Why it’s OK to settle for Mr. Good Enough

[VV o n g B a]

man, what a depressing read. sucks to be a single middle-age woman.

------------------------------
Still holding out for Mr. Right, even as middle age quickly approaches? Don't hold your breath, says Lori Gottlieb. Here, the author and single mom explains why true love may be a fantasy — and why that's not necessarily a bad thing. Excerpted from “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” from the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic magazine (http://www.theatlantic.com/).


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I've actually read from a biological standpoint and according to the medical profession such as clinical psychologists that middle age actually doesn't start until 45, and ends at 65, at which point old age begins. 25-45 is considered young adulthood. Anyway, I'm sure our society sure doesn't do a good job of supporting that what with all the imagery and emphasis on youth. I guess that's why they say hot 30-year olds are the best bet.\

I kinda understand what she's saying here and maybe I just don't understand b/c I'm not a woman, but it's like for me the whole purpose of getting married wouldn't be to have a family or to have kids or run a household even though that might be very rewarding, but the main purpose of getting married would be to be with that person forever. The author is just talking about settling because at the very least it's practical because you'll have a teammate to run a family together...but to me those things are just secondary and meaningless without the right teammate. Maybe I'll think differently when I get older.

[eos]

i've already settled for mine. and not having kids to boot. oh the horror. *rolls eyes*

[AngryABCGirl]

God this is depressing I can't read anymore. I'm still 7 years from 30. I got time.

But one thing though already, settling = possible future divorce mess?

I don't really believe in this the one business or sparks of romance though, that's not how to look for a partner.

[kimpossible]

That article infuriates me. So this one gal decides she wants donor sperm to have a baby and now she doesn't like the situation she put herself in. I can't even finish this. What a shitty way to treat a potential mate. My, Gottlieb is quite full of herself.

[AngryABCGirl]

That article infuriates me. So this one gal decides she wants donor sperm to have a baby and now she doesn't like the situation she put herself in. I can't even finish this. What a shitty way to treat a potential mate. My, Gottlieb is quite full of herself.

I only read the first page, but it seems to be a lament about herself not being able to find a partner more than anything. I wouldn't want a raise a child with just anyone in any case.

[Arex]

I too couldn't get past the first (half) page, but I just wanted to make one point: The term "settling" is thrown around too much given its almost negative connotations. I prefer using the term "having realistic expectations."

For example, if you look like a horse and aren't particularly wealthy, don't expect to be swooped off your feet by a Brad Pitt look-alike. It happens on occasion, but not with enough frequency to make it a realistic aim for yourself. Set your expectations that high, and you'll have to settle or else end up by yourself or living amongst cats. That's bad for you (nobody wants to settle), and bad for the guy you either settled for (since he'll never have lived up to your initial hopes), or didn't settle for (because he now only has his Real Doll for companionship). Instead, readjust your expectations to a more reasonable, realistic level. Next time you're at a bar with your girlfriends, don't give that horsey looking fellow the cold shoulder 'cause, for all you know, he could be your soul mate. (This same logic applies to men as well.)

Of course, there's more to relationships than just the superficial attraction issue, but bottom line is, unless you're perfect (which you're not...no one is, not even me), don't expect perfection in a mate. It's that easy. So don't "settle." Instead, just have realistic expectations so you never have to.

[applehead]

what a disgusting piece of trashy article.
if you haven't read the whole thing, don't
bother, it's a waste of time.
she sounds utterly pathetic.

i would like to ask her, if this is the advice she
would be giving her daughter if she had one,
that it's okay to just settle before you get old and
your chances get slimmer.
or if she'd be happy to hear her son's future wife
say, "i don't really love him but i figure i gotta settle
before my looks dry up"

i mean, it's ridiculous.

maybe she should have spent more time outside
than at home reading pathetic self-help books and
watching tv.

[TB4000]

Well, you know they always talk about people that are older and aren't married. As soon as chicks hit 30, a lot of people start to raise an eyebrow for some reason. I'll be 30 in two weeks, and the only one who is bugging me about marriage is mom. Dad says play the field some more.

[Sunflare]

but it's like for me the whole purpose of getting married wouldn't be to have a family or to have kids or run a household even though that might be very rewarding, but the main purpose of getting married would be to be with that person forever.

Yeah, I agree with you. It's unfortunate though that getting married comes with all kinds of complications, legalities, financial burden, and liablilities, nowadays. It's like playing russian roulette with your life or something.

But if there is a girl I truely love dearly that I can see myself living with for the rest of my life, and can trust, I'll marry her. Hell yeah.

That article is like total gibberish. I had to stop reading before I become brainwashed with the authors warped views and depressed to the point I want to kill myself.

[kasia]

well, after reading the article, i a bit confused as to why you found it so despicable. wasn't she just being, after all, honest?

the concept of settling, as arex pointed out, has very negative connotations, but all we're really disagreeing with, then, is her choice of a title. how bout just 'why mr. good enough is good enough'?

i think it's not necessarily cynical to analyze the concept of love. is it just lust? is it just physical attraction? is it intense caring of another developed over a period of time? is it the feeling of gratitude toward another for easing your sense of loneliness? what is it? and it being "just a feeling" doesn't cut it. and i actually totally agree with the author that the feeling may exist but be fleeting in one situation and may grow and develop in another. the feeling is actually fluid, it doesn't remain static, we don't always feel the same about a person as we did yesterday or a month or a year ago.

she argued that marriage, in fact, is more like a commitment than just something that automatically and inevitably grows out of love. what do you find so disagreeable in that? isn't that what arranged marriages were based on? and isn't it true that many in arranged marriages stated that they were happy not because they were in love with their significant other but because they were so content with their decision to honor, respect, and care for him/her? it's a decision and, i think, love sometimes inevitably grows from that. and what's so wrong about that?

then the criticism about her being pathetic. (from bo, my dear friend.) don't you have to admit, though, that societal pressures have at some point played a part in your life? maybe not to the point of actually just going out there and dating whoever you can, but you did take it into consideration, no, when your mom or dad or relative asked, "so when are you getting married?" somehow being in a relationship headed in that direction eases that pressure. somehow it gains you acceptance (if only with yourself). and maybe you and everyone else on here are just super strong or something, but i just thought the author was simply putting herself in a very vulnerable position and being so brutally honest (with herself! she doesn't care about all of us) when she said she was influenced by the common idea of what a family should look like, being like other families, etc. you want to fit in, you want to bring your husband to your kid's birthday parties, and you just don't want to be the only 40 year old at your family's Christmas dinner with your younger nieces and nephews wondering if you are going to end up being the cat lady. you won't know whether to send Christmas cards because you won't get to sign it with anyone's name but your own. you won't have an automatic date to company ball's. unless you have an extremely close sister or close friend, you won't have someone to listen to every single detail in your daily life. you won't have someone to share with you the joy of raising your child. etc. etc. is the author being so pathetic? or is she actually being brave in voicing some of our worst fears? i mean, i have very close girlfriends from college and law school and my professional career, and it'd be an utter joke to say that these thoughts haven't crossed their minds - especially professional women who chose to put their careers ahead at one point in their lives. they think about this - if not on a regular basis. they want to know where their future is at. and they want to know if there is a man in it.

consider also that the article says "mr. good enough". that's not just good, or decent, or whatever. it's good enough, to be defined by each woman's individual standards. we still get to define it for ourselves. we still get to choose someone that we can live with. and i still go with the motto from since i was young, "don't be with the one you can live with, be with the one you can't live without." that's romantic enough, no? but that's not to say that the person who fits the latter isn't just "good enough". because i think good enough has been pretty damn hard to find.

i think what she means is that we can't always rely on our instincts, on that notion of "you'll know it when it happens". hasn't it ever happened to you - when it happens...and it feels stronger than ever, and then a couple years down the road you can hardly stand the guy because you can finally realize what an idiot he is? or the reverse? when you are just dating a guy that you feel is just mediocre...but then you truly come to admire his traits?

i don't see why the article is that depressing at all. in fact, i think it's the opposite. it's telling us to keep an open mind and have control over our own happiness.

[applehead]

holy crap. that's a long response.

i hate this article because this is really bad advice.
try being in a relationship where there's no being "in love"
involved. it's torture. seriously.
respect for each other and commitment can only get you so far.

and i really don't think that marriage is only about being
in love with each other. of course, other things are important.
my sister always says marriage is a business transaction.
well, maybe but i don't want that for myself. or my sister
or my friends.
i feel that, being in love with each other should be
the biggest factor.

and plus this is coming from
a single mom in her 40s and she's envying the fact that
her son doesn't have a father to play with. I
maybe she should've thought about that before she

this is bad advice coming from the wrong person.
she's not in a position to say settling is okay because she laments
the situation she's in.

maybe i'll feel differently when i'm in my 40's
but i'd rather be single for the rest of my life
than be in a marriage with someone who i was never in love with
and only respect and am committed to.
that kind of sounds hellish to me.
i didn't always feel like this though.

but i think my point is she's really not the person that should
be giving

[contra_diction]

"Shoot for the stars, so if you fall, you'll land in the clouds."

[applehead]

Heehee.

Well i'm not bashing single moms
or having a child using donor sperm.
Was just trying to he funny.
Those two things are not things that haven't
crossed my mind.

[monkeygone2]

imo the writer’s intent was to provoke a heated response.
arex’s post was logical and to-the-point, but that’s not going to get your article multiple reprints and a 90 second interview on cable news.
the writer used the word “settling” which makes one think of settling for less than i deserve, and she did this for controversy.

if the writer said this piece was just her personal opinion, from her own personal experiences- people wouldn’t get so riled up.
instead, the writer instructed her readers to look in the mirror, because if you disagree with me, you’re lying to yourselves (i’m paraphrasing).

to further fan the flames, she brings up "mary tyler moore" in order to hint at the old 'public sphere vs private sphere' debate, which just kinda divides american women.

i don’t know. she’s kind of all over the place. her main thesis seems to be- women should be less selective.
but she’s a single mother... you’d think she’d be even more selective of who she allows in her baby’s life.

and her thing about love not being the most important thing in a marriage... obviously, she knows this would lead to extramarital affairs. *shrugs* would she advise her readers to write this off as the price of doing business?

but yeah. happy valentine’s day :)

[kimpossible]

She puts the onus of her happiness on a partner, a man. How convenient that she can't be bothered to consider what she brings to the table, what she has to offer as a spouse. It's all about her and it's extremely condescending towards men.

Quite frankly, I can see why she's not married and why she feels she has to settle. It doesn't at all mean that the rest of us must.

[Seraphfire]

I think the article presents a fair portrayal of some women's opinions.

apple, I don't think the author is advocating marrying someone you don't love, it's more that she's advocating you redefine how much in love you should be with your partner. As she pragmatically mentions, you may be spending far more time with coworkers, friends, children than with your husband.

Maybe that's empowerment to some, people today are far less dependent emotionally on their spouse in the sense of spending time and status. If that's the case, why does the husband have to be of the highest quality but say your job satisfaction has a lower requirement (but you spend more time there!)

Maybe sometimes the sum of the parts is greater than the individual pieces.

One thing that the article doesn't seem to address is growing into each other. That was a very important piece of my marriage (especially given that we married young and had plenty of flaws.) Yes, it's much harder to change your ways the older you get but even with late life marriages it can be a very important tool for compatibility.

I'd say settling for someone willing to grow into your ideal spouse is far more beneficial than picking someone you see today as ideal but is unwilling to change later.

[thaite]

How convenient that she can't be bothered to consider what she brings to the table, what she has to offer as a spouse. It's all about her and it's extremely condescending towards men.


Damn right. I hate that attitude.

[deez nuts]

Didn't read the article. Don't really care. And it's long. I would like to address this point:

How convenient that she can't be bothered to consider what she brings to the table, what she has to offer as a spouse.

Such a simple concept. But, you'd be surprised on how some women don't understand this concept along with the concept of reciprocation in a relationship from my experience anyways and a few of my friends share the same thoughts and experiences as well. What she brings to the table and what she has to offer a partner/spouse? Let's start by carrying one's own weight in the relationship and not anchoring your partner down.

[eos]

but who has the right to define what "in love" means? can someone tell me what that means? my definition will differ from yours, and yours will differ from someone else. i actually agree with kasia and the author in that people are just so obsessed/preoccupied with that perfect fantasy/life that they can't see anything else. being married to me means a lot more than being in love: CAN i stand this person for the rest of my life? can i count on this person to be by my side if something happens? will i be willing to do the same? do we make a good team?

[kimpossible]

That's the difference. Different stages of life will equate to a different type of relationship, not lesser beings. I think what the author meant, and probably should have said, was by 40 with a child you're not going to have the young love stage of your single 20s. Which is fine. Grieve the loss of the path not taken. But to focus on "Mr. Good Enough" and not the two-way nature of the relationship sought is rather blind not to mention counterproductive.

I think what the author meant to express was her outlook had altered to expand marriage to the idea of long term companionship instead of young romance, as per expectations of youth. Her delivery and focus is what I take issue with.

edit: okay, i tried to reread and it's just as infuriating if not worse than i remember. here's a sample of what pisses me off.

In practice, my married friends with kids don’t spend that much time with their husbands anyway (between work and child care), and in many cases, their biggest complaint seems to be that they never see each other. So if you rarely see your husband—but he’s a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own—how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?


My husband isn't "some guy" that takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear. He is a dedicated father, husband, son, and teacher. Maybe she should consider that it might matter to the decent guy in question if the woman he marries sees him only in terms of a walking sperm donor/ATM/garbageman.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think people can talk about how the author is misunderstood and that we should really grasp what she is truly saying about settling or whatever, but the bottom line is that more than once in the article, she talks about how no matter how unhappy her married friends are, they wouldn't trade spots with her or any other single woman during middle age. This implies that simply having a lifelong partner, regardless of his shortcomings or how much he just plain sucks, trumps every other factor imaginable, including feeling miserable on a daily basis.

I would certainly hope this is not the case with most people, male or female. Again, maybe it's because I'm not a woman and/or not middle-aged, but if I'm waking up every morning longing to eat shotgun shells because I can't stand the person in bed next to me, you can bet your ass I'd rather be single, kids or no kids, family or no family.

[TB4000]

Nobody wants to die alone, that's all that is.

[eos]

yeah. that's pretty much what my parents subtly hinted at after they got divorced and my mom moved her bf in and my dad remarried likethat.

thanks mom and dad.

[kasia]

i don’t know. she’s kind of all over the place. her main thesis seems to be- women should be less selective.
but she’s a single mother... you’d think she’d be even more selective of who she allows in her baby’s life.

i think that's the problem. k, so i lied. i only read the first page initially because she's really not that interesting of a writing. but having skimmed the rest, it's hard to say whether i agree or disagree with her bc she's making more than one point.

at first, it kinda sounds like those typical cosmo articles on throwing your "list" away, i.e., how you can find the perfect guy for you without adhering to some list of standards that you've held on to since you were 12. and i'm in full agreement with that. though when i was in my early 20's, i was a bit more idealistic and believed that we should not have any list at all, that each guy should be judged individually bc you never know who you can fall in love with, i think i grew more discrimatory with age bc of the risk of wasting time. for example, i've dated republican guys. it just won't work bc i'll start resenting him, not bc he's necessarily a bad guy. it's also just preferable to date a guy who has a college education. etc. etc. but does he have to be an accomplished journalist or a doctor or chinese or in a very specific age range or belong to a certain income bracket? i think having those lists is unfair - and we should be able to go beyond all of that and see each person that he/she is underneath. some may call that settling.

she also talks about a spouse as a partner in the trenches. for me, my life isn't so difficult and i don't anticipate it to be in the future. but for my clients - all low-income and many in broken homes - i can see how having a spouse and a dual income would be desired. of course, that's assuming that the guy wouldn't isn't abusive or a bum. but sometimes the need to survive is greater than the need to be in love. that may not be the case for all of us, of course, but i guess another way to put it is, it's nice to have a best friend throughout your lifetime. and i passion does not necessarily have to play that strong of a part. it would be great to have, of course, but once you're ready to settle down, wouldn't you rather have someone you can rely on to hold hands with every night before you sleep?

of course you have to like the dude. she was a bit confusing when she talked about dating a guy who was into terrorism. it's kind of extreme to advocate settling at the risk of your own personal safety. and it was a poor example that really didn't tie in to what she was talking about - because that guy certainly wouldn't be like the will in will & grace.

i think the reason why i find this article interesting is bc, in my late teens/early-mid twenties, i think i passed up many guys because of fairly trivial reasons. like they didn't go to a certain college. or their voices were low enough. or i didn't like their hair. or their brand of jeans. really trivial things that don't have any bearing on their character - and at 29 now, i think character would probably be the most important thing to me. "setting", in a sense, may help you discover a great guy.

[Broomer]

You guys have been talking with my wife haven't you?

[Sunflare]

^Yeah. We can't understand how the hell she could have put up with you for so long. . . . . . . .Just kidding.

[applehead]

come to think of it.

i don't know why i cared so much about
who other people are marrying.
now this article doesn't piss me off so much.

whatever. why should i care who you marry.
i don't know why i was so annoyed.
hahahahahaha

[Sunflare]

Look simply put I'm picky as to who I'm going to marry, since it involved a serious commitment. All of my preferences in a girl I would like to marry has to match my checklist, by her looks, her personality, her goals in life, her sense of morals, etc. I can't settle for Ms. Good Enough. Not good enough for me.

My dad warned me about that. He said if your heart isnt really into the girl you decide to marry, then it will never work. You will f--k up and cheat on her, etc.

As a man, I can be flexible and be willing to adjust to my girl's personality and flaws, but she has to look good and has to meet my criteria as to what I find physically beautiful in a woman. End of story.

Well beauty is only skin deep I know. But still. It's all about looks for guys, personality is not as important to us, even though we all know, that this kind of thinking is a trap into a loveless marriage if we go according to our passions like that.

That's why girls finger to romance novels and men fap to porn. It's that simple.

[Broomer]

^Yeah. We can't understand how the hell she could have put up with you for so long. . . . . . . .Just kidding.

Mate, too true.
If it's anyone else, I'd have been in a ditch by now... probably missing big important bits.

Ka.

[Sunflare]

You guys have been talking with my wife haven't you?
^Yeah. We can't understand how the hell she could have put up with you for so long. . . . . . . .Just kidding.
Mate, too true.
If it's anyone else, I'd have been in a ditch by now... probably missing big important bits.
Ka.

I hear you. I did'nt realize that you was really truthful in that statement. My symphaties to you, being married is tough. I understand.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

man, what a depressing read. sucks to be a single middle-age woman.

------------------------------
Still holding out for Mr. Right, even as middle age quickly approaches? Don't hold your breath, says Lori Gottlieb. Here, the author and single mom explains why true love may be a fantasy — and why that's not necessarily a bad thing. Excerpted from “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” from the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic magazine (http://www.theatlantic.com/).


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

Ugh. I can't seem to escape this stupid article.

If you look at Lori Gottlieb's background, it's like a profile of failed histrionics. This woman has spent her whole life clamoring for fame and attention with varying degrees of mediocre success.

http://lorigottlieb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26

Of all the people you want to listen to about gender analysis, a comedic writer and performer who does sketches like "The Penis Diaries" is not one of them. She's a button pusher prone to extreme behavior and viewpoints that get people to notice her.

Don't feed the troll.

[applehead]

Ugh. I can't seem to escape this stupid article.

If you look at Lori Gottlieb's background, it's like a profile of failed histrionics. This woman has spent her whole life clamoring for fame and attention with varying degrees of mediocre success.

http://lorigottlieb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26

Of all the people you want to listen to about gender analysis, a comedic writer and performer who does sketches like "The Penis Diaries" is not one of them. She's a button pusher prone to extreme behavior and viewpoints that get people to notice her.

Don't feed the troll.

AH HAH!!!!!
she's the one of "diary of my former self"!!!!! okay.

old maid histronics. hahaha.
really, not the best person to be giving advice like this.

[applehead]

Ugh. I can't seem to escape this stupid article.

If you look at Lori Gottlieb's background, it's like a profile of failed histrionics. This woman has spent her whole life clamoring for fame and attention with varying degrees of mediocre success.

http://lorigottlieb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26

Of all the people you want to listen to about gender analysis, a comedic writer and performer who does sketches like "The Penis Diaries" is not one of them. She's a button pusher prone to extreme behavior and viewpoints that get people to notice her.

Don't feed the troll.

AH HAH!!!!!
she's the one of "diary of my former self"!!!!! okay.

old maid histronics. hahaha.
really, not the best person to be giving advice like this.