Professional Women

[Wyldfire]

Lawyers do have the option of going into private practice and choosing their caseload. If a woman is a lawyer and has children she can have her office in her home and limit the cases she takes. She can also do the bulk of her office work during nap time and at night when the kids are asleep. That would minimize the amount of time she was away from her kids and it would be no different than any other job.

In all honesty, I think the biggest issue some men REALLY have with women with professional jobs is a fear of her earning more than they do. If a woman earns more and rubs the guy's nose in it or acts superior to him or like she is "in charge", then yes...it would be an issue. But if she doesn't act that way it shouldn't matter who makes more money as long as the relationship is good and everyone is happy with how they are treated. I mean, come on...if the relationship is good and everyone is treated good, this kind of stuff is just plain silly to make a fuss over.

 

[Maniax]

Genghis Juan, your post is right on the money.

No...any adult's first responsibility is to themselves, because if you don't take care of your own needs first you aren't worth a damn to anyone else. A parent's (both male and female) first responsibility AFTER taking care of themselves is taking care of their children. Parents should work as a team...whoever can earn the most money should be the main bread winner. The other parent should work if they want to but be the one who covers the extra stuff with the kids. Usually this is the woman, but occassionally it is the man. All aspects of making contributions to the family are equally important and necessary. I don't think it matters who does what as long as everyone is happy and all family needs are met.

I agree. However, you have to realize, like said before, men and women have different strengths. As much as a father can be a good dad and raise kids, a mother can do better. She's just better suited to that job. She has more compassion, understanding, and other qualities needed to raise children. So there is a reason that this it is usually the woman who covers the "extra stuff" with the kids. Do kids deserve any less?

My kids have ALWAYS been cared for in our home. With my youngest (she will be 5 tomorrow)...the only people who have ever cared for her for me to work have been her grandmother (who lived with me at the time) and her big sister, who was also there for the birth. She is like a second mother to my little girl.

I don't understand why you keep turning this conversation towards YOU. I'm talking about people in general, and you keep on defending yourself. Regardless of how YOUR kids were raised, many are raised in the way previously quioted. Genghis Juan is right about those crazy kids whose yuppie parents wanted to "have it all."

If I were with someone who couldn't make as much as I could and we decided I should work and he should cook and clean and both of us wanted to do that, then yes...I would accept him just fine. Makes no difference to me as long as he respects me as a human being and treats me as such. I don't judge men based on how much they earn. It's irrelevent to me. As long as there is something in his life he's passionate about (art, hobby, etch) then it's all good.

Unfortunately, modern psychology does not agree with you. Most women who were in a marriage when men made more money, then started making more, lost respect for their husbands. I suggest you read up.

The women who like the housewife thing usually have young children at home...and they aren't so bloody bored and lonely. Women who don't work and don't have kids at home are either miserable or spend their days doing "therapeutic shopping".

Once again, you can't quantify that, since you're just one person, and your experiences are indubitably biased. Yes, there is a greater CHANCE she may be bored, but women can find constructive things to do as well. Getting a job is one of them.

Actually..even if I were to win the lottery (which I don't even play) I would still work.

Good for you. We can all sleep better at night.

My ex-husband is a violent abusive alcoholic with Borderline Personality Disorder. When I say I can do a better job raising my children by myself I am not only being honest, but am 100% right to make that claim. And again...while all the teenagers of the two parent homes are off getting drunk and high, having sex, getting pregnant, etc...my 3 teenagers aren't doing any of that stuff. Obvioiusly I'm doing something right.

I'm sure your ex-husband has nice things to say about you too. Who knows what your kids are doing when you're not around? You have no idea what they do or do not do. Maybe your admittance of not being omniscient about the complete lives of your kids would be a more believable statement.

Sometimes two heads are better than one...and sometimes they aren't. I have done a great job raising 4 kids by myself. If it isn't broken, don't "fix" it...that's my policy.

Great, for a single mother. 'Nuff said.

I've never met a "happy housewife" (no little kids at home) in my 39 years...and I've only known a few "happy" "stay at home Mom's".

That may actually be true, but then again, in how many states have you met housewives? In how many different age groups? In how many different ethnical groups? Can you spell B-I-A-S-E-D ?In any case, I'm not surprised, since you don't sound like such a happy person yourself...

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Maniax


I agree. However, you have to realize, like said before, men and women have different strengths. As much as a father can be a good dad and raise kids, a mother can do better. She's just better suited to that job. She has more compassion, understanding, and other qualities needed to raise children. So there is a reason that this it is usually the woman who covers the "extra stuff" with the kids. Do kids deserve any less?

In most cases, children need BOTH parents equally as much. "Compassion" and "understanding" is only one small facet of what children need to learn and receive while growing up. They also need to learn responsibility, discipline, honor, pride in a job well done, etc. There is no law that says that kids are required to receive the "compassion" and "understanding" during the traditional work hours. That argument is lame and has no real logic. It's irrational.



I don't understand why you keep turning this conversation towards YOU. I'm talking about people in general, and you keep on defending yourself. Regardless of how YOUR kids were raised, many are raised in the way previously quioted. Genghis Juan is right about those crazy kids whose yuppie parents wanted to "have it all."

No, you were talking specifically about me in the comment I responded to. When someone makes a comment about me and my situation I am likely to respond talking about my own situation rather than "in general".



Unfortunately, modern psychology does not agree with you. Most women who were in a marriage when men made more money, then started making more, lost respect for their husbands. I suggest you read up.

Hogwash...a woman rarely loses respect for a man because she starts earning more than he does. She loses respect for a man when he acts insecure. If she makes more and he feels threatened over it an it changes his behavior then yes, there is a good chance she will lose respect for him.



Once again, you can't quantify that, since you're just one person, and your experiences are indubitably biased. Yes, there is a greater CHANCE she may be bored, but women can find constructive things to do as well. Getting a job is one of them.

Pardon me for pointing this out...but you can't "quantify" your claims, either. I am speaking of my own personal experience and the experience of friends of mine. I am simply stating what I have seen over my lifetime.



I'm sure your ex-husband has nice things to say about you too.

You know...I hope you get to experience all the "joy" that is dealing with a person with Borderline Personality Disorder on an intimate level. Once you have that experience under your belt...THEN come back and make sarcastic comments about it to me. Until then...do a little research.

Who knows what your kids are doing when you're not around? You have no idea what they do or do not do. Maybe your admittance of not being omniscient about the complete lives of your kids would be a more believable statement.

As I said...I ALWAYS know where my kids are and what they're doing. There are rules and if they are broken the punishment leaves a lasting impression. If they lie to me about breaking a rule their punishment it automatically doubled. Lying on it's own is 3 months being grounded. My 19 year old daughter still lives at home and watches her little sister while I work and she is very good about informing me of everything that goes on in my absence. Half of my work hours are during school hours, too. And since I am a waitress, I usually only work about 4 or 5 hours about 2 or 3 nights a week with the rest being lunch shifts. My time away from home at night is very limited. So yes...I do know what my kids are up to better than most working parents do. There is always a responsible adult at home...ALWAYS.


Great, for a single mother. 'Nuff said.

Again...my kids behave better than virtually all of their peers who are being raised by two parents. That implies that I do a better job on my own than most two parent families do when it comes to raising kids.



That may actually be true, but then again, in how many states have you met housewives?

I have lived in Maine, NH, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi...so that would be 7 states. How many have you lived in?

In how many different age groups?

I got married at 18 years old and am 39 now. I have had a few older neighbors over my lifetime that I have been friendly with. I also have 18 aunts and unlces and a very large and close extended family...so I've seen a lot.

In how many different ethnical groups?

White, Native American, African American, Indian, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Asian and Ukranian...probably more, but those are the ones I recall right now.

Can you spell B-I-A-S-E-D ?In any case, I'm not surprised, since you don't sound like such a happy person yourself...

Actually...I am a VERY happy person. In fact, I'm frequently told that I am "too" happy by grumpy and unhappy people. Ironically, people who are not happy in life are somewhat bothered by people who are. You make an awful lot of assumptions...and the majority of your assumptions have been dead wrong where I am concerned.

Biased? How so? If you're going to toss around terms like that you had ought to explain exactly why you are doing so.

