The argument i was responding to implied that due to traditional gender roles, the woman had to do the bulk of the housework despite also working full time and this creates resentment on the woman’s part towards the man.
With 2 women or 2 men, then the housework isn’t all going to be dumped on the woman in the relationship either because both are women or neither are women. Yet despite that, divorce rates for lesbians are twice those for gay men.
So the argument that housework all being dumped on the woman as a cause for divorce doesn’t make sense in light of gay and lesbian divorce rates.
I don’t think it’s a warranted conclusion. I have no idea what the typical division of labor is among lesbians or gay men, but my WAG is that most of the work would fall on one person in the relationship, thus creating a similar dynamic.
It also assumes that gay women are a representative sample of all women in terms of lifestyle, wants, needs, or expectations, and that also seems unlikely to me.
What I do know is that married gay men make bank. Since we’re spitballing, and women traditionally earn less than men, we might suppose (as other research suggests) that the divorce rate is significantly impacted by economic hardship, and two women have it economically harder than any other gender pairing.
For those of you suggesting that splitting up after living together is easier than getting a divorce, I call bull. My SO and I have been living together for 25 years, having neglected to do the whole paperwork/official thing. If we split now, it would be just as messy as a divorce. We have joint ownership of the house, the cars, the camper. We are named beneficiaries in each other’s life insurance. We share a bank account. On the emotional side, my family is his, and his is mine. We’d still be breaking up family and friends. The only part that would be easier would be a tiny bit of paperwork.
I don’t think there’s a directly causative relation, but those three factors do influence each other. For example: I know several women who were being pressured by their families to quit that college thing already and marry their boyfriends of several years. Both they and the boyfriends (who did not have college educations) came from families which did not value education per se, making these women kind of alien to their own families’ mindset: some of them were able to convince the boyfriend to wait, in part because they got him to understand that for them it was as important as for him to be able to have a career (something else that made the families screech; it was ok for women to work as waitresses, in cleaning or in retail but not to think of their jobs as careers). Others tried and tried and eventually broke up with the boyfriend; they married guys who valued education. And a third group left college to get married.
Which group or groups were in a more equal partnership? I think the first two (YMMV); those two groups had in common both a higher education and a higher age of marriage than the third group, but in both cases the causes were that the woman wanted an education and the man was capable of listening to her.
The issue of divorce nowadays is that in most states, you can get a divorce online for a hundred bucks, and that’s not a specter that is going to scare anybody away from marriage.
Stereotypically, women spend a lot of time thinking about their relationships, while men just tend to take relationships for granted. If true, this can explain why women initiate divorce more often.
Okay. And correspondingly, I will not accept your unsupported implication that children are categorically better off following divorce. In your own words above you outline some aspects that are extremely difficult for children. Yet in every divorce, it is 100% normal for the parent initiating the divorce to claim “the kids are better off”. I find it pretty remarkable, and I have to imagine it’s because we’re usually hearing it from the parent, not the child.
I personally think it’s a question of degree, and sometimes adults get it wrong. Those statements describe the world as I know it.
some people have bought into the notion that Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver are accurate depictions of the ideal American family, and everyone should be compelled to emulate it at any cost.
They don’t realize that’s not how things actually were back then. Everybody just pretended the bad stuff didn’t exist and swept it under the rug.
I’ve always enjoyed that website, The Good Men Project. It seems to me it neither toes the feminist line nor dismisses valid concerns by women and I think that’s pretty cool.
A male coworker of mine just got married, and the office threw him and his new wife an informal party.
All the older guys (45 years old and up) kept ribbing him (with his wife present) with (IMHO tacky and unfunny) “marriage is hell” jokes. The married women in attendance only had nice things to say to the young couple about what they were getting into.
My hypothesis: Guys of a certain age expect marriage to suck. The miserable husband is a trope in TV/movies, and men also see the cliche among their friends and family. They put up with the suckiness for the same reason they avoid going to the doctor when they have health issues: They don’t want to deal with all the ensuing mess. Plus, men are allowed to have social lives outside of the home, and this helps to diffuse the tension. Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, and Cleveland Brown can kvetch about their marital problems over beer with the fellas, but Marge, Lois, and Donna are stuck in the home, taking care of house and kids, unaware that the problems in their relationship may not be that unusual. Perhaps this is just a trope that exists on TV with no basis in reality. But if it doesn’t exist in reality, I wonder how it came to exist on TV.
Women aren’t bombarded with the “miserable wife” stereotype, so persistent unhappiness is seen as a red flag. Also, women are expected to be nurturers while men are expected to be providers. It is exhausting doing the nurturing thing when you resent someone. Keeping the bills paid and the cars running doesn’t require that much emotional fakery.
I think that if either party is miserable, that is a good enough reason to end a marriage. Abuse and infidelity are not the only acceptable reasons for divorce IMO. (Disclaimer: I am married, never divorced. So this is theoretical on my part, not based on personal experience.) Should people take their commitment to another person seriously? Absolutely. If there are children involved, they should take it a hundred times more seriously and work like hell to stay together if that is a viable option. But the idea that everyone who gets married must stay married just doesn’t make sense to me in this day and age.
If we take a historical view, marriages were rarely dissolved centuries ago because marriage was essentially transactional rather than emotional. (Women and children were considered the man’s property in many cultures as well. Ah, the good old days.) Now that emotional concerns (romantic love, common interests, companionship, etc.) have superseded issues of property, it’s no surprise that the ease of splitting up and the reasons for it have also changed radically.
Interestingly enough, though, when a couple divorces we are right back to issues of money and property. I do find it ridiculous for a man to claim that the money is all his when the assets have been shared within the marriage. I am also appalled beyond measure by the many men who refuse to provide financial support for their children following a divorce while also abdicating the responsibility of being a parent or at best seeing their children once in a while to play Disney dad.
the other half of the “TV dad” trope is that they’re pretty much all losers as well. Al Bundy’s last accomplishment was a good performance in a high school football game. Homer and Peter are consistent oafs who barely hold down their low paying jobs.
as a guy (not married tho) I’ve come to believe what really sours a lot of guys on marriage is kids.
I’m trying to put myself in the position of someone who does an overwhelming share of the housework and childrearing and has overall less free time than my partner. These are statistically established realities of married women.
I would not be thrilled with that. Would you? Do you think this unequal balance of responsibilities might contribute to your feelings of dissatisfaction within a marriage?
There is definitely a mismatch of expectations, increasingly among millennials, which might be contributing to the low marriage rate. Millennial men seem to have a traditional view of how things will work while millennial women have expectations for a more egalitarian arrangement. Both men and women are putting off childrearing until later in life.
Most of this is hypothetical and anthropological to me. I’m stupid happy in my marriage. I do most of the housework and manage the finances, but I also do less work outside the home and have time for my artistic endeavors. We are both really satisfied with the arrangement. Kids will throw a wrench into it, for sure, but I think we will be fine because we’re both aware of the unique stressors we face. I am all too happy to take on added duties when things get crazy for him at work, and he helps me when I’m dealing with health issues. I think part of a successful marriage is recognizing that it’s not a static process. Needs and expectations and responsibilities will change over time. I just try to be mindful of his happiness as much as my own, and if he seems unhappy, we work on making things easier for him, and vice-versa.
They are losers who somehow have middle class luxuries, a ton of friends, episode plots that center exclusively around their lives, and hot wives happy to do all the child-rearing and housework.
If I were an average guy who watched TV a lot, it would be hard for me to not feel like reality was ripping me off. WHERE’S MY HOT HOUSEWIFE WHO WILL PUT UP WITH MY TRIFLIN’ WAYS!