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's kind of a trick question, though. The reason why having a career, spouse, children, hobbies, etc. were so effortlessly possible for generations of men is that they had a wife (or a mother) at home taking care of things. It's easy to "have it all" when someone else is doing your laundry and you get to put your feet up while someone else is in the kitchen. When women are in more balanced relationships with partners who pull their wait, nobody has to be neurotic or messed up.
...and dying in the coal mines and numerous dangerous jobs (before technology made life easier) and wars and things like that, but we won't mention those kinds of things.
I consider my wife a strong dependent woman. she is not a doormat, but at the same time there is no way either of use would have gotten thought the past 30 years on our own. We may have survived on our own, but that would be about it. Survival, not living and certainly not successful/meaningful/pleasant living. Either one of us would be completely lost of we lost the other. That is what I think it takes to have a successful relationship. These "I am independent, I do not need you. I can do it on my own without the need for any kind of support whatsoever." type of relationships do not last. I do not know why anyone would want such a "relationship"
Independent doesn't mean austere. In fact, independent people are usually helpful. Couples get to define what's of value in the relationship for balance, not what's 50/50.
...and dying in the coal mines and numerous dangerous jobs (before technology made life easier) and wars and things like that, but we won't mention those kinds of things.
Before technology made things easier, many women died in childbirth. Something like of 5 to 10 women died for every 1000 childbirths in the 19th century, and women in that period had anywhere from about 3-8 children. In wars, through WWI, most people died of illnesses, not through any actual wounds from injuries. Obstetric care was very poor through the 1920s and most providers were not well trained in hygiene to make sure mother and baby were safe.
Before technology made things easier, many women died in childbirth. Something like of 5 to 10 women died for every 1000 childbirths in the 19th century, and women in that period had anywhere from about 3-8 children. In wars, through WWI, most people died of illnesses, not through any actual wounds from injuries. Obstetric care was very poor through the 1920s and most providers were not well trained in hygiene to make sure mother and baby were safe.
Good point. The concept of "germs" didn't exist until sometime into the 20th Century, IIRC. After that, the concept of hand-washing for doctors and nurses was "invented", and suddenly the incidence of illnesses borne by the hospital environment decreased tremendously.
Before technology made things easier, many women died in childbirth. Something like of 5 to 10 women died for every 1000 childbirths in the 19th century, and women in that period had anywhere from about 3-8 children. In wars, through WWI, most people died of illnesses, not through any actual wounds from injuries. Obstetric care was very poor through the 1920s and most providers were not well trained in hygiene to make sure mother and baby were safe.
That's a big reason that parents tried to prevent their daughters from having sex, but it gets twisted as if they were evil for it in some revisionist narrative that doesn't seem to take into account the real issues people faced back then; just evil men being meanies trying to control a woman's right to her body. I think it was much more involved than that or from any religious context, not to mention the strain on a family that an out-of-wedlock birth would produce, not just socially.
Not too sure why I even responded; not really my fight anymore, but to say men had it easy? It is something that I have heard for a long time - the "men kept women from freedom" ideology, and I don't think that's true the way it's often painted. Part of it was to keep women from dying unnecessarily for many different reasons. It would be bad prudence to send the females out on dangerous work assignments or not be mindful to prevent them from getting into situations to get pregnant early in life without the knowledge of how to handle it. People couldn't google the answers to life; they had to rely on their own instincts, family traditions and community.
Independent women are great, but we're in a transition right now that we haven't sauced out properly, and getting the wrong type isn't helpful. Future generations may figure it out, I suppose. The 2% (I made up that allocation out of thin air) of true high school sweethearts or original pairings where both people enjoy each other without putting it on for show are livin' large as far as I'm concerned. Any situation can be workable otherwise, but having to always have some magical balance where everyone is "happy" isn't realistic.
"I can bring home the bacon. Fry it up in a pan. And never never never let you forget you're a man. Cuz I'm a woooman, by Enjoli"
The attitude the totally screwed up a generation of women and made them miserable.
Women were told for years: "You can and should be a career professional, superwife/home manager, supermom, do all the things a man can do and do all those things well."
Except that is impossible. That is not a strong independent woman. that is a psychological mess with unrealistic and impossible to achieve self expectations. You can do one of those things well, tow of them mediocre or all of them inadequately. They each take 100% to do well. The bull**** about giving 3005 is just that bull****. there is only 100%. Result - a bunch of messed up neurotic women who feel like failures because they can never meet the absurd ideal of what they should be placed on them by society.
You are kind of right. Which is why more women than ever are deciding to not get married at all or are ending their marriages. They've kind of always wanted to do that, but now they are finally financially able to do so. Studies very clearly state that single women are much happier than their married counterparts.
You are kind of right. Which is why more women than ever are deciding to not get married at all or are ending their marriages. They've kind of always wanted to do that, but now they are finally financially able to do so. Studies very clearly state that single women are much happier than their married counterparts.
They may report that they are but I'm not buying it, at least based on women I know.
They may report that they are but I'm not buying it, at least based on women I know.
I think it's as I've always thought and said... It is better to be in a GOOD relationship, than it is to be single. But it's better to be single, than it is to be in a BAD relationship.
At least that's how I see it with women, and I think that what it means "a bad relationship" can be constant stress that destroys your health, an absurdly uneven workload, possible emotional, mental, financial, or physical abuse, not to mention that having children takes a possible toll on the bodies of many women that a lot of us never recover fully from. So to add insult to injury, if our relationship sucks, let's say eventually we manage to leave, but there were kids, we get to know that we traded what much of society considers our most valuable asset, our sexiness, our pristine youthful bodily appeal, away to raise the offspring of perhaps an abuser. Yeah, that's a real losing proposition right there.
What about men, though? What does a bad relationship look like for a guy? Well, he might work his butt off and be stuck with a lazy partner. Perhaps she yells at him. Maybe she spends his money, perhaps she's irresponsible. It is at least moderately possible that she is manipulative, emotionally or mentally abusive. What is VASTLY less likely, is serious physical violence, rape (which has only even been recognized as a thing in recent years,) bearing children against one's will, that's not gonna happen to a guy....
I think that one of the most common complaints of abuse I hear from men is, "She withheld sex." Which is (sorry, guys) a far cry from "he got drunk and beat the crap out of me and/or our kids." This is especially relevant, I think, when talking about historical times and previous generations. Let's see...in my parents' relationship, my father was physically violent to my Mom and me. In my maternal grandparents' marriage? Yep. In my paternal grandparents'? Yep. How about the four couples one generation up? Well, I don't know except for one, where the violence was so horrendous that my grandpa and his brother ran away as young teens and lived as hobos to escape a drunk, violent father.
Not only is DV not uncommon, in previous generations I think it was more common, more extreme, and more accepted by communities.
And I know which gender I see and hear complaining and hurting more about it, when they're alone. I don't know many men at all, who are legitimately happy as singles. I know a few who claim to be but in fact it's just a sour grapes mentality. They're upset about it, usually. I do however know a number of women who are believably happy as singles. However, a number of them are middle aged, with grown kids, and divorced. Or widowed. My Great Aunt, a treasured deceased relative of mine, was widowed I think in her early 60's and she lived alone as a single lady until she had to be put in a home at 85. She had NO use for another husband.
But an old fella who finds himself alone will often pine away for the comfort of female company, for someone to cook and clean for him and make him feel cared for. And of course for the one emotional support person he'd accept, as we've spoken of many times in various parts of the forum... My Great Aunt had plenty of friends. She didn't need a spouse simply to have someone with whom to discuss her feelings.
But an old fella who finds himself alone will often pine away for the comfort of female company, for someone to cook and clean for him and make him feel cared for.
There's a different generation of men out there; we are quite capable of cooking or cleaning (or hiring someone to do it for us). We marry later, if at all (and it sure isn't about someone to clean, lol); and most of us grew up with moms who worked and/or female friends and colleagues who are successful in the workplace. This is simply reducing relationships to outdated stereotypes; and while it may apply to men over 60, it doesn't apply to most of us. That said, women of that age group are often lonely and looking for companionship as well.
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.
