Posted on 01/15/2007 7:16:36 PM PST by Lorianne
I agree.. BUT we all know they don't listen.. the school of hard knocks unfortunately is the way that too many of us go
Not yet. Have fun with your friends and trust God. He wants what's best for you even if right now things seem lame.
My husband probably felt the same way you did when he was 25 - out of school, a good job, ready to settle down. He didn't know he had to wait because I was 19 and was still working through college!
In the city (NYC) you still have to be careful about the first and second generation of immigrants. You need to see if their family roots are more important to them than the idealogy they read in Cosmo or Vogue.
If they have a subscription to either of those (among others) they are not family oriented.
Having said that, those have been the ones I've dated incidentally. Accident?
I guess my track record says otherwise. But it's not like I was even trying for them.
With the women in their 20s today, you don't want to "be" with them.
Just go in and get out. They have way too many needs for you to be with them.
Trust me, they are not on the whole very together. Just have "fun" with them.
Most times, they'll have moved on to more dudes before you realize it.
Amusing, but unbelievable.
Good advice. I wish I could, but they already broke it off once and now they bought a home together. S'okay, I'll make sure I leave only life insurance and only for her.
It's DollyCali's single ping list, but I'm told I'm accepted in because [fill in the blank] and so I thought you belong, also!
Thanks!
Hopefully I won't ruin your reputation.
;-)
Oh, fam! Do I have a rep???
Why, of course, dahling!
It's fab!
If the man gets the children then of course the woman has to pay maintenance in Britain most women are entitled to maintenance unless they have the children and then it is clear that the money is for the children only and as they get older often paid direct to the child.
I think you and others here are being very unfair to working mothers most I know do so to actually make ends meet.
With house prices and other expenses it is very hard to get a mortgage on a single salary especially if the man is self employed.
Most women I know have to juggle a job, keeping home and being the one that has to negotiate with their employer if the school rings and the children need picking up.
A lot of these women would rather work part time or not work at all but reality is that they have to.
In Britain mainly the property and any other assets are divided 50 50 or if the women has a lower income and or less chance of working full time about 40 60 in her favour but rarely does the man have to pay any money to her unless he is very very wealthy.
Hmmm, that's interesting. I was married to Luca, a small-time Florentine pharmacist, and I made him furious. Didn't mean to, but I did.
Yes, "Ve too soon grow old unt too late schmardt!"
The article is interesting in a way, but I think it's interesting primarily because it's short on facts and long on conjecture. As I see it, there are only three or four facts in the whole thing. The primary fact is that a magazine is going to publish a study saying that more people are married to spouses making about what they make. Secondary facts are a couple of anecdotal stories of men who are unhappy with their non-career wives and an account of one woman who is spoiled and mistreats everyone around her. Outside of those small bits of information, there's very little of substance.
The writer makes the assertion that husbands and wives being closer in their incomes is an indication that both parties desire that situation, but the writer offers no real evidence of this assertion. Did the study take a sample of men and find that they wanted women who were making as much money as they were? The writer claims that she knows many men who wish that their wives had careers and were making money, but her personal experience is not the same as a real study. I'm reminded of the story of the New York socialite who responded to Richard Nixon's 49-state victory 1972 by saying something to the effect of "I can't see how he won. I don't know anyone who voted for him." The fact that one rich liberal doesn't know anyone who voted for President Nixon doesn't change the fact that he was much more popular among the American people than George McGovern was.
Here's another explanation for the decreasing disparity between husbands' and wives' incomes. People in the lower socioeconomic groups can't afford to live on one salary anymore. While their income tax rate isn't that high, overall taxes still take a big bite from their income. Everything is expensive these days, and one salary can't cover all of the expenses even when people try to be frugal. At the next step up, people could live on one income, but they'd have to live very, very carefully. Instead of living that restricted life, they both seek jobs and try to make enough money to have more and better things. In higher socioeconomic groups, they could live comfortably enough on one income, but they couldn't "keep up with the Jones." Keeping up with the Joneses becomes important to many people, so they both keep their jobs.
Here's a third explanation. As community institutions like the church and other groups become less a part of our lives, we tend to meet most of our friends at work among our colleagues. Generally, the social groups at work involve like hanging out with like. Laborers hang out with laborers. Middle management hangs out with middle management. Technical people hang out with technical people. Because our friends tend to be people who do what we do, they tend to have similar incomes. When chemistry develops and people marry, they are marrying someone who has a similar income. They both continue to work for all the reasons that I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
I don't claim that I have evidence supporting either of these explanations, but the writer doesn't have evidence supporting her explanation of the data either.
Personally, I think the writer is making the typical feminist mistake. She's trying to pretend that men are attracted to women for the same reasons that women are attracted to men. While I realize that Rush Limbaugh is halfway joking when he says that feminism exists because ugly women are trying to get better status in society, I think there is a truth under there somewhere. I think many feminists have come out on the losing side of getting attention for the normal things that men find attractive and are trying to spin things to put themselves in a better position. We may live in a world where men need wives who can have a career and contribute financially, but that's never going to be what makes a man's heart go pitter pat. Women who refuse to learn that truth are bound to be frustrated.
A separate point that is vitally important is that selfish people make lousy partners. Women who work simply because they are selfish will be just as lousy as women who stay home because they are selfish. Likewise, men who want their wives to work because they are selfish will be just as lousy as men who want their wives to stay home because they are selfish. If a person gets himself or herself stuck with a selfish partner, he or she is going to have a bad time. You make the point about the value of Christian faith in keeping either partner from being selfish. While I don't think that active practice of the Christian faith is the only antidote to selfishness, I agree that it works for many people.
Bill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.