RSS Feeds
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
posted by Erica McClain at
2:00 PM
2 Comments:
Hmmm, an interesting but, yes, pessimistic attitude. Look at that NYT article again and think about how the attributes described match with your conclusion that early marriage is doomed by, "see(ing) them marry into debt, lose their livelihood or divorce in five years." What about the counter arguments? A discussion before marriage would reveal financial issues. No one is immune to losing their livelihood, but having two incomes definitely can reduce the chances of a complete loss of income for a household. Also, two can live cheaper than one - one rent, one heating and electric bill, and cheaper to cook for 2 than 1. This should make addressing long term debt from tuition, etc., easier to deal with. And assuming children are desired, if there is going to be a divorce aren't you better off marrying someone that might be the one and waiting to have children to "make sure" it will work out? And having two jobs can make it more likely that one of you has a "good" job with health care benefits, or overlapping marginal care which combined provides better coverage.
You haven't really made an argument for your position here except, "It would be hard to be married nowadays..." News flash - it has ALWAYS been hard!
My issue with the NYT article is that it makes the assumption that 20-somethings don't want to grow up.
I'm not sure what your counter-argument has to do with being married, though. Don't you think a couple can live together and reap the benefits of a shared income without being married? Marriage with the thought of children is an entirely different matter ...
Sorry that you didn't enjoy my posting, but I wasn't trying to get too in depth with issue or all inclusive -- I'm sure it could get to a thesis length otherwise. I'm new to the blog world, so I'm still trying to figure out the best way to write for it.
Either way, thank you for your thoughts and comment. Glad to see people out there are reading. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home