Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    libraries may carry the magazine (many have regular subscriptions)....
    
    you could glance there
    
    -Jody
    

    Thanks Jody, that's a stupendious idea! 
    
    I hope that there are some women out there who have read it, because it
    has made some every interesting conversations on the talk shows.  Also,
    many women who called in said they subscribe to Equire because of the
    articles (intelligent) they publish about women....guess they blew it
    this time!
    
    
    "j"

I glanced at during lunch and all I can say is, regarding my recent remarks 
in the porn string on How the Media Use Women's Bodies for Patriarchal 
Purposes, I rest my case...

I'd say the patr. has sunk to a new low. (Gee, I wonder, could it possibly 
be getting desperate?)
 
;-)

D.

Can someone give me a *hint* as to what the issue is about and what is
degrading about it?  Is it the advertising, or pictures, or articles about
women's inherent infereriority or what?

D!

    D!, maybe it's just a rumor. :-)
    
    BTW, in today's Globe, there's an Op-Ed article on Cosmo's selection
    of Madonna for its 25th Anniversary cover issue.
    
      Alan

    D!, I was in the library magazine section a few days ago and if
    I remember correctly, the June Esquire is about "The Wife". 
    Specifically, the wives of wealthy executive male Esquire
    readers.  Page after page, feature after feature of what their 
    sports are, what their clothes are, what charities they support,
    where they vacation, how they entertain, etc, etc.  I didn't
    see the term "trophy wives" used but that was my impression of
    the entire issue.
    
    DougO

    
    Cover shows woman divided into four quadrants, normal attire and
    exposed bra on top, apron and schematic diagram of internal plumbing on
    bottom...it's like that.

    What, they didn't show a cutaway of the mouth area to show the glass
    therein?
    
    And I suppose the legs are shaven under the apron....*sigh*
    
    ;)
    
    -Jody
    

    Also, from what I heard, there is a "Doris Day" type women cleaning the
    toilets with rubber gloves and saying I use comet, etc.  Also from the
    talk shows, it shows women as possessions, not persons.  
    
    "The 12 virtues of being a good wife, why can't she be more like a boy
    scout" is the name of one article.
    
    I just phoned my library, and since it is the most current issue you
    can't check them out, but seeing as how I have some "pull" the
    Children's Librarian will drop it off at my house to nite and I will
    drop it back in the AM before I go to work!  Just by her naming some of
    the names of some of the articles, I know I'll be mad after I read it!  
    
    I know this Chicago woman doesn't like it at all!
    
    "j"

    Sooner or later, women are going to end up boycotting marriage, (it's
    already starting), and the architects of this sick society will have no
    one to blame but themselves.  As soon as women as a group believe they
    can survive economically on their own, even with children, they'll
    begin to wonder why in hell they choose to legally bind themselves to
    people who think so little of them.  I hope this issue IS as incendiary
    as it sounds.  I can't wait to read it.  In their desperate quest to keep 
    us beholden to them, (and keep us scornful and unsure of womanhood), men 
    are driving us away NOT from each other, (as women have traditionally 
    responded), but from them.
    
    This may be THE catalyzing issue - a real eye-opener.  Dig your graves.
    The pen may be mightier than even the phallus.
    

    re .10
    
    Aw, you're just jealous :^)
    
    fred();

    
    re -1
    
    "As soon as women as a group believe they can survive economically on
    their own, even with children, they'll begin to wonder why in hell
    they choose to legally bind themselves to people who think so
    little of them."
    
    I don't get this statement at all.  None of the women I associate
    with feel they NEED men to live.  In fact, I know several single-
    mothers-by-choice who are doing quite well.  All of the women in
    my family have succeeded without the help of a man.  My Mom married
    and alcholic who was removed from the house and later died.  My
    Nana married a career Navy man who was hardly ever home.  Two out
    of the three aunts hold very high corporate positions, one is a 
    vice president of a major bank in Boston.  I am a successful engineer
    who is involved with a man.  We are talking about marriage, but
    we are approaching it as a business deal.  Our reason to get married
    is because we love each other, not because I need him to live or
    vice versa. 
    
    We are not looking at marriage as a free ride.  We both know each
    of us will have to work fulltime to support "us".  I have accepted
    the fact that I will not be able to be a stay at home mom due
    mainly to financial reasons.  I have already shattered the myths
    of marriage I was brought up to seek.  It is a partnership where
    one person may have the upperhand one day and the next the situation
    is reversed.  But in no means is it taken as a free ride by either of 
    us.
    
