Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men

[ROMAD]

An essay about marriage. It's a good read with some valid points. Sadly I see some similarities in my marriage even though I'm very happy.



This is a long read.



http://www.edmecka.com/blogs/6/Dont-Marry-Essay---Why-Marriage-Has-Become-a-Raw-Deal-for-Men.html


Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men
By Lee Raconteur Published 11/7/2006
Lee Raconteur
Don't Marry Essay
Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men

By: Lee Raconteur

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what he may be getting himself into when he marries. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them in communicating frankly their concerns and expectations of marriage with their potential spouses. The aim of this writing is to also enlighten women with some of the reasons why increasing numbers of successful eligible unmarried men, who otherwise prefer monogamous long-term relationships, are turning their backs on marriage.

Society automatically paints a stereotype on men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry. They are labelled as:
a) womanizers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
b) Selfish/childish/irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.
No other explanation is ever explored.

The cost of proclaiming your undying love
(aka: The tip of the iceberg)
Except in professional sports and presidential elections, women are given the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Also, contrary to feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as their male counterpart. Despite this reality, many women come into a marriage with very little assets, and often, are saddled with substantial debt. In general, men are the ones who save and invest. (Don't believe me? Count the number of women of marrying age you know who subscribe to Fortune, Forbes, or Money magazine) A significant number of 20 and 30-something women spend most of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of clothing, purses, shoes, etc. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. (Yet ironically, in the media, men are the ones who are portrayed as reckless, irresponsible spendthrifts)

** Disclaimer: For the purposes of this essay, I will be generalizing about the potential circumstances and gender roles that can plague men in today's modern marriage. What is the exception and what it the rule is open to debate. Certainly not all (or perhaps even most?) marriages end up as described. However, the aim is to simply educate men of some of the potential outcomes that exist for today's marriage and divorce.


When marriage enters the picture, double standards and financial imbalances leave responsible men to pick up the slack. (And also fix the mess she may have made). For starters, men are forced (yes, forced) to spend their hard earned savings (or take a loan) on a diamond ring. Women justify this relatively nascent ritual (spawned by a brilliant 1940's mass-brainwashing campaign launched by DeBeers) by insisting a man wants to buy her a diamond. That it makes a man proud to proclaim his love and affection this way. Granted, some men may be this way, but there are plenty who seek a lifelong partnership and commitment, yet have no interest in buying diamonds. What choice do these men have? None! To many young men, the ring/wedding is a unwelcome landmine in their journey towards adult financial stability. To add insult to injury, (a recurring theme in marriage, as you will see), the man is now locked into a lifetime of insurance payments for this grossly overpriced jewelry. (Contrary to popular belief, diamonds are not rare, but their supply has been artificially manipulated) Some men are more concerned with realizing their dream of owning a home, and/or becoming financially stable enough to begin a family. Men worry about these matters, because, ultimately, it becomes their responsibility as well.

This just portends the things to come. Immediately after buying a ring, the man may be rewarded with demands of financing all or part of a lavish wedding.... (Depending on the size of his bank account.) The costs of today's weddings exceed that of a house down payment. (Or in certain parts of the country, the house itself) If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched from right from under him. Many men may object to spending this sum of money on a one-day party. (Or spending a year of their life planning it, when they could use the same time to further their career or education) However, what a man wants is really not of any concern. Non-negotiable. A wedding is no longer for the bride and groom. As today's Bridezilla gleefully reminds you, "This is MY day". (Which ostensibly, gives her carte blanche to become selfish, irresponsible, and childlike) Are all women like this? Not at all. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. A man who balks at spending his entire life savings (or going into debt for) a ring & wedding & exotic 5-star honeymoon can be labeled a selfish cheapskate or not a "real man". (Meanwhile, what exactly constitutes a "real woman"?) In fact, if a woman leaves a man for suggesting they try to keep their costs under control, she would have full support from everyone around her. "She can do better than that"...."Clearly, he doesn't love her"..... etc. This is a sign of good self-esteem, and that she won't settle for anything less. Yet, in the same breath of this sense of entitlement, women proudly proclaim how equal & independent they are. However, can you imagine if a man demanded equal treatment? For example, demanding the woman buy him a boat, and a 2 week bear hunt in Siberia as a condition of marriage? This would be viewed as absurd, yet women do it every day. Marriage is a partnership, right? Please read on, my friend.

The injustices can go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If the man can afford to carry the entire financial burden, the woman can elect to stop working. (Regardless of how the man may feel about the decision) The day the woman stops working is the day all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets thrown onto the man's head. If the woman has racked up credit card debts, these are now his payments. If the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these also become the man's responsibility. (Stomach-churning irony = the man is stuck paying for her degree, and she's not even working anymore!!) And can the man object? Can he say, "No, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead." No, the payments can't be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself (Besides, that day may never come) Not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home. If he even suggested that she return to work to pay off her own debts, he would be chastised as bad father, endangering the welfare of his newborn. So, the responsible husband now compensates for the mother's freewheeling irresponsible past, and pays off all her debts. In yet another sick twist of irony, the husband may be paying off credit cards used to finance vacations and xmas gifts shared with previous boyfriends, etc. Buyer beware! This is the reward for today's man who works hard, makes sacrifices, plans ahead, and invests wisely. Again, this doesn't always happen. But by getting married, the man is certainly susceptible to being railroaded into this situation, because it is completely acceptable within today's accepted gender roles. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.

Marriage can mean career slavery
(aka: A good paycheck can mean career slavery)
Anyone who says "Slavery is dead" clearly has not contemplated the predicament of many American fathers. Webster's defines slavery as "the state of being under the control of another person." If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality, and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the men who have been left holding the financial bag find their options limited. They may find themselves stuck in careers they hate, or working for abusive exploitative management, working excessively long hours, working in jobs that are physically threatening, that have no growth potential, enduring prolonged commutes, etc. At this point, considering the corner he's been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any change in his own life. A husband may have been harboring delusions that once the wife was able to return to work, he would gain some flexibility to rectify some of the shortcomings in his own career (For example, changing careers or accepting a lower salary at a different firm, in exchange for better hours, shorter commute, and/or more fulfilling work, etc) But, a distinct reality is that he will continue to shoulder the financial responsibilities alone....A man's reward for working hard and getting ahead is to become trapped into his career, and shoulder the financial burdens of a family alone. Does it pay to work hard anymore?

If she stops working, she may never work again.
(aka: Caveat Emptor)
There are many debates about the merits of a stay-at-home mother vs. a working mother. My goal here is to simply educate the man on the unseen risks he is taking when he agrees to accept 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home. Again, an informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.


Every parent will agree that staying home with a child is back-breaking (and often mind-numbing) labor. Many new fathers will concede that it is much easier to go to work than to stay at home with several children. However, the greatest imbalance in efforts and contributions to a marriage can manifest once all the children are of school age. The house is now empty from 8am-3pm. The wife has 7 hours to herself, while the kids are at school, and the husband is at work. After a few years of hard work at home, many wives may feel entitled to "kick back." The good husband however, has worked those same years, has done his 50/50 of the housework, and is still working to support the family once the kids are in school. He is rarely afforded the same option to scale back his daytime efforts.

What motivation does the modern wife have to return to work? Very little. For several years now, the man's salary has been enough to live on. (Otherwise, she would have been working) Unless tight finances dictate that she must return to work, the husband really has little say in this matter. The wife can hide behind many different excuses in order not to work, despite having little to do from 7am-3pm:

"I'm busy with the housework"
It is easy to exaggerate the labors of daily housework. Yet, how long does it take to throw clothes into the wash, and remove them later? Vacuuming can be done in 1 hour a week. Grocery is another hour per week. A decent meal can be prepared in under an hour. Does all this add up to 7 hours a day? Note: This lie is not as persuasive as it may have been in the past, b/c in an age of later marriage, many men are already experienced in cooking & cleaning, and know what kind of effort it entails. (Note that not every stay-at-home-wife even does all these things.)

"I can't find a job"
She has been out of work too long, and therefore is unable to find a job. This may be true, but many men do not consider this risk when they agree to support her while she "temporarily' stops working. (Hopefully, now they will, and can make a more informed decision) Also, many wives may use this as a scapegoat to conveniently not even bother looking for any job. (Below, I describe how this can even be used against the husband in the event of divorce)

"It doesn't pay for me to work"
In the shortrun, the expenses of work (gas, lunch, clothes) may not make it worthwhile for her to go back to work. This may be true, but does this justify her playing tennis, while the husband toils away? Many couples may be too shortsighted on this matter. Initially, the cost/benefit numbers may not be ideal, but her returning to work will improve her job skills and network of contacts. (More so than strolling through the local mall every afternoon) Over time, as her career gets back on track, and she becomes qualified for better jobs, her salary should also improve.

It should be duly noted that some working wives view their salary as "personal spending money", and still expect the man to pay all or most of the bills. (What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours.) Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly.

Even more unfair double standards that favor wives

Cheating.
If a married man cheats, he's the scum of the earth.A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she's conveniently portrayed as the victim. Poor thing. It's for her empowerment, or to help her self-esteem. Worse yet, her cheating can be the man's fault. How? He doesn't compliment her like her new man does. Or he works too much. (Yes, the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and cars she may have demanded is now considered negligent. The man who may be working 2 jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered negligent)

When a woman cheats, the first thing people ask is what he did (or didn't do) to drive her into the arms of another man.
When a man cheats, no one ever asks the same question.

When a woman cheats, sometimes the reaction can be, "Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband wasn't delivering in the bedroom".
However, if a man cheats, no one ever stops to think...."Oh poor fella, his wife was horrible in bed."

Also, if a man happens to leave his wife for a younger woman, it is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. If his wife was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or became grossly overweight, or was an incompetent mother, those realities are totally ignored. Ostensibly, the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. (Never mind if she is a better match for him) Because apparently, that's the only factor that motivates these Neanderthals.

Prenups
If a man insists on a prenup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a prenup was called "unromantic"? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenup, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenup, she has just shown her hand...) Why is it that a woman can refuse a prenup, and it's accepted. In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the reaction towards prenups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a prenup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage contract? Women do not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the money a man earns, and obligates him to support her if the event of a breakup. Why aren't men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, selection of dinner napkins, churches, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

Ironically, prenups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularized in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were "out for their money." Until the Married Women's Property Act of 1848, a woman's property, upon marriage, was transferred to her husband. (Correct, )

"Stupid, Irresponsible" Men
Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch TV commercials/sitcoms and see how many reflect men as idiots. (If they had commercials like that about women, people would have a fit.) If it wasn't for their wives they would be lost "animals". Other commercials who make it appear that men act without thinking, impulsively and irrationally, and the wife is the brains of the family, which in reality is not always true. Even many women will agree, women often are the ones who act on emotions, and make judgment solely based on emotional attachments, rather then logic and reason. Almost every "couples budgeting" article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man's childish spending.

Job Loss
If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position?? He would be crucified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her. However, when is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household/kids, while the wife is working, he can be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for!! Either role the man plays, he loses!

Traditional Roles
It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed "marriage material", and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman "marriage material"?

To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannys as their husband can afford. Yes, some wives stay at home, and hire someone else to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered "stay-at-home" mothers. This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?

Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. The concept of the pampered wife is relatively new. America was primarily an agricultural economy even up into the 1920's. American wives contributed to the well being of the household by helping on the farm. A man needed a wife as an equal partner. It was not until the 1950's that the first generation of American wives began to emerge as dead weight. Perhaps this coincides with the spiking of the divorce rate in America. Perhaps men have become tired of giving so much, while getting so little in exchange.

Divorce
(aka: License to Steal)
50% of American marriages end in divorce, and 70% of these divorces are initiaited by women. All men should consult an attorney before marrying, and understand the implications of divorce, b/c they may participate in one whether they like it not.

Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during a marriage are subject to division. Even if the woman has not worked in years, and instead, has spent the last few years shopping and lunching from 7am-3pm, she is entitled to half of everything the man worked for during the course of the marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever accept a job offer that stipulated that in the event of resignation, you would have to return 50% of every dime you were ever paid? No one in his or her right mind. Yet, men unknowingly agree to the exact same insanity when they sign their marriage contract!

"Assets accumulated prior to a marriage are exempt from a divorce." Yes, in theory. However, real life dictates otherwise. If funds from an account are commingled, it can become marital property. If even a dime from an account is spent towards the marriage, it can be considered marital property. Buy your child a lollypop from your own account, and a good lawyer will take 1/2 of it for your ex-wife when you divorce. If a woman moves into a home the man owned prior to the marriage, it is not safe from divorce. If she so much as hangs up a sheet of wallpaper, the home is now classified as marital property, and is subject to equal division. (Worse actually, the man can be ejected from the home) Is this fair?

Note: "equal division" is also somewhat a misnomer. Often, she can get upwards of 70% of assets, while the man gets the majority of the debts!! This, of course, is his reward for working so hard all these years. He can afford it, she can't b/c she was not working.

If you pamper your wife, it can be used against you
(aka: No good deed goes unpunished)
Imagine yourself giving a homeless man a sandwich. A generous act, indeed. Now imagine your reaction if the homeless man sues you in court! The judge orders you to keep feeding the homeless man sandwiches, indefinitely, because he has become accustomed to your support!! This would be categorically absurd, yet this happens to men in divorce court every day. Instead of thanking you for paying her bills for all those years, you get the reward of legally having to keep paying her bills! Remember folks: No good deed goes unpunished.

After having children, many women demand to quit working and stay home. Before kids, many of these women may have been in careers they hated, working long hours, and enduring long commutes. It is the man's generosity and dedication to his own career that allows her to walk away from her hers. During a marriage, a man with a stay-at-home wife might work himself to the bone in order to support her. He will pay the mortgage, property tax, grocery bill, phone bill, cable bill, and electric bill. He also pays for her car, the gas money, clothes, and vacations.

As a slap in the face, the man can be punished for working hard enough to allow his wife the have the luxury of staying home with the kids. As noted above, after the children are in school, the wife may enjoy a life of leisure that is afforded to her by her man's hard work. In event of divorce, he can be legally obligated to support her for years to come. Because she stopped working and led a life of leisure, the ex-husband is now responsible for supporting her!! History has a tendency of rewriting itself. Originally, a woman may have had a career that she may have hated, and was begging to leave. (In fact, that partially may have been her motivation to have kids in the first place.) But now, in her eyes (or her lawyer's eyes), she "gave up" her career for the man and his kids. His gift now becomes her sacrifice! Or, the story goes that he was threatened by her having her own career, and forced her to quit and stay home with the children. (How many men do you personally know that are upset at having a wife that earns a good living?) Many of these misleading stereotypes still run rampant in our society, and are routinely used to the woman's advantage during a divorce. As a result of her not working, regardless of whether she was minding the home or not, she remains a liability.

Generous, caring men who spoil their wives should certainly think twice about how this generosity can later be used against them. The phrase used in divorce court is "She has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle". A husband's reward for spoiling his wife today is the legal obligation to spoil her indefinitely. Buy her a luxury car today, and you may be obligated to buy her luxury cars after she leaves for you for another man! Yet...imagine a husband that became accustomed to eating a home cooked dinner prepared by his wife. Now imagine the courts obligate the ex-wife to continue cooking for him and his new girlfriend each night, despite being divorced! Inconceivable, but it happens the other way around every day!

The ultimate insult, however, comes when the man loses half of his life's assets even when she has decided to leave him. Yes, a wife can kick a man out of his own home, and have the courts force him to continue paying the bills, while she is sleeping with her new boyfriend in the very house the husband worked to buy! She can spend her alimony check on gifts for her new boyfriend! Are all women like this? No. Does the legal system support a woman who does feel entitled to this? Yes.

The risks are clear, but what exactly are men getting out of marriage? Many times, the reasons men get married are unfounded.

All the "classic" reasons why a man gets married are a myth.
(aka: Don't believe the hype)

"I won't die alone"
Wrong. The simple fact is, that one spouse WILL die alone. (Unless you both die simultaneously in a car accident.) Your spouse may die 15 years before you. Or you may be on a hospital bed for your last year. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren't having the same thoughts as you are. You're contemplating your mortality, while they're wondering what pizza toppings the hospital cafeteria offers. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

Corollary: "I won't grow old alone"
Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 30, 35, 45, 50, 55, 60, etc. MANY married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. (But they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half of their life's assets, losing half their retirement/pension funds, and/or being assessed alimony payments) Also, experiencing final devastation from one divorce may preclude a man from ever marrying again. ie: He grows old alone (and poor)

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies a destiny of a solitary monk in a cave. However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you can't continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. In fact, a bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, b/c most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person. Again, my aim is to educate young men in their 20's and 30's to the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer.. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

"I'll get regular sex"
Not necessarily. There are plenty of "sexless" marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids. Also, it remains to be seen whether sex with 1 partner for 30 years is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

"I'll have someone to cook/clean for me"
Not necessarily. While a woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves a man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children. Today's woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties b/c she is not working, he can be labeled sexist or controlling, even if he is doing his "traditional role" of paying all the bills. (Besides, this is a stupid reason to get married. If that's what you want, then hire a maid)

"It's the proper religious thing to do"
Perhaps, but it is a complete farce to watch couples that haven't gone to church in 10, 15, or 20 years suddenly become church going regulars a few months prior to their marriage in order to gain approval of their church. (And in most cases, they don't step back into a church the day after their wedding) If you are not actively religious, why would you need your personal relationship to be endorsed by corrupt child-molesting, tax-exempt, money-soliciting, war-mongering thieves? (Who you will never see again) Religion today is nothing more than a way to socialize and network with neighbors on Sundays. Not a reason to be married. Of course, the Catholic church only allows you to be married once. So when remarrying, divorced people will get the marriage "annulled". A convenient man-made loophole to circumvent a man-made custom. A complete farce.

"I have to be married to have kids"
Really? Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at town hall in order to be fertilized by his sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. (Due to the gay rights movement) You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. It's ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than ineffective/inattentive/incompetent married (or divorced) parents.

Having a lifelong, faithful relationship has nothing to do with being "married".

Owning beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being "married".

Raising healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being "married".

All these things have been done by gay couples for years now, without marriage. In fact, with the advent of gay marriage, gay couples have proven that the only tangible consequence of marriage is having a formalized seperation process.

Otherwise, nothing else has changed in their relationship that existed before "marriage".

You do need to be married in order to throw a extravagant 3 hour party, and share the same last name, however.

Besides that, marriage does nothing but introduce lawyers and phoney, crooked religious figures into your life. (People that otherwise have nothing to do with your life or your relationship)

Men need to stop and ask, "Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today's world?"
It is hardly a lifelong committment, b/c it can be reversed overnight.

Marriage was borne as a way for families to merge land/property, so maybe people should view it as just that. The rest of the hype is just bogus modern TV fantasy polluting the minds of today's impressionable youth, and a way to keep the $70 billion-per-year U.S. wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should really be "Am I excited to merge my finances with him/her?" Because, when all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. (Don't believe me? Spend a day in divorce courts, and you'll see exactly what is real and tangible about marriage. You'll also see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Boquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that's comin' to them!) The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes.....For better or worse.

The national divorce rate is 50%. (It's higher in some parts of the country, like CA) However, I ask you, consider of the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay. (Men who don't want to lose 50%, ....women who know they can't support themselves alone, etc) Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these, "forced marriages, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity. A shot in the dark, but I estimate the percentage of happy & monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture? Or even a raffle ticket? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday at the altar.

Conclusion

There is no conclusion. The author is just as confused as you are. Brothers, choose wisely ?

[Mav]

...

[Looon]

Mabe you should learn how to spell before giving marital advice?!?!?!

[Bravo Five Romeo]

So same sex marriage is the best answer then?



As to that nonsense editorial... some of the societal double standards are true... but stereotyping all relationships and the behavior and needs of all women is just plain ignorant.

[james13f]

This essay would do better simply informing both sexes what a prenup actually is, and some of the possible outcomes of a divorce. It didn't need to go into the societal aspects, let alone all the stereotyping.

[Slim]

Nothing in there about the higher suicide rate, or the shorter life span of unmarried men?

An honest critique of marriage should include that.

The paragraph on regular sex is great too. According to the essay marriage is no grantee of regular sex. As if staying single is going to guarantee regular sex.

All in all pretty on sided. I did not find it a useful analysis.

We all know marriage is difficult. We all know some will fail.

You get out what you put in. Sometimes less. Try to pick a good partner, try to BE a good partner yourself, and maybe it will work out.

[Longrifle]

Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men
By Lee Raconteur Published 11/7/2006
Lee Raconteur
Don't Marry Essay
Raconteur - noun: a person skilled in telling anecdotes.;)

He really should be more forthcoming about how he feels.:D

[Husker19D30]

It could be an interesting topic, but the essay is all generalizations and double standards. No research, no effort, just pop culture nonsense and opinions.

[paratroop77]

Wow, good read. I'm a firm believer as well, that you can be happy in a relationship without being married. I work very hard for what little I have. I can't imagine being in a relationship, then having 50% of it stripped away because it didn't work out. I understand what the writer is saying and I guess this explains why I'm not married. Now that I think about it, I'm paying alot of my GF's bills now!!! Dohh!

[rgrjoe175]

An essay about marriage. It's a good read with some valid points. Sadly I see some similarities in my marriage even though I'm very happy.



Ahemmmm... As the official Socnet Marital Advisor, I will digest this article later and offer up my critique. I know my critique will not be good just from the title. "Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men"

Now if it were title... "Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men and Women." I may be more inclined to give it further study.

I have noticed that one female participate who will remain nameless "Mav" has reframed before my comments. Good for her as I would then have to admonish her for being further brainwashed by her hubby on how good married life is with him. :p

JP

[Looon]

Mabe you should learn how to spell before giving marital advice?!?!?!Check that. Im the one that can't spell.:eek:

[Brianj]

If this dude ever does get married, he's due for one big self-fulfilling prophecy. I'll bet he's got a mean essay on the joys of masturbation.

Sure, some of the social double-standards he mentions are true...but those work both ways, and there are plenty of people out there - men and women - who are totally cool with them. Since having daughters (and only daughters), I'm more troubled by the bullshit girls are subtly programmed with their entire lives. Most relevant to this particular fit of whining is the notion that a woman can still simply grow up expecting to get married - and that's her entire life plan. Regardless of class or income or education, that's not an option boys can even entertain.

I'm trying to raise my daughters to violently reject the idea that someone should or will take care of them. Blow away that concept, and marriage can be viewed as an actual partnership...

[MakoZeroSix]

This essay should be titled: "I can't get laid, therefore I hate all women."

I think it is a bunch of misogynistic whining. If you don't want all those horrid things to occur, you need follow once piece of advice: don't marry a cunt

Some of the things said are blatantly false, like men being branded "womanizers". If I sleep with alot of women, that makes me "awesome". If a woman sleeps with alot of guys, she is a "slutbag". If she cheats, same thing. If I cheat, I'm just being a guy.

That being said, I do think they should reform divorce laws that automatically award half to the woman. I guess there is a valid point or two in all of that reactionary claptrap.

[Mav]

Ahemmmm... As the official Socnet Marital Advisor, I will digest this article later and offer up my critique. I know my critique will not be good just from the title. "Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men"

Now if it were title... "Don't Marry Essay. Why Marriage Has Become a Raw Deal for Men and Women." I may be more inclined to give it further study.

I have noticed that one female participate who will remain nameless "Mav" has reframed before my comments. Good for her as I would then have to admonish her for being further brainwashed by her hubby on how good married life is with him. :p

JP


ROFLMAO!

Actually, my backing up was due to me wanting to wait and make sure my response was well thought and not just hormone driven since I was planning on some sort of violent vendetta.. lots of blood, guts, ammo, and some Copenhagen... ;>

[bobofthedesert]

If you don't want all those horrid things to occur, you need to follow once piece of advice: don't marry a cunt

ROFLMAO. It's funny because it's true......

[KSM]

A couple interesting points in there, but overall it's a whole lot of supposition and very little evidence to back it up. Sounds like a rant from a guy who just got raked over the coals in a nasty divorce to me.

[Alex F]

you need follow once piece of advice: don't marry a cunt


ahahah

What he said.

Even though I'm going through a rocky patch with my wife right now, she's NOT trying to fleece me in any way... because I didn't marry a worthless woman to start with.

[Ace]

Before I read it, and based on the title, I thought it was an article about not marrying a Hispanic friend.......guess not, lol.

[rgrjoe175]

"I have to be married to have kids" - False

Having a lifelong, faithful relationship has nothing to do with being "married". True

Owning beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being "married". True

Raising healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being "married". True



Ok, as the Socnet Marital Advisor I can proclaim the above statements and only the above statements are 100% true/false.

The rest is just a bunch of bullshit. Half the shit this clown says you can replace "man/men" with "woman/women"

I mean this guy is complaining about sluts... WTF??? you gotta love
sluts. :cool:

This clown has issues with women and obviously has no clue that there is as many problems caused by males as there are females.

As for advice... this quote is good advice for not just men and but more importantly women. "Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today's world?"

This clown is too stupid to realize that men and women can equally be scumbags.

Anyone that currently claims their marriage is perfect is a liar or is living in fantasy land and should be locked up. There is no such thing as a perfect marriage or partnership or relationship etc... Perhaps happy(not all the time) but never perfect.

If claim you do, I will gladly point out to you individually why yours is not perfect. Besides if it was perfect, that would be absolutely no fun whatsoever. :D

J Socnet Marriage Guru P

[M.Pen]

The guy is probably a dumb, fat f*ck , who couldn't get a woman no matter how hard he tried... like me!!!!! But i SWEAR , i didn't write the article!!!! :D

[ex]

As I read this 'essay' I was imagining what following comments would be from the men of Socnet.

I'm happy to say I was completely wrong in my assumptions! :)

[rgrjoe175]

As I read this 'essay' I was imagining what following comments would be from the men of Socnet.

I'm happy to say I was completely wrong in my assumptions! :)

The Beast was thinking, not you... :D

Oh man... old crossthread points for me...LOL

[ROMAD]

I guess I should reiterate that I didn’t write this. A buddy who is getting married soon had this emailed to him. It was definitely one sided. The only similarities I have are that I married into debt and “career slavery”. Because I married into debt I had to continue working a job, which I didn’t mind, but wanted to change. The roles have somewhat reversed now and my wife is a slave to her new career. I need a new chopper:D

I’m guessing the author is between 25 and 35, divorced, and paying child support.

[RGR.Montcalm]

I guess I should reiterate that I didn’t write this. A buddy who is getting married soon had this emailed to him. It was definitely one sided. The only similarities I have are that I married into debt and “career slavery”. Because I married into debt I had to continue working a job, which I didn’t mind, but wanted to change. The roles have somewhat reversed now and my wife is a slave to her new career. I need a new chopper:D

I’m guessing the author is between 25 and 35, divorced, and paying child support.

And couldn't get laid in a Nevada whorehouse with a fist full of Benjamins...:rolleyes:

[ASTAC918]

"...or a monkey whorehouse with a fist full of bananas!!!" love those quotes from Dad. :D

[Slim]

...or a penal colony with a fist full of pardons.

Why do they call it a penal colony anyway?

[RGR.Montcalm]

...or a penal colony with a fist full of pardons.

Why do they call it a penal colony anyway?

maybe it derives from 'penalty

or just maybe what you get when you bend over for that sleppery bar of soap...:eek:

[Slim]

maybe it derives from 'penalty

or just maybe what you get when you bend over for that sleppery bar of soap...:eek:

I should have put a smiley there. You just can't pull off deadpan on the internet.

