donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 If both parents are working full time, they BOTH should be contributing to household chores and such. One of my good friends is married, she's in her late 30s; they have 2 kids (ages 9 and 11). Her and hubby both work full time. Hubby figures that once he comes home from work that his work is done. He feels it's the "woman's job" to clean, grocery shop, cook, do laundry, get the kids ready for bed, help them with homework and school projects, etc. The only thing he really does around the house, if asked, is take out the trash and mow the lawn. He expects to come home to dinner on the table...no help with clean-up of dishes....he's the king and that after dinner he deserves to be able to relax and watch TV. She's concerned about this because their children are 2 boys and she's fearful that they will grow up believing that this is the way it's done..........that a wife, even if working full time, is still expected to single-handedly run the home and do all of the domestic stuff. She works just as hard in her job as he does, and she never complains. She is run ragged a lot of the time and while he often spends the weekends relaxing, she never has any free time to herself. I feel badly for her.And by meekly agreeing to this archaic monarchy, she is sending those boys the very message she does NOT want them to receive.
Velociraptor Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 No kidding! I am getting concerned about how Velo has repeated that earning less = emasculation. Velociraptor, for the sake of your fragile self esteem and sense of masculinity, I sure hope you are a bazillionaire. Regardless, I also hope that no women get involved with you unless you get the help you need to move away from the attitudes towards my gender that you have. Not healthy, dude. Would you pursue a man who made more money than you? I think not. Yet, I'm so horrible for actually wanting to keep some dignity. If I pursue and the woman has more money she has all the advantages and every upper hand. Me pursuing her is in her advantage.
ladyinlimbo Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 And by meekly agreeing to this archaic monarchy, she is sending those boys the very message she does NOT want them to receive. What do you suggest she do? She's tried to explain her feelings to her husband but he's not buying any of it. She should just up and leave him and break up their family? What suggestions do you have? I'll gladly pass them onto her.
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Would you pursue a man who made more money than you? I think not. Well, I am not speaking of myself ... but have you ever heard of the term "golddigger"? This refers to a person; almost always a woman, who actively PURSUES a person, usually a man, who makes a BUTTLOAD more money than she does. It's common! Lots and lots of people actively and on purpose pursue people who make more money than they do. They like money! And they'd rather not have to earn it! Is this really something you are going to argue about? I hope not.
Els Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 What do you suggest she do? She's tried to explain her feelings to her husband but he's not buying any of it. She should just up and leave him and break up their family? What suggestions do you have? I'll gladly pass them onto her. Last resort? Cook for herself and her boys; eat without him. Do her own laundry and theirs, not his. He gets no say in how the family runs or how she raises the kids, if he can't be bothered to help with them. If he's just a decent but lazy guy, that should shock him out of it. If he's genuinely a thoughtless jerk and doesn't get it, she would probably be better off leaving, yes.
Velociraptor Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Well, I am not speaking of myself ... but have you ever heard of the term "golddigger"? This refers to a person; almost always a woman, who actively PURSUES a person, usually a man, who makes a BUTTLOAD more money than she does. It's common! Lots and lots of people actively and on purpose pursue people who make more money than they do. They like money! And they'd rather not have to earn it! Is this really something you are going to argue about? I hope not. I'll take that as a no. Since it's obvious you expect the man(even if he earns less) to chase you and put in all the effort, why do you think I'm so horrible for not wanting to pursue a woman who earns more than me? Again. Women ALREADY have an upper hand because the man does the pursuing and thats in YOUR FAVOR. If the man earns less, the woman will have a huge upper hand over him. And any self respecting man would feel emasculated. It EVENS out if the man pursues but also earns more money. It's more balanced that way. But offcourse, I'm some sort of horrible control freak for actually wanting to keep some dignity But the same standard obviously doesn't apply for women.
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Last resort? Cook for herself and her boys; eat without him. Do her own laundry and theirs, not his. He gets no say in how the family runs or how she raises the kids, if he can't be bothered to help with them. If he's just a decent but lazy guy, that should shock him out of it. If he's genuinely a thoughtless jerk and doesn't get it, she would probably be better off leaving, yes. Thanks, Elswyth. You took every word RIGHT outta my mouth!
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 I'll take that as a no. Since it's obvious you expect the man(even if he earns less) to chase you and put in all the effort, why do you think I'm so horrible for not wanting to pursue a woman who earns more than me? Again. Women ALREADY have an upper hand because the man does the pursuing and thats in YOUR FAVOR. If the man earns less, the woman will have a huge upper hand over him. And any self respecting man would feel emasculated. It EVENS out if the man pursues but also earns more money. It's more balanced that way. But offcourse, I'm some sort of horrible control freak for actually wanting to keep some dignity But the same standard obviously doesn't apply for women. Any "self respecting" man would have enough gonads to not let something trivial like who earns more money determine whether he is masculine or not.
Velociraptor Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Any "self respecting" man would have enough gonads to not let something trivial like who earns more money determine whether he is masculine or not. It's ok for a woman to think it's the mans duty to pursue her and initiate everything. But it's not ok for a man to want to earn more money if he has to pursue her and initiate everything.
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 It's ok for a woman to think it's the mans duty to pursue her and initiate everything.Please search all over this forum and see if you can find where I have EVER said that. I have said the opposite, actually.
Woggle Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 In theory I have no issue with a woman earning a lot more than me but many women start to lose respect and attraction for a man in those cases.
Cee Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 My Dad was nontraditional. He earned less than my Mom and loved housework, cooking, and yapping with the neighbors. My father was a stay-at-home Dad for 6 months as he recovered from cancer surgery. He was happy and my mom was happy. My baby sister was spoiled with so much love. I'm glad my Dad was into child rearing, especially because he died of cancer when my sister was 7 (I was 20). The time his spent with his youngest daughter was short, but he made it count. Because I grew up in a non-traditional household, I don't think less of stay-at-home men. I think highly of them. But I am not ever having children, so this issue doesn't apply to me. I'm going the DINK (double income, no kids) route. That is, if I ever settle down.
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 In theory I have no issue with a woman earning a lot more than me but many women start to lose respect and attraction for a man in those cases. And issues of some other type would crop up with a woman with that mindset, regardless whether it's over money or something else.
Olivia1966 Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 I was a SAHM and totally would've gone back to work and let him stay at home, if there were any possible way I could've made enough money to support him. I spent my entire adult life thinking that I couldn't possibly ever support myself, let alone myself and anyone else. Then he walked out, and suddenly I could comfortably support my kid and myself (including the entirety of my mortgage and car payments and new job-related expenses for stuff like work clothes and gas) on *half* what my ex made.
thatone Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) Any "self respecting" man would have enough gonads to not let something trivial like who earns more money determine whether he is masculine or not. because cavemen didn't paint on cave walls about who killed the mammoth. and native americans didn't use a teenage male's first buffalo hunt as a rite of passage. and people remember who the local tribal leaders were that genghis khan defeated. and women make their life's work to support men who stay home all the time. you're gonna need millions of years to erase genetic defaults, hope you got time on your hands. I spent my entire adult life thinking that I couldn't possibly ever support myself, let alone myself and anyone else. Then he walked out, and suddenly I could comfortably support my kid and myself (including the entirety of my mortgage and car payments and new job-related expenses for stuff like work clothes and gas) on *half* what my ex made. are his child support payments the other half? Edited May 23, 2011 by thatone
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 because cavemen didn't paint on cave walls about who killed the mammoth. and native americans didn't use a teenage male's first buffalo hunt as a rite of passage. and people remember who the local tribal leaders were that genghis khan defeated. and women make their life's work to support men who stay home all the time. you're gonna need millions of years to erase genetic defaults, hope you got time on your hands. are his child support payments the other half? Hmmm.... Seems to me the guy whose dick feels too small unless he brings in more money than a woman is the one who needs time on his hands. I'm good to go, thanks.
thatone Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Hmmm.... Seems to me the guy whose dick feels too small unless he brings in more money than a woman is the one who needs time on his hands. I'm good to go, thanks. i do bring in more money than any local woman i'll ever likely meet. i don't have to worry about it all that much, just stating facts.
Els Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 It's ok for a woman to think it's the mans duty to pursue her and initiate everything. But it's not ok for a man to want to earn more money if he has to pursue her and initiate everything. *shrug* If a guy really wants, I have no qualms doing the opposite of what I said above and staying at home too. I really won't have kids then though.
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 i do bring in more money than any local woman i'll ever likely meet. i don't have to worry about it all that much, just stating facts. Well, good for you! Now you'll never know if you earned a woman's love or bought it.
thatone Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Well, good for you! Now you'll never know if you earned a woman's love or bought it. because women are impossible to read, LOL. especially those who get their rocks off pretending to be 20 years younger on the internet.
Richard Friedman Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 I've seen this situation both among my friends and some of my female colleagues, and it usually plays out like this. Enlightened husband gives up his career so his figh flying wife can reach her dreams. she makes more and someone needs to take care of the kids. Why shoudn't it be him? She tells him "There's nothing wrong with being a stay at home dad honey. If it's ok for women then it's okay for men too. Don't listen to the guys who call you a wimp. They're pigs who belong in the 1950s." Invariably the guy ends up getting no sex or the wife is getting boned by some vice president, or both. Is it really a surprise? A career woman will spend all day in presence of commanding alpha males who are building empires. You can't honestly expect her to then come home and feel attraction for a man who's been changing diapers and doing her dishes. Woman value drive and leadership in their men. Few things will dry them up faster then a guy who relies on them. Stay at home wives don't turn off men because we(generalizing here) have different criteria. Men value women for how attractive they are and how affectionate they are; her drive is not a factor either way(unless it causes her to cut back on sex). Just goes to show that no matter how enlightened or egalitarian we want to be we can't twist nature to fit our worldview. The idea that the difference between men and women is just anatomy is pure hogwash. Also i don' t don't mean to say that career women are not suitable for marriage. What i've noticed though is that a man who's happily married to an "alpha female" is at the same or even higher status.
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 In theory I have no issue with a woman earning a lot more than me but many women start to lose respect and attraction for a man in those cases. Many people do lots of things. So what. As long as it's not messing with YOUR life, stuff like this should be a non-issue to individuals. Unless, of course, one wishes to work to change the stupid constructs of society that hinder us. Clearly, the OP doesn't want to learn anything by this thread; he wants to justify his position and will use the posts here to do so, whatever they may say. It's predictably become a thread where men who evidently don't really know any women on other than a very superficial level (if that) expound about the qualities of women, and of relationships between men and women. I'm tired.
ASG Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 For me this is a non-issue. I don't know anyone younger than my grandmother who stayed at home to take care of the family. It just doesn't happen that much where I'm from. So it doesn't even cross my mind to stay at home when I have kids or make my husband do it. But, if I did have the money, I think I would probably support him, yes, no problem.
Citizen Erased Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Now this, I find a little iffy, especially the fact that the OP is supporting it despite him being all 'EQUALITYEQUALITYEQUALITY' in other aspects. If a woman is working full time as well as the man, why should she be the one to 'keep a spotless house and do all the cooking'? If there is to be equality in work contribution, should not both parties contribute equally to the housekeeping as well? Also, I don't doubt that it is possible, but some people prefer not to send their kids to daycare for 8+ hours a day, which is literally unavoidable with both parents working, even with supermom, unless she works fro home. In that case, one of them would stay at home to take care of the kids. An average income of, say, $4000/month can support a frugal family relatively easily. My mother is a clean freak, she still won't allow anyone else to clean her house. And my father worked long hours, if we'd waited for him to get home from work we would have been eating at midnight. My father's domain was the outside areas of the house, which were quite extensive. There are worse things in the world than daycare.
donnamaybe Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 You can't honestly expect her to then come home and feel attraction for a man who's been changing diapers and doing her dishes. Doing HER dishes? I guess he doesn't dirty any then? Maybe eats with his hands out of a trencher like the old days?
Recommended Posts