Almost two years ago to the day, Jessica wrote a post in response to Lori Gottlieb's horrendous story in The Atlantic on how straight, professional, single women over 30 should just suck it up and marry "Mr. Good Enough." She even predicted that Gottlieb would "probably get a book deal out of it." Well, it looks like she was right.
Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough is an extended version of the original Atlantic piece, an entire book attempting to convince women to settle for any ole Joe who is willing to have them. With societal influences putting all sorts of pressure on straight single women to find a man to snag or they'll just never be happy, the false information Gottlieb is now selling feeds this kind of message -- and all under the guise of "self-help." She recently conducted an interview with Jessica Wakeman, who brings up the point that one of the chapters is titled, "How Feminism F--ed Up My Love Life." Yep. But Gottlieb contends she is too a feminist!:
I'm all for feminism. I'm a feminist. What feminism is, though, is a social movement about equality. Feminism never told women, "You can have it all in a partner!" But what women did was -- and I'm guilty of this as well -- [they said] "Oh, I'm independent and I'm self-sufficient and if a guy comes along that's great but I don't need a man. I can have it all!" And we took all these ideas and we said, "That's feminism!" That's not feminism! Feminism is about do we get equal pay? Do we have equal opportunities? That's feminism. We attributed these other things to feminism. Feminism never had an opinion about dating, other than [to say] you should be an equal.
Oh, you are so, so wrong, Lori. Let's count a few of the many assumptions made in Marry Him (the title alone says enough) that are inherently anti-feminist: All women should get married; all women can have children; all women should have children; all women are straight; all women need a man to have kids; all women will lead miserable and depressing lives if they don't get married; and lastly, all women aren't worthy enough to wait for someone worthy of them.
And if this was some sort of book that was looking critically at the ideals of romance and having a soul mate, etc. why would it just be targeting women? What's wrong with, "I'm independent and I'm self-sufficient and if a guy comes along that's great but I don't need a man" anyway? Gottlieb's plight isn't a plight at all, but a big ole scare tactic to put women into a frenzy and compromise their desires and values in a partner by putting their ovaries before their own happiness.
Check out more at Jessica Grose's review of the book, who not only reminds us that Gottlieb's research subjects were all upper-middle class but also that her numbers just don't add up. Matt Yglesias also weighs in.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Mr. Good Enough" bullshit artist gets published .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/18169
I wrote about this earlier in the week. It is unfortunate that books like this get published when clearly it is only because they advance provocative titles and address ideas based on dubious premises and "research".
The basic assumption is that women are too picky or too confused by "feminism" to select a mate until it's too late---forever doomed to be spinsters with four-hundred cats.
The reality is that LOTS of women I have known settle for men who are bad for them, and most of them not late in life. Until you know yourself, in my opinion, you have no business getting married and though I myself would love to get married eventually (though I waffle on the concept sometimes) I know that it's hardly a decision to be taken lightly and without much contemplation.
What I suppose I take most offense to is that it aims at a very narrow cross-section of the population, completely ignoring working class and minority women, to say nothing of LGBTs and their own unique concerns.
Gee, let's take a deeper look at this:
A publishing industry run largely by men, many of which are likely to fall into the "good enough" category of human being, is bankrolling the publication of a book that, coincidentally, advises hi-achieving women to accept the mediocrity of a "good enough" man...
It's barely a step below the news media telling us not to worry about (or worse, ignoring entirely) the Supreme Court decision that permits unlimited corporate financing in political campaigns, when - coincidence! - this decision will result in greater advertising revenues for their networks.
I call bullshit on this.
It would be interesting if Gottleib or some other author finally came at the issue from the "marriage of convenience" perspective. It would be nice to see more people in the mainstream admit that sometimes settling is related to the social and economic benefits our society gives to coupled people (and, OMG, question them!). But no; we get delusions about how some so-so person that you aren't that into is going to fulfill your life somehow.
Actually your post is very smart and raises interesting questions. To me, marriage is a piece of paper - a very important one. It covers the following: visa rights, inheritance rights, access/living will rights, tax rights, custody rights (not automatic to my husband if we had kids, amazingly; theoretically my parents could get in there first). For my husband and me, we would much rather sign one document to tell the state we demand all the above, than have to send in proof of cohabitation, paternity, national residency, tax residency, living wills, regular wills, etc. The reason to marry is that the state doesn’t get to ask, “Do you live together? Parent together? Love each other? Fuck?” Etc. It just says, “OK you say you’re married, here’s a bunch of rights.” It’s the lowest level of state involvement that is possible for us to form a legal family. For me this is why it is OBVIOUS gays should be allowed to marry. Because that’s all marriage is - a one-stop shop to certain rights that I think families should get with regard to each other.
If the state/society do not recognise couples, what relationships SHOULD it recognise? The reason to recognise couples comes down to parents, I think (and to a lesser extent, siblings). If we are to give special status to parents (which I don’t think we can avoid, otherwise who decides how to educate our kids, what they eat, wear etc - the state?), then parents probably need the option for legal status wrt to one another, or you get a real mess (eg kids inheriting a deceased parent’s stake in the home and the other parent having to be taxed on residing there as a benefit in kind, with the kids having to pay the same in back taxes themselves upon reaching majority). But should we recognize legal rights for aunts? Uncles? Grandparents? Polyamorous relationships (clearly multiple kids can inherit parental rights so why not)? Who has the above rights? If we wipe them all out in the name of equality, what happens to a person who marries an unskilled, unemployed foreigner who they could support on their sole income, and wants to bring that person to live in their homeland? What happens to small children whose parents die?
Marriage is ABSOLUTELY first and foremost an economic thing (all the above rights come down to money really). Love is secondary, and romantic love that has had to overcome differences of education, culture etc often doesn’t survive economic meltdown (it can of course).
So yes Gottlieb’s book sounds like it’s mostly fuckery (the Atlantic article, which I read, was pretty annoying). But the debate we are having is still not going nearly far enough. The question of when or who a person should marry, or whether gays should be allowed to marry, goes to the heart of how we are to live. This is why people (wrongly I believe) say gays marrying threatens traditional marriage. Because actually, what they call marriage is totally ill thought out, and they're being forced to think about it, and that's scary.
What is marriage? What is parenting? What is a family? What is the difference in the rights we should grant to family you choose, and family you are born into? How should you choose the ones you can? And most of all, why does it matter to anyone besides the people involved?
There's lots of good stuff on this around. Jezebel had it (and also had some other links), and I think Tiger Beatdown did, too. 'Course, there isn't a whole lot to say about it besides what you just said, so maybe it's about time we stop giving it publicity.
This makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
All of these points are, in my not-so-humble opinion, quite correct. But I'm also thinking of each partner in such a marriage. Can you imagine ANY PERSON (of any gender or orientation) hearing the message, "I'm only lukewarm about you, but I'm not keen on dying alone. Wanna get hitched?"--and thinking, "Oh, boy, goodie, the answer to my prayers!!"
Anyone with a shred of dignity...or wisdom...would run the other way as though being chased by zombies on espresso.
It's not even as though she's asking those few women who have impossible standards (that they themselves don't meet) to take a chance dating a little outside their strict criteria. That might be reasonable advice for "those women," whom I suspect are mostly straw-women, anyway.
Ask anyone who's ever been in a bad marriage, or even a so-so one that's just gone ice-cold: the loneliest place on earth is in bed next to someone you don't want to be there with. Being single and unhappy about it doesn't even compare. I've been both, and I'll choose single every damn time.
I can; I'd do it. I don't exactly see myself having any better prospects; even that will probably be a stretch.
Well thank goodness I am only 25 (almost 26)! I still have four years before my shelf life is up and I have to settle. So I better get out there before I have to find a guy that would actually be able to settle down with a successful single gal at the ripe ol' age of 30! What am I doing even typing this? I am wasting valuable time!!!
Remember: marriage first, self-respect later!
Are you reading this reply??
