This is a doozie of an article that I just read in The Atlantic. We all like chatting about this stuff: the disconnect between men and women today and the peculiar place both single men and women in their 30s are in. It’s such a HUGE issue and we all try to grapple with the reasons, the ways forwards etc. Wondered why it’s such a barbeque stopper? Read on…
Image by Tierney Gearon
I’ve written about this stuff many times before, how women give away their feminine power and some other discussions here and here on the current relationship biso.
The Atlantic article by Kate Bolick is worth a read in full, but I thought I’d pull out some points that sparked debates in my own head. Take a deep breath:
What’s happening now on the relationship landscape is monumental, just to be sure:
“The transformation is momentous—immensely liberating and immensely scary. When it comes to what people actually want and expect from marriage and relationships, and how they organize their sexual and romantic lives, all the old ways have broken down.”
Bolick outlines in great detail how women’s wages are increasing more than men’s (in the US), are more educated etc than men, and cites the various reports on “the end of men” (which is a bigger issue in the US where the GFC hit male professions mostly):
If, in all sectors of society, women are on the ascent, and if gender parity is actually within reach, this means that a marriage regime based on men’s overwhelming economic dominance may be passing into extinction.
Or to quote Gloria Steinham: “We’re becoming the men we wanted to marry.” I see this everywhere. But I don’t know that it’s doing us any favours – it’s defeminising women and emasculating men and confusing the whole equation. But Bolick provides this:
Now that women are financially independent, and marriage is an option rather than a necessity, we are free to pursue what the British sociologist Anthony Giddens termed the “pure relationship,” in which intimacy is sought in and of itself and not solely for reproduction.
Now that we can pursue our own status and security, and are therefore liberated from needing men the way we once did, we are free to like them more, or at least more idiosyncratically, which is how love ought to be, isn’t it?
One would think so, but….Behold “the new scarcity”:
American women as a whole have never been confronted with such a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be “marriageable” men—those who are better educated and earn more than they do. So women are now contending with what we might call the new scarcity. Even as women have seen their range of options broaden in recent years—for instance, expanding the kind of men it’s culturally acceptable to be with, and making it okay not to marry at all—the new scarcity disrupts what economists call the “marriage market” in a way that in fact narrows the available choices, making a good man harder to find than ever.
And this, explaining what is going on right now. We all know it does…the way single blokes in their 30s, with so many options, are able to play a certain game…
In their 1983 book, Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question, two psychologists developed what has become known as the Guttentag-Secord theory, which holds that members of the gender in shorter supply are less dependent on their partners, because they have a greater number of alternative relationships available to them; that is, they have greater “dyadic power” than members of the sex in oversupply. How this plays out, however, varies drastically between genders.
In societies where men heavily outnumber women—in what’s known as a “high-sex-ratio society”—women are valued and treated with deference and respect and use their high dyadic power to create loving, committed bonds with their partners and raise families. Rates of illegitimacy and divorce are low. Women’s traditional roles as mothers and homemakers are held in high esteem. In such situations, however, men also use the power of their greater numbers to limit women’s economic and political strength, and female literacy and labor-force participation drop.
One might hope that in low-sex-ratio societies—where women outnumber men—women would have the social and sexual advantage. (After all, didn’t the mythical all-female nation of Amazons capture men and keep them as their sex slaves?) But that’s not what happens: instead, when confronted with a surplus of women, men become promiscuous and unwilling to commit to a monogamous relationship.
Because men take advantage of the variety of potential partners available to them, women’s traditional roles are not valued, and because these women can’t rely on their partners to stick around, more turn to extrafamilial ambitions like education and career.
She cites some interesting shifts already happening, ie women marrying younger blokes. I think this is really very liberating – busting the rules and morays to get to love and connection. I like this factoid:
The same goes for couples where the woman is taller. Dalton Conley, the dean for the social sciences at New York University, recently analyzed data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and found a 40 percent increase, between 1986 and 2003, in men who are shorter than their wives. (Most research confirms casual observation: when it comes to judging a prospective mate on the basis of looks, women are the more lenient gender.)
And, this familiar idea that happens with blokes: “marriage o’clock”.
….when a man hits 35 and suddenly, desperately, wants a wife. I’ll never forget the post-first-date e-mail message reading: “I wanted to marry you last night, just listening to you.” Nor the 40-ish journalist who, on our second date, driving down a long country road, gripped the steering wheel and asked, “Are you The One? Are you The One?” (Can you imagine a woman getting away with this kind of behavior?) Like zealous lepidopterists, they swoop down with their butterfly nets, fingers aimed for the thorax, certain that just because they are ready for marriage and children, I must be, too.
I totally get this take on the benefit of being in a relationship – it’s kind of my one lament that I voice:
At times I’ve envied my married friends for being able to rely on a spouse to help make difficult decisions
And by way of wrapping up, she sort of concludes that the shifts happening are GOOD, because they’re getting us to question whether relationships are meant to be everything we try to make them be these days. I love these arguments…about how our notion of “love” is such a modern concept and that previously we partnered as an economic contract. Have we made our lives complicated by thinking it should be about more? She provides this:
Until the mid-19th century, the word love was used to describe neighborly and familial feelings more often than to describe those felt toward a mate, and same-sex friendships were conducted with what we moderns would consider a romantic intensity.
Some even believe that the pair bond, far from strengthening communities (which is both the prevailing view of social science and a central tenet of social conservatism), weakens them, the idea being that a married couple becomes too consumed with its own tiny nation of two to pay much heed to anyone else. In 2006, the sociologists Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian published a paper concluding that unlike singles, married couples spend less time keeping in touch with and visiting their friends and extended family, and are less likely to provide them with emotional and practical support.
And finally, shifting focus!
I definitely noticed an increase in my own contentment when I began to develop and pay more attention to friendships with women who, like me, have never been married. Their worldviews feel relaxingly familiar, and give me the space to sort through my own ambivalence.
I don’t know that I came to the end with a discernible view of things. But I certainly found the various points fascinating. I think single 30-somethings often wonder why the issue is so much bigger for them than just being a little bit lonely, or missing a boat or….whatever. Often these issues aren’t really THE issues. The REAL issue is how these shifts are shifting everything else. I mean, this is AN INTERESTING ISSUE. And if you’re 30-something and single, you’re at the coalface of it all. And so people want to discuss it with YOU. And you want to understand what’s going on because, well, you stick out.
Anyway, I think it’s good and true and comforting to know something bigger is going on….you?
As in good ideas that from the...
Try being in your late 40s and single. It ain’t fun. Although it did recently give me a gag for my stand up routine.
Relationships are odd creatures – if I can call them that. Like my late beloved better half. I proposed on the telephone as she was back in the US. She said yes – and promptly fell asleep. Not sure who that says anything about. The fact that it was 3am her time and she was suffering from a terrible cold might have had something to do with it. Or that I’m in reality an incredibly boring person.
But when it comes to wanting to discuss the whole concept of relationships and what may or may not have changed, I duck the whole issue if I can.
Oh boy can I relate to the ‘being able to rely on a spouse’ thing and missing that factor of life. I believe that is one of the things I miss most about being part of something.
[Reply]
I’ll never forget many years ago when my mother claimed that “a man who hasn’t been married by the time he’s 40 must have something wrong with him”. She was speculating about my older boyfriend of the time.
That attitude is still around, I suspect. However, as you say… there’s something bigger going on here. Something I think no one really understands yet.
At 39-nearly-40, I know there’s nothing wrong with me! In fact, given all the work I’ve been doing on myself in the last six years, I know that I’m actually way more okay and real with myself than I’ve ever been.
I do really, really want to be in a relationship. But I’m not just looking for a warm body to fill the spot. For me, it has to be a connection that works for both of us and yes, one in which we can make up our own rules about how things are gonna work.
If I can’t have that, then I’ll go about my way and spend time finding other ways to rejoice in this life, however it turns out.
It’s taken me a long time to really believe it, but I truly don’t think that having a successful and happy life can only be defined by having a partner, kids and a mortgage.
[Reply]
I find this whole discussion really interesting as I leave a relationship where my partner “loved me but wasn’t into me anymore” … He wont talk about it so I’m not really sure if he was bored, stressed, too many younger women around offering more choice, mid life crisis, who knows … but professional woman shouldn’t be encouraged to ‘dumb down’ in order to stay in their marriage or get hitched in the first place.
We can’t men be proud to be with someone smart, capable, beautiful etc …
As someone in the pyschology field said to me … men should feel empowered and proud to be with a woman that is his equal in intellect and capability.
All too often I see the dependant women – the ones who ask their husbands to fill up the car with petrol and never touch a screw driver or a hammer in very happy relationships – where the husband has the traditional role of providing and the woman takes on the weaker needy role … these are the happier relationships I observe on a day to day basis. The women dont earn much money, often their opinions have been influenced by their husbands and they dont want for much. But I dont want to encourage my daughter to be like that … I wasn’t .. I was brought up to believe I could do or be anything I wanted to be. I could be a doctor, lawyer or architect, I could climb mountains, I could fix a car and I could buy my own house … why not ?
This issue does my head in … maybe I should act dumb, needy and incapable and attract a man that is happy to stay with me and provide … sounds wrong doesn’t it ???
Sandy
[Reply]
October 26th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Sandy, your words ring so true with me.
I actually did what you suggest for a long time. Dumbed myself down and squashed myself into a socially acceptable box, without meaning to, to make a man happy. I got into a rut over several years of neglecting my true self to pleasing him, humoring his dumb needy ways, being the mother to his inner child. It doesnt actually work for long, because your true self always shines through in the end. He ended up with a younger girl and, although I have yet to find anyone else, it was the best thing that ever happened to me.
The thing that surprised me is how small I had made my spiritual self, but also how amazing it felt after the heartbreak subsided when that self expanded again. I felt like I was literally bursting with happiness I could no longer contain. I began listening to all the amazing music I had neglected, reading books I had forgotten about, volunteering with a cause I was passionate about that he hated, I booked and paid for a month’s round-the-world holiday I’m soon to take, I reuinted with old friends and made new ones, and I feel more “me” than ever before! I have people asking me daily why I am smiling so much. Even my health has dramatically improved.
I honestly believe that staying single for the rest of my life (not that I plan to, but hey) would not be the worst thing to happen to me. Having to squash myself into a box again would be the worst thing. The only problem is you need to push against all the social forces that tell you there is something wrong with you if you are 30 and single. xx
[Reply]
I read that article from the Atlantic and loved it. Its long, but its good.
Interestingly, I had a similar conversation with my grandmother a few weeks ago. She asked me if I had a boyfriend and I said no. She actually didn’t seem to think it mattered all that much, which is cool of a usually conservative woman who is nearly 90. She has seem three grandaughters grow up, none of whom have married or had kids, and seen lots more grandsons so she actually agreed that men and women have changed and you cant necessarily mate for life any more.
She just wants me to study and travel if I am passionate about either one, to live a good life, be kind to others and to work a job I enjoy that pays the bills. I wonder if most women my age wouldnt be happier with similar ambitions that didn’t revolve around finding a man?
[Reply]
I think it’s fascinating too, and you’ve inspired a blog post out of me- if I can find the time/focus to write it. I’m 36 and have been married 9 years in November. We have four kiddos, the youngest 10 months. My immediate response to the excerpts and conversation here is that American culture swings from one extreme to the other, and marriage as a contract to marriage just for being mad crazy in love is an example. And I don’t think either really ‘work’ in modern life. What works for us, at least so far- I know life can turn you on it’s head- is that we started with a best friendship that led, over time and a deepening loyalty, world view, interests, moral compass and cultural references ( High Fidelity, anyone ) and the intimacy that springs, like you quoted it used to be, from close friendships…. finally the sexual, romantic spark lit. It took years, but when it lit, it was amazing, and has never gone away or dimmed, even with four kids and a lot of stress. A balance between friendship and sexual passion, between financial independence and emotional interdependence, between space and the closest I’ve ever been to a human being- those are the things we are doing and working on, and they have given me the greatest relationship of my adult life.
