Woggle Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 WOW....maybe feminists in LA are different, I don't know. Around here, they are mostly ugly, bitter, and man hating (but still want the man to pay for everything). I do agree with you though that when a woman calls herself "traditional", it's usually a code word for gold digger. I agree. Women who are what Barky describes usually reject the feminist label.
silverfish Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Maybe there's a massive culture difference then between the Uk and Usa then but it just sounds like general manners to me.
sally4sara Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Huh? You act as though all women LOOVE working, when in reality for the vast majority it is out of necessity. Very few have wonderful and rewarding careers. Most women I have known spend most of their free time complaining about their job and how much they hate it, no matter how much money they were making. Real life isn't Sex in the City. Many women LOOVE the idea of taking care of a home and raising a family. It is no surprise not many are posting on this forum. Funny how feminists twist a man wanting to support a wife and kids as a man who wants to "limit another". Society is turning to crap today largely because parents are too busy "working and being independent" over spending time with their kids. I love that my mother stayed at home,(cooked 3 times a day and educated us) and that my father could take us places when he got home after work because everything at home was in order. I prefer the above to 2 stressed and tired parents bringing home some Mcdonalds while shoving video games in the kids face so that they leave them alone. My partner hates, not his job, but current place of employment. He could fall back on one of the trades he knows as I bring in enough from my job which I love having. We would still meet our needs. However, we both are employed for things we would even if they were not our jobs. Many people manage to find something they are interested in so why is it beyond you to think a woman wouldn't be happily employed? Have you graduated yet? Don't you have a preferred field? Do you expect to hate it? I am not the only woman I know who feels the same whether or not the need the income from it. I know plenty of women who don't want children. Something I've been noticing more and more is my number of male friends who can't wait to be a parent now out number the female friends who can't wait to be a parent. Funny though that I don't pass judgment on any of them for their wants. YOU can live however you want without taking it personal every time a woman doesn't want to be like the woman in your master plan is. In fact how well has insisting women should be like your ideal woman working for you towards that master plan of yours? If your views were accurate - you'd have achieved it already. The point behind feminism wasn't to tell women they can't be stay at home mothers but rather to to be a stay at home mother if they CHOOSE to.
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) The point behind feminism wasn't to tell women they can't be stay at home mothers but rather to to be a stay at home mother if they CHOOSE to. Actually the point behind feminism was to create more taxable assets, while also enriching banks and corporations. Everyone these days seems to be saying 2 incomes are needed to raise a family. What choice do women have?. So all feminism did was take away a woman's right to choose if she wants to stay home.. Deep inside all women YEARN to be stay at home moms, raising kids, with a loving husband that supports them. That is biological. Some women cannot attain this or suffer from some sort of arrested development, so they try to tell others how happy they are, and how they don't want children etc etc. Easily transparent. Edited March 2, 2010 by calizaggy
silverfish Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Actually the point behind feminism was to create more taxable assets, while also enriching banks and corporations. Everyone these days seems to be saying 2 incomes are needed to raise a family. What choice do women have?. So all feminism did was take away a woman's right to choose if she wants to stay home.. You're right, but it wasn't feminism that did that...we all walked right into it in the early 1970s..... In the UK, its just about becoming a choice again to stay at home and bring up your kids, but it's taken a long time to get there. If you want to own your own home, forget it...both parents work full time. We couldn't buy my grandparents house with 2 of us working full time, when they could do it on one of them working 9-5, and one at home....it's only going to get harder for the next generation and while we waste time fighting some sort of gender war we are refusing to look to the future
Mr White Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) I have yet to meet a feminist who wanted anything of the sort. All the feminists I've met and dated have been breaths of fresh air. Sexually proactive, balanced, understanding of men, into their own lives, independent, non-clingy, willing to open the door for me if they went through first, etc etc etc. Whereas all of the women I've ever dated who called themselves "traditional" have been manipulative gold-diggers. Pure and simple. Well, I take personal offense in this. My gf is "traditional", but she goes to school and lves her future career just as much as any run-of-the-mill "feminist". The difference is that - unlike those types - she doesn't feel the need to parade her independence in my face, and instead focuses on maintaining a nice, relaxing, and comfortable relationship, pretty much along traditional gender roles. Also, she's clearly no gold digger considering that college professor salaries in my field are basically middle-middle class forever. Any woman that feels the need to shove her "independence" in people's faces and shout from rooftops has major emotional issues and men would be wise to avoid her. The only genuinely productive and constructive people are those who go about their professional life in a as a matter of factly way and producing, without talking too much. Edited March 2, 2010 by Mr White
Taramere Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 WOW....maybe feminists in LA are different, I don't know. Around here, they are mostly ugly, bitter, and man hating (but still want the man to pay for everything). I do agree with you though that when a woman calls herself "traditional", it's usually a code word for gold digger. You're just not very keen on women generally, are you Johnny M? Traditional = gold digging whore. Feminist = ugly, bitter and man-hating. I suspect that it's not so much that there's a difference between feminists, or women generally, in LA and feminists/women in the area you live in. The real difference is more probably between you and Barky, the ways in which you perceive the world - and the kind of people you draw into your lives as a result.
sally4sara Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Deep inside all women YEARN to be stay at home moms, raising kids, with a loving husband that supports them. That is biological. Some women cannot attain this or suffer from some sort of arrested development, so they try to tell others how happy they are, and how they don't want children etc etc. Easily transparent. And how well is your belief that you know what women yearn for working for you? You've never spent a day as a woman and it is ridiculous to think you know what they ALLLL want. I could easily be a stay at home mother. My family situation is as such that we could afford it. Why am I not jumping at the chance if I secretly YEARN for it? See, I love my son and wouldn't wish him to not exist, but I never chose to be a mother. When my first marriage was tanking, I insisted on condoms because I didn't desire to be a mother and didn't want to risk having a child with my exhusband especially when we were not working out over him drinking. He admitted many years later to defecting the condom purposefully. I didn't miss my monthly until the end of the first trimester and found myself 12/13 weeks along. So voila! I am a mother. It wasn't something I ever sought out. I love him but I do not seek to have another child. My closest friend does not want to be a mother. Her husband makes enough that she could be a SAHM if she wanted. She is not interested and loves her job.
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t217455/ The above thread is a more realistic example of "feminism"at work. Millions of girls are "sold" by watching Allie McBeal, Sex in the City, etc, into believing once they graduate college, they will have some great, fun, exciting and rewarding career.. They will find the man of their dreams at any age, and live happily ever after.. The reality is more or less similar to the girls thread above.. Acquiring HUGE sums of debt, then no longer having any choices as to having a family, marriage, etc..If she is fortunate enough to find a job in her field, it will barely be enough to make ends meet, as she has to pay off all this debt, buy a car, pay rent, bills, clothes etc.. The job itself will be a job,. not some rewarding and exciting career. And of course, very few men can afford the above girl. The only ones happy about the above woman's situation are the tax collectors and banks.. She is TRAPPED into working , whether she likes her job or not. Maybe by the time she pays her debt off she will get around to finding a man, but she will not be 25 anymore, and perhaps she will miss out on having a family altogether. At that point the girl will become either broken, or more hardened. She will live a life of working to pay bills mixed in with casual sex. I can name FAR MORE women in her situation, than I can career women who simply love their jobs and make great money, and have wonderful lives.
donnamaybe Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 1. If you marry a woman whom is a high earner, typically she would be under a lot of stress and have to put in long hours. Not much of a wife. 2. If you marry a mid to low earner,they end up being just as expensive. Day care must be paid for, maybe a maid, eating out more, her work clothes, car expenses, etc. The amount she adds would be negligible. Then I have to come home after work and still cook for myself. Might as well be single and still sleep with random women. 3. So, i would prefer supporting a wife and kids, in return that she takes care of all the home duties so i can come home to a relaxed, stress free environment. It would also allow me to earn more as I can focus more attention on work. Win/win. So where is this woman you are married to - or even dating? No one, from what I can tell. Obviously, your opinions are working just GREAT for you.
