Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!aero-c!nadel From: U23700%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Women and Career Message-ID: <1991Jun28.230150.26776@aero.org> Date: 28 Jun 91 23:01:50 GMT References: <143634@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Sender: news@aero.org Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 138 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article <143634@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, bcwst@unix.cis.pitt.EDU ("Bruce C. Wible") says: >It might seem, that these days to see Woman as head of a organisation >or leading another bunch of women and men in the organisation is quite >a common place. I would though like to know how many of these woman >have successfully managed their career and their Family life ? I have >come to know of lots of women have had either to give up one or >another and they have always seemed to do this with some regret. i just read a recent survey in either a woman's magazine or women's section of the sunday chicago tribune (i can't remem- ber, but i'll try to find it) concerning guilt and working mothers. the results of the survey were that only about 10% (give or take a few percent, cuz of my memory) of working mothers experience severe guilt about working outside the home, whether they have husbands or not. the only times they ever felt really guilty was perhaps when the child(ren) were sick. most women (between 30 and 40%) did not feel guilty about working outside the home and familty *at all*. the horrible guilt women are supposed to feel (in the U.S., anyway) is largely a media-hyped myth. also, remember the saying "behind every great man, there is a great woman"? that is a very old saying, from way back. the kernel of truth is that, any extremely successful person needs a "wife", if they have a family. traditionally, men could go out in the world and spend 12 hours or more a day away from their homes and families *because* their wives were there to take care of the running of the household, and childcare. if they didn't have wives, they either would have to give up their successful and demanding careers, or give up their children to someone who would have the time to love, nurture, and care for the kids. successful women or women with demanding careers/jobs have exactly the same problems, but they also get extra pressure to be the "good mother" and the "good wife", because those are the roles expected of women in this society. (the "superwoman" syn- drome a previous post mentioned). the roles used to be clearly defined: men were the breadwinners, women the mothers and wives; men were unemotional and logical, and women were emotionally giving, but unstable. consequently there were many bored bored or neurotic housewives addicted to valium, and many children who couldn't talk or relate to fathers -- even as adults -- because their fathers were unable to ex- press their tender feelings for them. i, for one, am glad that now we have a chance to show children that mommy can be strong, and that daddy can be gentle and talkative. > >I have also observed that those women who think they are the >independent kind seem to be the most confused or worst effected ones >since they take their sense of independence and convert it into a >unbending and non compromising attitude which if married kills the >marriage or else if unmarried they become extremely closed to >compromise and they get rigid and most end up getting more and more >cynical about Men. But again all these are general observations and >personal experience. others have responded sufficiently about this point. let me just point out as they did that, men have been behaving this way about the conflict between relationships and careers/jobs for eons, and no one had a problem with that (except their wives and children, whose opinions until recently were not reported in the popular press and media). > >Another thing is why do women have to behave in a absolutely Positivly >Woman (Traditional type Makeup, act Dumb et al) or the other side of believe it or not, many men expect it, even if they don't like it. the more stupid and helpless the woman is, the more likely she'll "need" a man around, is the way the thinking goes. (this kind of attitude can also be observed in the upper class power elite, who prefer the working and under-class people to be uneducated and misinformed, so that they remain dependent on the rich and powerful for political information and jobs/income). >them like Morden so called Libbers (Don't shave Legs, Dont use perfume >kind) Why can't there be more of Natural woman who know that men know the "natural woman" *HAS SOME BODY HAIR*! *not shaving* IS natural! the only way not to have hair on your legs is if a) you are genetically hairless, or less hairy; b) you shave your legs and armpits; c) you put chemicals on your skin which cause the hair to dissolve enough to be wiped off; d) you go through expensive, repeated electrolysis; or, e) you rip the hair out repeatedly by waxing or with appliances made specially for ripping the hair out at the root of the hair shaft. >they need us as much as we need them and there is no need to act there is a difference between need and want. need connotes some level of dependency. wanting something means you don't need it to survive, but you like it. >highty and mighty or even dumb (which they ar'n't) I mean spare the >artificialities, do they actually need them?? well, shaving leg hair (or other methods or removing it) *IS ARTIFICIAL*. perfume does not naturally occur on women (except for everyone's unique body scent, and sweat), so wearing perfume *IS ARTIFICIAL*. yet you disparage the women who *don't* do these artificial things (if i am understanding your writing correctly) -- you *want* women who shave their legs and wear perfume, you want those particular artificial things. yet you contradict yourself, saying you don't want the "artificialities" of women who act "high and mighty or even dumb". i am not trying to insult you, i am just trying to point something out. > >Lastly Is it true that most (I am not genralising) Woman who try and >achieve a name for themselves do it i'd like to point out that "achieving a name" and working for a living are two different things. there are many people who try to achieve a great deal of success in their job for a variety of reasons, including some of the ones you have listed below. however, there are many people -- men and women -- who work *just to survive*. in the united states these days, many families find that living off of one person's income (traditionally, the husband/father's) *is no longer possible*. while i think that rampant consu- merism and debt-based affluence are part of the problem, it is certainly very true that many couples both must work just to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their children, or to send their children to private schools (because public education in this country is not good enough) or on to college. also, many women work because they are the *only* parent their children have. also, many families have both parents working because they need the job benefits for their family, specific- ally in terms of health care -- which is becoming less and less affordable these days. >1)Out of running of the so called Drudgery of family life >2)Out of a Bad experience in their life >3)Out of basic interest in the field they have chosen > >I would appreciate any kind of feedback on these questions more out >of interest in this area than bringing up a controversy. well, i am trying to give you feedback. but you must under- stand that this is still a touchy subject for men and for women. > >Rgds, > >Prashanth Cannanbilla