"Old Fashioned" or "Traditional" gender roles
Replies
-
Being that I believe in traditional male\female roles (at least for myself and my relationship) I define this as the man pays for the first meal, the man fixes things around the house and mows the grass, and you don’t live together before you are engaged.
Also, once married, the man should be responsible for most of the bills if your budget allows it.
All that being said let me mention that I am a single woman (not married, but in a serious relationship), and I am completely independent. I pay my own mortgage, bills, etc and yes, when my boyfriend is broke, I pay for our entertainment. But that usually doesn’t happen.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.
and you're single... why...
Has to be of your own choosing.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.
I wouldn't be in a marriage like that. If there is such a severe lack of trust, based on something someone else did, that you have to have a contingency plan for when it goes bad...there's going to be other issues as well. Now...joint accounts? Absolutely. My ex was on my account (I say 'my account' because I had it before I met her) for seven years...and we were never married. Separate money? No thanks.
Also, just to clarify...I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, or that it doesn't work...because obviously there's people who make it work just like that every day. I'm saying it would never work for me. That kind of thing signifies a huge lack of trust/faith in my opinion, and while some people are ok with that...I'm definitely not. If 'joint' assets aren't enough of a back up plan, then finding someone ok with that lack of trust is probably going to be pretty important.
Additionally...just out of curiosity, when was their divorce, and are the laws still the same in Texas? In Arizona...it's not relevant who has their name on what. If you're married, your spouse is entitled to half.0 -
i just want a man with balls.. one who is a go getter and will fight for what he wants, will do anything for his family. protect and provide. is willing to just cuddle or to take charge (as long as he doesn't mind me taking charge once in a while) someone who will work around the house 50/50 i dont care what chores.. as long as i am not doing them ALL.
im not for all traditional male/female roles.. but i dont want to be the only one doing all the heavy work .
alright .. that sounds more like a rant than an answer.0 -
men should
* pay the bill when dining out
* the man should give the orders to the waitress ( i tell hubby want i want, he tells the wait staff)
* open doors
* wait for the woman to sit down at the table
^ take out the trash
women should
* make sure the home is clean ( now of course, if she works and he doesn't, then that is different but i;m talking about traditional house wife)
* cook the meals
* tend the children
---
now i am a modern woman with old fashion traits
my man pays all the bills (im not working now anyway)
he places my orders for me
when we are out .. he does the heavy lifting
i cook and clean
but when he isn't home, i also cut the grass, make minor repairs in the house
i can change a tire, check oil , pump the gass ( stuff women needs to know if they drive :laugh: )
I *love* it when a guy asks me what I want and places the order for me. Totally swoon worthy. And I love having the doors held open for me, etc.
This is almost all true of our house. The only difference is I expect and receive 15 to 30 minutes of peace and quiet (when he is home in time) after dinner. We have two children ages 22 months and 9 months and most days by the time he gets home I am ready for some quiet time too. Granted that does not always work because his hours and unpredictiable and some times does not get home until late but on nights that he is I prefer a little me time before the kids go to bed so that when the kids go to sleep it is we time and I still get a little bit for me.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.
I wouldn't be in a marriage like that. If there is such a severe lack of trust, based on something someone else did, that you have to have a contingency plan for when it goes bad...there's going to be other issues as well. Now...joint accounts? Absolutely. My ex was on my account (I say 'my account' because I had it before I met her) for seven years...and we were never married. Separate money? No thanks.
Also, just to clarify...I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, or that it doesn't work...because obviously there's people who make it work just like that every day. I'm saying it would never work for me. That kind of thing signifies a huge lack of trust/faith in my opinion, and while some people are ok with that...I'm definitely not. If 'joint' assets aren't enough of a back up plan, then finding someone ok with that lack of trust is probably going to be pretty important.
Additionally...just out of curiosity, when was their divorce, and are the laws still the same in Texas? In Arizona...it's not relevant who has their name on what. If you're married, your spouse is entitled to half.
I reread this by the way, and I REALLY want to stress the point that none of that was meant negatively towards your feelings or your opinions. Trust in a relationship is just huge to me...its something I'm very passionate about. The same for communication and integrity.0 -
While I yearn for old fashioned gender roles, I'm too much of a realist (or pessimist if you want to be honest) to think that it is wise in this day and age. You might expect your spouse to be around until the both of you grow old together but this doesn't always happen. Accidents happen, people get sick unexpectedly, people leave. I cringe when I hear that some women don't ever handle the finances. That's foolish. At least handle a couple of them...you just never know...
I'm a single parent (been divorced longer than I was married) and I do it all. I can't imagine it otherwise. I'm not trying to be a man, I'm trying to survive. *shrugs*0 -
Spinning off of the "who should pay for the first date" thread, if you were writing a personal ad and claimed you had "old fashioned" or "traditional" family values, what exactly does that mean to you? Based on the previous thread it would appear a lot of people are confused about what "old fashioned" really means.
What is the role of the man? What is the role of the woman?
In the context of a personal ad, "old fashioned and traditional family values" probably has more to do with values during dating (ie: no pre-marital sex and no "living together" without being married first, and a desire to eventually marry and raise a family), than it does with gender roles once you've established a relationship. Someone would place that wording in an ad to let prospective suitors know if they were looking for sex during dating or were set against marriage they need not reply.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.
I wouldn't be in a marriage like that. If there is such a severe lack of trust, based on something someone else did, that you have to have a contingency plan for when it goes bad...there's going to be other issues as well. Now...joint accounts? Absolutely. My ex was on my account (I say 'my account' because I had it before I met her) for seven years...and we were never married. Separate money? No thanks.
Also, just to clarify...I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, or that it doesn't work...because obviously there's people who make it work just like that every day. I'm saying it would never work for me. That kind of thing signifies a huge lack of trust/faith in my opinion, and while some people are ok with that...I'm definitely not. If 'joint' assets aren't enough of a back up plan, then finding someone ok with that lack of trust is probably going to be pretty important.
Additionally...just out of curiosity, when was their divorce, and are the laws still the same in Texas? In Arizona...it's not relevant who has their name on what. If you're married, your spouse is entitled to half.
As far as I know, the laws are different now. The first time, they divorced in the early 70s. They actually remarried and divorced again (not so smart) in the late 80s. That time, there was no way for him to get out without spousal support, and he supported her the rest of her life. Basically, the second time he had his balls nailed to the wall. Rightly so, in my opinion.
I think it's weird to assume that I would get rid of an account I've had since I was 15 just because I get married. Having a joint account is fine. That doesn't mean I wouldn't keep my own. My life as me doesn't end because I wear a ring.
I think expecting people to put themselves in a dangerous financial position because one thinks it represents a lack of trust is selfish. You don't need to keep the account secret (that WOULD be a little shady.) But I think it's important to secure your own way in every situation, for both parties. Perhaps even moreso if children are involved. Asking someone to put that much faith in ANYONE is foolish in this day and age. To insist upon it demonstrates a lack of trust in itself, if you think about it. But yeah, to each their own.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
While I don't come from your culture....this is what I would think it would mean. But depending on the rest of the ad it could also mean more conserative morals.0 -
Personally--I believe any relationship should be a partnership. It's not about who should do what or what specific roles the person has--it should be about helping each other, both putting in your part. Having each other's backs. Who cares if he pays for dinner or always drives? Or I bring him a beer or sammich every night? Sometimes I want a beer and sammich damnit. :P
You're a team. So who cares who does what?0 -
As far as I know, the laws are different now. The first time, they divorced in the early 70s. They actually remarried and divorced again (not so smart) in the late 80s. That time, there was no way for him to get out without spousal support, and he supported her the rest of her life. Basically, the second time he had his balls nailed to the wall. Rightly so, in my opinion.
Agreed, but that sort of negates using their initial divorce as a reason for keeping things separate like you indicated in your first post...that was my point.I think it's weird to assume that I would get rid of an account I've had since I was 15 just because I get married. Having a joint account is fine. That doesn't mean I wouldn't keep my own. My life as me doesn't end because I wear a ring.
In this context, sure it's 100% reasonable to keep the account. Stockpiling money into it, and/or otherwise using it as a 'safety net'...to me just means that a person isn't 100% invested, and is either planning to (less likely scenario here), or at least willing to (more likely) cut ties when things get rough. That's not what marriage is about to me, at all.I think expecting people to put themselves in a dangerous financial position because one thinks it represents a lack of trust is selfish. You don't need to keep the account secret (that WOULD be a little shady.) But I think it's important to secure your own way in every situation, for both parties. Perhaps even moreso if children are involved. Asking someone to put that much faith in ANYONE is foolish in this day and age. To insist upon it demonstrates a lack of trust in itself, if you think about it. But yeah, to each their own.
The part in bold is probably why I'm single. I do expect, and give that much faith, and you're 100% correct in that it's not a common thing in this day and age. It would be a very hollow love in my opinion, without it. On the outside, insisting on it might be interpreted as being distrustful, but the reality of it is that that couldn't be farther from the truth. If I marry, I'm all in. Planning for a future divorce is counter intuitive...and is simply planning for failure.
Let me see if I can say it differently. You mentioned in the first sentence of this quote, that 'expecting someone to put themselves in a dangerous financial position, because it denotes a lack of trust, is selfish'. I feel that holding money or possessions more important than your spouse and his/her feelings or needs is selfish.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying is conveying the whole of how I feel about this...but I can honestly tell you that all that I've said, falls within that whole.0 -
As far as I know, the laws are different now. The first time, they divorced in the early 70s. They actually remarried and divorced again (not so smart) in the late 80s. That time, there was no way for him to get out without spousal support, and he supported her the rest of her life. Basically, the second time he had his balls nailed to the wall. Rightly so, in my opinion.
Agreed, but that sort of negates using their initial divorce as a reason for keeping things separate like you indicated in your first post...that was my point.I think it's weird to assume that I would get rid of an account I've had since I was 15 just because I get married. Having a joint account is fine. That doesn't mean I wouldn't keep my own. My life as me doesn't end because I wear a ring.
In this context, sure it's 100% reasonable to keep the account. Stockpiling money into it, and/or otherwise using it as a 'safety net'...to me just means that a person isn't 100% invested, and is either planning to (less likely scenario here), or at least willing to (more likely) cut ties when things get rough. That's not what marriage is about to me, at all.I think expecting people to put themselves in a dangerous financial position because one thinks it represents a lack of trust is selfish. You don't need to keep the account secret (that WOULD be a little shady.) But I think it's important to secure your own way in every situation, for both parties. Perhaps even moreso if children are involved. Asking someone to put that much faith in ANYONE is foolish in this day and age. To insist upon it demonstrates a lack of trust in itself, if you think about it. But yeah, to each their own.
The part in bold is probably why I'm single. I do expect, and give that much faith, and you're 100% correct in that it's not a common thing in this day and age. It would be a very hollow love in my opinion, without it. On the outside, insisting on it might be interpreted as being distrustful, but the reality of it is that that couldn't be farther from the truth. If I marry, I'm all in. Planning for a future divorce is counter intuitive...and is simply planning for failure.
Let me see if I can say it differently. You mentioned in the first sentence of this quote, that 'expecting someone to put themselves in a dangerous financial position, because it denotes a lack of trust, is selfish'. I feel that holding money or possessions more important than your spouse and his/her feelings or needs is selfish.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying is conveying the whole of how I feel about this...but I can honestly tell you that all that I've said, falls within that whole.
I think it helps to view all of this from the angle that I'm not saying that people should secretively prepare a safety net for when they themselves get bored/tired/hurt and want to leave, but rather be prepared for the possibility that their spouse may one day do that to them. Or that their spouse might die or become severely ill (that DID happen to my parents...dad had a massive stroke and had to "retire early.") Is it a wonderfully romantic notion? No. But it is a practical and safe one. One that my mother and father both endorse. And they've literally been with each other, and no one else, since they were 13. They seem to be doing ok...
That is my justification for using my grandparents as an example. My grandmother never wanted to divorce. She wasn't blissfully happy by any account, but she did want to work through it. It was my grandfather that wanted to screw other women (sorry, just the truth) and take the money when he left. That's the point. You can control what you do yourself, but not what others do. It's not about possessions, it's about making sure you can survive on your own if worse came to worse. If you have your own accounts, there is no arguing in court over who gets what and what percentage, yadda yadda.
I see too many women get screwed over by throwing their identity out the window when they fall in love. Follow your heart, but take your brain with you, as they say. Asking someone to do otherwise is putting your emotional needs over their practical, realistic needs. Just my opinion.0 -
nevermind0
-
Between me and the misses we just do what needs doing and agree it on it. No set roles.0
-
You take out the trash and touch anything too nasty for me to touch, I make you food and clean the kitchen. Everything else is compromise.0
-
As far as I know, the laws are different now. The first time, they divorced in the early 70s. They actually remarried and divorced again (not so smart) in the late 80s. That time, there was no way for him to get out without spousal support, and he supported her the rest of her life. Basically, the second time he had his balls nailed to the wall. Rightly so, in my opinion.
Agreed, but that sort of negates using their initial divorce as a reason for keeping things separate like you indicated in your first post...that was my point.I think it's weird to assume that I would get rid of an account I've had since I was 15 just because I get married. Having a joint account is fine. That doesn't mean I wouldn't keep my own. My life as me doesn't end because I wear a ring.
In this context, sure it's 100% reasonable to keep the account. Stockpiling money into it, and/or otherwise using it as a 'safety net'...to me just means that a person isn't 100% invested, and is either planning to (less likely scenario here), or at least willing to (more likely) cut ties when things get rough. That's not what marriage is about to me, at all.I think expecting people to put themselves in a dangerous financial position because one thinks it represents a lack of trust is selfish. You don't need to keep the account secret (that WOULD be a little shady.) But I think it's important to secure your own way in every situation, for both parties. Perhaps even moreso if children are involved. Asking someone to put that much faith in ANYONE is foolish in this day and age. To insist upon it demonstrates a lack of trust in itself, if you think about it. But yeah, to each their own.
The part in bold is probably why I'm single. I do expect, and give that much faith, and you're 100% correct in that it's not a common thing in this day and age. It would be a very hollow love in my opinion, without it. On the outside, insisting on it might be interpreted as being distrustful, but the reality of it is that that couldn't be farther from the truth. If I marry, I'm all in. Planning for a future divorce is counter intuitive...and is simply planning for failure.
Let me see if I can say it differently. You mentioned in the first sentence of this quote, that 'expecting someone to put themselves in a dangerous financial position, because it denotes a lack of trust, is selfish'. I feel that holding money or possessions more important than your spouse and his/her feelings or needs is selfish.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying is conveying the whole of how I feel about this...but I can honestly tell you that all that I've said, falls within that whole.
I think it helps to view all of this from the angle that I'm not saying that people should secretively prepare a safety net for when they themselves get bored/tired/hurt and want to leave, but rather be prepared for the possibility that their spouse may one day do that to them. Or that their spouse might die or become severely ill (that DID happen to my parents...dad had a massive stroke and had to "retire early.") Is it a wonderfully romantic notion? No. But it is a practical and safe one. One that my mother and father both endorse. And they've literally been with each other, and no one else, since they were 13. They seem to be doing ok...
That is my justification for using my grandparents as an example. My grandmother never wanted to divorce. She wasn't blissfully happy by any account, but she did want to work through it. It was my grandfather that wanted to screw other women (sorry, just the truth) and take the money when he left. That's the point. You can control what you do yourself, but not what others do. It's not about possessions, it's about making sure you can survive on your own if worse came to worse. If you have your own accounts, there is no arguing in court over who gets what and what percentage, yadda yadda.
