What do many men preferred: old fashioned women, a mixture of both or very career-minded types? (child, sex)
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.
Your guess is is good as mine. Nevertheless, the two are indeed linked.
Women ain't what they used to be, but then again, neither are men.
I still seriously doubt that the majority of women (or men) want to so desperately become alcoholics, party every single day, smoke week and sleep around as their major goals in life.
It's sad to hear that just because you ran into a couple of rotten apples, every modern women is directly link to that destructive path. I would be considered modern but have never done drugs nor ever had casual sex.
Dude, where are you from? You don't sound like you're from here, you sound like someone who doesn't understand US society or the West. And your post doesn't have any connection with the one you quoted and are responding to.
Why are you "equalizing" modern with partying, smoking weed, and trashing yourself? What kind of a word is "equalize", anyway? Get a grip, man. An excess of verbiage doesn't "equalize" an intelligent, insightful response.
I'll save lecturing a native English speaker on his own language.
Word "modern" is indeed synonym for women who aren't really "modest" in the way they live their lives and that's how people self-identify among my demographics when you date them. My sample would be Richmond metropolitan area. Like I said, it might be different for people in their 50s who compare themselves in times when stay-at-home parents were common in certain social class or when not every John and Jane would enroll to university. If OP wants to use being stay-at-home as old-fashioned and attending and/or obtaining university education and working as modern, she basically made composition of USA look like this: vast majority of folks would identify themselves as MODERN, and/or they'd be seen as such by others. In fact, more and more people travel solely for the purpose of traveling, not because they run their own business or as a part of political career - word career is overused today, it once had a very narrow terms and today it's a synonym for almost any employment for most folks. Her "modern" and "old fashioned" (based on education and workforce participation) is thus completely displaced in this time and age. Maybe if she transfers to Pakistan, those things would make it modern for a woman over there. She's 20-something, by her own admission, plus she lives in California. Maybe she wanted to say that modern equals not having a family - but she only briefly hinted that "modern woman" might prefer being unmarried and to possibly remain child-free, thus general focus on differing among "modern" and "old fashioned" was the distinction on supposed absence in workforce and in higher education, in her opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Why not? For middle and upper-class women, that's one of the defining traits, whether you agree or not. Having the option to work, and a wide variety of career choices, and the right to respectful treatment on the job, was a hard-won advance in women's lives. Maybe not where you come from, but certainly where you live now.
I completely disagree with that notion, elaborated in previous posts. Like I said, some 50 years ago you "needed a reason" to obtain university education, supposed large interest in certain area and exceeding brightness. In today's world, parents will send their children into any of the universities of their choices because, guess what - nobody needs a reason among today's late teens to enter university education. Only reasons against it are economic (no money) and/or personal (not graduating from high school, refusing to go to college). Same is for stay-at-home option. It's usually either because people are lazy, because they are in the process of job-seeking, or because their job paid so little to make it useful when compared to travel costs and it's usually teamed up with the notion that they can do any work or no work at all and they'll have enough money to maintain a living - usually thanks to accumulated wealth or due to other high high earner in the household. In the modern world among youth, being "modern" is DEFINITELY not defined in any of those two. Not in America, not in my native country either.
But I'll take your remark that it may be on how the process went in each country - given that it wasn't part of any discussion in my country and progression occurred when communist party took over governing. We migrated from (semi)feudal system (kingdom) towards socialism in post-ww2 Yugoslavia (led by communist party), almost overnight. In communist era, people worked (and studied) regardless of one's class, ethnicity or gender, so even my grandmother worked. Social state took care of everything to make it as smooth transition as possible and they implemented state-funded university education and healthcare, childcare, housing programs, numerous welfare programs, etc. State even funded one's long vacation trips in socialist Yugoslavia and everyone gladly enrolled in workforce.
In fact, it was the socialist states led by communism that even inspired and fully supported the civil rights movement in America during the 1960s. Gender equality and equal opportunity, abortion, ethnic/racial quotas and advancement programs, anti-segregation, strict separation of church and state and so on were common in socialist states led by communist governments, thus socialist states fully supported civil rights movement in America, but U.S. authorities made it illegal for any U.S. organization be funded by any state led by communist party. Communist parties even used the ways of behavior among Americans as a common ridiculing notion on how backwards, sexist and racist they are, so it's not surprising that so many civil rights movement leaders or their key people in USA were communist sympathizers and used already-existing models in socialism as their inspiration.
I'd like to think that my husband prefers women like me who fit squarely in the middle. So I am a 2. I am not particularly traditional, but I do have some traditional values. I have always had good, self supporting jobs but I am not particularly career focused. This doesn't speak of my ambition, but rather I feel that my job provides money and the ability for me to always keep my head above water. A job is just that, a job. In the event of a divorce, I will have enough to support myself and my children without having to change our lifestyle much. However, I am not wed to my job and my family will always be #1.
I'll save lecturing a native English speaker on his own language.
Word "modern" is indeed synonym for women who aren't really "modest" in the way they live their lives and that's how people self-identify among my demographics when you date them. My sample would be Richmond metropolitan area. Like I said, it might be different for people in their 50s who compare themselves in times when stay-at-home parents were common in certain social class or when not every John and Jane would enroll to university. If OP wants to use being stay-at-home as old-fashioned and attending and/or obtaining university education and working as modern, she basically made composition of USA look like this: vast majority of folks would identify themselves as MODERN, and/or they'd be seen as such by others. In fact, more and more people travel solely for the purpose of traveling, not because they run their own business or as a part of political career - word career is overused today, it once had a very narrow terms and today it's a synonym for almost any employment for most folks. Her "modern" and "old fashioned" (based on education and workforce participation) is thus completely displaced in this time and age. Maybe if she transfers to Pakistan, those things would make it modern for a woman over there. She's 20-something, by her own admission, plus she lives in California. Maybe she wanted to say that modern equals not having a family - but she only briefly hinted that "modern woman" might prefer being unmarried and to possibly remain child-free, thus general focus on differing among "modern" and "old fashioned" was the distinction on supposed absence in workforce and in higher education, in her opinion.
I completely disagree with that notion, elaborated in previous posts. Like I said, some 50 years ago you "needed a reason" to obtain university education, supposed large interest in certain area and exceeding brightness. In today's world, parents will send their children into any of the universities of their choices because, guess what - nobody needs a reason among today's late teens to enter university education. Only reasons against it are economic (no money) and/or personal (not graduating from high school, refusing to go to college). Same is for stay-at-home option. It's usually either because people are lazy, because they are in the process of job-seeking, or because their job paid so little to make it useful when compared to travel costs and it's usually teamed up with the notion that they can do any work or no work at all and they'll have enough money to maintain a living - usually thanks to accumulated wealth or due to other high high earner in the household. In the modern world among youth, being "modern" is DEFINITELY not defined in any of those two. Not in America, not in my native country either.
But I'll take your remark that it may be on how the process went in each country - given that it wasn't part of any discussion in my country and progression occurred when communist party took over governing. We migrated from (semi)feudal system (kingdom) towards socialism in post-ww2 Yugoslavia (led by communist party), almost overnight. In communist era, people worked (and studied) regardless of one's class, ethnicity or gender, so even my grandmother worked. Social state took care of everything to make it as smooth transition as possible and they implemented state-funded university education and healthcare, childcare, housing programs, numerous welfare programs, etc. State even funded one's long vacation trips in socialist Yugoslavia and everyone gladly enrolled in workforce.
In fact, it was the socialist states led by communism that even inspired and fully supported the civil rights movement in America during the 1960s. Gender equality and equal opportunity, abortion, ethnic/racial quotas and advancement programs, anti-segregation, strict separation of church and state and so on were common in socialist states led by communist governments, thus socialist states fully supported civil rights movement in America, but U.S. authorities made it illegal for any U.S. organization be funded by any state led by communist party. Communist parties even used the ways of behavior among Americans as a common ridiculing notion on how backwards, sexist and racist they are, so it's not surprising that so many civil rights movement leaders or their key people in USA were communist sympathizers and used already-existing models in socialism as their inspiration.
There's so much wrong here, I can't address it all.
But "modern" is not synonymous with "immodest" living. If you want to make a case for that, start your own thread, it could get interesting. The OP is discussing "modern" vs. "old-fashioned" as the difference between traditional stay-at-home moms vs. working women who would either a) choose to have children, but would continue working, or b) choose to not have children. That's what's being discussed in this thread. The morality of single women is not a topic here. But feel free to start your own thread.
50 years ago people were going to college "without a reason", meaning: many didn't know what field of study they wanted to concentrate on, and they were going to college simply because a basic college degree was considered to be an important part of education and important for employability. Nowadays, due to the high cost of education, students are feeling a lot of pressure to choose a field that will guarantee them a job. So in a way, the situation is the opposite of what you say. But...whatever.
Yeah, I know. Women in Eastern Europe had to work. In the West, middle-class and upper class women didn't, so staying home after getting an education, and being a home-maker and mother was considered "traditional". Hence "modern" is the opposite of that; a woman who works, and may or may not choose to have kids. That's what the OP is talking about.
Stay-at-home option isn't for lazy people. As often as not, the woman has a job that pays well. But when the couple decides to have children, they may (or may not) decide that one of the parents-to-be should stay home to care for the kids, at least until they're old enough to enter school. Usually it's the woman who chooses to stay home, but not always. It has nothing to do with being lazy.
I love how "modern" is code for horribly selfish person in this thread
They passed out the Explanation of Terms (Limited Special Definition Edition) at the beginning of the thread.
Don't feel bad, I didn't get one either.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I have some values/beliefs that might be considered "traditional" but I've never wanted that lifestyle. I'm not into a "career" either, unless you count my volunteer humanitarian work. I basically want to explore life & my interests. I don't want a house & kids, material security, etc. I want freedom & novelty & not too much routine or being bogged down with responsibilities.
On the other hand, I am somewhat conservative in my lifestyle (ie. no drugs, no casual sex) & am religious & prefer a more traditional, uh, "commitment" (aka, I'd like a monogamous, life-long marriage).
Being something of a free spirit with some traditional values is an odd combo, and likely one reason why I have trouble finding someone compatible.
All I want is a woman who likes to take care of kids and won't bone my friends.
Truth! I went with #1.
I want a big family. My grandmother is the oldest of nine kids. I don't think I want a wife to knock out that many (if she does, so be it), but the prime time to do that isn't at age 39. I only have a few siblings and cousins and only one uncle and two aunts. One of those aunts didn't even have kids. We were latchkey kids growing up. Dad worked one shift, mom worked the other. Nobody was around and it sucked. None of you cared about money when you were kids, either. I wouldn't want that for my kids. Babymamma can go load up the minivan when she's bored and take the kids shopping if I'm on a project. Such a tough life.
There is plenty of time to see the world. Not that it is all that different everywhere else, anyway.
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.
