# A Slight Rant: Traditional Breadwinners are Not Appreciated Today



## welldusted

Ok, disclaimers at the beginning: I consider myself a feminist. I'm not an MRA. I think many things in today's society are still harder for women than for men.

All that said, is it just me or is being a man in the traditional breadwinner position no longer valued as a role in our society? We're so bombarded with messages about how appreciative we have to be of the work stay-home moms do, how terrible it is to take them for granted. We hear constantly about how hard it is for working moms to balance work and family. We hear about how women do "unpaid work" around the house. Well what about working parents (often dads, but sometimes moms too) who support the family? Isn't earning income important? Isn't putting up with crap at our jobs to support our families just as important as being home with them? I get my older daughter ready for school and bring her in every morning, work 9 hours in the office, come home, do bath and bedtime stories, and then usually sign on after everyone's asleep and work a couple more hours. On the weekend I'm spending as much time as I can with the kids, sometimes sneaking in work in between when they're watching a tv show or doing an art project with mom. Why am I not entitled to constant thank yous from my wife, the same way it seems like a wife who cooks, cleans, takes care of kids is supposed to get constant thank yous? Why are there no bloggers writing about the failure to take note of all the work breadwinning parents (sometimes women too) do to support their families, everything they deal with in their jobs? Why does the media still stereotype the hardworking parent as the "workoholic" who "cares more about their career than their kids?" Doesn't caring whether we have a roof over our head count as caring? Whether we can live in a good school district? Whether we are a financial burden on our kids when we're older? 

End rant.


----------



## jld

I thank my husband for supporting us all the time. He thinks providing for a family is normal, though.

Are you not feeling appreciated by your wife and kids? Have you talked with them about this, your wife in particular?


----------



## welldusted

jld said:


> I thank my husband for supporting us all the time. He thinks providing for a family is normal, though.
> 
> Are you not feeling appreciated by your wife and kids? Have you talked with them about this, your wife in particular?


On your question, you're probably right.

On "he thinks providing for a family is normal, though" -- you're actually supporting my point. No one ever says "well cooking dinner and watching the kids is just normal." Dare say that and you're a pig. I think providing for a family is normal too, and I'm pretty damned good at it. But doing all the other stuff required to run a family is "normal" too.


----------



## tech-novelist

welldusted said:


> Ok, disclaimers at the beginning: I consider myself a feminist. I'm not an MRA. I think many things in today's society are still harder for women than for men.
> 
> All that said, is it just me or is being a man in the traditional breadwinner position no longer valued as a role in our society? We're so bombarded with messages about how appreciative we have to be of the work stay-home moms do, how terrible it is to take them for granted. We hear constantly about how hard it is for working moms to balance work and family. We hear about how women do "unpaid work" around the house. Well what about working parents (often dads, but sometimes moms too) who support the family? Isn't earning income important? Isn't putting up with crap at our jobs to support our families just as important as being home with them? I get my older daughter ready for school and bring her in every morning, work 9 hours in the office, come home, do bath and bedtime stories, and then usually sign on after everyone's asleep and work a couple more hours. On the weekend I'm spending as much time as I can with the kids, sometimes sneaking in work in between when they're watching a tv show or doing an art project with mom. Why am I not entitled to constant thank yous from my wife, the same way it seems like a wife who cooks, cleans, takes care of kids is supposed to get constant thank yous? Why are there no bloggers writing about the failure to take note of all the work breadwinning parents (sometimes women too) do to support their families, everything they deal with in their jobs? Why does the media still stereotype the hardworking parent as the "workoholic" who "cares more about their career than their kids?" Doesn't caring whether we have a roof over our head count as caring? Whether we can live in a good school district? Whether we are a financial burden on our kids when we're older?
> 
> End rant.


It's not just you. This is an example of misandry that is so widespread that no one even notices it.

By the way, what are the things in today's society that are harder for women than for men?


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> It's not just you. This is an example of misandry that is so widespread that no one even notices it.
> 
> By the way, what are the things in today's society that are harder for women than for men?


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: :smile2:


----------



## Quigster

welldusted said:


> All that said, is it just me or is being a man in the traditional breadwinner position no longer valued as a role in our society?


The problem as I see it is that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. It used to be that women had little or no perceived value in society (i.e., couldn't vote, couldn't hold jobs, were expected to defer to their husbands in all household matters, etc.) but now it seems to be the men who are considered the joke of the household. Witness the stereotype of the dumba$$ dad on virtually every TV show for the last decade or longer (Married with Children, Home Improvement, The Simpsons, etc.) It's become socially acceptable to make disparaging comments about men and their inability to cook, clean, make love, etc. ("Oh, he offered to make dinner last night? So was it Pizza Hut or Domino's? ROTFL!)



> We hear constantly about how hard it is for working moms to balance work and family. We hear about how women do "unpaid work" around the house.


I always like to joke that I have never had a day off work in my life. Because even if I'm not on the clock and getting paid, I'm still home taking care of the kids all day long. (At least when I punch in, they're legally obligated to give me a meal break. The kids evidently haven't read that clause in my Dad Contract, because I only get a break after they go to bed for the night!)



> Why are there no bloggers writing about the failure to take note of all the work breadwinning parents (sometimes women too) do to support their families, everything they deal with in their jobs?


I daresay the poor, put-upon, stay-at-home moms have plenty of spare time to blog about their own pet issues. Those of us with jobs outside the home spend all that time commuting!


----------



## Quigster

technovelist said:


> By the way, what are the things in today's society that are harder for women than for men?


Peeing while standing up?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

welldusted said:


> Ok, disclaimers at the beginning: I consider myself a feminist. I'm not an MRA. I think many things in today's society are still harder for women than for men.
> 
> All that said, is it just me or is being a man in the traditional breadwinner position no longer valued as a role in our society?


try publishing a paper saying "all men are rapists in India or Arab nations". 'nuff said.

As for your previous statement.. bs.
just look at my ex-wife and ex-gf. they walk take kids, get most of the assets and business I had to pay for, while they did the spending. Government gives them financial support for decades, free daycare, free/discount medical, free re-training and support, helps them into basic jobs.

I have to fight with expensive lawyers if I want my kids, or even contact time on equal grounds; I have to pay back most of the debts because I "should have" more income according to government agencies, I get financial penalties, expected to contribute to extra daycare or child expenses (eg school trips, glasses, uniforms), pay full rate for all medical, have to pay for any retraining with interest on the loans and schedule it around my work, and basic jobs are denied (as I'm either "overqualified" or "you'll get bored", or "we're not really looking for a man for this role" (pls repeat... "oh we're looking for "other qualities").
then the ex's complain when my hard work and frugal lifestyle don't leave me with the debt and deferred maintenance that they have, saying they should be entitled to have the same assets and returns I got, despite them having full control over their own lives and the childrens.


----------



## BetrayedDad

welldusted said:


> No one ever says "well cooking dinner and watching the kids is just normal." Dare say that and you're a pig.


If you're LUCKY all they say is you're a pig. Misandrist HYPOCRACY at it's finest.

Some couples enjoy traditional roles and some do not. Neither is wrong, it's preference.

It's simply a matter of finding a partner, you are compatible with, whose on the same page.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I am one who very much appreciates the men who have a "Protect & Provide" worldview , traditional as it may be, towards their wives / family.. ....I married one of those...

He's been the primary Breadwinner since the beginning of our marriage.. we have 6 kids (one flew the nest, another in college).. I have always worked some part time throughout the years, a fraction of what he brings home.. a fraction of the hours he works... 

It never mattered how many kids we had.. I've ALWAYS felt HIS LOAD was heavier...and I have been thankful.. expressing this to him..to others even... he is the one who has to brave our treacherous driveway in the winter months.. a little snow could turn to ice...if our Suburban breaks down, fixing it... working with co-workers who play on their phones half the day... & whine others are lazy...a boss from hell ...he has to work in the rain , sleet.. freezing temps outside.. sometimes lying down on the ground.. if he screws up on his job... the company could be on the local news, people could even die... he could be fired... there is pressure there...

I've always validated what he brings.. showing appreciation... in my view.. it is HE who upholds us all.. His job is fundamentally important.. he's a faithful hard working man.. a great deal of respect flows from me to him...

It never mattered how many kids we had.. I was never one to complain that it was too much work at home.. I've always felt Blessed that we could afford me not working a full time job... I feel my role is far easier.. in comparison...Hey.. I spend countless hours on this forum.. and still get all my work done.. 

Of course it helps tremendously that he was never one to downplay me or speak I should be doing more.. but praised what I bring as well... he , too, has shown great appreciation... 

Realizing that much of society looks down upon the SAHM .. it brings me comfort that my own husband is not one of these men..
For this I even feel MORE Gratitude for being married to a man like him.... 

I've always felt very strongly that my role is to do everything I can on MY END to make his life easier.. so when he comes home.. he can relax.. recoup... I want a happy Man...this brings ME many rewards... I do look upon myself as his "help mate"..


----------



## Satya

I'm personally grateful for anything that contributes to the household and family. I think working men and women have it tough. Juggling multiple responsibilities can be mentally taxing, whether a career or SAH spouse. 

I don't really put one type in a rank above the other. Many families can't afford the benefits a SAHP can bring. 

I do believe that the breadwinner is taken for granted at times because they just aren't present physically. It's always the behind the curtain/scenes work that is underappreciated. I've known SAHP's that said going to the office was like a vacation (?!). I've heard an old male boss ask his female coworker after returning from maternity leave if she had some nice relaxing "time off." (Needless to say, she went rather ballistic.)

Sometimes what helps is for others to be gracious. For instance, if someone compliments my SO, it really gets me thinking about all that he does. I feel more grateful because someone pointed out his strong points. I try not to forget them, but we all get a bit contemplative in our day-to-day life.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'm a woman who works and makes more then her hb. I think the reason you see the disparity in focus is because traditionally women were not very appreciated; many were basically forced to stay at home, had to do hb's bidding and answer to him, and was in many ways seen as his property. 

His career was important but her role in life was to serve him, and she could easily be replaced.

And the contribution of a working spouse is more tangible in many ways. Clearly bills need to be paid, but sometimes the contributions of a stay at home are easier to overlook or take for granted.

This dynamic has of course changed, but with all social change the pendulum swings before it settles at equilibrium, and we are still swinging. 

This happens because social change is usually fought by those in power so often extremes are required to get social change through, and the ones that used to have all the power feel victimized.

It will settle, but we're all still struggling. It's still often assumed that a man's career will take precidence, and womens careers still suffer more as a result of children. Studies still show that when a child is sick or needs someone it's usually mom that takes off.

But this dynamic is changing so we all need to be patient. I don't think of my hb solely in terms of his paycheck but as my partner, and hopefully he thinks of me the same way. Our contributions aren't always equal but in the end I think they balance out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MommaGx3

Meh, I dunno. I try to stay out of it. I'm a working woman. I've worked since I was 15 years old. I've been married 3 times. I've got 3 kids. I am not a house keeper. My house is a mess. If people don't like it, they don't have to come in my home. I detest staying at home with the children full-time. I could not be a sahm. I give kudos to them that do it. I give kudos to the spouses that provide the scenario so that they can stay at home. Our economy is very hard for single income families these days. Staying at home with children is tough. Leaving home dropping kids off at daycare, working all day, coming home and parenting is tough. Both are tough. Both have pros and cons. Some people excel at one while not so much the other. I do believe there are things that men and women do differently and again, it's not because they can't learn or improve... but I am better at some things than my husband is, and areas where he is better than I... for example, I dress the baby or I pick out the baby's clothes for the day. For some reason, needing to attire the baby is stressful for him. He can do it, but he doesn't like it. Fine with me, I love picking out his outfits. If my daughter buys a dress and needs it hemmed... she takes it to my husband. He is a perfectionist and actually builds canvas tents, his ability with a needle and thread and measurements far exceeds my own. I could hem it, but I don't like to do it and it isn't as good quality. 

I have found that in a marriage with children and both parents are working, that the mother does tend to bear more of the responsibilities. I do more than my husband does, just because I'm more tuned into the children, their needs, etc.


----------



## brooklynAnn

I have always let my H know how much we appreciate his handwork and dedication to providing for us. He has always been a great H and provider. He is also a very involved father. He is treated like a king and is spoiled. 

While the kids were younger and life was hectic, he has always expressed his gratitude for me handling the home front, while he can concentrate on work and his career. 

For us, we have a division of labour approach. He brings in the income. I take care of the household. With exception of repairs, which he does. He is not expected to cook, clean or do any household chores. With the exception of food shopping once in a while so he can buy some junk food. I take care of all the kids stuff at school, medical etc. There are certain events we attend together.

I also, handle our household finances. I pay the bills, do our investments and run our rental property. 

I try to make my H life at home stress free. He has enough of that at work. Our kids are older now and I am looking forward to going back to work. If we divorce now, we have already decided who gets what, so they will be no fighting. Not that we are planning to.

I am not expecting people to give me high fives for being a SAHM. I do what I do for my family and what's in our best interest. Sure things were difficult when the kids are small but I found that organization is the key. I don't expect a gold metal. I would actually give one to my H for being such a dedicated H and F. For being such a great provider and never ever complaining about working 12 hours a day. 

So, thank you to all the Husbands who provide for their families. The wives at home for taking care of their families. To the working mums/wives for taking care of their families and providing for them. You do double the work. Our families are better off because of all of us.

P.S. For you guys who got the bad side of the deal after divorce, the kids will grow up soon and be thankful for their super dads. Keep being positive and positive will enter your lives.


----------



## Cletus

I for one have always felt appreciated by the family and friends who have benefited from my provisioning, and never under- or unappreciated by those who did not. Nor does my female friend who, as a doctor, had the means to allow her husband to stay home and raise the children. 

But then, I don't go out of my way to find sexual stereotypes over which to feel victimized, which seems to be an avid pastime here.


----------



## lifeistooshort

spotthedeaddog said:


> try publishing a paper saying "all men are rapists in India or Arab nations". 'nuff said.
> 
> As for your previous statement.. bs.
> just look at my ex-wife and ex-gf. they walk take kids, get most of the assets and business I had to pay for, while they did the spending. Government gives them financial support for decades, free daycare, free/discount medical, free re-training and support, helps them into basic jobs.
> 
> I have to fight with expensive lawyers if I want my kids, or even contact time on equal grounds; I have to pay back most of the debts because I "should have" more income according to government agencies, I get financial penalties, expected to contribute to extra daycare or child expenses (eg school trips, glasses, uniforms), pay full rate for all medical, have to pay for any retraining with interest on the loans and schedule it around my work, and basic jobs are denied (as I'm either "overqualified" or "you'll get bored", or "we're not really looking for a man for this role" (pls repeat... "oh we're looking for "other qualities").
> then the ex's complain when my hard work and frugal lifestyle don't leave me with the debt and deferred maintenance that they have, saying they should be entitled to have the same assets and returns I got, despite them having full control over their own lives and the childrens.


Sounds like you chose poorly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CatJayBird

Quigster said:


> Peeing while standing up?


Not anymore!!


----------



## ExiledBayStater

MommaGx3 said:


> for example, I dress the baby or I pick out the baby's clothes for the day. For some reason, needing to attire the baby is stressful for him. He can do it, but he doesn't like it.


Interesting you bring this up. I bought a book of advice for dads and one of the points was that a dad must leave that to the mom or she may become angry.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ExiledBayStater said:


> Interesting you bring this up. I bought a book of advice for dads and one of the points was that a dad must leave that to the mom or she may become angry.


Only if he picks out clothes that don't match :laugh:


----------



## ConanHub

I haven't actually noticed but OP is probably right.

I do know that young men with jobs are far more attractive than those without and I have always been appreciated by my wife and boys.

IRL, breadwinning is still appreciated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

I don't now what to think about this topic...

I've always been the breadwinner, the house keeper, the child care giver, the yard worker, the house up-keeper, etc, etc. I have never been thanked for any of it. Never had any acknowledgement for it.

When I was married, I did thank my husbands for the few times that they actually did something... that is until I realized that they did not appreciate anything that I did.

I don't think this is gender specific, some people regardless of gender are just selfish and assume that they are entitled to anything that anyone else does for them.


----------



## techmom

To the OP, 

There is something at home probably bugging you which is causing you to feel this way. Many people, men and women alike, want to feel appreciated for what they do. Having a job and earning money is not special. Why? Because if you were single you would still have to hold a job to support yourself. With or without a wife and kids.

Helping out around the house? You live there too, and you are caring for your kids too, it isn't just her house and kids.

Most men are distressed because they have to bring more to the table than a paycheck and offering to "help out". Back in the 50s a man worked his 8 hours then came home to a wife who had dinner ready, slippers by the chair and his favorite drink on the table. All he had to do was show up. Those days are over.

I make more than my hb and am expecting another raise. I bust my a$$ working to pay bills and earn extra for the nice things in life. Women like me would love to be treated like the 1950s husband, but we end up doing more chores than he does?

I'm the ATM and housemaid, lol.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

OP, do you have an issue with your family or with the TAM world and blog world?


----------



## jdawg2015

This is mostly because women are much more in the work force and has created a different dynamic where they are not as financially dependent on their spouse as in the past.

Obviously this has societal impacts and has for the last several decades. It's basically the driver behind the whole "latch key kids".

But with two working adults and a family, this is the reality of juggling schedules.

If you date/marry an Asian it's even worse. There is a saying, "my money is her money, her money is her money". Basically her salary is all hers and you support everything out of your pay check. That's often how it goes....


----------



## anonmd

techmom said:


> To the OP,
> 
> There is something at home probably bugging you which is causing you to feel this way. Many people, men and women alike, want to feel appreciated for what they do. Having a job and earning money is not special. Why? Because if you were single you would still have to hold a job to support yourself. With or without a wife and kids.
> 
> Helping out around the house? You live there too, and you are caring for your kids too, it isn't just her house and kids.
> 
> Most men are distressed because they have to bring more to the table than a paycheck and offering to "help out". Back in the 50s a man worked his 8 hours then came home to a wife who had dinner ready, slippers by the chair and his favorite drink on the table. All he had to do was show up. Those days are over.
> 
> I make more than my hb and am expecting another raise. I bust my a$$ working to pay bills and earn extra for the nice things in life. Women like me would love to be treated like the 1950s husband, but we end up doing more chores than he does?
> 
> I'm the ATM and housemaid, lol.


Kinda bothers me that 'like' is the only choice. Two women hit the button, I can't exactly like it . Sounds terrible to me, I'm sure it is true to you. This sucks, you deserve to be appreciated just as much as a man would in a different sitch.

Is it that hard or do we just like to argue?


----------



## MommaGx3

ExiledBayStater said:


> Interesting you bring this up. I bought a book of advice for dads and one of the points was that a dad must leave that to the mom or she may become angry.


LOL, well for me, I wouldn't necessarily say I'd get angry... BUT, I tend to like to make sure he is dressed appropriately for the weather and that he wears more than just his Packers jersey


----------



## arbitrator

*There is a fine line between being the breadwinner, and being the families domestic and social engineering head. One receives monetary compensation to support the family with, the other largely receives next to nothing for heading up their most important family leadership task!

These two polar opposites must work together to enhance the development of their family, without regard to envy or jealousy, knowing that each has just as an important job description as the other!

All too often, jealousy arises, causing potential division and emotional separation. To circumvent that, both parties must insure that, as leaders, they should always endeavor to remain on the same page! *
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VirgenTecate

OP, is this a dynamic in your relationship right now?

I do agree that if a SAHM is at home, basic responsibilities are expected from her. I have known several women who would take it as an opportunity to sleep all day and put the kids in front of the tv. Is this the dynamic you are in? 

SAHMs as a whole though do their job.

However, studies still bear out that if a woman is working just as many hours as a man, she will still do more housework. So the non-traditional female breadwinner can claim not being appreciated as well. 

This is not to make it into a men have it worse or women have it worse,

Just trying to throw a few scenarios at you to expand your horizons you are looking at.


----------



## BetrayedDad

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am one who very much appreciates the men who have a "Protect & Provide" worldview , traditional as it may be, towards their wives / family.. ....I married one of those...
> 
> He's been the primary Breadwinner since the beginning of our marriage.. we have 6 kids (one flew the nest, another in college).. I have always worked some part time throughout the years, a fraction of what he brings home.. a fraction of the hours he works...
> 
> It never mattered how many kids we had.. I've ALWAYS felt HIS LOAD was heavier...and I have been thankful.. expressing this to him..to others even... he is the one who has to brave our treacherous driveway in the winter months.. a little snow could turn to ice...if our Suburban breaks down, fixing it... working with co-workers who play on their phones half the day... & whine others are lazy...a boss from hell ...he has to work in the rain , sleet.. freezing temps outside.. sometimes lying down on the ground.. if he screws up on his job... the company could be on the local news, people could even die... he could be fired... there is pressure there...
> 
> I've always validated what he brings.. showing appreciation... in my view.. it is HE who upholds us all.. His job is fundamentally important.. he's a faithful hard working man.. a great deal of respect flows from me to him...
> 
> It never mattered how many kids we had.. I was never one to complain that it was too much work at home.. I've always felt Blessed that we could afford me not working a full time job... I feel my role is far easier.. in comparison...Hey.. I spend countless hours on this forum.. and still get all my work done..
> 
> Of course it helps tremendously that he was never one to downplay me or speak I should be doing more.. but praised what I bring as well... he , too, has shown great appreciation...
> 
> Realizing that much of society looks down upon the SAHM .. it brings me comfort that my own husband is not one of these men..
> For this I even feel MORE Gratitude for being married to a man like him....
> 
> I've always felt very strongly that my role is to do everything I can on MY END to make his life easier.. so when he comes home.. he can relax.. recoup... I want a happy Man...this brings ME many rewards... I do look upon myself as his "help mate"..



You and your husband are incredibly lucky to have found each other. You sound like a wonderful couple. All the best wishes to you both.


----------



## BetrayedDad

This isn't complicated.... REGARDLESS of gender.

If you both work 8 hours then you BOTH should split the housework 50/50.

If one works full time, 8 hrs., and the other part time say 4 then the split should be 1/3 : 2/3.

If one works full time and the other is a "stay at home", it should be the SAH doing the housework, cooking, child rearing.

If that's NOT the dynamic in your household then it's BOTH your faults and you have no right to complain.

Both, as in the person who isn't pulling their weight AND the other who is allowing them not too (ie the enabler).

I say this because no one is forcing you to stay in a disproportionate relationship. That's the enabler's choice.


----------



## welldusted

VirgenTecate said:


> OP, is this a dynamic in your relationship right now?
> 
> I do agree that if a SAHM is at home, basic responsibilities are expected from her. I have known several women who would take it as an opportunity to sleep all day and put the kids in front of the tv. Is this the dynamic you are in?
> 
> SAHMs as a whole though do their job.
> 
> However, studies still bear out that if a woman is working just as many hours as a man, she will still do more housework. So the non-traditional female breadwinner can claim not being appreciated as well.
> 
> This is not to make it into a men have it worse or women have it worse,
> 
> Just trying to throw a few scenarios at you to expand your horizons you are looking at.


No, it's definitely not a matter of her not pulling her weight. She takes good care of our two kids and makes sure there's food on the table and does the laundry and such. Maybe the house isn't always clean, maybe some nights are leftovers or quick meals, but she works hard (one of our kids is really a handful right now too and I know how much work she is) and is clearly tired at the end of every day.

It's more a matter of her often saying things to me like "I do everything for you and you don't appreciate it!" every time she does anything slightly extra, e.g. I usually do the dishes and clean up the kitchen at night, but if she does it because I have work, it gets thrown in my face. But, you know, it's because I have work, not because I'm out drinking with my buddies or something. I don't see her doing the dishes so I can work as "for me," I see both me doing the work and her doing the dishes as for the family. I thank her anyway, but I don't get a thank you for staying up extra late working. Earning income, whatever it requires, is taken for granted.


----------



## VirgenTecate

welldusted said:


> No, it's definitely not a matter of her not pulling her weight. She takes good care of our two kids and makes sure there's food on the table and does the laundry and such. Maybe the house isn't always clean, maybe some nights are leftovers or quick meals, but she works hard (one of our kids is really a handful right now too and I know how much work she is) and is clearly tired at the end of every day.
> 
> It's more a matter of her often saying things to me like "I do everything for you and you don't appreciate it!" every time she does anything slightly extra, e.g. I usually do the dishes and clean up the kitchen at night, but if she does it because I have work, it gets thrown in my face. But, you know, it's because I have work, not because I'm out drinking with my buddies or something. I don't see her doing the dishes so I can work as "for me," I see both me doing the work and her doing the dishes as for the family. I thank her anyway, but I don't get a thank you for staying up extra late working. Earning income, whatever it requires, is taken for granted.


I understand . And I actually do think that culturally giving thanks to traditional breadwinners has been sidelined as a way to give thanks to SAHMs or other women. SAHMs are becoming a rarer breed with the economic downturn and there are still some issues with women picking up more housework even if the job demands are the same.

I agree with you that her doing the dishes is for the family. You are a part of the family but it is not for you. 

Has she ever worked before? More than a part time job? Some women who have never worked do not understand the stress of full time jobs and truly do take it for granted. It is beyond frustrating. 

Vice versa, some men do not understand the drudgery of being full time at home and "losing yourself". Perhaps she is feeling like she is losing her adult identity apart from being a mother and is snapping at you because at least you get to be something else than a father. She should not do that but perhaps it is her coping method.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I know that for me staying at home was by far a more difficult job then working full time, but it had nothing to do with it being a harder job.

By all objective measures my job now is much harder then staying at home was. I have deadlines, commutes, kids, dinner, cleaning, everything that most working parents have. But staying home and losing myself was soul sucking. 

In addition, I don't do well without structure and I'm not good at creating it. Even when I work at home I have difficulty with it. And then the feeling of life passing me by. 

I know sahm's who wanted to do just that and derive fulfillment from it. I'm just not one of those. 

So I get a little triggered when I hear people remark that so and so is so lucky to be able to stay home. 

If that's what you want then I agree. I suppose if you have the opportunity, even if you don't want it, that's a good thing. 

I really enjoy my job and I don't require thanks for bringing money in. I'm happy I can contribute and thatI can provide well for my kids, and I was raised by a cheap Jewish guy so I don't require much. 

I might throw in that all other things being equal I think I shoulder more chores, at least during the week. I don't mind because I feel one my hb makes an effort and does what he can. ....we just have different capacities for multi tasking and getting things done. But he will not sit his butt on her couch while I run around with chores. 

Gives me a reason to be lazy on the weekends, hb wouldn't utter a peep about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VirgenTecate

lifeistooshort said:


> I know that for me staying at home was by far a more difficult job then working full time, but it had nothing to do with it being a harder job.
> 
> By all objective measures my job now is much harder then staying at home was. I have deadlines, commutes, kids, dinner, cleaning, everything that most working parents have. But staying home and losing myself was soul sucking.
> 
> In addition, I don't do well without structure and I'm not good at creating it. Even when I work at home I have difficulty with it. And then the feeling of life passing me by.
> 
> I know sahm's who wanted to do just that and derive fulfillment from it. I'm just not one of those.
> 
> So I get a little triggered when I hear people remark that so and so is so lucky to be able to stay home.
> 
> If that's what you want then I agree. I suppose if you have the opportunity, even if you don't want it, that's a good thing.
> 
> I really enjoy my job and I don't require thanks for bringing money in. I'm happy I can contribute and thatI can provide well for my kids, and I was raised by a cheap Jewish guy so I don't require much.
> 
> I might throw in that all other things being equal I think I shoulder more chores, at least during the week. I don't mind because I feel one my hb makes an effort and does what he can. ....we just have different capacities for multi tasking and getting things done. But he will not sit his butt on her couch while I run around with chores.
> 
> Gives me a reason to be lazy on the weekends, hb wouldn't utter a peep about it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lifeistooshort,

I agree with you. I think many times some husbands do not understand what the difficulty of staying at home is. It is not the individual tasks. It is the feeling of stagnation, life passing by, a lack of adult interaction and friendships, or not being around adult occupations which made one feel connected to themselves. 

I addressed that in my post to the OP because I have a feeling that may be what is going on here.

However, I have known some low moral women who did see their husband as a free ride and have told me so. 

That is not the majority of women. But that is not to say this is not the individual case.

That is why OP, I think exploring the options through open communication and airing these concerns is important otherwise true resentment will seep in.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

arbitrator said:


> *There is a fine line between being the breadwinner, and being the families domestic and social engineering head. One receives monetary compensation to support the family with, the other largely receives next to nothing for heading up their most important family leadership task!
> 
> These two polar opposites must work together to enhance the development of their family, without regard to envy or jealousy, knowing that each has just as an important job description as the other!
> 
> All too often, jealousy arises, causing potential division and emotional separation. To circumvent that, both parties must insure that, as leaders, they should always endeavor to remain on the same page! *


 I think a large part of marital contentment is simply enjoying our Role....whatever that may be... 

I feel in today's society.. we're led to believe we can have it ALL...and we can.... but it comes at a price of wearing ourselves THIN many times.. there may not be enough time in the day.. so we're looking at our significant other saying "You need to do this, I can't , I'm too tired, exhausted, etc"... attitudes enter in.. and a downward spiral it goes....it can cause a lot of STRESS & bad feelings in a marriage...add on top of this... all the little things that CAN GO WRONG.. and they will !!

We've always enjoyed a more Traditional Lifestyle model... but it has it's price too... you won't find us buying newer cars, our kids don't carry cell phones (Ipods though, they get the net at McDonalds!)...I'm a coupon user - this impacts what goes in my Grocery buggy, where we may eat out....I shop at Consignment shops for clothes many times ...(this could be tacky to some)...but it's helped us maintain a decent lifestyle with our larger family...

We save everywhere & any way we can... it adds up...

We're very practical people....if we can meet all our bills, have $$ set aside (I like to call it a torrential downpour)...in the event of a layoff, need another car, a roof, etc...Insurances paid up , take a couple family vacations a year/ day trips, go out to eat once in a while, throw some bonfire parties for our teens....that's LIVING to us....we try to do our own Home projects if we can, fix our own vehicles , we look for $3 theaters , for a time we went to a $1 theater...but they changed hands... we get our Pizza on Mondays (great deal)...we'd never stay on Disney Property.. but we'll still take our kids.. want them to have that experience ....

I can only speak for our own marriage... husband has never desired to change places with me ... He prides himself on taking care of his family....

I downplay my own role because I am so thankful for HIS...if both feels THIS Way...and expresses it ... it goes a long long way.. it encourages us, we feel validated & want to help each other.... We all want to have as smooth of a ride as possible...

I've never had to be a nagging wife...but that's thanks to HIM.. his attitude.. I am not going to say I am above nagging.. Oh It would [email protected]#... but then on my end.. it may help get things rolling if I put on the tool belt.. when I want a project done.. so I do... he appreciates that! When you think about it...all these little things add up in our "Love bank"... or "*Feeling appreciated*".. what this thread is about... by offering ourselves to help. 










I'm big on keeping a family calendar ...this keeps all of us organized.. who is going where.. when, who needs picked up, bla bla... I am the scheduler & juggler to make sure our schedules don't collide... 

I am meticulous to make sure things are done on time, that I/ we are prepared.... I think my husband's head would be spinning if I didn't handle these things.. but instead.. it all runs very smoothly...we're all doing our part... so long as it gets written in my calendar (one in my purse & another Large one hanging on a kitchen door for all to see)...this works well for us... I believe it still would even if I worked full time.. but there would be less TIME ...a little bit more stress.. and a lot less TAM.








@BetrayedDad



> *VirgenTecate* *said*: I agree with you. I think many times some husbands do not understand what the difficulty of staying at home is. It is not the individual tasks.* It is the feeling of stagnation, life passing by, a lack of adult interaction and friendships, or not being around adult occupations which made one feel connected to themselves. *


 Myself & friends would call on the phone...we'd get together at each others house on occasion, with our kids playing near by...plus I attended a Mops group twice a month ... a group of Moms with pre-schoolers that gathers, has speakers come in....we'd take little trips together... it was very enriching.... Kinda miss those days..  What is Mops


----------



## optimalprimus

ExiledBayStater said:


> Interesting you bring this up. I bought a book of advice for dads and one of the points was that a dad must leave that to the mom or she may become angry.


My wife hates me picking out my little baby's outfits. Maybe some truth in that!

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk


----------



## DallasCowboyFan

I could be ranting about the same thing myself. I often feel like a paycheck. If I get home and the bed is made and the laundry is put up, I am supposed to notice and heap praise. If I had a bad day, nobody wants to hear about it. We agree on child rearing rules and she lets them do what they want and buys them what they want anyway, so I have no say. She does the shopping and spends the money and I bring home the bacon, do half the cooking and the lawn and upkeep. I have pretty much given up on having even a marginally good sex life. She is the queen and gets the praise. I find myself trying to get my attitude out of the dumps all the time. I never dreamed that my life would turn out this way.


----------



## EleGirl

BetrayedDad said:


> This isn't complicated.... REGARDLESS of gender.
> 
> If you both work 8 hours then you BOTH should split the housework 50/50.
> 
> If one works full time, 8 hrs., and the other part time say 4 then the split should be 1/3 : 2/3.
> 
> If one works full time and the other is a "stay at home", it should be the SAH doing the housework, cooking, child rearing.
> 
> If that's NOT the dynamic in your household then it's BOTH your faults and you have no right to complain.
> 
> Both, as in the person who isn't pulling their weight AND the other who is allowing them not too (ie the enabler).
> 
> I say this because no one is forcing you to stay in a disproportionate relationship. That's the enabler's choice.


I agree. And that is one of the main reasons that I divorced.


----------



## heartsbeating

Beyond TAM, I don't tend to hear or feel exposed to these attitudes. I'm likely to hear about just doing what needs to get done. There's often a feeling of gratitude in that as well though. 

I spent time with one of my oldest friends who lives far from us. She is a single mother who changed her career to better suit motherhood, went back to university living frugally while she did, and has now worked her way - with lots of patience and grit - to earning a good salary and saving, that will enable her to buy a home for her and her daughter. I cannot tell you how immensely proud I am of her. She has really gone it alone. There's no one there to pat her on the back and say 'well done chick' ...it's not something she needs either. She knows what she's about, what she is achieving and grateful for it. Although I of course remind her nonetheless how amaze-balls she is. 

Another friend worked her arse off, pushed and negotiated to increase her salary from $90k to $130k knowing that they were preparing to have a baby. She was determined to have savings and anticipated supporting their household after the baby. She's back at work, her husband is studying and working; she's currently the main breadwinner. They don't have family near to help. They both chip in and do what they can for the house-hold. It's evident how they feel towards one another, even though they express it can be stressful at times. 

A friend who is a SAHM takes care of everything related to the home and raising the children. She's a very strong, opinionated character. Her husband earns an executive salary and supports the house-hold financially. They seem to hold more traditional roles. We have discussed this and they said it was how they were raised, therefore it was natural for them to assume similar roles with their own children. 

...I think the link I'm trying to conjure among these scenarios, and to agree with SA, is there seems to be both a contentment and acceptance of the roles that have been assumed for the benefit of the family. There's a positive and grounded feeling that comes from being around people like that too. Perhaps that even makes it easier to demonstrate appreciation towards them as a result; because they're content within themselves.


----------



## Lilac23

technovelist said:


> It's not just you. This is an example of misandry that is so widespread that no one even notices it.
> 
> By the way, what are the things in today's society that are harder for women than for men?





Quigster said:


> Peeing while standing up?


Giving birth, carrying heavy things, machinery repair...


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I could be ranting about the same thing myself. I often feel like a paycheck. If I get home and the bed is made and the laundry is put up, I am supposed to notice and heap praise. If I had a bad day, nobody wants to hear about it. We agree on child rearing rules and she lets them do what they want and buys them what they want anyway, so I have no say. She does the shopping and spends the money and I bring home the bacon, do half the cooking and the lawn and upkeep. I have pretty much given up on having even a marginally good sex life. She is the queen and gets the praise. I find myself trying to get my attitude out of the dumps all the time. I never dreamed that my life would turn out this way.


What have you done about it?

I'm female and I admire people who contributing to the financial burden of a home. I've always worked full-time. To me, unless you have a crazy amount of kids or have special needs children....cleaning a house and raising children simply isn't even close to a full-time job, especially once the kids are in school. That doesn't mean that those jobs aren't important or valuable...its simply means that financially supporting a family is equally as valuable. It all has to be balanced and it helps if both people are managing that balance and have an understanding and appreciation of all the roles being played. 

Consequently, its why I think sharing in all the roles is better. Both partners need financial security for their own and their children's well being and sharing roles gives both partners and understanding of each other's shared contributions.

So my suggestion, instead of praising your wife, tell her to go get a job and see how much she starts appreciating you then. I would NEVER financially support anyone but I certainly wouldn't support someone who thinks that they're entitled to special treatment and praise for cleaning a house all day. That's ridiculous. 

Bottom line, this is about the entitlement mentality that you've enabled in nutured in your partner. You need to change that...she's simply doing what you've allowed her to get away with.


----------



## Holland

Ok I am rarely sexist but IME men are not so good at picking out and dressing the kids >

Having said that I NEVER said boo about it or changed what odd outfits he put the kids in. Anyway all of a sudden they grow into teenagers and start wearing the same freaky, out there stuff that you used to wear when you were rebelling against your parents. The world keeps turning and it is fun.

As for the OP if it helps I appreciate everything anyone does to help make life less complicated. I still appreciate and highly value my Dads input, my ex husbands input, my partners input, friends and other family. I like to get a simple "thank you" when I do for others and equally I thank others for what they do for me. 

If you are feeling unappreciated it is a valid thing that you have the right to say. Can you find a way to express this without it being about point scoring? I hope so because a gender war or "who does more" type of existence will never bring harmony.


----------



## tech-novelist

Originally Posted by technovelist: 
By the way, what are the things in today's society that are harder for women than for men?

Originally Posted by Lilac:
Giving birth, carrying heavy things, machinery repair... 

Of course what I meant was things that were harder due to society, not to nature. Obviously the things you mentioned are due to nature, other than possibly machinery repair. What in society, if anything, keeps women from being able to repair machinery as easily as men?


----------



## VirgenTecate

technovelist said:


> Originally Posted by technovelist:
> By the way, what are the things in today's society that are harder for women than for men?
> 
> Originally Posted by Lilac:
> Giving birth, carrying heavy things, machinery repair...
> 
> Of course what I meant was things that were harder due to society, not to nature. Obviously the things you mentioned are due to nature, other than possibly machinery repair. What in society, if anything, keeps women from being able to repair machinery as easily as men?


Conditioning to be expected to deal with such problems from a young age. Filling occupations with more domestic chores.

Which is a reason why women do more housework. Not because men hate women, but because women are conditioned and are more efficient then men at doing it and tend to take over because of the less efficient performance of men. Men also are conditioned to not see it as their task and may unconsciously defer those tasks towards women.

While men are conditioned from a young age to occupationally engage in taking care of the car, talking about the car and such other things.

So we can also say that men are societally disadvantaged to taking care of domestic chores.


----------



## Bananapeel

Time for me to be an a$$. My XWW was a SAHM and after we got divorced I had to take over her household chores...she was undoubtedly over appreciated for her contributions in running the house. I work full time and manage to keep my kids fed, in clean clothes, and the house clean. Working full time and being an interactive father is a full time gig. Putting the kids on the school bus, doing an hour of daily housework, going shopping, and working out at the gym just aren't. 
@DallasCowboyFan grow a pair and change your dynamic!


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Time for me to be an a$$. My XWW was a SAHM and after we got divorced I had to take over her household chores...she was undoubtedly over appreciated for her contributions in running the house. I work full time and manage to keep my kids fed, in clean clothes, and the house clean. Working full time and being an interactive father is a full time gig. Putting the kids on the school bus, doing an hour of daily housework, going shopping, and working out at the gym just aren't.


I don't think you're being an ass at all. I'm female and raise/raised my kids (nursed them both too) and kept an immaculate, extremely organized house while working full-time. The large majority of women work and manage household and kids just fine.

That's not to say that its not valuable to have a clean home and come home to a nice family dinner but financial security and independence is actually more important. And you can provide a clean home and meals while working. The idea that staying at home all day is the hardest job in the world is absolutely ridiculous. And by the way, as the kids get older, it becomes easier and easier. The kids spend lots of time at school and they become more independent. So any person who's staying at home with school aged children (unless they have special needs kids) are certainly able to work....they just don't want to.

For me, being at home all day and being able to cook and clean is a relaxing treat. Its what I do on my weekends to relax from the hard work of earning money all week.

I honestly believe that SAHPs are going the way of the dinosaur anyway. Its such an outdated concept and puts too many people in the position of complete financial subservience to a partner that may end up not wanting them anymore.

With the divorce rate and household costs, people are recognizing the need for both partners to financially contribute and I think its a great thing. I think marriages would be a lot healthier if both people understood and helped with the financial burdens. I also think both partners need financial independence.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnigmaGirl said:


> What have you done about it?
> 
> I'm female and I admire people who contributing to the financial burden of a home. I've always worked full-time. *To me, unless you have a crazy amount of kids or have special needs children....cleaning a house and raising children simply isn't even close to a full-time job, especially once the kids are in school. * That doesn't mean that those jobs aren't important or valuable...its simply means that financially supporting a family is equally as valuable. It all has to be balanced and it helps if both people are managing that balance and have an understanding and appreciation of all the roles being played.


OMG Something EnigmaGirl said about Stay at Homes that I actually AGREE with ! 

I've always felt staying home.. no matter how many children (at one time we had 4 - age 6 & under...2 in cloth diapers - gotta change them a lot more so)... I really enjoyed my role.. I still had time for soap operas... for goodness sakes..

I didn't have trouble getting what needed done every day DONE before my husband walked through that door.... I was on it... but true... none of our babies had colic (that would be very draining!!), I didn't breastfeed or home school... they were calm / easy .....they played well together-for the most part...but true.. every experience could be so different.. 

Working part time, I still don't expect my husband to touch any of my stuff.. cooking, cleaning, laundry.. giving the younger ones a bath, etc...I just feel that's *my thing*.. I do it better.. I do it faster.. why bother him to do it.... he's got other things to tackle that he's far better at than I ever could be.. that's where I want him devoting his time.... not my stuff.. 

I'd even get mad if I caught him doing my stuff.. if he had other things to tend to- that was important....

There's only a couple exceptions ... if I'm sick or going to the hospital to have a baby... I've told them all.. .."I don't want to come home to a sink full of dirty dishes or it looking like a cyclone came through - when I walk through that door "....

I always cleaned it spotless...that nesting thing going on... had meals cooked ahead, in the freezer for them all... also to make it easier on me when I get home too- with the newborn....I've had all C-sections and did fine with no help... I was prepared.. but I expected them to keep things clean while I was gone...or I'd have to crack the whip.. 



> *VirgenTecate said*: Which is a reason why women do more housework. Not because men hate women, but because women are conditioned and are more efficient then men at doing it and tend to take over because of the less efficient performance of men. Men also are conditioned to not see it as their task and may unconsciously defer those tasks towards women.


 Yes.. this is just the truth... I don't see all that much wrong with it.. personally... 

If a couple is both HIGH EARNING, both working full time....they can easily afford to pay outsiders (maid, lawn care, mechanics, etc) to do many tasks that a lower income family (like us) would struggle to afford....so we have to do it all ourselves... 

This, too, is a part of it...this is why I will always (whether I work part time or full).... expect to do pretty much 100% of the feminine chores.. because I still feel my husband is the one who gets the difficult load ....fixing what breaks around our house, vehicle troubles (he does a lot of swearing out in the garage, this past year - too many brake lines... he seemed cursed!).... if a Lawn tractor is down.. (had to repair both this past year, down at the same time!)..... All those outside projects that others may hire someone but we are determined to do ourselves.. it can be time consuming, and frustrating - for what he does anyway....

He also black tops our driveway....it's a big one.. I'll leave it to him to use the power tools, the chain saw, the plow.... I'll stick to handling everything in the house.. keeping the kids happy...

That's what works for us..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnigmaGirl said:


> I honestly believe that SAHPs are going the way of the dinosaur anyway. Its such an outdated concept and puts too many people in the position of complete financial subservience to a partner that may end up not wanting them anymore.
> 
> With the divorce rate and household costs, people are recognizing the need for both partners to financially contribute and I think its a great thing. I think marriages would be a lot healthier if both people understood and helped with the financial burdens. I also think both partners need financial independence.


Your posts are very judgmental to a couple who *prefers* a more traditional lifestyle... do you not have one friend.. someone you know who has lived & loved and it not all went to hell??

I have known many in my life.... I have admired their marriages....


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> Your posts are very judgmental to a couple who *prefers* a more traditional lifestyle... do you not have one friend.. someone you know who has lived & loved and it not all went to hell??
> 
> I have known many in my life.... I have admired their marriages....


Exactly, why should wanting a more traditional lifestyle be looked down on  Why should my wife work when a) there is no financial need for her to and b) she hated her job anyhow?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> Exactly, why should wanting a more traditional lifestyle be looked down on  Why should my wife work when a) there is no financial need for her to and b) she hated her job anyhow?


I've never hated working.. but there are other considerations - with each family... in what is *important to them*... where none of this matters a hill of beans in the minds of some feminists.. it's completely & utterly Black & white... with judgment slapped on it...

For one...where we wanted to live.... a dream come true...a house way off the road, many acres...but the driveway is a winter hazard, and the back country hilly roads where we live than can turn to ice.... seriously....this , not to mention how many kids we had (we wanted every one- not on food stamps.. we pay our way).... was a real hindrance for me having a full time job, where I'd have to punch a time clock... 

And we surely didn't want me working as soon as he hit the door, then we'd have no time with each other -at all.. we didn't want to live like this...We did that for a while in our earlier years.. he complained I was never home-our life was rushed. 

Shouldn't it matter WHAT brings a family happiness & fulfillment.. there have been times I thought of doing a thread on how much a Traditional lifestyle has blessed our family.. but here.. Ha Ha ha ha ha... yeah.. I know how that would get spit on & threw up over...

With the smaller jobs I take on... in the winter months/ dangerous roads... if I need to be somewhere.. (my schedule is flexible)...he can safely drive me there using our 4x4... (he's a better driver over me in hazardous road conditions - I will give him that !)....

This works for us...I am so thankful we can do it.. that I've been home with our children -for the most part.... and we get to live where we always dreamed...

We just watch our money very carefully


----------



## Lilac23

technovelist said:


> What in society, if anything, keeps women from being able to repair machinery as easily as men?


Lack of interest.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never hated working.. but there are other considerations - with each family... in what is *important to them*... where none of this matters a hill of beans in the minds of some feminists.. it's completely & utterly Black & white... with judgment slapped on it...
> 
> For one...where we wanted to live.... a dream come true...a house way off the road, many acres...but the driveway is a winter hazard, and the back country hilly roads where we live than can turn to ice.... seriously....this , not to mention how many kids we had (we wanted every one- not on food stamps.. we pay our way).... was a real hindrance for me having a full time job, where I'd have to punch a time clock...
> 
> And we surely didn't want me working as soon as he hit the door, then we'd have no time with each other -at all.. we didn't want to live like this...We did that for a while in our earlier years.. he complained I was never home-our life was rushed.
> 
> *Shouldn't it matter WHAT brings a family happiness & fulfillment.. there have been times I thought of doing a thread on how much a Traditional lifestyle has blessed our family.. but here.. Ha Ha ha ha ha... yeah.. I know how that would get spit on & threw up over...*
> 
> With the smaller jobs I take on... in the winter months/ dangerous roads... if I need to be somewhere.. (my schedule is flexible)...he can safely drive me there using our 4x4... (he's a better driver over me in hazardous road conditions - I will give him that !)....
> 
> This works for us...I am so thankful we can do it.. that I've been home with our children -for the most part.... and we get to live where we always dreamed...
> 
> We just watch our money very carefully


The bolded, you know that would be playing with fire :laugh:

Honestly with my wife and I, at least at the onset we both planned to work. My wife actually worked full time about 6+ years into our marriage. We both grew up with parents who both worked full time so really the thought of a SAHM never really entered our heads. Between my job and having kids, it just made less and less sense for my wife to work. Now, my wife could have decided that she needed to keep working so she could claim "independence" and I would have not stopped her. However, having her home has really been great for the entire family, knowing that she is there for the kids instead of some stranger. Seems like well worth it if you ask me.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> The bolded, you know that would be playing with fire :laugh:
> 
> Honestly with my wife and I, at least at the onset we both planned to work. My wife actually worked full time about 6+ years into our marriage. We both grew up with parents who both worked full time so really the thought of a SAHM never really entered our heads. Between my job and having kids, it just made less and less sense for my wife to work. Now, my wife could have decided that she needed to keep working so she could claim "independence" and I would have not stopped her. However, having her home has really been great for the entire family, knowing that she is there for the kids instead of some stranger. Seems like well worth it if you ask me.


I do think the earning potential figures heavily into this decision.

If I were working, I would only make about $40k (high school teacher). Our life homeschooling our kids is much more relaxed than it would be if I were employed.

But my daughter is a chemical engineering major in her third year, and will start at $70k. By the time she has children, she will surely be making $100k+. She has already told me she is never going to stop working. I just hope she lives close enough that I can help out with child care.


----------



## EllisRedding

jld said:


> I do think the earning potential figures heavily into this decision.
> 
> If I were working, I would only make about $40k (high school teacher). Our life homeschooling our kids is much more relaxed than it would be if I were employed.
> 
> But my daughter is a chemical engineering major in her third year, and will start at $70k. By the time she has children, she will surely be making $100k+. She has already told me she is never going to stop working. I just hope she lives close enough that I can help out with child care.


Move out my way, teachers can easily make up to $100k or more lol.

Potential earnings definitely do factor in. IIRC my wife was somewhere around 80-90k when she was working full time. Once we had kids she went part time which obviously cut her pay significantly. Once we took that and then started deducting out the cost of daycare, travel etc ... she would have literally been making very little, so it just didn't seem worth it. She eventually would like to work again, but fortunate for us she can do that at her own pace down the road (she would love to be a librarian or a professional food taster lol).


----------



## ExiledBayStater

lifeistooshort said:


> I know that for me staying at home was by far a more difficult job then working full time, but it had nothing to do with it being a harder job.
> 
> By all objective measures my job now is much harder then staying at home was. I have deadlines, commutes, kids, dinner, cleaning, everything that most working parents have. But staying home and losing myself was soul sucking.
> 
> In addition, I don't do well without structure and I'm not good at creating it. Even when I work at home I have difficulty with it. And then the feeling of life passing me by.
> 
> I know sahm's who wanted to do just that and derive fulfillment from it. I'm just not one of those.
> 
> So I get a little triggered when I hear people remark that so and so is so lucky to be able to stay home.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I appreciate your sharing this. My wife wants to keep working retail, it's going to be a high cost for the family with little reward. At least her decision is not incomprehensible to me now.


----------



## jld

EllisRedding said:


> Move out my way, teachers can easily make up to $100k or more lol.
> 
> Potential earnings definitely do factor in. IIRC my wife was somewhere around 80-90k when she was working full time. Once we had kids she went part time which obviously cut her pay significantly. Once we took that and then started deducting out the cost of daycare, travel etc ... she would have literally been making very little, so it just didn't seem worth it. She eventually would like to work again, but fortunate for us she can do that at her own pace down the road (she would love to be a librarian or a professional food taster lol).


Wow, $100k for a teacher. Impressive.

I would like to be a librarian, too.


----------



## MichelleR

I agree that traditional breadwinners are not appreciated the way they used to be in general . It's like people are so afraid of offending the feminists that as a culture we are doing a lot of male-bashing and just not appreciating them. I always feel afraid to say things like this because other women act like I'm a repressed woman who has no intelligent thoughts of her own.

By the way i would love to be a SAHM but we need my job for the income and the health insurance. I really hate having to juggle both and it was VERY hard for me to accept the fact that I'd be putting my babies in daycare. I wish I had a husband who made enough to support all of us but he does work extremely hard for us as it is. I envy the moms who get to stay home. At least since I'm a teacher I get summers off and can stay with my kids during those times.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ExiledBayStater said:


> I appreciate your sharing this. My wife wants to keep working retail, it's going to be a high cost for the family with little reward. At least her decision is not incomprehensible to me now.


You're welcome!

Retail is not a great job for someone with responsibilities.....I worked retail in college and it definitely comes with little reward.

I liked it but you can't pay anything with it.

That is a conversation you should have, that you appreciate that she needs something she enjoys but you both have some responsibility to the family to contribute something reasonable.

If you make plenty and she's just going to supplement the family income, and there's no daycare involved, then by all means work retail. But if you guys need the money she may have to bring in a little more.

We all have to balance what we like with what pays bills. I used to play symphony french horn but you can't make a solid living doing that, so I found another field I liked that did pay.

Have this conversation with her.....or have you already? I don't know how you feel about your job but you are not obligated to maintain a high paying, high stress job while she gets to dither on something she likes that pays nothing. You do that when you're single without kids.


----------



## jld

MichelleR said:


> I agree that traditional breadwinners are not appreciated the way they used to be in general . It's like people are so afraid of offending the feminists that as a culture we are doing a lot of male-bashing and just not appreciating them. I always feel afraid to say things like this because other women act like I'm a repressed woman who has no intelligent thoughts of her own.
> 
> By the way i would love to be a SAHM but we need my job for the income and the health insurance. I really hate having to juggle both and it was VERY hard for me to accept the fact that I'd be putting my babies in daycare. I wish I had a husband who made enough to support all of us but he does work extremely hard for us as it is. I envy the moms who get to stay home. At least since I'm a teacher I get summers off and can stay with my kids during those times.


May I ask what part of the country you live in, Michelle?


----------



## lifeistooshort

MichelleR said:


> I agree that traditional breadwinners are not appreciated the way they used to be in general . It's like people are so afraid of offending the feminists that as a culture we are doing a lot of male-bashing and just not appreciating them. I always feel afraid to say things like this because other women act like I'm a repressed woman who has no intelligent thoughts of her own.
> 
> By the way i would love to be a SAHM but we need my job for the income and the health insurance. I really hate having to juggle both and it was VERY hard for me to accept the fact that I'd be putting my babies in daycare. I wish I had a husband who made enough to support all of us but he does work extremely hard for us as it is. I envy the moms who get to stay home. At least since I'm a teacher I get summers off and can stay with my kids during those times.



I honestly have never met a feminist that hated men and I don't understand where this idea comes from. I'm a feminist and I have a husband and two sons who are the center of my world.....I think about the world they will live in and I have no desire to see them get screwed in family court. I love the fact that my hb is strong and handles stuff for me. I only wish for women to have the same opportunities men do, and I accept that this means the same responsibilities.....to the extent that they can be the same. Just an example, but I could b!tch that men will never have to carry kids and that's true but it's not like it's their fault.....that's just the way things are. So there are things that can never be truly equal.

I'm sure these women exist, just as knuckdraggers that hate women and think they belong in the kitchen still exist, but in my 41 years I've never met one.

I've known women that were traumatized by a man in their life and unfortunately it clouded their view of men, but I see the same thing happen to men who have one woman screw them over and all women pay for that. These people exist, but I really don't think they're the norm.

Now there are feminists that don't understand why a woman would want to stay at home given the options we have but feminism is at it's core about having options to make your own decisions, which women didn't always have. And in a free society it's not required that everyone agree with your choices, only that they respect that they are in fact your choices.

Not that any of us with responsibilities truly have unlimited options.....once you're partnered and/or with kids you have others to consider, just as you and I do. You want to leave your job but you know you can't. I'm not free to quit my job and freelance as a french horn player.....I have kids that need supporting and bills to be paid.

I just have no idea who would be offended by a guy working to support his family. No feminist I've ever met has anything but good things to say about such a guy.


----------



## VirgenTecate

SimplyAmorous said:


> OMG Something EnigmaGirl said about Stay at Homes that I actually AGREE with !
> 
> 
> Yes.. this is just the truth... I don't see all that much wrong with it.. personally...
> 
> 
> 
> That's what works for us..


SA, I am also someone who is fairly traditional. I love seeing my fiance in traditional roles and I love fulfilling some as well.

I have talked about it before but being with someone who is not from my country really has unpacked a lot of what "traditional" means.

To his family, it means that I will not have a driver's licence and that he will drive me everywhere. That is the traditional wife role....I am not rebelling against that but it just does not fit my soul. 

I also like to work personally. I understand actually why as a society we reinforce gender roles. It makes society glide better. But at a soul level it might not work for us. I told my fiance that if we were to have children I would prefer that he would stay at home. It is not to rebel against the childcare role of women but it does not speak to my soul. Doing healthcare does. The expectation is restrictive to me because of what is inside of me.

It is the eternal struggle. Society versus the self. 

Society is trying to prop itself up by telling me what I should do. But not everything it is telling me speaks to my inner core. Some things it tells me does speak to my inner core such as the commitment of marriage. 

I have read about your marriage and it truly is a blessed and beautiful partnership.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I make 45K now but after my mat leave with my daughter I was around 35K.

It was still worth it for me because of the long term and my own needs. 

I appreciate my H, the work he does. There have been times where he is laid off and I support the home on my own, there is a level of stress with being the sole provider, but during those times I am still doing most of the cleaning and cooking so I don't get the benefits out of it. 

If I had a SAHP who actually did the cleaning and cooking and errands it would make my life a lot easier in many ways so there does need to be appreciation on both ends. Both would be struggling more without the other. 

It's hard to work 8+ hours a day, it's harder (IMO) to come home from work and still have to do all those things that the SAHP would have been doing if they were home and obviously the SAHP would have a much harder time trying to be home without their spouse's income so the fact that they are working together to make things easier for each other should be all that matters. Appreciate each other.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

lifeistooshort said:


> If you make plenty and she's just going to supplement the family income, and there's no daycare involved, then by all means work retail. But if you guys need the money she may have to bring in a little more.
> 
> We all have to balance what we like with what pays bills. I used to play symphony french horn but you can't make a solid living doing that, so I found another field I liked that did pay.
> 
> Have this conversation with her.....or have you already? I don't know how you feel about your job but you are not obligated to maintain a high paying, high stress job while she gets to dither on something she likes that pays nothing. You do that when you're single without kids.


I don't know that she is capable of earning more. I've always steered us towards housing that we could afford from my salary alone if we had to.

Daycare would cost as much as she earns and then some. I don't know how we'd afford it. We talked about having her work evenings and weekends. If her employer is willing to accomodate, it will be okay financially but we'll hardly see each other.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ExiledBayStater said:


> I don't know that she is capable of earning more. I've always steered us towards housing that we could afford from my salary alone if we had to.
> 
> Daycare would cost as much as she earns and then some. I don't know how we'd afford it. We talked about having her work evenings and weekends. If her employer is willing to accomodate, it will be okay financially but we'll hardly see each other.


Sit down now and make up the budget how it will look when the baby comes- daycare, diapers, formula if she doesn't plan on breastfeeding, etc. 

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forms/fsi.pdf

If it doesn't add up then she'll have to either bring in more income or you'll both have to cut back on expenses.


----------



## jld

ExiledBayStater said:


> I don't know that she is capable of earning more. *I've always steered us towards housing that we could afford from my salary alone if we had to*.


Very wise, EBS. 

We were careful to buy within our means, too. We saved my salary when I was working, and that became our down payment money.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Sit down now and make up the budget how it will look when the baby comes- daycare, diapers, formula if she doesn't plan on breastfeeding, etc.
> 
> http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forms/fsi.pdf
> 
> If it doesn't add up then she'll have to either bring in more income or you'll both have to cut back on expenses.


We're going to have to cut back on expenses no matter what.

I get that you wanted to work. From what you disclosed, though, it sounds like you at least made more than enough to cover daycare expenses. That's the difference between our situations.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

How much is daycare where you live and how much does she make?


----------



## MichelleR

I grew up in New Jersey but live in Ohio now. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with feminists as the movement did a lot of good for so many people in our country. I'm saying that people are afraid of offending them though. I mean, the original post sounded apologetic for even having the rant in the first place. 

Growing up I felt immense pressure to be well, masculine. Be as strong as the boys, as fast as the boys, as successful and make tons of money as any man, never rely on a man for anything because you must be a doormat if you want to have a man take care of you. 

I really wanted to be a mom but there was never any talk about how to be a good wife or anything. I was just supposed to succeed succeed succeed and be and independent as possible it seemed. If I want to be more submissive it's seen as a personality flaw. 


I don't know its funny I'm even posting this because if I ever say things like this aloud it just pisses people off usually.


----------



## jld

MichelleR said:


> I grew up in New Jersey but live in Ohio now. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with feminists as the movement did a lot of good for so many people in our country. I'm saying that people are afraid of offending them though. I mean, the original post sounded apologetic for even having the rant in the first place.
> 
> Growing up I felt immense pressure to be well, masculine. Be as strong as the boys, as fast as the boys, as successful and make tons of money as any man, never rely on a man for anything because you must be a doormat if you want to have a man take care of you.
> 
> I really wanted to be a mom but there was never any talk about how to be a good wife or anything. I was just supposed to succeed succeed succeed and be and independent as possible it seemed. If I want to be more submissive it's seen as a personality flaw.
> 
> 
> I don't know its funny I'm even posting this because if I ever say things like this aloud it just pisses people off usually.


I think we are all happiest when we are just ourselves. 

It's what we are going to be, anyway.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> How much is daycare where you live and how much does she make?


After taxes she makes $15K. Licenced daycare is typically $18K, tax credits may bring it down to $16K. There is one nonprofit with a sliding scale that we could do - if they have space available.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ExiledBayStater said:


> After taxes she makes $15K. Licenced daycare is typically $18K, tax credits may bring it down to $16K. There is one nonprofit with a sliding scale that we could do - if they have space available.


Geez, I keep forgetting how low min. wage is in other parts of the world. 
Daycare shouldn't be more than 10-13K or so in your area, I'd keep looking, day homes may be cheaper too, but also look into her getting something that pays more or maybe look into work at home or just part time, trade babysitting with other part-time worker Moms. Doesn't have to be 100% SAHM if she prefers to make some money herself.

Daycare costs can go down as the child gets older too.


----------



## frusdil

arbitrator said:


> *There is a fine line between being the breadwinner, and being the families domestic and social engineering head. One receives monetary compensation to support the family with, the other largely receives next to nothing for heading up their most important family leadership task!
> 
> These two polar opposites must work together to enhance the development of their family, without regard to envy or jealousy, knowing that each has just as an important job description as the other!
> 
> All too often, jealousy arises, causing potential division and emotional separation. To circumvent that, both parties must insure that, as leaders, they should always endeavor to remain on the same page! *
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I love this!!! So true.

I stay home while my husband works full time. When I first moved in we were both working full time, and the intention was that we would continue that way. I hated it.

My dad had terminal cancer and despite cutting back my work to 4 days a week, I still wasn't able to be there as much as I wanted to. The crunch came when I took him and mum to hospital for his chemo and saw just how weak he was  It was painfully obvious we wouldn't have dad for much longer and it was so important to me, to be able to help care for him. Hubby and I discussed it and with his blessing and full support, I resigned so that I could help mum take care of dad.

That experience changed me, hubby and I both thought I would go back to work a little after dad passed away. When it came to the crunch, and I looked around me I didn't blo0dy well want to go back to work. Hubby and I had missed out on so many years together, meeting later in life, and I finally had my little family that I'd always wanted and I didn't want to miss a minute of it. I LOVE working in the school tuck shop, ad going to school assemblies, doing the school run, being here when SD is sick and taking care of her. Luckily my husband had noticed how much easier his life was too, with me being at home. He was happy for me to continue to stay home.

I know how lucky I am to be able to do this, and I thank him all the time - and he appreciates me too 

Both our roles are invaluable to our home and family, and we are all very happy with the way things are


----------



## heartsbeating

I've posted about hiring a SAHM who hadn't been employed for a decade. And frusdil, you raise a good point too - she appreciated the income needed for their family but did feel a sense of loss with needing to miss school performances and such. 

I also wrote about my amaze-balls single mother friend. And will include that she readily admits her home is often left in disarray simply because it's low on her priority list with balancing working full-time and taking care of her daughter. She never gets a break to herself. I've encouraged her to actually do this... even if it's getting a mobile masseuse in with her daughter there. Everyone needs and deserves a break.

There's always going to be give and takes with various scenarios. Another friend is a SAHM and she does enjoy it as a lifestyle. She's around for the kids if needed but they are at school, she regularly goes for coffee and breakfasts with other mothers. I've met SAHD too. Who loved being home for the child. 


All this aside, it is nice to be appreciated  We don't have kids. My husband thanked me the other night for changing the bed-sheets and cleaning the house. I do this regularly anyway. He makes the majority of dinners and meals... I'm always thanking him for the delicious things he creates. We have our particular chores and tasks as well as chipping in to help where we can. We're not perfect but hearing a thanks is great! Feeling appreciated and respected is important - it doesn't necessarily need to center around chores and tasks.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> Now there are feminists that don't understand why a woman would want to stay at home given the options we have but feminism is at it's core about having options to make your own decisions, which women didn't always have. And in a free society it's not required that everyone agree with your choices, only that they respect that they are in fact your choices.


 Well there are plenty who do not RESPECT others choices...but look down upon them...and really.. that is their right...if that makes them feel good.. but when we , on the other side ... pick up on this in their words, these superior attitudes.. we recognize the judgement ....

Thankfully I haven't felt this from other women till I came to this forum ... but here.. it happens often...I wish I would have copied & pasted every little snippet I've read here.. to show the disdain ... I'd have a whopper of a post to share for examples.... each post stands out like a sore thumb judging the men for being stupid to marry such women.. I call them "Amy Glass feminists".. google her & read her rant.. the 1st line of her infamous article says


> "*Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.*"



Oh every movement has it's radicals.. she is surely one of them!! ...oh she apologized after this... what a joke...one doesn't speak with that much hatred unless she is feeling some pretty strong judgement towards other women...

Having read countless articles how feminists argue against anything Traditional from taking a man's last name, to the SAHM debate (and so much in between)... I've just felt like they stomp on many things I hold dear... they take it TOO FAR ...to the point of trying to indoctrinate ....

I agree with @MichelleR here...when she says "I really wanted to be a mom but there was never any talk about how to be a good wife or anything. I was just supposed to succeed succeed succeed and be and independent as possible it seemed. If I want to be more submissive it's seen as a personality flaw. " 

She doesn't want to pi** anyone off.. basically she is SHAMED into keeping her mouth shut .. is all.. 

I've read plenty of "feminist" articles where I don't feel the author was a radical at all ...still they felt such women, who wanted to stay in the home...*were holding the movement back*.. that to me is "a problem"...and it waters down & chokes out the validity of the whole "choice thing"... it just SOUNDS GOOD.. but it's not really how many of them feel... a Traditionally minded Homemaker could never be upheld as an example for Feminists.. can we just admit it already.

And the whole word "Traditional" means different things to different people...some are repelled by it -they associate it with ALL THE BAD.. not gleaming any good.. 

For me...it just means when Men treated women more Gentlemanly, they believed in taking a woman out, treating her like a LADY, getting to know her emotionally before taking her to bed, if they impregnated her.. they would do the honorable thing & Marry her / when men still believed in Marriage/ feeling this is best for raising families.... the older fashioned Gender roles do apply more so (but I am gleaming the good from that when I speak of it - not the bad)... when each is giving in these relationships to enhance the others lives.. it's a beautiful thing...or can be. 

Unfortunately, and I surely wouldn't dare deny, many BAD MEN have used their power over women in a way to cause great suffering & pain throughout the ages .... our rights needed to be fought for!! OMG Yes.. I am thankful for it.. 

Yet I still love & admire many of the traditional ways darn it.. when it did work well, then the man had the best of intentions... and treated his woman & family like they were his world... there is nothing wrong with resting in that... I love that I took my husband's last name too.. I want to be all in... he wants to be all in.... Traditional lifestyles are never a problem when a good man is in the equation... 




> I just have no idea who would be offended by a guy working to support his family. No feminist I've ever met has anything but good things to say about such a guy.


 I don't see this at all.. of course all women would have this in common.. wanting a man who puts action , and caring to support his family...


----------



## frusdil

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've read plenty of "feminist" articles where I don't feel the author was a radical at all ...still they felt such women, who wanted to stay in the home...*were holding the movement back*.. that to me is "a problem"...and it waters down & chokes out the validity of the whole "choice thing"... it just SOUNDS GOOD.. but it's not really how many of them feel... a Traditionally minded Homemaker could never be upheld as an example for Feminists.. can we just admit it already.
> 
> And the whole word "Traditional" means different things to different people...some are repelled by it -they associate it with ALL THE BAD.. not gleaming any good..
> 
> For me...it just means when Men treated women more Gentlemanly, they believed in taking a woman out, treating her like a LADY, getting to know her emotionally before taking her to bed, if they impregnated her.. they would do the honorable thing & Marry her / when men still believed in Marriage/ feeling this is best for raising families.... the older fashioned Gender roles do apply more so (but I am gleaming the good from that when I speak of it - not the bad)... when each is giving in these relationships to enhance the others lives.. it's a beautiful thing...or can be.
> 
> Unfortunately, and I surely wouldn't dare deny, many BAD MEN have used their power over women in a way to cause great suffering & pain throughout the ages .... our rights needed to be fought for!! OMG Yes.. I am thankful for it..
> 
> Yet I still love & admire many of the traditional ways darn it.. when it did work well, then the man had the best of intentions... and treated his woman & family like they were his world... there is nothing wrong with resting in that... I love that I took my husband's last name too.. I want to be all in... he wants to be all in.... Traditional lifestyles are never a problem when a good man is in the equation...


I so agree SA...and like you, I'm so glad there are women AND men out there who fight for women's rights. I am also glad that women have so many choices today, that we didn't have back in the day, and were otherwise trapped in nightmare marriages because of it.

I'm so lucky, in that had I been married back in those days I would have been a-ok, because I'm married to a wonderful man, who values both me and my contribution to his life and our home. I'm glad that there are other options for women these days, who aren't as lucky as I.

For me, staying home was a choice, made after discussion with my husband. He's happy for me to stay home, or if I wanted to work he would support me in that too.

About a year ago, he was looking into changing jobs and I was nervous about it - he's got it pretty good where he is, and I thought "why risk it?". Then I thought to myself, that he gets up and goes out 5 days a week, to work hard to provide for our family - and I have the luxury of staying home because of him. My dream to stay home shouldn't cost him his dream should he decide to pursue it. I told him he had my full support 100%, and that I trusted him to make the best decision for him and for us. In the end he decided not to change jobs, but he told me that my support and trust in him was much appreciated.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

heartsbeating said:


> I've posted about hiring a SAHM who hadn't been employed for a decade. And frusdil, you raise a good point too - she appreciated the income needed for their family but did feel a sense of loss with needing to miss school performances and such.
> 
> I also wrote about my amaze-balls single mother friend. And will include that she readily admits her home is often left in disarray simply because it's low on her priority list with balancing working full-time and taking care of her daughter. She never gets a break to herself. I've encouraged her to actually do this... even if it's getting a mobile masseuse in with her daughter there. Everyone needs and deserves a break.
> 
> There's always going to be give and takes with various scenarios. Another friend is a SAHM and she does enjoy it as a lifestyle. She's around for the kids if needed but they are at school, she regularly goes for coffee and breakfasts with other mothers. I've met SAHD too. Who loved being home for the child.
> 
> 
> *All this aside, it is nice to be appreciated  We don't have kids. My husband thanked me the other night for changing the bed-sheets and cleaning the house. I do this regularly anyway. He makes the majority of dinners and meals... I'm always thanking him for the delicious things he creates. We have our particular chores and tasks as well as chipping in to help where we can. We're not perfect but hearing a thanks is great! Feeling appreciated and respected is important - it doesn't necessarily need to center around chores and tasks.*


This deserves some Appreciation quotes !! Listen... we all want to be appreciated.. even those with "Words of affirmation" at the bottom of their love languages...they still welcome it... and it makes them  too...

I very much ENJOY expressing my appreciation when I am thankful, impressed , moved.. things like this... it may have nothing ever to even do with me.. but just how someone IS, their example before me.... something they said/ did .... (this could be ANYONE - not just my husband, for anything).. heck it takes so little.. and maybe that small encouraging word- just makes the day a little brighter for someone.. to know they are VALUED.. this could be a post on FB.. a post here.. in person.. to a stranger.. and most importantly...in our own homes. 

When I am in the store waiting to get checked out.. if the cashier was fast/ friendly (often times one can't pull those both off.. I hate it when a cashier is yapping to another co-worker, no eye contact, slow as a turtle, it's annoying!)...so when I see excellent work skill , someone on the ball, a smile on her face ...same as a Secretary or anyone on the Job....someone passionate about what they do, taking a moment to talk to me/us ... yet humble... I will tell them I think they are doing a wonderful job, an asset to the company & we need more people like them (or some personal effect).. 

There are times I have thought these things but didn't say anything.. wishing I had ...I enjoy showing appreciation when I'm feeling/ thinking it....

The truth is.. far more don't impress me.. so when I feel this.. it's Good - I feel drawn to express it !


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well there are plenty who do not RESPECT others choices...but look down upon them...and really.. that is their right...if that makes them feel good.. but when we , on the other side ... pick up on this in their words, these superior attitudes.. we recognize the judgement ....
> 
> Thankfully I haven't felt this from other women till I came to this forum ... but here.. it happens often...I wish I would have copied & pasted every little snippet I've read here.. to show the disdain ... I'd have a whopper of a post to share for examples.... each post stands out like a sore thumb judging the men for being stupid to marry such women.. I call them "Amy Glass feminists".. google her & read her rant.. the 1st line of her infamous article says
> 
> 
> Oh every movement has it's radicals.. she is surely one of them!! ...oh she apologized after this... what a joke...one doesn't speak with that much hatred unless she is feeling some pretty strong judgement towards other women...
> 
> Having read countless articles how feminists argue against anything Traditional from taking a man's last name, to the SAHM debate (and so much in between)... I've just felt like they stomp on many things I hold dear... they take it TOO FAR ...to the point of trying to indoctrinate ....
> 
> I agree with @MichelleR here...when she says "I really wanted to be a mom but there was never any talk about how to be a good wife or anything. I was just supposed to succeed succeed succeed and be and independent as possible it seemed. If I want to be more submissive it's seen as a personality flaw. "
> 
> She doesn't want to pi** anyone off.. basically she is SHAMED into keeping her mouth shut .. is all..
> 
> I've read plenty of "feminist" articles where I don't feel the author was a radical at all ...still they felt such women, who wanted to stay in the home...*were holding the movement back*.. that to me is "a problem"...and it waters down & chokes out the validity of the whole "choice thing"... it just SOUNDS GOOD.. but it's not really how many of them feel... a Traditionally minded Homemaker could never be upheld as an example for Feminists.. can we just admit it already.
> 
> And the whole word "Traditional" means different things to different people...some are repelled by it -they associate it with ALL THE BAD.. not gleaming any good..
> 
> For me...it just means when Men treated women more Gentlemanly, they believed in taking a woman out, treating her like a LADY, getting to know her emotionally before taking her to bed, if they impregnated her.. they would do the honorable thing & Marry her / when men still believed in Marriage/ feeling this is best for raising families.... the older fashioned Gender roles do apply more so (but I am gleaming the good from that when I speak of it - not the bad)... when each is giving in these relationships to enhance the others lives.. it's a beautiful thing...or can be.
> 
> Unfortunately, and I surely wouldn't dare deny, many BAD MEN have used their power over women in a way to cause great suffering & pain throughout the ages .... our rights needed to be fought for!! OMG Yes.. I am thankful for it..
> 
> Yet I still love & admire many of the traditional ways darn it.. when it did work well, then the man had the best of intentions... and treated his woman & family like they were his world... there is nothing wrong with resting in that... I love that I took my husband's last name too.. I want to be all in... he wants to be all in.... Traditional lifestyles are never a problem when a good man is in the equation...
> 
> 
> I don't see this at all.. of course all women would have this in common.. wanting a man who puts action , and caring to support his family...



We all get that. Ime I've seen far more judgement from sahm's. .... more then once I've been the recipient of how they're raising their kids and not allowing someone else to do it, and in a nice little snide tone, insinuating of course that I'm not. 

I see the same thing here, that children need their mother and the right thing to do is have a parent home. 

That's their opinion and they're entitled to it.

But as I said their approval is not required.

And your right to do it is respected, but people will have opinions. Be careful not to confuse having opinions with not respecting your right to your own choices.

Those who are comfortable in their choices see no need to defend what they do. I feel just fine about my choices and my kids are doing great. 

I will say though that when I did stay home I noticed that people tended to talk down to me, which I never get now. Almost like they assumed that if I was smart there's no way I'd be home. 

And I have my hb's name as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> We all get that. Ime I've seen far more judgement from sahm's. .... more then once I've been the recipient of how they're raising their kids and not allowing someone else to do it, and in a nice little snide tone, insinuating of course that I'm not.
> 
> I see the same thing here, that children need their mother and the right thing to do is have a parent home.
> 
> That's their opinion and they're entitled to it.
> 
> But as I said their approval is not required.
> 
> *And your right to do it is respected, but people will have opinions. Be careful not to confuse having opinions with not respecting your right to your own choices.
> 
> Those who are comfortable in their choices see no need to defend what they do. I feel just fine about my choices and my kids are doing great. *


 there has been some harsh opinions ... we're "leeches" after all.... Oh the truth is.. I LOVE FREE SPEECH.. bring it on, I'd march in the streets for it and I couldnt be a Mod.. cause I'd be too lenient! .... but yeah.... it would rub anyone the wrong way... it's not just me.... bring another subject that touches someone's door... my posts in response have been very calm in reality... 

You will never hear me speaking down about Mothers who work full time , I don't go there...I feel they have a tremendous amount on their plate..many are AWESOME devoted, better mothers than I am !!....a couple of those are my dearest friends ...one may hire me this summer for a new part time job! 

You will only hear me defending the harsher things said / implied about those who prefer & enjoy a more Traditional lifestyle... because it has meant so much to me.. I prayed to have this opportunity...and true.. other woman may think I am crazy .. I don't know! I simply can't be alone... there are others.. I just raise a small flag here.. 



> I will say though that when I did stay home I noticed that people tended to talk down to me, which I never get now. Almost like they assumed that if I was smart there's no way I'd be home.


 I can't say I have been met with this.. not in real life...that feeling that someone is talking down to me -in learning I don't have a career & stay at home.... The idea of feeling that from another woman though.. it's going to make us shriek away...no one wants to feel inferior... I think today we worship status / success a little too much.. it's a human weakness I guess...

But yeah... if I got that VIBE from another -if they are pre-judging over a title - more so than the kindness exchanged... or for other lasting qualities...it wouldn't be someone I'd want to even sit down & have tea with... if that makes sense.... We are all more than our titles.. or I sure hope so.


----------



## MichelleR

Lifeistooshort, I think people see SAHMs as women who just aren't smart enough to make it in the work world because with the hype about women being able to accomplish just as much as men, who in their right mind wouldn't want to be the doctor or lawyer or politician that she could be? 

Now that the economy has shifted where most families require two incomes to support children many women who'd want to stay gone don't have that choice. 

My personal experience is that I feel like a less than adequate mother, teacher, and wife because I can't juggle all three without getting overwhelmed and depressed. If I voice my beliefs out loud though I'm usually met with criticism. If I want a clean house I should just force my husband to do more of it (he already does a lot but we can't keep up). 

Anyway that's my take on it. I also come from a family where everyone in my parents' generation is a doctor, scientist, or lawyer. I was always told I was way too smart to waste me brain by not becoming something really impressive. My decision to "only be a teacher," even if it was never stated directly was definitely a bold move on my part.


----------



## MichelleR

Sorry I have so any typos, I'm texting this message. Gone = home 

And some of my passages might not make sense. When I talk about housework, I mean that people tell me to force my husband to do more


----------



## lifeistooshort

MichelleR said:


> Lifeistooshort, I think people see SAHMs as women who just aren't smart enough to make it in the work world because with the hype about women being able to accomplish just as much as men, who in their right mind wouldn't want to be the doctor or lawyer or politician that she could be?
> 
> Now that the economy has shifted where most families require two incomes to support children many women who'd want to stay gone don't have that choice.
> 
> My personal experience is that I feel like a less than adequate mother, teacher, and wife because I can't juggle all three without getting overwhelmed and depressed. If I voice my beliefs out loud though I'm usually met with criticism. If I want a clean house I should just force my husband to do more of it (he already does a lot but we can't keep up).
> 
> Anyway that's my take on it. I also come from a family where everyone in my parents' generation is a doctor, scientist, or lawyer. I was always told I was way too smart to waste me brain by not becoming something really impressive. My decision to "only be a teacher," even if it was never stated directly was definitely a bold move on my part.



Funny you'd make that comment about "only" being a teacher. My first degree is in music education and I had people say "why do you want to teach, you're so smart". A if somehow only less intelligent people should be teaching. 

I didn't go to physics until later, when my kids were little. 
Nice. 

Nobody can have it all and it's a disservice to even suggest it. Most of the time though, if we do our best, our kids turn out fine. 

This idea that kids need a parent at home to intensely parent is relatively new in human history. Traditionally, as in before the 20th century, running a household was a full time job. True ma kettle was home but she wasn't intensely parenting little johnny, she was running the house. And women also worked outside, maybe in fields more acceptable for women, but they worked.

Bother of my great grandmothers had college degrees and one ran a fruit stand while the other was a tailor. The idea of the housewife was created as an attempt to keep women home where they belonged as modem conveniences made keeping the home a much easier job. 

What we consider traditional has only really been around for the past hundred years or so. 
We tend to defer to the 1950"s for our definition, but that's not particularly representative of human history. 

I'm sure your kids are turning out great.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MichelleR

I'd say throughout history women and men have worked equally hard but in different roles. Today feminists act like it's a horrible shame we have more male politicians and scientists as if we are somehow given the message growing up that we are not smart enough to do it. I'm taking the opposite stance and saying that we are actually pressured to pick roles we may not naturally want to pick. If we want to pursue roles that are considered more typically feminine we are considered as weak.

Also as far as not appreciating the typical male breadwinner, the message that women can do everything a man can do makes the man seem like an unnecessary and disposable commodity . Young women are not encouraged to find a breadwinner-type husband who may have a more dominant and protective personality because we women should want to be just as strong and able to provide as them. 

Also a lot of the jokes in the media tend to depict the men as the idiots.


----------



## MichelleR

I don't think the idea of the housewife was to keep the mother home where she belonged. That sounds very oppressive as If she was there against her will. Typically throughout history men have taken on the most dangerous, often life-threatening roles where the women stayed safe at home doing different necessary tasks. Both worked hard but it made sense for the woman to stay home. I'm sure a lot of the women appreciated the men taking on those roles for them.

Today since I breastfeeding I have to pump during the workday to freeze my milk and it's such a pain. If I were home that would be a lot easier. Of course it's not a tremendous deal but there are reasons it makes more sense for the wife to be home.


----------



## MichelleR

I should have put this in one post but I keep thinking of more things. I wanted to add that men still do the more dangerous jobs but are not generally recognized or appreciated for it. There is so much hype about the highest paying jobs going to men because women just must be oppressed when in actuality the women may just not gravitate to those roles. If you look at the other end of the spectrum men take on most of the least desirable or dangerous jobs. You don't typically see women climbing to the tops of telephone poles or fixing electrical towers or hauling trash. But society doesn't tend to appreciate the men for doing those things.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

No one should feel pushed towards one or another. I never felt any pressure either way. My Mom was a SAHM but I never felt a strong desire to do that. I have no desire to do a dangerous or male typical job. I work in an office. 

If a woman wants to stay home, that is a perfectly fine choice and goal.
If a woman wants to be a rocket scientist, that is a perfectly fine choice and goal
She should have the legal ability and right to pursue either. 

That is what a feminist is to me. Me and H were actually talking about this the other day. His facebook friends were posting memes about feminists and he was telling me that I'm a feminist but not a "_feminist_" but IMO that's like saying to someone else ya, you're Muslim but not "_Muslim_". As if the default is the extremists and the rest have to separate from that. 

Extremist will always be louder and get more attention, that's just the nature of things. Normal feminists, Muslims, Christians, are boring and not newsworthy, not meme-worthy.


----------



## jld

I think feminism just means respecting women. If you respect women, you are a feminist. 

If men had always respected women, there never would have been a "feminist movement."


----------



## Thundarr

welldusted said:


> We hear constantly about how hard it is for working moms to balance work and family. We hear about how women do "unpaid work" around the house. Well what about working parents (often dads, but sometimes moms too) who support the family? Isn't earning income important?


The last handful of comments have unearthed the real topic WD. It's about SAHM's versus working moms and them feeling judged by the other. It's not really about men at all in my opinion. I agree with a post @ConanHub made; men are appreciated when we work hard, provide and are responsible IRL. It's easy to see when looking at men who don't keep employment versus those who do.

Working moms and SAHMs on the other hand have each other and their own insecurities to deal with though so there's plenty of blogs, articles, reports, etc that promote both. It's a problem of the vocal minority. A room of many women both working and SAH only needs one or judgemental opinions to make everyone draw swords (or pens in this case). And voila, there's a lot of blogs.


----------



## unbelievable

jld said:


> I think feminism just means respecting women. If you respect women, you are a feminist.
> 
> If men had always respected women, there never would have been a "feminist movement."


Like several Liberal ideas, it started off with good intentions but gradually evolved to the extent that the former alleged victims became oppressors. Our public schools and our universities have spent the past 40 years or so demonizing males, especially white males and most especially employed, Christian, white, males. 
It started off with the alleged goal of being treated equal but our laws don't treat the sexes equally, our media doesn't and our institutions of learning sure as hell don't. You can get a degree in women's studies or African American studies and the world will applaud. Imagine meeting a professor of Caucasion Studies or Man Studies.


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> there has been some harsh opinions ... we're "leeches" after all.... Oh the truth is.. I LOVE FREE SPEECH.. bring it on, I'd march in the streets for it and I couldnt be a Mod.. cause I'd be too lenient! .... but yeah.... it would rub anyone the wrong way... it's not just me.... bring another subject that touches someone's door... my posts in response have been very calm in reality...
> 
> You will never hear me speaking down about Mothers who work full time , I don't go there...I feel they have a tremendous amount on their plate..many are AWESOME devoted, better mothers than I am !!....a couple of those are my dearest friends ...one may hire me this summer for a new part time job!
> 
> You will only hear me defending the harsher things said / implied about those who prefer & enjoy a more Traditional lifestyle... because it has meant so much to me.. I prayed to have this opportunity...and true.. other woman may think I am crazy .. I don't know! I simply can't be alone... there are others.. I just raise a small flag here..
> 
> I can't say I have been met with this.. not in real life...that feeling that someone is talking down to me -in learning I don't have a career & stay at home.... The idea of feeling that from another woman though.. it's going to make us shriek away...no one wants to feel inferior... I think today we worship status / success a little too much.. it's a human weakness I guess...
> 
> But yeah... if I got that VIBE from another -if they are pre-judging over a title - more so than the kindness exchanged... or for other lasting qualities...it wouldn't be someone I'd want to even sit down & have tea with... if that makes sense.... We are all more than our titles.. or I sure hope so.


Who ever called you a leech? That's ridiculous, you're not a leech..... you have an arrangement with your hb that makes you both happy.

Nothing else matters.

Even if you were why would you worry about it? You don't have to explain yourself or your decisions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MichelleR

Well no one should feel pushed one way or another but my experience growing up was that the traditional breadwinner husband and housewife couple is frowned upon. The husband is seen as oppressive and the wife is weak. 

Just my experience.


----------



## jld

You are absolutely not a leech, SA. You are a great wife, mother, and home manager. Mr SA could not have been luckier in his choice of wife, and he knows it. 

I would not pay any attention to any post calling you a leech. I am a SAHM, too, and I do not feel like a leech at all.


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> You are absolutely not a leech, SA. You are a great wife, mother, and home manager. Mr SA could not have been luckier in his choice of wife, and he knows it.
> 
> I would not pay any attention to any post calling you a leech. I am a SAHM, too, and I do not feel like a leech at all.


I forgot to add that SA, if I remember correctly, has 6 kids. That's not a leech, that's like 3 jobs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> I forgot to add that SA, if I remember correctly, has 6 kids. That's not a leech, that's like 3 jobs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I totally agree! And she is doing great at each one!


----------



## jld

I have a ton of respect for what you do, SA. You maintain a great marriage, your kids are all happy and healthy, and you are a superb home manager. I am especially impressed by how thrifty you are. I am a real underachiever in comparison. 

Mr SA is very lucky. You have made his life so easy. He does not even have to think about any financial thing--you have it covered.

And you are so generous with your children, helping them so much in every way, even helping pay for college.

I think what I like best about you is how secure you are in yourself. It makes me trust you, and respect you.

I know sometimes we disagree. But we are able to acknowledge those disagreements, and still be friends. We respect each other's right to our own opinions. And it would be boring if we saw everything the same way! 

I liked you even before I joined TAM. I read your posts and knew you were a really nice gal. I wanted to get to know you. I felt so lucky when you pm'd me a few days after I joined TAM. And I feel so lucky to be your friend now!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> Who ever called you a leech? That's ridiculous, you're not a leech..... you have an arrangement with your hb that makes you both happy.
> 
> Nothing else matters.
> 
> Even if you were why would you worry about it? You don't have to explain yourself or your decisions.


No No.. it wasn't TO ME at all... it wasn't personal... everything doesn't have to be personal.. to still feel it's ugliness .... ya know...

It's just the idea , and again.. I didn't save some of these "opinions" ... they were clearly directed at women who depend on their husbands...they appeared blanket statements to those who've never supported themselves. 

Look... I have a couple girlfriends who have never worked outside the home.. both met their husbands very young... .high school sweethearts..... the one.. she is just the kindest lady...her husband such a devoted man, he adores his family.... we've sat & talked about these things in our Mops group, many family things...what works for who.. how .....they have one of the best marriages I personally know... they had a set of twins early on.... a larger family than the norm for today for sure..

She did take care of her Mother during the end of her life...as she had kidney problems & died earlier than should have been... very sad... Just a wonderful family.. very close knit , there for each other (yeah I admire those things)..... just the idea some look upon others like this.. it rubs me in a bad way....without knowing these families...the love & trust between them... 

Now that's just my opinion... I want to stand up for some of these women.. that's all it is..


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> Funny you'd make that comment about "only" being a teacher. My first degree is in music education and I had people say "why do you want to teach, you're so smart". A if somehow only less intelligent people should be teaching.
> 
> I didn't go to physics until later, when my kids were little.
> Nice.
> 
> Nobody can have it all and it's a disservice to even suggest it. Most of the time though, if we do our best, our kids turn out fine.
> 
> This idea that kids need a parent at home to intensely parent is relatively new in human history. Traditionally, as in before the 20th century, running a household was a full time job. True ma kettle was home but she wasn't intensely parenting little johnny, she was running the house. And women also worked outside, maybe in fields more acceptable for women, but they worked.
> 
> Bother of my great grandmothers had college degrees and one ran a fruit stand while the other was a tailor. The idea of the housewife was created as an attempt to keep women home where they belonged as modem conveniences made keeping the home a much easier job.
> 
> What we consider traditional has only really been around for the past hundred years or so.
> We tend to defer to the 1950"s for our definition, but that's not particularly representative of human history.
> 
> I'm sure your kids are turning out great.


I agree with this. SAHM as it is today is not truly traditional. It’s a modern idea.

Women used to work their butts of taking care of the farm, tending the family veggi garden, often times working in the field, sewing the family’s clothing, caning/preserving food, chopping wood, washing clothing at the river or in a tub using a scrub board, handing clothing out to dry and on and on and on.

By the age of 4 children were working a lot of the day too. Boys went off to learn from their father and girls from their mother. 

Work was from dusk to dawn for everyone in the family.

When kids did play, they ran off to the field, forest, etc by themselves. This whole helicopter mom things is just ridiculous. It’s not needed.

Being a house wife only was possible once families moved off the farm and fathers went off to work at places like factories.

And let’s not forget that a fair good percentage of women were left to raise children on their own. They generally had to find a way to support themselves and their children. The lucky ones were able to keep the farm going, get a job as a seamstress or some other kind of poverty level jobs.

Our great and great-great grandmothers did not have time for soap operas and tv after the sun went down… just as our great/great-great grandfathers did not … unless they were wealthy.

Most people today, even those who work and raise children, labor far less than your ancestors did.


----------



## MichelleR

SA you have some really good points. Just in this thread there have been some quotes that imply that being home is not a good thing. For example the comment about the concept of housewives being invented to "keep women in the house where they belong," or the fear of one wife that being home would make her lose her sense of self.

The thing is we are not taught growing up that being home is a fulfilling possibility. I was told as a young girl that I better make sure I have a great career because I must have the financial means to leave my husband in case he's a jerk. Now that may be a valid consideration but I was never encouraged to consider the other possibility and encouraged to set goals of finding a husband who is willing to be a good provider or encouraged to learn what makes men happy to inspire him to be the best provider he can be.

Women are not encouraged to learn homemaking skills of time management or childcare. We are not given the impression that it is possible to be happy and fulfilled at home. The focus is entirely on getting a good career so that the girl will never have to be *gasp* dependent on a man.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> I should have put this in one post but I keep thinking of more things. I wanted to add that men still do the more dangerous jobs but are not generally recognized or appreciated for it. There is so much hype about the highest paying jobs going to men because women just must be oppressed when in actuality the women may just not gravitate to those roles. If you look at the other end of the spectrum men take on most of the least desirable or dangerous jobs. You don't typically see women climbing to the tops of telephone poles or fixing electrical towers or hauling trash. But society doesn't tend to appreciate the men for doing those things.


In the past, one of the most dangerous things a human could do was to be pregnant and give birth. Before modern medicine, 25% of all women died from complications of pregnancy and/or childbirth. The average women had 8 pregnancies. That's a death toll when we look at the population as a whole than any other 'job'.

Today one of the reasons that women have more options is because 25% of us are not going to die from having children. 

There is another way to look at this. Most of the jobs that you listed are not really all that high paid but a decent living. But they are good, solid jobs. Since men are naturally stronger than women, men who are not highly educated have access to decent paying jobs that women do not have access to. 

I completely disagree with you that society does not appreciate what men do. The thing is that society now ALSO appreciates what women do. Appreciating what women do does not diminish what men do.

Why is a male breadwinner more deserving of appreciation/praise than a femal breadwinner? Becaue to me, it sounds like you are saying that male bread winners are a special class who deserve more praise.

.


----------



## MichelleR

I don't think a male breadwinner deserves more praise than a female breadwinner, but I think our male breadwinners are actually currently recognized less for it.

My impression of society today is that boys are told to be respectful to women and all they do ( childbirth, childcare, housework, etc.) and husbands are considered jerks if they don't do half of the housework at home . But it doesn't go the other way anymore. Girls aren't encouraged to be respectful of men's strength and dedication to their jobs and ability to provide. It's just taken for granted. Girls are instead encouraged to believe that the things men have to offer are just not necessary.

But as I said, every time I state my viewpoint I piss some women off. I should probably stop posting here.


----------



## Mr The Other

EleGirl said:


> In the past, one of the most dangerous things a human could do was to be pregnant and give birth. Before modern medicine, 25% of all women died from complications of pregnancy and/or childbirth. The average women had 8 pregnancies. That's a death toll when we look at the population as a whole than any other 'job'.
> 
> Today one of the reasons that women have more options is because 25% of us are not going to die from having children.
> 
> There is another way to look at this. Most of the jobs that you listed are not really all that high paid but a decent living. But they are good, solid jobs. Since men are naturally stronger than women, men who are not highly educated have access to decent paying jobs that women do not have access to.
> 
> I completely disagree with you that society does not appreciate what men do. The thing is that society now ALSO appreciates what women do. Appreciating what women do does not diminish what men do.
> 
> Why is a male breadwinner more deserving of appreciation/praise than a femal breadwinner? Becaue to me, it sounds like you are saying that male bread winners are a special class who deserve more praise.


I generally disagree with most of this thread. However, there is still a tradition of chivalry which dates from the time when women might be seen as agents of emotions and feelings, but their will was less important. Therefore, they would be closeted and cared for. 

The case we had a thread this board considered a man whose wife and told her friend that he was useless and she did not why she put up with him. While he should address it directly with her, my advice was rather to harden up. Had a woman overheard a man saying this, I would expect it to be deeply upsetting. This is an illustration of higher standards for men, but it is a legacy of a more sexist time.

I had a Danish girlfriend, from a country where equality had a greater impact. In England, a group of women were all complaining about how their men are rubbish when they get the slightest cold and need pampering. She commented that I was actually rather stoic and would care for her if we were both ill, which earned her the cold shoulder of the group. Of course, the reality is that most of them were rubbish when they were ill and cared for by the man if they were both ill, but being women they claimed that old sexist right to complain and expect their man to be big about it. It is a legacy of chivalry that men should rise above women's silly complaints. 

All is well, it is no big deal. Unless you are a teenage male, in which case you are judged by as a man and fail and go to the bottom of society. You then go on to be a grown man and expected to indulge women by chivalric standards while not being sexist, which many men will struggle with. This is annoying if you cannot reach the elevated standards. Women have it far worse, as they still are treated with that element of indulgence.

To take the example you give, a woman who is the main bread winner is clearly with a deadbeat man. He might have a good excuse, but in out assumptions, it is like the child who has to care for the parent. A man on the other hand being a breadwinner is no big deal.

Then with house work, and here I give only my impression. I imagine three women, in partnerships where the man cooks, being asked who does the cooking.
- Scandinavian woman: "He cooks"
- US: "He cooks, he enjoys it and i helps him unwind"
- UK: "I cook, I could not trust him in the kitchen"

This is my experience, but where there is a stronger legacy of chivalry, the woman feels the need to make an excuse for why the man cooks or even lie about it. It is a gross generalization, but the UK is the only country where flat out lying on this is common and I often note a qualifier in the US. The issue here is, some me will work and earn more (no big deal) then do half the housework and have feel this obligation to be grateful to her for doing the other half and all pretend that he has got a great bargain. The reason this is necessary is that there is still a legacy that says the woman should be doing all this stuff. For men who are struggling, are not earning huge wages and are just average Joes, they have to play the role of the disappointment and may not see how it messes things up for the woman too.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MichelleR said:


> I don't think a male breadwinner deserves more praise than a female breadwinner, but I think our male breadwinners are actually currently recognized less for it.
> 
> My impression of society today is that boys are told to be respectful to women and all they do ( childbirth, childcare, housework, etc.) and husbands are considered jerks if they don't do half of the housework at home . But it doesn't go the other way anymore. Girls aren't encouraged to be respectful of men's strength and dedication to their jobs and ability to provide. It's just taken for granted. Girls are instead encouraged to believe that the things men have to offer are just not necessary.
> 
> But as I said, every time I state my viewpoint I piss some women off. I should probably stop posting here.


Nobody gives me any praise for bringing in money, and they don't have to. I'm happy to contribute and I own my decisions.

I honestly have never seen this attitude you're talking about.....girls are encouraged to pursue whatever they want. What's wrong with that? 

I have boys and I encourage the same thing, and I try to teach them the skills that will help them be good husbands and fathers.

Girls are encouraged to find good partners, and they should. I was encourages to have options so that I could be free to find a good partner and not be stuck because I was dependent.

I think it's great that my husband has a job and contributes, I just don't see why he deserves more praise. We're doing out jobs as adults and partners.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I know sometimes we disagree. But we are able to acknowledge those disagreements, and still be friends. We respect each other's right to our own opinions. And it would be boring if we saw everything the same way!
> 
> I liked you even before I joined TAM. I read your posts and knew you were a really nice gal. I wanted to get to know you. I felt so lucky when you pm'd me a few days after I joined TAM. And I feel so lucky to be your friend now!


 Well jld.. considering how darn intelligent you REALLY ARE ...I'm also thankful our paths had an opportunity to cross ......one commonality that stands is being these Stay at Home's... you know what.. it keeps me humble (and I know it does you too)..

Had you taken your degree to the limit & beyond as you could have done , you would have met much more prominent people, a very different life...surely a lot more adventure... but also more rushed... it's all a toss up I guess...

It seemed Fate had other plans when Dug walked into your life, with his proposal .... that Traditional male in the truest sense that is Protective & lives to Provide ...he threw you a monkey wrench ....and you took him on...

No matter where you go from here -as you still have time to do GREAT & Wonderful things- with your youngest growing like a weed.....I hope you'll never see it as a waste of your yrs....that's just not a positive thing... 

I do feel all of us.. man or woman... should reach for our dreams.. if they are remotely possible, just be sure -if one wants love.. to pair yourself with someone with the same vision...it's sooooo important...

I have a cousin I grew up with .. 3 yrs younger.. she's a Physicians Assistant ,works in Emergency rooms, fills in for the doctor...she goes to the gym... very proud of her HDL levels... Absolutely none of that is appealing to me other than being married...well the HDL levels would be nice! ...but it's all good.

She's living her dream ..I feel I am too ...even if it's just "ordinary" or common...with that I hang my head just a little lower to speak it.... ..we're not delivering babies, or saving a life hanging by a thread... or doing the work of Engineers for example. 

But it's not about comparing...just to strive ahead for our own brand of happiness & fulfillment ...paths for this will be so different for all of us. Then we have this to contend with ......ha ha


----------



## jld

I love that image, SA! It's the truth!


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> No No.. it wasn't TO ME at all... it wasn't personal... everything doesn't have to be personal.. to still feel it's ugliness .... ya know...
> 
> It's just the idea , and again.. I didn't save some of these "opinions" ... they were clearly directed at women who depend on their husbands...they appeared blanket statements to those who've never supported themselves.
> 
> Look... I have a couple girlfriends who have never worked outside the home.. both met their husbands very young... .high school sweethearts..... the one.. she is just the kindest lady...her husband such a devoted man, he adores his family.... we've sat & talked about these things in our Mops group, many family things...what works for who.. how .....they have one of the best marriages I personally know... they had a set of twins early on.... a larger family than the norm for today for sure..
> 
> She did take care of her Mother during the end of her life...as she had kidney problems & died earlier than should have been... very sad... Just a wonderful family.. very close knit , there for each other (yeah I admire those things)..... just the idea some look upon others like this.. it rubs me in a bad way....without knowing these families...the love & trust between them...
> 
> Now that's just my opinion... I want to stand up for some of these women.. that's all it is..



Well I think that's great and I'm happy for them.

If you're going to get bent out of shape every time someone has a negative opinion you're going to spend a lot of time getting bent out of shape.

The world is full of ugliness unfortunately; how much you let it get to you is up to you.

I happen to think financial dependence is very risky for a lot of reasons.....doesn't mean I look down on those who do it. 

There is a difference. I have several neighbors who stay home who have looked me in the fact and said that if their husbands ever leave they have no idea how they'd manage.....I happen to think that's a very risky position to be in.

But then again I deal with risk for a living to clearly I'm risk averse.


Hopefully that will never happen to you or your friends.

And I also have an ex who used money as leverage to bully me when I was taking care of his kids. Never again.....if you've haven't experienced something like that you have no idea what it's like.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> Well I think that's great and I'm happy for them.
> 
> If you're going to get bent out of shape every time someone has a negative opinion you're going to spend a lot of time getting bent out of shape.
> 
> The world is full of ugliness unfortunately; how much you let it get to you is up to you.
> 
> I happen to think financial dependence is very risky for a lot of reasons.....doesn't mean I look down on those who do it.
> 
> There is a difference. I have several neighbors who stay home who have looked me in the fact and said that if their husbands ever leave they have no idea how they'd manage.....I happen to think that's a very risky position to be in.
> 
> But then again I deal with risk for a living to clearly I'm risk averse.
> 
> 
> Hopefully that will never happen to you or your friends.
> 
> And I also have an ex who used money as leverage to bully me when I was taking care of his kids. Never again.....*if you've haven't experienced something like that you have no idea what it's like.*


Yes, this sounds terrible. I can only imagine how trapped and disrespected a woman in this situation would feel.

Life, you have done amazingly well. My brother told me a long time ago that a degree in physics is the hardest one to do. I have tremendous respect for your intelligence.

You are right that SAHMs are often in a risky position. I am, anyway. And that article that you linked from the NYT last week illustrated that risk.

I did not know I was going to meet Dug. And I cannot imagine a more trustworthy man.

But he could die, and I would have to find full-time work quickly, to avoid paying for health insurance. So there is a definite risk.


----------



## soccermom2three

I've been a WOHM, SAHM and the breadwinner. Now I work about 24 hours a week outside the home. All have pros and cons. I did my best at whichever one I was doing at the time. That is all that matters. One is not better than any of the others.


----------



## Mr The Other

Mr The Other said:


> I generally disagree with most of this thread. However, there is still a tradition of chivalry which dates from the time when women might be seen as agents of emotions and feelings, but their will was less important. Therefore, they would be closeted and cared for.
> 
> The case we had a thread this board considered a man whose wife and told her friend that he was useless and she did not why she put up with him. While he should address it directly with her, my advice was rather to harden up. Had a woman overheard a man saying this, I would expect it to be deeply upsetting. This is an illustration of higher standards for men, but it is a legacy of a more sexist time.
> 
> I had a Danish girlfriend, from a country where equality had a greater impact. In England, a group of women were all complaining about how their men are rubbish when they get the slightest cold and need pampering. She commented that I was actually rather stoic and would care for her if we were both ill, which earned her the cold shoulder of the group. Of course, the reality is that most of them were rubbish when they were ill and cared for by the man if they were both ill, but being women they claimed that old sexist right to complain and expect their man to be big about it. It is a legacy of chivalry that men should rise above women's silly complaints.
> 
> All is well, it is no big deal. Unless you are a teenage male, in which case you are judged by as a man and fail and go to the bottom of society. You then go on to be a grown man and expected to indulge women by chivalric standards while not being sexist, which many men will struggle with. This is annoying if you cannot reach the elevated standards. Women have it far worse, as they still are treated with that element of indulgence.
> 
> To take the example you give, a woman who is the main bread winner is clearly with a deadbeat man. He might have a good excuse, but in out assumptions, it is like the child who has to care for the parent. A man on the other hand being a breadwinner is no big deal.
> 
> Then with house work, and here I give only my impression. I imagine three women, in partnerships where the man cooks, being asked who does the cooking.
> - Scandinavian woman: "He cooks"
> - US: "He cooks, he enjoys it and i helps him unwind"
> - UK: "I cook, I could not trust him in the kitchen"
> 
> This is my experience, but where there is a stronger legacy of chivalry, the woman feels the need to make an excuse for why the man cooks or even lie about it. It is a gross generalization, but the UK is the only country where flat out lying on this is common and I often note a qualifier in the US. The issue here is, some me will work and earn more (no big deal) then do half the housework and have feel this obligation to be grateful to her for doing the other half and all pretend that he has got a great bargain. The reason this is necessary is that there is still a legacy that says the woman should be doing all this stuff. For men who are struggling, are not earning huge wages and are just average Joes, they have to play the role of the disappointment and may not see how it messes things up for the woman too.


Dear Lord, I am verbose.

OK. I generally disagree with this thread. I can see however that there was a sexist paradigm;
"Men, look after your woman as a sweet and delicate flower.
Women, respect your man as provider and protector"

Since then, the second bit has been removed as sexist nonsense until truly seen to be earned (and sometimes not then). However, the second part still lingers. This means men that are not bringing in big bucks or of high status are left as schmucks having to play the part of the protector, but without the respect and not getting the indulgence just for being them either.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

lifeistooshort said:


> Well I think that's great and I'm happy for them.
> 
> If you're going to get bent out of shape every time someone has a negative opinion you're going to spend a lot of time getting bent out of shape.
> 
> The world is full of ugliness unfortunately; how much you let it get to you is up to you.


I think I have seen enough .....more up close & personal before my husband showed up though.



> I happen to think financial dependence is very risky for a lot of reasons.....doesn't mean I look down on those who do it.
> 
> There is a difference. I have several neighbors who stay home who have looked me in the fact and said that if their husbands ever leave they have no idea how they'd manage.....I happen to think that's a very risky position to be in.
> 
> But then again I deal with risk for a living to clearly *I'm risk averse*.


 You wouldn't think this - due to this thread topic.. but myself and Mr SA are highly Risk Adverse.. in just about everything... (Conservative & cautious is like our middle name)... I couldn't sleep at night if we lived paycheck to paycheck .. or anything like this.. I'd be devastated emotionally but financially speaking.. I'd have plenty to get me though....till I needed to pick myself up & do what needs done......we have zero debt.

Like JLD.. health insurance would be the biggest concern ...if something happens to my husband.. I'd never live lavishly but I'm not used to that anyway. 

Myself & husband are both high in J -on those temperament tests.. which stands for Judging.. but it's really about Planning...explained like this...



> J = *Judging Characteristics*
> 
> Plan many of the details in advance before moving into action.
> 
> Focus on task-related action; complete meaningful segments before moving on.
> 
> Work best and avoid stress when able to keep ahead of deadlines.
> 
> Naturally use targets, dates and standard routines to manage life.
> 
> A Judging (J) style approaches the outside world WITH A PLAN and is oriented towards organizing one's surroundings, being prepared, making decisions and reaching closure and completion.



I NEED a "back up plan"... IN case this happens.. or that happens...you have to be prepared.. our children get a little annoyed with us... we can get carried away expressing the worst possible case scenarios.. to the point... they are telling us "STOP ..Ok Dad ...just Stop".. We do try to make it amusing in it's own way.... 

Then add being pessimistic on top of this (not overly but realistically for sure).....you kinda go through life expecting sh** to happen ..then being pleasantly surprised when it doesn't..... ..I never seen this as ALL bad.... as it helps me brainstorm -again.. having a plan... so I / we won't be left destitute.... though some things will cause the world to crash... like getting ALS or Huntingtons disease for example. 

I was looking up quotes the other day...laughed when I came to this....we'd be the parachute makers.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr The Other said:


> Dear Lord, I am verbose.
> 
> OK. I generally disagree with this thread. I can see however that there was a sexist paradigm;
> "Men, look after your woman as a sweet and delicate flower.
> Women, respect your man as provider and protector"
> 
> Since then, the second bit has been removed as sexist nonsense until truly seen to be earned (and sometimes not then). However, the second part still lingers. This means men that are not bringing in big bucks or of high status are left as schmucks having to play the part of the protector, but without the respect and not getting the indulgence just for being them either.


In a good marriage, both spouses respect each other for who they are and what they bring to the marriage.

If there is no respect from one or both spouses, then the marriage is broken and either fix it, leave or choose to accept the disrespect. 

Neither men nor women are more inclined to disrespect the other gender. Some people know how to respect others, some don't.

I see a lot of men who do not bring in with big bucks married to women who adore them and respect them. I see the reverse too.

I'm not sure where all of this attitude that somehow men, and men alone, are sooooo disrespected in society. I think that most of us spend most of our time and energy concerned about how those we intereact directly with treat us and how we treat them. To try to pin an attitude on all of society is fruitless since society has no attitude. It is only a concept.


----------



## unbelievable

EleGirl said:


> In the past, one of the most dangerous things a human could do was to be pregnant and give birth. Before modern medicine, 25% of all women died from complications of pregnancy and/or childbirth. The average women had 8 pregnancies. That's a death toll when we look at the population as a whole than any other 'job'.
> 
> Today one of the reasons that women have more options is because 25% of us are not going to die from having children.
> 
> There is another way to look at this. Most of the jobs that you listed are not really all that high paid but a decent living. But they are good, solid jobs. Since men are naturally stronger than women, men who are not highly educated have access to decent paying jobs that women do not have access to.
> 
> I completely disagree with you that society does not appreciate what men do. The thing is that society now ALSO appreciates what women do. Appreciating what women do does not diminish what men do.
> 
> Why is a male breadwinner more deserving of appreciation/praise than a femal breadwinner? Becaue to me, it sounds like you are saying that male bread winners are a special class who deserve more praise.
> 
> .


Liberal society not only does not appreciate working males, they go out of their way to actively demonize them. This is not the way Liberal society views female heads of household...at all. 

Sherrod Brown: 'Generally white males' to blame for terrorist attacks in U.S. - Washington Times

The Election and the Death of White Male Power -- The Cut

Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States

Remember the Professor Who Said ?White Males? Are ?the Problem?? Take a Look at What She Was Doing Online in 2007 | TheBlaze.com


This is what white males typically get in this country.


----------



## unbelievable

Twenty Four Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men


----------



## Mr The Other

EleGirl said:


> In a good marriage, both spouses respect each other for who they are and what they bring to the marriage.
> 
> If there is no respect from one or both spouses, then the marriage is broken and either fix it, leave or choose to accept the disrespect.
> 
> Neither men nor women are more inclined to disrespect the other gender. Some people know how to respect others, some don't.
> 
> I see a lot of men who do not bring in with big bucks married to women who adore them and respect them. I see the reverse too.
> 
> *I'm not sure where all of this attitude that somehow men, and men alone, are sooooo disrespected in society.* I think that most of us spend most of our time and energy concerned about how those we intereact directly with treat us and how we treat them. To try to pin an attitude on all of society is fruitless since society has no attitude. It is only a concept.


I will be blunt. I do not agree with the sentiment of this thread either, but when you complain that you do not see where it came from, I point out you dismissed my discussion of exactly that. And clearly it was a generalization, but it was a an explanation of how some men would come to see things like that. I do not agree with it, but if you actually want to understand, you can try.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> Liberal society not only does not appreciate working males, they go out of their way to actively demonize them. This is not the way Liberal society views female heads of household...at all.
> 
> Sherrod Brown: 'Generally white males' to blame for terrorist attacks in U.S. - Washington Times
> 
> The Election and the Death of White Male Power -- The Cut
> 
> Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
> 
> Remember the Professor Who Said ?White Males? Are ?the Problem?? Take a Look at What She Was Doing Online in 2007 | TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> This is what white males typically get in this country.


If you want to find something to be outraged about, just google it. No matter how outrageous it is, you will find a blog or forum somewhere with people ranting to support your outrage.

For every outrageous thing like the above that you find speaking negatively about men, I can find at least as many, if not more ranting about how all the problems today are caused by women. The same goes for any topic, rants about white men? We can find tons of rants about how non-white men are the problem. 

Nut cases abound. But they speak only for themselves.


----------



## unbelievable

I don't have to google anything to know which end is up. I've been working domestic assault cases for 30 years and most of the ones reported are initiated by women. The laws, the training, and the public service announcements, and the DV support resources would have you believe men are the primary problem. My ex had to pay child support and never paid a dime but if one talks about people who don't pay child support they speak of "Deadbeat Dads". Well over half of rape cases I've received have turned out to be a lying victim. Same thing goes for sexual harassment complaints but every college in the country and our armed services are continuously talking about sexual violence and harassment against women. Never attended a class about lying to the police. Never saw or heard of a men's shelter for victims of domestic violence. I can turn on the TV to almost any channel and the male figures in relationships with women are idiots in need of guidance and control by a female. 

Our entire system of means tested welfare programs is based on the lie that a government check is a fine substitute for a husband and a father. I have had to actually make fathers leave their families in government assisted housing because they aren't eligible for housing if he is there. Only single women with kids could get in. I have a number of places to take female victims of domestic abuse but other than the homeless shelter there is no place for me to take a male victim of the same offense. If he has to leave the house for his safety, he's on his own. I've sat in court and watched the different sentences men and women receive for the exact same conduct. Never saw a man get a pass on a criminal charge because he was a father but I've seen the courts hand out ridiculously light punishments so some unrepentant woman could remain in the home with her kids. 

Ever see a college course on Male Studies or Caucasian Studies? If anyone suggested the first they'd be considered a Neanderthal and the second, they'd be outfitted for a white hood.


----------



## RandomDude

SimplyAmorous said:


> I was looking up quotes the other day...laughed when I came to this....we'd be the parachute makers.


Lol! Nice

Going to use that line the next time I get called a pessimist - I'm just a realist!


----------



## unbelievable

Women are the majority of college graduates from Associates degrees all the way through Doctorate. They vote in higher percentages than men. They control at least 70% of consumer spending. At some point they passed "equal" and have quite clearly assumed positions of advantage yet there remain activists and organizations that exist to protect them.


----------



## always_alone

unbelievable said:


> Ever see a college course on Male Studies or Caucasian Studies? If anyone suggested the first they'd be considered a Neanderthal and the second, they'd be outfitted for a white hood.


Male Studies Foundation for Male Studies - University - Gender Studies
American Men's Studies Association
Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities
Akamai University - Home
HWS Men's Studies Department

Even textbooks:
Masculinity - Sociology - Oxford Bibliographies
Masculinities in Contemporary American Culture: Confronting Complexities and Challenges of Male Identity (Paperback) - Taylor & Francis


----------



## NextTimeAround

VirgenTecate said:


> Conditioning to be expected to deal with such problems from a young age. Filling occupations with more domestic chores.
> 
> *Which is a reason why women do more housework. Not because men hate women, but because women are conditioned and are more efficient then men at doing it and tend to take over because of the less efficient performance of men. Men also are conditioned to not see it as their task and may unconsciously defer those tasks towards women.*
> 
> While men are conditioned from a young age to occupationally engage in taking care of the car, talking about the car and such other things.
> 
> So we can also say that men are societally disadvantaged to taking care of domestic chores.


And sometimes women have only themselves to blame collectively.....

A lot of parents, both mother and father, will still press household chores on their daughters and not so much on their sons even though they may have the same amount of homework each night.


----------



## always_alone

unbelievable said:


> Never saw or heard of a men's shelter for victims of domestic violence.


Where do you live? Here are some lists of resources. Hope they help!

AARDVARC.org
MenWeb Battered Men: National Resources


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Our great and great-great grandmothers did not have time for soap operas and tv after the sun went down… just as our great/great-great grandfathers did not … unless they were wealthy.
> 
> Most people today, even those who work and raise children, labor far less than your ancestors did.


Hmm, I'm pretty sure your great grandmother, no matter how wealthy, didn't have TV at all when raising her family...


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> I don't think a male breadwinner deserves more praise than a female breadwinner, but I think our male breadwinners are actually currently recognized less for it.
> 
> My impression of society today is that boys are told to be respectful to women and all they do ( childbirth, childcare, housework, etc.) and husbands are considered jerks if they don't do half of the housework at home . But it doesn't go the other way anymore. Girls aren't encouraged to be respectful of men's strength and dedication to their jobs and ability to provide. It's just taken for granted. Girls are instead encouraged to believe that the things men have to offer are just not necessary.
> 
> But as I said, every time I state my viewpoint I piss some women off. I should probably stop posting here.


Please don't stop posting. So what if you piss some women off? Are they the "opinion police"?

Personally, I'm very happy to see a woman pointing out misogyny in today's society!


----------



## jld

I do more housework both because I have more time and because I am pickier about how things are done.

That said, neither of us is overly concerned about having an immaculate house.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr The Other

NextTimeAround said:


> And sometimes women have only themselves to blame collectively.....
> 
> A lot of parents, both mother and father, will still press household chores on their daughters and not so much on their sons even though they may have the same amount of homework each night.


I think some men and women are both concerned with being required and needed. Therefore, they will try to take on tasks to make themselves essential. It is the same tendency that means one partner will dwell on how useless the other is at some stuff, even when reality disagrees.


----------



## MichelleR

Technovelist, thank you. I think most people look at me like I have three eyes if I so much as hint at some of the things I've observed. 

Thing is my husband was the first person to point out some of his observations about how the pendulum has swung the other way to me when we were dating. So I researched it myself and also thought about my own upbringing and my own family and had to agree with a lot of it.

For example, in my family just about every wife "wears the pants" and the husband pretty much does whatever she wants. I have a more naturally submissive personality and it was considered a flaw growing up. I can't help if I am naturally more nurturing and like to serve and be cared for. 

Recently my mom called me a "doormat" because I was telling her how hard it is to maintain the housework with three kids and a job. I wanted to take a nap every day of my winter break (I'm a teacher) but knew that I wouldn't have enough time because my house was TRASHED. Now my mom told me to make my husband do it instead and sleep as much as I wanted on my days off but I didn't think it would be fair because my husband has no spare time these days either. Long story short my husband works a LOT and does so much for our family but instead of bring appreciated for it he's viewed as having his priorities wrong and I'm viewed as a doormat.


Some of you may say, "why do you care what people think?" But then I could also say, "well what are all the modern feminists still fighting for?" Are women really disrespected by men anymore? I don't think so when I look at most marriages today, but I do see a lot of marriages where the wife expects the husband to work hard and be a good provider, do half of all the housework and childcare, be emotionally supportive, and she STILL only give him the bare minimum of his sexual needs. A lot of young married women I know have rules for their husbands beyond normal expectations for a healthy marriage but I don't see it the other way around. I know one newlywed who is determined to train her husband this year to "set the tone" of her marriage and he was recently in the hospital for panick attacks.

You may say these are isolated events. Of course you can always find the opposite extremes but I've noticed more and more people acting this way. 

If you want to consider more widespread trends,I already mentioned in previous posts how feminists are outraged by the so-called wage gap but they are viewing it through a narrow lense. If you factor a lot of important variables the gap pretty- much disappears, and yes some of the other people here mentioned things like college graduate rates and other measures of success.


----------



## VirgenTecate

MichelleR, I agree with you. The pendulum has swung too far in some directions.

But I still think feminism is valid.

I actually think men's rights and women's rights should work together under gender rights. After all, its all under the banner of human rights. I don't think either side should dismantle like how each side says the other should. 

Women's rights in American and in many countries need to be talked about still and are still more of a concern in other countries. 

Men's rights in American and in many other countries still need to be talked about.

My fiance is Mexican. His grandparents set him up to have sex with a prostitute when was 13 years old to make him a man. This is a serious issue which men's rights should be fighting to end. The idea that boys should be pushed to have sex before they even go through puberty. Homosexual men in Mexico are still more prone to being killed and loosing job opportunities. This is what Men's rights should be focusing on.

Women's rights should be focusing on the many girls who are sold into prostitution as children, who are burnt for not marrying the man 15 years her senior before she goes through puberty.

Mens and womens rights in America have fallen upon such petty issues they are beginning to look obsolete when they have so much work they could do.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> Women are the majority of college graduates from Associates degrees all the way through Doctorate. They vote in higher percentages than men.


I've read some interesting articles on this topic.

Apparently males and females start college at about the same ratio, but the males are more likely to drop out because they can find well paid jobs without a college degree. The females stay in college because they need a college degree to find a well paid job. 



unbelievable said:


> They control at least 70% of consumer spending.


What 'controlling' 70% of consumer spending means is that women do most of the shopping for most family. Most men are just fine with letting their wives buy all the groceries, take the kids cloths shopping, etc. 



unbelievable said:


> At some point they passed "equal" and have quite clearly assumed positions of advantage yet there remain activists and organizations that exist to protect them.


Yet as a whole women are paid less than men for the same work.


----------



## VirgenTecate

I think this thread is going to become "Men have it better" "Women have it better"

It is somewhere inbetween.

In some fields, women have it better and in others men have it better.

Let us lift each other up instead of tear each other down. 

We may disagree with how to do it but let us do so with respect. We are interdependent.


----------



## MichelleR

In other countries people are treated horrifically and of course people should be standing up for them. Women in other countries seem indeed quite oppressed from my limited viewpoint. However I'm more concerned about issues that surround me here in the U.S. 

Schools today are more "girl-friendly" in general if you look at dropout rates, remediation rates, special education rates, and suspension rates. The father in the household is becoming more and more rare as single motherhood is rising. Wives are not expected to meet husbands' needs the same way husbands are expected to meet wives' needs. Women file for divorce more often than men whereas in the past women tried to hold the family together more. 

Now I am not a very traditional or religious person at all and I don't want to regress to a time when wives put up with abusive alcoholic husbands but I do think there are issues worth considering when we look at how the dynamics have changed and we think of the well-being of our future children and how we want to raise our current children.


----------



## VirgenTecate

MichelleR said:


> In other countries people are treated horrifically and of course people should be standing up for them. Women in other countries seem indeed quite oppressed from my limited viewpoint. However I'm more concerned about issues that surround me here in the U.S.
> 
> Schools today are more "girl-friendly" in general if you look at dropout rates, remediation rates, special education rates, and suspension rates. The father in the household is becoming more and more rare as single motherhood is rising. Wives are not expected to meet husbands' needs the same way husbands are expected to meet wives' needs. Women file for divorce more often than men whereas in the past women tried to hold the family together more.
> 
> Now I am not a very traditional or religious person at all and I don't want to regress to a time when wives put up with abusive alcoholic husbands but I do think there are issues worth considering when we look at how the dynamics have changed and we think of the well-being of our future children and how we want to raise our current children.


You bring up excellent points. I don't think any of these issues can be solved with "Men's Rights know all the answers to this" or "Feminism knows all the answers to this"

I think collaborating. We see that so many relationships break down on here because of communication issues which make the relationship lopsided. 

I think men and women have to work together to make this society in America more fair. Not trying to prove who has it worse or who has it better. While bringing up that you have it worse may be true, it doesn't lead to collaboration and solutions.

You can see that bringing up men's issues by pointing out that we have it worse has made a lot of women defensive because it points to a system of thought "You took this from me, so I get to take this from you" Vice versa when women bring up issues and men get defensive. 

However, when a lot of these men issues get raised up in a collaborative inviting way, you will see that more people, men and women, will agree.

Since we are on the internet, you will have the extremists who will always rile and will never listen. Do not let those people control the tone of the argument.


----------



## MichelleR

VirginTecate you bring up very good points as well. I am not trying to point fingers and say "blame the feminists!" as of course they have done wonderful things for society. 

Nonetheless we cannot collaborate and work to improve society if we are unwilling to recognize the issues in the first place. That's what I mean when I say people are so afraid of offending the feminists. People aren't standing up for the boys and men because they don't want to sound politically incorrect.


----------



## VirgenTecate

MichelleR said:


> VirginTecate you bring up very good points as well. I am not trying to point fingers and say "blame the feminists!" as of course they have done wonderful things for society.
> 
> Nonetheless we cannot collaborate and work to improve society if we are unwilling to recognize the issues in the first place. That's what I mean when I say people are so afraid of offending the feminists. People aren't standing up for the boys and men because they don't want to sound politically incorrect.


I agree too. 

I see this as a husband and wife who have had such antagonistic, tearing down communication for so long that they are afraid to extend the olive branch. Both sides are so convinced that the other side is the hate-filled one that they don't see the hate in themselves. 

In my opinion, both sides need to ice down and extend the olive branch before the ability to trust and collaborate can happen. This means not allowing those filled with hate to control the debate. This means cooling down and actually listening to the concerns of both sides. This means seeing commonalities. This means being aware of our tone. 

I think it will take leadership on both sides to understand that they are not making headway due to tone and walling up. It will take leadership to kick out those who only want to make the other side upset. It will take leadership to be honest and say that we have gone too far in our viewpoint. 

Because there are real people hurting over real issues. 

Let's do something to change that.


----------



## VirgenTecate

I want to add...where I live I hear a lot more against women's rights and a lot of people appraising men's rights. I have lived in areas where men's voices were tampered for women's rights.

It does happen. But it happens on both sides. In some places it is tilted to one side more than other. 

I don't like to see it on either side.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MichelleR said:


> Technovelist, thank you. I think most people look at me like I have three eyes if I so much as hint at some of the things I've observed.
> 
> Thing is my husband was the first person to point out some of his observations about how the pendulum has swung the other way to me when we were dating. So I researched it myself and also thought about my own upbringing and my own family and had to agree with a lot of it.
> 
> For example, in my family just about every wife "wears the pants" and the husband pretty much does whatever she wants. I have a more naturally submissive personality and it was considered a flaw growing up. I can't help if I am naturally more nurturing and like to serve and be cared for.
> 
> Recently my mom called me a "doormat" because I was telling her how hard it is to maintain the housework with three kids and a job. I wanted to take a nap every day of my winter break (I'm a teacher) but knew that I wouldn't have enough time because my house was TRASHED. Now my mom told me to make my husband do it instead and sleep as much as I wanted on my days off but I didn't think it would be fair because my husband has no spare time these days either. Long story short my husband works a LOT and does so much for our family but instead of bring appreciated for it he's viewed as having his priorities wrong and I'm viewed as a doormat.
> 
> 
> Some of you may say, "why do you care what people think?" But then I could also say, "well what are all the modern feminists still fighting for?" Are women really disrespected by men anymore? I don't think so when I look at most marriages today, but I do see a lot of marriages where the wife expects the husband to work hard and be a good provider, do half of all the housework and childcare, be emotionally supportive, and she STILL only give him the bare minimum of his sexual needs. A lot of young married women I know have rules for their husbands beyond normal expectations for a healthy marriage but I don't see it the other way around. I know one newlywed who is determined to train her husband this year to "set the tone" of her marriage and he was recently in the hospital for panick attacks.
> 
> You may say these are isolated events. Of course you can always find the opposite extremes but I've noticed more and more people acting this way.
> 
> If you want to consider more widespread trends,I already mentioned in previous posts how feminists are outraged by the so-called wage gap but they are viewing it through a narrow lense. If you factor a lot of important variables the gap pretty- much disappears, and yes some of the other people here mentioned things like college graduate rates and other measures of success.



I have no idea why that would be viewed as a doormat. You're off of work and he's not so of course you're picking up slack.....that's called being a partner.

Why should he come home to chores if you're off of work just so you can sleep? Unless you're sick of course.....

What's not being a partner is if you're both working full time and you're still shouldering all of the housework and kid responsibilities.....but even that is your decision if that's what you want to do.

As far as partners, my hb is off tomorrow for the holiday and I'm not, so guess who will be cooking dinner? Him. Does he need to thank me for going to work? Of course not. I took Wednesday off to handle some doctor appts and I will be taking care of dinner as I'll be home (which I do most of the time anyway). Do I need to thank him for taking his butt to work? Why should he sit on the couch and wait for me to come home before he asks what's for dinner? FYI, I have a friend whose husband did just that; she worked more hours than him and he'd sit on the couch with his feet up waiting for her to come home and then demand dinner. They're now divorced; why should she put up with that just because he had a job? She did too.

The whole point of finding a good partner is just that.....finding a partner. Whatever that means to you just make sure you find a partner that views things like you do.

I still don't know what you're talking about regarding men not being appreciated in general; preaching to women to not have to depend on a man only elevates her to the same status as guys have. No men are raised to be dependent on women, so if he decides he's not getting the sex he wants he's free to leave because he can support himself. That's all we ask for with women.....that they have the means to manage if they need to. 

What on earth does that have to do with not appreciating men? Do I need my hb? Well that depends on what you mean by "need"; if you mean do I absolutely need him to have a roof over my and my kids' heads then the answer is no. If you mean that my life is greatly enriched by having him in it and his contributions would be sorely missed if I didn't have them the yes I need him.

That is what's meant by "not needing a man". 

As far as school goes, I used to teach and I also have 2 sons who do very well in school. School is somewhat geared toward girls in that it's much harder for the boys, especially when they're younger, to sit still, but that's not a function of catering to girls. That's a broader issue with our failing education system and our refusal to address the real politically incorrect issues at the root of the issues (which as a teacher you're well aware of). We attempt to shove more and more down their throats at a younger age. Yet somehow boys still manage to do pretty well. In the math classes I taught my girls didn't do any better then my boys did.

I'm 41 and when I was i high school I took 2 years of calculus and AP physics. There were far more boys then girls in my classes and it never occurred to me that this was a problem or that I was in any way special; I did my work and never felt treated differently or favored. If I flunked I flunked, if I needed help I asked and got it, if I did well it was because I understood the material, but nobody ever made accommodations for me as a girl. Many of the boys did well too.

When I was studying physics in college nobody made accommodation for me as a woman; I had to do everything the guys did and there were more of them. How is that if women are in fact controlling everything? And the guys there did well for the most part too.

As for the wage gap, it does exist but is also influenced by the fields women choose. I don't know what the guys in my dept make by I do know that my salary is better than average for my seniority, my educational level, and my area.

I remember my father once trying to tell me that men were discriminated against because women had taken the jobs and now men couldn't support their families. Except that he was referring to the traditional blue collar jobs that men could get with a high school education or less (he was a butcher). I pointed out that the jobs he was talking about were all outsourced, not taken by women. No guy is out of a job because the women have taken all the jobs; as many like to point out women gravitate towards fields that pay less, thus the conclusion we can draw is that men don't really want those jobs. You know that in elementary education men are actually favored because there's far fewer of them and it's a good thing for kids, especially boys, to have male authority figures in their life. No male doctor/accountant/plumber/roofer/electrician/whatever can't get a job because women have all the jobs, but men can't get manufacturing jobs in the US because they've been outsourced to men in other countries who work for less. No butcher is out of work because women took all the jobs; they're out of work because people don't want to pay for the expertise anymore so they hire unskilled men to do it. That was one of the few arguments he and I had where he openly admitted defeat.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> Technovelist, thank you. I think most people look at me like I have three eyes if I so much as hint at some of the things I've observed.
> 
> Thing is my husband was the first person to point out some of his observations about how the pendulum has swung the other way to me when we were dating. So I researched it myself and also thought about my own upbringing and my own family and had to agree with a lot of it.
> 
> For example, in my family just about every wife "wears the pants" and the husband pretty much does whatever she wants. I have a more naturally submissive personality and it was considered a flaw growing up. I can't help if I am naturally more nurturing and like to serve and be cared for.
> 
> Recently my mom called me a "doormat" because I was telling her how hard it is to maintain the housework with three kids and a job. I wanted to take a nap every day of my winter break (I'm a teacher) but knew that I wouldn't have enough time because my house was TRASHED. Now my mom told me to make my husband do it instead and sleep as much as I wanted on my days off but I didn't think it would be fair because my husband has no spare time these days either. Long story short my husband works a LOT and does so much for our family but instead of bring appreciated for it he's viewed as having his priorities wrong and I'm viewed as a doormat.
> 
> 
> Some of you may say, "why do you care what people think?" But then I could also say, "well what are all the modern feminists still fighting for?" Are women really disrespected by men anymore? I don't think so when I look at most marriages today, but I do see a lot of marriages where the wife expects the husband to work hard and be a good provider, do half of all the housework and childcare, be emotionally supportive, and she STILL only give him the bare minimum of his sexual needs. A lot of young married women I know have rules for their husbands beyond normal expectations for a healthy marriage but I don't see it the other way around. I know one newlywed who is determined to train her husband this year to "set the tone" of her marriage and he was recently in the hospital for panick attacks.
> 
> You may say these are isolated events. Of course you can always find the opposite extremes but I've noticed more and more people acting this way.
> 
> If you want to consider more widespread trends,I already mentioned in previous posts how feminists are outraged by the so-called wage gap but they are viewing it through a narrow lense. If you factor a lot of important variables the gap pretty- much disappears, and yes some of the other people here mentioned things like college graduate rates and other measures of success.


You're very welcome.

As for what you mentioned here, if I were dictator and could change the laws as I wished, here's what I would do:

1. Regarding marriage and divorce, I would change the law so that people could make their own agreements as to their rights and duties when they got married and what would happen if they got divorced, as well as the division of labor and/or money in the case of child rearing. There would be standardized agreements but people could modify them as they wished.

2. I would make child support payments related to the actual cost of raising a child, and require the custodial parent to account for the spending, with the same penalties for failure to account as for failure to pay by the non-custodial parent.

3. Any laws that favor men over women would be annulled, as would any laws that favor women over men. In addition, if someone is convicted of an offense, a separate jury that did not know the sex of the offender would decide the penalty. I would eliminate conscription because I don't believe in it, but if it is considered necessary, then it would apply equally to men and women.

I'm sure there's more, but that's how I would start on remedying the unfairness of the current system.


----------



## jld

My husband was just saying that he has a lot of freedom in his career because I am at home. He can travel whenever he wants, take off for several weeks if needed, and I will take care of the home front.

I think I have freedom, though, too. I have his financial support and calendar freedom because we homeschool. I can decide my own schedule. 

Basically, we are interdependent. It would not be helpful for either of us to hurt the other in any way. We need to be as honest as possible, and seek wisdom in our decisions. That can only benefit our family and each other.


----------



## ConanHub

I honestly think that men who don't give much of a damn about what is recognized or not by society, women too, tend to be stronger and healthier overall.

I am unapologetically male and raised two boys to manhood.

My wife, sons and extended family look up to and appreciate me with few exceptions.

I don't spare any time for those that get angry or dismissive of me. They haven't done better in their own lives so why should I pay attention to begin with?

BTW, I do most of the cooking these days. After our nest became empty, I started and discovered a talent.

I clean far less than Mrs. Conan and earn far more.

To each their own.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

ConanHub said:


> I honestly think that men who don't give much of a damn about what is recognized or not by society, women too, tend to be stronger and healthier overall.
> 
> I am unapologetically male and raised two boys to manhood.
> 
> My wife, sons and extended family look up to and appreciate me with few exceptions.
> 
> I don't spare any time for those that get angry or dismissive of me. They haven't done better in their own lives so why should I pay attention to begin with?
> 
> BTW, I do most of the cooking these days. After our nest became empty, I started and discovered a talent.
> 
> I clean far less than Mrs. Conan and earn far more.
> 
> To each their own.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've never been able to understand why cooking was seen as a woman's job but so many of the world's professional chefs were men.

Probably part of the keep women home thing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

MichelleR said:


> VirginTecate you bring up very good points as well. I am not trying to point fingers and say "blame the feminists!" as of course they have done wonderful things for society.
> 
> Nonetheless we cannot collaborate and work to improve society if we are unwilling to recognize the issues in the first place. That's what I mean when I say people are so afraid of offending the feminists. People aren't standing up for the boys and men because they don't want to sound politically incorrect.


What you say does not offend me as a modern Feminist, it is your opinion but very naïve. The issue you have raised are your experiences only, not fact.
In Aussie for eg the most common post divorce parenting set up is shared care / co parenting which means that children are not being raised mostly by single mums.

As for "are Women still disrespected by Men?" Of course they are. Aussie is one of the best places for Women to live but even here misogyny is rife. Just recently the Victoria Police had a report commissioned against them due to the over whelming sexual discrimination and abuse against women members by male Officers. This is just one of many examples of gender inequality and misogyny within employment and general life here.

Schools are not biased towards females here, I have children of both genders, many friends with children still in the education system and friends that are teachers. 

Your experience is correct for your life but there is still a long way to go before we have true equality.


----------



## soccermom2three

lifeistooshort said:


> I've never been able to understand why cooking was seen as a woman's job but so many of the world's professional chefs were men.
> 
> Probably part of the keep women home thing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Firefighters also grocery shop and cook all their meals.


----------



## lifeistooshort

soccermom2three said:


> Firefighters also grocery shop and cook all their meals.


And they're hot 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MichelleR

I guess I find it strange that I'm the only woman I know who sees this the way I do. Young girls are preached growing up that we don't need men and we don't see that it can be viewed as insulting to both the male and the girl who actually might want to be a housewife. Rather it just elevates us to the same status as boys. However boys are preached that they better be respectful to girls, never hit girls, etc. No one says to them, "you don't need women." My guess is that it would be seen as disrespectful and just doesn't make sense as yes, men do need women if they want to have kids, or at least have custody of those kids in most cases.

My experiences may not be the same as others but I have a hard time believing I'm the only one having them. Since just about every woman I've voiced this to seems to disagree with me, it just makes me feel a bit confused. Are they truly experiencing things so very differently from me? I'm not really looking for a response here. I'm just saying how the whole debate makes me feel a bit unsettled.

Btw i high school I was in all honors and AP classes and the girls outnumbered the boys in all the classes except the math and physics. Again it's just my experience, but I notice that a lot of my views tend to be dismissed as invalid or petty or just not worth arguing about.


----------



## Mr The Other

Holland said:


> What you say does not offend me as a modern Feminist, it is your opinion but very naïve. The issue you have raised are your experiences only, not fact.
> In Aussie for eg the most common post divorce parenting set up is shared care / co parenting which means that children are not being raised mostly by single mums.
> 
> As for "are Women still disrespected by Men?" Of course they are. Aussie is one of the best places for Women to live but even here misogyny is rife. Just recently the Victoria Police had a report commissioned against them due to the over whelming sexual discrimination and abuse against women members by male Officers. This is just one of many examples of gender inequality and misogyny within employment and general life here.
> 
> Schools are not biased towards females here, I have children of both genders, many friends with children still in the education system and friends that are teachers.
> 
> Your experience is correct for your life but there is still a long way to go before we have true equality.


My global standards, I can see Australia is a good place, but as a Pom, I would consider it the opposite.


----------



## jld

MichelleR said:


> I guess I find it strange that I'm the only woman I know who sees this the way I do. Young girls are preached growing up that we don't need men and we don't see that it can be viewed as insulting to both the male and the girl who actually might want to be a housewife. Rather it just elevates us to the same status as boys. However boys are preached that they better be respectful to girls, never hit girls, etc. No one says to them, "you don't need women." My guess is that it would be seen as disrespectful and just doesn't make sense as yes, men do need women if they want to have kids, or at least have custody of those kids in most cases.
> 
> My experiences may not be the same as others but I have a hard time believing I'm the only one having them. Since just about every woman I've voiced this to seems to disagree with me, it just makes me feel a bit confused. Are they truly experiencing things so very differently from me? I'm not really looking for a response here. I'm just saying how the whole debate makes me feel a bit unsettled.
> 
> Btw i high school I was in all honors and AP classes and the girls outnumbered the boys in all the classes except the math and physics. Again it's just my experience, but I notice that a lot of my views tend to be dismissed as invalid or petty or just not worth arguing about.


Michelle, my mother was clear with me that I better choose something I liked in college because I would be working all my life. 

And then, not 5 mos. after I graduated, my then-housemate told me he loved me. And a few days later told me he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. Sea change in life plans.

My housemate-turned-husband is a feminist, too, at least as I see him. He is the first to help with dishes or getting kids ready for bed or whatever needs doing. He really wanted the kids. I am never told something is "my job." I think, to him, they are all family jobs.

And I have always been supportive of his career. It is what sustains us, and I want him to enjoy it.

We are a team, two interdependent people. We have a better quality of life working together than working alone. 

Is this what you are looking for?


----------



## soccermom2three

MichelleR said:


> I guess I find it strange that I'm the only woman I know who sees this the way I do. Young girls are preached growing up that we don't need men and we don't see that it can be viewed as insulting to both the male and the girl who actually might want to be a housewife. Rather it just elevates us to the same status as boys. However boys are preached that they better be respectful to girls, never hit girls, etc. No one says to them, "you don't need women." My guess is that it would be seen as disrespectful and just doesn't make sense as yes, men do need women if they want to have kids, or at least have custody of those kids in most cases.


Who is telling women that they don't need men? My daughter is in college and she hasn't heard any such thing.


----------



## EleGirl

Are men taught that they need women?


----------



## Holland

Mr The Other said:


> My global standards, I can see Australia is a good place, but as a Pom, I would consider it the opposite.


Not quite sure what you are referring to. Melbourne is consistently voted Worlds Most Liveable City or in the top few, life is very good here.
Where in Aussie have you lived? Some parts I would not live in but that is no different to any other Country,

If you are referring to misogyny and not lifestyle then there is nowhere on Earth that is free of it not even the UK.


----------



## unbelievable

EleGirl said:


> Are men taught that they need women?


Do they have to be? A male penguin doesn't attend classes on needing a female penguin. The world functions pretty well if allowed to.


----------



## Holland

MichelleR said:


> I guess I find it strange that I'm the only woman I know who sees this the way I do. *Young girls are preached growing up that we don't need men *and we don't see that it can be viewed as insulting to both the male and the girl who actually might want to be a housewife. Rather it just elevates us to the same status as boys. However boys are preached that they better be respectful to girls, never hit girls, etc. No one says to them, "you don't need women." My guess is that it would be seen as disrespectful and just doesn't make sense as yes, men do need women if they want to have kids, or at least have custody of those kids in most cases.
> 
> My experiences may not be the same as others but I have a hard time believing I'm the only one having them. Since just about every woman I've voiced this to seems to disagree with me, it just makes me feel a bit confused. Are they truly experiencing things so very differently from me? I'm not really looking for a response here. I'm just saying how the whole debate makes me feel a bit unsettled.
> 
> Btw i high school I was in all honors and AP classes and the girls outnumbered the boys in all the classes except the math and physics. Again it's just my experience, but I notice that a lot of my views tend to be dismissed as invalid or petty or just not worth arguing about.


Again that is your experience, how you were raised. I can tell you it is nothing like how I, my peers, my children, friends etc were/ are being raised. 

I was raised by a Feminist mum that taught all her kids (boys and girls) that Feminism is about equality for all. That all humans are of value for who they are not their gender. That equity is actually more important in some ways than equality just for the sake of it.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> Do they have to be? A male penguin doesn't attend classes on needing a female penguin. The world functions pretty well if allowed to.


I asked the question because some seem to think that women need to be taught that they need men.

Seems like it's a natural thing for men and women to pair up.. needing each other.


----------



## EleGirl

Holland said:


> Again that is your experience, how you were raised. I can tell you it is nothing like how I, my peers, my children, friends etc were/ are being raised.
> 
> I was raised by a Feminist mum that taught all her kids (boys and girls) that Feminism is about equality for all. That all humans are of value for who they are not their gender. That equity is actually more important in some ways than equality just for the sake of it.


It was the same for me and my 7 siblings. My father definitely taught up all people were equal regardless of gender.

My children were also taught this at home and at school.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
its an interesting point / question. On the one hand a a woman who wants a "traditional" marriage where she stays home, and her husband works, should feel free to have one. 

On the other hand there is an inherent power imbalance in such a relationship where the man makes all the money and frequently has overall control. 

It reminds me of the discussion of Burkas - Surely women should be allowed to wear them if they wish - but how do you distinguish those who open *want* to from those who feel like they have no option

I guess I feel that young women should lean to support the selves, then from that position of personal power, they can decide to become housewives if that is what the want. 




MichelleR said:


> I guess I find it strange that I'm the only woman I know who sees this the way I do. Young girls are preached growing up that we don't need men and we don't see that it can be viewed as insulting to both the male and the girl who actually might want to be a housewife. Rather it just elevates us to the same status as boys. However boys are preached that they better be respectful to girls, never hit girls, etc. No one says to them, "you don't need women." My guess is that it would be seen as disrespectful and just doesn't make sense as yes, men do need women if they want to have kids, or at least have custody of those kids in most cases.
> 
> My experiences may not be the same as others but I have a hard time believing I'm the only one having them. Since just about every woman I've voiced this to seems to disagree with me, it just makes me feel a bit confused. Are they truly experiencing things so very differently from me? I'm not really looking for a response here. I'm just saying how the whole debate makes me feel a bit unsettled.
> 
> Btw i high school I was in all honors and AP classes and the girls outnumbered the boys in all the classes except the math and physics. Again it's just my experience, but I notice that a lot of my views tend to be dismissed as invalid or petty or just not worth arguing about.


----------



## unbelievable

EleGirl said:


> I asked the question because some seem to think that women need to be taught that they need men.
> 
> Seems like it's a natural thing for men and women to pair up.. needing each other.


In their natural condition, no such instruction would be needed, however, Americans have been deliberately indoctrinated with lies about the significance of a male adult in the household for the past 40 plus years. There needs to be an effort to cleanse the pollution of Marxist lunacy from national discourse and we will quickly return to thinking as the humans we were designed to be.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> In their natural condition, no such instruction would be needed, however, Americans have been deliberately indoctrinated with lies about the significance of a male adult in the household for the past 40 plus years. There needs to be an effort to cleanse the pollution of Marxist lunacy from national discourse and we will quickly return to thinking as the humans we were designed to be.


I disagree that Americans have been "deliberately indoctrinated with lies about the significance of a male adult in the household for the past 40 plus years. "

I was 26 years old 40 years ago. So I've been around all that time. 

Women getting equal rights does not equate to men not being an important part of a family.


----------



## unbelievable

For a few hundred thousand years, baby boys naturally grew up to be men. For the past 30 or so years in America and throughout much of Europe, they typically do not and that is no accident of nature or result of natural evolution. It is the result of the deliberate and unrelenting attack against masculinity from the Left. 

'There's no room for anything MANLY now': claims feminist Camille Paglia | Daily Mail Online

KACHEL: America, emasculated: a war on manhood - Washington Times


----------



## *LittleDeer*

unbelievable said:


> For a few hundred thousand years, baby boys naturally grew up to be men. For the past 30 or so years in America and throughout much of Europe, they typically do not and that is no accident of nature or result of natural evolution. It is the result of the deliberate and unrelenting attack against masculinity from the Left.
> 
> 'There's no room for anything MANLY now': claims feminist Camille Paglia | Daily Mail Online
> 
> KACHEL: America, emasculated: a war on manhood - Washington Times


I find the best way to have your children grow up to be decent people is spend time with them and set a good example. That goes for Dads and Mums.

Maybe the question is why is masculinity so fragile? 

As for the OP overall, I definitely think thanks needs to be given both ways. It's never right to take take someone for granted.


----------



## NextTimeAround

unbelievable said:


> For a few hundred thousand years, baby boys naturally grew up to be men. For the past 30 or so years in America and throughout much of Europe, they typically do not and that is no accident of nature or result of natural evolution. It is the result of the deliberate and unrelenting attack against masculinity from the Left.
> 
> 'There's no room for anything MANLY now': claims feminist Camille Paglia | Daily Mail Online
> 
> KACHEL: America, emasculated: a war on manhood - Washington Times


It's also due to the economy.

With so many things automated, there are fewer manly man type jobs out there.

And worse, there are fewer job /work /money making opportunities out there for an individual to work and be able to support others on that salary / those wages. 

It's partly due to technology. but wage / salary levels are due to the 1%.

At one time, compensation / reward went to those who had the knowledge. this is why people in the "profession" (ie, doctor, lawyer, teacher, accountant, nurse...... effectively, anyone who needed government certification to do their job legally) were compensated handsomely for that knowledge.

these days, compensation is geared towards those who have "ownership." Notice how charter schools keep pushing down teachers' salaries. That's because even though they are fuled by taxpayers' money, they are managed by hedge funds who get the extras after they push down the cost of running a school for the local government.

And HMOs (health management organizations, otherwise known as socialized healthcare traded on the stock exchange). They have pushed down salaries that medical doctors used to be able to expect. All the extra money goes to the investors of that HMO.

When men are angry about not being able to earn enough to raise a family, don't get mad at women, get mad at your fellow male compatriots. 

Get mad at the likes of Mitt Romney who has lobbied congress for tax breaks like the one that he takes advantage of now.

And Bain Capital (a section of Bain that he created) which takes perfectly healthy companies, buys them, loads them up with debt while he and his friends take the cash out, call them dividends that they picked up in some Caribbean island, ergo, they don't need to pay much tax on them; fire all the workers and make them apply for new jobs with lower salaries and on and on.......


----------



## unbelievable

*LittleDeer* said:


> I find the best way to have your children grow up to be decent people is spend time with them and set a good example. That goes for Dads and Mums.
> 
> Maybe the question is why is masculinity so fragile?
> 
> As for the OP overall, I definitely think thanks needs to be given both ways. It's never right to take take someone for granted.


It's not fragile but the most loyal dog can be beaten into uselessness eventually. This has taken the combined efforts of our education system, our political system, our legal system, and the media. No small effort.


----------



## unbelievable

NextTimeAround said:


> It's also due to the economy.
> 
> With so many things automated, there are fewer manly man type jobs out there.
> 
> And worse, there are fewer job /work /money making opportunities out there for an individual to work and be able to support others on that salary / those wages.
> 
> It's partly due to technology. but wage / salary levels are due to the 1%.
> 
> At one time, compensation / reward went to those who had the knowledge. this is why people in the "profession" (ie, doctor, lawyer, teacher, accountant, nurse...... effectively, anyone who needed government certification to do their job legally) were compensated handsomely for that knowledge.
> 
> these days, compensation is geared towards those who have "ownership." Notice how charter schools keep pushing down teachers' salaries. That's because even though they are fuled by taxpayers' money, they are managed by hedge funds who get the extras after they push down the cost of running a school for the local government.
> 
> And HMOs (health management organizations, otherwise known as socialized healthcare traded on the stock exchange). They have pushed down salaries that medical doctors used to be able to expect. All the extra money goes to the investors of that HMO.
> 
> When men are angry about not being able to earn enough to raise a family, don't get mad at women, get mad at your fellow male compatriots.
> 
> Get mad at the likes of Mitt Romney who has lobbied congress for tax breaks like the one that he takes advantage of now.
> 
> And Bain Capital (a section of Bain that he created) which takes perfectly healthy companies, buys them, loads them up with debt while he and his friends take the cash out, call them dividends that they picked up in some Caribbean island, ergo, they don't need to pay much tax on them; fire all the workers and make them apply for new jobs with lower salaries and on and on.......


Rich people have always existed so the societal castration of men can't be laid at the feet of the 1%. The 1% didn't create the welfare state. It didn't create Marxism or the feminist movement.
What commercial enterprise has grown faster than government? 

I'm not sure when teachers, professors, or nurses were very wealthy in the United States. Ford was rich and had very little education. He was only 15 when he built his first steam engine. Rockefeller didn't come out of Harvard. For the first 450 years or so of European existence over here, the rich were farmers. After that, speculators and industrialists. J.P. Morgan, one of the richest men in America, had a piece of nothing degree in art history. John D. Rockefeller spent 10 weeks in a business college. Andrew Carnegie had very little formal education and was working in a mill at age 13.


----------



## MichelleR

Little deer, how can we set good examples if the families are falling apart? In general divorces favor the mother and now many children are raised without a father in the home. 

Also Saying that masculinity is so fragile is acting like there's something inherently wrong with masculinity. I think that over the years women have been encouraged to be less feminine and men less masculine overall in general. Rather than recognize the problem with the practices of the media and schools or whatnot, people are just blaming the men for just not being resilient enough to withstand it.


----------



## MichelleR

Unbelievable, I'm using my phone and it doesn't want to copy and paste. But you brought up some really interesting points about your experiences working for 30 years on domestic abuse cases. No one has responded to the fact that a lot of those policies were highly unfair to the men and quite plainly gender discrimination. 

Also in society in general I notice a trend where boys and young men are becoming plain lazy and not interested in marriage. I figure it's because they recognize that the cards are stacked against them and they don't want to rise up to the role of being a great provider husband because they won't be appreciated for it anyway. And then women are left frustrated that the men won't commit. 

Now I personally have not had trouble with that but it's an observation I make when I think about the messages in the media and also the rise of boys not achieving in school.


----------



## NextTimeAround

unbelievable said:


> Rich people have always existed so the societal castration of men can't be laid at the feet of the 1%. The 1% didn't create the welfare state. It didn't create Marxism or the feminist movement.
> What commercial enterprise has grown faster than government?
> 
> I'm not sure when teachers, professors, or nurses were very wealthy in the United States. Ford was rich and had very little education. He was only 15 when he built his first steam engine. Rockefeller didn't come out of Harvard. For the first 450 years or so of European existence over here, the rich were farmers. After that, speculators and industrialists. J.P. Morgan, one of the richest men in America, had a piece of nothing degree in art history. John D. Rockefeller spent 10 weeks in a business college. Andrew Carnegie had very little formal education and was working in a mill at age 13.


I was talking about the rank and file middle classes. Everyone you mentioned here is well in the upperclass. Yes, those who get there are very unique and special. that's why they are not in the middle classes.

I can agree with you that a lot of those who do become super rich (not a lot of people in general, but a large PROPORTION of those who become super rich) can do so without a university degree. The most commonly mentioned is Bill Gates, of course.

But that was the group that I was talking about. 

You mentioned in particular nurses. I've been told that well experienced nurses could get up to 100k as well. But I bet a lot of these (socialized medicine outfits aka) HMOs have seen to it that that is well in the past.

In any case, I would rather have a well educated, trained, certified, and in other ways regulated doctor performing surgery on me than JP Morgan or even Bill Gates.

Please try not to derail discussion here with your false equivalencies.


----------



## MichelleR

I remember when I taught eighth grade and we were having a class party. This may sound so random but one of the hardest working and best looking boys in the class told me that he will never get married. I asked him why and he had a bunch of reasons that I don't remember specifically but he basically said that there's nothing to gain in marriage for a man. I do remember he said he doesn't want to risk losing half of his hard earned money and losing any kids he may have. 

I thought this was sad and was just really surprised he'd voice it aloud but I do think it's worth mentioning here because obviously it must be a message young boys receive.


----------



## NextTimeAround

MichelleR said:


> I remember when I taught eighth grade and we were having a class party. This may sound so random but one of the hardest working and best looking boys in the class told me that he will never get married. I asked him why and he had a bunch of reasons that I don't remember specifically but he basically said that there's nothing to gain in marriage for a man. I do remember he said he doesn't want to risk losing half of his hard earned money and losing any kids he may have.
> 
> I thought this was sad and was just really surprised he'd voice it aloud but I do think it's worth mentioning here because obviously it must be a message young boys receive.


It might be that that happened to a relative of his.

My nieces who watched their parents go through a very bitter divorce claim since their junior high years that they will never get married.

My niece told me that a friend of hers at university has an older and younger brother, both of whom are autistic. One has lived full time in a home as long as she can remember. Her mother became a nurse a result of the 2nd autistic child. This friend has said that she will never have children.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I agree that there has been a reduction in traits that are traditionally associated with men: courage, aggressiveness, strength etc. 

In the Napoleonic wars, midshipmen 12 and sometimes much younger went into deadly combat. Roman fathers had absolutely power over their families, they could kill wives and children if they wished. Men regularly faced real risks in life. 

Women of course were at terrible risk in childbirth. If they were not healthy, they were generally engaged in large amounts of labor at home - assisted by their children.

The world was difficult, dangerous - and we've spend thousands of years improving it. We have succeeded:

The average westerner rarely finds themselves in physical danger, rarely needs courage. Life is so safe that many people go intentionally looking for danger, just for the excitement of "extreme" sports. 

Technology has increased the value of intellect and cooperation over courage and aggressiveness, even in war. A bunch of scientists working together built a weapon that could annihilate entire armies. "Geeks" can build invisible weapons that could bring an entire country to its knees. 

Most jobs no longer involve strong physical labor, and child birth has become very safe - so women are no longer at a disadvantage in the workforce. 

Values for men are changing because civilization has changed. The same is true for women - it was not long ago that "chastity" was considered a great virtue in women.




unbelievable said:


> For a few hundred thousand years, baby boys naturally grew up to be men. For the past 30 or so years in America and throughout much of Europe, they typically do not and that is no accident of nature or result of natural evolution. It is the result of the deliberate and unrelenting attack against masculinity from the Left.
> 
> 'There's no room for anything MANLY now': claims feminist Camille Paglia | Daily Mail Online
> 
> KACHEL: America, emasculated: a war on manhood - Washington Times


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I think that has been true for most of history. Whether we are talking about feudal lords, rail barons etc - capital (whether or not it was known by that term) has always provided wealth.



NextTimeAround said:


> snip
> 
> these days, compensation is geared towards those who have "ownership."
> snip


----------



## zackie

MichelleR said:


> Technovelist, thank you. I think most people look at me like I have three eyes if I so much as hint at some of the things I've observed.
> 
> Thing is my husband was the first person to point out some of his observations about how the pendulum has swung the other way to me when we were dating. So I researched it myself and also thought about my own upbringing and my own family and had to agree with a lot of it.
> 
> For example, in my family just about every wife "wears the pants" and the husband pretty much does whatever she wants. I have a more naturally submissive personality and it was considered a flaw growing up. I can't help if I am naturally more nurturing and like to serve and be cared for.
> 
> Recently my mom called me a "doormat" because I was telling her how hard it is to maintain the housework with three kids and a job. I wanted to take a nap every day of my winter break (I'm a teacher) but knew that I wouldn't have enough time because my house was TRASHED. Now my mom told me to make my husband do it instead and sleep as much as I wanted on my days off but I didn't think it would be fair because my husband has no spare time these days either. Long story short my husband works a LOT and does so much for our family but instead of bring appreciated for it he's viewed as having his priorities wrong and I'm viewed as a doormat.
> 
> 
> Some of you may say, "why do you care what people think?" But then I could also say, "well what are all the modern feminists still fighting for?" Are women really disrespected by men anymore? I don't think so when I look at most marriages today, but I do see a lot of marriages where the wife expects the husband to work hard and be a good provider, do half of all the housework and childcare, be emotionally supportive, and she STILL only give him the bare minimum of his sexual needs. A lot of young married women I know have rules for their husbands beyond normal expectations for a healthy marriage but I don't see it the other way around. I know one newlywed who is determined to train her husband this year to "set the tone" of her marriage and he was recently in the hospital for panick attacks.
> 
> You may say these are isolated events. Of course you can always find the opposite extremes but I've noticed more and more people acting this way.
> 
> If you want to consider more widespread trends,I already mentioned in previous posts how feminists are outraged by the so-called wage gap but they are viewing it through a narrow lense. If you factor a lot of important variables the gap pretty- much disappears, and yes some of the other people here mentioned things like college graduate rates and other measures of success.



I'm a bit confused by your post - so both you and your husband work, and it sounds like you take on the majority of the childcare and housework in addition to a job but you feel bad asking him to help pitch in because he works?

And I do believe the wage gap is an issue to be addressed. I'm not sure which variables you are referring to, but chances are the variables themselves exist as a result of expected gender roles.

It might seem like the women in your examples are 'wearing the pants' but it's well researched that working women generally on average do more housework and childcare than men. In addition to that there are the little things that women are expected to do - like RSVP'ing to birthday party and wedding invitations, writing out all the christmas cards, the time spent doing her hair and putting on makeup and anti-aging creams, tweezing and waxing to keep up her youthful appearance. women these days are expected to go through 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth, work, rear kids, keep a house clean and in order, and remain slim, sexy and youthful. This isn't to take away the burden on men but men have more choices given their higher earnings, ability to work longer hours and not have employment gaps due to maternity leave and childcare, and fewer expectations other than providing for the family which women are also expected to do.


----------



## Cletus

Y'all need a little levity. Let Bill Burr help you out. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hitc8haEu_g


----------



## VirgenTecate

Cletus said:


> Y'all need a little levity. Let Bill Burr help you out.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hitc8haEu_g


 @richardsharpe has made all very intelligent well thought out posts. I agree with his measured way of thinking. However, this debate will be forever on TAM.

I go to post

And I find that you have already beat me to the punch


----------



## MichelleR

Okay here's one link but there are more. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wage-gap-myth-that-wont-die-1443654408

Of course you can find articles that say the gap is still a problem so you just have to choose what you want to believe. 

In my family the only people who made less money were the ones who chose to work less hours. My mom is a doctor and she has a private practice so if she wanted to make more she could open up more hours. I don't know any who say they are making less than they feel they should because they are being discriminated against. 

In my family at home I have been doing more of the housework lately. Lately my husband has had to make many more hours than me so I've had to. During times he's less busy he is able to help out more.


----------



## zackie

MichelleR said:


> Okay here's one link but there are more.
> 
> The ?Wage Gap? Myth That Won?t Die - WSJ
> 
> Of course you can find articles that say the gap is still a problem so you just have to choose what you want to believe.
> 
> In my family the only people who made less money were the ones who chose to work less hours. My mom is a doctor and she has a private practice so if she wanted to make more she could open up more hours. I don't know any who say they are making less than they feel they should because they are being discriminated against.
> 
> In my family at home I have been doing more of the housework lately. Lately my husband has had to make many more hours than me so I've had to. During times he's less busy he is able to help out more.


women do work less hours and again, that's because they have more expectations at some such as childcare and housework. It's not as simple as employers just choosing to pay women less because they are discriminatory, although that does happen. No one questions a man's responsibility to his home and kids when he works late at the office or has to travel for his job and doesn't see his kids for a week at a time. A woman who is away from her kids working is a 'bad mother' and considered selfish or overly career driven. A man is not physically hindered for months at a time by a pregnancy or nursing. He has more freedom in his career and at home.

Additionally, and I see this at my own job which is in a corporate environment, upper management is typically a 'boys club' and they tend to connect with and provide support and advantages to other men looking to move up in the company. Men are encouraged and socially conditioned to be more assertive and aggressive which results in promotions and pay increases, and women rarely have that type of encouragement or support. The work force at my company is about 40% male, yet about 80% of the promotions to middle and upper management are to men, therefore the average pay for a man is higher.


----------



## soccermom2three

unbelievable said:


> It's not fragile but the most loyal dog can be beaten into uselessness eventually. This has taken the combined efforts of our education system, our political system, our legal system, and the media. No small effort.


I've volunteered at my children's classrooms for the last 15 years and I've never seen any bias towards the girls and I definitely watch out for this stuff because I have sons.


----------



## unbelievable

soccermom2three said:


> I've volunteered at my children's classrooms for the last 15 years and I've never seen any bias towards the girls and I definitely watch out for this stuff because I have sons.


Are the boys allowed to real or pretend fight or otherwise engage in warrior play? Are physically rough, competitive sports permitted? 
How many of these kids have biological dads living at home?


----------



## naiveonedave

soccermom2three said:


> I've volunteered at my children's classrooms for the last 15 years and I've never seen any bias towards the girls and I definitely watch out for this stuff because I have sons.


Its because you are a woman :grin2:

It is very subtle. Who gets in trouble for being a little rowdy - virtually always boys. This is because they are being boys, not because they don't have manners. This teaches boys that in the presence of women they can't be themselves. This leads type of stuff leads to a lot of the 'nice guy' behaviors. I am sure that it impacted me this way, until I learned a bit from stuff like NMMNG and MMSL

Cutting back on gym and recess is bad for both sexes, but way worse for boys. Boys need to get rid of energy.

There are many other simple examples....


----------



## MichelleR

This may bring up an entirely different topic but I have two brothers and two sisters. Both boys have been out on ADD medicine ( during school only) because of poor performance in school but none of us girls have needed it . I've had countless boy students on it but only one girl as far as I know. 

In my parents' generation in my family all the men are just like the "nice guys" in those books and the wives really are the bosses. I'm not exaggerating although maybe my own family is not the best reference to use as my mother and her sister are unusually bossy people in general. 

I have a baby boy and two daughters and of course I love them all equally. I would like them all to do well in school and find loving spouses. I have concerns for both but I will say I'm not worried about my daughters' performances in school. I am hoping we will never have to consider ADHD medicine for my son and I want to feel free to celebrate them all for who they are. 

I'm not trying to point fingers and in general I hate to argue but I do see issues here that are at least worth considering.


----------



## soccermom2three

unbelievable said:


> Are the boys allowed to real or pretend fight or otherwise engage in warrior play? Are physically rough, competitive sports permitted?
> How many of these kids have biological dads living at home?


I bizarrely live in a place where a lot of dads live at home.

The kids play soccer, football, kickball and basketball at recess.

I don't know about pretend fighting but why would kids be allowed real fight? Real fighting wasn't allowed when I was in elementary school and that was 40+ years ago.


----------



## naiveonedave

soccermom2three said:


> I bizarrely live in a place where a lot of dads live at home.
> 
> The kids play soccer, football, kickball and basketball at recess.
> 
> I don't know about pretend fighting but why would kids be allowed real fight? Real fighting wasn't allowed when I was in elementary school and that was 40+ years ago.


are they suspended from school if they make a 'gun' out of their fingers?

'war games' used to be common playground occurrences (as was cowboys and Indians), but no longer.


----------



## soccermom2three

MichelleR said:


> This may bring up an entirely different topic but I have two brothers and two sisters. Both boys have been out on ADD medicine ( during school only) because of poor performance in school but none of us girls have needed it . I've had countless boy students on it but only one girl as far as I know.


Yes, I agree. I think a lot of schools instead of addressing the natural energy of their students would rather suggest medication. 

When my 17 year old was in elementary school he liked to stand while he did his work at his desk. One of his teachers told me once, "I always have a few kids every year that like to stand. I place their desks so they're not blocking any of the other students." Another school might have told he that he needed to be tested for ADHD.

One of the ways the teachers get the "jiggles" out, is having the students run a lap around the whole field at the end of morning recess. They make it a friendly competition out of it and the teachers often run with them. With some of these kids, it's the only physical activity they get.


----------



## Mr The Other

unbelievable said:


> Are the boys allowed to real or pretend fight or otherwise engage in warrior play? Are physically rough, competitive sports permitted?
> How many of these kids have biological dads living at home?


My sport of choice growing up was rugby league (a less gentle version of the rugby you have in the USA). Now, I have moved to boxing and enjoy it tremendously. Regretfully, people like us are a small minority. Few boys want to get hurt, not that many lads in hindsight took on lads of the same size. I think the world is wussier than I realized.


----------



## soccermom2three

naiveonedave said:


> are they suspended from school if they make a 'gun' out of their fingers?


No


----------



## naiveonedave

soccermom2three said:


> No


that shocks me, as most of the US has that as policy. Same as bringing in the 1 inch long GI Joe gun equates to being a potential 8 year old mass murderer wannabe


----------



## unbelievable

soccermom2three said:


> I bizarrely live in a place where a lot of dads live at home.
> 
> The kids play soccer, football, kickball and basketball at recess.
> 
> I don't know about pretend fighting but why would kids be allowed real fight? Real fighting wasn't allowed when I was in elementary school and that was 40+ years ago.


You taught for 15 years and you don't know if boys were permitted to engage in warrior play? Apparently, they were not. If you see boys anywhere on this earth in their normal state they wrestle. They role play with weapons. They challenge, defend, stalk. Must be a pretty important feature of male development or one wouldn't see it in every culture going back to the beginning of civilization. Tell you how vaginalized public school has become. My wife taught for 20 years in a public elementary school and not as a volunteer. My country sent me to war in Iraq. My teacher wife was not permitted to post a photo of me in her classroom because in that photo I was wearing a firearm in a holster. This was not in some freaky California classroom. This was in deep red, gun toting, Jesus loving Tennessee. 

When I attended school, boys daily and openly engaged in warrior play. In high school, boys wrestled, we had the occasional fist-fight, and we learned to address and settle our own problems without blowing up buildings, shooting people, or calling for an activist, a politician, a safe place, or a SWAT team. We are raising alleged men these days who have never been punched, never delivered a punch, who have been told by every educator that all violence is wrong. Let that one sink in. Boys are being trained in our schools to not EVER defend anyone or themselves. They are deliberately being trained to be something they are not....females. Conflict is an unavoidable part of life and despite feminism's efforts to make it otherwise, it is still the obligation of every man to defend his family, his community, his country. Weeping is not an appropriate defensive strategy for a man. There are differences in the sexes and the world requires that there are differences if it is to function properly. We do not think the same. We aren't designed to. Our roles and duties are different and those roles involve a great deal more than the numbers on a paycheck. 

I gave a 24 year old male a speeding ticket a couple days ago. No big deal, just a well-deserved speeding ticket. He cried uncontrollably for at least 15 minutes. I mean he wailed. What possible use would that lump of alleged man be if confronted with an actual threat or a truly significant problem? He didn't make himself that way. That sad creature was the product of 24 years of Liberal indoctrination and as a man he is as useless as teats on a boar. I've got 30 plus year old men who have to have their mothers stand up in court next to them. If they had been raised by wolves those males would have reached their twenties or thirties better prepared to behave like men.


----------



## Mr The Other

Some consolation, when the British Deputy Prime Minister was egged by a man he did not mess around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTiI1e-wVc
His popularity increased afterwards.


----------



## unbelievable

Mr The Other said:


> Some consolation, when the British Deputy Prime Minister was egged by a man he did not mess around.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTiI1e-wVc
> His popularity increased afterwards.


"Lawyers think it's unlikely Mr. Prescott could be charged?" The Deputy PM was assaulted. He should have been charged with aggravated criminal wussiness if he didn't punch the man who assaulted him. Politicians are supposed to serve the desires of the people and whoever threw that egg obviously wanted an a$$ kicking.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I'm in my 50s and have never been in a situation where I needed to physically defend myself. The ability to physically fight is no more valuable in today's world than the ability to hunt, fish, or survive in the wilderness. 

Martial arts is a great hobby. I put it in the same category as climbing, scuba, sailing, piloting aircraft, etc - things which build your abilities by testing you against real risks. I encourage people to do this sort of thing, but I don't think any but a tiny percentage of people need these skills.


----------



## unbelievable

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> I'm in my 50s and have never been in a situation where I needed to physically defend myself. The ability to physically fight is no more valuable in today's world than the ability to hunt, fish, or survive in the wilderness.
> 
> Martial arts is a great hobby. I put it in the same category as climbing, scuba, sailing, piloting aircraft, etc - things which build your abilities by testing you against real risks. I encourage people to do this sort of thing, but I don't think any but a tiny percentage of people need these skills.


You are one plane crash away from needing to know how to hunt, fish, navigate on land without a compass, build a fire, tend injuries, etc. You are one economic collapse away, one vehicle breakdown, a power grid collapse, an invasion, or a civil war away from needing those skills and many more. The PM in the above scenario was surrounded by guards and he was assaulted anyway.


----------



## EllisRedding

Thundarr said:


> The last handful of comments have unearthed the real topic WD. It's about SAHM's versus working moms and them feeling judged by the other. It's not really about men at all in my opinion. I agree with a post @ConanHub made; men are appreciated when we work hard, provide and are responsible IRL. It's easy to see when looking at men who don't keep employment versus those who do.
> 
> Working moms and SAHMs on the other hand have each other and their own insecurities to deal with though so there's plenty of blogs, articles, reports, etc that promote both. It's a problem of the vocal minority. A room of many women both working and SAH only needs one or judgemental opinions to make everyone draw swords (or pens in this case). And voila, there's a lot of blogs.


OK, got way behind on this thread. This post stood out from personal experience. As I mentioned earlier my wife went from working full time to being a SAHM. My mom on the other hand has always worked full time, and even now as she is retired she still works. My Mom would constantly ask my wife when she was going back to work, in a rather condescending tone as if my wife just sat around with her feet up eating bon bons, watching Oprah, and non stop ordering from the HSN. It seemed like the only person who had an issue with my wife being a SAHM was my Mom which made zero sense (except for exactly what Thundarr mentioned when it comes to judging the other person).


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Absolutely true. But I'm still vastly more likely to die of an old-age related aliment than any of those. 

Its a question of how to spend the very limited time we have. 

I spend time practicing in my plane to reduce the chance of crashing, rather than practice outdoor survival. (though since I hike as a hobby, I'm not clueless in the wilderness).

Rather than learn how too survive an economic collapse, I have contacts all over the world that give me a shot of finding a life and work somewhere else - unless the whole world collapses. Same for impending signs of civil war. 

If I die a violent death, it is most likely in my airplane. But sadly, my life will end like most do in the west - as a pitiful shell in a nursing home or hospital, unable to feed myself or recognize my wife, or find my way to the nearest railway tracks. 




unbelievable said:


> You are one plane crash away from needing to know how to hunt, fish, navigate on land without a compass, build a fire, tend injuries, etc. You are one economic collapse away, one vehicle breakdown, a power grid collapse, an invasion, or a civil war away from needing those skills and many more. The PM in the above scenario was surrounded by guards and he was assaulted anyway.


----------



## unbelievable

Good luck with your action plan. I imagine highly educated and comfortable European Jews thought they were safe as well. High ranking Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime thought they had it made. Wealthy, educated, Southern urbanites in Richmond found themselves living in caves like animals, starving. Our world or just your world can go to crap without warning or notice. Your local police, fire, and EMS can handle a certain number of calls and then folks are on their own. Roads can be impassable. Fuel, money, groceries can be unobtainable at pretty much any time due to any number of unpredictable events, man-made or natural. The military you depend upon can be turned against you and it can be surrendered to a foreign invader or defeated. The police you rely upon can be overwhelmed or just collectively decide to not answer calls. Folks in New Orleans found out how quickly modern, comfortable, educated, civilized people can be struggling for survival. IMO, any pilot who isn't well trained in survival skills is just suicidal. Next time you're up there, look down over all that forest or over the ocean and imagine how much fun it will be to suddenly find yourself down there, hours, days, maybe weeks from being rescued. Every second, gravity is just doing her best to suck you down there. Despite your best flying skills, it can happen. Allegedly educated people die because they can't figure out how to survive 48 hours without electric heat. I'm not afraid of dying but I don't want to sit around helplessly watching other people die because I couldn't fix a problem.


----------



## Thundarr

EllisRedding said:


> OK, got way behind on this thread. This post stood out from personal experience. As I mentioned earlier my wife went from working full time to being a SAHM. My mom on the other hand has always worked full time, and even now as she is retired she still works. My Mom would constantly ask my wife when she was going back to work, in a rather condescending tone as if my wife just sat around with her feet up eating bon bons, watching Oprah, and non stop ordering from the HSN. It seemed like the only person who had an issue with my wife being a SAHM was my Mom which made zero sense (except for exactly what Thundarr mentioned when it comes to judging the other person).


All of us confuse *right* with *right for me* but it doesn't usually matter. This topic on the other hand is like exposed nerves because it's about our kids so normal disagreement are taken more harshly and also there are many who justify their own choice in this by tearing down the choice of others. That sounds like the dynamic you saw.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> I guess I find it strange that I'm the only woman I know who sees this the way I do. Young girls are preached growing up that we don't need men and we don't see that it can be viewed as insulting to both the male and the girl who actually might want to be a housewife. Rather it just elevates us to the same status as boys. However boys are preached that they better be respectful to girls, never hit girls, etc. No one says to them, "you don't need women." My guess is that it would be seen as disrespectful and just doesn't make sense as yes, men do need women if they want to have kids, or at least have custody of those kids in most cases.
> 
> My experiences may not be the same as others but I have a hard time believing I'm the only one having them. Since just about every woman I've voiced this to seems to disagree with me, it just makes me feel a bit confused. Are they truly experiencing things so very differently from me? I'm not really looking for a response here. I'm just saying how the whole debate makes me feel a bit unsettled.
> 
> Btw i high school I was in all honors and AP classes and the girls outnumbered the boys in all the classes except the math and physics. Again it's just my experience, but I notice that *a lot of my views tend to be dismissed as invalid or petty or just not worth arguing about.*


*That *is mostly by women, I assume. Which must mean something. Anyway, I find your views perfectly reasonable, even though they don't match up with the official feminist line.

By the way, there is a series of books on misandry by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young that explains why many people don't see it even though it is all around us (in the US, anyway).

There's also a book called "Men on Strike" by Helen Smith, which is a pretty good examination of these issues.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> Unbelievable, I'm using my phone and it doesn't want to copy and paste. But you brought up some really interesting points about your experiences working for 30 years on domestic abuse cases. No one has responded to the fact that a lot of those policies were highly unfair to the men and quite plainly gender discrimination.
> 
> Also in society in general I notice a trend where boys and young men are becoming plain lazy and not interested in marriage. I figure it's because they recognize that the cards are stacked against them and they don't want to rise up to the role of being a great provider husband because they won't be appreciated for it anyway. *And then women are left frustrated that the men won't commit. *
> 
> Now I personally have not had trouble with that but it's an observation I make when I think about the messages in the media and also the rise of boys not achieving in school.


*This *hasn't reached peak hysteria yet, but it's getting there. Dalrock's blog (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/) has had quite a bit of discussion on this topic. Warning: there is plenty of adult language and there are some very odd characters there, even though the host is a married Christian man.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> I remember when I taught eighth grade and we were having a class party. This may sound so random but one of the hardest working and best looking boys in the class told me that he will never get married. I asked him why and he had a bunch of reasons that I don't remember specifically but he basically said that there's nothing to gain in marriage for a man. I do remember he said he doesn't want to risk losing half of his hard earned money and losing any kids he may have.
> 
> I thought this was sad and was just really surprised he'd voice it aloud but I do think it's worth mentioning here because obviously it must be a message young boys receive.


That is not random at all. It will be the end game for misandry: when men refuse to get married. We're not there yet, but it's coming.


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> Its because you are a woman :grin2:
> 
> It is very subtle. Who gets in trouble for being a little rowdy - virtually always boys. This is because they are being boys, not because they don't have manners. This teaches boys that in the presence of women they can't be themselves. This leads type of stuff leads to a lot of the 'nice guy' behaviors. I am sure that it impacted me this way, until I learned a bit from stuff like NMMNG and MMSL
> 
> Cutting back on gym and recess is bad for both sexes, but way worse for boys. Boys need to get rid of energy.
> 
> There are many other simple examples....


I hated both gym and recess, but I understand what you are saying. It's true for most boys.

Here's a possibly funny story: when I was in kindergarten, my teacher asked my mother to come into school. Then she told my mother that she was worried about me because I didn't go out and play like the other kids, but stayed in looking at books.

My mother said, "He prefers reading to playing outside." So the teacher said, "Well, of course he can't read; he's only 5." To which my mother said, "Yes, he can read." So the teacher,thinking that my mother was delusional, said, "I don't believe it, but let's see." So she brought me into the room and told me to read something aloud. I picked up a book from the shelf and started reading it. So the teacher said "He has just memorized that story."

Then my mother said "Give him one of your books from your desk." Which she did, and I read it aloud, mispronouncing a couple of words that I'd never heard spoken, but obviously understanding the meaning.

After the teacher regained her composure, she sent me back to wherever I had been and told my mother that she needed to have me taken for psychological testing immediately. Which she did, but that's another story...


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Okay here's one link but there are more.
> 
> The ?Wage Gap? Myth That Won?t Die - WSJ
> 
> Of course you can find articles that say the gap is still a problem so you just have to choose what you want to believe.
> 
> In my family the only people who made less money were the ones who chose to work less hours. My mom is a doctor and she has a private practice so if she wanted to make more she could open up more hours. I don't know any who say they are making less than they feel they should because they are being discriminated against.
> 
> In my family at home I have been doing more of the housework lately. Lately my husband has had to make many more hours than me so I've had to. During times he's less busy he is able to help out more.


Have you heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? It is a story of a group of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.

The wage gap issues is much like that story. Just like the elephant, the wage gap exists. And just like the bind men who touch the elephant in only one place, people often look at the wage gap from different perspectives and so draw different conclusions.

One of the reasons for the overall wage gap is that girls are not encouraged to go into fields in which they can earn a good living. Instead most, when then get out of high school, end up in the lower paid jobs.

But another view of the wage gap can be seen in women in the STEM fields. Even when woman does get a degree and then job in the STEM fields, she is paid less on average than her male co-workers.

“An AAUW analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey data found that overall, women in computer and mathematical occupations were paid 87 percent of what their male counterparts were paid. And in engineering and architecture, women were typically paid 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid, or about $65,000 annually, compared to $79,000 for men. It seems that entering a high-paying field like engineering or computing still does not protect women against the pay gap.”
Even in High-Paying STEM Fields, Women Are Shortchanged: AAUW


----------



## unbelievable

If you are earning $65K or $79K you aren't oppressed. You would be making a well-above-average wage in the most prosperous nation on earth and should daily give thanks for the privilege. I can get moved by people who work 12 hour days at $8 or less an hour or who have to work two minimum wage jobs or who have to risk their lives or ruin their bodies to perform difficult, hazardous labor. Suits in cubicles, male or female, whining about a few extra dollars don't even hit my "oppression" radar screen.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> Have you heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? It is a story of a group of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.
> 
> The wage gap issues is much like that story. Just like the elephant, the wage gap exists. And just like the bind men who touch the elephant in only one place, people often look at the wage gap from different perspectives and so draw different conclusions.
> 
> One of the reasons for the overall wage gap is that girls are not encouraged to go into fields in which they can earn a good living. Instead most, when then get out of high school, end up in the lower paid jobs.
> 
> But another view of the wage gap can be seen in women in the STEM fields. Even when woman does get a degree and then job in the STEM fields, she is paid less on average than her male co-workers.
> 
> “An AAUW analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey data found that overall, women in computer and mathematical occupations were paid 87 percent of what their male counterparts were paid. And in engineering and architecture, women were typically paid 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid, or about $65,000 annually, compared to $79,000 for men. It seems that entering a high-paying field like engineering or computing still does not protect women against the pay gap.”
> Even in High-Paying STEM Fields, Women Are Shortchanged: AAUW


Were there any differences in years of experience? Were the engineers in the same fields (i.e. I believe civil engineering pays a good deal less than petroleum engineering), did they work the same number of hours?


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Were there any differences in years of experience? Were the engineers in the same fields (i.e. I believe civil engineering pays a good deal less than petroleum engineering), did they work the same number of hours?


I've been in engineering for over 30 years. When I started out I was paid about 50% of what the men of equal education and years of experience in the exact same discipline were paid.

It's gotten better, but from my experience women are still paid less with the same amount of education and experience. And yes, the women work the same number of hours that the men do.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> If you are earning $65K or $79K you aren't oppressed. You would be making a well-above-average wage in the most prosperous nation on earth and should daily give thanks for the privilege. I can get moved by people who work 12 hour days at $8 or less an hour or who have to work two minimum wage jobs or who have to risk their lives or ruin their bodies to perform difficult, hazardous labor. Suits in cubicles, male or female, whining about a few extra dollars don't even hit my "oppression" radar screen.


Do you mean to tell me that if your daughter studied just as hard as her male class mates to get a degree in a STEM field, and then worked just as long and as hard as the men in her company.. you would tell her to shut up and just be glad she is earning more than $8 an hour when she is paid less significantly less than the men?

I rather doubt that.


----------



## richardsharpe

The world is changing. I just flew for about 5 hours over some very empty parts of the US - and had cell coverage almost the entire time (much to my surprise). Not to mention my 3 independent battery powered GPSs,multiple radios, and being tracked on radar. 

I'm a descendant of Jews who recognized what was brewing in Germany and left while they could.

I'm not saying your scenarios couldn't happen - they could. But the modern world has become a very safe place and they aren't very likely.






unbelievable said:


> Good luck with your action plan. I imagine highly educated and comfortable European Jews thought they were safe as well. High ranking Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime thought they had it made. Wealthy, educated, Southern urbanites in Richmond found themselves living in caves like animals, starving. Our world or just your world can go to crap without warning or notice. Your local police, fire, and EMS can handle a certain number of calls and then folks are on their own. Roads can be impassable. Fuel, money, groceries can be unobtainable at pretty much any time due to any number of unpredictable events, man-made or natural. The military you depend upon can be turned against you and it can be surrendered to a foreign invader or defeated. The police you rely upon can be overwhelmed or just collectively decide to not answer calls. Folks in New Orleans found out how quickly modern, comfortable, educated, civilized people can be struggling for survival. IMO, any pilot who isn't well trained in survival skills is just suicidal. Next time you're up there, look down over all that forest or over the ocean and imagine how much fun it will be to suddenly find yourself down there, hours, days, maybe weeks from being rescued. Every second, gravity is just doing her best to suck you down there. Despite your best flying skills, it can happen. Allegedly educated people die because they can't figure out how to survive 48 hours without electric heat. I'm not afraid of dying but I don't want to sit around helplessly watching other people die because I couldn't fix a problem.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
The issue of the wage gap and women in high tech fields is as you say VERY complicated. There are many issues, and the issues vary with location.

Its actually a good discussion topic. 

The two women in my group are paid less than the men and this bothers me. I only have the ability to change this slowly, and it is not clear what is the correct solution. I honestly believe that two of the men in my group are really exceptionally good - but is that true? Am I judging by the right standards? 




EleGirl said:


> Have you heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? It is a story of a group of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.
> 
> The wage gap issues is much like that story. Just like the elephant, the wage gap exists. And just like the bind men who touch the elephant in only one place, people often look at the wage gap from different perspectives and so draw different conclusions.
> 
> One of the reasons for the overall wage gap is that girls are not encouraged to go into fields in which they can earn a good living. Instead most, when then get out of high school, end up in the lower paid jobs.
> 
> But another view of the wage gap can be seen in women in the STEM fields. Even when woman does get a degree and then job in the STEM fields, she is paid less on average than her male co-workers.
> 
> “An AAUW analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey data found that overall, women in computer and mathematical occupations were paid 87 percent of what their male counterparts were paid. And in engineering and architecture, women were typically paid 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid, or about $65,000 annually, compared to $79,000 for men. It seems that entering a high-paying field like engineering or computing still does not protect women against the pay gap.”
> Even in High-Paying STEM Fields, Women Are Shortchanged: AAUW


----------



## naiveonedave

@EleGirl - all major studies support a pay gap of less than 5%, when adjusted for hours worked, years worked and job classification. If the AAUW study was accurate, why would any men be employed? It would be far cheaper for the company to employ 'underpaid' females.


----------



## MichelleR

My understanding is that the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay women less for the same job and hours decades ago. Women have sued and won for this kind of mistreatment so companies now are mindful of this. Plus common sense tells me that of course companies would rather hire women if they can pay them significantly less than men for doing the exact same job. 

There may be natural reasons women make less money than men overall (hours worked per week, personal preferences, etc) but we should not assume it is because women are oppressed by men or social conditioning. The STEM fields are very much promoted for girls these days (I think people assume girls have no confidence in these fields due to social conditioning so we make efforts to encourage them to go into these fields) but no one bats an eye at the fact that boys are more behind girls in general in reading and writing skills which are also vital for success in the workplace.


----------



## Mr The Other

unbelievable said:


> "Lawyers think it's unlikely Mr. Prescott could be charged?" The Deputy PM was assaulted. He should have been charged with aggravated criminal wussiness if he didn't punch the man who assaulted him. Politicians are supposed to serve the desires of the people and whoever threw that egg obviously wanted an a$$ kicking.


Quite. The public pretty much agreed. And he was not charged.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Michelle- I've found the school to be more than helpful with my son, they let him do things with his hands, move around. Spelling words- rub shaving cream all over your desk and write them out with your finger. Get up and use the smart board. Chew gum while doing tests. Even before they knew he had ADD they knew he needed tactical methods to learn best. 
My son needs tougher teachers, louder. They match him with who fits best. 

My DD needs quiet, a space to read on her own. She needs a more mothering kind of teacher. Quieter. They help with that too. They even let her take 1 recess indoors to read in a quiet room instead of being outside with all the people. They put her in a small group to talk about how to get more confident and less shy. 

I've not noticed that the school is more girl friendly than boy friendly and IMO they access the kids as individuals to figure out what they specifically need. 

As for why wouldn't jobs hire women if they can pay them less? Lots of employers worry their women will need to take time off if they get pregnant, if their kid is sick, etc. Women are more likely to take the time off work if their child needs to be home vs. their husbands. 

Where I am, gov't mat leave can be used by either parent after an initial time for the healing of the Mother. There are still very few men who actually take it. 
Career women still end up putting their family over their jobs more often than career men. 
This isn't a good thing for employers.


----------



## Buddy400

MichelleR said:


> My understanding is that the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay women less for the same job and hours decades ago. Women have sued and won for this kind of mistreatment so companies now are mindful of this. Plus common sense tells me that of course companies would rather hire women if they can pay them significantly less than men for doing the exact same job.
> 
> There may be natural reasons women make less money than men overall (hours worked per week, personal preferences, etc) but we should not assume it is because women are oppressed by men or social conditioning. The STEM fields are very much promoted for girls these days (I think people assume girls have no confidence in these fields due to social conditioning so we make efforts to encourage them to go into these fields) but no one bats an eye at the fact that boys are more behind girls in general in reading and writing skills which are also vital for success in the workplace.


Also, women in STEM fields tend to congregate in the lower paid specialties such as Biology.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> I've been in engineering for over 30 years. When I started out I was paid about 50% of what the men of equal education and years of experience in the exact same discipline were paid.
> 
> It's gotten better, but from my experience women are still paid less with the same amount of education and experience. And yes, the women work the same number of hours that the men do.


I don't doubt that there was significant wage disparity 30 years ago. That's why I support the policy of equal pay for equal work.

However, we need to be very careful that we're comparing apples to apples. It could be possible that women in engineering tend to chose jobs and specialties that allow more family time. I don't know that this is the case, but I'd want to make sure before assuming discrimination.

Also, as Dave points out below, most serious studies put the actual wage gap at no more than 5% when other factors are taken into consideration. The AAUW study's number of 82% is way out of line with this, so I'd really want to look at the details.

If a female engineer is actually getting 82% of what her male colleague is getting with equal experience, she's got a heck of a case and ought to be suing her employer.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Have you heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? It is a story of a group of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.
> 
> The wage gap issues is much like that story. Just like the elephant, the wage gap exists. And just like the bind men who touch the elephant in only one place, people often look at the wage gap from different perspectives and so draw different conclusions.
> 
> One of the reasons for the overall wage gap is that girls are not encouraged to go into fields in which they can earn a good living. Instead most, when then get out of high school, end up in the lower paid jobs.
> 
> But another view of the wage gap can be seen in women in the STEM fields. Even when woman does get a degree and then job in the STEM fields, she is paid less on average than her male co-workers.
> 
> “An AAUW analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey data found that overall, women in computer and mathematical occupations were paid 87 percent of what their male counterparts were paid. And in engineering and architecture, women were typically paid 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid, or about $65,000 annually, compared to $79,000 for men. It seems that entering a high-paying field like engineering or computing still does not protect women against the pay gap.”
> Even in High-Paying STEM Fields, Women Are Shortchanged: AAUW


As someone else has already pointed out, if it were actually true that women who were the equal of men in every aspect of job performance were being paid substantially less than men, then any employer who hired only women would make outsized profits. This would induce others to set up companies to hire women, not because of any particular love for women, but for the love of money, which is a very strong motivation.

Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand basic economics.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> My understanding is that the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay women less for the same job and hours decades ago. Women have sued and won for this kind of mistreatment so companies now are mindful of this. Plus common sense tells me that of course companies would rather hire women if they can pay them significantly less than men for doing the exact same job.
> 
> There may be natural reasons women make less money than men overall (hours worked per week, personal preferences, etc) but we should not assume it is because women are oppressed by men or social conditioning. The STEM fields are very much promoted for girls these days (I think people assume girls have no confidence in these fields due to social conditioning so we make efforts to encourage them to go into these fields) but no one bats an eye at the fact that boys are more behind girls in general in reading and writing skills which are also vital for success in the workplace.


That's because our firmware, honed over many millennia where the full reproductive capacity of women was needed, says that boys (and men) are expendable, whereas women are precious.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As for why wouldn't jobs hire women if they can pay them less? Lots of employers worry their women will need to take time off if they get pregnant, if their kid is sick, etc. Women are more likely to take the time off work if their child needs to be home vs. their husbands.


Exactly, which means that women are NOT the equals of men from the point of view of business profitability. If they were, again, at least some companies would hire only women.

In other words, the "pay gap", in which women who are the equals of men in productivity, attendance, etc., are supposedly paid less, is a myth.


----------



## always_alone

Buddy400 said:


> Also, as Dave points out below, most serious studies put the actual wage gap at no more than 5% when other factors are taken into consideration. The AAUW study's number of 82% is way out of line with this, so I'd really want to look at the details.


All the information you could possibly need can be found in Ele's link. A quote from *one* of the studies to illustrate the problem:



> In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. *Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.*


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> As someone else has already pointed out, if it were actually true that women who were the equal of men in every aspect of job performance were being paid substantially less than men, then any employer who hired only women would make outsized profits. This would induce others to set up companies to hire women, not because of any particular love for women, but for the love of money, which is a very strong motivation.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand basic economics.


The reason for the discrepancy in pay is that women are *perceived* as being less qualified and competent than men. From the get go, and before any of the actual facts are in. 

Upshot is that employers prefer to hire men, even though they cost more.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Exactly, which means that women are NOT the equals of men from the point of view of business profitability. If they were, again, at least some companies would hire only women.
> 
> In other words, the "pay gap", in which women who are the equals of men in productivity, attendance, etc., are supposedly paid less, is a myth.


Yes, but it's because of the assumption that she
a) even wants to have children
b) is going to take time off to do it
c) is going to be the one taking time off for them when needed

They assume all the things when they get a resume on their desk saying "jane" instead of "john"

Why is it assumed that a woman will take time off for sick kids and not her husband, why is it more likely?

Those are the areas to work on, IMO.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> The reason for the discrepancy in pay is that women are *perceived* as being less qualified and competent than men. From the get go, and before any of the actual facts are in.
> 
> Upshot is that employers prefer to hire men, even though they cost more.


So then apparently *every *employer and potential employer,* including female employers,* is under the spell of this delusion? That is unbelievable!


----------



## naiveonedave

a study of n=127 is incredibly small to even make the basis of such claims.

I work in a large corp, starting engineers all make the same, regardless of gender. I would be shocked if that is not the case anywhere in the US for companies larger than 100 employees. There would be way too much risk to not do it that way.


----------



## NextTimeAround

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes, but it's because of the assumption that she
> a) even wants to have children
> b) is going to take time off to do it
> c) is going to be the one taking time off for them when needed
> 
> They assume all the things when they get a resume on their desk saying "jane" instead of "john"
> 
> Why is it assumed that a woman will take time off for sick kids and not her husband, why is it more likely?
> 
> Those are the areas to work on, IMO.


In several country economies, many pundits and politicians would like to tout that the majority of small businesses started are by women. 

And then some politicians would like to push the cost of maternity leave down to the smallest business possible.

The irony that I find here then is that women will be raising or at least financing the cost of other women having babies.

Some women, like myself, who are too old to be the darling of large scale employers, decide to be industrious and start businesses / work for ourselves. this is just to pay our pension in old.

And then if we want to expand, we're then required to raise someone else's baby.

There was a discussion about this on the radio. A woman called in and said that she worked for the marketing department of major law firm. (those are well paid jobs as far as marketing is concerned.) 

She said that she her department are annoyed by a certain woman who over the past 5 years decided to have 3 kids and take all the statutory maternity leave possible. So of those 5 years, she has worked very few months but the management has decided not to add anyone permanent because they must leave her position open for her to take it when she is ready.

The caller then went on to point out that her husband was an investment banker so between the two of them, they were well paid.


----------



## MichelleR

There is nothing politically or culturally wrong with the fact that women have children and are required to care for them (at least in the vast majority of the cases) more than men. We do not need to "work on" this unless we are trying to change biology. 

It may be disappointing to the woman who does not want to have kids that this is the general view of most men and women in our world. Nonetheless, women today in general have a lot of support if they choose to be "career women." My mother had no one trying to hold her back from becoming a doctor, my stepmother had no problem becoming a lawyer, and I could go on and on.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> All the information you could possibly need can be found in Ele's link. A quote from *one* of the studies to illustrate the problem:


I think I've seen things like this where even if it's a female reviewing the resumes, the result is the same.

If women are perceived as being less qualified and competent than men by both sexes, then what the heck are we to do about that?

All employees are paid based on their perceived competence. It has to be that way since there is no way to know their "actual" competence.


----------



## EllisRedding

naiveonedave said:


> a study of n=127 is incredibly small to even make the basis of such claims.
> 
> I work in a large corp, starting engineers all make the same, regardless of gender. I would be shocked if that is not the case anywhere in the US for companies larger than 100 employees. There would be way too much risk to not do it that way.


When I first started working I worked in a large firm as well. Pay was the same for both males and females coming in. As you moved up in experience pay was virtually the same. If you eventually became a partner you came it at the standard pay for all new partners. This is also how competing firms handled their pay structure (once again, large firms employing thousands and thousands of people). 

Now are there possibly some bias when elevating employees, IDK. From what I saw the females there had just as many opportunities (same went for different race/ethnicity). Also, from what I observed were there more male partners than female partners, yes, but IMO that wasn't due to bias as it was due to lifestyle


----------



## MichelleR

Buddy I want to add that even if females do believe the female applicants are less able, it may not be because we have been conditioned to believe that women are less intelligent or capable. It may possibly be due to the fact that women are the only ones who give birth and are usually the only ones who take maternity leave. There is nothing wrong with this bias if that is what is driving this trend as it's a fact of life if we want to procreate. 

I have three little kids and can tell you for certain that I am not as good of a teacher as I would be if I did not have kids or even if I were a man because I've had to take so many days off work alone. This is not my fault of course and I'm glad my pay is based on seniority alone.


----------



## unbelievable

Giving up: 40% women, 28% men, 39% youth don't want a job | Washington Examiner


More and more Americans are outside the labor force entirely. Who are they? | Pew Research Center


In general, American women have substantially less interest in getting or maintaining employment than men. That, alone, would account for their statistically lower wages. Everything else being equal, a woman is more likely to quit her job than a man.


----------



## Buddy400

NextTimeAround said:


> In several country economies, many pundits and politicians would like to tout that the majority of small businesses started are by women.
> 
> And then some politicians would like to push the cost of maternity leave down to the smallest business possible.
> 
> The irony that I find here then is that women will be raising or at least financing the cost of other women having babies.
> 
> Some women, like myself, who are too old to be the darling of large scale employers, decide to be industrious and start businesses / work for ourselves. this is just to pay our pension in old.
> 
> And then if we want to expand, we're then required to raise someone else's baby.
> 
> There was a discussion about this on the radio. A woman called in and said that she worked for the marketing department of major law firm. (those are well paid jobs as far as marketing is concerned.)
> 
> She said that she her department are annoyed by a certain woman who over the past 5 years decided to have 3 kids and take all the statutory maternity leave possible. So of those 5 years, she has worked very few months but the management has decided not to add anyone permanent because they must leave her position open for her to take it when she is ready.
> 
> The caller then went on to point out that her husband was an investment banker so between the two of them, they were well paid.


I read that laws guaranteeing paid maternity leave for women in Europe is having the affect of causing employers to not want to hire women of child bearing age.

So, an effort to help some women hurts other women.


----------



## unbelievable

Women Take Most Sick Days - ABC News

American women are 46% more likely than men to take sick leave. In the UK, they are 42% more likely. Logically, I would expect raises and promotions to naturally drift toward those most interested in their work and most likely to show up to do it. 

Women also take more vacations which would also mean less time on the job.

Women vacation more than men, new study says


----------



## EllisRedding

Buddy400 said:


> I read that laws guaranteeing paid maternity leave for women in Europe is having the affect of causing employers to not want to hire women of child bearing age.
> 
> So, an effort to help some women hurts other women.


I think you will see this as some of the new labor laws are implemented. Drastically increasing the minimum wage, companies will just hire less, cut back hours, implement more automated services, etc...

For the new health care bill, if you have over a certain number of full time employees (I think 50?) the company needs to provide health insurance. So what do you do, keep employees under 50 where possible, reduce hours to move employees from full time to part time, etc...

In these cases, you will help some, but will you hurt just as many as you help?


----------



## Buddy400

Looked at rationally, if women are likely to take significant time off after having a child (maybe years!), are more likely to take time off when children are ill and are more likely than men to work less hours than men, then it makes sense for businesses discriminate against women when hiring.

However, I think we're all agreed that this would be wrong. What about women who aren't going to have kids, have partners who will take time off for the kids, etc.? We can't deny them the opportunity. You could base jobs on Mommy (or Daddy) tracks, but who knows for sure how they'll feel about having children in the future.

Of course there's the new idea that we should simply change the nature of work and not have anybody work more than 40 hours a week, allow unlimited, paid leave for taking care of children, elderly parents, etc. The only problem with this is that it will never work and will never happen.

We're already requiring companies to pay men and women the same ignoring the fact that there are significant risks in hiring women of child bearing age. 

Somehow that doesn't seem good enough to a lot of people.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> I have three little kids and can tell you for certain that I am not as good of a teacher as I would be if I did not have kids or even if I were a man because I've had to take so many days off work alone. This is not my fault of course and I'm glad my pay is based on seniority alone.


and it shouldn't be assumed that Mom is going to be the one to pick up this slack. It should be assumed that both Mom and Dad will be sharing the task of parenting equally but the "who takes the sick days" "who takes mat leave" still often gets assumed on the Mother. 

Not to mention, in 2 working parent homes - statistically Mom is also still doing more household tasks which makes things harder as well. 

So when you say that if you were a man, you'd be able to be better at your job- that implies that if you were a man, you would be doing less work days off with the kids and/or other tasks that need doing. 
Why not assume that if you were Dad, you'd be still doing all the things you are doing now?


----------



## NextTimeAround

Buddy400 said:


> I read that laws guaranteeing paid maternity leave for women in Europe is having the affect of causing employers to not want to hire women of child bearing age.
> 
> So, an effort to help some women hurts other women.


yeah, not to mention, where some politicians are "so pleased" that women owned businesses are the engine of the growth these days, it then becomes women who are burdened with the cost of maternity leave.

Think about it, as sole proprietor / trader, some woman could be forced to spend what would have been part of her retirement fund on raising someone else's child.

I wonder if politicians have ever looked at that issue.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits - Service Canada

Canadian mat leave ^


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> I think you will see this as some of the new labor laws are implemented. Drastically increasing the minimum wage, companies will just hire less, cut back hours, implement more automated services, etc...
> 
> For the new health care bill, if you have over a certain number of full time employees (I think 50?) the company needs to provide health insurance. So what do you do, keep employees under 50 where possible, reduce hours to move employees from full time to part time, etc...
> 
> In these cases, you will help some, but will you hurt just as many as you help?


Just like raising the minimum wage hurts those that are the most in need (disadvantaged young people trying to enter the workforce with limited skills), the attempt to help upper middle class women become CEO's will probably disproportionally hurt poor women who need a job the most.

If a highly paid woman with very marketable skills wants to take time off for maternity leave or work a flexible schedule, it's fairly likely that she'll be accommodated.

If a low paid woman with few skills who can be easily replaced requires paid maternity leave or time off for a kid's doctor appointment, they're not going to want to hire her.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> and it shouldn't be assumed that Mom is going to be the one to pick up this slack. It should be assumed that both Mom and Dad will be sharing the task of parenting equally but the "who takes the sick days" "who takes mat leave" still often gets assumed on the Mother.


The problem is that the assumption is probably correct.

I'd be happy to see that change (and I think it is changing) but, until it does.......


----------



## unbelievable

CBS - Men and full-timers most likely to work overtime - Web magazine

Men generally work more overtime hours than women. 

Kay Hymowitz: Why Women Make Less Than Men - WSJ

"In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers"

I typically work at least 10 hours of overtime a week. We do have female officers but they frequently take sick leave or personal days and rarely volunteer for overtime. If I have to recommend someone for a leadership position I'm most likely going to favor my people who have produced the most work and who say, "yes" when I ask them to go the extra mile for the job. A manager who is likely to be frequently gone isn't going to do the department a lot of good. Seems only logical that if you want your boss to make you a priority then you have to make the job your priority.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is that the assumption is probably correct.
> 
> I'd be happy to see that change (and I think it is changing) but, until it does.......


I agree, it needs to change at home too. Dads and Moms need to see parenting and household tasks more equally in general. It can be a fault of both genders.

The problem with saying I'm happy to see that change but until it does....

could be used for other things as well. 

No default 50/50 custody because Mom _probably _does more child related tasks and that's changing but until it does......

If life in general, jobs, courts, looked at parenting as equal between the genders then made choices based on that as a default and altered for when the situation called for it, it would improve quite a few things IMO.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> Buddy I want to add that even if females do believe the female applicants are less able, it may not be because we have been conditioned to believe that women are less intelligent or capable. It may possibly be due to the fact that women are the only ones who give birth and are usually the only ones who take maternity leave. There is nothing wrong with this bias if that is what is driving this trend as it's a fact of life if we want to procreate.
> 
> I have three little kids and can tell you for certain that I am not as good of a teacher as I would be if I did not have kids or even if I were a man because I've had to take so many days off work alone. This is not my fault of course and I'm glad my pay is based on seniority alone.


Stop providing facts! Don't you know they are misogynistic? >


----------



## unbelievable

Buddy400 said:


> Looked at rationally, if women are likely to take significant time off after having a child (maybe years!), are more likely to take time off when children are ill and are more likely than men to work less hours than men, then it makes sense for businesses discriminate against women when hiring.
> 
> However, I think we're all agreed that this would be wrong. What about women who aren't going to have kids, have partners who will take time off for the kids, etc.? We can't deny them the opportunity. You could base jobs on Mommy (or Daddy) tracks, but who knows for sure how they'll feel about having children in the future.
> 
> Of course there's the new idea that we should simply change the nature of work and not have anybody work more than 40 hours a week, allow unlimited, paid leave for taking care of children, elderly parents, etc. The only problem with this is that it will never work and will never happen.
> 
> We're already requiring companies to pay men and women the same ignoring the fact that there are significant risks in hiring women of child bearing age.
> 
> Somehow that doesn't seem good enough to a lot of people.


A great many (probably most) employees don't use all their existing vacation or medical leave time. I have been maxed out for years and no longer even accrue leave. People get sick. People quit without notice. Work occasional requires overtime and I don't know how any law is going to change the facts of life. Those who want to sham will do so whether there is a law that permits it or whether they devise some other scheme. Those who place a high value on work will work beyond the minimum requirements of the job regardless of some politician's law. 

It's illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sex but there is no law that requires employers to be stupid and to promote an inferior worker over a more productive one simply because one has a particular form of genitalia. As a matter of fact, that would be illegal. 

If someone wishes to have employment that doesn't interfere with the full enjoyment of their personal life, jobs are available but they aren't typically found in management (or shouldn't be). Mediocre performance should get mediocre wages and stellar performance should beget stellar wages. People who work as if their family's survival depends on it should receive higher rewards than those who work as if their job is a hobby.


----------



## MichelleR

I think that the Equal Pay Act supplies enough fairness and support to female workers as necessary. There is not anything wrong with society because women give birth and we should not attempt to change employers' attitudes when they are making judgments based on peoples' abilities in the workplace. 

Would I personally apply for promotions if they were presented but required significantly more hours? Hell no! I'm having a hard enough time juggling motherhood with my job and my husband makes money to support us too. There is nothing wrong with that decision. If my husband wanted a promotion and we both felt that we could handle his increased hours I'd say go for it. 

You may criticize us for the fact that I do more childcare than him. There are biological reasons for this. When pregnant with my second child I got so ill I had to take four weeks off. Then I took six weeks maternity leave which I wanted and felt I deserved. When my babies get sick I'm the first to offer to stay home because I breastfeeding and feel that the hydration and bonding helps them recover faster. I am lucky to live in a country where my job security is protected and my pay is still the same as men with the same amount of experience. 

Do I actually want all of the household chores to be split exactly 50/50? No. The reason is Id rather do the dishes than do household repairs or clean the gutters or other jobs that my husband prefers to do. (My husband does do dishes too sometimes). Overall I'd say we work equally hard but we have different strengths and preferences. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> Also, women in STEM fields tend to congregate in the lower paid specialties such as Biology.


That does not explain why women are paid less than the men who work in the exact same field.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> That does not explain why women are paid less than the men who work in the exact same field.


We've already explained that several times.

I'll start a new thread about that topic, which might reduce the noise on this thread.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> My understanding is that the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay women less for the same job and hours decades ago. Women have sued and won for this kind of mistreatment so companies now are mindful of this. Plus common sense tells me that of course companies would rather hire women if they can pay them significantly less than men for doing the exact same job.


In recent years, women working at WalMart sued because they are openly not promoted and paid less. There was a class action law suit in which women had proof of supervisors telling them that they were not promoted because men need to be paid more, because men support families, and simply because they are women.

The law suit was not heard by the supreme court because they said that a large group of women who all work at Walmart does not make a proper legal class. If that does not make a proper class, then there is no proper legal class.

Basically employers were given the right to discriminate against women by the supreme court.

I worked at a job in which there was some very gross discrimination going on. For example I was the supervisor of a large group that was mostly men. I took the evidence to a labor lawyer. What I was told is that with the evidence I had, I would win the case hands down. But that if I went through with it, I would never be able to find another job. Why? Because even though I was right, no one would hire a person who sued their employer.

So, I, like most people who experience discrimination and unequal pay did not sue because I needed to work for a living.



MichelleR said:


> There may be natural reasons women make less money than men overall (hours worked per week, personal preferences, etc) but we should not assume it is because women are oppressed by men or social conditioning.


But when we look at women who work in the same field, have the same experience, the same education, same job title, work the same number of hours.. women in STEM are still paid less than men.



MichelleR said:


> The STEM fields are very much promoted for girls these days (I think people assume girls have no confidence in these fields due to social conditioning so we make efforts to encourage them to go into these fields) but no one bats an eye at the fact that boys are more behind girls in general in reading and writing skills which are also vital for success in the workplace.


You are a teacher right? Do the boys in your class perform less well than the girls in your class? If so why?

On the one hand there are people encouraging girls to go into the STEM fields. On the other hand there is a bigger push by society to discourage girls from doing so. Girls are told that they guys will not like them. That they are not feminine if they go into those fields.

You are wrong that no one bats and eye at the fact that boys are generally behind girls in reading and writing. But it seems to even out as the kids get older. After all, after high school, men get higher paid jobs so apparently the problem resolves itself.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> I think that the Equal Pay Act supplies enough fairness and support to female workers as necessary. There is not anything wrong with society because women give birth and we should not attempt to change employers' attitudes when they are making judgments based on peoples' abilities in the workplace.
> 
> Would I personally apply for promotions if they were presented but required significantly more hours? Hell no! I'm having a hard enough time juggling motherhood with my job and my husband makes money to support us too. There is nothing wrong with that decision. If my husband wanted a promotion and we both felt that we could handle his increased hours I'd say go for it.


That is you. You choose to work less for whatever reasons you have.

But that does not explain why women who work as many hours as the men get paid less. It does not explain why women who work more hours than the men get paid less even when all else is equal.



MichelleR said:


> You may criticize us for the fact that I do more childcare than him. There are biological reasons for this. When pregnant with my second child I got so ill I had to take four weeks off. Then I took six weeks maternity leave which I wanted and felt I deserved. When my babies get sick I'm the first to offer to stay home because I breastfeeding and feel that the hydration and bonding helps them recover faster. I am lucky to live in a country where my job security is protected and my pay is still the same as men with the same amount of experience.
> 
> Do I actually want all of the household chores to be split exactly 50/50? No. The reason is Id rather do the dishes than do household repairs or clean the gutters or other jobs that my husband prefers to do. (My husband does do dishes too sometimes). Overall I'd say we work equally hard but we have different strengths and preferences. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.


I don't think anyone is criticizing you for your choices. what you do has no bearing on what anyone else doe.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> I think that the Equal Pay Act supplies enough fairness and support to female workers as necessary. There is not anything wrong with society because women give birth and we should not attempt to change employers' attitudes when they are making judgments based on peoples' abilities in the workplace.
> 
> Would I personally apply for promotions if they were presented but required significantly more hours? Hell no! I'm having a hard enough time juggling motherhood with my job and my husband makes money to support us too. There is nothing wrong with that decision. If my husband wanted a promotion and we both felt that we could handle his increased hours I'd say go for it.
> 
> You may criticize us for the fact that I do more childcare than him. There are biological reasons for this. When pregnant with my second child I got so ill I had to take four weeks off. Then I took six weeks maternity leave which I wanted and felt I deserved. When my babies get sick I'm the first to offer to stay home because I breastfeeding and feel that the hydration and bonding helps them recover faster. I am lucky to live in a country where my job security is protected and my pay is still the same as men with the same amount of experience.
> 
> Do I actually want all of the household chores to be split exactly 50/50? No. The reason is Id rather do the dishes than do household repairs or clean the gutters or other jobs that my husband prefers to do. (My husband does do dishes too sometimes). Overall I'd say we work equally hard but we have different strengths and preferences. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.


You can make whatever choices you want to, thank goodness you are allowed to and have the rights to do that, but jobs should not decide how to hire or pay based on what YOU do as a Mother. They should consider men and women equal on a default.

Universally assuming that men just aren't as involved with their children, don't take days off when needed, don't pick up the extra slack at home-- this should be fought against, especially by those who want to see 50/50 default custody because parents are equally important. 
If specific families choose to do that it has nothing to do with how men and women should be looked at as a whole.


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> In recent years, women working at WalMart sued because they are openly not promoted and paid less. There was a class action law suit in which women had proof of supervisors telling them that they were not promoted because men need to be paid more, because men support families, and simply because they are women.
> 
> The law suit was not heard by the supreme court because they said that a large group of women who all work at Walmart does not make a proper legal class. If that does not make a proper class, then there is no proper legal class.
> 
> Basically employers were given the right to discriminate against women by the supreme court.


Since it's a law suit, I'm guessing that there are two sides to the story and it's up to the courts to decide who has the best case.

I seems as if you think the Supreme Court should just take a pass and sent it over to Elegirl for resolution



EleGirl said:


> But when we look at women who work in the *same field, have the same experience, the same education, same job title, work the same number of hours*.. women in STEM are still paid less than men.





EleGirl said:


> But that does not explain why women who work as many house as the men get paid less. It does not explain why women who work more hours than the men get paid less even when all else is equal.


Are there some studies comparing the pay of women in STEM who work in the *same field, have the same experience, the same education, same job title, work the same number of hours* yet still get paid less?

I'm talking about studies, not anecdotes. 


It seems that you aren't really engaging in the discussion. It's like your giving a monologue. When you pause and someone else says something you just pick right back up where you left off without really addressing the points they were trying to make.


----------



## Buddy400

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You can make whatever choices you want to, thank goodness you are allowed to and have the rights to do that, but jobs should not decide how to hire or pay based on what YOU do as a Mother. They should consider men and women equal on a default.
> 
> Universally assuming that men just aren't as involved with their children, don't take days off when needed, don't pick up the extra slack at home-- this should be fought against, especially by those who want to see 50/50 default custody because parents are equally important.
> If specific families choose to do that it has nothing to do with how men and women should be looked at as a whole.


I think that if things in your private life have a negative affect on your ability to perform the job, then they are relevant.

If a couple both work full-time and the mother does 90% of the child care, I'd recommend that she get 90% of the custody. I don't understand why a father who ignores his kids should get 50% custody.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I don't doubt that there was significant wage disparity 30 years ago. That's why I support the policy of equal pay for equal work.
> 
> However, we need to be very careful that we're comparing apples to apples. It could be possible that women in engineering tend to chose jobs and specialties that allow more family time. I don't know that this is the case, but I'd want to make sure before assuming discrimination.
> 
> Also, as Dave points out below, most serious studies put the actual wage gap at no more than 5% when other factors are taken into consideration. The AAUW study's number of 82% is way out of line with this, so I'd really want to look at the details.
> 
> If a female engineer is actually getting 82% of what her male colleague is getting with equal experience, she's got a heck of a case and ought to be suing her employer.


And when she did go to a lawyer to sue, she was told that no doubt she would win the case. But because she sued she would never be able to get another job because no company will touch a person who has sued a pervious employer.

And the way the law is, the only compensation a person can get for being underbased based on gender, race, etc is back pay. There is no punative damages as there is every other type of law suit. So the amount that a person would bet would maybe pay their legal fees.

Congress tried to pass an update to the equal pay law that would allow the same types of damages allowed in all other legal cases brought under US employment laws. But the Republicans in Congress did not vote for it so it did not pass.


----------



## Cletus

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> They should consider men and women equal on a default.


My industry has more or less standardized on the following system - 

You git hired for a specific job at a specific pay grade. Your pay grade determines the minimum and maximum you can make at that job.

Every year you are reviewed. Everyone else in the department is likewise reviewed. Upper management tells the department ahead of time either what the pool of money is available for raises or the expected average rating for the department, which is a proxy for the same thing. 

That annual review produces a single decimal number. Your raise is tied to 1) where you are within the sliding pay grade, above or below which you cannot be paid and 2) your rating compared to the rest of the department.

Two people working side by side in a department with identical ratings over time will get exactly the same raise. The only way to get a pay differential between the two is if one gets better ACTUAL ratings or gets promoted to a higher pay grade. 

Into which pay grade you are placed when hired is a matter of negotiation based on your skills, the hiring department, and you willingness to press for and receive a grade you believe to be commensurate with your skills. 

Will taking more time off than the person sitting next to you for any one of a number of reasons impact your performance review? Probably. As well it should. But we are paid to do a job, not sit at a desk for a certain number of hours a week. If you keep up your quality and productivity, you'll be rated accordingly. 

Can I guarantee that no manager has ever systematically underrated women? Of course not, but that's a personnel issue. It is not institutional to the system.


----------



## MichelleR

Elegirl, you say that since men get higher paying jobs we don't have to worry about boys being behind girls in school in reading and writing. 

This belief kind of hits to core of what I'm saying. Boys are struggling in school but it's an issue that is not worth our time because hey, men have the upper hand, right? I'm saying that a lot of these beliefs are in fact not true and we really do need to consider the well being of our next generation of boys. 

As a teacher is say boys struggle more in school for two main reasons. One is that the curriculum is requiring more reading at a younger age and boys mature slower emotionally. Therefore boys in kindergarten or first grade that may have a lot of potential start off behind in school and develop a self image of being stupid. Another problem is that boys' behaviors are much harder for is to control. I don't know how to better reach them myself. Some of my brightest boys have been nightmares to teach because they've been bouncing off the walls and unmotivated. I think they need a lot of things like more recess and gym, fathers in the home, and materials in class that are more appealing than the bare-bones standards that have taken over. Girls have been more immune to the changes in schools because they emotionally mature sooner, have less physical energy, and in general are more "teacher-pleaders."

Also the reason I included my description of my personal choices regarding why I do more childcare is to explain why employers may have a bias toward men that doesn't have to do with feelings of discrimination or conditioning but more to do with an observation of choices many families make today. 

I'm saying all of this also because it seems like many modern feminists are trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist anymore and in doing so they are preventing us from seeing some problems with our boys checking out of things like education and marriage.


----------



## MichelleR

Sorry for all my typos, I don't text well


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> My industry has more or less standardized on the following system -
> 
> You git hired for a specific job at a specific pay grade. Your pay grade determines the minimum and maximum you can make at that job.
> 
> Every year you are reviewed. Everyone else in the department is likewise reviewed. Upper management tells the department ahead of time either what the pool of money is available for raises or the expected average rating for the department, which is a proxy for the same thing.
> 
> That annual review produces a single decimal number. Your raise is tied to 1) where you are within the sliding pay grade, above or below which you cannot be paid and 2) your rating compared to the rest of the department.
> 
> Two people working side by side in a department with identical ratings over time will get exactly the same raise. The only way to get a pay differential between the two is if one gets better ACTUAL ratings or gets promoted to a higher pay grade.


I work for a private company that has a similar system. It works well and makes things very fair.

The problem is with a lot private companies that have very sketchy ways of determining salaries and bonuses. 

I would highly recommend that any woman working for one of the companies that tries to keep salaries private, that she talk about salary as much as she can to her co-workers to get the information she needs to ensure that she's being paid fairly. Personally, I would never again work for a company that doesn't have very open communication about compensation.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> The problem is with a lot private companies that have very sketchy ways of determining salaries and bonuses.


Even though the salaries and bonuses are prescribed, the ratings are not, and are pretty sketchy themselves, except the ones that try to be minimally objective, which require a huge amount of time to properly administer. 



> Personally, I would never again work for a company that doesn't have very open communication about compensation.


I've never worked anywhere where open discussion of compensation was not HUGELY frowned upon.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I've never worked anywhere where open discussion of compensation was not HUGELY frowned upon.


Of course it is and its often for very salacious reasons.

That's why a lot of women don't realize how unfairly they're being paid. The statistics are collected from H.R. and often contain information that the employees themselves don't actually know.

But for women, there's only one way to figure this out....talk about it.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> SlowlyGoingCrazy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and it shouldn't be assumed that Mom is going to be the one to pick up this slack. It should be assumed that both Mom and Dad will be sharing the task of parenting equally but the "who takes the sick days" "who takes mat leave" still often gets assumed on the Mother.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the assumption is probably correct.
> 
> I'd be happy to see that change (and I think it is changing) but, until it does.......
Click to expand...

Where I work, most of the people I work with are married with children. In most cases both parents work.

The men typically take turns with their wives for things like taking time off when a child is sick, for a doc appointment, etc.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> a study of n=127 is incredibly small to even make the basis of such claims.
> 
> I work in a large corp, starting engineers all make the same, regardless of gender. I would be shocked if that is not the case anywhere in the US for companies larger than 100 employees. There would be way too much risk to not do it that way.


I know for a fact that some of the largest corporations in the USA pay female employees less than males who are equivalent in education, experience, etc.

There are all kinds of ways to get around this. One of the biggest ways is to make it a fireable offense for employees to talk to each other about what they make.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> Elegirl, you say that since men get higher paying jobs we don't have to worry about boys being behind girls in school in reading and writing.
> 
> This belief kind of hits to core of what I'm saying. Boys are struggling in school but it's an issue that is not worth our time because hey, men have the upper hand, right? I'm saying that a lot of these beliefs are in fact not true and we really do need to consider the well being of our next generation of boys.
> 
> As a teacher is say boys struggle more in school for two main reasons. One is that the curriculum is requiring more reading at a younger age and boys mature slower emotionally. Therefore boys in kindergarten or first grade that may have a lot of potential start off behind in school and develop a self image of being stupid. Another problem is that boys' behaviors are much harder for is to control. I don't know how to better reach them myself. Some of my brightest boys have been nightmares to teach because they've been bouncing off the walls and unmotivated. I think they need a lot of things like more recess and gym, fathers in the home, and materials in class that are more appealing than the bare-bones standards that have taken over. Girls have been more immune to the changes in schools because they emotionally mature sooner, have less physical energy, and in general are more "teacher-pleaders."
> 
> Also the reason I included my description of my personal choices regarding why I do more childcare is to explain why employers may have a bias toward men that doesn't have to do with feelings of discrimination or conditioning but more to do with an observation of choices many families make today.
> 
> I'm saying all of this also because it seems like many modern feminists are trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist anymore and in doing so they are preventing us from seeing some problems with our boys checking out of things like education and marriage.


My school does a lot to keep the kids on their feet. 3 recess (even for grade 8) "Brain breaks" on gonoodle a couple times a day, physically working with their hands, smart boards, allowing them to use whatever they want (even comics) for reading. Seriously, shaving cream on the desk and writing out spelling words with their fingers. Can actually keep my ADD son's attention, and gum- which I know is a nightmare for the janitors but sine grade 3 my son's been allowed it, can help keep attention during tests. 

There's a lot that can be done to accommodate hyper/ tactical boys.
A person doesn't have to look at only one problem. I see issues with boys in school and hope it can be fixed, I see the problems with women in the workplace and hope it can be fixed.

Feminists aren't all just focused on one thing. I am pro-equal rights for all. I support LBGT rights, gender issues, race issues. But if a different group is needing some focus, it's not the feminists fault. 

The problem with employers assuming that women are doing the child care is because not all families are following that. I do it myself as well but I don't believe that all women should be treated like they will. If they see a Jane Smith come across their resume pile, it shouldn't just be _assumed _that she's going to have babies and take sick days and be distracted at work.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> I know for a fact that some of the largest corporations in the USA pay female employees less than males who are equivalent in education, experience, etc.
> 
> There are all kinds of ways to get around this. One of the biggest ways is to make it a fireable offense for employees to talk to each other about what they make.


A I know for a fact that the females tend to get more, for the equivalence in role. It wasn't until I started looking into corrupt business practices (ie where men were being displaced so "cheaper" women could be hired) that I noticed the discrepancies behind many of the surveys.

Often the surveys included top CEO's who worked jobs that involved many years of network building or who-knows-who and family connections. These jobs had no pattern of behaviour and were gender biased because many women who had these facilities preferred not to work or married men in this layer and refused to work, it being culturally beneath them (and their husband). Often those who did labor did "hobby" jobs or charity work, where it was considered "beneath them" to concern themselves with wages they didn't even need. The men however were required to have "many figure" salaries. The other telling effect was this layer required _many_ years of uninterrupted commitment.

the senior management was similar, except the work was harder and often involved a lot of after hours commitments, and more years of uninterrupted commitment to stay in touch, and people in this layer had developed positions after considerable time in mid-level management roles where they'd couldn't have lapses in status or failure. Again most of the women I read about in this range tended to drop out for family or charity roles "which gave them more personal satisfaction""finding themselves".

When I got to the lower ranks I found the a large number of women tended to be hired with less qualifications, but often they insisted on things like child flexible hours, extra medical or other facilities, strict leaving times, part-time work, or had less qualifications. all in all, they got higher total remuneration when compared with others. some complained that they were experts in their job, with far more years experience than someone else who was promoted above them (this was common claim with women in direct supervisor roles) ... but when asked what the promotion job entailed they had no idea of what that role did, what skills were needed, what qualifications were required....in short they were valuable for what they did (so didn't get promoted) and had zero potential for advanced jobs(so were). Frequently those who did get promoted, more often than not the women were ineffective in the leadership roles, either trying to delegate everything to everyone else, expecting to be carried, or turning into complete tyrants ("empire envy") and managed to alienate everyone around them (which did not create much in promotion or raises opportunity).
If you want to duplicate the research, I highly recommend it, although it will cost a lot in the way of beer/wine/spirits to extract the truth.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

jld said:


> I thank my husband for supporting us all the time. He thinks providing for a family is normal, though.


that's "Father" activity.
Does he also make time to contribute to your relationship ?


----------



## jld

spotthedeaddog said:


> that's "Father" activity.
> Does he also make time to contribute to your relationship ?


He's working on it.


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> I think I've seen things like this where even if it's a female reviewing the resumes, the result is the same.
> 
> If women are perceived as being less qualified and competent than men by both sexes, then what the heck are we to do about that?
> 
> All employees are paid based on their perceived competence. It has to be that way since there is no way to know their "actual" competence.


What we do about it is that as a society we look at it, we talk and we learn. Sometimes people do not realize their own prejudices until it hits them in the face.

In the 1990's, my husband came home very angry one day. At that time he was working for a large engineering firm. They had a meeting (all men) because they wanted to hire a couple of new engineers. They decided to hire women this time. Why? Because they could pay the women far less then male engineers, so it would look good on the department budget. This really did anger my husband. He grew up with a mother who had to work after her husband dumped her.

At about the same time I had hired a woman whose husband was an accoutnat at on of the big 8 accounting firms. She told me that her husband told her that when refused to hire women accountants. Why? The men did not want to work with upitty women. So how did the ensure that they never hired a woman? It was simple. They just threw away resumes from women. 

It's not likely that anyone would this blatant today. Why? Because society has changed. How did society change? We talked. We told people who did this nonsense that they were wrong. And they learned that .

So today we have another level of discrimination to deal with. We need to address it. We can talk about it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

My H works physical labour jobs, it's all men but the reception and office staff, in every one he has been at. A lot of the positions women would physically be able to do, H has heard them speak about how they don't hire any because it's too much worry about sexual harassment and they know they can't control some of the workers, they also worry about "distractions". Doesn't even give them a chance. 

There's a lot of under the table discrimination going on that is obviously not advertised or able to be found in statistics.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> What we do about it is that as a society we look at it, we talk and we learn. Sometimes people do not realize their own prejudices until it hits them in the face.
> 
> In the 1990's, my husband came home very angry one day. At that time he was working for a large engineering firm. They had a meeting (all men) because they wanted to hire a couple of new engineers. They decided to hire women this time. Why? Because they could pay the women far less then male engineers, so it would look good on the department budget. This really did anger my husband. He grew up with a mother who had to work after her husband dumped her.
> 
> At about the same time I had hired a woman whose husband was an accoutnat at on of the big 8 accounting firms. She told me that her husband told her that when refused to hire women accountants. Why? The men did not want to work with upitty women. So how did the ensure that they never hired a woman? It was simple. They just threw away resumes from women.
> 
> It's not likely that anyone would this blatant today. Why? Because society has changed. How did society change? We talked. We told people who did this nonsense that they were wrong. And they learned that .
> 
> So today we have another level of discrimination to deal with. We need to address it. We can talk about it.


As an ex-employer I got to the point I threw away women's resumes too. All previous female employees had created arguments, cost contracts, and in one case all but bankrupted the business by failing (and lying) while in a keystone position (which I'd helped her get, and I'd paid for her training in the field). In every case they would always put their personal interests above that of the company - and jeopardised everyones' interest (and cost me many many thousands of dollars personally). We just could not take that risk.
I have no problem with women as independent contractors, on a per project, or per task basis, but would never hire a woman as an employee ever again. In one case *I* was threatened with a legal action by one woman because one female staff member resented the sexual behavior that one of the male staff members was doing. Turned out the one threatening me was jealous as she had hooked up with male staff member during corporate function, and now was paying attention to one of the other female staff members instead (the other two eventually ended up dating). I run a place of business, my customers desires (and payment) are the golden rule, you don't bring that crap into my business, let alone threaten me with legal action over it!!!

In places where I have been employed at least half the women in each case got paid more than I did. And more annoyingly, they weren't even expected to pay their own way at any event. I had to provide "professional clothes" for conferences, they got uniforms from the company. they got company cellphones that they had to pay token "$10 for tolls", I had to provide own cellphone and meet all costs, and had to file for petty cash with proof for re-imbursement which I would only received if the call could be blled to a customers project.

That's not even counting the extra's such a training courses offered to females, but were rarely offered to male staff even if we asked, even if they were relevant to our jobs (and not to theirs) eg bosses assistant got sent on a marketing basics training (time off, and all expenses paid), course was not offered to any of the junior male staff in marketing, who weren't even aware of the course, and even then we had to take leave and pay our own way to attend.

Or having to deal with male "public face" staff about number of customers an hour, but watching (queueing) behind female staff "who were just giving good customer relations by gossiping with a single customer for over 30 minutes during rush hour". In the end the male staff member left, despite having 5 times the sales, because his (female) supervisor wanted him to do more cleaning/arranging, especially outside shop hours "because he was a man and could carry things more easily than the female staff"...and he thought he was called into the office for a raise for his sales figures...more fool him!

Or having to console a 24yr female friend from the hospitality industry who couldn't work out why she was fired for restocking the fridges in the cafe during evening rush hour (ie taking out old stock and putting new stock in back), and then telling her boss she didn't care about (whatever the boss was talking about, she didn't remember) as she had been taught this was the way to stock the fridge properly.

Or mid-line female managers who would deliberate withhold information from underlings and field staff because they (a) hadn't asked for it, and (b) might not be of security clearance to get the information but she never checked.

and every company I know of that hired a woman "because it was cheap" got what they paid for.

I have nothing against women working and think pay should be gender unrelated. but no way I am ever going to put a company or shareholder at risk like that again.

And there's a big push at the moment to get women into boardrooms. Which just says to me they can't get there on their own merit - those who are got there through their own effort and sacrifice (and many are terribly bad). So what does that say about those who can only get into through quota?


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Elegirl, you say that since men get higher paying jobs we don't have to worry about boys being behind girls in school in reading and writing.


You are right that our public school system sucks. You are a teacher. Maybe you could do something about that? At least in your own classroom?


My point is not exactly how you present it here. The fact is that even if some boys are behind some girls at some point in school seems to not have a large impact as a whole on the earning potential of the boys once they are adults. If we are going to look at facts, we need to look at all of them. Boys do seem to have a problem in our school system. So if they do, why do they still do better in the work force than women? 


Here is an article that you might find interesting.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-are-dominating-men-at-college-blame-sexism/


MichelleR said:


> This belief kind of hits to core of what I'm saying. Boys are struggling in school but it's an issue that is not worth our time because hey, men have the upper hand, right? I'm saying that a lot of these beliefs are in fact not true and we really do need to consider the well being of our next generation of boys.


You are twisting my point. We need to look at all the facts. The worse place for most kids today is in our public school system. We need to consider the wellbeing of ALL of our children.., both the boys and the girls. Just because girls do better in our lousy school system for a while, it does not mean that they are getting all that much more out of it than the boys.



MichelleR said:


> As a teacher is say boys struggle more in school for two main reasons. One is that the curriculum is requiring more reading at a younger age and boys mature slower emotionally. Therefore boys in kindergarten or first grade that may have a lot of potential start off behind in school and develop a self image of being stupid. Another problem is that boys' behaviors are much harder for is to control. I don't know how to better reach them myself. Some of my brightest boys have been nightmares to teach because they've been bouncing off the walls and unmotivated. I think they need a lot of things like more recess and gym, fathers in the home, and materials in class that are more appealing than the bare-bones standards that have taken over. Girls have been more immune to the changes in schools because they emotionally mature sooner, have less physical energy, and in general are more "teacher-pleaders."


I agree our schools suck. There is not a lot that most parents can do about it because the schools are now controlled by people who are more interested in social engineering than education. If my kids were school age now, I would home school them.


MichelleR said:


> Also the reason I included my description of my personal choices regarding why I do more childcare is to explain why employers may have a bias toward men that doesn't have to do with feelings of discrimination or conditioning but more to do with an observation of choices many families make today.


Your choices are your own choices. They are not my choices. They are not the choices of the woman who sits in the office across from mine. She never had children. She never wanted children. So your choice to work less is your choice. It would not hurt me or the woman who sits in the office across from me.


I agree, if someone choses to work less in their career and to take their career less seriously, then they should be paid accordingly.


MichelleR said:


> I'm saying all of this also because it seems like many modern feminists are trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist anymore and in doing so they are preventing us from seeing some problems with our boys checking out of things like education and marriage.


Women being paid the same as men for the same work with the same education and experience has nothing do with problems that might exist for boys.


We as a society are perfectly capable of identifying and working on more than one issue at a time.


Today, males are going to college at a higher rate than have ever gone. And women are going at an even higher rate. Why is that? Because women need more education in order to make incomes that are even passably a living wage. Men can make a good wage without college generally.


I am a huge proponent for education. To me, the more the better. But today, most students have to pay very high fees to attend college. So most are getting out of college with debt that it just ridiculously high. I’ve spoken to a lot of young guys who feel that it’s not worth being in that much debt. They can make a good living without it.


----------



## MichelleR

SlowlyGoingC your son's teacher sounds wonderful. I will say most of the classrooms I've seen are not like that though. I taught in an inner city school for the past six years ( middle school math the first three and fourth grade math and science the next three). I found the behaviors were very challenging to handle, especially since we are expected to teach such rigorous lessons to students who are entering so far behind. I found I did the best with the highest students and got my gifted endorsement so this year I am traveling between five buildings and doing half whole class and half small group lessons with first, second, and third graders. In most of the classes it's very hard to teach anything if the students aren't quiet and still. I wish I had an answer for it but it has always been a struggle for me. Btw gum is not allowed in the schools I teach in and we don't have smart boards or a lot of resources other schools have.

My limited view of upper middle class schools is that the rules are VERY strict and very little, if any, boy rough-housing is tolerated. Also I was reading about how the reading and writing assignments are a lot more ummm, sensitive? If I were to describe them. Boys aren't allowed to write about wars or things of that nature anymore. I don't have much experience with that myself personally though since I only taught math to the older grades. 

In my family my younger siblings are still in high school and college. Both brothers (one on my mom's side, one on my dad's - all half siblings) have been very bored and unmotivated in school. My nephew is struggling horribly in first grade this year as well and I hope he can get his needs met and start developing some confidence and better achievement too.


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> At about the same time I had hired a woman whose husband was an accoutnat at on of the big 8 accounting firms. She told me that her husband told her that when refused to hire women accountants. Why? The men did not want to work with upitty women. So how did the ensure that they never hired a woman? It was simple. They just threw away resumes from women.
> 
> It's not likely that anyone would this blatant today. Why? Because society has changed. How did society change? We talked. We told people who did this nonsense that they were wrong. And they learned that .
> 
> So today we have another level of discrimination to deal with. We need to address it. We can talk about it.


Yes, and now the needle has swung the other way. "Diversity" and "inclusion" have become metrics for their own sake without asking the hard question whether these people are the BEST choice for a role. Personally, I don't give a rats ass if there hasn't been a female chair, CEO, etc. Who is the BEST *person* we can find for that role? I report to women, all the way to the top. Which is only a couple of people ahead but I honestly feel we could use a little more men in the mix. After all, the argument "better decisions through diversity" goes both ways.

My other thought is that it's insulting to women that our roles are "gifted" to fill a quota, not earned based on merit. I'm talented. I'm not afraid of some competition that happens to be male. Bring it.


----------



## MichelleR

Elegirl you bring up interesting points. I do find it ironic though that you say you'd homeschool your kids if they were young today. I would personally love to do that but I grudgingly admitted that we can't afford to raise our kids without my income and benefits. 

You do realize that homeschooling mothers depend on traditional breadwinner fathers in this country, right? I'm just joking a little but I do find it interesting.


----------



## MichelleR

Elegirl you also say that employers shouldn't make assumptions about the women that apply for positions. 

I don't think there is much we can do to change that. We can't change peoples' experiences with the people they hire. Today, a lot of young women have kids. I agree that arbitrarily meeting quotas does not put the most qualified people in positions. I can think of two employers who don't like to hire men for receptionist jobs because their personal experience was that they were less organized. 

We would go nuts if we tried to get people to assume that most young women are not as likely as men to be preoccupied at home with childcare. How would we even go about doing that? As a culture men are MUCH more involved with kids than they were in previous generations but women still give birth and my experience is that they prefer and are more capable of nurturing babies more than men. No political agenda or talk is going to change that.


----------



## MichelleR

Actually I want to clarify -fathers in the home are much more involved with their kids in today's age. Fathers who are divorced- not as much, but that's another result of the more recent feminist efforts to empower women as most divorces are filed by women.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> Yes, and now the needle has swung the other way. "Diversity" and "inclusion" have become metrics for their own sake without asking the hard question whether these people are the BEST choice for a role. Personally, I don't give a rats ass if there hasn't been a female chair, CEO, etc. Who is the BEST *person* we can find for that role? I report to women, all the way to the top. Which is only a couple of people ahead but I honestly feel we could use a little more men in the mix. After all, the argument "better decisions through diversity" goes both ways.
> 
> My other thought is that it's insulting to women that our roles are "gifted" to fill a quota, not earned based on merit. I'm talented. I'm not afraid of some competition that happens to be male. Bring it.


I've been in engineering for over 30 years. I've never worked anywhere where women, or anyone, are 'gifted' jobs because of quotas or anything else. My brothers and sisters also have jobs that range from engineering to physicians and none of them work in environments which 'gift' jobs to anyone.

That might be the culture were you live. It is not here. Here, if a person does not perform they are let go.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Actually I want to clarify -fathers in the home are much more involved with their kids in today's age. Fathers who are divorced- not as much, but that's another result of the more recent feminist efforts to empower women as most divorces are filed by women.


Here where I live, fathers get 50% custody. So they are as involved as the mothers are. That is becoming the norm nation wide.

It's so very nice that you have a perfect life and perfect husband.

There are times when a person has little choice but to get a divorce. 100 years ago, those of us in this situation would have had no choice but to stay in bad, abusive relationships with men who cheat. I'm sorry that you hold it against those of us who were handed a rotten deal in marriage.

But I am glad that the law now sees me and other people in bad situations as adult enough to decide for ourselves if our marriage is bad.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> If my kids were school age now, I would home school them.


High five, Ele!


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Elegirl you also say that employers shouldn't make assumptions about the women that apply for positions.
> 
> I don't think there is much we can do to change that. We can't change peoples' experiences with the people they hire. Today, a lot of young women have kids. I agree that arbitrarily meeting quotas does not put the most qualified people in positions.


I have been involved in hiring a few hundred people, both men and women. The women have been no more likely to quit because of having children. The women work the same number of hours that the men do. The women do their jobs just as well as the men do. I have a sister and a brother who are also engineering. They have had the same experience. We have talked about this often.

Yes the women do get maternity leave if they have children. But in our companies, so do the men. Yep, men can get time off when their wife has a baby and so for 100% of the men take advantage of this. There is no difference in my company with how much time men and women take off work on average over their career. Yes we keep track of this. As a manager I have get these reports on a monthly basis.

It was 6 more years before altitudes changed and I was allowed to take the necessary classes to get my degree. When I got my MS degree I was not the only woman anymore in those classes. Can people impressions be changed? Yep they can be changed. When I first tried to get a STEM degree, I was told that women cannot do that.



MichelleR said:


> I can think of two employers who don't like to hire men for receptionist jobs because their personal experience was that they were less organized.


The person making this assumption has no business making hiring decisions if they are making their decisions based on sexist assumptions.




MichelleR said:


> We would go nuts if we tried to get people to assume that most young women are not as likely as men to be preoccupied at home with childcare. How would we even go about doing that? As a culture men are MUCH more involved with kids than they were in previous generations but women still give birth and my experience is that they prefer and are more capable of nurturing babies more than men. No political agenda or talk is going to change that.


Men are as capable of nurturing children as women are. Do you realize that what you said here is against everything that the men’s rights movement says? The men’s rights movement says that men should have at least 50% custody of children in divorce. And sometimes men are better nurtures than women. And you know what? I agree with the men’s movement on this.

Men parenting and nurturing their children is NOT a political agenda. It’s a reality. Boys and girls need their father every bit as much as they need their mother.

The industrial revolution is a pretty new thing in human history. Prior to that men and women usually lived on farms. Their children were right there with them 24/7. When a man was off working, they usually took their boys ages 4 and over to work with them. This idea that a man goes off to work away from home and farm is a new concept in human history. Human society has been changing since the dawn of time. The idea that men will not share more equally in raising children then they did during the last 100 or more years is a good thing.

I think that you are having a problem of thinking that your preferences is what all women prefer. Well that aren’t so. The idea is that men and women are equal. And each of us has the right to decide how we will live our lives, structure our marriages and raise our families. 

You chose your way. That’s good. I’m glad you are pleased with your own choices.

I chose my way. I am also happy with my choices.

Its’ too bad that you find so much to criticize about the choices that others, like myself, have made.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Elegirl you bring up interesting points. I do find it ironic though that you say you'd homeschool your kids if they were young today. I would personally love to do that but I grudgingly admitted that we can't afford to raise our kids without my income and benefits.


Where there is a will, there is a way.



MichelleR said:


> You do realize that homeschooling mothers depend on traditional breadwinner fathers in this country, right? I'm just joking a little but I do find it interesting.


I worked full time while raising my son. When he was young I had a software consulting company so that I could structure my days as I saw fit. I was the sole breadwinner as my husband decided to go to medical school out of the blue.

But even with working full time I was able to do a lot of home schooling. I taught my son to read before he started school. When he was 4 he asked me to teach him algebra, so I taught him arithmetic and algebra at the same time. When I was not working, he and I ‘played’ together by doing science experiments, doing rocketing, and using us microscope to map the constellations, etc. Edmond’s Science was our favorite store and catalog. And that’s just the science stuff we did. There was also literature, history, and other things that we covered. When he entered 1st grade he was reading at the 8th grade level and was far beyond the level of arithmetic needed.

He was also one of those kids who could not sit still. Why? Because school was mind numbing boring to him. I finally let him drop out of school in 10th grade. He hated school with a passion. He got the highest grade possible on the GED that he had to take in order for me to allow him to drop out. Then he sought out and got an internship at a bank where he worked for 2 years. Then he entered college. Since then he has obtained two bachelor’s degrees. One in applied mathematics and one in physics. He is now almost done with his MS in physics and is teaching at the university as well. He enters the PhD program after this. (Though he wants to go to a different school for the Phd.)

In hind sight it would not have been much more work to buy a good curriculum and have him do that with me over seeing it. My mom was around and could help too.

I have two brothers who home schooled their children.

One of them works in construction and his wife is an office manager at medical clinics. They have home schooled their children from 1st grade on. They have been able to work their schedule so that they could home school. Their kids are way ahead of the children in public school. Their daughter is graduating this year and has college scholarships to choose from. Their son is a sophomore and is following in her footsteps.

My other brother and his wife owned their own company. So both my brother and SIL worked. Their children where home schooled at the company. Whichever parent was around at the time helped the children when they needed help and/or guidance. Since the parents worked together doing this, it worked out very well. Both of the children are out of high school. Their daughter now has her own company and does very well financially. Their son, graduated with an AA degree at 17. He now has his BS and will be going into medical school this coming fall at age 20.

So, no it does not always require a “traditional breadwinner father” to home school children. I see it more as the model that humans lived since the dawn of time. Two parents working together equally to raise and educate their children. Like on the farms where the father would take the boys to work with him and the mothers would take the girls to work with her. Instead my brothers and SILs took their boys and girls to work with them and that included home schooling. Back to the old, original model of how parents raised children.. together.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
It may not be that simple. Companies do not always act in the most efficient manner possible - see the very high compensation for some high level executives who have lost companies large amounts of money. The problem is that there are a LOT of variables, and it is difficult to determine the real effects of actions.

Also, you can have a situation where by a unbiased measure, a woman is as good a manager as her male counterpart, but where her employees do not want to work for a woman - this results in her being less effective, through no inability of her own.

Also when comparing pay, you can try to correct for all sorts of things (age, work hours, family status, etc) and can get pretty much any result you want by picking and choosing the corrections to apply.






technovelist said:


> As someone else has already pointed out, if it were actually true that women who were the equal of men in every aspect of job performance were being paid substantially less than men, then any employer who hired only women would make outsized profits. This would induce others to set up companies to hire women, not because of any particular love for women, but for the love of money, which is a very strong motivation.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand basic economics.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
It can be really tricky. I have half a dozen engineers working for me 2 female 4 male. They are working on different projects so it is very difficult to make a quantitative assessment of the quality of their work. 

I honestly do the best I can to evaluate them fairly, but I have no way to know that I don't have my own hidden biases.



EnigmaGirl said:


> snip
> The problem is with a lot private companies that have very sketchy ways of determining salaries and bonuses.
> snip
> .


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> You are right that our public school system sucks. You are a teacher. Maybe you could do something about that? At least in your own classroom?
> 
> 
> My point is not exactly how you present it here. The fact is that even if some boys are behind some girls at some point in school seems to not have a large impact as a whole on the earning potential of the boys once they are adults. If we are going to look at facts, we need to look at all of them. Boys do seem to have a problem in our school system. So if they do, why do they still do better in the work force than women?


when I was young they were bemoaning the fact that boys did better at school than girls. Even though more girls went on to tertiary study.

Turns out by changing the system to "cooperative groups" and talking, not achieving, the girls did better on paper. Likewise although more girls used to go to university, far fewer did professional or commercially orientated courses, and far more refused to put any kind of tertiary education into financially orientated careers.
so now girls "do better" but in reality they do slightly less well than they did before, but the system utterly fails for boys; who would now rather go wild or do their own thing than find any purpose in school 
Likewise boys used to be expected to "make good" on the cost of their education, this has seldom been the case for tertiary educated women.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
In my experience, there are a number of issues that can contribute to both a real, and an imagined pay gap.

Simple bias can cause women to be perceived as less competent when they are equal - but where no quantitative measure of performance is possible. 

Women may do worse as managers because their employees respect the less - because of their gender.

I think that there are some personality traits the are correlated with gender - this may be learned or innate. The female engineers in my group tend to be less enthusiastic / energetic in large meetings and this can give the impression (or is it reality?) that they are less involved, less competent.

It may be true that on average women take more child care leave than men, and / or that they are less willing to work long hours. Even if statistically true, this shouldn't affect individual hiring decisions.

Discrimination earlier in the system - education, or earlier in careers may leave women at a disadvantage in their current jobs. This may be the case for the two women who just joined my group - they both are fairly low pay - and I have limited ability to correct that quickly. 

Its all really tricky.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EnigmaGirl said:


> Of course it is and its often for very salacious reasons.
> 
> That's why a lot of women don't realize how unfairly they're being paid. The statistics are collected from H.R. and often contain information that the employees themselves don't actually know.
> 
> But for women, there's only one way to figure this out....talk about it.


You could work in IT. Then we don't even get the liars trying to twist things, AND we can see the timesheet data. Doesn't tell you about the human factor but you can usually find that out easily enough through a bit of social engineering. Whether or not someone has "what it takes" to push through a typical project when things go tough, is solid enough that they're not going to bust into tears or threaten people when times are hard, that won't pick a personal tantrum with individuals in the team ever and allow that personal grievance to create an employment court issue. Who are creative, those who can lead without having to depend on others, or have others "take point", that will handle all the boys talk/girl talk/jargon/sports metaphors/golf etc in their stride. the further up the chain the more important it is just to be able to be part of the crowd and stand out positively as one who inspires trust and leadership. Very few women can do all those things consistantly.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

richardsharpe said:


> It may be true that on average women take more child care leave than men, and / or that they are less willing to work long hours. Even if statistically true, this shouldn't affect individual hiring decisions.
> 
> Discrimination earlier in the system - education, or earlier in careers may leave women at a disadvantage in their current jobs. This may be the case for the two women who just joined my group - they both are fairly low pay - and I have limited ability to correct that quickly.
> 
> Its all really tricky.


You wouldn't get promoted to a position of trust where you can change it in any business I was running either! (1) you speak if you think they should get promotion because they're either low paid or women. That is inappropriate, as they should only get promotion/raises for their actual saleable contribution regardless of wage or gender ! (2) you attribute the disadvantage to education or early in careers; where it is well known girls do better in education in the last 20 - 35 years, and often get many benefits when they are young in their careers (check the length of unemployment for young females vs young males), also many women can get much attention and mentorship time from others within the organisation, especially from older women. As a young man this is seldom the case, as any attempt to gain advice is going to be seen as incompetence, or will require sizeable payment (when the young man has _no_ way to get free meals, drinks, or accomodation)


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> Today, males are going to college at a higher rate than have ever gone. And women are going at an even higher rate. Why is that? Because women need more education in order to make incomes that are even passably a living wage. Men can make a good wage without college generally.
> 
> 
> I am a huge proponent for education. To me, the more the better. But today, most students have to pay very high fees to attend college. So most are getting out of college with debt that it just ridiculously high. I’ve spoken to a lot of young guys who feel that it’s not worth being in that much debt. They can make a good living without it.


Talk to some of them. The students in my current university classes, many are there just because they can't get employment with a living wage, and it's an alternative to unemployment benefits.
In many cases the men have found they just can't get low income jobs, the employers were "looking for someone else" (ie a woman who will do what she's told and won't want anything else), so they have to borrow to retrain. Many of the women are being supported by their partners, or are working and their partner works and looks after the children while she works and studies what she wanted to do (business papers and IT)
those men without tertiary education who are doing well have trades, or have spent 20 years working their way up the ladder, they also the ones who are utterly destroyed when they have to retrain because they can't get any kind of paying work.

In my country they have noticed that the tertiary rolls are starting to drop now, especially amongst men, because of the cost of debt and the fight against imported skilled labor. Why get a huge debt to be told no the job went to a cheap imported Indian person, when you can not get the debt and get the same answer!
And as I mentioned many of the women, come from backgrounds where family or spouse is supporting them, so why shouldn't they study, it's costing them nothing to get ahead, and they don't require a career anyway (one I know started a retail shop, she pretty much sells everything half price, because her husbands trade business pays for everything except her wages and spending money)


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> I've been in engineering for over 30 years. I've never worked anywhere where women, or anyone, are 'gifted' jobs because of quotas or anything else. My brothers and sisters also have jobs that range from engineering to physicians and none of them work in environments which 'gift' jobs to anyone.
> 
> That might be the culture were you live. It is not here. Here, if a person does not perform they are let go.


Science, engineering and medicine are more meritocratic, at least below C-level. Once you are into more corporate executive culture, the game changes. There is most definitely a culture of supporting women for senior executive and board positions, sometimes at the expense of a male colleague who is actually more talented and deserving by objective performance measures.

I am friends with the recently retired CEO of a global engineering firm. You would undoubtedly recognize the firm, as its one of the largest in the world. As you know, there are few women CEOs and board chairs in that industry. There are an increasing number women on the boards, many due to this push for Diversity. Some deserve to be there, some are there so firms give the appearance of being "diverse and inclusive". I support diversity b/c I acknowledge the data saying that diverse boards and executive make better decisions, but not at the expense of passing over your BEST decision makers. If those happen to be all male (or female), then firms need to look at their hiring and talent development and retainment processes.

Anyway, I'm not sure we aren't saying the same thing. I'm sure with 30 years in the industry, you've seen plenty of people who were promoted for the wrong reasons. I sure have. IMO, it's bad practice because you are setting them up to fail if they aren't the best for the role.


----------



## EleGirl

spotthedeaddog said:


> As an ex-employer I got to the point I threw away women's resumes too. All previous female employees had created arguments, cost contracts, and in one case all but bankrupted the business by failing (and lying) while in a keystone position (which I'd helped her get, and I'd paid for her training in the field). In every case they would always put their personal interests above that of the company - and jeopardised everyones' interest (and cost me many many thousands of dollars personally). We just could not take that risk.
> 
> I have no problem with women as independent contractors, on a per project, or per task basis, but would never hire a woman as an employee ever again. In one case *I* was treated with a legal action by one woman because one female staff member resented the sexual behavior that one of the male staff members was doing. Turned out the one treating me was jealous as she had hooked up with male staff member during corporate function, and now was paying attention to one of the other female staff members instead (the other two eventually ended up dating). I run a place of business, my customers desires (and payment) are the golden rule, you don't bring that crap into my business, let alone threaten me with legal action over it!!!
> 
> In places where I have been employed at least half the women in each case got paid more than I did. And more annoyingly, they weren't even expected to pay their own way at any event. I had to provide "professional clothes" for conferences, they got uniforms from the company. they got company cellphones that they had to pay token "$10 for tolls", I had to provide own cellphone and meet all costs, and had to file for petty cash with proof for re-imbursement which I would only received if the call could be blled to a customers project.
> 
> That's not even counting the extra's such a training courses offered to females, but were rarely offered to male staff even if we asked, even if they were relevant to our jobs (and not to theirs) eg bosses assistant got sent on a marketing basics training (time off, and all expenses paid), course was not offered to any of the junior male staff in marketing, who weren't even aware of the course, and even then we had to take leave and pay our own way to attend.
> 
> Or having to deal with male "public face" staff about number of customers an hour, but watching (queueing) behind female staff "who were just giving good customer relations by gossiping with a single customer for over 30 minutes during rush hour". In the end the male staff member left, despite having 5 times the sales, because his (female) supervisor wanted him to do more cleaning/arranging, especially outside shop hours "because he was a man and could carry things more easily than the female staff"...and he thought he was called into the office for a raise for his sales figures...more fool him!
> 
> Or having to console a 24yr female friend from the hospitality industry who couldn't work out why she was fired for restocking the fridges in the cafe during evening rush hour (ie taking out old stock and putting new stock in back), and then telling her boss she didn't care about (whatever the boss was talking about, she didn't remember) as she had been taught this was the way to stock the fridge properly.
> 
> Or mid-line female managers who would deliberate withhold information from underlings and field staff because they (a) hadn't asked for it, and (b) might not be of security clearance to get the information but she never checked.
> 
> and every company I know of that hired a woman "because it was cheap" got what they paid for.
> 
> I have nothing against women working and think pay should be gender unrelated. but no way I am ever going to put a company or shareholder at risk like that again.


Oh I know exactly what you are talking about. It is just awful.

Your post made me think of so many bad employees that I have had to deal with.

There was one young guy who was 2 years out of school. He was so angry that he had a female project lead that after work every day he went in and undid all the work I did. I had to cut his access to tools because of that. Then he worked on a part of the project for several months but refused to allow review of his work. Upper management would not back me up on this. So when it came time for the customer review, he showed with nothing. I mean he had a list of the routines that needed to written. But we were supposed to review finished code. Finally I was able to fire him.

Another is another guy who left the company and deleted, about $100,000 worth of work on his last day. About 4 years later he wanted to come back to work for us. Management asked me about him and I reminded them of the code he deleted, causing us a huge loss. So he was not retired.

There was another employee who was putting in long work hours. In our weekly review meetings he was telling us of all the long hours it took to do his job and how over loaded he was. So I started to check in on him because I did not see the work getting done. Then another employee told me that he was coming in on weekends and sleeping at his desk. I has some cameras set up can sure enough, he was sleeping on Saturdays and Sundays and charging the hours to projects.

There was another guy in our group who, as it turned out, was spending a lot of his work hours surfing porn sites. IT caught him red handed you might way. We had to let him go.
Then there was the guy with the temper. He looked like a football quarter back. Big guy, looked like a man’s man. But he spent a lot of time causing trouble. He would go to different people and tell lies about others. Say that on person bad mouthed the other. Basically he was a trouble maker. It was terrible because he almost destroyed our team with his false gossip. He was not doing his work. Instead he was putting pressure on others to do his work and then would take credit for it. He was really working only about 20 hours a week. Then there was the time when he was told that he, like everyone else on the test team had to work one weekend. He got so angry that he was throwing the things from his office down the hall way, yelling and cussing up a storm. He was not my direct report, and his manager decided to not fire him. I however refused to allow him to work on any of my projects. There is no way I’d let him near my team after that.

Then there was the guy, this is only one example, who was coming on to female employees. He was putting his hands on them, making remarks. This was witnessed by a lot of other, to include men who complained about it.

Oh, and then the married guy with 3 children who had a affair with a temporary admin worker. His behavior was so out of control. IT was so obvious and so disruptive.

There was the stupid, very stupid manager who drew up a contract that basically gave away the code for a product that is worth a few hundred million. Thank goodness it ended up on my desk by mistake. As soon as I saw what he was doing, I took the contract to legal & showed them what was going on. I had just finished another customer negotiation along with our lawyers to ensure ownership of a different aspect of the product. So they were able to rewrite it based on the work we had already done.

There was the guy who was doing a lot of travel that was apparently not needed and charging it to the company. He was buying things for his mistress who was traveling with him. It got ugly. He was fired and sued.

There was the guy who was stealing company equipment and selling it on eBay.

The guy who sold info on some of our patents before our lawyers finished the patent process; the guy who went to our customers and told lie after lie about the products. That took a lot of money and time to clean up.

And those are only a few from the last few years. I could go on for pages listing this stuff.

You know, now that you mention it, from now on I’m going to start throwing away resumes I get from men. Obviously men cannot be trusted.



spotthedeaddog said:


> And there's a big push at the moment to get women into boardrooms. Which just says to me they can't get there on their own merit - those who are got there through their own effort and sacrifice (and many are terribly bad). So what does that say about those who can only get into through quota?


Quota? Really, you have a quota? I’m sure that you would be glad to hire all those guys I talked about above since you seem to think that women are so terrible.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> Science, engineering and medicine are more meritocratic, at least below C-level. Once you are into more corporate executive culture, the game changes. There is most definitely a culture of supporting women for senior executive and board positions, sometimes at the expense of a male colleague who is actually more talented and deserving by objective performance measures.
> 
> I am friends with the recently retired CEO of a global engineering firm. You would undoubtedly recognize the firm, as its one of the largest in the world. As you know, there are few women CEOs and board chairs in that industry. There are an increasing number women on the boards, many due to this push for Diversity. Some deserve to be there, some are there so firms give the appearance of being "diverse and inclusive". I support diversity b/c I acknowledge the data saying that diverse boards and executive make better decisions, but not at the expense of passing over your BEST decision makers. If those happen to be male (or female), then firms need to look at their hiring and talent development and retainment processes.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not sure we aren't saying the same thing. I'm sure with 30 years in the industry, you've seen plenty of people who were promoted for the wrong reasons. I sure have. IMO, it's bad practice because you are setting them up to fail if they aren't the best for the role.


Yes I have seen a good number of people promoted for the wrong reasons. I am not convinced that the best person is promoted even half the time. It is usually the person who plays up to their superior the most who is promoted, not the best. Sometimes the two are the same person but not as often as we'd like.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

MichelleR said:


> Elegirl you also say that employers shouldn't make assumptions about the women that apply for positions.


Actually that's really naive, and while it might fly in the PC world of young recruiters, the old hands and long term business owners will show you the door for mentioning that - on the basis that such foolish business thinking poses a risk to the company.

Employing a person is a major business, financial and legal commitment for a business. Get the wrong person (as I did) and it can destroy the entire company, even getting rid of toxic people can be extremely difficult once they're in a company - I know of one hire that managed to alienate half the employees at a local business (we're talking 10) and all those 10 left before the management wised up and paid her to leave and she was a bottom level hire. Or if you get a stirrer who goes on about their rights, and what they're legal entitled to, and you'll find yourself defending against legal action from your own people/person more than you're working to supply customer needs!!!

The naivity comes from : the person hiring you _has_ to make assumptions. They can't know you, not even moderately well. You haven't been working there, you haven't been on payroll, you have been handed the responsibility of the reins of a postion.
Every decision they make is based on assumptions.

Many women create problems, then that just narrows the selection process really quickly. Remember they're looking for just 1 person, doesn't have to be a perfect fit , only has to be a serviceable fit.
Every assumption they can do to narrow that field to someone which won't make them look bad is a good thing for them. So even a lousy technical choice that is teachable is better than the most capable person who is a mouthy (or silent) employee


----------



## sapientia

spotthedeaddog said:


> You could work in IT. Then we don't even get the liars trying to twist things, AND we can see the timesheet data. Doesn't tell you about the human factor but you can usually find that out easily enough through a bit of social engineering. Whether or not someone has "what it takes" to push through a typical project when things go tough, is solid enough that they're not going to bust into tears or threaten people when times are hard, that won't pick a personal tantrum with individuals in the team ever and allow that personal grievance to create an employment court issue. Who are creative, those who can lead without having to depend on others, or have others "take point", that will handle all the boys talk/girl talk/jargon/sports metaphors/golf etc in their stride. the further up the chain the more important it is just to be able to be part of the crowd and stand out positively as one who inspires trust and leadership. *Very few women can do all those things consistantly.*


Very few men as well, in my experience. My latest rockstar was a young woman. Before that, a young man, but I had to coach him for over a year to get him over his entitled mindset. I didn't have that at all with the young woman.

The young man, I helped him get a job elsewhere, as bluntly he was a good performer but a pain in the butt. I gave him a glowing recommendation so the next 4 years of his seasoning can be someone else's problem.

The young rockstar woman... I was headhunted away and I recruited her to join me. I would have happily taken the young man if he worked with the team better. He stays in touch, so we'll see how he goes in a couple years.


----------



## sapientia

spotthedeaddog said:


> Actually that's really naive, and while it might fly in the PC world of young recruiters, the old hands and long term business owners will show you the door for mentioning that - on the basis that such foolish business thinking poses a risk to the company.
> 
> Employing a person is a major business, financial and legal commitment for a business. Get the wrong person (as I did) and it can destroy the entire company, even getting rid of toxic people can be extremely difficult once they're in a company - I know of one hire that managed to alienate half the employees at a local business (we're talking 10) and all those 10 left before the management wised up and paid her to leave and she was a bottom level hire. Or if you get a stirrer who goes on about their rights, and what they're legal entitled to, and you'll find yourself defending against legal action from your own people/person more than you're working to supply customer needs!!!
> 
> The naivity comes from : the person hiring you _has_ to make assumptions. They can't know you, not even moderately well. You haven't been working there, you haven't been on payroll, you have been handed the responsibility of the reins of a postion.
> Every decision they make is based on assumptions.
> 
> Many women create problems, then that just narrows the selection process really quickly. Remember they're looking for just 1 person, doesn't have to be a perfect fit , only has to be a serviceable fit.
> Every assumption they can do to narrow that field to someone which won't make them look bad is a good thing for them. So even a lousy technical choice that is teachable is better than the most capable person who is a mouthy (or silent) employee


I agree with your post mostly, especially the part of investment in employees. I do wonder why you are focussing just on women causing problems. Men cause just as many, in my experience. Some the same, some different.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

EleGirl said:


> You know, now that you mention it, from now on I’m going to start throwing away resumes I get from men. Obviously men cannot be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> Quota? Really, you have a quota? I’m sure that you would be glad to hire all those guys I talked about above since you seem to think that women are so terrible.


Thank you for proving my point.

You took the information, treated as an attack, not did not turn it around - you just threw it back AT me.

If I was a customer coming in with complaints is that how you would treat me?
Yes many men are very bad. why do they get hired?

What _proportion_ of hires was it? 
For the top level about 50% I know of have had major issues, including not dealing well with others.
Mid level close to 75%
Lower-mid level about 30%. Lowest level about 10% problems provided they aren't given any power or out-of-task responsibilities.

Of the men, about 70% problems at top level, but all but 10% have been resolvable. and the number that quit just to "find themselves" or do charity work instead very very small.
Mid level about 80% minor infractions but willing to work through them, only a handful 10% maybe and that was usually fraud or sexual harrassment which tended to be dealt with quickly.
Low level about 20% but they just got fired and never much fuss on it. The lowest level plenty of issues such as drugs, absenteeism, untidyness or bad treatment of tools/equipment but this was often dealt with by hiring older women, outsourcing, or automation.

One case the woman at the center of the project, who swore she was not ever going to have kids, was all about the career, was engaged to another woman, met a guy at a training event, then wanted maternity leave, absolutely destroyed the project (because she wasn't doing her job and hadn't let on, this was before the maternity leave, and the "time" she was clocking on the project was being spent with her male lover.) When she hatched she _demanded_ her old job back and threatened legal action when told no, and that "no" was because the job didn't exist because the project was _sunk_. she tried to rally support from the old team (who were no longer employed, or whose contracts weren't kept, some didn't get paid because she hadn't filed the paperwork and it wasn't anything we could use - they were just in the right place for her to have meetings). ended up threatening to sue over redundancy, but dropped it after talking to a lawyer, who I assume point out I could sue her for damages to the project... (If I had had any funds left to do it with).

Since then it has just been the observation of dealing with many women is business who just seem totally focused on what they can get out of things.
Even my friend the shopowning lady with the tradie husband refuses to hire younger women because of the legal repercussions and the instability/emotional reliability.
talking to several of the fastfood & bulk retail places, they only hire women because they can do so for short hours to suit the business, as the women have someone else who is the breadwinner at home.


----------



## EleGirl

spotthedeaddog said:


> Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> You took the information, treated as an attack, not did not turn it around - you just threw it back AT me.
> 
> If I was a customer coming in with complaints is that how you would treat me?


LOL, your discourse is ridiculous. You are not a customer. I can tell the difference between a customer and a guy spewing nonsense on the internet.
Why does it offend you to have your nonsense thrown back at you? If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen (as the saying goes).



spotthedeaddog said:


> Yes many men are very bad. why do they get hired?
> 
> What _proportion_ of hires was it?
> 
> For the top level about 50% I know of have had major issues, including not dealing well with others.
> 
> Mid level close to 75%
> 
> Lower-mid level about 30%. Lowest level about 10% problems provided they aren't given any power or out-of-task responsibilities.
> 
> Of the men, about 70% problems at top level, but all but 10% have been resolvable. and the number that quit just to "find themselves" or do charity work instead very very small.
> 
> Mid level about 80% minor infractions but willing to work through them, only a handful 10% maybe and that was usually fraud or sexual harrassment which tended to be dealt with quickly.
> 
> Low level about 20% but they just got fired and never much fuss on it. The lowest level plenty of issues such as drugs, absenteeism, untidyness or bad treatment of tools/equipment but this was often dealt with by hiring older women, outsourcing, or automation.


From my experience, most people we hire are good at what they do. But bout the same number of men and women turn out to have problems that cannot be solved.
If what you say is true about the women you hire, and I really doubt it is, then perhaps the problem is that you subconsciously pick women how will be a problem. By doing that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. People do those kinds of things all the time.


spotthedeaddog said:


> One case the woman at the center of the project, who swore she was not ever going to have kids, was all about the career, was engaged to another woman, met a guy at a training event, then wanted maternity leave, absolutely destroyed the project (because she wasn't doing her job and hadn't let on, this was before the maternity leave, and the "time" she was clocking on the project was being spent with her male lover.) When she hatched she _demanded_ her old job back and threatened legal action when told no, and that "no" was because the job didn't exist because the project was _sunk_. she tried to rally support from the old team (who were no longer employed, or whose contracts weren't kept, some didn't get paid because she hadn't filed the paperwork and it wasn't anything we could use - they were just in the right place for her to have meetings). ended up threatening to sue over redundancy, but dropped it after talking to a lawyer, who I assume point out I could sue her for damages to the project... (If I had had any funds left to do it with).
> 
> 
> 
> spotthedeaddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since then it has just been the observation of dealing with many women is business who just seem totally focused on what they can get out of things.
> 
> Even my friend the shopowning lady with the tradie husband refuses to hire younger women because of the legal repercussions and the instability/emotional reliability.
> 
> talking to several of the fastfood & bulk retail places, they only hire women because they can do so for short hours to suit the business, as the women have someone else who is the breadwinner at home.
> 
> 
> 
> What? Do you mean that in your entire world there is one competent woman? The shop owning woman? Wow, I'm impressed.. one woman.
> 
> yea, right. nonsense
Click to expand...


----------



## jdawg2015

Emasculation. Plain and simple. And it's made even worse with the feminist movement, Title IV, and most importantly the gender bias in education with women predominately teaching children.

This can be spun many ways but now with 60% of University incoming classes being women it will lead an even greater shift in women being more financially independent. With manufacturing shifting more and more to Asia and our economy being more slanted to services this makes it even more favorable for women over the long haul in the work force.

Some of this is for the better, some of it is for the worst.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
At least where I work, it would be illegal to be biased against female applicants, no matter what you thought the statistics were. Any sort of bias based on gender, race, orientation, religion is. 

I agree with those laws. Whatever the statistics, individuals have a right to be judged on their own merits, not those of others who in some way resemble them.

If your business does discriminate in hiring, I'm not at all surprised that they have had legal problems with employees, in many places you would be violating the law.


I have not had particularly more or less problems with male or female employees or managers. There are some subtle but important issues with bias at my workplace that I am struggling to figure out how to fix. 







spotthedeaddog said:


> Actually that's really naive, and while it might fly in the PC world of young recruiters, the old hands and long term business owners will show you the door for mentioning that - on the basis that such foolish business thinking poses a risk to the company.
> 
> Employing a person is a major business, financial and legal commitment for a business. Get the wrong person (as I did) and it can destroy the entire company, even getting rid of toxic people can be extremely difficult once they're in a company - I know of one hire that managed to alienate half the employees at a local business (we're talking 10) and all those 10 left before the management wised up and paid her to leave and she was a bottom level hire. Or if you get a stirrer who goes on about their rights, and what they're legal entitled to, and you'll find yourself defending against legal action from your own people/person more than you're working to supply customer needs!!!
> 
> The naivity comes from : the person hiring you _has_ to make assumptions. They can't know you, not even moderately well. You haven't been working there, you haven't been on payroll, you have been handed the responsibility of the reins of a postion.
> Every decision they make is based on assumptions.
> 
> Many women create problems, then that just narrows the selection process really quickly. Remember they're looking for just 1 person, doesn't have to be a perfect fit , only has to be a serviceable fit.
> Every assumption they can do to narrow that field to someone which won't make them look bad is a good thing for them. So even a lousy technical choice that is teachable is better than the most capable person who is a mouthy (or silent) employee


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> Actually I want to clarify -fathers in the home are much more involved with their kids in today's age. Fathers who are divorced- not as much, but that's another result of the more recent feminist efforts to empower women as most divorces are filed by women.


Yes, they are move involved. Part of that is because women often work now too, we are equal to them provider-wise therefore they should be equal to us homecare-wise. 

Think about a long time ago, when women didn't really have the ability to work or do anything but stay home. They took care of the kids, Dad went to work, barely saw them. They had hardly a role at home.

Then feminism- yay- came along and helped pave the way for men to be more involved at home, because we're not the only ones who can scrub toilets and read to the kids. Kids need Dad too, and not just his wallet. 

Yes, sure the _horrible _downside of it is that women have the right and ability to leave crappy marriages- how dare us feminists- but overall help with the equalization of men and women each getting 50/50 custody if it comes to that. 

The fact that women are seen as the care givers and the courts, jobs, etc reflect that is leftover stereotyping of the past that we are trying to overcome. 
The same people usually complaining about being shafted when it comes to the court, custody side of things doesn't really mind that they can take advantage of the same stereotypes when it comes to jobs. You can't have it both ways.

Now we all get a choice. Want to be the breadwinner, have at it. Want to be a housewife, go ahead. _Personal _choices should not dictate the choices, rights and laws of the many.

So if you want your husband to be the provider and you the care giver then fine, but neither one should have to be stuck in that role, have it assumed on them, if they choose not to.


----------



## sapientia

jdawg2015 said:


> Emasculation. Plain and simple. And it's made even worse with the feminist movement, Title IV, and most importantly the gender bias in education with women predominately teaching children.
> 
> This can be spun many ways but now with 60% of University incoming classes being women it will lead an even greater shift in women being more financially independent. With manufacturing shifting more and more to Asia and our economy being more slanted to services this makes it even more favorable for women over the long haul in the work force.
> 
> Some of this is for the better, some of it is for the worst.


How are the facts you posted emasculating?

You believe that women shouldn't go to university and that there should be more male teachers?

This will fix society?


----------



## Kivlor

@SlowlyGoingCrazy

At least do your homework instead of preaching falsehoods.

The "Tender Years Doctrine" is a feminist policy. Always was. Always will be. Prior to feminism, men received custody of children because they were financially responsible for their upbringing.

You "can't have it both ways" right? >


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> @SlowlyGoingCrazy
> 
> At least do your homework instead of preaching falsehoods.
> 
> The "Tender Years Doctrine" is a feminist policy. Always was. Always will be. Prior to feminism, men received custody of children because they were financially responsible for their upbringing.
> 
> You "can't have it both ways" right? >


Neither is ok. Men getting custody because they can provide or women getting custody because we are "care givers" Neither is what I want. 

And to get EQUAL rights and custody, both parents need the EQUAL ability to provide for them. You can not get to there without women having the right to work and the ability to make a fair wage. 

Not all feminists are the same, you need to realize. Just as all groups will have different mindsets within it. You want to blame all feminists for all the troubles in the world, go ahead. But you shouldn't overlook the advantages that it has also provided for BOTH genders. 

You want 50/50 custody, not to have to pay spousal support, equal ability to raise the children? Then you need to allow for the equal ability for women to provide and be equal caregivers and home care workers. 

If you choose the a more traditional lifestyle of Mom raising the kids and home and you providing the money then realize that in the event of a divorce it will continue with Mom raising the kids and you providing the money. 

The fact that you have either choice freely is a good thing but don't discount feminism in the path to get here.


----------



## lifeistooshort

It's sad to me that masculinity is so fragile that women having an equal opportunity to go to school and get a decent job threatens it.

I'm thankful I'm married to a man whose is not so easily threatened.

Think I'll show him an extra good time tonight.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Neither is ok. Men getting custody because they can provide or women getting custody because we are "care givers" Neither is what I want.
> 
> And to get EQUAL rights and custody, both parents need the EQUAL ability to provide for them. You can not get to there without women having the right to work and the ability to make a fair wage.
> 
> Not all feminists are the same, you need to realize. Just as all groups will have different mindsets within it. You want to blame all feminists for all the troubles in the world, go ahead. But you shouldn't overlook the advantages that it has also provided for BOTH genders.
> 
> You want 50/50 custody, not to have to pay spousal support, equal ability to raise the children? Then you need to allow for the equal ability for women to provide and be equal caregivers and home care workers.
> 
> If you choose the a more traditional lifestyle of Mom raising the kids and home and you providing the money then realize that in the event of a divorce it will continue with Mom raising the kids and you providing the money.
> 
> The fact that you have either choice freely is a good thing but don't discount feminism in the path to get here.


You're describing Egalitarianism, not feminism. Feminism is about women's rights advocacy. Egalitarianism is about everyone being equal.

