Love_and_Marriage_Ideaology

Love and Marriage Ideology In America: Then And Now Abstract The definition of marriage can be viewed a number of ways. George Bernard Shaw described marriage as an institution that brings together two people “under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.” Although amusing, this quote does beg the question; what reason do people have to get married' Is it based on the passionate, irrefutable idea of love or is there a more substantial, rational reason for such a consummation' Radical Idea of Marrying for Love In the past many psychologists, anthropologists, and historians argued that romantic love was a recent Western invention, which is untrue. The idea of falling in love has shown up in numerous cases but basing a marriage on just that was seen as irrational. This unrealistic expectation was originated by the theory of happily ever after. This theory states that individuals hope to find love, or at least “tranquil affection” in marriage. Firstly, they must love one another unconditionally and choose each other based on their decision with no outside interference. Secondly, each must make the other a top priority, putting the relationship above all else. In-laws and parents are not to interfere in the marriage. Lastly married couples are best friends, sharing their most intimate feelings and secrets. They must show affection and address problems immediately and of course they are to be sexually faithful. This theory was prevalent through the decade of the 1950s. It was the peak of individuals courting, getting married at will, and establishing their own household. The consensus was that men should be the breadwinners and women were to stay at home and tend to the children. In 1957, a nationwide survey indicated that four out of five people believed that anyone who preferred to remain single was “sick,” “neurotic” or “immoral”. Another survey of young women in 1962 reported that almost all expected to be married by age twenty-two, most hoped to have four children, and all expected to quit work permanently when the first child was born. Marriage was even idealized through television. Shows such as I Love Lucy portrayed a happy marriage and shows where the couples illustrated unhappiness seemed to go astray. When couples could not meet this television expectation of “normal”, they blamed themselves or their parents. This idealization would force newlyweds to quickly buy their first home and furnish it all on credit, ruining the couple financially leading to more marital problems. Discussion I’m not sure what couples have in mind when facing marriage but I don’t think it’s a perfect union in which everything must fit a standard. I understand one wants to fill the desire of having a house fully furnished, for your spouse to look good all the time, and for life to go as planned but life isn’t perfect. Perhaps we set ourselves up for this downfall. I would recommend this article solely because it warns couples to go into marriage realistically and know EXACTLY what you’re getting into. Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage Which brings me to my next article; The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. With divorce and remarriage becoming more and more common, it’s expected that norms would begin to shift concerning proper behavior. By the late 70s the once distinct roles of homemaker and breadwinner discussed earlier were fading as women began to enter the labor force while men did more housework. The once clear lines that divided roles in a marriage were becoming ambiguous. One reason may have been the rise in cohabitation in the 1970s. It was not uncommon, especially among a low-income population, for a woman to conceive outside of marriage, end the relationship, and begin cohabitating with a different partner. Eventually, cohabitation became more accepted as an alternative to marriage and began to accelerate in the 1980s and 1990s. The most recent development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage is the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. It grew popularity in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled “a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the Hawaii state constitution, (Baehr v. Lewin, 1993). In 1996, the US Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Just recently a US district judge in San Francisco overturned California's Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved ban on gay marriage. Discussion Cohabitation and same-sex marriage are both extremely controversial issues. I think the author of this article approached these topics with honest opinions and hard facts. I found it informative and thought provoking. I have a firm stance on both issues and reading his findings only affirmed my opinions. I would recommend this article because it forces people to realize the direction of marriage as a whole. If we continue in the path we are taking it will undeniably lead to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. Is There Hope for the American Marriage' Unfortunately marriage is rapidly becoming a forsaken institution. One reason may be the disassociation of parenthood from marriage. The rate at which lower class are having children before marriage is rapidly growing. The numbers of unmarried, undereducated women having babies are also on the rise. There have been numerous programs aimed at fixing this devastating occurrence. Bill Clinton’s welfare-to-work program encouraged marriage, George W. Bush spent millions to promote marriage, and Barack Obama has a firm stance on the need for men to stay with their children: “We need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.” Reasons for such advocacy are simple: it’s been proven that short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. In worst case scenarios, children raised in a dysfunctional home or without a father are prone to a life of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior, and incarceration. According to Maria Kefalas, author of Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, “Women always tell me, ‘I can be a mother and a father to a child,’ but it’s not true. Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. The mom may not need that man...but her children still do.” Discussion If all this truly affects the children and they are surrounded by dysfunction it will inevitably lead to their misconstrued perception of love and marriage. It’s the circle of love. Whether we chose to admit it or not, we learn our views of marriage from our surroundings. If all we see is negativity, anger, and hostility growing up then we are more likely to continue this cycle of destruction. This author added personal narrative and experience to her article, which made it more relatable. I would recommend this to others in hopes of breaking the cycle of broken marriages and show people what love and marriage truly means. References Cherlin, A. (2004) The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 66, No. 4, 848-861. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600162 Coontz, S. (2005). The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love. Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, 145-152. Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. New York: University of California Press. Flanagan, C. (2009, July 2). Is there Hope for the American Marriage' Time Magazine, 4. Retrieved Nov. 14, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599