|

12-31-2008, 01:27 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
3,488 posts, read 3,480,639 times
Reputation: 1452
|
|
[quote=Sunday1;6775564] 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideWhiteTrash
....Also, I think all wives should work no matter how well-off the family is. I would never let my wife sit around the house all day and not doing her fair share to make money by working a job...."
So work is only that for which one is compensated? I retired early after 24 years, which cost us dearly, so that I could be that person who drives every kid who needs a ride, takes all the behind-the-scenes work that no-one else is available to volunteer for, takes people to doctor appointments who can't drive, fundraises for sports teams and charitable organizations, etc. So when you refer to hard-working moms who make themselves available to their children on a full-time basis as "sit(ting) around all day" I take offense.
You blew it with that remark. And it has nothing to do with anything. Plenty of wealthy women make choices to stay home and plenty make the choice to continue on with their careers full time. Plenty of women who must scrimp and save from paycheck to paycheck also make those choices. You might do the residents of both Hinsdale and Orland Park a favor and choose Mars.
|
Excellent post !! 
|
|

12-31-2008, 02:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago's South Suburbs
36 posts, read 28,137 times
Reputation: 28
|
|
|
When I said "sitting around at home all day", I clearly was not talking about those that actually do things. What I was speaking out against was how some women, when they get lucky and marry some rich guy, stop working and live like a golddigger. I would never put up with that, nor would I ever pay anything like "spousal support" if I was a rich guy divorcing the golddigger-type. I would pay child support, but that's it. And if she had a job and made herself successful in her own right, then she wouldn't need spousal support, now would she? I believe women are equal to men, so excuse me for not having any tolerance for golddigger-types staying home all day. I would be saying the EXACT same thing about stay-at-home husbands or stay-at-home dads, but it's just that women who stay home are more prevalent. But honestly, the days of women staying home while the man brings home all the bacon is so antiquated. It's soooooo 1950's. The world is not like it is in "Leave it to Beaver" and women sell themselves too short by staying home all day like Mrs. Cleaver. You have young kids? Send them to day care or get a babysitter. I come from a family where EVERY SINGLE woman in my family works for a living, and the women in my family sometimes bring in more money than some men in my family. So excuuuuuse me if I treat women equally to men and that I think people should expect the same out of women as women expect out of men. I'm pretty sure a lot of feminists would actually agree with me, too.
|
|

12-31-2008, 04:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Elmhurst
88 posts, read 60,849 times
Reputation: 40
|
|
|
SouthSideWhiteTrash - , please seek out an intelligent, educated, emotionally stable friend, and ask them to listen to what’s bothering you. Give them a warning that it’s going to be a long, LONG conversation.
|
|

12-31-2008, 07:23 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
246 posts, read 124,002 times
Reputation: 212
|
|
OMG, Prairie. That's the most perfect response imaginable. 
|
|

12-31-2008, 08:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago's South Suburbs
36 posts, read 28,137 times
Reputation: 28
|
|
|
LOL, god, you northsiders and westsiders are so old-fashioned. If you don't think women should empower themselves and be a good example to their little daughters by working jobs, then you're the ones that need help.
|
|

12-31-2008, 09:15 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
246 posts, read 124,002 times
Reputation: 212
|
|
Been there, done that -- both lifestyles!
What part of "24 years" of full time work can't you read, white trash???
|
|

12-31-2008, 10:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Elmhurst
88 posts, read 60,849 times
Reputation: 40
|
|
|
SouthSideWhiteTrash: I'm not interested in the women's movement. I'm interested in the world. I'm interested in politics. I'm interested in people. I'm interested in human systems. I'm interested in space and science and the future. I'm not interested in the women's movement. I'm not interested in being put in that box. Of being grouped with that group of people who are not individuals *before* they are women and I'm not interested in being told that something called "women's issues" exist at all. I'm a person and *my* issues are quite exactly the same as the issues that belong to any person - human issues. I've heard it before. Because if there is something that "feminists" are highly skilled at, it is insults based on gender and belittlement. No thanks.
|
|

01-05-2009, 10:13 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
950 posts, read 799,468 times
Reputation: 170
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideWhiteTrash
I would never put up with that, nor would I ever pay anything like "spousal support" if I was a rich guy divorcing the golddigger-type. I would pay child support, but that's it.
You have young kids? Send them to day care or get a babysitter.
|
1. "Rich Guys" love paying spousal support. Its tax deductible. Child support is not. Many request to pay spousal support in combination with child support in order to reduce their tax burden. In addition to paying child support which is a percentage determined by the number of children you have up to the first $300,000 in income, you would be dividing the marital assets. A really "rich guy" isn't going to cry over $100,000 a year to support his kids, splitting up all the assets might make them weep though. Prenuptials come in handy for those who have assets before marriage. If the assets were earned during the marriage they belong to the wife too.
I suggest that you bone up on your knowledge of divorce law before you start advising "rich guys". I'm still on my first husband and am not an attorney and I know these basics.
2. Many "rich guys" would prefer that their children speak English as a primary language. Among other benefits of a SAHM.
3. You really don't have to worry about any golddiggers. I'm certain that they and any sane woman will stay away from you. Let the "rich guys" take care of themselves. The ones who do marry golddiggers know what they are doing and have their reasons for doing it.
|
|

01-05-2009, 10:41 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
6,153 posts, read 3,713,492 times
Reputation: 1700
|
|
|
So rich guys can't hire English speaking nannies or marry woman that make more than they do?
|
|

01-06-2009, 08:06 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
950 posts, read 799,468 times
Reputation: 170
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
So rich guys can't hire English speaking nannies or marry woman that make more than they do?
|
Thats not what Southsidewhite trash is talking about. I'm sure he would hire the cheapest day care possible. And he was discussing what he calls "golddiggers". Generally if you make more than your husband you are only considered a golddigger by your MIL.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|