Recently, I have been mulling over Susan's Patton's
letter to the Editor of the Daily Princetonian. For those who have thus far managed to escape reading it, in her correspondence, Patton implores the bright, young women of Princeton to pay attention not only to their studies, but to honing in on a life partner.
Feminists and young women everywhere have expressed their outrage at her remarks. She has been lambasted for debasing women and being completely out of touch. Many have equated her remarks to suggesting future happiness is dependent on your relationship status and accused her of urging women to place more value on marriage than achievement and personal growth.
However, this grossly misinterprets Patton's remarks, which are much more about urging women to find a soulmate, someone who is their intellectual match. It therefore stands to reason that, when you are the cream of the crop (as all Princetonites are), a vast majority of men feel threatened by your skills and abilities, and to find someone compatible requires reaching to the upper echelons of society. Maybe somewhere like, I don't know, an Ivy League University?
Still don't believe me? Have a look at some of Patton's comments, below. Do they sound like those of an antiquated anti-feminist, or simply an alum urging the girls of today not to sell themselves short?
"Smart women can’t (shouldn’t) marry men who aren’t at least their
intellectual equal. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves
out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men
who are as smart or smarter than we are. And I say again — you will
never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of
you."
Surely Patton's sentiments simply mirror what the parents of young girls
have been telling them their whole lives: don't sell yourself short.
Since reading Patton's comments, I've come across many pieces written in response. Most interesting was the New York Times
Op-Ed by Ross Douthat. Douthat attempts to reduce Patton's remarks to a diatribe on class, when it couldn't be further from the truth. On a base level, Patton never once mentions class, money or status, simply intellect.But look deeper and her remarks ring true to all higher learning institutions, irrespective of class or socio-economic status.
But class analysis aside, I believe the real reason women have railed against Patton's comments so strongly is that she dares to profess that women need partners. Ever since the 1970s, women have been told they can do anything, which is true. But as we have focused on obtaining degrees, climbing the corporate ladder, mastering several languages and travelling the world, we have come to believe that there is something inherently 'anti-feminist' about actively seeking a partner. That looking for a man to share our lives and futures with is akin to admitting that we, on our own, are not enough. That we are not complete without another. Most of us take for granted that, eventually, we will serendipituously meet the man of our dreams, be swept off our feet and live happily ever after. But focusing on finding a partner is considered taboo.
Needless to say, I don't resent Patton or view her comments as offensive. I know many will beg to differ, but in closing, I leave you with this thought: serendipity is all dependent on being in the right place at the right time. What better place/ time than when you're surrounded by like-minded, driven, successful people? And no one's expecting you to put a ring on it at 22; but can a step in the right direction really hurt?
Kat xx
Ps. Want to read more? Take a look at Dr Lesley Bell's response to Patton's comments in
Psychology Today
