Why You’re STILL Not Married
Tracy McMillan, a writer for TV’s Mad Men, has four new reasons why you’re still single.
She writes “Yes, I have “failed” at marriage — a lot. (Actually, I like to think of failure as “pre-success”.) But who better than a three-time divorcee to lead a discussion about the stupid stuff women do in relationships? At least you know I won’t go all sanctimonious on you. Because dude, whatever it is, I HAVE DONE IT. I’ve just decided to love myself anyway.”
You may remember her Huffington Post article last year, “Why You’re Not Married” that listed the six reasons why you’re single. Here’s a refresher:
1) You’re a Bitch (“Here’s what I mean by bitch. I mean you’re angry.”)
2) You’re Shallow (“When it comes to choosing a husband, only one thing really, truly matters: character. So it stands to reason that a man’s character should be at the top of the list of things you are looking for, right? But if you’re not married, I already know it isn’t. Because if you were looking for a man of character, you would have found one by now. Men of character are, by definition, willing to commit.”)
3) You’re a Slut (“Since nature can’t discriminate between marriage material and Charlie Sheen, you’re going to have to start being way more selective than you are right now.”)
4) You’re a Liar “(It usually goes something like this: you meet a guy who is cute and likes you, but he’s not really available for a relationship. You know if you tell him the truth — that you’re ready for marriage — he will stop calling. So you just tell him how perfect this is because you only want to have sex for fun! You love having fun sex! And you don’t want to get in a relationship at all! You swear!”)
5) You’re Selfish (“If you’re not married, chances are you think a lot about you. You think about your thighs, your outfits, your naso-labial folds.”)
6) You’re Not Good Enough (“Oh, I don’t think that. You do. I can tell because you’re not looking for a partner who is your equal. No, you want someone better than you are: better looking, better family, better job.”)
Is Ms. McMillan a bit harsh? Sure. Controversy sells. She got a book deal off of this article, with a title (Why You’re Not Married…Yet) that is remarkably like my second book (Why You’re Still Single). But I’m guessing it will sell as well as my second book (which is to say, not very much) because people don’t really want to hear those tough answers. They’d much rather hear “don’t waste the pretty” from Greg Behrendt in “He’s Just Not That Into You”, or that you can manifest your man from thin air in “The Secret”, or that “The Problem With Women…Is Men,” which squarely places blame on men for sucking.
My advice – and I’m guessing Ms. McMillan’s advice – is this: LOTS of men suck. Don’t date them. Now that you’re not dating awful men, be the best person you can be and you’ll find love.
Click here to read Tracy McMillan’s four all-new reasons why you’re (still) single on the Huffington Post. Lemme know what she got right…and what she got wrong.
 |
Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
87 Comments »Filed Under Marriage
david 1
actually, I just bought her book and she doesn’t really talk about sucky men too much — her advice is very aligned with yours — about changing yourself, your perspective, your “man goals”, give the “Maybe Guy” a shot…a lot about stop deluding yourself (You deserve to be with a 10, you are too intimidating / fabulous, too hot to handle, etc.)
It’s really good — read in about 2 days….
Lady K 2
Sooo, yeah. I hated the original article and the second one even more so. As a fellow writer, I am a big fan of Ms. McMillan’s work. She’s clever, funny, snarky, and her writing makes for a great viral article. As a woman, I am completely irritated by the presumptions she’s making. I have a rebuttal article in mind entitled: Why You are Still Saying Yes to Marriage Proposals When You Should be Saying “No”. And the follow up one: “Ho, You Really Need to Sit Down and Shut Up”. Has it ever occurred to anyone with a critical eye towards single women in their 30’s and 40’s that some of them actually said no to “crazy.” Said “no” to marriage proposals from men who were clearly not right, not in their right minds, not emotional ready, ect. I did and have and will continue to as long as the situations don’t add up. No matter how shiny the package. This is something my dear sister Ms. McMillan clearly has a hard time doing. While some of my girlfriends are now closing up their “starter” marriages from our 20’s, and are happily divorcing, I thank god, I dodged those bullets.
But there are no articles written to extol the virtues of saying “hell, no” to a marriage proposal. If only there were awards for that. If only there were awards for having leap frogged around potential crazy, dangerous, bi-polar men who don’t reveal this until 1 year into the marriage (pick one Miss McMillan) instead of misguided kudos for having three unsuccessful marriages. Perhaps instead contemplating so hard why women in their 30s and 40s are not married – some of us are actually pretty fucking ecstatic about clearing the gate without a bevy of ex-husbands and children – how about writing an article about how to land a marriage with a healthy guy that sticks.
david 3
Lady K — again, the book is different and she expands on the “points” original article in a way that makes more sense (Stop being shallow, get a life outside dating/men, find yourself, get centered), etc.
kerren 4
@ Lady K, I agree with you totally. There is a stereotype that when you are single, there is something wrong with you. Some of us have learned to be complete in ourselves-of course we are not perfect but we are good enough. This sometimes means you get proposals from guys who don’t fit the bill. Am not talking finance or looks now. Am talking about character. Do I say yes to an obvious social climber, the guy with the drinking problem or my male friend who swears we are soulmates even though there’s a different woman sleeping in his bed each night of the week.
Stacy 5
Reading her article was a waste of 5 minutes of my life. Every single married woman I know exhibits some of those characteristics that are presumably keeping women single (i.e. shallow, bitch, crazy, liar and even yes, slut). So me think it has got to be something else that keeps you single
Ileana 6
Your article is interesting, Ms. McMillan, but i already knew these things from Evan
valleyforgelady 7
Love the snarky edgy attitude! Cancel the pity parties, princess entitlements, guys are jerks attitude, and keep smiling! Grumpy women are no fun….for me or the men we wish to attract! I am the common domniator in all of my relationships. Time for me to change. My current stuff has not worked!
Helen 8
I wasn’t prepared to like her article (I don’t usually like articles that put people down, even in jest), but it had me in stitches. Especially this section from “You’re a Dude”:
“… at the end of the day, you don’t need to know if a guy wants to donate his sperm to you. (The answer will probably be Oh, hell yes.) You want to know if he’s willing to send your egg to college. And if a guy doesn’t feel like taking you on a date, THE ANSWER IS NO.”
Love the line about sending your egg to college…
Zann 9
I agree with what Lady K is saying, but I don’t think McMillan is contradicting any of that. She’s not saying that marriage is the ultimate goal, even if it’s with a loser. She’s saying know yourself, clean up your act and get healthy so you can start making better choices in men. She’s putting the responsibility where it belongs — on the individual seeking the relationship. We all know some guys are unstable socio- and psychopaths, so learn to spot them and steer clear.
I already know why I’m single. I’m a bitch & I’m angry. Like most bitchy and angry women I know, I’ve got my reasons, based on some very solid, clear-eyed analysis of my history with men. But when all is said and done, I still want to be in a relationship with a man. Working on my anger, resentment, & bitchiness requires constant vigilance. It also means letting go and growing up. Sometimes it’s downright exhausting.
McMillan admits she’s flawed, she’s a straight-shooter, and she’s funny. I especially enjoy her clarity on the whole friends-with-benefits nonsense. Quit being a liar. Quit telling the dude it’s fun and exactly what you want, when it’s not. Not at all. He’s being honest when he identifies it for what it is, which is no strings attached. So, why get all crazy-ass and wounded when it turns out being exactly that? Don’t agree to it in hopes of it evolving into something else. It just doesn’t. So, let him find someone else to do that shallow dance with.
nathan 10
I support the idea of taking a deep look at yourself, and making whatever changes you can to lessen self-absorbed traits. At the same time, it’s never just about you. Often timing is involved. Or the conditions aren’t quite right for a relationship to flourish. Or as a few pointed out, the other person turns out to be really wrong for you, and you choose to say “no thanks.”
Self improvement projects can be a never ending struggle with self esteem. When you think it’s all about you, there’s always something that isn’t good enough that you can fixate on. It’s much wiser to do what you can with your attitude and beliefs, and then remember that a lot of it is still out of your hands.
Jen 11
Well stated, Lady K! I agree that McMillan has a fantastic sense of humor, snark and all. While she will make a lot of money selling her book (that’s her goal, right?) she certainly doesn’t go out of her self abdorbed way to cheer for the smart women who avoided bad marriages to begin with! There’s a lot to be said (which is never said) about women who make great life choices and end up single and happy, versus in a fucked up marriage.
Can’t someone ever give a little cred to those of us who have played a fantastic game of frogger (nice analogy, Lady K!) and albeit still single at 41, not unhappy, divorced and with a broken family?!?
Ps/ kudos to Evan for sharing a topic that pushes buttons and is interesting.
Boss 12
Well from my angle (cause this is me at 49) you are single ’cause you wanna be. Very simple, maybe selfish, delusional choice, not so simple reason. But very good guidance.
Helen 13
Despite being married, I had the same reaction many of you commenting here did. First, reading the title “why you’re still not married”, I felt annoyed. The title seems to imply several things with which I disagree: that being married is universally the preferred state, that something is wrong with people who aren’t married, and that someone out there is so smart that she knows EXACTLY why you are not married.
nathan is right that whether you’re single or married is not all about you. A lot of it is sheer dumb luck: in timing, location, etc.
Stacy is also right about how married women can have these undesirable traits. Speaking for myself, the last two on McMillan’s list, “You’re a Dude” and “You’re Godless”, are so true that they made me laugh. I don’t want to change my dude-like qualities (which, by the way, are really effective when blended with feminine qualities), but the lack of spirituality – not necessarily one religion – is definitely worth addressing.
Karl R 14
Lady K said: (#2)
“Perhaps instead contemplating so hard why women in their 30s and 40s are not married – some of us are actually pretty fucking ecstatic about clearing the gate without a bevy of ex-husbands and children”
Lady K (#2), kerren (#4) and Jen (#11),
I’m amazed to see over 25% of the responses (all from women) express this sentiment. It’s rather different than the sentiment women expressed about people in their 40s on this thread:
http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/is-there-something-wrong-with-a-man-in-his-40s-who-has-never-been-married-before/
Nathan 15
Brilliant dig up Karl! So, according to the logic, if I don’t get married in the next three and a half years, I become damaged goods. (Laughs loudly at how assinine dating beliefs can be these days.)
Helen 16
Karl R, there’s no reason to assume that these ladies would share the same sentiment as the others who groused about men over 40. The 25% “statistic” is meaningless. It is just 3 women.
J 17
I have to disagree. I am still single but when I am not myself I am not happy. If I am bitch, someone might love me for being a bitch. Sometimes, I am shallows, and my last BF loved me for this. Be yourself! Someone will love you for it. And if I am single for the rest of my life oh well. When I am not focus on guys and just being myself, guys find me. Tracy’s marriages fail because she was not being herself, ever. Also she is trying only to sell books.
Mia 18
Articles like this– and traditional dating advice and even some commenters on this blog — would have us believe that only people who have their shit together, are confident, optimistic, know and love themselves, know the exact meaning and purpose of their lives, have no baggage, are successful, have no Vices, and allow men to pursue them are the ones who get married.
That’s not remotely true. Relationships are so much about chance. Few people are so dysfunctional they they couldn’t find love–though we should all do out best to kick bad habits and be healthy people. Still, the most common mistake I see people of both genders make is not being proactive enough about finding someone, and this article fails to mention that.
It’s not enough to online date, though that’s a key part of it. A Lot of good men don’t online date and are too scared to approach women at social events and in public places. What I’m figuring out is the need to be more social, smile more, and initiate conversations when I’m out, even if it’s just to the store or park. Look at it as an opportunity to make new acquaintances at the very least, and see what happens.
Finally, I would only judge a never married late 30s woman for these reasons: A.) she is pathologically picky and discards men for petty reasons, a la Lori Gottleb and the characters in her book “Marry Him,” even when she’s too old and or average looking to get away with such crap; or b.) she repeatedly makes very basic dating mistakes that most people stop making around 25, such as sleeping with men on the 2nd or 3rd date, chasing men, or telling them what to do and trying to control them when she barely knows them.
Paragon 19
@ Jen
“Well stated, Lady K! I agree that McMillan has a fantastic sense of humor, snark and all. While she will make a lot of money selling her book (that’s her goal, right?) she certainly doesn’t go out of her self abdorbed way to cheer for the smart women who avoided bad marriages to begin with! There’s a lot to be said (which is never said) about women who make great life choices and end up single and happy, versus in a fucked up marriage.”
What is there to be said?
Saying something one way or another, is making assumptions(which are either critical of ourselves, or of our marriage prospects).
The difference, of course, is that self-critical assumptions are more useful, in that they lend more easily to a testable methodology(ie. it is easier to control for our own behaviors – than someone else’s).
@ Stacy
“Reading her article was a waste of 5 minutes of my life. Every single married woman I know exhibits some of those characteristics that are presumably keeping women single (i.e. shallow, bitch, crazy, liar and even yes, slut). So me think it has got to be something else that keeps you single”
# 6
@ Helen
“Karl R, there’s no reason to assume that these ladies would share the same sentiment as the others who groused about men over 40.”
No such assumption was made.
“The 25% “statistic” is meaningless. It is just 3 women.”
He was making an observation that female samples between analogous topics seem to be sensitive to the posing of sex, more than any other variable.
If this is observing a predictable pattern, then it IS saying something meaningful.
susan 20
A brilliant article if you ask me. I can identify (somewhat blushingly) with much of what she says.
I too chose an opportunity to say ”no” a few years ago. And it was a fantastic decision much supported by everyone around me (yeah thanks for waiting til after the event to tell me that people…)
And I agree, the common demoninator in all my post-couple dating experiences is ME. I don’t think I’m the things on either the list, but maybe I am…a bit of a chicken. Might be time to get myself back out there….
Leesa 21
evan, i really like what you said about: “lots of men suck, don’t date them. be the best person you can be and you’ll find love.” i think that sums up why i’m single and 40. i was attracted to the wrong type of men, and i wasn’t the best person i could be in the relationships (probably because i knew they were bad men and i was trying to chew my arm off to get out of what was more of an addiction to them). i really have trouble listening to women about dating advice. and it’s strange, before i found evan’s website, when i spoke to men about relationships, none of them taught me what i’ve learnt from your book and website evan. i like how you tell us not what women want to hear, but what women need to hear to become better partners and better at choosing decent men.
Sabrina 22
If can only identify with maybe 1.5 of these, am I an anomaly? I’m 29, I didn’t start dating until 25, and have made a lot of mistakes in dating but also learned valuable lessons along the way.
I DO want to be married. I just haven’t found the right man yet. That doesn’t make me a slut, liar, mess, or bitch.
helene 23
A few years back I was of the view that working on yourself and making yourself an amazing person ws a great way to increase your chances of finding a partner. Actually, I now think the complete opposite. The more self improvement I carry out, the bigger a gulf there is between me and the late40s/early 50s guys who ask me out – because as we know, guys in general don’t go in for self improvement and self awareness. They don’t seek or apply relationship advice. They don’t read self help books.
I currently think that I would have a much better chance of finding a compatibile mate amongst the men who approach me if I a)gained some middle aged weight, b) stopped bothering much about my hair or dress sense 3) never went anywhwere very intersting on vacation 4) earned less money 5) had nothing much to say about art or films 6) aquired a posse of children from previous relationships who would take up a lot of my time, energy and resources and restrict my availability for dating 7) was picky and fussy about my food 8) brought up ongoing minor health issues on dates 9)talked about myself most of the time without apparently noticing that I was not displaying any interest in the other person.
That way, me and my dates would be on the same page…
The more I grow and develop, the less interest I have in the stodgy creatures I find in my dating pool…
Trenia 24
This article is why there is often tension between single and married women, because the reigning thought is single women are crazy, bitchy and too picky and the married women are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted. The only difference between single and married women is that the married ones managed to connect with a man who was willing to love them despite their brand of crazy. “Working on yourself” can be a life’s work, depending on how big of a mess you have to clean up, but that doesn’t mean you can’t love and be loved during that process. But when women are single and don’t want to be, they look for reasons and explanations and just about everyone these days has an opinion on the topic. I don’t doubt that there are many single women who are doing all of the things on Ms. McMillan’s list, but so are many married women.
Paragon 25
@ Helene
“Actually, I now think the complete opposite. The more self improvement I carry out, the bigger a gulf there is between me and the late40s/early 50s guys who ask me out.”
So, you will only consider your equal(or better?)?
You do realize, individuals do not determine their own rank and value in the dating market.
If we are adamant that we are an 8, and the market treats us like a 5, then guess what we *actually* are?
“I currently think that I would have a much better chance of finding a compatibile mate amongst the men who approach me if I a)gained some middle aged weight, b) stopped bothering much about my hair or dress sense 3) never went anywhwere very intersting on vacation 4) earned less money 5) had nothing much to say about art or films 6) aquired a posse of children from previous relationships who would take up a lot of my time, energy and resources and restrict my availability for dating 7) was picky and fussy about my food 8) brought up ongoing minor health issues on dates 9)talked about myself most of the time without apparently noticing that I was not displaying any interest in the other person.”
Begs the question of why you bothered to improve yourself, if doing so only decreases the compatibility of your prospects?
But, maybe you should give it a try, and let us know how it works for you.
Mia 26
Helene & Paragon –
I’m guessing Helene is being sarcastic, but at any rate, why not just improve for your own sake without regard to what will or won’t attract men? I’ve gotten annoyed in the past hearing male comments questioning women who take the time to travel, take cooking classes, have interesting activities, run marathons, develop an interesting life, etc. – well, why WOULDN’T we? I do what I want and I don’t care if some guy I meet down the line finds it attractive or irrelevant or intimidating.
I have really big dreams in my life that have nothing to do with romance and marriage, and I’ll continue to pursue them. I don’t think having these goals precludes me from having a relationship and am continuing to go on dates. But I haven’t had a boyfriend tell me he loves me in 6 years (there were 2 after that who didn’t), or any exclusive relationship in 2 1/2, or any guy except one who is 20 years older in his 40s (too old) who’s even asked me for a real relationship during that time, so at this point I am totally prepared for the possibility that it may not happen for years if EVER. But I’d be even more upset about something not happening for me if I wasn’t going out and fulfilling my dreams and interests. A relationship may or may not come along, why rearrange your life for something that doesn’t yet exist?
Janice 27
Seems to me that a lot of people aren’t buying into the social pressure to be married. That pressure would come especially from prevailing beliefs that there’s something wrong with a person if you don’t get married. A lot of people seem to be saying that it’s better never to marry than to be in a bad marriage. Also, it seems that lot of women have no interest in setttling just to be married, that they don’t see marriage as worth it. (No one ever suggests that guys settle, I’ve noticed.)
I’d go along with all of this. I think that there’s something more wrong with someone who gets conventionally married three times than with someone who never gets married. I mean, by marriage number three haven’t you figured out that you aren’t a “forever” kind of person and that “one-and-only true love” feelings aren’t the basis for anything except whatever your relationship becomes in reality over time? You don’t even need to “work” on yourself to figure that one out.
Getting married doesn’t mean you have any particular kind of love feeling or any particular kind of relationship abilities. It just means that you and some other person agreed for your own personal reasons to jump the broom.
Not being married doesn’t mean you and another don’t share love feelings with others or one other or that you lack any particular kind of relationship abilities. It just means that for your own personal reasons you did not decide to jump the broom.
Marriage is just a lifestyle choice. Not a barometer of mental health. It doesn’t work for everybody, and since it doesn’t, it isn’t a “healthy” choice for everyone. Despite prevailing beliefs, in reality all marriages are different. Taking this spectrum into account, people who marry aren’t fundamentally different from people who don’t; you can find the same diversity of behaviors, problems, etc. across the single population. Married people just have a piece of paper that binds them to another person in a legal way.
nathan 28
“The market” – what, is dating an economic venture now? Seriously, Paragon, dating isn’t an abstraction. All the studies and theories in the world can only be – at best – helpful guides. And often, such stuff is simply a hindrance. More beliefs to replace the beliefs you had before. We meet and date unique individuals, not statistics.
Frankly, Helene is right. to some extent Many men don’t really do the kind of inwardly focused work needed to sustain a long term relationship. Especially the men in the age group she’s speaking of and older. It just wasn’t in the cultural water so to speak. Men expected to rely on women to be their emotional caretakers. And now a hell of a lot of them have fallen behind because times have changed, and more women aren’t putting up with it.
At the same time, everyone should be careful of how highly they think of themselves. What bothered me about Helene’s comment is that it’s a list of extremes. The script I hear entirely too many women using to describe men who probably had a few of those negative traits, but ultimately weren’t that bad. Instead of saying “I haven’t found a good match,” it’s “these men are completely pathetic losers who couldn’t possibly be my equal.” This is one of the reasons too much focus on self improvement isn’t a good idea. It can destroy your sense of humility, which is something I think is lacking amongst many folks, regardless of gender, these days.
Goldie 29
@ #2:
“Perhaps instead contemplating so hard why women in their 30s and 40s are not married — how about writing an article about how to land a marriage with a healthy guy that sticks.”
That was exactly my thought as I was reading the article. Getting married in and of itself is incredibly easy. Getting married so that twenty years down the road, neither of you feels miserable and trapped — now that’s something I haven’t figured out, and would love to hear from someone that has.
The “You Are Godless” part of Ms McMillan’s article, frankly, confused me. I dated atheists/agnostics/skeptics, and those guys all told me that they are leery of women who label themselves as spiritual on dating sites. When a woman says to these guys “I’m spiritual”, what they hear is “What’s your sign?” Or “I am owned by my twenty cats”. Again, there may be a way to be spiritual and sane at the same time, and if there is, I’d be curious to explore it.
helene 30
@Nathan & Mia
I would still agree with Mia that self improvement and developing an interesting life are valuable for their own sake – I would just caution other readers against the idea that it will necessarly make it easier to find a mate. With self awareness and self develoment should come – as nathan says – humilty, but ALSO self esteem. These taken together should create what you could call “a grounded sense of self worth” – a sense of yourself as a unique individual with something to offer, your own unique talents, opinions and value as a person and as a woman. With a strong sense of self in this way, it really becomes truly quite difficult to contemplate forming a longterm love relationship with any of the unreconstructed “frayed around the edges” divorcees that I come across. In order to love a man, I have to respect him deeply, and it is quite difficult to respect men who are emotionally underdeveloped, lack creativity and passion for their lives and what they do, and do not seem to see that being in a relationship involves them offering me something that will enrich my life…
I would not characterise these men as “completely pathetic losers” as they are generally men who are in employment, can drive a car, fix leaking taps, and produce some sort of a half decent cooked meal on occasion, but that’s about as far as it goes – and whilst this would be enough for some women, my point is that the more you work on your own development the less adequate these men seem as a longterm partner.
Byt hey, as stated several times on a recent thread, at 47 whatever I do to improve myself I’m still a low -value mate in mens eyes purely by virtue of one unchangable factor (my age!) so I may as well do all the improving I like – no one’s going to want me anyway!!
Helen 31
nathan and helene, I appreciate your points, but…
I think either Evan or Karl R pointed out in an earlier entry that what women think of as “self-improvement” does not often, in fact, improve them in ways that matter to men. We might think we become better mates because we travel, take courses, or make more money; but many men don’t care. And why should they? I don’t care, either. For example, helene, you mention “had nothing much to say about art or films”… Personally, I wouldn’t think a man’s value as a mate were higher if he had a lot to say about art or films. Is he a kind and emotionally stable person? That’s what matters. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what men look for in women, too.
This is not to say you can’t pursue these things for your own sake, as Mia pointed out. But don’t necessarily conflate them with traits that men value in relationships.
nathan 32
Helene @30 “In order to love a man, I have to respect him deeply, and it is quite difficult to respect men who are emotionally underdeveloped, lack creativity and passion for their lives and what they do, and do not seem to see that being in a relationship involves them offering me something that will enrich my life…” This makes sense to me. In fact, I’d probably be amongst the smaller percentage of men who have fairly high standards. Helen’s kind and emotionally stable doesn’t really do it for me. It’s a necessary base, but not sufficient. Someone can be kind and emotionally stable, but have little passion for what they are doing, and/or who they are in the world. Or they are passionate mostly about reality TV, gossip magazines, fashion, etc. (Women can easily come up with the stereotypical counterpart list for men.) Somehow, we all need to learn how to balance what we think we need in a relationship with what someone is actually bringing.
As for “self improvement,” at the end of the day, you have to do something because you are motivated to do it for yourself. Because you think your life will be better or more enriching through the experience, regardless of whether you meet someone in the process. I study and write about relationships to be better in relationship with everyone, including myself. And to inspire others to do the same. It’s not about a specific end gain for myself, other than more joy and less suffering everyday. Doesn’t matter if I’m single for years, or if I find someone to be with for the rest of my life today.
helene 33
Helen, as you say, it has been pointed out in previous threads that what women think of as self improvement may not be seen in the same way by men. This is undeniably true, although personally I find it rather depressing. I suppose some of it comes down to individual taste – as someone who has been in a previous very longterm relationship, one of my criteria in a man is that he should be INTERESTING. Whilst no one would exactly say they want a mate who is UNkind or UNstable, for me there s more to it than simply being a nice dependable soul. But that’s just my preference, and I would therefore feel that if I am looking for a man to be interesting, I too should endeavour to be interesting by having a range of interests, experiences and informed opinions to bring to the table.
As for the “improvements” that men value…. I have to say I struggle a bit with this one, as previous threads seems to suggest that the “improved woman” is one who is better looking, miraculously younger, sweet, understanding, easygoing and supportive. Whilst I would in no way consider myself to be “high maintenance” (ie difficult for the sake of being difficult, moody, highly irrational and demanding, constantly requiring attention) nor would I consider myself “sweet and understanding” no matter what. You get caught in terrible traffic and arrive 3 hours late for dinner? Not a problem for me. However if you forget my birthday, don’t do your share of domestic tasks, cancel dates at the last minute to meet your buddies or spend half our time together complaining about your ex-wife – no sweetness and understanding from me there, guys. Should I “improve” myself to tolerate these (admittedly very common) male weak spots…. I have to say, having given it much consideration, I really don’t think so. It would crush that part of me that says I have a right to be treated decently – and no, simply not physically assaulting me or stealing my money does not qualify as “treating me decently” . Would more men like me if I took this “boys will be boys” attitude and lovingly produced a hot casserole when my man eventually got back from drinks with the boys on valentines day? Maybe so. But I wouldn’t want to be with these men anyway, so why change myself to make myself more appealing to them??!
Mia 34
Helen – of course neither a man nor woman would want someone who showed up to a date acting a bit entitled and arrogant as they rattled off their accomplishments and activities like they expected you to be wowed. But what if someone showed up on a date and was not only kind, relationship oriented and affectionate, but clearly had a passion for life and was always up for trying new things? Wouldn’t a man or woman rather be with someone who was out riding their motorcycle, kayaking, volunteering, or salsa dancing than coming home from work and going to the gym and then watching tv while hdving a beer? Like I said, don’t do any activity with the idea that it will impress a future mate, but overall I think you would catch a higher quality partner if you generally had a zest for life beyond work.
You’d also stand a better chance of keeping that partner around. I know couples that don’t do much of anything outside each other and they have nothing to talk about and become clingy and full.
Janice 35
Nathan@32: Again, so many people are saying this. Their lives are meaningful in and of themselves and marriage is not an end game. If they do marry, they want to be with someone they can share that meaning with.
Contrast this with my parents’ generation, where marriage and kids in and of themselves were supposed to provide your life with meaning, especially for women.
Such an interesting social shift.
Goldie 36
Self-improvement means many different things to different people. What is considered self-improvement to one of us, may not matter at all for the other. So I’m with Helen here.
That said, I have to wonder how this item got on Helene’s list of things signifying lack of self-improvement: “aquired a posse of children from previous relationships who would take up a lot of my time, energy and resources and restrict my availability for dating”. That a man plays an active role in his children’s lives, can, in fact, take up a lot of his time, energy and resources. Based on the number, ages, special needs etc of the children, it could be a deal-breaker even for a child-tolerant person such as myself, simply due to dating not being realistic in these circumstances. But how does this come to mean that this man is in need of self-improvement, let himself go, and is otherwise a “pathetic loser?” If anything, to me this means that the man is responsible and takes good care of his loved ones. I apologize, I know this topic has already been beaten to death. It just gave me pause to see this item on the list next to things like being a slob, being a picky eater, talking over his date, and so on.
Karl R 37
Helen said: (#31)
“I think either Evan or Karl R pointed out in an earlier entry that what women think of as ‘self-improvement’ does not often, in fact, improve them in ways that matter to men.”
Both of us have made the point before.
helene, (#23)
In all likelihood, I will find it more interesting if you tell me about your minor health issue than if you tell me about art I haven’t seen, a film I haven’t watched, or a city I haven’t visited. If you’re complaining about your health, I have the opportunity to entertain myself by trying to figure out what’s wrong and how to fix it.
I never considered my personal hobbies/interests to be self-improvement … at least as it applied to dating. My ability (or inability) to get a date at yoga class was never affected by how well I could do a down dog. The interest (yoga) gave me access to potential dates. Improving my ability at it was purely for my benefit.
Even dancing is only a benefit if I’m dating another dancer. Otherwise, it’s a hobby that consumes 8-12 hours per week.
Mia said: (#18)
“the most common mistake I see people of both genders make is not being proactive enough about finding someone, and this article fails to mention that.”
I believe that’s entirely correct.
That lack of proactive behavior may be a conscious and thought-out choice (for example, pursuing career over relationships), but few relationships start if neither party is proactive about dating.
Helen said: (#16)
“The 25% ‘statistic’ is meaningless. It is just 3 women.”
The 25% statistic has held up rather well as the thread has expanded. By (#16) it was up to four women (see #13) … and so on. Maybe I just made a lucky guess.
Ruby 38
Karl R #37: I used to wonder about men over 40 who had never married, until I began meeting a slew of older divorced men who had been messed up by their bad marriages, and were carrying a ton of baggage. My over-45, never-married boyfriend so far seems much healthier and more commitment-oriented than most of them did.
Having gone through multiple failed marriages and live-in relationships is nothing to crow about. Plus, not everyone marries by the age of 30 these days. Some of us aren’t ready, or don’t meet the One, until much later in life. And some perfectly healthy people decide that they’d prefer to stay single.
McMillan says that having been married three times is exactly what qualifies her to tell women why they’re still single, but I’d say it probably makes her more qualified on what mistakes to avoid when you’re getting involved in a relationship. In the video of her that I watched on Huff Post, she talks about this.
Helen 39
Karl R: you’ve been sitting here COUNTING?
I’m afraid 4 is still a meaningless N, statistically speaking.
About wanting your mate to be passionate, interesting, have loads of meaningful hobbies, etc.: I used to think those things were important in a mate as well. Then I got married and we had kids, and over the course of now 16 years of knowing each other, none of that matters anymore. Your available time changes. Your priorities change. Putting yourself (and your spouse) at the center of your world changes. Your ability to pursue anything of your own without causing a dent in everyone else’s schedule changes. I don’t mean to scare anyone off by sharing that; it is a good life. But all those passions take a back seat, at least for a number of years, if your goal is to be married with children. Under those circumstances, kindness and emotional stability in your partner are crucial; hobbies and passions matter far less if at all.
But that’s just if you have that goal. If you want to be in an LTR without (more) kids, then there is more room for passions and hobbies. Even so, I, like Karl, wouldn’t want to hear someone go off about a movie or art piece or city s/he has seen that I haven’t. It comes across as showing off and not being considerate to the other party. You might discuss common interests, or over time get the other person on board your interests, but don’t overload them in an attempt to show how interesting you are. That approach might backfire. They care more that YOU’RE interested in THEM.
Mia 40
Wow, I can’t believe what I’m reading here. I LOVE hearing about places I’ve haven’t been to, movies I haven’t seen, and activities I’ve never partaken in. It’s so interesting when a guy I’m dating takes me out on his motorcycle, shows me how to go camping and boating, teaches me a few steps of ballroom dancing, or tells me about getting some tropical fever in central America where Ive never been. They seem to enjoy me telling them about my unusual road trips and books I’ve read too.
Who wants a dud, or someone who is just like them? I recently had a date with a guy who clearly was not active at all and rarely goes out- what could he possibly have to offer? I recently got out of a thing with a guy who was TOO active and busy, and had no time for a relationship as a result, so neither extreme is good. But as long as you’re on the same wavelength about life, it’s wonderful to introduce each other to different worlds and learn new things through dating. I personally feel like I couldn’t attract the type of man I want unless I have more to offer on this front.
Goldie 41
Re: hobbies vs no hobbies, I’ve given it a lot of thought. The man I was just dating had hobbies coming out of his ears, that I enjoyed sharing with him. Yet here I am
On the opposite side of the spectrum, my x-husband had hardly any interests, and the few he had (fishing), I couldn’t bring myself to enjoy no matter how hard I tried. Maybe it’s better to look for a middle ground, and account for the fact that people and their interests (and your own) will change over the years. I think I’d look for someone with an open mind, who is open to, and interested in, learning and trying new things, and has a certain level of intellect (just so he can keep up). In addition, I’d like the person to be passionate about anything, anything at all, other than eating, sleeping, and getting a paycheck. Preferably something that involves using your brain, because that is where my interests lie, so this will increase the probability that in the future we’ll be able to find interests activities we both like. If you want to have kids, this is also the way to ensure that you keep the communication channel open with your kids as they grow up. It is also a good way to ensure that your kids will grow up to be likewise passionate and intellectually curious. If you have kids and don’t want any more, then this is the way to ensure you won’t be bored to death when the kids leave home and the two of you will suddenly find yourselves with all the time on your hands.
As far as testing if the man knows arts or movies — I found that it is a very rare guy that is genuinely interested in arts, classical music, and such. When I go back to dating, I won’t use this as a measuring stick to rule people out, as to do otherwise will limit my dating field to a handful of men, most of them with various personality issues. If I happen to meet a great guy who also happens to like all those things, then I’ll know I got truly lucky. But most likely, I won’t.
Karl R 42
Mia said: (#34)
“Wouldn’t a man or woman rather be with someone who was out riding their motorcycle, kayaking, volunteering, or salsa dancing than coming home from work and going to the gym and then watching tv while hdving a beer?”
“overall I think you would catch a higher quality partner if you generally had a zest for life beyond work.”
As a source of interesting conversations, I’ve gotten a lot more milleage out of Mythbusters than salsa dancing. My job is a more interesting topic of conversation too.
Just for personal health, people should have a life outside of work and television. But people (being human) tend to place a high value on their own interests while devaluing other people’s interests.
“Hell is other people’s hobbies.”
“Interesting” is an arbitrary judgment:
Riding a motorcycle is interesting. Driving a Toyota isn’t.
Kayaking is interesting. Jogging isn’t.
Salsa dancing is interesting. Square dancing isn’t.
Or to put it another way:
My interests are interesting, and other people’s aren’t.
I see this as the underlying flaw in seeking a partner who is equally interesting.
Mia said: (#40)
“it’s wonderful to introduce each other to different worlds and learn new things through dating.”
I’ve spent less than three years with my fiancée. I have led her through every dance move I know multiple times (in about eight different styles of dance). I’ve heard all of her stories about traveling in Central American jungles. We’ve boated, kayaked and snorkeled together. We’ve explored castles and ruins.
If I’m expecting to get introduced to new things by my partner, then it’s obviously time for me to go find a different partner.
Or I can decide that maybe there’s more important aspects to a relationship than novelty.
helene said: (#33)
“I would therefore feel that if I am looking for a man to be interesting, I too should endeavour to be interesting by having a range of interests, experiences and informed opinions to bring to the table.”
A sample of my interests:
Science fiction, urban fantasy, collecting knives, ice hockey, RPGs (tabletop and MMOs), military history & strategy, comparative religions.
Just that small sample covers a rather broad range. I can discuss any of those topics at great length. I supect most of the women on this blog would prefer not to be involved in those conversations (Helen being one likely exception).
Since I grew up with a fair number of geeky, male-oriented interests, I never fell into the trap of thinking that my interests would help me get a date. Instead, I had better luck if I didn’t mention a half-dozen of my interests to my dates.
Goldie said: (#41)
“Maybe it’s better to look for a middle ground, and account for the fact that people and their interests (and your own) will change over the years.”
I’d say that’s a fairly solid recommendation.
Ruby said: (#38)
“I used to wonder about men over 40 who had never married, until I began meeting a slew of older divorced men who had been messed up by their bad marriages, and were carrying a ton of baggage. My over-45, never-married boyfriend so far seems much healthier and more commitment-oriented than most of them did.”
I’d say your observation is a lot more perceptive than many opinions that were voiced in that 3-year-old thread I pulled up.
I had no interest in serious relationships until my late 20s. While I had a couple serious relationships, I didn’t get proactive about dating until my mid-30s. I started dating my fiancée a few months before my 40th birthday.
You can find a good partner who is divorced. You can find a good partner who is never-married. I think it’s short-sighted to categorically rule out either group.
But my observation (#14) had to do with the difference in women’s responses when the topic addressed men over 40, rather than women of the same age.
Helen said: (#39)
“Karl R: you’ve been sitting here COUNTING? I’m afraid 4 is still a meaningless N, statistically speaking.”
If you’re going to carry on this line of conversation, at least count the relevant posts. Even through casual observation you should have noticed that we’re well past four women asserting the same point.
Did you even notice why I mentioned the fourth woman (#13) to make this point? It wasn’t for the statistical relevance.
helene 43
I don’t think the specifics of a person’s hobbies or passions is the point here – for me its about being interested in and engaged with life, in some form or another. When marriages are childless – as both mine were, and as my next one (if it ever happens) will be, as I’m now too old to have children – then the relationship stands or falls on being able to hold each other’s interest for years on end. Qualities like being a good dependable mother/father don’t come into it, and if there are no children (who fill an enormous amount of time) then if you don’t have much to talk about it will be a lot more apparent and, frankly, a bit dull! Yes, you need to love and care for each other, but unless you’re in your 90s then there’s a bit more to being a good partner than knowing how to make a nice cup of tea.
Mia 44
Karl, I do see what you’re saying- I’d rather gouge my eyes out than listen to you expound on knives. Guess it depends what the hobby is. Nevertheless, if I were on a date with you and you mentioned your passion for dancing, I’d instantly become more attracted to you, because you have a passion outside of work. Also, people who have stuff going on are likely to want to try new things with you and have an active partnership.
So many people at the top tier college I went to are soulless yuppies in the big city who only care about their paycheck, happy hour, and “having a good time.” Who gives a shit if they’re “nice”? Ugh! I once met a man who never went to college but was a soulful carpenter who spent his days outdoors, fishing, rafting, hunting, snowboarding, camping, and he was curious about the world. Well, that’s the kind of real man I could be with.
There ARE men out there who are into accomplished, self-improved women with a feminine side — if you somehow can’t find such a guy, better to be single and awesome.
Helen 45
Karl R: Ha ha ha ha ha
Okay, I didn’t notice that. Good catch.
Paragon 46
@ Helen
“Karl R: you’ve been sitting here COUNTING? I’m afraid 4 is still a meaningless N, statistically speaking.”
I thought the relevant sample we should consider, was the number of critical postings.
Then we would see something meaningful, in terms of their sensitivity to the posing of sex.
Nathan 47
I know plenty of long term couples with children, either young or who are adults now, who have passion about many things and are both still learning from each other. Sure, interests evolve and there were periods when raising the kids was a main focal point. But one couple that comes to mind is my old poetry professor and her husband. They both remained active in their community, she kept writing, and teaching, while raising the children. Some of you act like having kids means putting the rest of your life on hold. That sure wasn’t true for my mother, my professor and her husband, it’s not true for my sister either, who is a great mother and also continues to do her art photography projects. And as Helene pointed out, for couples without children, you have to have enough between you to keep each other’s interest. The problem to me is that some people have impossibly high standards these days, and then in response, others advise each other to lower their standards entirely too much. Or in the wrong areas.
Helen 48
Nathan wrote: “Some of you act like having kids means putting the rest of your life on hold.”
Nathan, remember that you wrote this years hence, when you have children. Count how many times the thought passes through your mind, “They’re making me put my life on hold,” or some variation thereof.
One does not, or should not, give up one’s passions and hobbies when children come along. But these become much harder to pursue, especially from the time the eldest is born to the time the youngest is about 5.
Speaking of passions and hobbies, Karl R wrote: “A sample of my interests: Science fiction, urban fantasy, collecting knives, ice hockey, RPGs (tabletop and MMOs), military history & strategy, comparative religions. Just that small sample covers a rather broad range. I can discuss any of those topics at great length. I supect most of the women on this blog would prefer not to be involved in those conversations (Helen being one likely exception).”
I’m flattered that you think so. I’m interested in the last two, and the first if it includes Tolkien (he invented an entire language for his Middle Earth – how cool is that!). The others, I have no knowledge about. It seems that some of your interests, though they fall in different categories, are intertwined – the theme is storytelling. Even military strategy can be thought of as a story: an unfolding of probable events as envisioned in one’s mind.
SS 49
I’ve seen extremes on both sides in terms of hobbies and passions… neither is good.
On one hand, I was in a relationship with a man who was nice enough and likely a good husband/father candidate, but who had ZERO interests and passions. He was perfectly content with going to work and then coming home and watching TV or playing video games. When I asked him what he might like to do for fun with his friends, it was… watching TV and movies and playing video games. I’ve never been a huge movie person, but in the year I dated him, I probably saw more movies in that one year than I have since then!
I realized this would not work for me. Plus, he had a problem with the fact that I had outside interests, and saw that as me choosing those interests over him (and that wasn’t the case). It didn’t surprise me that he eventually married a woman who gave up all of her outside interests to solely focus on watching TV and movies with him (and occasionally going out with girlfriends).
On the other hand, I’ve met that so-called holy grail guy who has a lust for life, is very active, very involved in his community and has been everywhere. He’s also 49 years old and never married… which is fine if that’s what he wants, but he would always talk about dating and looking for the right one (and met some nice women, as far as I knew), but my impression was that he was always focused on the next mountain climbing trip, regatta, hiking expedition, community service project in South America, etc., that he wouldn’t ever have any time to cultivate any type of meaningful relationship with a woman.
My husband had a good mix of both… he had a passion and some great stories to tell about past adventures, but he was also perfectly happy to settle into contented bliss with a wife and kids where his excitement quotient for the week might be coffee together on a Sunday morning and maybe a weekday dinner together at a dive restaurant we happened to find driving down the street. Evening conversations sometimes revolve around financial matters and what we did at work, and then we watch the evening news and a sitcom and go to bed. Then another weekend, we might drive a few hours and stay at a B&B. That balance is good enough for me.
As for self-improvement, I agree for the most part that such activities are for the benefit of the individual, but don’t necessarily translate into making him or her a better mate. When I met my husband (who DID want a woman with an active life, btw), I was training for a half-marathon to raise money for leukemia research. He thought that was nice and then was happy to hear about my trip to the city where I ran the marathon (which happened about two months later), but he never spoke of it again after that. It didn’t remotely factor into his decision to date and later marry me… nor did most of my hobbies in general. So I have to agree with the guys on this one… what most women list as self-improvement activities or as things they think make them a potentially better catch don’t really register on most men’s radar.
Goldie 50
@ Nathan:
“Some of you act like having kids means putting the rest of your life on hold. ”
Ha, if it were only that easy. Rather than putting your life on hold, it changes your life. Forever. You’re not going to be the same person ever again. This doesn’t mean you can’t pursue your interests — in fact, in many of my comments here I have stated my opinion that being a parent is all the more reason to pursue your interests, if only for the purpose that your children have a well-rounded parent. If I listed all the things I’ve done and hobbies I’ve pursued while being a parent, it’d make your head spin.
With that said, parenting is definitely a full-time job, with a regular X-hours-a-day commitment, plus an occasional period of firefighting, when your kids need more of your presence in their lives than they normally do. And yes, on occasion, this happens even with teenagers and kids in their 20s. They’re still family. Sometimes you have to put in the extra hours now, so you don’t have to bail them out of jail later. I wish those of our partners who never had to go through this were more tolerant and understanding of us, and of the fact that this is temporary and will soon pass. I do realize that, because of these time constraints, a number of people will refuse to date a parent, any parent. And that’s okay with me. I’m not sure I want to be with a person who wants my attention so much, he’ll push my kids out of the way to get it. That’s a tad too needy by my standards.
nathan 51
Clearly, Goldie and Helen think I’m naive because I haven’t had children. That’s fine. Enjoy that story. It’s exactly what people with children seem to love to do to people without children. Put us in our place.
Where I’m coming from is this: our obsession with the nuclear family as the end all approach to raising children is where this “putting much of your life on hold” really comes from. When we’re all broken up into isolated units where the vast majority of raising children is solely the responsibility of two people, the result is a hell of a lot more sacrifice than is necessary. Throughout most of human history, and in many places still today, child-rearing is a more collective affair. Extended family much more involved. Or neighbors. Etc. And I’d argue that those families in the U.S. who have managed to maintain these kinds of connections to some degree – where grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, family friends are more involved in children’s lives – there is less of this complaint about giving up so much of your life.
Understand, that this is not about romanticizing parenthood. Regardless of conditions, I totally agree that your life changes forever, and that for significant amounts of time, you have to negotiate and even give up some of the things you might like to do.
But please, don’t assume that us childless folks are know nothings. It’s really not much better than the idea that people over 40 who have never married are somehow damaged and clueless about relationships.
Helen 52
nathan, I must admit I’m really surprised to hear the reaction in 51 coming from you. It sounds uncharacteristically angry and defensive.
Yes, you are naive about being a parent if you have never been a parent. I’m not sure how anyone could attempt to argue otherwise. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Of course not. It is hardly comparable to thinking over-40s are reprehensible because they’ve never been married, so that comparison is moot.
Even the point about the drawbacks of nuclear families (with which I agree, by the way) is moot. The only point we ever tried to make in the first place is that you have to give up pursuing your individual interests to a large degree when you become a parent. Whether it’s because of how our familial structure in the United States is set up or something else is not the point. That is unlikely to change anytime soon. For here, for now, and for our relevant audience, our points still hold. Goldie and I are actually parents, so we can say this with some knowledge. That is all. No attacks on anyone. Again – I am surprised.
Goldie 53
@ Nathan, I need a quote from my comments where I said that “childless folks are know nothings”, because I certainly never meant any such thing, and didn’t see any such statements in Helen’s post, either. I was responding, among other things, to the assumptions that I see on this blog all the time, coming from the CF crowd — that single parents are lazy bums who use their children as an excuse to contribute less to their relationship with their BF/GF. Oddly enough, CF folks are not alone in this. I was surprised to find out IRL that parents, with grown children, whose children have never gotten into any kind of trouble, do not understand the rest of us whose kids need more attention and guidance at times.
I actually do have parents living close by who are willing to help out. But some of my duties, especially with teenage kids, I cannot offload on my parents. So extended family only goes so far in making a parent’s life easier. And, either way, my parents help me out of their own goodwill. They are not obligated to raise my kids. I, the custodial parent, am the only person who has this obligation.
SS 54
Nathan, I’m also wondering why you think a nuclear family and collective raising of children are mutually exclusive.
I don’t know any nuclear families that don’t get a TON of help from grandparents, aunts, uncles and other relatives. I am pregnant and due very soon, and my mother is going to move in with my husband and I for a while. I have co-workers who rely on their parents for daily child care. I grew up in a nuclear family and have never been in a situation in which I didn’t have extended family members ready at a moment’s notice to help care for me — which sometimes included living in the same home.
I am not yet a parent either, but even as a non-parent (for now), I know that raising children is a totally different situation that I can’t even try to comprehend until I’m in the throes of it.
And yes, I’m totally prepared to scale back some of my individual pursuits for childrearing because I know I will have to. DH feels the same way. We’ve talked to men and women who had fabulous childfree lives and were totally surprised how much things changed for them once children came into the picture. While they didn’t give up their entire sense of individuality, they sure did have to make some major adjustments that they never expected.
Children are game-changers.
nathan 55
Well, you know, sometimes it’s good to uncharacteristic. What’s disappointing is that you, and some others, seem to see no wisdom in the words of people who haven’t had children. As if we haven’t spent any significant time taking care of children in some capacity – which I have. Or as if we haven’t done significant research about children, parenting, and the like, which again I have. Both for the work I used to do, and also for making smarter decisions in my own life. I never claimed to be all knowing about being a parent because I haven’t been one. There are plenty of things I couldn’t possibly know until I actually have children, if that ends up happening for me. This is not the same as being “naive.”
Definition: naive, naïve [nɑːˈiːv naɪˈiːv], naïf
adj
1.
a. having or expressing innocence and credulity; ingenuous
b. (as collective noun; preceded by the) only the naive believed him
2. artless or unsophisticated
3. lacking developed powers of analysis, reasoning, or criticism a naive argument
4. another word for primitive [5]
Calling people naive is usually both an insult, and a dismissal of much of what they have said. Surely you know that. I’m not given to using words of insult on here, and tend to do my best to respect different viewpoints, even if I disagree with them. I reacted as I did not because you disagree with me – which is totally fine – but because you seem to dismiss everything I have to say about family and children solely because I don’t have children of my own. That’s not respectful in my book. You can disagree with my definition of respect, but I’m telling you exactly why I spoke up out of character.
The funny thing is that we aren’t even in that much disagreement in terms of the main point. I never said something like individual pursuits should be able to trump everything, even having children. I was mostly suggesting that it’s not healthy to give up everything for “the sake of the children” – a point that both you and Goldie made. I brought up the family structure issue because it plays a roll in this, whether you want to see that or not. But in the end, if I were a man with children making these same exact points, you’d probably respond to me much differently. And I think that’s problematic.
Goldie 56
@ Nathan
“I was mostly suggesting that it’s not healthy to give up everything for “the sake of the children” – a point that both you and Goldie made.”
I never made that point. Neither did Helen.
That said, taking care of children in some capacity is not the same as being a parent. The first is volunteer work that you can walk away from anytime you feel like it. The second isn’t. Let me give you an example. Say you’re a homeowner and the only name on the mortgage is yours. Now your family members can help you pay this mortgage. A girlfriend can move in and contribute to paying this mortgage. But if, one month, none of you pays, guess who the bank will go after. Not your parents, not your girlfriend. You. You’re the only person that has to pay this money, come hell or high water. Everyone else may pay this money if they’re so inclined, but they may opt out of paying anytime if they so choose. Therein lies the difference. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that’s reality and there’s nothing I can do about it. That’s how things work.
Janice 57
Nathan, have you read Havi Brooks blog post called “Bolivia”? I think you’d really like it. Very funny and insightful. Just google her name and Bolivia and it will pop right up. Some of the posters there share your POV. As do I.
Karl, have you read “Bloodlands”? A really great, painful book about war in Europe. I highly recommend it, but only for discussion with folks you know well or in an academic setting. Not early-date material. Which brings me to the point I wanted to make: Some hobbies aren’t good topics for discussion until you know someone. Makes it tough, because we want to be around people who share our passions. But if our passions aren’t mainstream we might get rejected for having them until someone gets to know us and understands that our passion does not reflect some kind of unpalatable weirdness. (One guy took me on a first date to a Civil War battlefield and wanted to walk the whole thing; then he took me back to his house to look at his collection of posters from war-torn Iran c. the 1970s. This poster collection later on did get a lot of attention in the press, so I recognize that a lot of people would find it interesting. Too much war for me out of the gate, though. Also, he had a girlfriend that he got “permission from” to go out with me. Yeah. My first impression was that this guy was way too into conflict for me. If that was what he led with, what was next? A collection of marial arts weapons under his bed?)
Helen 58
nathan: yes, it is the same thing as being naive. You left out one definition: “lacking experience.” You say, “I haven’t been one [a parent].” Therefore, you are lacking in that experience. It is not an insult. It is a state of being. Just as I’m naive about being a lawyer: I’ve never been one.
You also write: “if I were a man with children making these same exact points, you’d probably respond to me much differently. And I think that’s problematic.”
If you were a man with children, somehow it’s doubtful that you would have written the one sentence to which Goldie and I responded: “Some of you act like having kids means putting the rest of your life on hold.”
Finally, you write: “you seem to dismiss everything I have to say about family and children solely because I don’t have children of my own.”
Is this even the same nathan I have dialogued with in other posts? I have SUPPORTED your points about family and children, again and again and again – pretty much every single time. I can’t begin to understand this accusation of dismissing everything you have to say about family and children.
Nathan 59
Sometimes, its best to bow out. I feel like I am offering a reasonable middle position on the whole issue of personal interests and children, but all I get in return is the continued suggestion that I and by extention others who don’t have children have nothing of value to say about these issues. Its disappointing, but I will accept it and let the argument go.
I will answer the quest about nuclear families. I am not against them, nor do I think its impossible to raise childen and have a rich couples life within such contexts. Evan seems to be doing fine, eve though I am sure he’s giving a fair amount of time to his child – which is exactly what should be happening. My point is that there are many other family structures that can be options, and if we thought more truly in the”it takes a village way” perhaps the stress levels of parents would be lessened. I worked for several year with children whose parents were in crisis and abusive. One thing I saw again and again was isolation and a lack of support. And then I spent three more years working with families people would deem healthy. And for some of these parents – the support and stress levels were only marginally better. Point being that a lot of folks are struggling with the nuclear family model- and not just folks who made poor choices. Which doesn’t mean it should be rejected outright – I am just saying we could do a much better job upholding examples of families were there is much more support and flexibility of form – and where parents aren’t forced by desperation or overwhelming sense of duty to give up most of their interests and passions to meet the needs of the kids. There are plenty of examples where its not either/or. I am trying to focus on the positive here, something that Evan knows firsthand isn’t always easy to do here.
Evan Marc Katz 60
@Nathan – Sorry, bud. You’re getting a little glimpse of what it’s like to be me. To stake out a reasonable position and feel like nobody “gets” you. I hear ya. I only wonder if “thou dost protest too much”. Listen, you’re a super reasonable and balanced guy – often more than I am – and yet, it seems that this post is triggering you and making you feel the need to defend your position in life.
You believe in alternative family structures. That’s fair. And in many cultures, it does take a village. However, you can’t MAKE a village raise your child. And that, to me, is the salient point that I’m not sure you’re embracing. Nuclear families with two parents together, lots of neighbors with similar aged kids, and both sets of active grandparents would be an ideal village. But that’s not most people’s reality. It’s more like what I have: a nuclear family with no local friends, one set of grandparents three hours away, the other, cross-country. And in such a situation, your needs as a parent are subjugated to the needs of your child. I haven’t picked up my guitar since my daughter was born. When I think about doing it, I get wistful, but realize that if I only get to see her a few hours a day, I can’t spend one of those hours practicing. Something’s gotta give. And for those who don’t have villages – or those who can’t afford babysitters – having children is a rewarding, but self-sacrificial life choice. I think that’s what everyone’s been trying to convey.
Thanks for caring about your viewpoint so passionately. There’s always something to be learned when people dissent. I know it well.
helene 61
Surely to say that someone is by definition naive about parenthood simply because they are not a parent is the same as saying I am naive about the effect of drug use because I am not a drug addict. You don’t have to take heroin to be aware that it is very bad for you! True, I can’t say what it FEELS like to be a drug user, but I sure as hell know what it LOOKS like, and what the effects are on a persons life. There are TV documentaries, govenment reports, first hand accounts from those who’ve “been through it” – some of us may have close family members or friends who have been through it. To say someone is naive about a topic simply because they have not “been there” personally is…well…naive!. (And before anyone gets up in arms, no, I am not comparing being a parent to being a drug user, just comparing 2 examples of topics I would not consider myself naive about, simply because I have not done it myself.)
Janice 62
I agree with you, Nathan! That’s why I was recommending the “Bolivia” blog post. It’s so popular that almost two years after the initial post people are still reading and commenting on it.
It’s a little strange to me that people think you have to experience something directly to “get” it. A lot of us don’t have kids because we do “get” it and we actively choose NOT to have kids. Or maybe we are doing other things and going down that path doesn’t even occur to us.
I know lots of lawyers. I’ve read lots of legal documents. I’ve served on juries and been a trial witness; I deal with the legal team at my firm and use lawyers to handle all sorts of complicated affairs in my life. So despite not having gone to law school, passing the bar, or practicing in a firm, I believe I have enough info about that profession to say with quite a great deal of authority: I have absolutely no desire to be a lawyer. Does this lack of direct experience of being a lawyer mean I am naive about the law? Or that I can’t understand what lawyers are talking about?
It does not. But accusations of naivete and ignorance and dismissals of my viewpoint and life experience DO make me much less sympathetic toward lawyers and much less likely to extend any generosity toward them.
So, if those lawyers can’t find their village…well, maybe they might want to think about why.
Nathan 63
Evan, you are right in that a piece of my argument definitely bucks the mainstream. I knew it might rile a few folks up. The nuclear family comments were an addendum, important but not the main issue.
I would expect more sacrifice with a really young child. With my nephew, the first year was mostly about him with my sister and her partner. But even now, with my nephew being 18 months old, my sister has regained her photography work. Which is in addition to her job. She is a great mother and passionate about her art. So, it can be done. And its not like they have endless amounts of help. Just enough.
I will have to check out the Bolivia blog post Janice. Thank you.
What makes me laugh a bit is that on the post ably Michelle and her 50 something fiance, I was one of the people arguing for caution precisely because the guy had multiple waffles on agreeing to have children. Over there,my and others’ concerns about children were was consided being a downer on love. While over here,for some, it seems impossible for me (and a few others) to display enough concern for children to some. Go figure.
Public School Teacher 64
I am horrified by the comments against Nathan, especially given his experience as a caregiver for children not his own. What parents don’t see but that the much excoriated (on this blog) nonparent “outsiders” do–how you and your children interact with society at large. It isn’t always pretty. It is often very myopic.
Those of us who deal with large numbers of children in settings outside the home see how your child’s behavior stands against that of his/her peers. Over the years we develop a sixth-sense for the kinds of behavioral problems each child presents and where those problems may lead–and after the first parent conference we know where those problems orginate. We are the ones who have to deal with these problems everyday. We have to continue to do our work–which is a service to society at large–despite the blind spots and failings of the parents.
Yes, I know. I’m couldn’t possibly be talking about your child!
You might also take a moment to consider that Nathan and other childfree citizens pay taxes that support the education of your children, the parks and beaches where they play, the half-price tickets they get to various public events and transportation. You might also consider the tax breaks you get for having children and, if you are married, for being married. Single, childfree people like Nathan do not benefit directly from the tax breaks that you do; people like Nathan subsidize them.
We don’t have to talk about the wedding and shower gifts that people like Nathan are always handing out at work and to family and friends, even though they themselves never receive any in kind.
So, in addition to apologizing to Nathan for your thoughtless comments, I would recommend thanking him for his service and the subsidies–things that he offers you precisely because he is not a parent himself.
Mia 65
I can tell you that my miserable childhood would have turned out quite differently had my mom had friends and interests – but she didn’t , so she micromanaged every hour of me and my siblings’ day. When I was 16, she even made me a schedule that accounted for how I would fill every hour of my day; she didn’t work and followed me around the house nonstop to monitor me; if i wanted to see friends or get out she guilted and hounded me; she and my dad did nothing on the weekends – no museums, hikes, boating trips – even though they had the money and we lived near a major city, and wanted their kids to stay in the house with them.
So I wondered why I was so miserable, as a young adult living on my own, being only into my career and having nothing else . I had to unlearn the bad things I saw as a kid and get out of the house, but it took effort.
My friends’ parents who had friends and hobbies were better parents, and their kids are more socially adjusted. So I agree with Nathan quite a bit.
Helen 66
Evan 60: Thank you for clarifying the point that Goldie and I were trying to make in such a charitable way. That is exactly what we meant.
You will pick up your guitar again, I promise, if that is what you want to do. It gets easier after the children grow older. All else being “normal” in the child’s development, the first several years are the most concentrated.
Goldie 67
#64, this is a very passionate post. Can you quote the “thoughtless comments” that you were responding to? Because I have no idea what you’re arguing against — you do not directly indicate it anywhere in your post, and I cannot figure it out from your post. I get it that Helen and I should be ashamed of ourselves, but for what?
To recap once again. First time I mentioned parents in this thread was in response to helene’s #23, where being a responsible parent is listed as a character flaw right next to extra weight and bad hygiene. I cannot say how much I disagree with this statement. Then Nathan posts what seems to be in support of this viewpoint, along the lines of “you parents don’t have to spend as much time with your kids as you do”. Basically an invitation to cut down on our time with our kids, for what? so 1)whoever we are dating at the moment would get more of our time and 2)so we pursue hobbies and become more interesting people so whoever we’re dating at the moment doesn’t feel bored around us. Well problem is, you are the only person that your children can turn to for help and guidance. whereas whoever you’re dating hopefully has a family, friends, and a social circle. Sounds a little bit unfair to me. It’s like taking ten dollars from someone who has $100 and giving it to someone who has a billion.
Also I’ve said it before and I will say it again — if a man refuses to date me because I am a parent — I’m absolutely cool with that — he deserves to pursue what he prefers best — and we wouldn’t be a good match anyway.
Helen 68
Goldie wrote: “Helen and I should be ashamed of ourselves, but for what?”
Hee hee – I’m not ashamed of myself.
Are you? You shouldn’t be; sounds like you’re a great mom. It’s not worth your time responding to rants.
Besides, this strays from the original point of the post, which is the McMillan articles. My own viewpoint is that single women aren’t that different from married women, period. But it’s certainly worth working on changing these aspects, whether one is single or married, if they apply to oneself (except the “You’re a dude” part – dudettes can be charming).
nathan 69
Goldie, you are misreading what I am saying, and making it sound like I’m just out to guilt trip parents who are in the dating world. That’s not at all what I was doing.
Janice 70
Goldie, Helen: You were dismissing Nathan’s comments and being patronizing toward him by saying that because he isn’t a parent his ideas about parenting don’t have value, even though he has lots of experience working with kids, just like the teacher.
From Helen: “Nathan, remember that you wrote this years hence, when you have children. Count how many times the thought passes through your mind, “They’re making me put my life on hold,” or some variation thereof.”
And:
“nathan: yes, it is the same thing as being naive. You left out one definition: “lacking experience.” You say, “I haven’t been one [a parent].” Therefore, you are lacking in that experience. It is not an insult. It is a state of being. Just as I’m naive about being a lawyer: I’ve never been one.”
And from Goldie: “Ha, if it were only that easy. Rather than putting your life on hold, it changes your life. Forever. You’re not going to be the same person ever again.”
Then the teacher added that not only is Nathan’s not as blind/ignorant/naive as you seem to think he is, but that in fact you as parents might want to consider your own areas of blindness/ignorance/naivete regarding children–namely, how your parenting plays out in the world at large (probably not as well as you think it does) and how much support you take without thanks (or even notice) from others who are NOT your child’s parent.
To put not too fine a point on it: YOU may be thrilled with your kids and so happy to have Justin and Emma in your life, but your kids probably aren’t wowwing others out there. And even though people without kids don’t derive much benefit from the social entitlements (eg schools) that you do, we all pay equally for them. That’s an interesting point, I think.
Really, I don’t see how this attitude of “they’re making me put my life on hold” and “I sacrifice so much” and “I don’t have any time” and “you’re naive if you don’t have kids” is going to be very attractive to prospective dates.
Helen 71
Janice dear, I’m married. I have to beat other men off with a stick, and am not interested in prospective dates.
My own opinion is that to have been offended by Goldie’s and my comments is being oversensitive, and that you and others are putting words in our mouths. Neither of us said nathan’s ideas about parenting are invalid. Again (please read my posts carefully before attacking), I have openly supported nathan’s points on multiple posts, despite his most recent accusation that I have not.
Now, you are making this into how the world is not wowwed by our kids. That is verging on ad hominem attacks. Why? because it has no relevance whatsoever to what we were discussing, and the only purpose seems to be to shame us or to make us feel bad. I would not advise your going that way.
Let’s not even get into that the children we raise are the ones who will provide for your future, for the future of the country, and will pay your social security. It goes both ways. I would think you and any public school teacher would know that. The nations in which fertility rate is below replacement rate are in states of panic for a good reason.
Janice 72
Helen dear, your marital status has no bearing in the discussion.
I am not offended by anything you or Goldie have written, but I can see why others would find it offensive.
We are all providing for the children of this world, not just you and Goldie. I would think that you as a parent would have noticed that.
Goldie 73
@ Janice:
“To put not too fine a point on it: YOU may be thrilled with your kids and so happy to have Justin and Emma in your life, but your kids probably aren’t wowwing others out there.”
Excellent point. This is exactly the reason why I am the sole person responsible for raising my children and cannot offload this task on anybody, which is why we parents are under a bit of pressure here. I mean who’s gonna help me with my kids when my kids aren’t wowwing anybody out there, right? Thanks for proving the point I’ve been busing my arse to make.
That said, there’s a letter on my fridge right now that I got from my youngest son’s teacher this week, saying that my son is a “role model in (name) high school” and congratulating me on “having raised such a fine young man”. His older brother made dean’s list in college (his first year), and his roommate chose to stay in the same room with my son again next year. So I figure people must be pretty content with my kids so far. But nice try.
“Really, I don’t see how this attitude of “they’re making me put my life on hold” and “I sacrifice so much” and “I don’t have any time” and “you’re naive if you don’t have kids” is going to be very attractive to prospective dates.”
Ya know, I’ve dated CF guys and I got none of this attitude from them that we parents are getting in this thread. Everyone was totally nice and understanding of each other. I’ve also dated shared-custody dads and single dads who will second every one of these statements: “they’re making me put my life on hold” and “I sacrifice so much” and “I don’t have any time”. So, again, everyone was totally nice and understanding and meeting each other halfway. But like I said, if you don’t want to date single parents… don’t date them. No big deal for anyone involved. Everyone occupies their own niche of the dating market and it’s normal. Appreciate your concern, but I’m quite happy with mine.
You know what they say, assumption is the mother… oh no, cannot talk about mothers on this thread, that will offend the online CF community. My bad.
@ Helen, amen to that. I’ve been meaning to ask if it’s National Strawman Week and I somehow missed the memo, lol
Helen 74
Janice 70 wrote: “I don’t see how this attitude of “they’re making me put my life on hold” and “I sacrifice so much” and “I don’t have any time” and “you’re naive if you don’t have kids” is going to be very attractive to prospective dates.”
You are the one who made marital status relevant, not I. A married woman has no interest in being attractive to prospective dates.
And the children of the world are providing for all of us in turn. We notice give-and-take both ways as parents. It is a yin and yang – something to rejoice in, not something to attack mothers for.
Goldie 75
Sorry for the double post.
@ Janice:
And from Goldie: “Ha, if it were only that easy. Rather than putting your life on hold, it changes your life. Forever. You’re not going to be the same person ever again.”
This is my “insulting comment to Nathan” that I have to apologize for? You‘re insulted that my life has changed? Why? Do I know you? How do you suggest I apologize? “Sorry that I think my life has changed forever”?
This is turning into such a waste of blog space, it’s ridiculous. I cannot continue this discussion.
@ Nathan #69: Thank you, and sorry if I misunderstood your original comment.
Helen 76
Goldie, didn’t you get the memo? It IS National Strawman Week.
j/k Thanks for your comments; I have been laughing aloud at your last two posts! Congrats on your awesome sons, by the way.
And agreed: no point continuing this discussion with such commenters.
Relevant to this particular post is your point about niches in the dating market. There are certain niches where being a single parent will be a dealbreaker and will decrease the odds of your marrying (or finding an LTR) within that niche. But there are other niches – such as the ones you’ve found – where it simply doesn’t matter. If the man sees that you’re not any of those items McMillan lists (or a small number), it simply doesn’t matter that you have two sons. Usually, not always, it’s other parents who fall in this category because they have been through it themselves. But there are always exceptions.
Janice 77
Goldie@75: You wrote it as if Nathan might not have figured that out for himself. I’m sure he has. Which is why I called it patronizing in comment #70. I didn’t say you should be ashamed of yourself for it and I didn’t describe anything you said as an “insulting comment,” as you contend, but I am glad that you apologized to him. He seems to be a good guy with a lot of wonderful insights.
Helen@74: This is a dating site, so I assumed you were interested in the topic of dating. Your marital status is still irrelevant to the discussion.
Mimi 78
@ Goldie
What is CF?
susan 79
In His Needs, Her Needs, Dr Harley claim that largely women need affection above all, and men want admiration. Men also want (according to him) a recreational companion more than women do.
It’s an interesting concept that suggests to me that womendon’t really care too much what their men’s interest are – but that men would like women to like what they are interested in.
Like someone else said, I would not find knives, or Tolkein fascinating (and I should point out I actually live in Middle Earth – not far from the film set in fact). BUT I like the idea of a man having interesting hobbies and passions that may or may not match mine. Just one or two crossovers is enough for me.
The reason I think IM still single is that I haven’t followed the rules (I just blogged on this myself today). It turns out that even when a man puts in huge amounts of effort in the early days, the minute the woman reciprocates, it’s a turnoff.
Except for the right guy. Who hasn’t crossed my path yet.
Goldie 80
@ Mimi: Childfree. Sorry for confusion.
@ Helen: thanks!! I disagree with the teacher that they’re perfect in every way (lol), but so far so good.
Jon 81
About the Social Security comments:
1) Social Security has never been nor will it ever be enough to support you in your old age. The program was not designed to do that.
2) While a shrinking tax base (declining population) is a contributing factor to Social Security’s demise, the bigger contributing factor is the rising longevity of the population. More children will not make up for the loss of contributions; people will have to put off retirement longer.
3) A pyramid scheme is not sound fiscal policy.
4) I have never heard one person say ever that they were having children out of concern for the viability of the Social Security system.
5) Population growth will prove more costly to the planet than zero population growth; current growth rates are unsustainable over time.
6) If having kids is your retirement plan, I urge you to rethink it and speak to a financial advisor. The risks are huge: a) the long-term economic outlook is an unknown; b) if kids have to choose between supporting their parents and supporting themselves and their children, they may choose the latter; c) you may outlive your kids.
Nathan 82
Since dating single parents has come up multiple times, I would like to say that I think they often get a bum rap. When I was younger, I wouldn’t even consider dating a woman with kids. And then the years went on, I had all those experiences working with kids, and at some point the resistance went away. I have had two relationships with single mothers since then. Both did a good job of balancing thing. In the longer of the two relationships, I spent a fair amount of time with her andher two kids. They really liked me and I never saw them as hindering “our relationship.” To me, the problems come when either the parent can’t manage his/hers time enough to develop a new partnership and/or the new partner can’t handle having kids as part of the package. Sometimes, both issues are present.
In any case, going back to Evans original post, being honest about your needs and where you are at is probably the most useful piece of info from Mcmillians snarky article.
Clare 83
@ susan #79
That’s a fascinating point, about guys’ interests, I mean. I have noticed that, pretty much without exception, every guy I have ever met LOVES it when a woman shows an interest in their hobbies or interests.
Janice 84
Jon@81: Social Security has always been a nonstarter for me, too. I don’t even think about it.
Karl R 85
susan said: (#79)
“Men also want (according to him) a recreational companion more than women do.”
“I like the idea of a man having interesting hobbies and passions that may or may not match mine. Just one or two crossovers is enough for me.”
Clare said: (#83)
“I have noticed that, pretty much without exception, every guy I have ever met LOVES it when a woman shows an interest in their hobbies or interests.”
You bring up an interesting distinction. If you want your interests to matter to a man, have the same interests that he does. Having dozens of interests, not a selling point. Having “really cool” interests, not a selling point. Having one or two interests that overlap with his, huge point in your favor. (If you have dozens of interests, you may have increased the likelihood of an overlap, but that’s an indirect benefit.)
Even from a practical perspective, shared hobbies are wonderful. If we’re pursuing our shared hobby, it adds to our “together” time. If we’re pursuing our separate hobbies, it adds to our “apart” time. If we’re having trouble finding enough time together, we can still enjoy our shared hobby without putting strain on the relationship.
Margaret 86
@ Helene # 23. I so totally agree with you, and I know of so many real life examples that confirm this!
Ed 87
You’re not married because men in general are turning away from marriage.