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.
Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you just have a general problem with reading comprehension?
It's the easiest summation of what was said. If you've got to have "things" and not just "things" but "nice things", you're materialistic. If you've got to have out of state vacations, that's materialistic. Taking vacations out of the country--totally unnecessary. I believe in a simple lifestyle, no risk, no excitement--just the necessary things, like a roof over my head, food on my table, and just hopefully, someone to share that with. Why would I need anything more?
I quote:"Yes, if the stay-at-home spouse (and I assume you mean the wife from your other posts) doesn't go anywhere or desire anything. Many people in this thread talk about vacationing around the world, which certainly is not a buy-one-get-one-free deal. Other people talk about clothes, shoes, restaurants, and so on, all of which cost money."
No more than your ideal is the celebration of subjugating women.
How is it subjugation? She does those things that women do, I do the things that men do. I'm not trying to dominate the relationship, and she has plenty of freedom. In fact, I prefer to have her handle the SPENDING of the money--I really want nothing to do with it. I'm not interested in money, after all.
How is it subjugation? She does those things that women do, I do the things that men do. I'm not trying to dominate the relationship, and she has plenty of freedom. In fact, I prefer to have her handle the SPENDING of the money--I really want nothing to do with it. I'm not interested in money, after all.
Perhaps if you answered my earlier questions about what the point is for a childless woman to stay home, I would understand. As a mother of three, I know that when the children are away at grandma's, the house stays blissfully clean. Laundry is minimal. Cooking is a snap. I don't understand why she should stay home, if she makes enough money to pay for a maid. A maid for a childless couple could come once a week for less than $100, and working even part-time would cover that and leave money left over. The money doesn't have to be about shoes and vacations ... that job could pay for health benefits or just socking money away for retirement, or the couple could use the money for charitable purposes.
This is what I am asking you to explain to me. I don't believe that a stay-at-home-wife is subjugated; my own mother stays at home. I also don't believe that wanting to make money to lead a comfortable life is celebrating materialism or that there's anything wrong with people who want to see the world or have nicer things. You seem to think a woman's working will sacrifice something important, so please tell me what that is. Am I underestimating the amount of housework that needs to be done? Do you live somewhere that requires a lot of daily labor? Do working women take jobs away from men who need to support their families? I'm just asking.
It's the easiest summation of what was said. If you've got to have "things" and not just "things" but "nice things", you're materialistic.
If you've got to have out of state vacations, that's materialistic. Taking vacations out of the country--totally unnecessary. I believe in a simple lifestyle, no risk, no excitement--just the necessary things, like a roof over my head, food on my table, and just hopefully, someone to share that with. Why would I need anything more?
Simply having things, or wanting things, is not materialism.
Materialism is when things become more important than certain non-things (health, spirituality, relationships, etc.)
I don't have a problem with them as long as they don't vote. Because DINKs tend to have very strange notions about education, child raising, and taxes, as if the luxury of discretionary income somehow endows them with wisdom. My brother is one of those people. He's fifty, on his third wife, and somehow or another he thinks he understands the problems with education in this country, just because he subscribes to Harper's Magazine.
I don't have a problem with them as long as they don't vote. Because DINKs tend to have very strange notions about education, child raising, and taxes, as if the luxury of discretionary income somehow endows them with wisdom. My brother is one of those people. He's fifty, on his third wife, and somehow or another he thinks he understands the problems with education in this country, just because he subscribes to Harper's Magazine.
Not vote?! Oh, come on. Democracy is supposed to be about all of us. Your brother-in-law sounds like a pill, though.
Lol...don't vote.
Sorry, this country is founded on the principles of everyone getting to vote, no matter how ill-informed they are. Case in point...
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.
