Why is there a difference between a unemployed female and unemployed male? (people, men)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are females with grown or no kids typically not expected to contribute in most cultures? I noticed this living throughout the EU just as much as the US..
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Nowadays, in marriage or living together, no men are happy with their partners not to have a job out of their homes because with only one income they would be living in poverty. They feel those women who just stay at home are burdens, not to contribute in paying for rent or mortgage, car, bills, bringing foods to the table. They don’t care much about how much work those women work at home. They just think those women stay home to do a little housework and then just eat, sleep and/or watch TV or invite their female friends home to gossip.
In dating, men hate and criticize so much about women who don’t offer to pay for their meals.
Now, both men and women are eligible for paternity or maternity leave to stay home to take care of their newborns for sometime.
I know more and more women in the whole world (Western, Asia, Africa, Europe, any country, culture) want to go to college, university to have high education, and want to or are expected to work and contribute to the society the same as men. That is right and fair.
Only in those countries or cultures, those women who don’t or cannot work out or their homes because they either can afford to, their husbands or partners want them to; or their culture is behind, they cannot go to school to have good education, and find a good job in the society, and they have to stay home to do whatever, even slave job, their men or their in-laws demand them to.
You must be a close-minded person, not to open your eyes to observe the world in the past five or six decades, or such people influenced you.
Nowadays, except special cases such as born with special needs or defects, if women and men don’t work, the society despise them, saying that they are lazy *sses and burdens for others, and they are like fleas or leeches.
Neither do I. I don't have kids, have always worked, have always contributed whether in a relationship or not. It would never occur to me not to. What is it with C-D right now? Is this throwback '50s week for downtrodden men or something? Posts about being pressured to lie about fathering kids, posts about prenups and female/male breadwinners, then this.
This feels like it might be a cultural or regional thing (also someone must have posted a CD link to a dark corner of reddit.) I don't know any single women who aren't working and "contributing" to their own lives, taking care of their families, etc. I don't see flaky women mooching off of people in real life.
This feels like it might be a cultural or regional thing (also someone must have posted a CD link to a dark corner of reddit.) I don't know any single women who aren't working and "contributing" to their own lives, taking care of their families, etc. I don't see flaky women mooching off of people in real life.
I’m not married, but I do know several colleagues/friends whose wives work part-time (or not at all outside of the home) because of small kids. I don’t think it’s cultural or regional as much as it is about affordability/desirability to do so or not.
I’m not married, but I do know several colleagues/friends whose wives work part-time (or not at all outside of the home) because of small kids. I don’t think it’s cultural or regional as much as it is about affordability/desirability to do so or not.
But you wouldn't call those mothers taking care of home and family "unemployed" in a derogatory manner the way the OP is, right? Those women are contributing to their households.
But you wouldn't call those mothers taking care of home and family "unemployed" in a derogatory manner the way the OP is, right? Those women are contributing to their households.
Right - I wouldn’t call them ‘unemployed’ at all (since they aren’t looking for work or collecting unemployment). It’s a decision made by a couple for themselves; it’s their choice (and no reason to be derogatory).
I'm talking about the common practice of giving females a pass with the expectancy of paing a share of living expenses.. Men don't typically go shopping while the females go to work to pay 100% of the living expenses..
I take it from the instant-defensive you both knew exactly what I was asking.. Can we turn the PC switch off?
Going back and reading this post, it's obvious that the OP has an agenda about lazy women bleeding men dry. But, you have to ask yourself, if this is unfair, why are the men in question okay with paying 100% of a woman's living expenses if she's not contributing? These men are making it happen. If they don't want to be taken advantage of or on the hook for supporting these women, then why do they take up with a woman who's a mooch? There's nothing PC about it.
Going back and reading this post, it's obvious that the OP has an agenda about lazy women bleeding men dry. But, you have to ask yourself, if this is unfair, why are the men in question okay with paying 100% of a woman's living expenses if she's not contributing? These men are making it happen. If they don't want to be taken advantage of or on the hook for supporting these women, then why do they take up with a woman who's a mooch? There's nothing PC about it.
Why would it bother you (or the OP) either way? It’s not ‘lazy’ if they have kids and much of that falls on the wife (as is the case with a few of my colleagues/friends). In fact, I never gave it any thought whatsoever, as it’s their business. Ultimately, it’s their finances if they are married - not his or hers.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 06-16-2019 at 10:57 AM..
Why would it bother you (or the OP) either way? It’s not ‘lazy’ if they have kids and much of that falls on the wife (as is the case with a few of my colleagues/friends). In fact, I never gave it any thought whatsoever, as it’s their business. Ultimately, it’s their finances if they are married - not his or hers.
It doesn't bother me at all--i'm just killing time in between loads of laundry. OP's just one of those internet guys who likes to stir up trouble online by dropping "poor noble, hardworking men taken advantage of by greedy, manipulative cows" bombs on message boards. He's not interested in functional relationships, he's just parroting MRA crap.
Why is there a difference.........because many females in modernized societies get taught that work is optional, especially if you can find a man to produce and doesn't mind being the sole income. I mean think about it, an unemployed male probably has a dating/sex life that may be close to non-existent. An unemployed woman that's pretty enough could date several times a week, with a good looking guy at that.
I've seen repeated situations amongst male friends where their significant others just decided to stop working because they hated the job, th eboss, the work commute, had high blood pressure, ect..........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
