Is this writer just bitter or does she have a point?

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Ramma2

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Ramma2
Someone should email the writer a link to this thread and see if she comes and talks with us about it.

OH WAIT I just did!

*waves to Kay*

lmao i hope you aren't kidding.

I'm not.

oh well, i'll have to stay tuned then

 

[BeauJangles]

Men proceed through life in various stages. It's pretty accepted that the adolesence stage ends between 19 - 22 and the young adult stage starts then. What's wrong with young men exploring their opportunities, having fun, and enjoying living? There is no pressure on them to settle down immediately because of longer lives and because, with more options, people need more time to figure themselves out.

You can certainly be irresponsible, but I wouldn't label every fun-loving 20-something irresponsible. In fact, what most people do in their 20s is some of the hardest growth they'll do throughout their lives. So, lady, cut us some freaking slack.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Farang
I didn't read all of it but from what I gather this can be thrown right back at her with women. They are the same as she is describing men in this article.

That was my thought, too.

Most 20-something women are mostly concerned with "saving" enough for their next LV handbag, their next girl's-only Vegas fling, or shopping for a new dress in which to go "clubbing." Who does the writer think is hooking up with all these guys? Their female equivalents. I think it would be hard to argue that young women being obsessed with maintaining their teenage looks and personalities could possibly represent a higher level of maturity than a guy who still likes his X-Box. The only reason any of these women might want to get married is so they can show off their ring and their outrageously expensive wedding to all their other friends. They don't actually want to BE married, they just want to GET married. And the only reason they even want that is that they are the target market for all that TV and magazine advertising, and they flock like sheep to whatever they are told to want.

I think the writer has a point that adolescence has been extended into young adulthood, but that is a point that has been made countless times before. It's hardly news at this point. But to say that this is solely happening to males is flat-out false.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
Hey guys, it is possible to shred this stupid article without being 10x more sexist than the author... Some of you would get more respect if you responded with legitimate criticism like the others, instead of saying the author wrote it because she was ugly and couldn't trap a man, hurr hurr. Just because the article mentions feminism doesn't mean it is feminist. Feminists don't expect men to be breadwinners any more than they expect women to be housekeepers. They expect people to quit doing things like making stupid comments attacking the appearance of female writers they disagree with, instead of attacking their words.

I'm female, mid 20's, dislike children, do like beer, certainly don't fault anyone else that feels the same. In today's world, you're crazy and going to be stuck below the poverty line if you get married by 18 and don't use birth control. Buying a house looks hopeless for most people my age, even if you have a partner/spouse/____ also contributing an income. When we grow up, we don't have a cushy middle-class life waiting. So forget having the white picket fence and kids, let's go to BevMo and get some interesting Belgian ale and start a round of UT, we can actually afford that.

...Even if I could afford it, I have no desire to reproduce and don't see why anyone should feel obligated to do it. Nobody should have kids unless they want 'em. I think this is only a good thing that people are realizing they don't have to cram themselves into little molds based on some mythical nuclear family when it's not for them. This benefits all genders.

It is people like you who remind me that the world has not entirely lost its mind. Very well put.

As others have said, the trend is indeed valid for men. But the author overlooks that the same trend exists for women as well. I also believe that even though pretty much every implication about young men in the article can also be applied to young women, the author would vehemently disagree with anyone who pointed that out.

Speaking as a mid-20's male, the article does sound some alarm bells for me. Not because it is convicting, but because it seems to set marriage and kids up as the end goal of life. This is a trap that I've seen far too many women my age fall into. I really cannot count the number of times I've been on a first or second date and had the girl bring up how "all she wanted" out of life was a nice little house, a husband, and a couple of children. Those are wonderful goals to be sure (I'm not ready for that yet, but I see value), but they shouldn't be "all". What about travel, and culture, and recreation? What about all the varied experiences that make life worth living? I'm not saying that marriage and kids are bad, only that, while they are certainly admirable goals, they should not be the sum total of what we want. Every person has it in him or her to be so much more in addition to being a husband/wife and father/mother.

