Replies

I think Gail Collins is so off the mark here.

Many of my own single, attractive, female friends -- successful in careers, but unmarried and childless, have been reading Sylvia Hewlett's new book, "Creating a Life." To these women, the findings in her book confirm what they silently suspected: There are MANY educated, successful, single, unmarried, aging and childless women in this country -- and, something is wrong with this picture.

None of them expected it would take as long as it did to financially support themselves, or to get where they did, and to have to do it alone -- without a "helpmate" as Sen. Nelson recently labeled Tipper, the spouse of Al Gore.

Gail Collins seems to be very eager to brush aside any questions of my female friends, yet this debate is now taking center stage as a result of Hewlett's book. And, most of my close friends are: liberal or independent / swing voters. Without families of their own and children, many do feel they have missed a boat they did not plan on missing.

And, while I do not intend to sound an alarm, Gail Collins' claim that "race suicide" is a joke is also off the mark, as it is a cold, hard fact that whites in this country are now reproducing at the lowest rate when compared to every other race -- and that fact is known to most teachers, who are constantly told to expect an increase in (1) Hispanic students (as Hispanics are reproducing at the higest rates) and (2) black students. Whites are far behind in reproduction rates.

Gail Collins' editorial here leaves me wondering why she and others refuse to believe that some women DID intend to have children and families. I can't help but wonder if she is a big supporter of the so-called 'Peter Pan' theory for men, as such men do not see the need to marry, and intend to remain at a teenage mentality forever in terms of responsibility. To me, Gail Collins tries hard to make it sound like this is just fine: Peter Pan men, and childress, intelligent women. But, I disagree with her.

There are MANY educated, successful, single, unmarried, aging and childless women in this country -- and, something is wrong with this picture. None of them expected it would take as long as it did to financially support themselves, or to get where they did, and to have to do it alone -- without a "helpmate" as Sen. Nelson recently labeled Tipper, the spouse of Al Gore.

You cannot have both a career and a family. Period. This is true of both men and women. You might object: But what if one spouse stays home and the other pursues a career? Even this doesn't work. You can't say you're a good father if every time you try to watch your son play little league [football, basketball, baseball, whatever], your beeper goes off, you get called away, and you have to arrange for another parent to drive him home. You can't say you're a good father if you don't have the time to build a tree fort with your son [and teach him how to do it], so you hire someone else to build it for you. You can't call yourself a good father if you're always on the road, week after week after week, and your only contact with your son is a phone call every other night from your hotel room. [And you sure as hell can't fulfill your marital obligations to his mother under those circumstances.] At some point, you have to decide: Successful career, or family. Our hedonistic, narcissistic culture has been promoting the former, over the latter, for about forty years now.

On the other hand, this is not an entirely new phenomenon.

Anecdotal evidence: my 40-something sister is licensed to practice law in the USA, Canada, and the UK. She has worked as a lawyer on underwriting IPOs, structuring financial transactions, etc.

She had my nephew a few years ago and is trying very hard to have another. She loves her boy, and quite frankly I feel that it has changed her personality for the better - the sharp brilliance of her mind is there but she is kinder and gentler now.

I think that the reason for the delay in getting married is at least partially attributable to the fact that better educated males are not necessarily nicer people.

God is forgiving, but nature isn't. Check out this week's Time magazine's article on fertility. The *peak* time of fertility for women is between about age 16 to 25. There is a little leeway at ages 25-30, but after that it's a rapid downhill decline. Most women who go to grad school (JD, PhD) are just barely starting their careers at 25 and are NOT going to "throw it all away," as they see it.

Unfortunately, after-25 is nowhere near as "cute" as before-25, and that's how you get a sour unmarried woman whose clock is ticking like the one inside the crocodile that was chasing Captain Hook.

I have no solution. How many men are willing to marry an 18-year old girl right out of high school, or a woman right out of college who plans to devote herself wholeheartedly to kinder und kuche? You guys out here - would you seriously? Because that's the only way it's going to turn around - marriage at 18, four kids by 26; the last one out of high school by 44, and then maybe a career.

Many women get their college educations, marry and have children, and start their careers after their children are older or grown. That makes sense to me.

Women with young children still have opportunities to get post-graduate degrees while they have young children. Nowadays you can set your own pace.

The biggest problem is that young women are getting the message that they must prove their "worth" by having a fast-track career and that homemaking is a waste of time. I felt it back in the 60's and 70's. Society looks at lots of homemakers as unable or unwilling to do much else.

Men used to take pride in being the breadwinner. Now they like their mates to bring in some more cash. Things have really changed since the sexual revolution.

I can't help but wonder if she is a big supporter of the so-called 'Peter Pan' theory for men, as such men do not see the need to marry, and intend to remain at a teenage mentality forever in terms of responsibility. To me, Gail Collins tries hard to make it sound like this is just fine: Peter Pan men, and childress, intelligent women

I can't say whether or not she SUPPORTS the Peter Pan theory, but there's no doubt that women have allowed men to live in that 'Neverland'. If any of these professional childless women have slept around, or had long term sexual relationships without any sort of commitment on the part of the man, they are part of the problem. In the past, men married because they knew that it was the only way they were going to be able to have a sexual relationship with their 'beloved'. Nowadays, women bed-hop as much as the guys. and in their zeal for 'no strings', they have created the problem they have.

Women have the power to change the situation, they just have to USE it!