Who Has A Wife/girlfriend Earning More Than Them ?

[dipstick]

Hoo hoo.

Laughing myself silly at Dr Bubbs statement about barriers!!!!

Speaking as one who worked for many years with unemployed men my retort to that was HA!

And just to reassure you all these men weren't just the chavs of society. I dealt with business men, the self employed the whole kit and kaboodle.

Men hit barriers and they stop dead in their tracks. Men are frightened of failing and it is easier not to do something (they are afraid of) than to try it and fail.

By the same token the women I deal with had ten ton of baggage. Also they had a mind-set.

The most difficult ones of the lot I have to admit are the ex house-wives. Women who 25 years ago were told their job in life was to look after the home and bring up the kids. Then the husband went out and left them and they floundered. They were untrained, lacked confidence and really didn't know which way to turn. God they were hard work.

Saying that the younger women (30's) were less cowed by the whole thing.

Yes I did mention men and cars. I don't know one woman who has a sporty little red number. Maybe I move in the wrong circles?

Although saying that I do have a 1982 lwb county station wagon landrover and it's red - Does that count?

(Oh and most men I know can't drive it!)

[vinny]

No, that's discrimination. You're simply pointing out that there are some rational reasons for the discrimination, which is true. However, it is illegal for employers to pay any attention to those reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, ok, though I did say that it was sort of discrimination. However, when it comes to say difference with car insurance premiums then the same women (and men) arguing for equality are silent. It should cut both ways but it does'nt. :angry:

[vinny]

Paddle,

Your

"Are you stuck in some sort of timewarp, Dr Bubb? Your views on women sound like something from decades gone by"

Bubb in a Time Warp?

maybe you are!

You completely IGNORED what i said.  I asked why women who face barriers dont do the same as men.  When I got to be too old to easily get a high-powered job in the city, I started my onw business.  I knwo plenty of men that have had to do that at over the age of 40.  (For some reason, most city firms do not want to take on new employees at 40 plus.)  I dont blame gender, or let the age discrimination stop me.  I started my own business.

Some women who are NOT stuck in a timewarp are doing the same, like my girlfriend, who wisely decided not to go up against age discrimination (and maybe even some gender discrimination?) and she started her own business.

THAT is the place to escape from whatever barriers you may imagine.

(You should know be by now.  I dont worry about what is politically popular.

I dont follow the crowd.  I just tell the truth as I see it.  More should try it):

Women whine about barriers, men just go around them- there's your real gender difference

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet again Dr Bubb trys to speak the truth - and does so.

In particular I am drawn to the women whining bit. Men are very much behind women in highlighting the difficulties (and descrimination) they face. Perhaps women spend to much time and energy claiming they are down trodden instead of rising to the challenges life throws at them.Many men have assumed they have the same rights as women. After a few years in the family courts I can tell you that it is men that are the second class citizens - we are afforded little to no protection under the law as it is applied. The fathers 4 justice (I don't totally agree with them) are an indication of this, and hopefully the indication that the tide is turning and men are beginning to speak out.

[Guest magnoliawalls]

Yet again Dr Bubb trys to speak the truth - and does so.

In particular I am drawn to the women whining bit. Men are very much behind women in highlighting the difficulties (and descrimination) they face. Perhaps women spend to much time and energy claiming they are down trodden instead of rising to the challenges life throws at them.Many men have assumed they have the same rights as women. After a few years in the family courts I can tell you that it is men that are the second class citizens - we are afforded little to no protection under the law as it is applied. The fathers 4 justice (I don't totally agree with them) are an indication of this, and hopefully the indication that the tide is turning and men are beginning to speak out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That reminded me of an interesting post from MarkG a few days ago - he pointed out that in a divorce the presumption used to be that the children were the father's responsibility and this arguably meant there were less divorces as women did not want to lose their children and men did not want to shoulder the burden of raising a family alone.

[Guest magnoliawalls]

"Why invest in years of training for a slightly above average wage when you can aim to be a diversity counsellor and get paid twice as much and have job security and a decent pension?"

Ah, but for how long?

Do you think those jobs will still be around in 3-5 years?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes I do. The public sector will not easily be downsized; if things get so bad that it has to happen there won't be much private sector work available either.

[dipstick]

They weren't lazy Dr Bubb (at least not most of them) they were just scared.

I know cos they told me.

An hour in a darkened room alone with me and my angle-grinder and you will tell me anything!!!

I see the unemployed taking a lot of stick on these forums and similar ones and it really gets my back up because in a lot of situations it would be a case of "but for the grace of god (whoevers) go I".

I quite liked most of the fellas I dealt with but what I didn't do was respect them. Not until they got their act together anyway!

And also what I noticed about men was that they move the goal posts to suit their own argument. They may have wanted to get back into engineering but couldn't cos PC's set off their newly developed epilepsy or whatever but then they wouldn't try and get another career they would just try and "beat the system" and that would become their, reductionist, goal.

Bit like a bloke setting off for Edinburgh, refusing to ask directions and ending up in Glasgow and telling everybody it was nicer anyway.

What I do think has happened is that in many cases women are actually becoming "devalued" in the home environment because there is no monetary attachment to it. Whereby once it was viewed as being important and respected (and I do think it was even if women were downtrodden) now it is viewed as a bit of sideline and easy option.

Saw a cartoon dating from the early 60's a while ago. It showed a woman in the garden carrying a nipper with about 4 kids round her, a line full of washing, the lawnmower out, steam coming from the cooker inside etc and the caption read something like "And you want me to bluddy work as well?"

I think all women ever wanted was the opportunity to make choices and be people in their own right. In the end they had to fight for what should have been essentially a right. It sent things squiffy. If both working and housework were given equal respect then I don't think we would have the problems we have today.

Money and earnings have become king. What you own is what matters (how this site developed is proof of that alone). In this society it defines what you are. If you don't have it you are nothing. Who wants to be viewed as a nothing?

[vinny]

Quote “Regarding the woman/inventors thing. Woman have had very little opportunity till recently to do much at all. Men have been quite happy to subdue, subvert and restrict female participation in society. Don't really know what would have happened had things been different. Men used to look at women as second class citizens, many men still do. Going by some of the comments on this thread i.e. women make a "choice" to divert their career or "choose" part-time because they have kids, defines to me a distinct lack of respect for women and the choices they make to raise a family. Presumably because they don't get a wage packet at the end of the month for doing so.

Or it must be that women make these choices on their own. Men obviously have no say whatsoever in whether their wives/partners have children?”

Lots of people have been subdued, subverted etc in the past. The “poor” are another group. I don’t subscribe completely to the "women were kept down in the past" argument. To the modern day (yet perhaps one dimensional) thinker It may well indeed appear that women were kept down. In fact I would partially argue that they were protected and cherished at times where others would point in the opposite direction. Think Titanic – women and children first. Think about the industrial conditions, which used to be prevalent at one stage – would you want to work vs. staying at home.

Quote “That reminded me of an interesting post from MarkG a few days ago - he pointed out that in a divorce the presumption used to be that the children were the father's responsibility and this arguably meant there were less divorces as women did not want to lose their children and men did not want to shoulder the burden of raising a family alone.”

MarkG is right (again), increased women’s “rights” have taken their toll on the “family” with much cost to men, and more importantly children.

[Without_a_Paddle]

Paddle,

Your

"Are you stuck in some sort of timewarp, Dr Bubb? Your views on women sound like something from decades gone by"

Bubb in a Time Warp?

maybe you are!

You completely IGNORED what i said.  I asked why women who face barriers dont do the same as men.  When I got to be too old to easily get a high-powered job in the city, I started my onw business.  I knwo plenty of men that have had to do that at over the age of 40.  (For some reason, most city firms do not want to take on new employees at 40 plus.)  I dont blame gender, or let the age discrimination stop me.  I started my own business.

Some women who are NOT stuck in a timewarp are doing the same, like my girlfriend, who wisely decided not to go up against age discrimination (and maybe even some gender discrimination?) and she started her own business.

THAT is the place to escape from whatever barriers you may imagine.

(You should know be by now.  I dont worry about what is politically popular.

I dont follow the crowd.  I just tell the truth as I see it.  More should try it):

Women whine about barriers, men just go around them- there's your real gender difference

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assume we are talking 'generally' here. So your solution to those up against discrimination in the workplace is to 'start their own business'

Realistically, Dr Bubb what % of people who feel they are being discriminated against could successfully start and maintain their own business? Male or female, young or old, able bodied or disabled?

Are you really offering a realistic solution to the masses with what you say?

You and your gf are obviously successful (well done by the way) but I think you both are not realistic role models for the majority of the population.

[dipstick]

Had the subversive discussion with some fellas about 4 years ago (these were the unemployed ones).

Calling a spade a spade tends to be in my nature as I'm not one of lifes bullshittters so please bear with me.

I asked a roomful of the fellas why their get up and go had got up and p*ssed off?

I asked them what happened to the knights in shining armour who came and rescued the damsel in distress and won the day?

A voice from the back said "It was fantasy bull that we spun to keep you in your place and you fell for it". The rest of the lads agreed.

At least we got that one straight and could start off afresh!

Male or female - respect is earned and not an automatic right. An whether you like it or not money and status are not what it is about. If it was then a lot of the highly paid men on here wouldn't be wriggling like they are.

[vinny]

Had the subversive discussion with some fellas about 4 years ago (these were the unemployed ones).

Calling a spade a spade tends to be in my nature as I'm not one of lifes bullshittters so please bear with me.

I asked a roomful of the fellas why their get up and go had got up and p*ssed off?

I asked them what happened to the knights in shining armour who came and rescued the damsel in distress and won the day?

A voice from the back said "It was fantasy bull that we spun to keep you in your place and you fell for it".  The rest of the lads agreed.

At least we got that one straight and could start off afresh!

Male or female - respect is earned and not an automatic right.  An whether you like it or not money and status are not what it is about.  If it was then a lot of the highly paid men on here wouldn't be wriggling like they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Be careful of taking the unemployed theories of being repressed too seriously. They often don't realise that the welfare state, in it's current form, it being used to keep them down. You are spot on about respect in my humble opinion.

[Without_a_Paddle]

As a female scientist working towards a PhD I find that amusing because the financial rewards are not there for most scientists. 

Why invest in years of training for a slightly above average wage when you can aim to be a diversity counsellor and get paid twice as much and have job security and a decent pension?  Or even better go work in sales or banking and work your way up the corporate ladder.  I have tried both and found that the glass ceiling is not a myth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to agree that the rewards are not there for scientists.

The same is true for engineers. I work as an electronics design engineer.

I design state of the art comms equipment which gets bought by govts all over the World.

A draughtsman gets paid a similar salary to draw up MY design. Another gets paid to design the circuit boards for me. Another person gets paid for handling all the drawings. Another gets paid for buying the bits to build my design.

Another gets paid for building it. Another for testing it, another for marketing it etc etc.

Despite being at the head of the food chain I get paid LESS than some of the managers and marketers in their shiny clothes and cars. Without me there would be no customer at the door.

That is one thing that p!sses me off about the UK. Creative people should get paid lots of money as an incentive for others to want to follow.

Yet engineers and scientists are usually the ones who travel to work on a bicycle.

[Smurf1976]

What about the very common practice of women single handedly making the decision to start a family? Shouldn't the father also have to give approval? He is paying the bills for the next 18 years after all and is one of only two biological parents.

A very strong argument about men being downtrodden when it comes to reproduction could be made. Shouldn't both parents have equal say rather than the mother making all the decisions from before conception until the child is an adult? Very lopsided system!

[dipstick]

And you are spot on about the welfare state keeping them down.

I've seen some terrible things done to people who were doing their best to get out of it.

Saying that women have been surpressed. How long ago is it now since we were allowed to buy a house? Crikey 20thC. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

And don't be fooled about the myth of working class women stopping at home. That was really only after the last war when the government had to make it look good to get women out of the workplace when the men came back from the war (if they did). Prior to that many, many, working class women worked. I know all the women in my family did. Even running a victorian home for a middle class lady was bluddy hard work. Only the rich ladies have ever swanned around looking good!

[Guest magnoliawalls]

What about the very common practice of women single handedly making the decision to start a family? Shouldn't the father also have to give approval? He is paying the bills for the next 18 years after all and is one of only two biological parents.

A very strong argument about men being downtrodden when it comes to reproduction could be made. Shouldn't both parents have equal say rather than the mother making all the decisions from before conception until the child is an adult? Very lopsided system!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shouldn't the men involved have had enough sense to avoid getting into that situation? Why should they have a right to have unprotected sex with no consequences? Traditionally if that was what they wanted they had to pay for it and risk diseases.

But you have a point - making the fathers financially responsible takes away broody women's incentive to avoid pregnancy.

[Elizabeth]

And you are spot on about the welfare state keeping them down.

I've seen some terrible things done to people who were doing their best to get out of it.

Saying that women have been surpressed.  How long ago is it now since we were allowed to buy a house?  Crikey 20thC.  We should be ashamed of ourselves.

And don't be fooled about the myth of working class women stopping at home. That was really only after the last war when the government had to make it look good to get women out of the workplace when the men came back from the war (if they did).  Prior to that many, many, working class women worked. I know all the women in my family did.  Even running a victorian home for a middle class lady was bluddy hard work.  Only the rich ladies have ever swanned around looking good!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for this bit of history. Lots of women worked prior to the 1920s They did not get even vaguely equal pay, and women without partners (who were the ones who HAD to work, particluarly the ones with kids) has a really hard time. But women actually started entering the commercial workforce en mass in the 1920s. It was part of Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in America. Talk to any woman over 100 if you don't believe it (The truth of history dies with its participants).

[dipstick]

There was a tv programme on last year about some undiscovered reel footage. Somebody on here will remember it.

Anyway these 2 chaps who did the filming went around at the turn of the last century (I think) filming people coming out of factories etc and then set up theatres at night for the people to go see themselves.

I can't remember the exact dateline, but hope somebody on here will recall it, but there were loads of women (and kids) working in these factories along side the men.

Somebody say they saw it and give more detail. It will stop me rambling like a fool!

[Elizabeth]

There are also a lot of paper records that got buried for 50 years and an ever decreasing posse of old flappers (I'm a keen follower of history). But I guess visual documentation is so much more crunchy in the electronic age

Does anyone remember the doco?

[Smurf1976]

Shouldn't the men involved have had enough sense to avoid getting into that situation?  Why should they have a right to have unprotected sex with no consequences?  Traditionally if that was what they wanted they had to pay for it and risk diseases.

But you have a point - making the fathers financially responsible takes away broody women's incentive to avoid pregnancy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've just seen far too many situations, and very nearly been in one myself, where the woman simply "forgets" to take the pill while assuring the man that "I'm on the pill". I'm talking about ongoing relationships here, not one nighters.

All of a sudden the woman has hit the financial jackpot and the man has absolutely no say in the matter. Even where it comes to issues like abortion, there are two parents but only one has any say. The man has lost all control.

And I must point out that apart from abstinence (sure way to keep you single until the day you die), there is no 99%+ effective contraceptive for use by men. The power in this matter thus rests solely with the woman.

My proposed solution is simply that documented evidence be required by a parent claiming financial support from their former partner. Only 50% of the actual expenditure on raising the child can be climed from the former partner and then only up to a reasonable limit determined by the relevant authorities. Child care to be a claimable expense only when required due to employment and the former partner has the right (unless they have been denied access to the child due to violence etc) to look after the child themselves to aviod this cost.

Obviously this needs a bit more detail but the intent is to remove "trapping" men as a serious career option. This whole idea of women having children solely to ensure their own finacial future is just a bit too common IMO. Not good for the child and not good for the rest of us. I'm not saying every woman does it, they do not, but it happens and I think it ought to be actively discouraged by every possible means. Removing the financial windfall that comes with it would be a good start to restoring the incentive to do real work and removing the tax/maintenance burden on those productive individuals in society thus enabling them to afford houses, their own children etc.

Edited September 24, 2005 by Smurf1976

[vinny]

Shouldn't the men involved have had enough sense to avoid getting into that situation?  Why should they have a right to have unprotected sex with no consequences?  Traditionally if that was what they wanted they had to pay for it and risk diseases.

But you have a point - making the fathers financially responsible takes away broody women's incentive to avoid pregnancy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fear your first paragraph relates to an issue much more complicated than you appear to think. It is true that men should avoid the situation in a casual relationship, but neither partner (assuming both are fertile) should have an absolute right without consequence.

What about though, considering your assertions, - man wants children, gets married, has kids then - divorce. It is generally the womans choice to keep the children or not, and most of the time the father pays. Perhaps you could also consider the issue of abortion, Actually nowdays women have all the rights on "contraception". Even if she were to become pregnant then she could still abort. Again the male would have responsibility, but no rights. There was a fairly recent case where a father tried to stop a termination, but the courts basically said it was the mother's choice because she carried the baby. Real gender discrimination at work IMO.

Your second paragraph has it right, I'd also make a reference to the welfare state (again) doing pretty much the same thing. :angry:

[dipstick]

Well guess it's not a perfect world smurf. Suppose the only thing you could do in any situation is take responsibilty for conception or lack of it, into your own hands (no sniggering please).

What I mean by that is there is nothing to stop any man at any time insisting on using a condom. Long term relationship or short term, if you are that afraid of being tricked then it seems like the only sensible solution to me.

Other than the snip of course but that does seem a tad extreme.

Bit like a woman who is frightened of being raped having a hysterectomy!

[dipstick]

Found it Elizabeth

http://www.kamera.co.uk/books/the_lost_wor...ain_on_film.php

[Elizabeth]

My proposed solution is simply that documented evidence be required by a parent claiming financial support from their former partner. Only 50% of the actual expenditure on raising the child can be climed from the former partner and then only up to a reasonable limit determined by the relevant authorities. Child care to be a claimable expense only when required due to employment and the former partner has the right (unless they have been denied access to the child due to violence etc) to look after the child themselves to aviod this cost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only question I've got smurf if, what is a reasonable limit? Is this set by the income of the non custodial partner? The lifestyle of the parents? If a man is earning 100K a year, it might be reasonable to expect him to cough up a bit more for the braces than his ex-partner who is on 18K. The rest is entirely reasonable.

I would note that I have a friend whose ex-partner, very canny with money, has managed to amass a huge swath of property and not pay her a penny in maintenance over 13 years. He is always legally able to establish that he has no income despite his assets. Not sure why he is so tight, because he wanted the kid, he has access, and he left her and was very abusive beforehand. She's now having to get on her knees to get her kid to the orthodontist. Maybe the real point is to sort out twisted individuals before mixing kids into the soup.

Edited September 24, 2005 by Elizabeth

[vinny]

Thank you for this bit of history.  Lots of women worked prior to the 1920s They did not get even vaguely equal pay, and women without partners (who were the ones who HAD to work, particluarly the ones with kids) has a really hard time.  But women actually started entering the commercial workforce en mass in the 1920s.  It was part of Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in America.  Talk to any woman over 100 if you don't believe it (The truth of history dies with its participants).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are we to make assumptions about your age then?

Think about the family structure back then. Think about the TYPE of PHYSICAL work that had to be undertaken. Think about the education level. Think about the poor EN MASS being exploited. Ignoring this point then: if a women earned less then EVERY family member was being exploited. Where a issue seems most profound will not always be where it is manifest. Think!!!! :angry:

[Smurf1976]

Well guess it's not a perfect world smurf.  Suppose the only thing you could do in any situation is take responsibilty for conception or lack of it, into your own hands (no sniggering please).

What I mean by that is there is nothing to stop any man at any time insisting on using a condom.  Long term relationship or short term, if you are that afraid of being tricked then it seems like the only sensible solution to me.

Other than the snip of course but that does seem a tad extreme. 

Bit like a woman who is frightened of being raped having a hysterectomy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed with your comments dipstick. But this is in the category of evading a problem rather than solving it. Yes, I can choose to take personal responsibility (and I should point out that I wasn't talking about my present personal circumstances here) but I still think that it is unreasonable that the balance is so far shifted towards "woman looks after the children, man pays the bills".

Whilst by no means does every woman do it, enough do that it is reasonably common. The resultant attitudes that it creates, at least in my opinion, are anything but conducive to equality. It reeks of "equality except where discrimination is in my favour" which just makes the whole thing fall apart on both sides.

If we're ever going to have genuine gender equality then such blatant examples as this one will simply have to be resolved. Question is, how?

[Guest magnoliawalls]

Smurf/Vinny

Good points - if I was to elaborate in detail it would turn into an essay and I can think of a couple of better ways to spend my Saturday.

Shame we can't debate this very important and interesting issue over a pint or two. Yes Vinny, I am aware that it is very complicated - I have had friends who were deliberately trapped by their girlfriends and also have a female friend who gets messed around by the absent father of her child.

I think that abstinence is a real option for men; this may or may not make it more difficult to meet a future spouse. Contraception has given men and women more power to choose when they have families but it also changed the power balance of relationships between the sexes - I am not sure in which direction, before contraception people met a suitable mate, got married and started a family. That was (usually) more straightforward than today where serial monogamy seems to be the norm and people expect to have a much larger number of conquests in their lifetimes.

Child support may be a financial burden but in days gone by, the man would be expected to marry the woman he had impregnated, whether he wanted to or not and to stick with her even if she turned out to be a wagon. It seems that you guys have very different expectations.

Thing about it from the point of view of a single woman who desperately wants a baby. In times gone by she would have set out to find a sweetheart and get married. Nowadays the dating game can go on forever often followed by cohabitation without commitment. If a woman's biological clock is ticking she may resort to taking matters into her own hands.