Why! Why! Why!

[nikayla]

My boyfriend recently introduced me to a mutual female friend for the summer. Throughout the course of this afternoon, I wanted to sew my ears shut to avoid the constant chatter about her relationship. Every conversation seemed to revolve around her boyfriend and his needs. It was as if this woman had no mind of her own. I usually am not the judgmental type, but it amazes me when I read about women who sacrifice their careers to relocate with men, adhere to new values that their men like, or change their entire social network. Why, in the 21st century, is this still happening? Perhaps the LS community can offer insight....thanks for letting me rant.

 

-Nikayla

[mr_atticus]

The women's equality movement, thankfully, gave women the right to choose what kind of partner they want to be in a relationship. Some have chosen to be the dominant ones; others actually LIKE to be supportive and treat their husband as a provider, head of the house, etc. Let her have that freedom. You don't have to agree with it, but respect her choice at least, you know?

 

(I should note, though, that I sort of agree with you. I'm not into women who are the "home-maker" type because they lack the ambition and intellect to challenge me. Heck, I would relocate for a woman if I cared enough about her.)

[nikayla]

Mr_Atticus:

 

Thank you for the reply. I am not against homemakers in any way. In fact, my mother is a stay-at-home mom who supports my father unconditionally. However, she retains a sense of autonomy (i.e. going out with friends, singing in the church choir, etc.) within her interdependent role. I guess I was just somewhat surprised to meet a woman in my age group (I just turned 21), ready to drop everything-including college-to pursue a relationship in another state. She has even converted religions! I must accept the fact that not every 80s and 90s baby aspires to advance in the corporate world. Sorry if i'm a bit naive.

[SassyKitten]

While it is all choice, I wonder sometimes how many women who opt to be the submissive gf/wife are being true to themselves and are truly happy. I say this because so many women in my family are old school mentality, and I can tell they're not truly happy. Especially seeing as I constantly get criticized for being 28, unmarried, wanting to travel, and am studying to be an accountant.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I guess I was just somewhat surprised to meet a woman in my age group (I just turned 21), ready to drop everything-including college-to pursue a relationship in another state. She has even converted religions! I must accept the fact that not every 80s and 90s baby aspires to advance in the corporate world. Sorry if i'm a bit naive.

 

Maybe she didn't like college. School isn't for everyone.

 

Converting religions is a bit heavy... but I think that means she doesn't have strong beliefs.

 

Anyway... I would say this woman is much better as a person than one who is her opposite.

[nikayla]

Anyway... I would say this woman is much better as a person than one who is her opposite.

 

You're right...no one wants the authoritative, man-hating matriarch. lol

[zengirl]

Mr_Atticus:

 

Thank you for the reply. I am not against homemakers in any way. In fact, my mother is a stay-at-home mom who supports my father unconditionally. However, she retains a sense of autonomy (i.e. going out with friends, singing in the church choir, etc.) within her interdependent role. I guess I was just somewhat surprised to meet a woman in my age group (I just turned 21), ready to drop everything-including college-to pursue a relationship in another state. She has even converted religions! I must accept the fact that not every 80s and 90s baby aspires to advance in the corporate world. Sorry if i'm a bit naive.

 

For what it's worth, I converted religions for my HS boyfriend when we were engaged, mostly because it was important to him (since we were getting married and thought we'd have kids someday, after college) and I didn't really "claim" my birth religion anyway. It's no different to adopt it for a spouse than for my own family, I figured. (I'm neither religion at the moment since things happen and we didn't get married.) So, it really depends how much her first religion was important to her.

 

Not every gal wants to do any one thing, and that's fine with me. It's about choices. Every woman and man should have the choice to do what they want, regardless of gender. Too bad more men can't be househusbands. While my friends and I were always a bit tickled and surprised by those women who'd say they were getting a Mrs. Degree and just wanted to go to college so they could meet a fellow, get married and pop out some kids, I was never bothered by it. So long as they have a plan to support themselves if they don't meet the fellow, more power to them.

 

It isn't my cuppa. I like having my own money, my own degrees, my own career, my own goals, my own friends; I'm willing to share and all, but I have to feel like a partner, not an attachment. That said, I don't think we can say whether that girl can feel like a partner, or not. How much do you know about her relationship or where she'll be? One conversation tells us very little.

[nikayla]

How much do you know about her relationship or where she'll be? One conversation tells us very little.

 

I am glad to hear that you were open in learning about a new religion..and accepting it! You are right, not much can be said from one conversation. She is, however, relocating with this guy, who does not have a stable job. She has put her school career on hold to pursue the role of a housewife. I think this is classic example in which I sit back and mind my own business. For all I know, their arrangement can be pretty successful. Thanks for shedding light!

[Untouchable_Fire]

It isn't my cuppa. I like having my own money, my own degrees, my own career, my own goals, my own friends; I'm willing to share and all, but I have to feel like a partner, not an attachment. That said, I don't think we can say whether that girl can feel like a partner, or not. How much do you know about her relationship or where she'll be? One conversation tells us very little.

 

I can say as a guy who has dated both types... each has it's own unique advantages.

 

Most of the women I have dated were fairly independent. The negatives are that they still expect you to spend lots of money on them. No matter how much you hear I got my own this or that, they are not cheaper at the start. However, down the road they are a bit lower maintenance. Anyway... I've never had one give me a true feeling of partnership... more like separate but equal.

 

Now the one girl I dated who was the opposite type really made me feel like we were partners. She helped me with my work, and I think that to this day she is probably better at it than me. I had a job where I would come home at 5 and work another 2-4 hours a night from home trying to build my business. She helped me with everything... and I paid for everything and gave her part of what I made. She helped me so much that to this day if she asked me for money I would give it to her... not loan... give.

 

Anyway... I know what a partnership actually feels like... and when I hear My, My, My... I get the sense you have never had that.

[hopesndreams]

I wanted to sew my ears shut to avoid the constant chatter about her relationship.

 

She's in love.

[bayouboi]

I find it humorous that for some modern day feminists it wasn't enough to tell men how they should be, but now they have to tell other women how they should be as well.

 

[zengirl]

Anyway... I know what a partnership actually feels like... and when I hear My, My, My... I get the sense you have never had that.

I know what a partnership actually feels like too. (At the moment it is "my, my, my" because I'm single. Who else would it belong to?) I've been in two super-serious relationships, both leading to cohabitation and engagement. The first one is a boy I'd be married to, were he still alive. The second. . . well, that was more complicated. And, I suppose it was about sharing, but he was the one who didn't share (bought a house without telling me, for us, while we were living together, and that was the beginning of the end, but really, it was more about him seeing me as an attachment of him).

 

Some fellows might want the attachment gal. If that's what they want, as I said, it's not my cuppa. By share, I mean: Share. Be a real partner, where each one gets equal say, where there's give and take, where all decisions about our lives are brought to the table -- my career, his career, houses, kids, etc -- to discuss and sort out together. Some fellows are too "My, my, my" to ever do that and want a gal who is an attachment to just support their dreams (Some women are the same, I imagine, though likely less). People can do as they will.

 

But I've had a partnership, in my first relationship. We were young, but I am 100% certain we'd've worked out. We were together for 6 years. Lived together the last 2 while we were engaged. We always talked about making sure our goals were aligned in terms of each helping the other. At first, that's how the relationship with the 2nd fellow was, but then he got laid off, started his own business, had some success, and became very obsessed with material things, success, etc. (He later apologized, and realized how out of whack his priorities were, but by the time, he did, I was already in Korea. About a year too late.)

 

I think your example there is one type of partnership. My stepmom and dad were like that, but she does own half the business, at least, so she has her own autonomy. Good thing since they divorced. My mom and stepdad both have their own careers and kept their money partly separate for years after being married. They still have 10% of their money go into personal accounts for "fun" purchases they don't have to consult each other on (He can buy his bike stuff; she can go shopping; all works out). Every partnership is different. But if you don't have autonomy, and you don't have a marriage certificate, or even if you do sometimes, you're in for some pretty big trouble.

Edited July 27, 2010 by zengirl

[Untouchable_Fire]

I know what a partnership actually feels like too. (At the moment it is "my, my, my" because I'm single. Who else would it belong to?) I've been in two super-serious relationships, both leading to cohabitation and engagement. The first one is a boy I'd be married to, were he still alive. The second. . . well, that was more complicated. And, I suppose it was about sharing, but he was the one who didn't share (bought a house without telling me, for us, while we were living together, and that was the beginning of the end, but really, it was more about him seeing me as an attachment of him).

 

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

Some fellows might want the attachment gal. If that's what they want, as I said, it's not my cuppa. By share, I mean: Share. Be a real partner, where each one gets equal say, where there's give and take, where all decisions about our lives are brought to the table -- my career, his career, houses, kids, etc -- to discuss and sort out together. Some fellows are too "My, my, my" to ever do that and want a gal who is an attachment to just support their dreams (Some women are the same, I imagine, though likely less). People can do as they will.

 

Having a real partnership isn't about fairness and equality... it isn't about equal say or who is an attachment to who. I don't think it has much to do with ownership at all.

 

But I've had a partnership, in my first relationship. We were young, but I am 100% certain we'd've worked out. We were together for 6 years. Lived together the last 2 while we were engaged. We always talked about making sure our goals were aligned in terms of each helping the other. At first, that's how the relationship with the 2nd fellow was, but then he got laid off, started his own business, had some success, and became very obsessed with material things, success, etc. (He later apologized, and realized how out of whack his priorities were, but by the time, he did, I was already in Korea. About a year too late.)

 

Sometimes success can get to your head. It takes time to realize every up has it's down.

 

I think your example there is one type of partnership. My stepmom and dad were like that, but she does own half the business, at least, so she has her own autonomy. Good thing since they divorced. My mom and stepdad both have their own careers and kept their money partly separate for years after being married. They still have 10% of their money go into personal accounts for "fun" purchases they don't have to consult each other on (He can buy his bike stuff; she can go shopping; all works out). Every partnership is different. But if you don't have autonomy, and you don't have a marriage certificate, or even if you do sometimes, you're in for some pretty big trouble.

 

My personal opinion is that a partnership is more about a state of mind than a division of money/labor.

[zengirl]

My personal opinion is that a partnership is more about a state of mind than a division of money/labor.

Well, yeah, I'd agree with that. Equal say means that, to me, no party leaves feeling like their dreams/goals aren't valued in the partnership. Discussions stay open and flowing till things can be resolved. For instance, I've wanted to teach in Asia for a lot longer, but I didn't, because of that relationship. I settled on getting my credentials to teach back home, because he didn't want to live abroad. Understandable. But anything that separates me from ALL my goals. . . well, that's not a relationship that works for me. I'm not going to take someone else's goals in place of my own. They have to co-exist and be valued equally. I'll compromise, but so will they. That's the state of mind that matters (in my partnerships, at least).

 

I think having your own money and autonomy matters A LOT, regardless of your goals, because women don't go from their parents' house to their husbands' house now. And, also, divorce happens. Most men complain to high heavens if they have to pay alimony, but if you marry a gal with no autonomy, you'd better expect it if the marriage doesn't work out --- you'll be paying for her for her whole life, because that's the deal. How else can it work? You can't expect to build a career at 40 with no background in anything and support yourself, or worse yourself and your children, in the same way.

 

People can make any choices they want, but that one is a bit dangerous. I find it riskier than living next to North Korea, by far, to become a homemaker. I've got no judgment for the women who do it, really. . . I just hope it works out for them. I'd never go for it anyway, because I sincerely love working, having purpose, and furthering my education. A PhD is next!

Edited July 27, 2010 by zengirl

[Untouchable_Fire]

Well, yeah, I'd agree with that. Equal say means that, to me, no party leaves feeling like their dreams/goals aren't valued in the partnership. Discussions stay open and flowing till things can be resolved. For instance, I've wanted to teach in Asia for a lot longer, but I didn't, because of that relationship. I settled on getting my credentials to teach back home, because he didn't want to live abroad. Understandable. But anything that separates me from ALL my goals. . . well, that's not a relationship that works for me. I'm not going to take someone else's goals in place of my own. They have to co-exist and be valued equally. I'll compromise, but so will they. That's the state of mind that matters (in my partnerships, at least).

 

When you make every choice for the well being of your SO... and he/she does the same in return.... that is a partnership.

 

Who has say is not the issue. There will be things that are not agreed upon. What then?

 

I think having your own money and autonomy matters A LOT, regardless of your goals, because women don't go from their parents' house to their husbands' house now. And, also, divorce happens. Most men complain to high heavens if they have to pay alimony, but if you marry a gal with no autonomy, you'd better expect it if the marriage doesn't work out --- you'll be paying for her for her whole life, because that's the deal. How else can it work? You can't expect to build a career at 40 with no background in anything and support yourself, or worse yourself and your children, in the same way.

 

If you cannot trust and be willing to risk, then what kind of partnership can you truly achieve?

 

In my opinion, a trust like that which goes both ways... takes an enormous amount of strength.

 

People can make any choices they want, but that one is a bit dangerous. I find it riskier than living next to North Korea, by far, to become a homemaker. I've got no judgment for the women who do it, really. . . I just hope it works out for them. I'd never go for it anyway, because I sincerely love working, having purpose, and furthering my education. A PhD is next!

 

.... And if there comes a time when you have to focus on someone other than yourself? Can you really do that?

[D-Lish]

I find it humorous that for some modern day feminists it wasn't enough to tell men how they should be, but now they have to tell other women how they should be as well.

 

 

Women these days aren't feminists anymore- the feminist movement paved the way for the equality women share in our society (the movement is actually 50 years old). Most people that actually understand the true nature of feminism, probably wouldn't consider themselves "feminists". The current movement is "humanist"- and such a movement includes creating equality for everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

 

Women may still struggle with identity and roles in modern society- but women now have the option to be whatever they want to be. If this girl wants to erase her own individuality in favour of being a pocket wife to her bf- she has the option to choose that submissive role.

 

I can't help but wonder if a part of her behaviour and belief system is simply indicative of her age and immaturity.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Women these days aren't feminists anymore- the feminist movement paved the way for the equality women share in our society (the movement is actually 50 years old). Most people that actually understand the true nature of feminism, probably wouldn't consider themselves "feminists". The current movement is "humanist"- and such a movement includes creating equality for everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

 

I'm not a fan of the movement as a whole. I don't see them as working for equality. For example, providing financial breaks and incentives for women and minority owned companies. I know they are striving for what they think is equality... but I think they go about it in a bad way. I don't think most of them are good people. I think they have stereotyped a group of people and are trying to give everyone else advantages against them.

 

Women may still struggle with identity and roles in modern society- but women now have the option to be whatever they want to be. If this girl wants to erase her own individuality in favour of being a pocket wife to her bf- she has the option to choose that submissive role.

I can't help but wonder if a part of her behaviour and belief system is simply indicative of her age and immaturity.

 

I'm going to point out the same thing to you that I did ZG.

 

If you go into a relationship focused on maintaining whats yours.... always waiting for your man to screw you over. How can you expect a positive result?

[D-Lish]

I'm not a fan of the movement as a whole. I don't see them as working for equality. For example, providing financial breaks and incentives for women and minority owned companies. I know they are striving for what they think is equality... but I think they go about it in a bad way. I don't think most of them are good people. I think they have stereotyped a group of people and are trying to give everyone else advantages against them.

 

 

 

I'm going to point out the same thing to you that I did ZG.

 

If you go into a relationship focused on maintaining whats yours.... always waiting for your man to screw you over. How can you expect a positive result?

 

Well the feminist movement has come and gone and achieved it's goal. It's not even a movement anymore! lol.

 

The feminist movement paved the way for human rights- that's the current movement.

[You'reasian]

Mr_Atticus:

I must accept the fact that not every 80s and 90s baby aspires to advance in the corporate world. Sorry if i'm a bit naive.

 

The corporate world is one of many worlds out there.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Well the feminist movement has come and gone and achieved it's goal. It's not even a movement anymore! lol.

The feminist movement paved the way for human rights- that's the current movement.

 

I can agree with you that many of the reforms the feminists pushed for were needed and are helpful.

 

I'm still a little hazy on how OP's friend is going to "lose her individuality" in this relationship.

[zengirl]

I'm going to point out the same thing to you that I did ZG.

 

If you go into a relationship focused on maintaining whats yours.... always waiting for your man to screw you over. How can you expect a positive result?

 

I think the key is balance.

 

I don't expect guys to screw me over. But I do expect to stand on my own two feet. Heck, I could marry a guy and he could become unable to make a living. He could be laid off. He could get cancer. He could be in a terrible accident. He could die. We could get divorced --- which may or may not be his fault.

 

Any man who takes issue with me wanting to retain the ability to stand on my own two feet is not the man for me. What woman takes an issue with a man wanting to maintain a career and source of income?

 

You've obviously got some really old-fashioned ideas. The fact that you actually just spoke against someone who re-phrased it as a humanist movement tells me how far off the same page we are, view-wise. I actively campaign for civil rights, mostly gay and transgender now, but also religious rights (Buddhists, atheists, and many other groups are discriminated against), as well as still race issues and immigration issues. If there were any women's issues to worry about, from the humanist, perspective, I'd obviously be there. I think finding essential fairness, as best we can, is our duty as human beings.

 

That said, as I said, any gal can do as she pleases. And I counseled that we can't really know what's up with this girl. But if she (or anyone) winds up without money, a job, or a place to live, because they all hinged on a guy . . . there's little society will do to feel sorry for her. That's just fact.

Edited July 28, 2010 by zengirl

[zengirl]

When you make every choice for the well being of your SO... and he/she does the same in return.... that is a partnership.

 

To an extent, I go by the airplane metaphor. You've got to put your own mask on first, before you can help anybody else. That's just true. That's also why BEFORE you get into a relationship, you've gotta be clear on what you want from yourself. If each partner is making solely sacrificial decisions, without asserting their own feelings, that will build resentment. Sacrifice will happen, but it needs to be discussed, asserted, and dealt with. . . and it should be mutual, not all on one partner. There's a natural give-and-take that develops. A partnership, to me, is a place where people come to work on things together. The relationship takes work.

 

Who has say is not the issue. There will be things that are not agreed upon. What then?

You keep talking. You keep arguing. You reach a place that both people can live with. If you can't do that, it's not a good partnership.

 

If you cannot trust and be willing to risk, then what kind of partnership can you truly achieve?

Of course, there's some risk, but why should it be so one-sided? Why should a woman be asked to risk her career/sense of self/money any more than the man? There's always risk when we begin any relationship.

 

I do trust. It's not an issue of trust; it's an issue of reality. I am responsible for myself, even if I get married. . . then, I am also responsible for him and him for me, but we are still responsible for ourselves, too.

 

In my opinion, a trust like that which goes both ways... takes an enormous amount of strength.

Sure. But it has to go both ways. Your example of the girl helping you out with your career only showed us how it went one way. To me, my career is very important to me. I love it. I adore it. I like making enough money to support myself. I like what I do. I like becoming more educated. It's a part of who I am. If that's not so for some girls, they can do what they like, and I hope it works out for them, but without a marriage certificate, there's no net to catch them. (And, even then, it sometimes gets messy.) That's my point. I'm a positive, happy person, but not because I ignore essential facts about the way the world is. I hope everybody lands on his/her respective feet in the world.

 

But the example you gave was not heartening. Sure, you'd give that girl money to this day, but who wants to have to ask someone for money. My parents would give me money if I needed it. They're very generous. I've not taken a dime from them since I was living under their roof (17). I'm glad to know they'd help me out and all, but I never want to be in a position where anyone has to be responsible for me, unless they're married to me (Then, it's all joint anyway), and even then, I want to contribute, financially as well as emotionally. Because I think that's healthy, for me. To suggest one partner should contribute emotionally and the other financially is setting up a specific, very dated pattern.

 

I don't look down on housewives (or househusbands). But I do think anyone, male or female, who is putting them in a position where they are unmarried and cannot support themselves is putting themselves on rather tenuous footing.

 

.... And if there comes a time when you have to focus on someone other than yourself? Can you really do that?

I've focused on many other people than myself. Just because I wouldn't give up my career to be with a man doesn't mean I'm selfish. Plenty of men wouldn't give up theirs, and they'd never be asked that question.

 

I think, if I had a child who really needed me (was disabled in some way, etc), I could give up my job for them.Or a spouse that was sick, but not sure how that'd work out financially anyway. . . But I couldn't routinely give up my entire career for another person's. I like it too much. And my career is helping people!

Edited July 28, 2010 by zengirl

[Untouchable_Fire]

I think the key is balance.

I don't expect guys to screw me over. But I do expect to stand on my own two feet. Heck, I could marry a guy and he could become unable to make a living. He could be laid off. He could get cancer. He could be in a terrible accident. He could die. We could get divorced --- which may or may not be his fault.

Any man who takes issue with me wanting to retain the ability to stand on my own two feet is not the man for me. What woman takes an issue with a man wanting to maintain a career and source of income?

 

It's not your ability to work or generate income that I'm talking about.

 

 

You've obviously got some really old-fashioned ideas. The fact that you actually just spoke against someone who re-phrased it as a humanist movement tells me how far off the same page we are, view-wise. I actively campaign for civil rights, mostly gay and transgender now, but also religious rights (Buddhists, atheists, and many other groups are discriminated against), as well as still race issues and immigration issues. If there were any women's issues to worry about, from the humanist, perspective, I'd obviously be there. I think finding essential fairness, as best we can, is our duty as human beings.

 

The Humanist movement itself encompasses so many different philosophies... I'm not sure what either of you mean when you use it.

 

I'm not sure I like the tone of that. I like the idea of equality and freedom. I take issue with the idea of forced equality.

 

That said, as I said, any gal can do as she pleases. And I counseled that we can't really know what's up with this girl. But if she (or anyone) winds up without money, a job, or a place to live, because they all hinged on a guy . . . there's little society will do to feel sorry for her. That's just fact.

 

I think Alimony will help with that. If there is no marriage.... I think your right.

[zengirl]

It's not your ability to work or generate income that I'm talking about.

 

Well, that's mostly all I've been talking about here. My main worry is when a girl leaves her education/job to be with a guy, especially a guy who's not marrying her.

 

Except maybe the specific issues with the ex. (And he stopped seeing me as a person, and resisted all efforts to work on the relationship, and certainly realized it later. It brought out clear incompatibilities between us, but it had little to do with me being selfish.)

 

The Humanist movement itself encompasses so many different philosophies... I'm not sure what either of you mean when you use it.

 

I'm not sure I like the tone of that. I like the idea of equality and freedom. I take issue with the idea of forced equality.

 

Forced equality is the only real equality. . . in terms of the law. Getting all people to be fair day in and day out isn't going to happen. Rights need to be guaranteed by law, or they won't be given. Gay marriage, at present, can show us that. So can segregation in the past (Not that it's not still a de facto issue today).

 

I think Alimony will help with that. If there is no marriage.... I think your right.

 

Sure, alimony can help, but why should a woman be expected to be the one to give up her career? I even said my only concern, in my original post, was that the girl wasn't married and was giving up her own career/money path. Homemakers can do as they like, of both genders.

 

At any rate, there are plenty of men who want a partner who can contribute financially/success-wise with him, in the partnership. There are men and women who want other things; that's all fine, and I hope it works out for them. What I have problems with are any time someone expresses societal expectations -- you clearly compared two types of women -- towards a certain "type" of female and portrays one as less "selfish" or more commendable in one way. That's what I saw in your post. You didn't just express a personal preference, you tried to paint the picture of the "devoted little woman" as being less selfish and more lovable (not just for you) than a career gal.

 

I've nothing against housewives. I've nothing against ass-kicking female CEOs. Or anything in between. I've also nothing against househusbands or ass-kicking male CEOs. Or anything in between. I've got my own preferences, and I'm sure everybody else does, too.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Well, that's mostly all I've been talking about here. My main worry is when a girl leaves her education/job to be with a guy, especially a guy who's not marrying her.

Except maybe the specific issues with the ex. (And he stopped seeing me as a person, and resisted all efforts to work on the relationship, and certainly realized it later. It brought out clear incompatibilities between us, but it had little to do with me being selfish.)

 

We should all be careful when we pick our mates. High risk scenarios are often high reward.

 

I would say in your situation your X clearly decided to stop being a partner. Very few relationships will work properly under that kind of strain.

 

Forced equality is the only real equality. . . in terms of the law. Getting all people to be fair day in and day out isn't going to happen. Rights need to be guaranteed by law, or they won't be given. Gay marriage, at present, can show us that. So can segregation in the past (Not that it's not still a de facto issue today).

 

That's legal equality which is great.

 

Forced equality is like communism where they take something from you then give it to someone else to make it equal. I don't like that, it creates hatred where there was none before. You can't treat one group of people special... that's what created the genocide in Rwanda.

 

Sure, alimony can help, but why should a woman be expected to be the one to give up her career? I even said my only concern, in my original post, was that the girl wasn't married and was giving up her own career/money path. Homemakers can do as they like, of both genders.

 

It makes sense to me that mentally healthy children require a lot of parental attention. I think the correct amount varies with the child, but for many 4 hours a day is not sufficient. Whatever a family chooses to do... it should be a solution.

 

How many women do you think would be happy with a house husband?

 

At any rate, there are plenty of men who want a partner who can contribute financially/success-wise with him, in the partnership. There are men and women who want other things; that's all fine, and I hope it works out for them. What I have problems with are any time someone expresses societal expectations -- you clearly compared two types of women -- towards a certain "type" of female and portrays one as less "selfish" or more commendable in one way. That's what I saw in your post. You didn't just express a personal preference, you tried to paint the picture of the "devoted little woman" as being less selfish and more lovable (not just for you) than a career gal.

I've nothing against housewives. I've nothing against ass-kicking female CEOs. Or anything in between. I've also nothing against househusbands or ass-kicking male CEOs. Or anything in between. I've got my own preferences, and I'm sure everybody else does, too.

 

Hmmm... I must have made my point too harshly. I wasn't trying to say one or the other is more lovable. I was saying the approach to a relationship is different. One requiring a mutual trust/partnership which is not present in the other.