Back of the Envelope

A woman finally responded to all the complaining guys e-mailing the Corner the other day, and said simply that the complaints go both ways:

Men are getting off the hook way to easy; lots of the flaws that have been pointed out in the character of single women are just as easily applied to the single men out there. The truth of the matter is men and women in my age group have grown up in a very confused time where men and women's roles and expectations are not clearly defined. From what I read in the Corner, we have the feminist movement to thank. In fact I can confidently say that 5 men I have dated steadily/seriously (6 mos or longer) have flat out told me they don't ever plan to get married. Oh, with the exception of the guy who said he wouldn't get married until he was 40 at least, then only to someone much younger because he of course wants children.

There's another article on National Review's website which goes a bit more into this aspect of it, explaining what the Marriage Conspiracy is all about:

Having been through a painful divorce myself, I agree with Armstrong that there’s something terribly wrong with our marriage culture. There is a conspiracy of sorts — but it’s not the one Armstrong suggests. She is certainly right that people don’t know what to expect when they marry. And society does encourage newly engaged women to focus on their wedding day and honeymoon rather than on marriage itself. Where Armstrong’s article falls short, however, is in how she defines the conspiracy.
[...]
The real conspiracy — though I don’t believe the neglect is sinister, and thus perhaps “conspiracy” isn’t the word — is the silence about how hard marriage is. Not only does being married involve sacrifice that is sometimes overwhelming; it is also not, as we are taught, about being in love. It’s much more about practicality and usefulness than we wish it were.

Armstrong is wise to point out that women spend far too much time planning elaborate weddings and honeymoons. But rather than offer women concrete advice for what they should really be focusing on, she simply warns them about not giving up too much of themselves. This isn’t enough — for many women, it’s not even relevant, since they may not be pleasers by nature, as Armstrong apparently is, or was. What women should be doing during their engagements, instead of planning big parties, is talking with their fiancés about money, children, religion, sex, work, and the expectations they have of one another with respect to the division of labor in the household. As for the mental preparation, the single most important thing to understand is that love is not enough.
[...]
Modern women understand that marriage involves making sacrifices; they just don’t want to make them. They have a keen awareness that, as wives, they’re supposed to take care of their own needs throughout the journey. And lest they forget, they have plenty of women’s magazines to remind them. What may indeed be revelatory for today’s women is that they’re not the only individuals who make sacrifices in marriage. Men do as well.

Trying to find the right balance between giving to others and giving to ourselves is a tough thing. Many men have dreams of their own that are either put on the back burner or completely forgotten because of their responsibility to provide for their families. Take my husband, for instance. He is a writer, just as I am. Yet he cannot pursue his passion, because it is not generally the type of work that supports a family. I do not have this same burden. As a wife and full-time mother of two, I am able to pursue a writing career precisely because of my husband’s sacrifices. It is his financial contribution from a job that is not his first choice that allows me to do what I want with my life. Why do sacrifices like his so often go unexamined?

We would do better as a society to discuss the sacrifices involved in marriage on the part of both men and women. I agree that women are more susceptible to losing themselves in marriage due to their inherently giving nature. To warn against this is fine. But to belabor this point does a disservice to young women. Men could complain if they wanted to, but they don’t. Perhaps there’s something we can learn from their silence.

There's more, and it's worth reading. Obviously, overly high expectations aren't the only problem.

There's a discussion going on about the Ally McBeal Syndrome at the Corner. It started with this post by John Derbyshire:

Just had a conversation with a friend whose office assistant (in NY City) is female, 34 years old, smart, straight, and quite strikingly good-looking. I asked him why she isn't married. He: "She says she can't find a man. There are no men, she says." Me: "In New York City? Come on." He: "That's what she says. 'There are no men.' My daughter's the same. [His daughter is 35.] No men, there are no men to marry."

[Derb] What's going on here? Isn't half the population men? No wonder our demography is cratering.

Now obviously this isn't literally true. There are men in New York, after all. I know some single guys there who are actively seeking--young, well-educated, and reasonably attractive (admittedly, I'm not really qualified to judge this aspect well). This makes me wonder if perhaps these women don't suffer from a lack of men so much as an excess of expectations. Most of the men who e-mailed the Corner seem to agree, some more impolitic than others. This one, though, happened to strike a chord with me:

I suspect that when the smart, attractive 34-year-old woman says 'I can't find a man' she means she can't find a man who is up to her standards. I also suspect those standards are pretty high. Just check out some of the profiles on yahoo.com to see what I'm talking about.

I started looking through those a few years ago after my wife died and I couldn't believe the exacting specifications most of these women had for a mate. I was excluded from at least 75 percent of them just by the height requirement. I'm [unimpressive height] and 5'9" seemed to be the minimum. I soon figured out that finding a woman willing to marry a [fifty-plus]-year-old man with an adopted [preteen]-year-old granddaughter was going to be an exercise in futility if I went the domestic route.

I'm not fifty-plus, and I don't have a granddaughter, adopted or not, but I am short--an unimpressive 5'4". I've also been losing my hair since I was twenty-five, and I'm slightly overweight. So physically, I'm no great shakes. I'm politically conservative too, which wouldn't necessarily be a disadvantage if I didn't live in Boston. But other than that, I think I'm a pretty good catch. I'm smart enough. I have a PhD in Electrical Engineering from MIT, which sounds impressive until you realize that PhDs are a dime a dozen in Boston. I have a good job which pays well, and while it's intense in spurts, I'm not a workaholic. I'm also a writer who, while not yet published, is pretty confident he'll get there, so my intelligence is not pure mathematics. While fairly introverted, I've learned to be outgoing when I have to. I'm considerate and concerned about others, if a bit absentminded, and I'll go considerable distances for my friends. I'm a theologically sound Evangelical Christian, knowledgeable and articulate about what I believe and why, and serious about serving God and others. Which should, in theory, be a big plus in certain environments.

I have some good female friends, whom I get along with well, but as far as I can tell, none of them have looked at me twice. It's possible I'm missing some subtle signals, but as I'm pretty good at recognizing interest when it's directed at other guys, it would have to be pretty subtle. (Or, I suppose, I could just be blind when it's directed my way.)

Now, that said, I haven't tried that hard either... or more precisely, I haven't been prolific with my interest. Some guys will hit on any girl they meet, then when rejected move on to the next person before the night is out. Me, I have to get to know someone and then carefully consider whether we're compatible before I ask her out. I'm not saying I'm in love by this point or anything, just that I've decided it's worth a try. It's disappointing when the woman doesn't agree, but I can handle it and move on. I'm not asking a new woman out every week, however.

This leaves me to wonder whether the women are the only ones with expectations which are too high. If I take so long to decide that someone is a possible match, am I missing other opportunities along the way? Might I have set my sights too high? After all, if we both set such impossible standards, what are the chances that you'll meet the standards of the person who actually manages to meet yours?

I'm cautious about lowering my standards, though. Both my sisters are now divorced, and I'm determined not to do the same. But the things that lead to a happy marriage are not necessarily the same things we set up as standards for a mate. It's important to be able to tell the difference.

Dave at Faith*in*Fiction is worried over the double standard between sex and violence in fiction, and particularly when it comes to Christian fiction. As I am not at all shy about violence in my fiction (see, especially, Fire, but Eyes isn't exactly pacifistic either), this is something I've thought about. I have a theory about the reason for this double-standard, and it's probably not what you think.

As a society, we have a much greater consensus on what constitutes acceptable violence than acceptable sexuality. Americans are as divided as ever on extramarital sex, homosexuality, and a host of other sexual practices. Sex in fiction is almost bound to offend someone, and whether the writer makes it clear the act is right or wrong, or just presents it without judgement, someone's going to protest. Violence is another matter. We have clear ideas on when violence is just and when it is not. It is, in general, not right to harm people, except in self-defense or to stop those who use unjust violence. Thus, when we read about a violent act in fiction, we immediately categorize it as right or wrong, and rarely worry that it will send the wrong message to impressionable young people, as that categorization is clear in the fiction as well. Of course, good fiction can blur the lines, and edgy movies do it as a matter of course, but none of them really attempt to shift the general consensus. Thus the violence is "safe," even when it is very ugly.

A friend of mine challenged me to take a nerd test in order to make herself feel better. I'm not sure whether the fact I tied with her accomplishes that, but we're both rather nerdy:

Additionally, it said, "High-Level Nerd. You are definitely MIT material, apply now!!!" Been there, done that, got the diploma.

I'm not sure why she feels embarrassed about this. We both have PhDs from MIT. It'd frankly be embarassing if we scored below 75%.