Posted on 11/26/2006 5:02:22 AM PST by shrinkermd
....More American women than ever are putting motherhood before matrimony. New data released by the Centers for Disease Control show that nearly four in 10 U.S. babies were born outside of marriage in 2005—a new high. These unwed moms aren't all teens—last year teen pregnancies fell to their lowest levels in 65 years. Some—like 44-year-old Mary Lee MacKichan, who used a gay friend as a sperm donor—are professional, older women who want to have babies before their biological clocks run out, but most are low-income twentysomethings. (Unwed births among 30- to 44-year-olds are up 17 percent since 1991; among those 25 to 29, they're up 30 percent.) And some 40 percent of those moms aren't going it alone—they're cohabiting, at least for a while. That's creating a major shift in what a generation of children are coming to call a family. "Marriage is still alive and well, but it has a lot of competition," says Wellesley College sociologist Rosanna Hertz, author of "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice."
Ironically, sociologists say, marriage may be on the decline precisely because it has become so idealized. People expect more from marriage than they did a century ago, when it was mainly a practical arrangement to provide financial stability for women and a place to raise children. "Now it's not only love and romance but also self-fulfillment and personal growth," says Pamela Smock, professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. Since there's no longer much of a stigma attached to getting pregnant outside of marriage, many couples have replaced "shotgun weddings" with "shotgun cohabitations
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
To tell you the truth, I don't know. I got married and lost contact with them.
The problem is that you assume that $80,000 - $100,000 for starters is a *bare minimum*.
And you are assuming that *both* you and your husband will *start* at that point and climb the ladder from there.
And that -- by your own admission -- you have no desire nor talent to turn your obligatory McMansion into a *home*.
Given the actual demands of the working world, if you have a job paying that much, you won't have the energy either.
You also assume that men in that income bracket will only be too happy to marry someone who intends to compete with them, when they can get just as much sexual satisfaction, with less friction, by avoiding marriage, or choosing a trophy wife.
Perhaps, if Walmart cashiers and McDonalds burger flippers are offended by someone saying something that is true (i.e. women find such men unattractive), then perhaps it hit a nerve.
Or perhaps it is the implicit assumption that anyone who does not agree with your relentless drive up the career ladder must be a semi-skilled loser.
That is childish and wishful thinking on your part.
I personally know multimillionaires on their second / third marriage. They have all the trappings--multiple houses in the tony parts of town, luxury SUV's, the right connections--but they do not describe themselves as "happy."
I don't want a child now... What I pointed out is that if I'm not married by my early thirties I might contemplate it. That's eight years away.. I'm applying to MBA programs right now and grad school and babies don't mix very well..
If grad school and babies don't mix -- MBA-level jobs and new babies don't mix either.
And by the time you are in your early thirties, you will be getting long in the tooth for men who can grab a fresh, easily wowed piece right out of college.
Again, I implore you to consider the possible long term consequences of your actions, and how you might be "cutting off your escape route" for things you don't think you want right now. Or at least to give more consideration to the concept that your glib toss-offs about how easy it will be in 8 or 10 years to get marrried or raise children *might* be inaccurate.
Cheers!
That's what I thought when I was working. Most of my co-workers continued to work. First, I do think it is important to find a guy that can provide for you, so I do think career matters.
I worked for awhile with my 1st son, but it was nearly impossible. When he started getting sick, who stayed home with him. I had used up my sick leave, and my husband had to work because he was making more than me. We didn't have family around, and we couldn't afford a nanny.
I ended up quitting. With my twins, it wasn't even a question. They almost died of a respiratory illness, and one of them got brain damage. We couldn't put them in daycare (doctor's orders), and we couldn't afford a nanny. Plus, they needed lots of therapy.
I haven't worked in over 10 years. We never thought we could do it on one income, but we've managed. We had a lot more unexpected expenses: twins, special formula ($400 a month), then speech therapy for both girls $2000/month, and we managed on 1 income in expensive California.
I don't have lots of nice clothes, and we don't go on fancy trips. A few years we did upgrade to a very nice house, and our kids are in private school.
I think we've done well.
The public education system (including higher ed) encourages women to pursue college degrees and corporate careers as the pinnacle of success. The system promotes college degrees at the expense of other career paths or opportunities.
After a few years in the workplace, many women find they want families and that staying at home isn't such a bad deal. They were never taught this is ok, acceptable, or an option while in school.
Soldiers and mammas are the folks who protect our future. Stay-at-home moms and soldiering are two of the hardest jobs ever, and we owe them a little more respect.
There are so many, yet you cant find one example to back up you baseless lie. Thanks for playing.
