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.
Sorry but most women can support themselves these days and don't need to be taken care of financially. If you only date women who don't work so that you can feel like a man taking care of them, I think the word for that is codependent.
One of the many ways the human relationship has gone downhill. Seems there are a lot of broken families too.
One of the many ways the human relationship has gone downhill. Seems there are a lot of broken families too.
You've come a long way, baby!
How has a woman's being able to be financially self sufficient caused human relationships to go downhill, and created broken families? I find that remark rather offensive.
There are MANY women, all over the world, who suffer abuse from their husbands, yet stay with them, b/c they can't afford to leave. No one, man nor woman, should HAVE to stay in any relationship, b/c they don't have the financial wherewithall to leave. Finally, women are able to support themselves, and don't HAVE to put up with anything they don't want to anymore. And THAT, is what makes a marriage/relationship more balanced.
If a man knows that his wife won't turn a blind eye to his cheating, his abuse, whatever, b/c she can get up and walk out the door and take care of herself, maybe he will respect her a little more, and not take advantage of her, and have an equal partner instead of someone who he can lord over.
The nuclear family was destroyed when women went to work.
A man who knows his responsibilities, and abides by them should not be marginalized like that. Once you remove his contribution, what use is he?
Nowadays, women have this attitude of "I don't NEED a man."...and then wonder why they don't HAVE one. If you have that viewpoint, I'm going to take it at face value, I'm not going to try to change your mind. You don't NEED me, so why should I stick around? What purpose do I serve?
My role in a relationship is to support her, through my work. If she also works, then what would she need me for--or even want me around for? Then, you have children who don't have ANY parent to turn to, because they're off working for a living.
Also, when women entered the workforce, it diluted the price of labor, the supply of laborers went up, and the price they could command went down.
Maybe the nuclear family was destroyed, b/c women HAD to work, b/c they were burdened by men who were NOT taking care of them, either financially, emotionally, whatever.
I chose to pursue a career, b/c I NEVER wanted to have to be in a position to HAVE to get married, to HAVE to rely on any man, should he die, cheat on me, abuse me, whatever. Not all marriages are good ones. And not all women get married. But EVERYONE needs to have money to survive. Unless you're Grizzly Adams, of course.
Btw, what do I "need" in a man? I can tell you - love, respect, a partner to enjoy life with, to have children with, to be a good role model for them, and yes, to financially provide for us and them too. Altho I could outearn my dh, we have opted to have me stay home with the kids while they are small, and that works for us.
But I don't "need" him just for his pocketbook. Why do you think that a man's only contribution is what he can financially provide his family? There is sooooooo much more that my dh gives to us, that I value more, than his paycheck.
Not all marriages are "bad" either. Yet if a man's doing what he's supposed to be doing, and not doing what he's NOT supposed to be doing--that won't necessarily the woman will be happy.
Of course. It goes both ways. Women can be bad wives too, just as men can be bad husbands. But, for men, they could walk away knowing they could take care of themselves, whereas women couldn't (if they are financially dependant). That is the difference.
Ok, so a man abuses his wife/kids, she has to leave....she is left with a bunch of little kids, no way to pay the bills, either has to move back with her family or live on welfare....that sounds like a BETTER option than her being able to go out and get a job to support herself and her kids?????? Wow.
Btw, how would you feel if the situation were reversed? You'd rather have a bunch of little kids that you have to support, without the means to do so, than to be able to get a job?
At least she would be HOME with her kids, being a parent to them.
Me--I don't want kids to begin with. So I can't see the situation happening. But if for some reason I was alone and had kids to take care of, I'd have them all put up for adoption and placed in foster care--so that they could have TWO parents. One to work, and one to care for them.
At least she would be HOME with her kids, being a parent to them.
Me--I don't want kids to begin with. So I can't see the situation happening. But if for some reason I was alone and had kids to take care of, I'd have them all put up for adoption and placed in foster care--so that they could have TWO parents. One to work, and one to care for them.
You did not just say this
I am speechless...
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.
