Feed on
Posts
Comments

There have been lots of responses to my Huffington Post piece “Why Men Need to Cheat” (at last count, 4,042 comments and a lot of responses throughout the web, including one by Chopper Papa), but I then I got an email from a reader who calls himself U.G. Gold. Mr. Gold, a self-described conservative (take that, Culture and Media Institute!), cc’d Dr. Eric Anderson as well, and noted “it’s a true insult to your research to totally dismiss it as a ‘liberal war on marriage.’”

Thank you, Mr. Gold, because it isn’t an attack on marriage or anything else; it is questioning whether monogamy (and you don’t have to be married to be monogamous or not) is working for couples when divorce rates are between 43 percent and 50 percent often because of infidelity.

So, here’s Mr. Gold’s response — I welcome comments (but I won’t approve any that attack the person and not the idea; that accomplished nothing to further the dialog):

Why Men Need to Cheat (Male Response)

 I have two very close female friends who have recently divorced for the most part due to cheating husbands.  One showed me Vicki Larson’s article yesterday which I found quite interesting but, it never really answered the question of “Why Men Cheat.”  For those with heart conditions, bruised egos, low self-esteem, and/or are currently in a workplace which frowns upon screaming obscenities at the computer monitor followed by smashing your keyboard across your cubicle you may want to read this another time.  It’s brutally honest.

My friend Clark Kellogg at CBS Sports told me some time ago – “always take away at least one thing from what every coach tells you.”  I couldn’t agree more.  If you take one thing away from this article for remainder of your wonderful life may it be the following:  “A man is only as faithful as his next best option.”

I love sociology and my career has given me the opportunity to see massive amounts of information compiled into neat little data models.  I admire sociologist Eric Anderson’s work on the subject and I will be sure to read his new book when it hits the shelves.  However, I found his answers to Vicki’s questions “perplexing” because his solution for cheating men seemed to be, “let him have sex with other women every once in awhile and your relationship will be better.” Umm … no.  I don’t recommend that, while it may work for the very bold, open relationships or the occasional threesome it’s typically setting you up for failure later.  Trust me — I’m not only a client, I’m the former Open Relationship President.

I’ve always told the women I’m close to “don’t take advice from women when it comes to men.” Ninety percent of the time women completely wrong when it comes to males and the other 10 percent is usually just pure luck (even a broken clock is right twice a day).  The exceptions I’ve found are the incomparable Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Stephanie Klein. Gay men can be an excellent resource too but, there’s slight slant to their advice, which is why I couldn’t quite grasp Dr. Anderson’s artful answers until further inspection. The real question is where the need to cheat comes from and there are 3 very simple responses to that question. Basically men are simple and for the most part stupid. We don’t need to be dissected and posed thought provoking philosophical questions to give meaningful answers.

A real-life courtroom tape went something like this:

Lawyer: Mr. Hobson, even though Mrs. WeinMaker was married to my client and your executive assistant – you ignored your own company policy and engaged in sexual intercourse in your own office. Mr. Hobson, can you explain why you had sex with Mrs. WeinMaker?

Mr. Hobson: She was naked.

(Laughter)

Lawyer: Is there any other reason Mr. Hobson?

Mr. Hobson:  She had big breasts.

(Now, to preface I’m only addressing long-term relationships/ marriages of people between the ages of 24-47; not past 47 because menopause starts to set in and that’s whole different animal).

3 Good Reasons Why Your Man Will Cheat

1.   You’re built like a stack of dirty laundry.

Seriously, if you’ve been to the post office more times in the last six months than you’ve been to the gym there in may lay the problem.  Let’s not kid ourselves – pounds lead to porn.  If you’re looking in the mirror every morning and don’t like what you see, how do you think he’s feeling.   I’m not saying you need to look like Jillian Michaels but, almost every time I watch Dr. Phil he’s got some monster-sized chick next to him crying with tissues saying “He doesn’t appreciate me like used too …” No! What he doesn’t appreciate is you making a second trip to that damn chocolate fountain at Golden Corral. Counselor Gary Neuman said it best on Oprah — “men like winning and you have to make him feel like a winner.” We do … not necessarily in the Charlie Sheen sense of “winning” nonetheless, we want to have a bigger, better trophy than the other guy. And no trophy is more important than his wife. You must remember you are not only representative of him at all times but a metaphysical extension of him and if you don’t feel or look good then the catalyst for his very existence is broken. Yes, it’s that deep.

2.   You’re too tired to have sex.

Well … we started two wars, our financial system nearly collapsed, and everybody was broke for awhile because Hillary Clinton was too tired to have sex with Bill.  This one is a no-brainer.  And I don’t want to hear the complaining about “well he just doesn’t know how to get me hot anymore”. Listen if your man has to be an Ice Road Trucker and drive his fingers across the frozen tundra just to get you warmed up night after night then one day he’s going to drop his logs off somewhere easier to park.  Get my drift.  Now, I’m not saying you have to be a wanton Taiwanese sex slave either but, if you aren’t having sex at least once a week or the optimal twice a week then something is definitely wrong.  I know after 10 years of marriage things die down but, if he’s making an effort then you need to be receptive as possible.  If he’s not making an effort then, refer back to No. 1 above.

3.  You’re married to a slut.

Yes. There are male sluts. Like this guy in Esquire magazine. He is a just a slut, not a man or a husband and I pity his poor wife. Now, if I can’t marry a slut, a stripper, or a former porn-star what makes you think you can?  If you’re still reading this then you may either a) want to know if your current boyfriend/spouse is cheating or, b) want to know how to find one that won’t cheat. Easy… where did you find him? Did you find him in bar lost like a stray dog looking for water? Do you know how many women your man has been with? You should have some idea. Has he cheated on another girl in the past? Did he cheat to get with you? Do his friends make statements like “I never thought we’d get him to settle down.” Well then girlfriend, you may have Paris Hilton without the billion dollars.

In short, don’t give up on monogamy.  There are still plenty of good men out there looking for just one good woman to take care of for the rest of their lives.

Best of Luck

U.G. Gold

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I shouldn’t be as surprised as I am about the responses to my latest Huffington Post piece, Why Men Need to Cheat — more than 3,800 comments! — but I am. I’m not surprised that the topic would upset people; hey, infidelity is a hot topic (because so many people have their lives touched by it). Nor am I surprised that people want to get off-topic — “Women cheat, too!” “People who cheat are immature!” “People who cheat don’t know what commitment is!” (Yawn). Nor am I surprised by the people who want to attack me personally, even though I didn’t conduct the study or write the book; but, that’s online “discourse” for you. I’m also not surprised that the “non-liberal” media like the Culture and Media Institute and Newsbusters attacked me (but I am upset that they put Dr. Eric Anderson’s words in my mouth; so much for “advancing truth”!).

Instead, I’m surprised at how many people aren’t willing to question their own belief systems — why do we expect monogamy in relationships? — or explore if it is something that’s working well. Perhaps I shouldn’t be. 

Is monogamy working well? In study after study, Americans by huge margins say they are against infidelity — more now than even in the 1970s. Yet, infidelity continues to happen — yes, by men and women! — and most likely by many of the very same people who say they’re against it. We say we believe in monogamy and we enter marriage/relationships expecting it, but our behavior proves otherwise, and that is part of what I found intriguing (and disturbing) in Dr. Eric Anderson’s book.

The young men (and he details why he chose undergrads, which I will not get into here but it makes sense) who were cheating saw themselves as monogamous. Well, if you have yourself cheated or know someone who has (and most of us know plenty of cheaters or those cheated upon), you know that people who are having sex on the side have lots of justifications and rationalizations to make it work for them, especially if they believe that they truly love their partner and don’t want to hurt him or her.

Another thing that I found upsetting in his book is how the young men thought it was OK for them to cheat but not their girlfriends (which I asked him about). But, of course, that is human behavior — I can trust myself to have recreational sex on the side without getting emotionally involved, but I don’t trust that my partner can do that. Sorry, that’s not going to fly with me. Either you have an agreed-upon open relationship or you don’t. It is that black or white for me.

Dr. Anderson was kind enough to give me lengthy answers to my (lengthy) questions, all of which I had to edit down for HuffPo. So, I am running the entire email interview below; perhaps that will clarify some things for people (or, make them more upset!).

                                                         *************

Your study includes just 120 undergraduate men, straight and gay; isn’t that too small a sample to really know what’s going on for men?

If I were attempting to determine what percent of men cheat, then yes it would be far too small a sample to make a definitive statement. But we already know that answer: large scale surveys show us that cheating remains the norm for men (women are not much better). Thus, my aim with this research was to understand why so many men cheat. I wanted to examine the very notion of monogamy, not morally, but rationally. I wanted to know why men want monogamy but nonetheless cheat. 120 men was more than I needed, because most men said the same thing.

You write that men want to be emotionally monogamous, but their “body craves sex with other people somatically.” People crave food, drugs, booze, sometimes to disastrous results as far as health and mortality. We can’t have everything we want. If there can be self-control with other cravings, why can’t men control their body urges?

But do we really control these other bodily urges? Humans are largely lousy at controlling our bodies’ desires. This is why despite the fact that most everybody wants to be slim, 70% of Americans are overweight. Judging people who indulge in (booze, food, or sex) as immoral has very little practical value. Stigma doesn’t work well in controlling these behaviors. We say we don’t want to eat that Snickers bar, but we also really do want to eat it. We eat it, we feel guilty about it, and afterwards we promise ourselves not to eat one again; but we nonetheless do. It is this same phenomenon, only with cheating, that I explore in the book. I wanted to understand why this phenomena of wanting but not wanting to cheat exists.

The men in your study experienced a sharp decrease in the frequency and enjoyment of sex after two monogamous years.  But since no one can sustain the kind of thrilling sex couples have in the beginning of a relationship — when the chemical changes in our brain literally make us  sick — isn’t it a healthy thing that it decreases?

I wish young men got two years of good sex before it dropped off! It’s a lot less than that! It may, however, be good that the sexual desire for one’s partner weans; it means that we end up staying with our long term partners for the socio-emotional connection and not for the sex. If a couple is going to raise a family, it is the emotional connection that counts, not the sexual.

But it is also important to recognize that our physical desires don’t die; they just change from our partner to people other than him/her. We, as a society, are fairly unaware of this. We falsely believe that when the sex dies, the relationship has also died. The reality is the opposite, when the sex dies the relationship has just begun.

Sure, sex with the same person can get boring no matter how much you spice it up. But, what about the idea that long-term relationships makes sex become deeper, more intimate and more meaningful?

I wish more people understood your first sentence. I want people to understand that, as you say, the sex will decrease,  both in intensity and frequency. Many marriages will end up sexless. But the diminution of sex is simultaneous to one’s emotional bonds growing stronger.

Long term partners may have more intimate sex (most just have very little) but when men see a guy or girl who turns them on, it’s not intimate and meaningful sex they are craving. I argue that we can have both that hot carnal sex with strangers, and the intimate, even if boring, sex with our long term partners. Open relationships (which generally grow out of monogamous relationships) facilitate both.