LMAO on the soap.

[BOFH]

All in all, I thought this was incoherent drivel. That said, I really can't find any benefit to being married unless one happens to be a religious person. In that case, the benefit is clear: Being "righteous," in the eyes of one's chosen deity. I, however, am not a religious person. That said, I'm 24, divorced, and paying a lot of money to the ex. I may be slightly biased and/or bitter and cynical. I have no intention of getting married again.

[Remington Raider]

I am puzzled by all the personal attacks on the author in refuting the validity of his positions. I don't need a statistical citation to accept the premise that putting that paperclip in the outlet is a bad idea. The piece is slanted, but I think some of the reactions to it are because some of it rings true, either in your own experience or watching it happen to someone else.

This article took me back. Back to the time I was getting regular sex, and it was all good. I was about to graduate, so I finally took the plunge and proposed on a Friday night. I suggested we go down to the courthouse on Monday.

Mmmm, no. She wanted to get married in the Church. (Like the article says, hadn't been since gradeschool). By the by, where is the ring? Off we go to the jewelers, where we purchase engagement and wedding rings. No problem with financing. I explain to her that I am seriously in debt and will be working for many years to pay of my law school loans, so I intend to have a small wedding. I am over at my prospective in-laws for dinner, and my future wife presents me with a list of 300 people who MUST be invited, per her mother. See, mom had rung up a lot of social debt going to other peoples kids weddings, and she wanted to balance the books. I explained to my fiance this was not going to happen. She was unhappy. I began to re-examine my situation. At this point though, ultimately, FIDO.

Next dinner, she and her already married sister are poring over brochures with much more intensity than Ike studied the maps of Normandy. My fiance shows me a place that will accomodate a shitload of people and be great for the photos, AND we can get a DISCOUNT if we book A YEAR IN ADVANCE. I look deeply into her eyes. I didn't know if I could reach her. (my best Eddie Murphy BHC voice) She CHANGED, man. Bridezilla is funny cause it's true. I wasn't paying attention such things, so FIDO. (Platoon) but I got a bad feeling bout this, man.

We begin our counseling sessions with the parish priest. Nice guy, never married himself. Will we have children. Yes, padre. Will we raise them in the Church. Yes, padre.

I am going with the flow. Father gets a little deeper into theology. He backs it up a little bit and asks me if I believe in God.

I told him the story of my final year in grade school, when in class the Monsignor asked the class the same question. After an eight year hitch we all looked at each other. He repeated, "Is there anybody here who doesn't believe in God?" I am sure the right answer was no, and I, I took the road less traveled.

Later, after the parish version of general quarters, I found myself in front of the monsignor with my dad, where he told my dad that after shelling out for lo these many years, it didn't take. Now, keep in mind that later, the joke in my family was that I enlisted for an easier life. It's funny cause its true. Dad didn't use "timeouts" for rearing children. My dad asked me what I believed. I laid it out. The monsignor and my father listened intently, and then the monsignor declared me a diest. I didn't know what that meant at the time. My dad didn't press. I think he was surpised I had given it that much thought at that age. But I digress.

So I tell the padre this story, and he says that's fine, but then I can't marry you in the Church. Well, OK then. Thanks for trying and we have some lovely parting gifts . . .

We are leaving the seminary in the car and I am introduced to the Ghost of Married Life-Future (apologies to Dickens). She stews for just a bit, and then snarls "you better get over your eighth-grade beliefs". Whoa.

I opine that maybe, just maybe, we should call this thing off. FINE. She sulks in silence for the entire ride home.

A couple days later she calls, saying she was rash and that we should go forward. No thanks. I get the full-on treatment as listed in the article, but by now my eyes are wide open. Game over. No regrets.

I have nothing against marriage, per se, and agree that many of the knives in the article cut both ways.

Most of the truely happily married guys I know would just listen to this guy rant and just smile and shake their heads sadly.

[Purple36]

"Except in professional sports and presidential elections, women are given the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Also, contrary to feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as their male counterpart."

I stopped reading right there. Salary disparity is very real. There's a reason many corporations forbid their employees from discussing their salaries.

[Axe]

Next dinner, she and her already married sister are poring over brochures with much more intensity than Ike studied the maps of Normandy.

Your whole post had me chuckling, but that quoted part made me spew my Diet Pepsi all over the keyboard.

[Dark Helmet]

"Salary disparity is very real. There's a reason many corporations forbid their employees from discussing their salaries.

You're kidding, right? A corporation that has a written policy against employees discussing each other's compensation and benefits...and that this policy is related to gender-based salary disparity?

You think such a company exists?

And if it exists, you think anyone adheres to that policy?

And if they refuse to adhere to that policy, what recourse does the employer have?

[Spinner]

Did the author mention that marriage is essentially a coin flip, and in the U.S. you have pretty even chance of getting divorced within your first five years of saying "I do"?

As for the specious argument that married men live longer, healthier lives, that doesn't take into account the stats for men who have been married and divorced at least once. What's the prognosis on their lives? Do they go back to being part of the singles club, or are they consigned to their own statistical category?

The essay appears to be written by a man who was married and has gone through a bitter divorce, and now wants to spread the gospel of staying single.


This article took me back. Back to the time I was getting regular sex, and it was all good.

Now this line cracked me up. Brought to mind that Craigslist ad and response, about the 25 year old looking for a rich husband.

You almost made the leap from a trading position to a buy and hold. Believe it or not, your Catholic indoctrination paid off. Anybody who hadn't been through the whole ordeal would have just answered yes without giving it a second thought.

[Dark Helmet]

Brought to mind that Craigslist ad and response, about the 25 year old looking for a rich husband.

This one?

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.

[Husker19D30]

I stopped reading right there. Salary disparity is very real. There's a reason many corporations forbid their employees from discussing their salaries.

With all respect, no it isn't. Salary disparity is an invented issue based on misrepresented statistics. Pay disparity is a cause of social factors based on lifestyle choices, not genitalia.

[KidA]

Salary disparity is an invented issue based on misrepresented statistics.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[CA SGT]

Oh man, this article brought back memories. 2 divorces worth of experience here. I put the last one through a bachelors RN program, working all of the OT I could to pay for it. Then after she graduates, she decides she wants to "run marathons and go ocean kayaking." Funny, I couldnt get her to run around the block with me. Then she gets into horses. Want to talk expensive hobby, try horses. Oh, then you have to have a horse trailer, then a new truck to pull the trailer. Oh yeah, the color coordinated tack gear was a must have. But the best was yet to come....She begins having an affair with the horse vet. I throw her out, then she tells me she is pregnant....by the vet. I laugh as this is like a soap opera...but only up until I find out that I cant get her off my insurance, so I am paying for her prenatal care, et al, for the vets kid. THEN she has the balls to call me and say,"Im ENTITLED to half your retirement." You can only imagine my thoughts at this point.....So I see where the writers mindset comes in.
I used to ask my new deputies this question...Would you take half your retirement, say 100 thousand, and go to Vegas and play roulette, red/black with it. Of course not they say. Then I ask, well then why with "normal" divorce rates being 50%, (LE higher) would you get married without a prenup on your retirement?
Will I ever get married again...Maybe, but definetly not without an ironclad prenup

[Husker19D30]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

That's Samuel Langhorn Clemens. He was a seriously smart motherfucker.

[Spinner]

This one?

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.


That's it. The origin and veracity could never be verified, though.

That said, marriage is a not only a sacred covenant within whatever church you decide to tie the knot in, it is also a legally binding contract between two people. It's important that the two people entering into the contract have a pretty good idea what the purpose of the contract is to begin with.

Some people marry for love, some for money, a pretty good majority seems to want to start families, which in my mind is about the best and maybe only reason to get married.

And it should be tougher to get a marriage license than to just go down to the county clerks office and paying a fee.

Then she gets into horses. Want to talk expensive hobby, try horses.

That's like buying an expensive boat that eats and needs regular doctors care. The only difference is that while a boat may bite you, at least it isn't actively trying to.

[ex]

With all respect, no it isn't. Salary disparity is an invented issue based on misrepresented statistics. Pay disparity is a cause of social factors based on lifestyle choices, not genitalia.
What 'social factors' are you referring to?

[mdb23]

What 'social factors' are you referring to?

Women, in most cases, are the ones who generally stay home with sick kids, have to miss work for kid's doctor's appointments, etc... As a general rule of thumb, this equates to women (in many cases) missing much, much, much more work during a given year than their male counterpart... this doesn't even factor in maternity leave, the fact that women (on average) use much more sick time than men, etc....

Female employess often "cost" more than men due to these social factors.

Not that women aren't amazing employees....they are.

[Lannister]

What 'social factors' are you referring to?

MAYBE the "choice" to be a "Traditional" parent...:confused:

I've never worked anywhere that they paid Male workers MORE than female workers for the same job... but I have worked places where female workers were paid the same as males for less work and actually had an advantage in promotions (increased pay) due to being female... (military).:rolleyes:

[ex]

Women, in most cases, are the ones who generally stay home with sick kids, have to miss work for kid's doctor's appointments, etc... As a general rule of thumb, this equates to women (in many cases) missing much, much, much more work during a given year than their male counterpart... this doesn't even factor in maternity leave, the fact that women (on average) use much more sick time than men, etc....

Female employess often "cost" more than men due to these social factors.

Not that women aren't amazing employees....they are.
I knew all those things (since I am a Mom ;)). I was wondering if Husker thought they were a good reasons to short change women.
Salary disparity is an invented issue based on misrepresented statistics. I don't think it's a made up issue due to the reasons mdb stated.

[Hot Mess]

Women, in most cases, are the ones who generally stay home with sick kids, have to miss work for kid's doctor's appointments, etc... As a general rule of thumb, this equates to women (in many cases) missing much, much, much more work during a given year than their male counterpart... this doesn't even factor in maternity leave, the fact that women (on average) use much more sick time than men, etc....

Female employess often "cost" more than men due to these social factors.

Not that women aren't amazing employees....they are.

In reality this is the reason why women earn less than men. They are out of the work force to have/take care of children. Thus, when they reenter the work force they are usually about five years behind males. In addition, when they do go back to work they are already behind the power curve (earn less) so they can stay home without effecting the family income as much. When women do not exit the work force to have children their salaries are equal to men. So either don't have children or quit complaining.

[Guy]

I read all three pages and have come to the conclusion...walk away LMMFAO!:D

Stay safe.

[BOFH]

I read all three pages and have come to the conclusion...walk away LMMFAO!:D

Stay safe.

+a-fucking-million

[GreenMeany 5]

I read all three pages and have come to the conclusion...walk away LMMFAO!:D

Stay safe.

Yeah....I right behind you!

[Remington Raider]

Yeah....I right behind you!

Pussies.;)

[KidA]

I was wondering if Husker thought they were a good reasons to short change women.
I don't think it's a made up issue due to the reasons mdb stated.

It's not short changing them if they aren't in the work force as long. It's paying those certain women (not all) for the work and experience they have. It's not paying them for the experience they didn't get while they were home with the kids, which wouldn't be fair.

All my bosses have been women in DC with the exception of one. The lead for the entire Navy Sector of my contracting firm (and it's huge) is a woman. I don't think she's being paid any less than the lead for the Air Force or Army sectors.

[NightLandNav]

The difference facilitates career determined women, successful women.... having (giving birth, mothering) fewer children, if any. The "One or the other" paradigm is not without consequence.

[Ranger Manges]

50% of all marriages end in divorce
50% end in death
either way you loose

[Husker19D30]

I knew all those things (since I am a Mom ;)). I was wondering if Husker thought they were a good reasons to short change women.
I don't think it's a made up issue due to the reasons mdb stated.

Are they really being short changed? Compensation by an employer is based on your value to that employer (or at least it should be), not your value to society as a whole.

[NightLandNav]

100% of individual human life ends in death as well.

It's what we do. Yet, we strive to live that life in spite of the inevitable.


...that said, I'm once married, once divorced.

[rgrjoe175]

Interesting comments in the hijack.

Here is a real world situation of pay disparity for the same position when discussing this matter. 4 people have the exact same job title, same education and experience requirements and all do basically the same thing. Their pay should be equal, no?

Annual salary:
$53061.06
$65364.72
$50000.00
$52457.45

Which salaries are male and which are female?

JP

[Joe33]

Ok, there are alot of points that are valid in that essay. But it would be more powerful if it was backed up with statistics- he needs to cite his claims. While there are alot of good points, it has a very jaded and bitter tone. Not the best way to be taken seriously. Don't get me wrong- I say often that MANY American women are the most overly-entitled people I have ever seen. They have bought into the feminist lies perpetuated for the last 40 years.

It is actually very easy to make most men happy. If women actually got that, their married lives would be much better. Men will take a bullet for a woman that truly loves and respects him.

Also, one way to try and avoid many of the pitfall this guy talks about is by COMMUNICATING EXTENSIVELY BEFORE marriage. My wife and I spent a hundred hours before we got engaged talking about our values- what we thought marriage was about, what we expected out of it, what are roles would be, how to raise children etc. I believe firmly that the divorce rate is so high because most couples don't do this. It will NEVER work if your value systems are different. Every divorce I have seen has been the result of differing values.

I have close friends right now going through a bitter divorce because of this. He is shocked that "she believes this" and "she is doing that". But he admits they never really sat down and talked about expectations, beliefs etc. Big mistake....

[cb88]

Interesting comments in the hijack.

Here is a real world situation of pay disparity for the same position when discussing this matter. 4 people have the exact same job title, same education and experience requirements and all do basically the same thing. Their pay should be equal, no?

Annual salary:
$53061.06 - Male
$65364.72 - Female
$50000.00 - Male
$52457.45 - Female

Which salaries are male and which are female?

JP

My "guesses"

1) Is there a disparity in senority/time on the job?

