Last Thursday, some friends and I attended a discussion at the 6th and I synagogue featuring Kate Bolick, author of the provocative Atlantic article, “All the Single Ladies.” Whether you’re single or not, I recommend the read. Bolick touches upon interesting trends in our society and asks some important questions about the role and meaning of marriage today.
The panel discussion covered a range of issues related to singledom and declining marriage rates, from the socioeconomic factors that have shifted the place of marriage in our society to the rise of the hookup culture to the growing gaggle of TV shows that reflect the lives of the urban young and restless (including a new show Bolick's piece inspired) . Like Bolick’s article, the discussion gave rise to many more questions than answers for me. Doing a bit of my own research on the various reactions to Bolick’s piece (from the single sisterhood as well as from the Christian conservative), I concluded that every response to her piece is colored by the writer’s own attitudes, experiences and neuroses regarding romantic love and relationships. This post doesn’t promise to be any different.
And with that, onto some of my biggest takeaways and questions from the article/discussion:
How are we defining our options? To kick off the discussion, the moderator asked, by show of hands, how many in the audience were single. She defined single as “not being married.” This broad definition of being single surprised me, especially since this talk concerned the waning desire to follow the traditional romantic trajectory that concludes in marriage (probably because most in our society actually conclude in divorce). To me, being single means being uncommitted to a particular person, not not married.
Although there are declining numbers of couples taking matrimonial vows today, I still think domestic partnership between two people (as opposed to communes or other alternative living arrangements, as Bolick alludes to) will remain the aspiration of expressing romantic love for quite some time. So if we’re talking about women deciding against marriage, why not broaden the scope to include women in loving, fulfilling but unmarried relationships too? This undoubtedly complicates the discussion about the decline of traditional marriage, no longer answerable by indicating the lack of “marriage-able” men in the dating pool. At one point, Bolick admits that if Mr. Right came along, she would get married - meaning marriage remains the ultimate expression of a couple’s commitment and love for one another.
Even the terms available to describe your significant other are limited. “Girl/Boyfriend” becomes slightly juvenile once you reach your late twenties/early thirties and have been in a loving, committed relationship with someone for many years. Though the terms “husband” and “wife” are being used in gay and lesbian marriages, the term “partner” still mainly carries the connotation of a same-sex relationship. My friend Pete (who introduced me to Bolick’s article) suggested the term “lover”, which to me sounds wonderfully sexy but implies more of a physical connection than an emotional one. I’d read once of a woman who used the term “fiancé” for her significant other, though they weren’t actually engaged to be married. But my friend Alex pointed out that using that term is likely to engender questions about when the Big Day is. So that’s awkward. I have another friend who uses the term “wife”, even though they aren’t actually married. Also slightly awkward. And “significant other” or “my better half” are just plain wordy to use all the time.
So I’m wondering, when is our vocabulary going to catch up to the reality that other meaningful options exist between being married or unmarried?
To be continued tomorrow in Part 2...
No comments:
Post a Comment