but who really cares?
By discussing this fact in a 10 minute segment, it might seem as though this issue is shocking and important, but to me, what real difference does it make that people aren't getting married? Being single is no longer taboo in this day and age. It's not really as if people in the 1980's or before truly had a choice. I may seem anti-marriage, which is ironic, being someone who is described as the 'eternal optomist' , but I feel like this particular topic is more so directed at the traditional folk, who think that getting married, and having children, is the be all and end all in a 'normal life.'
The two guests had contrasting views, which was important, because it compelled me to actually pay attention. Whereas I understand the younger, Anne Marie McQueen and her more modern views, I completely disagreed with Barbara Kay, the elder guest who seemed to have a very traditionalist point of view on everything that had to do with marriage and having kids. Call me contemporary, but I found most of what she said ridiculous, I could even go as far as to say it was pretty much blasphemy. Firstly, she stated that we, as a society are drying up, and that by not wanting to have more children, one isn't thinking about the future, only the present. What does that even mean, "thinking about the present?" She makes it seem like people hundreds of years ago, and in less developed societies were thinking about the future when they were having 8 and 9 kids, but look at our society now. We are a world that is overpopulated and undereducated. Our population now of 6,602,224,175 has done more damage to the universe than any other generation. We have polluted, destroyed, and left an irreversible mark on the world. If Barbara Kay is implying that bringing more children into the world is the key to a better future...
it's not.
We should really be focusing more on what we can do now, in the present to improve the conditions today. If this was the mindset of people before the industrial revolution, we might not be in such a difficult position right now. I'm not saying that "forward-looking" is something we shouldn't do, because face it, it's important to consider the consequences of our actions, but if by looking into the future, we are ignoring what we are doing right now, we are clearly at fault.
She went on to say that marriage produces more stable families, and that marriage implies a commitment that common- law does not. This point I agree with to some extent. As cliché as it may sound, marriage is generally something that people engage in to prove their love and devotion to each other, thus, they're essentially trying their best to prove their loyalty to each other, through thick and thin. Common-law marriage seems like an "easy-out," where you're not legally bound to each other; it's kind of a lifelong boyfriend thing. However, I disagree that marriage guarantees stability, or success in a family, which is what it seems like Barbara was trying to imply. Not all marriages produce happy, healthy children, and there are obviously instances in which common-law marriages are more successful than "real marriages." Statistics may tell me otherwise, but personally, I don't think that the stability of one's family is based on whether or not they have signed a piece of paper which legally binds them to each other. Different cases produce different results, therefore, I think saying that married couples are happier, and more stable than common-law marriages, was an ignorant, over-generalization.
Finally, she stated that "self awareness implies selfish and that true happiness is taking responsibility, moving out of your parents home, is starting your family. It makes the most of your potential and your energies. Happiness is hard work." I may have been the only one who laughed at this part of the segment, but that's one of the oldest fashioned statements I've ever heard. Yes, most of us should come to an age where taking responsibility for things does make us happy, but happiness SHOULD NOT be hard work. Perhaps she is a really selfless individual, or maybe I'm very selfish, but I don't think that giving up your 'freedom' is a selfish thing to do. I'm someone that's very career-driven, and I plan on having one child to do my duty to the world, and that's it. Yes, I believe that we must make sacrifices in life and that family and children are important, but it's a really traditional opinion to believe that we all must have families, and children, and live happily ever after. It probably does sound like a ridiculous notion to most people, but maybe some people are happy living in their parents’ homes for the rest of their lives. In some Eastern cultures, sons are supposed to live with their parents for the rest of their lives. Our lives don’t have to be about other people. We obviously shouldn’t be the only people we care about in our lives, but the people that we do care about don’t have to be our husbands, or wives, and children. We can love our friends, our parents, our siblings, etc. And calling it selfish to not want to have children or a “traditional” family is absolutely ludicrous; it’s not the only option.
In summary, I think that this article was merely a clash of generations. I guess my disinterest in it shows that my generation is apathetic for marriage; declining marriage rates is not an issue that’s really important, and having someone who ir probably 40 years my senior telling me that marriage and a family are important is not going to have me thinking otherwise. Life has started to become about more than just that. In the 21st century, we have the opportunity to essentially do anything we want to, and this is especially important for females. I believe we have just begun to explore the world, and have opportunities which weren’t available to us before. Even our roles in marriage are evolving, and we’re simply coming to an ange where marriage doesn’t have to be an option; marriage does not equal success. Essentially, what I’m trying to get at is that being single feels damn good.
No comments:
Post a Comment