Sunday, November 16, 2008

How Do You Mesh the Roles of Husband and Wife? Take My Survey!

As I've mentioned before, I'm in the midst of writing a book on the fact that marriage can only be the unique combination of male and female.

As part of my research, I've devised a questionnaire that I hope you'll complete by clicking on the following link:

Click Here to take survey

The survey has only 18 questions, and asks about how tasks are divvied up between the husband and wife. Clearly I have a position on what marriage is, but I want to know how it works for you.

I think that completing the questionnaire will not only be enjoyable, but illuminating. And your responses may also be beneficial for those reading my book. I know the survey can't be considered scientific, and I'll present the results honestly as such. Still, the more input I have, the better, so please feel free to invite friends and family to participate. I'll only be running the survey, called "How Do You Mesh the Roles of Husband and Wife?" for a couple weeks. I'll be discussing it this Wednesday as I guest-host the third hour of The Michael Medved Radio Show, if you'd like to call in to share your thoughts!

Thanks in advance--I'm eager to see what you have to say!


  1. I've just discovered your blog. I am forthwith adding it to my favorites.

  2. I also have a blog. If you wish to see pictures of my beautiful little granddaughter, please visit said blog here:

    Be sure and read how my son (NOT a doctor) delivered her. It's quite a story.

  3. I LOVE the picture of my girl and our son-in-law! Thanks for posting that...{{{{{{hug}}}}}}

  4. gardenbuzzy: Magnolia Kait is gorgeous,and what a story!
    Deborah: Beautiful bride, exemplary parents!

  5. I took your survey. But there is a glitch in it.

    For instance, I am a widow and re-married late in life. His kids and my kids were all gone from home long before we met and married. None of them even live near us. Yet, your survey would not allow a "0%" for the work division between the two of us for when kids were in the household. Neither would it allow a comment. Therefore the numbers I wrote in are completely bogus.

    I had to finally figure out what it would take when addressing the income situation. I kept putting the "%" sign next to the number, and it kept being rejected. You should give an example of what you'd like entered.

    Hope this helps.

  6. I filled out your survey, and loved doing it! What I don't love is submitting it 3 times! What a dope.

    I kept expecting the page to change to something else.

    How fun to see you have a blog, after reading a couple of your books!
    Thank you,
    Jan Zachry

  7. Any way that two people can take the survey on the same computer? It doesn't appear to allow it right now?

  8. Pilgrim, Jan and Quayle: I used a website called SurveyMonkey to create the survey. I pay $20/mo and it's really easy to set it up and analyze the results. I left an area at the bottom for any elaborations because I knew that the formatting wasn't perfect for every situation. Many respondents clarified their situations there, and it was very helpful for me.

    The formatting of the survey was a function of the utility--certain questions allowed only numbers in answers and others only words, but overall, I'm finding that the results are clear, especially with the opportunity to elaborate.

  9. I took the survey and I would say our household is more skewed towards disaster than the survey probably revealed. Oh well, you can't have everything, where would you put it all? hahahahaha

  10. Hi Diane,

    I think the survey is a great idea! Thank you for sharing it with us.

    I do have some thoughts about the accompanying article, though.

    First, you say you don't really have connections to any blogs or sites frequented by liberals or progressives. That’s a shame - you really should. Ask Ariana if she will link your survey on the Huffington Post – it gets millions of hits. Mind you, I don’t take HuffPo at face value any more than I do World Net Daily, but I think it’s good to understand both “sides” and apply our own critical thinking skills.

    Second, by limiting the responses to married people, you skew your results toward those who are conservative, happy or both. This is fine so long as you acknowledge the bias. People who are committed but have chosen not to marry, those who are separated, divorced, widowed, in a civil union, or any other committed relationship that means “marriage” to them - they all have valid insights into the institution.

    I was very surprised to read the quote, “Conservatives generally look at society and see a collection of individuals. Liberals are much stronger at the level of the collective.”

    It could be read two ways, neither of which sounds right. Does it mean you think that conservatives are “every man for himself” and liberals care more about other people? I must be reading it wrong.

    I assume you agree with Brooks that conservatives think of themselves as a collective, and think of liberals as a separate collective. I guess you really don’t know many individuals with liberal or progressive views.

    The truth is that no group is monolithic, and that’s especially true for those whore not “right leaning”. Social liberals vary wildly from one another. There is no one “right” way to do anything, so no two progressives I know will agree on any but the vaguest of generalities. Once you get into details, it is a very fractious and individualistic group. In my opinion, this often leads to disorganization and ineffectiveness.

    The whole idea of social conservatism is that there is a “right” way to do things – there really are some immutable standards and norms. Thus, there is some organization and discipline, which would make “right-leaning” individuals act more like a collective.

