Hasn't this experiment of egalitarian marriages failed conclusively at this point?

Question

I think that was can conclusively say at this point that the egalitarian marriage has been a failed experiment. 1 in 2 marriages are ending in divorce since this concept took hold.

It simply doesn't make sense for both people in a marriage to play the exact same role with no leader..

Answer 1

I live in an 'egalitarian marriage' (as you put it). We've been together for more than 13 years and we are equal. Different but equal.

It's not the concept of equality which has ruined our marriages, but rather our disposable mentality. We use and exploit, then throw away and get another.

My husband and I are equal, but each takes the lead in different ways. He is better at some things and I am better at others. just because we are equal does not mean that we cannot lead each other.

No offence, but you need to change your thinking or else you will be one of the divorce statistics. It's not about control or who is 'the leader'. It's about being united and having an equal say. Til death do you part.

(Not trying to attack so please don't be offended - I am just trying to point out the mentality that I believe is the cause of such high divorce rates)

Answer 2

Egalitarian(equal) doesn't mean the same. That is a common misconception people have. I'm a young white woman. My husband is 6 years older than me and a black man. Do we have equal input in our relationship? Yes. Do we have equal opportunities in our relationship? Yes. Does one of us lead in one situation and another lead in a different situation? Yes. Does this mean we are the exact same being who does the exact same thing/role? No.

We are a team. We are captain and co-captain.

Being in an egalitarian marriage doesn't mean you share the same roles, do the same thing or are the same person.

Also where did you get your statistic from? You present very misleading data. You say 1 in every 2 marriages ends in divorce and you make it seem like it is because of egalitarian marriages but I have a feeling the statistic is really just 1 in every 2 marriages ends in divorce.

Answer 3

Causation vs correlation

Please look these terms up.

And your not understand the statistics

Not all marriages are at a 50% chance of divorce....the percentage goes up and down considering other facts in the marriage.  Like children, finances, age, length of dating, religion,   ect....

the worst marriage set up....

Date for less then two years, marry before 21, one partner is religious other isnt, have child in first two years of marriage, traditional roles...This set up has the greatest chance of both abuse and a 80% chance of divorce.

Think you need to do some research prior to deciding to throw it out the window.

Answer 4

I have an egalitarian marriage and we have been together for a really long time and it works for us.  We are both happy with it and contribute to everything in our home equally. As for 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce could you site where you acquired this information?  However they will never tell you why the divorce happened and I highly doubt they were egalitarian marriages. Typical reasons for divorce is that couples do not communicate, have problems with conflict management, and lose their intimacy/s*x with their partner.  I personally think that an egalitarian marriage is healthier as neither partner fears talking to the other, they manage to communicate their strengths and weaknesses to manage conflict; one is never responsible for the family downfall they both are and can work together to fix it, s*x is great and doesn't lose momentum when it is for both partners and not just for one to demand.

If traditional gender roles were so great why would anyone have wanted to change them.  They weren't that great; its just that this is a difficult time in a new frontier where the system has kinks that still need to be worked on. People always want to be where they were or where they are going but rarely want to be where they are.  I think that is because todays society does not want to put in the work to fix things instead they would rather resort back to a broken structure because it sounds easy or familiar.

I would also like to say those statistics are off as I don't believe until the last ten years people even tried to have egalitarian marriages.  All of the marriages I knew where either traditional marriages or ones that couldn't figure out how to balance it.

Answer 5

You're right. Someone has to be the leader, with the other spouse accepting that, in order for most marriages to work.

Answer 6

I think the problem I have with this is the word "leader".  I do believe that poeple should play two roles in the marriage, but I don't believe one of those roles should be "leader".  "Leader" implies that there is a boss, there is someone who can veto the other ones or make the important decisions.  I dont' agree with that.  I do agree however that the roles of husband and wife are different, and should be.  Men and women offer different things to a relationship, and to a family.

Answer 7

Um.  No.

Can you prove CONCLUSIVELY that the high divorce rate is due to "egalitarian marriages"?

Answer 8

It is working in my family. Neither me or my husband is the #1 leader. We both share in all decisions and has been doing so for 7 years now. We rarely bump heads and when we do it is usually over something trivial.

Answer 9

I find fault with this, only because no one really gets married thinking "this will be an egalitarian relationship!" They might think about love or financial stability or what have you, but only the monumentally naive go into thinking everything will be split down the middle. I think there is an ebb and flow in most healthy relationships with little thought given to who is the leader at any moment.