torranceshipman Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Let's face it: How many truly hot, sexually desirable women are self-defined "feminists"? I'm not talking about maybe some college women/early 20's who may temporarily adopt the "feminist" pose because they believe it to be fashionable...until they want to actually land a man and start making babies, that is. I'm talking about hard-core feminists. How many of them are actually attractive to men? And for that matter, not just physically attractive...but emotionally and psychologically attractive as well? It's very very clear that women who perceive themselves to be "hot" and "desirable" to men are the precise opposite of feminists. These self-perceived "hot" and "desirable" women expect the man to pay for the first date, put on a pedestal, etc. etc. etc.... Self-described "feminists" tend to be extremely bitter, resentful, and insecure about their sexuality. That is, if they actually center their identity around their "feminism." Emotionally healthy women focus their identity around actually trying to find a mate, create a family, and so forth. It's the same as anyone else who centers their identity around any other political ideology. In this case it happens to be "feminism." This post is akin to likening a member of Opus Dei to a Christian who only turns up to church at Easter and Christmas. Feminists cover the entire spectrum from liberal to militant. Extremes of anything are never good and the extreme of feminism is representative of an absolutely tiny percentage of total feminists. As for your hypothesis - it's off - I am a liberal feminist, have been for a long time, and know men who are the equivalent of liberal feminists too - they appreciate a woman who respects themselves enough to want equality. I am physically the opposite of what I think you'd stereotype a feminist to look like. I know many girls who are feminists and they range from the old lady next door to cheerleaders and academics. Whats so hard to understand about this: most feminists simply want equality. That's all. If you seriously believe that we're all wrong for wanting equality, then clearly we have very different beliefs.
Mr White Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) Well, my ex is one of thoes girls that will end up being almost 35 before finishing her (prestigious) engineering doctorate, with a string of failed relationships (including with me, which she regretted but a little too late), with fading looks and uncertain prospects for happiness. Sure, she will find someone, but she'll probably need to settle in some departments. It is quite sad, and I wish she didn't have to struggle all on her own, but oh well. My current gf is not without deficiencies, but she's an extremely humble, with an understanding that you can't "have it all", which makes her a great partner because she's focused on making things work in the present, without getting restless over some imaginary world. So, whether or not a woman works is a moot point - most do. The issue is whether they get sucked into some imaginary 'glamorous' world SATC style. In that sense, men have always been much more realistic. Having a job - even one you like - is a hard, often brutal business that always involves tradeoffs with other aspects of quality of life. It's not painting your fingernails while ignoring phone calls. Edited March 2, 2010 by Mr White
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Whats so hard to understand about this: most feminists simply want equality. That's all. If you seriously believe that we're all wrong for wanting equality, then clearly we have very different beliefs. As others have said, men today view this as BS. What do you mean by equal? Equal to me would mean women take half of the dirty/back breaking/dangerous jobs. You know, the types of jobs you whine about being denied hundreds of years ago. It would mean they ask men out, and do their share of planning and paying for first dates. An example would be you see a handsome stranger, approach him, ask him out, call him, plan the date, pick him up, then pay for him. Equal would mean you are OBLIGATED to work and pay your way, not having options to be a stay at home mom, work part time, expect the man to pay most of the bills while you work for spending money etc. Equal would mean you completely IGNORE a man's income and profession while picking a mate, as men have done and still do for centuries. Most "feminists" still want a man that earns more, do not want a job that entails physical labor, and still expect a man to court them/pay on dates. It is humorous how so many "feminists" turn into traditional thinking women when they are 35-40 and they realize life is not sex in the city. The women who are alone stuck in dead end jobs or low paying careers, straddled with debt. Sadly for many of them it is too late. What "feminists" want is the best of every situation.. See how being a career woman works, if it doesn't work, then try the traditional route. Men do not have these choices, so there never will be "equality".
Taramere Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Well, my ex is one of thoes girls that will end up being almost 35 before finishing her (prestigious) engineering doctorate, with a string of failed relationships (including with me, which she regretted but a little too late), with fading looks and uncertain prospects for happiness. Sure, she will find someone, but she'll probably need to settle in some departments. It is quite sad, and I wish she didn't have to struggle all on her own, but oh well. It's always tempting to think that an ex is "settling" if they end up with anyone other than ourselves...but if she's doing a doctorate in engineering, then this must be a field she has a passion for. Happiness, for her, would most likely involve a man who shares her particular passions and understands why she chose the route she chose. She's evidently highly intelligent, and she'd probably be deeply unhappy if she had to try to squeeze herself into the role of modest housewife who pretends to be happy about the fact that she never reached her potential. Do you really think that women were happier when they were restricted into traditional roles? My great uncle went to university and ended up heading a bank. He was pretty smart, but my grandmother performed even better than he did at school. However, the family could only afford to send one of them to university...so because he was the boy, he got the education. My grandmother was a lovely person who played the traditional role to perfection, but if you ever sat down with her and had a proper conversation, it was heartbreaking. The biggest regret of her life was that she had never been able to go to university. Never had the opportunity to use her brain. The contentment with her lot was a facade to keep other people happy. I think that even if, for whatever reason, your ex isn't happy right now - it's best for both of you that that relationship didn't work out. It does no good for someone to endlessly squeeze themselves into a role, lifestyle and personality that just isn't them, because that's the role a partner sees them in and they're trying to make that partner happy. My current gf is not without deficiencies, but she's an extremely humble, with an understanding that you can't "have it all", which makes her a great partner Can you not see how an exceptionally bright woman such as your ex might be appalled by the notion that she should waste her brain and elect instead to channel her efforts into being humble and keeping her expectations of life low? Taking a critical approach towards your ex for who she is...you may as well berate a swan for not being a duck, or nag a horse for not being a camel. Feminism recognises that women as well as men can vary quite drastically in their temperaments, ambitions and talents. That trying to restrict people to certain roles because of their genders can create great unhappiness...not to mention resulting in certain talents being completely wasted.
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) . My grandmother was a lovely person who played the traditional role to perfection, but if you ever sat down with her and had a proper conversation, it was heartbreaking. The biggest regret of her life was that she had never been able to go to university. Never had the opportunity to use her brain. The contentment with her lot was a facade to keep other people happy. . A. Would you grandmother be truly more fulfilled never having a family? B. Realistically, she would have been more happy working in a career full time AND raising a family? I doubt it. Once she gave birth she might have wanted to quit her career immediately. She seems to be romanticizing something she never did and has no clue about. I have met so many younger women in college who think work will be some glamorous, exciting, and intriguing lifestyle UNTIL they enter the real world in which they are doing some monotonous and boring task over and over while having to deal with bosses and schedules they loathe. Of course while also worrying about being fired, paying off debt, being fired, not advancing etc etc. C. Supposedly your grandma is ASSUMING she would have LOVED her job and career, when so often in reality this is far from the case.. Many people study a profession for years (lawyers, engineers etc) just to realize they HATE the reality of it. They quit rather quickly if possible, or just trudge on out of necessity. How many men have these OPTIONS? "Well I will try a career, if I do not like it, well I will find a woman to support me" The above grandma example is similar to a guy saying "I was the best player on my little league and high school baseball team..Instead of getting married i should have stuck with baseball and became a professional. My life would have been wonderful" The vast majority of jobs are not fun, exciting, fullfilling etc.. Women have no other way to grow as a human if not working to profit someone else? That is the only way they can use their brain? Edited March 2, 2010 by calizaggy
Mr White Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 This post is akin to likening a member of Opus Dei to a Christian who only turns up to church at Easter and Christmas. Feminists cover the entire spectrum from liberal to militant. Extremes of anything are never good and the extreme of feminism is representative of an absolutely tiny percentage of total feminists. As for your hypothesis - it's off - I am a liberal feminist, have been for a long time, and know men who are the equivalent of liberal feminists too - they appreciate a woman who respects themselves enough to want equality. I am physically the opposite of what I think you'd stereotype a feminist to look like. I know many girls who are feminists and they range from the old lady next door to cheerleaders and academics. Whats so hard to understand about this: most feminists simply want equality. That's all. If you seriously believe that we're all wrong for wanting equality, then clearly we have very different beliefs. the negative connotations of feminism are perfectly justified, since what is described as "liberal feminism" is merely basic *common sense* that no sane man would ever even think of questioning, and the hard-core feminism is clearly a sick man-hating ideology. So, any time I hear somebody describe themselves as feminist, I expect - and find - someone who goes well beyond common sense and common courtesy and way into a conspiracy theory crap.
Taramere Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 A. Would you grandmother be truly more fulfilled never having a family? I think she might have been more fulfilled if she hadn't devoted her life to looking after others to the extent that she did. My grandfather, God rest his soul, was a pretty lazy individual. Even after retirement, he never lifted a finger in the house. My grandmother, meantime, did everything in the house and she also held down two cleaning jobs as his pension didn't go too far (and she was too proud to accept financial help from her brother or my parents). And her life was far from untypical. A workhorse who went on being a workhorse until my grandfather died. She did, of course, grieve his death...but it was only after his death that she was able to take a break from all the donkey work and start reading all the books she'd never had a chance to read. Visiting some of the places (with my parents) that she'd never had a chance to visit. I don't think she regretted having a family. She'd asked my mother to do her eulogy when she died. Part of that eulogy was one of her own quotes. "When you educate a man, you educate an individual. When you educate a woman, you educate a family." B. Realistically, she would have been more happy working in a career full time AND raising a family? I doubt it. Once she gave birth she might have wanted to quit her career immediately. I think she'd have been a lot happier, and less exhausted, doing a job she loved.....where she was able to use her brain. C. Supposedly your grandma is ASSUMING she would have LOVED her job and career, when so often in reality this is far from the case.. Many people study a profession for years (lawyers, engineers etc) just to realize they HATE the reality of it. They quit rather quickly if possible, or just trudge on out of necessity. I worked as a lawyer for several years. There were aspects I loved, and aspects I hated. It's left me with more opportunities than I would otherwise have. What I do now is mainly research (which I love), and law also opened up an avenue to a different (related) professional area which I'm absolutely passionate about. No path you take in life is ever going to be perfect, and I've certainly made quite a few mistakes/had the odd misfortune career-wise... but we do have to all make our own paths and choices in life. To me, feminism only continues to exist because there are so many people who still can't quite accept the notion of women being adults who have the right to make adult choices...and who are capable of being accountable for those choice they make. How many men have these OPTIONS? "Well I will try a career, if I do not like it, well I will find a woman to support me" I'm not sure that "I'll try a career and if I don't like it I'll marry someone who will support me" is something that would be open to many people generally. What you perhaps mean is that some women give up their careers, or put them on hold, in order to raise children. To me, that most certainly isn't a case of those women being leeches who are being supported by the man. Presumably in those situations the man also wants children. Young children are a huge amount of work. I adore my niece and nephew, but I can safely say that 5 hours spent looking after them is quite a bit more tiring than the average day in the office. The vast majority of jobs are not fun, exciting, fullfilling etc.. Women have no other way to grow as a human if not working to profit someone else? You're American, I think. Americans have a slightly different approach to work than we have in Europe. Here, work really isn't the be all and end all. A lawyer will not work 100 hours per week in the way that seems to be common in the US. I don't think people here use their jobs to define who they are quite to the extent that seems to go on in the US. If you're looking for work to fulfill you 100%, then that's disastrous in my book. It's important for anyone, regardless of gender, to have a good work/life balance. To have interests and friendships outside of the workplace.
Mr White Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Can you not see how an exceptionally bright woman such as your ex might be appalled by the notion that she should waste her brain and elect instead to channel her efforts into being humble and keeping her expectations of life low? Taking a critical approach towards your ex for who she is...you may as well berate a swan for not being a duck, or nag a horse for not being a camel. Feminism recognises that women as well as men can vary quite drastically in their temperaments, ambitions and talents. That trying to restrict people to certain roles because of their genders can create great unhappiness...not to mention resulting in certain talents being completely wasted. 1) I've never expected my ex to get a doctorate only to be a housewife :rolleyes:. She is getting one because she is a) smart and b) because she's spend too much of her life doing engineering and it is too late to do something else. As a result, she has boxed herself into a life that will eventually result in some level of achievement, but at a very high cost. So her profession necessarily becomes the most important part of her identity, when it is clearly not the case. 2) my current gf loves her career, but also understands that that's just a fact of life, that's not to come at the expense of everything else. She understands that having a family will probably delay her advancement, but that's not the "kiss of death for her", but merely an obvious tradeoff that there is no getting around.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 It's always tempting to think that an ex is "settling" if they end up with anyone other than ourselves...but if she's doing a doctorate in engineering, then this must be a field she has a passion for. Happiness, for her, would most likely involve a man who shares her particular passions and understands why she chose the route she chose. I think most women, while they want love, would rather be single then in a failing relationship. No matter their age. And I know that older men have just as a hard time dating as women do. It’s just a fact of life. There is a few of you here that really don't want a discussion. One where you express your opinion and hear another one out. You care about *you* and how and when *you* get *yours* while figuring out the least amount of effort and return you should could. Perhaps more time should be spent on asking yourself what you give. Opposed to what you get? What do you give in a relationship Johnny M? Mr. White? Calizaguy? What do you offer and share of yourselves? You've had personal hardships, disappointments and bitter experiences. So has everyone else in the world. Women aren't at fault for all your failures. And women aren’t abject from their own hurts. Do care about the negative experiences women have? Possibly negative experiences YOU as a faulty human being contributed to? Or are those so insignificant to you that you never even thought about them? By the way, most of you don't make the kind of money to pull a true gold-digger anyway. It’s laughable when certain people say this. Women want a man that is financially stable and will be willing to share his resources with her. You can attempt to call it "gold-digging" all you want but you know it has nothing to do with the real meaning of that word. And it’s not going to stop women from wanting a man to share his resources with her. It's funny how the same guys that name call about "gold-diggers" tend to be the same ones that laminate their preferences for certain female characteristics. If a woman wants you to pay for a meal and you can't handle it, then don't date at all. Because we judge men on how much they care about us based on how much they are willing to share with us. A man that is dedicated to us, will have no problem spending money on us. That includes emotionally, physically and financially. And usually men judge women more harshly on how much they are willing to share physically then women judge men. So if women judge you more harshly financially, then think about all the times you judged a woman more hashly on the physical stuff.
Tnerforireyeh Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I've found, on this board and others, that men who complain about feminism, are usually the ones who have been unsuccessful dealing with it. I've also dated lots of women and every time I hear one say "I'm traditional," I get very nervous. This usually means, "I'm not going to sleep with you quickly and I expect you to do all the work and pay for all our nights out." And they're usually into stereotyped gender roles, which I can't stand. I have no idea why any man would sign up for that, when there are plenty of women who will happily pay their share, but that's just me. I'm frugal. Some men don't care about keeping their money.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I've dated alot of men who would never let me pay. Of course, that just had something to do with the type of men I was attracted to anyway. If a guy can't be bothered to, at the least, puchase me a cup of coffee, to me that says alot more then just the 80 cents it took to buy the coffee.
calizaggy Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Women want a man that is financially stable and will be willing to share his resources with her. You can attempt to call it "gold-digging" all you want but you know it has nothing to do with the real meaning of that word. And it’s not going to stop women from wanting a man to share his resources with her. If a woman wants you to pay for a meal and you can't handle it, then don't date at all. Because we judge men on how much they care about us based on how much they are willing to share with us. A man that is dedicated to us, will have no problem spending money on us. . This is the hypocrisy.. Women are now "equal", but still must be paid for like children, or the men will be "shamed". If I am going to pay (The old fashioned role), then I expect my wife/girlfriend to play the old fashioned role (Cook, few past sex partners, take care of the home etc) Feminism has just made women more selfish.. They still want the man to pay(No logical reason other than he is being a gentleman), yet they want all other past RESPONSIBILITIES to be shared and divided equally, along with being sexually "free". Look, if you want equality, put your money where your mouth is. Go be that equal woman, ask men out, pay for dates, pick them up, etc.
donnamaybe Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 This is the hypocrisy.. Women are now "equal", but still must be paid for like children, or the men will be "shamed". If I am going to pay (The old fashioned role), then I expect my wife/girlfriend to play the old fashioned role (Cook, few past sex partners, take care of the home etc) Feminism has just made women more selfish.. They still want the man to pay(No logical reason other than he is being a gentleman), yet they want all other past RESPONSIBILITIES to be shared and divided equally, along with being sexually "free". Look, if you want equality, put your money where your mouth is. Go be that equal woman, ask men out, pay for dates, pick them up, etc. For the first (and probably last) time, I have to agree with you.
Tnerforireyeh Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 This is the hypocrisy.. Women are now "equal", but still must be paid for like children, or the men will be "shamed". I hardly think that the one whose post you quoted would be considered a 'feminist.'
donnamaybe Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 I hardly think that the one whose post you quoted would be considered a 'feminist.' While I agree with what you say, there ARE many LS women who want equality but still want to be pursued and paid for by men.
Recommended Posts