Settling for Mr. Good-Enough
Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:39:28 PM PDT
Anyone else see this article in Atlantic Monthly this month? In it, the author makes the argument for "settling" in order to get married. Parts of the article sound more tongue-in-cheek than real
And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.
But the overall theme is provacative - can an over-romatic view of love and marriage prevent us from finding life partners?
I've been struggling about if, and how, to blog about this. Of course, the initial premise of the article - that this is a women's concern and not men, is offensive and off-putting. And, it seems like you're selling yourself, and your partner, short by assuming that either, or both, of you are "settling". And, of course, the additional premise that it's only in monogamous hetero relationships that women can be happy is just too silly.
But, all that aside, the article had some interesting points.
while settling seems like an enormous act of resignation when you’re looking at it from the vantage point of a single person, once you take the plunge and do it, you’ll probably be relatively content. It sounds obvious now, but I didn’t fully appreciate back then that what makes for a good marriage isn’t necessarily what makes for a good romantic relationship. Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.
She makes the argument that the guy with whom you have "sparks" and great vacations, may not be the ideal guy to go through life's journey with.
What I long for in a marriage is that sense of having a partner in crime. Someone who knows your day-to-day trivia. Someone who both calls you on your bullshit and puts up with your quirks
And touches on the idea of compromise, more appealing than "settling"
All marriages, of course, involve compromise, but where’s the cutoff? Where’s the line between compromising and settling, and at what age does that line seem to fade away? Choosing to spend your life with a guy who doesn’t delight in the small things in life might be considered settling at 30, but not at 35. By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?
Towards the end, she touches on something I've thought about. Teenagers and young adults have this "dream" version of marriage and love and their life partner. But the dream is most likely not 100% attainable. Although the word 'settle' has negative conontations - being realistic about your aims in life has appeal.
In the end, though, this article bugged me - her final thoughts are 1) settling is a women's concern and 2) you're not getting any younger - the tried and true high anxiety areas for most women - it's the lazy way out - playing on women's fears. And, maybe, she misses the chance to talk honestly and realistically about long-term committed relationships.
Permalink | 17 comments