May 19, 2012

Sweet Tea Tuesday: A woman’s worth

She rolls the mile; makes you smile, all the while being true.
Don’t take for granted the passions that she has for you.
You will lose, if you choose, to refuse to put her first.

-Alicia Keys

Last week over coffee, a gal pal and I discussed current events, specifically the divorce of a certain rich golf guy and his (sung just like the line in Alanis Morrissette’s, “Ironic“) be-a-u-tiful wife. Now, I gotta tell you, I steer away from celebrity gossip because there is a fine line between fame and infamy that is often, and quite sickeningly blurred, but this topic wasn’t about fame and fortune for me, truly-it was about principle.

Underneath the Spanx, ruffles and chintz is a woman, at some point before the single ladies toss all dignity to the wind, and get down straight derby style for the bouquet, there is an agreement; a contractual obligation. Please highlight “obligation”, in the US there is a 65% chance you will come back to this line.

Marriage is a union “…that establishes a family: a social unit whose functions are to regulate sexual activity, to produce and raise children with a particular social identity and cultural skills and to constitute a basic economic unit”. (Heider, 2007) Historically, and to this day in some cultures women have been and are still maimed and murdered for marital transgressions: potential, real and imagined.

Following our lively discussion, my gal pal becomes entangled in the same discussion on the 4th of July, at grillside. The stench aroma of charred flesh, free-flowing spirits and men, this is not exactly home court advantage. She called me later to tell me of the men’s position, not surprisingly, they felt it wasn’t her money, that she didn’t deserve that much money.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree it is quite a large sum of money no matter which of the numerous settlement quotes you go with. To that end, it still befuddles me that hitting a ball can generate that kind of income, I digress. Part of me hopes she’ll start a fund for the wives of less fiscally fortuitous, fornicatin’ (insert alliteratively apropos expletive here). But the other, more serious part of me feels that even in the most simplistic tribal cultures, there is a price and a set of responsibilities which must be adhered when starting a family; a price that has led to genocide of female babies, and the inhumane treatment and murders of many women. These acts have been carried out as a deterrent, and as a means to protect marriage as both a sacrament and a basic economic unit.

Why then, when women here in the “civilized” US of A set out -in accordance with societal norms and legal governance- to do exactly that- is their worth in question? Is worth relative? Is only women’s worth relative? Is the big payout the cultural evolution of stoning, what say you?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Kirtsy
  • Tumblr
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Print
  • email
  • PDF
  • RSS

T. Allen-Mercado

T.Allen-Mercado is a mixed media artist, award-winning essayist, student of anthropology, blogger, wife and, mother of two.

More Posts

  • kguerrieri

    I want to agree with your point , but I am having a hard time figuring out what it is. You are not very articulate in this post.

  • http://teanhoneybread.blogspot.com/ T. Allen-Mercado

    My apologies. My point was to ask my readers if they felt at some point women are suing their wayward spouses as a means of leveling the patriarchal playing field. We’ve undergone grave injustices under the guise of preserving the sanctity of marriage and the economic structure with men sufferng little to no consequence. Are women now hitting men in their pockets as an act of vengeance? Thanks for reading.

  • http://www.comfortingplace.blogspot.com Barbara

    ::nervously takes a seat at the table, pours self a glass of tea and introduces self as Unmarried::

    I love the way you approached this subject. In all the conversations had about Him and Her, and all of the other Hims that have decided that 3,4 and 5 are not a crowd in a marriage, I had yet to hear or read anyone turn the tables on the situation like you just did. I think its a very important conversation because, as you pointed out, in other places, the price of adultery is much higher for women than the monetary sanction and the “laugh it off” attitude of men here in the US.

    I don’t know. Given the fact that marriage is a contract, when that contract is violated, there are consequences. In this case, the consequence is a financial payment, and because its Him and he does what he does, and has made the amount of money that he’s made, and probably because of how many playmates he decided to go find, the payment is high. Together, they were providing a particular kind of lifestyle for their children, and that has to be kept up I guess. Maybe I’m looking on the surface. I personally think there should be a stiffer consequence for the violation of the contract.

    • http://teanhoneybread.blogspot.com/ T. Allen-Mercado

      “Given the fact that marriage is a contract, when that contract is violated, there are consequences.” In a nutshell, yes. The last thing I want to do is reduce women to dollars and cents, but a contractual obligation is just that, and given the number of child support deadbeats, and post-marital homeless women and children in existence, I can see why women are going to such great lengths to punish and otherwise deter their wayward partners. I’m glad you weighed in, and moreso as an unmarried person because it could also be argued that married women are biased.

  • http://www.thencameisaiah.com Tiara

    To add the stuffy lawyer perspective, it really is all about the contract. Elin’s marriage to Tiger and choice to produce children from that union made her and her children accustomed to a certain lifestyle. Assuming she took her vows seriously and that she assumed the role of caretaker of their home and children – why should her lifestyle and that of her children suffer due to his breach? Who knows what sacrifices she made in her own journey to assume the role of his wife and mother to his children. Sure there is a punitive element but as Barbara says – we can just call those consequences of his actions.

    • http://teanhoneybread.blogspot.com T.Allen-Mercado

      Not stuffy at all, Tiara. ALL of your points are spot on. It matters not whether she needs, or deserves the money-only that the contract has been breached. Of course I think there is a level of punishment intended in theory (I’d be livid), but who could argue that. Marriage is as deeply emotional as it is legally binding. Thanks for weighing in.

  • http://www.quiskaeya.com Quiskaeya

    Very, very interesting. I wholeheartedly agree with Barbara & Tiara. Elin & Tiger entered into contractual agree. Tiger didn’t hold up his end of the bargain and now he has to pay the pied piper. Big payouts probably are the cultural evolution of stoning & these men should be stoned for their transgressions. On the flip side, this is also occurring in same sex unions. Melissa Etheridge’s ex-wife is suing her for millions because she says when she met Etheridge she was a rising hollywood star & gave it all up to become a mother & housewife. She goes on to say that Etheridge was permitted to continue her successful singing career, while she maintained the home. Now the ex-wife wants Etheridge to pay spousal support, in addition to child support.

    • http://teanhoneybread.blogspot.com T.Allen-Mercado

      Thank you Quiskaeya, I agree the men should be “stoned”, whatever the reasoning and methodology, there is a contractual agreement in place that relatively speaking has only been punitively enforced when the woman breaches the agreement.

      As for same-sex unions, I think it’ll be VERY interesting to see how this all unfolds.

  • http://lovesgumbo.com Love’s Gumbo

    I think contractually speaking, she deserves whatever her large payment she gets. I do wonder why they didn’t have a pre-nup in place. though I wonder if he had married me, an educated black woman would I have been asked to sign a pre-nup? I wonder if blonde nannies don’t get the gold digger once over, that smart others get. Not saying that she is a gold-digger, just saying that she didn’t even get gold-digger consideration.

    • http://teanhoneybread.blogspot.com T.Allen-Mercado

      Brooke, you make an interesting observation re: the pre-nup and the “Golddigging”. I agree a pre-nuptial agreement should have been put into place, and would be willing to bet that Woods’ people suggested such. I’d also go as far as to say the same um…”thought process” that went into all of his extra-curricular activity fueled his decision against a pre-nup when all was fresh and new with the former nanny.

      “Gold digging” I think is somethnig that is reserved for those who come from a certain class, but I’m on the fence about that concept since again, who/what determines a woman’s worth? I’d like to think if one were willing to marry her ’til death do you part, she would be priceless. The same is true for men, look at what happened to Terry McMillan…

  • http://babygirlzmagazine.com Traci

    Brooke…”ditto” on the question you pose. I often wonder that same thing when ‘these’ situations arise in the media and we are forced to take a front row seat.

    Tameka…unfortunately, I feel that most people don’t really take marriage seriously nowadays – they barely take the relationship serious. It’s all like and lust in the beginning and the feeling that there is nothing left to do but take that next step, being marriage. The wedding preparations last longer than the marriages themselves.

    I think that women are just getting fed up with the whole “a man’s going to be a man” nonsense and doing all the looking the other way that so many of the women in our families did before us. They are realizing that while they were at home…taking care of home, that their men are out there acting like they have no home. I don’t know if the intent is to hit them in the pockets, initially, but when lawyers come sniffing around and making them aware of what they can get, it sets off a chain reaction from there. I say it’s “what they get”. But for the ones with the single payoff, the man probably comes off better for it because it’s a one time deal and that money will be made right back in the next season or at the catch of another ball, or whatever the profession is. Nothing really lost. And trust, it will all be repeated again.