Traditional feminine vs modern woman

[RecentChange]

So if you got married and your wife didn’t want you to work outside the home for years, and you’d be dependent on her income, assuming you aren’t independently wealthy and don’t stand to inherit a bunch of money, you’d like to be a stay at home husband?

 

To add.... Imagine turning back the clock...

 

You're a young man, perhaps have an education but no job experience. You have no money of your own, just starting out in life, and you meet a slightly older woman.

 

She says that she would like you to stay home. That way you can have extra time to work out and make yourself look nice. You can concentrate on being handsome, taking care of the household stuff, and watching the kids.

 

She will bring home the money, and most likely dictate to you as to how it will be best spent.

 

You will give your heart, your future and your security to her, because you trust her completely to always be benevolent and take care of you for as long as you are both on this Earth.

 

No reason to worry about developing working skills, or contingency plans, or what ifs should things crumble. You see the beauty in being vulnerable to her, and it's a sign of true love that you are willing to hand yourself over like this.

 

Does that sound right?

[Kitty Tantrum]

As I see it, the divide between the traditional and the modern isn't really about whether or not the woman works outside the home. People get hung up on that because it's the easiest factor to neatly quantify.

 

I've got the kind of traditional mindset that makes feminists foam at the mouth, and I've worked 50-60 hour workweeks (sometimes 70+), even since having kids. It's very true that sometimes we don't have a choice.

 

Where the divide really becomes clear is when the choice is presented - what is prioritized?

 

It's not a question of "do you want to be dependent or independent?" That's just silly. Everyone (save for perhaps the most rare of individuals) is dependent on someone or something.

 

It's a question of where you choose to allocate your dependence, AND a question of what you're asking in return.

 

At one extreme end of the spectrum, there are women who will ONLY hang their hat on an employer who pays them money. These women might have husbands and children, but family is always secondary to career (perhaps not in her heart and her words, but in terms of what she does with the bulk of her available time and energy, and from which endeavors she derives her identity). A husband who encourages this woman to leave her career to focus on their family may quickly find himself divorced. She doesn't NEED him - she DOES need her career; that is where her dependency lies. That's where her identity lies.

 

On the other end, you have women who will ONLY hang their hat on a man who gives them a home and family. These women may have jobs, but will go to great lengths to bend their outside working hours and the types of work that they do, in order to prioritize meeting the domestic needs of home and family with their own labors above all else - even if it means doing menial or hard physical labor for minimum wage at odd hours. An employer who makes demands of this woman which require that she outsource or shirk her domestic duties in order to keep her job will soon find themselves looking for a new employee. She doesn't NEED her job - she DOES need her man. She depends on her man. Her identity lies in serving her family and managing her household.

 

It's worth pointing out that this is really also NOT so much a matter of the career vs. non-career path. In actuality, in principle and function, regardless of modern vernacular baggage, this is a matter of two distinct career choices.

 

I am a wife and a mother. That is my line of work. It is what I studied for, it is what I prepared for, and the fact that there are no colleges offering degrees in wifing doesn't change that fact, and does not make my practical level of education or skill development any lesser than that of, say, a woman making six figures in an office somewhere because her rich daddy sent her to the best college so that she would never have to depend on some man.

 

And frankly, if you're willing to work for something other than money, it's a field with more lucrative employment opportunities than literally ANY other. If I were willing to put up with the kind of crap most "empowered" women put up with in their day-to-day work lives and apply that go-getter attitude to finding and keeping a husband - I could literally put out a resume and HAVE that wealthy man that every gold digger wants to divorce. I never wanted a man with lots of money, and I never wanted to put up with that kind of crap - but it's not like the pursuit of a traditional way of living automatically means that a woman is subjugating herself to and hanging her hat on one man eternally. A traditional woman is NOT necessarily a woman who is vulnerable or easily taken advantage of. There are those women, on both sides of the fence, and it's important to note that many women end up abused and taken advantage of by employers as well. But a woman who chooses to be a wife and mother first and foremost is not necessarily a woman without a contingency plan. Finding another suitable man is no more degrading and no less valid a contingency plan than finding another job or another line of work if one doesn't pan out.

 

So often people paint the choice of motherhood and family-orientation as the path of non-development, perpetual dependence, etc., but it is no moreso intrinsically than any other path a person can take.

 

It seems like we've diverged a bit from the original topic, so I want to bring it back around and tie it back in:

 

THIS IS WHY the girl the OP is looking for does not exist.

 

Because any one person only has one life that they are currently living, and they have a finite amount of time and energy to invest in any major pursuit.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that if you want a woman who is well developed on BOTH ENDS of this spectrum of life choices, that will always necessarily be an older woman who has made different life choices in the different seasons of her life.

 

A YOUNG woman can only ever be solidly and healthily developed in one direction at a time. The "best of both worlds" in a young woman absolutely and unequivocally entails a certain level of indecision, lack of direction, etc. This middle-of-the-road girl might be appealing - but you chase her down, and there's a very good chance you'll be right back here lamenting her wishy-washy-ness, her lack of loyalty, her undeveloped femininity, etc.

 

You spend your life chasing unicorns based on lists of criteria that don't go together, you end up with narwhals and rhinos.

[schlumpy]

Maybe it's my sociology back ground, but whether we like it or not, all social interactions are on some level affected by power dynamics.

 

Loving, giving your heart totally and completely to someone - that is a vulnerable position to put one's self in. It can be beautiful, and one of the most fulfilling experiences a human can experience. And it can also result in great pain - the whole better to have loved and lost, than never loved at all thing.

 

My heart would be broken, but I would have the ability to protect myself, to get myself out of the bad situation.

 

Now, if I didn't have the skills, nor the experience, or the funds - I may be forced to stay with the abuser, to suffer the abuse because I am a subordinate, a dependent.

 

I'll risk my heart for love. I'll conform my life around another, and live in a way that WE, the partnership is a priority.

 

But I would never be willing to hand myself over in a way that would make it litterally impossible to live without them. I am not willing to hand that much power over to another and make myself vulnerable in so many ways.

 

I don't think there is a disagreement here. Like most individuals we see things shaded slightly differently.

 

When it comes to how much control we have over our own lives I tend to think in terms of the quote - "Men Plan and God Laughs." It's been true too many times.

[schlumpy]

 

Does that sound right?

 

No. That sounds more like co-dependency not romantic love.

[Mr. Lucky]

and sorry once again op if this is all sidetracking for you, not sure.

 

I think we scared the OP away. Never fun when reality intrudes into your fantasy...

 

Mr. Lucky