Feminism in dating (Updated)

[clia]

no to mention childbearing set women back career wise.

 

I don't understand though, why do you let your h get away with then? he needs to be taught to change his perspective. he needs to take his equal share.

 

I don't need to "teach" a grown man anything. He's not a child. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I married him -- as does every man when he marries a woman who wants to be a SAHM or who has a job where she doesn't make much money.

 

I didn't raise the point because it bothers me, though, because it really doesn't. (Occasionally it might. ) I mean, yes, I could nag him to death and be on his back all the time over it, and force him to dust the family room or scrub the toilet, but why bother? Life is too short to fight about silly things like that. I just do it myself.

 

I am single. but I don't think I could ever tolerate that kind of uncaring.

 

It's not about him being uncaring. I don't know if I can explain it properly, but he isn't intentionally trying to dump all the housework on me. He's just oblivious about the amount of effort that goes into keeping the house clean, and mess doesn't bother him as much as it bothers me. Again, it's not something that's worth fighting over to me.

 

Honestly, though -- you'll find a unicorn if you find a man who will split the housework 50/50. I haven't met one yet ...

[clia]

I know many single dads who wish to see their children more often. The person standing in the way of that is the mother. Why? Child support.

 

That's what happened to me in my divorce. It took years of me fighting to get 50/50 time.

 

If men want to see their children more, then they should go to court and do so. Or better yet, pound out that 50/50 agreement when they are doing the divorce and custody settlement in the first place -- because most child custody agreements are settled between the parties, not decided by a judge.

 

I know many dads who do those things, too. I'm one of them. I cooked, cleaned, did grocery shopping, watched the kids, did homework with them. I still do all of those things with my daughter now with absolutely no help from anyone.

 

Cool!

 

Then why did you choose to give birth to this man's children? You accepted his sperm knowing he was like this.

 

Own that decision.

 

Who said I have kids?

 

As I mentioned in my post above, doing the housework really doesn't bother me. I was merely making the point that it is also unequal in my house.

 

On the flip side, men want women to step up and take financial responsibility for themselves and the decisions they make. They also want them to participate. So you gave birth. That doesn't give you a free pass for the rest of your life. Men will be happy to support you, but you have to have something to offer him to make it worthwhile. "I gave birth, so you owe me for the rest of your life" is not an attractive option. YOU need to accept that you are just as responsible for accepting this man's sperm as he is for putting it there.

 

What women even say this? What women are trying to get a "free pass" for the rest of their life because they have kids? Seriously, I don't know any women who don't work. Do you really know that many?

 

But fine...men also need to take responsibility for the children they created, both from a financial perspective and from a child rearing perspective. Many don't. Hey, there are slackers of both genders!

[sambolini]

Hey, there are slackers of both genders!

 

This. I'll definitely agree with you here.

 

A man shouldn't have to go to court to get equal time with his children. That should be the default. However, in my state, I had to go to court to get even 35% time with my daughter. It took another year after that to get 50/50 time, and another two and a half to get the child support to reflect that time.

 

This is a father's reality. So for you to say "Men are happy to not see their kids" is completely disingenuous, because many do not have the resources to lawyer up and fight in court like I did.

 

How would you feel having to go to court just to be able to see your kids even semi-regularly?

 

My guess is the men in your anecdote have simply found a way to live with that injustice, because for them there is no other alternative.

[Timshel]

Sambolini......your posts give me pause. Extremely contentious divorce is fairly rare. There is more lip service for animosity and people who go into forums often have had more difficulty than not.

I know that some men have challenges in the court system with custody and child support matters, historically. However, within my broad spectrum of friends and acquaintances, I have never met a woman who raked her ex husband over the coals for financial support or went to any length to keep him from spending time with his children.

What I have seen is as clia's post implies; many men who do have 50/50 custody with a working ex wife, yet a large amount of the day to day rigormarou falls to her. An attitude of laissez-faire or not being a proactive parent I most commonly see from the man, not the woman. Although of course there are exceptions.

I just have not personally observed the imbalance of financial obligation that you are referencing in a general sense. On the contrary, I have seen more women financially, emotionally and logistically providing equal or more, both during the marriage or post divorce.

[loveflower]

I don't need to "teach" a grown man anything. He's not a child. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I married him -.

 

but he isn't intentionally trying to dump all the housework on me. He's just oblivious about the amount of effort that goes into keeping the house clean, and mess doesn't bother him as much as it bothers me.

 

see the contradiction?

[jay1983]

I think it's mostly very wealthy men who marry very attractive, low earning women who end up in these predicaments.

[clia]

see the contradiction?

 

No?

 

As I said, the disparity really doesn't bother me.

[RedRobin]

 

Honestly, though -- you'll find a unicorn if you find a man who will split the housework 50/50. I haven't met one yet ...

 

 

I've never had a problem finding one that does *shrug* I do a lot of guy things too.

 

 

Where I 'split' things is time spent... NWIH am I doing things that take 20 hrs a week, while he gets by with 5 hrs of non-work chores, then spending the rest of the time couch surfing, etc.

 

 

How it works for me is that we do things together... that way, we are getting quality time together and getting things done. If that time spent together (ie cleaning, etc) cuts too much into our fun time, then we hire someone or it doesn't get done.

[RedRobin]

FWIW, the last two men I dated had 50/50 child care arrangements. Neither had primary custody. Neither paid child support.

 

 

My last BF was the SAHD for 10 years while the wife had a job where she traveled a great deal. He was a HS teacher. When they divorced, she paid to help him finish his Master's degree. They are on good terms still.

 

 

When I divorced, I made more than him, but I'd contributed more during our marriage. We split everything 50/50 except his inheritance, which I didn't feel was mine... So there ya go. You don't see me on here complaining about all those awful men taking women to the cleaners financially... but it will happen soon enough I suppose.

[sambolini]

Sambolini......your posts give me pause. Extremely contentious divorce is fairly rare. There is more lip service for animosity and people who go into forums often have had more difficulty than not.

I know that some men have challenges in the court system with custody and child support matters, historically. However, within my broad spectrum of friends and acquaintances, I have never met a woman who raked her ex husband over the coals for financial support or went to any length to keep him from spending time with his children.

What I have seen is as clia's post implies; many men who do have 50/50 custody with a working ex wife, yet a large amount of the day to day rigormarou falls to her. An attitude of laissez-faire or not being a proactive parent I most commonly see from the man, not the woman. Although of course there are exceptions.

I just have not personally observed the imbalance of financial obligation that you are referencing in a general sense. On the contrary, I have seen more women financially, emotionally and logistically providing equal or more, both during the marriage or post divorce.

 

Your experience isn't indicative of the whole.

[Timshel]

Your experience isn't indicative of the whole.

 

True. In my career and life experience I have experienced more than some and absolutely only a drop in the bucket.

[Els]

see the contradiction?

 

I don't think she's contradicting herself. I think what she's saying (besides the fact that she doesn't mind) is that he just doesn't notice all the things that need to get done, probably because he has different standards of cleanliness.

 

You see, while splitting finances is easy to count (you can't say or think you're paying 50% when the numbers show otherwise), housework is a lot more nebulous. Some guys think they're doing 50%, when what they're really doing is closer to 20% or 30%, because they don't see the extra as necessary and never did that when they were single. I mean, who cares if the sheets are only changed once a year, right...?

 

I don't mean to rag on guys, though. Yes, most guys I know/knew do less housework than their partners, but that's really due to the fact that I lived in Asia most of my life, and not necessarily a reflection on all guys. But similarly, those guys all had zero issues with paying for dates, trips, etc, and being the main earner. So it kinda balances out.

 

I know a "modern/egalitarian" couple in my current (Caucasian) country, where the woman just gave birth to their baby and quit her job to be the primary childcarer... and her husband told her that he expects her to continue to contribute to 50% of the finances!! That's absolutely ridiculous and not in any way "egalitarian" IMO.

[sambolini]

True. In my career and life experience I have experienced more than some and absolutely only a drop in the bucket.

 

I appreciate you admitting that. Many people here attempt to invalidate my experience because they either haven't experienced it themselves, or don't know anyone who has experienced it also.

 

I also admit that my experience isn't indicative of the whole, either. But it is indicative of the possible.

 

I liken it to Russian roulette.

[Woggle]

I probably did about 90% of the housework in my first marriage not to mention she didn't work which wasn't my choice and got nothing but crap for it. She said when she saw me cooking and cleaning she couldn't even look at me as a man. Thank god it is different and more equal in my current marriage.

[sambolini]

I don't think she's contradicting herself. I think what she's saying (besides the fact that she doesn't mind) is that he just doesn't notice all the things that need to get done, probably because he has different standards of cleanliness.

 

You see, while splitting finances is easy to count (you can't say or think you're paying 50% when the numbers show otherwise), housework is a lot more nebulous. Some guys think they're doing 50%, when what they're really doing is closer to 20% or 30%, because they don't see the extra as necessary and never did that when they were single. I mean, who cares if the sheets are only changed once a year, right...?

 

I don't mean to rag on guys, though. Yes, most guys I know/knew do less housework than their partners, but that's really due to the fact that I lived in Asia most of my life, and not necessarily a reflection on all guys. But similarly, those guys all had zero issues with paying for dates, trips, etc, and being the main earner. So it kinda balances out.

 

I know a "modern/egalitarian" couple in my current (Caucasian) country, where the woman just gave birth to their baby and quit her job to be the primary childcarer... and her husband told her that he expects her to continue to contribute to 50% of the finances!! That's absolutely ridiculous and not in any way "egalitarian" IMO.

 

Did she unilaterally make the decision to be the primary caregiver? Or did the husband agree to it but change his mind later?

[Els]

Did she unilaterally make the decision to be the primary caregiver? Or did the husband agree to it but change his mind later?

 

Her husband barely does any childcare at all (to be fair, due to his job). I don't know if the decision was made together or unilaterally, but regardless it was one that had to be made. Someone has to take care of the baby, they don't take care of themselves.

[loveflower]

I don't think she's contradicting herself. I think what she's saying (besides the fact that she doesn't mind) is that he just doesn't notice all the things that need to get done, probably because he has different standards of cleanliness.

 

That's why the h needs to be taught to notice and to get things done, but she said a grown man doesn't need to be taught

 

I know a "modern/egalitarian" couple in my current (Caucasian) country, where the woman just gave birth to their baby and quit her job to be the primary childcarer... and her husband told her that he expects her to continue to contribute to 50% of the finances!! That's absolutely ridiculous and not in any way "egalitarian" IMO.

 

I wouldn't call that a husband. I would call him her FWB

[sambolini]

Her husband barely does any childcare at all (to be fair, due to his job). I don't know if the decision was made together or unilaterally, but regardless it was one that had to be made. Someone has to take care of the baby, they don't take care of themselves.

 

I agree to a point. If my spouse up and quit her job without discussing it with me, I'd be highly irritated. That'd be no different than me quitting my job without discussing it with her, regardless of the reason.

 

I'd imagine they would have discussed this long before the baby came. I feel as though there was a decision made by one person that impacted the couple; whether that is mother quitting or the father expecting financial contribution, we can't say.

[Els]

 

I wouldn't call that a husband. I would call him her FWB

 

I agree.

 

I agree to a point. If my spouse up and quit her job without discussing it with me, I'd be highly irritated. That'd be no different than me quitting my job without discussing it with her, regardless of the reason.

 

I'd imagine they would have discussed this long before the baby came. I feel as though there was a decision made by one person that impacted the couple; whether that is mother quitting or the father expecting financial contribution, we can't say.

 

You are missing the point. The point is that the dude expects to do close to 0% of the childcare while still having a 50/50 financial split. He is unwilling to sacrifice his own career to be able to take on a more equitable childcare load, and expects his wife to bear that burden while still bearing half the financial burden. That's absolutely bull****.

 

And of course the reason matters - quitting because you have to do 100% of the childcare and can't do that with your job is quite different from quitting for fun.

 

I do agree that she should have thought of it earlier though. The guy's character was fairly obvious from the start, she should never have married and had a child with him IMO.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Elswyth

[sambolini]

I agree.

 

 

 

You are missing the point. The point is that the dude expects to do close to 0% of the childcare while still having a 50/50 financial split. He is unwilling to sacrifice his own career to be able to take on a more equitable childcare load, and expects his wife to bear that burden while still bearing half the financial burden. That's absolutely bull****.

 

And of course the reason matters - quitting because you have to do 100% of the childcare and can't do that with your job is quite different from quitting for ****s and giggles.

 

You didn't indicate in your first post that the guy doesn't expect to do 0% of the child care. You said that he is unable to.

 

Those are two different things.

[Els]

You didn't indicate in your first post that the guy doesn't expect to do 0% of the child care. You said that he is unable to.

 

Those are two different things.

 

He is unable to because of his job. Had she kept hers she would also have been unable to because of her job. Someone's job had to go as babies cannot be left alone at home. He is unwilling for it to be his. She had to.

 

I'm really not sure why this is so unclear to you.

[edgygirl]

Amen to the below. It's about dating/romantic preferences. Which doesn't apply in law or employment.

 

I am in the top 10% of the country income-wise, I do not need a man to pay for my life, and still, I cannot date a man who is not willing to pay for dates or is cheap with money. I need to feel psychologically "protected". Maybe it's because of the way I grew up and my role models or lack thereof, or a biological wiring that is still lacking evolution, but I do need a man that shows he can provide for a family and is generous - not only with his time but with his possessions.

 

I know a lot of men bash this and think a few of us are hypocritical, but I don't care. It's how I feel, and I simply can't change that - that's simply how my brain is wired.

 

And for the record no, I will never be with a man I don't love because of his money.

 

Because one is inherently personal and sexual, and the other isn't or shouldn't be (with a few notable exceptions).

 

The law and employment should do its best to treat everyone the same, be they man, woman, transgender, gay, straight, etc. When choosing a romantic partner this does not have to apply. It's not about feminism anymore, it's about personal preference.

 

For instance, employers and lawmakers should be expected to enforce equal treatment and employment of heterosexuals and homosexuals (and everyone in between), but that doesn't mean that individuals are required to date heterosexuals and homosexuals equally, it depends on what their own sexual preferences are. Same goes with appearance, weight, age, height... and yes, gender roles. It's totally fine to not want to date an obese person, not fine to not hire someone just because they're obese. Totally fine for a 20-yo to not want to date a 50-yo, but not fine for said 20-yo to not hire the 50-yo due to his age. And similarly, it's totally fine to want to date a person who adheres to traditional gender roles, not fine to pay or employ someone differently due to their gender.

 

This is an unpopular concept here, but romantic/sexual preferences are not intended to be treated the same as legal/employment rights.

Edited December 9, 2015 by edgygirl

[lino]

Real feminists who actually walk the walk on equality are attractive but they are becoming more and more rare these days.

 

Post of 2015.

Nothing else needs to be said.

[lino]

Amen to the below. It's about dating/romantic preferences. Which doesn't apply in law or employment.

 

I am in the top 10% of the country income-wise, I do not need a man to pay for my life, and still, I cannot date a man who is not willing to pay for dates or is cheap with money. I need to feel psychologically "protected". Maybe it's because of the way I grew up and my role models or lack thereof, or a biological wiring that is still lacking evolution, but I do need a man that shows he can provide for a family and is generous - not only with his time but with his possessions.

 

I know a lot of men bash this and think a few of us are hypocritical, but I don't care. It's how I feel, and I simply can't change that - that's simply how my brain is wired.

 

And for the record no, I will never be with a man I don't love because of his money.

 

 

If you want the same pay as men you have no right whatsoever to demand they pay for your dates. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

You're in the top 10% earning bracket in a country like America? You should be ashamed with that attitude.

[ManyDissapoint]

Amen to the below. It's about dating/romantic preferences. Which doesn't apply in law or employment.

 

I am in the top 10% of the country income-wise, I do not need a man to pay for my life, and still, I cannot date a man who is not willing to pay for dates or is cheap with money. I need to feel psychologically "protected". Maybe it's because of the way I grew up and my role models or lack thereof, or a biological wiring that is still lacking evolution, but I do need a man that shows he can provide for a family and is generous - not only with his time but with his possessions.

 

I know a lot of men bash this and think a few of us are hypocritical, but I don't care. It's how I feel, and I simply can't change that - that's simply how my brain is wired.

 

And for the record no, I will never be with a man I don't love because of his money.

 

Considering you are so rigid with regard to your biological / evolutionary imperative to find a man who provides for you, how do you feel about a man's biological imperative to be polygamous?

 

I'm not picking on you particularly as there are lots of women who feel the same way you do about a provider male.