4 ms·

Lori Gottlieb, in The Atlantic, writes "Marry Him!", and describes a problem so pervasive and urgent it's hard to imagine Obama hasn't cleared his desk: what's

by andreyf 17y ago

Lori Gottlieb, in The Atlantic, writes "Marry Him!", and describes a problem so pervasive and urgent it's hard to imagine Obama hasn't cleared his desk: what's an "independent," "feminist," "heterosexual" 40-something "woman" with a sperm-donor child to do when she can't find a man to marry her? I found this analysis of the author much more interesting than the original article: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_man_you_wa.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_m...

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
rglullis 17y ago
This is just an analysis of the author, in no point it addresses the issue that she mentions. The "psych" just calls her ideas "dangerous" in the end, and sticks to an ad-hominem. I'd like to read someone who can actually find a counter-argument to her thesis and convince me that the best thing women can do is to hold on to their ideal all the way to the end.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Xichekolas 17y ago
  I'm not sure that counterargument could really be made. Anyone holding out for an ideal person is going to be looking forever. Everyone has faults. The relationship depends on whether you can still be happy despite those faults. That said, I think Lori is totally misguided. She feels she hasn't found a guy because her standards were too high, and that now she needs to lower them and "settle". Maybe she hasn't found a guy because she was too busy measuring guys by some predefined standards, and missed out on having fun. At the end of the day, standards and faults don't really matter if you enjoy being with the other person.
  - rglullis 17y ago
    I completely agree with you. Thing is, I also think that Lori is not the exception, but may be very well part of the larger group. In that light, the article is something much more important and interesting.
- jriddycuz 17y ago
  Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Now, I don't know if this analysis of the author is necessarily accurate, but it smacks of plausibility to me because I've seen it before. As people, both men and women, remain single as they get older, they grow more and more accustomed to thinking almost entirely about their own concerns. This kind of self-focus makes it harder and harder to establish and maintain relationships. If you can't get your focus off yourself and off "the relationship" and onto the other person, you're going to have a hard time finding any lasting relationship at all.
  - ewjordan 17y ago
    Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Indeed: it's only a fallacy if you try to use it as proof of a claim. As a probability indicator, it's fantastically useful: if person A is right 80% of the time when they make a claim, and person B is right only 20% of the time (assuming all else is equal), then you'd be a damn fool not to incorporate that information into your estimate as to whether something is true: person A is four times as likely to be right, so in a disagreement between the two you should always side with A. I'm getting a little tired of people shouting "ad hominem" every time the credibility of the author is challenged. The fact that someone doesn't believe in evolution absolutely should make me take their thoughts on global warming less seriously; similarly, if someone has displayed an extremely immature, counterproductive, or selfish approach to relationships, you should probably take any relationship advice they give with a serious grain of salt.
  - jemfinch 17y ago
    [Ad hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is always a fallacy. If it's not a fallacy, it's just a personal attack.

by andreyf 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

rglullis 17y ago

This is just an analysis of the author, in no point it addresses the issue that she mentions. The "psych" just calls her ideas "dangerous" in the end, and sticks to an ad-hominem. I'd like to read someone who can actually find a counter-argument to her thesis and convince me that the best thing women can do is to hold on to their ideal all the way to the end.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Xichekolas 17y ago
I'm not sure that counterargument could really be made. Anyone holding out for an ideal person is going to be looking forever. Everyone has faults. The relationship depends on whether you can still be happy despite those faults. That said, I think Lori is totally misguided. She feels she hasn't found a guy because her standards were too high, and that now she needs to lower them and "settle". Maybe she hasn't found a guy because she was too busy measuring guys by some predefined standards, and missed out on having fun. At the end of the day, standards and faults don't really matter if you enjoy being with the other person.
- rglullis 17y ago
  I completely agree with you. Thing is, I also think that Lori is not the exception, but may be very well part of the larger group. In that light, the article is something much more important and interesting.
jriddycuz 17y ago
Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Now, I don't know if this analysis of the author is necessarily accurate, but it smacks of plausibility to me because I've seen it before. As people, both men and women, remain single as they get older, they grow more and more accustomed to thinking almost entirely about their own concerns. This kind of self-focus makes it harder and harder to establish and maintain relationships. If you can't get your focus off yourself and off "the relationship" and onto the other person, you're going to have a hard time finding any lasting relationship at all.
- ewjordan 17y ago
  Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Indeed: it's only a fallacy if you try to use it as proof of a claim. As a probability indicator, it's fantastically useful: if person A is right 80% of the time when they make a claim, and person B is right only 20% of the time (assuming all else is equal), then you'd be a damn fool not to incorporate that information into your estimate as to whether something is true: person A is four times as likely to be right, so in a disagreement between the two you should always side with A. I'm getting a little tired of people shouting "ad hominem" every time the credibility of the author is challenged. The fact that someone doesn't believe in evolution absolutely should make me take their thoughts on global warming less seriously; similarly, if someone has displayed an extremely immature, counterproductive, or selfish approach to relationships, you should probably take any relationship advice they give with a serious grain of salt.
- jemfinch 17y ago
  [Ad hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is always a fallacy. If it's not a fallacy, it's just a personal attack.