Do you think that behind every successful man there stands a woman?

[sum1]

I've got a question
Do you think that behind every successful man, there stands a woman?
If yes then why?...if no then why not?

[Faerie]

I think it goes both ways. Supporting your partner can yield spectacular results, the gender is irrelevant.

[Sidhe747]

Not if you are Jesus but look what happened to him!

[Eudaimonist]

I've got a question
Do you think that behind every successful man, there stands a woman?
If yes then why?...if no then why not?

I doubt that this old saying was ever meant to be taken as an absolute statement. It's just a kind of "folk wisdom".

It simply suggests that successful men have wives who are supportive of their careers instead of wives who impede their careers in some way.

The saying suggests a traditional 50's model of marriage, and I doubt that it is applicable today.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Sidhe747]

I've got a question
Do you think that behind every successful man, there stands a woman?
If yes then why?...if no then why not?

I doubt that this old saying was ever meant to be taken as an absolute statement. It's just a kind of "folk wisdom".

It simply suggests that successful men have wives who are supportive of their careers instead of wives who impede their careers in some way.

The saying suggests a traditional 50's model of marriage, and I doubt that it is applicable today.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's just what Jesus said!

I am single and unemployed so I have to say from my admittedly subjective experience it certainly is true! :(:evil::bang:

[Bane]

Well, "behind every successful person, there is someone supporting them" would make the phrase more suitable to life outside the 1950s ideal.

I think my modified version might make more sense, because I've never heard of anyone who can live entirely without some form of support.

[Matty]

I think it goes both ways. Supporting your partner can yield spectacular results, the gender is irrelevant.

bingo.

what faerie said.

[Rie]

My timmy bug says i must hastily wrap up my posts so i will just love yall and leave with the advice to either read the novel "Revolutionary Road" by Richard Yates or see the film, starring Kate Winslett and Leonardo DICaprio. My own view is that the grim force driving some for 'success' in monetary matters, in an 'ordinary' job, working for someone else, is a complex psychological mix of many factors and certainly can't be put down to the 'push' of a woman. I could go on but so does my tummy bug.

[dancer_rnb]

I hope people aren't impluying that single people can't be successful.
That's stupid.

[hecaterin]

They are implying that no-one can succeed alone.

And usually also noting that someone has to look after daily life. It's hard to write poetry or contemplate mathematical equations and the nature of reality when you have to mind the kids, light the fires, make the candles, scrub the floor, milk the cow, do the laundry, weed the veggie patch, and all the other hard and heavy tasks of a pre-modern household.

Single people might have supportive mothers, sisters, or for that matter brothers, fathers, friends, children or cousins. Historically it's been the women keeping things going behind the scenes and the men in the limelight. But that is a historical fact, not some kind of claim about human nature.

[dancer_rnb]

They are implying that no-one can succeed alone.

And usually also noting that someone has to look after daily life. It's hard to write poetry or contemplate mathematical equations and the nature of reality when you have to mind the kids, light the fires, make the candles, scrub the floor, milk the cow, do the laundry, weed the veggie patch, and all the other hard and heavy tasks of a pre-modern household.

Single people might have supportive mothers, sisters, or for that matter brothers, fathers, friends, children or cousins. Historically it's been the women keeping things going behind the scenes and the men in the limelight. But that is a historical fact, not some kind of claim about human nature.

You're talking about a past society and its tasks there. Doesn't apply nowadays.
And you don't have to have kids............

[hecaterin]

It's an old saying. That's why I said "historically", and "pre-modern". Did you have any extra point? :dunno:

[Bane]

hecaterin:
That's a good point. Historically, yeah, there's always had to be someone else to make sure things got done and that you ate something now and then ;)

In modern times, I think the phrase might have something to do with having someone to support you. I don't think single people can't be successful, though--you don't have to be married or even dating, but successful people DO have the support of others, be it family or friends....

[Christina]

It sounds to me like one of those pithy statements that a speechwriter tosses off that doesn't mean much of anything outside of the situation that he wrote it for. Successful is a pretty subjective quality and even with a specific definition I doubt that anyone has done a study on the family or relationship status of people that meet that criteria. My guess is that we'd see a range from the driven loner to the happy family person and that it isn't a terribly important factor unless you define success as having personal support.