Is Settling for Mr. Good Enough Really Good Enough?
If you haven't read it already, take a look at the Atlantic Weekly article excerpted over at MSNBC.com entitled Why it’s OK to settle for Mr. Good Enough. The article is about whether women should stop looking for "Mr. Right." The most interesting part of the article are the comments but be careful, I just got sucked into reading them for over an hour.
My thoughts? "Settling" for anyone, whether you are male or female seems sad and somehow wrong. I won't say it's always the wrong thing to do, but it seems to me that it would be much better to be alone than to be with somebody you didn't really want. It's unfair to them, and to you. On the other hand, perhaps some of the women commenting over there overlooked perfectly fine men because their standards were impossible to live up to. In that case, it makes more sense to learn to treat a man less as someone to "live up to your standards" and more like a human being who may have some great qualities that would be good in a partner.
My thoughts? "Settling" for anyone, whether you are male or female seems sad and somehow wrong. I won't say it's always the wrong thing to do, but it seems to me that it would be much better to be alone than to be with somebody you didn't really want. It's unfair to them, and to you. On the other hand, perhaps some of the women commenting over there overlooked perfectly fine men because their standards were impossible to live up to. In that case, it makes more sense to learn to treat a man less as someone to "live up to your standards" and more like a human being who may have some great qualities that would be good in a partner.
Labels: Relationships
posted by Helen at 4:46 PM
48 Comments:
I didn't get too deep into the comments. I read where one commentor asked what's wrong if he's a plumber if he treats you right.
Perhaps many who are searching for Prince Charming should read "The Millionaire Next Door".
br549,
Yes, I saw that one too. Apparently, there was talk about some women---in the actual article, I think--who excluded men who were plumbers, in the trades etc. Frankly, most plumbers make more than their customers. But I don't think that's the point. What's wrong with being a plumber? Many are actually quite intelligent and some are engaging.
Maybe if the thrust of the article was "realistic expectations in a life partner" rather than "settling for Mr Good Enough" I wouldn't think these women were class conscious snob sows for their attitudes towards a steady guy who works with his hands and makes a very good living. This is 20th Century America, not Feudal Europe, and these women are ordinary citizens, not titled Ladies contemplating marrying below their station. Women like this need to get over themselves.
Dr. Helen,
The problem with the women is that they simply assume they will always be young and beautiful. That they'll get the same guys chasing after them in the thirties that were chasing after them in their twenties.
The writer of the story made that mistake, and now she's alone and lonely. Wow what a shock.
The comments indicate that status/power/wealth etc. are the primary factors in women's selection. That character and (beyond a certain floor) looks really don't count. What does is fast-track advancement, money, power, position, status, wealth, etc. The flashy car, perfectly coiffed hair, etc.
Again what a shock. Women unconstrained will (on average) act like this.
What happens is women enjoy the attention and courting, believe there is no penalty for not choosing (wisely) when they have most leverage (most attractive) and then wonder why their selections are not the A-Listers they wanted. Keep delaying selection hoping to turn back time and end up alone.
This IMHO is a massive social problem. Women need education and cultural expectations to choose wisely in their twenties, and men on how to maximize their chances of being chosen. Since it's women who do the choosing.
The flip side is that men in their twenties experience rejection, end up figuring there is no real chance of being chosen, and accept substitutes. Then in their thirties they are the obvious second/third/fourth choice and that is not exactly conducive to romance or a lasting union.
It strikes me that choosing a mate based on a long checklist of requirements is similar to some unfortunate practices in the hiring of employees. See Hunting The Five-Pound Butterfly.
TO expand, check this comment out:
"Ask any woman married over 15 years, and she will tell you that she lost herself, her dreams, and her identity simply by "settling." To make matters worse, by middle age, she has to try to find a way out of the financial and familial bonds with which that marriage has suffocated her with."
As if the man didn't lose himself, or give up any of his dreams due to his marriage. A self centered attitude with no idea about the selflessness required for a loving relationship to work.
"Boohoo I don't have a Tiara! I had to raise my kids like every other responsible maried couple and he didn't buy me shit I wanted so we could afford to put food on the table or clothes on our backs. I had to put the needs of others ahead of my own wants. Oh, the oppression! Time to divorce him, despite a lifetime of his devotion to me and the children."
Shut the F*ck Up, you whiney child.
Well, if you read The Millionaire Mind, by Thomas J. Stanley, you'll find out what most of the successful people, male and female, in this country think the important criterion in choosing a mate is. The vast majority of these people are in stable, long-term marriages, and they note that the key factor in determining their success was having a supportive spouse.
Typically, this would be someone who is self-disciplined, frugal, even-tempered, secure, and accepting, as well as economically productive.
In a survey of decamillionaires who were asked their criteria in choosing a spouse, many said, "Given a choice beyond love and physical attraction, I prefer to marry a woman who can manage a business."
I think that says it all. And I certainly wouldn't settle for anything less.
A male perspective on a couple of repeated ideas running through comments.
*Abusers are generally easy to spot, women deceive themselves because they value the macho, masculine qualities and hope/believe they can "change" them. Scars from frequent fights, tattoos indicating violence, arrest records, habitual intoxication, etc. these are all obvious if you only look for them. Most women try actively to ignore them because they want the macho and assertive behavior.
*Feminist and romantic ideals make the perfect the enemy of the good. NO human being is flawless, perfect, and no one is a perfect match who will burn passion through you every night. Too much "Sex and the City" and feminist ideology on having it all makes for chasing after bad-boy Mr. Bigs and lost opportunities.
*The cost of lost opportunities is not trivial: it's far easier to get pregnant in your twenties, it's far easier to care for infants/toddlers in your twenties, and the children you have are stastically less likely to have birth defects compared to children conceived by older mothers. Less chance of breast cancer too. Younger women because they are a better bet for childbirth and all that are more desireable to men and have a better class of suitors naturally than older women. Yes some glamorous actresses have children in their forties. Shaq is very tall. Neither describe the average American female or male.
YES women past their twenties are LESS DESIRABLE for a man who wants a family. For the reasons above. Objections should be sent to God or Charles Darwin, take your pick.
*The opportunity cost of not marrying the good over chasing the perfect in a woman's twenties is that the men of good character but lesser status, power, wealth, macho-assertiveness get frustrated by the rejection and form negative opinions about women and also avoid rejection by staying out of the dating pool and using various substitutions. Thus a woman's pool of "good but not perfect" possible mates gets progressively smaller every year. And the opportunity to MEET a possible mate is smaller because ...
*Mediating institutions such as churches, voluntary groups, and other social organizations have been destroyed by the atomized modern society. So there is no real opportunity for men and women to meet a broad sample of prospective mates "vetted" as to their suitability in character and income and suitability for one another. People meet in bars, the workplace, and that's just not enough. There is very little opportunity for a woman to judge a man's character by observing him closely (as in a Church group) and only the most aggressive, rejection-fear-free men win (in approaching women). Men also lose because they have little opportunity to judge a woman's character also on the subjects of shared values, faithfulness, and other important attributes.
*Single parenthood of course is risky. Beyond the author's problems, statistically girls in a single parent household have earlier sexual activity, increased risk of teen pregnancy, poorer lifetime relationships. And boys if anything do even worse without a father, far greater risk of criminal activity, imprisonment, abuse of partners, etc.
These problems are why you have "Mystery" on the one hand and Ms. Gottlieb's article on the other.
The biggest solution to these problems is the construction of new social mediating institutions. However that will be done.
Family friends, father and son, are plumbers.
Both paid cash for $85,000 Dodge Vipers.
They also invested their business profits in real estate, which was eventually developed into a subdivision.
Millionaires both with no college degrees.
Their business also is relatively recession proof.
Sometimes I think I should have skipped college and gone into the trades.
I'm with Sgt. Ted on this. It's not "settling." It's living in the real world, not a fairy tale.
More on plumbers - I grew up in a neighborhood where houses now range from about $200,000 to over a million. The first person from my high school to move into that neighborhood as an adult? A plumber.
Freud asked, What do women want?
My answer, If they don't know, why should should we care?
Ladies, and I use that term loosely, start worrying a lot more about being Mrs. Right if you want a shot at Mr. Right.
Is this anything similar to how most teenage boys think that they will play pro sports and marry an underware model?
Most of us grown out of that phase and develop more realistic expectations.
Trey
I think I'm becoming too much of a political junkie. I saw the title of this post and assumed it was about the GOP (and McCain, who's not exactly Mr. Perfect).
But selecting a life mate is not the same as selecting a president for a four years term.
I don't think people should set their standards too high, but OTOH, you shouldn't have to talk yourself into loving someone. It's either there or it isn't. And if it isn't, the term doesn't expire after four years.
I agree that there's a difference between "settling" and being realistic. In my experience, people of both sexes can overestimate their own qualities and be too picky about superficial things. When I was single, I had a lot of friends with long lists of qualities they couldn't compromise on, including type of car, height, other stupid things like that. My list was pretty short: same spiritual, moral, and ethical values as mine, able to laugh, and no dumb bumper stickers on his car. (I have learned one can tell a lot about a person by their bumper stickers, if any.) Funny, I got married while the others still had their lists.
Now I'm just a parasitical housewife (to borrow a phrase from another conversation here) with 2 kids, but since my husband and I agreed on that, it works for us. I lost touch with the gals with the long lists 13 years and 3 states ago.
I also agree that being alone is better than being with someone you don't want, or being with a jerk. I spent a lot of years alone too. There are some things that one shouldn't compromise on - those basic values cover a lot.
There wasn't this problem a few generations ago. My guess is the REAL problem women have with their suitors is that they just don't make enough money. That is, MORE and considerably MORE than they do. So they chase after the few A-Listers. Most end up unhappy.
End of story.
"My guess is the REAL problem women have with their suitors is that they just don't make enough money."
Well, a story about women who are happily married to grocery store clerks, high-school teachers, or bread truck drivers wouldn't sell much advertising, would it? Discontent women make much more interesting copy.
What is "settling," in terms of judgment of another human being anyway?
I can't really tell, other than to figure it must have something to do with one or more qualities that you would prefer but which the person whom you are judging does not have. I consider myself picky, and perhaps this is different for women, but when I am falling for a woman, I find myself rationalizing away faults, not magnifying them. Apart from the physical, I find myself attracted to the unique mix of attributes and the temperament each woman has - I can't really say that one is deficient because she is different from another.
Perhaps a lot of modern women are looking for a male version of their idealized selves? In any event, it sure looks like modern women are up to a good bit of "objectifying" men, huh?
Ooh, Alec nails it. It isn't that your mate is perfect and so you fall in love with him/her. It's that you fall in love, and they become "perfect" in your eyes.
From my blog:
And the most damning thing? Not only does she never once refer to any personal flaws she might hypothetically have, nowhere, in four pages of writing, does she talk about what any poor sap who might find her attractive might get out of a relationship with her.
Well, now I feel sorry for all the single plumbing, electrical and mechanical contractors around.
Look out boys, here they come!
When my then-future-wife and I got serious in our dating we had a discussion we still refer to as the "white horse" discussion. She saw me as a really great guy, who treated her well, had lots of great qualities, and would make a good husband. Her problem? I wasn't the kind of guy she pictured being married to. She was basically looking for the "knight on a white horse" and she wound up with the "nerd in the old black Mustang". She had to realize, first off, that I'm not perfect and neither is anyone else. The "knight on the white horse" would probably drag horse manure in on the carpet and leave his rusty underwear on the floor. She had to choose between the imaginary husband and the real-live man right there.
