women: would you like to be proteced and kept?

[xxoo]

please quote when I was "telling ALL women how THEY feel"?

I cant remember that

 

Start here:

 

And, yes, there are things women do seem unable to admit even to themselves even if we see it externally..

 

You don't say that you've known some women for whom this is true. You also specify women, not people. It sounds like you think you "see" the truth about women that they can not see about themselves.

[sid3]

Think about it: You felt the conversation got too "personal" when people started even SPECULATING on how you feel, but you feel comfortable telling all women how they feel? Are you sure you're going to keep saying that's perfectly okay?

 

That's precisely the pattern we're seeing. It appears that its perfectly fine to tell everyone else how they feel and he cries foul when called on his logic. It's ironic that the OP was adamant in denying that he was attempting to suck up to women in an earlier, when in fact he confirms this convincingly in this thread: he just couldn't see. And its just as likely that again he is blinded, only this time it is the condescending approach. I think a social science forum would provide a much better platform for these threads. Their lacking relevancy to dating aside, the conversation would be far more interesting, and challenging. JMO

[NeverDated]

Well, the 3 issues you mention all have to do with our level of activity and the foods we eat.

It's all connected. As you say later

The more industrialized a nation, the more privileges women have, I'd say.

So you say we have more freedom, yet on the whole we're less satisfied. How does that work? There is something fundamentally wrong with body/mind that we are sicker in both arenas, gain less satisfaction from simply living, etc.

 

We aren't having this conversation because we have the privilege of the time to have it, we're having it because it's a concern. Why is it a concern to some cultures, but not others? Why is it that the more modernized a culture becomes, the less satisfied the women become? It's not the modernization, because it gives us "more" of something we're told we should want, so it must be some tertiary factor that totally goes against what our DNA knows is right.

 

I think it's dangerous to look towards agricultural or hunting societies for any insight into gender roles, as you often fall back on the same evolutionary stereotypes that suggest mens' work and womens' work should be separate. In a modern society, we've already learned that idea doesn't work and we should simply move on, IMO. I'm not saying there's nothing at all to be gleaned from primitive societies, but I'm skeptical of anyone who asserts that they have it 'better' or seems to think set gender roles and stereotypes are, in any way, a good idea.

Anyone who tries to seriously claim the bolded portions is looking at a very narrow anthropological sample set. For every stereotype that is bandied about when discussing "traditional gender roles", there's a culture that disproves it. That was my original point - any time "gender roles" get pulled into the picture, someone likes to talk about "traditional" societies. "Look at hunter-gatherers, this is how they..." It's not. They don't. Evolutionary psychology is totally worthless and tells us things that are obvious. Men tend to be the hunters because they have biological advantages, such as greater perception of movement; women tend to be gatherers because we have a greater perception of details. But gathering women also hunt, and hunting men also gather. Set gender roles are strictly a social construct, created to place order in a "tribe" that was too large to function in an ad hoc fashion, with no basis in our nature.

[wwwjd]

Thank you for specific quotes. It helps me see where this is coming from.

 

I can't tell someone to believe anything on the net. If one chooses to or not, that is an option.

If someone does not believe something, that doesn't mean it ISN'T true.

 

I'm not saying it IS true. I don't KNOW any of you. But that specific line, has it's own truth that I can not change. If someone does NOT believe something, that does NOT MEAN it is NOT TRUE. I wish I knew a way to make that clearer, but I can't see how it can be any better wordrd than it is.

Was not trying to USE that phrase to say "All women don't know themselves...". I feel it sort of grew out of context maybe? Either way, it is a realistic statement, and sort of unchaneable.

 

You also specify women, not people.

 

The thread starts with "WOMEN:". I was asking women a question. Sure, much of it applies to both sexes, but this thread was questioning women. Very few men broke down in tears in my arms proclaiming deep inside they just want to be taken care of and loved. Seemed to be more of a women thang.

 

I also seem to recall mentioning at some point, "This next part is going to make me 10,000 enemies" BEFORE I posted it. Meaning, I already knew how it would be taken, know how people including WOMEN respond to hearing it, but it was relevant to this discussion and I posted it anyway. I get no props for having the gonads to do that?

THIS is exactly the part I was talking about, and it is funny cyclical it is: some women (and some men of course) are not able to admit there maybe things they are unable to admit. That proves itself right there.

 

I respect all of your inputs here, the the negative feelings I've caused and am sorry about causing that. Truly am.

I can't change that above statement. It is truthful on its own and I can't seem to word it any better. But let me try:

 

"Just because I don't believe something, that doesn't mean it isn't true"

 

Better?

[wwwjd]

BTW I borrowed that line from CITY OF ANGELS movie

City of Angels - First Sight - YouTube

[serial muse]

So, for me, here's the part where it started to go off the rails a bit:

 

there seems to almost always be things women can not admit EVER aloud to themselve or anybody.

 

and then you went here:

 

I believe your personal experiences to be turth, but almost every guy that likes girls KNOWS women do not always say what the mean. It's one of our biggest intersex communication problems ever.

Women may WISH us to listen and believe what they are saying, but luckily we know better than that much of the time.

Ask any guy, I bet almost all of them have experienced that.

 

...and all that that tells me is that it won't matter to you much what I have to say, and that you're convinced I'm not going to speak the truth, because I am a woman. You've already made up your mind about what I think, and I can't convince you otherwise, because you've created a perfect catch-22.

 

I am sure that you didn't mean to actively offend anyone here - your posts generally come off as respectful, in tone. But this preconception about women's innate ability to know themselves and be honest with themselves and others is a buried disrespect of yours, and it's far more insidious. Plenty of women are very honest with themselves and others, and have no problem delving into their feelings on their own, and coming up with truthful, honest, heartfelt answers. It seems to me that your ears are closed to those answers that don't gibe with what you already think - but then, how will you learn?

Edited April 19, 2012 by serial muse

[zengirl]

OP, you're missing the overall point I was making:

 

I think it's far more relevant and reliable to try to assess people on an individual level and look for hidden beliefs (you cried foul when people tried to do this to you) than it is to cite an entire group and claim they might/probably/do have hidden beliefs over and over again, in a way that seems non-acceptance of any feedback to the contrary.

 

You may well have a hidden belief that you wish women were this way, thus biasing your entire idea. I think there's certainly MORE evidence for that, on an individual level, than the idea that ALL women fit your pattern because they "may" (or whatever) have hidden ideas that many women have said, "Nope, not what I want," too. As such, the whole "hidden" thing doesn't work, because you're not allowing for it to be disproved and as such building the entire conversation on an assumption many find false --- then when the same logic is applied to you (you can't disprove it's just YOUR hidden ideas making you see these things), you get upset.

 

Can't you just admit it's not a good way to go about this conversation and that you could've gone about discussing the topic and your experiences with it, without leaning on the biased assumption?

 

So you say we have more freedom, yet on the whole we're less satisfied. How does that work? There is something fundamentally wrong with body/mind that we are sicker in both arenas, gain less satisfaction from simply living, etc.

 

I guess I do not believe INDIVIDUALS are less satisfied. Tribal societies are not about the individual, generally. This is a generalization, but it is true the vast majority of the time. Our society is much more about the individual -- thus as a society, we perhaps have some problems their societies will not, but it comes with invaluable freedoms I'd not give up for anything. I think we could be a little more about the interconnected nature of humankind, even, and be even happier overall while retaining our individual freedoms. Perhaps that will come.

 

At any rate, I think I am personally happier than the majority of people in our society or tribal societies. I value my personal happiness and make it a goal to improve my overall health, happiness, and contribution to the world. I'm very lucky to live in a society where afforded the ability to do so. Many people do not properly look after themselves --- our society allows for this too --- and lead unhappy lives, of their own choosing. I'd say we have a wider range of happiness than those in most primitive societies.

 

We can do better with allocating resources and opportunities a bit more openly, but the model of a primitive society doesn't work with higher populations. At any rate, most of the unhappy people have resources and opportunities available but choose not to pursue happiness (i.e. most unhappy people are actually not poor or suffering from misfortune, sadly). Generally, this comes from failing to take responsibility for their happiness, IMO, not from the trappings of modern society.

