Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DollyCali
Dolly,

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

240 posted on 01/16/2007 11:01:55 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: WFTR
as usual you have a LOT of good points based on good observation, intelligence & common sense.

I don't disagree with anything you say. Would just add that the Internet (and NOT just matching services) put a lot of folks together that 10 years ago could have never connected,

That potentially can add another dynamic to the formula

You crazy man.. you TOO are up at this wicked hour. I am not sleepy (more klutzy indicating I am TIRED but not feeling like I can sleep yet.)
243 posted on 01/16/2007 11:32:28 PM PST by DollyCali (Don't tell GOD how big your storm is -- Tell the storm how B-I-G your God is!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson