"Old Fashioned" or "Traditional" gender roles
Options
Replies
-
What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.
As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.
This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.
And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.
I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.
In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.
And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.
I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...
That may very well be true.
But that's the thing for me...I'm not anti-feminism, I'm anti-extremist. That goes for other things than feminism as well...but there it is either way. Extremist view are rarely good for an organization, or for the people around them.
Take the whole 'glass ceiling' thing. Does it exist? Well...the fact of the matter is that neither you or I know...and any information passed on to us by our respective sources of information is likely to be biased.
But I know that the person who just resigned from Chase for losing them over $2 billion, wasn't male. Knowing that, it's sort of tough to recognize a 'glass ceiling' from my side of it, that's for sure.
I don't know about that, I think you draw some conclusions from the numbers of women in positions of power in business, universities and government. Either you believe that is because women aren't as capable or because of less opportunity. I choose to believe the latter because I have never felt personally or in regard to female colleagues that men were inately more capable and that is working in a male-dominated field. To the contrary I have frequently been bemused when male colleagues were attributed as possessing skills they simply did not exhibit purely because it is assumed that as males they *must* be such. Being a 'tough boss' is a typical one, I have to LOL at the times I have seen weak old men percieved as tough and yet I am the one who has had to have the tough discussion with an under performer or deal with a difficult client.
As for the banker woman, I would only ask.. how many men managed us into the GFC?
I wasn't using her as an example of poor management (see, that kind of proves my point, why did you automatically assume I was trying to prove a man would do better, and then try to make a point to me that men have done just as bad or worse?). I was using her as an example of a woman in an incredibly high paying job, that extreme feminists would have you believe is reserved for men. The point of which by the way, was that as a middle class male, I don't see a lot to complain about.
Additionally, if you look...the number of female CEO's is on the rise. Of course the percentage isn't equal, nor is it even equal from a gender/population perspective...but the fact that it is climbing is very telling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-female-ceos_n_1495734.html
I guess my point here is that no, we shouldn't be lax in stomping out inequality (where its truly inequality of course) when it raises its head. But to blame the average modern male for what was the status quo in his grandfather's day, isn't very realistic. Even more unrealistic, is to blame/villainize traditional values and gender roles (as seen through a modern filter, of course), or hold them up as a tool of oppression.
Sorry I am confused about the point you were making about the banker then? That she was a woman in a powerful position and therefore you don't believe in the 'glass ceiling', really?? I assumed you were questioning her competance simply because you picked a failure over the many positive examples you could have chosen.
As to your other point, again I haven't seen blame/vilification, simply acknowledgement, so I guess we all bring our bias. Personally I would never (or rarely) dwell on any disadvantage I may have encountered as a woman, because I think it is a negative way to be. Not to mention that on the other hand, my being born able-bodied, fair-skinned and first world are advantages that I should be far more grateful for than any disadvantage of being a woman.0 -
What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.
As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.
This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.
And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.
I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.
In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.
And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.
I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...
That may very well be true.
But that's the thing for me...I'm not anti-feminism, I'm anti-extremist. That goes for other things than feminism as well...but there it is either way. Extremist view are rarely good for an organization, or for the people around them.
Take the whole 'glass ceiling' thing. Does it exist? Well...the fact of the matter is that neither you or I know...and any information passed on to us by our respective sources of information is likely to be biased.
But I know that the person who just resigned from Chase for losing them over $2 billion, wasn't male. Knowing that, it's sort of tough to recognize a 'glass ceiling' from my side of it, that's for sure.
I don't know about that, I think you draw some conclusions from the numbers of women in positions of power in business, universities and government. Either you believe that is because women aren't as capable or because of less opportunity. I choose to believe the latter because I have never felt personally or in regard to female colleagues that men were inately more capable and that is working in a male-dominated field. To the contrary I have frequently been bemused when male colleagues were attributed as possessing skills they simply did not exhibit purely because it is assumed that as males they *must* be such. Being a 'tough boss' is a typical one, I have to LOL at the times I have seen weak old men percieved as tough and yet I am the one who has had to have the tough discussion with an under performer or deal with a difficult client.
As for the banker woman, I would only ask.. how many men managed us into the GFC?
I wasn't using her as an example of poor management (see, that kind of proves my point, why did you automatically assume I was trying to prove a man would do better, and then try to make a point to me that men have done just as bad or worse?). I was using her as an example of a woman in an incredibly high paying job, that extreme feminists would have you believe is reserved for men. The point of which by the way, was that as a middle class male, I don't see a lot to complain about.
Additionally, if you look...the number of female CEO's is on the rise. Of course the percentage isn't equal, nor is it even equal from a gender/population perspective...but the fact that it is climbing is very telling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-female-ceos_n_1495734.html
I guess my point here is that no, we shouldn't be lax in stomping out inequality (where its truly inequality of course) when it raises its head. But to blame the average modern male for what was the status quo in his grandfather's day, isn't very realistic. Even more unrealistic, is to blame/villainize traditional values and gender roles (as seen through a modern filter, of course), or hold them up as a tool of oppression.
Sorry I am confused about the point you were making about the banker then? That she was a woman in a powerful position and therefore you don't believe in the 'glass ceiling', really?? I assumed you were questioning her competance simply because you picked a failure over the many positive examples you could have chosen.
As to your other point, again I haven't seen blame/vilification, simply acknowledgement, so I guess we all bring our bias. Personally I would never (or rarely) dwell on any disadvantage I may have encountered as a woman, because I think it is a negative way to be. Not to mention that on the other hand, my being born able-bodied, fair-skinned and first world are advantages that I should be far more grateful for than any disadvantage of being a woman.
I only brought her up because she's the most recent one that came to mind in the news lol. I can see the confusion. The glass ceiling thing, it was just an example of how one person can have one source of information (say, feminist perspective), and another another (male dominant)...yet the average person may see from another perspective else entirely.
And the part in bold...to me this is what makes you different than the more passive/aggressive 'feminist' (for want of a better word) women, even on this site alone. Open mindedness, and security in yourself are the keys to who you are (in this context). They are also the keys to your outlook. I mean, I was literally told that the fact that I wouldn't willingly allow a woman to pay for any date with me, was a reason to 'weed me out' in the context that I would be 'controlling' lol.
Can you see the difference there?0 -
50/500
-
What I find ironic about much of this thread is that there has been very very little of what I would describe as radical feminist rhetoric or even slightly feminist. Why then so many anti-feminist comments? A woman is not some kind of irrational, man hating psycho merely because they acknoweldge that historically women had it pretty tough, and perhaps some of effects continue today. Personally I find the 'those crazy feminst" comments pretty lazy and unintelligent.
As for the notion that its all about what's natural. Personally I think it could be just as easily argued that those stereotypes exist to keep women and men in their respective places, rather than the other way round. OMG I guess that makes me a full radical feminist.
This thread was a carry over thread from the 'paying for the first date' thread you were involved in the late stages of. There was substantial 'passive/aggressive' feminist commentary there, if you recall.
And here's the thing...when it comes down to the actual, true definition...I'M a freaking feminist. What people recognize today as 'feminism'...really isn't. It's a minority group who have lost sight of their original purpose. What the original feminists (non-radical) considered feminism, most men and women just consider common sense.
I've been involved in a number of threads where any comment/stance other than 'Ohh...poor you!! Here, you're sooooo downtrodden, lets overthrow society and make it all better for you!', is met with me being called a misogynistic, patriarchal *kitten*.
In their own 'passive/aggressive' way of course.
And for the record...I don't consider you in that light at all. You're open minded...and in the other thread if you recall, we had a very intelligent, respectful discussion, in which you were actually able to understand my point without issue. And that is the difference between you, and the others that I was talking about. They simply aren't capable of seeing any other viewpoint than their own.
I didn't make the connection to the other thread, so to be honest some of the comments here just sound kinda snarky. I guess I understand what you are saying about 'feminsm', however I can see the value to the extremist viewpoints. Afterall like you say today's 'common sense' was yesterday's radical feminsim...
That may very well be true.
But that's the thing for me...I'm not anti-feminism, I'm anti-extremist. That goes for other things than feminism as well...but there it is either way. Extremist view are rarely good for an organization, or for the people around them.
Take the whole 'glass ceiling' thing. Does it exist? Well...the fact of the matter is that neither you or I know...and any information passed on to us by our respective sources of information is likely to be biased.
But I know that the person who just resigned from Chase for losing them over $2 billion, wasn't male. Knowing that, it's sort of tough to recognize a 'glass ceiling' from my side of it, that's for sure.
I don't know about that, I think you draw some conclusions from the numbers of women in positions of power in business, universities and government. Either you believe that is because women aren't as capable or because of less opportunity. I choose to believe the latter because I have never felt personally or in regard to female colleagues that men were inately more capable and that is working in a male-dominated field. To the contrary I have frequently been bemused when male colleagues were attributed as possessing skills they simply did not exhibit purely because it is assumed that as males they *must* be such. Being a 'tough boss' is a typical one, I have to LOL at the times I have seen weak old men percieved as tough and yet I am the one who has had to have the tough discussion with an under performer or deal with a difficult client.
As for the banker woman, I would only ask.. how many men managed us into the GFC?
I wasn't using her as an example of poor management (see, that kind of proves my point, why did you automatically assume I was trying to prove a man would do better, and then try to make a point to me that men have done just as bad or worse?). I was using her as an example of a woman in an incredibly high paying job, that extreme feminists would have you believe is reserved for men. The point of which by the way, was that as a middle class male, I don't see a lot to complain about.
Additionally, if you look...the number of female CEO's is on the rise. Of course the percentage isn't equal, nor is it even equal from a gender/population perspective...but the fact that it is climbing is very telling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-female-ceos_n_1495734.html
I guess my point here is that no, we shouldn't be lax in stomping out inequality (where its truly inequality of course) when it raises its head. But to blame the average modern male for what was the status quo in his grandfather's day, isn't very realistic. Even more unrealistic, is to blame/villainize traditional values and gender roles (as seen through a modern filter, of course), or hold them up as a tool of oppression.
Sorry I am confused about the point you were making about the banker then? That she was a woman in a powerful position and therefore you don't believe in the 'glass ceiling', really?? I assumed you were questioning her competance simply because you picked a failure over the many positive examples you could have chosen.
As to your other point, again I haven't seen blame/vilification, simply acknowledgement, so I guess we all bring our bias. Personally I would never (or rarely) dwell on any disadvantage I may have encountered as a woman, because I think it is a negative way to be. Not to mention that on the other hand, my being born able-bodied, fair-skinned and first world are advantages that I should be far more grateful for than any disadvantage of being a woman.
I only brought her up because she's the most recent one that came to mind in the news lol. I can see the confusion. The glass ceiling thing, it was just an example of how one person can have one source of information (say, feminist perspective), and another another (male dominant)...yet the average person may see from another perspective else entirely.
And the part in bold...to me this is what makes you different than the more passive/aggressive 'feminist' (for want of a better word) women, even on this site alone. Open mindedness, and security in yourself are the keys to who you are (in this context). They are also the keys to your outlook. I mean, I was literally told that the fact that I wouldn't willingly allow a woman to pay for any date with me, was a reason to 'weed me out' in the context that I would be 'controlling' lol.
Can you see the difference there?
I completely can, and I was one who initally thought that myself but was convinced otherwise... by you
That being said I still think that is ok, some women have non-negotiables... just like men. Better to know yourself and cut them loose I think. Personally I had a non-negotiable, I wouldn't change my last name when I got married. Honestly I tried to make myself not care, or care less because it would have saved alot of angst. However no matter which way I looked at it, it felt 'wrong' to me.
I had a funny little chat to my husband about this thread. I told him that if I ever die and he has to date again, he must pay for dinner He thanked me for my sage advice:)
I also informed him that from now on, his money was our money and my money was my money... he was somewhat less receptive to that
0 -
And the part in bold...to me this is what makes you different than the more passive/aggressive 'feminist' (for want of a better word) women, even on this site alone. Open mindedness, and security in yourself are the keys to who you are (in this context). They are also the keys to your outlook. I mean, I was literally told that the fact that I wouldn't willingly allow a woman to pay for any date with me, was a reason to 'weed me out' in the context that I would be 'controlling' lol.
Can you see the difference there?
I completely can, and I was one who initally thought that myself but was convinced otherwise... by you
That being said I still think that is ok, some women have non-negotiables... just like men. Better to know yourself and cut them loose I think. Personally I had a non-negotiable, I wouldn't change my last name when I got married. Honestly I tried to make myself not care, or care less because it would have saved alot of angst. However no matter which way I looked at it, it felt 'wrong' to me.
I had a funny little chat to my husband about this thread. I told him that if I ever die and he has to date again, he must pay for dinner He thanked me for my sage advice:)
I also informed him that from now on, his money was our money and my money was my money... he was somewhat less receptive to that
I agree on the non-negotiables...and as I said to those same women that called me controlling, if a woman is adamant about paying, that's ok! I just know at that point that she probably isn't the woman for me. The only thing I would think was wrong in that scenario is if somehow (say we'd been setup by friends), it got back to me that she felt I was 'controlling' because I wanted to pay.
Again, those are very different things.
As for your discussion regarding money with your husband lol...I actually thought it was 'What's mine is yours, and what's yours is yours!'. That's how it always works out for me anyhow lol.0 -
Bump0
-
In terms of jobs, chores, etc...doesn't matter.
But I want my man to cry less than I do, to weigh more than I do, and to know when to take charge in the sack. :devil:
This!!!!! :smokin:0 -
As for your discussion regarding money with your husband lol...I actually thought it was 'What's mine is yours, and what's yours is yours!'. That's how it always works out for me anyhow lol.
Sounds good to me... but then I might have to start getting his slippers and beer instead of the other way around...0 -
As for your discussion regarding money with your husband lol...I actually thought it was 'What's mine is yours, and what's yours is yours!'. That's how it always works out for me anyhow lol.
Sounds good to me... but then I might have to start getting his slippers and beer instead of the other way around...
Actually...that's not how it works for me either lol. What's mine is hers, what's hers is hers...and for that she gives me the privilege of taking care of her.
Pretty one sided trade if you ask me. Lets just hope the next one never figures out how badly she's being taken advantage of there. 0 -
As for your discussion regarding money with your husband lol...I actually thought it was 'What's mine is yours, and what's yours is yours!'. That's how it always works out for me anyhow lol.
Sounds good to me... but then I might have to start getting his slippers and beer instead of the other way around...
Actually...that's not how it works for me either lol. What's mine is hers, what's hers is hers...and for that she gives me the privilege of taking care of her.
Pretty one sided trade if you ask me. Lets just hope the next one never figures out how badly she's being taken advantage of there.
You definately need a sammich:)0 -
Glad I caught up with this thread again. Been insightful.0
-
I think what gets my hackles up is when people start generalizing and making assumptions, as well as telling people what they SHOULD be doing. Everyone's different and what works for some doesn't work for others.This thread has been dead a few days but I randomly found myself thinking about it so thought I'd come on and share a thought.
Please don't blast me. I'm just working things out...
Aren't 'traditional' gender roles in place for a reason? Men and women function differently. How we express love is different.
I always believed men are more doers (I mean this VERY generally and I realize there are exceptions). They show 'love' by taking care of those around them. I wonder if this is how that 'traditional' role took root. This is how men express their love to their wife, by caring for her basic physical needs (IE: working, bringing home food, taking care of the car, the yard. etc. etc. etc.).
Whereas women are more inclined to be nurturing. Providing a comfortable home. Caring for and keeping the children safe. Emotional support. Caring for less obvious needs. Etc. Etc.
Anyway. I wonder if 'traditional' gender roles just stem from a very basic thing that makes males and females express themselves differently (hormones I guess?). Of course there are EXCEPTIONS to this and couples that buck these more traditional ways of expressing oneself but I wonder if the majority aren't more inclined to certain things and that's what makes those things 'traditional'.
I'm not sure if I explained that properly and I apologize if it made absolutely no sense. It was just a thought.
I definitely agree with this. I think a lot of people want to take the feminism to such an extreme that they forget a lot of stuff is just basic instincts. I don't think the nurturing characteristics of women just falls out of thin air. The same way, I don't think they men are protective just because someone told them to do it.
The other day my husband and I were out and a local man started to chat with us. We exchanged pleasantries and he asked what we do. I told him I am a research scientist, and my husband told him that he is a truck driver. He gaped, stepped back, scratched his forehead and said "HOW DOES THAT WORK!? YOU are a scientist, and (pointing at my husband) and YOU are a TRUCK DRIVER!? I don't get how you can be married"!
Granted, he was slightly drunk, but seriously? If I were the truck driver and he were the scientist, that wouldn't have happened.0 -
Having been raised up in a machismo (male chuvinism) culture, this is what I know as traditional gender roles. That is a man should be earning more, handles executive or CEO positions while women are only up to the managerial levels. It doesn't matter if one of you doesn't work as long as the husband/father is the one working, the wife stays at home & takes care of her kids. The man is the head of the household & is the one making the final decision. Ever noticed that the leading ladies in the telenovelas are mostly poor & oppressed while their leading men are the rich ones coming from a respected family? What you see on most of the telenovelas are a reflection of our machismo culture that I call traditional.
EDIT: I have to correct the spelling for the word chuvinism
Yes, this. This is how I was raised as well. I'm kinda a shocker to the family because I never remarried after my divorce. After all, what is a woman without a man?? *sarcasm0 -
Admittedly, I only read through page 4 :
Old fashioned : Woman cooks dinner and has it ready on the table when hubby comes home. Woman doesn't work, cleans house, raises kids. Man goes to work and provides for the family finances completely. Man also does all manly jobs of fixing the car, the roof, the lawnmower and more.
Hubby and I are a mix. He takes out the garbage, I clean the house. He does the paying of the bills, we both work. I get the children ready for school, he gets them ready for bed. He orders my meal for me 90% of the time ( I dislike talking to strangers, practically a phobia ). He holds the door, offers me his jacket, his chair, and a bite of his dessert. I iron his slacks, do the laundry, and provide nookie whenever and however desired.
On a seperate note : Women these days DO act like men a lot. I'd be astounded if a man didn't offer to pay for my meal while on a date. I have no interest in learning how to do anything other than pump gas for the car, and maybe add some windshield washer fluid. I dress modestly ( that's a whole 'nother debate ). I take pride in cooking, and having a tidy house. Hell, I take a LOT of pride in being the " Best Wife " in our group.0 -
Having been raised up in a machismo (male chuvinism) culture, this is what I know as traditional gender roles. That is a man should be earning more, handles executive or CEO positions while women are only up to the managerial levels. It doesn't matter if one of you doesn't work as long as the husband/father is the one working, the wife stays at home & takes care of her kids. The man is the head of the household & is the one making the final decision. Ever noticed that the leading ladies in the telenovelas are mostly poor & oppressed while their leading men are the rich ones coming from a respected family? What you see on most of the telenovelas are a reflection of our machismo culture that I call traditional.
EDIT: I have to correct the spelling for the word chuvinism
Yes, this. This is how I was raised as well. I'm kinda a shocker to the family because I never remarried after my divorce. After all, what is a woman without a man?? *sarcasm
And what is a man without a woman?
/sigh0 -
I have to be the Protector! I have to provide a safe and comfortable environment. I am like the Male Goose! Ever watch them protect their mate? That's Old Fashion or Traditional in my book.0
-
After hearing the tale of my grandparents' nasty divorce, I could never call my view on "roles" "traditional."
He left her with basically nothing after 20+ years. She had no work history to speak of because she adhered to what, at the time, was the normal role for women (staying home and keeping house, taking care of the kids.)
Only a foolish woman would put herself in that position now. Flame away, but it's the hard truth. I may not always work full time, but I will always have my own assets and career history. It's simply naive to do otherwise. No one wants to think their SO could do that, but I'd rather live in the real world than end up out on my penniless rear someday.
My parents are very egalitarian in their relationship; mom's worked pretty much her entire married life and decision-making is discussed equally. And they've been happily married for 42 years. So I guess that's why I lean toward that formula...0 -
After hearing the tale of my grandparents' nasty divorce, I could never call my view on "roles" "traditional."
He left her with basically nothing after 20+ years. She had no work history to speak of because she adhered to what, at the time, was the normal role for women (staying home and keeping house, taking care of the kids.)
Only a foolish woman would put herself in that position now. Flame away, but it's the hard truth. I may not always work full time, but I will always have my own assets and career history. It's simply naive to do otherwise. No one wants to think their SO could do that, but I'd rather live in the real world than end up out on my penniless rear someday.
My parents are very egalitarian in their relationship; mom's worked pretty much her entire married life and decision-making is discussed equally. And they've been happily married for 42 years. So I guess that's why I lean toward that formula...
I don't see anything wrong with that formula.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'my own assets' though.0 -
I hate traditional gender roles.
I wear armor and carry a sword and rescue my future husband from dragons and bring home a paycheck.
He likes to cook and clean and is looking forward to raising a kid.
Screw gender roles. *flips a table*0 -
After hearing the tale of my grandparents' nasty divorce, I could never call my view on "roles" "traditional."
He left her with basically nothing after 20+ years. She had no work history to speak of because she adhered to what, at the time, was the normal role for women (staying home and keeping house, taking care of the kids.)
Only a foolish woman would put herself in that position now. Flame away, but it's the hard truth. I may not always work full time, but I will always have my own assets and career history. It's simply naive to do otherwise. No one wants to think their SO could do that, but I'd rather live in the real world than end up out on my penniless rear someday.
My parents are very egalitarian in their relationship; mom's worked pretty much her entire married life and decision-making is discussed equally. And they've been happily married for 42 years. So I guess that's why I lean toward that formula...
I don't see anything wrong with that formula.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'my own assets' though.
Assets=my own money and bank account in my name. My own savings. This was one of the ways dear old grandpa screwed grandma over. He had exclusive legal rights to the money and properties because they were, in fact, in his name. Like a lot of families in that era. And he earned all the money anyway, because she didn't work. The "allowance" system for women was common in the 50's-60's. Hubby gives you the grocery money but you have to ask him for it first. No thanks. I'm not 12.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions