Thu, May 17, 2001 page8

• Stay out of the marriage business

  • By Brian Kennedy 甘迺迪
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Lady Astor is reputed to have said to Winston Churchill "Winston, if you were my husband I would flavor your coffee with poison." Churchill's reply: "Madam, if I were your husband, I should drink it." Marriage can be a mixed blessing, a fact that is perhaps reflected in Taiwan's rising divorce rate.

  The Ministry of Education recently sponsored a symposium on whether the government should make available on either a voluntary or mandatory basis, four-hour marriage classes for couples about to marry. This plan, which is embodied in a bill entitled Family Education Law is currently pending in the Legislative Yuan ("Couples may have to take seminar before saying `I do,'" May 10, page 1).

  It is a pointless plan and a waste of the taxpayers' money in a time of government cutbacks. In particular, these classes should not be mandatory, but even on a voluntary basis they serve no real purpose. The government should stay out of the marriage counseling business.

  There are a number of reasons the government should not be conducting "Marriage 101" classes. The ostensible reason for putting the plan forward is to counter the rising divorce rate in Taiwan. I would be much surprised if a four-hour government sponsored "how to be

  happily married" class does much to curb that trend. The rise in divorce rates has a number of causes, the most fundamental being the move from traditional family social systems to a more modern social system where the emphasis shifts from the extended family to the individual.

  Now I will grant that unrealistic expectations regarding the realities of marriage does contribute to divorce. I am not against pre-marriage classes nor counseling. My position is that the government, particularly the education ministry, is ill suited for the task.

  Part of the reason that the government is ill suited to this task is the problem of what exactly will these classes teach, what will be put forward as the "model marriage" that couples should aim for. Marriage can have a number of different models. The two extremes are "marriage as ownership" and "marriage as partnership." Marriage as ownership is what marriage is viewed as in traditional societies. The groom "buys" the bride from her family. The bride becomes the "property" of the groom and his extended family.

  The bride's place is, in this model, a quiet obedient servant of the groom and his family and to serve as a "boy baby machine." In this model wife beating, psychological abuse from the mother-in-law and infidelity on the part of the husband are all acceptable. Although that is an archaic view it is still very common in Taiwan.

  The other end of the spectrum is marriage as partnership. In this view the husband and wife are viewed as equal partners working together in a venture called marriage. In this model both parties are equals, both retain their independence to a certain extent. They both partake in the decision making and control of the assets of the marriage. The extended family is not viewed as part of the partnership and they are not involved in the day to day operation. It is, on a practical level, much like a business partnership with two co-equal partners.

  So which of these models is the one the government classes are going to teach? Assume one of the students asks the teacher, "If my husband beats me what should I do?" or perhaps a milder question, "Must I obey my mother-in-law?" What will the government teacher answer? The issue being, in order to teach how to do something, there must be a model of how the thing should be.

  Again, I am not against pre-marriage counseling. But it should be voluntary and it should be with a private counselor whose view of marriage corresponds with that of the bride and groom. It needs to be individualized. It could cover such issues as communication, conflict resolution, hidden agendas and expectations, the place of commitment, the bride and groom's personalities, sexual intimacy and financial issues.

  Beyond these pedagogical concerns lies the issue of money. I hear in the paper everyday the central government singing the "no money blues." In a time of government cutbacks, as a tax-payer I am unconvinced that we need to fund more programs of dubious value. It is unlikely that fees charged for the program would cover the expenses of the program -- very few central government programs pay for themselves. The government does enough things poorly; we don't need to add yet another pointless program. Well perhaps there is a point to these classes: potential brides can learn how to respond to these kind of situations. When discovered by his wife, kissing the maid, Groucho Marx said, "I was just whispering in her mouth."

  Brian Kennedy is an attorney who writes and teaches on criminal justice and human rights issues.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Dell picks AMD for business PCs

  • 2

    Ministry lifts overseas limits on TSMC

  • 3

    New missiles to be deployed in north

  • 4

    Retired officers indicted over collusion

  • 5

    Buffet defies suspension order after illness reports