Ad omnes,
I hope you have not been waiting too long for my return. If so I am sorry. May this lengthy essay feed your hungry hearts for a little while longer. I am half way through this arduous semester and am trying to sprint the rest(with God's grace of course). Please pray I survive all that is happening to me. It's more than I ever expected...Until we meet again...Salut!
“To have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.” These tokens of affection and commitment, traditionally spoken by those vowing themselves to the martial life, have tragically been abandoned by almost half of its participants as divorce rates now reach epidemic proportions in the good ‘ole U. S. of A. And from this startling eruption of divorce, spanning from sea to shining sea, grows an ever increasing interest as to why and how divorce affects itself upon so many people in our much applauded and enlightened contemporary society. Why are there so many divorces? What are the consequences of such actions upon the family? Where did this all stem from? This study seeks to investigate these questions while helping simplify the puzzling complexity regarding the issue and concludes by offering a means of lessening its appalling reality in American society.
As one sociologist put it, had the divorce rate been a matter of diet or electromagnetic fields in the atmosphere, the world would be in a “state of emergency,” (Terman) and justly so. Statistics as of 1999 show that nearly 1.1 million people per year get divorced (Fitzgerald); that’s nearly fifty-one percent or one out of two marriages (Carr). But why are there so many divorces? Research shows that the development of social and technological changes, communicative and/or compatibility factors and moral stance all play a vital role in determining the success or failure of a marriage.
The dismantling of the traditional family home first began during the civil rights movement in the 1960’s which hurled in a new concept of what “healthy societal living” was for the once domestic American woman. Dr.William Pinsof, President of the Family Institute at Northwest University, studied the development of marriage in western civilization within the last 100 years and noted that within the last forty years, there has been dramatic modifications regarding America’s standard of living, which thus has led to the loss of marital stability. Once the women’s rights movement granted opportunities for employment and financial independence, divorce rates reached astronomical proportions never before seen in American history. Women’s liberation (a.k.a. feminism) greatly changed the image long held by cultures that married women were to be wives and mothers who stayed home and cared for their families. Throwing off these traditional expectancies, women left their marriages to embrace the newly ratified “no fault” divorce law that legally sanctioned divorce regardless as to whether there existed a raison d'être or not. This new freedom from the “oppression” of husband and children gave women the freedom to become sex objects for men, as birth control and abortion soon legalized, ensuring men use women as a means for self gratification. Born from these barren unions came the inception of the destruction of the home and family in American society.
From these sociological changes came a loss of stability for the children living among such environments. In two case studies performed by two unrelated researchers, Judith Wallerstein and Lewis Terman, social and psychological development patterns were studied in order to disclose the inimical effects divorce has on those who‘ve lived through such affairs. Wallerstien found that as adults, these individuals were very anxious and distrusting in relationships, they held much anxiety regarding marriage, had deep “emotional scars,” were six times more likely to suffer poverty and had higher rates of drug / chemical abuse and school drop out. Termin’s study, which examined the life expectancies of those who either underwent divorce or suffered from parental divorce, revealed shocking proof that in over 1,500 adults the shortening of a person’s life increased 40% as opposed to those who lived in two parent households. Men’s rates for early death increased 140% after divorce and those who experienced divorce as children or young adults were more likely to also suffer marital breakup themselves. Statistics such as these expose both the physical and psychological injuries suffered by those who experience divorce thus refuting the supposition of feminists that divorce is of little consequence to those who suffer from the sting of its blade .
Though most feminists seek to bash the virtue of masculine virility and hence be the ones to wear the “stretch pants” in society, it is incontestable to agree when reviewing the effects had on individuals by this gender revolution, that males must be masculine men and females be feminine women if one hopes for the stability of the domestic frontier to return to our culture. Since time immemorial man has held the position as the head of the family, as he was the one to provide for and protect his wife and children. Feminist activist Gloria Steinem, however, states “[a] woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” (Misner ). This is the universal consensus most liberal women have regarding men, and yet, look at the state of the family in today’s world because of such attitudes. When it comes down to it, women do need men though they may fight to admit it tooth and nail. Men possess greater reason than women and thus represent stability for women who struggle against their never ceasing storms of emotion.
This reasoned personality is not only necessary for a woman, but also for children. The male figure is so vital to a healthy functioning family that without him, families crumble and hence so does society. Leonard Misner’s article “Sexual Responsibility and Fatherlessness,” stresses the effects had on children who come from homes devoid of paternal influence. He discovered that children are so impacted by the effects of the loss of a father, that they, not knowing how to cope, turn to alternative forms of escape such as fornication, drug abuse, and even suicide to slake their thirst for love in their much parched and pained hearts. Though they seek to fill this void by running towards injurious pleasures, they only cause their pains to worsen, as they never really possess that which they want; this being a mother and a father together to love and support them. To the feminists who state the apparent social belief that divorce is not harmful to individuals or that men are not needed in the rearing of children, these facts go unnoticed.
Once one understands the reason behind divorce and the effects had by those who experience divorce, lies the question of how one can produce and maintain a healthy happy marriage. Communication, compatibility and an honest assessment of spouses are key rudiments for the success of a marriage and must be taken more seriously before commitments are made in order for happiness to ensue. Psychologists Lisa Neff and Benjamin Karney’s case study “To know you is to love you,” researched eighty-two couples who had been recently married and investigated the success rate by which they could honestly judge their opposing spouse. They discovered that couples who had a more honest perception of their spouse’s strengths and weaknesses had a much higher success rate as opposed to those where one spouse held an unrealistic a view of the other. The happiest couples were those who knew that their spouse “understood” them for who they truly were, rather than have their spouse hold an illusory impression of them which they knew was untrue. The fact that the two communicated well with one another also weighed heavily in generating greater satisfaction between the two partners. These relationships allowed for the spouses to show support where it was needed and not ignore the realities that the one they loved was “not perfect.” Stability between their love and affection in times of trial were also notably stronger than those who denied the overall truth of who their spouse actually was. Those couples who could not acknowledge or perceive specific negative character traits, such as not being tidy or being on time, had a higher rate of enduring long term tensions and needing eventual separation. Their study, therefore, concluded that specific perceptions of a spouse, including both positive and negative attributes, along with positive “global” perceptions, such as a spouse being loving, created the greatest probability for a happy marriage, since it provided partners with a true and honest admittance of whom it was they were marrying and how it was they need to be supported. This information implies that it is necessity for couples to be honest about their spouses and to better see them for who they are, for in cases of denial or ignorance, marital success fairs weak.
One might gather then that communication is primary in fostering satisfaction between spouses; yet, interrelated with this requisite is that of compatibility. Some argue compatibility to be the sole element necessary for the personal fulfillment between couples, however, though this belief holds some truth, it must be noted that not all compatibility qualifies in maintaining the union of two persons in a marriage. The “types” of compatibility are of utmost importance when considering this concept. Call Vaughn, the associate professor in the Center for Studies of the Family at Brigham Young University, researched what particular types of compatibility factors are most pertinent in deciding the success of a marriage. Vaughn’s study consisted of a survey of 13,008 married people who had to answer questions regarding “personal attitudes and behaviors.” With people from all races, status’ and religious preferences responding to the survey, the sample was unbiased and proved very interesting results. He asked questions pertaining to sexual practice and belief, marital commitment, and religious attendance. Much to the chagrin of the general consensus, his study proved that those who defended “orthodox” religious beliefs such as Christians, most especially Catholics, had the lowest rate for marital breakup when both spouses attended church weekly. By orthodox belief it is meant that the spouses agree in matters of sexual fidelity, non-marital sex, traditional gender roles, and regular religious practice. Regular church attendance and religious practice between both partners led to the strongest and happiest marriages. Ironically , those of mixed religious affiliation had the highest risk of marital dissolution and had the least amount of marital satisfaction. Yet this is not surprising.
Orthodox religious practices are almost always part and parcel with marital stability. Religion touches the very heart of what one treasures as truth. Marrying someone of a different belief is like a fish taking a bird for a swim or a bird taking a fish for a flight. The creatures are on two totally separate plains of living that it is literally impossible for them to meet halfway without suffering deleterious consequences. Because religion is the structure by which a person chooses to live and act, it must be taken into account if one wants to marry for life. Fish mate with fish and birds mate with birds. So too should it be for people of religious belief. The opinions one has regarding the rearing of children or sexual behaviors or friendship networks are so significant in a person’s martial relationship, that if there are many disagreements confronting these positions, the mental union between spouses grows frustrated and ultimately bitter which increases the probability for divorce. Because religion tends to mold the opinions of persons regarding these issues, it is crucial that one marries one who believes similarly in order to engender a beautiful union of persons both physically and spiritually.
In conjunction with religious belief is that of progeny. Chengze Fan of the department of economics in Lingnan University, investigated the relationship between divorce and endogenous fertility. He found that the rapid decline in birth rates in the average American household has led to a significant alteration in the household structure. With couples using contraception and abortion to reduce the number of children they otherwise would have bore, the home has become weak. Interestingly, Chengze found that couples who anticipate higher probabilities of divorce have fewer children; in contrast, those couples who have more children are less likely to get divorced. The old expression “cheaper by the dozen” carries some grounds as the case may be. It is also to be noted that when wealth in a society is high, the increase of divorce follows suit. Ironically, when an economy is underdeveloped, the probability of divorce is nearly zero and fertility rates simultaneously increase significantly, proving that money does not secure true happiness nor marital longevity. Could America possibly benefit from such a “loss?”
Today many young people have become reluctant to embrace the lifestyle of marital commitment because of their experiences with divorce and the heartache associated with it. Currently statistics show that 2.4 million marriages occur per year with 1.2 million divorces occurring within the same period of time. Is there any wonder the young are disinclined to marry when the odds for getting divorced stand in their favor? What then is the answer one might ask.
“Covenant marriage” programs have recently been established to lessen divorce rates by encouraging people’s return to traditional family values. Covenant marriage programs help educate adults preparing for marriage and encourage those adults, already married, to renew the vows they formally took (Holman). The program also requires that couples get counseling before they can divorce so to deter couples from acting rashly. Though these programs have not been popular except in mostly conservative Protestant communities, the slow manifestation of its existence is hopeful for the future. Government has also taken measures to deter couples from divorcing. President Bush has a new “Bush marriage strategy,” an effort to encourage single people to marry and keep married couples together. The “theory […] includes pro-marriage media blitzes featuring billboards, posters, calendars and pamphlets as well as premarital classes for high school students, singles and unmarried couples, [in] explaining the benefits of marriage” (Lerner). With the help of those who posses the power of authority, future marriages hold a glimpse of hope. Ultimately, the “no fault” divorce law, which was the beginning of the end for marriage, must be dismembered if there is to be a resurgence of faithful marriages again. Couples must not have the luxury of obtaining divorces so easily as studies prove that the repercussion had on themselves and on those around them cause more harm than good.
“To have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.” When these sentiments are again relived and total unselfish commitment to one’s spouse is defended and self-forgetfulness and self-denial for the sake of one loved becomes the priority, then will couples not need to justify divorce because then they will truly know and possess real love. They will come to realize that love is found in another’s happiness, not one’s own. This is the standard that must be defended and this is the love that will endure until “death do us part.”
So let it be written, so let it done.
N.B. Should you desire any of my references please contact me.
No comments:
Post a Comment