lululucy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 That's funny, I live in Canada too! And I know one stay at home mom, although she also runs a day-care out of her house now so I don't know if that even counts.
bean1 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I dont see whats so hard for some of you to understand. I think some of you are refusing to understand whats been said by myself and others in this thread because you see my OP as an attack on you if you happen to not have a degree. Its not an attack, I just know what I want from a partner. I don't perceive your comments as an 'attack' at all, I just find them rather misguided because I've finished school, worked, and made a family - so I am under the impression that status certainly means something very different than it does to you. To each their own - however, don't get the idea that people are in any way threatened by the 'status' of an unemployed college graduate. That sort of implies an inflated sense of importance. I moved out at 17, I started my career at 19 making $80k/year, had my own mortgage at 21, finished my degree during all this at 24, then had my baby at 25. I would suggest that, on paper, I had more "goals and ambition" than you did, didn't I? So does that mean I have more 'status' than you? An unemployed college graduate living with his parents? I don't think it does. I don't think those 'details' matter. You could be kinder than Mother Theresa for all I know, and that means much more. But according to you, I guess I have more status and would have to pass you by... I guess that's what makes me struggle with your logic.
bean1 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 That's funny, I live in Canada too! And I know one stay at home mom, although she also runs a day-care out of her house now so I don't know if that even counts. I guess it depends on location! I am in Quebec now. In Vancouver, a lot of women had no choice but to work due to housing costs
Author kaylan Posted December 23, 2011 Author Posted December 23, 2011 I don't perceive your comments as an 'attack' at all, I just find them rather misguided because I've finished school, worked, and made a family - so I am under the impression that status certainly means something very different than it does to you. To each their own - however, don't get the idea that people are in any way threatened by the 'status' of an unemployed college graduate. That sort of implies an inflated sense of importance. I moved out at 17, I started my career at 19 making $80k/year, had my own mortgage at 21, finished my degree during all this at 24, then had my baby at 25. I would suggest that, on paper, I had more "goals and ambition" than you did, didn't I? So does that mean I have more 'status' than you? An unemployed college graduate living with his parents? I don't think it does. I don't think those 'details' matter. You could be kinder than Mother Theresa for all I know, and that means much more. But according to you, I guess I have more status and would have to pass you by... I guess that's what makes me struggle with your logic. But dont you see...you were another example of what I was talking about. A girl with a plan, ambition, and who went to school. AND you paid for it yourself without loans. So I dont think Im misguided at all when you prove my point. You deciding to stay home for a few years doesnt change the fact that what I have been saying holds true even with you. Youll still be contributing after the kids hit school...and hell, you already bought a home and established yourself. So despite being a SAHM now, you still are a career gal underneath. Professional women ftw.
lululucy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Quebec is much more old-world in a lot of ways, definitely noticed a higher value placed on family raising when I've been there. I'm in Manitoba so housing costs really aren't even the issue, being a SAHM just doesn't seem to be a priority with anyone I've met.
Author kaylan Posted December 23, 2011 Author Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) And let me add. Bean1, youre missing my logic yet again. Its about drive. I said in my OP that I had no problems dating someone in school. As long as a girl has a plan, I am attracted to that. Youve already done all that, so youre good. The thing is, sure im at my parents, but ive been here less than half a year right after graduated. Sounds fairly common for a recent grad. Soon enough ill have a job, get my career going, throw some cash to my mom as a thank you, then get my own place. Me being a grad and unemployed in a poor job market, but with drive and a plan, looks a lot better to women than if I was without my degree, but living on my own, with a lame job during this recession. I have a lot more potential right now because of my choice to go back to school. Like I said, its all about ambition. I would like to know how a 19 yr old is making a legit 90k. Thats super rare Edited December 23, 2011 by kaylan
bean1 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) I would like to know how a 19 yr old is making a legit 90k. Thats super rare Well as I said to each their own, I'm sure you will find what you are looking for because plenty of those girls exist, I just wish SAHM's weren't labelled as not having goals/ambition - IMO dedicating your 24/7 to raising children is far more valuable to society than anything else, even if the paycheque sucks. You value "Drive" to complete a career as more valuable - I'm not convinced that it is. Is "drive" to be an investment banker more important than "drive" to work minimum wage and change the lives of at risk youth? I dunno... one makes a hell of a lot more than the other. As for my career, I work(ed) in law enforcement. Making $30+/hr at 44 or 66 hours per week (shifts are wonky, there's no 9-5 to start) plus any OT picked up which was very typical (you can't just clock out during a big file) and you can easily make $80k as a newbie. People who are older or younger guys that work a lot of OT can rake in $100k+ with nothing but a high school diploma and a sharp mind. I understand the pay is much less in the US. Not here. To make that money again means being away from my baby for 12-16 hours at a time- that is not acceptable to me. I'd rather shop at the thrift store and take the bus. And I do. Do I miss having $80+k disposable income? Oh yes of course I do but nobody dies and wishes they spent less time with their child and more time in the office. That's $80k/year that didn't mean as much. Edited December 23, 2011 by bean1
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I don't perceive your comments as an 'attack' at all, I just find them rather misguided because I've finished school, worked, and made a family - so I am under the impression that status certainly means something very different than it does to you. To each their own - however, don't get the idea that people are in any way threatened by the 'status' of an unemployed college graduate. That sort of implies an inflated sense of importance. I moved out at 17, I started my career at 19 making $80k/year, had my own mortgage at 21, finished my degree during all this at 24, then had my baby at 25. I would suggest that, on paper, I had more "goals and ambition" than you did, didn't I? So does that mean I have more 'status' than you? An unemployed college graduate living with his parents? I don't think it does. I don't think those 'details' matter. You could be kinder than Mother Theresa for all I know, and that means much more. But according to you, I guess I have more status and would have to pass you by... I guess that's what makes me struggle with your logic. Perfectly stated all around. And here Bean is talking about her sistuation and being able to make 80k at 19 and proving the point that she doesn't feel privilaged or like she has "more status" because of her successes. And her successes are worthy of acknowledgement.
bean1 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Quebec is much more old-world in a lot of ways, definitely noticed a higher value placed on family raising when I've been there. I'm in Manitoba so housing costs really aren't even the issue, being a SAHM just doesn't seem to be a priority with anyone I've met. The anti-Catholic rebellion of the 70's & 80's is catching up to this society. Women were putting their career ahead of their children and families, and paying the price for it later when their 1.1 child was rarely around and the divorce rates skyrocketed (if they married at all, common law is very popular here). Women here are counteracting this trend by having more than 1.1 child (2-4+ becoming more popular) and going back to their "old ways" - putting stay at home life ahead of career. I am originally from Vancouver where you really couldn't afford a sahm - but you couldn't afford daycare either ($1200-2000+ month) with housing costs. Most women wanted to stay at home but couldn't give up their $700,000 mortgages. They refused to downsize. And then they'd compain they never saw their kids. No thanks!
Negative Nancy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 i'm not a career woman at all. when i read all the insane amount of hours people are working on here, i'm like this: no way i would ever work 50, 60 or even 80 hours a week. i already feel like my 35 hours a week are taking away enough time from me and my private life. to me security is important, so i want (and have) a secure job that is decent in hours, decent enough in pay for me to save money every month and decent enough for me to live in a nice (albeit small) apartment and drive my BMW. work-life-balance is really important to me and i don't think there's gonna be alot of people on their deathbeds wishing they would've spent more time in the office.
musemaj11 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 (edited) Why is it only the woman who gets to choose whether she wants to continue her career or give it up to stay at home and care for her child? It seems for a man the options remain the same. Be a workhorse or be a workhorse. No other choice. Edited December 23, 2011 by musemaj11
bean1 Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 ^That would be nice. My husband in fact was a "stay at home dad" when our son was 3-6 months (I worked, he was on parental leave). He did a good job. Of course, it depends on whether a baby takes a bottle or not too and if the woman is able to pump at work (unless the baby is formula fed or not). Many babies will not take bottles. Bottles & pumping are very hard work and pumping does not provide the same amount if a baby breastfed from the breast. My boy had a variety of medical conditions including a birth injury & severe acid reflux so he was bottle fed from birth and I was able to pump. Other moms are not able to pump at work so it's either formula or stay at home. The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics, and La Leche League recommend that babies are exclusively breastfed up to and beyond age 2, so unless a man develops the ability to lactate (apparently some can? but no volunteers as of yet), biology supports the mother to stay at home unless she uses modern feeding methods of bottles/pumping/formula. I have a friend in upstate NY who works fulltime, pumps at her desk, and her husband stays home with the child. It's a great arrangement for them.
lululucy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Well as I said to each their own, I'm sure you will find what you are looking for because plenty of those girls exist, I just wish SAHM's weren't labelled as not having goals/ambition - IMO dedicating your 24/7 to raising children is far more valuable to society than anything else, even if the paycheque sucks. You value "Drive" to complete a career as more valuable - I'm not convinced that it is. Is "drive" to be an investment banker more important than "drive" to work minimum wage and change the lives of at risk youth? I dunno... one makes a hell of a lot more than the other. I think the original point (if I'm on the same wavelength as kaylan which I think I am) was that the drive to work minimum wage and change the lives of at risk youth is STILL DRIVE. It's still having passion for something and working hard at it, accomplishing goals, making a change. If I may paraphrase, the type of woman that kaylan is taking issue with is the girl with no drive, no dream, no passion who is content to be apathetic and only wants to raise kids because she doesn't want a job. I do agree there's an unfair stigma on SAHM's (which I too tend to uphold because of my own ambitions/desires) but just as not all working mothers neglect their children, not all SAHM's have as much to bring to the table as yourself.
Dust Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 I think the original point (if I'm on the same wavelength as kaylan which I think I am) was that the drive to work minimum wage and change the lives of at risk youth is STILL DRIVE. It's still having passion for something and working hard at it, accomplishing goals, making a change. If I may paraphrase, the type of woman that kaylan is taking issue with is the girl with no drive, no dream, no passion who is content to be apathetic and only wants to raise kids because she doesn't want a job. I do agree there's an unfair stigma on SAHM's (which I too tend to uphold because of my own ambitions/desires) but just as not all working mothers neglect their children, not all SAHM's have as much to bring to the table as yourself. Lululucy Kaylan is the kind of guy who believes in leagues and that a fat bald guy can't date an attractive woman because thats all he is a fat bald guy and the chubby women are inherently in a lower league then some one who is fit. Kaylan isn't talking about drive, he's talking about status aka what have you done.
Author kaylan Posted December 23, 2011 Author Posted December 23, 2011 "Leagues" is about like attracting like you numbskull. Thats how people are. Thats why friend groups and couples tend to be similar to one another. If you refuse to see reality, than oh wells brah. How often do you ever see a fat bald guy with a bombshell of a woman unless money is involved? Lets be serious. And I find chubby women less attractive than fit women, so since we lack a commonality, theres less chance Id date anything but a fit woman And fyi, drive contributes to status. Thats how people create stability for themselves. With ambition and determination. Those are attractive traits. Now use some logic from now on when you respond.
lululucy Posted December 23, 2011 Posted December 23, 2011 Lululucy Kaylan is the kind of guy who believes in leagues and that a fat bald guy can't date an attractive woman because thats all he is a fat bald guy and the chubby women are inherently in a lower league then some one who is fit. Kaylan isn't talking about drive, he's talking about status aka what have you done. I think there are a lot of factors in status, not just things you have accomplished but things you intend to accomplish. At least for us younger folks. I wouldn't call it leagues, but would you say that an incredibly beautiful, talented, successful woman is just as likely to date the fat, bald man if he doesn't have something else to bring to the table? There may be a few kind exceptions but the generality is that if someone is pursuing someone significantly more attractive than themselves, they need to possess something that the other person does not -- money, fame, success, etc -- in order to make an advance. I don't think I've ever seen a fat, bald, poor guy with a hot, rich woman.
Oxy Moronovich Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 I think there are a lot of factors in status, not just things you have accomplished but things you intend to accomplish. At least for us younger folks. I wouldn't call it leagues, but would you say that an incredibly beautiful, talented, successful woman is just as likely to date the fat, bald man if he doesn't have something else to bring to the table? There may be a few kind exceptions but the generality is that if someone is pursuing someone significantly more attractive than themselves, they need to possess something that the other person does not -- money, fame, success, etc -- in order to make an advance. I don't think I've ever seen a fat, bald, poor guy with a hot, rich woman. Gabriele D'Annunzio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_d'Annunzio He is considered one of the greatest seducers Italy ever had. He was born into a middle class family but managed to seduce many noblewomen. He was constantly in debt (at one point, he had to leave Italy and escape to France in order to escape his creditors). He was also a spendthrift. He seduced many, many rich women. He also treated them coldly. He wasn't faithful to any woman. Sometimes, when he wanted to end a relationship, he merely told his current lover he was going on a trip, then he'd board a train and move in with a different woman. Many high society women lost their fortunes and reputations after he left them. Oh yeah, he was also skinny, bald since age 25, in debt, and had crooked teeth, so he never smiled or cracked jokes (which is interesting since women say they want a man who can make them laugh).
musemaj11 Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 I think there are a lot of factors in status, not just things you have accomplished but things you intend to accomplish. At least for us younger folks. I wouldn't call it leagues, but would you say that an incredibly beautiful, talented, successful woman is just as likely to date the fat, bald man if he doesn't have something else to bring to the table? There may be a few kind exceptions but the generality is that if someone is pursuing someone significantly more attractive than themselves, they need to possess something that the other person does not -- money, fame, success, etc -- in order to make an advance. I don't think I've ever seen a fat, bald, poor guy with a hot, rich woman. Yup, you sound like a logical and realistic woman. Something that is very rare. The truth of the matter is that women and men are as choosy and loyal as their options. Love in actuality is merely a business. Everyone wants 'love' from someone whom he/she sees as having something of value that he/she can benefit from (money, sex). Gabriele D'Annunzio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_d'Annunzio He is considered one of the greatest seducers Italy ever had. He was born into a middle class family but managed to seduce many noblewomen. He was constantly in debt (at one point, he had to leave Italy and escape to France in order to escape his creditors). He was also a spendthrift. He seduced many, many rich women. He also treated them coldly. He wasn't faithful to any woman. Sometimes, when he wanted to end a relationship, he merely told his current lover he was going on a trip, then he'd board a train and move in with a different woman. Many high society women lost their fortunes and reputations after he left them. Oh yeah, he was also skinny, bald since age 25, in debt, and had crooked teeth, so he never smiled or cracked jokes (which is interesting since women say they want a man who can make them laugh). Your source doesnt mention this 'legend'.
ScreamingTrees Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Gabriele D'Annunzio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_d'Annunzio He is considered one of the greatest seducers Italy ever had. I was expecting something totally different from this.. Give him a full head of hair and he's up there in the big leagues with a lot of famous attractive men today. Didn't they have wigs back then? Hell, he could've worn a hat or covered his head in paste and straw.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 Why is it only the woman who gets to choose whether she wants to continue her career or give it up to stay at home and care for her child? It seems for a man the options remain the same. Be a workhorse or be a workhorse. No other choice. I know a few people where the husband is a stay-at-home-dad. It's not as common as a stay-at-home-mom, but it's there and can work for certain couples. I don't think that has to do with women snapping the whip and making men work. I think in general, for a lot of couples, the man working and the wife being home dealing with all the household details works better for both. I know a lot of men that are happy to go to work instead of doing laundry and cooking. And if it doesn't work, then couples can both work or the husband can stay home. I see nothing wrong with that either. Futher, indicating that the man's only option is to be workhorse really degrades everything that is required of a stay-at-home-mom, who is also clearly working yes? It's not an eaiser job if you have kids. It's just a different one.
Author kaylan Posted December 25, 2011 Author Posted December 25, 2011 Gabriele D'Annunzio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_d'Annunzio He is considered one of the greatest seducers Italy ever had. He was born into a middle class family but managed to seduce many noblewomen. He was constantly in debt (at one point, he had to leave Italy and escape to France in order to escape his creditors). He was also a spendthrift. He seduced many, many rich women. He also treated them coldly. He wasn't faithful to any woman. Sometimes, when he wanted to end a relationship, he merely told his current lover he was going on a trip, then he'd board a train and move in with a different woman. Many high society women lost their fortunes and reputations after he left them. Oh yeah, he was also skinny, bald since age 25, in debt, and had crooked teeth, so he never smiled or cracked jokes (which is interesting since women say they want a man who can make them laugh). Your source doesnt mention this 'legend'. Im with musemaj11. This is all conjecture. Wheres the real evidence? Its like when women started the whole "Marilyn Monroe was thick and a size 14" BS. Retro sizing was different and its been proven plenty of times that by todays sizing shed be a US 8 at the most. And had a distinct hourglass shape so she wasnt "thick" and needs to stop being touted as an old school plus size model. With all that being said, Oxy, do your research, because I have read nothing that backs up what you say about Gabriele, except the crap on PUA sites. As if those guys are credible historians
Els Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 I know a few people where the husband is a stay-at-home-dad. It's not as common as a stay-at-home-mom, but it's there and can work for certain couples. I don't think that has to do with women snapping the whip and making men work. I think in general, for a lot of couples, the man working and the wife being home dealing with all the household details works better for both. I know a lot of men that are happy to go to work instead of doing laundry and cooking. And if it doesn't work, then couples can both work or the husband can stay home. I see nothing wrong with that either. Futher, indicating that the man's only option is to be workhorse really degrades everything that is required of a stay-at-home-mom, who is also clearly working yes? It's not an eaiser job if you have kids. It's just a different one. Don't bother, DY. This poster posted a thread about a year ago asking women if they would be willing to support a SAHD. A large portion of women said yes - at the same time, a large portion of men ridiculed SAHDs and said they would never consider being one and that childcare is a woman's job. The thread ran for about 10 pages, but he clearly took nothing out of it.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 Ahh okay, thanks for the heads up Elswyth. Merry Christmas.
Oxy Moronovich Posted December 25, 2011 Posted December 25, 2011 Your source doesnt mention this 'legend'. What are you talking about? The link works. I was expecting something totally different from this.. Give him a full head of hair and he's up there in the big leagues with a lot of famous attractive men today. Didn't they have wigs back then? Hell, he could've worn a hat or covered his head in paste and straw. Back then, it was considered more dignified to wear a monocle than spectacles. Similarly, it was also considered more dignified to go bald than have fake hair. Im with musemaj11. This is all conjecture. Wheres the real evidence? Its like when women started the whole "Marilyn Monroe was thick and a size 14" BS. Retro sizing was different and its been proven plenty of times that by todays sizing shed be a US 8 at the most. And had a distinct hourglass shape so she wasnt "thick" and needs to stop being touted as an old school plus size model. With all that being said, Oxy, do your research, because I have read nothing that backs up what you say about Gabriele, except the crap on PUA sites. As if those guys are credible historians I did my research. I've read two biographies of him: Wingless Victory by Frances Winwar (344 pages) and Defiant Archangel by John Woodhouse (434 pages). Are you willing to read that much? I doubt it. Despite the fact that he was instrumental in getting Italy to WW1, he's not well-known outside of Italy for a variety of reasons. Unless you're fluent in Italian, you'll find it difficult to find credible sources on him on the internet. Here's a partial description of him from the Woodhouse book: D'Annunzio's sexual promiscuity was legendary, yet he was a somewhat unconventional Casanova: something under five foot six, prematurely balding, blinded in one eye during the war, and blessed with what his secretary-factotum called unfortunate teeth, he was the caricaturist's dream. At the age of sixteen he pawned his grandfather's watch for the money to visit a brothel. And though he was married for 55 years to Maris, Duchess of Gallese, his adult years witnessed a trail of discarded lovers, who were severally driven to drugs, suicide attempts, alcoholism, and madness. His countless liaisons involved a number of women cast as muses in his writings, including artistes such as Eleonora Duse, Ida Rubinstein, and Isadora Duncan. I mentioned him in my original post to say an average man can manage to woo women with status. It isn't hopeless. It's easier than most believe.
Author kaylan Posted December 25, 2011 Author Posted December 25, 2011 Links to these sources please. And you know whats funny about history. Its get bent around a lot. Especially by dudes trying to sell a book about someone people dont really know or care about. Just sayin' Either way, like I keep saying, exceptions dont disprove a rule. That being said, those sources would still be nice.
Recommended Posts