Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE LATEST MARRIAGE DUST-UP.
"Within the next few years, the American male will hit the highest median age for marriage in the history of the country," laments Ben Domenech:
American men today delay the act of reproduction and union because they devalue it. Because technology and culture (today, technology is culture) unite to encourage them to devalue it — to favor distraction over maturity, personal growth over familial growth, and self over society. ... In any case, we have now reached a point where parenthood, something that has been an expected and lauded part of the American life, is now viewed as inessential or even unfortunate.
This is tiresome. Americans are delaying marriage and parenthood not because we devalue those institutions, but because we deeply value them. This is as true for poor, inner city teenagers as it is for elite college graduates. In Promises I Can Keep
And I think Conor Friedersdorf has the right take on how affluent 20-somethings think about marriage and parenthood:
Young people in the middle and upper classes in America delay marriage partly out of a desire to avoid the rampant divorces that plagued their parents' generation. The conventional wisdom that some folks "just married too young" leads to years-long relationships wherein the participants are cautiously "making sure" that they are "ready to get married." They may be right to do so!Reproducing is even more fraught. Young people raised by relatively prosperous Baby Boomers know that if they reproduce in their early twenties, it is possible -- even likely -- that they'll be unable to afford their children all the same advantages they remember.
The risk of divorce falls for couples who marry later in the life. It falls for couples who are college-educated. And healthier marriages are better for children -- socially, academically, and economically. Public policy should be encouraging later marriages and somewhat later childbearing. It's elementary.
--Dana Goldstein
More on American marriage:
--Marie Diamond takes on Caitlin Flanagan
--Dana Goldstein takes on Ross Douthat
--Marriage and 20-somethings
COMMENTS (11)
As a male, I have a hard time getting over the fact that, if I'm married and my wife cheats on me, I'm legally responsible for the kid. That's not true if I'm not married.
Marriage offers no reward equal to that risk. I'll not be humiliated and then forced to pay for the result of that humiliation for the rest of my life because the women's movement decided that men should have to take care of kids that aren't there.
Posted by: soullite | July 17, 2009 11:53 AM
soullite's comment reminds me of an article I read about the male birth control pill that's currently in clinical studies. Specifically, there was a quote from one of the participants who thought the pill's development was great because (paraphrasing) it "allowed men to elude women's wily traps," as if women went out of their way to trap men into relationships with them by getting pregnant to the point of sabotaging condoms.
All of which is to say, it's extremely baffling to me, and I can't really understand that mental mode of gender warfare.
Uh, that said, great article!
Posted by: ACLS | July 17, 2009 12:50 PM
1) I'm not even sure that it's historically accurate. People used to get married really late in life; IIRC in the Middle Ages the average age of marriage for men was mid-thirties. So in fact men are marrying earlier now. Women are marrying later.
2) And anyway people are doing everything later, because we spend longer being educated and live longer.
Posted by: ajay | July 17, 2009 1:04 PM
It's rather sad that conservatives are so unable to see how increased variabilty in family forms serve both individuals and society better.
People make greater contributions when they can design their own role, rather than having a more ill-fitting one forced on them by society.
Posted by: Alan | July 17, 2009 1:18 PM
Marriage and having kids is simply too risky for men. Paternity fraud, false DV claims, truly onerous child support, high divorce rate (with most divorces initiated by wives), etc.
Marriage is not for men.
Posted by: Zammo | July 17, 2009 5:52 PM
A lot of people certainly want to be already financially stable when they get married and start to have children. Rising standards of education, and also how well off one is to be 'financially stable' means it takes longer. This is in addition to people who expect to go through several serious relationships before finding a spouse.
Unfortunately, I think Ben Domenech, like many social conservatives, is thinking about some idealized version of the 50s, when people of either gender did marry pretty young most of the time.
Certainly there are some horrible manipulative women out there, but the chances of dating someone who would get married or pregnant with some wily plot in their head are incredibly low. To say otherwise is sexist mistrust.
Posted by: QuantumInc | July 18, 2009 5:03 AM
Soullite- what are you talking about? If the kid is yours you are responsible for it whether you're married or not. And if it isn't yours, you are not - that would be what a DNA test is for.
Posted by: Rosebudy | July 18, 2009 10:20 AM
This graph might be helpful.
Posted by: Daniel | July 18, 2009 1:44 PM
Forgot the graph. Oops:
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/goin-to-the-chapel-and-were-undermining-the-traditional-fa-amily/
Posted by: Daniel | July 18, 2009 1:46 PM
It's worth asking not only whether the claim that "men today delay the act of reproduction and union because they devalue it" is true but also whether it would be a problem were it true. Why must "reproduction and union" be a primary guiding value?
Posted by: EKSwitaj | July 18, 2009 3:35 PM
I am not a man, but I absolutely devalue marriage and parenthood when it comes to my own life. If that's what other's choose then fine, but I want nothing to do with it. And frankly I fail to see the issue with this.
Posted by: Ayla | July 18, 2009 5:46 PM