Earlier this month, I heard about a study that showed most divorces/separations/breakups occur between Christmas and Valentine’s Day.
So, just this week, one of my friends finalized her divorce after less than 5 years of marriage, and another called off an engagement.
The time of the year in incidental to the core issue here. What’s up with the 4-5 year marriages? I can see if you marry young, but these folks are in their mid 30’s. There’s a huge disconnect between my parents’ generation and mine. My parents have been married for 40 years … I am one of 7 kids in a family in which only 1 of us is married.
My generation: 30’s, single, professional (not in a hooker way). Us women want men, but don’t need them. That changes many things compared with my parents’ generation. The result is that we hold out; Are more fickle and picky. The ante has been upped and I don’t think a lot of men have bought into this yet … for good reason. I hear from guys that with this dynamic, it’s hard for them to feel needed by women. I guess it changes what we both bring to the table.
Just my ongoing observations …
Popularity: 21% [?]
Jeez, is marriage getting easier or harder?
Having a greater number of choices for anything can lead to unhappiness. Give a person a choice between 2 objects, widgets, marriage partners, etc. and that person will think he/she made the right choice. Give that person the same choice between what appears to be a limitless variety and he/she will continuously wonder if they made the ‘best’ choice. I think our parent’s generation definately felt a larger ‘need’ for each other, but they also did not have the relatively easy access to meet as many people through the internet, texting, more accessible travel and generally more disposable income(related to ‘need’). Give a person a streamless flow of possible partners and watch the doubt form regarding their selection of a spouse. They endlessly compare and contrast while losing sight of why they fell in ‘love’ (assuming it is a healthy love and not just attraction/attachment which is a whole different conversation) with the person anyway. So, I agree that people are becoming more picky which causes most to wait longer to get married, but I think that self doubt in their selection plays a larger part in the divorce rate.
Some minister in Germany wants to bring into law that a marriage needs to be renewed every 7 years for it to remain valid. Why 7 years? apparently her own marriage failed after 7 years. What do you think? I think there is a huge difference in marriage in Europe and North America. North Americans tend to get married really young, whilst in Europe you wait till you’re at least 35 or so in most cases. Europeans dont divorce as much either.
I agree with Masolas that we have too many choices. I get unhappy when I have to choose amongst the 512 types of cereal that exist in the grocery store. Maybe we need a form of socialism on cereal and marriage choices rather than the full on democracy/free enterprise.
Dagsy: I think 10 or so years ago, many divorces did occur around the “7 year itch” mark. It seems it my circles, that amount of time has decreased to 4-5 yrs now. I’ve heard that people get married and have kids later in Europe and the Scandinavian countries. And psychologists such as Dr. Phil say that people today shouldn’t marry before age 30. It’s a generalization, but he doesn’t think anyone has a good enough sense of self before age 30 to commit to another person.
My mother read this a few days ago and made some comments. I figured I’d post them since it’s always interesting to get another generation’s perspective on the goings-on today (she’s in her early 60’s, but if you ask her, was age 19 until only a few years ago)…………..
Jenn’s mom’s comments:
I think more must come into the dynamic. There’s more hesitancy today, (for good cause), about fully trusting someone enough to completely share your life and your “things” thereby leaving yourself somewhat vulnerable. Trust or the unsureness and question of complete trust must be at least part of the controlling influence in this decision.
“Back in the day” it was virtually unheard of for anyone who was able to get married not to do so. It was the “norm”. The only women I knew who were unmarried were unmarried because they had been the “chosen” one within their family to care for an aging parent or a distressed sibling. In other words, they were assigned the ‘parent’ role without the perks that came with it.
Not one of my friends ever considered the possibility that they would not marry. It was a given. You finished school - and in our case - in small town, Canada, that was almost invariably high school, at most - and then you got whatever job you found locally, (teacher, nurse, business), and married some local fellow whereupon you continued to work until you got pregnant and then your “career” ended. Few women returned to work even after their children were in school. (This changed as divorce laws changed in Canada and more people took advantage of that change in the law and ended their marriages. Prior to that change, adultery was the only grounds allowed and most people didn’t want the embarrassment of that made public, so they endured.)
One of the big differences that I can see though is that we married younger and neither party really had anything material at the time of marriage. You worked together to gain possessions. Today, especially within this society, people worry about losing what they have earned and gained on their own prior to marriage and they worry whether there’s an equal balance between what he has and what she has - either in current possessions or in potential earnings. That just didn’t enter the scenario when I was growing up. Women were not long-term wage earners so it wasn’t a consideration.
People from small towns lived at home with their families until they married. They didn’t have apartments or condos and many didn’t even have cars. So- -you married young and began to work towards “things”.
I don’t know that women are more fickle or picky these days. Heaven knows, I was ‘picky’ and that was over 41 years ago - but I was picky over the inner essence of a person. Was this a “good” person? Did I agree with his values and his ethics? — and then there was that humour thing.
I agree 100% with the quantity of choices mentioned in Masolas’ response. That holds true in every facet of life - not just marriage partners. “Do you want scrambled or fried…as opposed to Olive Garden’s massive buffet of choices?” It’s much easier to decide on ’scrambled’ than it is to load your plate with everything from pancakes to fresh fruit and still think that you’ve missed out on something.
I do think it’s sad that the self doubt of your choice in a husband or wife would come into play after the fact though. “Could I have done better?” I know it happens because I’ve seen it. Rather like ‘trading-up’. That, to me, just indicates that what I consider important and what the ‘traders’ consider important must be vastly different.
Cor, this is the most fascinatingly informed discussion I’ve read on the site. Forgive the crass statement Jenn, but your mum is the shit! So much to learn…
I’ve often thought that humanity in general is progressing towards a more materialistic society. It’s been decades since Martin Luther, Gandhi and the other titans who expounded character over material worth and other superficial facets of life. Consequently, I explain characteristics such as the overriding nature to be a consumer first, to put material worth over true happiness, to put self over community to this startling trend. It never occurred to me that marriage, too, might be a victim of such a trend.
I agree with and support that marriage should be between two people who find within each other compatible values as opposed to measuring each other on wage, possession, financial standing, etc. I wholeheartedly support that married couples should work together to achieve their goals as opposed to reaching the goals prior and then finding an equal (though the latter is not necessarily a bad thing).
However, as a towel-head I am also reminded that the oldest extant culture on the planet practices arranged marriage wherein financial, education and social standing are quite paramount to union whereas personal compatibility is not (or would appear not to be) as important. Given that I trust ancient cultures generally have sorted out many social issues over the course of millennia (if anything by trial and error), that is, tradition and culture are essentially social laws enacted by the community to prevent social decay, I find it hard to reconcile that the essence of a person is more important than their worth/standing. Perhaps they are equally important and today we are just putting too much emphasis on one over the other.
Good news, given all this confusion, I’m not getting married for a while. That means no-strings-attached ladies!
Social laws (traditions, religions, etc) are not there to prevent social decay, but rather to help the ruling classes retain power. The only two I believe to be the exceptions would be Buddhism and Taoism, but of which refer to internal rules and struggles rather than external ones.
Now, whether or not the other religions were originally designed with good intentions is a whole different story.
Hmmm, this implies you agree with Marx & Engels,
Getting off topic though.
Class struggle? No.
Repression? Yes.
I’m not saying it’s wrong. It’s human nature.
But what it came from, and it relates to what a lot of people are saying about marriage now.
What is marriage? Is it sacred, spiritual? Are we destroying the sanctity of marriage by our modern heathen ways?
No, marriage was always about class and about power. Kings and queens married for political alliances, not because they were so in love. The same went on in Indian cultures.
I’m wondering about this with respect to you .. uhh Indian folks.. I’ve got quite a few Indian friends who got married by 19.. ALL arranged. They were all raised internationally as well, so i would have assumed that pressure wouldn’t be there. What i want to know is, does it still hold true for you folks that if you’re not married by lets say 23 something MUST be wrong with you??
I agree with Masolas - its the choice matter. Maybe that’s why arranged marriages are such a good idea (i know in a way i wouldnt mind taking my pick of a few eligible men). Too much choice and options leaves you with wondering if another choice would have been better.
I figure we need to wait till at least 30. That way we got all the “testing” out of the way and we can be happier with the choice we make. Getting married at 18 is just crazy. What do you really know at 18?.. then again.. my grandparents were married at 17 and 18.. after only meeting a month earlier - World War One probably hasted that idea. They were married for over 50 years though…
Oh another added note. It’s becoming a trend in Europe NOT to get married. Just have the civil union and the benefits of that, but no “husband and wife” deal, no marriage - nothing. These people will have kids together without the marriage. Women who DO choose to get married also refuse to change their last names. I guess in the olden days women needed to be married to be “somebody”, that doesn’t hold true anymore. Or does it?
Dagsy,
As for me, my nature is to be against everything, and if someone tries to force their will upon me, I’ll do the opposite, simply out of principle.
That said, while I never had an arranged marriage. My parents, or rather, my mom, came to me after I graduated and asked “So when are you getting married?” This was immediately after not supposing to date while in high school and college because education is more important. Needlessly to say, I nearly walked out of that restaurant.
She knows better now. Don’t question me until I’m thirty.
As for choice, if you marry someone, it should be for the right reasons, and the reasons are right, there shouldn’t be any questions of “Did I marry the right person?”
A friend of mine’s dad once told him, “Don’t marry a woman you can live with, marry one you can’t live without.” I hold that to be true, not just for men, but also for women. If you marry someone who you truly and honestly love, and who loves you, and both understand their own minds, and comfortable in their own skins, there wouldn’t be a problem.
Arranged marriage is not good for ANYBODY.
The reason people didn’t get divorced in the old days wasn’t because they loved each other. It was because it was a cultural taboo to get divorced.
Just because a couple is married doesn’t mean they love each other.
Sir Reverend Gonzo,
I hear you. My mum is Asian - half Dutch, half Indonesian - and in her family too, one wasnt supposed to even think about boys until one was finished with university. She however, hasnt approached me about marriage yet. My dad did however ask me to walk in front of the royal palace a few times in the hope that maybe a rich guy would snag me and relieve him of his financial duties
I realise an arranged marriage doesnt mean one loves another. However i have heard many of my friends say “i’ll learn to love him” While this isnt for me, it SEEMS to have worked for them. In arranged marriage “proposals” a man can easily walk up to the girl’s parents and indicate an interest. In Western culture, or at least in my world, that guy would be shot on the spot initially…
nice to hear from an insider male though
“Arranged marriage is not good for ANYBODY,” is at best a poor generalization and misleading. The implication is that nearly 2 billion people on the planet engage in a practice that is “bad for them.”
I simply don’t think that is possible. It may not be ideal for everyone, but certainly, in some situations, arranged marriage is the best alternative.
So there’s hope for you yet huh 5cents?
I, as a Westerner, really dont see the HUGE issue with arranged marriages… unless ofcourse you didnt pick him.. but think about it.. if you’re a nasty looking woman, at least you’ll get a man.
Either type of marriage, arranged or not, can be good and lasting for both parties as long as each has the correct approach. If either sees the other as their ‘property’ then it takes a negative path and becomes destructive either resulting in divorce or becoming a virtual jail for one or both parties. So, this true and honest love to which the knight (Gonzo) refers is often confused with simply being attached to some separate being because you like certain, or many, things about them. When an attached person looks at the other, they think ‘I want/need her/him’ and they do whatever it takes to keep her/him. The risk of losing these ‘things’ causes the bad things (jealosy, mistrust, manipulation, etc.) to creep into the relationship resulting in failure, or at the very least two miserable people. Love on the other hand is very different from this attachment, I think. You do not look at the person as a seperate person that has all of this good ’stuff’. It is more of a state of mind of us. You do not consider them to be a separate person that brings certain things to the relationship. You do not repetitively re-evaluate if what they are ‘bringing’ is sufficent or god-forbid more than you. You don’t need to equate your ’stuff’. For love, you recognize and accept interdependence, you enjoy her qualities, you simply want the other to be happy. In offering this type of love, there is more of the ‘good’ things (affection, trust, etc.) and brings both closer. Attachment stems from a feeling of being separate while love stems from the feeling of being together.
I believe many marriages fail because both or even one person takes the ‘attachment’ approach to the marriage. So it is not necessarily if the marriage is arranged or not, it is the approach each person takes after the marriage is official. I am not very familiar with all of the customs of arranged marriage, but I imagine that part of the reason that it is successful is that the society instills certain qualities in the youth that lead to the ‘correct approach’ (or there are a lot of very unhappy women).