Skip to main content

There was an unexpected issue forwarding you to "Twitter" for authentication. Please try again later.
×
Ladies, please check out this clip from TODAY and share your viewpoint on what, I think, is an interesting subject.

Does this woman know what she's talking about, or is she full of it?
<marquee>***********************</marquee> Ubuntu - I am what I am, because of who we all are. "Peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice." - MLK
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think this is true...but as the attraction is based partly on primal sexual urges, the problem arises when (or does it?) reality sets in down the road as the sexual appeal wanes, the bills come in, and the couple involved realize they are quite incompatible outside the bedroom.
It is ok if gals or guys want to act out their basic urges as long as the parties involved are cognizant of what they are getting into.
quote:
Originally posted by folobatuyi:
I think this is true...but as the attraction is based partly on primal sexual urges, the problem arises when (or does it?) reality sets in down the road as the sexual appeal wanes, the bills come in, and the couple involved realize they are quite incompatible outside the bedroom.

I don't doubt this for a second. But, I am curious about what part of our psyche has a problem with this arrangement "when the bills come in". Why does the woman making more money, thus paying more of the bills, equal incompatability?
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
But, I am curious about what part of our psyche has a problem with this arrangement "when the bills come in". Why does the woman making more money, thus paying more of the bills, equal incompatability?


It doesn't equal incompatibility... except from the view point of conventional thinking which requires the man to be on top (literally and metaphorically).

I've dated women who made much more than me and this fact didn't bother either of us.... the compatibility issue (in terms of having similar interests and something to talk about) is much more important IMO.

...I also enjoy female superior in bed.... Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
But, I am curious about what part of our psyche has a problem with this arrangement "when the bills come in". Why does the woman making more money, thus paying more of the bills, equal incompatability?


TRADITIONAL ROLES WERE SET IN PLACE FOR A REASON

Oh my Eek, I'm beginning to see why modern marriages are wrought with so many problems! Think about this: If a woman is paying the weight of the household bills, which means the family's livelihood is largely dependent on her stream of income, what do you suppose will happen once she becomes pregnant and must take maternity leave? What if the couple unexpectedly has twins, or triplets, and consequently decides that it's just better for the mother to take maternity leave indefinitely? Now the husband will have to obtain the job(s) that he should have had in the first place. Therefore, he's not escaped the responsibility of playing the conventional role of family provider. Because a woman is solely responsible for carrying and nursing children, it should NOT be her responsibility to also work like a slave to support the family. Being a mother is already a full-time job. And I think once we start giving young people the impression that it's alright for men to be in a relationship where his family's livelihood is largely dependent on women, we're in serious trouble.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
But, I am curious about what part of our psyche has a problem with this arrangement "when the bills come in". Why does the woman making more money, thus paying more of the bills, equal incompatability?


TRADITIONAL ROLES WERE SET IN PLACE FOR A REASON

Oh my Eek, I'm beginning to see why modern marriages are wrought with so many problems! Think about this: If the woman is paying the weight of the household bills, which means the family's livelihood is largely dependent on her stream of income, what do you suppose will happen once she becomes pregnant and must take maternity leave? What if a couple has twins, or triplets, and the couple decides that it's better for the mother to take maternity leave, indefinitely? Now the husband will have to go out and get the job(s) that he should have had in the first place. Therefore, because a woman is solely responsible for carrying and nursing children, it should NOT be her responsibility to also work like a slave to support the family. Being a mother is already a full-time job. And I think once we start giviing young people the impression that it's alright for men to expect to be in a relationship where his family's livelihood is largely dependent on women, we're in trouble.


BTW, my only point was that if I'm making $80K/yr why is it that I can't date or even marry someone making $100/yr? Some insist on the man always being on top regardless...

I really doubt if modern marriage is in trouble because women are making more money (within a marriage). There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) supporting this. In fact, one can argue that modern marriage is more threatened by the fact that women can work outside the household at all. I.e., women have more options. Since they can support themselves they don't have to stay in unhappy situations (I think of my own mother as an example).

And modern women have also been raised with the silly expectation of self-fulfillment. They're now encouraged to be ambitious. They're now full citizens in this materialist consumer culture. No longer do they have to be content with what they're provided. They're free - and even encouraged - to want more.... no matter what they have, to always want more.... Now that I think about it... Rowe, you're right: Traditional roles (women barefoot and pregnant) were set in place for a reason...

lol

The preceding paragraph , by the way, was said partly tongue in cheek... I was not being completely serious...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
BTW, my only point was that if I'm making $80K/yr why is it that I can't date or even marry someone making $100/yr? Some insist on the man always being on top regardless...


I think this point sort of trivalizes the issue. Obviously, if a man is making $80,000 annually, he is more than capable of supporting his family, at least until mom has had a chance to nurse and to heal from the physical trauma of labor. In this instance, the difference between his income and his wife's income is insignificant. The problem is, however, most African-American families do not enjoy a $180,000 household income. Most single African-Americans don't even earn half that amount, especially those residing in urban communities. So this is why a man's economic status is important.

quote:
I really doubt if modern marriage is in trouble because women are making more money (within a marriage). In fact, one can argue that modern marriage is more threatened by the fact that women can work outside the household at all. I.e., women have more options. Since thy can support themselves they don't have to stay in unhappy situations (I think of my own mother as an example.


I agree with you. The wife works, the husband works (both of them sometimes working overtime hours), and children get neglected. Eventually, what started out as a loving marriage evolves into a situation where two roommates are merely working to support one another and to maintain the lifestyle to which both spouses have grown accustomed.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
BTW, my only point was that if I'm making $80K/yr why is it that I can't date or even marry someone making $100/yr? Some insist on the man always being on top regardless...


I think this point sort of trivalizes the issue. Obviously, if a man is making $80,000 annually, he is more than capable of supporting his family, at least until mom has had a chance to nurse and to heal from the physical trauma of labor. The problem is, however, most African-American families do not enjoy a $180,000 household income. Most African-American familes don't even earn half that amount, especially those residing in urban areas. So this is why a man's economic status IS important.



Point well taken.. please forgive the sarcasm of my last post - I couldn't help myself...
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
And modern women have also been raised with the silly expectation of self-fulfillment. They're now encouraged to be ambitious. They're now full citizens in this materialist consumer culture. No longer do they have to be content with what they're provided. They're free - and even encouraged - to want more.... no matter what they have, to always want more....


appl bow
I know some of our feminist posters will not like my agreeing with your last post. But again, since becoming an educator, I see what affect being raised in a one-parent AND two-parent working home has on the children. Because both parents are working, no one has genuine time to spare in order deal with them or their issues. I do want to stress, however, that if a woman has no interest in getting married or having children, then I am in full support of whatever goals that she wants to pursue.

I'm loving these contrasting colors. I must tell MBM this is nice. appl
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
But, I am curious about what part of our psyche has a problem with this arrangement "when the bills come in". Why does the woman making more money, thus paying more of the bills, equal incompatability?


TRADITIONAL ROLES WERE SET IN PLACE FOR A REASON

Oh my Eek, I'm beginning to see why modern marriages are wrought with so many problems! Think about this: If a woman is paying the weight of the household bills, which means the family's livelihood is largely dependent on her stream of income, what do you suppose will happen once she becomes pregnant and must take maternity leave? What if the couple unexpectedly has twins, or triplets, and consequently decides that it's just better for the mother to take maternity leave indefinitely? Now the husband will have to obtain the job(s) that he should have had in the first place. Therefore, he's not escaped the responsibility of playing the conventional role of family provider. Because a woman is solely responsible for carrying and nursing children, it should NOT be her responsibility to also work like a slave to support the family. Being a mother is already a full-time job. And I think once we start giving our young people the impression that it's alright for men to be in a relationship where his family's livelihood is largely dependent on women, we're in serious trouble.

I understand your point Sister Rowe, and I don't disagree with it. My question was leading to the repercussions of merging lifestyles.

If a woman makes 80k a year, and she marries a man who makes 40k, then when she goes through maternity everyone has to live on 40k. This is completely possible to do, if people (particularly the woman, in this case) are willing to submit to a lower standard of living for the sake of the child. It seems silly to me for a family to lose even part of it's income, while taking on another mouth to feed, and expect to live the same lifestyle they did before. It doesn't even really matter how much money we're talking about here (unless we're talking about multi-millionaires).
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
If a woman makes 80k a year, and she marries a man who makes 40k, then when she goes through maternity everyone has to live on 40k. This is completely possible to do, if people (particularly the woman, in this case) are willing to submit to a lower standard of living for the sake of the child. It seems silly to me for a family to lose even part of it's income, while taking on another mouth to feed, and expect to live the same lifestyle they did before.


Sorry I said I don't have a problem with it, but I just thought about something.

Bills don't simply disappear once you have a baby. If a couple has incurred bills that must be paid, regardless of the new arrival, then what? Here's a typical scenerio. Let's say, you and your honey decided to purchase a $600,000 home, based on the total household income that you two were earning prior to the baby. The mortgage, car note, and other sustaining expenses must still be paid, and we cannot expect a couple to just do away with the luxury home, Mercedes, expensive clothes, etc. just because they had a baby. Some adjustments will need to be made, but realistic adjustements. Don't you think?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
Bills don't simply disappear because you have a baby. If a couple has incurred bills that must be paid, regardless of the new arrival, then what? Here's a typical scenerio. Let's say, you and your honey decided to purchase a $600,000 home, based on the total household income that you two were earning prior to the baby. The mortgage, car note, and other sustaining expenses must still be paid, and we cannot expect a couple to just do away with the luxury home, Mercedes, expensive clothes, etc. just because they had a baby. Some adjustments will need to be made, but realistic adjustements. Don't you think?

Yes, but this scenerio is a perfect example of people living within their means, instead of within their needs. If they buy a luxury home, and then decide to have children, why not sell the home and buy something more accomodating to their change in focus? Which is more important, to care for their children in the way we've been discussing (a way which would be better for them), or have a luxury home?

Selling the home and the Mercedes, IMO, is a reasonable sacrifice for children.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×