Total eclipse of the heart

HeartValentine’s day is over for another year, but just as single women were breathing easily again, I’m going to have to bring up Lori Gottlieb’s article, Marry Him!, from the March 2008 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Since Gottlieb’s article appeared on the magazine’s website last week, it has triggered the type of howls of wild rage from female bloggers usually reserved for mommy-wars combatant and fellow Atlantic contributor Caitlin Flanagan.

Gottlieb’s thesis is that single thirtysomething women shouldn’t hold out for Mr Right. “My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection,” she writes. “What I and many women who hold out for true love forget is that we won’t always have the same appeal that we may have had in our 20s and early 30s.” And “ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and… most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).” In other words, don’t leave it too late girls!

Which is an all-too-familiar line of argument. But there’s a twist—Gottlieb is giving us this advice as a fortyish single mother who conceived her son via donor sperm. The plan was “to search for true connection afterward,” but dating is much harder as a parent, and it hasn’t panned out. “It took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option.” But ironically she may have to settle anyway, and “doing it older… involves selling your very soul in exchange for damaged goods.” Cripes.

Gottlieb is at pains to anticipate potential objections to her article, with varying degrees of success. But it’s hard to see what she was trying to prove by, for instance, citing in evidence the sitcom Friends. “Rachel Green leaves her nice-guy orthodontist fiancé at the altar simply because she isn’t feeling it. And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together… do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier?” Well, it’s hard to say, given that neither of them are real people, and that the on-again off-again nature of their relationship mostly reflected the need of the scriptwriters to spin out one love affair over ten seasons of a television programme. (But, if we are playing that game, wasn’t “nice guy” Barry cheating on Rachel with her almost-maid-of-honour, Mindy?)

It is of course single women who have reacted most strongly to the article. But there’s something there for everyone to be offended by. Single women may be too picky, and “either lying and in denial” if they say they’re not worried about finding someone, but single men in Gottlieb’s universe are unattractive losers. “Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics,” she advises. And, though she envies couples, she doesn’t seem to know any happy ones, and in her view marriage is “like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business.”

Gottlieb’s article could be summed up in “the grass is always greener” (a fact she acknowledges). But her descriptions of the hardships of single parenting are too poignantly convincing for that—if also the rather obvious consequences of taking on a job that two people usually do alone. Hers is a cautionary tale. It’s also rather alarming to contrast it with her optimistic article from 2005, The XY Files, about her original decision to conceive via sperm donor, and with the most recent poster girl for going it alone, Louise Sloan, author of the book Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom. Although I disagree with the majority of her article, I hope that people do at least take some of her advice on board, and not take the path that she has. Because we really don’t we need any more Lori Gottliebs.

4 Responses to “Total eclipse of the heart”


  • I’m with you , Susha . Some beautiful sounds have come from the land of the fee ( Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Billie Holiday, Ray Charles,
    Sam Cooke, Curtis Mayfield, Marvin Gaye, Al Green, Hogey Carmichael ) alas, the misguided but madly influential laments of its faux-feminists are not among them

    Generally, we cut our politics according to our cloth. A brief scan of the Steinham camp sewing kit ( inc our own stroppy Australian academic whose name I’ve forgotten ) reveals they had disasterous
    or no relationships at all with their own fathers ..

    Possibly egged on by resentful, Mz Havershamesque mothers ( the deal between a single mother and a post-pubescent daughter was never going to be easy ? ) they grew up to declare open season for intellectual patricide ; and a curse upon all men whom they regard as guilty until proven innocent by ” getting in touch with their feminine side ” ( Some of us prefer our men to be in touch with our feminine side , thanks )

    To ” remove a father from the family unit - and all that a father can bring to a the family unit ” ( or mother for that matter ? )
    reveals scant regard for a child’s emotional balance and physical well-being ; and will possibly be regarded by history as gross an infringement of a child’s human rights as stuffing it up a chimney

    ( Unless, of course , the absent parent in question is a pyschopath -but tickle beneath the surface and most men - and women - are adorable ; so they may have the odd adulterous affair - so what ? )

    The incomparably selfish DIY baby boom seems at best cruel to children ( never mnd the broader implications for family, freinds and society black-mailed into picking up the slack ) babies bought as pets for peri-menopausal singletons is morally reprehensible.

    Love IS pre-requisite to good breeding, but perhaps our definition of what real love is sometimes gets a bit warped in the wash ?

    Last week, dining tete-a-tete with a very nice, handsome, world-renowned scientist - and man of many affairs - I was astonished when he said he thought there was no difference between love and lust …

  • ‘…in her view marriage is “like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business.”

    One is reminded of Kant’s view of marriage as ‘a contract for the mutual use of the genitals’.

  • i am very glad the author had a son and not a daughter so she won’t fill her head with this utter rubbish.

    Women are their own worst enemy sometimes!

  • Scientists can be notoriously myopic - it goes with the job. There is a difference between love and lust. For one thing, we can enjoy one without the other ( which may help to explain the occasional something nice on the side ? ) although both together are a bonus..

Leave a Reply