Here is a staff editorial also running in the Boston Globe today.
Marrying for money [Full Text] IT SOUNDS easy. To fight poverty, tell welfare recipients to get married. Some members of Congress want to spend $500 million over five years figuring out how to do this.
Earlier this month, House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote in The New York Times that the erosion of marriage is the main cause of child poverty and emotional instability. Children will benefit, he wrote, ''if we can keep families together - particularly if the welfare system encourages marriage.''
But the government should be very careful about promoting marriage. There are too many ways to fail. Efforts could end up as freight trains for political agendas such as abstinence-only campaigns that could turn social workers into bedroom police. What if government advice encouraged a spouse to stay in an abusive relationship? Who should get married? Some biological fathers would be bad husbands. And some poor women who work can end up being disparaged or sabotaged by romantic partners.
Worse still would be for states to have to compete for federal funding by increasing the number of welfare recipients who wed. Bad reality television shouldn't become public policy.
But most important, government should help parents become hardy breadwinners.
In March, research done by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, a non-profit organization in New York City, found that young children of welfare recipients did better in school when family income increased through jobs. The government should try to spread this progress.
Community colleges and training centers could become the new American gold mines by helping people build careers. This would be a great place to invest $500 million.
Promoting marriage is fine for catering halls and those seeking grandchildren. The federal government should be helping parents earn family-sustaining wages. [End]
This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 4/29/2002.
Let's just say you find a guy like that. Living in a city, he might not be gay, but he's probably bisexual, a drag queen, likes to dress in women's clothes, or is kinky. *Sigh*. Moving on, let's just say you've met someone who amazingly isn't like that, and can speak an intelligible sentence. Oh. He drinks a lot or does drugs.
Moving on.
You are now 40+ and you are resigned to the fact that you're going to be single forever, the only men you know will be gay, and you will never date again because you are seen as too old, and you (the female) have probably developed a compulsive eating disorder from the (non) dating situation in your life. You'd still like to meet someone, but you have given up.
The end.
BTW, yes I speak from experience, but I'm *saved* from the nightmare. I am getting married in a few months. I met him on the internet.
Just remember, the populations of every single Muslim country in the world (in which the risks in the health systems are far greater than ours), TRIPLED between 1960 and 2000. (Look in any World Almanac. For example, Algeria from 11,000,000 to 30,000,000 and Pakistan/Bangladesh from 90,000,000 to 250,000,000.) So why is it the Christian and Jewish women of American and European society who "atone" for this by not having children (even though us guys would have loved to raise a family)?
On the second point, there has been immense suppression by the media of scientific data regarding the health consequences of having an abortion, chief among which is the psychological. Nothing is ever quite right afterwards, acording to womem whom I have heard discuss their life experiences.
However, there are two possibilities in the future: either American women start marrying down, or there is going to be a "birth crash" that will have to be experienced to be believed.
This is because in all but one state, women are receiving the majority of college degrees. (The exception is Utah, and women will be receiving the majority of college degrees in that state in 2003.) One study indicates that if present trends continue, the last BA will be awarded to a man in 2024 or thereabouts. Contrary to popular belief and BS'd studies, women THRIVE in today's academic environment. Education puts a ceiling on income expectations; women can therefore expect to earn more income than men do in the future. Either American women get wise to reality, or they can expect to be single.
One piece of advice to women entering college should be.... Don't wait very long to get married and have kids! Duh! Not only does the pool of eligibles drop as you hit your thirties, so does fecundity.
People like Cathy Young may rationalize it away, but most women idealize marriage and family (look at all those Bride magazines out there). She may say she's content, but I would think that's a minority position for someone in her circumstances. What a lonely way to end your life, with the only pictures on your mantle being that of your cat! Yecch.
Also, it's a complete myth that women have trouble finding nice men who would make good husbands. I know that when I was in college, plenty of women rejected me, with their only reason being, "You're a really nice guy." Later, she'd start dating some jerk who treated her really badly. And she'd continue dating him for a long time. And then she'd complain to me, "My boyfriend is a jerk. He treats me so badly." Why should I feel sorry for her? She chose to reject the nice guy. And she chose to date the jerk. She made the choices. The only real victims are the nice guys who can't get a date, because so many women would rather date the jerks.
Dating a coworker might have a similar advantage, were it not discouraged by sexual harassment policies.
On the other hand, in the dating game the objective is to create the best impression, through bullshit if need be. It's like buying a used car, no wonder the process produces so many lemons. Compared to it, arranged marriages would actually represent a progress.
It's actually this b***h attitude towards men that turns men off!