Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Oh yeah: I forgot the dating aspect of this...
    
    You're at a party, and someone is introduced, and you chat for about
    thirty seconds, then she asks "So, what do you *do*?" There was a great
    demo of this in the Woody Allen movie about blacklisted entertainers. At
    a Catskills resort, Woody first answers the question with "I'm a
    writer" and the woman immediately excuses herself. The next time, Woody
    says "dentist" and the woman sits down, smiles, and asks "Single?"
    
    One of my most pleasant social circles was my old volleyball crowd.
    We met on the court, played once or twice a week for years, and we
    mostly never knew what anyone else did for a living. If any romantic
    involvement arose, it was because of our style on the court (I used to
    get a lot of brownie points because I was rigorously fair about giving
    sets to persons of all genders and heights :).
    
    Mostly the dating game involves estimations of future material
    well-being, however. I was once riding the last bus from Harvard to
    Wellesley one Saturday night, and sat behind two women discussing the
    men they'd met. The phrase "...definite six-figure potential..." is
    forever writ on my brain!
    
    - Hoyt (who'd rather be treated as a sex-object!)

    Hoyt, you're obviously hanging around with the wrong women!  8-)
    
    Personally, I think that women who have dollar signs in their eyes when
    they go out looking for a mate are as shallow as the men who judge
    every woman on her star-quality beauty.  I generally try to avoid both
    types.
    
    Not that my track record is going to sway your opinion of women or the
    results of your poll, but I've married twice, and neither time for
    money.  I never knew, or wanted to know, the financial status of any
    man I ever dated.  There are other qualities that are far more
    important to me.
    
    Karen

    another woman who didn't care less how much $$ a man made (this back in
    my dating days).  Now, if you gotta bone to pick with my husband for
    wanting to work, for being ambitious in his career, pick it with him,
    not me.  *I* could wish for him to be a bit more laid back about it!
    
    Sara

    re .0, I lived for 2 years, from July 1, 1985-July 1, 1987, in a slum
    apartment with a poverty stricken rock guitarist (and sometime computer
    operator) because I was madly in love with him.  He wasn't
    conventionally good looking either.  In fact, he was bald.  But, he
    made me laugh and was never boring.  BTW, he left me for another woman,
    and has since left her!  So, I guess I'm not in it for the money
    either.  Although, I could certainly use some.
    
    When I first met my ex-husband he had just gotten out of the marines
    and was working as a cash register repairman (not big bucks!)  But, he
    was cute and the nicest guy I had ever met up til then so I fell in
    love anyway.  
    
    Oh, and my last live-in boyfriend had such high child support payments
    that he could barely exist at poverty level so, even though I'm a
    secretary, I sometimes used to take him out to eat and to the movies!
    
    Also, even though I'm a woman, I have never had a chance at the
    life-style you describe in .0 either.  I've worked ever since I got out
    of high school and the entire 12 yrs. I was married because we needed
    the money.  No rich man has ever come up to me and offered me a life of
    leisure anymore than any rich woman has offered it to you!
    
    It's only a very small percentage of women who ever get to live that
    lifestyle and there's even less today because of the cost of living.
    
    Lorna
    

    Gawd, Hoyt, where do you FIND these people?  Are they the ones who live
    in the suburbs?  How can they afford to let one member of a couple hang
    around the mall inspecting tennis shorts instead of working?
    
    Anyhow, in my low-rent scruffy life, I'm happy to say that I've
    never encountered any such pheenom as you describe.  Of course that may
    be because people like that would be unlikely to seek people like me
    out. 
    
�    chatting with the four-year-olds at Walden Pond. I'd love to have that
�    kind of leisure and life-style, and it seems really unfair that I'm
    
    Yeah, I'd like it too.  Unfortunately, although my Partners in
    Relationship have always theoretically supported my life goal (to lay
    around all day in a robe with a Big Gulp of armagnac by my languid
    hand, reading verse aloud while my SO handles the petty details of
    capitalism), none of them have ever managed to be rich enough to put it
    into practice.  Hmm, your note gives me an idea....
    
    Ray

    
    Having struggled with money for as long as I can remember, I would
    love to find a man rich enough to keep me in the style I would love
    to become accustomed to! Not at the exclusion of everything else though
    & it's not a major concern. I earn a reasonable amount of money but it
    all seems to go on bils & my daughter, Jade. 
    
    A man with wads of money would be a definite bonus, especially if he
    wanted to give loads of it to me! Doesn't work like that though does
    it?  Sigh!
    
    I can't believe there are that many women out there who would put 
    earning loadsamoney too high on their list of priorities.
    
    Liz

>    I can't believe there are that many women out there who would put 
>    earning loadsamoney too high on their list of priorities.

 No more than the men who are interested in a gorgeous babe who is a powderkeg
in the sack...

    re .7, women don't have to be gorgeous babes in order to be powderkegs
    in the sack, though!  Even average looking folks can be good in bed!
    
    Lorna
    

    If I may make even more general generalizations that I've been reading
    here. IMO EVERYONE would prefer their mate: 
    
    - to have wads of money, 
    - to be better looking,
    - to be awesome in the sack,
    - to have an incredible personality and wonderful sense of humor,
    - to have an incredible career that allowed for lots of leisure time,
    - to enjoy all of the things that we did, but allowed us our space,
    - to get along with our family,
    - make us feel comfortable whenever we are around them,
    
    and I could go on, as could you, for screens.  My point is that all
    people place different weights on how important these, and countless
    other, aspects are to them.  We have simply been focusing on the, IMO,
    small segment of society that places (IOO) undue influence on one of
    these traits.  
    
    It is NOT, however, true that ALL MEN place most influence on looks,
    and that ALL WOMEN are money-grubbing pigs!
    
    Dave

      I prefer to limit my shallowness to physical attractiveness
    since I usually have more money than the men in my life. ;^)
    
    
                            L.J.

    I had a friend, a young, single tax lawyer, who decided to see if he
    would get as much interest from women he would meet at parties if he
    introduced himself as a construction engineer, or accountant.
    
    The women found him much less attractive.
    
    funny, ain't it?
    
    -roger
    

    
    
    Hoyt,
    
    I think the days of women looking at men just as financial support
    systems are over.  One reason is that women are making it on their
    own.  There no longer is a need for women to rely on men for financial
    support.  This is not to say that this doesn't exist.  No longer is
    it feasible for one parent to stay home and raise the children.  
    There are some fortunate folks who have the ability to do that, but
    their numbers are few.
    
    However, I get the impression that most men still feel that the
    women they date do weigh financial status pretty heavily. 
    Realistically it makes sense.  Afterall, if I make X amount of dollars
    on my own, I would like the person I am dating to be of the same tax
    bracket merely due to the fact that I am accustomed to living on 
    X amount of money.  It would be nice to meet someone who was making
    more money because as we all know money is nice to have.  
    
    By no means though would I not date someone who made a significant
    amount less if I was happy with the relationship.  It simply is not
    fair to oneself to set such limits.
    
    
    As for the fathers staying home and raising the children.  I would
    like to see more of it.  There are many reasons why it simply wont
    happen.  Corporate America is not ready to accept men doing this
    for one.  Society in general is not set up for this either.  
    If a father wants to take time off from his career to be with his
    kids he is penalized just as much if not more by this company that
    if it were the mother doing the same thing.  Until corporate America
    starts seriously restructuring to allow for the needs of today's
    families, I feel men will still be expected to be the ones who
    work in the office not in the home.
    
    Michele

    	Since I have occasion to eat out alone once a week, I humor myself
    with what ever is available to read at the restaraunts, diners, or
    eateries that I choose. If it's not the "Real Estate" Magazines, it's
    "Dateline" or "Singles".
    
    	I have yet to read an ad by a male that requests that a women be
    "financially secure". On the other hand, about 40-60% of the ads that
    females enter ask that the male she is looking for be financially
    secure. At one time that would have meant having a job, but today I
    believe it means one of two things:
    
    1. If you want to date this lady, you best have some bucks. She doesn't
    want to be in the cheap seats or do "dutch" at Rowe's Wharf.
    
    or
    
    2. She's got a bit of cash and she ain't sharin' it with you.... 
    
    	Ken

    re .13, well, as someone pointed out, there are jerks in both sexes. 
    It seems that some females are looking for money and, while I don't
    think it's right to become romantically involved just for money, I
    think that the main reason this happens is that, even today, most women
    don't earn, on the average, anywhere near as much as men.  Many women
    figure that the only way to get a lot of money is to get a man who has
    a lot, and, for the most part, they may be right.  
    
    We've all seen the couple combinations where the man is either old or
    old and homely or just homely, and the woman is breathtakingly
    beautiful.  (Bill Wyman, of the Rolling Stones, age 54, and homely as
    heck married an 18 yr. old model last year, for example.)  One way for
    a man to prove to other men that he is successful is to have a
    beautiful woman on his arm, and some beautiful women are willing to be
    bought for the right price.  But, most of us can't play this game. 
    Most men aren't rich enough and most women aren't pretty enough, so we
    have to settle for just finding someone we love and making the best of
    it!  So, average guys who aren't rich get offended when attractive
    women appear to be only interested in men with money, and average
    looking women get offended when powerful, interesting men seem to only
    want beautiful women.
    
    Lorna
    

    I've worked since I was 14 and plan to always work.  I consider staying
    at home to be a burden on my partner.  I would only stay home if it was
    1) affordable to do so and only while the children were pre-school age
    2) mutually agreed upon with my SO or spouse.
    
    I'm single, intelligent and decent-looking.  Currently, I'm dating
    three super nice guys.  They all have their own merits and I would not
    choose to become serious with anyone on the basis of their income
    level, which is quite diverse:
    
    A never-married doctor, who is quite high in the income bracket due to
    the fact that he is director of medicine at a hospital.
    
    A farrier (horseshoer) who is divorced with three sons.  He has no
    money but we have lots of fun.
    
    An impoverished engineering student who is trying desperately to obtain
    his Master's and will probably do ok in life once he gets his PhD.  
    
    Of course, my *family* is rooting for the doctor.  We'll see.  Anyway,
    Hoyt, I've seen freeloader type of men (in fact, I've dated one once
    and it was an experience I'll never forget) so I guess it's a human
    trait.  You just have to spot them before things become serious.  The
    longer I stay single, the less interested I am in getting serious right
    off the bat.  People are good at putting their best face forward and it
    takes a few months to find out all the stuff that you really need to
    know.
    
