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 dislike the "commerce" aspect of dating and marriage, personally. However, if a woman wants to have children one day -- and most do -- chances are excellent that the guy is going to have to make serious bank to take care of her and the kids, especially as more and more women buy into the "attachment theory" of parenting (and hence, don't want to work). The man also has to pony up for the big house, the car, the vacations ... essentially, he has to make a quality life for three or four. I personally know women who passed by men they really loved for more wealthier men they were only fond of for this very reason.
This is extremely depressing. Do a lot of women seriously embrace this "parasitic" mindset? This would make me want to never be with another woman again if this is the case. This is repulsive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa78703
I'm childfree, so I approach relationships from a more egalitarian perspective. There should never be a reason for me not to contribute to the relationship/marriage financially unless I fell seriously ill and was physically unable to work. I take great pride in my career, and being able to support myself doing something that I totally love. What I've found is that a lot of free-thinking men are still a little threatened by the thought of a woman who can pack up and leave him because she has the means.
How old are these men? 50+? It sounds like a very backwards, traditional mindset.
This is extremely depressing. Do a lot of women seriously embrace this "parasitic" mindset? This would make me want to never be with another woman again if this is the case. This is repulsive.
I'm sure there are women like this out there but I don't know if it is "a lot" of women. This was never common in my circle of friends, that I know of. My closest friends definitely are not like this. Remember that one post on CD does not represent an entire gender.
re-read my post hommie, i was talking about younger women and older men. i get it that your one of those pro-feminist men, so no surprise you won't agree with some of my thoughts on culture, particularly male identity, masculinity and men mentoring. but try this as food for thought. SMV is now being widely discussed on the web too.
The chart you posted is deceptive because it's not scaled correctly.
While it is true that the average peak of attractiveness for a guy is in his 30s and the average peak for women is in their 20s, the fact is that the average guy's peak is still miles away from giving him as many options as the average woman has at her peak of attractiveness. The average woman has 10x as many dating options over the course of her lifetime as does the average man. A minute percentage of men ever have a period in life where they can get the women they're attracted to.
This is extremely depressing. Do a lot of women seriously embrace this "parasitic" mindset? This would make me want to never be with another woman again if this is the case. This is repulsive.
How old are these men? 50+? It sounds like a very backwards, traditional mindset.
It's more common than you'd think. But even with women who intend to keep their jobs/careers, if the couple wants kids, the women will have to be at home for the first 2-3 years, to care for the baby/toddler (unless she makes enough to hire a nanny). If there's a second one, that's another 2-3 years. So it means the guy will have to carry the expenses for everyone for about 6 years, unless they've both saved in advance for that period of her down time. It's a practical matter, it's not about what she can get out of the guy. And I don't think a lot of women have such high expectations as was stated earlier, "The big house, the vacations". To the contrary, I've been surprised at how many women are fine with taking camping vacations while raising kids. And in some parts of the country, couples feel lucky to be able to afford a townhouse with an extra bedroom. Expectations are being downsized.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,101,999 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
It's more common than you'd think. But even with women who intend to keep their jobs/careers, if the couple wants kids, the women will have to be at home for the first 2-3 years, to care for the baby/toddler (unless she makes enough to hire a nanny). If there's a second one, that's another 2-3 years.
Where are these women? Ever woman I've known that has had kids (more than a few), they are on the edge of going insane after a couple of months home and biting at the bit to get back to their careers. They almost lose it not working. Even with the ones in careers where they don't earn overly much, they're more than happy taking a wash financially paying the infant child care costs of an expensive place like SF or Boston, just to get back to work and their careers back on track.
Where are these women? Ever woman I've known that has had kids (more than a few), they are on the edge of going insane after a couple of months home and biting at the bit to get back to their careers. They almost lose it not working. Even with the ones in careers where they don't earn overly much, they're more than happy taking a wash financially paying the infant child care costs of an expensive place like SF or Boston, just to get back to work and their careers back on track.
These women are everywhere. Where are these places that offer daycare to newborns and 1-year-olds? Most couples can't afford that, even if the option existed. Most people aren't in tech or other lucrative careers.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,101,999 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
These women are everywhere. Where are these places that offer daycare to newborns and 1-year-olds? Most couples can't afford that, even if the option existed. Most people aren't in tech or other lucrative careers.
I haven't looked into it myself, but they're there, because people use them. Just a google search quickly for my area shows several places starting at 4 weeks. Just the first one on google show 17 locations in my region (a place called Little Sprouts, but there seems to be many of these places).
And I'm not talking about lucrative careers. I specifically pointed out that many of these people are at financially a wash, but for mental health reasons they want to get back to work. And in the long run their careers will be better off not talking time away from the workplace too. Yeah, they often spend more on childcare than rent, but sanity is important! And keeping one's career on track is critical; and a short term loss is often worth it for long term gain.
Where are these women? Ever woman I've known that has had kids (more than a few), they are on the edge of going insane after a couple of months home and biting at the bit to get back to their careers. They almost lose it not working. Even with the ones in careers where they don't earn overly much, they're more than happy taking a wash financially paying the infant child care costs of an expensive place like SF or Boston, just to get back to work and their careers back on track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
These women are everywhere. Where are these places that offer daycare to newborns and 1-year-olds? Most couples can't afford that, even if the option existed. Most people aren't in tech or other lucrative careers.
Most women I have known take 3 mo. tops, actually most get about 6 weeks but we had one who took 6 months with the first due to PPD. Not a lot of women can afford 2-3 years. They would lose their job. The Family leave act as far as I know only covers 12 weeks for maternity leave.
Most all private daycare in my area provide services for newborns on up to school age and some after school care. It is expensive but there is gov. assistance available for those that qualify.
I know a few stay at home parents (mostly women, one man). They are the spouses of people I work with, neighbors, or friends. The vast majority are neighbors though. They keep themselves busy with volunteering, social groups, classes for the kids, and such it would seem and the ones with school-aged children seem to volunteer at the schools. some even work part-time from home. When the kids get older, most seem to go back to work.
I worked with a lady for a while who was out of the workplace for several years--until all of her kids were old enough to come home from school and take care of themselves because paying daycare for three children would cost more than what she earned. She was really behind on things, mostly technology and I know this because I was training her. She was a nice woman, but it was frustrating having to explain the simplest things. So the poster above me is right in that careers will be better off if women didn't take off so long. It's too bad something can't be done to make child care more affordable (without raising taxes).
I should note that I live in a well-to-do area with great schools and I sometimes wonder if the quality of the schools is directly linked to the availability of stay-at-home-parents to volunteer.
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.
