Middle class trading 'I do' for 'maybe later'

  • Article by: KIM ODE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 11, 2012 - 7:31 AM

Wary of settling for less than ideal, some singles are postponing marriage and starting families first.

  • 225
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
sarahanneJun. 9, 1211:43 PM

This is an outrage. There should be a Constitutional Amendment saying that you can only have children if you are married. How about ir Republicans are going to follow through on this proposed amendment? To be consistent you should.

58
49
kohoutekJun. 10, 1212:19 AM

I have worked with plenty of single mothers and seen the loneliness and misery of their lives. Middle class people who do this will not be middle class for very long.

66
31
groovemonkeyJun. 10, 12 2:11 AM

I'm a wedding reception DJ and I haven't seen a big decline in people holding back. I actually have seen though, an uprising of shotgun weddings where the family is on the way. This way, baby is part of the celebration, I'm guessing.

20
4
esayerJun. 10, 12 3:43 AM

Well one could argue that modern women have higher expectations because we know we can take care of ourselves, and most men we know are not our equals. I have a graduate degree and a great career, I own my home and car, paid my student loans; I have my ducks in a row. Since I was a kid, every guy I met was intimidated by my self sufficient, independent attitude. I wanted a partnership, but relationships never worked out because I always made more money than the guy. It wasn't a problem for me, but for them it was. I would rather be single and happy than with some guy who doesn't live up to my expectations, which are simple: Have a job, care, and be a man. Not very many guys I know have those 3 qualities. The ones that do got married long ago. When my relationships failed, I concentrated on furthering my education thinking I'd meet someone in grad school. Now here I am pushing 40, and I'm re-evaluating my life. I always thought I'd be married, but instead I travel and have a career and a dog instead of kids. So now, whomever I date must be my equal. It would have been a lot easier if those guys back in my 20s weren't such nimrods. When they got their acts together, they just found young girls to marry who don't give them grief about paying their loans. I guess I can find a 60 year old lonely divorcee or widower...but I'll stick to my worry free 'animal-mom' existence for now.

53
55
Scott1Jun. 10, 12 5:31 AM

"I love my girlfriend and I hope to one day give her the wedding she deserves, but not at the expense of our financial well-being afterward." This attitude/perception may be part of the problem, that weddings have to be so elaborate and expensive. It's another triumph of the Mad Men. I'm sure these overly inflated expectations of the singular event of the wedding contribute to plenty of divorces, especially when they *do* cost so much, and money problems are a big cause of marital problems.

95
1
jeffportJun. 10, 12 5:35 AM

For the Micheal Foley comment - Why are people still thinking that thousand's of dollars be spent on their weddings? Also, If 2 people love each other and are striving for the same life goals, cannot they not get married at say 25 then hold off having children until they BOTH feel comfortable with their situations? Maybe they are 30,35... I think it's all a matter of communications between the couple. And maybe it's the pregnancy planning that neither person in the relationship can understand. If neither person wants children, do the things that need to be done to prevent it. 2 people should never get married unless they both understand the others goals in life then you can decide that's still the person you want to be with. People get married to fast and marriages fall apart. No wonder there is a 50% divorce rate. Each partner has a differing goal then the other.

44
1
cks1950Jun. 10, 12 6:01 AM

SARAHANNE: So much hate, you have my sympathies!

23
32
Thumper5316Jun. 10, 12 6:49 AM

When did men become superfluous? The boys born to these mothers will not have a stable male role model in their lives. The girls will not have the joys of a dad. As a female and mother of three grown sons I see this as a selfish act and one that is increasing in numbers. It is not in the best interest of any child to be consciously deprived of one of the two people needed to create them.

55
23
minneg56Jun. 10, 12 6:50 AM

As a person 'more seasoned by age' I do understand that the world has changed. A couple of thoughts on the article: 1. Hey, younger people - when you come to your families, parents and grandparents with the idea of 'alternative life concepts' understand - they might not be quite ready to accept them. In your eyes- it shouldn't make them wrong either. It will take time for them to accept you've made family and reproductive decisions based on what would appear to them to have been made soley on hormonal, physically instictive and biological reasons. 2. This has changed over the past 35 or so years but, for decades in the modern era of humanity, it's been the male domain to take care of and provide for family - particularly in the event of their passing. No man wanted to leave his family in a lurch in the event that he died. He didn't want his kids to go without and to be viewed as lesser during his life and more so beyond his life- because he couldn't/didn't provide. That doesn't make him right or wrong- it's just the the mores' they were raised with. So, I'd hope when the decisions are made to have children without a family support system/mom only, that some 'safety net' consideration is made for the children in the event of the single mom's passing- where they gonna' go and who gonna' feed 'em when mom unexpectedly passes on? Perhaps a bit pragmatic but hey- it's reality that someone will have to take care of the children if you're gone. They're gonna' need an education in there too. The article as written suggests that this is the wave of the future. Maybe it's the circles I travel in but it's half past spring heading for summer. I have gone to and have been invited to a lot of weddings- no fewer than at any other time in my adult life. I will agree though that a wickedly bad economy has forced young people to opt for some unconventional choices on how they will live and how the future will be shaped.

27
5
fatboyJun. 10, 12 6:59 AM

I refuse to get married because marriage is nothing but ever increasing financial and legal obligations and little to no reward for men. There's just nothing in it for me that I can see.

26
45

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT