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

Dudess

Not everyone explains their choices in order to reassure themselves and others, some feel under pressure to do so due to nasty little societal prejudices.

Dudess

What names were you called? And you did come into the thread with an insult actually. Again, who would these angry feminists be? And you continued in a passive-aggressive vein. Better to confront someone than be snide and snakey tbh...

Whether it's wrong or not for state policies re fathers' rights to affect marriage, it's moot, because they do.

iguana

Dudess wrote: »

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

There is a fair bit more to it than that. Marriage is a massive legal contract in most countries. Marrying someone makes you their closest relative in the legal sense. It means your relationship with your wife/husband surpasses that of your biological family. That's actually huge for a plethora of financial, social and health reasons. Nothing much might change on a day to day basis but how many of the 'headline' moments of your life play out will depend on whether you and your partner are married or not.

If a married person ends up on life-support the person making the decisions is their spouse. If an unmarried person who has lived with their partner for 30 years ends up on life-support the partner will only be consulted if the person's parents, siblings or children deign to ask their opinion. They will have no right to see their loved one or even be informed of their condition. They won't get to carry out their loved ones wishes even though realistically they are likely to be the one who is most in tune with what the sick person wants, because legally their relationship is that of a stranger.

In a small few countries like New Zealand and Canada those rights and responsibilities are conferred upon partners following a set period of of co-habitation. But everywhere else marriage changes your life in a lot of ways that are very likely to matter greatly when you might really, really need it to. (Or not to depending on how your relationship with your partner is.)

psychward

Dudess wrote: »

Not everyone explains their choices in order to reassure themselves and others, some feel under pressure to do so due to nasty little societal prejudices.

Unfortunately no-one died and made us emperor so we have to accept that one persons ''nasty societal prejudices'' can be someone else's free choice.
If someone has to misrepresent themselves because someone else doesnt love what they are then thats'' their own fault and theres no point blaming the honest person for the acts of the manipulative person. You just have to accept that everyone is different and get on with it.
Theres nothing factually wrong about pointing out that an overwhelming majority of men in the absence of additional information would view someone as an inferior and possibly untrustworthy mate if that someone has spent the last 10 years methodically riding all his friends around the back of Coppers. Now people can scream and bitch about it all they want but thats' a fact. I never got into value judgements but I did point it out as an obvious fact. Would you be comfortable getting into a long term relationship with someone who has had sex with every one of your friends ? Of course some people have no problem with any of that but they are very few.

Dudess wrote: »

What names were you called? And you did come into the thread with an insult actually. Again, who would these angry feminists be? And you continued in a passive-aggressive vein. Better to confront someone than be snide and snakey tbh...

I'm not so worried about the namecalling thing unless it's used hypocritically against me followed up by my ability to respond being taken away as I am a big supporter of free speech for everyone provided I am engaging with someone in good faith. I never called anyone names and to be honest from what I am learning about the various forum charters as a new member I think that amounts to calling me a troll. Please just take the personal out of this and look at the facts and the realities.

Dudess wrote: »

Whether it's wrong or not for state policies re fathers' rights to affect marriage, it's moot, because they do.

If I took the same attitude towards your above factual statement as you took towards my similar pragmatic factual observation about majority social attitudes then I would have to act like I've been profoundly insulted and then do exactly what I complained about e.g post a factual statement as above. But I'm not. I apply the same rules to myself as to others, How would that make any sense or help anyone. I'm only interested in raising awareness. Someone looking for a reliable mate doesn't care about politics. They only care about their own goals. if you can't take care of yourself then you can't take care of anyone else. It seems in a lot of these articles the women can't achieve their goals or take care of themselves in that they made wrong choices yet still trot themselves out as an example. I pointed out some wrong choices. I saw a very similar article by a journalist who apparently married someone 20 years her junior and of course in line with probabilities it didn't work out and she had wasted her most fertile years as he was never ready for a family due to his age yet still then complained about her situation like she wasnt responsible for bad decisions. Those who want different things in life won't see them as a positive example and won't want to end up in the same place.

seeing_ie

Yahew wrote: »

This is your bug bear, and not really related to the topic.

Quite possibly my bugbear, although it's common amongst those that choose to consider it in any depth, I would have thought.

