fuji@ssc-bee.UUCP (08/03/86)
[...]
Anyone catch the report on _Nightline_ the other night about the now
infamous Yale (or Harvard, I forget which) *unpublished* study that
stated that single women, 35 years and older have less than a 5% chance
of getting married, etc, etc.? We are all now very familiar with this
study since it has been bandied about in the news for awhile....I just
wanted to discuss a couple of points that I picked up in the discussion
on the program....
1. "Alot of men are confused about the 'roles' they are supposed to play."
i.e., Men were supposed to be macho a few years back, then they were
supposed to be sensitive Phil Donahue types. They were supposed to open
doors for females, then they weren't. What do women want nowadays anyway?
I've run into a few problems related to this area on dates; whenever I
don't know or feel uncertain, I just ask. Of course the key here is to
just be yourself and not worry about how you're *supposed* to act.
2. The "Superwoman" myth. Interesting. I guess I never paid much attention
before, but with the onset of feminism and women's lib alot of todays
females were led to believe that they should have a good job, a husband and
a family and excel in all of them. The view stated on the program: an
admirable goal but realistically not possible.
3. A couple of the female columnists stated that they thought one reason that
alot of the more successful women had a hard time getting married was because
they became very picky as to who would be an acceptable mate, i.e. the
prospective husband didn't have an equal or better job/position/status
and didn't make the same or more money. They also pointed out that peer
pressure also could have an effect: having well-meaning friends say,
"*That* guy isn't good enough for you". (because of his job, status, etc.)
Hearing this *really* bothered me. I would hope that most women did not
think this way.
One very interesting point was brought out: everyone is asking what's wrong
with women etc., but no one is asking what's wrong with *guys*! Pretty valid
since there are guys who don't want to get married and have kids (for example).
Also, no one frowns upon males who choose to be bachelors but women who choose
to remain single are labeled old maids.
Maybe alot of guys are too picky as far as choosing mates. I personally would
not be intimidated by a woman who made more money, was smarter, etc. because
that kind of stuff should not enter a relationship anyway, i.e., you like or
love someone for what they are, what they believe in--their morals and
convictions, not because they have a status job or gobs of money. I look at
alot of things in a woman: looks, personality, humor, beliefs, intelligence...
but there is another important thing: she/he has to be your friend. Think of
how we choose our friends. We choose friends because we can do fun things
together, because we can discuss our problems, because we can have someone to
bitch to and someone to confide in; we avoid people who are know-it-alls, who
are rude and inconsiderate, and who are undependable. Qualities that make a
good friend (or lover or mate) are independent of job, status, and wealth. The
problem, of course, is finding that person (or those persons). What I've found
is that we just have to take chances and keep meeting new people and
*interacting*. Sometimes it just takes being the first one to say hi.
Well, enough of this for now; just wanted to throw out a few things for
discussion.
_Glenmoiram@tekgen.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (08/04/86)
In article <586@ssc-bee.UUCP> fuji@ssc-bee.UUCP (Glen T Fujimori) writes: >2. The "Superwoman" myth. Interesting. I guess I never paid much attention > before, but with the onset of feminism and women's lib alot of todays > females were led to believe that they should have a good job, a husband and > a family and excel in all of them. The view stated on the program: an > admirable goal but realistically not possible. This definition of the "Superwoman" myth is not quite accurate, as I see it. Aspiring to "Superwoman" is to want to not only excel in my career, but to want to excel in the role of homemaker on the same terms my mother did. This is unrealistic. However, it is completely realistic to expect to excell in a career, and have a good family life as well (Men have expected it for hundreds of years!). Among my acquaintances, the women who have succeeded in "having it all" are among the healthiest physically and mentally, because they have realized they can't "DO" it all. I think many women are attached to the homemaking because that is traditionally where we have had our power. And thats where the hard choices come. Are our standards too high? Personally, I'm a pretty casual housekeeper (as is my mother). I tend to let the clutter collect in the living room for two or three days and then make one clean sweep of it. As ridiculous as it seems at the age of 35, I still find myself apologizing when my mother drops by and its Day 3, and there are books and newspapers and projects stacked....why? As long as there's a place to sit, *she* doesn't care. Just old patterns... and these are the kind of patterns that we use to burn ourselves out in the quest of being "Superwoman". Moira
mink@cfa.UUCP (Doug Mink) (08/05/86)
> [...] > > 3. A couple of the female columnists stated that they thought one reason that > alot of the more successful women had a hard time getting married was because > they became very picky as to who would be an acceptable mate, i.e. the > prospective husband didn't have an equal or better job/position/status > and didn't make the same or more money. They also pointed out that peer > pressure also could have an effect: having well-meaning friends say, > "*That* guy isn't good enough for you". (because of his job, status, etc.) > Hearing this *really* bothered me. I would hope that most women did not > think this way. I've had just this problem in the recent past. For most of last year, my SO was an investment banker in New York who made more than twice what aging hippy astronomers make, and it became an issue in our relationship. We had been friends for several years (and remain so; I talked for almost an hour with her last night), but when it came to discussing how we would live together, the money issue really separated us. She also didn't think she could explain my long hair to her business associates, though this surfaced later. The problem is that people who make different amounts of money usually have different lifestyles. I couldn't afford to dine out frequently in Manhattan or vacation in Rio; she could, to cite two representative examples. It also entered into discussions of how we would raise kids and where we would live and whether I should keep my very satisfying and flexible, but relatively low-paying job. The point of this is to say that economics is a real part of a relationship, a part of what a person is, whether you may want it to be that way or not. Another real part of it is that a woman's career, in business and to a lesser extent in academia, is put on hold during child-bearing to a degree that can be lessened by the infusion of significant amounts of money into child-care and other support systems (at least that's the conclusion our discussions led to). Finding a MOTAS whose expectations are congruent to one's own is just plain tougher in a world where the allowable expectations fill more dimensions than in the Good Old Days. -Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink mink%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (08/06/86)
In article <586@ssc-bee.UUCP> fuji@ssc-bee.UUCP (Glen T Fujimori) writes: > >Anyone catch the report on _Nightline_ the other night about the now >infamous Yale (or Harvard, I forget which) *unpublished* study that >stated that single women, 35 years and older have less than a 5% chance >of getting married, etc, etc.? I know this has been talked about before, but if this statistic is true it seems manifestly unfair. I think there's a good chance a given single woman of that age has a lot more to offer than she did, for instance, 15 years earlier, in the area of maturity, stability, career choice, etc. If a given woman in this age group doesn't *want* to get married that's different of course, but if they're looking and the guys aren't responding, everyone loses. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."