KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: There are 96 million unmarried Americans — 43 percent of adults over age 18; 24 percent are divorced, and 61 percent have never walked down the aisle. What’s that about?
EMILY STIMPSON: How long do we have? This answer could take a while. If I’m just giving you the thumbnail version, I’d say that it’s the fruit of a sick and wounded culture. Contraception, cohabitation, and pornography — not to mention the idea that love is a feeling, not a choice — all have a lot to do with the number of unmarried people in America today. So have our parents’ failed marriages and dating habits that have conditioned us to relational patterns that are anything but “for as long as we both shall live.” Consumerism, which can make us think finding the perfect mate is like shopping for that perfect outfit (and convince us to hold off on making a decision because something better might be out there) bears some responsibility, as does a vision of happiness that has more to do with dollar signs than babies. Really, put it all together and it’s amazing that as much as 57 percent of Americans are married.
LOPEZ: A book called Embracing Your Single Vocation made you cry. But isn’t that what your book is advocating?
STIMPSON: Not in the sense that book meant it! The author of that book, God bless his well intentioned heart, had this theory that if you weren’t married by a certain point in life, your 30th birthday, you should just accept the fact that you were never going to get married and try to be happy about that. My book presumes just the opposite, that most young women reading it will get married one day, only that day will come a little (or a lot) later than it did for their mothers and grandmothers. Some of us won’t marry, of course, but most of us will. (At least that’s what the statistics say.) Accordingly, the Survival Guide’s goal isn’t to encourage readers to be happy about being single forever and ever — I hope they won’t be single forever and ever — but to offer some advice that can make the single life more bearable; suggestions that can help women not only to be sane and happy but also to become the woman God is calling them to be. Whether we ever marry or not, those ideas come in pretty handy, so handing them on is what my book is about.
LOPEZ: Which idea discussed in your book is our culture most in need of?
STIMPSON: Well, on one level, I think single women need some help navigating the challenges, both practical and spiritual, that come with being single in the post-college years. When it comes to issues such as vocation, femininity, dating, chastity, work, and finances, we’re facing challenges our mothers and grandmothers rarely faced. On a deeper level, our culture needs women who can be witnesses — witnesses to the dignity and vocation of femininity, witnesses to the beauty of chastity, and witnesses to what it means to trust God in the face of suffering. Ultimately, the book is call to young single women to be those witnesses. And hopefully, it’s a help for them in answering that call.
Thanks, Emily, for writing this book, although I think you limited your audience by calling It a "Catholic Girls' Guide." These are truths that need to be taught to every girl of every Christian variety. I teach at a Christian school, and find my girls desperate for a path other than that of the world. I do what I can to show them God's plan, and I hope to incorporate your book in the future as well.
What bothers me is that there is still such a double standard. We talk to girls a lot about sexual purity, but we don't give equal time to teaching the boys. Our culture still equates manhood with sexual conquest, and boys also need to be taught God's plan for sex, love and marriage. If we aren't doing that, how will these girls find the godly men they save themselves for?
Try going to a good Catholic College where the expectations in terms of personal accountability for both men and women are higher. I don't mean Catholic in name only schools like Boston College and Notre Dame. Those schools are shams. I mean, the University of Dallas, Thomas More College, and Christendom College, to name a few.
I have to admit that I was a worldly person when young with parents who got married and divorced like it was musical chairs. (I used to tell myself growing up that if my life were a sit-com it would be funny). But, I hated that life, and I'm blessed to be married to the same guy for the past 25 years and have four beautiful kids. To get there I started praying the rosary daily until I got what I wanted. Marriage takes a huge dose of humility, something not taught young women in this, 'you go girl!' culture in which we live.
It would have been a good question to ask Emily why she has so many single guy friends. Eating dinner with them on Valentine's Day? Why doesn't she date one of them? Maybe one of them would like to date her? Is she too good for them? Based upon her comments in the interview, won't she have to give up these guy buddies if she does get married? I was single for a long time, and during this time encountered plenty of single women who seemingly had a stable of "single guy friends". I always found it a turn-off, a sign that the girl just wasn't serious about getting married.
Why do you blame her for her single male friends? Maybe they don't want to date her. Maybe they prefer to date women who will fall into bed with them and don't have any desire for marriage. Maybe they prefer a different look/religion/ethnicity/personality.
I'm getting really bored with all these why-can't-I-catch-a-man-? books that have been hitting the shelves, bored because the overwhelming theme in all of them is that girls are good, boys are bad, and you are still single because all boys are bad.
I think I can save you some trouble (or at least some boredom). As it happens, this is not another one of the many "why-can't-I-catch-a-man-? books" that you have (somewhat disturbingly) been torturing yourself with. Obviously, it's not my place to edit your reading list or speculate what you're after with such an odd syllabus. But, as someone who knows the author and has actually read the book, I can tell you that, not only are you wide of the mark with respect to the "overwhelming theme" of the work, she doesn't even touch on the gender wars that you seem to have such an odd interest in. Of course, you probably could have discerned that for yourself by a more attentive reading of the interview had you not been predisposed by your previous frustrating reading. Might I suggest you take a break and read in another genre. There are some great History titles out recently.
No one is "tortured" here. I am actually trying to be quite philosophical about this. Remaining "quiet" (to reference your latin), while KJL interviews someone who writes a book about throwing a wish-I-was-married pity party, might not be in the best interest of constructive/valuable discourse, it certainly doesn't help the writer.
Did you even read all five pages of the interview? Did you read what Emily said to KJLs questions? I feel sorry for Emily. Perhaps my sympathy is NOT the emotion that she wants from me, but it is what she is getting, pity. I pity her because she clearly does not understand men. Emily denigrating my gender for not "committing" because there might be someone better, man expecting perfection in women, (Emily's words, not mine), all that is, is sour grapes. Here's a hint GKC, in wives men are looking for functional, trustworthy, accountable women with whom we can communicate, not perfection. For some men, this vital information about a woman (what she is really like) can only be gathered by cohabitating.
If you know her as well as you say you do, then tell her that Emily's problem here in not being married isn't men. Emily's problem is Emily.
It is accountability Kara. These books are all about removing accountability from the woman for her lot in life (single when she wants to be married.) The overwhelming theme in all these books is that it is NEVER the fault of the woman that she is single. As a man, I was taught to be accountable. So it irritates me personally when I see books written for the sole purpose of dodging accountability.
"These books are all about removing accountability from the woman..."
And so were several past articles on this topic, at NRO and the WSJ. None of these careerist writers will ever utter a word about the financial and legal destruction of men at the hands of the court system. Nor will they allow that men shying from marriage may simply have become rational economic actors, acquiring less of the product after learning that the costs and risks have skyrocketed.
Their writing approach amounts to a tactical adjustment, a sort of soft jihad... going after what one wants by other means when the enemy has wised up.
"Their writing approach amounts to a tactical adjustment, a sort of soft jihad... going after what one wants by other means when the enemy has wised up."
Wow, I hadn't even considered that. It is an interesting point, one which I wish Emily herself would comment but I fear she never will.
I'm not sure I totally agree with your point since I suppose people like Emily might not be as vindictive as women who have been married, got divorced (for whatever reason), and turned their ex-husbands (and as a result, men in general) gunshy towards the whole concept of marriage. If anything, Emily is probably MORE angry towards women who have been married once (or even twice) and have decided to end their marriages thus, poisoning the garden for the rest of the maidens.
I still these books are about avoiding all accountability. I don't know Emily. I have never met her. But the few women I do know who aren't/weren't married that wanted to be, in every single one of their cases, their maiden status was entirely their own doing. Reading books wasn't going to help them unless those books told them what they had to do to totally change who they were as people. And when I say change, I don't mean "The Rules."
Mike in PA
I know Emily and probably most of her guy friends. Could it be possible that she is friends with guys in which things didn't work out? That there wasn't a flame there to pursue? Why so harsh on a girl that has guy friends? Maybe the girl you are observing is waiting for you to push all those others aside and be her knight in shining armor? Just an idea.
On the flip side, something I do wonder about so very often is this: Our current culture allows men and women to hang out together. This is pretty new. It almost seems like much of our communications don't "mean" anything anymore. In the past, if a guy talked to a girl, he was interested in her. If they sat next to each other, tongues would wag that they might be the next to get married. If a girl were to flirt with a guy, well, first, she'd be considered forward, but maybe even coquetish.
I do wonder if we have gotten lazy in our collective habits of friendship: there seems to be so little spark between the sexes at many of the gatherings I've been to. Have we made advances in relationships between the sexes or have we done ourselves in? I don't quite have an answer for that.
But as for Emily-I'd be careful judging her too quickly. She has a high bar of expectations, but so should all Christian women. Not to high that men can't reach it, but she holds it far higher than the average American woman. It does her credit.
It's interesting that you note with such adoration that the author has "a high bar for expectations," as the author herself notes that single men should stop waiting around for the perfect woman to come along. Shouldn't men also have a high bar for expectations? And if that bar isn't met to his satisfaction, why would he settle?
The emotional, slightly bitter tone to some of the comments (from men!) is surprising. Her interview really wasn't man-bashing at all. In fact, very little had to do with men; most had to do with... stuff Christian single women deal with. Her advice to men reflects the fact that, even in these days, the onus of relational/ marriage initiation is on the male of the species. Christian men are probably as cautious as Christian women in wanting to make a good choice, but the big difference is... most women don't have the "option" of initiating.
Emily talked about the heartache of being childless and without a husband. She may be single because the right guy hasn't come along, but even if he never does, she can still be a mother. Last time I checked, it is possible for single people to adopt.
It may be possible, but that doesn't make it a good idea for everyone. I am also single and childless, but I wouldn't want to adopt a child alone. A child needs two parents, and I am not financially able to provide a good life for a child by myself.
These are incredibly personal issues, and your flippancy is insensitive. Perhaps you could have said that there are many ways to be a mother even when single. I am a high school teacher, and I am "Mamma C" to a couple hundred students. There are numerous ways to invest in the lives of children.
I agree that the best case scenario is for a child to have two parents. However, having one parent is better than none and that is the situation many children find themselves in.
As a woman in a very traditional Catholic marriage, am I the only one who winces a little bit at the tone of this book and interview? While I married after 30 I never considered my singlehood as some kind of terrible suffering to be endured (ways to "make life more bearable"? Really?) I realize that being single has its challenges but so do being married and being a parent. If a woman is incapable of being happy and fulfilled without a husband, I have to wonder whether she'll be happy and fulfilled with one. Not to mention, "desperate to get married and just killing time until then" is not a quality that is attractive to many men these days.