This policy, which you claimed feminism is trying to change, is a feminist policy. And I have seen zero evidence of any feminist organizations spending any money, filing any lawsuits to change it. It is lip service.

In fact, I've provided proof it is a feminist policy, and all you can do is say 'nuh-uh!' Provide proof that feminists are spending any money, any labor attempting to change custody rights.

I judge people, groups, and organizations by their actions. You should too.

ETA: No, I re-read your post. You don't appear interested in equality, rather you seem interested in women having special privileges.


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> It's sad to me that masculinity is so fragile that women having an equal opportunity to go to school and get a decent job threatens it.
> 
> I'm thankful I'm married to a man whose is not so easily threatened.
> 
> Think I'll show him an extra good time tonight.


It's sad to me that some very strange people, following a very strange ideology build up straw man arguments of their critics because they can't provide any meaningful debate.


----------



## tom67

Kivlor said:


> It's sad to me that some very strange people, following a very strange ideology build up straw man arguments of their critics because they can't provide any meaningful debate.


Yesterday's video by our favorite Mesopotamian leader Sargon says it all...

It's painful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1sxoQ0XoKM


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> You're describing Egalitarianism, not feminism. Feminism is about women's rights advocacy. Egalitarianism is about everyone being equal.
> 
> This policy, which you claimed feminism is trying to change, is a feminist policy. And I have seen zero evidence of any feminist organizations spending any money, filing any lawsuits to change it. It is lip service.
> 
> In fact, I've provided proof it is a feminist policy, and all you can do is say 'nuh-uh!' Provide proof that feminists are spending any money, any labor attempting to change custody rights.
> 
> I judge people, groups, and organizations by their actions. You should too.


Feminists want women to be equal to men. It's really that simple. You believe feminism is wanting women to have it better than men. If that is your belief then I'm not going to be able to change your mind. 

If you don't believe that women having the right and ability to work helps prevent the problem of men paying spousal support and women getting custody of their kids then.... we'll just have to agree to disagree. 
How would I _prove _that a woman having the ability to earn a fair wage helps men be able to choose a woman who makes her own money so he doesn't have to pay spousal support.... not sure there's a link for that. 

People fighting for LGBT rights want them to be equal. Do they spend a lot of time focused on fixing heterosexual problems? Not so much, but that doesn't mean that they don't want EQUALITY and are looking to have extra rights or special benefits. 

Think what you want about how evil and horrible we all are and there are always loud voices in every group, extremists.
It's not up to the rest of us to prove anything. It's not up to Muslims to prove they are not terrorists or Christians to prove they aren't going to shoot up an abortion clinic. Don't view a group based on it's extremists, but if you do that is not my problem. I will be a feminist and do my feminist things and everyone else can do what they want. 

I am for equality for all which means a special interest in groups that are not currently sharing the same privileges as rich, white, christian, hetero men. That doesn't mean that I don't care about them, that I wouldn't be upset if they were losing rights but I am a feminist, a LGBT supporter, I believe in helping minorities or people who have obstacles get their fair shot. Not above, not better. Fair, equal.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> ETA: No, I re-read your post. You don't appear interested in equality, rather you seem interested in women having special privileges.


Uh huh, how so? 

Or do you mean the privileges that used to be only a mans that women now get to have as well?

This was posted on my facebook by a friend yesterday. My interest is in taking away the obstacles so each have an equal shot at the same things.


----------



## zackie

MichelleR said:


> Also the reason I included my description of my personal choices regarding why I do more childcare is to explain why employers may have a bias toward men that doesn't have to do with feelings of discrimination or conditioning but more to do with an observation of choices many families make today.
> 
> I'm saying all of this also because it seems like many modern feminists are trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist anymore and in doing so they are preventing us from seeing some problems with our boys checking out of things like education and marriage.


What you just described IS discrimination. The employer is making biased hiring decisions based on stereotypes rather than evaluating each candidate on their qualifications. Therefore there is a very real problem existing today that needs to be fixed.

Additionally, you can thank feminism for giving you those personal choices that you are making.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If you don't believe that women having the right and ability to work helps prevent the problem of men paying spousal support and women getting custody of their kids then.... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> How would I _prove _that a woman having the ability to earn a fair wage helps men be able to choose a woman who makes her own money so he doesn't have to pay spousal support.... not sure there's a link for that.


Where did I say this? Oh yeah, I didn't. Straw Man. 



> People fighting for LGBT rights want them to be equal. Do they spend a lot of time focused on fixing heterosexual problems? Not so much, but that doesn't mean that they don't want EQUALITY and are looking to have extra rights or special benefits.


But you said...



> Think about a long time ago, when women didn't really have the ability to work or do anything but stay home. They took care of the kids, Dad went to work, barely saw them. They had hardly a role at home.
> 
> Then feminism- yay- came along and helped pave the way for men to be more involved at home, because we're not the only ones who can scrub toilets and read to the kids. Kids need Dad too, and not just his wallet.


Which is patently untrue. This is a feminist policy. Men historically received child custody, and feminism actually turned them into "just a wallet".



> Think what you want about how evil and horrible we all are and there are always loud voices in every group, extremists.
> It's not up to the rest of us to prove anything. It's not up to Muslims to prove they are not terrorists or Christians to prove they aren't going to shoot up an abortion clinic. Don't view a group based on it's extremists, but if you do that is not my problem. I will be a feminist and do my feminist things and everyone else can do what they want.


A vocal part of an ideology is and has been clamoring for some very terrible policies for over a hundred years. I've proven it. And you say "well that's not all of us" to which I've said, "well prove it, as we've already established this pattern of behavior". And you refuse. I think we can take it that you know you've no leg to stand on.



> I am for equality for all which means a special interest in groups that are not currently sharing the same privileges as rich, white, christian, hetero men. That doesn't mean that I don't care about them, that I wouldn't be upset if they were losing rights but I am a feminist, a LGBT supporter, I believe in helping minorities or people who have obstacles get their fair shot. Not above, not better. Fair, equal.


So what you're saying is "These folks' problems don't matter". Got it. You're helping me prove my point. Thanks.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Uh huh, how so?
> 
> Or do you mean the privileges that used to be only a mans that women now get to have as well?
> 
> This was posted on my facebook by a friend yesterday. My interest is in taking away the obstacles so each have an equal shot at the same things.


Because every internet meme ever was always rooted 100% in truth. 

What systemic legal disadvantages do women have in the West?


----------



## Cletus

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> It may not be that simple. Companies do not always act in the most efficient manner possible - see the very high compensation for some high level executives who have lost companies large amounts of money. The problem is that there are a LOT of variables, and it is difficult to determine the real effects of actions.


My experience is the same. This myth of the dog eat dog merciless world of efficient business practice may be the reality for the small business owner, but it is not the case for any of the places I have worked, both successful and not. 

In the world in which I live, government and private business seem to be run in much the same way - by fallible humans who make as many costly mistakes as not.


----------



## MichelleR

This thread is turning nasty. I guess I knew I'd get grief about my comment about women filing most divorces as a result of feminist empowerment.

I think I'm done talking about the wage gap and discrimination with promotions and hiring. Yes there are poor male employees and poor female employees and some companies do sleezy things but we already have laws in place to protect against sexism and treat people as fairly as possible. I will have to agree to disagree with some of the women on here over that. 

As for the divorce rate, I do have some opinions about this. Let me first state that I CERTAINLY do not want to regress to a time before feminism where women felt trapped in abusive relationships. If a husband is abusive, the wife should leave. My grandmother did admirable work for years in this area. She and my grandfather immigrated from Korea where it was culturally acceptable and often expected for the man to beat his wife. She volunteered at a woman's center for decades and worked on educating both spouses on how husbands are not allowed to do that. My uncle told me of a time she and he drove to a woman's house to pick her up and drive away as fast as possible to deliver her to safety from her husband as she filed for divorce. 

I also think it is very limportant to teach boys growing up that they should not hit girls and teach them that real men never use their physical strength to intimidate, overpower, or hurt women. 

I do not want to go backwards to a time women were treated poorly. I also want to add that my marriage is nowhere near perfect. We are both exhausted these days and we've gone through some really tough times. We have not had any infidelity or abuse but there have been times I've considered divorcing my husband and have also had friends encouraging me to do it.

That being said I notice a trend when I watch movies and observe marriages and talk to other married women. I know I'm going to get grief from saying this and people can always find opposite examples. However I think statistics can back me up here. A lot of the time it just seems like the marital problems are entirely the man's fault. Women are told "we deserve better," "we should never depend on a man," "we can do anything men can do," "men are pigs," " men only care about sex," and on and on. I know it goes both ways. But let me give a hypothetical situation. 

Let's say a couple is fighting a LOT. They are just butting heads and not getting along. Both sides are equally guilty. If the husband decides to be the better man and apologize, clean the house, and buy her a gift or flowers, that is considered all good. If he doesn't he's just a selfish jerk. 

Now if the woman decides to be the better person, apologize, cook him a nice dinner, and put on some sexy lingerie for him to help cheer him up, I can't help but feel like this would be viewed as demeaning. I don't know if other people would feel that way but when I think of the media and how traditional marriages where the wife tries to please her husband are ridiculed, this is the sense I get. 

I know that if I divorced my husband I'd have the upper hand. He has a lot more to lose than me. Even my mother pointed this out recently to me when she told me that I need to get him to help out with the chores more and put the fear of divorce in him to whip him into shape. 

Feminism did a lot of necessary things for women but now if we keep fighting we are just turning women and men against each other. Both sides need to show some humility in marriage. Both spouses can be absolute nightmares when they are not getting along and both spouses need to realize how their own behaviors affect the other. I notice now that it's becoming more one sided in favor of the women, and young men are picking up on this and not wanting to get married.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> So what you're saying is "These folks' problems don't matter". Got it. You're helping me prove my point. Thanks.


There's really no point in debating this with you. I specifically said otherwise, you're going to read into it however you want. 

We will have to just leave it at agree to disagree. Either you can see the good parts in what feminism has done or you don't. 
Personally I am happy that I can make choices, as is my H, as are my children and that's really all that matters. I can't convince you of the benefits that feminism has done to help with my ability to make those choices, and really don't want to bother.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Kivlor said:


> It's sad to me that some very strange people, following a very strange ideology build up straw man arguments of their critics because they can't provide any meaningful debate.


I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

My father was a man's man and he had no issue with feminism. He was a live and let live kind of guy, he did his thing and you did yours.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Michelle- There was an interesting thread a little while ago about reasons women leave, some were on the side that it was trivial little things, others were discussing how the little things can become serious things quickly. 
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/309793-how-prevent-walkaway-wife.html

Also this link explains this pretty well

Why Women Leave Men

Now that's not to say that some women are petty and crappy and leave without a good reason because she thinks she's so much better than him (although really, who wants to be married to her anyway! She did him a favour) 
But I do not believe that it is such a big problem, it's a minority. 

The vast majority of women who are leaving, do so for good reasons but their reasons may all be different. 
Your husband not doing chores might not bother you at all if you don't have a high need for domestic support. That works out great. 
But for a woman who DOES, the not doing chores thing is a slap in the face and disrespect, refusing LOVE.


----------



## naiveonedave

MichelleR said:


> That being said I notice a trend when I watch movies and observe marriages and talk to other married women. I know I'm going to get grief from saying this and people can always find opposite examples. However I think statistics can back me up here. * A lot of the time it just seems like the marital problems are entirely the man's fault. * Women are told "we deserve better," "we should never depend on a man," "we can do anything men can do," "men are pigs," " men only care about sex," and on and on. I know it goes both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Feminism did a lot of necessary things for women but now if we keep fighting we are just turning women and men against each other. Both sides need to show some humility in marriage. Both spouses can be absolute nightmares when they are not getting along and both spouses need to realize how their own behaviors affect the other. I notice now that it's becoming more one sided in favor of the women, and young men are picking up on this and not wanting to get married.


Part of the OPs rant is really aimed at what I bolded. It is not the man's fault or the woman's fault, it is both.

I had to put the last paragraph from your post here, it is brilliant.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> Can't take the heat, princess? Should we hire a man to do your posting from now on? :x


Ha ha, this made me laugh.

But honestly any grief over that statement is a result of it being a narrow minded statement. Taken with blinders on then yes, one could say the feminist empowerment has caused women to file divorces more and as a result families have been wrecked. 

But this fails to take into account that before this there were just as many bad marriages, people were just trapped in them. And because not only could you not get divorced easily but women had no real economic power men had a lot of freedom in how they treated their wives; they could beat them up, rape them, keep mistresses, pretty much whatever they wanted and the women had to take it.

And if we're going to make generalizations I could say that the rise of porn has wrecked marriages as it's mostly men who consume it and it's raised their sexual expectations and as a result they're unhappy with their wives who can never compete. But this is a gross oversimplification of the issue because many men are genuinely lacking intimacy with their wives and turn to porn as a result. So is it the porn that wrecked everything or the fact that he lacked intimacy with his wife?

And remember that men benefit from divorce as well; we see men here being advised to file all the time when he doesn't get the sex life he wants. In the old days he might have just hired a hooker or kept a mistress, but many men don't want that. Many men want a fulfilling sex life with their life partner. I suspect as equality marches forward and divorce settlements equalizing you'll see more men filing. I'd wager that the main reason men don't file is the fear of an unfair settlement; once that fear is gone what will keep men in unhappy marriages from walking?

Not to say that all men in the past were crappy husband just because their wives couldn't go anywhere, of course many men are and have always been great guys. But all people are influenced by social norms of their day so if you're raised to think, like my ex, that slapping your wife around a little to keep her in line is no big deal you'll probably see things that way. And if you're raised to think women belong in the home that's likely how you view things.

I'm sure there are women who file for divorce for stupid reasons, but there are plenty of men who are shi!tty husbands and simply don't file, so to declare the wife the bad guy for filing without knowing the details of the marriage is just plain ignorant. And there are men who are ready to blow up their marriage because they don't get BJ's.....so clearly women don't have the lock on blowing up marriages for stupid reasons.

But I can see how someone like Michelle, who doesn't want to work but has to, might prefer the old days where women were expected to stay home and couldn't easily get divorced. She might see that statement as an insult but it's really not intended to be; because she's a little resentful that she has to work and can't be home with the kids she blames feminist empowerment for putting her in this position. I can kind of understand how she would feel like that, but the answer isn't to take it back; the answer is for her and husband to find a way for her to be home, assuming that's what he wants as well.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's really no point in debating this with you. I specifically said otherwise, you're going to read into it however you want.
> 
> We will have to just leave it at agree to disagree. Either you can see the good parts in what feminism has done or you don't.
> Personally I am happy that I can make choices, as is my H, as are my children and that's really all that matters. I can't convince you of the benefits that feminism has done to help with my ability to make those choices, and really don't want to bother.





> That doesn't mean that I don't care about them, that I wouldn't be upset if they were losing rights *but I am a feminist, a LGBT supporter, I believe in helping minorities or people who have obstacles get their fair shot.* Not above, not better. Fair, equal.


Have you ever heard the old saying 'when you hear the word "but" in a conversation you can ignore everything that just came before it'?

Again, provide documentation of these "obstacles" that women face legally.


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> My father was a man's man and he had no issue with feminism. He was a live and let live kind of guy, he did his thing and you did yours.


I'd be glad to explain it:

A straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy in logic, where a respondent gives the impression of refuting a claimant's argument by refuting something that was not claimed in the argument at all.

You "build up a straw man" out of the other person's arguments, and then "knock down the straw man" because it is easy. But you've not refuted what was said, you've refuted what you've said.

Example:


> It's sad to me that masculinity is so fragile that women having an equal opportunity to go to school and get a decent job threatens it.


This is not what was claimed, you have put words in someone else's mouth. It is a straw man argument, and you are engaging in sophistry rather than reasoned debate.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> Have you ever heard the old saying 'when you hear the word "but" in a conversation you can ignore everything that just came before it'?
> 
> Again, provide documentation of these "obstacles" that women face legally.


No, if I say "I hope everyone has enough to eat but I focus my efforts on donating to people who are poor and homeless" it doesn't mean I don't care about the rich guy down the street, it's that they don't need the attention at the moment. 

Now I get it, the poor guy is getting free food, the rich guy has to pay for his. How is that fair and equal? The problem then comes where you need to give some a step up to match where the rest are. So you see helping women as giving them extra advantage where I see it as bringing them up to the same level. 
I added more pics because I like memes and it does explain what I am talking about. 

As for obstacles, discrimination, sexual harassment, you can see several examples just in this thread alone. Legal rights have been worked out for the most part, at least in our countries, but that doesn't mean it's all over, everyone can stop caring. There is still talking to be done, understanding. 
You can give homosexuals the equal right to marry but that's doesn't mean that it is all over and they are now 100% equal and fair. There are still prejudices, discrimination, harassment. It still needs attention.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Which is patently untrue. This is a feminist policy. Men historically received child custody, and feminism actually turned them into "just a wallet".


In the early 1900’s most men were ‘just a wallet’ for the most part because they worked long hours away from home. The wife was the major caregiver of the children.
But when men wanted a divorce, they could throw say their wife and the mother of their children. They kept the wife’s inheritance and the children. Women were thrown on the street basically. The vast majority of jobs that women could get were poverty level jobs.
And the father who had custody of the children did not stop working or reducing his hours to take care of the children. Instead he found a female family member, hired a woman or married another one to do that. He remained the wallet.
That is profoundly unfair to the women. It was also profoundly unfair to the children. To be ripped away from their primary care giver harms children in so many ways.
Current divorce laws started at this point. They were changed so that the children stayed with the parent who was the primary care giver. And they changed that men could no longer dump women on the street when they were done with her. They also changed so that women had to right to leave bad marriages.
From that time to now, it is feminists have fought to give women the right to work and this is getting closer and closer to the right to equal pay, equal opportunity. With this have come changes in family and divorce law.
Divorce laws are now gender neutral. And yes, feminists have been fighting for this and continue to fight for it. Default custody where I live has been 50/50 for a long time. The rests of the nation is catching up. 
It took me less than a minute to find a feminist organization that is heling to fight for gender neutral divorce outcomes. There is a lot out there about what feminist organizations are doing in this area.

From the site Feminist Law Professors: Alimony Should Be Gender-Neutral

“According to the survey, which looked at trends in the last three years, 56% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys report seeing an increase in the number of mothers paying child support and 47% also saw a rise in the number of women paying alimony.”


----------



## EleGirl

spotthedeaddog said:


> I have no problem with women as independent contractors, on a per project, or per task basis, but would never hire a woman as an employee ever again. In one case *I* was threatened with a legal action by one woman because one female staff member resented the sexual behavior that one of the male staff members was doing. Turned out the one threatening me was jealous as she had hooked up with male staff member during corporate function, and now was paying attention to one of the other female staff members instead (the other two eventually ended up dating). I run a place of business, my customers desires (and payment) are the golden rule, you don't bring that crap into my business, let alone threaten me with legal action over it!!!


What was the sexual behavior of the male staff member? Why was the male staff member engaging in sexual behavior at work?

I’m also curious about the male staff member here. Did you fire him? It sounds like his behavior was very unprofessional and disruptive to the company. It sounds like he stirred up quite a bit of drama.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> In the early 1900’s most men were ‘just a wallet’ for the most part because they worked long hours away from home. The wife was the major caregiver of the children.
> But when men wanted a divorce, they could throw say their wife and the mother of their children. They kept the wife’s inheritance and the children. Women were thrown on the street basically. The vast majority of jobs that women could get were poverty level jobs.
> And the father who had custody of the children did not stop working or reducing his hours to take care of the children. Instead he found a female family member, hired a woman or married another one to do that. He remained the wallet.
> That is profoundly unfair to the women. It was also profoundly unfair to the children. To be ripped away from their primary care giver harms children in so many ways.
> Current divorce laws started at this point. They were changed so that the children stayed with the parent who was the primary care giver. And they changed that men could no longer dump women on the street when they were done with her. They also changed so that women had to right to leave bad marriages.
> From that time to now, it is feminists have fought to give women the right to work and this is getting closer and closer to the right to equal pay, equal opportunity. With this have come changes in family and divorce law.
> Divorce laws are now gender neutral. And yes, feminists have been fighting for this and continue to fight for it. Default custody where I live has been 50/50 for a long time. The rests of the nation is catching up.
> It took me less than a minute to find a feminist organization that is heling to fight for gender neutral divorce outcomes. There is a lot out there about what feminist organizations are doing in this area.
> 
> From the site Feminist Law Professors: Alimony Should Be Gender-Neutral
> 
> “According to the survey, which looked at trends in the last three years, 56% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys report seeing an increase in the number of mothers paying child support and 47% also saw a rise in the number of women paying alimony.”


Just words Ele, just words. They pay lip service. What are they _doing_ to change it. More importantly is that although many of these laws are _written_ in a gender neutral fashion, they are not _enforced_ that way. Men were more than "just a wallet" prior to the tender years doctrine because they actually had a say in how that money was spent. That is the opposite of how "child support" works today. It is a welfare check to the mother, for her to spend however she chooses. Do you see the difference?

Note that in your article, they don't actually cite if there were any appreciable changes (which there may have been, I've not looked for the stats) in who is paying alimony and who is receiving it, but rather went by "top divorce attorneys'" _perceptions_ of the outcomes of cases they've seen / litigated. 

You say it is closer to the right to equal pay. That right is enshrined in law, and I ask that you prove it is being violated. I can actually provide proof that men are discriminated against in legal sentencing as well as their unequal treatment by the justice system in domestic violence and divorce. 

The tender years doctrine, if you take the time to study it--which I linked above--was created by a woman who was angry that her child was killed in a horse-riding accident, and was based on the argument that women are more caring and nurturing, and that they deserve to have custody of their children during the "tender years" because they will be "safer." 

I am highlighting successful feminist law. And you all are running from it. Why not embrace it for what it is. This is what feminism fought for.

No one here disputes that once upon a time women weren't treated fairly. We dispute how things are today. I am asking for proof of the oppression of women.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No, if I say "I hope everyone has enough to eat but I focus my efforts on donating to people who are poor and homeless" it doesn't mean I don't care about the rich guy down the street, it's that they don't need the attention at the moment.
> 
> Now I get it, the poor guy is getting free food, the rich guy has to pay for his. How is that fair and equal? The problem then comes where you need to give some a step up to match where the rest are. So you see helping women as giving them extra advantage where I see it as bringing them up to the same level.
> I added more pics because I like memes and it does explain what I am talking about.
> 
> As for obstacles, discrimination, sexual harassment, you can see several examples just in this thread alone. Legal rights have been worked out for the most part, at least in our countries, but that doesn't mean it's all over, everyone can stop caring. There is still talking to be done, understanding.
> You can give homosexuals the equal right to marry but that's doesn't mean that it is all over and they are now 100% equal and fair. There are still prejudices, discrimination, harassment. It still needs attention.


I'll one-up your memes with this old gem. This is the reality of policies you call "fair". 

If you don't have the patience for the video, the lyrics are here.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Just words Ele, just words. They pay lip service. What are they _doing_ to change it. More importantly is that although many of these laws are _written_ in a gender neutral fashion, they are not _enforced_ that way. Men were more than "just a wallet" prior to the tender years doctrine because they actually had a say in how that money was spent. That is the opposite of how "child support" works today. It is a welfare check to the mother, for her to spend however she chooses. Do you see the difference?
> 
> Note that in your article, they don't actually cite if there were any appreciable changes (which there may have been, I've not looked for the stats) in who is paying alimony and who is receiving it, but rather went by "top divorce attorneys'" _perceptions_ of the outcomes of cases they've seen / litigated.
> 
> You say it is closer to the right to equal pay. That right is enshrined in law, and I ask that you prove it is being violated. I can actually provide proof that men are discriminated against in legal sentencing as well as their unequal treatment by the justice system in domestic violence and divorce.
> 
> The tender years doctrine, if you take the time to study it--which I linked above--was created by a woman who was angry that her child was killed in a horse-riding accident, and was based on the argument that women are more caring and nurturing, and that they deserve to have custody of their children during the "tender years" because they will be "safer."
> 
> I am highlighting successful feminist law. And you all are running from it. Why not embrace it for what it is. This is what feminism fought for.
> 
> No one here disputes that once upon a time women weren't treated fairly. We dispute how things are today. I am asking for proof of the oppression of women.


I cannot give you proof because I cannot name my employers on a forum like this. I cannot post the info from those companies that show it.


I cannot name the employers of other women I know who were fired 2 years ago because they are women. Yes the new CEO stated in a management meeting that he believes women cannot handle management and he was going to fire the women. He said this with the women in the room. Within a few months all of the women in anything but the lowest positions were fired.

The women did not sue because they ran into the same issues I did... if they sue, they will never be able to find another job. So like me, they just moved on.

I one female engineer I know was told my her company that the junior male engineers would not work for a female technical lead. So she was ordered to teach the inexperienced engineers her job and that the names of the males had to go on the finished product, not hers... Her husband worked at the same company and verified that this was going on. This is one of the largest engineering firms in the country, not some fly by night.

I could go on... but it's not worth it here.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> I cannot give you proof because I cannot name my employers on a forum like this. I cannot post the info from those companies that show it.
> 
> 
> I cannot name the employers of other women I know who were fired 2 years ago because they are women. Yes the new CEO stated in a management meeting that he believes women cannot handle management and he was going to fire the women. He said this with the women in the room. Within a few months all of the women in anything but the lowest positions were fired.
> 
> The women did not sue because they ran into the same issues I did... if they sue, they will never be able to find another job. So like me, they just moved on.
> 
> I one female engineer I know was told my her company that the junior male engineers would not work for a female technical lead. So she was ordered to teach the inexperienced engineers her job and that the names of the males had to go on the finished product, not hers... Her husband worked at the same company and verified that this was going on. This is one of the largest engineering firms in the country, not some fly by night.
> 
> I could go on... but it's not worth it here.


Why not post some studies Ele, that support your claim, since you can't name names to protect the innocent.


----------



## Mr The Other

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Michelle- There was an interesting thread a little while ago about reasons women leave, some were on the side that it was trivial little things, others were discussing how the little things can become serious things quickly.
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/309793-how-prevent-walkaway-wife.html
> 
> Also this link explains this pretty well
> 
> Why Women Leave Men
> 
> Now that's not to say that some women are petty and crappy and leave without a good reason because she thinks she's so much better than him (although really, who wants to be married to her anyway! She did him a favour)
> But I do not believe that it is such a big problem, it's a minority.
> 
> The vast majority of women who are leaving, do so for good reasons but their reasons may all be different.
> Your husband not doing chores might not bother you at all if you don't have a high need for domestic support. That works out great.
> But for a woman who DOES, the not doing chores thing is a slap in the face and disrespect, refusing LOVE.


Both of these links fall into the genre of marriage advice that goes, "Stop being a terrible man and the marriage will be fine". I compartmentalized my life, it was to stop me going crazy as my wife would not contribute to the marriage (other that struggling to understand why it was not going well). Links like that confirm that even then it is all the man's fault.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Why not post some studies Ele, that support your claim, since you can't name names to protect the innocent.


OMG, dude, she has posted study after study that everyone has pretty much ignored, or simply contradicted with "that can't be true because we all know women don't work as hard as men, take more days off, and aren't as ambitious." You want people to read your studies? Maybe you ought to do them the courtesy of reading theirs.

As for the "Tender Years" law, she was not "angry that her son died." Rather, her husbad systematically punished her by stealing all of her earnings and sending the kids off to some remote location. And he could do that because she and the kids were simply his property to use as pawns or dispose of as he pleased.

This was not "custody" because he paid the bills. They were all his property.

Very different concept.


----------



## welldusted

Mr The Other said:


> Both of these links fall into the genre of marriage advice that goes, "Stop being a terrible man and the marriage will be fine". I compartmentalized my life, it was to stop me going crazy as my wife would not contribute to the marriage (other that struggling to understand why it was not going well). Links like that confirm that even then it is all the man's fault.


I'm increasingly realizing how prevalent this is as an assumption. Just look at the responses I got to my other thread -- I asked about a specific problem I have and virtually no one responded to the question I actually asked, while everyone read a million things into my marriage that were not in my post, and assumed it was my fault. Your wife is upset really easily? You have to walk on eggshells? Well you're a man, it must be your fault.


----------



## Mr The Other

welldusted said:


> I'm increasingly realizing how prevalent this is as an assumption. Just look at the responses I got to my other thread -- I asked about a specific problem I have and virtually no one responded to the question I actually asked, while everyone read a million things into my marriage that were not in my post, and assumed it was my fault. Your wife is upset really easily? You have to walk on eggshells? Well you're a man, it must be your fault.


TAM is better than most places. It is quicker to post your prejudices rather than to consider and listen. A woman posting on here will often find she is interrogated too. That said, I did have two women posters on here immediately after my separation lecture me on why it was my fault as they had experience to situations that were...errr...completely different (I think @blond has been banned now, which is a good thing). Ironically, that assumed I would not listen and was insensitive. Despite all that though, I did get good advice, much coming from one woman in particular. 

I do recall a woman I worked withe being shocked I was divorced, as I seemed like a really good man (to use her words), which does show how that assumption is deep.

Stick with the forum, there is lots of good advice and many will hear you out.

BTW, this thread was bound to end in tears, it is remarkable it had a good spell.


----------



## staarz21

welldusted said:


> I'm increasingly realizing how prevalent this is as an assumption. Just look at the responses I got to my other thread -- I asked about a specific problem I have and virtually no one responded to the question I actually asked, while everyone read a million things into my marriage that were not in my post, and assumed it was my fault. Your wife is upset really easily? You have to walk on eggshells? Well you're a man, it must be your fault.


No one said that in your thread. YOU were the one that showed up asking questions, so people can only address YOUR side of things. If your W shows up, then they can address HER side of things...see how that works? 

We have no idea why she is really upset with you. We have what you told us, but that is your perception of it - which often isn't correct (for both men and women). A lot of assuming goes on in arguments. Which is why people are telling you what they hear from your conversation with your W. Most of the people said that your W was wanting to vent and you preached at her, which isn't something she wanted. That doesn't mean the entire marriage being in trouble right now is your fault. It just means you need to learn to communicate better with your W. Your W could probably learn to do the same, but again...she isn't here for us to tell her that, is she? 


EleGirl tried to ask you a few questions to delve deeper into your situation, but you ignored her, twice. This really has nothing to do with being a man or a woman, but rather who is here asking questions, seeking help. They asked you what your HALF of the problems were...that means your W is still at fault for her HALF. She just isn't here to ask questions about her half. Send her here. 

But I like to see how you post now - turning the story around a tad to fit your agenda. That's cute.


----------



## EleGirl

welldusted said:


> I'm increasingly realizing how prevalent this is as an assumption. Just look at the responses I got to my other thread -- I asked about a specific problem I have and virtually no one responded to the question I actually asked, while everyone read a million things into my marriage that were not in my post, and assumed it was my fault. Your wife is upset really easily? You have to walk on eggshells? Well you're a man, it must be your fault.


I responded to this on the thread that you refer to here.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> OMG, dude, she has posted study after study that everyone has pretty much ignored, or simply contradicted with "that can't be true because we all know women don't work as hard as men, take more days off, and aren't as ambitious." You want people to read your studies? Maybe you ought to do them the courtesy of reading theirs.
> 
> As for the "Tender Years" law, she was not "angry that her son died." Rather, her husbad systematically punished her by stealing all of her earnings and sending the kids off to some remote location. And he could do that because she and the kids were simply his property to use as pawns or dispose of as he pleased.
> 
> This was not "custody" because he paid the bills. They were all his property.
> 
> Very different concept.


I just took the time to comb this whole thread, and she posted 2 links in totality.Link 1 and Link 2.

Link 1 is a website about STEM jobs and the "pay gap". It is not a study, it is a website about the US' BLS report on the "pay gap". The BLS report literally compares annual pay to annual pay. It does not compare hours worked. It does not compare experience in the field. This is disingenuous faux science. Now, I'm sure Ele didn't read that "study", and took it at it's word. I'm not saying Ele was trying to be deceitful rather the people posting the "study" were.

Link 2 is not a study. It is a hilarious article claiming that the reason boys don't do well in school is because they are sexist. Not because they don't like it. Not because female teachers may struggle to deal with male students. The conclusion is not anything even remotely based in scientific study, or real observation; no, it's because they're a bunch of misogynists. 

I'd be glad to see a study showing me how discriminated against women are. Please, provide me something. I _want_ to believe you ladies.


----------



## Mr The Other

welldusted said:


> I'm increasingly realizing how prevalent this is as an assumption. Just look at the responses I got to my other thread -- I asked about a specific problem I have and virtually no one responded to the question I actually asked, while everyone read a million things into my marriage that were not in my post, and assumed it was my fault. Your wife is upset really easily? You have to walk on eggshells? Well you're a man, it must be your fault.


I have posted on your thread.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Link 1 is a website about STEM jobs and the "pay gap". It is not a study, it is a website about the US' BLS report on the "pay gap".


Link one links to a whole bunch of studies if you read through it and care to know what informs those conclusions. 

It is true that some of the other links are in other threads. This topic is revisited so many times, they all start blurring together.


----------



## MichelleR

Okay I'm going to try to make another point. So let's say that it's true that in general women are viewed as less ambitious in the workplace. There may be a lot of reasons for this. They apply for less promotions because they don't want the increased hours or stress. They take more time off for their kids, etc. They go into fields that have more opportunities for social exposure and more comfortable hours and conditions...

A lot of women do this but not all of course, and most men and women understand this. We have laws in place to protect women as much as possible without becoming overly controlling of how people choose employees ( for example I wouldn't want it to be arbitrarily mandated that an equal number of men and women are hired in every field). 

My question is, if society does indeed view women in general as less ambitious in the work world, does this mean they are respected less? Is how much money a person makes a measure of how superior vs inferior they are?

I don't think so. I think a lot of women are respected for juggling as much as they do. Yes I don't work as many hours as I would if I didn't have kids but breastfeeding and spending time nurturing and raising my little ones at home are very valuable contributions to society even though I don't bring extra money into the house for them. If I didn't want to have kids so badly I might have chosen a different field entirely that would make me more money but not offer me the opportunities I have with summers off and no required traveling. I don't think that makes me any less of a person and I don't think society sees me as less of a person because of it. 

However modern feminists interpret the fact that women make less money overall as a sign that we are still oppressed. The thing is we cannot deny that men and women are naturally different. Different does not mean better or worse. Both have good things to offer of course, and the work world is only one aspect of our lives.


----------



## Thundarr

Lots of men in the upper epsilon of business and that equates to some hidden bias; and lots of women teaching our youth and that equates to some hidden bias. I'm a guy who had three boys so it would be easy enough to see things from a slanted angle of feminist trying to tear us down. But I don't think anyone tears us down. On the flip side, I have a mother, three sisters, and two grand daughters so I try to see things from their perspective. I hope my grand kid (boys) and my grand kid (girls) all have opportunity to succeed. In all honesty I think they all have that opportunity.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Mr The Other said:


> Both of these links fall into the genre of marriage advice that goes, "Stop being a terrible man and the marriage will be fine". I compartmentalized my life, it was to stop me going crazy as my wife would not contribute to the marriage (other that struggling to understand why it was not going well). Links like that confirm that even then it is all the man's fault.


Those are discussing why WOMEN leave MEN which was the topic.

If you want to discuss the reasons why men leave women, start a WAH thread. 

Women are not leaving men because they are feminists so, why not? They have actual reasons for leaving. Most do not take it lightly, most try before resorting to divorce. It's insulting to think that because women file for divorce more often that they must be doing it for silly reasons, that feminism made a bunch of women just divorce for no good reason. That is the point being countered.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> However modern feminists interpret the fact that women make less money overall as a sign that we are still oppressed. The thing is we cannot deny that men and women are naturally different. Different does not mean better or worse. Both have good things to offer of course, and the work world is only one aspect of our lives.


No, not having the CHOICE to either work as hard as a man does and get equal compensation for it or limit career gains to help with the family is what is oppressive. 

I limited my career for my family too. I take 2 weeks off at Christmas and 2 in summer, extra time around other holidays. I take an hour at lunch to clean the house, 14 months mat leave, I break at 3 to pick up my daughter and bring her to my office the rest of the day. None of these things is going to make me the big CEO but that's my choice.

Another women may want that CEO position. She might work her butt off for it and do the overtime, have no kids or a nanny or a SAHD. She should have the same opportunity- without discrimination - to get there if that is her choice.

There is nothing wrong with either choice and none of this is about any one person's personal choices. It's about everyone getting to make their own and having the ability to do it. 

Do you think that woman #2 should be discriminated against because someone like me focuses more on her kids than her job?


----------



## anonmd

I Agree SGC. I guess the only thing I'd caution against is that CEO slots are pretty slim you know?


----------



## tech-novelist

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> At least where I work, it would be illegal to be biased against female applicants, no matter what you thought the statistics were. *Any sort of bias based on gender*, race, orientation, religion is.


Other than bias in favor of women and against men, you mean.


----------



## jdawg2015

Richard, when you post please realize the World is round and does not stop at the borders of the US.

Did you know that in Asia, a resume has religion, date of birth, gender, and many other things that in the US would be taboo? Some of those things actually matter.

Did you know that you can not ship product directly from Israel to Malaysia (and other muslim countries)? So giving all these factors do you think it would be wise to have a women (even worse if she's muslim) to be a project manager when there is multiple conflicts involved such as Saudi's, Isreali's, Malaysians, etc? Sometimes the mix would simply be toxic. 

I worked at a major University Hospital in a clinical role doing research. My boss (a female) actually told me after working there for a while that she preferred to hire men because women call out all the time, are caddy, and create conflict that men don't do.

We also had a clinic manager who was man hater to the nth degree because she got left for another woman. 

I just think that when a man is biased against a woman, it's called out more but it seems more socially acceptable to have women exclude men. Definitely easier for a woman to hide behind her cloak than a man for sure.

I'm a realist. Bias exists out there. You have to learn to work around it.



richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> At least where I work, it would be illegal to be biased against female applicants, no matter what you thought the statistics were. Any sort of bias based on gender, race, orientation, religion is.
> 
> I agree with those laws. Whatever the statistics, individuals have a right to be judged on their own merits, not those of others who in some way resemble them.
> 
> If your business does discriminate in hiring, I'm not at all surprised that they have had legal problems with employees, in many places you would be violating the law.
> 
> 
> I have not had particularly more or less problems with male or female employees or managers. There are some subtle but important issues with bias at my workplace that I am struggling to figure out how to fix.


----------



## sapientia

Kivlor said:


> *Prior to feminism, men received custody of children because they were financially responsible for their upbringing.*


The ones they acknowledged. The others were often left to survive in abject poverty.

BTW - I'm not a feminist, so no horse in your race. I'm a Humanist. But your comment was a very selective view of history.


----------



## aine

Back to what the OP said, it is important that a man doesn't feel that he is just there to be the breadwinner and many men often feel like this because they have less time to engage with the family due to long working hours. They have to make time for the demands of work and the demands of home which is often taken for granted. This 'take for grantedness' is usually in Asian environments as the men are usually the bread winners. 
While the emphasis is on what women do in the home (for many years it was considered insignificant) is equally important, society has tended to skew the attention in the opposite direction away from the man's role as breadwinner. 
In my own family I am very aware of the role my H plays and how he has contributed to the lifestyle we have as a family due to hard work and sweat. 
Sometimes such men get more appreciation from their office colleagues and staff than they do at home. Then why would they want to spend more time at home? A man's desire to feel needed is strong as is his ego, men are generally all about doing, action, achieving, etc. In the workplace this is recognised but sadly in many homes it is not. Therefore, OP I see where your sentiments are coming from and I agree.


----------



## sapientia

Kivlor said:


> Just words Ele, just words. They pay lip service. What are they _doing_ to change it. More importantly is that although many of these laws are _written_ in a gender neutral fashion, they are not _enforced_ that way.


I find a lot of the male argument on this site full of sh!t. There IS equality.

I have posted elsewhere that I now make more than my ex. I now pay him child support. I'm not complaining; I simply see it as fair. When we first split, his income was higher than mine, so he paid me CS for our son (which I invested for him). That was our agreement.

If any of you want to know how to achieve this arrangement, I'm happy to share. But don't gripe there isn't equality. 

The real issue is people need to be smarter about how they choose their spouses. 

1. Men need to stop allowing themselves to assume the breadwinner role. Stop reinforcing the Princess stereotype by promising to be their Shining Knight who will take care of them.

2. Women need to stop allowing themselves to be "taken care of" like lazy princesses. Work. Contribute. Stay in the career game. For so many reasons, it's irresponsible NOT to. What if your supporting spouse gets sick or dies? In today's economy, you need financial backup. It's not fair to put it all on your husband.

3. Both. Share the child rearing responsibility, the children are much better off for it.

4. Finally, take a stand against unreasonable/greedy lawyers. Mine was a shark. Excellent and highly recommended, but still a shark. She wanted me to go for more settlement with the argument I "sacrificed" my career potential to care for our son. I finally told her, bluntly I didn't see that as fair. I knew what my earning potential was and, perhaps a pride issue, but I didn't want my son to see his mom as being depending on his dad simply because we chose to get married and have him.


----------



## sapientia

aine said:


> Back to what the OP said, *it is important that a man doesn't feel that he is just there to be the breadwinner*


I agree completely. I don't want a grocery man; I can get that from Peapod. I want a *partner.*


----------



## MichelleR

Okay I read well dusted's other thread and do see what he's saying. He asked a question about how to communicate a specific concept to his wife and everyone responded with a slew of questions about how he is not meeting her needs. 

I do see this in several other threads as well. In general are women encouraged to improve themselves for their men? I don't think so. Women are told, "do it for yourself," and are told to not degrade themselves by trying so hard to please a man. 

Marriages fall apart because both people are guilty and often one person is indeed a worse offender than the other. Sometimes one spouse is just a horrible spouse. But I think in general if women felt the same pressure to please their husbands as husbands feel to please their wives ("happy wife, happy life") a lot of marriages would remain more stable before a lot of more serious problems emerged.


----------



## MichelleR

Sapientia your issue about princesses and shining knights will be hard to overcome. Children naturally gravitate toward those things. It's not forced on them, it's preferred by them. Little girls like princesses and boys like to be the heroes. You act like you want all men and women to be exactly the same and we are not and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Okay I read well dusted's other thread and do see what he's saying. He asked a question about how to communicate a specific concept to his wife and everyone responded with a slew of questions about how he is not meeting her needs.
> 
> I do see this in several other threads as well. In general are women encouraged to improve themselves for their men? I don't think so. Women are told, "do it for yourself," and are told to not degrade themselves by trying so hard to please a man.
> 
> Marriages fall apart because both people are guilty and often one person is indeed a worse offender than the other. Sometimes one spouse is just a horrible spouse. But I think in general if women felt the same pressure to please their husbands as husbands feel to please their wives ("happy wife, happy life") a lot of marriages would remain more stable before a lot of more serious problems emerged.


What you see on his thread is what people on TAM suggest.

You have been here only a few days. I suggest you pay attention to threads by women and see that they too are told that they need to look at what they are doing and if they are meeting their spouses needs.

It goes both ways.

One of the best bits of advice given on TAM is for couples to get the books "His Needs, Her Needs" and "Love Busters".

The books suggest the both husband and wife do the work laid out and then work to meet EACH OTHER's needs. 

But you see, dusted's wife is not here, so he is the only one we can talk to. I asked him a question which is a lead into to discussing those two books and suggesting to use them to help his marriage. But he has blown off the questions for some reason.


.


----------



## welldusted

EleGirl said:


> What you see on his threat is what people on TAM suggest.
> 
> You have been here only a few days. I suggest you pay attention to threads by women and see that they too are told that they need to look at what they are doing and if they are meeting their spouses needs.
> 
> It goes both ways.
> 
> One of the best bits of advice given on TAM is for couples to get the books "His Needs, Her Needs" and "Love Busters".
> 
> The books suggest the both husband and wife do the work laid out and then work to meet EACH OTHER's needs.
> 
> But you see, dusted's wife is not here, so he is the only one we can talk to. I asked him a question which is a lead into to discussing those two books and suggesting to use them to help his marriage. But he has blown off the questions for some reason.
> 
> 
> .


Just to clarify something, I'm familiar with that stuff because I've read TAM for a long time, including your posts. I know about the 10 hours a week and all of that. I only ignored it because it was kind of afield from my thread, in my opinion, and because I already know that my wife and I need more enjoyable time together, and I didn't feel like going into the reasons that it isn't happening as much as I'd like.


----------



## EleGirl

welldusted said:


> Just to clarify something, I'm familiar with that stuff because I've read TAM for a long time, including your posts. I know about the 10 hours a week and all of that. I only ignored it because it was kind of afield from my thread, in my opinion, and because I already know that my wife and I need more enjoyable time together, and I didn't feel like going into the reasons that it isn't happening as much as I'd like.


This belongs on the thread, not here.


----------



## Mr The Other

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Those are discussing why WOMEN leave MEN which was the topic.
> 
> If you want to discuss the reasons why men leave women, start a WAH thread.
> 
> Women are not leaving men because they are feminists so, why not? They have actual reasons for leaving. Most do not take it lightly, most try before resorting to divorce. It's insulting to think that because women file for divorce more often that they must be doing it for silly reasons, that feminism made a bunch of women just divorce for no good reason. That is the point being countered.


I have no intention of starting a thread about how if marriages would be fine if women would stop being rubbish. That would seem like factious, sexist nonsense and there is plenty of that. I do not recall blaming feminism either, indeed I dwelt on that in the thread I started call "Hooray for Feminism".


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Interesting question. I *think* that where I work "gender" is a protected status, so bias based on gender (either way) is illegal. 

Dang it, I just took the training on this and I'm not sure. 



technovelist said:


> Other than bias in favor of women and against men, you mean.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Certainly the world is big, and I have been to places where there is a large amount of bias - sometimes open, sometimes subtle. 

I felt like the conversation was centering on the US, Europe, Australia and other similar cultures, but maybe other people didn't think that way. 

There is lots of bias in other places, and I think it is bad. 




jdawg2015 said:


> Richard, when you post please realize the World is round and does not stop at the borders of the US.
> 
> Did you know that in Asia, a resume has religion, date of birth, gender, and many other things that in the US would be taboo? Some of those things actually matter.
> 
> Did you know that you can not ship product directly from Israel to Malaysia (and other muslim countries)? So giving all these factors do you think it would be wise to have a women (even worse if she's muslim) to be a project manager when there is multiple conflicts involved such as Saudi's, Isreali's, Malaysians, etc? Sometimes the mix would simply be toxic.
> 
> I worked at a major University Hospital in a clinical role doing research. My boss (a female) actually told me after working there for a while that she preferred to hire men because women call out all the time, are caddy, and create conflict that men don't do.
> 
> We also had a clinic manager who was man hater to the nth degree because she got left for another woman.
> 
> I just think that when a man is biased against a woman, it's called out more but it seems more socially acceptable to have women exclude men. Definitely easier for a woman to hide behind her cloak than a man for sure.
> 
> I'm a realist. Bias exists out there. You have to learn to work around it.


----------



## MichelleR

In a divorce the person who makes more money (traditional breadwinner ) gets the short end of the stick. In most marriages it's the man but I don't think it's fair either way

Think of it this way. Say there is a stay at home mom and breadwinner husband and they get divorced. She gets child support and alimony. Then they both get remarried. Now she has two husbands supporting her and he has two wives to support. 

I know a woman who's husband was basically useless. He didn't work and didn't take care of their son either but rather lied and said he was working so she would continue to pay for a babysitter. When they divorced she now has to give him alimony and a portion of her teacher's retirement. She said she was sobbing in the lawyer's office and my heart did go out to her. 

Whether it's the man or woman who gets screwed it's not fair but in most cases today it's the man.


----------



## MichelleR

I do understand the rationale for these divorce policies though so I don't see any way around it. It's worth pointing out but I see it as a risk the primary breadwinner takes when getting married.


----------



## jdawg2015

MichelleR said:


> I do understand the rationale for these divorce policies though so I don't see any way around it. It's worth pointing out but I see it as a risk the primary breadwinner takes when getting married.


My company paid for my masters degree and my ex wife had to do nothing to alter her life while I worked and went to school. 

My ex W only had a HS education and despite trying to get her to go back and get her degree she was content because we were doing well financially. 

During the divorce the "support" while I got my degree was considered, and the fact that the masters led to higher pay meant more money for her as well.

Definitely not equitable.

I don't believe in alimony in 95% of cases. Being married should not be a guarantee to a lifetime of my money if we aren't together for out whole lifetime. Got divorced at 41 and had to essentially wipe out my retirement to pay her out and not owe alimony.

AND, she will be able to collect soc sec at my higher amount too if she doesn't remarry. She even knows this so if some guy comes along and wants to marry, this could be a problem for him because I max out SS>


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> In a divorce the person who makes more money (traditional breadwinner ) gets the short end of the stick. In most marriages it's the man but I don't think it's fair either way
> 
> Think of it this way. Say there is a stay at home mom and breadwinner husband and they get divorced. She gets child support and alimony. Then they both get remarried. Now she has two husbands supporting her and he has two wives to support.


Alimony is not given as much anymore and when it is, it's almost always for a short time to get her on her feet. 

Alimony and child support are also not enough to actually live off in the vast majority of cases, she will need to work as well. Statistically on average SHE is paying more for the children than he is. Statistically, child support doesn't cover half the expenses and on average, she is a lot poorer than he is at the end of it all. 

And how many men are going to marry a woman who wants to be a SAHM with someone else's kids and have her new hubby pay for it?

He also has an option to choose a second wife who also works. Heck, he had the option to choose a first wife who also works. 

Being the breadwinner does have it's risks, so does being a SAHM. 

My Mother was a SAHM for 24 years, that's what my Dad wanted. She worked here and there but he felt it wasn't worth what he was missing at home. Then he has an affair, leaves, and is ordered to give my Mom half the house, half the pension (up to the point of divorce) and $800/month until he retires. 

He doesn't think it's very fair either. But my Mother supported him those 24 years, she moved when he needed, made his lunches, ironed his clothes, dealt with the kids and the home so he could focus on his career. So with her help he got to the point where he was making a ton of money, how is it not fair for her to benefit from it? How is it fair for him to use her to get to that point and then go take all his earnings to a new wife while Mom had to start at square 1 being in her 40s and no job history? 

You say you are the one who takes on all the child care, as do I. That's an important job. Your husband benefits from that. Your husband's career benefits from that. Do you think what you do isn't as needed and important to the family as your husband bringing in more money? 

So men need to understand that if they are married to a woman who is being a SAHM, she is helping, she is contributing, she is supporting him and his career. So when they divorce, some of that money is hers. 

TBH- This is a huge reason why I never wanted to be a SAHM. Because as soon as you divorce, so many men turn into "MY money, MY house. I worked, I earned it. You sat at home and did nothing"
In a marriage, everything is OURS no matter who pays the money for it and who cleans and cares for it. 

So he's not losing half his home, half his money. They are splitting what they both share, earn and deserve. 

To think that a man should just be able to walk away from his SAHM spouse and give her nothing is like saying that what she did didn't help and support him to get to where he is.


----------



## Mr The Other

Slowlygoingcrazy, I think most on here would agree that 50:50 was more than fair.

I was divorced in Denmark, which is far more into feminism that the USA is and far further into equality. The result was that in the divorce, they considered my non-working wife (we had not kids), to have made no more contribution than if the roles had been reversed. That is feminism though, what you often have in the USA (more so in the UK) is word-service to equality and paternalistic chivalric values that dictate the women needs to be indulged.


----------



## MichelleR

Okay I do see the flaw with lifelong alimony and maybe the laws do need to be changed in general. 

In response to the threads that are started by men vs women: 

Well dusted started a thread in which his wife's behavior was bothering him and he wanted to know how to communicate it to her. He admitted that he had upset her and took responsibility and apologized but was upset because he felt her reaction was uncalled for. He was using the incident as an example for an ongoing pattern. If you actually read the thread in all honesty he did not make that big of a mistake. He was trying to help her and she got really angry because he didn't help her the way she wanted him to. 

Now the general response from most people was about how he needs to think about his flaws and try harder to understand her and meet her needs. There is nothing wrong with that but there was very little talk about the fact that his wife was not treating him well and he needs to do something to communicate that to her.

In a healthy marriage both spouses are constantly learning and teaching one another about their needs and quirks. If one spouse starts to act inappropriately to the other, he or she should communicate that fact. Well dusted's wife had no problem communicating to him that he had messed up but he needs to communicate to her that her behavior is unacceptable too. 


Converse this with a thread I started recently. My husband was behaving in a way that upset me. Some people agreed that he was behaving badly and some saw his point of view. Several offered suggestions for what I should do about it. I was never bombarded with questions like "what are your flaws?" "Are you keeping the house clean for him?" "Are you pulling your weight financially?" "Have you let yourself go?" "Do you stay in shape?" "Do you give him good sex?" "How much effort do you put into your relationship?" 

See the difference? No one would DARE .


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

See the difference? No one would DARE . 

They do dare and it is said all the time, it all depends on the situation.

The only person you can change is yourself so if a guy comes on here and says "my wife is cranky" There's no point in saying "tell her not to be" "make her not be cranky"
You can't do that. We also can't ask _her _why she is cranky. 

So first things first- how's the marriage? Are you doing the stuff needed to stay in love (time alone together, meeting emotional needs) Are you love busting? Love Busters

Then once those are out of the way people have a more in depth understanding of the situation.

She may be cranky that they never go on date nights, never spend time alone together, he doesn't do his share of the housework and leaves it all to her or she could be cranky because she is a b*tch. 

How are you going to know that if you don't ask the right questions?

For the most part being in conflict is for a reason, often to do with the marriage itself. Conflict

The person posting is the only one who knows what is going on, they are the only one who can change anything about the situation.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR- I just glanced at your thread, it wouldn't cause any reasons for it to be about how much you make or if you've gained weight or how much sex you have. 

If you posted about how your husband was stressed, cranky, started to get nit picky with you, then yes I would ask if he was getting his needs met, if you knew what they were. If you were showing him admiration and support.I would also ask about his outside life, work, other stress. All this would be needed to figure out how best to advise you. 

When my H is stressed it is usually one of two things. Outside issues (job) inside issues (me). So after figuring out which one I can figure out how to help. If it's job, I support more. I do more little things for him, warm up the truck when he's in the shower, pack him food, hand him his toothbrush and help him find his keys and socks. 

If it's me, have I been grumpy lately too? Am I meeting his needs? Have I gotten complacent and too demanding? Go give him a nice neck massage and tell him how proud I am of him, how hard he works, how amazed I am when I see him with his kids.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Link one links to a whole bunch of studies if you read through it and care to know what informs those conclusions.
> 
> It is true that some of the other links are in other threads. This topic is revisited so many times, they all start blurring together.


I only found 1 other piece of "research" in that entire website. I refuse to sign up for their propaganda just to review the methodology, but fortunately, someone else placed it online. I haven't had the time to finish reading the entire research paper, but so far it gives the appearance of being a "research paper" about_ literature_ about the pay gap.

Not evidence--so far as I've read--of a pay gap, but evidence of what _feminist authors have to say_ about the "pay gap". 

I will note some very entertaining information they have provided: the more men talk with other male colleauges about work, the more engaged they are in their work. The more women discuss work with male colleagues, the less engaged they are with their work. These trends are also shown to be reversed when discussing social / life topics rather than work.

There are no figures providing information on how either gender performs after discussing either topic with women... Interesting?

They do constantly refer to the gender wage gap, and whenever they cite it, they cite the US Census / BLS statistics, which are the ones I refuted above.


----------



## EllisRedding

aine said:


> Back to what the OP said, it is important that a man doesn't feel that he is just there to be the breadwinner and many men often feel like this because they have less time to engage with the family due to long working hours. They have to make time for the demands of work and the demands of home which is often taken for granted. This 'take for grantedness' is usually in Asian environments as the men are usually the bread winners.
> While the emphasis is on what women do in the home (for many years it was considered insignificant) is equally important, society has tended to skew the attention in the opposite direction away from the man's role as breadwinner.
> In my own family I am very aware of the role my H plays and how he has contributed to the lifestyle we have as a family due to hard work and sweat.
> Sometimes such men get more appreciation from their office colleagues and staff than they do at home. Then why would they want to spend more time at home? A man's desire to feel needed is strong as is his ego, men are generally all about doing, action, achieving, etc. In the workplace this is recognised but sadly in many homes it is not. Therefore, OP I see where your sentiments are coming from and I agree.


I was thinking about this, and although I do think the dynamics are changing some, I believe that some of this "taking for granted" comes from the belief that being the breadwinner is what a man is "supposed" to do. Why do they need to be encouraged or recognized for doing what they are supposed to do. If he is the breadwinner meh, he is just doing his job. Of course if he doesn't quite meet this, then he would get called out.

Now, I am not saying this is always the case (as I mentioned I do believe the dynamics of the man as the breadwinner is changing). However, this thinking does still exist out there.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EllisRedding said:


> I was thinking about this, and although I do think the dynamics are changing some, I believe that some of this "taking for granted" comes from the belief that being the breadwinner is what a man is "supposed" to do. Why do they need to be encouraged or recognized for doing what they are supposed to do. If he is the breadwinner meh, he is just doing his job. Of course if he doesn't quite meet this, then he would get called out.
> 
> Now, I am not saying this is always the case (as I mentioned I do believe the dynamics of the man as the breadwinner is changing). However, this thinking does still exist out there.


I agree and it can be hard. I know when i was on mat leave all I saw was my end. I was up all night and then took care of kids all day, cleaned and recleaned everything over and over again (basically lived like this all day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP0Uf3Shd0)
and he'd come home, tired, and all I saw was that he was gone all day. All I wanted was a break. All he saw was that he was at work all day and I was home playing with the kids and relaxing. 

It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes, especially when you are worn out and stressed. 

I think a good habit to get into would be at the end of the night, big hug and thank each other for what each has done to get through another day. 
For the most part what both often just want is appreciation and understanding.


----------



## EllisRedding

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I agree and it can be hard. I know when i was on mat leave all I saw was my end. I was up all night and then took care of kids all day, cleaned and recleaned everything over and over again (basically lived like this all day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bP0Uf3Shd0)
> and he'd come home, tired, and all I saw was that he was gone all day. All I wanted was a break. All he saw was that he was at work all day and I was home playing with the kids and relaxing.
> 
> It's hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes, especially when you are worn out and stressed.
> 
> I think a good habit to get into would be at the end of the night, big hug and thank each other for what each has done to get through another day.
> For the most part what both often just want is appreciation and understanding.


In my situation, I did not become the breadwinner b/c I am a man and that is what I am supposed to do. It just turned out that my earning potential was significantly greater than my wife (trust me, I would have been more then happy if her earning potential was greater lol).

Do I feel appreciated, for the most part yes (I am not one who needs constant praise, etc...). At times do I think I get taken for granted, sure, but that is bound to happen to some extent.

What I found, and similar to what you mentioned, is being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. My wife and I actually had a talk about this a while back, she was stressed out with the kids and things at home and made a comment about how I had it better going to work every day (as if going to work I am leading some sort of country club lifestyle). I had to remind her of all the crap I deal with on a daily basis, have been dealing with on a daily basis for years, and will be dealing with on a daily basis for many years to come. My point wasn't t o imply that I had it better or worse than her, just that we both had different stresses in our lives to deal with (one wasn't greater than the other, just different). I generally try to be aware of what she does at home, let her vent to me even after a long day at work, etc... and likewise she does a better job understanding my side as well.


----------



## Kivlor

EllisRedding said:


> I was thinking about this, and although I do think the dynamics are changing some, I believe that some of this "taking for granted" comes from the belief that being the breadwinner is what a man is "supposed" to do. Why do they need to be encouraged or recognized for doing what they are supposed to do. If he is the breadwinner meh, he is just doing his job. Of course if he doesn't quite meet this, then he would get called out.
> 
> Now, I am not saying this is always the case (as I mentioned I do believe the dynamics of the man as the breadwinner is changing). However, this thinking does still exist out there.


I think the idea of the man as the breadwinner is going to stay a common theme in society. The dynamics may be changing, but that desire seems almost a part of who we are--a part of our natures. It's not as bad a thing as some folks make it out to be, and I genuinely think as a species, as a society, and as people in general, there are a lot of benefits from the "man as breadwinner, woman as homemaker model". 

The problem that occurs on both ends is when someone takes the other for granted. Women constantly take their husband's work for granted, and men constantly take for granted their wife's contributions. Look at the comments about alimony and child-support in these forums: they often focus on the contributions of the woman, and her "sacrifices", but completely ignore that the man gave up tremendous amounts of time with his family to earn more and provide for them. Both are doing their part. I think everyone benefits when we stop looking at it as a "sacrifice" and more as a lifestyle choice; and hopefully both are working as a team to give each other a better life, and to provide a better life for their children.

Not everyone wants that lifestyle of course, and that's alright; but I think it is obvious that most people would prefer this over both spouses working themselves into oblivion outside the home and then returning to continue to work inside the home.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I only found 1 other piece of "research" in that entire website.


Then you are not trying. Here is a list of what I found -- all from that one link that Elegirl posted. I could've added more, but I got bored of copying and pasting and finding internet links:

Belliveau, M. A. (2012). Engendering inequity? How social accounts create vs. merely explain unfavorable pay outcomes for women. Organization Science, 23(4), 1154–74. INFORMS PubsOnline

Black, D. A., Haviland, A., Sanders, S. G., & Taylor, L. J. (2008). Gender wage disparities among the highly educated. Human Resources,43, 630–59 Gender Wage Disparities among the Highly Educated

Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2007). The gender income gap and the role of education. Sociology of Education, 80, 1–22. The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education

Bowles, H. R., Bab****, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, 84–103 https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf

Broyles, P. (2009). The gender pay gap of STEM professions in the United States. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 
29(5/6), 214–26

Heilman, M. E.,Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tam-kins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416 –27 Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. - PubMed - NCBI

Jagsi, R., Griffith, K. A., Stewart, A., Sambuco, D., DeCastro, R., & Ubel, P. A. (2012). Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307
(22), 2410–17 JAMA Network | JAMA | Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers

Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias 
is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29
, 39 – 69 https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research/...-is-beyond-reasonable-doubt-a-refutation-of-i

Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Brescoll, V., Graham, M., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

Lo Sasso, A. T., Richards, M. R., Chou, C.-F., & Gerber, S. E. (2011). The $16,819 pay gap for newly trained physicians: The unexplained 
trend of men earning more than women. Health Affairs, 30(2), 193–201. content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/193.abstract.


Sorry it's not as easy as watching endless YouTube videos of men calling women ****s, but well, that's the way the research cookie crumbles.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> The real issue is people need to be smarter about how they choose their spouses.
> 
> 1. Men need to stop allowing themselves to assume the breadwinner role. Stop reinforcing the Princess stereotype by promising to be their Shining Knight who will take care of them.
> 
> 2. Women need to stop allowing themselves to be "taken care of" like lazy princesses. Work. Contribute. Stay in the career game. For so many reasons, it's irresponsible NOT to. What if your supporting spouse gets sick or dies? In today's economy, you need financial backup. It's not fair to put it all on your husband.
> 
> 3. Both. Share the child rearing responsibility, the children are much better off for it.


So very true. The reality is that women that sit around on their butts while men take care of them are delusional anyway. They aren't princesses at all and they often get the rug pulled out from under them when their husbands take off and they're left with nothing. Or there are the ones that have to stay with crappy or cheating husbands because they're child-like dependents who can't take care of themselves or their children.

The other thing that isn't often talked about is that when you have a SAHP and a working parent, it often causes problems because neither person understands the other person's contributions. There's no way I'm going to have any respect for someone sitting around all day living off of me when I'm working everyday. You see that constantly on this website...story after story of spouses complaining about the other person not respecting and appreciating them. And that's because shared burdens are more easily understood.

Staying at home all day is not the hardest job...never was, never will be and adults should be responsible for themselves and their children and not live off of others unless they're accepting the risk and peril of that decision totally on their own shoulders. They cannot expect someone else to take care of them if their marriage dissolves (which it often does).



> 4. Finally, take a stand against unreasonable/greedy lawyers. Mine was a shark. Excellent and highly recommended, but still a shark. She wanted me to go for more settlement with the argument I "sacrificed" my career potential to care for our son. I finally told her, bluntly I didn't see that as fair. I knew what my earning potential was and, perhaps a pride issue, but I didn't want my son to see his mom as being depending on his dad simply because we chose to get married and have him.


I did the opposite. My ex got a shark, male-rights attorney and I got a mediation oriented attorney. Best thing I ever did. She was less expensive and very geared toward compromise. I did pretty well in divorce, all things considered.

The support part of our divorce was simpler than yours was though because I've always worked and wasn't eligible and didn't request any support. Both my ex and I were able to financially support our children. And I find alimony disgraceful. The last thing I would want is to take money from a man that either I didn't want or that didn't want me. I would be so ashamed if I had to resort to that because I was so irresponsible that I didn't ensure that I had the ability to support myself like a grown-up. I learned the value of having a work ethic very early in life and am teaching that to my own girls too.


----------



## naiveonedave

From @EnigmaGirl
The real issue is people need to be smarter about how they choose their spouses. 

1. Men need to stop allowing themselves to assume the breadwinner role. Stop reinforcing the Princess stereotype by promising to be their Shining Knight who will take care of them.

2. Women need to stop allowing themselves to be "taken care of" like lazy princesses. Work. Contribute. Stay in the career game. For so many reasons, it's irresponsible NOT to. What if your supporting spouse gets sick or dies? In today's economy, you need financial backup. It's not fair to put it all on your husband.

***********************************************************
I disagree with these two points. I think a lot of this is hardwired into our psyche. Some take it to the KISA extreme or become too lazy, but the base of men wanting to the breadwinner and women wanting to be taken care of is very hard wired.


----------



## Cosmos

I'm coming to this thread rather late, but my opinion is that whilst traditional breadwinners are (quite rightly) probably highly appreciated by their SAH spouses, the truth of the matter is that Society has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and most families these days cannot survive without the income of both spouses.

As for feminists looking down on men who work hard to support their families, or women staying home to look after _young c_hildren - nonsense. All feminism ever sought to do was help give women options... Something they didn't used to have.

However, I have encountered SAHW's who think that they're somehow better wives and mothers because they don't work outside the home. Not only is this not necessarily true, but it's often done in a sly attempt to guilt those for whom not working outside the home is even an option...


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> I'm coming to this thread rather late, but my opinion is that whilst traditional breadwinners are (quite rightly) probably highly appreciated by their SAH spouses, the truth of the matter is that Society has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and most families these days cannot survive without the income of both spouses.
> 
> As for feminists looking down on men who work hard to support their families, or women staying home to look after young children - nonsense. All feminism ever sought to do was help give women options... Something they didn't used to have.


Really? What about this then?

"Simone de Beauvoir (January 9, 1908 – April 14, 1986) was a French feminist who opposed traditional gender roles for women.

She wrote:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." - "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

"A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... [W]oman's work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman."[1]"

Simone de Beauvoir - Conservapedia


----------



## tech-novelist

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Interesting question. I *think* that where I work "gender" is a protected status, so bias based on gender (either way) is illegal.
> 
> Dang it, I just took the training on this and I'm not sure.


Please find us a case where someone was accused by the EEOC of bias *towards *women.


----------



## Cosmos

technovelist said:


> Really? What about this then?
> 
> "Simone de Beauvoir (January 9, 1908 – April 14, 1986) was a French feminist who opposed traditional gender roles for women.
> 
> She wrote:
> 
> No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." - "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.
> 
> "A parasite sucking out the living strength of another organism...the [housewife's] labor does not even tend toward the creation of anything durable.... [W]oman's work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a 'career' for woman."[1]"
> 
> Simone de Beauvoir - Conservapedia


Even back then de Beauvoir was a radical. Not all feminists are radicals. Radicals rarely make good barometers.

I read The Second Sex at the age of 12 and agonized for years that I was a lesbian.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I disagree with these two points. I think a lot of this is hardwired into our psyche. Some take it to the KISA extreme or become too lazy, but the base of men wanting to the breadwinner and women wanting to be taken care of is very hard wired.


Actually, there are currently a lot of women who aren't hardwired this way at all. And if you haven't looked lately, the trend is heading in the direction that the large majority of women will work, not the other way around.

If you take a look at current trends, young women do not at all expect men to take care of them. They are educating themselves in greater numbers than men and are not expecting to get married in near the numbers they used to. In fact, women are getting married later and later.

SAHs are going the way of the dinosaur. Its an outdated concept that doesn't take into account the realities of the divorce rate and the trend in divorce laws which are going toward expecting all adults to be self-sufficient.

The idea that all women sit around like princesses expecting men to take care of them is sexist and offensive. That's the LAST thing some women want or expect. My girls would find the idea of being a princess repugnant on a number of levels. There are a lot of women that pride themselves on their intelligence and capabilities.

Not all women are weak-willed, wanna-be dependents...that's a pathetic view of women.


----------



## naiveonedave

EnigmaGirl said:


> Actually, there are currently a lot of women who aren't hardwired this way at all. And if you haven't looked lately, the trend is heading in the direction that the large majority of women will work, not the other way around.
> 
> If you take a look at current trends, young women do not at all expect men to take care of them. They are educating themselves in greater number than men and are not expecting to get married in near the numbers they used to. In fact, women are getting married later and later.
> 
> SAHs are going the way of the dinosaur. Its an outdated concept that doesn't take into account the realities of the divorce rate and the trend in divorce laws which are going toward expecting all adults to be self-sufficient.
> 
> The idea that all women sit around like princesses expecting men to take care of them is sexist and offensive. That's the LAST thing some women want or expect. My girls would find the idea of being a princess repugnant on a number of levels. There are a lot of women that pride themselves on their intelligence and capabilities.
> 
> Not all women are weak-willed, wanna-be dependents...that's a pathetic view of women.


I disagree - read most of the threads on here. Women, in general, need to respect their spouses. Part of that respect is normally gained by the man being the provider. What women have been trained, imo, is to go do everything (which is fine), but they then expect men to provide. That dries up their data pool. It is all over the place....

Men should not take it to the KISA theme, nor should women be lazy, but I think you are way off the mark on how much of this is intrinsic to our nature.

Your last comment is very offensive. Especially to SAHM.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> Even back then de Beauvoir was a radical. Radicals rarely make good barometers.
> 
> I read The Second Sex at the age of 12 and agonized for years that I was a lesbian.


In all fairness to Simone de Beauvoir, that first quote was in response to a proposition that women be paid to look after their own children, a voucher system that would guarantee her at least minimum wage. 

Now imagine the response on TAM if someone here were to propose that mothers be paid at least minimum wage for their childcare duties ....


And, as for the second set of quotes, yes, she definitely believed that housework was the ultimate drudgery and absolutely non-productive, and that women should absolutely not be relegated to a sphere where that was all they did. Of course, when you select the insulting words out of context, it sounds ever so much worse than what she actually says ...


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Your last comment is very offensive. Especially to SAHM.


That's funny. I thought your comment that women are "hard-wired to be looked after" was pretty offensive to women, especially SAHM.

Is that really how you view SAHM? That they sit around and "want to be looked after"?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I disagree - read most of the threads on here. Women, in general, need to respect their spouses. Part of that respect is normally gained by the man being the provider. What women have been trained, imo, is to go do everything (which is fine), but they then expect men to provide. That dries up their data pool. It is all over the place....
> 
> Men should not take it to the KISA theme, nor should women be lazy, but I think you are way off the mark on how much of this is intrinsic to our nature.
> 
> Your last comment is very offensive. Especially to SAHM.


lol...We'll have to agree to disagree.

The thing is...I actually AM female. A working one with female children and a female mother. All educated and hard working.

Every adult female in my family...and I have 4 sisters, has at least one degree and is financially stable on their own.

Every women in my social group is an educated, working female. I don't know any women that stay home all day expecting a man to pay their way through life.

As for SAHPs...as I've said many times...any person who doesn't recognize the peril that they put themselves and their children in by not being financially self-sufficient doesn't need to worry about my opinion of them...they need to worry about what's going to happen if their spouse takes off.

Your opinion is very out-of-touch with actual data. Look up the statistics of women in universities, women in the workforce, and women getting married. 

The world is changing and its a very good thing.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> That's funny. I thought your comment that women are "hard-wired to be looked after" was pretty offensive to women, especially SAHM.
> 
> Is that really how you view SAHM? That they sit around and "want to be looked after"?


Not in the least, your reading in way too much that isn't there. IMO, at some level, women want men to provide and men want to be providers. That does not mean women want or deserve to lay around all day and eat bon bons. Think of it on a relative basis. Women, in general, want a mate who can provide, but they also need there own self worth. It is more of a 51/49 thing instead of a 99/1 thing. 

The same goes for men. The good ones provide, but don't put women on a pedestal, become KISA, create covert contracts, etc.


----------



## EllisRedding

EnigmaGirl said:


> As for SAHPs...as I've said many times...any person who doesn't recognize the peril that they put themselves and their children in by not being financially self-sufficient doesn't need to worry about my opinion of them...they need to worry about what's going to happen if their spouse takes off.


Yeah, bit over the top here.... so basically if a SAHP doesn't think about what happens if their spouse takes off they are basically being negligent, especially if they have children. Even if they do consider the "perils" but still decide to stay home, based on your statement, they are negligent....

I know it might be a crazy idea that even nowadays people can actually get married, stay married, and be happy. Not everyone needs to do some "peril" analysis waiting for the inevitable divorce ...


----------



## naiveonedave

EnigmaGirl said:


> lol...We'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> The thing is...I actually AM female. A working one with female children and a female mother. All educated and hard working.
> 
> Every adult female in my family...and I have 4 sisters, has at least one degree and is financially stable on their own.
> 
> Every women in my social group is an educated, working female. I don't know any women that stay home all day expecting a man to pay their way through life.
> 
> As for SAHPs...as I've said many times...any person who doesn't recognize the peril that they put themselves and their children in by not being financially self-sufficient doesn't need to worry about my opinion of them...they need to worry about what's going to happen if their spouse takes off.
> 
> Your opinion is very out-of-touch with actual data. Look up the statistics of women in universities, women in the workforce, and women getting married.
> 
> The world is changing and its a very good thing.


Yes, I look at data all the time. I am not out of touch. Read about women who can't find suitable husbands, why is that? They raised their level of provide past what the average man can do, drying up the pool. 

The world is changing, some for the good and some not. Women working is independent of that.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Women, in general, want a mate who can provide, but they also need there own self worth.


lmao. Nothing like a man telling women what we want.

Your comments don't apply to me or any woman I know.


----------



## naiveonedave

EnigmaGirl said:


> lmao. Nothing like a man telling women what we want.
> 
> Your comments don't apply to me or any woman I know.


whatever....


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree - read most of the threads on here. Women, in general, need to respect their spouses. Part of that respect is normally gained by the man being the provider. What women have been trained, imo, is to go do everything (which is fine), but they then expect men to provide. That dries up their data pool. It is all over the place....
> 
> Men should not take it to the KISA theme, nor should women be lazy, but I think you are way off the mark on how much of this is intrinsic to our nature.


So basically, women typically, or at least used to, feel respect for their husbands being the breadwinner bu these days many women do their own share of the breadwinning, so it's not as impressive to them, not as needed?

IMO- this becomes an issue because suddenly _just _working isn't enough, they also have to meet other needs. Conversation, romance, domestic support. 
Same as how _just _doing housework isn't enough to meet your husband's needs and get respect.

You also have to praise him, sleep with him, have fun with him. 

Women and men gain love and respect in different ways, not all have a strong need for financial support so they would need another way to meet her needs. The ones who do will feel more respect towards breadwinning.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Read about women who can't find suitable husbands, why is that?


Uh, that isn't new.

What IS new is that there are a growing number of women that aren't looking for husbands at all.

And by the way, the trend of more and more women getting educated and being in the workforce isn't going to change. It *is* the new reality.

I am around a lot of younger women...both in my career and because I have a 20-something daughter. The last thing they're talking about is marriage. They're worried about their education, their careers, where they want to settle and live, etc. The time of women getting out of high-school and looking for husbands is long-gone.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So basically, women typically, or at least used to, feel respect for their husbands being the breadwinner bu these days many women do their own share of the breadwinning, so it's not as impressive to them, not as needed?
> 
> IMO- this becomes an issue because suddenly _just _working isn't enough, they also have to meet other needs. Conversation, romance, domestic support.
> Same as how _just _doing housework isn't enough to meet your husband's needs and get respect.
> 
> You also have to praise him, sleep with him, have fun with him.
> 
> Women and men gain love and respect in different ways, not all have a strong need for financial support so they would need another way to meet her needs. The ones who do will feel more respect towards breadwinning.


You must have had some cr*p relationships, because most of the men I know already do piles of housework, conversation, romance, etc. And always have.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EnigmaGirl said:


> I am around a lot of younger women...both in my career and because I have a 20-something daughter. The last thing they're talking about is marriage. They're worried about their education, their careers, where they want to settle and live, etc. The time of women getting out of high-school and looking for husbands is long-gone.


I see this in my daughter. She hates when a strong female character she likes gets all goo-goo over a boy. She wants action. Hunger games, star wars, she just wants the good parts. 

She, as of now, doesn't ever want to marry of have kids. She wants a cat and a cool job. 

She said the only part she would miss about no wedding is the big cake. I told her she can just buy a big cake whenever she wants to, so she was good. :smile2:

Obviously this will most likely change, at least a bit, but I do see the trend in girls talking about the futures in terms of career, travel, etc and not what boy they will marry and their wedding day.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> You must have had some cr*p relationships, because most of the men I know already do piles of housework, conversation, romance, etc. And always have.


It's a pretty common complaint for women. 

Look at many of the threads just here. Look at statistics, most 2 working parent homes still have Mom doing most of the housework.

Lots of men think it's an "unreasonable fairytale world" to even expect romance and regular dates after marriage, even some of the guys here. 

Some men are awesome about it. 

Not all. 

IMO more women are complaining about no romance, household support and conversation more often then they are complaining about him not making enough money


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I see this in my daughter. She hates when a strong female character she likes gets all goo-goo over a boy. She wants action. Hunger games, star wars, she just wants the good parts.
> 
> She, as of now, doesn't ever want to marry of have kids. She wants a cat and a cool job.
> 
> She said the only part she would miss about no wedding is the big cake. I told her she can just buy a big cake whenever she wants to, so she was good. :smile2:
> 
> Obviously this will most likely change, at least a bit, but I do see the trend in girls talking about the futures in terms of career, travel, etc and not what boy they will marry and their wedding day.


That makes me sad. I guess I am a romantic at heart. 

This is my opinion, but I think girls are some heavily preached at to have a great job, etc., all these huge expectations, that they (not all, but many?) end up missing out on some of the finer things in life, like marriage....


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> She wants a cat and a cool job.


Our daughters are the same only she's more of a dog person.

Her main concern in life right now is finding an apartment with the "right view" of downtown.

I brought up guys once about a month ago when she was getting her boots on to leave my house and she winked at me and said "I use em when I need em" and laughed her way out the front door.

As much as I love the idea of grandchildren, I'm so proud of the lovely, beautiful independent girls I'm raising. They're happy and they know what they want...they don't need society telling them what they're supposed to want. 

I actually laugh at the idea of someone telling my girls that what they really want to be is "princesses." hahahahahaha...they'd be rolling their eyes for days.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's a pretty common complaint for women.
> 
> Look at many of the threads just here. Look at statistics, most 2 working parent homes still have Mom doing most of the housework.
> 
> Lots of men think it's an "unreasonable fairytale world" to even expect romance and regular dates after marriage, even some of the guys here.
> 
> Some men are awesome about it.
> 
> Not all.
> 
> IMO more women are complaining about no romance, household support and conversation more often then they are complaining about him not making enough money


I agree, though when you read enough around here, I get the impression that a lot of women have unrealistic expectations. They want everything, which is not really possible.

I think many men, especially with dual income households, do need to do more chores.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> That makes me sad. I guess I am a romantic at heart.
> 
> This is my opinion, but I think girls are some heavily preached at to have a great job, etc., all these huge expectations, that they (not all, but many?) end up missing out on some of the finer things in life, like marriage....


I dunno. For generations boys were encouraged to focus on their careers, on travel, on how they wanted to live their lives, and not waste their days dreaming about their wedding day or what girl they might marry.

Yet, somehow, in the end of all, some 75% or so get married.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> That makes me sad. I guess I am a romantic at heart.


There is nothing less romantic to me than the insecurity that would come with having to rely on someone else for my own well-being.

What is romantic to me is I have a husband who knows that I'm his equal and is proud of my intelligence, self-sufficiency and capabilities.

I love our date nights where we meet up still in our suits and have a drink and talk about our work week and commiserate and laugh together. Romance for me is about true partnership...not about dependence.



> This is my opinion, but I think girls are some heavily preached at to have a great job, etc., all these huge expectations, that they (not all, but many?) end up missing out on some of the finer things in life, like marriage....


lol...What makes you think you have to "preach" at girls to want to be educated and self-sufficient. There have ALWAYS been a substantial number of women who wanted these things...they just have been put into positions of subjugation by society. What you're seeing is simply that women are finally able to actually do the things that they naturally want.

I'm glad that women aren't forced into marriage due to the inability to be financially self-sufficient and I'm glad that they don't have to stay in crappy marriages because they don't have the means to get out of it without becoming financially destitute.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> I dunno. For generations boys were encouraged to focus on their careers, on travel, on how they wanted to live their lives, and not waste their days dreaming about their wedding day or what girl they might marry.
> 
> Yet, somehow, in the end of all, some 75% or so get married.


Like I said, as things change, some get better. But having a 20+ year old daughter who claims to never want to get married seems harsh. Most men I knew in my 20s wanted to get married, and outside of the idiots that blame women for all the ills in the world in the MGTOW movement, most men still know they want to get married, usually before 30 +/-.


----------



## MichelleR

This is sad. Society is encouraging girls to not want men and it's actually working and you think this is a good thing? A sign of progress?

I'm sorry but I wouldn't want to spend my life alone but with a great career. I feel like the best parts of life are the moments we share with the ones we love the most. I do hope my kids want to marry when they grow up. 

As for the whole princess thing, Disney would not be so popular if the girls weren't naturally drawn to those stories. We are not forcing it on them. I'm sure the toy companies care way more about making money than enforcing old-fashioned stereotypes. Human nature hasn't changed. If the girls didn't want to have dolls or princess barbies the stores would stop stocking them. 

We already know that men want to have women in their lives. Women naturally want men in their lives too but we are trying do hard to tell the girls that they are happier without them. 

As far as being financially dependent women are usually not left on the street at a moments' notice. If the relationship is turning sour she can figure out ways to get financially stable. Even if he suddenly died she can have support from family and life insurance until she gets herself on her feet. It's always smart to get education and a backup plan but some of the attitudes here about SAHM's have been very disrespectful. 

Btw as a working mom I have not once had a SAHM criticize me for working. I only see it the other way around.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> I agree, though when you read enough around here, I get the impression that a lot of women have unrealistic expectations. They want everything, which is not really possible.
> 
> I think many men, especially with dual income households, do need to do more chores.


That depends on what you view is unreasonable I guess. 

Is a man who wants his wife to sleep with him 4 times a week, give him a BJ every so often and other fun stuff being unreasonable? 

That depends on his wife. 

Same as a woman who wants a weekly date night, a good mutual conversation 4 times a week, flowers every so often, and other little things here and there.

IMO whatever your partners needs are is not unreasonable. 

I also believe that every marriage should have 15 hours a week minimum of along time together- just as a base level.
Then on top of that, meeting whatever needs your partner has AND trying to avoid behavior that upsets or annoys them. 
(essentially this A Summary of Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts)

Ya, it's a lot of effort but staying in love isn't easy when you don't make it a habit of choosing to do it and I don't think it's unreasonable. Hard, yes some of it is but not unreasonable when you are talking about maintaining the most important relationship you have for the rest of your life.


----------



## tech-novelist

naiveonedave said:


> Like I said, as things change, some get better. But having a 20+ year old daughter who claims to never want to get married seems harsh. Most men I knew in my 20s wanted to get married, and outside of the idiots that blame women for all the ills in the world in the MGTOW movement, most men still know they want to get married, usually before 30 +/-.


Oh, the 20-something daughter will probably want to get married some day. But then she will probably find that the man she is looking for isn't there, and wonder where all the good men went...


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That depends on what you view is unreasonable I guess.
> 
> Is a man who wants his wife to sleep with him 4 times a week, give him a BJ every so often and other fun stuff being unreasonable?
> 
> That depends on his wife.
> 
> Same as a woman who wants a weekly date night, a good mutual conversation 4 times a week, flowers every so often, and other little things here and there.
> 
> IMO whatever your partners needs are is not unreasonable.
> 
> I also believe that every marriage should have 15 hours a week minimum of along time together- just as a base level.
> Then on top of that, meeting whatever needs your partner has AND trying to avoid behavior that upsets or annoys them.
> (essentially this A Summary of Dr. Harley's Basic Concepts)
> 
> Ya, it's a lot of effort but staying in love isn't easy when you don't make it a habit of choosing to do it and I don't think it's unreasonable. Hard, yes some of it is but not unreasonable when you are talking about maintaining the most important relationship you have for the rest of your life.


I agree with you, very valid points.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I used to encourage my DD about boys, and Disney and love. She's not interested. Why push her? All I tell her is that she has plenty of time and don't worry about it right now. 

But in general there have been big pushes for girls to have different types of role models, princesses who DON'T just fall for the boy at the end, women who actually do some @ss kicking themselves vs. needing to be saved by the strong, handsome man. Tools and building toys that aren't for "boys" with some pink options for the girls. Have you heard about the Bechdel Test Movie List

This is because they are finally realizing that girls don't just want to be one thing. There's all different kinds of us out there. Some want to be the princess who is saved by the handsome, strong man. Others want to be Furiosa and do their own butt kicking. 

Neither should be looked down on or felt sorry for.


----------



## Cosmos

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's a pretty common complaint for women.
> 
> Look at many of the threads just here. Look at statistics, most 2 working parent homes still have Mom doing most of the housework.
> 
> Lots of men think it's an "unreasonable fairytale world" to even expect romance and regular dates after marriage, even some of the guys here.
> 
> Some men are awesome about it.
> 
> Not all.
> 
> IMO more women are complaining about no romance, household support and conversation more often then they are complaining about him not making enough money


One only has to look at the language sometimes used regarding housework. We often hear about H's "helping" their W's with the domestic chores, almost as though it's a favour bestowed on the W rather than a joint duty.


----------



## EllisRedding

MichelleR said:


> As far as being financially dependent women are usually not left on the street at a moments' notice. If the relationship is turning sour she can figure out ways to get financially stable. Even if he suddenly died she can have support from family and life insurance until she gets herself on her feet. It's always smart to get education and a backup plan but some of the attitudes here about SAHM's have been very disrespectful.
> 
> Btw as a working mom I have not once had a SAHM criticize me for working. I only see it the other way around.


Pretty much ties in what I had posted before about my mom being critical of my wife becoming a SAHM. Really it was just a reflection of my mom's own insecurities, and the fact that b.c her marriage didn't work out naturally my wife and all other women NEED to protect themselves or else...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> Btw as a working mom I have not once had a SAHM criticize me for working. I only see it the other way around.


Oh and for this, I saw it a tiny but in real life but mostly online. 

How working parents don't "raise their own kids" and "why have children if you're just going to give them to someone else to raise?" 
Of course the snarky innocent type of "Oh gosh, I could never do that. I wanted to be the one raising my kids. Being away from them for 10 hours a day would mean I'd never even get to know them!" 

Mommy wars are real and for everything. 

You breastfeed? Gross, better not do it too long or in public. You don't? How dare you not feed your child the best. You co-sleep? You're spoiling them. You let them cry it out? You're neglecting them. 

If you managed to get out of your baby years without someone telling you that you were doing something wrong, you are very lucky.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Society is encouraging girls to not want men and it's actually working and you think this is a good thing?


No one said anything about not WANTING men. We're talking about not being DEPENDENT on men.

I think its sad when men are only valued because they're paying someone's way through life.

I choose to be with my husband....I'm not with him because I need him to financially support me.



> I'm sorry but I wouldn't want to spend my life alone but with a great career.


All of my friends work and all but one is married. There are lot of working women with husbands...lol. However, I think working women have higher expectations of marriage...because they can....they can leave if they don't get their needs met. 



> Disney would not be so popular if the girls weren't naturally drawn to those stories.


Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the ways that Disney is changing their characters to morph to the new ideals of female independence and strength. You must missed all the backlash stories lately. 



> Women naturally want men in their lives too but we are trying do hard to tell the girls that they are happier without them.


I certainly didn't tell my daughters any such thing. I told my daughters that they need to get educated and work hard. What I certainly did not and will never tell my girls is that its ok to have sit around and have expectations that someone else will take care of you financially. That's not reality and it would be a disservice to my children.

I have raised my girls to be proud of their own accomplishments...not to rely on someone else's. I think that will make them better partners to any man that they choose. I want them to be with someone because they choose too...not because they have to because they can't take care of themselves.



> If the relationship is turning sour she can figure out ways to get financially stable.


There's a reason why divorced women and their children are one of the most poverty stricken statistic groups in the country. 

Anyone who thinks its easy to get back into the workforce after a marital breakdown isn't up to date with actual data.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and for this, I saw it a tiny but in real life but mostly online.
> 
> How working parents don't "raise their own kids" and "why have children if you're just going to give them to someone else to raise?"
> Of course the snarky innocent type of "Oh gosh, I could never do that. I wanted to be the one raising my kids. Being away from them for 10 hours a day would mean I'd never even get to know them!"
> 
> Mommy wars are real and for everything.
> 
> You breastfeed? Gross, better not do it too long or in public. You don't? How dare you not feed your child the best. You co-sleep? You're spoiling them. You let them cry it out? You're neglecting them.
> 
> If you managed to get out of your baby years without someone telling you that you were doing something wrong, you are very lucky.


I will say this in my experience. Dual income families are the worst for expecting someone else to take their kids places with no or minimal payback and I can't count how many times I have heard the same parents whine at their kids coaches, while saying I would do a better job, but don't have the time. As if anyone else has the time.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> How working parents don't "raise their own kids" and "why have children if you're just going to give them to someone else to raise?"
> Of course the snarky innocent type of "Oh gosh, I could never do that. I wanted to be the one raising my kids. Being away from them for 10 hours a day would mean I'd never even get to know them!"


I find it amusing that people require validation for their choices from strangers online.

If you're ok with your choices than why do you care?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Cosmos said:


> One only has to look at the language sometimes used regarding housework. We often hear about H's "helping" their W's with the domestic chores, almost as though it's a favour bestowed on the W rather than a joint duty.


So agree with this. It annoys the crap out of me

"I help her with the chores, I help her with the kids"

It's your job to do half because you're an adult with kids. 

My H wants appreciation and praise when he does something around the house. It's so, so hard for me to do that and not get all "where the f is mine for every chore I have done??! Should I get you a medal for actually doing your job?" 0


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So agree with this. It annoys the crap out of me
> 
> "I help her with the chores, I help her with the kids"
> 
> It's your job to do half because you're an adult with kids.
> 
> My H wants appreciation and praise when he does something around the house. It's so, so hard for me to do that and not get all "where the f is mine for every chore I have done??! Should I get you a medal for actually doing your job?" 0


I can see why that frustrates women, but most men crave appreciation, hence this whole thread.....


----------



## MichelleR

Also in response to the difference between my thread and welldusted's thread. I included irrelevant questions in my hypothetical example but I also thought that some of the questions people asked well dusted were irrelevant too . 

He wants to know how to communicate in a loving and respectful way that his wife is hurting him and many people turned it around to how he was not treating her well in unrelated areas. 

I am reminded of my stepfather in situations like that. My mom can be BRUTAL and he just puts up with it and tries to please her and keep her happy. Sometimes when I was younger I got incredibly frustrated with the fact that he never stood up for himself . At least well dusted was reaching out to us for some advice on how to communicate effectively . My husband took months to get it through his stubborn head how I wanted to be treated. 

As far as making a woman stop feeling cranky, that is not what the goal is exactly. Yes of course I assume he wants her to feel happy as otherwise he wouldnt be posting about it. 

But any human CAN turn their mood around with some effort and can definitely control their behaviors. Yes someone can feel like killing someone but they exercise self control. A woman can feel cranky but she doesn't have to lash out. She can realize how her actions affect her husband and change the way she speaks to him. I'm not saying she should pretend to be happy when she's not but I don't think that just because he's her husband she can treat him however she feels just because she's in a bad mood.


----------



## Cosmos

MichelleR said:


> This is sad. Society is encouraging girls to not want men and it's actually working and you think this is a good thing? A sign of progress?
> 
> No it isn't. It is encouraging girls to want men rather than need them. It is giving girls options - something their grandmothers / great-grandmothers were denied.
> 
> I'm sorry but I wouldn't want to spend my life alone but with a great career. I feel like the best parts of life are the moments we share with the ones we love the most. I do hope my kids want to marry when they grow up.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with wanting marriage and children. There's also nothing wrong with wanting a career, marriage and children. I successfully raised my son alone, so I was mother, father and housekeeper - as well as being the main breadwinner.
> 
> As for the whole princess thing, Disney would not be so popular if the girls weren't naturally drawn to those stories. We are not forcing it on them. I'm sure the toy companies care way more about making money than enforcing old-fashioned stereotypes. Human nature hasn't changed. If the girls didn't want to have dolls or princess barbies the stores would stop stocking them.
> 
> I'm not so sure that girls _are_ naturally drawn to such stories. Studies have shown that left to their own devices, boys and girls will gravitate towards toys that traditionally belong to the opposite gender. However, there have been studies that have disputed this, so the jury is out on this one.
> 
> We already know that men want to have women in their lives. Women naturally want men in their lives too but we are trying do hard to tell the girls that they are happier without them.
> 
> 
> I don't know _anyone_ who is telling girls any such thing. There's no reason why a good education and career should preclude relationships with men.
> 
> As far as being financially dependent women are usually not left on the street at a moments' notice. If the relationship is turning sour she can figure out ways to get financially stable. Even if he suddenly died she can have support from family and life insurance until she gets herself on her feet. It's always smart to get education and a backup plan but some of the attitudes here about SAHM's have been very disrespectful.
> 
> Maybe not left on the street, but left in very precarious circumstances. It isn't always that easy to "get financially stable" after a marriage breaks down and, personally, I would have found it far too demeaning to ask my family for financial support.
> 
> Btw as a working mom I have not once had a SAHM criticize me for working. I only see it the other way around.


----------



## naiveonedave

@Cosmos I totally disagree with your last post. Girls are being taught to not want men. They are being taught to be totally self sufficient, which is good. But it is clear, having teenagers, that boys are not being taught to be men and women are being taught to have it all w/o men.


----------



## zackie

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So agree with this. It annoys the crap out of me
> 
> "I help her with the chores, I help her with the kids"
> 
> It's your job to do half because you're an adult with kids.
> 
> My H wants appreciation and praise when he does something around the house. It's so, so hard for me to do that and not get all "where the f is mine for every chore I have done??! Should I get you a medal for actually doing your job?" 0


Yep. In my marriage my H always viewed household chores as helping me out, or doing a favor for me, or doing it because if he doesn't I'll get upset. They don't get done unless I ask. No sense of ownership of the traditional "women's work" in the house, yet I'm expected to pull in a comparable paycheck every week, which I do. I remember an IC told me I should thank him every time he does the dishes so he feels appreciated. Has he ever thanked me for going to work every day? Noooo


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Then you are not trying. Here is a list of what I found -- all from that one link that Elegirl posted. I could've added more, but I got bored of copying and pasting and finding internet links:
> 
> Belliveau, M. A. (2012). Engendering inequity? How social accounts create vs. merely explain unfavorable pay outcomes for women. Organization Science, 23(4), 1154–74. INFORMS PubsOnline
> 
> Black, D. A., Haviland, A., Sanders, S. G., & Taylor, L. J. (2008). Gender wage disparities among the highly educated. Human Resources,43, 630–59 Gender Wage Disparities among the Highly Educated
> 
> Bobbitt-Zeher, D. (2007). The gender income gap and the role of education. Sociology of Education, 80, 1–22. The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education
> 
> Bowles, H. R., Bab****, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, 84–103 https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf
> 
> Broyles, P. (2009). The gender pay gap of STEM professions in the United States. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,
> 29(5/6), 214–26
> 
> Heilman, M. E.,Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tam-kins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks.
> Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416 –27 Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Jagsi, R., Griffith, K. A., Stewart, A., Sambuco, D., DeCastro, R., & Ubel, P. A. (2012). Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307
> (22), 2410–17 JAMA Network | JAMA | Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers
> 
> Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias
> is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29
> , 39 – 69 https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research/...-is-beyond-reasonable-doubt-a-refutation-of-i
> 
> Moss-Racusin, C., Dovidio, J., Brescoll, V., Graham, M., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf
> 
> Lo Sasso, A. T., Richards, M. R., Chou, C.-F., & Gerber, S. E. (2011). The $16,819 pay gap for newly trained physicians: The unexplained
> trend of men earning more than women. Health Affairs, 30(2), 193–201. content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/2/193.abstract.
> 
> 
> Sorry it's not as easy as watching endless YouTube videos of men calling women ****s, but well, that's the way the research cookie crumbles.


Most of those are behind pay walls. So far only 3 I've found that aren't. I'd be glad to read them and critique. 

But, while I read the ones that are actually available; tell me, @always_alone and @EleGirl have you read these citations? 

Or do you just post other people's assertions without reviewing what you tell other people to read?

I'm curious, because although it's easy for me to _listen_ to someone talk on youtube, I almost always read their citations before I post them for others' review.

ETA: When I do link to something I've not read, I certainly try to make sure to note that I've not read it yet, and am not claiming it is true.


----------



## welldusted

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So agree with this. It annoys the crap out of me
> 
> "I help her with the chores, I help her with the kids"
> 
> It's your job to do half because you're an adult with kids.
> 
> My H wants appreciation and praise when he does something around the house. It's so, so hard for me to do that and not get all "where the f is mine for every chore I have done??! Should I get you a medal for actually doing your job?" 0


Mostly agree, except with the half part. If one parent works 50 hours and the other stays home, or one parent works 50 hours and the other works 20, you don't ask the primary working parent to also do half of the chores, kid stuff, etc. I never use the word "help" in that context, and I even ask my wife not to say it. But I can't do half at home. Part of the point of my thread is that earning a living IS a big part of my "half."


----------



## Cosmos

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So agree with this. It annoys the crap out of me
> 
> "I help her with the chores, I help her with the kids"
> 
> It's your job to do half because you're an adult with kids.
> 
> My H wants appreciation and praise when he does something around the house. It's so, so hard for me to do that and not get all "where the f is mine for every chore I have done??! Should I get you a medal for actually doing your job?" 0


The worst has to be "babysitting" the kids. How can one "babysit" one's own children?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

But again MichelleR, she's not here and he can't change her. 
He can only change him, either how he deals with the marriage or how he deals with her moods and the first place to start is to make the relationship better as a whole. Dealing with just the one specific conflict isn't helpful when there are problems as a whole going on in the marriage. You fix the leaking pipe but forget about the walls that are crumbling down. 

Conflict is saying something is wrong. Conflict
You can either fix things or eventually one or both will just withdrawal and eventually may walk away. Conflict isn't always a bad thing. It's like when your brain gets a signal that something is in pain, you know to check things out. If you had no pain signal you never know what is wrong with you.


----------



## Cosmos

welldusted said:


> Mostly agree, except with the half part. * If one parent works 50 hours and the other stays home, or one parent works 50 hours and the other works 20, you don't ask the primary working parent to also do half of the chores, kid stuff, etc. * I never use the word "help" in that context, and I even ask my wife not to say it. But I can't do half at home. Part of the point of my thread is that earning a living IS a big part of my "half."


I agree.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> I can see why that frustrates women, but most men crave appreciation, hence this whole thread.....


It's my H's main emotional need and he is good about giving it these days so it's just some situations like
"H, can you please take your clothes out of the dryer before I get home"
....
"H, you forgot to take the clothes out, could you do that now please?"
....
"H- seriously.... clothes.... dryer....."

*finally does it*

"I took the clothes out!"

*expects praise*

And I do it, now, but seriously, Do something over and above your bare minimum, do it without being reminded, do your job without complaining- I'll praise you so much more and it'll be all authentic.


----------



## Cosmos

naiveonedave said:


> @Cosmos I totally disagree with your last post. Girls are being taught to not want men. They are being taught to be totally self sufficient, which is good. But it is clear, having teenagers, that boys are not being taught to be men and women are being taught to have it all w/o men.


Perhaps I'm just out of touch, then Naiveonedave... Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't know _anyone _who taught their daughters this. It's very sad, IMO.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Most of those are behind pay walls. So far only 3 I've found that aren't. I'd be glad to read them and critique.
> 
> But, while I read the ones that are actually available; tell me, @always_alone and @EleGirl have you read these citations?
> 
> Or do you just post other people's assertions without reviewing what you tell other people to read?
> 
> I'm curious, because although it's easy for me to _listen_ to someone talk on youtube, I almost always read their citations before I post them for others' review.
> 
> ETA: When I do link to something I've not read, I certainly try to make sure to note that I've not read it yet, and am not claiming it is true.


You asked for some actual research that informs conclusions about discrimination against women so that you could form your own opinion. Now you have some.

(Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about the paywall. I have membership to a library, and so access is not a problem for me.)


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> You asked for some actual research that informs conclusions about discrimination against women so that you could form your own opinion. Now you have some.
> 
> (Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about the paywall. I have membership to a library, and so access is not a problem for me.)


You could go make it available to the rest of us :wink2:


----------



## Mr The Other

MichelleR said:


> Okay I do see the flaw with lifelong alimony and maybe the laws do need to be changed in general.
> 
> In response to the threads that are started by men vs women:
> 
> Well dusted started a thread in which his wife's behavior was bothering him and he wanted to know how to communicate it to her. He admitted that he had upset her and took responsibility and apologized but was upset because he felt her reaction was uncalled for. He was using the incident as an example for an ongoing pattern. If you actually read the thread in all honesty he did not make that big of a mistake. He was trying to help her and she got really angry because he didn't help her the way she wanted him to.
> 
> Now the general response from most people was about how he needs to think about his flaws and try harder to understand her and meet her needs. There is nothing wrong with that but there was very little talk about the fact that his wife was not treating him well and he needs to do something to communicate that to her.
> 
> In a healthy marriage both spouses are constantly learning and teaching one another about their needs and quirks. If one spouse starts to act inappropriately to the other, he or she should communicate that fact. Well dusted's wife had no problem communicating to him that he had messed up but he needs to communicate to her that her behavior is unacceptable too.
> 
> 
> Converse this with a thread I started recently. My husband was behaving in a way that upset me. Some people agreed that he was behaving badly and some saw his point of view. Several offered suggestions for what I should do about it. I was never bombarded with questions like "what are your flaws?" "Are you keeping the house clean for him?" "Are you pulling your weight financially?" "Have you let yourself go?" "Do you stay in shape?" "Do you give him good sex?" "How much effort do you put into your relationship?"
> 
> See the difference? No one would DARE .


I agree with this and was pondering the same thing. I think there are a couple of aspects.

The first one is that, broadly speaking, if I want to be told that I am in the right and how I deserve everything good and the bad is unfair, I will generally go to female friends. If I want an honest appraisal, including how I have brought things on myself, I will go to men. When a man writes in, the men are therefore critical of him, whereas the women…are also critical as they relate to the wife. When a woman writes in, the men will be critical but wear soft gloves as it is a woman, the women on the other hand will often be completely sympathetic. A broad generalization with plenty of exceptions of course.

The other aspect reflects that I suspect a working marriage and relationship is often seen as rather more the man’s responsibility. I have had people express surprise that I am divorced as I seem a decent man. I cannot imagine that would happen to a woman (correct me if I am wrong), which suggests it is assumed that if the man is decent the relationship will work. Generic advice handed out in relationships tends not to be on how the woman should learn to communicate better, the responsibility is more on the man. There is still an orthodoxy with many MC’s to work on the man and accept the woman as she is. It is only a tendency and there are many exceptions, but it also impacts the how TAM is.


----------



## Cletus

jdawg2015 said:


> During the divorce the "support" while I got my degree was considered, and the fact that the masters led to higher pay meant more money for her as well.
> 
> Definitely not equitable.


It's perfectly equitable. 

Without a pre-nup to the contrary, a marriage ALWAYS comes with the stipulation that gains made by both parties after the marriage are split equally in the divorce.

Had your wife made more than you, you would have benefited from her largess as well. For it to not be equitable, there would have to be different rules depending on gender. There is not. 

If you don't like the rules of engagement, you can try to find a spouse who is OK with amending the contract before you say your "I Dos", but don't hold your breath.


----------



## naiveonedave

Cosmos said:


> Perhaps I'm just out of touch, then Naiveonedave... Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't know _anyone _who taught their daughters this. It's very sad, IMO.


It is not being taught at home, but virtually everywhere else.


----------



## Cletus

Kivlor said:


> I think the idea of the man as the breadwinner is going to stay a common theme in society.


Given the choice to be the family bread winner or to stay at home to raise the children, sign me up for the former every time. Not all men agree with me, but a week's salary says well over half do. 

Yeah I get that there's a child care third option, but that't not a choice I would seriously consider.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> SAHs are going the way of the dinosaur. Its an outdated concept that doesn't take into account the realities of the divorce rate and the trend in divorce laws which are going toward expecting all adults to be self-sufficient.


Says you.

Says me, it's a lifestyle choice that people with the means will continue to make for reasons they consider valid and which I do not have to enumerate here, as I'm sure you are familiar with them.

Enough with the projection already. 

Had my wife decided to divorce me while she was raising our two children, she would have almost certainly had a higher income from the divorce than she could have earned on her own, since my job pays 4x what she can make with her teaching certificate (which she kept current the entire time and is now, as an empty-nester, using).



> Not all women are weak-willed, wanna-be dependents...that's a pathetic view of women.


Lest I read too much into that statement, I think it's pretty clear that many if not most SAHMs are not weak-willed wanna-be dependents. If feminism is all about choice, then this is a choice that any feminist ought to be glad to have and to assume without prejudice.


----------



## Kivlor

Cletus said:


> Given the choice to be the family bread winner or to stay at home to raise the children, sign me up for the former every time. Not all men agree with me, but a week's salary says well over half do.
> 
> Yeah I get that there's a child care third option, but that't not a choice I would seriously consider.


I said as much in a now-locked thread. Given the option, I'd stay at home, she can go work all day; I bet a lot most guys would. But, I don't expect that option. There's some information that indicates women don't respect a man who doesn't outperform them economically. 

And honestly, it makes sense; it gives the impression that you are weaker than she is, and that is a death-sentence to most relationships. Weakness invites treachery. The reality is that your family unit is better off if you're working and she's homemaking as opposed to the other way around.


----------



## Cletus

Cosmos said:


> The worst has to be "babysitting" the kids. How can one "babysit" one's own children?


I always used duct tape.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Girls are being taught to not want men. They are being taught to be totally self sufficient, which is good. But it is clear, having teenagers, that boys are not being taught to be men and women are being taught to have it all w/o men.


This is absolute nonsense. No one is teaching girls not to want men...that's not even possible. Its human nature to want a partner.

What is happening is that women are being taught the value of education and self-reliance. And because of that, women are more able to financially support themselves are are not forced into marriage for financial security which was always an unhealthy requirement anyway. Its pathetic that marriage was born out of a security requirement for women because women and children were considered chattel to men.

Women are being taught that they don't need men for money and security...that is a great thing. And its not just women. A lot of men are rejecting the notion of having a partner that relies solely on them to bear the financial burden. The young men I know consider women who are looking to them as a paycheck so they don't have to work to be "gold-diggers." There's a whole contingent of young men who won't marry women that aren't financially capable and educated.

I have a large family and when my nephews date, the first thing they mention is the girl's educational and career aspirations. For them, that's a large part of who the girl is and why they're attracted to the idea of a partnership with her. Its what SHE brings to the table as far as building the financial security of any partnership they consider. None of my nephews would even consider marrying someone without an education or a job....lol, there's just no way. 

And frankly, if any of my nephews brought home a girl that was uneducated and didn't work, there's not one of my sisters or sister-in-laws that wouldn't highly encourage him to dump her. Those types of women are not considered partner-material in my family. 

I find it disturbing that you define "being a man" as having women depending on you for money. That's not at all what I consider valuable about men. My husband is so important to me and not because I rely on him to pay my way through life.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> You could go make it available to the rest of us :wink2:


That would involve breaking copyright law in a public forum. Not gonna happen. Sorry.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> (Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about the paywall. I have membership to a library, and so access is not a problem for me.)


Flaunting your white female library privilege?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Given the choice to be the family bread winner or to stay at home to raise the children, sign me up for the former every time.


Ditto!


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Flaunting your white female library privilege?


Ummm, last I heard, libraries were public institutions open to anyone in the community?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> If feminism is all about choice, then this is a choice that any feminist ought to be glad to have and to assume without prejudice.


As long as you bear the responsibility of those choices.

And that means realizing that the financial dependence that you place yourself in during your marriage doesn't extend past the marriage ending.

Adult choices come with adult consequences.

Like I said, I have zero problem with anyone who takes the risk of financial subservience. I also have zero sympathy when their spouse leaves them and they're financially screwed.

I do, however, feel very sorry for their children. They are victims of irresponsibility and poor planning.


----------



## Cosmos

Cletus said:


> I always used duct tape.


Nah. The adhesive is hell to get off and soooo difficult to explain.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I always used duct tape.


Not the television? How progressive! (Or is that retro?)


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Given the choice to be the family bread winner or to stay at home to raise the children, sign me up for the former every time.


I choose both. My children require both gendered parents to be financially responsible and to provide input and guidance.

I never considered working to mean that I didn't have a responsibility to raise the children I brought into the world. In fact, I don't know any working mother that thinks doing her share to help with the family's finances means that she shirks her motherhood responsibility.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> Like I said, I have zero problem with anyone who takes the risk of financial subservience.


Except every single post you make on this topic belies that position. 
You DO have a problem with people who take this risk. You don't consider it to be a reasonable choice in any situation, and you've basically said as much out loud.

No backpedaling allowed.



> I also have zero sympathy when their spouse leaves them and they're financially screwed.
> 
> I do, however, feel very sorry for their children. They are victims of irresponsibility and poor planning.


And there's more of that "I have no problem..." sentiment. 

SAH parents are often sacrificing personal goals and gain for what they perceive to be the good of their children. That you have no sympathy for them when that choice goes south makes it manifestly clear that you do not actually understand that motivation.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> I never considered working to mean that I didn't have a responsibility to raise the children I brought into the world. In fact, I don't know any working mother that thinks doing her share to help with the family's finances means that she shirks her motherhood responsibility.


Most of the working mothers I know would trade the workforce for the home life given the option. My wife has worked all her life in teaching and day care. These women as often as not quit when they become pregnant, when the means to do so are there, or bemoan their return to the office when they are not.

I'm not speaking for all women. Just providing a counter-example. "Shirk" isn't the word I would use for how they feel when they go back to work, since that's clearly not the case. "Saddened" is the word that probably fits best.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Ummm, last I heard, libraries were public institutions open to anyone in the community?


People are not going to pay for access to articles to support or refute an internet argument, nor can you blame them. You might as well post links to porn videos for all of the good they do.

Sorry, I tend to forget that a sense of humor is not in your quiver of social skills.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> You DO have a problem with people who take this risk.


I actually don't personally care what risk adult people take at all. But I'm not going coddle someone by saying that its a responsible choice. The statistical poverty data clearly shows that its not.

The same way that if someone said they were a chronic smoker and posted data that smoking is healthy...I'm going to call bullcrap because that's not factually true. 

But you have every right to smoke. You just shouldn't have the right to blow that same smoke in your kid's face.



> SAH parents are often sacrificing personal goals and gain for what they perceive to be the good of their children.


Again, look up the data on divorced women and their children. If you consider potentially putting your children into poverty as a smart "sacrifice" then I disagree with you. The women that I know consider part of their being a mother being able to ensure that their kids are taken care of in the event of various eventualities.


----------



## unbelievable

Truth be known, the 2nd income provided by two employed parent households mostly go toward financing the government. If my wife and I both worked full time we still couldn't afford a standard of living that one average employed male with a high school diploma used to.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> People are not going to pay for access to articles to support or refute an internet argument, nor can you blame them. You might as well post links to porn videos for all of the good they do.
> 
> Sorry, I tend to forget that a sense of humor is not in your quiver of social skills.



 

He specifically asked for *research* and was clearly unsatisfied with the publicly available websites that were posted, complaining that they were not scientific enough.

It's not my fault that good information often requires library access. Oh and getting a library card is free, isn't it? 

And it would seem, since you find my posts to be so useless, you actually intended to insult, and will keep them coming. Much appreciated!


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I'm not speaking for all women. Just providing a counter-example. "Shirk" isn't the word I would use for how they feel when they go back to work, since that's clearly not the case. "Saddened" is the word that probably fits best.


We can cite situational data all day. However, like I said earlier, the data is supporting that there are more women educating themselves and getting into the workforce and marriage data is changing. Women are choosing to marry much later in life if at all.

So clearly more and more young women are feeling motivated to get educated and enter the workforce. I suppose you can assume they're all "sad" about it...lol.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> We can cite situational data all day. However, like I said earlier, the data is supporting that there are more women educating themselves and getting into the workforce and marriage data is changing. Women are choosing to marry much later in life if at all.


60% of Americans still think having a parent at home raising the children is the preferred situation. That number is dropping, and will probably continue to drop, but for now, it is still a solid majority. 

So what? I'm not the one here trying to tell people what they should or should not do. I'm not arguing that the SAHM choice is superior, but it is a choice, people make it for good reasons, and they shouldn't be mocked or shamed for it by someone whe evaluates the risk differently than they do. 

Everything in life is a roll of the dice, so do those things you think are important enough to which you can commit. If raising your own offspring is that important, you'd be something of a hypocrite to go back to work after they were born unless you had to.



> So clearly more and more young women are feeling motivated to get educated and enter the workforce. I suppose you can assume they're all "sad" about it...lol.


I assume no such thing. I work every day with professional women who love what they do and wouldn't trade it for child rearing. Teachers and day care workers are already a select group who like children in a way that I find just a little creepy. But then, you started the anecdote train, I just bolted on a few more cars.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> It's not my fault that good information often requires library access. Oh and getting a library card is free, isn't it?


I have a public library card. It doesn't grant me access to any of the prestigious journal publication sites. I have no affiliation with a university which might otherwise do so either. Much as I might want to read one of those articles, the cost to do so regularly is prohibitive. 



> And it would seem, since you find my posts to be so useless, you actually intended to insult, and will keep them coming. Much appreciated!


Still ever the victim, I see. Are you this much fun IRL?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I have a public library card. It doesn't grant me access to any of the prestigious journal publication sites. I have no affiliation with a university which might otherwise do so either. Much as I might want to read one of those articles, the cost to do so regularly is prohibitive.
> 
> 
> 
> Still ever the victim, I see. Are you this much fun IRL?


Oh goody, more insults! 

My experience with libraries is that they are very good about providing access. Maybe not always great for regular reading, but fine for one offs. One can also use the bibliographic information to locate other sources, as sometimes authors themselves will give access to their work.

Here I was thinking I was doing someone a favour by providing some requested references.... But it seems I not only have to make the point, supply adequate scientific research to back it up AND provide access as well.

I guess that's why the YouTube videos all calling women ****s have become the new truth?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> If raising your own offspring is that important, you'd be something of a hypocrite to go back to work after they were born unless you had to.


Unless you consider being financially responsible for your children part of your parental duty....which it is.



> That number is dropping, and will probably continue to drop, but for now, it is still a solid majority.


I've stated like 20 times that I'm referring to the trend. And there's a great deal of generational difference between women (and men) that are in their 40s, for instance, vs women (and men) that are in their 20s. 

Progress doesn't happen overnight.


----------



## richardsharpe

It will be interesting to follow this case
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sed-of-employment-discrimination-against-men/

I'm making no predictions on how it will be decided.





technovelist said:


> Please find us a case where someone was accused by the EEOC of bias *towards *women.


----------



## tech-novelist

richardsharpe said:


> It will be interesting to follow this case
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sed-of-employment-discrimination-against-men/
> 
> I'm making no predictions on how it will be decided.


So "man bites dog" is the same as "dog bites man"? 

In other words, the fact that there is one, count it, *one *case of this issue being brought up (and not even settled yet), doesn't negate the fact that, as several people have pointed out, the current legal environment is heavily stacked in favor of women (no pun intended).


----------



## Lionelhutz

Whenever I see discussions of this kind it seems you can not repeat enough that for most work for most people most of the time is about necessity and not a project in self-actualization. The economy depends on a lot of people performing crappy jobs. Careerism is not for everyone and meaningful enjoyable work at a livable level of income is rare. 

What almost all of us want is a satisfying home life and satisfying work that we can pick at when convenient.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> Unless you consider being financially responsible for your children part of your parental duty....which it is.


It is. We were - with one income. 



EnigmaGirl said:


> Progress doesn't happen overnight.


So I'll make this the last argument with you, since picking on your personally isn't my goal.

Your attitudes towards women (or men, for that matter) who choose to be financially dependent on the other spouse is perfectly summed up in that comment.

It is something that we need to "progress" away from, like slavery. 

I'm a well educated, well employed, 90th percentile income progressive male who took on the obligation to support my wife and children while they were young because we thought it was the right thing to do and we had the means, both in income and in personality.

In the spirit of the topic at hand, you're the first person who has ever hinted that perhaps I did them a disservice. What if I had died? By enabling their mother to make poor economic choices, I not only put their future financial wherewithal at risk, but I apparently demonstrated a perfect example of coddling a princess at home who, had she a smidgen of economic sense, would have never allowed it in the first place.

At least, that's how it's reading from this end. By logical conclusion, you cannot possibly appreciate the traditional breadwinner role because of what it implies about the rest of the family.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Oh goody, more insults!
> 
> My experience with libraries is that they are very good about providing access. Maybe not always great for regular reading, but fine for one offs. One can also use the bibliographic information to locate other sources, as sometimes authors themselves will give access to their work.
> 
> Here I was thinking I was doing someone a favour by providing some requested references.... But it seems I not only have to make the point, supply adequate scientific research to back it up AND provide access as well.
> 
> I guess that's why the YouTube videos all calling women ****s have become the new truth?


I know my local library doesn't provide access to such things A_A. To have such access where I live, one must be part of a university campus or pay for each article, or pay for a subscription where available. As @Cletus already iterated, neither I nor anyone else on this forum is going to pay money for the opportunity to prove your, Elegirl, and these "researchers'" premise, data, and conclusions to be incorrect. 

I don't post articles behind pay walls, because I think that it is important for people to be able to read the information. I welcome debate on the things I post so to it matters that you can actually watch, read, or listen to them.

Out of everything I've posted, I think you will find that my links don't just call women nasty names. They break down arguments. Because of that, the videos I post are generally boring; they take critical views of things that people have to say. The videos I post come with their own citations. I usually try to have read those before I post the links, because *I must if I am vouching for the veracity of its content*. 

I will do my best to go through the articles that are publicly available. I don't have high hopes from a women's advocacy website whose central, front-page piece on the "gender pay gap" is a disingenuous study, where someone has tried their best to hide the truth. It does not mean the rest is false, but I don't have any real hopes.

To me, this is a funny conversation because I've tried to make sure everything I reference is publicly available so that it can be critically reviewed; meanwhile you link to paperwork that must be purchased, knowing it will discourage the dialogue, and when I object you say "It's not my fault that the documents I've linked aren't available to you". 

*The truth has no fear of scrutiny; only fear of the censor*


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> It is. We were - with one income.


My comments were regarding marriages that end....which happens around 50% of the time (and rising) which makes it a very large statistical possibility that responsible parents feel the need to plan for.

There are different ways to plan, btw, even on one income. The problem is that there are a lot of SAHP who make zero contingency plans and expect the legal system to compensate them for that.

And again, the trend is that courts are starting to trend away from endless alimony and alimony amounts are getting smaller. 



> It is something that we need to "progress" away from, like slavery.


What I was referring to and absolutely believe that it is progress when women get educated and have financial self-sufficiency. I believe that adults having both the right and motivation to be self-reliant as progress. You, of course, can feel free to disagree. 



> By logical conclusion, you cannot possibly appreciate the traditional breadwinner role because of what it implies about the rest of the family.


Actually I respect anyone who works for a living...always have. Each adult person should recognize their need to be self-sufficient or have an appropriate back-up plan....its not the working person's responsibility to tell the other person to do that.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
you did ask to find "a" case.

If you are asking whether claims against women are more common than claims against men, then I completely agree that they are, probably by a large ratio. I do not know the ratio of rates of offenses by each. 




technovelist said:


> So "man bites dog" is the same as "dog bites man"?
> 
> In other words, the fact that there is one, count it, *one *case of this issue being brought up (and not even settled yet), doesn't negate the fact that, as several people have pointed out, the current legal environment is heavily stacked in favor of women (no pun intended).


----------



## Kivlor

EnigmaGirl said:


> My comments were regarding marriages that end....which happens around 50% of the time (and rising) which makes it a very large statistical possibility that responsible parents feel the need to plan for.


It's actually only about 30% of first marriages today. These are broken down even further, by separating into a few more categories: people who are college educated, and people who waited till 25. Rates of D drop further among these 2 categories.

Odds are pretty good that if you get married, you'll make it "till death do us part." Not to say there isn't value in taking precautions, obviously there is, but the old 50% statistic died out in the 80s. It just kept getting repeated.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Odds are pretty good that if you get married, you'll make it "till death do us part."


There's varying data on divorce rates but lets assume your 30% is accurate, that's still a large number if you're considering the health and welfare of your own children. Its certainly something I'd protect for.


----------



## Kivlor

EnigmaGirl said:


> There's varying data on divorce rates but lets assume your 30% is accurate, that's still a large number if you're considering the health and welfare of your own children. Its certainly something I'd protect for.


Like I said, definitely value in taking precautions. 

But the good news is that D rates are in decline! Yay for society! That may be some great news for kids in the next 20 years.


----------



## MichelleR

I would have to look it up but I remember hearing or reading somewhere that divorce rates are going down but so are marriage rates in the first place. I don't know how it all evens out; I'm not sure if a greater or lower percentage is successful in a long term marriage.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> But the good news is that D rates are in decline! Yay for society! That may be some great news for kids in the next 20 years.


You're right..its good. I think young people also are waiting longer to get married which helps the divorce rate decline.

The more interesting statistic is that a lot of people are choosing to not get married at all. Its causing issues because its hard to tax single people. I'm wondering if it eventually will cause society to start taking a look at changing the traditional marriage contract. (ie, renewable contracts).


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> Its causing issues because its hard to tax single people.


What do you mean?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> What do you mean?


Specifically the marriage penalty taxes (varying state to state) and generally that married people pay far more tax than single people do because they qualify for more tax breaks.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> So "man bites dog" is the same as "dog bites man"?
> 
> In other words, the fact that there is one, count it, *one *case of this issue being brought up (and not even settled yet), doesn't negate the fact that, as several people have pointed out, the current legal environment is heavily stacked in favor of women (no pun intended).


One case was *posted*. That doesn't mean there is only one case in existence:

Men win sex discrimination pay case against university - BBC News
Man sues Hooters, claims gender discrimination
These men's rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in tech
No Cookies | Herald Sun
Man sues entertainment spot for sex discrimination

That was about 3 minutes of Google search, and is likely not comprehensive.


----------



## MichelleR

I find it ironic that some of these women who call themselves "feminists" are so insulting to other women. They say they are all about having choices but then they ridicule the women who make the "wrong" choice. 

I also notice that they tend to diminish the value of more traditionally "feminine" qualities. 

For example if I list some stereotypical feminine vs masculine qualities (and no I don't think they are conditioned I think in the majority of cases they are inborn if you observe very young children), the feminine qualities are empathy, submissiveness, softness, the ability to nurture, and the ability to support. The more stereotypically masculine qualities are logical reasoning, dominance, toughness, the ability to provide, the ability to protect, and the ability to lead. It seems that many feminists today only seek to measure the value of a person by their more masculine qualities, and in that case then yes society would see women as inferior to men as they in general are not as masculine. Actually this feminist view is quite disrespectful to women as typically feminine qualities are looked down on.


----------



## unbelievable

MichelleR said:


> I find it ironic that some of these women who call themselves "feminists" are so insulting to other women. They say they are all about having choices but then they ridicule the women who make the "wrong" choice.
> 
> I also notice that they tend to diminish the value of more traditionally "feminine" qualities.
> 
> For example if I list some stereotypical feminine vs masculine qualities (and no I don't think they are conditioned I think in the majority of cases they are inborn if you observe very young children), the feminine qualities are empathy, submissiveness, softness, the ability to nurture, and the ability to support. The more stereotypically masculine qualities are logical reasoning, dominance, toughness, the ability to provide, the ability to protect, and the ability to lead. It seems that many feminists today only seek to measure the value of a person by their more masculine qualities, and in that case then yes society would see women as inferior to men as they in general are not as masculine. Actually this feminist view is quite disrespectful to women as typically feminine qualities are looked down on.


It's not at all ironic. Committed Lefties are the most intolerant, most hateful folks on earth. That's why their body counts are so astronomical. That's where most of our assassins and all our violent mobs come from.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> It's not at all ironic. Committed Lefties are the most intolerant, most hateful folks on earth. That's why their body counts are so astronomical. That's where most of our assassins and all our violent mobs come from.


lmao.

Damn murdering hippies!

(...rolling my eyes...)


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> To me, this is a funny conversation because I've tried to make sure everything I reference is publicly available so that it can be critically reviewed; meanwhile you link to paperwork that must be purchased, knowing it will discourage the dialogue, and when I object you say "It's not my fault that the documents I've linked aren't available to you".
> 
> *The truth has no fear of scrutiny; only fear of the censor*


I'm sorry, but I honestly didn't realize that you did not have access to these articles. I am not deliberately being disingenuous, or trying to hide the truth from you. I was certainly not trying to dangle something in front of you, knowing full well you could not see them, as you are implying here. On the contrary, what I was trying to do was point out the research that was there, so that you could form your own opinion.

I thought that was what you wanted.

Unfortunately, I don't seem to have a way to determine if you can see what I can see, so I hope you'll understand in the future should I happen to link to sources that you do not find compellingly scientific, and perhaps not dismiss them out of hand, as you wish to do with absolutely everything on the AAUW site, regardless of source.

I also hope that you will sometimes, perhaps, allow that just because one cannot produce certain information readily, at the simple click of a button, that does not necessarily mean that this information has no value, does not exist, or has no place in a conversation. 

It amazes me that I did my best to answer an objection, to respond to what I thought was a genuine call for the scientific basis behind what you have called "propaganda", and the result is that you think I'm trying to hide the truth from you. :scratchhead:


I get why you are frustrated -- I am too when I can't easily find what I am looking for or having difficult access to it. But really? Did you not say that you wanted to believe us ladies? To give the argument a fair hearing? 

Unfortunately, it sounds like you've decided it is a foregone conclusion that all that research will be valueless.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MichelleR said:


> I find it ironic that some of these women who call themselves "feminists" are so insulting to other women. They say they are all about having choices but then they ridicule the women who make the "wrong" choice.
> 
> I also notice that they tend to diminish the value of more traditionally "feminine" qualities.
> 
> For example if I list some stereotypical feminine vs masculine qualities (and no I don't think they are conditioned I think in the majority of cases they are inborn if you observe very young children), the feminine qualities are empathy, submissiveness, softness, the ability to nurture, and the ability to support. The more stereotypically masculine qualities are logical reasoning, dominance, toughness, the ability to provide, the ability to protect, and the ability to lead. It seems that many feminists today only seek to measure the value of a person by their more masculine qualities, and in that case then yes society would see women as inferior to men as they in general are not as masculine. Actually this feminist view is quite disrespectful to women as typically feminine qualities are looked down on.


You see insults where there are none. Very few feminists (I say very few because there are always a few nutjobs and they are usually the ones screaming the loudest) give a rat's behind who you submit to. I know I certainly don't.....you do whatever you want with you husband.

I too am quite happily married and feel no need for submission.

To each his own.

It's actually quite insulting on your part to insinuate that those of us who call ourselves feminists are not feminine.

Whatever you need to make yourself feel good though.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I'm not sure what people are arguing about any more.

Surely women should be paid equally to men for equal work. We can argue forever about how to measure work to see if it i equal, but does anyone disagree with the concept?

Surely men have the right to be as masculine (or not) as they want - and some women and some other men will appreciate that - some will not. Similarly women have the right to be as feminine as they want or not. I just think it is important that they have these options.

Surely men or women who want traditional or non-traditional marriages are welcome to them if they can find compatible partners. Again I think it is important that these options are available. 


Once we get to questions like "on average are women compensated fairly for their work" we are in the realm of complicated and controversial sociological studies and poorly defined questions of what is fair.


----------



## tech-novelist

unbelievable said:


> It's not at all ironic. Committed Lefties are the most intolerant, most hateful folks on earth. That's why their body counts are so astronomical. That's where most of our assassins and all our violent mobs come from.


Compared to governments, all the hippies and assassins in the world are pikers, and always have been.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> I find it ironic that some of these women who call themselves "feminists" are so insulting to other women. They say they are all about having choices but then they ridicule the women who make the "wrong" choice.
> 
> I also notice that they tend to diminish the value of more traditionally "feminine" qualities.
> 
> For example if I list some stereotypical feminine vs masculine qualities (and no I don't think they are conditioned I think in the majority of cases they are inborn if you observe very young children), the feminine qualities are empathy, submissiveness, softness, the ability to nurture, and the ability to support. The more stereotypically masculine qualities are logical reasoning, dominance, toughness, the ability to provide, the ability to protect, and the ability to lead. It seems that many feminists today only seek to measure the value of a person by their more masculine qualities, and in that case then yes society would see women as inferior to men as they in general are not as masculine. Actually this feminist view is quite disrespectful to women as typically feminine qualities are looked down on.


It really all comes down to choice. Neither set of rules or attributes should be forced on anyone. If a woman wants to be a housewife, care giver, submissive- it should be totally fine for her to do that. If a woman wants to be a leader, tough, high power job- it should be totally fine for her to do that.

A woman choosing to be independent, not have a man, focus on her career isn't a sad thing if it's what she wants. All women have their own dreams and goals and the choice and ability to try for them. That is why I am a feminist. 

But I do agree that women can be our own worst enemy. Mommy wars, women look down on other women for choosing to have kids or not to, looking a certain way, doing certain things. There is sometimes more pressure to look and act certain ways from other women than there is from men. 
Really we should be more supportive of whatever her choices are.


----------



## MichelleR

Yeah at this point I find it pretty hilarious that I'm apparently seeing these imaginary insults by feminists toward women who choose to have a more traditional marriage. 
There's no reasoning with that.
Whatever.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Whatever, right? I'm way too busy working and raising kids to worry about what kind of marriage you or anyone else has.

Knock yourself out doing whatever you want and raise your kids however you want.

There's no reasoning with someone who insists that they're a victim of evil feminists and can't stand that others don't see the world like them. Nobody here has said anything about women who wish to have a 1950's marriage.....that's you imaging victimhood.

That's what my aunt wanted and the family was happy for her when she married my uncle and they worked that out.


----------



## tech-novelist

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> you did ask to find "a" case.
> 
> If you are asking whether claims against women are more common than claims against men, then I completely agree that they are, probably by a large ratio. I do not know the ratio of rates of offenses by each.


Ok, I withdraw the question as to whether there have been any at all. But even that one hadn't been decided yet.

The ratio must be 1000-1 in favor of women complaining about men's treatment of them, though.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> Yeah at this point I find it pretty hilarious that I'm apparently seeing these imaginary insults by feminists toward women who choose to have a more traditional marriage.
> There's no reasoning with that.
> Whatever.


If 9/10 women say there is nothing wrong with choosing to be a SAHM or working parent and 1/10 says there is, that doesn't make it a feminist thing. 

There the same amount of hate thrown at working Moms. If one throws me a "I don't raise my own kids" line, I can objectively see and understand that most SAHM or women who choose traditional homes don't feel that way. I don't say submissive, SAHM types are insulting towards women like me. 
Some are, most aren't.
Same with the other side.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> I find it ironic that some of these women who call themselves "feminists" are so insulting to other women.


Says she who has been insulting women in general in almost every post she makes on this thread.



MichelleR said:


> They say they are all about having choices but then they ridicule the women who make the "wrong" choice.


NOT ONE woman on this thread has insulted you for any of the choices you have made. NOT ONE has insulted any woman for any choice any woman has made. So I'm not sure where this is coming from .

You seem hell bent on attacking other women. Hope that works for you.



MichelleR said:


> I also notice that they tend to diminish the value of more traditionally "feminine" qualities.
> 
> For example if I list some stereotypical feminine vs masculine qualities (and no I don't think they are conditioned I think in the majority of cases they are inborn if you observe very young children), the feminine qualities are empathy, submissiveness, softness, the ability to nurture, and the ability to support. The more stereotypically masculine qualities are logical reasoning, dominance, toughness, the ability to provide, the ability to protect, and the ability to lead. It seems that many feminists today only seek to measure the value of a person by their more masculine qualities, and in that case then yes society would see women as inferior to men as they in general are not as masculine. Actually this feminist view is quite disrespectful to women as typically feminine qualities are looked down on.


And many feminists today value all traits and value people as individuals. Since there are hundreds of millions of feminists but no one feminist view point, please list the feminists who you believe think this way. I do not know one woman on TAM who does. So my suggestion is that you take it up with the woman/feminists who actually think the way you describe above.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> There the same amount of hate thrown at working Moms. If one throws me a "I don't raise my own kids" line, I can objectively see and understand that most SAHM or women who choose traditional homes don't feel that way.


Women who feel confident in their choices don't really care if anyone else validates those choices or not. 

I certainly don't care if any non-working person on the internet criticizes me and tells me that I haven't raised my kids because I have a job. I'd just laugh and disregard it.

People on here get insulted when others give voice to insecurities they already have in themselves. People who are secure in themselves and their choices don't give much credence to the personal opinions of others.

People are entitled to their own opinions and can respect and disrespect whomever and whatever they please. If they don't agree with me, that's their right. I'm not going to whine about it. I like debate but I certainly don't take it personally.


----------



## TiggyBlue

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If 9/10 women say there is nothing wrong with choosing to be a SAHM or working parent and 1/10 says there is, that doesn't make it a feminist thing.
> 
> There the same amount of hate thrown at working Moms. If one throws me a "I don't raise my own kids" line, I can objectively see and understand that most SAHM or women who choose traditional homes don't feel that way. I don't say submissive, SAHM types are insulting towards women like me.
> Some are, most aren't.
> Same with the other side.


Never underestimate the power of confirmation bias.
Unfortunately it's almost impossible to have a logical conversation about certain topics.


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Yeah at this point I find it pretty hilarious that I'm apparently seeing these imaginary insults by feminists toward women who choose to have a more traditional marriage.
> There's no reasoning with that.
> Whatever.


Once again. Not one woman on TAM as insulted any woman, to include you, for your choices.

What on earth are you so upset about?


----------



## EleGirl

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If 9/10 women say there is nothing wrong with choosing to be a SAHM or working parent and 1/10 says there is, that doesn't make it a feminist thing.
> 
> There the same amount of hate thrown at working Moms. If one throws me a "I don't raise my own kids" line, I can objectively see and understand that most SAHM or women who choose traditional homes don't feel that way. I don't say *submissive*, SAHM types are insulting towards women like me.
> Some are, most aren't.
> Same with the other side.


Hm, a lot of SAHM's are not submissive either.


----------



## unbelievable

EnigmaGirl said:


> lmao.
> 
> Damn murdering hippies!
> 
> (...rolling my eyes...)


Yeah, it's hilarious. Ever hear of Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Let's bring it closer to home. Pick the 10 neighborhoods with the worst murder rates and let us know which party their political leaders are from. You think the Lefties of this country are all making daisy chains and smoking herb in the back of a VW bus?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EleGirl said:


> Hm, a lot of SAHM's are not submissive either.


You're right. I re-read that and it sounds bad, it's not what I meant.
I was still in the mindset of the last post about feminine qualities vs. masculine ones. :smile2:


----------



## tom67

One example of simp/mangina at least while they were dating I'm giving the benefit. His vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ27W2K12fk

Her reaction... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX19DiD_a9E also note she monetized it while Matt didn't.
And........
She did not want anyone to see this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uStIpGd5KIk

one more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5LlpqU3YpI


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> I know my local library doesn't provide access to such things A_A. To have such access where I live, one must be part of a university campus or pay for each article, or pay for a subscription where available. As @Cletus already iterated, neither I nor anyone else on this forum is going to pay money for the opportunity to prove your, Elegirl, and these "researchers'" premise, data, and conclusions to be incorrect.
> 
> I don't post articles behind pay walls, because I think that it is important for people to be able to read the information. I welcome debate on the things I post so to it matters that you can actually watch, read, or listen to them.
> 
> Out of everything I've posted, I think you will find that my links don't just call women nasty names. They break down arguments. Because of that, the videos I post are generally boring; they take critical views of things that people have to say. The videos I post come with their own citations. I usually try to have read those before I post the links, because *I must if I am vouching for the veracity of its content*.
> 
> I will do my best to go through the articles that are publicly available. I don't have high hopes from a women's advocacy website whose central, front-page piece on the "gender pay gap" is a disingenuous study, where someone has tried their best to hide the truth. It does not mean the rest is false, but I don't have any real hopes.
> 
> To me, this is a funny conversation because I've tried to make sure everything I reference is publicly available so that it can be critically reviewed; meanwhile you link to paperwork that must be purchased, knowing it will discourage the dialogue, and when I object you say "It's not my fault that the documents I've linked aren't available to you".
> 
> *The truth has no fear of scrutiny; only fear of the censor*



You do not think what I have linked to is valid. I have the same opinion of what you have linked to.

I stopped participation in this discussion about equal pay, because access to the actual studies and the actual data is beyond most people's access. I do not have the time to dig this up. I also do not have the access and have no intent to get them.

What I did link to pretty much correlates to the real life experiences I and other I know have had.

Many men seem to think that the goal of women is to take something away from them. Me and other women earning equal pay for equal work takes nothing away from anyone. As a matter of fact it helps the men in our lives.

I will point you to the post by a man on this thread who said that if a woman earns 67K for he work that a man makes something 74K for, she basically has no room to complain. He did not say that she should just shut up. But that's his intent. And that it the common attitude I run into.

I have much less in the bank today and will have much less to retire on solely because I am a woman. Because when I started my career I was told to accept 50% of what male engineers of the same education and experience were getting. If I did not accept it, then I could leave.

I was told that I could not have promotions and raises because my rightful place as home, in the kitchen pregnant. Yes I had managers who told me that, more than one.

Those same men don't say that now. What they say instead is that they are constrained by political correctness. And they are not happy about that.

Not all men are like this. But enough still are that it causes problem.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> The ratio must be 1000-1 in favor of women complaining about men's treatment of them, though.


And? What do you suppose is the reason for this?

Couldn't possibly be a couple of centuries of discrimination against women, could it?

You know. Where bias is stacked in favour of men?

Nah. No evidence of that nowhere. That's evidence of how everything is biased toward women. Look at how much they get to complain, after all.


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> Truth be known, the 2nd income provided by two employed parent households mostly go toward financing the government. If my wife and I both worked full time we still couldn't afford a standard of living that one average employed male with a high school diploma used to.


This depends on the level of income of both parties and how good they are at using tax laws to their advantage.

In my case, the short while that I had a husband that actually did bring in an income, we paid very low taxes despite have a very joint income because I'm a wiz at this stuff... >


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> This depends on the level of income of both parties and who good they are at using tax laws to their advantage.
> 
> In my case, the short while that I had a husband that actually did bring in an income, *we paid very low taxes despite have a very joint income* because I'm a wiz at this stuff... >


Do you live in Colorado? >


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> And? What do you suppose is the reason for this?
> 
> Couldn't possibly be a couple of centuries of discrimination against women, could it?
> 
> You know. Where bias is stacked in favour of men?
> 
> Nah. No evidence of that nowhere. That's evidence of how everything is biased toward women. Look at how much they get to complain, after all.


Unless you are a couple of centuries old, I don't see how a couple of centuries of discrimination could affect you.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Do you live in Colorado? >


Why do you ask that?

ETA: Duh, slow on the uptake here... no... I go there a lot. But I only do taxes for a few people who I know in real life... part of building my post retirement business.


----------



## tom67

EleGirl said:


> Why do you ask that?


:scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

tom67 said:


> :scratchhead:


:scratchhead:

:scratchhead:

:scratchhead:

:scratchhead:

>


----------



## tom67

EleGirl said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> :scratchhead:
> 
> :scratchhead:
> 
> :scratchhead:
> 
> >


:biggrinangelA:


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Unless you are a couple of centuries old, I don't see how a couple of centuries of discrimination could affect you.


I didn't say it affected me. I don't have a single lawsuit in the offing.

It might, however, go some way to explaining why there are so many more cases where women have encountered discrimination than men.

They have, after all, had a lot of decades to build up that case law.


----------



## Cosmos

Originally Posted by *technovelist*


> Unless you are a couple of centuries old, I don't see how a couple of centuries of discrimination could affect you.


You jest, surely?

Try telling that to Black South Africans...


----------



## MichelleR

I know some here say I've been spewing insults at career women but I think I have been making generalizations about society and how it has changed and yes, how modern feminism has impacted it as well. I have no problem with women who want careers and am glad that feminists fought for women's rights and have won and now any girl who wants to go to college and pursue a career can do so. 

The issue I have now is that modern feminists feel this is not enough and want to continue fighting. I don't see a reason to keep fighting and I only see harm in it, particularly toward men at this point. 

Also of course I'm making generalizations so counter examples have little meaning. If some think my generalizations are insulting, fine. The whole premise of modern feminism is about generalizations since we've already changed the laws toward equality. I don't see anything wrong with voicing my observations here. I certainly don't go around discouraging women from pursuing careers. 

Now I remember a small debate a few days ago about what women want. One of the men expressed that women want to be protected and cared for, and that view was thrown back in his face. My guess is that most women are still attracted to this but many are afraid to admit it for fear of sounding weak and the women who are not attracted to this are more vocal about being "strong, independent women." 

This has left many men who want to get married a bit unsure about what to do. Although not stated directly, movies and the media tend to portray the alpha males as selfish male chauvinist pigs and the housewife as pathetic. I found a really interesting article commenting on this a few days ago but I can't find it now. It was saying something about how women are marrying passive men but then getting tired of them because most really want an assertive man who can lead.

I don't have time to look for it right now though but am curious to know some thoughts on that subject.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> I know some here say I've been spewing insults at career women but I think I have been making generalizations about society and how it has changed and yes, how modern feminism has impacted it as well. I have no problem with women who want careers and am glad that feminists fought for women's rights and have won and now any girl who wants to go to college and pursue a career can do so.
> 
> The issue I have now is that modern feminists feel this is not enough and want to continue fighting. I don't see a reason to keep fighting and I only see harm in it, particularly toward men at this point.
> 
> Also of course I'm making generalizations so counter examples have little meaning. If some think my generalizations are insulting, fine. The whole premise of modern feminism is about generalizations since we've already changed the laws toward equality. I don't see anything wrong with voicing my observations here. I certainly don't go around discouraging women from pursuing careers.
> 
> Now I remember a small debate a few days ago about what women want. One of the men expressed that women want to be protected and cared for, and that view was thrown back in his face. My guess is that most women are still attracted to this but many are afraid to admit it for fear of sounding weak and the women who are not attracted to this are more vocal about being "strong, independent women."
> 
> This has left many men who want to get married a bit unsure about what to do. Although not stated directly, movies and the media tend to portray the alpha males as selfish male chauvinist pigs and the housewife as pathetic. I found a really interesting article commenting on this a few days ago but I can't find it now. It was saying something about how women are marrying passive men but then getting tired of them because most really want an assertive man who can lead.
> 
> I don't have time to look for it right now though but am curious to know some thoughts on that subject.


True, but actually beta males are treated even worse in the popular media.

The book Amazon.com: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture is about these topics.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, but I honestly didn't realize that you did not have access to these articles. I am not deliberately being disingenuous, or trying to hide the truth from you. I was certainly not trying to dangle something in front of you, knowing full well you could not see them, as you are implying here. On the contrary, what I was trying to do was point out the research that was there, so that you could form your own opinion.
> 
> I thought that was what you wanted.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't seem to have a way to determine if you can see what I can see, so I hope you'll understand in the future should I happen to link to sources that you do not find compellingly scientific, and perhaps not dismiss them out of hand, as you wish to do with absolutely everything on the AAUW site, regardless of source.
> 
> I also hope that you will sometimes, perhaps, allow that just because one cannot produce certain information readily, at the simple click of a button, that does not necessarily mean that this information has no value, does not exist, or has no place in a conversation.
> 
> It amazes me that I did my best to answer an objection, to respond to what I thought was a genuine call for the scientific basis behind what you have called "propaganda", and the result is that you think I'm trying to hide the truth from you. :scratchhead:
> 
> 
> I get why you are frustrated -- I am too when I can't easily find what I am looking for or having difficult access to it. But really? Did you not say that you wanted to believe us ladies? To give the argument a fair hearing?
> 
> Unfortunately, it sounds like you've decided it is a foregone conclusion that all that research will be valueless.


A_A, my complaint was really regarding your response to the unavailability of the information. I don't think you are trying to hide anything, I assumed you didn't even really consider if it was available or not--which is not malign intent by any means.

I want to give the argument a fair hearing; it cannot be done if the information is not available. I'm still going to read through the 3 or 4 that were available. 

I just want to note, I generally think most "research" is bunk (not just feminist sponsored research). It is extremely common to find that what researchers claim to be "science" is anything but, and often conclusions are drawn that in no way represent the actual content contained in the pages. There's a lot of concern across the board; for example: the EPA and NOAA are currently fighting to prevent any public release of their data regarding "man-made climate change". NOAA has been caught repeatedly falsifying information and so it would be foolhardy to believe them without reviewing their information and methodology. 

In the example of the wage gap, so far everything I've read constantly and consistently refers to the BLS report, from the US Census data, which compares raw income to raw income, and does not take into account things such as hours worked, location of the workers, experience, etc. It literally is a function of "How much money did men make last year" and "How much money did women make last year". The researchers who publish such things know they are lying, but they aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in advocating for something they want. 

I am skeptical of all research. I'm extra-skeptical when the publisher has been caught cheating already. And I've already caught it in 2. The rest may be valid, I haven't read them yet. I'll have to view them over the weekend. I plan to move my findings to the thread about the pay gap and when I do I'll be sure to tag you and @EleGirl.


----------



## MichelleR

Technovelist now that I think about it I see your point. We still have movies with alpha male heroes but the beta males are the butt of all the jokes.

I may check out book.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> In the example of the wage gap, so far everything I've read constantly and consistently refers to the BLS report, from the US Census data, which compares raw income to raw income, and does not take into account things such as hours worked, location of the workers, experience, etc. It literally is a function of "How much money did men make last year" and "How much money did women make last year". The researchers who publish such things know they are lying, but they aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in advocating for something they want.
> 
> I am skeptical of all research. I'm extra-skeptical when the publisher has been caught cheating already. And I've already caught it in 2. The rest may be valid, I haven't read them yet. I'll have to view them over the weekend. I plan to move my findings to the thread about the pay gap and when I do I'll be sure to tag you and @EleGirl.


There is a significant amount of research that compares "apples to apples", and controls for position, hours, sector and so on. I did not link to it all, but I hope that some of what I did link to is stuff you can access.

There is also a significant literature on hiring bias, on perceived merit, and other factors that feed into wage disparities.

It is a complex issue, and even if you had access to all of what I posted, it still wouldn't be a drop in the bucket of the sheer volume of research out there.

You are absolutely right to be skeptical of research. Problems are rife. But it seems only fair to me that you apply the same standards of skepticism to your own postings. For example, your "proof" of unequal treatment of men by the justice system all comes from a single self-published book with no citations . Your "proof" of sentencing disparity is a single article that even in its own discussion points out that the size of the disparity may be explained by differences in the severity and/or violence of the crime. 

That said, I do appreciate that you are willing to take these studies seriously, and will be interested to hear your conclusions.


----------



## lifeistooshort

The only one not made to look like a dumbarse in movies is the fat nerd that's entitled a hot woman because he's funny and a good guy.

Yet somehow he still looks like one in that scenario.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

MichelleR said:


> Now I remember a small debate a few days ago about what women want. One of the men expressed that women want to be protected and cared for, and that view was thrown back in his face. My guess is that most women are still attracted to this but many are afraid to admit it for fear of sounding weak and the women who are not attracted to this are more vocal about being "strong, independent women."


It is really silly to make a statement like “women want to be protected and cared for” because women are individuals and not all women want the same thing. And it is impossible to say even what most women want because no one can poll most women.

Some women want a man who will protect and care for them.

Some women want to be strong, independent women and want a man who is also strong and independent. Some women want an equal partner.
And I’m sure that there are all kinds of other combinations of what women and men want out there.

There is enough variation in what both men and women want out there that anyone can find someone of the opposite sex who matches what they want. 

And no one should be put down or insulted for what they want.



MichelleR said:


> This has left many men who want to get married a bit unsure about what to do.


Today both young men and young woman are putting off marriage until a bit later, like after 26. This is a very good trend IMO. They are getting their lives on solid ground before taking on the responsibilities of marriage. 

It is a good thing for people to wait until after 26 to marry. Why? Because most divorces occur in couples where the wife was under 26 at the time of marriage and/or the husband was under the age of 30. The other huge predictor of divorce is that most divorces occur in low income marriages.

Divorced rates drop significantly when the wife is at least 26 at the time of marriage and she has a college degree. The more education that a couple has, the lower the divorce rate. Also, good, stable income is a predictor of lower divorce rates.

There is a lot of nonsense out there about men not wanting to get married as though women are standing around crying because men don’t want to marry. Women are holding off too.

And let’s not forget that a large number of men and women are choosing to just live together these days. If they don’t want to get married, that’s their business. It is one of those choices that they have the right to make.



MichelleR said:


> Although not stated directly, movies and the media tend to portray the alpha males as selfish male chauvinist pigs and the housewife as pathetic.


There are over 2000 movies a year produced now. The people who write articles like those pick a group of movies that prove the point that they want to make. If I wanted to make the point that movies today show men as strong, alpha males who treat women wonderfully I could pick dozens of them and use them to prove my point.

There is a group of shows/movies that depict both men and women as the butt of a joke. They are written to be caricatures of some silly sit com. They are very lame shows. I would not waste my time watching them. I vote against them by not watching them. If they cannot get the viewers, then they will be taken off the air.



MichelleR said:


> I found a really interesting article commenting on this a few days ago but I can't find it now. It was saying something about how women are marrying passive men but then getting tired of them because most really want an assertive man who can lead.
> 
> I don't have time to look for it right now though but am curious to know some thoughts on that subject.


The entire alpha/beta(passive) male thing is such nonsense. And people are making a lot of money writing click-bait articles. 
Most women who leave their marriage are not leaving because they get tired of a passive male. Most are leaving for very valid reasons.

Women may file more often for divorce, but often by the time they do the husband has left the marriage emotionally as well.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> One of the men expressed that women want to be protected and cared for, and that view was thrown back in his face.


I think both partners in any relationship want care, support, affection and protection from their partner.

That is not the same thing as a woman wanting a man to pay her way through life so she can be a financial dependent and not have to be responsible for herself and her children.



> It was saying something about how women are marrying passive men but then getting tired of them because most really want an assertive man who can lead.


Another silly stereotype about independent women is that they seek wimpy men. Nothing could be further from the truth. Strong partners seek strong partners. Insecure men aren't interested in women that they can't control or dominate....particularly with money. 

There's a couple stories a month on this forum about a man mistreating his spouse on this forum but the woman can't leave because she's put herself in a position of total financial subservience and is too afraid to stand up to him. Weak man, weak woman, weak relationship. You have zero leverage in a bad relationship when you have zero self-reliance.


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> It is really silly to make a statement like “women want to be protected and cared for” because women are individuals and not all women want the same thing. And it is impossible to say even what most women want because no one can poll most women.


Even though this has become Canon on TAM, and one of your personal pet peeves, I reject it.

There are things that we can say about populations in general that are at least mildly predictive, accurate in the aggregate, and meaningful to the degree to which they hold true. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that fact.

I've written software with a research psychologist where we measured scores on various tests of mental illness to make DSM diagnoses. No one test was ever completely predictive, but many algorithms exist that allow you to combine the outcomes of several to determine to which population a person belongs, even when the differences between them and the mean are very small.

I'm willing to bet a sum of money that a researcher could easily create a broad questionnaire (that didn't include physical traits) that could blindly predict your gender with > 90% accuracy.

As long as we all understand that generalizations do not _necessarily_ apply to an individual, the generalizations can still be useful and are not de facto silly. If I'm dating, before I know you, it improves my odds to understand things that are likely true about you as a woman, until I learn the fascinating truth of the complex person that is you as an individual. Yeah, I know, everyone is a delicate unique snowflake that defies being jammed into a box by The Man. Except when we're not.


----------



## samyeagar

Cletus said:


> Even though this has become Canon on TAM, and one of your personal pet peeves, I reject it.
> 
> There are things that we can say about populations in general that are at least mildly predictive, accurate in the aggregate, and meaningful to the degree to which they hold true. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that fact.
> 
> I've written software with a research psychologist where we measured scores on various tests of mental illness to make DSM diagnoses. No one test was ever completely predictive, but many algorithms exist that allow you to combine the outcomes of several to determine to which population a person belongs, even when the differences between them and the mean are very small.
> 
> I'm willing to bet a sum of money that a researcher could easily create a broad questionnaire (that didn't include physical traits) that could blindly predict your gender with > 90% accuracy.
> 
> As long as we all understand that generalizations do not _necessarily_ apply to an individual, the generalizations can still be useful and are not de facto silly. Yeah, I know, everyone is a delicate unique snowflake that defies being jammed into a box by The Man. Except when we're not.


Taken to the extreme, I would would suspect that generally speaking, there is a good chance, based on the female population as a whole that there is a far better chance than not that any specific woman, when asked, would find a healthy, toned, tall, six pack abs guy more physically attractive than a short beergut toting sweaty bald guy. I could be wrong though.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Even though this has become Canon on TAM, and one of your personal pet peeves, I reject it.
> 
> There are things that we can say about populations in general that are at least mildly predictive, accurate in the aggregate, and meaningful to the degree to which they hold true. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that fact.
> 
> I've written software with a research psychologist where we measured scores on various tests of mental illness to make DSM diagnoses. No one test was ever completely predictive, but many algorithms exist that allow you to combine the outcomes of several to determine to which population a person belongs, even when the differences between them and the mean are very small.
> 
> I'm willing to bet a sum of money that a researcher could easily create a broad questionnaire (that didn't include physical traits) that could blindly predict your gender with > 90% accuracy.
> 
> As long as we all understand that generalizations do not _necessarily_ apply to an individual, the generalizations can still be useful and are not de facto silly. If I'm dating, before I know you, it improves my odds to understand things that are likely true about you as a woman, until I learn the fascinating truth of the complex person that is you as an individual. Yeah, I know, everyone is a delicate unique snowflake that defies being jammed into a box by The Man. Except when we're not.


I too have written a lot of software that does similar analysis, except in relation to the outcome of natural and manmade phenomena. One thing that I learned early on is that the assumptions made going into data gathering and algorithm development can pretty much determine the outcome of the analysis. 

Women are generally taught from a very early age that they want a man to who will protect and care for them. Men are taught that they are to protect and care for their wife. So a bias is set up early in life. Though I’m not sure that there an agreement even on what this means… much less if that is what women want and what men actually do.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Taken to the extreme, I would would suspect that generally speaking, there is a good chance, based on the female population as a whole that there is a far better chance than not that any specific woman, when asked, would find a healthy, toned, tall, six pack abs guy more physically attractive than a short beergut toting sweaty bald guy. I could be wrong though.


Sure, just as men appreciate very good looking women, women appreciate very good looking men.

But what does that have to do with the topic that he was addressing: 
“women want to be protected and cared for”?

A man being "healthy, toned, tall, six pack abs" has nothing to do with that.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Sure, just as men appreciate very good looking women, women appreciate very good looking men.
> 
> *But what does that have to do with the topic that he was addressing*:
> “women want to be protected and cared for”?
> 
> A man being "healthy, toned, tall, six pack abs" has nothing to do with that.


He was addressing generalizations in general, not any specific generalization.

I presented an example of a generalization that is widely held and accepted by the population as a whole, but that does not speak to any particular individual.

All too often, people reject generalization simply because they are a generalization, not because they actually disagree with what the generalization is saying.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> Sure, just as men appreciate very good looking women, women appreciate very good looking men.
> 
> But what does that have to do with the topic that he was addressing:
> “women want to be protected and cared for”?
> 
> A man being "healthy, toned, tall, six pack abs" has nothing to do with that.


Not all women find that attractive. Some will pick the short, bald guy for whatever reason. 

But generally that is not the case. He's applying the same logic to what kind of guy (socio-economically) women are attracted to; saying we can claim with a decent probability that this is the case for most women.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Not all women find that attractive. Some will pick the short, bald guy for whatever reason.
> 
> But generally that is not the case. He's applying the same logic to what kind of guy (socio-economically) women are attracted to; saying we can claim with a decent probability that this is the case for most women.


OOOkkkkk

I don't know about that. Walk around WalMart, the state fair, anywhere that people gather, and look at who most women picked.. they are not physically, socially or economically advantaged.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> OOOkkkkk
> 
> I don't know about that. Walk around WalMart, the state fair, anywhere that people gather, and look at who most women picked.. they are not physically, socially or economically advantaged.


Picking and settling are often one in the same, and not necessarily indicative of actual preference.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Picking and settling are often one in the same, and not necessarily indicative of actual preference.


I figured that the 'settling' thing would come up.

Why do men think that women are settling for whomever they marry?

Women do actualliy fall deeply in love with men who are glorious, rich and socially advantaged. It happens all the time.


----------



## MichelleR

Since I'm on such a roll with pissing off the feminists here, I figure, why stop now? 

Here are some links I found just now. I unfortunately couldn't find that one article anymore, which was too bad because it was really good but some of these other ones are decent as well. 

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/

This next one has a Christian theme which you can take or leave but I agree with the attitudes in it:

https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/alpha-women-and-beta-boys/


This next one is short but based on experience as a marriage counselor:

http://www.samsoncounselling.com/index.php/real-stories/36-when-the-woman-wears-the-pants

This next one is a man's opinion but I agree, at least for women like me: 

http://www.themodernman.com/dating/relationships/who-should-wear-the-pants-in-a-relationship.html

And this last one is to show done appreciation for you men and just because at this point I have no problem with REALLY pissing off the feminists:

http://louderwithcrowder.com/opinion-dear-men-women-actually-love-you-for-being-men/

And yes, I admit that in general I do find modern feminists unfeminine.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> I too have written a lot of software that does similar analysis, except in relation to the outcome of natural and manmade phenomena. One thing that I learned early on is that the assumptions made going into data gathering and algorithm development can pretty much determine the outcome of the analysis.
> 
> Women are generally taught from a very early age that they want a man to who will protect and care for them. Men are taught that they are to protect and care for their wife. So a bias is set up early in life. Though I’m not sure that there an agreement even on what this means… much less if that is what women want and what men actually do.


Yes, the assumptions are everything.

It also continually amazes me how many people acknowledge that stereotypes don't necessarily apply to individuals, and yet insist on condescending dismissing those individuals who don't fit it as "delicate little snowflakes." 

Never mind that more and more women are becoming the higher earners, tend to be more career focused than men, tend to be meeting ambitious than men. Never mind that women are now outperforming men in school, in work, in all sorts of spheres. We just all want to be "looked after."


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I figured that the 'settling' thing would come up.
> 
> Why do men think that women are settling for whomever they marry?
> 
> Women do actualliy fall deeply in love with men who are glorious, rich and socially advantaged. It happens all the time.


I do think there is a lot more "settling" than people would like to admit. How many threads have we seen here that boil down to "She doesn't meet this need for me, looking back, she never did, but I married her anyway." That is settling.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> OOOkkkkk
> 
> I don't know about that. Walk around WalMart, the state fair, anywhere that people gather, and look at who most women picked.. they are not physically, socially or economically advantaged.


Not everyone is physically, socially or economically advantaged. Scarcity. Limited supply, unlimited demand. If you could choose the most desirable mate...

Socially, most girls want a guy who offers status. Economically, most girls want a guy who makes great money. Physically, most girls want a tall, fit man with 6 pack abs. These are all attractive traits. 

There are general things men find attractive in women. They tend to want women with wider hips, larger breasts (physical fitness for childbirth / rearing) for example. Some aren't attracted to it, but most are. Historically, men want women who can provide access to useful alliances (social attractiveness). Economically, coming from a wealthy family is generally more attractive. 

None of these are universal. They are general, and there are obviously plenty of people who are exceptions. 

Now, as to _who_ they married, we get into a much more complex set of issues.

ETA: These generalizations are in relation to a person's own social, physical and economic value. I didn't even touch emotional value, which I think could take volumes in its complexity.


----------



## Kivlor

MichelleR said:


> Since I'm on such a roll with pissing off the feminists here, I figure, why stop now?
> 
> Here are some links I found just now. I unfortunately couldn't find that one article anymore, which was too bad because it was really good but some of these other ones are decent as well.
> 
> Alpha Women, Beta Men - When wives are the family breadwinners
> 
> This next one has a Christian theme which you can take or leave but I agree with the attitudes in it:
> 
> https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/alpha-women-and-beta-boys/
> 
> 
> This next one is short but based on experience as a marriage counselor:
> 
> When the woman wears the pants
> 
> This next one is a man's opinion but I agree, at least for women like me:
> 
> Who Should Wear the Pants in a Relationship? | The Modern Man
> 
> And this last one is to show done appreciation for you men and just because at this point I have no problem with REALLY pissing off the feminists:
> 
> Screw Off, Feminists: An Open Letter To Men From A Real Woman
> 
> And yes, I admit that in general I do find modern feminists unfeminine.


Louder With Crowder makes me lol. I watch him from time to time. 

:smthumbup:


----------



## MichelleR

Okay I found the link I was looking for originally:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thin...m-destroying-the-institution-of-marriage.html

Also the following article has some good insights into why so many marriages fail. It does a good job of explaining how both spouses should feel responsible for their part in the relationship:

http://drjamesdobson.org/articles/heart-of-the-home/angry-women-and-passive-men


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> Women are generally taught from a very early age that they want a man to who will protect and care for them. Men are taught that they are to protect and care for their wife. So a bias is set up early in life. Though I’m not sure that there an agreement even on what this means… much less if that is what women want and what men actually do.


If you could answer the nature/nurture question on humans in an ethical manner, then you'd be up for a Nobel prize.

Whatever the source of the differences, they are real, they are measurable, and they have some limited predictive power. People seem to put some artificial bar at 100% confidence interval or toss out the whole notion. Nothing in life is that sure. Do they change with time? Of course. So what? They even change by demographic. They do not, never have, and never will apply the entire population at a give time. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> OOOkkkkk
> 
> I don't know about that. Walk around WalMart, the state fair, anywhere that people gather, and look at who most women picked.. they are not physically, socially or economically advantaged.


Depends on when they picked them.

I was a lot more attractive at 20 than I am today at 52. Middle aged prematurely gray prematurely bald men (and I have an almost full-on white beard) don't make a great case at first glance for being attractive. Hell, by 30 I had gone from middling attractive to "dude - what happened?" 

It was not always thus.


----------



## Cletus

Kivlor said:


> Not everyone is physically, socially or economically advantaged. Scarcity. Limited supply, unlimited demand. If you could choose the most desirable mate...


And some of us meet two-outta-three ain't bad. 

Which is settling as well. As it should be - do I really deserve a Mensa swimsuit supermodel with an endowment larger than some nation's GDP? I do not. And so I settled for less.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I would would suspect that generally speaking, there is a good chance, based on the female population as a whole that there is a far better chance than not that any specific woman, when asked, would find a healthy, toned, tall, six pack abs guy more physically attractive than a short beergut toting sweaty bald guy. I could be wrong though.


Personally, I wouldn't feel the need to "pick" either necessarily. I spent years of my life single and it was highly enjoyable and kind of fun. The only reason I'm not single now is because I met literally the perfect man and I would have been nuts not to marry him. I wouldn't have settled for anything less though...I don't have to. I'd never be in a position to be forced into choosing a man because I was too lazy to take care of myself.

Looks-wise though...I care about health because if I'm going to make a commitment, I'd like someone that was going to be around for as long as they could. But if the guy with the 6-pack was an egomaniac, unkind, a bad father, lazy or financially unstable, I wouldn't give a flying crap how he looked....he'd be useless as a potential partner.


----------



## Cletus

samyeagar said:


> He was addressing generalizations in general, not any specific generalization.


More to the point, I was addressing the notion that generalizations are silly.

They're not, in the right context. They're silly if I use them on my wife, whom I am supposed to know. They are not silly if I assume them in a conversation with a stranger on the street.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Since I'm on such a roll with pissing off the feminists here, I figure, why stop now?


I'm a feminist and you're certainly not pissing me off at all.

I can't say that anything you're posting bothers me or is interesting to me in the least. I do, however, think that you're trying to upset others confirms my assumptions about what type of person you are. Illuminating.

Flame and whine on....its highly amusing.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MichelleR said:


> Since I'm on such a roll with pissing off the feminists here, I figure, why stop now?


I really doubt anyone is pissed off, just correcting you when we feel you're wrong, debating like we would with anyone. 

IMO- You seem to get a kick out of being anti-feminist, like it's supposed to be cool or something, make you an outsider. 

You can believe and choose whatever you want, but if you associate "feminism" to these attacks your feeling against you, you're looking in the wrong place.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> We just all want to be "looked after."


I think its interesting how some women define "looked after" though.

I find it fascinating that some women translate that into meaning that they can sit around all day and live off a working man who is supposed to tolerate their financial dependence...even often times, after the marriage has terminated.


----------



## MichelleR

I had no problem with being as logical and respectful in this debate for a while. Once all the insults toward the men and the SAHM's started though I figured why not be more honest about how I really feel? 

The main reason I posted those links just now though was because I wanted to see what the people who do recognize the misandry all around us think about those ideas.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> You can believe and choose whatever you want, but if you associate "feminism" to these attacks your feeling against you, you're looking in the wrong place.


People lash out when something someone posts hits home and validates insecurities they have about themselves.

Feminists are simply women who believe in equal rights...often times because they're educated and hard-working and want to be treated fairly in employment situations.

If someone thinks its "unfeminine" to want to be treated equally and doesn't recognize the importance of women being educated and financially stable...and/or thinks being feminine means living off of men instead of being a responsible and self-sufficient adult...nothing much of what they says is going to be very credible to me anyway.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion...and everyone else has the right to disregard them. I'm not offended by other people's opinions at all.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Do feminists believe men should do 'men type' things around the house?

Fix a leaky faucet. Change the oil. Carpentry, etc.


Do feminists think men should still open doors for women?

Just curious. Don't really care one way or another. 

I just think it is funny sometimes how my wife expects me to do all these man type things. Mostly because I have always done them. But every once in a while something new comes up and she just figures certain things are my job. Even though she has as much knowledge about them as I do.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

SadSamIAm said:


> Do feminists believe men should do 'men type' things around the house?
> 
> Fix a leaky faucet. Change the oil. Carpentry, etc.
> 
> 
> Do feminists think men should still open doors for women?
> 
> Just curious. Don't really care one way or another.
> 
> I just think it is funny sometimes how my wife expects me to do all these man type things. Mostly because I have always done them. But every once in a while something new comes up and she just figures certain things are my job. Even though she has as much knowledge about them as I do.


Many feminists enjoy a traditional household, men opening doors and doing the man jobs while they clean and take care of the children. Many are SAHMs as well. It's their choice.

I'm somewhere in the middle, also my choice. 

Other women will not want those things at all. 

There's no one way for a feminist to be other than believing women should have equal rights and opportunities. It doesn't mean that they all even apply to us or that we would choose them. 

Ex- I am pro-choice, I believe women should have the right to choose even though it's not a choice I wanted to make for myself. 

I am pro-gay marriage even though I will never marry a woman. 

You can be a feminist who never votes, works or whatever but still believes that the right for another woman to choose different should be there.


----------



## Lila

SadSamIAm said:


> Do feminists believe men should do 'men type' things around the house?
> 
> Fix a leaky faucet. Change the oil. Carpentry, etc.


I'm a feminist and I don't think men should be held accountable for doing 'men' chores around the house. Just as I don't think women should be held accountable for doing the 'women' chores. 

Work to your strengths and if that happens to be fixing a leaky faucet, then do it. If it means doing the laundry, then by golly go on with your bad self.:grin2:




SadSamIAm said:


> Do feminists think men should still open doors for women?
> 
> Just curious. Don't really care one way or another.


Feminists are first and foremost women. We are not all the same. We each have our own unique criteria on what we find attractive in men. 

I, for one, find chivalry an extremely attractive quality in a man. Do I expect it of all men? No, but if my husband wasn't chivalrous, i probably would have not found him attractive in the first place.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Lila said:


> I'm a feminist and I don't think men should be held accountable for doing 'men' chores around the house. Just as I don't think women should be held accountable for doing the 'women' chores.
> 
> Work to your strengths and if that happens to be fixing a leaky faucet, then do it. If it means doing the laundry, then by golly go on with your bad self.:grin2:


That makes sense. If I was a plumber, then it makes sense for me to fix the faucet.

I am talking about traditional male jobs that neither of us know anything about.

In my family, by default, I deal with leaky sinks, car issues, electrical issues, dishwasher issues, tv issues, computer issues, carpentry issues, etc. Over the years I have learned about them. 

We now have an issue with our security system. I know nothing about it. Either does my wife. But I am expected to deal with it. Window sensors beep at random times. I have looked at them, but there really isn't I can do as far as I know. So I will call the security company and tell them about the issue. Then I will schedule an appointment. Have to find out from wife when she can be home( she is a SAHW). If she is busy I will have to run home from work to deal with it.


----------



## Lila

SadSamIAm said:


> That makes sense. If I was a plumber, then it makes sense for me to fix the faucet.
> 
> I am talking about traditional male jobs that neither of us know anything about.
> 
> In my family, by default, I deal with leaky sinks, car issues, electrical issues, dishwasher issues, tv issues, computer issues, carpentry issues, etc. Over the years I have learned about them.
> 
> We now have an issue with our security system. I know nothing about it. Either does my wife. But I am expected to deal with it. Window sensors beep at random times. I have looked at them, but there really isn't I can do as far as I know. So I will call the security company and tell them about the issue. Then I will schedule an appointment. Have to find out from wife when she can be home( she is a SAHW). If she is busy I will have to run home from work to deal with it.


Okay, I get what you're saying now. I think this is just one of your wife's quirks, for lack of a better word. 

I'll admit that I do this sometimes too but it's because my husband researches everything before purchasing. He's awesome at comparison shopping products and services. Goes onto consumer reports, Angies List, Yelp, tripadvisor, etc. and does his homework. I, on the other hand, will call the first company or product that pops up on google/amazon and call it a day. Drives him insane. 

Are you a research type guy?


----------



## lifeistooshort

EnigmaGirl said:


> People lash out when something someone posts hits home and validates insecurities they have about themselves.
> 
> *Feminists are simply women who believe in equal rights*...often times because they're educated and hard-working and want to be treated fairly in employment situations.
> 
> If someone thinks its "unfeminine" to want to be treated equally and doesn't recognize the importance of women being educated and financially stable...and/or thinks being feminine means living off of men instead of being a responsible and self-sufficient adult...nothing much of what they says is going to be very credible to me anyway.
> 
> Everyone has the right to their own opinion...and everyone else has the right to disregard them. I'm not offended by other people's opinions at all.


Therein lies the problem.....Michelle doesn't want to be treated equally. Michelle wants to stay at home and be taken care of, but she apparently wasn't very successful at finding a husband to make that happen.

My lovely aunt wanted to be taken care of so she found a guy (my uncle) willing and able to make that happen. And now that the kids are older she is working part time.....they've made it work. 

Nobody in our family has ever thought twice about her being at home because it's an agreement my aunt and uncle came to together.

No adult is inherently entitled to be supported by another adult.....that's an arrangement you come to together as a couple.

But if those know it all feminists hadn't fought for equal rights then Michelle's default place would be in the home, which is where she wants to be. That is her prerogative of course if she can get agreement from her husband.....so maybe instead of whining about unfeminine feminists (though I suspect she has an overinflated opinion of herself) she should be discussing with her husband how to make that happen.

Unless that isn't what he wants, in which case she chose a poor match for herself.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Michelle- Did your husband have a wife before you?


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> OOOkkkkk
> 
> I don't know about that. Walk around WalMart, the state fair, anywhere that people gather, and look at who most women picked.. they are not physically, socially or economically advantaged.
> 
> 
> samyeagar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picking and settling are often one in the same, and not necessarily indicative of actual preference.
> 
> 
> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured that the 'settling' thing would come up.
> 
> Why do men think that women are settling for whomever they marry?
> 
> Women do actualliy fall deeply in love with men who are glorious, rich and socially advantaged. It happens all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Looks are just one piece of the puzzle. I used to think being in shape and hot was the golden ticket (when I was 17 that is). I was a workout fanatic and looked good (thanks). It confused me to no end when some girl I was interested in chased some (non-buff/non handsome) guy instead of me. It didn't make sense because I was a kid all about looks and hotness yet some less attractive dude who owned a new Mustang just snagged the girl I liked. Makes perfect sense now but didn't way back then.


----------



## MichelleR

Okay I'm going to stop posting here because I don't see a reason at this point. I stated in many posts my views on this subject from many angles and don't think I have much else to add here. Rather than addressing the content of what I have been saying though some of you are more focused your assumptions about my personal imperfections.

I'm sorry if I included any of my own personal experiences in my posts but I am human and didn't want to only stick to dry facts and statistics. As of right now, it is hard to work full time and be a mother to three small children and be a good wife but I do have choices and I know I could have it a lot worse. I could stay home but we wouldn't be able to afford a house and would probably go into debt and have no savings for retirement. As it is, we have a nice house, nice joint income, great benefits, and I get a lot of holidays and get to spend summers with my kids more than most working moms so that is great. Yes my husband was married once before me but that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been posting.

Most of my posts have not been about my personal life. Most of them have been my observations about society in general as well as statistics and also just my thought processes. I find relationships very interesting and enjoy talking about them. I also find education issues very interesting. 

I hope some people on this thread have enjoyed contemplating some of my views and have been more interested in what I have to say than on my shortcomings as a person. I don't like to fight and will not do it anymore on here.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Yes my husband was married once before me but that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been posting.

I was just wondering if this is where some of your opinions are really directed. If an ex-wife acted in the ways you are talking about being against then it would make more sense. She would be the villain, a bad woman. Your ways and actions would be better, almost defending them to the point where you're trying to convince yourself of it. 

No one here is against any of your life choices, many of us make similar ones ourselves, so it makes no sense to be grouping any of us in with your idea of what a "feminist" is.

Obviously there are crappy women in the world, some are feminists and some aren't. It's not a feminism thing. There are some crappy Christians in the world too, I don't go around saying they all act like that or are all bad. 

Look at people as individuals and stop letting the minority cloud your opinions of an entire group.


----------



## Mr The Other

lifeistooshort said:


> Therein lies the problem.....Michelle doesn't want to be treated equally. Michelle wants to stay at home and be taken care of, but she apparently wasn't very successful at finding a husband to make that happen.
> 
> My lovely aunt wanted to be taken care of so she found a guy (my uncle) willing and able to make that happen. And now that the kids are older she is working part time.....they've made it work.
> 
> Nobody in our family has ever thought twice about her being at home because it's an agreement my aunt and uncle came to together.
> 
> No adult is inherently entitled to be supported by another adult.....that's an arrangement you come to together as a couple.
> 
> But if those know it all feminists hadn't fought for equal rights then Michelle's default place would be in the home, which is where she wants to be. That is her prerogative of course if she can get agreement from her husband.....so maybe instead of whining about unfeminine feminists (though I suspect she has an overinflated opinion of herself) she should be discussing with her husband how to make that happen.
> 
> Unless that isn't what he wants, in which case she chose a poor match for herself.


I find that unfair.

Certainly, her views come from her experience, but then so do all our views. In the USA, it seems that a lot of men work hard and pretending to be masculine to the extent that many men do not even realize they do not have to pretend. 

Equally, there is pressure on women to be very feminine while being very independent. I doubt all women are very brave when they are ill and soldier through without a word, but many women would see it as a treachery to say otherwise. In my experience, being ill give a woman a chance to express all her vulnerability. 

Ideally, both support each other. There is a strong sexist legacy in this country, and even just sexism, that means women have a pressure to show a strong independent side. Without that pressure, I suspect many women would feel better. Having lived in far more feminist countries, it seems to be what happens (in my personal experience).


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Which is settling as well. As it should be - do I really deserve a Mensa swimsuit supermodel with an endowment larger than some nation's GDP? I do not. And so I settled for less.


I guess I don't quite understand why we're all supposed to want a rich Mensa swimsuit model, that somehow such a person is the best person in the world, an ideal match for all of us, and everyone else is "settling".

It's kind of weird how we're supposed to look down on just about everyone, ourselves included, don't you think?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Mr The Other said:


> I find that unfair.
> 
> Certainly, her views come from her experience, but then so do all our views. In the USA, it seems that a lot of men work hard and pretending to be masculine to the extent that many men do not even realize they do not have to pretend.
> 
> Equally, there is pressure on women to be very feminine while being very independent. I doubt all women are very brave when they are ill and soldier through without a word, but many women would see it as a treachery to say otherwise. In my experience, being ill give a woman a chance to express all her vulnerability.
> 
> Ideally, both support each other. There is a strong sexist legacy in this country, and even just sexism, that means women have a pressure to show a strong independent side. Without that pressure, I suspect many women would feel better. Having lived in far more feminist countries, it seems to be what happens (in my personal experience).


I don't see how equality and independence equal no vulnerability. A few months ago I sat in the bathroom and puked my guts up while my poor hb helped me get up.....is that not vulnerability? 

When my father died I cried my eyes out, is that not vulnerability? 

What exactly does making enough of a living that I could survive on my own if I had to have to do with vulnerability? Just because I could manage doesn't mean my life isn't greatly enriched by my hb.

News flash: most feminists very much love men and a big chunk are married to them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Do feminists believe men should do 'men type' things around the house?
> 
> Fix a leaky faucet. Change the oil. Carpentry, etc.


I think that people in relationships should do what they're good at. 

I love to cook and clean and knit...I'm more domestic.

My husband is an engineer and loves to fix stuff. But we both know how to do each other's jobs too. 

My husband was away on business this year and we had a storm and the eavestrough got damaged so I crawled out the window onto the roof with a tool belt and fixed it myself. 

The last time I was sick, my husband tackled all the cooking, cleaning and laundry and brought my meals and tea to me in bed. 

Sometimes neither one of us wants to tackle a project, so we hire someone. 



> Do feminists think men should still open doors for women?


I like kind, polite people so I think its nice when men open doors. Its not that I don't know how to open a door but my husband is definitely physically stronger than I am and I like when does it for me. Its just respectful and kind. I do kind things for him all the time too. We both deserve to be treated well.



> I just think it is funny sometimes how my wife expects me to do all these man type things. Mostly because I have always done them. But every once in a while something new comes up and she just figures certain things are my job. Even though she has as much knowledge about them as I do.


lol, its definitely true that you get into patterns at home where the person who's the "expert" on the task ends up with it everytime. Same thing happens to me at work...people always caution me about taking over assignments because they'll suddenly become my responsibility. I think its just more human nature than anything to do with feminism or gender roles.



> But if those know it all feminists hadn't fought for equal rights then Michelle's default place would be in the home, which is where she wants to be. That is her prerogative of course if she can get agreement from her husband.....so maybe instead of whining about unfeminine feminists (though I suspect she has an overinflated opinion of herself) she should be discussing with her husband how to make that happen.


I do find it highly ungracious when women criticize feminists without giving credence to the many women who fought so hard to give women the rights we enjoy today.

And if there's a woman who's wanting a man to take care of her...that's fine as long as she assumes the risk of that decision. Personally, I'd ensure I had some kind of a back-up plan because if the marriage goes bad, you're in a position where you can't take care of yourself.

I can't say that I understand women that want this kind of life...it just sounds depressing. When I was a kid I dreamed about being able to earn money and have my own life. Being financially subservient as an adult would just suck, in my opinion, but to each their own. It would be a waste of my education and everything I've done in my life to sit home all day and not use my talents...i just feel that I have way more to offer. Plus teaching my kids the value of a good work ethic is really important to me.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> What exactly does making enough of a living that I could survive on my own if I had to have to do with vulnerability? Just because I could manage doesn't mean my life isn't greatly enriched by my hb.


I find it really disturbing that someone equates dependence as "feminine."

I just saw a news special about a lovely young woman who's company invented new blood testing protocols. Her company patented the devices she invented and her company is making billions. 

She spends a lot of that money and a lot of her time working on philanthropy projects in 3rd world countries managing people's illnesses.

I called my teenage daughter in to watch and her eyes lit up and she ranted and raved about how amazing the story and the woman was. 

My daughter starts university in a little over a year and those are the types of women that I want her to admire and aspire to be like. If some people consider women like that "unfeminine", so be it....to me, they are the very definition of how amazing women are.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Lots of interesting comments in this thread. I won't chime in on those because honestly its too much to read. I disagree that traditional bread winners aren't appreciated. But then again I also don't think there is a war on masculinity. I think women in general appreciate what their working man brings to the table. Even if they have their own gig and income. 

I also actually understand why a bigger deal is made of appreciating SAHMs. I think they are giving up a lot to stay at home. Its a huge risk to completely drop out of the workforce with divorce rates as high as they are today. 

Also, to all the traditional breadwinners out there. If you had the chance to permanently switch places with your wife, would you? I love my kids, but no way could I ever be a SAHD. Just my opinion, but I actually think its easier to go to work every day than it is to stay at home with the kids.


----------



## samyeagar

ReformedHubby said:


> Lots of interesting comments in this thread. I won't chime in on those because honestly its too much to read. I disagree that traditional bread winners aren't appreciated. But then again I also don't think there is a war on masculinity. I think women in general appreciate what their working man brings to the table. Even if they have their own gig and income.
> 
> I also actually understand why a bigger deal is made of appreciating SAHMs. I think they are giving up a lot to stay at home. Its a huge risk to completely drop out of the workforce with divorce rates as high as they are today.
> 
> Also, to all the traditional breadwinners out there. If you had the chance to permanently switch places with your wife, would you? I love my kids, but no way could I ever be a SAHD. Just my opinion, but I actually think its easier to go to work every day than it is to stay at home with the kids.


My own experience with this really started to take shape when my SAHM ex wife would tell people that she might as well be a single mom because I was out of the house working 60 hours a week while she stayed at home.

In her case, there wasn't a whole lot of sacrifice to leave the workforce because she was never really in it, had never had to support herself at any point in her life.

Even with the divorce, between alimony and child support, she still did not have to support herself or the kids. She never did get a job, nor gain any education. She was awarded the equivalent of a full time $20/hour job.

She is now remarried, and is continuing on being happily supported.


----------



## tech-novelist

MichelleR said:


> Since I'm on such a roll with pissing off the feminists here, I figure, why stop now?
> 
> Here are some links I found just now. I unfortunately couldn't find that one article anymore, which was too bad because it was really good but some of these other ones are decent as well.
> 
> Alpha Women, Beta Men - When wives are the family breadwinners
> 
> This next one has a Christian theme which you can take or leave but I agree with the attitudes in it:
> 
> https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/alpha-women-and-beta-boys/
> 
> 
> This next one is short but based on experience as a marriage counselor:
> 
> When the woman wears the pants
> 
> This next one is a man's opinion but I agree, at least for women like me:
> 
> Who Should Wear the Pants in a Relationship? | The Modern Man
> 
> And this last one is to show done appreciation for you men and just because at this point I have no problem with REALLY pissing off the feminists:
> 
> Screw Off, Feminists: An Open Letter To Men From A Real Woman
> 
> And yes, I admit that in general I do find modern feminists unfeminine.


How misogynistic of you! You must be a bitter loser with a small penis who lives in your mommy's basement and can't get laid!

Oh, wait a minute. You're a woman, right? Now my head will explode! >


----------



## lessthennone

When my wife suggests I sit on my butt every day at work, I remind her that having a stable financial future for our family is my version of cleaning the house. 

I probably wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit too much in both ways. Years ago, SAHM's weren't given enough credit for what they do. Today, many of them seem a bit entitled. 

I'm not saying it's not hard work, but I just look at our situation; financially stable, nice house, cars, toys, etc... I just don't see it as being as difficult as other people in different situations. If a SAHM can post 50 FB posts a day, then there must be some recreation aspect of not going to work. Even if the intent is to just watch the kids. 

Despite that and being a male, I consider myself an advocate for feminism. I think the opportunity for a family to send either parent to work, depending on who can bring in the most money is a positive. I have good friends, where the husband is the SAHD. I have gained a lot of reset for him and learned a lot from them. 

I have another friend who's never changed a diaper in his life. I think the focus is finally coming around to see those scenarios as not quite right.


----------



## samyeagar

EnigmaGirl said:


> Personally, I wouldn't feel the need to "pick" either necessarily. I spent years of my life single and it was highly enjoyable and kind of fun. The only reason I'm not single now is because I met literally the perfect man and I would have been nuts not to marry him. I wouldn't have settled for anything less though...I don't have to. I'd never be in a position to be forced into choosing a man because I was too lazy to take care of myself.
> 
> Looks-wise though...I care about health because if I'm going to make a commitment, I'd like someone that was going to be around for as long as they could. But if the guy with the 6-pack was an egomaniac, unkind, a bad father, lazy or financially unstable, I wouldn't give a flying crap how he looked....he'd be useless as a potential partner.


This is another thing a lot of people do...add all kinds of other things into the mix that were not there to begin with. My example was simply young, six pack, in shape guy will be visually appealing to more women than old, bald, beergut guy. Nothing more. Nothing about personality, nothing about wealth, job status. Only one single thing...visual appeal only.


----------



## samyeagar

lessthennone said:


> *When my wife suggests I sit on my butt every day at work, I remind her that having a stable financial future for our family is my version of cleaning the house.*
> 
> I probably wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but I think the pendulum has swung a bit too much in both ways. Years ago, SAHM's weren't given enough credit for what they do. Today, many of them seem a bit entitled.
> 
> I'm not saying it's not hard work, but I just look at our situation; financially stable, nice house, cars, toys, etc... I just don't see it as being as difficult as other people in different situations. If a SAHM can post 50 FB posts a day, then there must be some recreation aspect of not going to work. Even if the intent is to just watch the kids.
> 
> Despite that and being a male, I consider myself an advocate for feminism. I think the opportunity for a family to send either parent to work, depending on who can bring in the most money is a positive. I have good friends, where the husband is the SAHD. I have gained a lot of reset for him and learned a lot from them.
> 
> I have another friend who's never changed a diaper in his life. I think the focus is finally coming around to see those scenarios as not quite right.


There is a lot of unseen pressure on the primary breadwinner. Especially when the other is a SAHP...the entire house of cards, their entire way of life is completely dependent on the breadwinners job and income.


----------



## ReformedHubby

lessthennone said:


> When my wife suggests I sit on my butt every day at work, I remind her that having a stable financial future for our family is my version of cleaning the house.


Ahhhh...I see. I would definitely not appreciate it if my wife insinuated that all I do is sit on my rear. There has to be mutual respect for each other's roles, otherwise it doesn't work.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> I also actually understand why a bigger deal is made of appreciating SAHMs. I think they are giving up a lot to stay at home. Its a huge risk to completely drop out of the workforce with divorce rates as high as they are today.


That's what Dug says, too, RH, that it is a big risk to be a SAHM. And he really appreciates my taking it.

I never saw it as a risk, myself. I trusted him completely. I actually felt very lucky.

But for sure, the gals that have careers, with their own income, retirement, and healthcare benefits, have an independence and sense of self-reliance that I do not have. I have a great deal of respect for them. They are free agents.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> There is a lot of unseen pressure on the primary breadwinner. Especially when the other is a SAHP...the entire house of cards, their entire way of life is completely dependent on the breadwinners job and income.


Absolutely true. But some breadwinners are okay with all that responsibility. Some see it as normal.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Absolutely true. But some breadwinners are okay with all that responsibility. Some see it as normal.


I suspect that almost all of them are fine with the responsibility. I know I was, and continue to be. However, I do think it is easy to take for granted and it's importance is often overlooked.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I suspect that almost all of them are fine with the responsibility. I know I was, and continue to be. However, I do think it is easy to take for granted and it's importance is often overlooked.


I think it is like RH said, that both partners need to feel respected and appreciated for their contributions to the family.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> Lots of interesting comments in this thread. I won't chime in on those because honestly its too much to read. I disagree that traditional bread winners aren't appreciated. But then again I also don't think there is a war on masculinity. I think women in general appreciate what their working man brings to the table. Even if they have their own gig and income.
> 
> I also actually understand why a bigger deal is made of appreciating SAHMs. I think they are giving up a lot to stay at home. Its a huge risk to completely drop out of the workforce with divorce rates as high as they are today.
> 
> Also, to all the traditional breadwinners out there. If you had the chance to permanently switch places with your wife, would you? I love my kids, but no way could I ever be a SAHD. Just my opinion, but I actually think its easier to go to work every day than it is to stay at home with the kids.


My husband would have no desire to change places with me.. not because it's difficult... not at all..... but he is who he is.. and is proud of his role.. and me.. it may be ordinary.. and common.. and certainly nothing to brag about...but still.. I have enjoyed my role.. I think that is worth something... I don't want to feel ashamed to say this. 

I really need to NOT be ruffled with others personal opinions/ comments ...about wasting our potentials or not living up to some independent standard that others hold for themselves....

I think the hardest thing about being "just a Stay at Home" with no degree... is that others will automatically assume we are lazy people.. add stupid (or we would have went to college!)...we take advantage of men, expect to be taken care of ...and our men could have done better... these all STING [email protected]#... as so much of our lives are wrapped up into giving & living this role... 

The thing is.. had we not met our husbands ..many of us would have continued on working full time (my aunt never married - she supported herself on the very job I quit when I was pregnant- that could have been me till I retired)...

But our story unfolded this way -when we met our husbands, and they desired this set up too.... or we'd have a very different life/ story. 

It was great peeking in & seeing a Reformed hubby post !!!


----------



## jld

I think we are all doing what we need to be doing. And we should all feel good about it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> *I think we are all doing what we need to be doing. And we should all feel good about it. *


In a perfect world Jld.. in a perfect world.. at the very least.. if a family is happy/ thriving.... I agree with you... but many times they are NOT.. there are countless threads here ....

*1. * Fighting over money... maybe even 2 incomes are not enough, but overspending needs curbed...(if lacking health insurance, these bills could financially destroy a family very quickly though... very ) 

*2. *The wife is not doing her share at home...(I always take the side of the man on these threads)....
I guess not to be sexist.. if the house husband was falling down on the job... I'd be taking the female bread winners side. 

*3.* They can't agree on the chores because there isn't enough time in a day (generally where both is working....and life is very rushed, with children).... 

...would be nice if the solutions were easier...

Some breadwinners are taken advantage of... and some SAHP's are overlooked as though they contribute nothing at all....we can only change one family at a time... our own..


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> I suspect that almost all of them are fine with the responsibility. I know I was, and continue to be. However, I do think it is easy to take for granted and it's importance is often overlooked.


I joined this thread as what I suppose is a non-traditional breadwinner.

No one ever thanks me for going to work, but at the same time, no one doubts that if something happens, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

I don't really see how it's possible to overlook the importance of having some income...


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> In a perfect world Jld.. in a perfect world.. at the very least.. if a family is happy/ thriving.... I agree with you... but many times they are NOT.. there are countless threads here ....
> 
> *1. * Fighting over money... maybe even 2 incomes are not enough, but overspending needs curbed...(if lacking health insurance, these bills could financially destroy a family very quickly though... very )
> 
> *2. *The wife is not doing her share at home...(I always take the side of the man on these threads)....
> I guess not to be sexist.. if the house husband was falling down on the job... I'd be taking the female bread winners side.
> 
> *3.* They can't agree on the chores because there isn't enough time in a day (generally where both is working....and life is very rushed, with children)....
> 
> ...would be nice if the solutions were easier...
> 
> Some breadwinners are taken advantage of... and some SAHP's are overlooked as though they contribute nothing at all....*we can only change one family at a time... our own*..


I agree. 

Like lifeistooshort said, everybody works out their own arrangement. I do not do nearly the work around my house that some moms do. I am not a great cook. I don't even like cooking very much. And my kids take most of the responsibility for their studies. I just oversee them.

Dug did not marry me for my housekeeping skills or my ability to earn money. I think he married me because he liked talking to me. He thought I was interesting. 

I guess as long as I keep being interesting, I'll have job security.


----------



## lifeistooshort

What is a traditional breadwinner? When I hear that I assume a scenario where the man works and pays bills and the woman stays home. Maybe it's better to say that traditional breadwinners are appreciated by those who desire that kind of setup; not everyone wants the same things in life so not everyone will appreciate your choices.

I'm not sure I appreciate a "traditional breadwinner" because I have no desire for that kind of arrangement; I certainly do appreciate that my husband works, but he also appreciates that I work.

I work but not everyone will appreciate that since there are some that think women should be at home. That's ok, they are free to think that as long as they don't interfere in my ability to make my own choices.

Likewise I am not required to think your choices are great, I am only required to stay out of your life so you can make them.

What if we said that traditional housewives aren't appreciated? Well they won't be appreciated by someone who doesn't want a housewife, but they will be by someone who does.

Now if you're working to support someone, like Sam Yeagar and his ex wife, and they don't appreciate you then you have another problem.

If you have a woman at home who does most of the cooking, cleaning, and childcare so you don't have to then you are getting appreciation as she recognizes you work. If you have to work and come home to do everything while your wife is at home then you don't have a very good partner.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> I joined this thread as what I suppose is a non-traditional breadwinner.
> 
> No one ever thanks me for going to work, but at the same time, no one doubts that if something happens, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
> 
> I don't really see how it's possible to overlook the importance of having some income...


I agree. You can't live on love and fresh air.


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> I agree.
> 
> Like lifeistooshort said, everybody works out their own arrangement. I do not do nearly the work around my house that some moms do. I am not a great cook. I don't even like cooking very much. And my kids take most of the responsibility for their studies. I just oversee them.
> 
> Dug did not marry me for my housekeeping skills or my ability to earn money. I think he married me because he liked talking to me. He thought I was interesting.
> 
> I guess as long as I keep being interesting, I'll have job security.


For all of my self professed feminist beliefs I am in fact a great cook and cook all the time. Mostly because I like decent and healthful meals, but also because I like it.

I don't measure anything, I just pinch as I think it's needed and make recipe modifications all the time as I see fit.

And I'm the daughter of a butcher so I always carve the turkey during the holidays.

I think my cooking might have been on my hb's list of things he loved about me :smile2:

He did say that he'd try not to gain a bunch of weight when we got married because my cooking was so good.

He hasn't.


----------



## EllisRedding

always_alone said:


> I don't really see how it's possible to overlook the importance of having some income...


Maybe some overlook or take for granted, but for many it comes down to deciding what is most important. My wife and I decided that the best thing for raising our family would be for her to be a SAHM. Financially one income is perfectly fine for us so it wasn't an issue. Yes there is a risk (the risk being if somehow I lost my job, there is no risk of divorce) with this but there is also a risk with having my wife work so she can claim "financial independence and not being subservient", which would mean leaving someone who is not myself or my wife with responsibilities in helping to raise our kids. 

There is no right answer. A SAHP is not subservient and not somehow neglecting their parental responsibilities. Everyone just needs to understand what they feel are the best decisions for themselves and their family, so each situation will be different.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> For all of my self professed feminist beliefs I am in fact a great cook and cook all the time. Mostly because I like decent and healthful meals, but also because I like it.
> 
> I don't measure anything, I just pinch as I think it's needed and make recipe modifications all the time as I see fit.
> 
> And I'm the daughter of a butcher so I always carve the turkey during the holidays.
> 
> I think my cooking might have been on my hb's list of things he loved about me :smile2:
> 
> He did say that he'd try not to gain a bunch of weight when we got married because my cooking was so good.
> 
> He hasn't.


You are a very talented woman, life, all around.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> If you have a woman at home who does most of the cooking, cleaning, and childcare so you don't have to then you are getting appreciation as she recognizes you work. If you have to work and come home to do everything while your wife is at home then you don't have a very good partner.


The amusing thing is that working women raise their kids, clean their homes and cook too.

I've been volunteering at my kid's school every week since she started school.

It always makes me laugh that SAHP think they're doing something that working women don't do.

I completely get that staying at home is more of a full-time job if you have a lot of kids or maybe special needs kids but the stories that crack me up are the ones where the person has a couple of kids, in school, and is whining that they aren't appreciated or that their spouse is asking them to get a job and they're mad.

I just have a different mindset. I was raised and am raising my own kids to live up to their potential...not look for angle to not have to. There's a sense of dignity and pride that comes with not having to be a dependent and being able to rely on your own hard work that I want my children to have. I want them to be proud of who THEY are and how hard they have worked to get there...not live off of the accomplishments of someone else.

And there's always a catch when you try to get something for nothing....always. And like I said, I have zero sympathy for someone who tries to use someone for money and then finds themselves out on their ass and broke. That's simply karma.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EnigmaGirl said:


> The amusing thing is that working women raise their kids, clean their homes and cook too.
> 
> I've been volunteering at my kid's school every week since she started school.
> 
> *It always makes me laugh that SAHP think they're doing something that working women don't do.*
> 
> I completely get that staying at home is more of a full-time job if you have a lot of kids or maybe special needs kids but the stories that crack me up are the ones where the person has a couple of kids, in school, and is whining that they aren't appreciated or that their spouse is asking them to get a job and they're mad.
> 
> I just have a different mindset. I was raised and am raising my own kids to live up to their potential...not look for angle to not have to. There's a sense of dignity and pride that comes with not having to be a dependent and being able to rely on your own hard work that I want my children to have. I want them to be proud of who THEY are and how hard they have worked to get there...not live off of the accomplishments of someone else.
> 
> And there's always a catch when you try to get something for nothing....always. And like I said, I have zero sympathy for someone who tries to use someone for money and then finds themselves out on their ass and broke. That's simply karma.


That is true. Like kids of working women don't need dinner or clean clothes and live in filthy houses.

There are certain freedoms that women who don't work have where kids are concerned.....they can pick them up whenever needed, extracurricular activities are probably easier because they don't have to get off of work.

But life is all about balance. My kids take martial arts and I take them to class.....they have a special stick fighting class my younger son wants to take for a month but I'm not sure he can, it will depend on what time the class is and if I can get him there.

If I didn't have a job it wouldn't be an issue, but then again if I didn't have a job the extra cost might be an issue anyway.

Life is about balances......nobody can have it all.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

@EllisRedding said:


> There is no right answer. *A SAHP is not subservient and not somehow neglecting their parental responsibilities.* Everyone just needs to understand what they feel are the best decisions for themselves and their family, so each situation will be different.










....Yeah.. the word "Subservient" doesn't sit so well with me...

Definition here: 



> sub·ser·vi·ent
> səbˈsərvēənt/Submit
> adjective
> 
> prepared to obey others unquestioningly.
> "she was subservient to her parents"
> 
> synonyms:	submissive, deferential, compliant, obedient, dutiful, biddable, docile, passive, unassertive, subdued, downtrodden; informalunder someone's thumb
> "subservient women"
> less important; subordinate.
> 
> _"he expected her career to become subservient to his"_
> synonyms:	subordinate, secondary, subsidiary, peripheral, ancillary, auxiliary, less important
> _"individual rights are subservient to the interests of the state"_
> serving as a means to an end.


Since he's never treated me like I was Less important.. this is just not always the case for us Stay at homes... my husband would laugh at me being passive or even submissive.... I am more the take charge out of the 2 of us.. 



jld said:


> I agree.
> 
> Like lifeistooshort said, everybody works out their own arrangement. I do not do nearly the work around my house that some moms do. I am not a great cook. I don't even like cooking very much. And my kids take most of the responsibility for their studies. I just oversee them.
> 
> *Dug did not marry me for my housekeeping skills or my ability to earn money. I think he married me because he liked talking to me. He thought I was interesting.*
> 
> I guess as long as I keep being interesting, I'll have job security.


I laughed reading this..







you are sure good for stimulating conversation!!!... I never breastfed but I can cook for an army.. ..but don't ask me to help with homework... I hate it !! 

And you home schooled when they were small... we all have our pluses & minuses... Dug really wanted those 2 things, laying them out...more than he cared about whipping things up in the kitchen...and you can afford to go out more so... it still works...he's happy ! 

If I didn't cook.. we'd all starve here pretty much...But I'm OK with that....I don't mind at all.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> There are certain freedoms that women who don't work have where kids are concerned.....they can pick them up whenever needed, extracurricular activities are probably easier because they don't have to get off of work.


That was definitely more true when I first started working but these days, I can do whatever I want because I've worked hard to get there.

If I need to leave work to pick my kids up...I leave. With my second baby, I had her at work with me everyday. I used to nurse in my office and had her crib right in there. The benefit to my company was that I was only on maternity leave for 6 days and then was able to take up my programs again.

That's one of the lovely things about more women starting to work...it means that companies have to start make it easier for moms to manage. And studies are finding that if companies do that, there's benefits for both the family and the company. Women are very loyal, hard-workers when their company helps them out during child-rearing years.



> Life is about balances......nobody can have it all.


You're right...there is always a balance. I'm not so sure you can't have it all though. I feel like I have it all but I definitely had to earn it. In my opinion, you can have whatever you want if you're willing to put in the hard work to get it.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

By the way, my director had kids later in life than I did so his kids are younger. Funny enough, he spends more time leaving the office to pick his kids up or combining business trips with hockey events or whatever than any woman in my office does.

I help him out with that all the time. He'll ask me to sub a meeting for him so he can go take one of his kids somewhere at least once a week.

So its not just women managing kids and child-rearing at work. Men do it all the time.


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> I laughed reading this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are sure good for stimulating conversation!!!...


 I have to be good for something! 

I admire gals like Enigma Girl and lifeistooshort and always alone and Ele and others for their tremendous earning capability, their domestic talents, and just their general intelligence and work ethic, among other things. If I had their gifts, I would have undoubtedly have pursued the paths they have. My own daughter is similarly talented, a young engineering student, who also loves to cook and garden and is better with children than I have ever been. I respect her like crazy, too.

I just don't have those gifts. And my life did not take that route. I met Dug fairly young, he explained what he wanted, and I agreed. That is just how it worked out.

Like life said, no one has it all. You just want to make sure you like what you've got.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I admire gals like Enigma Girl and lifeistooshort and always alone and Ele and others for their tremendous earning capability, their domestic talents, and just their general intelligence and work ethic, among other things. If I had their gifts, I would have undoubtedly have pursued the paths they have. My own daughter is similarly talented, a young engineering student, who also loves to cook and garden and is better with children than I have ever been. I respect her like crazy, too.


That's very kind...thank you.

I'm hoping that my daughter goes into engineering also like yours is because its a great field for women to get into and its the same field I work in. But she's not sure if it will suit her personality. 

Ultimately, I've always told my kids though, I don't really care what they do. If they want to be janitors their whole lives, I'd think that was great as long as they were the best janitors they could be, worked their butts off doing it and it made them fulfilled and happy.

But having a daughter in Engineering is awesome...congratulations!


----------



## jld

EnigmaGirl said:


> That's very kind...thank you.
> 
> I'm hoping that my daughter goes into engineering also like yours is because its a great field for women to get into and its the same field I work in. But she's not sure if it will suit her personality.
> 
> Ultimately, I've always told my kids though, I don't really care what they do. If they want to be janitors their whole lives, I'd think that was great as long as they were the best janitors they could be, worked their butts off doing it and it made them fulfilled and happy.
> 
> But having a daughter in Engineering is awesome...congratulations!


Thanks. 

She loves it, EG. ChemE is her passion. She told me she will always work full-time because she loves what she is doing.

She is also clear that she never wants to be dependent on a man. She wants to always feel free to leave. And being financially independent will allow her that freedom.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Thanks.
> 
> She loves it, EG. ChemE is her passion. She told me she will always work full-time because she loves what she is doing.
> 
> She is also clear that she never wants to be dependent on a man. She wants to always feel free to leave. And being financially independent will allow her that freedom.


And the wonderful thing is that she has these choices :smile2:

Without feminism those choices wouldn't exist.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> And the wonderful thing is that she has these choices :smile2:
> 
> *Without feminism those choices wouldn't exist*.


_Exactly,_ Cosmos. 

Feminism has benefitted all of us, women _and_ men. It is humbling to think of the choices and opportunities my daughter will have that my grandmother did not. And that is thanks to the women and men who have fought to make that happen.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> _Exactly,_ Cosmos.
> 
> Feminism has benefitted all of us, women _and_ men. It is humbling to think of the choices and opportunities my daughter will have that my grandmother did not. And that is thanks to the women and men who have fought to make that happen.


Which was the objective of feminism. It's just sad that a bunch of man-hating radicals used it as a platform for their own negativity.

I wish that I'd had just a _fraction_ of the opportunities that are available to young women these days.:wink2:


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Which was the objective of feminism. It's just sad that a bunch of man-hating radicals used it as a platform for their own negativity.
> 
> I wish that I'd had just a _fraction_ of the opportunities that are available to young women these days.:wink2:


I think you did a great job, Cosmos, raising your son on your own, sometimes working three jobs (!) to provide for both of you. He is a very lucky young man to have such a devoted mother. And I am sure he realizes that. 

It is amazing what is possible for women now. I could see my daughter owning her own company someday. 

And that post that EG made about the young woman with the new blood protocols was pretty heartening. Opportunities for women to achieve are benefitting all of us, just as feminists intended.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I think you did a great job, Cosmos, raising your son on your own, sometimes working three jobs (!) to provide for both of you. He is a very lucky young man to have such a devoted mother. And I am sure he realizes that.
> 
> It is amazing what is possible for women now. I could see my daughter owning her own company someday.
> 
> And that post that EG made about the young woman with the new blood protocols was pretty heartening. Opportunities for women to achieve are benefitting all of us, just as feminists intended.


Thanks JLD. It was all worthwhile in the end, and my proudest day was watching my son graduate electronic engineering. He's the best son any mother could hope for. :smile2:

Plus, it's never too late... I'd just turned 60 when for the first time I started studying for a degree!


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Thanks JLD. It was all worthwhile in the end, and my proudest day was watching my son graduate electronic engineering. He's the best son any mother could hope for. :smile2:
> 
> Plus, it's never too late... I'd just turned 60 when for the first time I started studying for a degree!


Wow, Cosmos! I am impressed! Very courageous! 

And your son did a fine job choosing electronic engineering. I am proud of him, too, and I don't even know him!


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cosmos said:


> Which was the objective of feminism. It's just sad that a bunch of man-hating radicals used it as a platform for their own negativity.
> 
> I wish that I'd had just a _fraction_ of the opportunities that are available to young women these days.:wink2:


There's always radicals around. Are all those concerned with mens rights woman haters? Of course not. 

Most of us just want a fair opportunity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

lifeistooshort said:


> There's always radicals around. Are all those concerned with mens rights woman haters? Of course not.
> 
> Most of us just want a fair opportunity.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. It's like saying that such men are all MGTOW-ers.


----------



## MichelleR

I know I said I was done posting on here but I feel compelled to write one more time. I am trying to figure out why Lifeistooshort's comment (sorry I'm new and am ridiculously technologically challenged with copying and pasting in forums) would bother me so much. This not even real life and I’ve never met any of you before but I admit this really did hurt my feelings. I don’t want anyone to feel guilty though because you probably saw me as a petty woman who’s only out for a good fight.


We cannot help but let our own biases form our opinions and direct our attention in different ways. I have not lied on my posts; they are my opinions. But I understand that other people see completely different things based on their experiences. 


I want to give you more background so you get a clearer picture of where I’m coming from. I think it’s very silly and immature of me to even be bothered by all this. However I don’t like it when I think people have very harmful attitudes (maybe I just want the world to be a better place) and I get the impression some of you are disappointed that you think a lazy little entitled princess is out there insulting the inspiring and hard-working women.


My mother started medical school when I was two years old. My father worked and provided for her and paid for her medical school, and then she divorced him immediately after she graduated. I also found out later that she cheated on him, but she ended up marrying him and he is my stepfather. My father had full custody of me during her four years of residency. I know that every story has two sides and although it’s complicated it was very bitter. Nonetheless I saw my father as lonely and abandoned. Since he had full custody and no family in the area, he didn’t even have time to date. He devoted himself to working (he’s a physicist) and taking care of me, but I could tell that he was depressed. I desperately did not want to be alone like him when I grew up. 


Luckily both my parents remarried and my father married my stepmother who is an incredible woman who treats him wonderfully. During high school, I lived more with my mom because she demanded that she have custody of me back. Throughout my whole childhood, I was always naturally shy and well, meek. Both my parents pushed me to be stronger and I always felt like I just wasn’t measuring up to the kind of strong independent girl they wanted me to be. My mother also put immense pressure on me to perform academically, and she wanted me to become a doctor like her. She was also an incredibly difficult person to please. No matter how hard I tried, she was always getting very angry with me. I did really well in school and got into Cornell University. I couldn’t wait to get away from my mom. 


My first year there, I had a serious boyfriend who treated me like his equal, in that he basically treated me just like a man. He never asked me if I was comfortable, never held doors for me, never paid for dates, etc. I felt disappointed but figured it’s the age of equality so I can’t expect any special treatment just because I’m a girl. I got good grades my first year at Cornell but put so much pressure on myself I became bulimic and actually had to drop out.


My dropping out of college was like the worst tragedy my family had ever faced. Every person in my parents’ generation on both sides has a Ph.D., law degree, or M.D. I didn’t know if I would ever go back to college and honestly didn’t even want to because I didn’t think I could take the pressure anymore. 


So then I was living with my mom again to take a medical leave from college. Shortly after I met my husband, my mom got so angry with me over an issue between her, myself, and my father that she refused to speak to me for six years (during which time I got married, graduated from college, and gave birth to my first child). My husband was so refreshing to me. To me he felt safe, strong, and protective. He accepted me even though I was weak and treated me like a lady. He paid for dates, held doors for me, and even let me move in with him after my mother cut me off. He still does little things for me that make me feel taken care of, like if we walk on a sidewalk and hold hands, if a car is coming he tightens his grip. 


My husband ended up supporting me while I worked parttime and went back to school. Eventually we got married and now we have three kids. I really wanted to stay home with my babies, at least when they were all young, but it really isn’t an option. If my husband made more money it would have been but it’s not. I guess you could say it’s my fault for not marrying a richer man if that was such a priority for me, but I really do love him. He has a master’s degree and is extremely hard working and ambitious, and yes he makes more money than me, but it’s not enough for us to go on one income. At this point I’ve come to accept it. As I said earlier, I could have it way worse. Throughout my pregnancies though, women would often ask me at work if I was coming back. I always said yes, after my six weeks off, and every so often an older woman would comment on how ironic it was that feminism changed things. Because when their kids were young, they were able to stay home, whereas today’s mothers seem to have to do everything. 


These days my husband works long hours and I have to work and take care of three kids ages five and under and do most of the chores. I try to be appreciative of him but it is hard. He loves me very much, and he is extremely loving toward the kids, but neither one of us seems to have any downtime. We go on two, maybe three dates a year. We also don’t really have friends of our own. My husband gets along best with women and I get along best with men. Therefore since we’re married, we can’t easily go about finding friends of the opposite sex. Fortunately we both have family in the area that we can visit with.


I hope this maybe gives you some perspective about where I’m coming from. Yes I have made these observations that I put in the posts, and yes I do think that in general the pendulum has swung the other way, but at least now you might think it’s not because I’m just a spoiled princess who thinks she deserves better. I think everyone wants the world to be a better place and feels disappointed when they see people that seem to be preventing progress from happening.


In terms of raising my own children, I try not to empower, pressure, or inspire them in any particular direction. I try to pick up on their interests and follow their lead. My first daughter is extremely headstrong but I think she has great leadership qualities. She is also extremely nurturing and will probably be a great mother someday if she wants to be. My second daughter is only two but more shy than my first daughter. My son is just full of energy and prefers to play with pots and pans and things like cell phones. At work I try not to preach anything to either gender but focus as much as possible on the individual learning needs. Of course I try to be as fair as possible in all areas but of course I’m not perfect.


I feel very ashamed that I have wasted so much time and energy on this forum. I think that the lack of free time and the lack of friends has made me very lonely and I put much more of myself into this than I should have. I really do not have the time to be on here so I think I should go off TAM at least for a while. I actually want to take an internet ban for a while (except at work) because I am wasting too much time. I feel so foolish that I allowed some opinions of women I have never met to bring me down on a Saturday, a precious day I have to spend with my family. I know all of us are doing our very best to be the best people we can be.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> Maybe some overlook or take for granted, but for many it comes down to deciding what is most important. My wife and I decided that the best thing for raising our family would be for her to be a SAHM. Financially one income is perfectly fine for us so it wasn't an issue. Yes there is a risk (the risk being if somehow I lost my job, there is no risk of divorce) with this but *there is also a risk with having my wife work so she can claim "financial independence and not being subservient", *which would mean leaving someone who is not myself or my wife with responsibilities in helping to raise our kids.
> 
> There is no right answer. A SAHP is not subservient and not somehow neglecting their parental responsibilities. Everyone just needs to understand what they feel are the best decisions for themselves and their family, so each situation will be different.


I don't think that in a healthy relationship that a SAHM is subservient. The couple should be a team, each doing their part.

I really don't think that most women work for the reason of "not being subservient". Some work out of need. Some work because they really do want to be active in their career field. Not everyone wants to be a SAHM. Some work because of both reason. I'm sure someone else would come up with other reasons.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> _Exactly,_ Cosmos.
> 
> Feminism has benefitted all of us, women _and_ men. It is humbling to think of the choices and opportunities my daughter will have that my grandmother did not. And that is thanks to the women and men who have fought to make that happen.


You know who else often greatly benefits? It's the people who many think suffer the most when a mother works.. the children.

In my life, my son and my step children would have been in abject poverty were it not for feminism. Some people act as though working for a living is a choice for all women. It's not. Not all women have a husband who willingly fills the breadwinner role or who earns enough to support a family on his own. At least today, when a woman married a man who turns out to be like this she has choices that allow her to take care of her children and keep them out of poverty.

Some people think that women having a good career is an option. It is not for a large segment of women. And this is nothing new, there have always been women who never married, who married men who turned out to be deadbeat, and women who husbands either became disabled or died. 

I am forever thankful to feminism because I, like other women in similar situations, are able to get a good education and a job that actually pays a living wage. And some of us were are able to earn very good wages. 

Seems good all around.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that in a healthy relationship that a SAHM is subservient.


I agree that assumed subservience is a risky and often unhealthy idea. 

Persuading someone, or being persuaded, that one idea is more logical than another is very useful. Our mental saws are sharpened by an intellectually honest debate. We can benefit from adopting the wisest ideas.

But being forced to cower and meekly beg to have one's opinion even considered, because of an unearned power differential, seems unhealthy to me. And I think it is bound to result in a loss of respect for the one who has to be approached so carefully, lest their pride be hurt.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> You know who else often greatly benefits? It's the people who many think suffer the most when a mother works.. the children.
> 
> In my life, my son and my step children would have been in abject poverty were it not for feminism. Some people act as though working for a living is a choice for all women. It's not. Not all women have a husband who willingly fills the breadwinner role or who earns enough to support a family on his own. At least today, when a woman married a man who turns out to be like this she has choices that allow her to take care of her children and keep them out of poverty.


Very true, Ele.

Had my own mother not had the intelligence and ability to hold down a good job, goodness knows what would have become of her 6 children. My father used to top up what my mother's salary couldn't pay for, then he gallantly utilised the rest to fund his bachelor lifestyle...

Not all women had or have the choice of whether or not to be breadwinners. But when they are, one rarely hears people going around singing their praises...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

My husband ended up supporting me while I worked parttime and went back to school. Eventually we got married and now we have three kids. I really wanted to stay home with my babies, at least when they were all young, but it really isn’t an option. If my husband made more money it would have been but it’s not. I guess you could say it’s my fault for not marrying a richer man if that was such a priority for me, but I really do love him. He has a master’s degree and is extremely hard working and ambitious, and yes he makes more money than me, but it’s not enough for us to go on one income. At this point I’ve come to accept it. As I said earlier, I could have it way worse. Throughout my pregnancies though, women would often ask me at work if I was coming back. I always said yes, after my six weeks off, and every so often an older woman would comment on how ironic it was that feminism changed things. Because when their kids were young, they were able to stay home, whereas today’s mothers seem to have to do everything. 

I understand where you're coming from. Really I don't think this is a feminist thing but the fact that the cost of living has risen further than the wages have been able to keep up with making it necessary to have 2 parent households a lot of times. 

But I strongly am in favour of the mat leave system we have here in Canada. 

12 months off- you can share it with your husband or take it all yourself. Your job is held and you get roughly half what you were making at work. 
Gives you time to breastfeed, heal.
6 weeks in I had barely stopped bleeding, my breasts were leaking and painful, I still wasn't sleeping more than an hour at a time.

It's funny because you see the teachers at the school, all plan their babies for the summer (always a few of them very pregnant on the last day) so they can take their year off without dealing with subs and doing half years. 

These benefits to me are very feminist. Because it's giving more women the choice and ability to both stay home when their babies are young and continue working when they need to. It's equal because if Dad wants some mat leave time, he can take it too. 

I took 14 months and I needed every second of them. When I went back to work, I was ready.

I hate that you are forced into your situation just as much as I hate thinking of a woman forced into a SAHM situation.


----------



## soccermom2three

Michelle, how does feminism require that you work?

I don't see the connection. 

The reason you have to work is economic. Cost of living where you live, living beyond your means or your husband doesn't make enough, etc.


----------



## soccermom2three

Also I know what your feeling. I had to go back to work after my two oldest kids were born. I really wanted to stay home with my babies but we just couldn't afford at the time. It was a killer to drop them off everyday and leave them.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that in a healthy relationship that a SAHM is subservient. The couple should be a team, each doing their part.
> 
> I really don't think that most women work for the reason of "not being subservient". Some work out of need. Some work because they really do want to be active in their career field. Not everyone wants to be a SAHM. Some work because of both reason. I'm sure someone else would come up with other reasons.


I only mentioned "subservient" since it was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, which I obviously don't agree with.


----------



## SolidSnake

MichelleR said:


> I know I said I was done posting on here but I feel compelled to write one more time. I am trying to figure out why Lifeistooshort's comment (sorry I'm new and am ridiculously technologically challenged with copying and pasting in forums) would bother me so much. This not even real life and I’ve never met any of you before but I admit this really did hurt my feelings. I don’t want anyone to feel guilty though because you probably saw me as a petty woman who’s only out for a good fight.
> 
> 
> We cannot help but let our own biases form our opinions and direct our attention in different ways. I have not lied on my posts; they are my opinions. But I understand that other people see completely different things based on their experiences.
> 
> 
> I want to give you more background so you get a clearer picture of where I’m coming from. I think it’s very silly and immature of me to even be bothered by all this. However I don’t like it when I think people have very harmful attitudes (maybe I just want the world to be a better place) and I get the impression some of you are disappointed that you think a lazy little entitled princess is out there insulting the inspiring and hard-working women.
> 
> 
> My mother started medical school when I was two years old. My father worked and provided for her and paid for her medical school, and then she divorced him immediately after she graduated. I also found out later that she cheated on him, but she ended up marrying him and he is my stepfather. My father had full custody of me during her four years of residency. I know that every story has two sides and although it’s complicated it was very bitter. Nonetheless I saw my father as lonely and abandoned. Since he had full custody and no family in the area, he didn’t even have time to date. He devoted himself to working (he’s a physicist) and taking care of me, but I could tell that he was depressed. I desperately did not want to be alone like him when I grew up.
> 
> 
> Luckily both my parents remarried and my father married my stepmother who is an incredible woman who treats him wonderfully. During high school, I lived more with my mom because she demanded that she have custody of me back. Throughout my whole childhood, I was always naturally shy and well, meek. Both my parents pushed me to be stronger and I always felt like I just wasn’t measuring up to the kind of strong independent girl they wanted me to be. My mother also put immense pressure on me to perform academically, and she wanted me to become a doctor like her. She was also an incredibly difficult person to please. No matter how hard I tried, she was always getting very angry with me. I did really well in school and got into Cornell University. I couldn’t wait to get away from my mom.
> 
> 
> My first year there, I had a serious boyfriend who treated me like his equal, in that he basically treated me just like a man. He never asked me if I was comfortable, never held doors for me, never paid for dates, etc. I felt disappointed but figured it’s the age of equality so I can’t expect any special treatment just because I’m a girl. I got good grades my first year at Cornell but put so much pressure on myself I became bulimic and actually had to drop out.
> 
> 
> My dropping out of college was like the worst tragedy my family had ever faced. Every person in my parents’ generation on both sides has a Ph.D., law degree, or M.D. I didn’t know if I would ever go back to college and honestly didn’t even want to because I didn’t think I could take the pressure anymore.
> 
> 
> So then I was living with my mom again to take a medical leave from college. Shortly after I met my husband, my mom got so angry with me over an issue between her, myself, and my father that she refused to speak to me for six years (during which time I got married, graduated from college, and gave birth to my first child). My husband was so refreshing to me. To me he felt safe, strong, and protective. He accepted me even though I was weak and treated me like a lady. He paid for dates, held doors for me, and even let me move in with him after my mother cut me off. He still does little things for me that make me feel taken care of, like if we walk on a sidewalk and hold hands, if a car is coming he tightens his grip.
> 
> 
> My husband ended up supporting me while I worked parttime and went back to school. Eventually we got married and now we have three kids. I really wanted to stay home with my babies, at least when they were all young, but it really isn’t an option. If my husband made more money it would have been but it’s not. I guess you could say it’s my fault for not marrying a richer man if that was such a priority for me, but I really do love him. He has a master’s degree and is extremely hard working and ambitious, and yes he makes more money than me, but it’s not enough for us to go on one income. At this point I’ve come to accept it. As I said earlier, I could have it way worse. Throughout my pregnancies though, women would often ask me at work if I was coming back. I always said yes, after my six weeks off, and every so often an older woman would comment on how ironic it was that feminism changed things. Because when their kids were young, they were able to stay home, whereas today’s mothers seem to have to do everything.
> 
> 
> These days my husband works long hours and I have to work and take care of three kids ages five and under and do most of the chores. I try to be appreciative of him but it is hard. He loves me very much, and he is extremely loving toward the kids, but neither one of us seems to have any downtime. We go on two, maybe three dates a year. We also don’t really have friends of our own. My husband gets along best with women and I get along best with men. Therefore since we’re married, we can’t easily go about finding friends of the opposite sex. Fortunately we both have family in the area that we can visit with.
> 
> 
> I hope this maybe gives you some perspective about where I’m coming from. Yes I have made these observations that I put in the posts, and yes I do think that in general the pendulum has swung the other way, but at least now you might think it’s not because I’m just a spoiled princess who thinks she deserves better. I think everyone wants the world to be a better place and feels disappointed when they see people that seem to be preventing progress from happening.
> 
> 
> In terms of raising my own children, I try not to empower, pressure, or inspire them in any particular direction. I try to pick up on their interests and follow their lead. My first daughter is extremely headstrong but I think she has great leadership qualities. She is also extremely nurturing and will probably be a great mother someday if she wants to be. My second daughter is only two but more shy than my first daughter. My son is just full of energy and prefers to play with pots and pans and things like cell phones. At work I try not to preach anything to either gender but focus as much as possible on the individual learning needs. Of course I try to be as fair as possible in all areas but of course I’m not perfect.
> 
> 
> I feel very ashamed that I have wasted so much time and energy on this forum. I think that the lack of free time and the lack of friends has made me very lonely and I put much more of myself into this than I should have. I really do not have the time to be on here so I think I should go off TAM at least for a while. I actually want to take an internet ban for a while (except at work) because I am wasting too much time. I feel so foolish that I allowed some opinions of women I have never met to bring me down on a Saturday, a precious day I have to spend with my family. I know all of us are doing our very best to be the best people we can be.


Don't feel bad, you seem a glorious person. This forum has some great people but it has a very judgmental vibe much of the time.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Michelle, for what it's worth I don't think you're an lazy, entitled princess. I used to teach and I know what it's like.....teachers are not lazy. Well I suppose a few are but lazy people can't manage in the field.

I have no doubt that if you were to be a sahm you would not be lazy.

And since you've stroked a bunch of male egos here by agreeing they're poor victims who nobody appreciates it's no surprise that many are here to defend you.....though I'll admit I consider it hysterical that some of us (or maybe just me) are accused of being judgemental.

You come here and make blanket statements about feminists.....that we hate/don't appreciate men, we're not feminine, we're not real vulnerable women,we're not subservient like women should be, etc and then come back to complain that your feeling are hurt. You know what? If you're going to dish it out you need to be able to take it. Those are pretty judgmental, nasty comments to make, especially for one so sensitive.

The pendulum always swings during social change but that's the natural way of things. I'm not sure you understand that this is necessary to effect social change because so many cling to the status quo, but eventually the pendulum will settle at equilibrium and settle down. It's the same reason there were radical black groups.....because nobody willingly gave them their fundamental rights are citizens.

It's good you love your husband and he's a great guy but feminists have nothing to do with your hb's inability to make enough money to allow you to stay home. Many women find them themselves in this situation and it's economic in nature. The older women you refer to think like they do because their default position was in the home and it was the husband's responsibility to figure out how to make enough money.....it never occurred to anyone then that the wife should get a job. Maybe that's the world you'd prefer, I really don't know.

Frankly we're all fortunate that this is the nature of our issues.....not that our kids are starving or in physical danger like they are in parts of the world.

But don't think you can come here and make nasty comments about others and then get your feelings hurt when some respond.

If you wish to have an exchange of ideas by all means, but that's not what you have done.

And you know what? You don't know any of us and yet you make such comments anyway. I happen to have a husband and two sons....men are the center of my world. How is that if I don't appreciate them?

And I think my husband would disagree that I'm not feminine.....but since you like to make blanket statements I wouldn't expect you to consider that.

And you know what? Prepare to be shocked.....but I handle most of the chores during the week even though I make more then hubby because I get home a little earlier and I just have more capacity to do them. I have no issue with this.....marriage isn't always going to be 50/50, but you hope that in the end it balances out. He picks up a lot of slack on the weekends while I tend to be a little lazy. That's what we do as partners, we give what we have to give.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

soccermom2three said:


> Michelle, how does feminism require that you work?
> 
> I don't see the connection.
> 
> The reason you have to work is economic. Cost of living where you live, living beyond your means or your husband doesn't make enough, etc.


Not answering for Michelle here... reading her story though.. it seems more of a pressured Family expectation-that she LIVE UP TO the rest of them, and they all sound like they have very high class lifestyles, all have Masters Degrees +..... she probably feels like the black sheep, or the outcast...the one who didn't bring home the medal.. or what does she have to offer in achievements at the Holiday gatherings... 

VERY VERY intelligent genes she comes from, another family like Jld's... ALL BRAINS... Jld was saying how her son just decided to build his own computer.. he's 12 yrs old! Very typical EASY project for her 12 yr old I guess.. Amazing.. 

Then I mentally compare our kids...well...hmmm...our 24 yr old has JUST STARTING building computers...we let him build us one a month ago & paid him..

I mean, he's proud he finally can do it himself.. he's learning... but really it's so common, insignificant -certainly not anything to get excited about. 

This is one pressure I personally never had to deal with (with family anyway)... I don't envy Michelle's situation at all ......

I worked for a Financial Planner when I was 18... he was always trying to talk me into going to college, he wanted me to become a Paralegal... he was the 1st & most adamant that I would be wasting my life if I just got married & had children.... I remember arguing with him over this.. I really didn't want to do that... the passion just wasn't there....I knew he was a little disappointed in me.. 

Looking back.. I worried A LOT that we'd be able to manage on his income..why I kept working ... But we did so good.. never bounced a check, never late on a bill.. debt free before our last son.. We would be considered "middle class" though...according to this website anyway.... A Handy Calculator to Figure Out If You?re Really Middle Class | TakePart

I get the strong feeling many posters on this forum are HIGH CLASS, making over 100,000 a year.... and there is a separation of lifestyles for sure... 

When we meet others like this... I just automatically assume they would not accept our kind, or look down on us in some ways ...our vehicles are older, we don't belong to country clubs, we may not care if our kitchen or bathroom needs updated.. a country homey feeling is enough for us.. we'd probably opt to take a family vacation 1st...sometimes you just can't do them both. 

I can say for sure.. had we not watched how we spent our money.. there is no way in the world I'd have been able to stay home. (And we live in a lower cost area for sure)... Those were our sacrifices....


----------



## lifeistooshort

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not answering for Michelle here... reading her story though.. it seems more of a pressured Family expectation-that she LIVE UP TO the rest of them, and they all sound like they have very high class lifestyles, all have Masters Degrees +..... she probably feels like the black sheep, or the outcast...the one who didn't bring home the medal.. or what does she have to offer in achievements at the Holiday gatherings...
> 
> VERY VERY intelligent genes she comes from, another family like Jld's... ALL BRAINS... Jld was saying how her son just decided to build his own computer.. he's 12 yrs old! Very typical EASY project for her 12 yr old I guess.. Amazing..
> 
> Then I mentally compare our kids...well...hmmm...our 24 yr old has JUST STARTING building computers...we let him build us one a month ago & paid him..
> 
> I mean, he's proud he finally can do it himself.. he's learning... but really it's so common, insignificant -certainly not anything to get excited about.
> 
> This is one pressure I personally never had to deal with (with family anyway)... I don't envy Michelle's situation at all ......
> 
> I worked for a Financial Planner when I was 18... he was always trying to talk me into going to college, he wanted me to become a Paralegal... he was the 1st & most adamant that I would be wasting my life if I just got married & had children.... I remember arguing with him over this.. I really didn't want to do that... the passion just wasn't there....I knew he was a little disappointed in me..
> 
> Looking back.. I worried A LOT that we'd be able to manage on his income..why I kept working ... But we did so good.. never bounced a check, never late on a bill.. debt free before our last son.. We would be considered "middle class" though...according to this website anyway.... A Handy Calculator to Figure Out If You?re Really Middle Class | TakePart
> 
> I get the strong feeling many posters on this forum are HIGH CLASS, making over 100,000 a year.... and there is a separation of lifestyles for sure...
> 
> When we meet others like this... *I just automatically assume they would not accept our kind, or look down on us in some ways ...our vehicles are older, we don't belong to country clubs, we may not care if our kitchen or bathroom needs updated.. a country homey feeling is enough for us.. we'd probably opt to take a family vacation 1st...sometimes you just can't do them both. *
> 
> I can say for sure.. had we not watched how we spent our money.. there is no way in the world I'd have been able to stay home. (And we live in a lower cost area for sure)... Those were our sacrifices....


You probably shouldn't make the assumption; we are one of those couples who combined are well over 100K, but we do not belong to a country club. We do have somewhat newer vehicles because we're not mechanics and we need reliable transportation, but they are not exactly sportscars. We live in a nice area mainly because the school system here is one of the best in the country so we made that happen.

I was raised by a stereotypical cheap Jewish guy so my standards are actually quite low and I don't require much to be happy.....we save a lot and I just happen to make good money because I fell into a nerd field that pays well and I really enjoy it. But I also have an older husband and thus might not want to work until I'm retirement age.....I want to be able to have time to do things with him.

It's a mistake to assume people with a little more money look down on "your kind". You never know what their circumstances are.

I make money now but my family growing up was very blue collar and I'm still of that mindset.


----------



## Kivlor

SimplyAmorous said:


> I get the strong feeling many posters on this forum are HIGH CLASS, making over 100,000 a year.... and there is a separation of lifestyles for sure...
> 
> When we meet others like this... I just automatically assume they would not accept our kind, or look down on us in some ways ...our vehicles are older, we don't belong to country clubs, we may not care if our kitchen or bathroom needs updated.. a country homey feeling is enough for us.. we'd probably opt to take a family vacation 1st...sometimes you just can't do them both.
> 
> I can say for sure.. had we not watched how we spent our money.. there is no way in the world I'd have been able to stay home. (And we live in a lower cost area for sure)... Those were our sacrifices....


I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I'm in the upper end, and I've surrounded myself with very wealthy folks. None of them look down on people who make less than them. None of them belong to country clubs, or spend much money on cars--they usually own cars ~8-12 years old. 

They didn't get wealthy by flaunting their money. They got wealthy by not spending it. And the very wealthy people I know don't mock people who make little or have little, they mock people who spend on frivolity; people who "deserve" a new phone or car; because those people will not likely be wealthy for long.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Kivlor said:


> I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I'm in the upper end, and I've surrounded myself with very wealthy folks. None of them look down on people who make less than them. None of them belong to country clubs, or spend much money on cars--they usually own cars ~8-12 years old.
> 
> They didn't get wealthy by flaunting their money. They got wealthy by not spending it. And the very wealthy people I know don't mock people who make little or have little, they mock people who spend on frivolity; p*eople who "deserve" a new phone or car; because those people will not likely be wealthy for long*.


Very true. I know within my own family my two sisters are always crying broke, but one of them won't work and the other does work but is entitled to the finer things in life that working for the waffle house won't provide.

She once had the gall to tell me that the difference between us (as if there's only one) was that if she wanted $100 shoes she was buying them. I said for sure, because I pay my bills and save first and if there's money life I might consider shoes if I really want them, but I don't require stuff to make me happy. She does.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I'm in the upper end, and I've surrounded myself with very wealthy folks. None of them look down on people who make less than them. None of them belong to country clubs, or spend much money on cars--they usually own cars ~8-12 years old.
> 
> They didn't get wealthy by flaunting their money. They got wealthy by not spending it. And the very wealthy people I know don't mock people who make little or have little, they mock people who spend on frivolity; people who "deserve" a new phone or car; because those people will not likely be wealthy for long.


 I can understand this ...we THINK very much like this ourselves... both our vehicles are 17 yrs old.. ha ha but ya know.. I got this last one a Steal.. $2,000 for a 1997 Buick Century 88,000 miles.. NO RUST on that body.. the darn thing looks new.. that's my car.. and I'm proud of it. 

I'll be honest...I think rather critically on those who frivolously waste ..earning enough to meet their bills, obligations ..but can't seem to live within their means, $ burning a hole in their pockets just because it touches their hands... I couldn't marry someone like this - I'd have their head ! 

If we were high earners.. so much would be socked away...he might be retired now (but then there is health insurance).... I believe we'd still live low key.. When the guys at work go on about their wives spending, my H tells them he's never had to worry ...then adds - "My wife can squeeze a dime out of a nickle"... I like that ! 


lifeistooshort said:


> Very true. I know within my own family my two sisters are always crying broke, but one of them won't work and the other does work but is entitled to the finer things in life that working for the waffle house won't provide.


 It's difficult to be around this.. especially if some start to feel they can ask for loans...like since we have it.. we can spare it... 
We have a rule... we don't do Loans...anyone who needs one -chances are will NEVER pay it back...that causes bad blood...We have helped friends in need.. but only those who aren't wasteful....If they can pay $100 a month for cell plans... then they can meet that bill, ya know. 



> She once had the gall to tell me that the difference between us (as if there's only one) was that if she wanted $100 shoes she was buying them. I said for sure, because I pay my bills and save first and if there's money life I might consider shoes if I really want them, but I don't require stuff to make me happy. She does.


 We had a friend talk to us similar one time.. I kinda laughed at him.. because he was always the broke one too... a few yrs later.. he admitted he was foolish & he's learned a lot about money management from us. So that was cool...



lifeistooshort said:


> You probably shouldn't make the assumption; we are one of those couples who combined are well over 100K, but we do not belong to a country club. We do have somewhat newer vehicles because we're not mechanics and we need reliable transportation, but they are not exactly sportscars. We live in a nice area mainly because the school system here is one of the best in the country so we made that happen.
> 
> I was raised by a stereotypical cheap Jewish guy so my standards are actually quite low and I don't require much to be happy.....we save a lot and I just happen to make good money because I fell into a nerd field that pays well and I really enjoy it. But I also have an older husband and thus might not want to work until I'm retirement age.....I want to be able to have time to do things with him.
> 
> It's a mistake to assume people with a little more money look down on "your kind". You never know what their circumstances are.
> 
> *I make money now but my family growing up was very blue collar and I'm still of that mindset.*


Well it's good to hear you feel that way ..Having grew up like this probably helps.. 

One of our sons best friends has 2 working high earning parents... he was the Brain of the senior class last year #1, I joke he'll he a CEO someday & he can hire our sons... many times he'd be over our house.. we'd find ourselves in these little debates.. .... one day, curious I asked him .. KNOWING he was never raised with a SAHM - how he'd feel if his wife wanted to stay home....He admitted that would be "just WEIRD" for him...he admitted he'd expect his wife to work full time ...

I concluded... because it's never been his experience.. I appreciated his honesty.. 

Now if anyone asked our sons.. they'd all BE for marrying a woman with her staying home with the kids.. as they, too, have enjoyed this lifestyle ....it's normal for them.. It was normal for my husband...Probably why he embraced it.. On occasion.. he has spoken of a friend he grew up with where no one was ever home... this kid got into all kinds of trouble, wanted him to help him rob a place even.... just seeing that -it affected him to feel it's best for kids to have a mom at home (his reasoning back then).. he admitted to this thinking process.. 

So all this talk about choice ....well sure I guess it's a choice.. but it really is a belittled one....It doesn't matter if we're happy & we can make it.. this is what I rest in.. I have to...

For me.. the day a conservative SAH mother can be a spokesperson for FEMINISM ....well.. I'd just like to see that..One with some popularity behind her... One thing I know is this.. I don't see any radicals on this side of feminism....

But yes...culture has changed , the pendulum has knocked down most everything Traditional and it damn well ain't coming back...and now .. in the words of our son's friend.. women staying home - it's "Just weird"....it's not accepted so much anymore.

When those of us speak our peace.. it's THIS that is bothersome.. the pressure to conform.. Oh we can live with it... but it makes us feel ostracized...to some degree. That's all.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> So all this talk about choice ....well sure I guess it's a choice.. but it really is a belittled one....It doesn't matter if we're happy & we can make it.. this is what I rest in.. I have to...


I am sure that there are some people who 'belittle' SHAM's.

I am sure that there are some people who 'belittle' women who work.

I've seen both happen. But most people do not do either. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> For me.. the day a conservative SAH mother can be a spokesperson for FEMINISM ....well.. I'd just like to see that..One with some popularity behind her... One thing I know is this.. I don't see any radicals on this side of feminism....


Do you know why you will most likely never see a conservative or liberal SAHM be a spokesperson for FEMINISM? Because as soon as she takes on the status of spokesperson, she will be working full time to run her blog, write articles, give presentations, etc. And she will be handsomely paid for it.

But what you will find are a lot of working women who are feminists who were SAHMs at some time in their lives. 

Also, there are no actual feminist “spokespersons” as there is not organization that speaks for all women, not even all feminists. Most of who people might think of as feminist spokesperson are self-appointed.

So any woman who wants to be the SAHM feminist spokesperson can do it if she works hard enough to get a large number of people to pay attention to her. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> But yes...culture has changed , the pendulum has knocked down most everything Traditional and it damn well ain't coming back...and now .. in the words of our son's friend.. women staying home - it's "Just weird"....it's not accepted so much anymore.


So that kid said that a woman staying home is ‘just weird’. Your sons would say that it’s normal. So why does the words of one kid count for so much.



SimplyAmorous said:


> When those of us speak our peace.. it's THIS that is bothersome.. the pressure to conform.. Oh we can live with it... but it makes us feel ostracized...to some degree. That's all.


Who is trying to get you to conform? Who is trying to force you to do anything that you have chosen to do?


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> You probably shouldn't make the assumption;


Yep, shouldn't make that assumption.

I make over 100K.

I bought a house a year ago in a normal middle class neighborhood. It was a foreclosure so I got it at deep discount. It needs work which I'm doing slowly. I'll refinish the kitchen and bathroom cabinets to save the money of a remodel.. as an example.

I grow most of my own veggies to save money and for better quality. I do most of my own yardwork on a 1/2 acre lot. I almost never eat out. And I cook almost everything from scratch.

My car is as 2012, but only because in 2012 some idiot t-boned my 2000 Celica and totaled it. My son drives a 2000 vehicle. I also have a 2002 pickup that I use for yard, garden, dogs, etc.

My son has lived at home all through college because I will not pay for the dorm. He did not qualify for any financial aid because of my income (that's a benefit of a higher income  ).

I only buy clothing on deep discount. I buy a lot of things at thrift stores. Lost month a found a beautiful leather coat at a thrift shop for $25. I found them online for $400. Not bad! 

Almost all of my furniture is over 45 years old as it used to be my mother's. (it is beautiful furniture so I'm not complaining at all.)

I cut my own hair and do my own nails.

I take good care of what I do have so nothing looks old or ratty. That's the key, few possessions and take care of them.

I certainly do not belong to any country club. 

And the ONLY debt I have is the mortgage on this house. 

I could care less how much a person makes. What I care about is if they are good, loving people. 


.


----------



## sapientia

MichelleR said:


> Sapientia your issue about princesses and shining knights will be hard to overcome. *Children naturally gravitate toward those things. * It's not forced on them, it's preferred by them. Little girls like princesses and boys like to be the heroes. *You act like you want all men and women to be exactly the same *and we are not and there's nothing wrong with that.


No, they do not *naturally* gravitate to princess and shining knights. Those concepts are taught.

The best data to date shows that young females have a preference for faces and young males a preference for moving parts.

It is a large leap from that to knights and princesses.

Finally, I never said that men and women should be the same, much less *exactly* the same. That is a stupid statement to make. Clearly, anyone with eyeballs (or a PCR machine, like me) can see they are quite different.

If you want to discuss my statements, please don't generalize. I appreciate precision. Thanks.


----------



## sapientia

A bit dated but an interesting read

https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy


----------



## Cosmos

It intrigues me the way some individuals hurl out judgments and insults, then decide to play victim by blaming the recipients of _their _ire when _their own_ feelings get hurt! 

Quite a little Drama Triangle you've had going on here, Michelle...


----------



## SolidSnake

What does working have to do with feminism? Well, second wave feminism, which arguable started with the publication of the Feminine Mystique, did emphasize that the talents of many women are wasted when they stay home by default. The movement had the positive effect of allowing women to work in fields that are not teacher, nurse or secretary. But, call me a cynic, it also had the negative effect of rapidly expanding the tax base while inflation of the money supply has simultaneously devalued the dollar, forcing people who would rather stay home to work, which isn't necessarily good for families. 

Its true that we women now have more choices. But I find it sad that any party who would rather stay home cannot because of economic concerns. Its sad Michelle R can't stay home but wants to. Its also sad that my husband, who would like to be a SAHD, can't stay home with our son because he is the breadwinner. Just as sad as a women in the 1950s who was confined to the home because of lack of opportunity. 

Most reasonable people today respect a women's choice to either work or stay home. But there is a certain disdain for SAHMs among old school second wave feminists with high powered careers like Hillary Clinton. One of her former State dpt staffers, Anne Marie Slaughter, wrote this revealing piece, Why Women Still Can?t Have It All - The Atlantic. 

Mind you, these staffers routinely work 14 hour days. This woman's fall back career, was a as a Princeton Professor. Yet she was still harshly criticized by Clinton and other women in that sphere for taking a less demanding job for family reasons and writing this piece. Then she back peddled, when faced with criticism that her message was "disempowering," to young women.

I feel that she is just being realistic...we are all stretched pretty thin today. You really can't have it all. If one spouse has a high powered career, its because the other one is picking up more slack at home.


----------



## jld

SolidSnake said:


> If one spouse has a high powered career, its because the other one is picking up more slack at home.


I agree with this. And I think it is unfortunate that alimony is being phased out.

SS, would you like to be the breadwinner? Is that a realistic possibility?


----------



## SolidSnake

jld said:


> I agree with this. And I think it is unfortunate that alimony is being phased out.
> 
> SS, would you like to be the breadwinner? Is that a realistic possibility?


I wouldn't mind being breadwinner at some point, but NOT with babies and young children at home. I'm breastfeeding...of course my husband agrees it makes sense for me to be primary caregiver. I actually enjoy that role, and managing the household too.

Having him quit to stay home creates more problems than it solves. He makes a lot more. 

I'm a librarian and since public libraries offer night and weekend hours, I'm able to work part time while he watches our son. It works out well. We feel it is ideal for our son the be cared for at home by his relatives. 

Of course he has had to take on more of the bills, and I respect him for that. He is a great father and provider.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> I am sure that there are some people who 'belittle' SHAM's.


 I'm not seeing much of that on this thread.. just a few examples here & there... but not personal put downs so much...thankfully...

I think this post gets to the heart of it though.... 



lifeistooshort said:


> We all get that. * I've seen far more judgement from sahm's. *.... *more then once I've been the recipient of how they're raising their kids and not allowing someone else to do it, and in a nice little snide tone, insinuating of course that I'm not*.
> 
> I see the same thing here, that children need their mother and the right thing to do is have a parent home.
> 
> *That's their opinion and they're entitled to it.*
> 
> But as I said their approval is not required.
> 
> And your right to do it is respected, but people will have opinions. Be careful not to confuse having opinions with not respecting your right to your own choices.
> 
> Those who are comfortable in their choices see no need to defend what they do. I feel just fine about my choices and my kids are doing great.
> 
> I will say though that when I did stay home I noticed that people tended to talk down to me, which I never get now. Almost like they assumed that if I was smart there's no way I'd be home.


Which is all I am trying to point out.. *there is a divide.. both feel the judgement.*...to acknowledge that, bring it up in these threads is all I am doing... it's unsettling to feel others "look down on us" ...I am just being realistic.......I don't have my head in the sand here.... I have accepted the fact ... this is how it will always be.... 

I don't necessary like it.. but it's life.... this was also said... & I fully agree with her >>


lifeistooshort said:


> Now there are feminists that don't understand why a woman would want to stay at home given the options we have but feminism is at it's core about having options to make your own decisions, which women didn't always have. And in a free society it's not required that everyone agree with your choices, only that they respect that they are in fact your choices.


 So it's back to what I have often said.. when I come into contact with someone professing feminism.. I need to gauge if she is one of those who will look down on me for not being as ambitious as she is.... or that I will just plain be "misunderstood " why in the hell would I want to depend on a man.. am I crazy ???

Now if I get this vibe in any way..(just as if they get a vibe they are being judged- and true.. we're all going to defend ourselves - I don't want to look STUPID any more than she wants to look like she puts $$ before her children)....

but Yeah.. if I get this Vibe from another woman...I want nothing to do with her.. just as she would want nothing to do with me -if I tried to make her feel guilt in some way -for not living my lifestyle.

I am just acknowledging the 2 really don't mix.. unless the women are just damn good people who can look past the differences... I think I am one of those. but still... I will be sensitive if I feel another woman looks down on me.. just as any of you would also...



EleGirl said:


> Yep, shouldn't make that assumption.
> 
> I make over 100K.
> 
> I bought a house a year ago in a normal middle class neighborhood. It was a foreclosure so I got it at deep discount. It needs work which I'm doing slowly. I'll refinish the kitchen and bathroom cabinets to save the money of a remodel.. as an example.
> 
> I grow most of my own veggies to save money and for better quality. I do most of my own yardwork on a 1/2 acre lot. I almost never eat out. And I cook almost everything from scratch.
> 
> My car is as 2012, but only because in 2012 some idiot t-boned my 2000 Celica and totaled it. My son drives a 2000 vehicle. I also have a 2002 pickup that I use for yard, garden, dogs, etc.
> 
> My son has lived at home all through college because I will not pay for the dorm. He did not qualify for any financial aid because of my income (that's a benefit of a higher income  ).
> 
> I only buy clothing on deep discount. I buy a lot of things at thrift stores. Lost month a found a beautiful leather coat at a thrift shop for $25. I found them online for $400. Not bad!
> 
> Almost all of my furniture is over 45 years old as it used to be my mother's. (it is beautiful furniture so I'm not complaining at all.)
> 
> I cut my own hair and do my own nails.
> 
> I take good care of what I do have so nothing looks old or ratty. That's the key, few possessions and take care of them.
> 
> I certainly do not belong to any country club.
> 
> And the ONLY debt I have is the mortgage on this house.
> 
> I could care less how much a person makes. What I care about is if they are good, loving people.
> .


I can't tell you how much I respect all that Elegirl...We have a lot more in common than I would have ever imagined !  



> So that kid said that a woman staying home is ‘just weird’. Your sons would say that it’s normal. So why does the words of one kid count for so much.


 Only because he represents the majority view today.. because society has changed so much.. it's similar to - the idea of marriage.. how it's just no longer needed...or wanted by many... 

I find that sad .. but not everyone feels like me.. of course... It's just an opinion..


----------



## jld

SolidSnake said:


> I wouldn't mind being breadwinner at some point, but NOT with babies and young children at home. I'm breastfeeding...of course my husband agrees it makes sense for me to be primary caregiver. I actually enjoy that role, and managing the household too.
> 
> Having him quit to stay home creates more problems than it solves. He makes a lot more.
> 
> I'm a librarian and since public libraries offer night and weekend hours, I'm able to work part time while he watches our son. It works out well. We feel it is ideal for our son the be cared for at home by his relatives.
> 
> Of course he has had to take on more of the bills, and I respect him for that. He is a great father and provider.


That sounds like a good arrangement, SS. I think I would have enjoyed something like that.

Thanks for linking that article. I found this passage interesting:

_Still, the proposition that women can have high-powered careers as long as their husbands or partners are willing to share the parenting load equally (or disproportionately) assumes that most women will feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children, as long as their partner is home with them. In my experience, that is simply not the case.

Here I step onto treacherous ground, mined with stereotypes. From years of conversations and observations, however, I’ve come to believe that men and women respond quite differently when problems at home force them to recognize that their absence is hurting a child, or at least that their presence would likely help. I do not believe fathers love their children any less than mothers do, but men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job._

I have not read the comments on the article yet. I bet the above got some reaction, though.


----------



## SadSamIAm

always_alone said:


> I joined this thread as what I suppose is a non-traditional breadwinner.
> 
> No one ever thanks me for going to work, but at the same time, no one doubts that if something happens, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
> 
> I don't really see how it's possible to overlook the importance of having some income...


I think it comes with having someone else provide the income for 30 years.


----------



## jld

SadSamIAm said:


> I think it comes with having someone else provide the income for 30 years.


Has that been your experience, Sam?


----------



## naiveonedave

sapientia said:


> No, they do not *naturally* gravitate to princess and shining knights. Those concepts are taught.
> 
> The best data to date shows that young females have a preference for faces and young males a preference for moving parts.
> 
> It is a large leap from that to knights and princesses.


There is not concrete proof in either direction about learned vs innate for almost anything. I tend to think innate is much more prevalent. Or innate allows for some learned behavior.

Based on what I saw with my kids, it is totally innate. Maybe not the KISA, but to be the provider...


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> _
> 
> Here I step onto treacherous ground, mined with stereotypes. From years of conversations and observations, however, I’ve come to believe that men and women respond quite differently when problems at home force them to recognize that their absence is hurting a child, or at least that their presence would likely help.* I do not believe fathers love their children any less than mothers do, but men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job.*_


I must say that I have noticed this quite a lot, but I'm not sure if it's as simple as:


> "men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job."


Even today I think that it's more acceptable to many employers for a mother to take time off to care for sick children than it is for men, and I think this places enormous pressure on both...

I remember working with a property attorney whose children were _forever_ catching colds or tummy bugs. No matter what important / high end transactions were taking place that required her presence in the office, her H (who had a much less prestigious position) _refused_ point blank to take the kids to the doctors or stay home with them. The result was a very frazzled co-worker who would arrive at the office with her kids in tow, and by the time they left she was invariably in tears from the stress (and we were all close behind her) and her kids had infected the entire office with their bugs!

It can be _very_ hard being a working mother.


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> I wouldn't mind being breadwinner at some point, but NOT with babies and young children at home. I'm breastfeeding...of course my husband agrees it makes sense for me to be primary caregiver. I actually enjoy that role, and managing the household too.
> 
> Having him quit to stay home creates more problems than it solves. He makes a lot more.
> 
> I'm a librarian and since public libraries offer night and weekend hours, I'm able to work part time while he watches our son. It works out well. We feel it is ideal for our son the be cared for at home by his relatives.
> 
> Of course he has had to take on more of the bills, and I respect him for that. He is a great father and provider.


It sounds to me like you and your H have struck a good balance that suits you both. :smile2:


----------



## SadSamIAm

Cosmos said:


> I must say that I have noticed this quite a lot, but I'm not sure if it's as simple as:
> 
> Even today I think that it's more acceptable to many employers for a mother to take time off to care for sick children than it is for men, and I think this places enormous pressure on both...
> 
> I remember working with a property attorney whose children were _forever_ catching colds or tummy bugs. No matter what important / high end transactions were taking place that required her presence in the office, her H (who had a much less prestigious position) _refused_ point blank to take the kids to the doctors or stay home with them. The result was a very frazzled co-worker who would arrive at the office with her kids in tow, and by the time they left she was invariably in tears from the stress (and we were all close behind her) and her kids had infected the entire office with their bugs!
> 
> It can be _very_ hard being a working mother.


I see your point, but how 'prestigious' a job is doesn't really have anything to do with how flexible it is. 

Her husband could have been part of some construction crew. That children aren't allowed at the workplace for safety reasons. That he has no flexibility to 'take off a couple of hours'. 

Also typically, the more 'prestigious' the job, the more job security you have. The construction worker that is easily replaceable may find himself 'layed off' if he is taking off too much time.


----------



## Cosmos

SadSamIAm said:


> I see your point, but how 'prestigious' a job is doesn't really have anything to do with how flexible it is.
> 
> Her husband could have been part of some construction crew. That children aren't allowed at the workplace for safety reasons. That he has no flexibility to 'take off a couple of hours'.
> *
> Also typically, the more 'prestigious' the job, the more job security you have. The construction worker that is easily replaceable may find himself 'layed off' if he is taking off too much time.*


This is very true, and prestigious was probably the wrong choice of word. 

Co-worker's H worked in a very macho field and it was more a case of him not wanting to be seen doing 'women's work.' He didn't object to her pay cheque, though...


----------



## SadSamIAm

jld said:


> I do not believe fathers love their children any less than mothers do, but men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job.


I don't think these things happen in a vacuum. 

I think this has to do with the fact that most families have the husband earning most of the income. 

When the husband chooses his job, it allows the wife to choose the family. She wouldn't be able to if he didn't.

My family is going skiing in a couple of weeks. I am having to come home part way through because of work. I don't think of it as me choosing my work over my family. I think of it as the choice I need to make to allow my wife and family to go skiing.

If I was a SAHD, and my wife was the one earning the money, she would be the one that would have to make the sacrifice.


----------



## SolidSnake

SimplyAmorous said:


> Only because he represents the majority view today.. because society has changed so much.. it's similar to - the idea of marriage.. how it's just no longer needed...or wanted by many...
> 
> I find that sad .. but not everyone feels like me.. of course... It's just an opinion..


Actually SAHMs were at an all time low in 2000. But since then, the trend has reversed and now more women are choosing to stay home: Stay-at-Home Mothers on the Rise | Pew Research Center


----------



## SolidSnake

jld said:


> That sounds like a good arrangement, SS. I think I would have enjoyed something like that.
> 
> Thanks for linking that article. I found this passage interesting:
> 
> _Still, the proposition that women can have high-powered careers as long as their husbands or partners are willing to share the parenting load equally (or disproportionately) assumes that most women will feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children, as long as their partner is home with them. In my experience, that is simply not the case.
> 
> Here I step onto treacherous ground, mined with stereotypes. From years of conversations and observations, however, I’ve come to believe that men and women respond quite differently when problems at home force them to recognize that their absence is hurting a child, or at least that their presence would likely help. I do not believe fathers love their children any less than mothers do, but men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to choose their family at a cost to their job._
> 
> I have not read the comments on the article yet. I bet the above got some reaction, though.


Your situation is nice too jld, I would like to homeschool. My husband keeps joking I can stay home full time once we have five children! I think we are getting too late of a start for that...2 or 3 is more realistic!


----------



## SolidSnake

Cosmos said:


> This is very true, and prestigious was probably the wrong choice of word.
> 
> Co-worker's H worked in a very macho field and it was more a case of him not wanting to be seen doing 'women's work.' He didn't object to her pay cheque, though...


That's BS. Their poor kids are the ones who have to suffer getting dragged to work when they are sick. 

:frown2:


----------



## jld

SolidSnake said:


> Your situation is nice too jld, I would like to homeschool. My husband keeps joking I can stay home full time once we have five children! I think we are getting too late of a start for that...2 or 3 is more realistic!


Thanks, SS. I love homeschooling. I cannot tell you how much easier we feel it has made our family life. We control our schedule. We have total flexibility.

Our two youngest just got back from six weeks in France with Dug's folks a week ago. Their French improves every time they visit.

Right now ds13 is in Vienna with dd20, doing some sightseeing this week and practicing his German (I hope). Dug has business in Eastern Europe this week, so ds went along with his dad to see his sister, who is spending her junior year in Switzerland.

And next week ds16 is flying over to join his sister for a week in Rome and Athens. They enjoyed studying ancient history when they were younger, and now they will get to see some of what they read about.

If they were all in school, they would have missed out on these opportunities.

And it's fun to have a lot of kids. They learn so much from each other. And they stretch their parents, too!


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> That's BS. Their poor kids are the ones who have to suffer getting dragged to work when they are sick.
> 
> :frown2:


I agree.

Secondly, I used to _dread_ her children being brought into the office, because she'd invariably set up camp for them in my office because it was on the ground floor. I suffer from brittle asthma which is greatly exacerbated by respiratory infections, and I have to take antibiotics and steroids at the first sign of a cold turning to infection to ward off being hospitalized. Of course co-worker was the first to complain when I was off ill with one of the many bugs I caught from her kids! My health improved dramatically when I resigned that position :smile2:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> It intrigues me the way some individuals hurl out judgments and insults, then decide to play victim by blaming the recipients of their ire when their own feelings get hurt!
> 
> Quite a little Drama Triangle you've had going on here, Michelle...


lol, I laughed reading this....sooo true.

Honestly, the whining...If someone is missing time with their family on a Saturday being online then simply put, log off. How hard is that for a grown adult.

Like I said, people get their feelings hurt when others validate the truths they already know about themselves. The person who's almost always the most disappointed with you is YOU. A healthy adult who's content with their choices cannot get their feelings hurt by strangers because they know their own truth.

The question is why does this woman feel the need to reveal her life story on here in order to get sympathy after she's been the aggressor?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> They didn't get wealthy by flaunting their money. They got wealthy by not spending it. And the very wealthy people I know don't mock people who make little or have little, they mock people who spend on frivolity; people who "deserve" a new phone or car; because those people will not likely be wealthy for long.


This is very true. We're pretty well off and we didn't get there by wasting money. We both abhor debt and have none. If I don't have the cash to make a purchase, I don't buy it. 

I make as much money by saving what I have than by spending it. 

I never assume to know how much money someone has by what they flaunt. The wealthiest people I know never flaunt money (or anything else, for that matter).


----------



## Cosmos

EnigmaGirl said:


> I never assume to know how much money someone has by what they flaunt. The wealthiest people I know never flaunt money (or anything else, for that matter).


Plus, I bet they don't "look down on" those who have less, as has been suggested.


----------



## Cletus

You people have apparently never had any direct contact with the entitled class.

My son works for the property management group that oversees a very expensive riverfront condo complex. I can assure you that it takes no time at all to find people who both flaunt their wealth and denigrate those who they see as their economic or social inferior.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Secondly, I used to dread her children being brought into the office, because she'd invariably set up camp for them in my office because it was on the ground floor. I suffer from brittle asthma which is greatly exacerbated by respiratory infections, and I have to take antibiotics and steroids at the first sign of a cold turning to infection to ward off being hospitalized. Of course co-worker was the first to complain when I was off ill with one of the many bugs I caught from her kids! My health improved dramatically when I resigned that position


I used to bring my youngest to work with me....in my own office when she was a newborn. I, at first, only worked in the office part time and would take work that I could home with me. 

My assistant usually watched the baby if I was in a meeting, although she was usually sleeping and I nursed her in my office.

Once my daughter got to walking age, I worked out a flexible work structure that allowed me to work from home for some of the day and then work most of my hours after my now ex-husband got home and could take care of our kids.

I have to say, I loved every second of it...so did the women in my office. It was an experiment for my company and it worked so well that now its regular policy. I didn't have to give anything up. For me, having a baby didn't mean that I was incapable of working at all. In fact, I needed the challenge of working because it made my days varied and interesting instead of just nursing and watching a baby all day. It was great for my mood and great for my career. I am really glad that I created options for other women at my company who want to have children too.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> You people have apparently never had any direct contact with the entitled class.
> 
> My son works for the property management group that oversees a very expensive riverfront condo complex. I can assure you that it takes no time at all to find people who both flaunt their wealth and denigrate those who they see as their economic or social inferior.


Some do...not all do.

My point is that you can't assume to know how much money someone has just by looking at them.

And there's a difference in how some wealthy people shop too. For instance, some buy expensive things that they value and some buy status symbols. And some people buy status symbols with debt to try to give the appearance of wealth.

Not all wealthy people are the same....especially the ones who've earned their wealth by working hard.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> Some do...not all do.


Clearly. So why are some people here claiming that wealthy people don't act that way?


----------



## Kivlor

EnigmaGirl said:


> Some do...not all do.
> 
> My point is that you can't assume to know how much money someone has just by looking at them.
> 
> And there's a difference in how some wealthy people shop too. For instance, some buy expensive things that they value and some buy status symbols. And some people buy status symbols with debt to try to give the appearance of wealth.
> 
> Not all wealthy people are the same....especially the ones who've earned their wealth by working hard.


No, I've had contact with plenty of entitled people. They usually A) aren't wealthy or B) won't be for long. 

All of the long-term wealthy (20+years in the 10+ millions) people I know don't talk down to / about or look down on those who have less. But they certainly make fun of / look down on people who spend too much.

I'm sure there's plenty of folks that do that. I just don't know them, and if I did, I wouldn't associate with them.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> All of the long-term wealthy (20+years in the 10+ millions) people I know don't talk down to / about or look down on those who have less. But they certainly make fun of / look down on people who spend too much.


I have to say that I have very little sympathy for people that live in debt that complain about it to me. 

I've got a few people in my extended family that do that crap.

One of my cousins was complaining over the xmas holidays about her and her husband's inability to make ends meet and a month later left on a vacation to the Dominican. I usually don't say anything but they brought up the vacation literally mid-way through the whining about being in debt. So I said "you're going on a vacation?" and it started in a litany about how hard they work and how they DESERVE a vacation, etc. I just ignored them the rest of the night.

Its always surprising to me that people think they have the right to thinks they can't afford to pay for. And I admit, that I really don't think much of my cousin...I guess I do consider them pretty annoying and irritating.


----------



## Cosmos

Cletus said:


> You people have apparently never had any direct contact with the entitled class.
> 
> My son works for the property management group that oversees a very expensive riverfront condo complex. I can assure you that it takes no time at all to find people who both flaunt their wealth and denigrate those who they see as their economic or social inferior.


Actually, I have, but fortunately they don't act "entitled."

Several people I know have titles as well as wealth, and they're extremely down to earth.

You get well off idiots and you get not so well off idiots. Money doesn't necessarily buy intelligence


----------



## SolidSnake

jld said:


> Thanks, SS. I love homeschooling. I cannot tell you how much easier we feel it has made our family life. We control our schedule. We have total flexibility.
> 
> Our two youngest just got back from six weeks in France with Dug's folks a week ago. Their French improves every time they visit.
> 
> Right now ds13 is in Vienna with dd20, doing some sightseeing this week and practicing his German (I hope). Dug has business in Eastern Europe this week, so ds went along with his dad to see his sister, who is spending her junior year in Switzerland.
> 
> And next week ds16 is flying over to join his sister for a week in Rome and Athens. They enjoyed studying ancient history when they were younger, and now they will get to see some of what they read about.
> 
> If they were all in school, they would have missed out on these opportunities.
> 
> And it's fun to have a lot of kids. They learn so much from each other. And they stretch their parents, too!


That's great! How come you didn't go with them?


----------



## SolidSnake

Cosmos said:


> It intrigues me the way some individuals hurl out judgments and insults, then decide to play victim by blaming the recipients of _their _ire when _their own_ feelings get hurt!
> 
> Quite a little Drama Triangle you've had going on here, Michelle...


I missed the entirety of the whole exchange, but I will say there is a long history of people who do not identify as feminist being driven off TAM, and I think its unfortunate. It's fine if people identify that way, fine if they don't.


----------



## jld

SolidSnake said:


> That's great! How come you didn't go with them?


I would have had to take ds7 and ds10, and they had just gotten back from France a few days before Dug and ds13 left. And it would have significantly increased the cost and hassle of the trip. Right now it is just dd20 and ds13 tooling around Vienna. 

It's funny you mention it, though, because a few weeks after we bought the ticket for ds13, my sister offered to come and stay with the little ones. I did not even think to ask.

I am going over Easter for two weeks to see dd. We are not sure where we will travel to yet. I want to see what she thinks of the places she is seeing in the next few weeks, during her semester break.


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> I missed the entirety of the whole exchange, but I will say *there is a long history of people who do not identify as feminist being driven off TAM, and I think its unfortunate.* It's fine if people identify that way, fine if they don't.


Really? I can't say I've noticed much of it, although I have noticed a lot of negativity towards feminists here. 

No matter how feminine many of us might be IRL, and no matter how loving and supportive we are of our partners, and how devoted we are as mothers, we're often referred to as "the feminazi" or "man haters" simply because we are strong, independent women with minds of our own. :wink2:


----------



## SolidSnake

Cosmos said:


> Really? I can't say I've noticed much of it, although I have noticed a lot of negativity towards feminists here.
> 
> No matter how feminine many of us might be IRL, and no matter how loving and supportive we are of our partners, and how devoted we are as mothers, we're often referred to as "the feminazi" or "man haters" simply because we are strong, independent women with minds of our own. :wink2:


Well, that's just my perspective. I guess everybody has their own axe to grind. Oh well.


----------



## EleGirl

The idea that feminism is making it so that women have to work and cannot stay home with their kids is a bit distorted.

There have always been men who did not earn enough to support a family. There have always women who have had to work to help support the family.

In my family in Italy, the women have worked right along with the men for at lest the last 5-6 generations. My bet is that it has always been that way.

The family has owned a lot of land going back to hundreds of years. The men manage the fields, the vineyards, olive trees, etc. They also own restaurants, a furrier company, a winery, and a lot more. The women mange the animals, produce and product distribution, sales and the finances for the business. None of the women in that side of my family is a 'SAHM'. The young boys all work with the men when they are not in school. The young girls work with the women when they are not in school.

During the early 1900's through the 1940's, my maternal grandparents lived in NYC. Both my grandfather and my grandmother had to work to support their 5 daughters. My grandfather was an engineer. My grandmother was a seamstress. My grandmother told me that the only way they made it through the Great Depression is that they were very lucky that when one of them could not find a job, the other one had a job. 

My paternal grandfather left his first wife with a son. In those days there was no alimony or child support. She was about 19 when he left her. She never remarried and worked to support herself and her son. Because women could only find crap jobs, they lived in deep poverty.

Then he married my father's mother, a woman from an very wealthy family. As was the law, he took her inheritance and did with it what he pleased. And supporting his wife and 4 sons was not part of what pleased him. So my paternal grandmother worked as a nurse. Again not making anything near what nurses do today. So she also did not get to be a SAHM.

These are just two lines of my ancestors. There is more, few of the women in my family history were SAHM's supported by men... this includes the ones that I have not talked about here. Most worked hard in family businesses or in the 1900's in jobs. Their lives were not all that unusual.

This idea that 'traditional' means that women stay home, do some housework and watch kids is acutally very new. It started with the industrial revolution and not all women had that life.

Feminism is not causing men to learn less. It is not forcing any woman to work and not be a SAHM. It is giving women whose husbands cannot support them and the children fully the option to get a job that earns a living wage.

Most women, since the dawn of time have always worked ... at in the past it was mostly working on a farm with their husband and children.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> You people have apparently never had any direct contact with the entitled class.
> 
> My son works for the property management group that oversees a very expensive riverfront condo complex. I can assure you that it takes no time at all to find people who both flaunt their wealth and denigrate those who they see as their economic or social inferior.


I think that we all know that there is an 'entitled class'. I'm sure that we all know people who are like that. Those of us who responded about OUR life style were responding to a post by a poster who made a pretty negative assumption about some of us who post on TAM. I’m not sure why our clearing up a misperception directed at us means what you seem to think it means.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I get the strong feeling many posters on this forum are HIGH CLASS, making over 100,000 a year.... and there is a separation of lifestyles for sure...
> 
> When we meet others like this... I just automatically assume they would not accept our kind, or look down on us in some ways ...our vehicles are older, we don't belong to country clubs, we may not care if our kitchen or bathroom needs updated.. a country homey feeling is enough for us.. we'd probably opt to take a family vacation 1st...sometimes you just can't do them both.


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> Some do...not all do.
> 
> My point is that you can't assume to know how much money someone has just by looking at them.
> 
> And there's a difference in how some wealthy people shop too. For instance, some buy expensive things that they value and some buy status symbols. And some people buy status symbols with debt to try to give the appearance of wealth.
> 
> Not all wealthy people are the same....especially the ones who've earned their wealth by working hard.


The book "The Millionaire Next Door" talks about this. They talked to and surveyed thousands of wealthy people.

For example they their first event for this process as an open house type affair with caviar and all kinds of fancy food and drinks. When the invited wealthy people got there, they wanted beer, chips and other inexpensive snack food. LOL

They found out that most of the wealthy people don't appear to be wealthy. They live next door to you in the average middle class home. They drive old cars. Most buy their clothing at JP Penny's.
Most of the wealthy in the USA are self made. It's an eye opening book.

And they found that most people who appear to have money and buy all sorts of expensive clothing, toys, etc. are actually living paycheck to paycheck, deeply in debt and one paycheck away from living on the street.

Sure there is an ultra rich class like the Vanderbilt, McCain's, John Kerry, Kennedy, etc. But they make up a very very small percentage of the population.


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> Really? I can't say I've noticed much of it, although I have noticed a lot of negativity towards feminists here.
> 
> No matter how feminine many of us might be IRL, and no matter how loving and supportive we are of our partners, and how devoted we are as mothers, we're often referred to as "the feminazi" or "man haters" simply because we are strong, independent women with minds of our own. :wink2:


That's what I have seen on TAM too.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Clearly. So why are some people here claiming that wealthy people don't act that way?


No one was claiming that SOME people don't act that way.

Someone on this thread assumed that a lot of us on TAM are that way. We were saying to not make assumptions that everyone who earns over 100K a year looks down on those who earn less.


----------



## Mr The Other

EleGirl said:


> The idea that feminism is making it so that women have to work and cannot stay home with their kids is a bit distorted.
> 
> There have always been men who did not earn enough to support a family. There have always women who have had to work to help support the family.
> 
> In my family in Italy, the women have worked right along with the men for at lest the last 5-6 generations. My bet is that it has always been that way.
> 
> The family has owned a lot of land going back to hundreds of years. The men manage the fields, the vineyards, olive trees, etc. They also own restaurants, a furrier company, a winery, and a lot more. The women mange the animals, produce and product distribution, sales and the finances for the business. None of the women in that side of my family is a 'SAHM'. The young boys all work with the men when they are not in school. The young girls work with the women when they are not in school.
> 
> During the early 1900's through the 1940's, my maternal grandparents lived in NYC. Both my grandfather and my grandmother had to work to support their 5 daughters. My grandfather was an engineer. My grandmother was a seamstress. My grandmother told me that the only way they made it through the Great Depression is that they were very lucky that when one of them could not find a job, the other one had a job.
> 
> My paternal grandfather left his first wife with a son. In those days there was no alimony or child support. She was about 19 when he left her. She never remarried and worked to support herself and her son. Because women could only find crap jobs, they lived in deep poverty.
> 
> Then he married my father's mother, a woman from an very wealthy family. As was the law, he took her inheritance and did with it what he pleased. And supporting his wife and 4 sons was not part of what pleased him. So my paternal grandmother worked as a nurse. Again not making anything near what nurses do today. So she also did not get to be a SAHM.
> 
> These are just two lines of my ancestors. There is more, few of the women in my family history were SAHM's supported by men... this includes the ones that I have not talked about here. Most worked hard in family businesses or in the 1900's in jobs. Their lives were not all that unusual.
> 
> This idea that 'traditional' means that women stay home, do some housework and watch kids is acutally very new. It started with the industrial revolution and not all women had that life.
> 
> Feminism is not causing men to learn less. It is not forcing any woman to work and not be a SAHM. It is giving women whose husbands cannot support them and the children fully the option to get a job that earns a living wage.
> 
> Most women, since the dawn of time have always worked ... at in the past it was mostly working on a farm with their husband and children.


There was a Government report in 1950's UK that showed that in working class families, both parents worked and split the house work. Clearly, thought those in charge, this was a social problem and the idea of the working Dad who left child rearing and housework to a SAHM was promoted.


----------



## sapientia

SadSamIAm said:


> Also typically, the more 'prestigious' the job, the more job security you have. The construction worker that is easily replaceable may find himself 'layed off' if he is taking off too much time.


The construction worker also finds work much more quickly.

Re: job security for "prestigious" jobs. It can take a C-level executive up to a year (or more) to find a new role, typically working with an executive search firm. So perhaps you mean more of a middle manager role which, yes, can have more job security especially in public sector.

For top executives (what I call "prestigious") the trade off is very high compensation. It's hard to feel sorry for a top exec making in the millions that has to live off their savings for a few months if they lose their job.


----------



## EleGirl

Mr The Other said:


> There was a Government report in 1950's UK that showed that in working class families, both parents worked and split the house work. Clearly, thought those in charge, this was a social problem and the idea of the working Dad who left child rearing and housework to a SAHM was promoted.


I used to have a book that was written in the late 1800s or very early 1900s that discussed that family changes that were being brought about by industrialization. The premise of the book was that it was destroying traditional family life.

Suddenly men were leaving the farm to go to work in offices and factories.

This left women alone with children on the farm/home. The book said that society was going to fall part because up until that time, most married men and women worked on their own farm. The boys from age 5 on worked with their fathers and learned to be men. The girls worked with their mothers and learned to be women. So basically the entire family worked from sun up until sun down on their farm.

The book argued that leaving women to be SAHMs would destroy society because boys would no longer learn to by men. And girls would not have the model of a proper marriage. 

The author also argued that men cutting their hair and shaving their beards would go hand in hand with the above to distory family... the very basis of civilization.

"Tradition" is not static. It changes as civilization/society changes.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> The construction worker also finds work much more quickly.
> 
> Re: job security for "prestigious" jobs. It can take a C-level executive up to a year (or more) to find a new role, typically working with an executive search firm. So perhaps you mean more of a middle manager role which, yes, can have more job security especially in public sector.
> 
> For top executives (what I call "prestigious") the trade off is very high compensation. It's hard to feel sorry for a top exec making in the millions that has to live off their savings for a few months if they lose their job.


Before 2008, the average time to find a new job was one month for every $10K of income. Of course that time was probably shorted a bit for really high earners... like the ones in the $1Million a year range.


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> Before 2008, the average time to find a new job was one month for every $10K of income. Of course that time was probably shorted a bit for really high earners... like the ones in the $1Million a year range.


There is truth that high earners work their network for their next gig, or have it lined up before their move.

Here's an interesting list to contrast with US, which would go on for pages more:

Canada?s Top 100 highest-paid CEOs


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> I think that we all know that there is an 'entitled class'. I'm sure that we all know people who are like that. Those of us who responded about OUR life style were responding to a post by a poster who made a pretty negative assumption about some of us who post on TAM. I’m not sure why our clearing up a misperception directed at us means what you seem to think it means.





EleGirl said:


> Someone on this thread assumed that a lot of us on TAM are that way. We were saying to not make assumptions that everyone who earns over 100K a year looks down on those who earn less.


Let me clear something up -since we are speaking about my post.... I didn't realize my words would come off as offending as some may have read them... just wasn't my intention.

It's true...chances are I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to befriend someone who wasn't in our social class.. .Unless they showed genuine kindness or some way of relating to us....on a level we feel comfortable with / accepted for .... one wouldn't want to assume too much...I see this as being wise...even respectful.. 

I also wouldn't be foolish enough , if I found myself single one day...to think a man who was high earning would give me the time of day...and rightly so... 

But ya know.. that's humble...I wasn't trying to be judgmental... just some "realism" in there...maybe I am just judging myself, my own family.... knowing OUR PLACE at the table..

Many have worked FAR HARDER...You are way more intelligent ...Truth is...someone like me wouldn't knock hooking up with a Garbage Man, I am not above that, and I'd treat him like a King .. if he was a Good devoted trustworthy man...

If/when I read posts (not on this thread) where others speak down about jobs like this... we recognize our place.. And no.. my husband is not a Garbage man.. 

Coming from our Middle class (on the lower end -given our family size) perspective... We just recognize how others *MAY* see us (not that they do)...

If others appreciate us for some reason, maybe a common interest (like posting on this forum for instance)...if they see some value in us despite our differing lifestyles .... I very much appreciate such individuals, I would be very warm to them, and also think very very highly of them....I would probably even outright express this to them -to boot! 

I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone on this thread or TAM.


----------



## SolidSnake

EleGirl said:


> The idea that feminism is making it so that women have to work and cannot stay home with their kids is a bit distorted.
> 
> There have always been men who did not earn enough to support a family. There have always women who have had to work to help support the family.
> 
> In my family in Italy, the women have worked right along with the men for at lest the last 5-6 generations. My bet is that it has always been that way.
> 
> The family has owned a lot of land going back to hundreds of years. The men manage the fields, the vineyards, olive trees, etc. They also own restaurants, a furrier company, a winery, and a lot more. The women mange the animals, produce and product distribution, sales and the finances for the business. None of the women in that side of my family is a 'SAHM'. The young boys all work with the men when they are not in school. The young girls work with the women when they are not in school.
> 
> During the early 1900's through the 1940's, my maternal grandparents lived in NYC. Both my grandfather and my grandmother had to work to support their 5 daughters. My grandfather was an engineer. My grandmother was a seamstress. My grandmother told me that the only way they made it through the Great Depression is that they were very lucky that when one of them could not find a job, the other one had a job.
> 
> My paternal grandfather left his first wife with a son. In those days there was no alimony or child support. She was about 19 when he left her. She never remarried and worked to support herself and her son. Because women could only find crap jobs, they lived in deep poverty.
> 
> Then he married my father's mother, a woman from an very wealthy family. As was the law, he took her inheritance and did with it what he pleased. And supporting his wife and 4 sons was not part of what pleased him. So my paternal grandmother worked as a nurse. Again not making anything near what nurses do today. So she also did not get to be a SAHM.
> 
> These are just two lines of my ancestors. There is more, few of the women in my family history were SAHM's supported by men... this includes the ones that I have not talked about here. Most worked hard in family businesses or in the 1900's in jobs. Their lives were not all that unusual.
> 
> This idea that 'traditional' means that women stay home, do some housework and watch kids is acutally very new. It started with the industrial revolution and not all women had that life.
> 
> Feminism is not causing men to learn less. It is not forcing any woman to work and not be a SAHM. It is giving women whose husbands cannot support them and the children fully the option to get a job that earns a living wage.
> 
> Most women, since the dawn of time have always worked ... at in the past it was mostly working on a farm with their husband and children.


You made some good points here, I'll buy your argument for the most part. 

But there is a difference between working for and with your family, or on a family farm, and outside the home. If you work with family, someone can pick up the slack if you have recently had a baby, you don't get fired if your kid is sick, the kids can be there while you work and so forth. 

Plus most European countries offer paid parental leave. 

The issues we struggle with have arisen when one or both parents moved to the factory or the office and away from the farm or family business.


----------



## SolidSnake

EleGirl said:


> The book "The Millionaire Next Door" talks about this. They talked to and surveyed thousands of wealthy people.
> 
> For example they their first event for this process as an open house type affair with caviar and all kinds of fancy food and drinks. When the invited wealthy people got there, they wanted beer, chips and other inexpensive snack food. LOL
> 
> They found out that most of the wealthy people don't appear to be wealthy. They live next door to you in the average middle class home. They drive old cars. Most buy their clothing at JP Penny's.
> Most of the wealthy in the USA are self made. It's an eye opening book.
> 
> And they found that most people who appear to have money and buy all sorts of expensive clothing, toys, etc. are actually living paycheck to paycheck, deeply in debt and one paycheck away from living on the street.
> 
> Sure there is an ultra rich class like the Vanderbilt, McCain's, John Kerry, Kennedy, etc. But they make up a very very small percentage of the population.


I own that book. There is absolutely something to be said for thrift and paying cash for purchases. The book was published in the 1990s though when savings interest was higher and the stock market more profitable. But its still possible to live very frugally. 

I think part of the problem is consumerism, and the necessity that women/both partners must work to support a certain lifestyle, preexisting car loans, higher than necessary mortgage payments, expensive vacations, etc. when the family could live more frugally off of one income. Unless they are very very low income and work out of absolute necessity. 

But both partners need to be on board with a SAH frugal living arrangement though. This is where feminism, and the_ expectation _that modern women will work enters into the debate. I think there can be conscious or unconscious cultural expectations involved...if the husband insists she work, or if she _expects _that she must work because she will not submit being supported by a man, is not willing to sacrifice her career, considers childcare drudgery, disempowering, etc. 

Certainly some women genuinely love their careers, and that has nothing to do with feminist motivations, but that is a separate issue.

I read recently that the more educated the parents (and presumably the higher their income), the more likely they were to be comfortable with women working outside the home and with putting their children in institutionalized care settings.


----------



## EleGirl

SolidSnake said:


> You made some good points here, I'll buy your argument for the most part.
> 
> But there is a difference between working for and with your family, or on a family farm, and outside the home. If you work with family, someone can pick up the slack if you have recently had a baby, you don't get fired if your kid is sick, the kids can be there while you work and so forth.
> 
> Plus most European countries offer paid parental leave.
> 
> The issues we struggle with have arisen when one or both parents moved to the factory or the office and away from the farm or family business.


Today most European countries offer paid parental leave. This is a pretty new idea.

You are right that the issues change when one or both parents move to the factory or the office.

My point is that women being SAHMs who care for kids and do a bit of housework (with washers/dyers, dishwashers, vacuums, etc.... it is a bit of housework comparatively) is a pretty new family dynamic happening in human history.

So that means that what we call 'tradional' today was not 'traditional' all that long ago. Hence 'trandion' is a constantly changing thing.

Today the women in my family in the 'old country' still work in the family businesses as do the men. But the part of the family that immigrated to the USA have a different 'tradition'... starting with my great grandmothers, they all have worked outside the home. So that is my family 'tradition'.

By the way, my mother was one of the few women in my family who stopped working. After her 5th child she just could not do it anymore... in all she had 8 children that lived. But she had a college degree in Muslic, was a concert pianist and professional singer until her 5th child. I still remember all of us sitting in the audience chairs as performance halls watch her teach and reherse. Too bad she had to give that up.

I think that realizing this is important in the context of this discussion since some people feel that 'tradition' is dying, or some thing like that.


----------



## EleGirl

SolidSnake said:


> I own that book. There is absolutely something to be said for thrift and paying cash for purchases. The book was published in the 1990s though when savings interest was higher and the stock market more profitable. But its still possible to live very frugally.
> 
> I think part of the problem is consumerism, and the necessity that women/both partners must work to support a certain lifestyle, preexisting car loans, higher than necessary mortgage payments, expensive vacations, etc. when the family could live more frugally off of one income. Unless they are very very low income and work out of absolute necessity.
> 
> But both partners need to be on board with a SAH frugal living arrangement though. This is where feminism, and the_ expectation _that modern women will work enters into the debate. I think there can be conscious or unconscious cultural expectations involved...if the husband insists she work, or if she _expects _that she must work because she will not submit being supported by a man, is not willing to sacrifice her career, considers childcare drudgery, disempowering, etc.
> 
> Certainly some women genuinely love their careers, and that has nothing to do with feminist motivations, but that is a separate issue.
> 
> I read recently that the more educated the parents (and presumably the higher their income), the more likely they were to be comfortable with women working outside the home and with putting their children in institutionalized care settings.


No all educated parents or high income parents put their children in institutional care settings or have a full time nanny.

There are a lot of women who have started their own business to address this issue.

EnigmaGirl posted about her arranging her business so that her children could be there and cared for. I did the same thing when my son was young. If I needed someone to watch my son when I had an appointment with a customer, my mother or a friend watched him. My son and my step children were never in any kind of institutionalized care setting.

I know women doctors, lawyers, engineers, professional dancers, business managers who don’t use institutional care settings. Their mothers help out. And very often their children are at their office. Sure some do. But so do a lot of lower less educated and lower income parents.


----------



## naiveonedave

Realistically, for 1000s of years we were a version of hunter/gatherer that moved into farming. You were either a farmer working on subsistence or a serf working on subsistence plus having to pay taxes. there really was no one going out to work, that really only changed in the past couple of 100 years. 'back then' children were raised by family members and didn't require 22 years of 'rearing'. We are so far from that model today, it is not funny. Most of us rarely see our siblings and parents, much less have the chance to have them help rear our kids. I also don't see grandparents as involved in child rearing as what you read about from 200+ years ago.


----------



## Cosmos

naiveonedave said:


> Realistically, for 1000s of years we were a version of hunter/gatherer that moved into farming. You were either a farmer working on subsistence or a serf working on subsistence plus having to pay taxes. there really was no one going out to work, that really only changed in the past couple of 100 years. 'back then' children were raised by family members and didn't require 22 years of 'rearing'. We are so far from that model today, it is not funny. Most of us rarely see our siblings and parents, much less have the chance to have them help rear our kids. I also don't see grandparents as involved in child rearing as what you read about from 200+ years ago.


Yes, Society has changed enormously and I think we've battled to keep pace and adapt to it. I think this is possibly evidenced by the prevalence of mental health and drug/alcohol/ sex addiction issues.

I'm afraid these days grandparents are often having to work well into their late 60s, so helping out with the grandbabies just isn't an option for them, and I think this is a great loss to Society.


----------



## naiveonedave

Cosmos said:


> Yes, Society has changed enormously and I think we've battled to keep pace and adapt to it. I think this is possibly evidenced by the prevalence of mental health and drug/alcohol/ sex addiction issues.
> 
> I'm afraid these days grandparents are often having to work well into their late 60s, so helping out with the grandbabies just isn't an option for them, and I think this is a great loss to Society.


I agree, and I don't think it is necessarily for the better in a lot of ways.

I also think entitlement has set in, even among the grandparent age. Many I know can't be bothered to even help out a little bit. like they have been there and done that.


----------



## SolidSnake

naiveonedave said:


> Realistically, for 1000s of years we were a version of hunter/gatherer that moved into farming. You were either a farmer working on subsistence or a serf working on subsistence plus having to pay taxes. there really was no one going out to work, that really only changed in the past couple of 100 years. 'back then' children were raised by family members and didn't require 22 years of 'rearing'. We are so far from that model today, it is not funny. Most of us rarely see our siblings and parents, much less have the chance to have them help rear our kids. I also don't see grandparents as involved in child rearing as what you read about from 200+ years ago.


Yes, absolutely. That is where the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child," comes from. Except today, there is no village, which is what makes balancing things so hard and complicated.

The stay at home parent, or grandmother caregiver, etc. is basically the last bastion of the village in today's society.


----------



## SolidSnake

Cosmos said:


> I'm afraid these days grandparents are often having to work well into their late 60s, so helping out with the grandbabies just isn't an option for them, and I think this is a great loss to Society.


Or, even if they are retired, they are in such poor health that they are unable to help, like my father. The boomer generation seems much less healthy and their parents were. :frown2:


----------



## naiveonedave

SolidSnake said:


> Or, even if they are retired, they are in such poor health that they are unable to help, like my father. The boomer generation seems much less healthy and their parents were. :frown2:


I think it has more to do with the fact that they are on average older than grandparents of prior generations. w/o stats in front of me, I would guess 100s of years ago, most children were born when the woman was 18-25. Now it is closer to 25-35. So you won't be a grandparent until 60ish vs 40 to 50.


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> Or, even if they are retired, they are in such poor health that they are unable to help, like my father. The boomer generation seems much less healthy and their parents were. :frown2:



Despite the advances in modern medicine, technology etc, I think the pace of life has simply became much faster and lives more stressful. Also, by the time people are finally able to retire, they're of an age when health issues will be rearing their ugly heads...


----------



## turnera

welldusted said:


> Why am I not entitled to constant thank yous from my wife, the same way it seems like a wife who cooks, cleans, takes care of kids is supposed to get constant thank yous?


Are you talking about your own wife? Does she tell you she expects constant thank yous? Cuz I don't know a single woman in all my years who has ever expected, or said they expect, constant thank yous.

Of course, that's a lot different from not wanting to be taken for granted. So yes, women want to be not taken for granted, as I assume you do, too.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> But both partners need to be on board with a SAH frugal living arrangement though. This is where feminism, and the expectation that modern women will work enters into the debate. I think there can be conscious or unconscious cultural expectations involved...if the husband insists she work, or if she expects that she must work because she will not submit being supported by a man, is not willing to sacrifice her career, considers childcare drudgery, disempowering, etc.
> 
> Certainly some women genuinely love their careers, and that has nothing to do with feminist motivations, but that is a separate issue.
> 
> I read recently that the more educated the parents (and presumably the higher their income), the more likely they were to be comfortable with women working outside the home and with putting their children in institutionalized care settings.


As a feminist, my expectation for myself was simply that I was in a position to always financially support myself and my offspring and, in my opinion, that should be what every woman...especially women with children...should insist upon.

That doesn't follow that a woman has to work full-time but that she has to arrange for financial stability in the event of a marriage dissolution either by death or divorce. The reality is that there are a large population of women and their children that are left destitute because they rely on someone else to provide financially for them without a backup plan. I also think that women should have an education and basic skills to allow her to work. Any person would recommend that to own children and yet we're supposed to coddle grown women who don't have that basic capacity.

Adults should simply be adults and have the ability to take care of themselves in the case of very possible eventualities.

And for me, working has less to do with lifestyle, although I certainly enjoy mine, than it has to do with financial freedom. I am able to retire before my 46th birthday (this is my last week). Also, I didn't want to be on a budget my whole life. I also didn't want to work for someone else my whole life. I love having financial freedom...and I'm proud of myself for earning the right to it. I'm certainly not trying to waste my money on a pile of crap. I spend more wisely and I donate a lot too which I consider my human duty and I wouldn't be able to do that if I didn't work hard. My money doesn't just help my own family.

I don't consider childrearing or taking care of my home drudgery at all. I simply am more complex an individual for it to meet all my needs. I feel like I have so much more to offer. Housework is important but simplistic. It doesn't require much higher order thinking and educated women often need more stimulation and challenge....just like men do.

And aside from school, my children were never in any institutionalized childcare setting. I raised my children AND worked...women do it all the time. And as more women get into the workforce, it will happen more. Employers will have to change policy to make it easier for both child-rearing men and women to raise children and have careers.

Funny enough, one of my employees has a wife who is working on her medical internship but they want to start a family. She can't do much about her schedule so he's planning to keep the baby at work with him thanks to the policy that I helped create back when my teenage daughter was a newborn. I feel good that I helped create a work environment where this very talented young man can raise his child and have all the benefits of not having to take time off of work and damage his career.

I think the common fallacy is that working women put work before their children. I work BECAUSE I have children. My children have had wonderful lives because I work that they wouldn't have had if I had led a life where I didn't live up to my potential.

I need to ensure that I can afford to take care of them by myself, I need to provide higher education for them and I need to show them about independence, pride in your accomplishments and work ethic....things I wouldn't have been able to do if I wasn't working.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Also, by the time people are finally able to retire, they're of an age when health issues will be rearing their ugly heads...


My husband retired about 10 days ago from a government job. People were shocked that he was leaving because funny enough, a lot of the guys that work where he is literally will NOT retire, even when they're well past the age of eligibility and it would be cheaper for them to quit. They regularly pass up attrition buy-outs and just will not leave. They identify with their cushy jobs so much they just won't go...its their identity.

We both feel extremely lucky that we're able to retire so early in our lives and start our new business and a whole new chapter of life. For me, its definitely validation that the choices that I made have paid off. 

I think we've both inspired a lot of our friends to consider early retirement. I know sooo many people that have retired and literally died within a year of leaving work.


----------



## brooklynAnn

EnigmaGirl said:


> As a feminist, my expectation for myself was simply that I was in a position to always financially support myself and my offspring and, in my opinion, that should be what every woman...especially women with children...should insist upon.
> 
> That doesn't follow that a woman has to work full-time but that she has to arrange for financial stability in the event of a marriage dissolution either by death or divorce. The reality is that there are a large population of women and their children that are left destitute because they rely on someone else to provide financially for them without a backup plan. I also think that women should have an education and basic skills to allow her to work. Any person would recommend that to own children and yet we're supposed to coddle grown women who don't have that basic capacity.
> 
> Adults should simply be adults and have the ability to take care of themselves in the case of very possible eventualities.
> 
> And for me, working has less to do with lifestyle, although I certainly enjoy mine, than it has to do with financial freedom. I am able to retire before my 46th birthday (this is my last week). Also, I didn't want to be on a budget my whole life. I also didn't want to work for someone else my whole life. I love having financial freedom...and I'm proud of myself for earning the right to it. I'm certainly not trying to waste my money on a pile of crap. I spend more wisely and I donate a lot too which I consider my human duty and I wouldn't be able to do that if I didn't work hard. My money doesn't just help my own family.
> 
> I don't consider childrearing or taking care of my home drudgery at all. I simply am more complex an individual for it to meet all my needs. I feel like I have so much more to offer. Housework is important but simplistic. It doesn't require much higher order thinking and educated women often need more stimulation and challenge....just like men do.
> 
> And aside from school, my children were never in any institutionalized childcare setting. I raised my children AND worked...women do it all the time. And as more women get into the workforce, it will happen more. Employers will have to change policy to make it easier for both child-rearing men and women to raise children and have careers.
> 
> Funny enough, one of my employees has a wife who is working on her medical internship but they want to start a family. She can't do much about her schedule so he's planning to keep the baby at work with him thanks to the policy that I helped create back when my teenage daughter was a newborn. I feel good that I helped create a work environment where this very talented young man can raise his child and have all the benefits of not having to take time off of work and damage his career.
> 
> I think the common fallacy is that working women put work before their children. I work BECAUSE I have children. My children have had wonderful lives because I work that they wouldn't have had if I had led a life where I didn't live up to my potential.
> 
> I need to ensure that I can afford to take care of them by myself, I need to provide higher education for them and I need to show them about independence, pride in your accomplishments and work ethic....things I wouldn't have been able to do if I wasn't working.


I so agree with this. Congrats @EnigmaGirl on your early retirement. 

My grandmother who had a grade school education because she was the eldest of 9 and had to take care of the younger ones, always told her granddaughters to make their own money. She always said a woman needs to have money of our own because you never know if your husband will died or leave you.

When I had to leave my job to stay home with my kids, she was so mad. She said I spend too many years in school to leave work and just stay home. I have a BS in eco and MBA in Finance. She did not agree with it. However, with a sick kid, I was going to fired sooner than later. I worked in Finance and they are always someone younger who is willing to put in the hours.

During my years at home, I always make sure I am doing something to earn money. I also, keep myself educated by taking classes and learning something new all the time. It keeps me busy and makes me feel productive. It gives me purpose. Cleaning the same floor everyday get old fast. I made sure I volunteer at my kids school and in community events.

If my husband was to divorce me tomorrow or died, I will be fine. I have skills and I have a nest egg. 

If my DD was going to stay at home, I will have to put in my two cents with a "hell no"'. Because as women we lose the years that we could be the most productive and earn the most. 

As a country we need to rethink the whole childcare issue. Tax deductions, subsidies, universal baby care, something so that families don't have to choose work or SAH. Unless, that is what they really want to do. Childcare is way too expensive and working family above a certain income gets no help.
@EnigmaGirl, it's really great that you were able to create a program at your job to assist with child care. I wish a lot more companies would be so inclusive.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> My grandmother who had a grade school education because she was the eldest of 9 and had to take care of the younger ones, always told her granddaughters to make their own money. She always said a woman needs to have money of our own because you never know if your husband will died or leave you.
> 
> When I had to leave my job to stay home with my kids, she was so mad. She said I spend too many years in school to leave work and just stay home. I have a BS in eco and MBA in Finance. She did not agree with it. However, with a sick kid, I was going to fired sooner than later. I worked in Finance and they are always someone younger who is willing to put in the hours.
> 
> During my years at home, I always make sure I am doing something to earn money. I also, keep myself educated by taking classes and learning something new all the time. It keeps me busy and makes me feel productive. It gives me purpose. Cleaning the same floor everyday get old fast. I made sure I volunteer at my kids school and in community events.
> 
> If my husband was to divorce me tomorrow or died, I will be fine. I have skills and I have a nest egg.
> 
> If my DD was going to stay at home, I will have to put in my two cents with a "hell no"'. Because as women we lose the years that we could be the most productive and earn the most.
> 
> As a country we need to rethink the whole childcare issue. Tax deductions, subsidies, universal baby care, something so that families don't have to choose work or SAH. Unless, that is what they really want to do. Childcare is way too expensive and working family above a certain income gets no help.


Very well said...wish I could recommend this twice.

Similar to your experience, my mom and grandmother both lived through wars and men that went off to serve and died...leaving them with kids. And both of them were adamant about us girls all getting educations and learning to take care of ourselves. I honestly don't know any woman that would tell their female child that it was ok for her not to educate herself and/or that its great idea to be financially dependent on a man without a back-up plan to take care of herself.

And you're also right about the changes that need to continue happening in the workplace. 

I recently saw a study about companies that create policies to help families (both women and men) with their child-rearing years and it was eye-opening. They had some of the highest productivity and most loyal workers. They didn't have nearly the brain-drain created by the turnover from hostile practices against employees with young children. There definitely needs to be a paradigm shift about not penalizing people for having kids and instead embracing the family atmosphere that is created at a company that invests long-term in its employees. Its definitely an investment that pays off for everyone. 

Things are changing and its going to take some time but its heartening to see the attitudes of young women these days that are placing such a high priority on education and self-sufficiency. As these women enter the workforce, I'm confident that things will improve for working families with regard to the issues you mentioned.


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> I think we've both inspired a lot of our friends to consider early retirement. *I know sooo many people that have retired and literally died within a year of leaving work.*


Hmm, I'm not sure that would inspire me to retire early. >


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Hmm, I'm not sure that would inspire me to retire early.


lol, I should have clarified that they retired much, much later in life.

My point was that I think you can work for too long a period of time and you lose your identity there and have a hard time finding purpose after you leave which leads to health issues.

Its wierd...maybe I'll have some mixed feelings or nostalgic regret about leaving work after I'm really out the door but so far, all I feel is lucky and excited. My husband says that he isn't missing it at all either so far.


----------



## SolidSnake

EnigmaGirl said:


> As a feminist, my expectation for myself was simply that I was in a position to always financially support myself and my offspring and, in my opinion, that should be what every woman...especially women with children...should insist upon.
> 
> That doesn't follow that a woman has to work full-time but that she has to arrange for financial stability in the event of a marriage dissolution either by death or divorce. The reality is that there are a large population of women and their children that are left destitute because they rely on someone else to provide financially for them without a backup plan. I also think that women should have an education and basic skills to allow her to work. Any person would recommend that to own children and yet we're supposed to coddle grown women who don't have that basic capacity.
> 
> Adults should simply be adults and have the ability to take care of themselves in the case of very possible eventualities.
> 
> And for me, working has less to do with lifestyle, although I certainly enjoy mine, than it has to do with financial freedom. I am able to retire before my 46th birthday (this is my last week). Also, I didn't want to be on a budget my whole life. I also didn't want to work for someone else my whole life. I love having financial freedom...and I'm proud of myself for earning the right to it. I'm certainly not trying to waste my money on a pile of crap. I spend more wisely and I donate a lot too which I consider my human duty and I wouldn't be able to do that if I didn't work hard. My money doesn't just help my own family.
> 
> I don't consider childrearing or taking care of my home drudgery at all. I simply am more complex an individual for it to meet all my needs. I feel like I have so much more to offer. Housework is important but simplistic. It doesn't require much higher order thinking and educated women often need more stimulation and challenge....just like men do.
> 
> And aside from school, my children were never in any institutionalized childcare setting. I raised my children AND worked...women do it all the time. And as more women get into the workforce, it will happen more. Employers will have to change policy to make it easier for both child-rearing men and women to raise children and have careers.
> 
> Funny enough, one of my employees has a wife who is working on her medical internship but they want to start a family. She can't do much about her schedule so he's planning to keep the baby at work with him thanks to the policy that I helped create back when my teenage daughter was a newborn. I feel good that I helped create a work environment where this very talented young man can raise his child and have all the benefits of not having to take time off of work and damage his career.
> 
> I think the common fallacy is that working women put work before their children. I work BECAUSE I have children. My children have had wonderful lives because I work that they wouldn't have had if I had led a life where I didn't live up to my potential.
> 
> I need to ensure that I can afford to take care of them by myself, I need to provide higher education for them and I need to show them about independence, pride in your accomplishments and work ethic....things I wouldn't have been able to do if I wasn't working.


I was speaking more in general, but that is great if taking your children to work was doable for you. 

It is not doable for me. As a librarian, I work with the public. There is no way I can sit there and nurse my baby, change him, play with him, etc. while still being available to help customers. Plus that level of multi-tasking means that nothing is getting my full attention or being done properly.


----------



## SolidSnake

brooklynAnn said:


> I so agree with this. Congrats @EnigmaGirl on your early retirement.
> 
> My grandmother who had a grade school education because she was the eldest of 9 and had to take care of the younger ones, always told her granddaughters to make their own money. She always said a woman needs to have money of our own because you never know if your husband will died or leave you.
> 
> *When I had to leave my job to stay home with my kids, she was so mad. She said I spend too many years in school to leave work and just stay home. I have a BS in eco and MBA in Finance. She did not agree with it. However, with a sick kid, I was going to fired sooner than later. I worked in Finance and they are always someone younger who is willing to put in the hours.
> *
> During my years at home, I always make sure I am doing something to earn money. I also, keep myself educated by taking classes and learning something new all the time. It keeps me busy and makes me feel productive. It gives me purpose. Cleaning the same floor everyday get old fast. I made sure I volunteer at my kids school and in community events.
> 
> If my husband was to divorce me tomorrow or died, I will be fine. I have skills and I have a nest egg.
> 
> *If my DD was going to stay at home, I will have to put in my two cents with a "hell no"'. Because as women we lose the years that we could be the most productive and earn the most. *
> 
> As a country we need to rethink the whole childcare issue. Tax deductions, subsidies, universal baby care, something so that families don't have to choose work or SAH. Unless, that is what they really want to do. Childcare is way too expensive and working family above a certain income gets no help.
> 
> @EnigmaGirl, it's really great that you were able to create a program at your job to assist with child care. I wish a lot more companies would be so inclusive.


I actually don't agree with the bolded parts. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. But if feminism is about giving women choices, we should respect other women's choices to work or not as is best for their family. Feminism shouldn't be about forcing every woman (or man) with kids to work outside the home by subsidizing childcare.


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> I was speaking more in general, but that is great if taking your children to work was doable for you.
> 
> *It is not doable for me. As a librarian, I work with the public. There is no way I can sit there and nurse my baby, change him, play with him, etc. while still being available to help customers.* Plus that level of multi-tasking means that nothing is getting my full attention or being done properly.


And there's absolutely no reason why you should. You and your H have reached an arrangement that suits you both, and that's all that matters. 

Everyone's circumstances are different.


----------



## EleGirl

SolidSnake said:


> I was speaking more in general, but that is great if taking your children to work was doable for you.
> 
> It is not doable for me. As a librarian, I work with the public. There is no way I can sit there and nurse my baby, change him, play with him, etc. while still being available to help customers. Plus that level of multi-tasking means that nothing is getting my full attention or being done properly.


I have a friend who is a librarian with a master's degree. She is teaching library and information science via online courses. That way she can keep current and earn a living and have her children around.

I'm not suggesting that you have to work. You seem pleased with your life as it is, and that's good. My point is that there are many ways these days to earn work either full or part time and have your kids around.


----------



## Lionelhutz

SolidSnake said:


> I actually don't agree with the bolded parts. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. But if feminism is about giving women choices, we should respect other women's choices to work or not as is best for their family. Feminism shouldn't be about forcing every woman (or man) with kids to work outside the home by subsidizing childcare.


I agree. Not everyone is in infected with careerism and in reality not everyone can be because most jobs in the economy aren't really about anything but necessity. Staying at home is a perfectly legitimate "career" path for many.


----------



## EllisRedding

Lionelhutz said:


> I agree. Not everyone is in infected with careerism and in reality not everyone can be because most jobs in the economy aren't really about anything but necessity. Staying at home is a perfectly legitimate "career" path for many.


Exactly, sometimes being a SAHP is what is best for your family which is what matters the most.


----------



## SolidSnake

EleGirl said:


> I have a friend who is a librarian with a master's degree. She is teaching library and information science via online courses. That way she can keep current and earn a living and have her children around.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that you have to work. You seem pleased with your life as it is, and that's good. My point is that there are many ways these days to earn work either full or part time and have your kids around.


For the record, I work part time at night when my husband is home to watch our son. You have to have your masters to be a librarian. I should look into the teaching aspect. I also do some freelance writing. I'd like to do more.


----------



## turnera

SolidSnake said:


> I also do some freelance writing. I'd like to do more.


guru.com


----------



## brooklynAnn

SolidSnake said:


> I actually don't agree with the bolded parts. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. But if feminism is about giving women choices, we should respect other women's choices to work or not as is best for their family. Feminism shouldn't be about forcing every woman (or man) with kids to work outside the home by subsidizing childcare.


The idea of subsidized childcare is not to force anyone to work but to ensure if you choose to work that you can afford to pay for childcare. I live in NYC where the cost of child care is so high. The majority of women who are SAH that I know of, could not afford childcare because with a combined income, they would not get a break to pay for childcare. So, it makes more sense to stay at home although they would very much like to continue to work.

I am not saying that parents should never be SAHP, every family has to decide what to do, that is in the best interest of their family. I would prefer for my DD to be a working woman. Because I am a SAHM, I love being able to care for my family and nurture my kids. However, I would have loved to be able to have a career. But that's water under the bridge. 

So, as a parent I am encouraging my DD to get her education, have some a career and be independent. I don't want her to have to depend on a man for money. She should have her own.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SolidSnake said:


> *I actually don't agree with the bolded parts. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. But if feminism is about giving women choices, we should respect other women's choices to work or not as is best for their family. Feminism shouldn't be about forcing every woman (or man) with kids to work outside the home by subsidizing childcare.*


See the more people who PRAISE her posts and LIKE them.. just shows me very clearly.. that indeed.. feminism TODAY is far more about influencing the minds of women to do what THEY feel they should do.. NOT about choice.. well sure ...it's a free world.....we can do what we want ... (but remember sister.. it won't be respected !)...

As in her words..... " its going to take some time but its heartening to see the attitudes of young women these days that are placing such a high priority on education and self-sufficiency."....

Basically a feminists work is NEVER, I repeat *NEVER* done until they influence the minds & hearts of every woman born, growing up ...well.. ALIVE to think like them, want the same things as them. 

Am I misreading this ...anyone ??

This really is what I EXPECT from those who feel the need to speak how feminist they are....my beef is....

I'd appreciate more honesty ... please stop telling us more conservative SAHM's that we're accepted- just like the rest of you... this is utter BS..... Just be more honest about it.. lay it out there like @EnigmaGirl here...and drop the whole pandering and "coddling" to us about choice..

This is similar to religion to me.. They speak how God gives us FREE WILL, loves us unconditionally... but then.. the clincher *>>* if one doesn't choose the straight & Narrow , they get to burn in everlasting fire ...But GOD loves us...all of us... 

Lovely choice there, we'd be better off to not have free will...... 

I don't buy religion at all -but I can't help but see THIS in a similar light...Many a feminist has an agenda to change society.... to indoctrinate....just as religion uses FEAR of hell fire, then slaps some crazy sh** about unconditional love on it..


----------



## SolidSnake

SimplyAmorous said:


> See the more people who PRAISE her posts and LIKE them.. just shows me very clearly.. that indeed.. feminism TODAY is far more about influencing the minds of women to do what THEY feel they should do.. NOT about choice.. well sure ...it's a free world.....we can do what we want ... (but remember sister.. it won't be respected !)...
> 
> As in her words..... " its going to take some time but its heartening to see the attitudes of young women these days that are placing such a high priority on education and self-sufficiency."....
> 
> Basically a feminists work is NEVER, I repeat *NEVER* done until they influence the minds & hearts of every woman born, growing up ...well.. ALIVE to think like them, want the same things as them.
> 
> Am I misreading this ...anyone ??
> 
> This really is what I EXPECT from those who feel the need to speak how feminist they are....my beef is....
> 
> I'd appreciate more honesty ... please stop telling us more conservative SAHM's that we're accepted- just like the rest of you... this is utter BS..... Just be more honest about it.. lay it out there like @EnigmaGirl here...and drop the whole pandering and "coddling" to us about choice..
> 
> This is similar to religion to me.. They speak how God gives us FREE WILL, loves us unconditionally... but then.. the clincher *>>* if one doesn't choose the straight & Narrow , they get to burn in everlasting fire ...But GOD loves us...all of us...
> 
> Lovely choice there, we'd be better off to not have free will......
> 
> I don't buy religion at all -but I can't help but see THIS in a similar light...Many a feminist has an agenda to change society.... to indoctrinate....just as religion uses FEAR of hell fire, then slaps some crazy sh** about unconditional love on it..


I would agree that there is an element of intolerance going on with the feminist narrative, but the same can be said for men's rights advocates.

More reasonable people who dentify as feminist, my Mom and her sisters for example, would never look down on someone for choosing to stay home, but they do credit second wave feminism with opening up broader employment possibilities for women.

It's the more radical feminists that are the problem. They deffinitly don't respect free will and make the whole movement look bad.


----------



## turnera

It's the more radical __________ (fill in blank) that are the problem. They definitely don't respect free will and make the whole movement look bad.


----------



## SolidSnake

turnera said:


> It's the more radical __________ (fill in blank) that are the problem. They definitely don't respect free will and make the whole movement look bad.


Yes, I agree with your point. I should elaborate though that it's the radical perspectives which have likely turned a lot of women of my generation away from the movement, and which alienate the more conservative women on TAM.

I would say though that it's also about how polite people are when they present themselves and their argument. 

Of course, a bad attitude is not respective of all feminists by any means.


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> Am I misreading this ...anyone ??


Not from my seat.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> More reasonable people who dentify as feminist, my Mom and her sisters for example, would never look down on someone for choosing to stay home, but they do credit second wave feminism with opening up broader employment possibilities for women.


Its so tiring that these threads always dissolve into whining because so many SAHP are so incredibly insecure about who they are and what they're doing. What's really amusing is that the topic isn't even about SAHP, they're often about financial responsibility. The issue is that sooo many SAHP are absolute financial dependents and have zero self-sufficiency.

The bottom line is that what people on here are suggesting is that any adult person needs to be financially responsible...period. Whatever you do, you need to have a responsible plan to support yourself and your children in the event of an issue.

Personally, as a woman and as a mother of female children, my advice to them is to educate themselves and to work hard. And that is what every mother I know tells their children...both male and female. But if you're going to stay home all day, at least have a plan to be able to support your children because life often throws you a curveball and you need to reasonable anticipate highly possible situations.

I really don't give a rat's butt if the SAHP are insulted about my comments because we all know that at least twice a month on this site there's a woman whining about how she can't leave a bad marriage, or can't take care of her kids or herself after a divorce because she's been irresponsible and fully depended on a man to financially fund her entire life. In my opinion, its foolish, stupid and irresponsible behavior that's backed up with constant empirical evidence.

I make zero apologies for the fact that I personally respect a certain type of person/women and direct my children the same way. I have always admired hard-working, career-oriented people/women. Its what I've personally aspired to and have hoped that my children aspire to. I certainly don't want them to aspire to be a financially subservient to a man...that would be a complete waste of all of their gifts, intelligence, education and capabilities. In my family, we believe in hard work and self-reliance...always have, always will.

And as previously mentioned, young women are going entirely in the right direction. They're getting higher education in increasing numbers and as they enter the workforce, companies will need to make changes towards childcare policy so they can retain talented employees. 

I generally just ignore most of the SAH crowd on here because they're often here to whine about feminists and/or working women not respecting them. The behavior is always illuminating. People that are secure in who they are and what they do engage this way and don't require constant validation of their personal choices.


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> I would agree that there is an element of intolerance going on with the feminist narrative, but the same can be said for men's rights advocates.
> 
> More reasonable people who dentify as feminist, my Mom and her sisters for example, would never look down on someone for choosing to stay home, but they do credit second wave feminism with opening up broader employment possibilities for women.
> *
> It's the more radical feminists that are the problem. They deffinitly don't respect free will and make the whole movement look bad.*


I agree with you. However, fortunately, I haven't encountered any radical feminists on TAM, and I don't believe that any of us here would identify with their radical views.


----------



## naiveonedave

Cosmos said:


> I agree with you. However, fortunately, I haven't encountered any radical feminists on TAM, and I don't believe that any of us here would identify with their radical views.


there are a few around, they just keep it relatively toned down. Same with MGTOW....


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> Its so tiring that these threads always dissolve into whining because so many SAHP are so incredibly insecure about who they are and what they're doing.


It is not incumbent upon me to accept your projection as my reality.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Yes, I agree with your point. I should elaborate though that it's the radical perspectives which have likely turned a lot of women of my generation away from the movement, and which alienate the more conservative women on TAM.


lol...I don't think many feminists are worried about "turning off" conservative women. I don't know any feminist woman who is trying recruit converts.

Personally, I consider my role simply to help and empower my own children and women in my industry where I can.

Change happens whether you try to stop it or not.

The train on this issue left the station a long time ago.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> It is not incumbent upon me to accept your projection as my reality.


I don't recall asking you to.

I'm stating my opinion...it doesn't require either your permission or approval.


----------



## SolidSnake

EnigmaGirl said:


> Its so tiring that these threads always dissolve into whining because so many SAHP are so incredibly insecure about who they are and what they're doing. What's really amusing is that the topic isn't even about SAHP, they're often about financial responsibiliy


This thread IS about stay at homes, income, and balancing that with family. Of course there will be a plurality of views.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SolidSnake said:


> I would say that there is an element of social engineering going on with the feminist narrative, but the same can be said for men's rights advocates.
> 
> *More reasonable people who identify as feminist, my Mom and her sisters for example, would never look down on someone for choosing to stay home, but they do credit second wave feminism with opening up broader employment possibilities for women.*


Yes... more reasonable...

Problem is.. just cause one calls themselves one.. we have no idea how they REALLY look at it, until discussions like this get opened up.. then it's very telling... but again.. the same could be said about religious people.. just how much of a "fundamentalist" are they ??

Words mean nothing to me...there are good & bad, radical and reasonable in ALL groups and isms... 

I have 1 friend who refers to herself as a feminist.. She warmly embraces me for who I am.. she even thinks I am smart (imagine that.. hopefully she is not just coddling me)...I'm kidding.. I KNOW she isn't..

I so enjoy serving my husband... I am truly a more old fashioned woman at







... I have lived my dream.... if I died tomorrow.. may he put this on my gravestone.. it's enough. 



SolidSnake said:


> I own that book. *There is absolutely something to be said for thrift and paying cash for purchases. *The book was published in the 1990s though when savings interest was higher and the stock market more profitable. But its still possible to live very frugally.


 I use my credit card for *E V E R Y T H I N G *..... Food, Home Heating oil ... I've bought cars with my visa, Doctor co-pays, insurances... 

I never bother to look at interest rates - I pay in full as soon as the bill is available....I look for the cards that give the most cash back (2% - with monthly deals at 5% back.. just gotta keep a mental note of those changes)... 

I make approx $800 a year doing this.. so it far beats using cash to me !... Also if lost.. you wont be charged, the dispute option if needed.. I've used that a time or two.. all the while upping one's credit score...last I looked.. mine was 810 on Credit Karma...



> *I think part of the problem is consumerism, and the necessity that women/both partners must work to support a certain lifestyle, preexisting car loans, higher than necessary mortgage payments, expensive vacations, etc. when the family could live more frugally off of one income. Unless they are very very low income and work out of absolute necessity*.


 We hoarded our $$ while dating / early marriage with the hopes/ plan of putting like HALF down when we found our dream house.. we wanted our monthly payments to be as low as possible -just in case we had a hardship in our future... the highest mortgage payment we ever had was $450 a month... Our loan was for 14 yrs.. we paid it off in 7. 

I have always found being "Frugal" pretty easy.. There are other things I struggle to be disciplined in.. like exercising- or staying away from chocolate..







just never in this area... 



> *But both partners need to be on board with a SAH frugal living arrangement though. *


 This is very important .... we've had fights in our marriage... like everyone else.. but not over money or how it's spent...We've always been of the same mindset here...it's a lifestyle really... we're both savers.. this helps tremendously.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> This thread IS about stay at homes, income, and balancing that with family. Of course there will be a plurality of views.


I have no issue with the varying opinions. Its the whining about perceived attacks on SAHPs that are annoying and it happens on every similar thread.


----------



## Cosmos

SolidSnake said:


> This thread IS about stay at homes, income, and balancing that with family. Of course there will be a plurality of views.


Yes it is, but I'm baffled at how SAHMs feel that they're constantly under attack, simply because working mothers have described how they're doing things differently.

In my time I was both a SAHM and a working mother, and quite frankly I couldn't have given a hoot if someone criticized what I was doing.

I'm not being obtuse, SS; I'm just not getting it.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> I don't recall asking you to.
> 
> I'm stating my opinion...it doesn't require either your permission or approval.





> Its so tiring that these threads always dissolve into whining because so many SAHP are so incredibly insecure about who they are and what they're doing.


It's just too bad your opinion is so patronizing.

Let me distill it so there is no misunderstanding.

1. You're on record as saying SAHPs are negligent in the rearing of their children
2. When some SAHP parents object, you call them insecure.

That's the reason you're getting blowback. There are many reasons to disagree with your conclusion that are not based on any insecurity, real or perceived.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cosmos said:


> Yes it is, but I'm baffled at how SAHMs feel that they're constantly under attack, simply because working mothers have described how they're doing things differently.
> 
> In my time I was both a SAHM and a working mother, and quite frankly I couldn't have given a hoot if someone criticized what I was doing.
> 
> I'm not being obtuse, SS; I'm just not getting it.


I agree.....i have no idea what anyone is talking about with the claim that sahp's are attacked. 

I've been accused of it just for stating my opinion that it's not work the risk.

So who is really intolerant, when one can't have an opinion about the risk of staying at home without being accused af attacking sahp's?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

lifeistooshort said:


> I agree.....i have no idea what anyone is talking about with the claim that sahp's are attacked.
> 
> I've been accused of it just for stating my opinion that it's not work the risk.
> 
> So who is really intolerant, when one can't have an opinion about the risk of staying at home without being accused af attacking sahp's?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I personally don't believe the issue is people having differing opinion but instead the condescending tone of some of the responses (not directed at you life).


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> It's just too bad your opinion is so patronizing.


sigh...more whining.

If you don't like a post, all you have to do is disregard it.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> sigh...more whining.
> 
> If you don't like a post, all you have to do is disregard it.


You forgot to call me insecure. So is whining about whining meta-whining?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> You forgot to call me insecure.


I find it amusing that you identified with my posts to the point where you felt they were directed at you personally...lol.


----------



## Cletus

EnigmaGirl said:


> I find it amusing that you identified with my posts to the point where you felt they were directed at you personally...lol.


When a person makes a broad-sweeping generalization, one is left to wonder it they're included in the group or not. Nothing stopping me for speaking up for the class under the microscope.

Regardless of whether or not I think it was addressed to me, it is inappropriate, callous, and probably wrong for the most part. If you're happy being smug and condescending, it's your right. 

I think SAHP deserve better. You clearly disagree.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> When a person makes a broad-sweeping generalization, one is left to wonder it they're included in the group or not. Nothing stopping me for speaking up for the class under the microscope.
> 
> Regardless of whether or not I think it was addressed to me, it is inappropriate, callous, and probably wrong for the most part. If you're happy being smug and condescending, it's your right.
> 
> I think SAHP deserve better. You clearly disagree.


People make broad sweeping generalizations about feminists all time and they every right to do so. In fact its happened, several times on this thread. 

They have every right to their opinions and I have every right to disregard them. I don't whine that posters on a public internet form need to respect me and my choices because a) they don't and b) I couldn't care less if they do.

And again, my points primarily centered around individual financial responsibility...not around SAHPs.

Feel free to whine on but I'm going to refrain from bothering to soothe your perceived mistreatment.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnigmaGirl said:


> *I generally just ignore most of the SAH crowd on here because they're often here to whine about feminists and/or working women not respecting them. The behavior is always illuminating. People that are secure in who they are and what they do engage this way and don't require constant validation of their personal choices*.


 It's not insecurity Enigamagirl... of course I doubt you would believe this no matter what I say...

It's simply responding to your "patronizing" statements on some of us... thing is.. I actually agree with you in a # of areas... about money management, having something to fall back upon...that's wisdom !! Absolutely .... but then you dig your heels in further...in such a way as to exclude those who may even do this.. (or can I say.. it often reads that way).. maybe you don't have this intention.. I don't honestly know!! 

You & Cosmos speak of those whining...Obviously you both are referring to me ... since I often stick my head in these threads.. ..

This thread was opened about a Traditional bread-winning man who feels such men are no longer needed - there is no care for his role.. you know what is sad to me.. He's right [email protected]#$% .. here I am a more traditional woman to raise my hand and say.. "well some of us still appreciate you and all you bring".. it's just an opinion, like yours..... but at least it wasn't a hurtful one putting the original poster down. 

I had good intentions when I clicked on this thread.... 

Honestly I'd like to know why all the Feminists showed up here ...what's your contribution to this thread.. just to let him know .. society has changed and yeah.. we don't need you for sh** anymore... a good dose of reality... 

Then a new poster comes on the scene... MichelleM...I can tell you..she doesn't care to come back ... thanks to some attitudes here..

Ya know what I find sad on this forum.. when someone comes here.. she opens up her heart.. shared some of her story... so she'd get a little understanding (that was asking too much I guess)... she tried to be honest, even vulnerable in her posting.....she may have ruffled some feathers before this (which just shows that BOTH sides are sensitive to how others feel...and what they say..... it's NOT just the Stay at Homes)... 

If someone has a perspective we don't like, if we feel they are misinformed.. isn't it better to try to share with them the goodness in you , where you can find common ground...so she can see that her views may be a little tainted... (if so) but instead.. she got more of the same.. just to reinforce her own experience.. ... can't blame her for leaving... I know the rest of you feel "good riddance".. but I think just a little lower of those who are so proud of this...

There is a better, more understanding way, to deal with us...to help us see your side.. 

@SolidSnake is completely on the $$ when she said " it's the radical perspectives which have likely turned a lot of women of my generation away from the movement, and which alienate the more conservative women on TAM."

This is very true.. I feel this way.... but many have shut their ears.. they don't care- and say it outright...(like in some of the recent posts)...this again just serves more of a divide.. it would for anyone.. (I hope you can see this)... 

On my end... I actually DO care to be understood ....to find some common ground.. but being met with what's been displayed here... it does make me one want to shriek away.. ..and Sup with those more like minded..


----------



## lifeistooshort

EllisRedding said:


> I personally don't believe the issue is people having differing opinion but instead the condescending tone of some of the responses (not directed at you life).


Maybe I've missed those responses. 

Many of us who now work have stayed home. 

I have.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

lifeistooshort said:


> Maybe I've missed those responses.
> 
> Many of us who now work have stayed home.
> 
> I have.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


IDK, I think the condescending tone in some of the responses has been rather apparent (as pointed out by others as well), doesn't necessarily have to do with who has worked and/or stayed home.Everyone can read into things differently, oh well, it is the internet after all lol.


----------



## Cosmos

lifeistooshort said:


> Maybe I've missed those responses.
> 
> Many of us who now work have stayed home.
> 
> I have.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then I must have missed them, too.

The trouble is, often when a woman speaks her mind confidently and without apology, it can be perceived as challenging and / or condescending, when in fact it is neither.

I think that's perhaps what's been happening here.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EllisRedding said:


> IDK, I think the condescending tone in some of the responses has been rather apparent (as pointed out by others as well), doesn't necessarily have to do with who has worked and/or stayed home.Everyone can read into things differently, oh well, it is the internet after all lol.


Perhaps you could point me to one of these posts?

Then we can see if our definition of condescending is the same.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Then I must have missed them, too.
> 
> The trouble is, often when a woman speaks her mind confidently and without apology, it can be perceived as challenging and / or condescending, when in fact it is neither.
> 
> I think that's perhaps what's been happening here.


It could be. Or it could simply be the person talking condescendingly and just uses the "I am just confident" excuse  Works both ways, wouldn't be the first.



lifeistooshort said:


> Perhaps you could point me to one of these posts?
> 
> Then we can see if our definition of condescending is the same.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are welcome to read through the thread. I am not trying to convince anyone here. Just simply pointing out my observation which I believe has led to some of the responses given back. Am I right or wrong, probably doesn't matter. Like I said, just an observation.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> See the more people who PRAISE her posts and LIKE them.. just shows me very clearly.. that indeed.. feminism TODAY is far more about influencing the minds of women to do what THEY feel they should do.. NOT about choice.. well sure ...it's a free world.....we can do what we want ... (but remember sister.. it won't be respected !)...
> 
> As in her words..... " its going to take some time but its heartening to see the attitudes of young women these days that are placing such a high priority on education and self-sufficiency."....
> 
> Basically a feminists work is NEVER, I repeat *NEVER* done until they influence the minds & hearts of every woman born, growing up ...well.. ALIVE to think like them, want the same things as them.
> 
> Am I misreading this ...anyone ??
> 
> This really is what I EXPECT from those who feel the need to speak how feminist they are....my beef is....
> 
> I'd appreciate more honesty ... please stop telling us more conservative SAHM's that we're accepted- just like the rest of you... this is utter BS..... Just be more honest about it.. lay it out there like @EnigmaGirl here...and drop the whole pandering and "coddling" to us about choice..
> 
> This is similar to religion to me.. They speak how God gives us FREE WILL, loves us unconditionally... but then.. the clincher *>>* if one doesn't choose the straight & Narrow , they get to burn in everlasting fire ...But GOD loves us...all of us...
> 
> Lovely choice there, we'd be better off to not have free will......
> 
> I don't buy religion at all -but I can't help but see THIS in a similar light...Many a feminist has an agenda to change society.... to indoctrinate....just as religion uses FEAR of hell fire, then slaps some crazy sh** about unconditional love on it..


There are over 150 million women in this country. Most of them do not have college degrees. Most of them are not even really encouraged to do so. There is not HUGE conspiracy to brain wash ever female child into getting a college degree, having a high power career and either not have a family or ignore her family.

When my step daughter greaduated from high school, no one at her school encouraged her to go to college dispite the fact that she was in all AP classes. Nor did anyone encourage her friends. They did come to me to find out how to either go to a trade school or college. 

No one has a diabolical plot to make you, or people like you, extinct.

There are people who feel that it's a good idea to encourage their own childen, to include girls, to have enough education and/or training in job skills to get a job if they need to. And in some families, we think that it is important that a girl have the ability to earn a good income if she wants to. It is also ok if she wants to be a SAHM. That way she has the option. And if things go down hill and her husband dies and/or is disabled she can support her family. 

Just because a woman gets an education does not mean that she cannot be a SAHM. I have a neice how has a PHD. She is a SAHM. She got the PHD all on her own. No one forced her to. She was the one who even found the funding, all on her own. Then she met her hsubnd, married, had kids and is a SAHM. No one looks down on her or wonders why she did that. You see we accept her choices for her own life.


----------



## EleGirl

SolidSnake said:


> For the record, I work part time at night when my husband is home to watch our son. You have to have your masters to be a librarian. I should look into the teaching aspect. I also do some freelance writing. I'd like to do more.


It sounds like you have a lovely life. Good for you!! You are an inspiration really.


----------



## SolidSnake

Cosmos said:


> Yes it is, but I'm baffled at how SAHMs feel that they're constantly under attack, simply because working mothers have described how they're doing things differently.
> 
> In my time I was both a SAHM and a working mother, and quite frankly I couldn't have given a hoot if someone criticized what I was doing.
> 
> I'm not being obtuse, SS; I'm just not getting it.


Let me say I'm not personally offended. It's just my observation on TAM over the years. 

Other people have already summarized it well enough. It's not opinions that are offensive but the tone can be off putting.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> This thread was opened about a Traditional bread-winning man who feels such men are no longer needed - there is no care for his role.. you know what is sad to me.. He's right [email protected]#$% .. here I am a more traditional woman to raise my hand and say.. "well some of us still appreciate you and all you bring".. it's just an opinion, like yours..... but at least it wasn't a hurtful one putting the original poster down.
> 
> I had good intentions when I clicked on this thread....
> 
> Honestly I'd like to know why all the Feminists showed up here ...what's your contribution to this thread.. just to let him know .. society has changed and yeah.. we don't need you for sh** anymore... a good dose of reality...


Does a man who is a 'traditional' breadwinner deserver more praise than a woman who is a bread winner?

Could it possibly be that a woman who is a breadwinner has a whole lot in common with a man who is a breadwinner?

Could it be that this thread is really about all breadwinners, regardless of gender?

Which posts on this thread put down the OP?

I'm not sure why you think that some women have no right to post on this thread. What makes you think that women who identify as feminists would attack or not respect a man who is a breadwinner. Why would you even attack other people like this?

Not one person except you said "society has changed and yeah.. we don't need you for sh** anymore... a good dose of reality..." 

So why are you spewing this hateful nonsense?


----------



## EleGirl

SolidSnake said:


> Let me say I'm not personally offended. It's just my observation on TAM over the years.
> 
> Other people have already summarized it well enough. It's not opinions that are offensive but the tone can be off putting.


The tone towards women who work and most especially towards any woman on TAM who says she is a feminist is extremely off putting. 

I've been on TAM for years, it's been like this since I got here. It has actually gotten to be a little bit less in the last year. 

Very often the women who are SAHMs are very vocal against any woman who is not a SAHM (you excluded as you are pretty even handed.)


----------



## SolidSnake

EleGirl said:


> The tone towards women who work and most especially towards any woman on TAM who says she is a feminist is extremely off putting.
> 
> I've been on TAM for years, it's been like this since I got here. It has actually gotten to be a little bit less in the last year.
> 
> Very often the women who are SAHMs are very vocal against any woman who is not a SAHM (you excluded as you are pretty even handed.)


It's interesting that everybody perceives the same things differently. Everybody has an axe to grind like I said previously.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> W*hen my step daughter greaduated from high school, no one at her school encouraged her to go to college dispite the fact that she was in all AP classes. Nor did anyone encourage her friends. They did come to me to find out how to either go to a trade school or college. *
> 
> There are people who feel that it's a good idea to encourage their own childen, to include girls, to have enough education and/or training in job skills to get a job if they need to. And in some families, we think that it is important that a girl have the ability to earn a good income if she wants to. It is also ok if she wants to be a SAHM. That way she has the option. And if things go down hill and her husband dies and/or is disabled she can support her family.


The bolded statement was true of my eldest daughter too but with my younger one, I'm noticing that things are a lot different. She's getting a lot of encouragement already to look at a university education in one of the STEM fields. 

There's more scholarship opportunities and more intern opportunities for her than there were for my oldest.

I would only be disappointed with my children if they didn't educate themselves and if they were financially dependent on men and used them for money without the means to support themselves. I've done my best to instill certain values in my children to help ensure that they would not take that path...just like my mom did for me.


----------



## EleGirl

SolidSnake said:


> It's interesting that everybody perceives the same things differently. Everybody has an axe to grind like I said previously.


I have been told on TAM that I'm not a real woman because I have always been the breadwinner.

I've been called all kinds of pretty nasty names for supporting equal rights for women. The only reason I'm still on TAM is that I ignore it. A lot of women have left TAM because of the constant attacks.


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> The bolded statement was true of my eldest daughter too but with my younger one, I'm noticing that things are a lot different. She's getting a lot of encouragement already to look at a university education in one of the STEM fields.
> 
> There's more scholarship opportunities and more intern opportunities for her than there were for my oldest.
> 
> I would only be disappointed with my children if they didn't educate themselves and if they were financially dependent on men and used them for money without the means to support themselves. I've done my best to instill certain values in my children to help ensure that they would not take that path...just like my mom did for me.


When I was growing up, it was my father who told all of his 5 daughters to make sure that we were never is a position to be so dependent on a man that we could not leave if we had to. As I stated earlier, his own father took his mother's sizable inheritance and blew it on his wild life style.. leaving her to have to work as a nurse to support their four children.

Another thing he told me was "Don't do housework. You can earn in one or two hours what you can pay someone 8 hours to do in housework. Be smart on how you spend your time and energy."

He had 5 daughters and 3 sons. He was a very good father for a girl to have. (and for the boys too  )


----------



## EleGirl

Who are the SAHMs who were driven off TAM?

And do you mean banned or they just left on their own?


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> When I was growing up, it was my father who told all of his 5 daughters to make sure that we were never is a position to be so dependent on a man that we could not leave if we had to. As I stated earlier, his own father took his mother's sizable inheritance and blew it on his wild life style.. leaving her to have to work as a nurse to support their four children.
> 
> Another thing he told me was "Don't do housework. You can earn in one or two hours what you can pay someone 8 hours to do in housework. Be smart on how you spend your time and energy."
> *
> He had 5 daughters and 3 sons. He was a very good father for a girl to have. (and for the boys too  *)


Your father sounded like an excellent role model. I think the important role of a father is often overlooked when it comes to his influence on his daughters. It isn't just sons who need good, male role models. Girls need them, too.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Just because a woman gets an education does not mean that she cannot be a SAHM. I have a neice how has a PHD. She is a SAHM. *She got the PHD all on her own. *No one forced her to. She was the one who even found the funding, all on her own. Then she met her hsubnd, married, had kids and is a SAHM. *No one looks down on her or wonders why she did that. You see we accept her choices for her own life.*


Well of course you accept *HER choices*...and so would all the other feminists on this thread... she was a smart woman who got a degree..this is what you respect.. not those who depend on a man.. 

It's Ok... I'm happy you pointed this out... I'll still post here and offer my opinions.. I still feel I am worth my weight in gold.. to those who know me and love me..... even if I am degree-less, and my husband supports me & our family..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well of course you accept *HER choices*...and so would all the other feminists on this thread... she was a smart woman who got a degree..this is what you respect.. not those who depend on a man..
> 
> It's Ok... I'm happy you pointed this out... I'll still post here and offer my opinions.. I still feel I am worth my weight in gold.. to those who know me and love me..... even if I am degree-less, and my husband supports me & our family..


You are certainly worth your weight in gold, SA. You are a wonderful woman, and a dear friend of mine. I treasure that friendship. I hope I can someday repay all the kindness you have shown me. And my boys can't wait to come visit again! 

I feel pretty conflicted at times during these debates. I treasure my friendships with my feminist friends on TAM, too. And I do identify as a feminist, SAHM and financial dependent of my husband that I am. 

I have so much respect for Cosmos, who worked 3 jobs to support her son. And he is doing so well! What a credit to her love and devotion! And what a fine example she set by going back to school at 60. She has shown it is never too late. What an inspiration!

I am absolutely humbled by Ele, who has survived numerous difficult situations, and shows no bitterness. Instead, she uses that experience every day on TAM to help others. What an example for all of us. And her son is studying physics, which my brother told me is possibly the hardest degree out there!

And lifeistooshort has a degree in physics, too, as well as music. Multi-talented! And makes such powerful posts here on TAM, that make me laugh even as they make me think! What a great gal, and a dear friend as well! 

I am blown away by the fierce independence of EnigmaGirl. EG, you want the best for your kids, just like SA does for hers. You just have a different vision, is all. And I would not dare argue with you! I cannot hold a candle to your strength! 

There are so many women I hold in high esteem on TAM, so many devoted and hardworking women. We all love our families. We all want the best for them. We love our men as well as our children, whatever our financial arrangements with them. 

I respect strong women. I learn from them. And I am so grateful for their presence here, whether we agree or not. It is the disagreement that makes the convos so interesting, actually.


----------



## brooklynAnn

jld said:


> You are certainly worth your weight in gold, SA. You are a wonderful woman, and a dear friend of mine. I treasure that friendship. I hope I can someday repay all the kindness you have shown me. And my boys can't wait to come visit again!
> 
> I feel pretty conflicted at times during these debates. I treasure my friendships with my feminist friends on TAM, too. And I do identify as a feminist, SAHM and financial dependent of my husband that I am.
> 
> I have so much respect for Cosmos, who worked 3 jobs to support her son. And he is doing so well! What a credit to her love and devotion! And what a fine example she set by going back to school at 60. She has shown it is never too late. What an inspiration!
> 
> I am absolutely humbled by Ele, who has survived numerous difficult situations, and shows no bitterness. Instead, she uses that experience every day on TAM to help others. What an example for all of us. And her son is studying physics, which my brother told me is possibly the hardest degree out there!
> 
> And lifeistooshort has a degree in physics, too, as well as music. Multi-talented! And makes such powerful posts here on TAM, that make me laugh even as they make me think! What a great gal, and a dear friend as well!
> 
> I am blown away by the fierce independence of EnigmaGirl. EG, you want the best for your kids, just like SA does for hers. You just have a different vision, is all. And I would not dare argue with you! I cannot hold a candle to your strength!
> 
> There are so many women I hold in high esteem on TAM, so many devoted and hardworking women. We all love our families. We all want the best for them. We love our men as well as our children, whatever our financial arrangements with them.
> 
> I respect strong women. I learn from them. And I am so grateful for their presence here, whether we agree or not. It is the disagreement that makes the convos so interesting, actually.


Well said. Being here on TAM has given me an education and I have learned so much from so many wonderful women and men. We should always try to bring each other up instead of putting each other down. None of us are perfect. I know I am not. 

We are all amazing in our own right. The most important thing is that we continue to better ourselves, try to live the best life possible, care for our children and spouse. And give a helping hand if we can. 

Thank you @jld for pointing out what is important.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I have so much respect for Cosmos, who worked 3 jobs to support her son. And he is doing so well! What a credit to her love and devotion! And what a fine example she set by going back to school at 60. She has shown it is never too late. What an inspiration!


Thank you so much for your kind words, JLD. Coming from you, they mean a lot to me.

I agree with you about the other ladies you mentioned, and would add you (and a few others) to the list of women I hold in high esteem.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> I have been told on TAM that I'm not a real woman because I have always been the breadwinner.
> 
> I've been called all kinds of pretty nasty names for supporting equal rights for women. The only reason I'm still on TAM is that I ignore it. A lot of women have left TAM because of the constant attacks.


The moment anyone starts off by saying you aren't a real "________" (insert man, woman, race, etc...) I quickly lose any interest for what they have to say. One time someone actually told me I wasn't really a doctor, which "technically" is true, but still 

I do agree that there are people who get legitimately unfairly attacked solely b/c of their views, their race, etc... However, on the other end of it, there are people who are unable to handle any sort of criticism or POVs that differ from them, and to rationalize it will just say it is because of their "difference". A perfect example would be Cam Newton who has faced criticism for his on field antics. Much of the criticism has nothing to do with race, but naturally he has made it a race issue.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Thank you so much for your kind words, JLD. Coming from you, they mean a lot to me.
> 
> I agree with you about the other ladies you mentioned, and would add you (and a few others) to the list of women I hold in high esteem.


You are very welcome, Cosmos. And sincere thanks.  

And you are absolutely right, there are many fine women on TAM!


----------



## Cletus

SolidSnake said:


> It's interesting that everybody perceives the same things differently. Everybody has an axe to grind like I said previously.


Everyone's right here.

There are people who say that all opinions not directly rooted in fact are equal - but who clearly post in a tone that indicates otherwise.

On matters of feminism, I have no tender spot nor ax to grind (the chips on my shoulder, while just as large, lie elsewhere), so it's pretty clear. 

Neither side has the monopoly on condescending rhetoric.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well of course you accept *HER choices*...and so would all the other feminists on this thread... she was a smart woman who got a degree..this is what you respect.. not those who depend on a man..


You are trying to put words in my mouth that I have never, ever said. I have always stated that think that being a SAHM is a good thing to do and a valid choice for a women, any woman.

I think it is fine if a woman decides to be a SAHM and be supported by a man. If a couple makes this choice, then why should I care one way or the other? 

I have said that I think you have a wonderful life, you are a VERY smart woman. You and your husband have done things the right way in that you two have set things up so that you and your children are taken care of if anything were to happen to him. 

I don't know why you are so vested in trying to paint me as an evil person who hates SAHMs. That is your problem and it's getting more than tiresome.

I seldom even post to you or respond to you anymore because I know that no matter what I say, you will go out of your way to attack me and try to make me into someone I am not.



SimplyAmorous said:


> It's Ok... I'm happy you pointed this out... I'll still post here and offer my opinions.. I still feel I am worth my weight in gold.. to those who know me and love me..... even if I am degree-less, and my husband supports me & our family..


What I posted was not an attack on you. It was an attempt to show that being a SAHM is a valid choice for a woman regardless if she has not gone beyond high school in her education or gone all the way through college and has a PHD. Someone on this thread said that it is not possible for a woman to be a SAHM and a feminist. (was that you?). Clearly it is 100% possible.

You are actually very blessed. Not all woman have a husband who supports her and their children financially. Many don't for varied reasons. And for those women, thank God feminism made it so that we can take care of our children, our husbands when needed and ourselves. I'm very sorry that the fact that we can do this causes you so much pain, to the point that you think it invalidates you. But you are the only person on this thread who thinks that. You are putting words in other people's "mouths" that they have not said.

Even EnigmaGirl, (sorry EG) who can have a harsh way of saying things, has not said even one word against YOU and YOUR life style. You have done exactly what she warns that every SAHM needs to do.. make sure that you have a way to survive financially if anything happens to your husband or your marriage.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> There are so many women I hold in high esteem on TAM, so many devoted and hardworking women. We all love our families. We all want the best for them. We love our men as well as our children, whatever our financial arrangements with them.
> 
> I respect strong women. I learn from them. And I am so grateful for their presence here, whether we agree or not. It is the disagreement that makes the convos so interesting, actually.


Jld, I too thank you for the kind words. Just know that you too are one of those strong women. 

And you know what, so is SA. There is a lot to admire about SA. I just wish she could see that others see that in her.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I support anyone's life choices if I feel that they really understood the choices they made, and of course assuming those choices don't hurt others.

If a woman wants to be independent - great. If a woman wants to be a STAM - great. People just need to realize that some choices are not practical: if someone stays at home to raise kids for 20 years, they will not be able to reenter the work force in the same sort of job that they would have had if they had not taken a break from work. Similarly if someone wants a high pressure career, they have to realize that it will impact the amount of time that they have with their children.


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> The moment anyone starts off by saying you aren't a real "________" (insert man, woman, race, etc...) I quickly lose any interest for what they have to say. One time someone actually told me I wasn't really a doctor, which "technically" is true, but still


Always the smart a$$ …
One person’s words are easy to ignore. When they get tons of likes for such nonsense, then it becomes something else.


EllisRedding said:


> I do agree that there are people who get legitimately unfairly attacked solely b/c of their views, their race, etc... However, on the other end of it, there are people who are unable to handle any sort of criticism or POVs that differ from them, and to rationalize it will just say it is because of their "difference". A perfect example would be Cam Newton who has faced criticism for his on field antics. Much of the criticism has nothing to do with race, but naturally he has made it a race issue.


Discussing different points of view is not usually criticism. That is as long as the point of view is not filled with wide sweeping generalizations accusing everyone in some group of something negative. 

Now as far as you being a doctor goes, this is the internet, you can be anyone and anything you want to be. Just say it and it will be so.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> Always the smart a$$ …


Life's too short to spend it serious all the time. Plus, I deal with enough of that crap at work all day, I'm here to let loose :grin2:



EleGirl said:


> One person’s words are easy to ignore. When they get tons of likes for such nonsense, then it becomes something else.


I don't pay much attention to likes. If I like a post, I click "like", if not I just move on. However, I say level the playing field, add a dislike feature 



EleGirl said:


> Discussing different points of view is not usually criticism. That is as long as the point of view is not filled with wide sweeping generalizations accusing everyone in some group of something negative.


You missed my point. The criticism was not about someone expressing their POV but instead of the manner in which that POV was delivered. No need to beat a dead horse here as I believe this point has been made several times.



EleGirl said:


> Now as far as you being a doctor goes, this is the internet, you can be anyone and anything you want to be. Just say it and it will be so.


I will submit my request shortly to have my username changed to DrEllisRedding :grin2:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Even EnigmaGirl, (sorry EG) who can have a harsh way of saying things, has not said even one word against YOU and YOUR life style. You have done exactly what she warns that every SAHM needs to do.. make sure that you have a way to survive financially if anything happens to your husband or your marriage.


Its quite alright. I'm not one of those people that mince words and I can't stop someone who's irrationally sensitive from interpreting something negatively that I didn't say.

Truthfully, I didn't even read any of Simply's posts. The pictures and fluffy, colored text throw me off and I just skip over the posts, so I didn't even see what she was complaining about. You'd think she would have noticed I didn't respond to anything she said...but whatever.

My comments were not directed at any particular person but were about the concept of financial responsibility for both genders which is something I believe strongly in. But I can't stop someone who's suffering from insecurity or hypersensitivity extrapolating an insult where none exists.

The SAH crowd on this site often has a mob mentality and think they can bully you to praise them for their lifestyle choices. The whole concept is silly. People are permitted to admire and aspire to whatever they please...and if I don't find that SAH lifestyle, or any other lifestyle, admirable, that's fine. I certainly don't get offended when someone insults working women or feminists. They're also entitled to admire whatever they please.

Invariably the whole thread always seems to turn into SAHs whining about how they're not being praised and/or their perceived list of insults and/or how they're going to leave the site. Tiresome...


----------



## sapientia

SAMs are welcome to their lifestyle but let's be clear - it's NOT a career.

To be a SAM means you must be dependent on someone else financially.

There are no single SAMs, except welfare queens. The rest get a job.

I will retire a wealthy woman whether I'm married, widowed or divorced b/c I chose to work.

As for those who imply that 'career women' aren't as good mothers - not true. The grown up children of my friends and colleagues have done very well - great colleges, great early careers. My own son is well on his way to scholarships, just won a district competition, and is a very well mannered, well travelled young man. The latter wouldn't have been possible without my contribution to the household income.

I think SAMs are playing the Vegas Slots with their financial future. I wish them well in the gamble. The rest of us working women - also successful mothers - are completely confident of our financial future because WE control it.


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> When I was growing up, it was my father who told all of his 5 daughters to make sure that we were never is a position to be so dependent on a man that we could not leave if we had to.
> 
> Another thing he told me was "Don't do housework. You can earn in one or two hours what you can pay someone 8 hours to do in housework. Be smart on how you spend your time


This is great advice and I completely agree. My home is professionally cleaned weekly and I wouldn't do without it.

I love to cook for my family. I also work hard. So the time I would have spent cleaning is redirected to family time. Our weekends are low stress. It's a wonderful way to live.


----------



## Kivlor

EnigmaGirl said:


> The whole concept is silly. People are permitted to admire and aspire to whatever they please...and if I don't find that SAH lifestyle, or any other lifestyle, admirable, that's fine. I certainly don't get offended when someone insults working women or feminists. They're also entitled to admire whatever they please.


So, if we don't admire the "working wife" model, we can demean it too, right?

I mean, fair's fair here. Something tells me you and most of the other gals here won't let that fly.


----------



## Cosmos

Kivlor said:


> So, if we don't admire the "working wife" model, we can demean it too, right?
> 
> I mean, fair's fair here. Something tells me you and most of the other gals here won't let that fly.


Demean women _who are helping to support their families_? That would be as ridiculous as demeaning women for staying home and taking care of their families.

In my time I've been a SAHM and a very hard working single mother. Why on earth would I try to demean either of these highly important roles that I have played myself?

Nobody here is trying to demean SAHPs.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> So, if we don't admire the "working wife" model, we can demean it too, right?



There have been several attempts to demean working women on this thread. They counter the posts with data and move on because working women don't need to whine about requiring others to say what they're doing is ok. 

And that's because most of the career women on here don't require validation. They're taking care of their children and their families and that's all the positive feedback they require. The last thing I care about is whether some SAHP approves of my choices

Working women don't sit on here and whine about perceived mistreatment and how they're going to leave the site unless someone says something good about them. 

And no one on here was bashing SAHPs. What happened was is that I, and others, were talking about financially irresponsibility and the SAH mob showed up and started their whine-fest, as per usual. 

That those women identify with my comments isn't my problem and I'm entitled to my opinion.

If you find my very simple statements about basic adult personal responsibility demeaning then you have every right to disregard what I say. What isn't going to happen is me coddling and pandering to someone who's getting insulted from inferring something I didn't say.

So demean working women all you want....I have no doubt they'll handle it just fine.


----------



## sapientia

To be clear: I don't look down on SAHMs. I do believe they need to be realistic about their risk.

I coach entrepreneurs who are willing to risk their financial future--mortgaged homes, lines of credit, friends & family $ and their own life savings on their businesses.

I tell them, bluntly, my assessment of their risk and likely return. I've saved a couple from poor mistakes and financial ruin. Keep in mind, however, that risk on a business (hopefully) comes with a multiple return if successful. Where is that multiple return for the women who chooses to stay out of the workforce?

Putting yourself in a position where your financial future is dependent on another person's goodwill, and health, etc. is a foolish risk, IMO. Especially to only raise children and mind a household. Children are wonderful, but they are not THAT hard to raise, except for rare cases of chronic illness.

Those who make this choice eyes wide open, I say "hey, your choice". But when their marriages fail and they are left scrambling to force their ex for support and must retrain to enter a rapidly evolving workforce, or take menial work--I can only say "we told you so". Mostly, I just feel sorry for the kids in these scenarios. My son benefitted greatly from a very civilized divorce and TWO parents who are successful, self-supporting adults.

From a risk-benefit analysis, I can't see ANY downside to women working. But the upside is tremendous.


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> From a risk-benefit analysis, I can't see ANY downside to women working. But the upside is tremendous.


Not arguing your points, but you can't see any downside with a working parent (I won't point it specifically at women since we are talking about SAH*P*)??? So not having a parent around full time to help raise the kids is not considered a downside (and before you try to say I am implying SAHs are better parents, I am in no way saying that. Both my parent's worked full time and I turned out awesome :wink2. 

To say there is no downside would imply that there is no benefit to a SAH ... Just trying to be fair here.


----------



## sapientia

There are many careers a woman can choose that allow her to work and to have flexibility re: child care. BTW, I do assume that childcare is shared by the man and woman (I would never choose a spouse that doesn't believe in this), so when both have jobs that allow this, child care is pretty much covered.

Also, full-time access to a parent is mostly for when the children are very young. As the kids age, especially when they attend school, there is plenty of opportunity for work. That's what I did and it worked out beautifully. As my son got older, I was able to take increasingly senior roles.

I'm not saying to not care for your children; I AM saying that all women should keep their options open. Part time work for a SAHP when the kids are young transitioning to full-time when they are older is a great compromise that ticks all the boxes.


----------



## Cletus

sapientia said:


> To be clear: I don't look down on SAHMs. I do believe they need to be realistic about their risk.
> 
> ...
> 
> Putting yourself in a position where your financial future is dependent on another person's goodwill, and health, etc. is a foolish risk, IMO. Especially to only raise children and mind a household. Children are wonderful, but they are not THAT hard to raise, except for rare cases of chronic illness.


For the SAHP who chooses this lifestyle, it's often not an economic decision. That's like asking "where's the ROI on our National Parks?" There isn't one, but that's not the reason we have them. 

Of course it's a risk. So is getting behind the wheel of your car every day. We all evaluate risk according to our own metrics of reward.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> So not having a parent around full time to help raise the kids is not considered a downside (and before you try to say I am implying SAHs are better parents,


I honestly am baffled as to why someone can't work once kids are in school and not still raise their children full-time.

Also, there may be some downsides to a woman that has no other aspirations except being home all day besides just potential financial dependence. Examples may be things like: depression from the lack of personal purpose, helicopter/smothering parenting strategies that don't teach children about self-sufficiency, vicariously living through the children rather than having their own identity, the continued atrophying of other capabilities and potential....etc.

For every downside that one could attribute to working mothers, you could do the same for a SAHM.

What you can't say about working moms is that they're risking themselves and their children to potential financial ruin in the very possible reality of a marital breakdown. However, women who are financial dependents (often SAHMs) do put themselves in that position. In my opinion, that level of risk is completely irresponsible when you're a parent.


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> There are many careers a woman can choose that allow her to work and to have flexibility re: child care. BTW, I do assume that childcare is shared by the man and woman (I would never choose a spouse that doesn't believe in this), so when both have jobs that allow this, child care is pretty much covered.
> 
> Also, full-time access to a parent is mostly for when the children are very young. As the kids age, especially when they attend school, there is plenty of opportunity for work. That's what I did and it worked out beautifully. As my son got older, I was able to take increasingly senior roles.
> 
> I'm not saying to not care for your children; I AM saying that all women should keep their options open. Part time work for a SAHP when the kids are young transitioning to full-time when they are older is a great compromise that ticks all the boxes.


I am solely pointing out your comment that there is no downside which I don't agree with. Not saying I don't agree with your other points to some extent. Similar to you, it comes to both parents sitting down, understand both the risks and benefits of all options available, and then choosing the best possible option for their family. If that means one being a SAHP, and they feel that is the best option, go for it. Telling someone you have to work part time just to say you work part time would seem to go against this (once again, all depending on each married couples situation which things will vary).


----------



## EllisRedding

EnigmaGirl said:


> I honestly am baffled as to why someone can't work once kids are in school and not still raise their children full-time.


Sigh ... once again no one said this, that is solely your interpretation since it doesn't align with your views...


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Sigh ... once again no one said this, that is solely your interpretation since it doesn't align with your views...


I'm simply responding to this portion of your post:




> but you can't see any downside with a working parent (I won't point it specifically at women since we are talking about SAHP)??? So not having a parent around full time to help raise the kids is not considered a downside (and before you try to say I am implying SAHs are better parents,


I'm countering that its fallacious to suggest that there aren't plenty of working mothers who ALSO raise their kids full-time. Raising kids full-time is not something that's unique to only SAHPs. Working mothers often simply work hours that align with school hours. The one female employee that I had never misses picking her kids up from the bus after school and volunteers for almost every field trip.


----------



## EllisRedding

EnigmaGirl said:


> I'm simply responding to this portion of your post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm countering that its fallacious to suggest that there aren't plenty of working mothers who ALSO raise their kids full-time. Raising kids full-time is not something that's unique to only SAHPs. Working mothers often simply work hours that align with school hours. The one female employee that I had never misses picking her kids up from the bus after school and volunteers for almost every field trip.


Lol. Once again, nowhere did I say working mothers can't raise their kids full time, geez .... my mom did a great job at it and I know many other who do, so drop changing what I say to fit with your views. I like how you chopped off the rest of my post ...

Of course though, it is that easy, just get a job that aligns with school hours ...


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> Not arguing your points, but you can't see any downside with a working parent (I won't point it specifically at women since we are talking about SAH*P*)??? So not having a parent around full time to help raise the kids is not considered a downside (and before you try to say I am implying SAHs are better parents, I am in no way saying that. Both my parent's worked full time and I turned out awesome :wink2.
> 
> To say there is no downside would imply that there is no benefit to a SAH ... Just trying to be fair here.


I was told about the downside of being a working parent by my son's headmaster. Repeatedly. Even though I had absolutely no choice in the matter...

He told me that there was no way that I, a single working mother, could give my son the structured lifestyle that he required. He went on to suggest that I should send my only child to boarding school where his life would be "more structured."

I could have understood his advice had my son been getting reared in a disorganized home (which he wasn't - my home was pristine and ran like clockwork) or exhibiting behavioural problems (which he wasn't). He was on time every day for school, was immaculately groomed, ate dinner at 7pm sharp on school nights (at the table), completed his homework and was in bed at an age appropriate time every night, but I was told that I wouldn't be able to sustain this as my son got older and that he wouldn't reach his potential academically.

I can't tell you the guilt I felt, but I didn't send my son to boarding school... Despite the headmaster's disappoval for working mothers.

Things weren't easy when my son became a teenager, of course (nothing serious - he was just a normal teenager), but we both survived and he went on to graduate university, win a prize in engineering and find a very good job.

Back in my day working parents were harshly judged. Particularly single ones.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> I was told about he downside of being a working parent by my son's headmaster. Repeatedly. He told me that there was no way that I, a single working mother, could give my son the structured lifestyle that he required. He went on to suggest that I should send my only child to boarding school where his life would be "more structured."
> 
> I could have understood his advice had my son been getting reared in a disorganized home (which he wasn't - my home was pristine and ran like clockwork) or exhibiting behavioural problems (which he wasn't). He was on time every day for school, was immaculately groomed, ate dinner at 7pm sharp on school nights (at the table), completed his homework and was in bed at an age appropriate time every night, but I was told that I wouldn't be able to sustain this as my son got older and that he wouldn't reach his potential academically.
> 
> I can't tell you the guilt I felt, but I didn't send my son to boarding school...
> 
> Things weren't easy when my son became a teenager, of course (nothing serious - he was just a normal teenager), but we both survived and he went on to graduate university, win a prize in engineering and find a very good job.
> 
> Back in my day working parents were harshly judged. Particularly single ones.


I understand your stance, and like I have said, not saying I don't agree. I simply look at it as there are pros and cons to both sides, so trying to take a fair and balanced view. Some of the responses seem to see only pros to one side and only cons to the other side.

That is interesting your situation, I know from my mom and many other females in our family that worked while raising children it was never looked at negatively.


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> I understand your stance, and like I have said, not saying I don't agree. I simply look at it as there are pros and cons to both sides, so trying to take a fair and balanced view. Some of the responses seem to see only pros to one side and only cons to the other side.
> *
> That is interesting your situation, I know from my mom and many other females in our family that worked while raising children it was never looked at negatively*.


I was raised in England and my mother worked without getting so much as a sidewise glance, but I raised my son in a far different culture where SAHMs were the accepted norm.


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> *I was raised in England* and my mother worked without getting so much as a sidewise glance, but I raised my son in a far different culture where SAHMs were the accepted norm.


I am sorry to hear that :grin2: I will never understand why gift baskets are called "hampers" over there


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> I am sorry to hear that :grin2: *I will never understand why gift baskets are called "hampers" over there *


Me too! After living on the other side of the planet for 28 years, I've had to relearn a lot of things - besides not seeing the sun for weeks on end. :wink2:


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Me too! After living on the other side of the planet for 28 years, I've had to relearn a lot of things - besides not seeing the sun for weeks on end. :wink2:


Yup, I deal with a lot of clients in London, constantly reminding them to take their Vitamin D!


----------



## NoFearInLove

Thanks @welldusted for your original post. It gave me lots to think about. In the past I was not a good encourager in my marriage to IMFarAboveRubies but I'm working on voicing my positive/constructive observations. She does alot and has strengths that compliment my strengths and needs to hear it from me just as I need to be recognized by her. I think marriage needs to be an ongoing mutual appreciation society and I don't care what the media and the greater culture portray or would say about it. One thing IMFar is doing differently is that she no longer speaks to me as if when I go to work I cease making a contribution and am just gone, completely unaware of her workload and struggles in the home. Now she acknowledges that I'm not an absentee-do-nothing, but thanks me for going to work to uphold my end especially to a job I dislike strongly. At home she does the equivalent of two jobs, which I acknowledge and let her know that I brag about her to others. We're very aware of our own struggles, but we're also becoming more aware of how we support each other.


----------



## Kivlor

sapientia said:


> SAMs are welcome to their lifestyle but let's be clear - it's NOT a career.
> 
> 
> I think SAMs are playing the Vegas Slots with their financial future. I wish them well in the gamble. The rest of us working women - also successful mothers - are completely confident of our financial future because WE control it.


This is very condescending. If I said similar things about working mothers I would likely be banned. 


Let's try some reflection:

SAHM's are real mothers. Taking care of their family full time with dedication. They provide a level of support for their spouse and their children that can not generally be done by working mothers.

Consequently, I think that working mothers don't love their husbands or children as much as SAHMs. They're *gambling* the futures of their children by not investing the time necessary in their proper development, and as such, they are playing roulette with the hope that everything comes out right, and that their *money* will make their children better people in place of their *time*.

*Career Women are welcome to their lifestyle but let's be clear - they're NOT Mothers.*


Do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## sapientia

EllisRedding said:


> *I am solely pointing out your comment that there is no downside which I don't agree with. *Not saying I don't agree with your other points to some extent. Similar to you, it comes to both parents sitting down, understand both the risks and benefits of all options available, and then choosing the best possible option for their family. If that means one being a SAHP, and they feel that is the best option, go for it. Telling someone you have to work part time just to say you work part time would seem to go against this (once again, all depending on each married couples situation which things will vary).


Stop being pedantic; it makes you seem like you cannot process the larger context of an argument.

I specifically said "risk/benefit ANALYSIS". Its a ratio that gives a result. Having done that analysis, I do not see any downside. The risk is entirely with the person choosing to stay home. I am now repeating myself: the risk is theirs to own, and it is foolish compared to the other choices available, be that full-time or part-time work to stay employable.

You are welcome to whatever opinion you wish. I won't argue the point further. Either you understand the broader implications of the analysis, or you don't.

Of course people engage in all kinds of risky behaviour where they know the consequences are likely not to end in their favour. They do it anyway. That's their choice, but I'm not going to applaud them for it. Nor will I perpetuate it in the next generation. My son knows to seek a self-sufficient woman. I don't have a daughter, but my friends who do all tell them to be self-sufficient also, for all the reasons already stated in the thread.


----------



## Kivlor

To clarify, my point isn't that it's wrong to work. My point is that reducing someone's life choices to something 1 dimensional makes a caricature out of it. You don't want that life? Don't have it. Most of the folks posting here live in the West and have the option of either. 

Being a SAHP allows for other options. If we only value money, then yes, there's no reason to SAHP. If you value your children's education and want to have a personal role in it you may find that being a SAHP is a much better fit for your family. 

Instead of proposing a 1 size fits all attitude, recognize for a moment that some people will not be happy with your life choices as their own. 
"Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> *Stop being pedantic; it makes you seem like you cannot process the larger context of an argument.*
> 
> .


Lol, always say a lot about a person when they need to resort to insults when their opinions are challenged. That says it all, so thanks for that :wink2:


----------



## Cletus

sapientia said:


> the risk is theirs to own


with you so far...



> and it is foolish compared to the other choices available, be that full-time or part-time work to stay employable.


And then you went and did this.

Do you really not see now patronizing and condescending that sounds?


----------



## Kivlor

> Having done that analysis, I do not see any downside. The risk is entirely with the person choosing to *have a career*. I am now repeating myself: the risk is theirs to own, and it is foolish compared to the other choices available, be that *not working at all, or working from home.
> *
> You are welcome to whatever opinion you wish. I won't argue the point further. Either you understand the broader implications of the analysis, or you don't.
> 
> Of course people engage in all kinds of risky behaviour where they know the consequences are likely not to end in their favour. They do it anyway. That's their choice, but I'm not going to applaud them for it. Nor will I perpetuate it in the next generation. My son knows to seek a nurturing mother. I don't have a daughter, but my friends who do all tell them to *how to grow up to be a good mother*, for all the reasons already stated in the thread.


Fixed that for you. I'll be glad to continue to do so.


----------



## sapientia

Kivlor said:


> This is very condescending. If I said similar things about working mothers I would likely be banned.
> 
> 
> Let's try some reflection:
> 
> SAHM's are real mothers. Taking care of their family full time with dedication. They provide a level of support for their spouse and their children that can not generally be done by working mothers.
> 
> Consequently, I think that working mothers don't love their husbands or children as much as SAHMs. They're *gambling* the futures of their children by not investing the time necessary in their proper development, and as such, they are playing roulette with the hope that everything comes out right, and that their *money* will make their children better people in place of their *time*.
> 
> *Career Women are welcome to their lifestyle but let's be clear - they're NOT Mothers.*
> 
> 
> Do you see what I'm getting at?



The comment that working women aren't good mothers/wives is laughable, and I don't even take it seriously.

Noone said SAHMs aren't real mothers. That's laughable also. If you gave birth, you are a mother. 

Here's a definition of career. Don't hate on me; I didn't write it. 
Note that motherhood doesn't require any special training (based on some of the parenting I've seen, I wish it did). Nor is it a lifetime occupation; approximately 18 years at most. Plenty of time to be useful at other things:

Career
noun
1.
an occupation or profession, especially one requiring special training, followed as one's lifework:
_He sought a career as a lawyer._

Anyway, are you happier if I post that SAHM is not a job? Maybe that's better. Here's the definition for that:

Job
noun
1.
a paid position of regular employment.
"jobs are created in the private sector, not in Washington"
synonyms:	occupation, profession, trade, position, career, work, line of work, livelihood, post, situation, appointment, métier, craft; More
2.
a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
"she wants to be left alone to get on with the job"
synonyms:	task, piece of work, assignment, project; More

And to preempt the comment that "women should be paid for being a mom", I don't disagree. But CRA or IRS currently disagrees. Even if you could pay your spouse a salary for staying home, most families aren't set up to do it.

I suppose the SAHM could set up a small business where their husband pays them for child rearing and home cleaning services. Pay into a pension to fund their retirement. They would have to be willing to go to court to fight for this status and that would be hard WORK. 
Any SAHMs done this?

I'd still be concerned about the lack of long-term career advancement opportunities, especially once the children grow up. My housecleaner only gets $25/hour and will never match my income in this line of work unless she starts her own agency (which we've discussed).


----------



## sapientia

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, always say a lot about a person when they need to resort to insults when their opinions are challenged. That says it all, so thanks for that :wink2:


No problem. Glad I could efficiently make you feel better when you couldn't provide a stronger argument.


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> No problem. Glad I could efficiently make you feel better when you couldn't provide a stronger argument.


No problem, likewise thanks for proving you are unable to accept any sort of challenge to your POV, maybe the word I am looking for is ****** (had to use a Shawshank reference) :wink2:

Although accurate I edited


----------



## sapientia

Kivlor said:


> Fixed that for you. I'll be glad to continue to do so.



??? LOL your post made no sense. We set excellent examples for our children. Go back and read my post about the success of our children. We 'career' women have all produced highly educated, productive and responsible members of society. I would argue our kids have seen much more of the world and are much broader 'global citizens' than the children of most single-income families. The daughters in particular are empowered by the example of their successful mothers and fathers.

What is happening is there is a selection against SAHMs in this generation. Young highly successful men like my son, who grew up with mother's like me won't be satisfied with someone who is solely satisfied with raising children. That's okay because more women are going to college and working than ever before so he'll have lots of quality potential partners to choose from.

Water finds its own level in life. 

Anyway, I have an amazing life. I'm not going to become a pariah on this thread for speaking the truth. Really, I wish any SAHM well. I don't admire their choice, but that's my opinion to own. They may say they don't admire my choice, but they sure as hell envy my lifestyle and independence, as I have direct experience speaking to women about this.

Carry on all. I'm taking a break from this debate.

Best,
Sapi


----------



## sapientia

Kivlor said:


> *If you value your children's education and want to have a personal role in it you may find that being a SAHP is a much better fit for your family.*


Just a final point to this^: FALSE.

Because of my choices, I am able to: 

- directly assist my son in advanced level subjects (e.g. college physics and mathematics)
- directly assist my son in his early career development (i.e. getting a job) by leveraging my extensive network
- contribute high-impact assistance to his schools advisory counsel, which I have participated in since his elementary years (I have been Chair, Treasurer, Fundraiser, proposal writer..)
- provide meaningful help with resumes, job interviews, etc, having years of DIRECT EXPERIENCE with HR process & managing employees

Few SAHMs can provide as deep an experience. Sure they will try to the extent they can, but at some point they will lack the experience for in-depth assistance. This is not boasting, it is simply fact.

Much like a school counsellor can provide only limited career assistance, most never having BEEN a physician, lawyer, accountant, engineer...


----------



## Kivlor

sapientia said:


> The comment that working women aren't good mothers/wives is laughable, and I don't even take it seriously.
> 
> Noone said SAHMs aren't real mothers. That's laughable also. If you gave birth, you are a mother.


There's mothers and deadbeat mothers. Just like there's fathers and deadbeat dads. I'm sure you can understand the concept.



> Here's a definition of career. Don't hate on me; I didn't write it.
> Note that motherhood doesn't require any special training (based on some of the parenting I've seen, I wish it did). Nor is it a lifetime occupation; approximately 18 years at most. Plenty of time to be useful at other things:
> 
> Career
> noun
> 1.
> an occupation or profession, especially one requiring special training, followed as one's lifework:
> _He sought a career as a lawyer._
> 
> Anyway, are you happier if I post that SAHM is not a job? Maybe that's better. Here's the definition for that:
> 
> noun
> 1.
> a paid position of regular employment.
> "jobs are created in the private sector, not in Washington"
> synonyms:	occupation, profession, trade, position, career, work, line of work, livelihood, post, situation, appointment, métier, craft; More
> 2.
> a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid.
> "she wants to be left alone to get on with the job"
> synonyms:	task, piece of work, assignment, project; More
> 
> And to preempt the comment that "women should be paid for being a mom", I don't disagree. But CRA or IRS currently disagrees. Even if you could pay your spouse a salary for staying home, most families aren't set up to do it.


Is there a more noble, important, or valuable profession than the proper upbringing of one's children? Exposing them to experience, teaching of morals, Educating, training for life? *You ignore non-pecuniary payments, and economic gain beyond mere dollars.*

Take note of your synonyms, "work, task, project, post, craft, position, trade, profession. 



> I suppose the SAHM could set up a small business where their husband pays them for child rearing and home cleaning services. Pay into a pension to fund their retirement. They would have to be willing to go to court to fight for this status and that would be hard WORK.
> Any SAHMs done this?


Or could start up an at-home small business and raise their kids around it. Or any number of other options. Think outside the box.



> I'd still be concerned about the lack of long-term career advancement opportunities, especially once the children grow up. My housecleaner only gets $25/hour and will never match my income in this line of work unless she starts her own agency (which we've discussed).


