Marry a Man You Do Not Love

ora_43

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 9:21 am

I thought the writing was beautiful, but I didn't like it because it didn't come across as emotionally honest.

I could believe that a particularly naive 20-year-old might get married to a man she doesn't like solely because she's afraid she's getting too old. I could even believe that a 25-year-old still feels stuck with that bad decision.

But there's no way someone is hitting 60, or even 30, without making her own adult decisions about it. If someone is still married at 60, it's been several decades since "but they said love would come later" or "I was afraid to break the engagement" was the real cause of the situation.

I don't just mean that as an argument about who's to blame, or something like that. I mean that people are way more emotionally complex than this piece makes them out to be. This is a poem about the stereotypical not-so-bright frummie woman who just does what society tells her to do and never questions life. For forty years. OK, we've all met people who are dumb and not terribly introspective, but who really fits the stereotype that perfectly?

I'm not surprised at all at what fmt4 said, I was picturing the author as being in her mid-20s.

dimyona

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 9:23 am

fmt4 wrote:

I've read other stuff by this writer and I'm pretty sure she's not talking about herself. She's in her twenties I think, and divorced.

ETA:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com.....days/
This is another post of hers

Yes, she's in her twenties. I think it's more of a "what would have been" essay, which had she not divorced, could well have played out that way.

ora_43

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 10:03 am

dimyona wrote:

Yes, she's in her twenties. I think it's more of a "what would have been" essay, which had she not divorced, could well have played out that way.

But it wouldn't have played out that way, because as she grew up she would have developed a sense of agency.

I'm not saying she wouldn't have stayed with him, but there would have been more/different reasons for it.

FTR, I don't mean that it was a bad piece. The author writes very well. I think she doesn't do a believable 60-year-old (yet), but she's very talented.

bruriyah

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 1:33 pm

proudema wrote:

I found this to be quite sad because there is much she could have done to add to her marriage. She just expects to have feelings for him with no effort on her part. Once she made the decision to marry him she should have put her all into the marriage. Maybe she did, but she doesn't write that she did so we don't know that. It seems to me she expected "Schmutz" novel romance instead of a real marriage that requires hard work.

I know what I'm addressing is not what you meant to say, but I'm using it as a springboard to bring up a point. In relationships where there is chemistry, initially this is true. Meaning, initially, you have feelings for the person with no effort on your part. This is normal and natural - and in my opinion - the way it should be. Then, of course, you put in effort to maintain those feelings and build something bigger upon them.

You see, if you have a basic attraction to the person, it's doesn't take such hurculean effort to "put your all into the marriage" as you expected the author to do. It's natuarl. You love them. When you were never initially attracted to the person, it's like, why do this.

Maya

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 1:44 pm

ora_43 wrote:

But there's no way someone is hitting 60, or even 30, without making her own adult decisions about it. If someone is still married at 60, it's been several decades since "but they said love would come later" or "I was afraid to break the engagement" was the real cause of the situation.

I don't just mean that as an argument about who's to blame, or something like that. I mean that people are way more emotionally complex than this piece makes them out to be. This is a poem about the stereotypical not-so-bright frummie woman who just does what society tells her to do and never questions life. For forty years. OK, we've all met people who are dumb and not terribly introspective, but who really fits the stereotype that perfectly?

You obviously don't know enough Chassidish people. Smile

Yes, they really DO do only what society tells them to do, and never question life.

I can list you twenty couples in that age range off the top of my head who were never compatible, and should've gotten out but never did, and never will. There are couples who divorce after they married off all their kids, but so many more stay together because that's what is familiar to them, they usually don't have better chances at that age and in that community, and they are also often afraid of ruining the shidduch chances for their grandchildren. Once they stuck it out for forty years, they can handle it for another twenty.

That's my opinion based on my experiences and observations.

naturalmom5

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 1:48 pm

The grass is always greener
Do you have any idea how many thousands of women I the secular world
Would give their entire net worth for she has
BH, ten zeesa children, a husband, a family , a legacy
Where they just have lonely empty lives
They have to work hard to think of a reason to continue living

The aurhor's husband isn't Don Juan la Paramor or some other fictional character
Life's tough , get a helmet

black sheep

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 1:50 pm

I agree with maya.

I don't think that at 60 they are still together because of not wanting to break the shidduch, but at that point, they have kids together, and they have a life dependent on each other, and it isn't easy to divorce. on top of that, they also don't want to be social pariahs for divorcing.

the sad thing is that girls who buy the "love comes later" line are usually five years into the marriage with three kids by the time they realize it isn't so. and by that time, they are too invested to just leave.

