February 29th - that boring hackneyed old crap again

[LineRunner]

I've just switched the Breakfast News over, as it's now on its second report of the day on manicures, only to find ITV's equivalent is having a rather large and silly segment on 'ladies popping the question'. With a psychologist. And, for some inexplicable reason, Michael Portillo. (Will he now go on anything?)

Does anyone really care who proposes to whom and when? Is it just me who finds this stuff tediously whimsical and infantilising?

To even pretend that women 'get the upper' hand in crucial social and economic relationships once every four years is shallow and specious, I reckon.

- will use that on DP later

Jericho It's anecdote-tastic, but every single partnered male PhD student I knew either had kids when they started or had them during the PhD process. In sharp contrast, all the women I knew conceived within a year of completing - there was a bout of post-PhD babies!

It was that which truly drove home to (childfree) me the different impact having children has on the parents. It was inconceivable to the women (all of whom had partners/husbands) that one could have children and complete postgraduate study. It would simply have been impossible. Though I'm sure having children affects men deeply, either the male students hid their concerns completely or it had very little impact on their work life.

I've never met a female PhD student that doesn't joke about needing a 'wife'...

VG - to be fair, mine may also be anecdotal. I got it from a social scientist.

I just find it so depressing that the same expectations crop up everywhere - getting together with a nice educated type doesn't actually do anything.

I will admit, it hasn't occurred to me to joke about needing a wife - I just come on here, rant about DH being an insufficient DH, and try to take on board advice how to make him better. He is the most supportive male partner in my social circle, which is depressing.

The stuff the author of Wifework says, about how she got married and suddenly found herself falling into a pattern that didn't apply when she co-habited, really seems true too, IMO.

I think now that the pressure is really on for PhD completion in three years, the discrepancy could get worse not better.

Some years ago I was part of the group of academics that forced a rethink of grant awards by various bodies to the 'under-28s' or 'under-30s' category. The only exception to the age categories was medical absence from academia. When we argued that this indirectly discriminated againt women who had had time off for childbirth, we were at first told that they would consider pregnancy as illness. We said, No way. You are saying that what is normative is male.'

Anyway, cut a long story short, there were changes; but yet the real issues of time and availability (for married women/mothers) persist.

Well done for insisting on that linerunner!

That's shocking, isn't it, that it hadn't seemed obvious to them before.

Incidentally, about jobs and marriage - my mate is job hunting and was told by a careers advisor to leave off her wedding ring as it 'makes people worry you might have children'

Jericho, Re: the careers advisor. That's just ... I mean, on how many levels is that wrong?

Over on Am I Being Unreasonable, someone is asking:
--to not know the etiquette?

And the topic is
for asking my chap to marry me on 29th- do I get him a ring? But chaps don't generally have engagement rings? Do I get my own ring ( will only be a cheapy thing either way but more of a token I guess )

341 messages. That's a lot more than this thread, I'm afraid.

Oh God, well that's us told, then isn't it?

What's your point TeiTetua?

My point? That this is a thing where lots of people, maybe mainly women, are enthusiastically not being feminists. Or maybe they actually think they are, as the women are doing the proposing. And even asking how they ought to do it, and getting serious replies. And maybe I was wondering if there's a right feminist view of this at all, and what does it show about people's outlook, where some are liking the tradition and others hating it. But really, I don't think there are any serious conclusions to be found!

I think, judging by facebook today (!), that lots of women feel it's a step in the feminist direction that women 'get' to propose. I don't agree but I see where they're coming from - I don't recall it being such a 'tradition' when I was younger and my mum and dad reckon there was never any socially-sanctioned time when a woman could formally propose when they were at that stage - not even a day. So from that point of view I guess you can see positives.

I don't think the number of people posting on a thread tells you anything much about whether the activity described is a good one to imitate ... chaos's 'I Ciffed my Fanjo' thread was running into the 80s last I looked ...

I got your point teitetua!

I must admit that I am as foxed about "the proposal" as I am about "being a princess for a day". Surely if you meet someone and you are both at that point in life where you are ready to settle down and / or you fall madly in love then you decide to get married between you. This whole "waiting for him to propose" and if he doesn't you're allowed, what, once every 4 years and if you do it that way the people who are traditional (ie you, frankly, if you have waited) are going to think it's not "proper" somehow anyway.

The whole thing is a load of old balls.

I personally think the whole thing - 'getting to propose' - is bloody barking.

Look, marriage was set up by men because it's advantageous to men (they get to control women's breeding potential and get a free, live-in domestic servant) And then men arranged things not so much that being married was good for women, but that not being married was awful. And then we had some feminism, and women started realising that actually being married is not all that, and quite a few stopped doing it, and quite a few more made it clear that if they were going to do it they were going to get benefits from doing it and if it wasn't good for them they'd walk away, and the patriarchy hive-mind went, OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!! and all the propaganda started about how marriage is women's destiny and dream* and yet it's also a privilege that they will only be allowed if they are sufficiently abject and self-denying and obedient and 'worthy'. So the idea of asking for marriage, the Great Goal, had to be forbidden to women as well except under Special Privilege Status. If you keep telling people that something's really wonderful but they can't have it unless they are permitted to have it, and the giving of it is in someone else's power then many of them will go beserk with wanting it without ever actually wanting to have a look at it in more detail.

Only because this bullshit is bullshit, it has to be reinforced continually in different ways. That's what this Leap Year Proposal shit is about. It's another way of going 'Look, it's a smelly cock but we've put a ribbon on it and you reeeeeaaaallly want that ribbon, don't you? Well today we've made the ribbon long enough for you to reach it.'

SGB, I think I love you. Best post ever!

Fantastic post SGB.

Feminist win of the week.

Love it SGB

Thanks, SGB. What an ace way to round off the Leap Year thread.

It's been an absolute pleasure.

That's fun, but does it fit most women's experiences? I think most women want to get married, and always have done, and not just because the alternative was even worse. Or maybe it's the case that the majority of women are fools, and they're waiting for someone who knows better to come along and tell them what they need to know! I suppose that's why I mentioned the thread on AIBU--what feminists are saying just doesn't seem to match other people's lives, and those people aren't idiots or slaves.

I saw a discussion on a different board, where the subject was whether marriage is bad for women. And the consensus was that yes, it's bad for women, but nevertheless a man who's willing to do it is better than one who isn't.

Women aren't fools. Men as a sex are exploitative of women.

Returning to 'single women are happier than married women' does single mean 'no dp whatsoever' or 'potentially long term relationship with kids and mortgage but no legal ceremony'?

And does anyone know whether this is true for gay marriage too? Wondering whether it's being married or being married to men specifically which is detrimental to women.

Ria I don't know the answer to that question but I do remember a study on the news over here in the US, in the states that allowed gay marriage.
Women were flocking to marry other women.
Men were marrying, but in much greater numbers.

The reporter did a really thoughtful piece about it (it's a lefty feminist news editorial show with a fabulous feminist lesbian genius presenter called Rachel Maddow) - the commentary wasn't a lot of joking about "well, of course everyone wants a wife" but noticing that structurally marriage is about women offering support to men, therefore women who marry other women expect to exchange support -whereas men don't want to marry other men, because they expect the other man to demand support from them, and be a drain.

As husbands are when women have them..

Bit rambly, I'm rather tired. But I thought it was fascinating!

ARGH,
that should say "Men were marrying, but in far lower numbers."

GHomosexual men were marrying each other MUCH LESS than homosexual women were. Because everyone perceives that a husband is a bloody drag. :)

Another big Rachel Maddow fan here

"Homosexual men were marrying each other MUCH LESS than homosexual women were. Because everyone perceives that a husband is a bloody drag."

Or it could be that women want to get married, and men are pretty indifferent to the idea?

Article from 2005 about lesbian versus gay couples:
www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/fashion/sundaystyles/08gay.html?pagewanted=all
"Even in Gay Circles, the Women Want the Ring"