[thechat] The Wifely Duty

[Erika Meyer]

Madhu wrote:
>Selection bias. Of course, they'd tell you that. Their marriages ended in
>divorce, so clearly it didn't work for them.

sure... maybe out of context how i used it.

Usually that's been said to me in reference to the troubles
associated with divorce and especially associated issues involving
children.  Child custody/support/visitation issues are difficult but
more so (also more expensive) when there is divorce involved.

Of course, no one ever expects to get divorced.  what happens is that
people change (or they realize their spouses never will...)  Another
thing so many people don't realize: children put a huge strain on a
marriage... especially if there is a lack of strong and healthy
family support network as is common in our culture.

Women in particular seem to undergo major changes after a child is
born, and it is a pretty rapid transformation.   They may begin to
demand more of their partner, in addition to feeling tired and/or
put-upon.  Because children and child-rearing are sort of shoved to
the outer edges of society, and because women often take on the bulk
of the duty, a lot of independent-minded women go thru huge identity
issues associated with the "mommy" role in all its nuances.

There is also a significant economic strain created by children.

Essentially, the essay you referenced was about changes that occur
with children, and how our current attitude and lifestyle complicates
those things.

  I thought it was a fascinating essay btw.  Just last week I'd been
speculating about some of the mommies at my daughter's school to
another mom... the PTA fundraising maniacs kept saying they were
"frustrated" at those of us who were less enthusiastic about their
heroic efforts.  Then they attacked my friend (another single mom)
for bringing up a problem she'd had while volunteering at the school.

I suggested to my girlfriend that the mommies were "frustrated" in
more ways than one.  She brightened right up.  She thought that was
an excellent possibility and ... well she's a catholic and she
speculated that protestants were more sexually repressed.   maybe...
maybe it's that puritan background we have that's been directed into
the sport of extreme child-rearing...

I agree with the author of the essay that the 70's were different.
For one thing, the parents came fresh out of the 60's.  Sex was
considered a healthy activity (today it's power
yoga/pilates/spinning/etc).  There seemed to be less of an atmosphere
of "we must devote every waking/non-working minute to our children."
Damn, people still smoked and had adult-style cocktail parties back
then.  The PTA was WAAAY more laid back in my school days.  We had
maybe two fund-raisers a year... now they come weekly...

>Ask your friends who married...

hmm... Martin?  Just kidding.

Married friends are bound to speak positively of marriage unless the
marriage is actually on the rocks... it would be disloyal to do
otherwise.

Erika

--