Three Things I've Learned From Three Years of Marriage

Today marks the three year anniversary of the day I married my wonderful, devoted husband, Tony. I know that three years doesn't exactly make me a marriage expert and that we have a long road ahead of us, but at this point, I feel that I have properly adjusted my mindset to the married life enough to shed some insight on what changes when one takes the plunge. Here are the three biggest, most important things I have learned over the past three beautiful years:

1. You can't keep score.

Balance and fairness are important elements of any successful relationship. If one person is carrying too much of the burden, whether emotional, financial, domestic, etc, resentments can arise. As in any situation where two people live together, there is a lot of responsibility to divvy up in a marriage. A couple owes it to themselves not to allow the stresses of this balance to lower them to a point where they are writing passive aggressive notes to their spouses like some college roommates on a Buzzfeed list.

My husband works three jobs (a 9-5, a high-demand part-time, and an occasional bar job), while I work freelance/part-time/sometimes. I stay home and bear the brunt of the childcare burden, as well as most of the domestic responsibilities. Sometimes I hate doing the dishes (and often Tony volunteers to do them because he's the best), but it wouldn't be fair for me to ask him to do the dishes as often as I do the dishes, just as it wouldn't be reasonable for him to ask me to work the hours he works. It would be nonsensical for me to try to figure out how many loads of laundry equals one drive across the Causeway to tutor a GMAT student. As long as each half of the couple is contributing in earnest and appreciating the contributions of the other, scorekeeping is unnecessary. With all eyes towards a happy, well-provided-for (financially and otherwise) household, balance can be achieved.

2. Unlearn the phrase, "If this doesn't work out..."

We all want to be The Notebook minus Alzheimer's. If you don't want to be The Notebook minus Alzheimer's when you get old, I don't know why you would get married to begin with. To me, marriage means forever, no takesy backsies. That said, we're basically all children of divorce, and we're all well aware that not all (or even most) marriages will be successful. Even so, it is the responsibility of a married person to love and invest in their relationship as if it will never end. Spending time worrying about what happens next if things go south inherently takes away from a marriage. If you don't give all of yourself emotionally and mentally to your relationship, and it goes bad, whose fault might that be?

3. You cannot overestimate your capacity to love.

The first time I fell in love, I had never experienced a feeling so intense before. The day I got married, I didn't think I could possibly love that man any more. The first time I held my child, my heart nearly burst with a kind of love I didn't even know existed (a cliche, but for a reason). The point is, any time you think you have reached love capacity in your life, you are probably wrong. The love I have for my husband grows deeper and more complex as we age and carve out our happy little part of the world together. I don't know how much deeper it goes, but I'm not willing to put an imaginary cap on it, because I believe that love is infinite and evolving, and I can't wait to see what lies ahead.

Blaming the Economy for the Failure of Marriage, and Why I Do So

I have been thinking today about the institution of Marriage and its state of crisis in America. I have also been thinking about "I Love Lucy" and Robert B. Reich's new book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future. This convergence of cognition has led me to believe that there may be some blame to place on the economy when trying to determine what happened to the sacred institution of marriage in this great nation.

First, let me say that I think an argument based purely on a supposed "decline of values" for why so many marriages fail is cheap, easy, and aimed by older people at the youth. It is, in a word, bullshit. Family structures have changed so much since our grandparents were married that to even make a comparison between their marriages and ours is frankly ridiculous. This is where "I Love Lucy" comes in.

There is an episode of "Lucy" where Ricky and Fred accuse Lucy and Ethel of essentially sitting around all day and spending all of the boys' hard earned money. The women, of course, respond that making a living isn't much compared to trying to run a household. The four agree to trade places, with the women getting jobs at a candy factory and the men staying home and doing household chores and cooking. Predictably, the women cannot cut it in the workplace and the men are possibly even more hopeless in the home. Hilarity ensues.

"I Love Lucy" was, of course, a comedy, but it was based very strongly in truth. In the fifties, men were not taught to cook or clean or take care of themselves. Women seldom ventured into the workplace, at least not with the goal of developing a career. At this point in American history, the institution of marriage was vitally important to the survival of adults. Men made money to support women, and women made sure that men ate and had clean clothing to wear to work.

A lot of people would argue that this gender inequality made life unhappy and unfair for women, which is probably true. Women were incapable of fending for themselves should their marriage go wrong, and many became trapped in bad, abusive, or unhappy situations. However, I would argue that the 1950's marriage arrangement bred a kind of love between married men and women that we do not see as much these days. The recognition that one cannot survive without another person fosters unconditional love; that is why children inherently love their parents. In Lucy and Ricky's marriage, Lucy played mother to Ricky and Ricky brought home the bacon and issued scoldings like a father does. And they loved each other unquestioningly for it.

Rob B. Reich's short book, Aftershock: The Future Economy and America's Future is a brief, poignant discussion of the current economic situation in the West, and what America can do to improve while moving forward. His main point, briefly, is that the American middle and working classes are being squeezed too hard economically and are unable to buy things and stimulate the economy. He argues that for decades, the median wage for working men has not risen in order to keep up with inflation. As a result, more and more women have been forced into the workplace in order to support families. In addition, both men and women have begun having to work overtime in order to get by. As a result, families suffer.

I'm not arguing that women should not have careers. Women who want careers should go out and grab them with both hands. I am arguing that women who are forced into the workplace in order to support their families with limited skills tend to be unhappy women. I would also argue that men are happier coming home to warm dinners than coming home to wives drained and bitchy from their terrible jobs. (Not to mention the fact that it is probably nice for children to see their parents from time to time.)

Reich says that in order to heal the American economy, we need to make sure the middle class is provided with opportunities to earn and keep the money they need to purchase things and invest in the economy. I say we need to do the same things in order to heal the American institution of Marriage. We need to have a system that allows for Lucys and Rickys, especially when young children are involved. If not, we need to stop putting so much pressure on the idea of marriage to begin with. It is quite possible that it is outdated, not because of my generation's (and my parents generation's) abominable value systems, but because traditional gender roles that made marriage necessary and reciprocal aren't allowed to exist anymore.

But that's a conversation for another time.