<p>It’s not insensitive, it is the truth. The more “independent” women get, the higher the divorce rate goes up.</p>
<p>No I wasn’t being sarcastic at all. It is rude, yeah, but IMO the barometer for the measure of a man is if he is providing for his family. I guess y’alls thing works well for you, but I would feel TERRIBLE if I let my wife work while I stayed at home. Heck, I would feel like a bum if I didn’t have a job and had kids.</p>
<p>Do you not consider a stay-at-home wife a job? My dad has a job, it just happens to be being a full time father rather than my mom being a full-time mother which is what used to be the cultural norm. He IS providing for my mother, by taking care of me so she could provide for us financially while he provided for us on the family-front. </p>
<p>I don’t know why it so hard to grasp that being a full time parent IS a job and PROVIDES for the spouse.</p>
<p>
Nope, not at all. I always offer to pay half, even if he asked me out. I ask my girl friends to go out with me for dinner sometimes too, doesn’t mean I’m paying for them.</p>
<p>BTW, I can open doors and carry stuff for myself, too; however, it is nice if a guy offers.</p>
<p>
Haven’t you taken a psychology class? Correlation != causation.</p>
<p>It could be that people in “traditional” marriage roles are more, well, traditional than those in non-traditional marriages, and traditional people are more reluctant to divorce when things get bad. Does that mean they are happy in their marriages? Not necessarily, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t, either. Some might be miserable in their marriage, but might stay together due to their children, or family and societal pressure. There are even couples that stay together and put up a front while having extramarital affairs. However, some may be completely happy!
Likewise, nontraditional marriages may fail because of men feeling emasculated, or women who don’t feel appreciated. Or they might fail because the couple don’t feel the need to stay together if they no longer get along. But if a woman is completely happy earning more money, and being the breadwinner, and the guy feels completely secure earning less or staying at home to take care of children/keep the house, then what is the problem? Let them decide what the best fit for them is, don’t base it off what you have been raised to believe or what is tradition. Statistics don’t tell us WHY there is a correlation, that just tell us that there IS one.</p>
<p>But she’s not even talking about wanting to be the breadwinner. She just wants to split the bill, and open the door for herself… the way she would be if she were single. I don’t see the big deal. There are plenty of girls like that. My sister and her husband are both pharmacists and make pretty much the same amount of money, and they have a joint bank account from which they pay the bills. So, basically, they do split everything. But would you say that is non-traditional? That they both have jobs, and are paid equally? I don’t think that is strange at all, there are a lot of couples who are in the same profession and live this way. Sure, I’m sure her husband paid for dinner when they went out together at first, but once they became engaged/married they were pretty much equal. Seems like all she is uncomfortable with is the whole courting thing. There’s a lot of girls like that. Why are you guys acting as if she is being so radical?</p>
<p>So basically, women should ignore their ability to provide for themselves in order to stroke the man’s ego? </p>
<p>And romanigypsyeyes, it would appear that neither of our fathers are “real men”. God, what wimps they are for allowing their wives to be the career-oriented ones!</p>
<p>
Seriously. What does it say about a man when he says he must diminish anothers’ manhood in order to feel secure in his own? I’m pretty sure both your fathers are “real men.”</p>
<p>^ they are, but not according to Dbate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont consider a stay at home wife a job. I consider a job to be something that gets wages, sure being a parent is probably hard work but a job it is not. And yeah men should work. Men should provide for their families. I don’t want to insult your fathers, but I firmly believe that it is the man’s responsibility to provide for his family financially. If my daughter married a stay at home dad, I would say she married a free loader, hypothetically speaking of course.</p>
<p>No one said women can’t do for themselves, but its ridiculous to emasculate a man. Let him be the man. Let him carry your heavy stuff, open your doors, take out the trash, and pay for your dinner. Or keep complaining about him doing things for you, and suffer the consequences when you actually need help.</p>
<p>And no, im not basing my opinion on a psychology class. Im basing it on my life experiences and what ive seen happen with other couples.</p>
<p>ddbate…you lost me on that last comment. While I don’t have children, im a full-time nanny and childcare IS a job. Is being a stay at home wife a job? No, it sure isn’t. But being a stay at home parent IS a job, its hard work. Unless your children are of school age. </p>
<p>Wait til you have a screaming toddler. Or a sick baby. Or both at the same time.</p>
<p>No, I know it is hard WORK. But I think a job requires that you get paid. I mean school is work but is being a student really a job? Nope.</p>
<p>Also, when I was remarking that you comment was insensitive, I was referring to your comment that she should ignore her discomfort or nature so that it will make “her man” feel better. So what, she wait for a guy to do stuff for her when she is perfectly capable of doing it herself, just so the poor insecure man won’t feel emasculated? As I said, my boyfriend opens doors and stuff for me sometimes, but only when it makes sense. Before, he would kind of prevent me from opening a door that would logically be more efficient for me to open, which doesn’t make any sense to me. It didn’t offend me because I knew it was just affection, but I prefer things now. He still shows that he cares, buys me stuff, and I do the same for him. I’ll be honest - he probably does it more, but I don’t expect him to, nor would I be upset if he stopped. There’s other ways of showing that you care, too.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how her beliefs “ruin everything for everyone else.” They don’t affect you in the slightest. Your advice was to let men be men, but I think it is more important to let her be herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, no.</p>
<p>You have a wonderful attitude OP.</p>
<p>This is 2 - 0 - 0 - 9. There is no reason that a guy must pay for you. Everyone should pay their equal way IMO. Yeah, going out on a date just because a guy is going to pay for you does sound quite a bit like prostitution, huh? You make a great point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only thing I want a woman to stroke is my genitals. My ego is fine on its own and doesn’t need validation from anyone. If a man needs validation by paying for you then he probably isn’t that self confident guy you’re looking for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or you could grow a pair and just escalate things sexually with a woman without throwing cash at her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he was the one that asked me out, I expect him to OFFER. I don’t expect him to pay, but I expect him to OFFER to pay. Else, I’d think he’s a <a href=“mailto:cheap@ss”>cheap@ss</a>. If he can’t even bother to offer to pay for a first date, then what is it going to be like pursuing a long-term relationship with him?</p>
<p>I believe in gender equality. I also believe that men and women each have their own unique characteristics and traits. I agree with many of the posters here that opening doors/carrying things/paying the bill is a form of social etiquette for the male gender. It has nothing to do with “prostitution” or insinuations of a female’s weakness.</p>
<hr>
<p>To the OP, if you had a son, would you raise him to offer to pay for a meal/assist a girl in carrying things/open the door? Or would you tell him that it’s not necessary and let a girl pay her own tab when he asks them out, haul her own stuff even when it’s heavy, and open her own doors?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She’s not JUST going on a date because she wants a free meal from a guy. That’s called freeloading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How classy.</p>
<p>My “classy” statement was for effect, obviously. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see why everyone is grouping opening doors, helping people carrying things, and paying for meals in the same group.</p>
<p>Opening doors and helping carry heavy objects are things a POLITE person does for EVERYONE (or at least friends), not just females. </p>
<p>Paying for someone is different. I’d be willing to bet most of those “nice” guys trying to buy affection from girls (whether they admit this is the purpose or not) probably don’t get as many girls as those cocky “jerk” types that do not pay for girls. Just throwing that out there.</p>
<p>I disagree. I never dated a guy who didn’t pay when he could. Jerk types may get loose women for a night or two, but they won’t find a good girl to settle down with. You can’t turn a h*e into a houswife…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m good friends with many jerk types that have very attractive, nice girs (several of which were virgins prior to dating my friends). Unfortunately for the girls, they’re just naturally attracted to them. </p>
<p>You are part of a select population though, being a CCer after all. I don’t feel that you accurately portray the female gender at large (yes, a generalization, I know).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But carrying stuff for a woman JUST because she’s a woman does not imply equality. Yes, it is social etiquette, and I, personally, am not offended by it, mostly because I realize that is a way for a guy to show that he is fond of you. However, those actions are kind of rooted in the idea that women need men to take care of them, and therefore I understand why it may make the OP uncomfortable.</p>
<p>I agree with BeKindRewind’s post up there. I would raise my son to help ANYONE who seems to need assistance carrying things, to offer to pay for someone if he asked them out or they need help, and to open doors for people who are otherwise preoccupied. In many cases, that would involve assessing their need, and it may often be women. But should her offer JUST because she is a girl? No. Should he offer because she needs help, or because he likes her and wants to show her that he would inconvenience himself to make things easier on her? Yes. The situation you are describing (a man who does not help a woman when she needs help) is a situation where a man who denies a woman help BECAUSE she is a woman, not in spite of it.</p>
<p>Sounds to me like those girls are insecure.</p>
<p>To each their own.</p>