I was not able to respond to comments left on my previous post throughout the day because I was at work (and don't have a job which lets me use the computer unfortunately) and am not sure if anyone will check it if I respond in the comments section now. So, here is my response to the main objections to the ideas in my post. I don't necessarily think I'll change any one's mind and I'm perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree but I want to make sure that I was clear about what I meant and to fill in any other useful information that I may not have provided given I did not expect to have so many strong objections from commenters on this site (not that I mind it at all).
1) Regarding the comments that discussed having married parents as a benefit--I do not disagree at all that having (happily) married parents can be an invaluable asset for a person as it gives first hand experience of seeing the ups and downs of marriage. My only problem is the implication (and it was echoed by one commenter here) that children of divorced parents are not (as) capable of understanding or having successful marriages themselves. This is what I was trying to explain in the original post on my blog.
What would be ideal is for the (well-thought out) experiences of divorced children to be considered as seriously in discussions of marriage as the experiences of children from married homes. I don't think one is inherently better or more correct than the other. I think, as a society, we use the children of married parents as the default but then only display children of divorced parents as victims, sob-stories etc. when in fact they may have a lot of insight about what is to be avoided.
As one commenter pointed out, not everyone is going to try and thoroughly analyze their familial situation. My assertion is that children from "dysfunctional" or non-traditional backgrounds will have, on average, thought about these issues more often and in greater depth due to the fact that they are not the norm and/or are used (most often negatively) by many people/studies to support the institution of traditional marriage. I constantly find people more willing to tell me what's right and what works (in their opinion) instead of ever asking to listen to what doesn't work because the assumption stands that children who come from "broken" homes can't understand what it really takes to make a marriage/family work.
One commenter noted that the best advice they could give their children is to marry someone whose parents are married because children of divorced parents don't know what it's like to work out the ups and downs because their parents decided to run for the door instead of staying to work things out. While, again, I think there are benefits to having married parents, I don't think the marital status is the end all and be all of it. If my parents stayed together, all of our lives would be hell now as it was then. There was no way to reconcile their differences. On the same note, I know plenty of married couples who stuck it out (usually for the children) who are totally miserable and did not provide great role models for their kids when it comes to making a relationship work.
2) On the counseling prerequisite for marriage--I was most surprised to the strong reaction against this one as I don't think it's so unreasonable. I am not suggesting a psychological assessment followed by a "professionals" decision to let the couple marry or not based on his/her observations or even the couple's progress. I am not even necessarily suggesting that the session should be an on-going thing. The Catholic Church often knocks out Pre-Cana sessions on one Saturday afternoon (I do not practice Catholicism, but was raised Catholic and while I strongly disagree with many of its practices this is one thing I think they do right). It just provides an opportunity to go over some of the most common issues that come up in the course of a marriage that the couple may be overlooking or, more commonly, underestimating.
One commenter compared this to requiring counseling before abortions. I admit, that the abortion counseling did not occur to me at all and it is an interesting point (and yes I am pro-choice). But I think I can be for one and not another. While I don't think counseling before an abortion is necessarily a bad thing *, I won't support required mandates to have counseling because I believe that a pregnancy ultimately is the private decision of one person in regards to a condition of her body (since I disbelieve the fetus is a person), unlike a marriage contract which is a public contract between two people that potentially involves the interests of third parties (namely children, but extended family as well).
Furthermore, while I do think people are capable of making rational decisions regarding their lives, I think even intelligent, thoughtful people make hasty choices and mistakes, especially when they're excited with feelings of being "in love". And when it comes to a discussion of potential future problems they may face, they are likely to be overly optimistic about their abilities to overcome those issues. The New York Times article I cited in the first post gives a great example. For years and years (and for some this still is applicable today) the commonly held belief regarding children and marital problems was that the former is a great remedy for the latter. Current research has finally shown that the reverse is most often the case and those who have been married for years (or who have worked with those who have) are more likely to be aware of these realities than the excited couple is. The counseling is not meant to insult their intelligence or decision-making capabilities; it respects them by providing the couple with more information and gives them one extra sobering moment to reflect on their decision in the midst of wedding-planning euphoria. This can also stand as a counterpoint to the not uncommon pressure from family to marry, or the urge to have children right away or to keep up with friends who are marrying etc.
Most states require a (brief) waiting period for marriage. This is based on the correct assumption that people can be impulsive at times. Unless you think that the government has NO business setting ANY standards for the contract they are providing (and the benefits that come with it)--which needless to say, I don't--than I don't see what is so insulting about setting such a reasonable requirement. There are far less serious things that require much more.
3) On raising the legal age to marry--currently, the legal age to marry without parental consent in 18. I assume that most readers agree to having some age requirement to enter a marriage contract (otherwise there's no point in debating what age at all). And I assume we all agree that the choice of age for this (or anything else) should not be arbitrary but actually based on something logical.
Neurological studies show that the part of the brain that is used to make long term decisions (the pre-frontal cortex) isn't full formed until at least age 20. Additionally, adolescents, by the nature of their hormonal makeup, are prone to being impulsive and over-respond to positive rewards while being less sensitive to the consequences of their actions. They are more likely to make decisions based on feelings instead of rational thought. This has been shown through studies but can easily be observed through casual observation as well. (Of course, there are exceptions but I'm interested in the rule more than the exception). Some may find this insulting or condescending but I just see it as reality. People are also not only more likely to divorce/be unhappily married if they marry young, but if/when they have children, the more likely they (the parents and the children) are to be economically disadvantaged.
(And to clarify one misconception, I did not mean that the age should be raised to 30. I mentioned 3o because it was the age used in the study regarding personality. I think the age should be raised slightly to 21 (give or take a year). I think the extra 3 or so years is long enough for people to be at an age where they can make better decisions but not so long that it's unreasonable.)
I think having a required age is important because marriage is a serious commitment that is supported by the state. I also think that we have a communal responsibility (and I know many people disagree with this) to do what we can to strengthen families--if only because the stability of one's family will affect the member's development and subsequently, their contributions to society (although I think there's important moral/ethical reasons as well).
*I would frankly be more open to the suggestion of pre-abortion counseling if it weren't for the fact that I don't trust the motives of the proponents of it or those who would most likely volunteer to do the counseling (due to these counseling centers' records of giving out false information to those who come to see them).
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Response to Objections to Marriage Requirements.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11883
Thanks for the follow-up. I still appreciate your attempt to paint children of divorced parents as something other than victims or having screwed-up views of relationships, because as I said, my parents' divorce gave me tools for thinking about marriage that I didn't have beforehand.
I still can't agree with your opinion about age, however. Part of the reason that 18 is the legal age is because marriage IS a legal contract. I think in most states, a minor cannot legally bind themselves in a contract. 18 wasn't picked because it was considered an age where marriage was permissible, but because that's the age where you can legally enter a contract without parental involvement.
Once you hit 18, trying to bar anyone from voluntarily entering a contract just hits this murky area for me where I don't think it's ethical or legal to single out a type of contract and say that someone can't enter into it (aside from public policy concerns such as binding yourself to a slave labor contract, for example, and I don't think a concern about preventing someone from potentially having a bad marriage rises to that sort of level at all).
Aside from all that, as I said before, every divorced couple I know? They got married between 21 and 25. Theories about brain development and making good choices about marriage totally fall apart there.
I agree with alixana. Continually trying to raise the minimum age for various adult activities is hurting rather than helping as it infantilizes young people rather than encouraging them to be productive members of society at a younger age. So we raise the age to 21. Young people will feel even more unempowered, causing more rebellion and acting out, and won't be motivated to try to live up to the standards set for them by their age. Then, when 21-year-olds are as immature as 18-year-olds now, because they've only just been told they are adults, then what? Raise the age to 25? 30? What would happen to our workforce if it was considered normal for every 30-year-old to live with their parents and go to school, like it is with 18-year-olds now? In the past (not to glamourize it, I know they had plenty of other issues), young people were expected to be responsible at a young age, and for the most part, rose to the challenge more so than today. Now as people are being told they are still children with underdeveloped brains at later and later ages, we see a generation of disenchanted youth who feel like adults, but who are told they are children. There is no incentive to act in a responsible and adult manner if no real responsibility or adult opportunities are given.
Also, FNCasamento, stating that I can only be "in love" and not IN LOVE, and that I over-respond to positive rewards, makes me feel a bit like a dog. I know that because I am under 21 my post will either be written off as teenage emotion by some, or I may be considered some sort of exception. There's nothing I can really do to change peoples' minds about this except to categorically state that I am not the exception. Yes, there are stupid immature teens. There are also stupid immature adults.
Sorry about the rant...needed to get it off my chest.
I agree that the scare quotes around "in love" read as dismissive, but I don't think FNCasamento intended to be dismissive of young people being in love. I think the point was that people of any age who are all swoony and in love aren't necessarily able to think clearly and make decisions with lifelong consequences as sensibly as they might in a less brain-addled state.
I can see what you're saying, although if that was the meaning intended then it is an improper use of quotation marks...that's beside the point. I'm just tired of being constantly bombarded with the message that people my age can't truly be in love in the same way that adults can. The reason that teenage love doesn't often last forever is because it usually takes more than one or two relationships to figure out what you really want from a partner, not because it's just "puppy love",
Chiming in with the other commenters; Either you're an adult at 18, or you're not. If I'm allowed to smoke, vote, and go to war as soon as I turn 18, I should be allowed to get married and have a beer as well.
You can't have a beer. Not until you are 21.
You can in Canada and most other countries around the world.
We used to be able to in the U.S. as well. My mother's generation was able to purchase alcohol at 18.
One thing I learned from my parents' divorce is that people should wait until they know who they are, and know who the other person is, to get married. I sincerely believe that people not being sure of who they are, what they want, and why they feel that way would be more a reason for high levels of divorce among younger people than neurological development. Hence the divorces among the brain-developed 20-25 year olds.
"I won't support required mandates to have counseling because I believe that a pregnancy ultimately is the private decision of one person in regards to a condition of her body (since I disbelieve the fetus is a person), unlike a marriage contract which is a public contract between two people that potentially involves the interests of third parties (namely children, but extended family as well)."
Um, no. First of all, marriage can be a completely private decision between two people in regards to them wanting to spend the rest of their lives together (regardless of the fact that their marriage is technically a public agreement). And I just don't accept your reasoning that they should have marriage counseling no matter what because there might be kids. That's kind of like saying that they should have abortion education no matter what because there might be a baby! And what if the couple doesn't want to have kids? Are they exempt? Would we honestly go as far as to regulate marriage counseling for people who have kids, because they can't be trusted to make their own decisions and raise their kids without an intervention?
"3) On raising the legal age to marry--currently, the legal age to marry without parental consent in 18. I assume that most readers agree to having some age requirement to enter a marriage contract (otherwise there's no point in debating what age at all)."
Personally, I'm against all age limits by principle (even though some are necessary) and in my ideal society, things would be run waaay differently (and I'm not sure there'd even be a marriage). :P
"Neurological studies show that the part of the brain that is used to make long term decisions (the pre-frontal cortex) isn't full formed until at least age 20."
Here's the trouble- development is a gradual process. You don't magically become mature when you turn 18, nor 21. That's a major reason why I think age limits are so stupid- because they assume everyone develops at the same rate and there are definite cut-offs.
"Additionally, adolescents, by the nature of their hormonal makeup, are prone to being impulsive and over-respond to positive rewards while being less sensitive to the consequences of their actions. They are more likely to make decisions based on feelings instead of rational thought. This has been shown through studies but can easily be observed through casual observation as well. (Of course, there are exceptions but I'm interested in the rule more than the exception)."
Do you realize how condescending that sounds? It's easy to dismiss everything adolescents say and chalk it up to hormones, but that is just ignoring the problem. Maybe if people treated them like human beings, and not as impulsive maniacs who can't be taught anything, you would get more respect and we'd get a better society. And yeah, there are some teenagers that are stupid. And there are some adults that are stupid. One can't just chalk impulsiveness and poor decision making up to adolescents because everyone is guilty of it. The only difference is how easy it is to use adolescents as a scapegoat and blame their bad decision making on their age. It's kind of similar to "Oh, she's a woman, don't listen to her".
"Some may find this insulting or condescending but I just see it as reality."
It's not reality, it's ageist BS that only focuses on the fact that 'adolescents' (and the ones you're talking about are legal adults) are a certain age and ignores the rest. People of all ages can make bad decisions. And you know what? It's not anyone else's job to be the 'superhero' and save people from their mistakes. Because a lot of people probably don't need saving from themselves, they need saving from people who want to butt in and force their own will on them. Who cares if they make some bad decisions in the process? That's what life is about. Making your own way and not having it done for you. How is society going to function if we raise people to not trust themselves on major decisions and to look instead to other people whose best guess is just as good as theirs?
Thank you! I'm pretty sure that if I was incapable of rational thought and wasn't sensitive to the consequences of my actions I wouldn't be able to finance and attend to my own education, plan my career, work to make money (alongside adults, no less), and live on my own. Perhaps as a young person, I should be living up to the expectations many adults have of me due to my age by, say, going around vandalizing public property and sitting on the couch at my parent's house playing video games? In fact, maybe all of my friends should do that too, seeing as their brains aren't developed enough to understand anything about life. Let's see how far that takes society.
"I think even intelligent, thoughtful people make hasty choices and mistakes, especially when they're excited with feelings of being "in love""
It's called living.
Also, you make it sound like people in love and teenagers are mentally impaired.
I think the reason why many young marriages nowadays may fail is because we are encouraged to remain as children for a very long time, where as before we were supposed to be adults when we were 18 or 20.
I also don't understand why unmarried people living together should be allowed to do so at 18 and not be required to go through counselling in your scenario. They may be mentally deranged because of love and hormones but in your scenario we wouldn't have to put checks and balances on them. Nevermind that people who live together can face conflict on questions of money, living arrangements, abuse, and have children. In some countries, like Canada, marriage rates keep falling and cohabitation is the most common arrangement.
I think all young people should be taught more life skills, like budgeting, time management or doing their taxes, because they sometimes arrive out of the home without knowing any of this. I think such life skills would make it easier for them to have successful and happy relationships but I don't think zeroing in on people who want to get married is the solution. Raising a generation of responsible, smart people who can navigate the many issues they may face in life (including marriage and children) sounds better to me.
I sort of consider myself a product of the failures of the adult generation in treating my generation like hormonal crazies. I would have loooved to be taught more life skills. I'm 20, unemployed, not in school, living at my parents. Sounds like fun to some, but I am not proud of it. It has nothing to do with me being hormonal or incapable of making intelligent decisions and everything to do with the fact that I did not have the skills I needed when I graduated because I was treated like I was 13 until I turned 18. I have gained some since then, but I'm still lacking many of the life skills I need to live on my own. Even my dad has acknowledged this and agreed to let me stick around until we can both be sure I can live on my own.
And in complete contrast, I have a close friend who's younger than I am, who got married at 18, has a daughter already, he has a stable job, and he's on his way towards having his own company.
So ya, I agree with this completely, raising a generation of responsible smart people sounds a lot better than punishing young adults for the failure on the adults part to raise a generation that has the knowledge they need. You can't gain life experience by being removed from life experiences just because you might make a mistake. It'd be like sending some one to university to become a teacher but not letting them actually attend any of their classes so that they're never late for any and they never get bad marks. Then in a few years handing them their degree and sending them off to start teaching. They're not going to know a single thing about teaching, they haven't learned anything, and simply being a few years older isn't going to do them a shred of good.
I took an anthropology course as one of my electives during my undergrad years, and we had some interesting discussions about adolescent behavior and how teenagers are viewed by society.
Basically, the idea of having a gray area between sexual and emotional maturity (which is pretty much what adolescence is) is a relatively new idea. In some cultures, there is no such thing as adolescence. Once you meet the criteria for adulthood (usually sexual maturity), you are an adult. That's it, yesterday you were a child, today you are an adult, with all of the rights and responsibilities that go with it. Supposedly in these cultures, teenagers rarely act out or rebell against their parents, and they tend to make a much smoother transition into adult society and are generally more prepared to operate within it.
Here, we break that transition into a series of very confusing steps. First, you hit sexual maturity and are told that even though you want sex, you can't have it because you're just a child. Then, you are given the right to operate a car, but only according to certain restrictions (many states have now adoped the graduated license). Then, you turn 18; now you can vote, pay taxes, sign your own contracts, marry, go to war, go to adult prison, and smoke cigarettes. Then, at 21, you are finally considered responsible enough to have a beer. At 24, the government finally recognizes that you might be paying for your own college education, and evaluates your financial aid based on your own income and not that of your parents (exceptions are made on this one only if you marry or are in the military). At 25, the car insurance company finally decides you're a responsible adult and you get a discount. Somewhere around the mid-twenties, society finally stops dismissing you as a dumb kid. Meanwhile, your body has probably been screaming "I'm grown, dammit!" since you were in your early teens. No wonder our young people have problems.
I still maintain that if you are old enough at 18 to sign your life away to the military and die for your country, you are old enough to make the decision to get married.
As others have pointed out, the real problem is the increasing infantilization of teenagers and even 20-somethings in our society. A century ago, no one would even question that an 18-year-old was ready to make adult decisions. Now we seem intent on having 20-something-year-old children who can barely function without someone to guide them. The solution to that is not to increase the age of majority. The solution is to change our expectations for our kids so that they are adequately prepared for the responsibility.