Whom Not to Marry
by Motte Brown on 09/30/2008 at 9:59 AM
I think I've mentioned before how much I enjoy top 10 lists. And this one by Anthony Esolen from Mere Comments is no exception. (Though it's actually a top 20 list.) It's his personal observations about whom not to marry. He confesses they're a little "facetious" but you can tell he thinks they're true. Indeed, some are no-brainers, some are funny, and some are just plain ridiculous. Here's a sample of each:
The No-Brainer
4. Don't marry anybody who insists on a separate bank account, bed, bathroom, vacation, or zip code. It makes no sense to be one flesh and two wallets.
The Funny
7. Don't marry a woman who exercises so frequently that you cannot tell if she is a woman or a very strange looking 13-year-old boy. I'm going out on a line here, but the real purpose of the rule is to determine whether she will mind getting fat, as happens when you are going to have a child. In other words, don't marry a woman whom you cannot imagine having a child. Do not marry a woman who does not like children.
The Ridiculous
6. Don't marry a man who does not like dogs. Such men do not like children. Don't marry a man who does not like children. On the other hand, I have known at least one excellent man who thought he didn't like children, until he had some; seven, I think, at last count. Perhaps the rule may be rephrased: Don't marry a man whom you cannot imagine rolling on the ground in a wrestling hold, with a Labrador retriever or three children, or hollering on a ferris wheel, with a Labrador retriever or three children.
Number six is ridiculous because I love children, but not dogs. So much so, I'm adopting four from Ethiopia sometime in December, Lord willing. I just don't see the connection.
Which "rules" fit these categories for you?
101. BDB said the following at 7:39 PM on Oct 8:
I suppose if a women told me she was looking for her, "Mr. Darcy," I could offer to be haughty and standoffish...and refuse to dance...or at least say I don't care for it...
102. Leah said the following at 6:43 PM on Oct 9:
Jo- not sure about any delay; 'prat' isn't an extremely common word in Australia, although it does get used. I don't know which years it was most commonly used in either the UK or Australia!
Ellie- yes, I understand the reputation side of things. I just wasn't sure if that's what you were getting at. Now, getting back to the original point- of Wickham being the "bad boy" in comparison to today's bad boys- I would still point to the fact that what Wickham did with Lydia was with her consent and she went along with it. You'll find the relationships of most bad boys these days are littered with instances of him doing things the girl is not terribly happy with and often against her will.
103. Ellie said the following at 11:17 PM on Oct 9:
I'd also like to address the objections of Farmer Tom (and others) to the idea that Austen's novels can or should be used to exemplify anything about marriage.
Specifically Farmer Tom has said, at post 61:
"Is it possible that Jane Austen had a warped, idealized, romanticized view of men and married life, and is therefore a pathetic, worthless guide for women to use in their romantic endeavors??
"Why would any one use as a role model, an advisor, or even an example a women who never married, never had children and died at an early age???
"Some of you wouldn't want to let reality get in the way of your romanticized view of men and married life."
These objections seem specifically rooted in a discomfort with the idea of an 'ideal man' epitomized by Mr. Darcy, that is potentially influencing the type of man young women want to marry. And certainly young women (or any women) who approach the idea of Darcy and their marriage in this way are misguided. However, Farmer Tom's argument presses further, charging Austen and her writing with being overly romantic and idealistic, and specifically rejecting Austen as a source of advice or wisdom on marriage because of her own unmarried state. These charges are, I believe, based on the fact that Farmer Tom is not, by his own admission, personally familiar with Austen's work. Rather, he has witnessed the extreme attachment certain women have for Austen, and reacted to that.
The idea that Austen's own state of singleness renders her fiction worthless can be discredited by a simple examination of what her writings actually address. It is certainly correct that a single woman would be at a distinct disadvantage if she were giving married women advice or attempting to write a book portraying the functioning of a marriage, "married life" as Farmer Tom refers to it. The question then is whether Austen's books address that topic. I would argue that they do not address the inner workings of marriage, but explore the appropriate criteria for choosing to marry someone. The focus of Austen's novels is in fact the road toward engagement that her heroes and heroines travel, set in the background of the other marriages and engagements occuring around them. None of her main characters are married at the time that the novels they figure in are taking place (although she does describe some of their lives after the wedding towards the end of some of the books, most notably Sense and Sensibility, she never focuses on the details of their actual marriages).
As Austen's works revolve around courtship rather than marriage, her state of singleness should not affect her ability to correctly portray her characters and offer accurate, if fictional, portrayals of romantic pairings and courtship. As it is, a single woman must be able to discern whether a potential spouse would be a good match for her, and for others, or else no single woman would be able to accept a marriage proposal, and we would all be single forever.
I would also like to say that Austen herself would be appalled and dismayed by some of the mis-uses and mis-interpretations of her work in the modern era. The reactions of the so-called Janeites, especially to the character of Mr. Darcy, is extreme, potentially an impediment to marriage, and rightly to be questioned and avoided. However, the character of Darcy, if considered as a concept, is an appropriate model for young women to look to. Darcy is a man who is an excellent match for Elizabeth, and young women should look for excellent matches for themselves (this is in fact one of Austen's major and recurring themes). Darcy also proves to be a man who is forthright, honorable, generous, willing to correct his mistakes (which he makes plenty of), and demanding of moral character within himself and others. None of these are negative, and none of them point towards a man who is a false and overly romanticized ideal of manhood.
104. Daniel B said the following at 1:17 AM on Nov 4:
Rule #3 is dead-on and in my opinion it's the most important one - unfortunately it also singlehandedly eliminates 95% of the human population.
105. Daniel B said the following at 1:24 AM on Nov 4:
(comment #26 reminds me of another rule)
Never marry a woman who would decide her husband based on something as shallow as how tall he is.
106. Kristin S said the following at 12:40 PM on Aug 21:
What an interesting list. The humor certainly comes across with some of the "Never" points (dogs, cats, etc.).
However, being the type of person who once said, "I will NEVER date my ex-boyfriend again," I am now happily engaged to said ex-boyfriend. As such, I would recommend that all Christians not use the words "Never marry" before any other phrase besides, "a non-Christian." If he/she truly belongs to and is walking with the Lord, the trivial things (habits, hair length, skin color, height) will not and should not matter.
Just a comment or two relating to the thread about Darcy:
Ladies, remember that Mr. Darcy is a character written and created by a woman. Mr. Darcy's character reminds me of the story of Pygmalion – only in reverse: a woman crafting a perfect man. Our perception of Mr. Darcy is certainly rose tinted because the author, Austen, forced Darcy to be a certain way to tell her story - a story that ended with a wedding and not "till death do us part". What's worse is that Hollywood is responsible for fleshing out Darcy's character on the big screen, thereby reinforcing that "perfect man" character type. So, of course, producers and directors will choose handsome, strapping men to retell Austen's story. From their perspective, who wants to watch a bumbling, obviously flawed, homely character woo a woman to marriage? Remember that the entertainment industry is interested, not in your ethics or worldview, but in drawing in viewers and, therefore, money in their pockets.
Overall, I think it is vitally important to remember that real men of character sin and mess up. Likewise, real women of character sin and mess up, too. What matters is that both parties are not looking for happiness and fulfillment solely in each other but that they are looking to become holier and closer to Christ.
107. safa said the following at 10:42 PM on Sep 26:
No matter whomever u marry you can't know about a person unless u live with him a married life.
B'coz husband /wife is completely different from partner.
Everybody says that i am luky to have my husband but i know what's true.
108. safa said the following at 10:44 PM on Sep 26:
MARRY THE PERSON WHO LOVES YOU BUT NOT THE ONE WHOM YOU LOVE.
YOU WILL BE THEN HAPPY.