Honesty is a huge part of a relationship, yet you argue that cheating is less risky for men as far relationship stability (than telling them they want sex with others?). How good a relationship can one have when there’s deception, especially since you say after men cheat spontaneously, they are more likely to plan cheating?

Honesty is good sometimes, yes, and horrible at other times, “Yes, honey, you have gotten fat” isn’t necessarily a good form of honesty. There are good reasons to lie; it is an essential skill for keeping community and relationship peace. The reason men lie about cheating, however, is mostly because they know that if they ask for permission to have recreational sex: 1) they will be denied 2) (after they are denied) they will be subject to scrutiny and increased relationship policing; 3) they will be stigmatized as immoral, and most likely broken up with. Thus, honesty doesn’t meet their desires of having both a long term partner and recreational sex with others.

The way cheating men see it, it’s either cheat or don’t cheat, but telling their partners they want sex outside the relationship, or telling their partners that they actually cheated, is viewed as a sure fire way of achieving relationship termination. It’s very important to remember that when men cheat for recreational sex (I’m not talking about affairs here) they DO love their partners. If they didn’t love their partners, they would break up with them.

Rather than promoting nonmonogamy, which clearly would be upsetting to many people because of the deception, wouldn’t it be less harmful to relationships if we became serial monogamists — marrying two, three or four times as our sexual needs change as we age?

It seems to me you have this backwards, monogamy is dishonest and nonmonogamy honest. Where is the deception in two people agreeing to have sex with others? But just because cheating is not honest, does not mean that it is not rational. Cheating is rational, and it is logical. I show that men find cheating to be a way of keeping their partners and having some extra sex; that makes cheating practical, and that’s why most men do it.

But your question also misses this sensible middle ground. Rather than marrying 20 times or more in one’s life via serial monogamy, we can keep one emotional lover and just have casual, meaningless—and hot – sex with strangers (oftentimes in threesomes with their partner). This gives us the long term emotional stability we desire psychologically, alongside the hot, carnal sex we desire somatically. It makes much more sense than the lying and cheating of today’s relationships, or the difficulty of breaking up with a loved one simply because you want someone else’s body for an hour.

I’m sure feminists would be surprised to know that feminism has led to today’s young men wanting extradyadic sex more than men of previous generations. What role does feminism play, and wouldn’t feminists want the same for themselves?

No. It’s not feminism that has done this. It’s the increased availability of sex, the ability to have it earlier and more often; alongside the panoply of pornography available on one’s computer or cell phone that makes monogamous sex look boring compared to the way it was looked at in the 1950s.

Infidelity breaks up many marriages, as you note, but often it isn’t the act of sex that’s so upsetting — it’s the deception and lying, clearly problematic for the emotional intimacy you say men want. So cheating for sex may be “just about the sex” for him, but not for his partner.

Infidelity does not break marriages up; it is the unreasonable expectation that a marriage must restrict sex that breaks a marriage up. One of the reasons I wrote the book is that I’ve seen so many long term relationships broken up simply because one had sex outside the relationship. But feeling victimized isn’t a natural outcome of casual sex outside a relationship, it is a socialized victimhood. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating cheating, instead I’m advocating open and equitable sexual relationships. When both in the couple desire this, when both realize that extradyadic sex makes their partner happy, and they therefore want their partner to have that sex, a couple will have moved a long ways to ward facilitating emotional honesty, while simultaneously withering at jealousy scripts, which can be very damaging to a relationship. But if one can’t achieve this with a partner that’s hostile to the idea, cheating is the reasonable action.

Part of the problem with cheating is that it denies the other person the right to decide if he or she wants that kind of a relationship. Yet most of the men in your study were OK with sex on the side for them, but not their girlfriends. Not only isn’t that unfair, but it also seems incredibly selfish.

I argue that monogamy is culturally compelled, so the decision has been made for us. For example, how much of a chance would a man stand to have a second date if on the first date he said that he was interested in an open relationship? But equally as important, at the point men enter into relationships they too think they want monogamy. It’s only after being in a relationship for months or years that they badly want sex with others. But by this point, they don’t want to break up with their partners because they have long standing love. Instead of chancing that love by asking for extradyadic sex, they cheat. If they don’t get caught (and most don’t) it’s a rational choice.

But it is indeed selfish for men to want sex with others but not to want their partners to do the same. This however is not just a ‘man’ thing. Women also cheat; they also lie about it; and they also want to be able to cheat without their partners doing the same. Monogamy is a problem for all sexes; it builds in an ownership script regardless of gender.

I often ask my students what is more important to their relationships, their emotional or their physical connection. They unanimously agree upon the emotional. I then ask why they only police the physical. Why can a girl tell her girlfriends things she does not tell her boyfriend? Is this not emotional cheating? And is this not a worse violation than physical cheating? My point, of course, is that one person cannot meet all of your emotional or our physical needs. Maybe one person can for a shortwhile, but ultimately we need other people in our lives.

You write that love is a “long-standing sense of security and comfort.” So, wouldn’t open relationships potentially pose a threat to that security since, even if couples play by their own sexual rules, there’s always a chance one could end up preferring a new lover over one’s partner?

People in open relationships structure their engagements as to reduce emotional intimacy. But, yes, of course it can happen. What I find from those in open relationships however, is that once they have had sex with that person they fancied, they tend to get over them.

