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.
Wow you have known some scary women in your past if you think women are waiting for men to "qualify"
Nope. I see these women when I travel to western countries and see the things women write in this forum about what a man should do when it comes to dating and relationships. I have dated Asian women for years and things are a bit different to what is accustomed in the USA and other western countries. Still, regardless, when I am in the USA I date American girls even if they are a bit different when it comes to certain dating traditions. Doesn’t make them scary, better, or worse, just different.
Quote:
I've never known anyone like that.
Look around you. Women are not known for taking the initiative, asking guys out, spending money on dates or men, etc. Are things changing? Sure, slowly, but there seems to be a slow change.
Quote:
Nothing stopped me from buying my ex-husband things. My ex proposed to me with ring in hand. So what? And why the focus on what material items I may have purchased for him? What's it to you that I bought him two very nice watches over the course of our marriage? Or paid for expenses and gifts and for HIS children when he was laid off?
It’s not a money issue, it’s an issue of women also feeling liberated to do all those things they expect from men, that’s all. And many of those things women expect from men require money. It took you until you were married to consider buying him two watches. That’s fine, it’s normal for women to wait until they are married or in a formal long relationship to consider reciprocating (with or without money involved). This goes back to what we were talking about a couple of pages ago. So if women are saying that men taking the initiative, asking a girl out, paying for her expenses, etc. has nothing to do with liberation and rights then I guess women wearing the apron, cooking, washing the dishes, etc. doesn't have anything to do with it either and women should do it without complaining either, right?
Hello Captaincatfish,
You'll find men and women who start threads that talk against the other gender. It is just that men who start a thread about it don't get any support compared to the other way around. Heck, some of those threads will even get locked and/or the OP banned.
In American society today women and men are expected to be equal. Women can be as successful as men and do all the jobs men do. Women also have more freedom in relationships to either take on female gender roles or not. And if a woman decides not to take on traditional female gender roles (like cooking, cleaning, etc.) she should not be questioned because she is "equal" to a man.
HOWEVER, men are still expected to take on traditional male gender roles in romantic relationships even if the woman doesn't. For instance: Men should still make the first move, men should still pay for the first date (and most dates), men should still propose, men should fix things, men should cut the grass and take out the trash, etc.
So why do women have the option of ignoring gender roles without being questioned about it, but men have to follow them and if they don't they are criticized and "not a real man" etc.?
I think you've got the wrong idea of what womens lib was/is all about....You're right...women CAN be as successful as men, and usually CAN do all the work that men can do....womans lib is about women having that same oppurtunity as the men, and if their job is the SAME....getting paid the SAME! Womans lib started when woman became tired of doing the SAME job for less pay....or (further back in time)because they wanted the right to vote....it's not about affording them any more than that which a man is already getting.........Don't confuse that with why or why not a woman does or does not want to stay at home...bake bread....raise kids...clean house and put a nice supper on the table.....Even if this is what a woman wants in her life....that's HER choice...same as any mans....the fact that you're still stereotyping woman as having certain "gender roles" is a small but obvious reason as to why womens lib began in the first place........In reality a woman can't choose her gender....and it's not the place for anyone to cast her into a "role" because of it.......It's all about equality and the desire to be seen and valued as an EQUAL in society.
HOWEVER, men are still expected to take on traditional male gender roles in romantic relationships even if the woman doesn't. For instance: Men should still make the first move, men should still pay for the first date (and most dates), men should still propose, men should fix things, men should cut the grass and take out the trash, etc.
Says who?
If I were to ask a man out, I'd pay for it. I've just never had to ask. I can fix certain things, other things I'd ask for help or hire someone to fix. If I had a lawn, I'd be more than happy to mow it, and I have no problems taking out the trash. I can't see myself asking a man to marry me, but I know women who have proposed to their husbands.
The flip side is that I expect any man I'd live with or marry to know how to cook and clean, and the housework would be divided evenly: None of this men "helping" with the "woman's work." It's his home, too. He can vacuum, dust, do laundry, and scrub a toilet. He'd fix the things he was good at fixing, I'd fix the things I'm good at fixing. Were there kids, he'd be changing just as many diapers as I.
Sorry, but your post is entirely too presumptuous to be taken seriously. If anything, I've seen men who are perfectly capable of living on their own and doing all of their own cooking and cleaning suddenly "forget" how to do these things once they are married. It is like they feel they've acquired not only a wife, but a maid and a cook--someone to "take care of" them.
That is why I cannot see myself ever asking a man to marry me. I'm not a glutton for punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincatfish
So forgive me if don't buy into all this whining and carping and warmed-over b***hing going on here...
Perhaps the name "Mr. Crisp" is a reference to overdone, burned-out arguments.
I'm female and I get what the OP was saying. I think what he is saying is that women have cherry picked what they want from equality (equal pay, the right to do a job a man can do---which of course I agree with) while leaving in place those traditions that suit them because it is flattering and requires less effort (that a guy should ask them out, not vice versa) and that the guy should pay (which saves them money and gives warm fuzzies that their companionship is worth someone paying for them---regardless of whether they earn the same/more than the guy). I've seen this double standard with women in their twenties and women in their fifties. I actually find it quite shocking that this norm hasn't changed over the past thirty years! But I suppose it's human nature, like brides keeping the white dress and veil out of tradition, even though it originated years ago to show the bride as virginal---when the bride is anything but a virgin and possibly even married once or twice before!
I do think women want a relationship as much as men do (some would say more, due to the biological clock ticking and guys supposedly commitment-phobic). But if guys aren't going to get a date/sex without paying for the woman, there is no choice but to suck it up and do it. It's not quite prostitution, but it definitely is saying something about the women's desire to be with that guy and have sex with him in the near future---that she isn't as interested in that and she must be pursued/pampered before that can happen....
It looks like women's liberation is being redefined in this thread to fit people's arguments. One only needs to take a stroll through Wikipedia, especially the descriptions of patriarchy, to see that the movement wasn't only about equality in law and the workplace. Social issues and social equality definitely play a major role, so the OP's post and the critiques in support of it are relevant.
Guys you are wasting your time. These threads never go anywhere because there's no desire for common ground. All we'll see are:
-You're a whiner! (even if you're simply debating).
-"Me and everyone I know isn't like that". (while giving those who ARE "like that" a silent pass)
-Personal attacks, which does not refute the relevancy of one's opinion.
Whoever made the counter argument is spot-on about women's responsibilities in chivalry if it is still to be expected of men. Personally, I believe male-initiated chivalry is outdated since it was a form of self-humbling due to their higher status in society. There should be mutual initiation in relationships with no gender-based expectations.
That being said, I actually benefit from the status quo, because I'm able to bend it in my favor. Yet, I still philosophically agree with the points raised in the OP.
OMG women are oppressing men now? *howling with laughter*
Yeah, well, when men can have 8 pounds of infant flesh pressing down and out through a hole in their bodies that is normally never much wider in diameter than a golf ball, they can talk about o-pression.
The whole thread is the usual sour grapes. Call me a sexist, but the men griping here are the ones who have not figured out a way to remain relevant to women. Women just don't NEED men like they did in the 50s. We don't need them to provide. We don't need them to pay for things. We don't need them for social standing or financial security. Sorry, fellas, but you have to offer more than that these days. You have to be charming--and therein lies the rub.
I'm female and I get what the OP was saying. I think what he is saying is that women have cherry picked what they want from equality (equal pay, the right to do a job a man can do---which of course I agree with) while leaving in place those traditions that suit them because it is flattering and requires less effort (that a guy should ask them out, not vice versa) and that the guy should pay (which saves them money and gives warm fuzzies that their companionship is worth someone paying for them---regardless of whether they earn the same/more than the guy). I've seen this double standard with women in their twenties and women in their fifties. I actually find it quite shocking that this norm hasn't changed over the past thirty years! But I suppose it's human nature, like brides keeping the white dress and veil out of tradition, even though it originated years ago to show the bride as virginal---when the bride is anything but a virgin and possibly even married once or twice before!
I do think women want a relationship as much as men do (some would say more, due to the biological clock ticking and guys supposedly commitment-phobic). But if guys aren't going to get a date/sex without paying for the woman, there is no choice but to suck it up and do it. It's not quite prostitution, but it definitely is saying something about the women's desire to be with that guy and have sex with him in the near future---that she isn't as interested in that and she must be pursued/pampered before that can happen....
Great post, +1. (minus the sucking it up solution that I disagree with).
Women just don't NEED men like they did in the 50s. We don't need them to provide. We don't need them to pay for things. We don't need them for social standing or financial security. Sorry, fellas, but you have to offer more than that these days. You have to be charming--and therein lies the rub.
This part, I'm actually glad about. I don't want either sex to "need" the other. I also dislike the social pressures of either women or men to get married. I don't want women to jump into marriage for a provider, and I don't want men to jump into marriage because that's his only hope for love, sex, or affection.
I dislike the idea of women not having many choices in the 50s. I don't want to go back to that, but I don't want the pendulum to swing in the other direction either.
I think you've got the wrong idea of what womens lib was/is all about....You're right...women CAN be as successful as men, and usually CAN do all the work that men can do....womans lib is about women having that same oppurtunity as the men, and if their job is the SAME....getting paid the SAME! Womans lib started when woman became tired of doing the SAME job for less pay....or (further back in time)because they wanted the right to vote....it's not about affording them any more than that which a man is already getting.........Don't confuse that with why or why not a woman does or does not want to stay at home...bake bread....raise kids...clean house and put a nice supper on the table.....Even if this is what a woman wants in her life....that's HER choice...same as any mans....the fact that you're still stereotyping woman as having certain "gender roles" is a small but obvious reason as to why womens lib began in the first place........In reality a woman can't choose her gender....and it's not the place for anyone to cast her into a "role" because of it.......It's all about equality and the desire to be seen and valued as an EQUAL in society.
I'm glad women have all the rights they have gained over time. Definitely no beef with that. I love choices and freedoms for everyone.
However, we still have a way to go for even equality under the law, until we have at least assumed 50/50 custody and male parental/financial opt-outs during the same period of time a woman can choose an abortion.
If I were to ask a man out, I'd pay for it. I've just never had to ask. I can fix certain things, other things I'd ask for help or hire someone to fix. If I had a lawn, I'd be more than happy to mow it, and I have no problems taking out the trash. I can't see myself asking a man to marry me, but I know women who have proposed to their husbands.
The flip side is that I expect any man I'd live with or marry to know how to cook and clean, and the housework would be divided evenly: None of this men "helping" with the "woman's work." It's his home, too. He can vacuum, dust, do laundry, and scrub a toilet. He'd fix the things he was good at fixing, I'd fix the things I'm good at fixing. Were there kids, he'd be changing just as many diapers as I.
Sorry, but your post is entirely too presumptuous to be taken seriously. If anything, I've seen men who are perfectly capable of living on their own and doing all of their own cooking and cleaning suddenly "forget" how to do these things once they are married. It is like they feel they've acquired not only a wife, but a maid and a cook--someone to "take care of" them.
That is why I cannot see myself ever asking a man to marry me. I'm not a glutton for punishment.
Perhaps the name "Mr. Crisp" is a reference to overdone, burned-out arguments.
I'd say the chances of that happening are about as good as the chances of a woman asking a guy out and paying for the first date.
There are certain gender roles and expectations that are not going to go away. There's always the 10% that may do it, but 90% of the population isn't going to break it.
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.
