Get married and do your best to stay married: Feminist LOUISE PERRY 供給するs the most 決定的な piece of advice she can 申し込む／申し出 young women

• e-mail

The 性の 革命 has been a 災害 for women ? that was the 挑発的な 事例／患者 始める，決める out by Louise Perry in yesterday’s Daily Mail.?

Here, in a second 抽出する from her powerful new 調書をとる／予約する, she takes on feminists who deride marriage. Yes, it’s hard work, she says, and most don’t live up to a romantic ideal, but it still 申し込む／申し出s the best 保護 possible for a woman and her children.

The 会・原則 of marriage is now more or いっそう少なく dead. In 1968, eight per cent of children were born to parents who were not married; in 2019, it was almost half. And now in this country there is a 離婚 for every two marriages.

It was not meant to be like this. Proponents of the 1969 離婚 改革（する） 行為／法令／行動する ? the 重要な piece of liberalising 法律制定 ? believed the changes they argued for would be an 行為／法令／行動する of 親切 に向かって a smallish number of unhappy people stuck in wretched marriages, and 解除する the stigma from the then tiny 少数，小数派 unfortunate enough to have been through 離婚.

‘This 法案 does not open the door to 平易な 離婚,’ 発表するd the 弁護士／代理人／検事 general of the time. And yet open it did.

There was always a threshold of 結婚の／夫婦の dysfunction above which a marriage was considered beyond saving, and 改革者s ーするつもりであるd to 軽く押す／注意を引く that line only a little.?

Yet each ごくわずかの 離婚 made the next one more likely, and the one after that more likely still, with the result that the threshold went hurtling downwards at 広大な／多数の／重要な 速度(を上げる）.

Over the next １０年間, 離婚s trebled and then kept rising, 頂点（に達する）ing in the 1980s. Since then there has been a slight 拒絶する／低下する in the 率, not because of a return to 結婚の／夫婦の longevity but because you can’t get 離婚d if you don’t get married in the first place, and ma rriage 率s are at a historic low.

As many as half of 離婚d people in the UK 報告（する）／憶測 in 調査するs that they 悔いる it. But the mood that it’s better to 削減（する） and run is catching, and in a culture of high 離婚 率s even marriages that last will run the 危険 of 存在 土台を崩すd, 令状s Louise Perry

It’s 権利, of course, that some marriages should end, 特に where there is 暴力／激しさ, and in those 事例／患者s the liberalisation of 離婚 法律s was a blessing. But most modern 離婚s are not a consequence of 国内の 乱用.?

Rather, they are the result of a 根底となる change in 態度s as British society entered the 時代 of self-expressive marriage. Self-発見, self-esteem and personal growth became the 重要な markers of a marriage’s success. Before then, couples who were not ‘irreparably unhappy’ tended to remain married. Now they usually don’t.

If a couple have grown apart, fallen out of love, they try for a fresh start, even though it’s a step that doesn’t always 配達する. For many 離婚d women, the 約束 of happier 代案／選択肢 関係s remains unfulfilled ? they are more likely than men to remain 永久的に 選び出す／独身 afterwards.

As many as half of 離婚d people in the UK 報告（する）／憶測 in 調査するs that they 悔いる it. But the mood that it’s better to 削減（する） and run is catching, and in a culture of high 離婚 率s even marriages that last will run the 危険 of 存在 土台を崩すd. With wedding 公約するs no longer truly binding, and marriage 受託するd as impermanent, couples become いっそう少なく 確信して in their 関係s and the 会・原則 as a whole changes in ways that no one could have imagined.

But 改革（する） of 離婚 法律s was not the 単独の 原因（となる） of the death of marriage. They formed part of a 控訴 of factors, the most important of which was the contraceptive pill.

The Pill ? along with the decriminalisation of abortion, which 供給するd a 支援する-up 選択 ? ended the タブー on pre-結婚の／夫婦の sex. From the 1970s onwards it became much いっそう少なく ありふれた for women to wait until marriage or 約束／交戦 before having sex. In theory, they still had the choice to 辞退する, but in practice it became much harder to do.

