Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
To have total equality, both sexes (and assorted variants) need to learn to have an orgasm in 10 minutes or less.
This we must do.
We not only discuss the Bayeux Tapestry, we've seen it, but we do not discuss Chomsky. Still, I'm with grandma, Patton sounds Mad Men addled.
Also, educated women, while they tend to marry later, also tend to *stay* married.
When I used to read it, back in the old days, it was mostly for the market quotes, but they had some decent business-analysis articles now and again. They weren't hardly as politically activist as they are now, and they never dabbled in conservative sociological drivel.
Since Newscorp's assimilation of it, all that would be left for me would be the market quote pages, but now that we have all that from the internet, it deserves to die.
If anyone needs a financial newspaper, get the Financial Times. RIP WSJ.
Also, a required retort to this idiot woman's ideas: Girls Who Read
The 1950s called. They want their placid housewife back.
The women's lib movement.
This "advice" speaks more about what she thinks of men than women. Men just want young, dumb, pretty child-bearers. Really? Not true.
A woman, educated and with a career, in her '30s, not a girl anymore, strikes me as pretty good marriage material.
To put this kind of nonsensical worry into girls heads is nothing short of criminal.
Of course, her sons will eventually get married. When they're in their 30s. And their brides will likely be about the same age and social rank as themselves. Because that's how marriage is done nowadays. But until then, they need to keep spinning bullshit excuses about how all modern women are career-oriented sluts to explain to Mom why they aren't married yet.
I think the problem here is that this lady is only attracted to immature bro's whose emotional maturation ended in high school. Its true, they suck, but they aren't the only fish in the sea.
This "Susan Patton" dimwit is a propagandist of the lowest order.
"Those men who are as well-educated as you are often interested in younger, less challenging women."
Speaking as an intelligent, well-educated man I can say:
Like hell we are! There is no way in the world I would marry a "less challenging woman", what a waste of life *that* would be. To say nothing of the money wasted in the inevitable divorce.
Good lord, what dumb advice.
@24, I'm guessing it's probably too late for your grandma to learn the V-pull. (Stop staring. I once had to write up a compendium of advice for newbies working in the field on science projects.)
Now that I think about it, the fantasy works just as well with a highly educated woman my age.
Alas, half-dressed cute female weed-smoking house-lollers seem to be in short supply at any age.
@20, you have planted the horrifying image in my mind of winding up with Susan Patton as my mother-in-law. Barf.
Here's the modern rendition, but of course as a granola-head, mine was reusable: http://www.amazon.com/UriFemme-Day-Pack-…
In other words, she agreed with Grandma. She never urged women to date "dummies." She said, in effect, that well-educated Princeton women will find a hell of a lot more men who are as smart as they are (and worthy of them) at Princeton than they would at Starbucks, or the gym, or the office. And she may be right about that.
She certainly never said anything like "burn your degree." That's just inflammatory bullshit. If you have a beef with her advice, you might as well be honest.
Gold-diggers have a long history and with the advent of the internet are surprisingly easy to find. Just have a lot of money available.
I suspect that what this all comes down to is that Mrs. Patton "married beneath her" (to a -horrors!-) non Princeton man, who traded her in for a younger model, and she never got over it. It's kind of embarrassing that the Wall Street Journal would print such Ladies Home Journal level of advice.
I object to the idea that finding a mate is something you need to "get cracking" on, like it's studying for mid terms or something.
Being goal-oriented toward marriage for the sake of marriage is how most failed marriages start.
2) Assumes that Happiness comes through The One. Usually it doesn't. That's a lot of responsibility to put on one person's shoulders.
3) Assumes heterosexuality.
4) Assumes intellectual attainment is a clue as to how much common sense someone has. News flash: It's not.
5) Assumes intellectual attainment is a clue as to how enlightened a person is. News flash: It's not.
6) Assumes intellectual attainment is a clue as to how sexy, hot, and affectionate a person is. News flash: It's not.
7) Assumes intellectual attainment is a clue as to how well a person manages their finances. News flash: It's not.
I don't understand Ms. Patton. I *do* think I'd understand Danielle's Grandma.
8) Assumes the parchment is correlated AND caused by intelligence. News flash? I think not.
1) Are you disputing the author's claim that the proportion of smarty-pantses at Princeton is substantially higher than that of the general population? Um, ok.
2). You're right, marital satisfaction has absolutely no relationship to happiness and fulfillment.
3) Yeah kind of biased for a heterosexual woman to refrain from advising lesbians and gays on finding a mate.
4) - 7) Really, she just assumes that smart women generally prefer smart men. Preposterous!
8) You're right - academic achievement and intelligence are totally unrelated. Every man is a genius in his own special way.
Sarcasm aside, she's wrong about men generally pairing up with younger women, and she greatly exaggerates the difficulty of finding a good match after college. But your critique didn't exactly hit it out of the park, either.
Once upon a time most young women were convinced that the basic occupation of every girl was choosing a man to marry and college was the best place to snare a man while college courses were set up to help Betty-Coed in that matter.. Take a look at some vintage college images as dated as this idea..
As a man as well educated as this type of woman, this is a load of fucking shitty bullshit. No, actually, I'm not interested in someone "less challenging" because I'm not a fucking low-standards-having, brittle pansy who needs his fucking ego stroked by some nimwitted Barbie doll. I'm a fucking man who's taken a few shots in life and managed to stand back up again without a mewling sycophant pumping absurd self-mythology into my ears 24-7. Fucking Christ. Listen to yourself. You're insulting the men you supposedly advise these women to rush out and lay claim to.
And yet these self-absorbed Wall Street social neanderthals can't help but put both feet in their mouths and share their antediluvian views and arcane advise.
I'm your fantasy woman then. Did I mention I meow and purr in bed ?
I'd add : "don't feel pressured to enter in a relationship with a guy just because he kissed you".
Maybe not a useful tip for American educated girls, but for European educated ones it is. Being nerdy and inexperienced doesn't mean one has to settle for the first guy that crosses your path.
As for this Susan person, she is simply trying to find a "hook" to make her marketable- to make money. As a man, I feel completely incensed at being objectified in this manner. And, thankful.