(LifeWire)  -- Olga Boyko, 23, has finished her studies at Antioch College and will be graduating in the spring. But she isn't putting her career on hold while she waits for her boyfriend of more than two years to graduate.
art.women.jpg

"Though I'm not planning on breaking up with my boyfriend, I am leaving him behind in Ohio," says Boyko, who's aiming for work in the publishing industry. "It's hard to get your foot in the door of the field I want to work in. And let's face it: Nowadays you have to cover your butt if you want to make it anywhere."

Romance versus career

When it comes to work versus romance, the stereotype has been that men put a premium on career goals while women focus more on family and friends. Not so, according to a study published recently in the scientific journal "Gender Issues."

Men were more willing than women to sacrifice achievement for a romantic relationship, according to the study conducted by Catherine Mosher of Duke University Medical Center and Sharon Danoff-Burg at the University of Albany.

Researchers asked 237 undergraduates to rate the importance of goals such as financial success, career, education and contribution to society, as well as goals such as romantic relationships, marriage, children and friendship.

While 51 percent of the women prioritized romantic relationships over achievement goals, more than 61 percent of men did the same.

Adam Turner might count himself in that camp. When his girlfriend visited him at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, he wanted to spend as much time with her as possible to fortify their budding relationship -- even if that meant missing three classes, one with a quiz and a test review.

"I was not doing very well in the class to begin with, and the grade I made on that test did not help me at all," says the 20-year-old junior, who is studying aviation flight and management. "It was a stupid move on my behalf, of course, but honestly, well worth it."

Changing dynamics

Psychologist Ellen Klosson, in private practice in Washington, D.C., says this study may be more about the evolving relationship between women and the workplace than their preference for work over romance. It also points to the effect of family on career.

"For men, romance, then marriage, then children may be unlikely to lead to the interruption of their career," Klosson says. "For women, having children is likely to be more disruptive to their career."

Career-oriented women have been putting marriage and children on hold for decades, she notes.

"Women have been aware of the time pressure to establish themselves in a career before starting a family, because of the difficulty of starting this task in their thirties and forties," she says. "I think what we are seeing in this study is the solidification of this trend"

Changes in family economics likely play a role, too. Now that most families have dual incomes, Klosson says, "men may feel more freed up to prioritize as they did in this study. There is less pressure, because of a shift in their role definition, to put their careers first."

Boyko, for one, is fine with the shift in roles.

"Honestly, if he said, 'Stay and wait for me to finish, or it's over,' I'd start packing early."

So, in a nutshell:  men are become more effeminate, and women are becoming more masculine.  

The boy who had forgone his studies for the girl is a nitwit.  Just how does he think he's going to support her has his wife in this day and age without some education?  It can be done, but with much difficulty, and if he has already the opportunity for education, which is very expensive, why waste it?  This is clearly a disorder of the passions, that's all.  Nothing new there.

Re.: the women wearing the pants ... again... trying to "get ahead" in the business world and THEN LATER have a family... who are they kidding?   When their career is flying, then they will be more inconvenienced by their little in-house subordinates... err... I mean, children.  I see this all the time.  Fewer women nowadays even know how to be a mother, really, they're just to "me" oriented.  Another disorder against natural law.

There's your answer.

BOTH males and females should focus on study while they're A) in high school and B) in college/university

Especially when you're PAYING for your education.

On the other hand, I think that women need to be more open to "dropping the whole thing" if God sends Mr. Right into their path. You always have to be open to God's will. Stubbornly following a life plan that you made at 17 is not a good idea -- for either gender. God changes your plans, that's just how it works. Man proposes, God disposes.

I met plenty of women on CatholicMatch that were all pursuing degrees (why they were on a Catholic matchmaking site is beyond me) and basically had no time to talk with men on the site (at least with me -- maybe they were just making an excuse *grin*)

But I know firsthand of a case where a woman is pursuing a high-end degree, and she's even the type that wants marriage and kids! But she's just getting started on this degree, and she's already 27. She thinks she's going to be happy -- but is she ever deluding herself.

I think the song "A Home" by the Dixie Chicks should be required listening for all young ladies, when they are around 17 or 18 years old.

Just for starters, there's a real myth out there about how easy it is for people in their 30's to have children. Quite often, you can only do so with some expensive -- and forbidden -- science (i.e., in vitro fertilization).

Matthew

Just for starters, there's a real myth out there about how easy it is for people in their 30's to have children. Quite often, you can only do so with some expensive -- and forbidden -- science (i.e., in vitro fertilization).

This is not true at all.  I know many women in their late 30s still having children with no problem whatsoever.

Also, there are plenty of children that need to be adopted.

I also don't think it's wrong for a woman to be open to marriage while she is in school, if she's willing to change her life and go with what God wants for her.  Sometimes even when we think we are doing the best we can (and we are, according to what we know), God has a very different plan for us.

It can indeed be more risky for women to have children in their 30s, although it is possible. I remember learning earlier on this forum that Aristotle said 18 was the best age for a women to marry. He also said 37 is the best age for a man to marry. I can see why since both are in their prime. The woman is able more to start bearing children, and the man is at a good age to be strong enough to work and take care of a family. Of course, that does not all mean that everyone has to get married at those ages. I think somewhere around those ages would be alright, imho, but it depends on God's will who marries who and at what ages.

Quote from: Mousey

Also, there are plenty of children that need to be adopted.

What exactly do you mean? I hope you clarify this...

Wow.  I was just thinking about this today, too, when I happened to see an advertisement for this site:

http://www.adoptuskids.org/

Ignore the really dumb article about a family that preferred to not try for a biological child so that they could adopt.  That's not, obviously, the Christian perspective (regardless of what these people think is Christian).   Never-the-less, adoption is an option for those who can't have children, or can and would like to also adopt.   There are TONS of children in the United States that never grow up in a family!   It never ceases to amaze me how the government doesn't make it a point to make the general public aware of this continuing crisis.  Tons of children fall through the cracks of the social service system in ways you wouldn't believe.  A few who are very lucky get to stay in foster homes --- some good, some not-so-good --- but some go from foster home to foster home, and even stay with their social workers, or worse -- in apartments/homes where tons of kids are left (and the social workers "check" on them supposedly twice a week, if that), or live on the streets --- which is sometimes not much worse.  The kids that have the hardest times finding even temporary foster homes are the african-american and then the hispanic kids, and especially the boys.  Also, disabled children are very difficult to place.

It's true that a lot of times these kids come with problems, and perhaps, for that reason, it is better for families already with children to be very careful about adopting foster kids.  However, it is worth considering for those married couples who cannot have children.

Here is another link:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/adoption/

I don't know what it's like in other countries, but there's a tremendous need for children to find homes in the US.

Here's a link on related US statistics:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption.cfm

Just reviewing foster care stats from '98 to '03* (*the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  doesn't usually give trends over recent years), more children are being left in foster care (more often willingly by their parents), and children are staying longer in foster care.   I guess this isn't at all surprising, with the increase popularity of contraception and abortion, and all the moral tragedies contributing to this culture of death.

Oh, and the statistics are just that, statistics.  They are only as good as how they were gathered and reported, and unfortunately, the entire social service system in the US is pretty defective.  It is the exception and not the rule in practice for state social workers to not report abuse of children by foster parents, and many times these kids go from one broken home to another.   It's sad but true, but there are many foster parents that are in it to make a buck and/or are just really abusive parents.  There was this one story I remember about a boy out in KC, Missouri whose foster family had a great reputation, however, an elderly religious sister that gave some assistance to the boy detected something was amiss.  (The nun had become close friends with the boy.) She tried reporting it but to no avail.  She had tried to continue to remain in touch after working with him several months.  Eventually she lost contact with the boy and his foster family until one day she heard the news:  he had been found dead under the stairs in the foster family's basement --- bound and gaged with duck tape (it was later determined that he died from suffocation after choking on his vomit).  The boy was 8 years old.  Just about 2 months later the religious sister passed away from flu-like symptoms (heart break, really).   The foster parents first tried to say they weren't responsible, then it came out that they were disciplining the boy, because he was out of control, and they had no other choice but to restrain him with rope and ducktape.  (This was only a few years ago.)

Now, I know this is an extreme example, but I know for a fact social workers hold a blind eye to the care foster parents give the children in their care.  I read an article about this years ago in Time magazine ('97) and then they did a similar article years later.  Besides this, I knew kids who were in "the system", and some of the things I alluded to I saw with my own eyes --- kids living in groups on their own in apartments in the slum areas, sliding "doors" with instead of doors taped with plastic to keep out the drafts.  (Kids entered from the hole.)  They were supposed to have two guardians assigned to them, but they hardly ever showed up.  I mean, these kids ranged from 8 to 17.  Meanwhile, these "gaurdians" are making money for supporting each of these kids.  Sure, the money is supposed to go to the support of the kids, but it doesn't always.  (This isn't even that bad of a story compared to others of which I know.)

On the flip side, I recently met a family that adoped a quadrapelegic child with also learning impairment.  These Catholic parents seem wonderful, and the mother often takes the boy to Adoration.  I'd met them only 2 weeks after they had brought him home, and already the boy was infatuated with our Lord's True Presence.  (He wasn't Catholic before they brought him home.)  They have other children, and they interact very well with him, especially the youngest.  It is a really wonderful sight.

It can indeed be more risky for women to have children in their 30s, although it is possible. I remember learning earlier on this forum that Aristotle said 18 was the best age for a women to marry. He also said 37 is the best age for a man to marry. I can see why since both are in their prime. The woman is able more to start bearing children, and the man is at a good age to be strong enough to work and take care of a family. Of course, that does not all mean that everyone has to get married at those ages. I think somewhere around those ages would be alright, imho, but it depends on God's will who marries who and at what ages.

Interesting post.

Do you know if he said when men should?