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.
Except men paying for things has NEVER been part of the social construct. For hundreds of years, it was not uncommon for men to marry women because they had money and could help the state or due to strategic monetary reasons. Part of a woman’s value was often what she could bring to the table for marriage. It has only been extremely recent that paying has become attributed to men.
Not only that, a man used to get a huge dowry from the bride's family, in exchange for letting a woman marry him. And marriage was far less unpleasant back then. Today, he's required to buy a $10,000 diamond ring just to ask a woman to marry him and relinquish his entire freedom. Which helps no one but DeBeers's CEO.
Ah, yes. Back before socialism, and other modern aberrations, men took care of women. In fact, in the old common law, only the man / husband / father had the legal duty to support the woman / wife / mother and their children. Quaint, eh?
May explain the ecstatic joy on the face of a bride, and "deer in headlights" look in the groom. In those days, marriage was a meal ticket for life. . . for the wife.
[Doweries were the bride's family's contribution to the joining of property rights under marriage. But under coverture all property was held by the man to preserve private property status - absolute ownership by an individual. Of course, the widow received her share under dower... as long as there children of the marriage.]
She only needed a meal ticket bc she wasn't allowed to do anything, own anything, or have any say.
Spare me the diatribe about honorable men caring for poor women. They set up society so that others would be dependent...and they would have the control.
Whenever a guy pays more than they should in a relationship I feel they will have unreasonable demands later on that I should do in return. I had a guy like this and I didn't feel good about it.
Well I've been happily married for 15 years now so it's not really an issue. Yes, he is the primary breadwinner but that doesn't mean I am "taking his money". Good grief. It's not "his" money, it's "our" money.
I don't understand the mentality of some women.
If he didn't pay, he'd get called cheap and get dumped.
The OPs boyfriend, actually courses her old school style, and that's a problem somehow.
Apparently you have never made the mistake of having kids with 'The Man' who really wasn't one.
The last thing society needs is to encourage more men to be less than men. You can object to traditional roles all you want but the reality is that it actively promotes Misandry. Women can renounce their role in favor of what used to be the man's role but it leaves a void in options for men; whose biology is not as susceptible to propaganda as you may wish them to be. This only promotes Misogyny while pedastalizing the male role ... not the actual man.
Strong societies depend on strong female & male roles. Clearly, the OP has managed to find a man who is too genetically superior to be indoctrinated by the relatively recent social experimentation.
Oh, come ON. Two partners being equal in a relationship is going to destroy men? Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
What I've seen here is many posters seem to believe that gender is simply a "social construct", not something that is based in a person's brain and wiring. They believe we should live in a genderless society and even using words like "masculine" or "feminine" is demeaning and insulting.
However, it's not easy for someone who is oriented a certain way to be, and act, gender neutral.
People are people, who like what they like and do what they do without having to fit in tidy little boxes. Putting labels on the way people are or should be marginalizes a lot of people. I just spent the day at a car show, ogling muscle cars, having gone to the gym last night to work on my muscles. OMG! I'm not "feminine"! Well, what I do and like must be "feminine" since I'm a woman, eh?
It's not easy for someone who is oriented a certain way to be, and act, like the gender "roles" they're told they should walk the narrow line of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
Not only that, a man used to get a huge dowry from the bride's family, in exchange for letting a woman marry him. And marriage was far less unpleasant back then. Today, he's required to buy a $10,000 diamond ring just to ask a woman to marry him and relinquish his entire freedom. Which helps no one but DeBeers's CEO.
Maybe you're proposing to the wrong women. I don't know anyone who expects expensive diamonds upon occasion.
And as far as "relinquish{ing} his entire freedom"? Yes, I expect fidelity, sorry. Don't like it, easy to move on. If you don't want to "forsake all others," then don't make that vow-- simple. Andd yes, any sort of relationship (romantic or not) is a compromise. If you don't think BOTH people give up some freedoms, you're delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Ah, yes. Back before socialism, and other modern aberrations, men took care of women. In fact, in the old common law, only the man / husband / father had the legal duty to support the woman / wife / mother and their children. Quaint, eh?
May explain the ecstatic joy on the face of a bride, and "deer in headlights" look in the groom. In those days, marriage was a meal ticket for life. . . for the wife.
[Doweries were the bride's family's contribution to the joining of property rights under marriage. But under coverture all property was held by the man to preserve private property status - absolute ownership by an individual. Of course, the widow received her share under dower... as long as there children of the marriage.]
Of course, he also was the only one who had any legal standing. When you're not allowed to own property, the jobs available to you don't pay much (if you're not looked down on for working), and people give you the side-eye if you're on your own, yep, marriage is pretty much the way you survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Even today, most women respect a man who earns the dough and can take care of their family’s financial needs.
Equality of the sexes is largely a mythology.
Maybe in your world. Not in mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 49ersfan27
I don't understand the mentality of some women.
If he didn't pay, he'd get called cheap and get dumped.
The OPs boyfriend, actually courses her old school style, and that's a problem somehow.
Proof that sometimes men just can't win lol.
If he NEVER paid, yeah, he'd be cheap. Hence why everyone here is advocating balance. Or maybe you missed the majority of posts in this thread.
I had a boyfriend like him once. We both had ample incomes and I always offered to pay my half. I was not comfortable with him always paying. I tried to treat him, but he was uncomfortable with it - hah! He bought me jewelry too soon, IMHO. After I spent four years trying to find something that was a deal breaker I married him. It will be 30 years this November.
Just keep looking for things you don't like. Controlling behavior, for one. Keep an open mind, maybe he is just old fashioned about paying. it doesn't mean he wants to keep you pregnant and in the kitchen.
How about this: when he insists on paying (over your objections), make an equal donation to a charity you both would approve of, and thank him for his generosity towards the less fortunate.
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.
Which helps no one but DeBeers's CEO.
