SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Again, you live in a much different world than I do.
Once upon a time it may have been "acceptable and expected" for women to rely on men, but I don't know anyone who feels that way honestly now.

And really, that has nothing to do with what I was talkng about. Again, we were talking about fantasies.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Again, you live in a much different world than I do.
Once upon a time it may have been "acceptable and expected" for women to rely on men, but I don't know anyone who feels that way honestly now.

And really, that has nothing to do with what I was talkng about. Again, we were talking about fantasies.

That sounds like fishy statistics to me. Sampling only 100 surveys to the population is poor research, and taking the answers from the mere 25 who bothered to respond does not a conclusive anything make.

It says 66% of respondents said the situation destroyed their marriage, and 75% wished they were something other than the breadwinner. But guess what? 66% of 25 is only 16 people! And 75% of that is only 19 people!

So 16 marriages were ruined out of a nation of millions. Hardly proof that women being the primary breadwinner of their family is destructive.


NEXT!

meow85 said:

You're really smart!!!

luv4u said:

The fact that men earn (on average) more than women has very little to do with discrimination and a whole lot to do with life choices. More women [b]choose to work in lower-paying fields...[/b]and to take time off from work to raise a family.

I am a single woman who makes more than nearly all of her female colleagues and most of her male colleagues. Why? Because I have worked my ass off and never taken time off to have children (or for any other reason). In fact, I've spent a fair share of my working life doing the work of other women who were on maternity leave.

I don't think people who take ten weeks of paid leave every couple of years deserve to be promoted at the same rate or paid the same as those who stay behind and do the work. There's nothing wrong with taking time off to have a family - but the people who do the work in the workplace should be rewarded accordingly. We all make our choices.

That said, I know a number of women who make more than their significant others or - in the case of one particular friend - support a man who doesn't work at all. The ones who make more are more or less okay with it - but their partners definitely do more around the house/yard than most men.

The one who supports a guy who doesn't work, at all (and hasn't for almost a decade)...well...we don't even pretend to understand that relationship.

My understanding was that many women in the same positions as men, with the same duties, earn less.
That's where I thought the pay discrimination was the most real/the worst.

Flo6 said:

That'd be true. Mostly because of that aforementioned maternity leave. Which, strictly speaking from an employers point of view, does make sense in that said employee is taking extensive time off.

BUT

In a time and place where women are STILL expected by society as their womanly duty to pump out at least one kid, and those who actively choose to be childless (or childfree, if you prefer) are treated like freaks of nature, is it really fair to deny professional options or avenues to those who fulfill what many see as their duty and primary function? If you have kids and do your duty as a biological female, you lose out on promotions and raises. But if you forego childrearing, you're shunned and looked down on a biological female. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, the system is totally skewed to favor one gender over the other. And sorry if I sound like a hardcore feminist, but we know who make its rules...

Another point is, it's a nice idea to have the husbands do half of the housework. But some certain ones I know, grew up in a household where their mama did everything for them. They barely know how to make a bed or peel a potato. Where is the skill set?

Flo6 said:

That'd be true. Mostly because of that aforementioned maternity leave. Which, strictly speaking from an employers point of view, does make sense in that said employee is taking extensive time off.

BUT

In a time and place where women are STILL expected by society as their womanly duty to pump out at least one kid, and those who actively choose to be childless (or childfree, if you prefer) are treated like freaks of nature, is it really fair to deny professional options or avenues to those who fulfill what many see as their duty and primary function? If you have kids and do your duty as a biological female, you lose out on promotions and raises. But if you forego childrearing, you're shunned and looked down on a biological female. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

meow85 said:

I don't have kids - and I am not aware of anyone who looks down on me. To the contrary, I know a lot of women with children who envy the freedom their childless friends have.

I don't know where you live - but I've never heard of women being treated as "freaks of nature" because they choose not to have children. Maybe you need to move.

Awesome thread!!!

Here's a situation I ran into lately. I work for a non-profit organization. The only one who gets paid is the director. His wife works as the office manager for no pay. It came up that if she does the accounting also, she should get paid, but it could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

So the president of the board suggested that we raise the director's salary to compensate for his wife's work. I got kinda sick thinking about it.

(This was suggested by a woman who also works full-time for the organization for no pay, and has always been supported by her husband)

Another point is, it's a nice idea to have the husbands do half of the housework. But some certain ones I know, grew up in a household where their mama did everything for them. They barely know how to make a bed or peel a potato. Where is the skill set?

Flo6 said:

That's nothing to apologize for.

Actually I was getting ready to get stoned by the men on this thread:) Btw, where are they?...

^Just kidding.

It's weird how "women's work" has become degraded. As if men even have the capacity to look after a household and raise babies the way women can.
Men are better at, ykno, killing things, not loving them.

I can see why some women would resent their husbands for having to be the breadwinner because she is probably picking up the slack when she gets home too.
Women should be praised for doing the "women's work". I'm sure the fantasy of being a socialite isn't the number one thought. Probably more along the lines of "I wish I was home looking after my kid right now".

Flo6 said:

Out earning money for their lazy women

That sounds like fishy statistics to me. Sampling only 100 surveys to the population is poor research, and taking the answers from the mere 25 who bothered to respond does not a conclusive anything make.

It says 66% of respondents said the situation destroyed their marriage, and 75% wished they were something other than the breadwinner. But guess what? 66% of 25 is only 16 people! And 75% of that is only 19 people!

So 16 marriages were ruined out of a nation of millions. Hardly proof that women being the primary breadwinner of their family is destructive.


NEXT!

swears if she had had to stay home, she would have killed herself.

ZombieKitten said:

well now that's probably a bit unfair to put that pressure on the husband but

I wonder if the scenario 'I wash my socks, you wash yours' wouldn't work in some cases/for some couples...

Genesia said:

I live in one of the more liberal provinces in Canada -a country infinitely more left-wing than the U.S. to begin with, and I see it everywhere. Every time a woman says she doesn't want children people look at her as if she's got three heads and demand to know why. No one ever asks why a person might want to have kids, so why else would they ask why a person wouldn't want to unless it was seen as weird?

Flo6 said:

That's a waste of both peoples' times though and most couples don't hate each other that much.

I said most.

I wonder if the scenario 'I wash my socks, you wash yours' wouldn't work in some cases/for some couples...