back in the 1950s or some other mythical time.

No one bothered to actually, you know, *ask* men.

Have a good career? Great, chances are you don't know what your kids look like.

Father of the year? Great, chances are your promotion is going to that other guy.

The whole argument on "why can't women have it all" is pretty silly.


Because no one can. Not men. Not women. Not hermophrodites. We all have to make sacrifices. If you put more time/effort in to your career your free time/family life will suffer. And vice-versa.

It is possible to have a fulfilling life, provided "all" isn't the defining criteria for "fulfilling".

It is important for each of us to decide realistically what we want.

IMHO, It's good that social roles are in flux. And now that young urban women make more than men, marrying up is no longer an option. Since she's going to be the breadwinner, that frees up the men to seek their fulfillment.

You just need to be stinkin' rich, and you can have whatever you want.

And I agree with your statements:

And:



I think the idea that women should even try to "have it all" is ridiculous. I think women need to make choices about what is important to them and understand that there is a consequence to making certain choices. That perspective may not be popular in some circles, but it is what I believe.

I totally understand your frustration with this issue:



It is interesting to me, as a high-income female, how uncomfortable and tricky it is to have relationships with men who earn less than me (which is most men I know). It is a drastic shift in the traditional dynamic and usually takes some degree of personal work and a lot of communication to adjust to. It is probably not as hard as it would have been 30 or 40 years ago, but it's still a bit of an issue. How much a man earns has never been a factor to me because I was raised to be completely self sufficient (so that a relationship could be a choice) but I do hear from a lot of men I know that they have felt rejected on the dating circuit for not making enough $$. That seems so shallow and materialistic to me. I want a partner, not a provider.

or else leave lot's of people miserable: women being unwilling to marry *beneath* them and men being unwilling to marry older women.

The fact that it takes time to be successful so rich people tend to be a bit older means that those with money are necessarily going to be older. If men are perfectly willing to marry down but women are not (and women are graduating college at greater rates) that necessarily will create a surplus of older women with no suitable mates under the current system.

Either that or we'll content ourselves to being a largely childless or single mother based society of very lonely people.

Thats one of the many reasons we are good together.

She has a couple female friends, however, mostly situated on the East Coast, who are in that "im getting older and why cant i find a man" thing... I dont get inolved except i know that a big part of the problem is, theyre not looking or a man, they are looking for a man*

*makes over $$$, advanced degree from ivy league or comprable university, not short, not bald, etc etc

I think too many people are worried about "how things look" as opposed to how THEY feel. I grew up on "follow your bliss" and i was never much inclined to give a shit what other people thought, so it seems weird to me. And I also notice that the people who get married for reasons like "this is the right person- $$$ or other superficial reasons" alone, those marriages fall apart.

Last edited Sat Jul 7, 2012, 02:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Probably depends on the circles you run in. Geography may play a part as well. As i allude to upthread, ive noticed that the East coast and midwest, to me, seem more rigid in terms of those sorts of "rules".