Skip to main content

Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life
By Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg. Publisher is The Free Press

Introduction

This is not the best article for the discussion that I would like to have about this topic, but it provides a cursory explanation for why the traditional roles of women and men in America have changed. After reading the abstract, think about how you would answer the following questions: How has societal changes influenced characteristics that you seek in a woman? Would you date and/or marry a woman who desires to stay at home with the kids? Do you feel that a woman should "carry her weight" financially in the home? And how do you think these societal changes have and will affect the relationships between men and men and the relationships they have with our children?

Forces of Change

"Although the family is seen as the social institution most resistant to change, it is, in fact, as deeply embedded in the historical process as any other institution. The claim that it is essentially a conservative institution - an island of stability in a sea of social, political, and economic change - is largely an illusion.... In structure, role, and conception, the American family has changed dramatically over time."

The basic forces for familial change are:

  • economics

  • demography

  • change in women's roles

    Economics

    Mintz and Kellogg state that the principle reason for change in family has been economics. Originally, American Puritan families were living off the land and self-sufficient. Parents kept control over their children not only by handing down the family craft and source of income, but by dowries and inheritance of the family lands. Kinship ties through intermarriage between first cousins and even between brothers and sisters were used to cement political and economic relationships. Children were often kept economically dependent for years. Women were expected to be submissive in the home, although wife abuse was not tolerated. "Purtian court records further reveal that wife abuse is not a recent development. Between 1630 and 1699, at least 128 men were tried for abusing their wives." However, during the same period, 278 women were brought to court for not living up to their wifely obligations.
    By the Eighteenth century, families had begun to purchase more goods and services from others, and their children exercised more personal choices over who they would marry. As the family unit became more dependent on public services, it also became more isolated and private.

    Demography

    Through the years, the gradual reduction of fertility within marriage, along with the gradual aging of the population, has created a family experience of no parenting responsibilites, being grandparents, caring for parents, and prolonged widowhood that was not known in previous generations. The average Purtian marriage lasted twenty-four years. Remarriage after the death of a spouse was quite common.

    Roles

    The dramatic increase of women working outside the home has helped make women less dependent on their husbands, and has changed traditional perspectives about housekeeping and child rearing roles. Puritan fathers didn't take an active role in child rearing until a child reached the age of two or three.

    Childhood

    Although people have been worrying about the demise of the family for centuries, the authors point out how in many ways these forces for change have been a positive influence on the American family. One major change has occurred in childhood. Three of every ten children in New England died in infancy or as toddlers. Children of both the elite and the poor were fostered out for long periods of time in order to attend school, learn a trade, or to work as servants. Today's children live longer and have more of a childhood than their early American counterparts.

    Divorce

    It was discovered in 1899 that America had the highest divorce rate in the world. State legislatures decided to fix the problem by making it harder to get a divorce. At one time, South Carolina actually prohibited divorce. Despite these efforts, by 1924, one out of seven marriages in America ended in divorce.

    1950s

    The chapter on families during the 1950s is fascinating reading. They quote Adlai Stevenson saying in 1955, that women's role in life was to "influence us, man and boy, to restore valid, meaningful purpose to life in your home, and to keep their husbands truly purpiseful." Unmarried women were depicted in the media as "neurotic, unhappy, and dissatisfied."
    Some statistics they offer:

  • The average age of marriage for men was 22, and for women, 20.

  • "Women bore more children, spaced them closer together, and had them earlier than their mothers."

  • Nearly 1/3 of women had their first child before they were 20 year old.

  • The fertility rate rose 50%.

  • "The rate of divorce increase was lower than in any other decade of this century."

  • "Seventy percent of all women were married by the age of twenty-four."

  • "Nearly two million married men and women lived apart from their spouses in the 1950s."

  • "Public opinion polls indicated that approximately one-fifth of all couples considered themselves unhappy in marriage, and another fifth reported only medium happiness.

    Other Topics and Recommendation

    The authors discuss the changing family status of Blacks, Native Americans, and other ethnic relationships within the diversity of America. They also take a historical look at the Depression era, the 1960s, and 1980s. The term that Mintz and Kellogg give to the emerging, changing family is "companionate family" which is how they view American families today.
    Bottom line: this is an easy to read and understand historical overview of the American family.
  • Last edited {1}
    Original Post

    Replies sorted oldest to newest

    Ahhh memories of my marriage...

    My ex wife REFUSED to work...but she had no problem going out and spending every dime while I was out making (and on useless things that did not benefit the household one bit).One of many reasons why I ended the marriage, but suffice to say, I would not date a woman who DOES NOT WANT to work (ie. REFUSES). This quickly leads to a dark path, no one wants to walk down. I could be filthy rich and I would feel the same way. And ladies, if your supporting a man thats able but UNWILLING to hold down a job, you betta cut his ass off and and start upping your standards..... bang
    I'm pretty traditional on this topic, believing that the wife's first 'job' is to be a mother, a homemaker, and supporter of her husband.

    However...

    If the situation does not allow this to happen, and if I were a man, there's no way in hell I would be with a lazy ass woman who thinks she's too damn good to get off her butt and get a job. Say the guy becomes disabled. She needs to buck up! IMO, any woman that openly states she does not WANT to work, has issues. Life ain't about what you want all the time. In this day and age you need to get up, get out, and get somethin'.
    My mom, after having a decent professional career.....decided to stay home with her two babies. She has been home ever since (which has been about 14 years. When speaking to her about the subject, she says that working a full time job, was less work than working in the home......as a wife, mom, cook, doctor, house cleaner, tailor, painter, driver, pta, gardener, teacher etc etc..

    I cant imagine, what would have happened to the family, had she not been there, when we got home from school......or needed a ride to our other activites etc.

    But she taught her children (especially us girls), that we would need to help financially..........times are different. We needed to work on 'our' lives, careers, etc.......making sure that we can help support the family.

    This to me is important.......yes i'll be able to pay for dinner, or a nice gift for 'him', and pay my own bills....

    But if i marry him.... I'll need his support in the home.......as i help support the family financially.

    *Im just hoping he can cook* Big Grin
    If we both came to the honest decision that it would be better for the household if she did not work, then yes, I'd marry such a woman. But I don't know about dating a woman who doesn't want to work, unless she's doing something major with her life. If she's living off an inheritance, but she's doing something meaningful outside of work (and also if she's investing that money, rather than spending it all), then I don't see what the problem is.

    Of course, I've never met a woman like that. Usually if they didn't work and didn't want to, they weren't doing shit else that was constructive, either.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:....
    Of course, I've never met a woman like that. Usually if they didn't work and didn't want to, they weren't doing shit else that was constructive, either.


    I couldn't have said it any better. In my experience, I have painfully learned if the girl has no ambitions or plans for the future, with no skills, chances she would just sit at home being rather unproductive. I guess some folks are comfortable with being lazy. It just took me awhile to learn how to discern such viruses. I have Michael Baisden and the school of life to thank.
    quote:
    Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
    I'm pretty traditional on this topic, believing that the wife's first 'job' is to be a mother, a homemaker, and supporter of her husband.

    However...

    If the situation does not allow this to happen, and if I were a man, there's no way in hell I would be with a lazy ass woman who thinks she's too damn good to get off her butt and get a job. Say the guy becomes disabled. She needs to buck up! IMO, any woman that openly states she does not WANT to work, has issues. Life ain't about what you want all the time. In this day and age you need to get up, get out, and get somethin'.


    Alrighty then....
    quote:
    Originally posted by folobatuyi:
    quote:
    Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
    I'm pretty traditional on this topic, believing that the wife's first 'job' is to be a mother, a homemaker, and supporter of her husband.

    However...

    If the situation does not allow this to happen, and if I were a man, there's no way in hell I would be with a lazy ass woman who thinks she's too damn good to get off her butt and get a job. Say the guy becomes disabled. She needs to buck up! IMO, any woman that openly states she does not WANT to work, has issues. Life ain't about what you want all the time. In this day and age you need to get up, get out, and get somethin'.


    Alrighty then....


    Is there a problem with what I said...??
    This might come as a shock to those who have pegged me as a "man-hating feminist," but I don't want to work. If and when I get married, I want to stay AT HOME with my children UNTIL they are old enough to work and drive. Coming from the perspective of a teacher, I can't even count the number of kids that I've seen roaming the streets during school hours. While their parents are at work thinking their kids are safely inside the school building, "getting an education," their children are actually visting their boyfriend's homes or "hanging out" with their friends. Then there's the issue of day care. I have met students who have been molested in their day care provider's home by other students; others have lost their virginity to the older sons or visiting relatives of the day care provider. The truth is, you don't know what is happening to your children while you are at work. Too many folks are leaving their children's welfare in the hands of others when raising children should be about carefully weighing priorities and deferring to what's more important. Traditionally, the woman has stayed at home because she's the one who bears the child and subsequently needs to breast feed and heal from the joyful labor of child birth. Now, these duties have been placed on the back burner so that American women can prove to the world that they can do whatever a man can do, but who and what is being sacrificied to make this point?
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:
    If we both came to the honest decision that it would be better for the household if she did not work, then yes, I'd marry such a woman.


    I want a 4 karat diamond, preferrably a yellow diamond, set in platinum. Let me know when you've reserved the church. Big Grin
    Last edited {1}
    IMO, men seem to have significant trouble accepting the idea of a wife/girlfriend who has significant earning potential staying at home. If one wants to stay at home, it has to appear that that is where your "value" lies. Otherwise, their thoughts seem to drift to how much money you could've been bringing into the household and what a, sort of, "waste" your day is. JMHO.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    quote:
    Originally posted by xxGAMBITxx:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ricardomath:
    Is it my imagination, or has the title of this thread changed?


    Whew! I thought it was just me! thanks


    Now, with the new title, I'm embaressed by my response...

    sck

    I just deleted my earlier response. I was also unaware that the thread heading had changed. I feel that if someone wishes to discuss a different topic, then they should initiate another thread and refer people to it.
    quote:
    Originally posted by jazzdog:
    Having been married 25 years its kinda of late for me to have input, but the truth of the matter is that when I married my wife she was very comfortable being a housewife, of course things changed and when she decided she want to be more I was happy with that also.


    I guess I'm somewhat on the flip side. My wife is on the fast track for her career, but wants to come home to raise our daughter. And, I'm busting my back trying to figure a way [financially] that we can make it work.

    I give much respect to the "House-wife" job.
    quote:
    Originally posted by folobatuyi:
    In my experience, I have painfully learned if the girl has no ambitions or plans for the future, with no skills, chances she would just sit at home being rather unproductive.


    I'm not attacking your response; however, I do want to ask men sharing your perspective that if and when you go on a date with a woman, and I'm assuming that YOU will be the one to pay for dinner, YOU will be the one paying for the theater ticket, and YOU will be the one paying for any other expenses incurred on the date, so what damn difference does it make whether or not the woman has "job skills," "ambitions," and "goals." She's not applying to the Folobatuyi Corporation, is she? So what's up with all the job requirements? The problem that I'm alluding to is that a lot of men today have become confused about what their role is in our society. Today's men are seeking women who desire to do everything, except be a wife and mother. Consequently, many of today's couples have become more interested in being "power couples," forgetting that they need to be power parents to their children. Yes, to find a man who understands his role in society and recognizes his position in a relationship has been increasingly difficult for women who desire to be stay-at-home moms.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by kresge:
    I feel that if someone wishes to discuss a different topic, then they should initiate another thread and refer people to it.


    Excuse me Kresge, I edited the topic of this thread because I noticed that the former topic was not engendering the answers that I was seeking. I apologize to anyone who feels inconvenienced for having to remove their responses.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    I don't quite understand the change of hearts. Pro-Housewife but Anti-Wife Who Doesn't Want To Work?? What is the difference? Confused


    Perhaps an even better term to describe the subject of this discussion is a Stay-At-Home Mom. Using this term, I think members can better understand why a Stay-At-Home Mom cannot be associateed with what is commonly referred to as the spoiled trophy wife, the common gold-digger, or the "Spend All My Husband's Money" bourgeois socialite. I don't support the woman, for example, who feels that being a woman affords her rights and priviledges to her husband's wallet or to be unproductive and useless to the community.
    quote:
    Perhaps an even better term to describe the subject of this discussion is a Stay-At-Home Mom. Using this term, I think members can better understand why a Stay-At-Home Mom cannot be associateed with what is commonly referred to as the spoiled trophy wife, the common gold-digger, or the "Spend All My Husband's Money" bourgeois socialite.


    But Housewife doesn't equal any of those things either. (And I don't wouldn't really include "trophy wives" in that group either to tell you the truth... the man gets a pretty woman completely out of his league and the woman gets financial security... even exchange Razz)

    These men seem to be speaking to wives who do not work outside the home, period. I think there's a stigma against not supporting "housewives" and "stay-at-home moms" even though IMO a lot of men still have a problem with their wife not working for any reason. JMHO.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:


    But Housewife doesn't equal any of those things either. (And I don't wouldn't really include "trophy wives" in that group either to tell you the truth... the man gets a pretty woman completely out of his league and the woman gets financial security... even exchange Razz)

    These men seem to be speaking to wives who do not work outside the home, period. I think there's a stigma against not supporting "housewives" and "stay-at-home moms" even though IMO a lot of men still have a problem with their wife not working for any reason. JMHO.


    I know you don't believe the trophy wife equation you just presented - that's nothing but prostitution. Now if you're saying prostituion should be legal in all states, then I'm OK with your equation.

    Concerning stay at home moms, there is a financial value equation to consider as well as a family value equation to consider.

    1) Financial - if the earning potential of the women does not exceed the additional costs created by her working outside of the home (day care, car maintenance, medical (more illnesses for kids & momma)), it does not make economic sense to get a 9 to 5. I think this point was made earlier.

    2) Family - Children have more time to spend with parents when one person (for this discussion, Mom) stays home. The family can be assured that any educational or moral lessons that wish to be instilled are (Because you're doing it yourself). Home & family errands can be taken of during the day, which creates more time for Dad to interact with the family when he gets home. No scramble to pick kids up from day care, get everyone fed, kids bathed, get in "family time", and "quality time" with your spouse before everyone has go to bed. To eliminate this scramble, some families are willing to forego dual incomes & live within the means of a single income.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ddouble:
    I know you don't believe the trophy wife equation you just presented - that's nothing but prostitution. Now if you're saying prostituion should be legal in all states, then I'm OK with your equation.


    I don't actually have a problem with prostitution, though I think this arrangement is a little bit different. Would you also call arranged marriages "prostitution," [d]ddouble[/b]?

    quote:
    Concerning stay at home moms, there is a financial value equation to consider as well as a family value equation to consider.


    The same can be said for housewives. A housewife does not just sit at home all day with her thumb in her ass: she runs errands, she cooks, she cleans, she makes appointments, she supervises, she does all sorts of things. Everytime you pick up the phone and ask her to take care of something or look for something or go get something etc because "she's home all day," she does it. She's a practical "Girl Friday" and her job does not begin at 9am and 5pm. That is worth something both to the finances and the family (even if the family does not include kids or the kids are no longer at home).

    Only AudioGuy, as far as I'm aware of, made the statement about costs of childcare exceeding salary. Almost everyone else spoke to her ambition, her daily activities, etc.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:

    I don't actually have a problem with prostitution, though I think this arrangement is a little bit different. Would you also call arranged marriages "prostitution,"


    How is the trophy wife situation you describe different from prostitution? Does permanent escort service sound better to you? Big Grin If there is an exchange of goods, yes, arranged marriages are the same. Note, I said if you have no issue with prostitution, then the trophy wife equation is fine with me.
    $$ kiss $$

    quote:

    The same can be said for housewives. A housewife does not just sit at home all day with her thumb in her ass: she runs errands, she cooks, she cleans, she makes appointments, she supervises, she does all sorts of things. Everytime you pick up the phone and ask her to take care of something or look for something or go get something etc because "she's home all day," she does it. She's a practical "Girl Friday" and her job does not begin at 9am and 5pm. That is worth something both to the finances and the family (even if the family does not include kids or the kids are no longer at home).

    Only AudioGuy, as far as I'm aware of, made the statement about costs of childcare exceeding salary. Almost everyone else spoke to her ambition, her daily activities, etc.


    Wait, are we defining housewife as:

    1) a married woman in charge of household affairs

    or

    2) a married woman that does not work

    A housewife by literal definition, SHOULD do the things you mentioned above (that would coincide with def. 1). If they do not (def. 2), then there is no family value to her being home - it becomes more like Rowe's classification.

    Well now, I make TWO people that discussed financial feasibility. Big Grin
    quote:
    Originally posted by ddouble:
    How is the trophy wife situation you describe different from prostitution? Does permanent escort service sound better to you? Big Grin


    I think there is a bit of a difference when one receives cold, hard cash in exchange for your company/sex. A trophy wife still has some sort of a relationship with her husband that distinguishes her from a street prostitute or an escort. They have to live with each other and deal with all that entails, not just parade each other around. Wink

    quote:
    If there is an exchange of goods, yes, arranged marriages are the same. Note, I said if you have no issue with prostitution, then the trophy wife equation is fine with me.
    $$ kiss $$


    Okay, just clarifying Razz

    quote:
    Wait, are we defining housewife as:

    1) a married woman in charge of household affairs

    or

    2) a married woman that does not work


    She is both a woman that does not "work" (i.e. have a job outside the home... which is what the original question and responses spoke to) and a woman who is in charge of the household.

    quote:
    A housewife by literal definition, SHOULD do the things you mentioned above


    Replace "should do" with "does" and I agree. Which is why I responded to Rowe that in clarifying the term "Housewife," saying instead "the common gold-digger, or the 'Spend All My Husband's Money' bourgeois socialite" is not accurate.

    quote:
    Well now, I make TWO people that discussed financial feasibility. Big Grin


    Ha ha ha bsm
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    I don't quite understand the change of hearts. Pro-Housewife but Anti-Wife Who Doesn't Want To Work?? What is the difference? Confused


    I see a big difference between a "House-wife" and a "Wife who doesn't want to work." I see the former as willing to work, but within the home; whereas the latter, doesn't want to work, period.
    Under the revised question I would'nt have anything against being married to a HOUSEWIFE (one who takes care of the home/kids...not one who sits around and can recite back the entire Maury Povich show to me like the Amazing Kreskin)but thats not my preference. I can cook my own meals, can raise my children and clean the house just as well as she can, so I'm looking for more of a partner in the way of financial/income generation and intellectual/emotional interaction. bsm
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    I don't quite understand the change of hearts. Pro-Housewife but Anti-Wife Who Doesn't Want To Work?? What is the difference? Confused


    It may just be a matter of emphasis, but the phrase "doesn't want to work" conjures up an image in my mind of what my mother would call "alergic to work".

    Even if you add "outside the home", it still sounds like the goal is the negative goal of avoiding work.

    Being a Housewife conjures up a somewhat different image, being positively oriented towards what is being acomplished (and what work is being done) rather than what work is being avoided.

    Like I said above, I dated a woman who was alergic to work. It didn't last very long, but it probably would have been even shorter, had it not been for that sex thing.

    Razz
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    Only AudioGuy, as far as I'm aware of, made the statement about costs of childcare exceeding salary. Almost everyone else spoke to her ambition, her daily activities, etc.


    First of all, if a woman knows, right from the beginning, that she wants to be a stay-at-home mom, then she will avoid dating men who are not earning enough to indepedently support himself and a family. By doing this, she avoids any disagreements with her partner about who will pay for this and who will pay for that. Also, if men understood their role, then naturally they would pursue occupations that will pay them enough to handle the family's financial responsibilities on their own, so that the mom can concentrate on being a mom, instead of having to juggle his job and hers too. And if a man cannot take care of his family, then he should not get married until he can.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by xxGAMBITxx:
    I can cook my own meals, can raise my children and clean the house just as well as she can, so I'm looking for more of a partner in the way of financial/income generation and intellectual/emotional interaction.


    With all due respect Gambit, there is more to a marriage than just getting all of your and your wife's needs met. When you enter a marriage, it becomes less about what you can do "all by yourself" and more about what your children need, and children need more than just money. Also, what makes you think that stay-at-home moms are not capable of interacting with people intellectually? Being a mother doesn't make one stupid! It makes one wise and responsible.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rowe:
    quote:
    Originally posted by xxGAMBITxx:
    I can cook my own meals, can raise my children and clean the house just as well as she can, so I'm looking for more of a partner in the way of financial/income generation and intellectual/emotional interaction.


    With all due respect Gambit, there is more to a marriage than just getting all of your and your wife's needs met. Furthermore, when you enter a marriage, it becomes less about what you can do "all by yourself" and more about what your children need. And children need more than just money. They need someone someone who will check to see if and when they have arrived to school, if they are still in the school building after classes have started, and someone who will be waiting for them when they arrive home from school. They also need someone who will have the time to attend PTA meetings and Family Day functions, to assist them with homework assignments, and to talk to them, attentively, about what's happening in their lives throughout the course of the day. These tasks cannot be accomplished, regularly, if BOTH you and your wife are working for "finincial/income generation." Also, what makes you think that stay-at-home moms aren't capable of interacting with people intellectually? Being a mother doesn't make one stupid! It makes one wise and responsible.


    I've already been down the marriage road. I know what works and really knows what does'nt work. lol I'll stick to my above comments. Give me a partner in the income generation and intellectual interchanging department. Everything else I already got on lock. Wink
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rowe:
    quote:
    Originally posted by folobatuyi:
    In my experience, I have painfully learned if the girl has no ambitions or plans for the future, with no skills, chances she would just sit at home being rather unproductive.


    I'm not attacking your response; however, I do want to ask men sharing your perspective that if and when you go on a date with a woman, and I'm assuming that YOU will be the one to pay for dinner, YOU will be the one paying for the theater ticket, and YOU will be the one paying for any other expenses incurred on the date, so what damn difference does it make whether or not the woman has "job skills," "ambitions," and "goals." She's not applying to the Folobatuyi Corporation, is she? So what's up with all the job requirements? The problem that I'm alluding to is that a lot of men today have become confused about what their role is in our society. Today's men are seeking women who desire to do everything, except be a wife and mother. Consequently, many of today's couples have become more interested in being "power couples," forgetting that they need to be power parents to their children. Yes, to find a man who understands his role in society and recognizes his position in a relationship has been increasingly difficult for women who desire to be stay-at-home moms.


    I guess we will always be at loggerheads, huh? Well, at least try to understand where I am coming from...There is a difference between taking out a lady on ONE NIGHT and dining her on a date as opposed to considering the long term relationship with a woman who really has nothing to offer, no ambitions or career plans. Yes, it is important to raise children and be that power parents...but really, if the lady really has no skills or ambitions or in short, brings nothing to the table, what is the assurance that she would be a good mother and housewife? I kinda doubt it.....I mean, why is it neccessary for the man to be ambitious and career-driven but bad for a guy to request that in a woman...please share the reason...cos I am at a loss.
    As always, my posts take out of my experiences. So in suit, I will tell you why it is neccessary for me to have a woman who is equally ambitious or has a career. For starters, I was an intern in IM at GW and I was introduced to a lady who had a 9 year son and worked as an accountant. As we dated, it came to the point that the lady was not pleased or happy with what she percieved to be a difference in careers. I got along well with her son but she was not happy with herself. It got to the point where I could not even discuss about my work while she talked endlessly on how her boss loved her. But the statement that brought home the messag was that she would have been a much better intern than me if she had gone to med school.
    So, in general, for me, the best woman to date is one who is smart, black, on a career choice or path that she loves dearly and is aware of the differences between a man and a woman and is willing to work together to achieve a certain common goal be it a relationship or raising kids.
    I want her to happy with herself and to love herself, and ultimately be fulfilled, as experience has taught me that such a woman if treated well is more than her weight in gold.
    It just that it seems with respect with the new found opportunities for women, those who achieve this state (Breslow?) are those who love themselves and have a fulfilling career...and these ladies are usually the ones that seem to the best partners...not neccessarily the power partner...but the really hot, sexy, smart wife and mother! Just that they are kinda rare! sad
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rowe:
    quote:
    Originally posted by folobatuyi:
    In my experience, I have painfully learned if the girl has no ambitions or plans for the future, with no skills, chances she would just sit at home being rather unproductive.


    I'm not attacking your response; however, I do want to ask men sharing your perspective that if and when you go on a date with a woman, and I'm assuming that YOU will be the one to pay for dinner, YOU will be the one paying for the theater ticket, and YOU will be the one paying for any other expenses incurred on the date, so what damn difference does it make whether or not the woman has "job skills," "ambitions," and "goals." She's not applying to the Folobatuyi Corporation, is she? So what's up with all the job requirements? The problem that I'm alluding to is that a lot of men today have become confused about what their role is in our society. Today's men are seeking women who desire to do everything, except be a wife and mother. Consequently, many of today's couples have become more interested in being "power couples," forgetting that they need to be power parents to their children. Yes, to find a man who understands his role in society and recognizes his position in a relationship has been increasingly difficult for women who desire to be stay-at-home moms.


    Rowe, do you want to be a stay-at-home mother? You seem very polarized about this....
    Personally I do not see anything wrong with it...I just want the lady to come to that decision with all posssible options explored...not out of neccessity or expectation from me for her but simply out of desire.
    quote:
    Originally posted by folobatuyi:
    There is a difference between taking out a lady on ONE NIGHT and dining her on a date as opposed to considering the long term relationship with a woman who really has nothing to offer, no ambitions or career plans.


    So, oh, I get it, being a mother to your children and wife, is "nothing?" Its kind of sad that some men look upon stay-at-home mothers as "do-nothings." Perhaps some of you should try being full-time mothers, then you will see just how much "ambition" one needs to be one. In any event, I already understand from where you are coming. In fact, your idea of what a good woman is, is the result of the "Domestic Revolution" discussed in the article, a revolution that is unfortunately forcing many women to defer raising children until much later in their lives; some women never have children because they don't want to have to choose between keeping a successful career and being a responsible mother. Men, on the other hand, do not have to make this choice, so they could care less about the sacrifices that WE have to make in order to be YOUR wives and the mother of YOUR children. I get it, who cares about women, right? Just have my children, make money, and run yourselves into the ground. Well I ain't doing it.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by folobatuyi:
    Rowe, do you want to be a stay-at-home mother? You seem very polarized about this. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with it; I just want the lady to come to that decision with all posssible options explored, and not out of neccessity or expectation from me, but simply out of her desire to do so.


    Okay well I already mentioned that I want to be a stay-at-home mother, on the first page of the thread. This is what I want to do. I also told you that I'm a school teacher, and I am very concerned about who will be instructing my children and what is being taught to my children. I want to know where my children are and if my children are remaining in the school building. More importantly, who can raise your children better than you can? Dumping your children in the arms of one day care provider to the next is not responsible. That is why I want to be a stay-at-home mother. I notice the children of stay-at-home mothers (or fathers) are better prepared for class, the parent is more concerned about the assignments that must submitted, and the children just seem to be better prepared for school in general. But if these women out here want to work themselves to death trying to be "Super Mom" by working and raising kids because they were not selective in choosing a man who could handle his damn business, then go right ahead and let them, but its those children that will ultimately suffer. That's all I have to say about it, and I've offended anyone, then that's too damn bad. Its the truth. Men need to start stepping up to plate and re-assuming their roles as heads of our households, instead of expecting us to do their jobs for them.
    Last edited {1}
    quote:
    Originally posted by Rowe:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    Only AudioGuy, as far as I'm aware of, made the statement about costs of childcare exceeding salary. Almost everyone else spoke to her ambition, her daily activities, etc.


    First of all, if a woman knows, right from the beginning, that she wants to be a stay-at-home mom, then she will avoid dating men who are not earning enough to indepedently support himself and a family. By doing this, she avoids any disagreements with her partner about who will pay for this and who will pay for that. Also, if men understood their role, then naturally they would pursue occupations that will pay them enough to handle the family's financial responsibilities on their own, so that the mom can concentrate on being a mom, instead of having to juggle his job and hers too. And if a man cannot take care of his family, then he should not get married until he can.


    Damn! If I followed your advice, I'd still be single!

    Eek lol

    Add Reply

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