 

[Maniax]

In most cases, children need BOTH parents equally as much. "Compassion" and "understanding" is only one small facet of what children need to learn and receive while growing up. They also need to learn responsibility, discipline, honor, pride in a job well done, etc. There is no law that says that kids are required to receive the "compassion" and "understanding" during the traditional work hours. That argument is lame and has no real logic. It's irrational.

It's funny how you state that children need 2 parents here, and then later on in your post you say how your kids don't need a father and they're perfectly fine without one. Forget about the myriad inconsistencies between your posts, at least try to keep your arguments in one post cohesive!

Here's one of many stories of how a child unloved by his mother in his formative years resulted in much disaster:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/wallace/unloved_6.html

Yes, children need responsibility and discipline and honor and pride and whatever. But NOT at 3 years old! Damn woman!

No, you were talking specifically about me in the comment I responded to. When someone makes a comment about me and my situation I am likely to respond talking about my own situation rather than "in general".

Really? Let's requote shall we?

Definitely, I agree with you on the pre-school thing. You have had family to take care of your kids. Although not as good as having the mom around, it's better than daycare. The thing is, this country is built on the nuclear family. Most people move away from their parents/relatives, so dropping their kids off to daycare like they're a UPS package is what most people resort to. Then we wonder why things like columbine happen. Maybe the parents should put in more effort/time with their kids.

In the above quote I commended your efforts, and didn't attack you. If you cannot understand, by reading the above quote, that it is directed to the general population, and not yourself, I suggest you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

Hogwash...a woman rarely loses respect for a man because she starts earning more than he does. She loses respect for a man when he acts insecure. If she makes more and he feels threatened over it an it changes his behavior then yes, there is a good chance she will lose respect for him.

Really? Why don't you read up on this and see how being completely secure, maybe even too secure, with your woman's salary can ruin your marriage?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040429/news_1c29bill.html

Pardon me for pointing this out...but you can't "quantify" your claims, either. I am speaking of my own personal experience and the experience of friends of mine. I am simply stating what I have seen over my lifetime.

If you understood the rules of logic, dear, then you would easily see that I don't have to quantify this particular claim. The burden of proof is on you to show it. If you can't, then don't say it.

You know...I hope you get to experience all the "joy" that is dealing with a person with Borderline Personality Disorder on an intimate level. Once you have that experience under your belt...THEN come back and make sarcastic comments about it to me. Until then...do a little research.

You sound so bitter about him, I don't know if it's true or not. I just hope and pray that you don't bash him to your children, instilling negativity about their biological father into them.

Again...my kids behave better than virtually all of their peers who are being raised by two parents. That implies that I do a better job on my own than most two parent families do when it comes to raising kids.

If three people are equally skilled, then one person, by simple logic, cannot do a better job than the other two. I'll let you get away with thinking that you're "one of the best" single parents out there, but if you think you're better than the "best" parental team out there, I'm sad to report the reality, you are not. In fact, your "single best parental skills" probably add up to two average parent's skills added together. I'm starting to see your egotistical side, you know that? There's no 'I' in team.

I got married at 18 years old and am 39 now. I have had a few older neighbors over my lifetime that I have been friendly with. I also have 18 aunts and unlces and a very large and close extended family...so I've seen a lot.

Your family represents a very small sample of people, not to mention they're all from the same background, with similar ideologies, etc. To base decisions on on your own family seems pretty narrow-minded.

Biased? How so? If you're going to toss around terms like that you had ought to explain exactly why you are doing so.

You're making sweeping statements based on your own little bit of experience. Either reduce the absoluteness of your statements or get more experience.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Maniax
It's funny how you state that children need 2 parents here, and then later on in your post you say how your kids don't need a father and they're perfectly fine without one.

No...I said "In most cases"...and in the case of one of the parents being mentally ill, abusive and neglectful (like my ex-husband) to the children it is better that such a parent NOT be involved in raising them.


Forget about the myriad inconsistencies between your posts, at least try to keep your arguments in one post cohesive!

There are no inconsistencies in my posts...there is merely selective reading on your part.

Here's one of many stories of how a child unloved by his mother in his formative years resulted in much disaster:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/wallace/unloved_6.html

Yes, children need responsibility and discipline and honor and pride and whatever. But NOT at 3 years old! Damn woman!



What on earth does this have to do with a woman working or not? Like I said before...there is no law that says a mother can only "love" and "nurture" their children from 9 to 5. And a child's personality is essentially formed by the age of 3. If you don't teach them discipline, responsibility, pride in a job well done, etc by that age they are in trouble.

Really? Let's requote shall we?

In the above quote I commended your efforts, and didn't attack you. If you cannot understand, by reading the above quote, that it is directed to the general population, and not yourself, I suggest you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

Actually, in the second sentence of that paragraph you spoke directly about ME...so yes, I am going to assume that it is me you are speaking of in the paragraph. If you don't wish me to do that then simply refrain from starting off the paragraph by referring to me personally. Problem solved...

Really? Why don't you read up on this and see how being completely secure, maybe even too secure, with your woman's salary can ruin your marriage?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040429/news_1c29bill.html


Nonsense...a man who is secure in himself is attractive and appealing. A man who is insecure comes off as weak and unattractive to women.



If you understood the rules of logic, dear, then you would easily see that I don't have to quantify this particular claim. The burden of proof is on you to show it. If you can't, then don't say it.

Wrong...your claim is nothing more than your opinion...and no opinions are right or wrong, they simply differ. Thinking otherwise is, well, unrealistic and entirely illogical.

You sound so bitter about him, I don't know if it's true or not.

Not bitter...realistic.

I just hope and pray that you don't bash him to your children, instilling negativity about their biological father into them.

Nope, I don't bash him...but they do. In fact, I go so far as to remind them that he's sick and can't really help how he behaves. They hate him. He has treated them very badly. You see, he is so bad that at a fairly young age the kids figured it out all on their own. I have even attempted to help smooth things over between him and the kids in the past when he has been on medication and was doing better than usual. He's actually the one who is bitter...I'm just sick of dealing with his drama.


If three people are equally skilled, then one person, by simple logic, cannot do a better job than the other two.

Skill has very little to do with it. Committment and Investment of time and effort is the key. Most parents are too preoccupied with themselves to pay attention to being good parents...regardless of their "skills". This is especially true of couples raising kids. They have to focus on their relationship with each other, too...not just their children. For me...the only family role I put time and energy into is that of the parent. Because I choose to devote myself to my children in this way, they get far more from me than most kids get from two parent families.

I'll let you get away with thinking that you're "one of the best" single parents out there, but if you think you're better than the "best" parental team out there, I'm sad to report the reality, you are not.

Again...a married couple raising kids are NOT able to devote all their efforts to being parents. They also have to devote a great deal of effort to the marriage. If a couple devotes half their home time to the marriage and half to raising the kids then how are they actually doing more than I can do? And if marital problems arise, it has a huge impact on how much time they are able to spend on being good parents. No marriage is without struggles and issues. I don't have that interfering with my parenting. In that way, I'm at an advantage.

In fact, your "single best parental skills" probably add up to two average parent's skills added together. I'm starting to see your egotistical side, you know that? There's no 'I' in team.

Wrong again...but yes, I am egotistical. I'm not why you seem to think that you noticing that matters to me, though. I truly don't care. Seeing as I AM a single parent, "I" an it. Why on earth would I use "we"? Their father has never put forth any effort to be a parent to our children...not even when we were married.

Your family represents a very small sample of people, not to mention they're all from the same background, with similar ideologies, etc.

Um...no, they don't. I have a VERY large extended family and the vary greatly in lifestyle and ideology as well as behavior, tax bracket and even ethnicity. I actually have 36 Aunts and Uncles (I didn't count spouses). And I notice you chose not to address all the states I've lived in and ethnicities I've associated with. About half of the ethnicities are actually family members, too. Just in case you don't realize this...just because people have the same parents it does not mean they have the same beliefs, lifestyles and such.

To base decisions on on your own family seems pretty narrow-minded.

I don't base my decisions on my own family. As I pointed out in my last post...I have lived in 7 different states and associated with many different ethnicities. How convenient that you left that out of your response.

You're making sweeping statements based on your own little bit of experience. Either reduce the absoluteness of your statements or get more experience.

And you're making sweeping statements based on what, exactly? You don't even cite ANY personal experience. Nor do you cite statistics, which would be irrelevent anyhow. Everyone who has ever worked where statistics are used knows full well that all studies are done in a way to show proof of a concept already decided prior to collecting said statistics. That is, afterall, how organizations obtain grant money...by showing a "need" for their services through studies with pre-determined outcomes. Since statistics can easily point to whatever outcome you want them to point to by simply targetting the study towards certain groups of people, they have no real validity.

 

[Maniax]

I'm tired of fighting with you on this pointless discussion. I do suggest, however, that you work on your ego. The whole DJ community would be better served by it...

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Maniax
I'm tired of fighting with you on this pointless discussion. I do suggest, however, that you work on your ego. The whole DJ community would be better served by it...

Ha...figure the odds. I have always been confident to the point that I border on arrogant. I own and embrace who I am and readily admit that side of me. Your ego is no different because you would not have been arguing with me if it weren't. It's a bit hypocritical for an egotistical person to point out that trait in someone else and imply there is something wrong with them because of it. Project if you must...but at least admit it.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Originally posted by Wyldfire And 99.9% of males base how "feminine" a woman is on her appearance mostly, with her overall personality and level of pleasantness coming in a not so close second.

Originally posted by Wyldfire
In all honesty, I think the biggest issue some men REALLY have with women with professional jobs is a fear of her earning more than they do. If a woman earns more and rubs the guy's nose in it or acts superior to him or like she is "in charge", then yes...it would be an issue. But if she doesn't act that way it shouldn't matter who makes more money as long as the relationship is good and everyone is happy with how they are treated. I mean, come on...if the relationship is good and everyone is treated good, this kind of stuff is just plain silly to make a fuss over.

Been lurking lately, but I had to pick up this:

Sorry WYLD, but this is the biggest lie ever to be floated out by the 'Today's Woman' crowd and you make the case with your own argument. You yourself acknowledged in this thread what I proposed in my initial post; men could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it - it's simply not a factor in attraction for us - we don't take a woman's status or wealth into consideration, all she has to be is hot. That is a guy's one condition for intimacy, physical attraction. She's gotta be hot - whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star's husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodesiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from 'professional' life are conditions women have for men in attraction. That's not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring's security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men's basic impulses - she's-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it's just icing on the cake for us, but this is analagous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking.

The 'Today's Woman' crowd love to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy's ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction of the physical by blaming it on 'men's fragile egoes' or how they 'feel threatened by professional women'. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their 'professionalism' that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

The ideology then grinds it's teeth at the men 'qualified' to date professional women for having a tendency to hit on women far younger, less 'powerful' and (surprise) generally in much better physical shape than the 'professional' they should be dating. For this they're called 'infantile', 'immature', or the behavior is regarded as a character flaw, or a desire to relive his youth with a 'trophy wife' - interesting that this term should come from the same faction to complain about the evils of objectifying women. All the man is doing is obeying his primary impulse, she has to be hot!

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this 'professional woman' mythology is that professional women want to be success objects, but nature keeps confounding this effort.

Now, all of that said, if a woman's choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as they understand the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.

 

[Wyldfire]

Um...Rollo...why are you arguing with my statement that men only base how "feminine" a woman is by her appearance? You're arguments are actually agreeing with that statement I made. It was the person I was initially arguing with who was trying to say that men aren't that shallow when it comes to looks. But, as you pointed out (and I agree with)...they most certainly are. It's all good, though...I understand completely because I'm actually probably worse than all of the guys here when it comes to being shallow about looks.

As for women putting as high a value on a man's status or wealth as you believe they do...it just isn't the case. True, there are SOME women (the gold-digging variety) who are like you describe, but most women aren't influenced by that stuff one way or the other. If what you say is true then all those unemployed jerks who still live at home and sponge off Mom and Dad would NEVER get women. We both know they fare quite well. They do well because they are usually hot.

Status and income USED to matter to women a lot back when women had less choices and had to marry for her own survival. Since women can support themselves now, that stuff is pretty insignificant now...to women, anyway. It DOES, however matter a great deal to men. A man measures his success and worth as a man based on his ability to provide, protect and procreate. Men are the ones who need to be successful to meet THEIR own expectations of what it means to be a successful and good man. For some reason most men still tend to think it's the women it matters so much to...but in reality, those expectations are ones that men place onto themselves for their own psychological reasons. Nothing wrong with that, of course...it's a natural thing...but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

 

[Genghis Juan]

I only agree with you in part WF. To a certain extent, and to some women, a man's success and ability to provide is not as necessary as it used to be. HOWEVER, based on women I know, and what I read on dating boards and so forth, women still generally demand that a man have his "shyte" together financially, be about her age or older and at least at her education level. In other words, although women in general can provide for themselves these days, they still do not date down the ladder.

The guys who are losers, have no $$ and are jerks, attract the women who are also losers though. Yes, these people can be hot as well, but they're losers.

Men on the other hand still will date down, even in this age where women now make money and have power. Men still go for youth, and they will almost primarily date their age or younger. Men will also date down in the education and income levels.

Of course, there's lots of superficial women who will only date hot guys, and there are a few "chicken head" guys who actually look for women with money, but for the most part, these are exceptions to the rule.

Look, all I need to say to you is two words.... Donald Trump. He is an old goofy looking guy. But he has $$$ and power and he attracts models. Look at Martha Stewart...she also has $$$ and power, is she dating a Brad Pitt look-alike?....please...most guys couldn't even get wood with that woman.

Although society and the roles of men and women have changed dramatically over the years, intrinsically, men are still men and women are still women.

and blah blah blah....any questions?

I 100% agree with what Rollo said though.

 

[The_Becoming]

People, people, people! Can we please get this post back on track to it's main point -which if I am correct is the general level of hotness of female mechanics...

I for one am always reminded of Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny "Well my father was a mechanic, his father was a mechanic, my uncles are mechanics, both my brothers are mechanics..."

She would be so hot in a white tee shirt and coveralls... I just wonder why she won't return my calls? Oh yeah, now I remember... she only goes for quirky, stocky, balds guys...

We now continue with our regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Genghis Juan
I only agree with you in part WF. To a certain extent, and to some women, a man's success and ability to provide is not as necessary as it used to be. HOWEVER, based on women I know, and what I read on dating boards and so forth, women still generally demand that a man have his "shyte" together financially, be about her age or older and at least at her education level. In other words, although women in general can provide for themselves these days, they still do not date down the ladder.

Actually...most women only look at how responsible a guy is with their finances. Does he live within his means? Is he in debt? Does he waste money and make poor choices? These are the same kinds of things men should look at regarding women. No one should enter a partnership with someone who is irresponsible with money because it can put YOU in debt, too. The only women who are concerned about how much a guy makes are of the gold-digging variety. You want to avoid those women, anyhow. As long as a guy works hard and isn't lazy and is responsible with the money he does have...good women won't turn their nose up to him.

As far as dating "up" or "down" the ladder...that's all relative. I was engaged for about 5 years to a man I met through his kids while he was in prison. I became close to his children and they needed a ride to see him, so I took them. He didn't have a pot to pi$$ in and in the eyes of most he would be considered to be way down the ladder for me. Know what? The time I spent in a relationship with him were the happiest years of my life. He was an amazing man, a great father and he treated me better than I have ever seen a man treat a woman. I didn't care one iota that he was broke and would have a rough time finding work when he got out of prison...because he took advantage of every opportunity to better himself that came his way. He wasn't idle and lazy and he was a damn great man.

The guys who are losers, have no $$ and are jerks, attract the women who are also losers though. Yes, these people can be hot as well, but they're losers.

Well, I don't consider someone with no money as a loser. I do consider "jerks" to be losers though. As long as a guy is trying to better himself, has a good personality and treats me well, if I'm attracted to him I would give him a chance if I were single and looking to date. "Jerks", however, I won't touch with a ten foot pole.

Men on the other hand still will date down, even in this age where women now make money and have power. Men still go for youth, and they will almost primarily date their age or younger. Men will also date down in the education and income levels.

Men date "down" more because many are insecure if a woman is successful financially. A lot of men aren't comfortable with that. As for the age thing...I am 39 and for the past 11 years I have only dated or gotten involved with one man who was older than me (and only by one year). I am pursued MORE by men considerably younger than I am than by older men. Many, many men prefer older women. Why wouldn't they? Older women can and do take such good care of themselves in this day and age that they look much younger than women their age did 20 years ago. They are far more mature, like sex much more and don't play games. What's not to like in the eyes of a guy?

Of course, there's lots of superficial women who will only date hot guys, and there are a few "chicken head" guys who actually look for women with money, but for the most part, these are exceptions to the rule.

Well, I'm pretty superficial about a few things and I don't have a problem admitting it. Looks DO matter to me. Of course that's not the only thing that matters...so does intelligence, wit, personality, etc. But without that powerful attraction, I'm not even going to look any further. I think I'm probably far more shallow than most women in this way, though.

Look, all I need to say to you is two words.... Donald Trump. He is an old goofy looking guy. But he has $$$ and power and he attracts models.

Donald Trump is butt ugly and I think his "hair" is alive...or has something wild nesting in it. YUCK!!! I would NEVER date him in a million years. Gross!

Although society and the roles of men and women have changed dramatically over the years, intrinsically, men are still men and women are still women.

In some ways, yes and in some ways, no. A woman doesn't have to depend on their looks and ability to get a man to marry in order to be secure anymore. And men can no longer rely on only his ability to provide for a woman to find one anymore. This has changed the dating and mating world drastically and that fact cannot be denied.


Oh...and you guys have GOT to get off this stupid "Brad Pitt" kick. The guy is NOT even very good looking. He's "OK" at best and is NOT good looking enough to warrant the way you guys tend to mention him incessantly.

 

[Wyldfire]

Okay, I want to touch on the topic of parenting again for a couple of minutes due to something that happened last night.

As I mentioned, I live in a very wealthy town that is essentially built around a country club. The homes in the exclusive community start at half a million dollars and go up to over a million. My 16 year old son is friends with a boy his age who lives in one of the higher end homes in this exclusive community. He spent yesterday afternoon and until 11pm last night hanging out with this friend. He was supposed to spend the night but his friend managed to screw that up with horrendous behavior. The boys father brought my son home around 11pm and then came back a little later with his backpack, which was left at the boy's house.

The father apologized to me for my son not being able to spend the night and complemented me on what a wonderful, respectful and well behaved young man my son is. He told me that my son is welcome at their home anytime and they like him very much. Apparently my son's friend is behaving quite badly and being extremely disrespectul and uncooperative with his parents. I am pretty sure his mother doesn't work because she picks him up from school every day and my son sometimes rides with them. So having a parent at home in the more "traditional" style doesn't guarantee domestic bliss on the homefront.

So back to this boy's father...he was so frustrated with his son and with his wife. It was clear that not only are they having a difficult time dealing with their teenage son, but that they are also in severe disagreement in how to discipline him. There is no consistency or cooperation in raising this boy. Since the family can afford a million dollar home, they have also been able to afford to over-indulge this boy. By the things the father said...the mother's way of handling him is to give him whatever he wants in hopes he will appreciate it and behave well for her. That doesn't ever work. The only way to teach a child to appreciate things is to make them earn what they get so they place value on things.

This is a situation where a two parent home is at a disadvantage to a one parent home. The parents are in conflict over how to deal with this child. It is obviously putting a strain on their marriage for the father to complain about it to me the very first time he met me. There's no consistency in how this boy is disciplined from his parents. I fear they are going to see things get far more difficult before it gets easier.

And the moral and lesson in this story is...

You MUST teach a child to value what he or she acquires by way of EARNING things. You can't just give kids whatever they want and expect them to appreciate it. They must learn that what they get in life must be EARNED.

 

[stevera004]

Originally posted by Wyldfire

"Men date "down" more because many are insecure if a woman is successful financially."

It's not for you to decide what is dating down for a man.

"As for the age thing...I am 39 and for the past 11 years I have only da
ted or gotten involved with one man who was older than me (and only by one year). "

Careful, your insecurities are starting to show ...

" I am pursued MORE by men considerably younger than I am than by older men. Many, many men prefer older women. Why wouldn't they? Older women can and do take such good care of themselves in this day and age that they look much younger than women their age did 20 years ago."

All the $100 facials and spa-teatments and whatever do nothing to alter the inexorable fact: you are getting older, and getting older at the same rate all women throughout history have.

" They are far more mature, like sex much more and don't play games. What's not to like in the eyes of a guy?"

Well, duh. Older women (aka cougars) put out quickly. *That's* something that the horny 20 something understands.

 

[Wyldfire]

I said: "Men date "down" more because many are insecure if a woman is successful financially."

You responded: It's not for you to decide what is dating down for a man.

What's up with your reading comprehension? I didn't even attempt to define "what" is "dating down". I simply gave my opinion of WHY men tend to "date down". Kindly READ and contemplate the comments of others before responding.

I said: "As for the age thing...I am 39 and for the past 11 years I have only dated or gotten involved with one man who was older than me (and only by one year). "

You said: Careful, your insecurities are starting to show ...

Wow...another reading comprehension problem. Sorry, chico...but there was absolutely nothing in my comment that was "insecure".



All the $100 facials and spa-teatments and whatever do nothing to alter the inexorable fact: you are getting older, and getting older at the same rate all women throughout history have.

Age is nothing but a number...and is totally irrelevent when it comes to retaining youth. And women retain their youthful appearance for far, far longer today then they did 20 years ago. You can argue against that fact all you want to, but everyone reading what you write knows you're entirely full of sh*t...so knock yourself out.


Well, duh. Older women (aka cougars) put out quickly. *That's* something that the horny 20 something understands.

Older women don't "put out" any quicker than any other aged women do. The main difference is that older women actually know what they are doing, do it well and like it.

A word of advice...you should refrain from trying to debate or argue with people. You suck at it very badly...

 

[octane_orphan]

Wyldfire ... no offence but you have WAaaaayyy too much time on your hands! ... you whanna get out girl .... get some sun!

 

[octane_orphan]

MMMMmmmmmmm board housewife ay

 

[Paradox]

Is this how we talk to each other? Is this how we talk to women? What the hell is going on here?

Do not come from other boards and bring your disruptive behavior here.

Everyone on this forum is supposed to be over 25. Act like an adult and talk like an adult.

This petty fighting here and on the Anything Else forum is not DJ like. Are you improving yourself or spending your time arguing with an anonymous, dis-embodied person.

If you guys want to learn then ask questions and learn.

Let's not post insults and crap. Let's post and learn. Let's post and grow. That's the way it should be.


Whew, ok...now go back to posting. Remember be nice to each other.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Originally posted by Paradox
Is this how we talk to each other? Is this how we talk to women? What the hell is going on here?

Do not come from other boards and bring your disruptive behavior here.

Everyone on this forum is supposed to be over 25. Act like an adult and talk like an adult.

This petty fighting here and on the Anything Else forum is not DJ like. Are you improving yourself or spending your time arguing with an anonymous, dis-embodied person.

If you guys want to learn then ask questions and learn.

Let's not post insults and crap. Let's post and learn. Let's post and grow. That's the way it should be.


Whew, ok...now go back to posting. Remember be nice to each other.

Hey Paradox, have the mods ever thought of renting out threads so posts like this could be a revenue stream for the board? Just something to think about....

 

[princelydeeds]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
Rollo, I know a lot of professional women who are married, have children and are working in a demanding profession. My own sister is a perfect example. She even works in a profession almost entirely made up of men...aerospace. She is currently working on the Cassini Mission and makes an insane amount of money. She has been married 30 years to the same man and has raised two sons. She travels all over the world for her job, yet still finds time to volunteer in her community.

Where I live, there are many, many professional women who are balancing families and careers. Maybe that has something to do with me living in a town that was basically built around a country club and being close to an Ivy League college...but I see a lot of women who have demanding careers and families.

Wyldfire I've read alot of your posts (5300+) and you always manage to give a peaches and cream "not all women," response. From the way you describe yourself, you are the perfect woman, you are smart, make lots of money, you hunt, fish , cook, take good care of yourself, and now you are super parent who thinks her teenage boys are perfect little virginy angels. Unless, I have you confused with someone else I seem to recall you describing yourself as a woman who is not afraid to be a total wh0re in the bed room.

Me thinks you sound a little too good to be true. Most things in life that sound too good to be true, usually are too good to be true! Not a flame but an observation.