If so, shame on you for wasting even MORE time. Slacker.
I am sorry I am just replying to you. I have been so busy on the man hunt, because I just realized I am not whole without a man. And even though this is cutting into my time I did want to say you gave me the best laugh in a really long time. Thank you!!!! :) :)
From Jessica's original post:
"Shit, she'll probably get a book deal out of [the original Atlantic Article]. "
This is why Jessica is a blogger, and I'm not.
Lori Gottlieb is a gasbag. Why would anyone ever think that all woman want to get married and have kids? I love living with my boyfriend, and I told him after we had been dating for two weeks that I don't (ever) want to get pregnant. He seems okay with that, much to my relief. In all honesty, my womb doesn't yearn for offspring. It never has, and as I march closer and closer to 30, the age when Gottlieb insists that all women become desperate for reproduction, I highly doubt that it ever will.
Now, some women don't give good men a chance because they don't have great jobs or seem "serious" enough, or they won't co-sign on a BMW. I know people like this and I think that they should give the nice yet maybe not so flashy guy a chance. But if she still isn't feeling secure and happy with him, no she shouldn't settle AND add children into the mix, whose little hearts will inevitably be broken by the fighting and tension that leads to bitter divorce because the woman married a guy she didn't even love. And imagine being the man whose wife "settled" for him! Everyone deserves real love, not fake, I want a baby so bad I'll do it with anyone love. The notion is insulting on so many levels.
I'm 20, and I haven't even been on a date. I'm not in a hurry to start dating and get married, because I'm enjoying my youth and independence.
Every time a woman, namely my sister and aunt, obsess over getting married and having babies, I throw up in my mouth a little. It's not the fact that they want to do these things, it's the fact that they don't think they'll be happy without a man in their lives. I want to say, "Have a little dignity!"
I swear, if someone could monitor my blood pressure when I hear "My biological clock is ticking" or a woman crying over being single at 30, they'd see that it probably doubled in those seconds.
I'm 100% happy with just me, my family, and my gal-pals. If a man comes along, fine. If he doesn't meet my standards? Even if I'm 60, 70, or 80, I will not settle for him. This is my own life and happiness we're talking about here. My standards are not subject to change.
It's really upsetting to me that the media shoves this bullshit on us and makes us believe that we, as women, should be catty towards other women (whom we deem as "competition"), get married, have babies, and be sheep or else we're obviously freaks.
Marriage is not all it's cracked-up to be, in the words of my mother.
I think there is more to be said here. Although I agree with what most of the people are saying and with the OP. I understand Gottlieb's message quite a bit. The only problem is that she is saying it through a terrible context. Which only goes to show her incompetence at helping people find the "right one".
The problem is that MANY women nowadays (but not all) are looking for a man that fits their bill perfectly. Which is usually the type of man that doesn't exist. And it's all because they've seen too many Twilight movies or have been morally owned by the media (like most men have been as well). They usually turn down guys who are literally everything they want in a man just because he didn't have a lot of friends, money, or prestige. Then the years go by and they find themselves unhappy cuz they're not doing what society tells them to do. And that's getting married.
But sometimes the even worse happens. They DO marry that guy who is perfect for him, but end up unhappy or feeling unfulfilled because he has that one flaw or doesn't have that one trait. Then the man feels unhappy cuz she doesn't truly want him and vise versa. Which ruins it for the kids as well.
What this Gottlieb lady's got right is that the perfect man may never come along. Its just that she needs to show people WHY he might not come along. Not that you need a man in order to be happy. Like she does.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that most women are looking for a Twilight guy, or that they're looking for "money or prestige." And if a woman is looking for those qualities in a man, her problem isn't that her standards are too high and she can't take anything less than perfect, it's that she's shallow and has poor values and really bad judgment. Sure there are women like that but I think most women are smart enough to know that real men don't act like the sparkly, undead heroes of schlocky teen romances (and that you don't want them to anyway...) and that things like wealth do not a happy relationship make. I have high standards when it comes to men I would share my life with and so do most of my female friends and family. But those standards are based good values and a genuine knowledge of what we want and deserve and a lack of willingness to settle for less. Give your fellow women a little credit here. We're not dumb.
