So I guess I'm not the only one who read that New York Times story about the single-again 50-something year-old woman and had a very different reaction than the moderator of another listserv. (You can read the original Times story here if you haven't already. Then read the very thoughtful set of comments to my original post about it.)
As I mentioned in my last post, I read an account of the story before I read the story itself. The description was in an email posted to the Smartmarriages listserv. Here's some of what the moderator of that listserv said about the story: "We [she means the Smartmarriages group members] don't need to preach, we can just hand this article to our ‘is this all there is?' gals." The moderator then thanks the reporter for "letting it rip - letting this divorcee's words speak for themselves...the economic loss, the pain to her kids & husband, and the incredible, painful loneliness she faces as a divorcee." She then adds, "It's gut-wrenching read for those of us that feel certain we could have helped her had we reached her in time."
The Smartmarriages moderator reprints much of the NY Times story, then adds this comment, meant to illustrate how horribly alone the single-again woman is: "Imagine 365 nights of having the freedom to decide what and when you want to eat and no one to eat it with...Imagine Julia Child without Paul to go ‘ummmmmm.'" There's more, but you get the point.
I realize that the people who post comments to this Living Single blog are not exactly a random sample. Still, it seems telling that no one who commented had a reaction anything like the Smartmarriages gloss.
About the Smartmarriages Description
The last two paragraphs of the Times story are brief, so I'll quote them here:
"She's a gifted cook and sometimes a nice evening is just making dinner for herself. ‘I enjoy planning what I want to eat and when I want to eat it.'
"She'll marinate fish, and cook it with asparagus on the gas grill on her little patio. Afterward, she'll sometimes call her daughter in New York. ‘If it came out good,' Ms. Shiber said, ‘I want someone else to know.'"
Those are the paragraphs that got the Smartmarriages moderator's gut all wrenched about the woman's "incredibly, painful loneliness." Now look at this comment from Christina (from Onely):
"The last two paragraphs were great. They should have been the first two paragraphs. Then maybe the article wouldn't turn me (and presumably others) away from possibly much-needed divorce."
Rachel added this:
"I just about cried about the last sentence: I had this wonderful image of her sitting at the dinner table savoring her meal. But, no, that's not it: It's not a good meal because she's not sharing it with someone, preferably a guy, I suppose."
If I understand Rachel correctly, the sad part is not that Ms. Shiber is having dinner on her own - a dinner that sounds wonderful and that Ms. Shiber has already said that she enjoyed preparing - but that the experience is cast as unfortunate simply because there is no partner present.
Notice how the Smartmarriages moderator has turned this concluding anecdote into "365 nights of having...no one to eat with." Earlier in the Times story, though, the reporter said this about Christine Shiber: "She used her newfound free time to join a prayer group, reconnect with friends and work out daily, losing 25 pounds." Do you really think that someone who has joined a prayer group, has reconnected with friends, and perhaps is working out with other people, is actually having dinner alone 365 nights a year? And does this life with friends and fellow prayer group members sound like the life of someone who is experiencing relentless loneliness?
Here I will indulge my perverse inclination to flip other people's assumptions. Imagine having to dine with another person - the same other person! - 365 days a year. That could drive me over the edge. (Of course, all married people don't do that - that's my point. It is as nonsensical to assume that a single person eats alone 365 nights a year as to assume that a married person dines with their spouse every single evening.)
Even the Julia Child remark strikes me as a bit gratuitous. Paul Child was in a nursing home since 1989. He died in 1994, Julia in 2004. There was well over a decade when Julia did not have Paul saying "ummmm," and yet she somehow managed to continue preparing and enjoying food. If she couldn't, I would have thought a lot less of her.
A different point about the Smartmarriages commentary: Note the presumptuousness of the claim that the couple in the story, who committed to professional counseling five or six different times in their attempts to keep their marriage together, could have been helped if only they let Smartmarriages have at them.
About the Original Times Story
As Christina noted, the title of the story, "In Her 50s, Looking for Love," is fair warning of what is to come. One reader after another (John B, Becky, D.C., Rachel) commented on the focus on remarrying, noting that such an immediate quest for another partner was not questioned, but assumed. (When I'm in my academic-jargon mode, I call this the workings of the dominant Ideology of Marriage and Family.)
Some readers (JSS, Daniel) commented that the story seemed to lack focus - was Ms. Shiber happy to be single or single-mindedly seeking a partner and frustrated with the process? My guess is that the back-and-forth may have captured some genuine ambivalence. Maybe there are days when she mostly loves living single and other days when she wishes she would find someone already.
Of course, none of us has talked to Ms. Shiber, and we don't know what else she said to the Times reporter that did not make it into the story, so we are all just guessing. Still, I was intrigued by Daniel's question about whether Ms. Shiber really was unambivalent about finding a partner. It wasn't so much her wish for someone who shared her attitude toward sex that made me wonder (something that did bother Martian Bachelor) - I think that's fine. But I did think a lot about the anecdote toward the end, when she was corresponding with someone who did seem like a very good match. He wanted to meet on a Sunday, but she had a prayer meeting that night. Then she was leaving for New York for a week. So, she decided to wait, saying, "I didn't want to force it."
Maybe that's an expression of her developing sense of self - that she values other important parts of her life, such as traveling and practicing her religion, and that she is not simply going to drop everything just because a guy (even an appealing one) has proposed a date. Or maybe she is discovering that repartnering is not really all that important to her. Perhaps she will return from her travels, meet with the man, and then spend more and more time with him.
Bottom Line
My problem with the Smartmarriages moderator is not that she has a point of view that is different from my own. It is that she seems to want everyone to make the same choice - get married and stay married, no matter what. My wish for Ms. Shiber is that she feels free to follow the path that makes her own life most meaningful. I hope she recognizes that she doesn't have to do as Smartmarriages, or conventional wisdom, decrees - though she can if she wants to. As I've said many times, if we can expunge singlism, that would obviously be great for single people. Importantly, it would also be a boon to people who want to marry, because they could then pursue that goal affirmatively, as something they really want, and not as a way to avoid the stigma of singlehood. Ironically, marriages and partnerships pursued in an era free of singlism may well turn out to be the smartest and most lasting marriages of all.
NEW UPDATE: Chris Shiber, the person profiled in the Times story, has shared more about her story in the comments section. Check it out. And thanks, Chris!
