dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) (10/14/85)
Re: "Traditional Values"__________________________________________ It seems to me that what this discussion needs is a good dose of fact. I just hope this article isn't misconstrued as part of an excess emphasis on the empirical (-:). References are listed after my signature. > Many marriage counselors today feel that marriages are not > working because of the 'ME' attitude instead of the 'WE' > attitude. The 'ME' attitude is a symtom [sic] of this new age > we have entered, you know, this period of personal enlightenment > of rediscovering one's self. The 'WE' attitude is more the > tradionalist['] thinking from another age commonly refered to > as the past. If these marriage counselors would pay less attention to the World According to the Mass Media and more attention to the effect of a sexist society on the institution of marriage, their success rate would climb. Therapists, marriage counselors included, hold negative sex-role stereotypes about women in similar proportions to the general public [1]. The Feminist Therapy Movement has yielded a new perspective that takes issues such as sexism and power into account. Counselors and therapists operating from this perspec- tive have been more successful than those operating from the old perspectives (which did not take these issues into account) [2]. > I've heard these counselors also mention that committment, which > is a key word in a marriage, is very difficult to achieve by > people who are more into their own desires and self-serving > interests than people who are not. This is true, but to draw the conclusions from this that you do, one has to assume that in "The Good Old Days," marriages were held together by commitment. Others have refuted this point already, so I won't go into that. In general, the traditional marriage benefits the husband much more than the wife, and the results can be seen when one sees mental health statistics in relation to sex and marriage: married men (in general) enjoy the best mental health and married women (in general) enjoy the worst mental health [3]. I wouldn't say that such a marriage "works." Instead, a marriage whose commitment is drived from *love* would work. Love and inequality, by the way, do not mix. >> In days gone by, no matter how viciously a husband beat his >> wife, and no matter how often he molested his children, the >> marriage would stay together. Wives and children had no legal >> rights, and there were no support groups; women would be told >> to endure it, and the children would not be believed. >> >> Since the crimes weren't reported, as far as the record can >> tell, all of these wife-beating child molesters of bygone days >> had *perfect* marriages! >> > People were not perfect then just as they are not perfect now. > You have not proof of the degree to which child molesting and > wife terrorizing took place in the past. There most certainly is proof! There are so many books about violence against women that I couldn't possibly list them all here. Any decent library or book store should have an ample supply of them. In a pinch, you could always find examples in the Bible. The Bible also has examples of fathers sexually abusing their children. There is evidence that it has continued from that time to the present [4]. (Note that one of these references was written in "The Good Old Days.") <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: ::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: [1] Broverman, I.K., _et_al_. "Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal." _Journal_of_Social_Issues_, 1972. Fabrikant, B., _et_al_. "Perceived Female Sex-Role Attributes and Psychotherapists' Sex-Role Expectations for Female Patients." _New_Jersey_Psypchologist_, 1973. Nowacki, C.M., & Poe, C.A. "The Concept of Mental Health as Related to Sex of Person Perceived." _Journal_of_Consulting_ _and_Clinical_Psychology_, 1973. [2] Friedman, S.S., _et_al_. _A_Woman's_Guide_to_Therapy_. 1979, Prentice-Hall. [3] Bernard, J.S. _The_Future_of_Marriage_. 1972, World. [4] Butler, S. _Conspiracy_of_Silence:_The_Trauma_of_Incest_. 1938, Glide Press. Rush, F. _The_Best_Kept_Secret:_Sexual_Abuse_of_Children_. 1980, Prentice-Hall.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/15/85)
> > People were not perfect then just as they are not perfect now. > > You have not proof of the degree to which child molesting and > > wife terrorizing took place in the past. > > There most certainly is proof! > There are so many books about violence against women that > I couldn't possibly list them all here. Any decent library or > book store should have an ample supply of them. In a pinch, you > could always find examples in the Bible. There are many books that give irrevocable proof? If there are that many then surly you must be able to give us the title of at least one of them. I would be curious to read a book that gives examples of the 'now' verses the 'then' statistics on family life in America.
