A Commitment to Marriage is No Joke (My Turn - Newsweek) by Dr. Alan Singer

What irked me about Ed Goldman's "My Turn" essay was when he stated regarding his 3rd wife and himself, "The fact that our first marriages were relatively brief misjudgements." That motivated me to post a comment on the Newsweek website. Ed Goldman then commented on my post. Click here to read the tale as it appears in my monthly Home News Tribune column.


June is for weddings, so here's a column on marriage. Ed Goldman used the "My Turn" space in Newsweek Magazine to describe his three marriages. In his essay, "It's Not About The Flatware," he focused on his current (third) wife Candy, and how they are melding their furniture, flatware and appliances, which were "acquired over a combined 75 years of adult life."

Candy's second marriage was abusive; Ed's second marriage lasted for 29 years, when his wife was tragically taken by breast cancer. Ed's essay is meaningful and well written, but one comment that he made irked me. Ed described something that he and Candy had in common, "The fact that our first marriages were relatively brief misjudgments."

So I took my outrage over to the computer and posted the following comment at the Newsweek Web site: "Ed Goldman's essay described the world that he plunged into, one in which people fall in and out of love sequentially. Social scientists refer to this trend as serial monogamy. His description of his and his wife's first, second, and third marriages is very thorough. But in my 30 years as a family therapist, I get bad dreams from reading scary statements like, our first marriages were relatively brief misjudgements; yikes! Thankfully most couples that I have assisted over the years care deeply about the enduring and vital institution we know as marriage."

I said my piece and I didn't think about the comment I posted until something made me wonder if anyone ever posted other comments about Ed's essay. I went back to the site and had a look. Lo and behold, I saw that Ed Goldman himself had replied to my comment six months prior. Ed stated, "While I appreciate Dr. Singer's comments, I'd like to point out that my second marriage lasted almost 29 years until the death of my wife. I believe that says something about my belief in the enduring and vital institution we know as marriage."

I was embarrassed and immediately posted this comment: Holy Toledo, Ed! I apologize for being so rude. I never imagined that one should look back at a Web site where one posted a comment. I told Ed that I did not mean to minimize the potential that second marriages have for success. I meant to maximize the potential for a marriage to be the one and only marriage for an individual, not his/her first marriage, and certainly never referring to it by the nauseating label of a starter marriage.

I will never forget the scolding that I received from the rabbi who married my wife and me. When I jokingly referred to my one and only wife of 32 years as my first wife, he admonished me, saying, "Joke about other things, Alan, that's really not funny."

On a related note: There is immediacy to the Internet that I have not adjusted to yet. The rule is, NOW is what matters. You write NOW; others comment NOW. This describes the popularity of Twitter and the importance of posting one's status on Facebook. By tomorrow, nobody will look back at yesterday. I missed my NOW moment with Ed Goldman and there's no looking back. I'm not sure it even pays to discuss whether this is good for relationships and society because it has already swept in and is the new reality. We might as well enjoy it. Does anyone still remember typing a letter on a Smith-Corona and mailing it to someone via the U.S. Post Office?

Be Counted columnist Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park. Respond to this column via his Web site www.FamilyThinking.com

Multiple Births Dilemma: Newsweek "My Turn"

With increased fertility treatments, the U.S. birthrate of twins has more than doubled in the past 30 years and the number of triplets has increased significantly. Parents often face a horrific decision.

Somewhat overlooked, are the surges of neonatal deaths, developmental disabilities, as well as other long-term problems. (I have described the consequences of delayed childbearing in several previous blog posts.)

Mark Evans, an Obstetrician and medical geneticist, described the procedure known as selective reduction in a recent Newsweek, My Turn. "This is accomplished - usually at 3 months gestation - by reducing the number of fetuses down to a manageable number, usually two."

What does selective reduction accomplish? A woman who is pregnant with quadruplets, has a 25% chance of losing all of her babies, but she can decrease the loss rate to about 5% by reducing to twins.

Question: How would you and your spouse respond to your doctor if he/she recommended selective reduction?

In Truth, Didn't We Create Octomom?

With our glorification of bizarre behavior, Raina Kelley correctly makes the point that we dare the emotionally needy to shock and appall us; then we slam them.

Kelley raises some solid issues in her recent essay in Newsweek.

She labels it as beautiful and exasperating, that our democracy gives people the freedom to have as many children as they want. She describes money and how having lots of it really does make the work-home balance thing a lot easier. And on the ethical question (described in an earlier blog post) of how many embryos should be transferred to a woman, Kelly states, "While the cost of IVF is usually mentioned, most of these experts conveniently forget to mention how few states force insurance companies to pay for IVF treatment."

She concludes that Octomom should be a warning to us that by sensationalizing her, "We're inviting more trivialization of the most sacred aspects of humanity."

How about you, have you had enough of those large family reality shows?

Obamas' Marriage Inspires Millennials

He may not have cured all the ills of our economy as fast as we want (as if) but i don't ever recall this much positive buzz about a presidential marriage.

A recent Newsweek article describes how the Obamas have the kind of marriage, equal and devoted, that millennials aspire to. "Veering from 50's era subservience (the Reagans) to boomer dysfunction (the Clintons)....now the Obamas are two independent individuals who also appear to be (surprise!) in love."

It appears to be a relief to young couples today to see that the sort of marriage they hope to have - equal and devoted - can actually exist.

Talking Points:
Do you think that political couples should be role models for our personal lives? Does the Obamas' marriage inspire you?
Do you think their marriage is inspiring to young couples today?

It's Not About the Flatware: Newsweek "My Turn"

I found this essay in Newsweek to be informative...and a bit disturbing as you can see from the comment I posted to the Newsweek site

Ed Goldman's "My Turn" described the world he plunged into, one in which people "fall in and out of love sequentially". Social scientists also refer to the trend as serial monogamy. His description of he and his wife's first, second, and third marriages is very thorough. But in my 30 years as a family therapist, I get bad dreams from reading scary quotes like, "Our first marriages were relatively brief misjudgments"...yikes!
Thankfully, most couples that I have assisted over the years, care deeply about the enduring and vital institution we know as marriage.

Dr. Alan Singer
www.FamilyThinking.com

We Need to Read More Stories About Joys, Benefits of Marriage by Dr. Alan Singer

Here's my essay that was published in the Home News Tribune on June 18, 2006. You can see this essay on the SmartMarriages website by clicking here. You can also see how the ThinkMarriage blog made use of this essay by clicking here.
Newsweek's cover story admitted to their error in predicitng the odds of a woman getting married. I think their error was more basic: It wasn't a story about marriage, it was really a story about mating. See if you agree.

When a renowned periodical like Newsweek puts the words "Why We Were Wrong" in red, bold-faced type on its cover, it is bound to attract attention. The "wrong" is referring to a 1986 Newsweek article on getting married. The honesty and humility is inspiring, except that I believe they are still getting one significant aspect of the marriage story wrong. Let me explain.

In a June 2, 1986, cover story titled "The Marriage Crunch," Newsweek cited a research study that described the decreasing odds of women ever getting married as their age increases; victims of what demographers referred to as the "marriage squeeze." The main message of the study was "delaying marriage may ultimately mean forgoing it." And this was perceived as a "slap in the face" to the smartest women of this generation. But the phraseology that caused the most controversy was the statement, "40-year-olds are more likely to be killed by a terrorist: they have a minuscule 2.6 percent probability of tying the knot."

Recently, Newsweek's June 5, 2006, cover story admits that the situation looks far better 20 years later. The 1986 statistic "turned out to be too pessimistic: today it appears that about 90 percent of baby-boomer men and women either have married or will marry." This month's article cites 1996 census data, which indicates that "a single woman at 40 had a 40.8 percent chance of eventually marrying." And co-author of the 1986 article, Pamela Abramson, who penned the terrorist jibe admits, "It's true, I am responsible for the single most irresponsible line in the history of journalism, all meant in jest." The authors of the 2006 article added, "Most readers missed the joke."

I remember reading the 1986 article and still have the same question as I had 20 years ago. Why does Newsweek think that this is an article on marriage? Isn't an article that describes the odds of getting married and a trend such as the increasing median age at first marriage more about "mating" than about marriage? And if you decide to write about marriage, why not be upbeat and quote a significant finding that has, to date, not been revised or refuted? The most supportive household for a child is one with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/).

I don't remember seeing any cover stories that mention this research finding, but I wish we did. Here's why: Whether a 40-year-old woman has a 2.6 percent or a 40.8 percent chance of getting married, it is a direct consequence of her decision to pursue career goals before family and/or to be absolutely sure of her choice of a husband in order not to "settle." I don't believe that if a woman reads one (more) article on her "ticking biological clock" that it will cause her to abruptly change course from career-track to mother-track.

Call me naive, but I do believe that if a husband or wife with marital problems reads one cover story that describes the most supportive household for a child, it could make a difference in their marriage. The reason is that the vast majority of us married folks have problems (I made up this statistic). Not serious problems like abuse, which should end a marriage, but less serious problems like in-laws or finances that should not end a marriage. Dr. John Gottman's research has shown, "Most of the time couples don't solve their problems and they have perpetual problems."

But couples today may not be familiar with Gottman's research, nor do they necessarily consider the long-term consequences of short-term decisions. With a spouse who does not realize that marriage means, "It's no longer all about me," or states, "I am not getting enough out of this marriage," then today's legal system makes it easier than ever before to throw in the towel and get a divorce. Professor Bill Doherty compares divorce to an amputation. Sometimes it is necessary, but, "It should be avoided if at all possible, because it brings about a permanent disability."

I suggest that the media spotlight the research findings on healthy family life because the divorce rate (close to 50 percent) affects millions of children in the United States; children who did not and would not make that decision. If couples know that two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage is better for their child than any divorce scenario, maybe they would get help in keeping the (normal) conflict in their marriage on the "low" setting. While it is true that more couples than ever before are participating in pre-marital education and married couples' classes and therapy, it is still common to hear, "I don't buy that "stick-it-out-for-the-kids' line because I deserve to be happy." As Dr. Frank Pittman is fond of saying, "Marriage is not supposed to make you happy; it's supposed to make you married."

But guess what researchers have found? Staying in a marriage is not only good for the kids; married couples are better off financially, emotionally and healthwise. The best source for this information is Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher's book, "The Case For Marriage." In these past 20 years, the message has changed to, stick-it-out-for-the-kids and especially you, too.
That's why I believe Newsweek was wrong about what they were wrong about. And while they're at it, maybe they can work on the article titles; "Marriage Crunch," "Marriage Squeeze," you'd think it was a discussion of Sumo-wrestling or breakfast foods.

Dr. Alan M. Singer is a marriage and family therapist in Highland Park.