Has women independence created an imbalance in relationships?

Capt'n Midnight

ferdi wrote:

modern women cannot cook,

From Thaedydal
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/images/Wonderbra%2520ad.jpg

Fanny Cradock

I'd be curious as to what you think the overriding reaction from women will be?

Seraphina

ferdi wrote:

they no longer give us something warm to cling to, when nights are cold and lonely.

crap! when did we become reptiles???

fly_agaric

Seraphina wrote:

crap! when did we become reptiles???

I think it happened when Mary Robinson became president of Ireland.
She invited them in from outside.

Reptiles are not cuddly.:(

Lord Oz

Who gives a ****?

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Out of curiosity (someone mentioned it earlier) I wonder what the general reaction from both sexes to a house husband (or whatever the term is) would be.

My guess: many males would think he's been emasculated (read: pussy whipped) and many women would feel threatened or treat him with suspicion.

There never will be equality. Just ask this scientition...

Well, I don't suppose I'd mind at all, assuming I ever marry anyway.
Oh and yes I'm female

faceman

House husbands bring shame to a family name. Although admittedly it is becoming more common it is quite shamful for a man to squash his talents to wear a pinny and mind baby. Remember women are genetically designed to know how to mind children. There is nothing for a man to gain in doing it. Its not men will evolve into the child bearing gender.

still if it works for some people that so be it. BUt if you marry your gf/fiancee, the man should really take on her surname.

faceman

faceman wrote:

House husbands bring shame to a family name. Although admittedly it is becoming more common it is quite shamful for a man to squash his talents to wear a pinny and mind baby. Remember women are genetically designed to know how to mind children. There is nothing for a man to gain in doing it. Its not men will evolve into the child bearing gender.

still if it works for some people that so be it. BUt if you marry your gf/fiancee, the man should really take on her surname.

What's wrong with a man taking a woman's surname?

faceman

bluewolf wrote:

What's wrong with a man taking a woman's surname?

the man figure is the provider, the godfather figure, the leader. therefore it is traditionally the man who commands respect. back in the clan days, a man's surname would tell alot about him.

Mrs_Doyle

ferdi wrote:

modern women cannot cook, clean or knit. they cannot bake you a pie.....

Well that's true in my case

...and they no longer give us something warm to cling to, when nights are cold and lonely

But this isn't.

I can't cook, at all, I am just really bad at it. But my Boyfriend, he is a great cook.

I can clean, and like to keep a tidy house.... my BF would quite happily live in his own filth.

I can act quickly in a crisis, and am quite good and working out strategic plans for the future... my BF takes longer to come to a decision and tends to live for the here and now.


I am hot tempered, my BF is patient and laid back.

I fly into a rage quite quickly, vent, and put it behind me.... my BF tends to stay quiet and stew about things.

I have no fear of confrontation, my BF can't stand it.

My BF is incredibly open about his feelings... Me... not so much.

I don't meet all the criteria of a traditional homemaker... but that said, I don't think my BF meets all the criteria of the traditional bread winner.

What we are is a team, that works really well together... what I lack, he makes up for, and vice versa.

I don't think the traditional (house wife and bread winning hubbie) couple really works anymore.

If I were to give up work and become a traditional housewife we couldn't afford to live the lifestyle that we have become accustomed to, and quite enjoy.


What we have, works for us, and surely thats the most important thing.

Screw stereotyping... people should just do whats right for them and not fear the judgement of strangers.

Nevyn

faceman wrote:

House husbands bring shame to a family name. Although admittedly it is becoming more common it is quite shamful for a man to squash his talents to wear a pinny and mind baby.

What absolute bollixs. My father was a dtay at home Dad after leaving the army and a damned good one. He certainly makes better pastery and pie then my mother and I am grateful he taught me how.

faceman wrote:

Remember women are genetically designed to know how to mind children. There is nothing for a man to gain in doing it.

Again what rot.
Just because a woman has a functioning womb does not make her a mother or the best parent to stay at home an rear a child. Not every woman has the patience or the maternal instict.
There is something for a man to gain from it the successful rearing of this offspring proprgates his gentics.

faceman wrote:

Its not men will evolve into the child bearing gender.

Again child bearing and child rearing are two seperate things.

nesf

faceman wrote:

House husbands bring shame to a family name. Although admittedly it is becoming more common it is quite shamful for a man to squash his talents to wear a pinny and mind baby. Remember women are genetically designed to know how to mind children. There is nothing for a man to gain in doing it. Its not men will evolve into the child bearing gender.

still if it works for some people that so be it. BUt if you marry your gf/fiancee, the man should really take on her surname.

Eh... I take it that you neither are married, have kids nor are likely to be in that position anytime soon.

St Bill

"There is nothing for a man to gain in doing it. Its not men will evolve into the child bearing gender."

Well now, I think the people who made the movie 'Junior' would have a LOT to say about that. Men having babies is the future I tellsya

faceman

nesf wrote:

Eh... I take it that you neither are married, have kids nor are likely to be in that position anytime soon.

im engaged to be married. no kids yet

faceman

faceman wrote:

im engaged to be married. no kids yet

You were just trolling/messing earlier about your househusband comments, right...?

please?

Fanny Cradock

bluewolf wrote:

Well, I don't suppose I'd mind at all, assuming I ever marry anyway.
Oh and yes I'm female

Good to hear. I don't think that the general opinion would be as enlightened as your own though.

Marksie

I think female repression has been going on for a lot longer than we care to think about. God created man and woman was created from the rib of man and all that rubbish.

All that is happening now is the balance is reasserting itself, but like a pendulum it swings one way then another until it finds true equilibrium.

Starngely enough i asked my mum recently about what had accelerated the process in the uk, and without hesitation she said it was the war. The realisation that women could do just as good a job in the traditional male roles...she made tank shells for example and became a very very good lathe operator. While my father demobbed and learned his trade as an electrician, she earned five times his salary. However when she went to get a mortgage, they would only take his salary..cos.. she could get pregnant.

So add in adequate birth control into the developing mix, where a women can now be free to choose a family, a career and even to adequately express her sexuality and you have a situation where the more accepted roles are overturned.

In no way would the law of you can either work or marry have been tolerated.

But of course there is still the imbalance between men and women. Women expressing themsleves sexually are termed sluts, and that does annoy me.

As for being a house "husband", it wouldn't bother me really. People may say i am emasculated, I wouldn't give a damn really. I like cooking, cleaning can be truned into a rather nice meditation and ironing is a chore, but hell its got to be done.

If someone chosses to talk intimately about themsleves on a first date so be it, there doesn't have to be a second. I tend to be quite open in any event and it wouldn't concern me that someone was open in return.

As for marriage..well i am not really traditional material and what i believe in would preclude it anyway by the current societies mores.
ah.. i have rambled on enough lol

simu

Men doing chores = hawt tbh

Sass ++

walrusgumble

moral of the story, if anyone feels threatened, stay away from mariage and having children

nesf

simu wrote:

Men doing chores = hawt tbh

Sass ++

Why are you with me then?

Lust4Life

Interesting thread. And quite a read!

Someone somewhere mentioned that it really isn't the woman's fault that roles have changed so drastically. It's more a state of economy. Many Men are not able to provide the security and income it takes to raise a family these days with a stay-at-home-wife. So the woman has had to grab the ball and run with it just to create a balance.

I can raise a child, cook, clean, sew, crochette, quilt, AND hold down a good paying job. I can also fix the toilet when it breaks, install new flooring, refinish furniture, replace broken windows, and many other traditionally male role type things (which actually happen to be much more fun and interesting to do!).

And on that same coin is the fact that my hubby is a better cook than I am, and loves doing so, and he has more patience with children.

So when you take the qualities and strengths of both to make a household, things tend to balance out.

Would I like to be a stay at home mom? Probably not. I've been unemployed and I know that I would tend to start telling myself "I didn't get the floors scrubbed today. Oh well. There is always tomorrow or the next day." I get sidetracked too easily by other tasks. That, and I crave human interaction and would hate the solitude!


As for the OP's complaints regarding having to listen to a gal's life story on a first date while he is really only hoping for sex.... shame on you! If you want sex on the first date, then you need to look at the quality of gal you've chosen to spend time with!

If you want a woman of quality, you need to listen to her, get to know her and build from there. The sex will happen eventually. But if it's just sex you're after, IMO, then your standards are quite shallow.

hunnymonster

To answer the title question, no, I believe women's independence has brought more balance to most male/female relationships. As Mark Sutton said, we're not in perfectequilibrium yet but we're getting there.

We share the work in our house based on who has the most free time. We share the finances based on the ratio of our earnings. I find it completely bizzare that anyone approaches it differently.

On theflip side, people these days are usually amazed that I can cook and that I make a lot of clothes. It's almost like I'm letting the side down by being able to do these things.

Marksie

walrusgumble wrote:

moral of the story, if anyone feels threatened, stay away from mariage and having children

ahh but society tends to push marriage. Benefits, legal rights and all that.

But why should staying away from marriage or children indicate that someone is somehow threatened?

Threatened by what exactly?

melekalikimaka

i miss the ol 'i'm the knight, your the maiden in distress' thang <sigh>

Marksie

melekalikimaka wrote:

i miss the ol 'i'm the knight, your the maiden in distress' thang <sigh>

Yah but look at the bright side, if your female partner works, you can rush into the factory/office one day with a sailors outfit on and whisk her off a la richard gere. lol.

There is nothing wrong with being the knight though. But its also important to recognise that at times its alright to be the knight in distress and the maiden can help you

Nevyn

That was an officers white dress uniform not a sailors uniform.... get your films and your roleplay fantaties right, I mean really attension to detail can make or break a scene

Sometimes doing the dishes unasked and un prompted is better then slaying a dragon.

Beruthiel

faceman wrote:

House husbands bring shame to a family name.

*boggle*

Mrs_Doyle

Originally Posted by faceman
House husbands bring shame to a family name.

What would really be a shame is if some lad decided to care what you think, or what some other ridiculously chauvinist individual thought, and opted not to view relationships, in every regard, as a 'joint' effort.

brianthebard

marksuttonie wrote:

ahh but society tends to push marriage. Benefits, legal rights and all that.

But why should staying away from marriage or children indicate that someone is somehow threatened?

Threatened by what exactly?

How does it push marriage? we are constantly being told that marriage is out of fashion, there are more single co-habiting couples than ever before, the institutions of the Catholic Church and therefore marriage are becoming less important by the day...if anything society has gone cold on marriage.

pbsuxok1znja4r

You old people and your stereotypes.

Then there's you old people and your self-congratulatory tone when talking about how you never stereotype and flout convention at every turn.

I honestly don't think relationship equality is even an issue anymore for young folk like me. The less one thinks about it, the better. No expectations, no prejudices, etc.

And now for a whole other kettle o' fish; what about gay couples?

Earthhorse

marksuttonie wrote:

Starngely enough i asked my mum recently about what had accelerated the process in the uk, and without hesitation she said it was the war.

That's a pretty well documented fact. I'm surprised you've not heard it before.

Lust4Life wrote:

It's more a state of economy. Many Men are not able to provide the security and income it takes to raise a family these days with a stay-at-home-wife.

You might be putting the cart before the horse there. The reason two income families are needed these days is because of the emergence of two income families (at least in part). If half the population, regardless of gender, was unemployed there would be less demand for most goods and a single income would be sufficient.

hunnymonster wrote:

On theflip side, people these days are usually amazed that I can cook and that I make a lot of clothes. It's almost like I'm letting the side down by being able to do these things.

Which side do you play for?

Marksie

Thaedydal wrote:

That was an officers white dress uniform not a sailors uniform.... get your films and your roleplay fantaties right, I mean really attension to detail can make or break a scene

Sometimes doing the dishes unasked and un prompted is better then slaying a dragon.

Actually never seen the film so wouldn't know..its an apparently romantic scene. Ooooo remember daffyd's sailors outfit in little britain .

My roleplay fantaises are much more excting than that !!;) !

Marksie

brianthebard wrote:

How does it push marriage? we are constantly being told that marriage is out of fashion, there are more single co-habiting couples than ever before, the institutions of the Catholic Church and therefore marriage are becoming less important by the day...if anything society has gone cold on marriage.

its in the first line of the post Brian. Benefits etc.

Marksie

scouser.tommy wrote:

You old people and your stereotypes.

Then there's you old people and your self-congratulatory tone when talking about how you never stereotype and flout convention at every turn.

Less of the old! and how old are you exactly? are you ageist or something .

scouser.tommy wrote:

I honestly don't think relationship equality is even an issue anymore for young folk like me. The less one thinks about it, the better. No expectations, no prejudices, etc.

