Caitlin Flanagan's Defense of Marriage Bums Me Out

Not sure there's a marriage crisis out there...

By: ockeghem | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 17:37

A few articles based on faulty, highly selective research do not a marriage crisis make.

On the Flanagan piece: I have to say I have a problem with the following sentence: "in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others." Really? In all cases? Linda Hirshman is right on -- I've read scholarly discussions of some of those studies Flanagan's offhandedly citing. She's ignoring the fact that many of these studies focus quite specifically on families of lower socioeconomic standing, with the explicit acknowledgement that single parenthood and lower income tend to go hand in hand and can't be easily untangled. Citing one study that controls for income -- without looking at the fact that said book also acknowledges that certain things can "help" in single parent households -- doesn't correct for Flanagan's biases.

And I can think of at least one case that would disprove Flanagan's blanket assertion about "all cases" of kids living with one parent -- my own family. My father was widowed, so we can't be conflated with families that went through divorce (although that's what Flanagan's statement on its own does -- she keeps using "single-parent household" as if it's synonymous with "children of divorce," which it is not). My sister and I were brought up by a single parent, and we both graduated at the very top of our high school classes, and from top universities with honors. I'd say that belies the "all cases" assertion, as we certainly did better than some of our peers from two-parent families. Maybe we were an exception. But still, Flanagan can't make blanket statements about "all" single-parent families, because single-parent families differ on as many variables as two-parent families do.

Having happy parent(s) makes a big difference, too, I think. I have a friend who's stayed in a marriage with a wife who has cheated multiple times and makes it clear on every occasion, often in front of the kids, that she could care less about him. But they've stayed together "for the kids" over the past 10 years since he uncovered the first instance of cheating. They're being "unselfish" -- staying together for the kids as Flanagan suggests. But I'm reasonably certain that despite the two parents, these kids are not going to turn out better than they would if their parents were finally happy -- apart -- for a change.

And just one more thing on Flanagan that I'd like to point out. Her apparent counterargument against my family would be that my father was the one left behind, as "[f]ew things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home." At a number of points in this article she implies that fathers are always missing from a single parent household, and that's a big reason why all children in single-parent households do worse. What an ignorant slight against mothers! I can speak from experience that having a mother is just as important as having a father. Having both a mother and father in the same household, married to each other, though, is not the only determining factor in how a child turns out. Plus, children of divorce still have two parents, and in many cases both of those parents still care deeply about their children and are involved in their upbringing.

On Tsing Loh, Flanagan and Emily's great post -- many, many of us married couples are together because we want to be, because we genuinely love our partners and actually do want to be with that particular person, even through the stomach flu and financial discussions and cleaning of child / pet vomit. We aren't "awed" that a middle-aged man and woman can still be in love. And we don't think Jon & Kate are role models or even in any way representative of marriage or child-rearing. I've been married for 14 years, with no kids until just now, so we haven't been together for the kids or because it's convenient. We're together because we want to be with each other, because we are on the same wavelength and because going through life together on every level (the mundane, the romantic) is much more enjoyable than going through it with someone else or alone.

These facile articles are completely reductive. I think we may be giving poorly researched, faddish pieces more air time than they deserve. Kind of like Michael Jackson, come to think of it. Ah, summer -- time of the faux crisis.

commitment

By: Caerolle | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 08:53

kcar1 said:
I love my husband deeply but as much as I am committed to him, I am committed to being married, not just for the kids or because it is expensive to get divorced but because I said I am committed for life.
`
I agree. My wife and I havent stayed together just b/c, "we said we would, and by golly, we do what we say no matter what!" However, that commitment definitely got us thru a couple of really rough patches—since neither of us felt that leaving was an option, we worked thru those, and were the better for it. This was especially true b/c we had a child--neither of us was going to leave without him, and there was no way we were going to go to court over it, so we had to resolve our issues and forgive each other, or find some way to put the spark and closeness back in our marriage, or whatever the situation required (it helped that we are both hate to live in conflict, too, so we couldnt just live together and endure an unhappy relationship).
`
Of course, I would never ever counsel *everyone* to stay no matter what! If there is abuse, or something else of immediate threat, that is another matter altogether! Nor am i saying that everyone should feel the same way, this is just what has worked for us. And trust me, I am no saint or this wonderful, easy person to live with, neither! A lot of why my marriage has worked is that i found *the* most wonderful person—in my opinion, I married far better than she did!