    
    I think that the mothers of today have got to stop telling their
    little girls to grow up and find the knight on a white horse 
    because they just do not exist.  They should prepare their
    girls to believe in themselves as people and instill in them
    a strong self confidence that they will be able to achieve
    whatever goals they seek.  I was raised to be a very self-reliant
    individual who was always told I can be whatever I want as long
    as I work hard to get there.  However, I was also raised to
    find a man to marry and take care of me.  This part has got
    to stop.  
    
    The world has changed so much since our moms were kids.  Most
    women today are forced due to economic reasons to work.  The
    days are gone when one paycheck can support an entire family.
    Expose the children today to what it really is like to be married.
    Stop telling them it is all peaches and cream because it isn't.
    It is hard work maintaining a good marriage, and anyone who
    thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.
    
    
    I get so angry when I keep hearing that women today still 
    believe they need a man to support them.  Frankly, I think
    it is pure bs.  
    
    Michele

Re: .10:

    Why would this be an issue to men on anything other than an ego level,
    unless they want children (and close contact with them)?  I mean, why 
    would the average man, with his statistically higher salary, choose to 
    bind himself to someone who will/may be economically dependent (insert
    appropriate qualifiers here, to acknowledge that income disparity that 
    is statistical, not universal, and the fact that a higher salary leads 
    to the ability to maintain a higher standard of living, but not the 
    necessity to do so), and perhaps leave him in the lurch at some point 
    thereafter, taking the kids, house, and a large chunk of his future 
    salary?  In other words, why aren't *men* boycotting marriage already?

    If you're saying that the women would refuse to marry men, but still
    seek out their company, companionship, and help in raising children
    (which the woman must support, since legally they may not be his), 
    I'd think that at least some of the 'architects of this society' would
    be patting themselves on the back for it.

    Isn't this a lot of what "the feminization of poverty" is all about?

	Sharon

    Although I haven't read the Esquire article, I've got no problem
    believing its every bit as offensive as described here.  But I don't
    see any movement whatsoever on women's part to boycott marriage, as
    Sandy suggests will start happening "sooner or later."
    
    Actually, that statement reminded me of other feminist stands which
    only the radical/separatist feminists believe and the rest, dare I say
    overwhelming majority, of the women couldn't care a bit about.  This is
    strictly my opinion; I have no data to back it up one way or another.
    
    And given the current state of affairs between men and women, with
    women going back to husbands who beat them or denigrate them etc., I
    can't even imagine the other 99+% of women taking any action whatsoever
    based on media presentations of women such as the Esquire article. 
    After all, sometimes having something there is better than nothing at
    all...
    
    Jim

    
    slavery is a bad thing
    child abuse is a bad thing
    nuclear war is a bad thing
    
    wanting to be a housewife, work for charities etc. is not a bad thing
    writing about women who do so is not a bad thing
    
    unless the article has particularly repressive things to say about
    women in general, an article profiling wives of executive men who
    choose not to be high-powered executive women themselves is not a
    bad thing.
    
    Taking away people's choice about what they want to do with their 
    lives is a bad thing!
    
    dm

    Well, I took quite a glance at the magazine at The Paper Store here
    in Maynard at lunch today, without buying it.  But, I think I may
    buy it.  Parts of it looked very humorous to me, and I can always
    use a good laugh.  There was one section that described 4 horrendous
    sounding wives, a full page each with amusing photo, and the caption
    said, "If you still believe in these stereotypes, you deserve to
    be stuck with one."  I thought that was pretty funny myself.  Another
    section had 4 colored full page photos of supposed couples in their
    wedding attire.  One humorous one, that made me think of some Dec
    folks, showed a short, nerdy looking guy marrying a tall, thin,
    pretty blonde, and the caption read, "Revenge of the Nerd."  Another
    one depicted an older man with a younger woman and advised him how
    to dress for the wedding so no one would confuse him with the father
    of the bride instead of the groom.  Still another, my personal
    favorite, showed an older woman with a gorgeous much younger hunk,
    in wedding attire.  There may be some offensive stuff in the issue,
    maybe a lot, but I got the impression at least some of it was meant
    as humor.  
    
    Lorna
    

Well I'm no "separatist", (I like guys a lot!), but I boycotted marriage 
a long time ago.  Ask a few high school and college females what they
think about marriage.
    
re .12 GIAMEM::MACKINNON

> None of the women I associate with feel they NEED men to live.  
> All of the women in my family have succeeded without the help of a man.  
> Two out of the three aunts hold very high corporate positions, one is a 
> vice president of a major bank in Boston.  I am a successful engineer
> I was raised to be a very self-reliant individual who was always told I 
> can be whatever I want as long as I work hard to get there

I believe you, but I believe it's a very unusual situation and not the
norm at all.  I wasn't addressing everyone's individual situations.

>    I think that the mothers of today have got to stop telling their
>    little girls to grow up and find the knight on a white horse 
>    However, I was also raised to find a man to marry and take care of 
>    me.  

So you do agree that this is the party line the majority of females
are *still* brought up with, even those who turn out to be exceptions,
yes?  That's all I was referring to.

re .13 COBWEB::SWALKER (love your personal name!)

> I mean, why would the average man, with his statistically higher salary,
> choose to bind himself to someone who will/may be economically dependent

Beats me!  But when you ask men, (most people actually!), why they marry, 
they generally give vague reasons like "love", which of course, doesn't
require marriage at all.  Whatever reasons they have for marrying, it's
my opinion that making fun of the women who marry them doesn't seem to be 
in their best interests, that's all.  Would you make public fun of your
lover?  Your kid?  Your boss?  Why a wife?  Why always a wife?

> In other words, why aren't *men* boycotting marriage already?

I think a lot are - a lot more than women.  The rise in prenuptual agreements
is an indication of man's growing reluctance to be "traditionally married"
and many of them simply state flat out, "no".  C'mon, women, you all know men 
or women who know men who won't marry!  What are all these books about, like
"Men Who Won't Commit", "How to Get a Man", "Why Do I Think I Am Nothing
Without a Man" and practically every article in Cosmo et al?  I'm not 
imagining this, here!

>    If you're saying that the women would refuse to marry men, but still
>    seek out their company, companionship... I'd think that at least some 
>    of the 'architects of this society' would be patting themselves on the 
>    back for it.

It would seem to be on the surface, but I hold a basic belief that men will 
always want/need to be a part of women's world.  I've stated before that I
believe the sexist aspects of organized society were intentionally engineered
in to insure that.  I think men do fear that women might simply go off
without them and defusing women's power to do that is the whole point of
sexism, of porn, of rape, of abuse, and mags like this issue of Esquire.  
It's my belief, you don't have to believe it too if you don't want to.

>    Isn't this a lot of what "the feminization of poverty" is all about?

No - I think it's the extreme result of societies where the system is set 
up for men and women are expected to interact with the system only through 
men.  Those who don't, or can't for whatever reason, can fall to this ex-
treme.  Our schools don't want to educate women in the consequences of
sexuality, (get married and there won't BE any consequences!), our highest 
leaders don't want abortion available, (get married and you'll be ABLE to
raise the kid), don't want birth control available, (get married and your
husband will be willing to practice rhythm with you unlike the boys on the
street), rapists slip through the system like quicksilver, (what was she
wearing?  why was she there anyway?) single mothers are financially penalized 
for getting a job to get ahead, (get a husband instead and you won't
need welfare).  What was the derogatory name Silber used to refer to pregnant
teenage girls?.  The feminization of poverty is the result of the masculini-
zation of the system.

And the June Esquire issue is the result of a long-held fear of women that
sexism has allowed men to hide and feminism is forcing them to come to terms
with.  It's a backlash, pure and simple, like the rise in porn in everyday 
media, like the increase in wife beating and killing.  It's an increase in the
desire to show women who's boss, (you don't have to show June Cleaver who's
boss - she already believes Ward is!) and increase in the trivialization of 
that which is feared - women who may no longer believe men are boss by default.

    I see men not committing to marriage and men boycotting marriage
    for the implied reasons stated as two very different, unrelated,
    things.  The first is readily documented and fairly well established.
    Its also, given the marriage statistics, is probably a small minority of
    men.
    
    I also don't see a connection between the rise in prenuptual agreements
    and men "boycotting" marriage.  They're still getting married.  And I'd
    suggest that much of this shift, if it is even statistically
    significant, is among middle-upper class individuals and not really
    representative of the population at large.  I might be wrong on this,
    though.
    
    BTW, what on earth is a traditional marriage?  The "Cleaver" family? 
    Has that *ever* been a majority of the marriages in America?  Or just
    a media/government fabrication of how it *should* be?

re: .17 (Sandy)

    I think you misunderstood my "feminization of poverty" argument.
    Specifically, I have heard this refer to the fact that women (and
    children) are overrepresented among the poor.  So, unless the current
    economic disparity between men and women changes, an unmarried woman 
    with 1 child would have to support two people on a salary that is
    approximately 70% of the father's (which must only support one person).  
    Therefore, the lower woman's salary must go further, and the men have
    more and more disposable income relative to everyone else.  So, women
    boycott marriage (but still have children), and the men use their
    dependent-free incomes to cultivate a higher standard of living, and 
    grow huge investment portfolios.  The result: women become an underclass
    to the men who own more and more of society.  I don't see the 
    "patriarchitects" rolling over in their graves over this one...

    I understood your original argument as stating, roughly, that women 
    will begin to boycott marriage in part because it is economically 
    feasible to do so, but I am arguing that marriage will still carry 
    economic incentives for women, as well as all those "vague reasons" 
    you usually hear from people, unless there are other widespread changes 
    in society that would render such a "boycott" superfluous.

    I don't see it happening.  We have the evidence that men are still 
    getting married despite all the "logical" reasons against it.  And I 
    think women will, too.

	Sharon

RE: .17
    
>  C'mon, women, you all know men 
> or women who know men who won't marry!  What are all these books about, like
> "Men Who Won't Commit", "How to Get a Man", "Why Do I Think I Am Nothing
> Without a Man" and practically every article in Cosmo et al?  I'm not 
> imagining this, here!
    
    
    Just a small point, the book "Men Who Won't Commit" is not about how to
    get a man or how to keep a man or anything remotely like that.  It is a
    book directed at woman who have had problems with men who were
    seemingly committed and then just up and left.  It is to help women
    recognise certain things about a man she may be involved with to help
    prevent heartache.  I have a copy and it helped me greatly when I
    needed it.
    
    		Holly.
    
    PS. the actual title is "Men Who *Can't* Commit".

    I see it all as the same thing.  Trends are more important than
    absolutes.  And I see the *trend* as heading in the direction where
    marriage becomes quaint and pretty much obsolete.  I wasn't separating
    out the state of things right now and dissecting it, I was seeing the
    things that are happening right now in terms of the way they were in
    generations past and extrapolating it to the future.  Just the fact 
    that the concept of prenuptual agreements is now well understool by 
    everyone, (even the middle classes), is an indication of the *direction* 
    things are headed. 
    
    Prenupts started with the moneyed classes, but are becoming *in-
    creasingly* used by people in the mainstream.  Eventually, there may
    only be business deals as marriage has often been in the upper classes.  
    And it's my belief that poking public fun at marriage and specifically 
    those who marry, betrays a shift in the public attitude.  Where once
    it regarded marriage, (and married women), as honored, venerated, 
    exalted, hailed and something women should aspire to is now
    trivialized and laughed at - in a mainstream, respected magazine.  This
    is not Mad Magazine or the National Lampoon we're talking about here.  
    And I think it will open the eyes of some who've been comfortable in 
    believing that marriage is still the respected institution it once was 
    and realize that it, and those women who engage in it, (it doesn't 
    really address the married men, does it?), are now considered fair game 
    for ridicule - even by their own husbands!  The Donald and Ivana show 
    also contributes a lot to making marriage, (and married women), look 
    pretty foolish.  I think the Esquire issue just crystallizes all of this.
    
    like the current issue of Esquire does, will only 
    serve to hasten its demise.

.10 (Sandy)

	Sandy you've said some very interesting things and have prompted
some excellent discussion around marriage. It's obvious to me you're very
insightful and intelligent.

	May I flesh out some of your thoughts a little? I'm not trying to
be argumentative here...to prove it I won't question any reply you might make
any further. I'd just like to see the underpinnings of some of your ideas so
as to understand them a little better. If you are not comfortable with it then
let this pass.

	When you note about the architects of a sick society; who do you mean.
Who are these architects? How did you learn to recognize them?

	Do you believe our society is mostly sick? How did you mean sick? 

	When you mention the 'desperate quest to keep us beholden to them', I
assumed 'us' refers to women and those questing are men. Is this assumption of
mine correct? Is marriage how men keep women beholden?

	Who were you referring to when you noted 'dig your graves'...and did
you mean to say that the end of marriage is somehow death to those digging?
Death in what sense?

-D-


	

Well folks, I changed my mind. I believe the June Esquire has done us all a 
great service. I especially like the "owner's manual" to wives, and the 
cute asides in the table of contents such as "batteries not included," etc. 
Not to mention the 2-page spread of the contents of a woman's (wife's) 
purse, with the insets of four multiple-choice questions for each item so
husbands can try to identify it (is it a pencil? eyeliner? tampon? hard to 
be sure.). And all the stuff on removing the mystery of "why it takes her
so long to get ready" to go out, because of all the things she has to do
to make herself beautiful. 

In thus objectifying women and especially in emphasizing the Mystery of
Womanhood (Wifehood), Esquire reminds us all that Woman is forever the
Other, the Alien, amongst us. Just like the old joke (entered recently if
I'm not mistaken in the feminist humor note) on "What Men Know About Women"
-- followed by a large blank (in book form it's followed by a book of blank
pages). Keep those women mysterious, different, inscrutable, Not Like Us.
In case anyone should forget that the male is the Norm around here. After
all, it's in the interests of our national security. 

D.
        

    re:22 - so as not to derail this discussion, I'll send you my answer
    via mail.
    
    I have a copy of the June Esquire in my hand right now.  It opened
    to two facing pages - one depicting a May-December marriage where the
    obviously older gentleman sported a cute young bride.  But the facing
    page, supposedly the counterpart, showed an attractive and not so old 
    woman as the Decmeber component!  And her groom was, in a word, a 
    bow-wow and didn't even look that young.  Typical geeky, greasy-haired 
    male model type.  These two couples are HARDLY a comparison!  But I 
    suppose the thought of Bea Arthur marrying Johnny Depp is too frightening
    for the editors, ("If that's all HE can get, what about us???  Waaahhh!")
    although of course they think nothing of an old man marrying some cute 
    chick, ("Ah, here's hope for all us groovy guys!").
    
    Typical self-centered stuff.

    Marriage has changed from generations past, many people now don't
    understand it, what's expected of them, what's expected of a marriage. 
    The rules have been blown, both men and women feel like their out in
    the middle of an ocean treading water, not knowing which direction to
    swim.  And when you don't understand something you poke fun at it.
    
    It took me a long time (and meeting the right man I might add) to make
    peace with marriage. I am married, have been for eight years.  I could
    state all the current popular platitudes about "you have to meet the
    right guy, you have to make your own "rules" about your marriage,
    communication is key," and blah, blah, blah.
    
    But I guess I don't see any "trend" away from marriage.  I still see
    couples taking the plunge and doing their best to stay afloat. Yes,
    some men/women are boycotting marriage, but hasn't that always been so?
    I think that having children is the really tricky part about marriage. 
    That's when women truly take risks of losing ground in their carreers,
    because they usually carry the burden of raising them.
    

<                <<< Note 180.24 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
<
<   re:22 - so as not to derail this discussion, I'll send you my answer
<  via mail.
    
Sandy,
    
    Please enter your comments here (or in a new string).  I doubt that I
    am the only person interested in how you got where you are and
    interested in .22's questions!
    
    I, too, do not see the events you mention as a *significant* trend that
    will affect the majority even in my lifetime.  (But maybe I'm
    old-fashioned -- we're celebrating our 28th wedding anniversay this
    week-end.)  Actually, I see more evidence than I like in the direction
    of women returning to more traditional roles, and this disturbs me.
    
    BTW, the increasingly-common separation of *ALL* marital money into
    "his" and "hers" concerns me (note the word "concerns," not "disturbs"
    or "alarms" and note that I'm not objecting to *some* separate funds).  
    One couple I knew did not even combine their record albums until
    they had been married quite awhile!  It was as if they were prepared to
    throw in the towel and run away.  It seems to me that marriage should
    represent a *real* "for better or worse" commitment and that so many
    regulations water down that commitment to the point that --IF those
    regulations are so necessary -- then perhaps the couple should not
    really marry.
    
    Ramblingly,
    Nancy
    

    re .24, Sandy, I guess some things will always remain a matter of
    personal taste. :-)  I thought the younger man in the older woman/
    younger man scenario was pretty cute myself, and I thought the older
    woman while *mildly* attractive looked at least 50, while the guy
    looked around 24, 25.  (of course, in my mind, I superimposed my
    face with that of Matthew Broderick)  Seriously, I think any woman
    who marries a much younger, good looking man is looking for trouble
    somewhere on down the road, when she gets really old and he's
    attractively middle-aged.  Much better to just have an affair so
    you can drop the towel and run when you need to!
    
    I've only been divorced for 5 yrs. and the thought of getting my
    record collection mixed in with someone else's appalls me! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    <ahem> Lorna, dear: "at *least* 50"!?!?!? Careful - it won't be long
    before 50 is Still Quite Young, eh? :-}}}
    
    --DE_who_thinks_that_those_of_us_over_forty_better_watch_what_we_say
    ;-)
    

    re .28, in ten yrs. 50 will be Still Quite Young, and not before!
    :-)  (well, 9 1/2 yrs.)
    
    Lorna
    

    50 is young....

    re .31, oh, Joyce, I forgot, of course it is!  I'm sorry!  What
    was I thinking of???  70!  70 isn't young!  That's it.
    
    Lorna
    

    .27
     
    Sigh.
    
    "...any woman who marries a much younger, good looking man is
    looking for trouble somewhere on down the road, when she gets 
    really old..."
    
    This makes me feel really sad; women get old and worthless....men
    get more attractive with age.  I find this prevailing attitude
    insulting to both women and men...first the obvious, that women
    get old and therefore, awful to look at, and therefore, no longer
    have any worth, and second, that all men want is a good looking
    woman and that if she loses her looks, they no longer will want her,
    that all there is in life and love is good looks...
    
    
    I'm not flaming you Lorna; this attitude is pretty common I'm afraid. 
    
    

    RE:.34
    
    Yeah...this is a real double-header slam. It gets women because it
    reinforces all the stereotypes about older women being "unattractive",
    and it gets men because it reinforces all the stereotypes about men
    being so shallow that they pick women by "good looks" only.
    
    *thwack* *wham* - got 'em both! Good job, Esquire!
    
    

    
    If the Esquire June issue is humor, is it (using categories that have
    been set up in this file) 
    
    	humor about women, or
    
    	humor that denigrates women?
    
    Or is there any difference,
    
    D.

    re .34, that's just the way it is.  Sometimes I actually do struggle
    to come to grips with reality.  I believe there's an occasional
    exception, but I wouldn't want my life's happiness to depend on
    it.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, yes, but then do we simply accept it?  If that is the way it
    is, if women get old and ugly and men want women only if they look
    good, if this is in fact true, does it make it correct and acceptable?
    Or can I use this to somehow, start making some changes?  
    Maia
    

    >     if women get old and ugly and men want women only if they look
    > good, if this is in fact true, does it make it correct and acceptable? 
    
    For those men who do desire young and attractive women, there is 
    nothing *incorrect or unacceptable* about it. That's what they want. 
    
    > Or can I use this to somehow, start making some changes?
    
    Well, Ponce de Leon *did* try to discover the fountain of youth. 
    
      Alan

    Maia,
    
    I think what Lorna means is that she is accepting that this is
    the way it is *now*.  Beyond that, she doesn't say.
    
    I'd say that the best way to approach it is (as with anything)
    to assume this thesis is correct, but always be prepared to entertain
    the idea that it's wrong.  Then, look into the dynamics of *why*
    women are perceived as ugly-when-they're-old[er].  Do not get
    sidetracked into the nature of *how* women-look-ugly-when-they're-old[er].
    That is a rathole.
    
    You have to understand why something is the way it is before you
    can make the most effective change to it.  This process is a real pain.
    And I don't expect to see the end of it in my lifetime.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    *Why* are women perceived as ugly-when-they're-older (or, as .39 so
    succinctly puts it, "unattractive")?
    
    I believe one reason is that older women remind many men a bit too much
    of their mothers.
    
    Maybe we need another Crone topic?
    
