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'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.
Sure. I say that today you have to be independent to be a single adult. But as you grow towards marriage you shed your independence and gain INTERdependence, whereupon you start to rely on your SO. Once that happens then it should be natural for your strengths to rise up and compliment the other person's weaknesses. And where there is lack, meaning neither of you are strong in a particular area, you work together. Once you marry you should both be completely interdependent upon one another.
Quote:
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.
What? It's well documented. Children actually do spend more hours per day with teachers and day care workers than with their parents. You can't dispute this. And it is documented that it negatively affects the parent-child relationship.
Quote:
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?
I mean no disrespect and I apologize for any offense I've committed. But do you know any of your female friends who gave up their "dreams" after they had their first child? I know quite a lot. It's actually becoming more and more common today. Women as a matter of course change their minds constantly. I know I know. More sweeping generalizations. Well if it's sweeping then why do they call it Woman's prerogative? Men change their minds too but we don't do it enough to have a catch-phrase named after it. Many men understand that a woman's mind is like a tornado. You never know where it will turn next. So her dreams are in flux. That isn't to say that a woman's dreams aren't important. It's just you know... fool me twice... shame on me. Women have just cried wolf one too many times.
Proper leadership according to who? Whether it's the home or at work, if the people involved do not have ownership over their endeavors quality will suffer. You cannot talk your way out of this. It's nonsensical. My dh and I take responsibility for our home equally. Any other way it would fall apart. The same thing goes at work. Take a look at your opinions on our president and notions of responsibility. Clearly, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp
I'm sorry but you just don't understand what I am saying about leadership. Anyone who cares enough is welcome to read my blog where I delve into this a bit more than I am willing to here and now.
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.
We need to have a sticky voting thread! Read the above smartalx et al, and then read it again ^100000^100000, etc.
Absolutely.
What a thread. Unbelievable.
Well, continue reading. I refuted that statement completely. And none of you took the time to determine if I actually said what she was accusing me of saying.
I do believe my favorite part of this entire thread was pretty much the same as my favorite part of all the other man-vs-woman threads we see in these forums:
Neither side cares to acknowledge even possibilities or yield a single inch with regard to a two-sided view on the problem yet each is convinced of their broad-minded, realistic view and my Brown Cow Theorem raises its ugly head over and over again.
Well, did you read this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
Now I know that some men are jerks who do use their money for power and control and THEY might feel that the woman making more money would take away their power. But these men are actually pretty rare. If you thought that I'm saying that 100% of all men who are threatened by a woman with a bigger income are altruistic in nature, then I guess I wasn't clear.
I know it's posted after your reply but I wrote it as you were writing. From the very beginning, I've been trying to communicate that we are not on the same page, albeit not very well and of course I did get carried away with defending my position so I can't say that you are wrong. Once again.
I feel a bit victimized by a strawman. Probably some of my own making.
No, smartalx, you did not refute my statement -- you confirmed it entirely. You explained your position by claiming that most men are paragons of virtue who only work for their families and never spend any money on themselves. By contrast, you assert that most women who are high earners do it only for themselves. In other words, you claim that men are by nature selfless and generous, whereas women by nature are venal and materialistic -- and thus women have a special obligation of going the extra mile to prove that they aren't. A male yuppie buys himself a Ferrari, no one takes that to mean that he doesn't support his family. A female yuppie buys herself a bottle of perfume, and it's perfect proof that she only went to school and worked her *** off to spend money on herself. In other words, feminism offends you to the extent that women who are educated and have high-paying jobs aren't shamed enough for it. In your perfect world, for a woman to be self-supporting should carry a stigma, to be countered only with positively monastic self-denial and constant deprecation. Got it.
Legal equality has nothing to do with this. I have an equal right to education, employment opportunities and pay. That's all I care about. I don't give a fig whether some stranger thinks he's entitled to proof that I am supporting my family.
You continually contradict herself. You claim that a man who makes little money does so only because he does not care about it. Obviously, that's not the only reason one can make little money. Maybe he has no ability; maybe he is stupid; maybe he is too lazy to go to school to acquire valuable skills. I know, you presume your "average" man to be perfect in every way, but that's simply not the reality. Moreover, materialism is not a state of one's wallet, but a state of mind; a poor person can be very materialistic, and a rich one, a lot less. I would only note -- and here is where the contradiction lies -- is that your "average" man also feels "emasculated" if his wife makes more money than him. Now, that's not the attitude of someone who cares little about money. On the contrary, that attitude indicates an obsession with money.
I don't advocate against women being housewives. All I want is for people to have a wide range of choices. A man should be able to be a stay-home-dad without being labeled a wimp or a slacker, and a woman should be able to have a career without having to defend herself against accusations of materialism or castrating people. Choice -- that's all this is about. If some woman wants to stay home and look after her children full-time, fine; but it would be deplorable if she only did it to shore up her husband's flagging masculinity, that couldn't survive without another's deprecation. And earlier, I've explained one of the reasons that mitigate against being a stay-at-home spouse: namely the fiction that this spouse is "taking time off work" while in fact working at least as hard, maybe harder, than the "provider".
No, smartalx, you did not refute my statement -- you confirmed it entirely. You explained your position by claiming that most men are paragons of virtue who only work for their families and never spend any money on themselves.
No I didn't. I specifically said ONE sort of man! Read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
he has demonstrated by dating that when he spends money he expects nothing in return. This is just the way it is with a lot of people. Not everyone is like that but these are the people I am talking about. If they exist then you can't say that every man feels threatened because he can't exert control.
Only if he is giving his income to the family...
...And the man I am describing wants a family. If you admit that the man I am describing can exist, then you haven't a leg to stand on because my point is that not ALL men who feel emasculated feel it because they are chauvinistic.
Now I know that some men are jerks who do use their money for power and control and THEY might feel that the woman making more money would take away their power. But these men are actually pretty rare. If you thought that I'm saying that 100% of all men who are threatened by a woman with a bigger income are altruistic in nature, then I guess I wasn't clear.
Quote:
By contrast, you assert that most women who are high earners do it only for themselves.
No. I didn't. You are only seeing what you want... or I guess don't want to see.
Quote:
In other words, you claim that men are by nature selfless and generous, whereas women by nature are venal and materialistic
No. You are generalizing, or accusing me of generalizing. I described one sort of man, accepting that there might be other sorts of men.
Quote:
A male yuppie buys himself a Ferrari, no one takes that to mean that he doesn't support his family.
I do.
Quote:
A female yuppie buys herself a bottle of perfume, and it's perfect proof that she only went to school and worked her *** off to spend money on herself.
Wrong.
Quote:
In other words, feminism offends you to the extent that women who are educated and have high-paying jobs aren't shamed enough for it.
Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I am not the chauvinistic person you think I am.
Quote:
Equality -- legal equality, that is -- has nothing to do with this.
And where did you get the idea that I mentioned legal equality?
Quote:
I have an equal right to education, employment opportunities and pay. That's all I care about. I don't give a fig whether some stranger thinks he's entitled to proof that I am supporting my family.
Stranger? We aren't talking about a stranger. We are talking about the person you (want to) share your life with.
Quote:
You continually contradict herself.
It's hard not to contradict myself when you are the person putting the words into my mouth.
Quote:
You claim that a man who makes little money does so only because he does not care about it.
I did? No. I don't think that's right. I described a HUMAN who makes little money and the specific reason why this specific person doesn't make a lot of money is because he cares about other things more. A specific sort of person. Since we are talking about men here, then I used this specific person as an example of a specific sort of man.
Quote:
Obviously, that's not the only reason one can make little money. Maybe he has no ability; maybe he is stupid; maybe he is too lazy to go to school to acquire valuable skills.
Well sure, but that doesn't mean that the man that I describe doesn't exist.
Quote:
I know, you presume your "average" man to be perfect in every way,
Your words taste bitter in my mouth. Please stop jamming them in there.
Quote:
but that's simply not the reality. Moreover, materialism is not a state of one's wallet, but a state of mind;
And?
Quote:
a poor person can be very materialistic, and a rich one, a lot less.
Rarely.
Quote:
I would only note -- and here is where the contradiction lies -- is that your "average" man also feels "emasculated" if his wife makes more money than him.
Not necessarily.
Quote:
Now, that's not the attitude of someone who cares little about money. On the contrary, that attitude indicates an obsession with money.
Only for certain people. Some people are aware of OTHER people being aware of money. Are you a drug user? What if you started to date someone who used drugs? Would you break up with them if they didn't stop? Oh that must mean that you are obsessed with drugs.
If you can't see past your limited viewpoint then there is no point in arguing with you any more. I've been trying to tell you that you have me pegged wrong for some time now but you won't listen. I'm done.
I am dating a lawyer right now and she makes a little more than double than me. Am I intimidated? Nope. I was living just fine before I met her. However, one of my employees is dating a pharmacist and she makes 4 times as much as him and he says it makes him feel really inadequate. To which I ask why? I mean if you like a person, what does it matter?
This is an increasingly common occurence in relationships. Especially with increasing earning power etc. for women. I work in a field with MANY women and we all make 6-figs so my bosses are all women and many of the hubbys are stay at home dads.
It.
Doesn't.
Matter.
Heck, my sister fits this category. In this day and age, it's just important to have an open and honest respect and communication for you spouse.
I make 6x what my gf makes, it doesn't matter...I've turned down dates with gals making more than me. I used to have a SAHM for my kids so I don't care about $$$ I care about the other things in life.
Remember people, dating and love is NOT about the averages or the norms. It's about finding that crazy ass person that matches your own crazy ass.
Lastly, it's not about earning it's about spending. My last gf actually made more like 80k a year and was grossly in debt. I am very very happy with my frugal gf that lives debt free on a fraction of that.
Some people are aware of OTHER people being aware of money. Are you a drug user? What if you started to date someone who used drugs? Would you break up with them if they didn't stop? Oh that must mean that you are obsessed with drugs.
So...if a woman makes money, that's an equivalent of her using drugs? Okay, yeah, I can see how that's not "chauvinistic". This analogy is f-up on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin. For starters, equating a productive life and a successful career with drug addiction is insane. Moreover, while I would leave a drug user, I would not feel that his drug use somehow made me less of a woman, or less than a person. And finally, tying one's worth as a man to money -- either to his own or to his wife's -- is an obsession with money. Materialism isn't just conspicuous consumption; it's also assigning excessive importance to either possession or rejection of goods. Thus, a man who feels "emasculated" by his wife's money, clearly cares about money way to much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
If you can't see past your limited viewpoint then there is no point in arguing with you any more. I've been trying to tell you that you have me pegged wrong for some time now but you won't listen. I'm done.
I've listened to you and read your posts carefully. I believe I have interpreted them in accordance to what you actually wrote. You acknowledged there are different kinds of men and women, but you decided to reduce them to stereotypes nevertheless. Anyway you cut it, you cannot explain away your assumption that a woman's financial success is a "yellow flag" whereas a man's isn't, by stating that you believe in equality. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either financial success in either gender is an automatic "yellow flag", or it isn't. Once you start assuming different motives on the basis of gender, you can no longer claim to be unbiased.
I mean no disrespect and I apologize for any offense I've committed. But do you know any of your female friends who gave up their "dreams" after they had their first child? I know quite a lot. It's actually becoming more and more common today. Women as a matter of course change their minds constantly. I know I know. More sweeping generalizations. Well if it's sweeping then why do they call it Woman's prerogative? Men change their minds too but we don't do it enough to have a catch-phrase named after it. Many men understand that a woman's mind is like a tornado. You never know where it will turn next. So her dreams are in flux. That isn't to say that a woman's dreams aren't important. It's just you know... fool me twice... shame on me.
This is also complete nonsense. No, I've never met a woman who threw away a painstakingly built career and education simply because she changed her mind -- but I've seen women do that under pressure from men and due to family circumstances that require them to make sacrifices. Even for you, that's surprisingly low. A woman's career plans change after she has a child, and you seriously can think of no other reason for it than her being an airhead? Seriously? Women give up their dreams because they have to -- and also, because we are still expected to do so before our husbands give up their dreams. Men don't have to "change their minds" because they do not nearly as often have to choose between pursuing their dreams and preserving their relationships. Certainly, there are exceptions to this, but the prevailing social consensus today is that, when it comes to dreams, men come first. To the extent there are exceptions, it would be just as false and insulting to claim that a man is flippant if he gave up his aspirations for the sake of family. It's quite insulting to claim that a woman simply "changed her mind", when in fact she made a sacrifice to take care of her children and/or further her husband's career. And of course, this drivel that you wrote is meant as some sort of a justification for how women shouldn't be allowed to pursue their dreams at all -- because you know, they aren't real dreams, anyway. I can just see how it would work out for your wife: first she'll give up her dreams so that you wouldn't feel "small", then she would give them up again for the sake of housework and child care. And in the end of it all, she'll be treated to some dismissive, condescending nonsense about how she merely changed her stupid little fickle mind. What a crock. Not to mention the general unlikelihood that large numbers of women shared their dreams and aspirations with you in sufficient detail for you to formulate your opinion on a rational basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
Women have just cried wolf one too many times.
Not nearly as many times as the number of times you've cried about women being unworthy of the opportunities you enjoy.
Wow you really hate the person you created in my image don't you? I won't take it personally because this person you have imagined isn't me. One day maybe you'll see the real me in this forum. Come back in a year and reread this topic. But don't think I'll shed a tear if you don't. Your inaccurate opinion of me doesn't matter.
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.
