Twenty years ago, the following appeared in a Newsweek article titled Too Late for Prince Charming.
According to the report, white, college-educated women born in the mid-’50s who are still single at 30 have only a 20 percent chance of marrying. By the age of 35 the odds drop to 5 percent. Forty-year-olds are more likely to be killed by a terrorist: they have a minuscule 2.6 percent probability of tying the knot.
Funny story about that. You see, what they should have written is that “American men and women, regardless of age, race, education level, or income are more likely to read complete and utter bullshit in major newsweeklies than they are to get married. It should be noted that this only applies to men and women who choose to read major newsweeklies.”
Well ok, I don’t actually have any evidence to back that up, but if making shit up is good enough for Newsweek, then it’s good enough for me too. Go have a look at what Zuzu has to write about the story and Newsweek’s two decade late (and very lame) retraction, as she’s far less prone to making shit up than I am.
Via some guy you’ve never heard of, who also provides an extensive reading list for those of you interested in the media’s less than savory qualities.
It’s odd but I remember the quote being, “…more likely to be killed by a lightening strike…” and that’s the way I’ve repeated it for the past couple of decades. Think about it: Just how commonly used was the word “terrorist” in 1986? Not very, I don’t think. Am I the only one who has a faulty memory about this?
By the way, I finally found and married my soulmate at the age of 52. Does this reduce or increase the likelihood of my being killed by a terrorist?
You may be right – when I read the quote the use of terrorist stuck me as an anachronism, too. Not that there weren’t terrorists then, of course. We just thought of them as “Something European,” like driving on the wrong side of the road, or drinking coffee and smoking at little metal tables in outdoor cafes by pigeon-filled squares while discussing Proust. 😉
Not that I’ve ever been there 🙁
The quote was definitely about getting killed by a terrorist, but the article did launch a huge frenzy in the media, and frequently morphed into the hit by lightening thing.
The link provided is to the actual 1986 article and they definitely used the word “terrorist.” That can has been getting kicked around for a long time now.
Oh, it never stops.
Just wait until the “So…how many kids” question. And when you don’t pop them out in 2.5 seconds, “When will you have kids” comes along, with a “you don’t have long” if you’re in your 30s.
If people would pay attention to issues as much as they do other people’s sex lives…oh Lord, but you knew that already.
It was trotted out by one of the faculty members in my grad program. He was (in)famous for saying that women in our program were “violating their reproductive destinies” by being in graduate school. Whatever that actually meant, we knew he was unhappy to see women taking admission slots that had always been filled by men in the past.
I thought it interesting that he felt free to cite this, whereas in almost any other respect, he would insist on good scientific evidence to back up sweeping claims of this sort.
I can’t believe they have the nerve to offer a retraction 20 years later. Here’s what Susan Faludi writes about the incident in Backlash, published in 1991.
had gay marriage that 99% of women in that age group would be married tomorrow? Maybe some women would rather be killed by a terrorist than marry anybody at all. I always thought that story was pretty goofy overall.