissipating over time. However, I would counter that a good chuck of marriages end when one party discovers another that they feel makes them happier (as well as being unhappy in their current situation). As you get older, the frequency of those side attractions also dissipates, and you’re more likely to become more comfortable in your current role/position as well.

Of course the issue is far more complicated than money vs. sex, but I still do think that it plays a bigger role than is often actively brought to the discussion table.

08-24-2006 01:29 PM

—————————————————————-

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: