Girlfriend Wants to Get Married, Dilemma

Off Topic
341

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s also about making women ashamed of becoming “just home makers” All the while ignoring the fact many women have strong maternal drives. I wonder how many unhappy women there are out in the workforce wondering why they have little satisfaction in their lives.

Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]

OK. So more women should stay home. Let’s say that the average age for marriage is 26. That means between 18 and 26 the woman will either go to school or enter the job market.

BUT, what employer is going to hire a person he knows is going to be exiting the work force at 26 to raise a family? That’s just bad business. Hmmmm. Looks like our fair lady will be relegated to the secretarial arts or other “temporary positions” with little to no room for advancement. Because…you know…its not like they are going to need it.

And really, if she is just going to become a secretary or cashier, is there a huge reason to rack up college loans? It seems unfair that her future husband should have to shoulder the financial burden of paying off her loans so she should probably just skip that.

And then at 26 she gets married. She has 3 kids. Stays home to raise them. When they are old enough to leave the nest she finds herself a 50 year old with no education. Her then 50 year old husband begins to resent her for not contributing more to the family’s finances. HE wanted to play a larger role in the children’s lives but was always so busy working to support them that he missed out on the best years.

Things become so unbearable that the couple decides to separate. The woman hasn’t been in the work force for 25 years and has limited education. She sacrificed that part of her life to family and while she doesn’t regret her decision, she cannot afford to support herself at all.

But, you know, why the hell should the guy have to pay alimony just so she can live a comfortable life? After all. HE was the one who sacrificed time with family to earn that money. It is HIS.

This disparity is where Feminism was born. Its not fighting to keep one group down. It is just wanting to be given the chance to follow your dreams; whether that be raise a family or become a chemist.

The world has changed. Women are not getting married at a young age. What are they supposed to do with their time until their knight in shining armor comes along? Sit and look pretty? The ironic thing is that there ARE women who do this. They get dressed up and hit the clubs looking for rich, older men to take care of them. But these women are gold digging whores, right? Are you suggesting that the woman sits on her couch knitting until her father brings home potential suitors? Would YOU be satisfied with this life?

Yes. Just as in any movement, there are extremes and there are those who fight against it. Some women want to kill all of the men and others think feminists are a bunch of whiny bitches who are fighting against men having nudie calendars on their desks at work.

Just as with politics, the extremes are so busy shouting at each other that the ones in the middle lose sight of the fact that, for the most part, they want the same things.

My definition of Feminism is the ability for a woman to have control of her own life; whether that be fiscally or through the very basic right to have control over her own reproductive system. Are there other factors? Sure. But in the end, my central question remains, “Does this impede my ability to do what I want”?

And no, I am not referring to glass ceilings or alimony payments. That is the “fringe” stuff that grabs the headlines. I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech. Give me this and I will take it the rest of the way (as will MANY women).
[/quote]

Yes, EXACTLY.[/quote]

I understand exactly what SP wrote but nonetheless why the downright palpable contempt by some/many feminists for the woman who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom?[/quote]

I’m curious to know the answer to this also, being a stay at home mother (now).

Personally, although I do not consider myself a “feminist”, I do support women being able to make their own choices about all that concerns them whether I agree with all of their choices or not. Having finished school, entered the work force and climbing my way past other men and women for the desirable positions and supporting other women to do the same, some of their reactions to my life now are offending to me. To tell someone that you’re a stay at home mother is met with a deer in the headlights look, as in, that’s what you did with your life? Don’t you want more for yourself? As if I somehow had betrayed them or was some kind of low-life. The irony being that I am probably in a better position than most of them to be able to choose to stay at home. If it’s about the ability to choose what you want to do than my choice should be equally respected and not looked down upon by the group that I am supposed to belong to.

The middle was mentioned in Smiling Politely’s post and that is where I would hope that most people are. Not that I’m discrediting everything that women in the past have done to obtain these kinds of equalities for women, but, let not the modern women take us backward instead of forward by shunning its own for not making the choices they would make.

342

I should add that I don’t believe Smiling Politely insinuated any ill feelings towards any woman, quite the opposite. Myself, I was only curious about the stay at home mom resentment aspect after pushharder had mentioned it.

344

It depends on what world you live in, Push. If you are talking middle/upper class America than you are probably right. But that second income can mean the difference between living a block away from a crack house and in a neighborhood where you can walk to you car safely at night.

Being able to live in a better school district, pay for your child to play sports (guess what, it ain’t included anymore), take music lessons, travel, have access to healthy food, being able to afford health insurance. All of this is a very real consideration for a lot families when it comes to mom staying home. I know it was for me.

345

Jackie, I have a question for you…

Are you planning on being a stay at home mother until your child/children graduate from high school or are you planning on going back to work when they are all in school full time?

I think a lot of times, those who are “anti-SAHM” are imagining a middle aged woman sitting on the couch watching Oprah while her kids are in high school. In the same respect, just as many pro-SAHM’s are thinking about a woman popping out a kid and heading back to work before the cord can even be cut. Of course, this also raises the larger issue of family leave policies in this country (for both sexes).

346

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech.[/quote]

Don’t you already have that stuff?

347

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech.[/quote]

Don’t you already have that stuff?[/quote]

Yes. That would be thanks to Feminism.

Don’t we still have the right to bear arms? Then what the hell are all those gun lobbyist’s bitching about?

You don’t stop believing in a cause just because you have it today. It takes vigilance to ensure you have it tomorrow.

348

Interesting turn this thread has taken.

I was married ten years before I had my first child. I worked as the marketing communications manager for a billion-dollar multi-national software company and quit my job the day before my son was born to be a SAHM. My husband and I cut our income in half the day I quit. Strangely, I never felt animosity from other working woman about choosing to be a SAHM. Never. And my husband is such a great guy that he would constantly remind me that my job (raising a child) was more important than his (bringing home the consumption tickets). Now that my children are school age, I work part time as an independent contractor on hours I dictate that allow me to accommodate my children’s schedules and needs. I am very fortunate.

I think the key to feminism is supporting choice. The choice to marry or stay single. The choice to pursue any education and any job. The choice to work or stay home and raise the children. The choice to exercise control of one’s reproductive health or not. And I’m a big advocate.

349

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech.[/quote]

Don’t you already have that stuff?[/quote]

Yes. That would be thanks to Feminism.

Don’t we still have the right to bear arms? Then what the hell are all those gun lobbyist’s bitching about?

You don’t stop believing in a cause just because you have it today. It takes vigilance to ensure you have it tomorrow.[/quote]

I’ll go and address your reply later, but I’m not following the association here.

There is actual political rhetoric (and actual laws) which have taken away the right to bear arms in certain places to certain individuals.

As far as I know, there is zero political rhetoric or laws that are advocating taking away women’s rights. Am I mistaken?

350

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
That’s a fair point and very similar to a question many women ask themselves, “Why is a man who has many sexual partners a stud and women are sluts”.

[/quote]

Thats is easy.

Because a man who does it IS a stud whereas a woman who does it IS a slut.

Well the latter must not necessarily be true, but it is still no achievement in any way shape or form.

If a man does it, it is.

354

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech.[/quote]

Don’t you already have that stuff?[/quote]

Yes. That would be thanks to Feminism.

Don’t we still have the right to bear arms? Then what the hell are all those gun lobbyist’s bitching about?

You don’t stop believing in a cause just because you have it today. It takes vigilance to ensure you have it tomorrow.[/quote]

I’ll go and address your reply later, but I’m not following the association here.

There is actual political rhetoric (and actual laws) which have taken away the right to bear arms in certain places to certain individuals.

As far as I know, there is zero political rhetoric or laws that are advocating taking away women’s rights. Am I mistaken?[/quote]

We are dancing dangerously close to PWI territory, but did you see a completely different election than I did? Closing Planned Parenthood centers or cutting funding which limits women’s access to preventative care. Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. Allowing companies to use religion as a loop hole in denying coverage for birth control. Romney flat out saying he would repeal Roe v Wade.

355

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
It depends on what world you live in, Push. If you are talking middle/upper class America than you are probably right. But that second income can mean the difference between living a block away from a crack house and in a neighborhood where you can walk to you car safely at night.

Being able to live in a better school district, pay for your child to play sports (guess what, it ain’t included anymore), take music lessons, travel, have access to healthy food, being able to afford health insurance. All of this is a very real consideration for a lot families when it comes to mom staying home. I know it was for me.

[/quote]

I understand and agree to a degree. However, in the big scheme of things at any economic level a latchkey kid even if he gets music lessons and travel will not get what the kid gets whose mama is waiting for him everyday when he gets off the bus. Or better yet the kid who gets homeschooled.[/quote]

So you are saying that a kid who grows up in the inner city but has a stay at home mother is better off than a kid who grows up in a suburb and has a mother who works?

356

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
You ask the question, why is it OK for women to judge men on a relatively “superficial” level while men cannot do them same? That’s a fair point and very similar to a question many women ask themselves, “Why is a man who has many sexual partners a stud and women are sluts”. Really, it all comes down to not wanting to be judged for your preferences or opinions.

My question would be, “who are the people that are judging you”? It took me a long time to get to this point, but I am not going to be upset because some random guy is judging me for having a sexual history. In the same respect, why should you care that some random woman thinks you are a pig for dumping your girlfriend?

I think what a lot of the older men on this site were saying is that the time comes when what other people think doesn’t matter nearly as much to you. A time when you have the strength of your conviction behind you and don’t feel bad for going after those things that make you happy. And once you get to that place, you will find that you attract a different sort of woman; one who appreciates the honesty.
[/quote]

It was really more observation and confusion. I actually don’t care too much how people judge me at this point, except if they’re able to actually effect change in my life.

Growing up, I was basically taught that women should be respected for their accomplishments, and more significantly, shamed when I was physically attracted to someone, being told I was “objectifying women” and that somehow that was wrong. I grew out of that of course, but that was the rhetoric I dealt with growing up, and I know many of my peers grew up with the same kind of pressure.

What I notice though is the double standards. I’m glad you used “superficial” the way you did, instead of saying that men are superficial and women aren’t. While it varies person to person, I would say that in general “beauty” in a woman is just as important to a guy, as “stability” is to a girl. What I’ve noticed is that feminist rhetoric, as it’s filtered down and actually practiced, seems to downplay male preferences… as if “beauty” really isn’t legitimate for males to want, and that women who focus on beautifying themselves are somehow a failure to women as a whole. There’s just a weird kind of shaming that goes on.

However, it’s all very very subtle, so it’s not like you can point to any individual and say that they’re actually judging you negatively for it.

357

Reading those last posts, I still do not get from the feminists here what “real” or “good” feminism is essentially about.

SmilingPolitely’s post is partly a rant against some absurdities of modern times.
So is this about families? Fine, so call it ‘familism’ or whatnot.
We can discuss all day how to protect and nurture families in western societies.
Complex issue, I agree.

Or is it about “living my dreams, do what I want”? Ok, then call it gender lobbyism or say feminism is just about the power.
Also, good -at least lines are drawn; sadly we’re in different teams (team penis here, protecting my crotch).

“Education, free speech and birth control” are red herrings with too little rethorical sugar on top as to obfuscate their misplacement.

358

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
As far as I know, there is zero political rhetoric or laws that are advocating taking away women’s rights. Am I mistaken?[/quote]

We are dancing dangerously close to PWI territory, but did you see a completely different election than I did? Closing Planned Parenthood centers or cutting funding which limits women’s access to preventative care. Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. Allowing companies to use religion as a loop hole in denying coverage for birth control. Romney flat out saying he would repeal Roe v Wade.[/quote]

I really didn’t pay any attention to the election; I had better ways to use my time and energy. (Not meant as a negative judgment toward anyone.)

But given what you did mention, I don’t really see the impact.

Even if planned parenthood isn’t an option, there are still other options; they’re just not government subsidized. Even if there’s no longer coverage for birth control, it’s still available. You’ll just have to pay for it instead of someone else.

The real difference seems to be that things are no longer as convenient… but nothing’s being denied. Or am I misunderstanding?

Now, obviously repealing Roe v Wade is more significant.

But getting back to the original comment:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech.[/quote]

Is anyone trying to take that away?

359

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
As far as I know, there is zero political rhetoric or laws that are advocating taking away women’s rights. Am I mistaken?[/quote]

We are dancing dangerously close to PWI territory, but did you see a completely different election than I did? Closing Planned Parenthood centers or cutting funding which limits women’s access to preventative care. Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. Allowing companies to use religion as a loop hole in denying coverage for birth control. Romney flat out saying he would repeal Roe v Wade.[/quote]

I really didn’t pay any attention to the election; I had better ways to use my time and energy. (Not meant as a negative judgment toward anyone.)

But given what you did mention, I don’t really see the impact.

Even if planned parenthood isn’t an option, there are still other options; they’re just not government subsidized. Even if there’s no longer coverage for birth control, it’s still available. You’ll just have to pay for it instead of someone else.

The real difference seems to be that things are no longer as convenient… but nothing’s being denied. Or am I misunderstanding?

Now, obviously repealing Roe v Wade is more significant.

But getting back to the original comment:

[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech.[/quote]

Is anyone trying to take that away?[/quote]

Education possibly not. Free speech isn’t really biased against women so I don’t know how that falls under feminism these days. The others you can find some recent examples of if you spent a few minutes searching.