Different individuals (of both genders) are simply different in terms of how often they like having their SO around, so LW could just find a guy who similarly likes to spend time on his own, and with a setup that allows both of them to have "me time". (You're choosing guys of a type you don't want.)

However, having said that, all relationships involve compromise. No matter how much you might want it to be the case, your life partner isn't like a piece of personal property that's there for your personal amusement that you can have around when the mood suits you but toss aside whenever you're not in the mood - and if you're going to act as if a man is an irritation every time he 'gets in your face', then quite frankly, and sorry to say, that would be acting like a spoiled, selfish entitled brat who treats people badly, and *no* relationship will work ... newsflash, *everyone* gets irritated sometimes with their SO's presence (it's literally impossible for two individuals to always have their desires for one another coordinated with actual presence), everyone gets in one another's faces (and space) at times, and it doesn't make you 'special' that you don't like it - normal people just 'get over it' and find ways to deal with it without getting ugly and trampling on peoples feelings. You can't always have what you want whenever you want all the time, especially not in a relationship, that's life. I also wonder though why you seem to feel a need to make a point to publicly 'flaunt' that you don't need a man around all the time and to say things like suggesting men are more dependent, as if these are things that are important to you to 'prove' for some reason. You're only ready for a relationship when 'proving' that you don't need someone around all that much is no longer more important to you than your partner's feelings. It shouldn't even be an issue to you. I might be reading this incorrectly or projecting some of my own experiences or views here, but personally I find LW's tone abhorrently self-centered, like she is thinking only of herself.

"for example, that when you say "hold me," you don't mean like the creature from "Alien" that suctioned itself to the guy's face."

ROFLOL!!! Best line EVER!!!

I really don't see that the LW is doing anything wrong; in fact, I wish there were more women like her. There's a ridiculous cultural thing these days that brands independent or introverted behavior a sin: "If you're not codependent, you're not human!" That can go take a running jump. I would suggest to the LW that, because of this same cultural standard, the reason her guys are "in her face" all the time is because they think that's what she expects. If she were to tell them, "Hey, you really don't have to do that", she might be pleasantly surprised. Solitude appreciators, unite!

As a side point: Amy also nailed something else that is going on in society. A couple of years ago I had a forum exchange with Wendy McElroy on the boy crisis in schools and the fact that men are finding it difficult to get into college. I pointed out that, yes, women are getting more degrees, but an awful lot of them are being fobbed off with "ethnic group X studies"-type degrees that are pure credentialism for academia and useless in the general job market. And it's pretty hypocritical for the AAUW to complain about how few women enter the sciences and engineering, when its own members are doing their damndest to steer women away from those fields.

LW says, "I go back and forth between wanting a guy in my life and wanting to be by myself." That doesn't strike me as anything unusual. Neither does the notion of feeling compelled somehow to be in a relationship. I think a lot of people feel like they're somehow supposed to have a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Going back to DavidJ's point about compromise: Bingo, right on point. Looking at it another way, all decisions have their benefits and costs. If you're seeking a relationship, you may wind up with wonderful companionship, but you're going to lose some me-time. That's just the way it is. Conversely, remaining unattached will get you plenty of me-time, if you don't mind being lonely. But either way, you have to realize that you made a decision, and it came at a price.

Cousin Dave: "the reason her guys are "in her face" all the time is because they think that's what she expects"

Also a good point, lots of guys are indeed raised on false notions of what women actually want/like (notions often perpetuated incorrectly by women themselves).

"LW says, "I go back and forth between wanting a guy in my life and wanting to be by myself." That doesn't strike me as anything unusual."

I don't think it sounds unusual either. When I'd be in a relationship and start to get tired of it, I'd want to be by myself. So that's what I'd do. Then, after a while, I'd think maybe a boyfriend would be fun again. So that's what I'd do. So far this has caused me no problems.

It doesn't have to be an either/or decision. You can be in a relationship AND have as much private personal time as you want. It's called communication.