[Reply]
Loved the Atlantic Article; it is refreshing to hear this stuff from intelligent, gorgeous and successful 30+ women! It is also reassuring to know I am not alone as a 31 yo female experiencing this phenomenon: “increasingly, the new dating gap—where women are forced to choose between deadbeats and players”…I’ve had my fair share of both thanks!
I’ve had a number of medium term relationships that have not worked out for a number of reasons and I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with it all. I consider myself a confident, driven and financially-secure person and I tend to agree with Gloria Steinem’s comment that “we’re becoming the men we wanted to marry”. I am starting to wonder if I should start to plan a life outside of the nuclear family ideals. This concept has been met with some criticism. Given that more than 50% marriages end in divorce, I find it hypocritical for people to judge the idea of a financially secure woman looking to go it alone…chances are such people may find themselves single parents down the track, but possibly with added resentments about their failed romance?
I enjoy a number of close relationships with friends, family, my niece and nephew…this is where my heart currently is. It feels more natural for me to nurture these relationships than poor my energy into trying to keep one single grown needy man sufficiently happy to want to stay with just me, or alternatively set about investing significant effort into making myself be content with someone I am mildly attracted to.
[Reply]
I want to marry this post
[Reply]
Look at the really big picture. Humans are now a plague on the earth. All this cultural business is simply a layer covering the fact that the over crowded planet wants population control. Even we can not escape the natural cycle of boom and bust
[Reply]
Dear lord, another article with women taking the moral high ground over men. No wonder so many have just given up.
Have you ever thought the problem might reside within yourself and not all these “deadbeats & players” who fail to live up to your expectations?
Why do women never look at their own upbringing as the root cause of their failed expectations? How much damage does the princess complex inflict on girls when growing up.
Why are men always blamed? I can tell you they are just so fed up with not being heard or understood. Oh yeah, that’s right, we are all Neanderthals I hear you say. Like I said, women and their constant moral high ground taking.
Men have simply switched off.
[Reply]
October 28th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Geoff, I really don’t think you’ve understood a single thing that anyone has written here so far. No one is blaming men!
[Reply]
Sort of an aside, but I saw an interesting paper presented at an American Economics conference a few years ago. The research was trying to demonstrate that the high rate of single-motherhood amongst American black women was a result of the marriage – market issues you mention above. The idea was that because so many black men are in prison, the “high quality” males (outside of prison) were scarce and therefore had little incentive to marry.
Personally I think I’d like to be married one day, but I love the fact that I don’t feel socially obligated to marry or to have children.
[Reply]
Pardon me for dissenting (again– I’m not always like this, i swear), but this: “Until the mid-19th century, the word love was used to describe neighborly and familial feelings more often than to describe those felt toward a mate, and same-sex friendships were conducted with what we moderns would consider a romantic intensity”…. IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.
It’s an absurd statement, and it’s irritating that she states it as though it were a fact, when it’s patently not. She obviously thinks sociological statistics give better information than, say, literature: what about Sappho’s lyrics, Troubadour poetry, courtly romance, Shakespeare’s sonnets etc etc, to only cite the greatest hits (there are thousands more)?
Art always expresses the sensual and the aspirational. No, it doesn’t always reflect what happens in real life, but romance happens largely in our imaginations anyway– it’s mode of expression is therefore aesthetic. I’m not saying that economic and social conventions do not have an influence on our mating rituals– of course they do. And of course things change as social structures change. But to say that our contemporary notions of romantic love did not exist prior to the nineteenth century is incredibly ignorant. Sorry.
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 1:37 am
You do know that some of Shakespeare’s sonnets were to a young man, right?
You should check out Stephanie Coontz’s book, “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage” (http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319639327&sr=8-1). She is a professor who specializes in researching the history of family and marriage and she is also mentioned in the Atlantic article. Basically, she argues that this is the first time in history when people can actually marry for love, and as a result, relationships that “make it” are stronger than any other relationships in history.
We are lucky to be living in a time where we (at least in the Western world for the most part) can choose our own partners, and have the option of remaining single if we can’t find someone who measures up!
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 1:54 am
Yes, I am aware of that (most of them were written to a woman, however).
I think our divergence might be the romance/marriage mix-up. And actually, I think you’re right as long as you’re just talking about marriage. Most troubadour poetry and courtly romances were about adulterous affairs. Few end in marriage. Romantic love is nearly always represented as socially deviant.
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 2:25 am
Tristan and Iseult was written in the 12th century and probably has its sources in much older works. Although Romantic Love is presented as adulterous it triumphs in the end and allegorically speaking it is about a kingdom where Masculine(children selling) energy has run riot.
i.e. Feminine Energy is not cherished/Everything dies. Iseult will restore the balance to the Kingdom(Cornwall) through her marriage to King Mark. It’s a 900 year old(at least) plea for Romantic Love.
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 2:55 am
T&I has a much longer oral history than that, and there as many different versions of it as there are interpretations of it. I certainly don’t think it shows the triumph of romantic love (they die in most versions!), but you’re entitled to your opinion.
October 27th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Today is a good day to die ..
October 27th, 2011 at 2:02 am
Thank you ..
I took the time to read the Atlantic article, which I feel raised some valid points. But the sweeping statements in regards to the advent of Romantic Love only serve to reinforce overly simplistic notions of who we are and where we came from. . I do not believe that our ancestors uniformly sold their children down the river for the sake of property rights. The institution of marriage has a much more complex and sacred history than this. I could relate to the author’s journey as a human being and to me her story is more about the getting of wisdom than “the battle of the sexes” or “why 30 somethings are so f#!ked up.” But her argument is so firmly rooted in Gender and Self Validation and Rationalism (like that’s really saving the planet), that in the end it’s just kind of sad. The world is full of PEOPLE who have learned to live alone .. and yeah .. it’s all good .. but we’re still a long way from the Garden using this kind of logic.
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Yep, I agree.
[Reply]
I think we might be soul sisters. I just read this on the weekend and posted it to facebook (a Gala link I think). Such an excellent read.
[Reply]
This makes me feel like shit.
I have busted my chops to become more emotionally stable, creative and understanding so that I can have better relationships, but all this suggests is that women are looking for “marriageable” men:
“American women as a whole have never been confronted with such a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be “marriageable” men—those who are better educated and earn more than they do. So women are now contending with what we might call the new scarcity.”
Fuck that, if that’s what you’re after then there should be no problem, just head to Martin Place or the US for that matter.
This has reduced men to an “option” and not a “person” and has made me feel quite low.
Men have had to learn over the years to value women as people and not just objects or options, give us that same respect!
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Agreed.
There is so much catagorical judgement in the article – that men are either players or deadbeats. It’s very harsh and not conducive to successful relationships at all. It makes me sad that my son might have to deal with this kind of attitude when he grows up.
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Amen !
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Sorry for swearing
[Reply]
October 27th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Adam I thought your response was uplifting and touching. It can be easy with all the deadbeats and players around (and yes, there are a lot of them around) to remember that other types of guys, decent ones, actually exist.
Thanks for the reminder. You’ve made my day.
[Reply]
Just some random thoughts that popped up while reading The Atlantic article…
There’s a strong emphasis on individuals supporting one another, and perhaps to function better as a community (being there for one another, raising children) then we need to examine how pair-bonding relationships influence the whole. While I agree that we should always try to be there for one another, “being available” for a friend is quite a limited notion of helping, its all about the me! me! me! How can the article talk about changing “societies highest ideal” when all they do is discuss the needs of the individual?
What struck me as interesting was seeing a correlation of the 80/20 rule in American college student hook-ups, where 20% of the people were participating in the hook-up ritual, yet the perception is this is society’s norm. It makes me wonder as to how this would look beyond college. How many awesome people don’t participate in the dating ritual (for whatever reason)? How are people supposed to meet those that are compatible (for friendship, friendship+, etc) when the awesome people are hidden away?
