Sandra Tsing Loh Got Divorced - Therefore Marriage is Bad
July 2nd, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq."Loh dismisses the probable effects of her divorce on her children. Her sole comments on the subject are that the girls 'appear unfazed,' and 'seem content.' So much for the mountains of social science that show that, if Loh's daughters are like most kids, they'll suffer a range of ills later in life stemming directly from her divorce."
This piece by Sandra Tsing Loh has gotten a good bit of attention lately, much of it deservedly bad (The Atlantic Monthly, July/August, 2009).
Loh had been married for 20 years when she decided she wanted a divorce. She and her husband have two elementary-school-aged children. She has nothing bad to say about her husband, but seemingly the magic just wasn't there any longer. Loh's oblique way of letting us know about her extramarital affair is to say that her "commitment to monogamy...came unglued." (Can you hear Mark Sanford or Eliot Spitzer saying that?)
And having done so, she found that "I would not be able to replace the romantic memory of my fellow transgressor with the more suitable image of my husband..."
So off she went in a cloud of guilt. Sadly for readers of The Atlantic Monthly, Loh expends several thousand words attempting to convince herself that what she did - divorcing a good man and the father of her children when they were in elementary school - was OK.
The truth is far simpler than Loh makes out. It is this: if you don't have kids, feel free to divorce as often as you like; no one will be hurt but you and your spouse, and you're both adults and can handle it. But when you have children, you make a commitment to them, if to no one else, to provide them the most stable, supportive, loving home life you can until they're out of the nest. If you can't make that commitment, don't have children. If you have children, honor your commitment.
Are there exceptions? Of course there are, but inability to "replace the romantic memory of my fellow transgressor with the more suitable image of my (husband/wife/significant other)" isn't one.
Loh's desperate attempt to explain herself to herself (and unfortunately to us) is the same, self-absorbed mewling we see periodically from the privileged. Her description of her attorney friend's house, a Craftsman bungalow filled with Mission furniture and Tiffany lamps, should let every reader know that, whatever Loh has to say will not apply to about 98% of the population.
Like Emily Bazelon writing in The New York Times in April, who tried to convince readers that single motherhood really is just as good for children as a two-parent upbringing, Loh dismisses the probable effects of her divorce on her children. Her sole comments on the subject are that the girls "appear unfazed," and "seem content." So much for the mountains of social science that show that, if Loh's daughters are like most kids, they'll suffer a range of ills later in life stemming directly from her divorce.
By the bottom of page one, Loh is quoting sociologist Andrew Cherlin for the proposition that it's not so much single parenthood that troubles kids, it's the upset of changed circumstances attending divorce. There's some data that suggest that a child who's born into a stable, single-parent home will do, if not well, at least better than a child of divorce. Amazingly, Loh seems not to notice that she's doing the latter, not the former. Cherlin preaches domestic stability; Loh does the opposite and seems to think Cherlin is on her side.
Toward the end, Loh seems to lose her bearings altogether. Marriage, according to her is the "Old World" and, well, something, presumbaly non-marriage (she never says), is the "New World." And since women are the ones initiating divorce, it's clear to Loh that women, or at least those who either divorce or never marry, are New Worlders. And this, she goes on to explain, is in the finest American tradition as described by de Tocqueville as our typically restless character. To Loh, this is an unalloyed good, even though de Tocqueville had a vastly more nuanced understanding of it.
Now I, or anyone with a college education, could write a book on all the ways that is just plain silly, but Loh actually tops it in her final section on what to do about it all. Without ever pausing to consider the possibility that what she's describing in her own life may be pretty closely confined to a narrow sliver of the population at the top of the food chain, Loh decides that (did you doubt it?) everything must be changed.
And here's how: if a woman is sexually unsatisfied by her husband, she should have two men, one to do the chores around the house and the other to do sexual service on the side, but whom the kids never see. If neither partner has much interest in sex, then they agree to just be companions. And that, according to Loh, covers the waterfront. If there are any other permutations of male/female intimacy, Loh doesn't let on about them. Really, I kid you not.
And kids? Loh says that from ages 1-5 (what happened to birth-to-one year old?) children should be raised "tribally" by a group of women. Men would come in periodically to do chores and provide sex. After age five or so, men would take over parenting.
I know; you think I'm making this up. You're thinking of all the hundreds of gaping holes in her arguments, the wholesale ignorance of basic facts, the final descent into utter fantasy. Well, I thought of that too and I tell you, it's too much to take on, so I won't even try. As every attorney knows, sometimes it's better to just shut up and let your opponent's argument fall of its own weight.
But consider two things. The same writer who ends with the advice "avoid marriage," began by admitting "I don't generally even enjoy men." Aye, there's the rub. I'll venture to say that it's just possible that a woman who doesn't like men may not be the best person to advise us on marriage issues.
And then there's the title of Loh's article, "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off." I wonder who decided on that. Did Loh? Or did an Atlantic editor? Whoever did, it's obviously a reference to the old Gershwin song. "Tomato, To-mah-to, Potato, Po-tah-to. Let's call the whole thing off." Those lines were meant to satirize people who were incapable of commitment. Something as trivial as differing pronunciations constituted an insuperable barrier to their continued relationships. It's a clever skewering of a certain mindset.
Not incidentally, that title says more about Loh and her desperate search for self-acceptance than the whole rest of her article.
"));
19 queries. 0.541 seconds.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Married for 20 years with two elementary school aged kids.
????
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
After seeing one of her other articles here, I read more of them in the Atlantic Monthly. The other articles are just as bizarre and warped as this one. I just figure she's a loony, and anybody else that I'll bee seen with in public will think so too. Let her howl at the moon all she wants.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Well, those that take advice from women like her - deserve the blessings that type of advice will bring to them. I fault men - those that ignore this and not involve it in their mate selection. While I understand the odds, it is really not an good enough reason to say "I didn't know back then". The misandric culture has given men enough quick tests to see where women lie (in all senses of the word). For instance, Sex and the City, any woman who watches the program and does not cringe is a big no-no! Any woman that likes it - is "Run for your life" type scary. Yet, I have found that men value punani more than their own future and freedom. I would like to fault women - even decent women, but they really are not at fault (apart from engaging in chivalrous exploitation) when it comes to men who associate with nasty women like this one.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Oh a woman getting divorced who makes more than her husband, and suddenly marriage is bad! Yeah I get it. Heads you win, tails I lose.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
It is articles like this that sometimes give me urge to stop being involved in debates over gender issues. Seriously. It seems that most of the discourse over gender issues is dictated by wealthy white women with far too much free time and far too much of some man's money -- their father's or their ex-husband's -- on their hands.
They have no ability to produce anything anybody wants or to provide a worthwhile service anybody needs, so they write. And they write badly. Their writing is usually crabbed yet inexplicably self-assured.
As for what they write -- well, their weird messages might resonate in the hallowed halls of New York-based magazines, which are designed to sell to the puny percentage of the population consisting of liberal white women who have too much free time and money, but for the rest of us -- almost the entire population -- their words not only don't resonate, they make no sense. By any objective measure, their vacuous compositions are not worth taking seriously, and the only sane response to their inanity is ridicule.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
I wonder how the article would have read if she knew she was going to be a non custodial parent. The kids are with dad and she has 1500 dolar a month CS judgement. I would like to read what she would have to say about justifying divorcing a good man.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
this article should show men that with a certain type of woman, you can be a "wonderful" (that is, perfectly trained) husband and father and it still doesn't count for much. she'll still dump you for the hope of an exciting bad boy who tickles her in the right spots. The "saffron-infused porcini risotto" cooked up by Mr. Chef doesn't keep 'em happy after all.
BTW, isn't her desire for two men, a stable, hard working father type and a sexy, romantic type exactly the thing that men get condemned for desiring? every middle aged man who cheats on his wife with a hot young babe is doing exactly what she's recommending.
"If high-revving women are sexually frustrated, let them have some sort of French arrangement where they have two men, the postfeminist model dad building shelves, cooking bouillabaise, and ignoring them in the home, and the occasional fun-loving boyfriend the kids never see."
how about my version:
"If high-revving men are sexually frustrated, let them have some sort of French arrangement where they have two women, the model mom cooking bouillabaise, keeping house and ignoring hubby in the home, and the occasional fun-loving girlfriend the kids never see."
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Her name is "Sandra", not "Sarah".
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I didnt read the article, but from the excerpts, if you changed some of the genders around, it almost sounds like a (chauvinistic) man speaking. Aren't the same ideas she's posing (having people come sexually service you.. maintaining an affair away from the marital home, shirking your childcare duties when you don't have anyone to do it for you) the same stuff that feminists (both old and new) were shrieking about for decades??
i've pretty much come to the conclusion that for the most part feminists dont want equality, or power, or money, specifically they want to BE MEN. Not the "new" metrosexual, sensitive, politically correct man of today, they want to be the beer drinking, farting, meat eating ALPHA male of yesteryear that they decry every chance they get. I honestly think the master plan is to weaken the mental state of men as much as possible so that they can assume that role and take over the earth.
*sigh* i wonder what they put in my coffee this morning, the sci-fi is leaking out :)
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Matt - Yikes! Thanks for the heads-up. Correction duly made.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
(Can you hear Mark Sanford or Eliot Spitzer saying that?)
Come on folks we know the drill by now. When a man cheats on a woman its because he is greedy and when a woman cheats on a man its becuase he was not doing what he was supposed to do as her husband.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
The article was one of the most pathetic attempts at self-justification I have ever ready, really. It's almost embarrassing to read it. I was tempted to feel badly for her, it was so embarrassing, but the reality of what she did to her family made me resist that temptation.
The more disturbing thing than Loh's views, however, was how she portrayed her similarly aged cohorts in LA. It was a peek into the mindset of the privileged upper middle class professional woman set and what they really think about men -- men are there to do things and provide sex when women want it, and that's that.
It also confirms something I learned in my own marriage. While women like to moan about housework, men who contribute a lot to housework not only do not get credit for doing that, but are often scorned by the women themselves for doing it. Loh herself refers to these men as "kitchen bitches". So much for helping around the house, honey.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
AlanB- when a man does such things, they are selfish and destructive.
When a woman does them- they are empowering.
I stopped caring long ago what women want or say they want and just do what I feel and think is right for me. I couldn't care less about being metrosexual or PC or the rest of that blather. And you know what? It's actually improved my social life and relationships with women. I don't waste time on self-absorbed nut jobs, and no longer waste my time trying to engage them in dialog. I wish them well well with their glasses of merlot, books, and cats. I think we all know how this ends, as we have seen it many many times.
So, my advice- which comes with a money-back guarantee, is to fire up the BBQ, grill a mess-o-ribs (or tofu burgers or whatever) while drinking as many beers (or whine spritzers or whatever) as you feel comfortable with, and enjoy life. Fart away!
Happy Independence Day to all, especially to our veterans.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Ah... Wait a minute....I thought that it's women who say that men couldn't commit to relationship? What do they want?
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Well, I'm sorry to hear this from Loh, because we have similar nerd backgrounds growing up in LA in the 60s and getting degrees in physics, and because in her past columns, she's had several bones to pick with feminism. I don't think she would call herself a feminist.
This however just says "Trophy Husband" all over it, and so yes, my thoughts are the same as regarding Trophy Wives.
There is a case to be made for alternate parenting arrangements when the kids are young. I know a few kids who grew up in a kibbutz and most of them seem very happy with that sort of explicitly socialistic experience. But as in Ricci, I think it's unfair to change the rules after the fact.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Loh's is a navel gazing, narcistic twit. If she has one redeeming quality it is that she at least tried to do a self examination rather than blame it all on her husband, although she does not exactly fall on the sword. Many women in Loh's position have the same self-centered ambivilance but need to still play the victim which is where a lot of the false abuse and dv charges come from.
Now that women are filing the vast majority of divorces (70-80%?) and there is less stigma attached to divorce that women can begin to accept and admit that they are more than just helpless victims. The way she wrote the article I can't tell if she is trying to educate her readers or justify her actions. It is an old story by now.
It sounds like her new love interest has taken some of her attention away from her kids so hopefully she will not suddenly get Jesus and want full custody or all the maritial assets. However, I would suggest Mr. Loh be on his guard. A lot of women wake up and suddenly realize that they blew it, not just in their relationships with their husband, lover, and kids but also in whatever financial and custody settlement that may pop up.
Filing for divorce is like taking the first punch in a fight. With no fault divorce, it never hurts and often can give the party filing a big head start. Quite often, the party filing has contemplated leaving for months or even years. Not only is that person in a better position financially or custody wise when they file but the are emotionally in a better spot then their soon to be ex. One exception to this is when she is the one having the divorce.
Lastly, some of the women I have heard about that have had affairs, seem to get this mid-life crisis. Many of them are in the 36 - 44 year old range and are aware that they are aging rapidly and need to dump their husbands now if they want a succesful second bite at the apple. Who ever Loh's new lover is, I would highly reccomend he not marry her. It sounds like she is more of a liability than an asset.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
FWIW, Reading the LA Times on the media column about her, the commenters there say for now that the husband got the house and the kids. We'll see what happens when it goes to court.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Loh is a graduate of Caltech.
Caltech!
The best and brightest of America come from that place.
What went wrong here Caltech?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
"I dont generally even enjoy men"
Well,someone who feels this way,not only has no business advising against marriage,she also has no business being at caltech--an institution created by men and where men predominate.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
What disturbs me most is the callous practicality of her notions. I often feel that more of the people I encounter are completely devoid of emotions, loyalty and moral turpitude. Although animated, they seem lifeless past anything to do directly with them "feeling good". I watch women and men all day long who do nothing other than what they were trained to do and think what they have been trained to think. I ask myself "are these people".
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“The author is ending her marriage. Isn’t it time you did the same?”
And then in the body of the article: “Just because marriage didn’t work for us doesn’t mean we don’t believe in the institution.”
Wow. Talk about a contradiction.
But here is what I really want to know; if she doesn’t enjoy the company of men, why did she go find a second man while still married to the first? And please don’t reiterate her lame excuse of “commitment to monogamy” coming unglued. That’s BS.
This whole thing has me burning. While men in the public life are being raked over the coals for cheating on their wives, this one wants everyone to feel sorry for her. Oh, poor pitiful me, married to a bore of a man. Well if it’s that bad, get out! If you are no longer in love with your husband, set him free so he can find someone who will love him the way he deserves and treat him with respect!
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
"Caltech! The best and brightest of America come from that place. What went wrong here Caltech?"
Er, I'm guessing you haven't actually met many Caltechies (intelligence is no guarantee of sense).
To anyone who needs cheering up over Loh's article, check out the Fark.com comment thread. It's worth it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I'm actually glad she wrote her column as it nicely documents (what we know): married women with good, loving, child caring, does the housework, non beating husbands do have affairs, and start them. Married women who claim to love their kids do abandon their kids.
I wonder if some of the backlash against her is because she is some more proof debunking the myths. It's not just Britney Spears and bad women, it's typical behavior of many women, and in that sense, once more we see that women are like men and should be treated like men, not like the frail oppressed creatures, victims of the patriarchy some claim.
As I said earlier, let's see what happens when this gets to court.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 am
The phrase that strikes me is "I don't generally even enjoy men".
You enjoy a good book, a good meal, a long soak in the bath, a trip to a foreign country. A thing. You LIKE (or don't like) people.
Similarly, her summary of what she contributed to the marriage:
Her only mentions of her husband are "I can drive my husband to the airport; in his absence, I can sort his mail".
All my life I've been battered over the head with the accusation that men treat women like objects. But my observation is that, while men spend their lives trying to please women, women treat men like they have no feelings, no needs, no point of view, only uses and duties. Which sex is treating which like an object?
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 am
"I'm actually glad she wrote her column as it nicely documents (what we know): married women with good, loving, child caring, does the housework, non beating husbands do have affairs, and start them"
Yes, but it's pretty unusual. The slut wife is like the cougar -- more fantasy than reality. The vast majority of women, if they have a decent relationship with their husband, will not cheat him. Even if the husband doesn't care and even if he wants them to cheat.
If you do a web search for "slut wife" or "cuckoldry," you will see there are a lot of men who really like the idea of having a wife or girlfriend who regularly cheats on them. Most of these men are unable to find such a partner.
"BTW, isn't her desire for two men, a stable, hard working father type and a sexy, romantic type exactly the thing that men get condemned for desiring"
Sure, but in my humble opinion, nobody should be condemned for having such a desire. In my opinion, society needs to be more tolerant of discreet male infidelity.
The trouble with female infidelity is twofold: First, it has the possibility of resulting in the husband being deemed the father of a child who is not his; Second, when a wife cheats, it's normally after she feels her relationship with her husband has failed and she is looking to replace him. As opposed to a husband who cheats, who is usually looking to supplement his relationship with his wife.
That said, if a man has a true slut wife, i.e. a woman who wants a relationship with him while also getting some occasional action on the side, I think he should try to tolerate it, but only if the woman is past her child bearing years.
I also agree that if a husband or wife has a workable marriage which is not satisfying, then he or she should try to wait until any children are somewhat mature until leaving.
My opinion only.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
[...] More… [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
As with most women that I have seen in the last thirty years, she is an expert at excusing her own behavior.
If her husband had done this she would be proclaiming her victimhood from the highest tree tops.
Typical double standard.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
"I dont generally even enjoy men"
No, but that woudn't stop you from using one for a nicer house and family until you decided to move on. Her poor husband.
If a man did this he would be considered a user,cheater,home wrecker,bastard, unfeeling,selfish prick.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
It sounds just like a woman; no ability to self-analyse. The amazing thing is that trash like this can get published. Oh, and to pick up on another issue, feminism has always been led by the upper middle class. Always, and I speculate ordinary women are thereby convinced they're entitled to that same lifestyle.
rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/user:Fall_down
July 4th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Who's read or tried to read the article? I found 4 pages to be extremely long winded. I could draft the divorce petition and custody agreement in less words than were used in her article. At the beginning she states: "I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise." SURPRISE, she chose to have an affair.
Reading how she dealt with counseling and "Opra's date night (which she didn't develop)" does not work if simple instructions are not followed. After reading the article what stuck out was (1) her predetermination not to save the marriage (2) her blame other than personal choice.
These choices, the kids are who really suffers long term. In law school, taking family law, we discussed how to possibly hold those accountable who make decisions negatively affecting their children. Adultery, in my state is illegal, but there is no punishment attached to the statute. So, I asked if the cheating parent could get charged with (1) child neglect (since while in the act, the adulterer is not acting in the best interest of their children) and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (the result of the act, divorce etc., has the potential to cause mental harm on the children). She said, although you don't hear of people taking such action, statutory wording would allow for such legal action. I'm interested to see if someone takes that route in the future.
July 4th, 2009 at 7:34 am
There is now a video clip of her talking about leaving. Apparently her husband neatly packed all of her things and left them out on the front lawn. Not a single mention of her children in the whole thing. She is on an adventure, and her flowery prose, champagne drinking, and decorating of her new teenage style bedroom all show she is attempting to have a second childhood. She will crash, likely when her ex-husband finds a really nice, mature woman who appreciates him. That is always when these women regret what they did...when someone else doesn't.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I read the article as it was posted on msn.com a few days ago.
Can you imagine if a man had written such myopic drivel, referring to devoted wives everywhere--who labour away each day with providing the entire family delicious meals-- as "kitchen b!tches"?!!
Now, if only more married men had a backbone like Loh's husband...
July 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Seriously?!
I can understand Loh's need for self-acceptance of her situation...fine. But what did she hope to accomplish by publicizing it? Sympathy? Empathy?
Wow.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Like many others, i too, read the (entire and too long for sure) article by Loh.
Like many others, i too, wondered what her point is.
What is it, really?
From everything she writes it seems like she and her women friends have husbands that every woman should be proud to have but, in spite of that, these women wants something more and most of it should be provided by dear old hubby.
It is as if the husbands are supposed to provide entertainment aside of all of the other functions.
Loh is bored with her sex life.
Whooopeee.
Is this Hubby's responsibility too?
What about working together on it?
Oh, no! Loh finds a lover and a divorce arrangement because "working on it" is just not in her cards.
It seems like Loh is telling us that, no matter how great her husband is/was, she is bound for eternal boredom.
What has she done to diminish this boredom (aside of discussing it with her women friends) is not really clear.
To make a long story short(er) - it seems to me that Loh had a deadline without much to write about - and that is the reason for the much ado (or adon't) about nothing.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
It is hard to believe that this was published by The Atlantic Monthly. It would be interesting to hear what feedback TAM received from this piece.
It saddens me to think that the brain-washing continues to feed the epidemic of proportions known as divorce in this country. I agree with Bey and others. In short, where is the integrity in this behaviour? How does this inspire or motivate anyone? Not I, for sure.
The end, as most who have experienced divorce, can attest to are hurt feelings, broken hearts, financial difficulty, a feeling of loss or incompleteness, depression, loneliness (especially for men from being forceablly disengaged from your children's lves), betrayal, etc.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Sandra used to have a weekly spot here in L.A. on KCRW (NPR) called "The Loh Life" it was quite funny; I believe she went on to a nationally broadcast science spoof-type spot on NPR. Anyway, my ex-wife and I both enjoyed her “Loh Life” musings; I took Ms. Loh to be more comedienne and satirist, than political or societal commentator; she made fun of things. We saw her perform live once, in a very intimate setting in Lancaster, CA. she was friendly and engaging; all this in about 2001/2002….Anyway, the sad part about this article (I did not read it) is not so much in what or how she has written what she has written, but that many people in our society place genuine stock in what an “artist” writes, says or does; our society is doomed when we look for guidance from our artists. Personally, I have never looked to Ms. Loh for spiritual, moral, or political direction. I agree with the commentator above who said, Sandra would be a quite different in her musings, if she were missing her kids and facing a big child support obligation every week.
All this said, maybe Sandra should maybe consider changing her commentary's title to “The Low Life”
July 12th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
[...] Sandra Tsing Loh Got Divorced - Therefore Marriage is Bad [...]