Even if you're living together, you tell your SO, I'm going out with my friends tonight/going to a movie by myself/reading in living room privately/etc., and he can feel free to do his own stuff. If you're not living together it's even easier. You'll both remain interesting individuals who don't take each other for granted.

You're in your twenties, of course you're vacillating. Most twenty-somethings vacillate between religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc. etc., because you're still trying to figure out who you are, what you care about, and where you're going.

Not every guy is going to be "in your face" all the time. Only the guys you've encountered are like that, and you're the only common denominator in these relationships, so perhaps you should take a look at what those choices say about you. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm in my twenties and have been in a monogamous relationship for over a year. I'd say we're in love and I'm done looking, however, we spend a great deal of time apart and are both comfortable and trusting enough to do that. It makes the times we are together that much more special. Neither am I putting plans on hold, even ones that require a lot of time apart, for him.)

I agree with Cousin Dave that women are steered away from more lucrative fields, even when they show a real aptitude for them, and are probably not asked about the ramifications of choosing one of those "useless" degrees the way male students are. However, I will say that if your major is your passion and you are good at it, it's not useless. I'm working on another degree in the humanities in a field that has become more and more dominated by women, and correspondingly there has been a lot of concern that these fields are being devalued (apparently things just aren't as important when women are doing them). Still, financial and emotional independence is a worthy goal, no matter what your gender is.

"women are steered away from more lucrative fields, even when they show a real aptitude for them, and are probably not asked about the ramifications of choosing one of those "useless" degrees the way male students are."

Note passive voice: "are steered away from..."

"...these fields are being devalued ..."

Who, exactly, is doing this alleged steering and devaluation?

If you cannot identify the "person", let me help out: the marketplace for labor and competitive pressures therein.

Spartee, I would venture a guess that it's the women's parents and families. If you're bringing up a boy, you want to make sure he's able to support a family someday. If you're bringing up a girl, you want to make sure she doesn't become one of those career-dominated women who don't have babies.

Pirate Jo, I'm not sure I buy that, and this is why: It appears to me that the dearth in women in science and engineering is a relatively recent phenomonen. In fact, it seems to roughly correspond with the beginnings of "girl power" education in the early '90s. When I was in college in the 1980s, between 1/4 and 1/3 of students in the math, EE, and CompSci courses I took were women. Today, I go back to that same school, peek in the classrooms in the engineering building, and probably half of the classes are all male. I'm also noticing that, among the college hires and younger engineers at work, there are a lot fewer women then there used to be. IHMO, female interest in science and engineering appears to have declined significantly since 1990.

Why would that be? There could be some truth in what you say, but if you follow the conventional wisdom about the Reagan years being full of traditionalism and the Clinton years being more progressive, well, the trends I've observed have run counter to that. I'll tell you something else: female professors in engineering and math have almost entirely disappeared. What I observe is that the academy has bifurcated: female academics have gone almost entirely into the humanities. Men wind up dominating the sciences by default; after all, somebody's gotta do it. (Actually, there's another problem there: the percentage of American students going into science and engineering has gone down to almost nothing. Colleges are importing a lot of these students from abroad now, or else they are first-generation immigrants. Total enrollment in these fields is way down.)

I'll tell you something that I have gotten from a couple of young female engineers: they did in fact get a guilt trip for going into engineering, but not from their parents. They got it from friends, teachers, and college advisors, nearly all of whom were female. It seems that since those fields are artifacts of Teh Patriarchy, it is therefore disloyal to the sisterhood for a woman to go into them. When I was a college student, there were a lot of women who had grown up under the influence of second-wave feminism and had taken those lessons to heart. So it seems today's women have taken the lessons of gender feminism to heart, much to their detriment.

"If you're bringing up a boy, you want to make sure he's able to support a family someday. If you're bringing up a girl, you want to make sure she doesn't become one of those career-dominated women who don't have babies."

Regarding this...I brought up a boy and am bringing up 2 girls now. I raise them all to be able to take care of themselves. As for babies... their choice - not mine. Would not care if they did or didn't want to raise a family. They are being raised to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives and with the knowledge that it is their lives and therefore they need to first be able to take care of themselves.

To the LW: no problem I see, figure yourself out first.. the rest will follow. It is after all your life.

I think that Amy is right in what she said about fairy stales. Women do face pressure to take the journey of defining themselves, figuring out who they want to be and what ideals they want to stand for. And to think realistically about what kind of impact they want to make on the world. But there is still pressure left over from the past that our only task is to wait for a man to come and do that defining for us. And so the real task is not get ripped apart while getting pulled two different directions.

When I first graduated from high school, I remember kind of wishing that I could just answer only the old expectations and get married, raise a family. That way I thought I could not worry about figuring out my career, or myself and all of that messy stuff grown ups deal with. But I kind of experienced the opposite of the pressure some people have been talking about of women getting steered away from more practical professions. My family, church members and my friends were shocked when I said that and I wasn't going to continue my education. And after a three months of working at summer camp, I somehow found myself in college getting told I had four years to get enough letters behind my name that I could support myself because my parents sure as heck were not going to after that.

I'm acquainted with many college girls who are in practical majors. I think the real issue is that they seem to be more represented in the helping, more nurturing professions, such as physical therapy, education, nursing, or premed. But I mean if that's their way of answering both the old and new expectations of society then, I say....let them be.. with the possible exception of the teachers :p they will probably do okay financially.

But I am being a hypocritcal since my own majors are so terribly practical ;) I am majoring in British and American Lit., spanish and a social work major. Sadly, the only degree that gets me any kind of hiring power is the msw. But then the spanish degree bumps my prospective pay up by at least ten percent and the brit lit major (hopefully) will impress graduate schools if I ever want to further my education beyond a masters.

Here is how it works where I live. The man goes to work usually on a long commute and comes back late to eat alone (the leftovers from the wife and kids are neatly arranged on the table; crack a beer, watch the news). Jump into the hot bath (after everyone else is finished as no one wants to touch the bath water after stinky dad has been in it [are we feeling loved yet?]). Go to bed (highly unlikely that there is any sex waiting as the kids are probably sleeping in the same room). Or if not, he in all likelihood is too tired. Every woman’s dream, no? Wake up and do it all over again.

Oh by the way, the paycheck is almost always deposited in to the bank account that the wife controls, and an allowance is doled out by the wife to the husband, usually just enough for lunch and cigarettes, and maybe a drinking session or two.

Here is the wife's day: Get the breakfast ready for the kids (usually the husband just gets himself a bowl of rice and eats the leftovers from last nights supper alone to catch the 6:15 train). Gets the children off to school. Performs home engineering tasks for a couple of hours. Meets friends in the afternoon for tea, flower arranging, or some other hobby. Goes grocery shopping (usually everyday as the menu here is usually fresh foods; fish and vegetables). Makes dinner and eats with the kids. Supervises homework. Get everyone off to bed. Have a bath. Go to bed. Wake up and do it all over again.

JC should consider a relationship with a Japanese man as they are just as in tune with the following three philosophies as the Japanese women are.

(1) A good husband is healthy and absent.
(2) A large piece of garbage that is hard to move (this is for the weekend after an exhausting week at work and his TV veg out is in full swing. 'Scuse me while a just vacuum around you)
(3) A stick leaf that cannot be sweep away (inevitably he will come home to live after retirement)

Oh, the divorce rate for the retirees is on an upward spiral, usually initiates by the wife; Who is the stink old man again?!?!?!

cybersensei in Japan

Cousin Dave, it sounds like you and I live in different areas. Lots of Bible-thumpers where I'm from. They don't exactly immerse their girls in gender studies, but they certainly do impress upon them the importance of being in "godly" marriages. Neither approach seems to be getting the girls into engineering or computer science.

I have a bit of experience with this topic, as a woman and a software engineer. Out of a department of 30 software engineers at my company, I'm the only woman. I'm not sure how education influences/plays into it, but for me one of the reasons the field has been challenging is the complete lack of social skills of many of my colleagues. They're brilliant, great guys, but there's a lot of 8 year old humor and nerf darts getting thrown at me all day. I have 3 good lady friends who are also programmers (we have to stick together, since there are so few of us!) and they have had similar experiences. This is one of my first jobs out of college, and I have to confess, I have had thoughts of retreating to a less technical field. I can handle the work, its the culture that gets to me.
I think there was an article in the NYTimes recently that also cited nerd-culture as a reason there aren't many women in comp sci?

Jo, I'm in northern Alabama. It is kind of an atypical area, I'll admit. Aarahkahak's comment was interesting. I'm not sure I understand what's so bad about Nerf darts, but her point is that she's the only woman in her group, and since she's a recent college graduate, I assume she's young. Where I work, on our half of the floor, there are about 30 people on our half of the floor. Of that group, there are five women my age, but only one under 30.

Has it occurred to anyone that the way nerds are treated in their proto-nerd days (primary and secondary school) might have some bearing on the way they act around women once they get out of college?

When I was but a larval nerd, we were considered poisonous, and being seen even talking to us was harmful to a girl's social standing.

I'm told that this has changed, but I'm not sure I believe it.

Brian, I know exactly what you are talking about; I went through the same thing. No dates in high school (I went to an all-boys school), and few in college (I worked to support myself while I was in school; not much time for a social life). Once I started working and got out in the world, I had to give myself remedial classes in social skills. It took me a string of bad relationships, including a failed marriage, before I got the hang of it.

Sorry to blast through all the PC drivel, but the one primary reason for the dearth of women in fields like engineering and computer programming is that women are *just not that interested in that kind of work*. Engineering / computer programming is practically a calling - you do it because you love it. Either you look at something like a TV or computer and are naturally and obsessively curious to figure out how it works and how to build such things yourself, or you don't. Most women just don't care about figuring stuff like that out.

"Steering" is a metaphor implying somebody is a *passenger*, i.e. not making the decisions about what to do. This is a completely false metaphor, as in only a very small percentage of cases are women literally forced by anybody to pick a particular field (and when it is, it's the parents) - otherwise, in most cases, nobody holds a gun to their heads when they fill in the university registration forms - they *voluntarily* pick their field. No steering involved other than their own brains controlling their own lives, for which they are responsible. They decide, when registering to study, what seems *interesting* to them. I'm a computer programmer and I know it's my passion, I absolutely love figuring out how to create software applications and would do it even if nobody paid me. I've met very few men who are like that, and extremely few women (though they exist) - most just think of computer programming as a big yawn. Nobody "steered" me into computer programming "because I'm a guy". I used to try get various women interested in computer programming, and push them into it because I thought it was so interesting ... they all found it boring.

Spartee: "If you cannot identify the "person", let me help out: the marketplace for labor and competitive pressures therein."

Can't be the labor marketplace - the market always wants more *good* engineers and computer programmers etc., and good ones can still get high salaries even in today's economy. My business has more work than it can handle and I can't find enough programmers, I have open well-paid jobs ready to be filled by any good male or female computer programmer.

Well, when Larry Summers says that women don't have an aptitude for math and science, who am I to argue?

I chose the field I'm in because I do consider it a calling, it's what I would want to do even if there was no chance of getting paid for it, it's what I do in my spare time, and it's what gets me up in the morning. I also don't feel the need to justify that decision to anyone. Ultimately, the responsibility of supporting myself falls on me, so if I choose to enter a field that I know isn't as lucrative as others, I consider it a willing trade-off for the joy I get from what I do. Incidentally, I'm the only one in my group of (women) friends who is in the humanities field-the rest are in finance, physics, engineering, biology, and law.

Saying that the few women you tried to interest in engineering and computer science weren't interested means that all women aren't interested in those fields is not logical. I get the same glazed-over reactions from a lot of people when I get asked to explain my research area too. But, how do you know if you have an aptitude for something if you never take the chance to find out for yourself? I spent a large portion of my education opting for the easiest math courses I could find because I had done poorly at math in elementary school and was told over and over that I must not have a natural affinity for it and continued avoiding the subject all through college and afterwards. I started retaking math courses recently to try to reestablish some of those skills (not for any particular reason, but I thought it was worth another try) and found out that I'm actually much better than I thought I was, the "lack of aptitude" at the subject was more from a large gap in my education and a string of incompetent teachers than a failing on my part, but no one ever presented that to me as a possibility.

Although I am interested...I don't have children, but for those on this forum who do, what would you tell your college-age child if they wanted to study something you thought wouldn't be lucrative (like textiles, or, I don't know, philosophy. Those are probably poor examples.)?

Just wanted to say thanks for posting this. It's nice to know I'm not alone in feeling this way! I'm 23, and have that independent streak myself. I was a math/business double major in college and now work as an analyst in a statistical/technical field. I'm not sure whether I pursued a career in this field because of my independent streak, or my independent streak came as a result of my pursuits (the whole chicken or the egg thing I guess). However, my family and friends all seem to think there is something wrong with me when I date these wonderful guys, and then inevitably do anything I can to push them away when they get too close. In my hometown, "success" for a woman is defined by early marriage, and popping out as many kids as possible at a young age. Now I have relocated to a big city, where it isn't as abnormal for a woman to be independent and career-minded. Notice I say "as abnormal" because I am still faced with expectations that I'd be better off as one half of a happy couple. I often feel that something must be wrong with me when I run from these great guys. Maybe it's because whenever I return home, I am never asked, "Oh, how is your job going?" It's more, "Do you have a boyfriend?" I'm not sure whether I will eventually outgrow my aversion to couple-hood, or will stick to the solo life forever. But for now, it is nice to know I'm not the only one having this dilemma.

"Well, when Larry Summers says that women don't have an aptitude for math and science"

Huh? They certainly have the aptitude - just not the interest. Heck, I recall when I was at school, most girls did better than most boys at math, and at studies in general. But when I studied comp sci and engineering, the ratio of guys to girls was maybe ten to one, in spite of the fact that our schooling system basically never spoke about what women "should" or "shouldn't" do, and our school-level computer programming courses had more girls than boys (but the few boys that were there, were far more interested).

"Saying that the few women you tried to interest in engineering and computer science weren't interested means that all women aren't interested in those fields is not logical"

Indeed, but I never said that at all (puzzled) - who did? There is *tonnes* of evidence everywhere you look all over the world that women just aren't naturally interested in engineering type activities, I certainly don't need my little anecdotes to back up that viewpoint. However it does demonstrate that *even when you steer women into those fields* they turn away - I was responding to an apparent belief that women don't choose what they want to study themselves but rather register for whatever they are "steered into" by society. Fact is, women are "steered into" engineering fields all the time - but they have free will and choose not to do it.

"what would you tell your college-age child if they wanted to study something you thought wouldn't be lucrative (like textiles, or, I don't know, philosophy"

I don't have kids, but have thought about this; my approach would be to make it clear that they can do whatever they want but they must know that I'm not going to support them, they must support themselves. And I know that *whatever* they studied, they would be able to eventually successfully support themselves - I know that because they'd be *my* children. Self-sufficiency isn't what you study, it's a set of values (and some smarts). I would tell them if I disagreed with their choice, but wouldn't force a choice on them. Hmm .. actually, I've just described my dad's values, and he raised four now very successful adults.

I've got an undergraduate engineering degree and a doctorate in the materials physics so I know a thing or two about the lack of women in the tech disciplines.

The reason there is a lack of women in these fields is the same reason there is a lack of MEN entering these fields, for the most part.

Cons:
The material is gruesomely difficult, requires becoming fluent in another language (formal math), opportunites for personal growth slim (somewhat worse for women).

PRO:
Renumeration ok. Job security...higher than avg. High self-image (master of nature!! Men only)

Perhaps by working-class standards an engineer making 60-90k a year is good...but a moderately good stockbroker does much better and needed a LOT less education. More street-smarts maybe but less formal education absolutely.

LOTS of smart people in college have noted the above point and chosen accordingly. Can't blame them for choosing self-interest can you?

The reason that of the few people who enter these fields more are men is because the women view the "limited personal growth" CON even more onerously than men do...and men have a PRO that women lack.

There are plenty of men that avoid the sciences/engineering for the same reasons that women do.

My neighbor laughs about how the engineering school she went to went way beyond the extreme because she was a woman. She is a very smart lady, and would have no problems getting in anywhere. She always wanted to be an engineer because that is where the money is. So, when she applied at school, she got a special scholarship simply because she was a woman, not because she was a gifted student! She didn't even want the money but they made her take it.

On another note..there does now seem to be a lack of women in the field, as opposed to when I was in school in the 90's. There were alot of women in the building then. Now, it is all asians, as the university is totally catering to minorities. Might as well be little china. Maybe the recruitment of asians is responsible for the lack of women...or maybe women just don't want to be engineers any more because it is too time-consuming.

You can't really play the victim role very well as an engineer, as opposed to being a Woman's Studies major, now can you?

Amy, I couldn't agree more about princess passivity (to the point of coma, as you pointed out! So happy my baby just announced that "Cinderella is booooring. All she does is sit around and wait.")

Anyone with young girls out there should read the fairytale Cinder Edna. She lives next door to Cinderella, but instead of moping in the ashes, she mows laws and walks dogs to save money for a dress on layaway. She takes the bus, which stops running at midnight, to the ball. She knows lots of jokes and does the best with what she has looks-wise and can take care of herself. Turns out the Prince has a funny, kinda funny looking younger brother who rescues orphan kittens and runs a recycling plant. They have a blast together while Cinderella and the Prince are boring and bored with each other. The last line is: And who do you think lived happily ever after?

This is why I love your writing: "Snow White wasn't just napping; she was in a coma when she got her man."

"what would you tell your college-age child if they wanted to study something you thought wouldn't be lucrative (like textiles, or, I don't know, philosophy"

I told mine, "I pay for 4 years. I don't pay for Cs or below. I don't pay for useless degrees. Useless degrees means gender studies, queer studies, women's studies, communications, etc. Write or call for an advance official determination of what constitutes 'useless.'"

Hilarious, Simon. My friend Barb Oakley's dad wouldn't pay for her to study linguistics in college so she joined the army. She's now an engineering professor, and wrote this book: Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend. Oh, and along the way, she was an army captain, worked as a Russian translator on Soviet trawlers on the Bering Sea and was a radio operator at the South Pole in Antarctica.

P.S. Did I mention that she flunked physics in high school and went back and studied really hard to figure it out in college?

Is she hot?

"Has it occurred to anyone that the way nerds are treated in their proto-nerd days (primary and secondary school) might have some bearing on the way they act around women once they get out of college?" - Brian (re: Aarahkahak's post)

****************

Brian -

Of course that has occured to people... people with at least half a brain and some common sense, anyway.

But guess what:

Inappropriate/rude/annoying behavior is just inappropriate/rude/annoying behavior.

It doesn't matter WHY the person is acting that way. The point is that the behavior is inconsiderate.

The way "jocks" were treated in their proto-jock days also has bearing on the way they act around women once they get out of college... would you be so quick to justify any of their behaviors you might consider inappropriate/rude/annoying?

Everyone is a product, at least in part, of their past experiences. However, these experiences should not (and simply do not, in my opinion) excuse inconsiderate behavior.

I was considered a huge dork when I was in school, was shunned by many, and was treated like crap by most kids in general. But I got older, matured, gained self-confidence and moved past it.