rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (09/22/86)
In article <708@nrcvax.UUCP> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: >jeannie@rand-unix.UUCP (Jean Thomas) says: > >It was speculated that the definitions of ``attractive'' were >different for European men than for American men. European men were >more concerned with such things as dignity, grace, wisdom, as well as >physical beauty. The American men were only looking at bodies and >facies. (Advertising media stuff, you know.) > >P.S. I think the same survey was done recently with some big changes >on the American side. As I recall, none of the women were under 25, >and there were several over 40, including Linda Evans and Joan >Collins. Sorry, but the word used was "attractive" which to me == pretty. You want me to answer Nancy Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, or Jeane Kirkpatrick use the word "admired" (though Nancy will never be my response). I think the problem with this and other surveys is the language used. Ask me who are the three "sexiest" women, and you'll get a different response than from the three most "beautiful". Why not survey for the most "marriable" ? Isn't that what you want ? -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/23/86)
In article <519@randvax.UUCP> jeannie@rand-unix.UUCP (Jean Thomas) writes: >In article <14915@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes: >>Remember the discussion of a few months ago that was prompted by the >>press accounts of a new study that seemed to indicate that the odds of >>a woman getting married had dropped to 20% when she reached 30? >> >>Well, it turns out that things aren't quite what the press reported. >>What happened is this: The authors of the study found that, in a census >>taken at some time in the past, over the population as a whole, there >>was an average of a 3-year gap in age between husband and wife. > >>Even if it was true in the past (when there was no "shortage") that >>30-year-old women usually married 33-year-old men, the authors of the >>study are assuming that women and men will *insist* on maintaining this >>average 3-year age gap under the present circumstances. They assume >>that people will simply not get married rather than considering >>marriages where the partners are closer in age, or the man is younger. >>Somehow, I think that people are more flexible than this. > The phenomenon even affects young women in colleges, she noted, where > men of all ages compete for freshmen females. "When a woman gets to be a > senior, her phone has just stopped ringing off the hook." When I was a sophomore, my boyfriend at the time was a senior. He EXPECTED me to transfer to wherever HE got into grad school (NO SHIT!). Needless to say, I gave him his walking papers. I wonder if the reason for upper classmen preferring freshmen and sophomores is that they're easier to dominate intellectually, easier to beat them down and make them feel like they don't really belong in school, take up their time with *his* needs, and ultimately make sure that she follows him, she winds up in something flexible that allows her to work wherever he gets his big bread, e.g. nursing, teaching school, secretarial work, etc. It seems that the point is to get them young before they've had a chance to make any progress toward their goals, and keep them in tow, take a few years off, forget to go back, and never make it off their backs. An upperclasswoman who has either had no previous serious boyfriend, or has dumped any previous boyfriend (and is therefore available) has had either the good judgement to keep men at arms length, or the good fortune to have them stay away on their own, giving them the time and space to develop their own thing rather than being somebody else's OTHER. THEY'RE GODDAMNED LUCKY THEIR PHONE ISN'T RINGING OFF THE HOOK FOR SOMETHING AS VACUOUS AND STUPID AS THE COLLEGE DATING GAME. Perhaps they keep the line tied up with a modem ON PURPOSE. > The escalating divorce rate exacerbates the problem, she said, because > "men have an enormous range of women to choose from" and often remarry > women decades younger. And who would WANT the kind of shithead who looks for someone he can dominate and show off to his buddies, rather than his social and intellectual equal? I think this is an ideal way to tell shit from the shinola. > And while personality traits like wisdom and sensitivity improve for > both sexes with age, they are not as highly valued in women, she said. > Younger women have unwittingly reinforced the trend by competing for > older, more successful men, she said, because "men provide the meal > ticket. Even today, women earn much less than men do." Wow, what an insighful comment. Blame it on them golddigging bimbos, and their corrupt sugar-daddies. What makes me wonder is how ANYBODY could be so stupid as to need a NEWSPAPER to tell them these things. > Citing actress Sigourney Weaver's popularity as a strong, mature and > attractive heroine in the movie "Aliens," Swidler said, "It may be that > if these norms change over time, women's success may become part of > their attractiveness." What GARBAGE!! This Swindler person presupposes that the primary function of woman is to be attractive to a man, and that the only value her success can have is that it may make her attractive to a man. Where oh where are your critical faculties, woman? Cheryl
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/24/86)
rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) says: > Why not survey for the most "marriable" ? Isn't that what you > want ? Don't jump on me, Rob. I was simply supplying some information I had found to a discussion already in progress. I personally could care less. If you want to be vindictive and use flame throwers try taking on Cheryl, I'm sure she will give you just what you deserve. -- _______________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- without a Terry Grevstad ECNALG Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry _______________________________________________________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) (09/26/86)
In <1078@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Cheryl writes: > > > The phenomenon even affects young women in colleges, she noted, where > > men of all ages compete for freshmen females. "When a woman gets to be a > > senior, her phone has just stopped ringing off the hook." > > When I was a sophomore, my boyfriend at the time was a senior. He > EXPECTED me to transfer to wherever HE got into grad school (NO SHIT!). > Needless to say, I gave him his walking papers. I wonder if the reason > for upper classmen preferring freshmen and sophomores is that they're > easier to dominate intellectually, easier to beat them down and make > them feel like they don't really belong in school, take up their time > with *his* needs, and ultimately make sure that she follows him, she > winds up in something flexible that allows her to work wherever he gets > his big bread, e.g. nursing, teaching school, secretarial work, etc. > It seems that the point is to get them young before they've had a chance > to make any progress toward their goals, and keep them in tow, take > a few years off, forget to go back, and never make it off their backs. Lotsa gripes from someone who could have dated a frosh and chose to date a senior. > An upperclasswoman who has either had no previous serious boyfriend, > or has dumped any previous boyfriend (and is therefore available) > has had either the good judgement to keep men at arms length, or the > good fortune to have them stay away on their own, giving them the > time and space to develop their own thing rather than being somebody > else's OTHER. THEY'RE GODDAMNED LUCKY THEIR PHONE ISN'T RINGING OFF THE > HOOK FOR SOMETHING AS VACUOUS AND STUPID AS THE COLLEGE DATING GAME. Then why did you engage in it? > > The escalating divorce rate exacerbates the problem, she said, because > > "men have an enormous range of women to choose from" and often remarry > > women decades younger. > > And who would WANT the kind of shithead who looks for someone he > can dominate and show off to his buddies, rather than his social > and intellectual equal? I think this is an ideal way to tell shit > from the shinola. and it says just as much about the girls (obviously not women) who constantly choose such guys rather than choose those guys who will treat them well. > > And while personality traits like wisdom and sensitivity improve for > > both sexes with age, they are not as highly valued in women, she said. > > > Younger women have unwittingly reinforced the trend by competing for > > older, more successful men, she said, because "men provide the meal > > ticket. Even today, women earn much less than men do." > > Wow, what an insighful comment. Blame it on them golddigging bimbos, > and their corrupt sugar-daddies. Well, why not? > > Citing actress Sigourney Weaver's popularity as a strong, mature and > > attractive heroine in the movie "Aliens," Swidler said, "It may be that > > if these norms change over time, women's success may become part of > > their attractiveness." > > What GARBAGE!! This Swindler person presupposes that the primary function > of woman is to be attractive to a man, and that the only value her success > can have is that it may make her attractive to a man. > > Where oh where are your critical faculties, woman? > > Cheryl Maybe tomorrow I will feel a bit more compassionate, but it's been a long, rough day and I don't feel any great kindness for girls who take a running leap into a mud puddle and then bitch and moan when they get dirty. I see a helluva lotta gripes here that seem to spring from being around domineering guys instead of good ones. Well, nobody twisted your arm and forced you to choose him. My own nasty guess based on my bad mood is that you hadda have a big, cool, studly senior and couldn't be caught with a puny nerdy sophomore. You thought you could make yourself look great and have others envy your good catch, and when you discovered you would hjaveta make real sacrifices to keep the superficial dude you, at that rather late and convenient time, caught religion and turned feminist. Well, where were your critical faculties beforehand, woman? So tonight I am going to grumble at everyone who complains when they receive just what they asked for and grabbed for and got burned by. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bodhisattva UUCP: ihnp4!hrcca!bodhi koho chojo manako ni unsho o mi, koto tohen wadei gassui from the top of the solitary peak, i gaze at the clouds; close by the old ferry landing i am splashed with mire. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/29/86)
In article <196@hrcca.UUCP> bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) writes: >In <1078@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Cheryl writes: >> >> > The phenomenon even affects young women in colleges, she noted, where >> > men of all ages compete for freshmen females. "When a woman gets to be a >> > senior, her phone has just stopped ringing off the hook." >> When I was a sophomore, my boyfriend at the time was a senior. He >> EXPECTED me to transfer to wherever HE got into grad school (NO SHIT!). >> Needless to say, I gave him his walking papers. >> I wonder if the reason >> for upper classmen preferring freshmen and sophomores is that they're >> easier to dominate intellectually, easier to beat them down and make >> them feel like they don't really belong in school, take up their time >> with *his* needs, and ultimately make sure that she follows him, she >> winds up in something flexible that allows her to work wherever he gets >> his big bread, e.g. nursing, teaching school, secretarial work, etc. >> It seems that the point is to get them young before they've had a chance >> to make any progress toward their goals, and keep them in tow, take >> a few years off, forget to go back, and never make it off their backs. >Lotsa gripes from someone who could have dated a frosh and chose to date >a senior. No, I don't have anything to gripe about. I gave him his walking papers. The BOOT. I'm making a lot more money than him these days besides. And I'm damned proud of it. Yes, I can date men older than me, NOT let them beat me down, and wind up making more money than them 5 years down the road. >> An upperclasswoman who has either had no previous serious boyfriend, >> or has dumped any previous boyfriend (and is therefore available) >> has had either the good judgement to keep men at arms length, or the >> good fortune to have them stay away on their own, giving them the >> time and space to develop their own thing rather than being somebody >> else's OTHER. THEY'RE GODDAMNED LUCKY THEIR PHONE ISN'T RINGING OFF THE >> HOOK FOR SOMETHING AS VACUOUS AND STUPID AS THE COLLEGE DATING GAME. >Then why did you engage in it? I didn't. I callously used them for my own satisfaction, then dumped them when they got sentimental. >> > The escalating divorce rate exacerbates the problem, she said, because >> > "men have an enormous range of women to choose from" and often remarry >> > women decades younger. >> >> And who would WANT the kind of shithead who looks for someone he >> can dominate and show off to his buddies, rather than his social >> and intellectual equal? I think this is an ideal way to tell shit >> from the shinola. >and it says just as much about the girls (obviously not women) who >constantly choose such guys rather than choose those guys who will treat >them well. Well it all comes in a can, buddy, and what's on the label ain't always what's inside. You blaming the victim again? If you asked Mr. Fake Feminsist that got the boot, you'd hear him portaying himself as the victim. Then you can blame THAT victim for trying to mess with Cheryl. >> > And while personality traits like wisdom and sensitivity improve for >> > both sexes with age, they are not as highly valued in women, she said. >> >> > Younger women have unwittingly reinforced the trend by competing for >> > older, more successful men, she said, because "men provide the meal >> > ticket. Even today, women earn much less than men do." >> >> Wow, what an insighful comment. Blame it on them golddigging bimbos, >> and their corrupt sugar-daddies. >Well, why not? There's nothing to blame on people like that. They deserve eachother. They keep eachother out of our hair. >> > Citing actress Sigourney Weaver's popularity as a strong, mature and >> > attractive heroine in the movie "Aliens," Swidler said, "It may be that >> > if these norms change over time, women's success may become part of >> > their attractiveness." >> >> What GARBAGE!! This Swindler person presupposes that the primary function >> of woman is to be attractive to a man, and that the only value her success >> can have is that it may make her attractive to a man. >> Where oh where are your critical faculties, woman? >> Cheryl >Maybe tomorrow I will feel a bit more compassionate, but it's been a >long, rough day and I don't feel any great kindness for girls who take a I don't need your compassion, fat man. I don't have any compassion for THEM either. You've got some goddamned nerve lumping me in with a bunch of bimbo sorority girls. You obviously don't have much of a comeback for my rebuttal of the idea that the value of a woman's success is that it may someday make her attractive to a man. >running leap into a mud puddle and then bitch and moan when they get >dirty. I see a helluva lotta gripes here that seem to spring from being >around domineering guys instead of good ones. Well, nobody twisted your WHOM are you addressing? Did I get dirty? I dropped him the moment he showed any signs of domineering. >arm and forced you to choose him. My own nasty guess based on my bad >mood is that you hadda have a big, cool, studly senior and couldn't be >caught with a puny nerdy sophomore. For Your Information, ASSHOLE, he was a VIRGIN. A puny, nerdly JUNIOR who made ONE mistake and got his ass DUMPED for thinking I would transfer. >You thought you could make yourself >look great and have others envy your good catch, and when you discovered >you would hjaveta make real sacrifices to keep the superficial dude you, >at that rather late and convenient time, caught religion and turned >feminist. Impress what others? The GUYS in all my engineering classes? The GUYS I worked with? The GUYS I studied with? Boy, you really are an asshole. The only women I had any social contact with in college were a pair of Navy/Marine ROTC Mech E's, an Airforce ROTC EE, and two motorcycle Mamas. Oh, yeah, dating a junior/senior in Materials Science realy IMPRESSED them. I did it to IMPRESS my female friends. Right. For Your Information, ASSHOLE, the things that impressed my female friends about me were as follows: Skydiving taking Thermodynamics as a freshman taking graduate level applied math courses >Well, where were your critical faculties beforehand, woman? They were there all along. >So tonight I am going to grumble at everyone who complains when they >receive just what they asked for and grabbed for and got burned by. Well, you asked for it!! You got it. Cheryl
rob@dadla.tek.com (Rob Vetter;1044;92-725;LP=A;60YB) (10/01/86)
In article <719@nrcvax.UUCP> terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) writes: >rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) says: >> Why not survey for the most "marriable" ? Isn't that what you >> want ? > >Don't jump on me, Rob. I was simply supplying some information I had >found to a discussion already in progress. I personally could care >less. If you want to be vindictive and use flame throwers try taking >on Cheryl, I'm sure she will give you just what you deserve. I'm so misinterpreted. :-( "you" means "Those of you discussing, in soc.singles and soc.women, the latest survey and whether or not it means that women over 35 will be able to find someone to marry." Flame ? Sorry, guess I just got one of those personalities. Maybe I was subconciously relating to the fact that my SO is eight years older than me. Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/01/86)
In article <1118@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <196@hrcca.UUCP> bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) writes: >>In <1078@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Cheryl writes: >>> When I was a sophomore, my boyfriend at the time was a senior. He >>> EXPECTED me to transfer to wherever HE got into grad school (NO SHIT!). >>Lotsa gripes from someone who could have dated a frosh and chose to date >>a senior. >Well it all comes in a can, buddy, and what's on the label ain't always what's >inside. Agreed. There are men who feel they should be feminist, but also want to be in control of their relationships. By the same token, there are those who feel they should be "masculine", but would be quite willing to submit to their partner. This may include sex, career, finances, and/or education. >a comeback for my rebuttal of the idea that the value of a woman's >success is that it may someday make her attractive to a man. If a man were to admit it, would you consider him attractive, or assume he was "after your money". >>I see a helluva lotta gripes here that seem to spring from being >>around domineering guys instead of good ones. > >WHOM are you addressing? Did I get dirty? I dropped him the moment >he showed any signs of domineering. In the example given, he was older than you, further ahead (at that time) in school, and had more to gain than you. Did you really expect him to wait for you? >For Your Information, ASSHOLE, he was a VIRGIN. A puny, nerdly JUNIOR >who made ONE mistake and got his ass DUMPED for thinking I would transfer. Oh, a different example. Was the Junior younger than you. If so, he was stupid for thinking you would transfer. >For Your Information, ASSHOLE, the things that impressed my female >friends about me were as follows: Ah, but how many of them were also dating older men? >Cheryl An appropriate analogy might be the person who has invested $50 in a business, recruits a backer to invest $50,000, and gets upset when the backer won't give him complete control of the business. Cheryl, you know better than anyone that success is something which is not handed out on silver platters. If you are attracted to a person who has achieved more success than you, it is not suprising that you have come into conflicts. You have already expressed your contempt for a man who, with more experience and training, would not sacrifice his success for yours. How would you feel if a man with less experience or success expected you to sacrifice your success for his? At least with an 'inferior' man, you have the bargaining advantage. The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices. If that means the woman has more success, then the man should "give way". There are men who are attracted to women more successful than themselves. True, they are hard to find, and may have to be persued rather than attracted, but they do exist. Here at work, I knew of 5 different couples where the woman was more successful. When those women persued a career path that involved a transfer, the men gladly followed, sometimes sacrificing seniority, position, and opportunities in their own careers.
garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (10/02/86)
In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote: >The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices... So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership! garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu)
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/02/86)
For those who haven't noticed it yet. Cosmopolitan magazine has several articles rebutting the findings of the Yale-Harvard marriage study. They also provide several suggestions of alternatives to the "high risk" group of women (successful professionals over 30).
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (10/03/86)
>>>I see a helluva lotta gripes here that seem to spring from being >>>around domineering guys instead of good ones. >> >>WHOM are you addressing? Did I get dirty? I dropped him the moment >>he showed any signs of domineering. > >In the example given, he was older than you, further ahead (at that time) >in school, and had more to gain than you. Did you really expect him >to wait for you? No, when he started making plans to leave, I assumed he was leaving. It didn't occur to me that there should be anything more to it than that. The minute he started talking about going to graduate school somewhere else, I just figured it was over. >Oh, a different example. Was the Junior younger than you. If so, he was >stupid for thinking you would transfer. No same example. He was a junior when we started. He didn't start getting uppity until his senior year. It was no skin off my back to dump him. It was his loss. >Ah, but how many of them were also dating older men? Oh, what is this OLDER MAN crap? Someone who is a year or two older is an OLDER MAN WITH ALL THIS TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE AND PROMISE AND BIG INVESTMENT IN HIS CAREER. What a crock of baloney. He's just some guy that has taken a few more courses. Just toodling along in the right lane at 55. What a chump. He thought I would stay behind him for eternity. I passed him going 85. VROOOOM! >An appropriate analogy might be the person who has invested $50 in >a business, recruits a backer to invest $50,000, and gets upset >when the backer won't give him complete control of the business. Yes. Quite correct. I was being asked to sacrifice my whole future. Of course I insisted on complete control. >Cheryl, you know better than anyone that success is something which >is not handed out on silver platters. If you are attracted to a person >who has achieved more success than you, it is not suprising that you >have come into conflicts. Why do you automatically define someone who is merely a year or two ahead in school as someone who has achieved more success? Sheesh! >You have already expressed your contempt for a man who, with more experience >and training, would not sacrifice his success for yours. How would you >feel if a man with less experience or success expected you to sacrifice >your success for his? I don't discriminate on the basis of age. ANY man who tries to con me with this "you follow me" routine is history. ME FIRST. >At least with an 'inferior' man, you have the bargaining advantage. The ultimate bargaining advantage is to be willing to dump the guy. >The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices. Oh, I see. So the derivative of the advancement rate is not to be taken into account. What DOES matter in your equation is an integral of past education, training, experience and success from the moment of birth until the present. How do you weight each of those four things? I mean does someone with a Ph.D. in anthropolgy count more than a B.S.E.E., because the Ph.D. in anthropolgy has more education? Or does the B.S.E.E. get to pick the city they live in because she makes more money? Or, does the Ph.D. in anthropology get fi
bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) (10/03/86)
In <1118@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Cheryl flames her feeble best: > In article <196@hrcca.UUCP> bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) retorts: > >In <1078@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> Cheryl bitches: > >> > >> When I was a sophomore, my boyfriend at the time was a senior. He > >> EXPECTED me to transfer to wherever HE got into grad school (NO SHIT!). > >> Needless to say, I gave him his walking papers. > > >Lotsa gripes ... > > No, I don't have anything to gripe about. I gave him his walking papers. > The BOOT. I'm making a lot more money than him these days besides. And > I'm damned proud of it. Yes, I can date men older than me, NOT let them > beat me down, and wind up making more money than them 5 years down the road. Yes...money IS so important. It is such a good way to judge our relative worth as human beings. I am SO glad you have enlightened me regarding the true values in life! > > > >> SOMETHING AS VACUOUS AND STUPID AS THE COLLEGE DATING GAME. > > >Then why did you engage in it? > > I didn't. I callously used them for my own satisfaction, then dumped > them when they got sentimental. I knew pooh and ooblick didn't think it up on their own, I knew they had an ideal role model to emulate. > > You blaming the victim again? If you asked Mr. Fake Feminsist that > got the boot, you'd hear him portaying himself as the victim. Then you can > blame THAT victim for trying to mess with Cheryl. Oh, but I DO blame him. None of us should ever be surprised at what happens to us at the hands of those we choose to get close to. We see the non-verbal signals clearly, and choose to make our mistakes anyway. So far we've found out the sucker tried to be a feminist, asked you for an action to show commitment, and was in his eyes victimized by you. From the mercifully little I've seen of you from a thousand miles away, I certainly blame him if he tried to feel surprised at getting chewed up and spit out by you. And I praise you for your mercy in sending him away instead of inflicting yourself on him further. > > >> > Citing actress Sigourney Weaver's popularity as a strong, mature and > >> > attractive heroine in the movie "Aliens," Swidler said, "It may be that > >> > if these norms change over time, women's success may become part of > >> > their attractiveness." > >> > >> What GARBAGE!! This Swindler person presupposes that the primary function > >> of woman is to be attractive to a man, and that the only value her success > >> can have is that it may make her attractive to a man. > >> Where oh where are your critical faculties, woman? > >> Cheryl > > >Maybe tomorrow I will feel a bit more compassionate, but it's been a > >long, rough day and I don't feel any great kindness for girls who take a > > I don't need your compassion, fat man. I don't have any compassion > for THEM either. You've got some goddamned nerve lumping me in with > a bunch of bimbo sorority girls. You obviously don't have much of > a comeback for my rebuttal of the idea that the value of a woman's > success is that it may someday make her attractive to a man. I was trying to let you off easy...you tend to lose your way when you try to deal with things seriously. If you could get beyond your need to find things to attack in whoever you deal with, you might have understood that Swindler is making the point that, given enough positive female role models, there is hope that men could begin to value women who are capable, rather than just bimbos. Meanwhile, the only point I see to your "rebuttal" is hatred of the possibility that men and women could find each other attractive. Of course, if the only value men have for you is as opponents in the game of "dueling paychecks"... > > >running leap into a mud puddle and then bitch and moan when they get > >dirty. I see a helluva lotta gripes here that seem to spring from being > >around domineering guys instead of good ones. Well, nobody twisted your > > WHOM are you addressing? Did I get dirty? I dropped him the moment > he showed any signs of domineering. I see. Only one domineer allowed per relationship. > > > My own nasty guess ... > > For Your Information, ASSHOLE, he was a VIRGIN. A puny, nerdly JUNIOR > who made ONE mistake and got his ass DUMPED for thinking I would transfer. Yeah, I thought if I poked and prodded enough you'd come out with it. You enjoy bitching about domineering men, but you choose a sweetheart of a guy who's even still a virgin and you search desperately for the slightest chink to justify your being overwhelmingly nasty so you can pretend he deserved it. > > > For Your Information, ASSHOLE, > Boy, you really are an asshole. > For Your Information, ASSHOLE, Gee, darling, when are you gonna offer to kiss and make up? > > >Well, where were your critical faculties beforehand, woman? > > They were there all along. My dear gentle girl, "hypercritical" and "hypocritical" are not the same as "critical." > > >So tonight I am going to grumble at everyone who complains when they > >receive just what they asked for and grabbed for and got burned by. > > Well, you asked for it!! You got it. > > Cheryl Ah! Thank you, dear heart! After all those long years of niceness, I needed to get some exercise with a little war of invective. What you lack in elegance and eloquence, you make up for in volume, vituperation, and redundancy. Now, since we have been shedding more heat than light, should we move toward a topic, continue warring privately, or continue to entertain? -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bodhisattva UUCP: ihnp4!hrcca!bodhi koho chojo manako ni unsho o mi, koto tohen wadei gassui from the top of the solitary peak, i gaze at the clouds; close by the old ferry landing i am splashed xxxx xxxx. by Cheryl. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/03/86)
In article <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes: >In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote: >>The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >>has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices... >So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership! >garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) Cruel? Perhaps, but also realistic. A promotion worth 10% to a partner making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%. Net gain for the parnership, $3,000. If the reverse action were taken, which gave the $10,000 parnter a 10% raise, but cost the $40,000 parnter 10%, the loss would be $3,000. Because it is a parntership, the $10,000 parnter will probably get a good portion of the additional income, which could be invested in measures leading to increases for the $10,000 parnter. In fact, the better long term investment (assuming both parnters are equally motivated) would be to invest nearly all of the gain in measures that will maximise the $10,000 parnter's opportunities for additional income, such as additional education. In a more "equal" parntership, where one makes $40,000 and the other makes $38,000, the person sacrificing experience and political clout should be able to offset or recover the loss with education, or other income related "investments". One of the best investments anyone can make is in the education of a highly motivated person who has not yet reached their potential. The education of a talented spouse almost guarentees a safe maximum return on the investment. I have actually heard of one head hunter that has a "family plan" which will provide opportunities for both partners if they are professionals. Part of the difficulty arises out of the nature of opportunities at the upper income levels. The net rewards are significantly more subtantial, but the sacrifices include relocation, travel, and displacement of the spouse. Sometimes, dramatic changes can benefit both partners. One couple relocated because of an opportunity that was extremely profitable to only one of the partners, but the other, not having a history of previous "bad attitude" known by superiors, was able to get a position with more responsibility, income, and authority than would have been possible at all in her previous situation. There is obviously more at stake here than just money. Each decision will not be this clear. The problems often boil down to a natural resistance to change. I've known single people, who when laid off, either waited for the company to rehire them while they collected unemployment, or insisted on staying in Rochester N.Y. in spite of the fact that there was a glut of highly skilled engineers doing the same thing. Having made drastic changes, including leaving parents, friends and what were thought to be important contacts, and gained from the experience, is an excellent growth experience.
maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak) (10/03/86)
The discussion in this notestream seems to be revolving solely around a definition of success and value as a person that I'm very uncomfortable with. Perhaps because I'm an old fogey of 37 and remember the good old nonmaterialist days of the 60s, and won't ever be a yuppie, I still hope that a relationship that involves give and take and compromise is possible. I've had lots of experience to the contrary, though. Let me put it straight: I refuse to believe that a person should have more rights in a relationship just because he or she earns more money, has more education, or seems to be more powerful in an economic sense. Unless making more money is perceived by both people in the relationship as being a goal or value, why should a career move for one person that gains only money be obviously the right one? Of course, if the two people don't share basic values, then they have a problem. I've been there: My ex thought that becoming a big success as an entrepreneur meant he got the majority vote. (End of relationship.) If the only way people can be equals is in an economic or power-in-the-world sense, I just will roll up my tent and creep off into the darkness. Or I could get militant about it. Come on folks, let's talk. Is money and power what you all get off on?
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/03/86)
Rex Ballard's article (see "References:") was, from start to finish, a bundle of irrelevancies. Rather than include it all here, I'll jusk hope that the whole thing is dropped. Matt Crawford Concentrate on th'cute, li'l CARTOON GUYS! Remember the SERIAL NUMBERS!! Follow the WHIPPLE AVE. EXIT!! Have a FREE PEPSI!! Turn LEFT at th'HOLIDAY INN!! JOIN the CREDIT WORLD!! MAKE me an OFFER!!!
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (10/04/86)
In article <435@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices. If that >means the woman has more success, then the man should "give way". Why? Is it really better for their marriage, or even their future for the less experienced person to always be expected to sacrifice? If the marriage rules were 'only one person can be successful' then perhaps we could expect the above situation. We would also see successful people attracted to unsuccessful people in order to cut down competition at home. (It's you or me babe, and I intend to see that it's me [:-(]) The partner with greater education, training, experience, and success has a right to look at the situation, its effect on the future of the relationship, the possible alternatives, and decide what course of action will produce the best results in the short and long term. (Of course, discussing this with the other person will help a lot.) I do not believe that marriage should have too many win/lose situations. -- Disclaimer: This is just my responding, with an ambiguous language, to what someone else wrote, in an ambiguous language. At no time did I read anyone's mind to find out what they really meant. Pamela K. Whitehurst ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur ...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur "Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too."
faustus@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) (10/04/86)
Maybe I haven't been reading net.singles long enough, but it's hard to believe that this person is as much of an ogre as she seems from her postings... In article <1158@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) writes: > No, when he started making plans to leave, I assumed he was leaving. > It didn't occur to me that there should be anything more to it than > that. The minute he started talking about going to graduate school > somewhere else, I just figured it was over. Exactly what was is that happened? Did he say one day, "Cheryl, why don't you come with me when I go to X?" Or did he demand that you go with you? He was leaving anyway, so your "dumping" him doesn't seem that significant since in this case it was equivalent to not going with him... > He's just some guy that has taken a few more courses. Just toodling > along in the right lane at 55. What a chump. He thought I would > stay behind him for eternity. I passed him going 85. VROOOOM! If competition with somebody else, on the most materialistic level yet, is the only way you can relate to somebody else, I feel sorry for you. I would give you credit for being independent and dealing with the problem better than he did, but what does this have to do with your scholastic or career sucess? > ANY man who tries to con me with this "you follow me" routine is > history. ME FIRST. Say you were going away and your boyfriend way staying. Would you ever suggest to him that he might want to go with you? Maybe the case was a lot different from just "suggesting", and if it was in fact a case of him demanding that you go, you had no choice but to break up with him. Can you clarify the situation a bit? > The ultimate bargaining advantage is to be willing to dump the guy. If I were "willing to dump" anybody, I wouldn't be involved with them in the first place. Do you really enjoy having someone's feelings hostage to your whims? I understand that you don't want to feel this way yourself, but aren't you using a double standard? > And why PURSUE a man? I mean, they > have great entertainment value, but most of them can't even spell worth > beans. I'm glad that your attitudes aren't very common. You seem to have quite a warped attitude towards personal relations. I'm just surprised that you could get a SO in the first place. Wayne
falk@sun.UUCP (10/04/86)
> In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote: > >The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success > >has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices... > > So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership! > > garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) Something I always wanted to bring up... Whenever there's a couple, and they want kids, they decide who quits their career on the basis of whose paycheck will be missed the least. That seems reasonable at first glance, but it usually turns out to be the woman who makes less and therefore stays home. My problem with this system is that when the woman stays at home, she puts her career on hold with the result that she makes even *less* money in the long run. Thus, the person-who-makes-the-least-money rule is another mechanism that keeps women at home. I don't know any good remedy though. The alternatives are: person with the most money stays home (more fair in terms of careers but less profitable in terms of bank accounts); both people stay home part time (my favorite, but not available to most people); day-care five days a week (why bother to have kids in the first place?) or taking turns with different children (still not equitable if the couple has an odd number of children); person who wants kids the most is the one who stays home (reasonable if one person wants kids and the other doesn't, but I'm not sure I condone having kids at all under those conditions). Comments? -- -ed falk, sun microsystems falk@sun.com sun!falk
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/05/86)
In article <455@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >Cruel? Perhaps, but also realistic. A promotion worth 10% to a partner >making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%. Net gain >for the parnership, $3,000. You miss the entire issue, Rex. Money is not the only thing. (If you thing that money *is* the only thing, say so and then bow out of the discussion, which must be well-nigh incomprehensible to you.) Imagine a place you would *hate* to live in. This may be difficult for one who lives in Rochester, but try it anyway. Maybe Dallas. Would you move there for an extra three thousand dollars? Maybe you would. ... _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt Maybe we could paint GOLDIE HAWN a rich PRUSSIAN BLUE--
rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) (10/05/86)
>> >> > Citing actress Sigourney Weaver's popularity as a strong, mature and >> >> > attractive heroine in the movie "Aliens," Swidler said, "It may be that >> >> > if these norms change over time, women's success may become part of >> >> > their attractiveness." >> >> >> >> What GARBAGE!! This Swindler person presupposes that the primary function >> >> of woman is to be attractive to a man, and that the only value her success >> >> can have is that it may make her attractive to a man. >> >> Where oh where are your critical faculties, woman? >> >> Cheryl According to Cheryl, Swidler "presupposes that the primary function of woman is to be attractive to a man. . . ." However, Cheryl herself makes the same mistake of presupposing that attractiveness in a woman is a quality that somehow only appeals to men. It seems to me that these two assumptions are different sides of the same coin. I thought Ripley was a wonderfully attractive heroine. >> You've got some goddamned nerve lumping me in with >> a bunch of bimbo sorority girls. Cheryl, to a male oppressor" you, me, sorority girls, nurses, waitresses, and all the other women you dump on, are one and the same. Until you develop some understanding and compassion for your sisters, you should stop your "feminist" posturing. We get enough garbage from men without you jumping on us, too. Trisha O Tuama ps: and watch it with those "fat" comments.
bodhi@hrcca.UUCP (Bodhisattva) (10/05/86)
Valerie Maslak in <235@sri-unix.ARPA> writes: [about her discomfort that some of the writers in this notestream seem to think that a person's value is defined by their financial success:] > Let me put it straight: I refuse to believe that a person should > have more rights in a relationship just because he or she earns > more money, has more education, or seems to be more powerful in > an economic sense. > I've been there: My ex thought > that becoming a big success as an entrepreneur meant he got the > majority vote. (End of relationship.) Why is it that, despite two similar situations, a relationship ends when a male with somewhat higher financial status automatically expects the female to give up what she values, in one case I respect the person highly, and in the other, the reverse? I guess because Valerie was looking for fairness and for higher values in the relationship, while Cheryl was only after an excuse to vent her generalized hatred, and to show an honest and blunt version of the mammonism all too commonly seen lately. > Come on folks, let's talk. Is money and > power what you all get off on? Well, the New Frontier and the Great Society are dead, along with most of the heroes. The Hippies and the Love Generation gave way to the Yuppies when those leaders sold out or found E.J. Korvette's Kristian Krusade. So what else do they all have to work for? ... panem et circenses ... -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bodhisattva UUCP: ihnp4!hrcca!bodhi Kinsetsu tattoshi io iedomo, manako ni ochite ei to naru Though gold-dust is precious, in the eyes it obscures the vision - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) (10/05/86)
>Thus, the person-who-makes-the-least-money rule is another mechanism that >keeps women at home. I don't know any good remedy though..... Basic changes in the way we as a society view and value families and children would be a good start. Instead of trying to find ways to adapt your working and living conditions to an outmoded workplace, maybe you should ask yourself why the government hasn't taken steps to meet your's (and millions of other people's) needs for child care, maternal and paternal leave, etc. We will not have women's equality in this country until this accomplished. As things stand now, all women are penalized by society for their role in child-bearing and child-rearing, regardless of whether they have children or not. Instead of trying on their own to overcome the enormous logistic and economic problems most working couples with children face, theses per- sons would do better to push for legislative changes. In between the times they spend buying groceries, going to parent-teacher meetings, washing PE suits, helping with homework, fixing bicycles, waiting for the pediatrician, reading bedtime stories, etc. Trisha O Tuama
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (10/06/86)
In article <455@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >In article <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes: >>In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote: >>>The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >>>has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices... >>So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership! >>garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) >Cruel? Perhaps, but also realistic. A promotion worth 10% to a partner >making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%. Net gain >for the parnership, $3,000. Net gain for the 10K half of the partnership: $500.00. Can you spell "Trickle Down?" The humiliation associated with making $10K is to be exacerbated by demanding that the person take a cut in pay to $9K. The recompense is that the person may get $1500 from the person he or she sleeps with, a net gain of $500.00 in a year for sleeping with someone...pretty low wages for *that* profession! Cheryl
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (10/06/86)
In article <7916@sun.uucp> falk@sun.UUCP writes: > >... they decide who quits their career on the basis of whose >paycheck will be missed the least. ... but it usually turns out >to be the woman who makes less and therefore stays home. ... >with the result that she makes even *less* money in the long >run. Furthermore, in most (need I say heterosexual?) couples the woman is younger than the man and hence doubly likely to be earning less than he. As I'm sure all racial minorities learned decades ago, once equality is legislated there are still many automatic or institutional barriers to its realization. But I still can't stand to be screamed at for things I didn't do. Matt Crawford "If you're not part of the solution ... you're part of the precipitate!"
cc100jr@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Joel Rives) (10/07/86)
In article <1069@dadla.UUCP> rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes: > > Sorry, but the word used was "attractive" which to me == > pretty. You want me to answer Nancy Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, > or Jeane Kirkpatrick use the word "admired" (though Nancy > will never be my response). I believe that the surveyors probably chose that word on purpose. It seems that they were attempting to find out what various men equate with the term "attractive". You have answered that question quite well. To me the term refers to whatever attracts one person to another. There are a great number of things which I might find attractive in another person. Physical beauty is one of them.
silber@cca.UUCP (Rachel Silber) (10/07/86)
In article <> falk@sun.UUCP writes: [Talking about alternatives available to couples with two jobs plus children for child care]: >day-care >five days a week (why bother to have kids in the first place?) > >Comments? >-- > -ed falk, sun microsystems > falk@sun.com > sun!falk Do you really believe that? The rewards of having a child do not vanish when the parents must work or want to work. Furthermore, although a child may form strong attachments to her/his caretakers, she/he is home with mom and dad for 120+ hours a week. I think that children are one of the good things in life, part of the life I want to lead. I work to support that life. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Rachel
mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus the Ranum) (10/07/86)
In article <1158@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) writes: > blah, blah, blah... > >An appropriate analogy might be the person who has invested $50 in > >a business, recruits a backer to invest $50,000, and gets upset > >when the backer won't give him complete control of the business. > > Yes. Quite correct. I was being asked to sacrifice my whole future. > Of course I insisted on complete control. > blah, blah, blah... > > >You have already expressed your contempt for a man who, with more experience > >and training, would not sacrifice his success for yours. How would you > >feel if a man with less experience or success expected you to sacrifice > >your success for his? > > I don't discriminate on the basis of age. ANY man who tries to con me > with this "you follow me" routine is history. ME FIRST. > blah, blah, blah... > >At least with an 'inferior' man, you have the bargaining advantage. > > The ultimate bargaining advantage is to be willing to dump the guy. > > Cheryl Now, aren't both of you forgetting something ? This isn't horses you're dealing with here, this is people we're talking about. I get the impression from the above dialog that we have two people who judge their prospective partners in terms of their idealogical correctness and their economic growth potential. Certainly it is very important to be able to work out your career with your partner, and to determine the best way to advance together, but this sounds a lot like the today generation once again rabidly foaming its way through another chorus of "gimme, gimme, gimme." I submit to you, Cheryl, that if the ultimate value of your mate is in terms of bargaining or economic value, you have some real problems. Doesn't it get lonely out there with such a soulless approach ? In fact, I really pity anyone with a view of the world is so totally that of the marketplace. Certainly I hope I never have the misfortune to care for someone who sees me only as a bargaining chip. That would hurt. Live Free mjr -- describe plum-blossoms ? Falling, falling, falling now... Cold pale eyes pour tears
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/08/86)
In article <1169@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <455@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >>In article <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes: > >>>In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote: >>>>The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >>>>has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices... > >>>So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership! >>>garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) > >>Cruel? Perhaps, but also realistic. A promotion worth 10% to a partner >>making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%. Net gain >>for the parnership, $3,000. > >Net gain for the 10K half of the partnership: $500.00. Well, in our situation, the 10K have would get more like $3500 :-), but not everybody is me :-). >Can you spell "Trickle Down?" >The humiliation associated with making $10K is to be exacerbated >by demanding that the person take a cut in pay to $9K. >The recompense is that the person may get $1500 from the person >he or she sleeps with, a net gain of $500.00 in a year for >sleeping with someone...pretty low wages for *that* profession! Very true! Marriage is about the best "discount" for *that* profession you can get :-). Of course, there is the possible question of who should be paying who, for doing what to whom :-). (I get about $50/week "allowance" :-). >Cheryl The whole point of the posting was basically, that if a woman wanted to find a man who would "let her do the driving", in might be easier to find one who didn't "own the better car". The study, and many of the common attitudes indicate that "by the time a woman is 30, all the good one's are taken". This is only true if she insists on a man who is at least 3 years older, makes at least twice as much, has not been divorced, and has the social graces and appearance to attract women. Given the choices to eliminate, should you pick the fat slobs who go home to their parents' every weekend, the man who was divorced on the grounds of adultry, the junior programmer who makes a little less than you, or the 25 year old just getting started in a career that provides flexability. One very valid answer is "none of the above". But let's assume you do want some sort of relationship with a man. Taking the junior programmer, or the 25 year-old makes a lot of sense. Whatever he makes is "gravy", your career is more important to both of you, and you will be in control of the major career choices. In fact, the roles in the relationship are almost completely reversed. To a "hard core feminist" that sounds like the ideal situation. As sensible as it might sound, even a "hard core feminist" will often prefer not to have a relationship, than to try either type of situation. Even a man who wants such a relationship will often have difficulty accepting his "inferior" role. The whole problem stems from the "man brings home the bacon and whatever the woman makes is "gravy" brainwashing found on TV, film, and movies, along with at least 5000 years of "Macho" tradition. Even in "liberated" shows, how many cast the woman as "chief provider" to a man. "Who's the Boss"? What else? Even in "Who's the Boss", the man is portrayed as some sort of ingorant clod much of the time. There has been so much progress in expanding the options available to women, especially single women. Isn't it time to begin expanding the options available to men?
eric@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Eric Fielding) (10/09/86)
In article <455@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >In article <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes: >>In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote: >>>The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >>>has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices... >>So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership! >>garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) >Cruel? Perhaps, but also realistic. A promotion worth 10% to a partner >making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%. Net gain >for the parnership, $3,000. >In fact, the better long term investment (assuming both parnters are >equally motivated) would be to invest nearly all of the gain in measures >that will maximise the $10,000 parnter's opportunities for additional >income, such as additional education. >There is obviously more at stake here than just money. Each >decision will not be this clear. I am glad that you admit that money may not be the best criterium for making job decisions. Have you considered the possibility that a person who is more advanced in their career, experience, education, etc., can better afford to be flexible to their SO to catch up. When society gives men more of a "benefit of the doubt", men may be better able to take time off from advancing their careers, and still be able to maintain their "place in line". ++Eric
rob@dadla.UUCP (10/09/86)
In article <2338@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) writes: >In article <1069@dadla.UUCP> rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes: >> >> Sorry, but the word used was "attractive" which to me == >> pretty. You want me to answer Nancy Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, >> or Jeane Kirkpatrick use the word "admired" (though Nancy >> will never be my response). > >I believe that the surveyors probably chose that word on purpose. It seems that >they were attempting to find out what various men equate with the term >"attractive". You have answered that question quite well. Great, now we know that men in general use the word "attractive" as a synonym for "women-under-twenty-five-with-a-great-bod". If this was a study to determine the definition for the word, it succeeded. However, the subject is titled "Yale-Harvard marriage study". The study is being used to say "Men will only marry women-under- twenty-five-with-a-great-bod". It is further being used to say "Women over thirty five have no chance to find a husband". In other words, they assume that "attractive" == "marriable". > To me the term >refers to whatever attracts one person to another. There are a great number >of things which I might find attractive in another person. Physical beauty is >one of them. I would guess that after explaining it that way, many people would agree with you. But a well thought out definition for each word is probably not foremost on the minds of survey takers. Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (JB) (10/11/86)
[So sorry - my karma ran over your dogma.] In article <435@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success >has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices. If that >means the woman has more success, then the man should "give way". For some reason (I wonder why?), this reminds me of the case where a woman sued her company because, while they would provide leave for prostate surgery, they would not provide comparable maternity leave. The judge ruled that the company was not discriminating on the basis of gender because "if a man got pregnant, he wouldn't get leave either." The woman suing felt much better. (BTW, you boys and your materialistic priorities are toads. Wanna be an astronaut, sonny?)
mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) (10/11/86)
In article <597@chinet.UUCP> rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) writes: >Basic changes in the way we as a society view and value families and >children would be a good start. Instead of trying to find ways to >adapt your working and living conditions to an outmoded workplace, >maybe you should ask yourself why the government hasn't taken steps >to meet your's (and millions of other people's) needs for child care, >maternal and paternal leave, etc. I think that basic changes in the way society views and values families are happening. that is one of the reasons why there is so much turmoil. --------- Why should the government make the changes. Why not use individuals. Society is becoming more varied. Different people may have different solutions. Why have the government extract money from everyone to implement a solution that is not necessarily best for everyone. I agree there are problems right now, but these are symptoms of a fundamental change in society. Some of the solutions are households with multiple families living in them. With just two families everyone could work 5 days a week and in there two days off watch the kids. Another method that some people use is sending there kids to daycare centers. Another method is to have retired grandparents watch the kids. There are many other possible solutions, why not let individuals choose there own solutions and accepts the related emotional, economic, and social costs. > >We will not have women's equality in this country until this accomplished. >As things stand now, all women are penalized by society for their role in >child-bearing and child-rearing, regardless of whether they have children >or not. Instead of trying on their own to overcome the enormous logistic >and economic problems most working couples with children face, theses per- >sons would do better to push for legislative changes. Why shouldn't they look for solutions to there problems. Is there some legislation that is harming them? Or are they just another special interest group that would like to benefit at the expense of other groups in society. >In between the times they spend buying groceries, going to parent-teacher >meetings, washing PE suits, helping with homework, fixing bicycles, >waiting for the pediatrician, reading bedtime stories, etc. > >Trisha O Tuama -- Mike Wexler (trwrb|scgvaxd)!felix!peregrine!mike (714)855-3923
rcj@burl.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson) (10/13/86)
In article <1512@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes: >Imagine a place you would *hate* to live in. This may be >difficult for one who lives in Rochester, but try it anyway. >Maybe Dallas. Would you move there for an extra three thousand >dollars? Maybe you would. ... Hmmmmph! I hope this is a slight against Rex and not against Dallas! Dallas is a hell of a fun town! But nothing in Texas beats Austin -- ain't that right, Dr. Poootth? (sp?) -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
eric@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Eric Fielding) (10/13/86)
In article <1157@peregrine.UUCP> mike@peregrine.UUCP (Mike Wexler) writes: >In article <597@chinet.UUCP> rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) writes: >>Basic changes in the way we as a society view and value families and >>children would be a good start. Instead of trying to find ways to >>adapt your working and living conditions to an outmoded workplace, >>maybe you should ask yourself why the government hasn't taken steps >>to meet your's (and millions of other people's) needs for child care, >>maternal and paternal leave, etc. >I think that basic changes in the way society views and values families are >happening. that is one of the reasons why there is so much turmoil. >--------- >Why should the government make the changes. Why not use individuals. >Society is becoming more varied. Different people may have different >solutions. Why have the government extract money from everyone to implement >a solution that is not necessarily best for everyone. >> >>We will not have women's equality in this country until this accomplished. >>As things stand now, all women are penalized by society for their role in >>child-bearing and child-rearing, regardless of whether they have children >>or not. Instead of trying on their own to overcome the enormous logistic >>and economic problems most working couples with children face, theses per- >>sons would do better to push for legislative changes. >>Trisha O Tuama >Mike Wexler I thought I would mention what other countries do about "parental leave", quoted from a radical left-wing magazine :-{)} (Business Week, 6 Oct. 1986) [I don't normally read BW, I found it on a long airplane flight.] "In most countries--and more than 100 offer such benefits--leaves are extendable for multiple of complicated births, and the employee is guaranteed the same or a comparable job upon return to work. The U.S. has no parental leave policy. "Canada 15 weeks for mothers at 60% of pay, with national social insurance picking up the tab. Two additional weeks at no pay. "France 16 weeks for mothers at full pay, but only up to a max. covered by social security. Six months at up to 100% of maximum for third or subsequent child. Unpaid parental leave of up to two years for both mothers and fathers (only for companies with >= 100 workers). "Sweden 40 weeks for mothers or fathers at full pay, 90% covered by social insurance 10% by employer. 12 additional weeks at preset flat rate... Additional unpaid leave until child reaches 18 months. "West Germany 14 weeks for mothers at full pay, with social insurance paying up to the average wage and the employer the rest. Subsequently, up to 10 wks with social insurance only, plus another 10 wks at a reduced rate." Of course, all four of these countries have some form of social insurance that is providing most or all of the maternal leave pay, and also all four are trying to increase their population (Sweden, France and W. Germany all have birth rates below the replacement level). From the same article: "A parental leave bill is pending in the (U.S.) House. It would provide up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave for mothers or fathers within two years of the birth or adoption of a child... But the bill has been bitterly opposed by business groups as too expensive and leading toward mandated paid leave. Passage may not be in the cards this term." "...if we don't meet the needs of poor children, they can grow up into teens and adults with expensive problems Society should not regard child care as a luxury." (Descriptions of what some companies are doing to suit working women.) "If labor shortages occur in the 1990's....companies sell themselves to prospective employees, women will look at employers in a better light if they meet their needs" "80% of (female employees) earn less than $19K a year, mainly in service jobs.... It's unclear when women as a group will start to make real progress on pay. Although the average female worker has 12.65 yrs of schooling, while males have 12.57, women's pay for full-time work avergages only $15.6K/yr compared with $24.2K/yr for men.... But leading companies have started the process--and the work place may never be the same." ++Eric
rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) (10/13/86)
Mike Wexler writes: >Why should the government make the changes. Why not use individuals. >Society is becoming more varied. Different people may have different >solutions. Why have the government extract money from everyone to implement >a solution that is not necessarily best for everyone. I agree there are >problems right now, but these are symptoms of a fundamental change in >society. Some of the solutions are households with multiple families >living in them. With just two families everyone could work 5 days a week >and in there two days off watch the kids. Another method that some people >use is sending there kids to daycare centers. Another method is to have >retired grandparents watch the kids. There are many other possible solutions, >why not let individuals choose there own solutions and accepts the related >emotional, economic, and social costs. >> >Why shouldn't they look for solutions to there problems. Is there some >lislation that is harming them? Or are they just another special interest >group that would like to benefit at the expense of other groups in society. The majority of our population lives in a family structure that includes children. This is hardly a "special interest group." And, in any case, even if we accept your contention that families with children are a special interest group, so is the military-industrial complex, and personally, I'd a whole lot rather see federal tax monies spent on good quality daycare centers than on $4000 toliet seats. The private, public, and not-for-profit sectors are all the time bouncing into Washington to ask for special favors. For some reason, private citizens aren't supposed to do this, however, and I really don't understand why not. The solutions you have proposed are probably okay for some people, but there are *millions* of people for whom these solutions are not feasible or practical. I was really appalled by your writing and spelling skills. Are you in the fourth grade? Or are you one of those people who has finished high school and still can't write properly? Perhaps you should consider taking some sort of basic expository writing course. Trisha O Tuama