I would like to get married and have children some day (although not right now, I'm 23) and I'm not going to lie and say I NEVER worry about finding a man to start a family with. But I worry about my few female friends who have such low self-esteem that they take any guy that wants them much more.
It sounds like you're either hanging around with women who have poor judgment and skewed priorities (if they really are that materialistic), or you're misinterpreting what they say. It might be that they find a guy really sweet, but don't feel very turned on by him -- and trying to have a long term sexual relationship with someone you don't feel much chemistry towards isn't a good idea. Or it could be that they find him okay to hang around with, but instinctively they can tell that their personalities don't quite mesh in a way that's necessary for a partnership.
Hey man, I'll settle when I'm dead.
I was with you until you threw this into your list of anti-feminist assumptions:
all women need a man to have kids
Um, unless you plan to adopt, you absolutely need a man, at least to provide the sperm!
Why is it anti-feminist to say that both women and men are needed for the creation of a child?
I don't think that's what she's saying at all. Of course you need sperm to have a baby. "Needing a man" in this case refers to needing to be in a relationship with a man, as opposed to being a single mother. Because relationships are what the entire article and book are about.
Yes, fair point. Though I would much prefer 'you don't need a man to raise kids.'
I probably over-reacted a little there. I'm quite touchy on this subject. I've had discussions in the past about a (healthy) single woman's "right" to artificial insemination. I'm quite against that idea, using technology to provide one gender with an opportunity that the other then does not have doesn't seem right to me. Particularly with the present state of society, where such an action reinforces the stereotyped roles of men and women.
Anyway, sorry for going off-topic. Just the wording used invoked this subject in my mind.
But, if you are wondering why I jumped to that conclusion: from Lori Gottleib's latest article:
"A couple of years ago, I wrote an essay for the Atlantic titled "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough," in which I said that having found myself still single at 40, with a donor-conceived toddler, I'd reached an uncomfortable realization:[...]"
[bolding mine]
Gottleib infers that her decision in this regard was ill conceived, and I read Vanessa's remarks as a defence of this state of affairs as a valid life-style choice. It isn't of course, any conception of society that reduces one gender to the role of donar of genetic material in the reproductive process is one that invites inequality.
btw: the parent was meant as a reply to Lydia.
I got married at 22, simply because I thought that is what I needed to do in order to be happy, and I didn't think there was anyone else out there that would be as good. After five years of therapy and antidepressants, I am now 27 and happily divorced. Life lesson: You don't have to be married in order to be happy.
Coming from the gay community, I often find myself advising peers that there is always an element of "settling" in good relationships because you have to give up on so many prejudices; you have to stop worrying about whether your partner is "masculine" enough for you (if you're a guy; the inverse if you're a girl), you have to stop using purely physical criteria to deem their fitness and you have to stop thinking that the woosh of love chemicals you experience in the beginning of a relationship will last forever.
Your relationship with your partner will indeed become more and more routine and less and less exciting, and you rely on your partner for the same kind of security and trust that parents and siblings give you. There's also no dire urgency to be in a relationship at all, if the one you are in makes you feel less secure and less comfortable.
I wonder if there is some merit to the ideas that 1) a woman is not defined by her partner and 2) a woman does not need to seek a partner of high status because she can achieve merit and status on her own. So it's not the buzzword "settling" that bothers me here; I advice men seeking male-male relationships to do that, to a degree.
The thing that troubles me about this book, though, is that it is marketed exclusively to women, as if women should be approaching the benefits of marriage any differently than men should. There's no reason why men and women shouldn't be approaching relationships to seek reciprocal benefits of companionship, and there is no heightened need for women to "find someone" compared to men beyond what is socially constructed. Anything that differentiates how women and men should seek partners lends itself to a binary in which men can have more power and gain more from the deal, which is not acceptable.
I have to think that if you actually gave women the tools to empower themselves and encouraged them to look beyond hegemonic attitudes and embrace more a "this is what works for me" approach, tips on how to get married and why would be rendered moot; you'd be encouraging them to be agents of their own happiness as they are perfectly able to determine when and why to get married on their own.
Excellent points, all.
Wouldn't this whole settling thing require some level of dishonesty? To convince the man in question you love him more than you do and that you're not settling? This would also apply, to friends, family (both yours and his) and would have to be maintained for as long as your married, or until your feelings change. Unless, of course, there are plenty of men out there just waiting to find a woman willing to settle for them.
"Ask anyone who's ever been in a bad marriage, or even a so-so one that's just gone ice-cold: the loneliest place on earth is in bed next to someone you don't want to be there with. Being single and unhappy about it doesn't even compare. I've been both, and I'll choose single every damn time."
Thank you Gidget! This is exactly what I planned to write. This book is a great big anti-feminist shit bag. I appreciate all of the talented bloggers and journalists (including Vanessa!) calling Gottleib out on her harmful messages and bad numbers. Too bad she'll probably be a bestseller anyway. Grrrr.
99% of these relationship books are b.s. who takes this seriously anyway?
A whole hell of a lot of people do - literally tens of millions of American women purchase these books.
The more prominent self help writers move hundreds of thousands of units per year, which creates a whole lot of profit for the publishing industry.
These books wouldn't exist if they didn't fill a market niche.
As for why so many women believe in these books enough to spend money on them, that's a different question, but believe in them they do.
Being the market and taking it seriously isn't necessarily the same thing. I have a friend who bought the Steve Harvey relationship book chuckling that it was by a guy on his marriage.
On his third marriage, sorry
Geez. That book sucks, hands down. Okay, I live in the Appalachian region and that concept is about 35130598 times worse here, than anywhere else in the US, I believe. Many people that have lived here for a long time support the idea that women go to college and then the year they graduate, they are to get married. It makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Many many many women I went to high school with are already married, or have been, and already have children. Okay--if this is what you truly desire, then go for it! But, I know that many of those women are not emotionally ready for what they have gotten themselves into and they have gotten married because that is the "next thing to do in life". These women are only 21-22, which is my age, and I graduate in one year, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would get married in a year. I am even in a serious relationship.
Books like the one we are discussing are bad for women because it makes them believe that they have to get married. What's wrong with having a partner? What's wrong with women who simply are okay with being single. As an ally for the LGBT community, it makes me upset that this book does not even address lesbian relationships. Why? If this writer is going to write about women, she needs to address all women, not just straight women.
Obviously, this lady hasn't seen Millionaire Matchmaker.
Talk about men who need to "settle"!
Well away from the world of sensationalist TV, the situation is perhaps a little different.
Gottleib clarified in her last article:
"The majority of single women who responded to a survey I sent out said that getting 80 percent of what they wanted in a mate would be "settling." The majority of single men said finding a woman with 80 percent of what they wanted would be "a catch." "
I find these statistics fascinating though not totally surprising.
I personally think 80% is GOOD and think that is a pretty good catch. I personally never actually expected to find anyone who was 100% my perfect match (I don't believe it's possible for anyone to be 100% perfect in every way) so question for me is what percentage do you consider a good catch, what good enough, and what unacceptable?
80% = good catch seems reasonable to me, though 85 or 90% is even better. Higher then 90% is unrealistic to expect IMO.
Okay, I haven't read the book, but I have a little bit to say about Mr. Good Enough and the women who would choose to marry him.
I'm currently dating Mr. Good Enough -- in fact, I live with him. He's not some asshole I picked up at a bar, but I know that he isn't the "love of my life" either. We've been together for seven years. He's never cheated and he is a very egalitarian person. The sex isn't great. There is relatively very little passion and affection in this relationship. But we are close and we trust each other. We're kind to each other. We make each other feel like we belong somewhere. We have very similar political and ethical positions about the world and life. We have considered marriage, but marriage happens to be one of those things that both of us don't really value. We both make our own money and marriage would actually result in higher taxes for us, so we've kind of decided against it. I would consider marriage if he ever seriously proposed that as something he genuinely wants, but I really don't see that happening.
Am I satisfied? Not really. Am I happy? Not really. But I'm a busy woman with very little sex appeal and I don't feel like dating or worrying about who does/doesn't like me. I am doing what I want to do for my own reasons -- not because someone told me to be with Mr. Good Enough or because I feel expected to have a man in my life.
Encouraging women to find love and happiness is one thing, but don't condemn me for something you don't understand or feel uncomfortable with. There is nothing anti-feminist about my relationship with Mr. Good Enough.
It sounds like you've got a fairly realistic "Hey, neither of us are perfect, but we work well together," thing going, not a "ZOMG I have to find a man and acquire a wedding certificate and spawn -- he'll do! There, I have legitimacy!" one. And it's the latter that's being criticized.
I know quite a few couples where I suspect this is the case. They work well together, they do like each other, but they aren't neccessarily totally perfect for each other, but it works for them and both partners prefer the relationship to being alone.
A few friends have literally told me flat-out their husband or partner isn't the man of their dreams but they prefer him to being alone and I believe them.
None of these men are total assholes or abusive or anything like that. They are in fact very nice, good stable people. I think their decisions make perfect sense and are not the least bit anti-feminist.
Well stated I think you probably described the majority of marriages/relationships out there.
Okay, I haven't read the book, but I have a little bit to say about Mr. Good Enough and the women who would choose to marry him.
I'm currently dating Mr. Good Enough -- in fact, I live with him. He's not some asshole I picked up at a bar, but I know that he isn't the "love of my life" either. We've been together for seven years. He's never cheated and he is a very egalitarian person. The sex isn't great. There is relatively very little passion and affection in this relationship. But we are close and we trust each other. We're kind to each other. We make each other feel like we belong somewhere. We have very similar political and ethical positions about the world and life. We have considered marriage, but marriage happens to be one of those things that both of us don't really value. We both make our own money and marriage would actually result in higher taxes for us, so we've kind of decided against it. I would consider marriage if he ever seriously proposed that as something he genuinely wants, but I really don't see that happening.
Am I satisfied? Not really. Am I happy? Not really. But I'm a busy woman with very little sex appeal and I don't feel like dating or worrying about who does/doesn't like me. I am doing what I want to do for my own reasons -- not because someone told me to be with Mr. Good Enough or because I feel expected to have a man in my life.
Encouraging women to find love and happiness is one thing, but don't condemn me for something you don't understand or feel uncomfortable with. There is nothing anti-feminist about my relationship with Mr. Good Enough.
Yahoo had a thing on this book today.... on how the things that you think are cute and quirky are really annoying to guys...
Aparently I'm not supposed to feel "entitled" to a nice guy - that I shouldn't tell myself "I deserve" a good guy... (*gags* It took me years to convince myself to stop dating egotistical, abusive jerks - I DO deserve a nice guy darn it!) The article says that the books logic is that since you're not so great, you don't actually "deserve" mr. perfect....
*scratches head...* I'm so totally ok being single. :p It can't be worse than hearing the person I love saying how stupid and ugly and fat I am and smacking me around....
Gidget is so right. I've been married thirty years and it takes a lot to be that intimate and still be whole and free individuals. I can't imagine what you would even start with if you didn't love your partner and respect them as your first choice, not something marked down for scratches and dents.
And what man would want a relationship on that basis? Only one who was more needy than the woman proposing it.
Does anyone else feel that society pressures settling by making "fear of commitment" seem like such a terrible thing? Personally, I think that a lot of bad marriages could be prevented if people had a little more fear about committing themselves to be legally tied to someone else. I'm 27 and about as single as I can get. I refuse to settle, in part because I can't imagine how awful it would feel to settle for (i.e., marry) someone I wasn't 100% committed to, only to later meet that person I'd been looking for all along. Call it a fear of commitment if you want; like many of those who commented, I'd rather be single than with the wrong person.