Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Glitch on uploading.
Haven’t read the book. I will look at it. I don’t like monty python. The first time I saw a Fish Called Wanda I liked it, but not later on.[/quote]
I don’t really like the Wanda movie – I thought the Michael Palin character was a cheap shot – and I don’t love Jamie Lee Curtis. I like the Holy Grail, and the flying circus episodes.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]
Not going to spin it , just looking for a data point on the topic. Good Job, UCgal too (based post on the other thread.) The dumping is a joke….maybe I will put jokes in italics until you find that bone you lost. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there. One of the orthopedic guys could have come in handy there.[/quote]
Make the jokes funnier and I will get them. I hesitate to ask – was repeating the last sentence supposed to be a joke, too? Did you ever read “A Confederacy of Dunces” ? Husband hates it, I think it’s hysterical. One of the few humor things we disagree on. We both love Monty Python.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]
I am sure you followed your values. Quick question, you out-earned most the men you dated and dumped….how about the one you married?[/quote]
As I mentioned in the post – same education, same job and roughly same earnings (within a few percent – I can’t remember anymore). Not surprisingly I met him through work (although we did not work together), we had graduated the same year, so we were roughly in lock step. I don’t think I “dumped” people, but just in case you think I was getting rid of the low earners, a couple of them were orthopedic surgery residents, who were on track to out earn me. So you can spin that as you like. There were others (engineers, etc. – nerds probably in your estimation, and overall poor dancers) who were not expected to have the same gains. You won’t believe me, but I like people who I think are interesting and honest and generally share my values. I also tend to like Irish guys.
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=njtosd][quote=Blogstar]Little girl to little boy, show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Young lady to young man, show me your career and I’ll show you my mine, (see double entendre)[/quote]
I may have lost my funny bone, but you have some issues with women.[/quote]
LOL! Of course I do! I used to have more.[/quote]
Not sure if you have a daughter – that always seems to soften men up who have woman issues.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I prefer men to women.[/quote]
All men or just certain men? Like, what if you had a chance to hang out with Scott Peters vs. Miranda Kerr (my son considers her synonymous with “perfect”). And you seem to have married a woman . . . right?
Participant[quote=Blogstar]http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=men+are+success+objects%3F
The first link discussion is centered around some ideas expressed by the famous and highly regarded former board member of The NYC chapter of NOW, Warren Farrell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell
It’s nice when one of the books you have read and really got something out of, the author of said book, and his subsequent books, have stood up to the test of time.
Sorry, he is a man, I really apologize for that, but his work is highly acclaimed by some women too!
I know times are changing but I look around and see some familiar patterns as apparently do a lot other piggs. Hot women never go out of style, for instance.[/quote]
Wait, other than the apologizing for him being a man, I was interested in what you had to say, until you said “Hot women never go out of style, for instance.” The obvious retort is “Neither do rich men.” And then we’re right back where we started.
When I met my husband, we did the same job and earned the same, with the same education. Because he wanted me to relocate, and because we wanted to have kids soon after marriage (both of us were in our 30s), and because we both thought our kids would do best with a stay at home parent, we decided that I would stay home. I deliberately developed a well paying career, beginning in college, out of fear of being influenced by someone else’s paycheck. I out-earned most of the guys I dated.
I feel like I’ve followed my values – I may not have a funny bone (although I think I’m a stitch), but not all women are out for a success object.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Little girl to little boy, show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Young lady to young man, show me your career and I’ll show you my mine, (see double entendre)[/quote]
I may have lost my funny bone, but you have some issues with women.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]The very idea of imputed income as you put it CAr, is just weird.
Value is the what the market will pay, no more, no less.
More kids, more work = more income/savings? sounds ludicrous.[/quote]
Imputed income is a tax concept. Take a look back at my earlier post on this matter. It is particularly discussed in terms of real estate but it is just an interesting concept in terms of what this thread is addressing
Participant[quote=Blogstar] The woman will eventually marry a pilot or nerd or banker who might not even be all that nice or interesting and can’t dance.[/quote]
I do have a bias in favor of achievement. It usually is the result of good work habits and at least moderate emotional stability. You refer to pilots and nerds and bankers as though they are, de facto, boring. The most boring dates I had were with guys who felt they hadn’t achieved enough so they had to reinvent/inflate their careers. And you’re right, whether someone is a good dancer is absolutely not an issue at all, as far as I’m concerned.
Participant[quote=CA renter]…
The younger women are smart enough to look at the experiences of these women instead of following the rhetoric of the feminists who have destroyed the family unit, made women and children even more vulnerable, and denigrated the very important work that women have traditionally done. May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
At least the feminists are self-extinguishing as fewer of them have children; and when they do, it’s often one or (maybe) two. The feminist movement cannot die soon enough.[/quote]
Wow. I don’t know that I am anything that ends in -ist. I guess I’m somewhere between CA Renter and BG. I worked full time until I had kids, was a stay at home mom and now I’m a PT working mom and so far our family unit has not been destroyed. I am probably what would be considered highly educated (MS, JD) but my mind didn’t turn to mush when I was home with the kids and, frankly, I had a lot of fun with them. Sooner than I think, they will be at college and I want to be working when they are, as otherwise I will be bored and will fixate on whatever they are doing. They say I do that already. Live and let live – my favorite moms are the ones who are not sure whether they’ve taken the right path. The ones who are sure they are right always puzzle me.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=njtosd][quote=svelte][quote=CA renter][quote=svelte][quote=flyer]Not all beautiful women are vacuous gold diggers, just as not all handsome men are shallow trophy wife collectors, and I have to agree, to each his/her own when choosing a partner for all of the right
reasons–love, happiness, achieving life goals, etc., etc.The wedding, the ring, the fabulous honeymoon, the great house, and all of the “stuff” are nice, and we’ve all been there, but, IMO, what makes the relationship lasting and beautiful is the deeper bond that’s been forged by things that money can’t buy.[/quote]
Agree with every word.
That’s why alarm bells would go off if I even caught a whiff of a potential spouse that was marrying me for the money. To those who are together for the $$, that’s A-OK with me as long as it works for them. But that’s not what I want my relationships built upon.[/quote]
Should alarm bells go off when a woman catches a whiff of a potential suitor/spouse wanting her for her beauty? (I would say yes.)
It goes both ways.[/quote]
Hmmm – that’s a sexist thought!
By using the pronoun “she” and the phrase “it goes both ways”, you’re implying that my response was for women marrying men for money and not men marrying women for money. It was not – my sentences were gender neutral on purpose.
If your sentence was rephrased “should alarm bells go off when someone catches a whiff of a potential spouse wanting them for their beauty? (I would say yes)”, then I would agree that one should run if a suitor was after them only for their beauty. Keyword “only”.
The beauty thing is a slippery slope. You have to be physically attracted to your spouse for it to work – so yeah I partly married for beauty. But beauty alone would not have been enough for me to marry her. Not even close.
She had a nice dowry too.
(j/k)[/quote]
Wait, your sentence was talking about someone marrying you for your money. Unless you were open to marrying a man or a woman, you weren’t being gender neutral.
What if someone said they married their spouse partly for the money?[/quote]
Yes, ntojd, all of my statements where gender neutral. I can only have one spouse at a time in the US until we adopt more Mormonesque rules, and I would make the same statement whether the spouse I pick(ed) was male or female. So all of my statements are indeed gender neutral! Nice try at spin, though.[/quote]
You have a wife (always a woman, I think). You’ve mentioned that in other postings. So I guess what you’re saying is that you’re open to marrying a man. Which is fine.
Participant[quote=joec]I think what this all shows is that society in general clearly values beauty. We can tell ourselves that it doesn’t matter and it’s whats in the inside that counts the most, but that’s just ugly people trying to make themselves feel better.
Every study has shown that more attractive people get better opportunities, get hired more, higher pay, you name it…
Does it suck? Sure, if you’re not high on the looks scale, but that’s how it’s always been and I don’t see it ever changing.
Regarding how people are even if you know them, it still boils down to what people look since everyone can see if without knowing a thing about someone…
I found this article funny when it was first posted…goes back to the reality in society that looks matter a lot, most of the time, more than whatever you do or are good in, especially for girls/women.
I do think I tend to care less about other people’s looks than average, but I’ll leave that aside for the moment. In terms overall public perception, looks appear to matter a lot for men as well, but height and build are at the top of the list. The weight issue is important to both sexes. Interesting article below that estimates the income (with respect to both sexes) necessary to overcome physical traits perceived to be less desirable:
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?[/quote]
Publicly funded suggests that whatever political party was in power of those pubic funds would have a fair amount of control over the message. And who gets to decide that something is “fair”? Both CNN and Fox (at least) claim to be unbiased – ha! I agree that it would be great if there was some way for candidates to be presented without the support of special interests. I just don’t see any way of doing it. The special interests are very motivated to exert control (I vote as an independent, by the way, so I see special interests on both sides of the political divide) and they’re like bugs – they will find a way in one way or another.
Participant[quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?
-
AuthorPosts
