women: would you like to be proteced and kept?

[zengirl]

I was merely generalizing.

 

Societies numbers show the balance there, not my comment about nurturing.

I don't know real numbers but it is quite obviously less than 20% are stay at home dads

 

But that's because men have been socialized to believe they're not nurturing or that it's unnatural to be a SAHD. Citing the non-existence of SAHDs doesn't prove fathers aren't nurturing or can't be as much of (or more than, in some cases) a parent as a mother. It just proves men and women have been socialized differently, and we're still working to break out of those roles. The fact that SAHD is trending -- i.e. more people choose it now than they did -- and SAHMs are declining shows this principle. Women and men both need a variety of choices available to them, IMO.

[serial muse]

I didn't mean to imply that but I understand where you got it. I seriously doubt it is like that. I think it would much more open of a world to explore. Looks tome like a place where you can do anything you want with whoever you want as long as it was legal and moral.

 

Hm...I guess that I already feel like I have the whole world to explore - the only difference is that I gave it to myself. Sure, there are limitations, and I often think about what I could do if I had unlimited resources of time and money...but being a SAHM, for example, would mean pretty much the opposite of that anyway. SAHM's have very little time to themselves!

 

I do understand your ex's feeling of enjoyment at taking a day or two away from stress and doing nothing - I think we all like those days, men included. What better gift can one give a busy person than a day free from care? But that's not gender-specific. My H would adore such a day as well (not to mention unlimited time and money).

 

Doesn't mean, though, that either of us would enjoy living our full lives that way.

[Els]

something that always bugs me about our current society dynamic....

 

why do women bother having kids if they HAVE TO go to work to get enough money to pay for CHILD CARE, where they send their kids to be raised WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK? Do they not want to bother with the whole mommy-hood, child rearing thing? Seems like foot shooting to me.

But I mention it because I have seen it a lot in business. I hear "Her job barely covers the childcare". Isn't being a stay home mom (which is a huge job in itself, I know this) as rewarding or more rewarding than a job, and much better for children?

 

(this is only a minor side track off the whole stay home kept idea)

 

Several reasons I can think of.

 

One is that they don't wish to be 24/7 caretakers. They want to be part-time moms - go out and talk to people their age during the day, be with their family during the evening. They do want families, but they want a balance of sorts. Have you ever stayed at home with a young child for months? It's horribly draining.

 

Second is that they love their job and want to be able to have both that and a family. Isn't really unusual.

 

Third is that there appears to be a stigma of sorts against SAHMs. At least, there is on this board. I've seen plenty of people call them lazy, sitting at home with their hands outstretched to be fed, etc etc. Which is pretty sad, IMO, because the SAHP is as valid a job as any.

 

It just isn't necessarily for everyone.

[wwwjd]

and we're still working to break out of those roles.

 

ooh. this sparks more direction to this topic.

 

Do we REALLY WANT to break out of these roles, or... at our baser, instictual level would we prefer the man/provider, woman/nester thing.

All the woman I knew in a deep, DEEP level, down along side all the things women never like to admit to themselves let alone other people, they all longed for role definition like that. And I know many men like it too.... man, nother better than seeing that smile on our gals face when we provide something, ANYTHING: money, love, intimacy, a surprise flower, a child, a house, a car, some time.... whatever.

 

I'm not saying that is everyone, not saying that works, not fist pounding that is how it should be, just discussing it.

 

Are we fundementally happier with our confusing and swapping roles of today or is that just how society has made it (because it is the most profitable), we accept it, take our meds, and plan our overly complicated lives in our iPad and everything is fine?

[NeverDated]

something that always bugs me about our current society dynamic....

 

why do women bother having kids if they HAVE TO go to work to get enough money to pay for CHILD CARE, where they send their kids to be raised WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK? Do they not want to bother with the whole mommy-hood, child rearing thing? Seems like foot shooting to me.

But I mention it because I have seen it a lot in business. I hear "Her job barely covers the childcare". Isn't being a stay home mom (which is a huge job in itself, I know this) as rewarding or more rewarding than a job, and much better for children?

 

(this is only a minor side track off the whole stay home kept idea)

This bothers me, too, as a SAHM. If I went back to FT work and put the kids in childcare, I would bring home ~$200/month. $1.25/hour. I don't see it as worth it. So I budget and stay home until such a point that it makes financial sense.

 

If you can make it work, though, many women find lots of enjoyment and fulfillment from maintaining their careers and being mothers. Won't judge that.

 

As far as being a "kept" women, there's a huge gap between being "kept" and being a "traditional nuclear-family housewife." Kept women are toys. Housewives are equal partners who do their work in the home. There's a good [old] book on frugality, The Tightwad Gazette, in which the author details the "problem" with modern families is that women at home don't put in as much work as their partners. If your partner is spending 8 hours a day working at a job, you should spend 8 hours a day working at home.

 

Anything less than that kind of partnership would make me feel "kept" - like a spoiled, entitled princess. If all my kids were in school and my partner made enough money that I could stay home AND hire a maid AND hire a nanny, I'd go get a job (or at the very least involve myself heavily with an organization) simply to not lose my mind and hate myself.

[NeverDated]

Are we fundementally happier with our confusing and swapping roles of today or is that just how society has made it (because it is the most profitable), we accept it, take our meds, and plan our overly complicated lives in our iPad and everything is fine?

Yeesh. The only ingrained gender role we have as a species is the same as most other mammals (and all other pack predators). The female provides the majority of child care until such a time as the offspring can begin to learn to function independently (typically weaning).

 

Even remaining primitive cultures vary wildly depending upon location. Some Hazda tribes, for example, exhibit the "traditional" males as hunters, women as gatherers mindset. There are, however, reports of bands of females going head-to-head with packs of other predators to steal a kill. Many societies left the children, when they were at the in-between age where they were mobile but not able to become self-sufficient, with older community members while both mothers and fathers left to hunt and gather. Some communities didn't really even acknowledge parentage past the point where the child was dependent upon it's mother.

 

I doubt any Western society can have an honest conversation on gender roles since we're so far removed from the natural order of things. We spoil our children and infantilize them to an obscene age. We think it's abusive to leave a 9 year old home alone, yet more primitive cultures would expect that child to be able to hunt small game without help.

[RedRobin]

All the woman I knew in a deep, DEEP level, down along side all the things women never like to admit to themselves let alone other people, they all longed for role definition like that. And I know many men like it too.... man, nother better than seeing that smile on our gals face when we provide something, ANYTHING: money, love, intimacy, a surprise flower, a child, a house, a car, some time.... whatever.

 

I'm not saying that is everyone, not saying that works, not fist pounding that is how it should be, just discussing it.

 

Are we fundementally happier with our confusing and swapping roles of today or is that just how society has made it (because it is the most profitable), we accept it, take our meds, and plan our overly complicated lives in our iPad and everything is fine?

 

I'm starting to wonder a little how well you think you knew these women.... or if it were just a projection of how you wish things to be.

 

You are talking to some moms here, and they are telling you that's not how it is. I'm telling you that my family history is pretty traditional, and that's not how it was for them either. Both men and women worked and provided. Both men and women nurtured.

 

It seems like you've created a nice little fantasy for your life and are trying to get some woman to help you 'role play' that way. The reality is that people are really not that uni-dimensional or one-sided... is what we're trying to show you.

[zengirl]

Do we REALLY WANT to break out of these roles, or... at our baser, instictual level would we prefer the man/provider, woman/nester thing.

 

Yes, we want to break out of those roles. Even if we choose the role society might've deemed appropriate for us when we had no choices, it's still important to have the choice. And there are people who choose otherwise, even if they're the minority (which isn't the case with women & working, fwiw -- most women do work and want to and don't stop when they have kids), it's worthwhile to eliminate set roles.

 

Having societal roles and expectations for career or parenthood based on gender helps no one. Breaking out of them helps everyone, even those who don't necessarily want to eschew their old role. It's not like you can't be a SAHM or marry one just because we have choices now. Choices are only good.

 

All the woman I knew in a deep, DEEP level, down along side all the things women never like to admit to themselves let alone other people, they all longed for role definition like that.

 

I'm going to call B.S. on that. If they never admit it to themselves or others, how do you know they long for it? Personally, I've no desire to be a mother in the traditional sense (hubby and I will probably foster kids some day but never adopt or truly raise children as ours) and I have always wanted to build a career. That traditional nuclear family role wouldn't work for me. There are many women throughout history, even when it was an expectation, who it didn't work for. Many men who have eschewed or wanted to eschew their roles as well.

 

And I know many men like it too.... man, nother better than seeing that smile on our gals face when we provide something, ANYTHING: money, love, intimacy, a surprise flower, a child, a house, a car, some time.... whatever.