Deep

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 1:53 pm

Maya wrote:

You obviously don't know enough Chassidish people. Smile

I'm starting to feel like I'm living in an alternative universe. My high school and seminary years were heavy on the debate. I've taught teens and they definitely held nothing back!
I'm starting to think that "chassidish" is way too general a term to describe tremendously disparate groups.

marina

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 1:56 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Really? I...uh.. don't think that there are many women in the secular world who would give their entire net worth to be stuck in a dead marriage. Because, see, most have happy fulfilling lives. And those that are lonely and empty- well, why would they trade their loneliness for hers?

Lol that you think all secular women are lonely and sad. Here's a picture of a sad secular woman for you: Sad

Maya

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 2:15 pm

Deep wrote:

What debate were you heavy on in your high school and seminary years? (Although in the world I come from, very few girls attend seminary, so perhaps you are living in an alternate universe.)

I'll just clarify and say that I only speak for the mainstream Chassidish society in New York, the one where I grew up. I remember you said you live OOT, and I'm sure Chassidish society there is vastly different than the ones in town.

gp2.0

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 2:50 pm

This happens all the time. More recently, couples are being smarter and divorcing after a few months instead of just keeping on going the way they would have in the past.

I dont know, I have no answers, but the chassidish shidduch system the way it is right now is pretty much betting on the odds. Some people get lucky. Some strike out. It seems very, very wrong to me to decide on marriage after meeting a guy a few times over the course of ONE WEEK. And that's considered longish. I've known shidduchim where the couple got engaged after one HOUR.

Side note: The article referenced going to a hotel on a date, I don't know anyone shtark chassidish who would do that.

Dolly Welsh

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 3:10 pm

Well, Jane Austen, in Pride and Prejudice, depicts a valid marriage between two people who are alike, the Bingleys, and a valid marriage between two people who complement each other and are opposite, the Darcys.

In the same book she remarks that people change so much that it's a roll of the dice anyway.

It's all true.

The chassidish method of having four experienced people, two of each gender, all of whom have skin in the game, think it would work, has some logic.

His parents, and your parents. They all get a veto before you even meet him. Make it six people, if you include the shadchan and the Rav. At that point, there is some reality to it. But these are not arranged marriages. Nobody forces anybody.

Sometimes people just have to realize life is not a bowl of cherries, inside marriage or outside it, religious or secular. Sometimes expectations are higher than possible. Because some people get better, or easier deals than others. Or it can look that way.

The writer clearly does not sound sixty.

She is a WRITER. An artist. They fudge. They compose. Their "I" is a character, not the actual person behind the keyboard. It's FICTION.

It has hit a nerve, but it's a stylized portrait, and not by someone who has made nine weddings, not to my ear. I didn't hear one thing about "well my husband isn't much of a pal but some of my kids are soooo worth it."

Her lack of interest in even one of the nine weddings has a zombie-like quality. Eww.

Fine, it's a piece. It got you talking. She did her job.

But life is more complicated than this piece.

And anyway, she, or her character, lied. She didn't tell the guy "I find you dull as dirt, but I am 20, and I had better get a move on, and I think I can stand you because you don't say much". That's a huge deception right there. Cry me a river.

naturalmom5

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 3:14 pm

Dolly Welsh wrote:

DITTO

Capitalchick

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 3:28 pm

Raisin wrote:

Its a sad piece but many people who start off like this end up happy...and many who marry the man of their dreams and are head over heels in love end up unhappy.

But yes, I agree there should be attraction.

I imagine there's a LOT more bitterness about being unhappy with a spouse you met through shidduchim and never loved, and one who you were in love with for a long time, and then fell out of love with. I imagine there's an extra sting to not having made the choice for yourself...To not having fallen in love, made a commitment and then tried to make a go for it.

Capitalchick

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 3:30 pm

A question from someone who did not date in the shidduch system...If you date 'appropriately' (I.e. in public places, etc.), what on earth is the rush to get engaged? What is the difference between dating for 2 weeks and 5 months? Really?!?!...If we're talking about the difference between a happy life and a miserable life?!

gp2.0

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 3:34 pm

Its true, it's a whole new level of apathy to not be joyful about the birth and marriage of your kids, notwithstanding the condition of your marriage.

However - the shadchanim generally have no clue who they're setting up. They'll try anything, they work their way down the list. A rav just gives a bracha. That leaves the 4 parents, who quite often look for a shidduch that they can be proud of instead of a shidduch their child actually wants.

For example, if you buy into the "one true love" theory (which I don't, but bear with me) let's suppose that a chassidish boy's OTL is actually a redhead from OOT. They will never be paired up, because these parents hate redheads/OOTers and would never agree to it. What I'm saying is, the parents do the vetting, but usually not with just their child in mind.

Chayalle

Fri, Jun 27 2014, 3:35 pm

Capitalchick wrote:

You date to marry. When you get to the point where you can make a decision either way, then it's time to move forward. If you feel it's not for you, you end it. If you are ready to commit, you get engaged.

Are you serious about what's the difference between 2 weeks and 5 months? We are speaking about human beings here, you know. I can tell you that a 3 month engagement was hard.