On the subject of "urgency"

[Sam Spade]

I've been thinking about it a lot lately --> not just in terms of relationships, but in general, our life is mostly guided by expected durations/standard pathways (in terms of developmental milestones, education, jobs, relationships and marriage).

And although it seems that due to sharp increases in quality of life than ever, I don't think it ever goes away (unless a person steps beyond the mainstream; which is cool, but seems to require a lot of energy and have hard to predict consequences).

 

So, anyway, in regards to relationships, I've been doing the math in my head and the sense of urgency isseems to be more than warranted:

 

Early 20s - finishing up college, just beginning to figure out what's up with relationships;

Mid-late 20s. A serious relationship or two, if things don't fall apart - marriage by about 30 (and end of flow chart).

Early 30s - dating. Over. and Over. again. In the best case (traditional) scenario - you meet someone at about 30-32, date for about 2 years, get engaged/married by 33. Then, probably try to enjoy a year or two without kids to get settled down, and BAM - 35 - the first kid comes out precisely at the time when both men and women begin to slide from their biological peak.

 

My point being that if even the most optimistic typical scenario results in pretty risky outcome (as far as starting a family is concerned), what is to be said about multiuple fault-starts that push the succesful start even further in the person's 30s/40s?

 

So how did we end up here? Maybe my perspective is narrow, but that's partially the point - nobody is immune to the standard developmental paths and milestones of adulthood (although of course we all like to pretend that we are). It is certainly true that more and more people embark on non-traditional career and relationship paths. The question is under what conditions and at what cost is it worth it to think outside of the box? It is one thing to pursue your dreams, and another to self-destruct the life you have by doing so. (I could have been a bush pilot in Latin america by now, or could be fighting terrorists in Afganistan ! Instead, all I have left is to get tenured, have kids, get prostate cancer, and die. I'm almost done!!!) Thus I think that the sense of urgency is also the product of an inherent need for structure and direction in life, and while single life can be and is extremely enjoyable, it does not provide such a direction for most people. I appreciate being able to go on a weekend trip at a moment's notice, but what's the point (other than comfort)? It just wouldn't feel "right" to be 40, to have my career etc. settled by that time, but still show up to work functions with a different girlfriend every time (although I'm sure my peers would be envious ). Not to mention the subject of holidays and dragging your buddies out of the house for some bro time.

[spookie]

There is no right answer that fits everyone. We all have to decide what we want most, and at what price. Personally, what I want most IS a stable relationship, complete with babies... but I think that would be a terribly lonely adventure to take with someone you didn't love. And love does not work according to timelines.

[Johnny M]

The problem is that we have become a society of over-educated (though not necessarily overly intelligent) children. Not so long, you were expected to become an adult by the time you were 18. You'd graduate from high school, get married, and have a kid, all in your late teens to early 20s. Nowadays, you'd be in your late 20s when you're finally done with schooling. And all students are children on a fundamental level (no real responsibilities, no experience with the real world).

[Kamille]

I don't think it's a biological instinct. I think the expectations we have are linked to social history and the organization of resources in society. this is an organization that has, since the middle ages, favored the extended family model (family farms, estates, etc) and since industralization (19th century), the nuclear family model. Now, as you point out, we live in a job market that favors a longer passage into the kind of stable employment that the waged economy favors. Economic activity (no longer centered around seasonal activities or industrial ones) no longer requires stability. It requires flexibility and mobility. As a result, families, relationships and individual trajectories are changing.

 

Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Should we change something about the way we institutionalize work? Is any consensus on how to change work to foster family possible? Not likely.

 

Personally, I like the choices I have made so far in my life, the people I have met and the opportunities I was given. I'm in my early 30s, single, childless and I don't feel disoriented by this. I'm not sure I want children. If I decide to pursue a career in academia, I know that will mean I would have to adopt (because I wouldn't be tenured until in my 40s). It doesn't freak me out. I like my life. I see everything as a learning experience.

 

And I don't understand why so many people feel that there must be something wrong with them if they are single.

[PinkToes]

Sometimes a sense of urgency comes from expectations, and the greater they are, the less likely they are to happen, which increases the sense of urgency. We don't just want to get married and have kids, we want to meet our 'soulmate' and find that perfect relationship, and live happily ever after. But before we're 29.5 years old!

 

So it's a tradeoff. Are you willing to abandon the timetable in favor of higher expectations? Or keep the timetable and be open to something that's not exactly what you had in mind? Because it's awfully difficult to follow both paths.

[Thornton]

Johnny is right in this case - people used to be adults at 18, marry and have families in their early to mid twenties, and then focus on working and raising kids. If for whatever reason things didn't work out (like you didn't meet the right man or woman) you still had time to correct it. Not so nowadays, where we're working on an incredibly tight schedule.

 

People are at college until their early to mid twenties, and then set about building a career and playing the field. They usually marry and have kids in their late twenties (if they're lucky) or early thirties, which leaves very little time for finding the right person (if you only start seriously looking in your late twenties), and little leeway for issues with getting pregnant, divorce, etc. If you fail to find someone suitable in that extremely short window of time, you're doomed to watching your last fertile years tick away as you desperately trawl clubs etc in search of someone who's at least 'good enough'. If you fail to get pregnant at the right time, it's a race against the clock.

 

The funny thing is, only the middle and upper classes get their schedules mixed up like this - the lower classes still get knocked up at 18 as usual (sometimes even earlier).

[GoodOnPaper]

Urgency sucks, but the drive to move forward in life can be very powerful, especially if you are doing all the "good" things to advance yourself educationally and professionally.

 

The question is under what conditions and at what cost is it worth it to think outside of the box?

 

I don't think it's possible to answer this question accurately until you've been in the box and moved past -- or at least perilously close to -- the point of no return. I agree with Spookie in that the true answer depends on one's individual emotional development. My parents got married at 19. I freaked out when at 23, I still could hardly attract any women. Married at 26 just because that was the first time someone actually had an interest in an LTR with me. In my early 40s now (still married) -- I have kids in elementary school and feel way too old for that, yet at the same time, I feel like I'm still a neophyte at understanding women and relationships. I'm just starting to understand who I am.

 

From what I've seen of your posts, you're well ahead of the curve . . .

 

Instead, all I have left is to get tenured, have kids, get prostate cancer, and die. I'm almost done!!!)

 

Don't knock tenure -- as long as you don't get sucked into being department chair, it's an incredibly freeing experience!

[Sam Spade]

There is no right answer that fits everyone. We all have to decide what we want most, and at what price. Personally, what I want most IS a stable relationship, complete with babies... but I think that would be a terribly lonely adventure to take with someone you didn't love. And love does not work according to timelines.

 

 

Of course, it does not, and this topic is not intended to be counfounded with the issue of 'settling', which nobody should do.

But long term partnerships are clearly NOT just about love --> if they were, the number of marriages would be constant in each and every age group, to reflect the random nature of the process. However, we do know that the majority of marriages are concentrated in 1-2 age groups, so it can't be just love (that would be like claiming that people in their 20s 30s are more likely to 'find lofe' than anybody else...)

[Sam Spade]

The problem is that we have become a society of over-educated (though not necessarily overly intelligent) children. Not so long, you were expected to become an adult by the time you were 18. You'd graduate from high school, get married, and have a kid, all in your late teens to early 20s. Nowadays, you'd be in your late 20s when you're finally done with schooling. And all students are children on a fundamental level (no real responsibilities, no experience with the real world).

 

 

 

Recently I read an article that said "marriage used to be the first step into adulthood, now it is usually the last".

 

I share the (negative) sentiments about us turning into being over-educated, self-indulgent kids. It pains me to hear 35 year old men saying they are "not ready" to be fathers. By that age, our grandfathers fought the war, rebuilt Europe, had 3 kids, and had established in a solid career.

 

It is one thing to be able to enjoy things that our ancestors did not have access to - and completely another - to cling onto evey possible drop of comfort we can before taking on soma responsibility .

[Sam Spade]

Sometimes a sense of urgency comes from expectations, and the greater they are, the less likely they are to happen, which increases the sense of urgency. We don't just want to get married and have kids, we want to meet our 'soulmate' and find that perfect relationship, and live happily ever after. But before we're 29.5 years old!

 

So it's a tradeoff. Are you willing to abandon the timetable in favor of higher expectations? Or keep the timetable and be open to something that's not exactly what you had in mind? Because it's awfully difficult to follow both paths.

 

Yep, exactly. If one is planning on following the "standard" path, the window of opportunity for it to 'happen' is afctually very, very narrow.

There is nothing wrong with high expectations, as long as they are not unreasonable, and most things in marriage can be negotiated. Marriage is one area where for some reason we refuse to acknowledge that tradeoffs exist. But tradeoffs exist everywhere - even DOD, which for all intents in purposes has basically unlimited resources had to abandond the Raptor fighter, just because it was too durn expensive .

[Sam Spade]

Johnny is right in this case - people used to be adults at 18, marry and have families in their early to mid twenties, and then focus on working and raising kids. If for whatever reason things didn't work out (like you didn't meet the right man or woman) you still had time to correct it. Not so nowadays, where we're working on an incredibly tight schedule.

 

People are at college until their early to mid twenties, and then set about building a career and playing the field. They usually marry and have kids in their late twenties (if they're lucky) or early thirties, which leaves very little time for finding the right person (if you only start seriously looking in your late twenties), and little leeway for issues with getting pregnant, divorce, etc. If you fail to find someone suitable in that extremely short window of time, you're doomed to watching your last fertile years tick away as you desperately trawl clubs etc in search of someone who's at least 'good enough'. If you fail to get pregnant at the right time, it's a race against the clock.

 

The funny thing is, only the middle and upper classes get their schedules mixed up like this - the lower classes still get knocked up at 18 as usual (sometimes even earlier).

 

 

Makes me wonder what are the evuloutionary implications of this :lmao:.

 

Another issue is that people wait to get married until their lives are "perfect", and then the same expectations translate into marriage as such. While in the past it was the opposite - both the marriage and starting the new life was a bit haphazard, so people got by the best they could without worrying too much if they're picture perfect.

[Sam Spade]

I don't think it's a biological instinct. I think the expectations we have are linked to social history and the organization of resources in society. this is an organization that has, since the middle ages, favored the extended family model (family farms, estates, etc) and since industralization (19th century), the nuclear family model. Now, as you point out, we live in a job market that favors a longer passage into the kind of stable employment that the waged economy favors. Economic activity (no longer centered around seasonal activities or industrial ones) no longer requires stability. It requires flexibility and mobility. As a result, families, relationships and individual trajectories are changing.

 

Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Should we change something about the way we institutionalize work? Is any consensus on how to change work to foster family possible? Not likely.

 

Personally, I like the choices I have made so far in my life, the people I have met and the opportunities I was given. I'm in my early 30s, single, childless and I don't feel disoriented by this. I'm not sure I want children. If I decide to pursue a career in academia, I know that will mean I would have to adopt (because I wouldn't be tenured until in my 40s). It doesn't freak me out. I like my life. I see everything as a learning experience.

 

And I don't understand why so many people feel that there must be something wrong with them if they are single.

 

 

Alvin Tofler had a chapter in "The Thirsd Wave" about how family structures are about to all change and get mixed up in a post industrial society (that I am too lazy to look up, although the book is 2.3 meters away); we're not there yet however, though you see some non-traditional families (e.g. gay couples raising kids etc.). I doubt things will evolve that much as to make things such as open marriages, poligamy/andry become standard. But you never know - as you point out, family structure is closely related to production structure (and certainly not just a biological instinct - if it was, I'd be a father of 35 by the age ot 18 )

 

Good luck with tenure . Go 1-2 years early and you'll be all set by 38.

I also want to wait until thenure, but I confess this is a hack reason that has to do with risk-aversion rather than a nacessity - the academic schedule give me so much flexibility, so I can't see why couldn't I be writing a paper whyle a cute baby is crawling in my feet .

Edited November 14, 2009 by Sam Spade