First, let me say that I think it's necessary for men and women to have a healthy perspective of love, relationships, and the realities of choosing a lasting commitment with a partner. Yet, society still glorifies fairytale images of romance and the perfect life you will have if and only if you find your one true love. A point that a couple of my friends have made, and I agree, is that we are bombarded, from a very young age, with ideas of love and happily ever after that simply don't exist. From our first Disney movie to the sugar sweet endings in chick flicks, we develop expectations about what love should look and feel like that ultimately leave us disappointed and disillusioned after we accumulate our own failed relationship baggage. Suddenly, the fairytale ending loses it's shine, because you are aware that real life continues once you ride off into the sunset with Mr. Right.
After all, don't you think Snow White had some serious trust issues to work out after the poisoned apple debacle? Didn't Cinderella harbor the tiniest bit of resentment that her man didn't even recognize her, in spite of their amazing connection at the ball, until she produced that dang glass slipper as proof of her identity? And, did each of these women arrive at their respective castles in the first blushes of love to discover that Prince Charming actually has an internet porn addiction, gambles away the royal jewels, and will kick the dog in a rage, leaving them with no choice but to ditch the prince and jump right back into the dating pool?
The author makes a strong case for letting go of the fantasies that hinder us in our search for lasting love. But, is letting go of idealized notions really settling? I call it growing up. For most of the single women I know, self-awareness, maturity, and experience have educated us on the realities of navigating life with a partner who is just as human as we are. I'm not perfect, and neither is anybody else. Thank God! Obvious dealbreakers (addictions, abuse, etc.) aside, that realization is refreshing. Perfection is overrated--boring, in fact--and impossible to sustain. It isn't real. Even one of my male friends pointed out that the goal isn't to find love with the perfect person, it's to find someone who not only likes you for all your good, but who fully sees your faults and quirks and decides she can live with those, too. And vice versa. I believe understanding and accepting this can lead to a deeper and more lasting connection than any portrayed in the fairy tales.
My primary issue with the article is that the author's case for settling is based on the premise that, if you want to have children, you should snag any decent guy, whether you love him or not, and get to procreating while you're still young enough to do it. For many women, the pressure to find "the One" is already high, especially if she wants children. Like it or not, there are still lots of ways to call a woman a spinster, and we hear it even from well-meaning people in our lives. As my friend Shannon pointed out, a woman who selects a dodgy husband (also known as a "poozer") endures far less questioning about her choice than one who decides to remain single. So, the article seems to be saying, if he's nice enough, will take out the garbage, and schlep around a bunch of baby stuff, you have as good a chance as any of being happy with him. Plus, you'll never be lonely again! If it doesn't work out, you're better off and have more options with child support checks rolling in and visitations with dad to free up your evenings for dating after divorce.
I don't know. While that's certainly an option, and maybe one that will look more pleasing to me if I approach my 40th birthday without a mate or children, I don't think it's the best one to advocate for in general. I'm not going to support a "Settle for Him!" movement based on some shaky TV show references. Gottlieb bemoans the fact that Rachel on Friends gave up nice guy Barry, simply because she wasn't "feeling it," only to end up in a tumultuous relationship with Ross. But, don't we find out in the course of the series that sweet but boring Barry was actually boinking Rachel's best friend during their engagement? Nice. I'm not so quick to discount the not "feeling it" as a legit reason for ending a relationship, as I think intuition can provide helpful guidance in situations without clear rules and where the answer is never black and white.
Gottlieb also points out that settling is already a rampant phenomenon that no one wants to talk about, but then she uses the high divorce rate as evidence of "true love" not necessarily leading to marital bliss. So...why isn't settling just as viable a choice? I say that, when it comes to the high divorce rate, perhaps settling is part of the problem. People have very set ideas when mapping out their lives and often burden themselves with questionable milestones to reach by a certain age. Getting married and having children ranks right up there. How many people do you know who married young, or married because that's what they though they were supposed to do, maybe even had a couple of kids, are now divorced? I can think of quite a few in my relatively small circle. The reasons vary, but I can tell you that without a foundation of real love and commitment, the incentive to stay and work it out is just about nil. Why bother when the next person to settle for is waiting right around the corner?
Okay, while I know I could go on and on about this topic, and maybe even will later, I'm stopping myself for now. What do you think? Comment away! (See comment link below.) Don't be shy!
Update
Thanks to my one commenter so far:
3 comments:
I agree, she’s wrong. Settling is bad. Not just “less than ideal”. It’s plain bad.
But the argument hinges on exactly how “settle” is defined.
Rather than breaking out the OED, I'm just going with my own definition. Because I can. To me, the connotation of settling includes the implication that I'm getting something I don't really want, and for that reason alone, I think it's a terrible idea. Maybe that seems like over-simplifying, but hey, I'm a simple person. Well, that, and I don't watch enough digital cable to make a convoluted comparison between 2-dimensional sit-com characters and the infinite analog of reality. We each have our own sort of nebulous "intuition" that is a far better calculator of love/happiness than any logical/scientific/analytical attempts to quantify emotions could ever be. Lists don’t work. Statistics don’t matter.
Love doesn't give a shit about quantum physics.
In other words, you meet somebody, you get to know them, and you eventually figure out who they are. Once you know who they are, your brain/heart/soul/internal-magic-8-ball sends you signals letting you know whether being with them compromises you too much or not, whether the fact that they're trustworthy or that they have tight abs outweighs the fact that they are self-centered or that they fart in their sleep.
If, despite the bad stuff, you feel good about the person and the way you compliment each other, then you're not settling. If you keep getting the nagging feeling that something isn't quite right between the two of you, then guess what, you're right. That's that. Simple.
However, I can unfortunately report from experience that those signals can take a long, LONG time to be communicated, translated, processed, understood, and acted upon (or ignored!), but they are there, and they are real.
On a philosophical/romantic level, if kids are your goal (why are you chicks always so damned concerned about kids anyways?!!?!? My traditional/barbaric/caveman sensibilities tell me that's getting the cart in front of the horse. At least it appears the author of the article agrees with that assessment!), we all owe it to our kids to demonstrate to them that we (and thus they) deserve happiness, not mediocrity, however we define it.
When it comes down to it, if settling means that you can be fulfilled while accepting a person's faults, then by all means, settle, and be happy doing it. I don't call that settling, I call that real life. If it means being stuck with someone about whom your Internal Magic 8-ball is insisting SIGNS POINT TO NO or ASK ME AGAIN LATER AFTER YOU'VE SOMEHOW MANAGED TO CHANGE HIS/HER PERSONALITY WHICH THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN BUT GO AHEAD AND WASTE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS FIGURING THAT OUT FOR YOURSELF AND GET BACK TO ME, then you're compromising not only your own happiness, but possibly even that of those kiddies you're so set on spawning. And that's just being selfish and irresponsible - in which case your best course of action would probably be to just wait for Prince Charming (not the dog-kicking one, rather his nicer, wealthier brother who loves all of God’s/Allah’s/Zeus’s/Yahweh’s/the Universe’s creatures (depending on your preferred Mr. Charming’s denomination, or lack thereof, of course)) on his white horse or Barbie in her pink Vette to show up and whisk you away to paradise, because you’re not mature enough to be a parent yet.
Besides, I'd rather be unhappy and believe in ultimate happiness than be resigned to eternal kinda-but-not-all-that-happy-ness.
From the article...
"Even women who settle but end up divorced might be in a better position than those of us who became mothers on our own, because many ex-wives get both child-support payments and a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover."
Flip this around... let's assume the laws are written such that men typically get the children. Women only get to have children on weekends, twice a month. Forget about child support... would you still get married if the laws were set up this way?
Men have to consider this possibility...
This article is a tough one. On the one hand, I get it that many women are really, really tied to the idea of having a baby. However, it seems quite selfish to put your own desires ahead of the child's/father's and get yourself into a marriage that is "good enough" so that you can bring your dream into reality, at the expense of the emotional distress that a divorce can bring on everyone involved.
On the other hand, who am I to judge? I'm married to a man who is really involved in every aspect of our toddler's life. In a way, it feels wrong for me to tell someone that they shouldn't get to have the same child-raising experience I have. And, at the same time, it also feels wrong to endorse the idea that you should marry someone while you are still young and hot and have better options available.
I guess its a question of understanding who you are, what your priorities are, and whether the ideas of "the perfect guy" are based on some idealized notion of love that you dreamed of in your youth or whether they are based on how people really are. I don't think its settling to marry someone who is different than you expected yourself to be with -- and as long as you don't go into it with the idea that you might somehow be able to change them into the person you want them to be. People are flawed and that is OK, and knowing someones flaws and accepting them (as long as they are truly acceptable to you) isn't settling ... its just being married.
Post a Comment