Got it Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Ok, fine....and my apologies for being snarky... I guess its kinda hard to for me to try to reason with all of this...There are guys that would give a bodypart(or they say), to make 100K+/yr and cry all the time that they are broke....yet industries like mine, which are flush with business(heck, I NEVER slow down-not even when the banking/real estate crisis looked like it was going to put the average Joe on the bread line), cannot fill 100K+ positions...Or we wind up with a bunch of whining, Prima-Donna crybabies.. I agree that its important to show kids the value of work and how to survive in this world at an early age.. IME, many younger guys now want no part of committment(that includes marriage, job, home ownership, kids, etc)..They are completely happy with being their girlfriends/wives "b!tch" -for lack of a better word..And really dont feel the need to make their own way as a man..(arguably thats maybe a bad choice for characterizing, but I need to get the day going here). It wasnt always this way...And I really can't figure it out..But maybe its what the premise of the OP was in the first place??.....I dunno... Enjoy your day/holiday.. TFY This doesn't make any sense. If one does not want a part in commitment then they wouldn't have a wife or girlfriend to be their "bi%ch" or anything else. They are, in fact, showing commitment but not in the manner in which you would approve. That is entirely different than your arguing statement. I think the problem may be is that how you define being "a man" differs from how other males define being "a man". I don't think any one is right or wrong outside of potentially transferring your opinion on to others and assuming they are fact. I have always had issues with gender roles and descriptions as I have never fallen into the female one. I think we are what we make ourselves and if we add value to the lives of our loved ones and the world in general, if we can go to bed at night happy with our day and our impact on others, than we have been successful as a human being. I don't see a large distinction between men and women but much greater between individuals. I do think that things are changing, but society and the younger generations always do. This argument is almost as old as time with the older ones lamenting about "how things used to be". Look at how revolutionary the baby boomers where from their parents as well as the individuals at the start of the generation and at the end. Things will continue to change, these kids will grow up, become more settled and will piss and moan about their kids and how they are negatively impacting the world. Gender roles will hopefully continue to evolve and we will hopefully continue moving away from either end of the spectrum and see them for what they are, all part of the human race, and help accountable to the same standards and expectations allowing for individual uniqueness. 3
Got it Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 And yes some people are going to like physical jobs moreso than office. That is wonderful. While I love my job, sitting at a desk is not my ideal. And I would love to go back to mucking stalls all day and training horses. Do what you love, whatever it is, and you will feel accomplished and successful. 1
Eggplant Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 There is another dynamic that I have seen in recent years... Couple of things come to mind... Seems like guys(especially the 20 somethings) have become "yes dear" types that put aside anything that is important to them and cater solely to their wife/gf...It might have something to do with the fact that many of these guys make a lot less than their partners...Like I said, I dont know why this is....just seems pretty prevalent.. Ever notice how a lot of guys dont drive anymore??(if they are out with their gf/wife)....The woman does the driving..That wasnt the norm in years past...Not that there was any rule...Just that most of the time the guy was the one driving...Again...not sure what this means in the scheme of things, but it is noteworthy.. Lastly, most of the guys I know of my generation(including myself) are types that can fix/do just about anything...I could put up a wall, pour a foundation, operate heavy construction equipment, weld like a pro, perform plumbing and electrical work, tile a floor, tear apart a car and repair anything, fix appliances, etc.. All by my mid 20's... Most guys dont know anything about any of this stuff anymore.They can barely change a lightbulb...Maybe they dont need to, but I didnt need to either..Its just stuff we picked up along the way, or it was handed down by fathers or uncles. It was just stuff that guys were expected to know.. Most of the accomplished craftsmen are my age or older.. Its so bad now, that I have read several articles that say becuase of this trend, its going to cause a rise on cost of these services so that the average plumber or auto mechanic is going to make lawyer or accountant kind of money or more...I see that easily happening...Its already happening.. Does that make them less of a man? Probably not, but when you start adding all of this up, then you get the feeling like men are "different" TFY .. It's as though in the effort to not offend anybody by suggesting gender-specific tasks, they stopped teaching ANYBODY ANY of it. Now nobody knows how to do crafts nor sew for that matter. As far as the driving, I always want to let the guy drive, but that's because I'm lazy. :-D It's all good, except for the countless cases in which the guy drives and the wife nitpicks every detail right down to which parking space he should choose. If she's gonna do that, she may as well just drive. I will never do this.
Got it Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 It's as though in the effort to not offend anybody by suggesting gender-specific tasks, they stopped teaching ANYBODY ANY of it. Now nobody knows how to do crafts nor sew for that matter. As far as the driving, I always want to let the guy drive, but that's because I'm lazy. :-D It's all good, except for the countless cases in which the guy drives and the wife nitpicks every detail right down to which parking space he should choose. If she's gonna do that, she may as well just drive. I will never do this. You think that they don't teach crafts and sewing anymore because of being PC? Don't you think it may be because times have changed and the value of at least sewing is minimal now and I am not not sure what value crafting is outside of elementary school. Technology has taken the focus of all other areas of development like cooking, sewing, mechanics, etc. We are now teaching BOTH genders a greater focus on the sciences, math, and technology. I don't see that as a negative at all. In regards to sewing, why shouldn't both genders learn how? Why should that be a purely female pursuit?
thefooloftheyear Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 You think that they don't teach crafts and sewing anymore because of being PC? Don't you think it may be because times have changed and the value of at least sewing is minimal now and I am not not sure what value crafting is outside of elementary school. Technology has taken the focus of all other areas of development like cooking, sewing, mechanics, etc. We are now teaching BOTH genders a greater focus on the sciences, math, and technology. I don't see that as a negative at all. In regards to sewing, why shouldn't both genders learn how? Why should that be a purely female pursuit? How has "times changed" minismized the need for skills such as sewing and cooking? Do you call your robot on your way home from work and tell it that you have a hem to make on a skirt and you'd like Chateaubriand with roasted potatoes??.. While I dont necessarily disagree that these tasks need not be gender specific, I really dont see why we should discard the quest for learning this, using the logic that "times changed"... Speaking only for myself, its extremely self satisfying that even though I have more than enough means to pay anyone to do anything, I never need to..Ive easily saved over 6 figures in things I have done for myself without depending on someone else.. Ill still hire people to do stuff, but only those things that I prefer NOT to do... .02 TFY
carhill Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 My recollection, obviously of a different era, is that my calculus and chemistry and physics classes in high school were populated pretty equally by males and females and that carried on into college. As our high school was college prep, we had no 'trade' classes, like auto mechanics or 'home ec' or sewing, etc. The closest I got to a 'trade' was typing class. Hence, women, young women, were being educated in the sciences right alongside men. At college, most of the trades classes I took were dominated by men. By 'trades', I mean mechanics, welding, sheet metal, hydraulics, hydrodynamics, etc. The women simply chose to not take those classes, and that has carried through to my experience in the trades, in that there are very few women who participate and none on any of the projects I've managed personally. In regards to sewing, why shouldn't both genders learn how? Why should that be a purely female pursuit? I was exposed to it at a young age and essentially taught myself, along with other traditionally 'female' skills. I'm certainly no dressmaker but still have an old Pfaff and can use it like any of the other 'manly' machine tools out in the shop. To me, it's simply another trade. To use a phrase installed into me by the dominant male who role-modeled me, one can do anything they set their mind to. In my view, the more challenges one faces and overcomes, the more confidence one gains in themselves and the less likely one is to feel 'beta' or 'clingy' within themselves, and that send signals outward. Of course, people can and often do judge a person against societal norms and that's OK. In the end, the most critical judge is we ourselves. We choose. 2
Got it Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 How has "times changed" minismized the need for skills such as sewing and cooking? Do you call your robot on your way home from work and tell it that you have a hem to make on a skirt and you'd like Chateaubriand with roasted potatoes??.. While I dont necessarily disagree that these tasks need not be gender specific, I really dont see why we should discard the quest for learning this, using the logic that "times changed"... Speaking only for myself, its extremely self satisfying that even though I have more than enough means to pay anyone to do anything, I never need to..Ive easily saved over 6 figures in things I have done for myself without depending on someone else.. Ill still hire people to do stuff, but only those things that I prefer NOT to do... .02 TFY Because we have mass manufacturing of clothing now where a family member doesn't need to make one's clothing. And for hemming, many people can either now use the wonderful technology of sticky hem applications or have hemming down at the dry cleaners. Ultimately, the value of sewing has been lowered because the demand is far less. There are ways around it. Now learning sewing, for the sake to learn is great, it is a nicety to have. One can learn it if they so choose but I don't see the value of schools teaching it. And I sure as heck don't see it needing to be taught only to females. Personally I am similar, I know how to many things, like change the oil, sew, drive a truck and trailer, bale hay, deal with most medical conditions with equines, mow, fix a leaky faucet, cooking, baking, etc. None of these things are rocket science and I far prefer to hire others to do the ones I don't want to spend my limited time on. Like cleaning. God love our cleaning crew!