Kind of funny, the rearing of children naturally advances. Like a career. Also, other options abound. The thing about being a SAHP, it provides options. And options are power.

You're caught up only in pecuniary gain. And that my dear, is a sad thing to me.


----------



## staarz21

sapientia said:


> Anyway, I have an amazing life. I'm not going to become a pariah on this thread for speaking the truth. Really, I wish any SAHM well. I don't admire their choice, but that's my opinion to own. *They may say they don't admire my choice, but they sure as hell envy my lifestyle and independence, *as I have direct experience speaking to women about this.
> 
> Carry on all. I'm taking a break from this debate.
> 
> Best,
> Sapi


Ehhhhhh.....No, they don't. Not all of them anyway. That's the most conceited thing I have read in this thread yet. I've been keeping out of it because some of the things said here are completely ridiculous and uncalled for. 

The reason people are lashing back at you and EnigmaGirl is because you ladies are saying things like "Oh well, I can bring my kids to work." or "My house cleaner ONLY makes $25 an hour" or "They all envy me and my lifestyle" or " I have so many degrees, and my kids are perfect, and I am super organized, and my house is always SPOTLESS and in order, and I am cooking for my H every night and I'm at the school for my kids all of the time, and I make more money" or "You're a reckless parent because you don't bring in any money.".......blah, blah, blah. 

Basically, you keep telling everyone how much better you are than they are. Not too many people like that. 

I just think that people who feel the need to continually list their "awesomeness" over and over again to make a point (especially on an online forum full of strangers) need to examine themselves. I don't care which party you belong to. 

You made a choice to work, cool. They made a choice to stay home, nice. Even if you think it's a bad idea, you don't have to say it like it's been said here. Passive aggressively telling people to "grow up and be an adult" IS insulting. They are grown adults who made a choice to stay at home because that is what they wanted to. I don't think anyone here is without a back up plan, so I don't even halfway understand where all of the nastiness is coming from. 

I think Kivlor was being facetious when it was said that working moms aren't good mothers. Flipping it around so it reads like it sounds to the SAHP group. But that could have been easily missed. 

Envious of you? lol. If leading that type of lifestyle meant I got everything I wanted with money and power, but I was mean to people around me and thought they were envious of me, I would pass it all up in heartbeat and wouldn't think twice about it. 

People who aren't all about money do not give a flying flip about your lavish crap. Watch out though, because you never know if you will hit rock bottom and need those "envious" people to help you back up. Rich people aren't immune to bad things happening with their money.

I think you and many other women here with the careers you have are all amazing women. EnigmaGirl had a great mother and sisters to help her along the way and she's accomplished so much. You have as well and that's amazing. You all have the power to inspire others but you come here and say instead that people are envious of you? hmmm?

MAYBE it might be useful to help other people by giving advice...possibly without telling people they are envious of you or calling them insecure whiners. 

This might be shocking, but many people value other things over money. Money isn't everything and to many people, it doesn't shape who you are. Well, it shouldn't shape who you are.

To all the SAHPs here, you know what you do. Don't let people tell you that you're less because they choose differently. Your spouse and your children are all that matter. Staying at home doesn't make you any more of a reckless parent than the next person. Getting in your car everyday is a risk, yet I bet many of us drive our kids around regardless. This risk is worth it to you, and you should be okay with that regardless of what people here say.

To all of the working men and women here, more power to you!!! You bring the bacon and still find time to work in the rest of life as well. That's amazing AND it's much appreciated by those around you. Working can bring on some stress....throw in some kids and a spouse and oh wow! But of course, the working spouses here handle it well! They show that determination and hard work can pay off! 

Both sides should remember to appreciate the other person in the relationship, though. They are supposed to be your other half. Treat them with respect and how you would like to be treated


----------



## EllisRedding

@staarz21










Seriously, you couldn't have said it any better.

Funny enough, one of the last posts was insulting to many people, not just SAHP. Everyone here should just list out their work experience/choices so we can all be evaluated on whether or not we are as parents capable of providing such a deep experience for our children...


----------



## sapientia

Kivlor said:


> There's mothers and deadbeat mothers. Just like there's fathers and deadbeat dads. I'm sure you can understand the concept.


What's the difference when divorce comes and neither has the ability to support themselves? I'm not sure of the point you are making. Use fewer metaphors and more direct language.



> Is there a more noble, important, or valuable profession than the proper upbringing of one's children? Exposing them to experience, teaching of morals, Educating, training for life? *You ignore non-pecuniary payments, and economic gain beyond mere dollars.*


No I don't. I never said motherhood wasn't noble. I know, I AM one.

Do you have children?

I'm quite certain I was clear the first time I posted, however, for those with short memories I said that there is an unnecessary risk to devoting your life SOLELY to that purpose, particularly when the risk is one's financial future. A hybrid model is smart. I did it myself.



> Or could start up an at-home small business and raise their kids around it. Or any number of other options. Think outside the box.


I said in an earlier post that part-time work to stay employable is a viable option. You are agreeing with me. Good.



> You're caught up only in pecuniary gain. And that my dear, is a sad thing to me.


Again, I am both a successful parent and professional. The two are not mutually exclusive. My husband and I enjoy a superb lifestyle, but I'm not dependent on him for it. He loves the fact that I bring home the bacon. My job provides a pension, extended healthcare, and things his doesn't. My spouse is a high earner also, but being a business owner brings risk. He's secure knowing I've got his back in ALL ways, so he can do what he does. This is PARTNERSHIP, not dependence. 

I'm not "caught up" in the money. I'm putting the focus on what *is* the biggest risk for a SAHS who chooses to be a financially dependent. A material financial decrease of future lifestyle IS the biggest risk, longterm, for a women (or man) who chooses to be completely dependent on his or her spouse for financial support. Do you deny that courts are increasingly denying lifetime spousal support for those who make this choice? What does a 50+ woman do for support when her husband leaves her once the kids are grown up? Many are left to live in a lifestyle much reduced from the one she enjoyed with her spouse, especially when her ex gets remarried and has more kids and pleads for a reduction of her support. This happens; the risks are real. Or a husband who passes leaving her with his accumulated debt, or poor investments, or any number of other situations.

Much less risk for the working men (they often have to share w/an ex, but at least they HAVE income to share) and much less risk for a woman who stays educated and in the workforce, even partially. It's just more responsible all around, but I'm now repeating myself.

So, given the facts I've presented, what is it specifically you take issue with?

Do you think there* isn't* risk with putting ones lifetime financial security with another individual?

Do you think that working women aren't as accomplished parents as SAHMs?

If you, and others, simply take issue with my pointing out the risks, well, that is what I do and I get paid well for it. Many people consider it a valuable experience.

Or, perhaps the issue is the corollary to my facts, which makes some people uncomfortable with having their choices questioned so directly and being asked to think about the future? To which I respond, based on my personal experience: better to face truth now than when they are that 50+ year old.

If a single woman decides to think more carefully about her situation and implications for her future, then this entire thread will have been worth it. 

/s


----------



## Cletus

People find a way. 

Next door neighbor. SAHM with no job skills to speak of. Husband drowned in a fishing accident when the children were still pre-teens. She's now the secretary at the local school and doing Just Fine with a new husband.

My wife. SAHM with a teaching certificate that she kept current and is using now that our nest is empty.

Best friend. SAHD with an engineering degree but married to a doctor. Left the work force after five years, raised the children, and now works part time from home. He'll never return to the rat race.

Not to mention all of the two earner households who've managed to turn out fine families as well.


----------



## staarz21

@sapientia You made valid points. Even some SAHPs are agreeing with you. They agree that having a back up plan is a good idea. I think the main thing being debated here is the delivery method.


----------



## staarz21

Cletus said:


> People find a way.
> 
> Next door neighbor. SAHM with no job skills to speak of. Husband drowned in a fishing accident when the children were still pre-teens. She's now the secretary at the local school and doing Just Fine with a new husband.
> 
> My wife. SAHM with a teaching certificate that she kept current and is using now that our nest is empty.
> 
> Best friend. SAHD with an engineering degree but married to a doctor. Left the work force after five years, raised the children, and now works part time from home. He'll never return to the rat race.
> 
> Not to mention all of the two earner households who've managed to turn out fine families as well.


I agree with this too. I've known plenty of people who just "figure it out". Yeah, it's hard sometimes, but no one dies from it (at least not any I've known). 

Just because they don't end up owing a million dollar home in the burbs doesn't mean they aren't capable of taking care of themselves or their kids after a divorce.


----------



## sapientia

EllisRedding said:


> @staarz21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, you couldn't have said it any better.
> 
> Funny enough, one of the last posts was insulting to many people, not just SAHP. Everyone here should just list out their work experience/choices so we can all be evaluated on whether or not we are as parents capable of providing such a deep experience for our children...


Sigh. Okay, this is a common response to being asked to think hard and honestly. This is why I'm so careful usually to not disclose this kind of information. It just generates jealousy, or I'm an a$$hole for stating what is simply fact.

I'm not special in the slightest. Everyone can accomplish all these things. I just make really good choices, based on a lot of hard thought, followed by hard work. But this TAM crowd LOVES a pariah and the mob mentality.



staarz21 said:


> @sapientia You made valid points. Even some SAHPs are agreeing with you. They agree that having a back up plan is a good idea. I think the main thing being debated here is the delivery method.


Agreed^ and since I don't buy in to the mob mentality, I'm stopping here.

I wish everyone happiness with their choices. Truly. Those who get something from my posts, great. Those who don't - ignore. Life is too short to get irate over the interwebs.

Have a fabulous weekend all.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> For the SAHP who chooses this lifestyle, it's often not an economic decision. That's like asking "where's the ROI on our National Parks?" There isn't one, but that's not the reason we have them.
> 
> Of course it's a risk. So is getting behind the wheel of your car every day. We all evaluate risk according to our own metrics of reward.


Acknowledging that here is a risk is not the same as putting down a SAHM/D. It's only acknowledging the risk.

Some SAHPs are very wise, like SA. They make sure that they have all contingencies covered with enough insurance and divorce laws that will mitigate her risks. Who can argue with that.

Although many, especially a good number of men, feel that SA and women like her do not deserve much of anyting in a divorce. Since her husbnd brought in the money, she should not share in the assets. And of course those same people do not believe that there should be any alimony at all. Some of those very people here on TAM are the ones who claim to be supportive of SAHMs the most. Well if they belive that, no they are not supportive of SAHMs.

I think that EnigmaGirl is often misunderstood. She is the one person who is the most outspoken about financially irresponsible SAHMs (this does not include SA or any other SAHM who has posted on this thread). Her point (correct me if I'm wrong EnigmaGirl) is that it is irresponslbe for a SAHM to not make sure that there is some kind of financial plan for her should bad things happen. Makes sense to me.

What I disagree with her about is alimony. IMHO, when both spouses agree that one spouse will be a SAHP, if the marriage breaks up, there should rehabilitative aliomony for about half the period of the marriage. But it's ok to disagree. 

No one on this thread had made any attacks on SAHMs. Most, if not all are in support of any parent who choses to be a SAHM.. 

There have however, been many very strong attacks on women who work, the idea of women working and getting an education. And there have been a lot of pretty ugly accussatoins of what all 'femininst' (aka women who work and/or get an education) think. As though all such somen have the same thoughts.

If this were the first thread where this happened it would be one thing. But they are constant on TAM and have been for a long time.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I very very much appreciate your post @staarz21 ..... after being told I spew hateful nonsense, dealing with me is more than tiresome, and those like me are insecure & nothing but whiny... I vowed to bow out... 

It's never been the difference of choices or opinions that we women make for our families (it's all good!)... but the tone, the proud superiority these opinions are delivered to us Lessors in society.. 

I KNOW my place.. in this... I will remain on the humble side of the tracks... which is not such a bad thing.. I very much appreciate others who can meet me there...your post brought tears to my eyes.. it's not due to being over sensitive or craving validation....it's simply "feeling understood & accepted" for our choices too...

I thank you for that.


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> Sigh. Okay, this is a common response to being asked to think hard and honestly. This is why I'm so careful usually to not disclose this kind of information. It just generates jealousy, or I'm an a$$hole for stating what is simply fact.
> 
> I'm not special in the slightest. Everyone can accomplish all these things. I just make really good choices, based on a lot of hard thought, followed by hard work. But this TAM crowd LOVES a pariah and the mob mentality.


Nope, has nothing to do with the mob mentality. You took Kilvor's post and spun it around all about you

And I can guarantee you, there is nothing that you have posted that has generated any sort of jealousy on my part.


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> No one on this thread had made any attacks on SAHMs. Most, if not all are in support of any parent who choses to be a SAHM..
> 
> There have however, been many very strong attacks on women who work, the idea of women working and getting an education. And there have been a lot of pretty ugly accussatoins of what all 'femininst' (aka women who work and/or get an education) think. As though all such somen have the same thoughts.


Lol, sorry Ele but can't take this one bit serious.


----------



## sapientia

EllisRedding said:


> Nope, has nothing to do with the mob mentality. You took Kilvor's post and spun it around all about you
> 
> And I can guarantee you, there is nothing that you have posted that has generated any sort of jealousy on my part.


Great! Awesome! I'm so glad. There isn't need for it, agreed. :smile2:


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> What I disagree with her about is alimony. IMHO, when both spouses agree that one spouse will be a SAHP, if the marriage breaks up, there should rehabilitative aliomony for about half the period of the marriage. But it's ok to disagree.


Two comments on this:

1. Couples who agree to a SAHP should arrange a written mutual agreement about this, to your point, before a possible marriage breakdown and disagreement about spousal support. No changes ones tune later when a spouse takes the financial risk. It also stimulates a productive conversation about expectations (perhaps the working spouse doesn't intend for their spouse to stay home once the kids are in school, etc.),

2. Half the period of a 20 year marriage is only 10 years. What does the 50+ woman who lives to 70, 80 or 90 years old do for the remainder of her twilight years?


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Is there a more noble, important, or valuable profession than the proper upbringing of one's children? Exposing them to experience, teaching of morals, Educating, training for life? *You ignore non-pecuniary payments, and economic gain beyond mere dollars.*


Women who work are as capable of the proper upbringing of one's children and exposing them to all that you list. 

Do you know what is really nobel? To be able to raise your children with all of that which you list as well as being able to include being able to put a roof over their heads, to provide them with food, clothing, medical care and the gazillion other things that children need to grow up in our society. And that takes money. 

Why do you dismiss that children also need the that money can buy? 




Kivlor said:


> Or could start up an at-home small business and raise their kids around it. Or any number of other options. Think outside the box.


If she does that, she’s is a working woman. She is no longer only a SAHM. 
Several of us on this thread who have been beat up for having the audacity to have careers actually talked about the fact that this is exactly what we did. We started our own businesses, though not at-home necessarily, and had our children with us at the office. 



Kivlor said:


> Kind of funny, the rearing of children naturally advances. Like a career. Also, other options abound. The thing about being a SAHP, it provides options. And options are power.


Working also provides options to the children. So I’m not sure what you mean by this.



Kivlor said:


> You're caught up only in pecuniary gain. And that my dear, is a sad thing to me.


I disagree that sapientia is caught up in pecuniary gain. You work for a living, are you caught up in pecuniary gain? If not, how are you different than she?

Sapientia is talking about a reality. I know many women who were SAHMs. Some of them for 20-30 years. And then one day it all went poof. Some of them had husbands who became disabled, some of them had husbands who died, and many had husbands to just left ..usually with a bimbo. Most of these women have had no job skills. For the ones whose husbands’ walked out on them, most got nothing because assets were hidden (the husbands controlled the money). So they now live in petty deep poverty.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> Two comments on this:
> 
> Couples who agree to a SAHP should arrange a written mutual agreement about this, to your point, before a possible marriage breakdown and disagreement about spousal support. No changes ones tune later when a spouse takes the financial risk. It also stimulates a productive conversation about expectations (perhaps the working spouse doesn't intend for their spouse to stay home once the kids are in school, etc.),


There is already an agreement in place that sets this up. It’s marriage law. The problem is that more and more states are getting rid of and/or reducing alimony so that it’s becoming even worse for SAHPs.

I agree that in today environment, couples should now have an agreement. Plus both spouses need to be involved in managing the finances so that they both know what is going on. This will also make it harder for one to move all the money to hide it if there is a divorce.


sapientia said:


> 2. Half the period of a 20 year marriage is only 10 years. What does the 50+ woman who lives to 70, 80 or 90 years old do for the remainder of her twilight years?


I agree, the long term marriage needs long term alimony. I should have stated that in my earlier post. 

I was addressing that so many here on TAM state that there should be no alimony under any circumstances. The analogy used is that if you are fired from a job you don’t get unending unemployment.


----------



## EleGirl

staarz21 said:


> @sapientia You made valid points. Even some SAHPs are agreeing with you. They agree that having a back up plan is a good idea. I think the main thing being debated here is the delivery method.


The delivery method from some SAHMs and a SAHM wishful we at least equally offensive. They are what got this started. 

Some of what you called bragging by women who have jobs has to do with responding to attacks against women who work. Do you really expect people just sit buy and ignore insults and accusations of them believing tings that that they do not directed at them?


I do agree with you and doubt that any SAHMs envy the lives of anyone else on this thread is nonsense.


----------



## staarz21

EleGirl said:


> The delivery method from some SAHMs and a SAHM wishful we at least equally offensive. They are what got this started.
> 
> Some of what you called bragging by women who have jobs has to do with responding to attacks against women who work. Do you really expect people just sit buy and ignore insults and accusations of them believing tings that that they do not directed at them?
> 
> 
> I do agree with you and doubt that any SAHMs envy the lives of anyone else on this thread is nonsense.


I wasn't aware of who started the argument. I would like to read the post that started this though. This thread is 51 pages now and I am going back through them, but I keep having to get up away from the computer to tend to other things. Maybe someone can throw a page number out for me that would help me find the page where all of this started. 

I don't expect anyone to sit and take an insult or accusation, but like it's been thrown out here several times already, I would like to see the "adults" here acting like "adults". Neither party is doing so in name calling and throwing out the "I'm better than you because..."

(But seriously if you or anyone else could help me out on a page on when the SAHPs started this whole thing, I would love to read it and respond to those people as well). I'm struggling keeping up with all of these pages right now.


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> No one on this thread had made any attacks on SAHMs. Most, if not all are in support of any parent who choses to be a SAHM..


That's a subjective opinion with which I disagree, not a statement of fact.


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> I was addressing that so many here on TAM state that there should be no alimony under any circumstances. The analogy used is that if you are fired from a job you don’t get unending unemployment.


Got it. Well then, this thread should be quite instructive for both sides of that argument. :grin2:


----------



## sapientia

staarz21 said:


> "I'm better than you because..."


I must have missed that post. Where was this posted?


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> Some of what you called bragging by women who have jobs has to do with responding to attacks against women who work.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't posted anything other than fact. If some choose to interpret that as bragging, not my problem.



> I do agree with you and doubt that any SAHMs envy the lives of anyone else on this thread is nonsense.


For any referencing my specific post on this point, here is what I actually wrote:



> They may say they don't admire my choice, but they sure as hell envy my lifestyle and independence, *as I have direct experience speaking to women about this.*


Interesting that some chose to bold *only* my envy comment, and not my experience with it. They completely ignored the context and twisted it to fit their purpose, not that my experience is based in FACT.

They never inquired how I *feel* about it, which is actually very uncomfortable. *I don't want to be the source of someone's envy b/c of choices they made as responsible adults*. Envious of my lifestyle? Then make new choices about your own and you can have it too. Or, just be happy with your own choices, as other posters here suggest.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> People find a way.
> 
> Next door neighbor. SAHM with no job skills to speak of. Husband drowned in a fishing accident when the children were still pre-teens. She's now the secretary at the local school and doing Just Fine with a new husband.


It's nice that she was able to find another man to support her.

What if she did not want to marry again and wanted to raise her children without brining another man into the house, many widows do this if at all possible. On school secretary job she probably does not earn enough to support herself and children. This happens to many women.



Cletus said:


> My wife. SAHM with a teaching certificate that she kept current and is using now that our nest is empty.


Here where I live, a teacher just starting out earns about $34K. With 20 years experience, that same teacher would be earning about $70K.

In your situation, with the two of you married, the starting income is not to bad. But in situations where a woman's husband died or left her, she'd not be doing very well right now without some alimony, which many things SAHMs should never get even if their husband leaves them.



Cletus said:


> Best friend. SAHD with an engineering degree but married to a doctor. Left the work force after five years, raised the children, and now works part time from home. He'll never return to the rat race.


You don't say how long he did not work. Again something happened to his wife and/or his marriage. His financial situation will be dependent on how much their joint assets are and whether or not he can get alimony. Though a half time job as an engineer probably does pays pretty well.



Cletus said:


> Not to mention all of the two earner households who've managed to turn out fine families as well.


Of course.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't posted anything other than fact. If some choose to interpret that as bragging, not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> For any referencing my specific post on this point, here is what I actually wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that some chose to bold *only* my envy comment, and not my experience with it. They completely ignored the context and twisted it to fit their purpose, not that my experience is based in FACT.
> 
> They never inquired how I *feel* about it, which is actually very uncomfortable. *I don't want to be the source of someone's envy b/c of choices they made as responsible adults*. Envious of my lifestyle? Then make new choices about your own and you can have it too. Or, just be happy with your own choices, as other posters here suggest.


I did not go back and check out what you wrote when I read that poster's comments. Now that you show the context, yep they did take it out of context. Not cool.

To be honest, if there is anyone to be envious of, it's a SAHM with a secure financial present and future. What a gig!!!! Some people get that choice. Most don't.

It might surprise some, but I would have loved to be a SAHM with a secure financial future. But I, like millions of other women, never had that choice. The ONLY choice I had was to support my son and my self, and at times a husband.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I did not go back and check out what you wrote when I read that poster's comments. Now that you show the context, yep they did take it out of context. Not cool.
> 
> To be honest, if there is anyone to be envious of, it's a SAHM with a secure financial present and future. What a gig!!!! Some people get that choice. Most don't.
> 
> It might surprise some, but I would have loved to be a SAHM with a secure financial future. But I, like millions of other women, never had that choice. The ONLY choice I had was to support my son and my self, and at times a husband.


((((((((((Ele))))))))))

Ele, if anyone deserved that opportunity, it was you.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> To be honest, if there is anyone to be envious of, it's a SAHM with a secure financial present and future. What a gig!!!! Some people get that choice. Most don't.
> 
> It might surprise some, but I would have loved to be a SAHM with a secure financial future. But I, like millions of other women, never had that choice. The ONLY choice I had was to support my son and my self, and at times a husband.


I second Jld's post...(((hugs)))...and I hope it's ok to share that...

I think feelings run very deep on some of these delicate issues where others may never see... we all deal with our own personal demons ..whether it's the unfairness of life.. to some guilt on either side that we so want to DO and BE it all....but we have our limits (well some of us). 

Those years I couldn't conceive...year after year after year.....I was ANGRY... a basket case at times ...raged at the Almighty -WHY !.. not at all suggesting you felt this way Elegirl (but I'd understand it- if you did!!)..... 

I'm sure you Picked yourself right up & DID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE....you probably didn't complain even... cause that's who you are...strong, capable - ALWAYS. 

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone here.. I get caught up in feeling "so what, I'm just a Mom- big whup" (looking through society's expectations)... but then inside I feel it such a privilege at the same time (just to have children -one doesn't forget what could have never been).... regardless whether to work or not..... the messages are so conflicting to modern women...but also to what our hearts yearn for...

And the hardest part.. it's not always a choice...something that's been lost on this thread even...the word choice can be a trigger to many. 

I know myself & You seem to rub each other the wrong way Elegirl, not sure I understand it... but still you've said some kind things about me in this thread....so I wanted to







for this....

I'd like to believe it's just because of some inner something.. (that I feel I don't measure up to women like you)....and just the very different life you've lived - always the RESPONSIBLE ONE, the care taker, the bread winner, the mother, the Engineer...no matter what was thrown at you... YOU JUGGLED IT ALL ... even you needed someone to lean on at times... (or it just would have helped anyway)... 

Had I been in your shoes... I'd feel much the same way...it being about survival.. and staying afloat.

To end with the words of Jld to us all >>

"There are so many women I hold in high esteem on TAM, so many devoted and hardworking women. We all love our families. We all want the best for them. We love our men as well as our children, whatever our financial arrangements with them. "...

Now can we just let this thread DIE already [email protected]#


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> ((((((((((Ele))))))))))
> 
> Ele, if anyone deserved that opportunity, it was you.


Thanks jld... you and I have talked about this before. 

Life is just what it is.. that saying "Life is what happens while you make plans for the future." That's the truth. And the only way to handle it is to embrace whatever happens.

>


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I second Jld's post...(((hugs)))...and I hope it's ok to share that...
> 
> I think feelings run very deep on some of these delicate issues where others may never see... we all deal with our own personal demons ..whether it's the unfairness of life.. to some guilt on either side that we so want to DO and BE it all....but we have our limits (well some of us).
> 
> Those years I couldn't conceive...year after year after year.....I was ANGRY... a basket case at times ...raged at the Almighty -WHY !.. not at all suggesting you felt this way Elegirl (but I'd understand it- if you did!!).....
> 
> I'm sure you Picked yourself right up & DID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE....you probably didn't complain even... cause that's who you are...strong, capable - ALWAYS.
> 
> I'm sorry if I have offended anyone here.. I get caught up in feeling "so what, I'm just a Mom- big whup" (looking through society's expectations)... but then inside I feel it such a privilege at the same time (just to have children -one doesn't forget what could have never been).... regardless whether to work or not..... the messages are so conflicting to modern women...but also to what our hearts yearn for...
> 
> And the hardest part.. it's not always a choice...something that's been lost on this thread even...the word choice can be a trigger to many.
> 
> I know myself & You seem to rub each other the wrong way Elegirl, not sure I understand it... but still you've said some kind things about me in this thread....so I wanted to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for this....
> 
> I'd like to believe it's just because of some inner something.. (that I feel I don't measure up to women like you)....and just the very different life you've lived - always the RESPONSIBLE ONE, the care taker, the bread winner, the mother, the Engineer...no matter what was thrown at you... YOU JUGGLED IT ALL ... even you needed someone to lean on at times... (or it just would have helped anyway)...
> 
> Had I been in your shoes... I'd feel much the same way...it being about survival.. and staying afloat.
> 
> To end with the words of Jld to us all >>
> 
> "There are so many women I hold in high esteem on TAM, so many devoted and hardworking women. We all love our families. We all want the best for them. We love our men as well as our children, whatever our financial arrangements with them. "...
> 
> Now can we just let this thread DIE already [email protected]#


You know SA, I have never understood that the issue is that gets in the way with you and me. It makes no sense to me so I have to let it go.

One thing that I am 100% sure of, is that if life had thrown you, or ever does throw you, something where you have to step up to whatever is thrown, I have no doubt that you would not just step up.. you would kick butt doing it.

You are a strong women who have built a great life, have wonderful children and a wonder husband. What is there not to admire in that? PLEASE give yourself more credit in all things.


----------



## soccermom2three

I can't believe in 2016 women are still having the SAHM/WOHM debate. 

I remember these debates on an old hobby board I was a member of over 15 years ago. All the arguments are exactly the same today as back then.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> Some of what you called bragging by women who have jobs has to do with responding to attacks against women who work.* Do you really expect people just sit buy and ignore insults and accusations of them believing tings that that they do not directed at them?*


It seems to me that that's exactly what's been expected in this thread. Then the minute any of us defend ourselves - bam! we're attacking SAHPs, and then - bam! we're the aggressors.

As for:-

Originally Posted by *EleGirl*


> It might surprise some, but I would have loved to be a SAHM with a secure financial future. But I, like millions of other women, never had that choice. The ONLY choice I had was to support my son and my self, and at times a husband.


I'm with you on that one, Ele. I would have given my _back teeth_ to have been a SAHM with an assured financial future, but if I wanted custody of my son and any future for myself, I_ had _to work.

There are some on this thread who seem to be _deliberately _misinterpreting / misconstruing what other posters are saying, and, not for the first time, I'm starting to think that posting in this forum really has to be an exercise in gross stupidity and masochism.


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> It might surprise some, but I would have loved to be a SAHM with a secure financial future. But I, like millions of other women, never had that choice. The ONLY choice I had was to support my son and my self, and at times a husband.


Welcome to the only choice available to most of men throughout recorded history (which, to stay on topic, I will once again reiterate that I have always felt appreciated for doing).


----------



## Cletus

soccermom2three said:


> I can't believe in 2016 women are still having the SAHM/WOHM debate.
> 
> I remember these debates on an old hobby board I was a member of over 15 years ago. All the arguments are exactly the same today as back then.


Huh. I think the debate has changed substantially. 

There are still pockets of people who contest that working out of the home is irresponsible for the mother, but they are now a minority voice, especially in light of many studies showing that children of dual earners don't turn out to be serial felons. 

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but the suggestion that a person who is financially dependent on another is actually an economic failure for her children is a new one for me (and one that several on this thread seem to be glossing over when complaining that no one here is judging SAHP).

Perhaps the arguments are the same, but the distributions of the warriors have shifted noticeably.


----------



## jld

Cletus said:


> Welcome to the only choice available to most of men throughout recorded history (which, to stay on topic, I will once again reiterate that I have always felt appreciated for doing).


Cletus, I think you could have responded to Ele a little more sensitively. I think it took a lot of courage for her to share her feelings with us so vulnerably. 

I feel for Ele, and Cosmos, and every other woman out there who does not feel she has had a choice whether or not to be with her kids. I am not sure what the solution is, but I don't think the answer is insensitivity to their very honest feelings.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Cletus, I think you could have responded to Ele a little more sensitively. I think it took a lot of courage for her to share her feelings with us so vulnerably.


Not to mention, a misconstrual of what has happened for most of recorded history. Since *anyone* working outside the home is a comparatively new invention.


----------



## soccermom2three

Cletus said:


> Huh. I think the debate has changed substantially.
> 
> There are still pockets of people who contest that working out of the home is irresponsible for the mother, but they are now a minority voice, especially in light of many studies showing that children of dual earners don't turn out to be serial felons.
> 
> Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but the suggestion that a person who is financially dependent on another is actually an economic failure for her children is a new one for me (and one that several on this thread seem to be glossing over when complaining that no one here is judging SAHP).
> 
> Perhaps the arguments are the same, but the distributions of the warriors have shifted noticeably.



I didn't realize that you were on the same scrapbooking message board as I was all those years ago. Nice to hear from you again.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> Welcome to the only choice available to most of men throughout recorded history (which, to stay on topic, I will once again reiterate that I have always felt appreciated for doing).


How many men do you think would want to stay home? Not just avoid working but actually raise kids full time?

Not all women want to either. I did it for 5 years and hated it.....probably made worse by my d0uche of an ex but even with a good hb I still think it wasn't for me.

My kids notice how much happier I am now and they benefit from that.


----------



## lifeistooshort

always_alone said:


> Not to mention, a misconstrual of what has happened for most of recorded history. Since *anyone* working outside the home is a comparatively new invention.


Absolutely, just like anyone raising kids full time is a fairly new invention. For most of human history running the home and feeding/clothing everyone was a full time job that required both parents and usually kids to help.....nobody worried about reading nightly bedtime stories and organizing play groups because they all worked. A lot.

Full time parenting is a very new concept.


----------



## Lionelhutz

lifeistooshort said:


> How many men do you think would want to stay home? Not just avoid working but actually raise kids full time?
> 
> Not all women want to either. I did it for 5 years and hated it.....probably made worse by my d0uche of an ex but even with a good hb I still think it wasn't for me.
> 
> My kids notice how much happier I am now and they benefit from that.


I would have stayed at home and toyed with the idea. 

But I wasn't strong enough to endure the judgment of many who would have seen it as a lesser choice for a male. Even my wife, who seemed to pay lip service to liking the idea, and probably would like to think of herself as being fair and enlightened enough to support the idea, I have heard her say things in reference to others that left me no doubt that if I had stayed home on some level she would have lost respect for me.


----------



## SadSamIAm

lifeistooshort said:


> Absolutely, just like anyone raising kids full time is a fairly new invention. For most of human history running the home and feeding/clothing everyone was a full time job that required both parents and usually kids to help.....nobody worried about reading nightly bedtime stories and organizing play groups because they all worked. A lot.
> 
> Full time parenting is a very new concept.


I sort of understand where you are coming from. Running a home has gotten easier (dishwashers, laundry, etc) due to technology. 

But I don't see it as a new concept. I am 50ish. Growing up, almost all of my friends had mom's who stayed at home. My grandparents were the same. Fathers earned money and the wives raised children and looked after the kids. The mother/wife job was maybe tougher years ago, but moms were at home with their kids.


----------



## EleGirl

SadSamIAm said:


> I sort of understand where you are coming from. Running a home has gotten easier (dishwashers, laundry, etc) due to technology.
> 
> But I don't see it as a new concept. I am 50ish. Growing up, almost all of my friends had mom's who stayed at home. My grandparents were the same. Fathers earned money and the wives raised children and looked after the kids. The mother/wife job was maybe tougher years ago, but moms were at home with their kids.


She was responding to a poster who said that the only choice that men have ever had is to be the bread winner. But that makes no sense because the idea of a breadwinner did not start until the industrial revolution. Human history started long before 50 years ago.

Prior to that, just about everyone except the super rich lived on farms. Both men and women had work long hours to raise their own food, cook/can,take dare of their live stock, and the children over 4 worked right long with the parents.


----------



## EleGirl

Lionelhutz said:


> I would have stayed at home and toyed with the idea.
> 
> But I wasn't strong enough to endure the judgment of many who would have seen it as a lesser choice for a male. Even my wife, who seemed to pay lip service to liking the idea, and probably would like to think of herself as being fair and enlightened enough to support the idea, I have heard her say things in reference to others that left me no doubt that if I had stayed home on some level she would have lost respect for me.


As a society, this is one thing that we can work on. A SAHD should be just as ok as a SAHM.


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> Welcome to the only choice available to most of men throughout recorded history (which, to stay on topic, I will once again reiterate that I have always felt appreciated for doing).


As has been pointed out above, the concept of a breadwinner is fairly new through the history of mankind.. to include recorded history.

In addition to being the sole bread winner, were you also the only one doing housework, yard work, the 'blue jobs', taking care of the children, handling all family finances, legal issues, etc? While your spouse did as they pleased? 

It's not a contest between men and women. It's that some people.. both men and women are breadwinners some are not. 

A very good percentage of women through all of history have been the sole breadwinner and sole parent of their children. The difference now is that women can actually earn a living wage to support themselves and their children.

It is good that you have always been appreciated for it.

I cannot speak for all women, but for myself .. my husbands never said one word of appreciation even though I supported them and did everything else. Their actions were also showed zero appreciation. So I definitely understand where the OP is coming from on the point of not being appreciated for being the breadwinner.

Though I’m pretty sure that my son appreciates me. Now that my step kids are older, they stopped hating my very existence and have said that they appreciate me since I’m the only parent they ever really had. So there is that.

On top of the not being appreciated … there are all the fun insults thrown at women who are breadwinners and who work for living as evidenced on this thread and others.

Good times.


----------



## SadSamIAm

EleGirl said:


> She was responding to a poster who said that the only choice that men have ever had is to be the bread winner. But that makes no sense because the idea of a breadwinner did not start until the industrial revolution. Human history started long before 50 years ago.
> 
> Prior to that, just about everyone except the super rich lived on farms. Both men and women had work long hours to raise their own food, cook/can,take dare of their live stock, and the children over 4 worked right long with the parents.


I don't see the relevance of going back before the industrial revolution to make a point.


----------



## EleGirl

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't see the relevance of going back before the industrial revolution to make a point.


If you have an issue with going back before the industrial revolution to make a point... please take it up with Cletus as he was the person who did not to take jab at me.



Cletus said:


> Welcome to the only choice available to most of *men throughout recorded history*


Others (and me) who addressed the *"men throughout recorded history"* statement were simply addressing the fallacy in his claim.


----------



## Cosmos

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't see the relevance of going back before the industrial revolution to make a point.


Really? I don't see the relevance of even posting in this thread anymore to make _any _point, because unless we're singing the praises of SAHM and / or reciting mea culpas for being working parents, anything we say can and will be miscontrued and used against us.

Ele was merely responding to what another poster had said...


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Really? I don't see the relevance of even posting in this thread anymore to make _any _point, because unless we're singing the praises of SAHM and / or reciting mea culpas for being working parents, anything we say can and will be miscontrued and used against us.


I would say this goes both ways in this thread...


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> I would say this goes both ways in this thread...


I disagree. Despite the usual goading that goes on here...


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this goes both ways in this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Despite the usual goading that goes on here...
Click to expand...

 That fine, not surprised you feel that way.

I would go as far as to say both sides have taken shots at each other.


----------



## Cosmos

EllisRedding said:


> That fine, not surprised you feel that way.
> *
> I would go as far as to say both sides have taken shots at each other.*


Again, I disagree. I, for one, haven't taken a single shot at SAHMs. Why would I?

This truly is the adult version of school yard squabbling, and I'm out of here.

Have fun!


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> EllisRedding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That fine, not surprised you feel that way.
> *
> I would go as far as to say both sides have taken shots at each other.*
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I disagree. I, for one, haven't taken a single shot at SAHMs. Why would I?
> 
> This truly is the adult version of school yard squabbling, and I'm out of here.
> 
> Have fun!
Click to expand...

Never did I say you took shots. 

I think if someone objectively read through the thread you could see where both sides made comments that could be read as taking shots at the other side.

If you don't agree, ok, not looking to convince you otherwise.


----------



## Starstarfish

The concept of "breadwinner" began in the Industrial Revolution because it was when we codified two things:

- A direct correlation between quantifiable work per hour as equaling a certain wage (versus paying by the day ALA the infamous example in the Bible with the vineyard workers)

- That the work of women and children was worth less. 

As many people have pointed out, before then people either worked as farmers or were other manual laborers where the entire family put forth effort into creating items for use and trading and sale with/to others. Or ... they were slaves and had no real choice what they did with their time. Or they were artisans who had trained to make a specific kind of handcrafted item for most of their lives. Or they were a priest of some sort. Or they were a soldier. None of them had a direct correlation the way we imagine it now that X amount of time at work = X amount of pay. 

Once we did that created the concept of an hourly wage we changed our sense that labor or effort that does not have a direct correlation to $ per hour is not the same "effort" - it's expressed time and time again all over TAM. And this is the basis of this thread that non-wage-producing effort is not -worth- the same, and doesn't deserve the praise it gets. 

(And in the case of a divorce only who makes the most via hourly wage-labor deserves the rewards because other less tangible things like ... I took the kids to daycare everyday so you could get into work early and attend all those meetings that made you look like a go-getter so you could get that promotion and be making all of that money. You can't quantify that with a set value, and therefore, it doesn't have one.)


----------



## staarz21

I want to laugh right now. I went back and read the thread because I asked if someone could point out to me where the SAHP mob started this and no one answered. I am guessing the reason I was ignored is because they went back to read the thread and found out, it wasn't the SAHP mob that started this...That in fact, most of the stabs toward the working moms, came from other working men and women and not the SAH group at all. 


The first stab actually happened on the first page....

*Quigster said:*


> I daresay the poor, put-upon, stay-at-home moms have plenty of spare time to blog about their own pet issues. Those of us with jobs outside the home spend all that time commuting!


Which can be seen as an insult, because obviously not all SAHPs do this. He's banned (by his own request), so let's not count that. 

*
Page 3 by Bananapeel:*


> Putting the kids on the school bus, doing an hour of daily housework, going shopping, and working out at the gym just aren't.


Again, it's insulting to generalize all SAHPs as lazing about. 

*Page 4 EnigmaGirl:*


> I honestly believe that SAHPs are going the way of the dinosaur anyway. Its such an outdated concept and puts too many people in the position of complete financial subservience to a partner that may end up not wanting them anymore.


This isn't technically an insult, though it does assume that SAHPs aren't needed/wanted anymore. 

*MichelleR on page 4 said*:


> . It's like people are so afraid of offending the feminists that as a culture we are doing a lot of male-bashing and just not appreciating them. I always feel afraid to say things like this because other women act like I'm a repressed woman who has no intelligent thoughts of her own.


Which could have offended some women here. However, MichelleR is a working mom, so she doesn't sit for the SAHM mob everyone keeps talking about. 

There is this little gem written by *EnigmaGirl:*



> So very true. The reality is that women that sit around on their butts while men take care of them are delusional anyway. They aren't princesses at all and they often get the rug pulled out from under them when their husbands take off and they're left with nothing. Or there are the ones that have to stay with crappy or cheating husbands because they're child-like dependents who can't take care of themselves or their children.





> dults should be responsible for themselves and their children and not live off of others unless they're accepting the risk and peril of that decision totally on their own shoulders. They cannot expect someone else to take care of them if their marriage dissolves (which it often does).


Can't see how that would offend anyone? At all? 
*
EnigmaGirl page 25:*



> The idea that all women sit around like princesses expecting men to take care of them is sexist and offensive. That's the LAST thing some women want or expect. My girls would find the idea of being a princess repugnant on a number of levels*. There are a lot of women that pride themselves on their intelligence and capabilities.*
> *
> Not all women are weak-willed, wanna-be dependents...that's a pathetic view of women.*


Just sayin' but SAHPs aren't like this. There are a few bad apples, the same as in any group, but generalizing like this is gross. How this got glossed over in this thread is amazing to me. 

More EnigmaGirl Page 25:



> As for SAHPs...as I've said many times...any person who doesn't recognize the peril that they put themselves and their children in by not being financially self-sufficient doesn't need to worry about my opinion of them...they need to worry about what's going to happen if their spouse takes off.



It goes on and on really. In these quotes she is actually debating with a WORKING person. Not a SAHP, who some people here are saying are mobbing up against them. Sooooooo........

Again, I will ask, why is everyone saying that the SAH group is attacking the working group? Please, please go back and read the thread and stop saying that the SAHPs started this whole thing. Simply stated, that's not true. Working people are attacking working people - the few SAHPs that DID respond were actually pretty pleasant about it considering they were being called useless and mindless dependents. 

I work now and I make the most now...but I also stayed at home for many years. I would NEVER in my lifetime insult someone's CHOICE to do what they feel is best for their family. I wouldn't call them names or put their choice down because of my own personal feelings.

Funny how we have movements like LGBT and we should be tolerant of everyone no matter what they choose, and when someone is against that, they are thrown into the fire and humiliated for hurting someone's feelings on their choices.

But here in this thread, it seems to be okay to look down upon one's choices and then turn it around on them. All while saying they are the ones who started the whole debate....and it's not even true. 

Aaaahhhhhhhmazing.


----------



## EllisRedding

@staarz21

Once again, awesome job. You touched on many of the items that others here have tried to address and spot on with some of the conversations I have had.



> Funny how we have movements like LGBT and we should be tolerant of everyone no matter what they choose, and when someone is against that, they are thrown into the fire and humiliated for hurting someone's feelings on their choices.


As far as the quote above, what I find (and I actually had this exact conversation here with someone else) is that we are in a society where we are supposed to be tolerant of everything, which is ironic when you consider those same people who preach tolerance are the same people who talk down to those who don't share their views.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> As a society, this is one thing that we can work on. A SAHD should but just as ok as a SAHM.


Because evolution has shaped humans so that, *in general*, women *tend to* lose interest in SAHDs, I don't see that happening in any near timeframe.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Quote[*



> *EllisRedding said*:* I think if someone objectively read through the thread you could see where both sides made comments that could be read as taking shots at the other side*.
> 
> If you don't agree, ok, not looking to convince you otherwise.












I think we'd all agree that only myself and MichelleR would be seen as taking a shot.. though I dare anyone to find one SHOT Against the lifestyle of a Working mother from MY MOUTH... look through my posts !! Please [email protected]# .. it was all about the ATTITUDE of a couple particulars on this thread... period. 

What I find very telling it this...a # of women here are utterly blinded to this Vibe of vitriol, don't see it at all... but yet you men...Logical dudes that you are (you, Cletus & Kivlor come to mind)... there is no fish to fry..you've pointed it out a # of times ... (a couple women too...Solid Snake & Staarz).. 



Cosmos said:


> I agree with you. However, fortunately, *I haven't encountered any radical feminists on TAM*, and I don't believe that any of us here would identify with their radical views.










...and I will lay out why I reason this way... 

In the past here on TAM.. I have linked Feminist Amy Glass's unapologetic article speaking very condescendingly to those women who didn't take her career path...but who have taken a more traditional path to marriage, raising children... This article....

I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I?m Not Sorry ...











> Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.
> 
> Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the mommy bloggers.
> 
> Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?
> 
> If women can do anything, why are we still content with applauding them for doing nothing?
> 
> I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job not when she stays inside the box and does the house and kids thing which is the path of least resistance. The dominate cultural voice will tell you these are things you can do with a husband and kids, but as I’ve written before, that’s a lie. It’s just not reality.
> 
> You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a husband and kids.
> 
> I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this. It’s because women secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Men don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”
> 
> Women will be equal with men when we stop demanding that it be considered equally important to do housework and real work. They are not equal. Doing laundry will never be as important as being a doctor or an engineer or building a business. This word play is holding us back.


There are parts of this article I actually agree with (imagine that !).....I have no problem with the idea that we're common & ordinary (WE ARE!)... I agree with her that the breadwinners work is MUCH HARDER, he deserves our praise.. we look UP to him for protecting / providing... I have always felt I had the easier end of it (Hell yeah -even with working part time -I have it EASIER).....

When Stay at Home's complain they have this 24/7 thing/ hardest job on the planet & all that.. I so [email protected]#... (but who am I to speak for those who may have special needs situations, maybe twins with colic.. there are some difficult circumstances out there & I would NOT judge these women)... 

Now here is the thing.. *I have been TOLD BY A # of feminists here to Disregard this article.. that AMY GLASS IS A* "RADICAL"...it's very obvious she "demeans" the choices of other women...enough to throw up on it...







...and feels in her words that many feminists are " verbally placating" so they won't come off this harshly.. 



lifeistooshort said:


> *Perhaps you could point me to one of these posts?*
> 
> *Then we can see if our definition of condescending is the same.*


 1st I'd ask.. what do you think of Amy Glass's article - does she represent what Feminism is about, a good Feminist ?? 

I went back & gathered some of the things spoken in this thread.. let's compare the AMY Glass VIBE, shall we.... 

Here we are lazy Princesses - and irresponsible (is this true even if our husbands prefer this set up ?)


> *Post 333 *1. Men need to stop allowing themselves to assume the breadwinner role. Stop reinforcing the Princess stereotype by promising to be their Shining Knight who will take care of them.
> 
> 2. Women need to stop allowing themselves to be "taken care of" like lazy princesses. Work. Contribute. Stay in the career game. For so many reasons, it's irresponsible NOT to.


 We sit around on our butts all day & are Delusional .. irresponsible again.. the constant need to speak how ADULT one is = Stay at home are also like children ...


> *Post 357*
> So very true. The reality is that women that sit around on their butts while men take care of them are delusional anyway. They aren't princesses at all and they often get the rug pulled out from under them when their husbands take off and they're left with nothing. ....
> 
> And I find alimony disgraceful. The last thing I would want is to take money from a man that either I didn't want or that didn't want me. I would be so ashamed if I had to resort to that because I was so irresponsible that I didn't ensure that I had the ability to support myself like a grown-up. I learned the value of having a work ethic very early in life and am teaching that to my own girls too.


 We're archaic & weak ...


> *Post 363* SAHs are going the way of the dinosaur.....
> 
> Not all women are weak-willed, wanna-be dependents...


 Our types are not worthy to be Relationship Material ...


> *Post 417*
> And frankly, if any of my nephews brought home a girl that was uneducated and didn't work, there's not one of my sisters or sister-in-laws that wouldn't highly encourage him to dump her. Those types of women are not considered partner-material in my family.


 We're subservient and our children should be pitied, they are victims of irresponsibility ..


> I have zero problem with anyone who takes the risk of financial subservience. I also have zero sympathy when their spouse leaves them and they're financially screwed.
> 
> I do, however, feel very sorry for their children. They are victims of irresponsibility and poor planning.


 It is not a responsible choice ...


> *Post 429*
> I actually don't personally care what risk adult people take at all. But I'm not going coddle someone by saying that its a responsible choice.



We're insecure & whiny continuously...


> *Post 665* Its so tiring that these threads always dissolve into whining because so many SAHP are so incredibly insecure about who they are and what they're doing.


 Such women have wasted their gifts & capabilities, being financially dependent (subservient is the word feminists like to use) is disgraceful...


> *Post 665*
> I make zero apologies for the fact that I personally respect a certain type of person/women and direct my children the same way. I have always admired hard-working, career-oriented people/women. Its what I've personally aspired to and have hoped that my children aspire to. I certainly don't want them to aspire to be a financially subservient to a man...that would be a complete waste of all of their gifts, intelligence, education and capabilities. In my family, we believe in hard work and self-reliance...always have, always will.
> 
> I generally just ignore most of the SAH crowd on here because they're often here to whine about feminists and/or working women not respecting them. The behavior is always illuminating. People that are secure in who they are and what they do engage this way and don't require constant validation of their personal choices.


 Not about choice.. it's about Living up to certain feminist Ideals.. would be disappointed in our own children if they did differently ...


> *Post 695* I would only be disappointed with my children if they didn't educate themselves and if they were financially dependent on men and used them for money without the means to support themselves. I've done my best to instill certain values in my children to help ensure that they would not take that path...just like my mom did for me.


 Being called bullies here - again I ask someone PLEASE point out these Nasty posts of ours (if you find a couple, they couldn't hold a candle to these) -- hardly a mob mentality (gotta laugh here







... just little 'ol Me & Michelle.. maybe add Staarz in the mix..


> *Post 712* The SAH crowd on this site often has a mob mentality and think they can bully you to praise them for their lifestyle choices. The whole concept is silly. People are permitted to admire and aspire to whatever they please...and if I don't find that SAH lifestyle, or any other lifestyle, admirable, that's fine. I certainly don't get offended when someone insults working women or feminists. They're also entitled to admire whatever they please.
> 
> Invariably the whole thread always seems to turn into SAHs whining about how they're not being praised and/or their perceived list of insults and/or how they're going to leave the site. Tiresome...


 Another accusation about demeaning working women..and accused of being a Mob bringing our Whine fest to this thread...


> *post 717*
> There have been several attempts to demean working women on this thread. They counter the posts with data and move on because working women don't need to whine about requiring others to say what they're doing is ok.
> 
> And no one on here was bashing SAHPs. What happened was is that I, and others, were talking about financially irresponsibility and the SAH mob showed up and started their whine-fest, as per usual.
> 
> If you find my very simple statements about basic adult personal responsibility demeaning then you have every right to disregard what I say. What isn't going to happen is me coddling and pandering to someone who's getting insulted from inferring something I didn't say. So demean working women all you want....I have no doubt they'll handle it just fine


 Here ....We're aspiration-less without a paycheck, probably depressed , we must have no purpose, we likely smother our children , live through them, we suffer not having our own identity, the word "atrophying" was used = wasting - that "potential" word again ...


> *Post 722*
> Also, there may be some downsides to a woman that has no other aspirations except being home all day besides just potential financial dependence. Examples may be things like: depression from the lack of personal purpose, helicopter/smothering parenting strategies that don't teach children about self-sufficiency, vicariously living through the children rather than having their own identity, the continued atrophying of other capabilities and potential....etc.
> 
> For every downside that one could attribute to working mothers, you could do the same for a SAHM.
> 
> What you can't say about working moms is that they're risking themselves and their children to potential financial ruin in the very possible reality of a marital breakdown. However, women who are financial dependents (often SAHMs) do put themselves in that position. In my opinion, that level of risk is completely irresponsible when you're a parent.


----------



## lifeistooshort

*Re: Quote[*



SimplyAmorous said:


> I think we'd all agree that only myself and MichelleR would be seen as taking a shot.. though I dare anyone to find one SHOT Against the lifestyle of a Working mother from MY MOUTH... look through my posts !! Please [email protected]# .. it was all about the ATTITUDE of a couple particulars on this thread... period.
> 
> What I find very telling it this...a # of women here are utterly blinded to this Vibe of vitriol, don't see it at all... but yet you men...Logical dudes that you are (you, Cletus & Kivlor come to mind)... there is no fish to fry..you've pointed it out a # of times ... (a few women too...Solid Snake & Staarz)..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and I will lay out why I reason this way...
> 
> In the past here on TAM.. I have linked Feminist Amy Glass's unapologetic article speaking very condescendingly to those women who didn't take her career path...but who have taken a more traditional path to marriage, raising children... This article....
> 
> I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I?m Not Sorry ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are parts of this article I actually agree with (imagine that !).....I have no problem with the idea that we're common & ordinary (WE ARE!)... I agree with her that the breadwinners work is MUCH HARDER, he deserves our praise.. we look UP to him for protecting / providing... I have always felt I had the easier end of it (Hell yeah -even with working part time -I have it EASIER).....
> 
> When Stay at Home's complain they have this 24/7 thing/ hardest job on the planet & all that.. I so [email protected]#... (but who am I to speak for those who may have special needs situations, maybe twins with colic.. there are some difficult circumstances out there & I would NOT judge these women)...
> 
> Now here is the thing.. I have been TOLD BY A # of TAM feminists to Disregard this article.. that AMY GLASS IS A "RADICAL"..it's very obvious she "demeans" the choices of other women...enough to throw up on it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and feels in her words that many feminists are " verbally placating" so they won't come off this harshly..
> 
> 1st I'd ask.. what do you think of Amy Glass's article ??
> 
> I went back & gathered some of the things spoken in this thread.. let's compare the AMY Glass VIBE, shall we....
> 
> Here we are lazy Princesses - and irresponsible (is this true even if our husbands prefer the set up ?)
> 
> We sit around on our butts all day & are Delusional .. irresponsible again.. the constant need to speak how ADULT one is = Stay at home are also like children ...
> 
> We're archaic & weak ...
> 
> Our types are not worthy to be Relationship Material ...
> 
> We're subservient and our children should be pitied, they are victims of irresponsibility ..
> 
> It is not a responsible choice ...
> 
> 
> We're insecure & whiny continuously...
> 
> Such women have wasted their gifts & capabilities, being financially dependent (subservient is the word feminists like to use) is disgraceful...
> 
> Not about choice.. it's about Living up to certain feminist Ideals.. would be disappointed in our own children...
> 
> Being called bullys here - again I ask someone PLEASE point out these Nasty posts of ours (if you find a couple, they couldn't hold a candle to this sh**) -- hardly a mob mentality (gotta laugh here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... just little 'ol Me & Michelle.. maybe add Staarz in the mix...
> 
> Another accusation about demeaning working women..and accused of being a Mob bringing our Whine fest to this thread...
> 
> Here ....We're aspiration-less without a paycheck, probably depressed , we must have no purpose, we likely smother our children , live through them, we suffer not having our own identity, the word "atrophying" was used = wasting - that "potential" word again ...



Amy Glass, to my knowledge, is not on TAM.
And she, like you, is entitled to her views. 

I don't think anyone is going to change your mind that all these big, bad feminists look down on poor, old fashioned you. I honestly don't understand why. ....is all it it takes for you to be looked down on a few articles by lunatics? 

If that's the case you'll live your life in defensive mode. 

Sounds exhausting. .... not a way I'd care to live. 

Either easy I'm done trying to convince anyone. I'm sure if I cared I could find articles by people who think I'm a lousy parent for going to work. Hell, when I was a single mom I constantly saw articles about how kids of single moms all turned out to be screw ups

Bit I choose not to be a victim.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Quote[*



lifeistooshort said:


> Amy Glass, to my knowledge, is not on TAM.
> And she, like you, is entitled to her views.
> 
> I don't think anyone is going to change your mind that all these big, bad feminists look down on poor, old fashioned you. I honestly don't understand why. ....is all it it takes for you to be looked down on a few articles by lunatics?
> 
> If that's the case you'll live your life in defensive mode.
> 
> Sounds exhausting. .... not a way I'd care to live.
> 
> Either easy I'm done trying to convince anyone. I'm sure if I cared I could find articles by people who think I'm a lousy parent for going to work. Hell, when I was a single mom I constantly saw articles about how kids of single moms all turned out to be screw ups
> 
> Bit I choose not to be a victim.


Yes !! She Is most definitely entitled to her views.. God Love her.. Honestly I wish more would just be this HONEST..at least we'd know we're on the bottom of their shoes...and we can stay out of their way !! 

But when I, or another poster may be ballsy enough to point out the inconsistencies of what is meant by being a RADICAL and what is NOT (respecting woman's choices -even if they are more traditional , conservative, etc)....when this is ignored within our midst.. while many here have LIKED these very posts...... 

Well.. hmmmm... It calls into question how honest anyone really is. .. or how they REALLY TRULY feel ... 

I have little emotion on all of this ... it's a legitimate assessment I have made .. and see among some of the woman here... And yes, that is my personal opinion .. Not crying in the corner or loosing any sleep over this.. I've actually found it rather amusing. 

I guess what can be learned from this is.. Everyone's Bar on what is deemed a RADICAL FEMINIST ......this can vary widely !.... so wide that - what's the point [email protected]#... If only others could understand why some of us have no desire to use the term at all.. I really don't see how it unites women.. 

Those like Amy Glass only serve to divide. She is a MEAN GIRL.. 

*My measurement is* - Caring , supporting, respecting the choices of women, even different over ourselves...not looking down on them.


----------



## sapientia

Here to my mind, is the main question that needs careful consideration when making the choice to stay home, or not. Once that question is addressed, what follows is about risk mitigation.



sapientia said:


> 1. Do you think there* isn't* risk with putting ones lifetime financial security with another individual?
> 
> *If a single woman decides to think more carefully about her situation and implications for her future, then this entire thread will have been worth it.*


----------



## EleGirl

EllisRedding said:


> That fine, not surprised you feel that way.
> 
> I would go as far as to say both sides have taken shots at each other.


There have been a few (2? 3?) women who are not SAHMs who stated that for them, the idea of being a SAHM WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL SECURITY is too much of a risk. That is not taking pot shots at all SAHMs. That is how they personally feel and why they made the choices they made.

Not one person has told any SAHM posting on this threat that she made the wrong choice, that she hates men, that she is a bad preson.

Those kinds of pot shots have been taken at women who are not SAHMs on this thread.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Quote[*



lifeistooshort said:


> Either easy I'm done trying to convince anyone. * I'm sure if I cared I could find articles by people who think I'm a lousy parent for going to work. Hell, when I was a single mom I constantly saw articles about how kids of single moms all turned out to be screw ups*


Listen I agree with you here lifeistooshort.. Yes.. those can be found- tons of them.. and it's UGLY UGLY BEHAVIOR... Stay at Homes can be smug Bi*ches too (though I didn't see it on this thread -but on the net - hell [email protected]#).....

*Is it ever OK to be THIS judgmental and down right nasty , with character assassinations for those on the other side? *

I say NO! 

IF I was in a room with a group of stay at homes cutting down working Moms..believe you - me - I'd stick my head in there & give them something to chew on - this wouldn't be sitting well with me AT ALL.. one of the Best Mom's I know, a friend of mine...she has worked full time ALL HER LIFE....she is amazing & I've learned so much from her....she gets us out doing things with the kids, I could go on.. she impresses me greatly! 

I have a THING for standing up for the underdog & Working moms would be it...in that room...

How dare they.. and it's the same darn thing.. most of these women would not be that bold to speak such slamming to another's face..but they get in some little clique & go hog wild.. 

Another bunch of MEAN GIRLS...

Some of you may embrace your own clique of mean girls.. but I'm not that type... I'm gonna stick up for those being thrown under the bus & not there to defend themselves...

I find that behavior Obnoxious! on both sides... 

I would explain it as being prejudice to a lifestyle while ignoring the FRUITS of it.... this is very very wrong...

I do not feel that either side can boast their kids are better off.. it's just different -that's all... so long as all is happy with their choices and it's running smoothly.. that's beautiful!.... 

I would say...we all just want to feel we are worth something ...that there is still *purpose* in our choices.. 

I found this website a while ago.... may we all come more to the center of this..








>>>Stop the Mommy Wars: Empowering Photo Series


----------



## EllisRedding

EleGirl said:


> There have been a few (2? 3?) women who are not SAHMs who stated that for them, the idea of being a SAHM WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL SECURITY is too much of a risk. That is not taking pot shots at all SAHMs. That is how they personally feel and why they made the choices they made.
> 
> Not one person has told any SAHM posting on this threat that she made the wrong choice, that she hates men, that she is a bad preson.
> 
> Those kinds of pot shots have been taken at women who are not SAHMs on this thread.


Sorry Ele, you will only see from one POV and conveniently gloss over points made by other posters. Really not more to add to this....


----------



## sapientia

I can't speak for the other posters, but I explicitly posted that SAHMs are welcome to their choice. Funny, noone quoted THAT post... (same as for the other one I showed already taken out of context--no acknowledgement there either, oh well).

Some of the SAH crowd are on their backfoot b/c they don't feel "accepted" for their choice, or some other emotional argument. The truth is they aren't ever going to be admired or accepted by some for their choice and they just need to suck that up. They don't need to change anyone's minds. I'm certainly not bothered about anyone's opinion on my choice to work and generate income to support my family. I decided the risk/return ratio was well in my favour, and so far so good. 

As I posted in another thread, there are various ways people bring value to a relationship. What is important is that people understand ALL the risks a course of action entails. They also need to fully face that divorce laws are changing, not to a SAMs benefit, and they should explore ways to mitigate this if they decide with their spouse, to sacrifice their future earning potential to raise children. That's it.

BTW, I'm not really worried about this longterm b/c I believe this will be a non-issue in 1-2 generations. SAMs will be relatively rare, or very temporary. Young men of my son's generation will be wary of marriages with a dependent spouse, women and men will both want to work, and maternity leave and childcare will increasingly look like the systems in progressive countries like France. I applaud the new maternity laws for allowing both men and women to care for very young children.


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> Here to my mind, is the main question that needs careful consideration when making the choice to stay home, or not. Once that question is addressed, what follows is about risk mitigation.


I completely agree that this is definitely a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. In my specific case it has definitely been addressed between my W and I before she became a SAHP. However, it is also one of MANY factors that need to be considered when looking at the options available.


----------



## sapientia

sapientia said:


> 1. Do you think there* isn't* risk with putting ones lifetime financial security with another individual?
> 
> *If a single woman decides to think more carefully about her situation and implications for her future, then this entire thread will have been worth it.*


----------



## sapientia

EllisRedding said:


> I completely agree that this is definitely a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. In my specific case it has definitely been addressed between my W and I before she became a SAHP. However, it is also one of MANY factors that need to be considered when looking at the options available.


So, what IS your answer to the question? If you and your W divorce, have you agreed to pay her lifetime maintenance?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sapientia said:


> I can't speak for the other posters, but *I explicitly posted that SAHMs are welcome to their choice. Funny, noone quoted THAT post.*.. (same as for the other one I showed already taken out of context--no acknowledgement there either, oh well).


 I quoted the condescending.. this IS not condescending.. so of course I wouldn't have an issue with it ... 

Neither is it condescending to ask questions , explore areas informing women to have a back up plan.. insurances in place, in the event of it all falling apart... getting debt free as quickly as possible...

I was mindful of all of these things - very much.. 



> *Some of the SAH crowd are on their backfoot b/c they don't feel "accepted" for their choice, or some other emotional argument. The truth is they aren't ever going to be admired or accepted by some for their choice and they just need to suck that up.*


 I was never hinting at admiration.. personally I greatly admire *my husband* for all HE brings.. and he is quite content to have me serve him and our family.. that is my Joy & pleasure..... I don't expect it anywhere else.. 

But it's true... in the circles I/ we hang...my women friends ...It's nice to know they LIKE me.. at the very least.. and accept me for where I am...who I am.


----------



## lifeistooshort

*Re: Quote[*



SimplyAmorous said:


> Listen I agree with you here lifeistooshort.. Yes.. those can be found- tons of them.. and it's UGLY UGLY BEHAVIOR... Stay at Homes can be smug Bi*ches too (though I didn't see it on this thread -but on the net - hell [email protected]#).....
> 
> *Is it ever OK to be THIS judgmental and down right nasty , with character assassinations for those on the other side? *
> 
> I say NO!
> 
> IF I was in a room with a group of stay at homes cutting down working Moms..believe you - me - I'd stick my head in there & give them something to chew on - this wouldn't be sitting well with me AT ALL.. one of the Best Mom's I know, a friend of mine...she has worked full time ALL HER LIFE....she is amazing & I've learned so much from her....she gets us out doing things with the kids, I could go on.. she impresses me greatly!
> 
> I have a THING for standing up for the underdog & Working moms would be it...in that room...
> 
> How dare they.. and it's the same darn thing.. most of these women would not be that bold to speak such slamming to another's face..but they get in some little clique & go hog wild..
> 
> Another bunch of MEAN GIRLS...
> 
> Some of you may embrace your own clique of mean girls.. but I'm not that type... I'm gonna stick up for those being thrown under the bus & not there to defend themselves...
> 
> I find that behavior Obnoxious! on both sides...
> 
> I would explain it as being prejudice to a lifestyle while ignoring the FRUITS of it.... this is very very wrong...
> 
> I do not feel that either side can boast their kids are better off.. it's just different -that's all... so long as all is happy with their choices and it's running smoothly.. that's beautiful!....
> 
> I would say...we all just want to feel we are worth something ...that there is still *purpose* in our choices..
> 
> I found this website a while ago.... may we all come more to the center of this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>Stop the Mommy Wars: Empowering Photo Series




Well let's not be mean girls and let's not give them power by worrying about what they think. 

They're nobodies to us.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

sapientia said:


> So, what IS your answer to the question?


- Divorce is not going to happen, so rule that out. I know to some here that seems impossible or hearsay, but it is not a concern in our marriage

- In terms of finances (since that is your focus) if something unfortunate happened to me my wife would be rather well off for a while just from my life insurance, savings put aside (both my 401k, her Rollover IRA that she accumulated when working, and other savings I continue to contribute to monthly). We carry minimal debt (only debt being mortgage on the house which should hopefully be gone sooner than later). What this means is that she would not be in a rush or scrambling.

- If she needed to re enter the workforce she would have no issues finding employment in the same position she worked at prior to becoming a SAHP. However, she hated her job, so the hope would be the cushion provided by the point above would give her the opportunity to possibly explore alternatives. 

- If I were to lose my job (well, without going into detail about what I do) getting fired is not a concern, and if something did happen to the business it would be a winddown which would still allow plenty of time to regroup. If it became necessary though she would re enter the workforce.

- At some point down the road when the kids get old enough, she would like to look at her options again in terms of working, but hopefully she can chase something that more suits her interests. 

- For the time being with 3 young kids it would be silly and not in the best interest/detrimental to our family to have her work, which would be for nothing more than saying she had a job. There are a lot of things she is able to do now with/for our kids that she could not if she was working. 

Now I fully understand the dynamics of my family may be different then the next person. As I have said all along, it is important for each family to make the decision that is best for them. The decision does not have to be set in stone, things can change along the way that require adjustments.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Because evolution has shaped humans so that, *in general*, women *tend to* lose interest in SAHDs, I don't see that happening in any near timeframe.


Before the industrial revolution, there were no SAHMs and no breadwinners. There were men and women who worked together on their farms and in their own homes.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Quote[*



lifeistooshort said:


> Well let's not be mean girls and let's not give them power by worrying about what they think.
> 
> They're nobodies to us.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 I'll always be Open & pliable to others thoughts, ideas...that's one of the appeals of forums after all... I'll listen with open ears to their criticisms also... but true... there comes a point where you realize.. this poster could care less if you died a tragic death .. and they enjoy the cyber slam... 

I think that says more about them over those they are so opinionated on... 

I very much appreciate humble people.. with enough logic, that even if they said something mindless ..they have enough balls to admit it... & care to make amends.... it's appreciated on forums too.. but ha ha ha..not holding my breath ...people are far more into "defending themselves" over being humble.... 

Such attributes make a phenomenal difference in marital relationships too by the way... Even on a silly forum ... then sometimes we actually end up meeting a poster or 2.. so who knows.. being kind to each other is a plus.. 

I will always be open to others opinions because I ENJOY learning of other people, various walks of life.. it's all fascinating to me.. even if that means a segment of career powered highly educated feminists look down on me ...Hey that's reality ! 

Better than being ignorant ..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Lionelhutz said:


> I would have stayed at home and toyed with the idea.
> 
> But I wasn't strong enough to endure the judgment of many who would have seen it as a lesser choice for a male. Even my wife, who seemed to pay lip service to liking the idea, and probably would like to think of herself as being fair and enlightened enough to support the idea, *I have heard her say things in reference to others that left me no doubt that if I had stayed home on some level she would have lost respect for me*.


As much as some want to make this fair & balanced.. .. Men & women are all the same, so what if the man stays home... (heck with what we've been talking about here...WOE TO ANY MAN [email protected]#$)....

I have to agree with you Lionel.... I don't think it would work for many couples - long term.. 

I've evaluated this in my own head. .. the What if's.. not nice to say of myself... but I think if was the Breadwinner.. it'd probably go to MY HEAD...my ego would be all puffed, this would raise my testosterone & lower my humility (likely)..

It would terribly mess with our relationship Dynamics I'm afraid...... I am already the more dominate partner between us... it just wouldn't be good....I wouldn't find this attractive...










Even though I love love love a gentleman (I don't mind if he's tipped Beta).... I still have this NEED to "look up" to my man.....feel some masculinity.. a Man in work boots...







.. using power tools.. seeing him doing something that requires strength.. MAN SKILL ... hey, whether it's cultural or what.. I like it [email protected]#$ ..

These things surely ups my Ooommmph for him... 

LIke these boys >>


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've evaluated this in my own head. .. the What if's.. not nice to say of myself... but I think if was the Breadwinner.. it'd probably go to MY HEAD...my ego would be all puffed, this would raise my testosterone & lower my humility (likely)..
> 
> It would terribly mess with our relationship Dynamics I'm afraid...... I am already the more dominate partner between us... it just wouldn't be good....I wouldn't find this attractive...


Okay, I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that one . . . 

My SIL had a team of men come in and clean her house a few times a month. They sure were fast. Power cleaners!



> Even though I love love love a gentleman (I don't mind if he's tipped Beta).... I still have this NEED to "look up" to my man.....feel some masculinity..


That would make for an interesting thread, SA. "What makes you look up to a man?"


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Before the industrial revolution, there were no SAHMs and no breadwinners. There were men and women who worked together on their farms and in their own homes.


Yes, but such an arrangement provided lots of opportunities for men to display their physical strength, which is sexually attractive to most women. Furthermore, largely for that reason, the man was in charge in the family, which is also sexually attractive to most women.

This is obviously quite different from the current SAHD, who is often in a sexless marriage.


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> As much as some want to make this fair & balanced.. .. Men & women are all the same, so what if the man stays home... (heck with what we've been talking about here...WOE TO ANY MAN [email protected]#$)....
> 
> I have to agree with you Lionel.... I don't think it would work for many couples - long term..
> 
> I've evaluated this in my own head. .. the What if's.. not nice to say of myself... but I think if was the Breadwinner.. *it'd probably go to MY HEAD...my ego would be all puffed, this would raise my testosterone & lower my humility (likely)..
> *
> 
> It would terribly mess with our relationship Dynamics I'm afraid...... I am already the more dominate partner between us... it just wouldn't be good....I wouldn't find this attractive...


Are you joking here? 

Or is this what you think that women who are breadwinners do?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Are you joking here?
> 
> Or is this what you think that women who are breadwinners do?


lol...

Do you honestly care what any non-working person thinks of you and your career choices though?

Honestly, everytime this SAH mob descends on a thread, there's nothing but pages of idiotic internet pictures and senseless whining. Somehow conversations about adult financial responsibility always turn into utter nonsense.


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> lol...
> 
> Do you honestly care what any non-working person thinks of you and your career choices though?
> 
> Honestly, everytime this SAH mob descends on a thread, there's nothing but pages of idiotic internet pictures and senseless whining. Somehow conversations about adult financial responsibility always turn into utter nonsense.


I asked the question because I'm curious about that mind set.

I don't look down on people who, men or women, who choose to SAH.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I asked the question because I'm curious about that mind set.


I can't say I'm surprised or shocked that many people that stay home all day have unreasonable views and stereotypes of working people.



> I don't look down on people who, men or women, who choose to SAH.


I neither look down on or admire the SAH lifestyle. Its definitely not something that interests me or that I'd ever encourage for my children to aspire to.

Nor do I care if they look down on or admire my lifestyle.

My posts were simply about financial irresponsibility and having a back-up plan so that a parent doesn't doom their children to poverty.

Ultimately, whatever choices you make...adults should be responsible for themselves and should protect their children.


----------



## MEM2020

All,
A brief reminder.....

Forum Rules:

1. Treat others on the forum with dignity and respect.
Personal attacks, hate speech, racist or sexist statements or attacks, sexual harassment, explicit sexual comments, promoting violence, will not be tolerated.

Staarz,
Thank you for the summary below. I just banned one person for egregious and repeated violations of (1) above. 

----------






staarz21 said:


> I want to laugh right now. I went back and read the thread because I asked if someone could point out to me where the SAHP mob started this and no one answered. I am guessing the reason I was ignored is because they went back to read the thread and found out, it wasn't the SAHP mob that started this...That in fact, most of the stabs toward the working moms, came from other working men and women and not the SAH group at all.
> 
> 
> The first stab actually happened on the first page....
> 
> *Quigster said:*
> 
> 
> Which can be seen as an insult, because obviously not all SAHPs do this. He's banned (by his own request), so let's not count that.
> 
> *
> Page 3 by Bananapeel:*
> 
> 
> Again, it's insulting to generalize all SAHPs as lazing about.
> 
> *Page 4 EnigmaGirl:*
> 
> 
> This isn't technically an insult, though it does assume that SAHPs aren't needed/wanted anymore.
> 
> *MichelleR on page 4 said*:
> 
> 
> Which could have offended some women here. However, MichelleR is a working mom, so she doesn't sit for the SAHM mob everyone keeps talking about.
> 
> There is this little gem written by *EnigmaGirl:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't see how that would offend anyone? At all?
> *
> EnigmaGirl page 25:*
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin' but SAHPs aren't like this. There are a few bad apples, the same as in any group, but generalizing like this is gross. How this got glossed over in this thread is amazing to me.
> 
> More EnigmaGirl Page 25:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It goes on and on really. In these quotes she is actually debating with a WORKING person. Not a SAHP, who some people here are saying are mobbing up against them. Sooooooo........
> 
> Again, I will ask, why is everyone saying that the SAH group is attacking the working group? Please, please go back and read the thread and stop saying that the SAHPs started this whole thing. Simply stated, that's not true. Working people are attacking working people - the few SAHPs that DID respond were actually pretty pleasant about it considering they were being called useless and mindless dependents.
> 
> I work now and I make the most now...but I also stayed at home for many years. I would NEVER in my lifetime insult someone's CHOICE to do what they feel is best for their family. I wouldn't call them names or put their choice down because of my own personal feelings.
> 
> Funny how we have movements like LGBT and we should be tolerant of everyone no matter what they choose, and when someone is against that, they are thrown into the fire and humiliated for hurting someone's feelings on their choices.
> 
> But here in this thread, it seems to be okay to look down upon one's choices and then turn it around on them. All while saying they are the ones who started the whole debate....and it's not even true.
> 
> Aaaahhhhhhhmazing.


----------



## Cosmos

With respect, Mem, did you actually read the entire thread?

There has been a lot of baiting and goading going on in this thread, and I'm dismayed that only one person has been taken to task for their part in it.


----------



## MEM2020

Cosmos, 
The person I banned has been warned in the past about exactly this type behavior. 

Any chance you might be willing to highlight the goading of which you speak - via a PM? If not, I will slog through the entire thread. 





Cosmos said:


> With respect, Mem, did you actually read the entire thread?
> 
> There has been a lot of baiting and goading going on in this thread, and I'm dismayed that only one person has been taken to task for their part in it.


----------



## Cosmos

MEM11363 said:


> Cosmos,
> The person I banned has been warned in the past about exactly this type behavior.
> 
> Any chance you might be willing to highlight the goading of which you speak - via a PM? If not, I will slog through the entire thread.


Thank you for your response, Mem.

I will PM you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> Cosmos,
> The person I banned has been warned in the past about exactly this type behavior.
> 
> Any chance you might be willing to highlight the goading of which you speak - via a PM? If not, *I will slog through the entire thread*.


Ugh. I am sorry for you. What a thankless job!


----------



## Omego

lifeistooshort said:


> How many men do you think would want to stay home? Not just avoid working but actually raise kids full time?


I had to jump in here:

0.00000000001%?


----------



## Cosmos

Second thoughts, I truly have better things to do than go through this ridiculous thread, post by post. 

If EG was banned, so should those who have been baiting and goading throughout this thread. The main difference has been that they take their sly little jabs then quickly create smokescreens for themselves by declaring that they've been attacked.

Seriously, folks, I'm out of here! TAM is becoming more and more like a twilight zone for the mentally challenged and it's just too unhealthy.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> Are you joking here?
> 
> Or is this what you think that women who are breadwinners do?


Actually ...No... Just speaking for myself.. I mean that sincerely...

The higher Testosterone comment is common though.. that career women often have higher testosterone levels.... it's that boost of confidence they get on the job...I'll leave the snippet on what influences Higher Test at the bottom of this reply..... 

I was thinking after I typed that - that it could be taken in not such a good light even..

Before I answered... I asked my husband what he would think...if the roles were reversed, how that might affect *ME*... he did say he could see me being more demanding, harder to please... he also feels I might throw things at him that he isn't doing enough.. his words - that I would then "have the upper hand"... (and true, this DOESN'T SOUND very nice of me, does it.. but he knows me [email protected]# ) 

Truth is...I can be demanding now -in some ways.. I can't say it's a problem for us as he keeps up/ agrees with the way we run a household - our family lives... neither of us are procrastinators.. and like to be on schedule... our roles would be very sexist to some ...He does ALL the manly stuff, I do all the mundane stuff that a woman can easily handle... I may help him.. but he's the leader.. this is our way... he never has to touch my dishes, the laundry, clean , cook...none of it .. 

I've just always looked up to Men who are hard working.....(regardless of income status) ...is this hardwired in me.. It probably is... 

Though if it works for another family... nothing at all wrong with that... 

There was a lady in my Mops group... she worked 2 jobs while her husband worked just a little (she made a lot more money, this was the best solution)...and he handled all the stuff at home.. took care of the kids..

When she'd come to the meetings.. it was her husband who cooked the food she brought.... they had a decent marriage, I'd say...got along well for the most part...though she felt she was always running (exhausted)... she spoke how sex was the last thing on her mind....and she felt guilty, enough to cry in front of some of the ladies one day -that she was missing her children growing up... but still they did what they had to do..this kept them afloat.. 

So No.. this woman surely wasn't affected in those ways.. she was a nurse.. and she did Massage on the side. She was just worn out.



> Taken from : Amazon.com: The Alchemy of Love and Lust : Theresa L. Crenshaw: Books
> 
> *As to Sexual roles -Testosterone *:
> 
> *Increases sexual thoughts & fantasies
> *Responds to Novelty , inspires one night stands & affairs
> *Increases aggressive sex drive in both men & women -but *Doesn't have a stong effect on erection except indirectly by increasing desire.
> *Increases the urge to masterbate rather than the desire for intercourse.
> 
> *As to Behavior, Testosterone *:
> 
> *Is activating
> *Maintains separateness & promotes aggression
> *Increases assertiveness and self -confidence
> *Has been implicated as a cause of certain types of criminal behavior and domestic violence.
> *Can trigger or contribute to psychotic behavior
> *Rises in response to winning, social status, and pecking orders
> *** Is higher than usual in CAREER WOMAN
> 
> *How we can Influence Testosterone :*
> 
> *Winning competitions/arguments/battles
> *Sexual thoughts and activities
> *Diet containing Meat
> *exercise


----------



## EllisRedding

Cosmos said:


> Second thoughts, I truly have better things to do than go through this ridiculous thread, post by post.
> 
> If EG was banned, so should those who have been baiting and goading throughout this thread. The main difference has been that they take their sly little jabs then quickly create smokescreens for themselves by declaring that they've been attacked.
> 
> *Seriously, folks, I'm out of here! TAM is becoming more and more like a twilight zone for the mentally challenged and it's just too unhealthy.*


Oh the irony in this post, calls the thread ridiculous, talks about others taking sly little jabs, then proceeds to imply that people here are mentally challenged ... :scratchhead:


----------



## soccermom2three

Oh you know those uppity working women! They have all that self confidence! What a shame!


----------



## ButtPunch

SimplyAmorous said:


> Actually ...No... Just speaking for myself.. I mean that sincerely...
> 
> The higher Testosterone comment is common though.. that career women often have higher testosterone levels.... it's that boost of confidence they get on the job...I'll leave the snippet on what influences Higher Test at the bottom of this reply.....
> 
> I was thinking after I typed that - that it could be taken in not such a good light even..
> 
> Before I answered... I asked my husband what he would think...if the roles were reversed, how that might affect *ME*... he did say he could see me being more demanding, harder to please... he also feels I might throw things at him that he isn't doing enough.. his words - that I would then "have the upper hand"... (and true, this DOESN'T SOUND very nice of me, does it.. but he knows me [email protected]# )
> 
> Truth is...I can be demanding now -in some ways.. I can't say it's a problem for us as he keeps up/ agrees with the way we run a household - our family lives... neither of us are procrastinators.. and like to be on schedule... our roles would be very sexist to some ...He does ALL the manly stuff, I do all the mundane stuff that a woman can easily handle... I may help him.. but he's the leader.. this is our way... he never has to touch my dishes, the laundry, clean , cook...none of it ..
> 
> I've just always looked up to Men who are hard working.....(regardless of income status) ...is this hardwired in me.. It probably is...
> 
> Though if it works for another family... nothing at all wrong with that...
> 
> There was a lady in my Mops group... she worked 2 jobs while her husband worked just a little (she made a lot more money, this was the best solution)...and he handled all the stuff at home.. took care of the kids..
> 
> When she'd come to the meetings.. it was her husband who cooked the food she brought.... they had a decent marriage, I'd say...got along well for the most part...though she felt she was always running (exhausted)... she spoke how sex was the last thing on her mind....and she felt guilty, enough to cry in front of some of the ladies one day -that she was missing her children growing up... but still they did what they had to do..this kept them afloat..
> 
> So No.. this woman surely wasn't affected in those ways.. she was a nurse.. and she did Massage on the side. She was just worn out.


Don't forget Male Pattern Baldness


----------



## lifeistooshort

Why don't I get the better metabolism and more muscle/less fat that accompanies more testosterone? 

Shouldn't I have this as a career woman?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WandaJ

To be protected and care for by your husband does not equal to women wanting to be financialy dependent, with no options.

Same as husband who wants to be admired and taken care does not mean he can not accept word of critique from his wife.


----------



## samyeagar

lifeistooshort said:


> Why don't I get the better metabolism and more muscle/less fat that accompanies more testosterone?
> 
> Shouldn't I have this as a career woman?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yay...more tongue in cheek shots.

Quite obviously T level affect individuals differently, just as generalizations may or may not apply to any one specific individual, while still holding true for the larger population. Plenty of men have piss poor metabolisms, and are fat, all the while having higher T levels than other men.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> Women who work are as capable of the proper upbringing of one's children and exposing them to all that you list.
> 
> Do you know what is really nobel? To be able to raise your children with all of that which you list as well as being able to include being able to put a roof over their heads, to provide them with food, clothing, medical care and the gazillion other things that children need to grow up in our society. And that takes money.
> 
> Why do you dismiss that children also need the that money can buy?
> 
> 
> 
> If she does that, she’s is a working woman. She is no longer only a SAHM.
> Several of us on this thread who have been beat up for having the audacity to have careers actually talked about the fact that this is exactly what we did. We started our own businesses, though not at-home necessarily, and had our children with us at the office.
> 
> 
> Working also provides options to the children. So I’m not sure what you mean by this.
> 
> 
> I disagree that sapientia is caught up in pecuniary gain. You work for a living, are you caught up in pecuniary gain? If not, how are you different than she?
> 
> Sapientia is talking about a reality. I know many women who were SAHMs. Some of them for 20-30 years. And then one day it all went poof. Some of them had husbands who became disabled, some of them had husbands who died, and many had husbands to just left ..usually with a bimbo. Most of these women have had no job skills. For the ones whose husbands’ walked out on them, most got nothing because assets were hidden (the husbands controlled the money). So they now live in petty deep poverty.


Ele, I was trying to get some of the folks who were taking some rather nasty jabs at SAHPs to think about what they were saying. What if the shoe were on the other foot, so-to-speak. I know you weren't trying to take jabs, you've said before here and in other threads that you'd probably SAH if possible; that you'd home school if you you had a young kid and could today. 

I think sapientia's comment seemed to be caught up in pecuniary gain, and not weighing the non-pecuniary benefits conferred to you, your spouse and your children by having a parent who is home regularly. I'm caught up in that too; I recognize it. It's why I work 60-80 hours a week. But it's not healthy, and I recognize that it's probably a little bit of madness in me, and I think it probably will make me a terrible husband. (Adam Smith said as much in his writings on capital, and I tend to agree) I prioritize wealth over nearly everything in my life, I don't know how not to; but that doesn't mean others should and it certainly doesn't mean I treat condescendingly those who choose to place higher value on other things. 

Of course a single mom can't really SAH (unless she's independently wealthy lol), so that precludes a large percentage of mothers in the West. I'm sorry to hear about the friends you mention, and I think complete transparency (financial and otherwise) is a requirement in any marriage. Insurance can help with the risk of disability / death of a breadwinner. As for husbands who leave, well, only so much can be done. I think a lot of that is cultural, and I don't see a panacea for society's growing illness. 

That is the tremendous risk we take getting married--that we are going to place our heart in someone else's hands, and pray they don't crush it. All we can do (men and women) to prevent that is A) choose carefully, B) work hard to have a strong marriage every day and C) reject divorce as an option. You can control your half, and try a little to influence theirs, but in the end your spouse controls themselves.

I do find it interesting that so many women are so worried about being ruined by divorce, just like so many men. Perhaps the cure is for more of us to say "no, I swore an oath 'till death do us part', and it's going to be that way."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Omego said:


> I had to jump in here:
> 
> 0.00000000001%?


I wonder how much geographical expectation contributes here. I know several fantastic SAHD's.


----------



## Kivlor

Lionelhutz said:


> I would have stayed at home and toyed with the idea.
> 
> But I wasn't strong enough to endure the judgment of many who would have seen it as a lesser choice for a male. Even my wife, who seemed to pay lip service to liking the idea, and probably would like to think of herself as being fair and enlightened enough to support the idea, I have heard her say things in reference to others that left me no doubt that if I had stayed home on some level she would have lost respect for me.


 @lifeistooshort

I can't speak for all men, only for myself. I would love to stay at home. It's not an option in my mind though. I don't have much hope for finding a woman I would trust enough to let me do so. I would constantly be concerned that she would look down on me for it, and leave me as soon as a more manly man showed up. It's a personal issue, I think. I don't have the capacity for that kind of trust, never have.

If I were independently wealthy, to the point of not needing to work, I would certainly consider it, or at least consider slowing down my work and raising the kids in it, which is something I would actually love to do. 

Regarding your comment about testosterone, I'm curious, do you have a high metabolism compared to women your age? We're only talking about marginal increases in an individual's T levels...


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> Yay...more tongue in cheek shots.
> 
> Quite obviously T level affect individuals differently, just as generalizations may or may not apply to any one specific individual, while still holding true for the larger population. Plenty of men have piss poor metabolisms, and are fat, all the while having higher T levels than other men.


I was just hoping for the benefit. 

Can you blame me? 

Maybe the men with piss poor metabolisms have less T.

It's well documented that women Olympic athletes have more T then us normal women and look at a lot of them.

Of course with them you never quite know if it's real.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Kivlor said:


> @lifeistooshort
> 
> I can't speak for all men, only for myself. I would love to stay at home. It's not an option in my mind though. I don't have much hope for finding a woman I would trust enough to let me do so. I would constantly be concerned that she would look down on me for it, and leave me as soon as a more manly man showed up. It's a personal issue, I think. I don't have the capacity for that kind of trust, never have.
> 
> If I were independently wealthy, to the point of not needing to work, I would certainly consider it, or at least consider slowing down my work and raising the kids in it, which is something I would actually love to do.
> 
> Regarding your comment about testosterone, I'm curious, do you have a high metabolism compared to women your age? We're only talking about marginal increases in an individual's T levels...


I think my comment was taken far more seriously then I intended, but the your question is no. My metabolism sucks and always has....i have to be very careful with my diet.

And I am a distance runner but compared to women of my ability I'm actually quite thick and have been asked more than one if my breasts are real as compared to said runners they're pretty large. 

So I'd say my T levels are quite normal. ....i was responding tongue in cheek to a comment about career women supposedly having more testosterone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> As a society, this is one thing that we can work on. A SAHD should be just as ok as a SAHM.





lifeistooshort said:


> I was just hoping for the benefit.
> 
> Can you blame me?
> 
> Maybe the men with piss poor metabolisms have less T.
> 
> It's well documented that women Olympic athletes have more T then us normal women and look at a lot of them.
> 
> Of course with them you never quite know if it's real.


Well, "fortunately", that is no longer a problem, as now men can claim that they "self-identify" as a woman and participate in the women's events in the Olympics. Obviously nothing can go wrong with that!

Olympics to let men compete as women


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Well, "fortunately", that is no longer a problem, as now men can claim that they "self-identify" as a woman and participate in the women's events in the Olympics. Obviously nothing can go wrong with that!
> 
> Olympics to let men compete as women


Ha ha ha, maybe women should be allowed to compete in children's events and win everything. 


But what if you're the guy competing as a woman and you still get your arse kicked?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Ha ha ha, maybe women should be allowed to compete in children's events and win everything.
> 
> But what if you're the guy competing as a woman and you still get your arse kicked?


Then I guess you would have to go through with gender reassignment surgery even if you weren't actually planning to do so in the first place. :surprise:


----------



## EllisRedding

lifeistooshort said:


> Ha ha ha, maybe women should be allowed to compete in children's events and win everything.
> 
> 
> But what if you're the guy competing as a woman and you still get your arse kicked?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

soccermom2three said:


> Oh you know those uppity working women! They have all that self confidence! What a shame!


Oh, you forgot the rest of it....

If a woman dares to have a job... her testosterone levels go up and therefore, she becomes a controlling, hateful, hard to please b!tch. 

And of course that is not an insult of working women.... no not at all.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *lifeistooshort said: *So I'd say my T levels are quite normal. ....i was responding tongue in cheek to a comment about career women supposedly having more testosterone.


I think it's more of a "*confidence*" thing that raises it -- little things can raise or lower Test levels.. Depression can lower it.. Stress can lower it, Meds ... I read a few books on this when I was worried about my husbands levels ...

At that time ... some crap was happening at work that had all the guys on edge (Stress).... looking back.. this must have caused his levels to dip.... (just happens this was when my drive spiked - bad timing!).. off I sent him to see the Endocrinologist ...she ends up telling me -his levels were normal for a man in his 60's!!.. this comment worried me for months.. but still he didn't have brain fog or symptoms that warranted therapy...

A couple yrs later..had him tested again...they were HIGHER.. more in his age group....so looking back.. some of that Drama at work, caused a dip during that phase... (he's never been the aggressive type to begin with though). 

I've never had mine tested (probably not such a common thing)...I wonder if mine might be on the higher side... I've always been High Energy...whether I worked full time or not, no need for coffee in the am, I can easily sleep on 3 hrs ...plus I have a more aggressive temperament over my husband .. 

This is why I feel it could mess with our own personal dynamics...

Everyone's situation would be different of course.. if a more docile female had the Career Job and her "Alpha male" husband stayed at home.. there could still be plenty of attraction going on.. maybe he'll jump on his Harley's for a hobby outside of watching the kids... just saying.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Yay...more tongue in cheek shots.
> 
> Quite obviously T level affect individuals differently, just as generalizations may or may not apply to any one specific individual, while still holding true for the larger population. Plenty of men have piss poor metabolisms, and are fat, all the while having higher T levels than other men.


Um... did you read SA's jab at working women how it turns them into women with high T and all kinds of nasty traits?

the post you are objecting to was a comment on SA's post that is just one more sideways attack on working women.

SA is crossing the line here in many of her posts as much as EG was.

I would give her a week off ban except that since I've been so heavily in this thread I don't think I should be the one to do it.

.


----------



## lifeistooshort

EleGirl said:


> Um... did you read SA's jab at working women how it turns them into women with high T and all kinds of nasty traits?
> 
> the post you are objecting to was a comment on SA's post that is just one more sideways attack on working women.
> 
> SA is crossing the line here in many of her posts as much as EG was.
> 
> I would give her a week off ban except that since I've been so heavily in this thread I don't think I should be the one to do it.
> 
> .


Apparently I struck a nerve with someone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

I am trying to understand who has all this time to get all this offended and insulted.


----------

