Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Career vs. Relationship? Message-ID: <1350@ames.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 14:31:06 EST Article-I.D.: ames.1350 Posted: Mon Jan 20 14:31:06 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jan-86 00:56:14 EST References: <481@ssc-vax.UUCP> <2340@reed.UUCP> <2341@reed.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 93 From Ellen Eades (reed!ellen), in reply to Ann Thomas: >> (The original article was about a mid-30's woman who was discovering >> that a good career alone is not enough for happiness.) >> ... >> are there any men out there who would "follow" me around for the >> next 5 years until I complete my education? I had a long talk with >> one of my professors about the nature of relationships in academia, >> and he concluded, sadly, that women seem much more willing to "follow" >> their (male) SOs, perhaps because men are expected to have "better" >> careers than women. > >The last time I had a male SO, many conflicts arose from this. >He attempted to pressure me to drop out of college to maintain >my relationship with him and suggested that we support one >another through college, alternating years (he worked as a >systems analyst). My determination to return to school, and >afterward to do some things I had promised myself (Peace Corps, >travel, art) became a major bone of contention. He was willing >to support me -- wasn't the opposite true? > >I say, NO! The opposite is NOT true, and for the same reason >that I believe in affirmative action for minorities. Women have >been discriminated against for too long for me to accept a 50-50 >settlement from a man. The facts were that my SO was a white >male with good prospects and a promising talent for computers. >He could *always* find a good job. The same is not true for me, >a minority woman with talents in the arts. I have enough >trouble attempting to remain true to my gifts without supporting >a white male as well. Pretty obnoxious, eh? Hardly. I disagree with some of your reasoning, but I support your conclusion. For me, whether you're male/female, black/white, etc., is secondary; my question is, why should you have to make such a compromise in any case? If you are able and willing to support yourself through school, why should he be any different, and why should that be an absolute bar to romance? If he expected to be able to complete his education before he'd met you, why should he suddenly need your financial support (or you, his) because you're going together? It's a false dichotomy. Yes, it can be convenient for one half of a couple to work while the other matriculates, and can give them more time together, but it's not an absolute requirement, and neither boy friend nor husband has a right to demand it. >I got a call from him the other day; he asked whether >I would perhaps be moving to the Bay Area in the near future, as >he would enjoy living near me and seeing me on a more regular >basis. He was quite disappointed when I said I intended to stay >in Portland and do some things here for a while. I know no one >in the Bay besides him, and I was supposed to drop everything >after I graduated, forget about the roots I've put down here, >because he thought I'd like San Francisco?! Well, hey, it never hurts to ask. I'd guess he was hoping attraction to *him* would convince you to move, not attraction to SF. When a couple live in different cities, that's a real conflict. Even if society were in no way sexist, the conflicting goals remain. I suspect the expectation that women will follow their men is following the one-income household into history. When both halves of a couple are working, as is usually the case these days, it no longer makes sense that the family must always follow the husband's job. >It probably seems selfish of me to flatly expect that any SO of >mine, particularly any male, must allow me to do all these >things I've planned for myself, but remember that men have >expected this of women for centuries. In my life, I intend to >turn the tables, and I expect that anyone who is radical enough >to tolerate me for long periods of time will understand this. >If there aren't that many around who will ... at least I'll be >finding quality when I find one. Well... maybe. I don't fault your intentions at all, and they don't strike me as selfish. You have the right to make of your life what you will, within the limits of your own talents. I certainly hope you find someone who will fit in with your plans; not impossible. But I still question the reasoning you present in support of your position. I apologize if I misinterpret, but when you speak of "turning the tables", you make it sound as though one of the reasons for your present plans is a desire to "win" in some sort of contest against men. If so, this seems less an escape from society's sexist attitudes, than a reaction to them that still pays homage to society's preconceptions of male/female roles. Anger at sexism is useful in pursuit of political goals, but it only gets in the way when making personal decisions like career vs. relationships. Being free of these sexist stereotypes means more than being able to flaunt them; it means being able to *ignore* them, to exorcise all their power to influence you in any direction. The courage to step out of one's defined role is only the first step. Real freedom is the ability to live one's life in complete indifference to these stereotypes, to be neither attracted nor repelled by the fact that some given type of behavior is "appropriate" to your sex. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry