Saiwania wrote:Victorious Decepticons wrote:"Forget anything about being treated like a princess" How about you forget hooking up with any women of quality? Because you're not going to find any with THAT attitude. An eligible man can afford to hire a housekeeper and is not too stingy to do so, therefore, he will never be trying to get free maid service out of the relationship - and won't ever find out if I can clean or not.
I happen to like to cook, though. However, the minute he mistook me for his kitchen slave would be the minute he became a single man.
No it doesn't work this way. A woman wanting to keep a certain man is going to need to "bring more to the table" than just her body and affections. Think about what is in it for him? If objectively speaking, she is more of a "pain in the ass" to have around than an asset, he is going to leave her for a woman who is more in line with that. Just as most women won't stay with a man who doesn't take care of himself enough and doesn't have status or economic acheivement.
A lady can't expect to sleep around with dozens of men all throughout her 20s (as is too often the case nowadays) and just expect men to still be interested in her for more than just sex after she hits the wall in terms of age. If she isn't wife material, a man isn't going to marry her. Not a woman with her kind of history. Like it or not, a woman's primary value is in her ability to have children and to be a homemaker.
She can't compete with women who can fulfill that role objectively speaking. More men will pass up on a woman who doesn't or can't bring enough such value, but might only use her for sex without any real commitment. I'd say it doesn't necessarily have to be cooking or cleaning, but my point still stands about "bringing something to the table." Tradition holds that women are more suited to domestic tasks and childcare than men are- so that is what is expected whether Feminism likes this or not.
Hiring a maid is a waste of money unless you're more disabled and can't do such work on your own, or if you're wealthy enough as for this to be no real burden and effectively is pocket change in relation to someone's cash flow.
This post brought to you by a 1955 issue of Housekeeping Monthly that the poster didn't realize was now supposed to be ironic...