2019
A LITTLE HUBBUB ABOUT THE “MILLENIAL SUCCESS SEQUENCE” AND SOME FURTHER MIND-WANDERING WITH QUESTIONABLE SENSE OF SEQUENCE
There’s that. To sum it up in three steps: 1. Get a good job. 2. Marry a good partner. 3 Have and raise good kids. (but IN THAT ORDER!)
The criticism against this prescription for success is summarized as that it “conveniently frames structural inequalities as matters of individual choice” and seems to transfer ownership of this advice strictly to the conservative religioso (who, no doubt, seized on the opportunity to champion a rigid interpretation of it).
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/07/get-out-of-poverty-success-sequence/566414/
To expand, the response to this proposed formula is largely one of indignation toward what is seen as the stigmatizing of unwed childbearing, again assuming inseparable religious tones, oh and a chance to blame capitalism. So the defensive posture for the perceived less fortunate and victimized is reactively assumed. But where is the effort to actually refute any accusation of these economic choices as highly irrational? When you wipe away all the other blame wrappings, isn’t it the substantive wisdom or folly of the choices that matter?
While this recipe may be an oversimplification ignoring individual nuance (and nuance might be shown to matter on a case-by-case analysis), and a fine example of Labeling, it might still shine light on elements in need of address and the criticism that meets it seems to instead excuse these scuffs as illegitimate based on their supposed grounding in “structural inequalities”. Those are, as we’re constantly told, the System’s or the Establishment’s, or someone else’s responsibility to address and remedy. How does this counter-advice really help anyone in a sole position of making choices regarding his/her own future?
An undeniable factor in all this is the ever-strengthening trend of dismissing any potential “wisdom of the ages” as antiquated ideas in an evolving world. This is how people live their lives today, so we all just need to get with the times. Yes, this could be the summation of the epic struggle between conservative and liberal. But here, as always, due diligence requires asking the questions: “Is all change necessarily bad?”, AS WELL AS, “Is all change necessarily good?”
So let’s get down into the weeds and see if there are a few flowers to pluck out that are begging for a little focused attention within the chaos. I think I might see a few…
The marriage before the partnership is like moving the train before laying the tracks. The marriage can’t just be a status with benefits from which a workable partnership may or may not develop. An understanding and acceptance of the nature of the particular partnership between two particular people should be in place before the entering into the legal contract. A major part of that understanding should be some clarity of, and agreement on, what defines parental roles going forward.
Is marriage a social construct that, therefore, is subject to the whimsical pushes and pulls of societal identity crises? Malleable and personalized in a me-centered world defiantly and heroically thrusting swords all around with a cry of “independence”? (“I don’t need someone. It might just be nice to share their companionship until it isn’t anymore.”) And this is the shaky ground people choose to jump onto?
I once knew a woman who, when recalling a trip to the marriage counselor she made with her (now-ex) husband, told of trying to explain her marital woes by asking the counselor, “Have you ever seen the movie The Notebook?” It seems she had found a handy, fictional barometer of idyll by which to measure any long-term relationship of integrity. (So much for nuance.) This example of an “over-complication epidemic” marked by the pursuit of love unicorns afflicting women involved in relationships or dating seems an often debilitating fashion for all. (Hint: Men were really never all that complicated. They are probably making themselves that way in search of an elusive response that might satisfy cryptic new societal demands.)
The choice to partner up must surely have some inevitable hurdles set up along its path. It would be unrealistic to believe otherwise. But, to continue with the metaphor, hurdles are meant to be jumped as momentum grows. But the me-centered world straps us with glasses that make us see the hurdles as non-negotiable mountains. The suggestibility that things are less than perfect makes that assessment more frequent and the frequency leads to an exponentiality. The epidemic of “me-ness” is not conducive to partnerships. The idea of not “settling” easily morphs into a chronic sense that all of these are less than I deserve and can have. Shrug. The power of societal suggestion (yet again) and the mob mentality offer everyone a quick out. All in the name of championing the celebrated “me”, or “you”.
What about the question of role models in all this? It is often suggested that the absence of solid role-models is a foundational destabilizer in a society member’s growth. This being compounded exponentially with each generation as the torch passed on is a diminishing ember. These figures would be necessary to demonstrate, not only strong character qualities, but, strong partner qualities. It could be that these have been discarded along with the anathemas we use to freely call “gender role models”. Ugh. Mothers and fathers? Aren’t these terms arbitrary, fluid and optional now? A movement to drown the gender concepts themselves in ambiguity will, of course, wash all that away with them. I fear recognition of solid role models is nothing more than an insult and affront to those who will feel themselves unaligned with them. Judgment! No, not that! The spirit of individualism will set the palette for us to paint our own role models, in our own images. (My truth!) No need for those overbearing judgments of your disconnected antiquity, thanks.
Are “oops” babies a premeditated choice? No. Are failed relationship between two people who genuinely thought they had everlasting potential crimes perpetrated by two evildoers operating from a place of selfishness and dark plotting? Very rarely. But these are not epidemics of concern. Those would be societal suggestion, and even a kind of encouragement. In my observation, single parenting and parenting from a position of shaky means seem to have become increasingly condoned, encouraged and congratulated in modern society rather than met with any real concern and question.
Now this part does demand some attention to the scenario where economic factors have been considered and dealt with. The decidedly single mother who is financially stable. So this is more a matter of the roles, lack of, relevance or irrelevance of, or ability to successfully encapsulate them into one parent so as to have no negative effect on the child involved. I would say this is still a relatively new entrant and the jury is still out but I’m gonna keep my eyes and ears open on how this might work out and if other related factors might complicate the formula. (I feel it necessary to mention that this is not the same as a widow or widower in that that single-parent position was not chosen.)
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/06/expert-andrea-parrot-calls-new-multi-dimensional-approach (regarding teens who choose motherhood as the only fulfillment of purpose and unconditional love.) So, in the end, it could be that no matter how much one wants to sell the rationality of a plan for success, many who choose single motherhood have no confidence that such successes, as identified in the plan, are achievable by them from the start. So there is a distinctly different set of issues at work between young women with this mindset and those who feel that they can just follow their hearts and if they are well-meaning all that success will just fall into place for them. This is a stark difference between the non-confident and the overly-confident maybe, between those who see themselves powerless in the world and those who see themselves holding the power to define their own reality.
Oh, and how about those young couples who think that having a child together will only solidify their relationship by giving them that common purpose to rally behind? How well does that strategy usually work?
The old-school reaction to an unwed pregnancy was one of disgust and scolding met embarrassment, fear and shame. This somehow has become an obligatory “congratulations”. I find both astoundingly off-target. I usually respond with nothing so committal since my silent and personal reaction is something in the middle. More like, “Oooooohhhh. A baby can really be a profound experience that will touch your soul for sure, but you really just set out a bumpy path for yourself and a child and I hope, against the odds, you can both navigate it OK.” Not sure how acceptable that would be today but I don’t find I’m currently able to deem this a completely good thing and jump on the encouraging congratulatory bandwagon.
It is that powerful element of societal acceptance, and even encouragement, as a determinant in the choice toward parenthood, be it a sound or detrimental one, I find most startling. The external forces greater than the internal. Dare I say, the choice resembles a trend (or an endemic?)
And so the actual “me-based” and not wholly judicious choice of parenthood, offered validation by the sheer number of similar choices preceding and surrounding the new (or repeat) parent, is now met with unblinking acceptance and the stamp of normalcy. It is treated first as the exercise of a right and act of self-fulfillment. The entitlement warriors rally to the murmur of criticism and quickly hush it with their provenly effective weapons: Gender Oppression! Racial Oppression! Corporate Oppression! Inequity Oppression! Government Oppression! Systemic Oppression! Of course, none of these include an explanation of how an unwise choice with consequences is made wise when framed in oppression and victimhood. None of it strengthens an individual’s ability to understand better and value more a partner relationship, or shine light on the potentially rocky or unmanageable path this person is laying out for him/herself – and another human life for whom they have taken responsibility. But, I guess, as long as the unfairness of the world set upon them is pointed out loudly and proudly, all else is secondary. They are insulated from the oppressive types who would dare to criticize (“haters”). And those would-be offenders have been trained by now to just walk away and work on strengthening that healthy indifference with which unnecessary conflict can be smothered. Thus, the single mother, our hero, has become the poster subject for the average victim in need of help from a system that has marginalized “the people”. Did you ever notice this in pieces put out to explore the problems with minimum wage or pleas for charitable monetary assistance? The subject is almost always a single mother, heroically putting herself through school on tips while trying to raise her kids without access to affordable daycare, etc. Never do we ask if she is recently widowed or something. Is (are) the divorced father(s) dodging the law to avoid financial responsibility? (More fine choices.) My guess is, if it was the case, that would be part of the tragic tale being told. Oh, it doesn’t matter. Doesn’t it?
Because there is a recognized support base in place, a woman is further encouraged to jump into the parenthood pool as she feels the splashes of the other new moms making the same easy choice. (The father taking the jump seems optional since he has been granted leave from the situation should he choose it. He is then free to re-enter the game as a player and encouraged to prove his stature and manhood by siring more offspring than Man-O-War.) This support base is comprised of the “congratulatory” friends and family who applaud your choice to take on parenthood; The grandmother who is free to devote her time to mothering on a second (or third or fourth…) go-round, even though she has already paid her dues; the compassionate and limitlessly-funded government; and all other humanist do-gooders who feel it is their moral duty to pick up the slack others drop, without daring to devalue their projected human stock with questions.
It seems to me that this critical response to this “success sequence” proposal excuses the choice of raising children from a less than stable financial grounding as solely the problem of the system and beyond control of the parent. The marriage element, while we can argue its importance in the social and psychological health of the child, is less important than the choice of a parent or parents to become such in full consideration of their level of stability and clearness of a plan forward.
Maybe, after all, the proof is in the pudding and how questionable decisions affect the child raised in less than optimal conditions is evident in that raised adult – if we can really tell. Maybe the formula is oversimplified or unnecessarily complicated and clueless about what really matters. I would just like to see these kinds of conversations center on the welfare of the child first and work backwards to see what choices of the parent prior led to a less than happy and healthy state for them. It seems the conversation, instead, begins and ends with the predicament of the parent or parent-in-planning and his/her rights and choices as objects of protagonism and targets of scrutiny. Maybe they are (and should be) the latter, but understand that that isn’t motivated primarily by an interest in how questionable choices affect that parent.
AH GEEZ, HERE I GO AGAIN
I recognized two annoying things people do in conversation which makes avoiding it altogether seem more preferable. Verbal engagement might otherwise prove to be useful and therapeutic but, too often, ends up seeming a waste of the time and energy expended in return for maybe placing yourself in a position which is naturally a bit uncomfortable.
1 –People always feel like they are obligated to give you advice as if your venting what’s on your mind is the equivalent of asking for their wisdom. You’re not paying them as your counselor. No money, no obligation. Can’t people recognize and respect pure venting? This is regardless of whether the advice is good, bad or half-baked and forced. Can people accept that sometimes there really isn’t some solution that you need to be clued in on. If I fucked something up, it is OK to just agree and understand that I fucked something up. Pretending to disagree with my assessment and attempting to put negative things in a positive light for my benefit will not come off as genuine. This only demonstrates that you’re not with me in this reality and are, therefore, not affectively supportive.
2—People often want to take a personal scenario you are describing, say, about someone in your life who is somehow problematic, and equate it to someone or something in their own life as if they assume you are commiserating or that a deeper understanding through a sharing of experiences is what you are necessarily looking for. This is usually a clear confirmation that they are really just not attempting to be completely understanding of the person or situation you are trying to profile because they become too fixated on their own “similar” experience. They abandon you and your experience mid-vent and retreat to the comfort of the knowledge of theirs. Just accept the story at its own merits. There is some uniqueness to everything, even if it is just that it is uniquely your individual experience involving unique individuals.
So to all the good listeners out there: you truly possess an invaluable talent which is probably taken for granted. It is a talent that many who attempt fail to master and probably don’t fully appreciate. Sometimes we need to just shut the hell up and listen. I’m gonna try to be mindful of that.
I GOT A GUY
When someone hooks someone up with a job, that is, brokers a deal between client and contractor both of whom have accepted his/her approval of the other, who is doing whom a favor between the two parties involved? Is it expected protocol for the contractor to give a good price in exchange for getting the work, even if this means making a monetary sacrifice he didn’t really need to make – he can get work just fine without your recommendation. Or is the one work being done for getting the hook up because the contractor, being recommended by a trusted source, will surely do the job right and at a reasonable cost without some expected special discount? After all, there are a lot of shady and unreliable contractors out there and the peace of mind of believing they have someone capable and trustworthy is the hook up.
Forget the brokering. Let’s say it’s you in either of these roles. If you are the contractor who offers to do the job, is it peace of mind that you are hooking the other person (friend, family, or something more than a strict contractor/client relationship) up with or are you also expected to offer a friendly discount? If they ask you is it because that peace of mind is already well worth the market fee, or is it because they assume they will get the friendly discount? Or because they believe they are doing you a favor by giving you work you may not necessarily need (or even want)?
If you are the one asking a trusted contractor friend to do the work, how would you answer those last questions when asked of yourself?
Is all this something that should somehow be known ahead of time? If not, would it be an uncomfortable discussion to initiate? Was never clear on how this is supposed to work and who should be thanking whom.
ANOTHER OVERANALYSIS OF A PROPER PROTOCOL, I GUESS
Why do people congratulate someone when they announce that they’ve gotten engaged to be married?
Don’t you congratulate someone on an accomplishment like graduating college or completing navy seal training or winning a championship or finishing a well-received symphony or something? You don’t just choose to be in those positions. You have to actually achieve them and you can certainly fall short. But you choose to accept a marriage with someone. Would you have been consoled if you chose to say “No, I’m gonna stick with the single life.”?
Maybe people see the arrival of the betrothed at a place where another wants to have them for the rest of their lives as the other’s singularly-elected, and legally-bound, top partner in everything as a culmination of successful steps they’ve taken in working toward that desired end. But if the pathways through life and accompanying societal interactions has chanced the meeting of two people who, by just being honest with themselves and each other about who they are, come to feel and think that way about each other, isn’t it just the natural course of things?
Not to mention, what if the choice proves to be a bad one? (i think the divorce rate is right around 50% currently, so kind of a coin toss.) Does everyone get to revoke their congratulations? Do they ever revoke college diplomas or seal badges or championships (OK, Black Sox and Lance Armstrong. Shut up.) Or symphonies? If so, it wasn’t a matter of some choice not working out. Is it an invalidated or unrealized achievement. Never just a bad choice that the achiever wishes to undo?
At the risk of being a social dick, I think I’ll forgo the congrats and hope nobody calls me out on it. Don’t want to muddy someone’s happy moment with my cold and mechanical over-rationalizing. Plus I might not get invited to weddings anymore. They’re not as much fun as they used to be when I was more fun and limber but, generally, I still like them.
MAKE THAT EGGNOG A DOUBLE. I’M SO STRESSED OUT!
If Christmas shopping has become a sress-inducing matter of obligation, what’s the point? It should be enjoyable to do things for others, not some list of chores thrust on you by societal expectation. I don’t want anything from anyone and especially if that person feels they are obligated to do it. The only Christmas gift duty one might sensibly consider obligatory is that for one’s kids. But even there there is more than just the action of producing some wrapped item on tradition’s demand. This contribution to the building of an excitement and nostalgia the child will therapeutically refer back to all their lives (it really can be) is also an opportunity to teach gratitude. If the joy of giving and unconditional gratitude don’t accompany this action as the tradition is fueled onward – this is a failure and not demonstrative of the Christmas vibe of kindness and consideration or basic communal human spirit. Time to reconsider the value and purpose of those binding traditions. And if one finds that value is lost, don’t waste your time with the charade. Tell yourself that you are deserving of the experience of the joy of giving whenever you find that opportunity. Consider, also, that those you believe may only see it as the mechanical action of obligation, and not an expression of kindness and genuine consideration, might not deserve a place on your little checklist after all. See? Stress gone.