Toby Young - women don't want most childcare either

[Xenia]

Toby Young in today's Sunday Telegraph magazine Stella argues men do not want even more boring mindless childcare. Well nor do women. So the answer is have good careers as women and then you can avoid that dullness. It is not a gender issue. Clearing up sick is as boring for women as men. Lower earners may well be shunted into that dull stuff and to keep the higher earner man they have to do it but Mr Young needs to know plenty of women don't want to do more childcare either. I always thought two hours a day was pretty good including weekends. Too much more and you'd rather be doing other things.

I know you think that settling down in the suburbs with lots of babies is the pinnacle of female achievement, Xenia, but you are not entirely on trend

I have DSs and I would be horrified if they wanted to marry so young, in the same way that I would with a DD. I would support them but I think it a huge mistake. My DSs are sensibly living with girlfriends- there is plenty of time to work out whether you want it to be for life.
I also think that we are long beyond the times where women needed a DH. I was 28 when I got married and 37 the second time- no way would I have settled for second best just to have DCs. If they were that important to me I could have become a foster parent- part of me thinks 'why bring more into the world anyway when there are so many here already that need a good start.'
Luckily my fertility didn't plummet- I got pregnant first go every single time .

Can I ask why the man would have to be clever, for you to want to marry them?

Most people want someone of a similar intelligence level to them just because conversation is more interesting. i accept some people instead do not regard that as important as they are looking for someone who can clean their socks or who has massive breasts and conversation is the last thing on their minds but plenty of graduates they tend to want an intelligent partner. I don't think it is particularly controversial.

I still think though, exotic, that there is quite a narrow fertility window for most women.
And it can end up being ignored at someone's peril.

Just out of interst, Xenia, would you have married someone who wasnt particularly clever, but had huge earning potential[not meaning men who had inherited wealth]?

Assortative mating has increased massively in the past couple of generations - the freedom to travel for education and work, and the loosening of tribal/parochial/religious community ties means that people are much more likely to settle and mate with someone of similar intelligence. Which is why the global élite gets ever richer with ever more clever and nurtured offspring. And the rest... do we need to go there?

dogs, no, not at all. I have a rather large number of very rich men I have rejected (as the other issues are important - brains, attraction etc) because I do not rely on male earnings and earn my own money and am a feminist.

Assortive mating was always the scheme though surely for hundreds of years in the UK when for those with lands, titles etc they sought someone similar - the UK stately home owner with no money marrying the rich American heiress. It is not for no reason that Indian dating sites will advertise for PhD or MBA required as often as wanting light coloured skin or a particular caste and some UK dating sites will have education level and income level as search options. I have never understood why apparently women put height above everything including when they buy sperm even above brains. What is the use of a tall not clever man? You might as well buy a blow up doll of one.

Tall people are more successful and happier than short people. Ditto slim. Ditto attractive.

DH and I got together at 22 and 23. There is famous study of Harvard graduates that finds early marriage is positively associated with all sort of outcomes of psychological health and happiness as well as material wealth. Granted these men (I think it was a male cohort) graduated in the 50's and 60's, but I think it still holds true. My parents married before 25 and are now really enjoying being DINKs in their 50's with their children grown.

I know too many people ( men and women) who spent their 20's and 30's without strings.Who now (40's) find either
a) decent marriage prospects have dwindled
b) they are unable to conceive
or
c) their health is failing after years of partying.

When I look around I am so eased we got on with it.

I dont think I agree with your last post Bonsior. I will think about that some more.
Your post 9.57 It seems to me, in my very limited experience, that clever men often marry pretty women rather than clever women on the whole?

Wishihadabs. That might be because, on the whole, the ones that got married earlier were the easier ones to get along with. And also are less picky. There seem to be plenty of women in particular who have such a long list of requirements, that the right man never materialises.

Assortative mating is the phenomenon whereby, with the rise of female participation in higher education and work, women and men mate when they are of similar intelligence, qualifications and professional stature.

Of course, being clever, well-qualified and successful does not preclude women from being physically attractive. On the contrary!

I would agree that your fertility does dwindle and you run a risk of missing out, but it isn't necessarily so. The whole thing is a bit of a lottery.
However I still think it a mistake to settle for second best just because you are scared of missing out. I would prefer to be on my own and not have DCs than married to the wrong man.

so glad we got on with it.

I'm sure your right dogsandcats. However it was quite trendy around 15 yrs ago to be commitment phobic (think 4 weddings and Bridget Jones). Some of our contemporaries didn't marry perfectly good partners just because they didn't feel ready. I think they are now regretting that.

It all depends on personality. DS1 had a girlfriend at 17 yrs and they kept the relationship going all through university, I never said anything although I could see that they were very different and she was looking to settle down young. Luckily they parted, still friends but she married someone else and got the life she wanted and DS has a like minded girlfriend and they are both into the same activities and lifestyle which possibly may never include DCs- or not for a few more years anyway.
It will only ever work if you get someone who wants the same thing. Often one half of a couple are persuaded into something they don't really want.
On the whole my family do things late so that is what I am used to. I picked up a book designed for key stage 1 on family history and it had 5 generations (presumably the norm) where my family and DH's family have managed only 3 generations.

Yes, Bons. In fact richer cleverer better educated women tend to look better and be less likely to be fat than less well educated women. Men and women seem to gain both an attractive and clever well educated partner and most of them want that.

Yes, there are studies including a recent one saying women and men who pick from those they are at university with have a really good choice and chance at that stage as they are with a concentration of suitable and single people who have their IQ level. Of course it depends on if you find someone you fall in love with and you both want to marry. That can come at any age.

In some groups of people where both are in the kind of top 15% it would be a bit embarrassing if your wife were a dumb bimbo who just talked about her nails when all the couples met. It is not what most men and women want. You want someone reasonably bright if you are reasonably bright too. I don't think that has ever really changed at all for most people.

I agree that settling for second best can be catastrophic.

I think what I have been pondering lately is this.
I had my first children when I was 27.
I was in hospital while pregnant for several weeks beforehand.
And I noticed that literally 3/4 women there were also 27. They might not have all been on their first children , but many of them were. Certainly a lot of my friends also were having babies aged 27.

Now many young women are having their first at 29 or 30.
We seem to have moved on in that respect 3 years.
But what I cant help thinking is, I think the major decrease in fertility is still 35.
Now, if many women [especially the more educated ones] only have 2 children I dont suppose that would be a problem.
But more than that......

fwiw, one of my daughters may well get married young, soon.
But the other one may well not.

been with dp since 18yo.marriage was never the plan,career always was
in that time we lived together,lived apart,lived different countries
but we are each other consistent datum

I expected to feel out of place with a baby at 40yrs whereas I was the norm- the really young were the ones out of place.

I know what you mean I felt out of place (too young) at 28

It was a big relief to me, Wishihadabs

I had my dc at 25, 29 and 37. I felt a bit out of place at 37 because we moved to a place with a high % of teenage pregnancies. There were a fair few during time I was there with dd, although the trend was for women having their first at 40. Unfortunately there weren't any when I had dd