The complicated twist in the wage gap debate is that employers might stereotype female employees as being more likely to take time off, quit, or have competing priorities. A view that happens to match reality, but is hardly true for everyone.

And may match reality in part because women in jobs don't have as strong a financial incentive to make the job their main priority, so if a man is in the picture it may make sense to back that horse if it comes to choice. (In my experience, it is very hard to maintain two high-powered jobs in the same family, even with no kids. If one partner is working 12-hour days and travels a lot, someone's got to take care of the home front.) It's a chicken and egg problem.

In a male-female relationship, it will often make sense to back the man's job because he will make more money. Why will he make more money? Because a woman will often be seen as less dedicated to her job and more dedicated to the family. Why is she less dedicated to her job and more to the family? Maybe because she is likely to make less. (I was an exception in a previous male-female relationship, but this is what I see.) And so it goes.

I personally do not have a problem with wage gap, and neither does my (female) partner, even though we both work in a male-dominated industry. However:

- we work very long hours and I travel a good deal

- we (especially I) push hard for making what we think we're worth--and more, if we can get it

- we don't have any kids yet

- I keep my eyes open for new opportunities and grab as soon as possible, before I'm asked

- I got in my field very early, which helped in establishing a reputation and I'm leveraging that reputation now.

In short, I spend a lot of mental energy on the career. Someone somewhere mentioned how two high-powered professionals they'd met were kind of stupid about basic household stuff. I can understand that. You use all your brain on work, and when you get home you can be kind of stupid. (I can, however, replace an outlet cover.)

Although the responsibility scares me, I look forward to the time when we're a single-income family for a while. I think it will help us achieve better work-life balance.

...but I don't think it helps the homeowners if they have houses they cannot afford and cannot sell.

It's not a class thing. A friend bought a house under one of those sub-prime loans a couple of years ago, and she makes a very decent (about 65K) living. She just couldn't afford a regular loan when prices skyrocketed and she had only one decent living to draw on.

Charlottesville, Virginia, or Asheville, North Carolina -- university towns that offer some of the cultural benefits of the city, including hip, intelligent denizens, while offering the laid-back, low-pressure, rustic aspects of rural living (as well as the low cost of living

Godmonkey had a good suggestion about compromise (for you, not for your guy, who doesn't sound like a good match for you at all), but coming from a place where you can buy a house on a salary of $26K you're not likely to see Charlottesville as a low-cost-of-living area. In comparison to DC or NYC, housing is cheaper, but housing prices have skyrocketed in the few years since Charlottesville was declared the most livable city in the US. Still--less traffic than a big metro area and much prettier country, which it sounds like you'd miss if you went totally urban.

Love is not enough to make a marriage. For your marriage to work, you need to have common goals. You don't. Break the engagement and get out of there, or you will resent him the rest of your life for making you stuck.

This is par for the course in Maryland. I understand that trial by combat remains technically legal there, because the state adopted English Common Law as of 1776. I've also heard (but cannot verify) that Baltimore English is a linguistic relic of one 17th century English accent.

Maybe someone should send the judge a calendar.

Let me add my voice to the chorus of those saying that he might be gay, but looking at gay porn doesn't guarantee it. This is an age for not only sexual exploration but sensational exploration. When I was his age, I found the section of the library that had some books that I'm frankly now surprised--and glad--that were there at all. But that I compulsively reread a book about a teenage alcoholic didn't mean that I had any problem with alcohol--I'd never even had any and didn't know anyone who drank. I was drawn by the lurid story, not so much the subject matter.

I did turn out to be gay, as it happens, but the book I found on a lesbian love story was less compelling. And I didn't turn out to be an alcoholic.

I strongly support the recommendations that you show your support for gay rights indirectly. Your son may not be gay or bi, or he may not be ready to talk about it if he is. He certainly doesn't need you to sit him down and have The Talk about how He Is Still Your Son. He needs to know that his orientation isn't even a data point when it comes to whether you love him. Your actions, whether it's support for rights or railing against "special rights" are going to speak a lot louder on that point than words ever will.

If anyone wants to ask Weingarten about his motives in the story (or why they picked the venue they did), there's a live chat going on right now (Monday 1PMT EDT) on the Washington Post site.