U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:09 PM
 
19,059 posts, read 23,725,877 times
Reputation: 13468

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx View Post
Sounds selfish of you.

...

No. It's not his fault. Don't blame him when you have the control.
That's it in a nutshell. Her success emasculated him.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:17 PM
 
19,059 posts, read 23,725,877 times
Reputation: 13468
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx View Post
Oh I'm in it.
Um, no, you are not in it. You are not married. You are not supporting a family, etc. You do not have those responsibilities. Or, are you divorced?

Quote:
You all are getting hung up on the details. The point of the $75k dollar figure was to say that anyone making the mean average in your geographic area makes enough for a family to survive.
The details are what happen in life. Dreams, OTOH, often neglect the details. 75k is above the national average. Heck, in the Boston area I've read a family of 3-4 can survive on 63k. That's not enough imo. These will be the people relying on SS when they're old and they won't make it.

Quote:
Also, it was a question. Remember?
What? Stan4- 30s. Me-30s. I met my dh in my 20s. The question is moot. We're not 40 somethings.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:21 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 5,387,656 times
Reputation: 3865
Unfortunately, posts like those by Antlered and smartalx exemplify the unbelievably narrow -- and unrealistic -- way in which urban society identifies economic value exclusively with money. Labor is considered such only if it actually generates cash, but a housewife (or indeed a househusband) who maintains the home, cooks and cleans, educates the children, fixes cars and appliances and does a myriad other tasks is deemed to be not working; or if he or she makes less money than the other spouse and does most of the housework, is deemed to be working less. The "working" spouse comes home at 7 or 8 pm and puts his feet up; the housewife works 24/7, with no weekends of vacations -- but it's the "working" spouse that's deemed to be the only "provider".

I know, I know, people like Antlered and smartalx will rush to tell me how much they "respect" the hard-working housewife, including any housewife who also works outside the home (two full-time jobs, essentially) -- and they "respect" her so much that they would "provide" and "protect" for her. (Protect her from what? And how?) But the problem is, it doesn't occur to them that those who serve them provide for them as well, in a very tangeable, material way. An educated spouse who home-schools his or her children saves the family upwards of $20K on private school tuition of comparable quality -- per child. A spouse who bargain-hunts, who maintains the house, who cooks and cleans, fixes everything saves loads of money that you would otherwise pay professionals to do. Yet none of that is acknowledged. I know I always get on people's nerves when I describe housewifery as usually thankless and unrewarding, and that's exactly what I mean -- that even traditional-minded men who claim they would "respect" a wife who earns less or nothing at all, do so by infantilizing her (at best) and pretending that she leads a life of leisure even while she's working her *** off. True, there are exceptions to this attitude, as U.S.'s posts demonstrate, but they are exactly that -- exceptions.

And this is the same attitude, of course, that deems it "unmanly" for the husband to be the stay-at-home spouse. His labor goes unacknowledged just like a woman's would. Moreover, it's not surprising at all that some women look down on men who earn less than them or "lord over" their stay-at-home husbands. Men and women share the same society and thus imbibe the same prejudices and biases; the sword, unfortunately, cuts both ways. Personally, I respect any individual who leads a productive life, and don't look down on a man simply because his productivity doesn't immediately translate into cash; but then, I am the resident radical here, so I can't claim my attitude is the norm.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
1,084 posts, read 1,469,422 times
Reputation: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling View Post
The offense is the generalization.
I suspected as much. But the more and more I see men disagree with these generalizations the more and more I see women confirm them. Obviously not here.
Quote:
Fewer and fewer women every generation can be described in these terms as society evolves.
As I said earlier, it takes hundreds or thousands of years for people to evolve, even if society "evolves" every generation. Women, although convinced that they are one way because society has pigeonholed them into behaving more like a man, are still women: with tender, loving, nurturing, attributes at their core. Men at our core are still determined, hard-working, take-charge, providers; despite society trying to turn us into women.
Quote:
I imagine it is true that biology informs women's choices in their prime child-bearing years, and maternal instinct has an influence on couple's decisions about who (if anyone) stays home with the children, but society's influence on these roles is diminishing.
Seems to me that you are saying that society's influence on these roles is INCREASING. The natural instinct to care for her young is being suppressed by society's rule that you must have a career.
Quote:
Assuming that all women want an option to put their careers on hold to stay home from work with their children is not offensive, just nonsensical.
How so? If the husband makes enough to provide, then it's just smart. You might have to tighten your belt, but the health of the children is worth it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:27 PM
 
19,059 posts, read 23,725,877 times
Reputation: 13468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Unfortunately, posts like those by Antlered and smartalx exemplify the unbelievably narrow -- and unrealistic -- way in which urban society identifies economic value exclusively with money. Labor is considered such only if it actually generates cash, but a housewife (or indeed a househusband) who maintains the home, cooks and cleans, educates the children, fixes cars and appliances and does a myriad other tasks is deemed to be not working; or if he or she makes less money than the other spouse and does most of the housework, is deemed to be working less. The "working" spouse comes home at 7 or 8 pm and puts his feet up; the housewife works 24/7, with no weekends of vacations -- but it's the "working" spouse that's deemed to be the only "provider".
Yes, she is providing 24/7, but will this be acknowledged as a provider? No.

Quote:
(Protect her from what? And how?)
The cold she experiences from the car to the door of the home... with his jacket, of course. Or the man will protect her from the man.

Quote:
And this is the same attitude, of course, that deems it "unmanly" for the husband to be the stay-at-home spouse. His labor goes unacknowledged just like a woman's would.
This statement sums up the argument succinctly.

Quote:
Moreover, it's not surprising at all that some women look down on men who earn less than them or "lord over" their stay-at-home husbands. Men and women share the same society and thus imbibe the same prejudices and biases; the sword, unfortunately, cuts both ways. Personally, I respect any individual who leads a productive life, and don't look down on a man simply because his productivity doesn't immediately translate into cash; but then, I am the resident radical here, so I can't claim my attitude is the norm.
Awesome post, Redisca. I won't even bother trying to rep you.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
1,084 posts, read 1,469,422 times
Reputation: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Unfortunately, posts like those by Antlered and smartalx exemplify the unbelievably narrow -- and unrealistic -- way in which urban society identifies economic value exclusively with money. Labor is considered such only if it actually generates cash, but a housewife (or indeed a househusband) who maintains the home, cooks and cleans, educates the children, fixes cars and appliances and does a myriad other tasks is deemed to be not working; or if he or she makes less money than the other spouse and does most of the housework, is deemed to be working less. The "working" spouse comes home at 7 or 8 pm and puts his feet up; the housewife works 24/7, with no weekends of vacations -- but it's the "working" spouse that's deemed to be the only "provider".
I think you have me confused with someone else.
Quote:
I know, I know, people like Antlered and smartalx will rush to tell me how much they "respect" the hard-working housewife, including any housewife who also works outside the home (two full-time jobs, essentially) -- and they "respect" her so much that they would "provide" and "protect" for her. (Protect her from what? And how?) But the problem is, it doesn't occur to them that those who serve them provide for them as well, in a very tangeable, material way. An educated spouse who home-schools his or her children saves the family upwards of $20K on private school tuition of comparable quality -- per child. A spouse who bargain-hunts, who maintains the house, who cooks and cleans, fixes everything saves loads of money that you would otherwise pay professionals to do. Yet none of that is acknowledged. I know I always get on people's nerves when I describe housewifery as usually thankless and unrewarding, and that's exactly what I mean -- that even traditional-minded men who claim they would "respect" a wife who earns less or nothing at all, do so by infantilizing her (at best) and pretending that she leads a life of leisure even while she's working her *** off. True, there are exceptions to this attitude, as U.S.'s posts demonstrate, but they are exactly that -- exceptions.
Yep, you most DEFINITELY have me confused with someone else. I would like to invite you to reread my initial posts in answer to the OP and in direct rebuttal to the claim that the desire to make more money is connected to a desire to control the wife.
Quote:
And this is the same attitude, of course, that deems it "unmanly" for the husband to be the stay-at-home spouse.
Don't be confused. If my wife and I decide that it would be best for the children that I be the stay at home parent, then that would be fine with me. Whatever is best for the kids.

I am absolutely 100% for equality. And I acknowledge that men and women are different. Equal but distinct. One is a pile of diamonds worth a million dollars. The other is a lump of gold worth a million dollars. One is beautiful and sparkly. The other is more utilitarian. One can be cast to support the other and when both unite they create a spectacular diamond ring, necklace, bracelet, or earring. Alone they are wonderful. But together they are brilliant.

That is what men and women should be together. I don't think that is chauvinistic. I can't see how that sentiment could be offensive. Maybe it's a bit over-dramatic and romantic. What can I say? I'm a romantic. But how can you think that it's offensive to think that the man should cherish his wife and his wife should look up to her husband?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:34 PM
 
19,059 posts, read 23,725,877 times
Reputation: 13468
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx View Post
As I said earlier, it takes hundreds or thousands of years for people to evolve, even if society "evolves" every generation.
You are really comparing biological evolution with cultural/societal evolution? Oy vey.

eta: for your latter post, you're contradicting yourself all over the place.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 44,191,225 times
Reputation: 11027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound View Post
We're a couple too and we're upwards of the 75k figure as well, and we bought our condo 12 yrs ago when the market was cheap, and it seems like we're always having to dip into the saving just to make ends meet.

I don't know how people with kids do it.
Some people find it's cheaper to rent than to own. No property taxes, no mortgage interest, no paying for a new roof...

Someone talked about dreams. You can't live on dreams, but must face reality.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:37 PM
 
19,059 posts, read 23,725,877 times
Reputation: 13468
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Some people find it's cheaper to rent than to own. No property taxes, no mortgage interest, no paying for a new roof...

Someone talked about dreams. You can't live on dreams, but must face reality.
That's certainly true. It's two different mindsets and direction, tho.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:37 PM
 
10,876 posts, read 12,969,938 times
Reputation: 4896
I think it's great for a girl to be self sufficient and I have no problem (even like it) when a girls makes more. It shows she's intelligent and driven in life, not just working crappy jobs waiting for a man to take care of her.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top