Carol :)

everyday marriage

By: Caerolle | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 08:36

geml said:
Or maybe it's just the way marriage is -- when it's not being written up in glossy magazines.
`
I wish there was a reply feature! sigh...i still pretty much hate the new comment format (plus can t get my profile to work, or anyone to respond to my emails about it)...anyhow...
`
I totally agree. I thought the same thing myself. Lots of ppl I know find their marriages and sharing their life with their spouses a very positive thing, and work to maintain that relationship (isnt it true of any deep relationship, too?). However, these ppl arent the sort who would have a forum in the national media, so they arent going to be heard from. Also, who would be interested in a healthy, working marriage, unless the article is about someone already famous?
`
Even at that, I am guessing that quite a bit of the reason these "My husband is an asshole" or "Marriage has taken away who I really am" type articles interest anyone is b/c the ppl writing them and their spouses are well-known, anyhow. And most ppl, famous or not, dont trash their spouse or relationship to the whole world, so these articles get the 'looking at the fatal car crash' kind of attention, too.

These articles dont get the authors any sympathy from me, tho (and i know, some of them are written from the perspective that the writer failed, that is a bit different, they arent just putting the blame on others or on the state of marriage in general), and just make them look immature and self-centered and whingy to me.

Carol

Total different reading

By: kcar1 | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 07:26

Even prior to the latest spate of public infidelity revelations, I had been doing quite a bit of thinking about marriage in light of a few friends now finalizing 2nd divorces or announcing third marriages -- and we're in our late twenties. I also married young, both 21, which isn't unusual for the rural area where we grew up together (hence the 2nd and 3rd marriages before 30) but gets the "why so young" question in our now more urban(e?) environment. We have children now and are quite happy-- Yoffe's post definitely speaks to me. That said, I don't assume that our married life will always be as easy and happy. In fact, it hasn't always been so: my husband stuck with me through pretty severe postpartum depression (why no outrage over Steve Schmidt saying he would never "defame" Sarah Palin by considering that some widely-acknowledged problematic behavior might be a result of postpartum depression?). I love my husband deeply but as much as I am committed to him, I am committed to being married, not just for the kids or because it is expensive to get divorced but because I said I am committed for life. Just like finishing school or your job, it isn't always fun, you don't always want to do it but you've committed to it and see value finishing, in getting that degree or bringing home that paycheck. Those things are not about feeling warm and fuzzy but because it makes you, others, and the community better off in the long run.

To comment on the earlier conversation about Tsou, is why a 20-year marriage that produced healthy child ending in divorce is declared a "failure": the finish line that *both* committed to was not 20 years down the line and it was dissolved ultimately not because it had fulfilled its goals (i.e. bring 2 health children in to adolescence) but because one party had did not live up to the agreement and had no desire to try to do so. I say this not to cast judgments on people with "failed" marriages, I have failed to finish some other pretty important things myself. But just as we don't celebrate someone who drops out of medical school after 3 years of med school for getting 3 years of quality medical education, we recognize that deciding to dissolve a marriage is not what was originally intended and involves disappointment, hurt, and real consequences for the individuals involved, including children.

"Marriage is work"

By: geml | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 21:34

What an unusual way of seeing it. Like the former poster, I also married very young -- we were both twenty, and had been together since were teenagers. We also spent long periods of our married life apart, for his career and mine, but are happiest when we are together. We have been married 19 years, and have a child who is becoming a teenager (not that much younger now than we were when we met....)

Do I work at my marriage? Yes, of course. But that's not the same as saying "Marriage is work." That's essentialist; too essentialist at least for me. My marriage is part of who I am as a person, it's existential; it's ontological. Is it the only part? Heavens no. No more than my career is, or my son is, or my friends are, or my other roles in extended family life. I'm not more "me" when I'm alone, or, for that matter, when I'm with everyone I love.

Maybe that's in part because I married so young. Maybe it's because I married a good person. Or maybe it's just the way marriage is -- when it's not being written up in glossy magazines.

married, no kids, yet

By: im1 | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 17:30

In reading the Tsing Loh piece on marriage and divorce and the subsequent comments on companionate marriage, all I could think is, "this is not marriage as I know it." So what is marriage as I know it? Well, I got married when I was 21 and he was 23 (cue the shock and confusion, "why so young?" blah, blah). But nine years later, I just laugh the comments off. I started dating my husband when I was 18 and he was 19, which essentially means we grew up together. Having started dating so young also means we have no sense of ourselves as adults that was not shaped by one another and our relationship. So many people seem to think you have to know yourself as an adult, then find someone in order to have a successful marriage. For me there is a richness in being so intertwined with another person.

The downside to this intertwining is that if you are ever separated, you are almost non-functional. My husband and I lived in separate cities for a few years after four years of marriage and even though we were in daily phone contact and saw each other on weekends, I was depressed because my life felt so empty and pointless without seeing my husband everyday. I felt like a part of me had moved away (and it was the best part). Now we are in the same city, happy as clams.

Maybe some people think this will change with children and more years of marriage but I don't think any number of years or children could result in us having a companionate marriage like Tsing Loh described.

Because it works

By: jeditoby | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 16:35

I think everyone else has posted the other good, valid reasons. I'd just add that, for millennia, marriage has worked.

The thing that those who 1) don't see marriage as important enough to make the commitment; or 2) don't value their marriage enough to keep the commitment don't get is that the cost of marriage is selflessness. You get married, lose the "me" and gain the "we." Thus partnered, the couple is able to do great things (like raising children, which, I think, doesn't get enough value in these discussions--kids aren't vegetables!) because they've moved up Maslow's self-actualization pyramid.

My thoughts on reading the Atlantic article: what a sad, selfish person. All she'll ever have are fleeting moments of pleasure, with no lasting joy to hold on to and no one to share private jokes with.

Awwwww!

By: Starling | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 16:25

I thought the money paragraph in the Flanagan article was,

"What is the purpose of marriage? Is it . . . simply an institution that has the capacity to increase the pleasure of the adults who enter into it? If so, we might as well hold the wake now: there probably aren't many people whose idea of 24-hour-a-day good times consists of being yoked to the same romantic partner, through bouts of stomach flu and depression, financial setbacks and emotional upsets, until after many a long decade, one or the other eventually dies in harness."

If that assumption isn't true, the argument dies. And so thanks are due for Caerolle's comment and to Emily Yoffe's gorgeous post, both of which argue that, in fact, there's nothing better than being tied permanently to a person you can't imagine living without. I think I speak for a lot of single women when I say that this makes me get a little teary-eyed.

MUCH more than just baby making and providing for old age

By: Caerolle | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:41

OMG, YES! I have been married for almost 28 years (Dec 5), and feel that my wife and my marriage have been enduring blessings to me! (She claims to feel the same about me!) We do have a son (24 last Saturday, happy b-day Johnny!), but quite obviously you dont need a marriage to have kids (see: 50% of kids born 'out of wedlock'). And of course, if you are gay, it doesnt really help you so much in having kids anyhow! ;)
`
The biggest thing to me was, and is, sharing my life with someone i love and admire and care about more than anything else in the world (well, our son is right up there too). I really dont know what I would do if I suddenly was separated from my wife in some way, it is unthinkable (I tell her she has to outlive me).
`
A single friend of mine came for dinner at our house a long time ago. She asked me during dinner why i thought ppl should get married. I had never really thought about it before, but I realized then what I felt the reason should be, and told her, "Because you cant live without that person, you cant stand to not have them in your life." Kind of like Dorothy Day said about god (sorry if i am trivializing god or something here), that showing him in your life meant living as if life didnt make sense otherwise: My life and who I am would make absolutely no sense or serve any good purpose without the incredible woman I share it with. Thanks, Cathy, I love you so very much! <3
`
Carol :)