By SUSAN A. PATTON
Guest Contributor
Published: Friday, March 29th, 2013
Advice for the young women of Princeton: the daughters I never had
Forget about having it all, or not having it all, leaning in or leaning out — here’s what you really need to know that nobody is telling you.
For years (decades, really) we have been bombarded with advice on professional advancement, breaking through that glass ceiling and achieving work-life balance. We can figure that out — we are Princeton women. If anyone can overcome professional obstacles, it will be our brilliant, resourceful, very well-educated selves.
Read the rest of the letter at http://dailyprincetonian.com/2013/03/29/32755/
The Daily Princetonian 
I have three daughters. I’m glad you have none.
The problem she raises is real! Look at all the dating sites educated with women with high expectations. Spinsters are the new order of American demographic. Biology is confirming that women without children are not only unhappy but die sooner. Really no joke!
Slight problem with your premise. It’s refuted by scientific study:
http://www.livescience.com/23891-childfree-women-distress.html
Women who want to have chidlren but can’t are unhappy. Women who never wanted children are just fine. Frankly, I would not want to live as long if I had children. I knew when I was 16 I never wanted chidlren. If someone wants to have kids, that’s great. They should go for it. But women should not feel pressured to fill traditional gender roles. It should be a choice.
You might want to revisit the text. She does not say it is not their choice.
My point was the above poster was using pseudo-science to push a traditional gender role agenda.
“Women who want to have children but can’t are unhappy.” only serves to justify the publication of the original piece!
Except A. The study deals with women’s with fertility problems, which can happen at any age, B. Not all women want to have children (nor do I think that “most” women’s happiness is “inextricably” tied to finding Mr. Right). I’m sorry you are bitter and unhappy. But like the author, you make the mistake of assuming your experience is the universal experience. Someone women don’t want to get married or have children, some women want wives, some women want a husband without kids (being DINKs is awesome), some women want kids but no husband. And all of them are just fine.
The incidence of fertility problems among women increases with age. No one said that all women want to have children. Where did you get the idea that I am bitter or unhappy?
Your posts dear, your posts.
What about them, specifically?
I’m a different person from “resident spinster” (who does appear bitter and unhappy). It was judgmental of you to say that “being DINKs is awesome.” 😉
And you make the mistake of assuming *your* experience is the universal experience. The author of this letter is sharing an opinion based on a very specific experience she had; a group of intelligent, well-educated young women are in need of advice on how to manage their personal lives, since the only advice anyone seems willing to give intelligent, well-educated young women these days is how to build an exceptional career. Believe it or not, there still exist some women who want to raise a family.
Thank you.
And maybe it is familial/societal pressure pushing them to get married and have children. Why are the young women asking fro personal relationship advice? Because the whole idea of women having careers AND having a family has NEVER been addressed or solved. This is where the angst comes from. Many parents are selfish sending their girls to school in hopes of them finding that successful future doctor or future lawyer to marry and providing grandchildren. Society in general (especially many families) are pressuring young women into traditional roles…just look around you…open your eyes and ears.
Kids but no husband isn’t quite so fine. Maybe the woman feels she’s “having it all” but what about the kids?
Women (I assume Kip is a woman) can be so evil and selfish, they don’t even think like this! Not all women are like this, but it seems most who are like this are women.
While career women pat themselves on the back for focusing on careers it’s painful to be around them, see them in restaurants, bars or other events turning on their “long beams” and chase men, often married men/fathers! The trend is so obvious and widespread these women became nuisances for the guys.
@Marriedman: Oh please. You can’t judge what an entire gender does by what goes on in bars. I hang out with my friends at restaurants and bars, and believe it or not, I’m the only single career woman amongst the four and the rest are stay-at-home moms out for a good time away from the boredom of staying home. More often than not, it’s drunk guys – married men and fathers included (who even have the audacity to attempt to hide their rings by putting their left hands in their pockets) – who try to chat us up when it’s clear it’s a girlie session and men are not welcome.
In fact, while it’s more easy to understand why stay-at-home moms are out, getting away from the boredom that is home, with their friends, what are married fathers doing at bars when they should be spending what little time they have away from their careers with their families? I’m sure it’s to have a guys night out and to have a look-see around too. If these women are nuisances at bars you frequent, either them them you’re not interested – as women have been telling drunk guys and players forever – or, er, don’t go?
“You can’t judge what an entire gender does…” Quite accurate, and for this reason all — all — the various positions refuting other opinions while openly or by implication speak for an entire group is nonsense. This is why the “collective” has no voice, speaks for no one, has no opinion and no sense to it as a thought tool. Who speaks for women? No one, because “you can’t judge what an entire gender does….” This alone makes the tempests in these teapots simply ludicrous. Very political, but ludicrous nonetheless. The same holds for men, monkeys or cultures.
Exactly. But just for the record, in my comments, I wasn’t speaking about women in general. I was speaking up for female Ivy Leaguers and Oxbridge grads who find it hard to find an intellectual soulmate. The very specific group that Susan Patton was addressing.
Such fretting. Trying to find an intellectual soulmate is a bootless quest. We all change. Today’s “soulmate” is tomorrow’s dreary drag. Find a smart person who wants to know more and who can fuck your brains out.
@Jim Roberts. Lmao! While I can’t agree with a soulmate being tomorrow’s dreary drag(yep, I believe in soulmates & lifemates) ; the very LAST part of your post is highly important in a good, sound relationship. And many folks these days overlook it; and might be why divorce rates & number of single “intelligent” women is so HIGH. You’re spot ON that we all change; another part of the relationship equation folks tend to overlook..People evolve..some for the better; some for the worse. Mayhaps thats where the phrase’ For better or worse stems from…’
these woman tense to be picky they should be more open and let out the net a bit and then maybe they will catch a man that will love them for who they are and not for what they can do.
OMG, just the term “female Ivy Leaguers and Oxbridge grads” has my head spinning. Reminds me of that line in The Social Network, where Zuckerberg tells his date she doesn’t have to study because she “goes to BU” – the notion that Ivy League women are in some way so dramatically intellectually superior to the rest of us who went to “other” fine schools (or didn’t) is pathetic.
It looks like you want to find fault with Tigerlily. You do appear intellectually inferior.
jay,
guess what?
i’m single, never married, no kids, no sex, no man. i’m a 45 yo virgin and guess what ???
I’M HAPPY!
i am not married to a man who will ruin my looks and lower my spirit. and..I’m happy. no kids. either. I’m happy!
so your theory is wrong. !
i don’t have to put with a man. and i didn’t give it away to a jerk either!
I swear I wish it was a theory. When they run out of payees into Social Security, Medicare you should feel like a leech that sucked the blood out of these entitlement programs. I propose all people without children should receive less benefits – husband or not. The greater good of the country at stake here. Today’s children are tomorrows tax payers. Don’t like it move to some oil rich sultanate.
Jay,
Pick-up a paper sometime and read about how the world is rapidly reaching over population! I will pray tonight you are never elected to any form of government!
The demographics of the developed world are aging. That includes China. Japan is feeling the pain intensely. The United States is just starting to reach the point of no return. More elderly people and fewer young people are leading to distress in healthcare, pensions and public financing.
