Marriage: a dying institution?
I'm piggybacking on a blog from on of our sister publications, The News-Herald. A blog from their staff writer, Jim Kasuba, asks the question, "Are we likely to be attending many 40th and 50th wedding anniversaries in the future or is that a thing of the past?"
Speaking as a never-been-married, 27-year-old female, yes; it is most definitely a thing of the past.
I know, sounds rather brash of me to make such a quick decision, right? But consider this: most of my generation is flailing at even making it on their own. A New York Times magazine article last year even essentially stated that we are "slackers" when really, most of the time, we can't afford the cost of living, even while gainfully employed. We are the new depression-era generation as far as I'm concerned.
With inflation rates rising, college loans looming and the general state of the economy, most of us 20-somethings, and indeed 30-somethings, have a lot more important things to worry about than "true love." No health insurance, poor job prospects and in debt up to our eyeballs due to college ... the anxiety can really keep you up at night. Being lonely can really take a backseat to these issues.
Sorry, Shakespeare and other classic romance storytellers, but fate and whoever may soulmate might be will have to wait until I have my life in order.
It's very sweet to think that past generations would marry before they had their career going or before they had their own home, but honestly, who can afford taking a chance anymore? I've seen a few others around my age marry, only to see them marry into debt, lose their livelihood or divorce in five years.
Yes, I'm a pessimist, but really, isn't it a more realistic, logical approach to wait for marriage or, better yet, not marry at all?
And for the record, I hate that NYT magazine article. It has more unfair generalizations than I can count.
Speaking as a never-been-married, 27-year-old female, yes; it is most definitely a thing of the past.
I know, sounds rather brash of me to make such a quick decision, right? But consider this: most of my generation is flailing at even making it on their own. A New York Times magazine article last year even essentially stated that we are "slackers" when really, most of the time, we can't afford the cost of living, even while gainfully employed. We are the new depression-era generation as far as I'm concerned.
With inflation rates rising, college loans looming and the general state of the economy, most of us 20-somethings, and indeed 30-somethings, have a lot more important things to worry about than "true love." No health insurance, poor job prospects and in debt up to our eyeballs due to college ... the anxiety can really keep you up at night. Being lonely can really take a backseat to these issues.
Sorry, Shakespeare and other classic romance storytellers, but fate and whoever may soulmate might be will have to wait until I have my life in order.
It's very sweet to think that past generations would marry before they had their career going or before they had their own home, but honestly, who can afford taking a chance anymore? I've seen a few others around my age marry, only to see them marry into debt, lose their livelihood or divorce in five years.
Yes, I'm a pessimist, but really, isn't it a more realistic, logical approach to wait for marriage or, better yet, not marry at all?
And for the record, I hate that NYT magazine article. It has more unfair generalizations than I can count.
Labels: marriage