so back on topic!


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – so back on topic!

so back on topic!
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

Are there any reasons women can think off to suggest we should marry career girls?

Or is this board simply full of women whose only option is to shame the truth?

If Noer is so wrong then a list of reasons to choose you over staying single or mail ordering a bride should be easy right??

09-04-2006 04:09 AM

Re: so back on topic!
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Anti_Feminist wrote:

Are there any reasons women can think off to suggest we should marry career girls?

Or is this board simply full of women whose only option is to shame the truth?

If Noer is so wrong then a list of reasons to choose you over staying single or mail ordering a bride should be easy right??

Who do you mean by “we” in “suggest WE should marry career girls”?

I don’t believe anyone is trying to tell you whom you should marry.  If you’re interested in having a certain lifestyle, and a woman with career ambitions doesn’t fit into that lifestyle, why would anyone try to convince you to marry one?

You sound as though you WANT to be told what to do just so you can argue against it, but I’ve seen no evidence that anyone cares who you marry, or whether you marry.

For the real argument against Noer’s column, go back and read a few posts that explain the difference between the REAL issue, and the one you’re making up here.

(On the other hand, if you just feel like bashing women and puffing your chest out, carry on.  If I’m reading your initial post correctly, that seems to be more your bent.)

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 09-04-200609:05 AM

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 09-04-2006 09:05 AM

09-04-2006 09:03 AM

Re: so back on topic!
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

Thats amazing she so desperate she needs to focus on the word “we” which in this context simply means western men. Then as proof of the truth of the second sentence of my first post, she alters that to me and simply states that the women on this board haven’t typed up any marriage proposals yet. How desperate for a response do you get! ow wait it does get more desperate, lookie lookie, now their is a “real issue that’s” not this one.

Yes folks what’s she’s trying to say is that it is irrelevant that Noer’s article is true to the letter. Noer should not have printed the truth which is western women are socially and martially worthless and it’s all their own fault! And she’s having a big sook because Noer choose not to beat around the bush and blame women for their own misery.

What’s she wants of course is for men to take the blame, I.E women formed a large group designed to use hatred as a weapon against men, spit on their responsibilities and take all the rights for themselves at men’s expense. Which is definitely the fault of men, because a few hundred years ago men “oppressed” women by working physical labor all day to the point of mass health problems, physical injury and a life span of not much passed 45-50. So that those poor dears could spend the money on food that (ow I can’t bear to say it it’s so evil) they were actually expected to cook (ow the misery).

so now because of this injustice, we are obligated to not look for qualities in a partner that may enrich our own lives or even just for people willing to share happiness. We must instead reward career women with a marriage license, that they may use it and us to advance there social position and career status until such time as they feel entitled to live of the income of someone else. This someone else must not have any rights or expectation to have happiness in their lives. But must instead accept the position of wage slave until death without the need of any form of justification on behalf of the woman.

Yes that’s right her “real issue” is that Noer blamed women. Not men not even global warming, nope he blamed women!

Feminism was supposed to mean that you can’t tell the truth about women. But here Noer is going ahead and spelling out the truth anyway. So feminists are claiming foul. Yes that’s right women are kicking up a big stink because he should have been not aloud to say it!

so that why she’s drawing a distinction between my asking if he is wrong in his article (which therefore would mean there are good reasons to marry career girls and she can list some) and “the real issue” which is why aren’t men being properly censored from the truth so women wont have to account for themselves or loose there unjustified entitlements.

09-04-2006 10:10 AM

Re: so back on topic!
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Right, then.  A woman bashing thread it is.

Enjoy your circle-jerk!

09-04-2006 10:43 AM

Re: so back on topic!
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

I gave this thread three options to begin with.

Option 1) a place for the good qualities of career women to be discussed (though I will admit after a week of not seeing one single reason offered for men to want career women this would surprise me)

Option 2) a place for women to realize that what they have now (all be it good for themselves) holds nothing for men at all, and to discuss what they may do to change. (Note this does not have to imply change back)

Or option 3) a place to say women know they don’t appeal to men like they used to but since they don’t want to change what they feel is perfect for them, they want an alternative to marriage (which may be anything or nothing).

but unfortunately the post attracted you the most unintelligent of women on this board whose fear and buck passing mentality made any discussion where you need to be responsible for your own opinion (whatever it may be) impossible.

09-04-2006 11:14 AM

Re: so back on topic!
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself

Anti_Feminist wrote:

I gave this thread three options to begin with.

Option 1) a place for the good qualities of career women to be discussed (though I will admit after a week of not seeing one single reason offered for men to want career women this would surprise me)

Option 2) a place for women to realize that what they have now (all be it good for themselves) holds nothing for men at all, and to discuss what they may do to change. (Note this does not have to imply change back)

Or option 3) a place to say women know they don’t appeal to men like they used to but since they don’t want to change what they feel is perfect for them, they want an alternative to marriage (which may be anything or nothing).

but unfortunately the post attracted you the most unintelligent of women on this board whose fear and buck passing mentality made any discussion where you need to be responsible for your own opinion (whatever it may be) impossible.

What I can’t understand is why the women even come here? They all say they have good boyfriends or husbands so why bother if they have what they want? Are they scared of not finding a wallet> I mean husband?

09-04-2006 12:08 PM

Re: so back on topic!
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Well, that’s two…not much of a circle, yet, but more are sure to join.  Hope is not lost for you!  Just go slow so you don’t finish too fast.

09-04-2006 12:25 PM

Re: so back on topic!
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius

ftesyektsi wrote:
Well, that’s two…not much of a circle, yet, but more are sure to join.  Hope is not lost for you!  Just go slow so you don’t finish too fast.

Pleeeaasee keep away from this board, noone deserves to have to bear your emotional outbursts.

09-04-2006 12:29 PM

Re: so back on topic!
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

ftesyektsi wrote:
Right, then.  A woman bashing thread it is.

Enjoy your circle-jerk!

I think he doesn’t seem to get that career women, or just many women in general, don’t want guys like Noer.

09-04-2006 12:33 PM

Re: so back on topic!
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Pleeeaasee keep away from this board, noone deserves to have to bear your emotional outbursts.

That’s three…I guess you have a little triangle, now, but it should still serve the purpose.   Have fun!

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 09-04-2006 12:34 PM

09-04-2006 12:33 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – so back on topic!

Re: so back on topic!
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

DontMarryNoer wrote:

ftesyektsi wrote:
Right, then.  A woman bashing thread it is.

Enjoy your circle-jerk!

I think he doesn’t seem to get that career women, or just many women in general, don’t want guys like Noer.

Oh, there’s a lot more than that that they don’t get.  They don’t want to get it, though…can’t you tell?  They just want to whine and show their pen*ses to one another.  Which is exactly when I step out…

ciao.

09-04-2006 12:35 PM

Re: so back on topic!
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius

ftesyektsi wrote:

Pleeeaasee keep away from this board, noone deserves to have to bear your emotional outbursts.

That’s three…I guess you have a little triangle, now, but it should still serve the purpose.   Have fun!

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 09-04-2006 12:34 PM

Look get implants get your flab surgically removed do whatever it takes that makes you feel better but do not let it out on other people.

Message Edited by Cassius on 09-04-2006 12:40 PM

09-04-2006 12:39 PM

Re: so back on topic!
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

ftesyektsi wrote:
Right, then.  A woman bashing thread it is.

Enjoy your circle-jerk!

Hey dumb biitch. Aren’t you supposed to be in the kitchen baking more brain cells? Get back to work.

09-04-2006 04:14 PM

Re: so back on topic!
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
I’ll bite. I don’t know why. Maybe deep down I’m a masochist in denial.

Anyway, with all due respect to all my fellow women out there, I’m going to assume that a non-career woman has probably never lived out from under her parents’ roof. In this day and age, that generally requires either having a good-paying job or having gone away to college – both of which this woman doesn’t have. And that’s fine. You guys don’t want it.

However, women who have moved out from mom and dad’s house have learned valuable life skills that you just don’t get when someone’s taking care of you. They learn how to pay bills, how to budget, how to balance a checkbook, how to cook (yes, a woman can learn how to cook living at home, but when you get your own place you learn out of necessity, and how to make entire meals out of three items in the fridge, not just how to bake muffins for fun), how to shop (I mean non-frivolously), what needs to be done to maintain a car. Plus they come with all the kitchen utensils they would possibly need – something that is lacking in a lot of bachelor homes. That way you men can use the wedding registry for fun electronic gadgets or just ask for money to take a trip to Fiji. They get a strong sense of who they are that just doesn’t come until you live independently. Wouldn’t it be better to have a woman who has a sense of self, rather than one who may develop one later and may realize that it doesn’t click well with YOUR sense of self? Not to mention, career women come with work ethic, which is necessary if the housework will ever get done. Just because a woman isn’t working doesn’t mean she wouldn’t rather watch soaps all day than sweep the floor. Plus, a woman who has taken college math is better equipped to help the kids with their algebra homework, so you don’t have to do it.

Those are all the good qualities I can think of at the moment.

09-04-2006 06:51 PM

Re: so back on topic!
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself
“That way you men can use the wedding registry for fun electronic gadgets or just ask for money to take a trip to Fiji.”

The $24k I save not getting married affords many trips to Fiji and other destinations with beautiful Island girls and no nagging wife in tow. I win I win I’m free and single hahaha.

09-04-2006 07:31 PM

Re: so back on topic!
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Fiji? Are you kidding? That place is beautiful, but is full of obese women you are disgusting of. In that contry, people, especially women being fat are considered as beauties.

I get it. You ladies are so humorous

09-05-2006 12:23 AM

Re: so back on topic!
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

Ahh.. A good post, but first:

As for the females so desperate they must post anything in a vain hope of being noticed at all, a quote from an old classic the jungle book.

We the proud beasts walk through the forest; they of lesser being sit up in the trees. They through sticks and twigs that we might notice them, BUT WE DO NOT NOTICE THEM.

It’s not an exact quote because I regrettably no longer have my copy. But you get the idea!!!

Now PhatKat:

Thank you for posting and I take it your opinion follows the line of option one of my previous post. That the life of a career girl endows her with experience ability and personality traits that are not found in non career girls, and thus have unique benefits to offer a union.

Let’s now have a look at the list:

1) They learn how to pay bills

2) They learn how to budget

3) How to balance a checkbook

4) How to cook (in a style that’s different from a stay at home mom)

5) How to shop (in a non frivolous manor)

6) What needs to be done to maintain a car?

7) They come with kitchen utensils (is this a serious dot point or just a reference to the buy in the next half hour and get a free set of stake knives adds??)

8) A strong sense of self (which you say is not gotten at home)

9) A sense of work ethic

10) Better equipped to help the kids at school (it fascinates me you think stay at home moms can not be collage educated!)

And that about sums it up.

Well first off before I go on can I say I find that list very condescending! I mean really, if I was a stay at home woman id be fuming, and I don’t think your disclaimer of with all due respect is going to appease many of them.

but with that said I’m not going to just sit here and play the lets go through them one by one game, I know full well its to easy to judge when you simply take someone else’s ideas without also posting your own for comparison. So what I want you to do is look at the list you’ve created as if you were a man wanting to marry. And the first question I want you to ask is, is it true?

The next question is how relevant is that list to your decision to take a partner? And when I say that I’m saying it from a position of already having all those things for yourself (I promise you my pad comes complete with cooking utensils).

Next ask, does having that list mean that there are by definition things you don’t have? If so what are they? (Repeat question two)

If you manage to answer those questions in complete favor of the career woman, I now want you to weigh those answers against the prospect of what marriage is today. Your desire for a wife and children must outweigh the following:

Your right to your own income.

Your right to your own house.

Your right to ever see the children in the event of separation.

Your right to retire.

Your right to your own D.N.A.

Your right to choose.

Your right to personal safety.

You must understand that in the eyes of the law you are replaceable at any time with any other male of the woman’s choosing and obligated to fund the lifestyle of both the woman and the new husband no matter how he treats you children.

You must understand that any money given is at the complete discretion of the woman and that no matter the conditions your children are in you have no direct line to assist them. You cannot even bring them food should you find all your support at the bottom of the local poker machine.

You must understand that an accusation alone is all that is required to give you a criminal record and strip you of basic human rights and that at no stage is this accusation ever required to be proven.

You must understand that the marriage license gives no rights to a man and does not infer any responsibility onto the women. No promise or vow can be upheld, she need not cook, clean, look after the children or be faithful to have full legal right to children, money and assets.

Given this look at your answers for your questions and tell me weather you think you offer a good deal on the hole. Without going into the history of the last 40years if you were a man today who did not feel that woman and feminists have wronged him in any way would you marry a career woman?

Note that this assumes a man with no baggage, the man in question has not already been married once, is not already funding the removal of his children from his care at the expense of his own living conditions under the threat of jail. This man has never been the victim of either domestic violence or the not so often referred to domestic poison (a more common female equivalent of domestic violence). He has not been dragged through the system of false rape accusation and given a criminal record. He has never heard the vile lies of the mother spill out of his Childs mouth after months if not longer apart.

Perhaps if you were to look at marriage through the eyes of a man, then you may realize that any statistic that states a greater likelihood of these outcomes (no matter the true cause of the statistic) is reason enough for men to choose an alternate path.

09-05-2006 02:18 AM

Re: so back on topic!
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
OK, anti…first of all, the kitchen utensil thing was tongue-in-cheek. Most bachelors I know, ESPECIALLY the ones who are holding out for a woman who can cook for them, have maybe a pan, a wooden spoon, and an all-purpose steak knife. My boyfriend actually came with more than that, thanks to his mom, but I’ve added things that he didn’t know existed. But yeah, more a joke than anything there.

Second, that list was created primarily by my experiences and the experiences of female friends. There may be housewives who don’t fit into that mold. I don’t see where anything I said is against them. I just said that a woman who has lived and worked on her own is probably more likely to develop these traits. I know if I had stayed home and not moved away from mom and dad, I wouldn’t have learned any of those things.

I am assuming that a stay-at-home mom is not college educated, as I explained before, because the most hardcore of the “I’m not marrying a career woman!” crowd wouldn’t stand for it. Another poster here – dflynn whatever – advocated that a woman NOT go to college, at all, because she wouldn’t need that education as a housewife, and all it would do would create debt that the man of the house would accrue upon marrying her. If you want a woman without a career, why would you look for one with a degree? I only know of ONE person who went to college and wasn’t looking to actually use her degree in the workforce, and the only reason she went to college was because her parents forced her to.

So is it true? It’s true for me. It’s true for my friends. Would a man want them? Sure. A man doesn’t want to do everything for himself. If he did, he wouldn’t mind marrying a woman who spends 40 hours a week working outside the home. The men who want housewives don’t want to have to cook or clean or do the shopping, and they certainly don’t want a woman who spends money frivolously, maxes out the credit card, or bounces checks(men here have echoed that sentiment.) They don’t want to have to help the kids with the homework. He’s been working all day, he’s tired. He wants the woman to have the house under control.

Now, as for YOUR list, I don’t see where marriage takes away any of those things.

If you don’t want to lose any of your income, marry a career woman who makes enough money that she won’t ask for yours.

If you don’t want to share your life/house/posessions, don’t get married. Marriage is about sharing and compromise.

I don’t see how marriage threatens anyone’s personal safety or right to their own DNA, so you’re waaay over my head with that one.

I’m not here to talk anyone into marriage, especially not if that’s their view of it. There is a great deal of trust that goes into marriage; and yes, by today’s definition it tends more often than not to be a sham. That’s sad, really. There are people out there – male and female – who do want a real marriage – one that is built on trust and communication, where the slightest problem or dissatisfaction is not a reason to end it but a reason to work out problems. I don’t plan on ever getting divorced – that’s why I’m not married yet. (I’m not an old hag though – I actually just crossed over the age line to where marriage is statistically not at as high of a risk of divorce.) I’m making as sure as I can that whoever I marry is one with whom things will work – permanently.

So, if you don’t want to get married, don’t. Be happy being single and don’t be bitter about your opinion of marriage – an opinion that is sometimes true, sometimes not. If you do want to settle down with a good woman, best of luck finding her, whether she’s a CEO or a housewife. It’s up to everyone to find that person they can trust and support in whatever way is necessary.

09-05-2006 12:17 PM

Re: so back on topic!
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself
“So, if you don’t want to get married, don’t. Be happy being single and don’t be bitter about your opinion of marriage – an opinion that is sometimes true, sometimes not. If you do want to settle down with a good woman, best of luck finding her, whether she’s a CEO or a housewife. It’s up to everyone to find that person they can trust and support in whatever way is necessary.”

Who’s bitter? It seems the women are bitter about an article that shows higher divorce rates for career women. Are you bitter that it may change some mens minds of career women leaving you less of a selection to choose from? This article has more activity than all Forbes boards combined, it seems they hit a home run on this article.

