Wow. So There's NOT something wrong with me? I thought because I'm not married, I was lesser than the dogs, a leper, incapable of human emotion, a spinster, pitiful, cold and unfeeling, unable to snag a man....

Shall I go on?

but oh how typical (and amusing) that the photo they used for this article was an attractive blonde woman, smiling and petting her cat. you know, because that's how us single girls get our kicks!

these surface-level "whew, look at women now!" articles annoy the crap out of me. how many times can the media present "progressive" information about our culture, without actually saying anything at all?

I agree, the accompanying photo is bizarre.

It's weird, and probably my feminist brain skewing everything unreasonably, but to me, in that figurine, I swear, it looks like she's pushing him away from here and he has his arms out to catch himself.

Oh, us angry spinsters, with our "spin" on every image!

male humorous figurine designers flatter themselves when they pretend that women are dragging them kicking and screaming into marriage. probably 90% of the women i know are at least as conflicted about marriage as their significant others.

I totally love this:

"For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,� Dr. Frey said.

Yes, for better or for worse, women are not completely dependent upon the generosity of another human being for existence.

Ironic that the picture they chose to accompany this shows a single woman showing a little too much interest in her cat i.e. "a cat lady", while the article points out that single women are not desperately hoping to snare a man (whose only source of company are their cats).

I love the story of the woman at the end who got divorced at 34 years of marriage. Her husband didn't want her bettering herself because she was more educated than him. God forbid we women develop as persons lest our husbands' egos be injured!!

Good God, is it any wonder we're not so crazy about marriage?

My sister-in-law chose that figurine for her wedding cake. Boggles the mind.

soupcan:

women are not completely dependent upon the generosity of another human being for existence

I don't think anyone said anything about complete dependence. Marriage is dependence, and it's just hard to see the need for it when the systems are in place for you to meet many of your needs, and the tradeoffs of marriage in turn don't look so favorable.

But spouses tend to be there at the moments when your job, your friends, your lawnmower/dishwasher, or (e.g.) FEMA aren't.

I appreciate the feminist POV approving of independence, but this article is a cheerleading piece for a freedom that can be, and for many women is, illusory. There's no set of archetypes to cover all the stories out there as the article somewhat implies. As with many NYT "society" pieces, its image of society is cropped from upper-middle-class upward.

There is a lot of freedom in a good marriage, but it doesn't happen overnight for god sakes, and you definitely pick your battles. If only one spouse is giving of himself/herself, that is a bad (and somewhat common) situation. It speaks to individual choices more than marriage (or society's view of it per NYT) itself.

To clarify though, I'm all for being cautious, even cagy, about marriage. Previous generations were less so, and that (not Marriage itself) is what has led to most of the fallout implied by the NYT article.

Angie: I thought the same thing! Only, it looks almost like she's about to give him a good boot to the ass, too.

This is interesting to me, because it seems like, less women are married then ever before, in the middle of a huge baby boom. Maybe there are more single mom's then ever before as well?

I'm also waiting for some conservative nut ball to say that this is proof that feminist are killing the American family.

God forbid we women develop as persons lest our husbands' egos be injured!!

No kidding, Law Fairy. :) I've certainly dated a bunch of men like that... who can't keep up with me, so they hold me back.

Personally, I'm waiting for the guy who finally realises that his achievements are no greater or less for me having achieved as well.

biwah, previous generations were "less cautious" about marriage because previous generations of women couldn't afford to be cautious/cagey, and that's what soupcan is referring to. Previous generations of women had to embrace marriage (and keep on embracing it) if they wanted to be socially acceptable, especially if they wanted to be socially acceptable and sexually active. For many women, too, not embracing marriage would lead to a lifetime of poverty, as the jobs open to women were few and paid comparatively little. If fewer marriages are last as long now, that suggests to me not that people are unwilling to engage in the give and take of a relationship (after all, figures about marriage say little about long-term committed romantic relationships), but rather that marriage is becoming more and more of a free choice for women, rather than a necessity for survival.

This article is the exact reason we keep hearing about how unhappy/unloved/unhealthy/etc. women are without marriage. They're desperatly trying to get back to what it was before and to do this they know they have to shame women into it becaue they bring themselves to go the opposite direction and encourage men to GET married. (if there are article equivelents (sp) encouraging men to get married the way they shame women please let me know).

It's like grasping at straws and to get more leverage they have to scream and whine and remind women repeatedly that they just won't be happy unless they're married, or else the whole system of privelege for them and their male offspring would crumble under them forever.

EG, yes! I totally agree. The question is, now that survival (on various levels) does not require marriage, what is it? It is certainly more optional, a decision to be made on the basis of what you want as much as what you need.

However, emancipate individuals from social codes and you still see the same old economies apply. Money is not the only finite thing - there are also time, energy, trust and a lot of other intangibles. In an era of relative financial and social independence, marriage will definitely become more of a niche, but in its intended format (absent harmful dynamics) it will remain the most stable and secure game in town.

By way of analogy, religion, a sometimes-related subject, has survived the modern age, where people don't necessarily have to believe in an afterlife just to get through the day's travails; and don't need a great white bearded guy to answer their intellectual curiosity about where we come from (ok, perhaps we never did need THAT). That abject need for religion to survive has left, but other needs are still evident that religion continues to fill, even in a more pluralistic world.

I kind of see that for marriage.

Hold the phone.

"women are not completely dependent upon the generosity of another human being for existence"

Let's review:

The Census Bureau's definition of 'marital status' is quite complex, but it contains no category for "Shacking up". Meanwhile, we also know that more and more couples are co-habiting.

All in all, I think that this piece says a lot more about the nature of the changing nature of the 'institution of Marriage' as a legal and social phenomenon than it does about the reality of power relationships between men and women.

Thanks, EG, for articulating what I was going for in my comment.

biwah, I was not saying that marriage is bad or that relationships are evil or anything else. I was saying, as EG touched upon, that marriage was traditionally a relationship where the man was the center of power and his wife depended upon him for everything. Now, at least in some parts of the US, this is not the case. And I do agree that NYT society pieces tend to reflect an upper-middle class bias, but I think that this "phenomenon" is spreading out to the masses as well.

yes, paul brown, more couples are "shacking up". Actually, I have lived with my boyfriend for four years and we have no intention of marrying.

However, even if more men and women are choosing cohabitation rather than marriage, it still reflects on the changing roles of men and women. I'll bet that in most, if not all, cohabitating situations, both partners hold full time jobs and keep separate bank accounts. This means that the women in these situations are still financially independent. Which, in turn, implies that if the relationship fails to comply with either partner's terms, neither will suffer a huge financial setback.
So the cohabitating bit still means that woman are no longer dependent on the generosity of another.

Any time, soup!

Also, living together instead of marrying means that your credit scores aren't affected by your significant other's financial behavior, you aren't responsible for his/her debt, etc. On the minus side, though, in case of emergency, your significant other doesn't, I believe, have any legal recourse if they are at odds with your parents.

The author who is cited in the article, Dr. Stephanie Coontz, wrote a really, really wonderful book on marriage. I think the piece mentions it? But we read it for my Sociology of the Family class... and I can't tell you how many people have borrowed it from me since. It's incredibly interesting... and it makes the whole right wing look insane, because it disproves every "historical" and "religious fact" they state about the "degradation of the family".

The figurine looks like she is pushing him off a cliff.

Yes aspen! I have that Marriage: A History book too and everyone I know wants to borrow it too. Dr. Coontz has written some other related essays and books on the ideas of tradition and nostalgia and how people always harken back to the "good old days" (read: when a good wife knew her place, and people knew the value of a dollar, and children respected their elders, and... etc. etc.). But the funny thing she finds is that these times never really "existed". People just have a weird tendency to believe all things are going downhill (including marriage and the family). The "traditional" marriage had absolutely nothing to do with love and undying affection and everything to do with family alliances, transfer of property, and procreation. Funny that...

You are correct, EG, domestic partners have no legal rights without having documents drawn up or protection under common law status. The 1000+ legal rights and protections granted to married couples is why it is so important that same-sex couples be allowed to marry if they so choose.

I wonder what will happen to the marriage rate for hetero couples when marriage equality finally happens in the US.

EG

Sorry to disillusion you, but whether your partner's record is taken into account in determining your credit score has nothing to do with whether or not you are married to them.

What counts is whether you have a 'financial connection' with them, i.e. any joint financial liability such as a bank account or a mortgage. Only if you have no such agreements will your partner have no effect on your credit score, but the same would be true even if you were married to them.

"I wonder what will happen to the marriage rate for hetero couples when marriage equality finally happens in the US."

I think this question goes to the heart of the matter.

A pair of 'shacked up' (sorry tabitha - I've loved that euphemism since my wonderful spinster great-aunt accused me off it 20 years ago) singles are at a signifigant economic disadvantage over the same couple were they married. Remove these economic penalties, and I bet the marriage rate falls further, regardless of the underlying realities of gender and economic power.