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.
My congratulations to those in this thread who understand the difference between "provider" and "contributor." Some seem to confuse the terms when mansplaining about what women want.
It has nothing to do with “mansplaining” (a silly term getting used a ton around a here lately to discredit one another)
Contributions equal providing by way of giving the components needed to remain invested and happy with one another.
What “that is” can and will vary depending on the circumstances and the individuals involved.
Chris Rock’s newest comedy special features a quote that creates a little debate.
I’m not a big fan of Chris Rock but I think there is a bit of truth in this saying. As a man about to finish his master’s degree, not many are impressed when I say I supervise a call center for a living. Many think I’m working below my potential but 10 years ago people thought I would be in jail so whatever. However, I know I’m not making the bread that is going to make women that excited. Since the gender role of provider has long existed, let’s face it a man who ain’t paying the bills is not going to find or keep love easily.
Agree C-D?
There is something to this. As I have posted before, and this is far from original to me: "A woman's beauty is her wealth, but a man's wealth is his beauty."
Of course a traditional relationship is assumed here.
To me, a potential mate who had a lot of debt, particularly debt accumulated on consumer "stuff" as opposed to say an advanced (and serious, best be STEM, or Law) degree, or has spendthrift ways, would be looked at askance.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch
To me, a potential mate who had a lot of debt, particularly debt accumulated on consumer "stuff" as opposed to say an advanced (and serious, best be STEM, or Law) degree, or has spendthrift ways, would be looked at askance.
It has nothing to do with “mansplaining” (a silly term getting used a ton around a here lately to discredit one another)
Fair enough. Is there a more accurate term to describe when men tell women how women feel?
Quote:
Contributions equal providing by way of giving the components needed to remain invested and happy with one another.
Nope, in every use on this thread, the context has been about women who expect a man to financially support them so they don't have to support themselves. It's a way to gender bash. Shocking I know.
[quote=JerZ;51096029]Meh. I don't see that feminism has a part in the assertion that men want looks and women want money.
However, the assertion was that the above two are givens, and that women "just" have to look pretty so "you can't compare the two." I agree, you can't compare the two. Because having to be and do it all - pretty, young, caretaking, and hard working - is significantly harder. Obviously. I'm not complaining that it's harder. I'm glad to make that tradeoff in order to have choices. So, not "hating."
As for the yapping that all a woman has to do is be pretty and marry a rich man and she'll never have to work, LOL! As stated several times now, more women than men work, therefore, obviously showing that this ISN'T an option for most women. For one thing, most women aren't incredibly gorgeous and what a rich man feels he "deserves." For another, rich men are obviously in the minority. Third, most women DON'T "just want money." We want a relationship. A loving one. That trumps money for most women. Look around you and see of that isn't true.
So, to recap: BOTH genders want to "get something" out of a relationship and it is not a competition of easier or harder, it just tends to be different (overall)...not just between genders but from couple to couple, each of which will be different.
But it wouldn't really be a day with a Y in it without some dude on CD-R trying to prove that women are shallow and overly demanding while men are gentle and calm and worthwhile and forced to settle for so much less than they deserve for breathing and having a job. 'Cause some people like to learn; others like to complain, and keep their situations the same.[/quote]
And aren't most of these guys the ones who struggle and fail at relationships on a regular basis? Kind of like the old saying " "Those who can't do... teach?"
Fair enough. Is there a more accurate term to describe when men tell women how women feel?
Nope, in every use on this thread, the context has been about women who expect a man to financially support them so they don't have to support themselves. It's a way to gender bash. Shocking I know.
I think a couple of things are also true. A large chunk of this thread could be seen as women explaining to men that their feelings are wrong, because Rock is talking about a feeling. I realize that women were responding to commenters who took Rock's comments further, or to his unnecessary and silly comparison of this feeling to his strange sense that women get loved unconditionally. But I believe that many men tie their worth almost entirely to what they can do or provide for others, and not in a healthy way. I know they do. I admit that some aspects of women's experience is foreign to me. I respect the gap between my academic understanding of women's issues and real women's realities. Sometimes, just ever so slightly, it feels like women won't accord me or men that same respect regarding the gap between their academic understanding of men's issues and men's real path.
As for gender bashing, it's all over this thread, and most is directed at women. When I engage in these conversations I often wish some men would shut TFU. I don't think the first part of Rock's comment, saying that women and kids and dogs are loved unconditionally is true or in any way helps what I believe is a valid and supportable point. It hurts the point, really. That point being that men define themselves by what they do for a living and more specifically by how much money they make doing it. To an unhealthy extent.
This is not something women drive. They don't cause it. Some women buy into it, just like some women buy into other aspects of a twisted, reductive, and regressive view of masculinity. I think more men buy into this view, though, than women do.
Even when ordinary men and women buy into these ideas, we aren't at fault. We're responsible for our actions, but there's a lot prompting us to see the world as one where men do and women are, to both men and women's detriment. Even attractive men seldom feel desirable for their physical selves, and even competent women are often reduced to their physical selves. At least it feels that way.
Men don't really do this to themselves, any more than women who buy into twisted, reductive and regressive views of femininity do it to themselves. I know it's not popular to suggest that anyone is ever a victim, but in the strictest sense, almost all of us are dupes for a select few people who benefit mightily. For a system that needs us to at least lean toward fairly rigid gender roles. Maybe we're not dupes all the time and maybe never consciously, but still dupes. Me included.
On an only slightly related tangent, it does suck that conversations that might help us find common ground or maybe some understanding of each other's experiences can't happen without the ugliness. As I said earlier, things usually start getting ugly when men take a real issue, like for example the unequal expectations at least many men perceive regarding Valentine's Day, and turn it into a claim that some guy bought a woman a mansion for valentine's day. I don't know how to respond to that crap either.
I have to disagree that Rock is describing a man's feeling. He is describing women, and their motivations - as perceived by a man. That isn't a man's feeling, it's an assertion that women have specific desires they're not admitting to.
I have to disagree that Rock is describing a man's feeling. He is describing women, and their motivations - as perceived by a man. That isn't a man's feeling, it's an assertion that women have specific desires they're not admitting to.
I dunno. Like I can see both sides of that.
Maybe instead of speculating on whether Rock was describing something he thinks, versus something he feels, let's ask ourselves, is it fair that despite any logic they may wish to apply to the situation, some men, especially when hurt or disappointed in love, may experience this as part of an emotional state. Negative head-chatter that gets to you when you're in a bad place.
Like in my case on the other side of the coin, when I'm feeling insecure and my demons are nibbling at me, every time some guy here or elsewhere says something about how "men are visual" and we've just got to face it, nothing compares to youthful beauty in a woman, etc.... It is so easy (wretchedly, miserably so) to take that and extrapolate it to, "Men don't have the ability to love. Not really. It's all just superficial desire for something pretty, and it is destined to fade and fail, always. No man is able to give me real love or real companionship, ever, as I will inevitably age and cannot be like my 18 year old self was. Might as well accept it, and stop trying to be with men, then, huh..." A man can't love a real actual person. Just a snapshot, a memory of the woman he met.
The love of a male is a lie. Always. It is not true.
When I...well, ~I~...experience true, deep love. I want to know everything about the subject of my affections. I want to bring him joy, love him all his days, I'll have his back if he loses his job, I'm not in this for his money obviously, since he makes less than me, and I will love him and care for him as he ages. I love his soulful wisdom and his voice and scent and his interests and passions, and how he cries over movies, and my god, I'm so completely INTO every little thing about him.
Now that's love. No man can do that. Men just see a pretty body, a pretty face, and wanna smash. That's THEIR idea of love.
IT IS THE SAME BULLPOOP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT COIN, GUYS.
And while some people might engage in transactional and superficial dalliances, put up with a crazy broad because she's hot or put up with a jerky guy because we can't afford to get by without him, or WHATEVER... Normal people don't do that. Men and women are deeper and more than that. Or at least, optimally we are. We can be. If you (anyone here, you in the general sense) aren't...well that is your problem.
I'll be over here knowing that my partner and I really love and truly respect and are totally INTO each other. Way past money, far beyond looks. Hope ya'll find that one of these days, if you haven't. It's pretty good stuff.
I agree with you. But, that is men putting it on themselves, not women putting it on men. Huge difference, I'm sure you'll agree.
This! Geez, this is the point. This happens SO MUCH. Guys putting stuff on other guys and/or themselves (like the "emotions" thread), then complaining that it's what women demand. What???
Sonic_Spork...
Quote:
Maybe instead of speculating on whether Rock was describing something he thinks, versus something he feels, let's ask ourselves, is it fair that despite any logic they may wish to apply to the situation, some men, especially when hurt or disappointed in love, may experience this as part of an emotional state. Negative head-chatter that gets to you when you're in a bad place.
Is it fair that this is a part of emotions...of course! Our emotions are legitimate. But as you say, it's negative head-chatter...and it can be seriously damaging to men AND women. Because then the man puts that on the next woman, doesn't trust her, puts her through emotional hell trying to "prove" herself. And he can never trust. Who wins??
Meanwhile, this hypothetical guy (it's a "guy" in this case but obviously, everyone might do this at one time or another) tells impressionable dudes having trouble in the dating world...for instance, he might say this on this very forum...because of Paranoid, Hostile Fallacy X...so now...it's not just affecting him and any future S.O.'s. It's even broader than that.
That's why, while all emotions are legitimate as very real things and they may very well come from a place of hurt, something really should be said if we flat-out see it happening in front of our very faces. Or, well, we could just not care and not say anything...but since this is a discussion forum...saying stuff is pretty much the point.
JMO.
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.
