Posted on 10/28/2011 5:09:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
Kate Bolick stares out at the world from the cover of The Atlantic magazine. She's wearing a black lace evening dress. "What, Me Marry?" asks the headline. She isn't smiling.
In fact, she isn't smiling in any of the photos that accompany her several thousand-word essay on singleness, marriage and the changing nature of dating and mating in America today. Bolick, 38, is groping toward accepting the idea that she may never marry. She badly wants to convince herself -- and us -- that older ideas about "unhappy" spinsters are silly cultural baggage best dropped off at the curb. And yet, there are those glamour shots -- Bolick behind the wheel wearing a fetching red dress; Bolick in a gold evening gown holding a glass of champagne; Bolick in a black cocktail dress -- but her expressions range from pensive to sad -- never happy.
Bolick seems genuinely conflicted about marriage. The daughter of a committed feminist, she marched off to third grade "in tiny green or blue T-shirts declaring: A WOMAN WITHOUT A MAN IS LIKE A FISH WITHOUT A BICYCLE." She recalls that when she was cuddling in the back seat of the family car with her high school boyfriend, her mother turned around and asked, "Isn't it time you two started seeing other people?" She took it for granted, she writes, "that (I) would marry, and that there would always be men (I) wanted to marry."
So sure was she of the limitless romantic opportunities available that at the age of 28, she broke up with a wonderful boyfriend. They had been together for three years. He was "an exceptional person, intelligent, good-looking, loyal, kind." Why did she discard him? "Something was missing."
Ten years later, she writes somewhat (though not entirely) ruefully "If dating and mating is in fact a marketplace . . . today we're contending with a new 'dating gap,' where marriage-minded women are increasingly confronted with either deadbeats or players."
There is a great deal of interesting data in this piece. According to the Pew Research Center, 44 percent of Millennials and 43 percent of Gen Xers think marriage is becoming obsolete. As of 2010, women held 51.4 percent of all managerial and professional positions, compared with 26 percent in 1980. Women account for the lion's share of bachelors and masters degrees, and make up a majority of the work force. Three quarters of the jobs lost during the recession were lost by men. "One recent study found a 40 percent increase in the number of men who are shorter than their wives." Fully 50 percent of the adult population is single, compared with 33 percent in 1950.
But these trends, however interesting, shed only an oblique light on the problem of the decline in marriageable males. Bolick edges closer to the truth in her discussion of sex.
"The early 1990s," she writes, "witnessed the dawn of the '"hookup culture"' at universities, as colleges stopped acting in loco parentis (actually they relinquished that role in the 1970s) and undergraduates . . . started throwing themselves into a frenzy of one-night-stands." Some young women, she notes, felt "forced into a promiscuity they didn't ask for," whereas young men "couldn't be happier."
According to economist Robert H. Frank, "when available women significantly outnumber men . . . courtship behavior changes in the direction of what men want." And vice versa. If there's a shortage of women, the females have more power to demand what they want, which tends to be (surprise!) monogamy. On college campuses, women outnumber men by 57 to 43 percent.
But economic analysis can take you only so far. Men's capacity to insist upon promiscuity rests completely on female cooperation. And women have been foolishly compliant for decades.
They've conspired in their own disempowerment, not because they love their sexual freedom (though a few may), but because people like Gloria Steinem and Ms. Bolick's mother convinced them that the old sexual mores, along with marriage and children, were oppressive to women.
The resulting decline of marriage has been a disaster for children, a deep disappointment to reluctantly single women and unhealthy for single men, who are less happy, shorter-lived and less wealthy than married men. The sexual revolution has left a trail of destruction in its wake, even when its victims don't recognize the perpetrator.
Don’t kid yourself about pre-nups, it’s not uncommon for family court judges just to toss them out.
As an aside, Devlin wrote a good series on the topic:
“Home Economics, part one”:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm
And who you are. In fact, it all comes down to who you are, and whether you decide to receive the truth (for free!) or buy the lies.
Happily married for 18 years to an amazing man. Feminists would eye him for his good looks, but then dismiss his blue-collar job and our modest home as "beneath" them. They completely overlook everything that makes him amazing; his faithfulness, honesty, passion, compassion, hysterical sense of humor, willingness to sacrifice for his family, and strong faith in God.
Like you, I have no pity for these women. It should come as no surprise that amazing men don't want them.
A committed feminist raising a daughter who is conflicted about marriage? Who would have thunk it?
That is where it gets tricky, doesn’t it? Women are judged primarily for their looks and men for their wallets. Both are fleeting... or can be. Reminds me of a woman that was assigned to my Mother (who was a R.N.) The woman was stunningly beautiful.. worked out everyday and had the plastic surgery to make herself more glamorous to her wealthy, Alpha husband. The woman had both breasts removed due to breast cancer. In recovery, her husband told her he was leaving her and that he “couldn’t stand to be married to a freak without T*ts”.
After 18 years of marriage, I love my husband now more than on the day we married. He is not only my husband, he is the man of my house, the sharer of my life, and the beloved father of our children.
LOL I love your dissertation, and you put a lot of thought into it, and certainly it does match a lot of women.
Obviously you speak from experience.
You have definitely met and consorted with at least one of those of which you make such a brilliant description.
Yes: Those kind are out there and it is a growing phenomenon.
Much of what you describe was brought on and instigated by the feminist movement, the same movement that supports abortion to get rid of the children which might hold the marriage together. No kids, No responsibilities, an easy out.
I bet there is a freeper woman who will answer your argument with the woman’s side. LOL it will be fun to see.
All arguments have two sides.
We have been married now for six years (coming this 10th of November). I've considered myself lucky and blessed for all that I have been given in my life.
First, if they are married to 8:s, that means that they aren´t *that* beta per definition. Beta and “family man” aren´t synonyms in my lingo, rather:
Alpha: Attractive man to women. (8-10)
Beta: Moderately attractive man. (5-7)
Omega: Actively offputting to women. (1-4)
But sure, that´s the good thing about alcohol (and the surrounding social strictures) - it allows one to maintain multiple personalities.
Especially useful for subdued cultures like the Swedes or the Japanese, even in non-sexual contexts. Work hard and shut up during the day, get wasted and say what you really think about your boss after hours, in a socially accepted fashion. What´s not to like?
It’s really quite simple. Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
A few years ago, I came across a study which showed the probability of ever getting married dropped sharply if she had never been married by age 30.
The study didn't go into likely reasons. My own hypothesis is that a woman who hasn't found somebody who meets her criteria by 30, has unreasonable expectations. Additionally, for every year that you're living by yourself, you become more used to being independent and less willing to compromise in a relationship. After 30, more and more of the supply viable potential husbands have been mostly snatched up, and women over 30 have to compete with women under 30 for the rest.
Hey! We don’t need any yankee feminists moving down here.
I plan on doing so. Congrats on the 18 yrs. Keep it up.
I am so happy for you, Bluelancer! Wonderful blessings aren’t a one chance only. You got two.
We used to fight every day, practically. Now we hardly have a cross word for each other.
And I think that is why a lot of marriages fail. First big argument and it's over. Well, I don’t know everybody in the world, but I would be willing to bet BIG money that no one in the world can live with another person for any length of time without some major disagreement happening.
You decide that this is the person that you want to live with, and then you stick with it (absent violence or adultery). That's the only way to make it. And a little hep from God doesn't hurt any, either.
I stopped at the 5th floor. WINNER!
OTOH, I've known a LOT of gals who fit to a T your description.
Classy guy.
One very important point though: Cash is nice for men to have, but it´s not *the* most important thing. The most important thing is what we can perhaps term psychosocial dominance. Or just “manliness” in short. A poor man with plain looks who acts with confidence and assertiveness can often compete with better-looking richer men who act weak.
There are some rather extreme examples of this. For instance, the well-publicized tendency for mass murders to have a lot of pull with women:
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.