Social Conditioning


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Social Conditioning

Social Conditioning
total_ant
Visitor
total_ant
I think the writing should go deeper into the topic, may be speculate a bit on what really lead to the career woman making bad marriage target. Well, speculation is exactly what I intend to write here.

While statistical data show something, it doesn’t really explain something, it simply tells you the probability of something to happen. Personally, it’s not fair to say “Don’t Marry Career Women”, if this is said, you simply mean the success of the marriage is solely dependent on the women, men on the other hand has no responsibility whatsoever. This is wrong in the sense that marriage is a ” venture” of 2 souls.

Tendency of career women make less favorable marriage partner is indeed true due to personality and psychological trait of the group of women. Generally, I believe that career women are those strongly responsive to social conditioning. Social conditioning in the context here simply mean norms, believe system or practices in the society that dictate how one should behave, act or what is one’s social responsibility.

Career women are generally those rallied for workforce gender equality. Their support for such movement indicate 2 things, the first being their awareness to women traditional domestic duty, the second being defiant and self-justification. Ok, don’t jump on me first and let me explains.

The precondition for a person to fight for something is the awareness of something, but however, even if the fought is won, it simply doesn’t mean the new rule will applied, but rather the old rule has gone background and it’s still up and operational. For example, British lost most of its colonies by the mid of last century after WWII as colonies fought for their independence. It ended up British granting those independences. Technically speaking, as citizen of sovereign nation, there is no reason why we must regard the Brits to be superior, but this mindset is still embedded in many of the citizens of those nations. To the extent whereby some nations had become among the largest exported for many electronic products but its citizen still have the mindset that the imported are better. In this scenario, they won in the fight to disbelief that they should be colonized, but they keep our “awareness” that the Brits / Western in general is superior. The same things go into this gender thing, career women may win equality in their career progression, they traditional belief system still play at the background, their subconscious might still telling them that it’s the duty of men to protect and provide to their welfare (at least symbolically by doing better than they do, ie higher social status or earning ability). Hence, if the career women progress through the year and their spouse remain status quo, it may lead to a breakdown. A breakdown that occur due to the background operation of the “awareness”, the subconscious start to make comparison, dissatisfaction which lead to the chain reaction of self-inflict reinforcement of dissatisfaction that ultimately lead to a total breakdown.

If my previous argument is true, the baby boomer should not marry a career women but Generation Y might not have the problem. The reason being like the British Colonial thing, the generation born in the 1980s, like my generation simply does not feel that the west is more superior, this is because the social conditioning into believing the west are better wasn’t that strong in our generation. The same thing might be applicable here. The coming generation of women might miss the “awareness” that the current generation career women who fought for gender equality has. The coming generation might have a better acceptance of their spouse performing or earning less than they do. As you can see, a career women does not necessary turnout to be a bad partner, but rather, a career women exposed to certain social conditioning might.

Now we proceed to the second reason, defiant and self-justification. When career women supportive of their career ideology, it can be view from the conventional eye that they are being defiant. Hence, on the cheating issue, I would generally agree that the possibility for them to cheat is higher given that they are defying convention. As long as they like it, they are likely to fight for it, which includes breaking up the marriage. Usually, the trait of defiant come with the trait of self-justification, they will justify the reason why they choose a course over another. Hence, rather than saying all career women make a bad partner, may be a research should be conducted to see if those fall into the category of bad partner are indeed come with the trait of defiant and self-justification.

With the end of the women part, we are merely halfway through. The second half of the tendency for marriage breakdown is indeed come from the male counterpart. Like female, male are subject to social conditioning, we will be “aware” of our social responsibility toward our women as a man. From this perspective, we can say that if a man is subject to a strong traditional social conditioning, having a high flyer career wife, there might as well lead to pressure, dissatisfaction and ultimately chain reaction of self inflicting reinforcement of dissatisfaction that breakdown a marriage.

Unlike women, men are subject to double standard in almost everything in life. Probably your parents and may be the education system had implied the traditional bread winner role to any generation of male. Hence, it’s quite as much contributing factor in the breakdown in the marriage with career woman the male counterpart contributed. What worse if this guy with predominantly male trait, it’s harder for him to accept the spouse is doing better.

Hence, I believe that this article should be moderated to “if you are going to marry a career women, consider this…….” Rather than putting to much blame on the career women.

Well, those are just my opinion and has no scientific back-up whatsoever.

08-28-2006 05:41 AM

Re: Social Conditioning
ForbesFireHim
Contributor
ForbesFireHim

AMEN, Total_Ant!!!!

Have a great Monday!

08-28-2006 06:03 AM

Re: Social Conditioning
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay
I about went to sleep reading this but yea.. you are entitled to your opinion .

08-28-2006 06:12 AM

Re: Social Conditioning
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
“I believe that this article should be moderated to “if you are going to marry a career women, consider this…….” Rather than putting to much blame on the career women.”

It still doesn’t change the underlying premise of Noer’s article. His article is not an attack on career women, what drives them, and he’s not blaming failure of marriages on career women. He’s stating that career women bring certain factors to the marriage that increase the chance of divorce. Your description of what motivate career women, their mentality, their background, etc. while informative doesn’t change Noer’s conclusion, in fact its completely irrelevant.

Message Edited by Romulus on 08-28-2006 07:04 AM

08-28-2006 06:15 AM

Re: Social Conditioning
Amisoup
Contributor
Amisoup

Thank you. Very well written, very well thought out. However, you will most likely not have more posts to this thread. It is hard to argue with someone who gave their opinion without an emotion (anger, hurt). I made this mistake and have 42 responses exposing my bitter feministic qualities.

Again, thank you. Thank you.

08-28-2006 09:57 AM

Re: Social Conditioning
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
“This is wrong in the sense that marriage is a ” venture” of 2 souls.”

That maybe your personal opinion of what constitutes “marriage”, and maybe this is the whole problem for many women — they don’t know what “marriage” truly is.

Marriage is at least a social contract, at best it is a religious covenant if you are religious. A covenant is not the same as a contract, they are very different, that’s why people of faith used to have very low divorce rates. Contracts can be nullified whenever one party to the contract breaches the contract, whereas covenants by definition are only disavowed by the death of one of the parties to the covenant. This is where the part of the marriage vow “until death do we part” originated — such originated from the Christian perspective of marriage being a covenant and not a contract. I know a devoutly Christian man whose wife already had two extra-marital affairs, yet both times he forgave her, and such forgiveness came to him because he took the marriage vows “until death do we part” with seriousness and not frivolity. With the double-standards that exist today, it’s not often you see “until death do we part” taken seriously anymore, so it seems to me that marriage has been relegated from a covenant to a social contract, and since it’s a social contract with the arbritrators to the contract guided by laws biased against men, it’s no dice for me. So, to say marriage is a “venture of two souls”, just sounds to me as if you been reading too many romance novels.

08-28-2006 12:50 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: