The Trouble With Men: Men Talk Back

My column last week "the Trouble with Men" (published in the NY Post as "The Decline of the American Male") provoked an avalanche of mail, almost all of it from men. Some excerpts:

Hello Maggie,

You omitted the pervasive problem of wealthy and successful women being unwilling to support uneducated men as a spouse. Unlike men who provided sustenance for poor uneducated women as their wives, women do not help vulnerable men. They are still only focued on pairing with wealthy, powerful, rich and famous men. This leaves a lot of men unable to function -- no job, no patron.

Dear Maggie,

The doings or non-doings of males must, it seems, always be evaluated in a way that produces a conclusion inoffensive to women. To me, it seems just so in the cited article.

Why can't we take the proportions of males in college as reflecting male evaluations of the costs and benefits of attending college. These, I submit, are different for men and women. First of all, very few men attend college for the primary purpose of finding a mate with good earning potential, while I submit that this is a serious consideration for women. Were I a woman, I'd do the same, knowing that if I didn't find the guy for me, I'd have an education to fall back on, financially.

. . .Why would a man weak in quantitative skills and training study, say, sociology instead of air-conditioner repair? What would justify the expense of four years of college and the associated four years of lost earnings? Do most young women see
themselves as having a choice between pipe-fitting and a degree in
psychology? I doubt it. . .

Then we come to sex. Since women became "liberated" and lost control of sex, the sexual opportunities for young men have improved dramatically. These days, if this girl won't "put out," several others will, and the one that doesn't will find attracting men more difficult, if not impossible. In short, men don't have to perform financially for sex, anymore. Indeed, they don't even have to pick the young lady up at her home and take her to dinner. Better to just "hook up." And, if men don't need earnings or the promise of earnings to "score" anymore, why bother?

More to the point, why bother getting married? As one of my single, well-heeled friends once said, "Why don't I just buy a house and give it to her?" For some, the question seems to be, "Why work?" Why, indeed, if a man can have all the sexual benefits of marriage, but none of the financial costs or dangers?

So, perhaps the so-called growing absence and "under-performance" of men in college is simply the consequence of cold, hard, cost-benefit calculations. Warn them that if they don't have financial promise, they won't attract a marriageable woman, and they'll guffaw, with good reason. My personal feeling is that if all young women swore off sex until marriage and refused to marry men without prospects, we'd suddenly witness a rejuvenation of male ambition.

Need I point out that the easy availability of pornography caters to the male preference for many young, attractive and loose women. For certain, the physical contact is not there, but I suspect the visual thrill plus masturbation is an acceptable, if not preferred, substitute for many. This combination provides some men with a reasonable substitute for the touted option of one wife, perhaps not too good-looking and getting less so with age, who seems not only difficult to please, but who is a drain on his income and a continuing threat to his accumulated assets.


Sincerely,

XXX, XXX Professor of Finance Emeritus

Maggie, its no mystery what's going on with men. Men's one and only motivation for success and creating wealth is to pair with a more desirable woman PERIOD Without women, men would be happy to live in a shack, as long as it had a lounge seat and cable. Most men really don't want children but make themselves believe they do in order to woo women, who do. The sex drive is just that strong in men.

But now women are making money and succeeding and many don't require a man in the equation in order to fulfill their basic needs. Ergo they don't demand prosperous men. But even though men are no longer an absolute requirement for having children, they still fulfill the function of companionship, intimacy, sex, and physical protection--even if it is just for protection from other men.

So when men are not needed for financial security, they can get along on "looks and personality" alone. Which could be claiming to be in the middle of writing the great American novel, being a sculptor, historian, or writing reviews on Amazon.com. So what if they live in a shack. They fill, to some degree or another, those things women still value and even yearn for.

. . .Now as a disclaimer, of course there exist men who truly do want to have children (although this fantasy is usually accompanied by the addition of an unrealistically beautiful, smart woman).

XXX
Baltimore, MD

Maggie,

As always, a fine commentary.You ended the commentary with the questions "What has gone wrong? And what can we do to help?"

I was brought up in a traditional ethnic Catholic family and am trying to do the same (although less ethnic). In my family, the welfare of the children was paramount. My sisters and I always viewed our lifes purpose was to be parents and spouses and the purpose of a carrear was to support the higher purpose of family life. I suspect much of this has been lost.

Additionally, I may be stating the obvious, but men like sex. Once marriage is not necessary for sex, less religous men are more than willing to forgo marriage for "free sex". This needs to change. We must return to the idea that sex is reserved for marriage and not before.

God Bless

Mike

Dear Maggie,

Reading the "Decline of the American Man", I'm thinking of Bob Dylan's "Maggie's Farm" and remembering the response of the Conservative Women's Forum when asked what they thought about men's feelings: "We want them to feel our pain and fix the drains". Has it ever occurred to you that, historically, American men might deserve a break from working their fingers to the bone so that American women can consume and breed to their hearts content? Or do you think that's a God given role? Do you ever take time out from sweating male decline to worry about all the guys who have worked themselves dead in middle age so that their wives can retire to Florida on the proceeds of big life insurance policies? . . .

No matter what you think, some of us are getting off that treadmill you call life. We don't call it decline. We call it liberation. But we do it sotto voce. After all, we 're not feminists.

XXXX XXXXXX

I read your article. . .What is happening is that there is a substantial group of men no woman wants. Why? Mostly they are not aggressive enough or lie enough. There are many men out there that will say and do and be anything to a woman or women; I find the defenses way to high with women to actually get to know one under dating circumstances. The judgments of women can be scathing. I refuse to be anyone but myself and I found that the vast majority like style over substance. Women will never admit to that and just complain to their boyfriends about where the substance is. They will never realize it was the style that got them into bed in the first place. In a world where everyone is single, I found out that no one is available. It is sad... XXXX XXXXXX

Ms. Gallagher,

I wanted to thank you for asking some very real and important questions about men in America these days. (Decline of the American Man, 8/9) It's true that there's a big problem, one that needs to be addressed. I've thought a lot about it, and have come up with a few angles on the situation. I'd like to share them with you here.

In the industrial age, our economy was product oriented. We made things—cars, steel, TVs, whatever. But in the information age, our economy is process oriented. We establish networks of communication, and send information through these networks. It could be media, it could be public relations, customer service, business solutions, or other information. Most working people these days don’t make things… they make phone calls or emails. That's a problem for men.

In the broadest sense, men like to build. Men like to create a new tangible object or product that changes the world. I feel that women derive more satisfaction from the process of working with people and forming connections with co-workers. I also feel that women aren't as tied to their work for identity, and that they don't see work as 'meaningless' if the process gives them valuable connections with other workers, which boosts their sense of self esteem.

