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

seeing_ie

Fishie wrote: »

I fear this thread is going off-topic somewhat

The population/resource issue is very much on topic imo. If a lot of people get married to have kids, but we agree that everyone shouldn't have kids because the planet doesn't have the resources to support them, then we've shown the redundacy of marriage on some levels.

Fishie wrote: »

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.

Great point, it's not overpopulation in actual terms that's the problem, it's competition among humans for finite resources.
Resource wars. Wars over oil, water, minerals, territory.

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.

In, Ireland, more than in other devoloped countries, I think that marriage is seen as an ultimate goal, or "the next step", for many people.

Fishie wrote: »

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.

People got married in the past to have kids. We agree there's "too many kids on the planet" already, and you can have kids outside marriage without stigma anyway.
In the past some women got married because it gave them an opportunity to get away from their families and assert some independence, their own "kingdom", some social status. Today women are educated and approaching equality and can have their own careers to achieve social status.
In the past people got married for companionship, we are social animals after all. Today, as demonstrated in the article by the Dutch model, people can live communally, with companionship without marrying.
Just some reasons why marriage is indeed approaching obsolescence imo.

Reku

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Many scientists argue that it is resulting in a stagnation of the species though since it is no longer the case that weaker specimens and mutations die off, instead they also go on to reproduce, impairing the process of natural selection, and as a result slowing evolution. Childhood mortality rates are a tiny fraction of what they were in the 1800's. Instead technology now readily permits the weaker specimens to kill stronger ones.

In essense there it is quite possible that our rate of genetic development is inversely proportional to our rate of technological development.

2 Miles From Narnia

One of the things that I found interesting in that article was how marriage and what it stood for changes through time, with some points in history having extended family / friends / the local community being more important than nowadays. If it's a relatively recent expectation to want a best friend, sexual partner and finanial partner in one person, I wonder how marriages will look in a few hundred years time.

psychward

I'd give her one no problem


To keep the mods off my back (and get the angry feminists on instead lol); On the question of marriage though I think if that's what a woman wants then many of them go completely about it the wrong way. Riding around for 10 years at the back of Coppers probably won't convince a male in your social group to consider you as marriage material. Double standard ? Not always as not all men behave this way and many people might just reap what they sow. Even if a double standard it's still a practical consideration. It's a question of priorities.
As for myself, meeting my mate was totally random but it arose due to who I was at the time and I always saw myself settling down and having a bunch of kids so my goals were actually never to become ''that coppers guy.'' But while I was looking for something serious and being very fussy about it , hundreds of women were living the sex in the city lifestyle and believing they could have it all. But just look at most of the characters in the show and their problems. They partied for so long and in the end most were looking for marriage and kids out of haggard menopausal desperation instead of it being something nice and natural and normal that happened at the right time. There are similar newspaper articles I have read where single childless women of a certain age state how they lived life their own way yet they have regrets. Looking at the biography they present , you never see them acknowledge how stupid they were when they for example dated sometimes very long term who was 22 year old when they were 35. And you rarely see them acknowledge all the stupid dating decisions they made which sabotaged their goals instead of helped fulfilled them.

seeing_ie

psychward wrote: »

I'd give her one no problem

Christ.

psychward wrote: »

To keep the mods off my back (and get the angry feminists on instead lol); On the question of marriage though I think if that's what a woman wants then many of them go completely about it the wrong way. Riding around for 10 years at the back of Coppers probably won't convince a male in your social group to consider you as marriage material. Double standard ? Not always as not all men behave this way and many people might just reap what they sow. Even if a double standard it's still a practical consideration. It's a question of priorities.
As for myself, meeting my mate was totally random but it arose due to who I was at the time and I always saw myself settling down and having a bunch of kids so my goals were actually never to become ''that coppers guy.'' But while I was looking for something serious and being very fussy about it , hundreds of women were living the sex in the city lifestyle and believing they could have it all. But just look at most of the characters in the show and their problems. They partied for so long and in the end most were looking for marriage and kids out of haggard menopausal desperation instead of it being something nice and natural and normal that happened at the right time. There are similar newspaper articles I have read where single childless women of a certain age state how they lived life their own way yet they have regrets. Looking at the biography they present , you never see them acknowledge how stupid they were when they for example dated sometimes very long term who was 22 year old when they were 35. And you rarely see them acknowledge all the stupid dating decisions they made which sabotaged their goals instead of helped fulfilled them.

Yes mate. Very double standard.
The rest of your lazy characterisations aren't worth addressing tbh.

psychward

seeing_ie wrote: »

Yes mate. Very double standard.
The rest of your lazy characterisations aren't worth addressing tbh.

you're the lazy one . In fact not only lazy but deluded about how the real world operates.

seeing_ie

psychward wrote: »

you're the lazy one . In fact not only lazy but deluded about how the real world operates.

No you're lazy etc

Care to point out how exactly I'm deluded about how the "real" world operates? Is Coppers and Sex & the city the real world?

Wibbs

Can we dial this back a tad and stay polite please?

seeing_ie

Is this even on topic?

I'd prefer to address the issues tbh.

Wibbs

Reku wrote: »

Many scientists argue that it is resulting in a stagnation of the species though since it is no longer the case that weaker specimens and mutations die off, instead they also go on to reproduce, impairing the process of natural selection, and as a result slowing evolution. Childhood mortality rates are a tiny fraction of what they were in the 1800's. Instead technology now readily permits the weaker specimens to kill stronger ones.

In essense there it is quite possible that our rate of genetic development is inversely proportional to our rate of technological development.

That kinda presupposes that A) evolution has a "plan" and that technology isn't part of evolution. Clearly it has been in the case of B. We're the top predator on the planet, yet we're weak, pretty slow with tiny teeth unsuited for such a purpose. Didn't matter as we made teeth from stone and then from metal. Without those technologies, technologies going back 2 million years, more of us would have died. The very second our brains kicked in we changed the face of evolution on this planet. We're the first species on this planet that drove our own evolution. The handaxe and the anti biotic and genetic engineering are one and the same in this.

Our current social engineering and science just continues the process I reckon. Very few men and women reading this would have survived beyond childhood 50,000 years ago, yet here we all are, living long lives because we made the better hand axe. Our evolution will continue to be shaped and marriage and kids or lack thereof for women and men will be part of that.

psychward

seeing_ie wrote: »

No you're lazy etc

Care to point out how exactly I'm deluded about how the "real" world operates? Is Coppers and Sex & the city the real world?

Coppers exists in the real world on Harcourt Street in Dublin. You entered the conversation like a troll engaging in namecalling the moment your feet hit the ground while I brought up some important issues about how women end up in these situations where they have to justify whats going on in their lives and put it in some kind of positive light in order to feel better after years of exercising very bad judgement in their failed relationships. Now listen to the mod and stay on topic and keep your bias about the perfect decisionmaking of women out of this thread.

LegacyUser

Marriage is one of the greatest concepts that we have invented.

A child needs a father and a mother.....yes they do.....and two people committing to staying together in a legal and spiritual agreement to do just that no matter what happens, "for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health" is a beautiful thing.

Nothing gives me more happiness than seeing a married couple together 40, 50, years both blissfully happy in each other's company and heading into old age together.

I aspire to be just like my own parents and to be there for our grandchildren together.

It may not be fashionable or trendy, but nothing of substance ever is.

Wibbs

psychward If you have a problem with a poster or post report it. Do not accuse another poster of being a troll again. Plus remember where you are, read the charter and cool your jets or your posting privileges in this forum will be removed.

seeing_ie

Wibbs wrote: »

That kinda presupposes that A) evolution has a "plan" and that technology isn't part of evolution. Clearly it has been in the case of B. We're the top predator on the planet, yet we're weak, pretty slow with tiny teeth unsuited for such a purpose. Didn't matter as we made teeth from stone and then from metal. Without those technologies, technologies going back 2 million years, more of us would have died. The very second our brains kicked in we changed the face of evolution on this planet. We're the first species on this planet that drove our own evolution. The handaxe and the anti biotic and genetic engineering are one and the same in this.

Our current social engineering and science just continues the process I reckon. Very few men and women reading this would have survived beyond childhood 50,000 years ago, yet here we all are, living long lives because we made the better hand axe. Our evolution will continue to be shaped and marriage and kids or lack thereof for women and men will be part of that.

Agree.
Isn't possible though, even likely, that he societal focus on marriage, from which children usually follow, could endanger the future of the species?
Or at least endanger or slow the positive development of the species?
If the current rates of global population growth continue as projected it's not going to be a pleasant life for future generations, which imo will affect positive evolution (if there is such a thing) and development.