Unfortunately, as my career progresses and I establish myself, I notice more and more that women are treating me not as a potential companion and intellectual match, but rather as a stable income. All too often it's obvious that they aren't looking for someone who compliments their own personality and interests, rather they're looking for someone who is tolerable and can provide them with a stable income and who will be dutiful as a father. Both of those are good qualities, but I'm more than a dependable income and responsible potential father and I'm not going to spend much time with a woman who doesn't see that.

ZV

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: BigJ
And in 1965 she would shut her damn mouth and get back in the kitchen.

:laugh:

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
Hey guys, it is possible to shred this stupid article without being 10x more sexist than the author... Some of you would get more respect if you responded with legitimate criticism like the others, instead of saying the author wrote it because she was ugly and couldn't trap a man, hurr hurr. Just because the article mentions feminism doesn't mean it is feminist. Feminists don't expect men to be breadwinners any more than they expect women to be housekeepers. They expect people to quit doing things like making stupid comments attacking the appearance of female writers they disagree with, instead of attacking their words.

I'm female, mid 20's, dislike children, do like beer, certainly don't fault anyone else that feels the same. In today's world, you're crazy and going to be stuck below the poverty line if you get married by 18 and don't use birth control. Buying a house looks hopeless for most people my age, even if you have a partner/spouse/____ also contributing an income. When we grow up, we don't have a cushy middle-class life waiting. So forget having the white picket fence and kids, let's go to BevMo and get some interesting Belgian ale and start a round of UT, we can actually afford that.

...Even if I could afford it, I have no desire to reproduce and don't see why anyone should feel obligated to do it. Nobody should have kids unless they want 'em. I think this is only a good thing that people are realizing they don't have to cram themselves into little molds based on some mythical nuclear family when it's not for them. This benefits all genders.

It is people like you who remind me that the world has not entirely lost its mind. Very well put.

As others have said, the trend is indeed valid for men. But the author overlooks that the same trend exists for women as well. I also believe that even though pretty much every implication about young men in the article can also be applied to young women, the author would vehemently disagree with anyone who pointed that out.

She doesn't simply overlook that fact, but twists it into a double-standard. She calls men immature while their women analogs are put up on a feminist pedestal.

Speaking as a mid-20's male, the article does sound some alarm bells for me. Not because it is convicting, but because it seems to set marriage and kids up as the end goal of life. This is a trap that I've seen far too many women my age fall into. I really cannot count the number of times I've been on a first or second date and had the girl bring up how "all she wanted" out of life was a nice little house, a husband, and a couple of children. Those are wonderful goals to be sure (I'm not ready for that yet, but I see value), but they shouldn't be "all". What about travel, and culture, and recreation? What about all the varied experiences that make life worth living? I'm not saying that marriage and kids are bad, only that, while they are certainly admirable goals, they should not be the sum total of what we want. Every person has it in him or her to be so much more in addition to being a husband/wife and father/mother.

Unfortunately, as my career progresses and I establish myself, I notice more and more that women are treating me not as a potential companion and intellectual match, but rather as a stable income. All too often it's obvious that they aren't looking for someone who compliments their own personality and interests, rather they're looking for someone who is tolerable and can provide them with a stable income and who will be dutiful as a father. Both of those are good qualities, but I'm more than a dependable income and responsible potential father and I'm not going to spend much time with a woman who doesn't see that.

ZV

:thumbsup:

 

[Drekce]

Originally posted by: Ramma2
WAIT! In my spare time, I play basketball with my buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take leisurely showers, AND I'm married, have 2 kids and am financially stable!?!?!?

*head explodes*

Same here, but only one kid right now. What the hell are "leisurely showers" though?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Drekce

Originally posted by: Ramma2
WAIT! In my spare time, I play basketball with my buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take leisurely showers, AND I'm married, have 2 kids and am financially stable!?!?!?

*head explodes*

Same here, but only one kid right now. What the hell are "leisurely showers" though?

you know a nice *relaxing* shower....

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
Hey guys, it is possible to shred this stupid article without being 10x more sexist than the author... Some of you would get more respect if you responded with legitimate criticism like the others, instead of saying the author wrote it because she was ugly and couldn't trap a man, hurr hurr. Just because the article mentions feminism doesn't mean it is feminist. Feminists don't expect men to be breadwinners any more than they expect women to be housekeepers. They expect people to quit doing things like making stupid comments attacking the appearance of female writers they disagree with, instead of attacking their words.

I'm female, mid 20's, dislike children, do like beer, certainly don't fault anyone else that feels the same. In today's world, you're crazy and going to be stuck below the poverty line if you get married by 18 and don't use birth control. Buying a house looks hopeless for most people my age, even if you have a partner/spouse/____ also contributing an income. When we grow up, we don't have a cushy middle-class life waiting. So forget having the white picket fence and kids, let's go to BevMo and get some interesting Belgian ale and start a round of UT, we can actually afford that.

...Even if I could afford it, I have no desire to reproduce and don't see why anyone should feel obligated to do it. Nobody should have kids unless they want 'em. I think this is only a good thing that people are realizing they don't have to cram themselves into little molds based on some mythical nuclear family when it's not for them. This benefits all genders.

well the ugly fact is reproduction is what gave you the chance to exist. no need to be so down on it.

and well, you still have a few years to change your mind, plenty of women start off not wanting children, only to find its too late. fertility and its massive drop off after 30 is not patient, it won't wait for you to grow up.
on the other hand, genetic suicide is self selection lol it works out in the end.

as for the article.
after decades of women telling men they are useless and that women don't need men, and the new equal marriages ending in 50% divorce, men putting off marriage is only rational.

 

[jandrews]

I agree with her, I am 26 and do lounge in this half grown up phase, I like to play video games and enjoy time with my friends, its great. The part that I disagree with her is where she starts listing women as the responsible ones, haha give me a break. Also, I am not sure how dining and shopping for stuff you dont need constitutes an adult while reading and playing xbox/basketball puts you in some child category. She seems quite bitter.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
Hey guys, it is possible to shred this stupid article without being 10x more sexist than the author... Some of you would get more respect if you responded with legitimate criticism like the others, instead of saying the author wrote it because she was ugly and couldn't trap a man, hurr hurr. Just because the article mentions feminism doesn't mean it is feminist. Feminists don't expect men to be breadwinners any more than they expect women to be housekeepers. They expect people to quit doing things like making stupid comments attacking the appearance of female writers they disagree with, instead of attacking their words.

I'm female, mid 20's, dislike children, do like beer, certainly don't fault anyone else that feels the same. In today's world, you're crazy and going to be stuck below the poverty line if you get married by 18 and don't use birth control. Buying a house looks hopeless for most people my age, even if you have a partner/spouse/____ also contributing an income. When we grow up, we don't have a cushy middle-class life waiting. So forget having the white picket fence and kids, let's go to BevMo and get some interesting Belgian ale and start a round of UT, we can actually afford that.

...Even if I could afford it, I have no desire to reproduce and don't see why anyone should feel obligated to do it. Nobody should have kids unless they want 'em. I think this is only a good thing that people are realizing they don't have to cram themselves into little molds based on some mythical nuclear family when it's not for them. This benefits all genders.

well the ugly fact is reproduction is what gave you the chance to exist. no need to be so down on it.

and well, you still have a few years to change your mind, plenty of women start off not wanting children, only to find its too late. fertility and its massive drop off after 30 is not patient, it won't wait for you to grow up.
on the other hand, genetic suicide is self selection lol it works out in the end.

as for the article.
after decades of women telling men they are useless and that women don't need men, and the new equal marriages ending in 50% divorce, men putting off marriage is only rational.

reproduction is fine and all but the author gives no good argument why men should seek out reproduction on anyones schedule but their own. I will be fertile for another 40-50 years!

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Not only is no one asking that today's twenty- or thirtysomething become a responsible husband and father ? that is, grow up ? but a freewheeling marketplace gives him everything he needs to settle down in pig's heaven indefinitely.

So a man's place is as a husband and father and he's not fully realized otherwise?

How long do you think it would take for the author of that article to castrate me if I said the same thing about women? Really, the whole article is nothing more than an attempt to paste the old stereotypes of "a woman's place" onto men.

ZV

that is a VERY good point. You should email her with it and see how she responds

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Now meet the 21st-century you, also 26. You've finished college and work in a cubicle in a large Chicago financial-services firm. You live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face ? and then it's off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes. Wife? Kids? House? Are you kidding?

This is from a female perspective: aren't those girls that you're meeting at bars and parties living the same life you are? So the point the article is making goes both ways. I think it's a valid point, actually, just that you could apply it to both genders.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
her point about young adults these days experiencing a massively extended adolescence seems about right, whether or not you think it is a bad thing is another issue I suppose.

Agreed.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Now meet the 21st-century you, also 26. You've finished college and work in a cubicle in a large Chicago financial-services firm. You live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face ? and then it's off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes. Wife? Kids? House? Are you kidding?

This is from a female perspective: aren't those girls that you're meeting at bars and parties living the same life you are? So the point the article is making goes both ways. I think it's a valid point, actually, just that you could apply it to both genders.

And I think that's what pretty much everyone has said; that the point applies to both genders. Instead the author tries shirk the weight of responsibility on to men.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Now meet the 21st-century you, also 26. You've finished college and work in a cubicle in a large Chicago financial-services firm. You live in an apartment with a few single guy friends. In your spare time, you play basketball with your buddies, download the latest indie songs from iTunes, have some fun with the Xbox 360, take a leisurely shower, massage some product into your hair and face ? and then it's off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes. Wife? Kids? House? Are you kidding?

This is from a female perspective: aren't those girls that you're meeting at bars and parties living the same life you are? So the point the article is making goes both ways. I think it's a valid point, actually, just that you could apply it to both genders.

And I think that's what pretty much everyone has said; that the point applies to both genders. Instead the author tries shirk the weight of responsibility on to men.

WELL, YES!

'Cause the poor women only have a limited shelf life, when it comes to breeding, compared to men! "Why should you guys enjoy life so much, when all that makes you different from us girls is a pair of balls? oooh, we're gonna make you feel sooo guilty about it!"

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
Hey guys, it is possible to shred this stupid article without being 10x more sexist than the author... Some of you would get more respect if you responded with legitimate criticism like the others, instead of saying the author wrote it because she was ugly and couldn't trap a man, hurr hurr. Just because the article mentions feminism doesn't mean it is feminist. Feminists don't expect men to be breadwinners any more than they expect women to be housekeepers. They expect people to quit doing things like making stupid comments attacking the appearance of female writers they disagree with, instead of attacking their words.

I'm female, mid 20's, dislike children, do like beer, certainly don't fault anyone else that feels the same. In today's world, you're crazy and going to be stuck below the poverty line if you get married by 18 and don't use birth control. Buying a house looks hopeless for most people my age, even if you have a partner/spouse/____ also contributing an income. When we grow up, we don't have a cushy middle-class life waiting. So forget having the white picket fence and kids, let's go to BevMo and get some interesting Belgian ale and start a round of UT, we can actually afford that.

...Even if I could afford it, I have no desire to reproduce and don't see why anyone should feel obligated to do it. Nobody should have kids unless they want 'em. I think this is only a good thing that people are realizing they don't have to cram themselves into little molds based on some mythical nuclear family when it's not for them. This benefits all genders.

It is people like you who remind me that the world has not entirely lost its mind. Very well put.

As others have said, the trend is indeed valid for men. But the author overlooks that the same trend exists for women as well. I also believe that even though pretty much every implication about young men in the article can also be applied to young women, the author would vehemently disagree with anyone who pointed that out.

Speaking as a mid-20's male, the article does sound some alarm bells for me. Not because it is convicting, but because it seems to set marriage and kids up as the end goal of life. This is a trap that I've seen far too many women my age fall into. I really cannot count the number of times I've been on a first or second date and had the girl bring up how "all she wanted" out of life was a nice little house, a husband, and a couple of children. Those are wonderful goals to be sure (I'm not ready for that yet, but I see value), but they shouldn't be "all". What about travel, and culture, and recreation? What about all the varied experiences that make life worth living? I'm not saying that marriage and kids are bad, only that, while they are certainly admirable goals, they should not be the sum total of what we want. Every person has it in him or her to be so much more in addition to being a husband/wife and father/mother.

Unfortunately, as my career progresses and I establish myself, I notice more and more that women are treating me not as a potential companion and intellectual match, but rather as a stable income. All too often it's obvious that they aren't looking for someone who compliments their own personality and interests, rather they're looking for someone who is tolerable and can provide them with a stable income and who will be dutiful as a father. Both of those are good qualities, but I'm more than a dependable income and responsible potential father and I'm not going to spend much time with a woman who doesn't see that.

