Book beast
More Book beastGive Up on Mr. Perfect?
Liesl Schillinger is a New York-based writer and literary critic whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The New Yorker, New York magazine, The Washington Post, the New Republic, The London Independent on Sunday, and other publications here and abroad.
Getty Images
In her provocative new book, Lori Gottlieb says women should just settle and give up trying to find the right man. Liesl Schillinger defends single women.
Let me tell you about the women I know who are unmarried in their 30s and 40s. One’s a world-roving journalist and author of several books; one’s a partner at a law firm; two are acclaimed photographers; one’s an international culinary expert; one’s written five novels; one’s a professional musician; one’s a choreographer; two make prize-winning documentaries; others write plays and TV scripts. All of them are beautiful and sexy by agreed standards (fit, slender yet shapely, big eyes, symmetrical features). They’re not heartless careerists; they cook, dance, decorate, entertain, and dote on their boyfriends (when they have them). They’ve loved and lost in the past, yet still hope, one day, to love and win. If that day never comes, they’d rather be alone than ill-matched. Their achievements, (which include, for some, single parenthood by choice) are the result of abilities, motivations and ambitions so central to their self-definition that suppressing them would have been a form of suicide.
What of the misery of the sad, pathetic, partnered woman, stuck at home with a somnolent spouse or boyfriend who sits around watching TV and eating Chunky soup and won’t let her play her Netflix?
Now let’s add to this mix another remarkable single woman (and single mom): the journalist, author, and NPR commentator Lori Gottlieb, 42, whose new book, which comes out February 4, is being made into a movie by Tobey Maguire. This book, Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, grew out of a provocative essay Gottlieb published in 2008 in The Atlantic, in which she wrote about how tough she has found it to raise a child on her own (something 10.4 million American women already knew, as of the last census), and how fervently she wishes that, back in her 20s or 30s, she’d married one of the unexciting “scab-eating mouth breathers” (to quote Sue Sylvester from Glee, not Lori Gottlieb) whom she thinks she could have nabbed, rather than squander her most nubile years on non-marriage-minded time wasters. Even so, she admits that, in her late 30s, when a married friend urged her to date nice men who were “older, overweight, and bald,” she thought her friend was “kidding” and couldn’t bring herself to heel. But half a decade on, furnished with a toddler (via donor sperm) and a U-Haul of regret, she wishes she and others like her had taken her pragmatic friend’s advice and made finding a “solid, like-minded teammate in life” job-one from the outset. She writes, “I wish I’d entertained the possibility when the possibility still existed.”
Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. By Lori Gottlieb. 336 pages. Dutton. $25.95.
But did—and does—that possibility truly exist: that is, of ensuring your happiness by contracting yourself to an accommodating chump you don’t desire? (Gottlieb waxes this drab compromise to high luster, calling it “taking the best available option and appreciating it.”) Is it true that willing, if non-luscious, bachelors can be plucked like so much low-hanging fruit? If Gottlieb and thousands of singletons in her demographic had gritted their teeth and partnered off with “older, overweight, and bald” suitors, would they all be married by now, as if in a mass ceremony of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, but under the banner of cynical resignation, not the Unification Church? A woman doesn’t always find it easy to persevere in a tepid affair once it’s actual, not notional. And a man doesn’t have to be handsome to bolt—or to take umbrage at the suspicion that he’s being “settled” for. Perhaps in the future, in an over-perfected, suspense-less, Gattaca universe, men will come with LED displays on their foreheads that read: “I mean business” or “I’m deliberately wasting your time,” or, “Actually, I’m gay,” or “I’ll marry you, but we’ll loathe each other and I’ll leave you for a 20-year old when you’re 37.” Until that day comes, one wonders how Gottlieb can be so emphatic in her pronouncements, so blistering in her blame of single women for being entitled and picky in their 20s, and “desperate but picky” thereafter.
The way she sees it, as she explains in a chapter called, “How Feminism Fucked Up My Love Life,” a generation of women (or should I say ‘girls’?) who ought to have been taught—like their great-grandmothers and like women in Taliban-era Afghanistan—to be demure in deportment and modest in aspiration, were tricked by the women’s movement into “ego-tripping themselves out of romantic connection.” That’s right girls: If you’re unwillingly unwed, blame it on mom and Title IX for duping you into educating, respecting and supporting yourselves. She intends this book, she writes, as a blood-chilling cautionary tale, “like those graphic anti-drunk driving public service announcements that show people crashing into poles and getting killed.”
To drive home her message, Gottlieb consulted matchmakers and courtship “experts,” psychologists, online dating gurus, and scores of ordinary men and women of multiple generations. She also tested her theories (with depressing results) by speed-dating men in her age group (they turned out to be a generation older) and by trying to date a short, widowed, bald guy with a kid (he moved and the affair ended). Certainly, a woman would have to be a masochist to want to repeat the grisly “accident” of Gottlieb’s dating life; and the rank desperation she brings to the dating game robs it of any whiff of fun. One can see why she wants out. But not everyone does: Courtship is a massively multiplayer game whose rules shake down differently for each player.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
Clueless for Boys
Liesl Schillinger is a New York-based writer and literary critic whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The New Yorker, New York magazine, The Washington Post, the New Republic, The London Independent on Sunday, and other publications here and abroad.
The Great Mammogram Debate
Liesl Schillinger is a New York-based writer and literary critic whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The New Yorker, New York magazine, The Washington Post, the New Republic, The London Independent on Sunday, and other publications here and abroad.
minkytime
Excellent review, perfect ending and most poignant point: "They pursued their dreams, sowed their oats, established their careers, then began to think about settling down-not settling."
Another issue that you didn't mention, but that I often think about in my own thirty-something career-driven singledom - is the consequence of shifting gender roles. How do we relate to each other now? How do men reconcile their masculinity and their emasculation in this generation? Perhaps these accomplished women and men have not found true love because our expectations of each other are quite different and we don't know how to be both independent and in partnership. Because we expect so much of ourselves and we let men either get away with not treating us with the same respect (aka settle) or just walk away without explaining how we've raised the bar (or changed its direction).
I'm curious what you think about men's role in Lori's "whining, corrosive, capricious book."
scott1607
I was curious about what the thoughts were about men in all this but after reading the article I can tell there was no thought or consideration put into men at all. Gee, how lucky for the poor schmoe who finds a woman who will "settle" for him. "Aw honey, I could have had way better than you, but because for some strange reason, nothing to do with me of course, I'm a brilliant, powerful, sexy woman, but for some reason I had to end up with you... here, you want to try rubbing some Rogaine on that ugly old bald spot of yours?" I don't know but I get a strange feeling that being condescended to and constantly evaluated to see if you measure up is a real romance killer for most men.
ron517
Amen.
pclayton
Well, Scott1607, welcome to "women's world," where the same criteria have defined us for millenia. When a man reaches a certain age and reconsiders the woman he married as he puruses the landscape of younger, more attractive available women, there is a feeling that she is being constantly evaluated to see if she measures up--it's a real romance killer as well.
scott1607
Well, pclayton, you've come a long way baby since current equity laws means that that woman will be able to get at least half his wealth to ease her pain.
pclayton
@scott1607
Apparently, that's your beef; you resent the fact that women should have help supporting their children, like from their fathers through equity laws. The equity laws do not compensate women for the inconvenience of dealing with a wayward man.
scott1607
Maybe I have a beef, I don't think so. And I definitely feel it's a father's duty to support his children. Maybe it's because I've worked for awhile in family law and have become jaded, but I do see a disproportionate amount of women getting more than their fair share for themselves in divorce. And in terms of this article, would it really be a surprising to a woman who "settled" for a nice, chubby bald man that he would eventually turn to the arms of someone else who might actually be attracted to him?
dreaday19
@minky,
Honestly, I decided that dating a man that couldn't handle a strong woman wouldn't be good enough for me, anyway. I learned this after dating one specifically very insecure guy. Strength and accomplishment shouldn't be emasculating, it should be empowering ("Look what I bagged, and SHE is into ME!"). The dynamics are changing for sure.