I see too many women get screwed over by throwing their identity out the window when they fall in love. Follow your heart, but take your brain with you, as they say. Asking someone to do otherwise is putting your emotional needs over their practical, realistic needs. Just my opinion.
I think we could go on and on discussing this for days lol. I also don't think either of us would change our minds suddenly. Also, I understood you didn't mean hidden...I've never seen you as that type of person.
I guess to very much simplify my perspective...I'll try to put it differently. The only situation where joint accounts aren't sufficient as a safety net, is if you leave/are left, and even then...it's 50%. There is no arguing percentages. Additionally, even if you have your own accounts if I recall, if you're married, it's STILL 50%, unless you sign a prenup. Best case, if you didn't add any money to the account the entire time you were married, you might be able to keep any funds in it out of the divorce. It can still be used as a point of contention though.
So to break it down:
You have joint accounts, your spouse passes on, all the money becomes yours...without any issue of having to prove it to the bank, and without possible taxation, as there would be if they had a separate account.
You have joint accounts, and your spouse turns out to be a lying cheat to the level you file for divorce (or they do). The money in that account is half yours, half theirs. The only time this would be a negative, is if you made MORE than he did, and felt you were entitled to more. And again...if that is the perspective you're going into it with (I don't believe you would)...chances are it's not going to last very long anyhow.
You have separate accounts (or separate and joint). You end up divorcing...your spouse has every right, even if you had the account before you were married, to bring that account into the divorce, barring a prenuptual agreement. When you marry, you 100% assume not only your spouses pre-marriage debts (trust me, I know this one for a fact), but their assets as well. This can be contested in court, from both sides. (I've seen this with friends in AZ, I don't know the laws in other states however). The end result will be 100% based on the judges interpretation, and who KNOWS what that will be.
With the above statements, I can see no possible scenario where having a separate account helps you in the event of tragedy. To be honest, I don't even see it being much protection in the case of a divorce.
By the way...I am raising my own daughter to maintain her own accounts (she has had her own since she was 12) until at least marriage, and at minimum play an active part in maintaining their joint accounts when married. I've also begun to teach her how best (possibly) to recover from a divorce type scenario. I am not teaching her that demanding a safe fall is in any way going to protect her in the event of that divorce...because it won't, and to be honest, the act of demanding that safe fall too strongly, might very well be part of the cause of it.
Anyhow...again, I think we just see this from a totally different perspective. It may be foolish in your eyes, or selfish...to require that when someone says 'I do'...they be fully invested in the relationship (I don't just mean emotionally of course, I've read many of your posts, and believe you would have that covered just fine ). But to me...if that kind of thing is even a question...that's not the love I wanted anyway, and there probably wouldn't be a wedding in the first place. 0 -
I'm with Chris. It seems people are not 100% invested in their relationships anymore, which is why I will most likely be single forever.0
-
I told my husband he has to clean out the clogged shower drains, that's why I got myself a husband. ;-)0
-
I'm with Chris. It seems people are not 100% invested in their relationships anymore, which is why I will most likely be single forever.
I think his point that having your own financial identity=lack of total investment is off. Marriage is about total emotional investment. Commitment of the mind and heart. How the heck that has to do with my bank account is puzzling to me, honestly. Things edge to the point of controlling when "totally invested" necessarily MUST include every other aspect of your identity.0 -
I'm with Chris. It seems people are not 100% invested in their relationships anymore, which is why I will most likely be single forever.
I think his point that having your own financial identity=lack of total investment is off. Marriage is about total emotional investment. Commitment of the mind and heart. How the heck that has to do with my bank account is puzzling to me, honestly. Things edge to the point of controlling when "totally invested" necessarily MUST include every other aspect of your identity.
Because for many people, you're combining lives, not just emotional investment. Even the legal nature of marriage includes this. If that's not for you...that's 100% within your rights, and I certainly respect it. I'm telling you why what you suggest, isn't for me.
And by the way, it has nothing to do with controlling, unless you're saying she's controlling me too, which sort of confuses that issue more than a little, don't you think?0 -
^^^
Exactly. I'm not trying to offend anyone to my way of thinking, just that for me, it has to be all or nothing.0 -
as long as your pretty much best friends and get along who really cares hahaha ill go mow the lawn and he can make dinner for all i care
0 -
We all bring our own family/personal experience to this issue I think. I come from a long long line of kicka$$ women, not to say the men weren't tough and good (in most cases). However it really was the women who kept things going. My great-grandmother outlived two husbands and kept the family together through the depression. My great-grandfather (her second husband) went off to war and she kept the farm going and took over driving the trucks and the school bus. He got back from war and they worked side by side together for 10 years until he had a heart attack and died. She just stepped up and did it all alone again for another 15 years. My grandmother also ran the house and finances while my grandfather worked away most of the time.
Then my mum was a single mother after my father ran out before I was born. So I grew up watching women for 3 generations drive trucks, milk cows, fix fences, negotiate prices etc etc. It wasn't about distrust of men or lack of vulnerability, it was simply about necessity. The women in my family showed 100% love, faith, loyalty and commitment to their men. But that had nothing to do with the fact that they needed to be able to run *kitten*. That is the way I feel. I couldn't love my husband more, but to me that is totally unrelated to my ability to provide for myself in the event that anything ever happened. I just don't think I would ever be comfortable getting used to a life that I couldn't provide for myself.0 -
if i see "old fashioned/traditional" in a dating ad, I presume the person is into spanking.0
-
We all bring our own family/personal experience to this issue I think. I come from a long long line of kicka$$ women, not to say the men weren't tough and good (in most cases). However it really was the women who kept things going. My great-grandmother outlived two husbands and kept the family together through the depression. My great-grandfather (her second husband) went off to war and she kept the farm going and took over driving the trucks and the school bus. He got back from war and they worked side by side together for 10 years until he had a heart attack and died. She just stepped up and did it all alone again for another 15 years. My grandmother also ran the house and finances while my grandfather worked away most of the time.
Then my mum was a single mother after my father ran out before I was born. So I grew up watching women for 3 generations drive trucks, milk cows, fix fences, negotiate prices etc etc. It wasn't about distrust of men or lack of vulnerability, it was simply about necessity. The women in my family showed 100% love, faith, loyalty and commitment to their men. But that had nothing to do with the fact that they needed to be able to run *kitten*. That is the way I feel. I couldn't love my husband more, but to me that is totally unrelated to my ability to provide for myself in the event that anything ever happened. I just don't think I would ever be comfortable getting used to a life that I couldn't provide for myself.
That's funny...I grew up in a ranching tradition as well (fifth generation here, I grew up on a 192k acre cattle ranch). Anyone who grew up in that kind of household would never make the mistake of thinking women were weak. Ever. Period. That's whether it was a situation like yours, where they had to be strong (or rather, display outwardly the internal strength they already had), or situations like mine where they were never fully called on to do so...but if you stepped out of line, or were disrespectful for even half a second, you were forcibly snapped back in/corrected, right now.
That's what kind of makes me laugh when I hear that the way I was taught to treat women is disrespectful or controlling. If only they knew the women that taught me...you know? I'd put any amount of money you can imagine on my great grandmother or grandmother against any ten of these women in a contest of will, and never once doubt the outcome. You did NOT control those women. Period. Anything given by them was cherished, because you knew you earned it.
And at the same time, they were the kindest, most generous (with love) women I've ever met. After 37 years I'm starting to realize their example has kind of spoiled me for anything else, really.0 -
Now thats a gentleman.Herein lies the problem wth LABELS... They are just that and are basically useless beyond that. It is the personal definition of that label that really matters. I am a pretty traditional person... and I believe that significant females (mother, wife) should be preferred, honored, and cherished... But if they happen to make more than me and I have to do more domestic chores around the house from time to time, so be it. It is all about cooperation and preferring one another.0 -
We all bring our own family/personal experience to this issue I think. I come from a long long line of kicka$$ women, not to say the men weren't tough and good (in most cases). However it really was the women who kept things going. My great-grandmother outlived two husbands and kept the family together through the depression. My great-grandfather (her second husband) went off to war and she kept the farm going and took over driving the trucks and the school bus. He got back from war and they worked side by side together for 10 years until he had a heart attack and died. She just stepped up and did it all alone again for another 15 years. My grandmother also ran the house and finances while my grandfather worked away most of the time.
Then my mum was a single mother after my father ran out before I was born. So I grew up watching women for 3 generations drive trucks, milk cows, fix fences, negotiate prices etc etc. It wasn't about distrust of men or lack of vulnerability, it was simply about necessity. The women in my family showed 100% love, faith, loyalty and commitment to their men. But that had nothing to do with the fact that they needed to be able to run *kitten*. That is the way I feel. I couldn't love my husband more, but to me that is totally unrelated to my ability to provide for myself in the event that anything ever happened. I just don't think I would ever be comfortable getting used to a life that I couldn't provide for myself.
That's funny...I grew up in a ranching tradition as well (fifth generation here, I grew up on a 192k acre cattle ranch). Anyone who grew up in that kind of household would never make the mistake of thinking women were weak. Ever. Period. That's whether it was a situation like yours, where they had to be strong (or rather, display outwardly the internal strength they already had), or situations like mine where they were never fully called on to do so...but if you stepped out of line, or were disrespectful for even half a second, you were forcibly snapped back in/corrected, right now.
That's what kind of makes me laugh when I hear that the way I was taught to treat women is disrespectful or controlling. If only they knew the women that taught me...you know? I'd put any amount of money you can imagine on my great grandmother or grandmother against any ten of these women in a contest of will, and never once doubt the outcome. You did NOT control those women. Period. Anything given by them was cherished, because you knew you earned it.
And at the same time, they were the kindest, most generous (with love) women I've ever met. After 37 years I'm starting to realize their example has kind of spoiled me for anything else, really.
Yep, I saw my grandmothers absolutely *own* men who thought they could rip them off or manipulate them. Again it was about necessity, not feminism:)0 -
Haha I actually had a run in with something similar on what my tattoo on my back was about. To me, being traditional is old fashioned. Now, you know, alot of things are modern, "spiced up", and "personalized" to fit a person's own style, favorite colors, etc. As far as gender roles go:
Male roles:
The "bread" winner/ the provider/ the protector...
Full time job/ Finds a way to provide for the wife or family. This starts off with a place to call home and as protection to
keep said wife or family safe and together.
Female roles:
The homemaker/ "stress reliever"/ the nurturer...
Instead of harsh labor, she tends to the home, making sure it is comfortable for her man or family to enjoy their
happiness in, makes the meals to nourish themselves. Because she does not work or do hard labor, the least she
can do is make the male feel welcome back home from what men would say as a "hard day at work. As female
notices what hard work has been done to keep her or his family safe and comfortable, she, in return, will provide
remarkable affection.
The little things:
Not all males are as romantic or chivalrous as us females want them to be. IMHO, what gets my heart beating is seeing even just a tiny bit of effort that they would like to be.
As far as women's rights and yadda yadda, again this is my opinion. If the women would rather work, so be it. Nothing wrong with that. I do know alot of men who like to stay home and play the non traditional roles. If you love someone, you'll know it because you just want them happy. That's why traditional roles don't really matter now.0 -
As far as women's rights and yadda yadda, again this is my opinion. If the women would rather work, so be it. Nothing wrong with that. I do know alot of men who like to stay home and play the non traditional roles. If you love someone, you'll know it because you just want them happy. That's why traditional roles don't really matter now.
I actually wonder if... gasp... men might even have it a little harder than women in this respect. It's not just about a woman being a truck driver or CEO if she wants to, it's also about a man being the SAHP or nurse or hairdresser.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions