On "settling"

[kimberkit]

Argh. Having just read this article (courtesy of Mistress Matisse) on the case for "settling" for a teammate in a marriage, I want to go and knock that woman over the head. Her argument seems to boil down to this: women should look for a husband, without looking for passion or common interest. They should look for someone who'll be a good teammate and father instead.

I'm not certain whose bright idea it was that "teammate" and "sharing common interests" had nothing to do with each other. Even if you could swallow your resentment and irritation at not liking the same friends, jokes, or events, why would you assume that your teammate would be unable to pick up on your irritation and resentment at having given up your voice? Why do you think he would bother sticking around for it?

That having been said, even if you assume that the Goal of Every Woman is to raise children and be a housewife (and, obviously, it's not), and you also assume that in this crazy world, the man that the woman "snags" is going to be The Paycheck, it seems like an awfully bum deal from both sides.

From the woman's perspective... if the man is The Paycheck rather than someone who's happy to be with you and the child and help you change diapers, you've turned yourself into a paid babysitter. One who doesn't have an opinion on what her husband does *and* one who doesn't have a life because you gave up your career and decided to be a full-time taker-over-of-your-child's-life.

From the man's perspective (the Paycheck's perspective), babysitter-wifey is at the very minimum not-exciting to be around, and you never get to see the kids because you're busy being Paycheck-boy. You might as well have a mistress on the side for exciting sex.

To be fair, this is what arranged marriages often turn into, and certainly people all over the world manage to muddle through that. They have children who dislike but hopefully respect their mothers, and who are distant from their fathers. But who said love was important at all, right? It's all about throwing out love and replacing it with obeisance. Unhappiness is livable through; being happy is overrated. Of course, there are much higher suicide rates in Asia, where we believe that crap, but I'm sure those people were probably duds anyway.

I don't understand people who've tasted happiness and independence and then choose to throw it away like it's a useless gift.

Yes, it's difficult to be a single mother when you're trying to also maintain a career. That's what friends and babysitters and grandparents are for -- so you can spread out the burden and keep loneliness at bay. But having someone who's constantly around who isn't really your lover and who doesn't love you, but loves the kid... that's lonely, too. Without friends around to cushion the blow. It's just trading in for a different sort of work.

Meanwhile, I am totally with Matisse in agreeing that the author of that article has thoroughly thrown away her chances at having someone to actually be happy with -- but not just because men would be repulsed by her (as they should be). It's because she clearly doesn't want to work for happiness.

Comments

[nescio17.livejournal.com]

I think I need to read this article. I keep seeing it referenced and almost never as a positive. I like the teammate idea--but going for jus that seems to be setting the standards pretty shockingly low. Similarly, the common interests might be less important--but I'd think you'd need at least some common past times. Thinking on the same wavelength also helps. Enjoyable to be around is critical.

[greyduck.livejournal.com]

Is this a case where someone is going at marriage in terms of merely being a part of the master plan toward a goal that doesn't actually involve a happy and fulfilling romantic relationship?

I can't imagine being in that mindset, but I can imagine that there are people who would go about planning their lives in such a fashion.

Thanks, but I'll be over here selecting my partners based upon common interests and goals, zest and zing, and other frou-frou stuff like that. Heh.

[g-me.livejournal.com]

hmm. I just read it now, but I'd heard of it before. Namely because Keith mentioned it to me, and he mentioned it in a positive light. I think his mention went something like "I just read this opinion piece that talks about how if you're getting old and want to be married/have kids, then maybe you should stop looking for the ideal and be willing to settle for less than ideal." Having the article prefaced that way, I didn't have the negative reaction as you did.

My thoughts thus far: her article is basically irrelevant to people who decide that they are truly willing to give up other things - a co-parent for their children, having children when they are young, having someone to grow old with - to hold out for the "ideal" partner. And, there are people out there for whom the partnered/married life isn't their thing, or isn't their thing until they're older.

However, I think her article raises some good points that people generally don't like to think about, but should. There are many, many people out there who have a very unrealistic conception of what is reasonable to find in a partner/spouse, and who probably end up waiting to "settle down" in hopes of finding the perfect person to do so with, only to find that it's their own attitudes and expectations keeping them from finding said partner, not a lack of reasonable choices.

I think she's speaking to that audience - the one who thinks you never have to make compromises and that you can't be happy if you do. And I think she makes a good point when she talks about the fact that many people wait and wait, hoping to find the "ideal" person, when all that will happen when they finally find that person is that they don't turn out to be ideal, because no one is.

The assumption that the man is "the paycheck" and woman is the stay at home mom is an outdated one, but her point still stands that you certainly have more flexibility if you aren't a single parent household responsible for children. Your idea of relying on friends, parents, neighbors, etc. is reasonable sometimes, but - and especially now, with people tending to live very far from their families more often - isn't quite the same as having a de facto second parent around to share the responsibility with. I think she's just saying that people should consider these things too, in terms of what they want their whole life to be like, and not just assume that the most important thing is finding the perfect partner to have that life with, because there is no such thing.

Maybe the reason this article rubs many people the wrong way is because people don't like to be told that they should consider compromising in this area. We are taught to think that love is the ultimate, and we are taught to expect that romantic love can be sustained at the same level as when we initially meet someone over the long haul, but it actually takes work, compromise, and some other qualities besides romantic attraction to make a life partnership work.

Bottom line is, if you've already decided that kids/family isn't really your thing, her article isn't relevant. I think she's speaking to the folks out there who expect they can have it all, without having to compromise. If you're already a sensible person who doesn't expect their romantic partners to be perfect over the long haul, you've already learned the lesson she's trying to teach.

[kimberkit.livejournal.com]

The thing is, I think her article goes too far -- she goes beyond "be reasonable when looking for a life partner" to mocking the woman who says, "can I really spend my whole life with someone who's allergic to dogs?" Short answer is, if your dog is really important to you, then no, you can't spend your life with that person. Not settling is a Good Thing in that case.

As for non-perfect partners, see my comment to Suz -- of course there isn't any such thing, but you can have respect and platonic love, and she seems to be willing to toss that out the window, too, in search of the Ideal Good Father.

[g-me.livejournal.com]

ah, but if the dog is that important, than said woman shouldn't lament the fact that she can't find a partner. ok, that was a little snarky, but it holds some truth; if your dog is really that important to you, then yeah, you probably should find someone who's not allergic to dogs. But start piling up the requirements, and it's easy to see how you could end up alone. if that's ok with the person, then who am I to argue? it's their choice. But aside from extreme situations of extremely bad luck, I do think people have somewhat of a choice, and they should accept the consequences of that choice (easier said than done, i'll admit).

i don't agree with the article, that the "ideal good father" should be everyone's golden compass. but i also didn't think she was saying respect and platonic love weren't a good alternative to passionate romance. i'd have to read it again though...

[pallasathene82.livejournal.com]

Having read the article, and yours and Gianna's commentary, a couple of things:
1.Speak for yourself, Ms. Newly-married (fairly). As a single person, I sympathize a lot more. I didn't meet Mr. Right, etc.
2. I don't understand people who've tasted happiness and independence and then choose to throw it away like it's a useless gift. Despite being fairly happy being single and having a strong family role model of the old maid, I get lonely. Sometimes I want someone to be around.Long-term singleness can be nice at times, but it does mean a constant struggle at times. When I had my gall bladder attack last March or my surgery last August, I had to rely a lot on myself because family was too far away and friends aren't really going to be there all the time. Having a spouse to fill out the insurance paperwork while I was being wheeled in on the gurney and in extreme pain would have been kind of useful. You don't need the love of your life for stuff like that.
3.A lot of the time it is people being picky and expecting the perfect person to come along. I see this article as advocating the same thing that polyamory acknowledges: you're not going to find someone who fills all your needs. That person doesn't exist.
4.The exciting passionate people don't exactly lend themselves to stability. Passion fades, romance is a farce that so many have bought into.
5.I have also seen how well relationships can work between people who do have serious problems and still work out. I'm no gem of a person myself; how can I expect a lack of imperfections, even serious imperfections from them?

[kimberkit.livejournal.com]

1. I really don't appreciate your tone to start off, and if you'd like a constructive dialogue, I'd appreciate an email in private rather than an attack.

2&3. Of course there isn't a "perfect partner." The author of this goes beyond "don't ask for perfection," though, to "ignore the halitosis." Sorry, but if you're at some level not respecting someone because they have poor personal hygiene, that's going to show. If you're just using someone for baby-power, that cheapens them. Furthermore, it degrades their ability, and your own ability, to actually see them as the team-member they are; they're just the person who fills out paperwork.

4. Love doesn't have to be passionate. Love can be quiet. It's *not* settling to acknowledge that partnership is often quiet, and about the daily things; Lori misses the point when she says that looking for someone who's a good father rather than someone who curls your toes is "settling."

It's "settling" to be dating a not-always-going-to-rehab alcoholic. It's "settling" when you're willing to be with someone you don't even really like, as in the case of her being willing to date someone who had huge episodes of major depression. It's settling when you decide you'd rather have an empty marriage with unhappy self, partner, and children than to put in the work of battling loneliness and being busy.

5. Amen.

[g-me.livejournal.com]

hm, after reading this response, i do think you've hit it on the nail in terms of defining "settling." I think it's a lot like what I was trying to say before, that if you're a reasonable person with reasonable expectations for a partner, then you don't need to read this article anyway. you managed to say it more eloquently though...

[entropicangel.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, these are just my thoughts, so take them with a large grain of salt:
1) I'd like to see anyone who's actually "settled" write a long article about wonderful it has been for them (as opposed to just saying it was a good, solid choice - and the author of this herself hasn't settled, and all of us are probably young enough for anyone to say it applies to us, too) ...
2) There's a difference between settling and trying to keep an open mind or not sticking too closely to an image of Mr. or Ms. Right. It is true that people who might have a long, elaborately designed list of characteristics for their dream partner probably need to rethink things (not necessarily, but probably), both they could be shutting interesting people out and because people aren't always good at rationally knowing what they want. Should people be more willing to date outside their social/economic/intellectual class and less concerned with outward appearance? Probably, but those can be tough barriers to overcome without "sizzle", so to speak. Instead of settling, why not just encouraging a stronger open mind about it all (or perhaps we should consider a way to allow women to turn off their biological clocks so they don't feel pressure in the same way ...)
3) Seek and ye shall find ... and ye shall possibly bite yeself in ye buttocks. If we look only for pragmatism, without passion, we forget that, fundamentally, people are not rational, pragmatic beings. We can thank evolution, sociology, or any number of things or deities for this, but it's true (and it's bugged economists for eons, because it makes good economics sooooo much harder to model) ... and marriages that look good on paper, be they between people or companies or ideas, can often lead to crazy consequences (otherwise internet dating would be sooooo easy). The indescribable emotional connection can be critical (or perhaps not ... I am definitely not going to even come close to saying that love is the same for everybody ... In fact I'm fairly certain I have no idea what it's like for anyone outside of my skull). If we aim for specific rational goals only, then we may not even get those since our silly emotions tend to sabotage them. True, half of all marriages in this country end in divorce, but not half of all people who get married get divorced -- it's just that those who get married and divorced and then remarried have a better than a first-timer's chance of getting divorced again, i.e. second and third marriages tend to fail more often than first marriages, by a lot.
4) Midlife crisis idiot men are already a big enough problem. Convince them that marriage is for settling earlier on (some of them probably already think that, true, but not anywhere near all) and you'll find even more of them bailing later when it's practical to do so (once the kids are gone, once they can afford to leave and still send support money to the family, once they find a newer model, etc.). If we never expect much in the first place, well, the results are likely to fall even farther (or is it further? I never get this right) short of what we want.
5) The X factor that she didn't mention in the article is a growing educational gap in this country: by and large, higher education facilities in this country (as a whole) are becoming more filled with women and less with men, meaning younger generations of women are becoming more educated, on average, than their male peers, meaning that seemingly "settling" for a man of lower income/education/social status may seem necessary for some ... But I'm not sure how that's going to play out, and if anything it's just an argument to be more open-minded about meeting people (and more persistent, as a society, in getting early education right somehow).

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, except to note one final thing: if women settle more than men, it either means that men are on average suckier people or that men have much lower standards ... possible, I guess. Perhaps the author simply gets a closer view of women she perceives (correctly? probably) as having settled ...

Ugh, I babble, must stop, I'm sure I have more to add but instead of my two cents that was like my $157 in monopoly money, totally silly.

[g-me.livejournal.com]

interestingly, the divorce rate is falling. there are a ton of reasons for this that i won't go into, and i'm sure i don't know all the nuances of them - though i read one hypothesis that made sense that suggested that the model of marriage changed in the seventies and the people who married in that transition are the ones getting divorced at higher rates, but i digress - but that's just to say that i don't think it's all that valid when authors use the "50 percent of marriages end in divorce" argument to justify why no one should get married (or something). there are a lot of reasons why divorce rates changes but i'm pretty sure it doesn't have to do with the fact that marriages were all happier in the old days...

[osirusbrisbane.livejournal.com]

Being a strong advocate of volition, I like to attribute the rise and fall in divorce rates to a slow increase of freedom. To be fair, I don't have any strong evidence to back up my theory on this, but intuition combines with Occam's Razor and sheer hopefulness to make me think it's not a bad hypothesis.

Certainly the cultural mindset has shifted a lot since half a century ago. Marriage used to be something that was for life, perhaps because that's how things operated then. (Most people worked the same job for decades, or even a lifetime, as well in those days.) I think many unhappy people stayed in unhappy marriages because that's simply what was done. (Certainly, the main endpoint of a woman's life back then was Get Married, Have Kids, and those who didn't were the exception.)

Then people started realizing that they had the freedom to leave unhappy marriages. It's probably not coincidence that this occurred at around the same time that women started to be accepted more fully into the workforce; a woman with income is a woman less beholden to staying in a bad marriage with "The Paycheck". Divorce rates rose.

But more recently, people have started realizing they have even more freedom; they don't have to get married in the first place. If they do, they can get married later. And contentious article notwithstanding, I think fewer people are "Settling". Perhaps some do, but I think that's the exception these days, as most people feel they can afford to wait for someone they really like, since they have options. Less ill-matched marriages to begin with, of course, would lead to less divorce.

That's my theory anyway.