<p>@cobrat - I think that the model of a male who works and “gets established” and then marries a [much] younger wife is a sexist one. Men in that milieu often have casual relationships in their 20s instead of viewing same-age women as appropriate life partners. I think that inherently, this different-age-spouses/different-stage-of-life-spouses, with man older/richer, is sexist.</p>
<p>Also, if a man decides not to settle down because he assumes he can always attract a younger woman later, that plays into our patriarchal society and, it too is sexist. Likewise if a man thinks he can be a player in his 20s and will find a virginal bride later. All sexist!</p>
<p>I didn’t refer to a woman who chooses not to marry, because I was directly answering the claim that young men aren’t serious about dating for marriage. Of course, in my reference to resisting smushing everyone into the same heteronormative pattern, I hope I successfully implied that other choices can work, too. We’re focusing here on people who would like ultimately to be partnered with a family, I believe.</p>
<p>In the “bad old days” the expression for Harvard men was, “Simmons to bed, Wellesley to wed, Radcliffe for good conversation” - this, too is sexist.</p>
<p>What is not sexist, in my view, is everyone taking a good look around in college when they’re surrounded by possibly the best marriage candidate pool. Whoever is mature enough to choose a career path, ideally is also mature enough to choose a life partner path, at that stage. Some won’t be, and that should be accepted as well.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen among my classmates and others in my peer group, it wasn’t necessarily that young men didn’t want to date women their age so much as a combination of many having other priorities such as exploring young adult life as independent single folks before settling down and/or the fact many young women prefer dating older men…sometimes much older men. </p>
<p>The most common explanation they gave was that “women mature faster so older men are a better match for their preferences”. Many female HS classmates who did date from end of HS and early college tended to date men in their mid-20s and up and didn’t have any desires to date younger. A HS classmate I danced with at our senior prom ended up dating a man in his early 30s during her first two years in college. Hey, that’s their preference so who am I to argue?</p>
<p>Moreover, plenty of young women in their 20s also date casually. As with 20-something and up men, they’re also exploring young adult life as independent single folks and I don’t see anything wrong with that for either gender. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. There’s so many examples of folks who have exemplary professional successes/achievements and yet, whose romantic relationships/marriages are on the skids that it has become a cliche in news and storylines. </p>
<p>Come to think of it, much as I like the college BF and later, the law school BF, my H is so much a better fit for me than either if them. College CAN be the right place for some folks to meet and later marry, but it isn’t the only place or even the best for many of us, no matter how many books and articles try to convince us of their viewpoint. </p>
<p>I am getting married to my college sweetheart next year (we’ll both be 24). We got engaged the summer after senior year and moved in together a few months after beginning to date in sophomore year. Kids are absolutely nowhere on the horizon (my choice much more than his- he’d welcome kids ASAP). </p>
<p>Even with that said, we’re marrying much, much younger than our friends. Most of our friends aren’t even in long-term relationships and the ones that are are very content to live together and marry somewhere down the line. Lower SES people like myself though are using cohabitation as a substitute for marriage. </p>
<p>Honestly, one of the only reasons we’re marrying so young is because we firmly intend on leaving the state after I graduate with my master’s next year. We’d rather marry here with our family and friends than try to come back for a wedding. If we were planning on staying here, I don’t think we’d be in any rush to marry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The median age of first marriage in the US is still mid-late 20s and the % over 35 who have never married is ~10-15% so your family is WAY outside of the norm. </p>
<p>ETA:
</p>
<p>I think this is an incredibly sexist statement. We praise women who don’t want to “settle down” but them demonize men? No. You can’t have it both ways. My sister is 28 and shows absolutely no signs of being in a relationship let alone marrying any time soon. She is praised for her “independence”. I don’t think anyone should slap labels like “sexist” on people because they don’t want to be in relationships.</p>
<p>Research has long suggested, and was in fact just mentioned in the news yesterday, that children of older fathers (older meaning 45 or older) may be art risk for a higher frequency of learning, behavioral or mental health disorders. These findings are correlational, not causal, at present, but does suggest that its not just the women with the biological clock. <a href=“Older dads' kids more vulnerable to mental disorders”>Older dads' kids more vulnerable to mental disorders; </p>
<p>Purely observational, but while here do seem, to be more marrying comparably younger in the south than in the north, there are many variables that may play into that.</p>
<p>Where my D1 is right now, a foreign country, she’s stunned that they meet their spouses in hs and marry before graduating. It’s not 3rd world. I call it 2nd world.</p>
<p>When I was a few years past college, a friend observed: you can get married at 19 and have it last forever. Or a year. You can wait and have it last forever or a year. Still makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Saw the latest article on it from a friend’s FB post, but even scientists involved in that report have admitted their research is such that one cannot draw any valid conclusions without results from further research. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems to be a mix of regional and religious cultural expectations, cultural expectations regarding education and career, and the demands required by educational/career aspirations. </p>
<p>Of course they can reach “valid conclusions”. That is different from ascribing causation. All research needs validation, but these findings would not have been accepted for publication in a well respected,juried journal (JAMA Psychiatry) of it were not considered sound research with “valid conclusions”.</p>
<p>yeah the bipolar people take FOREVER to have kids. usually because they don’t get properly medicated until their 40’s. before then women see it. they see a manic episode, or perhaps worse, a depressive one (although either can leave pretty bad impressions) and know better to stay away and moreover typically do. he usually doesn’t have money, success, or good social standing to compensate for his bipolarness. there are things that could make a woman put up with his episodes but he won’t have them. how could you get those things while being an untreated bipolar. it’s not very easy. to a bipolar person those things are about as far away as the end of a depressive episode once it’s started. very far away. it’s only when he finally seeks and gets treatment that he can lead a respectable life. little might his eventual wife know about how bad or heritable bipolar is. but the good thing is the kid could get treated from when he’s young. so im not sure there’s really so much to worry about here. not about the bipolar statistics anyways. it’s older bipolars having bipolars not bipolarism appearing in new hereditary lines.</p>
<p>Sorry, it’s sad but true the older you get the more your options shrink because more older people are married already (both men and women) What’s worse, it’s extremely difficult to financially support a household alone these days because of the cost of living. Put this off and take your chances if you want, but know it won’t be easy.</p>
<p>What I find scary in all of this is the misconceptions (pun unintentional) most women have about the ease of becoming pregnant after 35 with modern fertility treatments. What fertility clinics don’t advertise is that a majority of their patients do NOT ever become successfully pregnant. If you have to seek fertility help, the odds are against you. Add to that the tens of thousands of dollars in costs (especially if you live in a state where fertility treatment doesn’t have to be covered by insurance). And many fertility treatments come with nasty side effects, including higher risks of certain cancers (i.e. ovarian) down the road. If you really want children, don’t assume that you can wait until you’re 37 with no problems. It’s just not true for a majority of women.</p>
<p>It’s not anti-feminist to point out that it’s a LOT easier and safer to get pregnant in your 20s and early 30’s than it is later. It is actually anti-feminist to lie to women and tell them not to worry about it. Women should be considered smart enough to make good, informed decisions - but I’m willing to be most young professional women are not truly informed about age & infertility. Telling people the truth isn’t sexist- it empowers them. We don’t have to like the facts or think they’re fair, but we do have to acknowledge that human biology isn’t designed for women to have start a family in their late 30’s or 40’s. Does it happen? Occasionally. Would I want to count on “occasionally”? Maybe fertility treatments will improve. But frankly, I wouldn’t want to risk my odds of having kids by counting on it. And I’d want to know that information before consciously putting off seeking a life partner until I’m “established.” </p>
<p>Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans. You don’t have to be husband-hunting - but young women who see marriage and children as an important part of their future had better at least be open to meeting someone at any time in their young adult lives. </p>
<p>I think it’s not just women’s opportunities that shrink with time, though biologically it is of course more extreme for women’s fertility. Men will also face a diminished pool of prospects by waiting. More than this, if you spend your 20s without being with your life partner, think of all those lost prime years that you could have had with each other… Economically, sharing a household as soon as possible leads to enhanced gains. And finally, it’s very sad when grandparents are all dead before the grandkids have a chance to grow up at all. Granted, this can happen at any age, but it’s so much more likely if you start the whole business 10-15 years later.</p>
