Getting married the public nature of our private relationships 1st edition yodanis carrie lauer sean
Yodanis Carrie Lauer Sean
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/getting-married-the-public-nature-of-our-private-relati onships-1st-edition-yodanis-carrie-lauer-sean/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
In Getting Married, Carrie Yodanis and Sean Lauer examine the social rules and expectations that shape our most personal relationships. How do couples get together? How do people act when they’re married? What happens when they're not? Public factors influence our private relationships. From getting engaged to breaking up, social rules and expectations shape and constrain whom we select as a spouse, when and why we decide to get married, and how we arrange our relationships day to day.
While this book is about marriage, it is also about sociology. Yodanis and Lauer use the case of marriage to explore a sociological perspective. Getting Married will bring together students’ academic and social worlds by applying sociology to the things they are thinking about and experiencing outside of the classroom. This book is a useful tool for many sociology courses, including those on family, gender, and introduction to sociology.
Carrie Yodanis and Sean Lauer are Associate Professors of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. Yodanis does research in the sociology of the family and gender. Lauer uses institutional approaches within economic sociology and the sociology of community. For over 10 years, Yodanis and Lauer have been collaborating on research that takes an institutional approach to the study of marriage.
Contemporary Sociological Perspectives
Edited by Douglas Hartmann, University of Minnesota and Jodi O’Brien, Seattle University
This innovative series is for all readers interested in books that provide frameworks for making sense of the complexities of contemporary social life. Each of the books in this series uses a sociological lens to provide current critical and analytical perspectives on significant social issues, patterns and trends. The series consists of books that integrate the best ideas in sociological thought with an aim toward public education and engagement. These books are designed for use in the classroom as well as for scholars and socially curious general readers.
Published:
Surviving Dictatorship by Jacqueline Adams
The Womanist Idea by Layli Maparyan
Religion in Today’s World: Global Issues, Sociological Perspectives by Melissa Wilcox
Understanding Deviance: Connecting Classical and Contemporary Perspectives edited by Tammy L. Anderson
Social Statistics: Managing Data, Conducting Analyses, Presenting Results, Second Edition by Thomas J. Linneman
Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s and Gender Studies Students are Changing Themselves and the World, Second Edition by Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radeloff
Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides?: Abortion, Neonatal Care, Assisted Dying, and Capital Punishment, Second Edition by Sheldon Ekland-Olson
Life and Death Decisions: The Quest for Morality and Justice in Human Societies, Second Edition by Sheldon Ekland-Olson
Gender Circuits: Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age, Second Edition by Eve Shapiro
Migration, Incorporation, and Change in an Interconnected World by Syed Ali and Douglas Hartmann
Sociological Perspectives on Sport: The Games Outside the Games by David Karen and Robert E. Washington
Social Theory Re-Wired: New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives, Second Edition by Wesley Longhofer, Daniel Winchester, and Arturo Baiocchi
Forthcoming:
Social Worlds of Imagination by Chandra Mukerji
All Media are Social by Andrew Lindner
GETTING MARRIED
The Public Nature of Our Private Relationships
Carrie Yodanis & Sean Lauer
First published 2017 by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
The right of Carrie Yodanis & Sean Lauer to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Classification: LCC HQ734 .Y63 2016 | DDC 306.81—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016011231
ISBN: 978-0-415-63468-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-63469-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-51789-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Adobe Caslon by ApexCovantage, LLC
We dedicate this book to the students of FMST 322.
PREFACE
This book is a collaboration between scholars and students. We have been studying marriage for decades. Over the years, we have discussed this research with the students in our Introduction to Sociology, Sociology of the Family, Sociology of Marriage, and Gender Relations courses. Through the sharing and exchange of this research with our students, this book emerged. And so, as we wrote this book, we wanted to make sure it worked equally well for both students and scholars.
For students, college is often as much about their social lives as it is about studying. A book on relationships is a way to bring these two worlds together. The topics, research, and ideas presented in the book will help students learn by applying sociology to the things that they are thinking about and experiencing outside of the classroom.
Students also want a book that is readable. We can blame this on Twitter and texting, but, to be honest, few people would voluntarily read a textbook. So we moved away from that model. Instead, we use the model of trade books—those books that people voluntarily read for fun. We focus on thoughtprovoking ideas. We present timely and relevant information. We keep the book and the chapters short and succinct. We worked a lot on making our writing clear and accessible.
Students also want to learn. As scholars, this is our focus. We teach to share with students what we know, research, and study. A benefit of moving away from the standard textbook model is that this book can be used to teach a wide range of course materials. A class does not need to be fit to this book. Instead, scholars can fit this book to their classes, as they currently teach them. Rather than apply particular theoretical perspectives or concepts, we provide a
detailed look at marriage as a flexible example, which scholars can use to teach a wide range of theories, concepts, ideas, and knowledge.
Also for scholars, this book is a reminder not to lose sight of the core of sociology in our research. We can talk about new phenomena, make new contributions, and maintain a sociological perspective.
So our aim is for this to be an educational and enjoyable book. Indeed, for us, it was. We learned a lot and had a great time writing this book. It has been helpful talking about our ideas with colleagues, friends, and family. Funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada supported the book. But our most valuable exchanges have come in the classroom, discussing and debating these ideas with students over the years. It would have been a lesser book without their keen insights.
We particularly want to thank our student, Caroline Czekajlo, who read an earlier draft of the book and provided invaluable feedback. And we want to congratulate her on her marriage.
INTRODUCTION
Catherine was late, running down the hall of her dorm, when she ran smack into Nick and fell to the ground. She got up, embarrassed, and walked away. A few minutes later, she realized that she had forgotten something and had to go back to her room to get it. Still late and running down the hall, she ran straight into Nick again, in the exact same corner of the hall. This time, they introduced themselves, both very embarrassed. Later in the term, they ended up at the same party in the dorm. Catherine was talking with a friend about how she didn’t have a date for her sorority formal. Nick, overhearing, said, “I’ll go with you!” Soon they were spending lots of time together, just studying, lounging around in sweats, and watching reality TV. When the term ended, they left campus for the summer. During her summer internship in D.C., another guy asked Catherine out. She didn’t know what to say. She called Nick to ask about the status of their relationship; were they together? Nick’s answer, “We are 100 percent dating. Tell those guys, ‘No’.” Four years later, they were married.1
Joe had seen an amazingly beautiful woman around the office. He promised himself that next time he saw her, he would say hello. In the summer of 2008, he got on the elevator and there she was. He gave himself a mental pep talk and worked up the courage to say something. What came out? “Hi, I’m Joe.” He was too nervous to think of anything else. Karen was on her phone when she heard this and looked up and saw Joe. She thought he was really cute but tried not to talk too much because she thought she looked like a mess that day. A few days later, Joe tracked down her email, asked her out for a drink, and she said yes. In the summer of 2012, Joe proposed to Karen in the elevator where they met. Again, she said yes, and the next summer, they got married. “The best thing I ever did in my life was keeping that promise to introduce myself to her,” Joe said.2
Lindsay was at a party with her then-boyfriend when Dan walked in. They looked at each other and both felt something intense. “I’d never felt electrified by the sight of a perfect stranger,” Lindsay said. Dan explained, “It was almost déjà vu, like I already knew her intimate secrets.” They started talking “Have I really found you? Are you the one?,” Dan asked her straight out. They stayed in touch but remained only friends because Lindsay was still with her boyfriend. They exchanged over a thousand texts. But then, feeling guilty, Lindsay said they should stop texting. In response, Dan sent a single text, including only one comma. “The comma was to signify that in my opinion, we were just on pause,” he explained. A few months later, he showed up to a performance she was giving. When she saw him in the audience, Lindsay knew she had to break up with her boyfriend. She did that night. And that same night, Dan and Lindsay decided they would get married someday. Three years later, they were married.3
On June 16, 2008, Del and Phyllis, who had been together for 55 years, were married in California. A little over two months later, Del died at the age of 87. Del and Phyllis were the first couple to marry when same-sex marriage became legal this time in California. In subsequent years, same-sex marriage would again become illegal in California, and then even later, again legal. But Del and Phyllis had already been through this. They had fought together for years for the right to marry and, in 2004, were actually married for the first time. But shortly after their first wedding, the California Supreme Court invalidated all same-sex marriage licenses. After continuing efforts and further changes in the law, Del and Phyllis were finally able to marry again two months before Del’s death. Following Del’s death, Phyllis, age 83, said she was devastated but took comfort in knowing that they were able to express their love and commitment by marrying before she died.4
These are all true, real-life, romantic stories of love and marriage. But they also contain interesting dynamics to investigate. Nick is one year older and taller than Catherine. They went to college together and come from similar family backgrounds. He initiated their relationship, and she took his last name when they married. Joe and Karen follow a similar pattern. Joe is two years older than Karen. They are both from New York, have advanced university degrees, and are white and Roman Catholic. He asked her out first and then he proposed. She changed her last name to his when they married. These characteristics are quite common among married couples. Dan and Lindsay are somewhat unique. Dan is 12 years older and also 4 inches shorter than Lindsay, two reasons why she said he was not her usual type. They both proposed to each other, and she kept her last name. These characteristics are uncommon. Nonetheless, they fell in love at first sight and feel like they were meant for each other. These are common ways of talking about love and whom we marry. Del and Phyllis capture the story of the long fight for same-sex marriage in the U.S.
In this book, we explore who marries whom and why. We find out how people get together and how they get married. We examine what people do
when they are married and when they aren’t. In some ways, this book is not so shocking. It is a study of things that nearly all people do. It is a story of people mostly acting in predictable and patterned ways. It is a book about Americans being married.
Yet, this book will likely spark lots of debate and controversy. What is shocking is the extent to which our most personal relationships are not really our own. We think about our relationships, whether dating or married, as the most private and personal aspects of our lives, but in this book, we examine how these relationships are actually quite public. They are shaped by the context, time, culture, and demographic groups within which we live.
There are loads of best-selling books about marriage, with titles like Mating in Captivity, Against Love, Lust in Translation, The Starter Marriage, For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage, Committed: A Love Story, Marriage Confidential, The Marriage Sabbatical, Spinster, and The Meaning of Wife. These books tend to be shorter than your usual textbook and easier to read. They do not contain a list of concepts and definitions to be included on a test. Rather, people actually voluntarily read these books because they want to. These are books that people talk about. They are debated and discussed in book clubs. They propose ideas that people remember long after the book is done.
Modern Romance is one of these books. The outcome of a unique collaboration between comedian Aziz Ansari and sociologist Eric Klinenberg, Modern Romance is both a really funny and an educational book about meeting a partner, starting a relationship, and everything—texting, sexting, and not receiving a reply—that this involves. Aziz and Eric provide solid advice about dating with technology, including tips on how to write texts that will get a response and a call to spend less time searching through the endless choices online and more time getting to know possible partners in person. The book is a bit crass at times, but we strongly recommend that you read it.
This book, Getting Married, could possibly be considered an unauthorized follow-up to Modern Romance. It tells an important next chapter in the story of relationships. It discusses what happens if you do meet someone online and they do text you and you do go out, get engaged, and get married. It also discusses what happens if you don’t. It provides a different angle to think about relationships. Aziz and Eric, like many others, focus a lot on how relationships today are unique from the past, particularly in how much choice we now have. As they write, “There are no longer any predetermined life paths. Each of us is on our own.” And “People who are looking for love today have an unprecedented set of options . . . We can marry pretty much whomever we want to, regardless of their sex, gender, ethnicity, religion, or race—or even location.”5 They argue that this choice has benefits but also challenges that lead to problems in our quest for love.
In this, our “follow-up” book, we provide a different perspective. Throughout the book, our argument is that in our relationships, we are actually not “on our own.” We don’t have complete choice. Instead, in our relationships, we are
still constrained by a pretty rigid set of external rules and expectations. These social rules and expectations influence whom we select as a spouse, when we decide to get married, and how we arrange our relationships day to day. Everything in relationships—our choices, desires, and actions—is shaped by these rules.6 Like Aziz and Eric, we also argue that these rules may have some benefits but also lead to challenges and problems in our quest for love.
People do decide how to act, but these decisions are made in a social context that guides and limits choice. Some people go against the rules and forge their own paths, but these deviations have consequences and thus are rare. People, through their actions, can and do change these rules and expectations over time, but change can be shockingly slow. In the end, most people follow the rules, resulting in set patterns in how people have their relationships. As a result, one couple’s relationship is a lot like another’s. As a leading scholar in the field of relationships said, “We’re remarkably not innovative about marriage . . .”7
While this book is about marriage, it is also about sociology. We use the case of marriage to explore a sociological perspective. Sociology is about understanding relationships between people, and there is no more wellknown, thought about, and written about relationship than marriage. At the most basic level, sociologists explore how individuals are influenced by living among other people. Using the example of marriage, sociology shows us that living among other people influences how we live in our private lives.
We will focus a lot on heterosexual, or opposite-sex, relationships in this book. We do this because, at least for now, opposite-sex relationships dominate American culture. They are pervasive in movies, social science research, the culture of college campuses, and the rules of marriage. Our attention to opposite-sex relationships does NOT mean that they should be dominant—it merely means that because they are, opposite-sex relationships are particularly ripe for evaluation and critical analysis.
Over the course of the book, we discuss a lot of different studies, articles and books, and ideas. Some of them will match your personal feelings about marriage and some will not. Some of the ideas will ring true to you and some will seem quite strange. This is true for us as well. There will be ideas that excite you, make you nod in agreement, and make you laugh. There will also be ideas that rub you the wrong way and make you angry or uncomfortable. There will be things you disagree with, as well as things you have always thought. We want you to be exposed to a range of ideas and feel free to debate and discuss them.
Marriage can be a challenging topic to discuss because we all hold beliefs, ideas, and values regarding marriage. There are progressive takes and conservative takes on marriage. We try to move beyond these divisions. In this book, we are describing dominant patterns of how things are—NOT how they should be. This is not a book about what anyone should do in marriage. This is not an advice book. Sociologists are not particularly good at giving individual advice.
Rather, sociologists examine and explain trends in what groups of people do. We study patterns in behaviors.
It is likely that at some time while reading this book, you will say to yourself, “I don’t do that!” or “[Someone I know] doesn’t do that.” We will all know someone who has done things differently from the patterns discussed. We need to make an important point here: Even though you or someone you know may not fit the pattern, the pattern still exists. When studying the social world, 100 percent of the people never fit a pattern. We will see this in the statistics presented. When we study patterns, we examine trends in behaviors that most people follow. When your experience does not fit a pattern, this does not mean that the pattern does not exist. It simply means that your individual experience doesn’t fit the pattern.
We hope that you enjoy the book, keep an open mind, and have thoughtprovoking debates.
NOTES
1. Lasky 2013.
2. Mallozzi 2013.
3. Rafkin 2013.
4. Grimes 2008.
5. Ansari and Klinenberg 2015, pp. 24, 26.
6. Lauer and Yodanis 2010.
7. Richtel 2012.
PICKING A PARTNER
People get married when they find someone they love more than anyone else. We marry once we find that one special person for us, the person we are meant to spend the rest of our life with, our best friend. We know there will be challenges and marriage will be hard work, but our strong and true love for each other should get us through. Three quarters of Americans believe in “one true love,” and over 90 percent of never-married women and men between the ages of 20–29 “want their spouses to be a soul mate first and foremost.” Nearly 90 percent of single women and men believe that “a special person, a soul mate” is out there to be found and that they will successfully find them when they are ready to get married.1
We expect to marry our soul mate. It would be almost unimaginable to give other reasons for marriage today. The book Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough challenged this idea by encouraging women to not seek a perfect partner. The author argued that people are too picky, which leads to loneliness, unhappiness, and regret, and therefore, they should not be so picky.2 Instead, women should marry someone “good enough.” But settling for a “good enough” person to marry might seem pretty awful.
The same might be true for arranged marriages. In an arranged marriage, your family would choose a spouse for you, making sure that your spouse’s family background, educational achievements, and ethnicity and religion matched yours. You would marry, and then later, perhaps, love between the two of you would grow. Such an arrangement seems strange and even wrong in our Western context.
Today, people in the U.S. tend to believe it is important to marry only after they are in love with the right person. However, in our search for a soul mate, a lot more comes into play than an emotional connection with someone.
We technically do have lots of choice in whom we marry. Our pool of potential spouses increases as we travel and live in different places, live on our own away from our parents, and use the Internet.3 Today, young people are much freer than other generations to select from a much larger pool of people to marry. So perhaps it is ironic that even with this choice, we end up picking a spouse who is not so different from the spouse our parents would have picked for us in an arranged marriage. We theoretically have the freedom to choose anyone for a spouse, and anyone we meet could be “the one.” Despite this, people follow set patterns when selecting a spouse.
Go to an online dating website. Look at the questions that are asked for the profiles. What information are people asked to provide? There are questions about interests and hobbies, but there are also lots of questions about age, height, gender, ethnicity and race, religion, education, and occupation— the criteria on which we still select mates. How many men are looking for a younger and shorter woman? How many women are looking for a taller and older man? How many people are looking for someone of their same ethnicity, religion, amount of education, and similarly prestigious job?
Parents aren’t arranging marriages for their children based on these criteria. They don’t have to. Matchmaking websites, with their “scientific” matching systems, are doing the job for them.4 With the use of these websites, people are being sorted and matched based on the same characteristics parents used in arranged marriages. Even outside of online dating, expectations for potential mates have remained largely the same. Finding a spouse is not just about finding a soul mate but a soul mate of a certain gender, ethnicity, education, age, height, religion, and occupation.
