Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!cheryl
From: cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: Yale-Harvard marriage study
Message-ID: <1078@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 13:14:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: batcompu.1078
Posted: Tue Sep 23 13:14:21 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 03:53:28 EDT
References: <14915@onfcanim.UUCP> <519@randvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl)
Distribution: net
Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY
Lines: 81
Keywords: Always choices
Xref: watmath soc.singles:110 soc.women:71

In article <519@randvax.UUCP> jeannie@rand-unix.UUCP (Jean Thomas) writes:
>In article <14915@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes:

>>Remember the discussion of a few months ago that was prompted by the
>>press accounts of a new study that seemed to indicate that the odds of
>>a woman getting married had dropped to 20% when she reached 30?
>>
>>Well, it turns out that things aren't quite what the press reported.
>>What happened is this: The authors of the study found that, in a census
>>taken at some time in the past, over the population as a whole, there
>>was an average of a 3-year gap in age between husband and wife.
>
>>Even if it was true in the past (when there was no "shortage") that
>>30-year-old women usually married 33-year-old men, the authors of the
>>study are assuming that women and men will *insist* on maintaining this
>>average 3-year age gap under the present circumstances.  They assume
>>that people will simply not get married rather than considering
>>marriages where the partners are closer in age, or the man is younger.
>>Somehow, I think that people are more flexible than this.

>  The phenomenon even affects young women in colleges, she noted, where
>  men of all ages compete for freshmen females. "When a woman gets to be a
>  senior, her phone has just stopped ringing off the hook."

When I was a sophomore, my boyfriend at the time was a senior.  He
EXPECTED me to transfer to wherever HE got into grad school (NO SHIT!).
Needless to say, I gave him his walking papers.  I wonder if the reason 
for upper classmen preferring freshmen and sophomores is that they're
easier to dominate intellectually, easier to beat them down and make
them feel like they don't really belong in school, take up their time
with *his* needs, and ultimately make sure that she follows him, she 
winds up in something flexible that allows her to work wherever he gets
his big bread, e.g. nursing, teaching school, secretarial work, etc.
It seems that the point is to get them young before they've had a chance
to make any progress toward their goals, and keep them in tow,  take 
a few years off, forget to go back, and never make it off their backs. 

An upperclasswoman who has either had no previous serious boyfriend,
or has dumped any previous boyfriend (and is therefore available)
has had either the good judgement to keep men at arms length, or the
good fortune to have them stay away on their own, giving them the
time and space to develop their own thing rather than being somebody
else's OTHER. THEY'RE GODDAMNED LUCKY THEIR PHONE ISN'T RINGING OFF THE 
HOOK FOR SOMETHING AS VACUOUS AND STUPID AS THE COLLEGE DATING GAME.  

Perhaps they keep the line tied up with a modem ON PURPOSE.  

>  The escalating divorce rate exacerbates the problem, she said, because
>  "men have an enormous range of women to choose from" and often remarry
>  women decades younger.

And who would WANT the kind of shithead who looks for someone he 
can dominate and show off to his buddies, rather than his social
and intellectual equal?  I think this is an ideal way to tell shit 
from the shinola.  

>  And while personality traits like wisdom and sensitivity improve for
>  both sexes with age, they are not as highly valued in women, she said.

>  Younger women have unwittingly reinforced the trend by competing for
>  older, more successful men, she said, because "men provide the meal
>  ticket.  Even today, women earn much less than men do."

Wow, what an insighful comment.  Blame it on them golddigging bimbos,
and their corrupt sugar-daddies.  

What makes me wonder is how ANYBODY could be so stupid as to need a 
NEWSPAPER to tell them these things.  

>  Citing actress Sigourney Weaver's popularity as a strong, mature and
>  attractive heroine in the movie "Aliens," Swidler said, "It may be that
>  if these norms change over time, women's success may become part of
>  their attractiveness."

What GARBAGE!! This Swindler person presupposes that the primary function 
of woman is to be attractive to a man, and that the only value her success 
can have is that it may make her attractive to a man.  

Where oh where are your critical faculties, woman?

Cheryl