MSNBC.com 'Print this'sponsored by

Getting Wed: What We Said in 1986A new study reports that college­educated women who are still single at the age of 35 have only a 5 percent chance ofever getting married.Newsweek

June 2, 1986 issue ­ Her sister had heard about it from a friend who had heard about it on "Phil Donahue" that morning. Her mother gotthe bad news via a radio talk show later that afternoon. So by the time Harvard graduate Carol Owens, 23, sat down to a family dinner inBoston, the discussion of the man shortage had reached a feverish pitch. With six unmarried daughters, Carol's said her mother wassounding an alarm. "You've got to get out of the house and meet someone," she insisted. "Now."

It was Valentine's Day when Sharon Makover learned of it on the news, and the irony did not elude her. "I thought, 'This is not what Iwant to be hearing today"." Having recently split up with one boyfriend, Makover was at a crossroads: should she throw herself into hercareer or commit to a new boyfriend living in another country? "It got me thinking about what I wanted to do with my life," says Makover,26, a curatorial assistant at the Jewish Museum in New York. A month later she was engaged.

All things being equal, Los Angeles screenwriter Nancy Rigg would prefer having a husband. Nevertheless, the news infuriated her. "Itreinforces an old myth that once you hit 30, you're over the hill," says Rigg, 36. "I imagine that women who are buying into this are prettydepressed right now. It was like Moses came down the mountain and said, 'Boo on you women"."

The traumatic news came buried in an arid demographic study titled, innocently enough, "Marriage Patterns in the United States." But thedire statistics confirmed what everybody suspected all along: that many women who seem to have it all—good looks and good jobs,advanced degrees and high salaries—will never have mates. According to the report, white, college­educated women born in the mid­'50swho are still single at 30 have only a 20 percent chance of marrying. By the age of 35 the odds drop to 5 percent. Forty­year­olds aremore likely to be killed by a terrorist: they have a minuscule 2.6 percent probability of tying the knot.

With days, that study, as it came to be known, set off a profound crisis of confidence among America's growing ranks of single women. Foryears bright young women single­mindedly pursued their careers, assuming that when it was time for a husband they could pencil one in.They were wrong. "Everybody was talking about it and everybody was hysterical," says Bonnie Maslin, a New York therapist. "One patienttold me 'I feel like my mother's finger is wagging at me, telling me I shouldn't have waited"." Those who weren't sad got mad. The studyinfuriated the contentedly single, who thought they were being told their lives were worthless without a man. "I'm not a little spinster whosits home Friday night and cries," says Boston contractor Lauren Aronson, 29. "I'm not married, but I still have a meaningful life withmeaningful relationships."

In fact, the study doesn't say that women should get married or even speculate about how many would like to do so. It merely points outthat for those who wait, "not now" probably means "never"—and it pertains mainly to the huge cohort of baby­boomer women, victims ofwhat demographers call the "marriage squeeze." Between 1946 and 1956 each year's new crop of births was greater than the one before.Since most women marry men several years their senior, baby boomers looking to pair up with even slightly older men far outnumber theavailable pool. "If we tried to match each woman born in 1950 with a man three years older, we would come out with millions of womenleft over," reports "The Feminization of Loneliness," a study out of the University of California, Berkeley.

Numbers game: Black women face an even larger gap, since there are far fewer black, college­educated males than females. And theolder a woman gets, the worse her chances of finding a suitable partner. One reason is that divorced men remarry women four to sevenyears younger. Factor in a gay­male population estimated to be 13 percent—three times that of lesbians—and you have a numbers gamewomen can't win.

Even more unsettling than the statistics, however, are the long­term social implications. The study reflects a time of transition for millionsof women and for the institution of marriage itself. Many career women no longer need husbands for economic security. Nor, thanks to thesexual revolution, do they need to marry for sex. Indeed, as the marriage rate has declined, the number of people cohabiting has beenrising sharply, quadrupling since 1970. But while couples continue to get together, they seem to have trouble connecting. The reason isthat the rules of the marriage game have changed. "This talk of intimacy rather than security is a relatively new phenomenon," saysBerkeley psychologist Lillian Rubin, author of the book "Intimate Strangers." Men and women are struggling to reach a newaccommodation. Even though men say they respect women's career aspirations, many openly long for full­time wives and mothers. Forprofessional women, the challenge is to remain independent without sacrificing companionship.

Many women in their 30s facing biology's ticking clock are setting about the task of finding a mate with the same efficiency they havebrought to managing investment portfolios. There, at least, they are not alone. A booming singles industry has emerged to cater to a moreupscale clientele, and people are playing mating games they never would have considered a few years earlier (page 58). And manywomen have frankly come to terms with staying single—perhaps even preferring it to settling for Mr. Wrong. Some are creating surrogatefamilies made up of fellow singles; others are having or adopting children on their own. Clearly, women are no long putting their lives onhold.

'Select group": Perhaps no one was more stunned by the reaction to the study than the authors—Yale sociologists Neil G. Bennett andPatricia H. Craig, and Harvard economist David E. Bloom—who disclosed their findings in an interview with a small Connecticut paper. Thereport was widely misunderstood, which is not surprising given that it is still unpublished. For one thing, 8 out of 10 female collegegraduates will marry, so the researchers are admittedly "talking about a select group of women." (The reason they didn't study malemarriage patterns is because no reliable census data were available for men.) They also acknowledge that "as with any demographicprediction there is no certainty." It's conceivable, for example, that large numbers of women will suddenly begin to marry much later thanthe mean age of 24, or to marry younger men—but they would have to do so in unprecedented numbers to statistically change the trendline.

The authors are careful to note that their predictions represent statistical averages, not individual odds. They also point out that womenborn after 1957, when the baby boom peaked, should face a rosier statistical picture: the ever­smaller cohort of women will be drawing ona larger pool of somewhat older men. So far the analysis, based on 1982 census data for 70,000 households, has yet to be challenged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12940202/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/Go OCT NOV DEC

102006 2007 2008

1 captures10 Nov 07 ‑ 10 Nov 07

The study's main message—that delaying marriage may ultimately mean forgoing it—clearly came as a slap in the face to this generation'sbest and brightest women. "When you look at men who don't marry, you're often looking at the bottom of the barrel," says Berkeleysociologist Nancy Chodorow. "When you look at the women who don't marry, you're looking at the cream of the crop." Career patterns aremainly to blame. Up and comers are expected to work hardest in their 30s; that those are also the years a career women would wed andhave children is her tough luck.

Out of circulation: Consider pediatrician Catherine Casey from Arlington, Va., who—if she were a man—would be considered a good catch.At 38, she feels "my time clock is striking midnight. That's a tough realization, that you may have waited too long." She didn't plan it thatway. "I never doubted that I would get married, and I never thought education or career would have anything to do with it." The rigors ofher medical training kept Casey out of circulation in her 20s. The credentials she acquired there only make it tougher now: she has no"income or education requirements," but she says it's difficult to find "appropriate men."

Most women say they want to get married. But at the same time they seem to be asking themselves, at what cost? For many, thepossibility of scaling back their careers or changing the way they live is simply not worth it. Sally Jackson, the president of a successfulpublic­relations firm, says she "just never got around to marrying. For a long time I just wasn't ready. Now it seems a lot less important."Having lived alone for many years, the attractive blonde has come to enjoy having "total control over my living environment," including acharming 18th­century cottage overlooking the Ipswich Bay. Not that she is unalterably opposed to marrying. Jackson, 39, maintains thatif a law were passed requiring her to marry in six months, she could probably find a man—"If I were willing to do without the bells andwhistles." But why bother? Says Jackson: "The difference between being unhappily single and unhappily married is that, in the first case,one phone call can turn it around. The other takes a lot more work."

When it comes to picking a spouse, few people like to think of themselves as choosing anything but the best. But the reluctance tocompromise is especially striking among baby boomers, who form not only the most populous segment of American society but, arguably,the most spoiled. William Novak, author of "The Great American Man Shortage," calls it the " 'I'm okay you'd better be perfect' syndrome."Yuppies are, after all, survivors of the Me Decade, whose emphasis on self­fulfillment often translated into an inability to commit to others.The result, for many singles, has been a string of serial relationships that ultimately disappoint. Then, says Denver social worker MichaelPass, "something between pessimism and reality sets in. People get scared. The defenses begin to build up."

Curious mix: Many of today's singles bring a curious mixture of rank cynicism and starry­eyed romanticism to their quest for a mate—asthough it were not worth giving up space in their closets for anything less than Mr. Perfect. Two years ago Andrea Quattrocchi broke off anengagement. Her fiance was "very loving, very old­fashioned, but I felt like I was settling for second best." Now 28, the Boston salesmanager says she is eager for someone "who likes all the things I like. Like if they hate sailing that's really a deterrent. I like toexperience everything in life. So if they hate sushi, I can't stand that." Still, Quattrocchi's desire to have a family is so strong, she mayhave to settle for a meat­only man the next time around.

Susan Cohen wishes she had been able to see her way clear to the altar. "Not being of sound mind," she refused several marriageproposals when she was younger. Looking back, she concludes that she was immature too long. "I had a long run of being 22," she says."I think I was 22 until I was 38." Now 40, the New York fashion consultant is finally ready for a man, if not necessarily a husband. "I wouldreally like to meet somebody."

Most men would like to meet somebody and marry, too, but their feelings of self­worth come primarily from work. For women, however,marriage seems to be far more central to their basic identities. Even now, many singles, including those without any husband prospects insight, cannot imagine never marrying and in their most private moments they testify to the anguish of being single. "You have a great dayat work and you want to celebrate, but you don't have anyone to call. Or you have a bad day at work and all you want is for someone toput his arms around you," says Cathy Porter, 32, a real­estate appraiser in Los Angeles. "Men have become an obsession with me. Even ifhe's not for me, I want him anyway, so it's hard to let go."

The pain may be most acute for singles in their 30s who still can have children but are running out of time. Even though a growing numberof women can and do have kids on their own, "very often what a women wants is not the actual child," explains UC Berkeley psychologistKaren Paige. "She wants the closeness and intimacy of a whole family." "All my friends are having kids," says Penny Stohn, 33, a directorfor the New Jersey Department of Higher Education. "They tell me how glamorous my life is but I just sit there and envy them their kids."

Men, of course, do not feel that pressure. As Chicago accountant Tim Bussey, 27, puts it: "Women are under the big time crunch. Theydon't have forever the way a man does." With biology and demographics on their side, many men can exercise what Laurel Richardson,author of "The New Other Woman," calls "ultimatum power": there is little impetus to stick out a difficult relationship or to meet an olderwoman's child­bearing schedule. "If you have a fight with one woman, it isn't so traumatic," says Murray Manus, 32, a lawyer in Chicago."You think, so what—there are others out there." One date taunted Christine Stroebel's with the new study, making a special point oftelling the 30­year­old Chicagoan about her diminishing chances.

Despite what women tell one another, not all men are jerks. When Chicago Tribune writers Cheryl Lavin and Laura Kavesh began theirsyndicated singles column, "Tales From the Front," one year ago, they were amazed by the volume of mail from men with legitimatecomplaints. One frequent cavil: women don't really appreciate nice guys. Another is that super­achieving women set impossibly highstandards. Bill Amatneek, a good­looking 40­year­old computer consultant from Mill Valley, Calif., who says he wants a wife and child, hasencountered both problems. He blames the women's movement for "making women have a critical attitude toward men: 'Men are toomacho. Men aren't emotional enough.' It's not fun having a woman always tell you what's wrong with you." Worse, says Amatneek, thedemographic numbers don't tell the whole story. "It's not a buyer's market if you're shy. It's ironic that women say they want sensitivemen, but end up marrying aggressive men."

'Empty house": Behind the mutual recriminations is a good deal of uncertainty over how to proceed without the old rules in place. Inprinciple, postfeminist men say they admire professional women. But when it comes down to it, many men don't want to put up with thehassles of a two­career family. "I believe in equality but I want a more traditional relationship," says Rick Kurson, 33, a stockbroker inBoston. "I want to come home to a dinner, not to an empty house."

In a sense, it's amazing there are any singles left, considering the staggering—and ingenious—services available to match them up. InCherry Hill, N.J., the local meat market has literally become the meet market. Every Tuesday night at the Shop­N­Bag, as many as 2,000men and women wearing name tags check each other out over the broccoli and detergent, hopeful that a magic encounter in the aislecould lead them down the aisle.

Women shopping around these days are broadening their definition of an acceptable mate. According to New York marketing executivePhyllis Green, who surveyed dating attitudes, the older women/younger man matchup is "an increasingly attractive alternative." WhenGloria Turner, 40, started seeing Jeffrey Richardson, 11 years her junior, she worried about "being at different stages of the life cycle."After nearly three years, the divorced New York banker has come to view Richardson's age as a distinct advantage. "He doesn't seem asthreatened by my career as some older men," says Turner. "Older men require a lot more of my time."

Some women simply aren't waiting around for men. Nowhere is the determination to make a life for oneself clearer than among womenhaving children on their own. The fastest growing rate of single mothers is for white women between the ages of 30 and 34. To be sure,most say they would prefer having a conventional family, but many financially secure singles say they will not give up having children justbecause they do not have husbands.

For some, actually giving birth is an important part of the experience; others are happy to adopt. After many years on her own, LillianBrown, an associate dean at the City College of New York, is about to adopt a 10­year­old girl. At 50, Brown has "come to terms withbeing a single woman and being quite comfortable in that role." Like most women, Brown grew up assuming she would one day marry, butit wasn't till her 30s that she realized she truly preferred being single. Shelling out $52,000 for a brownstone was a big step. "I said tomyself, 'Why am I sitting around waiting for some knight in shining armor to get me a house?"'Making a major purchase can be a powerfully symbolic act. Single women have merged as the fastest growing group of new­home buyers.In some cases they are treating themselves to the sorts of luxuries that traditionally came as wedding gifts. A number of departmentstores have introduced the "Self Registry," for singles to list their china and crystal choices. Jill Roland, a New York publicist, signed up atBloomingdale's for a toaster, clock and coffee maker and got them all. "They're from clients and family members who wanted to give me ahousewarming gift or something for my birthday," says Roland, 25.

'Orphans' dinners: Still, what singles crave most is companionship. "It's a challenge to be single today. I have relatives in Colorado and onthe East Coast, so I don't have family to have dinner with on Sunday," says screenwriter Rigg. Some singles band together for "orphans"dinners at holidays and take comfort in surrogate families. Many women speak of female friends as permanent parts of their lives, the menas transient. Indeed, experts say that one of the positive side effects of the man shortage has been the re­emergence of the value ofcommunity.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer. Today the poetry of the marriage vow has come to represent a practical choice. For manyeconomically independent women, the consequences of their actions have begun to set in; even though they say they want to marry, theymay not want it enough. Ultimately, of course, whether to wed is the most personal of decisions, based on individual dreams, neurosesand priorities as much as on demographic conditions. Those numbers will improve for future cohorts. But the social realities underlyingthem probably will not change. Younger women will continue to face difficult choices about whether to marry and when. Chastened by thenews that delaying equals forgoing, they just may want to give thought to the questions sooner than later.

By Eloise Salholz with Renee Michael in New York, Mark Starr and Shawn Doherty in Boston, Pamela Abramson in San Francisco and PatWingert in Washington

URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20071110122118/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12940202/site/newsweek/

MSN Privacy . Legal© 2007 MSNBC.com