‘It often seemed more polite to sleep with a man than to chuck him out of your flat,’ said the social commentator Virginia Ironside, 反映するing on her past. ‘武装した with the Pill, and with every man knowing that, pregnancy was no longer a 推論する／理由 to say no to sex. And men 偉業／利用するd this mercilessly. Now, for them, no always meant yes.’

Thus motherhood became a 生物学の choice for women ? but that also meant fatherhood became a social choice for men.

Before then, on ly the most 極悪の cad would 辞退する to 認める and 供給する 構成要素 support to his children if he was in a recognised 関係 with their mother at the time of conception.

The 会・原則 of marriage is now more or いっそう少なく dead. In 1968, eight per cent of children were born to parents who were not married; in 2019, it was almost half. And now in this country there is a 離婚 for every two marriages

Now, deadbeat dads are commonplace. In the UK いっそう少なく than two-thirds of 非，不，無-居住（者） parents, nearly all of them fathers, are 支払う／賃金ing child support in 十分な. Not only are 記録，記録的な／記録する numbers of children growing up without a father at home, but many of them don’t even get any money out of these absent men.

This has consequences. 研究 shows that, にもかかわらず the often valiant 成果／努力s of 選び出す／独身 mothers, children without fathers at home do not do 同様に as othe r children on 普通の／平均（する）. Fatherlessness is associated with higher 青年 感情を害する／違反するing and incarceration 率s for boys, higher 率s of teenage pregnancy for girls, and a greater 見込み of emotional and behavioural problems for both sexes.

This is not only because children are 否定するd the 構成要素 support their fathers might have given them, but also because 選び出す／独身 mothers are 強いるd to take on the almost impossible 仕事 of doing everything themselves: all of the 収入, 加える all of the caring, socialising and disciplining of their children. There is also the いつかs malign 影響（力） of step-parents to consider. A step-parent is 40 to 100 times more likely than a 生物学の parent to kill a child, and stepfathers are also far more likely than genetic fathers to sexually 乱用 children.

Of course it is いつかs better for children not to live with their genetic fathers, or even have 接触する with them, 特に if those men are abusive or 危険に 安定性のない. And of course there are plenty of 充てるd stepfathers and stepmothers who make exceptionally good parents. But there is no 疑問 the presence of a step-parent in a young child’s home 増加するs the 危険 of bad 結果s.

にもかかわらず all these caveats, for some people the death of marriage is a good thing. 対立 to marriage was a ありふれた 主題 for feminists such as Andrea Dworkin, Germaine Greer and Kate Millett, all arguing for its 廃止.

But it’s no coincidence that most of the feminists who …に反対するd marriage never had children of their own. They have not put to the 実験（する） the 重要な question: how are women supposed to reconcile their search for freedom with a 条件 that やむを得ず curtails it?

Because having children changes the whole dynamic. If you value freedom above all else, you must 拒絶する motherhood, since this is a 明言する／公表する of 存在 that 限界s a woman’s freedom in almost every w ay.

Many feminists 述べるd their goal as ‘women’s 解放’ ? womankind was in chains, they said, and those chains had to be broken. And that goal was not without 長所, given that women are still too often consigned 永久的に to the 役割 of ‘someone’ ? always caring, never cared for?

This 衝突／不一致 of 優先s has never really been 演説（する）／住所d by feminists. They shut mothers out, with motherhood discussed in just a tiny 百分率 of 研究 papers, academic 定期刊行物s and textbooks on modern gender theory. The whole topic has slipped out of sight. And no wonder, since the logic of individualism 崩壊（する）s upon 接触する with motherhood.

The 妊娠している woman’s でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる 含む／封じ込めるs two people, neither of them truly 自治権のある. The unborn baby depends on the mother for 生き残り, and the mother cannot break this physical 社債 except through 医療の 介入 that will result in the baby’s death.

And then, after birth, mother and baby remain a 部隊, tied together both emotionally and 肉体的に. As one 主要な paediatrician puts it: ‘There is no such thing as a baby. There is only a baby and someone.’

事実上の／代理 as that ‘someone’ means giving away some 部分 of your freedom, which runs 反対する to what we women are supposed to want.

Many feminists 述べるd their goal as ‘women’s 解放’ ? womankind was in chains, they said, and those chains had to be broken. And that goal was not without 長所, given that women are still too often consigned 永久的に to the 役割 of ‘someone’ ? always caring, never cared for.

But the 解答 cannot be individualism, because 存在 ‘a someone’ or needing ‘a someone’ is our 直感的に lot as human 存在s. We have to find a way of 存在 扶養家族 upon one another.

Some see the 明言する／公表する as the answer, 供給するing 援助 from outside the family. And indeed the 明言する／公表する as 支援する-up husband is 仕事d with 供給するing institutional childcare in day centres.

Mothers can thus return to the 全労働人口 and put their 税金 歳入 に向かって feeding the daycare engine. But such a model depends on 肉体的に prising apart women from their children, and that too goes against our natural instincts.

We are animals, descended from individuals whose offspring 生き残るd to adulthood, and natural 選択 therefore favours attentive mothers. This means that when social structures 落ちる away, the result is 一般に that the person left literally 持つ／拘留するing the baby is the person whose instincts make her most 充てるd to the child. And without the 保護 of a marriage, she 直面するs a struggle.

Feminist 分析 of marriage sees it as a method used by men to 支配（する）／統制する 女性（の） sexuality.

And it does do that, but that was never its 単独の 機能（する）／行事. There is also a 保護の 機能（する）／行事 to marriage, but it makes sense only when understood in relation to children. In the 時代 before contraception, a 禁止 on sex before marriage served 女性（の） ? not male ? 利益／興味s, because it 保護するd the people who 耐える (literally) the consequences of an extramarital pregnancy.

選び出す／独身 motherhood was a 大災害, not just in the reputational 害（を与える） it did, with mothers and their children stigmatised by their families and communities, but 悲惨な enough to result, for some, in a choice between 売春 and 餓死. Or else other 代案／選択肢s that were just as terrible ? a dangerous 試みる／企てる at abortion, the abandonment of a child to an orphanage, or infanticide.

The stigma around 選び出す／独身 motherhood 原因（となる）d a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of 悲惨 for its many 犠牲者s, but it also 存在するd for a 推論する／理由: to 阻止する women from making an irreparable mistake for the sake of a worthless man, a cad who would 砂漠 them after casual sex rather than take on the かかわり合い of 存在 a dad.

The problem for women, in the past and now, is how to 説得する men into 性の continence. Because the fact is that the cad 方式 of male sexuality is bad for women.

The 広大な 大多数 of women find it difficult to detach emotion from sex, meaning an 遭遇（する） with a cad who doesn’t stay in touch is likely to leave a woman feeling 苦しめるd, even if she 試みる／企てるs to repress those feelings. Women did not 発展させる to 扱う／治療する sex as meaningless, and trying to pretend さもなければ does not end 井戸／弁護士席.

Then there are the physical consequences of sex, with the danger and 苦痛 of an unwanted pregnancy borne 完全に by the woman. An abortion is not a good thing to go through, given the 危険 of uterine 損失 or sepsis, not to について言及する emotional consequences.

The 仕事 is to 阻止する men from cad 方式. Our 現在の 性の culture does not do that, but it could.

ーするために change the incentive structure, we would need a 科学（工学）技術 that discourages short-termism in male 性の behaviour, 保護するs the 経済的な 利益／興味s of mothers and creates a stable 環境 for the raising of children.

And we do already have such a 科学（工学）技術, even if it is old, clunky and 傾向がある to periodic 失敗.

It’s called marriage.

