HOLY CHRIST!! http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=24

[Fenderules]

oh well, i could care less, i dont see what the big deal is........more pussiy guys around just means more ***** for us.

 

[Prof]

It's a UK forum, dude, what do you expect?

They're all gay over there :crackup:

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

"Why do most men have this ego trouble with the woman being the bread winner?

This is an feminine, Operative Social Convention - please read this, it will greatly help your understanding.

The Fragile Male Ego is one of the biggest lies ever to be floated out by the 'Today's Woman' crowd. Men could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it - it's simply not a factor in attraction for us - we don't take a woman's status or wealth into consideration, all she has to be is hot. That is a guy's one condition for intimacy, physical attraction. She's gotta be hot - whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jones' husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodesiac.

Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from 'professional' life are conditions women have for men in attraction. That's not to discount men being physically attractive or other conditions, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated on characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring's security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive, attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women as their individual degrees of attractiveness merits. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy and have done so over the course of our evolutionary history to the point where these traits have become 'hard-wired' into our biology.

Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.

"Empowered" women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric and/or intellectual qualities, but they still fight against men's natural, basic impulses - she's-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it's just icing on the cake for us, but this is analagous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking.

The 'Today's Woman' crowd loves to use this pseudo-fear that men are expected to have in response as to why guy's ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction of the physical by blaming it on 'men's fragile egoes' or how they 'feel threatened by professional women'. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their 'professionalism' that men should redefine their own attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine.

The ideology then grinds it's teeth at the men 'qualified' to date professional women for having a tendency to hit on women far younger, less 'powerful' and (surprise) generally in much better physical shape than the 'professional' they should be dating. For this they're called 'infantile', 'immature', or the behavior is regarded as a character flaw, or a desire to relive his youth with a 'trophy wife' - interesting that this term should come from the same faction to complain about the evils of objectifying women. All the man is doing is behaving in accordance with his primary impulse - she has to be hot!

As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this 'professional woman' mythology is that professional women want to be success objects in order to redefine sexual attraction, but nature keeps confounding this effort.

Why is it OK for a woman to be a house wife.
But its wrong for a man to be a house husband?

I agree with this part of his post. There's nothing wrong with the husband staying home to take care of the kids while the wife works, especially if she makes more money--then it's just logical. Thousands of years have driven men to be providers and women to be carers and I do think it works better that way, but there's nothing wrong with role reversal.

On the surface this circumstance seems rational and pragmatic; wife earns more than her husband and ergo the logical choice is for him to play the motherly role and rear the children. This seems like logic in the short term, but n the long term this situation is rife with complications.

First you'd have to consider that the type of man who'd be disposed to this reversal would be masculine neutral at best, and more likely, masculine negative in his own personality - thus he's able to sublimate his own sense of ridicule (not to mention the majority of society) in a role reversal. This of course complicates and confuses early childhood development in gender role maturity.

Secondly, as I pointed out above, some of the most important attributes in sexual attraction for women - and particularly in long-term mating selection - are ambition, confidence, motivation and other traits that indicate an ability to provide for a woman's security. The snap judgement notion for men is that security necessarily means financial provisioning, but to women, this security can mean many things - financial, emotional, familial, protection, etc. and a man who is accepting, much less seeking, of a reversal in roles contradicts these natural attractors. Very few men consider being a house-husband a great career move and far fewer women are actively looking for a man with such an 'ambition.'

And finally consider that a "professional" woman is continually in a work environment with male peers who do embody the ideals she values so much that she chose to emmulate them in her own life and career choice. In the sterotypical model of this "corporate fantasy" woman, she's surrounded by attractive male peers that her house-husband cannot hope to compare with. The man with the apron on and making mac & cheese for the family when she gets home is a stark contrast to the high-powered executive (assuming the fantasy) in the Armani suit she just worked with an hour before.