- This topic has 794 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 21, 2014 at 6:48 PM #779162October 21, 2014 at 6:49 PM #779163
svelteParticipant[quote=scaredyclassic]Um. Facts?
Just cause someone answers a question a certain way don’t make it a fact.In fact I would say it is a fact that women say they want things other than what they claim or even think they want.
Hypothetically $ not important in my fantasy cosmopolitan questionnaire.
But what is reality on the ground?
Special snowflake white women seem less forthcoming than black respondents.[/quote]
Fact: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone things about a particular thing
It is a *fact* that women answered the survey the way they did.
It is your *opinion* that they are lying.
Not hard to understand.
October 21, 2014 at 6:51 PM #779164svelteParticipantWow, go away for a while and this thread doubles in size!
To those of you who think most women marry for money, you scare me actually. It smacks a bit of “that’s the way it is in my relationship and it’s OK because most relationships are that way also.” Well, you must have surrounded yourself with a different type of females than I have.
If people want to marry a spouse for money, that’s their prerogative and I’m fine with that. But it’s not a quality I would want in a spouse, not what I would want my spouse looking for, not a quality that the folks I choose to surround myself with have, and not a quality I believe most men and women have. Thus my perspective that it is not common – backed up by Pew and company.
It’s nice to have and I’m glad I have some now, but I could live a perfectly content life if it all went away tomorrow. Maybe that is why stock market plunges don’t frighten me. As long as I have my wife by my side I’m a happy man.
BTW – I have always been a equality-minded male. We raised the kids equally and her friends were usually shocked by all the chores I took on with the kids. And I maintained myself pre-kid, during-kid, and post-kid, thank you. Not once has my wife done my laundry or ironed my shirt ever – I do my own upkeep. Slowly things gravitated towards her doing house cleaning and me doing outdoor maintenance, but she hated mowing grass and replacing brake pads and I wasn’t keen on scrubbing floors. We got a maid to do her chores for her about a decade before we got a gardener to replace some of mine. Maybe that “equality” mindset is why neither of us chose a spouse based on how much we thought they could earn…neither of us expected to be kept and were dead set on developing marketable skills to ensure we could survive without the other.
I guess I’m quite disheartened by what some folks on here feel most spousal motivation is. Scary really…it really is.
I’m gonna stay over here on my side of the fence where the air is pure, the motivations innocent, data is trusted above hearsay and prejudice, and the adults prefer to be self-sufficient.
October 21, 2014 at 6:53 PM #779165svelteParticipantThinking about it a bit more, I’m wondering:
– Is it a city/country thing? Most of my friends and I grew up in small towns. Maybe folks from the sticks – like where I and most of my friends grew up – didn’t grow up caring a whole lot about money.
– Maybe it’s a rich upbringing thing. Most of my friends and I had very little growing up and had no expectations of ever having anything. It was – and is – much more important to find someone who wants the same thing out of life as I do…regardless of their ability to earn gobs of money. We could live on crackers and water if we had too – and did for a bit there in the beginning. And we were perfectly happy.
– Maybe it’s a control thing. I want someone I can control, I want someone to have control over me.
I don’t know. Intentionally seeking out someone to support me or someone to support is at odds with my very basic values. It is very distasteful to me.
Why I’m absolutely certain my wife is not that way:
I was broke, living at home, jobless and bumming around from community college course to cc course (ladies there!) when my wife started dating me. I can tell you without a doubt she was *not* dating me for current or potential future earnings. Hell, she was doing better in school than I was! She married me because I could hold a decent conversation, I treated her right, I knew how to have fun, and I had a dangerous edge without being too dangerous.
Another piece of evidence I have from that time period: When I was dating my future wife, an ex-gf from across the country sent me a letter unaware that I was in another relationship. It was OK because it wasn’t a “let’s get back together” letter, just a “I thought of you today” letter. At one point in the letter, my former gf said that she’d decided the best thing is to marry for money. My future wife was just fine with all the former-lover stuff – until that sentence. She got angry when she read that sentence – very angry. I was glad there was a continent between the two. 🙂
Most of my male friends likewise met their wives when they were in similar unassuming situations. They can be sure their wives weren’t after their money because they didn’t have any at the time, and I sense that in their relationship too.
Out.
October 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM #779167CA renter
ParticipantJust realized that those tax numbers are too low. I forgot to include the first income. The increase in taxes would depend on the income of the first income-earner, but it would definitely be more than what I’ve stated above.
October 21, 2014 at 7:02 PM #779168bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter]Link for childcare expenses for young children:
http://www.crs.ymca.org/child-care/cost-of-child-care.html
[/quote]How are those costs so out of line? I don’t see anything to untoward about those costs except that they fail to mention discounts for additional-child(ren) in the same family and the costs for the same type/age of care seem to vary wildly by area of the county. This can be remedied by finding a childcare situation near work if one lives in an area where it tends to be pricier. Or vice versa.
How do these costs reduce a parent’s wage to .30 on the dollar (unless they have 3 or more children who are not yet in school all day)?
In addition, the tables are only for private daycare. It doesn’t mention programs such as Headstart (preschool and pre-K) and DASH (afterschool care) whose costs are tied to the family’s income. Also, it doesn’t mention the Y’s own afterschool programs and the fact that they send free buses to almost all the elementary schools to pick kids up afterschool.
CAR, what about your “professional” friends who made more than $80K per year? How is it that they end up with .30 on the dollar in net wage after daycare expenses?
I’m at a loss as to how it is presumably not worth it for supposedly skilled, “professional” parents to hold down a job.
October 21, 2014 at 7:16 PM #779169scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=scaredyclassic]Um. Facts?
Just cause someone answers a question a certain way don’t make it a fact.In fact I would say it is a fact that women say they want things other than what they claim or even think they want.
Hypothetically $ not important in my fantasy cosmopolitan questionnaire.
But what is reality on the ground?
Special snowflake white women seem less forthcoming than black respondents.[/quote]
Fact: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone things about a particular thing
It is a *fact* that women answered the survey the way they did.
It is your *opinion* that they are lying.
Not hard to understand.[/quote]
the way a question is posed triggers a certain answer.
also, the details of the survey int he link dont bear out what you say.
October 21, 2014 at 7:18 PM #779170ParticipantBUSINESS
v.
PLEASURE
raising kids is not business.
it falls under the hobby/pleasure category.
doesn’t mean it’s not difficult work.
i don’t think anyone ever claims it’s not a lot of “work”. Just that it’s exactly as much work as you want it to be.
October 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM #779172ParticipantSvelte, I think you’re confusing “marrying for money” with wanting to marry someone who won’t destroy your marriage due to financial difficulties. That can manifest itself in many ways: flippant attitude toward debt, lack of work ethic or sense of responsibility, spendthrift ways, etc.
No offense, but (totally IMHO) a person would have to be a complete idiot if they didn’t take these things into consideration when choosing a mate.
And we definitely have different priorities at different stages in life. I’m sure many of us would have dated (maybe married) someone like you’ve described yourself at the age of 19 or even 21. Not so much at the age or 30 or 40. There is an expectation that people will have fun when young, but manage to find a foothold, improve their circumstances, and gain more responsibility as they get older. Might want to ask you wife if she would marry you *today* if you were still bumming around the CC campus, living with parents, and broke. 🙂
Money is just ONE of many variables that is taken into consideration when choosing a mate, especially when choosing one with whom you plan to have a family.
October 21, 2014 at 7:26 PM #779173Participant[quote=svelte][quote=scaredyclassic]Um. Facts?
Just cause someone answers a question a certain way don’t make it a fact.In fact I would say it is a fact that women say they want things other than what they claim or even think they want.
Hypothetically $ not important in my fantasy cosmopolitan questionnaire.
But what is reality on the ground?
Special snowflake white women seem less forthcoming than black respondents.[/quote]
Fact: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
Opinion: a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone things about a particular thing
It is a *fact* that women answered the survey the way they did.
It is your *opinion* that they are lying.
Not hard to understand.[/quote]
i think i get it. if something for instance were illegal or seen as immoral, and doctors were required to report it, and patients were asked if they did that, there would be a lot of answers to questions given. but not a lot of facts about reality. say for instance a doctor were required to report to the police anyone who was using narcotics and would be incarcerated. No one would ever tell their doctor they used drugs in response to that question. Under your scenario, that would be a “fact”, since they answered the question that way.
but that’s insane.
it’s not a fact.
it’s a data point of how people want to be eprceived in answering a question.
so if you ask people what sort of person they think they are, or what sort of values they think they hold or might aspire to hold, and the question is phrased such that answering it a certain way makes them feel that they are showing their worst selves, you may find that you do not gather a lot of truth, although you may gather a lot of “data” or “facts”, as you call “data”.
when I say fact, in connection to some psychological reality, i mean something connected to some sort of truth. not just its purported existence by people’s general claims of what they might want to say.
October 21, 2014 at 7:29 PM #779174Participantkev’s ex needs a 90k signing bonus to pay off debt.
October 21, 2014 at 7:31 PM #779175Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Link for childcare expenses for young children:
http://www.crs.ymca.org/child-care/cost-of-child-care.html
[/quote]How are those costs so out of line? I don’t see anything to untoward about those costs except that they fail to mention discounts for additional-child(ren) in the same family and the costs for the same type/age of care seem to vary wildly by area of the county. This can be remedied by finding a childcare situation near work if one lives in an area where it tends to be pricier. Or vice versa.
How do these costs reduce a parent’s wage to .30 on the dollar (unless they have 3 or more children who are not yet in school all day)?
In addition, the tables are only for private daycare. It doesn’t mention programs such as Headstart (preschool and pre-K) and DASH (afterschool care) whose costs are tied to the family’s income. Also, it doesn’t mention the Y’s own afterschool programs and the fact that they send free buses to almost all the elementary schools to pick kids up afterschool.
CAR, what about your “professional” friends who made more than $80K per year? How is it that they end up with .30 on the dollar in net wage after daycare expenses?
I’m at a loss as to how it is presumably not worth it for supposedly skilled, “professional” parents to hold down a job.[/quote]
In my adittedly limited experience, the drive of a woman to stay home with her children is beyond intense and rational calculation. it is chemical, hormonal and almost crazed. i say that ina good way; i don’t think that’s a bad thing for her r for the kids. but guys cannot relate, because, well, we have no desire for it.
October 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM #779176Participanti fear this thread is like an argument between spouses over an unresolvable issue in which both sides have dug in their heels. it may never end…has there been a thread in existence since the beginning of the internet which never died out.
liek an eternal flame…
October 21, 2014 at 7:39 PM #779177ParticipantThanks for your diatribe, svelte. I can’t believe I’m saying this (to you!) but I concur with all of it. I also believe everyone goes through life changes and it is all part of our personal journey.
I believe in personal and financial responsibility for all adults. And I do agree that every parent (unless severely disabled) has a fundamental duty to financially support their children. If they are not, then they are in a “tacit arrangement” (no matter what their marital status) and that is okay, too. I have met people (all females) “after the fact” who admit they married for money. Since I didn’t meet them until after their relationships were over, I can attest in all cases that it didn’t end well for any of them. I’m not saying I think anyone on this forum is, but I’ve met several women who I thought were completely delusional about what they thought they were “entitled to” both monetarily and percent of child custody timeshare in their family law case and in all cases they were way off base. You can only split a 50/50 community so many ways before there is nothing left. That includes the community debt. The vast majority of (former) FT or nearly FT caregivers of their children believed that they were the only ones who could deliver the kind of care to them to keep them happy, healthy and well-adjusted. But they figured wrong. They figured the other parent wouldn’t fight the fact that they petitioned for 85-100% custody timeshare of the child(ren) and figured they could just remain in the family home with their children (which they couldn’t afford) and somehow a little elf was going to pay all their bills.
As I posted before, the way the child support formulas are written in CA provokes and invites the family’s primary breadwinner in nearly all cases to petition for their 50%, as it their right. It doesn’t matter if they have NEVER taken care of their own children. It is much cheaper for them to have a garnishment for CS that is 100% less than they would have had if they had just settled for every other weekend and one weeknight per week with their child(ren), as was once the norm. The child support burden on these payor-parents is so heavy (esp if there are 3+ children) that there is no way most of them can even live themselves unless they can find a way to take their children 50% of the time. And they do. And the payee’s CS is never enough to live on (in any case it is intended for the child[rens] support). If the CS payee isn’t making enough to live on and is not severely disabled, it is purely a function of the choices they made while living in the “tacit arrangement.”
This reality was a very difficult concept for some of these women to accept.
October 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM #779179Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]kev’s ex needs a 90k signing bonus to pay off debt.[/quote]
LOL…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.