(no subject)

[violachic]

Glossing over, for the moment, the incredibly classist implications of this article, there is something I just don't understand.

Two quotes (bold emphasis mine):

"It's not so fun anymore," says Duyn, 33. "I'm ready to be an adult now. I'm at the age where I should be taking care of a partner or a child, not some stranger I just met a few months ago."... "It's hard not to ask the question," says Duyn..."will I have roommates for the rest of my life?"

and

"There are certainly benefits to having roommates," says Joy Delp, 37, a New Yorker who has lived with roommates -- including friends, strangers, coworkers and an ex-boyfriend -- since graduating from college. "It's nice knowing you won't have to go home to an empty space. But at the same time, I find the prospect that I could be 40 and still living with roommates incredibly depressing. It feels like failure not to be in the kind of relationship that you can move forward and not to be able afford to live on my own."

As someone who purposely lives with "roommates", I don't understand the attitude that it is somehow less than "adult". Ever since I started living in IC, I've had people comment that it somehow isn't "mature", that it isn't taking enough responsibility, etc. Why can't it be just another lifestyle choice, instead of something we put a value judgment on? I can completely understand that if one's choice and goal is to live on their own, it can be frustrating to not be able to achieve that. But why does it have to be a "failure" to live with other people? If you are in the position where you have to live with roommates, why not make that relationship as intentional as possible? Even if it isn't a romantic/sexual relationship, it is very possible to have relationships that "move forward" (whatever that means to you). Living in IC has been simultaneously the hardest and most blessed thing I've ever done. I don't intend to end it just because its supposed to be less than "adult".

Comments

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

And you are naive (and insulting) to imply that I said anything of the sort. In fact, I said that those quoted were putting a value judgment on that lifestyle choice (whether they were conscious or not of their having that choice.) These are two separate issues, a choice of a lifestyle and the emotional response to having a choice at all. Some people make their choices consciously, others do not. People often apply values irrationally. What you term what they're applying that value to has nothing to do with what you call it.

An example being giving the exact same rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples with regards to marriage, but calling it something differently (like civil unions). Some people say that it's the word marriage that's the issue, and calling it something differently changes the judged value. Others (many) who oppose gay marriage will contend that it doesn't matter what you call it, it's offering the rights of gay couples to have the same privileges as hetero couples, so while the name may be different, the concept is the same. What you call it doesn't change it's perceived value necessarily. Sometimes, it can, but that's a separate issue from ANYTHING I was discussing in my above comment.

[name-omitted.livejournal.com]

I had not meant to reply to you. This was meant as a general reply, and Given the context of your comment, yes, it would be insulting. I am sorry.

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

No worries. I find this particular layout to be a bit confusing when I'm trying to reply to an individual comment.