WSJ Article: College Women Should "Start Husband-Hunting"

Student Lounge College Life
1

<p>In what seems like a throwback to the 1960s or earlier, Susan Patton wrote a Wall Street Journal article titled, "A Little Valentine's Day Straight Talk - Young women in college need to smarten up and start husband-hunting." </p>

<p>Back in my own college days, a joke circulated: When a young coed is asked if she's pursuing her MS, she replies, "No, I'm here for my Mrs." It wasn't particularly amusing decades ago, and is distinctly unfunny today. So, when I read this anachronistic headline, I had to check to see if I'd accidentally clicked through to The Onion instead of WSJ.com,</p>

<p>Patton is promoting a new book on marriage, so perhaps she thought a little controversy would be a good thing for book sales. (Remember the Asian Tiger Mom?)</p>

<p>Her key thesis:
"College is the best place to look for your mate. It is an environment teeming with like-minded, age-appropriate single men with whom you already share many things. You will never again have this concentration of exceptional men to choose from."</p>

<p>That statement could be made gender-neutral and be quite valid. Putting aside the question of whether marriage at 21 or so is the best approach, both men and women are likely to never again be a part of such a large, similarly-aged, single, smart, and ambitious population. </p>

<p>So why does Patton single out women?</p>

<p>She thinks delaying marriage until one is professionally established disadvantages women more than men. Men, she says, can seek out younger partners while women are less able to do so. Men, she claims, often find younger women less challenging and more attractive. (Hmmm, maybe college women should be scrutinizing that population of professionally established single males instead of their wet-behind-the-ears classmates...)</p>

<p>What do you think? Controversial crazy-talk? A kernel of truth? Here's the article: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303496804579369420198599600"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303496804579369420198599600&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Meh. I was more interested in the article of how ‘how much student loan do you have’? works itself into dates before anyone gets serious. People are different. In college they are exploring and many will change quite a bit after that point. It is a risk, but it is in fact a lot easier to date, given the ‘no sex in the office’ protocols (and quite right, too.)</p>

3

<p>sounds similar to the Princeton mother who asked Princeton girls to look for mates.</p>

4

<p>Decades ago, few women were able to enter the worlds of business, science, or the professions. Indeed, many of the top schools didn’t admit women at all. So, in those days looking for a mate in college was indeed a priority for many young women. This just seems rather odd advice now, when most new grads of both genders are focused on getting established in their careers.</p>

5

<p>Yet there have been some posters here extolling the value of attending a super-selective school in terms of finding a spouse there instead of among the rabble at a typical state school.</p>

<p>However, it looks like students at BYU find spouses at college more so than at most colleges.
<a href=“http://universe.byu.edu/2013/02/12/by-i-do/”>http://universe.byu.edu/2013/02/12/by-i-do/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

6

<p>

That’s because it is that mother, Susan Patton, Princeton '77: <a href=“http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2013/03/letter-to-the-editor-advice-for-the-young-women-of-princeton-the-daughters-i-never-had/”>http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2013/03/letter-to-the-editor-advice-for-the-young-women-of-princeton-the-daughters-i-never-had/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

7

<p>Although the article is a bit too cheeky and simplistic - and perhaps has an unnecessary focus on women – it also contains more than a grain of truth.</p>

<p>The central argument, that the college years are the best opportunity to be around smart eligible men, is as sound as it can be. It is simply a fact that it is easier and less risky to date in college than it ever will be again. Once in the work world, more men will be married and many of them will not be especially smart. The work place is also a poor place to consider dating someone, dampened as it is by work place rules and sexual harassment concerns. Plus, if you are working hard to establish a career, it will be hard to find time to socialize outside of work. So, actually, for both men and women, college is the best and most risk free place to establish initial contact with a potential mate. Plenty of people who are a lot like you, and plenty of low risk opportunities to socialize.</p>

<p>It is not the perfect place, however. For one thing, almost nobody in college is financially prepared to marry. Also, sorry, but college age men are… um… shall we say… immature, to say the least (I get to say this because I was one). The flip side to this is that if a woman meets a fine young man in college, then he probably will be a great man to marry later – emphasis on “later.” Nobody needs to make a marriage decision while in college, or even immediately thereafter. Social media makes it very easy to stay at least in minimal contact, and keep track of people. Making contact is best done in person, but staying in contact has never been easier.</p>

<p>Finally, let us not forget that women still do face the “biological clock” and childbearing definitely becomes progressively more difficult after the age of 30. So, the window of opportunity for finding a good man is much smaller for a woman than it is for a man. This is one good reason that the author might have been more focused on women’s prospects. Men can father a child at almost any age. A woman can only become a mother early in adulthood.</p>

<p>P.S. Clearly if a woman has no intent to have children then the final paragraph is not applicable.</p>

8

<p>I think there is a kernel of truth to this, however small that kernel might be and however distasteful it may sound. I am afraid there are a lot of women out there who have taken the message that we have plenty of time to settle down too far and think they have forever. The fact is that they don’t-- they have LOTS of time, much more than they may have thought they did in the past, but not forever. It takes a long time to find the right person and to get to know them and be ready to marry them, and be ready for children together. It may take you several relationships before you even find the right person. What happens if you don’t even start to become interested in this prospect until you’re 30-35? It’s easy when you’re just finishing school anywhere from 21-25, those first few years of career are busy. You could be 40 before you even find someone. You might be fine-- a lot of women are, but you might also face a time crunch or fertility issues. Not everybody can afford adoption or fertility treatments, they are not an option for everybody. I was just reading an article the other day where they polled women, I wish I could find it again, and a lot of women thought it was okay for them to wait into their late 30s and 40s to have the kids they desperately want because they can just get fertility treatments like the celebrities they see on TV and they don’t realize they won’t be able to afford to do that. I work with several women in their late 30’s and early 40s who are starting to think maybe motherhood just can’t happen for them. It’s really sad. It doesn’t HAVE to be that way in this day and age, but sometimes it is if you don’t take the time to carefully assess your options and your plans. I don’t think anybody should rush into relationships just because they’re afraid they’ll run out of time, but likewise I don’t think they should put motherhood off indefinitely if it’s something that’s important to them. You run out of time faster than you think you will. Even thinking about motherhood in your 20’s has become unfashionable and I think that’s stupid, you need to be able to consider ALL your priorities for your young life and parenthood is a part of that equation for many people. Even if you decide you want to wait, which is fantastic and I applaud women who make that choice, you need to be able to make informed decisions and I don’t know how much that’s really happening. I wonder if we will have a lot of disappointed childless women in 20-30 years. But, the trade off is probably that we had a lot of unhappily married mothers decades ago, so, maybe this is better? I don’t know the answer to that. </p>

<p>There are a lot of factors that people don’t consider. When I was growing up I was very close with my grandparents, we had a wonderful relationship with them and they were the center of the family. All four of them were at my college graduation and they almost all made it to my wedding. My parents may not even be there when my kids start high school, they will never have the chance to know them as adults. MOST of our family will be gone by then. That makes me so sad. My kids will miss out on so much of their family and their heritage. Had I gone to law school like I originally intended and put my nose to the grind, I probably would not have been in a position to consider kids until I was in my mid 30s-- at that point my dad would already be in his 70’s. And when we are grandparents, we will see even less of our grandchildren than my parents will see of theirs. And why bust my behind to climb the ladder for 5-10 years just to jump off when I have kids? The job I do right now, I could not do well and have kids, the expectations are just too high for people that have outside responsibilities. It would be nice to find a different job that is more flexible, and maybe someday I will, but I might not be in a position to do that. These are all choices we have to make. Some people will have different options and may make different choices that make it easier for them to wait, but not everybody will and some of those people will want children, too. I don’t have any judgment whatsoever for women who choose the career first or who choose to wait until later in life for marriage and kids, or women who choose not to pursue those things at all, but I hope they have their eyes wide open when they make that choice. I am reading more and more about women who are buying into the popular culture that marriage is just a piece of paper and isn’t worth your time and anybody can have kids in their 40’s and it’s just not true.</p>

<p>In Summary: No I don’t agree that women should be rushing off to college in desperate search of husbands, but I hope they don’t wait TOO long either and miss out because they live under the delusion that the biological clock no longer exists, because it’s still there even if it’s become a little more forgiving. Women need to honestly assess their priorities and make decisions accordingly, and I am afraid current trends away from marriage and family may discourage women from making honest decisions about how important those things are to them until later in life when their options may not be as open. Social equality has helped women into careers but it needs to not swing too far in the other direction or I think it is just as harmful.</p>

<p>This article could have made the point it wanted to make in a much less controversial and obnoxios way and been much more effective. I don’t think many will see past the outdatedness to the points that are actually somewhat valid.</p>

9

<p>I don’t know that there is any rush. I adopted my first child as a single at 45 and my second at 51. They are both great kids. It’s true not everyone wants to adopt, but I know people who had trouble with later pregnancies as well as people who trouble with early pregnancies. One of my sisters and a cousin had healthy babies in their 40s. Yes, the stats are better for younger pregnancies, but 30 or 35 is not a magical number.</p>

10

<p>“That’s because it is that mother, Susan Patton, Princeton '77:”</p>

<p>Would make sense that she decided to write a whole book after the initial controversy and expand the theme. Her initial theme was that the girls won’t find anyone as bright as themselves once they leave.</p>

11

<p>The only part I agree with is that college is the time in life when we are around the most available single people our age. That’s kind of obvious. As a 35 year old single woman (never married), I don’t feel like I wasted my life because I didn’t find a husband when I was 21 (or the man who would become my husband). I’m not still single now because I turned away men that I was interested in marrying and who were interested in marrying me. I’m single because I haven’t had a relationship that turned into marriage. It’s not like we can just say “Ok, I’m 25, I’m going to get married now”. It’s not that simple. We go to college to get an education and prepare for a career. If we happen to meet our spouse while we’re there. great, but that shouldn’t be the focus. </p>

12

<p>I agree that it shouldn’t be the focus, to be clear. My “small kernel of truth” is that one shouldn’t necessarily put off considering it. For women that it just doesn’t happen for or it truly isn’t what they are interested in, I don’t think anyone should get married if they don’t want to. I just feel sorry for women who DO want it and purposefully push it off and think, “I don’t have time for that right now, there will be time later” and then find out maybe that’s not true. They tell themselves they don’t have time when really they do, and they might not have as much time later in life as they think. I repeat, not everybody can afford to adopt or have fertility treatments, nor does everyone want to have a child that way. </p>

<p>Personally I dated seriously in college with the intention of finding someone I could marry sometime in the future, and it didn’t happen for me-- no big deal, I had fun and marriage was NOT what I went to college for. I got what I came for in my degree. I met my (not college educated) fiance 6 months or so after graduation. If I hadn’t, I would be focused on using my education to build my career so I can support myself and it would happen when it happens. That’s not what I am being critical of, it’s women who want marriage and kids but are against even thinking about how important those things are to them or how to balance their priorities under the delusion that they have an unlimited amount of time. You do have a LOT of time, 30-35 is definitely NOT a magic number, but you do not have forever and it is too easy to think “later, later, I’ll have time for that later” and not realize later has come and gone.</p>

13

<p>Yes, we had a lot of chat here when her first article came out. Some over-interpreting it. I think my advice to my girls will be: find a cheeky topic and turn it into a book. Make the bucks. I did get my Mrs in grad school, btw.</p>

14

<p>The reason people react so strongly to her is because there is a big difference between “consider this” and what she says (emphasis added):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A key component of modern feminism is that career and family goals should be the choice of the individual woman/couple. If a young woman says marriage and having kids are key components of her life, then there’s nothing wrong with bringing up these issues, if a young woman says being the top of her chosen field is #1 then you can still bring up these issues without telling her that she’s being dumb or messing up the cornerstone of her future happiness.</p>

<p>Additionally, there is the fact that there is the onus on women to conform to men’s desires. She says a man will be emasculated if his partner earns more, while that might be true for many men, Patton advocates just accepting that reality and fitting yourself into it rather than challenging that. Same thing with men pursuing younger women. What people find attractive or unattractive, masculine or feminine is largely cultural (e.g. persian men wore makeup and jewelry, french men used to wear high heels, pederasty) and has obviously changed over time. Why not continue to change it?</p>

<p>People do not complain that she is describing the status quo, people complain that she is advocating the perpetuation of it when there’s not really a good reason for it.</p>

15

<p>^ You are not wrong, but that is the form and function of selling her book. Same as Tiger Mom. Controversy with just enough thought-provoking ideas, somewhere in there, to get people buzzing. I wouldn’t doubt her editors had a strong hand in telling her. From a strategic perspective, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. Formula. Sister to Lean Forward.</p>

<p>I’m going to look further to see just how much this aggravates me- without contributing one cent to the coffers.</p>

<p>Starter: <a href=“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-patton/”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
An advertising and marketing exec, no less. </p>

16

<p>I think the point of going to college in general is to gain an education that will assist us in leading a successful and happy life. In my opinion this article is nothing but an article written by some insecure woman who probably regrets not getting married while she was very young and thus not fulfilling society’s expectation. I dont think women should be pressured into finding a husband at college and at such a young age. May I remind you people, this is the 21st century and not the 60s. Peoples and especially women’s values have changed and have changed for the better. A woman should get married when she feels like she is ready to marry and most importantly if she falls in love and not beacsue society pressures her to do so. Dont let society dictate to you, you dictate to society!</p>

17

<p>^ we were in costco over the weekend. The younger D had no idea who Amy Chua was but picked up the book and started reading since she was not involved in the shopping and she was 40 pages in by the time we finished. The older D is going “Dude you should not read it!”</p>

18

<p><em>Yawn</em></p>

<p>All about the money and the clicks/views. I refuse to give them to her.
If she’s serious, then I feel sorry that her sense of fulfillment is wrapped up in a man. </p>

19

<p>I’m not going to college for an MRS degree (seriously, who pays thousands and thousands of dollars to have a chance at dating?), but I’m definitely not going to complain if I get one. ;)</p>

20

<p>As someone who’s in my late 20s - and whose friends are starting to get married and have kids now - I find this to be interesting.</p>

<p>The only point I think she has is that college can be an excellent time to meet someone. You are, in fact, surrounded by thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of other young people who are pursuing their educational interests, maybe share interests with you in clubs and such things. I think college is far too young to actually <em>get</em> married, but to start to date people with an eye to what kinds of traits you like in a partner - sure, no worries.</p>

<p>What I take issue with is the idea that college is the only time you’re going to meet someone, and that if you don’t hurry up now you’re going to run out of time. I also take issue with her stereotypical straight-from-the-imaginary-1950s ideals about gender roles - namely, that men only want younger women (and thus if you wait until you are 30, you are washed up and less desirable) and that men don’t want women who make more money than them (with the implication that if you want too long to get married, you will be well-paid and powerful and thus less desirable). I do know people who met their spouses in college, but I know others who met their spouses/partners at work, in graduate school, online, at bars, in social groups, etc.</p>

<p>Most women do want to be mothers (I’m not just saying that; there have been studies and the majority of women - although not all - want to have children someday). And yes, fertility does go down as women age. But people act like it’s a catastrophe if a woman waits past 35 to have children. My mother was a labor & delivery nurse for 10+ years and she said she very often saw healthy women in their early 40s have healthy babies, and it changed her own perception about fertility and child-rearing. And as an academic, I know lots of women who waited until after tenure (frequently their late 30s and early 40s) to have children. Not only did they have healthy children, most had no problems getting pregnant. Of course, I’m not saying that no one will have fertility problems - but they’re actually less common than people tend to think, if you look up the statistics.</p>

<p>I also think the group she’s addressing are mostly white upper-middle-class women - well, of course, since it’s addressed to Ivy women. Young black women very very often are more educated than their husbands and make more money than them. I’m more highly educated than my husband; we’ve flip-flopped on income but I’ve always made as least as much as him and sometimes more - and when we enter our full-time careers chances are good I’ll make more than him. When we talk about it, he jokes that that’s fine - he’s waiting for it so I can be his sugar mama :smiley: but he openly discusses it with his guy friends and doesn’t seem to be hiding some deep-seated feelings of emasculation. And because I’m black I know a lot of young men who make less than their wives/girlfriends and likely always will. They seem to either have never been bothered at all, or come to terms with it. Who begrudges more money?</p>

<p>I don’t know, when I talk to young guys nowadays (people in my generation) they seem less fraught with this idea that they, THE MAN, is supposed to support their wife (who works only for pin money, and takes care of the house) and children. The general consensus seems to be that both spouses will support the family financially AND that both spouses will take care of the home and children. Science seems to support that - younger husbands spend more time with their children than older husbands, and are more likely to say that that they want more time with their children and homes.</p>