09-05-2006 12:30 PM

Re: so back on topic!
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811

Freeyourself wrote:
“So, if you don’t want to get married, don’t. Be happy being single and don’t be bitter about your opinion of marriage – an opinion that is sometimes true, sometimes not. If you do want to settle down with a good woman, best of luck finding her, whether she’s a CEO or a housewife. It’s up to everyone to find that person they can trust and support in whatever way is necessary.”

Who’s bitter? It seems the women are bitter about an article that shows higher divorce rates for career women. Are you bitter that it may change some mens minds of career women leaving you less of a selection to choose from? This article has more activity than all Forbes boards combined, it seems they hit a home run on this article.

I didn’t say anybody was bitter. I just said not to be.

If you would read what I posted, I have a man so I don’t give a flying **bleep** about the “selection.” I just have a problem any time someone feels the need to negatively stereotype an entire group of people, and it does hit home a bit more when it’s the group I’m in.

09-05-2006 12:56 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – so back on topic!

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are very angry and frustrated.  Why is that?

09-05-2006 01:25 PM

Re: so back on topic!
Freeyourself
Regular Contributor
Freeyourself

phatkat811 wrote:

Freeyourself wrote:
“So, if you don’t want to get married, don’t. Be happy being single and don’t be bitter about your opinion of marriage – an opinion that is sometimes true, sometimes not. If you do want to settle down with a good woman, best of luck finding her, whether she’s a CEO or a housewife. It’s up to everyone to find that person they can trust and support in whatever way is necessary.”

Who’s bitter? It seems the women are bitter about an article that shows higher divorce rates for career women. Are you bitter that it may change some mens minds of career women leaving you less of a selection to choose from? This article has more activity than all Forbes boards combined, it seems they hit a home run on this article.

I didn’t say anybody was bitter. I just said not to be.

If you would read what I posted, I have a man so I don’t give a flying **bleep** about the “selection.” I just have a problem any time someone feels the need to negatively stereotype an entire group of people, and it does hit home a bit more when it’s the group I’m in.

You better get some thicker skin then. Try living in mens shoes and the stereotypes we get everyday. Talking to a woman at work can get a sexual harassment charge if she doesn’t like what you say. I’ve had women make sexual jokes at work but never did I join in with other ones since at any moment she could become offended. Everywhere a man goes and communicates he must be careful of his actions since the man haters are watching. This article proved it, women want this man fired for an article. You can’t ever discuss without wanting retribution.

09-05-2006 01:52 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

I think my biggest problem with your reasoning, anti, is that it seems to be largely based upon the fear of divorce… i.e., how much of a risk it is to get married, and what’s going to happen when she leaves and takes the kids, the house, and most of your money. and while divorce statistics are certainly grim, I just don’t feel like my boyfriend and I are at the mercy of statistics. so far, all of the divorced couples I know (granted, there aren’t many of them) share one thing in common: they never should’ve gotten married to begin with. too young, too soon, too incompatible, one of them feels like they’re “settling”, etc., etc. and rarely, if ever, is only one party to blame. and perhaps I’m a foolish optimist, but I have no reason to doubt that my marriage will last for the rest of my life.

does everyone think that when they get married? sure, probably. it’s hard to be objective about your own relationship. but in a lot of cases, there are warning signs right from the beginning, people just choose to ignore them.

09-06-2006 12:32 AM

Re: so back on topic!
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“…the fear of divorce … I just don’t feel like my boyfriend and I…”

Like we care a whole lot.

But, duh, why should you have any fear of divorce? You’ve got incentives to do it, as you’re already well aware, and you come out of it in pretty good shape.

The situation is quite different for the other half of the equation. Any man who would marry in this country is a fool at best and a total chump at worst. Sorry, but you’ve picked a loser. Not your fault; there’s no other kind available these days.

Marriage is six days of excitement, and the world’s record for sex.
Five more weeks of getting to know each other, fencing, lunging, and pulling back, finding each other’s weaknesses, and then the games begin.
After six months, each one has made a decision. The honeymoon is over, and marriage or divorce begins — until further notice. (Eric Berne)

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-06-2006 06:06 AM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

“But, duh, why should you have any fear of divorce? You’ve got incentives to do it, as you’re already well aware, and you come out of it in pretty good shape.”

umm… I see absolutely no incentives to divorce whatsoever. besides losing the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, doing irreparable emotional harm to your children, and ending up sad and alone and living with 15 cats… how is that “in pretty good shape”?

I dunno if you’ve been exposed to a lot of gold-diggers or what, but the idea that women are fine with the idea of divorce is ludicrous. you get married because you love someone and want to spend your life with them, not so you can steal their house and money and tell them to F off.

09-06-2006 01:22 PM

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are the exception.  I am happily unmarried, never been, never will be.  I am happy with my lovely girlfriend of several years.  I don’t need a piece of paper to demonstrate I love her.  Divorce rates are 50% for 1st marriages and over 70% for 2nd marriages with women filing over 75% of the time.  In California if I am married for over 10 years I am required to pay alimony for the life of a former spouse or:  1) until I die, 2) until she dies, or 3) until she remarries.  Community property statutes create a financial incentive to divorce.  I fully support no-fault divorce.  I also fully support having a prenuptial agreement to level the playing field and remove financial incentive to both marriage and divorce.  I am completely and utterly against spousal support as it removes all liability, accontability and responsibility from women as adults to take care of themselves.

09-06-2006 01:29 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

I actually agree with you about no-fault divorces and alimony. and while I wouldn’t personally want a pre-nup, they’re certainly a smart choice for anyone who makes a lot of money and/or is a poor judge of character…. although admittedly, I have limited sympathy for anyone who finds himself a trophy wife and is then shocked to realize she’s a shallow, greedy gold-digger. seems like you should maybe see that one coming.

anyway, my point is, I’m a big advocate of personal responsibility, so I’m generally opposed to most forms of alimony and spousal support.

09-06-2006 01:45 PM

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Prenuptial’s protect men (and some women) such as myself with high net worth and high income.   What is the first thing most women ask when getting a divorce?  “How much am I going to get?”  Sorry, but divorce is merely a business deal gone bad and, absent children, is purely an economic issue.   You will find many women use children as a negotiating tool to extract more capital.   I prefer never to put myself in that position.

09-06-2006 01:48 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

if divorce is purely an economic issue, then the marriage is the “business deal gone bad”… and anyone who views marriage like that shouldn’t be married.

however, if they’re going to anyway, a prenup certainly makes sense- any guy who’s rich, suspicious of women’s motives, and not really marrying for love has about a 0% chance of his marriage actually succeeding, so he’d better be prepared. in my case, my boyfriend and I don’t have significantly different incomes, so there’s no good reason for it.

09-06-2006 02:31 PM

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You are (again) using flawed female logic in your assesment of this issue.  A prenuptial eliminates motives beyond the purity of “love”.  If you love someone you will have no problem signing a prenuptial, since you love them.  Statistics don’t lie.  Empirical evidence is obvious.  Why are you ignoring the overwhelming logic and intelligence along with the actual data?

09-06-2006 02:40 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – so back on topic!

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

I didn’t say I would have a problem signing a prenup, I just don’t think it’s necessary with my current boyfriend because there isn’t a significant disparity in income between us. I agree that for some people, it’s a good idea, because it eliminates financial motives from the equation… so if you’re in a position where that’s a concern, it’s a good idea.

and sure, if you love someone, you should have no problem signing a prenup. but I would also argue that if you trust someone, you shouldn’t need to make them sign a prenup… which all goes back to the point about not marrying someone you don’t trust to begin with. logically, it makes sense. better safe than sorry. but you must understand why some women would find it offensive?

09-06-2006 07:22 PM

Re: so back on topic!
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I think I had a pretty normal childhood and young adult life – actually, since we were very upper middle class, since I have a much older brother and sister, since we are an intelligent and liberal minded group generally, and since we lived in Southern California – all considered, I probably had a much wider range of experience than most of the people in the world. Yet, I only heard jokes about, but never actually saw a “circle jerk.” That is, until about ten years ago. Being without a mate at the time, and having made for myself enough money to enjoy a lot of free time, I was in the habit of hanging out at a mostly gay coffeehouse just a block from my home. The youngsters were a stimulating and warm bunch to hang out with – excepting the bitter feminist-lesbians, of course. After about six months, and when I had been pretty well accepted as an OK straight – even as an OK straight “old guy,” some of the girls invited me to come along to a party at a nearby house, and I did. The circle jerk I witnessed there was a line of seven or eight young girls (up to thirty is young to me, you know) lying on their sides together like a bunch of spoons, each fingering the one in front of her. It is significant that the girl who invited me along that night is about 5 ft. 2 in. tall, and weighs about 300 pounds, has a degree in English lit., works, and wants me. The image of that party about sums up the current condition of American post feminist society: An interesting phenomenon, but not something you’d want to get involved in.

09-06-2006 07:22 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

ah, an investment banker… it all makes sense now.

I’m thinking you and I aren’t ever going to see eye-to-eye, because we live in two very different worlds.

09-06-2006 07:32 PM

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

If me being pragmatic, practical and logical is different than you then yes, we would not see i 2 i.

09-06-2006 07:49 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

well, given that I’m a scientist, I think I’ve got “logic” figured out, thanks.

unfortunately, you can’t apply it to relationships, to the exclusion of all emotion. most people (except perhaps you) simply don’t work that way.

09-06-2006 08:03 PM

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

What type of scientist are you?  What is your Ph.D. in?

09-06-2006 08:05 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

biochem. finishing my PhD this may.

09-06-2006 08:07 PM

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Congrats.  I have my B.S. in EE and my Masters in Business from Yale.   Many moons ago, between my Masters and BS flew jets for Air Force.

09-06-2006 08:09 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

thanks. I did my undergrad at MIT, grad at duke.

09-06-2006 08:17 PM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

anyway, it’s been fun, but it’s time to go feed the boyfriend. he gets grumpy when he’s hungry.

09-06-2006 08:18 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – so back on topic!

Re: so back on topic!
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

I was accepted and graduated from USAFA.  Not a fun time for the 1st 15 months, but worth it.

09-06-2006 08:22 PM

Re: so back on topic!
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Hey, I live in The Springs.

Funny how so many of us people with education in the sciences (astrophysics in my case) are working in other fields; I trade stocks now, when I’m not out in the wilderness pretending to be a wilderness photographer.

umm… I see absolutely no incentives to divorce whatsoever. besides losing the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, doing irreparable emotional harm to your children, and ending up sad and alone and living with 15 cats… how is that “in pretty good shape”?

“incentives to divorce”… Just because you don’t see them (yet?) doesn’t mean they’re not there for women in general. But if you have a change of heart or get liberated or something sometime in the future, you’re “in pretty good shape” compared to men. You’re young, so of course you’re more idealistic. Now.

I dunno if you’ve been exposed to a lot of gold-diggers or what…

No, there you go again thinking you know my life history. I’m not the sort of Neanderthal who hits on women for dates, so I’m totally invisible to them. I like it that way. I live a totally hassle-free life.

…but the idea that women are fine with the idea of divorce is ludicrous.

Not born out by the divorce numbers, and the roughly 70% initiation rate by women.

…you get married because you love someone and want to spend your life with them,

Of course. But you stay married for different reasons. And after some period of time, typically 4-6 years according to some studies I’ve seen, people decide they’ve spent enough of their lives together, etc.

…not so you can steal their house and money and tell them to F off.

It happens every day. It’s called the rape of the male.

You can see the utility in the statement “a chief purpose of marriage is to provide women with ex-husbands”, can’t you?

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-07-2006 12:22 AM

Re: so back on topic!
acrawfield
Regular Contributor
acrawfield

you can call me young and idealistic all you want, but I do think there are fundamental differences in how people view marriage and divorce. as far as I’m concerned, divorce is simply not an option, except in cases of infidelity or abuse, and my boyfriend feels the same way. it could be partly due to how we were raised, because we both come from fairly stable family backgrounds. or it could be because we’ve been together for awhile (almost 3 years), so the idea that we’ll be bored or sick of each other after 4-6 years seems pretty unlikely.

I also think a fundamental issue to this debate is the importance of money, and the implication that it provides some sort of incentive to divorce. now, I’m not claiming to speak for all women, but quite frankly, you could not pay me enough money to end my relationship. you can always make money, but people you want to spend the rest of your life with don’t exactly grow on trees. I’ll take “poor and in love” over “rich and alone” any day.

09-07-2006 06:07 PM

Re: so back on topic!
minx12
Regular Contributor
minx12

I also think a fundamental issue to this debate is the importance of money, and the implication that it provides some sort of incentive to divorce. now, I’m not claiming to speak for all women, but quite frankly, you could not pay me enough money to end my relationship. you can always make money, but people you want to spend the rest of your life with don’t exactly grow on trees. I’ll take “poor and in love” over “rich and alone” any day.

I agree completely with you. If the key to everlasting love was being poor, I’d be the first one in line to say “here, take the money.” I would rather be happy than be rich anyday.

09-07-2006 06:55 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: