Living Single

I have to say I approached this read with a certain cynicism. I do think it is a bit one sided, but often, this is needed to counteract/balance out the extremity of the other side (the pro marriage side).

That being said, it is pretty vital to a society for people to be born, and due to religious nutsism in this country, marriage is the only moral path to do this. So the government slants the laws for the continuance of society, in accord with the religious flavor of the country.

Ok, so my point (I think) was that singles would probably due even better if there was less stigma associated with having children when single. But religion squashes this possibility. People in Alabama would freak out and such. I am not saying the pressure to have kids isn't crazy too most of the time, but singles shouldn't recieve such stigma when they do want a child from outside a relationship.

Singles can make more money, or, at least, not lose as much money as married people.

What is sad about the Tiger Woods story is that it is flame and journalists do not call flame flame.

I've always seen marriage as the right path for the majority, but the wrong one for the minority of society. Perhaps that's just an acceptance of the status quo, or elitism, on my part but it's how I look at it.

Still, it's good that they took this unique look at marriage. And it's interesting to think about how the decrease in the interest in marriage may reflect increasing awareness in society that marriage isn't the best path for everyone.

Bella said:

[T]he authors muse: "Maybe it's the decline in happiness that has caused an increasing number of Americans to say ‘I don't,' despite Hollywood's presenting us with happy ending after happy ending and a government bent on distributing civil rights on the basis of marital status. Apparently no amount of propaganda or coercion can force humans to participate in a family form so out of sync with what we actually need."

No such quote appears in the linked DMN article. What gives?

It would be nice if that were really what the authors said, but the article indicates otherwise. Are you confusing this article with another that actually contains the quote? If so, please cite that other article; it sounds interesting!

Thanks Bella.

I found a pdf of the full article at http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/NewspaperArticles/Mar...

It's my inmost belief that singleness is preferable to marriage as it's practiced today in the U.S.. But I try to refrain from posing that question publicly because I don't want to be judgmental of others' lifestyle choices. I think if I were to pass judgment on marriage, it would be similar to how matrimaniacs pass judgment on singleness.

Also, I may be playing devil's advocate here, but the authors' argument against marriage seems as illogical as the mainstream's argument for it. Both arguments are based on the idea that marriage causes something when, in reality, there's no proof of that. There are some interesting correlations between marital status and other variables, but, at the end of the day, what stands out to me is that a) we have no reliable way of proving that the act of marrying or not marrying has any particular, permanent effect on a given individual's life, and b) marriage and singleness are both correlated with certain variables that are generally considered positive and certain variables that are generally considered negative. In simpler terms, both the single and married states seem to have something to recommend them, and whether an individual flourishes in one state or the other comes down to a lot of personal variables, not a one-size-fits-all choice.

In addition, I think we have to be careful not to confuse the fallout of any long-term relationship with the fallout of marriage as practiced in the U.S. Marriages have legal, financial, and other ramifications that non-marital relationships do not, but any long-term relationship is going to have a lot of the same social and emotional consequences as a marriage. Unless the authors are suggesting that no one ever enter into a long-term relationship, I doubt that simply eliminating the institution of marriage would just clear up everyone's problems.

I think that it's important to understand that marriages and long-term relationships are not the same thing.

A marriage can be a long-term relationship or as we've seen celebrities demonstrate, a very brief brief one. Also, couples can engage in a long-term relationship, perhaps simply a dating one, have children, never marry and still live socially well adjusted lives.

To me marriage is a specific condition between two people. It has laws, expectations, traditions tied to it. Just like the author says, it's an institution, it has structure, yes, but limitations are abundant.

I would say that the problem with 'marriage' as it applies to society are the myths and expectations surrounding it. People associate marriage too often with solutions and betterment, and simply expect circumstances to spontaneously become better.

The idea of marriage gives me this feeling of 'finality', supposedly an end to loneliness, which I think is very far from the truth.

Reading the actual article - thanks to James the actual Chronicle version - it is clear that the authors aren't against marriage. Rather their article is against the pro marriage claims that marriage makes you wealthier, happier etc. It is a myth-busting article that says "hey, stop claiming that marriage causes x." Not only is there no evidence but there are even things that make the claim seem upside down (like their conclusion that marriage can actually leave you less wealthy if you divorce...). They are not claiming that marriage causes y, though (i.e., simply replacing pro marriage claims with anti marriage ones).

And I think their article ends not with a condemnation of marriage per se but of viewing marriage as a remedy. "Marriage has failed us" - in other words, marriage has not remedied the social inequalities that exist.