[Reply]
I don’t really understand how earning more defeminizes women and emasculates men, to be honest. If women can date shorter men with no issue (and that’s got to be a whole biological thing), then I don’t see why men can’t date women who earn more. I mean, if a man is a teacher and a woman is a banker, to me, that just means they are good at different things. I don’t think it’s a reverse of the natural order. That’s just my opinion. (And maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.)
[Reply]
October 30th, 2011 at 3:21 am
I agree with you. And men earning less than women I don’t see as detriment to the marriage market. I don’t know the statistics for the US (or Australia), but by the early- to mid- 2000s, more than a third of two-earner families in Canada were families in which the woman earned more than her husband. There are a lot of things at play, one of which is that women often choose public sector jobs that remain unionized. Both men and women are more sensible in defining “marriageable” than the traditional model would suggest.
[Reply]
Of all the issues I have tackled finding a partner has been the most difficult. Three university degrees, a good job, my own home (mostly owned by the bank) and a favourable appearance (and yes that does require a certain amount of effort). A lasting relationship I cannot crack. A lustful relationship with with someone whom I have nothing in common. Yes. Friendships with men with whom there is no mutual sexual attraction. Yes. Relationships with men where there is compatiability and sexual attraction but unsuitable circumstances. Yes.
I became the lawyer I wanted to marry. And for this reason I understand the difficulties faced by men. The need to provide, to be independent and be relied upon by others. To be sensitive to others needs and demonstrate a maternal instinct. Heading towards 38 I feel exhausted by all of it. Why do I want to marry someone like me? Because I want to be with my equal. When I say my equal I mean someone who has some of the same life experience and has tackled some of the same issues as myself. Unfortunately all of the men like me, are just exhausted as I am, and need someone to look after them. With less responsibilities and amibition, and better cooking skills.
[Reply]
October 30th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I feel your pain, seriously!
I am an Engineer/Business Manager with three qualifications (Eng, Business and Pscyh) and have also just purchased my own home.
The 3 scenarios you have described in terms of relationships with men are very familiar to me too. You are not alone. I do appreciate that dating an ambitious, intelligent, successful woman is not easy! Plus, I agree with you that our ideal ‘matches’ are probably just as exhausted and in need of nurturing as much as us. If I was to put myself in the shoes of an eligible successful good-looking male…maybe I can understand their choices :/
[Reply]
I think, like most things in life nowadays, it’s all happening too fast (though I agree what is happening is in most respects GOOD).
But I’m a 30 and single male, never been in a relationship, who desperately, desperately wants to find the right girl but I was brought up on the “old fashioned” values that are actually getting me in trouble.
I will pick women (friends so far) up from work, give them my am, buy flowers when needed, open doors, stand aside, give presents, appreciate shoes, clothes and hair, apologise, tell them I care, support and complement and I have even given my heart (then harshly rejected for it). And it seems that’s now not enough.
I’m actually a male who WANTS commitment but is now afraid a partner will BREAK it. I’m after a partner for life but seem to be in a world of people who are only out for themselves and don’t understand the concept of commitment or reciprocation, compromise or compassion. And I’m not prepared to enter a relationship I don’t think at least has a chance of success.
As for marriage – just today I realised a prenuptial agreement will actually be “required” to protect myself against the high probability of failure.
Honestly, there are days I don’t know whether to go left, right, forward or back.
I just want to be able to fulfill my NATURAL role as a man who cares about and protects his partner, can help raise and protect a healthy child and do everything in his power to be the best lover, husband, father, carer and provider possible.
Really simple stuff made complex in a world that can’t seem to figure itself out at the moment.
Yeah, I’m a 30-something but really, I’m *not* OK about it.
[Reply]
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Despite the fact that marriage is difficult thing, I still want to get married. I want to get married to a guy who is responsible, have a proper career, loves me dearly, have a nice features, moral, loyal, have a desire to build a family, benevolent, cherishes my wish, helps me in everything, have a huge respect for me and ready to have children. We will love each other and will build happy family. Because a man and a woman should be together to love each other, to help each other and to have a beautiful child together. That is the way it is, this is the essential law of life.
I wish everyone of you to find your love of your life and live happily ever after!
Thanks,
[Reply]