« How to get good grades | Main | Why is Brazil so messed up? »
Two of the best posts I've ever read
From Megan Non-McArdle, here and here. Sorry, but there is no meaningful way to excerpt these.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 27, 2007 at 09:16 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
Using the comments from the last post as a guide, I think Megan should seriously try hard to find a grad student (in a logic based field) about to complete his thesis.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Apr 27, 2007 9:49:59 PM
Funny, I just came back from dinner with my wife where a large part of the conversations was about Megan's posts here. I really feel for her, to the point where if I could get up from my chair and do anything about it, I would.
I think the lesson I learn is that I want to let my daughters know that they could find themselves in this position someday. And to try to avoid it. Easier said than done, I know. But, I do not think the message is getting out to girls in their 20s that, no, they do not have all the time in the world if they desire to go down certain life paths.
To my male friends, I have always told them that it is immoral to spend time with a girlfriend that they do not intent to marry if she is older (30s) and does want children. Be a man and let her go to find someone else. Quickly.
Boy does that ex-boyfriend of hers need to be taken to the woodshed. Grrrrr.
As for Megan, what I love about her is the distinct and focuses life she has developed for herself. She is a great character. But, I fear this may limit the number of candidates that are suitable. How many men can bend enough to fit into this carefully crafted world?
I think this is an argument for getting emotionally involved young while you are both still malleable. Let your personality ossify too long, and it's harder for others to access your world.
Posted by: Robert at Apr 27, 2007 10:54:13 PM
She IS the Megan McArdle who is also Jane Galt, right?
Just checking
Posted by: Chewxy at Apr 28, 2007 1:21:44 AM
ok, it's late friday night. i'm sort of drunk.
still, i don't understand what's going on. are those posts actually from Megan (i'm used to the Jane Galt format).
and if so, so what. every woman or even man in her or his 20's has the same thoughts.
Posted by: thehova at Apr 28, 2007 1:30:47 AM
and Robert sounds a bit insane.
Posted by: thehova at Apr 28, 2007 1:35:57 AM
ok, different Megan Mccardle.
god, need to pass out.
Posted by: thehova at Apr 28, 2007 1:43:32 AM
interesting biological phenomenon. not sure i'm down with the whole 'bloggers reveal their inmost secrets to the world' fad though.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 28, 2007 5:59:32 AM
Let's see, an intelligent 35 year old woman wants children and a stable relationship? Well if she's willing to settle for well off, pudgy and massively introverted she could always send me an email. I'm very reliable. Of course that isn't what everyone wants. My last girlfriend encouraged me to at least flirt with other women as she wasn't happy with the level of jealousy she was experiencing in our relationship.
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Apr 28, 2007 6:36:05 AM
Hey all you loyal MR readers, Megan Non-McArdle is *not* Megan McArdle, or for that matter Jane Galt. That's where the "Non" enters the picture. "Non,' as in negation. But this other Megan doesn't use a last name for her posts, as she wishes to remain anonymous.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Apr 28, 2007 7:23:09 AM
I think you need to bold the "Non" part, Tyler, for all the people out there who have the dumb.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 28, 2007 8:02:14 AM
In my defense, most people quickly scan over what they read, especially after midnight. plus the anonymous Megan has a very similar writing style as the Megan. I started off reading
it thinking that this isn't megan mccardle, but the writing style is so similar that by the end i was coninvced it was her. which is probably why Tyler used her name.
Posted by: thehova at Apr 28, 2007 8:15:59 AM
Actually, Megan (non-McArdle) used it herself first, in a MR comment to differentiate from Megan McArdle.
Posted by: Andrew at Apr 28, 2007 9:32:01 AM
I sometimes wonder whether it is a misfortune or bliss to have a body without a sensor of its biological clock ticking.
Posted by: Yan Li at Apr 28, 2007 11:36:21 AM
The first article reminds me of my young-geek pain, at being de-selected so many times "frame size, health, vigor." There are injuries all around as our pattern matching applies, or miss-applies, in the modern world.
It just comes down to getting, or not getting, what we want. We disregard those (and the feelings of those) who do not fit our criteria.
Posted by: someone at Apr 28, 2007 11:46:58 AM
Why is any of this my business? Why would you even link this?
I already get ashamed rubber-necking Maureen Dowd's downward spiral. It's kind of like the post-collegiate Girls Gone Wild, but instead of breasts we get gratuitous emotional exhibitionism.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Apr 28, 2007 12:59:49 PM
Sorry Jason but I couldn't disagree more. Links like this are a big part of what makes MR (and its authors) special. It's got a heart.
Posted by: Dan Akst at Apr 28, 2007 1:31:25 PM
To paraphrase Ayn Rand, non-A is non-A.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Apr 28, 2007 2:20:10 PM
Ditto Adrian's comment. Why did the appearance of blogs suddenly create a sense that it's okay to divluge your deepest secrets to the entire world? Cheap group therapy.
That said, I certainly feel for Megan.
Posted by: mike at Apr 28, 2007 3:02:46 PM
Clearly, in every way, nature intended us to pair off in our early twenties. Starting out in life should be just that -- starting out in life. One more reason to hate feminist ideologues.
Posted by: ricpic at Apr 28, 2007 4:03:03 PM
I agree with ricpic and would add: The pill has had the effect of (1) causing men and women to delay marriage, (2) having the higher quality guys get taken sooner than before (so they leave the marriage market), and (3) contributing to a significant lowering of quality of the remaining guys. I have no idea what Megan's beliefs about the pill are; I wonder if this situation will shape those beliefs in the future.
Posted by: john at Apr 28, 2007 9:06:53 PM
I'd like to challenge the notion that wanting children is an innermost secret that I should keep to myself. It should be pretty open knowledge that single women in their 30's who want children are scared it won't happen. The reason I gave the background was to show that I am acutely aware of my position, and to demonstrate why it is mean to suggest that I should hide wanting kids. Saying that should remain a secret reinforces the concept I was trying to de-bunk.
Posted by: Megan at Apr 28, 2007 10:03:48 PM
john,
I think you are saying that the pill has caused all guys to postpone marriage, but high-quality guys are postponing less. What reason do you have for believing that is the case?
And if this *is* happening, why is it a bad thing? As long as the high-quality women are behaving the same way, no one should be worse off that they would have been before. Or are the women behaving differently?
Posted by: weichi at Apr 28, 2007 11:31:00 PM
I thought this was a blog that attracts libertarians rather than religous/conservatives.
Importantly, there's lots of emperical evidence that shows that men and women who marry and have kids later in life have a lower rate of divorce.
now does that mean that getting married and having kids later in life dosn't have its own emotional pains and angst. no. and megan clearly expresses this. but still, it's wrong to cast her out like many comments have on this post. taking the tough road in life often creates difficulties.
Posted by: thehova at Apr 29, 2007 12:13:47 AM
Megan's post is awesome. I have suffered baby fever to varying degrees since I was 18. It's a longing unlike any other. Now that I'm married and in my late twenties it's becoming quite unbearable. My husband, though interested in having kids, doesn't understand this physical and emotional feeling that has such a strong impact on me. I can only imagine the increased intensity of being a single woman with such preoccupations.
Posted by: Christina at Apr 29, 2007 2:42:26 AM
I'd like to challenge the notion that wanting children is an innermost secret that I should keep to myself. It should be pretty open knowledge that single women in their 30's who want children are scared it won't happen.
Sure and I don't see any reason not to be upfront about that even before the first date. For your situation, it's a shame there's no U.S. equivalent of the Indian marriage 'market'. I don't mean the family involvement in arranging matches, but the fact that people are advertising for a marriage partner rather than a casual boyfriend or girlfriend. Nobody wastes years screwing around (literally and figuratively) waiting to see if the relationship is going anywhere. If the relationship continues at all, it is serious and headed for marriage. If it isn't headed for marriage, there's no expectation that it will continue.
Or maybe there are already dating services out there where casual shoppers need not apply?
Posted by: Slocum at Apr 29, 2007 7:42:27 AM
I thought Megan's posts were well-crafted and interesting, and I was compelled to keep reading her story.
On the other hand...
I don't mean to sound like an insensitive lout, but is not the biological drive we call "babyfever" simply the female equivalent of the male biological drive to copulate with every attractive gal we see?
When a man is unable to achieve what his body is telling him he needs, no one feels any great pity for him. Indeed, a man who DOES always submit to his biological impulses is generally regarded as sleazy.
So why the double standard when it comes to those psycho-evolutionary urges that drive women? Anyone can empathize with feelings of loneliness or doubts about whether you'll ever find a partner who seems the perfect "fit." But what I don't actually see very much of that in Megan's posts -- she seems more concerned with finding a man who is a good breeder than in finding a good man.
From the time they hit puberty, men are taught to suppress their biological instincts -- indeed, that their status as a civilized human being is contingent on their ability to suppress those instincts. Perhaps the female biological instinct is n't precisely analogous, but I'm still not sure I see how women using men for sex for procreation is in any sense more "noble" than men using women for sex for sex's own sake.
Posted by: R.J. Lehmann at Apr 29, 2007 12:12:13 PM
"more concerned with finding a man who is a good breeder than in finding a good man."
LOL, add to that:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.htm
and
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/the_conspiracy_.html
It is somewhat simplistic to think that only men, or only women, are making genetic gambits.
Find peace where ye may.
Posted by: someone at Apr 29, 2007 4:12:33 PM
Oh good lord. After reading those posts, I can say as an eligible 37 year single man, I feel the urge to turn out the lights and hide behind my couch until it's safe to come back out.
As a man, an interesting aspect of dating in one's thirties is the need to spend a least as much time trying to suss out how much she likes you, as you do on how much you like her. Settling is a given for many (thankfully, not all) women over 30, and the poor chump who isn't careful will find himself ten years on in a miserable marriage, valued little beyond the security he provides. That would have been my fate perhaps, if it weren't for a couple of fantastic relationships in my 20s which gave me the experience to know when a woman is really in love.
You see, many men (gasp!) mature a bit beyond the hormonally driven nincompoops they were at 19. Things like, say, basic compatibility matter now, even in the presence of fabulous breasts (infuriating, no?). They are willing to walk away from relationships if this compatibility isn't there, and are about as keen as being viewed primarily as fathers as women are at sex objects.
My advice?
1. Relax. There is still time, even at 35.
2 Be willing to end a relationship. While there is truth to the stereotype of a man staying with an incompatible woman he knows he will never marry for years, only to finally call it off when she issues an ultimatum; it is better than what a woman of a certain age will do when faced with an incompatible man: marry him anyway.
3. Be open to not having children. It isn't the end of the world. One can still get married and have a wonderful married life. Well matched married couple with no children are happier than mediocre couples with children.
Finally, I just want to point out the rampant sexism in all of this - I know 35 year old men who are desperate for children, and more than few 30-something women who are quite happy with their rich, interesting lives.
Posted by: Tim at Apr 30, 2007 12:44:40 AM
"...why the double standard when it comes to those psycho-evolutionary urges that drive women?"
In fact, women who have large families (more than 3 kids) are kind of frowned upon, at least in your middle class and up, especially outside religious communities. Often these women are perceived to be having children out of hormonal motivation, without regard for the child's economic security or quality of life. This irresponsibility in creating life is also one of the reasons male promiscuity is so criticized, especially since a promiscuous male is capable of fathering way more children than a woman with 'babyfever.'
Aside from this, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to have sex with attractive females, any more than there's something wrong with wanting to get married and have kids. But honesty is crucial here: women who trap eligible men by 'forgetting' to take their pills, for example, are just as bad as men who trick attractive women into sex by faking an emotional connection.
Posted by: anon at Apr 30, 2007 5:39:16 PM
Megan:
I'm going to assume that you want babies enough to consider some fairly radical points.
I would like to suggest you consider the proposition of marriage--from the point of view of a potential mate.
1) Lot of h4t s3ks up front--not so bad.
2) Emotional and physical abandoment within a year--not good at all.
3) An expectation that my paternity leave options be fully utilized, with no regard for the impact to my company or my position within it. (insanely bad)
4) A real possibility that you will earn no money for a year or more. (During which time, I go from supporting one person to three.)
See the problem? Unless the man is desiring babies as much as you, there will be serious conflict. And men don't. And society no longer encourages them to behave as if they do.
Forget the grad school nerds. Men don't marry older--and our fertility curve is the reason.
You need to hit the forty-five year-old crowd.
1) You don't have kids. This is a HUGE plus. At this point, many, many women are looking for someone to essentially cuckold with the children of a prior marriage.
2) More men at this age are realizing that having a family would be a good thing.
3) You are ten years younger. (Fertility curves again)
4) They know where there career is going, and are far more likely to be able to swing things.
5) They are still young enough that the death tables aren't an issue. They are also young enough that they will be retiring after (barely) the kid gets out of college.
This is NOT settling. The idea of marrying age-peers as a matter of course is a recent phenominon. Historically, women marry older.
Posted by: Nathan Zook at May 3, 2007 12:54:58 PM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 2, 2008 2:16:48 AM