 

Primitive societies operate under generally simpler goals, and they don't expect those goals to bring them happiness. Generally, they are more responsible for their own happiness. It doesn't mean their society makes them happier so much as they have a different idea about happiness. It's also kind of impossible to gauge the happiness of anyone in differing societies anyway.

 

We aren't having this conversation because we have the privilege of the time to have it, we're having it because it's a concern.

 

I would say . . . It's not a concern to me, though. Apparently, it's a concern to you. I don't feel our society is fundamentally flawed.

 

Why is it a concern to some cultures, but not others? Why is it that the more modernized a culture becomes, the less satisfied the women become?

 

I feel very satisfied, on a personal level, and I know many women who are. I expect that people who feel dissatisfied in our culture do so because the mark is constantly moving for what "happy" looks like. In a primitive culture, there's not really a "better" to climb to. I would actually say that happiness in such circumstances is a lack of visible options and choices and really not happiness at all but simply complacency. True joy comes from having options and following your bliss. However, people often expect too much from life and fail to make themselves happy in the moment, where they are.

 

Set gender roles are strictly a social construct, created to place order in a "tribe" that was too large to function in an ad hoc fashion, with no basis in our nature.

 

Agree entirely.

[RedRobin]

I don't enjoy doing the line by line quoted dissection thing on the internet, so I will just leave it at you are reading far too much into the whole topic.

It wasn't something I find satisfying in them at all, it was just there.

 

And, yes, there are things women do seem unable to admit even to themselves even if we see it externally.

 

My 1st four posts cover what it was about completely.

 

No problemo. But I happen to think you are the one reading too much into the conversations you've had with your women friends. Hence your desire to start a thread asking about it.

 

Your wishful thinking about women's motivations (if done as a desire to manipulate) is not something I've witnessed to be very productive at all.

 

Like I said before, you are better off taking things at face value, then seeing if their words and actions align. If you are telling me that women (in general) are less self-aware than men, boy... those are fightin' words.

 

Self-awareness (in either gender) is not easy to find. If you cultivate your own, I believe you will be able to see it in others a bit easier....

[wwwjd]

(you cried foul when people tried to do this to you)

 

They said I was trying to change these women or I secretly wished them changed or something. Could not be further from the truth. I already spelled it out:

 

1. I don't date the PROTECTED AT HOME MOM types (not that there is anything wrong with that)

 

2. It was found by accident in these power broken women I do date. ALL of them. I can't help or change that.

 

Somehow someone put together than *I* have an issue that I am covering? Wanted to convert these women? Sure, ok, lets call that "something I am unable to admit to myslef and others" if that were true woldn't I submilinally start trying to date the kind that NEED me to provide? I still don't. Still not into that. So, it was a strange assumption that was not typed in anywhere here in print, this thread suddenly became about ME, instead of the concept - which was not saying ALL YOU WOMEN ARE THIS WAY to begin with.

It was just a topic, suggestion, an idea, an Inception

apparently it pressed some of the wrong buttons.

[wwwjd]

No problemo. But I happen to think you are the one reading too much into the conversations you've had with your women friends. Hence your desire to start a thread asking about it.

 

Your wishful thinking about women's motivations (if done as a desire to manipulate) is not something I've witnessed to be very productive at all.

 

Like I said before, you are better off taking things at face value, then seeing if their words and actions align. If you are telling me that women (in general) are less self-aware than men, boy... those are fightin' words.

 

Self-awareness (in either gender) is not easy to find. If you cultivate your own, I believe you will be able to see it in others a bit easier....

 

 

I wanted to simply post a POLL but this forum doesn't have one. Then it could have been a simple YES or NO question.

 

But thank you for sticking it out, and showing me where I could make better corrections in my comunications. It does help a lot online.

I tend to try to talk on here like I do in real life, but real life has intonation, facial expression, delivery etc that the net does not. So things don't work right sometimes.

