Holly Golightly debated the same conundrum.
I, (Bride), take you (Groom), to be my (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.
Seriously for richer or poorer? Does anyone really mean that? Or is it something strategized from the implementation of the dating ritual? Initial meeting: Italian leather shoes, check, Gucci wallet, check, Acura Integra circa 2002, oops = last meeting. I wonder whether women in their 20s date for love or merely for convenience.
On a recent road trip I picked up a 2005 audio CD entitled "Are Men Necessary" by Maureen Dowd, a post-feminist author/columnist who looks at male and female interactions. In one portion of this book she discusses how women have tended to their educations and careers only to be found lonely and without dates in their late 30s and early 40s. She states that these women have found that their younger counterparts who have filled roles as shopgirls, assistants, waitresses and the like have found themselves soon tying the knot to the older, successful men that they can't get the dates with.
So this debate really got me thinking as I was really striving to become an alpha female for a while. I was getting the education so I could land that big job where I worked 60+ hour weeks for years on end so I can pay for my own Prada and Louboutin pumps. However, I soon saw that that path may lead me to a life full of loneliness, and live to be woman who lived in a house of old shoes, but no children.
Then I came across this epiphany as of late that I should try to lead a balanced life of career, creativity, love, and family. It is also in line with this post-feminist line of thought, much like Bridget Jones' Diary, Sex and the City, and Ally McBeal. Follow your dreams and your career until you meet your man. Then what? That is the part that is always left out of these modern day fairy tales.
Filling in those blanks is what I am left to ponder. It is much easier if the male in question is like Mr. Big, a rich, older successful male who will support you (with a Manhattan penthouse, and a big closet full of designer duds) but what if he is more like Aidan and more on the low-key artist tip? How does that work out then? That is why I question the for richer or poorer, because I mean who wants to go back to the Alpha female role anyways? It is far too draining, and not rewarding enough to live a well rounded life (in my books anyways).
So maybe there needs to be a new class of post-post-feminism where young women date (and subsequently marry) for love and common companionship and then work hard together to build a future for their family . . . happily ever after.
'Goldigger' by Supreme Beings of Leisure
Posts
Maureen Dowd? For real?
ReplyDeleteShe states that these women have found that their younger counterparts who have filled roles as shopgirls, assistants, waitresses and the like have found themselves soon tying the knot to the older, successful men that they can't get the dates with.
If these successful men wanted to date and marry successful career women in the first place, they would do so... It's quite clear that a lot of men are intimidated (or can't be bothered, I don't know) by women who are their equals (or who may have better jobs, income and/or maturity!) and will not enter in partnerships with them.
I guess that could still validate Dowd's theory, by insisting that straight women with ambition focus on marrying before they become too intimidating, but still. I find that's putting the blame on women when some men are to blame, which is typical of Dowd's "feminist" writing.
The "post-post feminism" (I mean "post-feminism" is really termed "third wave" feminism anyway) you talk about is just a furthering of feminism, i.e. that men regard women as human beings too.
"So maybe there needs to be a new class of post-post-feminism where young women date (and subsequently marry) for love and common companionship and then work hard together to build a future for their family . . . happily ever after."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that just be the "Aidan situation"?
Frandroid- Thank you for your insights and comments. I think that both men and women are confused about what the terrain really holds. When I was in LA, I flummoxed a guy because I said that I would stay home to care for children (with a nanny of course) if my husband was a breadwinner. He says that all of the women in LA are not interested in that situation whatsoever . . . Ahh the great debate.
ReplyDeleteKavisolo- you are sooo right, if she would have actually married Aidan. But it turns out that so many urban females in their 20s don't choose for love solely, that is the second factor that comes into play. Hmmm smart women, perhaps, or maybe just moving into different circles . . .
i always wanted to date successful women, but i found that those women liked to date even more successful men. it seems as if the only women i could date were ones that thought i was 'successful'. which in my eyes, i am never, because of the constant strive to do better. talk about picking out of the bottom of the barrel. i am sure this happens in reversed genders roles as well, but it seems like we always want what is better, but we fail to understand that so does that other person, so can you ante up?
ReplyDeletePeruchito- I get what you are saying, yes successful people like to date other successful people, that seems to make sense. What Dowd (author) was saying is that the older, successful men prefer the younger women who have less stressful jobs (aka Jill jobs) so that they can pour their attention on the man and look up to him in awe. Adoration is what this breed seeks. I have been privy to many relationships of this sort, where the "Jill" meets Mr. Big and they make fireworks and well . . . the happily ever after is TBD. Having said that striving to be more successful is always a good thing, and ultimately more personally and spiritually fulfilling :).
ReplyDeletei know. i was just making a point that you can't win either way. haha
ReplyDelete