But if we really want to prevent our lovers from developing the lust of others, or worse, emotional intimacy with others; if we really want to prevent men and women from cheating, we would be best to sex-segregate our jobs, our classrooms and social arenas, too. Emotional intimacy is the real threat to a relationship, not a one-off hour with a stranger from Craigslist; and this can happen anywhere. Ultimately, there are no guarantees that one’s partner won’t find love elsewhere; this too is part of being human. But controlling one’s partner to prevent it only makes matters worse – it makes them want to leave you. A better strategy is to be open, emotionally and perhaps sexually, too.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

At a holiday get-together this weekend, friend and I were talking about what we’d do if could let go of our real jobs (and health insurance) and reinvent ourselves. Curiously, we both would immerse ourselves in art — she, paper mache, me, collage — not unlike what longtime broadcast journalist Dana King is doing with her sculpture. Not that we don’t love what we do, but at midlife a change would do us good.

Not everyone reinvents him or herself at midlife, but many of us are at least thinking about it. The economy has forced some of us to, although it’s better to choose how and when you shift gears and into what than having it forced upon you. But one kind of forced reinvention — divorce — generally seems to be a positive thing, especially if you’re a woman. Divorce is when most of us redo our look, tweak our attitudes and beliefs, examine our own baggage, embrace new challenges, revisit long-shelved passions and rediscover long-lost sexual passions. (Although if you Google “midlife reinvention, it seems to be a uniquely female thing, like “empowerment.”) 

But, must you divorce to better yourself and approach the second half of your life with renewed enthusiasm and a sense of adventure? Can you tweak marriage to give yourself what you want?

That’s what Pamela Haag presents in her book Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, & Rebel Couples, which I’ve just finished reading. Marriage as we know it and practice it ties our hands in so many ways, and offers us few options when it staggers. As she writes:

If you’re in a melancholy marriage whose problem isn’t easily solved, your choice is either to stay married on marriage’s terms, or to divorce and lose all the things that do work in a marriage, or a family, and that you ideally want to maintain.

What does she suggest? Make marriage work for you. In other works, reinvent yourself within your marriage by reinventing the marriage itself — which is, of course, what divorce therapist Susan Pease Gadoua and I are suggesting in our book project, The New I Do. But we are going one step beyond Haag; we’re actually presenting various marital models and details on how they would work. And instead of tweaking already existing marriages — which may be too set in their ways, or suffering from inertia or just too much damage — we are offering new ways to marry.

It’s true that being solo, whether divorced or never married, gives you a lot of freedom, which is what many married types say they crave; it’s similar to what my now former husband said to my friend at a party: “You know, I like being married but living like I’m single.”

But, shouldn’t marriage give you freedom, too? I think that’s the best kind of marriage, one that respects and encourages each partner’s growth so he/she can be the best he/she can be. That’s why, to tweak what my former husband said,  I suggest married people should live like they’re divorced, not single, with all the benefits of expectation-busting hindsight, but still be committed to each other. What’s holding us back? No one but ourselves. As Haag says:

(W)e need to take responsibility for our own contentment and adult humanity. We can’t readily blame legal or economic barriers, at least if we’re heterosexual couples who the state allows to marry, because there aren’t that many obstacles left. The struggle is more about courage than law. It’s about making fewer judgments about others or ourselves and having more imagination.

We have it in our power to create the marriages we want. And that, she says, includes sexual freedom — such a open marriages. Monogamy, as much as we say we want it, doesn’t seem to suit us all too well.

Many people have brought their marriage to the brink and survived, like “Bones” actor David Boreanaz, who claims his 2010 affair with Tiger Wood’s mistress, Rachel Uchitel, made his marriage stronger because he and wife Jaime Bergman have been working to repair the damage. I don’t doubt that some couples can salvage and improve on a marriage hit by infidelity. But, repairing a marriage isn’t the same is reinventing it. Why go to the brink to get what you want? Why not start off that way?

  • Do you believe marriage can give the space and freedom most of us crave?
  • Is it easier to tweak an existing marriage, or wed with entirely new marital models?

 

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

I had the great pleasure of interviewing longtime broadcast journalist Dana King recently. Her honesty and warmth was refreshing; we don’t always expect that from public figures. I am inspired by her transition at midlife from news anchor to artist, her decision to go gray (she looks great!) and by her dedication to her children, both of whom have been living with health challenges.

I am also touched by her dedication to her husband, former NFL pro Linden King. That would seem like a no-brainer, but even though they are still married, they have not lived together for years. In fact, he is in L.A. in a new relationship.    

They don’t have some weird only-in-Marin open marriage; they remain married because he is 55 and after 13 years playing football is unable to get health insurance. Linden — who was a stay-at-home dad for his son from a previous relationship and their daughter — is on her plan.

I know several couples who have not lived together in 10, 15, 20 years yet are still married. This is what journalist and author Pamela Paul calls “the undivorced,” although she also includes couples who continue to live together but still have separate lives.

As Paul writes:

The Census Bureau does not track length of separation, but at any given moment, approximately 2.3 percent of American adults describe themselves as separated, and an additional 1.4 percent say they are married but their spouse is absent (though he may be in the military or temporarily relocated for a job, for example).

Couples are staying married because, like King, there are health benefits involved. Others want to avoid the expense of divorcing and setting up separate households; it isn’t a good time to sell a home now, anyway. And some just want to avoid the rancor that generally surrounds divorce, although if they can manage to be civil to each other under one roof you’d have to assume they could divorce civilly, too. And, if they stay together, there’s no stigma of “failure” — it never stops surprising me how society can view an intact marriage in which there is contempt and criticism and all sorts of bad behavior as a “success” because they are keeping their commitment, and a couple that splits as a “failure.”

For a period, I was undivorced. My first husband and I married young, way too young. After 3 1/2 years it was clear we made a mistake. So, I left, but we didn’t divorce for many years after. Psychologically, I felt “safe” while dating — it was a way to avoid getting fully intimate with someone because I was “still technically married.” Why? I was back in school, finishing my degree, working — I really didn’t have the energy or desire to find another mate.

“You are not leading a full life if you remain with someone with the title of marriage when there’s nothing below the surface,” says Rich Gordon, a mediator at A Fair Way Mediation Center in San Diego.

Yet, as they say, it’s complicated. No matter what we chose, there are always pros and cons.

  • Is being undivorced the new divorce?
  • Do you think staying together for benefits/financial reasons/the kids is better than divorcing? And, better for whom?

Photo by Angelika Bentin/Fotolia.com

Share

As we slide into the Thanksgiving holiday, I am feeling pretty thankful for a lot of things, including the chance to have met and been able to profile Dixie James and her daughter Holly. Their story is pretty inspiring; Holly was born with Down syndrome, and anyone who has a special needs child knows how challenging that can be. Dixie does, but she rose to that challenge and became a better person and mother because of it.

What I didn’t include in my article is something Dixie told me; that most of the mothers of Down syndrome babies she knew ended up getting divorced. While that is disturbing to hear, it isn’t all that surprising. As I wrote in a Huffington Post article, “Do Kids Cause Divorce” a while back:

Having a baby is what Forrest Gump’s momma said about life; just like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get. Autism, Asperger’s, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, bipolar disorder, cancer — there are any number of things that can challenge a parent’s idea of what raising a child will be like.

Marriage may be trying on its own but throw any of those into it and it’s not too surprising that a good portion of those families often end up divorced. The percentages are all over the map, but statistics mean little when you’re living with it every day.

And the statistics are that more kids with special needs live with single moms

Dixie did not divorce, but it took having a supportive husband and a lot of self-awareness on her part; it’s easy to put all your focus on your child — who legitimately needs so much more — instead of your relationship, which was a familiar theme I came across in “parents of special needs kids” chat rooms while researching for the HuffPo article. Guilt, anger, frustration, exhaustion, conflicting ways of dealing with special needs child-rearing — it’s all there. On top of the everyday realities of being a parent.

And that is why I find Dixie’s story so lovely. We can indulge ourselves in our guilt, anger, frustration and exhaustion and feel sorry for ourselves, or we can do what Dixie has done and continues to do — “try a little harder … give a little more.” And, at the same time, take care of ourselves, as she has; we just can’t be a present parent if we are full of sacrifice, stress and sadness, which I wrote about in “Stop Putting Your Kids First.” It’s what Christine Carter, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center and author of Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents told me when I spoke with her for ModernMom.com: “(H)appier parents are warmer, better listeners and give consistent discipline.”

That’s an important message for all parents, not just parents of special-needs kids. So is the message that Dixie illustrates so beautifully in her book, Holly: Going Beyond Mother and Daughter’s Potential — that we have as much to learn from our children as they learn from us.

I’m thankful my kids have taught me a lot about myself and life. What about you?

Happy Thanksgiving.

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

I have been thinking a lot about marriage recently.

Not to be confused with thinking about marrying — I am not. Having done it twice, I think I’m pretty much done with that institution. I just can’t see how it would add anything to my wonderful relationship that I’m absolutely committed too (and vice versa).

It’s more about the people I’ve spoken to lately and the project I’m working on with Susan Pease Gadoua, a divorce expert, author and fellow Huffington Post blogger.

First, the people.

I enjoyed interviewing San Anselmo filmmaker Kate Schermerhorn, whose new documentary, “After Happily Ever After,” explores the question of whether marriage is still relevant. (My absolute favorite part of the movie is the interview with Nancy and Donald Featherstone (he invented the pink flamingo lawn ornament), who have dressed in matching outfits hand-sewn by Nancy for the past 30 years. They do everything together, even grocery shopping, and as much as that makes me pause (cringe?) I have to think —  why not? If that’s what makes their marriage work, who am I to judge? 

Schermerhorn’s question about marriage is exactly what Susan and I are exploring in our book project, tentatively called “The New I Do.” And we do think marriage is relevant; we just think it just needs to be tweaked to better reflect who we are today and what our needs are. Since the divorce rate has hovered about 50 percent for the past 40 years, it’s clear a monogamous, lifelong commitment isn’t working out for many of us.

It’s funny, though; when we present these ideas to the community at large, people cannot get past the old ways of thinking about marriage. In fact, they get absolutely furious about it.

Like insisting that the only reason to marry is for love. Really? We may want to believe that, but we actually marry for many more reasons than love. As I wrote in a HuffPo article:

A woman in her 20s may be tying the knot because she’s ready to be a mom. A 40-something divorcee may want to get hitched again for financial stability. A man in his 50s may wed a so-called trophy wife, a younger woman who offers him social status. A 70-something widower may be marrying for companionship.

Aren’t all those marriages just as valid as a marriage for love? Yes, of course.

Anyway, we already know from Stephanie Coontz’s brilliant book, Marriage, a History, that love is a crappy reason to marry. It’s too fragile to make a lifelong commitment out of. Plus, although we insist people marry for love, but don’t insist that they maintain that love to stay married (given the number of loveless marriage) — we just want them to honor their commitment, even if all involved are miserable. Worse, we don’t like it when people divorce because they’re no longer in love — it’s selfish and immature. All of which seems incredibly schizophrenic.

Coontz came to Marin recently, and I had a chance to hear her (thank you, Speak To Me). The Evergreen State College professor and marriage historian makes a lot of sense to me. Despite our current day marital discontent, our marriages are a lot more equal than ever before.

Journalist Iris Krasnow makes a lot of sense to me, too.

“I am constantly reminded of the eggshell-thin line that separates loving from loathing” she wrote in her HuffPo column, “The Fine Line Between Marriage and Divorce,” which women passed around like it was a joint.

Married or divorced, you probably can recall that feeling all too well.

I had a chance to interview Krasnow for the IJ before she came to Marin for a book reading/signing for her latest book, The Secret Lives of Wives: Women Share What It Really Takes To Stay Married, and then went to see her at Book Passage.

When I handed her a copy of the article before she spoke, Krasnow’s brow furrowed. The headline upset her: “Sex, lies and the secrets of a happy marriage.” “Secrets are different from lies,” she told me, and that’s true (as is the fact that “secrets” was too long a word for the headline!). But, she was happy my article didn’t focus on what those secrets appeared to be about in her HuffPo piece — affairs — and the major emphasis that got in the Daily Beast book review, “Is Cheating the Secret to a Happy Marriage?” In fact, infidelity is just a tiny part of her book. Yet, that is what many people were focusing on: How can you be cheating and yet claim you have a happy marriage?

Krasnow neither condones nor condemns affairs; she has chosen to be monogamous in her long-time marriage but people have a right to decide what works for their marriage, she says.

Judging by the comments on not only her HuffPo piece but on almost any article on marriage or divorce, few people would agree with her. We are a highly judgmental society. Marriage is only for love. Marriage is sanctioned by God. People who divorce are selfish. People who divorce don’t know what commitment is.

As if that weren’t bad enough, the gender wars appear to be as nasty as ever. There is finger-pointing at women for being entitled princesses who are quick to walk away because all they want is their hubby’s money, and finger-pointing at men for cheating, not carrying their weight in a marriage and disappearing after a divorce.

All of which would make me sad if I weren’t so excited by what Susan and I are working on — models to make marriage work better for those who want to marry while acknowledging that marriage isn’t for everyone (and that’s OK — who wants to get “caught up in the hoopla” a la Kim Kardashian) — and that divorce isn’t a failure.

So, I ask you:

  • should we as individuals and a society try to make marriage better fit who we are today?
  • should we be content with and accepting of about half of all marriages ending in divorce?
  • is cohabitation the “new marriage,” and is that a better thing for people and society?

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

 

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

We are looking at colleges. Well, more accurately, we are not looking at colleges, although we should be. My youngest is a senior in high school and the clock is ticking for things like recommendation letters, applications, testing. It’s overwhelming, yet I feel confident things will eventually fall in place because he knows what he wants to do –  baseball and filmmaking, and he’s good in both.

Lucky for him!  

My older son has missed the opportunity be a world-class soccer player, mostly because he wasn’t born in a country that goes ga-ga over football. But he’s determined to do something in football. After switching schools and careers, he’s dipping his toe into journalism (if you are the genetic product of an editor and a photojournalist, this is not abnormal) writing his own football blog, contributing the occasional podcast for World Football Daily, and learning the ropes at his university’s radio station.

Journalism? Now? Still, it’s a start. There will always be a need for creative people who can write, edit, investigate, analyze and talk intelligently.

But the world is a crazy place right now, and I don’t know what to tell my kids about work. Well, I do, kind of — go into health care or geriatrics, I say. That’s where the jobs will be. But that isn’t where their passion is, and I get it. Because I have also advised them to do something that they are not only good at, but that they also love (against the advice of my favorite career blogger, Penelope Trunk of Brazen Careerist). Bonus points if it also makes them a decent living.

Whatever career that is, it’s just probably not going to look like what I — a baby boomer — would expect it to look like. That work world is gone, and it’s not coming back.

As I wrote in a column for Mommy Tracked, “Key to Career Success: Divorce,” not too long ago:

The sure-bet careers are disappearing, and as Wall Street Journal “Work & Family” columnist Sue Shellenbarger writes in “Raising Kids Who Can Thrive Amid Chaos in Their Careers,” “The recession is driving home a bitter truth about the 21st-century job market: A tidy, linear path to a secure career is increasingly hard to find.”

It’s hard for middle-aged people like me to deal with that without reinventing ourselves, and many do. But, as Shellenbarger suggests, the skills needed to “ride the job-market surf” — not only the technical and professional skills, but the “squishy” ones — should be taught starting in childhood.

But as I read Shellenbarger’s “squishy” skills— adaptability, exploration, entrepreneurialism — I realized that, as children of divorce, my kids are already way ahead of the game.

Could it be that having to navigate the world of divorce has prepared my kids for the 21st-century job market? Perhaps.

My kids have “squishy” skills; I’m so proud!

I am intrigued by the edupunks who are taking learning into their own hands — we are a DIY world nowadays, after all. I’m also intrigued by the discussions about whether there are better uses for college tuition, like starting your own business, since a bachelor’s degree is the new high school diploma. And I’m inspired by those who have become wildly successful without a college degree, Lady Gaga and Mark Zuckerberg among them. But those tend to be people who are either entertainers or entrepreneurs — or lately, oddly enough, organic farmers. But, what is success nowadays?

I think it’s time that we embrace the idea that success isn’t just about wealth — it’s about building a happy, fulfilling life.

Family, friends, community, meaningful work — this is what comes to mind.

In his 2005 commencement speech to Stanford grads, the amazing Steve Jobs, a college dropout himself and who passed away this week at just 56, talked about how lucky he was that he got fired from Apple — crisis can lead to opportunity — and how lucky he was to do work that he loved:

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. … Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.”

So, what should we advise our kids?

Like my younger son, I, too, knew what I wanted to be “when I grow up” back in high school. Deeply affected by the fledgling environmental movement (yes, I had hippie leanings; please don’t ask to see the pictures), I was determined to save the world. At that time, environmental science was so new only a handful of colleges offered it as a major so I didn’t have to stress too much when I chose the University of Vermont.

Of course, I didn’t end up as an ecologist, and the road from those eco beginnings to journalism was convoluted and often comical. It was not, as Shellenbarger says, a tidy, linear path. I also dropped out, and finally graduated from the University of Miami — about as 180-degree switch from UV as you can get, especially since I graduated during the ’80s cocaine-fueled, disco-balled, “Miami Vice” pastel T-shirted Miami days.

Despite the recent death spiral of traditional media and newspapers, I have had a wonderful career for 20-plus years, doing work that I love (sorry, Penelope, but I’m following Jobs on this one).

Whatever it is that they end up doing, I can only wish the same for my kids.

  • If you’re a parent, what do you advise your kids about finding their passion?
  • Do you worry about them finding a career?
  • And how do you tell them to measure “success”?

 

 

Share

Tags: , , , ,

I was at a memorial service recently, the most moving and beautiful service I’d ever been to. Fortunately, I haven’t been to too many — although I know that will change in future years.

My friend’s husband was a famed illustrator and a beloved art teacher, and the speakers — whether friends, fellow teachers and artists or former students — spoke of his dedication, passion, rare talent (not only as an artist, but as an inspiring teacher), joy for life, love of family and genuine kindness. There was so much I learned about him — we rarely know the full spectrum of a person, and all of us have several identities — that I was sorry I never cornered him at a party to ask him more about the creative process; instead, I always sought him out because he was never without a good story and because he was always laughing. I am drawn to people like that.

What also struck me so deeply was that every speaker spoke not only of him, but also of his wife — she was the loving support that enabled him to enter the creative process fully, deeply and passionately. They were a true team, a partnership, and I couldn’t help but think — isn’t that the essence of a great marriage? Isn’t that what we all want in a relationship, to be that couple in which each partner can be the best he or she can be because we’ve got each other’s back?

Well, that’s certainly what I wanted although I don’t think I had named it so succinctly for myself when I married husband No. 2 (please don’t ask me why I married husband No. 1; he was cute and sweet, and I was very young, stupid and in love and that was pretty much that!). But I always believed that that was how I behaved in my marriage. See, I, like my friend, was a stay-at-home mom whose “job” was to care for the kids, cook and clean and handle all of life’s niggling details. It was a decision my then-husband and I had made together; we wanted one of us to raise the kids and since he made more than I did and I had more interest in staying home than he did, it seemed like a no-brainer. But I also was a support for his career.

As I wrote in a Mommy Tracked column awhile back:

(A)t the same time that I threw myself into full-time motherhood, my husband was starting to climb in his newspaper career.

He asked me to help him, and I was happy to do it. Not only did it put my writing skills and creativity to good use, but it also felt like we were a team — not just husband and wife, not just mom and dad, but journalist and photojournalist.

Plus, a grant I had researched and written before just before we got married not only sent him to Japan for six weeks — the only photojournalist to win it — but also led to his being named as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. What could stop us?

Nothing. In fact, we could have been the poster couple for “Beside Every Successful Man: A Woman’s Guide To Having It All,” conservative commentator Megan Basham’s new book that advises women to opt out of the 9-to-5 grind and put their energy into making their husbands be more successful in their careers.

Now, I’m not a conservative gal who believes women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen while hubby goes out to conquer the world. Nor am I suggesting that men shouldn’t marry women with careers, as was the topic of a highly heated discussion between Forbes writers Micheal Noer and Elizabeth Corcoran a few years back. Each couple has to decide for themselves how they’re going to make marriage and parenting work, and they shouldn’t worry too much (or, better yet, at all) what anyone else thinks. Plus, I always worked, either part-time for papers or on my own fledgling business or freelancing; that was important for my sanity if not exactly our financial health.

From the outside, my friends’ relationship probably seemed to be a throwback to some other era because we still don’t put as much value on those who stay at home, even if it’s working for the couple, even if it’s increasingly the dad who stays at home. But we don’t live in the ’50s anymore — people didn’t have choices back then and now we do. Nowadays we choose if we have a career or stay at home (well, we did until the recession switched things up). And, yes, staying at home can be fraught with risk if the couple divorces and the SAHM suddenly has to find a job (I’m not being sexist, but I don’t think most SAHDs would have as much trouble). What made my friends’ relationship work is the respect and appreciation they gave each other for what each was doing. He valued her role in the home, and she knew that he relied on her to do it the best she could — and she did. And because of that, he was able to become the brilliant artist and teacher that he was. His success was truly their success.

In my interviews with some high-powered women, sometimes working in a traditionally man’s world such as Kate Thorp, founder of Real Girls Media and DivineCaroline, I have been struck by the fact that their husbands are often stay-at-home dads or at least have flexible jobs. Someone, as Basham would say, is opting “out of the 9-to-5 grind” and putting energy into making his or her spouse “be more successful in their careers.”

All of which makes me wonder if a couple with two high-powered careers can enjoy the same sort of relationship as my friends did. If they are busy building their careers, as they must, and caring for their kids, ditto, is there also enough time and energy to be nurturing each other?

What do you think?

 

 

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Are men finished?

Are men finished?

That’s what Slate would have us believe — or at least it’s engaging the question. On Sept. 20, it will sponsor a live debate at NYU’s Skirball Center in New York with ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams and journalist Hanna Rosin (you may know her from her controversial Atlantic article last year, The End of Men), who will argue for the idea,  while feminist scholar Christina Hoff Sommers and Men’s Health magazine editor-in-chief David Zinczenko arguing against it.  

According to Slate:

Women now earn the majority of college degrees. Men play video games. Women thrive in information-age jobs. Men go to prison. Women hold families together. Men watch football. … A modern, post-industrial economy that seems better suited to women than men has led many experts to wonder if men are being permanently left behind. Education and employment statistics point to a clear and growing dominance in women’s status at home and in the workplace. Are men primed for a comeback, or have the old rules changed for good?

As the mom of two boys, my head is spinning. And, I’m pissed. Just like I don’t want any girl to look at my sons as a meal ticket on a date or a ticket to a “good life,” I don’t want my boys to be reduced to sperm donors either. Men and fathers matter.

When men were earning the majority of college degrees, thriving in careers, holding families together (by supporting them), would they ever have asked if women are finished? I don’t think so. They may not have wanted us as bosses or even coworkers (back in the day and, in some places, even now), but they certainly wanted us, even if for nothing more than “pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen” — as the mother of their children and the person who kept the house in order. And most women wanted them to be breadwinners. And we still do. Otherwise we wouldn’t have books like Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped into the Romantic Dream — and How They’re Paying for It.

Despite the fact that women are earning big bucks nowadays, most of us still want and expect men to be the breadwinners. Women rarely want to “marry down” — we don’t even want to date down. And when we marry — or, more commonly in recent decades, live with someone — and start a family, we gals still weigh our options: stay at home, work part time or work full time. How many men have those options (willingly; of course, the recession has turned a lot of men into SAHDs)?

Society is swinging like a pendulum, from a patriarchal one to a matriarchal one. I imagine one day, we’ll get the balance right.

What bothers me most is that, after all these years of women fighting for equality, with all our demands that we have an “equal partner,” why wouldn’t we want to support men in their freedom, too — freedom to be stay-at-home dads, freedom to work part-time so they can maybe find the elusive work-live balance we women obsess about — instead of dooming them to obsolescence?

I happen to love men, and I certainly don’t want to live on a planet like the one in “Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women,” a campy ’60s  sci-fi flick about a planet populated entirely by women (and some ugly lizard-like beasts because all sci-fi flicks have to have beasties). They sure liked it when a spaceship with men arrived!

Do you think men are finished?

 

 

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Walking home from a hike on the Dipsea trail this past weekend  I ran into someone I know as a friend of a friend and other overlapping circles and so I stopped to chitchat.

“I love reading about your kids on Facebook,” she said to me as I stooped to pet her dogs.

Oh — did I mention she is also a Facebook friend (and I only ‘friend” people I actually know in “real” life)?

As she said that, a weird feeling came over me — had I become one of those moms? The kind of mom who parades her kids’ accomplishments around as if they were medals for hard-earned service? Or the kind of mom known as a stage mom — defined by Wikipedia as a mother “prone to obnoxiously demanding special treatment for her child, or suggesting that the individual has placed inappropriate pressure on her child to succeed” ?

God, I hope not!

I’m not a stage mom or a helicopter mom or any other kind of mom other than a plain ol’ mom. Or so I thought. Now I fear I have become a Facebook mom — a mom who often mentions something charming/creative/exciting/etc. about her kids. Because I sometimes do, the latest entry being that my oldest son just turned 21 — and how the heck did that happen so quickly?

And — wouldn’t you know it — there has already been at least one study about “those” kinds of Facebook moms — aka the “proud mothers.” The results aren’t too kind to them us; in fact, 83 percent of women who count one of “those” kinds of moms as a Facebook friend say they’re annoyed by those kinds of postings. The women also said that one or more of their Facebook friends tended to:

  • Share too many mundane updates too often (65 percent)
  • “Like” too many posts (46 percent)
  • Inappropriately or too frequently use Facebook to promote causes (40 percent)
  • Project false information or images of a perfect life (40 percent)

All of which I find interesting, especially in the way that social media has redefined “friend” and how we relate to “real” friends and online friends. And, of course, it’s interesting because it’s a glimpse into what mothering has become — a competitive sport.

I’ve read more than my share of mundane postings and tweets; I don’t really care what you just ate (I may be a foodie, but, hey — there are limits) or where you are at any particular moment — unless you’ve just checked into a hotel suite with George Clooney, in which case I’d suggest you focus on him and not your social networks. But when my friends and I were young mothers, we often shared a lot of mundane information; most of early mothering is mundane! It was comforting to know that someone else acknowledged that in between the moments of sheer magical joy and unconditional love we felt for our baby or toddler, a lot of being a stay at home mom was, well, mind-numbingly dull. Sharing that just might have prevented quite a few of us from imploding.

Sure, we were always suspect of the mothers who projected a “perfect life,” but I never doubted that the moms who had Swedish nannies, housekeepers, gardeners and a six-figure earning husband actually felt that life was pretty damn good. Because, it probably was! Plus, I volunteered in a lot in classrooms and was a teacher’s aide for a while and worked closely with some of those kids — I know that having a “perfect life” when it comes to raising kids is relative. We all have our own definition of “perfect.” Sometimes it means they’re doing their homework and eating veggies once a week.

Still, I just wasn’t jealous or annoyed by either the complainers or the gloaters. But that’s what all these annoyed Facebook women seem to be. Of course, all of us are using social media in part for our own self-interests; otherwise, why post photos of our family for everyone to see? Can’t we just email to friends and family who actually care? And if you’re a writer or have a business, social media is the new DIY way to get the word out. Otherwise, why would you “friend” Target or a local restaurant you frequent?

Back to those annoyed women. Instead of being annoyed by someone else’s happiness, shouldn’t we be happy for them? Does someone’s happiness somehow diminish our own? I don’t think so. Parenting isn’t easy; we should cut each other some slack.

And if you can’t be happy for them, why are you are even calling yourself friends?

What do you think about moms who talk about their kids on Facebook and other social media?

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Older Posts »