ZV

...Says the guy who spent how many years sighing over a "white picket fence" he hoped was in his future?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
Hey guys, it is possible to shred this stupid article without being 10x more sexist than the author... Some of you would get more respect if you responded with legitimate criticism like the others, instead of saying the author wrote it because she was ugly and couldn't trap a man, hurr hurr. Just because the article mentions feminism doesn't mean it is feminist. Feminists don't expect men to be breadwinners any more than they expect women to be housekeepers. They expect people to quit doing things like making stupid comments attacking the appearance of female writers they disagree with, instead of attacking their words.

I'm female, mid 20's, dislike children, do like beer, certainly don't fault anyone else that feels the same. In today's world, you're crazy and going to be stuck below the poverty line if you get married by 18 and don't use birth control. Buying a house looks hopeless for most people my age, even if you have a partner/spouse/____ also contributing an income. When we grow up, we don't have a cushy middle-class life waiting. So forget having the white picket fence and kids, let's go to BevMo and get some interesting Belgian ale and start a round of UT, we can actually afford that.

...Even if I could afford it, I have no desire to reproduce and don't see why anyone should feel obligated to do it. Nobody should have kids unless they want 'em. I think this is only a good thing that people are realizing they don't have to cram themselves into little molds based on some mythical nuclear family when it's not for them. This benefits all genders.

It is people like you who remind me that the world has not entirely lost its mind. Very well put.

As others have said, the trend is indeed valid for men. But the author overlooks that the same trend exists for women as well. I also believe that even though pretty much every implication about young men in the article can also be applied to young women, the author would vehemently disagree with anyone who pointed that out.

Speaking as a mid-20's male, the article does sound some alarm bells for me. Not because it is convicting, but because it seems to set marriage and kids up as the end goal of life. This is a trap that I've seen far too many women my age fall into. I really cannot count the number of times I've been on a first or second date and had the girl bring up how "all she wanted" out of life was a nice little house, a husband, and a couple of children. Those are wonderful goals to be sure (I'm not ready for that yet, but I see value), but they shouldn't be "all". What about travel, and culture, and recreation? What about all the varied experiences that make life worth living? I'm not saying that marriage and kids are bad, only that, while they are certainly admirable goals, they should not be the sum total of what we want. Every person has it in him or her to be so much more in addition to being a husband/wife and father/mother.

Unfortunately, as my career progresses and I establish myself, I notice more and more that women are treating me not as a potential companion and intellectual match, but rather as a stable income. All too often it's obvious that they aren't looking for someone who compliments their own personality and interests, rather they're looking for someone who is tolerable and can provide them with a stable income and who will be dutiful as a father. Both of those are good qualities, but I'm more than a dependable income and responsible potential father and I'm not going to spend much time with a woman who doesn't see that.

ZV

...Says the guy who spent how many years sighing over a "white picket fence" he hoped was in his future?

Says the guy who still sighs over a rural farm and a family. Wanting that does not preclude wanting other things as well, nor does it preclude maintaining personal freedom. There's a reason that most women would not win if they forced me to choose between them and my vehicles. Note that there is a distinct difference between a woman saying that I have to get rid of the cars and financial considerations dictating that I put my (as yet theoretical) family first, the latter has a rational basis and would result in me divesting myself of the cars. Still, with very, very rare exceptions for specific people, woe be unto the woman who thinks I will choose her over the freedom that the vehicles represent.

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't want a family. But I have no desire for that family to become everything that I am. I think that family should be an addition to a person, not something that replaces pieces of them. A family should not displace previous things, but rather it should be able to coexist peacefully with what came before.

ZV

 

[WHAMPOM]

After reading through the topic, I think"disgruntled feminist"describes it perfectly.

 

[OsoVerde]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Says the guy who still sighs over a rural farm and a family. Wanting that does not preclude wanting other things as well, nor does it preclude maintaining personal freedom. There's a reason that most women would not win if they forced me to choose between them and my vehicles. Note that there is a distinct difference between a woman saying that I have to get rid of the cars and financial considerations dictating that I put my (as yet theoretical) family first, the latter has a rational basis and would result in me divesting myself of the cars. Still, with very, very rare exceptions for specific people, woe be unto the woman who thinks I will choose her over the freedom that the vehicles represent.

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't want a family. But I have no desire for that family to become everything that I am. <b>I think that family should be an addition to a person, not something that replaces pieces of them. A family should not displace previous things, but rather it should be able to coexist peacefully with what came before.</b>

ZV

This is a healthy attitude to have about wanting a family... Too many people seem to be desperately seeking marriage and/or kids expecting a family or SO to complete them, and end up disappointed. Fulfillment doesn't come from other people, even though they can be a big help sometimes.

Hope your (as yet theoretical) wife is a person who also appreciates vehicles. At the minimum she should have enough respect for you to understand that they're important to you, even if she has no interest. My SO has many hobbies and interests traditionally considered geeky, but I'm into the same stuff. Neither of us is going to be telling the other to give up his/her vinyl figure collection.

 

[spidey07]

Anybody got her e-mail? I want to tear into her. Cartman making a nanny have a breakdown style.

You want equal? Well you got equal and no wonder nobody wants to make you their wife would be the gist (plus the fact that she's ugly as sin). That and slamming home the fact that she's not gonna have any kids will drive the point home. Please post her e-mail.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

aaa, ze plot dickens!

From here (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/hymowitz.htm ):
"Kay S. Hymowitz lives in Brooklyn with her husband and three children."

...and I think I found the complement to the text in the OP here:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_marriage_gap.html (the juiciest parts are in the second half)

Please also browse the headlines of here other editorials:
"# The New Girl Order National Post, 12-03-07
# It's a Single Woman's World Dallas Morning News, 11-11-07
# World bows to the New Girl Order The Sunday Times, 10-28-07
# Sex And The World New York Post, 10-21-07
# The New Girl Order FrontPage Magazine, 10-15-07
# Service Learning The Wall Street Journal, 08-03-07
# Father's Day Without Fathers Chicago Sun-Times, 06-17-07
# The F Word By Kay Hymowitz & W. Bradford Wilcox, National Review Online, 06-05-07
# The Incredible Shrinking Father Chicago Sun-Times, 04-29-07
# Fathers find a new enemy Union-Leader, 04-21-07
# In Loco Parentis - Not New York Sun, 04-20-07
# The Daddy Dilemma Los Angeles Times, 04-16-07"

see a pattern forming here?

Oh, and spidey, there's an e-mail address on that page as well!

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OsoVerde

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I think that family should be an addition to a person, not something that replaces pieces of them. A family should not displace previous things, but rather it should be able to coexist peacefully with what came before.

ZV

This is a healthy attitude to have about wanting a family... Too many people seem to be desperately seeking marriage and/or kids expecting a family or SO to complete them, and end up disappointed. Fulfillment doesn't come from other people, even though they can be a big help sometimes.

Hope your (as yet theoretical) wife is a person who also appreciates vehicles. At the minimum she should have enough respect for you to understand that they're important to you, even if she has no interest. My SO has many hobbies and interests traditionally considered geeky, but I'm into the same stuff. Neither of us is going to be telling the other to give up his/her vinyl figure collection.

I hope that too. I tend to over-state the importance of my hobbies for hyperbolic effect, but it does come down to a respect for the pieces of the other person that differ from our own. Kahlil Gibran said things very well indeed.

ZV

 

[Eeezee]

26? Yeah, that sounds about the time I'll be settling down - I'll be getting my PhD around that time.

I don't know of anyone in their mid-late twenties who hasn't at least partially settled down. Once you're in the latter half of your 20s, you need a little stability.

I think she's just jaded. Hell, I know of several 24 year-olds that are as mature as the 26 year-old from the 60s in her article.

 

[Eeezee]

Also, she doesn't seem to touch on the fact that female participation in the sciences is actually decreasing... despite millions being pumped into outreach programs and into making science seem more female-friendly (the women I've known my scientific field have all enjoyed their work - they've revealed that girls are trained from a young age to fear math, and while that scares off most it encourages a few). Girls won't be "hyper-achieving" until they overcome the walls that they're placed in front of themselves. We men actively encourage women to become scientists, but high school girls never seem keen to the idea and want to go into business, etc.

 

[sonambulo]

The article made the front page of Kotaku and Digg. This broad is going to get raked over the coals.