Not long ago, in writing about single women of a certain age, I mentioned Lori Gottlieb and an essay she penned for the Atlantic in 2008, talking about how much it sucks to date in your late 30s once you’ve already had a kid by a sperm donor.
You may have seen that she has expanded on that theme and published a new book, Marry Him! The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. It’s caused quite a ruckus in the mainstream media, but as with most things trumpeted in the press, we’re all getting our panties in a twist over something that has been obvious for quite some time:
There are a very large number of attractive and educated women in their 30s and 40s who are unmarried and childless. Only a tiny fraction are happy about it.
We have, essentially, an entire generation of women who were the primary beneficiaries of the Women’s Movement, who unwittingly sacrificed an important life goal. They have been told by loving and well-meaning parents since they were knee high that they could have it all. They have also been told how incredibly special they are.
You can’t have it all. You can’t all be incredibly special.
I’m not saying you cannot have what you want. But you will need to decide what you want the most, and then you will need to pursue that objective intelligently.
There’s too much good information to pack into one post, so today I’m beginning a series of articles that will explore how we got into this mess, and how you can avoid being a woman unhappily alone in bed at age 40. If you’re between the ages of 18 and 40, you need to know what’s up.
Harsh, I know. But you know I tell it like I see it. If I didn’t, you would eventually figure it out anyway – the media is going to pump out stories on this topic for years to come.
My goal is to help you not be that girl.
The girl who is the main character in a chick lit novel, but doesn’t get the happy ending.
The series will cover the following topics:
1. How Women are Applying Ridiculously High Standards to Potential Mates
2. Various Responses to the Relationship Crisis: Feminists, Men and Single Women Weigh In
3. The New Epidemic of Female Narcissism
4. Cougarism and Other Stopgap Strategies
5. Straight Talk: How This Happened, and How it Will Play Out
Stay tuned – the first post is on its way.
Related posts:
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Marriage may be one of those goals it is not realistic for a certain segment of the population to pursue. I believe that pre-50's it was understood a certain segment of the male population would not get married for reasons of income or temperment or both; it was understood a certain a certain segment of the female population would not get married for reasons of temperment or personals goals or both. The kind of almost universal prosperity that made marriage economically achievable for almost everyone did not happen until the 50's; the idea that a woman could be assertive and hold a serious job and not be allergic to men did not occur until the 60's. The “career woman” is something we associate with the 60's but was around long before that. Remaining unmarried was more acceptable among the Catholic population but was also a fact of life for other religions.
I suspect a lot of these women aren't really cut out to be mothers or even wives and perhaps should come to terms with that. A certain relationship with reality is necessary; a divorced woman with a kid is one thing, a never-married woman with a kid is just repulsive.
See my posts on Sadie Hawkins and bachelors for more of my thoughts.
Looking forward to your posts, Susan!
Omega Man, it may be that some women would not be happy as wives and/or mothers, and in that sense, perhaps they are not “meant to be” those things. One woman I know says, “If you want to find Mr. Right, you find Mr. Right.” There's some truth to that, I think. Women complaining about their single status might be complaining about their marriages if they had made different choices.
I would not agree that a single woman with a kid is repulsive! For starters, there are women who do not intend to become pregnant. There are also women who choose to use sperm donors, and I don't see what's repulsive about that, if they have the means and temperament to raise a child. I do question the wisdom of having a kid and THEN looking for Mr. Right. That really does strike me as getting things backwards.
I will check out your Sadie Hawkins posts!
Historically speaking, marriage in Western civilization has been the norm for over 80% of the population. Married couples had it easier, not harder, and some places it was nigh well impossible for a woman to survive without being married. There were nuns and old maids, but if your social class wasn't high enough, life as a single woman was short and nasty.
The industrial revolution changed that. We use energy far greater than our simple muscle output, and so the brain directing the work is what is important. However, our social structure is much slower to change, it takes generations to react. Attempts to fix this by law have by and large made the problem worse, not better (IMHO).
The pendulum of relative cultural rights has swung far from where it was once held motionless by cold economic reality. It is my belief that it has swung too far, as such things do, and that it will need to swing back a bit before a new equilibrium is reached. That equilibrium will still be far better for women than where it was pre-industrial times, let alone pre-western civilization (the Eskimo practiced female infanticide to ensure tribal survival, for example).
OK Cupid has a sobering analysis on how your desirability changes as you age:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/02/16/th…
Tweell, at the same time that women are shooting themselves in the foot with unrealistic assessments of their own mating value, the number of men wanting to marry has dropped to 78%, which I believe is a new low. This reflects men's assessments of the lopsided legislative climate wrt divorce, child support and custody, as well as the fact that (some) men no longer need to marry to gain access to a steady supply of sex.
Over the short term, the difference between supply (women) and demand (men) will increase, leaving more women disappointed. Of course, the great untapped resource is the men who were most adversely affected by the Sexual Revolution, though if they continue to “drop out,” the pendulum will not swing back readily.
Angharad sent me that this morning, thanks! It's actually one of the pieces that inspired me to tackle this whole question head on.
I've been experimenting with free online dating sites recently and am surprised by how many women in their 30s are “opening” me. Reading about online dating, I thought women never messaged guys and guys had to sent 100s of e-mails to get one response. Reality has been quite different, even when my pictures are subpar (on purpose) and my profile sparse. Still the time investment seems to be on a par with that of meeting women in real life, at least for me. I'll keep it going a couple more months and see if I come to different conclusions.
It'll be interesting to see how the regular feminist sites react to this. Probably ignore it, or say it was heteronormative (thus invalid) or that it's the media giving us guys the wrong images. I mean, is this really a surprise?
“I'm shocked, shocked, that there's gambling going on in here!”
Interesting…I'm looking forward to this series.
Very much looking forward to getting your analysis/perspective on these topics. You strike me as very much a pragmatic realist with a balanced perspective, and it will be good to get a female perspective on some of these topics.
Generally speaking, there really isn't much non-ideological analysis of these subjects coming from women as the die-hard feminist websites tend to view everything through the cultural Marxist/politically correct angle.
Many of these topics have been analyzed quite substantially in the manosphere blogs, MRA, PUA sites but I do think the views there can get a bit extreme, hyperbolic, and lopsided despite generally being accurate. Anyhow, I've found reading you has softened my views a bit and brought thoughtful perspective to many of these subjects.
Incidentally, I think the percentage of men really interested in marrying is going to go much further down from that 78%. The more men who figure out that you don't need to buy the cow to get the milk, and learn how to milk the cow right will drop out as potential husbands unless they meet a really quality woman. I'm very, very lucky that I met a tremendous woman especially after a short stint a bouncer at a bar left me very cynical although I had some “fun” working there.
As you probably know, I live in a college town and am in my mid 30s. I've tried OkCupid, Match, and Eharmony at one time or another, as much for knowledge as to meet somebody. It's shocking how many 30-40 year old women are on there. I agree with Il Capo. I hate to say it (for the sake of 30-40 year old women) but I pretty much don't have to date women in that category. I can find plenty of 25-30 year olds willing to date a guy ten or so years older. A friend of mine dated a 22 year old when he was 40.
You're absolutely right about the chronology. Single women are perfectly capable of raising children, but woe be to the woman who has a child young and then expects to find a man. What I'm seeing around me is that there are a lot of 28 to 32 year olds with young children, and what they're encountering is plenty of men who will casually date them, but precious few who will marry them or commit to raising their child. Words to the wise: If you decide to keep a “whoops” pregnancy in your twenties, get ready for either celibacy or casual dating for a long time… probably until your kid is in high school. There are lots of women who are having the abortions and waiting until they meet the right guy. Morality aside, it lowers the value of women with children even more.
I'm from a country where marriage is still very much the norm and the hookup culture isn't as pervasive (though it's already happening in call centers and some campuses, but not as widespread), so it's fascinating to read about how the Western society is coping with the fact that marriage as an institution is in decline. What I've also noticed nowadays is the number of Western men who prefer to marry Asian women, because of our “perceived submissiveness”–and I say “perceived” because while most Asian women are very feminine and soft-spoken, I don't know many who are pushovers. I wonder if this is also a factor in the marital dilemma you've outlined here.
Hahaha, ENY I love that Casablanca line! I cannot tell you how many times I've used it as a parent.
Don't even get me started on the word heteronormative!
I'd love to draw the ire of Jezebel or Feministing. That would be a fun fight.
Hmmm, Il Capo, that is both interesting and encouraging. I'll be curious to see if they deliver when push comes to shove.
Mike, that is some of the nicest feedback I've ever received, thank you. I do strive for balance – I grew up in the feminist era and honestly? Even as a ten year-old I knew that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” was a crock of shit.
I also have both a son and a daughter, and I'm married to a great guy. Male bashing, which happens frequently in our society, is extremely damaging to boys and young men, and we're going to pay the price, including that plummeting marriage rate.
Mike, that is some of the nicest feedback I've ever received, thank you. I do strive for balance – I grew up in the feminist era and honestly? Even as a ten year-old I knew that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” was a crock of shit.
I also have both a son and a daughter, and I'm married to a great guy. Male bashing, which happens frequently in our society, is extremely damaging to boys and young men, and we're going to pay the price, including that plummeting marriage rate.
Interesting point AT! Are you saying that women can be strong and still appeal to men, as long as they don't lose their femininity? Because I think that is true, at least in my experience.
Same here, Susan. I'm a lawyer, so no shortage of strong women in my circle, but in my experience, most women here still subscribe to the notion of the man taking the lead in a relationship, and be the one doing the pursuing. So you can be strong, you can be a ball-buster, but you should never lose your femininity, because a man is never attracted to masculinity. Yin and yang is still at play no matter what the feminists say. A man NEEDS to feel like the man in a relationship for it to work, and a strong, smart woman will recognize this.
I'm not advocating becoming a simpering idiot who giggles at everything he says. But in my personal experience, while I can voice out my opinions and have had discussions with my husband, I would never undermine his masculinity by putting him down or making a decision alone and insisting that he swallow it. And I always dress in a feminine fashion–men want softness, and they instinctively respond to that. I hate the feminist notion that in order to be equal to men, we MUST become men–it's akin to saying that a feminine woman cannot be a strong woman. I believe our own femininity in itself is quite a potent force to be reckoned with, so I don't see why we must deny ourselves that aspect of womanhood just to prove that we are equal to men.
I agree with this 100%, though I'm not sure I knew this at 25, say. The French saying “Vive la difference” is wise, as most French sayings are, haha.
Strength can be sexy, but it must be soft.
OK then, I've read thought the 'OK Cupid' post on the stats, and I was amused by the one thing that was glaringly obvious that remained unstated.
I'll get to that in a bit (alright, at the end). But I wholeheartedly agree with the premise that ” How Women are Applying Ridiculously High Standards to Potential Mates”. Plenty of guys do this too, BTW, but a bit differently & slightly skewed on the timing. (Mainly being later and only after they've gone though a divorce or a failed LTR).
Still Women are always the more 'pickier' sex. It's what they do, discriminate among the masses to select the few that might make good potential mates. Basic biology, everywhere. So mostly when they're younger this will tend to focus almost exclusively on desirable bodily characteristics (height is almost universal here), and assertions/displays of male aggression/ assertiveness/'game'. Hence you can easily find even 'highly educated' women being gamed by what the outside world would easily recognize as neer-do-well '2 bit punks', but with the 'hot bods', a 'smooth' good game and/or swinging a 'nice piece of meat' rather well. (Ask some of your unmarried gal pals, and many of them will sadly admit to being 'dickmatized' for years or perhaps decades in some unfortunate cases).
Not to put a fine point on it, but the real 'ambient porn' of guys & gals all over the TV & in mags with the movie star looks & hot bods have probably had a more detrimental effect on women's perceptions than have the more obvious porn most guys watch. How do we know this? Their porn is bigger, stronger, and commands more respect and dollars. Gentlemen, I present the Fashion industry to you. Think about it. Up until recently (say 20 years ago), almost exclusively the domain of gay men & the women who loved them & their creations. To this day? Fashion for most guys means matching socks & a clean shirt. Period. And the infamous S Cubed (3) before a date: Sh*t, shower & shave. Perhaps a bit of cologne added on top. All those 'urban hipsters' of recent vintage? Won't hold a candle to even the most bored size 16 housewife in Topeka who follows these fashion trends with a dedication & purpose once reserved for confessing religions.
No, the average consumer for most fashion & images of same are women of all ages, and especially younger women. They're the ones buying the magazines in great numbers, watching all the shows, and are literally the only ones to recognize 'what's in & out' this year vs. next. Besides your gay friends that is. (I know, that's a crude generalization, but broadly true still). No one else has the time to devote to such matters. And the 'average' size model has remained Under a 2 for a Generation or more! How realistic is that? This warps all sense of reality, and literally places the entire context of 'dating' or even meeting in this hyper vigilant world of impossible forms & unobtainable youthful beauty. It's probably some of the most destructive porn on earth, save for the detestable & dangerous kiddie stuff. And really? Most of the kids doing 'high fashion' modeling today are only slightly older than 14-15, so it sort of just grades into each other. (Yes, we're aware of the long history of this too).
