What defines a successful woman?

[KelleyNice]

Jordan Peterson said, “I've worked very intensely with a large population of female lawyers, usually partners at large law firms very successful women, usually very attractive, very intelligent, and extraordinarily conscientious. The sort of people who were outstanding in high school and then outstanding as undergraduates and then aced law school and then did their articling perfectly and then became associates and then eventually entered the partner stream in the large law firm and then became partners.

“A huge proportion of them wake up somewhere between 30 and 32 and notice their 65 hour days and the incredibly competitive environment they happen to be. I mean they're going to make a lot of money but the demands on their time of their career are only going to accelerate as they move forward and decide quite rapidly that that's maybe not what they want.

“The reason for that is they also would like to have a life they'd like to have a relationship that they could attend to and they'd like to have children and the truth of the simple truth of the matter is that it's very difficult to have a truly high end career and have an important relationship and have children.”

I am very smart. I know I can be a successful lawyer and make a lot of money. However, I don't want to be 30 with a high income and discover that I want a life. Therefore, considering the foregoing, I want to be a housewife and mother. If that defines success, that is the success I want. My husband can earn the money. I will do the cooking, cleaning, child care, and other household duties so when he comes home, he can relax and be comfortable. I'll be happy and eager to please him and satisfy his needs and desires.

Furthermore, if being a housewife and mother defines success, I believe men like successful women.

Updates

+1 y

Enter college at age 16, graduate by age 20 with a liberal arts degree, be married by age 22, and be a mother before age 24.

[007kingifrit]

i think that's a very wise assessment. people with kids are objectively happier and i think women get told "you can do anything" as teens and then come to find out you actually can't have it all... yes, most women would prefer to be wives and mothers

being happy is a better measure of success than your job. also robots will replace lawyers faster than any other profession so those women are doomed either way lol

[Anonymous]

Watch out for colleges. They tend to teach some pretty radical beliefs to young girls and ruin their futures.

[youngmix]

Success is achieving what you desire, and trying your best along the way. If you want a family, then I hope you choose someone who can help you be happy, and give you what you need to be the best mother that you can be. If you want a career, then I hope you pass every test, and become a person that others can rely on.

[Adaeva]

A successful woman will feel she has had a fulfilling life and doesn't regret her choices. For some women that is having a successful career for other it is having a happy marriage with children and grandchildren.

[Guardian45]

You can STILL be married with children AND have a SUCCESSFUL CAREER. I know, because I work with these women EVERYDAY, including two women working full-time who have 4 and 5 children!

[Guardian45]

DON'T be constrained by others. Be YOU!

[KelleyNice]

Jordan Peterson said, “I've worked very intensely with a large population of female lawyers, usually partners at large law firms very successful women, usually very attractive, very intelligent, and extraordinarily conscientious. The sort of people who were outstanding in high school and then outstanding as undergraduates and then aced law school and then did their articling perfectly and then became associates and then eventually entered the partner stream in the large law firm and then became partners.

“A huge proportion of them wake up somewhere between 30 and 32 and notice their 65 hour days and the incredibly competitive environment they happen to be. I mean they're going to make a lot of money but the demands on their time of their career are only going to accelerate as they move forward and decide quite rapidly that that's maybe not what they want.

“The reason for that is they also would like to have a life they'd like to have a relationship that they could attend to and they'd like to have children and the truth of the simple truth of the matter is that it's very difficult to have a truly high end career and have an important relationship and have children.”

[Guardian45]

There is more in your world then was contained in Jordan Peterson's!

[Tstrbrainer]

If you are smart, I think you should do something productive, right?

[Preeti161101]

parents lovely daughter, educated, good wife, good mother and world's best family caring and dedicated in all files.

[Bluemax]

Being happy on her terms.

[Nahid1707]

The way she’s carries herself and her honesty

[DWornock]

You are or will be a successful woman.

[Kim7mik]

What are your goals

[Kim7mik]

What are?

[KelleyNice]

See my update.

[Kim7mik]

Nice. Sweetie 😊👍

[Kim7mik]

@youngmix?

[youngmix]

I want to build a diverse, cyborg cell nanotech army to judge humans, overturn all of the world's governments and weapons, and begin the process of space colonization. Unworthy people and happenstance enemies will be taken over by the bots, having their brains and bodies converted into hardware that is controlled by the central program, and they will serve the new order.

