Posted on 01/27/2003 5:48:22 PM PST by WFTR
CHRISTINA IS 31, slim, pretty, a younger and darker-haired Annette Bening. The daughter of a professor and an artist, she grew up in a family where books, politics, and international sabbaticals filled her early life. After attending an elite boarding school in New England, she went off to college where she got interested in women's political issues and began to work in campaigns. In the years following college, she moved into progressively more responsible jobs as a fundraiser for Democratic women candidates and causes. At the time we met, she is working as the director of an international relations consulting group with an income in the high five figures. Yet there's one nagging source of discontent in her otherwise contented and accomplished life. As we chat over plates of mushroom ragout in a trendy Washington restaurant, she says ruefully: "I'm always getting involved with Mr. Not Ready."
Christina's last Mr. Not Ready was someone she thought she might end up marrying. They were in a relationship for three years. She followed him from the West Coast to Washington so that they could be together, and soon after they moved in together. But only a short time later, she regretted the decision. It turned out that her boyfriend needed extensive house training. Their story was Pygmalion in reverse. Instead of My Fair Lady, it was My Fair Laddie. She had to teach him, improve him, get him up to speed. It was exhausting.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
First, she's obviously not my type because she's been an activist with Democrat causes. I realize that there are responsible liberals out there who want a strong family and will be loyal to a family. I realize that there are conservatives who have been disasters as family men. However, I think Christina is hurting her odds of finding a man who wants to be married and have a strong family when she runs in liberal circles. When one philosophy is that a village should raise a child and another is that a family should raise a child, you should only expect that the village philosophy will have more men who want to leave responsibilities to the village.
Secondly, many men really aren't impressed with a woman's career accomplishments when evaluating her as a possible wife. I want a more or less traditional family where I will be the breadwinner and my wife will run the home. (I'm 39, so I may not find what I want and may have to settle for less.) I think many men feel as I do and therefore don't care much whether a woman is the top of her department at work or just another person putting in an honest days' work for an honest day's pay. As a potential partner, I value a woman who would be willing to live a more frugal lifestyle and homeschool the kids more than I value a woman who is the youngest person ever to reach some promotion level in her company.
I'm not saying that accomplishments don't have some value. I would be very wary of a woman who is 25 or 30 years old and has never accomplished anything in life. I think I've made good use of the time that I've been given on earth, and I would expect the same of a partner. However, if I were 30, I would be more apt to marry a 25 year old who had fewer career accomplishments but was serious about making a marriage work than a 30 year old who seemed to put her work first.
While Christina hasn't been married, she's had at least one very significant relationship. If her previous boyfriend was "Mr Not Ready," why did it take her three years to figure out that he wasn't ready? What was so attractive about him that she stayed with him for those three years? In the early stages of that relationship and in others, did she continue looking for guys who might be more ready? Was she willing to dump the ones who clearly weren't ready for those who were when she was younger and work towards marrying one of those guys someday? As I read her story, I wonder a little whether she's had her fun with the party boys and now she wants a relationship that doesn't require as much work on her part. For those of us who have been careful to avoid using women, the thought of being offered leftovers from someone who has allowed herself to be used isn't very attractive.
I hear both men and women expressing frustration at trying to meet people. I think part of the solution must be in creating more opportunities, but I don't know what they'd be. (If I did, I'd use them to find a wife and sell them to get rich.)
WFTR
Bill
I could go on for hours on this topic, but I'll distill the essence of my comment.
This is a nation that has virtually no spirituality to speak of. Everything is about the here-and-now, the down-to-earth. Speak to a "Gen X/Y/Zer" of the need to see the "big picture" and they'll show you their 401k statements.
In short, aside from the need to "not be alone," there is no purpose for marriage. They aren't about to admit they might want kids (and if they seriously DID want children, they'd have them when nature intended that they have them: In their 20s).
Even if they DO have kids, they just turn them into miniature, spirit-deprived, consumer-driven versions of themselves.
There's no "there" there. I don't see why they don't just drop the pretext that marriage is what they want, and be content to go from one temporary relationship to another.
At least it'd be honest.
It isn't unusual for a woman to see a man as a "project", and her duty to bring him to his full potential.
What was so attractive about him that she stayed with him for those three years?
She saw his "potential."
In the early stages of that relationship and in others, did she continue looking for guys who might be more ready? Was she willing to dump the ones who clearly weren't ready for those who were when she was younger and work towards marrying one of those guys someday?
For the most part women don't think that way (it is, unfortunately, more typical of men to look over the fence to check out the grass on the other side). She saw this as an ever-accruing investment. In fact, note her reaction to the fact that he almost immediately got engaged to his subsequent girlfriend:
Then, to her annoyance and dismay, she found out that her Mr. Not Ready had turned into Mr. Ready. With someone else! He was ready to make commitments to his new girlfriend. Ready to follow her to another state where she had a job. Ready to give her an engagement ring. She had spent three years of her life in a relationship that she thought would lead to marriage or at least to a long-term relationship. She had trained the guy. And now her investment was paying off for someone else.Note that I'm not really knocking this concept, that a relationship equals "an investment." But you wouldn't for one second expect this bright, savvy young woman to be taken in by a fast-buck investment scam artist. You can bet your bottom dollar she knows the financial investment market, and navigates it with great knowledge and confidence.
Whe she can't figure out "sure thing" vs. "junk stocks" when it comes to picking her men is beyond me.
As I read her story, I wonder a little whether she's had her fun with the party boys and now she wants a relationship that doesn't require as much work on her part.
I don't know that she (or her myriad sisters) are trucking with "party boys" so much as with "peers" who look, act and think (or so they imagine) the way they do: It's not important to "get serious" early on; you can save that for your thirties.
For those of us who have been careful to avoid using women, the thought of being offered leftovers from someone who has allowed herself to be used isn't very attractive.
You're showing your (and my) age here.
The "modern" young person doesn't think in terms of "used merchandise," because everyone is a "user" as well as a "usee".
As I said: The shallowness and callowness of the mindset is astounding, and it comes ultimately from the fact that they are all spiritually dead. They're exquisite corpses, perhaps, but they are corpses all the same.
Well, she worked for democrats, so that makes her a slutty liberal. The guys use her a while for easy sex, then they dump the liberal garbage and marry a great conservative babe.
Makes sense to me.
I was born in 1957, for example, just on the downhill side of the CENTER of the baby boom. I think most of my own generation are NOT socialists at all.
In fact, if any generation can be said to be "socialist" it has been the WWII/Depression generation, the ones who fell head over heels for FDR and the New Deal.
True, there are lots of prominent 'Boomer socialists, but it so happens they're the ones who get all the press (and who, after all, are still alive, which can't really be said for the generation preceeding).
Gen-X/Y/Z have a far more onerous label: Slacker. They are the ones who are ripe fodder for the socialists in residence, no matter what their age.
Real men would run like heck away from this one. Seriesly!
It would be like waking up with Hillary every morning! ARG!
Gone?
There never were but 5 of us and we're all taken.
So9
Especially since the whole issue is a red herring to begin with. There are really no "men good/women bad" or "women good/men bad" scenarios being played out generally.
The fact is that a good person is a good person--of whatever sex. And that most of the "troubles" stem not from the makeup of the chromosomes, but the makeup of the soul.
We are having problems as a society not because men are "lazy and eternally childish," or because women are "mercurial and impossible to please," but because too many of us have forgotten why we were put here on this earth to begin with.
Our pursuit of self-aggrandizement and self-"actualization" (in short, our preoccupation with "self") is what ultimately is beneath and behind all this post-modern angst.
Believe you me: This sort of "slutty" behavior transcends politics any more. Here in Texas, most people you know are moderate-to-conservative. And they all behave exactly this same way.
No its not. You've never met any foreign gals. Generally they are on a higher plane of existence then American women.
WFTR
Bill
Maybe the distinction between complaining and having a serious discussion is so fine that these threads have no value. I'd like to think that we can learn something from them. An advantage to having these kinds of discussions in a forum setting is that it at least gives people a chance to think about something before responding. Admittedly, sometimes we don't take that opportunity, but it is an opportunity that we never have in real life.
On the issues of things like "place" and "used goods," I don't have another answer. I know what I'm looking for in a marriage, and a woman who doesn't want that kind of marriage just isn't right for me. I don't say that to condemn her. She's just not right for me. In terms of "used goods," I don't see anything wrong with wanting the "romantic" idea of building my really great memories with just one woman. At my age, I probably won't find someone who hasn't been in some very serious relationships. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with advising young people to be a little reserved through their teens and early twenties and saving many of their experiences for marriage partners to be found during their mid-twenties.
Even now, I would prefer a woman who hasn't had those deep relationships. I don't say this to condemn anyone. I've certainly made my mistakes too, but it wouldn't take long for a partner to have experienced more with me than any other woman has. In saying this, I'm not just talking about sex. I'm talking about general shared experiences of life. Again, a woman who has a problem with this idea just isn't right for me.
Maybe you are right that we can't have edifying (now there's a word from my church days) discussions of these things on a forum this big. However, I think that forums do hold certain advantages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.