The demographics of the developing world are out of control. They do not have such vigorous debates as the Daily Princetonian because they are mired in poverty and desperation
Stop spreading falsehoods. There’s nothing wrong with the population of the developing world. The largest BRIC nations are seeing declining population growth as their incomes increase. Africa has a lower population density than the U.S. and many African countries have a higher Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) adjusted per capita GDP than India (yes, really, look it up). Please speak on what you know and stop spreading untruths that can lead to population control (i.e. genocide/eugenic engineering) of those you may feel are unworthy of enjoying your developed world lifestyle.
The whites are already a minority in that overpopulated world; just saying
i propose married people with kids pay their fair share of taxes, no tax breaks. this whole mess with the gay people would not have been a problem if married people didn’t get special privileges just because they are married and have kids.
i further propose that single people, because they make less money than married people due to taxes, be offered higher salaries than their married peers.
stingier… you have no idea what it means to have kids; the tax breaks are nothing compared to the expenses and how it changes your life, in general.
But isn’t that the problem of the parents? They chose to have them so they should pay the costs themselves, and not rely on The Village to pay the bill for their kids and shut up.
As for life changes, they should have thought about all that before deciding to breed. Children are a choice, not a requirement.
Sux to be them, I guess.
Especially the families with multiple kids! They consume way more in resources than they will ever pay in taxes. Let’s not even discuss the carbon footprint a kid in the USA has, in comparison to a kid from India, for example. Now, add in multiples in the same family.
In effect, they are the true “leeches” of society.
Anon1 you save a narrow understanding of the dynamics of the demographics and how they affect a society development.
*Anon1 you have …
Hey Jay,
Then give me back ALL the property tax money I had to pay to educate somebody else’s kids. 66% of my NJ local property tax bill goes to pay for services I won’t ever use, because I’m childfree. Give me back that 66%. That’s right idiot, I’ve paid for OTHER PEOPLE”S KIDS. Therefore, if they have to pay into Social Security, too bad. I paid for their education.
Take your entitlement, bingo filled attitude and shove it where the son don’t shine.
It is a person’s choice to have kids and it is a person’s choice not to have kids.
Just as it was your choice to buy a house knowing where the taxes would go.
No, it’s not a choice as to where tax money goes, because schools are funded by property taxes, rather than by the people that use them! Let the people with multiple kids actually pay the real costs of educating their kids, instead of passing the bill to everybody else. But that would mean that they have to take full responsibility for their choice to breed. Heaven forbid they take responsibility for their kids!
An educated population benefits everyone in a society where we do things like elect our officials. And it keeps the class gap from growing even wider than it already is, which is also good for the community. Finally, a huge percentage of Americans have benefited personally at some point from the existence of a decent public education system. If you used public school in the past, don’t gripe because you have to pay for kids today getting the opportunities you had. Hate people with kids if you like (I don’t get it, but it’s your energy to waste), but don’t gripe about the existence of a public education system taking your taxes when you reap its benefits every day.
Your taxes are belatedly paying for your own education, which, judging from your grammar and punctuation, not to mention your logical challenges, may not have been up to par. Thank you, though, for using the education that was provided to you for free–at the time–and contributing now that it has paid off.
Yes, we should all have children in order to boost the tax base. That is a GREAT reason for bringing children into the world. Written with sarcastic tone.
have you heard of the population of oldsters in the church known as nuns?…they live to be 80 and have the best skin. no sex and they are HAPPY!
Spinster,
I agree with you on most of what you posted to that derp, Jay. I’m 50, childfree, good job, married and we’re happy!
Kids ruin your looks, your body and drain your finances to the point of no return. I look at least 10 years younger, no lines, no wrinkles, flat abdomen, and naturally dark brown hair.
We’re happy without kids and living a private life!
And the world revolves around you. Let’s talk again in 20 years, hahaha
In 5 years, my retirement will be fully funded with about 1million USD. I will be 55 then.
You’ll still be working, paying off your kid’s student loans in 20 years while I’ll have since retired with my husband, will and be living in Southern France 🙂
Bahaha, Southern France loooooves you. You filled up your mission on this Earth: a hag full of “love”, living her dream in Southern France. Thank god you did not have kids.
Why are you online? Don’t you have kids to take care of?
Sux to be you 🙂
Anon1, In 5 years, your 1mn USD savings would not have the same purchasing power as now. And even if you start with more, the depletion of your savings in purchasing power terms could be so fast that you may be panicking in another 5-10 years time. And then you’d have to come back from France – for Medicare!
Hilarious. Apparently you’re unaware that health care in France is free and much easier to navigate than Medicare.
Would France take a 55 year old woman and her husband, knowing they’ll not be working much and will be sucking down healthcare for their declining years there?
Most countries have immigration policies designed to keep such people out, or to prevent their consuming social benefits.
If I married someone based on who I was and what I wanted when I was 20, I would be a very unhappy woman today! I went to a top 10 liberal arts college, and was able to find plenty of suitable men by going into a challenging career, attending a top business school, and networking with alumni and colleagues. I too am glad she doesn’t have daughters. People think this is unspoken advice?! Oh please, our culture is all about telling women they need to find a man to be whole, that no one will want them when they are old, and that it’s a real shame to be a spinster.
You probably got married a few decades ago. Times have changed. Read the any two of the hundreds of Manosphere blogs and you’ll understand why “never married” women are increasing at an accelerating pace and that shelf life is shortening. Hint: increasing numbers of men have had enough of the misandry baked into current society. Marriage is too risky and the rewards are too meager so we’re voting with our feet. Bye.
i just peeked at manosphere. you’re a bunch of low life morons who hate women. and are trying to make a name for yourselves. give it up. stop whining and grow up…loser! or go to jail. dummy.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
– Mahatma Gandhi
I thought you were going to say “man up!”
The manosphere has many productive men who just don’t want to pay all that money to a woman who gets “lucky” in court. Sounds pretty rational and grown-up to me.
Maybe it’s threatening to you though, and why is that? It’s self-sufficiency, nothing more. And aren’t the feminists telling women to be self-sufficient? Sauce, goose, gander, etc.
Or should I say game, set, match?
They just can’t handle STRONG MEN.
Oh, GOD, It feels SO good to SAY THAT! LOL 😀
Hey Mark,
You’re a typical MRA creep who probably lives in mommy’s basement and is upset because pretty, educated, interesting women won’t give you the time of day. I’ve met MRA types, and I voted with my feet and my heart: I married a European who is smart, loving, faithful, kind and open-minded.
Feel free to stay single forever. Those of us who want an honest, faithful and loving man as a life partner/husband will look elsewhere. 🙂
I’m happy for you; not so much for the “honest, faithful and loving” prey attached to your skirt. He’ll be your “life partner/husband” until you tire of him then file to accept your cash and prizes (his income, assets, home, and kids) in the inevitable frivorce (frivolous divorce).
Me? Not MRA (too late for that); free bird. I’ll be enjoying the decline in my mom’s basement with a nice Chianti and a veritable buffet of young, cute, independent, smart, feminist women who are in need of occasional masculine empowerment to complement their power careers. Freedom! And fun times.
Here’s hoping your domesticated ankle biter discovers the manosphere and grows a pair before Eat, Pray, Cats and lifetime alimony kick in.
Guys, if you haven’t yet been fully indoctrinated in gender studies, look up ‘Enjoy the Decline.’ It’s on Amazon.
First they ignore you…
Lmaof! Any woman that thinks Euro men are better than boys from state side has more than few issues pending. I am from Europe!
Yes, European men are better than American men. Except for the men from the UK, most of them are good, decent men. I’ve lived on both sides of the ocean, and my family is European, so I know what I’m talking about.
Keep posting replies such as this, because you keep proving my point as to why I think most American men aren’t worth anything more than a casual acquaintance.
You got it wrong! I’m 32 and not married but have a wonderful fiance I actually managed to meet after college, and after grad school. Thanks for your condescending response.
maybe one of your daughters would like to marry her son or any college educated son. you are doing your daughters a disservice if you don’t offer guidance that the better men are in college. even if you didn’t go to college yourself.
Ms. Patton’s biggest offense – she went to Princeton (see all the hate for what “Princeton” means to mainstream America!).
The second – she has two sons who attend/ed Princeton, so she is a successful mother.
Third – she has a successful career, while being a mom.
Fourth – she had the courage to give an “against the current” advice to Princeton girls: put family and career on the same level when you prioritize.
Fifth – when an extremist society wanted to take away her right to free speech just because her opinion is uncomfortable, she stood by her opinion.
This is a scary society.
A fine observation. When success as viewed by various measures is demeaned in favor of less successful strategies, then traditional views of religion are not only dismissed but also the useful lens of Darwin’s observations. When success is demeaned, then what is extolled? Mediocrity. Such is the current state of “critical” thinking in which destruction trumps creativity, corruption bests honesty, and negativity rules over optimism. Another attempt to enforce the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be not far away.
Well said.
this woman should ask Princeton for a refund on her tuition. she is a complete moron who puts the womens movement back to the stoneage. betty draper called she wants her apron back.
Sorry, she decided the women’s movement was a bunch of nice-sounding ideas that fly in the face of the fertility clock and the sexual desires of many men and many women.
This is definitely what people are doing. I speak from first hand experience.
“You will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.” Amen. Thank you for going there.
true.
Susan Patton has, without a doubt, proven that going to an Ivy League University doesn’t guarantee intelligence or class.
Patton is not only intelligent she is a true friend of women. Don’t be cynical understand what she is trying to say!
After reading her article it would appear she is a “true friend of women” only if they graduated from her alma mater. My degree is only from a private college (consistently ranked in the Top 20 by U.S. News and World Report) and therefore; (according to Susan) I was unable to aspire to marrying an intelligent man while in college and had to take my chances in the “real world.” I understand what she is trying to say but since her message is wrapped in elitism her attempts at being a “true friend of women” are lost.
I don’t see it as elitist. She wanted to reach young women with a message that no one else is giving them. As an alumna, she had an avenue to reach this particular collection of young women. (If it helps, just imagine that a graduate of your alma mater addressed an analogous message to the young women there.)
The thing is, very few people would be so snobbish as to tell young people: “You will can meet people of comparable intelligence on *this* campus and this campus alone! People from the lower and middle class who can’t afford our school simply are not as smart as we are! (Even though several non-ivy league schools, even some….*gasp* state schools, actually outrank Princeton in almost all their programs.)”
Apologies for the typo. I meant, ““You will meet…”
That is the campus they are on. The same message applies to all college women at their respective campuses: You won’t be that close to that many possibly-eligible people after you graduate. (The only cause for jealousy is that a Princetonian happens to be the first to say this and get this much attention for it!)
No it doesn’t. Because she clearly states it addressed to Princeton girls that have “priced ourselves out of the market” by having such a high falutin’ educaiton, and that it is only the Princeton campus that Princeton girls will find the appropriately intelligent mate because people who go to lesser institutions just won’t suit.
And “You’re just jealous!” (which, as seen by your post below is one you use frequently towards all the women you do not get along with) is usual the defensive cry when someone gets called on being a snobby jerk.
Even though I went to a state school, I can see how her message could apply to professional women in general. I don’t see a hint of gratuitous school pride.
Regarding your second personal accusation of me (although I’ve only been defending the authoress), which “post below” are you interpreting that way?
Ad hominem attacks don’t look good, either. Did you confuse me with “resident spinster”?
how small do these nested comments go?
I was wondering that myself….
🙂
Michelle, you are upset by the fact that “her message is wrapped in elitism”, yet you feel the need to mention that your private college “consistently ranked in the Top 20 by U.S. News and World Report”; hypocrisy at its best.
No she didn’t say that, Michelle. She may well consider Princeton superior to your alma mater and its men superior to your alma mater. But maybe you can get past that which you may not like and may even disagree with.
You can apply her logic to your own school. The men there were probably quite worthy of you. She would presumably advise a woman at that school to look to the men there for marriage partners.
It would be interesting to hear from where you have attested a lack of class or intelligence in what this woman writes.
Some are angered by the author’s opinion that women should look for their husbands in college and while it is my opinion when I was 22 I was in no way prepared or evolved enough to find the right partner, it is some of her other statements that cause me to questions her intelligence and class. Her message that men can marry who they want but women should only marry men their age or older and their intellectual equal or better is where I find flaws in her logic and doubt her intelligence. (“As freshman women, you have four classes of men to choose from. Every year, you lose the men in the senior class, and you become older than the class of incoming freshman men. So, by the time you are a senior, you basically have only the men in your own class to choose from, and frankly, they now have four classes of women to choose from. Maybe you should have been a little nicer to these guys when you were freshmen?”) This statement seems backwards as I believe that I am equal to men. The message that female students from Princeton should concentrate on marrying men from Princeton strikes me as narrow minded, unintelligent and classless to be honest with you. (“As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market.”) I was not raised to believe that only people who can afford the same things or go to the same college as me are my equals and everyone who can’t are beneath me. Instead I believe that appreciating all of the opportunities given, overcoming challenges and hard work to achieve goals is admirable. Everyone has a different path in life, whether you are smart and rich enough to afford Princeton or you have your GED and are working hard to support your family, that doesn’t make one superior to the other.
i am not offended by your perception of miss patton’s superiority because i am better than most people i know, even if it is not, and believe me it is not, appreciated.
one thing you may have forgotten is that men are not mature enough for marriage even if they went to college at 22. women DO tend to prefer older men for this reason. when they are in junior high and high school, they notice the older boys who have already developed, at least physically, and they like what they see. however, they learn through broken hearts that boys at this age are not mature enough for a relationship, even if the girls themselves don’t realize that as girls, they are not mature for a relationship either.
you really wont be mature enough for a relationship until you are in your 40’s. and by then its too late, you already got married and had kids with the wrong person. having the brains you have now that you didn’t have when you were younger, being freed from lies, myths and misconceptions you were taught when you were younger, you would do a lot of things a lot differently then if you could go back in time. but you won’t know that this is true until hindsight.
also since being better than others is not appreciated, all the more reason to be picky.
Michelle, your demonstrative yet poorly constructed “essays” on this wall strike me as GED “degreed” obfuscation.
Are you trying to improve your insult skills?
It’s great that you see your way open to marrying younger men. How open minded!
Doesn’t do you much good if the younger men have no interest. Men are usually looking for a wife the same age or younger. You don’t have to like it. But if it is true, and I think it is, doesn’t it make sense to base plans on reality rather than a wished-for ideology?
Yuck.
DO NOT WASTE YOUR EGGS ON A GENETIC INFERIOR, FELLOW FEMALES. YOU ARE ONLY ALLOCATED SO MANY EGGS PER LIFE CYCLE AND IT IS SHAMEFUL TO WASTE THEM.
You would make Gloria Steinem proud!! Don’t compromise on who you pick but be willing to negotiate and compromise in the relationship to make it work. She really does have a good point. The dating scene is much tougher in the working world especially for woman– just my observation and it just gets tougher as time goes on. This is coming from a male baby boomer who was on campus during the late 60s when women made themselves known! Don’t sell yourselves short. A lot of us were just not ready to commit and didn’t know ourselves well enough back then. I think her point and her personal opinion was that if you find the right person, give it some very serious thought about committing to a relationship. We old farts don’t pretend to have all the answers but are willing to share our experiences and this was her’s.
i prefer to see only good looking men. women should only mate with physically attractive men. it will clean up the human race.
Thank you Susan for a thoughtful and intelligent article. Forget the scum who will slur you for being white, intelligent, wealthy, etc.
Amen!
As an extremely well-educated woman that bought into the “you can have it all” myth, Susan – you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for standing up for what you believe in. I am right beside you.
What does being white have to do with anything she mentioned?
Ms. Patton is being slurred for, among other things, being WASPY and white (ironic as she is Jewish) on Twitter and comments around the internet.
I totally agree with Ms Patton and I’m not white.
If my mom, an eastern-European refugee, said what Mrs Patton wrote, I would have been amazed at the logic, and giggled about how politically incorrect it was. The advice wouldn’t have been offensive because of the kernel of logic in the argument, and it was given with good intention. It is insidious that followers of the “group think” seems intent on pillaring Mrs Patton because she is a Princeton graduate with views that are not commonly held by her peer group. I’m looking forward to my daughter making her own decisions at Princeton, rather than blindly following any of the crowds.
As a member of the anti-Patton “mob,” let me assure that we are “intent on pillaring Mrs Patton” not because her views are atypical but because they are condescending, sexist, and offensive. Your mother gave you well-meaning advice verbally and spur-of-the-moment, so a lack of PC-ness would have been understandable. Mrs Patton, by contrast, chose to write down her advice. She had time to rethink, rewrite, and rework every aspect of her argument and tone. And this is what she chose to publish.
Patton tells women in one breath that they ought to find a husband “worthy” of them. In the next, she tells us that that our worth is determined by nothing more than our age. Please. I’m a hell of a lot smarter, more confident, and more interesting after two years at Princeton than I was as a bright-eyed first-semester freshman. Surely my “worth,” insofar as worth is defined as intelligence, has only increased. So the implication that I’ve limited my dating pool by not pandering to upperclassmen guys is absurd. For starters, as a sophomore, it’s not unlikely that a freshman boy would be my age, given the inconsistency of school cutoffs and the possibility of gap years. Besides which, when I walk through Fitz-Randolf gates in 2015 without anyone having put a ring on it, the game isn’t over: With the high attendance at Reunions, I have far more than the classes of 2015, 2014, and 2013 at my disposal, too.
But I’m not limited to Princeton (or Harvard or Yale) men either. Not all intelligent men have an Ivy League pedigree. Hell, the idea that my Princeton diploma will even constitute a “pedigree” is bizarre to me, having attended a large public high school where most students didn’t aspire to anything other than our state flagship for financial reasons. These students were my peers, closest friends, and boyfriends. They were my fellow curve-setters and debate partners. These men were worthy of me then; they’re worthy of me now; and when we’ve all graduated from our respective institutions, they’ll be worthy of me then.
Patton’s article does a disservice to the women and men of Princeton. She should be encouraging the daughters she so badly wants to spend their Princeton years taking ownership over the development of their own (self-)worth. To tell Princeton women that their worth will depreciate as they age regardless of the intellectual and character development they undergo at Princeton–and to tell Princeton men that they’re not capable of making decisions about partners beyond whether she’s a hot young piece of ass–is nothing more than sexism.
You’re misinterpreting what she wrote. She only reported the way it is; she didn’t cause it to be this way, or say whether it is good. She’s trying to inform interested young women who are willing to listen and learn, who would rather deal with reality than wish everything were different. You’re not her target audience.
Why boast of being part of the anti-Patton mob, when you might use your energy/intellect to change the plight of less fortunate women in a whole raft of oppressive countries? Maybe Patton is a softer target rather than some repressive theocracy or monarchy several thousands of miles away?
PETA complains more about fur than about leather because it’s safer to throw blood on rich old ladies than on bikers.
Well said.
I agree that it sounds arrogant to claim that only men of equal intelligence are “worthy” to marry, but while the tone sounds terrible, it’s good practical advice. Most women likely will struggle to be satisfied being married to someone that is not as smart or successful as them. That certainly doesn’t mean a Princeton degree is necessary, but a Princeton degree would seem to make it more likely that the guy will meet those criteria.
As far as your comments taking offense at the author noting that the dating market is not symmetrical, that just proves you are exactly the audience for her message. Fair or not, the dating market is asymmetrical. It’s not that you are worth less as you get older, it is that the women younger than you offer basically all the things you do, but also youth. To the extent you have picked up attributes with experience that men will find desirable, younger women will also have the chance to do the same, so assuming a man is thinking long term, they do not weigh as heavily.
It’s probably not a good thing that women are hypergamous, and it’s probably not a good thing that fidelity, looks, and youth are so highly valued by men, but that is reality and being offended that the author was so rude as to acknowledge reality is silly. She was giving practical advice, not making a normative statement.
Good grief. She is merely providing her perspective and opinion regardless of whether you think it is correct or proper. if you don’t agree, then don’t agree. She didn’t say it to any of y’all college ladies personally so I don’t understand why you have to take it personally and pinch her head off and belittle her. Get a grip on it. Take a deep breath and realize that she is not your boss, your mother or in control of you. You disagree, so ignore her comments.
Sir, you don’t realize that the angry mob is not only turned on by the substance of her advice (which is nothing more than the personal opinion of someone dreaming she lives in a free speech society), but also turned on by what Princeton means to the mob.
Well stated!!
A thoughtful letter. I hope that many of today’s women read and reflect on it. Women’s happiness is so dependent on marrying well–more so than the man’s happiness. (I also hope that many college men become more solicitous for the happiness of women, and that they will act to secure it.)
I would omit the “more so than the man’s happiness”
As I foreigner in this country I couldn’t help notice that the amount and quality of response in the media to this woman’s opinion reflect the fact that Americans are quite extremists. And all the responses against her are filled with hate and, ironically, yet more advice to women.
This extremism will lead to less and less people having the courage to express their opinions if they are not in line with the fad of the day.
Thank you. “Foreigner,” for observing as you have. I too write from Europe, and find the collectivist “mob” as some critics above have self-identified as filled with their own versions of “advice to women” while complaining about the opinion writer’s advice. The “fad of the day” changes, and as we are seeing in Europe the collectivists have managed to skew and foul things up by applying “universal” advice as if it were millennia-old truths when in fact much is now being proven to be just the next fad. From governments in crippling debt trouble which now includes confiscation of capital in bank accounts to families torn by the myths of collectivist-bred and often very poor advice, “the fad of the day” is the newest version of religion, but this one is secular, militant and angry. This explains so much of the ad hominem directed at those comments attempting to retain some sense of civility. “Extremism” is well noted.
I wish someone had told me this when I was in college. I am now in my late 20s, got a great job, got my masters and absolutely no male prospects to even pretend to do something else with my life other than work. It seems the ones who are still single are single for a reason. If one more person tells me what a catch I am, I may meltdown. And the friends who did the “silly” thing and got married? They have fulfilling careers and something to come home to. Say what you want, but until you are that girl who followed all the advice and now is all alone with her fabulous career and diplomas all over the wall, you don’t get an opinion.
I couldn’t agree more!
Sincerely, the almost 28 year old, independent, very single “great catch” with a graduate degree, a successful career and a lot of professional accomplishments.
Yep, you are a catch. i was you when i was in my late 20’s: decent job, earning my MA at Rutgers (New Brunswick), and absolutely no male prospects. The problem isn’t you, it’s American men. The fact is, they don’t want to be with a women who is truly their intellectual and financial equal. They tend to have ego problems.
I recently got married in my 40’s to a highly educated, sweet European man. You can find a life partner if you look “outside the box,” so to speak, and accept somebody of a different culture. I have many European male friends who are a little older and single. They would love to make a life with an educated, open-minded woman.
It’s not that they don’t want to be: it’s that it’s dangerous, and furthermore, largely unnecessary. As economists used to like to say, “Incentives matter.”
This is a very interesting comment. Why is it perceived as dangerous? (I have been reluctant to resort to the “I am intimidating” theory; I want to know more about this. How can I determine whether I am intimidating; and can I do anything to help the situation?)
You personally may or may not be intimidating.
The relative risk/reward picture for a reasonably successful (or going-to-be successful) male in American society who is considering getting married is more than a little intimidating. Yes, horror stories happen on both sides and yes, women economically still have the short end of the stick. However, given that you can get most if not all of the former benefits of marriage without getting married, even if a disastrous end is a low-probability event the fact that disastrous ends are REALLY disastrous makes marriage look very dangerous indeed to some.
I had thought you were saying that the prospect of a relationship with a smarter woman feels dangerous. (I would rather not attract men who do not value marriage.)
It does, to a degree, because the smarter a woman is the more likely it is she will find some fault in the relationship which she believes unacceptable and move on. However, that particular danger doesn’t increase its base risk – which is that ANY woman can find some fault in the relationship she believes unacceptable and move on, and such moving on can have disastrous consequences to the man – very much. It’s already pretty high these days.
“Absolutely no male prospects” ?
In a university with a student population of over 27,000??
Oh my! (in best George Takei voice)…
I apologize. That’s an old Rutgers stat.
The RU student population shows as over 56,000 (about 10% of Wyoming pop.)
Oh. My.
Nope, no male prospects that I found interesting, except for one male PhD student, but he was in a committed relationship and I had no intention of coming in between them (we’re still good friends after all these years and he is still with her).
Not being a party animal, I preferred the company of books, art, music (play at least 4 instruments), museums, foreign languages, etc. I was a real geek, huh? I guess I didn’t have much in common with the average Rutgers student. i wouldn’t lower my standards just to secure a man. He had to have personality, high intelligence, humor, kindness, sweetness, and…he had to be cute 🙂
Most American men have found me intimidating, even though I didn’t do anything out of the ordinary (to me). Thankfully, I had the chance to live in Europe, and married a European (not English). I find them to be much more open-minded, tolerant, and respectful of women like me than American men.
With the proliferation of the “manosphere,” (which is just a synonym for misogyny), I’m very glad I made the choice I did. 🙂
You sound just like me! Except, you’re married.
But where do you meet people who fulfill your standards? Surely not bars or pubs…
hey there are plenty out there with lots of degrees without that fabulous career because those connected yuppies put their children in positions they didnt earn- you griping elitists must be part of that trend- let them eat cake! waaaaa! parents couldnt buy you a husband though? too bad, most guys of the elitist camp love to marry equally rich women- how strange- they must have too many choices of rich pretty young girls
its the money. men are golddiggers to the highest degree.
You are so right.
Just look at that Donald Trump, and that Hugh Hefner. Awful, just awful. Taking advantage of those wealthy women like that.
And don’t even get me started on that Ted Turner. Pig.
see! if its ok for men to make MONEY>>>>LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY!!!!
then its definitely ok for women to do it too.!!!!
when a woman goes to college its to make money and to climb the ladder just like men do. get a grip and stop being sexist.
/humor on
/humor off /humor on /humor off /humor on
Hmmm. This switch doesn’t seem to be working.
Resident Spinster, you rock. That is all.
Here, here. I’m in the same boat and I’m in my late 30s! And before anyone calls me an ugly spinster, I happen to be rather attractive and constantly being mistaken for being 30 at most. Plus, I had a TV career I cut short to do an Ivy League MBA, so I don’t exactly look like the back of a bus. Kristina, if I’m told by another person that I’m such a catch, I’ll meltdown right alongside you. ARG.
Oh, good heavens, Kristina, you are in your late 20s. You have time! I can’t even count the number of my highly educated friends who started dating their spouses in their late twenties, thirties, and yes, forties. And we all have adorable brilliant kids now, too. Seriously, my sole regret in life is that I didn’t focus *more* on my career during my first post-college years.
You may have a Princeton degree, Susan Patton, but you are an idiot.
All the Princeton men are chuckling about this truth that they have known all along and that the Princeton women are just now coming to realize. You have been lied to for decades. Enjoy spinsterhood.
who the h#ll would want to marry an elitist a$$hole like yourself; oh right, other elitist a$$holes- lucky you are rich with connections, because if you all had to make it on your smarts and witt- oh boy!
Saet, who is this aimed at?
And calling her an idiot, what does it make you?
It is upsetting to live among people who can’t articulate a debate argument and prefer to resort to hate against someone’s social status rather. That’s all it is, right?
In a time when the womens liberation movement has been in full swing for decades & I’ve seen positive/negative results in our society, it’s refreshing to hear the matter of fact advice given for one of the oldest institutions on the planet -marriage. In an ever increasing world of gender equality & erosion of marriage rights of 1-man/1-woman, she has many valid, practical points, that the majority of married couples already know. Interesting, engaging, productive people usually are educated, however, not being a Princeton Alum myself, I couldn’t tell you if that’s the case or not. I can tell you that the heart is a complicated thing and Loves what it Loves. 88′ CSU Graduate & married 22 years to another CSU Graduate
agreed! an RU (’78) graduate married 31 years to another RU (’77) graduate
As a 49-year-old successful, professional, educated woman, and a member of the group Single Mothers by Choice (SMC) http://www.singlemothersbychoice.org/, I certainly understand Ms. Patton’s point. (Note: I am not speaking on behalf of the group; only for myself.) I have found members of SMC to be highly intelligent, together women, with a lot to offer, but who ended up having to have children on their own because they focused on their careers, traveling and life experiences during their younger years and did not find suitable partners. As an SMC who found out six years ago I could no longer have biological children, it has been a very painful journey. I have now been on a waiting list for 3.5 years to adopt a baby domestically. Here is an opinion piece I wrote on this subject: http://www.singlemothersbychoice.org/2013/03/16/a-letter-to-my-younger-self. Of course, this being said, I certainly do not encourage young women to make hurried or foolish choices–statistically, people who marry in their 20s are more likely to end up divorced. However, with all of the misleading information about women having children into their 40s (newsflash: The celebrities you read about are using donor eggs from young women–not their own eggs), I think it is very important to encourage women not to get overly caught up in the career path to the total detriment of their bodies’ ability to have biological children. It is much easier, emotionally, physically and financially, to have children with a partner naturally, than to go through infertility treatments.
whereas men who focus on their career are lauded, applauded and rewarded with plenty of wifey bimbos for fodder. for your info i know several non celebrities that had their own children in their 40’s, but then again they were healthy and werent the freewheeling elitist scr#wing their professor’s and ta’s for high marks so they can call themselves smart type.
Single Mothers by Choice is not a bad scenario; I am in process of divorce from my husband because a veterinary doctor attracted him with her social status and money. My children suffer even more than I do.
My mother is from the same undergraduate class as Ms. Patton. She graduated with a bachelor’s in Chemistry and followed it with a M.S. in Chemical Engineering. She married my father, whom she met in and introductory physics class, directly after they finished their undergraduate studies together. He also received a few advanced degrees in engineering at the same time she did. After several years of limited happiness that devolved into repressed loathing, they divorced.
And my mother (with her advanced degrees and vast money making potential) then married a man with only a high school degree. They have been happily married for decades now, and I consider him to be my father. Some people don’t understand how my mother and stepfather could have such a great marriage given their differences, but the differences make it better. People who don’t go to Princeton aren’t idiots; some just didn’t have the wealth, the legacy, or the time for the Ivy League or college in general.
My stepfather often worries that people don’t respect him because he isn’t college educated, but you, Ms. Patton, are the proof that college graduates are not required to be intelligent, eloquent, interesting, or even decent human beings.
What a great story! My grandfather didn’t graduate high school and went on to become the president of a company. He was able to provide for his family and left my grandmother enough money that she has been living very comfortably the past 20 years since he passed. He was well respected by his peers and one of the most intelligent men I have ever known. I have no doubt he would be proud that I have become an independent woman who can stand on her own two feet and not need to be completely dependent on a husband.
I’m an independent woman who can stand on my own two feet, thank you very much. But it would be nice to grow old with someone of like mind, as loneliness can be a rather depressing thing. So please, don’t equate independence with having to be single to prove it.
The dissenters might be vicious, but they have anecdotes and make several irrelevant points!
Thanks for sharing this. Hopefully some of the posters on this forum will read it and give it some serious thought. many of us old folks have come to realize that you don’t have to marry a carbon copy (remember carbon paper?) of yourself to be happy and private college degrees, writing skills, education and degree of snobbery aren’t necessarily the main products to a happy marriage. My mother did the same and they were happily married.
an education is as easily found in the library. those who wish to educate themselves can do so, with or without a degree. with that said, it would be a great privilege to make the salary of a self employed successful mechanic with dem fancy papers.
Great story Larue! I too graduated from an affluent school. But only after many failed dating relationships throughout my 20’s with men of my education level or better did I finally meet and marry my wonderful husband. He does not have a college degree but he is absolutely my intellectual equal. More importantly, he lifts me up and supports me and never, ever competes with me. He is not someone I would have ever looked for but I thank God every day that we found each other because he is the only person I can ever imagine being with. This year we will be married for 25 yrs, Get over your rules, Ms Patton. You’re not correct and you shouldn’t be dolling out such shallow advice to women or men!
Hi. I think there’s the norm, and then there’s the exception.
I’m very happy for you to have found such a wonderful husband. I sincerely am.
But on the other hand, I do think that’s more the exception than the norm for her target audience. Logically, if I had to find that “intellectual equal”, the probability of finding one within the Princeton (or whatever university one goes to) is likely to be a lot higher than a random sampling of the whole population – to the point where I wouldn’t actively expend energy trawling through the non-Princeton (or equivalents). I think the more expedient solution would be to focus on the Princetonians and but be open enough to consider those non-Princetonians whom fate leads you.
I started dating my husband at 19 while I was in college obtaining an engineering degree. I married him soon after graduating and while we have been married 25 years, I have earned an MBA and began a Master’s in Engineering program.
We raised 3 beautiful intelligent successful children TOGETHER. Each of us took some time to be a stay at home parent. HE DOES NOT HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE HE IS WONDERFUL, CARING, LOVING AND SUPPORTIVE. Do what you feel is right not what works for others.
Larue, this is obviously a made up scenario to prove your point; pitiful!
Her letter is sexist in that it is addressed ONLY to women instead of the entire student body. It is sexist in assuming that “most” women need a husband and children to be happy. (She is backpeddaling in her interviews now. But the “most” is right there for everyone to see.) It is sexist toward both genders in assuming that men can be satisfied with intellectual inferior if they are pretty enough, and women should only date men as old as they are and intelligent as they are.
And of course, it ignores the LGBT community whose women will never look for husbands.
It is sexist in that it ignores all the other avenues a woman has for personal fulfillment: Creativity, activism, travel, physical challenges, continued education (at any point in life, my mother went back for her masters in Medieval History when she retired), etc. If you want to have a family, that is wonderful. I encourage you to live that dream. But the assumption that most women’s happiness is tied to having a husband is B.S..
Her letter is elitist is assuming that the only smart people out there go to Princeton. Sorry folks, but there are a LOT of very smart people out there in/from “lesser” universities from Stanford to state schools (some of which are ranked better in the sciences than most Ivy League schools). They just can’t afford to go to Princeton. So let’s not kid ourselves. This is not about intelligence, this is about class. She is assuming that middle and lower class people can’t possibly be the intellectual equals of people in the upper class.
Which is a load of B.S.. My grandfather only made it through the eighth grade, but he was more well-read than any BA/Bs graduate and many post graduates. And he started two successful businesses (restaurant and real estate). A sheep skin, no matter how expensive, does not say whether or not a person is intelligent. It just says they passed the tests in school. Intelligence is the ability to think critically and continue to learn throughout one’s life. A lot of college graduates can’t do that. Yes, even Ivy League graduates (you know them, the people who are just trying to check off the degree requirement for the high paying job) and a lot of poor and middle class people who never saw in inside of university can. Certainly there are tens of thousands (at least) of college graduates around the country who are very intelligent who never went to Princeton.
And it is easy to find them if one opens their eyes.
Her letter is stupid to tell *any* young person to marry before they even know how to hold a full time job they depend on, have their own place to live, pay the bills, be responsible for themsleves. (Freshman are supposed to pick spouses? Seriously?)
Let alone find out who they are and what they want out of life and relationships.
Frankly, after reading this letter, I called my Mom to thank her for never saying anything like this to me.
Are you saying it’s wrong to address a message to a select target audience?
It is wrong when the targeting makes the message sexist. If she was advising both male and female students to find a mate on campus, advising both men and women that the cornerstone their happiness is tied to finding a mate, advising both men and women to make time to have a family early, advising both male and females that equal intelligence matters most in relationships, advising both male and female students that they will become withered hags with small dating pools as they get older….then it would be archaic, but not sexist.
But she she targeted the message at women only. That makes it sexist.
I reserve the term “sexist” for situations in which a distinction is forwarded for no good reason.
its not sexist, it was a meeting where the audience was women.
don’t tell me i am being ironic. you are a male posting all over this thread, bashing women about sexual choices that are based on marriage. you probably didn’t go to college and are an angry male who is desperate for sex. why are you not at princeton, or any college for that matter?
Is it possible that men and women might have a few different considerations in life? Did her advice to women necessarily mean it wouldn’t apply to men? Sexism wolf-criers like you sound so shrill. Please read my previous comment as I think it thoroughly eviscerates your points.
hey to be fair, even if poor or working class people do see the inside of a university, they certainly wont see the same salary or even a somewhat steady career as their privileged colleagues- work much harder, yes, work all the time, yes. does it matter that they prove themselves again and again, no; it’s who you know, not what.
This is a good example of poor comprehension. She did not address her advice to women in general, but to women at her college.
Most of the responses to her article come from women who are not old enough to tell if their marriages had worked in the long run, or from childless people who don’t know how it feels to be old and lonely and without a purpose. I’d like to be able to go back in time and change a few things…
Thank you for reading the whole discussion and putting everything in context.
Formal education was far less common in our grandparents’ days. Today, we push all kids to finish high school, and we try to ensure that the most talented children have the chance to go to college for a four year degree. The sorting mechanism is not perfect but it’s reasonably efficient.
I think the writer was addressing the subset of Princeton women who would be interested in heterosexual married life with other Ivy League graduates. That set may be empty, or it may not, but she chose to address a message of advice to them. In fact the set is not empty, many people are in it, but this is actually a point to the side.
If someone else were to address a message of advice to gay Princeton men, or gay women, or single mothers, I am sure you would find this to be appropriate. After all they need the help, you would say. Furthermore, women’s health messages are primarily directed to women and not men (when it’s directed to men too, it’s called Lamaze class and men are specifically encouraged to attend because it’s so different), and I don’t see you complaining about them. So therefore it is also appropriate for advice to be provided to the target audience for this message, for they are no less deserving of help. In all cases, they can follow the advice or reject it.
So why are there so many negative comments? Why do some people not want advice provided to encourage a particular lifestyle, one that’s legal and morally legitimate, in fact a lifestyle with a long history in our country and around the world, the lifestyle of a woman who marries a man and raises children?
Susan aced it!
So say I.
It’s so true though. Lots of people who went to bad schools are hating on her but she speaks the truth.
Let me enlighten you:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools
You aren’t in the best school for a lot of very important majors.
Oh look, Princeton isn’t even in the top ten for business majors:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/business
lol
bad schools- how erudite of you! grammar is fantastic too.
dem dat over der who went to dem bad schools
Susan Patton makes some valid points. On paper her argument is clean and seamless. In fact, I will soon have the honor of witnessing the application of Susan’s theoretical model in action. I will be honored, as a witness, to the union of two of Princeton’s finest doctorates, in the ceremony of marriage, in the very near future! Planning, finding and securing one’s partner for life can be a slippery slope at best in a golden and fuzzy Ivy league campus like Princeton’s. Two constants I have found to be pretty…well…constant. Love usually happens when you least expect it and opposites attract.
How very lucky they are. I wish them all the best. I wish my university beau and I could have ended up the same way. (We didn’t because our careers separated us geographically.)
That is a problem that many young, very smart graduates can have when entering the field of their profession after many years of school. Life is a beautiful mystery though. You may catch each other on the rebound.
One can only hope 🙂
I’m not a member of the Princeton community but did graduate from Columbia College. I met my wife when I was 35 and married at 38, and we’ve been happily married since. While Ms. Patton no doubt has a point about the “talent pool” of men and women among Princeton undergrads, it seems a mistake to hurry them toward marriage at so young an age.
Ms. Patton advice is so retro it’s actually modern. The priority young women put on career advancement vs. family is scary. She makes valid points that the opportunities for men and women are different as they mature. While the other societies (Arab, Indian, African etc) have flourishing demographics, we are shortsightedly cheering up for the “career woman”.
I admit, I married a man who gives me nine inches when I need it most. It’s been eighteen years now and he knows how to keep me happy. Sure, he has put on a little weight and will never have a masters degree, but I never have to go to sleep without a smile on my face. You just have to pick a mate who provides what’s important to you. I’m glad I did.
as an older single woman who did go to college, never married, never had kids and is still a virgin. i concur with the author. however, i think only now am i ready to get married. i did not have enough social exposure and life experience to make such a decision at that age.
there is something you educated you younger college educated women don’t realize, you have to deal with the resentment of your female peers who did not go to college and resent you for your better opportunities. these women may not be attractive, and they have no standards when it comes to sex, they will sleep with a man with money before marriage.
i watched the view this morning and when i hears sherry’s comment i thought , yeah, you would say that, becuase you are lower class and didn’t go to college, of course its ok with you. duh. you didn’t go to college and you want men who did. if you really put your lower paycheck where your mouth is you would have married someone who didn’t go to college and makes less money than you do sherry.
oops…but she works on tv. so she has her out by class and privilege.
There is somehting important that a wise man pointed out to me at college age when I complained about everyone in a specific gender.
“The one constant in all those relationships was you.”
he was right…its still you.
That is so true!
I would like to point out that women who marry men who are not their intellectual equal, who did not attend college at all, for example. are more prone to be victims of domestic violence of various forms. men today, of all classes, are not immune from sexually harassing or disrespecting their wives or women in general. men across the board are equally guilty of these behaviors and if they hold little value for women, they will hold little value for you, no matter what your education level is. no matter your level of education you can be mistreated by the male in your life. but you are more prone and more at risk to be mistreated by a men who are either uneducated or men who are educated yet materialistic. in general, people who don’t respect others are not marriage material and have higher risk of divorce.
on the looks comment, since i am pretty, i don’t care for the prejudice against pretty and attractive women. i want a man who is worhty of me in the looks department. after all, sex and looks go together. if you are physically attracted to your mate, you aren’t going to want to have sex with him. a lesson i learned after i graduated from college. duh!
More pseudo-science to push an agenda:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12297246/a/reload=0;jsessionid=3ZzcGhqbuXixt7M5kn8Z.2
“Domestic violence was significantly positively associated with violence in her childhood, her having no further education, liberal ideas on women’s roles, drinking alcohol, having another partner in the year, having a confidant(e), his boy child preference, conflict over his drinking, either partner financially supporting the home, frequent conflict generally, and living outside the Northern Province. No significant associations were found with partners’ ages, employment, migrant status, financial disparity, cohabitation, household possessions, urbanisation, marital status, crowding, communication, his having other partners, *****his education*****, her attitudes towards violence or her perceptions of cultural norms on women’s role. The findings suggest that domestic violence is most strongly related to the status of women in a society and to the normative use of violence in conflict situations or as part of the exercise of power”
I mean make spinster suggestion that men who have lesser educations or not college education are more likely to spouse abusers is B.S. pseudo science.
According to this study, the most important factor has to do with earnings and gender roles. So an educated man who is laid off making his wife the bread winner, threatening his traditional role of masculinity, can be a situation that ferments violence. More women who have less education than their husband are victims to violence than women who have more education.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/353952
i have reported neighbors for domestic violence. no education. it has happened with more than one couple. i am talking from experience and personal observation. i am not going to lay all the blame on college education or lack thereof. after all, students in fraternities and sororities are prone to domestic violence if they are also into hazing/bullying. so you are not immune just because you went to college.
if you think money is not a cause for violence in the educated, you are mistaken. think about divorce…and the financial rewards of doing so. :),
i am not stupid enough to think acollege educated man would NOT resort to violence out of a fear that he will to have to pay up because he was a lousy, greedy, materialistic and spendthrift and/or selfish husband.
but let us at least admit that finding a good man even in college while trying to complete your studies is a challenge. men today are more prone to being jerks! and a-holes. education doesn’t seem to correct for that. if you don’t have manners and you don’t respect women then you are not a good catch no matter how much education you have.
the author who penned this OPINION, is talking from experience with a bad marriage. her husband resented her education and more importantly her university. he’s jealous of her.
you can’t be in a relationship with someone who is jealous of you. her west side story romance didn’t work out because he was jealous of her higher class.
furthermore, she is at fault for not forgiving men, her sons, who want to marry someone who is physically attractive, college educated or not
What do you have in mind, about a man who would resort to violence over having to pay up for having been a lousy husband? I just don’t understand the scenario.
Why would a man have to “pay up” for the kind of husband he was? Do women have to “pay up” for the kind of wives they were? I just don’t know what scenario you have in mind that would involve paying up, and how that would stimulate domestic violence.
there is no excuse for violence. you don’t have a right to beat up your wife just because she is the one who brings home the bacon. gender roles that put women at a disadvantage are unacceptable.
Women are at a physical disadvantage, strength wise, in most relationships. That’s just the way it is. I don’t see what that has to do with gender roles, or excuses.
typo correction: if you are NOT physically attracted to your mate, you aren’t going to want to have sex with him. a lesson i learned after i graduated from college. duh!
Resident Spinster:
You said:
“as an older single woman who did go to college, never married, never had kids and IS STILL A VIRGIN. i concur with the author.” (emphasis added)
Then you said:
“after all, sex and looks go together.”
and
“if you are NOT physically attracted to your mate, you aren’t going to want to have sex with him.”
Considering that you are a self-described virgin, how do you qualify yourself to make your second and third statements, short of having “read about it somewhere” ? Or, has the lack of ever having had sex now become a qualification to hold forth on sex in it’s own right?
Your like-mindedness with the author would then stand to reason. After all Patton seems to have an uncanny ability to torture and punish logic more than Chris Farley would have punished a pair of women’s size 7 Lululemons during a Chippendale’s audition. Must be something in the water at Princeton.
very simple, if you are not physically attractive i don’t want to have sex with you. if you don’t look attractive to me, then there is NO CHEMISTRY.
on the day of your wedding you must have the following two things:
1. you must be physically/sexually attracted to your partner
2. you must not have ANY doubts…none whatsoever.
if you don’t have those two things, don’t get married!
its about sexual desire. if you are not physically attractive to me, i am not interested. period. it doesn’t matter if you are the richest man on earth or a genius, i am not interested in having sex with you therefore you are not marriage material in my eyes. women work the same way men do in regards to whether someone is attractive to them or not. they just don’t have permission to talk about it openly. men don’t handle rejection well either.
Men get rejection all the time, and do you think women handle rejection well? lol
I thought that women were somewhat less visual on the average (you don’t have to be average) but responded more to smell, than men. Less from the eyes, more from the nose.
Patton and Slaughter and Krugman, Oh My!:
assuming you are not a virgin, i assume you sleep with ugly women because you are desperate for sex. pathetic and soooo unattractive.
Okaaaaayyyy. Bless your heart.
“Patton seems to have an uncanny ability to torture and punish logic more than Chris Farley would have punished a pair of women’s size 7 Lululemons during a Chippendale’s audition.” rofl genius pure genius
Her mistake was only that she elaborated in too much detail. But her main point is that university, with 40 to 55% of the student population composed of fairly smart achieving men, is probably the best location for today’s young women to meet achieving men.
Note that I didn’t say marry. You meet all sorts of people that you may not meet again for five years, at which time you may click and decide to form a relationship. So early marriage is not the goal. But meeting a large number of great guys (and later through them their quality personal and work friends) during those four years provides a great network for later in life when these Princeton women are ready to look and settle down.
As for men, university is the best place to meet quality women. You may not meet your wife to be. But by the end of your four years, you will definitely know a quality woman when you see one. So that when you’re 27 or 28 and you meet that great woman (university or high school grad), you …. just know.
Very well said!
A college degree (even from Princeton) is neither a necessary or sufficient yardstick for intelligence. All a college degree indicates is (arguably) a certain baseline intelligence bur more likely an ability to persevere or perhaps to serve up what one’s professors/lecturers want to hear. There are a myriad other indicators of intelligence than a degree – some of the most intelligent people I’ve worked with barely completed high school. I trust that Princeton women are sufficiently intelligent and capable of critical, analytical thought not to swallow Susan Patton’s elitist, class snobbery drivel.
My thoughts exactly. While the author’s heart may have been in the right place, her point was totally lost in the silly statement “there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are.”
I went to a state school for undergrad, and I went to a state law school. I’m sure I’d make a great husband for any Princeton gal but if the young lady came with the viewpoints of Ms. Susan Patton, we’d be doomed.
ironic!
The overwhelming media reaction to this woman’s opinion, the pro and con and the statistics, and I ended up giving my daughter the same advice: rather than focus on your career, to keep an open mind and healthy balance between the factors influencing her family and her career.
Ms. Patton is right. What’s good for a Princeton girl is good for a state school girl – marry someone who values education as much as you do, odds are he will keep an open mind for a balanced personal growth of both of you.
This isn’t a generalization, it’s mathematical probability.