Third K1 Visa

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Like Robin, I'm a 21st-century woman who is proud to provide for myself and my family. If my husband were to die tomorrow, I would be perfectly able to tend to my economic needs, if not my emotional ones. Frankly, I find it pretty shocking that a woman who clearly makes a decent salary would feel that she must have a partner whose earnings matched her own. What the ####### was 20th century feminism for then, if not to enable us as women to earn as much as men for an equal job done equally well? It is very rare that a man would say, ooooh, can't marry her, she doesn't make as much as me, she can't be up to snuff.

My husband has a PhD in economic history, which he pursued for intellectual stimulation, not for how much he might make from it. He makes money here and there to provide for his hobbies and his artistic career. I make about 10 times as much as he does at the moment. He doesn't resent this, or feel emasculated, nor do I feel that he is getting a free ride off of me. He provides me with support, a sounding board for ideas, an intellectual sparring partner and a damned good husband. We are of nearly identical educational backgrounds, except I have a JD instead of a PhD. Does my tenfold earning power make me 10 times smarter or better than him? No way, man.

My parents are far happier with my husband than they were with my ex, who was also from a similar background but ended up being a high earner through his choice of career. He was neglectful, self-obsessed and took me for granted. Wealth brought us a lot of arguments and pain. My (new) husband chose to follow what was in his heart and trained to be an actor and classical musician, and has done that professionally since he was 24. It hasn't made him rich, god knows if it ever will, but we are a solid team. His career is not a job for him, it is a vocation, much like being a member of a religious order, or being a doctor. His identity and his career are intertwined in a way mine certainly aren't -- I could walk away from my career any time -- and to expect him to stop being an artist and go get "a real job" would be like expecting him to strip out his soul. It would be cruelty of the highest order.

I am happy being the bread-winner for the rest of my life, if that's how the chips fall. I'm good at what I do, I have an international reputation for what I do and in a time of economic uncertainty I am winning new clients and expanding my company. Would I like him to be raking it in? Sure I would! Being an artist's wife is not for everyone, but I like it much better than being married to my rich lawyer ex-husband. It is full of novelty and beauty -- hearing him compose new songs, helping him prepare for auditions, having the opportunity to discuss a scene in a movie from the viewpoint of a practitioner. When a man writes a song for you that makes you want to weep with joy and wonder, well, that's worth more to me than a few bucks.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

You are a *gasp* LAWYER?????????? Give me back my poodle skirt, you b1tch

kidding. Loved your post sister, we are much alike!

[HannahP 119]

I want my Indian husband to make me delicious curry dishes.

Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.

[Brad and Vika 129]

I want my Indian husband to make me delicious curry dishes.

Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.

Viktoria cooked a wonderful salmon dinner last night. I suggested that since I have superior earning power that she should cook every night, and that she should also wear a poodle skirt while cooking and cleaning up. After a two hour discussion about the significance (or lack thereof) of poodle skirts in the American culinary arts, and a geezer nap for me, we decided to just keep alternating duties like we have been.

[justashooter 430]

I don't know anything about the BMW lifestyle. But I do know that in general earning ability is also parallel to intelligence, education and other important areas of compatibility.

this post points to one of the differences between men and women in the selection of mates. women tend to take an "all or nothing" attitude toward marriage, and expect their partner to be compatible in a wide variety of ways, capable of occupying a wide variety of roles in a woman's life. men tend to be willing to accept less than a "complete package", and are willing to outsource satisfaction of certain needs.

quite a few men will select a partner who is young, pretty, funny, sincere (naive), and kind, but lacking in economic potential, education, social position, or experience. we can make enough money to support our lifestyle, have conversations about world politic and nuclear steam generation with other men, and already have enough status. finding a woman that meets the 100% goal is damned near impossible, so we are willing to settle for the things that can't be outsourced in a socially acceptable or practical way.

quite a few women will seek a partner who is the "all in all", and find some guy who has some of the characteristics, or a veneer of all, and impute on the man their image of desire. they will hold him in high regard in the early days, but gradually become dissatisfied. if dissatisfied enough, they will call him every name in the book, give him the boot, sulk for awhile, and start the process all over again.

in the above examples i have noted that men are often thinking in shades of grey, and recognising the need to compromise in order to come to a conclusion in regard to an open issue (choice of a mate). they are pragmatic about the matter, and choose the mate that will best satisfy their perceived need, but also allow for other needs to be met through other venues. I have also noted that women are more prone to "black/white" thinking, and that they see men either as shining knight, or villain.

these stereotypes are based in reality, and describe us in extremes in the roles nature intended men and women to have. men were made to build/fix things, and women were made to dream for them and demand that men create. we all suffer to recognise these stereotypes within ourselves in varying degree.

some very well integrated persons who have lived for long periods without a partner, especially if raising children as a custodial parent, will develop both sides of the personality into a moderated blend. people who go from role of child directly to role of spouse tend to be polarised.

[MsZ 6]

I don't know anything about the BMW lifestyle. But I do know that in general earning ability is also parallel to intelligence, education and other important areas of compatibility.

this post points to one of the differences between men and women in the selection of mates. women tend to take an "all or nothing" attitude toward marriage, and expect their partner to be compatible in a wide variety of ways, capable of occupying a wide variety of roles in a woman's life. men tend to be willing to accept less than a "complete package", and are willing to outsource satisfaction of certain needs.

I think you're stereotyping and generalizing. There is certainly nothing wrong with looking for compatibility as far as it can be found. That doesn't mean that there isn't compromise in a relationship because it is absolutely necessary. Nobody is 100% compatible. Do you really believe that women feel the way you describe? Perhaps immature girls feel that way but women do not.

And as for who leaves because they are dissatisfied, while women tend to file for divorce more often, men have more affairs so your "outsourcing" remark is a little amusing. They also tend to remarry younger.

[MsZ 6]

A lot of people with PhDs aren't pulling in the big bucks and a lot of college dropouts (like Bill Gates) do pretty well so I'm not sure this comparison with income and education is a particularly sound one.

And as a woman of the 21st century I'm able to provide for myself quite well.

I said "in general". I certainly recognize exceptions, my brother being a good one as he can buy and sell me easily.

And being able to provide for yourself is great. I can provide for myself and have been doing so. But the fact is, in marriage it is really nice to be able to rely on one another. That's called interdependence and it is a positive thing in marriage. This idea that a 21st Century woman is totally independent is probably a lot less positive for marriage.

I am certainly capable of earning a good living as that's what I do. But to be happy that my husband also earns a good living is nothing to be ashamed of. And because someone else's ex-husband earned a lot but was a poor husband does not mean that the current low earning husband who is attentive is attentive because of his earning ability or that the ex- was poor simply because of his earning ability. There is simply no correlation. I didn't tell anyone that a high earner necessarily meant that the person would be a good mate. And it is ridiculous to draw any such conclusion.

My husband is attentive, loving, affectionate, open, warm, cuddly, empathetic (which is really amazing) as well as being intelligent and a good earner. So it is possible to have both. I'm sure he doesn't make as much as the ex-attorney but that's part of the compromise because my husband doesn't live his life for work. He has a good sense of balance between work and family. I had been managing my family on my own and he had been doing the same (we're both divorced). Together we are more economically secure. That security is a wonderful benefit of our union.

So you women who believe that the 21st Century Woman needs to go it alone in order to prove something to I don't know whom can knock yourselves out. I don't need to go it alone because I married someone who is in it with me. That I can go it alone is really beside the point. It doesn't make me any more of a woman. And being partnered with someone who earns a good living doesn't make me any less of a woman.

Interesting how the argument got twisted into some sort of ego-related definition of womanhood.

I also wonder if the woman whose husband is a PhD would have been willing to accept the same economic situation from someone who didn't finish HS and who pumped gas for a living. I suspect that the PhD carries with it enough status that it is an acceptable trade-off. It has its own sort of value. And that's just as much of a class distinction. And the gas pumping guy would have been written off as not in the same league from the get go. He wouldn't have stood a chance even if he were the same sort of attentive guy.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I want my Indian husband to make me delicious curry dishes.

Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.

Viktoria cooked a wonderful salmon dinner last night. I suggested that since I have superior earning power that she should cook every night, and that she should also wear a poodle skirt while cooking and cleaning up. After a two hour discussion about the significance (or lack thereof) of poodle skirts in the American culinary arts, and a geezer nap for me, we decided to just keep alternating duties like we have been.

BEST POST IN THE THREAD

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

And being able to provide for yourself is great. I can provide for myself and have been doing so. But the fact is, in marriage it is really nice to be able to rely on one another. That's called interdependence and it is a positive thing in marriage. This idea that a 21st Century woman is totally independent is probably a lot less positive for marriage.

Exactly - yet you seem to imply this "interdependence" is purely financial. I don't need a man to take care of my financial needs. I need my husband because he is my best friend - whether he is earning $18k or $1.8 million.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So you women who believe that the 21st Century Woman needs to go it alone in order to prove something to I don't know whom can knock yourselves out. I don't need to go it alone because I married someone who is in it with me. That I can go it alone is really beside the point. It doesn't make me any more of a woman. And being partnered with someone who earns a good living doesn't make me any less of a woman.

I didn't say that - but the fact is I have financial independence and don't need to rely on what my husband makes to live the life, so I don't need to include "earning power" in the list of traits I find desirable in my partner. You seem to be implying exactly that with your original post.

Right - I'm going to go put on my poodle skirt and join my husband for a lunchtime vodka gimlet.

[MsZ 6]

So you women who believe that the 21st Century Woman needs to go it alone in order to prove something to I don't know whom can knock yourselves out. I don't need to go it alone because I married someone who is in it with me. That I can go it alone is really beside the point. It doesn't make me any more of a woman. And being partnered with someone who earns a good living doesn't make me any less of a woman.

I didn't say that - but the fact is I have financial independence and don't need to rely on what my husband makes to live the life, so I don't need to include "earning power" in the list of traits I find desirable in my partner. You seem to be implying exactly that with your original post.

Right - I'm going to go put on my poodle skirt and join my husband for a lunchtime vodka gimlet.

The discussion was about finances. I didn't list other qualities because they should have been understood. Nobody in their right mind would believe that the interdependence between couples is purely financial, at least nobody that has ever been married.

I also have financial independence. That I now have someone else I can rely on should something go wrong is a blessing. My original post acknowledges that earning power is important and that pretending that it isn't is not being realistic. Further, the typical family does not have someone earning $90K and above in it. Surely because you are a high potential earner you have more flexibility in your choice of mate. The woman who makes $25K requires more in a partner. That said, the 90K woman also has to realize that things can happen to remove access to a job and it won't necessarily be easy to replace a high paying job. Look at the pharmaceutical company now where the average salary is over 100K. Consolidation means that there will be fewer and fewer of these high paying jobs. Yet, the mortgage still needs to be paid.

I have children. If I were to marry a guy who can't contribute I am also stealing from my children to take care of another adult. I think I owe more to my children quite frankly. In making a holistic decision about a potential partner, finances do enter in. This pretending it doesn't matter is almost certainly a lie. That you elected to marry someone who doesn't make a lot does not mean that you didn't consider the impact it would have on you and your family (if you have children). That other qualities outweighed the financial interest is fine. But for very many people, they would elect either to remain unmarried or to move on. That doesn't make them wrong. They have different needs than you have.

I also wonder if you have children. Because I'm thinking that children with the high earning Ex- now have 3 parents to take care of them, two of which are high earning. So you can afford to be a little more flexible in your choice of mate. Others may not have that same flexibility.

[Brad and Vika 129]

I want my Indian husband to make me delicious curry dishes.

Unfortunately, I didn't marry one of those.

Viktoria cooked a wonderful salmon dinner last night. I suggested that since I have superior earning power that she should cook every night, and that she should also wear a poodle skirt while cooking and cleaning up. After a two hour discussion about the significance (or lack thereof) of poodle skirts in the American culinary arts, and a geezer nap for me, we decided to just keep alternating duties like we have been.

BEST POST IN THE THREAD

I aims to please...but some things (like poodle skirt commentary) just don't translate well to non-USCs. We will keep at it though, because the discussion itself adds SOOO much spice to our lives. I am a banker, and Vika is an accountant - so you can see where the social ramifications of gender parity through relative economic earning power is just too exciting a discussion to skip

[MsZ 6]

At least you have your sarcasm to lend to the discussion. Don't know where the rest of us would be without it. My life is indeed enriched.

[Brad and Vika 129]

At least you have your sarcasm to lend to the discussion. Don't know where the rest of us would be without it. My life is indeed enriched.

Alas, sarcasm is all that I have to offer Honestly though, it is all in good fun and I do not mean to offend. It seems to me that sometimes we think too hard about topics like how to choose a mate. Everybody has there own set of preferences and baggage - but if we are lucky, our second half appears anyway. If we are truly lucky we notice that person in spite of our preconceptions.

Cheers!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

At least you have your sarcasm to lend to the discussion. Don't know where the rest of us would be without it. My life is indeed enriched.

Alas, sarcasm is all that I have to offer Honestly though, it is all in good fun and I do not mean to offend. It seems to me that sometimes we think too hard about topics like how to choose a mate. Everybody has there own set of preferences and baggage - but if we are lucky, our second half appears anyway. If we are truly lucky we notice that person in spite of our preconceptions.

Cheers!

Indeed -- I never thought I would fall for a blond!