Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!maslak
From: maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: Yale-Harvard marriage study
Message-ID: <235@sri-unix.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 14:52:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.235
Posted: Fri Oct  3 14:52:52 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 12:07:35 EDT
References: <14915@onfcanim.UUCP> <519@randvax.UUCP> <435@cci632.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 21
Keywords: bitch, bitch, bitch
Xref: watmath soc.singles:310 soc.women:212
Summary: Do we have to talk economics all the time?

The discussion in this notestream seems to be revolving solely
around a definition of success and value as a person that I'm
very uncomfortable with.  Perhaps because I'm an old fogey of
37 and remember the good old nonmaterialist days of the 60s,
and won't ever be a yuppie, I still hope that a relationship
that involves give and take and compromise is possible.
I've had lots of experience to the contrary, though.
Let me put it straight: I refuse to believe that a person should
have more rights in a relationship just because he or she earns
more money, has more education, or seems to be more powerful in
an economic sense. Unless making more money is perceived by both
people in the relationship as being a goal or value, why should
a career move for one person that gains only money be obviously
the right one? Of course, if the two people don't share basic
values, then they have a problem. I've been there: My ex thought
that becoming a big success as an entrepreneur meant he got the
majority vote. (End of relationship.) If the only way people can
be equals is in an economic or power-in-the-world sense, I just
will roll up my tent and creep off into the darkness. Or I could
get militant about it. Come on folks, let's talk. Is money and
power what you all get off on?