So unrealistic expectations abound. Where as in grandma's day it was 'good enough' for a suitor to be 'clean cut, sober, hold a job, come from a nice family/love them still & love my daughter?' Now, it's the prototypical need for Mr. Movie star 'Tall, dark & handsome', and a sterling personality who's forever funny, witty & smart, but with a good 'professional' job, with a stable 6 figure income, possessing a good car & house and an ivy league education & perhaps a keen understanding of a 'feminist perspective & theory' for a Start. Perhaps It's literally only in their 30's & 40's do they waken from this media mediated dream and realize that it's been all a dreadful fantasy that's led them to be a band plaything for the last most productive years of their lives. And there's the secret right there.
The well documented ability of the alpha asshats to monopolize the last possible years of your fertility with their charms. After that? They're done, and they'll let you get back to the pool of 'betas' to pick up the pieces, and go on hunting for 'younger stuff'. In their endless search for ever and better hypergamy, married now with an ever more vigilant insistence on the newer 'mod fashions' of the 'hot bod', many of the younger set are constantly drawn out after attractive Alphas with literally no hope of ever becoming responsible 'dads', but are as ever the reliable 'cads' of fabled yore. Worse still, these cads will often also posses those extra special narcissistic cocktail of 'dark triad' of traits that many will take years and plenty of professional help to recover from.
From which many will finally emerge in their mid 30's to what? A desert of desire, a collapse in their 'typical' market interest as documented by OK Cupid. Once your fertility is played out? Fewer & fewer guys see much of the point anymore. And traditionally? They'd have a point. Is this sometimes foolhardy and silly on many realistic levels with the guys? Sure it is. And there's probably a bit of interest by many still in a LTR after 35. But the demand as seen by OK Cupid (which is probably skewing the results a bit) is still pretty flat, right about where you'd expect a woman's fertility to dramatically decline, after age 35. Which of course is pretty 'natural' too. The guys will forever be drawn to more youthful women, even if after a certain age they'll never quite be fertile. The women are ever drawn to the 'tingle of youth too, the manly stud who can exhaust your imagination in bed. Only later dies the 'jingle' of wealth become intriguing to them, but almost always? The tingle does not predate the jingle on guys of a certain age. But I'm getting ahead of this long story.
Long story short? Biology matters. And if the women OR men are expecting to have some kids of their own or the prospect of an intact happy family? They need to start early, and to jettison as many of their preconceptions as possible about that they 'need' in a mate. Work it down to a 'list' of 5 or less: Smart, Kind, Healthy (which is variable!), employed & well educated. (Just as an example, your mileage may vary!) Start with Just the essentials. Then perhaps round it out a bit. But the 300 or so 'characteristics' that Gottlieb documents for many women in her book? Will not commonly be satisfied soon by the many women (or men) that seek these 'unique creatures'. And that's the point. Would you rather have a family now with some possibilities, or a family later with yes, often fewer possibilities? It sometimes pays to marry later to find 'your special one', and it's brilliant when it happens to you. But for the vast majority? You're playing close to the cliffs edge of human possibilities. And mostly that means you'll more than likely remain alone more often than not. Which of course is not a death sentence, nor really a case for celibacy, but it's a reality few care to imagine for themselves all too often.
Again way to long & digressive. Sorry. Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'
AT, you've become my new hero. You have a great perspective on strength and femininity. Makes me want to move to Asia.
Sorry for any confusion above:
This should now read as in that last paragraph above :
“Long story short? Biology matters. And if the women OR men are expecting to have some kids of their own or the prospect of an intact happy family? They need to start early, and to jettison as many of their preconceptions as possible about what they 'need' in a mate. Work it down to a 'list' of 5 or less: Smart, Kind, Healthy (which is variable!), employed & well educated”.
And Once again it needs to be restated. Lots of stuff on everyone's list is almost wholly arbitrary and have nothing to do with someone's intellect, wisdom, character, kindness or even compatibility. And of course mostly? This typically has to do with mere Numbers. Age (within some rational limits, OK?). Height. Income. And yet this is seemingly impossible for all too many people to actually become more flexible on these points, unfortunately until they are well past their peak reproductive careers. Then and only then does it seem that some ’sense’ creeps into the discussion. That's plenty of otherwise wasted time, often decades too! Cheers, 'VJ'
From personal experience, I would agree they are not pushovers
I went to an engineering school, work in a part of the country with large amounts of sci/tech, and have many Asian friends (my best man was Korean-American), so I've seen a fair amount of that phenomenon. The interesting thing is that, in a lot of those cases, the women in question tend to pick the quality beta males, and not the alpha cads (which is quite unusual). My guess is that many of the women come from first or second generation immigrant families, which still retain a lot of influence from older matriarchal figures. In addition, there tends to be a fair amount of community peer pressure…it's a big deal (and not in a good way) to date a biker dude and not someone with a good educational background.
Whether that will still be the case with third generation and beyond is still to be seen, I suppose.
I must be somewhat unusual. I do believe most people have zero concept of “sexual marketplace dynamics”. However, I remember thinking along these lines when I was younger and seeking a mate and mentally calculating my own relative appeal vs. that of men around me. At the time, I may have underestimated my youth as part of the appeal to older men, but to be honest, I didn't want to marry someone significantly older. I wanted my partner and I to grow older together. My ex is 1 year older than me.
When I re-entered the dating marketplace, I obviously re-ignited my interest in this dynamic. While I was expecting the opposite, my attractiveness “value” seemed higher. Was I physically more attractive? I doubt it. I weigh about what I did in college (with some expected shifting of that weight), I spend a bit more time and money on beauty and health (but a lot less on fashion). I'm more confident and less stressed about my biological clock. What's the difference?
If I figure it out, I'll let you know. LOL!
VJ, I like your list of 5 critical requirements. I'd throw humor in there, but yeah, this is what it's all about. 300 characteristics? Unique creatures for sure, possibly even unicorns! You'd need a good software program just to design the prototype.
Popular culture wreaks havoc with both men and women, but girls are getting LOTS of “ambient” bad advice this way from a young age. Women's magazines, with their advice and their hot sex tips, Sex and the City, every happy ending in every chick flick. It's created a kind of toxicity. We're all living in a virtual chick lit novel, and we demand our happy ending. We're astounded when the plot doesn't unfold as expected.
A reality check is overdue. The 40 somethings will continue to talk about this, and unfortunately, most of them will not get what they want. The best thing that could come out of this “epiphany” is for women in their 20s to think to themselves, “Not me!”
My favorite chart in that article is the “How A Person's Desirability Changes With Time” one. Yes, at every age past 25 or so, a woman is less attractive than a man of the same age. But, if you draw a horizontal line, you'll notice that men are really only a few years ahead in that. We're not talking about 45yo men and 22yo women. We're talking about 42yo women and 45yo men.
There are always outliers. Yes, a few particularly successful 45yo men might date 20 years younger. A few of those may even marry women that much younger. I've probably dated more men in their 20s than most men my age. (And by “dated” I mean actual dates, not hookups in cougar bars.)
But for most of us? We match up within a few years either way.
Aldonza, that is interesting. It's true that not all women will age in the same way, and those blessed with good genes may indeed see their relative value increase. Also, women grow into their looks differently, as do men. Some people are actually more attractive older than younger. If you're not looking to have more children, then your fertility is not an issue, and you can focus on men in the same boat. That's one advantage a woman over 40 can offer: she will not demand a second family of a man who already has one. And of course, not all men can attract younger women, even if they want to. That's also a necessary reality check.
Again, I'm talking relative terms. Am *I* more attractive now than if I were standing next to a 25yo me? Probably not. But I *am* more attractive standing next to the average 40-something woman who is realistically competing for the same men.
Nobody will deny the reality that all men do prefer younger-looking women, and I'm sure a lot of them do try to date younger, but in actuality, they date and marry much closer in age. Is that because younger women don't want to date much older men? Or because much older men prefer more mature women? PUAs would have us believe it to be because young women are poisoned by feminists against dating older men. But my experience has been that most men prefer to have relationships with social peers. It just helps if the woman their age *looks* younger.
In my own social sphere, men remarry women of roughly the same age. Maybe they go five years younger. I'm not sure about the cause and effect, but I have never seen a 50 year-old guy walk in with some blonde bombshell aged 30. He'd need to have a lot of cash/power/fame to pull that off, I think.
Of course, smart women are always wary of available men dating “down” with bimbos. We want them to value intelligence, and some do, but not all. Definitely not all.
That's a great mantra right there re strength, Susan.
Sometimes I think this is where women took a wrong turn with feminism–trying to BE men in every way, and well, look how that's worked out. Equality doesn't mean we have to be exact clones of each other. As Susan says, “Vive la difference!”
And thank you so much, hamby. You also make a lot of good points–do you have a blog I can visit?
aldonza, that you didn't gain weight at all since college is enough to make you more attractive than most women your age. Most women in the US pick a lot of pounds from 25 to 40. Especially those who get married.
About younger women with older men: it's a trade-off. Hotter: yes. Higher-maintenance: also yes. The older man who is seriously dating a young hottie needs to be on top of his game to keep it going. Natural alphas can pull it off, and cads can pull it off until she realizes he won't commit, but most guys end up compromising hotness in return for peace of mind.
{ 1 trackback }