<p>College is for education… “Husband-hunting” is completely different and unrelated to college. We are in the 21st century not the 60s
not to mention how sexist the article seems</p>
<p>This has a lot of assumptions about 20-something or younger marriages which may not necessarily hold for factors such as:</p>
<ol>
<li>Both partners are economically stable. Not necessarily high income, but IMO more importantly…are good about knowing how to live within/under their means rather than the exact opposite. Recent economic statistics has shown most American adults…much less 20-somethings or younger aren’t very good about this due to low savings rate and high credit card debts even during economic boom times.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Moreover, most twenty-somethings…especially nowadays are just starting to establish themselves economically which doesn’t usually create optimal conditions for starting or maintaining marriages. Having educational debt or other loans only worsens this factor. Especially when economic issues are often cited as the primary issue leading to marital conflicts or divorce. </p>
<ol>
<li> Both partners are psychologically ready and mature enough to understand marriage is about learning how to live as a mutually supporting couple and how that requires some compromises as one goes through life. Out of many marriages I’ve seen with folks who are mid-20 somethings or younger, only two have lasted for more than 5 years with this being one of the/the primary factors.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Worse, if parents push their children by bringing up unsolicited “Have you thought about marriage” conversations…those parents may end up setting themselves up for dealing with the drama associated with miserable marriages or divorce because the young adult child felt prodded into going through with a marriage without doing his/her due diligence and ensuring he/she is psychologically ready. </p>
<p>Had this happen to two older cousins and ended up running interference for an older friend/roommate when his nosy and annoyingly overbearing parents tried to get me to tattle about his dating/romantic plans. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Increasing educational requirements for many professional and other middle-class careers are delaying the time a young adult can start establishing themselves. </p></li>
<li><p>Possible cultural stigmas against getting married “too early” in some regions such as the urban NE. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Oh please. My parents didn’t meet until my dad’s mid/late-20s and I think my mom was 30. They married when my dad was 28 and my mom was 32. They both married in their early 20s the first time around and it was disastrous for both of them and left them in financial ruin going into their early 30s. </p>
<p>Yes, sharing a household can be economically advantageous but not if it leads to divorce (which rushing into marriage can often do regardless of age). As to “lost prime years”, I think it’s a bunch of hooey. Not everyone wants to be with someone in their 20s. </p>
<p>Well, ok, so people don’t agree. But perhaps we can all get behind this: the WSJ article was sexist and not comprehensive, and a splashy oversimplification meant to sell books, that none of us approves of. :)</p>
<p>Hmm, I didn’t go to find a husband, but I did find my husband. We got married actually while he was still an undergrad, and we have been married over 20 years. I will also say that all of our friends that married the person they dated in college and married, are still married. I think there is something to be said for building your wealth together when you are both broke as heck. We had our kids young and will be empty nesters by age 50, and I love it…sure it was hard, but I can’t imagine sending a kid to college when preparing to retire. I know that works for some, but I loved having kids young, while building our future. My kids have have the benefit of still having both sets of grandparents, and two greatgrandmas still living. </p>
<p>This also depends on how well each part of the couple are good at living with/under their means and how close to the same page they are on finances/spending. </p>
<p>If you have one or both members of a couple who don’t know how to live at/under their means or worse, does boneheaded things* in this area, entering in a marriage could end up being a compounded financial drain upon the more financially responsible party or both parties in the marriage. And that’s before factoring in the divorce. </p>
<ul>
<li>E.g. Not paying off high interest credit card debt despite having the financial means because the individual concerned can’t be bothered to get it done.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>I didn’t meet H until I had started my career, all done with undergrad and pro degrees. He had been in his field for 14+ years. I dated a bit (several serious relationships) as a student. Neither H nor I have regrets. We were able to start a family in the year after our wedding, when I was 29. Yes, the health risks increase as MOM AND DAD age, but stable relationships trump the rest, for us. </p>
Likewise if a man thinks he can be a player in his 20s and will find a virginal bride later. All sexist!</p>