I read that the other week. It is great that the Atlantic is free now, eh?

I have thoughts on this…but mostly ones on related issues that this article stirs up…

Marriage is about stability – the institution has its roots in tribal leaders marrying off their children to other tribes to form bonds/partnerships/allies. It is not about finding a soulmate and living happily-ever after. That is a creation of the modern world – probably in the last 150 years or so. Before that, as I have heard it said, marriage most likely destroyed any romantic relationship because the people with whom the bride/groom were actually in love before their parents put them together were most likely entirely different people. But as economies grew, familial bonds/class issues became less important, it freed up people to pursue the ones they actually loved. Not to mention the countless books/songs/plays/etc. that facilitate the concept of being in ‘true love.’ The reality of the institution of marriage is that it IS a partnership in life – for whatever you want to do. The author leans toward the mother/father/child part of it – but it applies to everything. Someone to share your life with – travel, extra curricular activities, work, whatever you are into. IMO, she is inelegantly saying ‘settle’ to really mean that if you want to have that partnership and not be alone, you need to figure out what it is you want to share with that person, then make sure that you can find THOSE characteristics in the person you are end up with. The other stuff won’t matter as much if you prioritize what you’re looking for. If you have to travel/see the world, and your partner never wants to leave the state, that’s a problem. But if he/she loves to travel, but has horrible gas, you’ll probably get over it since you’ll most likely be on a mountaintop or jungle safari and it won’t really matter if he/she had a broccoli and bean burrito for lunch.

Also, she taps into the idea of the The One which is to me a ridiculous concept. Why is it that everyone who has found ‘the one’, found someone who lives within a 50 mile radius of them? I am 100% sure that if you moved and set up shop somewhere else, you would find another ‘the one’ who just happened to live 10 blocks away from your new house. The reality is, that we’re not as individual as much as we would like to think. From Fight Club “you are not a unique snowflake.” There are general groups of people that you fit into, and within that group you can probably find 1-2 that would make a great partner and that you would constantly say things like ‘wow, you’re into that too! we’re soul mates.’ Reality, imo, is that everyone could live happily ever after with a bunch of people. It is just that you only meet a small percentage of them – so you think it is something truly special. It is – within your social net I guess – but I just don’t think that there is only one person out of the 6 billion + on this planet that is my soul mate. If that is true, then she probably lives in Mongolia and I’ll never meet her anyway, so who cares?

Finally, on a related note, I’d like to see what you think of this concept (obviously this is for discussion’s sake – not necessarily what I think. It is interesting though…):

Monogamy is bad for women, good for men.

Some links:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/02/in_defense_of_p.html
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an

Something like only 20% of human societies are strictly monogamous. Even less % of mammals are monogamous. The thing is, in polygynous society (males having more than one wife), women get the ‘better’ deal. Yes, they don’t get the romantic notion of one man completely devoted to them, promised to be true to them, etc. BUT, the man you get is MUCH better than the one you get in monogamy. You don’t have to settle. In monogamous societies, the best of the best of the best – only have one wife. Thus, the gene pool is hurt because all the shitty people have a chance to breed too. Have either of you seen Idiocracy? In polygynous society, women get the best genes for their offspring – and most likely have the best chance of taking care of them (supposing that the best males would be the richest/smartest/most successful) and themselves. Men, on the other hand, are now thrown into a state of flux. They are forced to compete – fiercely; think mountain goats ramming into each other, wolves fighting to be top dog, etc. – for their ‘harem’. Most men would fail – and not be able to pass on their genes. However, in monogamous societies – everyone is a winner and gets to mate. And when everyone is a winner – noone is a winner. ’cause who loses? Everyone can’t be special.

There are tons of problems with polygynous societies – a large pool of males who are unable to mate creates instability, women are seen more as objects or collectibles, etc. But, looking at it through that lens is kind of interesting…

Whew.
–Insert: responding to ideas in your post above–
Now for the points you make. There is no big, important idea in this article. If you want to raise a child in the modern world, it is a LOT easier to do so with a partner, than to do it alone. Whether you are a woman or a man. She could just as well get a female roommate who is like her, wants a child, and they could share the responsibilities. I don’t see why she has to have a husband to achieve that goal.

Though, the fear of loneliness and societal pressures to not be an ‘old maid’ probably push her towards the need to ‘settle for a husband’ more than the need to have someone help her with rearing her child.

I think you point out that she is linking two separate desires. Though, there is probably a link between them in most people’s minds. You want the life-partner to also be the one you raise your kids with…

Anyway, my thoughts aren’t very well formulated, this is kind of off the cuff.