In the comments to the post on the working women trend story, Amber asks:
My only question is, who are these guys? I'm a recent graduate, so maybe it's different for people in their early 30s (though I tend to doubt it), but guys from my expensive private university really don't care about this stuff. I mean, maybe a few [expletive deleted]s do, but by and large, the guys I know are happy to have girlfriends/wives who make a lot of money. It all goes into the same pile anyway, right? (Err, I guess some couples technically keep things separate, but still...)
It is different in your early thirties, but not in the way that the New York Times story suggests. The problem isn't on the female side; it's on the male side.
In your twenties, you date almost entirely on personality. But as you hit thirty, success starts to matter. To both parties, of course; one hears a lot of nightmare stories about the female train wrecks with bad employment and worse credit trying to wrap their tentacles around any solvent male they can find. But especially to women. To be a woman guys want to date, the bar is pretty low: you ought to be able to keep a job, and your credit card debt shouldn't exceed your income. But for men in their thirties, this is not enough. You have to be successful.
Speaking as the Emissary From Your Thirties, you know that amazing guy who just got back from Africa and tells hilarious stories and dates, like, everyone you know? The one your best friend quit her job to go to Tuvalu with? The one who's been working on a really titanic novel for four years that he never quite finishes, and can't seem to hold down a long-term job? His dating prospects start heading rapidly downhill by his thirtieth birthday. By his late thirties, his studio apartment is getting very lonely at night. If he does get married to a woman more successful than he is, it's likely that their relationship will be controlling, resentful, and involve enduring quite a lot of contempt from her friends and family.
But it has nothing to do with money. Men with some measure of success in their chosen fields have no problem finding spouses. And successful women have no cause to complain, either. After all, they have a bevy of unsuccessful but charming men to choose from, who will be more than happy to date them if they can overcome their biases. The unsuccessful men, on the other hand, are pretty much frozen out.
An amazing fact: virtually everyone past their 30s knows this is true. Some don't believe in evolution.
There's a bit of tension between the ultimate and penultimate paragraphs here. In fact, you will find, if you are a woman, that being married to a resentful man whom your family and friends regard with contempt is not a wholly pleasant experience. In fact, being married to a man whom others regard with contempt lowers one's own status. (In contrast, having a loser wife doesn't diminish a man's status much, though it's better to be married to a fashion model with an MBA degree if possible.)
Yes, this is a much bigger deal the older the couple gets. My wife has several female friends who earn at least twice their spouse's income. This is charming and not an issue while dating or in the early marraige years. When the goals of a house and a family start to enter the picture, usually early 30's, there's a lot more tension, especially if the woman wants to/has to scale back her career goals to deal with the strains of motherhood. Men know when their not pulling their economic weight, and doing a few dishes or scrubbing the toilet doesn't make up for it.
This is why a movie like Knocked Up was never really plausible (check the Douthat, Megan and Matt archives for discussions on this). There's resentment that runs both ways here.
One other thing that's missing from this discussion is location. So far this discussion has focused on New York and a few other big cities, where there are lots of mid and high income professionals. I suspect this is a much bigger deal in small and mid-size cities where male hedge fund managers are scarce and gender roles a bit more entrenched.
"Men know when their not pulling their economic weight, and doing a few dishes or scrubbing the toilet doesn't make up for it."
But it's fine for women not pulling their economic weight to do this? From the comments and the article it sounds like women have a very hard time marrying anybody that isn't going take care of them. I know that some men care, but is it because the women they date look down on them when they can't buy them a nice dinner?
so wait... if you can just get past that lonely late thirtys mark where all your friends carry around boulders of responsibility, then you're good? Because they bought that story about success, and now have the package that goes with it, but you, no, you're free. If you want to be a line cook at a little place near a ski area and live in a trailer on an amazing and remote piece of land where the sunsets are poetry, you can do that. And there isn't anyone you care about that thinks you are unsuccessful, although your younger brothers wonder what you know that they don't.
someday, you and your friends with responsibilities both die, and you both leave this world with nothing. But the patrons of that little cafe are sorry to hear you're gone, 'cuz you always served up the best burger with a smile, and seemed to know an awful lot about people. Meanwhile The Friends' old job send the family a nice little boquet of flowers, and some time soon nobody remembers them...
exactly what are we trying to be successful being again? why?
I have a sister that married a man she is far more successful than. But she is far more successful because she works hard and he is lazy. Now because he hasn't worked hard enought to make himself valuable in the workplace, she is the one with the job while he raises kids (in theory). But usually he just talks a lot while she still does everything.
So maybe its not so bad for the woman to find a man with some drive, and some pride that wants to be successful rather than being happy that his wife is better than he is.
Although I have to admit, I could care less if my wife made 10k more than me, if she made 100k more than me I might feel a little useless sometimes...but all the more reason to make myself more useful in other areas.
I imagine women who date men that -think- they have a small penis also find their relationship to be troublesome...
I think the story can be rephrased successfully as: insecure partners in relationships can lead to instability... that's news?
I have been in a very successful relationship for five years with a woman who is, by every measure, much more accomplished professionally, academically and financially. The thing is neither of us care. We will soon be married, and our consensus is that I should raise the children. Of her female colleagues, at least a third have similar arrangements. The other two thirds are, you guessed it, jealous. Your outdated gender rules are as archaic as the nuclear family and closeted homosexuality. Get with the times.
on one hand, isn't this: "The unsuccessful men, on the other hand, are pretty much frozen out." -- How it should be?
on the other, this/these: "exactly what are we trying to be successful being again?why?" -- are the real moneymakers.
Whoops, sorry about the word choice. Guess I should have just said "investment bankers." Kidding, kidding!
We will soon be married, and our consensus is that I should raise the children. Of her female colleagues, at least a third have similar arrangements.
She works in what field? I can't say I've ever met a couple with a stay-at-home husband; certainly "at least a third" of the women I work with don't have one.
Incidentally, given your hostility to "the nuclear family", she might want to consider supplementing you with another guy. It sounds like she could afford two or three.
She works in what field? I can't say I've ever met a couple with a stay-at-home husband; certainly "at least a third" of the women I work with don't have one.
I can't speak for John, but my wife is an MD and at least three (of 8) of her fellow female residents had husbands that either were staying at home (two of them) or planned to (the third). The two stay-at-home dads were engineers in their previous life, the one that planned to be had a liberal arts degree and no discernable career ahead of him.
See, I'm sure you're right, in general, about the penultimate paragraph there. I'm sure that's how it is for most people. But I hate it when people try to enforce that cynicism-- oh, that's how you'll be when you're thirty, you'll only care about material success. I don't judge other people for how the choose a partner but I'll be damned.
successful women have no cause to complain, either. After all, they have a bevy of unsuccessful but charming men to choose from, who will be more than happy to date them if they can overcome their biases.
This misses the point of the original NYT article, which is that few if any men do overcome their biases. Some men, like Mr. McTeagle above, are apparently willing to emasculate themselves as a precondition of marriage (and even know other men doing likewise). But if they are rare in NYC - as the article suggests - they are assuredly much more rare here in flyover country, where successful women tend to be: a) retired, married, and at home with the kids, thinking about writing a book or starting a home business targeted to same; b) married to a low-or-no-income man and vaguely angry about it; or c) single and not having much if any luck finding a comparable or even interesting man.
"The unsuccessful men, on the other hand, are pretty much frozen out."-Megan
Megan's definition of "success" seems quite different from Plato's, or Jesus's or Friedrich Nietzsche's. For all their differences those great thinkers would have unitd in disapproval of this notion of success as some convex combination of wealth and social prestige.
I suppose Megan considers the typical investment banker more succesful than Paul Gaugin, who abandoned banking to pursue his great love, though that led him into some financial distress.
The Wikipedia entry on Gauguin says that:
Sounds more or less the same as Megan's struggling writer:
So there you have it. Paul Gauguin was a loser.
"and some time soon nobody remembers them..."
Except their kids, whose lives they stayed involved with.
John McTeagle,
First pull this off, then brag about it. I think there are a lot more snags to your plan than you think--female resentment and middle-aged male depression are huge obstacles. At least back when "The Second Shift" was written, surveys were finding that women were actually doing MORE housework and childcare in marriages where the husbands made less money. Needless to say, this is a recipe for resentment and marital disaster. Depression has long been the housewife's foe, even in times when her profession was thought noble, necessary, and she was surrounded by "colleagues" all in the same boat. Nowadays, needless to say, being a housewife or a less career-minded woman requires explanation, to defend oneself from the popular belief that a SAHM's day is divided between Starbucks and seducing the pool boy. A SAHD will face all of that times N, and may find it difficult to meet kindred minded souls (although it sounds like you may have that taken care of).
