I understand exactly what "settling" means, and it's a term that I not only grew up with but saw taking place in real life.
I think the reason that there isn't a male equivalent of "settling" is because of social conditioning which holds that the man isn't the party who comes to the marriage table with their hat in their hand, taking what they can get. There is an idea that a woman is under a deadline, both biologically and socially, so she needs the marriage. Where as the man should get married, but he's got no time constraints.
I also think that there's this myth that women are looking for Mr. Right, but men aren't, in the same token, looking for Ms. Right. I think we have this idea that women need a man who's perfectly suited to them and tailored to their needs, but men can just make do. Because men aren't as "picky" as women. I hate that, because it makes it sound like women are fussy and petty when choosing partners, but there is a very practical (and evolutionary) intelligence to being discriminating and not "settling".
Evolutionarily speaking, men have no need to find a "perfect woman", because the investment they make in the conception of a child is minimal and they can do it several times a week, even. See also: every episode of Maury Povich ever. Where as a woman puts years and years and risks her own life for each and every child, so she better make sure it's worth it. She better make sure she picks the biggest, strongest, smartest, most worthy mate because if she's going to potentially die or be injured in the conception, gestating, birthing, and rearing of this kid, it had better be for the sake of a kid who's going to be able to make lots and lots more of themselves, thus replicating the genes.
Which means that a man is lucky if any woman deigns to give him the chance to pass on his genes. Where as a woman is being stupid if she goes for the first guy who's willing to lay down with her.
Of course, this is all evolutionary biology and since we're not just sex organs on legs, there are a lot of social and psychological components - and we can overcome our programming.
You also have to remember that we're the heirs of a society that, once upon a time, brokered marriages like we broker stock deals. Because marriage was once upon a time were just as much economic affairs as anything else. So there is an idea that a woman better take the bargain that's on the table.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 01:25 am (UTC)I think the reason that there isn't a male equivalent of "settling" is because of social conditioning which holds that the man isn't the party who comes to the marriage table with their hat in their hand, taking what they can get. There is an idea that a woman is under a deadline, both biologically and socially, so she needs the marriage. Where as the man should get married, but he's got no time constraints.
I also think that there's this myth that women are looking for Mr. Right, but men aren't, in the same token, looking for Ms. Right. I think we have this idea that women need a man who's perfectly suited to them and tailored to their needs, but men can just make do. Because men aren't as "picky" as women. I hate that, because it makes it sound like women are fussy and petty when choosing partners, but there is a very practical (and evolutionary) intelligence to being discriminating and not "settling".
Evolutionarily speaking, men have no need to find a "perfect woman", because the investment they make in the conception of a child is minimal and they can do it several times a week, even. See also: every episode of Maury Povich ever. Where as a woman puts years and years and risks her own life for each and every child, so she better make sure it's worth it. She better make sure she picks the biggest, strongest, smartest, most worthy mate because if she's going to potentially die or be injured in the conception, gestating, birthing, and rearing of this kid, it had better be for the sake of a kid who's going to be able to make lots and lots more of themselves, thus replicating the genes.
Which means that a man is lucky if any woman deigns to give him the chance to pass on his genes. Where as a woman is being stupid if she goes for the first guy who's willing to lay down with her.
Of course, this is all evolutionary biology and since we're not just sex organs on legs, there are a lot of social and psychological components - and we can overcome our programming.
You also have to remember that we're the heirs of a society that, once upon a time, brokered marriages like we broker stock deals. Because marriage was once upon a time were just as much economic affairs as anything else. So there is an idea that a woman better take the bargain that's on the table.