Married, Alone: The Implications of Commuter Marriages

"A long distance marriage is two people trying to dance a duet and two solos at the same time." Anne Taylor Fleming

A few years ago, two of our friends met in the same PhD program and decided to get married. Upon graduating, they were faced with a dilemma. As they both specialized in the same, extremely competitive field, they found themselves both applying for the same handful of jobs in the area, with no success. After a while, they decided to change their tactic. They would each apply for jobs all over the country, and take whatever they each could find. If they ended up in different states, they would just have to travel back and forth. "It stinks," they said "but... you've gotta do what you've gotta do."

This solution is becoming increasingly popular for couples pursuing independent careers. Last weekend, I mentioned to a friend that my husband had just accepted a year-long clerkship with a federal judge in another state. Her response: "A year huh? That's a pretty long time to have to be apart... I mean, are you planning to quit your job?" I was surprised. Of course I would quit my job. It would never even occur to me that any job would be good enough that it would be worth sacrificing a year of married life with James. It had literally never entered my mind.

But while living long-distance has never entered my mind, it has clearly entered the minds of many other couples. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over 3.5 million couples in the United States live separately for reasons other than an impending divorce. Many of these are "commuter marriages." This number has more than doubled since 1990. 1

Why the increase?

Well, some couples are obviously separated by uncontrollable issues, such as deployment or immigration issues, and there are others who may simply enjoy the time apart 2 3, but I imagine the majority of couples in long-distance marriages are probably struggling like our friends in graduate school. These are couples who are happy in their relationships, who enjoy each other's company and genuinely want to be close to each other, and yet they make the decision to live apart at least a majority of the time, sometimes for years - sometimes to avoid disrupting children's education, but usually to accommodate one spouse's job. 4

Some might argue that people care more about their jobs than their families, but the research doesn't actually seem to bear that out. In fact, parents (and especially dads) are spending more quality time with their families than ever before. According to a survey by Dove, 94% of dads claim to prioritize their family above their job, and married couples in America are overwhelmingly satisfied with their level of equality and overall relationship satisfaction. 5

I believe that the deeper reason for the increase is the changing definition of what it means to be a husband or a wife. When women like myself struggle with being separated from our spouses, a big part of us feels guilty, as though we should be able to handle separation without problem. Probably stemming from both a strong diet in feminist theory and good old-fashioned American individualism, we increasingly believe two strong and independent spouses are a signal of a good marriage, and spending time apart in order to fulfill our individual needs is, strangely enough, one way of proving how strong our marriage is.

There is more evidence for this assumption. While most American claim to want marriage and true love, we increasingly make decisions that pull us away from it. We date less, marry later, cohabit instead of marry, have children outside of marriage, and generally make ourselves less available for relationships. These practices seem to signal our desire for independence, but they also conflict with our desire for a happy, interdependent marriage. And while many couples make it work, most agree that either one spouse's career or the relationship usually end up suffering - sometimes even leading to divorce 6.

As I mention in an earlier post, the concept of vulnerability, and relying on one's spouse, and even being "incomplete" without them, is actually a paradoxical STRENGTH disguised as a weakness. Interdependence, not independence, is the critical component that ties a husband and wife together.

Romance "vs." Responsibility?
Am I a little pathetic for not pursuing my current career because...I'm lonely? Is my romantic side a childlike fantasy that needs to be governed by the responsible part of me? Well first of all, contrary to popular belief, men are far more romantic than women. They are more likely to believe in love at first sight, more likely to believe in soulmates, destiny, and things like that. Historically, women are far more pragmatic when it comes to love. In fact, an older survey showed that women ranked "love" as only #5 on their list of reasons to marry someone 7. Women are also more likely to initiate legal separation 8.

However we feel about romance, women are also seem to be more conflicted about their careers. Women are slightly more likely to sacrifice romance for achievement, but women also tend to get MORE stressed out by their jobs than do men. Women in part-time jobs or who stay at home tend to be happier than those with full-time careers 9, but while women are still more likely to prioritize family commitments over work commitments, it's interesting to note that there are still far more likely to place practical concerns above romance than are men 10.

How do we explain these apparent contradictions? I think one key is recognizing how society increasingly separates the concepts of romance, marriage and family. Women's priorities are not so much dictated by the area of our life as by the degree to which each area feels like a responsibility or a pleasure.

Romance strengthens marriages, and marriages strengthen children. When we fail to associate these concepts,  we feel guilty about romance, we struggle to prove our independence in marriage, and we both create a less stable foundation for the rearing of children and communicate these unhappy messages to them. How lame is that?

Sex is the perfect example of this disconnect. Outside of marriage and commitment, sex is generally a selfish activity. But sex in marriage is important for one's relationship - a way of healing hurt, unifying, refocusing, deepening your love and commitment. So should married couples be proud of themselves for being apart, and therefore not having much sex? Only if you still think like a single person. When married, your investment in the passion and romance of your marriage is the responsible choice.

Fear of Indulgence
When not associated with other familial responsibilities, romance and togetherness is often viewed as an indulgence, not a priority. Spending time with the person you love is a delightful thing, like a donut, that inspires guilt if consumed in large quantities. Indulging in a relationship - dating, intimacy, quality time and physical closeness - taps the part of our brain that worries about how many calories we've consumed.

As empowered women with a need for self control, we dutifully put romance aside with increased frequency, or only give it limited quantities of time. We're proud of ourselves for this. It's refreshing and empowering. Even when I miss my husband, I can't deny that I feel pride at my identity as a strong, independent woman, and I need to let myself and everyone else know that I can go for an impressively long time without "caving in" like I'm referring to a donut.

When we view romance and togetherness in marriage as a selfish personal desire, we feel guilty about making it a top priority.

Unconditional + Quality:
Just like sex, there is a fundamental difference between romance in dating and romance in marriage - and the latter is far more important. John Van Epp, author of How to Avoid Falling In Love With A Jerk, explains that the divide between dating and marriage is not a simple legal status - it is a fundamentally different type of relationship. A dating relationship, for example, depends on the quality of the relationship, and the enjoyment that both parties derive from it. When one or both people aren't enjoying it, the relationship usually ends. Marriage on the other hand is an unconditional commitment, meaning that each person vows to love and cherish "for richer or poorer" etc., meaning regardless of the quality of the relationship and no matter how unpleasant it may get:

The conditions of dating: quality 

The conditions of marriage: none

So why would anyone go and get stuck in an unconditional relationship like marriage? Well, without writing another whole blog post about it, there are some clear benefits - security, comfort, the ability make long-term plans together, the ability to be completely vulnerable. It's like knowing your mom will always love you no matter what. Unconditional is nice.

But, to the point: It's not enough for marriage to be unconditional. Almost no one will stay indefinitely in a terrible marriage, no matter how committed they feel. Therefore, quality becomes a necessary aid in helping us fulfill our promise to be committed unconditionally. Each spouse has a responsibility to make the unconditional relationship a quality one as well. When we recognize that romance and togetherness is critical for not just our well-being but the well-being of our spouse, it becomes an act of love as well as pleasure. Kind of like sex.

Marriage: Good for You, Good for Everyone
We don't need to be condescending or suspicious of a desire to be married, and we need to stop feeling superior to others who won't tolerate long separations by implying that they "can't handle" it (as stated in this Huff Post interview). We would be just as foolish to scoff at someone who "can't handle" secondhand smoke. Statistically speaking, the smoke inhalers are better off! On average, married people tend to be physically and mentally healthier. They tend to acquire more wealth. They live longer. They experience less violence and crime. They're more active in their communities. Their kids have better outcomes in virtually every measurable way. They're happier. These are not the products of indulgence - these are the fruits and vegetables of a good life. We're just suspicious because vegetables don't usually taste this good.

Finally, we need to make the mental connection between our romance, our marriages, and our families (i.e. kids). Kids benefit more from having parents wildly in love with each other than they benefit from having good teachers, good friends, or even good doctors. If you feel guilty splurging on a weekend getaway, or even giving up a great career opportunity in order to be close to your spouse, you can say, "I'm doing this for the kids."

We should thank our lucky stars that in this case, romance is both the desire of our hearts and the essential component of a relationship that is critical to the well-being of individuals, children, communities and society. When you "indulge" in the togetherness and romance that makes life sweet, you are also doing the best possible thing for your spouse, your future kids, your community and your whole society. You are demonstrating the value of interdependence above independence. That should be worth giving up a great job for.

It Isn't Good To Be Alone 
In Genesis we read that on the sixth day, God made Adam, and then made Eve so Adam didn't have to be alone. God could have taught Adam the importance of self-reliance. He could have helped Adam realize how much he could accomplish by himself and how to be independent. I'm sure he could have brought in Eve just when reproduction needed to happen. But I think a more important lesson needed to be learned, about love, unity, and the power of two people working together. The commandment to "cleave" unto our spouse is both a commandment and a blessing, and I think it is ultimately a testimony of God's love for us. We must develop the togetherness that fuels romance and a strong marriage, for our own sake and for everyone else. Our task and our reward is the same: We are meant to love. It only seems too good to be true.

Being Brave: Where Sara Bareilles Gets It Wrong

You may have heard this song:

I like Sara Bareilles. A lot, actually - I keep singing her songs and wishing my voice sounded like hers. But this song bothered me when I heard it for the first time, and I've thought about it a lot over the last several months.

