In article ,
 "Heidi Graw"  wrote:

> >"Mark Sobolewski" 
wrote in message
> >news:mark_sobolewski-718790.12315316012005{at}news.central.cox.net...
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> O.k...so I *underestimated* their wages.  I was only
providing an example
> >> using people's jobs as their descriptor, rather than based on what sex
> >> they
> >> are.
>
> >Mark S. wrote:
> > So try to use an example that has some merit to the real world.
> > "underestimated" their wages?  Show a real couple that earns more
> > for each profession and I'll tip my hat to you.
>
> I live in BC...the entrepreneurial spirit runs high.  People have realized
> that when they work for an employer, they don't get nearly the kind of wages
> they would want.  So, they set themselves up as contractors and place a high
> value on their labour.  A self-employed welder will command a $125.00 per
> hour and will actually get that!   That guy is busy all the time. An
> automechanic working out of his own garage at home can demand $100.00 per
> hour and get it...there's a constant stream of vehicles being serviced.
> Self-employed computer programmers can ask for $150.00 per hour and they
> can't keep up with the demands.
>
> The kind of wealth these entrepreneurs are accumulating is amazing...they're
> building expensive executive homes.  They've got condos in Whistler...a ski
> resort.   My own neighbourhood experienced a property value increase to over
> 70% in just two years!   Small business is booming, houses are slapped up in
> bulk numbers.  The fastest growing sector is the entrepreneurial
> class...they're busy as heck and they can ask whatever wages and fees that
> the market will allow for.  They're not limited by what an employer may give
> them.  They set their own rates and get it.

I asked you to name a real couple.

As I keep repeating, this is about the lives of real people.
I worked in Silicon Valley too.  I know about some people striking
it big but most earned a decent living if they were lucky.

The question is how many "poor" mechanic men REALLY are going to
marry egalitarian SUPER high earning computer programming women?
What about the rest of the population?

> > I usually avoid such challenges because it's possible to find
> > an exceptional couple that beats the norm.
>
> In my town it's quite normal to be self-employed.  One can set whatever
> rates and get it.  People place a high value on their labours and there seem
> to be enough others who are prepared to pay those high rates.

Pardon if I'm being fecitious, but do you and your husband then
have a combined income of no less than $160,000 per year?
You make it sound as if anyone with a halfway decent qualification
should be earning $40 per hour plus.

> > I think we're getting into an argument of such abstractions that
> > the discussion becomes meaningless.  The mechanic is paid
> > less than the computer nerd in the original example.  They aren't being
> > treated equally to begin with.
>
> Yet each has an *equal opportunity*.   The mechanic can ask for more, or
> he/she can retrain to be that computer nerd.

As I said, at an abstract level this is true but at a realistic level,
it's not.  Did you ever see Office Space?  There's a cute scene
where the co-workers are talking about their guidance counselor
asking them what they wanted to be and some said Doctor, or
Scientist, or astronaut and they laughed and said that if that
was true, nobody would work as a janitor or clerk.
(See it if you can, it's a cool film starring the former
Jennifer Anniston Pitt)

Women have an opportunity created by sexist women: The majority
of SAH spouses and people who marry for money are women.
This means that there is no *equal opportunity* for men to
take time off when it suits them or maybe to raise kids
if their skillset is better there.  For 99% of men (and that's
probably not an exaggeration), there are two choices:
Earn a decent living or starve to death.

> The higher paid computer nerd
> isn't going to tell the mechanic, "Hey, my vote at the polls
counts for more
> than yours 'cause I earn more."

It's quite simple: If the highly paid computer nerd
is a woman and the guy is a mechanic, it's HIGHLY unlikely
she's even going to say anything to him to begin with!

I've had a similar discussion on soc.men (I'm not comparing you
or anything, just having fun telling a story.  Bear with me)
with a feminist who tried to make a similar argument:
"Why, when a couple is together, the higher paid spouse should
never hold that over the other person's head"  Well duh.  That's
because the woman arranged it that way to begin with and
she was the lower earner.  Gee, the last thing she wants
is sexism from a guy she chose for sexist reasons.

Ok, I can't resist, I'll go on:

She then went on and tried to excuse the women by saying that
women know that men won't be a good "wife" anyway so they don't
bother looking for him but instead wait for the successful
guys to ask them out because that's what "sexist" men want.
Follow this so far?

Then, if all works out and he pays for everything, they get
married and THEN, all of a sudden, the man should understand
that it's an "equal" relationship.

I pointed out that this didn't seem very fair especially since
by her own argument, she knew the guy lived up to his own
sexist requirements that she accepted and she responded
with something like:

"Well, if he doesn't start being eglitarian and change diapers,
she can divorce him and take him to the cleaners."

Gee, and it surprises the media that there are now millions
of aging career women who can't find egalitarian spouses.

> > Once married, both people suddenly lose their independance.
> > The ability to bargain is lessened somewhat.  If there's a spat,
> > the other person can't run back to their apartment to cool off.
>
> In BC one or the other may run off to their condo in Whistler to cool off
> and maybe take a flying leap down the ski slopes.  Or, one or the other may
> head out to that cabin in the woods, or the vacation home by the lake.  I
> actually don't know of many people in my town who do not have a secondary
> residence to escape to.  And even if they don't, most can afford to stay in
> a hotel or motel for a few days to cool off if they really need to get away
> from each other for a time.

That sounds incredible.  I was speaking metaphorically (I know,
I talk of keeping things real but you know what I mean).  When I talked
of cooling off, I meant that the person was independent and had
more bargaining power than they would when they are married.

> Anyway, Mark, I'm realizing you believe that within marriage the person with
> the most money gets to call the shots.

I didn't say that but I was saying that the person earning the
income deserves respect and yes, a little more veto power.

Think about this: Don't women have these careers so they can
be treated "like human beings" and have more power and independence
and run off if the man treats them badly?  I can appreciate that
power, but I find it rediculous that you pretend this power
is irrelevent when the -----> VAST <-------- majority of men
and women out there see money impact their personal lives.

> If this works for you, then fine.

Think about it this way: If a person insists that the other person
earn at least as much as them (or more), but insists upon "equality"
otherwise, that means the other person is, by definition, less
of a human being.  Let's balance this equation:

X = Y + "mo' money"

Therefore:

Y (the man) = X (the woman) - money

So the man must make up a deficit in order to be regarded as worthy
of her time.  That's an equal relationship?

> Bear in mind others can and do share in the decision-making process

HAHAHAHA!

Does this include the single mothers who wind up having kids
out of wedlock because they don't want to marry a man they
consider a loser because he doesn't earn enough?  Or career
women winding up as spinsters?  Get the point?  Basically,
if these relatioships work it's IN SPITE OF this equality
nonsense, not because of it.

Relationships are sexist because that's what women have PROVEN
they need.

> regardless of moneys earned or amount of work invested.  An awful lot
> depends on the couple's personalities, too.
>
> Heidi

regards,
Mark Sobolewski

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/16/05 10:39:03 PM ---