The New Face of Marriage

[Bottle]

Well said. The reality is that over the past two generations, women's criteria for an ideal mate has risen, not fallen, as she's become more independant. One would expect that she'd expect less in terms of status and wealth from her man as she's grown in her ability to have these things for herself and thus not rely on her husband for her financial well being or social status.

One would only expect that if one believes that women are not human beings.

Me, I'd assume that since women are increasingly free to leave bad relationships, or choose not to enter them in the first place, they are able to be more selective about their mates. Because, see, that's how humans work. You know the expression, "Beggars can't be choosers"? It doesn't just apply to males, you know.

[Bottle]

If your traditional thought pattern doesn't pan out in reality, why keep it?

I think it does evidence itself in reality, which is why I keep it.

How does it evidence itself in realty?

You know, I have sat back the past few minutes and taken the time to ponder this. At first I speculated regarding several men I know who are home husbands and are a far cry from what I'd classify as real men, but that's no basis for such 'evidence', since I could be making it up as far as you know, AND it may be a far too limited pool to draw from. Then I thought maybe I'd call on that biological inequity, citing that women simply have babies, and in response men simply must work. But really, that's a false analogy and not really compelling even if it weren't.

So I will withdraw my claim that I have seen evidence of men being less than men for choosing to not have jobs, on those grounds and on the grounds that the definition of 'manliness', especially in the upcoming generation, does not necessarily agree with my own.

Instead, I will say this much -- the traditions of gender roles in marriages/parenting that were ingrained in me have put me in a mindset where, if I do not have a job, I am a failure as a man. I feel this is proper, and would think less of myself otherwise. In that sense I have a habit of mirroring that personal standard onto other men, though they may not share that same mentality. However, I will continue to reflect that onto men in my immediate social circle and behave accordingly.

So to really answer your question, paraphrased as 'how can one hold such an illogical standpoint with no real world subject matter to back it up', I suppose my answer is that it's comfortable for me to do so, since I've had these feeling instilled in me from my youth, and I don't care to change them now. Throw in a little insecurity too, as I would certainly feel like less of a man without a job.

Well, I guess that's as good as it's going to get at this point. I hope Bottle doesn't come through again for your sake.

Not gonna lie...I deeply enjoy being perceived as some kind of forum-rampaging feminist Godzilla who will stomp and splatter all hapless chauvinists.

But honestly, Flamesworth doesn't raise my hackles on this one because he freely admits that his beliefs aren't grounded in reality...he knows that he holds some of his opinions because they make him feel good, feel secure, feel comfortable.

If I were going to get upset at every person who holds sexist opinions, I'd never have time to burn my bra or get my bi-weekly recreational abortion. So, instead, I reserve my temper for people who refuse to SEE sexism, or refuse to acknowledge that it is harmful. This is about time management, and any self-respecting lesbo femnazi knows that she's going to have to budget her time wisely if she ever hopes to secure a higher degree, get a better paying job, castrate an available male and chain him up at home to become her domestic slave, and still have time to wage a global feminine take-over.

[Callisdrun]

As for a man earning less than his wife... I'm almost certain to. My ladyfriend of five years is going for her doctorate. I will probably get no more than a bachelor's, teaching credential or at most a master's. This doesn't really bother me. The money's all going the same place anyway.

Well you're a better man than me. I could handle it, but it'd always be a little twinge at the back of my mind saying I was inadequate.

I dunno about better. Perhaps just raised with a different set of attitudes. And it just isn't something for me to make a big deal out of. People with doctorates generally make more money, and scientists generally have doctorates. I'm not going for my doctorate, while my ladyfriend's chosen career basically requires it. Hence, it would be very strange if she didn't make more money than me.

I wouldn't mind being a househusband either. It was instilled in me when I was a kid that housework is important, especially with a high-maintenance house, and children. It isn't demeaning for women to stay at home or make less money than their husbands, so obviously it must not be demeaning for men to stay at home or make less money than their wives.

