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.
I think a guy doesnt have to be completely broke, he has to eat so obviously he must have some kind of income.
But there are so many things you can do that are free, who needs money to have a good time? Walk in a park. Have a picnic lunch. Go walking around at a cemetery and see if you can find the oldest person (heck my kids and I used to do that!), read a good book to the other. Sit at the table in your own kitchen and enjoy some coffee together. Play a card game or an easy table game. Money isnt what makes a person, its whats inside that person.
If he wasnt even trying to find work, or was a mamas boy, or a mooch, that might be different. Just my 2c.
"He simply pointed out men typically transferred wealth to women which is absolutely true to this day. He implied that perhaps women may want to do the same as an example of equality."
Women doing the same? Are you sure? It is clear that TK feels women should not be in the workforce and should take their appropriate roles in the home. That is his argument. That is the exchange he would like to see from women. What I suspect is that you are not very familiar with his arguments (generally) and you stepped in it. At this point, it's all cherry picking.
I'm basing it on several posts, but post # 527 will do.
"Obviously he is looking for some kind of equitable expectation. This thread is asking : May a man of little means entertain the affections of a women?"
If not, then does the standard apply to women? It appears to me that he is suggesting women give aid to men just as men have done for women.
I take issue with this argument because if TK does not believe women should be in the workforce, giving financial aid, which is what I believe you are referring to, is a request for aid while being subjugated. I realize you do not agree with him, but you have been arguing his points. Although, a lesson can be learned here. Make your own arguments. If you want to make somebody else's arguments, if you want to speak for or defend them, be sure you fully understand their position.
As much as I hate to get in the middle of someone else's discussion, I feel even more strongly about being quoted out of context.
Let me make my position clearer. I feel it is my responsibility, as a man, to provide financially for the woman in my life--and if we HAD kids, which I wouldn't want--to provide for them as well. It is her responsibility to take care of the home and family.
I am seeking someone, in other words, who has capabilities that I DO NOT HAVE...so as to complement the skills I DO have. I would never suggest that a woman who does NOT have a job is unintelligent. I might say she is not as intelligent as ME--but it wouldn't matter if she had a job or not. It wouldn't matter because I'm more intelligent than 99% of the people out there, according to percentile rankings. Thus, it is likely that I will be the more intelligent of the two people in ANY interaction I have. Anyway, it seems to me that, in the past, I have read people commenting that a woman without a job must be stupid. I disagree.
Also, I don't feel a need to subjugate someone. That would be much too much work, as well as not showing them the proper respect (putting her on a pedestal). I want someone who cheerfully and willfully WANTS to do those things, someone who PREFERS to cook, for example. Heck, I also want her to handle the budget, and any interpersonal interactions with other people. If we're in the car, and she feels sick or tired, I could take the wheel--I do have a valid D.L. until November, when it needs to get renewed. But I'd rather not do so if she's willing to drive. I don't like driving.
My post about women taking care of the men "for a change" was meant to be sarcastic. Obviously, we'll NEVER see that happen. Because women who want to be "equal" still want "special treatment". I guess that's "separate but equal". I think it would be difficult to treat someone like a woman when she wants to act like a man. I think it's worse though, when she acts like she's "one of the boys" and then gets offended at something I'd say either TO them to tease them a bit, or to share with them (as in jokes). You know, the kinds you're not supposed to repeat in "mixed company".
Anyway, the point is still valid. If it is okay for men to pay for a woman's dinner, to buy her cigarettes, to make sure she has a roof over her head and food on her table...then why can't a woman do the same for a man? Since we're dealing with the reality that there ARE women in the workforce, why can't the man just stay home to take care of your home while you supported him? That way, the job gets done RIGHT, because he doesn't have to divide his attention to things to be done at work, and things to be done at home. He could just concentrate on ONE...and put forth his best efforts towards that one thing.
Last edited by TKramar; 09-04-2009 at 09:17 AM..
Reason: Whew! THIS is my edit, sorry about the long post. I usually make them more concise!
I see that this thread has morphed into a different life of its own.
IMO:
The "SYSTEM" is very very broken.
A long time ago there was Marriage / Relationships 1.0 when the Man and Woman worked and behaved as a UNIT and each knew their place, a well oiled and in-sync machine if you will.
Fast forward to once feminism started to exist and put into practice:
The same now has 50% of the unit that has decided to function totally different in various ways (more than one can count) than was designed, like a machine that contains 2 parts with one of them way out of tolerance. Also that same 50% tries to justify it all as still being the same "part" when it's really not the same "part" than it used to be but tries to sell it as such.
Welcome to Marriage / Relationships 2.0 = the "" reality.
A long time ago there was Marriage / Relationships 1.0 when the Man and Woman worked and behaved as a UNIT and each knew their place, a well oiled and in-sync machine if you will.
Yes, once upon a time, there was peace, and roses bloomed, and everyone loved each other, and marriages founded on nothing but duress masquerading as "duty" and subjugation masquerading as "knowing her place" were nothing if not blissful. A real Paradise. Which, of course, begs the question why, if things were so wonderful, so many people wanted to change it. Oh, right, because feminists are stupid and evil and f- Paradise, that's why.
Marital wisdom from the Good Old Days: Qui aime bien, châtie bien.
Do you really believe it is women that are selling this? Women are buying it. Fashion designers are predominately male. The better question is why do American men* prefer women that look like little boys?
Hi Braunwyn,
I wish I had time to go though the whole post unfortunately I am working as well. So I can only address so much. In another thread I explained it was women and homosexual men who run the fashion industry. It is not, I repeat, not men who want women to look like boys. This is the very essence I what I am saying.
I addressed it in these posts about confused sexual identities.
because feminists are stupid and evil and f- Paradise, that's why.
To a good extent YES.
Look at the disarray now.
Some Men accept it and more than some don't and from them a percentage still interact and or get married. Now we have a high divorce rate and the rest - yeah, real paradise.
Ha! You called it "subjugation"...but it can't be subjugation if you're doing what you wanted to do anyhow. Maybe the women were subjugating the men by "forcing" them to work? No, that was the man's proper role, as he understood it. It was a way to demonstrate his LOVE for his spouse. He didn't have to SAY anything--his actions made it clear enough.
And in appreciation, she did the things that he really didn't have time for, what with him working at least one full time job, if not two.
Do you really believe it is women that are selling this? Women are buying it. Fashion designers are predominately male. The better question is why do American men* prefer women that look like little boys?
Okay - this is so off topic, but I do have to comment on this. As someone who has worked as a fashion designer in fashion industry in NY for 10 long years, I can say that this is completely incorrect. Fashion is ran by women predominantly as well as a percentage of gay men who understand a woman's taste even more then women themselves. Just wanted to point out.
Moving on.
Yes, once upon a time, there was peace, and roses bloomed, and everyone loved each other, and marriages founded on nothing but duress masquerading as "duty" and subjugation masquerading as "knowing her place" were nothing if not blissful. A real Paradise. Which, of course, begs the question why, if things were so wonderful, so many people wanted to change it. Oh, right, because feminists are stupid and evil and f- Paradise, that's why.
Marital wisdom from the Good Old Days: Qui aime bien, châtie bien.
Hi Redisca,
Women are justified to feel insecurity on depending on men for income. A women may destroy her career for the sake of a man and then be left penniless. This was especially toxic in the 70s when men would divorce women, and then buy a corvette. What scum. If men do want women to give it all up then I do suggest they find some means to assuage this fear. This certainly has been corrected to some extent since the 70s. However yes its a big blind spot for the modern man. They don't get it.
However a women's "place" was dictated by nature, not men. Societies that placed their women in peril were dead. That is why they were not placed at the frontier or in war or in any other hazardous condition. See Alaska's population distribution to this day. 20-30% mortality rates among men easily carry on by semi-polygamous behaviour. If it happens to the child bearing women, the next generation was decimated. Women are the reproductive bottle neck. If a feminist does not know this, they are stupid. Since I do not subscribe to the British school of Locke, Hume, and Berkeley, I don't believe in a complete mind wipe for a new generation where some of the old pressures do not apply.
Okay - this is so off topic, but I do have to comment on this. As someone who has worked as a fashion designer in fashion industry in NY for 10 long years, I can say that this is completely incorrect. Fashion is ran by women predominantly as well as a percentage of gay men who understand a woman's taste even more then women themselves. Just wanted to point out.
Moving on.
Hi max's mama,
Not for the sake of heterosexual men. Do people read the posts or not? I said the fashion industry is run for the sake of people that like androgynous boyish looking women which are WOMEN and homosexual men(for them and by them). I am yet again corrected by rephrasing what I just said. Women who think that they will attract men sourcing that industry are clueless. If they are tying to impress other women, they are doing exactly what they should be doing in the fashion industry.
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.
" reality.
