Why do you think both things can’t be happening at the same time? More marriages are occurring between socioeconomic equals than in year’s past. Also, at the same time, women also less likely to pair up with guys purely for financial stability, since their jobs pay well enough. So they stay single longer, searching for someone who is compatible with them in areas women in the past didn’t prioritize.
You can see both trends simultaneously.
I don’t think more successful women are unmarried who are seeking marriage. (ETA: I think I may have misunderstood part of your point. I thought you were saying the “same time” was greater parity AND women staying single while looking.) This isn’t a citation, but it accords with cites I’ve seen:
I’m saying the number of high-earning women is growing, and high-earning women tend to delay marriage longer than other women. You’re right that their marriage rates are pretty high relative to other women.
Yeah, you’re right. The notion that successful women can’t find mates appears to be outdated. Later marriage and fewer divorces are combining to make “successful” women “successful” at marriage as well.
Black students underperforming white students is absolutely a problem. It’s one we’ve tried to address, and we should keep trying until it’s fixed. I don’t know anyone who denies it’s a problem (although there’s probably a fringe somewhere that would say so); the debate is about how to solve it.
If boys are doing the same as they’ve always done, that’s not good enough. Teaching techniques and tools have improved, there’s access to more information than ever before, and the skills needed to thrive in the world will be greater than ever before. It’s kind of like inflation in the economy; if I made the same salary as my father did 30 years ago, I’d be a pauper. Standing still means falling behind.
It depends on what metric you use to gauge success. If one student gets 100% on a test, it doesn’t prevent another student from also getting 100%. But there aren’t an unlimited number of college placements available. Every spot someone gets is one less for everyone else to compete for. When the music stops, someone is going to be left without a chair.
I don’t have a perfect answer. There probably isn’t one, even if you had a blank check and the wisdom of Solomon. I just think it would go a long way if we could collectively admit that there might be a problem. Education in the last couple decades seems to be leaving a group behind; that seems like something we should be concerned about.
Anecdotes, I’d guess. It is easy to write a story featuring a bunch of women who bemoan the lack of available men. However I think I’ve seen statistics which show that high income women and men have higher marriage rates than lower income women and men.
I’d be interested in comparing marriage rates among highly paid and/or educated women today with 30 years ago.
It’s also worth noting that it’s becoming less of a stigma for successful women to date/marry men under their income level.
I have a female friend that makes 250k a year (that’s my best guess anyway) and her husband was a Handyman by trade that probably didn’t make more than 50-60k in a given year.
After they got married, he pretty much gave up the handyman business and now he just dedicates his time to maintaining their properties. Oh, and he’s in charge of all the boating stuff. They own a big boat. Whenever she’s in the mood for a boat ride on the lake, it’s up to him to hook it up and drive it on out there.
It’s kind of a sweet deal actually. He get’s to enjoy all these toys that he would have never been able to afford himself (Seriously, the dude has got a Bobcat.) And she gets to have a man that handles all the “manly” stuff that she can’t do herself like hook up a boat and drive it out to the lake.
I know that all may sound superficial but they really do love each other. At least, that’s the impression I get anyway.
I think this has always been a “cautionary tale pushed” by deeply concerned busybodies with nothing better to do than make sure women feel scared about every choice we make. These are the same people telling us we will be nothing but broken husks of regret if we wait to have children, and we will be financially ruined and probably divorced if we do have them.
I think that women who have placed all their bets on the old system have a lot to fear with the new system, where both women and men have a lot more choices. And that gets manifested as a lot of ways, including trying to put an extra heaping spoonful of fear and shame on women who do their own thing.
I don’t know what the US is like but another factor in the UK has been the number of ‘professional’ couples who originally met at University. If the woman then goes on to really work her career then that seems to immediately take away most of the gender role stuff - it’s interesting that there may be an element of family and friends already knowing the dynamic.
The young secretary thing still can prevail for 2nd marriages cos, well, that’s another game altogether.
The men we’re talking about in this thread don’t seem to care or appreciate how often this fear-mongering is directed at women, either. And it comes from men and women. Unhelpful reminders about how our eggs shrivel up the day after we turn 35, so don’t wait forever, ladies!. Tsk tsk tsking when women choose to study rather than pursue their MRS degree, as if college isn’t really about learning and making yourself competitive in the workplace. It’s about finding Mr. Right! Threads like this one which espouse the idea that it’s a father’s duty to encourage his daughters to marry early in life, or else she’ll hit 30 and find herself a spinster.
And how many times have women been warned about trying to “have it all”? As if “having it all” isn’t something that men have taken for granted for most of modern history? The implication is that women should fear becoming too successful, because success is antithetical to a balanced homelife. Men can’t be expected to be equal co-parents, and of course, forget about expecting them to cook, clean, and all those other girlie things. So a woman who wants to do well career-wise and have a family needs to prepared to “do it all”. This is rubbish.
Yeah, I don’t think many men would have a problem dating or marrying a woman who made more than he did; so long as she didn’t treat him like shit for it.
Mmm, actually it is harder to have a child after 35… My wife and I waited to have a child. She was about 34 when we started “trying”. It took over two years, and we’d given up (in terms of doing all the things you’re supposed to do when you’re “trying” to have a kid) when it finally happened. She was considered a “high-risk” pregnancy, because she was over 35. You can blame patriarchy if you want, but really it’s just biology.
Also, nobody has ever been able to “have it all”.
You can be at work, or you can be with your child. But (unless you’re very fortunate) you can’t do both.
This is just sexist stereotyping. I’ve always done more cleaning than my wife (because she basically doesn’t care what the house looks like). When she took her first business trip - when our daughter was 3 weeks old - I stayed home and took care of her. And did it every time she took a business trip - which is 4 - 5 times a year. There’s nothing “girlie” about being a good father, or cleaning up, for that matter.
I know I’m only one data point, but all the men I know who want to be fathers, want to be good fathers. And cleaning up - so far as I can see - is more about who cares more about the mess, than about gender.
Maybe not today, but 40 or 50 years ago (and possibly more recently) it would be a big problem for lots of men whose self-worth was tied to being the “provider.”
When she said
I thought she meant “men can’t be expect to be equal co-parents, and of course, forget about expecting them to cook, clean, and all those other girlie things.”
I’m saying: “Men CAN be expected to be equal co-parents, and to cook and clean.”
We SHOULD be expected to do it. And from my - admittedly limited perspective - we are doing it.
And - I can’t help adding - it would helpful if we could expect to CONTINUE to be equal co-parents, even after a divorce.
Sorry for the all-caps. FTR: I’m not mad at you. (I hope that doesn’t need to be said, but just in case.)
Try this. Read what she said out loud, and use your most sarcastic voice.
Well, sarcasm means you mean the opposite of what you’re saying.
So if she meant the opposite of what she said, she meant… what I said.
Which means I agree with her.
FWIW, sarcasm often translates poorly in the written form.
Yes, that is what jsgoddess is saying.
The idea is that the same sexist garbage that tries to steer women away from high-status careers also promulgates the assumption that men are poorly suited for parenting and domestic work.
Increasing numbers of men are doing it, but it’s still not an expectation as it with women.
That can be true. But a clue when it’s being used is if an avowed feminist uses the term “girlie.”