Got it Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 My recollection, obviously of a different era, is that my calculus and chemistry and physics classes in high school were populated pretty equally by males and females and that carried on into college. As our high school was college prep, we had no 'trade' classes, like auto mechanics or 'home ec' or sewing, etc. The closest I got to a 'trade' was typing class. Hence, women, young women, were being educated in the sciences right alongside men. At college, most of the trades classes I took were dominated by men. By 'trades', I mean mechanics, welding, sheet metal, hydraulics, hydrodynamics, etc. The women simply chose to not take those classes, and that has carried through to my experience in the trades, in that there are very few women who participate and none on any of the projects I've managed personally. I was exposed to it at a young age and essentially taught myself, along with other traditionally 'female' skills. I'm certainly no dressmaker but still have an old Pfaff and can use it like any of the other 'manly' machine tools out in the shop. To me, it's simply another trade. To use a phrase installed into me by the dominant male who role-modeled me, one can do anything they set their mind to. In my view, the more challenges one faces and overcomes, the more confidence one gains in themselves and the less likely one is to feel 'beta' or 'clingy' within themselves, and that send signals outward. Of course, people can and often do judge a person against societal norms and that's OK. In the end, the most critical judge is we ourselves. We choose. I was in high school in the 90s and we still had classes on typing, mechanics, gourmet foods, and I think there was a child development class. These were all electives but could be taken by either gender. And I agree, one can do anything they set their minds to. That has been my philosophy.
hotpotato Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I don't know. On the one hand, in my neighborhood it's against the bylaws to change your own oil or do any work on your car. You also have to get all kinds of permits and things signed to build a deck or put a fence in, etc. It's easier, and legal to hire someone over doing something yourself. And I don't think it's bad. Specialization and trade makes us all better off. There's no shame in hiring a plumber or a guy to build your deck or change your oil. You wouldn't perform surgery on yourself, so why do something else that you're not good at? I'm ok with the idea that men can be men and women can be women. But I think we're including too much unrelated stuff in this issue. Not good at changing oil? Speak for yourself! I can do a pretty good job for someone self-taught, and I never would have learned if someone else had always done it for me. Giving a (wo)man fish vs teaching a (wo)man to fish I dont think men are getting a lot weaker. I think women got stronger, and the same didnt happen for men. Thats just a theory though.
Atem Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Not good at changing oil? Speak for yourself! I can do a pretty good job for someone self-taught, and I never would have learned if someone else had always done it for me. Giving a (wo)man fish vs teaching a (wo)man to fish I dont think men are getting a lot weaker. I think women got stronger, and the same didnt happen for men. Thats just a theory though. Yes but not quite - I think that while women got stronger in aggregate, most people (male and female) are becoming more unwilling to put work into anything (job, career, relationships, hell - even physical fitness). Since all the basic necessities are so readily covered now by our society and since every new "innovative" thingy seems to be focused on making our life easier in terms of having us put increasingly less work into anything (think OLD for relationships, delivery services, texting and apps, etc.), our society has become entitled to receiving what it wants whenever it wants it and at a minimal cost (i.e. effort). This is why most people you meet with are not relationship material because they think that if being with the other person is not golden (i.e. if the going gets a ltitle bumpy for a while) it's not meant to be because getting over these bumps requires effort. Same logic applies to jobs. Think about the "Occupy Wall Street" folks. What a bunch of entitled pricks. I graduated in 2009 and found a job despite not even being a US citizen (and getting visa sponsorship back then was nothing short of a miracle). But I worked on making this happen through my entire junior and senior years while most other kids took 3 classes per semester and just partied... I think that many of you folks on here identified a lot of good points but you're just talking about some of the symptoms of the problem which, in my opinion, is the increasing disincetivization (ha - made a new word up) of actually struggling for what you want in our society nowadays. The expectatiosn that we set are that all good things should come easy and that life should be a breeze 100% of the time. Well, guess what, that's only true in pink marshmallow land but not in the real world... 2
BlueIris Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 In my view, the more challenges one faces and overcomes, the more confidence one gains in themselves and the less likely one is to feel 'beta' or 'clingy' within themselves, and that send signals outward. Of course, people can and often do judge a person against societal norms and that's OK. In the end, the most critical judge is we ourselves. We choose. This is so true. I wonder how much of the self-pitying beta phenomenon is a function of women in their 20’s and early 30’s exceeding their male peers in education and income, on average. For that matter, even in the older age groups, women are earning more money, more are primary earners in the households, males’ economic status is no longer such an important factor in mating as before. In general, statistically, men as a group no longer have that huge advantage compared to women. Since women can now meet their basic needs, first and second level needs in the Maslovian hierarchy of needs, they choose on other bases. Whiners whine that women are being too picky or too uppity, but actually self-sufficient women are being perfectly logical and tracking Maslow’s theory perfectly. THIS is what is frustrating and angering many non-alpha males: They used to have an advantage, something that they brought to a relationship that the woman didn’t or couldn’t, and that advantage is gone or going fast. So now they have to have other attractive qualities to attract mates since they can’t rely on providing at levels one and two any more. Some argue that the solution is remove female economic parity, or near parity, to return to the good old days when providing for basic needs, levels one and two, made them desirable. But that is not an alpha argument- to hobble others so you can restore a status that you held that was external, not earned. Alphas take the field as it is, compete and win. What the whiners don’t assess is themselves: What do I bring to a relationship? How would someone, anyone, have a better life by being my partner? You have to look at what the "other side" wants and needs, not what you want or need. 4
ktya Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I don't believe that clingy males have increased rather than arrogant and want-it-all women have increased. It's like the law of supply and demand, the less jobs there are and the more unemployed people there are, the more the demands are increased and the salaries are decreased. Women don't want to spend their energy to someone who is not almost perfect cause they know they have dozens, hundreds of choices. As we say in my country, the good is the enemy of the better. True. Dave Chappele has a sketch called 100% nig.r. The point of the sketch is that girls dont want the 98% good guy, they dont want 99%, they want 100%. Of course everyone has flaws so even the dude they think is 100% eventually falls below the platinum standard due to some real or perceived flaw and theyre off in search of greener pastures. This i blame on feminism, and it affects them too. They want an alpha male, yet they want a man they can boss around. They want a killer career, yet they want to be good wives and mothers. They want to be beautiful, but they also want to sit and wolf back ice cream because being beautiful isnt everything. Family sitcoms reflect this. Super hot wife berates and bosses around dumb oaf husband and father in tandem with kids every episode. In real life super hot wife would choose alpha male, who would not put up with her bullsht bitching all day and would snap at her, she would cry call her friends, call him abusive and take the kids and end up living alone as a single mother, serially dating alpha males who had no interest in being cuckolded who just bang her and she feels lost and alone. In reality the first dude was probably just fine. She chose to have kids with him and marry him, its her who changed not him. Ugh 1
BlueIris Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 And I guess men are expected, supposed to make women's lives happy, give them validation, okay for women to need or want a relationship for validation? Not a logical assumption or conclusion to draw. 1
Atem Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 True. Dave Chappele has a sketch called 100% nig.r. The point of the sketch is that girls dont want the 98% good guy, they dont want 99%, they want 100%. Of course everyone has flaws so even the dude they think is 100% eventually falls below the platinum standard due to some real or perceived flaw and theyre off in search of greener pastures. This i blame on feminism, and it affects them too. They want an alpha male, yet they want a man they can boss around. They want a killer career, yet they want to be good wives and mothers. They want to be beautiful, but they also want to sit and wolf back ice cream because being beautiful isnt everything. Family sitcoms reflect this. Super hot wife berates and bosses around dumb oaf husband and father in tandem with kids every episode. In real life super hot wife would choose alpha male, who would not put up with her bullsht bitching all day and would snap at her, she would cry call her friends, call him abusive and take the kids and end up living alone as a single mother, serially dating alpha males who had no interest in being cuckolded who just bang her and she feels lost and alone. In reality the first dude was probably just fine. She chose to have kids with him and marry him, its her who changed not him. Ugh True but this does not just relate to women - the very same applies to men. I can give you an example from my own life - I dated this girl for 3 months and just broke up with her that very last weekend because (in essence) she didn't give me what I wanted. In short, I had a bad day at work and came over wanting to vent and for some support. Well - she turned all cold, then asked me to leave because she was tired and wanted to go to sleep and then she was radio-silent for a few days. We patched it together afterwards for a week or so but then I decided to pull the trigger for good because she remained overly cold. Now, to be fully honest, maybe this wasn't a dealbreaker in general but I'm just so picky at this point that it really bothered me and so I decided to drop her instead of putting the work in and actually trying to work with her through this. Maybe this isn't the best exampel but I think that both genders have become enchanted by the idea of "instant gratification" and because of that, they run for the hills every time something gets a little tough...
