![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On "settling"
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:01 amArgh. 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.
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.