    IMHO, anyway.
    
    Tammi

    Hoyt,
    
    I think I understand your feelings.  When my husband and I were
    thinking of having children, and thinking about who should care for
    them, and - if at all - who should stay home.   We agreed on a few
    things.  One, that we wanted our kids to have at least one full time
    parent during their early (pre-two) childhood.   Two, we wanted at
    least one of us to earn enough to support the others in the family.
    
    Now reality sets in - female must bear children.   It's really hard for
    a man to nurse a child,too.  Female usually needs a little time to recover
    after delivery (if you think the normal 6 weeks is enough - man, are
    you mistaken!).   And, in our case, it was not quite *acceptable* for a
    man to stay home with the children, sew, cook, etc... instead of going
    to work.   Of course this was many years ago, back in the dark ages,
    and in the midwest.   Economically, it didn't make much sense either -
    he made more money than I did at that time.
    
    We both have felt the inequities of the prejudice against men in the
    lifestyles forced upon them.   However, we also feel the inequities in
    the lifestyles forced upon women.   Most women do not *choose* to work
    longer hours for [usually] lower pay;  most do not *choose* less
    education; most do not *choose* to sit and chat with 4 year olds in the
    park - if you really examined this aspect of women's lives you might
    find that the chatting time (or the shopping time) is squeezed in between 
    a lot of housework and possibly a nighttime job.  Most women don' have 
    much leisure time, day or night, even if they elect to make their 
    carreers in the home. 
    
    ;)
    
    Just take a possible impression of the man going off to work in the
    morning as seen by one of those women - I get up, fix breakfast for
    hubby and children, then see them off in clean, well pressed clothing.
    After that, I clean up their messes, wash clothing, iron, vaccuum,
    plan, prepare and fix evening meal.   Usually, I have to run errands
    like going to the bank, shopping (so easy when you've been up since
    5:00 a.m.), picking the children up from after-school play rehearsal,
    go door to door on the local political issues that my hubby typically
    gets us involved in, take out trash, etc...   All in all, the work 
    between seeing the well-clad man off in the morning and dishes, etc...
    in the evening is about a 16 hour work day.   Nothing important gets
    done or decided, except maybe budgeting for a family of 4 on one
    person's income, being onhand in case of physical emergency (and
    handling whatever comes along), scheduling 4 people's lives, and
    assuring educational standards for the community, etc....   All of
    these things (from a housewife's point of view) are done by men, too -
    but they get tens of thousands of dollars a year for just one of these
    jobs.
    
    The bottom line is - life is not fair, and the grass is always greener
    when someone else has to mow it.
    
    
    -m

I agree with -.1. We have two little girls, the eldest is just 2.5 yrs, and the
youngerst 10 months. Far from being a nice life to stay at home with them to
have walks in the park, and nice little chats to the eldest, it is by far the
most taxing and exhausting and frustrating thing to do. I stay at home with 
them on my own rarely - and well before half way through the morning I am a
wreck, physically and nervously.

Coming to work is the soft option.

Phillip

    Very interesting replies, all, and I'm intrigued that mostly women are
    replying. I guess most men are complacent about this?!
    
    Staying home is no piece of cake, agreed. Still, I wish it was an
    option for more men, and I certainly hope it's an option for me someday
    (when Hoytette is conceived, etc). Following is my laundry list of ways
    that the provider role is a crock:
    
    1) Men are valued for their capacity to bring home the bacon, which
       means they are NOT valued for their physique or physical fitness.
       Classically, this means men routinely make the decision to work late
       or take the client out for a big lunch, instead of working out at
       the club. As a result, men are generally much less fit than women, 
       and more prone to overweight and the associated illnesses of heart
       disease, diabetes, etc. Women live longer in part because their role
       requires them to pay more attention to their physical well-being.
    
       Mental health is in jeopardy, too, when a man valued for earning
       money finds himself unemployed. "What am I good for?" Depression
       sets in, with all the attendant side-effects: substance abuse,
       suicidal tendencies, and so on. When the provider/husband is out
       of work, the home-maker/wife finds her role even more important,
       managing to keep family fed and clothed on even less money (not
       easy or pleasant, but IMPORTANT).
    
    2) Men have only peripheral relationships with their children.
    
       The stereotypical provider-role Dad leaves for work early, comes
       home late, and either works at home in the evening or devotes
       himself to the newspaper. Interaction with children is as a sports
       coach ("Let's throw the old bean for a while, son!"), homework
       assistant ("You can divide both sides by the same number!"), or 
       disciplinarian ("You know what happens when you lie, son!").
    
       Meanwhile, Mom is holding, cleaning, feeding, chatting with, 
       chauffeuring, and in general BEING WITH the children in a way which
       completely dominates the father's role. If Dad dies, we'll have to 
       move to a smaller house and maybe Mom will have to get a job. If
       Mom dies, the world ends! Children are her *babies* -- born in pain,
       nurtured tenderly, her hopes and worries. Children are his *charges*
       -- a responsibility to be paid for, instructed, put on the path to
       making living!
    
    3) Men's social development is truncated by their provider role.
    
       Women are taught to be attractive. Men are taught to beat the other
       guy competing for the promotion. Women feel that relationships are
       crucial, between spouses, parents and children, between friends. Men
       know that relationships are ways to get sales leads. Communication
       for a woman is her way of being herself, of showing people who she
       is, as a method of establishing relationships. Male communication
       is for confirming his sexual orientation ("What do you think of
       those Giants") and otherwise reinforcing the image projected into
       the workplace.
    
    Yes, these are gross generalizations all, with plenty of exceptions. I
    think the tendencies are valid, however, and I deeply resent them.
    
    Re women "naturally" staying home because sexual discimination offers
    them fewer economic activities: Around 1980 a feminist-female Harvard
    prof said at a lecture that the then-differential in male-female wages
    was about thirty percent. I knew her from U. of Michigan days, where
    she was a statistical guru, so I asked "What about when you control for
    education, years in the workforce, etc?" She reluctantly admitted that
    "Controlling for other factors leaves a five-percent differential
    attributable to sex discrimination." 
    
    That's five percent too much, but it's not enough to ALWAYS (in my
    experience) require that Mom goes home and Dad goes to work. In my
    circle of acquaintances, there are lots of instances where the woman
    was making more money and then elected to stay home. The usual reason
    (given somewhat sheepishly by the still-working husband) is "She
    couldn't stand not being with the baby." Economics doesn't cut it; it's
    preferences, handed down to us by our folks and the television, etc.
    
    Perhaps I know more women who are interested in men as income-objects,
    or perhaps I'm simply more alert to the phenomenon. And I have few
    qualms about turning the table. "Remember, Hoyt Jr, it's just as easy
    to fall in love with a rich woman." :)
    
    - Hoyt

    re .18, perhaps you're usually attracted to shallow women?  Maybe you
    should rethink your reasons for hanging out with the people you spend
    time with?  Maybe you're sick of your job and in need of a change?
    
    If you really think you would have had a happier life as a
    housewife, though, I'm indeed sorry that you didn't have that option. 
    Sometimes I get sick of being a divorced, secretary and think I would
    have had a happier life as a housewife, too.  Then I'm sorry I never
    had that option, either.  
    
    Sometimes I think I would have had a happier life if I had been born a
    white man, with a high IQ, to college educated, upper-middle class, 
    professional parents, who had expected me to also attend college and be
    a professional.  Sometimes I wistfully think of the money and the
    respect I would have by now, at the age of 41, if I were a professional
    white male, and I'm sorry I didn't have that opportunity.  I imagine
    there must be a lot of independance in that lifestyle and you can even
    be a parent without having to give birth or take care of it unless you
    really want to.
    
    But, as .16 said, the grass is always greener on the other side.
    
    Lorna
    

    I'm missing something: .19 refers to .18 but it seems like a total
    non sequitur. I speak in general terms about deleterious effects of the
    male provider role in .18, and in .19 I'm apparently read as whining
    about the caliber of the people I know and my quality of work life.
    
    I apparently have had advantages you haven't, Lorna, and I hear with
    sympathy your bitterness. I *am* privileged: I happen to be in a
    position to be able to stay at home, should the blessed event come to
    pass. I don't think this topic is about your and my circumstances,
    however.
    
    It is a societal phenomenon that men are cast in the provider role. I
    am an enthusiastic supporter of feminism because it can allow men to be
    another way. The question I raised in .0 is do other men resent the
    role, as I do, e.g. for the reasons I've outlined?
    
    - Hoyt

 Hoyt-

 Perhaps the paucity of male replies may be due to the fact that women are
here and likely to challenge and chide and maybe some aren't willing to
deal with the scolding that would occur if their true feelings were exposed.
:-)/2 I suspect an all male forum would lead to a greater willingness for men
to reply...

 Anyway, I do resent the provider role in some ways. As an attached man, it's
not an issue vis � vis attracting mates, but I can see how the issue could
arise for males with my background and no partner. I've seen the female
counterparts to Leisure Suit Larry enough times to know they are a common 
species.

 Fortunately, my wife is (usually) a provider type also, having been a single
parent for over a decade. We split up the providing and nurturing chores
pretty evenly. I really can't complain that I don't have the same opportunity
to bond with my daughter as she does, and I am thankful for that. It's very
important to me.

 Part of me is willing to deal with the provider role because I seem to be
falling into it naturally and it doesn't seem to be such a big deal. It reminds
me of fighting city hall to challenge gender roles, I guess.

 In many ways, I could never be happy being a homemaker. I become bored too
easily. And the pressures of dealing with children are so different from
work related pressures- there's the constancy of it. It requires constant
vigilance, so even though there's relatively few instances of high stress,
it gets to me. 

 I think that Brown_ro's (I mean, Roger's) comment 'just the way of the world'
rings true to me...

 The Doctah

I don't like being treated as an income object.  However, I've never stayed
around too long with a woman who treated me that way, so it's not really
an issue with me.

I am pleased to be in a position where I can be an equal partner with
my spouse, and an equal parent as well.  I admit that not every man is
as fortunate, but I also feel that the picture painted in Hoyt's base
note is artificial and extremely uncommon.

The thing is, we can change the world if we really want to.  I suspect that
many men LIKE being the provider because it lets them wield (or at least think
they wield) authority over their spouse and children.

If there's anything to resent, it's that our society has made great strides
in the direction of allowing women to move away from the traditional
"homemaker" role, but it hasn't moved much to allow men to move away from
the traditional "breadwinner" role.

