In article ,
 hyerdahl3{at}aol.com (Hyerdahl3) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Women With High Salaries Wary of Gold Diggers
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com 
> >Date: 1/29/2005 8:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:

> >
> (edit)
> 
> >And this is a problem she is facing: She sees relationships in terms of
> rejecting men and being in the drivers' seat
> >at the beginning of a relationship.  She thinks she can make unilateral
> demands.  That is no longer the case.
> >Welcome to post feminism.
> >
> Women can (and do) make unilateral demands, but so do men.  Both are free to 
> do
> so, knowing there are consequences to such.
> (edit)>

Indeed.  And as "het" women realize the consequences to feminism they
are increasingly rejecting it.

> >As men know, women have lots of ways to find out a man's income>through
> probing them about their life.  "What do you
do?">"What kind of car do you
> drive?"  "Where did you go to school?"
> >
> I don't see that this method of interrogation would apply any less to women
> than to men.

That was my point.  This woman in particular had argued that by
not disclosing her income that she would be safe from golddiggers.
Men golddiggers can easily learn techniques to get around this 
just as women have.  (Hey, if we argue you gals aren't really
all that analytical, then men should pick them up quicker :-)

>  IOW, if the men in question are not self-obsessed, it's likely
> they will ask the same kinds of questions.
> (edit)
> >
> Some women are wary of being trapped in the breadwinner role  themselves. 
> Some
> want the companionship of men who are as ambitious as they are. Others want 
> the
> freedom to stay home with their children some> day.
> 
> This is true.  But so what?  I mean both women and men are free to make the
> kinds of choices that work best for them.

Certainly.  But merely making a choice doesn't necessarily mean it
will be fulfilled.  I have the freedom to buy a lotto ticket, but
that freedom is largely worthless.  

On a practical level, most women have less "freedom" to pursue the
"happiness" they desire than they did back 50 years ago.  You
put it best when you said that feminism wasn't about making
women happy, but about "equality" as feminism defined it.

> As other men pointed out, this is incredibly hypocritical
and>self-centered.  
> 
> Not really, Mark.  If your goal is to be a SAH parent, then that should be 
> part
> of your marriage plan, to have someone there who can pay the bills.  I don't
> see that it matters if you are male or female, just so the parties understand
> the nature of the agreement.

As these women are discovering, getting some choices involves losing
access to others.  

> They go to great pains to deny men
> >freedoms they themselves think should be a birthright.
> 
> Well, I don't see being a SAH parent a "birthright" since so
many women today
> do work outside the home, but it is certainly something the couple should
> discuss before marriage.

Ironically, these women are not willing to discuss this subject out
of fear that the man will deny it to them or seek such a choice for
themselves.

You can argue this doesn't apply to all career women, of course, but
the women in this article are laughably pathetic and hypocritical.

> >At the same time, even as they selfishly try to make>a grab for
"equality",
> they fail to see how it doesn't work out.
> >
> Equality works just fine, Mark.  Today most women plan on doing their fair
> share of the paid and unpaid work, and they expect a partner who agrees.

Yeah.  Howz your partner? :-)

> >I have a friend whose in-law is a lawyer and she complains>that all the
> lawyers she wants to date in her lawfirm are
> >too busy for a personal life (as is she.)  Two
successful>people are often
> going to not wind up hooking up>(at least not in the same stage of their
> lives.)
> >
> But Mark....that's where most couples meet these days, either at work or in
> work-related groups.  

She's perfectly free to date the office boy who delivers the mail
if she wants that support. :-)

In the meantime, this particular woman just turned 42 and I doubt
she'll be having any children.  

>  Men have their own conflicts over the issue. Not all men who seek>>
> high-earning dates want to be supported. 
> 
> True enough.  Most men already have some kind of career investment or some 
> idea
> of what they want to do for a living by the time they are ready to marry. 

And for men, taking the time to do this doesn't interfere with
their marriage plans but actually helps them.  Aging career
women seeking a breadwinner who meet up to their egalitarian
standards, well, aren't so lucky. 
 
> And
> today, few women expect to not work for money over the course of a lifetime.

Even a hundred years ago most women worked for a living even if not
at the same income as men.  On the contrary, the ability to stay
at home and solely look after one's children and hobbies was considered
a middle class luxury.  

> David Morin is looking for relief from the pressure of the solo-breadwinner
> role.
> >
> I don't see a problem with that, UNLESS he marries a woman who has the
> expectation of being a SAH mom who contributes nothing financial to the
> marriage.  Therefore, he should marry accordingly.

And this particular man clearly had done this in the past and held
himself responsible for the pressures he was under.

> >And women who have careers are all cookies and cream and>don't introduce 
> >their
> own pressures?
> 
> ????  Hardly.  I guess pre-marital counseling might be a good idea to make 
> sure
> each of the partners are getting the benefit of their own bargain.  :-)

Or he can just date for a decade or so and play the field.  HE can
always have children later with such a woman if he desires. :-)

> >> His wife stayed>> home with their two kids during their
seven-year 
> >> marriage,
> which ended in divorce. Working long hours then as a financial manager, he 
> says
> he was so stressed that he found it hard to relax with his wife.
"My emotions
> were on hold for a long time," leading to blow-ups, says Mr.>
Morin, 29, a
> Hampton, Va., investor and personal trainer. He has since sought out
> high-earning women through a dating site, who are "more
independent and more
> motivated than most of the guys I know."
> 
> I think that's A-ok.  In fact, it would be more healthy for him to seek the
> kind of woman who will take some of the stress away from him.  

Actually, I think his problem was largely due to him not managing his
fiances very well (this guy is a financial manager and he whined
about not having control of his money?)

Theoretically, he was getting "free labor", remember?  If he was
under strain, it must have been because the "free labor" was going
around wanting money to spend in her spare time.

> >Indeed.   But will he want to marry such a woman and deal>with all of her
> career complaints, etc.?  
> 
> Who cares?  :-)  You see Mark, nothing is ever enough for you.  :-)

I'm making the point that the grass is always greener on the other side.
Every lifestyle has it's associated problems.  I never promised
a rose garden. :-)

In answer to your question: HE cares and the women who desire
his companionship should try to meet his needs if they want
him to be the financial breadwinner for their ambitions EVEN IF
they do earn twice as much as he does.

He already has children so aging spinster successful career women
are going to have to go even further uphill.

>  We all
> make choices that tend to preclude other choices; when you seek a more
> independent woman, that's what you get, if you find one.  :-) 

Now that's a statement I agree with.

Note that this guy has found a LOT of such women and needn't marry
and I don't think he's interested in that lifestyle just about now.
Now these women, say, such as the 31 year old gal who wants
to have children don't have a lot of time. Tick tock tick tock.

> >>He's probably just having a good time playing the field:
> >
> Throw a few free meals at 'em, flash his pedigree, and have>a good time in 
> bed.
> >
> Again, who cares? 

I imagine women who go on a dating site probably care about the 
guy's future plans.  If they're sluts who just want to have a good
time in bed they could hit a bar.

> Pehaps the women are also just having a good time. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sure, I'm absolutely positive that happens.  But then again,
why do such women really need to post a personal ad then?
Why the concern by this man about dating women who earn
less money than him if he only wants women who want a good
time?  

Colonel Jessup, I do believe you are leaving something out.

> In the
> meantime, just because you never found a sugar momma doesn't mean that no one
> can.

Oooh, a jab there.

But this whole article's point is that such women don't WANT to
be a sugar momma.  Have you been paying attention?  

> Surely you're not implying that there are not lovable men out there 
> that
> some women wouldn't mind supporting?

I'm not.  The article _IS_.  Pay attention, please.

In fact, the whole laughable point of the article is that the women
wind up with the studs of their dreams only to discover that
(gasp!) he has more in mind out of life than cheaply pleasing
them.  They have their own agendas as does an "Irena".  

> Other men pursue high-earning women because they are drawn to the personal
> attributes of go-getters. Success "comes with stories and
experiences about 
> how
> she grew her own business, took a financial risk,> got herself through 
> school,"
> says Patrick Shaughnessy, 39, Chicago, a
> >> product-support manager who is successful in his own right, but enjoys
> >> dating high achievers. "This is the kind of woman I want
to be> associated
> with. At the end of the day, isn't it all about a laugh and> a story? A 
> shared
> experience?"
> 
> Sounds reasonable.

Translation: Sounds HOPEFUL.  A man who wants to be the
breadwinner for a successful woman simply because of her own
desires with no strings attached.

Of course, note that these women themselves said they want the "option"
to be a SAH mom, something this guy said he _doesn't_ want to support.

This guy may be smarter than he lets on because he'll encourage these
women to gab away about all their great stories and then the woman
will blurt out that she still wants the "choice" to be a SAH mom
(if it suits her) and make the "sacrifice" and he's off (and has
a lot more choices than her.)

>  And, it also sounds much more entertaining than a woman
> who
> has high heels on her feet but nothing much under her babushka.

I don't know if that's a jab at my wife, but I'll view it as
an opportunity to talk about "low income" earning women:

Traditional women often do have a lot under their babushka
and do a lot of "unpaid" work for the cheapest price of all:
Their family's love rather than precious money.  They can
engage in vacation planning and cook meals that would
make Martha Stewart jealous.  

Hmmm, that brings to mind the trend of high income earning women
blowing thousands to try to be more like traditional women.
Pretty funny

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/29/05 5:41:27 PM ---