I don't think it follows so obviously, but have no evidence to support it beyond my own opinion (which is not evidence at all), so I'll just say 'good on ya'.

It's just the different expectations with which we were raised. Since there is no real difference in professional ability between the sexes, it would not make sense to me for one to be degraded by something that the other wasn't.

But then, I also have some opinions I hold just because I'm more comfortable with things a certain way.

[Imsogone]

If your traditional thought pattern doesn't pan out in reality, why keep it?

I think it does evidence itself in reality, which is why I keep it.

How does it evidence itself in realty?

You know, I have sat back the past few minutes and taken the time to ponder this. At first I speculated regarding several men I know who are home husbands and are a far cry from what I'd classify as real men, but that's no basis for such 'evidence', since I could be making it up as far as you know, AND it may be a far too limited pool to draw from. Then I thought maybe I'd call on that biological inequity, citing that women simply have babies, and in response men simply must work. But really, that's a false analogy and not really compelling even if it weren't.

So I will withdraw my claim that I have seen evidence of men being less than men for choosing to not have jobs, on those grounds and on the grounds that the definition of 'manliness', especially in the upcoming generation, does not necessarily agree with my own.

Instead, I will say this much -- the traditions of gender roles in marriages/parenting that were ingrained in me have put me in a mindset where, if I do not have a job, I am a failure as a man. I feel this is proper, and would think less of myself otherwise. In that sense I have a habit of mirroring that personal standard onto other men, though they may not share that same mentality. However, I will continue to reflect that onto men in my immediate social circle and behave accordingly.

So to really answer your question, paraphrased as 'how can one hold such an illogical standpoint with no real world subject matter to back it up', I suppose my answer is that it's comfortable for me to do so, since I've had these feeling instilled in me from my youth, and I don't care to change them now. Throw in a little insecurity too, as I would certainly feel like less of a man without a job.

Well, I guess that's as good as it's going to get at this point. I hope Bottle doesn't come through again for your sake.

Not gonna lie...I deeply enjoy being perceived as some kind of forum-rampaging feminist Godzilla who will stomp and splatter all hapless chauvinists.

But honestly, Flamesworth doesn't raise my hackles on this one because he freely admits that his beliefs aren't grounded in reality...he knows that he holds some of his opinions because they make him feel good, feel secure, feel comfortable.

If I were going to get upset at every person who holds sexist opinions, I'd never have time to burn my bra or get my bi-weekly recreational abortion. So, instead, I reserve my temper for people who refuse to SEE sexism, or refuse to acknowledge that it is harmful. This is about time management, and any self-respecting lesbo femnazi knows that she's going to have to budget her time wisely if she ever hopes to secure a higher degree, get a better paying job, castrate an available male and chain him up at home to become her domestic slave, and still have time to wage a global feminine take-over.

You know, while you frequently annoy of me and set me to gnashing my teeth, I absolutely love your sense of humor.

[Cabra West]

Looks like a definite role reversal in marriage. There's still a wage disparaty between men and women (all other things being equal), but it looks like it's closing. I can't help but think that this trend isn't that healthy - not that I want to go back to the days when women married as much for financial security as for love, but I don't necessarily want the tables turned - the goal was always supposed to be equality. Men always had trouble respecting their financially dependent wives and I can't help but think that women are going to have problems respecting their financially dependent husbands

http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/mo ... 2F19321998

Well, I can only speak of personal experience here : My husband and I make pretty much the same, and we've agreed that once we've got kid, he'll be the one to stay at home. I don't see how that would make me respect him less, and neither does he seem to feel threatened.
Why would you base respect on income, anyway?

[Hamilay]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

[Cabra West]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

[Pope Joan]

Was the goal "always supposed to be" anything at all?

I think marriage just happened; there was no grand tribal council declaring "let's all get married, for these reasons of policy and state."

I think what it is supposed to be is a chance for you and your favorite person to work out the best way for you personally to be happy together.

[Cabra West]

Was the goal "always supposed to be" anything at all?

I think marriage just happened; there was no grand tribal council declaring "let's all get married, for these reasons of policy and state."

I think what it is supposed to be is a chance for you and your favorite person to work out the best way for you personally to be happy together.

Anthropologically, it could be argued that it was an instrument to trace lineage, as in offspring and ancestors. People like to know exaclty who they're related to and who not

[Callisdrun]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

Instantly solving unemployment.

If people are going to have kids (not everyone who marries does, after all), it can be good for one parent to stay at home to take care of them and such. In my family my mom did so, though really I think my dad would have enjoyed staying home more (as whenever he had time off work he was always doing home projects), but he made more money, so he stayed at his job.

[Blitzkrenia]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

Instantly solving unemployment.

If people are going to have kids (not everyone who marries does, after all), it can be good for one parent to stay at home to take care of them and such. In my family my mom did so, though really I think my dad would have enjoyed staying home more (as whenever he had time off work he was always doing home projects), but he made more money, so he stayed at his job.

I don't think a vibrant economy and less unemployment always go hand in hand. Less workforce means fewer companies, fewer companies mean fewer products, and that means less competition... and so on. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_ra ... employment

[Cabra West]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

Instantly solving unemployment.

If people are going to have kids (not everyone who marries does, after all), it can be good for one parent to stay at home to take care of them and such. In my family my mom did so, though really I think my dad would have enjoyed staying home more (as whenever he had time off work he was always doing home projects), but he made more money, so he stayed at his job.

Don't know about where you are, but here unemployment at the moment is something around 10%. Removing one parent of every family with kids is going to be well more than that, and is likely to create massive underemployment. I can imagine few things that would damage an economy more....

[Bottle]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

I'd be more worried about the fact that having only one breadwinner means that you are "putting all your eggs in one basket."

A few years ago, my father fainted during a meeting. He was (eventually) diagnosed with a serious autoimmune disorder, which made him unable to work for nearly two years. It has taken years to get his condition under control and his medication balanced out to the point where he is able to hold a normal schedule again. If my father had been the sole income provider this could have been absolutely crippling, particularly since it happened to occur during an uncomfortable economic period. Instead, my family was more able to roll with the punches because my mother already had an established practice and a solid source of income.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the lower-to-middle class, but I've never even really entertained the notion of not working...because, where I come from, EVERYBODY works. Only rich people have the luxury of choosing to stay home while somebody else works. Even the stay-at-home mothers I knew growing up were actually part-time employed, because nobody could support their family with just one income.

[Bottle]

You know, while you frequently annoy of me and set me to gnashing my teeth, I absolutely love your sense of humor.

I don't know which part of this makes me happier.

[Meoton]

Traditional Marriage.
You make love to your buddies.
You procreate and build family ties with your wife.
THIS.....IS....SPARTA!!!!

[Callisdrun]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

Instantly solving unemployment.

If people are going to have kids (not everyone who marries does, after all), it can be good for one parent to stay at home to take care of them and such. In my family my mom did so, though really I think my dad would have enjoyed staying home more (as whenever he had time off work he was always doing home projects), but he made more money, so he stayed at his job.

Don't know about where you are, but here unemployment at the moment is something around 10%. Removing one parent of every family with kids is going to be well more than that, and is likely to create massive underemployment. I can imagine few things that would damage an economy more....

I'm no economist, so whatever. I don't know how many people are married with children, as far as population percentage.

I was mainly talking about the kids thing.

[Callisdrun]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

I'd be more worried about the fact that having only one breadwinner means that you are "putting all your eggs in one basket."

A few years ago, my father fainted during a meeting. He was (eventually) diagnosed with a serious autoimmune disorder, which made him unable to work for nearly two years. It has taken years to get his condition under control and his medication balanced out to the point where he is able to hold a normal schedule again. If my father had been the sole income provider this could have been absolutely crippling, particularly since it happened to occur during an uncomfortable economic period. Instead, my family was more able to roll with the punches because my mother already had an established practice and a solid source of income.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the lower-to-middle class, but I've never even really entertained the notion of not working...because, where I come from, EVERYBODY works. Only rich people have the luxury of choosing to stay home while somebody else works. Even the stay-at-home mothers I knew growing up were actually part-time employed, because nobody could support their family with just one income.

I was not rich growing up. A family can be supported on one income. You just don't get to have many things, especially not new ones.

[Cabra West]

I was not rich growing up. A family can be supported on one income. You just don't get to have many things, especially not new ones.

Would depend on the income, I guess. I grew up on a one-income family, with my father having a well-above-average income as engineer. Yes, it was possible, but just about, and only because we were living in an apartment belonging to his parents and didn't have to pay rent. We didn't have a car, and I was 9 before we could afford a television set.

That was the 70s, mind you. These days, it would be even more difficult. And I honestly don't see myself nor my husband ever making today's equivalent of what my father earned 40 years ago.

[Bottle]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

I'd be more worried about the fact that having only one breadwinner means that you are "putting all your eggs in one basket."

A few years ago, my father fainted during a meeting. He was (eventually) diagnosed with a serious autoimmune disorder, which made him unable to work for nearly two years. It has taken years to get his condition under control and his medication balanced out to the point where he is able to hold a normal schedule again. If my father had been the sole income provider this could have been absolutely crippling, particularly since it happened to occur during an uncomfortable economic period. Instead, my family was more able to roll with the punches because my mother already had an established practice and a solid source of income.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the lower-to-middle class, but I've never even really entertained the notion of not working...because, where I come from, EVERYBODY works. Only rich people have the luxury of choosing to stay home while somebody else works. Even the stay-at-home mothers I knew growing up were actually part-time employed, because nobody could support their family with just one income.

I was not rich growing up. A family can be supported on one income. You just don't get to have many things, especially not new ones.

Yeah, see, you'd have been considered "rich" if you could pay your bills with only one income.

Where I grew up, everyone worked in order to make sure the lights wouldn't get turned off this month.

[Callisdrun]

I'm not for a return to women being dominated by men, I would just like to see one bread winner, one home maker per family, it's better for the economy

Why?

Good question, as that system near enough halves the workforce...

I'd be more worried about the fact that having only one breadwinner means that you are "putting all your eggs in one basket."

A few years ago, my father fainted during a meeting. He was (eventually) diagnosed with a serious autoimmune disorder, which made him unable to work for nearly two years. It has taken years to get his condition under control and his medication balanced out to the point where he is able to hold a normal schedule again. If my father had been the sole income provider this could have been absolutely crippling, particularly since it happened to occur during an uncomfortable economic period. Instead, my family was more able to roll with the punches because my mother already had an established practice and a solid source of income.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the lower-to-middle class, but I've never even really entertained the notion of not working...because, where I come from, EVERYBODY works. Only rich people have the luxury of choosing to stay home while somebody else works. Even the stay-at-home mothers I knew growing up were actually part-time employed, because nobody could support their family with just one income.

I was not rich growing up. A family can be supported on one income. You just don't get to have many things, especially not new ones.

Yeah, see, you'd have been considered "rich" if you could pay your bills with only one income.

Where I grew up, everyone worked in order to make sure the lights wouldn't get turned off this month.

No, I was middle class. Where you grew up, everyone was apparently poor. I don't mean that as derogatory, only as a description of financial hardship.

[Callisdrun]

I was not rich growing up. A family can be supported on one income. You just don't get to have many things, especially not new ones.

Would depend on the income, I guess. I grew up on a one-income family, with my father having a well-above-average income as engineer. Yes, it was possible, but just about, and only because we were living in an apartment belonging to his parents and didn't have to pay rent. We didn't have a car, and I was 9 before we could afford a television set.

That was the 70s, mind you. These days, it would be even more difficult. And I honestly don't see myself nor my husband ever making today's equivalent of what my father earned 40 years ago.

We were helped by the fact that my dad had gotten our house when it was such a dump (talking perpetually flooded basement with mosquitoes breeding in it, a wasps' nest in one of the bedrooms, all windows painted shut, flea-ridden carpeting, pieces falling off, etc.) that it was dirt cheap (especially in 1973, when homes were less expensive in relation to income) and he was very young but already had been working for some time. Otherwise, there probably would have been no way for us to live on one income. Many of my childhood weekends were spent helping to things that constantly broke in our house.

We did have a TV, but it was from 1982. We didn't have a VCR until my mom's parents gave us one for Christmas. My mom, who went back to work part time while I was in high school and now full time, got a new TV in the last couple months (I protested this, thinking it a silly purchase), and I got the old one. The general rule has been to repair old stuff instead of getting new stuff.

[Bottle]

Yeah, see, you'd have been considered "rich" if you could pay your bills with only one income.

Where I grew up, everyone worked in order to make sure the lights wouldn't get turned off this month.

No, I was middle class. Where you grew up, everyone was apparently poor. I don't mean that as derogatory, only as a description of financial hardship.

My family was actually "rich" if you consider the world-wide status of humanity.

It's all about perspective. Some kids I went to school with considered themselves "middle class" even though their families had four cars and million-dollar homes. Meanwhile, my family considered ourselves "middle class" because we could afford to live in a suburban home, buy a new car once every 10 years, and pay all our bills on time.

[Bottle]

We did have a TV, but it was from 1982.

Haha, I know what that's like!

For a very long time, our TV was the (color!) TV set that my parents received as a wedding gift in 1976. To turn it on, you had to pull this little knob out and twist it. When my cousins came to visit once, they couldn't figure out how to turn it on, because they'd never seen a TV without a remote.

[Cabra West]

We were helped by the fact that my dad had gotten our house when it was such a dump (talking perpetually flooded basement with mosquitoes breeding in it, a wasps' nest in one of the bedrooms, all windows painted shut, flea-ridden carpeting, pieces falling off, etc.) that it was dirt cheap (especially in 1973, when homes were less expensive in relation to income) and he was very young but already had been working for some time. Otherwise, there probably would have been no way for us to live on one income. Many of my childhood weekends were spent helping to things that constantly broke in our house.

We did have a TV, but it was from 1982. We didn't have a VCR until my mom's parents gave us one for Christmas. My mom, who went back to work part time while I was in high school and now full time, got a new TV in the last couple months (I protested this, thinking it a silly purchase), and I got the old one. The general rule has been to repair old stuff instead of getting new stuff.

If we don't watch it now this will turn into a version of the Five Yorkshiremen

Suffice to say that our families both would have been better of on two incomes, and considering that the cost of living increased more than the average income did, it's fair to say that trying to raise a family on one income only these days for many if not most families is an impossiblity, even if they do repair things.

On a side note, my familiy's need to scrimp and save taught me a good few skills that now are quite useless really, like mending socks. Perfectly sensible thing to do in the 70s, but these days you's pay more for the yarn than you do for a new pair of socks.

[Callisdrun]

Yeah, see, you'd have been considered "rich" if you could pay your bills with only one income.

Where I grew up, everyone worked in order to make sure the lights wouldn't get turned off this month.

No, I was middle class. Where you grew up, everyone was apparently poor. I don't mean that as derogatory, only as a description of financial hardship.

My family was actually "rich" if you consider the world-wide status of humanity.

It's all about perspective. Some kids I went to school with considered themselves "middle class" even though their families had four cars and million-dollar homes. Meanwhile, my family considered ourselves "middle class" because we could afford to live in a suburban home, buy a new car once every 10 years, and pay all our bills on time.

True, it is a matter of perspective. We're all fabulously wealthy compared to the average North Korean, evidenced by the fact that we all apparently are able to post here.

Standard of living also definitely is a better measure of wealth than actual money, because how much money it takes to get certain things varies so much.