Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Why “Inglourious Basterds” should win Best Picture….and why it won’t Previous entry: Paranoia isn’t an argument

What about love?

Family ValuesFeminismSex

There’s been a lot of feminist response to the fact that Lori Gottlieb expanded her article imploring women to settle down for Mr. Good Enough into a book titled Marry Him: The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough.  It’s based on the false assumption that educated, middle class women are too picky and have trouble getting married.  I’m not going to tear up the logic—-the links provided do a handy job—-but I have a serious question to ask in the face of this argument about “settling”:  What about love? 

The underlying assumption in this book and anything of the “you’d better settle or you’ll die alone with your cats!” genre is that women marry (or at least partner up) for children, companionship, and above all, so to prove that someone liked it enough to put a ring on it.  And that men marry so that they have a nice house, children, and a regular source of sexual release that isn’t their hand.  Anna at Jezebel summarizes Gottlieb’s point of view on this:

It’s not just that Lori Gottlieb takes an incredibly narrow view of what marriage is for (she keeps mentioning the desire “to be part of a traditional family”), or that she views life without a man as necessarily lonely and shitty (she’s especially harsh on the topic of girlfriends) — she also does all this with a vitriol that’s frankly bizarre.

This narrative about why people want to marry and do marry has a lot of traction in media, because it’s basically sexist and a lot of people fucking love that.  But it also has no relationship to why most people actually want to marry, and what most people want their marriage (or partnership) to look like, which is love, baby, love.  That’s what’s never directly discussed, and it’s frankly bizarre.  The reason that women balk at the term “settle” isn’t because they’ve been poisoned by feminism to have too high of standards.  It’s because the term implies marrying someone you don’t love, and agreeing to a terse exchange of your body and housework for the social approval and companionship of being a wife. 

“But,” you might say, “She’s just saying that women are too picky and need to consider guys who aren’t maybe as tall or rich or handsome as they’ve been told they should want!”  Well, I have to agree with the link to Matt above that at best you’re talking about a few women who refuse to listen to sensible advice like that.  But more importantly, that argument is a red herring.  The book isn’t titled Hey, Go Out With The Guy And Enjoy New Experiences, You Never Know Who’ll Knock You Off Your Feet.  It’s titled Marry Him.  To which I say to Ms Gottlieb: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make her drink.

Hey, maybe I’m all wrong here, and Gottlieb addresses the giant flaw I’m seeing.  But I honestly doubt it.  From Anna’s review, it seems Gottlieb thinks there’s a nationwide problem of women who are madly in love with excellent men, but throw them over for something relatively inconsequential.  Or maybe Gottlieb is skeptical of love and romance, and sees dating as a game like “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”, where you see how high you can go without failing out, and she’s suggesting you cut your losses at the quarter million question.  Either way, “settling” is something people don’t do as much as Gottlieb would like, mostly because it falls out of the realm of how dating actually works.


I don’t know about you, but for myself and almost everyone I’ve ever known, you end up with your partner by going on a bunch of dates with different people until you meet someone who really does it for you.  You probably do a lot of laughing and a whole lot of fucking, and by god!  You’re in love and want to eat each other up.  Sure, most people end up in a match with someone a lot like them, but it’s probably due less to actively rejecting and refusing to “settle”, and more to do with the fact that having a lot in common with someone rings a bunch of your bells.  Indeed, I would point out that someone’s close friends are probably hitting a lot of the same notes as their beloved.  I can’t even believe I’m explaining how this works, because duh.  It’s a mystery.  Even if you’ve never experienced it yourself, roll out some nauseating “save the date” videos on YouTube and get a full frontal gross out story of someone else’s passion.  Why is it gross?  Because it is in fact passion—-private, unique, and even if the results are often close to what you’d get if you made a checklist of what you want in a potential partner, for those involved, it doesn’t feel that way.  It feels like love. 

Books and articles like this are aimed pretty much solely at women, which is fascinating if you look at it in this light.  Women are being encouraged to see ourselves as items on sale, and to assess the bids we’re getting on our “price” realistically, instead of thinking our asses are so expensive.  This is the anti-love view of relationships, but it’s certainly one that appeals on a misogynist level, since it devalues women as human beings who are capable of inspiring and feeling that kind of love, and instead positions women as products trying to attract the best price on the market.  However, the implicit assumption of these articles is that men aren’t interested in love and passion, or else they’d be subject to the same entreaties to settle.  The assumption is straight out of macho culture dictates—-treat women like sex objects, disdain feminine things like romance, or you’re not a real man—-but I’m not really sure that men, even sexist men, are generally interested in buying so deeply into this stereotype.  Even the usual sexist crowd that shows up like clockwork every time Matt takes time to link a feminist on his blog were shockingly silent on this issue, squigged out by the mercenary, passionless assumptions behind calls to settle.

Not that I think that there aren’t men who are so misogynist that they buy into a worldview that precludes real love between men and women.  For instance, Glenn Beck characterized women as “psycho” while bragging about how men have no use for women beyond a source of food, housework, and sexual services—-and that these should be provided in silence, because men have absolutely no interest in women’s personalities.  But our culture has elevated romantic love so high that even the most sexist men occasionally feel obliged to flatter their wives with suggestions that deep down inside, they might actually like the old broad. 

This, I think, is why you’ll hear some leftist types, including myself, suggest that love has a lot of radical potential.  Our culture is very confused about romantic love.  On one hand, men’s increased expectations for love and passion mean that men can’t always be counted on to punish women for being smart or funny or otherwise possessing the sort of traits that can inspire genuine crushing.  On the other hand, we’re increasingly being told that it’s “romantic” for women to assume a submissive pose in love, when we’re not being subject to books prescribing a mercenary approach to dating that presumes men and women can’t really fall madly in love.  On one hand, gay rights are gaining momentum in part because the American love of love is such that we can’t just exclude people arbitrarily.  On the other hand, you’ve got this fundamentalist Christianity trend that is lashing out at the companionate marriage and demanding a return to “traditional” patriarchal marriage, though even they try to sell that as romantic.  The wedding-industrial complex exists to make people feel if they spend enough money on the spectacle, they can have it both ways—-passionate regard for each other, but traditional roles for women, too.  It’s very interesting.  Personally, I think love is winning out, and countervailing forces like fundamentalism, dating guides that take a mercenary approach, and spectacle weddings with lots of retrograde misogyny are going to lose this battle.

I will say that being a feminist seems to make love a lot easier in most ways.  When you can declutter yourself of the role-playing and expectations put on you by a sexist culture, and commit yourself to looking at someone as a human being, it just goes more smoothly.  And it’s more fun.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:43 PM • (115) Comments

Awww, Ma-  I don’t wanna get married!

Comment #1: dillene  on  02/02  at  07:56 PM

I don’t know about you, but for myself and almost everyone I’ve ever known, you end up with your partner by going on a bunch of dates with different people until you meet someone who really does it for you.  You probably do a lot of laughing and a whole lot of fucking, and by god!  You’re in love and want to eat each other up.

True, but with a book titled “Marry Him” the appropriate question is (to paraphrase Tina Turner) “what’s love got to do with it?” That out of the way, the only thing separating Gottleib from the arranged-marriage-and-dowry crowd is that she doesn’t want her parents choosing “Mr. Good Enough” (and not having read the book, maybe that’s not the case).

I will say that being a feminist seems to make love a lot easier in most ways.

I’m cynical about romantic love as the basis for entering into a serious and supposedly life-long contract. But my problem isn’t so much with love and romance (of which I’m also a fan), but rather with the contract, which does indeed re-enforce patriarchal values (be they the arranged-marriage type or Gottleib’s rom-com version, which views men as must-have accessories to ensure security and self-esteem).

Comment #2: Gracchus.  on  02/02  at  08:15 PM

Well, you know I agree that marriage itself is an outdated institution, and I think love is subverting it.  But right now, most people want to get married and they want to marry for love.  Which is a step in the right direction, since it’s putting human happiness over institutional patriarchy.  The next step is marriage dissolving because no one needs it, but that’s a while off.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/02  at  08:19 PM

But right now, most people want to get married and they want to marry for love.  Which is a step in the right direction, since it’s putting human happiness over institutional patriarchy.

Absolutely. There are worse reasons to enter into that hopelessly broken and misconceived contract.

Comment #4: Gracchus.  on  02/02  at  08:21 PM

If women were inclined to take this book’s advice, I’d have a lot better dating chances. That I think is argument enough that the premise is bullshit.

Comment #5: BrianX  on  02/02  at  08:21 PM

I don’t remember too much about Ms. Gottlieb, but I seem to remember that she did a radio piece whining about how hard it was to raise a baby on her own and how much she wanted a husband just so she could take a shower every once in a while. Oh, and how much she despised her fellow moms for complaining about their husbands, since even defective ones weren’t total dead weight.

She seemed to want basically a man-servant, someone who would take the load off her, more than anything else. So I’m guessing the book uses the tried-and-true formula of “I have taken my own peculiar life circumstances and universalized them to make sweeping generalizations about what people should and shouldn’t do.”

Comment #6: t-ster  on  02/02  at  08:30 PM

I will say I’m fascinated by how institutions evolve in the face of cultural pressures, or die.  Marriage is similar to religion in this aspect.  As society moves more towards science, most religion realizes it accepts science or it will lose many people whose association with science causes them to see the flaws in religion.  Marriage also adapted to the growing cultural demand for individual rights.  In a country where “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” are written into a founding document, trying to argue for a form of marriage that subjugates the happiness and self-fulfillment of the people in it is going to sound like crazy talk. 

Of course, the problem is that these institutions are adapting to values that fundamentally subvert their very reason for existing.  The arguments for marriage for love, taken to their logical (and feminist) conclusion are arguments for no marriage at all, but instead replacing it with a system that relies on love without coercion of any sort.  And religion exists to answer the big questions, and the more that get answered by science, the more religion doesn’t need to exist.

That’s why it’s not a coincidence that American fundamentalists are out to restore both traditional marriage (patriarchal, built on duty and not love) and traditional religion (belligerent, patriarchal, anti-science).  They see that these institutions will not survive the new cultural values in the long run—-that’s why I think the leadership, at least, is pretty smart.  And they choose the institutions over people and over knowledge.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/02  at  08:32 PM

I’ve noticed as I grow older that a lot of good lookin’ women settle down with trolls because the good lookin’ guys don’t want to settle and have children.

Too bad for me I don’t kids… lol

Comment #8: sirkowski  on  02/02  at  08:36 PM

Fucking typos!

Comment #9: sirkowski  on  02/02  at  08:37 PM

Weirdly, by Gottleib’s standards, I probably settled too much because I married a guy who, like me, barely breaks $40K a year and doesn’t have the ambition to move much beyond middle management.  My mother fretted when we got married that he would never be able to support me on his salary and she’s probably right.

But what can I say?  I love the big lug and I don’t care how much he makes a year as long as he can pay his own bills.

Comment #10: Mnemosyne  on  02/02  at  08:40 PM

“Settling,” and making it so exclusively feminine, is really puzzling to me… people settle all the time. Often not in that smitten period early in the relationship, but no one’s perfect and there’s always stuff that you end up ignoring in order to have the good. Where you draw the line has a lot to do with your self-image (worth, but also ability to find someone else/batter) and your perceived options.

For people (who think they are) trapped by a kid or, like Douthat, are absolutely terrified of the opposite sex and hiding what a douchebag you are, bashing love must be comforting. Relationship conventions that minimize partner-selection and trap partners together must be appealing, too.

Yeah, we’re going to win. I think it ties in to social progress on a lot of fronts, from body-image to contraception.

Comment #11: humanadverb  on  02/02  at  08:42 PM

Ms. Gottleib seems to have distilled the marriage contract to its bare essence - he gets a won’t who won’t refuse to have sex, will have his kids and be his maid, and in return she gets to say… she’s married?

With such an enticing view of marriage, I share Ms. Gottleibs amazement that women are not getting married, except my amazement is borne from a profound sense of releif that feminism is helping to change women’s lives for the better.

Seriously, when can we put a stake in the heart of this idea that a single woman isn’t worth anything?  My mother’s been single most of her life, and she’s turned down multiple marriage offers because she likes her independence.  Yes, that’s a privileged position, in that she doesn’t need a second income to pay the bills, but it seems that white middle class women are Ms. Gottleib’s prime audience, so a single woman with a good job has presumably been paying the bills on her own so far - meaning that money isn’t a sufficient reason to get married.

Being in love with someone and having them as a partner is seriously cool, but it has nothing to do with marriage.

Then again, the only reason I got married was because his insurance was better than mine, and we needed the tax break.  Which does bring us back to marriage as a transaction, I suppose.  I’d have been just as happy if we’d never gotten hitched, though.

Comment #12: attack_laurel  on  02/02  at  08:44 PM

Also wage disparity, child rearing, establishing a groovy hook-up culture. Etc. I’m worried my list wasn’t nearly inclusive enough.

Comment #13: humanadverb  on  02/02  at  08:45 PM

I wonder if we should sign a card expressing appreciation to Beck’s 2nd wife - he’s so unfuckable and horrible that at least there’s someone there for that troll-man.
Maybe Limbaugh’s girlfriend as well - though I suspect Limbaugh’s gf is only in it for the money. Hope she gets a lot of it!

Comment #14: Danica Lefse Queen  on  02/02  at  08:47 PM

Heh, @Danica. There was a mail-order-bride situation on Real Housewives of Orange County, and when they guy had a heart attack, she ran across the street to call 911. He was dead when the ambulance arrived. No will. It was so awesome.

Comment #15: humanadverb  on  02/02  at  08:51 PM

Why is that awesome?  Did “no will” mean she got it all?  I’m a little confused.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/02  at  09:01 PM

Personally, I think love is winning out, and countervailing forces like fundamentalism, dating guides that take a mercenary approach, and spectacle weddings with lots of retrograde misogyny are going to lose this battle.

I hope you’re right. But just last week I saw a tease for the 11:00pm news that asked women if they really knew how much time they had on their “biological clock.” It included the anchor woman saying “Why thirty might be older than you think.” It was like something straight out of Backlash. Out of curiosity I looked up the anchor woman’s bio and sure enough she’s an educated married woman in her 40’s that, judging by the age of her children, didn’t start having children until her mid thirties. I couldn’t believe she delivered that tease with a straight face. Since the scare tactic was used by someone whose own life disproves the story, I’m worried that there is still so much culturally invested in keeping women scared of being unmarried and childless past 22, that we’re still far away from love and equality winning out.

Comment #17: shakahi  on  02/02  at  09:07 PM

For some strange reason Ms. Gottlieb reminds me of a Rodgers & Hammerstein character . . .

[Ms. G.] Spoken:
This isn’t about Love! It’s about Marriage!
Have I taught you girls nothing?!

Sung:
Falling in Love with Love is falling for make-believe!
Falling in Love with Love is playing the fool!

Comment #18: rea  on  02/02  at  09:09 PM

That Glenn Beck recording is so freaky.  He’s clearly trying for typical sitcom “us poor simple guys don’t unnerstand them wimmins hurr hurr” humor, but he puts so much genuine hatred and venom into it that it just comes off as, well, psycho.  At one point he starts yelling at his female producer for giving him disgusted looks, and who can blame her?

I feel sorrier for his three daughters than I do for his wives.  At least his wives had a choice about whether to live with an angry dimwit who openly hates them.  Maybe they’d read Gottlieb’s article.

Comment #19: Shaenon  on  02/02  at  09:11 PM

The background on Marry Him as far as I’ve been told:

Gottlieb got the baby rabies BAD, and YOUNG. After waiting around for the traditional form of sperm donor (the kind who comes with a ring), she opted to go the solo route.

But apparently nobody ever told her—Raising Kids is Fucking Hard. She blames all the difficulty on not having the Husband around to pick up the slack, completely unaware that Raising Kids Is Fucking Hard no matter what. So she retroactively romanticizes every partner she turned down in the pre-baby years, deciding that the problem was that she didn’t settle in time to snag herself a swing-shift diaper changer.

In short, she has completely lost her grip on reality. She oozes bitterness from every pore of her body. When you hear her talk, you expect her to suddenly snap and call someone a ratfucking shitbrick. Even when she’s talking about, like, airports.

Nota bene: she was not too stable before the baby, either. She has a bit on This American Life where she talks about making up a series of lies in order to meet a guy she knew was The One—based on his picture on a book jacket. Seriously. She pretends to have met him before, and had a long conversation about his literary ambitions. She convinces him of this, and then wonders how she got into this awkward situation. Self awareness factor of zero.

Comment #20: Well, what?  on  02/02  at  09:28 PM

“Since the scare tactic was used by someone whose own life disproves the story, I’m worried that there is still so much culturally invested in keeping women scared of being unmarried and childless past 22, that we’re still far away from love and equality winning out.”

Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t.  For all we know, she might have decided to have kids and then gone through round after round with doctors giving her all sorts of scare-tactic bullshit about how she might have all these problems conceiving and even if she did it would automatically be a high-risk pregnancy and she’d need all these tests to make sure her terribly aged eggs hadn’t resulted in a tragically doomed fetus and for every year over 30 the odds of the delivery being like something out of Alien go up 10%.

Comment #21: preying mantis  on  02/02  at  09:31 PM

for every year over 30 the odds of the delivery being like something out of Alien go up 10%.

If that’s true, I’m SO holding out for age 40.

Comment #22: Well, what?  on  02/02  at  09:33 PM

“Settling,” and making it so exclusively feminine, is really puzzling to me… people settle all the time. Often not in that smitten period early in the relationship, but no one’s perfect and there’s always stuff that you end up ignoring in order to have the good.

It’s funny, because I can imagine someone writing a totally feminist book about how the bottom line is that there’s really no One True Soul Mate out there for you, and there’s no such thing as a White Knight, so it’s better to just settle down with someone you can envision being happy with, if settling down is a priority for you.  Honestly, it seems to me that A) marriage is a total crapshoot as to whether it will work for any particular couple or not, and B) people probably shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket and expect their partner to be everything to them.

