On one level, of course marriage is about love and I wouldn't want to take that away from anybody. We all deserve a shot at trying to find happiness with someone we love, and yes, even gays deserve that. And of course compatibility is an issue, though compatibility isn't as simple as having alot of traits in common. This article mentions that they don't match dominant people with wallflowers, but in fact that may be a more compatible match than two wallflowers or two domineering types. In my experience, alot of happy couples are formed when people find that they have complementary personalities. Two aggressive people might butt heads, but an aggressive and a tolerant person might complement and improve each other.
But my main issue is that we are becoming increasingly myopic on the subject of marriage in this country, seeing it strictly as a meeting of two personalities and if they can't make it work, we chalk it up to personal failing. Either you ruined a good marriage or you failed to make a good marriage. End of story.
But the reality is that the outside world probably puts more stress on marriages than any other factor. Certain groups have higher divorce rates than others--for instance, I remember reading somewhere that Christian fundamentalists have higher divorce rates than non-religious people or members of moderate churches. Why would that be? In our myopic worldview, we assume that it's a correlation, that people in fundie churches have flawed personalities and they bring that to their marriages. I find that unlikely. I find it more likely that the combination of economic and social factors is the reason.
It might be wise to use a hypothetical. Let's say we take two couples that have the same psychological make-up--in both couples, we have people who both scored high as "dominant" and should therefore be compatible. However, Couple #1 belongs to a Southern Baptist church and is working class. Both of them only graduated high school. Couple #2 is atheistic, college-educated and upper middle class.
You can see where this is going. Couple #1 has less money than Couple #2, and so Couple #1 is more likely to conflict about money issues. In Couple #2, the wife demands that her husband accept and respect her career and he makes an effort to do so, because their social circle is feminist and he values that and is shamed when he tries to control his wife. In Couple #1, the wife has a dominant personality and wants to go out into the world, but she is shamed into staying at home. She is to be submissive to her husband, but it's hard because he says alot of things she regards as foolish, but when she gives into her personality and disagrees, he, with the full authority of their social circle, tells her to step off and learn to respect his authority as the man. And resentment grows.
If marital troubles arise, Couple #2 will go to a marriage counselor who will walk them through their situation. Couple #1 will go to their preacher, who may do the same, but also may just tell them to try harder to fit their gender roles as husband and wife. But if the problem is that the wife's gender role is ruining her life, how good is that advice?
Both couples have a chance of breaking up, but Couple #1 is in more trouble. It has nothing to do with the personalities of the people in the marriages, but everything to do with their circumstances. The high divorce rate nowadays has nothing to do with people making incompatible marriages at a higher rate than they used to; if anything, people know their partners better than older generations did before they commit. If we want the divorce rate to go down, we have to start by addressing the economic and social issues that create strife. That won't eliminate divorce, but it would sure reduce it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment