This provides your essay with a clear, structured argument. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act gave women over 30 the vote, if they owned property or were married to a property owner. The major reason for women receiving the vote has been a fundamental source of debate amongst historians. Whilst traditional schools of thought argue that women’s work during WWI radically changed male ideas about their role in society with traditional historians such as Ray suggesting that giving women the vote in 1918 was almost a ‘thank you’ for their efforts, revisionist historians, however, find this analysis too simplistic. AJP Taylor, for example, argues that the war ‘smoothed the way for democracy’ and so there are other factors of significance, such as, suffrage campaign groups (WSPU & NUWSS) and growing equality with men.
The Keys to Wedlock “American Marriage in Transition” was an article written by Andrew Cherlin about the evolution of marriage in the last 50 years. Cherlin believed the new ideas of division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, and gay marriage were the results of long-term social and material tendencies that reformed the meaning of wedlock during the 20th century. He emphasized that marriage, which was once institutional, was no longer considered to be a necessity or even a part of the routine of life. Marriage had developed to become more of an option for personal growth rather than a necessary part of the life course. As an institution of the mid-20th century, marriage was comprised of the bread-winning husband and the house-making wife.
Over the last 50 years or so, the patterns of marriage and divorce have changed significantly, and are still changing in today’s society. Due to many factors including: less stigma, changes in women’s positions, secularization and cohabitation. Nowadays, there is less pressure to marry and a lot more freedom for individuals to choose the type of relationship they want. It’s considered more important about the quality of a couples relationship, rather than the legal status. Secularisation is also involved in why there are changing patterns of marriage due to churches being in favour of marriage, but as their influence declines, people feel freer to choose not to marry – according to the 2001 Cenus, 3% of young people with no religion were married, compared to up to 17% of those with a religion.
To analyse their ‘post-queer’ basis for the politics of marriage, the authors use the work of Anthony Giddens and Cheshire Calhoun to establish that “same-sex marriage contributes to the trend toward increased reflexivity and expanded autonomy in intimate and sexual life” (138). Meeks and Stein highlight Michael Warner’s article which critiques the normalizing politics of activists and note that when entered into, marriage lends greater dignity to couples, but from the outside, the relationships are less worthy. The authors emphasize that same-sex marriage would not change marriage as much as it would re-define moral boundaries, thus making same-sex relationships
For example, Myers reports that Indian women from arranged marriages reported no less marital satisfaction than non-arranged marriages in the US. However, studies show there has been a shift in Non-Western culture towards voluntary relationships, women from Chengdu in China, for instance, said they felt better about their marriage (even if it wasn’t permanent) when based on a love match than if based on parents decision. Another difference in the nature of relationships across cultures is whether focus is placed on the individual or the group as a whole. In the West, the culture is considered individualistic with the interests of the individual being of greatest importance, highlighting one’s freedom of choice. Whereas in the non-west cultures are collectivist, and the entire group is the primary unit of concern.
Feminists thought it important to the voicing of ‘domestic ideology’ which was a period of idealisation of family, marriage at young age, women returning home when not needed in work. It was designed to keep women in their place at that time. This can be seen in the story with the description of the table setting ‘candles were set on the white linen tablecloth,
For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now more unstable. It is possible, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes in the law have been significant, because they have provided unhappily married couples with 'access to a legal solution to pre-existent marital problems' (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates can be best explained in terms of changes in the legal system.
For a 21st century reader it is easy to interpret the two themes as divided as it is what we have been socialised to do, however at the time Austen was writing Pride and Prejudice, in the 18th century, it was socially conditioned that marriage and money were inextricably linked. Women were omitted from the entail system which meant they could not inherit their family’s wealth which left them vulnerable and in need of a husband. For those people who read Jane Austen’s novels for her flare of the romantic it is easy to conclude that Jane Austen championed love as being more important than money. However if this is the case, why do both Jane and Elizabeth Bennett marry suitors that are deemed to be wealthy? To explore the tension between love and money even further the main concern in the other two marriages in the novel revolve around money and fortune.
Eysenck (1991) conducted the PEN model when he felt there was an overlap in the original five factors and the three factor model was more appropriate and accurate. This can also be shorted to a two factor model E-IN (extroversion-introversion, neuroticism). When the Eysenk Personality Questionnaire was assessed using gender specific data from 34 countries it was found that Eysenck’s factors are strongly replicable across the 34 countries therefore would be a reliable measure to use. Buchanan et al (2008) used a five factor
One reason for changes in the divorce rate is the change in how divorce is perceived by society. For example, 50 years ago divorce was considered to be shameful and dishonourable. However, since then it’s no longer considered such a disgrace. The reason for the shift in social norms and values, particularly since the 1950’s is that it’s not as uncommon, due to new laws being introduced and changes being made to existing ones. The major change has been the introduction of the divorce reform act.