Do we want see more decade-long oil wars? Or watch Egypt and Ethopia*, for example, fighting water wars when smaller populations in each country could live less stressful lives?
If you keep adding chickens to a pen of finite size, they'll freak out and start pecking each other to death.
Marriage now, if not in the past, adds to the rate at which chickens are added to the pen.

It's easy for me to say this sitting in the developed world, but I think it'd be more beneficial to society/the species/development if we didn't have a narrow focus on marriage'n'kids.
If career, particularly in the STEM fields, were presented as more of a positive option, especially in Ireland.


*the population of Ethiopia has gone from 40million to 80million since the eighties.

johnners2981

Had to laugh at this comment "You would think she would get married as quick as possible, just to get rid of her surname"

Anyway I didn't read the whole article but did she explain why marriage is a declining option for modern women? Seems to me if it's a declining option for women it's a declining option for men.

I think the title encouraged controversy.

iguana

Fishie wrote: »

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?

You sort of answered that question in your preceding paragraph. A HUGE amount of what we consume is utterly unnecessary to us leading safe, comfortable, entertained, educated, healthy lives. And an enormous amount of jobs are involved in keeping all of those unnecessary consumptions in existence. A lot of people have jobs that don't add anything meaningful to society. And a lot of people doing those meaningless jobs spend an awful lot of their lives doing them and prioritising them over doing something that's actually meaningful.

pajunior

She does raise an interesting point about "marrying down".

When I think about it I can only imagine it being common for men to marry down.

I mean a well off man marrying a waitress seems more likely then a well of woman marrying a waiter. But maybe I'm just biased.

Yahew

seeing_ie wrote: »

Agree.
Isn't possible though, even likely, that he societal focus on marriage, from which children usually follow, could endanger the future of the species?
Or at least endanger or slow the positive development of the species?
If the current rates of global population growth continue as projected it's not going to be a pleasant life for future generations, which imo will affect positive evolution (if there is such a thing) and development.

This is your bug bear, and not really related to the topic. The future of the species is not in doubt. Even if the worst nightmares of the eco-warriors comes true, the population of the Earth is not going to go below billions. Furthermore population pressures are confined to certain parts of the world - with the West seeing huge decreases in fertility for the first time in world history absent famine, or war.

There might be localised problems, i.e. water wars in Ethiopia but that won't necessarily spread.

seenitall

pajunior wrote: »

She does raise an interesting point about "marrying down".

When I think about it I can only imagine it being common for men to marry down.

I mean a well off man marrying a waitress seems more likely then a well of woman marrying a waiter. But maybe I'm just biased.

Er... the way I understand the article, the point she actually raises is that this is becoming the thing of the past more and more, i.e. men are getting reluctant to "marry down", so therefore the dearth of "marriagable" men (unless one is a "marriagable" woman, I suppose). Which is I think a good sign as to the progress of gender equality, and a bad sign for the traditionally assigned roles in the marraige (as well as for the marriage itself?).

seeing_ie, I don't think that the ultimate fate of marriage as an institution will have an effect on birth rates such as you imagine (if I understand you correctly). I think your POV is idealistic rather than practical. Whatever happens with marriage, people will still be having sex, and the poorer they are, the more they will procreate, due to a variety of reasons (e.g. Africa, India, which is where the real overpopulation numbers are). I don't think that's about to change any time soon, marriage or no marriage (aside from the fact that the poorer societies tend to uphold the traditions more, and therefore marraige as an institution will last the longest in those, anyway).

pickarooney

Fishie wrote: »

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?

Iguana summed it up pretty much word for word.

LeeHoffmann

the way I understand the article, the point she actually raises is that this is becoming the thing of the past more and more, i.e. men are getting reluctant to "marry down", so therefore the dearth of "marriagable" men (unless one is a "marriagable" woman, I suppose).

I thought the main point was that women are outstripping men in terms of education and career and are unwilling to 'marry down' (what a horrible phrase)?

pajunior

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I thought the main point was that women are outstripping men in terms of education and career and are unwilling to 'marry down' (what a horrible phrase)?

That is what I took from the article.

She further emphasizes this point by saying how successful men know this so feel that they can "play the field" for a lot longer.

All of which is quite horrible.

seenitall

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I thought the main point was that women are outstripping men in terms of education and career and are unwilling to 'marry down' (what a horrible phrase)?

Apologies. I had her article, (which I read a few months ago) mixed up with one that talked expressly about men changing their "marriage criteria" in recent times. But I do think it all works together, actually. If both genders want to "marry up" nowadays, that means that no one wants to "marry down", and so there will be less marriage, too. That's in addition to the point about men playing on women's desire to marry/marry up.

Also (@ pajunior), I don't think it is "horrible". An unfortunate function of the rising gender equality, yes, but, of course, definitely worth it! As Bolick goes on to describe, the changes in the attitudes toward marriage, singledom, single motherhood and "marrying down" for women are underway, all of which will ultimately facilitate women's independance of the institution of marriage as the social seal of approval. (It's already happening with co-habitation etc.) When circumstances force thinking/acting outside the box (norm), human beings are adaptable.

I do believe marriage will stick around for a while longer, but needless to say, it is changing; what with the rises in divorce rates and co-habitation, and the advent of pre-nup and similar, I believe its place and form in the (Western) society will be quite different in the future.

So, not all doom and gloom!

Yahew

seenitall wrote: »

I do believe marriage will stick around for a while longer, but needless to say, it is changing; what with the rises in divorce rates and co-habitation, and the advent of pre-nup and similar, I believe its place and form in the (Western) society will be quite different in the future.

So, not all doom and gloom!

I bet it will re-bound strongly within a generation, or two. Its hardly that strong now anyway. Co-habitation is effectively marriage, in any case, but eventually people will come around to the idea that a marriage contract is an economic contract which makes sense if you are intending on living with someone for life, or a good part of it.

I am hoping that weddings die out though.

peter pp

peter pp wrote: »

Marriage is one of the greatest concepts that we have invented.

A child needs a father and a mother.....yes they do.....and two people committing to staying together in a legal and spiritual agreement to do just that no matter what happens, "for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health" is a beautiful thing.

Nothing gives me more happiness than seeing a married couple together 40, 50, years both blissfully happy in each other's company and heading into old age together.

I aspire to be just like my own parents and to be there for our grandchildren together.

It may not be fashionable or trendy, but nothing of substance ever is.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking.
I really dislike it when people who oppose marriage focus on nothing but what it means for WOMEN. What about the husbands? What about the children? Do they not deserve some stability, care and companionship? Marriage will survive as a tradition for a number of reasons:
-It's a great way for two people to demonstrate their commitment to each other
-It ensures a stable environment in which to raise potential offspring
-It provides legal security and entitlement in the case of one partner leaving/dying
While I appreciate that we are no longer obliged, or forced, to marry, I cannot condone all the anti-marriage sentimentality being cultivated by modernists. It is a good concept, and one that has previously been seen as beautiful and sacred: why are people so determined to deconstruct all of that?

seenitall

Deleted User wrote: »

the anti-marriage sentimentality

LOL

But seriously, k.f, why take it so personal? If marriage works for you, more power to you, and I hope it's very happy and long lasting.

I don't think that anyone on-thread has shown themselves to be determined to deconstruct marriage. The simple fact is that the uptake of marriage as a lifestyle option has slowed down in the Western world in recent decades, but that still leaves a lot of people out there who do get married and have lasting marriages. It's just that the lifestyle options have diversified as the stigma of NOT being married is not there any longer. A good thing, no?

And yes, what about men in relation to marriage? If you look around (or even just read a lot of RI threads on this forum), the recurrent theme is that it is men, actually, who are more reluctant to commit to marriage - the issue seems to be rearing its head again and again and again. I think it is about time women follow their lead (i.e. start caring less about getting married), tbh. Because otherwise it just becomes a question of an imbalance in the relationship, men feel under pressure, women feel unappreciated, and that's no good to anyone.

The idea of marriage is lovely, so, you know, long may it live. However, long-lasting relationships exist outside of marriage too, happy life together is attainable outside of marriage, too, and of course, happy kids get raised outside of marriage, too (my little one for example! ). The nuclear family is not the Holy Grail to the extent that it used to be; with different options come different preferences. As a single parent, I welcome the changes in people's attitudes.

dr.bollocko

The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons ("something was missing"), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfilment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling ("I wasn't ready to settle down") is a second-wave feminist idea I'd acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct her own choices.

It's a rather unromantic article. In that it somewhat paints a cold view of all relationships.

This is not to question romantic love itself. Rather, we could stand to examine the ways in which we think about love; and the changing face of marriage is giving us a chance to do this. "Love comes from the motor of the mind, the wanting part that craves that piece of chocolate, or a work promotion," Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and perhaps this country's leading scholar of love, told me. That we want is enduring; what we want changes as culture does.

There's a failure to take into account how different people define love, companionship, etc. and an automatic assumption that marriage can be seen as settling / compromising.

The implications are extraordinary. If, in all sectors of society, women are on the ascent, and if gender parity is actually within reach, this means that a marriage regime based on men's overwhelming economic dominance may be passing into extinction.

The concept of marriage has evolved hugely and continues to do so. It does not mean that being unmarried automatically means you are liberated.

Similarly with regard to her views on childbirth. Marriage does not automatically mean a child / settling for the income of a spouse. (I hope )

Dudess

psychward wrote: »

I'd give her one no problem

Taking a break from your homework are you?

to keep the mods off my back (and get the angry feminists on instead lol)

Who would they be? A woman who doesn't just talk about flowers and babies all the time isn't necessarily an angry feminist.

On the question of marriage though I think if that's what a woman wants then many of them go completely about it the wrong way. Riding around for 10 years at the back of Coppers probably won't convince a male in your social group to consider you as marriage material. Double standard ? Not always as not all men behave this way and many people might just reap what they sow. Even if a double standard it's still a practical consideration. It's a question of priorities.
As for myself, meeting my mate was totally random but it arose due to who I was at the time and I always saw myself settling down and having a bunch of kids so my goals were actually never to become ''that coppers guy.'' But while I was looking for something serious and being very fussy about it , hundreds of women were living the sex in the city lifestyle and believing they could have it all. But just look at most of the characters in the show and their problems. They partied for so long and in the end most were looking for marriage and kids out of haggard menopausal desperation instead of it being something nice and natural and normal that happened at the right time. There are similar newspaper articles I have read where single childless women of a certain age state how they lived life their own way yet they have regrets. Looking at the biography they present , you never see them acknowledge how stupid they were when they for example dated sometimes very long term who was 22 year old when they were 35. And you rarely see them acknowledge all the stupid dating decisions they made which sabotaged their goals instead of helped fulfilled them.

So you're saying you're better than them. Blue Peter badge for you.

IMO, the only point to marriage is father's rights - but that's just my take.

Logical Fallacy

psychward wrote: »

I brought up some important issues about how women end up in these situations where they have to justify whats going on in their lives and put it in some kind of positive light in order to feel better after years of exercising very bad judgement in their failed relationships. Now listen to the mod and stay on topic and keep your bias about the perfect decisionmaking of women out of this thread.

The thing about the above bolded part, is sometime people can simply be explain the choices they made and it may, just may, come across as making excuses for something and trying to put a positive light on it i.e, the below bolded part. While you are simply explaining that you were fussy about women and looking for something serious, someone could just be reading it as an excuse for why you were not getting laid, and think you were putting on a positive light on an inability to interact successfully on a sexual and emotional level with members of the opposite sex.

It's a case of perspective really, generally speaking no matter what way you broach certain subjects it can be hard to navigate the boulder strewn minefield that is a person preconceptions.

psychward wrote: »

As for myself, meeting my mate was totally random but it arose due to who I was at the time and I always saw myself settling down and having a bunch of kids so my goals were actually never to become ''that coppers guy.'' But while I was looking for something serious and being very fussy about it.

psychward

Dudess wrote: »

Taking a break from your homework are you?

Thats got absolutely nothing to do with what I posted

Dudess wrote: »

Who would they be? A woman who doesn't just talk about flowers and babies all the time isn't necessarily an angry feminist.

nothing to do with what I posted

Dudess wrote: »

So you're saying you're better than them. Blue Peter badge for you.

Again thats got absolutely no relevance to what I posted whatsoever. I never made any value judgement. I made a practical observation.

Random namecalling is the typical thing that happens when a group of people discuss a subject that some contributors are not yet ready to face maturely.

Now please , I don't engage in these threads with any disrespect to anyone which is why my experience taught me that some people just cannot tolerate an observation freely expressed if it disagrees with their ''science.'' I said what I saw in the world. Because I see something doesn't indicate my views one way or another. It just indicates that something real exists. Now instead of taking those ideas individually and refuting them I have tended to attract some abuse. I can happily mix it up with anyone and have done on other sites but I try to follow the rules of the site I am in.

Dudess wrote: »

IMO, the only point to marriage is father's rights - but that's just my take.

I don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage and people should be alowed to draw up their own contracts. Since the last government you are basically married after a period of cohabitation whether you like it or not and whether you consent to it or not. I think that's wrong. I also don't think marriage should be a requirement for father's rights. Children should have a right to their father as much as vice versa.