chasm

So I set out to read this article about an hour ago, but as luck (rather, work) would have it, I kept getting interrupted. And, as irony would have it, "owner of a Lonely Heart" came on the radio for some added background music.

In any event, I think the article is accurate its finding for trends in marriage, couplehood and singledom. I am 25 five years old and nowhere near where my parents were for their age as twenty five year olds. Back in the 70's when they were in their twenties, not only were they married, but at this point I was already on my way to being born, my parents owned a home, my father was on his way to becoming vp of a bank in Manhattan, and my mother, an office assissant, soon to be stay-at-home-mom.

If you compartmentalize these stages of life, and place them on a hierarchy: Married with children being highest on the spectrum, and single with no job on the lowest, I suppose I fall in the middle.
For many people; marriage, children and the like are all goals we aspire towards, but in aggreement with this article, I don't see the rush. I think peoples attitudes have changed more so in that they are okay with waiting on their goals. There is no hierarchy here... you are not more successful as a parent than as a single career man/woman. We all have biological clocks, needs and wants, but in this day and age there are other optioins for people...moreso than there were even 10 years ago. I mean, we don't need to go out on blind dates to initally make contact with a potential mate-- we can have the internet do it for us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I agree with the article that these options, outlets, whatever they may be, are partially the reason for our contentment in being single; they have paved the way for more liberal ideals and expectations for people of all age groups: I am a single 25 year old who is content with living at home, saving money, and pursuing my career goals. My parents are in their early fifties, with three adult children and one 6 year old child. Did I know at 15 that I wouldn't be married by 25?; Did they know at 40 that they would have another child someday?

The point is simply this: while our hopes and dreams in life have not changed, our attitudes and actions have acclimated (i think for the better) on the journey to getting there.

Very interesting article indeed. At the ripe old age of 26, I must say I have been thinking about how different my life is from what I pictured it 10 years or so ago. However, I feel comfortable in this for the most part. Society has changed. In our parents day, far fewer people graduated from college, and the immediate focus of life was on being married and having children.

While those are both my ultimate goals in life, I am content that I have not attained them by age 26. Why rush things? If there is one thing I have learned in my life it is appreciate what you have, at the time that you have it. One day, something you always did is gone, never to return, or only to return in partial form, never the same.

I think the greatest thing you can do in life is raise kids, and I think the best way to do that is to be married to someone who you love more than anyone else in the world. However, Im glad that so far, I havent had to cut my other experiences short to attain that. Hopefully, when that time does come around, I will be ready and eager to give up some of what I have now, in order to be a great husband and father.

I actually read the article in Newsweek earlier this week. They re-interviewed the same 11 women who were in the article 20 or 25 years ago. Of the 11, 8 are now married. The 3 that are unmarried have no regrets and love the lives they have. And the ones that have married say that although they said that at the time of the previous article they were very happy being single, they are much happier being married. The point is, that people have to do what's right for them.
I guess my only real issue in regard to the argument for singleness is when it goes too far in the opposite direction. I have encountered the defensivly arrogant single on several occaisions. I am married and have been since I was 22. There are times that someone will ask when we got married, and are very surprised that I was ONLY 22. They will then give me a look of extreme pity, and act as though their choice to remain single makes them smarter or more worldly wise. I get the feeling that they think of me as a weaker person because they assume that I couldn't support myself and therefore had to rely on marriage to continue with my life. I think that because singleness was looked down upon for many years, and is now becoming more and more normal, there is a bit of a backlash of snickering behind the backs of those who choose to get married.
I chose to get married with no regard for my age. It happened to be the right time for both of us, but the first time many people heard that we were getting married, including some family members, the first question out of their mouth was, "you're so young, are you getting married because you're pregnant?" This typically resulted in an embarassed no, and then trying to justify our reasons. I eventually realized that people will think what they will no matter what choices you make, so do what makes you happy.
I made the choice that I wanted because it makes me happy, I can only wish the same for everyone else.

Hey, as one of the few married friends I have of my approximate age group, thanks for the contrarian view or at least a persepctive from the other side of the fence.

While the "are you pregnant?" bit is funny as hell (and so predictable), I'm surprised that you've gotten more of those incredulous responses. It seems to me, and to many of my single friends (speak up if I'm wrong here) that society (at least family and older friends) are still more incredulous of the "you're not married yet nor are you even close to getting married" bit.

From your comments, it seems as though you took the Newsweek article as a piece of pro-marriage propaganda and, from the closing of that article where the woman actually calls back to the interviewer to change her position on "a little happier married than single" to "most definitely happier married than single" (I'm paraphrasing) , I can see where that comes from. My following thoughts aren't in opposition of that but are focused on a different aspect of the issue.

While I did glean the same insight, what I happened to take from the article was more along the lines of - you can get married damn near anytime in your life as long as it's to the right person at the right time. If you don't find that person or it's just not the right time for you until your 30's or 40's, it's not the lonely-widower scene that has been portrayed to the public for so long. Rather, you'll more than likely have the company of more singles than ever before as people wait longer to tie the knot for reasons including:

a) pursuit of careers
b) an idealistic desire to find a "soulmate" rather than a partner who is simply a comfortable fit or good economic match
c) a financial independence that does not require marriage to simply survive
d) an avoidance of the marital mistakes of their baby-boomer parents

and so on. This was just for the benefit of those that didn't read that Newsweek article.

I agree with you. I think there is far less stress on people to get married by a certain age. Hopefully, in the long run this will lead to happier and more successful marriages. The only problem is for those that want to have children, there is that ol' biological clock that keeps ticking.

I am not a particular fan of children out of wedlock. While there are many, many cases where the children end up better off with only one parent because the marriage does not work, I still believe the best environment for kids is a mother and a father, both actively raising the child. It seems like in the past 30 years as wealth has taken on such importance in peoples lives, the american family has broken down. One can only ponder if this has led to some of the violence and disrespect among today's youth.

Ok, now Im far enough off topic! :-)

Ahh yes. The "breakdown of the American family". I guess the decree was set down some years ago that one must grow up surrounded by their loving, supportive, one male, one female parents. I for one, could not disagree with you more. If those parents are happy, and life is great, sure. If your single mother or father is happy, and raising you to be a great person, I think your chances at a successful, loving, happy, prosperous life are not so grim as others may assume. I have friends that grew up with two parents, and I could not say that they are any better off than myself. In fact, some of them are clearly not. Of course, I can only speak to my own experience, and you may be right about this breakdown of the family. I just don't subscribe to that notion. And let's not forget gay couples raising children as well :)

As far as marriage early or late, I guess it has to happen when it will happen. I still do believe that there is someone out there for everyone...and I will not be swayed to think otherwise ;) So, I will see what happens when my big strong man pulls up on his white horse. Until then, well, life still rules.

Yeah, I meant no offense by my comments at all. I believe 100% that a single mother or father can be totally successful at raising a family. After all, you are right, a happy single parent, is a bunch better than two unhappy parents.

That being said, life is built on experiences. I do believe that in the best case scenario, having a caring and loving mom and dad should provide the best environment for a child. I would think a child learning from two parents experiences can only be a benefit.

I guess to a certain extent its easy to blame the "breakdown of the family" as the reason for some of the violence in society. Its a generalization, and there is not neccessarily a direct corrolation. Perhaps it would be a good topic for another post?