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.
Nope, with a man I'd figure that his primary motivation is regular sex.
Plenty of people have regular sex without getting married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
They weren't two separate statements, but related. What is it about a spouse that you can't get from friends?
What is my mom to me that I cannot get from my friends? What is my daddy to me that I cannot get from my friends? What are my friends to me that I cannot get from my momma? Do you really not understand the varying dynamics of one relationship to the next?
My husband lives with me. He wakes with me in the morning. He knows, for example, if I'm worried about a presentation that day and will make me coffee or discuss the content. My bf, OTOH, is waking up with her dh doing their thing. If my bf lived with and woke with me in the morning, gave me a kiss on the forehead post conversation about my presentation that day, etc, then she'd be my spouse. Spouses are there for the little things that make up our lives. Friends aren't. I doubt my dh's friends would want a phone call to hear his concern over this infection he currently has in one of his fingers. I'm sure it wouldn't dawn on him to share the information. Instead, he has me watching it, to his annoyance, to see if we're going to take him to the doctor. Again, family stuff.
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.
Touche. Nevertheless, my comments come from experience and wisdom, not my imagination. You can cite a couple of contradictory examples, but that wouldn't negate the truth that women are women and men are men.
Quote:
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 is if she does something to actively emasculate him.
Quote:
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.
Redisca, you just don't understand. It is not always about control and entitlement. I suppose for some men it could be about control but so could a woman lord her higher income over her husband. Take it from someone who understands emasculation. It's not about control. Did you read my explanations, my first replies describing how a man might feel threatened because while dating he has demonstrated his ability to give and not control and his girl has not? He might want equality and be willing to work and give every dime he makes for food and shelter for the family but she might not understand that her desire to have a career could be self-serving especially if her income doesn't go into the family budget too. I said a higher income could be a yellow flag that she is materialistic and puts herself above her family.
It is if she does something to actively emasculate him.
Like, not being helpless and child-like? Well, I guess it varies depending on how FRAGILE her husband's masculinity is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
Redisca, you just don't understand. It is not always about control and entitlement. I suppose for some men it could be about control but so could a woman lord her higher income over her husband. Take it from someone who understands emasculation. It's not about control. Did you read my explanations, my first replies describing how a man might feel threatened because while dating he has demonstrated his ability to give and not control and his girl has not? He might want equality and be willing to work and give every dime he makes for food and shelter for the family but she might not understand that her desire to have a career could be self-serving especially if her income doesn't go into the family budget too. I said a higher income could be a yellow flag that she is materialistic and puts herself above her family.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. So if a man has a career and makes lots of money, that makes him a good provider. If a woman has a career and makes lots of money, she's materialistic and puts herself above her family. Is that what you are saying? If so, it's utter nonsense. Why would her income not go into the family budget? And why are you suggesting that even if her income does go into the family budget she's still being "self-serving" whereas her husband, who is doing the exact same thing is being selfless and heroic? I think that between a woman who earns her own income and one who expects men to support her, the latter is the more selfish one. Why is it okay for a man to seek self-realization and to pursue exciting things in life and to have choices, but a woman who merely wants the same opportunities is suddenly materialistic and selfish? Because we are "meant" only to serve and to live vicariously through others? How convenient for you. Unfortunately (for you), many of us don't see it that way.
Touche. Nevertheless, my comments come from experience and wisdom, not my imagination. You can cite a couple of contradictory examples, but that wouldn't negate the truth that women are women and men are men.
It is if she does something to actively emasculate him.
Redisca, you just don't understand. It is not always about control and entitlement. I suppose for some men it could be about control but so could a woman lord her higher income over her husband. Take it from someone who understands emasculation. It's not about control. Did you read my explanations, my first replies describing how a man might feel threatened because while dating he has demonstrated his ability to give and not control and his girl has not? He might want equality and be willing to work and give every dime he makes for food and shelter for the family but she might not understand that her desire to have a career could be self-serving especially if her income doesn't go into the family budget too. I said a higher income could be a yellow flag that she is materialistic and puts herself above her family.
That has nothing to do with the level of income. A selfish, materialistic person is going to be that way if they make $10k/year or $110k/year. Income level is not correlated to innate materialism.
Plenty of people have regular sex without getting married.
What is my mom to me that I cannot get from my friends? What is my daddy to me that I cannot get from my friends? What are my friends to me that I cannot get from my momma? Do you really not understand the varying dynamics of one relationship to the next?
My husband lives with me. He wakes with me in the morning. He knows, for example, if I'm worried about a presentation that day and will make me coffee or discuss the content. My bf, OTOH, is waking up with her dh doing their thing. If my bf lived with and woke with me in the morning, gave me a kiss on the forehead post conversation about my presentation that day, etc, then she'd be my spouse. Spouses are there for the little things that make up our lives. Friends aren't. I doubt my dh's friends would want a phone call to hear his concern over this infection he currently has in one of his fingers. I'm sure it wouldn't dawn on him to share the information. Instead, he has me watching it, to his annoyance, to see if we're going to take him to the doctor. Again, family stuff.
I'm only willing to have relationships with one person at a time. I don't have a relationship with any family members.
I didn't say it was. But it is her responsibility to not get in the way of his contribution.
How does a higher paycheck "get in the way" of a husband's making a contribution?
Quote:
I'm sorry you feel so bitter about the whole thing. At least you admit you made a mistake. Both of you did, clearly.
I'm not bitter, but it was an unpleasant learning experience. Yes, it was a huge mistake, and one my father warned me against.
Quote:
But he didn't ACTUALLY want a traditional wife? Was he brainwashed by his culture or was that really who he was?
I believe he was brainwashed by his culture and familial expectations. I can only hope he either found what he wanted with a woman who wants the same things, or has grown up enough to be honest with his partners.
Quote:
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'll go along with that, sure. But that doesn't mean it is "natural" for them to ignore learning how to support themselves in modern society. And if that means they end up with a bigger paycheck than the man sharing their lives, so what?
Quote:
I did however say that I would be the househusband if it was in my childrens' best interest.
I presume, perhaps naively, that most fathers would be willing to do this for a time if it were truly in the children's best interest. I know my husband would have been, and we thought about it. But he felt that taking a substantial time away from his job would negatively impact his life, and completely understood why I would feel the same. Instead, we both finagled our schedules so one of us was home as much of the time as possible with our kids when they were small.
Quote:
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.
More sweeping generalizations.
Quote:
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.
Do you understand what it's like to be a woman? And how exceedingly unpleasant it is to be told that our following our dreams can be harmful to our partners' manhoods?
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.
Those who have neither merely make noise.
