All the Single Ladies (and Gentlemen)

A while back, Emily responded to a reader request and wrote this fun, funny post about her thoughts on why guys today don't commit. Her light hearted post seemed to generate some really intriguing thoughts and dialogue, and it's kept me mulling over some of the propositions and problems posed. More recently, I've read some other articles about marriage and the current state of men's and women's attitudes around marital commitment. One was posted on a friends Facebook page, asking if any women had any thoughts on it. I just had too many thoughts for a Facebook comment, so I'm writing a post about it. I am hoping to prod him into writing a parallel post, so you can get two sides of a response to this single woman - a married woman, and a single man's thoughts on what she has to say.


Here is the article from The Atlantic he was asking about: All The Single Ladies by Kate Bolick. It is rather long, but provides some fascinating history and psychology and personal anecdotes around trends in fidelity and thoughts on the supply and demand of marriageable men or women. And here are a few of my reactions to it:


1) The One. I think one nugget of truth she puts out there is that the idea: "one human being can fulfill all your emotional/social/physical/financial desires/hopes/dreams" is false and also dangerous. But while she uses this as support for a choice to remain single, I think it is also something that married people would do well to come to grips with in order to enhance the health of their marriages. I can be a better wife to Manny when I stay connected to my other family members [and his too - I love his family!], and I work on my friendships [even when they're long distance, hence this blog]. When I isolate myself (and I do do that sometimes), our marriage suffers from bearing too much weight of my breadth of needs. 


2) Where have all the Husbands gone? Kate Bolick illustrates how the imbalance of successful women compared to the number of marriageable male prospects leads men and women to be more promiscuous, because the men have plenty of good options and little need to commit to one if the next best thing might be just around the corner. [as an aside, I also recently watched a documentary about how China is having an inverse problem of too many men. Check out "China's Lost Girls," to see the negative unintended consequences they are struggling with] Maybe this is the key answer to the reader's original question that Emily was addressing. But having attended a college where the ratio of women to men was 3 to 1, I got to see a microcosm of this imbalance at work, and I think there is a segment of the male population getting overlooked in this observation. At Westmont, each guy had, in theory, three women to himself. Some of the guys used this as an opportunity to date around, like Bolick observes. But other guys had higher esteem for women or commitment to a fidelity ethic. These other guys might be a significant minority of the population, but I believe they are out there. I saw these guys suffer from intense pressure of three women lining outside their door demanding they pick one of them and put them out of their single-misery (somewhat metaphorically, only on occasion did this literally happen ;)  ). I think a lot of these guys didn't like being pushed into rejecting two girls in order to assuage one, and so they just didn't ask anyone out. It was also a small Christian community, so when the guy picked that one out of three, there was tons of pressure for him to make it work out well. Lots of eyes evaluating whether he made the right choice, if he was honorable in their relationship, when was he going to give her a ring?? It is no wonder there were tons of articles in the campus newspaper addressing the question of why no one dated outside of the dorm initiated "NCTO's" [Non-committal take outs, where a whole dorm floor of men or women set each other up on dates and went out as a big group under the strict understanding that it was non-committal, no one was allowed to expect exclusive relationships after that night, or you know, diamond rings or anything]. This pressure concept really is just a theory in my own head. I'd be very interested to hear from guys whether there is any truth to it. 


3) Redefine worth. Bolick wants us to open our minds to a broader concept of acceptable life styles. For example, she speaks against "Singlism" (marginalizing people in our society who are single as if they are lesser or nothing but crazy-cat-ladies), and broadening our ideas of acceptability in mates. Part of the problem she is pointing out is that our population is still fairly balanced in quantity of men to women, but the quality of women is up (higher rates of bachelors/graduate degrees, increasing salaries, less job loss during the Great Recession, ability to successfully manage single-parenting, etc.) and out pacing men. It seems as though there was a period of time (shorter than we might think, apparently) where men told women we could not earn money outside the home for whatever reasons. And women rose up and responded, "anything you can do, I can do better." Now we are proving our point, but often looking down on men who can't seem to keep up with us anymore. This has long been a sore point for me. I think it may be a minority of women who hold this superiority and scorn, but for those that do, how are we doing anything better than the men who oppressed us with sexism and patriarchy? Healthy feminism does something more to "lift as we rise" as many minority groups advocate. Yes. We can do well in school, yes we can be amazing CEO's, yes we can juggle seemingly insurmountable tasks. There are a lot of superwomen out there! But how can we use that new found power and voice to establish a new measuring stick of success? A new rubric for respect? Instead of climbing to the top and looking around to find no acceptable mates, could we instead re-determine the top as a list of valuable character traits other than net worth, degree attainment, social status. Every woman in my maternal line for about five generations back has married a man that was the first in his family to graduate from college. We committed to character and potential rather than attainment. And it is surprising how well that keeps working out for us. With great power comes great responsibility.


4) No Woman is an Island. Bolick seems to conclude with a proposition that single women start living in closer proximity - almost dorm-like - so that they can maintain their single independence, but have that extra human being(s) around to care for you when independence doesn't cover all of the bases. Interesting idea, and perhaps our society is arriving at a point where this is really possible. But from my personal observations, we're not quite there yet. Too many of my single female friends enjoy this perpetual girls-night-out life style only until the other girls find husbands, gradually leaving the group to dwindle. Is there something about that formal marriage commitment that ensures that other person will be around to support you? In theory - plenty of spouses don't quite live up to this expectation and obviously there is the possibility of divorce. So I guess married or not, we can't totally count on others to be there for us no matter what. Humans flake. 


I have a crazy proposition in response. What if we abolished this unspoken law that married and single people can not be friends?!? I guess this is a bit duplicatory of point one - but in a more tangible form. I have yet to make and single female friends since moving to Maine, and I'm realizing there is a whole in my social world. I miss my single friends from previous chapters of my life. They keep my world view in a more balanced perspective, they can be available to me in ways that my other married/mom friends can not. Just the other night, I was thinking longingly of the days when we regularly enjoyed game nights with friends, because now all our friends are similarly strapped to their homes after bed time and can not come over and play. If I had more unencumbered friends, this part of my life I used to enjoy wouldn't have to die for this season of Sofia's baby-hood. That's a very small and selfish piece. More importantly, this could mean that is my single friend needs a ride to and from the hospital, I could give it to her. Or when my husband is out of town, maybe she could come over and help me out with my baby. I truly believe we can be more well rounded when we diversify the life stages our friends are in, so that we don't get so lost in the tunnel vision of what matters in our own day to day. So let's call an end to this arbitrary divide and make the effort to overcome life style barriers to stay friends with people in different seasons of life. 


5) Marriage is hard. I have been realizing that the sort of discontent I perceive women of the previous generations suffering from having no other option than staying home seems to be present with plenty of women stuck in careers they are discontent with. Stuck is stuck. Women who are frustrated in being single are often experiencing some of the very same core emotions as women who are married (happily or otherwise). Lonely is lonely. Life is hard. Relationships are hard. Commitment is hard. Etc. But we can't let hard keep us from good. Becoming a parent is the hardest, most painful thing I've ever done, but I would never trade Sofia in for anything. This is the beauty of pain. So for those of you avoiding marriage because it's hard, it might fail, the sacrifice for something better that might be waiting in the future (key word = might) doesn't seem worth it, please consider that the hardest things are also often the sweetest things. Marriage really is not something you should choose just for social conformity, it really has to be something you are willing to devote a lot of personal sacrifice to without expecting a perfect, blissful, fairy-tale ending. I love marriage immensely, but my position is to avoid it unless you find someone you are really willing to lay down your life for, and vice versa, in more ways than you can anticipate. But I also propose that we get less stingy with our own lives, giving them up is the best way to live. I think Laura A. Munson's article in the New York Times captures this beautifully (and is much shorter than the first article, so you should totally check it out): 

Those Aren't Fighting Words, Dear by Laura A. Munson 


I think the core opportunity illuminated here is for us to identify the barriers that are keeping us from loving each other more fully and figure out how to get over them. But I would really love to hear your thoughts and reactions. I am looking at this from one specific angle and would appreciate others who could help round out my perspective. 

Becoming Attached

During my move, I finished reading a book called Becoming Attached by Robert Karen, Ph.D. It's not exactly a light weight summer read. It's an extensive history from Freud to the mid-1990's of the research and political debate around the psychological theory of Attachment. But honestly, the writing and stimulation made it the source of the most fun I've had in ages. 


Attachment theory was born out of the research, curiosity, and work of John Bowlby. It created a huge shift in thinking amongst many psychologist from the idea of a person's well-being fully centering within the individual to having a great deal to do with a person's quality and history of relationships. As I've mentioned before, for me, almost all things come back to our relationships. And if it hadn't been for Bowlby and the crew, there would be little valid intellectual space for us to discuss such an idea and its implications. 


While this book was lying around my abode, several female friends or relatives would notice it.  Inevitably, I would hear a comment to the effect of, "I don't think I would like to read this book. It would just make me feel guilty for all the ways I messed up as a mother." And I imagine the non-mothers who noticed it [or are reading this post right now] thought, "I don't need to read that, it's about mothering and I'm not a mom." To the second point, it is about relationships. We all have mothers, and we all have relationships, and this book is written so artfully, I think non-mothers should seriously consider it. To the first point, that is a very valid fear, but Karen holds that fear with such grace that I would invite perhaps even the most guilt-ridden mothers to consider checking it out. It might provide you with some much needed grace.


There was a point at which it occurred to me that I had two plans for my future in my head:


1) Have a stunning, entrepreneurial career where my leadership provides significant help to people and community.


2) Have a beautiful family with a husband and children that are my 100% full time concern and priority, undistracted by work of any kind until my children leave the home. 


Somehow, it took years before I realized these two pictures - as I envisioned them in my head - were mutually exclusive and in great tension. But I was so thoroughly perplexed about where this fierce tension was coming from. Who were the voices telling me one option was good, another was bad, vice versa, and that they were so entirely mutually exclusive?? My mother both stayed home for a time and worked for a time. I had been both encouraged in my academic pursuits and in my desires for a family. Everything I could look to had been so uplifting, where was the animosity coming from that I feared so much? 


In reading this book, Karen put names and stories to those voices. He shows how convoluted scientific research can really be when subjected to political forces and personal priorities and fears. He sheds light on the debate between stay-at-home and working moms. I felt relief both by the story being told, but also by the way Karen weaves his own comforting voice into the story to make it one of encouragement and support to all mothers, whichever side they may fall on in the debate. Should you miss out on the wonderful experience of reading it for yourself, let me tell you what 2 key morals I gleamed from the story. 


Moral #1: We need to take the sole responsibility of human development off of the shoulders of mothers. Not because mothers have better things to do in the marketplace [key word being "better"], but because it is such a significant job that no single human being can carry the burden alone. It takes a full time investment, and then some. This response both profoundly validates the hard and exhausting hours I pour into my daughter, and also frees me to seek support, partnership, and relief. It gives so much honor to the sacrifices my husband makes to spend time with my baby, as much as it defies certain gender roles. It invites my parents and in-laws and sister and friends into the work in a significant way. And it helps get me off the hook as being the only person to blame if Sofia should ever commit any trespass. So, whether you are a mom or not, if there is a child in your midst, you have a weighty opportunity to play a role in developing a constructive future citizen. 


Moral #2: Moms have GOT to quite pointing fingers at one another. For a great gift for a new mom, go out and buy the Must have Mom's Manual - its a great guilt reliever as you stress out about how to do everything right, because it has two mom's talking about their different styles of parenting and supporting each others' different choices. We need so much more of this! We all divide up into our groups according to working-moms vs. stay-at-home-moms vs. work-at-home-moms, or breast feeding vs. formula, or what have you. This book gave me a sense that we all have a common enemy and that we should be supporting one another instead of tearing each other down. 


Ok, that's all very heavy, but I hope it is encouraging and thought provoking. I hope you'll consider checking the book out for yourself. I'd love to hear how these ideas and voices have impacted you. If it is too personal to comment here, please know you can always reach Emily and I at: claws@longdistancelobsters.com. Happy relationship-ing Lobsters! 


For some other thought provoking reading on the role of mother, you might also enjoy these links:


Motherhood as Vocation from Q Ideas
Difficult Questions: Part 1 and 2 from me 


P.S. Today, I have a particularly acute need for some prayer - from those of you who pray - for my willingness to actually seek that support, cause I really need some lately, but I have a lot of trouble reaching out. K, thanks.

Difficult Questions

Geoffrey Hsu catapulted me into an existential crisis. Ok, to be fair, this kind of happens alot. But not knowing me well when I informed him of the fact, he was concerned.

Geoff had been a guest speaker at a lecture series I was attending. On the morning that triggered my crisis, he was speaking about vocation. He challenged us to evaluate how has God called us to help bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. I liked what he was saying. I did not like my inability to answer his challenge. I couldn't quite figure out what this was supposed to mean for me as a mother.

There’s a sense in which I was asking the same question that millions of mom’s have been asking, especially since the feminist movement. How do I balance who I am free to be now as a woman, with my desire to love and care for my child? Is my work of caring for my child valuable? Is it valued? Do I stay home and miss using my gifts? Do I work (for pay or for the "Kingdom") and miss watching my child grow up? Do I let my graduate degree go to waste? Do I still have my own identity, or am I just "baby's mom"? Am I a horrible mother for even thinking about these questions? Thousands of people have built whole careers off the guilt and turmoil women feel under the pressure of all of these questions.

Some good answers I’ve heard over the years are things like:

“Even though you don’t get paid, being a mom is an important job too.” I agree, but I might say that this statement opens up more cans of worms rather than offering good closure, for me at least. 

“You can be a better mother to your child when you allow the gifts and talents you’ve been given to flow through you.” Yes, I believe that.

“Having a child actually opens doors for you to minister to a whole new crowd of people, like fellow moms.” True, I’ve seen Sofia allow me to love people more, rather than take my love away from people, as I’d expected. Great.

My dad, who speaks in pictures, not words, sent me a picture of my daughter, asking, “Are you still wondering whether there’s purpose in what you’re doing?” Hard to argue with that, but honestly, I was.

Despite preparing myself with answers like these, when Geoff spoke, I could not be satisfied.

Tell me, am I alone in this Lobsters? Even if you’re not a mom, do you wonder about the questions modern womanhood and parenthood present for how our children are raised or how our women AND men define their identity? What are some of the other questions you’ve struggled with in this arena that I haven’t referenced? What are some of the satisfying or unsatisfying answers you’ve heard?

More on how my saga continues, tomorrow . . .