Dubbing herself “Greatly
Appreciative” a young woman shares her existential dread with therapist Lori Gottlieb. At issue is marriage. At greater issue is whether or not GA should
ever get married. To that Gottlieb responds, more or less correctly, the GA
fears that no man will find her sufficiently lovable.
By the terms of her letter, she
is dabbling in abstract thinking. In reality, most human beings will ask whether
they should marry him or her. Better yet, they will want to know whether he or
she wants to marry them. Such questions seem not to be at issue for GA. Thus, GA is
flailing.
And she offers the kind of psycho
explanation that the therapy culture burdens her with. She believes that she
feels insufficient love for herself. Ergo, according to the accepted psycho
wisdom, no one will ever love her.
Of course, GA does not understand
marriage. Self-love, the kind of narcissistic self-absorption that the therapy culture
is doling out in dollops is precisely what you should not bring into a
marriage.
And yet, in our deviant culture,
more and more people, infused with the gospel of self-esteem, think that marriage
should be a therapeutic journey toward self-actualization. I have addressed the
issue on this blog here and here.
Here is the text of the better
part of GA’s letter:
I’m 32 and I’m dead scared of getting married.
Most women I talk to who have been married for a while aren’t happy, and most
of the men aren’t either. I’m wondering why we even get married in the first
place.
Everyone I’ve talked to seems trapped. They stop
being themselves, they lose their passions, and become kind of owned by that
other person. And doesn’t everyone get tired of having sex with the same
person? Especially men? If I’m with the same person for years, are they still
going to have sex with me but always secretly want to be with someone else?
The prospect of marriage is overwhelmingly
frightening to me. I think at the root of all this is the need to love myself;
I think if you love yourself, you’re better able to love someone else and not
rely on their opinion of you to make feel you beautiful or wanted or lovely or
enough.
One’s initial reaction is that she should choose her friends
better. She seems to have surrounded herself with a band of malcontents—doubtless,
feminist malcontents—who can do nothing more than whine about the misery that marriage has brought down on them. Or perhaps they have all read the
psychologists who told them that marriage should be a way to self-actualize.
For those who prefer to read between the lines, it might
also be the case that said friends are being generous to GA because they are
married and she is unattached. If they tell GA, who apparently is not even
involved in a relationship, that marriage is wonderful, they will make her feel
bad about her current manless state. Thus, they talk down marriage….
Being a woman of her times, GA makes it all into a philosophical
issue. She puts nothing of herself into the letter, except for her anguish. So,
we know nothing about her. We know nothing about her friends. We know nothing
about her romantic attachments or her family life or her career… or much of
anything.
Like many of the women who write to New York Magazine’s
advice columnists, she is a perfect cipher. She is unattached and serves to be
the receptacle for her friends’ complains about their marriages. She might have
asked herself why her friends are all so discontented. She might ask herself
why they are so indiscreet. She might have asked herself whether the therapy
culture, with its emphasis on self-esteem and self-actualization has ruined her
friends’ marriages.
She might also ask herself whether her friends have waded
too deeply into the ideological swamps… and are suffering for it. After all, if
you believe that marriage is a way for the patriarchy to oppress women and
destroy their chances for happy careers, you have been indoctrinated in the
theories of Friedrich Engels and feminists like the late Kate Millett. If that
is your belief, your happy marriage will betray your ideology. And we cannot
have that.
Being a product of a deviant culture, GA she has no
understanding of marriage… whatsoever. She does not talk about
self-actualization but believes that marriage is an extended love affair whose
success depends on whether both partners will want to have sex with each other,
exclusively, for an extended period of time.
True enough, sex is part of the marital equation, but it is
not the entirety of the equation. GA is not describing a marriage. She is
describing an affair. If you reduce marriage to a love affair you have stripped
it of its social significance, removed the rules and roles and doomed yourself
to misery.
If it’s a love affair, once the fires of lust are
extinguished, you have nothing left. The party is over.
Until relatively recently, no one really thought that
marriage was an expression of romantic love. People understood what GA does not
see and that Gottlieb does not explain to her.
Getting married means becoming a wife and functioning as
same. If GA and her friends do not understand that the role comes with rules
and obligations, duties and responsibilities to other people, they will
inevitably fail at marriage. Their failures will breed resentment and that, in
and of itself, will throw a damp blanket over their desire.
Back in the day, when women consulted with me because they
wanted to get married, I used to ask them a simple question: Do you want to be
a wife? Often enough, they were horrified by the question. They took grievous
offense. Their looks seemed to say, What kind of woman do you think I am?
Today’s younger generation, having imbibed the dual elixirs
of psycho self-esteem and of feminist ideology, has gotten marriage wrong. Young
women are acting like mistresses within a context that requires them to be
wives.
If they do not want to be wives, they should not marry.
There is no law that forces them to do so. If they do marry, they should act like
wives. Their husbands should act like husbands. They might not want to observe
all of the proprieties associated with the traditional division of sexual
labor. They might want to change the rules to serve their lives. But, they
ought not to make their marriages into political statements. They ought not to politicize
their marriages or to think that they can use their marriages to achieve a
therapeutic goal. If they do, they will find misery.
Marriage is an alliance between families. It is the most
significant and most important social alliance. We wish all married couples the
greatest sex imaginable, but in truth married couples are engaged in a
cooperative enterprise. They must know how to work together, to negotiate
compromises, to engage in give and take, to be responsible,
reliable, trustworthy and loyal, to stop thinking that their marriages should feed
their narcissism and to stop expecting that their spouses should be masters
of BDSM.
5 comments:
It is interesting to compare marriage to affairs, and of course traditionally for many men, especially more powerful men, it was expected they would have affairs. I mean this goes all the way back to Zeus and his unlimited lust, and the Greeks, swung both ways of course - marriage was a civil arrangement to run a household, while ideal love, whether intellectually, emotionally or physically was between men, or men and boys.
I agree weddings ought to include careful consideration of vows and gender-specific duties for wives and husbands, including generally whether the wife is required to obey her husband, and even what faithfulness means in marriage when sex gets boring.
And in the era of Trump, perhaps politically correct speech is now not necessary and we men, at least the alphas, can be honest if we expect affairs to be a part of our future. And then women really can decide if they want to be wives with proper knowledge of what's to come, or if they prefer to be the other woman, or prefer to look elsewhere for a man or husband, or find their own wife as luck allows.
AO, how is your future ex- today?
Great essay on an important topic. I am concerned for the future familial happiness of my college age son, like the Princeton Mom (?), because of the ridiculous mind warping that young girls, his peer group, have been fed.
And I am surrounded by middle aged divorced women friends looking to date who have a warped ideal in mind as they remain alone. They want this, this and this from a man. The qualities sound to me like they just want another girl-friend. My husband and I sure haven't got it perfect, but I sure don't want him to fulfill the role of girlfriend companion.
My son left New England for college in an area heavily LDS populated. And what an eye opener. Around here the gals regularly put down guys and think only of career. Out there, the young people think of career and of building a future family at least equally, if not leaning more towards marrying and starting a family. Wildly refreshing. Not perfect, of course, but refreshing.
Good job, leftists, good job wrecking the idea of stability of the family unit.
And let us not forget about children, usually a result of marriage.
GA needs new friends.
CS Lewis wrote "We Have No Right To Happiness," which covers some of this ground. Most of it can be found here: http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2009/09/we-have-no-right-to-happiness-c-s-lewis.html
GA talks like a modern woman, but the root of her distress seems to be something from even the generation before mine or earlier. She thinks the point of marriage is to be in love and stay there, enjoying passionate sex through unending years. Marriage is more for mutual encouragement and protection, for nurturing children, and (gulp) embodying the love of God. Even the sex part she misunderstands, by thinking about it so much. The Puritans could have explained to her that the purpose of the marriage bed is to knit the heart of the husband and wife together - a beautiful image.
She's not the only one, and perhaps not much to be blamed. Where would she have learned otherwise? From TV or the movies?
Post a Comment