Author tells women to marry early lest they lose “market value”

This is rich. Mark Regnerus at The Washington Post argues that people shouldn’t wait long to get married. And by people, he means women.

Marriage will be there for men when they’re ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women’s “market value” declines steadily as they age, while men’s tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies — and endless anecdotes — reinforce their conclusion. Meanwhile, women’s fertility is more or less fixed, yet they largely suppress it during their 20s — their most fertile years — only to have to beg, pray, borrow and pay to reclaim it in their 30s and 40s.

Countless studies? Endless anecdotes? Well color me convinced. *Eye roll*
I guess telling women that they better stop with all that work nonsense and get to the baby-making never gets old for some people.
Regnerus, author of Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, is also miffed that the age difference between couples is closing:

The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years.
…Most young women are mature enough to handle marriage. According to data from the government’s National Survey of Family Growth, women who marry at 18 have a better shot at making a marriage work than men who marry at 21. There is wisdom in having an age gap between spouses. For women, age is (unfortunately) a debit, decreasing fertility. For men, age can be a credit, increasing their access to resources and improving their maturity, thus making them more attractive to women.

I have to say, outside of how problematic the anecdotes and sweeping generalizations are, this article simply skeeves me out.

Join the Conversation