Outside of the work place, our culture is also more image-based, more sensational. Gossip and appearance dominate the entertainment world, instead of character and talent. Our culture values more 'non-essential' and feminine products, like designer Starbucks coffee, make-over solutions, and endless reality shows about redesigning our houses. These all embody solidly feminine values of appearance, beauty, and community. They are more surface oriented values, things that don't matter so much to men. As these values ascend in the culture, men are less 'valuable' to the marketplace. Women were less 'valuable' in the past, when physical strength in a steel mill or on the farm was a valued commodity. Times have simply changed, and men must adjust.

In my mind, there's also a case of man bashing going completely unchallenged in the main stream media. There are too many TV shows, CDs and movies that put down men as incompetent, clueless, inferior, or evil.

One recent example is the film 'John Tucker Must Die.' I have not seen this film, but the preview sets out a story that would NEVER get a green light if the gender roles were reversed, (to say nothing of the violent, anti-male sentiment in the title). In this film, John Tucker is dating three women in his high school. (a problem? I dated lots of girls in high school) When the girls find out, they get together and decide to exact fierce revenge.

Call it lack of vision on my part, but I couldn’t imagine a movie called 'Joan Tucker Must Die!' being created in Hollywood, following a similar story line. If there was a film about a high school girl dating three guys, my guess is that she would be portrayed as a smart girl who was wisely holding off a major decision on who to commit to. She would probably be cheered on for getting whatever she can from the “clueless” men. And if the men did decide to exact revenge on this perfectly acceptable social conduct, my guess is that it would not be considered funny, but misogynistic or cruel.

But male bashing isn't limited to cable TV and the silver screen. In my last job, (process oriented market research) I worked with a female who came to work one day in a T-shirt that read 'Boys Make Nice Pets.' Towards the end of the shift, I politely told her that the shirt offended me. She was non-confrontational, and I did not see the shirt again. However, the very fact that she felt she could walk into work with a shirt like that says something about our cultural climate. Could you picture a man walking into work with a shirt that read 'Girls Make Nice Pets'? I think he would be disciplined by the manager within minutes. Girls would confront him, with no lack of vitriol. But why did no man or manager confront the woman in my work place over her sexist shirt? In an office place of at least 75, I was the only one.

There are a lot of shirts like this on women these days. Women think very highly of themselves, judging by the T-Shirts they wear on the streets of New York City. Every day I see women walk by in shirts that read 'Princess' 'Sexy' 'Diva' 'Goddess' or other variations on the theme of their beauty and power. Men simply don’t wear shirts that say 'King' 'God' or 'Adonis.' If they did, the first girl to walk by with laugh and call him conceited.

Just last weekend I saw a ten year old girl walk towards me with a T-Shirt which read 'Jack and Jill Raced up the Hill for a Pail of Water.' I just knew the back would have some man-bashing message, and I wasn’t surprised to see it when she passed. 'And Jill KICKED HIS ASS!' (capital emphasis not mine—it appeared that way on the shirt.)

Would a ten year old boy get away with wearing a shirt like this, where Jill got her ASS KICKED? No, he wouldn’t. He’d be called a misogynist or a girl beater. There's a dangerous double standard going on that isn't being addressed. I think both men and women are to be blamed for this; women for being casually abusive, and men for not standing up to them.

The final point of your essay seems to dwell on the increased number of men living alone. Is this necessarily bad? Your article says that women don't 'need' men these days. The reverse is also true. Men don't 'need' women. We really don't need each other… but I happen to think it's a lot better when we share our lives together. Men and women can give so much to each other.

I think it's fair to say that The Twentieth Century was a male dominated affair—it was also the bloodiest century known to humanity. A more feminine dynamic in the future might lead us all in a better direction. But if it's done at the expense of men, it will be as shameful and damaging as any affront done to women in the past. The road might be rocky now, due to our changing roles in society, but I believe in men and women. With respect, care, and mutual concern, we can help each other into the future.


P.S. On a personal note, I have ALWAYS enjoyed your column… especially the one you wrote on me back in the 1990s. I don’t know if you remember, but I was a young NYU student, signed with William Morris, being printed at a very young age in Harpers, Rolling Stone, etc. We met at the Second Avenue Deli for a sandwich, and you wrote a wonderfully supportive piece on me. Since then I went on to publish a novel ('Teeth' 1998, Simon and Schuster) and am currently developing a comedy TV show. You can see a preview at (www.vonvonvon.com).

Enjoy the rest of your summer, wishing you best with all!

Hugh Gallagher

Hi Maggie;
Scary stuff today in your article about men. Unfortunately I see it happening in my own family. My 20 year nephew dropped out of school, has a baby with a girl he says was just a friend, and can't make plans for a future beyond his next car payment. My sister and brother in law finally kicked him out of the house because all he did was play video games all day and grunt at anyone who talked to him.

The question is, what's the answer to this??? I can tell you one answer. If women would stop having sex with men outside marriage and demand a comitted relationship before becoming intimate with any man. . . No one wants to admit it. No one wants to admit that free sex has had devastating consequences on families.

Your article is the tip of the iceberg. It's scary, sad and tragic.

Lauren XXXXX

Hi Maggie
I frequently read your column and usually have a similar perspective on most issues.

I felt obligated to make a comment about this article.

I do agree that there is now a malaise among adult men when it comes to careers and marriage. I think I have an idea what may be part of the cause.

If you are a young man today, statistics show that this is what you can expect after college: marriage followed by divorce followed by child-support payments and regulated time with your children. . .

I got married to a woman and adopted her child. We had no children of our own for several reasons. About eight years later she met someone better. She has custody of the son, I paid support and expenses such as little league fees, school trip costs, braces, etc. I wanted my son to have a good childhood, I did not want every bill to be an argument. The day my son turned 18 and the support payments ended, my ex said he could now live with me full time, which he still does two years later. I do not get any help from her now for food, clothes, etc, which is fine with me but is it fair?

I think young men see this trend in their fathers and friends and just have trouble seeing the upside of marriage. Unfortunately, most marriages end in divorce and the resulting situation has become a nightmare for men. If marriage is not the goal it once was, maybe the motivation for college and strong careers is lessened.

I feel I missed out on what I thought a family was supposed to be. Divorce and the life after divorce took a toll on me that I cannot describe but I am not the same person. I am single now, seven years later, and have dated but have to admit to a fear of ever going through anything like that again.

I do not think this is the sole reason for the apathy you described but I believe it plays a part. Thanks for taking time to read this, I know that it is not as eloquent as your columns.

Maurice

Hi Maggie,, Great article in today's post,, but there is more to this than your saying,, True the failure of men between the ages of 30 and 55 which is the marrying age of today as opposed to my day in the early 60s which was no more that 25 has changed drastically,, but ,lets look at the facts,, first of all their was a draft and the army really change a lot in my life ,, its called taking care of yourself without momma, that alone was a lesson to be learned, and coming out of the service men of my generation wanted to take care of a women ,, yes, my newly married wife had a job as a secy and made more money than i did ,, however, my going to school at night and working as hard as i could on my career before, during and after my first wife's divorce which proved to be a blessing , helped build an unbelievable career as a member of the American and then New York Stock Exchange,, yeah, she took of with a wedding band singer and left me with the bills then tried numerous times to return after she had a couple of flings ,,i never took her back but, kept on working harder than ever ,, it took 10 yrs to become a member back then ,, with no rich father or connections ,,pure ambition and hard work ,,and that's what most employers were looking for back then,,
I only married once again 10 yrs later to a great gal whom i am still married to for the last 36 yrs next month,, were not the same religion, she's 12 yrs younger than i, she's never been married before and was only 22 when i met her,, but their was something in me that wanted to care for her ,, because of religious differences her parents refused to pay for the wedding and she wasn't from NY either,, so be it,, i was 35 yrs old and rich with a knockout apartment in Manhattan,, who found that being single even with money wasn't the, all great thing it was supposed to be ,, and that's with plenty of girl friends too, i paid for the wedding and the brides dress from B. Altman's and the maid of honors dress as well,,and every thing including the band , photographer etc,, why am i telling you this ? because today's so called metro sexual man doesn't want the responsibility, lacks commitment ,and cares for only himself ,, To support a women makes him ill,, To raise a family and pay for a child's education and doctors etc. kills him,, even if he makes the big bucks he's not willing to share it ,, that's because he sees so much divorce in the world like whats on your page six every day in Hollywood,, where they trade wives faster than they trade in cars,, that's because he probably comes from a broken home himself and has seen his share of greif as well,, and its also because of his selfishness,, "i made it for me not for others",, i must tell you i also have input from my 34 yr old beautiful daughter who is single and never been married ,, well educated ,, a good job and id be glad to send you a picture to prove it,, she is in the Hampton's scene in summer the Miami scene in winter and invited to the best parties in both cities and yet not one serious man in her life today,, there out there ,, and their and play boy at big time cabarets in the city,, I'm sure you know the type,, yeah $ 300 dollar a bottle of champagne, etc,, models and bottles clubs all over the east side of Manhattan,, but don't dare ask for commitment or they will scurry away like a shot out of hell,, lack of commitment lack of character and lack of morality..with a dash of selfishness,, today's so called metro sexual male,, isn't a real man,, also ,, the new math : 35 today is like 25 when i was their age,, any one in his 20s is not marriageable materiel,, he's a teenager until he's 30 or more,, they have been coddled by their soccer moms all their lives and you think they can be changed in a decade ? no way ,, the way i see it,, good luck and be well ,, xxx xxxxx fmr member of the new york stock exchange ,, delray beach Florida,, p/s former army Sgt as well,, i could write volumes on todays immaturity of manhood,, pls excuse my bad grammer,,

posted by maggie at 1:32 PM | Link |

More on the Arizona Ruling

The Arizona decision referenced yesterday is available here.

The opponents had said that the amendment was invalid because it involved three subjects: (1) marriage, (2) civil unions and (3) local domestic partnership ordinances. The amendment supporters, according to the court, said the amendment’s "first clause protects marriage from redefinition and the second clause protects marriage by prohibiting extension of official status to marriage imitations." They did concede that the amendment "will ban the government from providing domestic partner benefits."


The court said if a proposed amendment has more than one provision, it will be valid only if the provisions are related by a common purpose. The court "narrowly conclude[d]" that this proposed amendment involved only one subject: "the protection of marriage by preventing redefinition and extension of official status to marriage substitutes."

This news report suggests there will be an appeal.
posted by William Duncan at 11:51 AM | Link |

New CDC Study: Less Sex for Teens

". . .Some 46.8 percent of students said they engaged in sexual intercourse in a 2005 survey, down from 54.1 percent in 1991, according to the report.

Some 14.3 percent of students in 2005 said they have had multiple partners, defined as sex with four different people during one's lifetime. That figure is down from 18.7 percent in 1991."
posted by maggie at 11:31 AM | Link |

New Poll: South Dakotans Oppose Marriage Amendment

[But note, the poll question did not simply show South Dakotans the language and ask if they approved. . . I really don't believe this. But November will tell. Maggie]

August 4, 2006

"South Dakotans are divided over a constitutional amendment to define marriage, a poll shows, contrasting strong support similar amendments have seen across the country.

A poll of 800 likely voters done for the Argus Leader and KELO-TV showed 49 percent would oppose adding language to the state constitution allowing marriage only between a man and a woman and prohibiting civil unions or other "quasi-marital relationships."

Slightly fewer, 41 percent, said they'd vote for the proposed language, a result that surprised J. Brad Coker, who conducted the poll by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. In a number of states, these kinds of amendments are drawing strong majorities of support, so I was surprised at the South Dakota results," Coker said.

He said one possible reason the proposal, sometimes referred to as an anti-gay marriage amendment, has mixed results in South Dakota is the language on civil unions and quasi-marital relationships.

In some states where definition-of-marriage amendments have passed or are showing strength, the language only refers to a union between a man and a woman, Coker said.

. . ."This isn't about gay marriage. South Dakota passed a law against that in 1996," Hoadley said. "The second sentence of the amendment is causing the opposition. People read that and find out this could take away domestic-violence protection and could discourage business investment by raising legal questions about domestic partnerships."

It might be that some people don't understand the question, said Rob Regier of the South Dakota Family Policy Council.

"I think the question may have confused some people," he said.

The actual text of the amendment was somewhat different from the wording of the poll, he said.

He said he has seen a poll that shows the same amendment gaining 67 percent support and thinks the wording of that question was simpler than on the current poll. But he also said the poll results today are a call to action for those who want the constitution changed. . ."
posted by maggie at 10:02 AM | Link |

Indonesian Polygamy at Cannes

"Nia Dinata is, without much doubt, Indonesia's most talented new filmmaker: Packed screenings of her latest movie on polygamy at Cannes attest to that. . .

As more conservative strands of Islam take hold in Indonesia, polygamy is on the rise, flaunted in public by princesses and politicians. Dinata grasped the moment to show what she calls the sadness and denials behind the smiles of wives who say they accept being one of a crowd.

When she was 18, just starting her freshman year at college in the United States, she was unexpectedly called home: Her father was taking a second wife.

"When my mother broke the news, I was shocked," said Dinata, sitting at a café terrace here, a cigarette in hand, at the end of a long day of shooting her fourth movie about the aftermath of a terror attack. "I asked them to get a divorce."

. . .No one keeps a tally of the numbers, but Dinata estimates that about 30 percent of Indonesian marriages are polygamous, significantly more than before the fall of the authoritarian regime of Suharto nearly 10 years ago. . .

A recent vice president, Hamzah Haz, bragged about his polygamy, taking his three wives on trips to Mecca. A well-known entrepreneur, Puspo Wardoyo, calls polygamy a responsibility of wealthy Muslim men. He has four wives and serves "polygamy juice," a mixture of four tropical fruits, at his chain of chicken restaurants. . ."
posted by maggie at 12:51 AM | Link |

AZ Court Approves State Marriage Amendment

The "single subject rule" is now (I believe) 0 and 4, when used against state marriage amendments. This is from an ADF Press Release that just crossed by mailbox. Maggie:

"A Maricopa County Superior Court judge today ruled against opponents of a proposed constitutional amendment affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The judge found that the amendment did not violate the Arizona Constitution’s 'single subject' rule. . ."
posted by maggie at 3:00 PM | Link |

New Study: More than 3% of Teens Exchange Sex for Money

"More than 3% of US teens have exchanged sex for money or drugs, reveals a large representative survey published ahead of print in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.

The authors analysed in depth interviews of more than 13,000 adolescents taking part in a study tracking the long term health of adolescents across the country (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, waves I and II).

The prevalence of having ever exchanged sex for drugs or money was 3.5% among the sample. Almost two thirds who had done so were boys.

The likelihood of exchanging sex for drugs or money was higher among those who were of African American ethnicity, those who lived in a non-traditional family set up, and those whose parents had not gone on to further or higher education.

. . .Larger numbers of adolescents who had used sex in this way had had a same sex experience and had been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection.

One in 10 of the boys had forced someone else to have sex with them, while around one in six of the girls had been forced into sex."

Full Study on Teen Exchange Sex for Money Here
posted by maggie at 11:28 AM | Link |

New Study: Never Marrieds Die Young

"People who never marry have the greatest chance of an earlier death, reveals a study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

The findings are based on national census and death certification data, involving almost 67,000 adults in the USA between 1989 and 1997. . .

Unsurprisingly, older age and poor health were the strongest predictors of death by 1997, but a surviving marriage was also strongly associated with a longer life.

After taking into account age, state of health, and several other factors likely to influence the findings, those who had been widowed were almost 40% more likely to die between 1989 and 1997. Those who had been divorced or separated were 27% more likely to have done so.

But those who had never been married were 58% more likely to have died during this period than their peers who were married and living with their spouse in 1989.

The never married 'penalty' was larger for those in very good or excellent health, and smallest for those in poor health, and it was greater among men than women. . .

Never married men were more vulnerable than their never married female counterparts, and never married men between the ages of 19 and 44 were more than twice as likely to die as their married male peers of the same age.

'Risky' behaviours could not explain the differences, say the authors, because the unmarried group were only slightly more likely to smoke than their married counterparts, and they were less likely to drink alcohol regularly. They also exercised slightly more and were less overweight. . ."

Full study on marriage and death here.
posted by maggie at 11:15 AM | Link |

Legal Analysis: Future of SSM/Joanna Grossman

[Joanna Grossman is a Hofstra University family law professor who writes for Findlaw.com. . Maggie]

Aug. 08, 2006

"This July, the highest courts in New York and in Washington State each ruled that it was constitutional to ban same-sex marriage. . .

What about possible challenges based, instead, on the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection guarantees? It turns out that, also in July, a federal appellate court rejected just such a challenge in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. The now-reinstated provision is an amendment to the Nebraska constitution, adopted by voters in 2000, that bans not only same-sex marriage, but also any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

These rulings are ominous for supporters of same-sex marriage, since virtually every other state has already foreclosed the possibility of same-sex marriage. The bottom line: Massachusetts is the sole state in the union that permits it, and may remain so for a long while.

In this column, I'll discuss the national legal landscape regarding same-sex marriage, then focus in on the two recent decisions in New York and Washington State.". . .Continue Reading Grossman on SSM Legal Debate
posted by maggie at 10:58 AM | Link |

Changing Dutch Families/Radio Netherlands

08-08-2006

"In the course of time, our definition of the word 'family' and the way families live together has changed. Ruben van Gaalen, a researcher at the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, has been looking into this development and will next year write his doctoral thesis on the subject of changing family life in the Netherlands.

Radio Netherlands' Thijs Westerbeek interviewed him.

Q: When did the nuclear family - father, mother and two children - become fashionable? "By the end of the 19th century, after the industrial revolution, the family as a unit became even more strongly institutionalised, because people went out to work, they didn't really work around the house as much as before. Their individual lives were outside the house; family life was at home.

RVG: "The nuclear family became the ideal after the Second World War, when there was a need for an ideal view on living. People were trying to find security in their families. And it was also nourished by the Hollywood films in the 1950s, romantic love and marriage was very important in these decades. Today, we may regard these views as naïve and too romantic." . . .

Q: What's does a typical 2006 Dutch family look like?

RVG: "I'll take it from a child's view. Your parents are relatively old, they are relatively highly educated and you do not have many siblings. You may have a step-sibling and your parents may divorce in the future. The probability is quite high that you will end up with more parents. And 80 percent of the children in your classroom have parents who are divorced. They also have a diverse family life.

I think that children who are born into this kind of family life will not have much of a problem with it. Because it is the normal situation to them. If children feel secure in such a diverse family, then there is no problem. But, that said, the probability that problems march into this type of family is also much higher than they used to be. It largely depends on the way the parents deal with this situation."
posted by maggie at 10:51 AM | Link |

New Book:The Business of Love

This surely says something about our times. I'm not sure what, exactly.
posted by maggie at 10:14 PM | Link |

WIC TO COVER FRUITS, VEGS, AND WHOLE GRAINS: Associated Press

The grocery shopping list for the far-reaching Women, Infants and Children program is getting its first significant update since the 1970s. Fruits, vegetables and whole grains are being added to the program, which helps feed more than half the babies born in the U.S. To cover the cost, WIC will pay for less of the juice, eggs, cheese and milk that have been staples of the program.

The changes to the low-income nutrition program were proposed Friday and will be finalized next year. Anti-hunger groups are enthusiastic about the additions.

"Overall, we're really happy about this food package. We think, for WIC clients, this is going to make a huge difference," said Geri Henchy, director of early childhood nutrition at the Food Research and Action Center.

more

discussion here, including govt contact info, discussion of lobbyist influence, and powerful personal stories.
posted by Eve at 10:03 PM | Link |

SURPRISINGLY...

...it's possible to write an interesting and insightful post about social connections, the religion of romance, and, uh, some kind of creepy British celebration of "solo sex." Camassia writes here.

(posted by Eve)
posted by Eve at 10:01 PM | Link |

Peter Steinfels on the Pew Poll

[If you had tried to predict public opinion on abortion, say around 1975, you would have said "young people are in favor of legalizing abortion," and predicted overwhelming support for legalized abortion as older generations died off. Instead support for abortion hit a high point in the baby boom generation now 50 to 64 years old. I point this out not to suggest I have any way of knowing that the same thing will happen on gay marriage, but only that, well it could. The progressive mythology is that change happens in only one direction. But, here's evidence that sometimes the younger generation grows more 'conservative' with time. . .Maggie]

NYT, August 5, 2006

". . .Americans, the [Pew] researchers wrote, “are conservative in opposing gay marriage and gay adoption, liberal in favoring embryonic stem cell research, and a little of both on abortion.”

