Letters to the Editor
-
What I find interesting...
Is that these stories are always written only in terms of women.
Such as fewer women are marrying men, because women are less reliant upon men.
As opposed to the equally true statement that fewer men are marrying women as men are less reliant upon women.
To see men as superfluous to happiness is empowering, yet the opposite for some reason is never spoken of.
One wonders if a headline reading "American Men Less Interested in Marriage" would receive the same response from the feminist community.
At least reactionaries would no doubt respond exactly the same to the data presented either way. Wring their hands and blame feminists. The least feminists could do is react equally happy that men no longer feel the need of a wife to make their lives complete either.
Certainly there may be a demographic argument that since men are more likely to die at an earlier age, more men may still be married than not married, but one should realizes that the same social trends granting women more freedom will have the same effect on men.
Likewise, this story has uniformly been approached from the "ain't it grand, we're empowered and don't need husbands" track, where as the reality is, many of these women who are unmarried are not so by choice.
We presume that cohabitation instead of marriage is the choice of women. But that truly may not be the case.
Much like single parent households, there are a few successful empowered women who make that choice, but most have the choice forced upon them by a partner whose choice preempts their own.
I am not trying to troll here though I suppose I perhaps am. I just noticed an interesting trend in this fluff piece masquerading a social commentary.
-
It is much easier to live as a single woman if,
1. You divorced and extracted a significant settlement from your former husband.
2. Your former husband is paying you copious amounts of spousal support that runs out if you either get married or he dies.
Ah, the smell of financial freedom at the expense of a man. I know of several associates of mine who are paying $25K or more, per month, in spousal support since they passed that magical 10 year mark that "entitles" a woman to support for life in California. My hats off to you all you "independent" women who can support yourselves, at someone else's expense and effort. You are woman, hear you roar....while you are cashing the checks a man issues to you each month.
-
Sure, why not?
One wonders if a headline reading "American Men Less Interested in Marriage" would receive the same response from the feminist community.
Potato, hasn't this been a given in about every pop culture reference to men and marriage? I say, to each his or her own...I just get tired of being portrayed as a crazy marriage-monger just because of my gender.
Ideally if I ever do get married, I'd like separate houses, or at the very least bedrooms. I rather like scheduling a hot booty call via IM. ;)
-
Don't just read Tracy Clark-Flory's piece...
Read the actual New York Times article.
NYT article states: women are remaining in single status longer. This is fact.
Tracy Clark-Flory states: "It seems women, on either side of the age spectrum, are finding it easier -- at times even enjoyable -- to spend time alone." This is opinion.
And it totally varies from one individual's experience to another. Heck, it can vary moment to moment for a given individual.
What should be taken from the NYT article is this:
1. "There is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people's lives."
and 2. "The trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits."
-
Ben
Sounds like you run in rather douchey social circles...it's not my fault some of your associates were suckered into marrying golddiggers.
By chance were they also trophy bimbos?
-
Live Close by, visit often
Just have that song running through my head...and it seems appropriate.
-
Did you see the photo next to the article?
It’s of a single woman loving on her cat. Anything important in that article was pretty much lost on me due to the unfortunate photo choice.
And speaking of offensive things in the Times - did you read the ‘modern love’ article about the woman supporting her date rapist boyfriend? That was probably the most upsetting thing I’ve read in a long, long time. Is Broadsheet planning on talking about that?
-
Enjoying my own independent wealth
Sorry, Ben, I'm not one of your "friends'" wives who took them for spousal support. Sounds like you're the one who got stuck, buddy.
I have made my own wealth and I live as a happy single. Once I passed 35, I realized that I'm a prime catch and I've had no shortage of companionship and marriage offers. Turned them all down. Perhaps one day I'll meet a fabulous guy who can tempt me to give up my space and merge my life with his, but if I don't, I don't mind at all. I think I'm on the cutting edge of something here. In another decade, there will be lots more independent women who have no interest in marriage and see that it's often a yoke that they'd rather not wear.
-
All the single 40-something women I know have cats
to which I am allergic!
-
Gold-digging
"Ah, the smell of financial freedom at the expense of a man. I know of several associates of mine who are paying $25K or more, per month, in spousal support since they passed that magical 10 year mark that "entitles" a woman to support for life in California. My hats off to you all you "independent" women who can support yourselves, at someone else's expense and effort. You are woman, hear you roar....while you are cashing the checks a man issues to you each month."
Yeah, when a man marries a woman for her appearance and she marries him for his money, the payoff's a bitch, isn't it?
I'm well-acquainted with California's divorce laws and there's lots of perfectly sound reasons why a spouse can't cut off another spouse without leaving them a dime that I won't get into. If you think for one second that your associates did not benefit from having somebody at home not working, well, you've clearly never tried to do work/home entirely on your own.