make me believe Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 LOL The women are probably happy that the guys they don't want anyway have self-selected themselves out of the dating pool. Laterrr!
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 [quote=kaylan;3800075 Why the hell do I know a bunch of dudes with long term girlfriends and wives who had to do none of that stuff. Those are fairly standard expectations of men in traditional marriage from white collar middle/upper middle class backgrounds in the U.S. No idea where you live, your social class, or expectations on men in marriage where you are.
verhrzn Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Perhaps. But, up until age 5 (4 if you send your kids to preschool) someone has to be with the child. Up until the 20th century that was the mother, for a variety of reasons. And even today many people don't like the idea of sending their kids to daycare, and even those that do many stay at home with the child until 2 or so. When multiple children are involved the issue becomes even more complicated. In an equal partnership someone has to take care of the children and take care of the house by extension and someone has to go bring home the bacon as it were. I have never met a couple that had an infant at home and both worked full time. I have no objections to women working outside the home after having children (as my own mother did) and I have no objections to men taking a back seat role in the family. However, whichever parent takes time out to raise the kids, will necessarily make some kind of sacrifice in their careers. It may be a small sacrifice, but it will be a sacrifice nonetheless. Whoever takes on a career will also make a sacrifice (again maybe a small one) as they won't be there for every step of their child growing up. Everything has opportunity costs. You want to be made executive vice president of company x? That means you probably miss out on little Bobby's first steps, first words, maybe even his 6th birthday party. You want to be there for those moments? You probably miss out on that big promotion. If both parents are able to work and take an active role in the home it probably means both have made a sacrifice in their careers. Such are the limitations of modern life, as dasein said, you really can't have it all. Goes for both genders. But by choosing family, Japanese women are essentially opting themselves out of work forever. Or at least making it very difficult for themselves down the road. American expectations are that a parent (usually the mother) stay with the child until the child enters nursery or kindergarten, and then the parent is 'allowed' to enter the work place again. Japanese society places extreme pressure on mothers to remain home until the child has graduated junior high, maybe even high school.... That's nearly 15 years out of the work force. Furthermore, a lot of Japanese women are looking at family and seeing nothing but a life of servitude and losing their own individuality, either to their husband or their children. You become nothing BUT a mother or wife.... and you shoulder the responsibilities of parenting almost entirely alone. It's a very isolated experience, and one that frankly doesn't receive a lot of respect or praise. Wives are also expected to take care of her in-laws, and there's been a LOT of documented cases of domestic abuse between mothers-in-law towards their daughters-in-law So women are deciding, nope, they'd rather have careers than families... and instead of considering why they would choose this path, Japanese men are instead either boycotting dating/marriage all together instead of changing their own expectations of married life (allowing women to enter the work place sooner, becoming more involved in parenting and home life) or marrying foreigners (almost always from rural and impoverished families in southeast Asia), thus fostering the heavy responsibilities of Japanese housewifedom onto an already-susceptible woman (foreign brides are at a high risk of being victims of human trafficking, usually don't speak the language, has no nearby family, there aren't many support systems for house wives either Japanese or foreign, high possibility of domestic violence with no legal recourse, etc.) Edited January 13, 2012 by verhrzn
Queen Zenobia Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 But by choosing family, Japanese women are essentially opting themselves out of work forever. Or at least making it very difficult for themselves down the road. American expectations are that a parent (usually the mother) stay with the child until the child enters nursery or kindergarten, and then the parent is 'allowed' to enter the work place again. Japanese society places extreme pressure on mothers to remain home until the child has graduated junior high, maybe even high school.... That's nearly 15 years out of the work force. Furthermore, a lot of Japanese women are looking at family and seeing nothing but a life of servitude and losing their own individuality, either to their husband or their children. You become nothing BUT a mother or wife.... and you shoulder the responsibilities of parenting almost entirely alone. It's a very isolated experience, and one that frankly doesn't receive a lot of respect or praise. Wives are also expected to take care of her in-laws, and there's been a LOT of documented cases of domestic abuse between mothers-in-law towards their daughters-in-law So women are deciding, nope, they'd rather have careers than families... and instead of considering why they would choose this path, Japanese men are instead either boycotting dating/marriage all together instead of changing their own expectations of married life (allowing women to enter the work place sooner, becoming more involved in parenting and home life) or marrying foreigners (almost always from rural and impoverished families in southeast Asia), thus fostering the heavy responsibilities of Japanese housewifedom onto an already-susceptible woman (foreign brides are at a high risk of being victims of human trafficking, usually don't speak languages, there aren't many support systems for house wives either Japanese or foreign, high possibility of domestic violence with no legal recourse, etc.) Well first off human trafficking (of unwilling participants) should be illegal already (I assume it is under Japanese law although I'm no expert) and should be prosecuted regardless of social realities. Next, my response was to a poster who seemed to be under the impression (although I don't want to put words in his mouth) that men and women can both have fantastic careers and be involved equally in the home and child rearing. That, in my mind is shear fantasy. Someone has to sacrifice somewhere. It was more of a general comment though not directed specifically to the Japanese situation. In regards to the Japanese situation specifically, I would argue that the primary problem here is economics. Japan has a horrible debt situation (somewhere around 200% debt to GDP) which robs their economy of needed capital investments and thus the ability for entrepreneurs (many of them possibly women) to start businesses. Otherwise, women wouldn't need to worry about companies not hiring them, as they could simply start their own, hire only women in solidarity, make a bunch of money and call it a day. This is exactly what women in America can do (although it gets harder every day with the economic policies of the current federal government). While men in Japan should be ok with certain changes with regards to women in Japanese society, the reality is that culture rarely changes without someone taking some risks. Much in the same way that you probably don't have a Civil Rights movement in 1960s America without Branch Rickey deciding to sign Jackie Robinson in the 1940s. People didn't magically wake up one day and realize black people were equal to white people, they saw it, every day on the field when Robinson schooled white folks at their own game. I would argue the same needs to happen in Japan.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Perhaps. But, up until age 5 (4 if you send your kids to preschool) someone has to be with the child. Up until the 20th century that was the mother, for a variety of reasons. And even today many people don't like the idea of sending their kids to daycare, and even those that do many stay at home with the child until 2 or so. When multiple children are involved the issue becomes even more complicated. In an equal partnership someone has to take care of the children and take care of the house by extension and someone has to go bring home the bacon as it were. I have never met a couple that had an infant at home and both worked full time. Well you need to move around and see the world a bit more, because it happens. Usually after maternity leave, the woman heads back to work. At least the families I have known. Usually they have a relative or daycare for the child. I see nothing wrong with that. No one should HAVE to stay home with the kid because of their gender though. If a man or woman chooses to do so, then by all means. I have no objections to women working outside the home after having children (as my own mother did) and I have no objections to men taking a back seat role in the family. However, whichever parent takes time out to raise the kids, will necessarily make some kind of sacrifice in their careers. It may be a small sacrifice, but it will be a sacrifice nonetheless. Whoever takes on a career will also make a sacrifice (again maybe a small one) as they won't be there for every step of their child growing up. Of course staying home is a sacrifice to ones career. We all know this. Its just a shame women are forced to choose between family and career, as if they arent ways of balancing it. Everything has opportunity costs. You want to be made executive vice president of company x? That means you probably miss out on little Bobby's first steps, first words, maybe even his 6th birthday party. You want to be there for those moments? You probably miss out on that big promotion. If both parents are able to work and take an active role in the home it probably means both have made a sacrifice in their careers. Such are the limitations of modern life, as dasein said, you really can't have it all. Goes for both genders.It is what it is. My grandmother helped raise me so my mother could work full time to raise me. It worked out great. And I was raised well. Those are fairly standard expectations of men in traditional marriage from white collar middle/upper middle class backgrounds in the U.S. No idea where you live, your social class, or expectations on men in marriage where you are. Lol...upper middle class? Um ok....you forget most Americans and most people in Western nations are middle class and lower class right? So that doesnt apply to most folks. Only to about 15% of the population at most, does it apply. So most folks dont have those expectations of men in marriage that you laid out.
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 So women are deciding, nope, they'd rather have careers than families... and instead of considering why they would choose this path, Japanese men are instead either boycotting dating/marriage all together The above is meaningless without numbers or at least estimates of how many people are engaging in the listed behaviors. The articles I read make this look more like puff fashion journalism than any kind of organized movement. My dad wore slicked hair that he fussed with constantly, a leather jacket and certain jeans and boots in the 50s, preened around with similar dressers, acted like he was ignoring girls, does that make him a herbivore too? What it looks like to me is a percentage of Japanese men are opting out of the exact same kind of social structure you say women are opting out of there, involving not only gender issues, but work and social issues generally. You have been quick to characterize these grasseaters as rebelling against women's choices, but my initial reading into it suggests that their opting out goes much deeper than just being upset with women who want careers, all the way to the root of Japanese work and family life. Characterizing it as a movement "against women" is not reflective of reality. Yet somehow, you want to make the case that the opting out by the women, in and of itself, is oppressive of the women who do it by limiting their choices, while at the same time, the opting out by the men who choose to do so is... also oppressive of women somehow due to men not being flexible? enough. Lawlz. Once more, tired broken record.
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Only to about 15% of the population at most, does it apply. So most folks dont have those expectations of men in marriage that you laid out. Do you live in the U.S.? have a masters degree in American studies? I don't purport to tell you how things are in your neck of the world, spare me your ignorance of my locale and background. But FYI, 10k is a low-middling engagement ring here, even among the middle class. 50k is an average wedding, in some parts of the country an average middle class wedding is 100k+, the average middle class honeymoon does cost about 5k. Oh and how old are you again? Better not be under 25 and going on and on definitively about what weddings and marriages cost men. Get some age and experience under your belt, to 35 at least, with 100 or so married couples as friends and get back to me.
Queen Zenobia Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Well you need to move around and see the world a bit more, because it happens. Usually after maternity leave, the woman heads back to work. At least the families I have known. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. Both partners maybe work outside the home full time, but both aren't pulling late nights at the office every day. Somebody ends up coming home at 5:30 every day. Of course staying home is a sacrifice to ones career. We all know this. Its just a shame women are forced to choose between family and career, as if they arent ways of balancing it. It's not just "staying at home" that sacrifices one's career. It's working part time for a bit instead of full time. Or taking time off and then heading back to work. It's being unable to pull 60 hour work weeks or work weekends that can also be a detriment to one's career. Trust me, you don't get to be the CEO by working 9-5 Monday thru Friday. No one "forces" women to choose between family and career. Everyone has a choice in the matter. If women want to be more involved in family affairs their careers take a hit. Same goes for men. It is what it is. My grandmother helped raise me so my mother could work full time to raise me. It worked out great. And I was raised well. I'm glad you turned out ok, but by having your grandmother raise you your mother did miss out on some of your childhood. Perhaps she might have liked to be there for certain things but had to work. But you do what you have to do, as do most families.
Quiet Storm Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Most American's are lower to middle class. So, IMO, Dasein, your list of demands applies to only one segment of the population. I grew up in poverty in Baltimore, and my husband was a military middle class kid whose parents both worked at NSA. We married right after high school in the 90s. My engagement ring was less than $1K, our wedding was $4K. Our honeymoon was a week in OC, MD- less than $1K. We both worked and I went to college while married. After each of my three kids, I took my 8 week maternity leave and went back to work full time afterwards. We paid day care for all three kids. Althouogh I would have loved to stay home, it wasn't feasible for us. Most couples I know are in the same situation. It was very stressful when the kids were younger, but we did it. My husband and I shared the housework, although I did 75% of the cooking (he sucks at cooking unless it involves the grill or breakfast food). Now the kids are older and we put them to work, lol. They all have assigned chores and we delegate. Our incomes are about equal, and our marriage has been a partnership from day 1. We have one bank account, with no contributions from his parents. Everything we have, we both worked for. Our one luxury is our PSL's at M&T Bank Stadium. I live in a typical suburban neighborhood, and almost all of the two-parent households include two working (or trying to find work) parents. I don't know of any cheating wives or of any divorces where the man was cleaned out. Nobody has a mansion or a maid, we buy our shoes at Penney's and have never stepped foot in a country club. I love my husband, and treasure what his presence brings to my life and our kids lives. I think my situation is fairly typical of the American family. I know there are many horror stories of men getting crapped on by the system, but those stories shouldn't be taken as the norm. If you are a man of wealth, you should be cautious in choosing to marry. However, the vast majority of men won't have much to take. And as for the original post, I agree that the only men doing this are the ones that aren't confident with women, anyway. The players are still playin'...
joystickd Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 And as for the original post, I agree that the only men doing this are the ones that aren't confident with women, anyway. The players are still playin'... Yeah go ahead and grass eat more women for me.
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Most American's are lower to middle class. So, IMO, Dasein, your list of demands applies to only one segment of the population. I grew up in poverty in Baltimore, and my husband was a military middle class kid whose parents both worked at NSA. We married right after high school in the 90s. My engagement ring was less than $1K, our wedding was $4K. Our honeymoon was a week in OC, MD- less than $1K.. Your singular example is actually a smaller segment of the population than mine. People who do marry marry later today than even in the 90s. It's interesting that an impoverished, straight outta HS wedding (NOT the norm in the U.S. today) still cost about 10-12k in inflation adjusted dollars. The last basic middle class Italian wedding I went to on Long Island (not a tony part of LI) a few years back cost at least $200k.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. Both partners maybe work outside the home full time, but both aren't pulling late nights at the office every day. Somebody ends up coming home at 5:30 every day. Most families I know of dont have either working parent pulling late nights. Most work 7 to 9 hour days every day, depending on their profession, with only the occasional late night...man or woman. Granted this is just the few families I know, but its not like there are some many people out there with a family who are willing to stay late at work all the time. It's not just "staying at home" that sacrifices one's career. It's working part time for a bit instead of full time. Or taking time off and then heading back to work. It's being unable to pull 60 hour work weeks or work weekends that can also be a detriment to one's career. Trust me, you don't get to be the CEO by working 9-5 Monday thru Friday. Meh, I dont want to be a CEO. I want to enjoy my youth. Happiness means more to me than money. My job is not my life, but only part of it. Nothing consumes my time completely. No one "forces" women to choose between family and career. Everyone has a choice in the matter. If women want to be more involved in family affairs their careers take a hit. Same goes for men. Society does force women to make a choice though. Society puts these roles in peoples minds and usually dictates that men should never ease up on their careers and help more with the kids so their wife can focus harder on her career. Even if shes in a profession that could command better money as they both move up their career ladders, guys will have an issue taking any back seat. I'm glad you turned out ok, but by having your grandmother raise you your mother did miss out on some of your childhood. Perhaps she might have liked to be there for certain things but had to work. But you do what you have to do, as do most families. Eh, my mom was fine with it. Its no biggie. Im pretty sure I wont be there for every little thing my kids do, and I dont need to be. When kids go to school their parents arent always their either. What really matters is that kids are raised and reared properly. If the kids are cared for properly, then its all good.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Do you live in the U.S.? have a masters degree in American studies? I don't purport to tell you how things are in your neck of the world, spare me your ignorance of my locale and background. But FYI, 10k is a low-middling engagement ring here, even among the middle class. 50k is an average wedding, in some parts of the country an average middle class wedding is 100k+, the average middle class honeymoon does cost about 5k. Oh and how old are you again? Better not be under 25 and going on and on definitively about what weddings and marriages cost men. Get some age and experience under your belt, to 35 at least, with 100 or so married couples as friends and get back to me. I live in New York and studied sociology a bit while I was in university. It wasnt my major though. However I frequently read sociological studies and surveys. But fact of the matter is that only 15% of the population is upper-middle class. So your assertions DO NOT apply to most people. So I am not ignorant, but stating facts which you dismiss. The only reason your assertions applies to men in your neck of the woods btw, is because they allow it. Sucks for them. Most people I know dont spend all that cash to get married btw. You know, us regular middle class folk who make up the majority of this nation and other Western nations. Dude I am 25 and even if I was younger, people get married at a variety of ages. I have several married friends, and have friends with married parents,...so trust me when I tell you they didnt break the bank to get married. They kept it modest. How about you actually learn the demographics of the country accurately before making sweeping statements to cover all economic classes of the US. You cant say that what happens in upper class America applies to everyone else. Especially when the upper class is a minority of the American population. That sir, is ignorant.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Your singular example is actually a smaller segment of the population than mine. People who do marry marry later today than even in the 90s. It's interesting that an impoverished, straight outta HS wedding (NOT the norm in the U.S. today) still cost about 10-12k in inflation adjusted dollars. The last basic middle class Italian wedding I went to on Long Island (not a tony part of LI) a few years back cost at least $200k. Lmao @ this guy. Your personal anecdotes are no better than ours. Plenty of people have modest weddings. Some just elope in Vegas or somewhere else. Others just hit up City Hall or a small church without a big fuss.
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 How about you actually learn the demographics of the country accurately before making sweeping statements to cover all economic classes of the US. You cant say that what happens in upper class America applies to everyone else. Especially when the upper class is a minority of the American population. That sir, is ignorant. I posted a list of average expectations that a -middle class- man in the U.S. will likely be expected to shoulder. I could care less if only a certain X, Y or Z % of men pay X amount, Y amount, Z amount, somewhat less, somewhat more. Doesn't change the point that marriage for U.S. men is full of financial expectations with no comparable expectations on the woman, and that this has been one significant cause of the declining marriage rate. THAT'S my point, disagree with it or not, stop nitpicking and rationalizing around it. Now, as is your frequent habit in posting here, you want to dishonestly distort what I have posted to "upper middle class," and then in your last paragraph quoted above "upper class" to nitpick the points I make further. Transparent.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I posted a list of average expectations that a -middle class- man in the U.S. will likely be expected to shoulder. I could care less if only a certain X, Y or Z % of men pay X amount, Y amount, Z amount, somewhat less, somewhat more. Doesn't change the point that marriage for U.S. men is full of financial expectations with no comparable expectations on the woman, and that this has been one significant cause of the declining marriage rate. THAT'S my point, disagree with it or not, stop nitpicking and rationalizing around it. Now, as is your frequent habit in posting here, you want to dishonestly distort what I have posted to "upper middle class," and then in your last paragraph quoted above "upper class" to nitpick the points I make further. Transparent. I mistyped once and forgot to put "middle" before I said "upper class". Sue me. And how did I distort what you said? Let me quote your earlier statement again. Those are fairly standard expectations of men in traditional marriage from white collar middle/upper middle class backgrounds in the U.S. No idea where you live, your social class, or expectations on men in marriage where you are. See that? I didnt distort anything you said. I simply responded to your exact words. Your expectations applied to upper middle class men. You said that yourself. YOU said upper middle class. NOT ME. Thats only 15% of the population. So thats not even most men. So your assertions arent worth much. Especially considering many of the guys I know dont have those expectations placed upon them. Keep it moving dude. Edited January 13, 2012 by kaylan
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Your personal anecdotes are no better than ours. They are when they describe an average middle class couple getting married in their late 20s-early 30s as opposed to an impoverished couple getting married straight out of HS. Try an experiment, if you ever decide to get engaged, give your girl a cheap rhinestone ring, then suggest a JOP wedding and a honeymoon weekend at a bed n breakfast upstate. You -might- get lucky and find a woman who accepts that, odds are stacked deeply against. And for the record, the raw dollar amount any given man is expected to pay is irrelevant, I should have known better than to post actual middle class rough dollar estimates for the crayon gallery here to latch onto at the expense of reason, the % of disposable cash is what is relevant. A 2k ring is even MORE expensive in relative terms to a man making 12k than a 10k ring is to a man making 60k. Not that that many American women of whatever social class or background would accept a 2k engagement ring today. Plenty of people have modest weddings. Some just elope in Vegas or somewhere else. Others just hit up City Hall or a small church without a big fuss. Outliers, the vast majority of American middle class women who intend on marrying still want 1) a decent engagement ring, 2) a nice wedding, 3) a nice honeymoon. Keep blowing hot air by suggesting otherwise, it's amusing. Keep trying to equate middle class traditions and marriage expectations with how they do things in the NYC projects, even more amusing.
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I mistyped once and forgot to put "middle" before I said "upper class". Sue me. Nah won't sue you, I'll just call you a self-serving liar. I post "middle/upper middle" to denote a broad middle range of population, any mildly functional 8th grader would understand that, then you start distorting with "upper middle" and "upper class" in your nitpick efforts. Transparent.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 They are when they describe an average middle class couple getting married in their late 20s-early 30s as opposed to an impoverished couple getting married straight out of HS. Try an experiment, if you ever decide to get engaged, give your girl a cheap rhinestone ring, then suggest a JOP wedding and a honeymoon weekend at a bed n breakfast upstate. You -might- get lucky and find a woman who accepts that, odds are stacked deeply against. Dude, the people I knew who got married out of high school found down to earth women who were fine with that. I know plenty of girls my age who would be fine with that and just want a guy to love them. Sorry that you have such a one way jaded view point, but there are plenty of girls who dont care about money and a big show And for the record, the raw dollar amount any given man is expected to pay is irrelevant, I should have known better than to post actual middle class rough dollar estimates for the crayon gallery here to latch onto at the expense of reason, the % of disposable cash is what is relevant. A 2k ring is even MORE expensive in relative terms to a man making 12k than a 10k ring is to a man making 60k. Not that that many American women of whatever social class or background would accept a 2k engagement ring today.Please fine me studies that give the average amount every man pays for a ring along with his income then. Instead of your personal anecdotes and assertions. Outliers, the vast majority of American middle class women who intend on marrying still want 1) a decent engagement ring, 2) a nice wedding, 3) a nice honeymoon. Keep blowing hot air by suggesting otherwise, it's amusing. Keep trying to equate middle class traditions and marriage expectations with how they do things in the NYC projects, even more amusing. Oh yes, its outliers when it doesnt fall in line with what you are saying. Ok:rolleyes: All the hot air comes from you dude. Like I said, not everyone needs to nor does break the bank to get married. And a lot of times a women and her family will help foot the bill. All the couples I know who got married, didnt just have the guy pay for it. It was a joint thing. All of it, with exception of the ring since the guy picks that out himself. But its not like the woman doesnt buy a dude a wedding band. And for your information I am not from the projects dum dum. Projects are not middle class...which is what I am. Try again.
Quiet Storm Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The last basic middle class Italian wedding I went to on Long Island (not a tony part of LI) a few years back cost at least $200k. Considering less than 18% of US Households (including 2 parent) had a combined income higher than $118,200 last year, your "basic middle class" wedding doesn't sound very middle class to me. Only 34% of households have a combined income above $65K. I think more men are worrying about finding or keep their jobs, than worrying about women taking half of their wealth. I get that if you already have wealth, or a trust fund, or your parents inheritance...it wouldn't be smart to marry without a prenup. However, if you think most men are in this category, you're dreaming.
kaylan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Nah won't sue you, I'll just call you a self-serving liar. I post "middle/upper middle" to denote a broad middle range of population, any mildly functional 8th grader would understand that, then you start distorting with "upper middle" and "upper class" in your nitpick efforts. Transparent. But you cannot group the middle class together with the more well off upper middle class. Study some sociological trends and habits. These two groups of people spend very differently. And more of your original assertions regarding money to be spent has not applied to ANY middle class families I know. So until you provide me with some studies that control for economic status, its basically your personal anecdotes vs mine. Its just that yours is mixed with the typical "woe is me, men have it so bad, im cry sum moar" attitude that exists in men on the internet. Im so glad I dont come across dudes like this in the real world. Btw just so you know...most sources and studies will tell you this... Upper class 1 to 5% of the population Upper middle class 15% of the population Middle class 33% of the population lower middle class 32 % of the population Lower class 15 to 20 % of the population Edited January 13, 2012 by kaylan
Untouchable_Fire Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 What a sad end to a great culture. I do notice that many Japanese women who come to America usually end up with American men and they genuinely do appreciate a man that treats them well. I used to work with a woman who came from Japan and she married a caucasian American man after leaving her abusive husband and could not be happier. Seriously... Japanese guys used to define manly. Crap they were such hardasses they killed themselves for failure. I don't think that culture is completely dead. It's just the western idea of men being total doormats is starting to seep into the female subconscious.
Quiet Storm Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 More American women are the breadwinners now, too. Sorry, dasein, but I think you are very out of touch with the reality of this country. Instead of worrying about the size of their ring, most women just want their boyfriend/husband to find and keep a freakin' job. Instead of asking for a maid, they just want to be able to qualify for a loan so they'll have their own house to clean. Even the upper middle class is shrinking, and when their bank accounts dwindle and their parent's money runs out, when they've deferred their loans for the last time and still can't find a job in their chosen career, they'll be in the same boat.
dasein Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Dude, the people I knew who got married out of high school Dude... you are 3.5 years below the average first marriage age in the U.S. Get back to me when you turn 33 and we will compare what your friends and family of comparable age spent on weddings during the prior 5 years. but there are plenty of girls who dont care about money and a big show Oh I understand now, you're Amish, explains everything. In case you aren't... BS. Once you are engaged, a shift of power dynamic takes place that based on your posts here, you won't even see coming... until it's too late. Here's a little test for you. Tell women you are dating that when you meet "the one" that you will be using your grandmother's tiny, cheap but sentimental engagement ring to form the engagement. Despite all notions of good taste and decorum, 3/4 of women (of any social class I have exprienced) will reply, "well you know rings can be reset with more 'modern' stones." Try it out. (btw 3/4 is charitable, more like 85% or 5/6 IME). Can you imagine a creature so venal and self-centered that they would inject -that- kind of comment into your expression of sentimentality and love for your grandmother and family tradition? Apparently not. You will though, you will. Please fine me studies that give the average amount every man pays for a ring along with his income then. Instead of your personal anecdotes and assertions. One of my jobs is not to find you studies. The rule of thumb is 2x monthly salary. Many average guys spend a much higher multiple. Here's another hint for you. NEVER EVER take a woman engagement ring shopping. Ask her to identify some styles and patterns she likes, ring type, but NEVER EVER be in a position of looking at engagement rings together. I could explain why, but you would dismiss it as anecdotal, despite it being completely factual. Oh yes, its outliers when it doesnt fall in line with what you are saying. Ok Oh, don't know what "outlier" means? Maybe I should google you up some studies on it? And for your information I am not from the projects dum dum. No idea where -you- live or are from, but it's plain you are advocating for an inaccurately low "projects level" of wedding expenses for men in this thread.
Woggle Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Before people here criticize Japanese culture look at how they acted in the aftermath of a horrific distaster last year. I hope that while some progress is made that this aspect of the culture does not die.
Recommended Posts