Yahew wrote: »

The future of the species is not in doubt.

That there will be a future for the species is never in doubt.
Which future will come to pass, however, is in doubt.
The higher the global population, the more competition for finite resources, the more pollution, the more instability, the lower the quality of life for all. Just look at China, and, increasingly, India.

Yahew wrote: »

Even if the worst nightmares of the eco-warriors comes true, the population of the Earth is not going to go below billions.

What kind of life will those future generations have? What will billions of people have to suffer if what you describe comes to pass?

Yahew wrote: »

Furthermore population pressures are confined to certain parts of the world .....There might be localised problems, i.e. water wars in Ethiopia but that won't necessarily spread.

So as long as it's over there, just affecting them, it's not our problem?
This is a global issue.
Our actions in the devoloped world (pollution) have an effect (climate change/sea level rise/flooding) on those least able to deal with it (ie Bangladesh).
It's naive to think that we exist in isolation here.
In purely selfish terms, conflict between, say, Ethopia and Egypt, would lead to instability in the region which would impact oil prices, which would affect the world economy.
We're very much dependent on oil and sensitive to drops in the world economy in Ireland.

Yahew wrote: »

......with the West seeing huge decreases in fertility for the first time in world history absent famine, or war.

The west (US/Europe/Australia/Japan approx 1.4B pop) isn't seeing decreases in fertility as I understand it, but some decreases in birth rates. This is a natural result of a better standard of living, the emancipation of women, and some reduction of the focus on marriage (although less so in Ireland imo, which was the point of my OP).
The other 80% of the world population are experiencing rapid population growth, which will impact the planet as a whole, and our quality of life here.

LeeHoffmann

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'm interested in knowing how true this stereotype is of women wanting to marry and have kids and men being averse. I assumed the stereotype was true, having heard it so often for so long. Then when I got engaged, it was nearly always men who noticed the ring - not the women. I found that odd. Of my group of friends and immediate family, the men are all quite romantic, they believe in marriage, in falling in love, in having a family of their own and are great with children. I'm not saying that the women are none of these things but, apart from myself, they're not obviously so. I've been surprised to learn that the men I know are actually very interested in marriage.

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 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 )

fully agree with dr. bollocko on this ^

nicowa

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I'm interested in knowing how true this stereotype is of women wanting to marry and have kids and men being averse. I assumed the stereotype was true, having heard it so often for so long. Then when I got engaged, it was nearly always men who noticed the ring - not the women. I found that odd. Of my group of friends and immediate family, the men are all quite romantic, they believe in marriage, in falling in love, in having a family of their own and are great with children. I'm not saying that the women are none of these things but, apart from myself, they're not obviously so. I've been surprised to learn that the men I know are actually very interested in marriage.


fully agree with dr. bollocko on this ^

I don't have a huge range of female friends to fully answer this question but... from my circle of friends in college they tended to eschew a long term committed relationship in favour of their travel and career preferences. And I don't just mean that they would not have a ltr but would finish the relationship in favour of travel and career. They didn't want to be "tied down".

Personally, except for the fact that I'm currently pregnant and couldn't find work right out of college (an MA rather than my degree) like I wanted to, I don't think I'm totally tied down. My partner is completly supportive of the fact that most of the jobs I want will be in England (film and theatre, so short term contracts) and we're willing to work them out. And I think it's this attitude that is missing for most people. They choose one over the other. And while I might miss out on some things from one side of the divide or the other, I'll still be happy that I'm with who I'm with, and with the work that I'm doing. I wouldn't want to think that in ten years time I was unhappy cos I missed out on this guy. But then, unlike the article says, I don't feel "something missing", so maybe I just got lucky.

Wibbs

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I'm interested in knowing how true this stereotype is of women wanting to marry and have kids and men being averse.

It appears to be true in the US, where a statistical change has occurred where men are leaving it later to get married if they get married at all. The so called "marriage strike". In some parts of Asia it seems more drive by women http://www.economist.com/node/21526350

LeeHoffmann

I agree nicowa, it doesn't have to be one or the other but that assumption is there for some. I think that might be because of the way single life is glorified somewhat - i.e. sleeping around is seen as liberated; marriage is often described as settling or 'end game'. Being single is exciting and fun, while being in an ltr (or worse - marriage! :eek:) is seen as boring and lifeless. IMO this is a false dichotomy and when people buy into it, they can make major decisions that don't necessarily gel with what they really want in life, such as the author of that article who wanted marriage but thought that she had to enjoy the fun times while she could.

I want to be clear though that I don't see either the single life or marriage as superior or more preferable in itself - I just think that people have to figure out what they really want themselves and pursue their dreams, rather than follow a script of what is supposed to make them happy. At the end of the day, advice is based on generalisations - what generally happens, what generally works for people, what generally makes people happy - and advice such as 'sleep around/play the game/travel while you can' has its merits but nobody should be following such advice without first figuring out if it really applies to them and whether it fits with their own dreams.

Wibbs, re: men in America leaving marriage til later if at all, aren't women doing that as well? And I'm not saying that the author of the article is correct in her explanation of what's going on, but couldn't her theory account for the fact that less men are getting married (i.e. women seeing them as 'unmarriageable'). Re: marriage in Asia, forgive me if this seems ignorant, but aren't a lot of Asian countries less developed than western countries both financially and socially (i.e. women and men are stuck in the traditional gender roles more than they are in western countries)? If so, then that could explain why the marriage push is being driven by women there.

Mallei

More and more women are turning against marriage because they don't feel the need to tie their lives to a man now that thankfully the world is (slowly) becoming a more equal place. It doesn't mean fewer women are in long-term relationships with male partners; it just means they don't feel like advertising themselves as property anymore.

Wibbs

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Wibbs, re: men in America leaving marriage til later if at all, aren't women doing that as well?

Apparently it's much more driven by the men. Due to divorce law men in the US can and do lose a lot, even most of their lot and that's driving much of the reticence. The suicide rate of divorced men is four times higher than for divorced women. So it seems many are figuring better to avoid it. TBH - and our laws are better in this regard - having seen mates of mine get hung out to dry with divorce here, I'd be pretty reticent myself.

And I'm not saying that the author of the article is correct in her explanation of what's going on, but couldn't her theory account for the fact that less men are getting married (i.e. women seeing them as 'unmarriageable').

Maybe though in the US case I do recall seeing a study which looked at professional higher earning men who would tend to have more choice and the trend was even more marked.

Re: marriage in Asia, forgive me if this seems ignorant, but aren't a lot of Asian countries less developed than western countries both financially and socially (i.e. women and men are stuck in the traditional gender roles more than they are in western countries)? If so, then that could explain why the marriage push is being driven by women there.

Can depend on the area and culture but yea pretty much. That said that link in my last post it was the women avoiding marriage. Due to the traditional roles you mention the article says women are not getting married as much or as young "because, for a woman, being both employed and married is tough in Asia"

LeeHoffmann

Interesting Wibbs. If men in the US really are losing out more in divorce cases (and I'd well believe that to be the case), then I can understand if they're hesitant.

I do recall seeing a study which looked at professional higher earning men who would tend to have more choice and the trend was even more marked.

so it seems like both genders are worried about 'marrying down' :pac:

What do you think is the case here though (Ireland / Europe). Do you think men are more averse to marriage than women are? Do you think women are still pining for marriage and children? (obviously I mean in general, not all men/women)

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Due to the traditional roles you mention the article says women are not getting married as much or as young "because, for a woman, being both employed and married is tough in Asia"

I'm not sure about all of Asia but China is starting to see major problems from the one child policy and the fact that many families aborted or abandoned daughters in order to have a son. In order to encourage families to have daughters some provinces started providing free education for girls so in many rural regions of China there is a 6:1 ratio of Men:Women of marriageable age. With a lot of the few women who are there having no intention of marrying any of the poorer farmers, or having a traditional Chinese marriage where the husband is head of the household, as their education has given them higher expectations and a means to have a better life. Many young Chinese women find themselves wealthier, more fulfilled and able to enjoy a lot more freedom out of marriage than in it. So have no desire to give that up for the sake of marriage.

seenitall

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I'm interested in knowing how true this stereotype is of women wanting to marry and have kids and men being averse. I assumed the stereotype was true, having heard it so often for so long. Then when I got engaged, it was nearly always men who noticed the ring - not the women. I found that odd. Of my group of friends and immediate family, the men are all quite romantic, they believe in marriage, in falling in love, in having a family of their own and are great with children. I'm not saying that the women are none of these things but, apart from myself, they're not obviously so. I've been surprised to learn that the men I know are actually very interested in marriage.

As far as I can tell, Lee, the stereotype is well true, and you don't even have to look to the US to find evidence of it either. Just mosey down to the RI forum on here, for example. I have been reading the PI/RI threads consistently for about a year and a half now, and even only in that time, there have been numerous (6 or 7 I'd say) threads, started by women, in the vein of "In a LTR, but he won't marry me " as opposed to 1 or 2 (on the generous side) started by men in the same vein, AFAIR.

Also, look at the thread on page 1 of this forum: "Am I the only person in the world not engaged??" 4 pages long, so obviously, it did strike a chord with some. Honestly now, can you imagine a thread like that springing up in the Gentlemen's Club?! (Btw, I am certainly not trying to disparage those women's concerns, so I'm hopefully not coming across that way. I fully support their right to feel how they feel about marriage, as is evident on the thread itself. But I do think that, unfortunately, women's desire to get married, in the face of men's indifference toward same, is skewing the power balance in a good few relationships out there. I'd say it's a problem. Those couples probably don't belong together, but - easier said than done...)

My anecdotal thingy is also quite different to yours. There are at least three couples (one non-Irish, though) that I know, one of them with a child on the way, where women want to get married and men don't (no couples that I know of in reverse). Makes me think that, back where I'm from, it would be a running joke in a social group at this stage, but the Irish people are happily more discreet about these things...

I do think that things are changing here though, although at a slow pace.

LeeHoffmann

OK maybe my close circle of friends and family are different. Now that I think of it I can think of one female friend who's quite definite she wants to get married while her OH doesn't like the concept...and I do have another male friend who says he has no desire to get arried or have children but is willing to do so if his girlfriend really wants to (a POV I find kind of scary)...those people are all in their mid 30's though, wheras my circle of friends are in the mid-late 20's. I don't know if the age makes much difference? I would see those friends (the two who buck my anecdotal trend!) as being quite old-fashioned in a lot of ways. Thanks for the answers

seenitall

Yeah, age probably has something to do with it. The folks I mentioned are all in their thirties (as indeed am I :rolleyes:).

Wibbs

Now this would just be my take and obviously I'm talking about averages and generalisations...

I would say that overall women tend to think about, discuss them more and be the drivers of relationships. Both men and women are in the relationship car but women are more to be found behind the wheel, in my experience anyway. Especially with regard to milestones and timelines in relationships.

Men tend to be quite relationship "lazy", happy to trundle along as boyfriend and girlfriend and more into the status quo, "sure if it's not broke why fix it?" mindset. So you're more likely to find that it's the women in longtermers wanting to make things more official the longer they go on. With good reason in the case of fertility if they want children. Men feel less of an urgency in that respect. This different approach would increase in the 30's.

I would reckon more men feel they have more choice too. Less than some men may think mind you, but this may also plug into a certain reticence, especially as the relationship passes into years and after the honeymoon stage. Again it would just be my observation that a man is more likely to respond to marriage/engagement talk at 2-3 years than at say 6. I recall my granny joking with an ex of mine way back in the day to strike while the irons hot and he's interested. There may be something in that.

Another aspect might be that for many men, sex is significantly more easy to "get" than two generations ago, so that carrot is less in play. Doubly so for anyway attractive men.

So with cohabitation, greater access to women and sex, kids without getting married, possible financial and emotional fallout if a marriage goes south and somewhat of a built in lazy attitude among guys I'm not surprised more men are keen on the marriage thing compared to in the past.

Just musings on my part so take with a pinch of salt, or several pinches

LeeHoffmann

I know what you mean about laziness. Why do you think men feel they have more choice? Do you mean they have more choice in terms of partners than women do?

I'm not surprised more men are keen on the marriage thing compared to in the past.

Do you mean less men are keen on marriage now?

Wibbs

Yea DOH! I meant less keen

LeeHoffmann wrote:

Why do you think men feel they have more choice? Do you mean they have more choice in terms of partners than women do?

It depends on age. So long as they're not a creature from the black lagoon men in their 30's tend to have more of a choice than women in their 30's on average. IE a single 36 year old man has more options and tends to have a wider age group to choose from too(while I know a fair few ladies with younger men, I know and have known far more men with big age gaps in their relationships). They can also afford to take their time more. So a relationship can go south after 5 years and the guy in his mid to late 30's can reset the relationship mechanism more easily. He can go another 5 years in another relationship and still have kids at the end of it.

I think all of those things give men a slight, sometimes more than slight advantage as they leave their 20's. I would say again some men. The generally attractive in physical and social terms. "No hopers" tend to stay that way, but even then guys I know who couldn't get arrested at 25 had full dance cards at 35. Whereas women I know, often very attractive women to boot, tended to find their options contracting over the same time period. Some even pretty obviously "settled", though explained it away as "being more mature in their choices".

I think more and more men think or feel in the back of their heads this tendency and this makes them more commitment averse if not downright phobic. I'd add in a personal thing I've noted over the years to do with "baggage". Both genders can have it, but I have found women more flexible in this regard. Even if they've gone through a mugs gallery of dopes, wastrels and tools, still tend to leave open a door on their heart. I have found men get far more cynical and tend to stay that way after one too many emotional knocks. This adds to the commitment aversion/phobia.

My 3 cents anyway.

Dudess

psychward wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Not everyone explains their choices in order to reassure themselves and others, some feel under pressure to do so due to nasty little societal prejudices.

Unfortunately no-one died and made us emperor so we have to accept that one persons ''nasty societal prejudices'' can be someone else's free choice.
If someone has to misrepresent themselves because someone else doesnt love what they are then thats'' their own fault and theres no point blaming the honest person for the acts of the manipulative person. You just have to accept that everyone is different and get on with it.
Theres nothing factually wrong about pointing out that an overwhelming majority of men in the absence of additional information would view someone as an inferior and possibly untrustworthy mate if that someone has spent the last 10 years methodically riding all his friends around the back of Coppers. Now people can scream and bitch about it all they want but thats' a fact. I never got into value judgements but I did point it out as an obvious fact. Would you be comfortable getting into a long term relationship with someone who has had sex with every one of your friends ? Of course some people have no problem with any of that but they are very few.

Dudess wrote: »

What names were you called? And you did come into the thread with an insult actually. Again, who would these angry feminists be? And you continued in a passive-aggressive vein. Better to confront someone than be snide and snakey tbh...

I'm not so worried about the namecalling thing unless it's used hypocritically against me followed up by my ability to respond being taken away as I am a big supporter of free speech for everyone provided I am engaging with someone in good faith. I never called anyone names and to be honest from what I am learning about the various forum charters as a new member I think that amounts to calling me a troll. Please just take the personal out of this and look at the facts and the realities.

Dudess wrote: »

Whether it's wrong or not for state policies re fathers' rights to affect marriage, it's moot, because they do.

If I took the same attitude towards your above factual statement as you took towards my similar pragmatic factual observation about majority social attitudes then I would have to act like I've been profoundly insulted and then do exactly what I complained about e.g post a factual statement as above. But I'm not. I apply the same rules to myself as to others, How would that make any sense or help anyone. I'm only interested in raising awareness. Someone looking for a reliable mate doesn't care about politics. They only care about their own goals. if you can't take care of yourself then you can't take care of anyone else. It seems in a lot of these articles the women can't achieve their goals or take care of themselves in that they made wrong choices yet still trot themselves out as an example. I pointed out some wrong choices. I saw a very similar article by a journalist who apparently married someone 20 years her junior and of course in line with probabilities it didn't work out and she had wasted her most fertile years as he was never ready for a family due to his age yet still then complained about her situation like she wasnt responsible for bad decisions. Those who want different things in life won't see them as a positive example and won't want to end up in the same place.

A "mate"? That reads like David Attenborough! :pac:
You've moved the goalposts a bit - said nothing about shagging a guy's friends initially, just shagging around in general.

