A little workplace promotion, but if you haven't already read Lori Gottlieb's "Marry Him," you should. (Stephen Colbert has!)
The article has set off an absolute tempest of women writers accusing Gottlieb and The Atlantic of everything from "stupidity and immaturity" to "hurting America." A sampling here.
The fallout has been surprising to me; I like Gottlieb and give her points for pointing such a harsh spotlight on her own errors and insecurities. And she writes well.
Biases thus admitted, I'm struggling to understand the anger she's inspired. Her tone is so earnest and first-person that I almost wonder whether her critics who sum up her argument as "lure the closest man into your lair and once he's there, slap on the cuffs" were even reading the same magazine.
I'm interested to hear what others are thinking... is this really how "Marry Him!" reads, or is this a case of feminist hammers in search of a nail?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is an excellent post and it really gets at a tension pulsating throughout the consciousness of relevant social groups -- especially race and gender. When one person speaks, others are entitled to be offended because that person's opinion does not (and never can) represent the group as a whole. Most of Gottlieb's article is criticized in these terms -- she's offended women everywhere! She's a disgrace to women! A lot of her critics cite counter-examples that don't fit with her narrative. And honestly, these are completely valid points. There are many women who "settled" and are now in cycles of domestic violence, with no end in sight. There's a spectrum of costs and benefits, and decisions vary (and should vary) by person. This all bring us to a cliche: live your life the way that makes the most sense for you. For some people, "settling" means ridding themselves of Disney illusions above love and romance. For others, "settling" means marrying someone that will be make you miserable, or worse. "What to do" will vary according to your situation.
But back to the central tension: why can't we accept Gottlieb's piece as one that defines her experiences? Why must we convert her piece into a universal prescription? The quick answer is because in her heartfelt, well-written article, her tone and choice of words is essentially prescriptive. She even cites self-help books.
I think there's a deeper answer, common to race and gender. These groups push towards greater individual rights and freedom, but do so as a group. Groups inherently create rules and articulations of what they stand for, so when members of the groups step outside of these boundaries, the group enforces its norms. Each person becomes a member, a representative of her group. Ironically, this to some degree suppresses individual rights. The norms are articulated in "traitor" language -- Justice Thomas is often labeled a "traitor" to blacks. Similarly, Gottlieb's piece is described in these terms -- betrayal, disgust, etc. I'm sure there are thinkers that have advanced these ideas in more nuanced terms.
Post a Comment