In the music video, Sara encourages the audience to "say what you want to say, and let the words fall out....honestly, I want to see you be brave," while a racially diverse cast of actors demonstrate their bravery by dancing alone in various public places.

Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of dancing like no one's watching. Last night in fact, I danced with a four year-old to "Party In The USA" surrounded by thousands of people watching the fireworks. And maybe that's one definition of bravery. But that's not the one that really matters.

I used to think that bravery meant just breaking social norms. A norm (folkway, more pronounced mor-ay, or taboo) is a social convention or rule derived from a set of of social values. Norms range in importance from not slurping your soup to not eating people. As members of society, we generally understand what behavior is socially appropriate, and we win the approval of others by conforming to that standard.  

One of the fun experiences of nearly all sociology students (myself included) is discovering what social norms are, and realizing how fragile they are. In fact, a common assignment for Intro to Sociology students is to break a norm and then write a paper about it. You can sing in public. You can sit down on the elevator. You can take things out of other people's shopping carts. You can say something other than "fine" when someone asks "How are you?"

But bravery doesn't just mean breaking norms, because not all norms are equal: Some social norms are inherently good (like loving your spouse), some are inherently bad (like making fun of disabled people), and some don't matter (like holding the fork in your left hand). I would venture to say that most of the daring, norm-breaking behavior of "enlightened" students tends to fall in the third category.

I would also venture to say that there are some forms of so-called norm breaking that aren't actually brave at all, since some norm-breaking actually IS a norm in our popular culture! Rebelliousness can still be cool, and still qualify you for an approved social category (like hipsters, or hippies, or metros). 

True bravery means doing what is right when current social norms are wrong. It isn't enough to just break whatever norms we don't like. We need to break them for a good purpose. Dancing in public may be "challenging the system" and "breaking free" but so is never bathing. We need to learn which norms are ultimately detrimental or unnecessary, and then break them when needed.

This is where Sarah Bareilles comes in:

You can be amazing

You can turn a phrase into a weapon or a drug

You can be the outcast

Or be the backlash of somebody’s lack of love

Or you can start speaking up

The message here is beautiful and important: words have power, and you can use them for good or for evil. The problem is how she ties it up:

Say what you wanna say

And let the words fall out

Honestly I wanna see you be brave

With what you want to say

And let the words fall out

Honestly I wanna see you be brave

Sara's interpretation of "speaking up" and "being brave" means "say(ing) what you wanna say," and I think she misses the mark. Being brave does not mean just saying what you want to say - lots of people do that. You can be a jerk and claim that you're just being honest, or state your opinion in a way that hurts someone's feelings, or say something because you want attention: that isn't enough. Being brave means saying the thing you desperately do NOT want to say. It means doing what is right, not what you want. 

Everybody’s been there,

Everybody’s been stared down by the enemy

Fallen for the fear

And done some disappearing,

Bow down to the mighty

Don’t run, just stop holding your tongue

"The mighty" that we need to stop bowing down to isn't "The Man" (or the government, or big business, or whatever), it's your friends. As a wise wizard once said:

Let's not kid ourselves - In a country with free press and free speech, standing up to the government is not a particularly brave act. It's much harder to stand up to people in your life who you respect and love, and sometimes even stand up for causes that other people think are blatantly wrong. 

Despite what superhero movies portray, true courage means doing the thing that does NOT come with ANY glory or admiration, sometimes even from your own family members; they may make others think less of you, misunderstand you, and look down at you. Bravery may be doing the thing that you know will lead to other people calling you a pervert, a fanatic, or a bigot. 

Some of the values you stand up for may be popular, like civil rights, or unpopular, like chastity and modesty. Real courage is standing up for things that are good AND unpopular. Those courageous actions are far less entertaining than a music video, and usually less comfortable and heart-warming than a Hallmark movie. You may have to stop the music. You may have to ruin the party. You may lose friends. 

In General Conference, President Thomas S. Monson said:

"It is impossible to stand upright when one plants his roots in the shifting sands of popular opinion and approval. Needed is the courage of a Daniel, an Abinadi, a Moroni, or a Joseph Smith in order for us to hold strong and fast to that which we know is right. They had the courage to do no that which was easy but that which was right.

We will all face fear, experience ridicule, and meet opposition. Let us - all of us - have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God's approval." 

One of the difficulties in being brave is that it requires you to take actions for people and causes that you're not even necessarily passionate about. The Becket Fund, mostly Christian lawyers, defends Christians against religious discrimination... as well as Muslims, Jews, and other groups with whom they disagree. It's easy to speak up against human trafficking and racism and child abuse. It's harder to advocate for the free speech of terrible people, or be a friend to a bigot, or testify of improbably religious beliefs, or publicly advocate for sexual abstinence and other awkward topics. 

