About two weeks ago, Cognitive Daily linked an article discussing The Paradox of the Perfect Girl.
The perfect girl is everywhere. She is your niece, your daughter, your friend's genius kid. She is the girl who makes the valedictorian speech at your son's graduation and the type-A class president in the skimpy black dress that he brings to the prom. The perfect girl is thin and hungry, not for food, but for honors, awards, scholarships, recognition. The Princeton Review book is the perfect girl's bible. Her appointment book, even at 14, is filled morning to night with scheduled activities. She speaks three languages. She has five varsity letters. She never stops to breathe. She is voted most likely to succeed. She knows she will because she devotes every last iota of her energy, and then some, into achieving.
I know, because I was one.
This could have been written about me as well, but I still completely disagree with the conclusions Ms. Martin draws from it, so I figured I'd share my thoughts on the topic.
She begins by calling the "perfect girl" phenomenon an "oppressive paradigm." I agree, it probably could be. For me, it hasn't been. Perhaps it's because I've never felt pressured by anyone to be "perfect." My parents and teachers were always supportive, but never pushed me into anything I didn't want to do--my pressure and drive has always come from within, instead of from any external source.
Like Martin, I went to a crazy-competitive college, and had similar experiences. She writes,
...I met a skyscraper dorm full of women just like me -- perfect girls incurring a variety of eating and anxiety disorders via their rabid-dog achievement orientation. Zoloft and Paxil were doled out like candy. Girls traded all-nighter tales like war stories. Eight hours of sleep was considered weak. We spent our Fridays in competitive internships and our Saturdays volunteering at soup kitchens. I lost my roommate for days once, only to find her passed out on a library carrel, highlighters and empty coffee cups strewn about, drool dripping onto her thesis paper -- 50 pages longer than the requirement.
I wonder, though, why so many of them are so seemingly unhealthily concerned about what others think of them. Why compare "war stories" if it's just going to stress you out? Why worry yourself about what anyone else might think of how much sleep you get--and whether that number makes you appear "weak?" Are you volunteering at a soup kitchen because you enjoy it, or because it's simply what you think you're expected to do? Why write a paper 50 pages longer than the requirement? Does it really make it better? Part of learning how to write is learning how to cut out what's not critical.
It's not that I don't think there are real problems. Martin discusses eating disorders, for one, and I certainly knew girls who had problems with that. Stress was common as well, though I didn't witness any meds being "doled out like candy" as she describes. Certainly, though, I know people who are currently--or have been previously--on meds, but I don't know that the "perfect girl" (or boy) phenomenon is to blame.
Perhaps the 5 years' difference in the timing of our college experiences made all the difference; I don't know. But I too frequently see things I don't like in other members of my generation. It's like some think that things are going to be easy, and if they're not, we're doing something wrong as a group. Another classmate of mine wrote a book called "The Quarterlife Crisis," describing how many recent college grads are experiencing a life crisis following college graduation and disillusionment with life in the "real world." They argue (unconvincingly, in my opinion) that this is akin--and in many ways, worse--than the "midlife crisis," basing this on interviews with roughly 100 20-somethings.
You may notice that several of the comments in the original thread characterize her post as "whining." In the comments about the Quarterlife Crisis book, you see the same thing. I don't agree with that, but I do think it's a very unrealistic idea to think that "real life" doesn't involve disappointment, anxiety, and at times, a definite imbalance between work and play. So it goes. What turns me off about writings like these is that I think all the authors are choosing to focus on the wrong underlying problems. Martin asks:
Is it physically, mentally, spiritually ethical to push young women (or turn a blind eye when they push themselves) to be accomplished, imbalanced, anxiety-ridden perfect girls?
And I agree with her--the answer is "definitely no." But one not need to be "imbalanced and anxiety-ridden" to be accomplished and driven, and I think a lot of that comes back to two things--1) caring too much what others think, rather than what you do; and 2) a quote Martin mentions: "the second wave of feminists...created a world in which we feel entitled to accomplish anything we set our minds to..." Maybe that sense of entitlement is one of the problems.
I never felt that sense of entitlement. I have a lot, both because I've worked hard and because I've been lucky. I don't count my failures as character flaws, and I don't dwell too much on my successes because I know they're fleeting. I also know that so many of my friends have it tougher than I do. "Quarterlife crisis" focuses on the problems faced by 20-somethings, but only a subset of 20-somethings: generally privileged and college-educated. And sure, I understand that these are frustrations, but the majority of 20-somethings in this country are dealing with a host of different issues--having enough money to pay the rent, or the electric bill, or buy diapers, or gas. They're trying to raise a family on minimum wage, or worrying about health insurance because their job doesn't provide it. The concerns described in "Quarterlife Crisis" and in Martin's article are luxuries they don't have time to dwell on. Are we concerned about these women? Where do they fit into the feminist paradigm? Does anyone think they don't also experience the anxiety and feeling of being "frequently overwhelmed" that college-educated women do? Martin says:
The hallmark of feminism is educated choice. We need women getting college educated so they can choose to do anything they damn well please. But we neglect to tell young women that one of those choices could be "no" to a traditional list of accomplishments, and that, even if they chose to achieve in traditional ways, they may not necessarily be rewarded for it.
Now, obviously I agree that education is important, but college--at least, the traditional way it's done, right out of college, 4 years in a row living in a dorm, etc.--isn't always the smart way to go. College can impose a crushing debt burden and can make other life choices--family, buying a house, etc.--more difficult. I think it needs to be accepted that going other routes can also be a way to say "no" to a "traditional list of accomplishments."
Additionally, I'm well aware of the argument that "just because you have it better than someone else doesn't mean your problems aren't valid." 35,000 people died of starvation every day that I write about problems with science education; obviously, there will always be someone who has bigger problems than you do. But that perspective seems to be lost by many of these writers. Martin mentions her friends that spend their "Saturdays volunteering at soup kitchens." Doesn't that help to put anything into perspective for them? Make them realize that, perhaps, the fact that they gained 5 pounds, or got a B on a paper, doesn't mean very much in the grander scope of things?
I worry a lot about my daughter. I see a lot of me in her. She's already very independent and wants to be the best at whatever she does. I want her to be competitive and to succeed, but I want her to define for herself what "success" means. I don't want her to be obsessed with perfection and to be overly critical of herself. I don't want her to put what others think of her above what she thinks of herself. I want her to have a realistic view of life and a good work ethic, and not to expect things to be handed to her on a platter. I want her to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, even when things are difficult and stressful. I want her to have some kind of balance between work and play, even if she chooses a challenging career path. In short, I still want her to have it all--but I want to help her keep her perspective and not fall into the "imbalanced, anxiety-ridden, perfect girl" stereotype "crumbling under the weight of their own expectations" that Martin describes. I hope it's possible--as long as she makes it through her own eighth-life crisis first.
- Log in to post comments
Word!
There are definitely better and worse ways to work one's ass off, and I agree that the key to "healthy" achievement is probably being attuned to one's "inner" voice rather than what anyone thinks one ought to be doing. My own sense, too, is that experience is a really good teacher: it helps you learn how much (hard work/sleep deprivation/external responsibility/etc.) is too much, and it helps you figure out what you really care about.
Maybe it's just my age, but I find the twenty-something-angst-fest less urgent than I used to. Growing up is hard, kids, but take a breath and you'll get through it!
Thanks Tara - I am sending this to my daughter for the support group aspects. She is going to Northwestern and like you she fits the meme, yet doesn't. I am pretty confident that she is realistic , but it never hurts to see that others have gone through the same experiences successfully too.
Great discussion, Tara, as I also worry about how our daughter will integrate our values with what she gets from friends and culture. We just hope she grows up to be secure enough to listen to her inner drive instead of external expectations.
You may be interested to read last week's Rolling Stone article (yes, I still subscribe) written by a female journalist about the culture of women among Duke University students and the pressures to meet the appearance of "effortless perfection." These issues are not unique to Duke but were only covered since the writer was there to cover the LAX debacle; the real issues start on page 2 of the link.
Thanks Abel; that does complement the topic. From the article:
I know this was present somewhat in my undergrad institution as well, but I think we were better at shunning it a bit. (Much to the guys' chagrin; it was often said that there were no good-looking girls at Yale). I wonder if some of it has to do with the ultra-competitive sorority culture at Duke. We simply didn't have that at Yale; singing groups were more competitive than the sororities, and so looks just didn't matter quite as much.
I've posted a (fairly long) response to this at my blog, Perceiving Wholes.
So, Tara, you're an Eli! After these many months of visiting here, I must now wash my Princeton-educated eyes out. A Yalie! Sheesh ...
Seriously, though, as a high school teacher I have seen my share of over-scheduled, over-achieving girls (and boys, too, but in the minority). The ones that worry me are the kids whose drive comes not from some inner source, but from their parents. Y'know, the stereotypic parents who worry whether preschool X will ensure their child's admission to high-falutin' college Y (or H or P). These parents make sure their youngsters' after-school and summer-break times are filled with "educational" activities, push them to take hard classes in school, and go berserk when Sally or Johnny brings home a "B." By the time they enter 9th grade some of these kids are wound tighter than a spring, or conversely have rebelled and are wound too loose.
We have had to urge some of our students (who again have typically been female) not to take too many AP courses in one year. I tell students that college Y or H or P may want good grades in tough classes, but they also want to see a significant commitment to one or at most two extra-curricular activities, including church or job. Being a grade-drone does not necessarily guarantee admission to an Ivy, which some of our kids (and their parents) discover to their dismay.
For every "perfect girl," I can attest to the fact there are scores of "imperfect girls," who want nothing to do with the over-achiever goody-two-shoes role model. They could care less about grades, or volunteering, or dressing nicely, or going to an Ivy League university. Of course, in my private school, they end up going to college anyway, but to a state school or to college after a year or two off.
So, that being said, how big of a cohort are we looking at it here? Is the "perfect girl" syndrome limited to just, say, 1% of a given school's female population, or is it a bigger %age?
Heh. It's in my "about" link. Guess I should make it a disclaimer. :)
I've said before that my school certainly wasn't one that funneled to the Ivies; we didn't even have any AP courses, so I think that the pressure was mainly self-inflicted. Maybe that's why so many of us who were "overachievers" still managed to stay sane and grounded; of my high school friends, I didn't know any that had parents like you mention, while I frequently saw those types in college. I also see them in my daughters' friends, which is why, so far, I've avoided doing lots of structured activities with my own kids (preferring to just let them be kids). But then I do worry a bit that I'm putting them at a disadvantage compared to the other kids with 10 years of dance and piano under their belt...it's a hard line to walk.
As far as percentages, that's a good question, and I don't have any answer. In "Quarterlife Crisis," the authors claim there aren't any good stats because this age group hasn't been studied by anyone. I don't know if that's accurate or not.
I was a HS student and undergraduate in the 80s, and the student types you mention were emerging, but not very well represented/developed. As a Public school teacher, I saw this trend emerge in the 90s, first among the children of academics and later in the broader population. I believe parents, as with most things, are primarily responsible. In my view, this super-achiever status goes hand in hand with the trend towards highly structured childhood - parents who plan & schedule every waking moment. Most of the parents of these kids got ahead by being super-structured and they inculcate the same behavior in their kids.
I do wonder at the incidence of burnout, and the amount of separation - not unlike the much ballyhooed 'wage gap' - that this puts between kids who are early achievers and late-bloomers who are equally capable of making significant contributions. In schools with gifted & talented programs, the tracking can happen as early as the end of elementary school, with kids who haven't set themselves on the AP track being out of the game altogether by the end of their Freshman year in HS. That probably overstates it a tad, but not by much. That learning/achievement gap only compounds as you go further up the educational stair - I know in my BS Chem program, we had serious attrition during the first two semesters - down 80% by the end of the third semester (halfway through organic) - with HS math and AP chem experience being a very high predictor. I have no idea what that same program is like now, but I expect it's essentially inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have that background - and they probably bitch and worry about how they can't get anyone to major in that discipline anymore (physics is even worse).
I just don't think it's particularly good for society as a whole to further fragment (self-partition) with scientists making up a special, inaccessible and perhaps misunderstood, educated caste - no matter how good/prestigious it make us feel individually. The ID/evolution debate is the best example of the problems that arise from this self-partition/isolation.
We didn't over-structure our kids time, either for primarily economic reasons. All four were in Scouts, but none wanted to stay in past age 11, so we didn't press the issue. Our daughter took dance lessons when she was a wee one, but not after she entered 1st grade. (She loves watching dance movies and figure skating, though, I tell you!) Perhaps she would have wanted to continue with dance, if we had pressed her more, but the economic reality would have prevented it in any event. Ditto our childrens' interest in playing musical instruments. We have a little parental guilt in not "forcing" our kids to take formal lessons, but they have all turned out to be fine young people with various interests, so it's a tiny twinge of guilt.
There is nothing wrong with letting a kid be a kid, as long as the parents keep on eye on them. (Many do not, BTW. Ask any private-school teacher.) Children do not need to be some miniature version of an adult nor a surrogate for their parent's frustrated childhood. As Tara notes, parents have to walk a fine line between a complete laissez-faire attitude and an activity-Nazi approach. There is no easy answer to the question, and waiting to see the results of your decisions is agonizing. I'm relieved in some ways that we are nearly out of the child-rearing profession, because it's tough, I'll tell ya.