Feb14
Why (Some) Women Might Consider Settling
<< Previous Pages: 1 2 3
1) If a tall, dark and handsome 40-year-old man with a six-figure income and great family values is on the hunt for a wife, he is most likely is going to be attracted to someone younger. Wait, don’t shoot! I’ve got an older girlfriend, and have long advocated for the wisdom and experience of thirtysomethings over twentysomethings. But youth and beauty have always been coveted by men, and wishing it away doesn’t change a thing.
2) If a tall, dark and handsome 40-year-old man with a six-figure income and great family values wants to be the biological father to his own children, he is mostly likely going to be searching for someone younger. It makes perfect sense. He doesn’t want to have to rush the relationship, much less get engaged, married, and pregnant in a year. Thus, all things remaining equal, most 40-year-old men with a choice will choose to date a woman younger than 35. It buys them time. Time that 35-40 year-old women don’t have IF they want their own biological children.
If a tall, dark and handsome 40-year-old man with a six-figure income and great family values wants to be the biological father to his own children, he is mostly likely going to be searching for someone younger.
And that’s the caveat that I need to emphasize more than Gottlieb did in her article. If you don’t want children, you’ve got no reason to settle. If you already have children, you’ve got no reason to settle. If you’re fine adopting children, you’ve got no reason to settle. But if you want to have your own kids, you have a far better pool of male applicants at age 30 than you do at age 40. It’s not that it’s impossible. Women in their late 30’s and early 40’s fall in love, get married, and get pregnant all the time. It’s just more difficult, that’s all.
Which is why this should not be taken as a judgment against women over 35. It’s merely an observation about the dating preferences of men. It’s not like women don’t know this. If they weren’t fully aware that men discriminated by age, they wouldn’t be lowering their ages to 29, 34, and 39 on dating sites across
Are all the good ones taken? Not quite. But here’s a lot of what you’re going to get as a 40-year-old woman on Match.com: Commitmentphobes. Players. Financially unstable guys. Unattractive guys. Socially awkward guys. Much younger guys. Much older guys. Look in your in-box. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know….
Continued on next page >>Pages: 1 2 3 << previous next >>
Filed Under Sex & Relationship Advice
Read More...
- My Parents Don’t Approve of the Person I’m Dating! What Do I Do?
- First Impressions Over Friends’ Opinions
- Where Are All the Cute, Stable, Successful, Funny, Interesting Men?
- Why Would a Younger Woman Want to Date a Much Older Man?
- Am I Foolish For Waiting For A Non-Committal Man To Commit?
Dating Advice - Anything ‘08 : Blog Archive : Why (Some) Women Might Consider Settling Feb 14th 2008 at 06:55 am 1
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI got an email from my sister the other day. She was forwarding an article written by Lori Gottlieb for The Atlantic, called “Marry Him – The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough”. Actually, that’s… [[ This is a content summary only. … [...]
Markus Feb 14th 2008 at 07:30 am 2
Bravo Evan. Bravo. A couple of things. First, your last paragraph and a half is gold. I was married for 10 years. My grandparents died together (not literally) and my parents just celebrated 40 years. It’s unfair to expect ANYONE to give you that buzz for the rest of your life. You need to be happy with the comfy kind of love that comes after. More, I think the perpetuation of the myth that you should ALWAYS have that buzz is partly behind the rise in female infidelity.
Second, I frequent a site called survivinginfidelity.com and it’s my experience that as women get older they feel more independent than men do. I feel that this may partly be due to female rise in testosterone w/ age and corresponding male decline in same w/ age. Sorry to whip out my bachelors in science. Just a theory.
Lastly, with everything you’ve written Evan I just feel that much more pathetic. I’m 38 and in peak physical condition. 6′1″, 200 lbs and I can even dress myself, cook and choose wine. Yet, I’ve been on match for more than 2 years with nothing more to show for it than some one night stands and month-long relationships that crash and burn. Negatives include, I already have 2 kids and their nights are unavailable, socially. Some emotional baggage and financial instability due to divorce/child support (excellent credit and bills get paid but, hey, month to month) and the inability/lack of desire to produce more children. Very frustrating. I really don’t want to be a 50 year old bachelor. : (
Selena Feb 14th 2008 at 07:51 am 3
Settling is a practical option. Many women and men settle. The problem with settling often comes down the road. Many people who settle find themselves on other message boards complaining about their mates in terms of sex, affectionate, communication, compromise, values, the list goes on and on. And you ask them, “But was s/he like this BEFORE you married?” Answer: “Well yes, to a degree. But I thought it would get better in time after we were married.”
Well it didn’t and years after the bloom is off the settling relationship, what you have is at least one unhappy person who complains and complains, yet stays because the spouse is a good provider/good parent. And that might be the only reason.
Settling as practical to get what you want? Sure. But you might want to talk to those people who settled a while AFTER they got the house and the kids and the SUV and see what they have to say then.
Selena Feb 14th 2008 at 07:58 am 4
Settling at 32 can feel like being trapped at 42. It’s a tradeoff.
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 09:51 am 5
I think one of the reasons why women find the idea of “settling” so offensive is that when they were little girls their heads were filled with the “Knight In Shining Armour” BS and their heads were filled with the BS that their weddings would be the end all,be all, romantic adventures of their lives.
They have been waiting for that ideal all of their lives. For many it keeps them going.
The idea of giving all of that is not going to be happy one.
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 09:54 am 6
To be clear
“Settling”, I think, in this context” means accepting accepting “Mr. Human” instead of holding out for “Mr. Knight In Shining Armor”.
“Settling” does not mean marrying “Mr. Wrong” or even “Mr. Poor Fit”
verbosity Feb 14th 2008 at 09:56 am 7
Evan’s points are great. He’s right about compromising and the challenges of ‘having it all.’ For both sexes, I might add.
Ah, practicality. Selena makes some good points for & against both sexes. Here is what I’ve found, anectedotally (spelling?) speaking. And no, I’m not critiquing her post, just taking it a step further.
She wrote, “Well it didn’t and years after the bloom is off the settling relationship, what you have is at least one unhappy person who complains and complains, yet stays because the spouse is a good provider/good parent. And that might be the only reason.
Settling as practical to get what you want? Sure. But you might want to talk to those people who settled a while AFTER they got the house and the kids and the SUV and see what they have to say then.”
No kidding. She’s right. However, it’s pretty easy to divorce now, and no one needs to be ‘at fault.’ Since the thrust of the article is about having children, let’s look at that.
If she ’settles,’ she’s already dissatisfied on some level, as noted by Selena. However, let’s look a little at what happens if she’s a stay-at-home mom. This isn’t to debate the merits or supposed benefits to the kids. It’s about her dissatisfaction because she settled.
Husband has risks he shoulders when accepting 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home. I agree that staying home with children is backbreaking and difficult work. This changes when the kids go to school from 8-3, or 7 hours. After a few years of hard work at home, many wives may feel entitled to “kick back” and take it easy. What’s husband done this entire time? He’s worked to provide the funds for the household, has done his share of housework, and is still working just as hard to support the family once the kids are in school. His workload has not diminished, and it may have even increased as her expectations rise. He is rarely afforded the same option to scale back his daytime efforts.
What motivation does wife have to return to work? Very little. Husband’s income has been enough to live on. Otherwise, she would have been working to make ends meet out of need. Unless tight finances dictate that she must return to work, the husband really has little say in this matter. Wife usually has many different ‘reasons’ she cannot work, despite having little to do from 8am-3pm. Here are some of the most popular.
“I do the housework”
Hooey. This was valid in the 30’s, before dishwashers, washers, dryers, microwaves, and refrigerators were in every home. In the 30’s women did have too wash the clothes (incl. cloth diapers, not disposables like today) by hand on a washboard. Ouch! Today, throw them in a Maytag. Run a vacuum - 1 hour/week. It is easy to exaggerate the labours of daily housework. Yet how long does it take to throw clothes or dishes into the washer, and remove them later? Grocery shopping used to be done daily, as not everyone had refrigerators to store food. Food was prepared from scratch daily. That doesn’t exist today. A decent meal can be prepared in under an hour, not to mention the proliferation of take-out (Chipotle, anyone?). Does all of this add up to 7 hours a day? The lie that housework is hard, time-consuming drudgery is no longer as persuasive as it may have been in the past, because in an age of later marriage, many men have done their own cooking, cleaning, and general housekeeping and know that it doesn’t take that much effort or time. Humourously, not every stay-at-home-wife even performs all of these duties.
“I can’t find a job”
She has been out of work too long, and therefore is unable to find a job. This may be true, but many men do not consider this risk when they agree to support her while she “temporarily” stops working. Hopefully now they will, and can make a more informed decision. Many wives may use this as a convenient scapegoat to stop looking for any job at all.
“It doesn’t pay for me to work”
In the short run, the expenses of returning to work such as gas, lunch, clothes and day care may not make it worthwhile for her to return to the workforce. This may be true, but does that justify her playing tennis, drinking lattes and ‘catching up with her friends’ while her husband toils away? Many couples may be too shortsighted to thoroughly and comprehensively think through this issue. Initially, the cost to benefits ratio may not be ideal, but her returning to work will improve her job skills and network of contacts and over time the return on investment will improve. More so than strolling through the local mall every afternoon and window-shopping for new window treatments. Over time, as her career gets back on track, and she becomes qualified for better jobs, her salary should also improve.
Ah, Divorce. I don’t like to bring it up, but you have to include it in the discussion since, if she’s ’settled’ and dissatisfied, she will likely initiate a divorce. The divorce rate exceeds 50%, and of those, women initiate AT LEAST 70% of the divorces (see Discovery Health).
Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during and prior to a marriage are subject to division. Divorce is a license to steal. It’s wealth redistribution. If the Wife has not worked in years, and has spent the intervening 5-10+ years shopping and lunching from 8am-3pm, she is entitled to half, or more, of everything Husband earned during the course of the marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever agree to a job contract that stipulated that in the event of separation that one party would have to return 50% of the gross amount of everything in the pay packet? No one in his or her right mind would knowingly sign such an agreement. Yet Husbands agree to this insanity every time they marry.
Imagine that in the spirit of generosity and kindness that you gave a beggar a hot meal. This is nice, no? Now imagine your reaction if that same beggar sues you in court. He is petitioning the judge to have you keep providing him with the food that you gave him willingly, freely, out of a big heart. The judge orders you to keep feeding the homeless man meals, indefinitely, forever, because he has become accustomed to eating those meals! This is categorically absurd, yet this happens to Husbands in divorce court every day. Instead of thanking you for paying her bills for all those years, what you get is the privilege of being legally forced to pay her bills forever!
After having children, many women demand to quit working and stay home. Before the kids came along, many of these same women may have been in careers they hated, working long hours, and enduring long commutes. It is the man’s generosity and dedication to his own career that enables her to walk away from her own career. During a marriage, a man with a stay-at-home wife might work long and grueling hours in order to support her. He will pay the mortgage, the property tax, grocery bill, phone bill, cable bill, Internet bill and electric bill. He also pays for her car, gas money, clothes, and vacations.
As one final slap in the face, the man may be punished for working hard enough to allow his wife to have the luxury of staying at home with the kids. As noted above, after the children are in school, the wife may enjoy a life of leisure and relaxation that is afforded to her by her man’s hard work. In the event of divorce, he will be legally obligated to support her for years or decades to come. Because she stopped working and led a life of leisure, the ex-husband is now responsible for supporting her, forever! History has a tendency of rewriting itself. Originally, a woman may have had a career that she may have hated, and was begging to leave. Women often “play” at work and career for a few years after University, and then when they near 30 or grow tired of the workplace they seek out a man to “take her away from all of this”, whatever “all of this” may be. In fact her desire to leave the world of work may have been her motivation to have kids in the first place. But now, in her eyes, and definitely her lawyers eyes, she “gave up” her career for her man and his kids. She is now “owed” all of her “lost income”. His gift of leisure and support to her has now become twisted and is viewed as her sacrifice! Another way in which the situation is turned against him is that he will be characterised as being threatened by her having her own career, and that he forced her to quit her “lucrative career” and stay home with the children. Her lawyer will now attempt to convince the judge that he wanted to “oppress” his wife and “keep her down”. Truthfully now, how many men do you personally know that are upset at having a wife that earns a good living? Many of these misleading stereotypes still run rampant in our society, and are routinely used to the woman’s advantage during a divorce. As a result of her not working, regardless of whether she was minding the home or not, she remains a financial liability.
Generous, caring men who spoil their wives should certainly think twice about how this generosity can later be used against them. The phrase used in divorce court is “She has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle”. A husband’s reward for spoiling his wife today is the legal obligation to spoil her indefinitely, forever. Buy her a luxury car today, and you may be obligated to buy her luxury cars after she leaves you for another man! Yet, imagine a husband that became accustomed to eating a home cooked dinner, or regular conjugal visits. Now imagine the courts obligate the ex-wife to continue cooking for him and sharing her bed with him and his new girlfriend each night, despite being divorced! Inconceivable, but it happens the other way around every day!
Ok. Apologies for being so long winded. But you get the point. She ’settles’ for him to have kids. She gets dissatisfied. In the end, he ends up with modern indentured servitude. By the way, the same thing happens to him if he ’settles’ and later wants out. The post sounds negative, but it’s a no-win system for men, generally speaking.
It would seem best that men avoid women who are ’settling’ for them. Now how to do so is the trick…
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 10:03 am 8
I didn’t start out looking for younger women almost exclusively. I like good conversation. I also like someone that has the same cultural references that I have.
I gave up on women my own age because
- They are paranoid. Dates aren’t fun. They come with an
agenda of questions designed to weed men out on indicators.
I understand why they do this, but I want to have
fun on a date, and enjoy someone’s company not be interviewed.
have fun. These women are not as subtle as they think they are.
- Low self esteem. Forcing a shy person into a conversation is
no fun. At various parties I have been at it has been a LOT
easier to break the ice with younger women. Not so with many
of the older women I have come across. I have to work a lot
longer and a lot harder to draw them out. I can get the vibe
from them that they think of themselves as “expired produce”
so why would a guy like me want to talk with them or maybe
I will then get bored with them quickly. Not true, but if it is a lot
easier to get someone else to warm up in a conversation that is
the person I am going to talk to at a party.
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 10:05 am 9
I read this great quote in a book last year
“If you will settle for nothing less than perfection then that is exactly what you will get: nothing“
Alan Feb 14th 2008 at 10:08 am 10
Evan, kudos for a great post! I’m generally a fan of being open and cognizant of other points of view and I think you hit this one dead on.
In response to Selena, I view those as the balance to the equation, or caveats if you will. Settling is a trade off, a gamble in many ways.
Two (possibly relevant) quotes: The problem with getting what you want is getting what you once wanted. (Don’t remember where that’s from.) “It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.” Sheryl Crow (”Soak Up The Sun”)
E.S. Feb 14th 2008 at 10:35 am 11
Evan, Gottlieb isn’t just saying “settle for a guy who’s less than perfect.” She’s saying “settle for a guy you don’t love and don’t find attractive before your ovaries wither or you have to be a single mom.” I mean, she’s advocating being willing to marry and have babies with a man whose touch repulses you — and she’s saying that being repulsed should be Good Enough. Isn’t that a bit too much of a sacrifice just to get a ring and a Diaper Genie?
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 11:05 am 12
Firs, Evan, my dear, I applaud you for this brave piece, however, it does seem to me to be misguided on several points. As a 42 year old, unmarried woman, I don’t feel I should rip the author, but I must admit I do feel pity for her, and anyone who takes her advice. The idea I should settle for a problematic man for biological purposes is, on its face, rather cold. I can, in fact, give birth through my mid fifties to satisfy my own biological needs. If men prefer vigorous younger women to conceive with, I also seek a vigorous man for a sperm donor. But if in seeking a man, I am also seeking a companion, and if the chemistry is not strong enough, the relationship will end at some point, and the children will likely be my responsibility alone. The large number of single mothers in the US I think attests in the support of this theory. Women don’t seek ideals, we seek real people, and practical situations. Recommending women settle for what they don’t really, truly desire is a recipe for unhappiness. Now, I recognize that sometimes everyone needs to adjust what they desire, but I would hope the passion for the new desire would be just as great as for the old desire. I happen to adore men, no doubt a product of my past affairs, but adore them I do. However, the idea I should “settle” for something less than I desire is disturbing considering my passion for the men in question. I notice that this recommendation is made only to women, not to men, although you make it plain that previous objection won’t be addressed in your column. I find that interesting. Women, for biological satisfaction, should deny themselves emotional satisfaction. Yet, it is the emotion that will keep people together to raise the biological offspring, and it that’s not present, the relationship will end, if for no other reason than the stress of raising the offspring. Would it not be better to let the women have their biological offspring even if an ideal or good man is not present? Then if the man truly wants to stay, he can of his own free will? And if a woman tries with a man to have children she will remain involved with, shouldn’t her biological and emotional choice be hers? It is not like women don’t raise children on their own in the US. And if children are not her goal, should she not have the same set of choices? As for being arrogant questioning our elders — if no questions are allowed, however respectfully they may be made, won’t that cut off all advancement, all progress, even between generations? In what way does wanting and waiting for a compatible man we are passionate about question our elders? You column raises more questions than it provides answers aside for an injunction for women to settle for someone they might not really desire in the long run. Is looking for a good man really that painful and detrimental for women? We are, after all, told we are natural shoppers. I realize my point of view resonates with old feminist ideas that have been lost or refuted by US culture, and I don’t want to imply any threat to you. But your column provides a very old fashion solution to a complex modern problem. I admire your bravery and courage in addressing these issues at all, and would hope you can find in my words a few things to consider in the future. Thank you.
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 11:43 am 13
To Steve: I think it is wonderful you have found a group that seems right for you to focus on. I date mostly younger men for the same reasons you date younger women. Older guys do have more baggage, just as older women do. I am the lucky one, I lost my baggage at the airport and never bothered to track it back down, lol. Do I need that old tooth brush and those worn out sneakers? No. I don’t think you do either. It is about fun, and friendly, open minded people are more fun from the beginning. That’s a lesson for all age groups, from teens to 80s. Thanks for your comment.
Evan Marc Katz Feb 14th 2008 at 12:13 pm 14
Thanks, Angela, for the respectful note.
I think our main source of departure is the definition of a “problematic” man. As you said - “recommending women settle for what they don’t really, truly desire is a recipe for unhappiness.” But what if what they really, truly desire doesn’t exist? What if what it exists as infrequently as a solar eclipse? What if what women want is unrealistic, unfair, and unreasonable? These are the main issues that I think it’s important to address. Because NOBODY - myself and Lori Gottlieb included - advocate for misery. I’m simply suggesting that we all, to a degree, overestimate ourselves. We dissect others and hope that nobody dissects us. And then when we find ourselves standing alone, because all the people we want don’t want us, and all the people who want us are summarily rejected - we complain. The logical solution, it therefore stands to reason, is to compromise, which others describe as “settling”. And, as evidenced by the tone of the Gottlieb debate, the notion of settling is entirely unsettling - to ALL of us.
As far as your later points, I’m not a slave to orthodoxy. The whole nature of this blog is to challenge beliefs and ask questions. But the REAL belief structure that’s being challenged, Angela, is NOT our parents’ conventional wisdom. No, what’s got everyone up in arms is the concept that all women can’t always have it all. And that’s not something that anyone is particularly comfortable with.
Frankly, I find this whole debate to be surprising, since the argument is moot to most single women. If the women who are angry at Lori Gottlieb refuse to settle, refuse to compromise, are happy being single, and perfectly content being alone for as long as it takes to find Mr. Perfect, then WHO CARES WHAT LORI GOTTLIEB SAYS? Just go on and live your life. Lori provided some very practical advice specifically to women who want to have their own kids. “Take it from me - an unwed 40 year old single mom. I might have been happier with a guy who gave me 85% at 30, than to be searching for 100% from a worse dating pool ten years later.” That is a thought worth considering. Case closed. You don’t want to consider it - fine. But why the anger?
I’d forgotten, but I wrote about this in a chapter in Why You’re Still Single called “Hitting on 20″. It’s a blackjack metaphor - and it seems to me that both men and women are not content with a perfectly winning hand. We’re always going to pull for another card, and a lot of times we’re gonna bust. So as I see it - and you may disagree - Lori’s not talking about sticking on 13 or 14. She’s saying that when you have a good guy - an 18 or a 19, it may be wiser to hold onto him than to cast him out - especially as the pool of quality single and interested men diminishes. This is sound advice to SOME women - even if you’re not one of them.
Finally, the reason this doesn’t apply to men is because men don’t have a biological clock. Plain and simple. Thus, they feel (rightfully and wrongfully) that they can hold out for perfection, longer. But even they’re wrong. Eventuallythe successful 45 year old guy gets pretty damn desperate for a 29 year old bride - only to discover that he, too, has waited too long - and that 29 year old women usually get creeped out by them. They, too, overestimate their value and are shocked, SHOCKED, that the women they covet have no interest in them.
The moral of the story is this: until we get very clear on what is a) reasonable, and b) realistic, we’re all gonna be single and bitching for a really long time.
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 12:15 pm 15
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 11:43 am 13
To Steve: I think it is wonderful you have found a group that seems right for you to focus on. I date mostly younger men for the same reasons you date younger women. Older guys do have more baggage, just as older women do. I am the lucky one, I lost my baggage at the airport and never bothered to track it back down, lol.
Angela, if that is true, the next time you are near Washington D.C. email me your phone number. I would love to have the night out with someone from my generation.
RSL Feb 14th 2008 at 12:36 pm 16
I’ve been reading the blog for awhile, never posted, but felt inspired today to post. I totally agree with Evan’s points. I would make one change- I don’t call that “settling” I call it maturing and having reasonable expectations. I am a 28 year old woman who has lost both of my parents before the age of 16- so I think I may have come to this conclusion that stability and dependability outranks fireworks every time earlier than most. Although I don’t find it depressing- I find it liberating. For me, it has allowed me to realize that when a guy doesn’t necessarily give me butterflies at first glance, the minute he shows what a solid guy he can be when I might need him, the butterflies come. And they get even stronger when he can let me do that for him as well. It makes it so that my goal when dating is to get to know someone and find something deeper and more genuine than some sparks. And really, the sparks can be totally ignited down the line- although I am single now, it’s happened to me before. When the sparks come a little later than expected, you have a solid base to rely on when the sparks begin to dim. Again, I think I am talking about the same phenomenon as Evan is, I just call it something different.
One more note- verbosity, I appreciate all the thought you put into your posts, and I’d like to comment on this one. I’ve seen you use this statistic about women intitating divorce several times, and I was curious about it, so I looked it up where you found it. Although the statistic is there, I think the way you are using doesn’t quite support your argument- it appears that you use it as kind of way to implicate women in the rising divorce rates and subsequent rise of single people in their 30s and 40s. Of course women have a part in this phenomenon- I am just not sure that it’s related to this statistic. Here is something is says below the statistic on the site you found it on:
“Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.” (Discovery Health)
So, basically there are a myriad of reasons women initiate divorce that don’t fit into your argument. I think a women who leaves her husband because she wants to take his money is very different from a woman who leaves her husband because he is an alcoholic who won’t get help- yet both are the “intiators.” It’s really a misleading statistic. I also think the scenario you put forth about the dissatisfied stay-at-home mom is probably pretty confined to the white upper middle and middle class, which is not the majority in our society. And you did say this was just from your anecdotal experience, so I appreciate that.
RSL Feb 14th 2008 at 12:40 pm 17
I meant upper-middle and upper class. Ooops.
Markus Feb 14th 2008 at 12:40 pm 18
Verbosity,
While I very much sympathize with your content, I think you are rather off topic.
All,
Man have I lived this thread. I was dating an incredible girl last year and I broke up with her because I thought something better had come along. I’ve been paying for it ever since.
Lisa Feb 14th 2008 at 01:16 pm 19
“If you will settle for nothing less than perfection then that is exactly what you will get: nothing”
So true Evan. As a 42 yo single mom I can say that I’m looking
for someone mainly with good character, honesty, loyalty, kindness, ability to hold a job, and I can live with someone with financial difficulties. That can be temporary. Or one who has kids at home…they eventually grow up and leave home.
The only problem I see with settling for Mr good enough right now, is if you do settle for the sake of having kids, and things don’t work out, its the kids who can suffer. No one should settle just for the sake of having kids. For loneliness, maybe, but not for kids.
There’s way too many kids growing up in single parent homes now.
Other than that, I totally agree, no one is perfect, and you have to accept some flaws to find long term happiness.
The high of finding love wears off and then you have companionate love. It even shifts from one area of the brain to another. And that’s what you need to have a lasting long term relationship.
Lance Feb 14th 2008 at 01:20 pm 20
This is an epic thread. I just got done reading the original article, the rant on Jezebel, the followup interview, and all the comments on EMK’s blog.
Lori’s perspective is shattering but it also strikes me as totally reasonable…she’s just arguing for it in a way that comes off as controversial. There is often a huge disparity between the romantic ideal and the “solid person” that is marriageable…this is true for both men and women. Lori and Evan both suggest a lowering of expectations IF you’re interested in starting a family. If you’re satisfied with with being single and dating, then there’s no reason to settle, and I agree with that totally. Why not? You’re not in a hurry.
Here’s the money quote from Lori’s interview:
“I was so focused on true love that I hadn’t appreciated the purely practical benefits of having a husband. Not only does he contribute financially, help with the dishes, and share in the child care, but as his wife, if you want some companionship or physical intimacy, you don’t have to shave your legs, blow-dry your hair, find a puke-free outfit, apply lipstick, drive to a restaurant and sit through a tedious two-hour meal for the mere possibility of some heavy petting while the babysitter meter is ticking away.”
Wow! That’s a heavy dose of realism. I think everyone could benefit from having their romantic ideals knocked down a peg or three. It’s not like the movies. Dating is truly a battlefield and I ain’t gonna lie, it makes me glad I don’t have a biological clock.
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 01:35 pm 21
verbosity: You make some interesting points, but I actually know women paying alimony to men. I don’t think anyone should get paid out a relationship they wanted unless they are too disabled to work and provide for themselves. This simply complicates a free and open possibility for everyone else because it builds up stereotypes. We need to halt all alimony unless a partner who was fit can no longer provide for themselves.
Markus: I hear your regret loud and clear. I, too, have let some fantastic men walk out of my life. The question is, how do I manage to find other fantastic men to spend time with now? If I could bottle and sell it, I’m sure I would be rich, lol! I hope you decide to try again, and not blame yourself for a mistake.
Steve: it is true. I did lose my baggage at the airport. But are we talking about baggage here, something someone should change about themselves to find the person who will be a joy for them to know? Or are you talking about settling for less joy, and toting along our baggage anyway? I would agree people can and do have unreasonable expectations. I am as guilty of that as the rest. I used to call it my “knight-in-shining-armor complex.” (Not really fair to me or to real knights in shining armor, lol) Once I understood that men would never solve a problem for me, but are a problem that once solved (ie., understood, accepted, embraced), the problem would present me with incredible gifts, and so my relationship choices improved. Men have the same problem, we’ll call it the “damsel-in-distress” complex. Wanting real passion has nothing to do with being unrealistic. It is for the individual to decide when this one is the keeper, and when to work on themselves to improve their playing field.
Now, for Mr. Katz: by problematic, I mean no offense, merely that this individual woman is not satisfied with this individual man. (It may be the man is not satisfied either?) This man might be a joy to someone else, but not to this individual woman. Why ask anyone to “settle” so long as the passion is insufficient? Settling breeds resentment as surely as alimony breeds resentment. Perhaps you can address the unrealistic expectations, and bring them more into line with the flesh-and-blood people one actually has to choose from, but “settling” just to have children is a huge mistake. Becoming realistic is different to me (as a work someone does on themselves) and “settling” for something that does not seem right (a possible deception as far as real passion is concerned, with another person). I think I am mature (at 42, but who really knows, lol), and settling would be a huge mistake for me because I value passion so very much. Again, thank you for your efforts. A.C.
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 01:42 pm 22
One final comment on the above. Men do have a biological clock. Low sperm count is a problem that strikes across age groups, and is surely a biological problem for any pair hoping to have children. Male fertility problems has sponsored an entire medical industry. It is not fair to only hang the biological clock on women by the time they pass the age of 32. Thanks again for reading my questionable wisdoms. I hope it means something.
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 01:42 pm 23
Here’s the money quote from Lori’s interview:
“I was so focused on true love that I hadn’t appreciated the purely practical benefits of having a husband. Not only does he contribute financially, help with the dishes, and share in the child care, but as his wife, if you want some companionship or physical intimacy, you don’t have to shave your legs, blow-dry your hair, find a puke-free outfit, apply lipstick, drive to a restaurant and sit through a tedious two-hour meal for the mere possibility of some heavy petting while the babysitter meter is ticking away.”
The only two I would insist on the shaved legs and the puke-free outfit and I would compromise on the puke-free outfit if it came off quickly enough
trouble Feb 14th 2008 at 01:53 pm 24
This article makes me think about several guys I work with who are single, but would really like to find “the one.” One guy, Greg, is a stocky balding man, but when you get to know him, you find he is witty, honorable, hilarious, intelligent, and downright adorable. He had such a difficult time finding the right woman. I personally think that a lot of women in this area did not look past the most superficial aspects of him (the bald head, if you can believe that). Because, other than that, I cannot explain why he was still single at 39 (though, shortly to be married).
A man doesn’t have to look like a Ken doll to be a “real” ™ man who is definitely someone that is a keeper. My friend Greg sure is, and the girl who has kept him is a lucky woman.
I have another friend Kurt who is by far one of the nicest men I’ve ever known. He’s shy. But when you get to know him, he’s so much fun to spend time with. He’s 30. He doesn’t have a super trendy hairstyle. He doesn’t have that square jaw. But he’s not a bad looking guy, he’s just an average-looking guy. He has so many redeeming qualities, but it seems to me that women in his age group don’t even look at him.
It makes me sad. From my perspective, at 42, I know that there are many guys like my friends out there who really want to find love, who want a commitment, who want to be married, who want kids. And they are often overlooked by women ages 25-35 who want to have it all.
