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.
The OP simply asked women if they would be ok with a stay at home dad, and it has now devolved into Team Egalitarian relationship vs. Team Traditional Relationship. Neither is better people, I thought in this day and age it was all about choice without judgment.
Well, when talking about individual people, I certainly don't maintain judgement. Anyone can choose whatever they like. But I would disagree, actually, that neither is "better" from a purely practical standpoint, as the team traditional seems to be expressing what that means.
Quote:
Just because a person might prefer traditional relationships (with a male "lead") doesn't mean they want to be treated like property.
It may, and often does, mean that woman follower is hosed when the proverbial ***** hits the fan as incapable of earning an adequate living after having no employment record of skill. Should a man become sick or disabled, he is then burdened by both the illness or disability and his failure in the role of "man" and provider. Seems like setting oneself up for heartache and is not actually all that loving, as such.
Over the years, both my husband and I have taken on the role of main or sole provider as well as main child care provider. It was really nice for both of us to be practical enough to able to do that. Had we such intractable opinions of gender, it would have been a lot harder.
Well, when talking about individual people, I certainly don't maintain judgement. Anyone can choose whatever they like. But I would disagree, actually, that neither is "better" from a purely practical standpoint, as the team traditional seems to be expressing what that means.
It may, and often does, mean that woman follower is hosed when the proverbial ***** hits the fan as incapable of earning an adequate living after having no employment record of skill. Should a man become sick or disabled, he is then burdened by both the illness or disability and his failure in the role of "man" and provider. Seems like setting oneself up for heartache and is not actually all that loving, as such.
Over the years, both my husband and I have taken on the role of main or sole provider as well as main child care provider. It was really nice for both of us to be practical enough to able to do that. Had we such intractable opinions of gender, it would have been a lot harder.
We will have to agree to disagree than especially on the bolded, whether you think you are judging some else's relationship or not, I'm telling you that you certainly are when you try to say that your way is better. It's definitely not to anyone other than yourself.
Yes, I definitely prefer my man to the lead. It has absolutely nothing to do with being weak or 2nd class, it's the way want it. Guess what, I work (I just got back actually)! He works, we both do. I don't want some guy, who doesn't know how to take the lead, or protect the family or make tough decisions (when no census can be reached). I want a man who knows how to be the head of his/our household (It's got HIS name on it). From a practical standpoint...PRACTICAL... you can't have TWO kings in a kingdom, you can't have TWO POTUS commander-in-chiefs... or TWO Chief CEOs.... Only one. One ... Somebodynew. Let me ask you, what if you two can't agree on a particular problem and there is NO way to compromise? WHO will decide, you? Him? What's the practical answer when it's going to be one way or the other? Some body, "egalitarian" or not, is going to have to step up make a call. It's not practical to keep trying to one up each other to see who is going to have it their way.
I digress.... NO your way is absolutely NOT better. Only for you. I know many here agree with your view that's great for them... I mean we can all argue about this to a 300 thread... But in this day and age of "choice" I like mine better. A lot better. But, that doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion or your POV, I do.
We will have to agree to disagree than especially on the bolded, whether you think you are judging some else's relationship or not, I'm telling you that you certainly are when you try to say that your way is better. It's definitely not to anyone other than yourself.
Ok. Feel free. I did say "from a purely practical standpoint". I am judging the practicality of the choice. But you should feel free to "feel" however you like.
Quote:
Yes, I definitely prefer my man to the lead. It has absolutely nothing to do with being weak or 2nd class,
Interestingly, I never said it did. So I am not sure why you are replying that to my post. Cheers.
ETA: I hope you don't find yourself in the position my grandmother did when her husband died at 50. And that is sincere.
Ok. Feel free. I did say "from a purely practical standpoint". I am judging the practicality of the choice. But you should feel free to "feel" however you like.
Interestingly, I never said it did. So I am not sure why you are replying that to my post. Cheers.
Because that is the view that some have. That's why I keep seeing references to "property" here. To people who have a biblical/traditional view, (I know many don't, that's cool) that's like taking a shot at women who prefer these types of relationships, and I'm not property. I saw another quote from a poster that said Katiethegreat had a "cowardice" view.
Anyway, I digress again... I respect everybody's view as long as it doesn't impede on my own. Cheers to you as well
And SAHD/M are fine with me...that work is harder than a lot of ppl truly know.
Because that is the view that some have. That's why I keep seeing references to "property" here.
Yah because that is the historical context of women in marriage. They were property and came with property in the form of dowry.
Quote:
To people who have a biblical/traditional view, (I know many don't, that's cool) that's like taking a shot at women who prefer these types of relationships, and I'm not property.
I don't see a single solitary person saying you are. I am thinking there may be either a reading comprehension issue or a massive sense of defensiveness.
Quote:
I saw another quote from a poster that said Katiethegreat had a "cowardice" view.
Anyway, I digress again... I respect everybody's view as long as it doesn't impede on my own. Cheers to you as well
Yah because that is the historical context of women in marriage. They were property and came with property in the form of dowry.
I don't see a single solitary person saying you are. I am thinking there may be either a reading comprehension issue or a massive sense of defensiveness.
Rock your view.
Gurrrl, we were good for a second and then you had to go there... Smh. No honey I can read, I know what I read and I'm not going to call that particular person out because I have no beef with them. You should read the thread again carefully.
Yeah ppl, tend to "defend" themselves when somebody tells them that their own view is better than theirs. I know I read that.
We will have to agree to disagree than especially on the bolded, whether you think you are judging some else's relationship or not, I'm telling you that you certainly are when you try to say that your way is better. It's definitely not to anyone other than yourself.
Other people's relationship dynamics are of no real concern to me. I'm not going to get bent because other couples do things differently, nor do I feel the need to make sweeping pronouncements about the intrinsic goodness of my preferred relationship dynamic, for other people. Again, what I do and what works for me isn't an absolute for everyone else.
The thing that somebody's addressing or challenging is the notion that "traditional" (however it's defined since there are multiple ways to define it) is not and should not be a universal model, as previously implied upthread. I can say, "X relationship dynamic wouldn't work for me," but I wouldn't say "X relationship dynamic shouldn't exist at all. Everyone should do X instead."
People like what they like and do what they do. The issue some of us evil wimminz have is the laughably idiotic assertion that there should only be one model/dynamic based on some <1950s fantasy.
Quote:
Yes, I definitely prefer my man to the lead. It has absolutely nothing to do with being weak or 2nd class, it's the way want it. Guess what, I work (I just got back actually)! He works, we both do. I don't want some guy, who doesn't know how to take the lead, or protect the family or make tough decisions (when no census can be reached).
Where do you get the idea that "leading" has anything to do with "protecting the family"? What does that even mean? Like, if he's the dominant type, he'll go John Wick or John McClane on an intruder? He'll block a wild raccoon from attacking you?
I have more dominant traits and personality than my first husband, and yet he was an expert rifleman and a black belt in MCMAP. The whole protector thing never factored into for me. He was plenty capable of "protecting" us or whatever. And the same applies to my now-husband whose profession is martial arts and physical build like a "tough guy," but isn't the alpha or dominant type at all.
Quote:
I want a man who knows how to be the head of his/our household (It's got HIS name on it). From a practical standpoint...PRACTICAL... you can't have TWO kings in a kingdom, you can't have TWO POTUS commander-in-chiefs... or TWO Chief CEOs.... Only one. One ... Somebodynew.
I don't know. Maybe having compatible or complimentary personalities, demeanor and other traits can help to avoid butting heads in such way? Or maybe having the kind of dynamic where one person doesn't need to be the Leader and both can take on certain roles as needed?
Quote:
Let me ask you, what if you two can't agree on a particular problem and there is NO way to compromise? WHO will decide, you? Him? What's the practical answer when it's going to be one way or the other? Some body, "egalitarian" or not, is going to have to step up make a call. It's not practical to keep trying to one up each other to see who is going to have it their way.
I've not had that problem. But, I'd start with, who can best support their side/solution/choice? When making a list of "pros" and "cons," doing the necessary research, contemplation, seeking expert opinion, etc.?
But lack of compromise shouldn't necessarily default to "X gets the final say." nor does this dynamic imply a certain level of practicality. If it's a major issue, one where compromise can't be reached, perhaps there's a deeper issue that needs to be further addressed. If it's something akin to kids attending parochial school vs. Hebrew, that should have been covered before kids and marriage.
Gurrrl, we were good for a second and then you had to go there... Smh. No honey I can read, I know what I read and I'm not going to call that particular person out because I have no beef with them. You should read the thread again carefully.
So wait a second. You're instead going to reply to ME who never said any such thing? In thinking about it, I wonder if that person is someone I ignore.
Quote:
Yeah ppl, tend to "defend" themselves when somebody tells them that their own view is better than theirs. I know I read that.
Do you know what the qualification "from a practical standpoint means" or does your understanding stop with the word "better"? Do you disagree with the particulars of that practical consideration like death, disability and the like?
For the record, many people who are confident in their choices don't get particularly defensive when someone else thinks there ways is better or right. Just so you know. That happens.
Other people's relationship dynamics are of no real concern to me. I'm not going to get bent because other couples do things differently, nor do I feel the need to make sweeping pronouncements about the intrinsic goodness of my preferred relationship dynamic, for other people. Again, what I do and what works for me isn't an absolute for everyone else.
The thing that somebody's addressing or challenging is the notion that "traditional" (however it's defined since there are multiple ways to define it) is not and should not be a universal model, as previously implied upthread. I can say, "X relationship dynamic wouldn't work for me," but I wouldn't say "X relationship dynamic shouldn't exist at all. Everyone should do X instead."
People like what they like and do what they do. The issue some of us evil wimminz have is the laughably idiotic assertion that there should only be one model/dynamic based on some <1950s fantasy.
Where do you get the idea that "leading" has anything to do with "protecting the family"? What does that even mean? Like, if he's the dominant type, he'll go John Wick or John McClane on an intruder? He'll block a wild raccoon from attacking you?
I have more dominant traits and personality than my first husband, and yet he was an expert rifleman and a black belt in MCMAP. The whole protector thing never factored into for me. He was plenty capable of "protecting" us or whatever. And the same applies to my now-husband whose profession is martial arts and physical build like a "tough guy," but isn't the alpha or dominant type at all.
I don't know. Maybe having compatible or complimentary personalities, demeanor and other traits can help to avoid butting heads in such way? Or maybe having the kind of dynamic where one person doesn't need to be the Leader and both can take on certain roles as needed?
I've not had that problem. But, I'd start with, who can best support their side/solution/choice? When making a list of "pros" and "cons," doing the necessary research, contemplation, seeking expert opinion, etc.?
But lack of compromise shouldn't necessarily default to "X gets the final say." nor does this dynamic imply a certain level of practicality. If it's a major issue, one where compromise can't be reached, perhaps there's a deeper issue that needs to be further addressed. If it's something akin to kids attending parochial school vs. Hebrew, that should have been covered before kids and marriage.
It's all good we already agree on the bolded anyway... so everything else is given. I respect everybody's view because at the end of the day it's their own relationship, not mine. So do what works for you
Where do you get the idea that "leading" has anything to do with "protecting the family"? What does that even mean? Like, if he's the dominant type, he'll go John Wick or John McClane on an intruder? He'll block a wild raccoon from attacking you?
<snip?
I don't know. Maybe having compatible or complimentary personalities, demeanor and other traits can help to avoid butting heads in such way? Or maybe having the kind of dynamic where one person doesn't need to be the Leader and both can take on certain roles as needed?
For myself, I have never gotten an explanation of what this male leadership even looks like on a day to day basis. I don't really know what this leadership thing looks like. I don't need to be led. I know how to make a decision. Any decision that is mid to large size requires both of us anyway...
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.
