Alert Janeite slw sent us a link to an article in the Guardian about a new book (we actually blogged about it before) that purports that women should not wait for Mr. Right, but snatch up Mr. Good Enough before she becomes an ape-leader in hell she turns into Miss Bates. Quotage:
It is not just feminism that has betrayed women by telling them they could have it all, said Gottlieb: every book, film and television show that perpetuates the myth of combining romantic love with a happy-ever-after ending – from Jane Austen to Friends – has done women a great and dangerous disservice.
Thing is, women these days have options. We can have jobs and make (almost) as much money as the boys. We can own property. We can travel without a male relative tagging along. We can even become mothers, with or without the assistance of science or government, without having a husband. Certainly most women will prefer to be married, but we are not overfond of sweeping generalizations, and certainly neither was Jane Austen.
In Jane Austen’s time, marriage “was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want.” That probably was not Jane Austen’s opinion, but no doubt was the opinion of most of the people of her society; yet Austen’s heroines never, ever settled for Mr. Good Enough, though they almost all had the opportunity, and there was no guarantee that Mr. Right would come up to scratch. That’s a pretty strong message, and it does not deserve to be belittled by Ms. Midlife Crisis. As for Miss Bates, the lesson there is perhaps learn to be satisfied with what you have, because wanting what you don’t have is rarely productive.
AustenBlog 
I don’t think Ms. Gottlieb meant Mr. Collins when she referred to the “per-fectly acceptable but uninspiring” men she rejected. I think she meant Col. Brandon. I don’t think that JA intended to urge every girl to hold out for a perfect mate with whom she is head-over-heels in love. Yes, we have options now, but . . .
LikeLike
Let us not forget the marriage gap: men benefit greatly from marriage–their live expectancy increase and risk for heart disease decrease–when women do not–they earn much less over their lifetime and are much more likely to suffer from depression.
LikeLike
Well this just seems like a recipe for increasing the already outrageous divorce rate. Rather than seeing woman withering away in a lonely old age, those I know are all too ready to settle for a man out of fear of being alone or because they want to hurry up and start a family. The result is misery for all concerned, especially the poor children thrust in the middle of a bad relationship. I think Jane had it right all the time – nothing could be worse than a marriage of convenience.
LikeLike
Of course something could be worse than a marriage of convenience. One could indulge one’s adolescent fantasies about stylish uniforms and the men who fill them and end up married to a vain, selfish, and impecunious lout. At least Charlotte Lucas knew exactly what she was doing and what she could expect as a result. Lydia Bennet actually thought that life with Wickham would be “happily ever after.” If, that is, she thought at all.
LikeLike
This is sort of an ETA for the previous comments: Of course a marriage of true equals would be much better than either of the other two options. Also, I very much agree that for the contemporary woman, no marriage at all would also be preferable to them as well. And yes, it was a choice I had to make. I am acutely aware of the blessing bestowed upon me by virtue of having been born in the latter half of the twentieth century, to a family that had the intention and the means of educating their daughters. Better than winning the lottery, really. 😀
LikeLike
I’m not at all sure I made the point I wanted to make in my post (and I agree very much with everyone’s comments so far) (although, Elspeth, I would consider Colonel Brandon very much Mr. Right, yes, even for Marianne). Sandra is getting at it above. Women today have so many advantages over Jane Austen’s characters, who had few options besides marriage, and yet they bravely refused to settle. Jane Austen herself refused to settle–it’s not like she didn’t have the opportunity to marry not just Mr. Good Enough, but Mr. Not Bad At All (Mr. Good Enough in 2010 is unlikely to come with a landed estate, let’s face it). Yet she managed to carve out a place for herself with her writing. I maintain that, had she lived another 5-10 years or even more, she would have produced works of genius surpassing even those she left us. Her powers were still on the rise. And finding that place for herself in her society was hard and scary. If there’s a lesson to be learned from her books and her life, it’s not to settle for Mr. Good Enough, that’s for sure.
That’s not to say that many women would be happy with Mr. Good Enough. I’m not even saying that Charlotte Lucas was unhappy–she knew what she was doing and made her own happiness within her choice, as did Jane Austen.
LikeLike
Yes, we don’t have to get married for our security, and we have a choice to have intimate relationships without becoming mothers. I think that’s the biggest perk. Talk about liberation.
LikeLike
Women do have many more options and resources available now, increasingly even more than men. A recent New York times article wrote about women with higher salaries and more education than their husbands.
I think it is so hard to say what is settling for “good-enough” versus waiting for the right partner. Maybe it is what is motivating the choice. Deciding to marry, or not marry, out of fear of the unknown or insecurity about the future may blind someone to the true nature of the person they are invovled with. Fear can really narrow our vision. Maybe what is important is to make a calm and clear choice, so that Charlotte and Elizabeth (and Jane Austen) were all right in their decisions.
LikeLike
I agree with the comment that at least Charlotte Lucas walked into marriage with Mr. Collins with her eyes wide open.
I think that as long as both people consider themselves equal partners and respect one another and agree to ‘work’ at their marriage that they can make it work, regardless of whether they are settling for ‘good-enough’ or have found their ‘head-over-heels in love personal Mr. Darcy’. But it is just that, WORK and will not be a ‘good-match’ even if it is their ‘true-love’ if not worked at past the first months of newlywed-edness.
LikeLike