Marriage of Debate
Mykala and I finally managed to attend our first ethnic Wednesday event (that’s the Dan-Ryan-Emily trip to a local non-crappy non-american restaurant) yesterday, and it was a complete success. Halfway through dinner, as the subject turned to marriage, Mykala turned to look at me and asked “Am I nicer to you now than I was when we were dating?” I guess I was a little surprised at the question, but without hesitation answered “yes, definitely”. We had fun dating, but marriage seems a lot better. That reminds me of this quote from a recent “Room for Debate” discussion at the New York Times called For Women, Redefining Marriage Material:
In this new model, which I have called “hedonic marriage,” couples who have similar preferences and desires for balancing work, fun, and family are well-suited. This new model of marriage thrives when households have the resources to enjoy their lives. Not surprisingly then, marital happiness is much higher among the college-educated and divorce has fallen most sharply for them.
The definition of that “hedonic marriage” seems a bit limited, though. I really think when you can have a thoughtful, measured, meaningful discussion about the world around you… that’s when your marriage has great potential. Those discussions, that wordplay, those debates… they don’t rely on age, beauty, or mobility — they’re a romance for the head, and that’s the strongest kind.
Comments
Nils
I disagree with the author you quoted about households that have “the resources to enjoy their lives.” It seems preposterous to think that the college-educated, with their “better” jobs and their fuller bank accounts, are better able to enjoy their lives than those without a college education. That flies in the face of the logic that says money can’t buy happiness. That said, I couldn’t agree more with your final comments on a “romance for the head.” It’s that mental, intellectual connection that matters more than anything.
Mykala +1
I think the excerpt Alex chose takes on a different meaning when placed in the context of the article. The following is the preceding paragraph:
“Why has marriage thrived among college-educated women in this era of declining household specialization? Because the incentives to marry and form a family today are shifting from the old model of specialized and separate roles — a model that was less appealing for career-oriented women — to a new model focused on a shared vision for how to live one’s life.”
The idea isn’t necessarily that wealthy couples are going to be happier, but rather that equality in roles both at home and in the workforce makes for a more fulfilling marriage— and this type of “shared vision” thrives when there is access to necessary resources. It’s easier to develop a shared sense of meaning in life with your spouse when you’re not working 2nd shift just to put food on the table.
Maybe it’s the same thing… but it does seem a bit more nuanced than more money equals more marital satisfaction.
And I completely agree about an intellectual connection trumping all of it. It’s the discussions about what matters and why— and not always agreeing!— that make me appreciate being in this partnership the most.
I am sure a lucky woman.