Women in college encourages divorce

[dairyfreelife]

Jennifer of Renewing Housewives read an about article suggesting reasons why women are filing for divorce more now. And as usual, she misses the point.

how often do we promote the Proverbs 31 woman and her business savvy? Now don't get me wrong, the Proverbs 31 woman is my goal and I love the home business my family has created. But do we put too much emphasis on our daughters earning an income, from home or otherwise?

we need to not put so much focus on making an income that our daughters start to feel that they could be financially idependent.

Then to a woman who disagrees with her:

your disagreement is one that I've heard often. "We need to raise our daughters to be open to life long singleness" ..."we need to raise Christians, not homemakers."

Your first paragraph is interesting. You say we shouldn't do "A" because "B" might happen. It reminds me of the arguement, "we need to train our daughters for "A" because "B" might happen. "A" being a marketable skill, "B" being the untimely death of a husband or life long singleness.

You say, "I don't think we shouldn't teach our daughters to have marketable skills just because that MIGHT contribute to a divorce."

I say, I don't think we shouldn't teach our daughters strictly homemaking, wife and mother duties, just because she MIGHT end up widowed or single for life.

The elephant in the room escapes her narrow vision as usual. I feel so sorry for her baby daughter. :cry:

renewinghousewives.com/2012/11/are-we-encouraging-divorce.html

ETA to add link

[Avalondaughter]

Ironic to say that since statistics show the opposite. The better educated the couple, the less likely they are to divorce.

[Closed Womb]

According to England and Bearak, "[D]ivorce rates are lowest for college graduates, and the education gap in divorce has increased in recent decades."

http://contemporaryfamilies.org/work-fa ... ation.html

In addition to the socio-economic factors mentioned in the study, the married people I know who are college educated revel in their partner's intelligence; they are proud of each other's accomplishments. There is a mutual respect that is organic, not based on Biblical interpretations and forced upon the couple.

[rock_girl]

I read somewhere that the crazier the Christian, the more likely they were to divorce. So does this mean that all fundieism should be discouraged in order to preserve the marital unit?

[JeanneD]

It's all that thinking for themselves and seeing other women in positions of power outside the home. Think about going away to college, meeting interesting people, learning that there are other viable ways to live than the fear-based way of your youth. Now, do you wanna marry a man like Smuggar? And he's considered a catch !

[Maude]

According to England and Bearak, "[D]ivorce rates are lowest for college graduates, and the education gap in divorce has increased in recent decades."

http://contemporaryfamilies.org/work-fa ... ation.html

In addition to the socio-economic factors mentioned in the study, the married people I know who are college educated revel in their partner's intelligence; they are proud of each other's accomplishments. There is a mutual respect that is organic, not based on Biblical interpretations and forced upon the couple.

Not surprising at all. An egalitarian marriage based in mutual respect is obviously going to last longer (and be more fulfilling) than one based on the fundie or biblical model. To further drive the point home, divorce rates are higher in the bible belt. http://www.alternet.org/story/147712/wh ... _values%22

[Peas n carrots]

Not surprising at all. An egalitarian marriage based in mutual respect is obviously going to last longer (and be more fulfilling) than one based on the fundie or biblical model. To further drive the point home, divorce rates are higher in the bible belt. http://www.alternet.org/story/147712/wh ... _values%22

I can't imagine it the fundie model divorce is common, unless they are just paying lip service with the whole feminine submission thing? Or is the divorce rate higher more with conservative Christians/fundie lites?

[FlorenceHamilton]

I can see where a college education for a woman gives her more choices. One of those choices is divorce. A woman with no skills and who has been trained to avoid obtaining skills (other than homemaking) really has little option but to tolerate whatever life her husband allows. It is a disincentive to divorce.

Of course, it provides a breeding ground for neglectful marriages, for abusive marriages, for empy loveless marriages, for poverty and lonliness with no escape. It provides little incentive for the male partner to do the work to be a good husband. Some guys are naturally good people, maybe even the majority. Even in that case, there is certainly no incentive for the men to learn to be pleasing to their wives sexually or visually.

If the only way these folks see to avoid divorce is to render one partner incapable of leaving, perhaps they should reevaluate their model. It seems to me that my generation has made a very big point. More than 50% of out marriages have broken and they estimate that there will be more as we empty our nests. The point is that once women have choices, men need to pay attention. I am hoping that my children's generation has learned that a mutually respectful marriage where both partners respect one another's individual personhood is where the energy should go. Housekeeping and childcare (if they have children) are shared responsibilities. Work is one place from which each partner gets a big part of satifaction. Home is a place where there is comfort, safety, love and intimacy. When we reach that point, marriage will become stronger.

[Peas n carrots]

I can see where a college education for a woman gives her more choices. One of those choices is divorce. A woman with no skills and who has been trained to avoid obtaining skills (other than homemaking) really has little option but to tolerate whatever life her husband allows. It is a disincentive to divorce.

Of course, it provides a breeding ground for neglectful marriages, for abusive marriages, for empy loveless marriages, for poverty and lonliness with no escape. It provides little incentive for the male partner to do the work to be a good husband. Some guys are naturally good people, maybe even the majority. Even in that case, there is certainly no incentive for the men to learn to be pleasing to their wives sexually or visually.

If the only way these folks see to avoid divorce is to render one partner incapable of leaving, perhaps they should reevaluate their model. It seems to me that my generation has made a very big point. More than 50% of out marriages have broken and they estimate that there will be more as we empty our nests. The point is that once women have choices, men need to pay attention. I am hoping that my children's generation has learned that a mutually respectful marriage where both partners respect one another's individual personhood is where the energy should go. Housekeeping and childcare (if they have children) are shared responsibilities. Work is one place from which each partner gets a big part of satifaction. Home is a place where there is comfort, safety, love and intimacy. When we reach that point, marriage will become stronger.

I think you need to put the bolded in her blog comments. Though Im not holding my breathe she would consider your position.

I think teaching learned helplessness (ie her baby daughter) is a form of abuse too. Im not sure if it would fall under educational abuse or emotional abuse or both, but it's appalling. She is setting her daughter up in life to be bait for an abuser.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I think you need to put the bolded in her blog comments. Though Im not holding my breathe she would consider your position.

I think teaching learned helplessness (ie her baby daughter) is a form of abuse too. Im not sure if it would fall under educational abuse or emotional abuse or both, but it's appalling. She is setting her daughter up in life to be bait for an abuser.

I agree. I am currently caring for a primarily geriatric population. There are a lot of people in my practice in their 70s, 80's and 90's. I see a lot of the damage that comes with a 50 year unhappy marriage. These people consider themselves marriage success stories and hold themselves superior to their 50 year old children who are divorced. I do not burst their bubbles. However, it is painful to see the couples who have stored up decades of anger, resentment and hatred of their life partner. These folks are always complaining, never satisfied with any of the comforts that we offer, they are mean to one another and disgusted with the world around them. I do not see this as successful. I do sometimes ask how their divorced children are doing. Those whose divorces are settled tend to be reported as having hectic but happy lives. Those who are still in the throes, are of course in great distress. Then there are the widows of happy, but traditional marriages. Some of them rise to the occasion of their independence beautifully and others not. The widowers are uniformly tragic and desperately look for a new caretaker.

My point is that in the nostalgic days gone by, the tendency for long marriage comes at the price of the learned helplessness of one partner- the woman. Even without overt abuse, the outcome often not happy or healthy, simply inescapable.

I tend to feel that my slightly checkered past, my children and my career will give me great satisfaction as I reminisce. And I can say, "I have had a life well lived."

[dawbs]

Know one of the awesome things about my marriage?

I choose to be in it. I chose to be with him almost 10 years ago. But last week, when he pulled a bonehead move (and it was a doozy, FWIW :P) I choose to stay. And next week, when I pull a bonehead move, he'll choose to stay. There is something delicious and wonderful in knowing that my husband isn't trapped by a (possibly bad) choice he made 10 years ago but that today, like yesterday and the day before an the day before, he chose to be with me. He's there for me because he wants to be.

I don't wonder if he loves/likes/etc me--I know he does.

(granted, that is a bit of an oversimplification. But, it's still truth.

My parents went through a long rough patch. My mom couldn't have left--she couldn't support herself. I don't think she would have, but the fact that it wasn't a CHOICE kinda sucked. She's since finished her degree and while it would be hard, she could make it alone--it's amazing how much more equal that made their marriage--knowing that mom was choosing to be there.

It's also something I saw modeled by my grandparents. My grandma was an awesome person who could have supported herself--she made as much in her career(s) as gramps did. She told me I should be able to support myself--she thought there was nothing 'higher' or better for a woman than to be a wife and mother--and she excelled at those things. But she also knew, from experience, that the mundane parts of that role aren't fulfilling enough for everyone--so find a way to make it work)

[jenny_islander]

If the only way these folks see to avoid divorce is to render one partner incapable of leaving, perhaps they should reevaluate their model.

Put it on a T-shirt, put it on a bumper sticker, put it on a coffee mug, PREACH IT!

[YPestis]

I've seen this attitude before, that people "in the past" were able to make marriage work and the world is falling because people can't seem to stay married. My mom said when Mao's government first made no fault divorce legal in the 50's, (whereas before only men could truly leave their wives), it was hoards of woman who initialized the divorces. It must have caught the leaders off guard because they amended the marriage laws so people could only divorce with certain terms (not sure on the specifics).

I bet the same goes for the US. Those mythical golden years in the 1950's when no one divorced probably also hid a lot of abusive and unhappy marriages. More than social stigma, divorced women faced a lifetime poverty and single parenthood. Those evil colleges and the feminist movement allowed women to move into the workforce and escape horrible husbands.

I think husbands, especially those with some means, had it much better back in those days when wives were a captive audience (so to speak). After the wedding, husbands had the dominant power in the relationship, and would suffer less consequences if a divorced occurred---if woman were even able to initiate a divorce. That didn't mean there were all bad husbands, but a poor husband could have little incentive to change.

Fundies say they don't like colleges because they believe it sells family destroying secular ideas, including acceptance of divorce. But we know the real reason is that they feel threatened by wives who have little incentive to stay in horrible marriages. It makes the fundie men feel less secure knowing they have to compete with women in the workforce, making them appear "less manly" to their own wives. Gee, how emasculating is it that your masculine, fundie husband has a female boss? Or female colleagues. How much crap will fundie women take if they know they can get jobs too? Imagine how eligible Josh Duggar is to girls without his family's money.....

[theologyofyourface]

I've seen this attitude before, that people "in the past" were able to make marriage work and the world is falling because people can't seem to stay married. My mom said when Mao's government first made no fault divorce legal in the 50's, (whereas before only men could truly leave their wives), it was hoards of woman who initialized the divorces. It must have caught the leaders off guard because they amended the marriage laws so people could only divorce with certain terms (not sure on the specifics).

I bet the same goes for the US. Those mythical golden years in the 1950's when no one divorced probably also hid a lot of abusive and unhappy marriages. More than social stigma, divorced women faced a lifetime poverty and single parenthood. Those evil colleges and the feminist movement allowed women to move into the workforce and escape horrible husbands.

I think husbands, especially those with some means, had it much better back in those days when wives were a captive audience (so to speak). After the wedding, husbands had the dominant power in the relationship, and would suffer less consequences if a divorced occurred---if woman were even able to initiate a divorce. That didn't mean there were all bad husbands, but a poor husband could have little incentive to change.

Fundies say they don't like colleges because they believe it sells family destroying secular ideas, including acceptance of divorce. But we know the real reason is that they feel threatened by wives who have little incentive to stay in horrible marriages. It makes the fundie men feel less secure knowing they have to compete with women in the workforce, making them appear "less manly" to their own wives. Gee, how emasculating is it that your masculine, fundie husband has a female boss? Or female colleagues. How much crap will fundie women take if they know they can get jobs too? Imagine how eligible Josh Duggar is to girls without his family's money.....

THANK YOU. It really bothers me when people conveniently equate the lower divorce rates in the past with happier families.

My great-grandparents were pretty much fundies: they had an arranged married when my great-grandmother was sixteen (they had quite literally never met until their wedding, which took place at the dock where my grandmother had just disembarked in America) and they had nine children and they never divorced...and they hated each other. They spent their whole lives tethered to one another and from what I hear it was awful. They were no happier than anyone today-- in fact, they were needlessly miserable, when they really could have started over separately and not wasted their lives spending every day with someone they simply despised. The reason my grandfather became such a feminist was because he watched what happened to his parents and how pointlessly awful it all was.