Marriage/Family

[sobrique]

So the conservatives are plugging 'family values' as part of their electioneering. I can sort of understand, and appreciate where they're coming from. I just think they've got it wrong.
To my mind, a 'family' doesn't actually need to be a matter of blood kin. Nor does it fall neatly into the 'family unit' of husband, wife, 2.4 children.
Giving tax credits to married couples ... well, it's not much of a credit anyway, but it's just not the right approach - lets face it, if the tax credit makes any difference to your decision to get married, then you're getting married for the wrong reason.

The world has changed, and I think for the better - it's no longer scandalous to be an unmarried couple cohabiting. Divorce isn't the end of the world either.
But it also changes the other way, in that 'community groups' in many cases start to break apart a bit - a 'family' which is husband, wife, 2.4 children isn't actually all that good - children are a lot of effort, and if you have no extended family to call upon, are you really giving them the best possible upbringing?

I think not.

Anyway. The irony is, that with marriage becoming shorter term, and less 'pushed' it actually gives an opportunity to strength it. Am I alone in thinking that if you make a promise like _that_ you'd better mean it? I'm not going to say that divorce is a bad thing, but .... well, I'd much rather have couples not getting married in the first place. Don't make a promise you don't know you can keep.

So anyway, I digress. That's why I think the conservatives have it wrong - not that 'forming a family' is bad, but because their scope is too narrow. I actually think we should be looking at forming larger families - that for every 'breeding pair' there should _always_ be other adults who take up part of the responsibility for the children. Once upon a time, that might be aunts, uncles, grandparents, but there's no real reason there needs to be. Why not have 'uncle in law' and 'aunty-in-law', and actively encourage the overlapping support of children?

Because that's what this boils down to really - a couple can get along quite well, on an ad-hoc basis. The reason that 'family' is considered a good thing, is because it gives children stability in their upbringing. I'm not going to dispute that, but I think that a 'family' is something we should be thinking more:
Mother, Father, Children, and another 4 adults who will pick them up from school, take them to the park, and put them to bed from time to time.

And whilst we're at it, lets look a bit more at what it means when you say 'until death do us part' - I don't think we should be making promises that we can't keep. But that doesn't mean it's either 'promise together forever' or 'promise nothing'. Why not have something inbetween? I mean, we see marriages with pre-nuptial clauses already. That just strikes me as nuts - promise to be with someone forever, but just in case you're not, arrange how to divvy it up afterwards.

Why not instead just look at a 1 year 'exclusive relationship, partnership and cohabitation contract'? Include a rolling renewal - each year on your anniversary, ask each other the question - do you still want me - and then off you go. Carry on. OK, maybe more than a year is better suited - perhaps you want one a bit more focussed on a child's upbringing, so you set the term accordingly. I just sort of liked the resonance with 'a year and a day'.

Why not? Make your promise, keep it, and decide each year if this is still the person you want to be with? That way, if you really do say the words 'until death do us part' you get to do it when you really mean it.

Comments

[hedya.livejournal.com]

purp1e_magic already covered a lot of what I would have wanted to say, probably articulating it much better than I would have, given that, whilst I am rather opinionated myself, I have always found it difficult to sustain a debate defending them, not because I do not research a matter before forming an opinion but mostly because once an opinion is synthesised from the available facts I loose the detail of the process by which I got there, until something makes me question the opinion and start the process again.

This is by way of a long preamble to add something about commitment from my own experience, if I manage, and an explanation of why there will be a lot of gut feelings in here but maybe less argumentation than you'd like to see.

So, commitment. When people ask me why I chose mavnn I often reply: "he was the only one who had the guts to propose", and mostly it's a misunderstood answer. People think that I jest, but I was coming from a loooooong sequence of "serious" or "committed" relationships you see. It started when I was about 16, I met mavnn when I was 33, and in between every single relationship I was involved in lasted 2/3 years, in one case got to the living together stage, and in each of those there was some measure of commitment, there was faithfulness, but also of "let's see how it goes", "if we work out together" and an idea of further, definitive commitment to come at a later stage after we had seen how it went and if we worked out together.

Except than it then never happened, because in every relationship there will be a (first) point when it really hits the fan, and if your mindset is one of testing the waters (let's see how it goes) that's when you let go because you conclude that the shit you've hit is the signal that you don't work out and it doesn't go that well.