Rakiba
When I was in my 20's and 30's I hated women who were self satisfied and demanding (in unreasonable ways). Now, in my early 40's I absolutely love women who try to play games and who really think their beauty and charms are here to stay. It means they can be dated and dumped with deep pleasure in both. I wish I knew then how right I was to suspect that most of the women I dated and liked really should have been doing every thing they could to land me. Then again, thank god they didn't otherwise I would be married and not dating pretty much any single late 30 something I want to. PS worldly accomplishments make it worse, the expectation gets higher. I mean who would not love an accomplished woman? Most men with some success in their own right don't care about that if the woman is not kind or do something for the inner psyche they will cheat with a hot waitress. Mad scientist laugh goes here =========>
pclayton
You will stay single forever with your attitude. Keep playing.
Floxxx
Pathetic.
You must ask "hot waitresses" out with your American Express card glued to your forehead.
It sure ain't your charm reeling 'em in!
This user is no longer registered.
pclayton
Not really. Sounds like a broken record....
fk4711
I am actually agree with both Schillinger and Gottlieb. Can I do that? The truth is that there are some truth in either of their thinking. I married someone who is fat and bold. My friends think I was settling. But for me, the one most important thing in looking for a partner is my "heart of gold" rule. I wanted someone that I know is truly an honest and good man, one that I can live with day in and day out and don't lose respect for. And my husband is the one. He may not be a dream boat that every girl is dreaming for, but he has a good job, he is kind and gentle with a sense of humor, he is a fantastic father, and most of all, he treasures me above all things. For some, he may be a boring person, but for me he is a steady force in my life. Sure, we've been through ups and downs (job loss, illness) but I feel the connections is getting stronger and stronger after more than 20 years. Some of those friends who think I was settling are still single or married and got divorced. Some are still waiting for the perfect prince to show up and sweep them of their feet. We are all in our late forties and I think a girl should always dream if she wants to. But I see so many of them after initial excitement with the "perfect one" eventually got disappointed. One friend applied my "heart of gold" rule and got married at 50 and she is now so very happy. I think it is more practical to marry an A- man and work toward A marriage rather than the other way around. But I disagree with the term Gottlieb uses. If the man know you are "settling" with him, it won't last. Women should treat men like equal. if you want to be pampered, you need to pamper him too. It's should not be a one way street.
joachim_adidas
I agree. In many developing relationships, there *is* potential, but if you hold out for some ideal, you look past what may reward you in the longer term. Relationships are messy and unpredictable, but, you know, many that start with doubts develop into incredibly rich experiences. It's obviously not about extreme mismatches; it's about allowing yourself the freedom to attach to someone emotionally that isn't *everything* you wanted.
Sometimes "settling" may be about getting over yourself. I find some of my single female friends follow a line of thinking that's strangely reflected in how this review is put together: it's like they're all exceptional women, all very accomplished, emotionally mature and gorgeous, etc., and all the remaining men... they're somehow damaged goods. What's that about? Can that be true? What's the opposite of misogyny?
Sempronia
Misandry.
Babytink
You said this so well. It seems to me the book, which I haven't read, is about the freedom to go beyond stereotypical ideas of the perfect mate -- and the potential joy to be found in doing so. I do think it's time someone took the risk of being "post-feminist" enough to say this.
ron517
You are a truly good woman. Your husband is a very, very lucky fellow! Peace and Good bless.
TechChick
I agree 100% with your comments !
Also want to add: there is no such thing as a perfect man, since there is no such thing as a perfect woman. Everyone has different needs, wants, desires, dreams, and they change over time. Even if you do find you "Mr. Perfect", wait few years, he won't be perfect anymore, and not by his doing, but by your own, since we, as women, change over time.
The "heart of gold" principle means you have found a good man. That core goodness does not change.
Sempronia
I am completely with you on the "heart of gold" part. I'm in my 20s, single and, admittedly, one of those "difficult" people who isn't pretty enough to compensate for being difficult. My sense of relationships, from having watched my parents and others, is that marriage seems to be a growing process, and while it can grow and change, it depends upon certain innate characteristics of the spouses. One of these seems to be a sense of teamwork and fair play -- perhaps a give-and-take, where the two are willing to use each others' respective strengths. My problem is that I haven't seen that yet among people I've dated. It's not that I'm holding out for Mr. Perfect, but I do need someone who shares my willingness to work together, my attitude towards saving money, and who doesn't mind that I love my work. (Let's call him Mr. Well-fitted to Me.) My last relationship left me in terror of the possibility of being somebody's mother rather than somebody's partner. Maybe I'm a little pre-maturely jaded, and maybe I do have an overrated opinion of myself, but if I can't have someone who is going to work with me, than at least I can take care of myself.
That said, it sounds like you are both very lucky to have found each other.
whatstheuseofabook
I honestly don't think you're agreeing with Gottlieb. It sounds to me, that although your friends seemed to think you were settling, you don't. And to me, that's what's important. Your husband is "bold," has a "heart of gold," is a "good father," and is "the one," according to you. That is not settling at all, nothing like what Gottlieb is ultimately suggesting. Maybe your friends just didn't get it. In her book, Gottlieb is saying that being alone is not acceptable, that it's better to be with someone you may not like, who may not fulfill your needs because anything is better than being by yourself. So not true. It's when you are confident in yourself and what you want (which you seem to be you) that you find "the one." The danger in Gottlieb is that she automatically assumes that holding out for the right fit, for someone that fulfills most of your needs, means you're reaching for too high an ideal, when in actuality, it's just finding the right match, whether he's fat, bald, or built like Calvin Klein model.
lalaland7
It's clear that Gottleib's book is consistently being misrepresented here. I actually bought and read the thing from cover to cover after I read this review, because I found the original Atlantic article to contain some uncomfortable truths. It's not true, though, that she says you should be with someone you don't like. Actually, what's she doing is encouraging women to stop choosing men to date based on superficial, objective criteria like how tall they are, what kind of job they have, how much hair, etc. Instead, she notes that what makes a good marriage are in fact subjective traits like kindness, responsibility, and shared values. She notes that women have dated themselves into a corner by insisting that they're so "fabulous" and they only deserve some ridiculously unobtainable Prince Charming. I know these women -- I was one of them for a long time. And I think this review perpetuates some of the "you go girl!" feminism by listing all the "fabulous" women the reviewer knows. I have a PhD and a lot of smart, educated friends with amazing careers, but every single one of them longs for a stable relationship of some kind. Personal connection cannot be substituted with dance classes and glasses of wine in bars with other single women. Gottlieb is courageous enough to take on this isolating orthodoxy and suggest that some women have not been so smart by being so picky when they had the chance to be. Many find they've waited too late to have kids or the family life they want. There's no crime in pointing this little inconvenient fact out.
johncarani
Its not just a divide between the good the bad and the ugly, its about false values that give more credence to the superficial than the substantial. Its the same for men that are forever questing for the perfect size 2 busty blond that is driven into them by almost every movie, commercial, magazine and video they see. Not having read the book yet I can only guess at observations set forth, but it is obvious that they author fails to understand the problem, its not fit or fat, or hair or bald that divides good men, it is a divide between men that have values that lead to love and trust and happiness and men who value the superficial like the successful women who are alone. The very fact that the author assumes that it is a truth universally acknowledge that in shape women who have successful careers are somehow considered uber women is just a false premise. Most people see these people for what they are, sad and lonely. This is not to say that all women who have successful careers are sad and lonely, just that those women who are alone made the wrong choices because of a value system that is flawed.
AnImpartialObserver
Ms. Schillinger sadly misses the point of the book - which isn't surprising, since it's not clear she made it past the unsettling title.
Gottlieb at no point urges women to "settle". Seriously. In spite of the sensational title, she takes a very practical look at marriage, and observes that most successful marriages aren't 40 year passionfests. This wisdom may disabuse some younger women about holding out for Mr. Big type butterflies, which often don't translate to long-term love.
This review produces a completely false dichotomy which is nowhere to be found in "Marry Him": the idea that if you compromise, you're bound to be in a miserable, loveless marriage.
Gottlieb wisely doesn't advocate for such a message - and to paint her book as whining and corrosive only reveals your righteous indignation and personal bias.
Objectively speaking as one who was single for 15 adult years before tying the knot, Gottlieb's book is unassailable in its logic. Gottlieb never says that you should settle. She never says you should be unhappy. She never says you should end up with a schlub. She never says you can't be happily single. She never says an awful marriage is better than no marriage. She never says, well, pretty much anything you've attributed to her. This is the leap that you've taken to justify your anger at the title of the book. In fact the book is self-aware, funny, and useful to any woman who has ever wondered why it's so hard to find Mr. Right.
Gottlieb's message is simply this: women have more dating options at 30 than at 40. This isn't her OPINION. This is based on the number and quality of available bachelors. Ask any woman who's ever dated on Match.com whether she had more emails at age 40 than age 30.
Given this, it's better to understand at at 31 what compromises are smart and healthy to make, than to hold out for a fantasy relationship that never comes when you're 41.
And, to your point, Ms. Schillinger, about holding out being worth it:
Only 20% of college educated women over the age of 40 get married.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/marriage-and-women-over-40/
Once again, this doesn't mean that marrying ANY man for the sake of getting married is a good plan of attack. Gottlieb certainly doesn't endorse this whatsoever.
What she does say is that if your true dream is to have your own biological children, you may find that you're happier making small compromises when you're younger than being in the position to make larger unwanted compromises when you're older.
I think that's a wise message that every independent thinking woman can get behind.
prufrock
Thank you for this brilliantly scathing article.
What confuses me is Ms.Gottlieb's motives for suddenly trying to get married now. It seems she's looking for a nice man who can help her with domestic and parenting duties.
I suggest she hire a nanny and a maid.
People's actions say a lot about what they really want. If she had wanted to marry a man she'd met in the last twenty years, she probably would have at least tried. She wanted something else at the time, and she wants something else now: to sell a book and movie rights to it.
eurydice9276
I was going to make the same suggestion, but it seems that Gottlieb is looking for a *free* nanny and maid.
Slim45
A woman's capacity for self-delusion is unmatchable. She looks in the mirror and see...beauty, where none exists; class, when it is a stretch; accomplishment, even though she has sacrificed everything else, and a sense of entitlement.
Average in looks, overrated in many worthwhile categories, she gallantly soldiers on, thinking, that one, just one day, George Clooney is coming through that door and sweeping her off her feet. Ride on sister. I just spoke to him. He is getting to you next.
Fentro
Clooney is a man-whore. If that's what you want, fine, but know what you are getting. He may tend to the narcissistic side, loving himself more than the woman he's playing with - he's strictly a 'short time lover'. That so many women line up for the same guy is not unlike the Tiger scenario, where these sluts are knowingly cheating with an adulterer, because of his money=power=lies - thrill? Or just bad judgment?
This is what the hollow, materialistic world begets. This also explains why the American culture is on a fast path towards self-destruction. Humanity seems to be losing itself in the banal blowhard bling of Beyonce', instead of excelling in enlightening educational ethos - in other words, we're losing the ability to care for one another (in some circles, particularly those of monied 'success').
Our society needs a re-boot anyway, so party on, party girl (or work on, workaholic, or do it All, Super-career woman/wife/parent/body beauty/social success), and let us romantic sentimental fools cry when we see the world torn asunder, imagining the heaven we could have made it. We'll pity those of you (as if you'd care) who spend their golden years in solitude, just as we pity those who chose to remain frustrated in unloving relationships "because of the kids". (And from my experience, you ain't doin' it "for the kids" - they know you hate each other, and would prefer you divorce and get it over with!)
My advice? You have one life to live, and you do the best you can, (and forgive; forgive, and forgive). Learn from those with the experience to have learned a thing or two (i.e., appreciate the elderly instead of shunning them), and never forget that you can't believe anyone, so demand proof! Don't compare yourself with anyone, as that effort will always lead to unhappiness (or heartless vanity). The Buddhist approach works for me (just as Nihilism does for my single mom who divorced my dad and never re-married, which she occasionally regrets, while Unitarian pop remarried, and had 20 years together before my step mom died, so he is single again at 78).
FYI, "Sex and the City" is about 4 unlovable women, and "Friends" were fantasy creations of impossible-to-like archetypes. My point? Don't take anything in the media too seriously - except, of course, everything I write.
Yes, that's an attempt at humor.
This user is no longer registered.
rjcrawford33
(Man here.) I think that she is saying compromise in order to find a good partner rather than seek illusory perfection. That doesn't mean take any willing blob, but to look for other things related to compatibility.
Besides, perfection doesn't last, even if it does provide sustenance memories for hard times. Love blooms, then you settle in to the harder details of getting along in order to thrive in life's many venues.
