According to the song, love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. But when it comes to the history of marriage, pairing marriage with love is putting the cart before the horse. If we look at why people used to get married, traditionally, we’ll quickly see why marriages today are less stable. And why that may not be a terrible thing.
The phrase “traditional marriage” [1] is currently in vogue to describe opponents of gay marriage. Just what does marriage look like over time? Why do people marry and why is marriage changing so much?
I recently read an interesting book called Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephenie Coontz. The book explains some of the global marriage practices that currently exist and have existed through time. It also describes what the author considers the real cause of the downfall of marriage: connecting love and marriage.
Protection vs. Oppression Theory
Depending on whom you ask, marriage was either invented by men to protect or to oppress women. And some men would argue that marriage was invented by women to domesticate men (a pouty version of the protection argument). Let’s take a look at those arguments briefly.
The protection theory is similar to the argument that biology is destiny: because of the long human female gestation period, women need someone to protect them while they are physically vulnerable during pregnancy and nursing. Therefore, marriage was invented so that women would have a male (not vulnerable during pregnancy and nursing) to protect her and her offspring as a biological imperative to promote the species. The world must be peopled. Here are the holes in this theory: 1) historically, communities do a better job protecting females than do husbands (specifically other women do), 2) infant mortality rates were high throughout human history with or without marriage, so marriage was hardly ineffective if this was its aim, and 3) women aren’t as physically vulnerable during these times as this theory implies. Women are physically capable to continuing their normal work during nursing and pregnancy.
The oppression theory states that men historically used marriage to enslave women, and that perhaps it was even invented for this aim. Historically, women were not allowed to divorce, marital rape was legal and condoned, and in many societies, women who were unfaithful could (and still can be) killed. Female children were essentially traded property from a father to a husband, used to create ties between families with large properties. Women who dislike taking their husband’s last name have the equally patriarchal alternative of keeping their father’s last name. Feminist win!
A kinder version of the oppression theory posits that marriage was invented to harness the female workforce; wealthy men required women to handle their domestic affairs and protect their hearth and home so they could go to war, travel, conduct business, or pursue political gain. Some wealthy men had so much land that they even required a domestic workforce of multiple wives. Wives follow wealth, chronologically. [2]
Traditionally, Why Did People Marry?
Today people usually list the following reasons for people to marry: 1) companionship and love, and 2) to have children. But these reasons are relatively new, and often lead to divorce as we have more choices available to us. If you marry for love, when the honeymoon’s over or the companion becomes irritating, why not divorce and try your luck again? The ties that bind us are much less strong than they used to be now that we have more rights, more education, more ability for spouses to earn independently, and more choice.
Historically, people married for entirely different reasons:
- To share labor. It was much easier to run a farm or a family business as a married couple than it was to run it as an individual. And children were often the best way to increase the family workforce. Even in the wake of urbanization, children were required to get jobs to contribute to the family income. In today’s world, breeding to gain wealth has become the provenance of welfare queens, but historically it was a time honored tradition for children and spouses to increase the family’s wealth through direct labor contributions, unlike the 1950s model in which the husband became a sole breadwinner. A thrifty wife who could clip coupons replaced a hardy wife who could fell trees or cobble shoes, and the home became a refuge from the economic world, not an extension of the economic world.
- To connect to other families. Rather than marrying for spouses, most historical marriages were designed to connect in-laws to each other through the union of their children. Those getting married usually had no say in the matter. [3]
- To protect lands and investments. As families grew in wealth, they began to use marriage to privilege children born within a marriage as “legitimate” and able to inherit so that lands, titles and estates would not be divided. Thus marriage was a way to ensure one’s financial legacy would remain intact. The right of primogeniture (eldest sons inheriting) is an extension of this concept that figures into both Downton Abbey (in the pilot episode, Lady Mary is to be disinherited because the estate is entailed to a male heir, dreamy but dull cousin Matthew) and Pride & Prejudice (the unlucky Bennets have five daughters, meaning the reviled Mr. Collins will inherit their family home on the father’s death, leaving his widow and daughters penniless).
Why marry at all? Interestingly, most people who married were wealthy. Peasants often had no need to marry unless it was to pool resources, and when they did marry, it was generally a casual agreement, not sanctioned by the state or the church, just recognized by neighbors and family members. They had no wealth to protect. Marriage was by the wealthy, for the wealthy, a materialistic endeavor through and through.
We recently attended a family wedding in which the vows included the idea that the marriage was uniting two families. Given that both of the new spouses are independent adults in their 30s, and that the extended families mostly met for the first time at the wedding (if then), this notion seemed ridiculous. If they divorced, I would never see those people again. And yet, historically, these ties were often the primary reason for the marriage. These vows were a reminder of the history of marriage and the fact that “love” didn’t used to be what bound the couple together; it was their extended families.
When Love Came to Town
One reason Jane Austen’s books endure is that they capture the era in which love and personal happiness were first becoming accepted as a valid and preferred reason to marry. Her heroines are proposed to by relative strangers (compared to the familiarity of our relationships today), and they do the unthinkable in refusing to marry someone who can offer them financial security solely on the basis that they don’t love that person or believe the match will make them happy, even though they have no other immediate prospects. Their actions are normal to us today, but for that time, they were somewhat new and far riskier. Unmarried women had to rely on the kindness of relatives for financial support.
This also hints at why marriage is more unstable than ever.
If we go back to the very dawn of time, communities often provided the kind of support that we now equate with marriage. Communities protected and raised children, divided labor, took care of the infirm, and assisted with wet nursing and childbearing. Marriage wasn’t required to do those things. Over time, people entered a marriage when it was a financial advantage, particularly when individual property rights came to exist, and when the couple was financially ready to make that happen. They often didn’t even have to marry due to pregnancy, and monogamy wasn’t necessarily the norm. Affairs were tolerated throughout the history of marriage, and only became less tolerated for women when men were wealthy enough to care more about splitting their inheritance than splitting labor. [4]
What has changed?
- Marrying for love is the norm, even among most western “traditional” marriage proponents (although not so in other cultures which prize family and community obligations more than individual choice).
- Urbanization has led to fewer family or couple-run businesses. Working spouses work completely independently from each other.
- Bastardization is now seen as unfair and wrong; primogeniture has all but died by Season 3 of Downton Abbey.
- Child labor laws exist, so having children has become a financial drain, not a boon. [5]
- Divorce is easy to get and not stigmatized as in the past. Sociologist Paul Amato reports that while divorce lowers the well-being of 55-60% of children it actually raises the well-being of the other 40-45%.