Age plays out in two ways. First, most people marry someone similar in age. One-third of spouses are just about the same age, born within one year of each other. Over three-quarters of spouses are within five years of age of each other. Fewer than 10 percent of married couples have an age gap of 10 years or more. Second, in opposite-sex relationships, the man is slightly older and the woman is slightly younger. Of the marriages where there is an age gap, the man is older nearly 80 percent of the time. The woman is older just over 20 percent of the time.5
There are also clear patterns in the physical size of opposite-sex spouses. Men marry shorter women and women marry taller men. As with age, a very large height difference between spouses is not common. But husbands tend to be taller than wives. In fewer than 5 percent of couples is the wife taller than the husband. If women and men randomly partnered, rather than selected each other based on expectations that a husband should be taller and a wife shorter, there would be more wives who were taller than their husbands.6
Interethnic and interracial marriages are increasing. As USA Today reported in 2012, “Census shows big jump in interracial couples.” But still, Americans overwhelmingly marry within their same racial and ethnic backgrounds. In the United States, about 85 percent of new marriages and about
90 percent of existing marriages are between spouses of the same ethnic or racial group.7
Not all ethnic groups have the same rates of intermarriage. Instead, based on your ethnic or racial group, there is more or less likelihood that you will marry someone from a different ethnic or racial background. White Americans are the least likely to intermarry, with over 90 percent of white married women and men choosing to marry someone who is also white. Over 90 percent of married black women and over 75 percent of married black men married a black spouse. Over three-quarters of married Hispanic women and men chose a Hispanic spouse. About 80 percent of married Asian American men and 60 percent of married Asian American women selected an Asian American spouse. Among Native Americans, intermarriage more common than marrying within one’s ethnic group.8
Spouses also tend to have the same level of education. Education has been called the “great sorting machine of the marriage market.”9 Just over half of spouses share the same years of schooling. In nearly 90 percent of couples, spouses are close in education, within a few years difference. Looking at it another way, most college graduates marr y another college graduate. Fewer college graduates marry someone with a high school education, and even fewer marry someone who has not graduated from high school.10
People are highly likely to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nearly all marriages are between a man and a woman. The number of same-sex married couples has increased substantially as same-sex marriage was made legal. Nonetheless, the number of same-sex marriages is not just a result of legal restrictions on same-sex marriage that existed in the United States until recently. Only about 1 percent of all couple households (married or cohabiting) are same-sex couples.11 Off the bat, our choice in soul mates is usually restricted to half the population.
Other characteristics also matter when selecting a partner, including religion and social class. Spouses tend to share the same religion, occupational status, and income level (and credit score).12
Not surprisingly, all of these preferences are found in online dating patterns.13 As a sociologist concluded, “Technology can expand the sea of potential partners, but social biases still shape how many ‘fish’ we think are out there.”14 In online profiles and contacts, people, especially men, seem at first to be open to dating a range of people. But men and women show a preference for partners from their same racial backgrounds and exclude people from certain ethnicities.15 For example, one study by sociologists of the behavior of online daters found that white, black, Asian, and Latino online daters are all most likely to send initial messages to someone of their same racial or ethnic background, although there is some amount of variation among ethnic groups and between women and men in how strong this behavior is. When responding to messages, people are most likely to respond to someone from the same or more dominant racial group and not respond to someone from a more marginalized group.16
When listing their preferences and contacting potential partners on online dating sites, men select women who are their own age or a few years younger, while women select men their age or a few years older. Online, women prefer men who are taller than they are and have higher body mass index (BMI) scores than they do. Men prefer women who are shorter and have lower BMIs than they have.17
Given the expectations of partnering, perhaps it is not surprising that people do not always tell the truth in their online profiles. Researchers have been comparing peoples’ online profiles to their actual characteristics. They found that over 80 percent of participants in their study lied about their weight/body type, height, or age. Men lied most about their height, reporting that they were taller than they are. Women lied most about their weight. The further a person was away from the average height or weight, the more likely they were to lie and the larger the lie was. But, overall, the size of the lies was usually small enough so that the discrepancies would not be noticeable when meeting in person.18
As we outlined earlier, people believe that their true soul mate is out there somewhere and when they find them, they will get married. They believe that an emotional connection is what leads them to select their spouses from the millions of possible choices. Yet spouses actually meet a set of predictable characteristics—age, height, race or ethnicity, education—separate from a personal, emotional connection. It can be argued that sharing a similar ethnic or racial background or the same religion and education makes it easier for individuals to connect and be soul mates. That likely explains some of the trend. But what about the few inches and years that men tend to have on women? That wouldn’t make partners more compatible. (For those who answered something related to fertility or reproduction, we will address that later.)
Finding someone to marry is often described as great luck or fate. “What if I hadn’t gone to that party? We never would have met.” “What if I hadn’t introduced myself on the elevator?” “What if I hadn’t run back to my dorm room to get the book I forgot?” Marriage is often seen as the outcome of meeting that one true person. But the reality is that even if that someone had stayed home and hadn't gone to the party, or hadn’t introduced themselves, or had gone to class without the book, they probably would have married someone quite similar, whom they also felt very fortunate to have met. Finding the person whom we marry really isn’t about serendipity. To the contrary, it is remarkably predictable.
Why is it predictable? In this book, we are going to look at the formal and informal social rules and expectations that direct people to behave a certain way. Marriage is more than a relationship between two individuals. It is an institution, with sets of laws, policies, norms, and expectations that guide, limit, and shape how those who marry behave. In personal and private relationships, people often do not act as independent individuals. Rather, individual actions and desires—what people do and what they even want to do—emerge within
the rules and expectations of marriage. A series of formal and informal rules and taken-for-granted assumptions constrain and shape our relationships.
Let’s start with who marries whom. There have historically been and continue to be formal rules about who can marry. Until 1967, there were laws that prohibited people of different racial backgrounds from marrying. These laws were changed eventually, based on a case of a black woman, Mildred, and a white man, Richard. Mildred and Richard had known each other since they were kids. They fell in love, and when Mildred was 18 and Richard 24, they were married. A few weeks after their wedding, the police invaded their home in the middle of the night. They were arrested and sentenced to one year in jail because, at the time, interracial marriage was illegal in 24 states, including their home state of Virginia. They could avoid serving the jail time only if they agreed to leave Virginia. So they left the state. Away from their friends and family, they had and raised three children together, but it was hard. They decided to fight the ruling so that they could return home. Eventually, nine years after their arrest, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, saying that interracial marriage could not be illegal. Eight years after their marriage became legal, Richard was killed by a drunk driver. Mildred, who never remarried, lived on for more than three decades. They were buried together in the same town in Virginia where they were first arrested. It likely seems outrageous that laws could dictate which consenting adults are able to be in a relationship together, and maybe the 1960s seem like a long time ago.19
But, until 2003, it was illegal in a dozen states for people of the same sex to have sex within the privacy of their own home. One night in 1998, the police invaded the Texas home of a 55-year-old man, John, and found him with another man, Tyron, who was in his 30s. The police gave conflicting reports of what they saw, if anything at all, but John and Tyron were arrested for violating Texas laws that prohibited “deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex,” held in jail overnight, and each fined $200. They, like Mildred and Richard, fought this charge the whole way to the Supreme Court and, five years later, the court ruled that sex between same-sex couples could not be illegal.20
Even more recently, it became legal for people of the same sex to marry. But it took a long time and a lot of effort to change the formal rules to make this so. Throughout the last decade, many states held referenda, in which people were allowed to vote to determine which people are allowed to marry. In California in 2008, for example, the courts ruled that marriage between same-sex partners was legal, and thousands of same-sex couples were married. Church and interest groups who did not agree with this decision worked to get a referendum on the 2008 election ballot that would make it possible for the public to vote on whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal. Tens of millions of dollars were spent to influence the vote, and millions of people voted on who should be allowed to marry. In the end, 52 percent of these voters said that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, and this opinion
became law.21 So after being legal, same-sex marriage was then again illegal in California. Court challenges, the whole way to the Supreme Court, followed. The referendum was eventually overturned, and same-sex couples were again able to marry in California. Similar processes happened in other states throughout the country. It took until a 2015 Supreme Court decision before same-sex couples in all states were able to marry. These processes clearly show that what we consider to be a private decision is actually a public decision. Public decisions—by voters and courts—set up the external rules that determined if and when couples could marry. Whom we marry is not an individual decision alone.
While these formal rules have clear influence on who can marry, informal rules can be even more powerful in sending messages about which partners “should” be together. For example, North American culture assumes and privileges opposite-sex relationships over same-sex relationships.22 With some exceptions, interactions with friends, families, coworkers, bosses, neighbors, and strangers often assume that intimate relationships are opposite sex. Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual requires “coming out,” while heterosexuality is otherwise assumed. Public signs indicating “family” by including an image of a man, woman, and child assume that a family needs to include an opposite-sex couple.23 Same-sex partners don’t feel free to hold hands in public, a practice that opposite-sex couples take for granted. As one man explained,
We, just like every other couple, like to hold hands . . . when we’re out for a walk or a night on the town. It’s not meant to be political, but it could be perceived as such . . . Straight people don’t have that kind of apprehension walking down the street holding hands with their loved ones.24
The ongoing message to same-sex couples that they are doing something “different” can be tiresome, stressful, hurtful, and threatening in some circumstances. If a couple fits the informal rules and social expectations of who “should” marry, there is no reaction. We don’t even notice when couples are of the same race or ethnicity, that the man is older and taller than the woman, or that one partner is a man and the other is a woman. But when there is a deviation from the informal rules, it is noticed. Think about it: Do you notice a black woman and a white man holding hands? What about a man who is much shorter than a woman? What about two women? What about an older woman and younger man? Even if we don’t realize it, our noticing is a reaction that has an effect. Even a longer glance can make a couple feel uncomfortable and send the message that they are doing something “different.”
But many reactions are more critical, even hateful and violent. A sociologist studied interracial relationships on college campuses. Campuses are believed to be environments more supportive of diverse relationships. But some students, while stating support for interracial relationships in theory, were quick to say that they would not date someone from a different race.
These discussions, at times, took racist tones. At the same time, students who were in interracial relationships talked about feeling alienated on campuses, which continue to be largely racially segregated and where interracial relationships remain rare.25
Negative reactions also come during interactions with family. As the study found, in families, interracial relationships are portrayed as “different, deviant, even dangerous.” As a result, “the role of family is key and certainly influences . . . decisions not to date interracially.” Among the college students involved in the study, for example, the majority said that their parents would see it as problematic if they were in a relationship with someone of a different racial background. Managing negative reactions from those outside the relationship is an ongoing challenge facing interracial partners.26
Ultimately, living in a society with these formal and informal rules, people start to internalize these expectations and only consider potential spouses who have the characteristics that they are “supposed” to have. A woman, when choosing whom to contact online, selects an older and taller man because she is attracted to him, not consciously to avoid jokes from friends and family. White men might seem unattractive to black women because they are lacking the “swagger” that they find in black men.27 A working-class woman might not be attracted to a man who can’t build a shelf.28 A woman majoring in comparative literature might seem pretentious to a male construction worker. We learn to want certain characteristics in our partners, based on what we learn are possible mates through our experiences in society, which is saturated with rules about whom we “should” partner with. In other words, the formal and informal rules constrain the options for who can be a spouse. A large number of possible contenders are never considered because they do not fit the characteristics they are “supposed” to have in order to be a potential spouse. Rather than have unlimited options, we are still quite limited when searching for our “soul mate” or “the one.”
NOTES
1. Carlson 2001; Whitehead and Popenoe 2001.
2. Gottlieb 2010.
3. Bulcroft, Bulcroft, Bradley, and Simpson 2000; Rosenfeld 2007.
4 Bulcroft et al. 2000.
5. Gustafson and Fransson 2015; U.S. Census Bureau 2013.
6. Conley 2011; Stulp, Buunk, Pollet, Nettle, and Verhulst 2013.
7 Lofquist, Lugaila, O’Connell, and Feliz 2012; Taylor, Wang, Parker, Passel, Patten, and Motel 2012.
15. Feliciano et al. 2009; Hitsch, Hortacsu, and Ariely 2010; Sweeney and Borden 2009.
16 Lin and Lundquist 2013.
17. Hitsch et al. 2010; Yancey and Emerson 2016.
18. Toma, Hancock, and Ellison 2008.
19 The Economist 2008; Martin 2008.
20. Liptak 2011.
21. “Election Results: California” 2008.
22 Rich 1980.
23. Powell, Bolzendahl, Geist, and Steelman 2010.
24. Beilski 2013.
25. Childs 2005.
26 Childs 2005, pp. 109, 111.
27. Banks 2011.
28. Spurlock 2012.
I DO, YOU DO, WE ALL DO
Those are the social processes that explain whom we marry. It is also possible to predict, with quite a bit of accuracy, when people will marry. The median age for a first marriage is now about 29 for men and 27 for women.1 People marry at these ages because the latter half of their twenties is currently the acceptable or fashionable time to marry. There is variation by class, ethnicity, and religion, as we will discuss. Still, overall, the mid to late twenties are the current intense period of marrying. Few women and men marry before the age of 20. The proportion of people marrying starts to increase during their twenties, peaking in the mid to late twenties, but then drops off during their thirties.2
In a book about relationships among young people, one woman’s marriage time frame is described this way:
When I asked her what she imagined for her twenties, she mapped it out. From twenty-four to twenty-seven she would be in law school, and hoped to pass the bar exam at twenty-eight. That left her the next few years to start her career, date, fall in love with someone she wanted to marry. She hoped to have started a family by the time she was thirty-five . . . Patty knows that her plan to find Mr. Right between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty requires more than a bit of luck that he’ll actually show up on the scene.3
As this woman outlined, as with her education and career plans, she has a marriage plan that assumes that she will be married in her late twenties, the current socially acceptable age for marriage.
Having this standard time frame assumes that nearly everyone finds their soul mate within the same short period of life. This would mean that today somehow the late twenties are a particularly successful time for meeting that
one right person. This is not impossible but not likely. In order to marry at the right time, many people must be marrying the person whom they are with when the right time arrives. Or, when the right time arrives, people find a mate to marry. In a study of married women and men, people often described their spouse as the right person at the right time:
“Well, because he was the one I met, I guess. I could have married someone else had I met someone else.” [married seven years]
“I always assumed I would get married, there was no question about it in my mind, and I thought it was awfully late at the time . . . I felt very lonely much of the time between I suppose getting out of high school until I got married . . . I couldn’t find somebody that I was happy with. And vice versa, that she would be happy with me.” [married 17 years]
“We met at a time when, I don’t know, I guess we just happened to be right for each other at the right time.”4 [married nine years]
How does the “right time” of marriage get set? There are laws regulating the legal age at marriage. In the U.S., people are generally allowed to marry when they are 18. However, with permission from parents and/or court approval, people as young as 16, 15, and sometimes even younger can marry. Interestingly, laws sometimes set the legal age of marriage for boys older than the age for girls, reinforcing the expectation that if there is an age difference in marriage, the man should be older than the woman. But informal rules—enforced by our families and friends rather than the law—have a particularly strong influence on the age of marriage. The book The Starter Marriage is based on interviews with 60 young people who entered marriages that ended within a short period of time. As these young people described, reaching the socially appropriate time to marry was marked by frequent engagements and weddings among friends and expectations for them to follow suit:
“Everyone was getting married all around me. I was surrounded by newlyweds. There was definitely social pressure to get married.”
“There’s this sort of group thing, this new kind of status. It’s such a cute thing. This feeling like you’re this young married person and you’ve got all your young married friends.”
“It’s like this snowball effect. Once one person gets engaged, everybody has to get engaged.”
“Once I had on that engagement ring, I was in this total wedding zone where everything was about marriage. It was always, ‘Why aren’t you
married? Are you going to get married? When are you guys getting married?’”5
In other words, people marry not simply when they are in love and have found the right person. People marry when their friends marry. Marrying later than your friends can make you feel left out. Marrying sooner, while in university for example, can be awkward when no one else you know is married and the structure of the university, such as dorm life, is not set up for married couples.
These rules, however, vary among different groups within a society. Different social rules lead to different timing for marriage. At Brigham Young University, a university associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints, for example, about a quarter of undergraduates are married and over half of the students are married by graduation. At BYU, informal rules and expectations are different, which explains why people marry at a different age. The campus provides a setting in which to meet, date, and marry someone of the same religion, which has a strong focus on marriage. And there is a culture focused on marriage while in college. One student, who actually didn’t marry before graduation, had expected that she would. She said, “You just kind of come in thinking, ‘Oh yeah, I’ll probably be married by the time I graduate.’” For many students at other universities, it might be hard to imagine being married in college because the rules are not set up for marriage so early. At BYU, it is hard to imagine not getting married. In other words, when people marry is not solely an independent, individual decision. The individual is shaped and influenced by the social rules around them.6
As people reach the “marrying period” of their lives, they start to marry. And by the end of the socially defined “marrying period,” most people will have married.
Over the past decade, a stream of news articles reported that marriage is no longer so common. These articles described how, for the first time, fewer than half of American households are made up of married couples. Newspaper and magazine headlines read, “Single? So are the majority of U.S. adults,” “To be married is to be outnumbered in America,” and “Has being married gone out of style?” At the same time, however, a leading marriage sociologist called the United States “the most marrying of Western nations.”7 How can we reconcile this conclusion with the statistics showing a decline in marriage?
When we hear that more than half of people are not married, that simply means that they are not currently married. Some of these people have been previously married but are now divorced or widowed. Other people are not yet married. People are now more able and willing to leave relationships through divorce than at other times, and this increases the number of currently unmarried people. People are also now marrying later, so there are more people classified as unmarried for longer. Nonetheless, many of these people
will eventually marry. If we include those who have ever married or will eventually marry, the vast majority of Americans will be married at some point in their lives.
Let’s look more closely at some statistics. Census data often include individuals 15 years of age and older. Nearly 100 percent of people aged 15–17 have not married. This seems obvious. As we just covered, marrying at this age is not legal in most states without parents’ permission and marrying while in high school is generally not socially supported. And, as we also just saw, few people marry before the age of 20. If we limit the statistics to an older, more age-appropriate group for marriage, a different picture appears. Over 80 percent of women between the ages of 35 and 39 and of men between the ages of 40 and 44 have been married at some point in their lives.8
Again, an important part of this story involves variation by social class and ethnicity. Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to the fact that marriage in the United States is less common among women and men with less education and lower incomes.9 Lower-income couples feel blocked from marriage because they feel they don’t have enough money to marry. A sociologist wrote a book, Coming Up Short: Working-Class Adulthood in an Age of Uncertainty, about the experiences of working-class young adults today who are facing fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, and overall economic insecurity.10 One of the things she found is that her respondents were anxious about marriage and often put it off because of the insecurity they were facing in their lives. People believe that marriage should be a lifelong commitment but are concerned that without enough money for financial security, the marriage will not succeed. As researchers concluded, “The poor avoid marriage not because they think too little of it, but because they revere it.”11 Research does show that maintaining a relationship can be harder under conditions of economic insecurity. For example, marital quality is lower when dealing with chronic stress. And chronic economic stress makes it harder for lower-income couples to deal with and recover from the daily, short-term stressors that all couples face.12
Beyond this, however, marriage is now highly commodified. Although love is believed to be the basis for marriage, being able to buy certain things is closely associated with the process of getting married and shapes a couple’s perception of their readiness and ability to marry. A ring is central to making the engagement official. Without a ring, family, friends, acquaintances, and even the couple themselves may doubt the validity of the engagement.13 Weddings are increasingly expensive. It is estimated that an average of $31,213 is spent on a wedding now. In some cities, the average spent is even higher: New York City ($76,328), Chicago ($50,934), Philadelphia ($44,090), and Pittsburgh ($32,359).14 Couples who are getting married define decorations, flowers, and the dress as romantic, rather than purely the moments of getting married.15
Marriage is now being referred to as a “status marker,” meaning that it is something people do when they have achieved success.16 Couples marry when
they have good jobs, a nice house, a car, and can afford a big wedding. As one woman explained, “We have certain things that we want to do before we get married. We both want very good jobs, and we both want a house, we both want reliable transportation.”17 So low-income couples may delay marriage until they have the things that are now socially defined as important for a successful marriage.18
Despite variation in the likelihood of marrying, everyone is affected by the rules and assumptions that marriage is an expected part of life. The message that marriage is something everyone “should” do shapes people’s experiences throughout society, even those who do not marry. People who have never married often expect, want, and feel pressure to marry. Nearly 80 percent of never-married women aged 29–37 without children say they want to marry now or in the future.19 Only 4 percent of people aged 25–54 are single and have no personal desire to marry, even if the right person came along.20 Even among the groups who are least likely to marry, the majority have a continued desire and expectation to marry. In interviews, low-income women who did not marry explained,
“I wanna be married because I feel as though then it’s like [I’m on] stable ground. I know I have a partner for life that’s gonna help me through things . . . I’ll always have a companion and a love, a best friend, somebody to help me raise the kids that we have.”
“I would love to have a marriage, a perfect one, like the fairy tales. I’d love to have that.”
“I hope that we will be together and married [in five years].”21
Over time, people who are not married tend to do fine, and their desire to marry decreases.22 Single people, particularly those who have never married, have full social lives, strong social ties, and wide support networks—more so than married people do.23
Nonetheless, being single, particularly never married, requires a process of adjustment in a society where most people have married. One researcher interviewed single women who were over the age of 30, two times, seven to nine years apart. During the first interview, most of the women were not comfortable with being single, although they had full lives and social networks. By the second interview, most of the women who remained single were more accepting of their singleness and satisfied with their lives and families.24 Nonetheless, this “transition to singlehood” usually involves the challenge of accepting living a different kind of lifestyle.25 As the researcher explained, “Today, all long-term single women go through a process of struggle and change to craft and accept their lives. But not all single women make this transition, or they do so only with great difficulty.”26
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Of her sympathy and aid,— Not that she did really grieve, It was only make-believe, And she cared for nothing, so She might her fine feelings show, And get credit on her part For a soft and tender heart.
With such speeches, smoothly made, She found methods to persuade Margaret (who, being sore From the doubts she’d felt before, Was prepared for mistrust) To believe her reasons just; Quite destroyed that comfort glad Which in Mary late she had; Made her, in experience’ spite, Think her friend a hypocrite, And resolve, with cruel scoff, To renounce and cast her off.
See how good turns are rewarded! She of both is now discarded, Who to both had been so late Their support in low estate, All their comfort, and their stay— Now of both is cast away. But the league her presence cherished, Losing its best prop, soon perished; She, that was a link to either, To keep them and it together, Being gone, the two (no wonder) That were left soon fell asunder;— Some civilities were kept, But the heart of friendship slept; Love with hollow forms was fed, But the life of love lay dead:— A cold intercourse they held After Mary was expelled.
Two long years did intervene
Since they’d either of them seen, Or by letter, any word Of their old companion heard,— When, upon a day once walking, Of indifferent matters talking, They a female figure met;— Martha said to Margaret, “That young maid in face does carry A resemblance strong of Mary,” Margaret, at nearer sight, Own’d her observation right; But they did not far proceed Ere they found ’twas she indeed. She—but, ah! I how changed they view her From that person which they knew her! Her fine face disease had scarr’d, And its matchless beauty marr’d:— But enough was left to trace Mary’s sweetness—Mary’s grace. When her eye did first behold them, How they blush’d! but when she told them How on a sick bed she lay Months, while they had kept away And had no inquiries made If she were alive or dead;— How, for want of a true friend, She was brought near to her end, And was like so to have died With no friend at her bedside;— How the constant irritation Caused by fruitless expectation Of their coming, had extended The illness, when she might have mended,— Then, O then, how did reflection Come on them with recollection! All that she had done for them,
How it did their fault condemn!