It seems to me that Gottlieb takes what could easily be a rather liberating idea and flips it around to be dehumanizing and oppressive.

Comment #23: The Opoponax  on  02/02  at  09:43 PM

So I’m guessing the book uses the tried-and-true formula of “I have taken my own peculiar life circumstances and universalized them to make sweeping generalizations about what people should and shouldn’t do.”

Has Lori Gottleib ever been photographed together with Katie Roiphe?

Comment #24: Sour Kraut  on  02/02  at  09:53 PM

Good point, preying.

Comment #25: shakahi  on  02/02  at  10:00 PM

She has a bit on This American Life where she talks about making up a series of lies in order to meet a guy she knew was The One—based on his picture on a book jacket.

Oh my God. I heard that one when I was driving someplace. THAT’S who she is? That definitely explains everything. Bats in the belfry, bigtime.

Comment #26: Steve LaBonne  on  02/02  at  10:02 PM

The mail order widow: it was awesome because she got everything. He had a couple of daughters who were left out, and they were both pretty disgusting. One kept referring to the step mom as “dad’s thai wife.” The dead guy was pretty disgusting too… pure win.

Comment #27: humanadverb  on  02/02  at  10:06 PM

I hope you’re right. But just last week I saw a tease for the 11:00pm news that asked women if they really knew how much time they had on their “biological clock.” It included the anchor woman saying “Why thirty might be older than you think.”

We need to fight this stuff, but not out of hopelessness. They’re panicking because we’re winning.  We have a really good chance to pull this out.  Knowing we can win this should inspire us!

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/02  at  10:14 PM

Agreed, Opoponax.

I also don’t understand why people are so obsessed with “forever.” You’re not the person you were ten years ago, and you won’t be the same person ten years from now. Stuff happens, people change. That seems incredibly obvious and totally value-neutral to me.

There was a huffpo headline when Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins split up, “If they can’t make it work, who can?” Why the hell would they *want* to make it work if they’ve grown apart?

Comment #29: humanadverb  on  02/02  at  10:16 PM

Maybe there are some people out there, of either gender, who truly believe that “anyone is better than no one.” That seems incomprehensible to me, but different strokes.

Comment #30: Bitter Scribe  on  02/02  at  10:18 PM

Newsweek took Gottlieb to task this week, specifically for trotting out the old “feminism ruins romance and turns women into old maids” canard:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232112

I’ve been hearing this crap all my life, and I’m officially calling bullshit on it.  Feminism is great for romance!  Who the hell cares if a guy holds doors for you if he won’t go down on you?  Or cook dinner, or give backrubs, or laugh at your jokes, or want to hang out just for fun… Hell, Gottlieb’s desperation to marry is based entirely on the notion that a husband would help her change diapers.  Did she think guys did that before the feminist movement?

Comment #31: Shaenon  on  02/02  at  10:20 PM

There was a huffpo headline when Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins split up, “If they can’t make it work, who can?” Why the hell would they *want* to make it work if they’ve grown apart?

Well now let’s be realistic—sure, maybe a few bitter assholes thought, “why can’t they just stay miserably together like i did?” But most people probably just thought, “shit, they seemed so in love. They gave me hope for my own sad ass.”

Nobody likes to think about falling out of love. It sucks, it hurts, and for lots of people, trying to start over in the dating world is about as much fun as doing your own root canal.

You hold out hope that there’s someone out there who will make it so you don’t have to get your heart broken again (and again, and again, and again, until you die alone with nobody to love). And so sometimes you look for “proof” in the world that such a thing is possible.

While Gottlieb is completely bugfuck, however, I keep finding myself coming back to the (depressing) fact that, well, some people don’t *get* to be in love. It just isn’t in their cards, for one reason or another.  If I were facing that situation, it might be good to hear someone say, “hey. You don’t have to hold out for Soulmate or Bust. You can just find someone who’s good to be with, and roll with that.”

Comment #32: Well, what?  on  02/02  at  10:24 PM

“anyone is better than no one”

I think some people may tell themselves this, or maybe “believe it” in a not-really-genuine sort of way.

I don’t think anyone actually finds that it is true, with experience.

Though I will also say that I think some people get into situations where they’re dependent on another person, and in those cases it’s better to eat or have a home than not.  Though I doubt there are really a lot of situations where the dichotomy is really that severe.

Comment #33: The Opoponax  on  02/02  at  10:37 PM

However, the implicit assumption of these articles is that men aren’t interested in love and passion, or else they’d be subject to the same entreaties to settle.

You’re much more charitable than I.  My take is that it’s generally assumed that men are more worthwhile and desirable, therefore they should never, ever have to “settle,” even if settling involves finding a woman who’s merely comparable in looks, intelligence, and other factors.

Ironically, it’s been my experience lately that men are far more desperate to find someone to date, although that could be a function of my living in a city where single men far outnumber single women.

Comment #34: keshmeshi  on  02/02  at  10:39 PM

Well, what - OMG I heard that episode, and was thinking we had a serious sociopath on our hands.

As in:


A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister.


Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

Comment #35: gorobei  on  02/02  at  10:42 PM

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

So the guy will show up at the sister’s funeral.

Comment #36: keshmeshi  on  02/02  at  10:43 PM

I will say that being a feminist seems to make love a lot easier in most ways.  When you can declutter yourself of the role-playing and expectations put on you by a sexist culture, and commit yourself to looking at someone as a human being, it just goes more smoothly.  And it’s more fun.

‘Struth.

Comment #37: Ranylt  on  02/02  at  10:47 PM

I don’t think wanting permanence means wanting it for its own sake, but because it means that someone will always be there for you, therefore you can really open up and not wanting the love to ever go away.

Comment #38: Ismone  on  02/02  at  10:47 PM

Limiting the pair bond to a romantic relationship of man and woman for the purpose of making kids is the real mistake.

Feminism can make it into whatever we want it to be.  Have kids and live behind a picket fence and stay together forever?  Sure.  Have kids and also have sex with other people and maybe add them to your relationship?  No problem.  Have no sex and no kids but share everything and care about each other deeply?  Okey dokey.  Live in a romantic dream, only for each other, a Vonnegutian “nation of two”?  Absolutely.

Negotiate for what you want, rather than settling for the standard model everyone else gets with some substandard (for you) partner who will accept that same standard model.

Comment #39: oldfeminist  on  02/02  at  10:50 PM

It’s funny, because I can imagine someone writing a totally feminist book about how the bottom line is that there’s really no One True Soul Mate out there for you, and there’s no such thing as a White Knight, so it’s better to just settle down with someone you can envision being happy with, if settling down is a priority for you.

This. Oh, and that if you keep wanting a romance with High Drama in it you should probably revise your expectations either for romance or for settling down, because High Drama really isn’t survivable in the long term (btdt, admire them from a safe distance).

But as humanadverb (?) mentioned, what’s the deal with putting this on women? The disastrous results of men “settling” are all around us, especially given the huge unreal sense of entitlement that men are fed. (“My spouse is not Zoe from Firefly yet completely willing to anticipate and fulfill all my wishes, with a side order of cooking and cleaning! I demand a refund and five apologies!”) In fact, I think in a lot of ways it’s that entitled-asshole sense of “settling” that leads to the entitled-asshole expressions of misogyny by people like Beck.

Comment #40: paul  on  02/02  at  10:50 PM

keshmeshi,

exactly, a rather alien thought-process that requires the thinker to only care about their own wants and be completely unaware of the mental states of everyone else.

Comment #41: gorobei  on  02/02  at  10:50 PM

“A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister.

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?”

An episode of 30 Rock revolved around that.  Only the hypothetical murder victim was her father, not her sister.  And the non-hypothetical victim was Kenneth the Page.

Comment #42: preying mantis  on  02/02  at  10:53 PM

Limiting the pair bond to a romantic relationship of man and woman for the purpose of making kids is the real mistake.

A mentor of mine always advocated settling down with someone you were really good friends with, and who you could envision as a good co-parent. 

I can’t say I disagree, though there is a tiny part of me that would like to be swept off my feet with someone who is SO TEWTALLY IN LURVE.  Maybe just for the novelty of it?

Comment #43: The Opoponax  on  02/02  at  10:57 PM

She has a bit on This American Life where she talks about making up a series of lies in order to meet a guy she knew was The One—based on his picture on a book jacket.

That was her? Explains a lot—in the TAL piece she presented herself as a kooky and spontaneous rom-com heroine, but came off as such heroines would if encountered in real life: stalkerish, easily manipulated, and crazy.

One question that comes to mind about this book: who’s the lucky devil Gottlieb has chosen as her own “Mr. Good Enough”? Strangely, several Google searches don’t reveal the name (or even the existence) of the man whom the exhortatory author of “Marry Him!” ... married.

A quick scan of the original Atlantic article reveals a lot of “my time has passed” and “I’m now a mom, so that’s different” type excuses, but I’d expect such a determined woman—one who cranked out a book on topic—to have found her own “Mr. Warm and Breathing” between the article and the book.

My guess is that Lori Gottlieb is so taken with her fabulous, quirky self that she’s reluctant to take her own advice. No wonder Oprah.com is calling her the “new marriage guru.”

Comment #44: Gracchus.  on  02/02  at  11:02 PM

RanyIt,

Hey, being married to a feminist makes love and life easier in a lot of ways.  Having a reality-based home life (where common-sense, fairness, science, kindness, honesty, and personal responsibility rule) is pretty important if you want to actually have a professional life and raise the kiddos to be sane.

Comment #45: gorobei  on  02/02  at  11:06 PM

It takes a happy woman to write a post like this.  smile

Comment #46: Lisa KS  on  02/02  at  11:14 PM

in the TAL piece she presented herself as a kooky and spontaneous rom-com heroine, but came off as such heroines would if encountered in real life: stalkerish, easily manipulated, and crazy.

Hah.  For a while I had a plan to stalk Anthony Bourdain and seduce him by pretending I’d never heard of him.  This was back before he was the cool person to have a secret crush on.

Then he started to look his age, and my crush on him wore off.  He kicks ass though, and I’d definitely still have a beer with him.

Comment #47: The Opoponax  on  02/02  at  11:30 PM

Opoponax @ 47: Who hasn’t had a plan to stalk and seduce Anthony Bourdain? My only surprise is you gave it up…

But then, I dust off my Leonard Cohen stalking strategies every other week. So maybe that’s just me.

Comment #48: humanadverb  on  02/02  at  11:43 PM

I don’t get it:  I keep hearing about all these picky, picky women holding out for a handsome, tall, rich dude…  I don’t doubt that a few these picky women EXIST somewhere, but I’ve certainly never met one.  In my experience, women tend to settle TOO quickly, and to undervalue themselves on the dating market, whereas it’s MEN who won’t settle because they’re holding out for a supermodel.

Comment #49: nico  on  02/03  at  12:11 AM

Surprisingly, that “pretending not to know who some celebrity is - or actually NOT realizing it” can get you into some interesting conversations, IMHO.

Comment #50: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  12:15 AM

nico nails it.

Comment #51: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  12:15 AM

#23 Opoponax - nice!

I’ve always liked the idea of marriage where you plan out how long it’s gonna be - a contract. We agree to 7 years and a day (or however long). Then you can re-up or walk out. I never put it into practice, but it sounded nice.

Comment #52: shade  on  02/03  at  12:24 AM

That was her? Explains a lot—in the TAL piece she presented herself as a kooky and spontaneous rom-com heroine, but came off as such heroines would if encountered in real life: stalkerish, easily manipulated, and crazy.

Ha! Exactly. I had been listening all along, going “bwah??!?” at intervals. Then at the end they were like, “Lori Gottlieb is the author of Marry Him etc…”

And I went, “Lori Gottlieb? Well, that explains a lot.”

Comment #53: Well, what?  on  02/03  at  12:38 AM

Ms Kate,

nico may only be describing the problem of the elite (educated, enlightened people who talk in complete sentences) vs the great unwashed. 

Your experience may be similar to his:  most men are picky with very good career prospects and so have little need for a women to cook or clean.  If a woman is in this regime, the only two options are getting smart or getting beautiful:  choice 2 implies settling fast.  In reality, choice 1 seems to make for better marriages (anecdotal, but I know a lot of couples now divorced cos it was a choice 2 marriage.)

Comment #54: gorobei  on  02/03  at  12:44 AM

I keep hearing about all these picky, picky women holding out for a handsome, tall, rich dude… I don’t doubt that a few these picky women EXIST somewhere, but I’ve certainly never met one.

RANT ON.  NAUGHT BUT PERSONAL EXAMPLES AND BITCHING FOLLOWS.

According to my coworkers, I am that picky, picky woman.  Nevermind that I’ve refused three guys in two years (one for reminding me too much of my ex, and two for being skeevy drunk guys) and that is the sum total of opportunities provided to me.  Nevermind that the only place I go is work, and chasing guys around work is generally a bad idea. 

I also frequently get told I should prove that I can cook if I want a guy.  When I pointed out that I’ve been cooking almost limitless breads, cakes, cookies and even dinners for the whole damn department for about three years now, the complaint was adjusted to “well, you’ve never made a meal JUST for one guy…”  I’m not even exaggerating.

And let’s not get started on the commentary on my personal appearance.  If I wear an eyeshadow shade darker than peach I get accused of wearing my “whore makeup.”  Then Joe will ask me “Are you wearing that for Bob?” and Bob will say “Who’d you put that on for, because it’s not doing anything for me!”  So yes, I’m still single because I’m surrounded by princes but am holding out for a king. 

RANT OFF.  THANK YOU.

I thought the worst thing about being single was the lack of sex, but I was wrong.  The worst part about being single is all the advice people offer you on how to not be single.

Comment #55: Kyso K  on  02/03  at  12:47 AM

I will say that being a feminist seems to make love a lot easier in most ways.  When you can declutter yourself of the role-playing and expectations put on you by a sexist culture, and commit yourself to looking at someone as a human being, it just goes more smoothly.  And it’s more fun.

A-freaking-men. I adore my wonderful partner, and it is just so insanely cool to (try to) live as though sexist culture doesn’t exist. She is beautiful and brilliant, and maybe she has a few stereotypically masculine personality traits. I might have some stereotypically feminine traits. It’s fine. We are so good for each other. It is fun.

Feminism rules.

Comment #56: catfood  on  02/03  at  12:47 AM

@humanadverb - Yeah, you’re right.  It would be harder now to pretend I’d never heard of him, though.  My original plan was from 5+ years ago when it was possible, via gossip, to know which bars he hung out in.  I’m pretty sure he’s a one man food travel empire now, and I know he doesn’t cook in his restaurant anymore. 

Also, to look at him now, my guess is that it would be like having sex with an ashtray.  But I still might go there.  He is really awesome, after all.  It would be a great story.  What do you think Gottlieb thinks about “settling” for a quick shag with someone who’s not as hot as he used to be?

Comment #57: The Opoponax  on  02/03  at  12:51 AM

Opoponax @ 57:
“Shag Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough for Tonight”.
Now THERE’S a book I might buy…  smile

Comment #58: nico  on  02/03  at  01:00 AM

Yes!  Let’s write it!

Comment #59: The Opoponax  on  02/03  at  01:02 AM

Ok, I’ll start:

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single woman in possession of good sense, might at times be in want of a man who is neither a nice guy or a dick”

Comment #60: gorobei  on  02/03  at  01:14 AM

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single woman in possession of good sense, might at times be in want of a <strike>man who is neither a nice guy or a dick</strike> quick shag.”

Fixed.

“Therefore let us regard it as axiomatic that women actually enjoy sex for its own sake.”

Comment #61: The Opoponax  on  02/03  at  01:21 AM

I thought the worst thing about being single was the lack of sex, but I was wrong.  The worst part about being single is all the advice people offer you on how to not be single.

This.  And Word.  And A-fucking-men.

Comment #62: fluffster  on  02/03  at  01:26 AM

Hmm, this may be a short book…

Comment #63: gorobei  on  02/03  at  01:48 AM

You know, I almost forgot:

What about love?
Don’t you want someone to care about you?
What about love?
Don’t let it slip away!
What about love?
I only want to share it with you-
You might need it some day.

My pain is now your pain.  Thanks, Amanda!

Comment #64: dillene  on  02/03  at  01:58 AM

Opoponax and nico, 57 to 59: Laugh out loud. And I *never* laugh out loud.

Comment #65: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  02:18 AM

Ahem.

Falling in Love with Love is falling for make-believe!
Falling in Love with Love is playing the fool!

Caring too much is just a juvenile fancy!
Learning to Trust is just for children in school!

Comment #66: fluffster  on  02/03  at  02:27 AM

Figures that a thread about not settling in marriage would have Pride & Prejudice references =)

Comment #67: jalmondale  on  02/03  at  02:43 AM

hey, happen to like my cat, better than a lot of people i know! ok, i’m not female, i’m married, etc, but still….................................................

thank god we haven’t taught our daughter nonsense like this. she’d be perfectly fine on her own, if that’s what she chooses. apparently, this woman can’t distinguish between being alone, and being lonely. the two are not, by definition, mutually inclusive.

Comment #68: cpinva  on  02/03  at  02:53 AM

But the goods news is that the film rights to “Marry Him” have been optioned by Tobey Maguire for Warner Brothers.

Comment #69: Soil Creep  on  02/03  at  02:56 AM

Um, why does Lori care whether I settle down and marry “Mr. Good Enough” or not?  I could see if the book were written by some bitter MRA but what’s her deal?  Is her misery looking for company?  I expect her next offering to be “Have Kids!  So What If You’re Not Sure If You’re Cut Out for Parenthood!”  And we all know how well that works out.

Comment #70: DonnaDiva  on  02/03  at  03:30 AM

I will say that being a feminist seems to make love a lot easier in most ways.  When you can declutter yourself of the role-playing and expectations put on you by a sexist culture, and commit yourself to looking at someone as a human being, it just goes more smoothly.  And it’s more fun.

Once you get over the difficulty of treating others, including potential romantic partners, as human beings, life gets much smoother and easier.

Comment #71: DonnaDiva  on  02/03  at  03:40 AM

As Lisa KS pointed out, this was clearly written by someone who hit the Love Jackpot, and I’m truly happy that things have worked out so well for you, Amanda, but even when expectations of settling aren’t placed mostly on women, there will still be lots of settling going on by both sexes (as there is even now).

Consider this:  How often do you find someone that gives you that brain-tingling, wish you could talk with them all night kind of sensation?  Once every two years, maybe?

If that’s a reasonable assumption, then add on the other necessary condition:  Are they available?  You’re probably not the only one to think they’re amazing, after all, and they might not be at a time in their lives where they want a relationship.  Let’s say 50% of the time it’s a “go”.

Let’s add on another:  Do they think you’re amazing, too?  I’d like to think the sensation I have in these situations is mutual, since they’re hanging out with me, too, but still, it can’t be 100% “yes”.  Let’s put it at 75%

So, altogether, you’ll go out with someone amazing who digs you too on average once every five years.

Of course, that’s at the start.  The end can be within two weeks.  Out of five years.

It’s funny you mentioned stopping at the $250,000 question on Millionaire, because I’ve often thought that I’d rate my relationship (of now 12 years) as a 7 or 8 out of 10, from an objective standpoint.  However, that objectivity doesn’t consider brain-tingles.  Should it, though?  I got so nervous during those brain-tingles that I’m sure I gave off some skeevy vibes after a while (after the initial high wore off, that is; before then, I was teh awesome!), so is it really “settling” to be with someone not at that level, but someone where we’re both really comfortable around one another, are attracted to one another, care about each other, and work well together on big things, like finding a great place to live?  I understand that the larger dynamic this post is talking about relates to societal pressures on women, but even in a perfectly egalitarian world a lot of people are going to be on the outside of “true love” looking in.

It sounds like the expectation we ought to have isn’t just to settle for nothing less than love, but to be comfortable enough with being alone that you’re OK with that if love doesn’t pan out.

Comment #72: NY Expat  on  02/03  at  04:02 AM

Perhaps I’m not the one to comment on this, but I have found no shortage of people that I love to spend the whole night talking to.  Pretty much all of my friends are this way, and I don’t feel like I have that few of friends.  Then there are the dorm-mates I had in college, and tons of ex-boyfriends.

Really, people are fascinating. 

But, then again, I’ve never had trouble finding someone to date.  I’ve never found it difficult to love someone, and him/her love me back.  And, I’m going two years strong on the marriage and still finding it pretty damn easy (so much for that “Marriage takes hard work” canard), and both of us are absolutely convinced that we don’t want children.  So, I REALLY am not the target audience of the OMG you must find SOMEONE who’ll love you!

If I would have “settled” on the first guy who proposed to me, I would have settled on a douchebag (to be fair, it was in high school.  It was the proposal that pushed me over into “dumping” territory).  And then I would have missed out on the amazing man that is my Hubby.  But, even with my husband, I don’t feel like it’s “True Love”- we’re not Romeo and Juliet (for one, I hope we’re a lot smarter than that) we’re not Fabio and Bodice-ripper (we’re not that gorgeous) and we’re not perfect.  So, if “settling” is that you decide to live with a real, fallible human being and be a real, fallible person yourself, I guess we settled on each other.

Comment #73: Antigone  on  02/03  at  05:16 AM

I think Dane Cook said it, the person you’re with is the person who realized “I’m not gonna do any better” at the same time you did. Which, you go through that a few times, and it’s kinda true. I don’t think there’s any one perfect person for me. But there’s a range in which my perfect person exists, and I was lucky, and looked around enough to find her, at the same time she realized the same thing.

I think that’s why christians are so all about the “marriage as hard work” ethic, because they tend to marry the first person they like, because they have no other way to get sex, and then have to get used to it. That’s why they get married at 16. Fuck that nonsense. My experience has been that christians see people as interchangeable parts to further the species, while I’m looking for someone within a smaller, specific domain of possible lifemates.

Comment #74: banisteriopsis  on  02/03  at  07:53 AM

Kyso K @ 55: So yes, I’m still single because I’m surrounded by princes but am holding out for a king.

When I first read this, I thought you said that you were holding out for a frog.  And frankly, if “princes” = “the self-absorbed douchebags you’re unfortunately surrounded by,” I wouldn’t blame you a bit.

Antigone @ 73: So, if “settling” is that you decide to live with a real, fallible human being and be a real, fallible person yourself, I guess we settled on each other.

QFT.

Comment #75: Leely  on  02/03  at  07:55 AM

NY Expat-

Actually that’s a simple answer. Like most things in life, love is not analog. Few things really are in this world and love like lust or hormone levels is rarely an on-off matter, but rather a giant range from (hey wait, who’s that to the napalm love you see pimped everywhere and anywhere.

Of course, most of us grew up in a culture where the descriptions of love tend to be either napalm love or really close because those stories are often the most interesting to write and read, because they allow a wealth of human emotions and weight to various subplots.

But yeah, it’s not like there’s a “welp, I don’t fall in love with anyone, guess I’ll do without or I should settle”. Love can come in all forms of flavor rather than just eyes across the crowded dance version. Plus, love isn’t inherently necessary to human interaction. Considering a fuck ton of people basically partner up with high lust, high friendship buddies, that can easily provide a fulfilling life even if you never “settle down” with someone you “really love”. Love is like all human emotions, powerful in its own right, but definitely chaotic, ill-focused, or randomly absent or overwhelming at times.

Any way it goes down, the settling advice is really stupid, because at that point one probably needs either a best friend or a shag rather than a romantic partner.

Comment #76: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  10:35 AM

Responding to the post itself though, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And I think that cultural revolution has been so successful that us young ‘uns are dazed and confused by the right wings appeal for “returning to traditional marriage”. We’re scratching our heads going, but two women or two men can love each other and we look at them quoting stuff about how everyone needs to be raised by biological parents and we’re just scratching our heads going “but my ‘real’ dad was a giant dick and my mother did a great job raising me” and what does this have to do with gay people.

The arguments for the patriarchal style of marriage are pretty much alien to kids who are pretty much only seeing marriage in terms of recognizing love. And I think that’s completely changed how marriage and weddings are viewed. Getting married is basically becoming more personal. While a lot of young adults are still getting strong-armed into church weddings “for grandma”, it’s almost alien to focus on it and as such the cool thing you both love to do you used for the proposal is becoming more of a focus. The wedding itself is starting to be seen more and more as an expression of the people, small beach weddings, theme weddings, con weddings, Renn Faire weddings are becoming more and more accepted. Marriage itself is strongly deviating both from the roles expected and the lifestyle expected. In the mythical white middle class hood, proud experience stuff is starting to leak in from things like geek culture so stuff like first book signing, first video game, first con, or first Halloween is starting to breakthrough the “expected” big memories.

Also and most profoundly, the marriage itself is either, yeah, we love each other and we’ve been together for awhile and really still click or if rushed it’s usually entirely about shortcutting some legal right. Hey, we’ve been together forever, you’re being shipped to Iraq, let’s marry so I’ll still get something if you snuff it” or “hey, I need health insurance”. So the female ownership thing is getting ignored either way so it truly is alien to the young cultures which means also a lot of the “tack-ons” for the patriarchy are getting ignored as people sort of discover what it looks like for themselves with all the stuff I mentioned in the last paragraph.

I think in my only detraction is I would argue that we won’t see marriage drift away, but that it definitely seems to be evolving with the times entirely by the rule of popular usage. I think we’ll see marriage start to lose the last flecks of patriarchy including the “and now your life ends, no more options or freedom” crap. Open marriages and polyamory becoming more wide-spread and those successful relationship dynamics taking over a bunch of marriage styles as well, having kids becoming even less of an assumed and the slow agonizing death of the “wait til marriage” movement.

I think we’re seeing that now. A lot of the kids are dating longer before marriage, enjoying dating phases more and desiring more of a smooth transition having often lived together and fucked for years before even thinking about the wedding. More openly polyamorous marriages and relationships starting to cause single to be replaced with available. Even some nasty resistance to echoes of the past. Someone “rushing into marriage” by marrying less than a year after starting dating or “waiting til marriage” on living together or fucking is seen like an alien from another planet and people sort of generally pity them on the outskirts. My partner’s mom is doing a bit of all of that (because that’s how it worked back in her generation) and my partner is sort of cringing a bit because it’s so alien to her that that’s how you’d even look at it not even waiting to make sure one still clicks after the NRE period.

I think the love dominance will produce so many changes that we’ll end up looking at it like schools and not even be able to recognize their original design (what you’re saying they used to be religious indoctrination centers that taught only two things, reading the bible and obedience of authority figures?)

Comment #77: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  11:03 AM

The underlying assumption in this book and anything of the “you’d better settle or you’ll die alone with your cats!”

I am so tired of hearing this argument from the people who think you need a husband to be happy.  Women have a longer life expectancy than men do, and on top that, these people who push “traditional” marriage tend to encourage women to marry men who are older than they are.  So if a woman does all the “right” things and settles for a man several years older than she is, she still has a really good chance of dying alone with her cats, except that in this case it will probably happen after being worn down by caring for a dying man that you only sort of like anyway.  Can’t these people do basic math?  If your goal is to not die alone, then you need to a marry a man at least 10 years your junior to get a good chance of him outliving you.  I wish they would stop using this stupid argument as a tactic to scare women into crappy marriages.

Comment #78: bananacat  on  02/03  at  11:04 AM

Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?

[begin anecdote]

Oy. That one’s been doing the rounds for years. I was asked that same question by a girlfriend when I was fifteen, and I remember countering her question with a barrage of other questions and not letting my friend get a word in edgeways, something along the lines of:

“Wouldn’t it just have been easier to ASK other guests at the funeral if they knew the guy? Call the funeral home, see if he’s on their staff? She’s not very bright, is she? All she can think of at her own mother’s funeral is getting a date with some dude?  How does she know he’s her one true love if she’s only seen him once, hello! How can she know she loves someone she’s never spoken to when she doesn’t even care about her own family? Murdering someone and getting away with it is a lot of effort, so what if he never showed up? If he’s not a guest or an undertaker, what was he doing at a random funeral, anyway? Is he some kind of weirdo?” on and on ad nauseam.

I went on like this for about fifteen minutes, until said friend told me to shut up. Apparently this proves I’m not a psychopath (dunno how that can be worked out from one silly pop psychology question, but still) but possibly proves that I’m a cynic who doesn’t know when to button it.

[/end anecdote]

Back on topic, I can see why Gottlieb is bitter, she’s swallowed the patriarchy’s lies wholesale. But, and it’s a big but, she’s also a misanthrope (so she doesn’t get an entirely free pass since her misery is partially her own making) who managed to wangle a book deal. If there was a gold ingot for every histronic wingnut screed about how horrible everyone is without [insert rules here], the bargain bins at Barnes & Noble could probably rescue the economy.

I thought the worst thing about being single was the lack of sex, but I was wrong.  The worst part about being single is all the advice people offer you on how to not be single.

*Strewth. I get it from my parents, friends, colleagues. I’m sure they mean well, but by discoball, give it a rest!

*Which, I believe, is Australian for “God’s truth”, insert god of your choosing.

Comment #79: Princess Rot  on  02/03  at  11:22 AM

catgirl (#78) your advice is spot on. I married a younger man because I was madly in love with him. But a HUGE bonus is his almost complete lack of sexism compared with men my own age.

I lost count of the number of time a man told me I was “too picky”. This usually followed a discussion where I told them how I felt about being “teased”. Generally their version of teasing involved saying hurtful things and following it up with “I’m just playing”. This was intolerable. But instead of owning it and apologizing, I always got “you’re too sensitive”, “you just don’t understand my sense of humor” or “you’re too picky.” Because settling for any one of them would have involved compromising my self-esteem so that they could build themselves up by putting me down. So I waited and met a man who is secure with who he is.

Comment #80: DC Fem  on  02/03  at  11:24 AM

A mentor of mine always advocated settling down with someone you were really good friends with, and who you could envision as a good co-parent.

I fail to see why someone you’re IN LURVE with is mutually exclusive from someone you have that friendship bond with.  LURVE is more exciting and passionate to me when it’s like meeting someone who is like a totally great friend and there’s sex!

Comment #81: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  11:24 AM

I’ve always liked the idea of marriage where you plan out how long it’s gonna be - a contract. We agree to 7 years and a day (or however long). Then you can re-up or walk out. I never put it into practice, but it sounded nice

I’m actually engaged (ha!) in a similar arrangement. A couple of years ago (about a year after we moved in together), the bf and I decided that, if we were still together after seven years, we’d officially get engaged. That deadline has come and gone, and voila, mutually-agreed-upon engagement. Our reasoning here was that we’re both naturally monogamous and, if we made it that long, we obviously weren’t going to tire of each other in the immediate future. All that being said, though, it’s probably going to be a very long engagement, since there’s still a chance my job might take me to an area of the country that wouldn’t be convenient for him (he has a disability that’s much easier to manage if he’s near his family, who are all here). So there’s even a no-fault escape clause on our engagement, and I imagine something similar will be true for the marriage itself. We’ve considered prenups, just to make it easier to get out if we need to.

It works for us. Then again, we tend to be ruthlessly practical about things like this; I bought my own engagement ring (I wasn’t planning on getting one, but the aforementioned disability made it really important to him that everyone know he was doing this “right”), since if I’m going to wear it I wanted to pick it out, and it wasn’t really fair for me to stick him with a bill for something he didn’t even choose. So, YMMV. smile

Comment #82: rhiain  on  02/03  at  11:32 AM

Gottlieb got the baby rabies BAD, and YOUNG. After waiting around for the traditional form of sperm donor (the kind who comes with a ring), she opted to go the solo route.

But apparently nobody ever told her—Raising Kids is Fucking Hard. She blames all the difficulty on not having the Husband around to pick up the slack, completely unaware that Raising Kids Is Fucking Hard no matter what. So she retroactively romanticizes every partner she turned down in the pre-baby years, deciding that the problem was that she didn’t settle in time to snag herself a swing-shift diaper changer.

The ironic thing is that without feminism and pickyness in marriage, she’d end up married and still doing all the work, while also cleaning up after a middle-aged child on top of that.  One reason that more men are willing to take more care of their own children is that they know their wives could leave them if they just acted like a deadbeat.  I’m sure it’s not a conscious thought process in most marriages, and I doubt many men think “I better change this diaper or she’ll leave me”.  And I think that fathers truly do connect with their children better than they used to.  But, because of feminism, women can be more demanding and expect that her husband contribute more to the household than a paycheck.

Comment #83: bananacat  on  02/03  at  11:39 AM

Cerberus @ 77:
You mean it IS analog, NOT digital.

Comment #84: helen w. h.  on  02/03  at  11:46 AM

Sorry, your previous comment @76.

Comment #85: helen w. h.  on  02/03  at  11:47 AM

NYPat, I don’t know.  I started 3 major relationships between ages 16 and 28, so I don’t buy that it’s that hard.  But you’re right; I could just be lucky.  Or it’s likely that I’m just easygoing and easy to approach as long as you’re not a dick.

Comment #86: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  11:47 AM

It’s funny, because I can imagine someone writing a totally feminist book about how the bottom line is that there’s really no One True Soul Mate out there for you, and there’s no such thing as a White Knight, so it’s better to just settle down with someone you can envision being happy with, if settling down is a priority for you.

There’s a different reasoning behind this.  I see a real problem when people buy into the idea that they’re just The One out there somewhere, and that if you make a mistake, you miss out forever.  Sometimes I see people staying in abusive relationships because they truly love the guy, although there’s probably a lot more going on there.  But I also see plenty of people stay with non-abusive but still crappy partners, because they once felt that love and are sure that they’ll never find it again.  So in that case, I’d advise people to value compatibility and friendship over that initial spark of love.  That’s really different than telling someone to settle to avoid the horror of being single.

Comment #87: bananacat  on  02/03  at  11:51 AM

When I first read this, I thought you said that you were holding out for a frog.  And frankly, if “princes” = “the self-absorbed douchebags you’re unfortunately surrounded by,” I wouldn’t blame you a bit.

I work in science, which means I know a lot of people with great observation skills and really horrid social skills.  Not everyone, of course, but enough.  And of course the sexism here is sometimes so retro it’s actually quaint.  You develop a tolerance for it after awhile, which makes it easier to fight back without getting upset. 

It was really funny the one time I actually did put on some makeup to look nice in front of a guy (lame, I know, but I never claimed to be perfect smile ) he did notice, and was polite about it.  “You have an inhomogeneity in your eye makeup,” he said.  That was a couple years ago and marks the last time I ever thought about men when I chose my cosmetics, but damn if half the guys in the building don’t think I send Aromaleigh money just to impress them.

Comment #88: Kyso K  on  02/03  at  11:53 AM

I get the feeling, reading the comments, that some people are conflating “settling” with “compromise”.  Compromise is something you do because you care about the human being you interact with on a daily basis - it greases the wheels of human contact, so to speak.  Settling, on the other hand, comes across as if you’re just going to give up on most of the things you want, and you’re not going to get anything much in return for your sacrifice.  The two are very different.

You tend to go through compromises with the most awesome of partners, even the ones for whom your love burns white-hot like they do in the movies - they want to do one thing, you want to do another, you work something out that both people can live with.  Compromise is making sure that both people aren’t short-changed, and you can say you’re compromising on a marriage when you give up “napalm love” (love that phrase!) in return for friendship and mutually pleasurable shagging with someone whose company you enjoy.

On the other hand, you’re definitely settling if you swap napalm love for being able to say you’re married, even if the person you pick doesn’t ever care what you want, and expects all the “compromise” to be on your end.

The difference between the two is perfectly illustrated by my first and second marriages.  Though I do love my second in a warm and glowing way that promises to be going strong for another twenty years, we’re not exactly Brad and Angelina.  I’m really okay with that; I think I got the better deal.

Comment #89: attack_laurel  on  02/03  at  12:09 PM

Ugh, re-reading that last post of mine, that was some awesome mansplainin’ (even though I’m a woman) on my part.  Ignore me.

Comment #90: attack_laurel  on  02/03  at  12:12 PM

I fail to see why someone you’re IN LURVE with is mutually exclusive from someone you have that friendship bond with.  LURVE is more exciting and passionate to me when it’s like meeting someone who is like a totally great friend and there’s sex!

I’ve said it in other threads and it never did any good, so I’m not going to belabor it beyond just saying: Not everyone is wired the same way. For lack of a better phrase, this situation works when it works and it doesn’t always work.

Anecdotally, totally Great Friend + There’s Sex = my total miserable disaster of a first marriage.

Comment #91: Well, what?  on  02/03  at  12:43 PM

@84

Whoops, I always confuse those two. Thanks for the correction.

Comment #92: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  12:46 PM

Compromise is making sure that both people aren’t short-changed, and you can say you’re compromising on a marriage when you give up “napalm love” (love that phrase!) in return for friendship and mutually pleasurable shagging with someone whose company you enjoy.

I’m not sure that you do give up Napalm Love.  That can come and go in that companionable relationship, yet still leave a satisfying and comfortable situation when it wanes. 

What concerns me about “settling” is: what are you “settling” for?  The only reason I have remained married for twenty years is that I and my husband have both been able to grow as people - although this can be a very painful process when one person needs to change and changes and the other doesn’t like having to keep up.  I’m a lifelong learner and was quite young and unfinished when I married.  I wouldn’t still be married if we weren’t able to weather the painful negotiations and cooling off periods we have undergone as dynamic people.

I wonder how very much of this is generational anyway.  A lot of “baby boomer” age group men - intelligent, dynamic guys - seem to have wanted a mommy homemaker with some companionable aspects to make the babies and keep the home fires burning while they launch their adventures.  When they bring these women around to certain events where their larger work or adventure environment is present, they are pleasant women but they like to talk about shopping and children and their shopping plans for Florida ... and I try to draw them out because I don’t want them to feel like human wallpaper when they are so out of their discipline.  These are sometimes second wives, but they are still the enablers and the caretakers of the great man and the home.

Unfortunately, some of these guys tend to flirt with and wear (or conduct affairs with) women more like themselves when their spouses aren’t around.  I’ve been to conferences where I see two colleagues from two different countries who are married - but not to each other - use some code word about “lets go play tennis” at lunch and return in different clothing a couple of hours later.

Gen-X professionals, now in their 40s, appear to have different coupling values.  That may be because there were more equally educated and career-minded women available when we went through school, and because we tended to marry a bit later.  In this age group, there seem to be more collegial marriages.  The dynamic seems different - less doting, more negotiating as to who goes to what conference or event and who takes the kids this week.  Which is easier and more satisfying?  Hard to say.  I think it depends on what you ultimately want from your mate - although I do see a whole lot more ancillary companion seeking on the road - more often not nonsexual - among those with the doting and doted on non-professional wives.  I think it is part of the system, actually.  Not that I don’t enjoy going for a late drink with an older colleague and talking shop - and it always remains respectful and platonic.  Its the whiff of date in it that I find amusing.

Comment #93: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  01:12 PM

Sorry, that should say “more often than not nonsexual”.

Comment #94: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  01:15 PM

I fail to see why someone you’re IN LURVE with is mutually exclusive from someone you have that friendship bond with.

I never said it was.

However, sometimes you don’t get to be in love.  And that shouldn’t prevent people from doing the things they want to do in life. 

I think that was his point, not that passionate romantic love is bad or anything.

Comment #95: The Opoponax  on  02/03  at  01:18 PM

However, sometimes you don’t get to be in love.

When I say this to someone in person, I find they often look at me like I just killed a puppy. The myth of Everyone Finds Happy, Everyone Finds Love is a very strong and cherished one.

Comment #96: Well, what?  on  02/03  at  01:38 PM

oldfeminist - when i grow up, i want to be you.  (if I ever grow up, that is).

I occasionally complain about being single, and people ALWAYS immediately assume it’s because I want to be married and have lots of babies.  Um, nope. I just want someone cool to hang out with (+ sex!), share some same interests, etc.  When I say I don’t see the point of marriage, since who knows who I or he will be in 10+ years, I get gaspy, jaw-dropped faces.  From people who are divorced.  Ha!

Comment #97: Gypsy Lee  on  02/03  at  01:53 PM

“the myth of everyone finds happy, everyone finds love is a very strong and cherished one”
And it is always assumed that in order to find happy, you have to have a partner living with you.  I was involved in two long term, live-in, relationships in my adult life before I came to the realization that I just do not like living with another person.  I am much much happier now.

Comment #98: kitten parade  on  02/03  at  05:30 PM

Oh lord, I’m with you, kyso. I am such a magnet for skeevy guys, and THAT is who I get to pick from. And I’m “too picky” for not wanting to settle down with pushy guys who tell me blatantly bad lies about themselves, of drastically different age from myself, oh, and who make my skin crawl.

Back in my younger years, I tried to settle as fast as I possibly could, just like Lori Gottlieb would want, but I just plain couldn’t get over the lying, pushy, or skin-crawling issues. I don’t know how someone can advise anyone to do it. Really, why do you want to marry some dude that you probably won’t even want to sleep with just so you get extra money and social acceptance and/or a babydaddy? It’s not worth it.

Comment #99: Jennifer  on  02/03  at  07:06 PM

I am such a magnet for skeevy guys

I was in my younger years.  As a teen and young adult, no one remotely normal my own age was interested.  Now, in my early 30s, I’m a magnet for very nice, very shy, and very boring men, which brings me to your other point, not being able to bring yourself to sleep with your long-term partner.  Sure, I could settle for a nice guy who I could never be sexually satisfied with, but how well does that work out for him?  Eventually our relationship would become completely sexless.

Comment #100: keshmeshi  on  02/03  at  07:33 PM

Sure, I could settle for a nice guy who I could never be sexually satisfied with

Why never? Because he’s not HOTT? Or are you looking for an unnice guy? (Assuming you don’t mean the dreaded NiceGuy(TM), whose chief quality is passive-aggressiveness.)

Nerds believe in the value of education and practice. They can connect the dots between more sexual satisfaction for you and more sex for them. Try giving one of these guys instructional materials, and tell him to develop his skills.

Regarding Ms. Gottlieb. I suspect she views herself as a Princess, and is waiting for the Prince she deserves. Love won’t come till she finds someone who matches everything on her checklist. You (I) can’t have a mature relationship with some one waiting for their Prince to come.

Comment #101: Hector B.  on  02/03  at  08:18 PM

Nerds believe in the value of education and practice. They can connect the dots between more sexual satisfaction for you and more sex for them. Try giving one of these guys instructional materials, and tell him to develop his skills.

No, I don’t need him to be HOTT, but I do need to find him attractive and feel some sort of connection with him.  So far in my experience, shy + boring never = attraction.  Sorry.

And I’ve tried the instructional thing.  It never overcomes the lack of sexual chemistry.  Ever.

Comment #102: keshmeshi  on  02/03  at  09:08 PM

Attractive, age appropriate guys may all have paired off. First and last stab at advice: Try hanging out where more interesting older or younger guys congregate. Join a coed volleyball team; softball when it warms up. I’d suggest doing some sort of volunteer work, but that attracts nerdy guys, I know.

Comment #103: Hector B.  on  02/03  at  09:33 PM

I don’t have trouble meeting men; I’m just saying that painfully shy guys are the ones who seem to flock to me.  I also don’t agree that shy necessarily equals nerdy, although there is often a strong correlation.

Comment #104: keshmeshi  on  02/03  at  09:55 PM

I’ll also mention that I have nothing against these guys (except for one whose behavior verged on stalking).  I really only have a problem with the trope that I have to/should settle for one of them, especially when it would harm that guy at least as much as it harms me.  And I’d rather attract the men I’ve been attracting lately than the skeezoids who pursued me when I was in high school and college.  *shudder*

Comment #105: keshmeshi  on  02/03  at  09:59 PM

Nerds believe in the value of education and practice. They can connect the dots between more sexual satisfaction for you and more sex for them. Try giving one of these guys instructional materials, and tell him to develop his skills.

Ha!!!!  Sorry, Hector, but I dated many a shy nerd, including King Nerd of Nerdtopia for a year, and I have to say that’s a YMMV situation.  If Keshmishi is in the same boat as me, then the attitude becomes “I’ve done my time as the training wheels” after like two or three of these guys.  Because a lot of them don’t learn, or won’t learn, or maybe you’re just closer to 35 than ever before and feel someone your age should be able to wiki ‘clitoris’ his own damn self.  Now, if there’s some spark, sure, I can see myself being very patient and agreeing to train one more time.  But I have taken all of mine for the team, and if I’m not interested, then the best I can offer you is to introduce you to some of my friends smile  So yeah, being boring and shy is a bad thing.  Interesting but shy is much better, and is infinitely superior to boring but outgoing as well smile

Comment #106: Kyso K  on  02/03  at  10:14 PM

Nerds believe in the value of education and practice. They can connect the dots between more sexual satisfaction for you and more sex for them. Try giving one of these guys instructional materials, and tell him to develop his skills.

Funny, but most nerds who have an interest in a topic actually go out and learn about it on their own; they don’t sit around passively waiting for someone to take them by the hand and lead them through Ruby on Rails or the best way to do gas mining in Eve: Online. So if a nerd (as you presume they’re all guys) has made it well into adulthood without learning basics like “your partner should have an orgasm too” and “here is how the clitoris works”, it’s because he didn’t bother to learn. Why should it be keshmeshi’s job to be Remedial Fucking 101? Oh, right - because women are supposed to do all the work in a relationship.

As for Gottleib, can’t we drop her and Dawn Eden off on a desert island somewhere so nobody else has to listen to them whine in stereo?

Comment #107: mythago  on  02/04  at  01:14 AM

Nerds believe in the value of education and practice. They can connect the dots between more sexual satisfaction for you and more sex for them.

Male nerds may believe that they should be able to argue a woman into physical arousal by painstakingly and laboriously explaining all the reasons she should be feeling it, but I do believe they are mistaken.

You are, Hector, talking about women as though they’re violins or garbage disposals—some kind of complicated instrument or machine that work better when you read the operating manuals, that nerds will be really good at learning to twiddle the knobs on. She was talking about sexual attraction—you know, that thing you feel before you take your clothes off, the thing that makes you want to bother.  If technical skill was all that mattered, why would any woman look beyond her own right hand?

Comment #108: sophonisba  on  02/04  at  01:19 AM

It took over 100 comments for a true Nice Guy TM to show up! Good show, old chap, good SHOW.

Comment #109: Well, what?  on  02/04  at  03:04 AM

NYPat, I don’t know. I started 3 major relationships between ages 16 and 28, so I don’t buy that it’s that hard.

Which means you found someone you could have a serious relationship with once every six years, which is longer than the five I posited.

Which is totally fine.  In fact, I don’t think I’d recommend getting serious with anyone *until* 28, or even until their early 30s.  However, I think finding someone who totally rocks your world just isn’t that common, as your own experience has shown.

Comment #110: NY Expat  on  02/04  at  04:00 AM

I think maybe love doesn’t feel quite the same for everyone?
I met a man who I found, in a short while, I trusted more than I had anyone outside my family. Everything I liked was better with him around. Every time something bad happened, it wasn’t too bad if he was near. If I was mad at him because I had to wait (punctuality was drilled into me as a sign of respect), the anger that had built up vanished when I saw his face. I wanted to never cause him heart ache, while at the same time, needing to be totally honest with him.

I didn’t hear bells when we kissed, but I really, really liked kissing him. I could focus on my studies and not think about him until my free time.
I thought his face was a bit funny—not at all what I considered handsome, yet if I looked into his eyes, I could spend minutes studying every glint and color change.

I had to ask myself what love was. I had no unrealistic ideas about him; he didn’t sweep me off my feet, exactly. I could tell he was in love with me in every sense; sometimes it scared me, how deeply in love he was and how much I was still rational.

But in Meyers-Briggs terms, I’m a Rational, and I don’t think head-over-heels is what I would ever do. In fact, that’s one difference between a crush and love, imo; love has its feet on the ground.

The lack of a loss of control might sound like settling, and yet, everywhere we went, people would see the love between us. We inspired 2 couples to marry, that we know of.

Which is to say, I’m sure the author and book described above suck, but otoh, we do Romanticize romance in this culture to the extent that healthy but low-drama people may not be sure if the love they feel is officially Love, or if they just like someone and feel so very, very happy to be able to spend time with them.
But my kind of love has just gotten better with time; 20 years worth of time.

Comment #111: Samantha Vimes  on  02/04  at  08:31 AM

I agree with the author whole heartedly on this one. Whenever I hear the word ‘settle’ (in this context) I always think ‘settle for something less than love’... well f that.

I’ve been that single person, single for many years… and I actually *tried* to settle many times. I would start relationships with people who I liked very much but did not feel any chemistry with, and told myself that I was giving that someone a ‘chance’ and that it may grow into something amazing. Well, *none* of those relationships grew into anything other than bitter break ups and in some cases, the loss of some really good friends. Why? Well, I eventually realised, I wasn’t in love with them, and it turned out that little detail was quite important.

Because when I was with someone I wasn’t in love with, despite my best efforts:
a) I felt lonely and isolated;
b) My head was constantly being turned by other people;
c) I had prevented myself from meeting someone I could fall in love with, to bitter regret;
d) I resented the fact other people got to be in love and I didn’t;
e) I felt guilty at not returning the feelings of the person I was with, and preventing them from being with someone who could;
f) I soon found the relationship boring and became irritable - familiarity bred contempt;
g) Sex was non existent as I just didn’t want it;
h) The thought of committing to the person made me feel panicky and trapped;
i) But mainly, I was unhappy, and I’m sure I made the people I was with unhappy too. They deserved better.

I eventually concluded that I would not try and settle any more; it was pointless. I would have to remain single until I found someone I could fall in love with.

So that’s what I did. I now have a fantastic partner who I’m in love with and who loves me. It took many years to happen, but I’m so glad I waited for someone who makes me happy.

I would add that there is a difference between projecting your romantic fantasies onto a person and actually loving the person. Me and my partner took a little while to get to know each other first, so I was sure when I developed feelings for him that they are for *him*, not an idea of him. Love generally doesn’t happen like it does in the more mainstream movies (eyes across a crowded dancefloor &c;) and it’s good to realise that, but there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

From a feminist standpoint I would argue that a focus on advising women specifically to ‘settle’ is sending the message to women that they are not good enough to be with someone they really like, and should just be grateful for what they can get, i.e. anyone. ‘He’s male! He is willing to impregnate you! What are you complaining about?’ Which is of course a load of bollox. (Oh and it also totally ignores lesbian relationships of course.)

Don’t settle!

Comment #112: earthling  on  02/04  at  03:00 PM

There’s only one reason for a woman to “settle” in the context that Lori Gottlieb is talking about;  she doesn’t like her job and doesn’t want to work anymore.

Obviously, Lori has made some seriously questionable decisions, especially as regards to deciding to get knocked up and raise her child on her own.  She quickly found out that after basking in the glorious attention she received while pregnant, everyone now regards her as just another frazzled singled mom who can barely string two coherent sentences together because her attention is fractured.

Her writing cries out with desperation, not for love or companionship, but for someone to help her change diapers and pay the bills. 

As far as I’m concerned, she made her bed, and she should lie in it.  If she didn’t have the presence of mind to realize that a baby is not an accessory that one can return to the store when it becomes too troublesome, then she deserves what she gets.  It’s called personal responsibility.

Comment #113: Mezosub  on  02/04  at  04:34 PM

soph—keshmeshi, as I read the post to which I replied, talked about lack of sexual satisfaction. Sexual attraction is no guarantee of sexual satisfaction. In fact, many sexually attractive people feel that they have brought enough to the party by being attractive—no need to put forth effort.

In km’s second post she made it clear she was talking about attraction.

Comment #114: Hector B.  on  02/05  at  12:36 AM

It was an epic storm that buried parts of the state under more than two feet of snow yesterday, knocking out power, stopping traffic and creating blizzard conditions that kept New Jerseyans in their homes.Or,A Line Wedding Dressesit wasn’t.The winter storm that arrived late Friday and swirled through much of the day dumped more than 28 inches of snow in parts of south Jersey, but left much of north Jersey without even aRolex Watch Blog dusting.The town of National Park, in Gloucester County, was buried under 28 inches of snow, and in Cherry Hill, where Route 70 looked like a ghost town, with parked cars and strip malls mounded with snow, 27 inches fell, according to the National Weather Service.High Point State Park and theA line Chiffon Bridesmaid Dress Hidden Valley Club ski resort in Sussex County didn’t see a single snowflake.New Jersey State Climatologist David Robinson called the storm part of an “upside-down winter.”“If you looked out the window in north Jersey, you’d wonder what all the hubub is about. If you were in south A line Chiffon Organdie Wedding DressJersey, you might have a hard time looking out your window, because there’s so much snow,” Robinson said.The storm, which also buried Washington, D.C. and Baltimore as it came up along the mid-Atlantic, then turned out to sea after walloping southern New Jersey, followed a track similar toA line Chiffon Satin Wedding Dress one that struck the state on Dec. 19, Robinson said.North Jersey may still have its chance, however: Robinson said another storm is expected Tuesday night or Wednesday. “That storm might pack a bit of a punch,” Robinson said. “The areas that saw less snow from this storm may have more from that.“The storm yesterday created a tale of two states. In north Jersey, the snow made barely an impact, with traffic moving, weekend workers able to get to their jobs, and mass transit largely unaffected.

Comment #115: wuwei  on  02/07  at  06:06 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.