Mean Girls, Part II: Marriage Penalties

A couple of weeks ago, Sam Roberts wrote in The New York Times that marriage was no longer the norm among adult women in the United States. His evidence was that 51% of women "said that they were living without a spouse."

In the days that followed, it turned out that Roberts had juggled his numbers in order to create this impressive statistic. For example, he defined "woman" as any female fifteen years of age or older. Additionally, he counted women whose husbands were incarcerated, employed in another area, or stationed in a foreign country (such as Iraq) as unmarried. Following Roberts' rubric, for instance, my wife is currently unmarried.

One wonders how many lesbians made Roberts' cut. What about nuns? Women in prison? Joan Rivers? RuPaul?

Although I appreciate some good number-padding when I see it, the interesting thing here isn't Roberts' sloppy journalism or the decline of marriage. What's really fascinating is the responses that his article produced. My particular favorite came from Gina Barreca, who wrote a piece about it for The Philadelphia Inquirer. I've got to hand it to Barreca: she's got style (or, at least, she knows how to copy it). Her article is liberally sprinkled with great pop-culture references, ranging from Mae West's comment that "marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet" to quotes from the Dixie Cups and the Beach Boys. However, once you get past the numerous cadged lines and television references, it becomes clear that Barreca has hasn't strayed far from the party line on men. She offers a collection of generalizations about "gargoyles" who take advantage of their wives, are childish, emotionally stunted...etc, etc. For evidence, she offers up Homer Simpson, The King of Queens, and other sitcom fodder. As the article progresses, it becomes clear that Barreca's argument is as cartoonish and two-dimensional as her examples. As she writes:

"Any man with a steady job, a history of reasonable sobriety, and the ability to cook one signature meal (either a red gravy for pasta, which they refer to as a "Bolognese" sauce, or a stir fry made in a wok they got from their last girlfriend) can find a woman willing to marry him. Guys who look like Notre Dame gargoyles can find wives who look like Isabella Rossellini. Think Everybody Loves Raymond. Think The King of Queens. Think The Simpsons. Meantime, women who look like Christie Brinkley get dumped for 17-year-olds who work at ShopRite or hookers named Divine Brown."

The real kicker comes when Barreca states that "The question, far as I can see, isn't why more women aren't marrying; the question is why they marry at all."

Ouch.

Well, thank god that Barreca isn't relying on stereotypes. For the record, I want to point out right now that I have never dumped Christie Brinkley for a 17-year-old, nor have I ever cavorted with a hooker named Divine Brown. I do not look like a "Notre Dame Gargoyle" (I'm nowhere near that buff!), and I didn't get cookware from my last girlfriend, as she used cheap-ass aluminum pots that had major hot spots. And, while we're on the subject, I fucking hate woks.

The scary thing is that Barreca is merely parroting what pop culture has endlessly repeated about men. It's hard to turn on a television, read a magazine, or watch a movie without being bombarded by depictions of stupid men being saved by their smarter, funnier, and more attractive wives or girlfriends. My wife and I tried to think of a positive depiction of fatherhood on television. She insisted that Friends filled the bill, while I argued that you really have to go back to the eighties to find a television father who isn't a fat, stupid slob. We agreed, however, that current TV is pretty much a wasteland when it comes to male role models. Except, of course, for reruns of The Cosby Show.

Glenn Sacks and Jeffery Leving offered a response to Roberts in The Chicago Tribune. In a nutshell, they cited statistics to show that, while men do less housework than women, they work longer hours in the office and that, in the end, the work loads of men and women are roughly even. I don't know if that's true, or if housework and office work can even be measured on the same scale. For the first year of my daughter's life, I was her primary caregiver, and I also did the lion's share of housework. Based on that experience, I am unconvinced that the frustrations and joys of child rearing and chores are in any way comparable to the difficulties of office work. Truth be told, I think that many men are probably getting off easy.

However, Sacks and Leving make a strong point about demands. They argue that many women have "excessive expectations" of their spouses: "Most marital problems and marriage counseling sessions revolve around why the wife is unhappy with her husband, even though they could just as easily be about why the husband is unhappy with the wife." In some ways, this rings true. My wife often tells me about her friends and their attitudes regarding their husbands. One popular refrain that I often hear is "I could do it on my own. I don't need him."

We could all do it on our own. None of us really needs anyone else. But is that the tack we want to take in our relationships? Does that seem like an effective bargaining position? One of the key elements of haggling is a willingness to walk away. However, it seems to me that we are far too willing to walk away from our relationships. No, you're husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/cocker spaniel isn't perfect, and never will be. However, neither are you, and regularly reminding your significant other of his or her shortcomings is not an ideal method for navigating the rocky shoals of relationship problems. Neither, for that matter, is letting him/her/it/Sparky know that you are ready to move on to the next relationship. To put it bluntly, we all want to be wanted. And, at the end of the day, being told that you are expendable does not inspire confidence, loyalty, and love.