[Kim7mik]

@youngmix
Owww
are you serious ?

[KelleyNice]

@youngmix How can you begin space colonization when, with current technolog, a space ship would take tens of thousands of years to reach the nearest star?

[youngmix]

Interstellar travel is not the first stage, locations like the one mentioned here: www.nasa.gov/johnson/exploration/deep-space/

Interstellar travel is a goal as well, but not for humans as they are in the present era.
Colonization and interstellar travel will not be initialized by humans, but the aforementioned engineered cyborg lifeforms.
Humans serve as a building block to producing the organisms that will engineer, maintain, and pilot (command) such explorations.

[youngmix]

The progression of this project will take several average human lifetimes, but it will not be under the control of any of the Earth's current species.

[youngmix]

@kim7mik
I would have to be a megalomaniac, probably schizophrenic, and have some faith in humanity to live my life pursuing such a goal...

[KelleyNice]

@youngmix My father who is very science minded has thought and talked about that. People might survive in enclosures for a while but they cannot live on Mars, let alone any other planet or moon is our solar system. For all practical purposes we can't even live in the Antarctica which has normal gravity, an atmosphere, and is not near as cold. The primary reason to go to Mars is to discover if life exists or ever has existed on Mars. If so, the universe may be teeming with life. Otherwise, earth may be the only place in the universe that life exists because the probability of life forming on a planet may be close to 1 divided by zero. That is, possible but will a zero probability.

[youngmix]

@kelleynice
You are not understanding, humans will not be doing any of this. The colonies are not for humans.

[youngmix]

@kelleynice
The issue concerning the variables which allowed Earth to create, and then support life, are not believed to be as rare as you seem to believe. RNA origin theory has shown that catalyzing life is extremely easy, and the calculations I have encountered concerning the odds of life supporting planets has produced non-zero numbers. In fact, the most famous equation has produced significance towards the opposite end that you are stating, that there is 0 chance that we inhabit the only planet that has produced RNA based life forms. The academic literature on this topic has reached the general masses, and is easily found if you wish to look it up, and I will try to find the name of the most famous equation on the topic.

[youngmix]

As for space travel for human beings, the challenges that we would have to overcome are being researched, and most conclusions point towards rotational energy producing a viable cure for the lack of gravity. Also, biotechnology has produced answers concerning ways to engineer human DNA to produce humans that can exist as a space traveling species. Although I doubt that we would be humans after that.
The major issues are fuel, safety, and deceleration. All-in-all, I do not believe that we have the social structure necessary to even try to address most of the problems you brought up because the testing and development would require a massive amount of resources, and a different moral structure.

[KelleyNice]

@youngmix If even intelligent scientist have been unable to create life, how is possible that non life with zero intelligence can create life except by some extremely improbably near zero chance.

[youngmix]

So yes, I agree that are not going to become an interstellar species. Hence the robot army.

[youngmix]

We have created life, and it was several years ago. It's called the RNA origins theory study, and they were able to consistently create living organisms using what was present on Earth during that era of Earth's development. In fact, the project effortlessly creates life by creating the same gas balances (CO2, O2, etc.) that the Earth had, then they place the building block mineral which were also present, and then they add small amounts of electrostatic energy. This allows chemical bonds to create proteins, and some of the proteins are consistently RNA strands, and eventually living organisms. I believe it is a French scientist, and I will try to find the project for you.

[youngmix]

@kelleynice
I found the probability of life equation for you. The original is called the "Drake Equation", and it is extremely famous within physics and science in general. Sara Seager of MIT has refined it, and here is a link to an article with some information:
www.theguardian.com/.../equation-alien-life-universe

I'm trying to hunt down the RNA origins theory video I watched 4 years ago, and if I can't find a video, then I'll find a good article for you to review.

[youngmix]

@kelleynice
Sorry! It is the RNA World Hypothesis. You can use a search engine, and watch some videos about it to get yourself started. Sorry about getting the name wrong, it's been a few years since I took Biology.
I read your goals, and minus the husband portion, I have lived that life, but a little younger. Good luck.
The robot army will spare you.

[KelleyNice]

@youngmix The link you provided for the Drake equation was interesting. I believe we have discovered large planets on other stars, but perhaps not earth size planets since they don't block out enough star light as they pass in the front of the star. In any event, if large planets are common surely so are smaller planets.