marriage

Earlier this week Reuters Health ran a story about a new study suggesting that “people who get married and stay married may enjoy better health than the perpetually single, but losing a spouse could take a significant health toll…”

In the new study, researchers found that middle-aged and older Americans who were currently married tended to give higher ratings to their health than their never-married counterparts. They also reported fewer depression symptoms and limits on their mobility.

On the other hand, divorced or widowed adults fared worse than the never married on certain health measures — including the number of chronic health conditions reported. “Previously married people experience, on average, 20 percent more conditions and 23 percent more limitations,” the researchers write in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Remarriage seemed to lessen some of the health effects of divorce or widowhood. However, remarried men and women were still in generally poorer health than those in a lasting marriage.

Sociologist Linda J. Waite of the University of Chicago co-authored the report:

“We argue that losing a marriage through divorce or widowhood is extremely stressful and that a high-stress period takes a toll on health,” researcher Linda J. Waite, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, said in a written statement.

“Think of health as money in the bank,” she added. “Think of a marriage as a mechanism for ‘saving’ or adding to health. Think of divorce as a period of very high expenditures.”

Read more.

A few days ago the Washington Post ran a story about how University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz tutored an elderly friend in the basics of online dating…

The Post reports:

A few weeks ago Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist who studies relationships at the University of Washington, spent the day giving a friend a crash course in online dating. Never mind that the friend in question is an 80-year-old woman — she wants “what every girl wants,” Schwartz says, “love, compatibility, someone to experience life with.”

And with a few clicks, Schwartz’s octogenarian pal joined the legions of seniors turning to their computers for a second (or third or fifth or 25th) shot at romance. By 2007, the over-50 set had become the fastest-growing group of subscribers for online dating companies, and double-digit growth has continued since, according to industry watchers.

But keep in mind that Schwartz actually works for one of these companies:

Schwartz, an adviser to online dating company Perfectmatch.com, cheers the trend. If a person in their 60s or 70s lost a spouse 20 years ago, “the chances of pairing again were small,” she says, because the avenues to meet new people were limited mostly to churches, senior centers and friends of friends.

Today single seniors can go online and “be opened up to literally thousands of options,” she says.

The story concludes with some of the potential risks for seniors using these services, but ends on an optimistic note.

…Schwartz says the desire for companionship doesn’t decrease with age: “Neither love, nor romance, nor adventure are the private property of the young.”

There are pitfalls, of course. Safety is always an issue with online dating, and so is disappointment. Just like their younger counterparts, seniors who log on to find love are also risking heartbreak. “The downside,” Schwartz says, “is when you meet someone you think is wonderful, but they don’t think you are. You’ve gotta be resilient.”

And about that 80-year-old friend of hers? She had a coffee date lined up by the end of her first day online

Read the full story.

Yesterday MSNBC.com ran a story about marriage in the United States, and how some women’s fear of becoming an old maid is relatively unlikely. The story describes “a lot of fretting” women go through for fear of never being married, despite the fact that 86% of women tie the knot by age 40. But women do appear to be waiting longer to be wed, age 25 on average, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

MSNBC.com reports:

The vast majority of women who want to marry actually do, although they’re no longer in a rush to do it. Does that mean women and men are less interested in marriage than in the past?

No! Americans love marriage compared to people in other industrialized countries. While Americans get hitched at a rate of 7.5 per every 1,000 inhabitants in a given year, the French and Germans marry at a rate of 4.5 to 4.9 per 1,000, Swedes 4.0 to 4.4, Belgians 2.8 to 3.9.

But perceptions about marriage appear to be ever-changing, as a sociologist notes:

“I always tell my students that everything we study right now could be out of date in 10 years, that’s how rapidly the social environment is changing,” said Christine Whelan, a University of Iowa sociologist and author of “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.”

We may idolize the perfect marriage, but need to recognize that its purpose has been redefined.

The “institutional” marriages of the 19th century were practical affairs, meant to establish family bonds, distribute property and raise children as part of a unit within a community, Whelan explained. Then, from about World War I to the early 1960s, “people married for friendship, for a division of labor — what men did and what women did — and for love and attachment,” she said.

Read more.

Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal ran a fascinating story about a new form of speed-dating inspired by a book written by sociologist Masahiro Yamada and journalist Tohko Shirakawa.

The WSJ reports:

Desperate to turn around his money-losing singles bar last summer, Yuta Honda decided that marriage would be his only salvation. Abandoning a marketing plan based on the ephemeral attractions of one-night commitments, Mr. Honda rechristened his place a “konkatsu bar,” a place for “marriage hunting.”

These days, his Green Bar is packed with marriage-seeking singles in their twenties and thirties — a rare success story in the Roppongi entertainment district, where businesses are closing right and left in the economic downturn.

“I was lucky to come across the book,” says the 37-year old, unmarried Mr. Honda.

The book is the best-seller “Konkatsu Jidai,” or “The Era of Marriage Hunting.” In it, sociologist Masahiro Yamada and journalist Tohko Shirakawa use the term — a play on the Japanese words for “marriage” and “activity” — that has become a national rage.

The tome has sold 170,000 copies since it was released by Tokyo publisher Discover21 in early 2008. The authors urge young singles to actively seek a spouse: Just sitting back and waiting for the right person to come along isn’t enough.

The broader trend…

Government data show the percentage of unmarried people surged from 14% to 47% for men aged 30 to 34 and from 8% to 32% for women over the three decades ending in 2005.

The authors of “The Era of Marriage Hunting” cite changes in Japanese society, where traditional matchmaking — often by so-called neighborhood aunties — is fading away. Bosses in Japanese companies also used to match up women and men working under them — then force the women to quit once they were married.

That changed after an equal-employment opportunity law was enacted in the late 1980s. Since the law was passed, sociologists have observed an increase in women seeking careers rather than marriage. Men, they say, have become less aggressive about finding partners because of money troubles and uncertain jobs.

Read more.

The New York Times ran a story over the weekend about how our President and his wife Michelle are able to find time for date night, illustrated in their highly-publicized trip to New York for dinner and a show, and what that means for the rest of us.

The Times reports:

THEIRS is a seasoned marriage, 16 years and counting. They are middle-aged. Life is that modern-crazy haze: two girls in the windstorm of year-end school activities, the puppy that must be walked twice daily, the live-in mother-in-law. They both work long hours. Standard recipe for a drive-by relationship.

At the gala celebrating the crowning achievement of his career, he showed her off to cheering throngs: “How good-looking is my wife?”

And yet… In his lock-step schedule, he sets aside daily “Michelle time.”

And last weekend, he fulfilled a promise to her. They got all gussied up and flew to New York, took a limo to dinner and a Broadway show, then flew home. Date night, just the two of them. Michelle and Barack. And their security detail.

And people’s reactions?

While some commentators were grousing about the presidential date’s undisclosed cost to the taxpayers, news of the romantic evening prompted many wives to glare across the breakfast table, trying to remember the last time their husbands made a fuss over them.

Elbowed sharply in the side, husbands felt betrayed by the commander in chief. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart reviewed the Obamas’ glamorous foray and screeched, “How do you compete with that?” He warned Mr. Obama, “Take it down a notch, dude!”

The Times even has a sociologist weigh in on the event…

But relationship experts are applauding the first couple for giving life to the modern fantasy that longtime spouses can still be passionate about each other. Intentionally or not, the Obamas have become ambassadors for date night, a term that is a creature of these times. A generation ago, when Saturday night rolled around, parents simply went out. Now parents need to be prodded to date each other, as if they’re singles: take a break from the children, already!

“The Obamas really are products of the culture,” said Christine B. Whelan, a sociologist at the University of Iowa who studies the American family. The Obamas exemplify what sociologists call the “individualized marriage,” she added, where a thriving relationship is marked by love and mutual attraction, not just duty to family and social roles.

Read more. 

Yesterday Newsweek ran a story entitled “Like A Virgin No More: MySpace Generation Brides Go For Sexy, Not Virginal,” and explored “why modern brides are opting for racy gowns, wild bachelorette parties and sexy Maxim-style pre-wedding photo shoots.”

Newsweek reports:

Two decades ago, when young girls wondered how brides were supposed to look and behave, they’d most likely conclude—with some prompting from Cinderella—that on their big day they’d be a princess. They’d be blushing, virginal and wrapped from head to toe in tulle and lace.

So why is it that these days, some brides seem to be taking their cues more from Jessica Rabbit than Cinderella? More vamp than virgin, they’re having bachelorette parties that are as raunchy as their fiancés’ sendoffs. They’re selecting cleavage- or lower-back-baring bridal gowns that might get a gasp from conservative relatives. “A big-selling style is a sheer lace corset midriff,” says Millie Martini Bratten, the editor in chief of Brides magazine. “It’s clearly meant to look like you’re seeing through someone’s shirt.” And today’s wife-to-be is hiring photographers for what are called “boudoir shoots,” where they pose Maxim magazine-style in lingerie or nothing at all and give the prints to their grooms—a trend that Bratten says began about three years ago. “It’s the ultimate display of freedom and empowerment,” says Bee-Bee Kim, the founder of Weddingbee.com, a wedding-planning site that gets more than a million unique visitors a month.

What is going on here? Lucky for us, they consult several sociologists…

Newsweek’s assessment?

While most sociologists agree that women admitting to lust and wanting to be sexually empowered is a good thing, they see a problem with making exhibitionism the centerpiece of the wedding ceremony: it might crowd out other aspects of the marriage. “You’re highlighting what should just be a piece of the relationship,” says Stephanie Coontz, a social historian and the author ofMarriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, which looks at how recent the idea of marrying for love is. “I worry that it can take over. The message you’re sending about your appearance can override other conversations you should be having about your future.” And in what she wants for the future, Jessica Rabbit has got nothing on the average American bride.

Read more.

Sociologists have been up in arms over a recent article in the Washington Post by sociologist Mark Regnerus, of the University of Texas at Austin, who claims that women should not delay in getting married.

Regnerus writes,

“Today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one’s personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too;” but that parents do teens a disservice when they “advise our children to complete their education before even contemplating marriage, to launch their careers and become financially independent.”

He also notes that,

“The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That’s up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. If men weren’t pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn’t be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well.”

Well, this erupted in the sociological blogosphere, specifically on Scatterplot. Shakha writes on Scatterplot,

What have we learned? That women are emotional beings bound by biology and objects of desirability of men. Men, by contrast, need to get good jobs. That may take a while. So men can and should be older than women (they work; women provide childen). “Society” does a disservice to men and women by encouraging them to marry older. You see, people should be married at younger ages because, “Marriage actually works best as a formative institution, not an institution you enter once you think you’re fully formed.”

This has all become very confusing. Apparently women can enter marriage earlier because they’re formed earlier; men are formed later. But marriage itself is not for people how are already formed. I’m lost.

Sociologist Andrew Cherlin published a rebuttal in the Washington Post the following day, entitled “Real Wedding Bell Woes.” He counters many of Regnerus’ claims, and offers additional commentary on the state of marriage in the United States.  Read here.

It seems that the debate about marriage rages on, even amongst sociologists…

The Wall Street Journal ran a story earlier this week about a new book from Johns Hopkins University sociologist Andrew Cherlin. This new book, entitled The Marriage-Go-Round,  focuses on the culture surrounding marriage in the United States.

University of Virginia sociologist Bradford Wilcox writes (for WSJ):

Last week, Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage, setting off yet another round of celebration and hand-wringing in different quarters of American life. The debate over same-sex marriage — showing so much intensity on both sides — is but one sign that Americans take marriage very seriously indeed. From television specials featuring over-the-top Bridezilla weddings to the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative, which spends $150 million annually marriage-related programs, no other Western nation devotes as much cultural energy, public policy or religious attention to matrimony as the U.S. And with approximately 90% of Americans marrying over the course of their lifetimes, the U.S. has the highest marriage rate of any Western country.

On Cherlin’s new book…

But there is a darker side to this exceptionalism, as Andrew J. Cherlin notes in “The Marriage-Go-Round,” his incisive portrait of marriage in America. Virtually no other nation in the West compares with the U.S. when it comes to divorce, short-term co-habitation and single parenthood. As Mr. Cherlin documents, Americans marry and co-habit at younger ages, divorce more quickly and enter into second marriages or co-habiting unions faster than their counterparts elsewhere. In other words, Americans “step on and off the carousel of intimate relationships.”

The biggest problem with this aspect of American family life is that children often do not do well when parents and partners are whirling in and out of their lives. Children have difficulty adapting to changes in their routines or to step- parents who are not comfortable acting as authority figures or to nonresidential parents who see children only intermittently. The live-in boyfriend, who may well not have a child’s best interests at heart, is an even greater problem. Such a mix of hybrid forms, according to Mr. Cherlin, is part of the reason that family instability is linked to higher rates of teen sex, teen pregnancy, teen drunkenness, truancy and behavioral problems in school.

By contrast, Mr. Cherlin writes, “stable, low-conflict families with two biological or adoptive parents provide better environments for children, on average, than do other living arrangements.” Unfortunately, the family changes of the past half-century have left millions of American children vulnerable to one or more dizzying spins on the family merry-go-round.

What is so bad about the marriage-go-round?

Family instability, Mr. Cherlin shows, has been increasingly concentrated in poor and working-class households in recent years. Divorce is much more common in less-educated circles: 23% of women with only a high-school degree will divorce or separate within five years of marriage, compared with 13% of women who hold a college degree. Thus children at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder are now much more likely to be doubly disadvantaged by poverty and family instability.

And Cherlin’s advice…

Because Mr. Cherlin is reluctant to challenge the individualistic ethos of our day, the strongest advice he can muster — when he steps back to consider the marriage portrait he has drawn so brilliantly — is that Americans who aspire to be parents should “slow down” when they are entering or exiting a marriage or a co-habiting relationship, bearing in mind that children do best in a stable home. It is not bad advice, certainly. But some of us may wish to do more than put a yellow light in the path of parents who are tempted to hop onto (and off of) America’s family merry-go-round. For the sake of the children, a red light may be better.

Read more.

Fox News reported earlier this week on the new campaign funded by the federal government intended to promote marriage. Their report suggests that supporters of this program insist that they are merely providing information to those who want it, while “critics say Washington is walking a fine line between providing information and advocacy.”

What does the campaign entail, according to Fox News?

Washington plans to soon pour $5 million into a national media campaign aimed at 18-to-30 year olds, outlining the benefits of marriage and tips on having a healthy one. The campaign hinges in part on the Web site, TwoofUs.org, which cycles readers through advice on the traditional stages of a relationship: dating, engagement, marriage and eventually parenting.

Fox News talked to sociologist Paul Amato about this new initiative…

“There is a huge tax burden involved with divorce and non-marital child bearing,” said Paul Amato, sociology professor at Penn State University who is providing research for the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center’s campaign. “Every year divorce and non-marital child bearing costs us taxpayers over $100 billion a year. That’s year after year after year. That’s a lot of money.”

Amato said the campaign is not trying to govern romance.

“The government shouldn’t be in the job of telling young people what to do with their lives,” he said. “Marriage and relationships are very personal decisions. We just want to provide information for people who choose to seek it out.”

Read more.

USA Today ran a story yesterday about a new federally funded ad campaign about marriage. Reporter Sharon Jayson writes, “Marriage has turned into quite a quandary for many young adults. Should they or shouldn’t they? Can they escape divorce? Will moving in together forestall a breakup? These conflicted feelings haven’t gone without notice in Washington.”

The latest statistics have caused some concern among policymakers…

The average age at first marriage is now almost 26 for women and 28 for men. And a growing percentage of Americans aren’t marrying at all: Provisional federal statistics released Tuesday report 7.1 marriages per 1,000 people in 2008, down from 10 per 1,000 in 1986.

This new campaign seeks to change that… with the help of a sociologist….

Faced with such numbers, the federal government is funding a $5 million national media campaign that launches this month, extolling the virtues of marriage for those ages 18 to 30.

“We’re not telling people ‘Get married’ but ‘Don’t underestimate the benefits of marriage,’ ” says Paul Amato, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist and adviser to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, which is spearheading the campaign.

The resource center, a federally funded virtual clearinghouse, works under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families.

Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.

Amato’s comments:

“These are people who are in the prime marrying age. A lot of them have not had good role models about how to have a successful marriage,” says Amato, co-author of the 2007 book Alone Together: How Marriage in America Is Changing.

“Marriage has become more optional, and it’s a different world out there. That’s why we think it’s important to focus on this group of young people, because the rules are less clear.”

Read more.