Since I went to all the trouble to write this up

[catsittingstill]

for a friend who wanted my opinion of a certain Atlantic Article about why women should marry someone they don't love just to be married, I figured I might as well go ahead and post it here.

I'm not linking to the article because I don't want to contribute to its popularity in search engines, but if you would like to read the whole thing to make sure I am not cherry picking it for horribleness (I am all for fairness) here is the URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

I was pretty surprised by this article, actually.   Let me show you what I mean.

but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).

Um.  Maybe that's what the writer wants.  Maybe it's even what one or more of her friends wanted.  But it's not what I wanted--even right before I married.  And of all my women friends, I remember only one who even appeared to fit this mold, and she seemed more interested in a relationship than in marriage per se.

Don't get me wrong--I like being married--I'm happily married.  But it wasn't ever what I wanted most in the world.  Now maybe that would have changed if I had reached the magic age of 40 instead of 37 before I married.  What I wanted most in the world has changed over time: a pony, a Ph.D., Kip's love, two properly functioning knees, a back that didn't hurt, a job that was fun and paid well, my mother back, to finish my boat--so maybe it would have changed to marriage at some magic age--but it never did.

And suggesting that any 40 year old single woman who says she wants something else is just lying--refusing to bare her soul--is dirty pool.  A slimy rhetorical trick beneath anyone honestly trying to argue for a case that has good evidence to support it.  The author ought to be ashamed.  I'm inclined to wonder if it was really a woman, or if this is a "pen name" for some man catering to male fantasies of desperate women who missed their chance to marry them.  I suppose it could be a real woman--in any large group of people there will be a few who ...hold odd points of view... for whatever mental, financial, or emotional reasons.  But it doesn't sound like any woman I've known.  Even the one who wanted a relationship realized that other women wanted different things.

"every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried."

One wonders how many women "she" knows--and how many of them "she" has actually asked.  I hit 30 unmarried, and was mostly worrying about how to finish my dissertation, and how to live without pay until I did.  And to further make my point, marrying as a solution to my financial troubles at that point never occurred to me.  It would have worked admirably; I guess I just wasn't interested in marrying, even subconsciously.

"I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying."

More dirty pool.  Setting up anyone who disagrees with "her" as being self-deluded or lying.   "She" ought to be ashamed of "herself."

"My advice is this: Settle! "

Hmm.  Just thinking.  If "she" really is a guy, maybe "she's" a guy who's having trouble hooking up with anyone, and is hoping to frighten women out onto the dating market, and make them less discriminating.

"Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year."

Nuts.  Better idea: have a long courtship so you can see if you're still compatible when the "zing" fades.  If passion and excitement morph into deep, enduring love (and here's hoping, because it's wonderful when it happens), *then* marry.

I can't think of a stupider idea than marrying someone you don't really love just to be married. The one person I know who told me she did that, also told me she ended up desperately unhappy and eventually divorced.

"It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling,..."

Um, no.  "Politically incorrect" is a bigot's way of reframing bigotry to sound like maverick independence.  "Settling," on the other hand, is the opposite of maverick independence, though it could be argued that it is connected to bigotry against women, so on second thought, perhaps it's not as inappropriate as I thought.  I withdraw that portion of the objection.

"Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality."

Good grief.  If I was hearing this from a man in a bar I'd think he was trying to get into my pants.  Exactly how is marrying someone you don't really love just to be married going to *lower* the divorce rate?

I don't have a TV so can't speak to the sitcom comparisons, except for this part:

"It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, ..."

How exactly did the author draw the conclusion that refusing to marry someone you don't really love just to be married means women will cheat on their boyfriends?   I'm just not getting the connection at all.

"The couples my friend and I saw at the park that summer were enviable but not because they seemed so in love—they were enviable because the husbands played with the kids for 20 minutes so their wives could eat lunch."

This part is really interesting.  How did this interaction (two single moms go to the park with their babies and observe other couples in which husbands tend babies for short periods while wives eat) happen without it occurring to the single moms that they could do the same for each other?  It's not like it's *necessary* to be male to watch a baby (or two babies) for a few minutes while someone else uses both hands to eat lunch.  What is up that that never happened--that the possibility is never even mentioned?

At the end of the article "she" tries to make it sound like "she's" actually talking about seeking someone who will stand up to their end of the relationship (share the childcare and so on) which at least makes a modicum more sense. Naturally a guy you love passionately, but who shoves all the chores off on you and can't be bothered to hold down a job, is a bad bet in the long run.  But it's a little late to disguise "her" argument that way.  And to suggest that women are refusing to consider as husbands men who aren't handsome is just bullshit.  The prejudices that way run *much* more heavily against women than men.

"Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that."

*Bad* idea.  If he's rude to the waiter, he'll be rude to you in the future, and can you really be happy with someone who's rude to you all the time?  He would be a bad idea as a coworker, let alone a husband.  I would think that any woman who'd made it to the age of 40 would understand that.

"Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option."

Playing on women's culturally inculcated fears of getting older and losing their attractiveness and fertility--very clever strategy.  Ugly and brutal, under the veneer of concern, but very strategic.

"They also gloss over the cost of dating as a single mom: the time and money spent on online dating (because there are no single men at toddler birthday parties); the babysitter tab for all those boring blind dates; and, most frustrating, hours spent away from your beloved child."

Okay, this part really baffles me.  I count only a few new mothers among the circle of my acquaintance, but I've never known one who would be frustrated by a few hours of respite from the baby who gets her up in the middle of the night and keeps her busy all day wiping up spit-up and thrown food, washing little clothing and little dishes and wiping little bottoms.  Are you *sure* this is written by woman?  A woman who is actually a single mom?

Hmm, okay, then there's more playing on women's fears of not being able to find a good man because once she gets old she's not beautiful enough anymore to interest anything but the dregs.  I'll pass on that.

Apparently sometimes "her" married friends complain to "her" about their husbands:

"The lists go on, and each time, I say, “OK, if you’re so unhappy, and if I’m so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!”

Not one person has taken me up on this offer. "

Obviously not.  Most such gripes are, as everyone knows perfectly well, someone blowing off steam about some minor issue that happens to be annoying her at the moment, and not worth getting divorced over.  Duh.

So what do I think about the premise of the article?

Look, life doesn't come with guarantees.  Waiting for a person you really love before you consider marriage may not get you what you want.  On the other hand, marrying someone you don't really love is, well, pretty likely to turn out not to be the best decision either.  I picked the first option, and I'm happy with how it turned out for me. If someone else wants to say that marrying without love worked out better in her particular case, I'm not going to argue.  But to suggest that *all* women should settle is just dumb, and nothing in the article has changed my opinion about either the suggestion or the writer.

For those who would like another point of view:

I went out and had a quick look, and sure enough, the Atlantic article came in for a mention on Feministing:

Pandagon has one too:

Another blog entry I saw in the comments:

And another:

I will note that several of these articles make a very valid point that I had overlooked in my first irritated response, which is that this is a pretty rotten way to treat the man involved as well.  Would you want to be the  person your partner "settled" for, rather than be loved for who you are? 

Comments

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

"Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident.

This one is the part I find most appalling. Hoping for lasting love is as irresponsible as driving drunk? I... what?

I could almost admire the sheer amount of gall it took "her" to write that.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, lasting love is a myth.

I choose not to settle. I have *refused* to settle. I have extremely high standards for who I consider giving my time and attention to. And I've found lasting love not once, but several times over.

What a load of rubbish.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I can imagine that some people might not be able to find lasting love. I just have trouble imagining that all or even most of them would be better off marrying without love.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I also think it's wrong to suggest that hoping (or even "holding out") for true love is like driving drunk. Hoping for true love might get you hurt, but at least it won't hurt anyone else!

[billroper]

I went and checked out the link and I remember tripping over this article earlier. I understand why it ticks you off, because it's clearly got a lot of "not right" to it. But it's also got elements of "almost right" that make it worth dissecting.

The ultimate problem here is how one defines "settling". If you take it as ceasing to seek perfection, of discarding the laundry list of "things my ideal mate will have", of overlooking the bald spot, but not the failures of character such as the "rude to the waiter" mentioned above, well, then you're getting somewhere.

I won't categorically say that perfection doesn't exist, but if it does, it's damnably rare. And there are relationships that are absolutely wonderful that fall short of "perfection" -- I'm in one now. So is daisy_knotwise, or so I think she believes. :)

God, I've got warts and she's got warts, but we're each married to our best friend. And in my experience, that's the thing that matters the most, not some checklist in my head that I use to compare her to "perfection".

I'm not perfect. Why should I expect her to be?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I understand why it ticks you off, because it's clearly got a lot of "not right" to it. But it's also got elements of "almost right" that make it worth dissecting.

Yes. This is its evil genius. It leaves *just* enough room for reinterpretation that it is possible to argue that some parts of it might have some truth.

Sure, if you've found the sweet, smart, funny, loving love of your life and you're going to break up with zir because ze's left handed, I think you should reconsider. But in actual point of fact is there any reason to believe that large numbers of women are abandoning otherwise satisfying relationships for shallow, unimportant reasons?

Absolutely I agree that you shouldn't insist on a mate who's a perfect person, or a relationship that is perfect in every way. And I enthusiastically second the notion that it is possible to be happy with an imperfect partner. But is there any reason to believe that large numbers of women are insisting on any such thing?

And why is this author so unwilling to contemplate the possibility that a woman can be happy without a man?

But what she suggests "settling" for in the article is, for example, someone whose touch gives you the creeping chills but who's company you otherwise enjoy, or for a second example, the guy who is rude to the waiter. I think this is just a recipe for heartbreak. There is a big difference between deciding to compromise on something basically trivial (when I was young I thought I didn't want to get involved with anyone with a lot of body hair, for instance; but as I got older I have come to see that as less important), and deciding to settle for a guy you don't love.

[billroper]

And I'll happily agree -- I don't think that anyone should settle for someone that they don't love. And it's certainly true that some people will be perfectly happy outside of a long-term relationship, while others won't. We're all different.

I don't know what the majority of women want -- I suspect any more than the original author does! On the other hand, if you want to see a lot of really odd relationship stuff, try Tales From the Front which is the Chicago Tribune's relationship column. Some of the stories are really sweet. Some of them are absolutely horrifying. And some of them are about men or women who are dumping the possible love of their life for trivial reasons, while others are about people who are staying in really bad relationships for reasons that seem insane to me. But it's not my relationship. :)

But overall, it sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same wavelength here -- I don't want to be in a relationship with someone I'm not in love with either, nor would I advise it as a strategy.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think you and I disagree only on how far the point of view of the writer diverges from our own (if that).

[billroper]

Oh, by the way, the tag at the end of the article indicates that the author is a commentator for NPR, so I'm guessing that she really is a woman.

Just not capable of speaking for all women...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Good point, and fair enough. I withdraw the allegation that the writer might be a man selfishly trying to frighten women into lowering their standards so he can meet them.

However I stick to the contention that this piece is remarkably similar to what I would expect such a person to write.

[billroper]

Fair enough.

I'm actually wondering if it's really more of a rhetorical straw man that she's erecting -- take an extreme position because it's a way to sell an article.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Quite possible.

[joecoustic.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the article but did read another persons angry response before seeing yours.

I think her's is a ridiculous premise and very sad too. Are we as women (and the men too, as you pointed out) worth so little that what we actually want doesn't matter - or shouldn't be believed, even by ourselves. Is life really only about pro-creation and a fear of loneliness.

I'm 44 and I've decided that it's better to be alone and strive for happiness than to be with someone who I'm not interested in. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in finding someone but if it happens it'll happen from a position of being satisfied with the life I have rather then panicked that the time is ticking away. Does this lessen my "availability" whether to another or to myself? Well, possibly, but the alternative of having to assume that my life must be unhappy whether alone or together and just settle or suck it up is just sad and silly to me.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

In some ways the author comes off as being desperate. You're right; it is kind of sad.

I agree with you--better to strive for happiness and confidence alone before looking around for a companion. Desperation only drives potential mates away anyway.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

i agree with everything you've said, but from my experience as a mother of small children will throw in a small additional side point:

A father whose idea of equal partnership is looking after the kids for 20 minutes at the playground so that the 'real' caregiver can gulp down her lunch is not only being rotten to his wife the rest of the time, he's being rotten to his kids the rest of the time. Parents are parents, regardless of gender, and a parent who thinks that his duty to his children stops at twenty minutes of distant supervision once in a while is not giving them the attention they need and deserve. Fathers don't have less obligation than mothers to do the heavy lifting with the children (although either can and ought to be able to negotiate specifics to account for other needs, both of the individual parent and of the family as a whole), and children don't need any less 'Daddy attention' than they do 'Mommy attention'.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Very good point on the sharing childcare issue. The writer's expectations seem unrealistically low on that score.

[zencuppa.livejournal.com]

It's quite obvious that this woman hasn't figured out that it's better to live a happy life alone, than a very sad, depressed and negative life with someone else.

It also doesn't sound like she thinks much of herself, if she's willing to "settle." Which is sad for her, and not good for anyone she chooses to be with, either.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yeah. "Settling" is insulting to women, *and* insulting to men. Nobody gets out unscathed.

Better to make a happy and fulfilling life as a single, I think.

[braider.livejournal.com]

Or it could be the typical abuser relationship: "I did this, so other people should do it too". People like not to be alone, and they like to be right. Therefore, they must convince other people to their point of view to vindicate their choice.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I've seen this phenomenon, where someone who is unsure of zir choice has to put down everyone who makes a different choice, as if they have to be wrong for zie to be right. I would agree with you in this case, except the writer *hasn't* "settled", and I'm not at all sure she's really going to.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

I'm never sure why some people insist on knowing how other people feel or what they want. Even though they do ti all the time.

I remember before I was married, and at 25 thought it would never happen, havung my Dad ask about being a grandad. I snapped back at him "if that's the important thing I could just go out and get pregnant" He didn't mention grandkids again. Marriage and/or children are great but they aren't for everyone, why don't some people get that

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I mean, I have a tendency to assume my experience is typical when sometimes its not--maybe that's a little bit of the same thing.

But even I can keep it straight that different people like different things. :-)

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

Well said. The author of the article clearly has never read Mr. Bennett's response to Collins's proposal.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, consider Charlotte. "I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins's character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state."

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'll understand this better when I've read the book. But if it's the one I'm thinking of, it was written a long time ago, when a woman's options other than marriage were um, constrained.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Two long lifetimes. That's not long, even in human history. And some of the attitudes are still with us, though they are no longer appropriate.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I didn't understand your reference, but a friend of mine suggested you were referring to "Pride and Prejudice." I haven't read it, but maybe I should--when a book gets made into a movie so many times, maybe there's a reason :-)

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I
N
S
E
R
T

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

H
E
R
E

Mrs. Bennett is treated as a particularly stupid character who thinks that any marriage for one of her daughters is a good marriage. Mr. Bennett most emphatically disagrees.

I
N
S
E
R
T

S
P
O
I
E
R

H
E
R
E

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Most people are fundamentally not able to wrap their minds around the idea that another person could need something really different out of life than what they themselves need. With (often considerable) effort it may be possible to get such a person to acknowledge that someone else's need exists, but I think they never really get that it's actually important. I suspect the writer here is just another manifestation of this problem: she believes that she needs to be married above all else and therefore assumes that everyone else is the same way. Since she knows this (below the level of logic), she writes to try to convince the people that haven't figured it out that all they have to do is admit that they're like her and they can be happy.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose it's possible. Another possibility is that this article is a put-up job--she isn't that interested in marrying without love herself, but thinks it's a controversial position to take that will stir up readership.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Ick! I think the author has some pretty serious regrets, is lonely and depressed, and is struggling to raise a child late in life without a partner (sleep deprivation!) or a good support network. Why, exactly, couldn't the editor have red-penciled the over-generalizations, asked some hard questions, and let the article stand as a personal summation of regrets, rather than leaving it (or perhaps even turning it into) a piece of the on-going big anti-feminist narrative?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It does read like the writer is lonely and sad, though there are some internal inconsistincies (being separated from her beloved child for a few hours to go on a date is frustrating, but even being divorced would be better than what she's got now because her ex would take the child a couple weekends a month?) that make me wonder. But people are complex and it's perfectly possible to be ambivalent about things.

Your question about the editors is more interesting to me--why *didn't* they insist she correct the obvious logical fallacies in the article? I saw mention in the comments of one of the pieces I linked to that The Atlantic is owned by men who just eat up the feminist-backlash stuff, so that may have something to do with it.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I've been dragged to I don't know how many theatrical productions. I don't know about "should"--I am fond of quoting "there is no should"--, but those books are the starting point for the novel of class and courtship--which is to say, at least half of all novels--and just about every writer who writes about these things, including some of your favorites (Bujold!), owes a debt to Austen.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Whoops! That last reply was bound to the wrong message.

People--men and women both--are afraid of the vastly expanded choices of our time and this story is one record of that. It's easy to come out with a clichéd piece, when one is overwhelmed by emotion and there's a common narrative already around. And there's a lot of investment in telling people that things are as they were is as they should be; most people are afraid of change. But part of the editorial job is to question the clichés, and this doesn't get done in most of the big popular magazines. "We'll call it revolution/But we'll crank out bubblegum," is the motto of most popular culture. There's only, I think, been one period in our lifetimes when that wasn't so, and those times aren't coming again. It is strange to have grown up in a golden age.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Man, you must really hate my song "Bad Timing" then. :)

Of course, one shouldn't be uncompromising on perfection - it tends to blind one to what's in front of their face. But one shouldn't marry without love just for the sake of not being alone, either. Jesus God, hasn't this woman heard of friends and family?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

No, it seems like a nice song :-)

Sure, people change their minds and sometimes change their minds too late. Sure people should be open to romantic possibilities they hadn't previously considered.

And sure, being unwilling to marry someone you don't love might lead to sorrow later on. I just think (like you, I suspect) it's *less likely* to lead to sorrow later on than making the opposite choice.

And I agree with you about friends and family. For goodness sake, she has a friend who is also a single mom--they could move in together, share childcare duties and save money, while staying free to seek partners, if they wish, for their good qualities, not because they desperately need to escape being single.

[it-aint-easy.livejournal.com]

Hmm, interesting. Somewhat appalling, but thought-provoking. Some of the thoughts provoked:

And suggesting that any 40 year old single woman who says she wants something else is just lying--refusing to bare her soul--is dirty pool.

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more; same thing I thought when I read it. Nothing more convincing in any sort of debate than to say "Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar." Yeah, that'll make me think your reasoning is sound.

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?

I would say that if you're in that situation, then you should possibly have your head examined. What sort of horrific deformity must this person have to make the thought of embracing him send a "cold shiver down your spine", when he's apparently your best friend (that'd be my definition for "enjoy his company more than anyone else’s")? Answer: none. Instead she (and, she assumes, many others) apparently puts friendship and compatibility way down on the list of things that would cause you to "love" someone. (with physical attractiveness at the top?)

It also greatly reminded me of a bizarre quote I heard in college, second-hand from a woman I knew: "X is the sort of guy you fall in love with. Y is the sort of guy you marry." If this dichotomy is at all common, perhaps this explains why there's a problem with women finding someone they "love" to marry. They find someone they feel passion with, then dump him because he won't make a good spouse/father, and don't figure out that they need to reconcile those two lists of qualities first, then go spouse-shopping.

(See if you can guess whether I was X or Y in the quote...)


But Cat, as I read through your criticism, I kept waiting, but you seemed to miss an essential point (perhaps the essential point) in the original article. She said it right where she establishes her theme, in the second paragraph, and then reiterates and re-phrases it throughout the article:

Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).

You keep talking about why it would be a bad idea to choose a husband based on her ideas. None of that would sway the author in the least, because she doesn't care about a husband. She's after children and a father to help with those children. Her whole argument pretty much boils down to saying that husbands are irrelevant in all other ways, except how they relate to getting you babies and helping you survive parenthood. Any man will end up being an annoying thing you'll wish you didn't have to have sex with, anyway, but single parenthood is really hard.

So your early comments about knowing women who apparently fall outside the author's experience take on whole new dimensions: I don't know too many women who wouldn't want to be in a good, committed relationship, but I know a good number who aren't interested in having children.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

X is the sort of guy you fall in love with. Y is the sort of guy you marry.

Well, I can't speak for what the woman in question meant--I can only tell you what *I* think of when I hear/read that quote, which does come up occasionally.

But it can certainly happen (and I suppose this can happen in either direction but I think of it as between men and women, so I'll write it that way) that a man has qualities (charisma, chemistry, animal magnetism) that are attractive that lead a woman to become infatuated/fall in love, but other qualities it takes more time to learn (doesn't treat his girlfriend with basic respect, or has a bad temper, or is irresponsible about school or work) that make it plain that he's a bad prospect, relationshipwise. There are other men who are kind and smart and responsible and funny, but for whatever reason (they're shy, they aren't classically handsome) are less likely to be noticed at first but who are good prospects relationshipwise.

On thinking about it, I'd be inclined to pick you as "the guy you marry," but people can change a lot over time :-)

But Cat, as I read through your criticism, I kept waiting, but you seemed to miss an essential point (perhaps the essential point) in the original article.

You have a very good point, which I overlooked in my hasty reply--in some ways this is a bait-and-switch type argument and I went for the bait "every woman wants to get married so desperately that she should marry without love" and missed the underlying falsehood "because every woman wants children."

And you're quite right--there are even more women who don't want to have children than women who don't want to marry a man. I don't know how I overlooked that.

[it-aint-easy.livejournal.com]

To answer the question: no, I haven't changed a lot over time. ;{)}

[artbeco.livejournal.com]

I loves me my 'Y Guy". ;)

I have always thought that I was very fortunate to meet a guy that I genuinely liked and found attractive; but to me the two always seemed to go together. Never really went for 'the bad boys' at all. According to this author, I'd be a freak, certainly an anomaly.

The author sounds pathetic and bitter, to me. It's perhaps catty to say it, but I'm not surprised she didn't find a meaningful relationship; you have to be able to see past yourself to find one.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well it did occur to me that the article reeks of a kind of desperation that, in my experience, tends to drive people away.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

I've found, as an English teacher and critical viewer, that the standards of editing have gone down the pipe in both newspaper articles and reporting. The idea seems to be to get the reader riled up rather than to inform. This article really seems to fit that mold. Cronkike on NPR recently had a beef about how reporters needed better editors before they tried some of the slop they put out on the airwaves.

Perhaps, if men and women did a little less "settling" there'd be fewer divorces. And a little work into relationships rather than surfaces.

Perhaps, if some of these women this writer claims she knows were a little less snit-picky about who would make a perfect mate, they'd find better relationships, based on really knowing the person. (X vs. Y). I don't regard this as "settling," more as "maturing."

I heard the chorus of a song in my head as I read this article: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with, love the one you're with. D-do do do do do d-do...."

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I've had this impression too (that editing standards are declining.)

And I agree with you about the rest. "Love the one you're with" also strikes me as an attempt to get into somebody's pants.

:-)