This is rich. Mark Regnerus at The Washington Post argues that people shouldn't wait long to get married. And by people, he means women.
Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women's fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s -- their most fertile years -- only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.
Countless studies? Endless anecdotes? Well color me convinced. *Eye roll*
I guess telling women that they better stop with all that work nonsense and get to the baby-making never gets old for some people.
Regnerus, author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, is also miffed that the age difference between couples is closing:
The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years....Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government's National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women.
I have to say, outside of how problematic the anecdotes and sweeping generalizations are, this article simply skeeves me out.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Author tells women to marry early lest they lose "market value" .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13303
Not to mention this article assumes (wrongly) that men will only marry women and women will only marry men. It also assumes that everyone WANTS to get married.
Either way, it's gross.
Yup - and that all women want TEH BABIES!
Exactly! Neither I nor my husband have any interest in becoming parents, now or in the future. We married fairly young yes, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with my fertility or his access to resources (He's younger than me, and I'm more educated and currently bringing home a bigger paycheck). This article is insulting to both women and men-more of that "sex is a commodity to be traded" business. I wonder sometimes what sort of crappy relationships the people who write this stuff must have.
GASP THEY DON'T?!
;-)
Another something I noticed -- they associate men getting older with more credibility, more money, greater maturity, but oh those women -- their ovaries stop working and they get so ugly and old!
Because of course, women don't ever gain experience and wisdom as we age. We just become barren and ugly. Oh, yeah...no woman has ever valued or been valued for her independence, her brain, or her skills-just her body and what she can do with it.
There is some unfortunate truth in the idea that society in general does not value women for their experience and wisdom the way they do with men. But if this author realizes it, why doesn't he address this problem? Instead, he just perpetuates the hierarchy of value assigned to women that places "gets my dick hard" and other qualities associated with pleasing men far above a woman's personal accomplishments.
Or that you must have a state issued piece of paper to bring a child into the world.
"...Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government's National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women."
Did he even bother to present any scientifically-based evidence to back that up? Of course young women are more likely to be "mature enough" for marriage: women are typically conditioned from a young age to be ready for marriage sooner. Aren't young girls, not boys, the ones who are presented with toys and ideas that focus on marriage?
Marriage, housekeeping, childrearing....yeah, pretty much. Meanwhile the boys get trucks, guns, and legos.
oh no thats not fair, I mean we had doctor barbie.... ;-)
xLx
Lol, I still would have traded her for the legos.
Or a race car
I totally had a gun. A BB gun. But I'm from Kentucky.
i had legos. loads of 'em.
still do, in fact. that probably explains a lot.
My favourite things as a kid were legos, barbies, toy cars, playing dress-up, my wooden sword, my rock collection, birdwatching, playing house, chemistry, my little pony, archery, my knife collection, knitting and climbing trees.
And later in life, my parents were surpirised to learn that I identified as an androgyne.
last christmas, my daughter asked me, "mommy, can i have a my little pony castle? and a monster truck?"
it was awesome.
Well I had both. Legos, comic books, my little pony, barbie, video games, science kits, books. My parents didn't limit my toys at all. I am so thankful for that.
If the market value of men increases as they age, and the market value of women decreases as they age, and yet the age gap is narrowing...
It seems like sound logic to draw the conclusion that the relevance of this study is also narrowing.
Great point. How, exactly, are they determining "market value"?? If women as a commodity (trying to suppress vomit) are so devalued as we age, then why do the men keep, erm, "buying" us older and older? Uh, doesn't that kind of indicate that, ACCORDING TO THE RELEVANT MARKET (men, in his view), our market value as we age is doing just fine? Otherwise, wouldn't we see the age gap getting WIDER??
That the age gap is DECREASING suggests, instead, that men and women's "market value" as determined by the opposite sex (which, as others have noted, is a really stupid and heteronormative way of structuring the conversation to begin with) is getting closer to parallel than it was 40 years ago. Either both "lose" value as they age, or both "gain" it, or both have market value that stays about the same to the relevant "market" they're putting themselves on. I mean, if you're going to use stupid terms like "market value," at least use them properly, dipshit! If men still "buy" women their age (and vice versa), then BY DEFINITION men are not, on average, looking for someone significantly younger than them.
I mean, as a graph, it just doesn't work. He's trying to draw the demand curve one way but dammit it, the facts keep screwing up his graph! Well, thank goodness he has that good ole reliable anecdotal evidence to back him up so he doesn't have to use a chart with actual facts!
Just to explain a little about how they're defining "market value"--I've studied some of this stuff in psychology classes, especially the psychology of relationships. Those authors are coming from an evolutionary point of view, so it is important to take their results in context. The idea is that women lose their market value as they age because their fertility decreases, and men increase their market value because they are able to garner more resources as they gain more experience.
I don't think the way Regnerus interprets the data speaks to what is being studied at all, but I think it's important to know what's really going on in those studies.
The age gap is probably narrowing because people are beginning to adapt to the way society is today--where you don't have to be fertile to have children and you don't have to use your fertility to reproduce. I don't think the evolutionary argument is sexist, because all it does is explain the behavior of our ancestors, basically as civilization was beginning.
Basically, I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't attack this argument just because it doesn't apply to everyone today, but that we should critique Regnerus's application of the argument to our lives today.
Would it be accurate to deduce from the information that the narrowing age gap is a sign that market value is less impacted by age today? Or am I inaccurately trying to spin the data to say that the influence of spousal age is equalizing?
See, but the problem is that evolutionary processes and the "market" are two completely different things.
If he's trying to say that, from an evolutionary or scientific perspective, the delay of the onset of childbearing may be bad for the species, or something, that's one kind of argument.
If, on the other hand, he's trying to say that women become less desirable as mates as we age, that's completely another kind of argument. And it seems to me that's the only reasonable interpretation of "market value." If he meant to say "evolutionary viability" or something else related to health and reproduction, he should have said THAT. Bringing in "market value" makes the conversation about desirability, which the diminishing age gap DOES work against.
So while there may be an evolutionary argument for having children earlier, or there may be an evolutionary explanation for a preference for younger mates -- IF this were something the facts bore out, which the diminishing age gap shows they don't -- he's not arguing either of these. He's arguing "ladies, you become less desirable as you age. So do the smart thing and get married younger." The problem is that the data don't support this argument. So he fails.
OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd better hurry up and get married. I'm already 18, which is like 2 steps from the grave. I can feel my eggs shriveling up and dying inside of me!
Hope for marriage is directly proportional to the number ova!
The true message of those articles:
Men are valuable economically.
Women are valuable for making babies.
Where have these people been for the last fifty years or so?
You said it. They're playing up the 1950's model of marriage as a transaction in which men trade money and security for sex and women trade sex for money, security, and children to take care of them after the husband dies of a heart attack in his middle age.
Funny thing about 'market values'--they're only relevant if someone is buying or selling something. I don't give a fuck what my supposed value is on some imaginary marketplace--I'm not for sale.
Oh noes! Salma Hayek, who is 41, just got married yesterday. someone should tell the Latina beauty that her ripe marrying age is already over!
One of the things that bugs me about this article is that he says that later marriage is a problem. But he never really explains why it's a problem.
well, he says that "Marriage actually works best as a formative institution"- so two people should grow up together. But what happens if one or both members of a couple isn't "formed" enough to realize that it's actually a bad match?
and also "the economic benefits of pooling resources." but there are plenty of economic negatives to pooling resources, as well. I know a couple who married fairly young (a year or so out of college). He wants to go to graduate school. She has been unable to find a well-paying job, and is currently pregnant. their "pooled resources" might be making it harder for him to get an advanced degree, and thus harder for them to "build wealth" as a couple.
Of course, it seems like the writer's real problem with delayed marriage is delayed baby-making. In which case, my friends are doing great, while the rest of us- developing careers, saving money, deciding whether or not we even want to get married and/or have kids- are total failures.
if anything, I disagree with that man that two people should grow up together. What a joke. In my opinion, people should only get married AFTER they're grown up and they truly know what they want in life.
Better to get married and have a baby late than to marry young and regret having kids you wish you never had.
Hell to the yes. I am very skeeved out by his assertion that most women are "ready" to be married by age 18. Most 18 year-olds, female and male alike, are still very unclear on what they want from life in terms of family, career, etc. They don't know what their sexual needs are or how to negotiate and communicate in a relationship. There is a huge potential for someone so young to get taken advantage of in marriage just because they don't know what they want or what kind of respect and consideration is due to them yet--especially when there is a substantial age difference between the partners like he advocates for.
Although we waited to get married for financial reasons (a big wedding is expensive, and both our parents wanted one so badly), my wife and I have been together since the middle of high school. I am not sure about the article, but I do think growing up together and moving through the early stages of adulthood has solidified our relationship and love for each other.
If we had married right out of high school, our lives wouldn't be any worse. We've been essentially married since then, in our own minds.
I do agree that it probably doesn't work well for everyone, but, at least from our experience, there is a lot to gain from an early relationship.
To me, the biggest problem with young (18-21) folks getting married is that 1) People mature and different rates and some people grow up slower than others, and 2) A lot of 18-year-olds are still caught up in that fairy-tale ideal where they meet the right person and live happily ever after, no effort required. This doesn't represent everyone, though, and it bothers me that there's just as much stigma associated with getting married early in adulthood (i.e., you're naive and stupid and sure to wind up divorced) as with getting married later in life (oh noes! You might never have babies!). You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, it seems.
I think things would be much better for all of us if we could stop pressuring people to live their lives according to a certain schedule or script. Give our kids realistic views of love and marriage, let them marry IF and WHEN they are ready to do it, and let them figure out what's best and healthiest for themselves.
I agree that not all couples are ready at a young age. When we got married, we'd been dealing with the too-young-to-get-married stigma for about 4 years of our relationship (after we stayed together when starting college instead of breaking up like people seemed to expect after our first year in college). We considered getting married after our first year in college, but we didn't have the money for the wedding we wanted - if we wanted a small wedding we would have.
Perhaps I feel the need to defend others who might be in the same situation. Everyone telling you that you are too young to get married can be upsetting, even if you know they are wrong.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. We had our wedding halfway through college. It's not so bad now, now that it's 5 years later and I'm graduating with my master's, but I still get that shocked expression from people when they find out exactly how long we've been married. That, and the fact that we are mysteriously childless, seems to really throw people off down here in Tennessee.
Yes! My SO and I got married fairly young (23 and 24) but we'd both already lived a LOT by that time, and were mature and secure in ourselves enough to make that decision.
I am not so sure on the negatives of pooling resources. If one person is an addict or a gambler, I could see that as being a major problem. But, in terms of graduate school, I worked while my wife finished her last year of college, and instead of her being a very poor student, we had a reasonably comfortable life for that year. She's supporting us through my medical school, and probably for a while afterward while she continues to out-earn me during my graduate medical education.
Instead of each of us being poor students separately, we get to be comfortable throughout the whole time. Now, I would agree that we don't need to be married for that, but having a serious, supportive relationship can do wonders economically too!
First, the rate of divorce is much higher for those who have been together since high school (not necessarily married until later, just those who have only dated that one person since high school). I think that's a sign as to the effectiveness of 'growing up' together. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone. But I remember in sociology class learning that the most successful age to get married is something like the early twenties - old enough to understand yourself & what you need/want, but not older when you are usually so set in your individual ways that it often makes it more difficult to compromise as is necessary when making a commitment with someone else. Again, not for everyone, but I can totally see how both these points could be true - it has seemed personally true for me, in fact.
Second, re: pooling resources - I am a pretty successful woman, individually. My boyfriend, whom I now live with, makes not even half of what I do. He also has cc debt. So, life has actually been more difficult for me in terms of money since we've been living together, because he is not able to contribute much at all. I now pay for groceries for two people, entertainment for two people, etc. But, he is a great person, and it is worth it. Pooling resources is only an advantage if you happen to be the one with less money in the relationship, or both can contribute 50/50. our relationship happens to be more like 90/10. But, i take comfort in knowing he is getting himself together, and hopefully in about 2 years, maybe 3, he will be debt free and able to contribute more.
That's just my two cents!
**disclaimer: I realized my second point may have sounded a little privileged: I believe the majority of people right now do benefit from pooled resources. Things are getting so bad with the middle and lower class in the US that it is almost impossible to live off of only one income for more than one person. I was just trying to explain how it is not the be-all end-all to pool resources and it actually benefit the WOMAN. Sorry to come off so terribly with the way i worded that.
Hmmm. Some doctor announces that viable cloned human babies are on the horizon and then this article comes out?
Coincidence? I think not.
In the time it takes for the 18 year old reader here to reach her late 30's, there will no doubt be all kinds of new understanding of how to safely and ethnically (hopefully) extend reproductive years.
Nope. I sniff a thinly veiled ulterior motive here...and the message may be directed at women, but we ain't the target.
So if women decrease in value as they age, and men increase in value... if men intend on marrying a spouse for life, they should marry them older, so that their values are closer to being equal at the end of both of their lives, rather than close to equal at the start of their relationship. Draw it out on a chart, it makes sense.
I remember my first day of college psychology. My professor said the Demi/Ashton marriage model was good because women reach their sexual peak around 40 and men reach theirs around 25. But these people don't care about how good the sex is, it's about whether or not it will make babies.
I seriously doubt women are more mature at 18 than men. I'm guessing they are just more conditioned to be the responsible party (because boys will be boys) and also conditioned to tie self worth into how well they take care of others (husbands, children, etc)
Uh, so sorry, but what about any mention of the decreased fertility for MEN? That is just as relevant, if it's such a freaking big deal. There is a ton of debate on the subject, but the majority of studies state that women have an extremely broad prime for fertility. 20s to 30s (and I suppose 17-19 if we're going to be picky).
This is so blatantly sexist without any legitimate evidence to back its claims it makes me want to scream.
Annnd finally.. It's almost blatantly stating that either A. Marriage is about having children and thus just the WOMAN'S fertility is key OR B. That a woman's "market value" is linked completely to her youth and prime of beauty - and we all know that all women are just dying to get married so we had all hurry up quick so we catch Mr. Right before he goes for a younger, bouncier, just-out-of-high-school girl
I can't understand how people can be so incapable of understanding that women are people before they are women.
And I forgot to add.. I love how he assumes all people are just dying to bear children. That is, after all, a woman's primary responsibility in life.
Seriously. Why are all reproductive health studies (such as the effects of smoking and alcohol) focused on women's fertility? It's just another way to try to keep women classified as fetal-carriers. LAME.
So true. Actually, a saw a segment of the Today show recently that mentioned a recent study had shown that older men had a higher chance than younger men of having babies with certain disabilities. I have a feeling that if there was a political motivation to find more evidence of men's decreasing fertility and increase in fetal abnormalities we'd find a lot more parity between the sexes.
I caught an article on either MSNBC or Newsweek not too long ago highlighting some study where it was concluded that men's sperm production, as well as the quality of said sperm, drops significantly after a certain age...somewhere around 50 I think. I wish I remembered where it was so I could link it. About 6 months or so ago, there was another study published that concluded that there may be an increased likelihood of being born with autism if one's father was over 40 at the time of conception.
Further, I would like to add that he does mention decreased fertility for men in the article. It's right after the area quoted.
"Although male fertility lives on, it doesn't hold out forever, either: Studies emerging from Europe and Australia note that a couple's chances of conceiving fall off notably when men pass the age of 40, and that several developmental disorders are slightly more common in children of older fathers."
But the bulk of the article focuses on the impending infertility of women, and how it is such a "huge" problem that women are marrying later and decreasing their odds of having a successful pregnancy. Why aren't men being pressured just as much in this article to marry young because, as you stated, they are also at risk for decreased fertility? Oh, because "for men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources". IE they're richer and can take care of the girl saddled down with a baby. No mention about how women are perfectly capable of generating their own significant income, or that not all married couples have the desire for children. It's just about women's ability to conceive, and implying that's all she's worth.
The general message is that women need to marry early so they don't take the risk of losing their ability to bear children, whereas men can "get around to it". And of course, the implication behind that is that women are only worth their ability to have children.
Further, I would like to add that he does mention decreased fertility for men in the article. It's right after the area quoted.
"Although male fertility lives on, it doesn't hold out forever, either: Studies emerging from Europe and Australia note that a couple's chances of conceiving fall off notably when men pass the age of 40, and that several developmental disorders are slightly more common in children of older fathers."
I think there are tons of studies on male fertility, actually. They are just reported in the media much less often. If I remember accurately (always in question!), male's have more fertile sperm until 45 or so (with younger generally being better), and there is a major decline after the 55 or so.
There are studies though. Doctors care about this stuff a lot, so they can advise and help their patients. I guess the media doesn't, though.
I think men are generally fertile longer than women. But if you want to have kids, everyone reaches peak fertility in their 20s-30s.
That's good to know. I'm glad that at least some medical professionals are concerned about that. I never hear about these studies; all I seem to hear about are studies on women's (in)fertility and how women are affected (i.e. in the job market) because of the general knowledge about a woman's "child-bearing age" and such. Also, warnings on alcohol and cigarette packages always warn against women using those substances while pregnant (which is certainly a good thing to know about, don't get me wrong), and say nothing about the possible effects on sperm or male ability to conceive while using those products.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that I seem to be bombarded with information about what might make me infertile (which is useless since I really don't want children anyway), but I never see men receiving that same treatment. I think you and I are essentially in agreement, though, so I guess I'm just rambling for no reason now.
For instance, here's an article from the Times just this month – not on male fertility per se but on the risks of autism, bipolar syndrome, etc., associated with older fathers. It also makes the point that risks of later childbirth are reiterated constantly to women, whereas for men the opposite message is reinforced. And it predicts that new evidence will change attitudes: "A world in which each man heard his clock tick even a fraction as urgently as each woman could be a very different world indeed."
Maybe a fraction. More than forcing me to reconsider the consequences of my slow start (male, 30, not looking to marry soon), statistics like this help me to appreciate a little the conversation in a woman's head. Women get "mixed messages" every day – this Regnerus jerk's right about that much.
Well, isn't that stupid? If you're going to choose a partner for ulterior motives such as age, then the woman should be 7 years older than the man to make up for the death differential, so she won't be widowed and spend the last several years of her life alone, without the companionship to which she's become accustomed.
Well, now that I'm done spewing endless profanities, I'll comment calmly:
"But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation)".
Even if I were to accept this premise as true - and I don't - the answer is, clearly, not for women to marry younger. The answer is for men need to grow up faster, and for women to be paid more - at least equally to men. Which they are not.
Then we'll see just how quickly women lose "market value", and, frankly, just how many of them even marry anymore.
The answer is for men need to grow up faster, and for women to be paid more - at least equally to men. Which they are not.
Ha! And yes!
Let us move away from this default that women must always be the ones to change what they're doing...
I find this article to be deeply, deeply offensive for all the reasons mentioned above.
However, because of my career, I am always sensitive to the fact that some women who would othewise WANT to have children at a younger age are not given that as a viable option because of workplace/general societal discrimination against mothers. I had my son at 28 (not exactly a kid anymore) and its had a HUGE negative impact on my career (even though I still work 80+ hour weeks, make enough to afford help and have the greatest husband ever) and when I mention that I have a kid at meetings people look at me like I have two heads because I guess lady lawyers are not meant to have babies until we have gray hair. The assumption is you are bad at what you do because you are also a mom. But the guys my age at work -- they are passing baby pictures around the table and have experienced no adverse career consequences.
Just sharing another angle to this issue -- those of us who have kids in the "acceptable range" are getting judged and penalized for it too. Its all about sexists double standards.
As a 30-year old pregnant civil engineer working in a male-dominated field (new home construction) I concur wholeheartedly. Me waiting until I was 30 was partly based on the fact that I know I will suffer job discrimination because of it. It's very subtle sometimes, but it's there. I hear comments about the one other woman engineer I know (who has two little ones) - about how Tanya will be there at the meeting so make it for 2:30 instead of 3 in case she has to get her kids from daycare, or related.
I also get comments about how hard it will be when I have my baby and come back to work. The other men in my office have kids in daycare and don't seem to suffer long-lasting psychological harm from it. Gah.
Good luck with your baby and with being a working mom. As frustrating as dealing with the discrimination is, for me it is all so worth it just to be a living example that women DO NOT have to choose one or the other stereotypes of who they are going to be -- unless they want too, of course. I also LOVED working hard when I was actually pregnant -- showing all the dudes I came into contact with that being pregnant woman was in no way a incompatible with being a rationale and competent professional.
Dear Mr. Regnerus,
Sometimes the babies come before the marriage. Sometimes, there's no marriage at all.
I'll tell you how when you're older.
What a ridiculous article. It is up to the couple to decide when and if to marry, not Regnerus, not sexist "market value", and not this stupid biological clock myth. It is also up to the couple to decide when and if to have children. For the record, Mr. Regnerus, not all couples feel a biological imperative to crank out babies!
Has Regnerus stopped to consider that some people might want to finish their educations, settle down in a career, build a nest egg, and live a little before marrying? Has he considered that times have changed and that women no longer see themselves as marriage commodities? Has he even considered that some people don't want to marry?
Successful relationships do not necessarily have to take the form of marriages with children. I'm a 30 year-old woman who has been in a strong, loving relationship for 12 years, even though my companion and I are not married. We have no intention of having children.
I find this guy's views on women just as nauseating as the rest of you.
And here's a big question: what if a woman actually wants to get married young, but there are no viable candidates around?
I didn't meet my husband until I was 30, and I was never the type with the long line of gentleman callers at the door, though I dated and was in a few relationships. Nothing clicked until I met him.
A good friend of mine couldn't wait to get married right out of high school. Her boyfriends (and she dated a few older guys, as the author would approve) didn't. She and I both wound up getting married at 35, and both of us are very happy.
This guy acts like young women have this infinite choice and are just too spoiled and picky. Bullshit. Finding the right partner is often about luck and timing.
bwahahahahahaha!
"market value" . . . . .
it is so absurd I can but laugh.
my counter argument would be countless studies have shown most marriages fail if the man or women is married before the age of 25.
thanks for linking this.
