about an article that really touched a nerve
There's a very daring article in this month's Atlantic by Lori Gottlieb called "Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough" .
Now 40 and a single mom, Gottlieb advocates "settling" for a guy who isn't necessarily your "soul mate" or sets your heart and soul on fire. She looks back at guys she rejected and wishes she had been willing to settle. And it seems she wants women in their 30's now to learn from her "mistake" and just get married to a regular Joe.
All I could think was "hindsight is 20/20" and "if only we knew then what we know now." It occurs to me that the issue may not be one of "settling." Rather it may be a case of expectations being too high or inappropriate or too all-encompassing. Being raised on fairy tales and happily-ever-after certainly raises the bar to an unrealistic level.
I think the unrealistic nature of expectations may have a lot to do with expecting EVERYTHING to be right about the guy, instead of just the most important things. What if women created a "must have" list for a man, based on what we know about ourselves and what we really can't live with. Like "must be sexually attracted to him." Can you imagine having sex with someone you don't find attractive? Yuck, double yuck, and just plain NO.
Even Gottlieb has some basics she needs: "decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear", "stable, reliable life companion", "What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime. Someone who knows your day-to-day trivia. Someone who both calls you on your bullshit and puts up with your quirks." Her friend says "make sure he's someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you."
Maybe "romantic" love is too high a bar - who knows what that means anyway? Usually it's lust disguised as romance. And does it really matter if he brings you flowers once in a while? Well, maybe it does - because it's evidence that he actually thinks about you once in a while instead of about only himself. And to settle for someone who is all about himself and not at all about being a team member - that's self-abuse, in my opinion. Does he have to be handsome and wildly successful? No. Does he have to pull his weight in the relationship? Yes. Does he share my basic values (assuming I know what they are)? To find that out takes time, more than a few dates - and a guy willing to go on more than a few dates.
I think the question is less about "settling" and more about "how can I tell if this guy will really be willing to do the work involved in a relationship?" I dated a lot of guys who clearly were not willing to do that. They were more interested in finding a woman to fit THEIR fantasy, and when I demonstrated that I liked music of all kinds (not just classical) and had preferences about movies (not simply art house "cinema"), they took off.
How many of those guys actually proposed to Lori? Did she actually have the choice she seems to imagine she had? Women in our forties today were/are in an awkward place - we were raised with the values of being true to ourselves, following our own dreams, looking for a "partner in crime" and in life - someone equal. The men, though, weren't ready for that. They were afraid of us, before even getting to know us. I think Gen X and Gen Y men are not as afraid. So women in their 30's and 20's now have more chance to be themselves and get to know a guy.
These are gross generalizations, of course, because there are great guys everywhere and of every age. The point is that the guys have to "settle," too. But if it's seen as settling, it won't really work for anyone because a relationship burdened by disappointment from the start is doomed, in my opinion. It has to be more of a choice - "this person charms me in this way, which is essential to my happiness; they gross me out in this way, which is OK because I can ignore it most of the time and it's not essential to my happiness."
To make a choice, it does take knowing oneself. And today, all people have so many more tools and resources to get to know themselves that maybe there's more of a chance they can come up with the "must haves" so they get 75-80% of those met and are willing to let the other 20-25% go - recognizing that nothing and no one is perfect and that they can get other needs met elsewhere.
As a woman of 49 who's single, I am happy I didn't settle for the guy who gave small tips and ignored me when I asked him not to fondle me in the movie theater. I don't think he would have asked me to marry him, anyway. And the guy I would have settled for decided he wanted a wealthy woman to help finance his hedge fund business. I'm glad he left - he refused to do the dishes or buy a dishwasher which told me he didn't really give a crap about being a partner. I'm happy today because I have made a life I really like. Do I sometimes wish I had my own children? Yes. Enough to have settled for some of the guys I dates? No. Instead, I fill my life with my siblings' children and live in a community where I am surrounded by children and can get my fill of them. And do I sometimes wish I had a life partner? Sure! And when I can find some time to devote to the hunt, I'm sure I'll find someone. I'm really busy living my own life, though, with no regrets.
Life is full of choices and circumstances, and I can either be miserable or accept the cards I was dealt and play them the best I can. That's my philosophy, and it serves me very well.
Now 40 and a single mom, Gottlieb advocates "settling" for a guy who isn't necessarily your "soul mate" or sets your heart and soul on fire. She looks back at guys she rejected and wishes she had been willing to settle. And it seems she wants women in their 30's now to learn from her "mistake" and just get married to a regular Joe.
All I could think was "hindsight is 20/20" and "if only we knew then what we know now." It occurs to me that the issue may not be one of "settling." Rather it may be a case of expectations being too high or inappropriate or too all-encompassing. Being raised on fairy tales and happily-ever-after certainly raises the bar to an unrealistic level.
I think the unrealistic nature of expectations may have a lot to do with expecting EVERYTHING to be right about the guy, instead of just the most important things. What if women created a "must have" list for a man, based on what we know about ourselves and what we really can't live with. Like "must be sexually attracted to him." Can you imagine having sex with someone you don't find attractive? Yuck, double yuck, and just plain NO.
Even Gottlieb has some basics she needs: "decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear", "stable, reliable life companion", "What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime. Someone who knows your day-to-day trivia. Someone who both calls you on your bullshit and puts up with your quirks." Her friend says "make sure he's someone you respect intellectually, makes you laugh, appreciates you."
Maybe "romantic" love is too high a bar - who knows what that means anyway? Usually it's lust disguised as romance. And does it really matter if he brings you flowers once in a while? Well, maybe it does - because it's evidence that he actually thinks about you once in a while instead of about only himself. And to settle for someone who is all about himself and not at all about being a team member - that's self-abuse, in my opinion. Does he have to be handsome and wildly successful? No. Does he have to pull his weight in the relationship? Yes. Does he share my basic values (assuming I know what they are)? To find that out takes time, more than a few dates - and a guy willing to go on more than a few dates.
I think the question is less about "settling" and more about "how can I tell if this guy will really be willing to do the work involved in a relationship?" I dated a lot of guys who clearly were not willing to do that. They were more interested in finding a woman to fit THEIR fantasy, and when I demonstrated that I liked music of all kinds (not just classical) and had preferences about movies (not simply art house "cinema"), they took off.
How many of those guys actually proposed to Lori? Did she actually have the choice she seems to imagine she had? Women in our forties today were/are in an awkward place - we were raised with the values of being true to ourselves, following our own dreams, looking for a "partner in crime" and in life - someone equal. The men, though, weren't ready for that. They were afraid of us, before even getting to know us. I think Gen X and Gen Y men are not as afraid. So women in their 30's and 20's now have more chance to be themselves and get to know a guy.
These are gross generalizations, of course, because there are great guys everywhere and of every age. The point is that the guys have to "settle," too. But if it's seen as settling, it won't really work for anyone because a relationship burdened by disappointment from the start is doomed, in my opinion. It has to be more of a choice - "this person charms me in this way, which is essential to my happiness; they gross me out in this way, which is OK because I can ignore it most of the time and it's not essential to my happiness."
To make a choice, it does take knowing oneself. And today, all people have so many more tools and resources to get to know themselves that maybe there's more of a chance they can come up with the "must haves" so they get 75-80% of those met and are willing to let the other 20-25% go - recognizing that nothing and no one is perfect and that they can get other needs met elsewhere.
As a woman of 49 who's single, I am happy I didn't settle for the guy who gave small tips and ignored me when I asked him not to fondle me in the movie theater. I don't think he would have asked me to marry him, anyway. And the guy I would have settled for decided he wanted a wealthy woman to help finance his hedge fund business. I'm glad he left - he refused to do the dishes or buy a dishwasher which told me he didn't really give a crap about being a partner. I'm happy today because I have made a life I really like. Do I sometimes wish I had my own children? Yes. Enough to have settled for some of the guys I dates? No. Instead, I fill my life with my siblings' children and live in a community where I am surrounded by children and can get my fill of them. And do I sometimes wish I had a life partner? Sure! And when I can find some time to devote to the hunt, I'm sure I'll find someone. I'm really busy living my own life, though, with no regrets.
Life is full of choices and circumstances, and I can either be miserable or accept the cards I was dealt and play them the best I can. That's my philosophy, and it serves me very well.
posted by julieannerickson at 10:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home