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.
Some gals are cheering in their minds as I say that, but let me say that in my earlier illustration I also stated IF ONE ACTUALLY DOES THOSE THINGS.
Interestingly, this qualifier - if one actually does those things, - are not surfacing in smatalx's weave of thoughts when applied to himself, - only when applied to someone else. (And I'm surprised to see this qualifier coming from your mouth, US). He is beyond qualifiers, isn't he? Let's extend the qualifier to him, as well, - he will only be a good househusband if he actually does the housewifery duties. He will scuff at this, - "Of course I will do everything at home to run the house, it's the others who won't."
And if he is a househusband, how would his following statement be modified to fit his situation?:
Quote:
"But it is her responsibility to not get in the way of his contribution."
Would this mean he will require her to not get in the way of his house-keeping contributions? Or would he turn it around and require from himself to not get in the way of her contributions?
You nailed it. It's not a gender issue, it's a personality issue. You have to earn less, or be more disabled than me, or be mentally feebler than me -- any of the above will make ME feel more powerful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
I agree. There are lots of men who couldn't care less how much their wives make (more, less, etc). But the fact that there are so many that do (I'd wager the majority, even if it's a slim majority) says something.
What made me think of it was general competition. People can be very competitive with each other in a host of arenas. Maybe it's just a human trait, but to have it in a marriage is a recipe for unhappiness.
There seems to be some confusion about what "preferential treatment" is. I have no idea what you interpret to be, but I think I explained it in an earlier post. I'll repeat again so you don't have to spend time looking it up. Preferential treatment is the right to be cared for. ESPECIALLY cared for. Yes a wife cares for her husband, but when the decision of which spouse comes first, the wife always goes first. You get the coat when there is one. You get the umbrella if it's too small for two people. The man runs to the car and you wait for him to pick you up. It means when there is an inevitable imbalance the advantage goes to the person with preferential treatment. And if you think there isn't any imbalance then you must really live a charmed life, or you get the preferential treatment so often you don't notice any imbalance. Preferential treatment is basically chivalry.
I don't consider any of that to be all that special. I'm telling you what I think special is and we simply disagree. I'm putting my husband through college. That's special. I, with other family members, financially supported my father when he separated from his wife. That's special. I held my brother in my arms for 7 hours while he died (nobody else could stand it), that's special. I have my own umbrella. I've driven across the United States at least 20 times. I'm a pretty good driver. I don't need anybody to drive me around.
What my dh does for me that is special has nothing to do with umbrellas. For example, when my brother died he went to pick up my step-father, drove him 6 hours to NJ in a blizzard with the dog and all their junk. It was a horrific trip. That's special. He stayed up with me all night while I wrote the eulogy. That's special. It has nothing to do with him being male or me being female. It has everything to do with being family.
Again, you have a lot to learn about marriage and the sacrifices and love that go along with it.
Quote:
It's a balance. Many times only one person can make a choice.
Many times, not. You are simply wrong. You are grasping for power and you might find your way into such a marriage, but don't full yourself into thinking it's anything more than a power grab.
Quote:
If your husband didn't have practice making decisions, he might not have thought to consider the plumbing problems and he might not have thought to itemize the costs for you. He might have just argued and fought for "his way." You both would have been pissed off at each other and you might have put your foot down because the danger to the house before hurricane season is so important.
None of that has anything to do with leading and following. It's becoming aware of variables and making reasoned decisions. I'm not leading him anywhere when I make decisions in the home, I simply fill him in on the details, and vice versa. Maybe it's just that you like the word leader and would like to nix the definition. A marriage comprised of one individual having authority over another, ya know that's what a leader is, is not a marriage.
Quote:
Talk of class is offensive. Just because someone is professional and makes money doesn't mean they are better people or more capable of making decisions than the homemaker.
That would be offensive if that was the intent of my post. It only addresses the differences between people and marriages. A. Your assertion that professional women have an expectation of not working is wrong and unreasonable. B. I have no idea where you think I am asserting that homemakers are not capable of making decisions. I clearly stated "Are the two people involved mature, reasoned adults, or does one need to be contended with as if they are a child?" No where did I state homemakers are not reasonable, mature adults.
Quote:
I'd venture a guess that the homemaker multitasks a lot more than the busy person in the office. Frankly it's rude of you to think that you are a better person and you should be allowed to make more decisions because you aren't a homemaker. The fact that you would mention that proves how one-sided your vision is. If I was a homemaker or married to one I would demand an apology.
I'm dumber for having read this.
Quote:
You being a professional isn't why your husband didn't "put his foot down" on the plumbing issue. It was his love and respect for his wife.
It has nothing to do with my profession. It has everything to do with being a grown up. If you want to enter a marriage where you get to lead, then that follower is going to be a child. Period. Frankly, I can't say that I view those that wish to lead their wives or husbands to more than children themselves. It's a blind leading the blind situation.
Quote:
And these cases usually don't happen for big decisions. Big decisions like tree/plumbing are too important for one person to handle amicably. But the arguments over small decisions can add up and lead to strife.
Really? I can't come up with a little decision that would lead to strife. I'm trying to think of things we generally disagree on and the only thing that comes to mind is choice of movies. My dh doesn't like the movies I like. I usually don't mind his unless they're zombie oriented. We switch. He'll go to mine, next time we go to his, back and forth, back and forth. I don't like how he cleans, but I wouldn't call that a decision.
Quote:
Compromise isn't always an option. And let me ask you this. Is every little decision important to you? Where you go to dinner? Who decides? Are there times when you don't care and are too tired to make a decision about where to eat dinner?
....
That decision belongs to the "default leader." In the 1% of the scenarios the default leader has to make a choice. The other person gets to sit back and relax.
I don't even know what to say to this. It's kind of depressing to read. Do people really care about this stuff? Do you? Frankly, it sounds weird. The restaurant is chosen by whoever has a hankering for a specific cuisine. The car is chosen by which ever car is in better running condition. The type of card is chosen by whoever goes to buy them. Scratch that, the type of card is chosen by the card producers because we tend to buy the lowest cost cards. I'm sorry, but I am not leading my husband when I go to the Walgreen's to p/u up a B-day card. That is not leadership.
Quote:
Do you have separate bank accounts? Why did it have to come out of your bonus? Is it just that the bonus was the source of the extra money at the time or did your DH have a few thousand dollars in the bank he didn't want to touch?
Our money goes into one pot, just like everything else. I'm not sure why you are asking about it, tho.
Quote:
Notice you got the other big man in your life involved. Naturally we are talking about the shell of the home so it's not surprising that the men were interested in getting involved. (Accuse me of generalizing all you want but more men choose careers in Architecture and more women choose careers in Interior Design.) Still it's interesting that you involved the two most important men in your life. But that's perfectly fine and I don't think you are less of a human being for it. It's smart to turn to people with knowledge to help you to make decisions. And again, big decisions don't belong to the default leader. Small decisions do.
I guess I should have mentioned that I called my mother, too. Nice assumptions! lol geesh. I consulted a few people at work as well. I started a thread here on CD. Either way, my mom has way more experience with home ownership than any of us. She is the one that initially alerted me to the hazards of hanging branches over the house. Your view of women is so sad. Again, I'm at a loss for words. It's so insulting.
And lets not go into career choices, SmartAlx, less we make an example of you.
Quote:
Really your entire post is only applicable if you ignore what I wrote here:
"In general though, the context of this blog post is about the 1% of the time in which the leader is not obvious. In 99% of the situations in life the two will either collaborate or one will be an obvious leader."
lol wow. See my comments above. It's just silly, smartalx. Your 1% is silly. If my dh came to me blathering about movie, restaurant, and gas station choices, I'd go into our health insurance network and find a doc for him.
Interestingly, this qualifier - if one actually does those things, - are not surfacing in smatalx's weave of thoughts when applied to himself, - only when applied to someone else. (And I'm surprised to see this qualifier coming from your mouth, US). He is beyond qualifiers, isn't he? Let's extend the qualifier to him, as well, - he will only be a good househusband if he actually does the housewifery duties. He will scuff at this, - "Of course I will do everything at home to run the house, it's the others who won't."
And if he is a househusband, how would his following statement be modified to fit his situation?:
Would this mean he will require her to not get in the way of his house-keeping contributions? Or would he turn it around and require from himself to not get in the way of her contributions?
Inquiring minds need to know.
It would be applicably interesting IF I was defending anyone. Since I'm not, merely applying it to the qualifications as I listed them (or as anyone else might modify per their own list-making) for house-(in this case wifery), it's a general qualifier, not a "defending someone's stance other than my own" qualifier.
I agree. There are lots of men who couldn't care less how much their wives make (more, less, etc). But the fact that there are so many that do (I'd wager the majority, even if it's a slim majority) says something.
It DOES say something.
The question is whether it says what you THINK it says or not. That's always the question. It may -- to some extent; and it may say entirely different things of which you have no knowledge or consideration as well.
The question is whether it says what you THINK it says or not. That's always the question. It may -- to some extent; and it may say entirely different things of which you have no knowledge or consideration as well.
Can't argue with that.
To address something from a different post (not yours, US), there is no 'foot putting down' in our family whatsoever. I know some people think it's inevitable that someone in a couple has to step up as the leader. I think that's a bunch of crap perpetuated by power-hungry traditionalists.
To address something from a different post (not yours, US), there is no 'foot putting down' in our family whatsoever. I know some people think it's inevitable that someone in a couple has to step up as the leader. I think that's a bunch of crap perpetuated by power-hungry traditionalists.
I would disagree with this, but NOT because I don't think it SHOULD be correct. I'd much, much rather it was and I have to agree there are a few couples and/or households out there where such a thing isn't necessary.
But it's not the nature of people to simply act without even the simplest guidance. Look at informal groups of people who get together to complete virtually any project, watch how there will be round-table-variety discussion and then when all is settled folks will kind of mill about until someone finally claps their hands or raises their voice and says "Okay, let's get TO it!"
And then, as though given permission, everyone will go do their respective job.
Those almost-seamless partnerships are great when they happen, whether marital or merely any given partnership -- but they're very, very, very rare. More often than not someone IS in charge.
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.
There seems to be some confusion about what "preferential treatment" is. I have no idea what you interpret to be, but I think I explained it in an earlier post. I'll repeat again so you don't have to spend time looking it up. Preferential treatment is the right to be cared for. ESPECIALLY cared for. Yes a wife cares for her husband, but when the decision of which spouse comes first, the wife always goes first. You get the coat when there is one. You get the umbrella if it's too small for two people. The man runs to the car and you wait for him to pick you up. It means when there is an inevitable imbalance the advantage goes to the person with preferential treatment. And if you think there isn't any imbalance then you must really live a charmed life, or you get the preferential treatment so often you don't notice any imbalance. Preferential treatment is basically chivalry.
