My mother (who graduated college in 1951) used to talk about the desperation of young women in their senior year who didn’t have a boyfriend or a fiance. In many cases, they had been sent to college by their families to earn the Mrs. degree and if they went home unencumbered, they would be considered a failure. She said quite a few marriages took place the summer after graduation that fell apart within a year. Evidently some of the males were a bit desperate, too.
Much of that is history now. Women aren’t stimatized if they come home from college without a boyfriend, fiance or husband. They don’t have to grab the first prospect who comes calling.
I was widowed at 53. And the women, some married, some widowed, some single, that I spoke with said that when they dated at that age and older, the men had to bring what they, the women, had to the table-home, job, car, 401k, etc. Clean credit, arrest record etc. As you age, a marriage becomes much more of a business arrangement than when you’re young and simply in lurve. You have to know what you’re taking on legally. So many of us chose the living in sin path.
Well, it was 46 years ago, not 50, but no MIT coed I ever spoke to had this opinion, and no MIT man did either. We’re talking 1965 here, not 1955. By 1969 contraception was pretty prevalent. Maybe things changed very dramatically in 4 years, but I doubt it.
We were middle class also, with one or two exceptions on either end.
I dunno- I mean, there may have been a fair amount of stigma associated with being an “old maid”, but not one of my paternal Grandfather’s three sisters married.
There’s surely some bias in that the stories we hear from ye days gone by are disproportionately from those who left descendants, who were pretty much by definition those who did obtain a partner, especially as babies born out of wedlock were frequently adopted out to married couples, or brought up in “homes”.
Sorry, but this really doesn’t mean anything. I have an aunt who married a white man in the 1960s. Does this mean interrcial marriages weren’t more stigmitized back then than they are now? Of course not. My aunt’s marriage was a shocker back then. My sister’s interracial marriage, however, was not.
Tinder (and by extension todays dating culture) is great for women because it gives them huge choice and agency in deciding their hookups. Tinder is terrible for women because it gives men huge choice and agency in deciding their hookups and
The difference here is women are (in general not always) more oriented than men to want the hookups to turn into more committed relationships at some point. A reasonably attractive man who has this rolling pipeline of incoming sexual opportunity coming his way via Tinder hookup culture is less compelled to want this. Tinder will let the women find the cute guy of her dreams but Tinder opportunity also keeps him from saying “I choose you” for an exclusive relationship.
Does anyone have actual historical stats on the proportion of people that never married available? I just suspect they have a much higher chance of being skipped over and ignored in history, and seeing as every branch of my Grandparents’ generation had at least one member, (including 3/4 of that one branch) who never had any long term relationships, the thought that marriage was less universal than is being assumed somewhat jumps to my mind.
Though I don’t see how you can compare not marrying to interracial marriages, which were actively illegal in some places. “Bachelors” and “Old maids” weren’t ever considered shocking; it’s always been acceptable for men to not marry (with caveats regarding royalty and other titled folk when not producing a legitimate heir was Letting Everyone Down), and having, or being stuck with, an older, unmarriageable female relative (who may then try and move in when her parents died) was seen more of a nuisance than any kind of scandal.
Shocking is not the same thing as bearing a stigma.
If you were Old Maid back in the day, this opened you to up all kinds of speculation. It couldn’t just be that hadn’t met the right one yet or that you were fine staying single. There had to be something wrong with you. Frigid, lesbian, weird, crazy, emotionally delayed, ugly. Whatever. You weren’t going to be locked up or banned from public establishments for being single, but talked about behind your back, probably yes.
Nowadays, women aren’t immune from this speculation but there’s a lot less of it.
There also used to be very few ways for a woman to achieve social status. She could reasonably aspire to be a teacher, a nurse, or a secretary. But not principal, doctor, or lawyer.
Getting married (and then having children) was a way for a woman to achieve status. Most people, whether they will admit it or not, want some status. Status determines how well others treat you. When you don’t have status, people treat you like shit.
50 years ago, I venture to guess that women were getting knocked up pretty early in their life and that basically forced the situation. So pickiness or not has little to do with anything.
Yes, but that was rather particular to that time period. Before the second world war people got married significantly older than in the decade or two after.
Yep, that’s actually kind of my point; historically unmarried women mostly had no status (occasional royals, and miscellaneous nuns aside), so they can become basically invisible in history. They had no status, they helped look after parents, or siblings children, or occasionally got shuffled off to nunneries, but generally got ignored. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there, which is what this thread seems to be assuming.
I’m simply questioning that people who, for whatever reason, historically did not marry were actually ever as rare as all that, and if the proportion of people in serious relationships now is really so much lower. The only stats I’ve seen compare the marriage rate now, to the marriage rate then which kind of ignores the fact that marriage is now seen as optional for many people, even in a long-term serious relationship.
The only data I can find seems to say that, historically, around 4-5% of people never married, in an era where ‘not marrying’ meant that any serious relationships outside of wedlock would be scandalous, but what proportion of people now never get into a marriage-like relationship? Is it really much higher?
Sure, people now are much less prone to making it formal than back then, because formal used to be the compulsory relationship format unless you really wanted to get shunned by society, but does that mean people now are pickier?
It wouldn’t surprise me if, should it be possible to really compare the proportion over a lifetime of people getting into a marriage-like relationship at some point, if the rate had barely changed, or even, what with improved acceptance of homosexuality, increased… Just because people are no longer stuck with the first option they chose doesn’t mean they’re more picky in dating, just that the options have increased.
This is a good point. You often hear that young people are so picky, but that really only is a problem if you really don’t want to be single. There’s an Italian saying “Meglio da sola che malaccompagnata” - “better alone than with the wrong companion”. I think it’s right to lose patience with very picky people who complain about being single all the time, but if I had married someone from my street, I can guarantee you I’d have been miserable. And I’m happy on my own. The OP actually didn’t make a value judgement, but various posters seemed to.
with the divorce rate being so high, its hard to have a solid future w. anyone …
its just a hit and miss concept IMO … because people have a tendency of becoming anti social ( of texting all the time ) and no inter action w/ one another … its a shame tho
It isn’t my area of expertise but my theory is that dating suffers more severely than average from the same problem many decisions suffer-now there is so much information and advice available at the click of a mouse button that people expect “better” or at least more informed decisions. Think buying a car, or moving to a new city. We can do lots more research, not that the research really helps that much, so we have more standards to meet. When I met my future wife, I simply relied on the snap judgement of a mutual friend and asked her out. I think I proposed after 2 dates, if my confused ramblings could be counted as effective communication, and we waited 3 years to actually get married. That was 42 years ago…
