![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillfor 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.
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.
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.
More dirty pool. Setting up anyone who disagrees with "her" as being self-deluded or lying. "She" ought to be ashamed of "herself."
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
*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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
