Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason I wish I had my kid younger than 36 is so I could be younger and more energetic for more of his life. OTOH having kids young is no guarantee of a long life either. And of course it is better to wait for the right person than have a kid at 22 with the wrong person.

Also I did not plan it this way, but waiting allowed me to have enough financial stability that when I needed to, I could get divorced and still support my child. Of course, this is actually a negative in Mr Wilcox’s view no doubt. One of the reasons to make women have babies younger is that they have fewer options for leaving bad marriages.

My SIL had kids at 22 and 24. Guess what at 36 she realized in 5 years she would became empty nester and had 1 more. I mean do you really wanna be and empty nester at 40?

It's not about being an empty nester you pro birith idiot.

This professor is pro birth MAGA CRAP

I thought this might be a researched article that provided facts and figures about why it may be positive to get married and have kids young. It’s really just a right wing thought piece written by someone who also happens to be a professor.

Who gives a shit about the young woman’s Christian faith…it’s not relevant to the article and it would be more compelling if the UVA girl getting married young was a raging atheist.

I would be interested in facts-based research on the topic…do married couples get ahead faster at work? Is it better to have kids earlier when you are more junior so you can better lean in to your career by your early 30s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I married at 25 and my marriage is successful in some ways and a failure in others. But no, I don't think there is any legitimate correlation between age of marriage and couple happiness. I suspect this person has a hidden agenda and is just a conservative trying to get the birth rate up.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

Because they're not being honest in their article. The data they give is highly debatable. The article is something my 10th grader could write - actually, I take that back, my 10th grader writes much better.

Overall, this is not worthy of a "professor". If that's the caliber of teacher they have at UVA... it's not great publicity for the university.

+1

I got married at 24 but didn't have kids until my 30s. My parents were similar, they married at 21 but didn't have my brother until they were almost 30.

It can work out, but you have to be on the same page about a lot of things. My spouse and I both heavily focused on our careers and school in our 20s, our son wasn't born until after my husband finished his PhD. We very much supported each other through work, my husband did Bar Exam flashcards with me and I read through his thesis repeatedly.

But I have known people for whom it has gone very badly. My husband's best friend supported his wife through her PhD and moved for her career and then it all went totally pear shaped right when she wss graduating. Another friend worked at Starbucks to put her husband through law school with the idea that she would then get to do her master's when he was done, and then he left her and didn't live ip to his end of the deal.

Your early 20s can be a crucial time for making career decisions and setting up things. It's possible to go back and do things later, but it can be a lot harder.

If you can find someone who mutually builds you up and helps you achieve goals, it's great. If someone expects you to sacrifice yourself or give up everything for them, it's not a good idea.

Anonymous wrote:The only reason I wish I had my kid younger than 36 is so I could be younger and more energetic for more of his life. OTOH having kids young is no guarantee of a long life either. And of course it is better to wait for the right person than have a kid at 22 with the wrong person.

Also I did not plan it this way, but waiting allowed me to have enough financial stability that when I needed to, I could get divorced and still support my child. Of course, this is actually a negative in Mr Wilcox’s view no doubt. One of the reasons to make women have babies younger is that they have fewer options for leaving bad marriages.

My SIL had kids at 22 and 24. Guess what at 36 she realized in 5 years she would became empty nester and had 1 more. I mean do you really wanna be and empty nester at 40?

My sons are 26 and 23 and they each have a handful of married friends.

Some super religious and well eager to haves and a few who got someone pregnant.

The reality is I think it’s reasonable to find someone when you are early 20’s to marry. Some wait and some go for it.

My 26 yo, friends with girlfriends 2 + years life together or are married. A few have kids.

My 23 year old is just getting there. A few got married (super religious) and 2 got girlfriend’s pregnant.

They aren’t 18 … 23 is pretty reasonable for a small %

The only reason I wish I had my kid younger than 36 is so I could be younger and more energetic for more of his life. OTOH having kids young is no guarantee of a long life either. And of course it is better to wait for the right person than have a kid at 22 with the wrong person.

Also I did not plan it this way, but waiting allowed me to have enough financial stability that when I needed to, I could get divorced and still support my child. Of course, this is actually a negative in Mr Wilcox’s view no doubt. One of the reasons to make women have babies younger is that they have fewer options for leaving bad marriages.

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that was a read. I found it a bit sophomoric. It puts forth a dichotomous view of the life building that happens in your 20s as if people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. It also only highlights the authors values around early marriage and children (which appear religiously driven) while glossing over any inconvenient statistics on higher divorce rates for people under 24 (and the potential fallout for any kids of those unions) and let’s not even mention any data on rates of abuse, alcoholism, etc. in financially struggling families.

Imo the author fails to acknowledge the gravity of marriage and the choosing of a life partner. He’s quick to lay out all the “selfish” things to avoid - like trips to Thailand - but that’s all surface noise. It ignores the meat and potatoes of building a partnership and family. And maybe he does that because, like Charlie Kirk, he comes at this perspective based on religious beliefs so in his mind religion should be the foundation of any marriage - but from a sociological perspective - of which he is a professor - that ignores a huge swath of society.

He also used the phrase “put a ring on it” twice. 🤢

Exactly. There is anecdotal evidence in both directions, as evidenced by the comments here, but it is important to look at actual data. I’m happy for everyone whose personal timeline has worked well for them (mine included, and I’m on the later side to marriage and parenthood), but I don’t draw larger conclusions and wouldn’t presume to tell others what’s best for them.

You never advised your children on what was best for them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that was a read. I found it a bit sophomoric. It puts forth a dichotomous view of the life building that happens in your 20s as if people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. It also only highlights the authors values around early marriage and children (which appear religiously driven) while glossing over any inconvenient statistics on higher divorce rates for people under 24 (and the potential fallout for any kids of those unions) and let’s not even mention any data on rates of abuse, alcoholism, etc. in financially struggling families.

Imo the author fails to acknowledge the gravity of marriage and the choosing of a life partner. He’s quick to lay out all the “selfish” things to avoid - like trips to Thailand - but that’s all surface noise. It ignores the meat and potatoes of building a partnership and family. And maybe he does that because, like Charlie Kirk, he comes at this perspective based on religious beliefs so in his mind religion should be the foundation of any marriage - but from a sociological perspective - of which he is a professor - that ignores a huge swath of society.

He also used the phrase “put a ring on it” twice. 🤢

Exactly. There is anecdotal evidence in both directions, as evidenced by the comments here, but it is important to look at actual data. I’m happy for everyone whose personal timeline has worked well for them (mine included, and I’m on the later side to marriage and parenthood), but I don’t draw larger conclusions and wouldn’t presume to tell others what’s best for them.

+1. And if your goal is to promote younger marriages, then why do it by disdaining other people’s choices? To me, that is what makes clear that this is a culture-wars screed and not an honest attempt to get people to see life opportunities they may not have seen. If you want to convince young people to marry and have kids young then show them how lovely family life and kids are, and how to make it work economically. Don’t berate other choices.

Anonymous wrote:No one can afford to have kids at 22.

Healthcare are you kidding??
Jobs ?

And now with no vaccines hell no

They can all be on grandmas.

This isn’t actually an article about what is best for young people. It is a culture wars article intended to control women.

Pro tip - nobody except some trolls on the internet care if you get married at 22. More power to you. But if your family and friends who actually know you express reservations about your marriage plans - maybe you should listen, no matter what your age.

How is this a post for the college forum?

Anonymous wrote:Well that was a read. I found it a bit sophomoric. It puts forth a dichotomous view of the life building that happens in your 20s as if people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. It also only highlights the authors values around early marriage and children (which appear religiously driven) while glossing over any inconvenient statistics on higher divorce rates for people under 24 (and the potential fallout for any kids of those unions) and let’s not even mention any data on rates of abuse, alcoholism, etc. in financially struggling families.

Imo the author fails to acknowledge the gravity of marriage and the choosing of a life partner. He’s quick to lay out all the “selfish” things to avoid - like trips to Thailand - but that’s all surface noise. It ignores the meat and potatoes of building a partnership and family. And maybe he does that because, like Charlie Kirk, he comes at this perspective based on religious beliefs so in his mind religion should be the foundation of any marriage - but from a sociological perspective - of which he is a professor - that ignores a huge swath of society.

He also used the phrase “put a ring on it” twice. 🤢

Exactly. There is anecdotal evidence in both directions, as evidenced by the comments here, but it is important to look at actual data. I’m happy for everyone whose personal timeline has worked well for them (mine included, and I’m on the later side to marriage and parenthood), but I don’t draw larger conclusions and wouldn’t presume to tell others what’s best for them.

Well that was a read. I found it a bit sophomoric. It puts forth a dichotomous view of the life building that happens in your 20s as if people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. It also only highlights the authors values around early marriage and children (which appear religiously driven) while glossing over any inconvenient statistics on higher divorce rates for people under 24 (and the potential fallout for any kids of those unions) and let’s not even mention any data on rates of abuse, alcoholism, etc. in financially struggling families.

Imo the author fails to acknowledge the gravity of marriage and the choosing of a life partner. He’s quick to lay out all the “selfish” things to avoid - like trips to Thailand - but that’s all surface noise. It ignores the meat and potatoes of building a partnership and family. And maybe he does that because, like Charlie Kirk, he comes at this perspective based on religious beliefs so in his mind religion should be the foundation of any marriage - but from a sociological perspective - of which he is a professor - that ignores a huge swath of society.

He also used the phrase “put a ring on it” twice. 🤢

Anonymous wrote:As surprised as I would be... on a rational level, I fully support this. Marry and have kids in your twenties. They'll be out and you'll have a whole second life ahead of you in your 40s. Wait a decade and all the money earning years will go to your kids. If you have them young when you have nothing... you don't even know better and can just roll with it all. I did it all wrong for the record. Spent my 20s working, finding myself and living the dream... paying for it now and probably well towards 60s as we have college, high school and grammar school kids now in school til 2037.... I'll be the OLDEST parent at graduation and in the poor house.

If kids are the sole purpose it's better than have them in your mid 30s and beyond, and it seems like you do want them out of the house as fast as possible anyway, so why not just enjoy your child free young years which is better than enjoying an 40s empty nest.