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 grew up in an affluent family ( mentioning for context). When I was 22 I inherited enough money to last 2 lifetimes. I didn’t want a partner who spent most of his waking hours and time…chasing the almighty dollar. I wanted a guy who could spend time with me and our kids.
I partnered up with a farmer/woodworker. My annual income is 10 times his. He’s a great guy who treats me well, doesn’t care about money and is a wonderful father to his kids. This is what I find more important to our relationship than him making a ton of money…being able to spend quality time as a family. I have the luxury of being a SAHM and his business is right here on our little farm within walking distance from our home.
As an aside when I was in my 20’s I dated some professional men and it seemed to me that I was always “second” to their careers ( I got it and wasn’t mad about it, but it wasn’t what I wanted.)
Last edited by Sydney123; 11-08-2022 at 03:15 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,151,157 times
Reputation: 40640
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfriqueNY
Of course . Don't we all want that fellas?
You bet. I wouldn't want a woman that was with me because they needed me. I want one that wants to be with me. Really wants to be with me. The idea that someone is with me out of need instead of want is a gigantic turn off. I would be horrified.
There are plenty of men who have low status, low wage jobs or no job. Sorry but that is not coded in sex linked genetic material. The reason there are more men in higher paying, higher status jobs is due to lack of reproductive control and legal/social opportunity. Notice how quickly the ratio changed when women could control pregnancy and social constraints were lifted? Women are still the ones to sacrifice job for children/family needs though. More women are opting out of motherhood now or having fewer children so we may see more changes.
Okay, but we disagree and see the world differently. I think a man's role will continue to be the breadwinner and a woman's role will continue to be the child nurturer, for the most part on a societal level. Not because of discrimination, but because that is simply the natural order of things. Most families will look like that.
However, that is not to say there is anything wrong with doing things differently than that on an individual level.
Okay, but we disagree and see the world differently. I think a man's role will continue to be the breadwinner and a woman's role will continue to be the child nurturer, for the most part on a societal level. Not because of discrimination, but because that is simply the natural order of things. Most families will look like that.
However, that is not to say there is anything wrong with doing things differently than that on an individual level.
I'm fine with any family dynamic at the individual level...it's just got to WORK. And generally speaking that means significant efforts and contributions coming from responsible adults.
What I take issue with, is when men who aren't very good at the breadwinner thing, also refuse to do the nurturer (or housekeeper) thing with any particular effort. But I guess shelato has a point in a post he made somewhere around here, that water will find its level or whatever...people who can't be arsed to behave like functional adults shouldn't feel entitled to be carried by somebody else.
But that would go for men and women alike.
And it is the functional person's responsibility to decide what they want in a partner, and what they're willing to put up with.
But this idea goes back to the questions and possible societal conflicts inherent in this thread...if a man's nature should be "provider/protector" and a woman's nature should be "nurturer" then in essence, we could say that this is the expectation that a person of either gender may have of members of the opposite gender in straight relationships, theoretically, right? But a woman who is "independent" has figured out how to win her own bread. She may not need a provider or a protector. She can "nurture" herself just fine, perhaps. But the man still feels a need/want for a "nurturer"...yet has either nothing of value to offer to the "independent" woman in exchange, or for some men, may not be even meeting THAT bar and don't have much to offer to anybody.
A lot of us women have said, and some of us definitely mean it, that we would be content with a "companion." Someone who makes us feel good and provides good company. Is such a man being asked to do "nuture" work? Emotional labor? Maybe. I was satisfied with someone who first and foremost doesn't make my life suck. Don't yell at me, don't crap up my home environment with nasty vibes and nasty habits, don't load MORE work on my plate on top of my full time job and other responsibilities. Such a man is a CATCH but wow, that doesn't seem like THAT high a bar to meet. Going a little further, on a lot of levels from our conversations to several shared interests and activities, to our sex life, my husband brings me happiness...time with him is quality time.
(EDIT: Worth mention that materially speaking he's worth a lot more than I knew for the first few years of our relationship, because there is an inheritance involved. But he was always, through his adult life, a sub-par career guy...stable, but not high earning. I did not know about the family stuff until we were already planning to get married. He considered that "need to know" and I'm fine with it. So what I'm saying here, it's about the terms under which I was prepared to commit to him...what I knew at the time.)
But he'd worked his way, already, through a lot of his own mental and emotional baggage before we met. He's said that if I'd met him 20 years earlier I would not have liked him very much, and he is 20 years older than I am. Well. Some adult men seem to need quite a bit of "nurture" because they are, perhaps, not getting what they need from their families of origin. I would consider that maybe an "independent" man who is a match for an "independent" woman...has simply finished raising himself and does not need a woman to nurture HIM to completion of his growing up.
Just some ideas that sort of spun out of my mind prompted by your observation here.
"Do Men Really Like Independent Women?" I think men like women who are interested in them both physically and intellectually and who make a relationship with men a priority. Not necessarily the highest priority of her life but one of the top priorities. Most men will not be interested in being the last priority of a woman, far behind her hobbies or her friends.
As to being "independent", I think it really depends. If being independent means that a woman is always telling a guy about how busy she is with her friends and hobbies and work and makes it sound like she is doing her guy a favor being together then that is really unattractive and annoying to a man. If a woman spends a healthy amount of time with a guy but also has her own interests then this is perfectly fine. But again, no man I know of ever dreams of finding an "Independent Woman". That is not the main attraction for a guy.
Last edited by DefiantNJ; 11-10-2022 at 09:16 AM..
You make an important clarification. It's not that my own interests, hobbies and activities always take precedence over a man or a relationship. It's that I want a man to acknowledge and work with the fact that I have mine just like he has his. Too many men don't do this, and it is detrimental to the development of a fulfilling relationship for both parties. It's gotten better, but there is still a ways to go.
Okay, but we disagree and see the world differently. I think a man's role will continue to be the breadwinner and a woman's role will continue to be the child nurturer, for the most part on a societal level. Not because of discrimination, but because that is simply the natural order of things. Most families will look like that.
However, that is not to say there is anything wrong with doing things differently than that on an individual level.
It’s not 1950 anymore! Unless he’s making bank, both are probably going to have to work to make ends meet.
I disagree that “most” will look like this especially with cost of mortgages, food, gas, healthcare, and education in todays world. To me “most” would imply “average” and the average earner is going need some help with everyday expenses. The so called “natural order of things” won’t play out for the average family any longer IMO.
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.