Can you imagine what you would do if you had been Joseph Smith and God came to you and said, it's time to bring back polygamy? Or if you were Spencer W. Kimball and God continued to command (even ten years after the Civil Rights Movement) that the Priesthood not be given to people of African descent? Regardless of your beliefs, you have to admit that that would be insanely hard! Following the commandments and having integrity to the things that we know are true doesn't mean we're going to be excited about it at all. 

Superficial bravery like dancing in public is still a wonderful part of life. But let's not pat ourselves on the back for it - true bravery is still needed for doing the thing that you least want to do, the thing that needs to be done, whenever it is needed, regardless of whether anyone will see, or whether EVERYONE will see and think less of you for it.

Lots of us are committed to acting crazy and out-of-the-box for the sake of personal fulfillment and memorable Facebook photos. Let us commit to being truly brave - unpopular and uncomfortable - in standing up for the things that are right.

"Ladies and Gentlemen" (or, The Purpose of Princesses)

Every four-year old American girl worships princesses...Disney ones especially. My niece and my friend's daughters have princess clothing, bikes, dishes, dolls, makeup cases, bedsheets, coloring books...even a princess fishing pole. I have rolled my eyes at this obsession, partly due to my aversion to hot pink, and possibly because when I was four, I had an older brother, so naturally my toys of preference were his Ninja Turtle action figures.

Just in case you didn't believe me.

My husband has a pet peeve against royalty as well, but the real kind. He refused to watch the wedding of Prince William and Kate and mocked others for doing so. "That's the reason we CAME to America! Because we didn't want royalty!" He argues, rightly so, that the idea of one individual or family receiving government-sponsored wealth, honor, and privileges at the expense of everyone else is fundamentally un-democratic, and we should stop envying and adoring the products of that system.

Some people go beyond royalty and even have issues with the terms "lady" and "gentleman". One recent blog post recommended never addressing a group of women as "ladies". It's better to say "people" or "folks", they say, to avoid making women feel labeled by their gender.

I have recently discovered that princesses actually have an important purpose, along with royalty in general and the terms "lady" and "gentleman". Let me share a book that illustrates why:

In the story of The Princess and the Goblin, George MacDonald spins a delightful tale about a little 8 year-old princess and a miner boy who fight against goblins threatening to kidnap her and take over the kingdom. Along the way, the author occasionally points out (in a quaint, turn-of-the-century way) some of the things we should know about princesses:

"Lootie! Lootie! I promised a kiss," cried Irene 

"A princess mustn't give kisses. It's not at all proper," said Lootie. 

"But I promised," said the princess. 

"There's no occasion; he's only a miner-boy." 

"He's a good boy, and a brave boy, and he has been very kind to us. Lootie! Lootie! I promised." 

"Then you shouldn't have promised." 

"Lootie, I promised him a kiss." 

"Your Royal Highness," said Lootie, suddenly grown very respectful, "must come in directly." 

"Nurse, a princess must not break her word," said Irene, drawing herself up and standing stock-still.... 

She never forgot Curdie, but him she remembered for his own sake, and indeed would have remembered him if only because a princess never forgets her debts until they are paid...

Subtle comments like this throughout the book explain that princesses are polite, brave, and respectful. Princesses keep their promises. Princesses reward those who have shown kindness. Princesses aren't haughty about their credentials. Princesses never look down at others who have worse behavior than they. As one critic said of MacDonald's book and its sequel, they “quietly suggest in every incident ideas of courage and honor." Do these sound like frivolous or sexist or outdated characteristics? No way! We still teach these to little girls today!

The clue to the author's intentions are at the very beginning of the book:

"But Mr. Author, why do you always write about princesses?" 

"Because every little girl is a princess." 

"You will make them vain if you tell them that." 

"Not if they understand what I mean." 

"Then what do you mean?" 

"What do you mean by a princess?" 

"The daughter of a king." 

"Very well, then every little girl is a princess, and there would be no need to say anything about it, except that she is always in danger of forgetting her rank, and behaving as if she had grown out of the mud. I have seen little princesses behave like children of thieves and lying beggars, and that is why they need to be told they are princesses. And that is why when I tell a story of this kind, I like to tell it about a princess. Then I can say better what I mean, because I can then give her every beautiful thing I want her to have."

Notice that the archetypal princess is not about superiority to other people. In reality, there are no commoners. Peasants and commoners are background characters representing the ordinary, every-day version of mankind, something that we each have a royal duty - nay, a destiny - to rise above. So, why should we be okay with princesses? Because princesses remind us of our best selves. Royalty serve as the example for how a "lady" and a "gentleman" behave. 

In the book, the nobility of Princess Irene is juxtaposed against the crudeness of the goblins. They live underground, they kidnap and rob people, they're rude and they don't wear shoes and they make fun of the humans whose kingdom they plan to overthrow. The goblins in this story aren't just ugly and unusual - they are also uncivilized. Being "civilized" is what allows us to create and sustain "civilization"; it is what distinguishes us from animals and Lord of the Flies. It incorporates more human attributes like honesty, tolerance, and justice, as well as even more refined qualities such as grace, modesty, kindness, cleanliness, restraint, and sophistication. When we call a woman or girl a "lady" we are not categorizing her; we are complimenting her. She shows mastery of her appetites and passions. She possesses high morals and noble intentions. She is the kind of person we want our daughters to look up to.

What's more, the author makes it clear that the term "princess" (and "lady") does not refer only to a select group of outwardly refined individuals. "Every girl is a princess" he wrote, because every girl, as a daughter of God, is a "royal" creation from birth, and therefore has the innate (I might say, God-given) power and potential to rise to that identity. Another children's book character from the same era repeated this sentiment:

I am a princess. All girls are. Even if they live in tiny old attics. Even if they dress in rags, even if they aren't pretty, or smart, or young. They're still princesses. All of us. Didn't your father ever tell you that?

-Sarah Crewe, A Little Princess

It's cliche. It's beautiful.

If every girl is a princess, then clearly every boy is a prince too (or a knight, or whatever you prefer). This concept applies equally to the term "gentleman", or even simply "man" (read a wonderful article about the portrayal of gentlemen in fiction here): "Be a man!" You hear people say occasionally - maybe when a guy wants to break up with someone via text, or when he's scared to go on the Tower of Terror. The expression does NOT mean "Be male! Have a penis! Grow facial hair!" Being a "man" or a "gentleman" refers to a set of qualities that we think civilized human males ought to demonstrate. In this case, being a man means having strength, bravery, and taking responsibility... qualities that, while socially constructed, make for a strong civil society. To use another Disney example, The Lion King uses royalty to show the tranformation of Simba from "I just can't wait to be king" because he thinks it will be fun, to the Simba who learns to "remember who you are" and that being king means taking responsibility. 

On a final note: Admiring and complimenting "ladies" and "gentlemen" does not imply that certain characteristics are reserved for only members of one gender vs. another - no more than giving someone a compliment means giving everyone else in the world an insult. They simply provide role models and a framework for how men and women can each adopt and demonstrate all good and noble characteristics. Princes and princesses, ladies and gentlemen - these are socially constructed ideas that promote socially healthy behaviors for everyone involved. Can you imagine how society would change if everyone truly saw themselves and every other person as a "lady" or a "gentleman"?

Sippy cup Belle 

Actual Belle

Despite their delicate appearance on sippy cups and pink sneakers, in their movies, Disney princesses demonstrate qualities like bravery, determination, kindness, and honesty. They set goals (most of which do not revolve around men!) and overcome obstacles to achieve them. Those are the kind of role models we should want for our little girls.

The purpose of princesses is simple: to remind us that we are better than that, whether "that" is the behavior of "commoners" or animals or even our current selves. We each have the capacity to be something greater than we believe - a far better, stronger, more beautiful and refined version of ourselves than we can imagine. We rise above our "natural man" by putting on the robes of divine royalty that have already been laid out for us, and living the morals that we attribute to our fictional royal heroes and heroines. There are no commoners. We are sons and daughters of a King.

Vulnerability: When Weakness Is Power

"Being tender and open is beautiful. As a woman, I feel continually shhh’ed. Too sensitive. Too mushy. Too wishy washy. Blah blah. Don’t let someone steal your tenderness. Don’t allow the coldness and fear of others to tarnish your perfectly vulnerable beating heart. Nothing is more powerful than allowing yourself to truly be affected by things. Whether it’s a song, a stranger, a mountain, a rain drop, a tea kettle, an article, a sentence, a footstep, feel it all – look around you. All of this is for you. Take it and have gratitude. Give it and feel love."

— Zooey Deschanel

Here's a paradox...

When is weakness a strength? Probably more often than we realize. Like in the quote above, there is power in being open and vulnerable to the world around us. There is also power in being vulnerable to the people around us.

Vulnerability means being open to love AND hurt, available for joy AND pain, sensitive to good AND bad. Thus, vulnerability is a paradoxical strength which presents as a weakness. Both elements make it an essential part of a happy relationship.

Traditionally considered the "weaker sex", women have been trying to combat that moniker for the last fifty years by adopting the attitudes, dress, priorities, and behaviors of men. What if this is the wrong approach? What if sensitivity and vulnerability are, paradoxically, our greatest source of power?

One of the negative consequences of feminism is that it has tainted our ability to develop healthy, beautiful interdependence with men by insisting that our relationships be at best "independent...together" or, at worst, in competition with each other. When my Protestant friend Shannon got engaged at age 24, she blogged about this issue:

During my four years at (the University of) Chapel Hill, I definitely joined the camp of “Me Women. Me Must Be Strong. Me Must Find Career.” I really did. I never thought about weddings because they’re so girly and frivolous, because I wasn’t (and still am not) earning a salary, and because I wasn’t (and still am not) truly “independent.” And because Chapel Hill taught me I wasn’t ready for marriage, you know? I hadn’t “found myself.” I hadn’t dated around. I hadn’t “figured out my life.” 

But, I did have Bryan who is always so good to me – and so encouraging and loving and supportive.

If I’m ignoring what society tells me – everything in the Bible tells me marriage is the opposite of this idea of independence; marriage is two becoming one – it is a union of unshakable commitment. It is love and humility and compromise. It is strength through losing your independence.

And that’s really hard.

Really hard.

...But what makes me angry, what truly upsets me, is how blind we are to the self-destructive “Me Independent. Me Woman.” mantra. This is particularly highlighted  in relationships. Society empowers our hedonistic pursuit of “The Career,” but fails to consider the effect this can have on relationships – or on an individual’s heart. This is true for both men and women." 

(Read the rest of her post here)

"Strength through losing your independence" - how is that possible? Here is an analogy to demonstrate:

An A-frame is a basic structure, such as might be found on a swingset. It derives its structural support from two poles leaning at angles that would, on their own, be very unstable (45 degrees). Standing straight up by themselves, two well-balanced poles could hypothetically stay up for a while (assuming there's not a strong wind), but they're both much better off leaning against each other. While in this most vulnerable position, they are responsible for holding up the other pole, and paradoxically, this formula makes a basic swingset work. 

Similarly, a marriage derives its strength from two strong, independent people voluntarily giving up their independence and safety to risk being in a relationship. This precarious leaning position is strong when both people are equally committed to metaphorically leaning against one other. When we make ourselves vulnerable to another person, we find power and strength through our unity we could not have found on our own.

When members of a couple lose sight of this fact - one person is scared, or selfish, for example - they may be tempted to protect themselves by withdrawing from the A-frame and standing up alone. Or, one pole may say to the other "You lean first, then I'll go." One pole may have a history of being let down by other relationships and therefore be hesitant to lean. 

What makes marriage awesome is that because it is such a significant social, legal, physical, financial, and spiritual commitment, it cements the connection between the two people in a relationship by placing a metaphorical padlock between them, and makes it safer and easier for both people to be completely vulnerable to each other.

However, our experiences with divorce and infidelity and heartache can make the lock on marriage seem a lot less secure, and make us more afraid of being vulnerable to another person. 

"I don't need anyone!" "I'm strong and independent!" Is it a coincidence that our increasingly loud declarations of independence coincide with increased rates of broken marriages? I don't think so. Our proudly-worn independence may often just be a clever cover up for fear. Maybe we keep saying these things because, deep down, like Shannon, we're terrified that what we really want is true love. We want to rely on someone. We want to give ourselves up to someone else. 

In today's world, not needing someone is seen as a strength. Maybe it's because the desire for love seems either unobtainable or just embarrassing. No wonder we have such a love-hate relationship with Disney princesses! We hate our own desires for vulnerability, for sensitivity, for interdependence. Outwardly, we're pumped that neither princess in Frozen ends up married and yet we are increasingly the loneliest generation in American history. 

This fear and hatred is one result of viewing relationships from a wholly individualistic perspective: we're looking at relationships as an issue that's all about us (which is...weird). When the beauty of marriage and love is reduced to a personal indulgence for weaker people who just can't handle being alone, "I" is the key word in our feminist rants above. Vulnerability has no place in a society that's all about ME.

Marriage however, is virtually the antithesis of individualism. Marriage acknowledges that life is actually about one's spouse, and the impact that the marriage will have on kids, grandkids, community, etc. Our society is not just an A-frame of two people - we are a veritable teepee of thousands of poles, all leaning against and relying on one other. We rely on stores to carry food, we rely on doctors to prescribe us medicine, we rely on schools to teach our children, we rely on polling officials to be honest. We rely on emergency responders to pick up the phone when we dial 9-1-1. Doesn't it make sense that we would benefit ourselves and everyone involved if men and women learned how to rely on each other as well?

When we look through an individualistic paradigm, we can't see the other participant(s) in our A-frame. We just see within ourselves a terrifying, ridiculous desire to be at a 45 degree angle, and we will do pretty much everything in our power to fight against it.

Vulnerability is still dangerous. Could we get hurt? Yes. Could the swingset completely fall apart? Definitely. But our best chance for long term happiness is to marry the right person and then be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY COMMITTED to them, "leaning" confidently, letting our spouse know that it's safe to lean on us. The unlikely antidote to save our marriages is the power of strength that comes from weakness.

When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you're sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship.

Joseph Campbell

Giving up love to be a strong, independent woman doesn't help anyone. And frankly, it's not very much fun. If we have the courage to really look inside and confront our desires for vulnerability, we may find that what we want and what we should want are actually the same thing. The weakness we fear is the key to the strength we desire. We've had it with us the whole time.

We All Come From Bad Families

I spent some time yesterday with a friend who came from an abusive childhood home. A decade later, she shared some of the quiet struggles she still has in recognizing and separating the negative influence of her mother from her own mental and emotional identity. Now in the process of raising her own children, my friend is often faced with this dilemma: With all the dysfunction during her formative years, how can she clearly separate what was good from what was psycho?

One of the difficulties with being raised in a dysfunctional household is that it shapes children's understanding of the world, and it serves as the benchmark for what behavior is considered normal and good. Unchecked, this behavior benchmark can perpetuate cycles of abuse as each successive generation of children unwittingly recreate the patterns, structures, roles and interactions from their dysfunctional past.

This is difficult even for people like my friend who recognize the problems in their past and want to change them. Being the product of a dysfunctional home makes it difficult to assess exactly where the crazy began and ended: in showing love, setting limits, spending money, developing romantic relationships, spending time together, the type and amount of entertainment pursued, the role of school and education, communication, diet, religious beliefs, safety measures, responsibility and chores... poor parenting may be reflected in some or all aspects of family life. Maybe my friend's mom put her to bed at a reasonable time, and monitored her entertainment appropriately, but she also pressured her into sexual activities early in life and sometimes used a butcher knife or scissors as her tools of discipline.. How could she possibly know which of these behaviors were "reasonable" and "appropriate" and which were abnormal and abusive?

To use a metaphor, growing up with abusive parents is like being served a daily lunch of sandwiches, apple slices, and monkey brains. As an adult, it may not be clear which part of the meal was the problem when she's kneeling over the toilet later, and experiencing the psychological effects of her experiences. How can she know what part of lunch was the problem, and how on earth is she going to decide what to serve her children?

This may seem like an obvious question to people raised in healthy homes - we may assume that people naturally know what is right and wrong. Most kids learn that hurting people is bad, and making people feel bad is bad - but we can all think of circumstances when it is acceptable for parents to do precisely the opposite: children are hurt when they get shots, or when they are spanked; children are given guilt trips; sometimes parents get angry and take away things that their kids want. These are all behaviors you see in high-functioning, loving households. How can children, with no other basis for comparison, expect to know when it goes too far? To continue the metaphor - to my friend's perspective, it could have been moldy bread or monkey brains, or maybe she just ate too much.

Fortunately, in my friend's case, her predicament has been helped by a wonderful husband, a competent therapist, and a degree in elementary education and early childhood development. She has used many professionals, other family members and friends as reference points to compare her mother's behavior and make adjustments in her own life. As a mother, she sets good limits, shows love, has reasonable expectations, and serves her kids PB&J sandwiches with apple slices and carrot sticks. When she is unsure about whether forcing her children to take piano lessons would be a good idea, she consults other healthy families and reads books in addition to referencing her own judgment. Her kids are beautiful, happy, healthy, and well-functioning members of their schools and community.

So, why the title of this article? The story of my friend and her dilemma actually parallels a larger problem that affects all of us together: Like an abused child, our society does not know what a good family looks like. Our national myths and even current debates swirl around mental pictures of the ideal we were raised with: farm families, 50's families, and sitcom families that are outdated, unrealistic, and unhealthy. Because of our flawed images, we also struggle to know what aspects of our childhood image of families are good and normal, and which are unhealthy and abnormal. These cultural images, and our common reactions to them, hinder our efforts to make and keep healthy marriages and families.

We have spent the last several decades desperately trying to fashion a functional, realistic, healthy, politically acceptable image of what the family should look like. We recognize the importance of families as the basic unit of society, and the impact of families on individual and societal outcomes has been demonstrated conclusively, affirmatively, and repeatedly. But what are we aiming for, exactly? What counts as a family? Who should work? Who should raise children? How many children should be had and when? How long should women breast feed? How involved should families be with extended family members? What kind of discipline is appropriate? How much should children watch TV? How prominent should religious education be? How often is it okay to leave your kids with other people? How much time should husbands and wives demand for hobbies and friends? How often should they have sex? Should boys and girls be treated or educated differently in any way? Should parents be okay with their teenagers/college students experimenting with sex or drugs? How soon? How can we balance the demands of equality with the different family roles? More importantly, how can we know that our individual answers to these questions are correct, or complete?

For Mormons, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" gives the Lord's opinion on some of these matters. There are general instructions on the role of family, the role of gender, the sanctity of sex, the rights of children, and the Lord's expectations of parents and spouses. These are enormously helpful guideposts for those of us who believe that they were revealed by a living prophet.

However, for Mormons and everyone else, we have all come from a society where our mental images of "the perfect family" are badly skewed. Even saying "the perfect family" may bring a picture to mind - maybe a family from the 1950's - and you may immediately start scoffing and poking holes in it. Sure, you may say, they're charming and healthy and stay together, but who can survive on one income these days? And why does the mom always have to wear a dress and do all the cooking? And who said it was ever a good idea to get married at 18?

Maybe your mental picture of "the perfect family" comes from another cultural nostalgic icon: the family farm. Many children's songs and books reinforce this idyllic setting - People working hard together, working with animals, being frugal and prepared and grateful and healthy - isn't that inspiring? But everything is so different now! With TV, Internet, Facebook, globalization, population growth, medical advances, political changes, education, industrialization - how can that farm possibly serve as the ideal for the modern American family?

Maybe your "perfect family" is one of the modern depictions of families from sitcoms. These tend to be reactionary in nature to the first two - women are empowered and working outside the home, belts are for wearing and not for discipline, families are more racially diverse - but these families fail in other ways. Women are burnt out, men are slobs, people divorce and cheat, kids experiment with sex and drugs... No, the perfect family is not the Beavers, but clearly it is not the Simpsons or the Osbournes either.

Because these concepts of family are so riddled with holes and obvious flaws (and our attempts to reach perfection inevitably fail), as a society we have come to a conclusion: there is no perfect family, we should stop trying to reach it. This bitterness is reflected in our resignation to politician and athlete infidelities, our love-hate relationship with happy endings and Disney Princesses, and increasing cultural emphasis on independence and individuality. Unfortunately, the result of that decision is that modern individuals and families have even fewer role models to help them in their efforts to form strong, healthy family relationships. To return to the metaphor - we are so sick of being fed monkey brains, we've decided we're never going to eat lunch again.

What's wrong with believing in and striving for an ideal family? Most arguments continue to dwell on the word "ideal" as referring to these false and unhealthy images we've created, and how the "ideal" family doesn't seem to let in biracial couples, or adoption, or remarriages. Easy solution: those images are clearly not ideal. So let's change what ideal actually looks like!

The other argument against the ideal family dwells on the personal guilt and shame that people face when they don't have an ideal family. Without diminishing the difficulty of their experience, I would argue that family ideals ultimately benefit everyone, especially those in bad family situations, and those who are teaching their children to make better choices.  Ideals give us something to reach for, even if none of us ever fully reach it. Christians are used to this: Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect", even though He knew we couldn't do it. This is not a competition - we win prizes for every step we take in the right direction, regardless of how far we get or who gets there first. Lowering expectations does not encourage us or improve our families one bit.

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Mormon writes about the importance of cleaving unto that which is good, and rejecting that which is evil. In doing so, he creates a standard by which we can judge the aspects of our family life:

For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work...Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ [emphasis added] (Moroni 7:15-19).

Essentially, we must look through ALL our experiences and keep the good while rejecting the bad. Finding good elements in bad experiences can be a distasteful exercise. Do we really want to emulate the disciplined record-keeping of the Nazis? Do we want to uphold the judicial process that throws out critical evidence which is obtained illegally? Should we keep the delicious enchilada recipe from our racist grandmother? The answer should be a resounding YES. By splitting and analyzing our past experiences (both as individuals, and as a society) we can separate our overall experience with "lunch" into "apple slices" and "monkey brains", and use the Light of Christ to help us decipher which is good and which should be thrown out. We avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater - and in this case, the baby represents the good things from families in the past and present that we must keep and instill in families in the future.

We need to stop re-creating the mistakes of the past, stop living in complete reaction to them, and stop our bitter national diatribe against perfection so that we can actually see what our ideals look like and start aiming in the right direction.

Many individuals are lucky enough to have parents worthy of emulation. Many others are earnestly trying to build strong families by studying, praying, observing, discussing, and adapting. For all of us, the principles in the Family Proclamation and Moroni chapter 7 provide critical guidelines. The challenge remains, however, for society to re-create the image of the ideal family, combining ALL good things from the past and present in a form that is powerful enough to stick in the national mindset. Once we have identified and adopted the good things from the Brady Bunch, the Raymonds, and Little House On the Prairie, we can update these images with depictions of strong, healthy, yet realistic modern families for ourselves and our children to emulate. We will only strive for these types of families if we believe they're possible, and we'll only believe they're possible if we can see actual examples of them.