Full Version: What do women want?
A new study tackles that very question, but it comes back with some results that seem to fly in the face ofmost of the studies out there.
There is a second part of this debate as well:
Questions for debate:
1. Which camp do you fall in and why? The one suggested by this study, the "compassionate and equal" camp or something else entirely?
2. The study implies that women must lower their expectations of equality to achieve marital bliss, do you agree or disagree?
3. The article cites $100 million in federal programs to promote marriage - should the federal government be spending more, less or nothing at all?
QUOTE
If, as Tolstoy said, happy families are all alike, is there a formula for happy marriages, too?
Yes, say two University of Virginia sociologists who found that married women are happiest with a sensitive guy who earns most of the family's money. Women are also willing to take on more housework if they feel their husbands pay attention to them, and they feel the arrangement is "fair," if not equal.
"On average, an American wife is happiest when her husband combines elements of the new and the old," said Bradford Wilcox, a study co-author who is also a resident scholar at the Institute for American values, which promotes traditional marriage. "Having a good breadwinner and sharing a strong commitment to lifelong marriage -- the old model if you will -- is still important."
That flies in the face of many other studies that find the best marriages are "companionate" in which spouses equally share tasks like child care and earning an income.
Yes, say two University of Virginia sociologists who found that married women are happiest with a sensitive guy who earns most of the family's money. Women are also willing to take on more housework if they feel their husbands pay attention to them, and they feel the arrangement is "fair," if not equal.
"On average, an American wife is happiest when her husband combines elements of the new and the old," said Bradford Wilcox, a study co-author who is also a resident scholar at the Institute for American values, which promotes traditional marriage. "Having a good breadwinner and sharing a strong commitment to lifelong marriage -- the old model if you will -- is still important."
That flies in the face of many other studies that find the best marriages are "companionate" in which spouses equally share tasks like child care and earning an income.
There is a second part of this debate as well:
QUOTE
The debate over the ideal marital relationship is being played out against growing concerns about the health of marriage in America, with a stubbornly persistent divorce rate of 43 percent and rising numbers of couples who live together without planning to marry. The federal government included $100 million in programs to promote marriage when it renewed welfare reform legislation in its last session.
Questions for debate:
1. Which camp do you fall in and why? The one suggested by this study, the "compassionate and equal" camp or something else entirely?
2. The study implies that women must lower their expectations of equality to achieve marital bliss, do you agree or disagree?
3. The article cites $100 million in federal programs to promote marriage - should the federal government be spending more, less or nothing at all?
1. Which camp do you fall in and why? The one suggested by this study, the "compassionate and equal" camp or something else entirely?
2. The study implies that women must lower their expectations of equality to achieve marital bliss, do you agree or disagree?
3. The article cites $100 million in federal programs to promote marriage - should the federal government be spending more, less or nothing at all?
[/quote]
Necessary disclosure: I'm not married, nor have I ever been close to marriage, engagement, or a really serious commitment.
1. Tradition is what it is not just because of outdated social mores, but because things tend to fit into a comfortable equilibrium. While it has been for the most part unwilling, women have since the sexual revolution still chosen to forgo a "career" for a family. I've heard at least one speaker describe this as not necessarily the inferior decision... that by choosing family over career, women in many cases choose happiness and fulfillment where their partners end up in drudgery and forgone dreams in order to support their family.
In the modern age, it must be all compromise, and I expect every couple will find the solution that fits their moment. Being a military guy, I hope the woman of my dreams will follow me only until my 20 years are up, at which time, I am perfectly willing to follow her.
2. I hope not. This all depends on what your singular opinion is regarding what women want. As a twenty-something guy, I have no clue, whatsoever. Perhaps in midlife, some women may choose to forgo career for family. Perhaps some may go vice versa. They are, really, partially exclusive goals, and I figure each woman, each person, must make their choice. Even for men, this often become the choice between following their dreams, and choosing a career which better provides for their family and has stability, esp. with regard to location.
3. The federal government, or any, for that matter, should have no role in marriage, in my opinion. It is a matter for the church and individuals. If it could only be so easy... but of course, there is the disposition of kids, and property, when it all goes to heck. I suppose as long as marriage will require laws regarding its disolution, and the damages that occur, then their will be a social, and thus governmental, interest in its preservation. Still, it's hard to believe there aren't more substantial things to spend the money on.
2. The study implies that women must lower their expectations of equality to achieve marital bliss, do you agree or disagree?
3. The article cites $100 million in federal programs to promote marriage - should the federal government be spending more, less or nothing at all?
[/quote]
Necessary disclosure: I'm not married, nor have I ever been close to marriage, engagement, or a really serious commitment.
1. Tradition is what it is not just because of outdated social mores, but because things tend to fit into a comfortable equilibrium. While it has been for the most part unwilling, women have since the sexual revolution still chosen to forgo a "career" for a family. I've heard at least one speaker describe this as not necessarily the inferior decision... that by choosing family over career, women in many cases choose happiness and fulfillment where their partners end up in drudgery and forgone dreams in order to support their family.
In the modern age, it must be all compromise, and I expect every couple will find the solution that fits their moment. Being a military guy, I hope the woman of my dreams will follow me only until my 20 years are up, at which time, I am perfectly willing to follow her.
2. I hope not. This all depends on what your singular opinion is regarding what women want. As a twenty-something guy, I have no clue, whatsoever. Perhaps in midlife, some women may choose to forgo career for family. Perhaps some may go vice versa. They are, really, partially exclusive goals, and I figure each woman, each person, must make their choice. Even for men, this often become the choice between following their dreams, and choosing a career which better provides for their family and has stability, esp. with regard to location.
3. The federal government, or any, for that matter, should have no role in marriage, in my opinion. It is a matter for the church and individuals. If it could only be so easy... but of course, there is the disposition of kids, and property, when it all goes to heck. I suppose as long as marriage will require laws regarding its disolution, and the damages that occur, then their will be a social, and thus governmental, interest in its preservation. Still, it's hard to believe there aren't more substantial things to spend the money on.
Questions for debate:
1. Which camp do you fall in and why? The one suggested by this study, the "compassionate and equal" camp or something else entirely?
I fall into the model that finds the traditional marriage arrangement to be a superior form for a) raising children and
insuring that both men and women are happier. I"ve seen the feminist women in my family go through multiple marriages until finally finding happiness in a traditional structure.
2. The study implies that women must lower their expectations of equality to achieve marital bliss, do you agree or disagree?
I disagree that the study implies that, in large part because the definition of equality I suspect is used by the question is neither realistic, nor the definition held by most of the happy women. Having just read Dr. Laura's The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, I have to conclude that most modern women need to lower the expectations to believe that their husbands are, in point of fact, equal to them in intrinsic human worth, not less.
3. The article cites $100 million in federal programs to promote marriage - should the federal government be spending more, less or nothing at all?
Hmmmm, tough question. On the whole, I think that the Fed shouldn't be spending anything to promote marriage, but it sure as heck should do something about eliminating the incentives in place that reward "alternative family structures."
1. Which camp do you fall in and why? The one suggested by this study, the "compassionate and equal" camp or something else entirely?
I fall into the model that finds the traditional marriage arrangement to be a superior form for a) raising children and
insuring that both men and women are happier. I"ve seen the feminist women in my family go through multiple marriages until finally finding happiness in a traditional structure.2. The study implies that women must lower their expectations of equality to achieve marital bliss, do you agree or disagree?
I disagree that the study implies that, in large part because the definition of equality I suspect is used by the question is neither realistic, nor the definition held by most of the happy women. Having just read Dr. Laura's The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, I have to conclude that most modern women need to lower the expectations to believe that their husbands are, in point of fact, equal to them in intrinsic human worth, not less.
3. The article cites $100 million in federal programs to promote marriage - should the federal government be spending more, less or nothing at all?
Let's get one obvious fact out of the way. There is no one path to happiness. Can we agree on this, at least? Some people will never want to marry or have a long-term relationship at all; some will want to have very traditional marriages; some will fall into other categories.
With that in mind, let's look at a few things in this article.
(bold added for emphasis)
At least we can agree that not all studies come to the same conclusion as this one, right? And here's another thing that concerns me.
(bold added for emphasis)
So here's the key to a wife's happiness; don't expect very much from your husband!
I respect men too much to accept this. As feminism continues to have a beneficial effect on American society, men have been doing a very good job of adjusting to increased expectations.
Three cheers for men who have lived up to the challenge of feminism!
In fact, I think this study seems to show that women are happiest in marriages that seem "fair" to them. (And I'm sure that men would say the same thing.) It would be silly to say that fairness only exists when each partner does exactly fifty percent of the housework, and so on.
Here's the bottom line:
The questions for debate:
1. I'm not sure that it's necessary to fall into any particular camp. I wish all the best to people in very traditional marriages, in non-traditional marriages, in same-sex marriages, in group marriages, and to those who choose not to marry at all. My own marriage leans to the "modern" side, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be split exactly down the middle. I happen to be the breadwinner in my family, simply because I stumbled into a line of work which pays well and for which there is a high demand. I'm more likely to vacuum and wash the dishes; I'm less likely to cook or dust. It all works out.
2. One can always lessen one's discontent by lowering one's expectations; the other side of that two-edged sword is that lowered expectations prevent one from reaching a higher level of contentment.
3. Although the Federal government should probably not have a huge role in this area, certain policies can have a positive effect on marriage. Allowing persons of the same sex to share in the joys and challenges of marriage would be an excellent place to start.
With that in mind, let's look at a few things in this article.
QUOTE
. . .flies in the face of many other studies that find the best marriages are "companionate" in which spouses equally share tasks like child care and earning an income.
(bold added for emphasis)
At least we can agree that not all studies come to the same conclusion as this one, right? And here's another thing that concerns me.
QUOTE
. . .more traditional wives had lower expectations of their husbands' contributions at home.
(bold added for emphasis)
So here's the key to a wife's happiness; don't expect very much from your husband!
I respect men too much to accept this. As feminism continues to have a beneficial effect on American society, men have been doing a very good job of adjusting to increased expectations.
QUOTE
"Women's expectations have been rising, and men are stepping up to the plate. They've changed a lot in the last 10 years," said Stephanie Coontz, a family historian and author of "Marriage: A History."
Three cheers for men who have lived up to the challenge of feminism!
In fact, I think this study seems to show that women are happiest in marriages that seem "fair" to them. (And I'm sure that men would say the same thing.) It would be silly to say that fairness only exists when each partner does exactly fifty percent of the housework, and so on.
Here's the bottom line:
QUOTE
. . .happy marriages are not as easy to formulate as many researchers and activists would lead us to believe. . .
The questions for debate:
1. I'm not sure that it's necessary to fall into any particular camp. I wish all the best to people in very traditional marriages, in non-traditional marriages, in same-sex marriages, in group marriages, and to those who choose not to marry at all. My own marriage leans to the "modern" side, but that doesn't mean that everything has to be split exactly down the middle. I happen to be the breadwinner in my family, simply because I stumbled into a line of work which pays well and for which there is a high demand. I'm more likely to vacuum and wash the dishes; I'm less likely to cook or dust. It all works out.
2. One can always lessen one's discontent by lowering one's expectations; the other side of that two-edged sword is that lowered expectations prevent one from reaching a higher level of contentment.
3. Although the Federal government should probably not have a huge role in this area, certain policies can have a positive effect on marriage. Allowing persons of the same sex to share in the joys and challenges of marriage would be an excellent place to start.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.