Recently in marriage Category

It's no secret that any news of a politician's infidelity is an instant scandal that almost everyone has an opinion on. We saw a tidal wave of reaction to the Eliot Spitzer prostitution story, and the news that former Senator John Edwards had an affair with a campaign aide has set the iVillage community ablaze with commentary, disgust and some really interesting angles on this story.

On the Betrayed Spouses Support board, member carpenchri shares what many of us are probably thinking:

"Well...front page news again. Another person trying to gain our trust comes out as cheating on his family.  Cheating on his wife — while she's busting her butt on the campaign trail for him — while battling cancer ... what could have been SO horrible that he had to do that to her?!?!"

For the most part, we often see some degree of distrust for political figures. But what is interesting about this case is that John Edwards, by most accounts (well, at least until now), was beyond that, with his clean image, his value-based talking points and, perhaps most notable, his wife's struggle with cancer, which has played out often on the campaign trail and in the news. It's exactly this, though, that has created such a stir in a wide variety of communities. While the outrage is predictable, some of the secondary conversations have taken a tone that is more considered and curious. Some are even questioning who knew what and when... and how much a person is responsible for their family when they're living their life so much in the public eye.

From the All Sides of an Affair board fallenstar2005 also wonders:

"I question whether Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair in 2006. Would you agree to be part of a national presidential campaign knowing that there was someone out there who could publicly, on a whim, destroy you and your children's world? Not to mention the arrogance of John Edwards putting his political party at risk if he had actually won the nomination. Something just doesn't seem right..."

Remember when Marilyn McCoo sang about her Wedding Bell Blues with The 5th Dimension back in the 60s? No? Ok maybe I wasn't around in the 60s, but I listened to the tune recently and think Marilyn and Co. may have been onto something. While she sang about wanting to end her long engagement and have her wedding post-haste, I've been thinking more about a different kind of wedding bell blues -- the kind that comes after the I dos have been said, after the cake is cut and the rice tossed. The kind that comes with the excitement and stress of planning such a big day for months, sometimes years on end, and then suddenly that rush of excitement is over, leaving you returning to paying off that wedding, returning to work and all the mundane tasks that are just simply fact of life. 

Of course I'm speaking from experience here -- as some of you know, I recently got married (about 3 weeks ago, in fact). The wedding was really quite perfect, a touching and fun celebration with all of our family and closest friends; there's nothing about it I would do differently and I'm absolutely happy being married -- my husband is a true doll. (Lest you all come out with your marriage counseling guns a-blazing!) But I do admit that there was a bit of a letdown after the big day came and went and we returned from our honeymoon, easing back into the daily grind, far away from the gussied up superstars we were at the wedding. Perhaps it's just an imbalance of excitement or a predictable crash that can come after planning any big event or going through a major change. I thought it might be just a case of me being spoiled, but even my groom felt it a bit, saying that after we left the wedding it was a little strange to think we'd just go back to being ordinary people and no one would be the wiser to our heretofore superstar status. I think this might have been right around the time that we pulled into Taco Bell for a quick lunch the next day.

Apparently we're not the only ones.

As someone who will be planning a wedding soon, it was probably only a matter of time before this discussion caught my eye on The Bride-to-Be message board. It's no secret that weddings are big business and can cost a small fortune -- or in some cases, a large one. One iVillage bride-to-be offers her opinion:

"I really don't like big weddings. My best friend in college had a huge 30 thousand dollar wedding and I thought it was just ridiculous. I am morally opposed to spending so much money on one day, on one party, just because society and the wedding industry tell women that they should. I have no fantasies about being a princess or anything like that. If it were entirely up to me, we would just get married on the beach on the first day of the honeymoon, or at a JOP so our parents could be there."

Are huge weddings getting out of control? Between the showers, the rehearsals, the wedding itself and the reception -- it's expensive to even be in the outer realm of a wedding party, let alone to be the bride or groom. Is this just a matter of personal preference or are extravagant weddings a big waste of money? Does a pricey wedding start a couple off on the wrong foot? Let me know what you think -- and feel free to share your own outrageous wedding experiences.

Anyone else remember that Foreigner song "Head Games"? You know, from back in the 70s? No? Well I do and I've been humming it ever since CMAngela sent me a tip on the intriguing discussions happening on the new Hot Topic: Games People Play message board. I know you know exactly what they're talking about, too. Oh come on ... those little mind games we play with ourselves, our partners and the people that never even make it past the first date... ring a bell? Ever hear of the silent treatment? Of course you have. It's ok -- we all have our own little embarrassing confessions, and one iVillager gives it to us straight:

"When basic Communication does not work I will resort to the Silent Treatment or other Tactics.

In fact I call them Domestic Warfare Tactics. I have a stubborn DH, there are times that he will not listen to a word I'm saying and it is frustrating. So, then I will resort to some of my Battle Strategies; such as one word answers to his questions, or not cooking my usual meals opting for a more rudimentary fare, or neglecting to wash only HIS laundry. I do it to get his attention, and usually once that is acquired I can revert back to Basic Communication."

Oooh ... remind me not to get on her bad side!

Others just don't tolerate all these crazy games:

"Guess I'm too old for it. I used to play, but now, when someone starts trying to play me, I'm out the door.

The men I meet seem to somehow think that I'm some idiot that will tolerate their not showing up for dates, not calling, not keeping promises, etc. Well, I don't have time. Men don't get second chances with me anymore. If I can see up front that they are going to be players, I just get out."

As if relationships aren't hard enough ... do these games actually get us anywhere or do they just create more problems? Is the silent treatment a proven remedy for what's ailing you? The nature of a game is that there's a winner ... and therefore a loser, right? Step right up and name your game here and tell me what you think about the games people play. If you're not sure what to think about all this business of relationship games, I'll just leave you with the wise words of Foreigner:

It's so clear, I'm sorry to say
But if you wanna win, you gotta learn how to play
Head games

Remember this story, "What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage," from ages and ages ago? (Okay, it was late June.) Remember how everyone was emailing it around? Remember how all your single friends were like, “Oh my goodness, how shocking and terrible,” and all your married friends shrugged and said, “Yep, sounds about right”?

Well, it's back. On the Married Girl’s Guide to Life board, lash06 is asking for help -- “I guess what it comes down to is I need some ideas on how to get DH to do stuff around that house. I am expected to be the perfect little housewife on top of working and I am less than thrilled about it…now we both work, we actually work at the same place, we bring in the same amount and work the exact same hours every day. Everything is even. Except when we come home. That’s when I am expected to do everything, all cooking, cleaning, all the errands etc.”

Ah, the second shift. It’s a tale as old as time, no? Arlie Russell Hochschild gave it a name in her 1990 book, but I’d be willing to bet that as long as women have been in workplace, we’ve been expected to still take care of all the housewifey things around the house, from childcare to laundry; cooking to cleaning – despite working just as many hours as our, ahem, Dear Husbands (or boyfriends).

So remind me again – how’s a gal to train DH? Some suggestions from the boards after the jump...

Say, ladies, have you heard that poodle skirts are back in style? Why don't you meet me at the five-and-dime in for some egg creams and then maybe we can work on embroideries for our hope chests! Peachy keen! Because apparently it’s 1950. Which explains this article I just read that began: “Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.”

This Forbes.com article (on some crazy newfangled thing called the “Inter Net”) goes on to say that marriages with one breadwinner are happier and less stressful than marriages with two (especially if – gasp – she makes more money than he does). After all, ambitious and confident career gals are just too darn picky – they expect so much of a guy! Plus they won’t always be as willing to have kids or stay home with said kids.

Well, golly.

Deciding whether to focus on career or family – because that’s what this ends up being about, isn’t it? – is one of the hardest choices a woman has to make. See also: this impassioned debate on the Stay-at-Home vs Work board. It’s gotten almost 1500 responses in just a few days. Uh, hit a nerve much?

Of staying home with the kids, traderjodie writes, “I have always said that staying home is so important to me that I would give up many things to be able to do that. I know that if I went back to work, we could afford more. But I would never trade being at home for a larger house or more luxuries.” Innocent enough statement, right? Of course not. Tons of you have been jumping in with thoughts on career vs. family, the effects working has on the marriage and kids, and the effects not working has on the marriage and kids.

Of staying in the work world, kbmamm writes, “The cost to a woman taking time off are lifelong. That break in her career is echoed throughout the rest of her career when she returns to work. A woman who takes time off can expect to make about 60% of what she could have if she'd never taken a break. It's way more than just the lost wages from the years not worked.”

What’s interesting is that many women would actually like to stay home – but can’t afford it, either financially or experientially, and/or feel like they would be giving up too much of themselves in order to have that “one breadwinner” marriage. And if staying at home means giving up financial independence and/or self-confidence…how one earth is that going to make a marriage happier and more stable? What do you think? Do you think a marriage is happier when only one person works? Join the conversation.