2) Each person is free to negotiate their own salary (at least in the private sector) upon taking a position. Some people are better negotiaters than others.

[Matchanu]

As a general rule of thumb, .

Heh heh, speaking of marrige.;)



When women get pregnet, and are married, they should stay home with the kids.

The "working Mom" is the downfall of our society.

My .02.

Eat my ass.

[ex]

In reality this is the reason why women earn less than men. They are out of the work force to have/take care of children. Thus, when they reenter the work force they are usually about five years behind males. In addition, when they do go back to work they are already behind the power curve (earn less) so they can stay home without effecting the family income as much. When women do not exit the work force to have children their salaries are equal to men. So either don't have children or quit complaining.
I agree with you; if a person (male or female) has less time on a job, they should be paid less, no matter the reason.

Are they really being short changed? Compensation by an employer is based on your value to that employer (or at least it should be), not your value to society as a whole.
I think that some employers hire women of child bearing/rearing age at a lesser salary because they anticipate that the women will have family conflicts or time off for child birth. No, I don't think it's fair.

fwiw, the best thing I ever did was stop working to stay home and raise my kids.

[Joe33]

Heh heh, speaking of marrige.;)



When women get pregnet, and are married, they should stay home with the kids.

The "working Mom" is the downfall of our society.

My .02.

Eat my ass.

AB...SO...LUTELY. You are dead on target. If you're going to have kids, I think then maybe you should raise them. And kids need mom bigtime from birth - kindergarten. Instead you've got millions of kids being "raised" by daycare providers and nannys. Bullshit.

[chalup87]

Im going to add my .02 cents to this discussion... My mom is a lab manager and has been in this field and same company 20+ years... She does her job good and loves it. She gets paid on average 5,000-10,000 less then any male lab manager in the surrounding areas.... Why? I have no idea.

[Always Jolly]

Most of the truely happily married guys I know would just listen to this guy rant and just smile and shake their heads sadly.

Bullseye.

This drivel that the author has the audacity to call an "Essay" should have lost me after the first couple of paragraphs of stereotypes and gross generalizations. But this is SOCNET, so I pressed on and read the entire thing... what a waste of cyberspace.

Since many of us here are military, I say this: If you're in a relationship and you're persuaded by this "Essay" that there is no benefit to marriage, take a look at the benefits/rights/privilidges your girlfriend/partner/fuck-buddy will lose if you die unmarried. It's huge. I've had 2 friends die in the line of duty that were in long term relationships, and it was really sad to see what happened (or didn't happen) to their girlfriends.

To Mr. Racontuer: After reading your drivel, and being a happily married man for years, my recommendation for your best chance at happiness is high quality porn, some lube, and a box of kleenex.

Just my .02 cents.

[cb88]

AB...SO...LUTELY. You are dead on target. If you're going to have kids, I think then maybe you should raise them. And kids need mom bigtime from birth - kindergarten. Instead you've got millions of kids being "raised" by daycare providers and nannys. Bullshit.


Not everyone has that luxury...some working moms are doing it by necessity..the family could not survive if they did not. Think about some of the military families where the dad is an E2-4...stationed at Pendleton...with the cost of living there is NO WAY they can survive on his salary alone.

That's just a military example.

Now, what about the single moms, many of whom did not choose to be single. They have no choice.


Ideally, yes, the mom should stay home. I would bet there are thousands of moms working out there that would LOVE to stay home but can't.

[Mav]

And some women just aren't geared to raise kids. Sometimes it's best that the kids are at daycare and the moms don't have to be at home with them, freaking out and unable to handle the honestly unbelievably difficult job of civilizing a completely self-absorbed, ignorant, and inexperienced child.. thank God we love 'em, anyway ;) . Women used to be put on tranquilizers (I know some, personally) when they stayed at home.. if they couldn't handle it. Unfortunately, it's not something you know until after you have kids. And you can't just "give kids back". You have to take the hand you're dealt and make the best of it that you can.

Not everyone is designed to be able to cope with that sort of thing. I've been a stay at home mom and a working mom... and, to me, it's a whole lot easier to work than it is to stay home... And some women can't take that level of stress...

Which goes back to the stupidity of article saying that stay at home moms somehow sit around eating bon-bons all day.

[KidA]

People who are considering having kids should do more than look at cute ones in baby GAP clothes before making little humans. If you are thinking of having kids you should perhaps baby sit infants, toddlers, etc every chance you get to see if you can handle the "stress" (weird that this seems to be a new phenomenon as millions of women delt with it in decades past).

If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. Period. If you know you can't survive on E-2 or E-4 salary then you shouldn't be careless with spilling seed.

A woman in my company looooooooooves babies, they're sooooooooo cute. Her hubby makes 6 figures. She popped out a kid and was back at work 3 weeks later becuase she loves working and has something to prove as a woman. Kid isn't a month old and already being raised by a stranger so that combined they make over 300K per year.

Great role model...

[Joe33]

Not everyone has that luxury...some working moms are doing it by necessity..the family could not survive if they did not. Think about some of the military families where the dad is an E2-4...stationed at Pendleton...with the cost of living there is NO WAY they can survive on his salary alone.

That's just a military example.

Now, what about the single moms, many of whom did not choose to be single. They have no choice.


Ideally, yes, the mom should stay home. I would bet there are thousands of moms working out there that would LOVE to stay home but can't.

You are absolutely right and I agree with you 100%. There are circumstances when a working mom is a necessity and they deserve serious respect. I am talking about so many examples that I see firsthand where the mom works and there is NO financial necessity whatsoever. They are doing it because they don't want to take care of their kids, and/or bought into the feminist lie that they are a failure if they don't work, and/or want a bigger house and nicer car. I see it all the time and the kids suffer the most.

The couple I used as an example in my prior post fits this bill. The husband makes probably $200,000 + but his wife refuses to quit her job. Their kids act like retarded monkeys, which is no fault of their own. They don't see their mom until 6:30 at night. Now they are getting divorced and the kids are devastated. (I am not implying that the only reason for the divorce is the mom working. But it's a symptom of a larger problem.) By the husband's own admission, he and his wife never worked this stuff out beforehand.

Before I got married I told my wife: There are some things I will NEVER compromise on. When we have kids, you don't work, period. Not going to happen. The financial responsibilities are mine and mine alone. I don't give a shit that our friends who have their kids in daycare for no reason get to have a BMW. Fuck them because they are victimizing their kids. My kids are happy, well-adjusted, polite and squared away. They get equal parts love and discipline. Mom is always there with them to make sure of that until I get home. We have been through some very rough times financially, but it's never occured to me to have my wife take a job. And she could so easily. We both have college degrees and lots of experience running businesses.

I would NEVER judge the families where this kind of situation is not possible- particularly military families. But I will happily bring down the thunder on so many working moms out there who have no business doing so except that they are skirting their maternal responsibilities. They can call it what they want and be PC, the results are the same.

[MakoZeroSix]

When women get pregnet, and are married, they should stay home with the kids.

The "working Mom" is the downfall of our society.

My .02.

Eat my ass.


I don't disagree with this in theory, but in practice, we no longer live in a society where the income of most single individuals are adequate for a comfortable standard of living. That is why so many moms work, not because they like leaving their kids with the South American nanny.

Then again, I was raised mainly by Columbian and black housekeepers/nannys because my mom worked. She didn't have to, but both her and my dad made alot of money, and she didn't want to quit her job. I turned out alright.

This article took me back. Back to the time I was getting regular sex, and it was all good. I was about to graduate, so I finally took the plunge and proposed on a Friday night. I suggested we go down to the courthouse on Monday.

Mmmm, no. She wanted to get married in the Church. (Like the article says, hadn't been since gradeschool). By the by, where is the ring? Off we go to the jewelers, where we purchase engagement and wedding rings. No problem with financing. I explain to her that I am seriously in debt and will be working for many years to pay of my law school loans, so I intend to have a small wedding. I am over at my prospective in-laws for dinner, and my future wife presents me with a list of 300 people who MUST be invited, per her mother. See, mom had rung up a lot of social debt going to other peoples kids weddings, and she wanted to balance the books. I explained to my fiance this was not going to happen. She was unhappy. I began to re-examine my situation.

Bravo- unlike alot of guys, you realized you were seeing just the tip of the iceberg and cut away. If you had gone through with it and then were miserable, then you'd have nobody to blame but yourself. If more guys told crazy broads to pack their shit and hit the road, they wouldn't feel like they could get away with that nonsense.

[Joe33]

Sometimes it's best that the kids are at daycare and the moms don't have to be at home with them, freaking out and unable to handle the honestly unbelievably difficult job of civilizing a completely self-absorbed, ignorant, and inexperienced child.. Don't agree with that at all, but ok.

Which goes back to the stupidity of article saying that stay at home moms somehow sit around eating bon-bons all day.[/

You are right about that- My wife works her ass off with our 2 little boys. They are a handful- I know firsthand because I spend every minute I can with them and I take care of them all the time. I try to give her "Saturday's off" as much as possible. I tell her to go shopping, go grab some coffee and decompress. I have MAJOR respect for moms. You just do what works for your family.

The women you are describing above should not be having kids - no doubt. It is hard, but c'mon. There are alot of resources out there that can help want-to-be parents and parents. The human race has been doing it for many thousands of years. It's our society that "makes the rules" and f's it up. Nature's laws don't change just because social mores do.

[rgrjoe175]

My "guesses"

1) Is there a disparity in senority/time on the job?

2) Each person is free to negotiate their own salary (at least in the private sector) upon taking a position. Some people are better negotiaters than others.

True, some folks cant sell themselves but it causes problems in the future when employees do happen to discuss salaries.

The reason employers discourage salary discussion has nothing to do with the gender of the employees but more to do with employee moral.

The problem with the numbers presented on such matters, to many variables exist such as seniority, time in position, performance increases...etc.

In the example I posted.. is the reason for the disparity in base salary because of seniority, time in position or performance? All four meet the requirements and three individuals do the job expected of them and three of the individuals comp is based on time in the position.

Due to the other persons work performance, she is compensated the highest. She is about to go on maternity leave for a second time and I don't care other than I will have to get two temps to cover for her while she is out. ;) Some folks are just really good, others just meet requirements.

Regards,

JP

[rgrjoe175]

I turned out alright.


Hmmmm. We are not so sure.... :D:D

[Dark Helmet]

The husband makes probably $200,000 + but his wife refuses to quit her job. Their kids act like retarded monkeys, which is no fault of their own.

It is faulty logic to imply that the kids are retarded monkeys becuase dad makes a lot of money and mom works because she wants to.

[Matchanu]

I don't disagree with this in theory, but in practice, we no longer live in a society where the income of most single individuals are adequate for a comfortable standard of living. That is why so many moms work, not because they like leaving their kids with the South American nanny.





I completely disagree.

Sending your kid to daycare, or having a nanny, requires a second income, but this could be aliviated by having one parent stay home with the kids.

People spent far too much on bullshit and claim that both parties must work. Look at the houses, or the cars in the drivway, or the mounting credit card debt. If your priorities aren't in place, you shouldn't be spitting out kids in the first place.


Military families have it rough, but in no way is it impossible to live off a snigle income.

For starters, you get an income increase when you have kids. Medical is payed for, schooling (on base) is payed for, housing (if you live in base housing) is payed for, etc..etc..

Once you are out of the military and living in the civi world, that bigger paycheck quickly diminishes once you are paying for these things out of pocket, as I am now. I actually made more take home money in the military than I do now.

The standard of living that you want isn't nessessarily the standard of living you need.

There are FAR too many cases of the typical whine "oh, we both have to work to make ends meet" and see a garage with 2 brand new cars, another new car in the drivway, a couple of water craft on a trailer, and other toys that not only take up a large part of their income, but aren't even nessessary.

Sure, we all want things, but your priorities should be on your kids, period! Everything else is excess fluff.

[Matchanu]

Now, what about the single moms, many of whom did not choose to be single. They have no choice.


I've already covered that. This applies to Married women only. There are most definatly situations were a single mom finds herself in a bad situation and has to work. I sympathise completely.


Ideally, yes, the mom should stay home. I would bet there are thousands of moms working out there that would LOVE to stay home but can't.



Phhhht!


You need to talk to more stay at home moms. Working at a job is a fucking cake walk compared to being a stay at home mom.

[Brianj]

The women you are describing above should not be having kids - no doubt. It is hard, but c'mon. There are alot of resources out there that can help want-to-be parents and parents. The human race has been doing it for many thousands of years. It's our society that "makes the rules" and f's it up. Nature's laws don't change just because social mores do.

I guess it comes down to your interpretation of 'nature's laws'. You've presented your values passionately here - but they're exactly that: your values. Not that I entirely disagree with them, and to the extent that it's relevant, my wife and I have made similar choices, and did so because we believed it was what was best for our children.

But I think before I got too preachy, I'd consider that what you dismiss as "feminist lies" is actually a much larger social phenomenon borne out of the case for actual gender equality. You seem to believe that the only reason a woman might work is to drive a BMW, and consider it shameful in the absense of financial necessity. That's a pretty sexist outlook, IMO. What about the intellectual fulfillment women may get from working? What about their professional aspirations, goals, and the education, hard work, and time they've invested in their careers?

You're suggesting that they must choose either children OR a professional life, and that's bullshit. You get to have both. Why shouldn't your wife?

No, I'm not challenging your personal choices, or presuming to know what your wife wants or thinks, so please don't take that personally. And I think it's great that you have discussed all this at length beforehand. What I'm saying is what I think gets assumed too easily in your value scheme...that women ultimately aren't allowed to have the same professional ambitions as men. If they do, well, then they're selfish, greedy, or neglectful mothers. Make no mistake - I know parents like that, too - where it IS about the BMW..and I find it hard not to judge. But I find it interesting that you wouldn't presume to judge the man in your example who makes $200K by an equal standard....you didn't mention what time HE gets home at night, to be a father to his kids. And you said it yourself: "If you're going to have kids, I think then maybe you should raise them". I presume you meant that only for the women...

