[lbo-talk] Do you take this man? No thanks

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Mon Jan 1 22:18:17 PST 2007


On 1/2/07, Steven L. Robinson <srobin21 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Do you take this man? No thanks
>
> For many women the world over, marriage is no longer desirable or even
> necessary to fulfil their ambitions
>
> Stephanie Coontz
>
> Sunday December 31, 2006
>
> The Observer
<snip>
> Paradoxically, many of the things
> that have made marriage more optional and more fragile are inextricably
> connected to the things we cherish most about modern marriage - its emphasis
> on love, mutual respect and personal choice.
<snip>
> Many factors contribute to the eclipse of marriage's traditional monopoly
> over the organisation of people's lives. Some are worrisome indeed. Our
> churning global economy has destabilised personal life. Heightened job
> insecurity, falling wages for less-educated men and the chronic stresses of
> economic deprivation all erode the incentive to marry. Sudden riches or
> large fluctuations in wealth are also threatening to relationship stability.
>
> But equally important in transforming marriage and family life are two
> welcome innovations - the growing expectation of mutual love in marriage and
> the decreasing ability of men to impose their will on women.

The positive and negative factors contributing the eclipse of marriage are fundamentally two sides of the same coin: most importantly, men have less money (negative), so they have less power to impose their will on women (positive). In this sense, neoliberal capitalism has been good for liberal feminism. Both leftists and rightists are reluctant to clearly spell out this dialectical relation, for most people want to believe that we all can have positives without negatives.

For most working-class women, single motherhood means less money.

Also, being single in old age is a big financial disadvantage for women.

<blockquote><http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women28dec28,0,7446902.story?coll=la-home-headlines> Old story: Women may have it worse Divorce and lost earning time could put living standards in a free fall late in life. By Jonathan Peterson, Times Staff Writer December 28, 2006

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Smaller pocketbooks

The average income of older people declines as they age, and unmarried women trail both unmarried men and married couples.

Median income of senior citizens by age groups, 2004 data

Ages 65 to 69 70-74 75-79 Over 80 Married couples $44,299 $36,750 $30,413 $28,490 Unmarried men 19,194 18,013 17,580 16,939 Unmarried women 14,611 13,506 13,171 12,679 Source: Social Security Administration</blockquote>

Most women are aware of the economic penalty of divorce, single motherhood, single old age, etc. and yet choose them. That says a lot about men and marriage!


> Marriage is not doomed.

More accurately, marriage is not doomed yet. Marriage still has benefits, even for women. Most crucially, two incomes are better than one. But if marriage ceases to bring economic benefits, people are unlikely to get married. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list