With all the marriage threads lately....

[amstalder 0]

I'm curious as to which one of our boys wrote this

http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/

[Arvoitus 1]

I dunno, seems like a fairly reasonable piece of writing.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Southern_Man 0]

I don't know. I agree with some of the things he says but he still comes off as a pathetic victim and whiner.

I don't want to get married again, for some of the reasons given in that article and for other reasons of my own. I'm not bitching about it though, I'm just not getting married.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

However, if the author turns out to be correct, and if men stopped marrying, then eventually the government would just ramp up the 'domestic partner' rulings to the same results.

it's about culture, the tool to enforce it doesn't matter much.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Meso 38]

It does make a lot of sense. There are issues in that article that are simply true and yet not really thought about by many people.

Whether someone wants to get married or not is entirely up to them and I see no reason to try discourage one if it's what they want.

But it is very interesting reading which touched on a lot of subjects that make one think. The writing wasn't just some rant on the usual negative throw-outs against marriage, but rather brought to light some of the issues which are considered protocol, despite them lacking sound reasoning and in many cases being blatant hypocrisy.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

It does make a lot of sense. There are issues in that article that are simply true and yet not really thought about by many people.

Whether someone wants to get married or not is entirely up to them and I see no reason to try discourage one if it's what they want.

But it is very interesting reading which touched on a lot of subjects that make one think. The writing wasn't just some rant on the usual negative throw-outs against marriage, but rather brought to light some of the issues which are considered protocol, despite them lacking sound reasoning and in many cases being blatant hypocrisy.

I think the author brings up some valid point, whilst exaggerating or undermining or omitting others..

WEDDING COSTS
Until recently, it was traditional for the (Western) wife's family to pay for the wedding. Which likely explains why women have come to view it as "my" day. Although the point of view didn't include non-western women, it's true that in many parts of the world the woman's marriage dowry is very expensive and that burden falls on the woman's family, not the man marrying the woman.

CAREER SETBACKS/LIMITATIONS
Women do *not* get paid the same as men for the same job. They also do not get access to the same promotions/career-advancements, and this is irrespective of whether they have children or not. What's more, it's not that uncommon for men to have to move cities to climb the corporate ladder - the woman who leaves her job to suit her husband's progress often takes several steps back in her own career. Also, many woman financially support their husbands whilst they (the husband) take a career break to say get a masters.

CHILDREN
Women who do have children take on far more responsibility for their day-to-day care - even when they go back to work. Women also still statistically do a higher proportion of the house-work, even when they work, and even when they work *and* contribute more to raising the children all at the same time.

GOING BACK TO WORK AFTER CHILDREN
Women who go back to work may suffer *significant* salary cuts, or their skills can be deemed "obsolete". If she *does* get the high-powered job she wanted, there is often added child-care costs associated with the longer hours, and this can often cost more than her salary!! Plus it means someone else is raising her children!

SPENDING/FINANCES
It's usually women who handle the finances and pay the bills and budget for the groceries, et cetera. Women don't typically waste all their husband's money away as the author suggests, but in fact make sure all the admin is done on time and that fines and fees are avoided.

FINANCIAL RISKS (FOR WOMEN) OF *NOT* MARRYING
If men bear tremendous financial risks in getting married, women face horrible financial risks by *not* getting married. Men can (and do) leave women when they are pregnant or already have a child, and leave them 100% of the burden/responsibility of raising and supporting said child(ren). There is a reason why such a HUGE proportion of people who live below the poverty line are single moms... They didn't get married and have little or no recourse.

PROPERTY LAWS
Now, these vary widely according to each State/country... But unmarried women sometimes have no rights when it comes to properties if they are unmarried. In some places, the house can only be under one person's name, and this often defaults to (or is by law) the man. This means that regardless of her contribution to the place, she could walk away with absolutely nothing. She may have paid the mortgage every month and fixed and repaired and painted the entire place herself, but if her name isn't on that lease/mortgage, she may have ZERO rights to the place in the event of a split.

So yes, a lot of the arguments put forward *are* valid and should be considered. However, the flip side (especially for women who want children) is that women bear enormous risks by NOT getting married.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[warpedskydiver 0]

There are other women who want a divorce, think they deserve the house and have actually no claim to it because it was owned for many years by the husband.

I know a one case where a woman wants the house in a divorce, been married two years, the house was owned since 1989 buy the guy, she thinks she has paid the mortgage for several years because she write the check off a joint checking account even thought the guy spends very little money and puts enough in the bank to cover mortgage and utilities as well.

It is not always the woman who gets burned ya know.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

There are other women who want a divorce, think they deserve the house and have actually no claim to it because it was owned for many years by the husband.

I know a one case where a woman wants the house in a divorce, been married two years, the house was owned since 1989 buy the guy, she thinks she has paid the mortgage for several years because she write the check off a joint checking account even thought the guy spends very little money and puts enough in the bank to cover mortgage and utilities as well.

It is not always the woman who gets burned ya know.

Yep - all true. But it's also not always the men who get the shitty end of the stick...

Like I said... The article points out many real problems with valid food-for-thought... It's just not a 100% full/accurate picture. And I'm sure what I've added doesn't fully cover it either!!

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[lawrocket 3]

I think that there is much being stated and touted on here about marriage is and is not. Much of it the initial article was about seemed to be about "mine." There seemed to be a fundamental issue with the concept that marriage is about "ours."

There is so much talk about who does more, who earns more, who gets more.

Marriage as a contract? Yeah. I can see that. But it's more founded on partnershup, in my opinion. Partners. Not contracting parties who seeks the best deal and best profit margin. And in partnerships you find people who do different things. My talents used to benefit my wife and vice versa.

Re: laws. As one who has dealt professionally with long-term larriages and with long-term non-marriages, I'll tell you which is easier to unravel. Marriages. It isn't even close. Divorce laws are designed to simply accept what the nature of the relationship is. If there are non-married partners, it becomes a de facto partnership. Try accounting for fifteen years of assets, debts, income and expenses. Then try proving who bought what, for how much, and when. Party x paid $1200 for the chandelier four years ago, and how much it is worth now. Try that for everything.

Divorce laws are set up to deal with those situations. The law in many places is also what I call "the duck doctrine." If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies, quacks and looks like a duck it will generally be considered a duck. Which is what common law marriage is (which they don't have in Cali, by the way).

Career setbacks for one in favor of the other? That's what spousal support is for. It takes a real dick to say, "I'm successful now. Thanks for taking care of shit for us. Bye!" Marriage laws recognize these things. That's what the whole "partnership" does. Maybe helping the spouse at one's expense could help the other spouse long term.

If you don't want to consider another person as being part of you, don't marry. I respect those who at least have the guts to admit they'd be lousy spouses.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Women do *not* get paid the same as men for the same job.

True. They actually get paid more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/03/us-workplace-women-idUSN0334472920070803

Never heard women complain about it before though.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

However, if the author turns out to be correct, and if men stopped marrying, then eventually the government would just ramp up the 'domestic partner' rulings to the same results.

it's about culture, the tool to enforce it doesn't matter much.

Swedish feminist have already suggested a man tax and in other places there has been talk of a bachelor tax. If men keep it up and don't marry enough women, then eventually the womens advocacy groups will push for a bachelor tax which will eventually pass. Its just a matter of time until it happens.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[wmw999 2,150]

Here's the text of the article (it goes a whole lot farther than "women make more than men")

Quote

(Reuters) - Young women who want to beat men to the big bucks should get a one-way ticket to the closest big U.S. city, a New York study showed.

The research, completed by the Department of Sociology at Queens College in New York, showed full-time female employees in their 20s surpassing same-age males in cities like Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Dallas and New York.

In Dallas, these women earn 20 percent more than men, while in New York City they earn 17 percent more.

"After age 30, women are no longer ahead," said Andrew Beveridge, a Queens College sociology professor who analyzed 2005 census data for the study, which was first published in June. "But that may change since there is a definite narrowing of the gap and increase in education for all women in big cities."

Women started to surpass men's salaries in urban centers only in the past seven years. Nationwide, females have consistently trailed males by an average of close to $10,000 annually for 17 years. Before that, the gap was even greater.

Women are faring the best in the Northeast and West, closing the gap in the states of Maryland, District of Columbia and Massachusetts. In contrast, women are farthest behind in Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia, according to the National Committee on Pay Equity.

The study suggested those gains might be based on the fact that women get married later in cities than in rural areas. Women marry the latest in New York, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

Also, the density of corporate headquarters is greatest in urban areas, which allows young women more opportunities to scale the corporate ladder.

"Many of the leading companies in industries like advertising or finance are in big cities," said Marcia Harris, director of career services at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "These employers are more conscious of affirmative action and diversity and are looking for talented women who can rapidly move up in the ranks."

To go along with that, consider the following from USA Today in 2005

Quote

College gender gap widens: 57% are women
By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY
In May, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education posted the inevitable culmination of a trend: Last year for the first time, women earned more than half the degrees granted statewide in every category, be it associate, bachelor, master, doctoral or professional.

Since it's considered to be fairly common knowledge that a college degree is the best predictor to greater earnings, is it all that surprising that single women from the decade when they began graduating more than men would earn more?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Nataly 38]

Quote

Quote

Women do *not* get paid the same as men for the same job.

True. They actually get paid more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/03/us-workplace-women-idUSN0334472920070803

Never heard women complain about it before though.

This still supports my argument - women earn less. If women in their 20's are ahead and fall behind from their 30's, that's at most 10 years when they earn more, and overall, 30 to 40 of the highest-earning years where they earn less... That's hardly a good deal, IMO... And that doesn't even factor in the pension years where they are still earning less because pensions are based on your salary when you retire... Many women never even get a pension because they don't have a "long enough" career for a variety of reasons (including kids, for instance).

Sorry, but same pay for the same job is a long way off still...

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Women do *not* get paid the same as men for the same job.

True. They actually get paid more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/03/us-workplace-women-idUSN0334472920070803

Never heard women complain about it before though.

This still supports my argument - women earn less. If women in their 20's are ahead and fall behind from their 30's, that's at most 10 years when they earn more, and overall, 30 to 40 of the highest-earning years where they earn less... That's hardly a good deal, IMO... And that doesn't even factor in the pension years where they are still earning less because pensions are based on your salary when you retire... Many women never even get a pension because they don't have a "long enough" career for a variety of reasons (including kids, for instance).

Sorry, but same pay for the same job is a long way off still...

Seems to me that the income gap pretty accurately follows the education gap. In decades to come women will make more because the current group of young women is graduating from college at a greater rate than the young men.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

Seems to me that the income gap pretty accurately follows the education gap. In decades to come women will make more because the current group of young women is graduating from college at a greater rate than the young men.

Hmm.. Girls have been out-performing boys in school for a long time. Women have also been out-numbering men at university for a number of years. Women get about 50% of the jobs as soon as they leave university, but they severely fall behind afterwards. Because they have children, or they *might* have children, or because the system is designed by men, for men, et cetera, et cetera... It will take a very, very, very long time for an equilibrium to be reached... And by equality, I don't mean "the same." Men and women are not "the same." Sure, there has been a LOT of progress even within my lifetime (thank goodness!!), but we still have a long way to go before there is balance and fairness within the workforce...

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Women do *not* get paid the same as men for the same job.

True. They actually get paid more.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/03/us-workplace-women-idUSN0334472920070803

Never heard women complain about it before though.

Au contraire mon frère

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-usa-women-idUSTRE7206CN20110301


.

[billvon 2,435]

>If women in their 20's are ahead and fall behind from their 30's, that's at
> most 10 years when they earn more, and overall, 30 to 40 of the highest-
>earning years where they earn less..

That's one way to interpret it. Another way to look at it is that those smarter, harder working women in their 20's will replace these women in their 30's and continue to make more. Thus in 10 years women in their 30's will be making more, but women in their 40's won't.

A third is that women who work continue to make more than their male counterparts, but a large fraction have children and quit their job, replacing it with a lower-stress, part time job or no job at all. This lowers their average.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

>If women in their 20's are ahead and fall behind from their 30's, that's at
> most 10 years when they earn more, and overall, 30 to 40 of the highest-
>earning years where they earn less..

That's one way to interpret it. Another way to look at it is that those smarter, harder working women in their 20's will replace these women in their 30's and continue to make more. Thus in 10 years women in their 30's will be making more, but women in their 40's won't.

A third is that women who work continue to make more than their male counterparts, but a large fraction have children and quit their job, replacing it with a lower-stress, part time job or no job at all. This lowers their average.

Ok, maybe, but some/more of our taxes surely should go toward childcare.. And some men should look after the children instead of their wife. I'm talking about *balance*... It's not just about earning the same amount of money... It's much deeper than this.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[billvon 2,435]

>Ok, maybe, but some/more of our taxes surely should go toward childcare..

Why? Some people decide to have children, some people decide to not have children. Their choice, their expense.

>And some men should look after the children instead of their wife.

No problems there. I'm all for doing it however couples want to do it.

>I'm talking about *balance*... It's not just about earning the same amount of money...
>It's much deeper than this.

OK, but some people may have a different idea of balance than you do.

Take a few examples. Me, for one. I work about 60 hours a week and make 80% of the money in our family. Amy works about 15 hours a week at her rigging business and covers about 20%. That gives her time to do things like be on a competitive 8-way team. Is that a good balance? Should I require her to work 60 hours a week to be "equal?"

Two friends of mine both make a lot of money. They both work pretty long hours, and often don't have much free time to do anything. They split all expenses by the percentage of their salaries. Is that a better scenario?

Two other friends of mine are both skydivers. He works full time in skydiving and makes enough to support them. She works part time and takes care of their kid. Some of that money goes to babysitters so they can both jump on the weekends. Is that a bad scenario?

I think in all cases my answer to those questions would be "ask them."

[Nataly 38]

Quote

OK, but some people may have a different idea of balance than you do.

[...]

I think in all cases my answer to those questions would be "ask them."

Completely agree. Like I said - equal does not mean "the same." Equal access/opportunity doesn't mean women will *want* the same jobs... But unless there is a valid reason why they *can't* do it, they should be able to. And there is a whole host of things women are good at, and some of these are not currently being recognised (or rewarded). I'm sure the same can be said of men as well.

Re the state-funded childcare thing.. A valid point - not everyone has children so not everyone would want to pay for childcare.. I don't know what the solution is... All I know is that whether you have a penis or a vagina shouldn't determine what you can and cannot do in life... That's all.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Sorry, but same pay for the same job is a long way off still...

Are you honestly arguing that corporations have two paycheck lists, one for women and for men? Because if you are then you're fucking delusional.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, but same pay for the same job is a long way off still...

Are you honestly arguing that corporations have two paycheck lists, one for women and for men? Because if you are then you're fucking delusional.

I'm going to over-simplify here, but women earn less than men who are in the same jobs and at the same level. It's a verifyiable fact. The "why" part is obviously more complex than having "two paycheck lists."

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sorry, but same pay for the same job is a long way off still...

Are you honestly arguing that corporations have two paycheck lists, one for women and for men? Because if you are then you're fucking delusional.

I'm going to over-simplify here, but women earn less than men who are in the same jobs and at the same level. It's a verifyiable fact. The "why" part is obviously more complex than having "two paycheck lists."

Verifiable by whom? By some whackjob feminists who've got an axe to grind? All the pay gap claims are based on stupid idea to compare the median wages of men and women. I've yet to see a study that says that women working on the same field, with same education and experience get paid less then men.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

Verifiable by whom? By some whackjob feminists who've got an axe to grind? All the pay gap claims are based on stupid idea to compare the median wages of men and women. I've yet to see a study that says that women working on the same field, with same education and experience get paid less then men.

You discount overwhelming bodies of evidence on the basis that the people carrying out the research are all "whackjob feminists"? Really?

Facts are facts. The reasons behind them are difficult to prove/understand. But a person's wage is clear-cut. Their duties can be defined/examined. And someone's gender (for the most part) is also not very arbitrary.

Now if you're saying that thousands of studies are skewing the data/results... Well, you're saying you're smarter than a whole lot of people who are educated, peer-reviewed and who specialise in the field and who, by the way, don't all have a vagina. So ok. If that's how you feel, you're entitled to your opinion.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[davjohns 1]

People are crazy.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.