Recently in another forum I have been discussing the matter of marriage and family life within my cohort – 30something post-ethnic Caucasian kids from the burbs…
I have come to the decision that in life, most of us feel we deserve:
* to have a string of long term relationships in our 20s that involve cohabitation and long painful break ups
* after years of sterile sex and non-commitment before
* a three-year engagement culminating in a 30something marriage,
* buying a house far bigger than we need with lip service to being in a “good school district”,
* and a view to one of the rooms making a good nursery but
* turning it into an office for the first few years because
* we need to wait a few years to have kids
* and “enjoy each other”,
* before we put “our life on hold” to have 2 children – one of which is a difficult pregnancy in our late 30s
* and 20 some years later “put our lives on hold again” to take care of our aging parents.
We deserve and need these things. New couples should have a house payment that is 30-40% of their combined income and she should work to help pay for that house in the good school district before “putting her life on hold” to be a mom which – sadly – detracts from career opportunities where real meaning in life comes from. Having kids means we can’t have these things, we might not afford cable, we might not get a grad degree, we might not be able to afford that bigger house or have a new car every time we pay off the old one…
It is a punishment to get off that treadmill!
You, back to work! – You have a lot to accomplish before you have that one kid who is too much trouble!
April 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm |
Somebody’s biological clock is ticking.
April 18, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
The answer to that is for an older man who is successful (moderately or wildly) to marry a younger woman so he can work and she can stay home with the kids.
“What? That’s how it’s been done for thousands and thousands of years? It worked too?”
“No, that can’t be right. Before the 60s everyone was ignorant and didn’t even know how to have sexual intercourse, right?”
April 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
Still works in Muslim countries and the FLDS.
April 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
It worked for the parents of St. Francis de Sales and St. Catherine of Siena as well. :p
April 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
Yes, but that was then! Women are educated, can own property and employable; their choices are no longer limited to marriage to a much older man of their parents’ choice or becoming a nun.
April 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
I thought the thrust of the post was that children should not be seen as a burden, but a blessing. Which is the same thing Pope Benedict said in a speach condemning abortion.
I saw examples of what modern secular-minded Americans value. We have turned away from the wooden and stone idols and began to place body image, a large bank account and material possesion before the Lord God. We have a dissordered veiw of human sexuality (thanks to the sexual revolution, which completely demeans the dignity of women), which manifests itself in one failed relationship after another.
April 18, 2008 at 6:59 pm |
Sts. Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and Scholastica weren’t educated?
April 18, 2008 at 7:53 pm |
Drac, you were talking about the parents of SS. Catherine and Teresa; what choices were their mothers legally allowed to make for themselves? What choices were available for their fathers or guardians to make for them?
Joel, I disagree in re: sexual revolution being demeaning to women; or at least, no more demeaning than business as usual. Keep in mind that women haven’t been in a legal position to make their own choices for too terribly long in the grand scheme of things, and in a position to effectively make their own choices for a much shorter time. Women in Muslim countries don’t have rights. Rape is still used as a way to demean women, both generally and specifically in places of conflict, such as Darfur, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia as well as Europe and Japan ca. WWII. Human trafficking still goes on, a hub for which is Mongolia.
We’re spoiled and many of us don’t even know it; the rise of our consumerist society is largely a result of the desire of those who lived through the Great Depression wanting their children to have more than they did, and the post WWII economy which created good jobs for loads of people, who could then afford a home and consumer goods. So the ideal has become to have more than your parents. Whether it’s necessary or not. Taken to excess. This, combined with the skewed vision of beauty perpetuated by Madison Avenue and Hollywood, has created a society whose values are skewed toward perceived need for what we want, when we want it, and we have to always be beautiful. The result is a never-ending quest for perfection, whether it’s derived from obsessively exercising, plastic surgery, tanning, permanent makeup (ex-tattoo in place of eyeliner), fake nails, endlessly-highlighted hair or a combination thereof.
Pregnancy, childbirth and raising children tend to mar perfection.
April 18, 2008 at 10:21 pm |
Nan, I do not deny what you said about the opposite extreme of the sexual revolution being a commonly practiced way of demeaning women, but it is not an effective argument to dispute what I assert. If you are aiming for green, both red and purple miss the mark, only on opposite sides of the spectrum.
I am really not interested in presenting a large defense of my position in a combox, but the basics of it are that because women are in control of when a couple engages in conjugal love (with notable exeptions, which happen to be criminal activity, so they may be excluded while speaking about relations between two adults in mutual concent), when she fails to use restraint in the exercise of that control she dishonors and discredits herself and her peers, and everyone looses respect for what was once viewed as special. Human sexuality becomes debased and devalued, therfore demeaning to the dignity of women.
April 19, 2008 at 1:20 am |
You seem to assume that the man in question is both respectful of women and above manipulation. It isn’t all about the woman. Men are involved too; it’s like you’re saying all would be well with the world if women would just put on a chastity belt and hold their knees together! Blaming women for the sexual revolution and changes it has created in society is both demeaning and counter-productive.
What you probably don’t know is that sexual assault is common and you know several women who have endured such; whether it’s someone copping a feel, smacking her butt or raping her. It could be your grandma, aunt, mother, sister, wife, daughter, cousin, neighbor, co-worker or the grocery clerk. You don’t think this is germane to the discussion, but it is. One of the repercussions of rape can be extreme sexual behavior.
It’s more common to talk about it than before, but because it’s such a shameful experience, it can take years for women to talk about. Women who were raped during WWII are talking about it now. One of my friends talks about it; I don’t know when she started, but it happened 25 years ago. Me? I’m one of the lucky ones. Someone knew the guys’ intent and interfered with it. Still, it was traumatic enough to give me periodic night terrors for the next 10 years. At the same time, I’m far more likely to talk about the guy who held a knife to my throat; despite the strong possibility of death, that was far less traumatic.
My point? I call bullshit on your assumption that if women just wouldn’t give it up, human sexuality wouldn’t become debased and devalued. It’s not human sexuality that’s debased and devalued, but women themselves.
April 19, 2008 at 6:32 am |
Nan, I never said anything even remotely close to “all would be well with the world if women would just put on a chastity belt and hold their legs together.” Nor did I blame women for the sexual revolution and changes it has created in society. I do know very much more about the ill effects of sexual assualt than you give me credit for. You did not tell me anything I have not already known for quite a few years (excepting of course any personal information). I never said anything even close to exempting men from blame for the popular veiw of sexuality today. You completely misunderstood what I said, but that is because I did not fully present an argument, which, again, I am not willing to do in a combox.
April 19, 2008 at 7:29 pm |
All I have to go on is what you’re willing to put in a combox.
You said “when she fails to use restraint in the exercise of that control she dishonors and discredits herself and her peers, and everyone looses respect for what was once viewed as special. Human sexuality becomes debased and devalued, therfore demeaning to the dignity of women.”
That indicates to me that you blame women. Period.
April 19, 2008 at 11:48 pm |
Well, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I just think the situation is too delicate for this forum. I much prefer this type of conversation face to face, at least over the phone, but in no way over the internet.
April 20, 2008 at 1:48 am |
Mystifying that you’d be willing to start such a conversation in this forum but not finish it.