Anonymous wrote:I've noticed with group of friends that men now are interested in high income women w/ high earning potential vs being with a traditional idea of a woman who wants to stay home while they earn the money. Many of my physician female friends are in high demand and all engaged or married to other physicians, engineers, lawyers, etc, despite working tons of hours and not being "available". If you think about it, this allows for more resources and a better lifestyle than a single income household. One can easily afford a nanny and housekeeper with these dual income professional salaries while still saving for retirement, college, traveling, paying private school, etc so this trumps the SAHM/breadwinner paradigm financially. It also protects against the potential swings of the economy. I grew up hearing that men wanted a "hot" wife that was attractive and available with no though to their earning potential. I think this has changed...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this thread really demonstrates the difference between secular marriage and marriage with a more religious purpose. When I got married, I made a vow before my
Spouse and before god. Marriage isn’t about incomes and CYA if you end up divorced. Marriage it’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment. As such, both partners need to compromise and trust. I don’t hear any of that in this thread.

I even waited until the wedding night for sex with my spouse. Thought I married a religious man of my own religion. No divorces in our family. Did the whole precana thing in detail. Turned out he was a con and so was his dad. Both bisexual gay men who had sex with other men all over the place. Just like the priests. Also conned money because as you say "money isn't important". So then they justify that they can just take this stuff from you. You know things that you don't really care about. Money. Sex. It doesn't really matter right? Found out another friend is also in this scenario as we speak with another "highly religious" guy who has even made it into religious papers dating her while also sleeping with a slew of men. Being religious does not guarantee you a lifelong commitment. Just show up to any religious divorcecare group to find this out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equality

x2. Men are tired of being an ATM.

See ladies? This is the “feminism” men are proclaiming these days. Partner who earns as much or more and won’t receive much or anything in alimony or child support, but will work herself into the ground working FT at a lucrative job while men continue not to bear children or breastfeed them or be mom to small children, or pull their weight at home bc whoa let’s not let things get out of hand!

Please don't project your relationship on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equality

x2. Men are tired of being an ATM.

See ladies? This is the “feminism” men are proclaiming these days. Partner who earns as much or more and won’t receive much or anything in alimony or child support, but will work herself into the ground working FT at a lucrative job while men continue not to bear children or breastfeed them or be mom to small children, or pull their weight at home bc whoa let’s not let things get out of hand!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this thread really demonstrates the difference between secular marriage and marriage with a more religious purpose. When I got married, I made a vow before my
Spouse and before god. Marriage isn’t about incomes and CYA if you end up divorced. Marriage it’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment. As such, both partners need to compromise and trust. I don’t hear any of that in this thread.

I even waited until the wedding night for sex with my spouse. Thought I married a religious man of my own religion. No divorces in our family. Did the whole precana thing in detail. Turned out he was a con and so was his dad. Both bisexual gay men who had sex with other men all over the place. Just like the priests. Also conned money because as you say "money isn't important". So then they justify that they can just take this stuff from you. You know things that you don't really care about. Money. Sex. It doesn't really matter right? Found out another friend is also in this scenario as we speak with another "highly religious" guy who has even made it into religious papers dating her while also sleeping with a slew of men. Being religious does not guarantee you a lifelong commitment. Just show up to any religious divorcecare group to find this out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what if they go part time? They are still providing a needed service at work and at home and hospitals will just hire a second part timer to keep up with demand. They earn great money for a well-respected part time job and then since they keep practicing can renter FT later. I don’t see a problem here.

It's the elephant in the room, but more women are in medicine taking residency spots and then choosing not to practice full time. The number of residency spots are finite and increasing med school class size does not address the fact that residency spots are limited. I don't blame these women including friends I have for choosing self-preservation in an increasingly grueling field.

The limited number of residency spots is a policy choice by the medical industry and the government (which allows the medical industry to engage in this clearly anticompetitive scheme). The idea that we'd blame anyone who goes part time for taking a residency spot is laying the blame on the wrong party. If you hate the limited residency system, complain to your Congressman (who probably gets a boatload of money from the AMA and the American Hospital Association).

No, it is not the number of residency spots that is limited. We have to import med school grads to fill residency spots, especially in "less desirable but necessary" specialties like internal medicine and primary care.

It is the number of US medical school graduates that is limited.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this thread really demonstrates the difference between secular marriage and marriage with a more religious purpose. When I got married, I made a vow before my
Spouse and before god. Marriage isn’t about incomes and CYA if you end up divorced. Marriage it’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment. As such, both partners need to compromise and trust. I don’t hear any of that in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what if they go part time? They are still providing a needed service at work and at home and hospitals will just hire a second part timer to keep up with demand. They earn great money for a well-respected part time job and then since they keep practicing can renter FT later. I don’t see a problem here.

It's the elephant in the room, but more women are in medicine taking residency spots and then choosing not to practice full time. The number of residency spots are finite and increasing med school class size does not address the fact that residency spots are limited. I don't blame these women including friends I have for choosing self-preservation in an increasingly grueling field.

The limited number of residency spots is a policy choice by the medical industry and the government (which allows the medical industry to engage in this clearly anticompetitive scheme). The idea that we'd blame anyone who goes part time for taking a residency spot is laying the blame on the wrong party. If you hate the limited residency system, complain to your Congressman (who probably gets a boatload of money from the AMA and the American Hospital Association).

It’s not the industry actually the number of residency spots is determined by Medicare funding for residency spots to the hospital. Medicine controls the number of doctors being produced by controlling the number and quality of medical schools and making it extremely difficult to get admitted. There is no bottom limit to the number of crappy lawyers this country can produce, because there is no bottom for law schools; anyone can attend SOME law school. Not so for doctors. It’s much harder to get into any med school than it is to get into even a good law school.

Exactly, which is why it's kind of misleading to promote this as an ideal career, when it's extremely competitive to get into.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what if they go part time? They are still providing a needed service at work and at home and hospitals will just hire a second part timer to keep up with demand. They earn great money for a well-respected part time job and then since they keep practicing can renter FT later. I don’t see a problem here.

It's the elephant in the room, but more women are in medicine taking residency spots and then choosing not to practice full time. The number of residency spots are finite and increasing med school class size does not address the fact that residency spots are limited. I don't blame these women including friends I have for choosing self-preservation in an increasingly grueling field.

The limited number of residency spots is a policy choice by the medical industry and the government (which allows the medical industry to engage in this clearly anticompetitive scheme). The idea that we'd blame anyone who goes part time for taking a residency spot is laying the blame on the wrong party. If you hate the limited residency system, complain to your Congressman (who probably gets a boatload of money from the AMA and the American Hospital Association).

It’s not the industry actually the number of residency spots is determined by Medicare funding for residency spots to the hospital. Medicine controls the number of doctors being produced by controlling the number and quality of medical schools and making it extremely difficult to get admitted. There is no bottom limit to the number of crappy lawyers this country can produce, because there is no bottom for law schools; anyone can attend SOME law school. Not so for doctors. It’s much harder to get into any med school than it is to get into even a good law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what if they go part time? They are still providing a needed service at work and at home and hospitals will just hire a second part timer to keep up with demand. They earn great money for a well-respected part time job and then since they keep practicing can renter FT later. I don’t see a problem here.

It's the elephant in the room, but more women are in medicine taking residency spots and then choosing not to practice full time. The number of residency spots are finite and increasing med school class size does not address the fact that residency spots are limited. I don't blame these women including friends I have for choosing self-preservation in an increasingly grueling field.

The limited number of residency spots is a policy choice by the medical industry and the government (which allows the medical industry to engage in this clearly anticompetitive scheme). The idea that we'd blame anyone who goes part time for taking a residency spot is laying the blame on the wrong party. If you hate the limited residency system, complain to your Congressman (who probably gets a boatload of money from the AMA and the American Hospital Association).

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this thread really demonstrates the difference between secular marriage and marriage with a more religious purpose. When I got married, I made a vow before my
Spouse and before god. Marriage isn’t about incomes and CYA if you end up divorced. Marriage it’s supposed to be a lifelong commitment. As such, both partners need to compromise and trust. I don’t hear any of that in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equality

x2. Men are tired of being an ATM.

Anonymous wrote:Equality

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe we are 19 pages in and still haven’t defined “high-earning woman.”