Americans, according to this survey, based on telephone interviews with a representative national sample of 2,003 adults, display what the cultural warriors might find as a distressing inconsistency over these issues, and yet a remarkable consistency over time.

Opposition to same-sex marriage, for example, appears to have changed little over recent years: 56 percent of Americans are against it, 35 percent for it. . .

Opinions on abortion are even more unchanging. Asked which option came closest to their own view, 31 percent of respondents said abortion should be “generally available”; 20 percent said “available but under stricter limits than it is now”; 35 percent said “against the law except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman’s life”; and 11 percent said “not be permitted at all.”

. . .While continuing to oppose same-sex marriage, Americans, by 54 percent to 42 percent, have come to support civil unions that would provide gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as married couples. Likewise, Americans are less likely to think that sexual orientation can be changed than they were a few years ago, and adults under 30 are much more supportive of same-sex marriage than are their elders. . .

By contrast, support for keeping abortion generally available is highest among men and women ages 50 to 64 — the survey found no gender gap on this issue — and goes steadily lower as one moves down the age scale. . ."
posted by maggie at 8:36 PM | Link |

New Study: Plato Was Right/AP

"Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Among heavy listeners, 51 percent started having sex within two years, versus 29 percent of those who said they listened to little or no sexually degrading music. . ." Continue New Study: Plato was Right
posted by maggie at 1:58 PM | Link |

The Trouble with Men/Maggie Gallagher

August 8, 2006

"At the highest echelons, men are doing well. Just look at the list of Nobel Prize winners, corporate presidents, senators, movie directors and entrepreneurs, all heavily male.

But underneath the highest echelons, there is growing evidence that men, as a gender, are not doing so well. The New York Times has begun publishing a series, "The New Gender Divide," that chronicles the current XY chromosomal crisis among those who lack a college education.

Men now make up only 42 percent of college students. For every 50 women who earn a bachelor's degree, only 37 men get a college degree. As recently as 1980, only one out of 20 men without college degrees in their early 40s had never married, compared to almost one out of five middle-aged men today. . ." continue here.
posted by maggie at 1:34 PM | Link |

Defeating Joe Lieberman/Maggie Gallagher

I have to file my newspaper column by Tuesday afternoon, so I wasn't able to write about this election. That's my excuse for saying here what I thought no-one else might notice: Lieberman's defeat signals the rise of the "values voter" on the left: e.g. what matters is not how a person will vote on bills you want to ennact, but what he "stands for" in the public mind. But I was wrong, Noam Schieber in today's New York Times points out essentially the same thing:

"Under this old model, Mr. Lieberman was an all-star. He was a reliable vote on what Connecticut liberals care about: defending the right to abortion, fighting oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, raising the minimum wage. When he did depart from Democratic orthodoxy, it usually involved attacking constituencies with little influence in his state, like Hollywood movie producers.

But over the last six years this old model has broken down. As anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave knows, traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers — and their millions of readers — who delighted in panning Mr. Lieberman these last several months.

But the movement also consists of national fund-raising and advocacy groups like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (the current incarnation of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign). Call them the counter-Bushies, after the president whose singular talent it is to drive them to paroxysms of rage.

What matters to the counter-Bushies is basically the opposite of what mattered to the traditional interest groups. The new gang doesn’t care so much about any one issue; it wants Democrats to present a united, and generally liberal, front. (According to a Pew Research Center survey released last year, more than 80 percent of Democracy for America supporters consider themselves liberal, versus less than 30 percent of all Democrats.). . ."
posted by maggie at 9:53 AM | Link |

More Gay Men Who Marry Women/Doug Dittmer

[I asked Doug, because I wanted to know, how his ex-wife and kids are doing and this is what he told me. . .Maggie]

As for wife and kids, I tried to maintain a relationship with them but it was strained. At first I battled in court for visitation but the courts were not very sympathetic to gay men back then - we were still criminals under sodomy statutes. Though I gave her most everything in the divorce, she denied me access to the children. I don't really know whether she thought she was protecting them or whether she was just retalliating for leaving her, but the kids became the pawn, and the victims.

After 3 years of court hearings and investigations, I stopped pursuing visitation when my son said, "Dad, I love you but you have no idea how bad it gets in this house when your name comes up. Please just drop it and stop trying to see me. I'm the one who has to live with her rages." I knew I lost the battle and for their sake I had to let go. When my son went off to college and was having difficulty making the tuition, I spoke to him and sent him a check for his tuition. He tore it up and returned it because his Mother convinced him I was just trying to buy him back into my life. So he had to drop out - once more a victim of his parent's war.

My kids are grown and married and now have kids of their own. We tried to reconnect a few years ago. My Mom was dying and she hadn't heard from her grandchildren for 15 years. I invited them to come and visit her and she died a few days after she got to see them all grown up. But with so much time lost between us, we were all strangers. The children I knew don't exist anymore and they could not find the Dad they once knew. We can't go back and recapture the loss.

My daughter put together a photo album of her life and the years I missed - High school proms, birthdays, Christmas, her college years, and her wedding. She put a lot of work into it but the photos were no substitute for the experience lost. I looked through it once but never again. It's sitting in a trunk in the attic with all the other reminders of my lost children - the birth announcements I crafted and sent out, a baby rattle, some booties, home-made Father's day cards, a clay handprint from kindergarten... the things a Dad treasures. It didn't have to be that way. There was no good reason to allow that to happen to them, and my wife's hatred of me has not diminished at all. Like most wives, they are somewhat prepared to compete with other women to hold onto a husband. But there was no way to compete with a man. It was humiliating for her.

I was unable to convince her that I did not know it and she felt I deceived her for all the years we were married. In her mind, I cheated her out of her dream and it is forever gone. That may not be reality, but it's her reality. If so, she has reason to hate me. I miss my kids but I know they are okay and on a life journey of their own. They won't always make the best choices in life, but none of us do. Had I not married, they wouldn't exist so I have no regrets about the life I had. The only regret is that our battle did so much damage to people we loved - my kids, the grandparents, the aunts and uncles and cousins - all were cut off. Everybody paid a price and their were no winners. . .

I don't always agree with your positions Maggie - sometimes I wildly disagree. But for the sake of our children and our future in this country, we have to have a debate about our culture and find common ground. If we don't do that we're going to wind up living in a dysfunctional society of disposable kids, disposable parents, disposable grandparents, disposable friends. There was a time when we could shut up and LISTEN to the needs of others and it gave us the ability to empathize. Now we just dispose of people when they don't parrot what we want to hear.

Doug
posted by maggie at 9:35 AM | Link |

More Gay Men Who Marry Women/Doug Dittmer

[I recieved this letter in response the the NYT story, which we circulated via iMAPP Marriage News, on gay men who marry women. I thought our readers would be interested in this personal testimony and Doug agreed. . .Maggie]

Thanks for circulating "Gay Men Who Marry Women." The article accurately describes the complexity of the issue. I lived it myself. My revelation came after 10 years of marriage and my wife and I struggled for the next 8 years to hold our marriage together. There is an unfortunate perception that gay men hold on to their heterosexual marriages out of selfishness, wanting to 'pass' as straight. Outside observers mistakenly conclude that these men simply want the safety and security of straight marriage while enjoying trysts outside of marriage. Not so.

I lived it and have peer counseled hundreds of men who have come to the painful realization that they are bisexual or gay. They all go through a denial phase. It often takes years for them to accept the fact that they are not heterosexual and they begin climbing the Kinsey scale... Zero for straight, 1 or 2= a little bit bisexual, 3= good grief I'm fully bi, 4= Oh my God I'm hanging to a cliff by my fingernails, 5= I'm gay and will spend eternity in hell; 6= I'm gay and it's okay; there is life after revelation. That process does not happen overnight. Our sexual identity is fluid. Some days you think you're a 2 on the scale and a week later you're a 5, and a few weeks later you convince yourself it's just a bad dream and you're a 1 again. No one just wakes up and decides "I'm going to quit this life and go get a gay life." It's a protracted painful and terrifying process.

The terror comes because bisexual/gay married men fear if they acknowledge the problem, (being married and in love with the wrong gender) they might actually be forced to make a decision they desperately don't want to make. Most married gay men eventually come out to their wife. It becomes an undeniable truth and the struggle requires the couple to accomodate or quit the marriage. Many choose to try various methods of accommodation but the vast majority of these marriages fail.

In the early phases, gay married men try to compartmentalize things: their love stays with the wife, while they try to satisfy their sexual needs through anonymous encounters or monogamous sexual friendships. But anonymous encounters are like a cocaine high. As soon as you come down off the high, there is depression and emptiness that can only be satisfied by another encounter. Quantity is no substitute for quality. Eventually, they make an emotional connection with someone and the event is transforming. Perhaps for the first time in their life they experience the infatuation, the yearning, an emotionally fulfilling and sexual relationship - like it was meant to be. In my own case, I learned that my need for another man was not just some sexual need. It was an emotional need that my wife was never going to be able to fill. I had no right expecting her to do that or accommodate it, it was my problem. I created it and only I could solve it.

Allowing the charade to continue would be insane. She deserved better and so did I. However, she and I had this problem: we both still loved each other very much. We were high school sweet hearts. We were married for 18 years and had 2 great kids. We were best friends and confidants. She did not want me to leave, I was the love of her life; and yet the source of so much pain for her.

Balancing the two worlds is a feat very few can achieve and they often wind up cheating everyone involved. A life half-lived is no life worth living. On Christmas Eve, who do I disappoint and hurt, my wife or my lover? Who gets to wait in the wings hoping I'll find the time to be with them when they need me? I'm not willing to do that to anyone so I had to make a choice. I could turn my back on my own needs and never be with another man. But then I would grow to resent the choice and I would eventually view my marriage as a prison with my wife as warden. I could not do that to her or my kids. I had chosen the wrong path for me in life and it was up to me to fix it, painful as it would be. The pain of leaving someone you still love is the pain of having flesh torn from your body. Some guys don't make the transition. Some commit suicide, some drown themselves in alcohol or drugs to kill the pain. Some discover they waited too long and life has passed them by. But many of us survive and find someone to love and be loved. I was fortunate and though my first gay love did not work out, I knew I made the right decision and went on living. I eventually met someone and we've been together in a stable loving relationship for 13 years.

Doug Dittmer
posted by maggie at 5:30 PM | Link |

More Caitlin Flanagan/Terry Mattingly

"More than anything else, said Flanagan, her critics are furious with her for admitting that "something is lost" when women leave their children at home and return to the office. Of course, Flanagan also emphasizes that women make real sacrifices and suffer highly personal losses when they stay at home.

In her book, she writes: "What few will admit -- because it is painful, because it reveals the unpleasant truth that life presents a series of choices, each of which precludes a host of other attractive possibilities -- is that whatever decision a woman makes, she will lose something of incalculable value."

This is a controversial statement, Flanagan told me, "not because it is wrong, but because it is true." . . .
posted by maggie at 10:59 AM | Link |

Same-sex civil partnerships in Britain (Guardian) / Jon Rauch

6,500 couples opt for civil partnerships but ceremony creates new problems

Hugh Muir
Tuesday August 8, 2006

Guardian

It was an act hailed by ministers and activists alike, sweeping aside decades of inequality. The latest figures reveal that 6,516 same sex couples have opted to cement their relationships by entering into civil partnerships since the legislation came into force last December. The famous ones, such as Elton John and his partner David Furnish, have captured headlines.

But new academic research into the issue of civil partnerships shows that the revised arrangement, while bringing much needed clarity, has quietly thrown up new problems. Some are political, such as the need to face friends who believe opting for a civil partnership represents "selling out" to heterosexual norms or succumbing to "heteronormativity".

Others involve matters of etiquette. Should a couple who have reached an accommodation with their parents about their sexuality risk that accord by inviting close family to the ceremony? And what about wider family? Is it sensible to have one's friends - who approve of a same sex relationship - at the same reception as that tipsy, slightly reactionary uncle - who probably does not.

Professor Carol Smart, who led the research involving 54 couples, said: "We found that the reasons couples enter into a civil partnership can vary according to their age, whether they have children, their need to access certain legal rights, and their views on the institution of marriage itself. We found an overall level of acceptance from families. However, at the other extreme some gay men and lesbians experienced telling their families of their plans to be like 'coming out' again. For some parents it meant that they could no longer assume that their son or daughter was going through a 'phase' that they would grow out of." She said friends could also pose problems. "While some could be entirely supportive, others saw it as a capitulation to heterosexual norms and to straight society."

Couples, who were interviewed before and after the legislation came into effect, have chosen a variety of ceremonies including Shamanic, Pagan, Christian and humanist. Most involved parents or other close relatives in their ceremonies but 22% decided against inviting parents. "Sometimes this was because parents had never accepted their son or daughter's sexuality and so were unlikely to welcome an invitation. But in other cases individuals did not want to risk homophobic relatives being unpleasant to their other guests at the ceremony," the report says.

Those who did invite parents said this appeared to have "enhanced their sense of closeness" and put their partners on a new footing with their families.

Those couples who proceeded despite the "heteronormativy" issue did so "either because they felt they had important reasons to marry which would outweigh the criticism, or because they did not agree that by getting married their values would suddenly change".

Most welcomed the financial safeguards achieved by entering into a civil partnership but 80% said they had made wills to safeguard their partner prior to the legislation taking effect....

Most civil partnerships have occurred in the south.

By March 31, 238 had taken place in Westminster, 236 in Brighton and Hove and 194 in Kensington and Chelsea. There were 36 in Newcastle but just five in Neath, South Wales....
posted by Jon at 7:59 AM | Link |

New Study: How Keeping a Diary Improves Relationships

[James Pennebaker, a coauthor of the new study in the August 2006 Psychological Science, has done a lot of interesting research on the health benefits of expressivity. (People who, for example, disclose their emotional troubles to a tape recorder, and then threw the tape away, did better on a vareity of outcomes including less illness. Linda Waite points out this is probably part of the explanation for why married people (and men in particular) are healthier: having a spouse who will listen to you grouse actually makes you healthier even if the spouse only grunts and rolls over afterwrds. . .I wonder if any marriage educators/therapist have taken note of this effect and made use of it in their programming? And makes me think maybe the Victorians were onto something. . . Maggie]

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Words: The Social Effects of Expressive Writing. Richard B. Slatcher and James W. Pennebaker, Psych Science August 2006

"ABSTRACT—Writing about emotional experiences is associated with a host of positive outcomes. This study extended the expressive-writing paradigm to the realm of romantic relationships to examine the social effects of writing. For 3 consecutive days, one person from each of 86 dating couples either wrote about his or her deepest thoughts and feelings about the relationship or wrote about his or her daily activities. In the days before and after writing, instant messages were collected from the couples. Participants who wrote about their relationship were significantly more likely to still be dating their romantic partners 3 months later. Linguistic analyses of the instant messages revealed that participants and their partners used significantly more positive and negative emotion words in the days following the expressive-writing manipulation if the participants had written about their relationship than if they had written about their daily activities. Increases in positive emotion words partially mediated the relation between expressive writing and relationship stability."
posted by maggie at 2:31 PM | Link |

New Study: Adopted Girls Experience Large Increase in Risk of Early Puberty

[Girls in father-absent homes enter puberty earlier than girls from intact family. There are two major hypotheses about what the causal link might be: a "stress" explanation (under stressful conditions girls are primed to enter puberty earlier for evolutionary biological reasons), and "pheromonal" explanation: (girls who live with biologically unrelated adult males enter puberty earlier). These of course are not mutually exclusive. Both could be true, or neither. A new Pediatrics study suggests to me the pheromonal explanation may be more powerful, although not controlling. . .Maggie]

Grete Teilman et. al, "Increase Risk of Precocious Puberty in Internationally Adopted Children in Denmark, PEDIATRICS 118(2) August 2006.

"METHODS. Patients who were registered with the diagnosis of precocious puberty during the period 1993–2001 were identified through the national patient registry. The background population of children born from 1983 to 2001 were identified through the unique Danish Civil Registration System and subsequently categorized as being Danish (N = 1062333), adopted (N = 10997), immigrating with their family (N = 72181), or being descendants of immigrants (N = 128152). . .

CONCLUSIONS. Foreign-adopted children originating from regions other than Korea had a 15- to 20-fold increased risk of precocious puberty compared with Danish-born children, whereas adoptees originating from Korea had no increased risk of precocious puberty. In addition, children immigrating with their families had no increased risk of precocious puberty. The effect of country of origin might be explained by genetic factors or by different environmental exposures and living conditions in the different countries. Older age at adoption increased the risk for premature onset of puberty, which may suggest that environmental factors influence the risk of precocious pubertal development in adopted children."
posted by maggie at 12:46 PM | Link |

Colorado Marriage Battle: New Tactic

August 7, 2006

"A new strategy to win legal recognition for same-sex couples is emerging in Colorado, a state that is a bulwark of the conservative Christian movement. At least one constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples is expected to be submitted here today for the statewide November ballot. But some gay rights organizations in the state are not fighting it.

Instead, they are supporting an initiative to define the rights of people in domestic partnerships, rights that largely parallel those of married couples under Colorado law. Nowhere has such a measure been put to a statewide vote.

"We feel really strongly that people need something positive to vote for rather than just being against the marriage ban," said Sean Duffy, executive director of Coloradans for Fairness and Equality, the group campaigning for domestic partnerships.

The controversial tactic could become a model for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights organizations nationwide after two major legal defeats in state courts this year and passage of same-sex marriage bans in 19 states since 2004. Marriage bans will be on ballots in at least seven more states this November.

"When gay marriage has gone 0-19 at the polls -- including in Oregon, which is not a bastion of Reaganism -- it's time for something different," said Duffy, who describes himself as a conservative Christian Republican. Duffy, who said he is heterosexual, previously worked for the state's Republican governor, Bill Owens. He said he sees gay rights as being parallel to school choice and other conservative concerns. . ."
posted by maggie at 9:48 AM | Link |

Gay, Mormon, Married

Mixed Orientation Marriages/Salt Lake Tribune

"Ben Christensen, who is gay, knows the odds are against his marriage. Jessie Christensen, who is not, knows it, too. Still, the Christensens are cautiously optimistic that their mixed-orientation relationship can work. . .Now Ben and Jessie have two children, 3-year-old Sophie and 2-month-old Timothy. They have shared their experiences with other Mormon mixed-orientation couples who have established a community in cyberspace. In the past year, Web logs dealing with their issues have proliferated. The conversations are wide-ranging, poignant and often eloquent. . .

"I didn't want to marry her just to prove to myself and others that I was normal, or to avoid hurting her feelings, or because it was the right thing to do. I wanted to marry her because I loved her and I wanted to be with her. Which I was pretty sure I did," Ben wrote last year in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. "What it came down to was making a decision between doing what my heart wanted or doing what my libido wanted. I wished I could have both, but I knew that was impossible."

Later, he received a kind of divine assurance, urging him to "Jump. Jump into the big, scary, unknown darkness. Don't look back." And so he jumped, and he doesn't regret it. Sexual intimacy is something they have to work on, they say. Sometimes it's a problem, many times it's not. . .

Jason has accepted his gayness and doesn't care if it never goes away. "My attractions are as potent as any normal male's. I feel stirrings for other men with the frequency that men feel sexual stirrings, and let's be honest, that's a lot," he says. "On the Kinsey scale, I'm as gay as they come."

As Jason anticipated making love to his wife for the first time, the thought was repulsive. He had a gnawing anxiety that he wouldn't be able to do it. But he was. "I am surprised at how fulfilling my sex life is with my wife," he says. "It definitely exceeded my expectations."

In conversations online, Jason uses the name "Another Other" to symbolize his outsider status. He doesn't belong to the straight world because of his attractions to men, but he's not part of the gay community because of his marriage to a woman.

"I am accepted neither by the normal Joe nor by the group that shares my plight," he says. "To one I am an anomaly, to the other I'm some sort of traitor to the cause."

He started his blog, gaymormonandmarried.blogspot.com, so people could know there are options other than celibacy, a totally gay lifestyle or "marrying a girl to see if you can get better." Voices in the gay ex-Mormon community are very loud online, Jason says. They are adamant that the church's position is wrong and that living as a gay man is the only viable, authentic choice. Jason disagrees.

"I wanted to disprove the idea that those that got married only did so because they hadn't accepted their gayness, or were in denial, and that their marriage would inevitably end in failure," he says. "I wanted people to know that there is hope for genuine happiness, which is something I honestly feel every single day."
posted by maggie at 9:43 AM | Link |

Measuring Culture Change: Baby Names/Maggie Gallagher

This website run by the Social Security Administration allows you to check the top 20 baby names for every year since 1880. There appears to be a cycle for girls names. Names that start out meaning 'young girl', come to mean 'old lady', and are avoided for a generation before being recycled. New names come into style (Brianna anyone?).

But I noticed one large exception: Pick virtually any years before 1965, and the number one (or very occasionally the number 2) girls' name in America is "Mary". Between 1966 and 1976, "Mary" steadily falls out of favor as a girls' name, slipping down to the bottom half of the top 20 list.

Until in 1976, it drops off the list of top 20 names. I don't know what it means. But 85 years of naming baby girls "Mary" suddenly stopped between 1965 and 1975. . .
posted by maggie at 11:09 PM | Link | 2 comments

End of Comments Section

Just to let you know I've decided to end the comments feature on this website. I want to thank all of you who've participated in this way. Maggie
posted by maggie at 10:49 PM | Link | 8 comments

Facing Middle Age with No Degree and No Wife/NYT

[One point barely mentioned in this story: When one out of five men is facing middle age with no wife, a whole lot of kids are growing up with no father. . .Maggie]

". . .About 18 percent of men ages 40 to 44 with less than four years of college have never married, according to census estimates. That is up from about 6 percent a quarter-century ago. Among similar men ages 35 to 39, the portion jumped to 22 percent from 8 percent in that time. . .

In 1980, only 6 percent of men in their early 40’s at all levels of education and 5 percent of women in their early 40’s had never married. By 2004, this portion had increased to 16.5 percent of men and about 12.5 percent of women. . .

The course of Mr. Thomas’s life has been determined as much by his finances as by circumstance or his own character. He is a tall, athletic man with cropped, George Clooney-style hair who projects a kind and upbeat persona — surely a catch to some women in Fort Collins. Yet Mr. Thomas, who was laid off from Lockheed Martin as the electronics industry shifted jobs overseas, has experienced so much job insecurity that for most of his adult life, a stable economic foundation has eluded him.

It is only now, working for Hewlett-Packard, that he has been able to pay off debts and build a nest egg. The job, however, which pays about $56,000 a year, could end next year, leaving Mr. Thomas, who would like to begin a lower-paying career as a graphic designer, feeling a greater urgency to save.

One way he has cut costs is by giving up his expensive one-bedroom apartment. Two years ago, he rented a room in a town house from Anna Mahoney, a single woman four years his junior. They pool household purchases and buy in bulk. Their platonic friendship serves as a stand-in for their families, who live out of state.

Yet their domesticity has also bred a level of intimacy that can alienate romantic partners. Ms. Mahoney frequently refers to herself and Mr. Thomas as "we." Mr. Thomas dutifully churns the oil in the jars of almond butter and takes out the garbage.

"She always says: 'You're going to be my roommate forever. Then when I get married, you're going to live in my basement,'" Mr. Thomas said. "I'm like, 'Pleeease. When you start dating, I’m going to be so out of there.'"

When Mr. Thomas fell in love last year and began bringing his girlfriend to the town house, Ms. Mahoney complained that his girlfriend, a 33-year-old dialysis technician, was sloppy. Meanwhile, his girlfriend objected to the time that he spent with Ms. Mahoney, Mr. Thomas said.

"It was a constant form of stress," he said. The two had discussed moving in together, but the bickering made them wonder if it was a good idea. In February, after one year together, they broke up.

"I miss her horribly," Mr. Thomas said quietly one recent Saturday after stopping at a health store to buy vitamins on Ms. Mahoney’s shopping list. . .

Between 1979 and 2003, the earnings of men with a few years of college but no degree barely kept up with inflation, while those for women rose by 20 percent in real terms. For high school graduates with no college experience, men's earnings declined 8 percent over the period, while women's advanced 12 percent. . .

Though many unmarried men and women do end up living together, cohabitation is a less stable arrangement. There is a 43 percent chance that a couple living together will split up within three years, compared with a 12 percent chance for a breakup of a first marriage in that time. "It's more like a stopgap," said Andrew J. Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

In 2005 there were nearly 5 million households of unmarried partners of the opposite sex, according to census estimates, up from 1.6 million in 1980. In 2004, 36 percent of babies were born to unmarried women.

As a response to some of these trends, many women with limited education have turned theirs sights on 'marrying up,' choosing men who may be older, more established and more educated.

"Why would you want to be in a stable relationship with somebody who is unstable?" asked Ketny Jean-Francois, a never-married 30-something from the Bronx who has supported her 3-year-old son on her unemployment check and food stamps since leaving her job as a security guard a year ago. "It's a myth that all women want to marry."

Ms. Rudolph has sworn off blue-collar men. For a man to be marriage material, "you have to have a job; you have to be educated; you have your own apartment and a car," she said. "Both have to contribute something."

She speaks from experience. She married her high school boyfriend right after graduation, a 2-week-old baby in arms. But her husband, who never graduated, was unemployed for most of their marriage, and the couple broke up after six years.

Determined to find a man who had better prospects, Ms. Rudolph entered a relationship with a basketball player and had three children with him. It ended when she learned he was married to someone else, a revelation that left her badly shaken. "I don't trust men to marry them," she said.

Joe Callender, 47, a retired New York City corrections officer and a father of four, has had long-term relationships with two women but has never married. One obstacle, he admits, has been his own infidelity.

"Marriage, that's sacred to me; I'm committed to you for the rest of my life, my last breath," Mr. Callender said, describing his vision of the institution. "I'm not cheating, looking. Work, home, that’s it. It's you and me against the world."

. . .Beyond the questions of finances and health, there is the issue of how content these men are. All the men interviewed for this article looked younger than their age. All said they were happy with their lives, even Mr. Cunningham, with his clear longing for a family of his own, and Mr. Thomas, of Fort Collins, who said he might move to Denver to meet more women.

Mr. Ryan, too, said he enjoyed being single. He stood talking in his kitchen on a Saturday when he had no plans other than a solo bike ride. It was a slow weekend day — his birthday, in fact — and though the phone never rang, he was free for dinner."
posted by maggie at 8:16 PM | Link | 1 comments