My unreserved apologies

[jabed]

It seems I have upset MN posters.

I am sorry if you have been upset by me. I apologise.

I wont do it again.

Jabed

IQ is about 70% heritable or maybe more. The great determinant of adult IQ is parents' IQ. So, clearly a measure of IQ is academic achievement and this runs in families too. The nuture bit is less than some of us may suppose.

Xenia - re your post claiming that looking after babies is intrinsically boring and unsilled - all I can say is that you must have had much duller babies than mine. Mine were fascinating and I could quite happily have spent hour just watching them sleep. :)

unskilled

@LeBFG No I couldn't work part time. You can't just slice and dice a job and say 'I'll work half the time, give me half the salary'. that is undoubtedly a possibility in some public sector jobs but not so much in the real world.

I spend plenty of time at home, thanks. I work from home about 50% of the time. If I was earning less money I would probably be at home less too (because I would be less senior and therefore less able to dictate what I will and will not do).

You stated very clearly that you believe that you have to have a mindset that is self centred and objectionable to earn a medium range salary. Your belief is wrong, it's nothing to do with my opinion, it's to do with actual fact. You made an inaccurate statement. Some people who earn that sort of money are gits probably but some are lovely. and most of us are in the middle.

I'm not misunderstanding you at all, you made a ridiculous generalisation and are now trying to row back from it while hoping that nobody notices.

It must be dreadful to have such a paucity of imagination - you can't accept that people earning what you consider to be mega-bucks (it actually really isn't) can be anything other than nasty driven ball breakers who don't think family is more important than money. You can't imagine that there may be women who don't want to work more rather than less (I'd love to work less but I'm very lazy ). I know plenty of women who are perfectly happy working hard but who still value their families more than 'money'. You can't imagine people taking pleasure in doing a job well rather than in the money they earn from it (that is sometimes a driver for me - I don't like doing shoddy work, sometimes)

*Xenia and Jabed both despise state schools, but whilst Jabed despises their pupils because they're an ill-educated rabble who throw chairs and swear and hate his clever child and wouldn't employ him, Xenia despises them because their stupid parents failed to own enough money and now they're all going to be forced to study NVQs in Hair and Beauty before earning a deservedly low wage as a cleaner and then staying at home with their own manky offspring, thus completing the circle.

It goes without saying that both are wrong, and I find little to choose between them. Xenia's blithe sweeping and offensive statements and her utter lack of any sense of how rude and ill-informed she is are grating, but then Jabed's passive-aggressive balls is pretty irritating too*

I find your posts far more irritating. The above quote is not an accurate paraphrase of what either Xenia or Jabed says. It is what you have decided they mean. Actually neither of them ever launch personal attacks in the way some of your posts appear to. Neither do they use ad hominem argument as you do (which is, of course no argument at all).

You claim to support inclusiveness, acceptance of all and you strongly support maintained schools and, by implication, the diversity and acceptance that the philosophy and practice of the best embrace, yet appear unwilling to accept or include those whose opinions differ from your own. I may disagree sometimes with the above posters but am never offended by them. How can you be offended by an idea or opinion? I am offended by those who are rude about individual posters however.

And LBFG, How on earth can you stand behind a silly statement like yours about the morals and personalities of those who earn a good salary?

Sorry - all the first half should be in quotation marks fro TOSNs post

I said I think you need to have a particular mind-set to want to bag loadsa money. and is not the same as saying you have to have a mindset that is self centred and objectionable to earn a medium range salary.. I'm stating an opinion, you are trying to make it sound as if I was quoting a fact.

Slipshod: I stand behind what I have observed to be the case. That's all. My sample size isn't enormous and the most highly intelligent and well educated people have not been very high earners. I've meet many well balanced people from all wallks of life, independant of many factors. All the rich sorts I've met really do fall into my characterisation. Really. They are all also characterised by a drive for getting rich. My comments are directed at those people. I appreciate that Mordion may not be motivated by this AND she may be rich but I personally don't know anyone who falls into that category.

We are talking about the same amount of money. You quoted an income bracket and then subsequently described it as 'loadsa money' which it isn't (it's high earnings for a wage slave but it;s peanuts to a ruthless captain of industry or an island owning partner in a professional services firm).

You need to sort your definitions out. And you need to decide whether you are talking about millionaires or well earning professionals. And even then while it might be quite....cathartic...to think of anyone earning more than me as automatically nasty - in real life, they won't be.

And I'll say it again - the fact that the only people you know in a certain income bracket are according to you singularly unpleasant says more about you than it does about everyone else in that income bracket.

I certainly seemed to have stirred up something with you Mordion. I don't know anyone who owns islands. Did the categories of people I know suggest that to you? They were people earning around the 100k mark and one was significantly richer than that - he no longer needed to work at 45 if that gives you any additional information. I care very little for what they earn as either their private lives were a disaster (and I wouldn't want to exchange my live for that) or they were particularly unpleasant, backstabbing people (not to me, just found out through the stories they proudly recounted).

I also (boringly) did not say or suggest, and do not think, that I think of anyone earning more than me as automatically nasty. Make what conclusions you will.

I agree that it's very odd indeed only to be acquainted with only one type of rich person BFG.

How about top of the rung consultants? Robert Winston types (less the telly). Motivated by greed? Same kind of income. It's pretty weak to generalise in that way when the premise patently can't hold good.

Xenia, the vast majority of working mothers earn less tha 30k a year and can't afford to send their children to private school.

On the strength of your argument it would be reasonable to say that those women who marry rich men are the most likely to have successful children, regardless of how much they earn, as they can then afford school fees!

I imagine in all these 'ideal' scenarios of mega bucks wage earning, private schools and 'good outcomes' all family members are in very good health.

I would speculate (don't know any) that the sorts of people you are talking about Yellowtip are motivated mainly by job and much less so by money. I'm not trying to draw insightful conclusions. To put my original post into context (these things get lost as the thread progresses), this was the original paragraph Mordion started on:

I particularly like the 100k earners producing likewise 'successful' offspring. There is so much wrong with this assertion. But the main, and not least (and has already been pointed out) objection is to question, do we really want to measure success in terms of hours away from family and income? Most high earners I've met in life are total wankers. IMO, the people that want to chase this sort of reward are pretty objectionable, self-centred and insecure types. They very frequently have drink problems and tumultuous love lives. No surprises there then.

I talked about people chasing the reward (money) and the high earners I've met IRL. That's all. All I wanted to say was: what's the goal of 'being successful' anyway? You can agree or not. But please don't make the mistake Mordion is making by confounding personal opinion with grand theorising.

One of our godfathers earned sufficient in the City that he'd banked enough not to have to work after the age of 40 (in fact he became a teacher but that wasn't for money). Rock solid marriage to one of my university friends, hugely popular and thoroughly nice. An ex-colleague has earned enough in banking to buy his own large manor house in Glos., also a long happy marriage, keeps bees, sculpts, does charity work - has always been lovely, unlikely to change. He does still work but doesn't need to - he just wants to; enjoys the job. That's just the first couple who spring to mind. In fact I remember being interviewed at one particular merchant bank where the bloke interviewing me took time out to say that the bank (top at the time) had no room for backstabbers - anyone who slipped through the net and started backstabbing would be swiftly kicked out.

LeBFG Xenia famously owns an island. And earns considerably more than the £100K mark and might consider herself rich. Someone earning £100k is unlikely to be rich however, at least, not from earned income (there may be wealthy people who choose to work and also earn a decent income).

I'm guessing you are claiming that you didn't take the anyone earning more than me is evil line because there is a gap between your income and the level at which you set the 'is evil' bar (which let's remind ourselves you set at just £100k). However this is clearly bobbins. You just cannot set an arbitrary financial limit and say everyone below that is fine, everyone above that is a pisshead and a tumultuous shagger. Well, I mean you can, obviously, but don't be surprised at people call you on it.

@leBFG I'm not the one making a mistake love.

Of course, I'm a complete witch But I'm not typical. And despite my witchiness, like my colleagues I too am not motivated by the love of money and am neither a heroic pisshead or a tumultuous shagger.

breadandb DS's sports coach told us that mother's attitude to winning far more important than father's if your DC wants to be succesful. He said loads of pyschology research backed this...but I haven't a link for you.

I find MNers fustrating in this respect. Someone says I know many x people do y. Everyone else says ah, but I know an x that doesn't do y or your clearly stating all x people do y or even how can you possibly state there are many x people who do y. Go figure.

Only you made up the clever arbitrary limit Mordion, but I'm beginning to expect that of you.

I did not make up the arbitrary limit, you did. I can't help it if you write sloppily. Not only did you make those statements to begin with, you attempted to stand by them until more than one person was challenging you.

I am now thinking of changing my twitter bio to tumultuous shagger and pisshead. Unfortunately some of my professional colleagues follow me on there, and so do some of the people from our parish, so perhaps it's not the best of ideas.

Tempting though.

Of course wojmen who are successful and earn a lot are no nicer or nastier than those on the breadline, minimum wage of providing sex and cleaning services to a husband at home in return for being kept by him. Also lot sof people work very hard but not smart so probably work longer hours than I do but earn in a week what I earn in an hour. I think we have seen on here before my hourly charge (which I certainly don't earn every hour (have just been out cycling for a swim for two hours) so zero earnings) is a week on the minimum wage.

As I have often said islands can cost less than a small flat in Spain although it is very good fun to have and much more exciting and I wanted one when I was 10. Ben Fogle owns an island too and he's certainly not rich (and nor am I). However we both did go to fee paying schools. Now I come to think of it Branson is an island owner and he also went to a private school. Find me an English island owner whose mother and father did not pay school fees... I'm getting slightly off track here.

Anyway the bottom line is children of working mothers do best and girls realise women can have careers they adore and be lovely mummies rather than having some stricken choice between a life in the wider world or a life of self abnegation and cleaning and boys realise girls are not glorified servants fit for nothing but domestic stuff.

Xenia, what's all that about "providing sex services to their husbands" ? High earning women don't have sex or do they pay men to "provide sex service" ?

xenia it is very offensive to SAHM's to say that they 'provide' sex to their DH's. It is a nasty and unkind thing to say.

@pianonmama Didn't you get the memo? We have tumultuous love lives. Apparently.

Xenia's point about boys (and grown men) realising that girls are not glorified servants and that it is perfectly ok for a mother to work and not in any way unnatural, unwomanly, or unmotherly, is well made and important. And deserves repeating many times (until the world is a better place). The fluff round the edges isn't and doesn't. I don't know any mothers (or women who aren't mothers) in paid employment who think that SAHMs provide sex services to their husbands, or sell sex for shelter/protection etc. Everyone I know would just be nun-plussed at that suggestion and then, you know, laugh. Slightly uncomfortably. In exactly the same way as they would at the suggestion upthread that mothers who are in paid employment value money more than they value family.