+A.M.D.G.+
The case for Mr. Good Enough
10 April 2008 at 20.10
tlantic Monthly recently published an article by Ms. Lori Gottlieb entitled “Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough.” In it, the author recounts the many relationships she discounted on her search for Mr. Right, only to end up a single 40-something-year-old who chose artificial insemination as the means to having one child before it was too late.
The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).To the outside world, of course, we still call ourselves feminists and insist — vehemently, even — that we’re independent and self-sufficient and don’t believe in any of that damsel-in-distress stuff, but in reality, … we’re women who want a traditional family. And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know — no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure — feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried. …
Whether [she] acknowledge[s] it or not, there’s good reason to worry. By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?
A secular feminist, Ms. Gottlieb nevertheless is forced to the inevitable conclusion that the traditional family is constructed that way for a reason. And while part of her had wished she had stumbled upon Mr. Right, most of her recognizes that she threw away several potentially splendid marriages to Mr. Good Enoughs — men who, despite some peccadilloes, would’ve made for respectful, loving and fully capable husbands, fathers and partners on the life journey.
While Ms. Gottlieb does well to warn other young women not to repeat her own mistake, her conclusion remains inextricably rooted in secularist philosophy and is derived from personal hopes, desires, and regrets. But the traditional family is more than just designed for peaceful coexistence, utilitarian efficiency and tax breaks. It is a “domestic church,” the purpose of which is to build a sound and secure foundation for the rearing of well-balanced children, who are taught faith and morals.
Pope Benedict XVI has said much about the value of the family, most recently in an address regarding the upcoming 6th World Meeting of Christian Families, to be held in January 2009 in Mexico:
In these times in which it is notable that there is a frequent contradiction between what is professed as belief and concrete ways of living and acting, the next World Meeting of Families proposes to encourage Christian households in the formation of a right moral conscience that, strengthened by the grace of God, helps in the faithful following of His will, which He has revealed to us through Jesus Christ, and which He has sowed in the depths of the heart of each person.
Benedict’s predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was by no means silent on the issue, either. In his encyclical Familiaris Consortio, he says,
On the one hand, in fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, to promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society. On the other hand, however, signs are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values: a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other; serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality.At the root of these negative phenomena there frequently lies a corruption of the idea and the experience of freedom, conceived not as a capacity for realizing the truth of God’s plan for marriage and the family, but as an autonomous power of self-affirmation, often against others, for one’s own selfish well-being. …
According to the plan of God, marriage is the foundation of the wider community of the family, since the very institution of marriage and conjugal love are ordained to the procreation and education of children, in whom they find their crowning.(34)
In its most profound reality, love is essentially a gift; and conjugal love, while leading the spouses to the reciprocal “knowledge” which makes them “one flesh,”(35) does not end with the couple, because it makes them capable of the greatest possible gift, the gift by which they become cooperators with God for giving life to a new human person. Thus the couple, while giving themselves to one another, give not just themselves but also the reality of children, who are a living reflection of their love, a permanent sign of conjugal unity and a living and inseparable synthesis of their being a father and a mother.
(A good summary of Familiaris Consortio for the non-academic can be found in the St. Anthony Messenger. See also Pope John Paul II’s related Letter to Families: Gratissimam Sane.)
In essence, then, there is truth in the adage, “the family that prays together, stays together,” as that is the purpose of it all.
Comments (6)
Leave a comment
The Compleat Gentleman
Transformation in Christ
Comment by phlebotnum — 20 May 2008 at 12:41
I appreciate that you take the sacrament of marriage seriously and I applaud your assessment that the “traditional family is more than just designed for peaceful coexistence, utilitarian efficiency and tax breaks.” However, please do not make the same mistake as Gottlieb in assuming that the experience of one or even some women is the experience of all women, especially with regards to “being alone.” I am a Christian Feminist and there is nothing “inevitable” about her (the “secular Feminist”) conclusions about the “traditional family.” In fact, her findings more prominently indicate that there is something wrong with a cultural system that makes motherhood and Biblical family life incompatible with other valuable parts of the human experience–”education,” “career,” and “true love.” If we are going to help each individual human reach the full extent of his/her potential, we have to acknowledge that having a “traditional family life” is only one of a range of significant human experiences, and certainly not the only way to have meaningful, communal, and emotionally honest and satisfying relationships with other humans.
Comment by alessandro — 20 May 2008 at 13:31
Ms. Phlebotnum,
First, thank you for your thoughtful response. I assure you that I do not “assum[e] that the experience of … some women is the experience of all women,” but I thought it important to share Ms. Gottlieb’s story with others.
There is nothing wrong with education, career and true love for women. In fact, they are all wonderful things, and I will do my best to encourage them in the lives of my own daughters. But what is salubrious in healthful doses may, like most things, become an affliction in excess. Take education for example: No one would decry the value of a good education. Yet few can comprehend the “eternal scholar” who studies his whole life but never applies that knowledge toward anything. Personally, being an “eternal scholar” has a great allure… I could think of few things more rewarding than reading great books and pondering deep thoughts. But doing so shirks my obligations to work, provide for my family, care for my patients and contribute to society.
Consider career: To cultivate a career rewards a worker with a feeling of accomplishment and worth. But in excess, this leads to “workaholism,” a condition in which work becomes the primary focus, or a veritable obsession. Of course, these are skewed priorities. The focus of every human should be devotion to God, care of the family and charitable works. A career is good while it fosters any of these things — for example, by providing job security, a steady income, a predictable schedule — but is no longer good when it becomes a hindrance. (I speak from sad experience here, since a surgeon’s schedule is not easy.)
Consider true love: Of course everyone desires love. But “true love” is a term that has taken a bizarre turn for the worse in contemporary popular culture. The point in Ms. Gottlieb’s article is that by being so focused on what might possibly exist (a hypothetical Mr. Right), a woman might miss out on what definitely does exist (numerous Mr. Good Enoughs). At some level, love is truly a matter of the will more than a matter of the heart, and it is quite easy to “decide” to love someone, despite his or her “imperfections.”
By bringing up these points, I am not arguing that a woman must choose between being a “barefoot-and-pregnant housekeeper” or an “educated-and-accomplished careerwoman.” Rather, I argue that a woman (or man, for that matter) should not let the pursuit of “higher goals” detract her (or him) from attaining the highest goal of all — to serve God in her (or his) chosen vocation. If that vocation is to remain single, then so be it — as long as it is born out of humility (not pride) and charity (not selfishness), and as long as the vocation is one that requires complete and utter devotion to God and to the charitable work. There are many Religious who by choice or necessity are single, but who are very happy. If, however, that vocation is motherhood, then a woman may need to sacrifice what might otherwise have been a very promising and fulfilling professional career. Surely, this depends on the particular situation. But something’s gotta give… and these factors must be considered — as early as possible.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to have one’s cake and eat it, too.
Comment by phlebotnum — 21 May 2008 at 14:56
I can think of few theologically inclined persons who would disagree with the base claim that most, if not all, of the virtues can quickly become harmful and damaging when taken to extremes. Cliché or not, there’s a reason our grandmas still warn us about “too much of a good thing.” However, it is far too easy to dismiss a woman’s struggle to incorporate experiences such as career, family, and education as a secretly selfish “cake” dilemma rather than question the problems with a system that creates the illusion of (or, for some women, actual extreme choice) such a narrow dichotomy as barefoot-and-pregnant-housekeeper and “educated-and-accomplished-careerwoman.”
America is known throughout the world as an admirably productive nation, but it’s also known as a nation of workaholics. Compare the amount of vacation and/or leisure time by the average American with, say, the average French or Italian person, and there’s a major discrepancy. Obviously we’ve made sacrifices for wealth and security, and yet how often do you see an article warning men to be careful that they don’t put too much of their 20s and 30s into career building because it might make child rearing hard later? Obviously men don’t have the same ticking biological clock that some (not ALL) women have. But biology is no excuse to avoid seriously considering the ways in which we view motherhood and fatherhood in relation to individual growth and development, and especially in relation to economic assumptions and labor practices. Why is it only a woman that “may need to sacrifice what might otherwise have been a very promising and fulfilling professional career” in order to have children? Perhaps because it costs companies more to provide paid maternity leave? Or because the Absentee Father figure is more recognizable and, for some reason, more acceptable to society at large? Neither of these is a healthy model. And yet we continue to blindly ignore the influences of Patriarchy on an economic system that benefits fewer and fewer people as time marches on.
As for “eternal scholars,” I happen to believe that there is a place for all sorts of different people in our world and that includes those who choose academia. Without the ponderings of writers, philosophers, theologians, and other types of scholars, what would compel the action of the “doers?” Who reminds us better what we are living and working for than the Poet? A great Author who takes his/her charge to better humanity seriously is a contributing member of society and applies his/her knowledge to something that will inspire generations to act on the impulse to do good works, be that take care a family/patients or whatever else one feels called by God to devote life to.
Comment by alessandro — 21 May 2008 at 15:42
Welcome again, Ms. Phlebotnum.
First, you misheard me. I never said that virtues in excess are harmful. By its very definition, Virtue is all-good and never leads to adverse outcomes. But other “good things” (that is, what we perceive to be good) can be harmful if disproportionate time and attention is paid to them.
Also, men do have a ticking time clock, although it may be more forgiving. Personally, between university, graduate school and medical school, I have been in school 10 years. Add to that 5 years of post-doctoral training, to date, with another 5-6 ahead of me. You can rest assured that I feel the urgency to start a family, save enough money for a house, etc.; and I feel the frustration of not being at full liberty to control my schedule, move where I’d like to, or earn a fair salary for the number of hours that I’m made to work. My wife shares in my frustration, as well as experiencing her own, as a woman.
Regarding your question of why it is only a woman who needs to sacrifice? It is not, and I never said so. It is just that Ms. Gottlieb’s article (the topic of the original post) concerned women delaying starting a family while pursuing their careers. In fact, I said that both sexes need to consider these important factors equally.
The fact that most women, throughout history, have stayed home to raise the children is part nature and part cultural. In modern society, one can imagine a scenario in which the woman returns to work and the man stays home to care, full-time, for the children. While “unconventional” by historical standards, it is still a valid solution. What is not a valid solution is when both parents work and leave the care of the children to a third party (except in those sad circumstances of dire economic constraint, when a second or third income is crucial to the survival of the family).
And as for “eternal scholars,” many writers, philosophers and theologians do “produce” something — a fund of knowledge upon which others might draw inspiration and strength for their own endeavors. But when academic pursuits are driven by personal ambition or an intellectual wanderlust, without purposeful application, and without relating to the grander scheme of service of God, it ceases to contribute to the greater good.
Comment by Melissa Guillen — 6 June 2008 at 16:11
This article fails to look at many different aspects of marriage, mainly the crucial role true love plays when you grow old together and need each other.
Marriage will not always be a partnership about raisinig kids. Take this sad example; my grandmother settled for my grandfather (a sincere, kindhearted man). According to other sources; my grandmother was passionately in love with a man who left the country. In her sadness, she stopped believing in true love and settled for my grandfather because he was nice and hardworking. How I wish this had never happened.
Things did not go as this article says. The children eventually left. My grandfather had two strokes last year and lost his ability to walk. When you spend time with my grandparents, you can tell my grandma doesn’t love him. She gets bored and is bitter that he can’t go on trips with her. She is bitter that she needs to sacrifice her social life to watch tv with him. She hates having to push his chair around when they go to the park and makes no effort to console him. Once I read an article where an old couple was being interviewed. The woman had had a stroke and therefore half her face had lost movement. However, during the interview her husband looked at her and said to the interviewer: “Isn’t she beautiful.” So TRUE LOVE does matter. It matters that you look at the person and think that they truly are the best.
Another good reason that keeps me from settling is my conscience. Gosh, when I am with a good guy whom I dont have the butterflies for I feel dishonest. I have to put on a show for him and everyone. Then, I hate the role of the “bitch” (pardon the word). And yes, in my experience if I am not truly in love eventually he will irritate me. I will feel passionate about other guys, and I won’t have the drive to learn about his world because it would be just a business. I hate that, I don’t want to be that girl. Again, refering to my grandparent’s example. My dad grew up watching my grandma being “mean” to my grandfather. I don’t want to have to submitt any possible children to witnessing such an unhealthy dynamic.
Is it wasy to be alone? No! Life is about balance, passion and stability should go together. A turbulent relationship based on passion is not healthy for a marriage (is not healthy for children to watch). Therefore, the butterflies alone are not enough, I agree, but settling for what you classify in your mind as “good enough” might make you bitter. Especially when you need true love to keep you with him. What if he gets sick, losses his job, maybe goes into depression, etc. Would you be there for him? How would you feel if a guy settled for you? Truly, that is one of my worst fears. I know he would be gone in times of crisis. Because in the end he doesn’t love me, he just doesn’t want to be alone and I am “good enough.”
I know this reply si long, I would love to hear your thoughts on my post, reply to: mgg4q@virginia.edu
Comment by alessandro — 6 June 2008 at 17:22
Thanks for the comment, Miss Guillen.
I think, what it all boils down to is dedication and an exercise of the will over the passions.
Love is not all twinkling stars and pixie dust. Sure, those butterflies in your stomach are clues that you like someone, i.e., that there is chemistry there. But that’s not love — that’s like, or infatuation, or attraction…
No. Love is purely a matter of the will.
That is, you choose and decide whether or not to love someone.
I suppose it’s easier to choose to love someone you’re already star-struck by. But I would argue that it is entirely possible to love anyone — even the most undesirable person. That is what is meant by agape — divine love. (For more on this, see the related article, Calculating Love.)
The author of the Atlantic Monthly article, Ms. Gottlieb, simply argued for women not to delay too long in their search for Mr. Right. And yes, she argues that at some point, it’s worth “settling” for Mr. Good Enough.
Unfortunately, from her secularist perspective, she isn’t able to see that it could be anything more than “settling.”
But I would argue that it doesn’t have to be “settling.” Rather, it’s coming to one’s senses and realizing what the real purpose of marriage is. Once this is grasped, marriage becomes the “Real Deal,” a Sacrament, which is so much more than “settling.” You’re correct, that marriage doesn’t always involve children… although that would be a wonderful thing. But even in childless marriages, the companionship of husband and wife is tremendously important — so much so, that it was recognized by God Himself as essential, as professor Scott Hahn describes in his book, First Comes Love:
So what do we conclude from this? Is it worthwhile trying to find someone you’re passionate about? Absolutely. But it also worthwhile recognizing other traits that are indicative of that person’s capacity to be a good spouse… traits like sincerity, selflessness, humility, industriousness, dedication, etc. Even if that man doesn’t “stoke your embers” like the guy in the leather jacket on the motorbike, so to speak, he may end up making a better husband.
And in that regard, it makes him more deserving of your love and attention.