Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Engagement, Anniversary

Doubt in the partner, very often based on an unconscious desire to prove one’s own superiority, is frequently the moving force behind apparently inevitable predicaments. The wife of a drunkard, object of public sympathy and admiration for her endurance and faithfulness, frequently has contributed more to the family situation than anyone suspects. Often enough, an ambitious and efficient woman chooses a weak and unstable husband. While she prides herself on her intention to guide and “save” him, she actually acclaims only her own virtuousness over his wickedness. This kind of woman makes it difficult for any man to be good. He has no chance of competing with her impressive virtue, and punishing her with his expected misbehavior is only a small consolation. He rarely realizes that by torturing her he only adds to her glory. The wife of a drunkard is often a typical martyr; the more she suffers, the holier she becomes.

In the history of such a marriage, we find many periods in which a wife could have stopped the husband from drinking. Certain firmness could have made him aware of the consequences of his behavior-losing her, at a time when he still cared for her and yet had not been sufficiently antagonized by her contempt and nagging. But after each quarrel, after every threat, she gave in; believing his promises which she knew would never be kept. Treating drunkards requires influencing their wives first. The woman’s holiness and the man’s viciousness fit together and are typical of martyrdom. The peculiar equilibrium is never the fault of the man alone.

Although it may sound as if one could put the blame for these conflicts on women, we know that right and wrong are never exclusively one sided. But unfortunately, women suffer most from marital discord. Their personal dependency upon marital concord makes them more sensitive to harmony-and gives them also more responsibility. As a matter of fact, the fate of a marriage generally depends much more upon the behavior of the wife than upon that of the man. Women have, for centuries, been trained in domesticity. Their “natural” interest in marital affairs can be overcome only by a very strong masculine protest. Women have been and still are the dominated sex; but they always were the power behind the throne. This position has induced women to use other methods than the crude, forthright aggressiveness permitted to men. The scheming qualities, which have inspired their comparison with cats, compensate for their lack of actual power. Men dance as women play the tune, rather than vice versa. This does not mean that women do not need as much encouragement and assistance as men, but women reveals their need for protection readily, whereas men are prevented from doing so by their masculine pride. Often the strongest man is fundamentally like a child, and the weakest woman can have the persuasive influence of a mother. That is the reason why we must assist women in managing their husbands, rather than wait until men learn to regard their wives as partners.

This ability to lead the partner toward a common goal is necessary whenever conflicting interests appear. There are always conflicting interests, as we cannot expect two persons to have the same desires, interests, concerns, and to enjoy the same amusements and diversions. In some cases, the field of common interests is broad, in others narrow. There is no question that it is easier to maintain mutual participation when the marriage starts out with a broad basis in mutually shared goals; but in every case each mate has to enlarge his own field of interest to accord with the previous training, activity, and concern of the partner. It seems less advisable to demand that anyone should cut out previous interests because they are distasteful to the other one. The positive desire should have more weight than the negative distaste, because overcoming an original distaste broadens the base of agreement, whereas abandoning a desire narrows that base and makes for resentment. Such an adaptation, educationally considered, provides growth, and, psychologically considered, a sense of accomplishment, as well as enhancement of social worth. Each mate should be ready to give activities liked by the other a fair trial. Sincere effort to participate will make it easier to abandon some activities if they prove to be too difficult or too foreign to the mate.

Our present marital situation demands, for more than one reason, that woman take the lead, not only because by her training and inheritance she is generally more apt to induce and influence, but also because at the present time women generally have more inclination than men to broaden their interests. If the husband is an artist, scientist, or works in a special cultural field, then he generally stimulates the interest of his wife in his activities. If he cannot do so, his marriage is bound to fail. But too many American men are interested only in business and work. Outside interests are limited to politics and recreation with men friends in drinking and playing. Interest in art, books, music, psychology, and other cultural activities is increasingly-and unfortunately-becoming the privilege of women. Few men complain that their wives want to stay home, refuse to go to a concert or art exhibit, but women very frequently voice such grievances.

Divorce is only one situation in which a wrong social attitude of women manifests itself. In previous times, when the attitude toward woman strictly relegated her to the family circle, allowing her no function and no status outside of her family, she could and should have only one interest: husband and children. In her case, divorce ended her career. Today such an attitude, although frequently observed, is not only unjustified, but actually detrimental. Women brought up and kept in such dependency on husband and family in a society which no longer is strictly patriarchal, are endangered in their future mental and emotional health and their human functioning. They are not only unprepared for the possibility of divorce which today becomes more frequent; their fear of such a possible failure makes them tense and apprehensive and often enough diminishes their ability to prevent the anticipated catastrophe in marriage. Their inability to recognize their function outside of the family leads to another more frequent and more disastrous consequence.

The number of women who break down around the period of climacteric is increasing alarmingly. Many physicians are inclined to attribute the mental and emotional breakdown at that time to the changes in the endocrine system, as if the “change of life” meant only a biological change in the functions of the glands. Careful studies and observations of patients suffering from involutional melancholia, which may vary in degree from slight depressions to fully developed psychoses, reveal that the disturbing factor is not so much the upset biological equilibrium within the body as the change in the life situations to which these patients are exposed. These disturbances are mostly found in women who have been excellent wives and mothers and who suddenly find themselves without any function in life. Their breakdown generally occurs when the children have grown up and left home. Their role as grandmothers does not satisfy them since modern parents do not permit grandparents to meddle in their affairs and keep their children away from this pampering influence. The husband, who found his own place in his business and in his social activities, cannot again pay the same attention and affection to his wife as he did when they were first married. The wife has devoted most of her time and interest to the care of the children; now she has a great deal of time on her hands and does not know what to do with it. She still has work to do in her home, of course. But this job is no longer significant and meaningful. To take care of herself and of her husband, with all the facilities of housekeeping available, does not require all her qualities and energies. So she thinks about a job. But, even if she has spent some hours on volunteer work, she has no training, no skill for any important position. She can only accept a minor position without power and responsibility, which contrasts sharply with her domestic role as queen, which she has occupied for many years.

In this predicament, without hope for any future, these women break down; and, ironically, they are often the best and most capable ones. The domestic role, still required of many women, even of those with college education, wastes their capacities for functioning within society at large. A re-education of parents, of husbands and wives is necessary to prepare our generation of girls and women for the necessary functioning outside their families. Many of the best qualities of women are ignored or wasted when they are not prepared to tackle a significant job outside of home. While society loses their valuable contributions, they themselves are unprepared for any event whereby they lose their position in life, be it divorce, maturity of children, or death of the husband. This last is of special significance, because women survive their husbands in increasing number. First, the average life expectancy of men is shorter than that of women, and, second, women generally marry men a few years their seniors. As medicine increasingly recognizes the special physical and emotional needs of old people, establishing a new medical specialty called “geriatrics,” it will become more and more evident that women need to have a function as long as they live, which necessarily involves an ultimate functioning outside of the home.

The professional reorientation of women may well create more conflicts with husbands and with society as a whole. But the readjustment of all concerned is necessary to meet the problems of our present marriages as well as those of our changing society.

The development is swift. What can be said truthfully for one country today might not be correct a few years from now. A short and superficial analysis of the present situation in various countries may indicate the rapid changes. Strong patriarchal societies do not exist any more among cultured peoples. The last stronghold of masculine supremacy disappeared with the abolition of polygamy in Turkey and China. The change was not merely an administrative matter, but an expression of the alteration in women’s position. China may perhaps still be considered slowest in regard to feminine emancipation. Except in the larger cities, men still may take concubines and not incur social disapprobation. They can even take a second wife without formality of divorce, provided the first wife has not borne a son. The social position of a woman is still enhanced by her having a son, although she is no longer completely worthless without one. In Chinese cities, women already participate in political, cultural, and gymnastic activities, something which always indicates social equality.

The situation in Germany is very interesting. World War I brought a definite and rapid trend toward equality, checked by the rise of National Socialism. For fascism revealed its reactionary character by its many feudalistic signs, often not recognized, and by its tendency to reinstate masculine hegemony. It reduced woman to her former place in the home and regarded as her main duty her function of breeder. It fostered some kind of polygamy by encouraging men to beget children freely. In reestablishing a slave society in some occupied countries, women “slaves” were used mainly as sexual objects and were even deported to houses of prostitution.

In Russia, the trend toward equality accelerated swiftly after the revolution. Women were granted more rights than they had been accorded anywhere else. But despite all legal equality, Russia still retained some signs of being a man’s country. And the recent trend shows some definite reversion, expressed in the reinstated rules again giving the authorities the right to interfere and regulate the private sex life of the citizen. Early attempts to accept women as combatants in the army were later discouraged, and their place in the regular army is still disputed. Political power is still predominantly in the hands of men. This discrepancy between legal and factual equality is characteristic of the present conditions all over the world. An initial advance has been made in many countries by the establishment of constitutional equality, but practice lags.

Any frank discussion about the position of women in the United States is bound to meet with opposition. Our individual conceptions, based on tradition, cultural background, and education, dispose us to accept or reject certain facts and create emotions obstructing objective and causal analysis. Should we conclude that women actually have the same privileges as men, we would please many women. They would like to hear it, for they are proud of “their” achievements. Even some men would agree, either with a condescending smile, or with the complaint that women already have too many rights. Unfortunately for both of them, unbiased evaluation reveals facts which would irritate their complacency. Because-whether they like to hear it or not-women in America do not yet have full privileges. Anyone who wants to believe that equality is already established discloses thereby only his own patriarchal point of view, his fear that further progress would mean feminine supremacy. Women themselves add to the confusion. They bask in the glory of imaginary superiority, a delusion fostered by men who wish to divert women’s attention from the real prize at stake. Let us face the facts: the four rights which we have defined, namely, political, social, economic, and sexual, are not yet equally accorded to women and men.

Politically: The Constitution concedes women the same rights as men. But, can women avail themselves of them? Full feminine suffrage is undisputed, but in practice women’s eligibility to office is definitely limited. Even women can scarcely imagine a woman as a good president of the United States-although they reaffirm their belief in full equality. Men who for many reasons look up to women dispute emphatically their political acumen. (How wrong they are!)

Socially: It is in this field that American women have come closest to equality and, in some respects, may even appear to have transgressed it. But this superficial appearance is due to man’s disdain of social “triviality.” As a real test, a single man is still socially more acceptable than a lone woman. At a social function, extra women are as dreaded as extra men are desirable. A woman marrying beneath her social level risks more than a man in like case, and, most Significant of all, women still accept the names of their husbands, and not vice versa.

Economically and professionally: Although statistics show that most of American property is owned by women - who manage the money? Definitely, men-who constitute the vast majority of financial executives. No one should be deceived by the fact that some women occupy high positions in business and commerce. They are still the exceptions; and as a rule feminine work is generally considered less valuable, as expressed in the lower wages that women receive for doing the same work as men. Few women who are so proud of their present status know that even today many universities either exclude their feminine faculty members from participation at university clubs or permit their entrance to the club rooms only through the rear door. Women are practically excluded from many professions, more de facto than de jure. Ask any woman physician about the many odds against which she has had to struggle. We rarely find women engineers, and the army and navy are still masculine prerogatives despite very recent inroads. Moreover, it is the general consensus that in times of widespread unemployment women should give up their jobs rather than have men remains idle. Whereas it is considered natural that men support their wives, a husband dependent financially upon his wife is regarded with contempt. Many marital problems have their origin in the conviction of men that masculinity is proved mainly through financial support. Women, successful in business, very often demonstrate overtly their tendency to behave “like a man,” thereby demonstrating their doubt that they can be as good by being just a woman.

Sexually: All the sexual aggressiveness, for which American women are famous, cannot conceal the facts that, for the most part, women still wait for their man and not vice versa. Many tragedies in the love life of American women are caused by their desire to look up to the man whom they love. This spells tragedy, because it is very difficult for our well-educated and sophisticated girls to find a man who is superior to them, and when they do find him they resent his superiority and challenge it. Many girls refuse to go out with a boy shorter than they, although they like to look down on boys. Marriages in which the woman is her husband’s senior are increasing in number, but still form a small minority. A woman is ashamed to admit that her husband is not superior, because it would mean he is not a “real man.”

These facts are evidence that the passive attitude of woman is not innate and are not based on her physical structure and her inherent function of motherhood. Her role as mother is not responsible for feminine passivity or for her obligation to be pure and chaste. Neither are special sexual privileges a necessary consequence of man’s capacity to procreate an unlimited number of children. The notion that modesty and morality are strictures upon only one sex has its origin in social conditions which produce certain conceptions of the “correct” sexual behavior. The following episode may illustrate the fact that sexual behavior depends merely upon social conventions.

It is said that Napoleon, when in Egypt, once walked through a little Arabian village. Entering a hut unexpectedly, he found himself confronted by several Arabian women. Immediately upon noticing the intruder, they excitedly lifted their skirts to cover their faces. To expose their genitals meant very little, but to show their faces to a man was unthinkable.

Evidently, then, social customs and traditions are responsible for modes of living which our generations, with their emphasis on natural science, like to trace to biological and physiological demands. People living under matriarchate find as many good reasons for their habits as we do in our patriarchal society.

There are matriarchal communities where a woman who has had no lover has only a slim chance to marry. After having had many affairs she becomes more desirable. If no one has loved her before, something must be wrong with her. While in the masculine culture a woman with illegitimate children has less chance of finding a husband than a girl not so encumbered, under matriarchal conditions a girl who has proved her fertility before marriage is definitely preferred.
In our present culture, which until recently was strictly patriarchal, customs have differed from those under matriarchate where adultery was often forbidden only to man. For him, it could mean death. Our women have been expected to wait passively and innocently until a man should condescend to choose. Virginity was demanded of women, because any sexual experience before marriage was the privilege of man. It is hard to believe that until quite recently; however gifted or skillful or good-hearted and considerate she was nothing could help a girl if she had not preserved just one small membrane: her “honor.” No man cared to marry her. Women who defied this social tradition became outcasts. There is little doubt that man, at the same time, had the social right to sexual license and unfaithfulness, in contrast to existing religious, moral, and even legal precepts. Men, indulging in sexual pleasures outside of wedlock, were hardly in danger of losing social status. Only recently has a change occurred. Today, this right of man is questioned but not yet fundamentally disputed, while twenty or fifty years ago the average man could enjoy his privileges without challenge.

The Decline of Man’s Superiority

A radical change during the last hundred years is quite obvious. Masculine superiority is disappearing. The status of women is slowly but continually improving. Political rights of women already approach those of men. Women have new social and economic rights. They enjoy their own individual social status and practice almost every profession. It even happens that men become dependent upon their wives, socially or financially. Women take sexual liberties previously denied to them. How did all this happen?
Around the middle of the last century began the development of woman’s rights as part of the social and economic transformation in the structure of our society. Just as the era of private property influenced the position of women and often ended matriarchal conditions, so again economic changes influenced the status of women. In the ascendancy of capitalism, each individual could acquire full civic rights and privileges by possessing the necessary amount of money. The new social structure evaluated an individual in terms of dollars and cents. This led to an end of feudalism with its exclusive recognition of inherited nobility and to the establishment of human rights.

The ensuing liberalism gave every individual, at least theoretically, a fair chance to attain a socially accepted position. The idea of equal birthrights led to the liberation and emancipation of previously oppressed groups. Laborers, colored people, children, and women began to be regarded as human beings with their fundamental human rights acknowledged. Thereafter, man’s power over woman decreased. In Europe, World War I accelerated this development. Replacing men, women gained access to professions formerly closed to them and earned new social recognition. With their new economic independence, they assumed new sexual freedom-a development hastened by the shortsighted conceit of man. For the new situation offered man a chance to satisfy his sexual desires with girls of his own social level without paying the price previously asked, namely, marriage. Now he could obtain a mistress who would demand neither payment nor surrender. He had neither to assume the full responsibility nor to give up his much coveted freedom. In suiting himself, however, he gave to his woman companion also the liberty of sexual expression and extramarital relationships. Thus his privileges began to evaporate.