Posted
by Bill Hoyt
October 4, 2005 at 3:09 p.m.
Too Much Baggage
![][1] [Women][2] who have children out of wedlock are about 30 percent less likely to get married than childless single women, according to a new study.*When unwed mothers do marry, they are more likely to land husbands who are significantly older and less educated than those of women who don't have children.*"It's more difficult for unwed mothers to get married, and if they do, they tend to not marry well," said Zhenchao Qian, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.More than a third of female-headed families with children live in poverty compared to only 6 percent of married couples with children, Qian said. Marriage may not help unwed mothers economically, however, because their partners tend to lack education and are less likely to have opportunities for good-paying jobs.Let me see if I can put this gently... no, to hell with it.Marriage is an auction. It's not the old "how much is your family worth?" auction of former times; rather it's an "I know you are the best I can do" auction. One person marrying another is an admission that they have likely reached as high a price as they can afford or are likely to receive.If you have kids out of wedlock or wait into your 30s to get married, your value as a proposed marriage partner goes down. Women are a depreciating commodity. I'm sorry, but they are. Women with kids are a depreciated commodity. They are likely to be won by a man who cannot afford a very high price. He's likely to be a poor man, indeed.Ladies, get this straight: if you have kids out of wedlock or if you are coloring your gray hairs while looking for a marriage partner, you are most likely going to have to settle on a 2nd or 3rd tier man. You'll get one who likely can't keep a relationship or a job. You'll get one who is selfish and settled. There's a reason he's not married.On the other hand, the value of a normal educated man who voluntarily waits goes up. Why? Because he's likely to marry someone younger and prettier and probably less educated and career driven than you, though he could still have you if he so chose. His options are expanding. He's likely to have a steady job that will support his own wife and his own kids (not yours). An unmarried, working, educated man in his 30s is a hot commodity. A woman in her 30s who is married to her job or who has kids is not.It's not all cases (duh) but those are the odds. I didn't make them up. I don't have to like them for them to be true. But the truth is this: as more [women have sex][3] earlier and earlier and with more and more partners, collecting more and more kids, the value of their entire sex goes down. Their auction price goes down. Remember that guy in his 30s? He's probably having as much or more sex (although in all honesty it's probably not as good) as his married high school buddies.So unless he wants to have kids of his own, why would he want to get married?Why would he buy a cow when he has all the milk he can drink? [1]: http://www.angwinreporter.com/pix/2003/baggage.jpg [2]: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051004_unwed_mothers.html [3]: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/04/051004054737.fzs4blx5.html
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Todd (anonymous) says…
I read somewhere that 30% of children are born out of wedlock. Imagine the population shrinkage we'd have without all those babies?
The older man younger woman thing is as old as time no doubt. It makes sense today more than ever. Sure beats DINKin' it up until you are 35-40 yrs old then trying to have children.
cfdxprt (anonymous) says…
No flaming from me, just complete agreement.
My sister had her daughter at 17 years old and lived with me for about 5 years after she graduated from high school (at least she graduated). It used to amaze me the men she brought home, and I had to scare off, because those genes weren't going into my family's pool. I could talk to a guy for 10 minutes and then talk to her for 30 minutes on all the horrible traits that were exposed.
This with having quite possibly the most adorable girl on the planet (alright, so I'm a little biased) and with having worked retail since she was 16. In other words she could sell you crap you didn't even know you wanted, much less needed. Yet when it came to selling herself to the opposite sex (meant in the best way possible, this IS my sister) all she could entice was the bottom of the barrel. It always pained me because my niece does deserve a father figure instead of that *&%^$(*#** that she is obliged to call dad, the 2 times a year he shows up.
In another vein, reason #1 out of several thousand, that I broke it off with my ex is because she was a couple of years older than me and thought she wanted to wait a few more years before reproducing. When I examined it logically, darn engineers will do that occasionally, I realized that we would be looking at reproductive therapy if not the fact that I wouldn't be able to reproduce in my lifetime. The later was just wholly unacceptable to me. My guess is that she stays single for her entire life, although she wants to get artificially impregnated; because what's better to do than to have a ton of debt, a low paying job and being a single mom?
I've said it before, I fear for the future of this country.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I read somewhere that 30% of children are born out of wedlock. Imagine the population shrinkage we'd have without all those babies?"
I don't know that they wouldn't exist; they'd just be born into the marriages that never occur because guys don't want to marry women with kids.
But we already have a non-replacement birth rate, even including those kids. That, of course, is a separate issue. Bad for social security and pensions at least.
"she was a couple of years older than me and thought she wanted to wait a few more years before reproducing."
It's amazing the number of people who are discovering, too late, that job and success are not all they are cracked up to be, but that the bioclock has been running, ignored, the whole time. They are doubly surprised to discover that, by the time they start thinking about marriage and family, their 40-year-old male coworkers are more interested in marrying an aerobics instructor than a bank vice president who works 60 hours a week.
That's one reason it was interesting to see that a lot of female college students plan to finish their education and be stay-at-home moms by the time they are 30.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content...
Of course, that drives the academics batty:
"What does concern me," said Yale College's dean, Peter Salovey, "is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles."
The reality is that many students have looked outside the box and freely decided that there might be a reason that certain gender roles lived long enough to become "traditional".
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
I'm going all LadyLaw on length here, please forgive me;)
There was another article published recently, I think it was through BBC online although my lush-tendencied-ass can't be certain, that many doctors are becoming disheartened at the numbers of "professional" women who are chosing ivf before they've exhausted (or even tried) the "traditional" routes of conception because they simply can't be bothered with all that sex, what with their busy lives and all.
My pop-celebrity-culture knowledge begins and ends with the headlines on the tabloids at the checkout stands, but in recent weeks I've noted that 50-something Camilla Parker has concieved via IVF, and 40-something Demi Moore is "devastated" by her recent miscarriage, like it's some cruel twist of misguided fate.
I think that modern fertitlity advancements have given us women-folk a false vision of a fountain of youth, that we can live it up in our twenties, spend our thirties pursuing our careers, and then settle down to motherhood once we've grown bored with all of that.
To be an asshole, I'd say that the idea that we "can have it all" has evolved into the idea that we're "entitled to it all, and we can take our damn sweet time about it, as well."
Well, it's just not true, not socially, not logistically, and not biologically.
Shit, I'm personally concerned that my own vision of a planned 3-child family won't be realized until I'm 30.
One of the chief initial factors of mutual attraction between my husband and myself back in our courtship days was that neither of us had children from prior relationships, which, in our generation, is a relative rarity.
scary_manilow (anonymous) says…
oh my god! You mean single mothers are being deprived of their RIGHT to marriage? Right now? As we speak? What an atrocity!
Wait, I'm here with a solution... Let's FORCE them to get married! We have the means, the time is NOW... Finally, a government s in place that actually CARES about things like the sancitity of marriage and the rights of women... Let's form a lobbying group, petition our local congressmen, BRIBE someone if we have to... We'll legally bind them to the fathers of their children for LIFE, because no woman is complete without the bond of marraige to make her WHOLE.
And, since unwed mothers are obviously second-class citizens, we have the right to do these things. It's for their own good, and all of us here in Blog-land know exactly what's best for them.
Hey, while you're googling bullshit statistics, why not check out the divorce rate amongst couples who get hitched right out of high school? Not saying I've got a betting pool going or anything, but...
UKept (anonymous) says…
Well obviously unwed mothers tend not to marry well.
They're not used to it.
Todd (anonymous) says…
If you had to be married to have children in the US our population would decline. When I say married I mean traditional marriage. (Not some forced marriage) Of course, we could open the borders and fix the problem for at least one generation.
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
No flaming here, Bill, but...
It's probably worth pointing out that - depending on your theological perspective - the number of cases of young women who conceived a child without the rather significant assistance of a man is pretty close to zero.
When mom and dad part ways, though, it's generally the mom who bears the burdens and responsibilities and the generally narrowing list of options, while "dad" goes on to sample from the rich buffet of life.
It does take two to tango, as we all know.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"It does take two to tango, as we all know."
Absolutely. And it's not right that mothers be stuck with the kids. But they generally choose the kids and are awarded the kids by the courts when they want them. Same is true of birth-out-of-wedlock. If mom wants the kid to go up for adoption or if she wants to keep him, dad has no say.
edie_ (anonymous) says…
I'm interested in the way you present your opinions about women and marriage, Mr. Hoyt.
Has it occurred to the dominant male monkey mother fuckers out there that women are NOT a "depreciating commodity" but that most traditional men are too enmeshed in their own egotism and fear hatred and ignorance of women that they refuse to see any value in them as the people who work hard, people who take care of their children and themselves, people who live accountably. There's nothing wrong with grey hair on a woman, Mr. Hoyt. I personally think it's sexy as hell, but I might not have reached that conclusion if I was dumb enough to pay attention to your statistics or if my only view of women was from airbrushed porn or the underaged wives of America.
I have a solution to your "problem." Instead of women being pressured by statistics to get married at a young age out of obligation, they live their lives as they choose responsibly and fully.
the asshole men of the world on the other hand, can work on getting their shit together and start valuing women as human beings. They can pay child support, have responsible sex considering all possible consequences, pay child support and co-parent adequately if they have kids out of wedlock. Oh yeah, and stop being Neanderthal imbeciles trying to convince the world of the false construction that they are a "hotter commodity" while women just become less attractive as they age and therefore lose the only value laced on them by idiots, that of decent marriage material.
There are plenty of men out there who do value women...I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the men who only value aging women if they are married.
edie_ (anonymous) says…
P.S. You can come on and fill the page with personal attacks on me now Snoop.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
"Women are a depreciating commodity. I'm sorry, but they are."
Wow. I've never felt so objectified before. So, basically, I'm doomed because I am a single, never-married woman who is intelligent and has a career, but no children. I might as well give up now, throw in the towel, forget about going out with people anymore and forget about hoping to meet an intelligent, reasonably successful guy, right?
Boy...this morning sure started out with some extremely disappointing rude awakenings.
It's very confusing, you know. On the one hand, people comment that I am attractive and intelligent, but then I hear that because I'm in my 30s, single and have a good career, I'm probably doomed to remain single for that very reason. You just can't win, can you?
So, let me get this straight...because I am a woman, I am being "punished" for striving for the same thing that men are admired for - a good career, independence, etc. Why? Because men feel insecure around a successful woman?
Of course, all these theories presume that people are necessarily looking to get married. Can't you be with someone for the rest of your life without getting married? I think you can.
Well, I guess I'll just start looking for a hole to crawl into or a rock to crawl under. After all, my chances of finding a person who might be interested in this commodity are slim to none, right?
Thanks for the vote of confidence. What a way to start the day.
Todd (anonymous) says…
I think there were a couple points made with this blog. 1) women who raise kids on their own are screwed from the get-go, 2) women should start having children in their 20's due to biological reasons, & 3) women are best matched with men that are older. (biology of women and resources of men)
If a man is looking to start a family he's probably going to overlook a 35 year old lady no matter how wonderful she is. (on first glance anyhow) What always amazes me is how successful career women with education and such just seem to ignore the biology of their fertility.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Right on, edie.
Oh boys, listen up: It is within your power to change your own behavior. If you don't like the fact that single mothers (like a sister or a friend) seem to only be able to attract men who are sub par, then counteract that by showing interest in a single mom or a single career-minded woman who is attractive and intelligent. because, believe it or not, even women in 30s and 40s can be attractive, loving, devoted partners and also have a career - much like many men out there!
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Edie:" "There's nothing wrong with grey hair on a woman, Mr. Hoyt."
Darned right there's not. My wife has grey hair and has earned every one of them. But they are not "my" statistics, as if I invented them. Perhaps you have a better explanation than the one I came up with.
Morgan: "On the one hand, people comment that I am attractive and intelligent, but then I hear that because I'm in my 30s, single and have a good career, I'm probably doomed to remain single for that very reason. You just can't win, can you?"
Do I understand correctly that your only problem with my rant is that it makes you feel objectified and you don't like the the fact that I agree with "people" who say the above?
"Because men feel insecure around a successful woman?"
No, because successful men are generally not romantically interested in successful women.
Scary, you're killing, me, dude. But tell you what: put me down for 5 ounces of silver that it outlasts my life. However, you might want to adjust the odds for the fact that she graduated high school almost 3 years ago, has a science degree (AS) and her fiance is 4 years older, educated, employed, and multi-lingual.
Yeah, I know those odds, too.
cfdxprt (anonymous) says…
morgana - While I admire your point, and personally I wouldn't overlook a *good* woman who's only downside was that she had a child - I want to breed. Therefore, I do overlook women who are over 35 or too career oriented; it's just a playing with the odds of biology thing. I believe a woman in her mid to late 30's can be loving, but when I think of carrying on my seed I'll take my 26 yr. old gf anyday, and that's beside the fact that we love each other something fierce. But one of the reasons I first asked her out was that she met my age requirements.
I live by a different strokes for different folks philosophy on life, but I will say that when my single male friends are shopping the "market" for someone new, they don't worry too much about how succesful a woman is, her credentials, or her past possible mistakes, they look for who they think will be a good mother to their children. Of course I have like 3 friends, so my metric may be skewed...
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"...counteract that by showing interest in a single mom or a single career-minded woman who is attractive and intelligent"
Now who's objectifying? Seriously, what about women who are are unattractive and unintelligent? If we are going to give up objectification, then we need to eliminate all the standards.
You opined that you might as well give up "hoping to meet an intelligent, reasonably successful guy," but isn't that simply doing the same? Aren't you consciously cutting out all the unsuccessful, unintelligent guys that might make good partners?
My point is that *all* of us look for qualities in the opposite sex that can be measured. Dating/marriage in that respect is an auction, and you have set some standards for the 'object' you are willing to purchase. So has everyone else. But the reason the odds play out the way they do is that men and women (generally) operate on a different set of standards.
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says…
ladies, remember those statistics a few years ago that unmarried women in their 30s had a higher chance of being killed by terrorists than they had of getting married? This is what we call backlash. So having a career places you out of the running for a few know-it-all windbags. I wouldn't cry too hard over that.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Edie_ wrote:
"Oh yeah, and stop being Neanderthal imbeciles trying to convince the world of the false construction that they are a 'hotter commodity' while women just become less attractive as they age and therefore lose the only value laced on them by idiots, that of decent marriage material."
Well, since the point of the blog and the study was "marriage material," we'll have to let that one slide.
But the other point (not the one about being a Neanderthal imbecile - I'm certainly open to that possibility) is demonstrated in these comments.
Morgan, a 30s-ish, intelligent, successful, attractive woman, is looking for that "hotter commodity," and she is not unique in that. So is cfdxprt's 26-year-old GF, and she is not unique in that. That's demand.
However, since 30s-ish, intelligent, successful unmarried men are in short supply (they tend to get snatched up by either one of the above) those who remain can choose either Morganish career women or those who are not. 20-ish men don't have that opportunity. Therefore, they are an appreciating commodity as they age and become successful, but only up to a certain point. That point is less than ~50 but certainly older than 30.
It may be an unpleasant fact, but it's by no means a "false construction."
thetom (anonymous) says…
How do I figure out if I'm a second or third tier man? Where is the salary line? Just so my wife can know what a loser she is. Statistically speaking.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"How do I figure out if I'm a second or third tier man?"
I'd say to ask her ;)
Jesus (anonymous) says…
Edie, my Child... How are you EVER going to land a good husband with THAT attitude?
thetom (anonymous) says…
Ahh, ElB. You make my point.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Well, Bill, I guess the fundamental difference in our viewpoints is that I actually do not regard people as commodities. I don't think I objectify people at all.
It's up to you, of course, if you want to take some statistics and just live by them instead of being appalled and saying: "No. I think differently in this regard."
"Morganish career woman", eh? You make it sound so dirty, Bill. Should I be ashamed or something?
Just to clear things up: I am not looking for a "hot commodity", but rather a good person with whom I can get along well, converse well and with whom I share some common interests. Is that so bad?
Oh yeah and remember boys, the 20ish woman who by virtue of her age could be a darned good breeder may actually never be able to have kids or (gasp!) she may never want to OR she may change her mind after a while. Oh the horror! And to your dismay, you may realize that 30ish women can indeed have kids (and they do) AND a job and be able to strike a balance between their careers and their families. Is that such a novel concept?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
TheTom: Is this her?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/52...
But seriously, I think second or third tier is described by the article:
"Marriage may not help unwed mothers economically, however, because their partners tend to lack education and are less likely to have opportunities for good-paying jobs."
One simply has to ask why that is; one doesn't have to like it.
Maybe it's as Edie_ says, that a large proportion of men are "dominant male monkey mother fuckers." That may be the reason, but it doesn't change the facts. When women with kids finally find "the one," he's more likely to be uneducated and unemployed that "the one" that unmarried women pick. I think the reason is that they have less to offer a man who wants his own family and therefore get less in return. But it could just be a conspiracy against smart, loving women.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"It's up to you, of course, if you want to take some statistics and just live by them instead of being appalled and saying: 'No. I think differently in this regard.'"
As if I live by them. I'm months from being 40 and have been happily married for nearly 20 years. My wife is a wonderful, grey-haired, over-40 all-I-could-ask-for joy. This market is not one that I ever plan to enter again.
"Should I be ashamed or something?"
Of course not. I was just using your descrition of yourself to illustrate that there are multiple categories of potential mates for certain individuals. Making it sound dirty - or even less desireable - was not my intention.
edie_ (anonymous) says…
Yes it seems to be a FACT that a lot of men have a surplus of fear hatred and ignorance when it comes to figuring out that women are human beings. That doesn't mean that it is acceptable or tolerable.
You THINK that a woman has less to offer a man if she's an unmarried single mom. That's your opinion. It's not a reality. If Bill Hoyt and a bunch of dominant male monkey mother fuckers refuse to see attractiveness in such a woman reflects on Bill Hoyt and the lot, not her. She could be a million cool things, but if you and the dipshits refuse to see that, it's your problem.
Rather than try to change the rules to correctly give people, including women, their due respect, you're encouraging women to marry young, despite increasing divorce rates. This is ignoring the increasing numbers of women who choose to wait til they are educated and financially independent so they are never forced to stay in a bad marriage because they depend on the income.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"You THINK that a woman has less to offer a man if she's an unmarried single mom. That's your opinion. It's not a reality."
"Value" is completely arbitrary, and the only person who can make the determination of whether an unmarried woman has less to offer a man is the man who is trading his life and future for it, just like the only person who can decide if a man has less to offer is the woman making the same judgment. Value is *always* an opinion. Is a person smart? Witty? Funny? Good-looking? Desirable? It's all opinion.
"Rather than try to change the rules to correctly give people, including women, their due respect..."
Why would I change the rules? I'm a libertarian and don't pretend that any "rules" are going to change anything about anyone. People don't live by rules; they live by decisions. They also learn, eventually, that they must live WITH decisions.
It has nothing to do with rules, but with the free decisions of free individuals that happen to follow predictable patterns. If one wants to increase the odds of getting what one wants, it makes sense to understand the decisions others are likely to make that might impact that and choose to act accordingly.
Or one can call people names. Sometimes that works, too.
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
Ok, so I'll add my 2 cents. I'm a 26 yr old woman who's landed herself a purty hot commodity of a 30 yr old bf...(and Morgana...by hot commodity...to me, it's all the things you mention you look for in a man...just a matter of labeling things differently). He's intelligent, humorous, respectful, our personalities mesh, and I happen to think he'd make a dazzling daddy. So yeah, my man's a hot commodity.
And no, I haven't established myself yet, but I am going to grad school to better educate myself and obtain some career skills. I wasn't exactly lookin' to find a guy--but when the right dude comes knockin...well, embrace it (no matter what the timing). I truly believe there is a perfect match for everyone...it's just a matter of finding it. I've been Ms. Indpendent for a LONG time...basically rebuffing any advances, etc...not too interested in the dating scene. I had a plan to go to school, establish a career, then possibly look into a serious relationship. But hell, the relationship has arrived now and...I'm WAY ok with it. I guess it's a matter of priorities. I'm still oriented towards the future, but my mindset is a little different. I would really like to have children in the next couple of years. So, if that means putting my career on hold...so be it. Yeah, I am amazed by the women who can balance a career and family...but for me personally, I want to spend the children's formative years as a full-time mommy. Very unmodern of me...and hypocritical. I used to shudder when my best friend talked the same way. Now, I realize how silly that is. It's up to each individual to decide what's important...
And yes, I HATE that it's more difficult for older women to find a substantial relationship...but unfortunately it's a reality. The dating world is a big marketplace w/different goods. The nice thing is...everyone has different tastes.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Heh Heh. No, thats not her. I'm not that (uhhhh) rich.
Seriously, statistics are deceiving. Particularly if you have life decisions to make. Statisically speaking, as a species, we suck. Statistically speaking, it's a scary economy for educated and un-educated alike. Todays world makes it extremely difficult to realize traditional ideas of home and marriage. Unless you are really good at managing debt.
Maybe the statistics say you get fucked, but I applaud people who wait to get married and to have children. I also applaud people who are smart enough NOT to have children. Nobody knows better than you.
Women get screwed professionally having babies, and I don't blame the Morgana's of the world (sorry for the assumptive objectification) for holding out until making babies makes more sense with their careers. Women have a right to be something other than somebodies mother, and I don't think our society even realizes what it takes to accept this idea.
Edie, when you talk about changing 'the rules', aren't you talking about the laws of nature? There are thousands of years of bone headed thought that make things the way they are. It's people like you that are changing the rules and one day affecting the statistics. Power to you and yours.
Sure biological clocks tick. I just think that most people who choose to marry or breed later - or not at all - are smart enough to realize that options evolve as you get older, and we all have to live with our choices.
And why does the phrase 'unwed mothers marry badly' strike me so damn funny?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
This is a topic of much interest if you are (or have been) a 40+ woman in the market for a mate (new or first time ever). Having been in that particular boat, I had long talks with other people (primarily females) about what one could and could not "expect" or "demand" in a potential partner. I got real frustrated with the attractive 52 year old I knew who absolutely insisted on dating only hunky rich successful guys. She could not, for the life of her, understand that while they'd happily bed her (for a few weeks or even months) none of them wanted to marry or commit to her. I gave up trying to explain it to her after the 40th time she got dumped by some 40 something year old hottie who had moved onto being with a hot young chick in her 20's! And she got tired of me trying to explain it to her....and became an ex-friend.
Suffice to say that we all have personal value systems and we all have things to offer in any relationship. It is a real challenge (sometimes) to find someone with the traits you are seeking who is in turn seeking someone with your traits (or baggage as the case may be). And as unfair as it is, our particular society does seem to give males more options with regard to mate choices (go figure out why).
I do not encourage teenagers to get married, for a lot of sound reasons. One of them is that people in that age group often have far too many personality changes ahead of them and are not likely to really have "shopped around" enough to know what they really want (despite what their raging hormones may be telling them!). But as I had to bluntly put it when trying to console my ex-friend, the plain truth is that many males regard women as objects - and those kind of men regard we older women as spoiled bait. Too their own determent, to be sure, but nevertheless, that's the mind set for all too many of them. You don't have to like it to realize it's there.
Lucky for me, I found a prince charming who actually prefers older women (for good reasons). However, even his head occasionally turns when a 20 year old hot chick saunters by. Tis the nature of the beast! I don't lie to myself. I can't offer someone else the same things I could offer back when I was that hot 20 year old. But I like to think I can now offer new and different things I did not possess back then, some of which are also worthwhile!
Joel (Joel Mathis) says…
It's times like these I like to quote my good friends, the Oak Ridge Boys:
"Older women are beautiful lovers.
I said older women, they understand.
I've been around some, and I have discovered
that older women know just how to treat a man."
http://susie1114.com/OlderWomen.html
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Ben Franklin also had something to say on the subject to a young friend of his who didn't want to get married. Though I obviously can't fully endorse it ;) I offer if here for your perusal:
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysou...
Snoop (anonymous) says…
Edie you have no idea just how much we agree on this one. Sorry to disappoint ya.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"This is ignoring the increasing numbers of women who choose to wait til they are educated and financially independent so they are never forced to stay in a bad marriage because they depend on the income."
No one is ever FORCED to stay in a marriage. Ever. It's called free will. You can ALWAYS find a job. It may not always be a job you want, or enjoy, but there is ALWAYS one available. (When is McDonalds ever NOT hiring???) The whole idea of being "financially stable" is just silly, anyway. What IS financially stable? Is it being able to buy that 42 inch plasma tv? Is it being able to drive a great car, live in a great house, buy lots of nice clothes? Is being stable being able to put food on the table, whether that's macaroni or steak? I may be entering into a marriage, and I may not be up to par with what a "financially stable" person is, but I have a steady income, as does my fiance, and we'll be fine. I won't be "forced" to stay with him because I rely on his income. Anyone who is "forced to stay with someone" because of income is either unskilled or unmotivated.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
thetom wrote: "I applaud people who wait to get married and to have children. I also applaud people who are smart enough NOT to have children. Nobody knows better than you."
Thanks. It's nice to hear the occasional voice of reason.
Of course, the longer we wait, the more we depreciate in "breeder value," eh? And the desire to "breed" seems to be a general assumption.
edie wrote: "This is ignoring the increasing numbers of women who choose to wait til they are educated and financially independent so they are never forced to stay in a bad marriage because they depend on the income."
Right...I actually thought I was being smart in making that very decision to wait. I also read statistics somewhere that women who wait longer to marry are less likely to get a divorce. Seemed like a good idea to me. Oh well...Apparently not, eh?
So for all those backward thinking fathers of daughters out there, don't go sending mixed messages. Either encourage your daughters to "breed" at a good "breeding age" or support their career choices, but you wouldn't want to let them think they can have it all, right?
Oh yeah...if your concern is carrying on your seed (cfdxprt, I'm thinking of you here) why bother entering into a relationship with one girlfriend? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just bed as many "breeding aged" gals as you can and be done with it?
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
"Right...I actually thought I was being smart in making that very decision to wait. I also read statistics somewhere that women who wait longer to marry are less likely to get a divorce."
Morgana: You ARE smart to wait. You made the right decision for you and I truly believe you'll find your Prince Charming....
But, I think you're missing the point with what cfdxprt was saying. Yeah, he wants children...but he also wants a family with ONE woman in a loving relationship. One of his criteria was finding a woman who wants the same. What's wrong with that?
Don't women who want children look for the exact same thing? I wouldn't give a guy the time of day if he didn't seem like good daddy potential. It's part of the complete package (imo). But hey, we all have our own criteria.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"So for all those backward thinking fathers of daughters out there, don't go sending mixed messages. Either encourage your daughters to "breed" at a good "breeding age" or support their career choices, but you wouldn't want to let them think they can have it all, right?"
I resemble that remark... and here's the thing: no one gets it all. No one. Not men, not women. You can't give your life to a company and to your kids at the same time. You can't be the best hotshot lawyer or CEO or medical bioethicist and be the best parent at the same time. Life is about opportunity costs, about choices, and choices have consequences. Some of those consequences are detailed above; some are yet to be discovered. But time and money and everything else is limited, and no dogma of liberated sisterhood or Sex and the City mantra changes that. I left a very good career behind so I could spend hours and hours with my kids and never regretted it. Even as an intelligent and educated white male in America, I could not have it all. That's a fairy tale.
However, those who have followed the Chronicles of Bethany are aware that I do want her to have her degree - which she has - and (more importantly) I want her to make her own decisions, whether regarding kids or career or education. And I support her choices. But I don't think that for a minute that just because she's the best daughter in the world she's going to be the one person who manages to give 60 hours a week to her company and 100 to her kids while retaining her sanity. If she doesn't want kids, fine. But if she does, there are a lot of reasons to have them early rather than fighting the odds and the bioclock in 2 decades. But there are also a lot of reasons to wait until she's married to start having them, not the least of which is that once she starts having them, the list of potential suitors, should she decide she wants to marry, is likely to thin out in a big hurry.
If that makes me "backward-thinking," I can live with that.
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
On the "biological clock" thing I have a few thoughts.
1: if you have a kid young, you risk the chance of raising them wrong due to lack of experience.
2: If you wait till you are older you risk not being able to ever bond with your children in ways that a younger parent can.
3: If you hedge your bets and wait for the "right time" you will most likely NOT have children.
Now I know this is on a tangent, but.......In an age where birth control is allmost foolproof, but unfortunantley is centered on the female( condoms and vasectomy is the males choice) I am mentally reeling on how there can be a "unwanted pregnancy".....I am not talking about the young or the really, really poor, but the american average....people who can afford the pill or norplant etc etc .....I'm catching myself starting to get more cynical than I wanted to be so I will wait till tomorrow and finish this rant.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Buddah - we insomiacs go off on tangents.... Answer to question - a lot of pregnancies are a "surprise" only in the sense that the couple thought they'd play roulette and not get unlucky. Surprise! You win the prize.... Same with STD's. No one thinks "IT" will happen to them..... My brother-in-law has a saying we use a lot "Ignorance is people who aren't able to learn from the mistakes of other people". Plus, hard as it is to believe, I know there are still girls (I chose that word on purpose) out there who cannot wait to have a baby to play with... never mind how the fun wears thin after a few months of playing house without enough money for basic necessities....
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
And Bethany, as for your belief that no woman has to stay in a bad situation, technically you are probably correct. But in reality, there are all kinds of situations where it sure feels that way to the person (usually female) in question. For example, your McDonald's example. Sure, the female with child could work at such a job. And do what with the baby/child in the meantime? If none of her friends or family are able or willing to babysit for free, the McDonald pay check will not cover day care, rent, food, and toilet paper. There really aren't many free day care centers around. And even if she can find a cheap or free place for the baby, she won't earn enough to live on without moving in with others. Lots of others. So she works two jobs, so she can afford day care and rent. Now, when is she supposed to go to school? I know some guys who are great people and mates who are in the same situation...they'd like to get their degree, or some kind of vo-tech,but after having a kid, they put the child first and all else has to slide.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I also know many otherwise highly intelligent women who have felt trapped, at least for a decade or so, when they have a child (or children), and very little in the way of marketable skills. They went into a relationship with all the best of intentions and hopes. They supported their husband's choice in jobs, places to live, and when and how many kids to have. They put their own wishes and needs second, as they'd been taught and believed right. Only to tragically find out too late that their chosen mate had lied to them or changed their minds about something important (like they're ability or willingness to stick it out through thick and thin). Even people blessed with supportive family networks have stayed in abusive or just plain lousy situations for more years then I like to think about, for many reasons...things that you may not understand or believe yourself capable of doing or being. But till you have known and seen such things up close and personal....you can take my word (if you will) that it's not always real easy to "escape" from some life choices. You wouldn't believe how often an otherwise loving father could insist a daughter go back to the abuser, because of course he didn't mean to be that way and it will never happen again.... Or have you ever known someone with a degree in some pretty unmarketable area (let's say fine arts) who stayed home with the kids so long that the only job they can get (if need be) is selling hamburgers or clerking at a retail job, which will earn just about enough money to cover gas and day care? Having known such people and situations up close and personal, I have sympathy for those who say "I can't leave" even when they are pretty darned miserable. You probably wouldn't believe how many apparently strong women do not really see any way out of a bad marriage, at least while the children are young and needing care. It is really amazing how pride and family values can sometimes work to keep someone trying to make a relationship work that has been badly broken for a long long time.
Whether or not a marriage will be happy forever after cannot be predicted. We can have all the right tools and intentions and hopes and prayers and tons of things in common, and lots of happy plans, and still run into things beyond our personal control. Planning ahead for such contingencies is never a bad idea....even if it does strike some people as cynical or lacking in faith. Bad things happen, even to the best of people. .
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
Wow, a million statements to comment on, and quite a few thoughts of my own. I'll start with the easiest to address:
------------------
Rednekbuddha spake thusly:
"2: If you wait till you are older you risk not being able to ever bond with your children in ways that a younger parent can."
Had a bit of trouble understanding this one. A cousin of mine and her husband have 7 year old twins, and she is, get this, in her early 50s. She is a wonderful mother, and very close to the kids.
Now, if you meant that older parents are more likely to not survive through their child's formative years simply due to their age, I would argue that nothing is certain, and that young parents are not immune to this possibility.
Of course, if you were referring to the generation gap, I have seen examples of this; in which case, I agree that such a distance can exist. It doesn't have to, but it is possible.
-----------------------
Rednekbuddha again spake:
"3: If you hedge your bets and wait for the "right time" you will most likely NOT have children."
Ouch. That may be so; I haven't gotten through my childbearing years completely, so I'll let you know in 15-20 years or so if I was one of those most likely NOT to have children.
Again, my cousin the older parent is a reason for me to hope. She was at least 45 when the twins were born.
------------------------------------------
Rednekbuddha spake On the Relative Infallibility of Birth Control:
"... birth control is allmost foolproof, but unfortunantley is centered on the female..."
Why is that unfortunate? Women endure the most obvious and intrusive side-affects of the natural result of having sex.
------
"...(condoms and vasectomy is the males choice)..."
Male birth control pills are becoming available: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
------
"I am mentally reeling on how there can be a 'unwanted pregnancy'..."
Because neither The Pill nor condoms are 100% effective. A friend of mine had an unexpected pregnancy at the age of 25, just as she was finishing her master's degree in Zoology. She was on The Pill, he was using a condom. They were doing everything commonly thought to prevent pregnancy, and still got pregnant.
There's something to the idea of not having sex unless you're willing to deal with that particular consequence.
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
(In case you're wondering, the father panicked and bolted, the child was given up for adoption, and the mother has met the adoptive parents, and has a presence in her son's life.)
Snoop (anonymous) says…
"Sure biological clocks tick. I just think that most people who choose to marry or breed later - or not at all - are smart enough to realize that options evolve as you get older, and we all have to live with our choices."
DITTO.
"We'll legally bind them to the fathers of their children for LIFE, because no woman is complete without the bond of marraige to make her whole."
unfortunately some women are taught this.
"Oh boys, listen up: It is within your power to change your own behavior."
that is not happening. not to ruin the party but "men" are the problem. women base all of these relationship decisions around the man. but men are pretty fucked up.
"Women are a depreciating commodity. I'm sorry, but they are."
wow you women are in trouble, that tis why i'm a lesbian!
"1: if you have a kid young, you risk the chance of raising them wrong due to lack of experience.
2: If you wait till you are older you risk not being able to ever bond with your children in ways that a younger parent can.
3: If you hedge your bets and wait for the "right time" you will most likely NOT have children."
what a quandary, try to learn form the experiences of others.
"The whole idea of being "financially stable" is just silly, anyway"
tell that to the folks who have no money. trust me when i say when (you) don't think being financially stable is a big deal, your mate will eventually think it is.
"Anyone can get a job anytimne he or she wants"
oh shit when i was out of work for a fucken year i was not aware of this little tidbit. we should send a notice to all naacp offices the double digit unemployment for negros is over! yipee!
whitey is hiring.
"Anyone who is "forced to stay with someone" because of income is either unskilled or unmotivated."
you stupid women out there, u didn't know this. don't you watch dr. phil?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Jochan plays the odds:
"Because neither The Pill nor condoms are 100% effective."
No, but they're close enough to believe that most people who claim that they 'failed' simply to failed to use them correctly.
The pill, used correctly, will prevent pregnancy in 99.9% of cases, meaning one in 1000 women will become pregnant anyway.
The condom, used correctly, will eliminate pregnancy in 97% of cases, meaning 3 in 100 women will become pregnant anyway.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997...
Used together, my fuzzy math tells me that 1 in 33,000 women will become pregnant in a city the size of Lawrence. If your friend is the one, then everyone else needs a new story.
Ladylaw spake: "there are still girls...out there who cannot wait to have a baby to play with... "
Unfortunately, too true. Everyone needs unconditional love, and girls who do not get that in their families are as likely as not to purposely have a baby just so at least one person in the world will love them unconditionally.
Every act fulfils a need, but every act also has a consequence. We Americans are so good at pretending everything is either "all good" or "all bad" that we forget that there's a price to be paid and risks to be borne even for doing the right thing at the right time.
My point on the bio clock is this: no one knows when it will run out. It may be at natural menopause, it may be in the mid-late 20s due to endometriosis, it could a car wreck that takes her husband or boyfriend away necessitating that she start the entire process over at 35. Pushing childbearing back is a valid choice and in many cases the right one. But let's not pretend for a minute that it doesn't have real life risks and consequences of its own as well, like this:
"I don't blame you for being able to have your beautiful children. And I'm learning not to blame myself for my difficulty having my own."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9556250/s...
In her case, "learning not to blame" herself means engaging in an act of self-deception to ease the pain of realizing her time has probably expired. She wants the baby without the blame. In other words, she wants the benefit without acknowledging that there's a cost to be borne for all the choices she has made up to this point.
Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
I meant unfortunate as in it is unfortunate that I as a male do not have a pill or a shot so I can be more responsible in not making a baby.....Or in my case to allow my girlfriend to get off the pill for a year to help reset her chemical balance.....though as year six of our relationship nears, I am seriously thinking of the old nip and tie procedure.
While I am all for male responsability in helping care for the child.....What do you do in cases(they have been documented) of a girl intentionally getting pregnant to either snare the guy or to have a living doll? Lying about using the pill or even(shudder) pinpricking the condom is a dastardly piece of bitch craft.
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
As for my second point....yeah I am talkingabout the generation gap mostly, but also the physical as well....A older guy may have more wisdom to give to his kids but may be physically unable to participate as much with his children.
I know that there are arguements on both sides of this, but I through up the negative to illuminate the whole childbirth question.
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
threw dammit I meant threw.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"threw dammit I meant threw."
Funny, I read it as "thought." Amazing how the mind fills in the blanks sometimes...
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
Bill Hoyt had this to say:
"Used together, my fuzzy math tells me that 1 in 33,000 women will become pregnant in a city the size of Lawrence. If your friend is the one, then everyone else needs a new story."
She may not have been. It's been a few years now since this occurred, and there may have been a skipped pill in there somewhere.
In any case, that illustrates my point. Unlikely does not equal impossible, hence the "be willing to accept all possible consequences" comment.
Thanks, Bill, for this chunk of seriously interesting reading, and the debate that ensued. Very engaging.
As to waiting to have kids: here comes my opinion (worth the paper it's written on). I have so far, through a series of circumstances, not had any. I'm nearing 30, unmarried and in school again. The possibility exists that I may never have children. I have to be realistic and accept that. I also continue to have hope.
I also want a career. I want both, and I refuse to apologize for that. Too many women spend time saying they're sorry for wanting what it appears, to many at least, that men are capable of having: a career and a family. This is an old tune, sung until it wears on the listener.
So, I don't know what to say to all this, really. I only have my few thoughts, mostly connected to feelings that I really don't want to voice in a public forum like this one.
Kudos to you, Bill, for supporting your daughter's decisions, whatever they may be. Too often the ones we love make decisions that we feel will be harmful to them. Letting them learn the lessons or reap the rewards of their own actions is the best gift I can think of to give them.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I refuse to apologize for that."
You should never apologize for that. I absolutely applaud your foresight and willingness to accept the consequences, be they good or bad. That's responsibility and it is, unfortunately, in rare supply.
"Too many women spend time saying they're sorry for wanting what it appears, to many at least, that men are capable of having: a career and a family."
I saw something meant to be funny, though I cringed because it was one of those exaggerations that are "not so much," and it went like this:
Women: A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and soccer games and romances and best friends and favorite foods and secret fears and hopes and dreams.
Men: A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
http://funny2.com/menandwomen.htm
Sadly, it's often not far from the truth. The truth is that too many men don't have "a career and a family". They have a career while their wife has a family. I'm not sure that's something anyone ought to aspire to, but again, actions have consequences, and all accounts come due sooner or later.
Thanks for dropping in and for your contribution.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
"The truth is that too many men don't have "a career and a family". They have a career while their wife has a family."
Nicely worded, Bill.
Now wouldn't it be nice if men like that would meet women half way, so that both could share equal involvement in their respective careers and families, if indeed both have or want jobs/careers. Doesn't a marriage or a committed relationship involve sacrifice and compromise from both partners after all? No one person should have to make all the sacrifices - that can only lead to resentment, disappointment and unhappiness.
I know of very successful marriages in which the father and the mother do exactly that - share the workload in all respects, at home and at work. A true partnership. Something to aspire to, eh? That's all I would ask for - equal commitment. That cannot be so bizarre or unreasonable!
The problem seems to come about when there is an imbalance. I know one woman who just filed for divorce because her husband is one of those men whose focus is completely on his very successful career and he is vaguely aware of his family. When she told him that she wanted to go back to school, he was completely supportive of that decision. He suggested getting a nanny for the kids. It never occurred to him that he could cut back his hours at work and spend more time at home with his children. That's very sad.
Todd (anonymous) says…
More men would be stay-at-home-dads if the stigma was lifted? By stigma I mean they could marry quality women. (after admitting wanting to be stay-at-home dads)
My point: women can have career and family if they stop being control freaks and let me raise the kids. Seriously, 1/2 of all stay-at-home parents should be men.
edie_ (anonymous) says…
Do I happen to know a disproportionate number of men who married women with children and were thrilled as bunnies about that? There are actually some cool guys out there who don't buy into this crap and don't let other guys slide by with it either.
How about when thirty something husbands decide to leave their aging wives and kids for some young ass? After all, that comes from the same mental black hole of man-jerky as your theory that a woman is a depreciating commodity (fake-nice lingo for "dried up old hag"). Are you going to chastize the single divorcee with kids for getting married too young?
I stand by my insistance that instead of crucifying the ladies who work hard for their families and do it all by themselves we need to stop tolerating men who refuse to grow up and live in a self-centered world of double standards and bullshit disrespect for single women.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
Snoop--
"The whole idea of being "financially stable" is just silly, anyway"
tell that to the folks who have no money. trust me when i say when (you) don't think being financially stable is a big deal, your mate will eventually think it is.
The point was, most people's definition of what is "financially" stable is being able to afford luxuries, and not the basic nessecities of life. (Food, water, toilet paper, clothing, gas.) It takes a lot less effort than people think to be WISE with the money they HAVE, rather than constantly wanting more and more. If someone's idea of being financially stable is being able to pay for their kid to go to private school and have every video game they've ever wanted and buy them a new car, then there aren't that many middle class families who would be considered "financially stable." My parents were what *I* would consider "financially stable" while I was growing up, but that didn't mean we had a lot of luxuries. We ate balogna and carrots on a regular basis and went to movies twice a year. We didn't have video games, or a large collection of movies, or DVDS, or toys. We played in the backyard because it was free, and we all turned out fine. We always had food, we always had electricity, we always had what we needed to get by, and THAT is what it means to be financially stable.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"Anyone can get a job anytimne he or she wants"
oh shit when i was out of work for a fucken year i was not aware of this little tidbit.
Yeah, and where were you applying for jobs at? I find it hard to believe that anyone who is unemployed for a year really "can't find a job." It's more of "I can't find a job I like." I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying that it's a matter of dignity. Are you willing to sacrifice a small portion OF your dignity to wait tables? Or carhop? Or deliver pizzas? Did you really ever apply for jobs at any of those places? Considering the large cities you've lived in, I can't see how someone with your skill couldn't find ANY job. Even my ba4ba4 was in the same position, but he ended up taking a shit-ass job that paid him 6.50 an hour to support us. And guess what? It sucked ass, and he probably wasn't proud of working there, but he did what he needed for us to survive, and that's what being a man is. It's not taking shame in having to work at a fast food restaurant because there aren't any corporate openings in Kansas. It's taking the responsibility of putting your family before your pride, and I'd be damned if I didn't say it was worth it. Yeah, money was tight there, and we couldn't have a lot of "extras" that we wanted, but we made the house payments, and we had our utilities, and we had food, and we had each other, and we were fine. There are a ton of jobs in "little" places like the paper factory he worked at, and there are lessons to be learned from each place we ARE employed. The point of this is that if someone needs the money badly enough, they'll find a way to get it, and they'll work hard for it. I'm not above collecting unemployment, but I am above sitting around on my ass saying "poor me, I can't find a job, it's probably because I'm repressed because I'm a woman and nobody likes me."
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"How about when thirty something husbands decide to leave their aging wives and kids for some young ass?... Are you going to chastize the single divorcee with kids for getting married too young?"
I can only tell you what I have done and let you decide. About 15 years ago I had a friend named Todd, who was a few years older than I. He and his wife had 2 boys about the same age as my 2 oldest and he owned a restaurant in Topeka.
Eventually, as is wont to happen among scumbag males, his heart was captured by one of his sweet young waitresses and as the restaurant wasn't doing all that well, he flew off to another state with his little bird leaving his wife and sons behind and the restaurant assets in the hands of the repossessors.
I didn't know his wife all that well, but I chastized her like you wouldn't.... no, I didn't. Though Todd was my friend, after one interesting discussion about responsibility I never spoke to him again. Instead, his wife and kids moved in with Skinner and I (6 of us, including 4 kids under 3, in a 2-bedroom duplex) until they could get back on their feet. We helped her sell the stuff that was left behind, fed her and housed her, and did what we could to make a horrible situation bearable. Does that answer the question?
I don't believe in divorce for any reason. But I don't chastize the victims (and there are victims). However, even though K was a victim and was put back on her feet, it didn't end well. She married another loser, got pregnant, and divorced again.
We lost track a few years ago when she moved back into her parents' house.
Would I chastize her if I met her again? Of course not. Was she more likely to marry a loser because she was an unmarried mother with kids, even though it wasn't her fault? Well, she did.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
edie wrote:
"we need to stop tolerating men who refuse to grow up and live in a self-centered world of double standards and bullshit disrespect for single women."
Exactly! And it starts with the mothers and fathers who raise boys. Please, please, please raise them to be self-sufficient and respectful of women - all women! Single, married, in their 20s, over 30 (gasp!), with or without children, with or without careers - all women. And it doesn't take more than just treating us like equal human beings. Why is that so hard in so many different cultures?
I've always given men a whole lot of credit because I believe that they can indeed do everything we women are expected to do: raise kids, clean the house, cook, iron, go shopping AND have a job! You can do it, boys. I know you can. But, like you said, edie, we women simply have to refuse to tolerate men who refuse to grow up. We are often far too forgiving in this regard and they know it.
Oh yeah...and parents, please also raise your daughters to not tolerate those men who refuse to grow up.
wbabbit (Will Babbit) says…
beatle wrote:
"I truly believe there is a perfect match for everyone...it's just a matter of finding it"
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement, what's it mean for those who's "true love" left them? Were they just wrong? Are they screwed now since their one person is gone now, so they'll have to settle for second best? I think you know that it certainly didn't apply to me, it just took me an extra try to find my match. But I've always felt there are multiple matches for every person, it's just the one you find that you keep!
To Bethie: I'm sorry but you're just wrong with the job for everyone argument. Lets use a slightly less angry example than Snoop used:
Mother, 2 kids under 5. Husband yells at her/emotionally abuses her, she is very unhappy but unskilled, got married right out of high school. He supplies all the income, she watches the kids. She knows if she leaves he will disappear, with all money and support (and beatings, for that matter). Her choices are: 1) Leave him, work at McDonalds and starve. 6.50 an hour, hell 2 jobs at 6.50 an hour don't even begin to support 2 children, let alone day care, besides the obvious lack of interaction with her children if she chose that. 2)Welfare, which is a nasty circle in itself, since you have to get a higher paying job just to make it worth getting off welfare. 3)Stay with him, make it through the unhappiness, and wait until the kids are old enough to be gone, then leave him. That is by far the most likely thing to happen.
And your example of your ba4ba4(?) working the 6.50 an hour job to support you holds absolutely no weight, you know what the problem with that statement is: there was a spouse to watch you, a single mother is sh*t out of luck on that front, so that 6.50 an hour wouldn't even cover the day care to have the job in the first place.
beatle919 (Marcy McGuffie) says…
Will, baby. You arguing with me? I don't disagree at all with your statement. Maybe, I worded mine badly. Sometimes, people do end up with the wrong person...or someone's true love dies. It happens. And if they're fortunate, they will find another person they belong with. For example: my sister was with someone we all believed to be her perfect match. Well...in reality, he wasn't. But, there is no regret...she ended up with a beautiful boy and he was right for her at the time. But now, she's in a relationship...and hopefully things will work out better this time around. Who knows? But call me silly for believing in soulmates...? I dunno. And Will...you did a great job finding your perfect match the 2nd time around! You two are REALLY good together...
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"And your example of your ba4ba4(?) working the 6.50 an hour job to support you holds absolutely no weight, you know what the problem with that statement is: there was a spouse to watch you, a single mother is sh*t out of luck on that front, so that 6.50 an hour wouldn't even cover the day care to have the job in the first place."
Then how come I can give you at least ten examples of women I know who are doing just this, and surviving fine?
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
this goes out to edie....Yep guys can be total asses about this.......But let's not throw the entire load on the mens shoulders...As long as there is goldbricking little bitches willing to help strip a man away from his family or god forbid, marrying a older man for the money and security this shit will happen.
I know you are very passionate about this, but in my opinion dear, you tend to tow the feminist line a little too hard.
I am not trying to be harsh, but, women hold double standards and are just as self centered as men.....Yes they tend to be more family orientated, but there is a dark side to that.....I have heard countless tales of the brooding mom using their kids as pawns in some mental fuckyou games(dad's do this to) or instead of raising their children to be adults, try to mold them into their insecure fantasies of what they wanted to be.(once again, dad's do it to).
Anyway I am off to tulsa to attend a wedding ....see you all on monday...ciao
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"Her choices are: 1) Leave him, work at McDonalds and starve. 6.50 an hour, hell 2 jobs at 6.50 an hour don't even begin to support 2 children, let alone day care, besides the obvious lack of interaction with her children if she chose that. 2)Welfare, which is a nasty circle in itself, since you have to get a higher paying job just to make it worth getting off welfare. 3)Stay with him, make it through the unhappiness, and wait until the kids are old enough to be gone, then leave him. That is by far the most likely thing to happen."
There is ALWAYS a solution. If someone truly and honestly cannot support their children, that's what foster care is for. If someone is being "forced" to stay in an abusive relationship, they need to go to a Safe House (that's what those are designed for). My grandmother helped run one for 15 years, and they give you housing and food and help you find a job where you CAN support your children. Otherwise, there's this great system called foster care. That's what foster care is FOR. If you can't physically and financially take care of your children, you need to be selfless enough to stick your child in a home where someone CAN care for them until you can get your shit together.
I'm sure everyone will say "but I don't FEEL like giving my kid to a family who will probably hurt them and not take CARE of them like *I* could." If you can't take care of your child and feed and clothe them, I believe it's far more selfish to keep them in an environment where you can't take care of them. There are tons of foster families who would die to have kids to take care of and provide loving homes for them, without starving the damn kid.
Todd (anonymous) says…
I've always wondered why single moms can't team up? You know get an apartement and have 2 single moms and all their children live in it at once? They could take turns working and watching the kids. From my limited experience with single moms though I'd say the control issue would get in the way. Yeah, I'm the same dude that pushes for multi-generational households. (with my parents and inlaws saying "hell no" the loudest. It's funny seeing a 78 year old southern lady cuss by the way)
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Bethie I love you like whole wheat, and I know you are sincere, but as someone who was so much like you at your age it is not funny, I just have to say that until you give birth to a child yourself you won't know how very impossibly hard it can be to voluntarily give up a child, even for their own good. I know I would have eaten cat food for the rest of my life rather than let my baby go to anyone else. The option of giving up my kid to foster care for awhile so I could get myself better trained to earn a ldecent iving versus staying in a bad marriage long enough to get the kid raised was one I personally faced. You may know 10 moms who are living on McDonald paychecks, but I know 200 moms who have stayed in a marriage that made them miserable just so they can personally raise their kids. Most mothers worth their salt will put themselves in harms way 100X before doing something that they believe (rightly or wrongly) could wreck their kid's lives forever. And as great as some foster homes can be, they are still not somewhere that most parents want to send their kids.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
And before you jump on me over the "I want" statement, I know people don't always get what they want (thank GOD). But, just picture something bad happening to your soon to be husband before you have the training you need to earn a decent living, but after you have had 1-2 kids. You will of course have a family to fall back on for help. But picture them all gone. Now what? You can make some money, but it only pays for rent in a hole and the 5 year old has to watch the 3 year old alone all day or you have no electric for heat. It happens just like that, way too often. I've helped woman like that, good kind and real unlucky women who made one or two unwise choices in their lives, and ended up with a future as bleak as winter in Minnesotta. Think about how Misty would respond if you suggested she send Penny to some foster home for 2-3 years while she gets her a degree that is able to allow her earn a living for the two of them. Sure, she has family options, but not every mom comes from or can find stable family surrogates. All I am saying, really, is that a life without a back up earning skill to market is much much harder than a life with some professional or technical degree in the side pocket! That's all I am saying. Really! I don't like it, but that's just how this world currently works. I didn't make up the rules. I just had to learn to play by them!
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
That's great Lady Law, but your post still contains "feeling" versus "logic." You may not WANT or FEEL like giving your kid up, but if you really love your child, sometimes that's what is required. And I already have the training I need to survive on my own with or without a husband. Up until yesterday I made more than him, and I've been doing fine without his help. And Misty? Misty has family to support her, just as I do if the need arose. Don't tell me you wouldn't take her in in a heartbeat and help her with the baby if she so decided to go back to school. Lucky for her she doesn't HAVE to, and she has enough skills with or without a degree to be able to support her AND a child without the help of Trey.
The point is, there are ALWAYS options. Keeping a child you can't take care of is nothing but selfish. I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard if I was in that situation, and I'm certainly not saying that it's the choice I would make given I were in that situation, but I AM saying that logically, it's the best move for the mother AND for the child. Nobody will ever raise your child like you, but if you can't even feed yourself, you have no business having a child.
BadEnglishMajor (Bethany Jones) says…
"but I know 200 moms who have stayed in a marriage that made them miserable just so they can personally raise their kids"
and whose choice was it to get married?
and whose choice was it to stay married?
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
Todd, that is indeed an excellent idea, but you're right, control issues would get in the way, which is too damn bad, because the idea of two or three single-parent families chipping in on a nice big ramshackle house and taking turns bringing home a paycheck and raising the little'uns sounds fantastic. But then, my worldview was formed from reading too much Heinlein ;)
Todd (anonymous) says…
Yeah, I wish more undamaged (less damaged) children would be put up for adoption. AND I wish it was easier to adopt. If those 2 things happened I'd probably have 6-8 kid over my lifetime instead of what looks like 2 now. As it is I either have to pay $10k for IVF or private adoption for another kid. Thing is, after paying $10k and going through the process it's just that much less in resources and energy that I can give to the children.
wbabbit (Will Babbit) says…
beth, are you kidding me?
"Nobody will ever raise your child like you, but if you can't even feed yourself, you have no business having a child."
So if a person makes a mistake and gets pregnant, she should just give it up? So the rich and successful inherit all of the children because they maybe got luckier or didn't get pregnant young, and all of the poor and destitute are just supposed to hand their children over...how depressing is that. Even a libertarian can't think that everyone goes by logic...you're saying that if your dad couldn't support your family when you were 3-4 years old you would have preferred to go to a foster home than to be with him, even though poor?
"and whose choice was it to get married?
and whose choice was it to stay married?"
Certainly not necessarily theirs...as this whole blog has been about, sometimes women get married and find out they are WRONG. it happens, though perhaps you don't believe it. But some women are selfless, that's right selfless enough to stay married so their children have a better chance at life. I would love to see the stats on the college graduation rates of Foster children vs. children raised by their parents...
And no one's claiming that you aren't prepared to fend for yourself, it was just an example.
I think a big thing that the last 5-6 posters have made a mistake of is making this a personal matter. All of the people we're talking about here on these boards have good support channels via friends, family, etc. These women we're talking about are the truly poor, living in the projects or trailer parks. Perhaps with debt to their eyeballs and above, with nothing to look forward to but another day below the poverty line...
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
logic: I think a lot of people were reacting to this comment that Bill made, rather than the article:
"If you have kids out of wedlock or wait into your 30s to get married, your value as a proposed marriage partner goes down. Women are a depreciating commodity. I'm sorry, but they are. Women with kids are a depreciated commodity."
I think these comments sparked a reaction. They did for me. And I am still not convinced that the word "commodity" is appropriate when talking about people.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"And I am still not convinced that the word 'commodity' is appropriate when talking about people."
"Commodity" is simply a metaphor. As Beatle said, "The dating world is a big marketplace w/different goods." What is available in a marketplace? Commodities. I really didn't know how to clear up my usage without sounding condescending...but the fact that you and edie_ both took me literally when (to me, anyway) it was obvious I was using a symbolic representation to make a point... well, I'll just come out and say it: "commodity" is a symbolic representation used to illustrate a point. I don't really, actually, honest-to-god believe that people are like pork bellies or concentrated orange juice.
Of course, the comments were meant to spark a reaction and discussion and hopefully some thought as well. Heat without light is pretty useless for illumination, after all. And yes, that's a metaphor, too.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"So if a person makes a mistake and gets pregnant, she should just give it up?"
Will, let's wind it back to LadyLaw's comment for just a sec:
"...I just have to say that until you give birth to a child yourself you won't know how very impossibly hard it can be to voluntarily give up a child, even for their own good."
"Even for their own good". That seems to me to be an admission that in certain cases, the best interests of the child lie in giving it up. It's hard. As the father of three and the adoptive father of one and as a foster parent, I *know* how hard it is. I've seen what parents have to go through to get their kids back, and I've seen a lot of them do it. I've seen a lot of them, however, who can't give up the meth, can't get out of bed consistently enough to hold a job, can't pay the rent because Hot Damn 100 calls too loudly.
Call me a hard-ass if you must, but in a lot of cases, it's better for the child to give it up. A decision that doesn't put the child first is selfish. Is that heartless? Tell me, if it is in the best interests of the child to give it up, in whose interests is it to not do what is in the best interests of the child?
"So the rich and successful inherit all of the children because they maybe got luckier or didn't get pregnant young, and all of the poor and destitute are just supposed to hand their children over...how depressing is that."
God, Will, there are so many incorrect assumptions in that I don't know where to start. Rich people are not rich because they are lucky and poor people are not poor because they are unlucky. They are poor because of the decisions they have made. Those who want to change that ought to listen to Walter Williams:
http://www.showmenews.com/2005/May/20...
Only a small proportion of people "get pregnant," if we structure that clause as an action that happens "to" people, like the people who "get pnumonia" or "get measles." The rest of them engage in behavior that *causes* pregnancy. I know birth control fails (the numbers are above). The majority of people who get pregnant fail to use it properly or "get pregnant" on purpose. But if they do that, if they choose to act that way, it has absolutely no relevance to whether the child is better off elsewhere. Some moms who get pregnant do a great job raising kids. They are to be commended for their sacrifices, supported by friends and family and community, and given a freaking blue ribbon for stepping up to the plate.
I don't care how "depressing it is." It is what is is. Either we act in the best interests of our kids or we act in the best interests of ourselves. But let's not pretend that just because a decision is "hard," that makes it any less necessary.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Bad EM:
>The point is, there are ALWAYS options. Keeping a child you can't take care of is nothing but selfish. I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard if I was in that situation, and I'm certainly not saying that it's the choice I would make given I were in that situation, but I AM saying that logically, it's the best move for the mother AND for the child.
This seems a bit naive to me. Human beings are emotional creatures first and logical ones second (or maybe even third). You can't make a decision that envolves personal happiness and ignore the emotional aspects. If a person is unable to do something from an emotional position, than it really doesn't matter how convincing your logic is, it will still be impossible for the person to do otherwise. Your claim that there are "always" options, is only convincing when you don't have to deal with real people.
Just my 2 cents.
mazzy (Sarah Wallace) says…
Maybe I'm the only unwed mother who reads this blog.
As much as I hate to say it... Bill is right about some of the things he wrote. The pickin's tend to be pretty slim for single mothers. Granted, I am the Queen of Stupid Mistakes and I pick all the wrong men, but the 'right' men aren't exactly knocking down my door. Compound being a single parent with the fact that I'm nearing 30 with a decade of not-so-smart choices in my portfolio and I'm not an easy 'sell'.
Now, I know women who have met fantastic men who see their children as an asset but I know many more single mothers who can't find a man that doesn't see their kids as a liability.
In an ideal world everyone would be willing to see beyond the 'baggage' but we all have an idea of what we're looking for in the perfect mate and the reality is that most people do not have kids and gray hairs on their list.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Bill wrote: "I don't care how 'depressing it is.'"
Exactly. You don't care. Like so many people out there, you just don't care. It would be nice if more people did care.
Oh, and thanks for the English lesson, but I don't need it. I am fully aware of what metaphors are and I know how to recognize them. The problem comes about when they are applied repeatedly and even defended with other metaphors in the same context.
I would never assume this of you, but there are people out there who truly view others as objects to purchase annd sell - and they do just that. So, I just wouldn't want to use it in a laissez-faire manner that implies a general acceptance of the situation it represents, i.e. "Women are a depreciating commodity. I'm sorry, but they are." The tone implies acceptance, not contempt, but that may be a problem with this medium of communication.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
LogicSound hits a home run:
"it seems silly to think that we (men, in this case) should make an active effort to change who we are attracted to in order to be more fair."
It IS silly. People are looking for what they are looking for and nothing else. To say that men ought to work to find themselves attracted to women with kids is akin to saying that - in fairness to ugly men - women ought to work harder to find themselves attracted to guys who are overweight and have hygiene issues. Maybe some women already do. Most don't.
Here's the difference: If a man whines and bitches about how none of the babes will go out with him, people will rightly tell him to take a shower, get a haircut, buy a Bowflex, dress nicely, speak properly, because the women of the world are under no moral obligation to change what they want just because it's unfair to fat, smelly guys. If he wants to succeed, he's going to have to make some choices and some of them are going to be difficult. If he doesn't want to make the changes, then he has to accept the results.
However, it's mean and uncaring to point out that the door swings both ways.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I would never assume this of you, but there are people out there who truly view others as objects to purchase and sell..."
Then I stand confused. Didn't you say "Well, Bill, I guess the fundamental difference in our viewpoints is that I actually do not regard people as commodities." Unless my sarcasm detector failed, that would indicate that you think that I actually (as opposed to metaphorically) do regard them as commodities. I note that's the line Snoop picked up on, too, and yes, I understand that taken literally it has bad historical implications. I apparently failed to limit the metaphor to its context within a market of free individuals making free choices. Thus the unnecessary English lesson.
But here's where I think the real difference fundamental difference in our view points exists: "You don't care. Like so many people out there, you just don't care. It would be nice if more people did care."
Sure, it would be nice if more people cared about a lot of things, but it would not change anything unless they cared most about their own choices. Since I have helped single women and their kids for a long time, it's demonstrable that I care about them as individuals. But whether I care is not the issue.
I don't believe for a minute that my "caring" is going to change the consequences of anyone else's decisions any more than my caring about gravity is going to change whether someone gets hurt falling off a building. I can tell them not to play on the roof, I can splint their leg once they land. But do I care about gravity? Nope, because I can wail and plead and cry, but 9.8m/sec2 still applies.
cfdxprt (anonymous) says…
Slight correction Bill, it's 9.81 m/sec^2. Sorry engineers are anal about universal constants (even if it actually is different everywhere). Other than that, your logic is on sound ground.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Slight correction Bill, it's 9.81 m/sec^2"
You know, I almost made the smartassed comment that I put that notation in there just for you. Glad to see it wasn't necessary ;)
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Bill wrote: "To say that men ought to work to find themselves attracted to women with kids is akin to saying that - in fairness to ugly men - women ought to work harder to find themselves attracted to guys who are overweight and have hygiene issues"
How is a woman with kids akin to an overweight man with hygiene issues? What does the fact that she has kids have to do with physical (un)attractiveness? I figure a woman with kids is akin to a man with kids. After all, so many divorced men have 50% custody and jobs or even full custody these days.
And regarding the women who dare have kids out of wedlock (remember Joel's comment that it takes two to tango!), I guess she would be best advised to get an abortion or give the child up for adoption, rather than being encouraged to have the child? Where's the criticism of the men who leave the women with whom they have children out of wedlock? Again, society and social thinking does evolve and people can make efforts to move beyond their prejudices.
All I was trying to point out is that it just seems odd to categorize someone who has similar qualities to myself (in her late 30s, with a job, no children, attractive) as a depreciating commodity, especially considering the fact that I could certainly still have children if I wanted to and am not barren.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"How is a woman with kids akin to an overweight man with hygiene issues?"
Both situations are judged by other potential partners as "issues." There's really no more to it than that. Just like a slovenly man will find fewer women romantically interested in him, so will a woman with kids find fewer men interested in her. As a result, both will have a smaller pool to choose from and the odds of finding a diamond in the rough drop. And in both cases, personal choices can lead to those very "issues".
Not in all cases obviously (some women are victims; some men are born ugly) but for most, they are in the position they find themselves because they put themselves there. My advice, harsh as it may seem, is don't put yourself there in the first place unless you're unnaturally good at finding diamonds.
"remember Joel's comment that it takes two to tango!"
Remember that I agreed with it.
"Where's the criticism of the men who leave the women with whom they have children out of wedlock?"
I thought I illustrated it by dumping a friend who did that while taking in his ex-wife and their kids. But I'll say it: abandoning a woman whom you have impregnated is reprehensible and ought to carry a stigma that follows a man for life. He's callously turning his back on his moral responsibility and ought to pay, literally, for at least half of everything that child needs until adulthood. And I say "at least" but I mean more, because he has deprived that child of one of the two things in that child's life that matters more than money: he's dreprived that child of a parent. A pox on him to accompany his scarlet "L"!
Fair enough?
(this one will have to be in 2 parts)
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"All I was trying to point out is that it just seems odd to categorize someone who has similar qualities to myself (in her late 30s, with a job, no children, attractive) as a depreciating commodity..."
Please forgive me for being personal, but I'll illustrate it and I'm going to bring back the "commodity" metaphor to do it.
There are 7 groups of men in the market (for example).
A wants no kids and is uneducated thus far.
B wants 2 kids and is uneducated thus far.
C wants a bunch of kids and is uneducated thus far.
D doesn't care about kids, but wants a wife who is younger than him
E wants 2 kids and is educated, but wants a stay-at-home mom for them.
F wants no kids and is educated and wants an independent woman.
G wants a bunch of kids and is educated
If you were 20, in college, and wanted kids, you would be a likely partner for B, C, D, E, and G. You would be a highly appreciated commodity because there would be a lot of men who could see in you what they want. You may only choose B or D, because your desires in a man include having kids and maybe you don't want to stay at home. But the fact that he's uneducated at 20 matters less, because he may be in the service or still in college. But as there are more bidding for you, your value is high. They must compete against each other.
Move forward to age 37, single with a career.
B may still be in, but as he's uneducated at 37, you may not want him.
C is out. In your late thirties, you're probably not going to have a bunch of kids.
D is out (or rather, there are fewer Ds because you are older than them now)
E might work out, if you were willing to give up career (I know it's not fair) or not. Depends on you.
G is out for the same reasons as C.
F might be back in if you were willing to forego kids.
Now, how much easier is it to pick what you want from among the group that might want you when you're 20? Every year that passes more "bunch of kids" and "younger than me" men fall out of the picture. Others also drop out because they get married to have kids. The ones who are still uneducated become a drag because you want someone successful. Many who remain are single becuase they really don't want to get married, they just want sex.
As there are fewer and fewer bidders (potential mates) in the market, they don't have to bid as high (bring you as much) to win you. If you want to get married, you have a smaller pool from which to choose. That's what I mean by "depreciated." It's nothing personal, it's just a reflection of the fact that choices become narrower and narrower as time passes because more bidders find what they want and leave the market.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
What about H: is educated, wants an independent, educated woman who can be a little younger, a little older or the same age, and doesn't care whether they have kids or not? I know people like that, so I know they exist.
wbabbit (Will Babbit) says…
"Rich people are not rich because they are lucky and poor people are not poor because they are unlucky. They are poor because of the decisions they have made."
So Paris Hilton isn't rich because she's lucky? Must be her stunning intellect and quick wit that's gotten her to be a billionare...
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Yep. Paris Hilton is all rich people and all rich people are Paris Hilton. And Oprah, Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, and John Edwards are rich because they were lucky enough to be born into wealth.
Of course, if rich people are just rich because they're lucky, why bother getting an education or going to work? Either you're lucky or you're not. Might as well just play the lottery and find out if you, too, have what it takes to be rich.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but sometimes illumination comes from the most unlikely of sources, Maureen Dowd:
A few years ago at a White House correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or PR women."
I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers...
As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."
A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. As Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women."...
"The hypothesis," Brown said," is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimise the risk of raising offspring that are not their own."
(oops, there's the "women with kids" problem - El B)
Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.
A second study by researchers at four British universities that was reported last week suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals...
So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion...
Of course, the idea that men want a woman they don't have to talk to is rubbish (at least in marriage... one-night stands are fine for that, I suppose, which is why there was no marked difference there). More likely is that the 'assistants' are the only women in a powerful man's "circle" who are younger than him.
Interesting quip about Carrie Fisher, though. After finding that "powerful" men were not interested in her, she had no choice but to take a step down to the second or third tier. Hey, I'm not the one who called them "consorts."
Blame it on evolution if you want, but there it is...
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
Much to say, and poorly organized:
First:
If Ms. Fisher decided to not continue pursuing men who, no matter how 'powerful' they were, were not interested in her as a human being, and started choosing from men who, while not as 'powerful', might actually give a damn about her, then she didn't step down... she stepped up.
But then, I don't necessarily espouse the same values as were considered in the original article you quoted, Bill. Economic security is a good thing, to be sure, but that's not the same as wealth. Being in a lower income bracket is, to me, not as bad as being in a bad (or indifferent) relationship, no matter what the financial situation is.
Second:
Bill enscribed: "I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers..."
An interesting point, that. Women tend to be seen as more nurturing, and perhaps that makes women in nurturing professions seem more feminine? More attractive? I'd be interested in your opinion, guys (and gals as well, of course).
There is a certain amount of ... well, let me put it this way: I was once engaged to a man who made more money than me, even though he had less traditional education (although he was being educated through his job, just not at a university, so I didn't consider him less educated than me, just differently). Of course, when I started talking about going back to school and getting an advanced degree, he supported me with words, but not so much with actions. It was unnerving to him to be with a woman who might not need him to take care of her (that's not a direct quote, but I seem to remember a conversation like that).
My financial dependence on him was an attractive thing to him -- for what reason I don't know. But perhaps you can understand this. (Again, I am soliciting the male opinion on this; I'm truly curious.)
Third:
I wonder also: I said earlier that I want both a career and a family... but I also neglected to say that these don't have to happen at the same time for me. I wonder how many people think they have to do one or the other because they forget (or don't know) that one does not have to do everything at once?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Bill enscribed: "I'd been noticing a trend along these lines"
Actually, that was not me noticing it, but Maureen Dowd, as if this is something new and not simply part of human nature as expressed in the free choices of literally millions of people. I only quoted her (and it's perhaps the only time I've *ever* quoted her), to show that it's not something I made up.
"If Ms. Fisher ...started choosing from men who, while not as 'powerful', might actually give a damn about her, then she didn't step down... she stepped up."
In your opinion, but apparently not hers, for she's the one who calls them 'consorts' rather than 'kings'. Then she gave up on them altogether. Apparently either they didn't give a damn about her or she discovered, once the novelty wore off, she didn't give a damn about them...
"Being in a lower income bracket is, to me, not as bad as being in a bad (or indifferent) relationship, no matter what the financial situation is."
True, and it's a perfectly valid choice. However, the issue is that the ability to make that choice fades as the years roll by. And there's certainly no more guarantee that a relationship won't be bad in a lower bracket than an upper. In fact, I'd suggest that since many (most?) divorces are exacerbated by financial difficulties, that the odds are higher that the issue will be forced sooner rather than later without a financial foundation that allows it to be ignored or even overcome, at least for a while.
brooke (anonymous) says…
"Because men feel insecure around a successful woman?"
No, because successful men are generally not romantically interested in successful women.
_______________________________________________________
i am so sick of this double standard bullshit........we constantly tell our daughters how they can be anything they want to be and we tell them that women should be considered equal to men and then, when they become a success, we then tell them that they will become dried up, old spinsters b/c they were too busy getting an education and a career when they should have been looking for a husband and a meal ticket.........and why is it acceptable for a successful man to marry some uneducated nit-wit and support her and their family (b/c she can't) but when a women marries a man that is not as educated or succeddful as her, it is considered marrying below her?........a statistic is just a number.....it is not a chain that binds us to its findings......it is the people that find this way of thinking acceptable that perpetuate inequality and double standards in our society.....i have one question for you Mr. Hoyt.....do you have any daughters?......if so, please tell me, what are your expectations of them?....woudl you prefer that they abandon their education in search of a husband, or that they strive to be successful and independent, that way, if and when they do marry and it fails (since this is a statistic driven issue......statistics say that one out of two marriages end yearly) they will be able to supposrt themselves and get stuck in a minimum wage job and in poverty?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"do you have any daughters?"
Three, aged 4 to 18
"......if so, please tell me, what are your expectations of them?"
My expectations are that they would make wise choices, understanding how the world is and that it's not always how they would wish it to be.
I expect that they will pursue what they want - career or family or some combination - accepting the consequences that go with those choices.
I don't tell them what to do; I try to teach them how to wisely decide what they want, what the opportunity costs of that are, and how to go about getting it.