Marriage, a History

Coontz (2005) focused on historical changes in unitings from prehistoric to present times, mainly in terms of how institutional and societal necessitate affected restrictions on the liberties of wives. Although she described historical periods as characterizing marital patterns, she cargonfully point of reference that two within and between periods, account has been cyclical.For example, birth and divorce rates go through fluctuated establish on the changing postulate of economies during different times, and conceptions of women as either sexu every(prenominal)y pure or wanton perplex varied over the ages. She takes issue with three myths she believes good deal hold that the narrative of women bring to the support of their families has a fairly brusque history, and that both retire as a basis for marrying and matchs aspiring to the marital cause of husband as furbish up breadwinner get keen-sighted histories.Contrary to what Coontz believes many an(prenominal) spate speak out, from the counterbalance of human evolution, through the days of antediluvian patriarch Greece, until the 1950s, the majority of women were a part of what we instanter weep the gain staff office. In prehistoric history, she, of course, n 1d that men were hunters and women were gathitherrs, since gathering could be entere while lovingness for the late. However, it was gathering, non hunting, that extendd most of the viands needed for survival, and hunters and gatherers dual-lane within groups or bands (p. 38), rather than as couples. Marriages between sons and daughters from different bands served to maintain genial between-band bloods.The author dated the time that sexual union became an institution where wives lacked power in antique agricultural societies (p. 46), although widows would be a much than than accurate term than wives. Coontz was referring to the choices a womanhood had after the death of her husband, e.g., killing herself or m arrying a relative of her dead husband. These practices were a result of the development of economical inequalities, where wealthier families became more interested in whom their kin marry (p. 46).Both economic theories and the circumstance that it is women who argon equal to(p) to re farm make this interpretation convincing. In addition, although non noted by Coontz, the fact that on average men argon physi announcey giantr and stronger might allow off why women were not fit to exsert in worthy dominated.Probably because women were the ones who gave birth, there has been a tradition of holding them accountable for impuissance to provide potent heirs for their husbands. Coontz recounted the well-k right offn requirement of Anne Boleyn in the sixteenth century (p. 133), who refused to drop dead the mistress of enthalpy VIII, when his incumbent wife Catherine failed to produce a son.Her refusal led Henry to break ties with the pope who refused to grant him a divorce, s o he could marry Anne exclusively he had her executed when she too failed to produce a son. People still enunciate of wives giving their husbands sons, when anyone who has taken high-school biology knows that women book nobody to do with a minors genetic sex i.e., since hardly men eat a Y chromo any(prenominal), women al shipway provide one of their two X chromo well-nighs and the genetic sex of a child depends upon whether the father tump overes on his X or Y chromo somewhat.Prior to the s level offteenth century, although unify women and men might come to cognize each other after matrimony, grapple was not conveyed necessary or nonetheless desirable in a uniting. Indeed, untimely Christianity discouraged close marital or other family ties because ones first base loyalty was supposed to be to paragon (pp. 87-88). In medieval Europe, conglutinations within family aristocracies were encouraged, and condescension the selectively enforced rules of the Catholic Ch urch, incest was not uncommon.The overwhelming majority of people were not among the aristocracy, exclusively marriages among tradespersons withal were arranged for economic purposes, and the marriages of peasants generally were arranged by their masters.In the s heretoforeteenth century, marriage based on the individual(prenominal) choices of those beingness married was sanctioned. But it wasnt until the eighteenth century in western Europe and North the States that marriage for tell apartbecame a cultural specimen (p. 7), until the nineteenth century that marriage in the melodic line of husband as breadwinner with a wife at home emerged, and it wasnt until the 1950s that the economy in America permitted the majority of marriages to postulate this be.It is easy to assume, as Coontz does, that those who marry for kip down turn in been happier than those in arranged marriages or those marrying for other reasons. Interestingly, there seems to be no evidence that social sci entists have ever tested this assumption. We dont really know, for example, whether women who marry for spot wind up any more or less happy than women in arranged marriages, such as Golde, in Fiddler on the Roof (Stein, 1971), who ends her rendering of years of caring for her husbands needs, by asking, If thats not love, what is?Actually, the contrariety between a sexual blood between a couple who love each other and a couple who ar in love is not clear, and may, in fact, be a duodecimal variable, rather than the qualitative one people assume. Montagu (1999), considered a major anthropologist of the last century, wrote, Marriages between persons of character who croupe be friends tend to last and grow in avenge and happiness and ultimately result in love, as opposed to marriages resulting from that frenzy miscalled love (p. 105).In fact, most of us know some very happily married couples who met because they were able to afford the expensive services of businesses that have replaced the matchmakers of days past. In fact, based on observation, love does not conquer all, in the thought that most marriages still ar between those of similar socioeconomic status, who ar of the same race, and even the same religion.As for the number of marriage where the husband is breadwinner, as Coontz observed, the knead was a goal of both husbands and wives. Presumably, the rewards husbands expect were status, i.e., being a man who could provide for his wife and children through his own efforts (or the efforts of smashed ancestors), having his needs met by women advised to have elegant meals and spotless homes and children awaiting his return from hold up, and the advantages of a charming wife to help him keep up in corporate America. Women too essential have expected status, i.e., snaring a prosperous husband through her own charms (or those perceived in women with wealthy ancestors), fulfillment in being able to devote herself to procreation her children, a nd leisure to pursue her interests.Coontz has noted that the male breadwinner model has fiddleed and continues to work for some couples, besides not for most. Men were less vocal, in all likelihood because its harder, or perceived as less noble, to express discontent for having sole responsibility than to express discontent about(predicate) not being able to assume responsibilities. While Coontz devoted only half(a) a page (p. 251) to male discontent, and does so in the context of rebelling against social expectations and lacking(p) to enjoy the sexual pleasures Hugh Heffner was promoting, men were expressing the realities of the universe of discourse of work they knew, as opposed to women expressing a desire to join a globe they didnt yet know.When you think of work, as others have done, in terms of what you rattling do, as opposed to how much youre paid to do it, how much work is there thats inherently elicit or rewarding to those doing it, how much is even a pleasant wa y to pass the time, and how much is so meaningless and mind-numbing that those doing it are leading lives of quiet desperation (Thoreau, 1854/1995)? It would be interesting to read about work and marital relationships written in the year 2050.Coontz views the rejection of the 1950s predominant model of marriage in the context of dissatisfaction with this model. She describes The Feminine Mystique (Friedan, 1063/2001) as a wake-up call to women that was an important force in introducing the changes over the next cardinal years that have make divers(prenominal) forms of relationships acceptable.Friedans book was, in fact, a wake-up call to white middle-class women, exclusively the rejection of the 1950s model of marriage credibly should be seen as part of the larger historical context, i.e., rejection of a decade of fear of nonconformity after people witnessed lives were destruct as a result of beholding communists under all of our beds who were out to samara America red. The 1 950s dictated not only marital arrangements but all facets of our lives. While still oversimplified, perhaps the wake-up call that eventually resonated with many Americans was the question eventually put to Joe McCarthy Have you no shame, sir? (Welch, 1954, cited in Kiely, 2005).SurprisesIt should surprise no-one that wives have had a enormous history in the work force. If nothing else, we do know that ladies had maids and some of the ladies maids moldiness have had husbands. We know too that some have considered prostitution the oldest profession and, patronage the obstacles, there were at least some women who were able to become poets or scientists. However, I had never thought about the large number of women, married and single, who would have had needed to work because the overwhelming majority of people were and in some countries still are poor.While we all know that arranged marriages were not unusual in the past, I was strike to learn that for most of human history virtual ly all marriages were arranged and love was not even considered a reason for marrying. I guess my surprise is a result of our culture being change by stories of love. If love is not the base of operations of a movie, its hard to think of any movie that doesnt have a love interest as part of the plot.By the fifth grade, girls and boys claim they are in love, and, despite the changes in the ways Coontz believes young people think, most of the young people I know think, talk, and are more involved in both love and sex than in thought process about and working on true and mutually rewarding relationships. Knowing now that loving before marrying wasnt even considered for most of human history, Id like to know how the concept in love developed and suspect its actually a social bend or perhaps simply essence both loving someone and wanting(p) a permanent sexual relationship with that person.As for the history of the man as breadwinner form of marriage, I did assume it had always be en around, but was not surprise that it was a form that, except for the fifties, most married couples were uneffective to adopt. Even in the fifties, this form of marriage was affordable by only a small majority As long as women are allowed to work and can find jobs that pay more than the apostrophize of childcare, for most of the world, working is not an survival of the fittest that women or men choose, but what one does in order to put food on the table, pay the rent, etc.Coontz said in reference to the nineteenth century, It is hard for us to adhesive friction the slim margin that made the difference between survival and distress for so many people in the past (p. 174). This sentence probably surprised me more than anything else in her book. It is hard for me to grok that anyone capable of reading a book, let alone writing one, is unable to grasp that this slim margin is true for so many people in the present, for many in the United States and for the majority of those upk eep in many so-called third-world nations. by chance this sentence explains why I had the sense that after descriptions of her own middle-class reality, she merely felt obliged to pay lip-service to the coarse masses.Sometimes, what she failed to say was more revealing than what she did say. For example, she failed to mention that a by-product of Friedans (1063/2001) call for middle-class married women to enter the work force resulted in poor, often minority, women being severely paid (probably in cash) for caring for the children left at home or in children being left with poorly paid and poorly trained workers at understaffed daycare centers. I also was surprised that she felt comfortable order of payment conclusions without providing empirical data to support them. For example, she says that marriage remains the highest expression of commitment in our culture. She states this as fact, rather than as I would state my belief as an printing that the highest expression of commi tment is between mothers and their children.Finally, her noting that marital history was cyclical made me support that it was a mistake to consider current social conditions in general as either permanent or becoming more firmly established. However, Coontz herself believes that we cannot turn concealment from changes in patterns created by the marriage revolution. wherefore not? She does not even consider this question.ReferencesCoontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a History From obedience to matter or how loveconquered marriage. parvenue York Viking.Friedan, B. (1963/2001). The distaff mystique. New York Norton.Kiely, K. (2005). Supreme court. USA Today. Retrieved April 23, 2007.Montagu, A. (1999). The indispensable superiority of women. Walnut Creek, CA AltaMira Press.Stein, J. (1971, based on Aleicham, S.). Fiddler on the roof. Minsch-Cartier Production.Thoreau, H. D. (1854/1995). Walden. New York Houghton Mifflin.