Posted on 11/26/2006 5:02:22 AM PST by shrinkermd
....More American women than ever are putting motherhood before matrimony. New data released by the Centers for Disease Control show that nearly four in 10 U.S. babies were born outside of marriage in 2005—a new high. These unwed moms aren't all teens—last year teen pregnancies fell to their lowest levels in 65 years. Some—like 44-year-old Mary Lee MacKichan, who used a gay friend as a sperm donor—are professional, older women who want to have babies before their biological clocks run out, but most are low-income twentysomethings. (Unwed births among 30- to 44-year-olds are up 17 percent since 1991; among those 25 to 29, they're up 30 percent.) And some 40 percent of those moms aren't going it alone—they're cohabiting, at least for a while. That's creating a major shift in what a generation of children are coming to call a family. "Marriage is still alive and well, but it has a lot of competition," says Wellesley College sociologist Rosanna Hertz, author of "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice."
Ironically, sociologists say, marriage may be on the decline precisely because it has become so idealized. People expect more from marriage than they did a century ago, when it was mainly a practical arrangement to provide financial stability for women and a place to raise children. "Now it's not only love and romance but also self-fulfillment and personal growth," says Pamela Smock, professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. Since there's no longer much of a stigma attached to getting pregnant outside of marriage, many couples have replaced "shotgun weddings" with "shotgun cohabitations
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Forgot to add that there are other ways to be home with the kids.
We have friends that are both pediatricians, and they work alternating days so that one is home most of the time. I think maybe 1 day a week they have a babysitter, and they definitely have help with cleaning and cooking.
We also had friends where the woman worked the night shift as a nurse manager, and then she was an on-call nurse. Her husband was at home when she was working.
Anyway, a single parent can't do that.
2 parents can stagger their working. If your an accountant, you also may be able to do some work at home: evenings - weekends.
"...so I STILL outrank her twelve years later! :-)"
Self delusion is grand! ;-)
"Please explain why your wife has to."
Because women are blessed with very good nurturing skills, while men are programmed to be providers. Biology is a wonderful thing.
Not at all, I was commenting on the elitism that exists for the grads from the specific schools mentioned. That elitism is present in both the men and women grads. It prevents them from learning the business.
In my experience, these women that have been concentrating on their careers are admittedly miserable, while the men are miserable at work but feel rewarded by being providers for their families.
Is it now verboted to offer constructive criticism based on real life experience on FR?
Is it now verboted to offer constructive criticism based on real life experience on FR?
Not at all. It's all give and take.
I agree, that some B-school grads can be elitist, but they tend to play in tough playgrounds. How well they do their first five years out means the difference between languishing in middle management and rising to the top. They're ambitious kids thrown into the mix by senior management and left to fight it out. Most will languish.
It certainly could be either sex who decides to stay at home and raise the children. Many of us have a bias for the woman staying home because that's the system we benefited from growing up. Familiarity is good, mystery is unnerving at times.
I don't like to be with a woman with a demanding career in any instance because they are usually unavailable (severe time demands of career), and unreliable (many sudden late nights at work, missed meals, broken dates, etc.).
I don't want a companion I just can't count on. Many men don't want that. Many women don't want that in a mate, either.
I categorically reject women who I can't count on to be on time, keep dates, show up for meals, etc. An absentee companion or spouse just sucks. Many people have no patience for it.
From this quote I can see that you have several problems.
First, I say this to men all the time and the basic principle applies to women also. The fact that men might be consistently rejecting a woman doesn't categorically mean they are 'retards,' nor does it mean that the woman they are seeing/rejecting is a 'good one.'
People tend to be rejected romantically because of substantive, rather than superficial, grounds. For whatever reason, those men you describe may have no genuine desire to marry at all. They may have a desire to marry, but not marry the woman they are dating. That doesn't necessarily make them a 'retard.' Indeed, it could mean they have just have good taste and don't see the woman as a good long-term companion.
So to be fair, you have to at least consider that the 'great lady' isn't all that great in the eyes of potential suiters. Some may be superficial, some may have mis-evaluated the woman, but most probably were substantive and evaluated her well enough to make a decision. "PASS" is a legitimate decision.
Second, you reveal a false dichotomy in your mind, which shows a lack of genuine, independent thought (which, by the way, a lot of men find unappealing). The choice isn't between having a family and being a shriveled up cat lady. When you present the choice as that, you are correct - a family is a better choice. But you fail to acknowledge that those aren't the only two choices and that there is a broad range of choices available.
When you needlessly limit the choice, your answer makes sense. Those aren't the only two choices available.
If you really loved children, you'd love them enough to realize that children need Daddies, too.
"women are blessed with very good nurturing skills"
That statement certainly proves that we've never met. ;-D
JenB, I am a man with a law degree and law license and I worked at two major law firms in NYC for most of the 1990s. I just didn't like it - the demands were greater than what I wanted to offer. I wasn't getting paid enough for what they were taking from me, and it disrupted other areas of my life.
So I suddenly quit, moved 2500 miles away, and started my own business. I'm not practicing law at all. My life is now fantastic. I work less and make much more money. I don't have to deal with people. Decisions are swift - I think about it and make them, not deal with a legion of people who can't make a decision without checking with a half dozen other people up the chain.
I haven't set foot in an office building in just under five years. My path was not traditional, I admit. But I don't think I wasted my education or degree at all.
Office life is remarkably overrated. It's good for some people but not satisfying for many (most?). There's no shortage of people who tell me how much they love their careers, but I used to see them muddle through the day with a cloud over their head. For many people (most?), no matter how cool a job a person has (and most people's jobs aren't even that cool), the actual physical execution of the job, in time, becomes a dull chore.
You ever want to have fun? When someone tells you how much they love their job and how fulfilling it is, ask them specifically what's so fulfilling about their job. Usually you get a 'deer caught in the headlights' look. Then after some attempts at misdirection they will blurt out something abou 'working with people.'
"Well, almost everyone works with people, what's so fulfilling about how you work with people?"
Most people can't articulate what they are talking about in this case. That's because they probably haven't thought about it for long, and in fact don't really know what they are talking about.
It's his preference, that's all. Men and women are more free now to choose what they want. It's incumbent on him to find a mate with an aligned world view and similar goals and values.
This is incumbent on everyone. Women have more choices now than ever. That's a good thing. Men have more choices than ever, too. That's perfectly legitimate and fair.
There are enough people to go around so that everyone should be happy. If not, some of those people have to re-evaluate what they want. That's normal - just as he may have to re-evaluate, you may have to re-evaluate, too.
Everyone should wind up with a desirable outcome, or at the very least a deserved outcome.
A woman who doesn't want to be a stay at home mom should be direct and up front about the issue, and find a mate with a similar world view.
Easy. Everyone's happy this way.
This is exactly it. Anybody who invests much time and energy into making this personal decision into some kind of macro-battle has a screw loose.
Women have more choices than ever. Good thing. Men, of course, have more choices than ever, too. [Would you believe how many women grin when I say the first part and that smile is turned upside down when I relate the second part? Way too many.]
As long as goals are realistic, there isn't a problem. There are many women who want to stay at home and raise children and never deal with office life again (I know many of them). There are many women who can't wait to get back to work, too. Just find a mate on the same page, and everyone should be pretty happy.
Right?
I have to point out that I cracked on the on Accygirl for similarly making a false dichotomy and creating a false choice.
You're right - there is a wide range in between. But that limiting view is on all sides of the issue. Accygirl exhibited it in her own right - she is as wrong as the poster you are responding to.
No, your derision for those who haven't achieved your level of education or made the same life choices you dig is what makes you an elitist. Homemakers and the working class are just people who have chosen other ways to live, and looking down your nose at them is not a sign of ambition, but a sign of smallness.
IOW feminist women are more successful in finding some sucker of a groom to raise some other man's mistake.
The lesson pushed upon the weak minded, fatherhood is fungible.
Well, somebody has to.
And also, you have a propensity (it seems from these few posts) to jump to conclusions that are dubious. You don't know whether that guy at Starbucks has a plan in life. You just think you know. Bad form, and one that will lead you to many mistakes in life. The only way to know is to ask him and find out what's going on in his life. He may be a loser, he may be full of it, but you can't know until you actually talk with him and find out.
Knowing what you don't know is an important quality in navigating through life. Then you are in a better position to find out and fill in the gaps.
That handsome guy who works at Starbucks could be working his way through college and want to continue his education, for example. There is no legitimate reason to impute from his 'hotness' that he is a dead end guy, nor is there a legitimate reason to think that because he is wiping off a counter top at Starbucks at 11am, that he has no plan for life and is on a dead-end track.
Your remarks are a real turn off, but I suspect you are just not very mature in these things and genuinely don't know. Understanding this comes with maturity, which is not to be confused with age, by the way. Good luck on your voyage.
Remarkable self awareness! Kudos!
Frankly, you also use 'frankly' way too much. Poor form - makes it sound like when you don't use it you are being somewhat less than frank.
Me I try to be Dino, and not Frank. ;-)
It's like people who say 'honestly' a lot. Well, I like to think a person I am speaking with is basically honest. When a person who uses 'honestly' a lot, I can't help but think when they don't use it, they are being less than honest.
Which is fine, of course. The only problem is I just don't know just how less than honest any given statement is that's not prefaced by the word 'honestly.' Confusing.
If I had not been talking about what grownups do, you would be 100% correct. Here's an example:
I feed my kids a balanced diet. Grownups don't give a kid a plate of ding-dongs for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Now, does that sound like I'm saying my particular menu is the law? Nope. Studies show that the most important factor in residential fire survival (even more important than smoke detector placement) is whether the family has run fire drills. If I say parents should run fire drills, do I have to put "In my opinion" before it, or is that common sense enough to get by?
The bottom line is that decent parents (aka "grownups") do what contributes most to their kids becoming healthy, happy and responsible adults. Intentional single motherhood is counter to those goals. Unless you have some good studies in your pocket showing that kids thrive without a dad and/or with constant day care until the age of five, I stand by my comments as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
Great suggestion, will do. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.