There is a fascinating conversation going on right now over at NPR’s On Point about the current status of Romantic love. Writer, essayist and critic Cristina Nehring claims that for modern people passionate love has become not an ideal to celebrate and strive for but a source of embarrassment and vulnerability.
Who’s to blame? Well there are the usual culprits, i.e feminism and the “hook up culture” (yawn) but thankfully Nehring goes beyond the tired scapegoating of feminism for the unravelling of everything good and decent in our society and probes at the truth beyond the hype.
Modern people live such chaotic and hectic lives that finding true love seems sort of frivolous in the face of trying to gain those status symbols that show we’re living worthy lives. Whether it’s a doctorate, a six figure job, or a chance at fame, taking time to cultivate romance seems like an unnecessary detour on our paths to achievement. After all, love may be fleeting, but that Fullbright Scholarship is forever. Heck, now they even write books about the dangers of marrying for love!
I see a lot of myself in Nehring’s description of the intellectual woman who feels the need to apologize for or hide her passionate feelings as if they are somehow a handicap, something that makes her less strong, intelligent and credible. According to Nehring I’m in good company. In her research she found that great women from Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Margaret Fuller and Simone de Beauvoir all had precarious relationships between their intellectual and love lives.
As a young woman I was repeatedly warned away from getting over involved in my relationships or letting my love life distract from what my mom used to call, “the big picture.” At some times in my life I really did allow my goals to fall by the wayside in pursuit of several (doomed) relationships. After that I vowed to put my own goals first and for the most part I have. But how do you balance the single minded pursuit of your own happiness and still allow yourself to fall in love?
For ambitious women the lurking fear that romantic love will turn us into doting and subservient partners focused on catering to our significant other’s needs instead of our own is a very real one. We fear that the lure of partnership and family will steer us away from our goals, so the solution is to avoid romantic attachments altogether. The result of this very real and justified fear says Nehring, is a culture where we’ve compartmentalized love and sex. We have no problem talking about our one night stands, our favorite methods of birth control, even fertility. But love? Forget it.
She’s right. I feel totally free to dish about my favorite brand of lube over cocktails in mixed company, but talk about how much I love my boyfriend? I wouldn’t dare. I know it would clear the room in under five seconds. And I’d feel like a total goober for even mentioning it in the first place.
So does this sound familiar to you, gentile readers? Would you rather give yourself a fleet enema than talk about your crush in public? Is romance dead? Ridiculous? Something created to sell Hallmark cards? Did it ever exist in the first place?
What’s your take on modern love?
Like what you read here? There's more over at Fever2Tell
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Love Dead?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14651
Modern people live such chaotic and hectic lives that finding true love seems sort of frivolous in the face of trying to gain those status symbols that show we’re living worthy lives. Whether it’s a doctorate, a six figure job, or a chance at fame, taking time to cultivate romance seems like an unnecessary detour on our paths to achievement. After all, love may be fleeting, but that Fullbright Scholarship is forever.
Do you mean, like, insanely rich white Western "modern people"?
And what do you mean "gentile readers"? Like, is this post just for non-Jews or is that a typo? ("Gentle" readers?)
I'd have to agree that the description of "modern people" seems to be narrowed to people who have access to higher education.
That being said, I can sort of see where Nehring is coming from when she's describing women which fit that category.
I recently graduated college and when it comes to discussing my relationship and my future plans, which I don't have any at the moment besides a) get a job during a recession, b) start paying back all of those damn student loans, many of my female friends put much more emphasis on achieving goals than developing close relationships. A relationship seems to be something, at least this is the impression I get from a lot of my peers, that should be seen as temporary in your twenties as once a better opportunity comes to fulfill some sort of achievement or goal there is nothing wrong with leaving that person behind.
And, I agree that there's nothing wrong with experiencing the world and achieving as much as you can but there are ups and downs. But I don't think there is anything wrong with experiencing the world with a companion and learning to work through a relationship either. I think a successful relationship or working at a relationship can be a goal too, just it's a different kind of goal that isn't measured in awards, professional titles, or salary. This route has it's up and downs too.
What I don't like is when people put more value on achievement that measured by status and make other people feel like they shouldn't let a relationship interfere with your status or goals because it's wrong, "naive" or stupid. I think this mind set is quite apparent among college educated people, that you should sacrifice everything in pursuit of success and goals.
Good thing I don't know what my goals are yet.
I would argue that even those who are not "insanely rich" still live chaotic lives. Whether it is the pursuit of material things or just trying to keep your family afloat and out of debt, whether you are working one high powered job or multiple low-wage jobs to survive, people of all backgrounds have things besides love to focus on these days. Maybe it is a product of our times (the recession!), but I feel we are all hyper-focused on our own survival to the point where perhaps our personal relationships take a back seat or suffer?
I do like the argument many of us make that if you want to fall in love you have to make that a priority along with all your other goals in life. That is an important point, good relationships don't happen by accident.
And yes, "gentile" readers is a typo.
Oh, I thought you were going Middle English on us. I believe, but perhaps wrongly, that "gentile" could also mean "gentle" in Chaucer's day. (Or maybe it was "gentil" rather than "gentile"?)
http://books.google.com/books?id=kZIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=gentile+gentle+middle+english&source=bl&ots=tUiB7xaTDR&sig=fACMnZ_g6LPy_VjAlzoHVus0Y8c&hl=en&ei=PldKSt6mNJW3lAe7i_Eb&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9
http://houseoffame.blogspot.com/ ("My gentil rederes ... ")
"For ambitious women the lurking fear that romantic love will turn us into doting and subservient partners focused on catering to our significant other’s needs instead of our own is a very real one."
But why would you love someone who wanted you to cast your own ambitions aside? I think love is about having a true and equal partnership with someone. You can find someone who loves how smart and motivated you are and wants you to be happy and fulfilled in all areas of your life. Just don't date sexist assholes.
"But how do you balance the single minded pursuit of your own happiness and still allow yourself to fall in love? "
You find someone who's idea of happiness aligns well with your own. It doesn't necessarily have to be a question of putting your goals first or your partner's goals first: you can follow your ambitions together. You just have to keep your head on straight.
You can have a great career, you can have a great love life, or you can have both. You just have to figure out what works best for you. And you shouldn't be ashamed to want both.
thank you for this. I guess I understand that people find passion with someone who doesn't want them to be who they are, and that sucks-you feel like you have to choose. But I can't really feel that it's love. or at least, not equal love. Maybe you love them, but if it's a loving relationship on both sides, you both want each other to reach your goals.
I definitely don't think true love is dead and my life fits in well with what you described. You can do both. I'm doing it (succeeding at work/goals and super in love). You just have to be true to yourself and balance both with someone who appreciates and support your goals.
Also to be fair you need *some* time to just work on your goals/career - but no one ever got to be 50 and wished they had worked more. But alot of people have regrets about love or not having a family.
Just do NOT allow yourself to become what you fear here - UNLESS you want to. Because if you find out you really do want to put your goals on hold for a family or whatever - then as long as you decided that yourself, clearly it's what you want and thus you've not giving up anything at all but pursuing what you want.
Back to "true love" - it is out there. I found it. We love each other more then anything and it's still very intense. We've been together for 5 years and it's still like this. I know not everyone is as lucky as me but still, it IS out there. I also know I need to cherish it though as you never know if it will last forever. Anything could happen.
I'm glad someone on the radio program mentioned women Mary Wollstonecraft, Margaret Fuller and Simone de Beauvoir! It's fun to hear people talking about the demise of love, often in the same rhetoric as people did hundreds of years ago. Fuller was arguing against naysayers in the 1840s that breaking free of gender roles would NOT destroy love and/or marriage, but would actually make them more rewarding. Yes, we've been having this conversation for at least 160 years.
Having said that, I'll concede a point: Wollstonecraft herself agreed that love (or, more specifically, marriage) sometimes conflicts with great accomplishments (for both men and for women!). That's because everything takes time and effort, and our time and effort are limited. We can be afraid to give up some aspect of our careers in order to spend more time with our families, but we can also be afraid to give up some aspect of romance or family life or friendship/camaraderie in order to spend more time with the work that so fascinates us. We can count it in terms of loss, but we're always also choosing in terms of gain -- it's just that time is short, and we cannot be all things to all people.
People have also been talking about living forever, about gaining power over time and space, for centuries as well.
It may not be prioritized in the same way as it has in the recent past, but love is no more going to die than hate, happiness, sadness, anger, compassion, empathy, or any of those other things that make up the human condition.
I just finished my first year of college, and I find the opposite to be true - atleast among my circle of friends.
One couple I was friends with got married Saturday, another will get married in August, and yet another is planning to marry next year (I still feel way too young to marry, so I'm fairly weirded out by all this). I know three couples that have been in relationships for over three years - though two have now separated.
I feel like, for my generation (assuming my pretty diverse circle can be taken as representative), we've grown up watching our parents' marriages and remarriages and divorces and such, and we latch onto someone *too* quickly, for fear we'll lose them. It makes me agree with Bono: "I've had enough of romantic love / I'd give it up / Yeah, I'd give it up for a miracle drug"
However, the belief that love might make a woman weaker or whatever falls right in line with the idea that to succeed in life [outside the home] she must be like a man (because of course Real Men(tm) don't have emotions or attachments that influence them for better or worse).
"But how do you balance the single minded pursuit of your own happiness and still allow yourself to fall in love? "
Well, being in a loving relationship does make me happy, so in that sense falling in love *is* 'my own happiness'. I consider my relationship to be much more worthy of my time than my work.
Someone further up the thread said 'don't fall in love with sexist assholes'... and I have to echo that. The idea that as women we will lose ourselves in a heterosexual relationship is a myth - it doesn't necessarily have to happen, it depends on the person you're with.
I think there *is* a fashion among some for pretending we don't feel these emotions, and certainly I have some very cynical friends who keep reiterating that they don't want a relationship, but I see that more as a defence against getting hurt, not so much a fear that ambitions will go unrealised.
As for me, I've always prioritised love... I've been hurt many times but always picked myself up, and now I have a fantastic relationship, one which is prioritised and nurtured by both of us. Love is definitely not dead!
I agree. Love is not dead it's just out of fashion among some. I think in part because it's assumed love gets in the way of living when it really make life so much more full. I think also some people have no real life role models for what love looks like.
Everyone gets lust...lust is easy. However love deep true love is harder. It does at times make you look weak to the world at large. However it takes a huge amount of strength to open yourself so fully to another human being. To put it all out on the table, let them look it over and trust them.
I have often put love before other more material things. Not just love for my spouse but our extended family. My husband and I both have tended to the needs of older relatives at times rather than spend that time in pursuit of money and recognition. I've sat and held the hand of a old woman who didn't recognize me anymore each day so she wouldn't be alone instead of spending my time in pursuit of success in the business world. I did that for love. To be honest I don't care if the whole world thinks I'm a fool.
I don't think love is dead. I just think we are maybe going back to a more realistic perspective of it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I'm pretty sure that 'romantic love' is itself relatively new and has greatly been idealized in out culture. Not to say that love is bad - I think its great! But I was duped by the idea when I was little that love would come along and 'save' me and then there would be no worries in the world! Instead, I'm finding that I have to work hard at my career and work even harder on having a working, fulfilling, and loving relationship. Perhaps the work involved in love is what is surprising us.
Love is put in a romantic light, ironically enough.
I don't know about the part on being embarrassed to talk about love in public. I could see myself holding back that kind of talk simply because I don't want to be seen as super emotional, attached to this one person, and having lost reasoning due to love. Its the valuing of manly traits - those associated with reason and being tough - and the devaluing of lady traits - those based on emotions.
you are so right. romantic love is a relatively recent invention! for thousands of years people did not marry for love, in many cultures you didn't get to choose who you married at all. It has only been in the last 100 years or so that marrying for love has become the ideal that we're all supposed to strive for. I find it interesting that the author wants to "return" to a time that may never have existed in the first place!
Love and romance are two very different things. Ask a couples with kids, mortgages, car payments, careers, etc. Love, I think, is by definition NOT romantic. Romance does not last in any sustained way. Some people are sad to realize this, but I find it comforting. Aside from how antifeminist it feels to me to have a guy buy me flowers, etc, in an attempt to "woo" me, what my partner and I have now is so much more real and intense. Love is what holds you together when someone loses a job, when there is no money, when your parents die, etc etc. It's a deep friendship. And I don't think many people have "romance" with their best friends... yet those are the people we turn to. I think romance is dying out a bit, yes. And I see this as a positive thing. Demonstrations of romance often involve hideous amounts of consumerism. Love does not.
I guess I look at it different. I find it very romantic that somebody would care enough for me to stand by when times are hard. Flowers are nice but they die and you can pick them up at Walmart when you grab condoms because you are sure you will "get lucky" tonight. However being there with a smile and standing strong when the mortgage is late and your job just poofed is to me very romantic.
Love is something you do.
Love is more than attraction and more than arousal. It’s also more than sentimentality, like so many of today’s songs suggest. By this standard, is love dead when the emotion is gone? No, not at all. Because love is an action; love is a behavior.
I'm starting my Master's degree in the fall, and after that I intend to go straight into a Ph.D. program and not come up for air until I'm a prof. I am one of those... aggressive women, as the men would say. Just the fact that my Ph.D. is going to be in Women's Studies scares the poop out of a lot of guys. Or, a problem I've run into with some men, especially librul dewds, is they think my aspirations are "cute." Like, oh look at the widdle feminist, she thinks she's smart! I mean, they don't come out and say this, but I can tell based on how much they are willing to listen to me when the men are discussing politics and other manly topics.
Yet, at the beginning of the summer, I rekindled an old flame I hadn't seen in two years and it is awesome. I thought I wouldn't date again until I was 30, and I thought relationships were dead and silly and all that. I guess what happened was I took my friend's rather simple advice: stop worrying about it (love) and don't look for it.