On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:07:05 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
wrote:

>On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>>
>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always been
>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a little
>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing. She
>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>>>
>>>The perfect pet.
>>
>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>
>With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>the 50s.

Not at all. What is wrong with either of them working their finances
in the way which suits them best? I don't see anything that offends
women's lib in that - back in the 50s I doubt the woman even knew how
much was in the bank account etc. but that is clearly not the case
with Ed or Ophelia. Just a fifty/fifty arrangement - so what offends
you about it?