A Woman's Shelf Life

I have had enough of this anti-feminist crap about a woman's shelf life. As if not being married with children by 40 is going to mean you had better like cats. Some of the comments I have been seeing disturb me. It is possible to be a desirable partner and not want kids or be unable to have kids. It is also possible to find desirable men who want someone over 20.  Men don't have a shelf life based on their ability to reproduce why do women?

Being of childbearing ability no matter what your age can't be the only way men pick mates. Additionally, I have observed division of labor along gender typing lines, in lesbian and gay couples. So it's less about who wears the pants as, can this coupling compliment my strengths and weaknesses? I believe we sell men short by assuming they have only one need, to procreate.

Biologically, it is a strong urge and children benefit a great deal from a multi parent household regardless of gender, or number of parents. But to say that a woman's highest claim should be healthy children and a clean house is comparable to saying a man's whole value hinges on whether or not he is a successful provider. If children and wife were all men wanted why are there so many single mothers? I grew up believing that feminism meant choice and that a successful marriage meant that the spouse I choose would see me as a whole person, who is capable of healthy contribution to something greater than my self and my needs. For me that should not include a sell by date.

If a man wants me to defer to his every decision without discussion, and doesn't care to hear my point of view or feelings on a matter that affects me, I am little more than a slave that maintains his vision of a comfortable life for him and his offspring. I also believe that expecting a man to just follow my rules for his behavior without his input or agreement as objectionable. If we aren't in some accord regarding our treatment and expectations of each other it won't work. I am sure there are women out there that are ecstatic to not have to think for themselves and only do the job as defined by traditional standards, it does have an appeal. Not every woman can thrive there though.

Just as every man is not proficient in provision or physical protection of his family, nor is every woman going to be proficient in child bearing, rearing and domestic order. Should we expect that a man is no longer viable as a marriageable choice when he is no longer able to work? I prefer a dynamic interplay of honest feedback between partners over putting so much pressure on a man to think for me and hope that he will act in my best interest.

Such focus on traditional roles is a lot of pressure because we are talking about some ideal which may be different per person and relationship. There are authoritarian men who want total control of spouse and children and should locate a woman who is willing to play that part.  There are also men who are open to more egalitarian forms of relationship but still follow traditional roles. It's about preference. I know many men who are better nurturers and women who are better providers.

My point is, can we socially recognize that successful relationships are composed of people who work together in relationship based on each one's ability to compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the other not what's between their legs and whether it functions as expected or not? What do you think?