Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <125@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Feb-86 20:40:09 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.125
Posted: Sun Feb  2 20:40:09 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 01:06:54 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 73
Xref: watmath net.women:8680 net.singles:10106

>>We all know many aspects of today's stereotypical roles suck the big one,
>>but don't we also see some light, some change?  If we give up on marriage
>>the institution will die, wouldn't it better to redefine societies
>>expectations of marriage?   (Peter Barbee)
>
>        Which societies are we going to change first? The DAR?
>        SO's career (and of course your only source of livelihood
>        . . .etc. . . How would you like it
>        if your faculty advisor at University of Chicago assumed
>        you were *not* serious about making a career of your research,
>        just because you happened to be married?  . . .etc.
>                             (Cheryl Stewart)
	
Well, I can say that I usually agree with Cheryl (I've been in similar
situations) and that I don't particularly like her posting style lately
(though I make the same mistakes in mine) BUT

These questions (above, both posters) are interesting.  I've given up on
the institution of marriage.  I won't ever be married again.  I have two
children, one by the man I'll probably spend a good deal of the rest of my
life with, and one by my former husband whom my current SO is trying to
adopt.  We are not married, and won't ever be.

I've given up for a number of reasons, some of which Cheryl posted in her
response.  People have so much to deal with in their lives that the first
thing they try to do is pigeonhole other people into convenient frames of
reference.  This is no crime, it is a survival technique.  However, the
pigeonhole of "married" for a woman contains all kinds of assumptions that
don't apply in my case, but were applied to me when I was married.  Because
I signed a legal document that changed my marital status under the law,
suddenly:

	I was not a good candidate for jobs
	I was not a good candidate for friendships
	I was not a "serious" student
	I did not have separate opinions
	I could not make plans independently

These are the assumptions that OTHERS made about ME, and never bothered to
test.  When I got a divorce, and resumed my life as a single parent,
suddenly none of these assumptions were applied to me anymore.  So, tho
my relationship with my SO contains most of the components of a good
marriage, we will not be married, since society's flood of expectations
and judgements are harmful, inaccurate in our case, and pervasive.

One problematical side-effect:  My SO is trying to adopt my eldest daughter.
There is no contention from my former husband.  Yet the Dept of Social
Services recommends to the court not to allow the adoption because we are
not married.  This, frankly, is laughable.  In the first place, it doesn't
have any consistancy with divorce law (when you divorce, the court recog-
nises the separate relationships of wife-husband and parent-child and
provides for them).  Yet, according to the Dept of Social Services, there
is no separation -- if Jon wants to be Megan's daddy, he also has to become
Mr. Regard.  Also, the ruling determinant is supposed to be "the good of
the child".  I just can't see how the "good of the child" is served by
refusing her adoption of a man who is willing to support her, lives with
her as a daddy, fixes her sack lunches for school, fer chrissake, over the
parenthood of a father who does not support her (in violation of a court
order) and is anxious to be relieved of the responsibility of her
existance.  If anything happened to me, the absent father who doesn't want
her would have more rights to custody than the man who has been her acting
father for 3 years, and who wants her.

We'd appeal the judgement, but we can't afford it right now.  How much are
your principles worth?  Well, with a new baby, mine top out before $10,000,
which is what it might run us to challenge the ruling.  Maybe when I'm
rolling in dough. . .in the meantime -- for the good of the child -- we
will have to settle for legal guardianship so that he can at least authorize
medical care for her and has a fighting chance if I go phutt in the night.

I'd love to change society, Cheryl, Peter, but it's too expensive for me.

Adrienne Regard