toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (11/11/85)
[] I have just finished reading "Otherwise Engaged: the private lives of successful career women" by Srully Blotnick. This book reports the results of a 25-year study of the lives of over 2000 women. It touches on a lot of topics which have been debated in net.women. The assertions made in the book are based on evidence, not just opinion, and many of them run counter to the general tenor of postings to this newsgroup. A primary assertion is that when there is a conflict between marriage and career, those women who favor their marriage will do better in the long run that those women who favor their career. Women who sacrifice marriage for a career tend to be seen by those around them (men and women) as driven, brittle, and moody. Another assertion is that women who identify men as the enemy are making a serious error. They redirect anger with the attitudes of blue-collar men at the white-collar men who they work with and live with. This anger has a negative effect on careers and marriages. Do you women find that the findings in this book match your observations and experiences? Tom Long
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (11/12/85)
In article <632@oliveb.UUCP> toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) writes: >[] > I have just finished reading "Otherwise Engaged: the private lives of >successful career women" by Srully Blotnick. This book reports the results >of a 25-year study of the lives of over 2000 women. It touches on a lot of >topics which have been debated in net.women. The assertions made in the book >are based on evidence, not just opinion, and many of them run counter to the >general tenor of postings to this newsgroup. > > A primary assertion is that when there is a conflict between marriage >and career, those women who favor their marriage will do better in the long >run that those women who favor their career. Women who sacrifice marriage >for a career tend to be seen by those around them (men and women) as driven, >brittle, and moody. I have not seen the book and would like some clarification. What area of life is better in the long run? I think that when there is a conflict between career and home life then attention needs to be paid to the home life. But, attention also needs to be paid to career goals. Conflicts are not resolved by consistently sacrificing one side for the other. They are just delayed. Since the book was about successful career women, did it look at women who had sacrificed careers for marriage and as a result were not successful in their career? A woman who wants to have a career and a marriage needs to have a spouse who supports her career. I suspect that women who have successful careers and marriages have been willing to discuss and compromise in both areas. > Another assertion is that women who identify men as the enemy are >making a serious error. They redirect anger with the attitudes of blue-collar >men at the white-collar men who they work with and live with. This anger >has a negative effect on careers and marriages. Identifying anyone as an enemy is a serious error. Currently most of the competition is male. Since I cannot predict who I will need to be able to work with in the future I see no value in needlessly antaganizing anyone. PKW -- PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur +---------------------------------------+ | The thrill is not just in the winning | | But in the courage to join the race | +---------------------------------------+
toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (11/13/85)
[] I posted the original article on "Otherwise Engaged", by Srully Blotnick. I have often heard it said, "Behind every successful man stands a woman". I believe that this must at least in general be true. Among the benefits of a happy marriage is that the man carries a certain amount of flexibility and good-naturedness and level-headedness to work with him. I think one can sum up the experiences reported in the book by applying the same phrase in the opposite direction: "Behind every successful woman stands a man". The women in the study who (when confronted with conflicts between career and marriage) chose to sacrifice their career progress in favor of the marriage were more successful in their *careers* in the long run, and on average. I expect there must have been some who should have made the choices in favor of careers and didn't, but I don't recall reading about them. It seems likely that the same thing will be true for men (they're in his next book). Tom Long
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (11/14/85)
Does anyone disagree with the idea that the system can be restructured (and within our lifetime, too!) so that people won't have to choose between career and family any more? For example: two couples with children could live near each other or in the same dwelling and arrange their work sched- ules so that there is always a parent available. Egads! It sounds like a reinvention of the extended family (sans older members). Then just toss out the notion that a dedicated employee must be willing to move anywhere for the good of the company, and a large part of the problem is solved. The case where one spouse (parent or not) wants to move and the other cannot is tougher. Does anyone have some ideas for changes to accepted practice that would smooth this out? Certainly for those occupations that can work over the phone the solution can be simple, but what about the rest? Travel allowances? "Hire me, hire my spouse"? Maybe we can convince the gummint to forcibly decentralize industry for nuclear deterrence. Then any job you want can be found within a one-hour commuting distance! ?-) _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (11/14/85)
In article <632@oliveb.UUCP> toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) writes: >[] > I have just finished reading "Otherwise Engaged: the private lives of >successful career women" by Srully Blotnick. This book reports the results >of a 25-year study of the lives of over 2000 women.... > A primary assertion is that when there is a conflict between marriage >and career, those women who favor their marriage will do better in the long >run that those women who favor their career. What do you (who may or may not have aptly summarized the findings of this study) mean by "do better in the long run" ? Make more money? Have better sex? "Be Happy" ? Have a nicer house? More friends? Evince more intellectual integrity? Carry out their principles? Save the world, feed the starving and clothe the naked? Go boldly where no man has gone before? If you were writing your summary for a class that I teach, I would put in the margin of your second paragraph one of my favorite comments: "Be Specific!" -- with a great big red "B" followed by a great big red "S". > Women who sacrifice marriage >for a career tend to be seen by those around them (men and women) as driven, >brittle, and moody. So? After a lifetime of service to humankind, they're going to say at that woman's funeral .. " oh, she was bitter and moody". Cheryl .
cheryl@lasspvax.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (11/14/85)
In article <633@oliveb.UUCP> toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) writes: >[] > I have often heard it said, "Behind every successful man stands >a woman". I believe that this must at least in general be true. Among >the benefits of a happy marriage is that the man carries a certain amount >of flexibility and good-naturedness and level-headedness to work with him. By a man's flexibility in a "happy marriage" you must mean that the wifey follows him wherever his career takes him, rather than having any dedication to any career of her own. > I think one can sum up the experiences reported in the book by >applying the same phrase in the opposite direction: "Behind every successful >woman stands a man". Right. Mine irons my shirts for me every morning. Takes the kids to school. Vaccuums the stairs. Throws lovely parties. Is even willing to go back to work for awhile, if I decide to go back to school. > The women in the study who (when confronted with conflicts between >career and marriage) chose to sacrifice their career progress in favor of >the marriage were more successful in their *careers* in the long run, and >on average. That's what they all say. If you made a decision like that (to sacrifice career for marraige), you'd feel obligated to defend the validity of that decision, too. How do they measure success, hmm? Cheryl
toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (11/20/85)
> In article <632@oliveb.UUCP> toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) writes: > >[] > > I have just finished reading "Otherwise Engaged: the private lives of > >successful career women" by Srully Blotnick. This book reports the results > >of a 25-year study of the lives of over 2000 women.... > > A primary assertion is that when there is a conflict between marriage > >and career, those women who favor their marriage will do better in the long > >run that those women who favor their career. > > What do you (who may or may not have aptly summarized the findings of this > study) mean by "do better in the long run" ? Make more money? Have > better sex? "Be Happy" ? Have a nicer house? More friends? Evince more > intellectual integrity? Carry out their principles? Save the world, feed > the starving and clothe the naked? Go boldly where no man has gone before? > > > Women who sacrifice marriage > >for a career tend to be seen by those around them (men and women) as driven, > >brittle, and moody. > > So? After a lifetime of service to humankind, they're going to > say at that woman's funeral .. > > " oh, she was bitter and moody". > > Cheryl The book doesn't define success, and I don't claim to have the defini- tive definition (!), but I will sketch a distinction that anyone can make. A successful person is one who is happy with his life, who looks forward to going to work in the morning, who gets along well with his colleagues. An unsuccessful person is one who fails all three criteria. So far as the book is concerned, and in my own experience, people usually test positive for all three or negative for all three; few are successful in one sense and failures in another. The book implies that a reasonably high salary is also a criterion of success for intelligent, well-educated working women. A person who has been driven, brittle, and moody can hardly be described as serving mankind, unless he is doing a job which he alone can do, and a job which he can do by himself. Tom Long
toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (11/20/85)
> In article <633@oliveb.UUCP> toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) writes: > >[] > > I have often heard it said, "Behind every successful man stands > >a woman". I believe that this must at least in general be true. Among > >the benefits of a happy marriage is that the man carries a certain amount > >of flexibility and good-naturedness and level-headedness to work with him. > > By a man's flexibility in a "happy marriage" you must mean that the > wifey follows him wherever his career takes him, rather than having > any dedication to any career of her own. > > > I think one can sum up the experiences reported in the book by > >applying the same phrase in the opposite direction: "Behind every successful > >woman stands a man". > > Right. Mine irons my shirts for me every morning. Takes the kids to school. > Vaccuums the stairs. Throws lovely parties. Is even willing to go back > to work for awhile, if I decide to go back to school. > > > The women in the study who (when confronted with conflicts between > >career and marriage) chose to sacrifice their career progress in favor of > >the marriage were more successful in their *careers* in the long run, and > >on average. > > That's what they all say. If you made a decision like that (to sacrifice > career for marraige), you'd feel obligated to defend the validity of that > decision, too. How do they measure success, hmm? > > Cheryl The book we are referring to results from interviews with thousands of women and their husbands, friends, and colleagues, over a period of about 25 years. The women interviewed tended to fall into two classes: happy and bitter. Their associates agreed that the happy ones were successful and the bitter ones were failures, no matter how the subjects themselves chose to measure success. What I meant by a man's "flexibility" stemming from a happy marriage is that he can take disappointments at work and frustrations with life's nasty surprises in stride. I imagine that all of us can tolerate a certain amount of unpleasantness without becoming unpleasant ourselves; a happy marriage restores our flexibility each time we go home. (I believe the same thing is true for children. Children who live in a happy home carry a lot more flexibility to school with them, and into their eventual marriage, than children who live in an unhappy home.) In the particular case where a man's career requires moving and wifey wants to stay put, "flexibility" might mean staying in the same town, and it might mean taking a job with a different company. Tom Long
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (11/29/85)
> > In article <632@oliveb.UUCP> toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) writes: > > >[] > > > I have just finished reading "Otherwise Engaged: the private lives of > > >successful career women" by Srully Blotnick. This book reports the results > > >of a 25-year study of the lives of over 2000 women.... > > > A primary assertion is that when there is a conflict between marriage > > >and career, those women who favor their marriage will do better in the long > > >run that those women who favor their career. > > > > What do you (who may or may not have aptly summarized the findings of this > > study) mean by "do better in the long run" ? > > > > Cheryl > > I think the critical questions are: What is the book's definition of "doing well"? Under this definition, do men who favor their marriages over their careers do better than men who favor their careers over their marriages? If so, then why? If not, then why does Srully Blotnick present the findings as if they applied only to women? And if the study was not applied to men, so that the comparative data isn't available, then why wasn't it done, and why does the book not say so, implying that a difference between men and women has been found when the author doesn't really know? Another critical question: is it even possible to measure such things as success and happiness? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff