Late baby blues? Blame the men

Started by alien, Sep 18, 2005, 01:01 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

alien

Quote
Late baby blues? Blame the men :roll:

Juliette Jowit
Sunday September 18, 2005
The Observer

As a child I dreamt of announcing my birthday in a national newspaper. Think of all those presents. I'm getting old enough now to care about the age more than the book tokens, but I must declare an interest: my name is Juliette, I have no children and on Thursday I will be 35.

Another warning against women waiting 'too long' to have children has this week gained the usual media attention. And I understand why: I confess that in a week of still horrendous news from Iraq and America this was the story that touched me most.

The first reaction is, predictably, self-defensive resentment; a sunny morning sunk by a cold stone in the stomach. The implication of all these stories, intended or not, is that it is silly, or more pointedly, selfish for the Bridget Jones generation of women to put their job, salary and lifestyle before having a family and, far worse, the potential health and survival of a child.

Childless women in their thirties do not need another warning to make them wonder occasionally if they will blame themselves were they to have a disabled child.

Self-defensiveness gives way to confusion. After 35, women are at greater risk of infertility and complications, we were told. Such reports are well intentioned and important in informing women about their choices. But how do women assess the risks: how much more dangerous is it to have a child at 36? Or 38? Broadly, the risk rises gradually until 40, and then becomes even steeper.

It is hard, however, to get a sense of scale. For example, how does the risk of age compare to the risks of, say, smoking, being overweight or suffering stress?

There remains a lingering sense of frustration that the risks of delaying a family are so consistently portrayed as solely a woman's choice.

Sorry to state the obvious, but it takes two to make a baby. And this is where much of the problem lies: there are many women who would dearly love to settle and have children before they are 35 or 40 but cannot find a committed partner or, when they do, can't convince him it's time to give up the double income and social life to have a family.

As Bridget Jones found out, women meet a lot of commitment-phobes before they find their Mr Darcy.

And it is not just women being too picky, though frankly it is offensive to suggest they should settle for a man because their biological clock is ticking faster.

The problem gets worse at the very age when it begins to matter most: many women will testify that men get wary of 'desperate' thirtysomething singletons. The evidence for this is admittedly a totally unscientific survey of friends, friends of friends as well as anecdotes.

But it is intuitively right. Look at the singleton celebrity male role models such as Colin Farrell, who shows no sign of giving up his carousing at 29, or George Clooney (still untamed at 44), or for that matter Hugh Grant, who played Bridget's caddish Daniel Cleaver (just turned 45 and still unsettled). Or consider the pleasure-seeking lifestyles peddled in the booming market for magazines aimed at men under 35, and even older. Today, men who get married at 30 might be the first in their set of friends to tie the knot, and peer pressure to put off having children raises the age bar even higher.

This is a generation brought up to believe in technological progress as the answer to problems, and maybe women are reassured by the chance of IVF treatment if they do leave it too late.

Let's face it though, we all take risks, whether it's smoking, cycling without a helmet or every time we get in the car. Most people think 'it won't happen to me'. This applies as much to men who are reluctant to commit to one woman or take on family responsibility as it does to women.

The important question is why are men as well as women waiting in the first place? For both sexes these issues are rooted in broader social and economic trends, and to suggest either sex is simply gambling with parenthood is unhelpfully simplistic. Some of these trends are 'selfish': we now expect more acquisitive lifestyles, more choice, more freedom.

Other pressures are more serious. Teenagers are under pressure to go to university before starting work; they are then saddled with considerable debt; and even with the loans paid off it now takes years to afford even a modest flat or house in many parts of Britain.

Yes, some people do enjoy working or having good lifestyles, but many are also insecure about jobs or finances or giving their family a decent home.

It is impossible to say how much this is a problem of a spoilt, Peter Pan generation, or socio-economics. But it is not always a woman's choice to reach 35 with no children.

dsibley

I married a 30 something year old woman 15 years ago. After 12 years of marriage and 3 children, she left. When she left, she left with half my assets (I say mine because she contributed very little to paying for these assets). She left with more than half my income (it depends on the month since I am self employed but in some months it is definitely more than half and in fact it can approach more than 100% in bad months but admittedly in good months it can be less than half). She left me with huge debts including the $35,000 car she convinced me to buy her just months before she left. Yes, she left with her drug dealer boyfriend. Yes, she had me arrested twice and tried more times. The first time was nothing more than an argument over her staying out until 3:00 a.m. in the morning repeatedly. The second was nothing at all -- just a setup and a lie. The courts and the police always took her side. In fact, the court would not even set hearings for me. They gave her hearings on a moments notice and when I couldn't attend due to hard conflict the Court didn't care.

I am luckier than many. My youngest child was six when this happened. My oldest was 11. This means I had firmly established relationships with them. Despite her efforts to replace drug dealer for me as their father, they stood by me and our relationship is strong. She has given up on that (and drug dealer is gone). I see so many fathers who get the boot when their child is still an infant. These fathers have not a chance. I am very lucky because her parents are decent with me and help me with the children. I finally got the Court to allow me to pick up and return the children at her parent's house, so I no longer fear arrest when I go pick up the children. Now, I see the children without significant problem except sometimes I don't see them at all like this weekend because I am broke. it costs a lot of money to pickup the children, entertain them, and feed them. I am broke. Last week I paid virtually every dime I had in child support. I still have a $550 car payment I need to pay for her. If I miss either of these payments, needless to say, there will be hell to pay.

I just learned that the Congress in its endless attack on divorced fathers has said a man cannot file Chapter 13 Bankruptcy if he is behind on his child support. Congress seems to want to drive men into the ground. If he gets financially behind, he just loses his car and house without the benefit of Chapter 13 to catch up because after all he is a deadbeat dad. Is Congress fighting deadbeat dads or creating them?

My point of course is that any man with half a brain must be leery of "commiting" and having babies with any woman especially a woman he meets at this age (as opposed to say a woman he met in highschool and has known and trusted for years) who is looking not only for a sperm but a bank account to fund her babies. I love my children and it will be worth it (even 12 years of virtually slavery and literally terror -- continuous fear of jail). I would do it again knowing them as I do. However, before knowing them, in other words before they were born, I doubt I would undertake this journey again. It is just too dangerous.

This writer I think is wrong. It is not immaturity or selfishness. It is self defense. Fatherhood is a raw deal. Men want to have families. Always have and always will. However, the present legal framework is just a raw deal. You do nothing wrong (other than not being sensitive, exciting, etc. enough) and the mother can take your income, your children, your security, and even your dignity. It is one thing to support your children in your household where you can economize and adjust to life's ups and downs. It is another thing to have to make X dollars each month or go to jail. It is a big difference. Further, people are not motivated well by threats. They are much better motivated by rewards. No one ever say thanks for a child support check. After wall, you are just doing it because you were forced to. Right? They just say go to jail if you fail.

In my area, it seems most fathers are teenagers (and most mothers). These "children" have babies like crazy. Many of these mothers I think seek food stamps and welfare and what not. These fathers I think primarily sought sex. They will pay for it for at least 18 years. Some will pay for it with their freedom. I think once a level of maturity arises and the system has been learned the men avoid children. The 18 year olds als have this "it won't happen to me" attitude that disappears with age.

Anyway, what the writer describes (reluctance to commit and become a father) will continue and get worse until society stops attacking fathers. This means primarily not stripping fathers of all their rights "without fault" and it means not raping them financially. It seems to me if the laws were more even handed there would be a lot less divorce.

My proposal would be take the time between divorce and the children reaching 18 (the youngest child) and divide this in half.  She is the primary residence half this time and he is the other half. The dice are rolled to see who gets the children for the first half.

Do to her exactly what is done to him when she is not the primary residence. Take her income. Put her in jail if she doesn't or can't pay. I think this would put a stop to a lot of divorces if women realized that this could happen to them (instead of automatically to him). Stop the domestic violence crap (unless there is real evidence of real vioence -- all the bullshit accusations of domestic violence should be ignored).

He isn't mature or stabile enough? Well, if he had his income back and had his family back, he would be lot different. Taking away his income and family and threatening him with jail is a good way to take him down. If he has these things back, he will come back up.

This would be really good for children. It would be good for fathers. Ultimately, it would be good for women. More marriages would surive. Women will think twice before they play the child support lottery and run off with the milkman (or whoever). Men will "commit" more freely.

contrarymary

Quote
Now, I see the children without significant problem except sometimes I don't see them at all like this weekend because I am broke. it costs a lot of money to pickup the children, entertain them, and feed them. I am broke. Last week I paid virtually every dime I had in child support. I still have a $550 car payment I need to pay for her. If I miss either of these payments, needless to say, there will be hell to pay.


:(

My heart goes to you.  But I feel certain that somewhere, there are women who will tell you somehow this is all your own fault - you know, if you had paid more attention to the wife, gotten her that diamond ring, etc., this wouldn't have happened.
quot;I can resist anything but temptation."

 Oscar Wilde

damnbiker

Quote
I confess that in a week of still horrendous news from Iraq and America this was the story that touched me most.

There's your first indication of the type of woman we're dealing with here.
Quote

And it is not just women being too picky, though frankly it is offensive to suggest they should settle for a man because their biological clock is ticking faster.Yes, to even suggest that they've have unreasonable expectations of what a relationship should be is offensive.

You should never suggest that women are setting ridiculous expectations for relationships, and even weddings.  I'm sure everyone knows someone who turned into a bridezilla for her wedding.
Quote

The problem gets worse at the very age when it begins to matter most: many women will testify that men get wary of 'desperate' thirtysomething singletons. The evidence for this is admittedly a totally unscientific survey of friends, friends of friends as well as anecdotes.

Gee, I wonder why?  Ever been in a bar full of "thirty something" women?  You can't even have a conversation with them because of the deafening tick-tick-ticking of all the biological clocks.  Or could it posibly be that if you're in your thirties and never married it's a pretty freakin good indicator that you may be the one with the problem rather than all the men?
Quote

Let's face it though, we all take risks, whether it's smoking, cycling without a helmet or every time we get in the car. Most people think 'it won't happen to me'. This applies as much to men who are reluctant to commit to one woman or take on family responsibility as it does to women.

Except men can side step this whole problem by marrying a younger woman.  But men should be expected to "settle" while it's offensive to suggest that women should, gotcha.
Quote

It is impossible to say how much this is a problem of a spoilt, Peter Pan generation, or socio-economics. But it is not always a woman's choice to reach 35 with no children.

So when if comes to the men wanting social freedom (not to mention financial freedom they are spoilt, Peter Pan's, but when women want it it's socio-economic.  Wow, really?  She's still single?  Well, where's the line up to date this woman, I want to jump right in there!
Frustrating, isn't it?
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

dsibley

Sure, I understand that. Also, there would be some truth to that. One can always do better at those kinds of things. However, the other side of the coin exists. I could go on for hundreds of pages on insensitivity and much worse that I suffered. I didn't go out and have an affair.

Thomas

Great post, dsibley. I'm sorry about your terrible experiences,  but I'm happy that you didn't fare as badly as so many men. Back in the 1970s, I saw what was coming for fathers and men and boys in general. I chose not to have children, because I knew what a raw deal it would be for men. (Hell, at that point it was already a rotten deal for men.)

If developed societies collapse and are overrun because they have chosen to wage war against men and boys, so be it.
We Are Self-Exterminating Through The Collapse Of Fertility Rates.
The Death of Birth.
Fertility Rates Magazine.

Factory

My current GF and I were talking about this last night...weird I wouldsee this today.

At any rate, she's 29, and has told me I'm a rare duck...see, to her, I have nowhere near the amount of "baggage" she says nearly every other man has at my age.  This was defined basically as a fear and hatred of women and the legal system.  She told me of guy after guy she met that would have sex with her...but wouldn't "commit".  I told her why...she didn't believe me.  So I showed her the Divorce Act here in Canada....then showed her case study after case study.

She asked me why I was with her given all the shit stcked up against a man if the woman decides (more or less for any reason) to leave?

The truth...I have 1/2 time custody of 2 kids..and I won't ever...ever...move in with her.

She's likely beginning to see what that means, and my guess is that soon enough she will leave and try to find a guy to live with.  more power to her...it won't be me.

Do I give a rat's ass if some 35 year old writer can't get a man?  no.  She benefits from the way society has been shaped by feminist dogma in other areas.  Amazing how in the few areas it's had a negative effect on some women's desires..it's once again MEN'S fault.  I say...too freaking bad...waaaah for you...and fuck off....:)  my penis...my choice.

woof

Quote
There remains a lingering sense of frustration that the risks of delaying a family are so consistently portrayed as solely a woman's choice.

Sorry to state the obvious, but it takes two to make a baby. And this is where much of the problem lies: there are many women who would dearly love to settle and have children before they are 35 or 40 but cannot find a committed partner or, when they do, can't convince him it's time to give up the double income and social life to have a family.

Here is the BS I love. Women don't have anything to lose by getting married, and having children. Men, as noted by dsibley, have everything to lose, and today, thanks to feminism, men have far fewer reasons to trust a women, much less marry her.
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

The Gonzman

Gee, can I go my whole life blowing off women, not preparing myself to be a husband or father, and then bitch about it when I'm old and used up, and no woman will look at me twice?
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

neonsamurai

I think that this is a pretty good indication on how little responsibility women have for their actions in society. Single at 35, must be those guys not wanting commitment.

This is the absolute WORST time in the history for men to get married. What's in it for us? Society is now in a situation whereby everything that is wrong with relationships gets blamed on men, and for some reason we've decided to give marriage a miss.

What views of marriage or fatherhood have we got at the moment?

1) The BBC show us 'unruly' husbands being trained like dogs. What man in his right mind would want to be subjected to dog training?

2) Fathers having to tie themselves to cranes dressed as superman to get access to their own kids.

3) Stay-at-home husbands, losing independence to look after children because your partner earns more.

4) Even sperm donors are now being targetting as 'absent fathers' in new law reforms.


What positive views have we got of marriage / fatherhood?

No wonder men are foregoing it in larger numbers.
Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women's Studies: "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!"

Wookie

Essentially this is just a health warning to women about the dangers leaving having a baby late can cause, but in our society where no one can suggest to women, what they should do, 'as that would be controling them' They get all defensive.

If this was the otherway round and male fertility drastically dropped around the age of 40 creating risks of child development, do you think they would have any problems telling us that we should prioritise our life's and not be selfish?

Wookie
he Light That Burns Twice As Bright Burns Half As Long - Blade Runner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Galt

Quote from: "Factory"
The truth...I have 1/2 time custody of 2 kids..and I won't ever...ever...move in with her.

She's likely beginning to see what that means, and my guess is that soon enough she will leave and try to find a guy to live with.  more power to her...it won't be me.


Some women I've run across almost seem to have the attitude that men HAVE TO take on the responsibility of marriage, and it infuriates them when men "don't do what they're supposed to".  That's where all the Real Man shaming language comes in.  A Real Man (TM) would just give me what I want.

I think more and more women in society are going to be disappointed as men start waking up and seeing what has happened to their fathers and uncles and older friends.

slayton

Quote from: "Wookie"
Essentially this is just a health warning to women about the dangers leaving having a baby late can cause, but in our society where no one can suggest to women, what they should do, 'as that would be controling them' They get all defensive.

If this was the otherway round and male fertility drastically dropped around the age of 40 creating risks of child development, do you think they would have any problems telling us that we should prioritise our life's and not be selfish?

Wookie


Funny, that you mention it, Wookie, because I saw such article just this morning. Here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.liberation.fr/page.php%3FArticle%3D323166&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfranz-xaver%2Bkaufmann%2Bliberation.fr%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Quote
With the equality of the sexes, the young men understood that to become father a catch of responsibility not only financial but social supposed, and they are not ready to assume it."   "It is undoubtedly of selfishness"


Quote
"It is rather the sign of a deep insecurity"

alien

Slaytan - what a big link you have!!!

lkanneg

Quote from: "Factory"
Do I give a rat's ass if some 35 year old writer can't get a man?  no.  


Me neither, to be honest.
quot;Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Something which we think is impossible now is not impossible in another decade."
-- Constance Baker Motley

"Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got."
--Janis Joplin

Go Up