We've been married a little over eight years and we're perfectly happy with each other.
This article is totally stupid. In the lead-in paragraph 1 we get this sentence:
My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right
After reading that I know we are dealing with a nut. We then go to paragraph 2 and read:
Ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
This dingbat is going to tell me what I most want in life? I don't think so. Garbage in, garbage out.
I never expected to enter a relationship with Wonder Woman. Why do so many women expect to meet Superman, or rather Fabio? It turns out men play video games, but women can't distinguish fantasy characters from real life.
Here at our favorite blog, we just read about man-boys. Aren't we now entitled to ask why women can't grow out their comic book or romance novel fantasies?
What is also striking is the idea that having a baby isn't a commitment to and with other, separate human beings with its own needs, but is another box to check off on the "fulfillment" or "empowerment" worksheet. The self-centered womans wants are more important than a future human beings needs of a father and intact family. Such women would do the world a favor by getting a pet and leave child raising to committed couples.
I think you have to be careful about what you mean by "settling." In everything, normal people are going to find tradeoffs. One of the most common ones is trading a bit of the looks for some positive personality traits. All too often, people overestimate their looks, and think they can push for better than they really can get because they don't realize that they are not as attractive as what they are looking for in a partner.
For men, I think the best longterm investment is to value decent looks and a fun, laid back personality.
Most women seem to place a very high value on social prestige, money, and possessions. It actually seems that it's very difficult for a woman to be sexually attracted to a man who does not have these, especially the social prestige. This creates a big problem in mate selecting since the number of high-prestige men is by definition very limited. So women who marry outside the top 1% are likely to be frustrated and unhappy. And those who marry within the top 1% will then get exposure to the top 1/10 of 1%, and often resent their husbands for not being even more successful.
I wish some women would explain why prestige is so overwhelmingly important. Why is it more important to make people envious--including people you don't even like--than to have solid things like a real relationship?
"Most women seem to place a very high value on social prestige, money, and possessions."
-------------------
That's exactly right. They also place a high value on never admitting it.
Watch what women DO, not what they say.
The woman married to the doctor will go on and on about how she could have just as easily married a carpenter working part time. As she orders the carpenters around who are remodeling "her" house, and as she orders them around without a shred of respect for them.
Point #2:
I could at least kind of understand someone who built up wealth himself in his own life. Good, those people can be windbags, but at least they did it THEMSELVES.
The "society lady" is big on impressing others with things she didn't even earn on her own. She got it because she married the rich guy. I would be embarrassed to be that stupid, greedy and unjustly proud. Apparently, lots of "society ladies" aren't.
I learnt something when our son won a cage-fighting contest last year. Our address got around. For months we had teen girls knocking at our door asking to meet him. Tiny skirts, war paint and nose-rings, no bras, every one dumb as a rock.
But middle-class girls show no interest in him. I asked my son about this and he said “Dad, middle-class girls are all horrible to us”. “But there must be some?” “No, it’s all of them.” And it’s not as though he’s a brute. He starts university this year, he has a DJ for smart occasions and a bass guitar for others, and is currently reading Plato from personal interest.
It proves to me that girls’ instinct is as strong and traditional as it ever was. If a young man can tear that saber-toothed tiger apart then girls still come begging from all the poor parts of town. Could it be that middle-class girls – the marrying kind – try to disown this instinct so much now that they actively humiliate men whose battle worthiness attracts them? If so how can they ever “find” Mr. Right, let alone Mr. Good-Enough?
The Median Height of Men in the US is 5' 10". Just taking a look at the various dating webites clues one in to the problem. A substantial portion of woman won't even consider less than 6'. Never mind the unrealistic expectations as to income ,status blah blah.
So where is the line between "settling" and "being realistic"?
As a 38 year old single guy who's "all the right things" by the numbers (moderately attractive and then some, successful in the ways that count to me as well as the ways that count to the superficial) I really struggle with this.
I want to light someone's fire and I want someone who lights mine. We have these ideals dangled out in front of us all the time on both sides of the equation.
I find myself not able to tell the difference between settling for a sure thing and actually being realistic. Oftentimes years later I look back and smack my head "damnit, she was nice!" But you can't trust that either.
Thoughts?
(P.S. Wish me luck on my date tonight.)
Andy, maybe middle-class girls just don't like cage-fighting. What does instinct have to do with it? And why make the leap that the girls who don't like it are trying to "disown the instinct?" It's a sport, not a survival technique, for crying out loud.
If the girls who like it are all "dumb as rocks," and not the kind of girls he wants pursuing him, maybe he should change sports.
Or maybe the middle-class girls are just brought up not to go knocking on the doors of boys they don't know.
I agree, Marbel, I am not so sure that middleclass girls have a big need for a cage fighter and not many own a saber toothed tiger. Is it "all the girls" or just him?
The way I see it, there's settling, and then there's settling.
I'm speaking here as a man who's been happily married for seven and a half years to a wonderful woman. While my decision to marry her was the right one, and I have no regrets, I can honestly say that she is not the most attractive woman I've ever met.
Fact is, unless a guy happens to marry Miss Tahiti, he will sooner or later run into a woman who's prettier, or who's sexier, or who's otherwise more desirable. And even if he does marry Miss Tahiti, well... next year they crown a new Miss Tahiti. And after a few years, even his trophy will start to get a little wrinkly.
If a man's head turns at the sight of a leggy redhead walking down the street before he gets married, he's going to have a hard time keeping his head from turning at the sight of a leggy redhead walking down the street after he gets married--and this is true even if he is perfectly matched to his wife, if he loves her dearly, and if they have the world in common.
So in a sense, a marriage cannot succeed unless both people are willing to settle to some degree. I have to be willing to say, "I'm content with this one," and that has to remain true even when Miss Tahiti subsequently walks into the room.
It's not hard to imagine someone with unrealistic expectations thinking she has found The One, until the drudgery of everyday life takes a little of the luster off the relationship; and then she runs into Alpha-Hunk and thinks, "Well, I guess I hadn't actually found Mr. Right yet." The reality of her current relationship can't compete with the fantasy of the new, so she dumps the one and takes up with the other. And a few years later when a little of the luster is gone from the new relationship, same thing happens again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
(And despite the gender-specific pronouns, both sexes are guilty.)
It's much better to approach it like Marbel did: once you've met someone whose company you enjoy, who meets your reasonable ethical and religious standards, you commit--with the full foreknowledge that you will probably meet others in the future more attractive than your current spouse. And you're going to forsake them anyway because that's what it says in your vows.
Depending on how you define the term, this can be described as "Settling"--but I think it's more clearly viewed as recognizing and coping with reality; your marriage won't survive without it.
And Mad William Flint--I do wish you the very best of luck on your date tonight.
;-)
Ah thanks o/
As my best friend says frequently: "No one is competition for everybody"
Mad William Flint - I do hope your date went well. Despite evidence to the contrary here, it is possible for two people to come together and be happy together most of the time, content the rest. I see it all the time.
@Marbel and Cham: “Maybe middle-class girls just don't like cage-fighting.”
I can understand that, “Maybe!”
But my point was this: the working-class girls were clearly responding in a sexual way. They exactly showed the strong sexual emotion inside them. It was universal and it was very definitely open and kindly towards the boy.
Middle-class girls are currently just the opposite of that. They expressed open contempt for the town’s latest babe-magnet and ignored all his finer qualities, as you both did yourselves in your comments to the boy’s own father!
I suspect that middle-class girls feel exactly the same sexual emotion inside them as working-class girls do (being the same species for Pete’s sake) but then immediately feel self-contempt because of it. “Beasts Bad. Must Not Love Beast. Bad Bad Girl” they might think. As soon as they open their mouths they express their self-contempt as contempt for the boy who raised their emotion and triggered the pain.
How am I doing? It would certainly explain the astonishingly thoughtless bad manners I’ve seen in middle-class women, just about every day since the seventies. Which makes them unmarried in their 40’s but still “looking,” according to Helen’s article.
Andy:
I never heard of cage fighting until I saw it on an episode of Bounty Hunter. Cage fighter caters to a particular class of people, and it isn't the middle class. The reason those skanky girls are hounding your son is because they were the ones in attendance at the cage fight.
Middle class girls aren't going to be showing up at your door chasing your son in tiny skirt, war paint, nose rings and no bra. Their parents, hopefully, would never let them out of the house like that. Would you?
We have some men on this comment section claiming that all the ladies are chasing the alpha males instead of the betas and you show up saying the ladies aren't chasing the alpha males hard and fast enough. Which is it?
Andy, you focused on his athletic prowess and status as a babe-magnet yourself. The fact that he reads Plato for pleasure is nice. I doubt the dumb-as-rocks girls were attracted to him for that.
I'm sure your son has many fine qualities; or maybe he's an arrogant jerk who's pissed off because all the girls aren't chasing him, just the dumb ones. Hard to tell from here.
I just think you're carrying the cave man theme a little too far. The fact that the middle-class girls are not interested in him may be simply because of their upbringing. My daughter is unlikely to fawn over an athlete because we just don't, here in my house.
If the girls are treating him badly, that's wrong, and shame on them and their parents for that, of course. There are a lot of bad-mannered people out there. I do know there are a lot of good parents raising children (both boys and girls) not to be among them. But maybe that is a small group now.
My wife never have this problem. I traded a cow for her. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.
@Marbel: “I just think you're carrying the cave man theme a little too far.”
I think actually it’s the theme most important to modern marriage, because it’s emotional and taboo for so many women.
Q: When did marrying get so hard for women? A: When feminists derided men as primitive. Q: What does feminism say about men? A: They’re all Beasts, all the time, and The Jews, whoops, The Men caused all the wars. Q: Who can still believe this stuff? A: Middle class feminists and pet judges, and nobody else. And so they alone can see their hate-object “Cave Man!” where any well-built man is present.
You say: “MY daughter is unlikely to fawn over an athlete because we just don't, here in my house.” Hey, that’s what I’m saying! But does your instinct actually repel you from an athletic male body, or does another thought that swiftly follows it? Does your choice of words in that sentence show that a sex-object or another object came to mind? Do women feel free to insinuate someone is an arrogant jerk to girls, without evidence, because ... well when did fairness to a “Cave Man!” ever matter anyway? In fact my son is always kind to the girls he sees, but the ingrained speech habits of local middle-class girls towards boys are a real problem - for the girls.
That’s the image I’m trying to suggest. That, for a middle-class girl, her tender dream man is partly in conflict with her perfectly normal sex drive. She equivocates, and has learned to do it rudely. She gets cross with the results. For a working-class girl the two match closely. She dreams of a strong young man and excitedly gives one a big smile. She’s very happy with immediate results, just like middle-class girls used to be, by classier means, before they heard about the dreaded “Cave Man!”
There is a happy ending to this. My middle-class daughters were very proud of my son’s popularity, and he proudly teaches them karate and shooting. Problem solved for them.
Whiskey_199: My guess is the REAL problem women have with their suitors is that they just don't make enough money.
I was watching Jay Leno last night and he talked about this subject. He said, a new study confirms that men are interested in a woman's looks while a woman is interested in a man's money.
Marbel: My daughter is unlikely to fawn over an athlete because we just don't, here in my house.
Now if the girls only like him because he is an athlete, that might be bad, but I don't think they should disregard him just because of it. He might be a great kid who likes to have fun. The high school I went to had a lot of middle class kids (I would guess average household income to be around $100,000) and sports were very popular.
Bugs: Mormons have a movie from 1969 called Johnny Lingo about a guy who uses cows to get his wife.
"Now if the girls only like him because he is an athlete, that might be bad, but I don't think they should disregard him just because of it."
Well that's true. I suppose I worded that poorly. There is nothing wrong with sports per se. Andy's point was that the girls came around after he won the competition. My point was that my kid is unlikely to be attracted to someone simply because he is a "babe-magnet" (to use Andy's term) athlete. We like some sports but it's not a big deal in our family. She is equally unlikely to swoon over a pop star, because we're not into pop culture and celebrity worship. (In fact, we actively scorn it.) So, yeah, a well-rounded kid who participates in some sports? Sure. But that wasn't the focus of Andy's description of his son, at least initially.
(Of course our kids often prove us wrong and I could be eating my words in 5 or 6 years.)
The boy should not be treated badly by any girls, in any case.
I am in my 50s and have been divorced for 4 years. I look pretty good, am healthy and slim with a full head of hair, I have a post grad degree, a good job, good sense of humor and all of my teeth, fingers and toes. I don't smother women, and I treat them like I'd want to be treated if I were a woman.
In a nutshell, I'm the guy all the middle aged women pretend to be looking for.
Most nights you can find me at home reading, writing, or watching old TV shows like Gunsmoke or Perry Mason on DVD. Why? Because I've come to find that women want men with money, lots of it, and everything that can be bought with it. I've had women I barely know ask me to take them to Europe then say "of course, there'll be no funny business." What a deal.
I know what you think . . . I'm looking in the wrong places. Well, I live in one of the nation's 10 largest cities, I've met women through all the various routes, including word of mouth, the bookstore, friends, and the net. Its all the same.
Me, I'm looking for a dog.
Labamigo, my advice is to move to a small town.
The US is a big country, and we have never been homogeneous. The kind of woman you want to meet is lost in a big city, among all the ambitious (and indoctrinated) women.
"feminist ideology on having it all ..."
The Feminists back in the sixties were quite clear, career, no men, no children. I don't know where the "have it all" meme came from, but this is one thing the Feminists aren't to blame for.
For any woman griping about marriageable men, I ask three questions:
1. Why should marriage even exist? (Radicals have been arguing for decades that it shouldn't, so this isn't frivolous.)
2. What reason(s) do men have to want to marry? (Do not answer with reasons why you want them to marry, answer why they should want to marry.)
3. Why should any man want to marry you?
“"feminist ideology on having it all ..."
The Feminists back in the sixties were quite clear, career, no men, no children. I don't know where the "have it all" meme came from, but this is one thing the Feminists aren't to blame for.”
I am told there are different “waves” of feminism, which I have always considered as significant as the different colors and smells of dog faeces. The importance may be that each “wave” endeavored to distance itself from the most foolish claims and behavior of the previous wave.
You see, at a certain point I think the feminists caught wind of the fact that women hadn’t entirely given up on heterosexual relationships and having children, and in order that they might still claim these women as feminists in some meaningful way, decided that they could tell women to demand “it all.” The demand serves several purposes, not the least of which is keeping a goodly proportion of women miserable and dissatisfied with men, while at the same time shifting the source of support for “having it all” to the government, so that women could then complain about a lack of “child care” for the children whom they had birthed but effectively abandoned for career.
It takes a village, don't you know.
Vox Day has an interesting perspective on this in a post today.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
成人聊天室成人聊天室成人聊天室成人聊天室成人聊天室pixnet成人聊天室pixnet成人聊天室pixnet成人聊天室pixnet成人聊天室pixnet成人夜色成人夜色成人夜色成人夜色成人夜色av168成人av168成人av168成人av1688視訊娛樂網av1688視訊娛樂網
Post a Comment
<< Home