SurReply ...............
... a few points (again)
You want your daughters to have the best. Does that mean that you want them to get a husband that can or cannot support her? Yes or no?
SUPPORT?? Absolutely !!! I would want my daughter(s), should she so choose, to have a husband who love her unconditionally, and treasures her, and value her gifts. (AND I want her, should she so choose, to be with a husband whom she can love unconditionally and treasure and value.)
If she happens to have special gifts that enable her to make a good living
::gasp::: possibly, even more than he does), I want him to SUPPORT her, and their family – using HIS gifts. If HE happens to have special gifts that enable him to make a good living, and she chooses not to work outside the home, I want him to support her decision on that front too.
Marr[y]ing for money and security is being a what? Whyre???
No – a prostitute. Marrying for money is the same thing as hooking for money. Just a more gentile prostitution. And when men do it, it's the same thing.
Nowhere in there did you say for love. So what are you telling them that they should be? Not WHYRES are you? Not YOU??
I said "the best" – I did not mean money – it wouldn't have occurred to me to require some sort of .. financial "standard." The "BEST" is based on love – not money. LOVE. See above.
So you are telling your sons that they should seek the best mother possible for his children?
ASSUMING that they both want children, I would want my son to be the best father possible – and I would hope that my daughter-in-law would be the best mother possible for THEIR children, yes.
Being the best father is, my friend, NOT just "bringing home the bacon." It's spending time with the kids, it's sharing in the responsibilities of the home. It's being a full partner with his wife in the marriage and the family.
And you expect this future mother of your grandchildren to do her best with those children and work an 8 hour job?
I would hope that my son AND my future daughter-in-law find the "right" (for them and their family) balance between income-generating work, and home-work. IF my daughter-in-law works an 8-hour shift job, I hope truly that my son doesn't have to do the same. IF my son works an 8-hour shift job, I hope truly that my daughter-in-law doesn't have to do the same. IF they both do, I hope they have the wisdom to ensure that their kids are loved and cared for while they're at work.
So you want your sons to get a good education so that the mother of your grandchildren can stay at home and take care of those kids? I see that we agree.
HuH?????
Not.
On Edit: YES, absolutely - I would want sons AND daughters to get the best education I could afford.
Would I want the mother of my grandchildren to stay at home? I don't know. It depends on the situation.
Would I want my sons AND daughters to take care of their kids - absolutely.
You’re single because you want to be single. Nobody wants to be alone.
Hmm – there's a name for those two sentences put together that way. Like much of my prior email, it'd fly over, so I'll just let it go.
If you are single it’s because you haven’t found the right guy for you. If you have been opening your legs to somebody and cast them off or they dump you, then you have been making poor choices. Your attitude suggests that you’re a bitter person and that you have had some rough moments with men.
Hmmmm. I definitely agree with the hypothetical that someone who has been opening their legs to someone only to cast them off or be cast off is making poor choices. It has no relation to my life.
……. “Yeah, and where do I go when he starts beating the sh*t out of me or beating our children? Although you only promised to "cut me up," and gloated about "do(ing) me in", it usually starts with a slap here and there. At a minimum, I need enough money to escape with my children before you figure out where I keep the knives (it will take you a while to find them, as clearly, you never enter the kitchen). “
I can only surmise that you have lived through this. You’re really screwed up aren’t you. I’m going to do you a favor and let you know that I know you. MOST OF YOUR PROBLEMS ULTIMATELY CAME DOWN TO NOT ENOUGH MONEY. Do I know you or not?
Sir – have you heard of irony?
I suspect that *much* of my email flew right over your head, but that's ok.
I also suspect (strongly) that I make more in a year than you make in a decade, and I'm very sorry that makes you feel like you have a little weeny.
Since becoming an adult, money has not been an issue for me (except that some men are quite threatened by the fact that I make more than them - and it has nothing to do with amount of hours - it has to do with what .. the market pays. Thankfully, not all men are so threatened).
NO man has EVER slapped me around or ever would. I took YOUR words -- which starkly indicate that you are a psychopathic abuser ("cut you up" …. "did her in") – only to demonstrate that any woman who got in a relationship with you would NEED to retain her job so that she could escape you when you finally went over the edge (assuming you haven't already).
“You've made no case whatsoever that the "traditional roles" are, by definition, appropriate.”
Sure I have.
Hmmm.. no you haven't … yes I have .. no you haven't .. this is mature… NOT.
They (sic) way the economy is today more and more married women are entering the work force. Is it mentally good for the family? No. It tells the guy that the sweat of his brawl (freudian slip, i'm sure) is not good enough. It undermines his position as head of the household.
This is so ONLY when
(a) the husband is insecure about himself and his income-generating ability; and/or
(b) the husband equates being the "head of the household" with making the most money.
And – a guy who thinks that is .. just not mature, with all due respect. The amount of money one makes is is based on value to market – not value to relationship – or even value to society (compare – teacher vs. NFL player).
Suppose, e.g., the woman is an author, writes 1-2 hours in the morning before others are up, but writes bestselling novels such that she brings in, say, $2,700,000 a year. Why does that have to emasculate the man??? It doesn't. It just reveals (in your case anyway) an already emasculated man – a man whose personal worth is tied up in money – rather than in value. That's HIS problem, not hers.
… In order to have a well adjusted home couples have to forgo a number of things till they can afford it. If the guy ain’t making a hell of a lot of money, then kids have to be put off till (????? Unintelligible sentence?????). The wife can get out there and take a job for a while. You get that house. You get that new car. You find a way to make it on his salary alone and then she starts having those babies and staying at home and taking care of the house.
Ah ha – here's one thing upon which we agree (well, the part I understand). Well-adjusted couples need to live within their means and should not try to live above their means.
However - again – a guy who thinks his sole value to a marriage and family is the amount of money he brings in is a very unfortunate, sad guy indeed. A guy who can't get it up if his wife actually brings in a paycheck … well, Viagra isn't gonna fix that problem.
…How often do two people get married and have a plan like that?...
The Amish do it all the time. I know about some farm land for sale in PA and OH –might wanna consider moving up there.
There are way too many young kids getting married and the gal is pregnant. Right off the bat the economics of their relationship causes frustrations between the two and they’re at each other’s throats. How many marriages due to a pregnancy last till death do they part? I would say far less then do. The gal is bytching in his ear to do better and mad at herself for screwing the guy in the first place. You know that you have seen this. Fess up.
Awesome – two things upon which we agree: I indeed *have* seen people get married because she was pregnant – and the marriage falling apart. This is true.
How this particular observed phenomenon has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the subject at hand is beyond me – seems to be a TOTAL and COMPLETE nonsequitor in this conversation.
