The Sandra Bullock Trade

[pemberly]

There was interesting editorial in the nytimes today, and I thought it would be a fair question to pose. Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow? The following is the beginning of the article.

Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?

On the one hand, an Academy Award is nothing to sneeze at. Bullock has earned the admiration of her peers in a way very few experience. She’ll make more money for years to come. She may even live longer. Research by Donald A. Redelmeier and Sheldon M. Singh has found that, on average, Oscar winners live nearly four years longer than nominees that don’t win.

Nonetheless, if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy. Marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain significantly unfulfilled.

...

nytimes article cont...

For me, I believe I would prefer professional success. Maybe because I am a selfish person, but being successful in my career is something I achieve because of myself and for myself. Having the whole husband, kids + dog thing isn't something that I've ever really wanted and always seems like a life that isn't my own. I see a lot of people who have all these personal aspirations who trade it all to live vicariously through their children, and I don't think I could do that. Maybe because I'm still relatively young, but, at least for now, I'd like to live for myself.

[Guo Xiang]

They have also been making a big deal out of Kate Winslet's divorce after winning the Oscar. But of course none of them managed to mention successful women who have managed to keep their men/marriage eg. Meryl Streep.

Here's how I read this kind of articles:

You women shouldn't have a career. Look what happen once you have one, and turns out to be successful. And romance/marriage/love (with a man) is much more important than a (successful) career. Quit playing around in a man's field and go home and do your housework.

I find this downright offensive.

Here's a supplement reading for anyone who cares.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/03/the_oscar_curse

For the original question, I would like professional success, of course, but I'd consider it if it means turning my life upside down. I'm lazy and isn't really keen on changes, except if it's payrise. If the setback has got to do with friends, forget it; professional success might be more important there. If it's family, then I might just drop the professional success. I don't need to be successful to live a good life after all.

[xJadedx]

Meryl Streep is an exception - a wonderful one.
To be honest, I've been noticing this weird trend of Oscar-winning actresses divorcing or separating from their partners after they win - Hillary Swank, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet, and now Sandra Bullock. I'm not sure if they all were because of cheating husbands a la Bullock's case. Just something I noticed that I find weird.

[Trien Chieu]

Actors/actresses divorce/breakup alot more frequently than ordinary folks, that is nothing new. It's true in all races in every country.

I don't need to be successful to live a good life after all.

Strongly agree. It doesn't cost all that much to have a good and healthy life.

[Ken Cheng]

Actors/actresses divorce/breakup alot more frequently than ordinary folks, that is nothing new.

Not necessarily, but when it happens to celebrities, MILLIONS of people will know about it. When it happens to Joe and Jane Blow, only people familiar with them (a few dozen at most) will know about it.

[ByTmE]

Wasn't the original question : Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?

..well, how come we are assuming that the severe personal blow is due to a failed marriage or what not along those lines? Someone like myself, whose never been in love and/or been in a serious relationship, can't really realistically weigh the importance of that particular failed relationship. Then I'd choose TREMENDOUS PROFESSIONAL TRIUMPH obviously.

However, if my severe personal blow were something like...
a.) becoming a quadriplegic at 25 years young
b.) death of both of my parents or
c.) losing my religion/spirituality

...then I would seriously have to reconsider. On the other hand, if my tremendous professional triumph were...

a.) curing cancer/AIDS, whatever
b.) successfully assassinating the current Prime Minister of Cambodia, Samdach Akkak Moha Sena Padey Dekjo Hun Sen or
c.) winning the Nobel Peace Prize

...hmmmm, tempting

Nah, I'd still choose to keep my health, parents, and religion/spirituality.

[Candide]

It's not a trade.

She married a tattooed biker who used to be married to a porn star and had numerous nasty chicks. It's inevitable from day one.

[KeongJai]

It would have to depend on the woman. I would trade career aspirations for the right woman.

[Trien Chieu]

Wasn't the original question : Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?

..well, how come we are assuming that the severe personal blow is due to a failed marriage or what not along those lines? Someone like myself, whose never been in love and/or been in a serious relationship, can't really realistically weigh the importance of that particular failed relationship. Then I'd choose TREMENDOUS PROFESSIONAL TRIUMPH obviously.

I don't know about this as having successful marriage is very important. Sometimes way more important than money. Money is great, the more is the better, but not everything. There are things in life that is more important than money. After all, I don't need all that much money to have good life.

However, if my severe personal blow were something like...
a.) becoming a quadriplegic at 25 years young.
b.) death of both of my parents or

No way. No amount of money and fame is enough for such tragedy.

c.) losing my religion/spirituality

I don't give a shit about religion, so yes I would take the money and fame.

...then I would seriously have to reconsider. On the other hand, if my tremendous professional triumph were...

a.) curing cancer/AIDS, whatever

This is not what I wish for. It doesn't benefit me. I have neither cancer nor AIDS.

b.) successfully assassinating the current Prime Minister of Cambodia, Samdach Akkak Moha Sena Padey Dekjo Hun Sen or

Why do you hate him so much?
Do you prefer marxist politician like Pol Pot better??

c.) winning the Nobel Peace Prize

Who care a Nobel Peace Prize? It's not important to me.

...hmmmm, tempting

Nah, I'd still choose to keep my health, parents, and religion/spirituality.

Health and parents are priceless. No amount of wealth and fame is enough for a trade off. Religion is worthless for me, so yes I would take the money and fame.

[remember_Cedric]

It's not a trade.

She married a tattooed biker who used to be married to a porn star and had numerous nasty chicks. It's inevitable from day one.

I agree with this after reading up on that Jesse James. My god, look at his arms.... >_<

[ByTmE]

I don't know about this as having successful marriage is very important. Sometimes way more important than money. Money is great, the more is the better, but not everything. There are things in life that is more important than money. After all, I don't need all that much money to have good life.

I agree, successful marriages are important. However, in this very moment the idea of being happily married is not vital to my personal happiness. Rather, I'd choose to be successful. Money is not important, but I'd be pretty darn upset if I couldn't go shopping.

No way. No amount of money and fame is enough for such tragedy.

Well, yes. I was talking about my body and my parents here!

I don't give a shit about religion, so yes I would take the money and fame.

To each his own. Some of us are not such heathens.

This is not what I wish for. It doesn't benefit me. I have neither cancer nor AIDS.

Then what do you wish for? Is there nothing so tempting in this world that would make you lean towards a professional triumph rather than personal suffering?

Why do you hate him so much?
Do you prefer marxist politician like Pol Pot better??

I don't prefer either. I have no grandparents because of Pol Pot and just spent two years living in Phnom Penh. I realized some things about Cambodia under Hun Sen, like for example, Cambodia is literally for sale under him. For educational purposes only, of course, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G_4J94kGIs&feature=fvw.

Who care a Nobel Peace Prize? It's not important to me. Health and parents are priceless. No amount of wealth and fame is enough for a trade off. Religion is worthless for me, so yes I would take the money and fame.

Okay.

Asked in all honesty...Trien Chieu, are you a Republican? Just curious.

[Candide]

It would have to depend on the woman. I would trade career aspirations for the right woman.

That's a bad trade for a man.

A great career for a man will get him the right woman. Trading it for the right woman means that she will dumb your arse quick smart.

It's a good trade for a woman though.

[ByTmE]

That's a bad trade for a man.

A great career for a man will get him the right woman. Trading it for the right woman means that she will dumb your arse quick smart.

It's a good trade for a woman though.

I don't understand the part that's bolded.

The rest of it sounds wrong in that it lacks political correctedness. There seems to be an underlying belief that a woman's career is not as important or potentially advantageous as a man's. However, I can't think of any other reasonably profound way to counter above remark because I believe it's true, in an overarchingly general and deeply personal way.

[Ken Cheng]

The rest of it sounds wrong in that it lacks political correctedness.

Candide has never been one to care about political correctness.

[KeongJai]

That's a bad trade for a man.

A great career for a man will get him the right woman. Trading it for the right woman means that she will dumb your arse quick smart.

It's a good trade for a woman though.

The right woman will only hold you back enough so that your feet are still on the ground anyway. If she holds you back more than that she's not the right woman.

Plus a man with the right woman behind him can go further than a man with the wrong one or none at all.

[Candide]

Plus a man with the right woman behind him can go further than a man with the wrong one or none at all.

I don't know about that. Every great man in history achieved greatness with no right woman nor any woman behind him at all.

I'll quickly list some of my favourites: Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Voltaire, Oscar Wilde, Zheng He, Tran Hung Dao, Mozart, Newton, Michael Jordan...

In fact, there's a recent research which shows that male scientists all fail to follow up on their early career successes (i.e inventing shit) after they get married.

I don't understand the part that's bolded.

Oh that's simple. Women marry up. They are hypergamous. An unambitious man, or a man who throws away his ambitions in exchange for pussy will get dumped. It's the fifth guaranteed thing in life, after death, tax and two other things I can't tell you (because I'd have to kill you).

[HuangYushi]

This is not what I wish for. It doesn't benefit me. I have neither cancer nor AIDS.

I had to do a double-take on this one. How TC! And how marvellous to have it right from the horse's mouth!

[yittz]

From a medical point of view, there really isn't anything of a greater accolade than curing cancer/AIDs. To have TC blow it off, because it doesn't benefit him (I mean who doesn't know someone who struggled with cancer?), is an insult to human endeavour.

Seriously, ban the troll already. Sure there's a slight chance he might actually be sincere in his retarded comments, but when is that benefit of doubt become overdue?

Back to topic, in general I pick personal right now. Although I find what Candide says make sense in a twisted way.

[pemberly]

I don't know about that. Every great man in history achieved greatness with no right woman nor any woman behind him at all.

I'll quickly list some of my favourites: Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Voltaire, Oscar Wilde, Zheng He, Tran Hung Dao, Mozart, Newton, Michael Jordan...

alexander the great : gay
voltaire: in the book, candide marries and spends the whole book trying to get back to her. i think she dumps his a$$ in part 2. i don't remember.
oscar wilde: gay

i can't speak for the others. i think michael jordan was married and his wife was behind him during his success.... and even his gambling problems.

[PJ]

Seriously, ban the troll already.

I second that.