Answer 10

I'm sure it isn't 1 in 2 marriages.

I just thought you might find this an interesting titbit (or fuel on the fire!) but women can now choose to leave the 'love, honour and obey' clause out of their marriage.

Answer 11

I am 32 and have been divorced once and am now in a relationship which was heading in that direction, until we decided to make some changes. We chose to institute a more traditional marriage in which we are still partners, but he is the "head of the household".

We fight A LOT less often and things just seem to flow better for us. We have our responsibilities and for us it is making a huge difference. I think that each couple needs to evaluate what is best for them and put aside pride issues and if things are not working the way they are, then try and make a few changes.

Answer 12

Not only is its failure shown in the divorce rate, but in life itself. I think that there are gender roles that each should take in a marriage. Women should be nurturer and men should be provider. The responsibilities that follow to succeed in those roles is pertinent to raising good, healthy families.

I'm sure I will get thumbs down from people who take this the wrong way....but if each role was RESPECTED and idolized equally, then they would essentially be "egalitarian" marriages. I also know that more and more these days both parent have to work, therefore what I stated before is "ideal" but sadly not always practical....

Answer 13

I think you inevitably get more divorce when it is easy to obtain and carries no social stigma.  A lot of Muslim societies have very high divorce rates for instance, and they are not big on equal relationships.

I certainly think you are likely to be happier if you desire an unequal relationship and get it, but I am extremely doubtful as to whether there would be fewer divorces if everyone were in unequal relationships.

Answer 14

It think it is more a problem of women wanting to control men the same way men controlled their wives back before the women's movement.  I have a friend who is getting married, and her plan is to collect her future husband's paycheck, manage all their finances, and then give him an "allowance" each month.  I think that is a terrible thing to do to a grown person, male or female.  But a lot of women I know think they have to "wear the pants" just to prove that they are feminists or whatever.  To me, that is just as bad as having a man control his wife in the same way.  Very few marriages I know actually operate in an egalitarian way.  To have a truly equal marriage, finances must not be merged and rules must not be imposed on either spouse regarding domestic chores, spending, etc.  Why should there have to be a leader?  A marriage is a partnership, not a dictatorship.

Answer 15

What, you mean the too many "chiefs and not enough indians" isn't true?   Destined from failure from the start.  The culture ignores 5,000 + years of wisdom passed down through the years and expects that because we're "enlightened" that there aren't consequences?  Gimme a friggin break.  It only works with men that can't/won't lead, and women will lead due to lack of choices.  IMHO

Couldn't disagree with egalitarianism more.

Answer 16

Assuming the divorce rate is because of "egalitarianism" is faulty cause and effect logic. The ability for single women to function has largely been the reason why women are able to leave unhappy marriages. Before divorce was accepted, many controlled women stayed in marriages that weren't working because they had to.

Many successful businesses have been run by partners so why not marriages? Two people are governing over a household and possibly children and can be equals with different roles. I think it's up to the married couple to define their roles to what suits them and not what society dictates.

For me, marriage has to be an equal partnership in order for it to work.

Answer 17

they are never egalitatian anyway, it's not possible.

Answer 18

Correlation does not equal causation.  One can just as easily say that rising inflation and gas prices are responsible for the high divorce rate.  More marriages have ended in divorce because it's easier and there's less of a social stigma.

Answer 19

Priscilla,

You are absolutely right. No marriage or organization can can survive or excel without a defined leader. The Bible see's men and women as equal, but with different responsibilities. What I find interesting are the responses posted here by wives who claim to be in an egalitarian marriage. I bet you their husbands would give different responses. Woman often have different responses than Men do to the same experiences

For all of you that mentioned divorce rates have dropped. Of course they have dropped, because marriage rates have dropped as well. It makes perfect sense.

Answer 20

A ship without a captain is bound to sink.

Answer 21

Egalitarian is a tough word to fit into marriage.  My wife and are social equals to each other.  We both work and we hold each other in the same respect.  

But, depending on your definition of egalitarian, we each have well-defined roles within our marriage.  One person has specific jobs and chores and other does the rest.  It's very one-sided when it comes to dinners, cleaning dishes, washing floors, doing laundry, and other chores.  But, it's about the same time spent across the board by both of us.

It works well for us.

Answer 22

No, it hasn't. Divorce rates have been steadily going down for the past several years, and they usually occur in the LEAST equitable marriages.

Answer 23

No, I think relationships break-up for a number of reasons, but a major one is that marriages ARE NOT as egalitarian as they should be, even today.

Answer 24

My relationship is like that, and we've been together for 14 years. I feel like we have a very strong bond, both as friends and as lovers. Any other kind of relationship simply would not work for me.

On the other hand, if you find it to be more fulfilling or successful or whatever to be in a relationship where the man is the head of the household - go for it. I don't think that any one type of relationship is going to work for everyone. It depends on the people involved, and what their personalities and attitudes are like.

Anyway, speaking only for myself, I don't find equality-based relationships to be a problem. We mostly want the same things, so there's very little contention. And when we do disagree on how things should go, we just talk about it and find a compromise. It's not so hard, really, and it might not make sense for you, but it does for me =)

Edit: @Smellyfoot, there's nothing wrong with relationships where the women takes the role of nurturer and the man takes the role of provider. But what happens if the women isn't very nurturing or compassionate, but the man is? Why can't the roles change up a bit in cases where it would make more sense for the people involved? I am not opposed to roles, but I do think they should be flexible, as not all of us are exactly the same.

Answer 25

When I entered into marriage, all starry eyed and full of great ideas, I thought that I was entering into an egalitarian relationship.  Because why in the world would a headstrong, confident and accomplished woman enter into something that wasn't completely equal????

What I learned, very quickly, is that it truly can't be equal all the time, if you want it to work.  I married a fairly traditional guy - who wants to be the breadwinner and the head of the household.  In the beginning, I thought it would belittle me if I handed over ALL my power to another - and I was right.  But I also learned that it isn't about handing over power, and certainly not all of it.  I learned that only one person can be the leader - just like in any business arrangement.  There are second chairs and seconds in command - who, often, hold the final say in certain issues.  But only one person can be regarded as the leader - and I was happy to hand that over to my husband.  Issue resolved...no submission, no loss of power or control - just a more productive and harmonious arrangement!

Answer 26

I think that was can conclusively say at this point that the egalitarian marriage has been a failed experiment.

Sorry!  But I didn't think it was ever an 'experiment'.

'Marriages' do NOT fail.  People, the human condition, that's what fails.

You are expressing it with a simplicity that is too, too simplistic.  

''Some'' relationships seem to require 'A Leader' (and my experience has been where the man is nearly always the older of the two and thus the Alpha) and as a rule, it generally fits the bill for the partnership.

''Some'' relationships function where both parties have a mutual say in things, or where each leads when their strengths are needed.

Sorry, but I can't go along with your simplistic bold bald statement.

I have great respect for either model.

Sash.

Answer 27

My parents are both immigrants (now naturalized citizens) with very traditional beliefs and they've been happily married 28 years without a "leader". If you asked them who the "leader" was, they would laugh at you and look rather confused.

Do you know what a real marriage is?

Answer 28

no.  the rates of divorce increasing have less to do with being "egalitarian" and more to do with options.  one hundred years ago communities would never have sanctioned divorces - see the power that the catholic church still has over shaming divorcees.  additionally, women can work now.  that means that they're not stuck in an unhappy marriage because they can leave at any moment they want instead of being trapped.

Answer 29

Divorce rates peaked in the 1970s, and are on the decline. As others have pointed out, that 50% divorce rate stat is flawed. Also, self-described "conservative and evangelical Christians," those most likely to embrace the "man being head of the household" mentality have the highest divorce rate in the US. As for my own personal experience, my parents just celebrated their 32nd wedding anniversary this past week, and they have an egalitarian marriage.

I think Christine put it very well. Being in an egalitarian relationship does not mean we split EVERYTHING down the middle 50/50. In my relationship, I do all the cleaning because my boyfriend is terrible at it, so if you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself, right? We both have different responsibilities in our relationship. His responsibilities are not better or more important than mine, and vice versa. I make the decisions about my responsibilities, but if I have a question or concern, or if he has one, I will consult with him. And vice versa with him. We are a team, a partnership. One does not call all the shots, or the more important shots, we both do, and we both take into consideration each other's feelings on the matter, and that is why we are an egalitarian relationship.

Answer 30

The definition of "egalitarian" is that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.  Nowhere in the political philosophy which spawned the term does it say anything about two people playing the same role without a leader.

Any situation between two individuals which claims that one is of greater fundamental value is inherently immoral.