Have alook at PI sometime.. how old are you?:D

scouser.tommy wrote:

And now for a whole other kettle o' fish; what about gay couples?

me likes happy couples

brianthebard

marksuttonie wrote:

its in the first line of the post Brian. Benefits etc.

"Benefits, legal rights and all that" isn't really a good enough statement to convince me you are right.What benefits for a start? I've said that society no longer considers cohabiting couples outcasts. Are cohabiting couples still taxed differently to married couples? What are these benefits you speak of?

Nevyn

Yes they are tax differently and are treated differntly in the prsi system and are treated differently under inhertance laws and are not next of kin of thier partner and so do not get the rights to the body and to orgainse a funeral after a death and can not consent as a medical guardian like a spouse can.

Lust4Life

I remember taking a class in college and the instructor was trying to make some point about compromise and working together, and his example was which parent ought to be the one to drop the kids off at day care and pick them up each day? The Husband or the wife?

I took his example and totally spun it by saying "Wouldn't it make more sense if the person who left the house last dropped the kids off at day care and the person who leaves work first picks the kids up from day care? They'd be sharing duties and saving money by leaving the kids in day care for less time each day."

The teacher got a bit angry with me because I derailed the point he thought he was trying to make - when in actuality I clarified his point better than he was able to.

It's all about communication.

nesf

Earthhorse wrote:

You might be putting the cart before the horse there. The reason two income families are needed these days is because of the emergence of two income families (at least in part). If half the population, regardless of gender, was unemployed there would be less demand for most goods and a single income would be sufficient.

A very important point. Also remember with the present structuring of the tax system that it is no longer the case where a wife or husband can pass all of their tax credits to their partner. "Encouraging" both people to work essentially.

Rb

nesf wrote:

Eh... I take it that you neither are married, have kids nor are likely to be in that position anytime soon.

His ignorance is astonishing, either that or he's trolling.

Black Swan

Earthhorse wrote:

The reason two income families are needed these days is because of the emergence of two income families (at least in part).

Is this circular reasoning?

Earthhorse

Not really. When two income families first emerged it was, generally speaking, a choice on the part of both spouses to work. As more and more people made this choice the price of certain essentials, like housing, started rising outside the income range of most single income families. So most couples have no choice now with regard to whether they work or not. They have to just to pay the bills.

Zombrex

faceman wrote:

House husbands bring shame to a family name.
...
Remember women are genetically designed to know how to mind children.
...
Its not men will evolve into the child bearing gender.
...
BUt if you marry your gf/fiancee, the man should really take on her surname.

faceman wrote:

im engaged to be married. no kids yet

I'm sure your mail order bride is trilled with your views .. if not you need to pay her more ...

Black Swan

Earthhorse wrote:

When two income families first emerged it was, generally speaking, a choice on the part of both spouses to work.

A choice driven by what? No cause and effect? According to you, there were no economic necessities that drove them to the decision? Were they living in a closed system, unaffected by the environment, or an open system where they were impacted by changing economic forces? For example, the double digit increase in the cost of health care, and the insurance premium shift from the corporation to the individual employee over the past two decades in the USA (and other places in the world where there is no socialised medicine)?

Earthhorse

A choice driven by (mostly) women's desire to return to the workforce now that their offspring were grown or younger women's desire to not leave it all. Remember, I am talking about when they first emerged, which would be around the sixties, not the last two decades. Of course they were living in an open system but it was political and social change (better maternity benefits and the women's rights movement) that allowed these families to emerge in the first place.

There is nothing in my posts which suggests I think there were "no economic necessities that drove them to the decision", but the emergence of two income households was one of the major drivers in making it an economic norm.

hunnymonster

Even is there is any merit in the desire for single income (2 adult) families, why would the assumption remain that the stay-at-home adult would be a woman? Is it not possible to establish the permutation that suits individual families on a case by case basis?

I guess I'm talking about hetrosexual relationships here as I don't know enough about the historical home/work dynamics of homosexual households.

luckat

Scientists are coming to a consensus that the 19th-century idea of millennia of human life with men hunting and women gathering and minding the children is inaccurate.

Now, it's thought that this happened in a brief breath of time. For millennia before, humans and the prehuman apes that were our ancestors lived as sea-dwelling people - all of the early human and prehuman remains have been found in alluvial delta.

It is thought that the diet of shellfish and sea vegetables allowed the complex amino acids to change our brains - Jeeves was right! - so that we learned to be the thinking apes that we are.

Then, briefly, humans took to hunting on land, before it occurred to us that it would be easier to follow the migrating herds. Then for many millennia we first followed those flocks then tamed them and lived as their shepherds, still following their migrations as people do in Mongolia, for instance.

The next discovery was farming: someone who was gathering food discovered that the seeds of the food could be bred and chosen to keep the most nourishing growing. They discovered that you could breed animals in the same way.

So we took to farming; and again it was a co-operative life, with some working on the land and others spinning, weaving, preserving, childminding and so on.

But we don't have to assume that these tasks were allocated or chosen on the basis of sex, either - it was more common for the older people on a farm to mind and educate the children, while both men and women worked hard at all the tasks of the farm.

When work specialised further, people took on professions - but again, we shouldn't make any assumptions. For instance, the word 'spinster' was originally a gender-free noun, and later came to be used exclusively for men!

It makes me laugh when some weedy modern man demands 'respect' because of a notion of himself as a primaeval hunter. Take that deer off your shoulders, man, and sit down. You must be jaded!

Sleepy

Beruthiel wrote:

faceman wrote:

House husbands bring shame to a family name.

*boggle*

I seem to remember a female poster on boards before (nearly sure it was metrovelvet but search isn't up to finding the post anymore) posting about how she could never find such an 'emasculated' man attractive and a number of other female posters agreeing. Not that I agree with such thinking but I can see why it would make many men think twice about it.

luckat

Women don't really long for a masterful man who'll tell them how to run their lives while lifting his legs so they can hoover under them. Most women don't want a man who thinks he's a new woman either. Most people - male and female - want a partner they can rely on, strong and tender.

Marksie

Earthhorse wrote:

A choice driven by (mostly) women's desire to return to the workforce now that their offspring were grown or younger women's desire to not leave it all. Remember, I am talking about when they first emerged, which would be around the sixties, not the last two decades. Of course they were living in an open system but it was political and social change (better maternity benefits and the women's rights movement) that allowed these families to emerge in the first place.

There is nothing in my posts which suggests I think there were "no economic necessities that drove them to the decision", but the emergence of two income households was one of the major drivers in making it an economic norm.

I am going to quote this as is, as i was initially looking for something on the marriage bar, but found this section interesting:

Another key element in the increased participation of women in the labour force arises in the context of legislation with regards to women at work - legislation which has seen some notable changes in the last 22 years or so. Such changes include -

The removal of the Marriage Bar in 1973. This was a legal bar to the recruitment of married women to the Civil Service, or to their retention after marriage.
The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act of 1974 which was aimed at ensuring that men and women receive equal treatment with regard to pay.
The Employment Equality Act of 1977 which made it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sex or marital status and also provides for the establishment of an Employment Equality Agency.
The Maternity Protection of Employees Act of 1981 which provided maternity protection for employees who are expecting a baby.
Another major grievance of women during the seventies was the continuing discrimination against women in the tax code. A Supreme Court decision in 1980 with regards to sections 192-198 of the Income Tax Act of 1967, which deemed all income of a married woman living with her husband to be the income of her husband, led to the introduction of a new system of taxation of married couples whereby all married couples, whether with one or two incomes, were granted double the personal tax-free allowance and tax bands enjoyed by single people.


There is some evidence brian and thaed highlights others.

Black Swan

Earthhorse wrote:

Remember, I am talking about when they first emerged, which would be around the sixties, not the last two decades.

Well, if we want to get historical, it didn't "first" emerge (to use your term) in the "sixties," but rather the 1940s, when women in massive numbers were called to the factories and offices to replace their men that had gone to war. They were dual earners way back then, when she did his job, and his job was in the WWII military.

The military didn't pay that much, compared to his factory job with overtime and benefits, so not only was she being patriotic, but from an economic standpoint, was forced to go to work to help support the family, mortgage, and car payments. Pay equity for women was worse than it is today, where women were paid considerably less than men.

So when someone talks about a couple getting together and exercising "choice," it's not like a religious free will discussion, but rather in response to changing economic forces. In many cases, forced choice would be a more realistic term.