And you are right, marriage is not an insurance against this anymore, because divorce is now an easy way out, and as both you and purp1e_magic have pointed out in different ways, people say "till death doth us part" without fully understanding, or meaning it because of the mental reserve "if this is a cock up I still have a get out clause".

Don't get me wrong, even coming from a Christian point of view there are situations in which a get out clause might be necessary: an abusive relationship, unfaithfulness or other drastic cases. I am not wanting to argue about divorce here, I am just focussing on the effect it seems to have had on commitment.

Anyway, I derailed a bit. I was trying to make the point that in most cases a so called "serious" relationship, or even one when there is already quite a lot of commitment going on, there isn't total commitment, and this regardless of it having the form of a co-habitation, a one-year rolling contract, a marriage like most you see these days. In our 5 years of marriage (few, but the initial ones can be the hardest) we've already hit a few points when all that kept us together was that promise, the fact that we had given our word and would not be oath breakers, and so, against all of our feelings, of the impressions of having made a big mistake, of thinking we would die lonely, frustrated and mad in spite of being married, we worked at it and have come out the other side of it. Because when you fall out of being in love, that's when you test if you have what it takes to grow another kind of love, the one that gives a stable family environment to the kids and takes you to your diamond wedding anniversary if you live that long.

But you never get there without total commitment, and that's why my many many previous relationships all failed. And why when mavnn, sight unseen and having stated in a credible manner the value he placed on family and kids, had the guts to propose rather than starting another "let's see how we work out", I knew he was committed, not messing about, willing to risk it all, not keeping reserves, and so I said yes. And it is also the reason why, in spite of being a mum of many at heart since ever, I waited so long, nearly too late, to have Newt and I am struggling to have more: I wasn't prepared to bring children in a less than solid family given my own experience.

[hedya.livejournal.com]

Which brings me to the final comment: extended families. Love them or hate them they are your blood families, so, except in extreme cases, you are going to end up having some kind of link and relation with them. I am however with purp1e_magic: it takes two parents to bring up a brood, to balance each other and to be a team in a rather hard job. Other significant adults can give input and suggestions and practical help, but the ultimate responsibility is always exclusively with the parents, to the extent of selecting the other significant adults who have access to their children! And yes, you do need other adults to lend a practical hand. At the moment we would be quite at a loss without lins_arosa, fishrgreat, phual and the_wood_gnome.

Notice thought that these are the people who live close by, have a similar approach to handling and relating to Newt, and have the time and the resources to give away some help or at least with whom it's practical and feasible to exchange practical,day to day type kind of help, and with whom I fully expect to return the favour once the time comes. Once upon a time this was the extended family, now... it's the family you choose.

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

It's quite sad that you had to have a public promise to keep you together when the going got tough.

[mavnn.livejournal.com]

If you go back and read the post, you'll see that it doesn't mention the promise being public once.

Because that wasn't the point.

The whole post is about total commitment. I agree with hedya (my wife) that marriage is the best way to go about that - we have religious convictions that lead us to believe that. But go read the post again: it's all about the fact that a vast majority of people do not commit to relationships even if they do make that public promise. Not that the public promise kept us 'together when the going got tough.'

[hedya.livejournal.com]

thank you - was waiting for Newt down for his nap to deal with this one, but you got there first.

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

A marriage is a public promise.

I find it sad (as in an unhappy situation, not socially inadequate people) that things got so bad that it was only a promise that held things together long enough for you to work things through. I'm glad that you managed to.

[hedya.livejournal.com]

In addition to what mavnn said:

It's quite sad that you had to have a comment implying personal insult to try make your point, whatever that was.


My point was indeed about attitudes and levels of commitment, however I will say that there is at least one merit to going formally public, in whatever format and independently of religious or philosophical convictions: sanity checks.

As human beings we are far too good at playing (mind) games with ourselves, no matter how hard we try to be self aware and honest. So if today I am stating A, but three years down the line I have convinced myself that I really meant B and that's what I always communicated, if there are other people that witnessed me saying A formally and publicly, making a statement of it, than those people can, three years down the line, turn around and point out my inconsistency and try give me pause for thought. It will not prevent me sticking to my changed mind, but it will at least provide enough accountability to enhance the likelihood that I will at least be clear and honest about it.

Oh, and that's a principle that really applies to most things, not just couple relationships.

[stgpcm.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry you felt the need to perceive an insult where there was none.