 

Well, that's not a gender thing. Most women love to make their men smile too! That has nothing to do with "roles." See the thread on the Married/LTR section where people ask about things done for their honeys!

 

Are we fundementally happier with our confusing and swapping roles of today or is that just how society has made it (because it is the most profitable), we accept it, take our meds, and plan our overly complicated lives in our iPad and everything is fine?

 

What's confusing about it? That's what I never get about this question. Everyone has a choice and a chance to build the kind of life they envision, and there are a myriad of lifestyles that work. How is that confusing? The question seems to me to be: Do people really just want to be told what to do? I'm going to go with, "No." Some people might, but hell, there are still plenty of people or groups who can get those people and tell them what to do, even in a free-choice society, so they're taken care of too.

[Els]

I'm starting to wonder a little how well you think you knew these women.... or if it were just a projection of how you wish things to be.

 

You are talking to some moms here, and they are telling you that's not how it is. I'm telling you that my family history is pretty traditional, and that's not how it was for them either. Both men and women worked and provided. Both men and women nurtured.

 

It seems like you've created a nice little fantasy for your life and are trying to get some woman to help you 'role play' that way. The reality is that people are really not that uni-dimensional or one-sided... is what we're trying to show you.

 

I really don't think this is necessarily the case. There absolutely are women that are as how he mentioned. You generally sound like a very rational person, so I'm personally surprised at this response. Surely it's possible for there to be some women who love staying at home and taking care of the kids, and men who love supporting them. It just so happens that those are the types of women he attracts and thus the types of women he has been with, IMO. Of course, his 'theory' can't be extrapolated to include ALL women, but I don't see why the women he is speaking of cannot actually exist.

[zengirl]

I really don't think this is necessarily the case. There absolutely are women that are as how he mentioned. You generally sound like a very rational person, so I'm personally surprised at this response. Surely it's possible for there to be some women who love staying at home and taking care of the kids, and men who love supporting them. It just so happens that those are the types of women he attracts and thus the types of women he has been with, IMO. Of course, his 'theory' can't be extrapolated to include ALL women, but I don't see why the women he is speaking of cannot actually exist.

 

Oh, women who want a 'traditional' role definitely exist, but the idea that they feel it on a level they "don't admit to others or themselves" is what makes it sound like a projection, as RR said. Women I know who want a traditional role can definitely admit it to themselves and others.

[Els]

Good point. Given some of the recent demonization of SAHMs or 'kept women' though, I wouldn't be surprised if there were indeed some women repressing these desires out of fear of what people might think.

[zengirl]

Good point. Given some of the recent demonization of SAHMs or 'kept women' though, I wouldn't be surprised if there were indeed some women repressing these desires out of fear of what people might think.

 

Perhaps. I certainly think some young women take awhile to figure out what they actually want, outside of whatever social pressures they had thrust upon them, as do some young men. But my point is mainly if the desires are THAT repressed, no one else is seeing them either and we have no basis for believing it. fwiw, it was common among many women I knew in college (Bachelors) to admit they planned on getting married, having children, and not working all that much after. There were plenty of women there for actual degrees and careers, too, but plenty just to bide the times till they were wives. Neither was particularly scorned.

 

I don't see a lot of recent demonization of SAHMs (sure, some people do it, but some people demonize everything -- the media is hateful) or trends "against" it per se. Just more options all around.

[Negative Nancy]

something that always bugs me about our current society dynamic....

 

why do women bother having kids if they HAVE TO go to work to get enough money to pay for CHILD CARE, where they send their kids to be raised WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK? Do they not want to bother with the whole mommy-hood, child rearing thing? Seems like foot shooting to me.

But I mention it because I have seen it a lot in business. I hear "Her job barely covers the childcare". Isn't being a stay home mom (which is a huge job in itself, I know this) as rewarding or more rewarding than a job, and much better for children?

 

(this is only a minor side track off the whole stay home kept idea)

 

 

that is exactly what i wonder alot about too. why have kids in the first place if you drop them off at childcare half of the day?

[FitChick]

I had an offer to be a kept, unmarried woman with a nice lifestyle. I told the guy "It's not really a job I'm interested in." He was insulted that I called it a job, but that's what it would have been since I wasn't in love with him and couldn't trust him to look after my best interests.

 

On the other hand, I was engaged to a man who didn't want me to work because he preferred that sort of lifestyle and could afford it. I loved him and wanted to look after him and our home. Materially the same sort of situation but totally different emotionally.

[veggirl]

I would be scared to be that dependent on a man.

 

Sure, your GF enjoyed that life for a DAY, who wouldn't, it's called "relaxing". But, pittering around day after day, no structure, nowhere truly to be, nothing you are accountable for...that'd get boring and old. It seems meaningless, too. And if it resulted in my man referring to me as his "little woman" as you did...

 

Plus if the guy isn't truly making bank, there ain't gonna be much lunching and shopping with girlfriends day after day is there?

 

I mean, not even expected to cook or clean unless I want to? So what is the role of the woman in this scenario...? Just to be home and available for her man? Nah....

[Woggle]

I think most women like most men want to know the person their with will have their back and be the strong one sometimes when they have weak moments. I don't think means they want to be kept though some women do seem to want sugar daddies.

[firehawk_1]

why on earth would women want to be protected and kept these days? its all about getting the next hottest guy and "independance".....

[wwwjd]

just to recenter, my very first line:

 

"General very broad, sweeping question:"

 

I made this thread to bolster interesting internet discussion only. I'm not a caveman, nor live in the segmented roles I'm talking about, and all of my GFs have been the very strong willed, independent types. Yet, still deep in thier core....

And I am not looking for dates, or seeking a nest mate... just online to discuss interesting if not bizaar angles on topics that might interest others.

 

And I shouldn't have put so much emphesis on the "KEPT" part as I sort of just meant that as a playful description, not a TRULY kept, isolated, boy toy. May bad (back pedle back pedle)

 

I respect, appreciate, and enjoy all the ideas and opinons I'm reading here.

 

Continue!

Hope we can keep it interesting and civil to avoid locks and infractions like my last thread

[wwwjd]

I doubt any Western society can have an honest conversation on gender roles since we're so far removed from the natural order of things. We spoil our children and infantilize them to an obscene age. We think it's abusive to leave a 9 year old home alone, yet more primitive cultures would expect that child to be able to hunt small game without help.

 

the bolded part. How can we know what that is these days while buried in our possibly misdirected (profit driven) lifestyles?

My answer to that was to compare with extremely primative cultures.

 

VERY interesting your input on the tribes. This interests me greatly. I actually had already planed to open a new thread about it, as I too have done some research on this since a more natural order is of interest to me. This thread was to lead into that thread later. Would LOVE your input on that thread maybe later this week. It looks like you know the topic much better than I. I just did a bunch of googling research but have no real background in it. I have to slant the thread toward how it relates to us DATING in this age, so that thread is coming soon. I think it will relate easily.

[zengirl]

I'm not sure I agree that tribal life is the "natural order of things." After all, our cultural evolution led us here, quite naturally -- no one knew where humankind would end up or where we're going next. Who's to say this is not the natural order of things?

 

Personally, I've no desire to live in a tribal society. Nor do I think primitive or tribal societies have much impact on modern life. We're very removed from that socialization, yes (not that all tribes have the same or similar socialization anyway) and have gone through tons of cycles of socialization. I wasn't socialized like a 1950s woman, a tribal woman, or a Hobbit. To me, these are all equally true.

 

I think it's important to be able to pull off your own socialization now and then and look outside of it, but I have a lot of skepticism for claims that we are "denying" biological urges or imperatives (or any of the other much debated elements of psuedo-evolutionary science that attempt to tell us what humans are "supposed" to be and how they're removed from it in modern society) because we've evolved culturally. We're also still evolving biologically anyway fwiw (though much more slowly than we can evolve culturally of course).

[Kamille]

I would be scared to be that dependent on a man.

 

 

I would be scared to be dependent on one person, but I think individuals in our society generally over-estimate their "independence", probably because many of the relationships we depend on have been commodified. We're embedded in relationships of inter-dependence, be it at work (my boss needs me, but I need my job), to feed ourselves, in our health care system. I also hope we depend on our families and friends for support, morale boosters, etc. As such, I would gladly accept a relationship of interdependence with a man.

 

I personally love the feeling of protection I get when I'm in a relationship. I'm pretty good on my own, but there is something wonderful about knowing someone in your life has your back.

 

On the kept, I won't comment, as it has been retracted. It hardly makes sense to me - I tend to do things I'm passionate about. Turns out, I'm passionate about my job. I could be as equally passionate about keeping house - which I view as a valuable contribution.

[zengirl]

I would be scared to be dependent on one person, but I think individuals in our society generally over-estimate their "independence", probably because many of the relationships we depend on have been commodified. We're embedded in relationships of inter-dependence, be it at work (my boss needs me, but I need my job), to feed ourselves, in our health care system. I also hope we depend on our families and friends for support, morale boosters, etc. As such, I would gladly accept a relationship of interdependence with a man.

 

Agree entirely! My mother commented the other day that I was very independent, and I said, "I don't really feel that way. I mean I need X people to do my job and X people for this and that, etc" (I went on awhile) and she said, "I think you're over thinking it." But it really depends what independence means to you.

[OliveOyl]

I became a SAHM in my marriage (way longer than planned due to disabled child). It wasn't my ideal choice, but it was very difficult to go back to work given the unique circumstances.

 

Fast forward post divorce, and this month I am moving in with my BF in a different city. I will still be staying at home for at least a little while but I am actually really looking forward to the "traditional" roles.

 

The main difference is that the relationship between my BF and I is very different than the relationship I had with my ex. My BF is more dominant/masculine than my ex was. I definitely feel much more of a "nesting instinct" than I can remember feeling in my marriage.

 

Also honestly, when I was with my ex, before and after I became SAHM, we were always kind of "competing" in a weird way over roles and chores. For example, we decided I would take over all the laundry when I was at home, but he would still randomly do loads, or when I was cooking he would sometimes come in and take over in the kitchen (he loved to cook). I know that sounds like a crazy thing to complain about ... he was just helping out, right? However, I didn't feel really appreciated. It felt like he was saying "I'm the one working but I can also do your job too, so what you're doing isn't really that valuable."

[wwwjd]

but the idea that they feel it on a level they "don't admit to others or themselves" is what makes it sound like a projection,

 

real quickly, this stems from my personal experiences with women... first, there seems to almost always be things women can not admit EVER aloud to themselve or anybody. bad example, an anorexic girl telling herself and others she is TOO FAT. deep down somewhere buried she KNOWS she is not too fat, if nothing else, just comparing to other women's dress sizes if she is a 1 or 0 or whatever and everyone else averages a 3 (I don't know real numbers) yet she REALLY BELEIVES she is too fat. Like I said, bad example but you get what I mean. She can't admit it to herself. Vastly generalizing, many women can not admit things to themselves maybe because they believe they shouldn't I don't know, but I do know that exists. I'm no shrink, but can talk very deep with people drilling down to the core, and this is what I have found. If it is something you can't see or even know it is there or acknoledge, you won't know about it until the day it comes out.

Hope that doesn't open another Pandora's box of worms, to mix, some metaphors, just talking about differert stuff online.

 

And these girls I know were all self supporting, career driven, hard core women who were successful and indepedent. Yet, under all that surface distraction was the little girl wanting to be wisked off to a castle and protected by her Prince. Yes, fantasy, but completely acheivable if you redraw the landscape and clothing. IF one allows this to exist.

 

So, just checking in to hear what the wodern womens FEEL about these buried things.

[NeverDated]

I'm not sure I agree that tribal life is the "natural order of things." After all, our cultural evolution led us here, quite naturally -- no one knew where humankind would end up or where we're going next. Who's to say this is not the natural order of things?

 

Personally, I've no desire to live in a tribal society. Nor do I think primitive or tribal societies have much impact on modern life. We're very removed from that socialization, yes (not that all tribes have the same or similar socialization anyway) and have gone through tons of cycles of socialization. I wasn't socialized like a 1950s woman, a tribal woman, or a Hobbit. To me, these are all equally true.

 

I think it's important to be able to pull off your own socialization now and then and look outside of it, but I have a lot of skepticism for claims that we are "denying" biological urges or imperatives (or any of the other much debated elements of psuedo-evolutionary science that attempt to tell us what humans are "supposed" to be and how they're removed from it in modern society) because we've evolved culturally. We're also still evolving biologically anyway fwiw (though much more slowly than we can evolve culturally of course).

At first I disagreed with this, then read it a few more times and realized we were going at the same point from entirely different directions.

 

My initial reference to the "natural order of things" was to underscore how we are as a species when you get right down to base instincts and evolutionary urges. It's fairly obvious in all aspects (health, reproduction, psychology, etc.) that industrialized societies are removed from that natural order, but, like you said, we have no idea what it really is. We can hypothesize and speculate and masturbate over the idea all we want to, but at the end of all of it the only constant among the majority of societies is that women are primary caregivers until weaning, which is more a biological imperative (in the absence of formula) than a cultural norm.