I'm not trolling, but your "angry feminists" comment (which you won't acknowledge) looks like trolling to me.

psychward

Dudess wrote: »

A "mate"? That reads like David Attenborough! :pac:
You've moved the goalposts a bit - said nothing about shagging a guy's friends initially, just shagging around in general.

I'm not trolling, but your "angry feminists" comment (which you won't acknowledge) looks like trolling to me.

no goalposts were moved. you were just so hung up on defending something imaginary and condemning me for expressing an opinion because I'm the ''wrong gender'' for a ladies thread that you forced me to write a feckin book to calm you down. As for the troll comment thats beneath contempt. You called me a troll as you wrongly and unfairly accused me of being insulting right from the moment your feet hit the ground. You should have been moderated from that moment if mod rules are to be used fairly and even handedly. Then you use my patient and kind response against me. I'm done with interacting with you on this thread. You have nothing important to say, only make bold statements and ask questions but never answer one question of your own.

LeeHoffmann

men in their 30's tend to have more of a choice than women in their 30's on average. IE a single 36 year old man has more options and tends to have a wider age group to choose from too(while I know a fair few ladies with younger men, I know and have known far more men with big age gaps in their relationships).

I see what you mean about men having more time when it comes to children*, but I don't really get how men have more choice of partners than women. Surely women have the same option to date people of different ages, as men have? Or are you saying that most men wouldn't date older women while most women would date older men and therefore men have more choice? Seeing as we're dealing in sweeping generalisations, women are supposed to be more attracted to older men than younger men (maturity, authority, power, wealth being the usual suspected reasons).But then, wouldn't that also mean that men would have a choice between women of the same age and younger, and women would have a choice between men of the same age and older?

*However a recent study showed that men don't have as much time as was previously thought as apparently their fertility starts to decline at around age 40.

I'm the ''wrong gender'' for a ladies thread

It's not a ladies thread. There is no wrong gender. If somebody told you you shouldn't post because you're male, report the post.

Wibbs

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I see what you mean about men having more time when it comes to children*,/
*However a recent study showed that men don't have as much time as was previously thought as apparently their fertility starts to decline at around age 40.

Decline maybe, disappear not so much, so they have a lot more time in this regard. At worst an extra decade.

Surely women have the same option to date people of different ages, as men have? Or are you saying that most men wouldn't date older women while most women would date older men and therefore men have more choice? Seeing as we're dealing in sweeping generalisations, women are supposed to be more attracted to older men than younger men (maturity, authority, power, wealth being the usual suspected reasons).But then, wouldn't that also mean that men would have a choice between women of the same age and younger, and women would have a choice between men of the same age and older?

Yes on the surface, but then we get down to numbers. There would be fewer quality single men at 40 and above. Most are already "taken". There are a lot more quality single men and women at 28. The 40 year old man has more access to that group of women than in the reverse case. Plus he has the 40 year old women group too. If he's not a wreck he's got more choice.

The single women I know around 40 have a lot harder time of it than the single men of that age. It seems to go in a general pattern; men at 25 complaining they can't get a woman, then the reverse happening more as the 30's plough on.

As you say these are sweeping generalisations but I've found them to have some basis in reality(and ask any dating agency and they'll say similar). More to the point on some men's commitment reticence, the idea of this does influence them. I've certainly heard it being said and believed and experienced by men I've known.

And on the "baggage" side I'd definitely say that this affects men more than the ladies. The cynicism among guys I would know in their 30's and 40's would be far higher than among the women I would know. Oh the women will express this cynicism, often expressing it more vocally, but the men seem much more practically cynical. More "never again Ted".

Wibbs

psychward if you have an issue with a post, report it. If you have an issue with moderation report that post too or PM the mods. Do NOT get into it on thread. Do not reply on thread to this either BTW

LeeHoffmann

Decline maybe, disappear not so much, so they have a lot more time in this regard. At worst an extra decade.

I was making the point that the idea that men are forever fertile isn't accurate.

There would be fewer quality single men at 40 and above. Most are already "taken".

If men are less likely to settle down because they have greater choice then why would the best ones choose to do just that? Surely if the reason they don't settle down is because they can afford not to, then wouldn't the most attractive men have an even greater incentive to remain single?

Wibbs

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I was making the point that the idea that men are forever fertile isn't accurate.

Oh I know LH, I was just making the point that the original point still stands as they have at a least a decade longer fertility window.

If men are less likely to settle down because they have greater choice then why would the best ones choose to do just that? Surely if the reason they don't settle down is because they can afford not to, then wouldn't the most attractive men have an even greater incentive to remain single?

True, but like I said the choice is more evident the older they get. When younger not so much. Plus when they're younger they tend to be less jaded so are more likely to settle down and are "off the market" later on. Looking around guys I know and have known who are single at 35-45, the vast majority would have been happy to get hitched to whoever they were in love with at 25-30. That relationship(or a couple of relationships) soured and the "oh not gonna go down that road again" mindset seems to kick in. The more attractive ones tend to get a fair amount of female attention so mixed with the post split cynicism makes for a fair bit of "meh why bother at the moment" type thinking. The guys who did get hitched and the marriage went south are even more reticent about jumping again I've found. It would just be my observations again, but I have noted many more quality single women who want to settle down in their late 30's than men of the same age.

Speaking purely for myself(and I'd be a bit of an oddball to be fair*), I'd mirror much of the above. If you told me I would at 25 I'd have laughed at you and indeed shook my head manys the time at relationship cynical people back then. Women and men. At 25 I would have been very open to marriage and all that when I was in love. Even up to my early 30's I would have been, but much less so subsequently and today. TBH I can't see myself ever walking down said aisle. I've seen and personally experienced too much emotional hassle to make it worthwhile a risk for me anyway. Plus looking around at the relationships I've known, very very few beyond the honeymoon stage would I think "yea it would be nice to be a part of something like that". That's just me personally mind you.

IMHO The problem with these kind of articles in the OP and talk of marriage strikes and all that, is that for the vast majority of people they fall in love end up with someone and are content enough with ups and downs as in all aspects of life. For me it would take a much bigger swing on the ground to convince me that it's a full on trend, or a full on trend that makes much of a difference in most peoples lives anyway.




*feck off :)

LeeHoffmann

So...men don't want to marry because:
1. they have a longer fertility period so less pressure
2. They're relationship-lazy
3. They become too cynical because their hearts have been broken
4. They have an abundance of sexual partners to choose from

...and women don't want to marry because they believe they should enjoy singledom for as long as possible before starting their 'real' lives.

There's a lot that's contradictory in there but I guess that's a result of generalisation and stereotyping.

The problem with these kind of articles in the OP and talk of marriage strikes and all that, is that for the vast majority of people they fall in love end up with someone and are content enough with ups and downs as in all aspects of life. For me it would take a much bigger swing on the ground to convince me that it's a full on trend, or a full on trend that makes much of a difference in most peoples lives anyway.

Agree with that. I could imagine if the author happened to meet 'Mr. Right', fall in love, get hitched and have his blessed babies, she'd be writing articles about how holding out for the right one is the path to true happiness. I think it's a little difficult for us to reflect on this seeing as we're still in the 'marriageable age' (i.e. 20's - 40's). A can't see the wood for the trees kind of thing

Dudess

psychward wrote: »

you were just so hung up on defending something imaginary

The unprovoked "angry feminists" jibe by you? No, I didn't imagine that. Are you going to explain what you meant by it?

and condemning me for expressing an opinion because I'm the ''wrong gender'' for a ladies thread

Er... all in your head. Care to indicate where I feel you're the wrong gender for this thread?

As for the troll comment thats beneath contempt. You called me a troll as you wrongly and unfairly accused me of being insulting right from the moment your feet hit the ground.

But you were being insulting at the start. And you've thrown in another few unfounded passive-aggressive digs since.

Then you use my patient and kind response against me.

Lol - course you're not trollin'.

Anyway, yeah, some women who are promiscuous into their mid/late 30s or whatever regret it when they're single at 40 with no kids - been said over and over, and with glee.

Wibbs

Dudess, psychward's post has been dealt with above(and acknowledged by psychward). Can we not drag it up again? Thanks.

Siuin

If I was Kate Bolick, I'd get married just so I could have a decent surname