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.
Not at all, I like women who are well paid. The guys that cant handle it are usually big ego types. I make good money, but dont have a need to flaunt it. Ive dated a lawyer who made more, and it didnt bother me, and I dont think it came up between us. I've heard guys say that maybe i wasnt as much a man, if my woman brought home the bacon. My response was "more money, more toys. Beside I think your jealous that you cant land one".
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.
Only twisted men. If they feel this way, then they aren't Men. Being a Man isn't about exerting control or feeling superior. It's about owning up to your responsibility. It's about knowing what needs to be done and making sure it gets done. It's about looking after the people who look up to you. It's about using your strength for good. It's NEVER EVER about using anything for your own selfish gain. Being a man is about OTHER PEOPLE.
So a "man" who feels "emasculated" by a woman because her money threatens his power over her is actually not a real Man.
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.
Yes actually this should be discussed early on. But please understand that the extra income is still a yellow flag. Although it could easily be turned to green, as it was for you and your boyfriend.
I want to be clear that I don't feel emasculated by a woman making more money than me. But I do understand why some men might. I dated a girl who at age 24 was making a 6 figure income. Shoot, her annual bonus was 6 figures! Her making 6 times my income or more didn't enter into our relationship one time except the one time she felt overwhelmed by finances and I asked her when her payday was and when she realized that it was the next day she immediately calmed down. One paycheck solved all of her problems. Her finances didn't affect me or our relationship. And you know why? I knew that money wouldn't be an issue if our relationship continued. Other issues sure. But money wasn't one of them. She wanted to share her income with her husband and family. She didn't believe in separate bank accounts.
But if I dated a girl who made more money than me and she insisted that we would maintain separate bank accounts, our relationship wouldn't last much longer. Being the provider is important to me but I want to be an equal partner with my wife. If she wants to work, then it had better not be for her own selfish desires. She is sacrificing our family for her career. If that career doesn't go for the family then it's just selfishness.
That's another issue. If a man is expected to work all day and use the income to put food on the table and the woman is allowed to use her income as she sees fit, then her life is all about her and not about the family. Why is she married if she doesn't want to share her life?
Only twisted men. If they feel this way, then they aren't Men. Being a Man isn't about exerting control or feeling superior. It's about owning up to your responsibility. It's about knowing what needs to be done and making sure it gets done. It's about looking after the people who look up to you. It's about using your strength for good. It's NEVER EVER about using anything for your own selfish gain. Being a man is about OTHER PEOPLE.
So a "man" who feels "emasculated" by a woman because her money threatens his power over her is actually not a real Man.
Your posts don't really touch on reality, smartalx. I want to preface the following with 'some' because it's always 'some' and I don't like absolutes of 'all'. So, mentally insert some. Any way, for one, there are millions of men that do not provide. They dispense and move on. Two, women have always provided for their families. Always. They have always worked in and out of the home. This providing business has about as much merit as playing make believe as a child. So, lets leave the 1950's spam commercials and get with reality.
Since we (the western population) no longer need to bust our arses on the homestead, the work has moved elsewhere. That's it. Most people work, always have. What's different now, and at the heart of this issue imo, is that the value of various work, value determined by society via the dollar, is blurred IRT gender. And those men that take issue with their wives work having greater value to society via the dollar are indeed chauvinistic.
Care to address my other points? What about the question I asked about a man being a homemaker? Be honest. ONE person has to have the option to be a stay at home parent. The other person can NOT have that option. I'm not talking about 40 year old single people hoping to find marriage. Both of them already have enough income to provide for a family. I'm talking about 20 year old single people hoping to find marriage. Who among them should have the option? The man or the woman?
Despite feminism, women still expect certain things today. They expect to be treated special. And they expect to have the option to stay at home when necessary. Both of those are traditional in nature and fly in the face of "equality" but postmodern independent liberated women STILL REQUIRE THEM. For them to receive those old fashioned wishes men must then still do old fashioned things: lead and provide.
Care to address my other points? What about the question I asked about a man being a homemaker? Be honest. ONE person has to have the option to be a stay at home parent.
Back in reality, most people do not have the option of being a homemaker. Even if it's the case, the fact that men would be viewed as lesser than (by some) for being a homemaker supports my argument. It's fine with these men if she's a homemaker. It's fine with these men if she's working p/t for a low wage at the local dept. store. As long as his work has greater value in the eye's of society he's fine.
Quote:
The other person can NOT have that option. I'm not talking about 40 year old single people hoping to find marriage. Both of them already have enough income to provide for a family. I'm talking about 20 year old single people hoping to find marriage. Who among them should have the option? The man or the woman?
Unless one or the other has a great yearning to home school the kids and be the primary caretaker, whoever has greater earning potential. Frankly, I think it would be silly for a couple to elect the guy to work if his earning potential is only 50-60k when hers is closer to 6 figures, providing they're not living on a commune, intend to farm, etc. Let him get a p/t job and care for the brood F/T and she work outside F/T and care for the brood p/t. I don't think that's even an option for most people.
Quote:
Despite feminism, women still expect certain things today. They expect to be treated special. And they expect to have the option to stay at home when necessary. Both of those are traditional in nature but postmodern independent liberated women STILL REQUIRE THEM. For them to receive those old fashioned wishes men must then still do old fashioned things: lead and provide.
I think it's foolish for anyone to have such expectations. How you can even make that statement in the recession we're in is beyond me. A lot of men are out of work. They're in trouble. Reality doesn't leave much room for pretend play. It doesn't pay the bills, put food on the table, etc. I also don't agree with the generalizations about women here. Of course people expect to be treated special. That's gender neutral. I suspect you will find more traditional attitudes from some women and not so much in others.
Any way, to repeat, in the end I do believe it's a matter of work value and there is no where else this leads, but chauvinism, despite who is making the statement (male or female).
Only twisted men. If they feel this way, then they aren't Men. Being a Man isn't about exerting control or feeling superior. It's about owning up to your responsibility. It's about knowing what needs to be done and making sure it gets done. It's about looking after the people who look up to you. It's about using your strength for good. It's NEVER EVER about using anything for your own selfish gain. Being a man is about OTHER PEOPLE.
So a "man" who feels "emasculated" by a woman because her money threatens his power over her is actually not a real Man.
Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds?
Yes, man...in your world...is benevolent dictator.
Do you suppose age has something to do with it? Not because of maturity but because of income. Most people who get married are in their 20s or 30s. Their income isn't as much as people in their 40s. People in their 40s income doesn't matter as much because both of you probably make enough money to provide for a family. It's easy to say "you are chauvinistic" when both of you make so much money the only difference between the two incomes is who can buy the best toys. I would hazard a guess that those who are arguing against me are in their late 30s or higher and have forgotten how difficult it can be to make ends meet with one income. Oh you remember those days. But you don't REMEMBER. You don't put your mind in the same state it was back then. Try to think back when you were among the primary marrying age and really ask yourself if you had gone on a first date and the guy said he wanted to be a homemaker, would there be a second date?
If you say yes, you are deceiving yourself. You and I both know that men are expected to work while women are given the option to work.
Do you have any idea how condescending that sounds?
YOU ask a woman what it means to be a Man. Ask her if those things I mention describe a real man. Do they describe a woman? In a secondary sort of way but a woman primary character is not determined take charge no holds barred seize life sort if person. Her primary character is gentle, friendly, adoring, inspiring, nurturing.
Quote:
Yes, man...in your world...is benevolent dictator.
Don't insult me. I said that the man isn't overlord. You all are arguing with a figment of your imagination. I'm not the person you think I am and you are ignoring my main points and you are assuming that I am this sort of person who feels the way you say you hate.
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.