You know, I had the handsome, square-jawed husband. And when he cheated on me for the 3rd time, and we got a divorce, I started to learn that the superficial does not matter, in the longrun. What matters is finding a person of substance.
unfortunately, some of us don’t realize that until we’re in the been there, done that category.
verbosity Feb 14th 2008 at 01:57 pm 25
rsm,
Good question and point. Disc. Health does mention the divorce laws as a reason. Here’s the quote,
“Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.” (Discovery Health)”
The dots Disc Health did not connect are that the divorce laws favor women retaining custody, and the most oft-used tactic in doing so is to allege drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity. So the laws reward ladies who allege this. I haven’t found any evidence indicating husbands actually have more of these problems. They are, however, more likely to be accused of it, whether true or not, precisely because ladies stand to receive the children (child support) and usually the house as a result of these allegations. I have no problem with the true allegations of alcoholism, etc. The problem is that there is a major built-in incentive to falsely allege these issues, and the stats do not indicate the breakdown of false vs. true claims. There is no way to. A frequent tactic is to get an order of protection by alleging that she is scared of him to kick him out of the marital residence. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, right? (sarcasm). Everything flows from there.
Whether my comment applies only to white upper & middle class, I do not know. I did not consider that. However, if the the ’settling’ woman settles on someone who is in part, a good provider (based upon Selena’s original post and other posts I’ve heard in other threads), so that she does not have to work, the class distinctions you mentioned seems as though they’d apply. I disagree with the race one however.
Markus, I understand that you think my post is a bit far afield. However, if she’s ’settling’ (particularly to have kids) she is precisely more likely to divorce you later because she’s ‘missing out’ in some fashion. My point is that men who meet these women generally have the laws, courts, and odds stacked so far against them, it isn’t worth pursuing the marriage/children route. If you (or anyone) feels that knowing the risks, those risks are acceptable, so be it.
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 02:05 pm 26
Steve: You have made me laugh, so thank you. I totally agree that effort is required to maintain passion, and the image of the outfit (however puked, lol) coming off, like right now, is priceless. The article that started all this does seem to focus mostly on what a man can do for a woman rather than what two people can do for each other. Financial considerations are pretty minor, because even a millionaire can blow it all in a hurry. Will you love him when he has to stay home, looking for work? Perhaps a good question to ask before it gets very serious. I would like to think real passion can sustain that, as well as the usual stress of child rearing. I would love to get together with you sometime in D.C. I am actively dating now, so a lot of this comes home for me. Great blogging everyone, thank you.
verbosity Feb 14th 2008 at 02:05 pm 27
Angela, I understand your point, but I’m quite certain that the numbers of women paying alimony to men are far, far in the minority. One of the big reasons for this is that most ladies seek men who earn more so they can have children & potentially stay at home.
I’m not sure I get get the thrust of your point “I don’t think anyone should get paid out a relationship they wanted unless they are too disabled to work and provide for themselves.” Disability doesn’t matter. The fact is that the law operates to pay out and redistribute money absent any disability. It pays people who choose not to work and let their skills atrophy. That is my point.
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 02:36 pm 28
verbosity: Here I am arguing against the state of current US laws. I don’t believe in alimony unless circumstances, such as losing the use of one’s legs, arms or eyes, makes for a special circumstance. I would make allowances for those situations, but as a rule, alimony, in any direction, breeds resentment, and reinforces stereotypes. Perhaps I know a few women who make money in excess of their ex husbands, who knows? But I have seen this happen, so I am against alimony because it motivates people to pay attention to the money, rather than the passion, of a particular relationship. Child support, ok, we are talking about kids who can’t work and need to grow up. Most of the women I know with small children don’t get child support or alimony without going back to court. Two I cover through my own health care insurance because they are so panicked about their kids. Money after a relationship is over is simply wrong in my view. Children need and deserve support, so the little ones do change the situation of who ever provides the most care. If a marriage breaks up, and no kids, I say each can support themselves. I have never been married so I have never been divorced. I would never accept a payment after a relationship ends, and have never sought such a situation. I recognize what the law does, and I find the law to be deficient, and not helpful. No fault divorce should mean no fault. Thank you for your response. A.C.
verbosity Feb 14th 2008 at 03:05 pm 29
I hear ya Angela & agree.
Angela Crisp Feb 14th 2008 at 03:07 pm 30
verbosity: And so I argue against the law, whether it benefits women or men. Are you not resentful of these laws? It seems to simply breed up stereotypes of women, the old “gold digger” standard. I believe that this kind of 19th century legal structure should end. No one should have to pay their old lover just because they were in love, and now that has changed. A few mitigating circumstances I can see, but if considering those circumstances means maintaining a structure that causes men to suspect, and resent women, I think women can live without it. I get called an alimony seeker anytime I even bring up marriage, so I prefer to remain unmarried, and keep my men feeling safe with me. Thanks for your insights. A.C.
smartcookie Feb 14th 2008 at 03:50 pm 31
I was trying to read this article with an open mind, but then I saw this section line.
“They, like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone, because they, like me, realize that marriage ultimately isn’t about cosmic connection—it’s about how having a teammate, even if he’s not the love of your life, is better than not having one at all.”
I felt like I was punched in the stomach…do women really feel this way?
Wow-i just can’t swallow this. I mean, i don’t think we should hold out for perfection, but geez, it’s a little extreme. its almost like saying a man can give me a family and those children are going to make up for what I am missing in my marriage, in my life? That seems MORE dangerous because the children will pay the price…
can companionship between spouses provide a healthy home life for children? is companionship what you want to teach those children to look for when it comes to marriage?
this whole idea makes life seem so dull.
Honey Feb 14th 2008 at 04:27 pm 32
Thanks to my buddy Lance for turning me on to this thread. The comments seem to have taken their own turn, but here’s my take:
1) As a friend I mentioned this to pointed out, if “settling” to have your own kids is what women are after, 30 is too late. Guys in their 30s are dating girls in their 20s. Guys in their 40s are divorced, have already had their own biological children, and don’t want to make any with you.
2) A HUGE cause of divorce is the stress of child-rearing. Would you really want to undertake that with someone you knew wasn’t a perfect fit from the very beginning?
3) This in the spirit of Evan’s blog, which doesn’t shy away from controversial issues. WHY DO PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN BIOLOGICAL KIDS ANYWAY? Seriously.
Given world overpopulation, the scarcity of resources, and the number of unwanted children all over the world, I feel it is unethical to do anything other than adopt. I understand I can only speak for myself with any sort of authority, but not one thing about having children sounds compelling, interesting, or even rational to me. It does not sound financially responsible. It does not sound intellectually compelling. It does not sound emotionally fulfilling.
Now, I understand that I’m in the minority, and that there are people out there who truly enjoy the company of children and are willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to have the presence of children in their lives. However, I would argue that number is a FRACTION of the people who say they want children and/or who actually have them. And jumping onto that bandwagon uncritically or uninformed is a great way to end your romantic partnership, whether he/she is your “soulmate” from the beginning or not.
IMO, people want to have their own biological children for the same reasons they hold out when they should, according to Gottlieb, “settle”: they overestimate their own value. In the case of having kids, they overestimate their value to the point that they believe their (potential) offspring are (or will be) smarter, better looking, or otherwise more deserving than any of the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of kids who already exist. If we’re going to talk about adjusting our priorities here, then that seems to be the place to start to me.
Steve Feb 14th 2008 at 05:37 pm 33
Bravo “Honey”!
FWIW, the world replacement is slightly over 2 children per couple. If you have to have your own kids, think about the world your grand children will have to live in and limit your family size to 2 kids. If enough people do that, the fraction of the world replacement rate to the right of the decimal will let the world population slowly come down.
Lance Feb 14th 2008 at 05:55 pm 34
Honey, THAT’S the money comment of the week right there! I’ve had those same thoughts (maybe from talking with you) but I’ve never articulated as concisely as that.
Why have kids? Seriously? To satisfy an internal craving? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Consider that, on average, over 357,000 babies are born daily. EVERY SINGLE DAY. One could argue that it’s not just foolish to bring more children into the world, but it’s irresponsible.
A-L Feb 14th 2008 at 07:59 pm 35
I have to say, I think this topic is far more universal than some of the people here are making it. This is not just about women, and not just about people who want their own biological children. It’s the question of how good does one’s significant other need to be in order to make a life-long commitment to him/her.
Even for people who do not want kids, I think there’s still a strong desire to find someone. I think it’s part of human nature to want to share that companionship, trust, and intimacy with someone else. And no matter how great our friends and families are, and how happy we are being single ourselves, we’re still looking for that other person. Particularly since, statistically speaking, most people are going to get married and have kids. And if you’re the one left over, still single, you find yourself increasingly alone. Though there’s nothing wrong with being alone, most people want companionship, somewhere to share their hopes and dreams with, and accomplish them.
So, that brings me back to my original question. How good does someone need to be to make a life-long commitment to them? I think Steve made a really good point. “Settling”, I think, in this context” means accepting accepting “Mr. Human” instead of holding out for “Mr. Knight In Shining Armor”. Just make it a gender-neutral (or gender-inclusive) comment. Is it 98%, 90%, 80%, 60%, or 51%? I’m 27, and I’m aiming for 90%. I’m also hoping that it’s realistic, but high enough of a standard that there won’t be any regrets. I’ll just have to see.
downtowngal Feb 14th 2008 at 08:06 pm 36
I really don’t like all of this “oh, woe is me I’m a single woman who needs advice blah blah” stuff.
I think this all has to do with how you define “settling”. Is it someone you really don’t love and might resent 5 years down the line while having an affair with the UPS guy? I have girlfriends who married in their late 20’s because they were afraid of being alone, only to divorce a few years later.
As for 40something commitment phobic guys, I have news for you, these same guys were commitmentphonbes when they were in their 30’s and 20’s. I also think it’s a bunch of bullcrap that single guys in their 40’s all prefer women under 35; sure many do but I think it has more to do with the guys than with the women, as lots of guys I know that age prefer someone closer to their maturity level. I also know women in their early 30’s who have had fertility issues and women in their 40’s who got pregnant the old fashioned way. Fact is, most married people have kids within a year or two of marriage, regardless of age. And if a guy in his 40’s will only date women under a certain age, he’s also ’settling’ because he’s seeking love for the wrong reasons.
When I was in my late 20’s early 30’s I thought the idea of dating a guy 10 years older was creepy. Also, women outlive men, so why would I want to spend the prime of my life and sexual peak being someone’s nursmaid?
The real message is about having realistic expectations about what makes a good relationship - a tall guy who runs a hedge fund but doesn’t always have time for you, or a short, bald guy who makes you smile and would move mountains for you, you and only you?
Paul Feb 14th 2008 at 08:48 pm 37
Americans tend to be spoiled idealists…we’ve largely got it all wrong in this society, and I think Evan is right by saying that there are way too many folks looking to “have it all”, and that just doesn’t exist. People immediantly jump to opposite extremes in their thinking…to compromise is not settling at all, it’s reality. It might be politically incorrect at the moment, but most things that are politically incorrect are just that…incorrect. This notion of finding “the one” is really ill conceived and there is nothing biblical about it AT ALL. I read in a book called “Keeping Love Alive” by Gary Smalley that the three most important things in a relartionship are 1) Honor (which would include respect, etc - try having a relationship without it), 2) deep levels of communication (to go past areas of conflict to get to deep levels of emotional intimacy), and 3) building each other up (mutually supportive). So it seems to me that compatibility is more important than chemistry, and just about any two people can have an extremely satisfying long term relationship if they continue to do these ‘right’ things stated above…meaning that it is not really a matter of finding Mr or Mrs right (or “the one”) anyway, but BEING Me or Mrs right. The bible puts it another way…”men love your wives, wives respect your husbands” (Eph 5:33) - BOTH are unconditional (key…women have a harder time with that concept then men do…respect should not be something that is earned…it is as unconditional as love) . In short, we are to do certain things as men and women in a relationship and if we do, we’ll be successful.
Collins Feb 14th 2008 at 08:57 pm 38
Right on, Lance! As recently as the 19th century, it may have been practical for couples to produce a lot of kids to make sure a few lived to adulthood. But in today’s world (esp. in the US, Canada, Australia & European countries) a couple can have just one child who most likely will live to adulthood. I for one am thankful that my family is doing its part to save the world just by staying small. I am the younger of 2; neither my sister nor I have ever married or had kids, or expect ever to do either. And just like verbosity, I’m concerned about the high risk of being divorced & incurring child support debt. In contemporary western societies, when a man fathers a child, he sows the seeds of his own financial ruin.
But to get closer to the original topic, “settling” can apply to BOTH genders. For example, a man’s ideal mate might be a Heidi Klum or Tyra Banks lookalike, but if he’s realistic he’ll “settle” for the Plain Jane with a few extra pounds. I may picture myself attached to a woman with singing/musical talent, dark skin & thinly braided hair, but I can do without all that as long as she pulls her weight in the r’ship & accepts the equal responsibilities that come with equal rights. Looks may attract me initially, but attitude keeps me in the long run.
Markus Feb 15th 2008 at 05:56 am 39
First, and I don’t know if this is permitted but the author was on “Talk of the Nation” the other day and it was fantastic. Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18952108
And Honey, point number one is right on. I’m 38, had 2 kids by the time I was 32 and I am NOT getting this vascectomy reversed for anyone. And believe me, it costs me on the dating scene.
Anyway, to everyone out there that isn’t getting this point: the point about settling is precisely that even if you find Mr. Perfect on his white stallion your buzz will not last and you will resent him anyway. We need to stop thinking that those feelings can last for the rest of our lives. 3, 5 years into any marriage, esp one with kids, and even with a solid man, you will feel like you’re settling. Book it.
Peace.
Steve Feb 15th 2008 at 06:10 am 40
downtowngal Feb 14th 2008 at 08:06 pm 36
I think this all has to do with how you define “settling”. Is it someone you really don’t love and might resent 5 years down the line while having an affair with the UPS guy?
It is those shorts, isn’t it?
Steve Feb 15th 2008 at 06:16 am 41
Paul Feb 14th 2008 at 08:48 pm 37
I read in a book called “Keeping Love Alive” by Gary Smalley that the three most important things in a relartionship are 1) Honor (which would include respect, etc - try having a relationship without it), 2) deep levels of communication (to go past areas of conflict to get to deep levels of emotional intimacy), and 3) building each other up (mutually supportive).
I’m surprised he didn’t put money in that list. FWIW, I think an equitable distribution of housework is the Pearl Harbor of relationship killers…too many men, including relationship experts don’t take it seriously as a relationship stressor.
Angela Crisp Feb 15th 2008 at 07:49 am 42
Smartcookie: I agree with you. It takes a powerful connection between a man and a woman to pull off a home life, much less handle the stress of even one child, biological or adopted. Settling merely strips back what could be a better situation for the couple and the child(ren). Its not about seeking an impossible ideal, it is about trying to get what is best for you for your own contentment. Waiting for contentment is worth it in my opinion, for the sake of myself, children or no. Thanks for reading and your kind response. A.C.
Angela Crisp Feb 15th 2008 at 07:50 am 43
Paul: I would like to know why you believe women have a harder time with respect then men? In Biblical terms, if women have a harder time respecting men, do men have a harder time loving women, thus the injunction to each? I would say for me to stay with a man, I would ask him to earn my love and respect prior to any commitment. I would also expect to earn his love and respect, also called getting to know someone else and falling in love. Am I asking too much for a response like that from a man? I would be interested in knowing your thoughts. Thanks for reading and your kind response. A.C.
ABF Feb 15th 2008 at 10:24 am 44
I think there is a real difference between settling and being open-minded and realistic about potential mates (this goes for both men and women). Nobody should “settle” for the mere sake of havinig a spouse and children. That merely breed resentment and discontent. Being open-minded, on the other hand, allows you to make a deeper connection with someone that you might otherwise never given a moment’s notice.
As an aside to the alimony debate in this thread: the law is shifting towards a more equitable system. See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202990186611
Steve Feb 15th 2008 at 10:43 am 45
About having children.
I remember reading some articles and stats that parents are not any less likely to spend their final years alone in convalescent homes. They are also not any less likely to die alone.
It seems to me many people focus on having children without ever considering if they WANT to be parents or if they have TIME to be parents.
You shouldn’t have kids, if having kids is just an item on your lifetime to-do list. They are human beings and not accessories.
Ask yourself:
- Do you really know what the day to day reality of being a parent is like?
- If yes, do you want that day to day reality.
- Do you have TIME to be a REAL parent or are your kids going to grow up in a day care center? There is a lot of research ( and yes, not from social conservative ) that shows that quantity *IS* quality time as far as children are concerned. Are you ready to come home after a long day of work and be enthusiastic about being with them?
If you aren’t sure get an idea of what it is like having another living thing dependent on you. Babysit a small child for several weeks. Foster a rescued dog until you can find it a home.
verbosity Feb 15th 2008 at 10:59 am 46
Good post, ABF re: alimony. I would like to point out a few things for readers in general.
The law.com article shows that these are simply proposed legislative measures. They need to be approved by the legislative branches of each respective state AND then signed by the executive. Not an easy path.
The article mentions the NY and NV proposal to provide ‘guidelines’ in place of judges’ discretion. In reality, they are one and the same as practiced. For Example, AZ has a 10+ ‘gudelines’ in determining an award of spousal maintenance. (shouldn’t we call it EX-spousal maintanance?). Judges have unlimited discretion in determining how much of these guidelines they are going to apply. For example, a judge might say to himself, “I’m going to weight the style and accustomed manner of living during the marriage 98% and the fact she has a college degree 2%” Thereby weighing his efforts (style of living) more than hers (her education). Judges do not write opinions detailing this thought process.
It’s just like the use of the word ‘reasonable’ in law. What does it mean? Damn near anything. Same things with these ‘guidelines.’
Contrast that with child support, capped by law in AZ to $2,500 max. That isn’t a guideline. There has to be major extenuating circumstances in existence for ANY deviation from this, and they need be well-documented by the parties and the court.
I applaud MA’s efforts, but my God, isn’t it pathetic they’ve already made their system so to take earnings from a 2nd wife (in part) and give it to the 1st?
But this whole thing regarding ‘guidelines’ is mere window-dressing, as it doesn’t limit judicial discretion (abuse) in any practical, meaningful way. It’s placation.
It is positive, however, that more legislators are becoming aware.
verbosity Feb 15th 2008 at 11:05 am 47
For the above post, it relates back to what men face if these women ’settle’ for them, and later become unhappy. Lori Gottleib wrote, “So if you rarely see your husband—but he’s a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own—how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?”
The exposure to men for providing women the flexibility to have children and not work simply isn’t worth it the vast majority of the time.
verbosity Feb 15th 2008 at 11:18 am 48
Lastly, the thought just occurred to me….if a woman is ’settling’ so that she can have children, doesn’t this completely discount men’s role and value as incidental? He’s simply there to provide her with sperm for the child so SHE can be fulfilled, and to help with all of those other pesky things of life, like providing a home, its maintenance, child’s future health and educational needs, etc? He exists merely as an instrument to fulfill her child bearing desires. Doesn’t he deserve more?
Food for thought…
Honey Feb 15th 2008 at 04:27 pm 49
Steve, unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence that the present 6+ (almost 7!) billion people is a sustainable world population. I googled around a little bit to try to find information on this, and many people are asking the question. There is an organization called Negative Population Growth that claims 2 billion is the maximum sustainable population. I have no idea if that’s true, but if it is, then we’re all in big trouble. But I hadn’t considered the issue before in terms of sustainability. Thanks for getting me thinking!
Eda Feb 15th 2008 at 04:43 pm 50
To Verbosity:
Why do you visit this website? You don’t seem to like or respect women. You definitely don’t have any use for the institution of marriage. I’m not even certain that you think relationships are worthwhile. It just seems that all you ever want to do is state how divorce leaves men finanacially devastated and their ex-wives living high on the hog. Ok. Your message is loud and clear. Women are leeches; men who marry them are stupid ninnies.
Can you now try something really wacky and different and provide constuctive and useful information for people who haven’t yet abandoned hope on a relationship or marraige?
Li-Ann Feb 15th 2008 at 05:14 pm 51
I can’t comment on the settling issue to have children, since I’ve never had children and my drive to meet someone had nothing to do with having children. I just was never the type of women who would squeal with glee when I saw a baby - but I know there are a lot of women out there who have an enormous drive to have a baby. I just wasn’t one of them. I also had friends tell me that once they had a baby, that baby became their everything, and really much more important than the man.
I read the article carefully, and Evan’s comments. I give my two cents from the perspective of someone who went through their twenties never settling, and them married the “love of my life” at 33. Only to have it end in my 40s.
The problem is that by the time one thinks about settling, it is really too late. There would be no way that I’d settle, right up to 33. I was always looking for the one. For me it wasn’t about money or possessions - it was a romantic ideal. Usually these romantically handsome and fascinating men were unemployed or barely employed. At that time, the only person pushing me to settle was my Mother. I didn’t listen. She’d say that in the end its going to be about the day-to-day - the housework, etc. She said that the euphoria will settle down with just about anybody, and it would be a lot better to deal with the stresses of marriage and at least have money than be broke.
I married someone I felt the spark with. He had no job, no car. I looked after him. In the end, we parted when he finally got a decent job. No kids. I didn’t ask for any money, a clean break,. He did make the mean comment that in the end it will be easier for him to find someone new than for me. After all, even if we both were 10 years older- for a woman that’s a problem, and for a man, he said the fact that he has his hair, is 6 ft. tall, and has a job, is really all he needs. He used to laugh sarcastically about short men, and how he had such an ease in meeting women, even including when he had no money. I felt that was all so very unfair. It ends up being true. Once he had a good job, he wanted to get someone younger.
Looking back, I probably would make all the same mistakes over again. The guys I rejected in my 20s might have been better partners. However, I bet I would have felt like I was missing something. The guy I was with, despite out initial passion, turned out to be abusive at times, and always taking more out of the relationship than he returned. I was really just like a maid. Many times I would think how much nicer it would be to be with someone who was at least kind hearted.
So my feelings are mixed. Now that I think about it, there was a super nice guy back in my twenties that I rejected for being boring. Things might have worked out well with him. Still, I feel I need to have at least the slightest spark.
Maybe I misread Evans intelligent comments, but it seems to send a not very hopeful message to women over 40. The advice seems to be summarized in that a woman should not be so picky in her twenties and early thirties, and take someone who would be a good husband. By your forties, the pool will be so small, that it will be almost impossible to find anyone, especially if you still wanted a family. I take that to mean I have a very small, maybe 5% chance or less, of getting someone now. And even that is probably with some heavy duty settling. I guess that’s pretty sad, because based on what I’ve just read, it’s all over for me.
One comment that caught my attention in the original article was that men don’t need to settle - that there are more women who want marriage than men. Is that really how it is?
Evan Marc Katz Feb 15th 2008 at 05:40 pm 52
Men don’t have the same biological imperatives to have to settle. But even men price themselves out of the market if they wait too long to settle down after 25 years of confirmed bachelorhood.
As far as this message not being hopeful, Li-Ann? I want to acknowledge that it’s not all rosy - especially if your goal is to find a man your age to be the biological father of your children. If you’re fine with adoption and fine dating older men, your picture is a lot sunnier. But to suggest that most 40 year old men are searching for 40 year old women is simply untrue and it would be irresponsible to say otherwise.
So where does this leave you? Hopefully, vigilant about making something happen in your love life. Get online, start taking adult education classes, go to Meetup.com, hire a matchmaker, join a local singles adventure organization, go out with your girlfriends, attend parties, keep your eyes open in real life. All is not lost, not by a long shot. For as depressing as this outlook seems to be, I can tell you story after story after story of women finding love between 35-45. Your only hope is to stay optimistic and pro-active. And I only wish that the information you get here helps you in some small way.
Have a great weekend.
Evan
Link Love | Honey and Lance Feb 15th 2008 at 06:20 pm 53
[...] questions and responds to dating and relationship issues. There’s an absolutely titillating response post to an article called, “Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough” by Lori [...]
verbosity Feb 15th 2008 at 07:12 pm 54
To Eda:
This is not about me, so don’t try to make it so. I do believe that as an institution the way it is constituted, there is zero benefit for men to marry. That is not to say that men and women are not or cannot have long and happy relationships. They can and should. They simply need not marry to prove that.
That said, what is the resentment for me providing education to men in the dating/marriage arena? If after they know the risks, they assume them, so be it. It is not up to me to do something whacky and different and provide constructive information. I just think that, given the topic that women who believe they should ’settle’ for ‘Mr. Good Enough’ need to sell why this is a good deal for men. So far, I haven’t heard anything bordering on persuasive.
Someone, please persuade me.
Steve Feb 15th 2008 at 10:12 pm 55
Honey;
I wasn’t talking about sustainability, but reducing the population. If most couples limited themselves to just 2 children ( hopefully less ) not enough people would be born to replace everyone. The world population would SLOWLY decline. Most couples are not going to adopt, go childless, or limit themselves to one child so I tell them the good news of the world replacement rate being slightly ( by a fraction ) over 2 kids per couple.
Steve Feb 15th 2008 at 10:19 pm 56
In reference to post #55.
I hate to quote wikipedia ( not the best source ) but here is what I mean about a limit of 2 children per family being a good compromise between being responsible and going with the urges to be a biological parent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
My apologies for the off topic post. This week I am on the patch for posting novellas. Next week I will work at staying on topic. After that I will work on limiting myself to 34 comments a day.
Eda Feb 15th 2008 at 11:23 pm 57
To Verbosity:
It is about you — it’s about you and your agenda to dissuade men from getting married. Funny thing is, Verbosity, I actually have no desire to get married — I never have — probably because I have never wanted to have children and because I see marriage as being oppressive — for me. However, just because I don’t want to get married, I don’t try to convince other women that they shouldn’t want to get married either. Yet, it seems that every chance you get, no matter what the topic, you’ve got to point out that men should not get married because women screw men over when they get divorced. Yes, men do get screwed over, and plenty of women get screwed over as well. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT! So, don’t pretend that you are providing important information that is new news. Plus, if divorce is so horrible for men, why do men often get married a second time when statistics would suggest, that there is a very high probably that they are going to get divorced again? And, many times, men will get married again before their ex’s do. Clearly, men are getting something out of marriage that you don’t/can’t/won’t see.
But what disturbs me even more than your anti-marriage stance, is your dislike of, and disrespect for, women — I notice that you didn’t deny that’s how you feel. And, if you do, again I ask, why are you on this website? I am sure there is at least one anti-woman, anti-marriage website where you can feel right at home.
hunter Feb 16th 2008 at 01:34 am 58
to verbosity,
….you say there is zero benefit for men to marry?….hhmmmhh…one benefit that comes to mind,,,, if she is sexy,,,,, and you don’t marry her,,,,,, someone else will!…..LOL!……
hunter Feb 16th 2008 at 01:43 am 59
To li-ann,
..a half a century has gone by right before my eyes,,,and it seems as if I meet more women my age, than when I was in my 20’s….
Hadley Paige Feb 16th 2008 at 08:13 am 60
One Man’s view of women who are Settling
If women follow the suggestion of the article and settle so that they can get married & have kids, does it not follow that conversely men are getting a women “out of their league”? If the woman settles w/o a philosophy & attitude adjustment (Namely: lowered expectations >> increased contentment vs. same higher level of expectations and entry into “settled” marriage >> increased discontent), I think for me this would not be good for my goal of a successful LTR.
Why? I think settling leads to (IMHO) increased likelihood of divorce and leads me to conclude (as a man who is mindful of the effect of divorce on me [namely financial atomic bomb]), that I should choose a women as a wife who is not settling, but rather someone who is thrilled to get me, someone who perceives me as uplifting her.
Note to responders to this post: I encourage you not to fall for the logical fault of discounting or dismissing facts or suggested inferences which you may not like. I am not attached to the above suggestion, nor does it necessarily appeal to me, but it occurred to me after reading the article on settling.
Bottom line for me at this point is: I don’t think I want a women who is settling for me bc I think the likelihood of a successful LTR is diminished by that fact. Opinions ??? (not on whether you like this but whether you think it is likely true)
Jeannie Feb 16th 2008 at 01:47 pm 61
Thank you for this article Evan. You have raised a topic that I and my single girlfriends (30s, 40s and 50s) discuss just about every single time we get together. Are our standards unrealistic? Should we settle? What is good enough? At what age should we just give up?
Frankly most of my single girlfriends opt to “settle” and play out the point that Hadley has raised. A number of my girlfriends date men who are 8+ years older than them and every single one of my girlfriends doing this do it for the money. Not one of them loves their guy and these men have no clue that all they are good for is their credit card. When us girlfriends get together, they complain about how they don’t love their older beaus, they don’t strike me as really being happy for having “settled.” My childless girlfriends are looking to settle for a sperm bank - again, the men involved have no clue - and I know how that will end as that was once me.
Once upon a time, I settled for Mr. Good Enough so I could have babies - and joined the ranks of the 70% of women who divorce their husbands 11 years later. It devastated my husband and I realized that “settling” is just a more polite term for using another human being. and that is wrong. Men deserve to be loved fully for themselves and not because they are a sperm bank or a credit card. And if a woman is settling for a man, she is keeping him from the possibility of meeting someone who would truly love him. Very unfair to him.
Underpinning this premise is also a bit of sexism against men. Sure I have friends with unrealistic expectations. But for the most part, my friends ask no more of a man than they ask of themselves. So the notion of “settling” suggests that men could not possibly be the equals of women in terms of looks, emotional health, romance, finances etc. It implies that a very attractive woman should not expect to have an attractive man cause there aren’t enough of them out there. And there is an implication that there are no quality single men in their 40s. This is a terrible way to view men and Evan, as you so wisely bonk us ladies on the head when we complain “there are no good men,” it really isn’t true.
As a 40 something woman, yeah, dating can be a slog and I’ve kissed a lot of toads. But I have had the privilege of meeting a lot of men in a 2 year period and hearing their adventures in dating. And frankly men have it no easier than women. And men have a lot of unrealistic expectations too.
I am learning that a lot of men just don’t understand women and what creates attraction in us and how to romance us and so everyone loses. I met a lot of nice guys who just couldn’t create that spark - they didn’t know how. Go to any bookstore to the relationship section and it is all targeted to women - there is nothing out there to help men navigate the world of women and thats unfortunate. If this information was available, this conversation would be a lot less necessary.
verbosity Feb 16th 2008 at 01:59 pm 62
Hey Eda,
Please discuss the subject matter. You may not like how I put forth my points as they are particularly blunt. Too bad. Hadley Paige just asked the same thing I did (albeit with far more diplomacy).