Discussion for article #236494
I think mothers may also be nudging the marriage rate numbers down. There was a time when mothers aspired for their daughters to be married; it made them feel as though their daughters would be taken care of. But modern life has shown us “happily ever after” is an apocryphal tale that often leaves young women struggling to raise children on their own.
Since my daughter was college age, I’ve counseled her that she din’t need to be married to have children, but whether she is single or married, she absolutely needs to make sure she can financially support herself and her children on what she alone makes.
While there are certainly many mothers my age who dream of planning their daughters’ weddings, there’s also a growing group who are more vocal about shepherding their daughters around the systemic land mines that are inherent in marriage, in order that they can achieve an independent and self-sufficient life style.
3 Likes
“Marriage isn’t fundamental anymore. It’s aspirational.” Bullshit.
I do family law and a lot of pro bono work with poor parents whose inability to care for their children has resulted in the children being taken into the care of the state. Maybe two of the 100 or so parents I represent each year are in living (if not always thriving) marriages. With marriage and a couple working at it you get commitment and more economic security. It really is better for the kids to have two parents around, if for no other reason than because not every day in the life of one parent is a good one. Not every marriage should survive, and no one has to get married, but to say it is not fundamental to the kind of society we want to have is just wrong. There are lots of good reasons to get divorces, and not every marriage is healthy for every kid, but I know of no one working with poor families who will say that a child with two parents committed to their own relationship and their children never trumps a single parent raising a kid.
5 Likes
As the parent of a millennial or three, I was with you up until the part of having a kid or two before marriage. Children are a lifetime commitment for both parents. Children deserve the security of a permanent relationship among those parents. If you are not ready to commit to a marriage, you should seriously consider whether you are ready to commit to a child. I would suggest that if you are not ready for both, you’re not ready for either.
5 Likes
You are a wise mother.
Amanda hits the upsides of late marriage (and she’s not wrong with them, though I agree with commenters who say elective single parenthood is more of an upper-middle class and rich person’s thing). Some downsides to late marriage, at least if you have kids:
• You’re going to miss a lot more of your childrens’ lives. If you start around having kids near age 40, and you’ll see them up to their 40’s. Contrast with if you start a familiy in your early 20’s: you could easily see your kids turn 60. If your kids follow in your footsteps and start families later, you’re going to be pretty old by the time they get to be parents. It’s a whole different ball game than if you started earlier.
• You’re going to be in the most labor-intensive parts of parenthood as you hit middle age, and you’ll be in your late fifties as they go through teen years. You won’t be an empty nester till near or past retirement. This may not be optimal, to say the least.
The divorce rate in relation to the marriage rate is going down, or, bluntly put, the chance that your personal marriage is going to end in divorce has gone down.
A whole lot of couples are living separated because they can’t afford the cost of a divorce, that’s why “the divorce rate in relation to the marriage rate is going down”.
“Consultations” with a lawyer, 1 hour of his/her time so that you can decide if they are worthy of being hired, costs anywhere between $250 and $350/hour. On average a retainer for a non litigation divorce is anywhere between $5,000 and $10,000. Litigation with minimal assets sets a person back $50,000 at a minimum and this is for each party. How can a blue collar or even a white collar couple afford that kind of money? Then there is alimony and child support.
I have two boys but I would tell them the same if I had girls: DON’T GET MARRIED!!! Or do so at your own risk and peril.
3 Likes
I knew a woman who was part of one of those couples that decided to have children before marriage – and didn’t marry. The legal battles were vicious, especially because everything was in his name. She lost everything, including custody of the child and eventually regular visitation of the child because she had nothing, not even a vehicle, to survive with. She also couldn’t hold a decent enough job to pay child support after it all went to hell.
I’m glad more people are not rushing into marriage – and in some cases not rushing into having children. As the divorce statistics show, it’s good to wait to at least after age 25, but according to the author’s link on having children (Washington Post), 39 percent of cohabitating couples that have kids break up within five years. How is this different from a divorce to the child?
Also, is it really a choice if millenials can’t afford the luxury of marriage, much less a divorce? Economics are everything. When people married in the 1950s-1980s, it was always the start of adulthood not just because of a wedding but because of the prospect of decent jobs. Now they have student loans and lousy jobs or – if lucky – just lousy jobs.
This, to me, isn’t showing a good thing. It’s showing another flashpoint in what will become an economic war as people have less and less.
2 Likes
I also think some factors as to why marriage is put off for later is due to extreme stress. Things like living with your parents until your in your late 20’s/early 30’s coupled with the “Bridezilla” phenomenon and I think it’s created a view of marriage as being part unrealistic/part side show. I’d say the idealism factor isn’t quite as prevalent as before.
Most young people nowadays realize “happily ever after” is only a fairy tale.
1 Like
If you want to stabilize the traditional family unit, then surely you are for:
• affordable and easy access to birth control. Nothing insures that a child will be raised in a single family household more than being born to parents who are too young to adequately shoulder the responsibility.
• mandating a livable wage for workers. While conservatives like to promote the idea that marriage makes people more financially secure, that only holds true for people who have safety nets already in place. Few things place a strain on marriage like living hand to mouth. It’s also interesting to note that young people these days are putting off marriage because of financial reasons. If you want to see marriage rates go up, then raise the minimum wage, fix the skyrocketing cost of college tuition loans, and enact universal health care. A decent salary, affordable loans, and paid for health care are the sort of safety nets that people in successful marriages often have prior to saying “I do.” Marriage doesn’t magically make two people more financially secure. It’s much more likely that financial security increases the likelihood that marriages succeed.
• fighting against gender stereotypes. There’s just no valid reason why women shouldn’t make the same pay as men when job and experience are commensurate. And the reason why women have been deemed the one best to parent is because so many men aren’t given the encouragement and training to step into the role. Family leave for fathers would produce a bond with children that is often inadequate. I see this changing, slowly, but again, it is usually an option for those who have a level of financial security that most don’t.
The old “you have to stay married for the sake of the children” trope is not only antiquated, but has shown itself to be ineffective.
1 Like
Hooray!! It looks like my husband and I and other same-sex couples have achieved our longtime goal of destroying marriage!
2 Likes
Seems to me that bakers/florists better hope for an upsurge in same sex marriages to keep things going. Wonder if this is God’s way of telling them it’s okay, go ahead and do your job.
Marriage doesn’t bond couples; having children does. You don’t need to be married to have kids or stay together, just commitment. As economists Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson (who advises President Obama), who are not married, have said: > “Marriage is a contract between two people about how to organize their lives together. But modern marriage is a one-size-fits-all contract — a default written by the state legislatures. It makes no sense to me that I would want to sign the same contract with Justin that you sign with your partner. So we didn’t take the standard off-the-shelf contract that we call marriage. Instead, we’ve talked at length about what is important to each of us, and it’s that Betsey-and-Justin-specific agreement that guides our lives together. And as anyone who has studied divorce knows, the formal marriage contract doesn’t actually bind our future selves. But I have something far more enduring with Justin than a wedding certificate: We have an amazing daughter, who will bind us together for, well, until death do us part.” What matters is that the two parents, who do not have to be married, love each other or even live together, co-parent and give their children what they need: love, stability, consistency and a relatively conflict-free home.
We don’t need more marriages; we need more happy marriages. Amanda, you are right that it’s nothing to wring our hands about. But, you do miss one point, and this is an important point: because we are living longer than ever before (some predict we are close to making 150 years), Millennials will end up being married for longer than generations before them, even if they delay marriage. On that note, why is longevity the only marker of a “successful” marriage, especially since we’ve all seen marriages that made it until death but were loveless, sexless and full of contempt. What’s successful about that? The marriage model we have right now is shame-based and it no longer fits who we are and how we live today, and what we expect from the institution. Here’s what I predict we’ll be seeing soon – more monogamish marriages, more parenting partnerships and more multiple marriages.