My Advice: Just Settle!

[joreth]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

The basic premise is that women should just settle for a guy who is "good enough" even though he doesn't hit her romantic triggers because otherwise, she'll find herself at 40 with a petri-dish kid and still all "alone".

Is this a satire?  Because I have trouble understanding how ANYONE could say these things with a straight face.

She left out the possibility that life might contain happiness if we accept it for what it is, instead of hoping for what it's not.  And she's extremely egotistical to make the claim that I (as one of those unmarried women over 30 who claim to not be worried), am in denial and that *she* knows better how I feel about my life and the institution of marriage.

Yes, by all means, latch on to a legal contract that forces two people to be joined financially and now romantically together for life, when the contract was written back when "life" was only for the next 30 years (instead of potentially 60 years now) and not intended to accomodate love in the first place, with another person that you only feel lukewarm about because that's MUCH better than facing your fears of being alone and your sense of worthlessness.  We wouldn't want you to actually DEAL with your fears and yourself and build a life that makes you happy just because it might not fit a stereotype that the majority of the population is incapable of achieving anyway because it's based on lies and fantasies.  Yep, settling sounds like a great idea!

I absolutely hate the line "By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?"  Excuse me?  Are those the only options?  Here's this guy you like hanging out with, but the mere thought of touching him makes you shudder, and not in a good way, and *that's* the guy you're supposed to marry?  Isn't it possible that you don't have to compromise passion for partnership, as long as you don't idealize it for a life-long, 40-year honeymoon?  That you can actually have bill payments and shared grocery-shopping trips and pleasurable sex and stimulating conversation all at once?  

And goodness forbid you actually enjoy a relationship for its natural lifetime and find another one later down the line that is more compatible with the future you than this one is!  I may not be with my current partners when I die (hopefully many many years from now) even though at this time I hope they will be part of my future for a long time to come, but that doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to be alone in my old age!  I could very well be with other people at that point - people who, had I met today, wouldn't compliment me the way they will in 30 years.  There's even a rise in nursing-home romances, precisely because people are living to older ages and are in better health during their twilight years, and therefore can continue to express their romance and loving feelings along with companionship of those they meet in later years.

Yes, I do agree with this author that women need to stop idealizing marriage, they need to stop expecting fireworks to last for 40 years and to stop thinking that an argument means the romance is gone.  I agree that the fantasy of the One True Love is one of our most cruel myths that we continue to foster in the face of all evidence.  But it's not an either/or dichotomy.  There are other options!  There is passion and love and consideration with the guy who just can't manage his finances and is a terrible housekeeper, so the relationship best survives if you don't live together.  There's the comfortable companionship with the "gay" friend (or simply the friend who just shares no chemistry) who might make the perfect roommate.  There are all sorts of permutations of relationships that can enrich our lives and contribute to our happiness.  No, it's not Prince Charming coming to sweep us off our feet and provide a fairytale life of castles and dragonslaying.  That never existed - it's called a "fantasy" for a reason.  But neither is it "settling", if one enjoys the relationship for what it is rather than being disappointed for what it's not.

Marriage is not the only option, and Ward and June Cleaver is not the only marriage option.  I agree that we should not be grasping for this fictional, non-attainable Mr. Right.  But I definately do NOT agree that we should settle for whatever guy is willing to marry us just to avoid the fear of being alone.  We do deserve to be happy, and I see nothing wrong with ending a relationship that does not contribute to our happiness.  It's when we expect our partner to PROVIDE that happiness, to be the sole source of every emotional desire, that we run into trouble.  We shouldn't hope for a magical partner that will make life roses and candy every day for the next 50 years, but we also shouldn't latch onto the first partner that is equally willing to "settle" for us because the alternative is to be alone for eternity.  Both are myths.

I'm having one of those beats-head-on-desk days with morons on the internet.

Argh

**Had to add this image from a feminist blogger who created it based on this article:
 

Comments

[may-dryad.livejournal.com]

Ah, you beat me to the rant on this one. Your reaction was precisely the same as mine, but the rant sounds better coming from someone who's not married. And yeah, I love the false dichotomy that either you can be married or you can be utterly alone. Huh? I mean, I realize that a deeply committed relationship is more meaningful than a casual friendship, but the kind of marital relationship she's advocating isn't very high on the emotional connection scale anyway, so who fuckin' needs it.

If you want help raising a family, there are ways other than marriage to get it. And of course everyone wants the nuclear family myth as well as the one true romantic love myth. So not only are you delusional if you think it would be better not to tie yourself for life to someone whom you don't even like that much at the outset, you're totally kidding yourself if you think that anything except having a baby can make you truly happy. Sheesh. It's really interesting that the author is able to discard the one true love myth but is totally unwilling to question the all women just want to get married and have babies myth.

Oh, and I love the part about how women's "value" decreases as they age. Women should settle for the lesser merits of old, fat, bald men; but we should do it while we're still young enough that the old bastards will think we're kinda hot. Nice.

Okay, I guess I still had some of my own ranting to do!

[joreth]

I was going to include a bit on that "value" part too, and it got lost in my red haze of anger as I found myself struggling to be coherent, the angrier I got. So thanks for mentioning it!

Y'know, Sex and the City actually addressed this concept in the very first episode. The 30-something "toxic bachelors" were talking about how women want to get married and settle down just as they're learning to enjoy the power of being single and in demand. One guy says "why don't they just marry some bald fat guy, some big tub of lard?" And Miranda says "I've been out with the fat, old, bald guys and y'know what? They're no better than the good looking ones!"

It doesn't even occur to her that as we all age, our tastes in partners mature with us (not that we don't also still enjoy looking at the young pretty things, but that hot 20 year old that would have turned my head 10 years ago is much better off as a picture on my computer screen than an actual partner now!). So while we reach 40, 50, 60, the men our age are also looking for women who are 40, 50, 60. Maybe some men still get a kick out of hooking up with the girl half his age, but the long-time companion types are hooking up with women their own age because ... get this ... women their age have the same interests as they do and they're more likely to meet someone their own age with whom they have something in common with and can build that romantic relationship!

Imagine that! Some guys might have the fantasy of the 20-year old co-ed, but unless they're hanging around college campuses (which, yes, some are), chances are they're gonna meet the 30-year-old co-worker or the 35-year-old single mother at his kid's friend's birthday party.

But us women should go out of our way to look hot and land ourselves a mans while we're still young - even though we should be "settling" for that old, fat, bald guy who any pretty-boy will eventually become anyway. Why can't the men also "settle" for us pretty spectacular but slightly-older and pudgier women?

[joreth]

Jesus Christ, did you hear that Toby Macguire actually bought the rights to this "just settle" article and is going to make a book and a movie about it?!?

I'm appalled!

[leora.livejournal.com]

"That you can actually have bill payments and shared grocery-shopping trips and pleasurable sex and stimulating conversation all at once?"

Unless you know some much more liberal grocery stores than I do, I think I had best keep my shared grocery-shopping trips and pleasurable sex separate, actually.

*G*

[joreth]

*sigh* then you've never known the fun and excitement of the frozen food section? Well, I won't even get started on trips to Home Depot!

;-D

[funky-firelord.livejournal.com]

Trips to the Home Depot are fun, My favorite trick to see how long it tkaes for someone to come ask us what we are doing.

We normally start by "testing" lengths of rope and stop short of the plumbing section, that would probably get us arrested this is england after all, but it's amazing how much people choose NOT to see when they don't want to..

FL
I know I'm evil but a good kind of evil.

[joreth]

Last year at Necronomicon, I was already dressed up in my Latex Baroness outfit when we decided we should do a variation on the karata in chain instead of rope. So we ran down to a nearby Home Depot to get a length of chain. Outside in the parking lot, we stretched it out to find the middle link and mark it (we assumed we wouldn't have the room instide the hotel room and it's necessary to find the middle before you start a karata).

So there we are, me in a black latex cat suit and knee-high leather boots, tacit in an ankle-length black vinyl trench coat, stretching out 25 feet of silver chain in the parking lot. Someone walking from their car to the entrance joked "going to a fetish party?". We looked at each other and smiled and both said "Yep!" in unison. The guy faltered in his step, gave a puzzled look, then picked up his pace into the store.

We laughed and continued measuring for the middle.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Actually, she has a point. It just doesn't apply to all people, such as anyone who is childfree.

See, the thing is, having a child means far more to me than having a good romantic, loving relationship ever could. I like love. I value love. It's awesome. And I'm incredibly grateful for the love in my life.

But it isn't what I've dreamed of and desired and yearned for since I was two years old on.

If settling for a so-so relationship meant getting to have and raise a child in a good environment, but not settling meant having to put that off for a while and maybe not get to do it or not get to do it well, then it makes perfect sense to settle on something you don't value as much for something you value more.

But it only works if you want children more than you want anything else for yourself.

If you don't want kids, then you have plenty of time. If you do, then you do have time pressure. And unless you have a lot of money, raising a kid by yourself isn't very practical.

I am no longer the complete unromantic I was as a youngling who viewed husbands as merely a method toward getting kids; loving relationships helped changed that view a lot. But the thing is, the choice is sometimes between a romantic relationship and a parental relationship. And if you can't have it all, then it may make sense to pick the one that matters to you more. It's just better if you can have it all.

[joreth]

I do agree that there may be a difference between what makes a good co-parent and what makes a good romantic partner, and sometimes there is a compromise to be made. But the tone of this piece is not "be more realistic about your choice in partners", but more like "listen up girls, you're out of time so you better latch onto whatever man is nearest before you can't even get him".

This author does not examine any other choice. To her, marriage is still the only option, and she implies that it's a goal we all (and should) desire. She does not examine the idea that some of us don't want marriage (she dismisses it entirely claiming that we're "in denial"), the concept of a tribe-based group of adults mutually raising children together (like her single-mother group, for instance), relying on extended family in the true traditional sense (as opposed to the nuclear family myth), or even the idea of revisiting our current marriage contract to more accurately reflect the changing socio-economic trends and/or individual situations of each couple.

This author is one of the few who is willing to remove All Encompassing Romantic Love from the equation, much like what marriage was before the middle of the last century. And I'm not really opposed to separating "love" from the legal marriage contract, since love really has nothing to do with property law and inheritance rights, which is what the marriage contract is about (in the legal and governmental sense). I do think that "marriages of convenience" make more sense, but our current version of the marriage contract does not easily accomodate finding "love" outside the marriage, maintaining separate households, or other aspects that a "loveless" marriage, in a society of more or less equal economic and social power between the genders as ours, might now have. The way the laws have been written, back in previous eras and only selectively added to or detracted from, marriage is not really very "convenient" - but that's a whole other set of rants that I've broached elsewhere.

Her message is not one of empowerment and choices. Her message is one of fear and a reinforcement of the "traditional" monogamous myth. "Quit dreaming for Prince Charming because you're getting too old for fairy tales and you're not young or pretty enough anymore to attract him. But you still have to get married, so suck it up and latch onto whatever guy will have you, before you become an old maid with 40 cats and a test-tube baby and still all alone.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. And I think this was written by someone who can't conceive of a woman not wanting children, and I think that's actually the big problem here. See, it wouldn't be a loveless marriage - because there would be children. The love would be between the parents and the children. It would be a romantically loveless marriage, and I think her point is, that you don't need to get your love there. But that you need help so that you can better get your love and non-aloneness needs met from your kids.

It's a bad idea in many ways, but she's saying compromise somewhat so that you get someone you're okay with and can then have the kids.

I think in her mind "marriage" is synonymous with "getting to have children". She knows kids can happen in other ways, but I don't think she has figured out that marriage can happen in other ways. And she's saying this is the easiest and best path toward the dream of having and raising kids.

And she might be right in many cases.

I think whether or not settling is worthwhile would depend pretty much entirely on how much you rate getting help raising kids compared to not getting to have a chance at romance. And I don't think she much cares about romance. So, the equation is different.

Honestly, she's wrong, but she's not horribly wrong for some women. But I did wonder why she and her other single mother friend didn't simply unite their households and be a two-parent two-child family raising group. It seems like it'd make it easier for both of them, and no having to have sex with someone you don't want to.