Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships

Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships
I am not surprised at the response by the article “Careers and Marriage”. The article quoted specific research studies published in reputable journals. Yet there are those who believe that the behaviors that either the new or the old feminism have brought are what is needed. As has also been found in Europe, when women are not able to develop serious intimate relationships, for any reason, they are not able to create the secure economic and emotional world that they need to raise a family. Clearly, like in the 60’s men still have not “bought into” the feminist ideology. A man needs a partner in life. Someone who can contribute, and not always equally, to the building of a solid emotional and INTIMATE relationship. Many women don’t know what intimacy is. They search for it, but they do not know what it is. And women have ALWAYS been the prime determinate in the emotional and domestic relationship. Most men when single and unattached will satisfy their physical needs at random. But it is women and the use of sex that have “civilized” men by exchanging sex for the house, the economic security and most importantly the emotional security and satisfaction that women search for, and I believe need for ultimate contentedness and satisfaction. Men would still be living in caves, unshaven, smelly and eating uncooked meat if it was not for the civilizing ways of women. It has been women, when brought west during the early French colonization and the English colonization of America that increased the standards of life. It was women who went into the US Wild West who demanded a nice house, an edcuational systems and civilized behavior of men. If it was not for women we would still be unshaven, eating with our fingers and taking a shower once a month whether we need it or not.

There was always an exchange of sex and companionship for the creation of an environment that a woman needed to be able to have many children and have the economic and most importantly the emotional security and satisfaction that they need to raise children. It is by far this inability to create this environment that is at the basis of today’s women’s frustration at men and how society is “treating them”. Many women think that if they have a career and work at a full time job that they are “equal” to a man. Nothing could be further from the truth. The needs of women are much different than the needs of men. If a woman gives her man sex and some good companionship, the man is happy. But the woman needs more to be able to create the environment to marry and create the intimacy to raise a family. They have obtained the economic security, but they have not obtained the emotional security that almost all women want, and need. and they don’t know how to go about obtaining this intimacy. So they complain. Instead of looking at themselves and saying what they are not giving to get what they want, they say this is how things should be and then get upset when they don’t get it. This of course chases more men away. Putting their inabilities to develop an intimate relationship with a man is not a political problem, nor is it a social problem that government can correct. It is a personal problem of people who don’t know how to obtain the intimacy and emotional security that women need to be able to form a solid relationship with a man, as a basis to raising a family.

And the more that men say that they are not happy with this type of “career woman” who sacrifices the development of intimacy and fulfilling the emotional needs of their man, the more women complain. (It used to be called “”). Or to ignore the scientific publications, or to ignore when men are saying to many women. Since the 60’s you have had a whole group of women who have been marginalized by men. The women didn’t have intimate, secure and stable relatinships so that they could have children and raise a family. These types of rules between men and women are not going to change no matter how much someone compalains. They are fundamental to forming an intimate, secure and stable relationship needed for a woman (and a man) to raise a family. Clearly, putting a career first, before the needs of the family is where men are unhappy. Hence why someone has published an article stating that this type of woman is an unacceptable partner (and a dangerous risky partner) to marry. Choose someone who makes a few thousand dollars a year less (which gets eaten up in taxes and child care costs) but someone who is dedicated to the idea of family.

What men are hearing is not women saying what they can do to make a good partnership with a man, but whining “me, me, me, me” and how women are unhappy with their situation in life: unable to form stable, secure and intimate relationships with a man and how it is the fault of (you chose): men, society, their careers, their parents, their upbringing, etc. that is preventing them from obtaining the stable, secure and intimate relationship that they are searching for.

As was presented on Nightline on the evening of August 24, 2006 there is a phenomenon of many women, career or otherwise who have not been able to find male partners who are deciding to have children in their 30’s and 40’s by sperm donors and to raise the children on their own. It shows a group of people who are not able to develop intimate relationships with a man and who for very narcistic reasons have decided to have a child on their own. The have rationalized that the child only needs one parent. But mostly they have shown that they are only thinking of their own emotional needs rather than what is best for their child. I feel sorry for the children of these narcistic parents as a parent that is working full time and having to support the child, both economically and emotionally, is barely able to give the time and attention that a child needs. And without the adequate support of one parent and the absence of the other parent, the child may very well lack any sense of stability, identity and intimacy that most children in stable two parent families have. And very likely, will repeat the cycle of not feeling secure, not knowing how to develop an intimate relationship, and searching all of their lives for what they never knew.

In both of these examples the women who are complaining have not been able to form stable intimate relationships with a man. And in the second example, they have deciided to act selfishly to satify personal emotional needs that they have not been able to satisfy, becuase they are unable to form intimate relationships with a man.

The problem is not with who has written the article, but in the people not understanding what is being said, and not doing a little bit of self examination, (or in psychiatry or psychology called auto critique) to determine what they are doing wrong and must correct to be able to develop the stable secure and intimate relationship with a man that they have not been able to develop. Women are not the only ones in the relationship and they seem not to be hearing men and what they are saying to them. And they are not the better off for it either.

So until this group of women do understand, the advice that “career” women are high risk for marriage is well taken. Men would be well advised to identify these types of high risk “career” women who are so caught up in their own personal persuits that they marginalize the more important and fundamental development of a secure, stable and intimate relationship. It is following the pathway of emotional fulfillment rather than economic satisfaction that, in the end, you will be happiest. Career women who are unable to negotiate such relationships, are many times not mature enough to develop long term stable, secure and intimate relationships.

So the statistical advice is well warranted to men, who understand what is needed to form serious long term relationships. The statistics speak for themselves.

08-25-2006 12:52 PM

Re: Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships

Many of the responses including the initial rebuttal have the women saying: “Look!  I’m happily married and have a great career and my husband does too and we have children.  So what’s the problem?”

I’m reminded of how leftists bashed conservative mores and potrayals in the media of the “Leave it to the Beaver” and Mayberry mentality with all patriarchal households being perfect with happy housewives making delicious recipes behind picket fences and neighborhoods full of well behaved children as being unrealistic and over-idealistic.

But by the same token, isn’t it also unrealistic to expect that every woman who gets a high paying job are all going to marry men who earn in the same class as they do and cook and clean too?  Feminism seems to be based upon the notion that all women will earn at least as much as a man does AND also marry up too.  Or as the saying goes: politicians promising everyone above-average jobs.  Who gets stuck at the bottom?

The answer of course is that it’s working class white and even minority men who are discarded by this egalitarian “caring” society.  Even middle class women now face having to work 60 hours a week not to be empowered, but rather to fund the welfare state and pay the mortgage for their McManson.  So in an effort to “have it all”, they’ve wound up only spreading around misery.

And as you all know, it’s all MEN’S fault.

08-25-2006 01:19 PM

Re: Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships
“But it is women and the use of sex that have “civilized” men by exchanging sex for the house, the economic security and most importantly the emotional security and satisfaction that women search for, and I believe need for ultimate contentedness and satisfaction. Men would still be living in caves, unshaven, smelly and eating uncooked meat if it was not for the civilizing ways of women.”

And to think some people say feminists hate men!

Excuse me if I find it impossible to buy into this notion that men are such irresponsible neanderthals that they should not be allowed to sit on the sofa without a strategically placed newspaper beneath them. Or that they can’t take care of themselves without some woman telling them how to dress, how to blow their noses, or how to wipe themselves. Or that they are such sex-crazed prisoners of their own biology that they can’t tell right from wrong or judge a woman based on the quality of her character as opposed to the size of her breasts.

Which is, in a nutshell, the problem with this entire article. As insulting and demeaning as it is to women, it’s even more insulting and demeaning to men. Most women – feminists include – think a lot more highly of men’s ability to evolve than Mr. Noer apparently does.

08-25-2006 01:24 PM

Re: Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships
But the problem is that if men do not evolve in the direction that women want, then the women are not happy.

Men are saying to women, this is not what we need for the stable, intimate and secure long term relationship with a woman.

And there are many career women that are single, unable to have the emotional fulfillment, relationship and children that they want. They have the money, but they have a political agenda that is in many cases contrary to what they want emotionally. The ideology is of the mind and the needs are of the heart. This cognitive dissonance is not getting many women what they want in life.

Men have not changed that much since their fathers. Our needs are relatively simple. If the woman is fun to be with and takes care of your physical needs, you have the basis for a relationship. If she can cook, a rare thing today, so much the better.

Women have to understand that they can’t do it all. Economic security is not the same as emotional security. And many don’t want to risk their economic security for an emotional security that they can not find. So they have the money but the don’t get the man and the family and the children.

Men have evolved, but you may find this surprising, the relationshp and needs of men and women have not changed much over the last 10,000 years. A few people promoting an ideology that doesn’t serve both of the couples needs, isn’t going to go far in a relationship.

A woman with a career is a risk factor in many cases for the development of a long term stable, secure and intimate relationship. Just like if a guy drinks too much, or sleeps around with many women. I don’t know why so many women are upset at this. Perhaps because the ones that don’t have the emotional security, are not in fear of their economic security also being threatened.

I guess it means that many women are just not happy no matter what occurs. I guess it is the fear of being alone, without money and turning into a bag woman in the end.

Security, both economic and emotional means finding a stable, secure and intimate relationship with another person. Women, with and without careers, have to concentrate on doing what makes them contented. I think that it comes down to fears, both rational and irrational, about what makes people feel secure.

08-25-2006 01:42 PM

Re: Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships
Regular Contributor

But it is women and the use of sex that have “civilized” men…

This a common contention known as “The Gilder Fallacy”. (look up the term if you wouldn’t mind having your cherished belief debunked)

The exact opposite is more believable in my opinion: it is men who impose sexual law and order (i.e., civilization) on women; in the absence of that one gets the feral reproduction, poverty, gangs, and all the rest we see in places where women are strong, independent, and liberated from men.

Women didn’t invent civilization, men did.

“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-25-2006 03:15 PM

Re: Career Women, Security, Stability, Intimacy and Relationships
Men only have the power when women give it up too easily. If you give it up too easily, you don’t have much bartering power. This is an error of many women today, they think that they can have physical and sexual relationships and be like many men. I have never met a woman, who knew what she wanted, who didn’t value the emotional and intimacy in a relationship. That this was the most important way that they defined emotional satisfaction, emotional contentedness and satisfaction. Money is nice, but it doesn’t seem to have the same effect on emotional security that intimacy does. Not that economic security isn’t important either, but it usually runs a distant second or third for women.

The physical/emotional aspect of a relationship is and has always been determined by women. They set the rules. Intelligent women know how to modulate this power to get what they need/want. Just as men can provide what women want. It is an exchange. A negotiation that has been occuring for at least 10,000 years.

You can’t build a stable, long term, secure and intimate relationship by using only force. And today, anything less than a true partnerships between a couple doesn’t work very well. That feminist women have based their who philosophy that they are the weaker sex because men are physically stronger is the fallacy of this. There are other types of power than physical brute force. And in most normal relationships, the physical brute force is not much used, unless the woman wants the man to move something for her (like furniture, refridgerators, etc).

Sex is the easy part of a relationship. Women are powerful in this manner, just as men are becuase they know how to use their body, the physical, the emotional and the economic, among other things, to obtain what they need.

Sometimes you can even get more than you need and get what you want. (Sounds like the Rolling Stones here!!!). But there is way too much whining about not getting what you want. Many of the people complaining don’t know how to get what they need or want. Becuase they lack the soft skills to do so.

Women have invented domestic civilization. Men usually are happy with sex. But women if they want can develop the emotional relationship much deeper, if they chose. They have the power. Not men. Physiologically, women are so much deeper when it comes to sex, men don’t even compare. We are not the ones with the multiple orgasms. Women are much more complicated and much more deep than men in this area. By far. As they say, “men are dogs”. We are relatively simple when you compared us to women, in a neurological- physiological sense or in an emotional sense.

Somewhere you have the idea that women are the weaker sex. I don’t belive that. They are by no means equal. A fallacy that women are equal that has promoted by women. They are different, not equal, like apples and oranges. The needs of women and men are quite different. Sex is #1 in men but only ranked #7 by women. Emotional security is ranked #1 by women but is much lower than than that with men.

Women don’t have the testosterone or the agressivity that men do, but they are much better in the soft skills. And the emotional world. They are much more in touch with people than men usually are.

So when you compete you compete on a different playing ground.

You use what you have to your advantage to get what you need. If women chose not to do so, or do not know their power and how to negotiate to get what they need/want using their strengths and weaknesses, that is perhaps what is wrong.

08-25-2006 04:06 PM

Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

%d bloggers like this: