Ravenwood - 07/03/03 01:45 PM
Susan Reimer of the Baltimore Sun is griping about men not getting married early enough. Even though today's society isn't exactly promoting marriage, and many of today's feminazi liberal women don't really have much to offer, Reimer places the blame solely on men. While I disagree, I cannot help but laugh at some of her observations about young single guys.
He has no biological clock since he can father children well past middle age, so he is in no hurry to marry.Immature? Irresponsible? Self-absorbed? I'll give her self-absorbed, but is name-calling really a way to get guys to commit to marriage? I'm probably missing her point, but I think her griping does more to encourage men to stay single than anything else. Who the hell wants to put up with that crap when they don't have to?He is looking for a "soul-mate," and he believes there is someone out there whom he is destined to love.
If he finds her, he is also likely to find that the relationship does not live up to this romantic ideal, but it will be easy enough to divorce these days.
In the meantime, he is taking his time looking for her because he can, so his current lifestyle is likely to extend into his 30s.
He is living an extended adolescence - an adult-olescence - and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does is re-enforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine.
Reimer goes on and on, blaming single men for fathering children out of wedlock, and for being openly suspicious man-trapping women. From the very title of her op-ed, "Grow up, men", she places full blame on sexually deviant single guys, who are just out there to have fun, and keep skirting through life with no responsibilities.
My view is CAN YOU BLAME THEM. To be perfectly frank, the so-called "problem" has mostly to do with today's loose women, who let men get away with it. For one thing, they aren't exactly pushing guys in the marriage direction. Since the sexual revolution women rarely save themselves for marriage anymore, and young women are all very quick to shack up with a guy; sometimes for years at a time. I don't want to use any cliches, but I'm thinking of one about a cow, and free milk.
I have nothing against marriage, and I certainly have nothing against easy women. What I do take issue with, however, is putting the blame solely on men. Whether feminists like it or not, women are the attractors of the species, and right now they simply aren't selling something men want to buy.
Maybe feminazis should stop teaching young women how to make it on their own, and start teaching them how to cook.
as a single woman (who would LIKE to be married but has not found much opportunity), I think part of the blame is on the death of courtship opportunities.
my mom and dad met at a "freshman mixer dance" in college. By the time I got to college, there were no more general "freshman mixers", it was all frat parties (and as I don't drink, I avoided those). There wasn't a whole lot of social opportunities (outside of the Baptist Student Ministries, where I didn't really fit in) for those who didn't want to get stinkin' drunk and have semi-anonymous sex.
I think the problem is people of my generation don't KNOW how to date. They don't KNOW how to interact socially with a person of the opposite sex other than as a way to try to get into the person's pants. (for lack of social skills, I think we can partly blame tv)
Also, many people (male and female) have come to expect that if you date someone x times (where x can be a number anywhere from 3 to 8 it seems) it is expected you have sex with them. That is not something I want to do - I want more of a commitment beforehand. (On my more idealistic days, commitment = ring and ceremony).
But I think both men and women are encouraged to continue hedonistic, adolescent-like behavior late into their 20s or even 30s. Look at the success of "Sex in the City."
I don't know. I do know I am selfish myself. I look around my nice little house, with the furniture arranged how I like it, and the walls painted the colors I chose, and I think "Could I bring a guy into this if he decided he wanted to put a forest green recliner smack dab in the middle of the room and watch sports all weekend? Even a guy I really, really love?"
and sadly, on some days, the answer is "no"
No one wants to marry early because it is necessary to get education and training. One's twenties are usually spent in some sort of training. This was always true of men. Now it can be true of women as well. This really affects the quality of life you will have. As a married charter member of "girls just want to have fun" some things are right at certain times of your life. I loathe bashing half the human race. If you have to insult someone to prove you are a worthwhile person, I would wish to do without your company too.
Posted by: margaret at July 3, 2003 3:58 PMWell, as I sit here in my forest green recliner (seriously..) I am inclined to agree with you.
Posted by: Ravenwood at July 3, 2003 4:03 PMYou have part of it, Ravenwood, but let's not neglect the other part. What are the legal incentives and constraints facing the married man today?
In an altercation between spouses, who can threaten whom with a charge of abuse -- whether it's happened or not? Who can threaten whom with a charge of child neglect, child abuse, or "neglect of marital duty"?
If a marriage breaks up, in whose favor does the presumption of injury tilt? Who gets automatic preference for child custody, alimony, and other legal benefits?
If the ex-wife flouts the visitation agreement and withholds the children from the ex-husband, does he have effective legal remedies? The payment of child support is enforced by the State, and usually flows through the State. The father's visitation rights are usually not enforced at all.
On the other side of the ledger, non-marital sex has largely been destigmatized, laws against adultery are never enforced, unmarried couples routinely live together -- though that too has legal hazards -- and no one feels particularly disturbed by illegitimate births.
Women's attitudes toward men (e.g., "They're all pigs," "All the good ones are taken," etc.) are a component in the dynamic, but these face the same sort of redress-by-cognitive-dissonance that keeps legislators in office for forty years (e.g., "Well, yes, they're all pigs, but mine's okay"). In contrast, there's little to nothing that countervails the legal hazards a man faces in choosing to swim the rocky waters of recognized, State-sanctioned matrimony. He simply has to be brave, and perhaps a little foolish.
And yes, before you ask, I'm a married man. Twice now.
"Second marriages represent the triumph of hope over experience." -- George Bernard Shaw.
Men have extremely low standards. This is very good for women because women are mostly not really great deals.
So there's sort of a balance. It's not a good idea to nag about man's low standards though.
Feminism is a formalization of nagging. Something's wrong with the world and man has to change to fix it. It makes the entire world the home, the former place of nagging.
Nagging, though, ought to be local and ought to win about half the time; the guy ought to win the other half. If it strays far from that, it's not going to work. That's the integral form of Gauss's nagging theorem.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at July 23, 2003 3:54 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
