5 ms·

This appears to be the crux of the problem... "if you’re unwed at 25, you’re thought to be on the verge of spinsterhood, pretty much the worst failure imaginab

This appears to be the crux of the problem... "if you’re unwed at 25, you’re thought to be on the verge of spinsterhood, pretty much the worst failure imaginable" This sentiment seems to be near-universal in all but the most "progressive" societies (and even in some parts of those). And it results in all manner of grotesque and absurd behavior that robs people - mostly women but also men - of their humanity and autonomy. I applaud every young person with the courage to buck this trend in their own societies. The cost of doing so is often very high, but the pattern can only be broken by people brave enough to face those consequences and help craft a less restrictive world for the next generation.

jjcon 4y ago
I don’t think it is 100% society as much as it is biology that has shaped that ideology
- vanviegen 4y ago
  So? Does that make it right?
  - jjcon 4y ago
    Reproducing is biologically hardwired into us. That doesn’t make it alright to judge people who either can’t or choose not to but I also don’t think we are going to change something so core to our biology any time soon, and yes a part of that is the judgement that may come along with it. Doesn’t hurt to try though.
AmericanChopper 4y ago
You’re talking as if this was just some social construct, when it’s absolutely not. If a woman doesn’t have children by a certain age, then she will never have children. The idea that it will become impossible to have children is an intimidating thought for many women, even if they don’t necessarily have immediate plans to have them, and the appeal of committing to a relationship with a women who cannot have children is reduced for men (again, even if they don’t have any immediate plans for children). Women get left behind by biological realities. Pretending this is just some form of social tyranny is clearly nonsense.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  The age is not 25 and, anyway, who says being a mother is every woman's life's ambition?
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    I didn’t say it was every woman’s ambition. But many people reevaluate how they feel about the idea when they are forced to confront the fact that the choice will soon be taken away from them. This doesn’t happen at age 25, but probably starts to become more apparent for many people around that age. Keep in mind it often takes years of planning to go from deciding you want to have children to actually having them.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      And the solution that's been arrived on is robbing women more fundamentally of any choice at all about what kind of life they will live. I think we're better off with the risk that maybe some people will wish they'd tried motherhood earlier than the alternative.
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        That’s clearly not true, because this issue still exists in societies where women have full autonomy and legal protections. It’s created by biological realities, not social conventions. It’s not simply a trendy sentiment that can be bucked (which is the claim made in the comment I originally replied to).
        emodendroket 4y ago
        I'm not sure what is clearly not true but many women marry past 25 and have children.
    - standardUser 4y ago
      Most women I know had kids in their early-to-late thirties. Maybe you need to get out in the world and interact with more and different kinds of people, because it appears you perspective is severely limited.
HaroldIs88 4y ago
HuwytGreen 4y ago
rayiner 4y ago
> And it results in all manner of grotesque and absurd behavior that robs people - mostly women but also men - of their humanity and autonomy. I disagree that “humanity” and “autonomy” belong together in that sentence. I’m pretty sure that having kids by roughly 25 is how the human species has evolved to function. That’s the nature of “humanity”—the human condition. That “sentiment” you decry—the social pressure to marry and have children in your 20s—is probably necessary for a sustainable society to exist. As you acknowledge, it’s nearly universal. And I can’t help but notice that the exceptions—what you call “progressive” societies, where “autonomy” has vanquished “humanity”—are all in decline. They are all propped up in the meantime by immigration from societies like the one I’m from, where moms and aunties start hassling you to get married once you hit 25.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  No, you don’t understand, it’s completely normal and healthy for a society to shrink by close to half generation-to-generation. Sure, after 10 generations of this kind of decline, the population figure shrinks to only 0.1% of the former figure, and no longer sustains culture or even economy to keep all this autonomy practical (as healthy and productive economy is crucial to any degree of autonomy, the concept of autonomy and freedom from unchosen bonds is completely foreign to poor people in places like the Bangladesh you are from, due to simple economic reality), but think about all the autonomy the generation that inherited the civilization right at its peak, before it entered terminal decline (i.e. us) have enjoyed! More seriously though, I don’t think it will be so bad. Evolution works. Blood lines of the autonomous people will perish, and the breeders will inherit the earth. For me, I’m doing my part.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
satisfice 4y ago
A less restrictive world is not necessarily a better world. We live on and are proceeding to ruin a finite living area called Earth. Only with some kind of massive social re-engineering will any semblance of modern society still exist 200 years from now. That probably has to involve restrictions on how people eat, work, and mate. The modern Western idea appears to be to treat life like an infinitely reconfigurable video game tuned to every individual. That will soon become a luxury for only the richest people. The rest of us need to get by as best we can, and that may mean young women and men will have to take what they can get and make themselves happy with it. My wife dreams of winning the lottery and transforming our lives. Meanwhile we are genuinely content in our relatively hardscrabble existence… only because there is no alternative to it. BTW I kidnapped my first wife (well she ran away from home to live with me, so her parents thought of it as kidnapping). She was 18, I was 17. But I had my own apartment, so… My second wife kinda sorta kidnapped me. Or at least she stalked me for a year before revealing herself and unleashing her plan to marry me. My son’s wife of eight years came for a visit from Canada and never returned home (for immigration reasons they were forced to get married sooner than they wanted to, so I guess America kidnapped her?).

jjcon 4y ago

I don’t think it is 100% society as much as it is biology that has shaped that ideology

vanviegen 4y ago
So? Does that make it right?
- jjcon 4y ago
  Reproducing is biologically hardwired into us. That doesn’t make it alright to judge people who either can’t or choose not to but I also don’t think we are going to change something so core to our biology any time soon, and yes a part of that is the judgement that may come along with it. Doesn’t hurt to try though.

AmericanChopper 4y ago

You’re talking as if this was just some social construct, when it’s absolutely not. If a woman doesn’t have children by a certain age, then she will never have children. The idea that it will become impossible to have children is an intimidating thought for many women, even if they don’t necessarily have immediate plans to have them, and the appeal of committing to a relationship with a women who cannot have children is reduced for men (again, even if they don’t have any immediate plans for children). Women get left behind by biological realities. Pretending this is just some form of social tyranny is clearly nonsense.

emodendroket 4y ago
The age is not 25 and, anyway, who says being a mother is every woman's life's ambition?
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  I didn’t say it was every woman’s ambition. But many people reevaluate how they feel about the idea when they are forced to confront the fact that the choice will soon be taken away from them. This doesn’t happen at age 25, but probably starts to become more apparent for many people around that age. Keep in mind it often takes years of planning to go from deciding you want to have children to actually having them.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    And the solution that's been arrived on is robbing women more fundamentally of any choice at all about what kind of life they will live. I think we're better off with the risk that maybe some people will wish they'd tried motherhood earlier than the alternative.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      That’s clearly not true, because this issue still exists in societies where women have full autonomy and legal protections. It’s created by biological realities, not social conventions. It’s not simply a trendy sentiment that can be bucked (which is the claim made in the comment I originally replied to).
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        I'm not sure what is clearly not true but many women marry past 25 and have children.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Most women I know had kids in their early-to-late thirties. Maybe you need to get out in the world and interact with more and different kinds of people, because it appears you perspective is severely limited.

HaroldIs88 4y ago

HuwytGreen 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> And it results in all manner of grotesque and absurd behavior that robs people - mostly women but also men - of their humanity and autonomy. I disagree that “humanity” and “autonomy” belong together in that sentence. I’m pretty sure that having kids by roughly 25 is how the human species has evolved to function. That’s the nature of “humanity”—the human condition. That “sentiment” you decry—the social pressure to marry and have children in your 20s—is probably necessary for a sustainable society to exist. As you acknowledge, it’s nearly universal. And I can’t help but notice that the exceptions—what you call “progressive” societies, where “autonomy” has vanquished “humanity”—are all in decline. They are all propped up in the meantime by immigration from societies like the one I’m from, where moms and aunties start hassling you to get married once you hit 25.

xyzzyz 4y ago
No, you don’t understand, it’s completely normal and healthy for a society to shrink by close to half generation-to-generation. Sure, after 10 generations of this kind of decline, the population figure shrinks to only 0.1% of the former figure, and no longer sustains culture or even economy to keep all this autonomy practical (as healthy and productive economy is crucial to any degree of autonomy, the concept of autonomy and freedom from unchosen bonds is completely foreign to poor people in places like the Bangladesh you are from, due to simple economic reality), but think about all the autonomy the generation that inherited the civilization right at its peak, before it entered terminal decline (i.e. us) have enjoyed! More seriously though, I don’t think it will be so bad. Evolution works. Blood lines of the autonomous people will perish, and the breeders will inherit the earth. For me, I’m doing my part.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

satisfice 4y ago

A less restrictive world is not necessarily a better world. We live on and are proceeding to ruin a finite living area called Earth. Only with some kind of massive social re-engineering will any semblance of modern society still exist 200 years from now. That probably has to involve restrictions on how people eat, work, and mate. The modern Western idea appears to be to treat life like an infinitely reconfigurable video game tuned to every individual. That will soon become a luxury for only the richest people. The rest of us need to get by as best we can, and that may mean young women and men will have to take what they can get and make themselves happy with it. My wife dreams of winning the lottery and transforming our lives. Meanwhile we are genuinely content in our relatively hardscrabble existence… only because there is no alternative to it. BTW I kidnapped my first wife (well she ran away from home to live with me, so her parents thought of it as kidnapping). She was 18, I was 17. But I had my own apartment, so… My second wife kinda sorta kidnapped me. Or at least she stalked me for a year before revealing herself and unleashing her plan to marry me. My son’s wife of eight years came for a visit from Canada and never returned home (for immigration reasons they were forced to get married sooner than they wanted to, so I guess America kidnapped her?).