On Settling for Mr. Good Enough

The week that my Atlantic essay, "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough," was published, Bella DePaulo wrote me an email asking whether she could have her publicist send me her book, Singled Out.

I didn't take Bella up on her offer, but if I had, I hope I would have had the courtesy to give a fair critique rather than do what Bella did here, which was to attribute quotes to me that weren't mine, take every cited portion of my essay wildly out of context and, with these glaring inaccuracies, fail to convey the nuance of the piece and, as a result, its actual point. From someone who's a social scientist, this seems pretty unscientific to me. But I don't know -- maybe that's what they mean by the "social" sciences.

In any event, I'm surprised by the outraged vehemence of Bella's reaction for several reasons, one of which is that few people would dispute what I'm saying in the piece, whether it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy or not: Quite simply, a woman at 30-years-old is more likely to find a higher caliber of partner than that same woman might at 40. Likewise, most 40-year-old men would rather date a 35-year-old than a 45-year-old, all else being equal. And finally, the majority of heterosexual women in this country want to get married and have kids. Is that so controversial? Am I really "hurting America" (to quote Bella quoting Jon Stewart) by writing a piece based on these widely accepted beliefs? All I did was take them a step further and say to 30-ish single women: be aware and act accordingly.

As someone who decided to have a baby on my own with the optimism that I'd find Mr. Right later, only to realize now how difficult that might be to achieve given the realities of gender politics, I was suggesting -- and I never insisted that people had to take my advice; I was only offering it by way of opinion -- that at a certain point, say, your mid-thirties, if you haven't found The One, go with the guy who's nice and smart and interesting, and would be a good husband and father and a person you'd enjoy eating dinner with every night, even if he doesn't make your stomach get all jittery with butterflies whenever you see him, because the "zing" isn't the thing most long-married couples talk about anyway when asked about what makes their marriages work. As I said in the piece, the day-to-day of marriage (yes, even good marriages) is more about whom you want to run a household with than whom you want to go on vacation with. Again, not exactly controversial, and not a dating concept that hasn't been around for quite a while, but for some reason Bella portrays me as an affront to women everywhere for stating the obvious.

Meanwhile, for those who have been misled by the blatant inaccuracies in Bella's post, I'd like to set the record straight on as many as I have time to address (between work and childcare and what, as Bella probably believes is most important to me, Match.com). Like, well, her opening line. I don't, as she asserts, have "one word for single women of any age: Settle!" In fact, I suggest settling specifically for women in their thirties who don't want to be alone for the rest of their lives and/or want the kind of traditional family in which there are male pubic hairs on the toilet seat in the master bathroom. How she got the impression that I suggested it for 18-year-olds, or 25-year-olds, or 45-year-olds, or gay women, or people with OCD who can't stand someone else living under the same roof and spreading all those guy germs, is beyond me.

Second, Bella erroneously states I'm urging readers to settle for guys who, quite to the contrary, I refer to in the article as people for whom I would clearly not advise settling. Interestingly, Time magazine recently devoted an entire issue to the science of romance, in which there was a piece that cited better health for both partners as one of the many benefits of marriage, partly because you have another person reminding you to get regular doctor check-ups. (Time magazine's writers use actual studies to back up their reporting; Bella would approve.) Perhaps Bella, without a spouse around to mention that she needs a vision test and reading glasses, took my examples one hundred and eighty degrees out of context not because she was willfully twisting my words to back up her point (that would be unethical, after all), but because she just couldn't see all that well (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, being a fellow presbyopic singleton.) Had she actually read what I wrote, though, she would have noted that rather than urging that anyone "settle" for these men, I was suggesting that the kind of settling I was talking about shouldn't involve that much compromise, which is precisely why I was advocating doing it in your 30s, when you can still find a great life partner you'd likely be happy with, even if he doesn't meet your (perhaps unrealistic) definition of The One.

Third, and under the heading, "Her own little world" (which can't be that little, given that I share the desire for a traditional family with a large number of single woman in this country -- at least the 1,000 who claim to belong solidly in my little world in emailed responses to me after publication of the article), Bella asserts that I'm "creating my own reality." News flash: This is a personal essay. Note that it's written in the first person. I'm not writing about someone else's reality as a single mom in her 40s. I'm writing about my own experience and observations and conversations with men and women both single and married. Which in no way implies that I'm "the mom telling [my] kiddie readers that they must do as [I] say 'because I said so!!!'" First, I have never placed three exclamation points together in my life. But also -- and you can fact-check this with my 2-year-old son -- I've learned that using "Because I said so" is a highly ineffective way of getting my point across. In fact, it often results in a very childish response, similar to Bella's: mockery. So although Bella has responded to my piece the way a 2-year-old might, my essay was simply expressing a view, not shoving it down people's throats as the only way to live one's life. If your definition of a fulfilling life is one that consists of three cats and physical contact only with uncommitted partners or the masseuse at Burke Williams, then put down the Atlantic and go stock up on kitty litter. Obviously, this piece isn't written for you. But please be aware that you're the minority in the subset of heterosexual women in this country who have never been married.

The mommy line isn't where the unfair attacks end. Bella also takes issue with, of all things, the pull-quote the magazine ran. Hey, Bella, I don't have any say over the pull-quotes, okay? I'm just the "myth-peddling" writer. Can you get any more nitpicky? I mean, I know why I'm not married -- I'm controlling, moody, and nitpicky. So maybe we have something in common after all.

In fact, we do agree on one thing. At one point, Bella looks at the piece more objectively and states: "I will give Lori Gottlieb this, though: Scientific findings are about averages. There are always exceptions." True, and let me add that scientific findings are prone to error. As a former scientist myself (in medicine), I know from experience... oops, "my own reality" ... that studies are flawed and often not replicable in the so-called real world (not just mine, but even the real real world in which Bella implies she lives but I, apparently, don't). Especially studies that ask people to fill out questionnaires about how satisfied they are being single versus actual conversations with single people that probe more deeply and subtly than blunt questionnaires often can or do.

Hilariously, though, after this cogent observation, Bella moves on to the heading, "What does Lori Gottlieb want?" - a question by which even my therapist has been flummoxed for the past 10 years, but which Bella thinks she can answer in two inches of blog-space. Here, Bella continues to take text from the piece and apply it in an entirely different context. She seems to have missed that I was making fun of, rather than advocating, what relationship books tend to suggest. Unlike those books, I was recommending that people commit in their 30s to a perfectly lovely man with whom they may not be "feeling it," and not that they do what the relationship books urge, which seemed to me to be selling one's very soul in the service of finding a partner. In fact, my main point of the piece is that by tying the knot in your 30s with a great guy who perhaps isn't whatever idealized notion you have of "true love," you won't end up in your 40s or 50s or 60s with the only options for partnership being men who might make you feel like you are selling your very soul.

Oh, and I do want sex. True, I wrote in the piece that most married couples aren't having it as much as they did while dating, so the "chemistry" factor women look for in a mate might be over-emphasized. In the Will and Grace example, the point I was making -- which again, Bella twisted entirely -- was that I probably wouldn't be having a lot of it even if I was raising little kids with Mr. Exactly Right. That's the reality of married life with toddlers. But yes, I'd like to be having sex. I hope that clarifies "what Lori Gottlieb wants."

In regards to my "tragic husband-fixation" (let's not confuse this with, say, the "tragic" situation in the Middle East or Darfur), I hate to pop Bella's we-are-the-world view of female friendships but, no, my fellow single mom friends don't want to watch my kid so I can eat lunch. They want a break, like I do, because we never have a hand-off and can barely juggle our own kid. We're out of gas. When we single mom friends are together, we want to relax and -- gasp! -- have an adult conversation. Not eat alone for 20 minutes and then run around with two rambunctious toddlers so our friend can eat alone for 20 minutes. Unlike married women, we don't have another adult in the house to talk to on a regular basis, so eating alone while our single mom friend is 50 feet away on the jungle gym isn't quite the same as having a husband. Is it really that hard to see the difference between the two scenarios?

Bella really goes off the deep end, though, when she maintains that I consider myself to be "shockingly unconventional." Interestingly, my entire piece is about how much I crave the same thing most people do -- a traditional marriage rather than being the so-called trailblazers we single moms are often assumed to be. Nor am I trying to be original. As I said, there's nothing original about the idea that women have better marriage prospects at age 30 than at 40, and if we don't want to end up alone, we should pay attention. Why then, are people like Bella so incensed? Are they perhaps shooting the messenger because they don't like the message? Is that why so many women have written to me, thanking me for saying what they already knew, but also mentioning that they've been afraid to post publicly about this for fear of being attacked by people just like Bella simply for saying that they agree or found the piece honest or thought-provoking? Look, even I don't like the message, but I was still able to write about it because, to my mind, it's true for a lot of women.

Still, even if Bella were to accurately understand my points in the piece, and even if she still disagreed, I'm not sure why she felt the need to attack me so forcefully and personally. She even felt the need to denigrate my piece on her book's Amazon page. Again, I'm no social scientist, but I'm one class away from a graduate degree in psychology, and I have to wonder, shrink-intern that I am, whether my ideas have struck a raw nerve for her. I mean, if it's not advice that works for you, so be it. Stay single. List your fellow single female friends on your emergency contact form at the doctor's office, ask your female friends to make you chicken soup when you have the flu, eat dinner each night with your single female friends (but don't talk about dating or men; who needs them?). If she really finds the piece (and, by extension, me) ridiculous and laughable, then why spend so much of her clearly fulfilling free time as a single woman debunking it? Instead, the mere intensity of her reaction (rather than, say, a more calm and reasoned response to the actual message of the piece, or even simply sharing her thoughts directly and privately in the email in which she offered to send me her book) makes it seem like, well, Dr. Freud, sometimes a blog post isn't just a blog post. As we say in the trade, I think she's got some, uh, issues here.

Oh, and speaking of that email, Bella, thanks for your self-promoting offer (I lost count of the number of times you referred to your own book - chapter and page numbers included, in your post). Yes, please have your publicist send me a copy. I can't wait to read it with the same degree of intellectual integrity and objective critical thinking that you gave my Atlantic piece.

Comments

[Triangle1]

I think part of what this author is trying to communicate is, it's **OK** to accept someone as a mate who isn't a perfect 10 in looks or a wealthy corporate attorney. Much of the reason we don't accept that guy/girl is that our friends or family won't think s/he is good enough for us, even though we are totally into him/her. Who hasn't met that person who we had a lot of chemistry with, but we knew the expectations of everyone else in our lives wouldn't be met by the person. Of course you're supposed to do your own thing, be strong, and ignore everyone else's opinion but your own. Her thought process allows someone to accept a partner they probably already like, but have argued their way out of because everyone else thinks s/he is too average of a Joe/sephine. We all would love to have someone our friends and family simply RAVE about, but this is about getting real.

[izforever]

Continued from previous comment

If Gottlieb doesn't convince you, read Stephanie Koontz's A History of Marriage. She's brilliant, killer knowledgeable, and a card-carrying feminist out of Evergreen State College. (When NPR wants to interview someone about marriage, she's it.) She makes quite clear that the kind of practical, feet-on-the-ground-rather-than-head-in-the-clouds marriages that Gottlieb talks about are exactly the kind of marriages that have prevailed throughout history--except for that brief period in the U.S., from WW II into the sixties--the place and time when today's marriage-destroying expectations really got their legs, and their teeth.

Oh, and just to answer the obvious question about whether this whole post is or is not sour grapes.

Is: I'm a man who is single at the moment, and doesn't want to be. I attribute this to the difficulty of finding (okay, younger) women who are as clear-eyed as Lori Gottlieb about what really makes a good relationship.

Isn't: I was married for fifteen years and have two spectacular teenage daughters who are as crazy about me as I am about them. I do spend, and have always spent, a large portion of my time with them. I continue to date women even after I've gotten the feeling that they don't really excite me, because I think things might develop into something that works for both of us, given good-natured companionship and a little time.

Since nobody else seems to have asked--at least here (what is *wrong* with these guys?):

Lori, will you marry me?

[izforever]

But there's one other thing that girls are looking for that guys don't delude themselves about: they want "Soul Mates." "The One." "My best friend, lover, and eternal life companion." Phew--they don't expect much, do they? Add "will support me," and the explanation for today's relationship dynamic is pretty clear.

Isn't it about time for sensible women to make like Lori and put aside these misty, relationship-destroying (and -preventing) expectations, and instead consider all the other (truly meaningful) items on the list, figure out which ones are really important to them, and do what guys do--settle for a decent mix of those?

continued...

[izforever]

Three cheers for Lori Gottlieb!

(Has anyone else pointed out what Lori is undoubtedly quite keenly aware of? That her name means "got love"?)

The obsession of American women with finding The One True "Soul Mate" is, in my utterly unsupported opinion, the primary reason that marriage rates are so low, and--especially--divorce rates are so high.

I know, I know--it's genetically encoded, and there are very sensible explanations of why evolution would have resulted in that encoding. But:

1) If there's anything that makes us "civilized" and truly human, it's our ability to overcome the predilections of our genes--predilections whose only true "purpose" is to further the propagation of said genes. (viz: overcoming the predilection to eradicate neighboring tribes and take their women as "wives.")

2) That predilection has been amplified x-fold by A) the rise of dewy-eyed romanticism starting in the 1700s, in response to the failure of religion to provide sufficiently satisfying self-delusion; B) the brief postwar period of male-breadwinner nuclear-family-ism's hegemony (which still leads many to believe that that model is the "traditional" one); C) Hollywood romantic comedies; and D) "you-deserve-it"-style self-help writing, especially the sticky-gooey womens-magazine variety.

Men and women want pretty much the same things in a partner, with two exceptions.

Good-natured.
Good-looking/sexy.
Interesting.
Reliable/trustworthy.
Good parenting type.
Rich/good provider (almost uniformly a girl thing)
Funny

Feel free to add to the list. We all want all of these things--some more, some less. Guys care inordinately (but not uniquely!) about looks, and girls care inordinately about rich and funny. (If I read one more personal ad that says--or is titled, as is frequently the case--"Make me laugh!", I might commit intellectual suicide by reading The Kite Runner, whose title is second only to "make me laugh" in frequency of appearance in women's personal ads.)

continued in next comment

[LordMoon]

As usual men are just treated as objects, without wants and desires of their own. (Men have become the new women and women the new men.)

This is the main reason marriages and relationships fail, and why women initate 80% of all divorces.

Men are just there to fullfull the desires of his wife or girfiend. The personal adds usually list them in order of preference.

If you really want to get pregnant, just hike up your skirt a little, I'm sure there will be many who will oblidge.

But when it comes to marriage you may find it more dificult to find someone who is willing to take on the legal and financial obligations of a marriage and a family. This may be why it's so dificult for you to find, someone suitable to your specifications.

[misspeach2008]

I've been married to my best friend for over 30 years. I think the problem is in the word "settling". I think that what you are really suggesting that women do (and men, too) is to re-examine your priorities, which is not the same as settling. My husband and I have been known to get the "passion meter" going, but the most important thing between us is that we know that no matter what, we have each other's trust and loyalty. When she graduated from college, our daughter said that the best gift we had ever given her was she knew we would both always be there for her - together. It's the best gift we've given each other, too. Building a life together requires teamwork. Choosing the other member of your team is not always about goosebumps.

[Crystal]

I kind of wonder if it can even be called "settling" simply because someone chooses a spouse based on qualities of character rather than the butterflies. As my marriage began its slow descent into failure, I could not help but wonder if I wouldn't have been much happier marrying someone with whom I was simply more compatible and that had a better character, rather than marrying for passion and love.

[overtheedge]

Ms. Gottlieb, I also read your original essay. You did state that women were either in denial or delusional if they did not feel panic if they were still single by the age of 30.

Now, I am pushing 40 and have never been married. In all honesty, I don't really know whether I want to get married or if I just want to get married because I've been culturally programmed to want marriage. What really annoys me -- and I believe Ms. dePaulo -- is the assumption that happiness and stability depend on marriage.

You advise women to settle because holding out for Mr. Right may have them miss their chances for marriage. I agree that the perfect man only exists in my imagination. But why "settle" at all? I look at all the married people I have known throughout my life: some are happy and stable; some are tolerant; some are downright miserable. Then there's the huge group of marriages that end in divorce. Why does society and popular culture encourage us to marry when so many marriages end in divorce?

I really don't mean to slight married people, but when I have to defend my lifestyle, it often comes out that way. And I believe Ms. dePaulo feels the need to defend single people who slighted everyday.

[67bug]

I second everything you said. Plus, what about those of us who intend to remain childfree? Why the hell do we have to get married?

[tbone99]

Obviously you've never read "NO EXIT."

"Don't worry about passion or intense connection..,annoying habits, because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go."

The divorce rate is 50%. Divorce is much harder on a child than having a fairly stable situation ,whatever it may be.You think that habit is annoying while you're dating- wait 5 years from now!.

Of such ingredients are divorce and contentious marriages made.Perhaps you think from your view on the bench, marriage is just like a small business, without tremendous respect and love for the person you're involved with ,marriage is a guaranteed season in hell. What kind of person would want to bring up a child there?

We have way too many people marrying for looks, money and conformity producing kids who can't understand why they're not loveable.Maybe they got that idea from parents who think marriage is a" small business."

[izforever]

What actually causes most of those divorces is not the little annoyances--those are just symptomatic--its the unrealistic and (50% of the time) unrealizeable romanticized expectations that Lori points out.

[Phife]

I'm a 30 something man and I "settled".

I got tired of the singles scene and I wanted kids. So, I began dating a woman whom I had known previously, but didn't feel strongly for. She didn't make my heart go pitter patter and she wasn't a knockout, but I made the right decision.

I went on more lame dates (and some good) than I care to revist. Most of the time there was no chemistry. Sometimes the timing was no good. In the end I decided that the singles game is a sucker's game.

I'm healthier and happier now than I was then. And I care a lot less about the way she looks now, than I did before. My wife is my partner and we're both stronger now together than we were apart.

I think the term "settle" may be causing some people discomfort, so if it makes you feel better, as another poster stated, "be realistic." A big part of this "settle" thing is not even about the other person, it's about YOU realizing that Brad Pitt or Halle Barry is probably not interested in you, average, joe or joanne citizen. There is no white knight coming to sweep you off your feet and there's no beauty queen waiting anxiously at the club for your phone number.

Maybe the bus driver or shoe salesman or bank clerk and reality is going to be a better partner than your fantasies.

[PartyPartyParty]

Ms. Gottlieb,

I read your original article. After ruling out the possibility you were writing satire (not funny or biting enough), I forced myself to get all the way through it, but I could not take anything you wrote seriously after I read the following:

"Take the date I went on last night. ... He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome and smart."

As Dave Barry put it, an person who is rude to waiters is a mean person.

Do you really want to even entertain the thought of allowing a mean person to participate in the raising of your child?

Settling for someone who can't even be bothered to be civil to a working stiff isn't settling: it's asking for misery. For both you and your kid. If you don't care about yourself enough to wait until you are capable of judging a person's character, you should think about your son.

[starboymikey]

Settling for someone who can't even be bothered to be civil to a working stiff isn't settling: it's asking for misery.
___________________________________________

I think you're missing her point. Marry someone you know is a jerk is not "settling", it's masochism.

But suppose the guy was perfectly nice to waiter and left a generous tip. Also, he wanted the same things you did (a family, etc). And maybe he was everything else except he was only moderately successful and not particularly handsome.

Clearly not everything you want, and maybe you're not that physically turned on by him. But he loves you and is ready to commit.

If you went ahead and married him despite the fact that he (or she if applicable)does not have movie star looks or a lot of money ... well, that might be a positive example of "settling." You know this guy is likely to treat you well, be steadfast, good to your kids, etc., etc.

But if you're not will to take anything short of the complete package, it can be easier to overlook the being rude to the waiter bit as a quirk you can "fix" later on. In reality, though, it could be the fatal flaw that wrecks your life.

The question is how much do you really want the life you say you want?

[Boobaloo]

"As Dave Barry put it, an person who is rude to waiters is a mean person"

Are you serious?

I would venture to bet you're single because its that kind of extreme judgements that keep people waiting for Mr or Mrs Perfect.

Im rude to waiters/waitresses a lot, you know why? Because most waiters/waitresses I deal with are a movie star/ pop star/ actress/porn queen wannabes and having a job is beneath them and therefore they treat clients like crap.

If you're giving me bad service, Im going to be rude to you and probably complain to the manager of the establishment because Im not going to pay to be sh*t on by some head in the clouds fame hungry twit.

I think you've missed her point entirely and revealed yourself to be unbearably judgemental.

[camb94]

Maybe it is the way you write, or the way you worded it (which I guess means the way you write), but as someone who has been married for 14 years, I have to disagree. "Settling" will just mean that you are committing to unhappiness. When you meet someone, there does need to be a practical side of connection and getting along that goes along with feeling "jittery" and the "jittery" feeling may pass. But if you can't find that feeling to connect with, then ALL of the problems that will face you in the future will become much larger obstacles. Your point about how difficult it is to raise small children is valid, but that just means you will end up divorced when the children are older. It does neither a husband or potential children any good to settle. I do, however, agree that many women have unrealistic expectations about what love is -- so maybe a good hard look at what a good relationship is may be in order, and that compromise is important. But I would tell my children to NEVER settle.

[PartyPartyParty]

A dear friend of mine with two small boys told me about one night at home, when the older was just two and the younger was a newborn. The newborn was screaming while mom dealt with her mastitis before she could nurse him, and the two-year-old had woken up and was screaming with rage that he wasn't being let in on the action.

My friend told me that at one point, she and her husband looked at each other and said simultaenously: "I'm so glad I really love you!!!!"

[knittingbuddah]

What an insult to a guy to "settle" for him. Why bother to marry someone you feel is so inferior? It seems to be a very mean thing to do to someone. I can't imagine it would bode well for a marriage since you would be insulting him from the get-go.

If you are happy about yourself as a person you can build a wonderful happy life regardless of your marital status. Stop focusing on marriage, find some time to do some volunteer work, and focus on the joy in your life.

[PartyPartyParty]

Hear-hear!

And what does it do to a child with one parent who doesn't respect the other one?

[starboymikey]

Stop focusing on marriage, find some time to do some volunteer work, and focus on the joy in your life.
_____________________________________________

An absolutely viable alternative ... if that is what you want. But if marriage and a family is very high on your list, there's nothing wrong with that either. "Settling" may have too negative a connotation for some people, and perhaps there's a better word someone can come up with. The idea, though, is to let go of the notion that you will ever find perfection in a mate. There simply ain't no such thing. Sex is not the same thing as love. People aren't perfect and marriage doesn't work that way.

The question is, after the sexual fascination begins to wear off, which it eventually does, what is left that's worth staying together for?

[McNugget]

Great post Lori. Bella's post only proved how ignorant she was to the trials of being a single parent. Besides, what does a degree in social science really mean nowadays? That and a buck fifty will get you a moons over my hammy down at the Denny's.

[seewhy]

i have to say -- as a 48 yr old never married man, i should have been extremely interested in the insights and observations in your column -- but i found it, i don't know, i'll stop short of crass but it was definitely ugly and uncaring. and uninteresting. in the same way that race doesn't matter anymore, marital status doesn't either. in both cases, about damned time! i read someplace that right now 40% of households are headed by single adults, and that will climb to 60% in the next 25 years. i don't evaluate anybody on whether they are married or not, or the quality of their relationship. why would i do that? what's the point? if they're happy and especially well-suited for each other, they were lucky in the first place and/or they've worked to maintain and support each other. but if they're single, or divorced -- so what? sitcoms didn't have much to say about real life struggles in the '90s [consider 'seinfeld'] and they aren't even that popular today. and a lot of people are trying to simplify their lives, divest, not over-consume -- and small apartments and houses are the trend. i guess what hasn't changed is the number of serious long-term relationships people have in their lives. the difference today is we don't feel compelled to marry them. i choose to think of that as a positive development.

[Phife]

"in the same way that race doesn't matter anymore, marital status doesn't either"

unless you want to have kids, in which case, being married can be very helpful

[seewhy]

i don't necessarily disagree with that -- but why do you think so? for the kids' sake, i'd imagine -- the opportunity to relate to two parents, increased stability and opportunity. but i'd go back to what the others are saying, i.e. if you're flaunting a willingness to embrace a situation that you're not that enthusiastic about -- is this really what you want to model for the children?