    Then again, maybe the topic, like older women, isn't worth much
    attention...  ;-)
    
    D.              

    re .41, I think there has been a lot of confusion in this file 
    between inner and outer beauty.  I think very old people can have
    inner beauty.  But, when I referred to older women as being
    "unattractive" I was referring to physical beauty *only*.  I, also,
    think that very few older men have any physical beauty left either.
     In general, I think the human race *looks* the most beautiful during
    youth.  The same is true of other things.  What looks better, a
    rose about to bloom, or one that is withered on the stock?  But,
    this does not mean that there is no value in age.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I believe it's merely demographics.  Viet Nam killed off a lot of men
    who would be partners of the women of my generation.  Now we have an
    oversupply of women in our age group.  Naturally, it allows the men to
    become more selective and forces the women to become more accomodating.
    
    Everyone wants the ideal, men have no special psyche that makes them 
    hopelessly in need of young, fresh meat.  They're just lucky enough to 
    live in a culture and a generation that offers lots for their perusal, 
    and little for women's.  The generation coming up behind us, however, is
    male-heavy, (time for another war!), and you will soon see the reverse
    situation where women are doing the demanding and men doing the
    accomodating.  So in a sense, those men will be forced but not to prefer
    the unattractive, to settle for it, as women are often forced to do
    in our age group.  We've rationalized our paltry pickings by telling
    ourselves and each other that we prefer the personality, the inner
    qualities, the deeper person but I believe that when the demographics
    change and women have the upper hand in mate selection, they will
    suddenly find themselves preferring a gorgeous face, a perfect body and
    a large wallet and will search for those "deeper qualities" only among 
    those who pass that test!  That's what I think men do now.  They don't
    "just" go for a pretty face and a great bod, but they don't often look
    deeper for the other qualities they say they value if that first test 
    hasn't been passed!
    
    I agree, Dorian, that there's a little of the mommy image in an older
    woman.  But why would that make men shudder?  Why do they fear and/or
    hate it?   Is it because our society laughs at mothers, wives and older 
    women?  Actually only young women, ready to conceive, are the only
    women taken seriously by our society, and the best are "sanctified"
    in soft porn, surrounded by the symbols of their "ripe & ready" status.
    Once they marry or give birth, they're supposed to move over, (into
    joke territory), and let the new crop of "ripe & readys" take over in 
    the media image and the public eye.
    
    In a different society that didn't hate women so much, (except of
    course for the ripe & ready status of some of them), might an older
    woman, (a mother and/or a married woman), be seen instead as a symbol
    of comfort, of a "returning", as beautiful and loving?  But right now,
    women are seen only in terms of their sexual significance to men and
    the older ones signify a man's lost youth and dwindling sexual
    powers which takes precedence over whatever good she really is
    or has.

    re: .42  I've saved and dried roses long after they've "gone by"
    because I thought they were very beautiful.
    
    I know what you were trying to say, Lorna, but I'm sure you know
    that dried flowers can be beautiful.  Antique lace tablecloths,
    Old oak china cabinets, etc.  A sunset can be more exquisitely
    beautiful than a sunrise specifically because it represents an ending
    rather than a beginning.  Autumn most definitely rivals spring in its
    beauty and grandeur.  Spring apple blossoms are pretty but a tree heavily
    laden with fruit in early September is awsome in its beauty and power.
    Except for women in sexist societies, young is *not* automatically 
    always more beautiful than old.

    re .44, okay, Sandy, I give up!  Fine.  Why don't we get together
    Friday night and cruise some old age homes to see if we can whip
    up some fun with the over 80 set? :-)  Don't let those wrinkles and
    bald heads get to you!  Those old guys have a lot of wisdom to share.
    
    Lorna
    

    Nah, let's cruise the highschool instead.  Personally, I'm one of 
    those shallow ones who goes for looks first.  I can read books to
    benefit from people's wisdom!  ;-)

    > I agree, Dorian, that there's a little of the mommy image in an older
    > woman.  But why would that make men shudder?  Why do they fear and/or
    > hate it?   
    
    I also agree, and those are good questions!
    
    > Is it because our society laughs at mothers, wives and older women?
    
    Errr...I think that these are the same thing, and one doesn't motivate
    the other; both are motivated by something a little deeper, a little
    more personal.  Speaking personally, as a young adolescent I had the
    classic struggle for independence from my parents; but from my mother
    it took the form of her attempts to repress my sexuality (she was/is 
    Catholic and remains afraid of her own body even today.)  In a large
    part I still see my independence and sense-of-self directly in
    opposition to her attempts to suppress and control me, and I still
    find myself feeling defensive when I remember those years and the 
    guilt patterns she tried to instill.  Returning to the larger picture
    then, I don't know how well my experience maps to the society in
    general; but I'd bet that more men have memories of their parents not
    handling their (child's) adolescent sexuality well, and memories of 
    fighting against that stifling control, than men who learned their 
    awakening sexuality with support and the assistance of their parents.  
    
    Which is why *I* think that men don't appreciate (or, one could say,
    do act fearful or are afraid of) anything that reminds them of their 
    mothers in a sexually intimate relationship.  Those memories are too
    painful, and we are still too insecure years later to risk reopening
    that battle again by putting ourselves into a relationship with some-
    one who reminds us of mom.
    
    DougO
    
    PS- It is also possible that the Freudian interpretation applies, but
    the more I learn the more hokum that all seems.

    Why aren't men attracted to older women if they remind them a wee bit
    of a "mother"?  Because you dan't have sex with your mother!
    
    My opinion - men who are attracted to women half their age are stuck in
    adolescence.  They haven't grown beyond that need to have the
    highschool "prom queen" beauty hanging on their arm to impress "the
    boys".  Talk to a psychologist, there's a theory there.  And quite
    frankly I have never seen the attraction to an "older" man - they're
    just as wrinkly, flabby, saggy gray as any older woman.  What they
    often DO have however is "deep pockets".  And that can be quite
    attractive to a young female particularly those that have no identity.
    
    This topic gets me livid for some reason.  Perhaps it's the realization
    that many males are incredibly shallow and immature when they go for
    the looks, IMHO.  I don't mean all males.  And it IS reinforced in this
    world that if you're not thin and beautiful you're worth very little in
    the eyes of most males.  Oh, thin, beautiful and YOUNG I might add.
    
    A relative of mine has been steadily seeing a woman about 27 years
    younger than him, and I cannot comprehend what exactly she sees in him,
    other than money.  He's no great shakes to look at.  Oh well, your's is
    not to reason why...
    

>    A relative of mine has been steadily seeing a woman about 27 years
>    younger than him, and I cannot comprehend what exactly she sees in him,
>    other than money.  He's no great shakes to look at.  Oh well, your's is
>    not to reason why...
 
Whoa!!! No comprende indeed!

One minute you were decrying the men of the world for being too shallow, and
being only interested in looks, and for considering a woman who is not young and
beautiful to be worthless.

And the next paragraph you say that you can't figure out why this woman
is dating your relative, since he is not young and beautiful.

Could it be, by off-chance, that this woman is *not* shallow, and happens
to be interested in more than looks?  What a mind-boggling thought!  Or
maybe you just have no respect for this particular relative, and think that
even his *personality* has no redeeming features?

Or maybe you are so cynical that you believe, that while shallowness is a
negative trait, that it is so common you can't comprehend how someone could
be without it?

D! who has always been attracted to older partners and is tired of having to
   explain why, and fend off accusations of being a gold-digger!

    Of course, it depends on what it is that makes a woman beautiful.
    Katherine Hepburn is in her 80's, and I think she's more beautiful
    then many women a third her age. It's because those features that
    made her beautiful in her prime (those magnificent cheekbones, for
    one) are not things that vanish with age.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Back to Esquire for a moment:
    
    1) Esquire prints a magazine overflowing with more-than-ususally sexist
       photos and articles.
    
    2) Lots of women get pissed off over it.
    
    3) The male establishment gets yet another juicy chance to bash
       and discredit "feminists" for being over-sensitive.
    
    I think I see a pattern here.
    
    
    

    I just obtained a copy of the offending magazine.
    
    It stinks.  Literally.
    
    Lisa

    re .49
    No, I am decrying MEN being only interested in looks, youth etc.  and
    women only interested in money!  I grant you, it is a broad
    generalization.  And yes, perhaps I am reacting to this particular
    situation (which is more complicated than I went into in the last
    note).  Basically she's married, and has been "stringing" him along for
    about 6 years saying she'll leave her husband etc.  Everyone can see it
    but him, naturally.  But, it's really his business, his life.