When I went to India in April, everyone on my father’s side of the family asked me one main question: some variation of “When are you getting married?” Everyone on my mother’s side of the family also asked just one main question: “When are you going back to school?”
At least one side of the family is progressive…but only relatively speaking. When anyone on my mom’s side claims that they favour their daughters getting married “at a later age,” that translates to 26, maybe 27 years old. Do they not realise that we’re living in a country where average life expectancy for women is around 80 years old? 50+ years is a freaking long time to spend with someone, and I don’t understand the rush. There’s substantial evidence that women who marry later and therefore have children later raise children who are more socially and economically successful than women who start having kids earlier (read Freakonomics). And it makes perfect sense, as it allows for women to pursue further education and better careers that provide increased financial stability and independence. Call me crazy, but I think that’s worthy of more admiration and celebration than getting married young and cranking out babies straight away. Yes, it means a shortened time frame for having kids, but that’s not such a bad thing. No one needs to be having ten kids in this day and age.
Maybe part of the appeal lies in the fact that we have fewer and fewer legitimate reasons to celebrate ourselves as we get older, and so everyone gets starry-eyed over an event that brings them attention, gifts, and an excuse to dress up. And hey, if it doesn’t work out, you can always have a do-over with spouse # whatever to celebrate yourself all over again!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There is also the biological consideration. If you wait too long to have kids, they tend to have higher rates of congenital defects such as mental retardation, etc. This is true for both men and women. This may be why the rates of autism has been reported as being increasing.
And Freakonomics doesn't seem to be that great of a source for the thrust of your argument as it seems that the authors just note trends rather than actually go for a cause and effect relationship. I haven't read the book though so what do I know.
AK
I didn't say people should wait till after 40 where the risks may well outweigh the benefits, merely that there's no harm in waiting a few more years.
And actually, the section of the book that raises this topic does so through examining multiple regression analyses in order to determine causal relationships, rather than simply noting trends that lack empirical evidence.
Post a Comment