Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Fear of Commitment";
Stings, doesn't it?
This is an excellent, pointed interview on a subject of increasing relevance in a fast changing world of societal norms and gender expectations. As a grandfather entering his seventh decade, I consider the trend toward greater female independence, beginning in the late 1950s, to be equally liberating for men. Imagine growing up as a male being strapped with the expectation of being ENTIRELY responsibile for the happiness, safety and future well-being of one's mate--and of women generally. This always seemed to me to be unrealistic and a kind of moral straight jacket. With the womens movement of the 1960s and the continuing trend today, for both single and married women, males have been released to live larger, less constrained lives enriched by today's independent women.
thanks, Phil Trupp, for writing such a positive illuminating letter.
As to most of the other posters, I don't get what all the anger is.
What do you care if some stranger 1,000 miles away ever marries or not? Why is that somehow a threat to YOU personally?
Nothing here is earth-shattering. Now that women have economic independence, they don't have to marry for survival. That means some marry for love rather than money, some postpone marrying, and some never marry. So what's the big deal?
That self-determination makes them happy. Yep, that makes sense. Being controlled and subservient is a downer for sure. Being independent, directing one's own destiny does make one happy.
And Trupp is so right, once economics and dependency is removed from the relationship dynamic, there is so much more room left for the good things: sharing, communication, cooperation, love etc. You can enjoy life more when you're in control of your own destiny and not dependant on someone, which doesn't mean you can't or won't marry, just that it's for more enlightening reasons.
It's funny how many women seem to be making a living extolling
the joys of being single. They write books about it, make
studies, and fill Salon with the same idea over and over again.
It makes me feel like a bit of a failure. I'm a happily married
woman without a book deal or a PhD. I guess I read Salon to see
these personal issues snappily summed up and debated in public
(I can find political and literary analyses elsewhere)
but the outcome is getting too predictable, the air has left
the room.
I'm pleased to see that someone is addressing the good things about single life - as a single, childless woman, it seems like all I get is either dating advice or warnings about how my life must be empty and meaningless. No one seems to consider that I might be happy alone. There are some practical things that frustrate me (so many people and businesses just assume you must have a spouse) but overall, I'm very happy being single.
But I think Trimberger glosses over the financial issues of being single. (At least in this article - I haven't read the book.) It's true that women are less financially dependent than they were in the past, but living on one income in a two-income world can be difficult, especially in the more expensive parts of the country where housing prices are skyrocketing. It's hard for everyone, but I look at my co-workers, and I see the married ones being able to buy houses and become financially secure, while many of the single ones just can't get there, no matter how frugal they are. I think about being single at 40, at 50, at 60, at 70, at 80, and it makes me very nervous.
I wish I'd considered these financial issues from the point of view of "you might be single all your life", especially when I was making decisions about career, etc. It's not that I was expecting a man to come and "save me", but when I was growing up it was just assumed that everyone would get married - and that does make a financial difference in your life. I'm doing it now, but it would have been easier 10-20 years ago.
Karen
As a man in his late-30s who has done a moderate amount of Internet dating, I've been mystified by the prevalence of the word "soulmate" in the profiles of women of all educational backgrounds. It arises even among women who seem to have a fair amount of previous relationship experience. At what point in the American female experience is the prime directive to find a "soulmate" imprinted?
I've also been struck by the passivity of women who anticipate the experience of a magic "click" to tell them when so-and-so is Mr. Right. At least among my anecdotes, the click refers to something more all encompassing and mysterious than mere physical attraction.
I feel like the partner I have now breaks the mold by not subscribing to these inane notions. Maturity and realism are so attractive…Is there an educational initiative out there to debunk the uninformed superstitions that hold sway over so many American women? Love is active, not passive.
I was married for six years, and now I've been single and living alone for six years. I find living alone infinitely preferable for me, and now the thought of living with someone else makes me queasy. I keep thinking that I'm supposed to eventually tire of my solitude, but as time goes on I seem to enjoy it more, not less.
As for sex, well, I never got sex when I was married, so not getting it while single isn't a dramatic change.
Perhaps I'll try the marriage game again in my 40s. Maybe.
Reading this article reminds me of how proud I am of my mother in law (yes, you read that right). She's a small-town girl, was married 25 years to my father in law, 15 years ago, he left and now she's just the kind of woman described in the article. She goes and does whatever she wants, she is financially independent, she has a very nice man in her life, but she doesn't want to get married. She looks at it as "I've been the wife who cooked, cleaned, raised kids and I don't care to do it
again'.
She and her guy go on trips, read books together, go walking, have been trying to learn French and generally have a good time together. But he goes home during the week and she works. They have their fun on the weekends and she feels that the time apart helps them appreciate each other when they're together. It's taken him a bit of getting used to, but he (obviously) thinks she's worth it. I have to agree.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
