What does it mean to settle?

At first, I wanted to hate this article.

Then, after taking a shower to wake up/cleanse myself from this seemingly anti-feminist rhetoric, I re-read the article again. Now, I understand that I am not the demographic that Gottlieb is giving her advice, but at 25 and still waiting for that elusive second date, I'm not that far away. It feels like yesterday that I was moving into the city as a fresh faced 22 year old, and I have a strange sense that I will feel the same way 3 years from now. Life is moving very quickly, so I can't rely on the "I'm still young" excuse much longer.

It's certainly not that I agree with everything Gottlieb is saying. Most importantly, her article does make the dangerous assumption that all women want to be mothers. This is untrue, and unfair. I feel as though the social pressure to WANT to be a parent is one of the biggest problems that women face today. Not all people want to be parents, not all people SHOULD be parents, so we should not force people into feeling that their lives are unfulfilled without offspring. And the point behind this article is that women should settle so that they can have a partner in raising children, so those women who do not feel as though children are a part of their future should ignore this advice entirely.

But that brings us to those women (myself included) who do want something that at least resembles a traditional family. Should we start to worry at 25, 30, 35, or beyond? We have been taught to pursue our career dreams and that family can wait, but how long can it wait, and can we ever have both? Is the sage advice from Sex and the City true: "The key to having it all is to stop thinking it would look like what you thought it would look like?" If this is true, shouldn't we all be privy to this advice, not just our 30-something counterparts? It is in this that I believe Gottlieb makes some interesting, important points.

However, I find issue with one key term: settling. This word has basically lead all women to believe that they can never find passionate happiness if they don't meet their "soul mate" before the age of 23. This is painfully untrue. I don't believe in soul mates, but I do believe in kindred spirits. And, with the increasing population in the world today, there just can't be that many different personalities. Thus, anywhere you go you will be able to meet and connect with a person with whom you are compatible. It IS NOT settling to date/marry someone who doesn't exactly "turn you on" 24/7, because that sort of passion is fleeting. In fact, to me it seems far more like settling to shack up with the first person who makes your stomach flip. When Gottlieb states "Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business," I believe this statement to be mostly correct.

So, what does this mean? To me, it requires we take a good long look at how we define the term "settling." If you marry the first person who shows you any interest simply because you feel your biological clock ticking, then this is settling. But when you realize that you can look past a man's imperfections (just as he, guess what, looks past yours), then this can really be seen as intelligent and mature. So ladies, don't settle -- just be understanding enough to know that no one is perfect, no relationship is perfect, and that you have to try hard to make a partnership work. There is no such thing as Mr. Perfect, but that doesn't mean that Mr. Imperfect can't be Mr. Right.

Men are from Mars, women are screwed or "I like to think they died"

Most of us girls have dated (or at least been on a date with) your typical archetypal guys. The momma's boy, the douchebag (aka the Popped Collar guy), the one track mind guy: these are men who, while bountiful, are easily identifiable and mostly avoidable. But there are always the subtly obnoxious men whose signs are not as telltale. I would like to now share whatever small amount of wisdom I have on this subject, in hopes that my follies will serve as parables for others.

The "I'm not in a place" guy: Sorry ladies, but, as most of us know, this is code for "I'm not into you." I'm starting out with what I believe is an easy one, but unfortunately all too many women still buy into this line. I am a firm believer that there is no "time" or "place." If you like someone enough, you'll go for it. If you don't, well, you move on. Sure, it feels better to think that the "I'm not in a place" guy isn't out trolling for women the weekend after this speech, but we all know that this is not true. The only person who has ever changed the "I'm not in a place guy" is my friend Heather, but don't let this give you false hope that this can be achieved by mere mortals. Heather is just that good.
Warning signs: You met at a bar. On the Upper East side.

The "We want different things" guy: The funny thing about this guy is that he never actually asked you what you wanted. He assumed that you were desperately in love with him after the first date because he's just that amazing. He also thinks that "casually dating" means texting you every 2-6 weeks. He's closely related to "I'm not in a place" guy, but he's self-absorbed enough to blame it on you.
Warning signs: You only hear from him on weekends. After 4am.

The "I'll actively pursue you until you are actually interested" guy: This guy is, and always has been, all about the game. The more you pull away, the more persistent he becomes. He wants to prove that he can have anything he wants, but he doesn't actually want you. The second you give in, you'll never hear from him again. This guy might be the least annoying though, because you never really like him and he's pretty easy to get rid of by feigning interest.
Warning signs: He's overly eager. You have absolutely nothing in common and yet he still will not leave you alone.

The "Great first date/no call back" guy: By far the most frustrating. Oh, sure, when this issue was broached on Sex and the City when I was an ignorant college student I thought, "This doesn't happen. WHY would this happen?" And yet I now find myself a fan of the Miranda justification: "I like to think they died." This one is tough because it makes you reevaluate your entire value system -- DID we really have a good time? at what point did I mess this up? is my phone not working (but only from his number, because mom seems to be getting through quite often)? etc, etc, etc. I think the only way to feel better about this one is that you are not alone (unless I am the only person that this has actually happened to). Also, take solace in the fact that this guy is a d-bag.
Warning signs: The date goes TOO well. Sorry to be cynical, if something is too good to be true, it almost always is. Most good relationships do not begin smoothly -- they only endure after a war of attrition.

The "Crazy Vampire" guy: Maybe this isn't a generalization so much as a very specific case, but it's being added, because, well, that dude freaking bit me!
Warning signs: Within five minutes, he asks what kind of monster you would like to be. He also drinks paint thinner-esque Jack and Cokes like water and has a taste for human flesh. Which he indulges while you are soberly throwing him into a taxi cab.