Atem Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 This is so true. I wonder how much of the self-pitying beta phenomenon is a function of women in their 20’s and early 30’s exceeding their male peers in education and income, on average. For that matter, even in the older age groups, women are earning more money, more are primary earners in the households, males’ economic status is no longer such an important factor in mating as before. In general, statistically, men as a group no longer have that huge advantage compared to women. Since women can now meet their basic needs, first and second level needs in the Maslovian hierarchy of needs, they choose on other bases. Whiners whine that women are being too picky or too uppity, but actually self-sufficient women are being perfectly logical and tracking Maslow’s theory perfectly. THIS is what is frustrating and angering many non-alpha males: They used to have an advantage, something that they brought to a relationship that the woman didn’t or couldn’t, and that advantage is gone or going fast. So now they have to have other attractive qualities to attract mates since they can’t rely on providing at levels one and two any more. Some argue that the solution is remove female economic parity, or near parity, to return to the good old days when providing for basic needs, levels one and two, made them desirable. But that is not an alpha argument- to hobble others so you can restore a status that you held that was external, not earned. Alphas take the field as it is, compete and win. What the whiners don’t assess is themselves: What do I bring to a relationship? How would someone, anyone, have a better life by being my partner? You have to look at what the "other side" wants and needs, not what you want or need. Hm - define whining. For example, if I have a ****ty day at work and then open up to my girl and vent about how I hate being powerless to counter-act what my firm's management is doing at the moment, is this whining or being open? To go a step further - if said girl completely backs away after that day, goes radio-silent for a few more days, and does not really show any support/compassion, would it be whining if I get upset with her because of it? Sorry but in a relationship you have to be able to vent and complain about stuff to your partner and said partner is supposed to give you support. This shouldn't happen all the time but there are moments in life when one is frustrated and what's the point of a partner if that person can't be by your side and help you pick yourself up? Now, since that day I figured my issues out and got my superiors to get me that bonus, so I guess I'm alpha enough to do that However, if I'm really close with someone (suppsoedly), I do expect to be able to open up and not having to keep up the invincible alpha guy charade all the time. No man - regardless of how alpha he is - is made of stone and taking the risk of opening up to your partner is actually much more alpha and takes much more strength and confidence than being closed off and playing unbreakable all the time. Just my 2c but I'd be curious to read your response.
iiiii Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Some argue that the solution is remove female economic parity, or near parity, to return to the good old days when providing for basic needs, levels one and two, made them desirable. But that is not an alpha argument- to hobble others so you can restore a status that you held that was external, not earned. Alphas take the field as it is, compete and win. Absolutely. I could never be attracted to a guy that needs me to be weaker, so that he looks stronger. That's not something I can respect or be attracted to. 2
thefooloftheyear Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Given the opprotunity to give this some thought, a few other things come to light... Its been my experience that not all cultures "demand" the same qualities in what a "man" is supposed to be... Italian and Jewish folks put quite a lot of pressure on thier men to be the "do it all" type of men, that are expected to be successful, take care of their families and just be the type of guy that is independent and strong.. Seems like Italian or Jewish women are not going to be very happy with a guy that is a low achieving, passive type...As some have found out, like a good friend of mine who was married to an Italian woman who constantly complained to him that he wasnt earning enough or doing enough..She divorced him over it.. Again, this may or may not be a quality where you live, or with the people you know, but its what I have noticed... Its been my nature to never be dependent on anyone..This was what I thought was expected of me as a man...People were supposed to be dependent, in some ways, on me.. Id never accept the role as some rich woman's "kept" man, even though its a lot easier than breaking my ass every day...Im well off and wont ever be in that situation, but Id sooner live in a box under a bridge, then have a woman support me in a "life" sense...Thats not true of a lot of guys today...They seem content to let the woman be the heavy, while they just come along for the ride...They live their lives with their sole focus on making their wives/gf life easier so they dont lose thier deal.. Im not criticizing it..Just curious how guys are able to accept the role of the clingy and dependent type...*shrug*... Maybe some younger guys can comment on this and help me to understand.. TFY 1
littleplanet Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 When I was still a boy, I used to get astonished at the sight of strong Italian men weeping over Opera. Then my father explained to me what that was all about. Then I figured that was pretty cool. Then I became a musician. Alpha Beta all the way to good old Zeta. (and now I know my abc's....) If everyone did Alpha there'd sure be a glut on the market! When youth over-emotionalizes these days, I strongly suspect that pure lack of independence might have a good deal to do with it. If youth has happened to boomerang from college debt back into the good old parental home, and feels a tad despairing over failure to launch into the black, remaining in the red on into what feels like eternity - that's a lousy way to start a young life. As to the feminization of anything: Since I was 10.....big red flag to me was putting a fella down by comparing him to a girl. Never changed my mind on that one. I dunno. I guess I just never wanted to live a life of endless chain of disgusted women trailing along in my wake. But then, I grew up with strong sisters and an awesome mom. That didn't turn me pansy. It gave me perspective. (my daddy tended to balance that out, anyhow) Sure......I love wearing manhood that comes to the aid of women and children. Strong silent get the job done.....worry about the emotional aftermath later. It's a beautiful feeling. There are certain tears of mine only my missus has ever seen....and only she ever will earn that privilege. And when a strong man of long standing friendship admits a little bit of emotional overload? I sit up and take notice. Because we are not cardboard cutouts. We're human, too. And bless the design! Humanity was never more needed than in this dark age. 2
thefooloftheyear Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Absolutely. I could never be attracted to a guy that needs me to be weaker, so that he looks stronger. That's not something I can respect or be attracted to. Its not the point.... That guy you described is just a moron... But do you, as a woman, feel good about a guy that is clingy and dependent? Does that make you feel better or "stronger"?? just curious.. TFY
iiiii Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 A very, very common type of moron, from what I've experienced and seen my friends experience. I think both people in a relationship should grow to depend on each other, to a certain extent. Otherwise, what is the point? 1
thefooloftheyear Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 A very, very common type of moron, from what I've experienced and seen my friends experience. I think both people in a relationship should grow to depend on each other, to a certain extent. Otherwise, what is the point? You didnt directly answer the question, but what do you make of the dynamic where the woman is the heavy in the relationship and is the one that is required to be the earner, the doer, the "decision maker", etc, while the guy just kinda stands back and lets the woman do her thing, so to speak.? Just curious...Other women, feel free to answer as well.. TFY
Badsingularity Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I dont think men are getting a lot weaker. I think women got stronger, and the same didnt happen for men. Thats just a theory though. I think every body got weaker.
iiiii Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) You didnt directly answer the question, but what do you make of the dynamic where the woman is the heavy in the relationship and is the one that is required to be the earner, the doer, the "decision maker", etc, while the guy just kinda stands back and lets the woman do her thing, so to speak.? Just curious...Other women, feel free to answer as well.. TFY I guess I didn't answer because I don't really understand the question. In my relationship, we are BOTH the doers, and the decision makers. My SO lets me do my thing (career, hobbies), and I let him do his. I wouldn't want him to support me financially (except special circumstances, e.g. I was home with young children), and he would hate me to support him financially. But he wouldn't care if I earned more (I don't), or was more educated (I am), was more ambitious than he is (I probably am), or was more independent (it's a tie). That seems about the most sensible way to have it, to me. I don't understand a relationship where one person is the boss and the other is submissive. Edited July 3, 2014 by iiiii
hotpotato Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 You didnt directly answer the question, but what do you make of the dynamic where the woman is the heavy in the relationship and is the one that is required to be the earner, the doer, the "decision maker", etc, while the guy just kinda stands back and lets the woman do her thing, so to speak.? Just curious...Other women, feel free to answer as well.. TFY I wouldnt be happy at all. I dont want to be the dude in the relationship. I could be a doer, earner, and decision maker on my own. If a woman or man likes that arrangement, then fine. Its just not my cup of tea. I havent met or date a guy exactly as you described, and I dont think I would want to.
BlueIris Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Originally Posted by thefooloftheyear You didnt directly answer the question, but what do you make of the dynamic where the woman is the heavy in the relationship and is the one that is required to be the earner, the doer, the "decision maker", etc, while the guy just kinda stands back and lets the woman do her thing, so to speak.? Just curious...Other women, feel free to answer as well.. TFY I wouldn’t be happy with that and I wouldn’t be happy with a man who wanted or needed to dominate, earn, do and decide everything or who wanted a wife who wanted that dynamic. But it works for some people (I hear).
Recommended Posts