Months ago I speculated about 40 being the new 20, but as part of its recent holy-way on singles, the Globe and Mail seems to think otherwise. Go on and read this piece, it's called "Still Single after 40? Sounds suspicous.
The basic premise of the article is that its better to have married and split then never to have married at all once you are in your 40s. That's ridiculous. I'm not sure where this whole single-bashing trend at the Globe comes from but I'm surprised.
I find it surprising that the writer so easily dismisses common-law living arrangements as not being the same as a marriage. Is not living with someone in a relationship for several years signs of an ability to commit? Just because someone doesn't believe that they need the state or a church to record their relationship doesn't mean they aren't prepared to take the leap of faith. Nope, unless you got married, and in the process likely ended up messing up your life and someone else's (I am talking about now divorced people) you're just not dating material in your 40s.
Everyone has baggage, whether its' from a failed marriage or from reasons for not having been married, I'm not sure what the difference is. Either way I imagine a relationship at that point in your life is going to be complicated regardless of your marriage background. If you've been single, you've become well adjusted to living alone and enjoy your routines, bringing another person in is just difficult. If you've been common-law or married, your dealing with possibly shared parenting, or even if there are no kids, your're trying not to make the same mistakes with your new partner as you did with your last.
We shouldn't be limiting the pool of potential daters and connections with silly rules like these. It's hard enough to meet someone you have a connection with. If you do, don't worry about their past relationships or lack thereof, focus on the one you are having. There's enough baggage to go around, you'll both have it, so check it at the door whatever it is, and start fresh.
As for Sarah Hampson, the author, she gets a withering look of disapproval(tm).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"Withering look of disapproval" is exactly right. I read that with a wrinkled nose and a growing sense of disgust.
Where does Ms. Hampson find these people she interviews?
At a bar, sharing a bottle of wine... her friends! I hate that article and think it's a load of crap. Who are these slef-appointed trend-watchers? What does Sarah Hampson know about dating after 40, and what makes HER the authority.
She's treading dangerously into Eckler territory.
PS: Nice trademark. You do those so very well.
Well it's no high kick of happiness(tm) but it's mine!
I'm beginning to feel about Ms. Hampson the way the little sister feels about Ms. Eckler, but for entirely different reasons.
It's nice of the Globe though, to continue paying her as she works out her issues in therapy and prints the results.
I think I understand why her marriage fell apart. He ex probably doesn't conform to a tidy little box and she grew unable to understand him in all his aging complexity.
Hmm, Sarah Hampson's marriage fell apart? How interesting, maybe she's trying to set trends that will somehow make her failed marriage more attractive then the available non-committed single people she has to compete with. Why am I not surprised.
Our mutual hate of Sarah Hampson shall continue here on granted null. She wrote another piece today about the dating rules for women of a certain age that will be making its way onto the blog.
She's back today. Grrrrr...
Sarah Hampson is continuing to publish her drivel, or should I say the G&M is, probably to try and get older female readers of her vintage? Who knows.
But her article today, is bascially more Ex-bashing. In the article she states how her Ex is "cruel" to her kids, as he is not around. Can you imagine how viciously passive-aggressive it is to do this to your Ex-husband and your own kids? Publish that in a National paper? That is psychotic.
No wonder the guy has probably been pushed away from her.
Maybe the crazy Sarah H has driven him from their life? Who knows.
But the G&M makes all of her articles FULLY MODERATED, and they literally CENSOR most comments that criticize her ideas openly. Try it, post a critical comment, and they censor it.
I find virtually all ofher articles and "ideas" to be toxic and revolting. Maybe they do this to create controversy, but regardless its utterly disgusting. I feel sorry for the kids to have mom writing about her own garbage for a living, and bashing dad. Evil.
Hi there anonymous, welcome to the blog. I agree with you, and think this latest foray is just plain unethical. Ms. Hampson should not be using her job as a columnist to bash her husband so publicly in front of her children.
Beyond what ever issues she has with her husband, he is their father and she needs to be cognizant of that when she is writing.
What is also interesting about the G&M is that they did allow some comments through, but the few that didn't get censored were from dads explaining all of the crap "the divorce system" puts them through, etc. Giving the other side of the issue. Then they closed the comments after a few hours, whereas other subjects are often open for days and weeks.
I feel sorry for her kids, to have to read about mom's exploits every week. But worse, as mentioned, to drag her serious personal family problems outlike that. One assummes dad has his view as well?
All I can say is that if I had an "Ex" and she was writing a national column every week about being an "Ex", that level of personal Ex-ploitation would wreck whatever was left of the family.
I guess it the old "write what you know". But why be so ideological and one-sided about it?
anyway, her columns have really gotten on my nerves recently, but perhaps this is the effect the reader hungry papers want!!
;-)
Post a Comment