LAURA E. writes:

I am a millennial wife. I adore your site. I wonder if you read the article in this week’s Wall Street Journal on love’s new timetable for millennials: WSJ Love and Work on a Timetable.

The story focuses on the inherent geographic and temporal challenges of maintaining dual careers for modern couples.  I think the more interesting, but scarcely remarked on angle is the couple’s lengthy courtship.  I identify with this story because if there is one signature feature of my generation’s courtship rites (and I am limiting my analysis to my relatively privileged circle of college-educated professional peers) it is the long road from the first date to the altar.

In this way, the Duchess of Cambridge, formerly mocked by the British press as “waity Katie,” is the poster girl of my generation. Women my age have achieved everything that feminism promised us.  And yet, almost without exception, matrimony in my peer group happens entirely on the man’s timetable. My friends are settling down and marrying at ages 27-30, but all of their relationships were in place for at least five years before that trip down the altar.

This new schedule is devastating on the woman’s part for many reasons (or maybe I am out of step and it only feels that way to me?). There’s the wasting biological clock, the years of being trotted out at family gatherings as the “girlfriend,” the sense of having all one’s eggs (pun intended) in one basket…What if he never does propose?  How will I meet someone new?

We are left with the unsettling feeling that this is one area of life where we are far worse off than our mothers were.  We know we are being tried out for years on end and found wanting and we don’t know why or how to stop it. Worse, we aren’t allowed to articulate that we want something more until we’re years into the relationship. (“What’s the point in rushing?  Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, you know?”)

Maybe men have always wanted to marry at these ages (pace Mr. Darcy and every other Jane Austen hero).  But if today’s partnerships are oh-so-egalitarian then why aren’t the woman’s needs being considered?

Some potential answers have already been advanced on your site: today’s young women make poor wives, they have less to offer, certainly after years of sex on demand they are not mysterious, and the old hoary chestnut of “why buy the cow” still applies.  But the men I’m referring to are good-hearted. They really do love these women. They do eventually make good, à la Prince William.

Parenthetically, I often wonder about the effects that this phenomenon has on women who were not well-coupled in their early-to-mid 20s.  By the time they reach their late 20s and early 30s – our society’s idea of “marriage o’clock” –  many of the eligible men around them are single-in-name-only, having long ago given promises to the live-in-girlfriends they’ve had since college.  How do these “singled-out” women cope? We’re told by the media and our parents to stay single as long as possible.  But my peers are entering into serious relationships in their early 20s, they’re just not formalizing them until much later.  So the dating market is not as dynamic and fluid as it would seem at first glance.

I would appreciate your take on this phenomenon.

Laura writes:

It is nice to hear from you.

Delayed marriage is just a natural by-product of a lack of chastity and the destruction of the patriarchal model of the family.

Why would a man, even a good-hearted one, commit to marry at a young age when he can have much of what he wants in the meantime and when marriage confers upon him no serious role as head of his kingdom? Marriage and family come with many expenses and men know they will likely be responsible for more than half of those expenses, even in this day of female careerism. Besides men like the sense of freedom, even if it is just hypothetical. Men will never get married at an early age in large numbers if women are sexually available to them and if their role in the family is undercut by the denial of male authority. In the past, men were more motivated to marry early because they wanted sexual intimacy with worthy women and there was no other way to get it — it was marriage or nothing — but also in marrying they were winning a prize — the lifetime fidelity of a young woman — and a position as the head of the family. Responsibility entails authority.

Delayed marriage hurts men too. Many men are overlooked or dumped in their early twenties. They may spend years alone until women their age wake up and want marriage. As has been widely discussed, many women hold out for “alpha males,” overlooking less exciting possibilities.

The culture and the business world do not prepare men to be providers and actively discriminate against them. Women generally make no effort to change this. They have been lied to by feminists. It’s mass stupidity. And it’s mass narcissism.

— Comments —

Matthew H. writes:

Laura writes:

You write:

A guy who earns $60k at age 28 working at one lousy temp job after another, and has $100,000 in student loan debt, sees that a nice house in a nice neighborhood — not a mansion, just a nice house, the American Dream — costs $500,000. He also knows that when his parents were his age, they were able to acquire all of those things.

At the same time, you see many middle class couples having spectacular weddings and spending years planning them. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve known of in their 20s or early 30s who are delaying marriage for more than a year so that they can plan the wedding.

It’s been financially difficult for one-income middle class families for a long time. It was difficult when I married 27 years ago and it is very difficult now, especially with student debt, the high cost of college and the expectation that everyone go to college. Our economy  is not in the least attuned to the interests of the family. It is dominated by nation-less, border-less, amoral financial speculators with no interest in preserving family structure.

But it won’t become more attuned to the family until people reject these standards. The purpose of an economy is not to produce wealth, but to produce families and the conditions in which they can flourish. In the meantime, it is materialistic to feel that you can’t get married until you can afford a $500,000 house or to send your children to private school. “He also knows that when his parents were his age, they were able to acquire all of those things.” But lots of people have never acquired any of those things. The man you mention is not hedonistic but he’s no hero either.

He would probably marry no matter what his financial situation if that was the only way to have a relationship with a woman. The more people marry early, the easier it will be for others. Marriage is a social institution, not just a relationship between two people.

George writes:

You said:

“It is materialistic to feel that you can’t get married until you can afford a $500,000 house or to send your children to private school.”

I wish Mathew H. would have elaborated on this more.  It’s not about the status of the house, it’s about living in a neighborhood where you don’t have to have bars on the windows.  I realise the $500,000 price point may look high but it really depends on where you’re living in America.  I assume Mathew H. is talking about prices in places like California.  [Laura writes: I realize that in parts of California, $500,000 doesn’t buy a lot. But it’s possible to live on less even there. If as a country, we valued single-income families, there would be an endless national conversation about what to do to make the one-income family possible. Instead, there is an endless national conversation about how wonderful the two-income family is. So, at bottom, I do not think the problem is economic however many families are truly placed in impossible situations and must follow the two-income model or live in poverty.]

When I lived in Maryland six years ago, the price point for a town home in a bad school district with semi-bad neighbors but lower crime was $250,000 for the cheapest on the block but average prices were higher, closer to $275,000.  I just checked Zillow and it looks like prices went back down to a more ‘reasonable’ $200,000 for the neighborhood.  But at the time my quarter million dollar town home, which may sound like a lot was of such “high” quality that when the wind blew the wind would come in through the electrical sockets and I had to wear a knit hat to bed in the winter because the heating as well as a space heater couldn’t keep my bedroom warm.

This was also in a neighborhood where Section Eight housing was being moved into by the State government.  I don’t know about the rest of the country but typically Section Eight and low-income also means crime.  Plenty of neighbors were selling and getting out because of who was moving in.  Also, by “semi-bad neighbors” I don’t mean people who will rob you, but one lady did very loudly destroy her kitchen and then went into her back yard naked and screaming until the police came and took her away (to a mental hospital I presume).

One couple I knew never told me the price of their town home, which was in a similar neighborhood, but the man did tell me that all of his salary and about half of hers went to the mortgage.  I don’t know how much they made but she was a nurse and he was an IT guy at the company where I worked.  If you think maybe he was getting bad pay… well he was married to the boss’s daughter so I can’t imagine his pay was all that bad.  One of the problems with Maryland that a lot of people complained about, was that salaries did not match cost of living unless you were one of those Federal workers who are sucking the taxpayers dry and most people I knew did not work for FedGov.

Speaking of that IT company we actually had a few guys who lived in Pennsylvania but drove in to Maryland every day to come to work.  Cost of living was cheaper in PA than MD which is why they did it.  To get to the PA border from where we were in MD was an hour in good traffic, but that meant you had to use the beltway so it would usually be more.  That’s just to get to the border.  One of the sales guys had a two hour one-way commute each day in good traffic, so that meant at least four hours on the road everyday. It’s not noble to live this way, it’s soul crushing and pointless.

Steve Sailer talked about affordable family formation in some of his articles.

Matthew H. said:

“Lots of Baby Boomer traditionalists have a hard time understanding this.  Some older Boomers who have Millennial children are starting to understand, but even then it’s hard for them to fully grasp the changes.  I’m a 42-year-old Gen-X’er so I understand what it is like to graduate from an Ivy League school with student loan debt and no job.  After graduate school I worked for temporary agencies for years at low pay until I got a “permanent” (i.e. full time –  these days, jobs are hardly ever “permanent”) job, only to see housing prices triple — literally increase by 300 percent — in a period of two or three years, just as I reached my early 30′s and started thinking about buying a house.To this day I have never had a “good” job at an established company with benefits, a career track, etc.  I have worked at one lousy low-paying job after another for my entire life.”

Yes, he’s absolutely correct that older Boomers really don’t understand what’s happened.  In a similar way I don’t think Boomers really understand how the sexual marketplace has changed either.  On that second part, I think The Thinking Housewife blog has done a good job to understand what’s going on.  Or, at the very least, a much better job than many trad-cons out there.  My boomer parents could certainly use a read through of your site (and, sadly, Roissy’s) so they would have a better idea of how the men-women dynamic has changed.  That being said, I think it would be great if you got more Gen-X-ers and Millennials to write in and not just tell you their stories about the economy but give you some numbers like I did above.

 Laura writes:

You write:

Yes, he’s absolutely correct that older Boomers really don’t understand what’s happened.

I’m not sure what older Boomers you are referring to, but it has always been the underlying assumption of this blog that in order to follow traditional family life today, one must embrace poverty. That is the model my husband and I followed 24 years ago when I left a well-paying job that we could not afford to lose and it is the model I urge on others. The economy will not change for the better for a long time. There are definite ways in which it could change to make family formation easier, but that will require a political and cultural revolution, the seeds of which have already been planted. We have to live the right way in the meantime.

Paul writes:

As an older traditionalist bachelor, I can say for certain that I am clueless about the awfully long courtships of the Millennials.  A man wants to have a woman at his side continually, or he does not.  So far, I have not.  I want to do what I want when I want.  My relatives, career, and friends are primary.  (You can be sure I am far from being a saint.)

I have been in courtships (“trying out”), but I never taken advantage of the courtship.  That is, I have never pretended to be in love to access sex.  I always knew the intent of my girlfriend and did not proceed if she thought we were serious.

The long courtships seem boring, and the financial aspects raised are the result of Millennials being spoiled.  Being spoiled or ignorance is why college students take on unnecessary debt when they can stay at home and go to the excellent local state universities or the usually affordable Catholic universities (not Notre Dame for goodness sake).  For example, I went to an excellent local state university and then a Catholic law school because overall it was cheaper than leaving town for the less expensive state law school.  The students of any college need only show up for ninety-five percent of the classes and study hard.

All of my close friends attended our local state university.  Most did not excel in our local university as I did but still are now wealthy as a result of their talent, education, and drive.  One of my friends did better than all of us, and he is the wealthiest of all.  He is a bundle of energy.  We used to marvel at his indefatigable energy when we played basketball.  (I was a poor shooter but a good ball handler; and I played in the physical NBA fashion to the chagrin of one of my friends, who was an excellent player.)

In summary, I suggest the Millennials seek out Catholicism and refrain from taking advantage of their sweet, loving girlfriends, which is pure evil.  Kissing is unavoidable, but they should beware of going further.

This reminds me of a delightful tearjerker that could place sex in perspective: A Walk to Remember (2002), which starred Mandy Moore.  Get out your Kleenex.

Laura writes:

Returning to Matthew’s comment, he basically contradicts himself. He says the main problem is economic and then says most of the young men he knows who aren’t married would be married if sexual mores were different. But if economy is the determining factor, how could they possible do that? The truth is, yes, the economy does not make marriage at all easy and economics influences the basic decision about marriage for most people, but the economy is not the decisive factor.

Matthew writes:

An ordinary young man in his 20s or early 30s, one who was raised in a middle class environment, generally isn’t leading a hedonistic lifestyle.

I realize we have all grown up under these values, and I lived them once too, but it is hedonistic to live with a woman or have a sexual relationship before marriage. The reason why many people take out large student loans in the first place is that they are not expecting to get married right away and are expecting to have sexual relationships while they get settled. So the problem there is not economic, it’s moral. The reason for these dire economic struggles is essentially moral. The whole mentality is atheistic, anti-family, and materialistic.  It is nicely geared toward the interests of large institutions, such as the colleges those big loans benefit. Not that I think it will change by simply saying to people, “Get married now!” But the people who do fight against these factors are building the seeds of a new society, every person who turns away from this mentality and fights it is building the seeds of a new society, which must have a different political orientation, a different political system as well. The problems are systemic.

Anti-Globalist Expatriate writes:

Matthew H. writes:

‘I love my iPhone, but standing in line outside the Apple store to be the first to purchase an iPhone 6 does not provide any spiritual satisfaction.’

Actually, it does provide what passes for spiritual satisfaction in all too many people today, in our society which denigrates true spiritualism in favor of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ as the measure of moral worth.

This explains the appeal of Islam to many in the West in the post-911 world – the Muslims don’t shilly-shally around with such nonsense. Islam unapologetically requires a strict code of concrete beliefs and behaviors (however repugnant to rational beings), which speaks to the innate human yearning for direction in a seemingly chaotic universe, and definitive inclusion in a transcendent order.

And it’s the driving force behind leftism, which Eric Voegelin correctly identified as ‘secular gnosticism’ in The New Science of Politics, Order and History, and Science, Politics and Gnosticism.

 Laura writes:

Voegelin also said the Protestant “Reformation” was a driving force behind liberalism.

B. E. writes:

It seems a favorite pasttime of Roman Catholics to blame Protestantism for liberalism. Would liberalism have taken root had the Reformation never occurred? We can never know. However, it is clear that both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have suffered terribly from the liberal onslaught, and given the ultimate goals of liberalism―the rejection of God and the destruction of our social and moral order―would not it make more sense to ascribe liberalism to the fount of all evil?

Laura writes:

Voegelin was not Catholic.

I wouldn’t say it’s a “favorite pasttime,” at least in my case. There are many other things I’d rather do. But the destruction of the principle of authority and the loss of the sense that the natural order is infused with the supernatural had serious consequences. Protestantism itself was a result of earlier philosophical developments that have culminated in modern liberalism so I wouldn’t lay everything at the doorstep of Protestantism.

Mary writes:

The ordinary guy of today most likely is living a hedonistic lifestyle, although he probably is not aware of it. I think many of us are more hedonistic than we realize. Pre-marital sex is absolutely hedonistic and the best example, but neither can today’s preoccupation with food and entertainment, image and self-pampering, be put in any other category. With how much money we spend in fulfillment of these pleasures, it’s quite possible that the complete exclusion of them would balance the budgets of many struggling families.

I think of my life growing up and what my parents didn’t have and it becomes more clear. And I preface this by saying we were very happy and wanted for nothing: my parents had children right away and early in their marriage they had one car, no washer, no dryer, no dishwasher, one tiny black and white TV, one phone, one bathroom. My father worked two jobs (like a lot of other guys). They lived in a very small three-bedroom ranch on a busy road with an unfinished basement. And they were happy and content. My mother still lives there. It is not her dream house; it was meant to be their starter house. But it is home to all of us in a very profound way, one which words fail to explain. So I am not complaining; in fact I look back with utter fondness and sense of longing, as one looks back on a happy childhood.

I think about what my parents didn’t spend money on and it offers a clue: computers, cell phones, internet connections; cable TV, HBO and the like, Netflix, etc; Whole Foods, dinners out (we literally NEVER ate out at anything other than a hot dog joint), pizza (a rarity) and deli meals (ditto), take-out, etc; daycare, babysitter fees; home décor; gym memberships, running shoes, workout tapes, etc; hair and nail salons; stylish clothes; school lunches; cameras, video cameras etc; car payments (never made one – bought used bombs and paid cash); and here’s a big one: savings for their children’s college education (there was zero money for it, yet we all finished college, attended locally while living at home, worked jobs all the way through, with grants and small student loans to help). Etc, etc. We did go to Mass.

The bottom line is we look back and think, our parents could do it – have a little house somewhere and a happy family and a good life – why can’t we? Except that we can. Initially it is harder for us for our parents lived in a much simpler world and temptations today are many. But it can be done if it’s the heart’s desire. We forget just how much we spend on pleasure and nonsense, stuff that just complicates life and clutters up our souls. Love God, love your family, work hard, offer up your sorrows, have gratitude for your graces and blessings. The rest will follow. I know people who own one car; who never eat out; who cut their own hair, very nicely I might add; who haven’t been to the mall in years; never watch TV; never have “date nights.” But they love God and are guided by Him; love their children and in turn guide them; they are truly happy.

 Laura writes:

Even when cutting out all those extras, it can still be tough. Whether it causes happiness or not (in fact, it may cause unhappiness in the short run), it’s the right thing to do compared to spending years in pre-marital limbo.

The importance of grace and supernatural assistance in all this can’t be understated.

Jan. 28, 2013

Aditya B. writes:

Commentator Matt H. may have mixed and matched a few observations but he is spot on about most men being celibate. And it’s not by choice.

The last remaining free market (i.e., an activity totally unregulated by government) is sex. Dating is dispositive of a man’s “worth” to a woman and vice versa.

Most of us, untutored in the game, don’t have a Contact List full of girls (the modern equivalent of the fabled “little black book”) or the ability to chat up a girl at a bar and go home with her.

We’ve tried. And failed. Crash & Burn.

So, we spend our time watching TV. Playing Video Games. Reading Lawrence Auster’s collected works (maybe that’s just me). And acquire substance abuse problems brought on by loneliness and self-loathing (again, maybe that’s just me).

Which bring me to your original correspondent. I really don’t see why she is whining. Most women I know (I’m an attorney and most women I know are attorneys or similar white collar professionals) have no desire to marry in the 20s or even early 30s. They like “options” and prefer “dating” over a serious commitment (i.e. until they find that Law Firm Partner, Real Estate Moghul, Industry Insider when they’ll get hitched quicker than you can say “gold-digger”). Women are chiefly responsible for this state of affairs as they control the relationship, and where its headed.

The only men who control a relationship are the “alphas.” Women will degrade themselves beyond all comprehension to please alphas. The rest of us, we are lucky to get a date every sex months, whereas these men change girlfriends quicker than we change shoes. And you know what? Women love them. The more women you date, the more women love you. It’s like that old cliché about how wealth begets wealth.  Dates beget dates. And if you don’t have a lot of notches on your bedpost, women don’t take an interest in you.

So, essentially, I really don’t see why women complain about cads when they do everything in their power to reward them. You reap what you sow. It’s time women stopped complaining and learned to love worrying and love the cad.

Laura writes:

Despite Laura E.’s experience, I think it is definitely true that most college-educated women do not want to marry in their early 20s and that their choices in this regard are largely determining delayed marriage.

Paul writes:

Girlfriends in their twenties that have boyfriends for more than six months without receiving a proposal are co-users, and the girlfriends should tell the boyfriends to hit the road.  He or she or both want to use one another primarily for sex and also for other reasons such as finances, status, security, companionship, etc.  Trophy girlfriends and boyfriends are at least as common as trophy wives and husbands.

I agree a lengthy trying out period is harmful to women and to the future children.  Mr. Darcy was twenty-eight, but I am unsure about Miss. Bennett’s age. I think it was about twenty-one.  (Maybe someone has a quote.)  My impression is consistent with the most recent film version starring Keira Knightly, which suggested she was five-to-eight years younger.

Men possibly have usually wanted to wait until they were about twenty-five without thinking about it.  My father and mother married when my father was twenty-five, he having fought in the Pacific against Japan when he was eighteen.  (My grandmother had a nervous breakdown as a result; but she turned out to be one of the two strongest people in my family.  The other was my great-grandmother on my mother’s side.)

My mother, a strong woman, thought thirty was the best age for men and women to marry.  I don’t recall her exact reasoning, but I am sure it was based on the fact that we traditionally married when we did not know our partners well.  For example, is he or she lazy?

We all know the overwhelming infatuations we experience.  So time is actually needed, and that is the purpose of the Catholic six-month waiting period.  It allows the Pre-Cana course to open the infatuated couples’ eyes.  I recall my close friend having gone through it with his sweet, lovely wife.  It is not a cure-all, but they are still together after almost forty years.

I recall one night after a few years of their marriage; he was being ugly to her but I was used to his smart-ass personality.  He is a smart, smart-ass.  But I never took his jabs at me seriously because I knew he was a smart-ass, and I would laugh because he was funny.  My mother had taught me that smart-asses were almost always simply jealous.

I knew he was/is fundamentally a good person who likes me as much as I like him.  We knew one another since the seventh grade when I punched him out (one punch) during a football game.

So that night we were about to get into their BMW (they both are big status seekers) to go somewhere, and she just turned around and hugged me while crying.  She wanted to be comforted for his smart-ass comments about her.  I was dumbfounded.  I patted her and explained to her that he did not really mean the things he said; it was just his personality and should not be taken seriously.  I was looking at him for help the whole time.

Quite a few years later, he did the same damn thing at a dinner gathering with a bunch of friends near their Florida second-home.  But his wife seemed unaffected, possibly because of the number of outsiders.  He threw a few my way too, but I just smiled and hunched my shoulders as if to say you know what.