Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    What special is that??
    

    
    	re: .1
    
    		It was called 'After The Sexual Revolution"
    
    	Re: .0
    
    		I only watched some of it. The most moving for me was
    the loneliness that some of the unmarried career women were facing.
    
    David

    In re 54.2:
    
    Some  of us "unmarried career men" get lonely too...
    
    		bob wyman

I'd rather be a lonely unmarried person than a lonely *married* person!

- Linda Busdiecker

    What was that "sad" figure?  Something like 90% of unmarried women
    aged 30 and greater will never get married.  Hah!  Maybe this is
    because a lot of those women have become older and wiser enough through
    experience to know that marriage is not a good deal for women.  It's
    time-consuming and takes a lot of energy that could be put to uses
    other than cooking for and cleaning up after a man.

        .6: I agree... maybe a lot of them are as closed minded as
        you appear to be.
        
        Marriage isn't just "as good a deal" for women as for men,
        it can be (and *should* be) the *same* deal.
        
        However, it's very interesting that you should consider marriage
        a bad deal because you don't want to be bothered with taking
        care of a man. You've duplicated the traditional lifetime male
        batchelor stereotype: the guy who would never condescend to be
        permanently bothered with taking care of a woman. I suppose it's
        only fair that the stereotype should get equal time among
        women...  :-)
        
        	/dave 

    Dave, aren't you familiar with the study (studies? I can't remember
    if it was replicated.  Jym, you know the one I mean, was it?) that
    showed if I recall correctly that married men were "better off"
    (i.e., lived longer) than single men, but that the reverse was true
    for women.
    
    					=maggie

        Nope, I've never heard of such a study.  I *have* seen studies
        which claim that both men *and* women live longer when married.
        Most likely neither is strictly true: it varies quite a bit.
        Studies can only attempt to measure averages, and they all
        seem to go for different averages depending on where and
        when they are, and what they'd like to prove.  While such
        studies sometimes prove the opposite of what the researchers
        expected, that's pretty rare.
        
        In any case, maggie, you're nit-picking.  I didn't say it
        always *is*, or always *has been* the same deal: I said it
        *can* and *should* be the same deal.  I can't honestly say
        that my wife does exactly *half* of all the housework, 'cause
        we've never tried to keep score: but for sure neither of
        us does anywhere near *all* of it (of course, more often
        *neither* of us does anywhere near all of it! :-))
        
        	/dave

    < Note 54.7 by KALKIN::BUTENHOF "Approachable Systems" >
                 -< a traditional "confirmed batchelor", huh? >-

        .6: I agree... maybe a lot of them are as closed minded as
        you appear to be.
        
        Marriage isn't just "as good a deal" for women as for men,
        it can be (and *should* be) the *same* deal.
===========================================================================
    
    C'mon Dave, you were picking on Ellen for what you consider to be
    unreasonable ("closed minded") misanthropy and justifying it (or
    seeming to, anyhow) by appeal to how things might/should be as tho
    that ideal should suffice in the present.  Granted that things "can"
    and "should" be equally beneficial to both parties, that's not the
    issue.  My point in bringing up that study was that evidently things
    AREN'T the same for wives as for husbands and going with the research
    a woman would do herself no favor by becoming some guy's wife. 
    Sure it's statistical in nature, sure it should be replicated as
    a validity test, sure there may be eight jillion methodological
    flaws with it.  But I sure can't recall any other work that contradicts
    the finding.  If somebody else (e.g., Jym) does, I'll be glad to
    modify my stance accordingly.
    
    					=maggie

    It depends on how you define 'success'.

Can't supply the life span study, but it seems (yet another study) that most
women, when they go to work, take on the job responsibilities without
significant alterations of other responsibilities.     Too few men realize
that helping clean the house is not the same as helping manage the house
(MS magazine has an excellent article on this).  O.k.  sure, not all men
are chauvinist ogres (some would argue that point I guess), but as Lisa
keeps reminding me there are a lot of well meaning, loving bastards out
there.  The adjectives don't really make the noun any more palatable. 

Yes, ideally Lis and I balance the load but there is no formula for it and
sometimes we must look more like drunks than high wire artists.  Every
person has to balance the need for intimacy with the fear of vulnerability.
The scales may be balanced differently by women and men, but each of us in
each relationship must define that balance for ourselves.   I wouldn't
trade my two career marriage with Lisa for anything, but I understand a
woman (or man for that matter) making the *personal* decision that the
energies required to live day in and day out with another person should be
directed into other avenues; especially if that person has tried to walk
the tight rope previously.   Avoiding two job relationships may not be the
result of a closed mind, but rather a clear minded evaluation of present
prospects. 

-B

    <--(.11)
    
    Yah, most of this has been rather a digression from the basenote,
    hasn't it.
    
    					=maggie

        It appears that either I'm being misinterpreted, or I'm not
        expressing myself clearly enough... so I guess I'll just
        have to fall back on my bad habit of restating and clarifying
        myself (:-))
        
        Maggie, what I objected to what Ellen's generic statement that
        "marriage is not a good deal for women".  It may be true that
        *many* women don't have "good deals" in marriage, it may even be
        that *most* women don't.  It's just possible that it might even
        be difficult to *find* a "good deal".  But they certainly exist.
        Statistics are just statistics, and they're not binding on any
        given individual.  The probability of getting "heads" on
        500 coin tosses in a row is infinitesimal.  But if I get
        a head on 499 coin tosses in a row, the probability of getting
        a head on the 500th toss is still .5, just as if it was the
        first coin toss ever in the entire universe.  Statistics
        give you limited information on what lots of other people
        are doing: they don't say a damn about what you personally
        are doing or will be doing (except by sheer coincidence).
        
        Certainly one (man or woman) can choose not to "suffer" the
        emotional distraction of having permanent ties to another
        person.  A good relationship takes time, and it's quite
        legitimate to choose not to invest that time.
        
        But that wasn't her complaint.  Her complaint was about "cooking
        for and cleaning up after" a man.  I doubt she'd have all
        *that* much trouble finding a man who'd help with the cooking
        and cleaning (which has to be done one way or the other anyway:
        how is doing half worse than doing it all?).  It wouldn't
        be impossible (although probably a good deal harder) to find
        a man who'd do *all* the cooking and cleaning for *her*.
        
        Enough.
        
        	/dave

    
    Re .5, you mentioned that you'd rather be a lonely unmarried
    person than a lonely *married* person.  I agree whole-heartedly!
    I've been both, and there's nothing quite so lonely as being
    lonely when you're married.  At least when you're single you can
    do something about it!
    
    What I find so insulting about those studies that say that women
    over 30 who are unmarried have slim chances of ever finding 
    husbands is that those articles revive the old stereotype of the
    pathetic old-maid that couldn't get a man!  People shouldn't be
    pushed into feeling like they should get married or something is
    wrong with them.  There are plenty of other things for people to
    do with their lives today without trying to make the unlikely
    commitment to stay with one other person until they die.
    
    How can anyone promise to love another person forever, and why is
    it so important to do so?  I can see the need for friends and for
    love, but why marriage?
    
    Re .15, I'm not sure if there is any such thing as "having permanent
    ties to another person".  Maybe it turns out that way sometimes,
    but I wouldn't want  taking a chance of finding it to be my only
    source of happiness.
    
    Sometimes when I'm lonely or depressed I go shopping and buy myself
    clothes or jewelry.  I can't afford much (being a secretary) but
    if I were a millionaire I might be able cheer myself up quite a
    bit.  I guess I just can't feel sorry for some millionaire who has
    just discovered that you can't buy love.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re:  those lovely over-30 statistics
    
    I remember reading somewhere that the people who ran the study were
    very surprised and dismayed at the way the press reported their
    findings.  One of the researchers remarked that he thought the
    percentages for men over 30 would be comparable, but that no one
    had gotten around to such a study for men.  
    
    In the words of Ellen Goodman - 
    
    	"Stop that survey before it kills again!"
                                          
    
    					{cathy}

        .16: OK, Lorna... some good points, although obviously tinged
        with a lot of bitterness.  First off, and probably reiterated
        several times though this reply, I agree that people shouldn't
        be "pushed into feeling like they should get married".  Studies
        often read too much into statistics.  Statistics always tell the
        truth.  What people forget is that statistics also always lie,
        any time they're applied to more than one person or thing.  With
        large batches of diverse data (and any data regarding humans is
        astoundingly diverse), statistics lie far more often than they
        tell the truth, making them *totally* meaningless to an individual.
        
>   There are plenty of other things for people to
>   do with their lives today without trying to make the unlikely
>   commitment to stay with one other person until they die.
        
        Whether it's unlikely or not depends a lot on how and why
        the commitment is made.  There certainly are other things
        to do with your life, if you want to do them.  I'd rather
        be with my wife.
        
>   How can anyone promise to love another person forever, and why is
>   it so important to do so?  I can see the need for friends and for
>   love, but why marriage?
        
        You can't completely control the future... but you can state
        your intent.  Why is it so important to do?  It's not.  It's not
        important at all, in any objective sense.  Unless you *want* to.
        Barbara and I were brought together by friendship and then love,
        and we fully intended to stay together long before we even
        considered the idea of marriage.  Our relationship would
        be---and remain---the same without it.
        
>   Re .15, I'm not sure if there is any such thing as "having permanent
>   ties to another person".  Maybe it turns out that way sometimes,
>   but I wouldn't want  taking a chance of finding it to be my only
>   source of happiness.
        
	You're right in that "permanent ties" is something that happens
        that way, not something you can cause to happen.  But that
        doesn't mean it's unpredictable.  And it's a whole hell of
        a lot of fun when it works.
        
        Regardless of what may happen at some unpredictable time
        in the future, nothing, including denial, would change how
        I feel about Barbara *now*.  And I trust her enough not to
        be afraid of my dependency on her for complete happiness.
        
        But even at that, she isn't my "only source of happiness".
        It just so happens that she's my best friend, and we can
        *expand* our enjoyment of most anything we do, by doing it
        together.  And if it should ever end, then I'm only back
        where I was before.  In a good relationship, both people           
        gain a lot.  Nobody loses anything.
        
        Just because a permanent relationship is good for me doesn't
        mean it's good for everyone.  But just because a permanent
        relationship might not be right for you sure doesn't mean it's
        *bad* for everyone!
        
        	/dave 

	    The studies that show what Maggie's referring to were done
	by Jesse Bernard, and are presented in her book _The_Future_of_
	_Marriage_.  She found that most married men are doing best and
	most married women are doing worst.  (Single women are doing
	second best, and single men are doing next-to-worst.)  Some of
	the areas she covers are personal freedom, depression, suicide,
	and control over one's life and decisions.  It's true that
	married women live longer than single women, on average, though.
	    The book was published in 1972, and almost all of the marri-
	ages studied were traditional:  man in charge, earning the pri-
	mary wages, wife doing housework, etc.  I haven't come across
	any studies done since that concentrate on alternative styles of
	marriage.
	    As best as I can recall, the increase in such alternative
	marriages has had some effect, but such marriages are still in
	the minority, and the overall distribution that puts most mar-
	ried men in the best position and most married women in the
	worst position still holds.
	    When discussing the "single women who will never marry"
	phenomenon, it is important to point out that most single
	women are better off than most married women.  (The ABC news
	specials can't be depended on to mention this fact, nor can
	the McNewsMagazines that put the "tragic" statistics on their
	front covers.)
	    That said, I should point out that I agree with Dave that
	Ellen's presentation of that fact implied that it applied to
	all marriages, or of marriage _per_se_, and that just isn't
	so.  Please, let's be more precise with our words so that
	those of us who venture away from the norm aren't rendered
	nonexistent.
			<_Jym_>

re: .19
    >  	    When discussing the "single women who will never marry"
    >	phenomenon, it is important to point out that most single
    >	women are better off than most married women.  


	In what way ?


David		

    Thanks, Jym.  For your caveat as well <heh>
    
    					=maggie

	    [RE .20]:  In what way?  I listed a few:  more personal
	freedom, less depression, fewer suicides, more control over
	their lives and decisions.  There's more, but I don't have
	Bernard's book handy.
			<_Jym_>

        I seem to be repeting myself in various conferences on this
        topic, but I think it is very important, so I can't really
        keep quiet.
        
        People often ask how you can promise to always love some-one or
        how you can know that love will last or the like. Well it really
        isn't all that hard when you understand that love isn't
        something that happens to you--it's something you do. Love is an
        action. It is caring for, considering and valuing someone else
        as much as you care for, consider and value yourself. It is
        something that takes effort.
        
        Asking how you can promise to love some-one is like asking how
        you can promise to do anything else. Your ability to fulfill the
        promise is dependant up on your own integrity and dedication,
        and on whether you really meant what you promised. At times
        loving someone can be very hard. My wife and I have had some
        shakey times in the last 16+ years, and in the worst of those
        I'll admit (although it is hard) that I didn't really like her
        very much, but I didn't stop caring for her or valuing her as a
        person. We stuck to it, got past the problem, and I not only
        love her, but I like and admire her very greatly. 
        
        Promising to love someone for 50, 70, or 100 years is really not
        that much harder than promising to love them 3, 7, or 11 years.
        (In fact, it is my impression that 3, 7, 11 are semi-magic
        numbers and if you can get past the troubles at those points,
        it's a breeze from there on.) If you can sustain an effort for a
        short period of time, it really isn't that much harder to do it
        for a long time.
        
        So what tricks and techniques can you use to sustain this
        effort, beyond the normal things that help one to sustain any
        bargain or promise? That's where "romantic love", love--the
        state of being, the thing that happens to you comes in. You
        concentrate on how wonderful the good things are, especially the
        little things make you feel. Remember the beauty of a smile; let
        the currative powers of a kiss wash over you (little kids know
        how effective this is--we shouldn't forget); linger on the
        pleasantness of exchanged glances. One little good thing can
        outweigh huge pains if you just look at it the right way.
        
        Honest folks, love, trust and commitment aren't just words,
        they're the cornerstones of marriage and of life.
        
        JimB. 

    Has anyone else noticed that we're discussin the same thing in
    two different notes #54 & #57 - answers to issues raised in one
    keep showing up in the other. I have to read them both to stay
    straight on who said what. :-)
    Bonnie

    re .24:  It takes two.  One  can be trying their damndest to work at
    their relationship and if his or her SO is just sitting there, then
    you're not going to go anywhere in your relationship.  So even if I
    feel *I* can promise to be with someone for forever, there's a dependency
    problem.  I depend on his keeping his promise as well.  The problem
    is knowing how someone is going to keep their promise and you really
    can't know that.
    
    re /dave: I am happy being single after having been in a heavy
    relationship for four years.  It drained my energy and I wasn't
    getting anything out of it at the end.  I have lots more energy,
    I've started graduate school, and I see my friends a lot more than
    I used to.  Maybe someday I'll have another SO, but right now I'm
    not looking.  I don't know why I feel I have to explain myself to
    *you* of all people.  If you were my alternative, I know I'd still
    be single.

>   I depend on his keeping his promise as well.  The problem
>   is knowing how someone is going to keep their promise and you really
>   can't know that.
        
        It's called "trust".  It's an essential and irreplacable
        ingredient in any good relationship.  If there's no trust,
        there's no relationship.  Calling it quits is redundant:
        it's already gone.
        
        As for "explaining yourself to me", Ellen, I'm not concerned
        with whether you like relationships, what sort of relationships
        you like, or why.  What bugs me is when you start knocking
        *my* relationships.
        
        And to return the parting insult in kind: if I was your
        alternative you certainly would still be single, because judging
        from your attitude so far *I* sure wouldn't be interested. 
        
        	/dave

    my reply in .6 "marriage is not a good deal for women" was a general
    statement on the state of marriage for women.  I was not a comment
    on *your* marriage, /dave,  which I know nothing about.  I think
    that some of the replies in this note back up what I was trying
    (not as accuratelyl) to say (.8, .13, especially .19, and .23).  Read
    them again and see if marriage seems (in general) to be a good deal for
    women.  Why you chose to attack me over it, I'm not sure.  I am not the
    only person (woman!) in this conference that you have attacked in the
    past.  57.8 for example "It looks to me like your problem is..."  /dave
    the psychiatrist strikes again.  I certainly didn't come to this
    conference to listen to a man tell me "what my problem is".  Ideally,
    this is supposed to be a safe place for us women to speak out. 
    We get unsolicited comments and advice everywhere else from men.
    Please, can't you *cool it* a little, /dave?!  It is antithetical to
    the purpose of this conference. I'm not the only woman who feels this
    way.
    
    	-Ellen

        You cool it, OK?
        
        You didn't say marriage was a bad deal for you.  You didn't
        say marriage was a bad deal for some women.  You said marriage
        was a bad deal for *all women*.  That's wrong, and it's
        insulting.   When you say something insulting, don't get
        annoyed because someone is insulted by it.
        
        	/dave

The statement "marriage is not a good deal for women" is an opinion. The
veracity of this is subject to debate. You, Dave Butenhof, say it's wrong.
I, Don Sharp, say it's right. I fail to see how a difference of opinion 
can be construed as an insult. No further mud-slinging is called for.

Don.

        I disagree strongly in that she didn't state it as an opinion
        (nor did you, for that matter), nor, until .30, did either
        of you say anything which (to me) even implied that you were
        willing to consider it "an opinion".  Until Ellen's previous
        reply there wasn't even a clear admission that it might not apply
        to everyone.  I object to the "absolutism" involved, not
        to the fact that someone may hold that opinion.
        
        On the other hand, I *will* back off a little.  It's a fact
        that *I* don't always say "this is my opinion" explicitly
        when I state opinion, and I may well have been a bit more
        sensitive than necessary to the statements on this subject.
        
        	/dave

	[re .6]	You get my "most bigoted person of the month" award.