Boston Gal's Open Wallet

OMG, isn't she the woman who wrote that really pretentious book about how she dropped out of medical school to join some dot.com company nobody ever heard of and then was really pissed when it all went up in flames and she did not become the millionaire she hoped to be and also was now not going to be the doctor she started out to be?

Does not surprise me at all that she would figure out now, only after having a child, that maybe it would have been easier if she had done it with a partner.

She strikes me as one of those over-educated New York women who think that just because they are thin, pretty, and have the Ivy League stamp of approval, they should be able to float through life with a fabulous career, fabulous shoes, and the ultimate trophy of a high earning husband and 2.4 children nicely ensconced in an extended day prep school.

Well, Ha Ha Ha lady - welcome to your first long overdue taste of real life.

 

The woman has a point, which is ladies especially those who are younger or otherwise in their prime and unattached should really think more about deciding to be unmarried, having a kid by themselves, or dropping a good guy because he doesn't meet some criteria.

 

"a free night off when the kids go to Dad’s house for a sleepover"

or the yalee could be like brittney spears and never bother to have to raise those rascals, who prevent her from "connecting" as often as she would like to.

- s.b.

 

man, the lady goes on and on. i thought that at least half the page would be comments, but after reading for five minutes, i scrolled down, and realized that i do not have the time or energy to read it in its entirety.

it is kinda funny how she glosses over her rationale for why women should marry just for the sake of settling down with no thought to passion, similar interests, "connecting" (yes, that word again), etc.

well, how about the man in the marriage? or is her whole idea to live off of alimony after breaking up with dude a couple of years down the road after a baby or two? what a conceited, narcissistic view!

well, maybe later at night when/if i have trouble sleeping ... i might get back and read the entire piece.

- s.b.

 

BG-I had the same reaction you did. I could not even get through the article I was so incensed! For example, the comment that all single 40-year-old women wanting to get married (and by extension, have children) completely missed the mark. Granted, I'm not 40, but I _am_ 36, which is not too far from 40, and I've never wanted to have kids. I can tolerate friends' kids because I can always give them back to their parent, but that's as close as it gets. Oh, and the marriage thing? That means I'd have to date, and honestly, dating gets in the way of the things I want to do, most of which I do alone. Yes, sometimes it helps to have an extra hand or 2 when I'm trying to screw a 4x8' piece of drywall into the ceiling joists, but that's when I call a friend. And that friend may be someone I haven't seen in a month, or 6 months, or maybe even over a year, but that's okay, because that's about as much people time as I can tolerate before I need my alone time again.

Sure, I'm not typical (in fact, I'm probably toward the extreme tail of the curve), but that doesn't give the author the right to generalize like she did, and then to accuse anyone who disagrees with her of deluding themselves!

 

I read this article a while ago, and I have to say, as a guy, I think she is spot on. Women, especially those of New York, need to be a lot less picky.

 

Holy cow -- the authoress is crazy. I love how she states that all women need to settle, except her. Nice. That's going to keep the men flocking to her door!

Nobody is perfect. I pride myself in dating men regardless of the amount of hair on their head or the number of times they have seen every Will Ferrell movie. The key to marriage is finding a partner. Lori's suggestion that marriage is like being a partner in a corporation is correct; she just neglects to note that the corporation won't terminate until death. Marrying someone you don't love is only going to make everyone involved unhappy. I don't think Lori understands her friends' need to vent to an impartial person either.

Of course, I think the previous anonymous poster who mentioned that Lori wants to live off alimony and child support is probably spot on!

 

You know, I didn't find this article stupid or offensive. Then again, I'm 36 and married.

I think the author has a point.

Many women don't realize that the "perfect" guy does not exist outside of a romance novel or romantic comedy. I think the idea that there is one perfect soulmate out there for every one is a bunch of hooey that too many women subscribe to.

I don't think that the author is saying you should settle for an abusive relationship or you HAVE to get married to be happy. I think she is saying that a lot of single women in their mid to late 30's - who would like to be married - could have easily married in their 20's if they hadn't been so picky. Now these same women are finding the guy they rejected is 50x's better than anything out there now.

 

And when both the man and the woman "settle" for that great corporate marriage in order to live the dream Manhattan family life - the man later is found to have spent $80,000 satisfying his "passion" with high-cost hookers while wifey rejoices in how her diet of unhappiness at least keeps her thin.

Meanwhile the children are screwed up and yet, wasn't it all worth it to prove that you can create the appearance of having it all?

 

Ha! I read this article a while back and couldn't believe it, either. Mostly it seems like a "grass is always greener" situation. But I have never wanted kids (or even marriage necessarily) and was offended by her generalizations about All Women.

I have one relative who "settled" and now she continuously cheats on her doting husband and complains to everyone that she has to cheat because he's not "good enough" for her.

I have another relative whose husband died tragically, leaving her alone with an infant son. That son just started college and they've always had a weird (even creepy) relationship, since the mom started treating him like the "man" of the house from a very early age.

Oh, and those relatives are in the Midwest. Don't even get me started on the New Yorker stereotype. But I liked your point, Boston Gal, about moving to a more affordable area! Alas, I bet the author would consider that "settling" too.

 

As a 35 year old, employed, graduate school educated, well traveled and multilingual man (yes, balding - I don't have an S on my chest!), I can only tell you one thing -- viva singledom!

After reading this article, I am more than resolved to stay single and will definitely not be spending an average $30k to have a woman "settle" on me.

Let's see, $30k invested at 9% for 30 years...

 

"They, like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone.."

I feel sad for her. That's a horrible way to feel, and as a single girl who hasn't been in a relationship in quite a while, I can relate up to a point. However, I don't know about this idea to settle. I would better understand being told not to wait for "mr.perfect". But I dont see anything wrong in waiting to find "mr.right for me".

~ JanePlain

 

I'm not a big fan of "settling" though one must enjoy one's own company in order to avoid it. I'm also not sure what kind of role model that makes the author for her own daughter. When Mr. Right failed to appear by age 30, I started down the "single parent by adoption" road. 25 years and five daughters later, with no Mr. Right yet arriving on the scene, I have no regrets. I suppose I could still get married, but I fear I have become more picky over the years rather than less.

 

I think you missed the point of the article entirely. It was just a reflective piece on the way she chose to live her life. Reflecting on her life, I think she wishes she was less picky in regards to finding a partner, and "settled." Settling, according to her article didn't mean finding Mr. Wrong. I read "settling" to be defined as relaxing the definition of what it means to be Mr. Right; if that is what you want to find, of course. Additionally, reflecting on her life to this point, she decided to make the case for her definition of settling.

She made it clear that she wanted to find Mr. Right, and didn't. She still hasn't. Her decision to have a child has made it harder for her to find the time to find him, now that she is trying to be not so picky.

I am approaching 30, I am married, and to a certain extent, I have settled in the way she describes in the article. I have a WONDERFUL, loving and caring husband, who I love dearly. I am fully confident in the fact he loves me too. However, he is balding, and overweight - two of characteristics people usually dismiss a potential spouse on, as she points out in the article. As I am learning a few months into this marriage thing, marrying him was one of the smartest decisions I ever made.

Additionally, who doesn't wish they could have everything they want out of life? Isn't that what we work for? I don't understand what is wrong with that - even if that is the point of her article (which I don't think it is).

I don't believe she wrote the book the first commenter is thinking of. She did write a book called "Stick Figure," which is noted at the end of the article.

 

You know, I can certainly understand why this article pushes so many peoples' buttons, and that is because of the way in which it is written. She says "settle" about a million times in it, rather than try to actually explain the situation.

I married my husband in my mid-twenties. I was not in love with him at the time. However, I knew he was a good person, and I knew I'd gone through a lot of really bad relationships. I knew he had potential, and that I wanted to be with him. I like his sense of humor and his outlook on life, and -- hard to explain -- but I knew, somewhere in myself, that I would love him once I had healed a bit. I would have preferred to hold off on the wedding until that happened, but circumstances prevailed, and we ended up getting married while I was still in a very in-between state.

My husband, 4 years younger, wore thick glasses and knee-high socks with the red band around the top to the beach. I banished his enormous wire-rimmed glasses and got him contacts; I bought him sandals for his birthday. He is really very handsome, but he wasn't the "catch" that most 20-somethings look for. However, I knew, too, that he would come into his own. Seven years later, he has filled out, obtained fashion sense, and is somewhat devastatingly handsome.

What I'm trying to say, and what I think this woman means to say, is that we give too much to the surface of things. While I don't recommend a man who watches ESPN and ignores you -- this is indicative of selfishness -- the fact that so many women expect a man to be very handsome, very dedicated, a good provider and well-rounded in all things is somewhat impossible, because men are still human. We are not, as women, extremely beautiful, well-dedicated, good providers or well-rounded in all things either.

So pick the guy who is a little nerdy, but very kind. Or maybe the man is a good provider but has slightly different tastes than you. Look at your priorities, and then think with your head when you date someone, because all the "romance" in the world can't last 50 years. It's just not possible, or practical, so pick a NICE PERSON to be with. And yes, in general, it is easier to raise a family with two parents. Single parenting is really, really difficult, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

I like the example of Charlotte from Sex and the City. She has an "ideal" image of a man, and she marries that man, and the marriage fails. Then she finds a man who is significantly flawed -- he's bald, and short, and Jewish, and isn't even interested in marrying a non-Jew -- but he's a nice person. He's a practical person who loves her and considers her interests. He's the hero in this tale, and if that's settling -- bring on the settling!

So anyway, the article was really horribly written, and it's hard to get past the "I'm settling for a terrorist" bit, because frankly, that's stupid. When you're looking for someone to spend a life with, use some common sense. Looks don't last; find someone you absolutely know is a good person and a kind person and will work with you to create a life.

Just for the record, about 3 months into my marriage I looked at my husband and realized he was unbelievably handsome and promptly fell head over heels for him. Every time he does a kind thing for me, I'm reminded how lucky I am, and I fall in love with him all over again. Over the past seven years, we've had two kids, moved, changed jobs and gone to school. But we try to be kind with each other. Now I'm the one with an extra 40 pounds and he's the good-looking one. It's life; it happens.

Love is more than a feeling; it's a commitment to someone. It's too easy to forget that these days.

My last comment: my college roommate is 32 and still single, and she is actually more attractive than she was at 22. So all the stuff about hitting 30 and being worried is a bunch of crap. If you want a family, it's probably best to marry early, but if not -- marry whenever the heck you want. Geez.

 

I liked the article. It was written to be attention grabbing, and as such it worked to push buttons... but I didn't find it offensive, and I thought it had a valid point: even if it pushed the argument all the way to the wall, it tried to present a bit of opposition to the standard american fare of late, which is the a rather extreme mix of ideas suggesting that any woman who is not head over heels in love with a man in every way is "settling" and selling herself short on the single most important aspect of life (romantic love) in a way she will forever more regret.

This fairy tale line is told so constantly that it makes women who very much want to break out of it - eg, marry someone who they think will be a wonderful partner, even if they know he's not as good in bed as their previous partner... (...and what if that means there's a fundamental problem with their chemistry and they're just fooling themselves and will never truly be happy!) - doubt themselves.

This attempt to argue the other side is a reasonable stab at restoring a bit of balance. That happened to be written by someone who knows how to grab headlines.

And yes, I am a happily married woman - who agonized about the decision for well over a year (what if a bit of doubt means that it must be wrong!), but, after consultations with women of multiple generations realized it was far more normal than not even (perhaps especially) amongst the women whose marriages (often 20, 30, 40 years long) she admired most... and from the moment the decision was made, has been so, so, so very grateful she didn't wuss out and run away from committing to the best man she's ever known.