I have been married 20 years. I did compromise, it was absolutely wonderful for the first 10 years, and we have struggled (successfully) for the last 10. We have wonderful kids and we remain interested in each other and respectful of the other's mind. But there are very tough compromises and perfectionists seem to imagine there shouldn't be.
I see it as a message to grow up.
That being said, the review is wickedly fun.
evanrm
Actually, I think that the author may be correct. Given societal trends such as higher divorce rates, more unwed parents and waiting longer to get married, it seems that men and women want what is unattainable. Unfortunately, while society may be more progressive, human nature stays the same. Liesl gives a lot of credit to women, but doesn't bother to ask if the credit is deserved.
Trilby
I have been married 3 times and left number three a few months ago. What a fucking relief to be single! Like, right now, I am buying my own co-op apartment. Yesterday I was thinking for a moment, poor me, I have so much to handle, all by myself. Then I realized, I always handled tasks like this one all by myself but with a parasite sucking my blood while i did it.
The only problematic part of remaining single would be the issue of kids. I had 3 and I adore them. I would not want to have not had that part of my life, and I would not have wanted to be a single mother. I think. That said, perhaps the best life course is to mate up with a man for procreation and then cast him off later, when he becomes a useless husk taking up couch space, laying waste to the groceries, and running the TV non-stop
wendyv123
Thank you. As a divorced, mid-30's woman, I have never been so happy to be single...I went for that dependable, good-enough guy and ended up having my emotional and intellectual needs - not "wants", but true needs - unmet and unmatched, leaving me sitting at home, wasting my brain on trying to be that "good wife" by doing what my husband wanted to do, even painting my nails a more feminine color than my usual vamp. I truly believed I was doing what a post-feminism woman was supposed to do....excel at my career and refining my intellect and playing holly-housewife to my gainfully employed bore of a husband in the hopes that when I am 70, I would be thankful for the companionship. Since this heartbreaking journey, I have come to realize that companionship is on many levels and can be satisfied by having lots of people in your life to fill each unique need. If you are lonely, live in the sprawling burbs, do the same thing every night and are essentially bored, than I assume another human organism will provide distraction and security. I have chosen to fill my time making new friends and really embracing and nurturing friendships that I ignored while I was married. If you already have a full life, and pay for your own comforts and conveniences, why bother with good enough, when good enough is not something you exercise in your own life!?
dreaday19
sounds like your judgment of 'dependable' men is a bit off. A dependable man would not leave your needs unmet, point blank. That would be the *opposite* of dependable.
louiexiii
had 3? What'd you give them up? Wont someone please think of the children!
jk
KateTheGreat
I remember reading Gottlieb's article when it came out, and being extremely annoyed at her clueless-ness. She came across as a self-absorbed, entitled, bitchy, immature, shallow waste-of-space.
It was embarrassing to read, as she embodied everything that is stereotypical about the worst, selfish, awful woman...you know, the one that your brother, uncle, guy-pal, etc. dated that turned them into the most bitter a-hole for a 1/2 year (or more) after the dissolution of the relationship. *sigh*
However, I did thoroughly enjoy reading this review...hahah! Delicious. Both my husband and I spent our early years "modelizing" and screwing around - then we found each other. Neither of us are, er, hotties, but we keep in reasonable shape, dress well/are stylish, and have lots of hobbies and interests. 9 years and going strong! Just don't take a day for granted - perhaps we're good at it as we lost important people early in life. *ponders*
Trunk-Monkey
Hear, hear!! Gottlieb *did* come off shallow, whiny, and immature. If, at her age, she still believes that 'Mr. Perfect' exists...that's just sad. Very sad.
One is *supposed* to be having fun and growing a career in the 20-30's. It gives you time to grow up, find out what's really important to you, and the maturity to accept that 'perfect' does not exist in nature. Yes, in my 20's I had a list of 'attributes' that I thought embodied the perfect. By the time I hit my 30's I had met a number of individuals who showed me which traits I actually valued, and which I'd simply absorbed from society.
Turns out that I *didn't* care if he was financially stable. Turns out I *didn't* care if he wasn't pretty, or educated, or interested in the Arts. I ended up with a wonderful, warm, affectionate man who hasn't a cent to his name, loves wrasslin' and drag racing, and would rather eat worms than read a book. He ALSO is a better housekeeper than I, loves children and animals, is generous with his time, can fix *anything*, and has never, ever given me cause to doubt his honesty or fidelity.
Now...did I 'settle' for the guy I fell in love with, or did I simply grow up enough to know what was important *to me*?
dreaday19
nail on the head.
Although the title and some context is extreme in nature, I think that's what the book is about, and what she's trying to tell/teach women that don't understand that yet in their 30's and on.
DakLak
It seems that the West has more concerns about these things than populations in the Far East.
Must be left over from the equality battles, these unsatisfied Western females.
wareagle82
Mr Perfect is no more existent than Ms Perfect. For most people, it's a case of finding someone who's close enough. Everyone comes with a few faults, though some are worse than others. Whoever sold women this bill of goods re: Mr Perfect isn't doing them, or the men they seek, any favors. Perfection is a helluva standard to live up to.
Marriage is hard work mostly because "it's not about you" anymore. You are no longer on date night, always putting forth your best face and having the option of bailing out if you don't feel good. It's a matter of finding someone who balances you - identical people don't work well any more than do total opposites.
You have to have some of each - common interests and traits but also opposite ways of dealing with certain things. At least that is what works for me. And you have to be able to laugh..at yourself, at each other, at life's obstacles and trials. Over time, looks and hotness will fade; character and a good sense of humor will not.
pclayton
@rjcrawford33 & wareagle82:
It's impressive to see postings from 2 uncommonly decent men with regard to the topic of marriage. Your observations are honest and true for both genders who want a marriage to work. The world is full of adults who are emotional adolescents in near-middle age bodies, so it isn't surprising that there are so many in their 30s and 40s who are still single. Marriage takes selflessness, compromise, interest, and hard work. Anyone who thinks that a successful marriage is only obtained by people who were lucky enough to have found Ms or Mr Perfect early in life is in fantasyland; most successful marriages are the result of partnership and respect and effort--it doesn't just happen.
It stands to reason that men and women who have invested most of their early adult years "creating themselves" through devotion to their education and careers are self-involved and may miss opportunities to secure a partner during that period of life. You can't have it all all of the time. People who have been married more than once can tell you that the reasons for and the results of a young union are very different from those entered as mature seasoned people. To "settle" for a mate is setting yourself up for later discontent when the balance tips, which happens often in the course of a marriage. Above all one shouldn't marry anyone they do not consider their "equal." If you have settled for someone, it follows that you don't think the person is your equal and the marriage will always be unbalanced and unsatisfying. Settling is not a good idea in my opinion; spare the other party.
This user is no longer registered.
topdocjim
The fact is that most men - and women - hover around that mathematical concept known as "average," and when we set our standards unrealistically high we are putting ourselves out on the end of the statistically_likely_to_get_married curve.
Yep, those post-college high-flying days are sure fun, but we spend the last part of our lives in old age, if we are lucky. I am perfectly content, even though I'm sure my wife could have done better in some ways, and so could I. But we are adults, not self-indulgent twenty-something adult-wannabes, and adults learn to accommodate reality and practicality.
So what are the rewards for us? Very simple: as we age, we are looking forward to grandchildren, a secure home, children who will share our lives as we sail off to mutual oblivion. For those who shift from "relationship" to relationship, looking for Mr. Perfect, I would say, what do your declining years look like?
Aemsere
You know, going for someone older, overweight and bald doesn't mean heading into an unhappy marriage.
I think people who end up in unhappy marriages are the ones who prioritize badly, or who make irrational decisions.
Of course, you should never settle for some types of partners - wifebeaters, liers, cheaters and people who only care for you out of material concerns, to name a few.
But bald people? Surely, you must be rigging the odds against yourself if you disqualify people for lacking hair.
There is such a thing as settling for just getting the things that matter most, and leaving the rest. And if you do make it till you're 50, chances are ok that you'll make it to 90 too. And whether he was bald or not when you married has little bearing when he's past 60 anyway.
But i digress. Women rarely think ahead like men. Men save up for retirement, and they save up a lot. Women...well, women don't. They save up half as often and half as much. The fact that some women would disqualify the love of their life for being bald and overweight is another symptom of the same problem - they have lost touch with what will make them happy over the course of their life, in favor of what will make them happy _right now_.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.