Aside from these larger issues, there's the problem of logistics. Unless you have truly vast savings, how would you deal with your wife being put on bedrest for most of her pregnancies? Like it or not, you can't carry the babies for her, and if she chooses to breastfeed, she is going to be very frazzled at work and at home, even if you do 100% of the bottle-feeding all by yourself. (I've known working women to ship milk home to their babies when on long business trips. More often, working mothers on the road have to pump and dump their milk to keep up their supply. Ugh!) There's a limit to how much work you can take off your wife's hands. Plus, she may change her mind when she sees how much fun you're having with the baby. Furthermore, while it is possible for one parent to do nearly all of the work with one child, parenting two children has got to be a team effort if the parents and their marriage is going to survive. At that point, both parents may find themselves working full-out (at least while the children are small and have to be protected from themselves and each other every waking moment of the day). There is really no possibility that you are going to "raise the children" by yourself. Not even June Cleaver tried to do that.
I used to make more money than my wife, but that changed after I went to law school.
Here are two more items that are more taxing on the female parent:
1. mastitis
2. fertility treatments (for details on the physical challenges of infertility, check out the archives of alittlepregnant.com)
I'm in my mid 20's. and even in college, women tended to be attracted to the guys who appeared to have the highest income potential later down the road.
part of this might stem from the conservative catholic school I attended, but still.
Amy P,
"First brag about it" ... quite the contrary; I don't wish to brag about my particular circumstance, but rather to point out that for my fiance our personal arrangements are preferrable to the traditional structure of the female professional giving up her career by default. As to fertility treatments and mastitis as a rebuttal to the notion of the stay at home dad, I would only ask why do we educate women at all? If it is such an onerous task for women to bear children and maintain a career shouldn't they stay home barefoot and pregnant? Moreover, shouldn't they be estopped from any career choice during the period of maximum fertility (20 to 30)? We have chosen (correctly, I believe) to offer women full participation in society. A necessary corollary of that decision is that couples may decide that a women is better positioned to provide for the family. If you wish for another outcome, perhaps you should seek out a more reactionary culture that refuses all opportunity for women.
some men appear to be offended by Megan's comments.
If a guy can't show some measure of success before the age of 30, it's highly likely he won't become successful in life between the ages of 30 and 60.
and its perfectly relevant for a women at the age of 30, entering the most logical time for her to become pregnant, to make a judgment on the future success of a man (and his genes) on his present social and work status.
If a guy can't show some measure of success before the age of 30....
The key question is the meaning of "success." If by success someone means nothing more than money and social status, then that person is rather superficial. I just don't think that a hedge fund manager or investment banker who makes a lot of money is somehow nobler or better than a struggling and unrecognized poet or novelist or painter.
A woman who is interested chiefly in wealth and status isn't worth much...
Isocrates, everyone knows what "success" means in this context and it's not Megan introducing the concept. Perhaps there are people in their 30s who evaluate artistic success and philosophical insight on the same scale as "will we be struggling to make our rent every month, and God help us if we have a child" but the evidence is that most people are using Megan's understanding, again, in this context.
The truth is, this arrangement works for many people. Ability and time to raise children are commodities more valuable than money for most parents. As a financially successful woman, having a partner able to spend time and energy with a child is more desirable than having a man contribute substantial additional income. It's really not complicated at all.
There are people hung up on the money issue, but far fewer as the years go by.
If you are a woman looking forward to children who wants to abandon or curtail her career to raise them, then I can see that partner's earning power is more of an issue. But if you like your job, are financially successful and want to keep working, then your spouse's earning power should not be your greatest concern.
"Perhaps there are people in their 30s who evaluate artistic success and philosophical insight on the same scale as "will we be struggling to make our rent every month, and God help us if we have a child" but the evidence is that most people are using Megan's understanding, again, in this context."
Brittain33, you are quite wrong.
Have you ever lived in an academic community? People there can acheive great success in their field and earn enough to have children but certainly don't earn enough be considered successful according to you or Megan. I found when I lived in Washington DC that there were many people weilding success in politial arenas that did not have the earning power anyone here would covet. In the non-profit area, too, there are people who are very successful but don't earn much. Teachers would fit this discription too.
These are people who can get by, particularly in cities and towns away from the coasts, but certainly would not be successful in Randian eyes. If you choose not to see them, fine, but this says more about you than the world around you.
nah, bullshit.
here's why:
at age 25 there are something like a 125 single men for every 100 single women. at 65 it's 100 single women for every 25 single men.
nuff said. the older a guy gets, the higher his market value (even if his social status and income remain in place...increase those as well and he's really good to go)....what's true is that older unsuccessful guys don't get to go out with younger women.
female market value decreases with age.
it's really as simple as that.
speaking as a 32-year-old Manhattan male (who barely makes six-figures so yeah I do mainly date women who make more than me)
and the idea that these women in the article are switching to dating older men because of issues with guys their own age not handling them making more doesn't set off your bullshit detectors?
please people!
no, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. and if they can handle sex with balding, paunchy middle-aged men.....well, I guess that's the exchange.
John McTeagle,
Have another look at my second paragraph in my 9:31 post, especially towards the end. What was bothering me about your post was the sentence "I should raise the children," which makes it sound that you have really no idea what you are getting into. I am a SAHM of two (5 and 2) and I would never, never use that terminology. I don't raise the children, although I naturally spend more time with them than my husband does--the two of us raise the children, and it requires 100% effort from both of us to keep everyone fed, clothed, educated, and safe and our home reasonably sanitary.
Also, even under the most enlightened arrangement, a female breadwinner is going to be working much harder than a male breadwinner with the same job. For details, see my 9:31 AM post, or read "The Girlfriend's Guide to Pregnancy," and "The Girlfriend's Guide to the First Year." It's not an urban legend--pregnancy is like a part-time job all by itself, and it's hard to get anything else done while pregnant, what with months of nausea, 24/7 fatigue, and drowsiness. (It's true that the second trimester might not be that bad, but then again there's the possibility of bedrest, as is not at all uncommon.) Once the baby is born, a bunch of new difficulties arise. I've already talked about breastfeeding troubles, but thought I should also mention the fact that a number of clever little babies figure out that mommy is away during the day and home at night, so they sleep during the day and stay up at night. Fun! Hopefully mommy isn't performing surgery or operating heavy equipment the next day.
So, what with pregnancy and infancy, a breadwinner mom is looking at two years of diminished professional performance per child. If you have two kids, that's four years of diminished performance. That's a lot.
My point is not that your plan is impossible (it's not--my husband's mother was basically a SAHD), but that it's not nearly as simple as it sounds. If it were easy, everybody would be doing it.
Sophie,
I do live in an academic community, settled down well before my 30s, am not a heterosexual female nor particularly wealthy by the standards we're discussing here.. I am describing the environment that is much more prevalent than the one you describe, and am not "choosing not to see it" so much as focusing on the social circles that are more relevant to this post and the median American.
People do marry with no consideration of money, do fall in love with the talented musician or the super academic, do raise children on perfectly reasonable middle class salaries that would shock young New Yorkers by their inadequacy. But many of those people have selected out of the dating poll by their 30s, or if they're still there, aren't actively seeking a spouse.
Also, I don't dispute that what consitutes financial success in Manhattan vs. Indianapolis vs. rural Nebraska will vary... but it doesn't mean people in those areas don't know it when they see it.
Oops! I meant to say "My husband's father was basically a SAHD."
Amy,
Many woman do carry and bear children and successfully remain on the job. I did not experience pregnancy as a "part time job" and most working women I knew didn't either. It seems to me that you are suggesting that pregnancy and mothering in early childhood disables women, and that is really backward and factually inaccurate. In my experience, a very small percentage of women experience pregnancy and early child-rearing in a debilitating way.
I don't remember years of diminished performance when my son was born. In fact, it was a time of great creativity and heightened focus. I know that the years after my son's birth were the time when I reached my professial peak, collecting honors and new opportunities. And I am certainly not alone. Many women I knew in the legal community had the same experience.
Brittain33,
You are missing my point. People in my community -- a college town in the northwest -- do not equate success with earning power. So they may know success when they see it, but it aint about money as you claim.
Sophie, are there a lot of single women in their 30s looking to find a spouse in your town? Who are the desirable men that they pursue?
Brittain33,
The dating scene in my town is a little complex, since it's a small town with a lot of lds folks who marry early, but I can say that among my friends I know many women who have married men with interesting lives but little earning power. It has to do with the people who choose to live here, to a large extent. I used to work as a lawyer in a big city and you did find most choices being driven by money. But here, not so much. As I mentioned, I also had a sense in Washington DC that there were subcultures of people who defined success as something other than money.
Brittain33, I have to add -- the song "It's Money that Matters" by Randy Newman just came on the radio. Very appropros of our discussion.....
I see that Sophie Brown has completely missed the point.
(hint: who people married in their 20's is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion)
you also have to consider that in terms of raising a family, someone making 40K in a small town is roughly equivalent to someone making 500K in Manhattan.
Sophie,
It sounds like you have only one child. With all due respect, one child is (all things being equal) a completely different affair than two kids, and a second pregnancy is quite different than a first (just about any book on the subject says so). Plus, pregnancy and early motherhood are often debilitating for non-superwomen--that's not just the evil patriarchy talking. There's a reason why working moms don't usually have four or five kids. (OK, money is important, too.)
Here's a question: what's the difference in family size between SAHD families and SAHD families? I suspect that SAHM families have more kids on average, but don't have any easy way to check. If I am right about this, it might suggest that it's harder to be a breadwinner mom than a breadwinner dad, and that this might be suppressing these women's fertility, although lots of other things might be going on. Anybody?
Amy, in the post I was responding to, you did not state that you were only speaking about moms who had encountered multiple pregnancies. But even with that qualification, I still think you are wrong. I have many friends whose second pregnancies were far easier than their first. I also have many friends with more that one child who continued building their careers and their reputations as they built their families. I even have one friend who made partner shortly after her fourth daughter was born (but of course that's a rarity).
We are not super-women. When you say that you are marginalizing our experience. I think the experience of the "disabled mom" is far more of an anomaly.
I think it's great that you are SAHM, there are a lot of great reasons to make that choice. There may also be social constraints that limit a new mom's job options (like the lack of support or child care) But "the new mom as disabled person" is really rather repugnant and backwards and, as I say, not at all consistent with observed experience.
Nathan,
What did I say about marrying in one's twenties?
And saying that making $40,000 in a small town is equivalent to making $500,000 in New York is a really interesting and completely unverifiable statement.
It is true that you can have a decent life in my town with an income of about $60,000 (maybe $50,000 if you've got employer provided health care). And you might be a success in your career, if it is one of those careers on the bottom of the economic ladder, like teacher or professor or minister. But you would not define yourself as a "economic" success.
Does mother as "temporarily disabled person" sound better?
"And saying that making $40,000 in a small town is equivalent to making $500,000 in New York is a really interesting and completely unverifiable statement."
actually, I said "in terms of raising a family."
you can own a home in a small town on an income of 40,000 a year. you can use the local public school for your kids.
in Manhattan a multi-bedroom apartment is going to be a couple million. (one bedrooms in my neighborhood start at 700K and go up from there).
school tuition?: add another 100K. etc.
for single people, Manhattan is probably only about five times as expensive as a small town.
For some reason, I'm reminded of a childbirth educator who preferred to speak of "labor discomfort" rather than pain. It does women no service to minimize the physical difficulties of childbearinge. And we haven't mentioned post-partum depression yet, either. I suppose that's imaginary, too.
Amy B. if you were talking about the condition of the woman during and immediately after childbirth, then it would be better. But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about something which invites discrimination against women and which I believe is inaccurate. It's sounds almost victorian.
With regard to whether being a breadwinner mom suppresses the number of children one has (and that really is not suppressing fertility it's suppressing birth), that's going to depend on what the family-size norm is. As the mom of an older child, I caution that two kids is about as many you can have if you want to stay on top of their sports and other activities (unless you have a nanny or chauffeur). Which seems to be the average among most women I know who are not primary breadwinners.
It has always been the case that HIS income is THEIR income while HER income is HER income. If he doesn't have more income than she does, he will be encroaching on hers.
I can't believe no one has seen the essential need for a government program here. When a guy is "officially" (there will be forms!) dating a gal who makes more than he does, he should receive a subsidy sufficient to make his income, say, 10% greater than hers. This will overcome his reluctance to associate with someone more successful than him, while simultaneously increasing his appeal to successful women.
Of course, we will have to tax someting to pay for this. I suggest we tax high-income women. This will further enhance the desired outcome.
Sophie,
Sorry! I just realized that I've been a bit careless about the difference between working moms and breadwinner moms. To clarify, while I know that there are many working mothers of four out there, I suspect that there are just about no breadwinner moms of four with a SAHD husband. And I suspect that at least part of the reason for that is the physically demanding nature of childbearing and early motherhood.
Amy, I am not minimizing the physical difficulties of childbearing. You are grossly exaggerating them and universalizing the difficult case. And certainly I haven't denied the existence of post partum depression. But the pain of labor and delivery and the possibility of post partum depression does not add up to years of diminished performance for any most mothers, which was your original point.
Sophie,
I'm know I'm a member of the more sensible gender, so a few years of maternal mental fuzziness just evens the playing field.
I think some people misunderstand Megan's original point. Even in lower-paying fields, there are successes and failures. So a successful person in academia would be a man or woman who, at age 30, has a doctorate, some articles published and a tenure track position. A man in that position won't have trouble getting dates even though he doesn't earn what an investment banker earns. In contrast, the university setting also contains the perpetual grad student types, the unpublished novelists, etc. Men in that position will find their dating and mating opportunities start to disappear in their thirties. Does anyone claim that the average woman with a doctorate and a tenure track position is looking to date a 30 year old grad student in his third degree program? That guy is a loser.
It does women no service to minimize the physical difficulties of childbearinge. And we haven't mentioned post-partum depression yet, either. I suppose that's imaginary, too.
The difficulties in pregnancy differ wildly from woman to woman and pregnancy to pregnancy. Pregnancy difficulties can be ferocious or they can be relatively minor. My wife (an OB) comes home daily with horror stories and some that are not nearly so bad. I haven't heard any mention about second pregnancies being necessarily that much worse than first pregnancies, but I'll ask her about it tonight. She, and the other doctors she worked with, are not nearly so skeptical of SAHD arrangements and it's definitely not due to lack of information. Might have something to do with less financial strain, but only in the longer term as residents don't make very much money and two of the aforementioned three had kids during residency.
trumwill,
The medical side of a second pregnancy is probably simpler (way shorter labor time), but the logistical/emotional/physical side of it is much more difficult. Here are a few quotes from "The Girlfriends' Guide to Toddlers" from the chapter dealing with toddlers and new babies:
1. "...it's only fair to warn you that this pregnancy will have little in common with your first one."
2. "One of the first things you will notice with your second pregnancy...is that you're no longer treated like a precious vessel. Remember how, during your first pregnancy, people treated you as if you were made of glass and had the stamina of a butterfly? Sorry, that is not on the agenda for this go-round."
3. "Come nighttime, you will be so tired that you fall asleep while you are still brushing your teeth, but don't settle in for the night because you have a toddler who is coming into your room several nights a week complaining of thirst, tummyache or monsters."
4. "During a non-hormonal moment, take the time to fill your mate in on the realities of gestating and parenting simultaneously. If he's anything like mine, he, and everyone else who has the sensitivity to ask, will truly believe that you are "doing just fine" if that's the only side of your parenting experience you share with him."
5. "Do us all a favor, and don't take that Superwoman myth too seriously: Even the woman of Steel could use a little help with her toddler while kneeling at the porcelain bowl with raging morning sickness."
On second thought, a nice comfy office might be a nicer place to be pregnant than home with a toddler!
Here are two more items for the list of maternal afflictions:
1. fourth degree episiotomy
2. cracked, bleeding nipples
Plus, pregnancy and early motherhood are often debilitating for non-superwomen--that's not just the evil patriarchy talking.
No, that is indeed the evil patriarchy talking. Pregnancy and early motherhood are not "often debilitating." Pregnancy can be problematic, but as the primary caregive for two small children, I'll tell you it's not that difficult to do while juggling a career. You don't need to be "superwoman," you just need to want to do it.
One more:
3. depression during pregnancy
Now if I were a successful 30-something looking for a bevy of men who're successful and I'd spend more time shooting trap & skeet, and especially sporting clays. Aside from yacht racing they've got to be among the most expensive amateur sports, so at least you winnow out the unsuccessful immediately. And you do spend most of your time standing about chatting..
I think some people misunderstand Megan's original point...So a successful person in academia would be a man or woman who, at age 30, has a doctorate, some articles published and a tenure track position...Does anyone claim that the average woman with a doctorate and a tenure track position is looking to date a 30 year old grad student in his third degree program? That guy is a loser.
Exactly. The comment that set Sophie off contrasted "success" with inability to pay the rent. No one was suggesting that any man earning less than seven figures is unmarriageable, although Brittain33 seems to have decided to defend that view anyway.
A lot of you people woud have considered Socrates and Jesus "losers" because they had chosen ways of life that were spiritually (rather than materially) rewarding. Indeed, they were so "unsuccessful" socially that their fellow men put them to death.
I myself am fortunate enough to have sufficient money so that I would never need to worry about "an inability to pay the rent," but I wouldn't ridicule people who are struggling financially, especially if that is because they would rather pursue art or philosophy rather than prostituting themselves for money.
Those of you who judge a man by the size of his stock portfolio or the number of fancy parties he gets invited to are phillistines and fools. What matters is his character--the content of his soul. I have met janitors who seemed to me far better men than the investment bankers I have known.
Amy P.,
How unfortunate it must be to be a woman, with the affliction of pregnancy. It sounds worse than cancer. I find it hard to believe we have continued as a species!
Ummm, successful academics earn six figure incomes, or at least quite close to that. Plus tons of travel and time off if they want it. This ain't the 70s any more, people.
Pedro A.,
Fortunately, pregnancy (with all its many indignities) is temporary, and one does generally get a very cute infant out of the deal. As everybody knows, they don't sleep like civilized people, but there are compensations. Thanks to the hormones washing over the maternal mind, one experiences the raptures of true love--think of a loudly purring mama cat nursing and licking a basket full of kittens. Everything and everyone (husband, older child, etc.) seem unimportant and irrelevant and what one wants most is to be left alone to snuggle one's baby, who seems to be more part of one than a separate individual. It really feels like one is having an affair. (I believe fathers can experience some of this, but probably they don't get the full hormonal effect.) Some women probably get quite addicted to the feeling.
Isocrates,
We are talking about marriage and family prospects, rather than abstract virtue. Socrates seems to have been at best a so-so husband (too much philosophy, not enough paying work) and his wife's impatience with him are proverbial. Jesus would also have been a very poor prospect, given the fact that he was always on the move, in trouble with the authorities, and had no resources other than what people gave him.
Well I think one thing we can all agree on is that Mr. Amy P is sure one lucky man.
Isoc,
With this: "Those of you who judge a man by the size of his stock portfolio or the number of fancy parties he gets invited to are phillistines and fools." & "A lot of you people woud have considered Socrates and Jesus "losers""
We need to look no further than our elected officials(on average) to see this being just the case.
And, if too many others bought into "...rather than prostituting themselves for money.", we'd have a work stoppage so vast that it would make the UAW's strike against GM seem no more significant than a given day's expectable absenteeism.
Mrs. P is certainly a lucky woman, as well as being a philosopher's wife. These days there's little risk of Dr. P being executed for corrupting the youth. So he's lucky, too.
My point is that roaming around penniless and dependent on handouts is not a suitable lifestyle for a family (especially not one with small children), and a man who demanded it of his wife and children would be a bad person.
Well, I'd think tht absolutely disgusting operation of pump and dump while out on the business trail, would turn the stomach of a real upper middle class business woman. OMG, it is so much like grabbing that udder and squeezing the milk out and into a bucket. Then, that bucket might have a little fleck of dung flicked up into it to give it a little taste, then end up on the morning breakfast table.
At least little Isabella would have nice mother's milk with its own blend of hormones, proteins and milk fats that guarantee a fat, happy baby.
I just don't see why a professional woman would even want to have kids, even get married for that matter. Living with a man who is committed to you, with a boyfriend on the side...now that's really the life of Riley.
As a professional woman (in my late twenties) who just started to make six figures, I'm going to totally defend Amy P. I recently watched a very close friend go through what was apparently a very normal pregnancy. Pregnancy is NOT fun or easy even without bedrest and complications; I cannot imagine working 60 hour weeks being almost constantly exhausted and feeling crappy in unpredictable ways. Furthermore, it's inadvisable to travel after I think 7 months: oh sorry, can't make it to any meetings or conferences for the next 60 days -- that's no problem, right? So anyway, yeah, I'm not having kids or will wait until I'm 40 and adopt.
btw, up-thread someone mentioned that a loser (guy) at 30 is a loser always. Not always so; I dated a guy who went back to school at 30 to get his Ph.D. in chemistry and now, at 39 and in fantastic shape may I add, has a very solid job. Though he's saved up a nice bit of money already and talks about moving to a cabin in the woods to get away from civilization...
I am a 47 year old openly gay man and I want truthful opinions from people on how they feel about my desire to find a woman who wants to continue with her career while i raise the child we would agree to have with one another. Also any woman who reads this and is interviewing as well, kindly let me know.
Thanks.