But sweet Mary, still the same, Kindly eased them of their shame; Spoke to them with accents bland, Took them friendly by the hand; Bound them both with promise fast Not to speak of troubles past; Made them on the spot declare A new league of friendship there; Which, without a word of strife, Lasted thenceforth long as life. Martha now and Margaret Strove who most should pay the debt Which they owed her, nor did vary Ever after from their Mary.
MEMORY
XVIII
“F gold could Memory be bought, What treasures would she not be worth! If from afar she could be brought, I’d travel for her through the earth.”
This exclamation once was made By one who had obtained the name Of young forgetful Adelaide; And while she spoke, lo! Memory came— If Memory indeed it were, Or such it only feign’d to be: A female figure came to her Who said, “My name is Memory!
“Gold purchases in me no share, Nor do I dwell in distant land; Study, and thought, and watchful care In every place may me command.
“I
am not lightly to be won; A visit only now I make; And much must by yourself be done Ere me you for an inmate take.
“The only substitute for me Was ever found, is call’d a pen; The frequent use of that will be The way to make me come again.”
SALOME
XIX
O on a charger there was laid And brought before a royal maid, As price of attitude and grace, A guiltless head, a holy face.
It was on Herod’s natal day, Who o’er Judæa’s land held sway. He married his own brother’s wife, Wicked Herodias. She the life Of John the Baptist long had sought Because he openly had taught That she a life unlawful led Having her husband’s brother wed.
This was he, that saintly John, Who in the wilderness alone Abiding, did for clothing wear A garment made of camel’s hair; Honey and locusts were his food And he was most severely good. He preached penitence and tears And waking first the sinner’s fears, Prepared a path, made smooth a way For his diviner Master’s day.
Herod kept in princely state His birthday. On his throne he sate, After the feast, beholding her Who danced with grace peculiar; Fair Salome, who did excel All in that land for dancing well.
The feastful monarch’s heart was fired, And whatsoe’er thing she desired, Though half his kingdom it should be, He in his pleasure swore that he Would give the graceful Salome. The damsel was Herodias’ daughter: She to the queen hastes, and besought her To teach her what great gift to name. Instructed by Herodias, came
The damsel back; to Herod said, “Give me John the Baptist’s head; And in a charger let it be Hither straightway brought to me.”
Herod her suit would fain deny, But for his oath’s sake must comply.
When painters would by art express Beauty in unloveliness, Thee, Herodias’ daughter, thee, They fittest subject take to be. They give thy form and features grace; But ever in thy beauteous face
They show a steadfast cruel gaze, An eye unpitying; and amaze
In all beholders deep they mark, That thou betrayest not one spark Of feeling for the ruthless deed, That did thy praiseful dance succeed. For on the head they make you look As if a sullen joy you took, A cruel triumph, wicked pride, That for your sport a saint had died.
THE PEACH
M gave us a single peach, She shared it among seven; Now you may think that unto each But a small piece was given.
Yet though each share was very small, We own’d, when it was eaten, Being so little for us all Did its fine flavour heighten.
The tear was in our parent’s eye, It seem’d quite out of season; When we ask’d wherefore she did cry, She thus explain’d the reason:—
“The cause, my children, I may say, Was joy, and not dejection; The peach, which made you all so gay, Gave rise to this reflection:
“It’s many a mother’s lot to share, Seven hungry children viewing, A morsel of the coarsest fare, As I this peach was doing.”
THE MAGPIE’S NEST
A FABLE XXI
W the Arts in their infancy were, In a fable of old ’tis express’d A wise magpie constructed that rare Little house for young birds, call’d a nest.
This was talk’d of the whole country round; You might hear it on every bough sung, “Now no longer upon the rough ground Will fond mothers brood over their young:
“For the magpie with exquisite skill Has invented a moss-cover’d cell
Within which a whole family will In the utmost security dwell.”
To her mate did each female bird say, “Let us fly to the magpie, my dear; If she will but teach us the way, A nest we will build us up here.
“It’s a thing that’s close arch’d overhead, With a hole made to creep out and in; We, my bird, might make just a bed If we only knew how to begin.”
To the magpie soon every bird went And in modest terms made their request, That she would be pleased to consent To teach them to build up a nest.
She replied, “I will show you the way, So observe everything that I do: First two sticks ’cross each other I lay—”
“To be sure,” said the crow, “why I knew
“It must be begun with two sticks, And I thought that they crossed should be.” Said the pie, “Then some straw and moss mix In the way you now see done by me.”
“O yes, certainly,” said the jackdaw, “That must follow, of course, I have thought; Though I never before building saw, I guess’d that, without being taught.”
“More moss, more straw, and feathers, I place In this manner,” continued the pie.
“Yes, no doubt, madam, that is the case; Though no builder myself, so thought I.”
Whatever she taught them beside, In his turn every bird of them said, Though the nest-making art he ne’er tried He had just such a thought in his head.
Still the pie went on showing her art, Till a nest she had built up half-way; She no more of her skill would impart, But in her anger went fluttering away.
And this speech in their hearing she made, As she perch’d o’er their heads on a tree: “If ye all were well skill’d in my trade, Pray, why came ye to learn it of me?”
When a scholar is willing to learn, He with silent submission should hear; Too late they their folly discern, The effect to this day does appear.
For whenever a pie’s nest you see, Her charming warm canopy view, All birds’ nests but hers seem to be A magpie’s nest just cut in two.A
A I beg to inform my young readers that the magpie is the only bird that builds a top to the nest for her young.