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (10/15/85)
In article <828@decwrl.UUCP>, dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) writes: > In general, the traditional marriage benefits the husband > much more than the wife, and the results can be seen when one sees > mental health statistics in relation to sex and marriage: married > men (in general) enjoy the best mental health and married women > (in general) enjoy the worst mental health [3]. Of course, those statistics reflect recent times. In the more distant past, the situation is less clear. Would you: a) choose a lifetime of backbreaking labor, conscription, and financial troubles, or b) choose a lifetime of constant light work and death in childbirth?, or c) Noooooooooo, Mr. Wizard! I don't want to be a peasant no more! It's only in the 20th century that there was any point arguing the case. Even then, traditional marriages held together as long as housekeeping was a full-time job, and the husband worked long hours, six days a week. Before World War II, housework took an immense amount of time. Laundry was line-dried and hand-ironed. Frozen food hadn't caught on yet, so shopping was more frequent, and pre-packaged stuff wasn't available. Cooking took a lot of time, too. Go back a few more decades, and you lose time-savers like the washing machine, the refrigerator, the electric iron, and the gas or electric range, complicating and lengthening housework. Add epidemics, lack of personal transportation, no birth control, and a lower general standard of living. Get the idea? "Man works from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done." Okay, so we know where the wife is. What's the husband doing? He's working 10-12 hour days, SIX days a week; that's what he's doing. In his "spare time" he does the heavy work around the house, takes the kids to ball games, and the usual stereotypical stuff. How can a marriage like this fall apart? Husband and wife never SEE each other! Besides, he NEEDS her -- he can't possibly find the time to do his own laundry, let alone cooking and cleaning. She needs him, too, since she can't hold down a household and a job at once, either. In those days, marriage was NECESSARY. The alternatives were few; staying with relatives who would serve the same economic function as a spouse, living in an environment where services were provided (rooming houses, the Army, monastaries in Tibet), and being rich enough to hire servants. Once the work week was shortened, and labor-saving methods got into high gear, marriage was no longer necessary. And when something isn't necessary, people will choose not to do it, or abandon it when it turns sour. Want to go back to the good old days? First, pick a date ("Set the date on the wayback machine, Sherman." "Sure thing, Mr. Peabody!"). Try to find a year without major epidemics, race riots, wars, and such to mar the effect (good luck). Before doing anything rash, though, post the date, and your reasons for choosing it to the net. We'll all enjoy it. Anyway, then go about eliminating all the evil influences that came into effect after that date (ragtime music, zoot suits, flower power, black athletes, rumble seats, Madonna), and you'll re-create the Golden Age. It's funny, though, how people who lived in the Golden Age never seemed to notice. -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (10/19/85)
> It's only in the 20th century that there was any point arguing the > case. Even then, traditional marriages held together as long as > housekeeping was a full-time job, and the husband worked long hours, > six days a week. > > Before World War II, housework took an immense amount of time. > Laundry was line-dried and hand-ironed. Frozen food hadn't caught on > yet, so shopping was more frequent, and pre-packaged stuff wasn't > available. Cooking took a lot of time, too. > > Go back a few more decades, and you lose time-savers like the washing > machine, the refrigerator, the electric iron, and the gas or electric > range, complicating and lengthening housework. Add epidemics, lack of > personal transportation, no birth control, and a lower general > standard of living. > > Get the idea? "Man works from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never > done." Just wanted to mention that if one was in an industrialized area and not too well off, a woman might just be trying to do all of that and be taking in piece work to sew, even if she were married. If she wasn't, she'd probably be working in a factory or as domestic help. That myth that women were always at home is just that: a myth. Susan Finkelman
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/19/85)
> In article <828@decwrl.UUCP>, dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) writes: > > In general, the traditional marriage benefits the husband > > much more than the wife, and the results can be seen when one sees > > mental health statistics in relation to sex and marriage: married > > men (in general) enjoy the best mental health and married women > > (in general) enjoy the worst mental health [3]. > > To which Robert Plamondon replied: > It's only in the 20th century that there was any point arguing the > case. Even then, traditional marriages held together as long as > housekeeping was a full-time job, and the husband worked long hours, > six days a week. > In general I agree with you. However, I note that Durkheim's classic study of suicide found that marriage lowered a man's chances of committing suicide and raised a woman's. The study was based on data from France and was published (Le Suicide) in 1897. Therefore we can conclude that in the late 19th century in France marriage was *not* an equal bargain. -- "Superior firepower is an Ethan Vishniac important asset when {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan entering into ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU negotiations" Department of Astronomy University of Texas
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) (10/22/85)
Re: "Traditional Values"__________________________________________ >> In general, the traditional marriage benefits the husband >> much more than the wife, and the results can be seen when one >> sees mental health statistics in relation to sex and marriage: >> married men (in general) enjoy the best mental health and >> married women (in general) enjoy the worst mental health >> [footnote refers to J.S. Bernard's _The_Future_of_Marriage_]. > > . . . I note that Durkheim's classic study of suicide found > that marriage lowered a man's chances of committing suicide > and raised a woman's. Durkheim concluded that suicide is the result of not being integrated into society enough. Bernard's book gets into specif- ics, but in general, many of the things a wife loses in a marriage (which a husband does not lose) have to do with integration into society! Ever since Freud set up shop at the beginning of the 20th Century (or thereabouts), married women have enjoyed the worst mental health. Bernard's book shows that there is an imbalance of benefits in a traditional marriage, and argues that there is a connection between the two. If it could be demonstrated that some kind of imbalance existed before the 20th Century and before Durk- heim's study, the same arguments could be made. I wasn't really thinking that far back. I guess for some, the "Good Old Days" are pre-20th Century. I guess when somebody mentions the "Good Old Days," I think about the Depression years that Ronald Reagan so fondly and innacurately remembers. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: ::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::