Marriage-I.C I suppose

We were just discussing this somewhere and I always wanted to start a forum on it but never did, so here it is.

Honestly in my opinion it’s something that humanity has created to be a necessity. I myself have decided to never marry for numerous reasons, but when people hear of this I often get the reaction, "Oh my god, what is the matter with you? How can you not get married?", "what are you going to do about kids?", "Don’t you want to have a family?" and my favorite, "Michelle, aren't you afraid of being alone?"

Where did this idea develop that if a person is without a spouse they will lead a lonely future? Marriage started out as a reproductive asset, and a romantic connection between husband and wife was not needed or required for that matter. The only goal desired from it was to pass down one’s existence through generations, which I can understand. However our society has come to believe that finding a life partner is necessary in order to receive happiness. This I do not agree with.
When people think in terms of being alone, marriage is a trap. I suppose people see the need for the legal bond because friends pass along, families grow distant, and lovers always fade. But, in a marriage you are bound together by law unless one wants to go through the mess of divorce which is the main reason many couples stay together today. Marriage forces a great effort into the relationship, one that if the couple were not married, would have never existed, considering they most likely would have broken up over it.

I am happy for those who so happen to find love an eventually marry with a lasting love that goes into years of old age, (which, to be honest, rarely-and I elaborate rarely-happens) but a lot of marriages happen merely because the union is thought of as a mission in life. As children we are pretty much taught through parents and fairytales that marriage is a goal, and as you age it is considered more and more important to fulfill.

I agree with you. I don't want to get married. I still want to have more kids and spend my life with someone. But I don't feel I have to have a piece of paper to prove my love for someone. Thats really all it is anyways.

Proof you don't have to be married.....my grandparents were together for 50 years before they were legally married. The only reason that got married is my grandfather thought he was dying and he said he wanted to make an honest woman out of my grandmother before he died. They had 15 children together and lived a wonderful life without being married. Marriage is too comerical now. People don't do it for the right reasons.

I have a friend who is 24 and married. She got married because her parents made her when she got pregnant. That is a stupid reason.
I predict they will be divorced before their 30, and the only reason I say that is because they already hate each other and its only been a year.

I personally don't want to be alone, but I don't think I have to marry someone to keep this from happening.

pinkalias,

I think marriage is a sacred thing that brings man and woman together. Of course, not everyone has to marry, but those who wish to have kids should. If someone doesn't marry yet has kids, nobody knows for sure who the person they had the kids with is. That way, the government would never know whose father is who and whose daughter is who...and everything would get all messed up. I think that marriage is necessary for society to work.

Satuxxa

Yes Ismail, I am aware that it knocks a girl off her feet when she is proposed to by the guys she loves, but I’m not every girl.
:)
IF, and that’s a damn big if, I do get married, the guy is going to be something utterly incredible to change my mind about something like that. And there would have to be qualities about him that would 100% assure me that the marriage would most likely work out.
Which, it wouldn’t.
So most likely, unless that guy happens to be the one of which I described (who doesn’t exist) I would say no.

“but those who wish to have kids should. If someone doesn't marry yet has kids, nobody knows for sure who the person they had the kids with is. That way, the government would never know whose father is who and whose daughter is who...and everything would get all messed up. I think that marriage is necessary for society to work.”

Respectfully, I don’t agree with this at all.
This is where the 50’s family picture scene takes hold.
What do you mean no one knows for sure? Of course they do (unless the mother happens to be screwing around) and even then there are DNA tests.
And what part of marriage makes it official that the husband is the real father anyway? A woman can screw around whether she’s married or not…
And why does the gov. need to know? And that’s where good ol’ DNA comes in again.
Marriage is not necessary for society to work, society has made it necessary. There could be families without being legally married consisting of two parents and children that could function just like an officially married couple. A piece of paper doesn't make it any more different.

Bob: most likely the guy wouldn't voluntarily put up with me, you'd see him with a shock collar and leash in my house
:)

typo! typo!
that's definetly an embarassing moment.
(spelling collar...color.)

Marriage serves religious and governmental purpose, other than that, it's a general complication.

Knowing that, I would still get married, and want to get married. That's a personal thing with me, plus, if I ever get divorced, the odds are in my favor *evil. Sadly, that's how a lot of women think.

Marriage adds a whole nother element of security to a relationship. Even if it's only monetary security.

I guess the question is, do you need security.
Gold diggers of course are going to marry for obvious reasons: they trap, legally steal, and leave. The part of financial security comes in here. That little piece of paper says everything...

And religion: that's another thing I don't like about it. For those who are religous, I respect your beliefs, but what in the act of loving someone when not married and taking part in sexual relations with them is a 'sin'?

In fact, isn't religion yet another reason why couples marry quickly?
you have to admit, being taught to maintain virginity untill you're wed could be pretty hard...so when the 'right' person comes along, wouldn't some rush to the event?
(not that a lot of people actually follow that rule...)

I don't think it's worth it. We've gotten this idea that it's needed, and it's not. People could very well love eachother and cope the same without being legally bound.

Which brings me to another point: marriage is also a reason why many couples lose their interest in eachother.
What's going to break down the relationship more than knowing that you are bound to this one person: forever. This is where the trap thing comes in again.
If you have promised your heart and soul to someone and realize they are the last person you are ever going to be with, you would most likely begin to discover their flaws. With their flaws comes annoyances, then hatred, then the utter intolerance of being around that person all together knowing they're as good as it's going to get.

"I guess the question is, do you need security."

Everyone needs security.

Answer this: Would you marry someone you truly loved but honestly knew that he would never be able to maintain a secure lifestyle? Like, paying rent.

A lot of women would love to be stay at home moms, and children are very expensive. Would it be responsible of you to bring children into an environment where you would financially struggle? Would you stay with a man whom you had to support?

Many women may answer these questions by pretending their needs are less than what they are, but there is a difference between being a gold digger and being responsible, especially when children are going to be involved. A lot of women also think about what kind of retirement they could have together as a couple, because men still get paid more than women and men are still the primary bread winners.

This argument may not go over too well with Pink, being somewhat feminist in viewpoint, but I think that at least on a subconscious level women are attracted to men who can give them emotional, mental, and monetary security. That goes back to the cavemen days. Especially because women want a man who can support her children, even if she has to work as well.

yes...I call those women the dependent.

When I asked the question do you need security, i meant exactly that.
Are you the type of person (primarily a woman) who is independent, works hard, and is able to take care of themselves and family throughout life? Or are you the type who would rather do the house work and let the spouse make the money.

i don't necessarily have a problem with housewives, and if you choose to be one then by all means I hope you're happy, but it's still selfish and weak to depend on someone else to make money for you and your family.

Of course when there are children involved there should be a financial plan. But there are plenty, (and I elaborate plenty) of ways to set that up without having to marry. Retirement funds can be set up separately, and there are numerous college and educational plans that you can set up at the birth date of the child to take care of those things.

Not to mention, if you can't support a family you shouldn't be having one in the first place.

"Would you stay with a man whom you had to support?"
I myself wouldn't considering I have different views about love and I hardly think I would find someone who I could see myself actually, literally spending the rest of my life with. But what's to say that women cannot support the husband? (Other than the fact women are underpaid)
I know that doesn't make sense in our society today, but in general it works just as well. I wouldn't mind supporting a husband but the way our world works that's just not how it goes at this point in time, so I'm not going to try to use that.

"There is a difference between being a gold digger and being responsible"
Yes, the difference is you could take care of yourself rather than relying on someone else.
I do not define someone who marries for financial security responsible, no matter what the reasons are. Starting a family or not, an adult should be able to take care of themselves and family.

"Women are attracted to men who can give them emotional, mental, and monetary security."
Yes that's true. A lot of women like to play the role of the helpless and defenseless because they like to be taken care of. I'm not saying that bitterly, it's just a fact. But I do think times are changing, and in the future that will as well. (Not the desire necessarily but the actions they choose to take).

"That goes back to the cavemen days. "
That's another point of mine. In previous stages of life the man was rightly the provider considering the work of which to support a family was physical, and the male being stronger. But in the times that we have now where the higher paying jobs apply do not require physical labor and apply to both genders, things could change.
(not to mention the not-so-high paying jobs that also don't require physical activity, if you were going to make that a factor).

You see, I think it is the feministic viewpoint that is the one that passes judgments.

Whether a woman chooses to work or not is her decision, I know plenty of men that would RATHER have a stay at home wife and mother than have a woman who tries to balance both of those roles, plus work a full time job. Those women, who stay at home, are proven to be better mothers and wives because there is less stress in their lives and they can fully focus on those two things, especially if you have more than one child. No doubt, those can be full time jobs.

"Are you the type of person (primarily a woman) who is independent, works hard, and is able to take care of themselves and family throughout life?"

I know plenty of women like this who ARE housewives. Why make life harder on yourself and your family if you don’t need to? The kids of parents who both have full time jobs often feel like they didn’t get enough attention and also have a lot of different people raising them. I know far too many kids who have parents who never get home before 6 o clock, have to make their own dinners at 11 years old, and were practically raised by babysitters. Does it prove that you are a "strong woman" if you do that? Not to me. It doesn’t prove anything; I think it's almost irresponsible to do that to children unless it is out of absolute necessity. Absentee parenting is not something that I think is admirable.

If the couple doesn’t have kids, I think that it depends on what the circumstances are.

"but it's still selfish and weak to depend on someone else to make money for you and your family."

I don’t think this is the case necessarily. I think every woman depends on a man monetarily at some point in her life, I am sure you will as well, partially because women are not paid fairly and partially because the cost of living is so expensive. Every couple depends on each other for different things. Of course, then, you are financially dependant, and that is why many women STAY in marriages. They have a certain lifestyle that they want to uphold and I don’t think that there is generally anything wrong with that. It's all a tradeoff, and to each their own, but if kids are involved, it's a whole nother story, like was previously established.

Also, many women are financially dependant on their boyfriends. You don’t have to get married to have financial arrangements with people.

"Not to mention, if you can't support a family you shouldn't be having one in the first place."

Depending on how many kids are involved in the family, most women would NOT be able to decently support one and give them the attention they deserve. The business world is run by men, that's obvious at this point, but the mother is then largely absentee, and they must pay for babysitters.

"I know that doesn't make sense in our society today, but in general it works just as well. I wouldn't mind supporting a husband but the way our world works that's just not how it goes at this point in time, so I'm not going to try to use that."

The way the world works is that the man is the breadwinner. Women know that, and it would be stupid of them not to assess the amount of "bread" their man can bring in throughout the course of their marriage, just like it is stupid of men not to assess the type of things she can offer him as a wife and potential mother. It is the "package," and it is considered by EVERY woman, despite if they recognize it or not.

"I do not define someone who marries for financial security responsible, no matter what the reasons are."

I'm not just talking about marriage, I'm talking about any relationship that people think is going to last a lifetime. Someone you want to have children with and retire with, etc. And, again, I think everyone takes security into account before obligating themselves to anything, especially in marriage, because the debts are shared, as well as the "cream" or the "bread."

"'Women are attracted to men who can give them emotional, mental, and monetary security.'
Yes that's true. A lot of women like to play the role of the helpless and defenseless because they like to be taken care of. I'm not saying that bitterly, it's just a fact. But I do think times are changing, and in the future that will as well. (Not the desire necessarily but the actions they choose to take)."

Just because women are attracted to security does not make them helpless or defenseless. If they had to support themselves, they of course, before ending up on the street, would. You're young, perhaps you have not yet experienced the allure of a man who can offer you everything, and you can offer him everything that he is looking for in return. The thing is that most of these men who support their wives don’t mind doing it. For instance, my father, as I've already stated, didn’t want my mom to do anything but be a full time mother and wife, but he had a corporation that she helped out with too. She was his support system, and the money was no sweat off him, so it was totally equal. Under normal monetary circumstances both people need to work to support themselves and/ or families, but the man almost ALWAYS makes more money than the female, in which case he would contribute more than she does, but the female almost always does more around the house and cooks and cleans, so who is to say what is "dependent?" She COULD support herself and he COULD cook his own food. She couldn’t support herself and life like she can with both of their monetary input, and he cant have the emotional support, maid service, and chef service that she offers him without her. They are both dependent, it's sad that people place more importance on money than emotional stability.

You see, whenever people think of stay at home moms, they often picture people like you described, Pink, but stay at home moms are often educated and strong women, because the men who can support a woman who stays at home choose women who are self reliant and strong. Ever heard the phrase "Every strong man is with a strong woman?" I fully believe this, and in most cases, find it to be true.

I think it is VERY responsible for a woman to choose to stay home and be a full time wife and mother if her husband brings home the money anyway. I think it is irresponsible to have a job just for the sake of not being "dependent" and being an absentee parent.

I want to get married, but I don't want to be one of these wives who just do the cleaning all day. I want to get married when I find the right person. But I don't want kids until I'm much older, I want to have my career first and then have kids so nothing gets in my way of my career. That's my number one priority in life, and if someone loves me enough to want to marry me, and I love them enough, then I will get married, but they will have to fit around my life.

I think that a HUGE part of the reason that marriages doesnt work out anymore is that everybody goes into their marriage thinking, ok if i get sick of him/her in a year or whatever, i can just divorce him/her... and the problem with that is that in their wedding vows they made a commitment to honor and love and cherish that other person until death do they part... People have forgotten the sanctity of marriage these days.. And while I would love to get married and have a family someday, I also have no problem staying single.. I dont think that it is a necessity to be married, but that love and marriage are a blessing, and a lot of people in life dont get the chance to experience those things, so if you ever get the chance to be in love, take it and run with it!!

"I know plenty of men that would RATHER have a stay at home wife and mother than have a woman who tries to balance both of those roles, plus work a full time job."
hahaaha
well DUH. Naturally the man wants to be the one to make the money because it makes them feel dominant.
I'm not saying that out of feminism, it's just a fact.
And who's to say the mother has to take care of the house chores, kids, and cooking? why is she obligated to do those things? isn't a male as capable of doing those things as well as a female? or why can't they split it up?
hmmm...

"Why make life harder on yourself and your family if you don’t need to? The kids of parents who both have full time jobs often feel like they didn’t get enough attention and also have a lot of different people raising them."
why is the mother obligated to stay with the kids?
Why aren't the fathers being criticized for not paying enough attention to them?
Why can't the father stay home?
hmmm...
"Absentee parenting is not something that I think is admirable."
Again, why when the father goes to work full time is he off the hook, but if the mother goes it's considered "absentee parenting"?

"Every couple depends on each other for different things. "
What of those successful singles?

"Also, many women are financially dependant on their boyfriends. You don’t have to get married to have financial arrangements with people."
Exactly, you don't. Hence, where’s the reason?
And those girls need to get jobs
:)

"The business world is run by men, that's obvious at this point, but the mother is then largely absentee, and they must pay for babysitters."
Not necessarily true. At this point in time perhaps, but studies show that if the rate continues consistently in the next 30 years women will be dominant in the business world.
Deny it all you want, I'll look it up for you
(not that you were going to...)

"Women know that, and it would be stupid of them not to assess the amount of "bread" their man can bring in throughout the course of their marriage, "
Yes, and also stupid of them not to assess how much they could do for themselves.
It would be harder work, is that what it's all about?

"Just because women are attracted to security does not make them helpless or defenseless."
I didn't say they automatically WERE, that's just subconsciously the role a lot of women like to play, just the way it is.

"You're young, perhaps you have not yet experienced the allure of a man who can offer you everything, and you can offer him everything that he is looking for in return."
First kaitlin, you're my age.
Second, i very well know the attraction of a man who can "take care of you" But what lures me more is the satisfaction of myself in 30 years when I lean back in my 15,000$ chair knowing i had earned it by myself.

"and you can offer him everything that he is looking for in return."
psh. let me guess. Those offers are: love, support, loyalty, child birth, and sex, right?

"The thing is that most of these men who support their wives don’t mind doing it."
Like I said: duh.
That's the way that society has taught the man to be: the provider, the dominant, the 'bread maker'. To take care of the woman and children, to be the head of house...bla bla bla

"She was his support system"
I'm not being insulting, and i'm happy for women who are happy with that, but that's the last thing I would ever want to be.

"almost ALWAYS makes more money than the female, in which case he would contribute more than she does, but the female almost always does more around the house and cooks and cleans, so who is to say what is "dependent?"
Yes, the men do make more money at this point in time but like many things: that's going to change. Not to mention it doesn't eliminate any ability to women, just a challenge
;)
I say she is dependent because ANYONE can cook and clean. A man could do those things as well as any woman; the only reason why it's the wife's job is because he's too tired when he comes home.

"the emotional support, maid service, and chef service that she offers him without her. "
Exactly.
Kaitlin...I think there's something demeaning when a woman is assigned to "maid service". (which is exactly that)
Anyone could provide those things, not to mention they're not needed, they're extra accessories (if you will)
annnd relating back to the original post, who says she couldn't do those things for her man if they weren't married?

" are often educated and strong women"
yes, they're giving up their abilities to be stay0-at-home moms. What progress.

Actually, that's not the phrase. it's "BEHIND every strong man..."
And yet again with the parent thing, why is the mother always obligated to be latched to the kids?

**ok, I've put off my "doll's house" essay for too long and I really, really need to work on it for the next few hours. So, i probably wont be on the rest of the night. Leave me your reply, I'll be happy to continue tomorrow, for now I really need to do my homework :(**

I am not a feminist, I am obviously more traditionalist in my thinking of the roles of men and women.

I don’t think they need to stay home, nor do I think that they need to work. I think that if they would like to play the typical home-baked-cookies, Betty Crocker/ Martha Stewert-esque role, that they should not be looked down upon, on the other hand, I believe that if they want to be an exec, that should also be supported. I feel like no role is demeaning, like you imply. I feel like you are stereotyping the type of woman that prefer to stay home when you say "Are you THAT TYPE of woman?" or "

Regardless, I think it's sad that the feminism movement has put more emphasis on a woman being able to make money than being ABLE to be a home maker if that's what she wants, because the key role of women will always be the same, and they will always try to "do it all," being pressured by the feminism movement. They feel guilty, like they SHOULD be able to be a nurturing wife and mother (key word for females, nurturing), and be a great exec bringing home $150,000 a year. It is simply something that cannot easily be attained, and surely you would have to bust your ass day and night to attain. The thing is that women are now trying to be everything that men were/ are, but are still keeping their old role as well. To be successful women, you are now supposed to play the wife and mother role (that is dictated by traditionalism) and to bring home the bacon (as dictated by feminism). Isn’t there something wrong with that? The expectations on women are getting to be far too great, being a wife and mother can EASILY be a full time job. No one expects men to run the house, be the main emotional rock for the family, AND have a full time career. You simply cannot do ALL of that and do a good job raising your kids.

I also have a traditionalist view point that it is more important for children to receive nurturing from their mothers rather than fathers, meaning that when the mother stays home it is better for the kids than when the father stays home, even though I think it is EXTRAORDINARILY important for fathers to be present. That's just my viewpoint, based on the eternal role of women. We BEAR the children for a reason, we breast feed for a reason, we NURTURE the kids more, even as they grow up. Women just ARE more emotionally centered than men. They always will be, feminists cannot change that (Regardless of the fact that they have tried and will continue to try).

I believe that there is more than enough time in ones life to earn money, get an education, and have a career for women. Many women now are not having children until they are in their upper 30’s; age is just not what it used to be.

I think that the type of person you are envisioning when I say these things is the type of woman who gets married in their 20's and is bred for this role. That's not what I think should happen, but not all women have the need to sit in their own $15,000 chair, and I know plenty of women who aren’t interested in earning their own money nearly as much as they are interested in raising kids. I think it's wrong that you look down upon them, and it is obvious that you do based upon when you say things like "they're giving up their abilities to be stay-at-home moms. What progress."

The problem that I have with present day feminists is that the whole purpose of the movement was to LIBERATE the women, to let them do what they want! They shouldn’t be stereotyped to fill any role, and if they choose to fill a "traditional" role that women fill, it should be in NO WAY looked down upon.

Everyone has their own interests, some men have dreams of wealth just like some women do, and some men don’t, just like some women don’t. I do know men that want to be stay at home dads, my brother being one of them. I admire that, but I think that the role of the mother is essential in proper development, and I think children naturally need more of their mother than their father, or at least equal time. I do think that men need to be held accountable for their children, and I in no way support a man that feels like contributing monetarily is ENOUGH of a role in his family, because the kids need more than that on an emotional level.

I also don’t feel like all men NEED be dominant of the woman they are with. Most of the men I know that have stay at home wives (And I know many) are perfect gentlemen who in no way NEED to make more money, it simply happened that way and they have total respect and appreciation for their wives, the problem is that you are relating these women to "the little woman" role, and I'm not. That is a way that feminism has HINDERED women's development, I feel they judge other women harsher than men do. I truly do.

Sure, there are the chauvinists out there. I find them to be total and complete assholes and have no respect for them, and I would sure as hell never be with one.

As a very smart and capable woman, I would have no problem "wasting my potential" as you say, by being a stay at home mom and wife. I also don’t think that the job is EASIER by any means that having a career, as you said it was. You don’t need to have a career to be active in the things that you want to be or to have causes that you work for, and I'm not just talking about the PTA. Plenty of stay at home moms write books, or run small businesses from their homes, which I fully support.

Women should be able to do whatever they want, but I have personal conceptions of what a proper environment should be to raise children. Women that are focused on their careers simply SHOULDNT have kids.

And a stay at home mom is the maid service, chef service, and emotional support of her whole family. That's what the job is, and that's why parents who both have careers often have nannies, chefs, and house cleaners.

I just know far too many well-to-do parents who have more than enough money for one of the parents to stay home (I'm mainly directing my criticism towards the women, because the men make more money and I think women are naturally better suited to stay at home with the kids) that DONT because they feel money is more important, and their kids are fucked up because of it. I think it's WRONG to screw up a kid for life because you feel the need to "be the man and the woman" just for the sake of it. If it's necessity, that's one thing, but then I personally think it's irresponsible to HAVE the kids in the first place.

I just think it's stupid to have kids and then hire people to raise them. I was raised by nannies, for instance, and find it absurd that it was done that way. Why have kids if you're not going to actually parent??? It's an 18-year commitment in the least, and parents know what they're getting in to.

Bottom line: Women should do whatever the hell they want to do (without feeling pressured from feminists or traditionalists), but parents need to do what is best for their children.

100% agreed.

I agree, subconsciously, women prefer the submissive role. The feminists can freak out over that comment, but it's hard wired.

I am a very strong and very opionated woman, but that does NOT mean that I want to dominate my man or our relationship. I want him to take the traditional "mans role," but I also want him to be sensitive to my needs. Obviously, if a man cares about you he isnt going to be an overly controlling and dominant brute, there is a nice balance that can be found between weakling and macho. The relationship is very equal, but at the end of the day, I want my boyfriend/ husband to have things under control and in order. I want to be able to rely on him, I dont want to be HIS man, you know? I'm his lady, it's his job to take care of me and mine to take care of him.

That's just how I think though.

lmao

fyi I'm not updating recently because it's SOL week and i know when I get started with this convo I can't stop lol so apologies, I'll update when I don't have to study my butt off.

(because I'm sure you're at your computer watching the screen waiting incredulously for pinkalias to send her reply because it means that much to you)

lol, this is a redundant debate, neither of our opinions are going to change.

I never said that women should have to do "women's things." Women should do what they damn well please, and if they please to do "traditional womens things" they shouldnt be looked down on it, it is just as noble.

Many feminists do, actually.

Yes, but I stated my opinion. This isnt an argument, this is kind of a debate, but a redundant one at that, because we have both stated our views.

“I am not a feminist, I am obviously more traditionalist in my thinking of the roles of men and women.”
haha well yes Kaitlin we’ve DEF established that
:)
See, I don’t like the idea of traditional way of things, because in the 50’s the ideal family was so tight, women were expected, and pretty much forced, to give up their Harvard degrees to become housewives.
Ever seen Mona Lisa smile?

”I feel like you are stereotyping the type of woman that prefer to stay home when you say "Are you THAT TYPE of woman?" or "
Perhaps I’m not being fair to them. My main issue is that women are giving up their skills and talents to stay home and support the hubbi. In my mind, that’s not right. Why work towards something to throw it away in the end?
Not to mention: if this was a truly equal world where there was a balance of men and women in the business and house-work (?) aspect, I would not have such hissy fits. Unfortunately, it’s not. As much as I hate it this is indeed a man’s world and men are dominant in it. I think over the years things will change (if the rates are consistent) but it most likely won’t be in my lifetime. Anyway, my point is this: if the idea of cooking, cleaning, and being the supporter wasn’t degrading in any way, then why is it a laughable thought to have a man be doing that work while the wife makes the bacon?

”Regardless, I think it's sad that the feminism movement has put more emphasis on a woman being able to make money than being ABLE to be a home maker if that's what she wants, because the key role of women will always be the same, and they will always try to "do it all," being pressured by the feminism movement….”
Hahahahaha oooooook. Not to be rude, please don’t even try to blame pressure on feminism. I highly doubt that a woman who goes through school and college with acceptional grades and the intelligence and talent to attain a career would only go for it because of pressure.
There probably are women who are being pressured into that, but don’t blame the feminists, blame those women for not being able to make their own decisions.

“ (key word for females, nurturing), and be a great exec bringing home $150,000 a year….”
First, trying to use the word nurturing for a female is indeed a stereotype
:)
Of course most women are, but my point is they are expected to be. That was the name given to them centuries ago when they were thought not to be as strong as a man, so they had to attain the softer job.
As for the role of women being too much to handle, why do they have to be a mother and career woman? I myself don’t plan on having kids, but if a woman absolutely has to have them (yes, I am aware of the maternal longing that takes over when girls get older) then why do they have to be the parent who pretty much raises the kids? And why can’t the whole housework thing be split up?
In my family we are all responsible for the housework. That really shouldn’t be an issue

”I also have a traditionalist view point that it is more important for children to receive nurturing from their mothers rather than fathers”
See I see that completely differently.
“They always will be, feminists cannot change that (Regardless of the fact that they have tried and will continue to try).”
Hahahaa
Ok, perhaps I do not know the full meaning of being a feminist, or you are generalizing it too much.
I know very well that women are a hell of a lot more emotional than men and could “nurture” the kids more affectively. In no way is that going to change, that’s evolution. What COULD change are the limits that motherhood sets for women, and how parenting is set about (rather than it all being settled on the mother).

”I think it's wrong that you look down upon them, and it is obvious that you do based upon when you say things like "they're giving up their abilities to be stay-at-home moms. What progress.”
Kaitlin, I say that because they let their talents waste. I think nothing is sadder than a woman who works hard during school, portrays amazing abilities that could possibly impact something great, then throw it away to cook and clean.
I necessarily look down on housewives, just the fact that they could do better.
(and yes I’m aware some of them can’t)

”They shouldn’t be stereotyped to fill any role,”
And yet they still are
“ and if they choose to fill a "traditional" role that women fill, it should be in NO WAY looked down upon.”
Alright, if they choose to fill this role, fine. That’s great. I hope they’re happy. But no matter what they’re going to be ‘looked down upon’ on some level merely because all they are accomplishing is house work and getting the kids to school on time. I’m not saying that to be rude or bitter, it’s just the way it is. Who would you most likely have more respect for? A woman who runs a multi million dollar company? Or a common house wife?
Again I don’t mean to be rude; it’s just the way it is.

”I think that the role of the mother is essential in proper development,”
See that’s why I don’t like the ideas of traditionalists. I think they’re should be room for change and acceptance of it. I would like to work forward.

”I also don’t feel like all men NEED be dominant of the woman they are with. Most of the men I know that have stay at home wives (And I know many) are perfect gentlemen who in no way NEED to make more money, it simply happened that way and they have total respect and appreciation for their wives, the problem is that you are relating these women to "the little woman" role, and I'm not. That is a way that feminism has HINDERED women's development, I feel they judge other women harsher than men do. I truly do.”
Truly?
Lol
Ok…The fact that you say men need to be dominant over women, makes me laugh. You say that women shouldn’t be looked down upon and yada yada yada, but in the end if they are dominated, that’s what’s going to happen. Not on a rude, violent, or hostile level of course but the fact that the woman is seen as weaker when she has the potential to be equal bothers me. I in no way see that the man has to be dominant. What reason is given for that? When you are an adult you should be your own person. Neither spouse should be on a lower level, they should be equal as adults.

”Plenty of stay at home moms write books, or run small businesses from their homes, which I fully support.”
I support those as well. I fully respect those women on all levels. The ones I have problems with are those who throw them away.

”Women that are focused on their careers simply SHOULDNT have kids.”
I definitely don’t agree with that, but I’ve already talked about my points so, there is none.

”And a stay at home mom is the maid service, chef service, and emotional support of her whole family. That's what the job is, and that's why parents who both have careers often have nannies, chefs, and house cleaners.”
What’s the problem with having house cleaners and cooks? Is there some sort of negative aspect that the wife doesn’t do the work?
Nannies I don’t necessarily agree with, but as long as parents have a healthy amount of time with their kids, I see no problem.

”I just know far too many well-to-do parents who have more than enough money for one of the parents to stay home (I'm mainly directing my criticism towards the women, because the men make more money and I think women are naturally better suited to stay at home with the kids) that DONT because they feel money is more important, and their kids are fucked up because of it. I think it's WRONG to screw up a kid for life because you feel the need to "be the man and the woman" just for the sake of it. If it's necessity, that's one thing, but then I personally think it's irresponsible to HAVE the kids in the first place.”
First, women who accomplish these tasks sure as hell don’t do it just to do it. They do it for their own potential and self respect. Second, again, the kids lives are blamed on the woman…third, yes, they shouldn’t have kids, problem solved.

”I just think it's stupid to have kids and then hire people to raise them. I was raised by nannies, for instance, and find it absurd that it was done that way. Why have kids if you're not going to actually parent??? It's an 18-year commitment in the least, and parents know what they're getting in to.”
No offence but now I am confused. You said your mother was a support system for your father, so why were you raised by nannies (1) and if it’s for some other apparent reason why try to use it for comparison (2)
Just out of curiosity. I could be misinterpreting

”Bottom line: Women should do whatever the hell they want to do (without feeling pressured from feminists or traditionalists), but parents need to do what is best for their children.”
Yes, women should do what they want and what they are capable of. If women are so easily pressured, I don’t think either traditionalists or feminists should be blame, just themselves. And kids are always a factor, what if there are no kids involved?

Anyway, this discussion is WAY off topic. I know opinions aren’t going to change I’m merely stating why I see it this way. Anyway, I respect your beliefs, I just see it way differently (obviously).

Sooooooo let’s get back to marriage!
:)

*apologies*
just realized I misread the whole dominance dealy. my fault, my fault

-anyways, BACK TO MARRIAGE!
:)

To clear up the confusion, because I clearly did contradict myself (my life story): My mother was a stay at home mom, but my dad owned a corporation that demanded her to support that, as well as the family. My dad builds houses, so she would show the houses on the weekends and do company parties, handle all the Holiday cards, and things to just generally help out as things got started. That was about the first half of their marriage, when money was tight, and that was as my brother was growing up (they started the corporation when he was a toddler), so she worked very hard. Also, because he was a homebuilder, she has moved our personal residences over 28 times in 27 years of marriage. She has had 3 back surgeries and numerous other health complications, which I'll come back to. Anyway, my brother is 10 years older than me and my sister is 7 years older than me, so my mother was an attentive stay at home mother until I was about 2, meaning that for 12 years (the age of her first child, my brother) my mom balanced the corporation, but was mainly a stay at home mother. We got our first nanny when I was born, to assist her, and by the early 90's she had lost all interest in the kids (when my brother was about 13 or 14), and began spending her time just shopping and dealing with health problems, getting pretty deep into prescription drugs (which is still a problem). As my parents gained more wealth, my mother lost her focus on the corporation or the family, that's not to say she didn’t work hard, she did, but only for about the first half of the marriage. I was born in 1988, which means that I was about 3 or 4 by the time that nannies were fully raising me, they lived in my house and we had house cleaners and cooks, and the nannies took me to school everyday, did my homework with me, cooked for me, and put me to bed, until I was about 11 and began to get more and more independent (partially because of my parents not being around and getting to do whatever I wanted, nannies wont tell you no), I began cooking for myself and all the nannies did was clean and drive me wherever I wanted to go. When I was 15 the last nanny was fired and I now take care of myself for the most part, my parents got separated when I was 14 and my mom moved out of the house, while my dad lived with his girlfriend for a few months. I was in the house with just the nannies, Pam, at that time, until my father and his girlfriend moved in and she left. In the midst of all that my parents were dealing with the bad economy ever since the dawn of the millennium, and 9/11, and my brother and sister who were both deep into chemical addictions.

My stance on traditionalism comes from my upbringing. I have seen the products of wealthy career focused parents, both in my own situation and because I went to a wealthy, prestigious, and pretentious, private school with parents that were much like mine, versus my friends who had stay at home mothers.

Also, the word "nurturing" does correspond to women, that's not a stereotype, they "nurture" their babies when they breast feed, they bear the children because they are of the most central importance in nurturing. They are proven to have more parental instinct than fathers and are more sensitive to them. The female of all species is like this.

And, just as traditionalism has bred "Mona Lisa Smile," which is an extremist traditionalist view, the extremist feminists of today do just as much damage to society, in my opinion.

I'm all for the empowerment of women, but I disagree that the roles can be equal on all fronts, because they are not equal in nature, and you cannot change nature, regardless of how much people try. Just like in the other conversation about women in combat, which has been had before on these forums, a few little girls, largely ignorant and influenced by the feminist movement, came into the thread saying something to the effect of "it's unfair that they cant be on the front lines!!! We are equal; we can do everything men can do!! Anything they can do we can do better!!!" etcetera. And that is simply not true. There are physical differences between men and women, and nature is symbolic of our psychologies.

We have the babies because we are psychologically more cut out to nurture them, and men are the hunters and the warriors because they are cut out to protect their families, and countries in modern day society.

Ultimately, I have no problem with women making their own decisions, they can have careers if they'd like, they can be housewives if they'd like, but at the end of the day, I respect house wives just as much as I do any CEO, because I respect people based upon intelligence, and nothing more. I know plenty of house wives that are much SMARTER and more capable of being a CEO, or really anything else, than many of the women that ARE, but, because they prefer to be home and raise kids, they are looked down upon? That's bull shit, what they choose to do with their skill is their choice, and passing it on to their children is very admirable to me. It's all right if Pink disagrees, but personally, there is nothing better than each individual following her dreams. It's just that if everyone were a feminist, procreation would stop. Nature can never be conquered and it can never be wrong, so I support it.

But, I am mainly only talking about psychological (subconscious) and physical differences.

I believe that mentally, women are just as capable as men. I dont believe women are above men, nor that men are above women. We are individuals before we are men, or women, and that's what's important.

Back to marriage...

lmao, so true.

yeah yeah yeah (rolls eyes)

So I realize this forum is rather dead buttt...

This is a perfect example. A couple days ago some friends and I went out to breakfast and noticed this very intimate elderly couple sitting near us. They were into the whole romance thing, very much into each other. Holding hands under the table, consistent eye gazing, exchanged smiles and winks etc; etc;...
Anyway somehow or another one of my friends ended up asking them how long they had been married and they replied that they weren't. They had been together 45 years, lived together for that period of time, they wore promise rings, but they were never legally wed.
I thought that was significant because it contributes to the idea that marriage kills the romance. What's going to make a person more unattractive or desirable than if you are bound to them for the rest of your life?
Not to mention it's also an example of how a couple could work living together, financially and such, without being legally married.

If I want to spend my life with someone, I'm going to do it married. I want to be his, and only his... taken. That's what that paper is to me... It's honor, and it's me giving him my all. That's what love is.

"If I want to spend my life with someone, I'm going to do it married. I want to be his, and only his... taken. That's what that paper is to me... It's honor, and it's me giving him my all. That's what love is."

His and only his...
This is exactly the sort of image I am speaking of. Another reason to marry is in fact reputation. The "honorable" thing to do (or so been taught) is to be bound to someone, attached to them. To be free of bond and finances or to be independent of them is considered indecent. That's the image and portrayal of how couple should live, it's what we have created. It's not an actual necessity.
-and btw, a piece of paper stating that you cannot leave the guy without losing a bit of money shouldn't be what "love is".

Mike-considering the percentage of couples divorced in the United States today, your statement is 72% true

Kind of sad isn't it?

Hi everyone, It's truly how you feel about it, but let me tell you, Marriage isn't a bad thing. It's truly what you make of it and if the love in your heart is real you can make it work. I've been married 28 years this October and we dated for 3 yrs. Todays Young adults, because I have two sons, My oldest 26 lived with a girl for 4 yrs. had a daughter and wanted to get married but they just couldn't make it work. My youngest son is 24 been married 3 yrs. and things look great for them. So I can see any one's point of not wanting to because every couple mostly lives together today. But truly marriage can be a wonderful and sacred thing, it's something you both have to want and love has to be there. Without it you'll never make it work. I love my husband today probably more than I did when we dated. It's all what you truly want. *Ann*

Well JPM, Maybe marriage is to you. You never get married because you feel its the right thing to do, you're suppose to love the person and want to do it. I hate you feel this way, but I was truly speaking from my own experience and My marriage has been wonderful, so I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.

"for the most part, people get married for the wrong reasons."
all too often

Are we not all taught that getting married and having kids is the top priority of our future? And when people are discussing they're careers (as young people, high school and middle school and such) do they not factor in marriage and how to work with or around it? Or the majority of people anyway. Growing up you most likely hear from your parents, "now when you're married...". I hate this "when" can it not be an "if"? And I'm sure that marriage can be a loving and wonderful thing, but as I stated before 72% of the time, it isn't.
There are numerous reasons why people get married that are not just related to finding the person of your dreams and spending the rest of your life with them. As I've stated before...
-being brought up in a society where it is thought to be crucial to attain
-fear of being alone and using it as a trap
-money
-some see it more as a business
-religion
-reputation
-expectation
-achieving the "american dream"
-being able to do it without God getting mad at you
And I'm sure you could think of many others.

I don't think that marriage in general is necessarily a bad thing, but the fact that it has to take place in your life, the fact that it is crucial. Couples can function without being wed and I see no detailed reason as to why you must be married to be considered a happy couple and moral family.

Well, humm... I am one of the supid ones that had to try the marriage game. I like to pride myself on the thought that I never give up, but after being married for seven years to a man that I now despise I did give up on my marriage. It was the best thing I could have done.

I promised myself then that in the future I will attain certain goals in my life before I even think about another relationship.

I am now in a position where I take care of me and my four children without the help of another. I need no man to support me and I can do as I want when I want without getting the shit beat out of me for it.

I do find that there are times when I am lonely and crave to have someone (anyone) there to hold me, but over all I am relieved that I have chosen to remain single.

Being single and a parent is alot of hard work, do not get me wrong, but it is well worth the effort. I am very independant and stubborn. Most guys find this scary and seem to think that since they cannot offer me anything more than I can offer myself there is no reason to get involved.

I have found that most guys who want to start dating are actually wanting someone to make them feel needed. Excuse me, but I do not need a man and *IF* I ever decide to get into another seriouse relationship it will be because I want that special guy and not need him.

I guess to sum it all up .... If a person cannot take care of themselves then they have no right to even entertain the idea of a seriouse commitment especially one like marriage.

I always tell my children the best way to avoid a divorce is to never marry in the first place.

--Sher

Well said sherry

AMEN JPM AMEN! Nothing wrong with that now is there lol

---Sher