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.
That is not true AT ALLL. Do you know what emasculation means? It means to remove manhood. Manhood is a strong, take charge, provider who cares for his family and keeps them safe. Emasculation minimizes the importance of that instinct or drive within men. It's insulting to tell a man that he shouldn't be a man.
This issue is about a woman NOT exerting control over her man. Men are used to paying for everything. The more, what you would call, "chauvinistic" a man is, the more likely he is to pay for the date. But it's not about exerting control. The woman he is wooing is special to him. He wants to entice her, to win her. Not to trap her into servitude, but to give him someone to cherish all if his life.
Men are used to paying. We are born as natural providers. We LIKE taking care of our ladies. We LIKE being the provider. It goes along with what it means to be a man. A woman who makes more money is a wildcard. You don't know if she is going to keep the money for herself and use it to exert control over you or if she wants to be an equal partner in life.
THAT is the root if why it's emmasculating. Take it from a guy who feels it. You don't feel it so you don't understand.
Answer me thus question: do you believe married couples should have a joint account? Should they merge their income? If they have seperate bank accounts, then they can't be equal. The reason they won't share is because they feel an imbalance. You can't have imbalance and be equal. You just can't. So two equal spouses MUST join their lives, including the finances.
Touche. Nothing chauvinist about it. It's as simple as saying a man is not wired or biologically programmed to give birth. I bet no country wants to put 80% of its fighting army female. There's no chauvinism there, it goes down to Biology.
I don't think I would be attracted to a woman in a high intensity career...but...if she made more money than me, what do I care? My self esteem and self worth aren't tied to my salary.
If she tried to control me with money...no go.
When I say high intensity, I really only mean that I like women that are into fields where they help others. Ex: Nurses, teachers, philanthropists, therapists.
Because at the end of the day, to traditionalists -- especially chauvinistic traditionalists -- the money is about having power over someone. Other women earning more is only threatening in the abstract, is only threatening to the power of men in general having power over women in general. It's more removed and, hence, less threatening (and, of course, not subject to the control of one person)
But when it comes to a specific person, the chauvinist seeks to assert power over the woman in any way possible and money is an integral part of that.
That is why the chauvinist finds it so "emasculating" -- because he feels a sense of power associated with earning more than her, and conversely he feels threatened if she earns more than he does. Instead of viewing the relationship as a psycho-social partnership, the chauvinist sees it ultimately as a power arrangement over which he must assert authority or else his masculinity is threatened.
It is, at its core, about an insecure man feeling threatened. It's rather common in poor, traditionalistic cultures where there is less emphasis upon individualism and family bonds are often unhealthily too close. Such societies often produce an abdunace of emotionally stunted men.
That's good. You are a good wife. There does remain a question though, when a boy meets a girl who makes more than him. "Is she going to lord her money over me? I know I wouldn't because I exercise the fact that I don't lord my money over her every time we go out on a date. But when the time comes to join lives, how far is she going to be willing to go? Right now her money is hers. What about after the wedding?"
I would hope that's a point of discussion long before you get to "I do"!
When my husband and I started talking about marriage as a possibility, we talked about the role of family (would we take care of parents? Did we want children?), finances (how money would be shared, if both spouses would always work, what type of financial goals we had), and future ambitions (career goals, where we wanted to live, travel, retirement, etc).
How do you "exercise the fact that you don't lord money" on dates? By paying? That's not really proof that when you get married you won't control it. How does she know that if she wants to buy a car, you won't say, "Sorry, you need to pay for that with your own money."
That's good. You are a good wife. There does remain a question though, when a boy meets a girl who makes more than him. "Is she going to lord her money over me? I know I wouldn't because I exercise the fact that I don't lord my money over her every time we go out on a date. But when the time comes to join lives, how far is she going to be willing to go? Right now her money is hers. What about after the wedding?"
You just said it wasn't about power and then go on to say in this post and previous that it's about power.
Make up your mind.
If 'being a man' means you have to provide for your family, how come 2 incomes isn't emasculating until she earns more?
I think the root of this comes from the fact that deep down, most men still see themselves as superior to women and when a woman accomplishes more or lifts more or makes more money, etc, etc, it's threatening and makes him feel like less of a man, especially when he has to deal with her in close proximity, like a spouse/gf.
I would hope that's a point of discussion long before you get to "I do"!
Sure, but do I want to give my heart to someone (looooooong before the possibility of marriage ever enters the picture) only to find out that she's not the kind of person to share her income? The large income is at least a caution flag... telling you to hold off on falling in love until you find out that she is a romantic who wants to really share her life with a man. This is ESPECIALLY important today because there are sooo very many materialistic individualistic unromantic people who only want a roommate with benefits sort of marriage.
Quote:
How do you "exercise the fact that you don't lord money" on dates? By paying?
No. By paying and not expect anything in return, except for the right to treat her right.
Quote:
That's not really proof that when you get married you won't control it.
I just nullified this statement.
Quote:
How does she know that if she wants to buy a car, you won't say, "Sorry, you need to pay for that with your own money."
Because you have proven already that your desire is to be the provider. And you communicate in words and in actions that you want every aspect of your lives to be intertwined.
And really all of this (The original OP) isn't about the girl's feelings or worries. It's about the guy's feelings... what goes on in his head. The fact that HE FEELS emasculated. Because all of this is going on in his head, HE KNOWS that he is not going to lord his money over her. But he doesn't know if she won't.
Just ask her, then! "What do you think about finances in marriage?" My husband and I talked about that within a month of starting to date. We talked about relationships that we admired and looked up to, and we both mentioned our parents, because everything was shared and equal.
It was pretty obvious what the answer was going to be with regards to finance--we never kept track of who owed whom what. He'd pay for dinner, I'd drop off groceries at his house, he'd drive on our vacations and pay for gas, I'd buy the plane tickets. We never kept track. I'd have been very nervous to date a guy who never let me pay for anything, or who kept track of who paid for dinner last.
I think the root of this comes from the fact that deep down, most men still see themselves as superior to women and when a woman accomplishes more or lifts more or makes more money, etc, etc, it's threatening and makes him feel like less of a man, especially when he has to deal with her in close proximity, like a spouse/gf.
Spot on. I don't know if it's most, but certainly some.
You just said it wasn't about power and then go on to say in this post and previous that it's about power.
Make up your mind.
Try to keep up...
The guy knows he isn't going to use his money for power because his desire is to be the provider, not overlord (besides in this scenario, he has less money so he CAN'T use his money for power).
But...
he knows that money can be used for power. He knows that he won't use it for power, but he doesn't know that she won't.
Men and women are different. Men are providers. Whether it's instinctual or it's learned by thousands of years of social conditioning is immaterial. Men have always been the providers and we still are the providers and most men (who are not emotionally damaged) step up to the plate and actually DESIRE to give their money away to their wives and family. It takes strength to do what's right. It takes a man to be a provider. All men want to be a man.
Women on the other hand do not have this history of being the provider. Can women be providers? Maybe. They are when they have to be, like in the case of being a single mother. But they aren't brought up from birth to think of themselves as the provider for the family. Men are.
If all of this seems a bit "old fashioned" to you, answer this question. And I want you to be REALLY HONEST with yourself. Really think about it because your initial reaction might be to say one thing because you feel that's the way it's SUPPOSED TO BE, but in reality I think you know it to be the opposite. Ok, the question: if you were on a first date with a girl and she asked your plans for the future and you replied,
"I want to be a househusband and stay at home with the kids while my wife works all day"
how would that be received?
Not well
Now reverse the roles. It wouldn't matter one bit if a girl said to her date that she wanted to be a homemaker. In fact if she wants to stay at home with the kids, more guys are more likely to LIKE IT! He knows that her priorities are for OTHER PEOPLE and not for herself. He wants a woman who puts her family first and a girl who wants to be a homemaker wants to do that.
See, when you said you wanted to be a homemaker you just told your date that if you marry she is going to be the one who works.
See? Men and women ARE different. Only ONE person can decide to be the homemaker. The other person has to accept the role as provider. Women EXPECT to have the OPTION to stay at home (at least after giving birth) or to have a career. For that to happen men MUST NOT have the option. We HAVE to work.
In today's world it's ok if a woman wants to work or to be a homemaker. It's NOT ok for a man to be a homemaker though. He would be considered lazy. A woman has a choice. But for her to have that choice the man can not. Talk about double standards. But we accept it. In fact most men WANT to be the provider. It's part of what being a man is all about.
And yes, I saw Mr. Mom. It was a celebration of homemakers, not of men being homemakers. It was more, "if you as a man wore my shoes you would see how hard it is to be a homemaker." The movie would have been just as relevant in the 50s.
Last edited by smartalx; 05-29-2010 at 12:30 PM..
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.
*