- Birth control allows women to limit how many children they have and when.
- Women can support themselves financially, and the wage gap has greatly narrowed. Stay at home mothers only predominate in the richest 5% (where their social skills can enhance earning power) and poorest 25% (where they literally can’t afford to work due to marketability and costs of child care).
- Low income women are finding that remaining single is financially smarter because low-income men are often a financial drain on their already limited resources.
- Benefits that used to be restricted to married couples had to be extended to non-married people in alternative arrangements due to market demands.
- People are living longer than ever. Marriages, as a result, are lasting far, far longer than they ever did before.
When divorce laws are stringent and it’s difficult to get out of bad marriages, not only does domestic abuse flourish, but so does spousal homicide and suicide. According to economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, states that adopted unilateral divorce laws consistently saw a 20% drop in suicides among wives and significant drops in domestic abuse. The real “threat” to marriage is choice, particularly female choice, but choice is also what makes marriage more likely to be happy and healthy and not result in death.
Marriage has become more joyful, more loving, and more satisfying for many couples than ever before in history. At the same time it has become optional and more brittle. These two strands of change cannot be disentangled.
Marrying for love is short-sighted and frequently ends in divorce if spouses grow apart, don’t treat each other well, or are unhappy in their marriages over time, but marrying someone you respect and are friends with creates a different type of marriage, a longer lasting one. One thing that really drives a wedge in marital understanding is strict gender roles. The more couples see their spouse as greatly different from them in terms of needs, feelings, abilities, or desires, the less likely intimacy is. Relating to others as gender stereotypes is superficial and reduces empathy.
Most contemporary couples expect to share bread-winning and child-rearing roles more equally than their parents or grandparents did. When they adopt a more “traditional” division of labor after the birth of a child, this often destabilizes their relationship and increases their stress rather than relieving it. A wife who formerly worked outside the home feels isolated, lonely, and undervalued. Her husband doesn’t understand why she isn’t more grateful that he is putting in extra hours at work to support the new addition to the family. When such a couple adopts a traditional division of labor after the birth of a child, both parents usually end up dissatisfied. The more traditional the roles, the more dissatisfaction. [6]
What do you think about the future of marriage? How should we strengthen marriages?
- What is the best measure of marital success? Self-reported happiness? Divorce rates? Number of children? Is it impossible to measure?
- Is ready access to divorce positive or negative for individuals and society?
- Would arranged marriages, with the support and insight of both families, be stronger than marrying for love, which is often mere infatuation? Or are parents too prone to exploit their children in these types of matches (e.g. dowries or connections over their child’s happiness)?
- Are traditional gender roles helpful or harmful to marriage in your experience? Defend your answer.
- Should we quit idealizing the love match in order to strengthen marriages or is the love match essential to helping people want to marry and want to find happiness in marriage?
Discuss.
This is Part 1 of a 2 part post on marriage and is a reprint of a post I did at BCC. Next week’s post will review Susan Pease Gadoua’s book The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels.
[1] Obviously, polygamy isn’t included in what Mormons are calling “traditional marriage” so precedent isn’t the only thing to define “traditional” marriage.
[2] I’m not saying she’s a gold digger.
[3] Even in contemporary India, many unions remain arranged marriages under the assumption that the elders know their children best and can make the best decisions about their child’s future happiness. Love and companionship will follow if the parents choose well: “Some people still prefer the arranged marriage, especially in the countryside where tradition is still strong. The thought is that your parents know you very well, and will make the decision based on experience and not emotion. The divorce rate with arranged marriages is lower, because both families are heavily involved and there are many people committed to making the match work. But the tradition is on the way out. . . . Many families still choose to uphold the appearance of an arrangement. Their children will come to them and say: ‘I fell in love.’ And they’ll say: ‘OK, let us arrange it.'” Jammu, India
[4] These are northern European norms, the basis for the American marriage tradition. Norms in Asia, even today, are very different. People still marry when they are financially dependent on parents. The bride moves in with the groom’s family and has specific duties she must perform in the extended family. If they are displeased with her, she may be at real risk because she is entirely in their charge and often living away from her own familial support network. Bride burning in India is one of the horrible outcomes of this traditional marriage arrangement.
[5] $7 for a “field trip” to the school’s gymnasium?? Who are they kidding?
[6] Philip Cown and Carolyn Pape Cowan, “New Families: Modern Couples as New Pioneers.”
Wheat & Tares 
I’m a sucker for Jane Austen references and always manage to throw one into every talk I deliver in Sacrament meeting, so this article was a win for me.
I wish I had something insightful to say, but honestly this article is so good there is nothing left for me. Really well done.
What Dave K said.
Dang – another book I want to add to my toppling pile of books to read.
Does hawkgrrrl ever put out a blog post that isn’t just “wow”?
Wow, Hawkgrrrl – this is a great post! You’re the best.
I was just listening to this yesterday, which was very interesting ( Voices from our Industrial Past: Women http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b055fzlt). It seems upper class attitudes regarding marriage, unwed pregnancy being abhorred were suffered by the lower classes when their living depended upon the upper classes, as servants and so forth, hence foundling hospitals of London. Very different to the north of England and southern Scotland, where factory work available to women meant they were able to support themselves and their children, and who sometimes chose not to marry at all, children notwithstanding.
At the time I was listening it struck me as mildly interesting that it was from here (Preston got a mention) that many of the first British converts came, who would go on to grapple with polygamy.
“And some men would argue that marriage was invented by women to domesticate men.”
Not “invented by women” but the domestication of men is probably the single most important raison d’être of marriage. It gives a sense of responsibility where there is no natural sense of it.
Womem are already naturally invested in their offspring without marriage. They don’t need marriage for protection, rather the children need a responsible father figure, one that doesn’t come without a sense of responsibility.
I don’t buy the idea that a community of women can raise a child as well as a mother and father. And I think ancients understood this as well.
I find that men come into the marriage in many cases as the first “child.” Especially in situations where they come from parental home to marriage. Men require upkeep.
I imagine it can be quite draining, especially after real children come.
The breadwinner sense of entitlement tend to make the wife a mother of sorts. In homes, where there is equal sharing of the income earning or where the wife is the majority breadwinner, maybe this isn’t as big a problem.
Actually, I’m wrong. The domestication of men is the greatest advantage of marriage in the modern world. (Not the ancient, where it was about possessing wives and children as assets.)
Now that wives and children are no longer assets to be possessed or protected, what remains is the Hellenic idea that marriage exists to raise children properly, (not simply own them) and to domesticate men to make them up to the task.
Comments 1-4 seem like BCC comments. Welcome!
As far as uniting families historically, the marriage was symbolic, but having children formed the real bond – the child contained bloodlines from both families and was therefore expected to consider the best interests of both sides (the child itself was the physical manifestation of the alliance).
I’ve met a couple from India who had an arranged marriage. They had the traditional type where they did not know each other beforehand. I wouldn’t say the marriage was happy, but the wife seemed content as far as I could tell. They were from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and I suspect the parents found benefit in the union.
One thing my parents have commented on is that none of their children married the types of spouses they expected (partly due to the less than ideal compatibility of the in-laws). So far all the marriages have been succesful. This makes me hesitant to revert back to the days of arranged marriages. Western civilizations value the individual’s pursuit of his or her own happiness. I think that were parental choice allowed to become a major role again, we’d see a lot more decisions made to benefit the social/economic standing of the parents, and you’d run a greater risk of resentful, unhappy children.
Honestly, I think the decreased stigma on divorce probably has a net benefit. It’s never a pleasant situation (especially where kids are involved), but I’ve done enough family history to recognize that the ways spouses separated in the past provided less protection for dependent family members. I wish people entered marriages more seriously so that divorces wouldn’t be as necessary (thinking of Mormon college kids that are married within a few months of meeting each other), but I don’t really have a good solution for that.
Our cultural attitudes on marriage have swung far to the side of idealizing the love match, which encourages more frequent separation when a marriage loses its spark. I’m reminded of a conversation I had among coworkers years ago. The argument was concerning which bond was stronger – the parent/child bond or the marriage bond. The only two religious people (me and another guy, a Lutheran) felt that the marriage bond was stronger since kids would eventually leave and form families of their own. The majority view, though, was that the parent/child bond was stronger. Spouses come and go, they argued, but the relationship between a parent and a child could never be severed. I thought it was fascinating that even people who came from homes without history of separation viewed marriage as a temporary arrangement.
I’m actually currently reading that book. There were two time periods that especially stood out to me: one was during the middle ages, when people (both men and women) married much later in life after establishing businesses. Choosing a spouse was more like picking a life long business partner. There still was a lot of family and community influence on who you would marry though. The other time period that stood out was the Victorian era and the transition into the 20th century. This section sounded so much like what we hear at church about women’s and men’s separate spheres. Coming into the 20th century, premarital sex was common, but there was this idea that you did it to keep your man. I thought it was interesting that with all the “free love” kind of mindset they had, there still was this inequality between men and women at that time.
As to the future of marriage, I’ve read this essay (http://www.thebookoflife.org/how-we-end-up-marrying-the-wrong-people/) that suggests the future is psychological marriages in which couples rely on compatibility rankings evaluated by a professional. This is already a thing, BYU has the RELATE institute. It actually makes sense to me, you could still pick based on attraction or whatever, but having someone help you see where the problems in your marriage may arise could help people go into marriage with their eyes open at least.
If it weren’t for some of the legal benefits of marriage, I don’t think it would continue. I also don’t think marriage ‘domesticates’ men. I DO think children tend to domesticate women, or at the very least, tie them down more – at least when the kids are young. Depending on what affair stats you’re using, people in general are obviously not domesticated by marriage or children… I think children are the ultimate tid that binds because even through divorce, you’re likely still stuck co-parenting and working out the financials. Aside from the legalities, it’s all mental.
Also, great post – thanks!
Hawkgirl,
Your post reminded me of a quote by Spencer Kimball.
“‘Soul mates’ are fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price.
“Are traditional gender roles helpful or harmful to marriage in your experience?”
They were helpful, at least in my experience.
I personally loved the idea of coming home to Mom when I was real young. I always knew where I stood and always knew what was expected of me when I got home. In my teenage years it kept me out of a lot of trouble as I knew I would always answer to Mom.
In contrast, having my Dad ‘watch us’, was like not being watched at all. Along these lines, when he came to see me off for my mission at the airport (I was actually surprised he came) he took about 3 minutes to say goodbye and was off to a meeting.
He was very task oriented and extremely good at teaching us the value of work. We lived in a large home on a very large lot. He would get us up before school for chores, which usually involved some type of yard work. He loved golf and most of our back yard was putting greens and sand traps, which required special care.
The traditional gender roles worked very well for my family. All of my brothers and I went on missions, all of us were married in the temple and all of us are still married to our original spouse. I am the youngest and have been married for 26 years.All of us are still active in the church, some with very high profile positions in the church (Quorum Presidents, Bishops, Stake President, etc).
“When such a couple adopts a traditional division of labor after the birth of a child, both parents usually end up dissatisfied. The more traditional the roles, the more dissatisfaction.”
No agenda there! I’m sure Cown and Cowan have an exhaustive study (with rigorous controls and objective metrics) that guarantees that my anecdotal experience is anomalous. And when guys like Ken say things like
“The traditional gender roles worked very well for my family. All of my brothers and I went on missions, all of us were married in the temple and all of us are still married to our original spouse. I am the youngest and have been married for 26 years.All of us are still active in the church” ,
he’s using metrics Cown and Cowan would find irrelevant.
My personal experience matches Ken’s, but then most of my friends are those who’ve bought into the church’s party line and seem to be doing well. Maybe it also depends on what is meant by “traditional”, and what one gets satisfaction from.
I find the comments about men being just another child and needing to be domesticated so they can be “up to the task” of being a spouse and a parent fantastically condescending and insulting, to women at least as much to men. This seems to be in keeping with lds men’s general strategy of praising women for their inherent goodness and condemning men for their cluelessness and shortcomings, while simultaneously keeping any real responsibility or authority from women. That used to be a winning strategy, but it’s a bit embarrassing in this day and age, and frankly, I don’t think most women are buying it anymore. Women aren’t better or holier or more righteous or inherently more anything than men, and vice versa. Yes, men and women bring different innate strengths and weaknesses to the table. But that moldy old chestnut about the only way a man is getting to heaven is if his saintly wife drags him there is laughable; in fact, the only thing more laughable is the idea that men actually believe it. If men thought women were more competent in any way, they wouldn’t have treated women like property, and idiot property at that, for pretty much the whole of human history. The good news is society is catching up to this reality. The bad news is, groups like the lds church are fighting it tooth and nail. Look, I’m not a woman, but even I can tell when someone is pi**ing on my leg and telling me it’s raining. I think this crowd is a bit above such silly condescensions.
Interesting topic. I think the reason arranged marriages are no longer fashionable is that we have come to realize that our lives are actually ours to do with as we will. I do agree that marriage for love alone is why divorce is so prevalent.I think the idea of marrying someone who is your best friend is the only rational conclusion and has the most satisfying and lasting results. At least, that is what I am looking for the next time around. Being a single parent is not ideal. I agree that children need to be raised with two parents to get a well rounded outlook and perspective in life. It is hard to be all things to the children as a single Mom. I have to be both Mom and Dad. Unfortunately, it usually translates to being great at neither. If we add Eternal Marriage into the mix it is even more critical to marry your best friend. Eternity spent with someone you don’t like or have fallen out of love with could be more like torture than an Eternity of happiness.
I think it is important to note that countries with low divorce have a high rate of suicide among women. Personally, I’d rather have high divorce and low suicide than low divorce and high suicide.
MH, let’s see some proof of that.
Check out the graph titled “Effect of Unilateral Divorce on Female Suicide”
https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/Durlauf/networkweb1/temp/Divorceweb.html
I still don’t buy into many of the statements made in the OP. However, another question comes to mind. We say “marriage is ordained of God.” Yet, if I take the OP’s views at face value, marriage (historically) is just a business partnership with some sex thrown in for good measure. Are our sealing policies romanticizing relationships that really need not be eternal? The OP seems to be saying men and women got together so they could farm and market, and children were just a renewable resource. Hardly the kind of marriage I would call ordained of God, much less the kind of marriage that should be eternal. Why do all this sealing work in the temple if the relationships between men and women, parents and children, were simply business?
MH,,”“Effect of Unilateral Divorce on Female Suicide”
Table 3 is probably the weakest of the conclusions drawn from the report. In fact, as I read it, it goes to great lengths to point out REDUCTIONS in female (and male)suicide as a result of no fault divorce.
OTOH, it is strictly correlated data since you cannot ask someone why they committed suicide.
“strictly correlated data since you cannot ask someone why they committed suicide”
And add to that the mental state of a person that commits suicide. MH is concluding the marriage resulted in depression; while, the very opposite could be true and the depression resulted in divorce and later into suicide.
It is like saying there is a high correlation between the use of anti depressants and suicide. Well of course, the person taking the medication is depressed.
I’m trying to find the report that shows that countries that have outlawed divorce (or made it extremely difficult) have higher rates of female suicide, but it didn’t come up in a quick google search. The report conclusion I read stated that women who are in a bad marriage and can’t divorce, commit suicide in higher rates because that is the only option.
I am absolutely not saying that “marriage resulted in depression”, but with Ken having the habit of jumping to conclusions, I can see why he once again jumped to another bad conclusion about something I did not say or imply.
I appreciated the solid scholarship in the Coontz book that is the source of some of this info. But when I read it, my impression is that our church promotes a model of marriage that uses some aspects of traditional marriage (man & woman) but is radically different as far as equal partnership and emphasis on child production and rearing. Thus I don’t think it is accurate to lump LDS teachings on marriage into the “traditional” label.
I find the OP is far too quick to dismiss the protection theory. A non-trivial number of women find that they do need protection during pregnancy and lactation. That may only take two years per child, but if one has multiple children, it can add up. And at the same season of life when one is typically building a career.
I corresponded with a registered dietitian in the Chicagoland area whose expertise is coaching professional women through nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. But her typical client already had an abortion in a panic when the pregnancy was interfering with her career. And in England where abortion on demand has been legal longer, studies show that a major reason women seek an elective abortion is to maintain their job performance.
So while some women may not be “physically vulnerable” during pregnancy, some women seek abortions to avoid vulberability. And others who make it through pregnancy without major issues have physical problems later as a result of pregnancy (I had two surgeries and a permanent disability).
This is exactly why some feminists suggest that avoiding motherhood is a key factor in retaining equality: from de Beauvoir’s THE SECOND SEX (1949) to Hirshman’s GET TO WORK (2006), the authors are disparaging of motherhood, although Hirshman allows that maybe one child won’t have as horrible effect on the striving for equality.
As far as women feeling trapped at home, I suspect some of that has to do with whether it was by choice/plan or not. In one toddler playgroup, none of the other (non-LDS) moms had considered being at home fulltime, but one was fired when she was put on bedrest, others found that their childcare was not adequate, one was home during her husband’s Chief Resident year to allow him to focus more on work for a season. Part of the angst came from it being an unexpected situation, uncomfortable after years of looking down on full-time parents.
I don’t think that I must do the exact same job that my husband does for every year of our marriage in order to appreciate his work. And I don’t think that he has to do my work in order to appreciate it. We can be different but equal, if we value child production and household management as much as we value a paycheck.
That’s something that I first heard when investigating the church.
In the extreme, I know some couples where dad was NOT supportive of mom breastfeeding because he resented that she had a special bond with the baby. They bottle-fed so that they could be equal in feeding. Best for dad, maybe not best for baby.
And I know lots of women who would love to be employed fewer hours or at home for a season, but cannot because their husband is not willing. He only respects “equality” if it is doing what men have always done.
“but with Ken having the habit of jumping to conclusions, I can see why he once again jumped to another bad conclusion about something I did not say or imply”
You Said:
[i] [b] “I think it is important to note that countries with low divorce have a high rate of suicide among women. Personally, I’d rather have high divorce and low suicide than low divorce and high suicide” [/i] [/b]
If this does not make the assertion that women who are ‘forced’ to stay in their marriage are more inclined to commit suicide, then what was your point?
Jeff S. drew the same conclusion from your comment asking you to ‘prove it”. You then responded with “proof” of a study ‘proving’ your statement. What else am I to conclude from this dialogue?
Ken and Jeff, you guys didn’t apparently read the conclusion of the report in MH’s link. The analysis showed a correlation between better access to unilateral divorce and a REDUCTION in female suicides (up to 20%). The study was comparing data from different states in the United States. There was no strong correlation (positive or negative) with better access to unilateral divorce and male suicide rates or domestic murders. Ken, your argument that depression resulting from divorce leading to more suicides is completely opposite to the evidence in that study.
Now, divorced people have a higher risk of suicide than married people (that’s well established in several studies), but the correlation between the historic wider availability to divorce and reduction of female suicides in that report would lend credence to the theory that women used suicide to get out of unhappy marriages more when divorce was not an option.
As far as whether traditional roles are helpful or harmful, a lot is going to depend on the expectations of the two individuals going into the marriage. A wife hoping to work outside the home might be resentful if the husband insists she stay home. On the other hand, a wife expecting to stay at home with kids is going to be resentful if the husband insists she works to help support the family. The same will happen on the husband’s side – a more traditional man might feel emasculated if his wife insists on working outside the home, while a man with more egalitarian expectations might feel resentful shouldering the full burden of a single-income household and having less time with kids.
Mary Ann,
“Ken, your argument that depression resulting from divorce”
That is not what I said, my quote is:
“MH is concluding the marriage resulted in depression (suicide… added to be more clear); while, the very opposite could be true and the DEPRESSION RESULTED IN DIVORCE AND LATER INTO SUICIDE.
My point is, people that commit suicide are not in a good mental state. MH (and the study for that matter) is saying the bad marriage and inability to get out of the marriage caused mostly women to kill themselves. I am saying, it could be their depression, or not being in a good mental state, caused problems in their relationship, which lead to the divorce. AND the continued fight with depression or mental instability ultimately resulted in suicide.
I never said depression resulting from divorce.
RE: gender roles
I come from a strong matriarchal line where the wives have a more dominant personality. If we ever got in trouble we went to dad first, he was definitely more nurturing. My mom kicked holes in the wall when we screwed up. All of us kids ended up just fine; I imagine we’re no more dysfunctional than most families.
Imagine my surprise when I married into a very patriarchal household and no one could disagree with the FIL bc he was “the head of the family and priesthood leader and what he said goes.
In my own family I encourage my husband to nurture my daughter in a number of ways. Sure he does the typical things of coaching teams and introducing her to star wars . . . but I’ve got quite a few precious snapshots of them outside looking at the clouds or in a tent reading books together. He gives butterfly kisses just as well and often as I do. I value my husband’s ability to nurture every bit as much as my own (I’d say my skills in parenthood come from being the silly one with crazy dance parties, etc.).
I traced some of my family lines to the early 1700’s, about the time when writers say the notion of romantic love in marriage began to take hold. And this quote: Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world population, found in “just Western Europe and little settlements in North America.” So any talk about plurality being the exception rather than the rule is misplaced. Has anyone out there run into instances of plural marriage (aside from early Mormon ancestors) when doing family history research? I haven’t seen any, but maybe my family lines are exceptional. Or, maybe we’re all a bunch of Euro-Americans whose ancestors ceased to engage in plural marriage 500 to 600 years ago.
Ken, you’re still missing the point. In the study the US states that had not yet implemented better divorce laws had HIGHER rates of female suicide. You keep inserting divorce between the depression and the suicide, that was NOT the result of the study. Yes, suicide usually results from an unstable mental state, but according to the study there were more females in that unstable mental state leading to suicide in US states that had NOT YET implemented more available divorce laws. Magically, when states had more available divorce laws, there were suddenly less women in that unstable mental state leading to the suicide.
“MH is concluding the marriage resulted in depression (suicide… added to be more clear); while, the very opposite could be true and the DEPRESSION RESULTED IN DIVORCE AND LATER INTO SUICIDE.”
Ken, you are misinterpreting both my words and the study. I never made that claim that you are attributing to me. I’m tired of this, and I’m not going to engage you further. I would try to help you understand, but from past experience, that hasn’t been fruitful, so I’m going to quit engaging you. But I will say I would like you to stop mis-attributing my words. I never said, nor implied such a thing.
Reading is obviously not your specialty.
IDIAT – monogamy started being enforced in ancient Greece and Rome. It spread across Europe with Christianity. Monogamy has been the norm among Europeans for 1500-2000 years. You are more likely to run into non-Mormon polygamous ancestors (usually polygynous, less often polyandrous) if your ancestry is from non-Western countries. Polygyny is still legal (and practiced) in most of Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.
Mary Ann,
I get what they are saying. I have stated it twice now, but will again. The report is saying women are killing themselves because they are in a crappy marriage and can’t get out and ‘prove’ this by looking at the correlation coefficient (or at least perceived correlation coefficient) between divorce laws and suicide rates.
I am saying mentally stable people do not kill themselves. Mentally unstable people get themselves in unstable relationships. They make poor choices, such as suicide. I am further saying mental instability translates into a crappy marriage. The correlation coefficient they should explore is the relationship between mental instability and divorce. My guess is that it will be close to 1.
MH,
Fair enough, i will retract what I said.
What are you saying?
#25 – While even if such a study exists it might be subject to discussion. That is, in many nations where divorce until recently was difficult if not impossible to obtain, usually in overwhelmingly Catholic lands, an inability of a woman to flee an unhappy marriage and/or an abusive husband would understandably result in higher incidences of aberrant behavior (elective abortions, alcoholism, violence of her own, adultery, and, of course, suicide). Even wherein the wife is not herself unhappy with the marriage, if the husband is and he manifests it with repeated adultery (e.g., taking a mistress or a series of same), or alcoholism or drug abuse, his misbehavior could likely have the unfortunate result of driving her to ultimate despair.
While making it TOO EASY to get out of a marriage has its own social as well as personal ills, a flat prohibition on divorce (“You made your bed and must lie in it”) does NOT, IMHO, uphold “traditional” marriage. Only a masochist would celebrate an perpetual state of misery.
Countering Hawk’s feminist drivel in the OP would each constitute a thread-jack. Her smart-alecky cartoons are still up to form, though, and still make the OP worth reading, if only for a chuckle or two. Please, also, if you’re going to parade Mr. Takei’s being gay, balance it with some of his many other noteworthy achievements that have nothing to do with his sexual preference…if I could find a GIF of him taking Nichelle Nicols in one arm with a fencing sword in the other, I’d counter with that. At the rate you’re going, no one’s going to remember him starting the tradition of the Enterprise having a Sulu at the helm.
Ken: “I am saying mentally stable people do not kill themselves. Mentally unstable people get themselves in unstable relationships. They make poor choices, such as suicide. I am further saying mental instability translates into a crappy marriage.” Interesting observation. Of course, I’m sure there’s some truth to that, although another interesting survey result shows that what men fear most from women is being laughed at. What women fear most from men is being killed. Adds a little perspective to the idea of suicide as a way out when no fault divorce is not an option (which thankfully is no longer the case). The other interesting study in the book about domestic violence and divorce showed that in states that required couples to prove there was abuse to get a divorce, the abuse matched the state’s requirements exactly. IOW, people would meet the arbitrary standard to get out of a bad marriage, even if that meant they had to fake it to get the state to release them.
Hawkgrrrl’s comment reminded me of something. I have to run off to YM’s or I would first find the reference, but I recall that one study showed that when divorces were easier to obtain, the % of cases of a wife killing their husbands decreased.
“Polygyny is still legal (and practiced) in most of Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia.”
I highly recommend the movie Wadjda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadjda
for insights into modern-day polygamy.
Hawkgirl,
I agree with the hypothesis that forcing women (or men) to stay in a crappy marriage would augment depression; thus, increasing the propensity for suicide. I just don’t think the report accounts for the fact that those who ultimately decided to kill themselves were very likely (but admittedly not every case) unstable entering the relationship, which augmented martial issues and decreased the chance for a successful marriage.
As you pointed out men and women have different motivations and the fact women were more likely to commit suicide than men about relationship (as the report suggests) issues illustrates this point. I would guess men are more likely to commit suicide when it comes to a failed accomplishment, such as losing a job.
I think that in countries with arranged marriages, the wife has no input as to who she marries and is at the mercy of circumstances. In these cases, the crappy marriage is not a result of “poor choices”.
Ken, men are also more likely to be family annihilators when they feel they’ve failed in life (if they also have emotional problems).
Hawkgirl,
I would agree with your last comment
#30 “As far as whether traditional roles are helpful or harmful, a lot is going to depend on the expectations of the two individuals going into the marriage.”
I find this to be the crux of it. I don’t think it’s necessarily about whether traditional roles are helpful or harmful, so much as it’s about what the expectations of each individual are, and the couple as a unit, and whether or not those expectations are being met. I think it all depends on what your spouse really values. I stay at home now, but I have a graduate degree, and my husband has always expected that I will work and bring home a paycheck, whether it’s equal to his or not. I find myself doing some justifying of the things I take care of at home that allow him to focus on his job much more than if we were both working and trying to cram chores and child time in on the side. On the other hand, I knew a couple who were both working, BUT, the guy would want his wife to stay home if they had kids because that’s what he had growing up and that’s what he valued – but he didn’t even want children.
As Naismith mentioned, there can be very real consequences to having children and trying to maintain a career. There can be physical complications. If a woman chooses to breastfeed, but goes back to work, well, she’s the one losing out on sleep, but still going to work. On the other hand, there can be drawbacks to staying home as well.
Generally, I hear a lot of justifying going on from women, but rarely from men. If she stays at home, she justifies the value in that. If she works and brings home a paycheck, she justifies the value in that role as well. Sometimes the justification is to a husband, and sometimes the justifying is done to friends, family, or society.
“Generally, I hear a lot of justifying going on from women, but rarely from men.” Unfortunately, this is because women’s choices are more subject to criticism than men’s. CEO Ursie Burns (Xerox) said at a women in leadership conference I attended that women executives were leaving vacancies behind at home, and men weren’t filling those spaces. Rather than excoriating the men for failing to be good partners, she cautioned the women to mind those spaces.
The suicide rate for American women 25-64 years of age increased from 5.75 per 100,000 in 2000 to 7.35 in 2009, a hefty 28% increase in the portion of women killing themselves. On the other hand the rate of women not killing themselves in a given year went from 99,994.25 per 100,000 to 99,992.65 per 100,000: a 0.002% decline. In other words, suicide is a rare event. If 8 per 100,000 per year of some group did something, over a 40-year span that would amount to 1 in 300 doing it, 2.7 standard deviations out on a normal distribution. Some skepticism may be in order about variations in that skinny tail having anything to tell us about any particular cause of unhappiness as experienced by the general, non-suicidal population.
@49
Thanks John.
In other words, the report tells absolutely noting.
“In other words, the report tells absolutely noting.”
This also describes your contributions to the conversation here.
I recently finished reading Orhan Pamuk’s book “Snow”, in which a man returns to his hometown under the pretense of being a reporter investigating a rash of suicides by the “headscarf girls” (a mystery, because they started committing suicide after being forbidden to wear headscarves at school, but they did so in the face of strict Islamic prohibitions against suicide, thus damning themselves to hell). The book simultaneously explores the tensions of feminism and patriarchy as well as secularism and political religion in almost-modern Turkey, and I’d highly recommend it. Having read it, though, I’d intuit that women would be more likely to commit suicide when they feel hopelessly oppressed and yet can imagine something better. I’d expect women who have no hope of divorce and yet have never had nor expected better things are less likely to kill themselves than women who are unable to divorce, but know that others can and do have higher expectations from life. I’d guess that for the latter group, the possibility for divorce would likely decrease suicide rates.
That aside, I’ve noticed that in the bloggernacle, almost all the conservatives (those defending the status quo) tend to be male. Obviously, this is fairly liberal arena, but in my experience at church, there are a fair number of intelligent and articulate conservative women, yet I don’t see too many of them comment on posts such as these. The impression one could get is that only patriarchal males wanting to defend their privilege are going to speak in favor traditional gender roles, male-only priesthood, etc., but that’s not at all the impression I get from women at church. I understand the social risk of presenting oneself as a feminist (or even liberal Mormon) at church, so I’m sure there must be several closeted somewhere, but the conservatives clearly carry the majority. One might argue that’s because the liberals have all been run out of the church. Therefore one might argue that the liberal majority of the ‘naccle also runs off the conservatives. But not all the male conservatives have been run off. So where are the females? I think there’s a slightly different dynamic there in which conservative women hate being painted as traitors more than the conservative men dislike being painted as oppressors. Or maybe it’s just as the feminists say — that women have been socially pre-conditioned to avoid conflict more than men. However, when it comes to posts like these in which sources state as facts that traditional gender roles lead to less satisfactory marriages, it makes me wonder — are such women really that rare?
A few days ago a blog post showed up in facebook from multiple sources “Dear Bishop: From Mormon Women, with love” (I won’t link it to avoid comment purgatory, but it searches easily). It’s basically in the same vein as Neylan McBain’s stuff, nothing very edgy, and I thought I’d see if I could get comments on it from four prominent women in the ward. Three were on the ward council, and three (not the same three) were returned missionaries. Three would be considered fairly outspoken, one a little quieter. All of them seem to have good marriages, all of which are more traditional (eg., none worked outside the home with younger families). All of them expressed concern for the women who feel disenfranchised. None of them said they personally felt disenfranchised, or personally felt a need for much change, though they were open to some. The one who felt the most inclination to shake things up prefaced her comments this way: “My background is such that I came from a really supportive home with strong priesthood leadership. With this type of personal experience, I’ve never felt the longings for change that other women may feel.”
My point isn’t that there aren’t people, especially women, who are dissatisfied with more traditional gender arrangements. It’s just that from my personal experience, there are a lot of people, including women, who actually like them and seem to thrive. Admittedly, like-minded people tend to congregate, so that’s the company I keep. And maybe our “traditional” arrangements are actually more modern than the standard set in the sources. But I’d say there are a lot of us who’d argue that our traditional arrangements are better.
Martin: “The impression one could get is that only patriarchal males wanting to defend their privilege are going to speak in favor traditional gender roles, male-only priesthood, etc., but that’s not at all the impression I get from women at church.” Where to start? I have several observations:
1 – Lots of women benefit from status quo also (yes, they tend to be conservatives). So long as they have a choice in the matter, good for them!
2 – Conservative women in the church (in female-only groups) don’t sound just like the men from what I hear. They certainly don’t feel they are submissive to male authority from what they say in women-only groups. They may be humoring the men, but they feel quite confident in stating their opinions and making decisions, not waiting for a PH leader to tell them what to do or think.
3 – I am sure this is partly my bias, but I tend to think there is an economic fault line on this issue. Women who are wealthier are less defensive of their choices, maybe because those choices have come at less personal cost and sacrifice. That could be purely anecdotal, but I don’t hear women in wealthy wards shirking from the title feminism nearly as much as they do in poorer wards, whether they work outside the home or not.
4 – Again, in my own experience (YMMV), Mormon marriages are far more egalitarian than say evangelical marriages, gender roles or not. Mormon men are family-centric and personally involved in a way Fred Flintstone wasn’t, and in general (within marriage), Mormons are sex-positive, creating even more marital cohesion.
Martin, just where do you get off making a reasonable, nuanced, non-confrontational comment in a conversation like this? You’d better watch yourself, bub.
“Imagine my surprise when I married into a very patriarchal household and no one could disagree with the FIL bc he was “the head of the family and priesthood leader and what he said goes.”
I don’t consider that to be following the patriarchal order, but rather abuse.
The church teaches that priesthood is used to bless others, not to get one’s own way.
Yes, I’ve run in to a few LDS guys with that attitude. But one was disfellowshipped and one excommunicated.
Seriously…is that what folks think of as “traditional”? I would never put up with that crap.
Certainly, there is a generational trend, since there was a time when “Father Knows Best” was a common attitude in mainstream USAmerican society outside the church as well. But I joined the church in the 1970s, when President Kimball talked about equal partnership in marriage.
Martin, after looking at the post you referenced, I would be shocked if a self-described conservative supported it. The views expressed are quite tame compared to what is on the bloggernacle, but it is nowhere near what I feel a Mormon woman with orthodox views would have the audacity to tell a bishop. Arguing for or against traditional gender roles in marriage is completely separate from arguing for or against traditional gender roles in our church infrastructure (what that post is about). Also, just because a marriage structure on the surface looks traditional (working husband, stay at home wife), it does not mean that all roles in the marriage follow the same traditional divisions. I would suggest that you ask those women their views on marriage roles, rather than deducing they support traditional marriage roles because they do not feel disenfranchised in their roles as women in the church.
Martin, I had also shared the post you linked with family and local church members on social media. It garnered some interesting discussion amongst family. One of my brothers is a Bishop, and my sister is on her Stake RS presidency, and both liked some ideas more than others and thought they might recommend some of the things mentioned. They both look very conservative on the outside. I’m pretty sure I looked conservative until I started wearing trousers to church. But I’m not, and never have been conservative. I wouldn’t describe my marriage or family as being ‘traditional’, even though it might look like that from the outside. So I’m with Mary Ann on that. And I’ve certainly gone head to head with church priesthood leadership several times over the years, where we have disagreed.
Naismith: “Yes, I’ve run in to a few LDS guys with that attitude. But one was disfellowshipped and one excommunicated.”
I’ve also run into a few too, one was a Bishop, and others in positions of leadership as well. Which isn’t to say there haven’t also been some really lovely men as well, there have.
I think in a lot of our conversations we may well be using different definitions of words perhaps, as coloured by our differing experiences.
Hawkgrrrl to Martin: “Conservative women in the church (in female-only groups) don’t sound just like the men from what I hear. They certainly don’t feel they are submissive to male authority from what they say in women-only groups. They may be humoring the men, but they feel quite confident in stating their opinions and making decisions, not waiting for a PH leader to tell them what to do or think.”
I see this as well. There are women who are oppressed in traditional roles, and those who are empowered in traditional roles. So describing a relationship as “traditional” doesn’t really say anything about whether being traditional is positive or negative.
It depends upon how the traditional role is used. Men who use traditional roles to assert their power will become oppressive. Men who use traditional roles to encourage themselves to take responsibility and serve will become empowering, bringing them into the women’s circle of conscientiousness and service. Conservative women at church know that their priesthood leadership is less than perfect, but they appreciate their efforts, and the access to revelation that it “sometimes” brings. The women, knowing that the priesthood is imperfect, work around it in practical ways without having to get more “rights:” speaking their mind when they think it can do some good, sometimes complaining to husbands and leaders, but still being relatively respectful of the overarching dynamics of authority.
But in my mind, they should be MORE outspoken, because the scriptural pattern is for Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah to make the big family decisions and lead their husbands through their superior wisdom and commitment, to convince them to eat forbidden fruit, to give them concubines, and then kick those concubines out again, to fool them into giving the birthright to their favorite sons, or fool them into marriage.
“the scriptural pattern is for Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah to make the big family decisions and lead their husbands through their superior wisdom and commitment, to convince them to eat forbidden fruit, to give them concubines, and then kick those concubines out again, to fool them into giving the birthright to their favorite sons, or fool them into marriage.” Ah yes, the soft power of women in a patriarchal society. The neck that moves the head. It’s true that women inhabit different power structures than men in a patriarchal society, and that they are often more adaptive out of necessity. There’s some question whether that’s a nature or nurture development.
“I think in a lot of our conversations we may well be using different definitions of words perhaps,”
Indeed! This is why I find words like “traditional” and “conservative” to be pretty much useless.
At least in an LDS setting.
“Ah yes, the soft power of women in a patriarchal society.”
I think it is actually more than that since the Proclamation on the Family. That document says, “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”
While some may see that as slapping women into a limited role, others see it as empowering to women–that in the marriage, it is She NOT He who is primarily responsible in matters of child nurturing (which takes up a boatload of effort and discussion for a couple during those years). This means that dad cannot just decide that the daughters can’t pierce their ears until age 12 and what he says goes–mom is primarily responsible, she has a legitimate say, and he should defer to her primary responsibility if they disagree.
We had been parents for some years prior to the Proclamation, noticed a couple different occasions where I had received revelation about some aspect of child-rearing, and my husband deferred to me on the general idea that I would be more affected by those decisions.
So when we heard and read the PotF, it clicked with us.
And women in other cultures where men are near-dictators in the families of the local culture find it it be empowering as well.
Naismith: I think the beauty of the PoF is that it truly does elevate those who live in oppressive cultures as you describe.
I don’t think it’s either empowering or disempowering since “individual adaptation” is mentioned without qualification. It’s up to couples how we work it out. If I’m not waiting around for my husband to tell me what to do, I’m certainly not waiting around for a piece of paper to tell me what to do.
#58 Nate, I honestly can’t tell if you are being serious or sarcastic in your comment about women’s influence in scripture. Let’s say you’re being sarcastic – so the scriptural record reflects the scheming, manipulative, capricious nature of women, and it’s a good thing that men are at the head to receive revelation for their family? If you are being serious, then you actually believe that the appropriate way for women to exert influence is through backdoor manipulation? She clearly is more in tune with receiving revelation so she must act within her cultural restraints in order to somehow persuade or outright deceive her husband into doing what he should have been doing all along?
Naismith and Hawkgrrrl, your exchange reminds me of the woman from Ghana in Sharon Eubanks’ talk who said “This is is a woman’s church!” because we actually teach that men shouldn’t beat their wives and children. In a worldwide church, we have a lot of different understandings of what a “traditional” marriage looks like.
brjones — sorry, I had too much time on my hands…
Hawkgrrrl, I will agree that none of the “traditional” women I talked about seem submissive to their husbands. I would bet money that all four would say their husband presides in their home, but they mean that they expect their husband to lead, not make unilateral decisions. I think all of them would say they made decisions together with their husbands. I don’t think any of them would say that they were expected to be submissive to their husbands. Perhaps that means these women aren’t exactly “traditional”, but it seems like the same basic arrangement I remembered seeing growing up. I’d be shocked if any of them didn’t accept the PoF wholeheartedly. Admittedly, I didn’t ask any the above questions, so I suppose I don’t know for sure, but I’ve known all four of them a fairly long time.
Mary Ann, you’re right of course that someone’s attitudes about gender roles in church don’t necessarily align with gender roles within marriage, but I’ll bet among church members there’s a pretty strong correlation.
Naismith, when my wife and I first got married, we also had the feeling that we each led more in our own sphere. She was the one expected to receive inspiration about when and how many children, and I was the one expected to receive inspiration about what job I was to take, and by extension where we would live. Nothing was unilateral, but we’d talk through things and that’s how we felt. Seems to have worked out.
By contrast, my husband and I were at a dinner with some other couples. Everyone was introducing him or herself. There was an evangelical couple, and the wife said she wasn’t going to say anything because as a good wife she submits to her husband’s authority, and that’s really all they needed to know about her. Her husband’s chest puffed out as he proudly smiled, just beaming at the rest of the group about what a great marriage he had.
I can’t even imagine how she can manage to have sex with him. His behavior was so childish, I just kept thinking that he was like a toddler puffing his chest out and thinking “What a good boy I am” when mommy praises him for pooping in the potty. How could anyone find that kind of husband attractive? It was downright pathetic.
I can honestly say I’ve never seen that kind of behavior among the Mormons I know, but it is somewhat standard for the rhetoric surrounding marriages in evangelical homes. Another good friend of mine who was a high level executive at my company said that since she quit working, their marriage has been better, that it just works better when she’s in a more traditional role. Again, I just keep thinking what kind of man needs this to feel validated? Not one I would find sexually attractive. To me, it’s infantile behavior.
“the wife said she wasn’t going to say anything because as a good wife she submits to her husband’s authority, and that’s really all they needed to know about her. Her husband’s chest puffed out as he proudly smiled, just beaming at the rest of the group about what a great marriage he had.”
Help!
And this is the group the church has been trying to cosy up with over the last 20 years? Oh my.
“I can’t even imagine how she can manage to have sex with him.”
Maybe she’s into bondage!
#65 – I’m glad that you’ve not observed similar behavior amongst the Saints. Unfortunately, I have, but it’s thankfully rare (just not rare enough). In one particular sad example, I think of this bright, vivacious girl, a convert to the Church about the same time as I, who ended up marrying this pathetic self-important fellow who proceeded to lord it over on her for about fifteen miserable years, until she’d had enough of his crap and divorced his sorry rear end. The experience darn near drove her out of the Church, but fortunately she had friends who were able to show her that her ex’s attitudes did NOT represent the Lord’s views on marriage.
“We have learned, through sad experience…” and that was after only nine years of the Church in existence.
Re: Mirror Universe “Bad-Ass” Sulu with the cheek (dueling with swords?) scar…THANKS! I wonder if he was a relative of the Empress Hoshi Sato…(“In a Mirror, Darkly”). In Star Trek: Generations, Kirk meets Sulu’s daughter, who has followed Daddy’s footsteps as a Starfleet helmsperson. (“It wouldn’t be the Enterprise, without a Sulu at the helm”). The retired captain’s expression of surprise that his ‘inscrutable’ fellow captain was able to find the time to sire and raise a child is a call-out and probably a friendly jibe to his co-star.
IDIAT says in #22,
Why wouldn’t that be a type of an eternal relationship? It doesn’t preclude love and respect and a common goal at all.
The excessive romanticization of marriage (although not exclusively an LDS trait) is for BYU sophomores, not people who are actually doing it. If we’re going to be creating and populating worlds, then a literally and figuratively constructive relationship, with farming and marketing in some form (and hopefully sex!) included, is exactly what is needed. It isn’t “just” anything; it’s everything.
You know, like a real marriage. “The Bachelorette” be damned.
Hawk notes, citing a female CEO of all people, “women executives were leaving vacancies behind at home, and men weren’t filling those spaces. Rather than excoriating the men for failing to be good partners, she cautioned the women to mind those spaces.”
This sort of thing makes me want to put my head through a wall. (But then I’d have to patch the sheetrock.) Step up, men. It isn’t fun work, but it isn’t hard to do dishes, wipe counters, do laundry (which reminds me, I have to put the whites in the dryer now), etc. It’s a partnership. You want to lead? Show some leadership and initiative by grabbing the danged vacuum cleaner.