ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (01/20/86)
I'm posting to net.women only since this seems to be a woman's problem for the most part. Ann Thomas writes: > (The original article was about a mid-30's woman who was discovering > that a good career alone is not enough for happiness.) > > Many times I have wondered what I am giving up in terms of > friends/family in order to pursue a degree & career (hopefully) in > psychology. When I escape the ivory tower at age 27 or so, will I > have found that life has passed me by? What I so often find missing > in my life is love, and far too many of the people in my environment > "don't have the time" for "silly" things like relationships, long > talks, closeness etc., yet they complain about being lonely. Phone > conversations and e-mail with friends who are at a distance can > only do so much. > > As a woman, I feel that I face more difficulties in this area. One > is: are there any men out there who would "follow" me around for the > next 5 years until I complete my education? I had a long talk with > one of my professors about the nature of relationships in academia, > and he concluded, sadly, that women seem much more willing to "follow" > their (male) SOs, perhaps because men are expected to have "better" > careers than women. I know what it's like to leave an SO > behind when I return to college-- *very* painful; so far, college has > won out, but I don't know how many more times I am going to go through > breakups caused by "situational" factors. A major problem I see in this situation stems directly from society's assumption that women follow their men rather than the other way around. Thus, if a woman chooses a career, she must expect losses in other parts of her life (family, friends). The remarkable thing, as I see it, is that this is completely untrue of men. The men I grew up with assumed as a matter of course that they would have to put their careers first in order to achieve some degree of financial comfort which would in turn support their families. Some women, on the other hand, still have not really adjusted to the idea that they might want careers as well as (or perhaps more than) families. And certainly very few women *expect* that their careers will come first with their SOs, as many men still do. The last time I had a male SO, many conflicts arose from this. He attempted to pressure me to drop out of college to maintain my relationship with him and suggested that we support one another through college, alternating years (he worked as a systems analyst). My determination to return to school, and afterward to do some things I had promised myself (Peace Corps, travel, art) became a major bone of contention. He was willing to support me -- wasn't the opposite true? I say, NO! The opposite is NOT true, and for the same reason that I believe in affirmative action for minorities. Women have been discriminated against for too long for me to accept a 50-50 settlement from a man. The facts were that my SO was a white male with good prospects and a promising talent for computers. He could *always* find a good job. The same is not true for me, a minority woman with talents in the arts. I have enough trouble attempting to remain true to my gifts without supporting a white male as well. Pretty obnoxious, eh? Needless to say, we separated with some degree of rancor, though we are still friends. I got a call from him the other day; he asked whether I would perhaps be moving to the Bay Area in the near future, as he would enjoy living near me and seeing me on a more regular basis. He was quite disappointed when I said I intended to stay in Portland and do some things here for a while. I know no one in the Bay besides him, and I was supposed to drop everything after I graduated, forget about the roots I've put down here, because he thought I'd like San Francisco?! Ann appears to want (I hope I am not misinterpreting) a significant, long-term relationship at this point in her life. I do too; however, I think we differ as to degree, and her mobility will of course be a crucial factor. It's little comfort to say that someone will eventually come along who can deal with repeated relocation over at least the next 5 years; but I think there are many college graduates who are dealing with this problem. I certainly don't know where I'll be two years hence; I want to go to art school, to get my paramedic certificate, and to go to Latin America in the P.C., and who knows what will happen first? I think it's really vital to remember that the frustrations incurred by giving up your ambitions to support someone else may well outweigh the joys of having an SO around, but I don't know how true this is for all women, conditioned as we are. It probably seems selfish of me to flatly expect that any SO of mine, particularly any male, must allow me to do all these things I've planned for myself, but remember that men have expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be finding quality when I find one. Ellen -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (01/20/86)
From Ellen Eades (reed!ellen), in reply to Ann Thomas: >> (The original article was about a mid-30's woman who was discovering >> that a good career alone is not enough for happiness.) >> ... >> are there any men out there who would "follow" me around for the >> next 5 years until I complete my education? I had a long talk with >> one of my professors about the nature of relationships in academia, >> and he concluded, sadly, that women seem much more willing to "follow" >> their (male) SOs, perhaps because men are expected to have "better" >> careers than women. > >The last time I had a male SO, many conflicts arose from this. >He attempted to pressure me to drop out of college to maintain >my relationship with him and suggested that we support one >another through college, alternating years (he worked as a >systems analyst). My determination to return to school, and >afterward to do some things I had promised myself (Peace Corps, >travel, art) became a major bone of contention. He was willing >to support me -- wasn't the opposite true? > >I say, NO! The opposite is NOT true, and for the same reason >that I believe in affirmative action for minorities. Women have >been discriminated against for too long for me to accept a 50-50 >settlement from a man. The facts were that my SO was a white >male with good prospects and a promising talent for computers. >He could *always* find a good job. The same is not true for me, >a minority woman with talents in the arts. I have enough >trouble attempting to remain true to my gifts without supporting >a white male as well. Pretty obnoxious, eh? Hardly. I disagree with some of your reasoning, but I support your conclusion. For me, whether you're male/female, black/white, etc., is secondary; my question is, why should you have to make such a compromise in any case? If you are able and willing to support yourself through school, why should he be any different, and why should that be an absolute bar to romance? If he expected to be able to complete his education before he'd met you, why should he suddenly need your financial support (or you, his) because you're going together? It's a false dichotomy. Yes, it can be convenient for one half of a couple to work while the other matriculates, and can give them more time together, but it's not an absolute requirement, and neither boy friend nor husband has a right to demand it. >I got a call from him the other day; he asked whether >I would perhaps be moving to the Bay Area in the near future, as >he would enjoy living near me and seeing me on a more regular >basis. He was quite disappointed when I said I intended to stay >in Portland and do some things here for a while. I know no one >in the Bay besides him, and I was supposed to drop everything >after I graduated, forget about the roots I've put down here, >because he thought I'd like San Francisco?! Well, hey, it never hurts to ask. I'd guess he was hoping attraction to *him* would convince you to move, not attraction to SF. When a couple live in different cities, that's a real conflict. Even if society were in no way sexist, the conflicting goals remain. I suspect the expectation that women will follow their men is following the one-income household into history. When both halves of a couple are working, as is usually the case these days, it no longer makes sense that the family must always follow the husband's job. >It probably seems selfish of me to flatly expect that any SO of >mine, particularly any male, must allow me to do all these >things I've planned for myself, but remember that men have >expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to >turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough >to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. >If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be >finding quality when I find one. Well... maybe. I don't fault your intentions at all, and they don't strike me as selfish. You have the right to make of your life what you will, within the limits of your own talents. I certainly hope you find someone who will fit in with your plans; not impossible. But I still question the reasoning you present in support of your position. I apologize if I misinterpret, but when you speak of "turning the tables", you make it sound as though one of the reasons for your present plans is a desire to "win" in some sort of contest against men. If so, this seems less an escape from society's sexist attitudes, than a reaction to them that still pays homage to society's preconceptions of male/female roles. Anger at sexism is useful in pursuit of political goals, but it only gets in the way when making personal decisions like career vs. relationships. Being free of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it means being able to *ignore* them, to exorcise all their power to influence you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by the fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (01/21/86)
OK, hows this for success: I am about to graduate from OSU, with honors. A month later I am getting married to the man I have been engaged to for 3 years and living with for 2; we did not get married earlier because I would have lost the financial aid that made me able to pay for school. 2 months after that, I will leave for my first academic job. In China. For 11 months. He will be finishing his degree at OSU meanwhile. Not that we came to this decision without some trouble, but you don't get many chances to spend a year in China. This is a big chance for me, and not likely to come again, but he can't go now. So I'm enduring the raised eyebrows, and doing it. marr
features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) (01/22/86)
Kenn Barry (in response to Ellen Eades in response to Ann Muir Thomas) writes: > I suspect the expectation that women will follow their men is > following the one-income household into history. When both halves of a couple > are working, as is usually the case these days, it no longer makes sense that > the family must always follow the husband's job. ... >.... I apologize if I misinterpret, but when you speak of "turning the > tables", you make it sound as though one of the reasons for your present plans > is a desire to "win" in some sort of contest against men. If so, this seems > less an escape from society's sexist attitudes, than a reaction to them that > still pays homage to society's preconceptions of male/female roles. Anger at > sexism is useful in pursuit of political goals, but it only gets in the way > when making personal decisions like career vs. relationships. Being free > of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it > means being able to *ignore* them, to exorcise all their power to influence > you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only > the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete > indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by the > fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. It's all well and good for someone to say that women must transcend sexual stereotypes; that it's okay for women to push for equality in the workplace, but not at home; BUT my experience has been that indeed "the personal is political". By that I mean that one incident (maybe the beach harrassment) is negligible, especially if "it happened to just me". It's the pattern that determines the extent of true equality. It used to be acceptable to make sexist remarks in the workplace. Innuendos were labeled "just harmless jokes, and anyway, what's she so huffy about? I didn't mean her." That is now labeled sexual harrassment. If we'd all stayed in our corners, silently fuming, nothing would have been accomplished. It's because we got together and found out that our personal experiences were not limited to ourselves that we saw that the system, not us, needed change. To expect a double standard of the kind Kenn is proposing is just as sexist as denying women equal opportunity. There is no reason why women should be held to a higher moral standard than men. If we are truly equal, that means _e_q_u_a_l, not _s_e_p_a_r_a_t_e _b_u_t _d_i_f_f_e_r_e_n_t. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features *open to possibilities*
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (01/24/86)
In article <2785@ihuxf.UUCP> features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) writes: >Kenn Barry (in response to Ellen Eades in response to Ann Muir Thomas) >writes: > >>.... I apologize if I misinterpret, but when you speak of "turning the >>tables", you make it sound as though one of the reasons for your present plans >>is a desire to "win" in some sort of contest against men. If so, this seems >>less an escape from society's sexist attitudes, than a reaction to them that >>still pays homage to society's preconceptions of male/female roles. Anger at >>sexism is useful in pursuit of political goals, but it only gets in the way >>when making personal decisions like career vs. relationships. Being free >>of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it First of all, the word you want is "flaut", not "flaunt". A reaction against sexism in any context is always correct, because sexism is always wrong. Sexism is just as bad as racism. Would you say that, in a personal relationship, a black man should be subservient to a white man, even though black men are now not to be discriminated against professionally? Would you say that a black man should confine his anger at racism to the political arena, and not try to counteract racism when he encounters it at the drinking fountain, or on the bus, or when taking a white woman out on a date? He should just realize that it's a "personal decision", and that he should make the decision that doesn't get his own self beat up, huh? It is important that people defend their principles, not for their own happiness, but for the common good. We should work actively to stamp out sexism, even if it means making decisions which make us personally lonely or unhappy--just for the sake of helping destroy harmful stereotypes. Building a catwalk over a trash heap so a few people can "rise above it" doesn't clean up the trash, baby. What you are proposing is that women only take their own "happiness" into account when deciding between a career and a relationship, not their principles or deeply held beliefs. Such a decision is NOT a "personal" decision, it is a professional decision, because it directly involves the health of a career. It is also a political decision, because one person's actions and attitudes influence a LOT of people. And a LOT of people makes a constituency for political action. >>you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only >>the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete >>indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by the >> fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. Honey, I work my butt off every day to climb out of the sexist trash that's thrown at me, and I'll be damned if I just let that trash sit there for some other poor woman to walk through. Cheryl again
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/24/86)
In article <2341@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >It probably seems selfish of me to flatly expect that any SO of >mine, particularly any male, must allow me to do all these >things I've planned for myself, but remember that men have >expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to >turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough >to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. >If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be >finding quality when I find one. Or a wimp. -- This may not even represent *my* opinion. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (01/25/86)
In article <8653@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > In article <2341@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: > >It probably seems selfish of me to flatly expect that any SO of > >mine, particularly any male, must allow me to do all these > >things I've planned for myself, but remember that men have > >expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to > >turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough > >to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. > >If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be > >finding quality when I find one. > > Or a wimp. There are many cases in which a couple moves to the location of the wife's family, because the wife wants to be near her mother while raising children. I have seen men move the location of a wife's career several times - usually it has to do with which person is more established or which has more options. It has little to do with loss of love - if a person loves you, doesn't he want the best for you. I wouldn't call men "wimps" for moving to be in the location chosen by the wife - many men I know who did this are highly successful and even famous in their fields.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (01/27/86)
> > Kenn Barry: > > aMAZon: > > ....... Being free > > of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it > > means being able to *ignore* them, to exorcise all their power to influence > > you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only > > the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete > > indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by the > > fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. > > To expect a double standard of the kind Kenn is proposing is > just as sexist as denying women equal opportunity. There > is no reason why women should be held to a higher moral standard > than men. If we are truly equal, that means _e_q_u_a_l, not > _s_e_p_a_r_a_t_e _b_u_t _d_i_f_f_e_r_e_n_t. > I hear both of you, but in choosing "career vs relationship," the decision should turn on just how much the relationship is worth to oneself. If one commits oneself to lifetime with a partner, and a career decision conflicts with the goals of the partnership, I expect career will lose out. If such a committment is not present, well, this debate disappears, doesn't it? I think Kenn's point was: that committment should not be made (or not made) against some political standard of correctness. -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " M' kon' you kay lan Boidche`n-nan se' sil-la bel oye' " " Parimach, Nou Yok Taymz, konfidans Nouvelist-o "
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (01/27/86)
In article <8653@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <2341@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >>It probably seems selfish of me to flatly expect that any SO of >>mine, particularly any male, must allow me to do all these >>things I've planned for myself, but remember that men have >>expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to >>turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough >>to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. >>If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be >>finding quality when I find one. > >Or a wimp. >-- > This may not even represent *my* opinion. I sure hope not, because I'm gonna flame it (flame opinions, not people!) I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. I do *not* think that women should do this. It is beneath a woman's dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an harmonious domestic life. If a man wants a well-kept house, a nice dinner when he comes home from work, and his kids to be well looked after, then he can damn well do it all himself. Me, I'll eat out of the fridge (or just plain eat out), clean my house once a year (whether it needs it or not), and avoid the concept of progeny until I can afford a governess or something. Ellen isn't being selfish, she's being realistic. Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his woman. Cheryl
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (01/28/86)
Just a couple of followup points to my earlier article. When I wrote: >>Anger at >>sexism is useful in pursuit of political goals, but it only gets in the way >>when making personal decisions like career vs. relationships. ...at least 2 people took this to mean that feminist activism should restrict itself to clearly political issues like ERA or equal pay for equal work. Let me clarify: I consider it appropriate for women to combat sexist assumptions wherever they're found. In the sense I meant it, these would all be political goals, because the goal is to change society. What was being discussed, however, was personal decisions between career and other goals. Ellen Eades' article justified a decision to put education before romance on the basis that men had been pulling this for years. I couldn't see why the justification was necessary; the decision was Ellen's business. So I reasoned thus: suppose Ellen had really *wanted*, for whatever reason, to put that relationship before her education; wouldn't her inability to justify that decision in the light of her political beliefs cripple her ability to figure out what was really right for her? I feel it is more liberated to see that you don't *need* any justification for this kind of decision beyond "I want to". A little more on this theme, in response to Cheryl Stewart, who writes of these kinds of decisions: [...] It is also a political decision, because one person's actions and attitudes influence a LOT of people. And a LOT of people makes a constituency for political action. Political in that it can *have* such an influence, yes; but not in the sense that it *obligates* a woman to a particular choice. The decision is hers, and hers alone, to make on whatever basis she wishes. But if she makes it on the basis of wanting to be a "good example" to other women, I think she is as much caught in the trap of living for other people, as any stereotypical suburban housewife. I guess I see less harm in making your own mistakes, than in not making your own decisions. >>Being free >>of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it > First of all, the word you want is "flaut", not "flaunt". Uh, actually, it's "flout"; seems I put my foot in both our mouths - how unsanitary :-}. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (01/29/86)
In article <181@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) writes: > I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his > independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. > I do *not* think that women should do this. It is beneath a woman's > dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an > harmonious domestic life. >[...] > Ellen isn't being selfish, > she's being realistic. Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, > except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his > woman. > > Cheryl Okay, Cheryl, I give up -- what level of sarcasm should I attribute to those remarks? 100%? 50%? None? -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon
tim@oucs.UUCP (Tim Thompson) (01/29/86)
> I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his > independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. > I do *not* think that women should do this. It is beneath a woman's > dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an > harmonious domestic life. > Cheryl I am having a hard time believing the double standard that is exhibited on the part of this individual. You take the stance that it's okay for a male to live his life for a woman, but the inverse is not a possibility. In my own marriage, my wife and I try to share *everything* as equally as possible. We will be moving after I gradute this spring to who knows where, and we will be going there *together*. We discussed this in-depth *BEFORE* we got married, and if we could not have worked it out, we would not have got married. By the way, the reason we reached this decision is because my field of endeavor pays quite a bit more than her chosen field. However, if the opposite was true, I would have given up my career and followed her wherever she went. I guess that's what love is all about. Another small addendum: Once we move, my wife will try to find employment, not just sit around the house and be "domestic", as you put it. In a way, I feel sorry for you. I sincerely hope that someday you will find the love that my wife and I have. Maybe then some of you bitterness will be softened. -- Tim Thompson 414 Morton Hall Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 {bgsuvax,osu-eddie,cuuxb,cbdkc1,amc1,cbosgd}!oucs!tim Disclaimer: If the University finds out what I'm doing, they probably couldn't care less.
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (01/29/86)
In article <181@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: >I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his >independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. >I do *not* think that women should do this. ... Wow! Did I *really* read that? Cheryl Stewart, champion of justice, finds a *new definition* for sexual equality!! And no smiley either! --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "If you knew what I've seen with your eyes"
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) (01/29/86)
In article <181@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: >I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his >independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. >I do *not* think that women should do this. It is beneath a woman's >dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an >harmonious domestic life. Say what? No smiley face? Jeeeeez. Lotta rage, Harve! >Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, >except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his >woman. > No smiley face, again. Hmmm. Say... you wanna hear a joke? No - that's not funny! >Cheryl Reminds me of something I once heard some black comedian (Flip Wilson?) say - "After the revolution, some of US are gonna have to go, too." --MKR
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (01/30/86)
In article <51@oucs.UUCP> tim@oucs.UUCP (Tim Thompson) writes: > >In my own marriage, my wife and I try to share *everything* as equally as >possible. We will be moving after I gradute this spring to who knows where, >and we will be going there *together*. LOTS of people do THAT. >We discussed this in-depth *BEFORE* >we got married, and if we could not have worked it out, we would not have >got married. By the way, the reason we reached this decision is because >my field of endeavor pays quite a bit more than her chosen field.... he just happens to smugly mention. Who convinced her to major in basket weaving? Why don't you go punch him or her in the nose? Or was it you that encouraged her? Why don't you encourage her to go to law school or something? Why don't you teach her to program? Or are you just going to sit back and LET her stay in a weak position relative to you by staying in a field that's low-demand? Great, then when push comes to shove, you can remind her of how much money you make and how little she can make. Sounds like male dominance to me. Why did you pick someone like this anyway, Tim? Can't you handle anything stronger? >However, if the opposite was true, I would have given up my career and >followed her wherever she went. Right. You can smugly sit up there gloating over your conquest, the weak little girl who didn't major in the big-money field. You, twinkling down from Parnassus, can throw up your hands and say, "Well, dear, we just have to do what I want to do, because I have more money --- but, of course I would do the same for you." >I guess that's what love is all about. *sigh*! How wonderful! You get to pick the company you want to work for, the part of the country (or world, perhaps...how do I know how good you are?) you want to live in, and she gets to look for a job in a strange town. Think rationally, will you, man? >Another small addendum: Once we move, my wife will try to find employment, >not just sit around the house and be "domestic", as you put it. So, Tim, what does she do? What kind of work can she expect to find in anytown usa? Have you considered the repercussions it may have on your relationship if she wakes up one morning with the sneaking suspicion she's been had? It doesn't take long when >In a way, I feel sorry for you. I sincerely hope that someday you will >find the love that my wife and I have. I don't feel sorry for me. I feel sorry for a couple of naive kids who don't know what they're in for, who think they've "got it all worked out." That "someday" you refer to is in the past. >Maybe then some of you bitterness >will be softened. You've had a lot of practice condescending to women haven't you? Look, every hotshot undergrad in the country thinks he's going to bring his sweetie away with him and be the big married man, and in doing so, he is suddenly oh, so very wise and kind to his lady love by telling her he'll let her work, or he'll let her go to grad school. Every year another crop of them, lemmings all. There's just nothing you can say to them.
jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) (01/30/86)
>I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his >independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. >I do *not* think that women should do this. It is beneath a woman's >dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an >harmonious domestic life. If a man wants a well-kept house, a nice >dinner when he comes home from work, and his kids to be well looked >after, then he can damn well do it all himself. Me, I'll eat out >of the fridge (or just plain eat out), clean my house once a year >(whether it needs it or not), and avoid the concept of progeny until >I can afford a governess or something. Ellen isn't being selfish, >she's being realistic. Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, >except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his >woman. > >Cheryl I am in full agreement with Cheryl's first sentence, but I would be very interested to hear an elaboration on the rest. Not many people can have their cake and eat it too. If a woman expects a man to do all this for her, why can't a woman be considerate enough to do the same. You sure love to put women in a *selfish* category, don't you? Give a little, take a little. jlh
susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (02/01/86)
> > I sure hope not, because I'm gonna flame it (flame opinions, not people!) > I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his > independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. > I do *not* think that women should do this. It is beneath a woman's > dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an > harmonious domestic life. If a man wants a well-kept house, a nice > dinner when he comes home from work, and his kids to be well looked > after, then he can damn well do it all himself. Me, I'll eat out > of the fridge (or just plain eat out), clean my house once a year > (whether it needs it or not), and avoid the concept of progeny until > I can afford a governess or something. Ellen isn't being selfish, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > she's being realistic. Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, > except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his > woman. > > Cheryl And just who do you think is going to be a governess? A highschool kid? Or more traditionally an underpaid woman. If you don't want a family, fine. If you choose to have a family you are occasionally going to have to give up something. If you'd prefer to always have everything your way, please, please, avoid having children. Susan Finkelman {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!susan
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/01/86)
In article <181@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: >In article <8653@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >>In article <2341@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >>>expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to >>>turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough >>>to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. >>>If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be >>>finding quality when I find one. >> >>Or a wimp. > >I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his >independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. >I do *not* think that women should do this. Sounds like you don't want a relationship between equal partners. You want the traditional dominant/submissive relationship. As long as you're the dominant one, it's ok? >Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, >except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his >woman. I think there is something wrong with anyone who would accept the kind of relationship you and Ellen are advocating, whether male or female. However, you seem like too intelligent a person to expect people to believe what you have said. All this is obviously meant as sarcasm. As was my posting. -- If you are seen fixing something, you will be asked to fix it every time it breaks from then on. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
rgale@man.UUCP (Ryan Gale) (02/02/86)
I think the point is being missed. Ellen says >>If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be >>finding quality when I find one. Phil replies >Or a wimp. Phil isn't saying that a man fitting Ellen's description will necessarily be a wimp; he's saying that she will not necessarily have found Quality. Another possibility is that she will have found someone whose self-esteem (or actual ability) is so low that he will cling desperately to her in the hope that she will provide a better life for him than he'd be able to provide for himself. This man may or may not be a wimp, but I suspect Ellen would not describe him as quality. -- Ryan Gale {ihnp4, akgua, decvax} !sdcsvax!man!rgale
rgale@man.UUCP (Ryan Gale) (02/02/86)
In article <181@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) writes: > I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his > independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. > I do *not* think that women should do this. Don't tell me; let me guess -- a man who feels this way about women is being sexist, right? > It is beneath a woman's > dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an > harmonious domestic life. Luckily, men's dignity is sufficiently low that this would not be beneath theirs? Having said that, let me return to the Real World -- where I agree with you to a large extent. When I first moved in with my wife [after living together for over eight years, we finally decided 'what the hell'], she cooked and cleaned and the house was well cared for and she was thoroughly subservient -- as it should be, right? Just what every man dreams of, right? Wrong. Underneath the low esteem and politically-correct behavior was a gifted person who had learned, years before, to keep her mouth shut and not give offense. If I wanted a slave, I'd buy one. While it may have been ironic that a man was responsible for raising her consciousness, it was not altruistic. I now have a peer partner who is noticably superior to me in many ways, and is very interesting to be with. The house is a mess (I hate housework as much as she does), we fight/argue/discuss_loudly a lot more than we did then (when she thinks she's right, she *won't* back down!), and there's a good chance that we won't see our 10th anniversary because, as two independent people, we have pursued our individual visions -- which would not have happened had she remained a mere camp follower, trudging along with me. No, I'm not taking credit for her transformation -- she did that all by herself. I merely tried to show her that she could be something else, something better, and allowed sufficient space/security/nurturing that she could try. What she became is nothing that I would have specified, nothing that I *could* have specified. It's likely that I'll lose her as a direct result. But that's OK, too -- even as merely a friend, she will be much more important to me than would have been possible as a zombied housefrau. And I'm sure we'll stay friends, regardless. > Whether a man is a wimp or not is irrelevant, > except to other men. What really matters is what he does for his > woman. What he does for his woman can significantly affect what she does for him. It's a two-way street, after all. -- Ryan Gale {ihnp4, akgua, decvax} !sdcsvax!man!rgale
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/02/86)
In article <181@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > [with a little editing on my part] > >I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a woman to give up her >independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for her man. >I do *not* think that men should do this. It is beneath a man's >dignity to give up everything he stands for in the interests of an >harmonious domestic life. [...] > What really matters is what she does for her man. Pretty obnoxious, huh? And all I did was exchange genders. A sexist by any other name... Seriously, I think that Ellen is perfectly right, and not at all obnoxious, for insisting on choosing her home according to what is best for her career. And she doesn't need a load of questionable reasoning about past injustices to women to justify herself (past? what about present?). I think she's being a little hard on her friend - why shouldn't he be disappointed that she doesn't want to live in the same city? - but of course she shouldn't let that disappointment weaken her resolve. A systems analyst should be able to get a job in Portland with no trouble - if her presence is really that important to him, why doesn't he move here? Now I'm prying into where I really have no business, but you get the idea. Jeff Winslow
apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (02/02/86)
In article <191@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: > Look, every hotshot > undergrad in the country thinks he's going > to bring his sweetie away with him and be > the big married man, and in doing so, he > is suddenly oh, so very wise and kind to > his lady love by telling her he'll let her > work, or he'll let her go to grad school. > > Every year another crop of them, lemmings all. > There's just nothing you can say to them. At the risk of breaking with net tradition, I agree with cheryl. In all the (as-good-as-)married couples from my year in college, that's basically what happened. I don't think I like cheryl's definition of success (what's all this about affording nice gifts for your family, giving seminars, and getting paid to go to South America? Is that really what we all ought to be aiming for?), but the only women I'd call successful have been those who've put other goals ahead of their relationships with men. So, a question: If you take cheryl's postings as generalised statements, rather than referring to particular individuals, do you think they're right? That is, do you think her advice is sound, statistically speaking? ak "When in London, try the famous echo in the British Museum reading room." "On entering the subway, it is customary to shake hands with every passenger."
jamcmullan@watmath.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (02/03/86)
>By the way, the reason we reached this decision is because >my field of endeavor pays quite a bit more than her chosen field. >However, if the opposite was true, I would have given up my career and >followed her wherever she went. I guess that's what love is all about. The fact that a man gets paid more for his job than a woman partner is going to be true in 80%? 90%? more? of such partnerships. For me, that wouldn't be enough of a reason to uproot myself, anyway. I would not want to move very far away from my relatives and friends -- I like them and want to see them! Nor would I want to interrupt my own job just because my husband makes more than I do. Why shouldn't he keep looking for his wonderfully-paid work where we are now?? I guess reasons for following someone, for me, would be if they were somehow going to be VERY unhappy staying and I thought I would be only slightly unhappy following. This could include a career opportunity of some kind for him or it could be that he was in some obscure specialized field that could only be practised in a certain area. I would think long and hard about whether I was willing to make the sacrifice, though. "Love" may compensate for some things but a situation that goes on and on day after day can wear down feelings of love until you resent the loved one for the sacrifice you have made. If you have a good relationship, I think you should try to keep it good instead of subjecting it to daily strain. --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullan
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (02/03/86)
In article <1153@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes: >In article <191@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes: >> Look, every hotshot >> undergrad in the country thinks he's going >> to bring his sweetie away with him and be >> the big married man, and in doing so, he >> is suddenly oh, so very wise and kind to >> his lady love by telling her he'll let her >> work, or he'll let her go to grad school. >> >> Every year another crop of them, lemmings all. >> There's just nothing you can say to them. > > At the risk of breaking with net tradition, I agree with cheryl. In all >the (as-good-as-)married couples from my year in college, that's basically >what happened. ... >the only women I'd call successful have been those who've >put other goals ahead of their relationships with men. > So, a question: If you take cheryl's postings as generalised statements, >rather than referring to particular individuals, do you think they're right? >That is, do you think her advice is sound, statistically speaking? > ak Most of my disagreements with Cheryl's postings are when she applies the general to the particular. It is difficult to disagree with the statistics, I see examples every day. But, everyone thinks they are exceptions. I believe that most men who insist on 'taking care of their wife' do not think they are harming her. Women who follow their men anywhere are not looking at what will happen if the relationship ends. Why should it end, they have the love that creates legends. It is hard to force reality down the throats of people who have stars in their eyes. What really needs to happen is a new definition of 'caring'. If I care for someone then I wish them to be as strong and self-sufficient as possible. I care about what happens to them in the future, when I may not be around for one reason or another. -- +-------------------------------------------------------+ | General Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own and | | do not necessarily reflect the opinions | | of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. | +-------------------------------------------------------+ PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (02/05/86)
>> Cheryl > Ryan >> I think that it is beautiful and wonderful for a man to give up his >> independence, economic autonomy, career, and education for his woman. >> I do *not* think that women should do this. > Don't tell me; let me guess -- a man who feels this way about women is > being sexist, right? No. A man who feels this way about women recognizes that women are discriminated against and is willing to attempt to compensate for this in his personal life and the personal life of the woman he cares for. >> It is beneath a woman's >> dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an >> harmonious domestic life. > Luckily, men's dignity is sufficiently low that this would not be > beneath theirs? Given the things some men argue about in this newsgroup, I might agree :-) but again no, *some* *rare* *men's* self-esteem is high enough that they can do this without feeling that they have made an intolerable sacrifice on behalf of the struggle for equality. Honest, it can be done. I know of ONE person who is doing it. > Having said that, let me return to the Real World -- where I agree > with you to a large extent. > When I first moved in with my wife...she was thoroughly subservient... > Underneath the low esteem and politically-correct behavior > was a gifted person who had > learned, years before, to keep her mouth shut and not give offense. > While it may have been ironic that a man was responsible > for raising her consciousness, it was not altruistic. > ... I now have a peer partner who is noticably superior to > me in many ways, and is very interesting to be with. > ... there's a good chance that we won't see our 10th > anniversary because, as two independent people, we have pursued > our individual visions -- which would not have happened > had she remained a mere camp follower, trudging along with me. > ... What she became is > nothing that I would have specified, nothing that I *could* have > specified. It's likely that I'll lose her as a direct result. > But that's OK, too -- even as merely a friend, she will be > much more important to me than would have been possible as a > zombied housefrau. And I'm sure we'll stay friends, regardless. I have several reactions to this article. The first is that I hope Ryan remembers that he is probably not the only influence upon his wife's changing consciousness, however altruistic his intentions. A woman who becomes liberated because her husband wants a thinking "peer partner" is still quite dependent on him for approval. However, I am not saying this is the case. I am glad Ryan is willing to part ways with his wife if that is how things work out. I find his attitude most refreshing. I hope that a solution can be worked out which benefits you both, and your emphasis on "staying friends" makes me sure of it. About four years ago (gods! has it been that long?) I was the woman in a similar situation. I'm glad that there are those who don't see marriage (or living together) as the be-all and end-all of a relationship between two people. Ellen -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/05/86)
In article <470@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.UUCP writes: >> A reaction against sexism in any context is always correct, >> because sexism is always wrong. Sexism is just as bad as >> racism. Would you say that, in a personal relationship, >> a black man should be subservient to a white man, even >> though black men are now not to be discriminated against >> professionally? Would you say that a black man should confine >> his anger at racism to the political arena, and not try >> to counteract racism when he encounters it at the drinking >> fountain, or on the bus, or when taking a white woman out >> on a date? He should just realize that it's a "personal >> decision", and that he should make the decision that doesn't >> get his own self beat up, huh? > >Are you saying that a black *person* should continue to eat at a previously >segregated restaurant even though the food is terrible and not even the >kind that the person likes? A previously segregated restaurant would make sure to serve bad food to a black *person*, just to make him or her go away, the same way *men* knowingly and purposefully make work unpleasant for women who competete with them. It's VERY necessary for the black *person* to not only eat at the restaurant, but send the food back when it's bad, and bring in as many of his or her black friends as possible, for the sake of counteracting racism. They should also not give the proprieter any good reason to throw them out. > >That is the kind of statement you *seem* to be making in regard to reacting >against sexism. Am I confused? No, you're not confused at all. > >> It is important that people defend their principles, >> not for their own happiness, but for the common good. >> We should work actively to stamp out sexism, even if >> it means making decisions which make us personally lonely >> or unhappy--just for the sake of helping destroy harmful >> stereotypes. > >This seems a strong dose of nobility! > >> What you are proposing is that women only take their own >> "happiness" into account when deciding between a career and >> a relationship, not their principles or deeply held >> beliefs. > >I didn't get that at all from that article. The point that I thought was >being made was that one shouldn't *automatically* allow society's stupid >expectations *force* you to do *either* what they expect *or* what they >don't expect. Do what *you* think is right under the circumstances at >hand. > >> Such a decision is NOT a "personal" decision, > >Of course it is, along with being, as you point out, a professional and a >political decision. What objection have you to considering all three and >then making a decision based on what *you* want regardless of sexist or >racist or generic-ist expectations either way? My objection is that women are constantly told that their decision between a relationship and a career is a "personal" one only. Men are constantly pushing women in subtle and overt ways to make decisions which reinforce male dominance in the political & professional arenas. They hold out candy like "happiness" to "help" women make decisions which reinforce male dominance in the political & professional world. They say, "oh, well, whatever makes you HAPPY, dear," and then when they start experiencing job-related stress, the men say "oh, well, if you're not HAPPY, you don't have to work, you know..." rather than teaching them how to be more effective people. Men treat women like self-indulgent children, and as a result (myself included) women tend to remain self-indulgent children. > >> it is a professional decision, because it directly involves >> the health of a career. It is also a political decision, >> because one person's actions and attitudes influence a >> LOT of people. And a LOT of people makes a constituency >> for political action. >> >>>>you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only >>>>the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete > ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >>>>indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by >>>>the fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. > >> Honey, I work my butt off every day to climb out >> of the sexist trash that's thrown at me, and I'll >> be damned if I just let that trash sit there for >> some other poor woman to walk through. > >That, of course, is your choice. That is the point. I assume that you >made this choice for *your* reasons. Why not allow others that priviledge? >Why try to make others feel guilty if their choice is different from >yours? Oh, come on. Why does a reverend try to make his congregation feel guilty when they don't contribute to the church coffer? Why did Malcolm X make the distinction between "house niggers" and "field niggers"? They can make their choices, but if they're not part of the solution, they're part of the problem. And I'm quite free to regard them as such. Cheryl
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (02/06/86)
In article <370@madvax.UUCP> susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: >> (whether it needs it or not), and avoid the concept of progeny until >> I can afford a governess or something. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Cheryl > >And just who do you think is going to be a governess? A highschool kid? >Or more traditionally an underpaid woman. A friend of mine used to be a governess (actually a nanny -- governess implies a professional teaching function rather than babysitting and light housework). As I recall, she was paid rather well. $400/month plus full room and board (in luxurious surroundings) was doing pretty well in the late 60's. She had more disposable cash than I did, at the time and I was making a pretty decent living myself. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/06/86)
> Oh, come on. Why does a reverend try to make his > congregation feel guilty when they don't contribute > to the church coffer? Why did Malcolm X make the > distinction between "house niggers" and "field niggers"? > They can make their choices, but if they're not > part of the solution, they're part of the problem. And > I'm quite free to regard them as such. > >Cheryl You're free to believe any sort of horseshit you wish. But it may get to the point where most people are *happy* to be attacked by you, because it makes them more sure they are right. Sort of like a guy many of us know who Arndt here any more. Jeff Winslow
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (02/07/86)
> In article <470@lanl.ARPA> crs@lanl.UUCP writes: > >Are you saying that a black *person* should continue to eat at a previously > >segregated restaurant even though the food is terrible and not even the > >kind that the person likes? Cheryl: > > A previously segregated restaurant would make > sure to serve bad food to a black *person*, just > to make him or her go away, Uh huh, sure. All restaurant managers are alike -- everyone knows that. > [...] the same way *men* > knowingly and purposefully make work unpleasant > for women who competete with them. It's VERY > necessary for the black *person* to not only > eat at the restaurant, but send the food back > when it's bad, and bring in as many of his or > her black friends as possible, for the sake > of counteracting racism. ...Thus taking their patronage away from restaurants that were *NEVER* segregated. Uh huh, sure. > Men treat women like self-indulgent > children, and as a result (myself included) women tend to > remain self-indulgent children. Gee, Cheryl, have you ever had a problem that wasn't caused by men? -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon Thought for the day: "Kill moose and squirrel!"
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (02/07/86)
Cheryl; >>> It is beneath a woman's >>> dignity to give up everything she stands for in the interests of an >>> harmonious domestic life. Ryan; >> Luckily, men's dignity is sufficiently low that this would not be >> beneath theirs? Ellen; >Given the things some men argue about in this newsgroup, I might >agree :-) but again no, *some* *rare* *men's* self-esteem is >high enough that they can do this without feeling that they have >made an intolerable sacrifice on behalf of the struggle for >equality. Honest, it can be done. I know of ONE person who is >doing it. > This does sound nice but isn't it patronizing? I still like Jim Dyer's statement that *anything* done on account of gender is sexist. I agree with Cheryl that it is beneath a woman's dignity to give up *everything* in the interest of an harmonius domestic life. I think it also beneath a man's dignity to do so. People involved in partnerships should share whatever sacrifices are necessary to insure the health of the partnership. To do otherwise is either patronizing and/or sexist. This does not mean that everyone need be involved in a partnership. Another point; could it be, Ellen, that the ONE person you know has not in reality made any huge sacrifices? How much do we ever know about the workings of another's relationship? The whole question of sacrifices is a blurry one. My personal philosphy states that few (so few as to not matter) of us are capable of altruistic action. Everything we do is for ourselves although how it benefits us is not always apparent to us or others. I could go on and on about this point but won't now, it could be boring. Peter B ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!tron
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (02/18/86)
cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () says: > > Who convinced her to major in basket weaving? > Why don't you go punch him or her in the nose? > Or was it you that encouraged her? > Why don't you encourage her to go to law school > or something? Why don't you teach her to program? > > Or are you just going to sit back and LET her > stay in a weak position relative to you > by staying in a field that's low-demand? > And a lot of other crap that I'm not going to include here! GOD, Woman! Get off your soapbox. Let me give _you_ a couple of "facts" here. 1. Life is difficult. DAMNED Difficult!!! No one said it was going to be easy. No one said it was even going to be fun. 2. You are what you make of yourself. Nobody forces you to do anything you don't want to do. You make your own choices. 3. And in a similar vein--You can't force your choices on anyone else. 4. The be-all and end-all of this world is not how much money you can make. And guess what? When you turn 65 chances are very good that the glorious career you have chosen for yourself might just disappear in a puff of smoke called "retirement." If all you ever had was your career, then for you life ends at 65--you know why? Because you sacrificed everything of real worth in this world to your "career." And what can it do for you now? Maybe provide you with lots of money to sit around and look at. Wow. I'd rather have lots of grandchildren to play with and lots of love to look at. Lady, when will you realize that there are many ways to life? Yours is not the only way to go, believe me. And I am willing to bet it's by far not the happiest or the most productive. Let people be. Let them make their own mistakes and learn from those mistakes. Don't coerce them into making mistakes they hadn't even thought about yet. Don't try pounding square pegs into round holes. If a woman (or man for that matter) wants to choose to be a teacher (for the sake of argument), a relatively low paying job. Let her make that choice. Maybe she just loves children. Maybe she just loves teaching. Maybe she just loves learning. And sure, maybe in 10 years she will change her mind. But that's her perogative. Let people make their own decisions and don't assume that they are being coerced into these decisions. Virtually NOBODY is forced into something they don't want to do. Now I sound like I'm on a soapbox. I guess it's time to get down. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry