Men want equals? Oh, come on
Broward Horne
Your exact words were " at least as "
Telling, telling, very telling.
You're the only one whose chosen to spit back though.
I give you credit for that.
Equal. A good one. Excellent. :)
I guess I *could* do the PC thing.
But nay, what I *really* want is:
A woman who's been kicked around like a dog for years.
You know, kinda like a stray pup.
Give a meal, pat 'em on the head.
A friend for life.
Probably didn't even string-scan for your name, too.
( we know who you are )
Laurie Garrison
spit, hiss, spit spit.
i'm happy you give me credit, my day is complete :)
there are plenty of puppies at the pound. friends for life!
now i have insight into *your* personality... telling telling!
laurie
-----------------------------------------------------
now I'm on my feet again,
better things are bound to happen
all my dues, surely must be paid...
(Bad Company)
Robert P. McIntyre
careers. The marriage must come first for the marriage to survive.
However, I propose the following problem for your propeller hats:
Two people have agreed that the marriage will be first priority in both
of their lives. Each party respects their partner's commitment to their
respective careers. Now, one partner is offered a job opportunity that
requires relocation but would sky rocket their career. The other partner
would be taken care of by the corporation with job opportunities as
provided by policy with respect to "trailing spouse/SO". Can the other
partner truly "give up their current career"? Are they expect to for
the sake of the marriage, or for the sake of their SOs career?
Given a similar situation, how would you netters decide? Don't forget
to place yourselves in both peoples roles before you answer.
Thanks,
MAC
Vicki Holzhauer
P. McIntyre) writes:
> Each party respects their partner's commitment to their
>respective careers. Now, one partner is offered a job opportunity that
>requires relocation but would sky rocket their career. The other partner
>would be taken care of by the corporation with job opportunities as
>provided by policy with respect to "trailing spouse/SO".
Provocative question! So many factors involved (e.g., the relative
weight of both of their jobs, whether the "trailing spouse" (TS) feels
that he/she could be comfortable in the new city, how attached the TS
is to his/her job and how hard he/she worked to get to where he/she
is). Definitely, no easy answers, and the result would differ
depending upon the persons involved. This used to be an easy one, up
until just a very few years ago--the husband got a new job in a new
city, and the wife moved with him. I think the couple would need to
sit down with a checklist and go through all options carefully.
Can the other
>partner truly "give up their current career"? Are they expect to for
>the sake of the marriage, or for the sake of their SOs career?
I don't think that the other's giving up a career that he/she has
worked hard to build can ever be a given, even if that person makes
far less money. For instance, I work in a scientific research
organization and have worked my way up from secretarial work to
management. This is an environment where intelligence and diligence
are respected, and I like it. My private-sector jobs were never as
fulfilling as this place, and I would be loathe to leave it. If I
were married to someone with a choice of greatly enhancing his career,
I might suggest a long-distance relationship as an option. If two
people are truly committed, they don't have to be together each and
every night. I have heard of a number of such relationships that have
worked out well, particularly in academia. Matter of fact, I think
that separateness can enhance a relationship ... when you finally get
together, it's like a honeymoon all over again ... :-)
But some people can't stand to be alone, so this would never work for
them. Again, only the individual couple can decide, just so long as
it is not *assumed* that the woman will move with the man. We've
moved beyond those days.
--
Vicki Holzhauer, NCAR/Research Aviation Facility
Internet: vi...@ncar.ucar.edu
"I say, beware of all enterprises that require new
clothes ... " -- H. D. Thoreau
felicia.c.ricks
>careers. The marriage must come first for the marriage to survive.
>
>However, I propose the following problem for your propeller hats:
>Two people have agreed that the marriage will be first priority in both
>of their lives. Each party respects their partner's commitment to their
>respective careers. Now, one partner is offered a job opportunity that
>requires relocation but would sky rocket their career. The other partner
>would be taken care of by the corporation with job opportunities as
>provided by policy with respect to "trailing spouse/SO". Can the other
>partner truly "give up their current career"? Are they expect to for
>the sake of the marriage, or for the sake of their SOs career?
What do you mean by "the other partner would be taken care of by the
corporation with job opportunities..."? Are you saying the corporation
to which one partner is relocating, will provide the other partner with
a job. I think that is a good deal. I feel it depends on who's career
is more important (agreed upon by the two), and who brings in the most
income (if this is important). Would both of them like the area they
are moving to? I am faced with the same problem, and I am considering
the previous mentioned things. The only problem is that my partner has
already sacrificed to move with me where we are now. I also don't know
where I may be moving to.
>
>Given a similar situation, how would you netters decide? Don't forget
>to place yourselves in both peoples roles before you answer.
If I were in the relocating partners position, I would use the income, and
the necessary changes to decide if moving is a good idea. Do I really want
to move to that particular area or do I like where I am now? Can I possibly
find a job where we are not that is just as rewarding as the possible job.
Will it be easier and more beneficial for me to find a job where I am now,
than it would be for my partner to find a job where we are going. All of
these things I would consider if I were in either partner's position.
>
>Thanks,
>MAC
Allisson Roome aka Allie
This is some what of a loaded conundrum - it assumed that two people who've
talked and put their marriage/significant realtionship as the first priority
along with respect for each other's careers haven't hypothesised around this
situation. Granted, all the hypothesising in the world does't take into
account how a person will actually feel in the situation.
Looking at it logically from the point of view that they both respect the
other's careers, that the other partner would be 'looked after' under the
"trailing spouse/SO" policy, and that the new opportunity would benefit
the marriage, which are the suppositions stated in the problem, the
partner should be able to "surrender" their career for *both* the sake of
the marriage and their SO's career. However, as I stated, how the partners
will feel about this is open to debate. There are several factors that
would need to be considered ... 1) which gendered partner is getting the
opportunity: since regardless of the progress made in how the sexes interact
a male partner will more likely expect that his female partner be willing
to surrender her career for his and less likely to want to surrender their
career for hers (I know their are exceptions but I'm speaking in the general);
2) what the partner's values are: for example, I'm assuming that the benefit
to the marriage is financial and prestige not necessarily social good. What
if the partner who isn't getting the opportunity has as a career a profession
that has a smaller financial reward but a larger social good: ie., an
educator, pychological counselor or clergy, someones who's job concerns
involve other people who they can't leave suddenly. In that case, I'm inclined
to say that the partner can not surrender their career and that if the partner
who has the opportunity supports their career choice and values social good
equally with monetary good will support that choice; 3) What are the actual
opportunities for the partner in the new location? Good/Adequate/Non-exsistant?
If it's the last one, the partner should not surrender their career because
the loss of their career would bring stress to the marriage (unless of course,
the partner wanted to make a career change or go back to school for a different
degree). These are only some of the considerations that have to be taken into
account. I guess the bottom line is that, if the marriage is the priority not
the individual careers, the decision has to take all the factors into account
and be acceptable to both partners - any choice that doesn't do that will
damage the relationship.
Anyway that's my $0.02.
Allisson
--
| H. Allisson Roome - har...@rodan.acs.syr.edu
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.
(Robert Frost from "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening")
Allisson Roome aka Allie
This is some what of a loaded conundrum - it assumed that two people who've
james.j.dutton
>This is some what of a loaded conundrum - it assumed that two people who've
>talked and put their marriage/significant realtionship as the first priority
>along with respect for each other's careers haven't hypothesised around this
>situation. Granted, all the hypothesising in the world does't take into
>account how a person will actually feel in the situation.
>
>Looking at it logically from the point of view that they both respect the
>damage the relationship.
>
>Anyway that's my $0.02.
>
>Allisson
I'll be damned if I don't owe you some change.
