Dear Margo: I’m a single man, 41, and have successfully operated my business since I was 18. I have a lot of friends, ride a motorcycle, and own a classic car and my own home. There are not enough hours in the day for me to do all of the things and see all of the people I would like. Between running my business, taking care of my home and possessions, traveling occasionally, and just seeing to the things we all must do in life, my life is full to the brim. I’m perfectly happy in every way.
I knew even in childhood that I was not husband or father material. I’ve dated here and there, but find the whole serious relationship idea repulsive, and every time I’ve tried it, this feeling is confirmed. Most women my age are either after a father for their kids or a well-packed wallet. I’ve also seen many close friends end up with vicious, expensive divorces, child custody battles, endless child support and alimony payments, deep wounds and hurt feelings. For me, I come and go as I please and see whom I want, whenever I want. Why do people think being single is some horrible existence? I believe having many good friends and being happy with oneself is the key to a happy life, and thankfully, I have that. People who don’t know me think I am gay or have some kind of problem. Why do they think everyone has to be married and miserable? — Single and Loving It!
Dear Sing: You can stay single as far as I’m concerned, hon. Marriage is not for everyone. And given that you link “marriage” with “miserable,” and “relationship” with “repulsive,” I feel certain you are doing some lucky woman a big favor. What I do find regrettable is that your exposures have been such that you see women as huntresses for sperm donors with ATM cards, and men as poor schnooks saddled with support payments and emotional scars. Believe it or not, both good marriages and comfortable divorces are possible. — Margo, reflectively
A lot of us have wondered the same thing
Dear Margo: I went through the school system during the ’50s and ’60s; my children, in the ’70s, ’80s and early ’90s. Never once did we hear about children suffering from emotional or social disorders as in ADHD, OCD, autism or Asperger’s syndrome. Now, in my grandchildren’s time, it seems that about 40 percent of their classmates are on some form of medication for behavioral/social/emotional problems or learning disorders. Can it be that “recreational drugs” or “junk food” eating on the part of the parents has produced this mutation? When I was a child and did something unacceptable, I was generally punished with a spanking or “grounding” that, although not life-threatening, made me think twice before I did the same thing again. Nowadays, when a “timeout” doesn’t do the trick, it seems the next step is putting the child on some sort of drug regimen or a psychiatrist’s couch. I really would like your opinion. Did the old saying “spare the rod and spoil the child” become an actuality? — Inquiring Minds Want To Know
Dear Inq: I, too, have wondered about the prevalence of the things you mention. They weren’t routine at all a few generations ago. I don’t believe an answer has been determined. My guess is that there are many elements mixed up in a possible explanation. The disorders, causes and “cures” most likely have to do with a stew of environment, chemicals and reliance on pharmaceutical fixes, as well as some illnesses and behaviors that never had a name before. You are not the first person to wonder about the differences between childhood then and now. As for your conjecture about “spare the rod,” my instinct tells me that permissiveness is not the major factor at work here. — Margo, speculatively
Dear Margo is written by Margo Howard, Ann Landers’ daughter. All letters must be sent via e-mail to dearmargo@creators.com. Due to a high volume of e-mail, not all letters will be answered.
