In Honor of Valentine's Day
Happy Valentine's Day!
I found this article from LoneStarTimes. It's titled "Marry Him!"
In our tale, our authoress is a 30 something woman, a devote feminist, and she is unmarried. A few years ago (or longer) she decided she wanted a child and she was artificially inseminated. She now is a single mother.
I think maybe she should have talked to circumstantial single mothers before making that decision.
At any rate, she is making the case for "settling" into marriage, a decision she did not make in her late 20s. She chose instead for the lofty ideals of ... well something else. Independence I guess.
The problem I have is with this myth of independence. Does being married make me dependent? I don't feel any less independent.
The real sadness I feel in this equation, is for the men. Again, the author has taken the role of men and limited it to the role of dish washer and diaper changer. Someone to relieve the more important female for a few hours while she gets her nails done or eats a sandwhich. They are a babysitter, not an essential part of child-rearing.
And you can't really argue with me, she made the decision that men (any man) were expendable when she had a child without one. Actions speak louder than her words.
And by page 3 of the article, you can see it. She didn't realize how hard it would be. And now, she wishes she had help.
Well like most feminists, I don't feel sorry for you.
My view? The reason women like her (too good for relationships / marriage in their 20s have to have careers that scale mountains) don't have relationships in their 30s or marriage prospects, is because that's what they choose. They didn't make having a relationship a priority. And the reason they didn't get married in their 20s? It wasn't a priority.
She admits she had relationships, but she didn't like them that much. And maybe she hasn't met the right guy yet. Let's hope that's the case. But she admits now that the child and her motherhood are limiting her prospects, because her motherhood duties don't really allow for an active, vibrant single life.
Well duh.
Long term relationships are very similar to marriages. You're going to have good days, bad days, inbetween days. You're going to see them sick, you're going to see them tired, you're going to see them after they've lost a job or failed a test. And they aren't always going to bring you flowers. Many women, like our subject, hit a roadblock or one bad date and call it off.
I am sad for the authoress, because like so many others, she felt invincible and bulletproof, and immune to such basic impulses as love and family. Surely, such puritanical thinking would never happen to her. But it did, but she is finding that her chances for true happiness in that arena are limited to settling, and for her sake, I sincerely hope she is wrong.
The article is incredibly depressing, and somewhat insulting to those of us who got married "young." Is 25 young, really? I can vote. I can successfully support myself. I lived on my own. Is that young?
Here she seems to make the case to meet your husband young, they will know you a long time and can be more satisfying and understanding of your quirks. So 20 something women who choose mates are just stupid, because we don't know as much as women in their 30s.
In fact, the author just seems to think any woman who has married has settled, no one can find love, so let's all marry inappropriate men because they are the least disgusting of the bunch.
Are any of those things really all that bad? Maybe I've been in a relationship too long. Is it settling to support the interests of your mate? As long as it's not hindering the household income or illegal ... is internet poker a deal breaker? And if he was watching ESPN ... maybe that wasn't the most appropriate time to ask for a massage? Would you give your husband a massage if you were in the middle of watching HGTV? No, you'd tell him to cool his jets.
Why do we have expectations for men that we don't meet ourselves?
My advice? Don't settle. Find someone who makes you laugh and you likes you for you, who lets you be yourself. Who supports your interests even if he doesn't love them himself. And you do the same for him. Perhaps, if the writer had done so, she wouldn't be in the mess she got herself into.
I found this article from LoneStarTimes. It's titled "Marry Him!"
In our tale, our authoress is a 30 something woman, a devote feminist, and she is unmarried. A few years ago (or longer) she decided she wanted a child and she was artificially inseminated. She now is a single mother.
I think maybe she should have talked to circumstantial single mothers before making that decision.
At any rate, she is making the case for "settling" into marriage, a decision she did not make in her late 20s. She chose instead for the lofty ideals of ... well something else. Independence I guess.
The problem I have is with this myth of independence. Does being married make me dependent? I don't feel any less independent.
The real sadness I feel in this equation, is for the men. Again, the author has taken the role of men and limited it to the role of dish washer and diaper changer. Someone to relieve the more important female for a few hours while she gets her nails done or eats a sandwhich. They are a babysitter, not an essential part of child-rearing.
And you can't really argue with me, she made the decision that men (any man) were expendable when she had a child without one. Actions speak louder than her words.
And by page 3 of the article, you can see it. She didn't realize how hard it would be. And now, she wishes she had help.
Well like most feminists, I don't feel sorry for you.
My view? The reason women like her (too good for relationships / marriage in their 20s have to have careers that scale mountains) don't have relationships in their 30s or marriage prospects, is because that's what they choose. They didn't make having a relationship a priority. And the reason they didn't get married in their 20s? It wasn't a priority.
She admits she had relationships, but she didn't like them that much. And maybe she hasn't met the right guy yet. Let's hope that's the case. But she admits now that the child and her motherhood are limiting her prospects, because her motherhood duties don't really allow for an active, vibrant single life.
Well duh.
Long term relationships are very similar to marriages. You're going to have good days, bad days, inbetween days. You're going to see them sick, you're going to see them tired, you're going to see them after they've lost a job or failed a test. And they aren't always going to bring you flowers. Many women, like our subject, hit a roadblock or one bad date and call it off.
I am sad for the authoress, because like so many others, she felt invincible and bulletproof, and immune to such basic impulses as love and family. Surely, such puritanical thinking would never happen to her. But it did, but she is finding that her chances for true happiness in that arena are limited to settling, and for her sake, I sincerely hope she is wrong.
The article is incredibly depressing, and somewhat insulting to those of us who got married "young." Is 25 young, really? I can vote. I can successfully support myself. I lived on my own. Is that young?
The paradox, of course, is that the more it behooves a woman to settle, the less willing she is to settle; a woman in her mid- to late 30s is more discriminating than one in her 20s. She has friends who have known her since childhood, friends who will know her more intimately and understand her more viscerally than any man she meets in midlife.
Here she seems to make the case to meet your husband young, they will know you a long time and can be more satisfying and understanding of your quirks. So 20 something women who choose mates are just stupid, because we don't know as much as women in their 30s.
In fact, the author just seems to think any woman who has married has settled, no one can find love, so let's all marry inappropriate men because they are the least disgusting of the bunch.
That’s why mothers tell their daughters to “keep an open mind” about the guy who spends his weekends playing Internet poker or touches your back for two minutes while watching ESPN and calls that “a massage.” The more-pertinent questions, to most concerned mothers of daughters in their 30s, have to do with whether the daughter’s boyfriend will make a good father; or, if he’s a workaholic, whether he can provide the environment for her to be a good mother. As my own mother once advised me, when I was dating a musician, “Everyone settles to some degree. You might as well settle pragmatically.”
Are any of those things really all that bad? Maybe I've been in a relationship too long. Is it settling to support the interests of your mate? As long as it's not hindering the household income or illegal ... is internet poker a deal breaker? And if he was watching ESPN ... maybe that wasn't the most appropriate time to ask for a massage? Would you give your husband a massage if you were in the middle of watching HGTV? No, you'd tell him to cool his jets.
Why do we have expectations for men that we don't meet ourselves?
My advice? Don't settle. Find someone who makes you laugh and you likes you for you, who lets you be yourself. Who supports your interests even if he doesn't love them himself. And you do the same for him. Perhaps, if the writer had done so, she wouldn't be in the mess she got herself into.
Comments