Kate Bolick: why marriage is a declining option for modern women

seeing_ie

Thought provoking article, something of a counterpoint to the "matrimania" (authors term I'll be nicking) prevalent, imo, among certain demographics in Ireland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/27/kate-bolick-women-marriage-relationships

Yahew

She could have shortened it.

Da Shins Kelly

The comments underneath are quite funny.

starlit

Quiet long, just got the gist of it. Didn't read it completely but very much agree what she is saying in it though. I very much think marriage is on the way out. Its more the norm to have kids before marriage or not marry at all its not a big thing at all these days. Later in life is probably the best way to go. You don't need a man to hang around or be married to have kids. Being married to have kids is just a new thing that has only been around a few centuries being imposed by religious orders.

Women don't have to just settle on careers alone but don't have just settle on being a housewife with kids. That has all changed in the past few decades. Women can have it all if they want. Not a big deal. Men and women are equal so shouldn't matter how women live their lives as housewives or career women or both. Women shouldn't feel under pressure to just settle down for the sake of it!?

Neither money or a career or marriage or kids would make people happy you have to be happy within yourself before you can allow all those to make you happy but money never buys happiness neither does money buy you love!
But a love of a child, a child's love, the love you give to a child can mean more than anything in the world. Hard job raising kids but its one of the best jobs in the world. Its a gift and be cherished. Making a child smile and feel loved is more important a job or money. Kids can make you more happy and bring more love into the world than any marriage can!

Geekness1234

So what you are saying is I'll have to make my own sandwichs then?
Preposterous.

Silverfish

If you do not have anything to contribute to the discussion, please do not post.


Geekness1234, please read the charter before posting in this forum again. Thank you.

Yahew

I feel, at the root of this, is the longer lives we are living. In the Elizabethen age, people married for life, but that was on average 17 years as people died. In general the woman died younger than the men, due to childbirth complications. Widows re-married frequently. Now if you marry for life at 20 you have 60 years, marry at 40 and its 40 years. Thats still quite long.

Were it not for the issue of fertility, getting married at 40 would make sense. Graduate in mid-twenties, spend a decade trying people out, get serious at 35, marry in the next few years and still you have as long to live as someone who is 20 in 1870.

However, this woman seems to have given up. She is now 38, and thats it. Seems a bit odd.

seeing_ie

doovdela wrote: »

But a love of a child, a child's love, the love you give to a child can mean more than anything in the world. Hard job raising kids but its one of the best jobs in the world. Its a gift and be cherished. Making a child smile and feel loved is more important a job or money. Kids can make you more happy and bring more love into the world than any marriage can!

So, by implication, there's nothing anyone can do that's more rewarding than having babies?
Have kids, be happy?

We've got to move away from indulging our redundant procreative instincts to further evolve as a species imo.

There sure isn't a shortage of babies in the world.

listermint

seeing_ie wrote: »

So, by implication, there's nothing anyone can do that's more rewarding than having babies?
Have kids, be happy?

We've got to move away from indulging our redundant procreative instincts to further evolve as a species imo.

There sure isn't a shortage of babies in the world.

Understand what your saying, But.

How is procreation redundant? Are we churning children out of a some designer factory now that we can pick them out of argos?

Hopefully that will Never happen. Creating life is a special thing and always should be. The fact that you dont appear to want children shouldnt have to impact others.

Yahew

seeing_ie wrote: »

There sure isn't a shortage of babies in the world.

With some exceptions, fertility rates are in decline across the world.

Gyalist

seeing_ie wrote: »

So, by implication, there's nothing anyone can do that's more rewarding than having babies?
Have kids, be happy?

We've got to move away from indulging our redundant procreative instincts to further evolve as a species imo.

There sure isn't a shortage of babies in the world.

How are we going to evolve if we don't reproduce?

Wibbs

Gyalist wrote: »

How are we going to evolve if we don't reproduce?

Not wishing to sound like a nerd... evolution is like the internet, it sees a blockage or "censorship" as a fault and tries to route around it. We will still evolve. We've evolved more on the genetic level in the last 10,000 years than we did in the previous 80,000 years. It'll still happen. In random unpredicted ways, or by our own hands through science. The latter is already happening. I recall a very interesting thread on AH a while back which asked something along the lines of "how many here would have died without medical intervention?". The result was a majority*. So that majority are reproducing now when in the past they'd not have been able to. That's evolution too.







* I was one of the minority who'd be still pissing ye off The only vaccination I've had is for polio and I've never been in hospital, nor have ever had an antibiotic. I'm not sure a world of me would be a good thing mind you... :pac:

seeing_ie

listermint wrote: »

Understand what your saying, But.

How is procreation redundant?

Our natural, and strong, instinct to procreate evolved in a dangerous world with high levels of infant mortality.
In developed countries, we no longer live in that world, therefore the instinct is redundant.
In the past the strong instinct to procreate was necessary for the survival of the species.
The survival of the species is no longer in doubt in numerical terms.
Since we live on a planet with finite resources the instinct to procreate may bring about the end of the species through overpopulation, ironically.

Not everyone has to have kids to ensure that adequate, or optimum, numbers are maintained.

Wibbs

seeing_ie wrote: »

Not everyone has to have kids to ensure that adequate, or optimum, numbers are maintained.

It varies from place to place though. Spain and especially Italy are seeing fewer children being born. They're not replacing themselves which may cause big social and financial problems down the line.

seeing_ie

Wibbs wrote: »

It varies from place to place though. Spain and especially Italy are seeing fewer children being born. They're not replacing themselves which may cause big social and financial problems down the line.

If I remember correctly, Japan and Russia are in a similar situation.

Doesn't change the fact that, on a global level, there certainly isn't fewer children being born. Which is a more serious issue imo.

pickarooney

seeing_ie wrote: »

So, by implication, there's nothing anyone can do that's more rewarding than having babies?
Have kids, be happy?

We've got to move away from indulging our redundant procreative instincts to further evolve as a species imo.

More importantly we need to move away from this model of everyone working meaningless jobs in order to evolve as a species.

Yahew

pickarooney wrote: »

More importantly we need to move away from this model of everyone working meaningless jobs in order to evolve as a species.

We should all do what then?

Scarinae

seeing_ie wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that, on a global level, there certainly isn't fewer children being born. Which is a more serious issue imo.

I fear this thread is going off-topic somewhat, but I thought I’d add that the Mineral Information Institute estimates that an average American child will require 2.96 million lbs of minerals, metals and fuels in their lifetime… It’s not much of a stretch to assume that other Western children are not far behind. So yes, overpopulation is a problem, but Western consumption is a bigger one. As it has already been pointed out, populations are stagnating and ageing in various Western countries, but countries such as China are catching up with the West in terms of commodity consumption and that’s a huge thing given the size of their population.

pickarooney wrote: »

More importantly we need to move away from this model of everyone working meaningless jobs in order to evolve as a species.

What exactly do you mean by meaningless jobs? Most jobs are there because they need to be done and/or there is a demand for them, surely?

On topic… I don’t think that marriage is seen as such a goal anymore. I’m 25 and still feel I’m too young to get married, my sister is 31 and isn’t engaged to her boyfriend yet; however our mother was married at 24 and our grandmothers were married at 20 and 21 respectively. Nowadays there is no problem with co-habiting before marriage, and having a baby while unmarried doesn’t have the same social stigma attached. If people don’t want to have children, that is fine too. People have a lot more options now than they did before. That isn’t to say that marriage is becoming obsolete; people are still getting married, but it is because they actually want to and not because they are expected to.

Yahew

Fishie wrote: »

On topic… I don’t think that marriage is seen as such a goal anymore. I’m 25 and still feel I’m too young to get married, my sister is 31 and isn’t engaged to her boyfriend yet; however our mother was married at 24 and our grandmothers were married at 20 and 21 respectively. Nowadays there is no problem with co-habiting before marriage, and having a baby while unmarried doesn’t have the same social stigma attached. If people don’t want to have children, that is fine too. People have a lot more options now than they did before. That isn’t to say that marriage is becoming obsolete; people are still getting married, but it is because they actually want to and not because they are expected to.

Nobody probably read the original article, because it was too long. She said that like you she assumed in her twenties that she would get married, but it was something to put off. By her late 30's she now thinks she won't. And she had relationships all the time, from her first year at high school, until md-30's when it dried off.

The question then is whether people, women in particular, can wait too long.

LeeHoffmann

I found the part about 'marriageable men' very odd and old-fashioned. Does anybody really think that there's some kind of social stigma around marrying a man who is less educated or earns less than you? I wouldn't have thought anybody would put too much pass on that when considering whether to marry somebody. The whole notion kind of contradicts the central thesis of the argument - i.e. that society's attitude to marriage is changing because gender parity is occurring

TL;DR for the article (it is too long):

As long as women were denied the financial and educational opportunities of men, it encouraged them to "marry up" – how else would they improve their lot? Now that we can pursue our own status and security, and are therefore liberated from needing men the way we once did, we are free to like them more, or at least more idiosyncratically

...For all the changes the institution has undergone, American women as a whole have never been confronted with such a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be "marriageable" men – those who are better educated and earn more than they do. So women are now contending with what we might call the new scarcity. Even as women have seen their range of options broaden in recent years – for instance, expanding the kind of men it's culturally acceptable to be with, and making it OK not to marry at all – the new scarcity disrupts what economists call the "marriage market" in a way that in fact narrows the available choices. This shrinking pool of traditionally "marriageable" men is dramatically changing our social landscape, and producing startling dynamics in the marriage market, in ways that aren't immediately apparent.

Yahew

marriageable men... who are better educated and earn more than they do.


Yes, that was the controversial part. Howeever, in general...

Would a successful woman marry a cute waiter? Would a successful man marry a cute waitress? Which is more likely?

LeeHoffmann

Yahew, are you suggesting that men would 'marry down' (as the author put it) more readily than women would?

Why was it controversial? It seems to contradict the rest of her argument - I think that's a more interesting avenue of discussion to explore

Yahew

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Yahew, are you suggesting that men would 'marry down' (as the author put it) more readily than women would?

Yes.

Why was it controversial? It seems to contradict the rest of her argument - I think that's a more interesting avenue of discussion to explore

You said it was odd and old-fashioned. Presumably that is a controversial synonyms.

LeeHoffmann

Yes.

Well then that's pretty much the question I was asking i.e.

Does anybody really think that there's some kind of social stigma around marrying a man who is less educated or earns less than you? I wouldn't have thought anybody would put too much pass on that when considering whether to marry somebody.

I can only go on my own experience here. I don't see people marrying somebody significantly more wealthy or educated than they are. Maybe they're there and I haven't noticed it. I could imagine that these factors become significant in an indirect way - i.e. people value intelligence and knowledgeability (so education could increase their attractiveness). Likewise severe poverty is unattractive and stressful - and people tend to meet others who are in the same general wealth bracket, so getting together with somebody significantly wealthier or significantly poorer seems unlikely. However, Yahew you seem to be suggesting (I can only guess because you're not explaining your POV) that these factors directly affect a person's choice - and that women in particular are affected by them. Can you expand on your POV so I don't have to guess what you mean?

You said it was odd and old-fashioned. Presumably that is a controversial synonyms.

you meant that what I said was controversial, then? I thought you meant that the article was controversial. I don't see what's controversial about saying that POV is odd and old-fashioned...

Yahew

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Yes.
Can you expand on your POV so I don't have to guess what you mean?

True I asked a rhetorical question:

I think men are more likely to trade equal class/income status in long term mates for beauty and youth, and women are less likely to.

So men will "marry down" ( her phrase) and women won't.

LeeHoffmann

...so would you say that women are more likely to 'marry down' in terms of beauty and youth, whereas men are more likely to 'marry down' in terms of education and wealth?

Yahew

Thats just semantics.

LeeHoffmann

you're running so hard from my questions. I don't know why? Just answer a question! :pac:

Yahew

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

you're running so hard from my questions. I don't know why? Just answer a question! :pac:

Your question was semantic. I am using marry down in terms of class. Women don't so often, men tend to more often. That was clear from the original post I made. Its also the usage in the piece linked to - her definition of marriageable men. Better educated and higher earners - i.e. a higher social class. You quoted it.

clear now?

LeeHoffmann

marrying down in terms of class could be similar to marrying down in terms of looks though. The old stereotype is that social status for women relies heavily on physical appearance on youth, while for men wealth and authority is more attractive. Just trying to be balanced here and also to figure out whether it's the old stereotype that has informed your view. We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this though so let's go back to the start...
-Do people really place high importance on a person's level of education and wealth when choosing a spouse? (I haven't personally seen evidence of this. Have you?)
-If you think they do, then are those traits directly chosen or do they indirectly contribute to a potential spouse's level of attractiveness?

KittyeeTrix

I'll be honest and admit I had a little giggle at the authors surname:o:D