Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Lots of questions here:

    
>    QUESTIONS:  DO WOMEN STILL HOLD THE BELIEF THAT THEY CANNOT FIND
>                HAPPINESS WIHOUT A HUSBAND AND CHILDREN?  
>                OR RATHER DO SINGLE WOMEN TODAY FEEL THAT THEY CAN BE 
>                HAPPY WITHOUT MARRYING?  

I doubt it, but there is still a strong feeling that you need to find that
one true love, and there is still strong feelings for having your own
children.  This is not to say people (both women and men) are unhappy
without spouse and children, but that a lot of people look to having them. 
                
>                DO WOMEN FEEL UNFULLFILLED OR THAT SOMETHING IN THEIR
>                LIVES IS MISSING IF THEY DO NOT MARRY?  

see above.  Actually a lot of the pressure is external (people who keep
asking if someone has a boyfriend/girlfriend yet).
                
>                DO YOU THINK THAT SOCIETY STILL EXPECTS WOMEN TO MARRY 
>                AND DO WE SUBCONCIOUSLY LOOK DOWN UPON SINGLE WOMEN IF
>                THEY HAVE CHOSEN CAREERS OVER MARRIAGE?  

yes, society expects both men and women to marry.  No, I don't think people
realize that anyone has chosen a career over marriage.  If someone has done
that, most people assume that they just haven't found the right person yet. 

>    QUESTIONS:  WHAT ROLE DOES MONEY PLAY NOW IN SELECTING A MATE?  
Very little, I hope.
    
>                DO YOU THINK THAT MEN NOW ACHIEVE STATUS BY MARRYING 
>                PROFESSIONAL WOMEN?
Probably not (unless the woman is well known).  But then I doubt many women
achieve that much status from the men they marry (unless the man is very
well known).

>                DO PROFESSIONAL WOMEN STILL WANT TO MARRY AT THE SAME
>                OR HIGHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC LEVEL THAN THEMSELVES?      
You tend to marry who you socialize with.  I don't think there is any
conscious checking of check books here.


>    QUESTION:  NOW THAT WOMEN OBTAIN A GREAT DEAL OF STIMULATION 
>               FROM THEIR EDUCATION AND JOBS, DO WE LOOK AT MARRIAGE 
>               TO ENHANCE THIS STIMULATION OR REPLACE IT?
enhance.

>    THE BIG QUESTIONS:  BECAUSE OF ALL THESE FACTORS, DO YOU THINK THAT
>                        WOMEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO MARRY ON THE BASIS OF 
>                        LOVE NOWADAYS?  
yes.  But then, I think the majority of women in the past also married for
love.
      
>                        DO YOU THINK THE FACT THAT MORE WOMEN ARE WORKING 
>                        AND EDUCATED HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE NUMBER OF
>                        DIVORCES, IE. PROFESSIONAL WOMEN DO NOT HAVE TO
>                        RELY ON THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS THEIR MEANS 
>                        OF SURVIVAL BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE TO SUPPORT 
>                        THEMSELVES, THEY ARE NOT AS NAIVE, AND THEY ARE
>                        NOT AS WILLING TO TURN THEIR CHEEK AND REMAIN IN
>                        AN UNHAPPY MARRIAGE?  
yes.  It's not just professional women, it's that a lot of women realize that
they have more options now.  You don't have to stay in a situation that's
bad for you.
    
>                        OVERALL, DO YOU THINK THAT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE 
>                        (THE WORKPLACE, THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, LEGAL
>                         RIGHTS, ECONOMY, MARRIAGE, CHILDREN, ETC.) HAS 
>                        BENEFITED FROM THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN 
>                        ARE WORKING?   
yes.    (Do the majority of women work now?  I knew it was a lot.)
                        

    Karen and I disagree a lot here.  My impression is that what I have
    seen leads me to believe that women and marriage is still a lot
    like it was yesterday; I think we are nowhere near the ideal that
    Karen seems to feel we are approaching.
    
    Yes, a lot of women still seem to believe they need children+hubby
    to be happy.  I find myself saying so what an awful lot, defending
    "lonely old age" with images of me and my cronies :) on porches
    cackling away.  Sounds like a lot of fun, but it still has to be
    explained often.  _I_ think I can be happy without marrying, but
    I had to think about it a long time.  I know an older female engineer
    who is intensely involved with her work, almost to the point of
    obsession.  The cliche re: her is that she has nothing but her job.
     Well, heck, that's not true: she has friends she loves a lot, she
    has a home she made for herself and she enjoys.  What more is needed
    than people to love, a home, and an avocation that's your proffession?
    Babies and a mate, it seems...
    
    I realize this is external pressure, but to a large extent, is seems
    a woman (maybe a man, too, I haven't noticed) doesn't have a
    husband/lover because she IS flawed and has nothing to offer them,
    or maybe she's too twisted and deranged to want one.
    
    On status via marriage: I dunno.  It makes it hard; I still have
    the feeling my SO and I should be at close levels financially and
    professionally, but if he is much "higher" than me it's no big sweat
    whereas if I'm much higher than him, it's a big problem, for me
    anyway.
    
    Hypocritical? yes. Unfair? yes. Idiotic? yes.  I have not been able
    to change this stupid attitude, but I'm trying.  So I am still a
    "traditional woman" (eek!), I guess...
    
    Lee

    re .3, Lee:
    
    >On status via marriage: I dunno.  It makes it hard; I still have
    >the feeling my SO and I should be at close levels financially and
    >professionally, but if he is much "higher" than me it's no big sweat
    >whereas if I'm much higher than him, it's a big problem, for me
    >anyway.
    
    I used to think this too.  Then I thought about it some more and
    I came to the conclusion that *money* is not the issue!  Drive and
    ambition are the issues.  If my husband were in a low-paying profession
    but were every bit as ambitious and hard-working within that
    profession as I am within mine, then there would be no problem by me.
    Also, if I were to marry a much younger man whose salary were not
    up to mine just because of the fewer number of years working, that
    would not matter either, as long as he were as hardworking and
    close to intelligence as myself.
    
    Lee, does this make sense to you?
    
    	-Ellen

    ooooh, I think you hit the nail on the head, Ellen.
    
    Lee

    As plain and simple as I can be, I want to get married, have a family,
    relax and live happily ever after.  
    
    Marriage to me (George are you listening) means a partnership where
    both people are friends and lovers, sister and brother, who work
    (and play) together in a loving, trusting environment that allows
    for individual growth AND growth as a couple.  Change affects
    "everything" but it's "how you handle" change that will make or
    break relationships.  You just have to be prepared.
    
    I'm not "ashamed" in any way to say that marriage is important to
    me.  My "job" is ok, I have no "career" per se and that's ok!  I
    used to think that something was wrong with me because "I didn't
    know what I wanted to be when I grew up".  Well, I still don't know
    and you know what, that's ok, too!  All my life (about 24 years
    of 26) I spent "playing grown-up" to my alcoholic mom (recovered
    4 years now), irrational father, and not-too-supportive older sisters
    and a jealous younger sister.  It's time for me "to play" and be
    the kid I never was.
    
    And when I reach maturity (emotional and physical), I will welcome
    marriage AND career.  Until then, I'm having a damn good time not
    really doing anything but having FUN......
                                              

    
    
    
    I speak only of my situation but others may agree.  I think
    some good has come of the freedom of choice about marriage
    and being respected as a single woman.  I did not have to
    marry for financial reasons, security, or happiness.  I was
    self-supporting, secure in my own house, and was happy.  I
    did not feel bad because I was single, nor do I think others
    felt I was an old maid, at least I never got the impression
    they did.  I did remarry at 30 but for good reasons.  Because
    I met someone I could get along with and wanted to spend my
    life with.  
    

    Lee and Ellen
    
    > I still have the feeling my SO and I should be at close levels
    > financially and professionally, but if he is much "higher" than me it's
    > no big sweat whereas if I'm much higher than him, it's a big problem,
    > for me anyway.
    
    > I came to the conclusion that *money* is not the issue!  Drive and
    > ambition are the issues.
 
    I am a bit surprised and intrigued to find such traditional thinking
    coming from two woman who are otherwise not at all traditional.
    Correct me if I am reading this wrong but I don't see any willingness
    for you to support the man in your life but at the same time you
    say that being supported by him is no problem.
    
    Is this an artifact of conditioning still laying around?  Is this
    something that needs to be unlearned?
    
    Would you consider an arrangement in which the man was to stay home
    and be dependent while you went out and provided the financial support?
    Would you consider the opposite?  How do you explain any discrepancy
    between your reaction to the two situations?
    
    I once had an argument with one professionally employed woman where
    she insisted that she would *NEVER* support a man, husband or not.
    I claimed that she was sexist.  To what extent (if any) do you agree
    with her?
    
    If you are fully able to support the man, why must he have drive?
    
    Some related material from 380.17 (Mez):

    > re: Cinderella Complex

    > A recurring theme in many conversations is that: women now have the
    > option of either taking care of themselves or being home makers. And
    > that men must take care of themselves, and might be forced into taking
    > care of a spouse. 

    Many men like myself see the world in these terms.  I see reinforcement
    of this idea in your replies.  Do women still look to get some kind
    of security from their relationship with men?  Why?
    
    Re .6: being married -> having fun
    
    Yes you are having fun.  You are free from the need to support
    yourself.  You choose not to take your career seriously.  Men
    do not have that option.  They must be still able to support themselves
    and a family too if they wish to have one.
    
    I don't mean to flame anyone here.  I just mean to provide something
    to think about.
    
    						MJC O->
    

	I have supported my husband through several years of college
	and we are constantly teased about it. He loves it if I make
	enough money that he can have a fun job and work for the school.
	I would love it if I could have a quote "fun job" (of course I
	have fun here!) and maybe not work during the summer. It has nothing
	to do with our sex. Wouldn't we all like to be independantly
	wealthy? (I must be honest here, I spent about 2 years worth
	of time where I was a housewife and I hated it, but that's
	cause we were poor - no tennis at the club you know -
	a serviceman's salary is laughable).

	I would think that since women (some anyway) make enough
	money that we don't have to get married men would feel more
	desired. I would rather get married for love than a meal
	ticket. It nice in a two income family that one of you can
	take that big chance (the new job, start your own business etc)
	and know that the family won't suffer for it if it doesn't
	work out. It's a lot easier for someone in a two income family
	to say take this job and shove it.

	I'm with my man cause I want to be not cause I can't survive
	without him (though after 11+ years it'd be lonely) liesl

    Well things have changed alot since I put that reply up about my
    telling my SO that he better start thinking about marriage.
    
    My SO is now my exSO.  We figured we should probably get engaged
    and then marry.  Problem is neither of us wanted to for a while.
    So I was faced with the thought of going out with him for the next
    3 or 4 years until we tied the knot.  Unfortunately, the thought
    of that seemed pretty depressing.  Here I am 21 years old and I'm
    already planning my marriage.  How depressing.  And I was the one
    who swore in highschool I would never marry.
    
    So I gave some serious thought to why I was planning this marriage.
    I still haven't figured everything out, but I have realized one
    thing.  I just graduated from college and have a job.  The real
    world has hit me face and I'm scared I won't be as good as I want
    to be.  What better way to reduce my fears than to plan a future
    where I will have someone on my side.  But that's not the only reason
    someone should get married, something I've just learned.
    
    So maybe it boils down to the fact that many women are realizing
    as I have that they will be successful in the real world and that
    friends and family can offer the support they need.  And more women
    may be realizing that security should not be the sole reason for
    marrying.
    

    RE: .10
    
       Better to know what you really want, before worrying about
    marriage.   It should be two independent people coming together
    who want the other person in their life, not just to get married
    for the heck of it.
    
                                     Mark
    

    
    The base note mentioned the old idea that, if a woman wasn't married
    by the age of 25, then there was 'something wrong' with her.  It
    reminded me of an incident where a great-aunt of mine was discussing
    me with another person.  Shaking her head sadly, she said "she never
    married, you know!"  I'm not sure what shocked me the most, her
    statement, or the fact that she was standing right next to me when
    she made it.  I was 25 years old at the time.....And that was 10
    years ago.  Not so long really.

    re .8, MJC
 
    >I am a bit surprised and intrigued to find such traditional thinking
    >coming from two woman who are otherwise not at all traditional.
    >Correct me if I am reading this wrong but I don't see any willingness
    >for you to support the man in your life but at the same time you
    >say that being supported by him is no problem.
    
    No, you misunderstand (but I can only speak for myself).  I said
    *Money* is not the issue.  Let me try to explain this better.
    The issues would be these - is my husband as motivated as I am to
    *do* something with his life?  Does he have goals?  Does he have
    priorities?  Can he save money (however much he makes) and spend
    judiciously?  Does he make good use of his time? (i.e. not a lazy slob)
    
    >Is this an artifact of conditioning still laying around?  Is this
    >something that needs to be unlearned?
    
    I think for *many* women it still is.
    
    >Would you consider an arrangement in which the man was to stay home
    >and be dependent while you went out and provided the financial support?
    >Would you consider the opposite?  How do you explain any discrepancy
    >between your reaction to the two situations?
    
    What would "staying home" involve?  Taking care of a small child,
    YES, I would *welcome* the opportunity to provide an example of
    a happy non-traditional family to some of the more traditional folks
    around me.  Would "staying home" involve full-time charity work
    at a cause that we both believed in?  Another great reason to support
    the man I love financially.  A year or two or more for a graduate
    degree?  Certainly, if that's what he really wanted to do.  A year off
    for him to play and travel, if we could afford it?  Maybe, depends on
    what.  (I'd expect a year of the same in return :-) ) A couple of
    years of support to start a business?  Sure.  A year off to be lazy?
    NO WAY!
    
    >I once had an argument with one professionally employed woman where
    >she insisted that she would *NEVER* support a man, husband or not.
    >I claimed that she was sexist.  To what extent (if any) do you agree
    >with her?
    
    I think you're right - sounds sexist.  Or maybe she just hasn't
    thought it out too carefully.
   
    >If you are fully able to support the man, why must he have drive?

    Marriage is a *partnership*, with both people working (more or less)
    equally hard at making their future, accomplishing goals, setting
    priorities, etc.  This is what I believe for me, anyway.  Again,
    it doesn't really have to do with *money* (except in wise use of
    what there is).  If my husband were to be a hard-working high-school
    teacher or nurse (both much lower-paying professions than software
    engineering), for example, and truly enjoyed the profession and worked
    hard at it, I would have noooooo problem.  I'd probably even enjoy
    being non-traditional in making more money than him. ;-)
    
    No flame at all, sorry to bore everyone else with a long-winded
    explanation, (if I have)
    
    	-Ellen
    
    

    <== Yeah, me too.
    
    I would hesitate to agree to support anyone with no avocation. 
    If it's charity work, I'm all for it.  Kid-care? great.  "taking
    care of the house?" forget it.
    
    I said I could cope with being involved with someone more successful
    than me.  That did _not_ mean I could cope with "being supported"
    by that person but would not want to reciprocate; I would make a
    lousy homemaker, and would at least be doing charity work (teaching
    the illiterate to read, volunteering at a women's shelter spring
    immediately to mind as things I want very much to do but cannot).
    
    The questions of drive and capabilities are, as Ellen suggested,
    much more important.  While they may be equated with "success",
    that is not necessarily true.
    
    And the fact my last lover was filthy dirty rich was one of the
    major factors in our breakup; rich sometimes means you never learn
    to make the necessary choices and sacrifices...
    
    Lee

    
    some good stuff in here...
    and some traditional crap, too.
    
    0. was based on an article she read that suspiciously resembled
    an article lorna and i wrote together 2 years ago and , having posted
    it in notes somewhere, got tarred and feathered for.
    
    should we sue?
    :-)
    
    many of you are closing in on reality.....that's great...
   now if you can only realize that it just doesn't matter how
    long a relationship lasts...too many people, though more aware
    of options and possibilities that preclude marriage and contain
    happiness, are still looking for "mr/ms right" and assuming that
    once they find this person heaven will have been found.

    i've found 3 ms rights in my life so far.....do i win a prize?
    
    
    

    Finding Miss Right is easy - close your eyes. The real trick is
    to make a go of it with Miss Close. 
    
    Dana_who_tries_to_keep_eyes_open