Robert P. McIntyre
>In article <1992Mar4....@cherokee.uswest.com> rmcinty@venezia (Robert
>P. McIntyre) writes:
>
>
>fulfilling as this place, and I would be loathe to leave it. If I
>were married to someone with a choice of greatly enhancing his career,
>I might suggest a long-distance relationship as an option. If two
>people are truly committed, they don't have to be together each and
>every night. I have heard of a number of such relationships that have
>worked out well, particularly in academia. Matter of fact, I think
>that separateness can enhance a relationship ... when you finally get
>together, it's like a honeymoon all over again ... :-)
>
I agree with all your thoughts on this issue except the long distance
relationship suggestion. If they are separated only while matters like
housing are resolved in both locations, it can be dealt with easily.
However, permanent dual residences would eventually damage or break the
relationship (IMHO). Communication is a major key to a healthy
relationship, and the distance hinders it (I think).
Thanks,
MAC
Robert P. McIntyre
>In article <1992Mar4....@cherokee.uswest.com> rmcinty@venezia (Robert P. McIntyre) writes:
>>requires relocation but would sky rocket their career. The other partner
>>would be taken care of by the corporation with job opportunities as
>>provided by policy with respect to "trailing spouse/SO". Can the other
>
>corporation with job opportunities..."? Are you saying the corporation
>to which one partner is relocating, will provide the other partner with
>a job. I think that is a good deal. I feel it depends on who's career
Yes, assume it's part of company policy.
>If I were in the relocating partners position, I would use the income, and
>the necessary changes to decide if moving is a good idea. Do I really want
>to move to that particular area or do I like where I am now? Can I possibly
>find a job where we are not that is just as rewarding as the possible job.
>Will it be easier and more beneficial for me to find a job where I am now,
>than it would be for my partner to find a job where we are going. All of
>these things I would consider if I were in either partner's position.
I applaud you objectivity! Many I talk to have second thoughts about
respecting their SOs career if it means a potential restart or set back
of their own career. The set back may also lead to a long term
commitment to your SOs career. Their growth combined with your set back
may lead to further opportunities in their career causing further
adjustments in your career (a potentially endless cycle until
retirement).
Thanks,
MAC
Robert P. McIntyre
>other's careers, that the other partner would be 'looked after' under the
>"trailing spouse/SO" policy, and that the new opportunity would benefit
>the marriage, which are the suppositions stated in the problem, the
>partner should be able to "surrender" their career for *both* the sake of
>the marriage and their SO's career. However, as I stated, how the partners
>will feel about this is open to debate. There are several factors that
Good catch Allison! It is often easy to discuss and claim equality,
until one is faced with a decision which may be fare but not necessarily
equal. The emotional side of ones career desires can often interfere
with the intellectual side of equality.
Thanks,
MAC
John R. Morton
somebody argued that men wanted equals:
I suggest that nobody ( M/F) really ever thinks in terms of
algebraic operators , but rather in terms of "who makes me feel
good while in their presence"!
I further suggest, that the expression "equal" is socio-political,
and therefore not personal, thus rendering it not applicable
in the context of inter-personal relations.
Paul Wallich
>(Robert P. McIntyre) writes:
>>However, I propose the following problem for your propeller hats:
>>Two people have agreed that the marriage will be first priority in both
>>of their lives. Each party respects their partner's commitment to their
>>respective careers. Now, one partner is offered a job opportunity that
>>requires relocation but would sky rocket their career. The other partner
>>would be taken care of by the corporation with job opportunities as
>>provided by policy with respect to "trailing spouse/SO". Can the other
>>partner truly "give up their current career"? Are they expect to for
>>the sake of the marriage, or for the sake of their SOs career?
>
>talked and put their marriage/significant realtionship as the first priority
>along with respect for each other's careers haven't hypothesised around this
>situation. Granted, all the hypothesising in the world does't take into
>account how a person will actually feel in the situation.
Ah, yes. That last little caveat is worth so much. Allow me to
offer one data point.
My (now ex-)babe and I (as good a term as any, and the greeting we used
for each other) had talked about how we might deal with one person
moving for the other's career for a couple of years. When one of
you is in academia these things have a long time constant. It was
all set. There was no question about it. (Also, when one of you is
in academia in a small field, and a tenured job opens up, you _go_.)
One morning we were talking about the impending move, and she
pointed out I should really take over the insurance on what was
now the second car. Suddenly something clicked. It may have been
the prospect of taking real action (as if, say, spending three
days looking for jobs in Utah wasn't real action) or it may have
been the longterm effects of my friend Carol's mausoleum dreams
(she switched jobs and moved for her husband-to-be). Despite
everything I had thought I thought up to that point, despite
the fact that my then-employer had made few bones about wanting
to get rid of me, I couldn't jump off that cliff. I have since
then jumped out of an airplane, and that was easier :-|
If there's a lesson here, it's the old one:
YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.
In fact, your mileage almost certainly will vary, regardless of
which way you decide or what you think before you think you've
decided. (Btw her favorite grad student got the car.)
paul
John R. Morton
>|> Your exact words were " at least as "
>|> Telling, telling, very telling.
I welcome this, all I see here is bush beating....
something "telling" would be a major leap !
John R. Morton
>P. McIntyre) writes:
>
>> Each party respects their partner's commitment to their
>>respective careers. Now, one partner is offered a job opportunity that
>>requires relocation but would sky rocket their career. The other partner
>>would be taken care of by the corporation with job opportunities as
>>provided by policy with respect to "trailing spouse/SO".
The one with the big opportunity should go and get it, but should
should be sensitive to the fact that they are responding to
unforeseen events, which may be interpreted weirdly by
persons to whom they have made long range commitments.
At the same time, no involved person should be penalized
or chastized in any way for not wanting to accompany
the opportunity chaser ....
thanks for your patience.. and have a wonderful day !
Geof Rey Evans
>Allisson
>>* It's all a bit dry, doncha think ? Do what you think best, and worry
lest.
--
___________________________________________________________________
|| Geof Evans | DOMAIN: rxx...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au ||
|| Melbourne,Australia 3000 | Tel: +61 3 663 3663 ||
|| If they *really* wanna know...tell 'em God was drunk. ||
||___________________________________________________________________||
Allisson Roome aka Allie
>har...@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allisson Roome aka Allie) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar4....@cherokee.uswest.com> rmcinty@venezia
>>(Robert P. McIntyre) writes:
deleted for brevity]
>> [Most of my commentary deleted]
>It's all a bit dry, doncha think ?
I don't think it's a cut and dry question at all (if that's what you mean
by being dry) if it were we probably wouldn't be discussing it (funny, how
yes/no questions never generate much discussion :-). There seems to be as
much variance in the answers given as the number people asked and when in
their lives the question is asked.
>... Do what you think best, and worry lest.
I think you're referring to my `bottom line':
>> ...I guess the bottom line is that, if the marriage is the priority not
>>the individual careers, the decision has to take all the factors into account
>>and be acceptable to both partners - any choice that doesn't do that will
>>damage the relationship.
In my experience, a decision that involves both partners takes three viewpoints
into consideration: what's good for partner1, what's good for partner2, and
what's good for the relationship if it's to continue (sometimes that's multiple
viewpoints as well since there's long-term and short-term considerations). A
couple that puts the third viewpoint as the first priority still has to take
into account the feelings of the individual partners because *denying* those
feelings will jeopardize the relationship (even one partner denying their own
feelings "for the sake of the relationship" - see co-dependency). As someone,
I believe it was Paul Wallich, pointed out sometimes even in a good
relationship the needs of the individuals can mean that the relationship itself
is what is lost or compromised.
If I do what I think is best and my fiance does what he thinks is best there
is no guarantee that our relationship and our future marriage will exsist in
the best possible state for it and us. It means that we do worry about all
the little and not so little things so that we have the best compromises and
have the best possible of interactions.
>|| Geof Evans | DOMAIN: rxx...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au ||
>|| Melbourne,Australia 3000 | Tel: +61 3 663 3663 ||
>|| If they *really* wanna know...tell 'em God was drunk. ||
>||___________________________________________________________________||
--