Seems women are becoming less and less dependent on men

Murrmurr said:
In fine traditional homes, incest was off the table - um...meaning not happening at all anywhere.
Click to expand...
That does tend to be a universal taboo.

Your distinction of fine traditional families is interesting. I have read among the well-to-do, ownership of property and positions of power are still a strong concern in marriage arrangements. Those marriages are not based on the feeling at the moment.

What would society be like if we were more reserved and gave up our romantic notion of love and marriage?
 

Murrmurr said:
It's heartbreaking that there are millions of mothers who'd prefer to work as a full-time mom, but can't because the family needs 2 incomes just to get by.

Probably not a popular opinion, but I think both parents having to work for the better part of the day is one of the reasons we have so much dysfunction in our society today.
Click to expand...
But that excuse is not always valid. It's not always about financial necessity, but parents who prefer to give day-to-day responsibilities for their children to somebody else.

A few years ago, I read on a forum that a year of daycare is often more expensive than sending a kid to college for a year. Thought it must have been a mistake, so I started checking. It was indeed accurate. And these are daycares for parents who pay for it, out-of-pocket, not government-funded daycares for 'poor' families.

One case you may have heard of- near Chicago, a baby died under mysterious circumstances in a daycare. The parents were referred to as 'wealthy professionals.'

From local news- as close as I can get to exact wording- parents 'start shopping around for daycare before they conceive their babies.' In other words, it is planned.
 
Last edited:
dseag2 said:
This is slightly off topic, and I'm sure I'll get pushback, but I think that if there were more women in the White House we would see more things accomplished. Like stricter gun laws, for example. Women tend to be more empathic than men. Some of the "good ole' boys" that only wish to line their pockets with money from special interests and do nothing need to go. There are, of course, a few nut job women already in the White House that are exceptions.
Click to expand...
That is an element of women's liberation I do not like- being equal meaning to be like a man and being competitive with men, making it taboo to be as a woman.

Working for a living that is a livable wage, means having connections or having to be competitive. From what I have heard from male coaches females tend to be less competitive by nature. They can be trained to be as competitive as males but a coach has to work at this when coaching women. Now thinking about what a gentler society needs, and a world with less gun violence and happy children- do we want all women to be as men? Or is there value in protecting women and children and women experiencing life as protected people valued for their willingness to care for others?
 

I came into this discussion late, so I've missed a lot of it. But I'm wondering why you think that being less dependent on men means the women are being "as men." Women can have equal wages, equal rights, etc., and still be women. Having those rights doesn't mean they are turning into men, with the testosterone, gun violence, etc. that so many men seem to have.

I think many people in our "older" age bracket tend to think of women according to the stereotype of previous centuries, which we were taught as children and young adults. In most traditional and heavily religious cultures, that stereotype still exists. Women were expected to be docile, subservient, depending on a man to give them a home and family, and support them financially. But more and more, those days are over. Educated women are not "dependent" on men, they can have a career, and can marry (or live together) with whomever they choose.

IMO, this is a big improvement.
 
JaniceM said:
But that excuse is not always valid. It's not always about financial necessity, but parents who prefer to give day-to-day responsibilities for their children to somebody else.

A few years ago, I read on a forum that a year of daycare is often more expensive than sending a kid to college for a year. Thought it must have been a mistake, so I started checking. It was indeed accurate. And these are daycares for parents who pay for it, out-of-pocket, not government-funded daycares for 'poor' families.

One case you may have heard of- near Chicago, a baby died under mysterious circumstances. The parents were referred to as 'wealthy professionals.'

From local news- as close as I can get to exact wording- parents 'start shopping around for daycare before they conceive their babies.' In other words, it is planned.
Click to expand...

That is my concern! When we became "just housewives" who wanted to be one of those? We are acutely socially conscious and can resent being "just a housewife". In the past, we did all that caregiving because that is what a good woman does. We went to fairs showing off our domestic skills of gardening, canning, sewing, painting, etc.. And sending our children to school, well behaved and in freshly washed and ironed clothes was a matter of pride.

I was the ideal 1950 wife and mother, and I saw myself as just below the mother goddess, in my willingness and ability to care for others. Then we all became "just housewives" and a recession hit and many women who expected to return to college and have careers when their children were old enough, found themselves abandoned and having to support themselves and their children with no help or very little help. Our war on poverty became a war on people living in poverty, so we could pour our national wealth into military spending under the Reagan administration. I think things have spun out of control from there.

Education was also radically changed at this time, and I don't think many schools teach home economics anymore. It is not homosexuals ruining family values, but that change in education.
 
Sunny said:
I think many people in our "older" age bracket tend to think of women according to the stereotype of previous centuries, which we were taught as children and young adults.
Click to expand...
Our older age bracket lived through all the civil rights, equal rights, anti war movements. Are you saying we all have dementia and forgot our own youth? Sure appears that way sometimes. If so, maybe it's time to shove off and let the young take over. If we must revert to previous centuries for our thoughts and forget what our older age bracket achieved in our own time than we are just in the way.

I haven't forgotten a thing, and no one I know has either. Being old shouldn't mean slipping into stereotypes of the long past.
 
JaniceM said:
But that excuse is not always valid. It's not always about financial necessity, but parents who prefer to give day-to-day responsibilities for their children to somebody else.


From local news- as close as I can get to exact wording- parents 'start shopping around for daycare before they conceive their babies.' In other words, it is planned.
Click to expand...
Most often, it is about finances. I'd wager there are significantly more parents who don't calculate the timing of their pregnancies than those who do.
 
Vida May said:
That does tend to be a universal taboo.

Your distinction of fine traditional families is interesting. I have read among the well-to-do, ownership of property and positions of power are still a strong concern in marriage arrangements. Those marriages are not based on the feeling at the moment.

What would society be like if we were more reserved and gave up our romantic notion of love and marriage?
Click to expand...
Similar in some ways to parts of the Middle-East and Asia, I suppose. There might be more regions that have arranged marriages, but those are the only two I can think of right now. They aren't happy places for women, I can tell you.

But, of course, we were talking about western society about 150-200 yrs ago.
 
Murrmurr said:
Similar in some ways to parts of the Middle-East and Asia, I suppose. There might be more regions that have arranged marriages, but those are the only two I can think of right now. They aren't happy places for women, I can tell you.

But, of course, we were talking about western society about 150-200 yrs ago.
Click to expand...
The Hasidic & other Ultra Orthodox still arrange marriages. I used to think "Gee, that would make life easier"........then I said "Nah!"
 
Pepper said:
The Hasidic & other Ultra Orthodox still arrange marriages. I used to think "Gee, that would make life easier"........then I said "Nah!"
Click to expand...
If you're raised your whole life with zero romantic notions about marriage, I guess you can't be too disappointed.

I think *romantic love* is a western concept, and a fairly recent one. Oh wait....on second thought, in the old Greek and Roman Gods myths, there were romances. And in Shakespeare and other old epic plays and poetry, too. Of course, most societies with arranged marriages forbid women from reading that stuff. Most forbid their women from reading anything, or from even learning to read.

Anyway, not strictly a western thing.
 
Vida May said:
That is an element of women's liberation I do not like- being equal meaning to be like a man and being competitive with men, making it taboo to be as a woman.
Working for a living that is a livable wage, means having connections or having to be competitive. From what I have heard from male coaches females tend to be less competitive by nature. They can be trained to be as competitive as males but a coach has to work at this when coaching women. Now thinking about what a gentler society needs, and a world with less gun violence and happy children- do we want all women to be as men? Or is there value in protecting women and children and women experiencing life as protected people valued for their willingness to care for others?
Click to expand...
"I dont see why your thoughts and views should not be discussed as much as anyone else's", (and if "bluntness" is a universal good where does bullying others out of a proper hearing fit in, "says the forum troll" who has only been called that "by a certain person" as far as I can recall, and just while I'm at it, my belief is they're unable to take anyone trying to straighten them out or stand up to them!).

Now that's out of the way, its interesting what you've said about "competitiveness", (btw I was once married to a self styled "warrior woman", whilst my belief is I was the equivalent of a peasant or serf in that relationship, so "competitiveness" was only going to have one winner, but she was maybe the exception to prove your rule, (or what you were told by male coaches to be precise).

My take on "differing roles" is that yes in my view most men do not want to, or cannot become caregivers to their children in quite the same way the mothers most often do, but I ask does a child need effectively "two mothers", (both trying to fulfill the same role).

I've said before on this forum that an uncle of mine was able to fulfill that role, when for reasons no one ever truly understood his wife couldn't manage to care for their second child (a girl) as she had done for the first child (a boy). All credit to him for spotting there was an issue to address, and having the where with all to cope, but many other dads, myself included probably wouldn't find it so easy.

One last thought about traditional roles, is that in this country forty years ago or so, the evidence presented in a BBC tv documentary showed fairly clearly the way children did better when one or other parent took the role of fulltime care giver, but for a host of reasons this view, or evidence was ignored, (my ex btw said she was prepared to be a stay at home mum for her next husband and his children, but not for me, though her mother stepped in and did an unbelievable job anyway!).
 
grahamg said:
does a child need effectively "two mothers", (both trying to fulfill the same role).
Click to expand...
Under what circumstances would both parents even need to try to fill the same role?

"in my view most men do not want to, or cannot become caregivers to their children in quite the same way the mothers most often do"

That may be true, but in the case of single fathers, some men do a right good job of it.

Maybe men aren't incapable of being "motherly", but simply aren't trained, as women are, as they grow up. Or do you think the differences in men's and women's capability to "mother" are strictly biological; instinctive?
 
"I dont see why your thoughts and views should not be discussed as much as anyone else's", (and if "bluntness" is a universal good where does bullying others out of a proper hearing fit in, "says the forum troll" who has only been called that "by a certain person" as far as I can recall, and just while I'm at it, my belief is they're unable to take anyone trying to straighten them out or stand up to them!).
Now that's out of the way............"

Got it off your chest, did you? @grahamg I started to have some understanding of you, when you told me you did all and everything you could to reconcile with your daughter. I apologized for doubting your efforts. I thought we made some type of peace. Obviously, I was wrong. No making peace with you. You don't know how.

You also disrespect Vida May. She's an intelligent woman of force and doesn't need condescension from the insincere likes of passive-aggressive you.
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
"I dont see why your thoughts and views should not be discussed as much as anyone else's", (and if "bluntness" is a universal good where does bullying others out of a proper hearing fit in, "says the forum troll" who has only been called that "by a certain person" as far as I can recall, and just while I'm at it, my belief is they're unable to take anyone trying to straighten them out or stand up to them!).
Now that's out of the way............"

Got it off your chest, did you? @grahamg I started to have some understanding of you, when you told me you did all and everything you could to reconcile with your daughter. I apologized for doubting your efforts. I thought we made some type of peace. Obviously, I was wrong. No making peace with you. You don't know how.

You also disrespect Vida May. She's an intelligent woman of force and doesn't need condescension from the insincere likes of passive-aggressive you.
Click to expand...
Why assume I'm being insincere when I'm not being insincere, (where does anything I've ever said on this forum conflict with my appreciation of the views you'd dismissed so lightly?).
Now "making peace" as you called it doesn't mean no one says what they think, and that's all I'm doing, telling you what I think when I believe you're going too far ridiculing the views of others, (why are your own views to be presumed so much superior to their "ancient history" ones, do you wish to tear up the history books(?)

If you think my behaviour is "passive aggressive" I'd disagree, "not we can disagree you know, we have that right on a forum like this one", (I'd say I don't often choose bluntness as my weapon of choice, " to be blunt for a moment"!).
 
Vida May said:
That is an element of women's liberation I do not like- being equal meaning to be like a man and being competitive with men, making it taboo to be as a woman.

Working for a living that is a livable wage, means having connections or having to be competitive. From what I have heard from male coaches females tend to be less competitive by nature. They can be trained to be as competitive as males but a coach has to work at this when coaching women. Now thinking about what a gentler society needs, and a world with less gun violence and happy children- do we want all women to be as men? Or is there value in protecting women and children and women experiencing life as protected people valued for their willingness to care for others?
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. It is the femininity, which tends to create empathy, that many times makes women better leaders. What makes truly good leaders is the ability to care about and have an interest in others. Just my opinion, but I believe women in politics are more likely to care about their constituency vs. their male counterparts. I think if they feel they have to "become men" to compete that takes the advantage away.

The best boss I've ever had was a woman. She was a Director at the company when I left, and she is now President. Yes, she was tough, but she also had a feminine side. She would have parties at her house for our team, and she would occasionally invite me to dinner with her and her husband. She was incredibly bright and moved up the ladder because of it, but she never gave up what made her a "woman". (y)
 
Murrmurr said:
Under what circumstances would both parents even need to try to fill the same role?
"in my view most men do not want to, or cannot become caregivers to their children in quite the same way the mothers most often do"
That may be true, but in the case of single fathers, some men do a right good job of it.
Maybe men aren't incapable of being "motherly", but simply aren't trained, as women are, as they grow up. Or do you think the differences in men's and women's capability to "mother" are strictly biological; instinctive?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd suggest the "equal parenting" arguments of my former campaigning friends in the UK have a large element of that kind of thing in them, (and I don't know why you ignored the example I gave of my own uncle stepping in to fulfill both the mother/fahr roles, when my aunt couldn't seem to summon up the same interest in her second child!).
 
grahamg said:
Well, I'd suggest the "equal parenting" arguments of my former campaigning friends in the UK have a large element of that kind of thing in them, (and I don't know why you ignored the example I gave of my own uncle stepping in to fulfill both the mother/fahr roles, when my aunt couldn't seem to summon up the same interest in her second child!).
Click to expand...
Oh. Sorry about that, Graham. I confess that somewhere along the line (like, months ago), I had to stop reading your "side" comments (in parentheses) because they tend to distract me from what I assumed were your main points (or arguments). They do go on a bit sometimes, but still....my bad.

That's kind of sad about your aunt. More sad for the child, not having a mother 100%, but I wonder what was going on there (did you say, or venture a guess?).

When I was in my early 30s, a close friend of mine basically rejected his 3rd child, a pleasant but sullen little boy. The friend told me his wife had an affair and he suspected the kid wasn't his. I sort of got into it with him, saying it wasn't the boy's fault, and he should do a paternity test because maybe he was his kid, but either way, he was was burdening the little guy with emotional baggage he didn't deserve....etc.

Went in one ear and out the other. I stopped hanging out with him....decided he was an A-hole.
 
Murrmurr said:
Oh. Sorry about that, Graham. I confess that somewhere along the line (like, months ago), I had to stop reading your "side" comments (in parentheses) because they tend to distract me from what I assumed were your main points (or arguments). They do go on a bit sometimes, but still....my bad.
That's kind of sad about your aunt. More sad for the child, not having a mother 100%, but I wonder what was going on there (did you say, or venture a guess?).
When I was in my early 30s, a close friend of mine basically rejected his 3rd child, a pleasant but sullen little boy. The friend told me his wife had an affair and he suspected the kid wasn't his. I sort of got into it with him, saying it wasn't the boy's fault, and he should do a paternity test because maybe he was his kid, but either way, he was was burdening the little guy with emotional baggage he didn't deserve....etc.
Went in one ear and out the other. I stopped hanging out with him....decided he was an A-hole.
Click to expand...
Lost a longer response to your post so I'll keep this one short, tablet computer troubles).
No one really questioned why my aunt did not feel able to be as attentive a mother towards her second child, but said child/daughter didn't appear to suffer too much and has had a happy marriage and raised three kids of her own!
On another section of the forum I've mentioned an aspect of parenting where mothers and fathers may have differing approaches.

Putting my thoughts to one side for a moment, our government, (or its expert advisors), have decreed "mothers tend to be the gatekeeper of the child's relationship with others in intact families", (so as you see they seem to think there are immutable differences!).
 
grahamg said:
Lost a longer response to your post so I'll keep this one short, tablet computer troubles).
No one really questioned why my aunt did not feel able to be as attentive a mother towards her second child, but said child/daughter didn't appear to suffer too much and has had a happy marriage and raised three kids of her own!
On another section of the forum I've mentioned an aspect of parenting where mothers and fathers may have differing approaches.

Putting my thoughts to one side for a moment, our government, (or its expert advisors), have decreed "mothers tend to be the gatekeeper of the child's relationship with others in intact families", (so as you see they seem to think there are immutable differences!).
Click to expand...
That assumes mothers always have their children's best interests in mind.. although that is not always the case.
 
chic said:
Men are physically stronger than women. (If they're healthy.) Who needs a man? I do. Lots of snow shoveling up here and it's great how men know what's wrong with the car, the electricity, the plumbing. 😊 It's no longer popular to say so but men have their uses. I love how their brains are just wired differently from women's when it comes to fixing things.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's hysterical...and not true.

I know more women than men who love cars, because I'm one of them. My spouse could care less about what he drives. I spent 18 months researching my last car with multiple test drives because if I was going to spend up to $70K I was going to make darned sure it was as close to my perfect car as possible.

And our contractor, who owns her own business with employees (not sub-contractors), is most definitely a woman. She is certainly not the only woman I know who can handle "fixing" things, either.

I had no idea snow shoveling was the standard for masculinity. As my spouse had a haemorrhagic stroke at age 50, snow shoveling would kill him faster than it would most women OR men.

And to answer another post, most older women I know - in fact all of them - who gave up driving, did so because they preferred being chauffered around by their spouses. They know how to drive, they just like to have someone else put up with the stress of driving and parking!

Of course, that generally rebounds on them since most husbands die before their wives do. That's what happened to my MIL and all of her married friends. Whereas the older women who had either gotten divorced or had their husbands die fairly young, had little hesitation in driving themselves around - using bus transportation to do your grocery shopping was enough to cure them of any qualms about driving!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top