I personally think that the problem isn't marriage. The problem is that when people decide to get married they make horrible decisions on who they choose to marry. People get married within months of meeting someone (Celebrity marriage) and get surprised why they're getting divorced. Don't get me wrong they are some people that stay married after just knowing each other for a few months, then again are they actually happy. I hear some women state after having no luck with men, that all the good men are either taken or gay. Of course they don't take into account that maybe they’re just making horrible judgment when it comes to choosing a man. So they say that all good men are taken or gay, of course it's not their fault. As for men, we have to stop looking for these trophy wives that all they know how to do is look pretty. There's so much you have to take into account when choosing who to marry or have as a life partner. Choosing whom you should marry, have a long-term relationship and having children with (If you choose to want kids), should be the hardest decisions people can make. Life is all about decision making, rather than blame marriage we need to look at ourselves and see if we're making good and rational decisions on the people we choose to marry or be with. We (both men and women) have to seriously stop this fascination of dating married men and women. The women that Tiger Woods slept with should take a look at themselves. Because one day they'll get married and maybe a woman like them will sleep with their husband. People simply need to respect those who are married or in a relationship, there are more than enough single women and men out there for everyone. I live on a simple philosophy “Don’t do to others, what you don’t want done to you”.

Procrastinator: I know, it's so funny. A couple gets married and immediately they're in the category of "healthy people in a stable, long-term relationship." The relationship could be an utter mess and the couple divorced five days later, but they're still seen as normal, whereas a couple that never marries but is faithful, loving, kind, devoted, and together for decades is still seen as unnatural and perhaps even deviant. And the kicker is that the first couple would be seen as some kind of experts on relationship since they "committed," but the second pair wouldn't. There's no measuring stick for the unions that remain private agreements rather than public displays.

If an article like this were taken seriously, and it should be, then I believe it would actually make marriage stronger, while encouraging tolerance for all lifestyle choices at the same time. When people no longer believe all the false promises that marriage supposedly offers, they'll be able to make more informed decisions about their lifestyles, instead of feeling rushed or pressured into something that isn't for them.

Marriages would be stronger, and singles would be able to live their happy, healthy, wealthy lives undisturbed. *sigh* If only...

Let’s imagine a heterosexual couple. The man, let’s call him Michael, at least until he decides that he’s tired of such a conventional name and changes it to “Linus Van Pelt.” (Actually, that silly moniker came after he insisted on inserting a period in the middle of his first name—apparently that particular punctuational boutonnière was insufficient, so he decided to go Dutch.) The woman, we’ll just refer to as “K,” in a tip-of-the-hat to Kafka (who might have appreciated certain aspects of this story).

Mi.chael/LinusVanPelt and K met in high school. They fell in love, went to a local college after high school, eventually married.

K was never destined to make much money as a social worker, but she tried to help the most vulnerable people in our society. She followed Mi.chael/LinusVanPelt around during his decade(!) in graduate school down south and his temporary teaching job up north, and finally, a permanent position at an elite college. Her career was secondary throughout.

Now Mi.chael/LinusVanPelt fancied himself an anarchist. But he also really likes money. I mean, really likes money. Not so much the making of it—he is, after all, an academic—but he sure hates parting with it. Something of a miser in anarchists’ clothes. He was conventional in other ways as well, and like so many American men in their forties, decided he was tired of marriage (and of course, quickly found a young girlfriend to complete the cliché).

But the problem was that he was married. He had signed a legal contract that entitled K. to some (gosh, maybe even a little less than half?) of their assets. He put up a good fight—expensive lawyers, emotional and physical abuse, the works—but in the end the law came through for K, and she was able to walk away with half of their savings and a cat. No alimony, no furniture, no house, not even half of the equity in the house.

The question is: if they hadn’t been married, what would have happened? Would she have gotten anything? Would this guy have given her a dime?

So when Mi.chael/LinusVanPelt writes an anti-marriage screed for his academic colleagues, it’s possible that he really feels sincerely about the “ideology” of marriage. It’s possible that he genuinely wants to tear down the “domestic gulag.”

Or perhaps he’d rather live in a world where men can live with women for decades, have women financially support them while they wander through graduate school programs that attune them to evils of patriarchy, and then be able to dump those women when they’re ready for a younger model and yet keep everything—the house, the money, the furniture, the cats.

Of course, if he really knew Marx, he’d know that ideology follows from interest.