    The other quote that surprised me is “Liberals are more likely to feel like victims when others don’t behave the way they 'should.'” Then what do conservatives feel when others don’t behave the way they 'should’? Happy? Nobody likes to feel the system is unfair. My more liberal friends might say, “I should be able to marry who I want,” and my more conservative friends might rail against “the assault on marriage”, but both hear the other as whining about victimhood. Interesting indeed.

    That said, I think the project is a very good one. I will be very interested in reading your book! I don’t blog, but if you would like to extend this conversation, please write to me at andymather@comcast .net. Many thanks!

  11. I listened to you guest-hosting the Michael Medved Show. Loved it!

    I have a slightly different take on the gay-marriage debate.

    In the United States, all people are treated equally under the law - all PEOPLE are equal.

    But all RELATIONSHIPS between people are NOT equal. One reason for this is that all relationships do not provide equal benefits to society. This should go without saying. The relationship between a mother and a daughter is different than the relationship between a father and a daughter, for example. In fact, U.S. courts recognize this fact that all relationships are not equal - in a divorce, preference is usually given to keeping children with their mother, rather than the father.

    Now, in our society, the men and women who decide to marry are afforded special privileges because American society long ago decided that encouraging men and women to have children - and raise them together for the rest of their lives - provides a unique benefit to society. Creating children, especially, is a benefit that can not be provided or duplicated by any other form of relationship. Creating children, forming families, is the basic building block of our society, after all.

    So, providing special benefits to married men and women is NOT illegal discrimination, nor is it unfair. Illegal discrimination - and unfairness - occurs ONLY when two things that are the SAME are treated DIFFERENTLY. The union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is NOT equal in every way to the union of a man and a woman. The relationships are truly different - so it is entirely fair to accord them different privileges.

    Now, it just might be that society decides to give gay partners all of the benefits and privileges of marriage anyway - under the banner of "civil union." But, really, they don't have to do this. Though, I think most of the time, they will. But most people want to preserve the word "marriage" for the very special and unique relationship of a man and woman (one man, one woman, one lifetime).

    But, gay activists are afraid that sometimes, people might decide not to give all the privileges of marriage to a gay relationship. The gay activists fear that, sometimes, people will recognize that the gay relationship is not equal in every way to the heterosexual relationship, so people may choose to deny a privilege or two. For example - people may decide that in cases of adoption, married husbands and wives get precedence over gay couples.

    Again, this is entirely fair and logical.

    But...because providing special privileges to men and women who marry is NOT unfair in any way, and there is a risk that gay relationships might be treated differently, gay rights activists have devised an UNDERHANDED WAY to acquire the privileges of marriage while circumventing the will of the majority: They seek to change the very definition of marriage, thereby automatically conferring the privileges of marriage on same-sex couples.

    In response, almost every state in the union has passed "defense of marriage" laws and amendments - essentially using the law and state constitutions as dictionaries to remind people what the true definition of marriage is! It's silly that such laws have to be passed and upheld, but they do.

    On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into federal law, with the approval of both houses of the U.S. Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act states: “the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

    If gay activists want to be afforded the same privileges as men and woman who marry, then they must convince the majority that their "gay marriage" relationship deserves them. They should advocate for "civil unions" and leave the word "marriage" to mean the special coupling of a man and a woman.

    So far, gay activists have not chosen to take this course of action. But, changing the definition of marriage in the courts - treating us all as fools - will not work. It only makes people more annoyed.

    Michael S. Class

  12. I really liked today's Zits comic. To me, it is a good illustration of the difference between men and women. Here's the link:

  13. Andy: Arthur Brooks was giving his analysis of the many studies of happiness he researched. I found his thoughts interesting, even though of course he's generalizing.
    I could have made a broader survey--but given that I didn't want to pay for a representative sample (which would have been a study, not just a survey) I wanted to limit the amount of material, which is collected just to support the rest of my research.

    Michael: Thanks for your cogent arguments, which are excellent. My book isn't actually an argument against gay marriage as much as an explanation why marriage IS the unique combining of male and female. But yes, you're correct that it's not discrimination to treat a relationship differently than individuals. We see laws about business relationships that have differing statuses and tax consequences all the time.

  14. One more comment about gay marriage. The term marriage for their unions is always prefaced by the word "gay". So don't the gay marriage activists realize that even if they achieve the (misappropriated)title "marriage", it will never render their union equal or the same as marriage? I don't think the preface of "gay" is just going to disappear. The eHarmony case illustrates this too. So gays now have a "companion" site, but it is just for gays, b/c their union is not the same as married union, everyone recognizes this (not necessarily with any enmity) and there is just no getting around it.

  15. Another gay marriage comment. "Gay marriage" always uses the preface "gay" so even if they get their marriage title, the fact that such a union is not the same or equal to marriage will always be there. It boils down to pretense, kind of like the coerced eHarmony companion site just for gays. Do they want to just be humored like the emperor with no clothes or accept facts?

  16. pls delte one of my redundant comments! I thought they were not getting published so had to rewrite/reword! I do not mean to seem like a troll...