I 受託する that lifelong monogamy is not the natural human 条件. Only about 15 per cent of societies in the anthropological 記録，記録的な／記録する have been monogamous, and even within societies in which it is 深く，強烈に embedded, plenty of people are 反抗的な.

To date, monogamy has been 支配的な in only two types of society: small-規模 groups beset by serious 環境の privation and some of the most コンビナート／複合体 civilisations to have ever 存在するd, 含むing our own. Almost all others have been polygamous, permitting high-status men to take 多重の wives.

But while the monogamous marriage model may be unusual, it is also spectacularly successful. When monogamy is 課すd on a society it tends to become richer and more stable, with lower 率s of both child 乱用 and 国内の 暴力／激しさ. Birth 率s and 罪，犯罪 率s both 落ちる, which encourages 経済的な 開発, and 豊富な men, 否定するd the 適切な時期 to 充てる their 資源s to acquiring more wives, instead 投資する in 所有物／資産／財産, 商売／仕事s, 従業員s and other 生産力のある endeavours.

A monogamous marriage system is successful in part because it 押し進めるs men away from cad 方式, 特に when pre-結婚の／夫婦の sex is also 禁じるd. If a man wants to have sex in a way that’s socially 許容できる, he has to make himself marriageable. That means 持つ／拘留するing 負かす／撃墜する a good 職業 and setting up a 世帯 suitable for the raising of children. In other words, he has to tame himself.

Fatherhood then has a その上の taming 影響, even at the biochemical level. When men are 伴う／関わるd in the care of their young children their testosteron e levels 減少（する）, と一緒に their 侵略 and sex 運動. A society composed of tamed men is a better society to live in ? for men, for women and for children.

The monogamous marriage model is also the best 解答 yet discovered to the problems 現在のd by child-後部ing.

There was a 知恵 to the 伝統的な model in which the father was まず第一に／本来 責任がある 収入 money while the mother was まず第一に／本来 責任がある caring for children at home. Such a model 許すs mothers and children to be 肉体的に together and at the same time financially supported. In an age of 労働-saving 国内の 装置s it has become more feasible for mothers of young children to do paid work outside of the home, as most of us do and take 楽しみ from. But not during the 早期に months of a baby’s life.

I know 十分な 井戸／弁護士席 that I was irreplaceable as mother to my newborn child ? not only because I was the only person who could breastfeed, but also because children have a 関係 with their mother that cannot be 手渡すd over without 苦しめる to both mother and baby. If we want to keep that maternal 社債 損なわれていない, the only 解答 is for another person to step in during these times of vulnerability and do the 仕事s needed to keep a 世帯 warm and fed.

Perhaps we could call that person a spouse. Perhaps we could call their 合法的な and emotional 社債 a marriage.

Which is why ? as a feminist ? the most important piece of advice I can 申し込む／申し出 to the young women of today is this: get married and do your best to stay married. 特に if you have children. And if you do find yourself in the position of 存在 a 選び出す／独身 mother, wait until your children are older before you bring a stepfather into their home.

These 指示的なs are hard to follow because we no longer live in a culture that incentivises perseverance in marriage. But it is stil l possible for individuals to go against the 穀物 and do the harder, いっそう少なく-流行の／上流の thing.

The critics of marriage are 権利 to say that it has 歴史的に been used for the 支配（する）／統制する of women by men, and they’re 権利 to point out that most marriages do not live up to a romantic ideal. They’re 権利, too, that monogamous, lifelong marriage is in a sense unnatural, in that it is not the human norm.

The marriage system that 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるd in the West until recently was not perfect, nor was it 平易な to 適合する to, since it 需要・要求するd high levels of 寛容 and self 支配（する）／統制する. Where the critics go wrong is in arguing that there is any better system. There isn’t.

? Louise Perry, 2022

Adapted from The 事例／患者 Against The 性の 革命, by Louise Perry, published by Polity on June 2 at £14.99. To order a copy for £13.49, go to mailshop.co.uk/調書をとる／予約するs or call 020 3176 2937. UK p&p 解放する／自由な on orders over £20 until June 11.