[wwwjd]

Maybe can I ask that we stop this? I already got an INFRACTION from my other thread. 70 people jumped on me, I stood my ground about my beliefs and *I* get the infraction. Typical. Another reason why nice guys might say F- it and not bother posting here.

[zengirl]

They said I was trying to change these women or I secretly wished them changed or something. Could not be further from the truth.

 

But how do you know you don't have a hidden desire to do so that makes you find such women? How do you know? It could be hidden.

 

(This is just a mirror of the exact kind of comments you have made -- only yours are more problematic, IMO, because they are about a whole GROUP of people, not just observations about an individual).

 

Are you seeing my point?

 

Somehow someone put together than *I* have an issue that I am covering? Wanted to convert these women? Sure, ok, lets call that "something I am unable to admit to myslef and others" if that were true woldn't I submilinally start trying to date the kind that NEED me to provide?

 

Not necessarily -- perhaps the need to convert and prove ALL women or even very strong really want to be provided for is the deep buried need.

 

I'm not even really psycho-analyzing you to suggest these things, just saying what you're upset at people for doing is precisely what you're doing, only you're not even looking at people as individuals! Very frustrating for communication and a bad way to approach any question if you want an honest discussion. This discussion could exist without the bias if you acknowledged the bias, easily. You just seem hellbent on refusing to acknowledge the assumption and bias you built into your original reasoning -- you've taken a small subset of self-selected (whether you intended to pick women who were all similar or not, all of us self-select specific kinds of people in our lives) experiences and attempted to apply them to an entire group of women, as a whole.

 

Sincerely asking the question is fine, but accept the answers given and don't -- as serial muse says -- say things that imply you don't believe women know themselves. It's condescending.

[sid3]

but real life has intonation, facial expression, delivery etc that the net does not. So things don't work right sometimes.

 

Stop beating around the bush, for crying out loud! just ask her if she has a web cam

[NeverDated]

They said I was trying to change these women or I secretly wished them changed or something. Could not be further from the truth....[snip]

I've been paying attention to those posts and they confused me.

 

Certain personality types attract other certain personality types. If you are the type of man who would like to provide/protect/pamper, then you will attract women who want to be provided for/protected/pampered. There are subtle little clues in a person's behavior that signals how they approach a relationship dynamic. I didn't get the impression from your OP that you wanted to "change" women to be what you wanted - you probably have a desire in a relationship that is reflected in your behavior/personality that draws women who want to fill that role.

 

I am personally content being a homemaker. I was also content working full-time. Heck, I'm pretty content as long as I'm doing something productive. Being a "kept woman" would not suit me, because it would just be mind-numbingly boring - all that time to do whatever I wanted would just lack purpose. So I was turned off at some basic level by men who wanted a mate who fit a specific role: homemaker, career woman, what have you. I was drawn to men who were more laid back, and my boyfriend fits that bill nicely. Neither of us have a particularly demanding lifestyle requirement (although we do dream), and both of us are content as long as we're above water.

[RedRobin]

Stop beating around the bush, for crying out loud! just ask her if she has a web cam

 

You are too funny..

[wwwjd]

Are you seeing my point?

 

Yes. And that is totally fair.

 

But, I explained with 2 points in post #109

 

Also see NeverDated's interpretation.

 

And I've never attracted women that wanted that role (not that there is anything wrong with that). These power broker women I date did not work toward that role... it was just a hidden deep desire. Never seeked, never achieved (to this day, I still know all of them), but supressed way down in there.

 

Maybe it IS just a little girls fantasy. And it is buried where it SHOULD stay for evermore. And everyone lived happily ever after.

 

The End.

[zengirl]

Yes. And that is totally fair.

 

But, I explained with 2 points in post #109

 

Also see NeverDated's interpretation.

 

And I've never attracted women that wanted that role (not that there is anything wrong with that). These power broker women I date did not work toward that role... it was just a hidden deep desire. Never seeked, never achieved (to this day, I still know all of them), but supressed way down in there.

 

*sigh* That really sounds like you aren't seeing my point, fwiw. Which has nothing to do with the women you've dated AT ALL and everything to do with the means of communication you choose to attempt here -- i.e. asking a question you came to with a preconceived notion, laying out the reasons for the preconceived notion (these women) only later, and then applying that preconceived notion to all the women who replied to the contrary.

[sid3]

You are too funny..

 

I can keep it up as long as it takes:o

[wwwjd]

*sigh* That really sounds like you aren't seeing my point, fwiw. Which has nothing to do with the women you've dated AT ALL and everything to do with the means of communication you choose to attempt here -- i.e. asking a question you came to with a preconceived notion, laying out the reasons for the preconceived notion (these women) only later, and then applying that preconceived notion to all the women who replied to the contrary.

 

I feel certain I get it: I could be going through exactly what I describe: not knowing that I am not knowing something going on in me. Right?

I understand, I see how it got there, I'm fine with all that, just not sure why I am on the couch at all, since this thread was about a specific topic, and not specifically an issue I have, or you have or anyone. It asks how many women deep down would love to be fully supported. Many great responses were had. The couch must be broken because I know myself pretty well.... not as well as others outside me, you say? ok then, all the women I dated knew me better than myself and guess what: I am still the same guy to them as I am to me. Even according to them. This is not the first time I have been analyzed. I mean, I do date WOMEN!! BAhahahahhaha man joke. sorry.

 

I went off kilter with the "dont beleive turth" but but it applied and I stand by that too.

[wwwjd]

I'm not a professional debater or anything, just a guy, making conversation. Full of holes, ideas, dreams, mistakes, and maybe some truths too.

[NeverDated]

I was skimming through the older posts to see if I missed anything interesting. Apologies that this is now totally off-topic.

At any rate, most families don't pay as much in daycare fees (maybe for a fancy preschool) as one partner makes. So most families are dual income because they feel they require the money.

A large (huge) percentage of middle-class dual income families are finding that they save money by one spouse staying at home. In my area, it's $1200 (base) per month for one toddler/preschooler. Tack on $400 (base) per month for every school-aged child who needs before/after hours care.

 

A mother of three would need to bring in at least $2001 per month, after tax, to make work more profitable than staying home. And that's assuming it costs her $0 to get the kids to/from daycare and get herself to/from work. The number is actually closer to $3,000 post-tax, and even then she's working for $1 to $2 per hour. Get stuck in traffic one day, and you're getting charged $1 per minute per child you are late. 15 minutes late with 3 kids, you just paid another $45 - most of your profit for the week.

 

Then you have to factor in how much the other spouse makes. If your combined income pushes you into a higher tax bracket, you have to make more. Even assuming a 25% tax bracket, a woman would have to have a salary of $48,000 a year to make that scenario even mildly worth it ($50 to $100 a week take home). Unless you live in an upscale suburb or a metro area, chances of making that kind of income are slim to none.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I wasn't speaking specifically of gender roles. As a whole being, we are doing something wrong. So-called "Western diseases" (diabetes, obesity, depression, etc.) are all on the rise. We're doing something wrong, systemically. Edited to add: This is, IMO, important to gender roles because women fell into a stereotype in modern cultures as we progressed toward industrialization. The more industrialized a nation, the fewer privileges a woman had (broad sweeping generalization, I am aware of exceptions). So, personally, I consider all the problems to be intertwined.

 

I do think we are doing something systemically wrong in some regards. Although I wouldn't take away the rights Feminism brought along the way regardless.

 

What do you mean by "The more industrialized a nation, the fewer privileges a woman had ..." Can you further explain this with examples.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Profile of the "I wanna be taken care of woman":

• Reads romance novels.
  
• Loves Disney princess movies.
  
• Grew up with fairy tales.
  
• Has never been a mother or stay-at-home mother, where the muck and grind of diaper duty, sleep deprivation and play dates supplant martini lunches with the girls.
  
• Has no idea how much time it takes to cook and clean up after husband and child/children. Cute mini sandwiches cut with cookie cutters take time, time that most women don't have while staying at home.
  
• Very likely has never been married before and very likely won't find her rich man dumb enough to marry the primadonna Prince!
  

 

- Read romance novels with I was a teenager. - No longer do

 

- Did enjoy Disney princess movies when I was a girl. Just like boys enjoyed batman, Heeman and Thundercats. I'm sick of some people trying to make women feel ashamed because they liked Disney princess movies when little boys had their own hero movies they liked very much.

 

- I have never been a stay at home mother but I was a Nanny for many years to many families and I did change diapers, stayed up with babies, took kids to play dates, made meals. Now granted, being a mother is much harder then being a Nanny because I went home at the end of hte night. But I have had a taste of it and know it's not easy. I just know that when it's my kids, I want to be there for them and raise them. Not have someone else raise them. Time is fast and they grow up fast. I also worked corporate jobs. I don't find much satisfaction there.

 

- I haven't been married before. But any man I marry won't be dumb as I'm not dumb.

 

Isn't Feminism about the freedom to choose what is best for you without being shamed for it? If you are a woman in a successful job and you are good at what you do, that is awesome. If you find happiness in your job AND family, that's great. I love seeing successful women in business. I just personally never found much happiness in business myself. I work because I have to. Not because I am overtly fulfilled within it.

[zengirl]

DY: Of course, feminism is about choices! I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman who wants to stay home. If a man or woman wants to be "kept," I question that, but the OP rescinded that term long ago.

 

A large (huge) percentage of middle-class dual income families are finding that they save money by one spouse staying at home. In my area, it's $1200 (base) per month for one toddler/preschooler. Tack on $400 (base) per month for every school-aged child who needs before/after hours care.

 

Daycare is much cheaper here -- you could get daycare for half that, if you weren't concerned with the quality of the staff beyond the humane treatment of children, etc (they have to be state certified, but no degree is required, etc). Even preschools are not that much. At age 4, preschool can be acquired absolutely free through many VPK programs. However, incomes are also probably considerably lower here. (fwiw, I live in a major city that falls very close to the national average on cost and salary indexes.)

 

A mother of three would need to bring in at least $2001 per month, after tax, to make work more profitable than staying home.

 

Yes, absolutely. A mother of 3 kids under 5. That's a very rare percentage of families. My point wasn't that it's NEVER cost-effective to have a SAHP, but that it's RARELY truly cost-effective long-term to have a SAHP. I value the choice, but for most people it's not about being cost-effective. . . it's about believing it's what you want for your family.

 

I'm saying that for most dual-income families, they have more money (especially long-term when daily childcare is not an issue -- most elementary schools have very affordable or even free after care, depending on your income level) with both partners working than if one stays home. Three kids under 5 is quite a lot! I imagine a family would need a SAHP (mother or father) if they had three kids in that quick succession. Most people I know won't have that many kids, period, let alone right in a row.

[Els]

- Read romance novels with I was a teenager. - No longer do

 

- Did enjoy Disney princess movies when I was a girl. Just like boys enjoyed batman, Heeman and Thundercats. I'm sick of some people trying to make women feel ashamed because they liked Disney princess movies when little boys had their own hero movies they liked very much.

 

- I have never been a stay at home mother but I was a Nanny for many years to many families and I did change diapers, stayed up with babies, took kids to play dates, made meals. Now granted, being a mother is much harder then being a Nanny because I went home at the end of hte night. But I have had a taste of it and know it's not easy. I just know that when it's my kids, I want to be there for them and raise them. Not have someone else raise them. Time is fast and they grow up fast. I also worked corporate jobs. I don't find much satisfaction there.

 

- I haven't been married before. But any man I marry won't be dumb as I'm not dumb.

 

Isn't Feminism about the freedom to choose what is best for you without being shamed for it? If you are a woman in a successful job and you are good at what you do, that is awesome. If you find happiness in your job AND family, that's great. I love seeing successful women in business. I just personally never found much happiness in business myself. I work because I have to. Not because I am overtly fulfilled within it.

 

I don't think there is any problem with this, at all, and I don't feel you need to defend your life's desires to people who feel differently. Certainly women like you exist, and men who want these women also exist, judging from the OP. So everyone is happy, really... wait, why is this thread 10+ pages long again??