				Steve

    re .Hoyt, the reason I referred to .18, in .19, was so that you would
    know that I was talking to you.  I was responding to all of your
    replies.  
    
    Also, I truly am not bitter.  I'm a fairly happy person.  My life could
    be "better" in some ways, I guess, but it could certainly be a lot
    worse, too.  I was simply trying to point out that there are definitely
    some good points to being able to *be* a provider.  
    
    Yes, society has forced both men and women into traditional roles, and
    it's difficult for either men or women who would have preferred to have
    the opposite role.  Unfortunately for most men who would prefer not to
    be providers, there are still not very many women around who make
    enough money to provide for a husband and kids even if they wanted to. 
    You, personally, may know a number of professional women, with high
    incomes, but when the entire female population of the U.S. is
    considered most women still don't make enough money to be able to
    support a husband and kids.  Hopefully, someday in the future both men
    and women will have more choices.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re: .0
    
�     <<< Note 571.0 by PENUTS::HNELSON "Resolved: 192# now, 175# by May" >>>
�             -< Do *you* like being treated as an income-object? >-
�
�           Women mostly care about a man's wealth and income.
    
	My ex-wife cares deeply about my income.  She depends upon
    her weekly alimony checks.  My present wife cares about my income
    and cares about her own.  She is not dependent upon my income.  
    
�    Another way of stating this is that women have traditionally been the
�    home-makers, while men are the bread-winners.
�    
�    Obviously this is not news. I'm bringing this up because I wonder if
�    any other men share my deep resentment of this arrangement. I know of
�    exactly zero instances, among hundreds of couples of my acquaintance,
�    where the MAN stayed home with the kids. Those few occasions when I'm
�    not at work during office hours, I'm struck with how predominantly it's
�    WOMEN shopping at the mall, playing doubles at the tennis club, and
�    chatting with the four-year-olds at Walden Pond. I'd love to have that
�    kind of leisure and life-style, and it seems really unfair that I'm
�    cast in this provider role instead.
�    
�    Does this bug anybody else? - Hoyt

    
    	I would love to stay home and become the domestic engineer.  
     I am definitely a candidate for the 'daddy track' when my present
     spouse and I decide on having children.  I feel at that stage of 
     my life that it would be much more rewarding than working full time 
     and seeing 30% of my salary go towards the ex-wife.  It's the instrinsic
     rewards of the job that keep me going now.  Oh, and the bank's needs
     (ie mortgage payments).  :-)
    
      

    I've never had a serious relationship with anyone who earned more than
    I did.  Not on purpose, mind you, it just worked out that way.  I've
    supported them sometimes.  The money always worked out.  I can't
    imagine having a relationship for a man just because he had money.  In
    fact, my mother told me "Gee, if you can stay with a man because he has
    money, that might be a comfortable way to live, but chances are you'll
    be like me and marry for love.  In this case, make sure he has warm
    feet, and things should work out just fine."  (of course there are many
    mroe factors in functional relationships than the temperature of one's
    extremities, but you get my drift).  
    
    There were "fortunehunting women" on Oprah or Donahue or something a
    week or few ago, and they had all the pointers on how to dress and
    where to hang out and what parties to crash to meet and catch a
    millionaire.  But that's not my thing.  I fall for creative genius,
    generally the verbal, artistic, musical or hacker-kind.  If I happen to
    fall in love with someone and they just happen to someday get rich and
    think they might want to share it with me, gee that'd be nice.  But I
    have no folly of belief that it'll ever happen - the chances are too
    slim.  So love is what'll be the focus, not money.
    
    As for having a man stay home and raise the family, one of my
    ex-boyfriends suggested that he do that (no, actually I think he
    demanded it - it was all set up in his mind that he'd never work
    another day in his life, never have to deal with society or reality,
    and he'd stay home and raise the kids).....but he hadn't discussed it
    with me first (I wasn't sure I even WANTED kids, and I certainly didn't
    want a mate who didn't participate in anything outside the home....and
    a dual-income household is kind of a necessity in my mind at least
    until "we" (whoever "we" turn out to be, and whenever "we" find each
    other) get our feet under us as far as a place to live, vehicles that
    operate properly, and a little investing never hurt.....you get my
    drift).  It turned out it wasn't something I wanted at that point in
    time simply because it meant he would withdraw from life in so many
    other ways (staying home and child-rearing was an ESCAPE for him, not
    something he was running too, but a representation of all he was
    running away FROM).  I certainly think men should have the option to do
    that if it's cool with the relationship and the finances therein.  With
    a dual income household, if children enter the picture, I think
    child-rearing should be shared.....maybe one parent takes more care for
    a year or two, and then they swap off.  But it should definitely be an
    option.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    -Jody

    with tongue firmly and semi-seriously planted in cheek:
    
    actually the marriages of the future will be triples, not couples,
    since it takes two full-time incomes to support a home, and one
    full-time person to keep it running comfortably.  Select your own mix
    of genders/gender-roles.
    
    Sara

Well, here's a reply from a man.  Though I'm certain that because I'm single,
and not currently dating, that I'm definitely not being treated as an
income-object (IO).

Of past relationships in which I knew whose income was higher (mine), I can't
recall being treated like an IO.  Also, I would not want to be treated like one.
If I found myself in such a relationship I would probably leave it.

I do know a woman who recently seemed to be expressing interest in a man as
an IO, but I think that the main reason that that happened was because of other
stresses in her life.

I can recall some women that I know making every effort to pay an equal share
of things (sometimes to the point of being rediculous).

While the women that I've dated haven't treated me as an income object, I'd say
that society in general probably still does.  If I spent more effort dating,
I'd probably run across some women that would be interested in me as an IO, but
I suspect that those women generally are not doing because they are looking for
money (I don't make THAT much), but because their goals in life are such that
they don't expect to be primarily responsible for the family income.  This is
the result of social conditioning.

I suspect that if I ever do marry that there will be a time in which I am
responsible for almost all of the family income, but I don't expect it to be
the case all of the time.

Rich

    I believe that sharing the nurturing role is possible, no matter who
    "stays home", if anyone.   The question of who makes the money and who
    does housework (i.e., works for *no* money) is irrelavent.   What I am
    trying to say is, just because you are the bacon winner does not mean
    you should limit your parent/child relationships to the traditional
    "when Daddy comes home" stuff.    
    
    Chatting with the toddler is not limited to worktime, you know.  
    
    But again - the traditional roles are a burden for all of us.  I resent
    them, too.   And I do believe that it [at least today] might be a
    little easier for a woman to break away from the societal norms in this
    than men.   
    
    
    RE:  salary differential... 5% after educational and experiential
    differences are taken into account is not 5% too much - it's still 30%
    too much, since it's so much harder for a woman to get those norms
    accomplished.   Don't rationalize into obscurity your advantages - 
    thank someone for them.    
    
    -m
    

    
    This has been an interesting discussion because I am planning
    to make some changes in the coming months and I find myself
    thinking about income and living expenses with and without
    a partner (woman).
    
    I'm 55, divorced, have been programming for 34 years and am going
    to quit, take a year off, and find something else to do 
    with my life.  Naturally, income will fall way off
    over the next year.   I have been wondering how 
    much it will cost me to live, at least for the year off,
    and then how much it will cost me to live beyond that,
    when I assume I will be working at something else...
    
    I found myself automatically assuming that if I decide to
    live with a woman that I will have to earn MORE money!
    That is, I was assuming that I would have the responsibility
    of the financial side of our partnership.
    
    This topic has helped me see that I don't have to assume that.
    
    I do see that by living alone, I have the total choice of 
    how I will live.  For example, I can take a room in a rooming
    house, sell my car, etc, provided I can put up with the loss of
    space, freedom of movement, etc.  It's very unlikely that I will
    do that, but it is *my* choice.  If I start living with a woman,
    the choices are not entirely mine (or hers).  I guess I assume
    that the choices will be costlier, however.  And somehow or
    other, I don't like relying on the woman's income.
    
    That's the problem -- reliance.  
    
    I *assume* that the woman is working, for satisfaction as well
    as income, and I assume that we have a partnership in all the
    good ways that a man and woman can live together, but it is
    very hard to say that I will agree to live in such a way that
    we are dependent on *both* incomes.  (Not that they need to be
    equal incomes, just that both are needed.)
    
    Thanks for the new viewpoints...                   Wil
    

    I'm not sure that many men think about being an 'income-object' (sorry,
    but it's an ugly word) until...
    
    they get divorced.  When you lose everything you've worked for, forced
    into poverty and denied any chance to rebuild while your other gets the
    lot THEN you know what it's like.

    I'm a man who stays home with the kids.  I was home with each of my
    three kids (now ages 1.5 to 6)  full-time between 2 months and two
    years (depended on circumstances at the time). I now work part-time to
    be there in the afternoons.  Here's my take on it:
    
    There are indeed many reasons why my route is unusual for men, ranging
    from the declining standard of living in the US (requiring 2 incomes)
    to upbringing, to the lack of support from society and industry for
    families in general and fathering in specific.  Many preceding replies
    outlined these factors.
    
    However, if you want to be a full-time (or heavily involved) father,
    you can do it. I find it hard to believe that all you guys who speak of
    drive and ambition and risk-taking would really be dissuaded from
    washing diapers and hanging around the park if that's what you really
    wanted. I fear that talk is cheap, that you really *don't* want to do
    it, that you really do believe it's boring and demeaning and
    unchallenging. I also fear that your women counterparts - educated,
    intelligent, finally with a shot at the bigger world - also may not
    like the idea of staying home that much, but are forced to do it by
    social convention.
    
    It's true that some people wouldn't be great at it. It's really a
    matter of work style. If you need to settle in and concentrate on one
    task and get it done from A to Z, you will have trouble running a
    household. If you don't mind juggling a variety of tasks that you can
    do simultaneously or that you can start and stop without losing
    context, you will find it easier. I myself found it quite relaxing 
    in the sense that I wasn't *always* working, as I am at "work".  
    There's time to read the paper, make phone calls, do political work,
    carpentry work, whatever.  I haul kids with me on errands, so that
    shopping or banking become a family adventure in which they learn to
    participate.  When I'm working at my paid job, it's considerably more
    difficult, as I still have prime responsibility for the kids and the
    household in general -- most working women don't need to be told about
    this!
    
    Finally, far from ever having felt disrespect for what I do, I get
    incredibly positive reactions. Again, I believe this is partly the
    result of my attitude -- I proselytize mercilessly, even to the extent
    of a couple of appearances on a local TV talk show (People are
    Talking). If you really want to do it, and really feel good about doing
    it, many of the obstacles will melt away.  
    
    Kit

I'd just like to say a few things, now that I'm divorced and take care of my
daughter alone.

-how much money you have means a lot
-I can be bought
-I'd quit my job and stay home in a second with the kids.

You can't get fired or laid off as a house mom, you can only get divorced and
there are no performance reviews or political step ladders to climb.


Guido.

    re this entire topic, as I was driving alone in my car this weekend, I
    suddenly thought of this topic, for some reason, and I had a
    realization that made me laugh out loud.  I think it's pretty funny
    that there are, apparently, some men who seem to be of the opinion that
    a lot of women are just looking for a husband to support them, because
    my realization was that I would rather live alone in *poverty* than to
    have to put up with the personalities and habits of most of the men
    I've met, on a full-time basis, just to have money and not have to
    "work."  Personally, I think having to be a stay-at-home housewife to
    the vast majority of men would be worse than most real jobs,
    regardless of the money involved.  I can't be the only woman who feels
    this way, so maybe there aren't as many women after men's wallets as
    they think.   :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    -1
    
    In his book The Art of Thinking, Dr Robert Bramson of Univ of Calif.
    profiles 5 major preferred thinking styles, the Analyst, the Pragmatist
    the Idealist, the Synthesist and the Realist.  When he applied these
    thinking styles to occupations, he found that homemakers and CEO's
    had remarkably similar thinking styles. His conclusion is that the
    homemaker deals with many similar types of business situations as
    does the CEO  when you consider the home as an enterprise.
    
    My conclusion is that one should not understimate the challenge
    and value of a full-time homemaker/mother.  My wife is such a person
    and I marvel at the creativity and endurance she brings to her career.
    True I may be the "main revenue stream" for the home, but no doubt
    she operates a very successful enterprise within budget guidelines.
                                                              
    What gets my goat is how my kids, especially pre teens, think Dad
    is a "money tree".

    re .34, I don't understand what makes you think, from reading my .33,
    that I "underestimate the challenge and value of a full-time
    homemaker/mother"!!!!!  That is not what I was talking about at all!  I
    do value the role of the homemaker!  Heck, I sometimes wish I could 
    afford to either have one or be one.  That was not the intent of my .33
    *at* *all*!  All I was trying to say, is that it strikes me as funny
    that some men seem to think that many women are looking for a man to
    with a lot of money to support them, but it occurred to me that most
    men are either so creepy, so boring or so obnoxious that I would rather
    be poor than marry them just for their money. I don't know how that
    translates into your thinking that I don't value homemakers, because I
    do.
    
    Lorna
    

>    my realization was that I would rather live alone in *poverty* than to
>    have to put up with the personalities and habits of most of the men
>    I've met, on a full-time basis, just to have money and not have to
>    "work."

 There are many like you, Lorna. But many of them simply marry a guy who has 
alot of money and when they  get tired of him they divorce him and take half of
what he had accumulated in his life up until that point. Or some just hire a
coupla teenagers to off the guy...

This note is really getting down and dirty.  I love general statements like
most men are obnoxious.  Maybe she's right, maybe she's wrong.  She's probably
as close to right as "MOST WOMEN ARE GOLD DIGGERS".

    
    Re: .37
    
    I agree. I'm getting quite tired of these gross negative
    generalizations of men, in mennotes of all places.

    .37, right on.
    
    Doc and Lorna, you have both surprised me today.
    
    Like all of you, I've had experiences both good and bad with the other
    gender.  (also with other races, other nationalities)  I try to meet
    each person as an individual.  It's a goal, not an achievement.
    
    A bell curve has two low volume ends, and a big high-volume bulge in
    the middle.  The ends do exist, and some of us may have been so
    unfortunate as to have experienced mostly the low end of the curve.
    It's hard to resist the temptation to generalize, but not all or most
    women are gold diggers, and not all or most men beat their wives.
    
    Sara

 Which is why I used the accurate modifier "many."

    re .37, .38, what I said was that *I* personally would not marry
    someone I didn't love just for the money, because *I* personally
    would not be able to live, full-time, with most of the men (or women!)
    I have ever met, regardless of financial incentive.  I was not implying 
    that most men are obnoxious - period - that's it.  I was trying to say 
    that most of the men I have known are too boring, obnoxious, weird,
    peculiar, whatever....unappealing?....for *me* *personally* to want to
    *marry* regardless of their financial worth!  I was not saying that
    these men are too obnoxious to be friends with, to see occasionally.  I
    was saying they were too obnoxious to be married to!  There's a
    difference!  There are plenty of people I like as friends but it
    doesn't mean I'd want to marry them!  Geez, Hank, would you want to be
    married to *most* of the women you've ever known, or is there maybe
    something about most of us that would make you want to keep us at arm's
    length regardless of your own marital status.  Obviously, I'm not
    expressing myself well enough for anybody to understand what I'm trying
    to say.  But, it seems to me that people are jumping to conclusions and
    going a step further.  If I say that I could not marry someone I didn't
    love, just for money, and that it is because I think most men are too
    creepy to be *married* to, that does NOT mean that I think most men are
    creepy!  It means I think they're too creepy to be *married* to, and
    that's it.  I might enjoy having them as friends or co-workers.  I
    thought most people felt that way.  Don't most people think that most
    other people are too obnoxious to be married to?  !!!!  ?????
    
    Lorna
     

�    thought most people felt that way.  Don't most people think that most
�    other people are too obnoxious to be married to?  !!!!  ?????
    
    Nah.  Only one person of the prospective couple has to be REALLY
    obnoxious to prevent a marriage, and I'M ALWAYS THAT PERSON.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    
    Thank you for the clarification Lorna.

    
    To Lorna,
    
    Sorry I misunderstood.  Your statement kind of confused me. Let
    me quote it:
    
    "Personally I think having to be a stay-at-home housewife to the
    vast majority of men would be worse than most real jobs, regardless
    of the money."
    
    The "vast majority" of people I have met or know (male or female)
    are or would make great spouses and parents.  Sure, none of us is
    perfect.  I think that one of the functions of marriage and
    family life is to help each partner refine and develop their better selves.
                                                                
    Sorry I confused you.
    

    Gee, give Lorna a break.  She's talking about herself and saying that
    if she feels this way, there must be others.  I know I'm one of them!  
    I'd rather work *2* jobs than be married to some guy for his money,
    which to me means his rules, however subtle, and don't you self-proclaimed
    "main revenue streams" try to fool anyone into thinking this mentality
    isn't part and parcel of the financier role.  When push comes to shove,
    the one bringing in the money will try to pull rank, devaluing the
    "domestic engineer" as contributing less than 50% to the union.  I
    can't help but think most men consciously or subconsciously know this
    and for that reason, wouldn't trade places with a woman for a minute,
    even as they complain about their "IO" role.  At least it's considered
    the "top" one, right, guys?   
    
    I agree with Lorna that I believe that there aren't that many women out 
    there who would choose a man for his money.  What a boring sex life a
    woman would have!  Think, guys, what your sex life would be if your
    selection was based on money only.  (Are you starting to think
    "duality", now?  Women for money and *different* women for sex?  Could
    you allow the possibility of a woman having this MO?)  
    
    Perhaps when you guys think of "gold digging" women you are thinking about
    women who are *not* interested in you, (the majority of the world isn't 
    interested in us, remember!).  In that case, you're getting the
    female's version of a guy who takes what he can get off a woman and 
    vanishes.  You're the male version of the "2:00 love unit" and you've been 
    had by an opportunistic woman.  So you rail at women. Run of the mill 
    stuff.  Most women keep it to themselves, smile and go on when they get
    so taken.  I guess we're just less surprised when it happens. 
     
    Perhaps your own naive belief that women *always* go for love leaves you 
    open for women who *do* go for love, but not necessarily with you.  Women 
    have to learn to choose their partners carefully, (physical dangers and 
    all).  Maybe men need to be a tad more discriminating than they are, and 
    have a little less of the macho, "I'm in control here", belief.  Maybe 
    women aren't "gold diggers" after all, maybe they're just like men in that 
    they believe that "love is number 1 but until I find it..."
    
    Now if we're talking about the kind of money no one reading this file has 
    any hope of getting next to, that's a different story.  That kind of money 
    is earned by very *busy* gentlemen who own more than one home, etc.  I 
    think I could handle that.  What's wrong with living in Mar a Lago year
    round while "the Donald" spends most of his time in New York and shows up 
    maybe a total of 3 months out of the year?!  I could grit my teeth! 
    ;-)
    
    And here we go with the "all men", "some men", "generalization" whine
    again.  All you guys complaining about this should immediately write to 
    Playboy magazine who has the audacity to run a feature called "The Women 
    of the Women's Colleges".  Because of your pedantic dedication to 
    grammatical precision, you should be demanding that they change it to 
    "Some Women from Some of the Women's Colleges".  You shouldn't let this 
    gross and unfair generalization slip by.  Or can Playboy do what Lorna 
    mustn't?  
    
    Or shall we just all deal in the vernacular that we all know everyone
    understands and let's get on with the discussion, ok?  
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

I think that some of men's perception about "many" women treating men as
"income objects" stems from a long history of women in fact and fancy who
have done just that.  Consider the rather classic movie plot of "girl who
sets out to trap a rich guy, falls instead for someone she thinks is
poor, and then, discovers he's rich after all."  For example, "How To Marry
A Millionaire".  You don't see too many movies about women who
consciously pick the non-rich man over the rich man.

Now one could, and I probably would, argue that these movies and other
stories don't really relate much to real life.  But one only needs to look
at the articles in women's magazines, and the constant cry of women's mothers
of "Marry a doctor!", to get a feeling that, perhaps, there are indeed a lot
of women out there whose first goal is to land a rich husband.  Maybe
after a while, they come to realize that they might want to rearrange their
priorities, but this is still what comes across to men.

And who can really blame these women?  For thousands of years, they had
no ability to earn their own income, and absolutely depended on the
generosity of a man for their existence.  This has changed significantly
only in the past twenty years, and that's much too short a time to
readjust society's values.

As I see it, if a woman is primarily interested in my income, then I am
not interested in her.  There are plenty of attractive women out there
whose values are compatible with mine for me to spend any time worrying
about this.  I might still end up being the primary eage-earner in the
family, but I will be darned sure that I'm not "loved" for my wallet
(though it is none too thick, to be honest!)

I have known women who treat men as IOs.  They do exist.  (There also exist,
though in smaller numbers, men who look for women as IOs, and the literature
is filled with them as well.)  So what?

			Steve

	I'd rather treat a man as a sex-object.

>    I agree with Lorna that I believe that there aren't that many women out 
>    there who would choose a man for his money.

 I definitely disagree with this.

>What a boring sex life a woman would have! 

 Not so, and you even say why here:"Are you starting to think
    "duality", now?  Women for money and *different* women for sex?  Could
    you allow the possibility of a woman having this MO?"

 I say "Yes, absolutely." (Not to would I approve but to do I think this 
exists.)

>Most women keep it to themselves, smile and go on when they get so taken. 

 I don't think I agree with this.

 And Sandy, I think your objection to the pedantry is a bit on the pedantic 
side itself, eh? :-) Are you really trying to equate Lorna and Playboy 
Magazine?!!

 the Doctah

    
    
    From my experiences, the men who see women as golddiggers are ones
    who typically have been taken to the cleaners in a divorce.  
    As a previous note said, you don't look at someone as a golddigger
    until they start to dig for the gold!!
    
    Regarding Lorna's note on men trading places with women homemakers.
    Personally I think that most folks who do not do it would love to
    do it, and those that are doing it wouldn't mind changing places.
    There are good sides and bad sides to both arenas.
    
    This notion of women trying to find husbands just to support them is
    so outdated.  In the past it was part of the norm.  Boy meets girl,
    fall in love (hopefully), get married, have kids, mom stays home,
    dad goes to work outside of home.  Now it doesn't happen that
    way.  This attitude of anyone looking for a person to support them
    is usually only found in divorce cases where it is perfectly legal
    to have another person support you.
    
    It would be interesting to put this note in the parenting and
    womannotes files to see what the different reactions would be.

>    This notion of women trying to find husbands just to support them is
>    so outdated.
    
         It has also been UPdated.  It's not usually a matter of 'support'
    now.  The ones who are blatant about it seem to be looking more for the
    extra toys from the guy, rather than actual support.  They tend to be
    able to support themselves, but prefer to prosper rather than just
    survive.
    
                                      Greg
       

    
    
    re -1
    
    Greg,
    
    How does a guy determine when a woman is after them just for their
    money?  How is "one blatant about it"? 
    
    I am really curious about this.  From my experiences I have never
    come across anyone like this with the exception of my boyfriend's
    ex who is always crying poor mouth and wants him to pay for her
    mistakes in the way of child support.  
    
    After reading your note I imagined a woman who was in a social
    situation with very well to do men (read not the majority of men
    or women for that fact) wearing a sign which reads "what can you
    do for me".  I just can't think of how a person would be blatant
    about this.
    
    Michele

re .47

	I love it when you talk like that..


re .51

	I don't know any men who have gotten divorced, lost the kids and
	don't pay child support.

	I also don't know any men who are divorced, have the kids and
	collect child support.  If I find one though I'm going to find
	out how he did it because I'd like to get some child support from
	my ex so I can pay some of the bills she left me with.

	I tell you though I would still like to find a woman who could 
	carry the weight for a while so that I could persue a business
	outside of the 9 to 5 without worrying about how I was going to
	pay the bills in the meantime.



	Guido Sarducci

	Gee I did it again, I got the wrong identity.

    I know a woman who is paying child support to her husband
    who got the house and the kids, when the woman demanded a
    divorce.  He is currently "enemployed" having gone from
    being a CPA pulling down about $80K to being a consutlant
    with unknown income.  She is a college professor who makes
    under $30K.
    
    She wanted the divorce, the teenage kids opted to stay with
    him, probably because they would not have to move and because
    he lets them do pretty much anything they want to do.
    
    The court went along with it... 

    RE:                 <<< Note 571.51 by LUNER::MACKINNON >>>
    
>    How does a guy determine when a woman is after them just for their
>    money?  How is "one blatant about it"? 
 
         The prime example of this is when they SAY it.  
       
>   I just can't think of how a person would be blatant about this.
    
         I guess it depends upon what your definition of BLATANT is.  When
    a person is willing to say that they want a guy with a huge bank
    account and actively rejects those without a huge bank account, I
    consider that blatant.
    
                                     Greg
                                                        

    
    
    Greg,
    
    So you or someone you know have actually had a woman approach you
    and say "hey cutie what's in your bank account?"??????
    
    Where are you getting your examples from ?
    
    Still genuinely curious,
    Michele

         Actually, my prime example comes from another direction.  A very
    attractive friend of mine has no shame at all in telling people that
    she is looking for a man who will buy her a Mercedes.  It's usually
    considered a joke by those who haven't been around her for long, but
    I've seen her in action.  I guarantee you that she will succeed.
    
         Further than that, I've seen frowns form on certain people's faces
    when they find out that their new-found honey doesn't make enough
    money.  
    
         I'm pretty shocked that you claim you have never encountered this 
    species of beast.  It is none too rare.
    
                                        Greg

    About 2 months ago a woman outright asked me what my income was
    I replyed "how much do *you* make?" and she had the gall to tell
    me none of my business to which I replyed " then why are you asking
    mine?". If she had told me I would have told her she diden't make
    enough and left. I was brought up with manners and this means knowing
    that some questions simply are not asked.
    
    -j
    

    
    
    Greg,
    
    Maybe men are more subtle about it.  Honestly I have not encountered
    it.  Of course I have been with the same guy for the past five years
    so I am not out there in the dating scene.  
    
    I have more male friends than I do female, and the female friends 
    are all college educated and fianancially secure through their own
    means.  Not once have I ever seen one of these women ask a guy how
    much he makes.  Maybe it is due to the fact that we are financially
    secure by our own means.  In fact during college when we were all
    working at our coop jobs we never discussed how much the other made.
    It just really wasnt an issue that was brought up.
    
    Truthfully I think my mouth would drop open if someone I did not
    know just came up to me and asked me how much I made.  Maybe it 
    is due to our upbringing.  We were taught that this and someones
    age were questions never to be asked.  Hell I didnt know what my
    SO made while we were first living together until it came time
    to evaluate our finances because we want to buy a house.
    
    Michele

    Guido, 
    
    >	I also don't know any men who are divorced, have the kids and
    >	collect child support.
    
    I could introduce you to my ex-husband.  I've been paying him child
    support for nearly 10 years now.
    
    Karen
    

 There is not a single rule about human relations that one DECcie or another
doesn't have anecdotal evidence to the contrary...

    "Anecdotal" evidence generally implies third-hand or otherwise
    open to question. The evidence in .59 isn't what I'd term
    "adecdotal" - it's first-hand.

 Anecdotal evidence, in the spirit in which the term was used, merely refers to
information provided by someone with personal experience (but could include
third party info) that isn't well known within the audience.

 As I stated to Karen in a mail message, my note did not mean to negate her
experience, but to simply point out that no matter what generalization one
uses, _someone_ will have a counterexample.

 "Murderers are violent people."

 "I knew a guy who poisoned his wife; he was the most gentle guy you ever met."

 That sort of thing.

 The Doctah

    	I've been to many a gathering, observing the mating rituals and the
    moves of both men and women. The most common question that I hear from
    women is "What do you do?" It's generally asked within the first 2-3
    minutes of a conversation. It can be argued that it gives an added
    topic to conversation, but I believe it to be a measuring device for
    the woman to guage whether or not to continue the conversation and the
    acquaintance. 
    
    	A friend of mine, ruggedly handsome, high school education, has
    been approached by many women and as quickly shut off. When asked what
    he does, he replies,"I pump out septic tanks." UGhhhhhh and hey fail to
    consider what he's saying......He owns a huge septic tank business. He
    also installs them, often in housing complexes by the dozens. He also
    owns a recycling business. Net worth...millions. His education level
    immediately disqualifies him for many of "today's women" who believe
    that they are above him, his 'job' is disgusting to another segment. It
    leaves him a small circle of friends who are constantly trying to fix
    him up with a woman. Mostly it's other women who know him and the first
    thing they say......."He owns a septic business, but...HE'S LOADED".
    
    	A standing joke that I've heard since I was a kid is..'I wish I had
    been born rich instead of beautiful". I came from a pretty sparse
    existence and I heard many a time from girls that they weren't going to
    marry anyone from Ferry Village, they were going to marry someone rich,
    from the Cape (Elizabeth, Maine). 
    
    	Read a dating magazine.....almost 90% of the women ask for the men
    to "financially secure" in their advertisements. I don't believe 10% of
    the men who advertise ask that same requirement. It could be that the
    women who ask won't share, but more likely (IMO) they would prefer to
    be 'better off'. I believe these magazines to be an excellent barometer
    of what women are looking for, rather than what I see in here. Even in
    the STARCH::SINGLES notesfiles, women ask that the men be financially
    secure............
    
    	I'm not alluding that women are looking for a free ride, just an
    easier one than what they have. Most are not willing to struggle with 
    a partner. They're women of the eighties and nineties and they want it
    all and they want it now. And the easiest way....a financially secure
    man.
    
    Ken
    now..
    	 

    
    
    re -1
    
    Ken,
    
    A group of friends discussed this "what do you do" thing.  For the
    most part, men identify first with their job.  It appears to be
    their number one priority.  Just any man who has lost their job.
    They can tell you how much one identifies with the job, and how
    their self esteem is so wrapped up in the job.  On the other hand,
    ask a room full of women what they do and you will get a handfull
    who will answer what they do for a living.  Most likely they will 
    tell you about their families first then their jobs.
    
    I am not saying that men do not put their families first, but it
    is more socially acceptable for a man to work late, than it is to get
    out early to pick up the kids from daycare or a trip to the doctors.
    
    
    What is wrong with looking for someone who earns as much as you do?
    Why is it seen as being wrong when a woman wants to find a man who
    like herself is finanically secure?  Personally, if the man I am was
    financially secure to begin with we would be far from where we are
    today.  It does make a difference in the long run.  However, I do
    not like your statement about women not wanting to work as partners.
    This couldn't be farther from the truth in my case.  In fact, I was
    the one who was supporting the household while he was unemployed.
    I do not regret doing so as it was for the overall benefit of our
    relationship.
    
    Michele

    
    	Well, it really doesn't bother me.....I guess I'm used to it.
    
    Just so long as I get all the sex I want!  :-)
    
    	HeHeHe
    

    re .44, the "vast majority" of people might make good spouses for
    *somebody* but not for *me*!  As Sandy later said, that's what I was
    talking about.  You don't think the "vast majority" of people would
    make a good spouse for *you* personally, do you?  If anyone did feel
    that way it wouldn't matter who they married!  Almost anybody would do
    if the "vast majority" were acceptable!
    
    re .45, thanks Sandy! :-)  (good note as usual)
    
    re .46, Steve, you mention the typical movie where a woman either
    marries a man for money, or falls in love with a man she thinks is poor
    only to eventually realize that (hooray!) he's also rich.  Well, what
    annoys *me* about movies is that the men almost always seem to fall in love
    with only *beautiful* women.  Sometimes these beautiful women also turn
    out to be (hooray - what an added feature!) *nice* people, too!!!! 
    But, these women are so rarely plain or homely or ugly and *nice*
    people, too!  Pretty Woman (Julia Roberts) was delightfully charming
    and nice but she was, first and foremost, astoundingly beautiful. 
    Cyrano made the grand gesture for a beautiful woman who also turned out
    to be faithful, brave and true.  But, the *first* thing he ever noticed
    was that she was beautiful.  Would any man be Cyrano for a plain woman?  
    
    So, if some women are shallow in that they look for a man with money, I
    think that just as many men are shallow in that they value physical
    beauty above any other attributes that a woman might possess.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE:   <<< Note 571.66 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >>>

>    So, if some women are shallow in that they look for a man with money, I
>    think that just as many men are shallow in that they value physical
>    beauty above any other attributes that a woman might possess.
 
         There ya go.  The sum conclusion of this topic.  Nothing more need 
    be said.
    
                                      Greg

    Re: .66
    
    But Lorna, it doesn't bother you that the sought-after men in these
    movies look like Richard Gere, Cary Grant, Kevin Costner, etc.?
    As I said, shallowness cuts both ways.
    
    Few people want to pay to see movies about people who are "ordinary" -
    movies and TV are escapes - just look at any episode of a soap opera,
    and then tell me that any of these people are "average looking".
    
    				Steve

    re .68, Steve, I think many of the movies we are discussing have
    average looking leading men.  Richard Gere is quite above average
    looking, true, but Gerard Depardieu with an extended nose, in Cyrano de
    Bergerac?  Not quite.  Such leading men as Woody Allen, Rick Moranis,
    Bill Murray, John Goodman, John Candy, Walter Mathieu, and others are
    often paired with beautiful leading ladies.  Sean Connery, now nearing
    60, recently starred with Michelle Phieffer, who is in her early 30's
    and one of the prettiest actresses around today.  
    
    Lorna
    

For what it's worth, the first thing I usually ask someone I've just met is
"What do you do?" I'm not asking because I want to scope out how much money they
make.

	-- Charles

    Yeah, I always thought the advantage of "what do you do" as an opener
    was that it's deliberately vague; it can be taken as "What do you do
    for a living," or "...for fun," or "...to make the world a better
    place," or whatever the questionee feels like answering. (For some
    reason this freedom of choice never seems to help me much - but then,
    I'm one of the Socially Challenged. I usually stall, trying to think of
    something interesting but not too soul-baring, and come out with a
    brilliant remark such as "Oh, I write code..." Which, while literally
    true, doesn't provide much in the way of conversational gambits.)
    
    -b

    RE: .63  Ken's friend who replies, "I pump septic tanks."
    
    It seems to me that someone who owns and runs a 
    business as successful as your friend's, but who
    describes himself as someone who pumps septic tanks
    is throwing out a challenge.  I don't know why, but
    it sounds to me like a little test, that says, "I
    may be the nicest guy you will ever meet and I may
    be rich as hell, but first you have to pass my test."
    Is your friend setting up the reaction that he claims
    he doesn't want?
    
    Wil

    re-.1
    or trying to protect himself from money grubbers. A good friend of mine
    hid the fact he was very wealthy from his now wife for 2 years and
    diden't reveal it until they were engaged. Other women he dated before
    he started hiding this were obviously after his money one asked him
    to marry her after only one month. I often double dated with him I
    remember one woman that asked him to buy her diamond ear rings and it
    was only their second date!
    Another time were in a nightclub in Denver and were refused by 2 very
    attractive to dance a couple of times. Later when the club closed these 2
    happened to be walking right behind us as we got into his Contach
    yes folks a lamborgini. They very quickly approached us and appologized
    for turning us down then asked us to breakfast(we still wonder if they
    planed to buy). It wasen't until there was an obvious hint of wealth
    that they became interested.
    Allens other car was a VW bug convertible on an average night out
    we would meet maybe 1 or 2 women but when we took the lamborgini
    guess how many made an effort to meet us? By the dozens.
    We even played a little game on occasion when asked who owned the car
    he would say I did and I suddenly became more interesting to women the
    other way around he was the more interesting between us.
    
    FWIW- My ex-wife never hinted to the fact that her family was very
    wealthy until after we were married when I asked if they had a boat
    in the marina by their house and she answered "that not a marina it's
    *our* boat house".
    
    -j

    re .73, I must really be out of it, my ex-husband drove a VW bug when I
    first met him and fell in love, and that was his *only* car!  (BTW,
    it's amazing what you can do in a VW if you're both short enough.)
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  But, I've never been into status cars anyway.  Even if I were a
    millionaire I'd probably still drive a Chevy sprint - but maybe a new
    one.
    

    re .74
    
    > P.S.  But, I've never been into status cars anyway.  ...
    
    This "status car" stuff bothers me...
    
    I own a stereotypical "status car" but have never really related much
    to the "status" aspect of it.   It handles like a dream and is
    comfortable.  Thats all I bought it for.   And of course any women that
    are interested in me (for my car or otherwise) my wife will just shoot
    anyhow.
    
    - M

    Ya know, I wonder sometimes if I'm part of the human race at all...  
    
    
    I mean, with all honesty, have never expressed an interest in a man for
    the amount of money he makes.  I'd be caught dead before I'd ask (I
    might later, should the relationship evolve).  I've also never been
    attracted to a man for his looks alone.  I've never checked on what
    kind of car he drove.  I've never asked checked out a man for their
    job first.  I've never even expected a man to open a door for me.
    and I've never slapped one for doing so.  I've even said Thank You.
    
    But in note after note after note, it seems like *most* women *most* of
    the time do these things?
    
    So...I'm wondering.  Am I just weird, or is it REALLY that way?  Do
    most women really check a guy out for money?  Is this something I
    should keep in mind for future reference?  Am I just out of touch?
    Or extraordinarily polite?
    
    Curious.
    
    kim

    RE:   <<< Note 571.76 by SELECT::RIVERS "It's a Bad Hair Day." >>>

>    So...I'm wondering.  Am I just weird, or is it REALLY that way?  Do
>    most women really check a guy out for money?
    
         Change "most" to "some" and you will have it right.
    
                                    Greg
 
    

Some men go to bars and other pick-up joints trying to "get laid" and are
surprised when the women they meet there are just as shallow and superficial
as they are.

	-- Charles

    re-.1
    Thats the truth!
    
    -j

    re .78, yes! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

 re: Charles

 Seems like they deserve each other, doesn't it? :-)

    The development of this string really surprises me. First, I'm amazed
    that "men as income-object" is a controversial premise; I think it's
    patently obvious. I'm also surprised that it's seen so negatively. It
    seems quite natural to hope that one's spouse will help secure material
    well-being. I don't equate "income-object seeking" with "cruising to
    get laid" -- the latter IS shallow, short-term, immature -- the former
    is concern about the long-run, about family welfare, about success in
    marriage (money problems are the major cause of divorce, right?).
    
    I think "men as income-object" is a men's issue to the extent to which
    our lives are distorted as a result. I have a tendency, for example, to
    see all my children's aspirations through my make-a-living lens: "Yeah,
    teaching school is OK, but you'll never be able to buy that fancy house
    you're always going on about." My own educational pursuits were mostly
    dictated by the need to get a job. Has anyone else ever noticed that
    history of art classes are 90% females from affluent backgrounds? Even
    my choice of friends is affected (and I'm NOT PROUD of this) -- is this
    person going to be a useful contact or source of information?
    
    Another aspect is when my daughters (three, ages 12, 12, and 15) tell
    me they're going to marry a rich guy, I tell them "Well, you better be
    prepared to earn your living, in case he dumps you one day." The "men
    as income-object" puts an unfair burden on men-providers, and also
    can leave women unfortunately over-dependent.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .82, if your choice of friends depends on who is going to make a
    good contact for you in the future, etc., then you're right, you
    shouldn't be proud of it.  I think you should be ashamed of it.
    
    Money had nothing to do with my divorce.  I hang out with people for
    their personalities, not their money.
    
    Lorna
    

    Virtually everyone is attracted to money, it's no special "sin" of
    womankind.  That they go for the Lamborghini and not the VW is a
    testament to humanity, not to womanhood.
    
    Everyone wants goodies and extras if they can get it.  The more a woman
    has going for her in the looks department, the more she knows she can
    "get" for it.  Men teach women that.  Why did Billy Joel dump the plain
    wife and hook up with Christy Brinkley once he got wealthy?  What about
    Stallone who dumped Sasha after he hit it big?  It's been said that
    many a man owes his success to his first wife and his second wife to
    his success.  This is what teaches women that female beauty is
    bargaining power.  That and the fact that work nearly always fails to
    bring women the same level of financial reward that it brings men.  Any
    good looking woman with half a brain knows damn well attracting a rich
    mate will take her much further than a college education would, (unless
    she's VERY lucky).  Don't blame the women who adapt and prosper in a 
    system men set up.  Don't get miffed that some of them get the goodies in 
    life despite the system.  If I had a choice I'd take looks anyday.  A good 
    looking woman can get anything, ANYTHING she wants.  So why should they
    settle for less than the most they can get?  If you don't like it, just 
    don't reinforce it!  But then you'd have to start thinking about the 
    hundreds of little ways men reward female beauty and reinforce its
    "earning power".  I can't believe some men here actually think women 
    should be "above" using their single advantage, (attractiveness to men), 
    to succeed in a culture biased against their succcess.  Men use all THEIR 
    advantages, without guilt or apology, don't they?  Is there perhaps an
    undercurrent here of the commonly held idea that women are expected to
    downplay themselves and their achievements, to be modest, to be
    "surprised" at achieving success rather than to pursue it, (and WIN it!), 
    via a concrete action plan?  You don't see Miss America, newly
    crowned, holding her sceptre on high and giving high fives and thumbs
    ups to her friends, do you?  No.  She's expected to shed pretty tears,
    indicating that success has taken her by surprise and overwhelmed her.
    It was a gift given to her by the judges, not something she pursued and
    won because she was considered "the best".  I think there may be a bit
    of that distaste for a woman pursuing material goodies, (especially
    sucessfully!), here in this topic.    
    
    Because everyone, men and women included, have a perfect right, (I feel 
    that some are questioning the "rightness" of this), to get whatever they 
    can.  If I can convince you to buy me a pair of diamond earrings, who has 
    the right to say that is wrong?  Every male/female relationship is a 
    contract, how ever subtlely it's negotiated.  No one has the right to say 
    that anyone's deal is "wrong".  You would be, in that instance, insulting 
    the reasoning powers of the person you've decided is the IO.  Most men 
    know what they want to do with their money.  Step aside and let 'em 
    do it!  ;-)
    
    Sandy Ciccolini                 

    re .84, Sandy, great note.  :-)  I love the way you write. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .84   Do you believe that Christy Brinkley would have had a 
              relationship w/Billy Joel had he not been as wealthy as
              he was when the met ???? It sure wasn't his statuesque
              presence that won her over :-}
    
    Paul C.

...good taste in music???

    Maybe Christy Brinkley isn't shallow, just beautiful.
    
    As a top model, she didn't need his money.
    
    Lorna
    

>    Why did Billy Joel dump the plain
>    wife and hook up with Christy Brinkley once he got wealthy?  

Despite the surface appearance, I don't think this is a good example 
of what you are trying to talk about.  There was something about the 
immaturity of Joel's earlier lyrics ("I love you just the way you 
are..." so don't change!) and the maturity of his current lyrics that
leads me to believe that he's a lot healthier in the relationship
department than he used to be.  Also, Brinkley and Joel were almost
equals in the fame and money department when they met. 

I don't know them personally, but I would bet that Billy Joel did not
marry Christy Brinkley to possess a pretty trophy, and I don't think
she needed his money.  They both seem wiser than that. 


							--Gerry

re: .86

>  Do you believe that Christy Brinkley would have had a 
   relationship w/Billy Joel had he not been as wealthy as
   he was when the met ???? It sure wasn't his statuesque
   presence that won her over :-}

Or his looks. What a beast.  But this is just what I'm saying.  Her beauty 
is worth MONEY and if Joel didn't have it, someone else who did would have 
gotten her.  Before Joel, she went with Olivier Chandon, the champagne heir,
until his death in a race car accident.  (Lord, what a fantasy guy he was!
I'll bet she drank Dom Perignon with him for breakfast!  I was crushed
when he died.  A handsome champagne heir seems perfect for a beautiful, 
champagne blonde but that's my own fantasy working there!).
    
By dating these moneyed men, is she therefore a "golddigger" or a "money 
grubber"?  I don't think so.  She just knows the value to men of female 
beauty, (men are very willing to tell and show us!), where she is on that 
scale, and what it should therefore be worth to men who want her.

Are other women any more "sinful" or "heinous" for having the same 
understanding?

> Also, Brinkley and Joel were almost equals in the fame and money department 
> when they met. 

Again, this supports what I'm saying.  She didn't make her money by 
spending 4 years in college, did she?  Whether she's paid directly by a 
lover or indirectly by the male-run media and "looks" industry, she has 
prospered by selling her beauty and gotten far further than women with 10 
times her brain power, talent and ability.  Paulina Porizkova has an 8th 
grade education.  Do you think that bothered Ric Ocasik?  Hardly.  And 
Paulina earns more in one month, (and she only works 3 days a week), than 
most women with master's degrees earn in a year.  This is reinforcing the 
monetary value of female beauty and it aggravates me to no end when men 
complain that women are cognizant of that fact and use it.  You shouldn't 
have let women learn to read!  ;-)

Generally, though, only the men who want the beauty and can't afford it are 
the ones doing the complaining.  When Daryl Hall sings "Maneater" he 
sounds like a whiney child to me.  The song is about a man who's pissed 
because he wants beauty and doesn't have the money to trade for it.  So he 
insults the woman who has the goods he can't get, calling her a maneater,
a "beast is in the soul", etc.  Sour grapes.  He isn't for a second willing 
to lower *his* standards and get to know a potentially plain but wonderful 
woman, yet he certainly expects that this particular woman should be
willing to lower *hers*, to his benefit, of course.  And when she,
(like him), isn't willing, he starts in with the insults.  

I can't help but think that's what most men are thinking when they cry 
"gold-digger".  They know the money/beauty bargain, but they just can't play 
in that league and are angry about it.  So, as usual, let's insult the woman 
and find fault with her character.  "She's a maneater"!  ;-)

>I would bet that Billy Joel did not marry Christy Brinkley to possess a 
>pretty trophy.

Maybe.  But I'll bet he pursued her in the first place because of it.  And
therein lies the difference.  He didn't seek to learn the character of a 
woman with lesser beauty and I'm sure he had plenty of opportunity.  But he 
didn't have to, so he didn't.  Granted Christy may be a genuinely wonderful 
person, (and I think she is), and he may have fallen genuinely in love with 
her, (and I think he did), but that wasn't what he started out after.  She 
met the first test - beauty to match his money.  And if she hadn't, that
same character wouldn't have interested Joel at all.  He never would have
known and it never would have bothered him.

>and I don't think she needed his money.

"Needing money" isn't the issue here, though I don't think there are too 
many people who feel they have enough.  All I'm saying is that she GOT his 
money, (needed or not), because she had the beauty to trade for it.  And 
those kinds of stories teach young girls everywhere that female beauty is 
indeed a trophy men covet and the ones who have the money WILL buy it in
some capacity be it a drink in a bar, or marriage without a pre-nup!

Among men who have a choice, most choose the highest level of female beauty 
they can afford.  And like it or not, women know it and why should those who 
can comply, turn away from it?  That's like saying, "I'm a great engineer 
and well-paid for my talent, but I really should join the Peace Corps 
instead".  Granted there are people like that, but they are exceptions and 
one of my biggest beefs is with people who believe women as a class should 
be "above" being merely human.  That's holding women to a higher standard 
than one holds men and that betrays an underlying sexism.
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

>    Everyone wants goodies and extras if they can get it.  The more a woman
>    has going for her in the looks department, the more she knows she can
>    "get" for it.  Men teach women that.

 Men have been taught by women that they can have the pretty ones if they are
gorgeous (and they find a woman who gives in to her lust) or if they are rich
(and they find a woman who gives in to her materialism.) Those of us who
have neither watch from the sidelines and commiserate. :-)

 We're talking chicken and egg here. Did men teach women that if they are 
beautiful they can get rich men or did women teach men that to get the beautiful
ones they had to be rich? I think it was a combination of both. :-) Each had
something the other wanted and they traded. Fair enough, except for those of 
us who got shortchanged at the beginning of the game.

>If I had a choice I'd take looks anyday.  A good 
>    looking woman can get anything, ANYTHING she wants.  

 Yep. And she can make the guy WANT to give it to her, too, if she's any good.

>I think there may be a bit
>    of that distaste for a woman pursuing material goodies, (especially
>    sucessfully!), here in this topic.    

 Of course. It's exactly the same thing as when women get together and complain
about the rich guys who think they can bribe their way into their skirts. "He
thought he could **** me because he has a Lamborghini and a penthouse in the
city..." Men complain when they feel exploited just like women complain when
they feel exploited. Would you expect anything different?

>No one has the right to say 
>    that anyone's deal is "wrong".  You would be, in that instance, insulting 
>    the reasoning powers of the person you've decided is the IO.

 Why not? It doesn't change anything. If I look at a situation and decide the
guy is being stupid, what's the big deal if I lean over to my friend and
say "get a load of the live one Suzie's got a hold of..." Is it any different
from one woman remarking to her friend that a third woman's is being "used"
by some rich guy for sex or whatever? Why the proclamation against airing
our opinions about other people's relationships from this point of view? Nobody
seems to have a problem airing their opinion about the relationship of the
beaten wife who deosn't leave her husband. What makes this any different?

 The  Doctah

    re .92, I know, if I can't play the game the least I should be able to
    do is gossip about it! :-)
    
    re .91, another good note!
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .91
    
    Woof!     Thanks, Sandy.  I'll put that one in my notebook...
    
    Wil

>I can't help but think that's what most men are thinking when they cry 
>"gold-digger".  They know the money/beauty bargain, but they just can't play 
>in that league and are angry about it.

 So what you're saying is that beauty and money are an inseparable pair, and
that to get one you should expect to have the other. Kinda leaves most of
the world out in the cold, doncha think? It sounds to me like you don't think 
it's vain for the rich to seek a beautiful mate for the sake of having someone
beautiful attached to their arm. And of course it's de rigeur for a beautiful
woman to seek out a rich man (and that's not gold-digging?)

 I'm not saying that in a large number of cases, you don't represent reality.
I just don't think it's the ideal, and it doesn't make us "whiners" to say
so. Are people whiners when the decry the lack of sexual equality or the
lack of racial equality? I don't think so. Why should personal relationships
be treated any differently?

 As far as shallow and deep people go, I'd bet that the majority of deep people 
have neither cash nor beauty, because when you have either one, there's little
incentive to develop yourself on a more human level. After all, it's easier
to find people seeking money or beauty than goodness... 

 The Doctah

>> Also, Brinkley and Joel were almost equals in the fame and money department 
>> when they met. 
>
>Again, this supports what I'm saying.  She didn't make her money by 
>spending 4 years in college, did she?  Whether she's paid directly by a 
>lover or indirectly by the male-run media and "looks" industry, she has 
>prospered by selling her beauty and gotten far further than women with 10 
>times her brain power, talent and ability.  

It does support your general thesis about women using their beauty as 
a marketable good.  However, it does not support your implication that 
the relationship between Billy Joel and Christine Brinkley is based 
primarily on Joel's desire to marry a trophy for his second wife.  
I'll repeat, speaking from gut feeling at observing Joel's career, it 
doesn't line up with what I've seen him go through in the past 15 
years.

Also, do you really have an clue as to Christine Brinkley's 
intelligence or talent level in areas other than modeling?  Are you 
speaking from knowledge or are you projecting a lot of data based on a
stereotype?  (I have no clue as to how intelligent or talented she is;
I don't think her occupation or physical beauty is enough data to be
able to judge that.) 

>Paulina Porizkova has an 8th 
>grade education.  Do you think that bothered Ric Ocasik?  Hardly.  

Again, do you have any clue as to Porizkova's intelligence level?  I 
would say that you are making an excellent educated guess (unless you 
have more data than I think you have).  However, I have met 
"uneducated" people who are far superior in the wisdom and brains 
department than many college-educated people I know.  Again, are you 
projecting a lot of stuff based on a minimal amount of data?  Do you 
really know that Ocasik was only attracted to her looks?  Are you 
assuming that intelligence should be "more valuable" in a 
relationship than, say, common interests, communications skills, 
honesty, lifestyle, and nurturing?

>When Daryl Hall sings "Maneater" he 
>sounds like a whiney child to me.  The song is about a man who's pissed 
>because he wants beauty and doesn't have the money to trade for it.  So he 
>insults the woman who has the goods he can't get, calling her a maneater,
>a "beast is in the soul", etc.  Sour grapes.  

Again, projecting.  Do you know Daryl Hall???  Have you been able to 
gather more information than I have been able to as a person who reads 
lots of pop music magazines?

Sandy, you are making very educated guesses about Joel and Hall and 
Ocasik.  With the exception of Joel (since I feel I have some insight, 
distanced through the media as it is), I wouldn't bet against your 
guesses.  However, are you aware the extent to which you are filling 
in information about people--imagining it--that isn't really knowable?
Is that wise?  

Maybe what I'm suggesting is a shift in tone from "this is the way it 
is" to "this is probably the way it is."

>I can't help but think that's what most men are thinking when they cry 
>"gold-digger".  They know the money/beauty bargain, but they just can't play 
>in that league and are angry about it.  So, as usual, let's insult the woman 
>and find fault with her character.  "She's a maneater"!  ;-)

I agree.  I think it's indicative of wanting to maintain a sexist 
system that benefits men most times, and then claiming "integrity" 
only when they don't get what they want.

>>I would bet that Billy Joel did not marry Christy Brinkley to possess a 
>>pretty trophy.
>
>Maybe.  But I'll bet he pursued her in the first place because of it.  And
>therein lies the difference.  He didn't seek to learn the character of a 
>woman with lesser beauty and I'm sure he had plenty of opportunity.  

I think it would be helpful to dig into what you meant by "it" in the 
first sentence.  Do I think that Billy Joel first talk to Christy 
Brinkley because he wanted her beauty as a trophy?  No (I think).  Did Joel 
first talk to her because he looked at her face/body and reacted with 
a "wow!", probably.

You see it as this:

>She met the first test - beauty to match his money.  

I see it as this: most men I know first respond to a person's physical 
appearance and use that as a basis to form a relationship.  I just 
don't place the calculation in there like you do.  I think it's in the 
genes (or a least strongly firm-wared at early ages), and it operates 
more from a gut level than a calculated intellectual level.  (Isn't 
there a line in "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" that talks about "women 
become sexually attracted to [people] they love and men learn to love 
the [people] they are sexually attracted to."

A few years ago, I was at the height of my feminist frenzy; I was 
operating more out of some list of "absolute truths" rather than 
factoring in context.  I came to this somewhat embarrassing situation: 
Here I was trashing heterosexual men to no end for the amount of 
"piggery" that they exhibited toward women (how they responded so 
strongly to them physically and based so much on that), yet, as a gay 
man, I was doing the same thing.  I noticed that, although I may have 
been more polite with the "hey baby!" harrassment--I still objectified 
men and based their _initial_ value on their looks.  In other words, 
no amount of money or power could place a man higher on my scale than 
a nice mustache, vulnerable eyes, and a nice, hairy body.  And I 
realized that I was a liar if I talked about "seeking someone with 
whom I'm compatible and to whom I can talk."  What I was really 
doing was "seeking someone with a nice body and mustache...with whom, 
eventually, I'd be compatible and to whom I can talk."

[So, what's my point?]

Could you be mistaking a gender difference (strong, visual, sexual 
attraction as a basis for men's relationships) for a calculated power 
move (men seek beautiful trophies).  Surely, a significant number of 
men seek trophies, especially with a second marriage.  

...I just find myself in a weird situation.  My natural instincts 
toward forming relationships run very counter to what my head tells me 
is best for relating.  I know darn well that a nice mustache and a 
nice body won't give me anything I need in an intimate relationship.  
However, I'm tired of fighting my maleness, and I'm tired of trying to 
make my politics on top of what feels natural to me.  And I'd hate to 
be reduced simply to "a trophy hunter," when I'm trying very hard to 
follow my heart and my body (my mind tends to follow).

I dunno.

							--Gerry

Sandy,

I'm sorry.  What has been going on for me has had little to do with 
the topic, with Joel and Brinkley, or with any of the other subtopics.
What's been happening with me is that a big button got pushed that has 
to do with me falling in love with beautiful men who aren't good 
partners for me.

I'm 29 years old and have never had a significant intimate 
partnership.   I try to follow my heart and body, but, aside from 
great sex, that gets very poor results in the relationship department. 
I consider ignoring my sex drive, and that feels so wrong and so cold 
to me.  These days, I'm feeling very clueless when it comes to sex, 
romance, and love.

...the main point of my last note: I could understand how other men 
get wrapped up in "falling in love with a body."  I'm mired in that 
mode right now.  

I guess I'll just think, feel, and pray in equal proportions, and I'll
hope that I'll know someone good when he comes along.  (I've tried to
analyse it, and that just gets so tiresome.)   I hope it happens soon.
I could use a nice man in my life right now. 


							--Gerry

    Phew, the last two weeks in here has certainly been interesting!!

    Sandi, first, three super notes: I'm glad I had the pleasure of meeting
    you.  If more of the world were as 'together' as you, we wouldn't have
    so many relationship problems :-)...

    There were some great lines in the last 20 or so notes...  I especially
    like the one from Sex, Lies and Videotapes (haven't seen it), about
    "men learning to love the woman they are attracted to", and vice versa...
    Maybe because that is what happened with my recently terminated
    marriage...  (I.e., I fell in lust, THEN in love...)

    I do feel, however, that the point about the 'bell curve', and Sandi's
    'one paragraph' (repeated in an earlier note), kinda sums up the whole
    thing, but I would generalize it to say:  

    BOTH men and women would PREFER that their mate be rich(er) and (more) 
    gorgeous...

    And its not just at the 'Hollywood' end of things, either!  I am by no
    means rich, but have dated many women that (IMO) felt I was a 'good
    catch' because I (seemed to, the way I spent it, anyway) come from a
    higher social class than they were used to.   Similarly, while I am not
    at either end of the 'handsome' Bell curve, I find myself attracted to
    nice(r ?) looking women!  Shoot me!  (And, my preference for petite
    women leads me to very different conclusions about beauty than my
    friends, so I think general statements about either sex looking for
    great looking mates must take into account the 'beauty in the eye of
    the beholder' phenomena...) 

    And, I am not at all ashamed to admit that I would also find myself
    (initially) attracted to a very rich woman - hey, I wouldn't mind 
    spending 9 months on a villa in Greece, either, Sandy :-)
                                                       
    But I have also become very attractive to women that (in our own
    personal rating system) did not appear 'better looking' or 'richer'
    than I was, because they were fun to be with, had a great personality,
    were great dancers, had similar political views, had an interesting,
    unusual, different-from-my past, - all kinds of reasons!  (I.E., not
    just a 'rich/beautiful' scale!)

    - Now here's where even I get confused :-) -

    I also think that, strangely enough, some people (IMO, those with low
    self-esteem) may engage in REVERSE discrimination!  I've seen many
    cases where (an average looking) guy would go out with a very
    unattractive women (in the average male '10 point rating system' :-)
    and, having known one man quite well, I found it was because it truly
    made him feel better looking!  (Kinda bizarre to me, but...).  

    Simnilary, I also know of cases where women working a '9-5 job and not
    a career' find men with little or no income attractive, because it
    makes them (and THEIR (paltry though it may be) income) feel needed!

    I guess all I'm saying is that if money or beauty is the ONLY criterion
    someone uses to judge another, then yes, we should chastise those
    people for being so shallow (and Lorna, too bad you seem to meet so
    many men on the 'lower end of the bell curve' :-)...

    So, before I ramble so long I lose you (if I haven't already :-), I
    guess I'd conclude by saying that people have very complex tastes, and 
    reasons for those tastes, and therefore, the combination of two unique
    individuals is a very complicated and delicate process...  and it truly
    is a wonder that the majority of people in this universe are able to
    'pair up' for ANY significant time!  But, lets be cognizant of the fact
    that people do, in general, look for something they don't have (perhaps
    to make themselves whole?), and if beauty and/or riches happen to be
    two of the more readily identifiable items, then we shouldn't put undue
    significance on this fact...

    Does this make any sense??

    Dave
                                                 

    > He wasn't conventionally good looking either.  In fact, he was bald.  
    
    Lorna,  I think I should be offended by this, but I'll let it go.
    
    		- Vick (who has been bald AND conventionally good looking
    			since high school :^)

                                                       
    From the strange but true dept.
    In todays advice column...
    
    "Dear Abby, I'll get right to the point. I am 45, female, divorced,
    no children, and I've been told that I am very good looking. I live
    in Beverly Hills, Calif., but will travel anywhere for the right
    opportunity. All I want is a decent man - age is no object as long
    as he's ambulatory, but he has to have MONEY. Any suggestions?
    
    					-Looking for Daddy Warbucks
    
    Dear Looking: Gail Sheehy said "The best way to attract money
    is to give the appearance of having it." Trust her.

    re .99, I'm glad you weren't offended!  It's been so long since I wrote
    that I can't imagine who on earth I was writing about....? :-)
    
    In any case, I didn't mean to imply that *I* don't think that someone
    who is bald can't also be conventionally good looking.  I think I meant
    that my impression of what society/most people/the media considers
    conventionally good looking doesn't include being bald....all those tv
    commercials about the tragedy and horror of going bald, etc.
    
    Lorna
    

    That's okay, Lorna.  I just recently got my conciousness raised over
    on the womannotes conference on another matter, so I know how you feel.
    :^)  I knew you didn't mean anything by it.  I just couldn't let it go
    unchallenged.  See you around.  - Vick