Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Woman earns Nobel Prize (allows husband to stay-at-home
after he
> >pays for everything)
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> >Date: 1/17/2005 7:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:

>
> >
> >You were saying that people don't think that money is so important
in
> determining equality in a marriage but, so far, you have to talking
about freak
> occurances for men to even HAVE a relationship with a woman where he
didn't
> support himself and even then, I don't think we've heard the full
story.
> >
> I've seen marriage where the woman earns more than the man, but I've
not
> personally witnessed marriages where the man stays home 24-7, to care
for home
> and hearth.  I do know of one marriage where she is a doctor and he
is a house
> husband, but they have no kids.     I simply don't think women have
much
> incentive to support men, nor need they.  I mean no one is forcing
folks to
> marry ...here in the west.

There's plenty of incentives actually!

1) "Free" labor, for example.  All those poor women's reproductive
rights
marchers last summer who lamented that the USA didn't have German
style socialist daycare could easily have such services for free if
they had a househusband.  Problem solved! :-)

2) Eye-Candy.  Men accept and understand that attractive spouses
come with a price tag.

3) Love.  It depends upon what someone finds precious to them.
If money is a person's most precious asset, then that person
isn't going to have very deep intimate relationships anyway.

If women don't find these incentives valuable enough to go against
their sexist, innate, biological urges then equal rights for women
is contrary to their heterosexual existance.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/8/05 6:38:11 PM ---