[Joe33]

It is faulty logic to imply that the kids are retarded monkeys becuase dad makes a lot of money and mom works because she wants to.

No, it is not faulty logic at all. I never said they act like that because the dad makes $200k. He deserves to make $200k and his family lives a very comfortable life because of it. Their kids act like that because they never received what they really needed during their most formative years- the care of their mother. I mentioned the dad's salary to show that there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for the mother working. By their own admission, she has nothing left for her kids by the time she gets home from her job, when her job should, in fact, be her kids.

[Joe33]

I completely disagree.

Sending your kid to daycare, or having a nanny, requires a second income, but this could be aliviated by having one parent stay home with the kids.

People spent far too much on bullshit and claim that both parties must work. Look at the houses, or the cars in the drivway, or the mounting credit card debt. If your priorities aren't in place, you shouldn't be spitting out kids in the first place.


Military families have it rough, but in no way is it impossible to live off a snigle income.

For starters, you get an income increase when you have kids. Medical is payed for, schooling (on base) is payed for, housing (if you live in base housing) is payed for, etc..etc..

Once you are out of the military and living in the civi world, that bigger paycheck quickly diminishes once you are paying for these things out of pocket, as I am now. I actually made more take home money in the military than I do now.

The standard of living that you want isn't nessessarily the standard of living you need.

There are FAR too many cases of the typical whine "oh, we both have to work to make ends meet" and see a garage with 2 brand new cars, another new car in the drivway, a couple of water craft on a trailer, and other toys that not only take up a large part of their income, but aren't even nessessary.

Sure, we all want things, but your priorities should be on your kids, period! Everything else is excess fluff.

Again- dead...on...target.

[Mav]

So Match: If your wife wanted to work, you'd be fine with staying home and her going to work, right? :)

I work. So does my husband. And my kids are doing okay. Applying YOUR values and YOUR situation to every single person, is kinda stupid.

Folks, you want to play "we've been doing it forever" game? ;) Fine... So why are we forking over money for PTSD research? That's been around, too... shouldn't they accept that they joined the military and they need to just suck it up? And KidA, for your benefit: We'll just have soldiers watch "In The Army Now", and read some Tom Clancy. That'll tell them if they have the cajones to handle the stress of combat. I mean.. I know I could. I never have, but I've been around it, so obviously I know how I'll handle it. Right? Right? Nope.. not right. And Match is right.. being a mother is the toughest job I have EVER done in my life.. I've been a stay at home mom... And sometimes, it just works out to being better one way or the other.

Good thing I'm a strong enough Mom that I do what's best for my kids.. That I know better than any of you. In a situation that I know better than any of you. And I don't let your opinions of what I should do weigh on me. You can throw stones at me all ya want... and I agree, it's better to stay home.. but sometimes, Mom and Dad decide it's better another way. And who the hell are you to tell them that they made a wrong decision? Might as well say that we have to teach children to be atheists. I mean.. it's all about values, right? Maybe they're family values are very industrial. They want their kids to know nothing but being great in Corporate America. Who are you to say that's wrong? Are they hurting you? Are your children being forced to believe that? Nope. I don't particularly like Islam. So by your logic, every child should be raised Catholic... because that's what I believe and that's the way it goes. if that's what a parent wants to instill in their child, so be it. Stop trying to raise their children for them. You yell at the schools not to, and then do it, yourselves.

If that kid isn't ruining your life.. .and isn't being emotional or physically beaten.. Then back off. Keep your values to yourself. That's what makes America great... Don't step on somebody else.. they're making what they can of what they have, whether for good or bad.

[KidA]

FTR if some super hot 25 year old bisexual chick is reading this and makes 6 figures I will gladly stay at home and raise our kids. Apply via PM.

[ROMAD]

Heh heh, speaking of marrige.;)



When women get pregnet, and are married, they should stay home with the kids.

The "working Mom" is the downfall of our society.

My .02.

Eat my ass.

I actually had a chat with my wife about this long before we were married. She's has about a decade of higher learning with potential to make far more than I can at this point. If we were to be in a position to have kids, I would be the "stay at home Dad" since she would earn more. I have no problem with that. Of course I would have to grow up before I could raise kids. I'm almost 30 and don't see having kids anytime soon. I think the saying goes "kids are great when they aren't yours". :D I'm happy being uncle to a bunch of kids at this point.

[Matchanu]

So Match: If your wife wanted to work, you'd be fine with staying home and her going to work, right? :)


If the situation dictated so (I loose my job, I get injured, etc.) then I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't do nearly as well as she does, but I understand the greater good of being there to raise your kids and run the house.

I work. So does my husband. And my kids are doing okay. Applying YOUR values and YOUR situation to every single person, is kinda stupid.

Depends, how old are your kids? Do you have newborns? 4-5 year olds? are they in school? Who is raising your kids when you are not there? A nanny? a Grand Parent? The situation is going to dictate, but I stand by my statement, having at least one parent at home to raise your kids is FAR and away better than having someone else do it.

If you are doing okay by you both working and having someone else raising your kids, then good on you.

Certainly there are going to be exceptions, but by and large, you are not in the norm.

Folks, you want to play "we've been doing it forever" game? ;) Fine... So why are we forking over money for PTSD research? That's been around, too... shouldn't they accept that they joined the military and they need to just suck it up? And KidA, for your benefit: We'll just have soldiers watch "In The Army Now", and read some Tom Clancy. That'll tell them if they have the cajones to handle the stress of combat. I mean.. I know I could. I never have, but I've been around it, so obviously I know how I'll handle it. Right? Right? Nope.. not right. And Match is right.. being a mother is the toughest job I have EVER done in my life.. I've been a stay at home mom... And sometimes, it just works out to being better one way or the other.

Whhhhaaaat?:confused:


Good thing I'm a strong enough Mom that I do what's best for my kids.. That I know better than any of you. In a situation that I know better than any of you. And I don't let your opinions of what I should do weigh on me. You can throw stones at me all ya want... and I agree, it's better to stay home.. but sometimes, Mom and Dad decide it's better another way. And who the hell are you to tell them that they made a wrong decision? Might as well say that we have to teach children to be atheists. I mean.. it's all about values, right? Maybe they're family values are very industrial. They want their kids to know nothing but being great in Corporate America. Who are you to say that's wrong? Are they hurting you? Are your children being forced to believe that? Nope. I don't particularly like Islam. So by your logic, every child should be raised Catholic... because that's what I believe and that's the way it goes. if that's what a parent wants to instill in their child, so be it. Stop trying to raise their children for them. You yell at the schools not to, and then do it, yourselves.


Sheesh, simmer down there Frances.

You are making gigantic leaps in logic that simply do not line up.


If that kid isn't ruining your life.. .and isn't being emotional or physically beaten.. Then back off. Keep your values to yourself. That's what makes America great... Don't step on somebody else.. they're making what they can of what they have, whether for good or bad.



Who the fuck if forcing values on you?

What makes America great is having are own opinions. See the little "My .02" at the end of my rant? it means, my opinion, not MY LAW!

If you are satisfied with the results of you both working, and your kids are doing fine, then obviously you are the exception.

But seriously, do really need to work? Check out your income and expendetures, I think you will probably find you working is more of a want, than a need. I may be completely wrong as I don't know what you make or what your expedatures are, that is something that only you know.

[Joe33]

I guess it comes down to your interpretation of 'nature's laws'. You've presented your values passionately here - but they're exactly that: your values. Not that I entirely disagree with them, and to the extent that it's relevant, my wife and I have made similar choices, and did so because we believed it was what was best for our children.

But I think before I got too preachy, I'd consider that what you dismiss as "feminist lies" is actually a much larger social phenomenon borne out of the case for actual gender equality. You seem to believe that the only reason a woman might work is to drive a BMW, and consider it shameful in the absense of financial necessity. That's a pretty sexist outlook, IMO. What about the intellectual fulfillment women may get from working? What about their professional aspirations, goals, and the education, hard work, and time they've invested in their careers?

You're suggesting that they must choose either children OR a professional life, and that's bullshit. You get to have both. Why shouldn't your wife?

No, I'm not challenging your personal choices, or presuming to know what your wife wants or thinks, so please don't take that personally. And I think it's great that you have discussed all this at length beforehand. What I'm saying is what I think gets assumed too easily in your value scheme...that women ultimately aren't allowed to have the same professional ambitions as men. If they do, well, then they're selfish, greedy, or neglectful mothers. Make no mistake - I know parents like that, too - where it IS about the BMW..and I find it hard not to judge. But I find it interesting that you wouldn't presume to judge the man in your example who makes $200K by an equal standard....you didn't mention what time HE gets home at night, to be a father to his kids. And you said it yourself: "If you're going to have kids, I think then maybe you should raise them". I presume you meant that only for the women...

First, what's the difference between "preaching" and passionately articulating a strongly-held belief? That's one of the reasons I love this site- you can really dig into the shit!

I appreciate you saying not to take it personally etc. and I won't- I love a good debate. And I can appreciate your comments- I honestly think you've made some valuable points. When I wrote "If you're going to have kids, I think then maybe you should raise them" I did indeed mean BOTH mom and dad. No question. To answer your question about the dad, he gets home around 6:30 or so and is a great dad. Spends all of his other time with his boys. I get home around 6:30 on usually too, and also spend all my other time with my boys. He makes about $200k, she makes about $60k. Who is going to provide a more stable future for the family? If the situation were opposite, then yeah, it could be argued that HE should stay home. And I could see that.

Regarding this: "You seem to believe that the only reason a woman might work is to drive a BMW, and consider it shameful in the absense of financial necessity." If that's the way my comments came off then I should clarify. I don't believe that. I believe if a husband and wife value material things over the wellbeing of their kids, that is what I know is wrong. That is what I see time and time again.

"You're suggesting that they must choose either children OR a professional life, and that's bullshit. You get to have both. Why shouldn't your wife?"
Well, here's where I'm going to get called sexist again. There are pros and cons to everything in life, including whatever our gender is. A child's bond with it's mother is what it is. They need their mother more than anything else during their formative years. So yep, that trumps the woman's career, her professional goals etc. That's just what I believe. I know my boys love me to death and vice versa, BUT no matter what, they'll never love me the way they do their mom- nature my man.

Call me old fashioned, sexist etc. I can take it. And you're right - these are MY values and what I believe. But I have seen those values work first hand and they were passed down to me. And I have seen the opposite occur too many times.

I know that these issues are more complicated than just saying "the woman needs to stay home with the kids, period" and there is no template that works for everyone. We can always find the exception to the "rules". But in general I believe this is the right thing to do. I think there are alot of folks doing it the wrong way, overcomplicating and overstressing their lives, and victimizing their kids in the process.

[KSM]

Heh heh, speaking of marrige.;)

Perhaps it should have been called the "Rule of wrist?" ;)

[Matchanu]

I actually had a chat with my wife about this long before we were married. She's has about a decade of higher learning with potential to make far more than I can at this point. If we were to be in a position to have kids, I would be the "stay at home Dad" since she would earn more. I have no problem with that. Of course I would have to grow up before I could raise kids. I'm almost 30 and don't see having kids anytime soon. I think the saying goes "kids are great when they aren't yours". :D I'm happy being uncle to a bunch of kids at this point.



I didn't have kids untill I was 34.

We checked all of our finaces first, figured what we would have to budget, what we would have to sell, what we could and could not do, payed off as much debt as possible, then sallyed forth.

It ain't easy. I drive a 10 year old car or a 35 year old MC. I don't take vacations, I shop at thrift store or yard sales for just about everything. I sacrifice my wants so we can live in a nice neigborhood, and have my kids go to a good school (very expensive!).

I'm getting all of my tattoo equipment set up so I can supliment my income a bit. Wife cuts hair at home to supliment her income.

Perhaps I'm too harsh on the "both parents working" thing, but everyday I drive home from work, I pass the day care center were kids as young as 6 months are imprisoned there untill as late as 1900.

I call them "non-parents".

I could not possibly imagine doing this to my kids.

[Mav]

If the situation dictated so (I loose my job, I get injured, etc.) then I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't do nearly as well as she does, but I understand the greater good of being there to raise your kids and run the house.

And if she wanted to work and got tired of raising the kids? Would you tell her "Sorry, you're the mom"?



Depends, how old are your kids? Do you have newborns? 4-5 year olds? are they in school? Who is raising your kids when you are not there? A nanny? a Grand Parent? The situation is going to dictate, but I stand by my statement, having at least one parent at home to raise your kids is FAR and away better than having someone else do it.

If you are doing okay by you both working and having someone else raising your kids, then good on you.

Certainly there are going to be exceptions, but by and large, you are not in the norm.

Even if we have the exact same situation, our values may differ. And I do agree with you... kids need a parent at home if it's possible. I never disagreed with that. I disagree with the people who insist that it's the only possible way, and shove it in the face of those who disagree with it. Which, you aren't. :)



Sheesh, simmer down there Frances.

You are making gigantic leaps in logic that simply do not line up.

I'm simmered, I promise! I'm cool.. :) I rarely ever post angry.. tends to lead to bad situations. I wrote that with a smile. Sorry, I wrote it as I would have said it and the expression doesn't come across. I talk a little rougher than most people, I guess...


Anyway, as to "leaps in logic", I think they do. We're talking about instilling values in our children, and a few posters are saying that values aren't be instilled in our children because they aren't being raised by their parents. Whose to say that's true or not true? I was attempting to say that maybe those ARE the values those parents are trying to instill in their children. :)




Who the fuck if forcing values on you?

What makes America great is having are own opinions. See the little "My .02" at the end of my rant? it means, my opinion, not MY LAW!

If you are satisfied with the results of you both working, and your kids are doing fine, then obviously you are the exception.

But seriously, do really need to work? Check out your income and expendetures, I think you will probably find you working is more of a want, than a need. I may be completely wrong as I don't know what you make or what your expedatures are, that is something that only you know.

Whooa... I'm not personally attacking anybody, here. I generalized the use of "you". "you" as in the general public who has negative comments to make towards parents who choose to both work. :) I know that right now, yes, I really have to work. Am I always going to? Nope... But as the situation dictates then, yes, I have to or no I do not... All you said was the comment about your own wife staying home.. I didn't direct most of my post to you. I directed it to the people who insisted that a mom should stay home, PERIOD.

[Mav]

The point is:

Is it better for a parent to stay home?

I think it is... and it seems to be the general consensus of this board.

Is it the only way to raise a child?

Not necessarily. And every situation is different. I think it's a good thing we each get heated on this topic. It's because we really do care about our kids. One way or another.

[rgrjoe175]

I work.

I know when my first two son's were born my wife or I were at home with the boys. The wife worked nights (7pm to 7am 7 out of 14 days), I worked days. On some occasions they were with a sitter that was more like a grandmother than a sitter. Everything we paid the lady went directly to the boys and I am sure quite a bit out of her and her husbands pocket. We were very fortunate. When the youngest started school, we adjusted our schedules to where we both worked during the day. The lady I mentioned and her husband would be at the school and walk home with my sons and keep them for 2 hours until we arrived home.

When my third son was born the wife went to work part time for a while then not at all when we moved to Florida (lazy bitch) :D Actually she quit when we could not find what we believed was quality care. Once he started school she went back to work and he stayed in a after care program at school for 2 hours each day.

One issue I see today is when the hubby works and the wife stays at home, the hubby might as well not be a parent or partner. I would say this is in most cases that I have observed. The males seem to think they are entitled to more since they are the socalled bread winner. So they don't cook, clean or do shit except think about themselves and their toys.

So having a parent not work is not always the best answer.

The other aspect of the female not working is what happens when the scumbag she married is gone either through divorce or he goes tits up. That female suddenly becomes the single parent. She becomes the bread winner, without a career and so called experience.... she is way behind the curve.

JP

[Dumpsterchair]

I didn't have kids untill I was 34.

We checked all of our finaces first, figured what we would have to budget, what we would have to sell, what we could and could not do, payed off as much debt as possible, then sallyed forth.

It ain't easy. I drive a 10 year old car or a 35 year old MC. I don't take vacations, I shop at thrift store or yard sales for just about everything. I sacrifice my wants so we can live in a nice neigborhood, and have my kids go to a good school (very expensive!).

I'm getting all of my tattoo equipment set up so I can supliment my income a bit. Wife cuts hair at home to supliment her income.

Perhaps I'm too harsh on the "both parents working" thing, but everyday I drive home from work, I pass the day care center were kids as young as 6 months are imprisoned there untill as late as 1900.

I call them "non-parents".

I could not possibly imagine doing this to my kids.

Great post. We had kids pretty young and I was only an E-4 at the time. When we made the decision to have kids, we both agreed to make it work with my wife staying home. I still drive the same minivan that we have owned for 9 years and we probably go without a few things that some of my contemporaries at work have (BMWs, PWCs, etc.). But I could not imagine having someone else raise our kids 8-9 hours a day. And yes, I do believe my wife works much harder than me raising three sons. Much.

It would always slay me when I was still in the military to hear people that I knew very well made twice as much as me tell me they had to have their wife work just to make ends meat (ends meat meaning two brand new luxury cars and maxed out credit cards) while my wife didn't work (outside the home) and we drove an old crummy minivan. I don't know how they did it with a straight face.

I make a pretty good living now but when I was a young E-4 we made it work because it was what was best for our kids. I know it was really hard for her at times but I am sure when our kids are adults they will thank us for it.

[MakoZeroSix]

I guess it all depends on perspective as to what amounts to an acceptable lifestyle. I don't need a BMW. I will not, however, drive a "crappy minivan" or live a life with no vacations, and shop at a thrift store, or live in a trailer, or in a shitty neighborhood. I find those things to be completely unacceptable.

The economy is in such a state that nice (not extravagant) things that decent folks would like to have and have had in the past are out of reach for most "middle income" people without both working.

Quality of daycare is also a factor- if you can find good family members to watch the child during the day, I think that can prevent any negative impact. Or, a very nice and trustworthy individual who runs a private daycare with only a few kids out of a nice house (these are hard to find and get into), as opposed to someplace where the kid is warehoused with dozens of others.

[Matchanu]

And if she wanted to work and got tired of raising the kids? Would you tell her "Sorry, you're the mom"?


If she could pull the same income and benifits as I do, and maintain the same TSP account, etc..etc.., then I'd consider it.

The benifits would NOT outwiegh the cost in this case, I'm a lousy house keeper.


I do try and give her a break when I can, but it's not easy when I'm gone every 2 weeks for 2 weeks to a month.

It's not fair to her, and we both have come to terms with that. The reward is work a job which a hate, but pulls in a good income with benifits and has security.

Perhaps I'm a traditionalist in a sence, I do believe the husband should work and the wife stay at home. Someone has to run the house and raise the kids, men, by proxy, suck at this, unless you are gay, but then the sex would suck, (it's a give and take).;)



Even if we have the exact same situation, our values may differ. And I do agree with you... kids need a parent at home if it's possible. I never disagreed with that. I disagree with the people who insist that it's the only possible way, and shove it in the face of those who disagree with it. Which, you aren't. :)


I'm only expressing my opinion on website. Honestly, in person I doubt I'd be this expressive untill I got to know someone on a personal level. I have friends that are born again Christians, hard line liberals, single moms, very rich and very poor. I don't judge or distriminate by these principles, I learn something from everyone of them.



I'm simmered, I promise! I'm cool.. :) I rarely ever post angry.. tends to lead to bad situations. I wrote that with a smile. Sorry, I wrote it as I would have said it and the expression doesn't come across. I talk a little rougher than most people, I guess...

Never type, or leave messages on phone machines when you are angry or drunk.;)

[Matchanu]

I know when my first two son's were born my wife or I were at home with the boys. The wife worked nights (7pm to 7am 7 out of 14 days), I worked days. On some occasions they were with a sitter that was more like a grandmother than a sitter. Everything we paid the lady went directly to the boys and I am sure quite a bit out of her and her husbands pocket. We were very fortunate. When the youngest started school, we adjusted our schedules to where we both worked during the day. The lady I mentioned and her husband would be at the school and walk home with my sons and keep them for 2 hours until we arrived home.

When my third son was born the wife went to work part time for a while then not at all when we moved to Florida (lazy bitch) :D Actually she quit when we could not find what we believed was quality care. Once he started school she went back to work and he stayed in a after care program at school for 2 hours each day.

One issue I see today is when the hubby works and the wife stays at home, the hubby might as well not be a parent or partner. I would say this is in most cases that I have observed. The males seem to think they are entitled to more since they are the socalled bread winner. So they don't cook, clean or do shit except think about themselves and their toys.

So having a parent not work is not always the best answer.

The other aspect of the female not working is what happens when the scumbag she married is gone either through divorce or he goes tits up. That female suddenly becomes the single parent. She becomes the bread winner, without a career and so called experience.... she is way behind the curve.

JP


I still remember when my dad worked 3 jobs to make ends meet when the airlines layed everyone off, yet my mom still stayed at home.


When I and my brother were both in High School, my mom took up a job at another school for the extra income.

They both drove shitty cars, and sacrificed a lot so we could live in a nice neigborhood, go to swim lessons, etc..etc...

I guess that left an impression on me.

[Matchanu]

The economy is in such a state that nice (not extravagant) things that decent folks would like to have and have had in the past are out of reach for most "middle income" people without both working.

.


????


Like what?


In the past? how far back in the past?

We have far more toys and useless shit now than ever.


We have wants now, not needs.


I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[Dark Helmet]

Their kids act like that because they never received what they really needed during their most formative years- the care of their mother.

Some people are just shitty parents, whether they have a job or not.

Making a correlation between (1) being a shitty parent and (2) having a shitty kid is sound.

Making a correlation between (1) having a job and (2) having a shitty kid isn't.

[Joe33]

I know when my first two son's were born my wife or I were at home with the boys. The wife worked nights (7pm to 7am 7 out of 14 days), I worked days. On some occasions they were with a sitter that was more like a grandmother than a sitter. Everything we paid the lady went directly to the boys and I am sure quite a bit out of her and her husbands pocket. We were very fortunate. When the youngest started school, we adjusted our schedules to where we both worked during the day. The lady I mentioned and her husband would be at the school and walk home with my sons and keep them for 2 hours until we arrived home.

When my third son was born the wife went to work part time for a while then not at all when we moved to Florida (lazy bitch) :D Actually she quit when we could not find what we believed was quality care. Once he started school she went back to work and he stayed in a after care program at school for 2 hours each day.

One issue I see today is when the hubby works and the wife stays at home, the hubby might as well not be a parent or partner. I would say this is in most cases that I have observed. The males seem to think they are entitled to more since they are the socalled bread winner. So they don't cook, clean or do shit except think about themselves and their toys.

So having a parent not work is not always the best answer.

The other aspect of the female not working is what happens when the scumbag she married is gone either through divorce or he goes tits up. That female suddenly becomes the single parent. She becomes the bread winner, without a career and so called experience.... she is way behind the curve.

JP

You make a great point here. As you said, that's an example of an overly-entitled man- no doubt. I can assure you that I do my fair share of cleaning (my wife might give me some shit about that comment;) ), some cooking, all the landscaping, and lots of parenting. Anybody who really takes pride in their home and their family - the work never ends! It only stops for a while when you sleep. Again, comms is the key. My wife and I discussed roles and responsibilities before we were married. We have learned that sometimes you have to take up some slack, change roles when the situation dictates etc.

[Joe33]

Great post. We had kids pretty young and I was only an E-4 at the time. When we made the decision to have kids, we both agreed to make it work with my wife staying home. I still drive the same minivan that we have owned for 9 years and we probably go without a few things that some of my contemporaries at work have (BMWs, PWCs, etc.). But I could not imagine having someone else raise our kids 8-9 hours a day. And yes, I do believe my wife works much harder than me raising three sons. Much.

It would always slay me when I was still in the military to hear people that I knew very well made twice as much as me tell me they had to have their wife work just to make ends meat (ends meat meaning two brand new luxury cars and maxed out credit cards) while my wife didn't work (outside the home) and we drove an old crummy minivan. I don't know how they did it with a straight face.

I make a pretty good living now but when I was a young E-4 we made it work because it was what was best for our kids. I know it was really hard for her at times but I am sure when our kids are adults they will thank us for it.

Good for you my man! America needs more people who think like you do.

[Joe33]

Some people are just shitty parents, whether they have a job or not.

Making a correlation between (1) being a shitty parent and (2) having a shitty kid is sound.

Making a correlation between (1) having a job and (2) having a shitty kid isn't.

Agreed, but I was commenting on my friends' situation in particular. I know it intimately and I'm calling it like I see it. In this situation, there is absolutely a correlation to her working, being to tired and stressed to mother her boys, and her boys acting out. Again, by their own ADMISSION, this has been a significant problem for the marriage and the kids. It's not THE CAUSE, but it's a big part of the problem.

[cj]

I agree with Match, having a stay-at-home parent is the best situation, if certain criteria can be met. I’m a product of a stay-at-home mom; she did awesome with 3 kids. However, let me say with first hand experience, stay at home moms/dads have the toughest job in the world!

It’s extremely rewarding, humbling and at times downright frustrating. In fact when you have to handle the kids, the house and a work stressed partner, you've put in a good days work by any standard. I did it for 3 months after a restructuring sent me home and let me tell you, I couldn't get back into the workforce fast enough. Additionally, I paid $20,000 plus last year for daycare for my two daughters, they went 5 days a week.

The wife and I feel guilty regarding the amount of time the kids are in daycare, no doubt about it. But let me say we believe in spending quality time with them at night and on the weekends. For example, we don't sit and watch TV during weeknights, a typical weeknight after work and daycare will include a 2.5 mile walk with kids in tow with me pushing a pink plastic car. Often we stop on that route and feed the ducks and turtles old bread at the local pond and when we get home, the oldest does homework, yes that’s right my oldest has homework in daycare. Than we talk, sing, dance, color, read books and then hit the bed at around 8:30pm M-F. On the weekends, we do daily excursions to parks, beaches and museums in an attempt to have as much fun and adventure as possible while capturing life-long memories with a digital camera, 7,000 plus images and counting. I'm 44 years old and in my first and only marriage which hits 10 years in November, father of two girls, 4 and 2.5 years old and I'm having the time of my life. And yes I believe I'm blessed, albeit pushing a pink car through the neighborhood and driving a Honda Odyssey at times offends my manly self-image and gets me a little ribbing from my buddies, but I can handle that. ;)

Ultimately, IMO, it’s about the quality of time you spend with the kids and not necessarily the quantity. This concept allays some of our guilt about having them in daycare, but certainly not all. Do we have more than what we need, yes we’re guilty of that. Could my wife or I stay at home and take care of the kids and the house, yes we definitely could, but sacrifices would need to be had to include letting go of the things we “want” and things we feel are “necessary” and in the best interests of our kids.

Like everyone else, hopefully, we’re doing what’s best for our family and I guess only time will tell, say in about 30 years from now, when our kids will be having kids of their own and they’ll be imparting the lessons they learned from us.

[OldSwabbie]

Dang, that was a long dissertation. Who's to say whats right or wrong? I guess its whats right for "You & Your" family. Sure, its great when Mom can be there to raise the children and take care of them and be there for them. I was very fortunate that I was able to give my wife the choice to stay home with the kids until they were of age to start going to school. It was completely up to her, she chose to stay home. After a few years she took a part part time job for a couple years but then came back home again when the kids hit High School. As you know, problems always seem to expound in High School and she was there to deal with them right then and there.

You notice I talked about Wife and Kids, my wife and I are traditional parents and we were raised by traditional parents. Very much like what Matchanu described. Our life for all those years was our kids.... NOW....

We are Grandparents 3 times over. Grandma and Grandpa try to spend the time they can with the grandkids and teach THEM the important things in life because BOTH parents have to work due to the Economy. Sucks doesn't it. At least Grandma is home and can also help because child care is so expensive these days.... Times have changed so much even in our lifetime.

I STILL believe in marriage. I believe its still possible to look into your wife's eyes and know exactly whats she's thinking. I believe in the closeness of marriage where you know your mates smell and it calms your heart...the sound of her voice is like a part OF you.

Its give and take to be sure. There are times when you are not going to feel like giving 150% and neither is she. You have to just help each other over and through those times. Annoyances? Oh yea ~ I know I annoy the hell out of my wife.. but she loves me anyway (thank God). She looks past my faults .. dont know how thats possible.. but.. she does. Must be love, has to be love. A woman has to love you when she puts up with a 12 Gauge Shotgun on her dining room table on a continuous basis during dove season.. or dirty cleaning rags from my muzzle loader on the kitchen table.. I would say I have some work at being more organized and being cleaner.

Honestly.. I know it irritates her and I'm trying to pick up after myself more. Thats the wonderful thing about being married... I know where I have to improve....

OldSwabbie

[Mav]

I know when my first two son's were born my wife or I were at home with the boys. The wife worked nights (7pm to 7am 7 out of 14 days), I worked days. On some occasions they were with a sitter that was more like a grandmother than a sitter. Everything we paid the lady went directly to the boys and I am sure quite a bit out of her and her husbands pocket. We were very fortunate. When the youngest started school, we adjusted our schedules to where we both worked during the day. The lady I mentioned and her husband would be at the school and walk home with my sons and keep them for 2 hours until we arrived home.

When my third son was born the wife went to work part time for a while then not at all when we moved to Florida (lazy bitch) :D Actually she quit when we could not find what we believed was quality care. Once he started school she went back to work and he stayed in a after care program at school for 2 hours each day.

One issue I see today is when the hubby works and the wife stays at home, the hubby might as well not be a parent or partner. I would say this is in most cases that I have observed. The males seem to think they are entitled to more since they are the socalled bread winner. So they don't cook, clean or do shit except think about themselves and their toys.

So having a parent not work is not always the best answer.

The other aspect of the female not working is what happens when the scumbag she married is gone either through divorce or he goes tits up. That female suddenly becomes the single parent. She becomes the bread winner, without a career and so called experience.... she is way behind the curve.

JP

We did the alternating schedules quite a few times.. I worked from 8 pm to 5 am, I think it was... but I wasn't quite as strong as my mom... My girls would get up at 6 am, when I'd just gotten home, and I couldn't take the two hour nap they had, which was my only option for sleeping, and make dinner, etc, etc... So I would drop the girls off with a friend for a few hours, and by the time I picked them up, half the day was gone, anyway....So we switched to an afternoon one... which was good... I had them in the morning, and they went to a friend's for a few hours, and Matt would get them, when he got home..and then they offered me a job that would keep my clearance... and at this point, we had the girls with my mom, my sister, or one of my best friends...

The girls started going to daycare when they started Pre-School.. It was a Baptist school.. one of the top private schools in Fayetteville (Village Christian Academy)... and now they're in another Baptist Pre-k/Daycare... but the teachers make a point of talking to us, because we get very involved in what they do...

I'm actually going to try coming home, again, come Spring, and finish my degree. ;) Go to school while the girls are in Pre-k, and pick them up after or before Nap time, and there we go ;)

Just gotta do whatcha gotta do ;)

[rgrjoe175]

and finish my degree. ;)

That is outstanding.

[pittsburghgrl]

I agree with you; if a person (male or female) has less time on a job, they should be paid less, no matter the reason.

What if the more senior person is a complete friggin' idiot? It happens in the govt sector everyday. I see it daily. My husband lived it daily in many of his past agencies.

[Mav]

What if the more senior person is a complete friggin' idiot?

From my experience? He gets paid more... And that's (semi)private and public sector.


That is outstanding.

Thank you.. wish me luck :) Looking at Biology with a concentration in Biomedical science... Woohoo, Organic Chemistry 1&2, Physics with Calc I & II, Histology, Immunology, the whole 9 yards. ;) DEFinitely had to come home for that. ;)

[rgrjoe175]

What if the more senior person is a complete friggin' idiot? It happens in the govt sector everyday. I see it daily. My husband lived it daily in many of his past agencies.

Performance management should deal with this situation. However, if the whole chain to the top are idiots, you are screwed. Well you did say government...ahmmmm... LOL.

The problem is most orgs are to chicken shit to really use performance managment.

JP

[cb88]

True, some folks cant sell themselves but it causes problems in the future when employees do happen to discuss salaries.

The reason employers discourage salary discussion has nothing to do with the gender of the employees but more to do with employee moral.

I'll fire any of my employees if I catch them discussing salaries if it's up to me. That is a BIG no no.

In the example I posted.. is the reason for the disparity in base salary because of seniority, time in position or performance? All four meet the requirements and three individuals do the job expected of them and three of the individuals comp is based on time in the position.

Due to the other persons work performance, she is compensated the highest. She is about to go on maternity leave for a second time and I don't care other than I will have to get two temps to cover for her while she is out. ;) Some folks are just really good, others just meet requirements.



haha....which brings me to:

'Whatever you give a woman, she's going to multiply.
If you give her a house, she'll give you a home.
If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal.
If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart.
She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.'
So - if you give her Crap, you will receive more SHIT than any one human
being can handle.

But seriously, I'm really not surprised. I know a lot of REALLY hard working women...including myself.

I was lucky (and still am) as a single mom. For the last 10 years I've been able to telecommute. Best of both worlds. Career and at home when the kids get home from school. I make my marketing calls during the day and until the last couple years I rarely went out of town (of course now my kids are grown). If I had to work overtime/late to get it done, I'd make dinner, hang out with the kids and do more work when they were asleep.

If a mom can't be a stay at home mom in the traditional sense, the new stay at home mom (the telecommuter) is the next best thing.

[cb88]

You need to talk to more stay at home moms. Working at a job is a fucking cake walk compared to being a stay at home mom.


I completely agree....when I did stay at home my ex used to come home and bitch "what'd you do all day" when we had two toddlers. :rolleyes:

Like Mav, I've been both.

Once I was divorced and really did have to work, that's when I worked hard to get to the point where I could telecommute. Like I said above, best of both worlds.

Take a lunch break, put dinner in the crockpot, do laundry, clean....it was a struggle, but I made the choice not to get remarried for the sake of my kids and I still stand by it...telecommuting made it easier.

[BOFH]

I'll fire any of my employees if I catch them discussing salaries if it's up to me. That is a BIG no no.


Personally, when the new company took over my contract, I'm very glad so much discussion of salary took place. It brought out the huge differences in salaries between people with comparable qualifications, seniority, skill, and work ethic. I, for instance, was being paid almost nothing. The person sitting next to me, though having similar background, education, and skills, was paid about twice what I was paid for the same position. I wasn't putting my salary out there, but I definitely listened when others did so. Though I was highly praised for the quality and quantity of my work, the low value they assigned to me told the true story. They didn't value me at all. Thus, monday is my last day here. I'm moving on to bigger and better things.

[Greenhat]

Personally, when the new company took over my contract, I'm very glad so much discussion of salary took place. It brought out the huge differences in salaries between people with comparable qualifications, seniority, skill, and work ethic. I, for instance, was being paid almost nothing. The person sitting next to me, though having similar background, education, and skills, was paid about twice what I was paid for the same position. I wasn't putting my salary out there, but I definitely listened when others did so. Though I was highly praised for the quality and quantity of my work, the low value they assigned to me told the true story. They didn't value me at all. Thus, monday is my last day here. I'm moving on to bigger and better things.


They didn't value you? Or you didn't value yourself when you negotiated your salary?

The problem for most people is that they have no idea how to negotiate. Sounds like the person sitting next to you did.

[cb88]

They didn't value you? Or you didn't value yourself when you negotiated your salary?

The problem for most people is that they have no idea how to negotiate. Sounds like the person sitting next to you did.


Agreed....

I know when I first started where I'm out, I had just moved to Texas 18 months before and wasn't "up" on where salaries where as compared to Chicago....I listened to the wrong person and sold myself short. HOWEVER, at my next review (7 months later) I did not make that mistake and things got taken care of. :cool:

Companies are in the business to make money....if you are willing to work for less, they aren't going to argue with you.

[e5wsf]

Back on topic.
http://www.nomarriage.com/

[ex]

What if the more senior person is a complete friggin' idiot? It happens in the govt sector everyday. I see it daily. My husband lived it daily in many of his past agencies.
Very good point. What's that saying? "Shit floats to the top". :D

[Brianj]

"Shit floats to the top". :D

"...and tenure ensures it stays there..."

[MakoZeroSix]

Like what?


In the past? how far back in the past?

We have far more toys and useless shit now than ever.


We have wants now, not needs.


What I'm getting at are the things that were affordable in the past, yet are now extravagences. For instance- when my grandfather would take my dad to a Yankee game, it was 10 cents. Now, you gotta shell out $250 for a decent seat. Movies were a nickel. Now its $10- and not all that is inflation. You could buy your kid a bike for not an arm and a leg, now, not only is the bike expensive, but you have to buy an expensive helmet, because of the silly helmet laws. Things like that are nickle and diming the middle class to death.

I agree that we are spending alot on things we don't need- $5 for a liquid cheeseburger at Starbucks, for instance. But there are things that regular folks should be able to have that are too expensive.

If a mother can only earn, say $25K a year as a kindergarten teacher, or whatnot, then I agree that she'd be better off at home. But if your wife is an executive who makes six figures, then that, with the combined income of the man who makes just as much is a better deal than her quitting her job, because now the family has real financial security for the long-term. They could sock away or invest the income from one of the parents, and now the kid can go to private school, a good college, and have a good inheritance to look forward to. I think that kind of future is worth the sacrifice of day-care.


I'll fire any of my employees if I catch them discussing salaries if it's up to me. That is a BIG no no.

Yeah, how dare they try to find out if they're getting shafted or not. The nerve.

[Matchanu]

haha....which brings me to:

'Whatever you give a woman, she's going to multiply.
If you give her a house, she'll give you a home.
If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal.
If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart.
She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.'
So - if you give her Crap, you will receive more SHIT than any one human
being can handle.

.



You give her a little wedding cake, and her ass will multiply in size.


Yup.;)

[Greenhat]

Yeah, how dare they try to find out if they're getting shafted or not. The nerve.

Don't have to talk to your fellow employees to find out if you are underpaid or overpaid. Tons of information available on pay rates for various positions in various industries and areas... of course, if you're smart enough to find the data, you probably didn't get screwed.

[james13f]

I'll fire any of my employees if I catch them discussing salaries if it's up to me. That is a BIG no no.


How can you justify this?

I see how you could possibly justify this if they do it at work, or on a work phone or through company email... but if they want to discuss it on their own time how the hell are you to stop them?

It does have to do with 'selling yourself' and negotiation... but if an employer is paying one employee twice as much as the other that isn't exactly moral. Legal, sure. But I'd quit in a heartbeat.

[Greenhat]

How can you justify this?

Easy. NDA.


It does have to do with 'selling yourself' and negotiation... but if an employer is paying one employee twice as much as the other that isn't exactly moral. Legal, sure. But I'd quit in a heartbeat.

Really. Let's say I have two sales people working for me. One sells three times as much volume as the other. And makes twice what the other does. If you're the lower performing one, you'd quit? Cool. See ya. If you're the higher performing one, you'd quit? Wow, you're an idiot. See ya.

Same concept applies to ALL POSITIONS. Some people are more productive than others. They have more value to a company. Assuming they know their value and how to negotiate their compensation, they will get paid more. Anyone who actually thinks that they are entitled to "equal" pay should understand that they are only going to get equal pay IF they are of equal value and equal skill in negotiating their compensation package.

[rgrjoe175]

Same concept applies to ALL POSITIONS. Some people are more productive than others. They have more value to a company. Assuming they know their value and how to negotiate their compensation, they will get paid more. Anyone who actually thinks that they are entitled to "equal" pay should understand that they are only going to get equal pay IF they are of equal value and equal skill in negotiating their compensation package.

I am stepping in for Greenhat to allow for this exception.... UNIONS...LOL

Plus the complaints regarding comp usually come from those making less than others and then you know who has been talking. Some folks are just dumb...LOL

JP

[Greenhat]

Yeah, you're right, JP. Fucking unions.

[KidA]

Yeah, you're right, JP. Fucking unions.


yeah no shit. Let's go back to the 14 hour work day and 6 day work week ;)

I lowballed myself at my first position at this firm because I was coming from the non-profit sector and thought the 12K raise was huge. Turns out I was making less than some who held positions below me.

Come yearly salary negotiation time I got it fixed right quick and I got promoted on top of it and got a bonus, then got another promotion and an on-the-spot award the following year.

[MakoZeroSix]

Don't have to talk to your fellow employees to find out if you are underpaid or overpaid. Tons of information available on pay rates for various positions in various industries and areas... of course, if you're smart enough to find the data, you probably didn't get screwed.


You don't haveto do alot of things to gather intel. But some people do what they can.

[BOFH]

Edit:nevermind.

[Greenhat]

yeah no shit. Let's go back to the 14 hour work day and 6 day work week ;)


The Unions over-stayed their value 40 years ago. For maybe 50-60 years, they were beneficial, probably closer to 20. Now? UAW is an anchor around the neck of the US auto industry. The US garment industry is close to non-existent. High-tech manufacturing is done extensively in SE Asia.

Yep. Fucking unions.

[grappler]

The Unions over-stayed their value 40 years ago. For maybe 50-60 years, they were beneficial, probably closer to 20. Now? UAW is an anchor around the neck of the US auto industry. The US garment industry is close to non-existent. High-tech manufacturing is done extensively in SE Asia.

Yep. Fucking unions.

Although I'm not old enough to say they over-stayed their value 40 year ago, I will say the attitudes I see where I work from the Union workers... well, sucks. They seem to keep their finger on a hair trigger just waiting for upper management to do the wrong thing in their eyes and then bam!! Fuck it, we'll just strike!!

And on a personal note, if I get into trouble and have to go see the boss, by the time I get to his office -- even though I'm not in the union -- there's a union rep waiting to go in with me. "I can take an ass chewing by myself dude, how bout you go eatadick and I'll let you know how it goes since you're so interested."

[Cold1]

Wow, What a thread.
Where to start??
The essay is spot on for my first marrage. It is greatly off on my second. Not enough can be said for finding the right woman.

Stay at home parents. I love the idea. We cant do it at the moment. Before my wife and I met we were living the single life with no intentions of getting married. BAM, we met and six months later we were married. We both had debts and baggage from the single life. She had a good salary and so did I. our plan to take care of all of the debt went out the window the week before we married. Her company downsized and she lost her job. Rain on a honeymoon for sure. She was out of work for 6 months, this ate our savings and created more debt. She finally found a job making about a third less. We started to gain ground again. Our plan was put into action. It was working and we decided to have a kid. Mom would only have to work for a year or two and she could stay at home. Our day care would be my sister in law who is a great person.

Evrything is going good our kid turns 8 months old and one sunday morning Mom is yelling "OH SHIT". The little pill she takes everyday did not work. We are pregnant again. Our plan is out the window. Our SIL has some medical problems that prevent her from keeping the kids so we find a day care. Its a great place in our little country community, but the cost is more than my mortgage. It just happens to be the cheapest place also.

So here we are. kids in day care both parents working. Almost out of our "singles" debt. Is mom going to be able to stay at home? I dont know. Putting her on my insurance is going to take $500/month out of the pay check. I have to commute 90 miles a day to make the pay I am making. This month the kids have gone to the Doctors everyweek. We will have to wait and see.

Does this make us bad parents???? My oldest is now 2, his favorite place to play is in the shop with me. My favorite thing to do?? play with my sons and teach them everything I can.

As for the Unions, some have become to powerfull. Do we still have a need for Unions? YES. I work for the state, we cannot have a union. In the past few years our benefits have disappeared, our pension fund got raided, our vestment in the plan went from 5 years to 20 years, our pay has stagnated, and now they are going after our job security, not to mention our medical plan just announced that there will be $200 million dollar shortfall due to an accounting error. I fall under the 5 year vestment, I have 9 months left. I am keeping my options open. I like my job, I like the people I work with, I dont want to leave but now there is no advantage to having a state job like there used to be.
Could a union change this? I think it could.

[cb88]

Easy. NDA.



Really. Let's say I have two sales people working for me. One sells three times as much volume as the other. And makes twice what the other does. If you're the lower performing one, you'd quit? Cool. See ya. If you're the higher performing one, you'd quit? Wow, you're an idiot. See ya.

Same concept applies to ALL POSITIONS. Some people are more productive than others. They have more value to a company. Assuming they know their value and how to negotiate their compensation, they will get paid more. Anyone who actually thinks that they are entitled to "equal" pay should understand that they are only going to get equal pay IF they are of equal value and equal skill in negotiating their compensation package.

Yup to all points. ;)

I find at any company I work for, true job security comes in making my company 2x's (including certain intangible values I bring) what they are paying me. Now, if I'm making them more than that -- it's time to talk about a raise.

My company has always been more than fair to me IMO.

If you are discussing salary, it should be with your boss. But, you're right, if employees are in a bar discussing salary after hours, not much you can do about it until you find out -- by then, the employee's usually pissed off far beyond staying.

We don't counter offer when someone wants to leave. If they leave, they leave. Now, if someone comes in and says "hey, I've been doing a little research and I feel I'm underpaid and I really don't want to start looking", that's different. But if they are going to go out looking for a job and get an offer just to get me to counter offer...see ya. If it's always about money, they'll leave some day anyways.

While money is important, there are other values -- ie being able to telecommute or have flex hours, company cars, lack of stress-creating office politics, great support and bosses that stand by you but not over you, creative freedom, etc.

Have a family crisis and see how your company treats you, then you'll see how important the right company is.

You don't need to act like a child to your employer and say "well, so and so told me he makes this much so I want it to"--won't win any manager over. You're on better ground to go in and say, "hey, I've been doing some reasearch out of curousity, and I know I bring "x" value to the table...well, I feel that I'm a little underpaid and I'd like to see if we can talk about rectifying that"

[Dark Helmet]

Have a family crisis and see how your company treats you, then you'll see how important the right company is.


Timely post.

Most of you regular posters know that I run a company.

A month ago, one of my very best consultants asked to meet with me privately. She's 45, married with one teenage son, and she's generally a very professional and private woman. She's a top peformer, is one of the very best at what she does, and our client frims love her and her work product.

She proceeded to tell me behind closed doors that she was facing a family mini-crisis. Her father had been caring for her mother, who suffers from dimentia, and he was starting to slip and the family had agreed that he could no longer care for his bride of almost 60 years.

In short, she apologized in advance that her work would probably start to slip, and wanted me to know that it would be temporary and that she would get her shot group tightened up when it all passed, and that it may be a couple months.

She asked for some flexibility during working hours to accomodate the needs of her parents in the coming months.

This is what I told her:

"Don't worry about the office. You are one of my 5-star, gold-plated employees and I am proud to work with you and will do anything and everything in my power to help. You need time off? Take it. You need to come in late? Do so and don't even feel the need to notify me. You need to leave early? Click off the light in your office and go take care of what is really important in life, which is your family, which is why we are all here anyway. If you slip up, correct it when you can. We're behind you and support you in this trying time. I want you to walk out of here and not even think about this for another second. Just take care of shit."

She cried, thanked me, and left.

Sometimes it's not about money at all...

[NightLandNav]

As cb88 stated; every negotiation with management is a chess game. You and an opponent faced off in a polite match of wits.

Still, male or female, in most cases...your biggest "raise" will be the one you negotiated when you were hired.

[Remington Raider]

As cb88 stated; every negotiation with management is a chess game. You and an opponent faced off in a polite match of wits.

Still, male or female, in most cases...your biggest "raise" will be the one you negotiated when you were hired.

SO, should we believe that, GENERALLY males are better negotiators and intelligence gatherers than females. Would that explain any income disparity?

[Greenhat]

SO, should we believe that, GENERALLY males are better negotiators and intelligence gatherers than females. Would that explain any income disparity?

Considering that the highest paid executives that I knop w are female, I'd argue that some women are better at both. There is no significant disparity in income when experience is taken into account.

[Mav]

Timely post.

Most of you regular posters know that I run a company.

A month ago, one of my very best consultants asked to meet with me privately. She's 45, married with one teenage son, and she's generally a very professional and private woman. She's a top peformer, is one of the very best at what she does, and our client frims love her and her work product.

She proceeded to tell me behind closed doors that she was facing a family mini-crisis. Her father had been caring for her mother, who suffers from dimentia, and he was starting to slip and the family had agreed that he could no longer care for his bride of almost 60 years.

In short, she apologized in advance that her work would probably start to slip, and wanted me to know that it would be temporary and that she would get her shot group tightened up when it all passed, and that it may be a couple months.

She asked for some flexibility during working hours to accomodate the needs of her parents in the coming months.

This is what I told her:

"Don't worry about the office. You are one of my 5-star, gold-plated employees and I am proud to work with you and will do anything and everything in my power to help. You need time off? Take it. You need to come in late? Do so and don't even feel the need to notify me. You need to leave early? Click off the light in your office and go take care of what is really important in life, which is your family, which is why we are all here anyway. If you slip up, correct it when you can. We're behind you and support you in this trying time. I want you to walk out of here and not even think about this for another second. Just take care of shit."

She cried, thanked me, and left.

Sometimes it's not about money at all...

DH, as usual, I feel you hit the nail on the head. THAT is a good supervisor. You are very right.. sometimes it's just not about the money... in fact.. for most of us.. it's only half-way about the money... after that? It generally isn't the money they are necessarily worried about...

[NightLandNav]

SO, should we believe that, GENERALLY males are better negotiators and intelligence gatherers than females. Would that explain any income disparity?

"Believe" nothing, "accept" only that which is logical.

If anything, negotiating skills would only expose the disparity as sexist, rather than an imagined margin of competency.

[Matchanu]

Timely post.

Most of you regular posters know that I run a company.

A month ago, one of my very best consultants asked to meet with me privately. She's 45, married with one teenage son, and she's generally a very professional and private woman. She's a top peformer, is one of the very best at what she does, and our client frims love her and her work product.

She proceeded to tell me behind closed doors that she was facing a family mini-crisis. Her father had been caring for her mother, who suffers from dimentia, and he was starting to slip and the family had agreed that he could no longer care for his bride of almost 60 years.

In short, she apologized in advance that her work would probably start to slip, and wanted me to know that it would be temporary and that she would get her shot group tightened up when it all passed, and that it may be a couple months.

She asked for some flexibility during working hours to accomodate the needs of her parents in the coming months.

This is what I told her:

"Don't worry about the office. You are one of my 5-star, gold-plated employees and I am proud to work with you and will do anything and everything in my power to help. You need time off? Take it. You need to come in late? Do so and don't even feel the need to notify me. You need to leave early? Click off the light in your office and go take care of what is really important in life, which is your family, which is why we are all here anyway. If you slip up, correct it when you can. We're behind you and support you in this trying time. I want you to walk out of here and not even think about this for another second. Just take care of shit."

She cried, thanked me, and left.

Sometimes it's not about money at all...


But you still only pay her half as much as the less qualifed man in the same possition, don't you?;)

[cb88]

Timely post.

Most of you regular posters know that I run a company.

A month ago, one of my very best consultants asked to meet with me privately. She's 45, married with one teenage son, and she's generally a very professional and private woman. She's a top peformer, is one of the very best at what she does, and our client frims love her and her work product.

She proceeded to tell me behind closed doors that she was facing a family mini-crisis. Her father had been caring for her mother, who suffers from dimentia, and he was starting to slip and the family had agreed that he could no longer care for his bride of almost 60 years.

In short, she apologized in advance that her work would probably start to slip, and wanted me to know that it would be temporary and that she would get her shot group tightened up when it all passed, and that it may be a couple months.

She asked for some flexibility during working hours to accomodate the needs of her parents in the coming months.

This is what I told her:

"Don't worry about the office. You are one of my 5-star, gold-plated employees and I am proud to work with you and will do anything and everything in my power to help. You need time off? Take it. You need to come in late? Do so and don't even feel the need to notify me. You need to leave early? Click off the light in your office and go take care of what is really important in life, which is your family, which is why we are all here anyway. If you slip up, correct it when you can. We're behind you and support you in this trying time. I want you to walk out of here and not even think about this for another second. Just take care of shit."

She cried, thanked me, and left.

Sometimes it's not about money at all...

Spot on....you're exactly like my favorite supervisors.


When you have that kind of relationship with your employers, I can tell you even if a job landed in your lap it would take a lot to get you to leave.

Edited to add: Woman like security, that is big for us. Security isn't just about money. Most Organizational Behavior classes will cover this in great detail. Which is why, in generaly, women are more loyal employees.

[Dark Helmet]

But you still only pay her half as much as the less qualifed man in the same possition, don't you?;)

Actually, she makes about $20K more than her only comparable counterpart, and her annual performance bonus last year was the second-highest in our office, excluding sales folks.

So there, nyah nyah nyah!

[Brianj]

DH - you hiring?:D

[Purple36]

You're kidding, right? A corporation that has a written policy against employees discussing each other's compensation and benefits...and that this policy is related to gender-based salary disparity?

You think such a company exists?

And if it exists, you think anyone adheres to that policy?

And if they refuse to adhere to that policy, what recourse does the employer have?

DH, the policy may not be related to gender based salary disparity, but I know several of our contractors who have to sign nondisclosure forms related to their salary. They cannot and will not discuss their income. They work for one of the largest and most respected defense contractors. I've also seen the nondisclosure forms. Since they work in our office as support staff, we have discussions on the differences in culture between government/military (where we all know how much the other makes) and the corporate world where it is not something to be discussed. I understand that all companies may not have this policy, but the small slice I've been exposed to (Defense related) require nondisclosure forms with termination as a possibility for violating the policy.

[Purple36]

Personally, when the new company took over my contract, I'm very glad so much discussion of salary took place. It brought out the huge differences in salaries between people with comparable qualifications, seniority, skill, and work ethic. I, for instance, was being paid almost nothing. The person sitting next to me, though having similar background, education, and skills, was paid about twice what I was paid for the same position. I wasn't putting my salary out there, but I definitely listened when others did so. Though I was highly praised for the quality and quantity of my work, the low value they assigned to me told the true story. They didn't value me at all. Thus, monday is my last day here. I'm moving on to bigger and better things.

That is what disturbs me about the civilian sector-pay inequity-of course, I'm so used to the military/government pay scales that what you posted seems just wrong, you know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

[Greenhat]

Purple,
The military is, by necessity, a organization that has a number of socialist attributes. So, which is fairer? An organization that pays someone who worries about traffic cones the same as someone who leads troops in combat because they've been in the Army the same amount of time? Or the organization that pays based on performance,

[Greenhat]

Last post should have ended in a question mark.

Also, the link posted (Wikepedia). Purple, did you read it?

It indicates that when similar skills and experience were being hired (entering management ranks, for example), women were BETTER paid than their male counterparts.