Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it that everyone always throws the response of, "If you don't have children or get married, you will be lonely when you grow older." This comment is always made towards young women but never to men.
What makes people think that all women want to be married with children (which I personally see as a ball and chain), and even worse - that they want to have children? The thought of having children makes me shiver because it is too much of a responsibility that I never wanted.
Also, why is "growing old and alone" a subject for women to fear, but never directed at men? Not even gay men are told that.
Here's what I think:
1. This is to put pressure on women into thinking they need a man and babies to be happy
2. Men can only feel like men if and only if women are dependent on them
3. Men who make these types of videos on YouTube fear that they are losing control over women
Also, what makes people think that if they have a family, that they will never be lonely? Seriously, this is why people cheat, divorce, and/or never visit their parents after their parents age.
A friend of mine in her 50's had the perfect husband and child. Her husband recently died of a sudden heart attack and her son is now going off to college. Now she's complaining about being lonely. Meanwhile, I'm not. I never that those losses.
It is an anachronistic attitude and if some older woman is telling you that, it probably means she is jealous of the choices you have that she didn't. When I was young people did not say that, but I think when my mother was young she and her sisters were told that. They all married difficult men, instead of going to college like their mother wanted them to.
Your friend is greiving, for the death of her husband, and for her now empty nest. She will get over it and make friends if you help her.
There are "fiduciary" firms that may be hired to look after your affairs; we've one of those firms. They have trained medical and financial personnel on-staff qualified to make medical and financial decisions for us if we are unable to do so for ourselves. We can hire these firms even if we have blood relatives nearby, as often blood relatives may be a doofus, a dummy, a drunk, a doper or you don't get along with them or want them in your business. There's no need for a relative for these tasks. It's all drawn up in written legal agreements between the firm and the person(s). They require a copy of your end of life documents and a key to your home. To set up our fiduciary agreement only cost $200.00 after which the agreement stays on the shelf until if or when needed. There's no added cost until they need to get involved and then it's an hourly fee. The key here is for aging people to get their end of life documents squared away and on the shelf. Regardless of anyone's net worth or assets we all need to have these documents at the ready. IIRC some hospitals have social workers on-staff who can prepare these for you at little or no cost.
The Rule of the Seven Ps applies here: Proper Prior Planning Prevent Pizz Poor Performance.
Don't get caught with your plans down.
No need to 'threaten' single people with those overblown, ancient fears about who's going to care for you when you're old and sick, blah blah blah. It's none of their concern, tell such ignorant buffoons to butt out of your business. Do your own planning, get your own documents in order. Tell the people 'threatening' you to go buzz off.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 12-11-2023 at 10:28 AM..
There are "fiduciary" firms that may be hired to look after your affairs; we've one of those firms. They have trained medical and financial personnel on-staff qualified to make medical and financial decisions for us if we are unable to do so for ourselves. We can hire these firms even if we have blood relatives nearby, as often blood relatives may be a doofus, a dummy, a drunk, a doper or you don't get along with them or want them in your business. There's no need for a relative for these tasks. It's all drawn up in written legal agreements between the firm and the person(s). They require a copy of your end of life documents and a key to your home. To set up our fiduciary agreement only cost $200.00 after which the agreement stays on the shelf until if or when needed. There's no added cost until they need to get involved and then it's an hourly fee. The key here is for aging people to get their end of life documents squared away and on the shelf. Regardless of anyone's net worth or assets we all need to have these documents at the ready. IIRC some hospitals have social workers on-staff who can prepare these for you at little or no cost.
The Rule of the Seven Ps applies here: Proper Prior Planning Prevent Pizz Poor Performance.
Don't get caught with your plans down.
No need to 'threaten' single people with those overblown, ancient fears about who's going to care for you when you're old and sick, blah blah blah. It's none of their concern, tell such ignorant buffoons to butt out of your business. Do your own planning, get your own documents in order. Tell the people 'threatening' you to go buzz off.
I could not agree more.
Though I would add to "get it on the shelf" that folks (especially those with doofus relatives) should take them down off the shelf and read them every few years just to make sure that all of the existing plans still seem appropriate.
It is one of my great aggravations with two trusts we've been dealing with, that involve my husband's side of the family, that they were written up decades ago when he was a very different person. One of the priorities at that time was protecting the family money from "his creditors." Yeah well he's been debt free for a long time, but he and his family didn't really discuss it. No one explained to my husband the terms of these trusts, which are kind of restrictive, and he did not disclose his much improved financial situation to his father. Our lives could have been much easier in a few different ways, if this had all been structured a little more appropriately.
And I have to recognize that AT THIS MOMENT I would not be comfortable placing any big responsibility on either of my sons. Not to care for me, to administer my estate, nor to inherit free access to a big chunk of wealth. I would want any inheritance to be restricted. And yet, I do hope that they become more responsible adults in the future. And I feel that things could go any which way with them. The die is not yet cast, so to speak. I could envision at least one of them putting effort into my care one day, though an awful lot would have to change between now and then...and I don't assume that it will.
So anyways, I have to make my estate plans with a "what if I become incapacitated or die tomorrow" mindset, but I also expect (hope) that I'll need to revise them as the years go by. If my sons do get their acts together and become responsible adults, I would rather leave them an inheritance that they are free to use to improve their lives as they see fit.
Most of the posters here are beyond the window of life necessary to even consider a change. However there is a conversation that should be had with young people. Explaining life's choices and potential consequences is not a threat... how ridiculous is that.
Go to a doctor, go to a financial planner, go to a house of worship, go to a place where truth and knowledge is shared... those are not threats. In fact, just the opposite is true. Here's a good video to share, that provides both arguments... for kids or not to have kids.
Most of the posters here are beyond the window of life necessary to even consider a change. However there is a conversation that should be had with young people. Explaining life's choices and potential consequences is not a threat... how ridiculous is that.
Go to a doctor, go to a financial planner, go to a house of worship, go to a place where truth and knowledge is shared... those are not threats. In fact, just the opposite is true. Here's a good video to share, that provides both arguments... for kids or not to have kids.
Yes, however, those of us who are past that point also have the perspective of hindsight. What paths we did or did not pursue, and how that worked out for us. Rather than the unknown of the future ahead, which is what the young contend with.
I don't need a Youtuber to explain life to me. I have lived one, surrounded by other people also doing the same.
I think that the potential liabilities to one's life are VASTLY greater from having children than any likely benefits one stands likely to gain, other than emotional ones.
Sure, the FEELING of being pregnant, of giving birth, of holding your own child, of loving your own adorable silly little toddler, of watching them go from being cute little creatures to interesting persons... Those are incomparable. There's no substitute for that stuff that I know of. I am not sorry that I experienced it. But that's a pretty selfish take. I have sunk over a million dollars into the endeavor and have yet to see any return on that investment. To address the un-emotional side of this.
You have no way to know if your child will grow up to be a capable person to even care for themselves, to say nothing of assuming that they'll care for you. For every parent who is filled with pride in their adult kids, there are those like me whose hearts break every day.
Having kids is giving hostages to fate in a lot of ways. Obviously it is necessary for the species to continue but there's a certain amount of courage or foolishness in the choice.
Older citizens in the USA, both men and women, are not treated well overall in this country. Witness the exorbitant costs of care homes, or active adult communities or whatever euphemism is used to describe places for people to age comfortably. Any elderly person who doesn't have ten grand a month will find themselves on their own, even if there are adult children to help out. Our adult children are working, raising their families and just plain busy. There isn't time to devote to elderly relatives and society doesn't want to acknowledge this issue could grow to be problematic.
I really don't like "everyone should do this thing!" takes. I believe in every person having the freedom to make their choices, for better or for worse. I may admire those who undertake parenthood with an open and willing heart (rather than just...a resigned and determined one, as was the case in my life.) Heck, I admire many people who do things with their lives that I would not choose to do. Those who sacrifice much to realize a creative passion, those who live wandering lifestyles with minimal possessions, those who face danger and take risks and fight for their principles. I admire them, yet I treasure my freedom to NOT necessarily do the things they do.
I certainly don't shame anyone who chooses a less risky path.
But the thing I truly don't understand...setting aside the matter of children for a moment...is the idea of wanting "someone to grow old with." As in, two people of similar age, growing old together. I am pretty happy with the age gap in my relationship because I think/hope that when I'm in my 60s and he is in his 80s, I'll be able to retire and care for him when he needs that, and I'll still be physically fit enough that it won't be an undue hardship. I can't imagine being old and needing care myself but being expected to still be a caregiver for a spouse. And if both of you need care and one cannot (or will not) give it, then it's double the expense at the same time to put both into a home or hire help, or if you're supremely fortunate enough to have willing relatives, to burden them with. Taking care of one old person is a LOT. Two at once? Sheesh, I can't imagine.
And I can see men envisioning this as having a wife care for them, but how's a woman supposed to see it? What's in it for us, having an elderly man around when we are elderly, ourselves? Unless he comes with a hefty pile of wealth to his name, but we're not supposed to think about that, are we?
Nope. Seems like arse-wiping for other people, is meant to be what feeds and fulfills our little peanut souls, I guess?
Yet if anything, maybe all that is what makes it admirable to me. On paper it really does not sound like a good idea, I don't think. Or at least there are at least as many ways it can go wrong as there are ways it can go right. And yet people do it, and so you get stories of couples being together 50, 60 or more years...people having families, and taking joy in their children. All of it. And I am glad. I'm not on a side, I'm not pro or anti marriage/kids. I see both sides. And no better way than to let folks choose.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 12-11-2023 at 05:03 PM..
Reason: Referenced post was deleted, so it was removed here.
Older citizens in the USA, both men and women, are not treated well overall in this country. Witness the exorbitant costs of care homes, or active adult communities or whatever euphemism is used to describe places for people to age comfortably. Any elderly person who doesn't have ten grand a month will find themselves on their own, even if there are adult children to help out. Our adult children are working, raising their families and just plain busy. There isn't time to devote to elderly relatives and society doesn't want to acknowledge this issue could grow to be problematic.
I dunno, I think that most people will not be raising their own kids when their parents are elderly to the point of needing care. Most people have kids in their 20s. So if someone is in their 80s and needing care (as it's been the pattern in my family and that of my husband)...then their kids will be in their 60s.
It's not very likely that you are still raising your children, if you're in your 60s. Your kids would most likely be in their 40s. They may have young adult kids of their own.
Let's say that Granddad had kids when he was in his 30s. And now he's in his 80s. The kids are in their 50s and while it's possible that they are still raising kids, it's still not entirely likely. If they had them in THEIR 30s, those grandkids would still be young adults.
It can be more than just love, but you need that foundation before anything else and I disagree that anyone should have a sense of duty to one another. The consequences you speak are based on ones opinion of what loneliness is and therefore should not be a blanket statement. For instance, my father in law cant function without his wife being around, whereas I look forward to when my wife travels because I love being alone.
On one hand, you agree that people should have an individual choice and should be aware of the consequences, but on the other hand, you feel a large portion of those people will need some sort of public assistance in the future and therefore will impact the economic model which in turn makes it your business. You cant promote choice if you want to get involved in their choices.
It's the responsibility of the elder generations to guide the younger generations. I can't force an action on anyone, nor would I want to (this is America after all) but I can sure provide proper guidance so that they move in the right direction. In many regards, my community (African American) is a cautionary tale. The women of the baby boomer and early gen X generation preached messages of "don't depend on a man, prioritize a career, live up your 20s, to the millennials and now Gen Z. The result has been a bunch of single women in their 30s, and 40 complaining and now having to subdue the loneliness with pets and therapy. We haven't reached the point where these women will need to be taken care of, but as history has shown, Americans are good as requesting bailouts. Just look at the student loan crisis. Taking out those loans was an individual choice right. However, now society is being asked to pay for the consequences.
Not to go off on another topic, but while true love is the foundation duty is just as important. I tell young people that the only person that will ever love you unconditionally is your momma. Everyone else in the world "including your spouse" will have conditions to maintain that love. Nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, as much as some people try to fight it, we are social creatures that depend on each other. Having a sense of duty ensures everyone is playing their role. Doesn't sound sexy, but it’s truly what sustains.
I have felt sorry for older women in my past who have failed to snag a man to partner with. Yet, I have not talked to them about how they feel about it.
As for me..I have been married to 2 men over the span of 57 years, and if I’m ever alone again will bar the doors and welcome my aloneness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
