Divorce...

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Feb 3 2005, 07:40 PM

I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...

You keep telling me I said things that I DID NOT say. I never said that the woman's care of the house was LESS IMPORTANT, I said it was of lesser economic value than what most men do. That doesn't make it less important. Why can you not limit your comments to what I said, not what you read into it.

My comment about womens house work was in response to a comment about how women work in the house and so men should have to compensate them for that when they get divorced. My point was simply the logic that 1) compensation should be based on value for value (economic, not moral). 2) that what women do doesn't have the value, monetarily, of what men generally do. I don't devalue it, I only give it the value that any economist would. Perhaps I could accuse you of devalueing what men do? But, you have not said you do, so I won't accuse you of it.

You also said you would probably not have married someone without a job? Again you make my point, because MEN regularly marry women who don't have much in the way of job skills. Why? Back to my original comment--men don't value job skills in women as much as women value them in men. Men are used to taking the responsibility for the major financial burden--they would just rather do it for a California 10, than an Idaho 4. (As he braces himself for the estrogenal battering to come)

Cal, I apologise for putting words into your mouth...yes, I was stating what I believed you meant by the words you said...when you said it was of 'lesser economic value' than 'what most men do' I felt a little insulted, because I feel that the care of the family is worth much more than any highly paid job, and so alimony shouldn't be set purely on a like for like measure according to how much the family would have had to pay for a nanny, cook, cleaner etc. to do the work that the wife did whilst her husband was out working. I hope that clarifies my position a little better...

Please note the words ' I WAS NOT SAYING'...I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...

I was saying that I would marry someone whether or not he was employed...then I mentioned that this would be because I would marry for love, and love makes people do things which may be considered foolish by others.

I agree that most men probably don't consider the value of their future wife's career, expecting that she would be the one to care for the children at home if they could afford for her to stay at home...I find that a sexist attitude, however. Unfortunately, as I said before, where I live it is often the case that both partners have to work to raise the family...

I don't wish to put words in your mouth again, but did you insinuate somewhere, in one of your earlier posts regarding alimony, that it was the woman's choice alone to have the children, so she should be the one to stay at home and look after them? How do you know it was the woman's choice alone? Sorry, I probably am putting words into your mouth again...you were probably just referring to the fact that the woman could refuse to have a child even if her husband wanted one and she didn't...but if she agreed to have a child because he wanted one, or if they both chose to have the child, then it should still be the woman's responsibility to care for the child and suffer the loss of her career/financial independence? Because she chose to have the child????

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it...I'm tired, its 2.40am here and time I went to bed!! LOL

2:40 am? wooooo....you are a nite owl.

by the way, where in uk do you live?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 05:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 1 2005, 08:13 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 30 2005, 11:46 PM

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)?

I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel.

I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule.

Who says which is the exception and which is the rule?

The general rule is that women are more concerned about what the guy does for a living, than guys are interested in what a woman does for a living. Do I have to dig out the surveys for you? Lots of sociological studies show that women as a rule are more concerned with what a potential mate does for a living than are men.

Cal, you keep coming up with all these "general rules". Where do you find these "general rules"? Is there a handbook somewhere? We keep asking you for proof of your allegations, and you supply none. And when personal testimony after personall testimony is supplied by many people on this board, we are the exceptions to the "rule". That's a lot of exceptions to the rule.

Perhaps I could offer an alternative conclusion. Your "general rules" are all in your mind.

Your attitude about this whole subject makes me want to ask if your wife ran off and took you for all you're worth.

[pushka]

LOL Cal...Yes I am a bit of a nite owl...a bit of an insomniac...slightly manic-depressive too!! insufferably silly sometimes, and just witter on and on!!

I live in Lancashire...Nelson is the name of the town I live in...quite a small town, one of the 'mill towns' which suffered from the downfall of the cotton industry and the coal mining industry...I believe there are equivalent towns/states in the USA which have suffered from the loss of mining industry jobs and such, and are not 'wealthy' states.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2005, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2005, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 1 2005, 08:13 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 30 2005, 11:46 PM

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)?

I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel.

I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule.

Who says which is the exception and which is the rule?

The general rule is that women are more concerned about what the guy does for a living, than guys are interested in what a woman does for a living. Do I have to dig out the surveys for you? Lots of sociological studies show that women as a rule are more concerned with what a potential mate does for a living than are men.

Cal, you keep coming up with all these "general rules". Where do you find these "general rules"? Is there a handbook somewhere? We keep asking you for proof of your allegations, and you supply none. And when personal testimony after personall testimony is supplied by many people on this board, we are the exceptions to the "rule". That's a lot of exceptions to the rule.

Perhaps I could offer an alternative conclusion. Your "general rules" are all in your mind.

Your attitude about this whole subject makes me want to ask if your wife ran off and took you for all you're worth.

You have yet to show me why what I have said is NOT the general rule. A few exceptions doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Nevertheless, not to violate ANOTHER rule of logic which says that the proponent of a hypothesis bears the burden of proof I will site you some studies. But if I post them, you must also promise to do one thing: either admit that my general statement that men are more inclined to pursue good looks, and women are more inclined to pursue economics, OR provide studies that directly controvert mine.

Agreed?

[Cal]

Just to get you going here is the first reference as to what men tend to look for in a female. http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm

There are lots of research references at the bottom.

As to what women want--notice the difference--the emphasis is on material security.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=c...ation&refid=013

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:02 PM

Just to get you going here is the first reference as to what men tend to look for in a female. http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm

There are lots of research references at the bottom.

As to what women want--notice the difference--the emphasis is on material security.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=c...ation&refid=013

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2005, 08:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2005, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:02 PM

Just to get you going here is the first reference as to what men tend to look for in a female. http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm

There are lots of research references at the bottom.

As to what women want--notice the difference--the emphasis is on material security.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=c...ation&refid=013

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement.

Then what are you arguing about? What is your disagreement?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 08:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 08:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 08:07 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:02 PM

Just to get you going here is the first reference as to what men tend to look for in a female. http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm

There are lots of research references at the bottom.

As to what women want--notice the difference--the emphasis is on material security.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=c...ation&refid=013

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement.

Then what are you arguing about? What is your disagreement?

It is about the way you are portraying women in this argument. Like we are all money-hungry, lazy, socially-conscious witches (with a capital B ).

That article you linked, while it does offer a glimpse of what women look for, it in no wise details the why's. And the why's are more important than the what's.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2005, 08:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2005, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 08:07 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 08:02 PM

Just to get you going here is the first reference as to what men tend to look for in a female. http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm

There are lots of research references at the bottom.

As to what women want--notice the difference--the emphasis is on material security.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=c...ation&refid=013

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement.

Then what are you arguing about? What is your disagreement?

It is about the way you are portraying women in this argument. Like we are all money-hungry, lazy, socially-conscious witches (with a capital B ).

That article you linked, while it does offer a glimpse of what women look for, it in no wise details the why's. And the why's are more important than the what's.

I'm made no reference to the WHY's, but I'm glad you agree to the what. At least you didn't post anything to refute it.

Secondly, where did I say women in general were lazy, money-hungary, or witches?

You first implied that I would think ALL women were just one way. I don't remember saying that women were lazy. I said, a lot of women don't get an education before they get married. Can you refute that? It doesn't mean they are lazy, it means they are making a bad decision. Second, that women are more social conscious is simply a fact pointed out in the studies I refered you to. Can you refute that?

Third, "money-hungary" was not a term I used, if I did, then I am willing to tone it down to "in search of a man with a good job", if their looks can attract it.

You don't like what I have said, perhaps, because you could be in that group of women that haven't been able to attract a man that makes a lot of money. I don't hold that against you---not all women are California 10's. That is nothing against you. If you are... then, take my word for it, you CAN get a guy, who not only has a great personality and character, he also has a great job.

[Jenda]

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money. I prefer someone who is companionable to money. I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there.

So much for your hypothesis.

[Jenda]

I was pointing out in my post that men are shallow and marry women for their looks (and sex, but that is a no-brainer), but women marry men (at least according to that article you linked) for a myriad of reasons, and the one dealing with money was more for security for THEIR children.

Sure, all things being equal, if love was not involved, I would choose the guy who made more money because that might mean a roof over my head, his head, and the children's heads. It might mean that we ate well as opposed to not being able to afford good food. It might mean that we have health and dental insurance instead of having to be on Medicaid.

Is it a problem for you that women think of these things?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:01 PM

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money. I prefer someone who is companionable to money. I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there.

So much for your hypothesis.

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:06 PM

I was pointing out in my post that men are shallow and marry women for their looks (and sex, but that is a no-brainer), but women marry men (at least according to that article you linked) for a myriad of reasons, and the one dealing with money was more for security for THEIR children.

Sure, all things being equal, if love was not involved, I would choose the guy who made more money because that might mean a roof over my head, his head, and the children's heads. It might mean that we ate well as opposed to not being able to afford good food. It might mean that we have health and dental insurance instead of having to be on Medicaid.

Is it a problem for you that women think of these things?

Not at all. I'm glad you finally agree with me!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 09:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 09:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:06 PM

I was pointing out in my post that men are shallow and marry women for their looks (and sex, but that is a no-brainer), but women marry men (at least according to that article you linked) for a myriad of reasons, and the one dealing with money was more for security for THEIR children. 

Sure, all things being equal, if love was not involved, I would choose the guy who made more money because that might mean a roof over my head, his head, and the children's heads.  It might mean that we ate well as opposed to not being able to afford good food.  It might mean that we have health and dental insurance instead of having to be on Medicaid.

Is it a problem for you that women think of these things?

Not at all. I'm glad you finally agree with me!

What you fail to realize is that it is family security she is looking for, not self-security. You act (or at least post) that she is doing this for selfish reasons, and I am trying to point out that you are being deceptive when you post because you imply (and you do imply) that she is doing it for self-gain.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:06 PM

My main point was directed to those women that think that men owe it to them to support them forever, when they have not bothered to educate themselves past high school.

Are there still states that grant lifelong spousal support? I thought that was a thing of the past. The only spousal support I'm familiar with is designed to help the lesser (or non) earning spouse to get back on their feet financially, and expires after a period of time. Maybe I'm in the wrong state! :)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

In my case, I could say yes or no. I was dating a doctor and a used car salesman. My mom met them both and thought they were both great. BUT--she thought I was insane for dumping the doctor to pursue the used car salesman. I didn't love the doctor. He made me crazy. The used car salesman was fun and smart, and charismatic, and I really, really liked being around him. We were totally broke for the first five years of marriage and I ran a home business to help pay the bills (I was truly miserable.) He became sales manager, then general manager, then owner. I can't say I married him for his earning power, but I DO think that I subconsiously registered the qualities and ambitions that would someday make him financially sound.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 07:48 PM

Cal, you keep coming up with all these "general rules". Where do you find these "general rules"? Is there a handbook somewhere?

I saw it on the Science Channel.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:01 PM

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money.  I prefer someone who is companionable to money.  I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there. 

So much for your hypothesis.

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2005, 11:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:01 PM

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money.  I prefer someone who is companionable to money.  I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there. 

So much for your hypothesis.

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule.

Are there any concrete studies to say who is the exception and who is the rule. And isn't everyone a rule unto themselves according to their intimate knowledge of themselves?

I don't think grouping or pigeon holing people will work in these cases.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2005, 09:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2005, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:18 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:06 PM

I was pointing out in my post that men are shallow and marry women for their looks (and sex, but that is a no-brainer), but women marry men (at least according to that article you linked) for a myriad of reasons, and the one dealing with money was more for security for THEIR children. 

Sure, all things being equal, if love was not involved, I would choose the guy who made more money because that might mean a roof over my head, his head, and the children's heads.  It might mean that we ate well as opposed to not being able to afford good food.  It might mean that we have health and dental insurance instead of having to be on Medicaid.

Is it a problem for you that women think of these things?

Not at all. I'm glad you finally agree with me!

What you fail to realize is that it is family security she is looking for, not self-security. You act (or at least post) that she is doing this for selfish reasons, and I am trying to point out that you are being deceptive when you post because you imply (and you do imply) that she is doing it for self-gain.

Who does anything that is not for self-gain? When you have kids, it is so you can feel good and enjoy a family. How is that not self gain? No one does anything, EVER, that is against their own sense of self gain---EVEN IF THAT SELF GAIN IS TO SIMPLY FEEL LIKE YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. That is how humans are built. So let's not start the "she is doing it for the children". When we are doing it for the children we are also doing it for ourselves. That there are these completely unselfish people out there doing things with no thought for themselves is an ILLUSION. They are doing it so that they can feel good!

Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with wanting to feel good. We certainly don't want to feel bad. The issue isn't whether what we do is selfish or not, it is whether the selfish things we do, which is everything, is of benefit to others or to the DETRIMENT of others. It they are to the detriment of others then our selfishness is bad. If our selfishness leads us to feel happier and make others feel happier too, in the process, then our selfishness is noble and praiseworthy. Nontheless, it is still selfish.

Why do women and men want children? So they can feel good. Having nice kids makes us feel good. Who would want kids, if there were no prospect of ever feeling good about it? Now, some people have that very sense. They feel no prospect of ever feeling good about having kids. So they don't. Their happiness depends on something else. To prove my point, ask yourself: Are there parents who wish they had never had kids? Sorry to say, that there are. Ann Landers (or was it Dear Abby) did a survey of parents asking that very question. An disturbingly large number of parents said they wish they hadn't had kids--obviously, their kids didn't make them happy, as they probably thought they would.

Bottomline, don't hit me with that sappy argument that women are unselfish because they want kids, or want to make sure the kids are well taken care of. It has nothing to do with unselfishness. Ok, then what does it have to do with: Human nature! Biology has saddled women with the capacity to bare kids, and also with the instinct to protect and care for them. Unfortunately, nature didn't equip women with the strength and agressiveness (as a rule) to actually accomplish that without men. It is biology that pushes women to want a man who can best take care of her and the kids. She needs to be taken care of, because if she isn't taken care of, she can't nuture the kids. It is very much evolution and biology.

These rules I have mentioned are simply the result of a few million years of human evolution. There is no point in fighting it. It is just the way it is. Women have the instinct to want kids, men have the instinct to want to care for and protect their women and offspring. However, in our society as it is today, men and women often overlook the world as it really is. Meaning, that men and women don't stay together more than 50% of the time, and women are often the ones left holding the "bag".

Second, bottomline: women and men shouldn't get married until they are both capable of supporting the family--by themselves. Women shouldn't be using men as an excuse for not getting that education by saying "He promised to take care of me when we got married.....her promised....he promised" Wake up and smell the coffee girls---your caveman is just as likely to run off to another cave as to stay with you in this world. Don't fall into the trap of being completely unprepared.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 3 2005, 09:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 3 2005, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

In my case, I could say yes or no. I was dating a doctor and a used car salesman. My mom met them both and thought they were both great. BUT--she thought I was insane for dumping the doctor to pursue the used car salesman. I didn't love the doctor. He made me crazy. The used car salesman was fun and smart, and charismatic, and I really, really liked being around him. We were totally broke for the first five years of marriage and I ran a home business to help pay the bills (I was truly miserable.) He became sales manager, then general manager, then owner. I can't say I married him for his earning power, but I DO think that I subconsiously registered the qualities and ambitions that would someday make him financially sound.

but I DO think that I subconsiously registered the qualities and ambitions that would someday make him financially sound.

Then we finally agree! :) You are indeed the enlightened person I always thought you were!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2005, 10:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2005, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:01 PM

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money.  I prefer someone who is companionable to money.  I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there. 

So much for your hypothesis.

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule.

Why do you think that, when all the research shows otherwise?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 4 2005, 11:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 4 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:01 PM

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money.  I prefer someone who is companionable to money.  I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there. 

So much for your hypothesis.

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule.

Are there any concrete studies to say who is the exception and who is the rule. And isn't everyone a rule unto themselves according to their intimate knowledge of themselves?

I don't think grouping or pigeon holing people will work in these cases.

Did ou bother to read the studies whose addresses I posted?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 4 2005, 07:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 4 2005, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 09:17 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 3 2005, 09:01 PM

Sorry, I don't feel the need to attract a man with lots of money.  I prefer someone who is companionable to money.  I was married for quite a few years to a man whose income would put him in what is considered the top tax bracket, and with both of our salaries (and I made almost as much as him), we lived comfortably, but as I was not in it for the money, the money did not keep me there. 

So much for your hypothesis.

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.

Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

I don't consider myself an exception. You consider me an exception. I think I am the rule.

Why do you think that, when all the research shows otherwise?

I read the articles at the links you posted, and the second one dealing with women has some very interesting statements scattered throughout it.

"Evolutionary psychology offers one view about female psychology. Not all psychologists agree that this theory offers a complete explanation of "what women want", but some find the logic attractive. "

I highlighted the areas above that state just how accepted this theory is.

This was at the bottom, sort of like a conclusion:

Perhaps the most abstract quality a woman looks for in a man regards love and commitment. A man can have all of the resources in the world, but if he does not choose to give his potential mate love and commitment, many women will go in search of another mate.

One question I would like to ask a researcher doing a study is, what is the population they are using for a baseline? Are they questioning only college students (who have one set of values), or women who enter the workforce right out of high school on an industrial level (who seem to have a different set of values), high-school drop-outs, etc. My guess from reading this one reference is that they focus on college students and leave all other women out of it. Because like I said, I know lots of women, and this theory just doesn't hold water with most of them, or me, which is why I consider myself the rule and not the exception.

[DisRuptive1]

I was under the impression that 37 different cultures were reviewed. There's nothing with only asking people of mating age or what you like to call "college aged."

The article listed 21 references. Chances are they also had a lot of people to test their hypothesis'. That's a lot of people. It usually shows what is the rule and what is the exception in those studies. And if 21 different people confirmed what he said then that is pretty much fact for you.