Yes, how dare a woman think that she should be able to have both a career and a family. According to quite a few posters here, I can either A. become a shriveled up spinster or B. be a 1950s housewife.
Hyper over exaggeration. No one has said anything close to that. I'd ask for an example to back up your hyperbole, but we know how that will turn out.
What many here have been trying to point out is that there are sacrifices that go with those choices. And you don't seem to get that. You can be committed to a career, or committed to motherhood, not both. One MUST give way to the other if you are to be any good at either. There is no getting around that.
I chose to have both a career and children and don't see any conflict.
Exactly my point. You can do both, but you cannot be committed to both. You must choose.
Umm, okay... Thinking realistically about my marriage prospects is like wanting to be an astronaut. (BTW, how do you know that your son won't grow up to be an astronaut?)
You completely missed the point. He wants to do ALL of them at the same time. THAT was the unrealistic part, not that he wishes to aspire to great things.
I'm not criticizing you for thinking unrealistically about your marriage prospects. I believe they are as slim as you think they are. My problem is that you seem to view the father as "nice to have accessory" to your future family. That is a dangerous attitude to have.
I don't want a child now... What I pointed out is that if I'm not married by my early thirties I might contemplate it. That's eight years away.. I'm applying to MBA programs right now and grad school and babies don't mix very well..
Yes, I got all that from previous posts. The fact that you're contemplating having a child if you don't happen to get married is the entire issue. Now...or in 20 years makes no difference.
I don't want to marry a man with no real career aspirations; I don't think that this is too much to ask for
I certainly hope you would look for a man with aspirations. That's a good thing. That is not even remotely what I've been writing about, so I don't see how that matters.
Perhaps, if Walmart cashiers and McDonalds burger flippers are offended by someone saying something that is true (i.e. women find such men unattractive),
Not at all. As I said before, a woman should look for a man with aspirations if that's what she wants. Most do, and I can't blame them. If I were a woman, I certainly would look for the most promising and ambitious man I could find, providing he would be a good father and husband. To much career ambition can be as bad for a father as it can for a mother.
then perhaps it hit a nerve.
LOL Surely you're not directing that at me? You'd make a fool of yourself if you did.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that those who disagree with you here are uneducated rubes flipping burgers or worse, working for the TSA. By all means, tell yourself that you've "hit a nerve" and stirred us all up because we can't handle the hard hitting, self demeaning truth of your words, if you must.
But it simply shows your condescending, elitist attitude that you view others with.
It's no surprise that you seem to think it unlikely that you'll ever be married.
One also wonders why she didn't have several men to choose from. It's not as if the average woman has only one male friend.
My wife and I did. Three kids of our own, and she placed a daughter for adoption in the late Eighties. Between us, we've done double duty.
Trust me, getting married young is way, way WAY underrated. My Dad was just short of twenty when he married my Mom and I was 22 when I married Rambette. When it comes to love and raising young kids, there's a lot to be said for the energy of the young!
Sigh. Grow up. Really, just grow up.
My wife has an extraordinarily high IQ, was in a demanding specialty in the Air Force when I met her (how many folks do you know who can operate doppler radar) and finished second in her nursing school class with a GPA over 3.9. But when our son was born she stayed home and cooked for her darling husband because that's what was best for him. No that she's a nurse she outearns me for the first time (though hopefully that will change as my business gets rolling) and I'm the one home with the kids; we home school. They have never been in day care and we have had to make sacrifices but I will never regret it.
Here's what I mean about growing up. If you're going to marry, either now or in ten years, you and your hubby need to resign yourselves to a period of five years or more where you have only one income, or you shouldn't bother having kids. That's what grownups do. People who act like the world can't survive if they don't run to the cubicle each day are not grownups.
I love the T-Shirt from that same site that says, "Now that I'm safe, I'm pro-choice."
I remember getting teased at school (I was one of the few poor kids in a middle-to-upper-middle class 'burb) about my "Kmart clothes." Given a chance to do it again, I'd still rather have my Mom home than have stuff from the downtown stores. Plus, I'm betting I'm tougher than any of those idiots who used to give me a rash.
And I don't shop at Kmart anymore. The Wal-Mart is closer to my house. :-)
Study after study shows that it's the two parent home that matters most. Money sure doesn't hurt, but it's two parents with one staying at home during the early years, anything else is icing on the cake.
Yep, and the Dad's in most children's shows are the height of uncool and stupid. There are notable exceptions but overall they're a bunch of dips and the Moms are geniuses.
Aw, isn't that cute...you think you can be an elitist and a conservative. Sorry kid, it doesn't work that way.
You're college educated...why don't you look up some studies on the results of single motherhood?
Damn straight. I don't have to make my living with the sweat of my brow anymore but I sure won't look down my nose at those who do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.