What is that supposed to mean?
Thank you, even sven, for saying what I was (inarticulately) trying to say earlier.
Fear mongering about the difficulties in “having it all” is another pile of shit we need to start challenging. We routinely tell half the human population that managing a job and family is some impossible balancing act–flippantly ignoring the fact that men have been managing this forever and the sky has not fallen. Why? Because women have picked up the slack. But when it comes to working women, the prevailing assumption is that men can’t be counted on to help carry the load so let’s not even consider them an important part of the equation. Let’s leave it up to women to figure out how to “have it all”, and then, when they struggle, society can blame it on them being too ambitious. Cue the preaching and finger wagging.
There shouldn’t be any wonder why girls nowadays are not in a rush to take on the double whammy of work and kids. They’ve been force fed rhetoric about the difficulties in 'having it all" all their lives. So when given the choice between marriage (and all its attendant responsibilities) and a career, they choose to focus on the latter because 1) they have more control over that and 2) a career represents financial security while kids represent a financial drain. With jobs being cut throat like they are, it makes sense that they would focus on school moreso than dating.
Here’s a radical thought: Perhaps if more men showed willingness to equally co-parent and keep the house clean, then marriage would become more attractive to young women with career ambitions. Being the same way guys were 30 or 40 years ago in terms of interests and roles is not a ticket to success with the ladies nowadays.
Mother Nature generally gets her way in the end. If an overabundance of sex hormones and alcohol aren’t enough to encourage college girls to pair up with the fellas, then preachy letters will do nothing except annoy the shit out of people.
It’s easier for men to “have it all” because it’s easier for them to find a woman willing to stay home & look after the kids without any stigma being attached to either party. The reverse is not true (but it is getting better).
Nursing & teaching have historically been fields dominated by women & thus for practicle rease have been much more accomodating to working mothers than say law or banking. Even then in alot of times & places married women barred from those jobs so in the past even women wanting to be teachers or nurse had to choose between family and career.
So will men, and, to some extent, babies. Maybe not your own, but you can adopt.
The corporate clock ticks as fast as the biological clock. If you haven’t made it to a Director level position by 40 in a Fortune 100, there is no shot at becoming an executive.
I get upset about both ends of the spectrum - I read an editorial today by a woman who said she won’t rest until 50% of the CEOs are women - after all, women are 50% of the population and 57% of college grads - but no all women want to climb the corporate ladder. And not all women want to prioritize marriage and kids. I think “having it all” is probably the rare exception. More importantly, I think “wanting it all” is probably the rare exception. A woman who is driven enough to go to Princeton probably is prioritizing intellectual and career success over marriage and kids - and probably should.
Women should be allowed to prioritize their own lives - if they want to get married at 24 and have kids before they are 30, great. If they want to set aside their law degree to become stay at home moms, great. If they want to prioritize a career and then hire a nanny when they do have kids, great. They should, however, recognize that each choice involves giving up something else. And they should be pressured by anyone (except maybe their mother asking for grandkids :)) to make one choice over another.
Because we (men) don’t view work as “having it all”. We work so we can support a family.
The problem with “having it all” is that to be successful at the sort of jobs that are worth being successful at, you typically need to work long hours and maybe even travel extensively. Especially when you are just starting out.
Truer words have never been spoken. It isn’t a privilege. It is responsibility for the vast majority of men and not an especially fun one at that. Your job is to simply make as much money as you can and never complain about it. It is strange that some women see it otherwise. My dream is to be a bush pilot in Alaska or the Caribbean but I can’t do that because I can’t leave my kids and it doesn’t pay enough. I don’t even understand the phase ‘having it all’ in men’s terms. To me, it is just having my kids happy, a hot woman that doesn’t bitch too much, the bills paid, and doing something you truly want to do. You can usually pick one or two of those but not all of them at the same time.
It’s a responsibility for the vast majority of women, as well. Do you think that we don’t need financial security? With a 50% divorce rate and a massively iffy economy, any woman who isn’t staying competitive in the workforce is taking a very extreme risk. And with women climbing their way up, it’s not particularly unusual for the woman to be paying most of those bills and making “as much money as she can.” It’s been a long time since newly graduate coeds didn’t expect to be paying their half of the bills.
The question remains: If high-powered jobs are so miserable, why does anyone do them? Are you really saying that nobody enjoys them, and they do them solely out of grim duty? That’s ridiculous. Some people love that stuff. If they didn’t, wouldn’t they just retire after the first ten million? If they weren’t getting something else out of it, why make any more money than you need to?
Just because you don’t like your job doesn’t mean that’s the universal human condition. I think most professionals find their jobs mostly intellectually engaging, occasionally tedious, but mostly intrinsically rewarding. Many people actually do find some shade of a “dream job.” It may not be the “rock star” that they pictured, but it might be a doctor helping low-income patients, or a project manager for a worthwhile NGO, or a scientist winning all kinds of crazy awards. Lots of people actually do work jobs that fulfill their need for recognition, or to give back, or to build stuff, or to do whatever it is that captured their imagination when they started their career. And yes, they probably would like to continue to do those things along side with the other fulfilling stuff in life, just like men have ever since we got off the farm and started going to work.
Anyway, I agree that if you are so worried about women’s marriage prospects, maybe it’s time to look in to what men actually do bring in to a marriage. Statistics are showing quite clearly that women have decided that a paycheck isn’t quite the incentive it used to be.
One last little bit of screed…
Even in the most traditional gender role’d household, it’s pretty much the same for women. Do you think housewives deeply enjoy scrubbing the floor? Do you think they find spending hours alone with a toddler intellectually engaging? While being around your kids is rewarding in that big diffuse way, the day to day of it is often tedious. Hey, that sounds kind of like the “work” thing you talked about earlier, doesn’t it?
Each has it’s tradeoffs. With work, you get to use your brain and do adult stuff a bit more. With housekeeping, you get more face time with the family. Some people value on over the other, but it’s worth pointing out that next to nobody is knocking down the door trying to find jobs as preschool teachers or maids.
Of course, in actual reality most families rely on two incomes, and everyone has to work. So the real question really becomes what kind of work you do, and it’s not surprising that lots of men and women are choosing the “intellectually and financially fulfilling” kind. To that, I say thank goodness we have washing machines and daycare.
Why do people keep saying she has a point because it’s important to marry someone of your station or whatever? What makes anyone think these Princeton broads are going to collect their diplomas then suddenly find themselves wading through the gutters? As has been said, birds find their flock. They will be fine and will continue to know bright men with their shit together for the rest of their lives. Encouraging 18 year old girls to husband scout because their potential has peaked already is sort of really stupid.
My cousin is a Princeton girl married to a Princeton guy. They’re from the same metropolitan area. They didn’t know each other while in college but met afterward following separate returns to said metropolitan area.
So HAHAHAHA woman, you’re wrong! You don’t have to find a husband while at Princeton. You can find one at an alumni event later!
Because low-powered jobs suck even more? You said it yourself. You might not actually like the job, but it meets some need you have in terms of compensation, , power, prestige, intellectual stimulation or simply being with other like-minded highly educated people.
I would be curious as to the quality of the Profile 1 responses vs Profile 2. I would suspect that your friend just eliminated 90% of the knuckleheads who are just looking to score with some bimbo.
Right. So why is it natural for a man to want these things, but when women show interest in the very same, we must scratch our heads in bewilderment and act as though they are crazy?
My point was that they will probably be among their SES/intellectual peers if they graduate from a prestigious place like PU,
I don’t think this is about work or even gender at all. The letter writer was simply trying to say that it’s worth at least trying to bond with a mate at a young age, because it’s a part of the human experience that can’t be truly replicated in other ways later on. Most people aren’t that lucky but it’s still not a bad message, and there are loads of books, songs and movies that try to make this point too.
Ah - got it. That is a problem with the sites in general (per our conversations). She claims to have gotten the same percentage of idiots and possibilities to both, and actually a few better on the non-PhD profile.
However, she said that she could see see the conversation end once they met and she told people what she did. Facial changes, demeanor changes, etc. There are simply a lot of people who are intimidated by the highly educated - and it has made dating for her a disaster. (note that there are plenty of other issues as well).
I just thought the Dope might enjoy the results of a back-of-the-envelope A/B split test.
Algher, I don’t doubt your friend’s experience (unfortunately). I’m on the fence as to whether to list my education level on my profile. On one hand, taking it out would probably increase the number of people contacting me. But then I’ll have to worry about attracting the type of guy who finds smart women undesirable, and the thought of having even one date with someone like that makes me want to ball up on the floor and cry.
This sidetrack makes me wonder: Are there any positive traits that men feel pressured to hide or downplay lest they turn off the opposite sex? I can’t think of any, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Uh, because some of us are fulfilled by our jobs. I honestly enjoy my work. I am a part of a team, and I truly care about the work that we do. When we do good work, I’m happier and more fulfilled. I actually enjoy going to work in the morning, and when I was working a crappy job, I was unhappy. Look, there’s nothing wrong with what you’re doing. Being a parent can be a great thing, and I’m not knocking that, and if that’s the fulfilling thing in your life, instead of your career, I’m glad that you’re fulfilled. In my life, if I have to, I might compromise my fulfilling career for my family. But your experience is not universal and some of us are fulfilled by our jobs and that’s a valuable thing to us.
But leaving romance out of it, dating is to a large extent a numbers game. You’re looking for a potential mate in the pool of people you know. You have to find somebody who’s of the appropriate gender, is available, and is basically compatible. In college, these basic standards might eliminate 75% of the people around you. But once you leave college, the same standards are going to eliminate 99% of the people around you.
A WSJ article gives some more background about the author of the article that started all this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578394791283850654.html
I think that’s a far cry from the stereotype about Ivy Leaguers who get in because of their family connections. Good for her. 