I don’t know Kate Bolick, nor does she know me. I am neither her friend nor her enemy. Her article in the November 2011 edition of The Atlantic—“All The Single Ladies”–has created quite a stir.
I used her case as a means to communicate to younger women the hard realities of time; Rachel Motte has provided a “Traditional values have been great for me, so na na na boo boo!!” response to Bolick.
On one hand, I must commend Bolick: she has taken remarkable care of herself. From a sheer standpoint of attractiveness, she is very impressive for someone just shy of 40. On the other hand, if she longs for marriage, she is in a very ominous position, and her feminist leanings have contributed to her situation.
Bolick begins her piece by saying (emphasis mine),
Recent years have seen an explosion of male joblessness and a steep decline in men’s life prospects that have disrupted the “romantic market” in ways that narrow a marriage-minded woman’s options: increasingly, her choice is between deadbeats (whose numbers are rising) and playboys (whose power is growing). But this strange state of affairs also presents an opportunity: as the economy evolves, it’s time to embrace new ideas about romance and family—and to acknowledge the end of “traditional” marriage as society’s highest ideal.
Kate, with all due respect, this sounds like a classic case of sour grapes on your end. Traditional marriage is in no danger; however, unless you strongly reconsider where you stand on this, your ability to experience it may be in jeopardy. Moreover, you need to own some of the responsibility for your not being married.
When you say:
Ten years later, I occasionally ask myself the same question. Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.
Well, there was a lot I didn’t know 10 years ago. The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices.
you are showing the whole world that your feminism led you to embrace some very low-percentage courses of action that only served to damage your marriageability.
As a result, while you are very attractive on the outside, the men will see you as a very high-risk candidate for marriage. As a result, while you never lack of offers for sex, your marital prospects will continue to wane.
I say this not to beat you up, but rather to point you to the hard realities so you can reconsider your paths.
The feminism you have embraced has done for you what it did for Gloria Steinem. Don’t forget: she would end up marrying, albeit late in life. She would end up seeking fertility treatments, to no avail. She told you, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle!” Well…she was that fish who needed a bicycle. You bought into a lie that she didn’t even really believe.
We took for granted that we’d spend our 20s finding ourselves, whatever that meant, and save marriage for after we’d finished graduate school and launched our careers, which of course would happen at the magical age of 30.
Unfortunately, what you WEREN’T told: at age 30, your fertility clock is in the 2-minute-warning. If you wait that long to “settle down”, most of the high-quality men will be taken. And, by that time, your fertility is on the downslope.
What you also weren’t told: having that many boyfriends–and I’m presuming, sexual relationships–has a tendency to damage your marriageability. One does not have to be a Christian conservative to understand that reality.
So yes, Kate, here is what I am saying: without even considering what you were doing, EVERYTHING YOU DID FROM GRADE SCHOOL ON UP ONLY SERVED TO WORK AGAINST YOUR MARRIAGEABILITY!
At 39, most of the good men in your age bracket are already married. Most of the men who are marriageable are not going to be high on the social ladder. Most of the bachelors who will take interest, will not be interested in marriage.
Oh, and you can thank your feminism for that hookup culture that has muddied the waters for you. When Gloria Steinem sold feminism to the men, she told them, “You’ll screw more and enjoy it more!” The men–as a group–punched that ticket. Now, gals like you are proverbially damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Kate, I realize you aren’t a Christian. I also realize that the paths you have embraced–while lofty-sounding–have been quite hostile to the Christian faith as well as any religious framework that explicitly does not harbor a place for feminism.
At the same time, feminism has been a large part of the reason for your current situation. You bought into lies that the feminist leaders didn’t even buy. You are now stuck with a hostile sexual marketplace the responsibility for the existence of which is almost squarely on the feminists.
Are you ready to reconsider your feminism?
I have no desire to celebrate your pain. In fact, as someone who married later in life, I empathize with it, although my journey in singleness had different causes than yours.
While my first concern for you is theological, I also hope that–in the process–you will find a good man and discover how great life can be without feminism.
need to fix first link to “all the single ladies”
i think hers is truly a tale of sad despair. she bought into the lie, hook, line, and sinker. no matter how desperately you want a lie to be true, no matter how many people believe it and ardently promote it as truth, it is still a lie. unfortunately, for her, the consequences are harsh.
my life has been far from easy. and even buying into the truth did not mean that it was pretty; quite the contrary. but i’d much rather be where i am than where she is. living life based on Truth gives one a foundation that never moves or shifts, no matter how difficult or sad or despairing. living a life based on lies gives one a shifting, empty, and hollow foundation that really does not exist at all.
@Ame
Fixed the link.
“unfortunately, for her, the consequences are harsh.” Not yet, and not nearly as much as it is for the other women who are sharing her predicament. Ms. Bolick has the benefits of a cushy gig and a sense of newfound fame to soften the blow. As miserable as she claims to be, much of it is attention grabbing hysterics. She has yet to taste true misery, but the life choices she continues to make all but guarantee its arrival.
@Ollie
That would be correct. Because of the response to her piece, she has reaped quite the financial benefits, including a television gig.
While I do not begrudge her of those things–this is America, and I wish her all the best in that respect–I also hope that she does come to a realization, sooner rather than later, of the trajectory on which she is traveling.
I don’t mean to be rude or indifferent, but I have a pertinent story that might shed some light on this story.
My mother dated many good guys in her day, but refused to marry any of them. I later met some of these men – successful, wealthy and definitely attractive (although it took some time). Why did she reject these men and fall for my father? My father gave her the ultimate gift that she wanted – a fun bad boy while giving her tons of attention from others, who assured her that she could “do better.” She knew it, but she loved all the attention she got from it.
And that’s what she was after – attention. Bad boys have one thing down: they ignore women and seldom worship or speak with women. They get what they want and move on. Unfortunately, all the guys reading Kate’s work don’t realize that they are feeding her attention and this is what she’s seeking. This is the adult version of the 14 year old girl on Facebook posting a half naked picture of herself.
And notice how much attention the article got. Notice that she may have a TV deal and even a book. She absolutely loves every minute of this, why does she need marriage? The truth is that her story has set an example for other girls in our generation – they can avoid marriage, be irresponsible, and later write how they are “victims” of their own stupidity, but receive a ton of attention.
@potential player
Trouble is–and Kate will figure this out in due time, hopefully before she REALLY misses the boat–that all that attention will not push her wheelchair, or change her diaper, or hold her hand, when she is old and can no longer take care of herself.
Yeah, though for the moment, I don’t think she’s considering that. I think she’s excellent evidence that men are better on their own. Even if she changed her attitude, it would only be so that she could have someone (unlikely to ever be legit).
@potentialplayer
Nope. I would surmise that she’s not reconsidering right now. She’s getting what she craves–the attention.
When that goes away, she’ll be over 40, and with marital prospects dimmer than they were when she was 28, and–as she is going to find out the hard way–with her attractiveness on the downslope.
When that happens, she will blame it on the men: she will argue, as Maureen Dowd did, that the reason people like her are single is that men are intimidated by people as “accomplished” as she is.
In point of fact, she is single because of the very course of action that she has taken in life: (a) she has embraced feminism, (b) she has embraced the serial monogamy culture, (c) she has shot down good men for stupid reasons (“something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down”).
She is correct in that–increasingly–her options are (a) playboys or (b) “settling” for someone “good enough” (i.e., a “Beta”). That said, she has no one to blame but herself.
Ten years ago, she might have attracted an Alpha or a high Beta for a potential husband. Today, the type of man she will attract for that will not be of the quality she would have been able to command 15 years ago.
She has no room to complain: she has been riding the carousel her entire adult life.
“that all that attention will not push her wheelchair, or change her diaper, or hold her hand, when she is old and can no longer take care of herself.”
… there will be no one at the end of her life who shared her younger years with her. her memories will be all about career, goals reached, her own independence … nothing about relationships. not much of a legacy. as it says somewhere in the bible, she has her ‘reward’ now.
Susan Walsh has a new post out, calling for the demise of feminism. It, too, is worth a read.
I’ve long said that if every man on earth decided–right now–that feminism would end, it would be over by sundown. And once the women figured out how fun their nights would be, they would burn that feminist Jezebel at the stake, wondering why on earth they ever bought into such a stupid and destructive religion.
And the men would be worn out by sunrise.
wowza – that is an excellent post!