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.
They weren't two separate statements, but related. What is it about a spouse that you can't get from friends?
Are you married? My relationship with my spouse is a level far beyond friendship. Friendships are wonderful, but they're fulfilling in an entirely different way.
Oh that's lovely. So employed men, by your reckoning, only marry for the "regular sex"?
I think men in general only marry for "regular sex". Don't really see any other purpose in it--and I don't particularly believe in marriage, but that type of exclusive relationship is good.
What else is in it for him? To actually marry and form a contractual arrangement subject to the law of the land?
Are you married? My relationship with my spouse is a level far beyond friendship. Friendships are wonderful, but they're fulfilling in an entirely different way.
I'm not a good example. I only want one friend in my life at a time. No others need apply.
There is something else that I want to address, and that is the old defense of "Well, you aren't a man, therefore you don't understand how men feel, and so you should shut up about it." Men who say that invariably contradict themselves by making claims about how women feel and what's natural for women, as if they are qualified to make those determinations despite the fact that they aren't women.
Such claims come from a place of superiority, but they are also circular. Obviously, I can't tell someone who feels emasculated by a woman's success that he doesn't really feel that way. You feel how you feel, and that's all there is to it. There are men who feel emasculated by fruit salad, by classical music, by color-coordinated clothing, and no one can tell them either that they don't feel what they really feel. The issue is, however, whether such a reaction is reasonable. When a man feels emasculated by his wife's education and success, instead of being happy for her, such a reaction is not reasonable; it indicates to me that such a man regards his wife not as a companion and a partner, but as a subordinate and (if she rejects the subordinate role) as an adversary. And it's clear from this thread that such feelings are not "natural" to men, since many men have posted that they do not, in fact, feel "emasculated" by wives and girlfriends who out-earn them. But then, of course, I suppose that champions of traditional gender roles would accuse men, whose masculinity isn't so fragile as to depend on a woman's subordination, of not being "real men".
I cannot see how it's "natural" for a man to feel "emasculated" by caring for his children or caring for his house. As I previously stated, I understand such a job is often, sadly, thankless -- but how is it "emasculating"? The real issue, of course, isn't the ability to provide for a family -- since in the majority of American families today where the husband earns more than the wife, his income alone still wouldn't be sufficient to support the entire family -- the real issue is control. That, and entitlement.
I think men in general only marry for "regular sex". Don't really see any other purpose in it--and I don't particularly believe in marriage, but that type of exclusive relationship is good.
What else is in it for him? To actually marry and form a contractual arrangement subject to the law of the land?
If you "don't believe" in marriage, there's no point in describing to you the bond of a lifelong commitment and what it brings to one's life. I personally agree that the legal institution of marriage is outdated, but the emotional state is much more than a contract subject to the law of the land. It's a promise people make to one another, a decision to cleave together permanently as a single family, and face together life's journey until the end.
If you "don't believe" in marriage, there's no point in describing to you the bond of a lifelong commitment and what it brings to one's life. I personally agree that the legal institution of marriage is outdated, but the emotional state is much more than a contract subject to the law of the land. It's a promise people make to one another, a decision to cleave together permanently as a single family, and face together life's journey until the end.
I understand commitment and exclusive relationships--I've just never found anyone who was willing to commit for the length of time I was.
Which means that he cannot couple with a woman that is successful
define successful
Quote:
Nobody stands in your way, but you, in the west.
This new age claptrap doesn't fly with me. A lot of people stand in my way in a lot of areas.
Quote:
Then, you're stating you're willing to not be a real man. Okaaayyy.
Sacrifice is at the heart of manliness.
Frankly, I find this pov to only be held by simpletons. If you're caring for your brood, teaching them, running your homestead, growing your food, doing all that you can,etc, that's freaking awesome.
Quote:
I don't know what to tell you here. I think that sting is societal pressure.
Nope. You don't understand what it is to be a man. How important it is. Not because of society, but because of instinct.
Quote:
I disagree. Nothing I have experienced in my life comes close to this convoluted made up definition. Leadership is dominion and it entails all the responsibilities.
Well, it's too bad you haven't experienced proper leadership.
Quote:
Bull again. Leadership completely involves ownership. I ask you to show me a leader that does not take ownership and full responsibility of anything they lead. Those that do not are poor leaders, period. That's just how it goes.
I don't disagree. Although ownership is ownership of responsibility, not of people you lead. Anyway, why does that mean leadership = dominion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
Why is it a woman's responsibility to make the man "feel" like he's contributing?
I didn't say it was. But it is her responsibility to not get in the way of his contribution.
Quote:
If he is, he IS. How fragile the male ego!!
Uhhh... you know it is. Cheese. You haven't heard that before?? Where have you been?
Quote:
Before we married my ex contributed plenty to the relationship, or so I thought. As it turned out, he didn't understand that there are other ways than money to contribute to the partnership that is marriage. That was HIS shortcoming, not mine. My mistake was not realizing it before the wedding.
I'm sorry you feel so bitter about the whole thing. At least you admit you made a mistake. Both of you did, clearly.
Quote:
His "desire"--only revealed after the ring was on my finger--was to have a woman be a traditional wife to him. Why? Because that's what his cultural background taught him he should want.
But he didn't ACTUALLY want a traditional wife? Was he brainwashed by his culture or was that really who he was?
Quote:
He never considered what I might have wanted.
It sounds like the two of you lacked good communication.
Quote:
Yet you don't think he was the selfish one.
I'll bet there was enough selfishness to go around.
Quote:
Somehow my wants and needs matter less than his. Hmmm...
I just said you SOUNDED selfish. Apparently it was just the language you used with me. Or do you admit that there was selfisness on both sides? Were you the perfect sweet angel and he the demon possessed idiot?
Quote:
Take those sentences and change the pronoun genders. Still make sense to you?
Of COURSE![quote]Are you suggesting that men have no natural instinct to care for their young?[?quote]They don't have it as much as women do. To say that women have less instinct or that men have just as much instinct towards caring for the young is just holding your fingers over your ears and singing "la la la la la, I can't hear you." Don't lie to yourself. You KNOW that women are generally more natural nurturers.
I did however say that I would be the househusband if it was in my childrens' best interest.
My real point in this particular matter (although I admit I didn't spell it out) was that it's always much better for a child to be raised by his parents than by a child daycare worker. Kids these days spend more time with strangers than with their parents!! It's no wonder kids don't respect their elders anymore.
Why are the people so fiercely arguing with me on this issue women? You don't know what it's like to be emasculated. You can't know because being a man is unnatural to you.
There is something else that I want to address, and that is the old defense of "Well, you aren't a man, therefore you don't understand how men feel, and you should therefore shut up about it." Men who say that invariably contradict themselves by making claims about how women feel and what's natural for women, as if they are qualified to make those determinations despite the fact that they aren't women.
Such claims come from a place of superiority, but they are also circular. Obviously, I can't tell someone who feels emasculated by a woman's success that he doesn't really feel that way. You feel how you feel, and that's all there is to it. There are men who feel emasculated by fruit salad, by classical music, by color-coordinated clothing, and no one can tell them either that they don't feel what they really feel. The issue is, however, whether such a reaction is reasonable. When a man feels emasculated by his wife's education and success, instead of being happy for her, such a reaction is not reasonable; it indicates to me that such a man regards his wife not as a companion and a partner, but as a subordinate and (if she rejects the subordinate role) as an adversary. And it's clear from this thread that such feelings are not "natural" to men, since many men have posted that they do not, in fact, feel "emasculated" by wives and girlfriends who out-earn them. But then, of course, I suppose that champions of traditional gender roles would accuse men, whose masculinity isn't so fragile as to depend on a woman's subordination, of not being "real men".
I cannot see how it's "natural" for a man to feel "emasculated" by caring for his children or caring for his house. As I previously stated, I understand such a job is often, sadly, thankless -- but how is it "emasculating"? The real issue, of course, isn't the ability to provide for a family -- since in the majority of American families today where the husband earns more than the wife, his income alone still wouldn't be sufficient to support the entire family -- the real issue is control. That, and entitlement.
I've never claimed to understand women--you're unfathomable. You don't make any sense--and I can't apply logic to explain any of you.
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.
