Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: Yale-Harvard marriage study
Message-ID: <482@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 13:24:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.482
Posted: Wed Oct  8 13:24:46 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 01:01:51 EDT
References: <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <455@cci632.UUCP> <1169@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 77
Xref: watmath soc.singles:399 soc.women:276
Summary: OOPS!

In article <1169@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes:
>In article <455@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>>In article <1150@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes:
>
>>>In a recent article rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) wrote:
>>>>The partner with the greater education, training, experience, and success
>>>>has a right to expect the partner with less to make sacrifices...
>
>>>So: them that has, gets more. That's a cruel way to think about a partnership!
>>>garry wiegand   (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu)
>
>>Cruel?  Perhaps, but also realistic.  A promotion worth 10% to a partner
>>making $40,000 might cost the other partner making $10,000, 10%.  Net gain
>>for the parnership, $3,000.
>
>Net gain for the 10K half of the partnership:  $500.00.  

Well, in our situation, the 10K have would get more like $3500 :-),
but not everybody is me :-).

>Can you spell "Trickle Down?"
>The humiliation associated with making $10K is to be exacerbated
>by demanding that the person take a cut in pay to $9K.
>The recompense is that the person may get $1500 from the person
>he or she sleeps with, a net gain of $500.00 in a year for 
>sleeping with someone...pretty low wages for *that* profession!

Very true!  Marriage is about the best "discount" for *that* profession
you can get :-).  Of course, there is the possible question of who
should be paying who, for doing what to whom :-).
(I get about $50/week "allowance" :-).

>Cheryl

The whole point of the posting was basically, that if a woman wanted to find
a man who would "let her do the driving", in might be easier to find one
who didn't "own the better car".

The study, and many of the common attitudes indicate that "by the time
a woman is 30, all the good one's are taken".  This is only true if
she insists on a man who is at least 3 years older, makes at least
twice as much, has not been divorced, and has the social graces and
appearance to attract women.

Given the choices to eliminate, should you pick the fat slobs who
go home to their parents' every weekend, the man who was divorced
on the grounds of adultry, the junior programmer who makes a little
less than you, or the 25 year old just getting started in a career
that provides flexability.

One very valid answer is "none of the above".  But let's assume you
do want some sort of relationship with a man.

Taking the junior programmer, or the 25 year-old makes a lot of sense.
Whatever he makes is "gravy", your career is more important to both
of you, and you will be in control of the major career choices.  In fact,
the roles in the relationship are almost completely reversed.

To a "hard core feminist" that sounds like the ideal situation.

As sensible as it might sound, even a "hard core feminist" will
often prefer not to have a relationship, than to try either type
of situation.  Even a man who wants such a relationship will
often have difficulty accepting his "inferior" role.

The whole problem stems from the "man brings home the bacon and
whatever the woman makes is "gravy" brainwashing found on TV, film, and
movies, along with at least 5000 years of "Macho" tradition.  Even in
"liberated" shows, how many cast the woman as "chief provider" to a
man.  "Who's the Boss"?  What else?

Even in "Who's the Boss", the man is portrayed as some sort of ingorant
clod much of the time.

There has been so much progress in expanding the options available
to women, especially single women.  Isn't it time to begin expanding
the options available to men?