-Sophia
I am going to be shot down in flames, I know it, I know it.
I only read the initial intro, but it seems to me that what the two authors are saying does make sense: [...] women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation) [...]
Immediate dislaimers: I am a man, unmarried, on the market, etc.
I am sure - again, no scientific studies, but based on what my girlfriends say and on what I see - that younger women have more, err, 'success' with men. Superficially, maybe, but true. Not for all, but on the whole (gee, I am covering my whatsit, aren't I?).
I would guess (again, not scientific...), that a 25-year old woman in a disco will attract more attention than a 40-year old. Not fair, so superficial, so 'manly', maybe, but also a fact.
Also, rich men are more attractive than poor men. Not fair, not true for all women, etc., but that's the way it is. Wealth is hardly a turn-off.
Given those two 'facts', the authors are only putting into journalese what everyone knows or suspects. So what is the big deal?
Life is unfair. Get on with it.
What you're implying, though, is that there is no decrease in attraction for older men. A 45 year old man is not nearly as likely to get hit on by a 20 year old women. The media tells us this happens all the time, but honestly, how many women do you know who have married someone much older? It's only to be expected that the reverse would be true for women - although the cougar phenomenon seems to be making a run to change that (and I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that either...)
Second - anyone who whittles down a woman's (or man's, for that matter!) VALUE to something as inconsequential as age, fertility, or money seriously has a messed up view of relationships and what marriage is about! The people that play that game rarely have happy marriages (if they marry at all) because they don't see people.
Personally, I find this entire discussion about a "market value" offensive as hell. Because it essentially dehumanizes people.
Women in particular are the victims in this article (as they commonly are..)
That's a good point--he seems to think that all men turn into silver-haired Roger Sterling types once they hit forty, thus assuring we can get all the tail we want for years to come. This seems a bit off the mark to me. I'd also argue the social stigma attached to a twentysomething woman marrying a much older man is at least as strong as the supposed ostracism he claims people marrying in their early twenties face.
It's also a touch bizarre that the author repeatedly scoffs at financial independence as a reason to delay marriage--there's a fair bit of evidence that older, better-educated, wealthier couples divorce at far lower rates than younger, poorer couples with less education. He kind of sort of attempts to counter this, then makes a point about marriage allowing for the pooling of resources, without really addressing the enormous strain financial insecurity can put on a marriage--sure, many couples get through it, and may even look back fondly on when they were young and struggling, but lots more don't.
Alessa,
Fair points.
As I said, I commented only on the intro. I find that berating the authors is a little unfair though: they are only reporting the facts. However uncomfortable they may be.
Your example of the 45-year man being hit on by the 20-year is fair comment. But maybe *he* will try!
No, let's limit ourselves to a thinner range: 40-year old men and 25-year-old women, say? Within that range, I personally do not find it offensive (but I am not easily offended!) if the man is attracted to the woman's nice hair, good looks, youngish enthusiasm, energy, etc. And neither am I offended if she finds his sports car to be fun, or if she enjoys going away with him to a nice hotel, etc. Or even if she finds his emotional stability quite attractive compared with that offered by the 25-year old men she knows.
As for dehumanising people, no, I disagree with you there. Humanity is made up of many people, with many characteristics, good and bad. We have to take the good and the bad; that includes accepting that some part (a large one?) of humanity is attracted to wealth, power, long legs, shiny sports cars, nice apartments, cheesy jokes, etc. To dismiss such a chunk of people from the richness of Humanity is wrong (oops - maybe a little lyrical, no?).
Oh, and another thing. If anything, it is the men who are the victims of the article: they come over as being terribly superficial and shallow.
While I'm not for berating authors in general, what you're characterizing as "reporting facts" I think many people here would characterize as "reporting old sexist tropes as if they were facts when the (very little) data that's included directly contradicts those tropes"
I know that's a long gerund, but the basis of the argument--that women's value is based almost completely on looks/fertility and diminishes significantly as they age, whereas men's value is based on economics/accomplishment and therefore increases with age--is completely undercut by the the age difference at marriage. As several people have said, if women's "market value" were highest at young ages and men's "market value" were highest at older ages, we'd see far more men marrying old, far more women marrying young, and the gender gap between "age at first marriage" would be increasing, not decreasing.
So, to summarize: the one piece of factual evidence the author includes completely undercuts his main argument. And, while I appreciate your observations, the plural of anecdote is not data.
At least terribly superficial and shallow is something. The women are painted as little more than just screaming uteruses pining for a man... At least after they're done "suppressing" their true nature in their twenties (that was the implication, as I'm sure you could see).
While I agree that yes, there are people who are largely concerned with those things, and, yes, they can influence relationships, what I disagree with is how the article blatantly states that there is a "necessity" for women to settle early because all of the successful men will have moved on to younger bouncier chicks so the man can provide financial help and the woman will be more fertile. First, women needing a man for financial help is such an outdated view. Most women expect to pave their own way financially nowadays, and now comprise about 60% of the average college campus. That means there's a rising trend of more educated women than men, and thus that women are likely to be in at least 50% of jobs. High paying ones, too. He is essentially telling women to give up their careers early for marriage and pregnancy (which would, of course, reinstate the traditional gender roles on a much broader scale). Second, it's completely ridiculous to just assume that all women want to have kids. Many don't feel the need until they are fully settled (and some not at all), and yet this article is saying that for their own well-being they should essentially give up their upward curve in the job market so they will be more likely to have children, and more likely to land Mr. Rich. IE: Women, get pregnant and find a man to pay for it.
This whole article just stinks of a man wanting to reinstate patriarchy, and is frankly extremely offensive to a woman.
And just as a side note, saying that a 25 year old being hit on by a 40 year old isn't a bad thing just makes me cringe. And grimace. And want to throw something. As someone in their early 20s, it is the creepiest thing to be hit on by anyone visibly older that 30. It's disgusting, and they don't realize that they are coming off as the sleaziest guys. And it infuriates me that I can't walk to my local grocery store in Brooklyn without having to endure 40 year old construction workers staring at me with a little smirk on their face, yelling about my body from across the street so everyone can hear, and watching me like they own me. I want to yell at them that I am a human being, but I'm too terrified of rape or assault to do it. And then there's the realization of what they'll be likely pumping away to later that night (or some other poor girl who had just wanted to drop off something at the post office)
Sorry for the last rant, but men don't seem to understand how terrifying, creepy, disgusting, and absolutely disrespectful they can be when they hit on younger women like that.
You know, sleaziness knows no age limit. You're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here and presenting your own experience as evidence.
I find it pretty offensive that you think any man over thirty is sleazy for checking out someone younger than him. What about a forty-year old woman ogling a younger man? I know that age isn't just a number. But you need to be careful how you generalize.
I'm a woman in my twenties and I am dating a man in his thirties. He is not sleazy, he never once hit on me. He is not my sugar daddy. Our relationship is based on a foundation friendship and mutual respect. He's a feminist. We've been together for five months. You think he's "disgusting"? You find our relationship disgusting? I find your intolerant, holier than thou attitude disgusting.
Rape isn't age specific. I understand your fear and unease at being ogled and yelled at by strangers. This upsets me too, very much. But wouldn't it be equally sleazy to be checked out by a 20 year old or even a 15 year old? Or a woman for that matter? Ogling is ogling. I think this attitude serves to perpetuate the stereotype that only young women are sexually attractive and older men are shallow, perverts by nature. Please stop generalizing and suggesting that my partner is disgusting for finding me attractive.
To be completely honest, I have absolutely nothing against older relationships. Or older men in general. Or younger women. Or grandma's.
I had just been told on my way to the grocery store by a construction worker who was over at least 35 to "take it off baby, take it off". That comment and rant I had made was impassioned, angry, and frustrated. I have absolutely nothing against your relationship, or any older men in general. I said nothing along the lines of that, I don't understand why you have to get so offended.
What I DO hate is when said older men stare like they own me, or anyone I know. And when I read that the person responding to my comment said they have nothing against a 40 year old finding a 25 year old attractive, I have to admit it set me off.
What I was commenting on, and what frustrated me, was that a lot of women can't go anywhere without having their bodies treated like public property. Whether the person doing that is a 12 year old girl or a 50 year old man is a moot point. I'm sorry if I offended you because that is not what I meant. But honestly, what you were pointing out is completely beside my point, and irrelevant to what I was trying to get at.
I agree, I thought it was very telling of the comment you were originally replying to was that the focus was on how it was "okay" for a 40 year old man to be attracted to a 25 year old woman, regardless of how SHE feels about that attraction.
At least terribly superficial and shallow is something. The women are painted as little more than just screaming uteruses pining for a man... At least after they're done "suppressing" their true nature in their twenties (that was the implication, as I'm sure you could see).
While I agree that yes, there are people who are largely concerned with those things, and, yes, they can influence relationships, what I disagree with is how the article blatantly states that there is a "necessity" for women to settle early because all of the successful men will have moved on to younger bouncier chicks so the man can provide financial help and the woman will be more fertile. First, women needing a man for financial help is such an outdated view. Most women expect to pave their own way financially nowadays, and now comprise about 60% of the average college campus. That means there's a rising trend of more educated women than men, and thus that women are likely to be in at least 50% of jobs. High paying ones, too. He is essentially telling women to give up their careers early for marriage and pregnancy (which would, of course, reinstate the traditional gender roles on a much broader scale). Second, it's completely ridiculous to just assume that all women want to have kids. Many don't feel the need until they are fully settled (and some not at all), and yet this article is saying that for their own well-being they should essentially give up their upward curve in the job market so they will be more likely to have children, and more likely to land Mr. Rich. IE: Women, get pregnant and find a man to pay for it.
This whole article just stinks of a man wanting to reinstate patriarchy, and is frankly extremely offensive to a woman.
And just as a side note, saying that a 25 year old being hit on by a 40 year old isn't a bad thing just makes me cringe. And grimace. And want to throw something. As someone in their early 20s, it is the creepiest thing to be hit on by anyone visibly older that 30. It's disgusting, and they don't realize that they are coming off as the sleaziest guys. And it infuriates me that I can't walk to my local grocery store in Brooklyn without having to endure 40 year old construction workers staring at me with a little smirk on their face, yelling about my body from across the street so everyone can hear, and watching me like they own me. I want to yell at them that I am a human being, but I'm too terrified of rape or assault to do it. And then there's the realization of what they'll be likely pumping away to later that night (or some other poor girl who had just wanted to drop off something at the post office)
Sorry for the last rant, but men don't seem to understand how terrifying, creepy, disgusting, and absolutely disrespectful they can be when they hit on younger women like that.
I'm 19. So... according to Regnerus, my 'biological clock' is already ticking? well damn, i better settle down and start popping out some kids, lest some old men think my uterus is gross and useless in ten years.
I thought this summary a complete mischaracterization of the article. As I read it the guy is simply saying there are a lot of benefits (to both men & women) of getting married early that are dismissed out of hand by a graduate degree obsessed culture. That's somehow sexist? I don't necessarily agree with the point, but its certainly not sexist.
And are there many hetero women over 35 who don't lament a lack of options??? If anything the author is acknowledging the sexism that exists (ie, 38 yo men who insist on marrying 25 yo women) rather than supporting it. This is much ado about nothing.
Bravo! Well said! A kindred spirit!
Are you done trolling now?
While I think the man's intentions were good, if you examine the article I think you'll find that the underlying assumptions are 1)contradicted by the scant facts he includes, and 2)chauvinist.
I'm so upset that no one bothered to tell me, until today, that my worth as a human being, or to be precise my "market value," depends on the viability of my womb! I mean, dear god! How could everyone be so cruel, taunting me with false promises about the importance of what sort of person I happen to be.
Why did I ever even bother to go to law school? I should have been focusing on getting and keeping my body in prime physical form! Why spend time volunteering or exploring or living life to its fullest? I should have been learning about the ideal pre-natal nutritional plans. And why ever did I focus on my studies in college? I should have been taking the time to lock down the perfect breeding partner (er, mate) for immediate contractual union upon graduation. Granted, I really shouldn't have paid attention to boys in my peer group in college. Instead, I should have been focusing on those grad students who helped out the professors -- or better yet, the professors themselves!
I mean, let's be honest. In this economy, having a dual-family income is sooo late 20th century. Everyone knows that most families can get along just fine on the solo efforts of truly hard-working husband! And if, god-forbid, he dies, or leaves me, or turns out to be less ideal than I thought (true, I would have only known him for a year at most, but love conquers all and Mother Nature is calling!), my lithe, egg-producing, little body would hopefully still have been young enough to attract a replacement!
Alas, here I am, 30 years old, with my own home, a successful career as a civil-rights attorney, a group of wonderful friends, and an amazing boyfriend. But no ring is on my finger! And I'm sure my eggs are cracking as we speak! Woe unto me. What ever will happen to me when said boyfriend learns that I am -- as he currently believes-- actually (sob) 30 and so of declining marketability? Get me to a nunnery!
Most posters here are completely missing the point of this article. The author is presenting the results of his study, NOT trying to propagate an ideal. He is simply telling the facts. Countless articles on this site decry the sexism women experience and how women are often viewed as only having sexual value, yet when a researcher confirms the opinions voiced on this site, everyone joins in crucifying him. Either he's right, or this site is lying about many things.It's sad, but very true that men see their "market value" rise with age, and women see their's decline. I'm a man, I see it, and so do all of you, that's why you're on this site. Seriously, he is agreeing with you, the truth is ugly, but it's the truth
That's not really true--he's pretty clearly advocating the position that people should marry younger, and argues that society in general and parents in particular are mistaken in encouraging young people to delay marriage. And he repeatedly dismisses any argument that young people today might have good reason for delaying marriage, particularly for financial reasons.
It's not because we're graduate-degree obsessed, refusing to marry until we get that Comp Lit PhD--it's because many of us feel that at age 22, with $20,000 in undergraduate debt and a few years of part-time or dead-end employment ahead of us, it just might be worth putting off marriage until things are a bit more settled. I'd argue this is a fairly common condition, far more so than when our parents were getting married, though I'm sure some might disagree.
A very small amount of the article (one paragraph) is devoted to reporting his research (that women feel pressured to delay marriage). The rest of the article is full of unsubstantiated opinions stated as facts.
If he's just reporting his research, I'd like to see the details. Was it a survey? If so, what kind of questions did he ask? How was it randomised? Did he control for confounding variables? Sample size? P-value? Are there other conclusions you could draw from it? (In particular, I would like to see how on earth he got to "women should do this" from what seems to be a survey on attitudes regarding early marriage!)
It is a perpetual annoyance that apparently the media think "reporting research" means "talk about unfounded wildly over-exaggerated hypotheses with an only tenuous basis in the actual work that's been done and make sure to excise all mention of the actual research because it might, you know, scare people because there are *numbers* in it." This guy does actually get small bonus points because there are a bunch of links to PubMed in the article; most don't even bother to do that.
Okk...so if the age gap is decreasing, why are people so preoccupied with the older-man, younger woman dicotnomy? Obviously, older women's market value is increasing and older men's market value is decreasing!
I mean, personally, it just reflects the modern age---people today prefer people their own age. Someone 10 years older than me (or younger) just might not be able to relate to me (unlike, perhaps, 30 or 50 years ago).
If you only had a chance to read the intro, you should definitely go back and take a closer look at the sway of his argument. While old social norms (like the "market value" of a woman's youth or a man's financial success) have undoubtedly carried sexism into our generation, the focus of author's argument has to do with something entirely different and unprecedented: change!
People are getting married older. And by "people" I mean "women", because the average age of newly married men (28) hasn't increased more than 2 years in the past century, while that of women has increased from 21 to 26. Women are putting education before matrimony and family in the chronology of their lives, and the age gap between partners is decreasing. Maybe being youthful and fertile or wealthy and powerful has less to do nowadays with why people are getting married!
These things seem to be good for everybody and bad for people like Regnerus, who continually link gender equality with social problems--if you could argue that later marriage is actually a "social problem". But, you know, women who "barhop through their 20's" are destroying the institution of marriage and harming the environment!
Putting aside his ass-hat environment comment, Regnerus is doing much more than "journalizing" the truth about the unfortunate stereotypes of men and women. He's placing a negative stigma on their decreasing relevance in today's changing society. And in terms of equality and human rights, he's associating a nostalgic sentimentality with a period of time in which women married young because they had no other options.
I guess this "professor of sociology" didn't stop to think about the evolution of women's rights in the past 100 years.
What a douche bag!
Wow this is offensive. Aside from the assumptions that we all want to get married and have kids the author has major flaws in his basic arguments. Like what about men's fertility decreasing and alternately women's access to resources and maturity increasing with age. His argument only works if you buy into the assumption that women are only interested in men for financial stability and men are only interested in women for their appearance and ability to be fertile. Also, what about divorce? How is a female who rushes to get married and consequently ends up divorced (perhaps now with kids and not enough work experience) in a better position than a female who waits to marry? Anyone pushing for men to marry younger women has a hidden agenda of control. A younger female is usually easier to control, a married female is easier to control, a female who buys into traditional gender roles is easier to control.
OH MAN THAT IS RICH! Mark Regnerus! What an ( fills in with words associate with fecal matter). Honestly what century is he living in? If i got married my debt would pile up rather than decrease. 50% of marriages don't end up lasted anyhow. So you can kiss that $50 000000 wedding reception, dress, hall, decor and dinner a goodbye as you hire the next lawyer for a divorce. I'm sorry Mark females aren't just mindless baby making machines that are meant to get hitched! Its the 21st century for goodness sakes! This article just is DISGUSTING! What if males were infertile to being with? Then what does that count as? And a woman doesn't have to get hitched just so she can have a kid biologically. She can adopt! There are plenty of children out there who deserve a good home. This geezer still has cobwebs in his brain that he needs to clear.
Because everyone know that women are cattle, to be bought for decoration and childbirth. It boggles my mind that people still think like this.
I live in a backwards part of the country (i.e. a red state) and you would not believe the pressure that exists on girls to marry before they are out of college... preferably, before they are of legal drinking age. Peer pressure makes it seem like some kind of gigantic accomplishment to get hitched to the first person you feel vaguely comfortable with, when in reality the accomplishment around here lies in *NOT* getting married until you're good and ready. It's sad, the number of 30-ish people I know who are already on marriage #2...
(to be fair, it's almost as bad on guys as well around here)
In addition to everything else that's wrong with the Post op-ed, the scientific claims are also shoddy. Here's what I wrote about it at my Living Single blog at Psychology Today:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200904/don-t-just-marry-marry-young-so-says-the-op-ed-page-the-washington-post
--Bella DePaulo, author of SINGLED OUT
I read your article and suffice it to say I am now officially interested in your book. After several failed attempts of landing a boyfriend, I finally sat down and took a hard look at why I thought I wanted one. I couldn't come up with a good enough answer. It occurred to me that I was much happier single and with friends than I was vying for male attention. I'm thoroughly convinced that having a relationship isn't something I want, it's something that's expected of me.
Damn, if patriarchy isn't a snake in the grass.
Brilliant!
I can't add much to the great comments here but I would like to tell Regnerus to sod off on the environmental thing. It's obvious that he thinks the whole point of marriage is to procreate, and once you've done that you've pretty much negated any carbon-offset you attained by merging households. And since he contends that divorce creates millions of resource-sucking extra households, then I can't imagine why he would advocate for young marriage when the #1 cause of divorce is marriage and young marriages are even more likely to break up (a fact he acknowledges despite all the crapola about 18 year old women being more successful at it than 21 year old men).
this article pisses me off more and more as I think about it. this article shouldn't be about "market value"--it should be about how "older" educated women *add* to their market value!
Also, so, you get married at 28--how is that any different from getting married at 18 and NOT having kids until you're 28??? I mean, geez, it's not like the uterus shuts off at 30. Now, if women are trying to have their first kids at 40, that might be a problem, but that's not the case! That 28 year old could have 12 kids if she wanted!
To me, the authors message almost seems desperate. What are you waiting for? Well, there are so many factors it's embarrassing to narrow them down to your age, and fertility. I remember reading a study (I can't remember where) that suggested that couples were actually happier, better adjusted and just better at relationships when they married older. Mainly this is because they waited to discover who they were as individuals, instead of "escaping the growing up process" by marrying. This is what it suggested. Not everyone marries for those reasons, but I wonder if some don't.
I think that choosing a partner in life, whether it's marriage, or living together, or anything is the biggest decision of our lives. Deciding if we want to share our lives with just one person is a huge decision in and of itself.
Trying to put all of that information, factors and ideas into one "marketable" or not "marketable" tag line is just insulting. He is (I believe) advocating marriage for the sake of marriage. Not because you are in love and want to share your life with someone. He's attempting to play on what he believes is the fear of all women, everywhere. That one day, if we don't stop concentrating on ourselves (God Forbid), we are going to end up husbandless and alone because our "marketvalue" has dropped.
I would rather be happy with who I am, and have a healthy, rich (emotionally and financially) life, than get married for the wrong reasons and end up supremely unhappy in a loveless marriage. Maybe that is what many women are figuring out earlier and earlier now. Maybe they're just not ready. Is that so bad?
Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read the article yet, but I had to comment on the picture of the young "bride" pictured here....
That little girl in the dress reminds me SOOOO much of my own flower girl dress that I wore to my aunt's wedding when I was four. I was dressed as a mini bride, basically. I had on a REALLY big, poofy dress with long, lacy sleeves and a veil and everything. Seriously, the dress could have been an exact replica of my aunt's wedding dress only mini-sized. This has always been unsettling for me, especially since I was sexually abused at only six and the whole "child bride" or "market value" of young girls freaks me out....
I was actually wondering if that picture is of an actual flower girl's dress or a junior bridesmaid or something?
I am also engaged and have talked to many other women on Brides.com about what flower girls should wear for a wedding. Many other women agreed with me that the whole "mini bride" thing is just creepy.
I'm sorry, I know this has little to do with the actual article but it was the first thing that popped into my mind and I just felt the need to say it.
Okay, I'm off to read about how I should have gotten married when I first showed the signs of womanhood now...
I'm pretty sure that child is wearing a bridal "dress-up" or Halloween costume. It looks too chintzy to be a flower girl dress.
I thought that the flower girl's dress was usually a reflection, if not almost an exact replica of the bride's dress.
If you think about it too much, it can be creepy. So...the only conclusion I can make is that most people don't think about it or any of the implications of a "traditional" marriage ceremony (like the father "giving away" the bride BS) and therefore, just go along with everything.
When I was a flower girl, my dress was a reflection of the *bridesmaids'* dresses.
I just signed up for Google Alerts for the words Feminists and Feminism and this article came up along with Jessica Valenti's name attached to them. Unfortunately, they were all right-wing sights slamming her.
One,http://www.cassyfiano.com/2009/04/feminism-ignores-uncomfortable-truths, I found absurd because the writer herself is young, single, and has no children. Yet, she is criticizing Valenti and others for not believing Regnerus's research. Apparently unaware that some of the women on this site are engaged or married saying that they shun "anything resembling traditional values than actual sexism."
I've only had the Google Alerts set for about three hours so far and I think my head is going to explode with all the right wing bullshit that keeps popping up. I was going to set an alert for the word pro-choice, but I don't think I'll be happy with the results I get.
I meant to write "sites" not the word sights. Sorry, I had to correct it.
I guess I was supposed to get my baby-making done in my 20s when I was barely financially and emotionally able to support myself, let alone someone dependent on me. If I have to "beg, pray, borrow and pay" my fertility in my 30s, I'll accept that it wasn't meant to be before I regret not doing something that would have been a disaster for me at the time.
Wow. Okay, Mark, your article was doomed to fail from the very beginning. After reading the following sentences, I fought hard not to click on that oh-so-tempting 'X' button at the top of my browser:
"If men weren't pulling women along with them on this upward swing, I wouldn't be complaining. But women are now taking that first plunge into matrimony at an older age as well."
So you already admit to us that you're only against WOMEN marrying older, and not men? That changes what your entire article is about. There is a difference between writing about how everyone is getting married older and "oh noes! its TERRIBLEZ!" and women getting married older and having that grind your gears for some reason.
Alright, so I'm an engaged 19-year-old woman and I think I can say a word or two about this subject. Are there pressures for people to NOT get married young? Certainly! I can't even begin to tell you how many people have told me that it's a mistake, it's a mistake to date him, it's a mistake to even think about marriage, what about finishing college (which I am, thank you very much), yadda, yadda, yadda.
The thing is, it's all about being able to be FREE to choose. Do I think marriage at a young age is for all people? No! Goodness, no! In fact, I'm usually not exactly for it and I urge people to not race into marriage at a young age. But it can work as well, so I'm not against it.
Now, according to Mark, the only reason women get married is to MAEK SOME BABEIZ!! If a lady doesn't get married in her 20s, she is apparently doomed to fail and live a miserable life with ten cats or something like that. How do we know this? Why, as Mark says, "Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion."
As my fiancee has said, "Statistics class taught me that you can make statistics out of anything you want." So.....show me those studies and then prove them to me, Mark. 'Cause honestly, I ain't buying it.
The truly funny part of this article, however, is near the end, when Mark "applauds" people (a.k.a. women) who get married young.
"One of those is Jennifer, a 23-year-old former student of mine. She's getting married this fall. It wasn't religion that made her do it. It wasn't fear of being alone. It was simply affection."
Notice that, folks? "It was simply affection." Now wait a second, Mark. I thought women only got married to have babies, not for affection! Now I'm confused...
Well, I guess my fiancee and I will have to wonder, "What are we truly get married for? Affection or babies?" If it ain't the latter, then I guess the wedding's off! HUZZAH!
(It's late, I'm running on no sleep, half of my message doesn't make sense, deal with it. ;p)
This reminds me a little of the beginning of Lolita, where Humbert enumerates a bunch of historical instances of child brides to prove that his fetish is normal.
Referencing Lolita in addition to this horrific article...oh gosh, I think I just threw up a little. x_x
I know it has been commented on already; but what infuriates me the most is that this guy is a Sociologist! I for one as a Sociologist that teaches college level Sociology (especially in the realm of sex and gender inequality) I am sad to have this person in the same discipline. It was mentioned above that he is just reporting his findings and we should not hold him accountable. I think this line of thinking is disregarding that A: He decided to do the project in the first place and B. When he reported the results (which were no where near as scientific as it should be) there is an undertone of masculine superiority, which is reinforcing stereotypes and genderted assumptions like the commodification of women. His tone and findings were akin to someone saying " Oh, women carry and give birth to children therefore they shouldn't have careers or anything that gives them self satisfaction."
I do think that the article is totally stupid. I dislike anyone who assumes a woman needs to have babies... I'm certainly very happy without them.
While promoting young marriage (or any marriage) seems counter-productive to me, I do think it would be nice if people didn't have such a stigma about women who marry young. I got married at 17, and I am extremely, extremely happy that I did. My husband is an awesome guy, 100% supportive of all my goals. However, most people assumed I was going to get pregnant and quit school just because I married young! They failed to understand that my career is extremely important to me and that I don't even want children. They continually told me that I would just suddenly *want* kids and abandon everything else. I'm applying to medical school this year, which is just *shocking* to everyone I know.
I hate the term market value whether it is used for a man or for a woman, because I think it objectifies people and relationships. Relationships are supposed to enhance your life and be about connecting with another human being. Reducing them down to something that is quantifiable or sounds like it can be bought or sold is harsh. However, I do think that if you want a family and children, you have to be realistic about your timeline. That goes for men, too, though, because how many men really want to be parenting children late in life, when they should be thinking about retirement? You can't plan for everything, but if at all possible, it's best to start a family in your 20's or early 30's. Like it or not, that's when women have the best chances for giving birth to healthy babies. Biologically, women have fertility limitations that men do not. It's not fair, but that's life.
Biologically, women have fertility limitations that men do not. It's not fair, but that's life.
Not for long! That's called medical technology. Give it another 25 years and I can promise this conversation will be be a matter of economics only.
Also - the author clearly doesn't get the value of debits and credits in the business sense. Debits add to the assets columns while credits take away. So not only is he using business-ese, he's using the wrong terminology.
It is certainly degrading and disgusting to talk about humans or women in particular as having a "market value". It is indeed objectifying. For that reason alone, no matter what the (undoubtably questionable) studies show, I would not read such an article. Obviously the writer has an agenda, or at the very least is so insensitive with his terminology that I can't imagine anything he has to say would be relevant to me since he is coming from a pernicious ideology to begin with, or at the very least is somewhat ignorant. I suspect he has an agenda, if only to be provocative and get his article some attention. I would like to say that I spent much of my youth buying into fear mongering and feeling bad about getting older, because of my supposed decreased "market value". I would like to let all the young women out there know that all of that fear was unfounded, as most of the men I get involved with are attractive young men, generally a decade younger than me or more! So I think that should allay the fears of younger women somewhat...Just doing my part to counteract the patriarchy!
i think the writer of the article misinterpreted the data obtained from the social psychologist. While "market value" is definitely a poor way to phrase the phenomena, it is well known in psychology that attraction is largely based on a cost-benefit model and when looking at studies of attraction, sadly, women are highly valued for signs of fertility (such as young age, wide hips etc etc) and men are valued for silly things like resources etc. Its important to know that these findings are based on averages and don't account for individual differences. They are surface level studies that typically have to do with studies of ratings, not actually existing relationships.
I do think the writer had a bias for writing this article. I just hate it when people misuse psychological research.
I have been commenting on this article on the WaPo site for 2 straight days. It is the most sickening piece of trash I have ever read. This guy is a college professor! they let him near impressionable young people! Honestly, I can't believe a mainstream paper published it, but then again that's how much matrimania, singlism, and sexism is accepted in this country. Blegh just thinking about it makes my skin crawl.
Luckily, most of the comments on the article are negative. However, there is a guy who has responded to every comment I made. Among other things, he said about me:
-I must have more testosterone than a normal woman
-I am promiscuous (because I'm 31 and single)
-I "give away the milk for free"
-I'm angry
-I'm "against love"
So, let me just summarize this:
"People are getting married older and the age gap is shrinking; this would be okay except that OMG wimmenz are also getting married older. Women should get married younger because men can get married whenever they want: I don't make the rules, I just report them. Except that if women are marrying later in life to men who are roughly their same age, then my claim makes no sense because women don't seem to have problems finding a husband after finishing college and starting a career. Women should get married younger because OMG babiez. But wait, sperm doesn't keep so well either, as it turns out. Now I claim that young people aren't getting married because they lack my ability to interpret statistical data that says that young marriages are less successful. What really makes marriage work isn't age but indicators of maturity (nevermind that almost no one has these at 18). Slyly I sneak the fact that my wife and I married *after* college in here. Even though the younger marriages I advocate are more likely to result in divorce, and even though all divorces result from marriage, I go on to argue that marriage is financially and ecologically beneficial *when compared with* the extra households created by divorce."
What a dufus. This guy has a Ph.D.? He's just all over the place. If you want to argue that people should get married younger for fertility reasons, then CITE EVIDENCE that suggests that people are having too few babies now or that an inordinate number of them are damaged by their parents age. Figure out why exactly not getting married young is bad: infertility? environment? finances?
He says older ages at marriage are bad emotionally but never supports this claim with evidence. He offers a bunch of contradictory reasons that wimmenz want to wait for marriage--is it parental pressure? peer pressure? a calculated decision based on knowledge of marital success rates? I mean, sure, it could be a combination of these, but he never attempts to synthesize them. He says the age gap is a good thing because 21-year-old men are less prepared for marriage than 18-year-old women; but this falls apart since people are, according to him, no longer marrying at these ages in great numbers. If people are marrying older then the maturity rates for each sex must logically become similar over time, so in order to agree about the age gap being good, you already have to be in agreement that younger marriage is good. Not to mention that the demands of the "marriage market" suggest that women who wait to get married will not find a mate because their worth has declined, while his own evidence suggests otherwise. It's more like he's pissed that the marriage market no longer works the way it used to.
The real problem with this article is that it reads like a dirty old man trying to throw any and every marginally relevant piece of evidence in a pot so he can stew over the fact that men can no longer wait until age thirty or forty and expect to marry some 18-year-old virgin in a Catholic school uniform. I hate sexism, but I hate the inability to string together a logical argument that much more.
By way of offering something useful in my too-long rant of a comment, some of you may be interested to check out Susan Faludi's Backlash: in Chapter Two, she discusses the late-1980s media myth that women's deferral of marriage had led to a "man shortage." (It wasn't true. Someone should alert Professor Wienie.)
You also have to love the comments from his (1 or 2?) supporters. There's a fantastic one from a 20-something guy about having a 30-year-old female roommate who was "attractive but really showing her age." Yes, 30 is so old. I happen to be 31 and I look hot. In fact, I've been dating 25 year-olds recently. If you look at photos of my college friends now vs. 10 years ago, omg, we all look so much better it's ridiculous.
Another guy claims that Regnerus' arguments aren't popular, but they are "fact." In case you missed that day in school, it's a "fact" that women are less attractive past a certain age.
Does Regnerus' little anecdote about his 23 year-old student at the end creep anyone else the hell out? I sure as hell hope her decision to get married wasn't influenced by her idiot of a professor. I also love how he says now all her friends "are bridesmaids" as his final point, like it sums it all up. Like every girl who's 23 freaking years old would prefer to be the bride. Seriously, I'm in my 30s and when I'm standing there in my bridesmaid dresses I'm thanking the lord I'm not the one the poofy white thing.
I need to brush up on the subject, but Regnerus' central claim, that older men have it all over older women in terms of "market value," just doesn't ring true to me. I'll wager that a man's "growing resources" only help him up to a certain age, before it runs smack into the insuperable fact that women, like men, value physical attractiveness in a mate. And I'll wager further that the older a man is, the more it will be necessary for him to have LOTS of resources for appreciable numbers of women to even consider overlooking his physical undesirability, and even then he won't necessarily do any better than an attractive young man who merely has lots of upside potential. Since the majority of men can boast only middling resources even at their peak, Regnerus' truism is irrelevant for the vast majority anyway.
So, I call bullshit. I think that for both men and women, mate selection involves a compromise between physical attraction and comparability of socioeconomic status (and keep in mind that SES can include the level of status one EXPECTS to achieve). I've heard it explained that the value placed on men's income may simply be a by-product of the fact that, thanks to the wage gap, income is a better predictor of a man's SES than it is a woman's. But once you include less tangible markers such as education level, cultural capital, and anticipated achievement level, the difference vanishes. In other words, comparable social status is valued at least somewhat by BOTH sexes, and there's only so much that people of either sex can sacrifice in terms of either physical attractiveness or SES before it begins to hurt their "market value". Of course this all THEORY (real life is a lot messier), but it's no less plausible than Regnerus' crap.
Exactly what you are saying is discussed at length in the book 'Adapting Minds' by Buller. It's a critique of evolutionary psychology and presents a lot of evidence that some evolutionary psychologists flat out ignore when it comes to modern dating practices----such as the fact that when all is said and done the vast majority of people parter with people who are of equal attractiveness.
Also it doesn't matter a damn thing what people want. It's all about what you can realistically get in a partner and what you have to offer your partner. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nowhere did it happen in time---except for a relatively few outrageous exceptions that happened under very violent conditions----did men (and a few women) get exactly what they wanted in terms of mating partners. So this entitlement that has been born out of this misunderstand is causing a lot of resentment today toward women resulting in absurd articles such as the above.
My thoughts exactly. Regnerus obviously hasn't been to a high school reunion lately. Women- especially the single ones it seems from observation- can age beautifully, maintaining much of the beauty they had when they were younger while adding to it with increased confidence and more developed style and sophistication. While men are capable of this, many of them gain weight, lose hair, etc. Men often look completely different when they are older! This idiot puts all this weight on physical attractiveness, but refuses to believe it applies to men at all. Personally, I have NEVER been attracted to older men. Even back in college when girls would talk about the "hot" professors, I couldn't see it. I just wasn't into it.
Also, there's this whole circular logic. He claims that women value older men because they have the resources. But hello, if women wait to get married, then they don't NEED the men's resources, and therefore his perception of a man's "market value" is completely invalidated.
I just love the stereotype of women as gold diggers, don't you?
Back in January, I bought a daily calendar called "Wild Words from Wild Women."
I thought that today's quote works perfectly in response to this article:
"If man's main function were decorative and male adolescence were seen as the peak of male value, a 'distinguished' middle-aged man would look shockingly flawed."
-Naomi Wolf, the woman behind 'The Beauty Myth'