rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/04/86)
In article <1158@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: > >>>>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. Oh, I guess that makes sense. You had 50% of the investment in time, education, and money in higher education, that he had. I gather you are extremely intelligent, which means you had better natural talent. Did you go to public or private shools? From the information you have given about yourself, you could have progressed at another school, but ultimately, you would have had to make the sacrifice. You made a decision you should be proud of. >>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. A year or two to a 30 year old doesn't mean much, but in high school, or college, it is more significant. College especially, is one of the first real, major investments you make in yourself. A person who has spent 4 years, $40,000, and a lot of hard work has more to loose than a freshman with $10,000, and a year of "introductory" courses. >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! I assume that you have dismissed the possibility that with the support of a supportive parnter (rather than a dominant one), you might have been able to go 100. Look at the number of men whose wive's put THEM through college (She deserves what he gets). >>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. For him to have stayed, would have been for him to sacrificed his whole future. As an undergraduate, you had more options. You had two choices, you made what you feel was the best choice, that's good. Don't feel that he was a "scum" for asking you to make it. >>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. Except in choosing romantic involvements? >ANY man who tries to con me >with this "you follow me" routine is history. ME FIRST. Right ON! If that's what you want, and you still want a man as well, the find a man who is willing to follow you. A younger one (or less successful one) is more likely to do so. >>At least with an 'inferior' man, you have the bargaining advantage. >The ultimate bargaining advantage is to be willing to dump the guy. This all started with a bunch of sexist results of a survey. You may not want a man, marriage, or even romantic/sexual involvement. Those are valid choices, but don't blame the men for your choices. >>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 first pick of the city, >because he has a harder time finding work in his field, and after all, >engineers can usually find work anywhere? It sounds like the PH.D. has more to loose than by following the B.S.E.E. than the B.S.E.E. has by following the Ph.D. The Ph.D. has also invested more, with more to waste by sacrificing the career. >How would you feel about this >question if it were a WOMAN with the Ph.D. in anthropology and the B.S.E.E. >were a MAN? It might be a little harder if the B.S.E.E. were a woman, and a director for a major corporation. You just made it easier. >Would you automatically assume that the man is more "successful" >even though he has less education? No, only if the Ph.D. was wasted on something like a low level job that was "convenient" and easy to find. Unlikely, but possible. >Would you automatically assume that the >man has more *experience* because after all, he hasn't been locked up in an >ivory tower wasting his time on a graduate education? Sorry, I'm not an "Ivory Tower Snob". Jobs which require a Ph.D. are harder to get than the Ph.D. itself. >How would you calculate your integral then? Who loses, how much, who gains, how much? >>If that >>means the woman has more success, then the man should "give way". > >If the guy defines success as "who likes their job more" and the woman >defines success as "who makes more money," and the guy loves his job, >and the woman is making money hand over fist, who is more "successful"? A guy who "likes his job" probably has a good attitude and would "like his job" wherever it was. >>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. > >Like, who cares? When the ultimate bargaining advantage is a willingness >to dump the guy, True. The ultimate bargaining advantage in any situation is a willingness to dump the deal. It makes the next deal harder to negotiate, but it is very valid to do so. In some cases, dumping a parnter (especially one you're married to) can be quite costly. >to stick to your guns when it comes to defining success for yourself, It can be very useful if perspective partners have the same definition, and acknowedge the other partners superiority. >who cares whether or not the guy is going to expect you to follow him, >or whether he's going to follow you? Unless you want to be paying alimony, it can be quite important. >And why PURSUE a man? Men have been PERSUING women, taking initiative, and with it control of their relationships, since ???. >I mean, they have great entertainment value, >but most of them can't even spell worth beans. i well ignor thet ramerk :-). (I proof read material I'm paid for, not lunch-hour news replies). >>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. >Well good for them. >Cheryl Yes it is. It shows that there ARE alternatives between "follow him" or "dump him".