There's a cost?

I had the interesting privilege of reading an article recently that spurred a myriad of emotions within me.  It was directed to women and the writer spoke about the cost of delaying marriage; suggesting among other things that many of the post feminist era babies have been taught to accept an ideology that is really a farce.  Women don't really want education and successful careers, they want husbands and babies.  The problem is the ones who don't have it only recognise this when their biological clocks start ticking on fast forward and the worthy men are no longer available.  In fact, since most of us opt to pursue education, careers and success prior to husbands, babies and housework; we find ourselves 30+, single and unfulfilled.  We then queue in front of fertility clinics or drown our sorrows in white wine in the company of equally unfortunate spinsters.   The writer went on to point out that those who traverse this route are left with the slim pickings of multiple divorcees, social misfits and other such undesirables, "immature, elusive Peter Pans who won't commit themselves to a second cup of coffee let alone a second date" (I apologise to my post 20s single male readers I'm just reiterating what some other writer said).

I think the article resonated so strongly with me because it was 1. Posted on a Christian website and 2. Later defended by one of the said site's writers (both articles are long but certainly worth a read).  My first question was where does God play in all of this?  What of the women who truly desire to be married but have not yet been found?  I had to lol (laugh out loud) when I read the defender's point that "being single does provide the chance to be uniquely intimate with Jesus. Enjoy that. But don't advertise it", and here I was thinking I was pleasing God by highlighting how thrilled I am serving Him when I should have been more concerned about not giving the wrong impression to possible suitors (I know sarcasm doesn't always show in print - but I'm being sarcastic here).

There was also a suggestion that when some women choose to marry in their early 20s modern women view them pitiably as though they have thrown their lives away by becoming wives and possibly mothers.  My mother married young.  In fact when she was my age she'd already had four children (RIP my brothers).  But she also went to college; and until she retired a few years ago had a long and rewarding career as a teacher.  I know many other persons who have had similar experiences so I dare not suggest that marrying young is some kind of flaw (granted I do believe it would have been better for some persons to delay marriage so that they work on personal development because those issues are often directly related to the failure of some marriages).  The women who believe that marriage and families will prevent educational and career success are misguided or uninformed.  Most assuredly, because of additional responsibility and commitment, the paths to such successes of women with families will be charted very differently from those of the women who are unmarried, still it is not impossible.  Nevertheless I unequivocally hold to the view that though there are women who ignored marriage and family because they first sought education, money or fame and thought a husband would prevent or at the very least delay their targets; it is quite narrow to suggest that all women in their 30s and beyond have remained unmarried for those reasons.  In fact I would dare to suggest that those who comprise the former group are a mere minority and many women in fact developed that gung-ho career driven attitude because they realised early that to depend on a marriage and family for personal fulfilment was not only archaic (especially since World War II when our "usefulness" outside of the home took a whole new spin) but unrealistic.  One's identity must exist apart from a spouse.  This approach does not negate the unity that a husband and wife should have but in fact enriches it.  As a result there are women who have sought to establish themselves prior to having families because they knew they were not willing to make the sacrifice of simultaneously trying to attain both. Shouldn't that be an admirable action?  Are there not women who sought to garner their successes at the expense of neglecting their families?

There has to be a balance and I think the writer of the original article has ignored that fact.  I was disappointed too by the writer of the defence article because I believe that she negated the role of God's divine plan in orchestrating marriages.  The second writer in particular seemed to limit the entire issue to sexual relations.  Certainly sex is and should be a major part of a marital relationship and those who are unmarried and committed to obedience to God should not participate in sexual activities, but is it being suggested that those who marry later in life are guaranteed to fail in this area?  What if they have not been called to celibacy but have not married fresh out of high school, will that mean their Christian lives will struggle because they are not permitted to have sex? 

I think the cost that should be analysed is that of making the wrong decision concerning marriage, that deserves more study than anything else.  I am appalled and annoyed that the focus of this writer's discussion would be limited to a suggestion that women who marry later (whether by choice or circumstance) become desperate, whining even irritable women "staring down the now mysteriously empty tunnel".