People who dislike my writings are fond of calling me anti-marriage, but that's not quite accurate. What I really think is that marriage is not for everyone, and that people who want to stay single should not be targeted with singlism because of it. People who marry should refrain from becoming matrimaniacs, as should the rest of the society. I believe, based on a close reading of original scientific sources, that most of the demeaning claims about single people are grossly exaggerated or just plain wrong. I also question the status of marriage as a criterion of eligibility for such basic human dignities as access to health care (as when marrieds can access health insurance through a spouse's plan but singles have no comparable option) or to a secure retirement (as when a widow can access their deceased spouse's Social Security benefits but singles can neither receive benefits from, say, a close friend or sibling, nor can they bequeath their benefits to any such peers).
Earlier this fall, two scholars posed a starker question than my own: "What if marriage is bad for us?" The essay by Middlebury College sociologists Laurie Essig and Lynn Owens was originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education and later reprinted elsewhere. You can read their fully-developed argument here. In this post, I'll describe some of the main points, then leave it to all of you to post your reactions in the Comments section.
The scholars begin by reviewing the usual claims about all the ways in which marriage is supposed to be good for us. They also take us through some of the segments of society, from progressive advocacy groups to conservative (and not-at-all-conservative) political leaders who have tried so hard to advance those beliefs.
Then they pivot and take on the claims, one after another. For example:
1. In response to the pronouncement that "marriage makes you healthy," they note (as I often have) that "married and never-married Americans are similar; it's the divorced who seem to suffer." They then dare to add this: "The lesson might be to never divorce, but an even more obvious lesson to be drawn from the research might be to never marry."
2. About the myth that single people are isolated and alone, the authors point to research showing that actually, married couples are more often isolated. They note that "we are instructed by movies, pop songs, state policy, and sociology to get married because 'love is all you need.' But actually we humans need more."
3. Does marriage make you rich? Not necessarily. And, "even when marriage does produce wealth, divorce often destroys it."
4. Surely we can all agree that (continue reading here at the Living Single blog at Psychology Today).
If after trying to come up with honest answers to these questions you decide that it may not be for you then marriage is not likely to be for you. And here's the kicker: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Choosing to remain single does that mean that you play the field indefinitely OR that you are a frigid ice queen (or king). So while I have some empathy for the numerous individuals who want to be married and are not, O fundamentally believe that remaining single (and yes, for women, childless) is a valid choice.
Who knows. I've never wanted to do it.
Different strokes for different folks.
I know plenty of people who have been happily married for twenty years or more and have kids. I mean, I don't know that my husband and I personally will ever have kids, but I know plenty of people who have or are happily raising kids together all the way to adulthood. Where do you live where you think that marriage no longer exists which lasts for more than two decades and includes children?
And you honestly think it makes someone "fanatical" to expect that if they marry someone and have kids, their spouse will help them raise those children? I am not a marriage fanatic. I honestly never even planned to get married, didn't really think I needed a slip of paper to validate my relationship, , but my husband is in the army and he makes more if we're married, so we married (no wedding, just JOP) instead of just living together. But if I get pregnant, yeah, I expect him to not leave me for a cocktail waitress when the kid is five. I don't think that makes me a fanatic.
If I misunderstood your post, which is highly possible, maybe you could elaborate a little on what you mean?
Doesn't that seem wrong?