Question for the females.

Post Reply New Topic

It's (mostly) what you're attracting and attracted to (and/or repelling or chasing away), even if not consciously or intentionally - at least if the numbers are "big enough" to bear it out statistically.

E.g. one particular person I've known numerous decades has *always* had *bad* relationships - typically abusive (they being the abused), or otherwise generally highly unhealthy, dangerous, or just generally messed up (to put it politely). On the highly rare occasion they get in a relationship with someone that's actually very good, good for them, quite compatible, gives them what they need and want, etc., something "inevitably" always happens, and quite quickly, that "scares" them out of that relationship - and when there's *nothing* there to be afraid of or concerned about. Lather, rinse, repeat - never seen that person break from that pattern, and that's with score(s) of relationships over the decades. It is *not* a matter of the gender that person is dating, but it's who they attract and are attracted to - and despite their own best interests.

Look, dig, check deeply. It may not be obvious. It might be very subtle, yet enough to (significantly) "tip the balance". Can't spot what it is? Get some other(s) to help spot it for you. Often helluva lot easier for someone else to spot what one misses oneself (and I can certainly at least sometimes apply that to myself).

Personally, if I have the choice, I want to Home Educate my future children, for this, I'd have to be fully dependent on my partner. My partner and I have spoken in length about this and he is 100% happy with being the sole provider so that I can make sure our kids get a decent education.

BUT, that is just what we've decided would be best for us.
I don't for a second think that everyone should have the same family set up as we wish to.

I think some women like to be "looked after" because it's still the "norm" in our society. Specially if said woman has "given" you a child.

But like others have said, I know women who would rather be homeless than depend on a man, or anyone.

You maybe dependent on him for income, but he'll be dependent on you for child care, special education, housekeeping, cooking, etc.
If he had to pay for that, the cost would be exorbitant. Childcare costs alone can be more than a 2nd paycheck would be worth.
Also people with "support partners" statistically have an advantage career/earnings wise.

A stay at home parent isn't a drain on finances, they are an asset.

Different arrangements work for different people, I'm glad we have more freedom now to make choices that suit ourselves and our families the best.

Last edited by DogsWithoutHorses on 21 Jul 2012, 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What you miss, is I have to give up what I feel I need, or want, of who I feel I am, in order to fit in and gain whats next. therefore I will not find what I feel I want or need. only what is expected, or what is desired of me. not accepted for who and what I am, but instead only of what others want me to be. otherwise there is only loneliness. instead of two puzzles fitting, all there is is my changing to fit their puzzles. or be alone forever. i can not respect any mate, when I have to become that for them. personal growth has to come as one, with each other. or all we are becomes lost in who they are. but when faced with eternal loneliness, you become what you have to do for acceptance and love. you say, someday the one will come, when that is a lie because of the odds. who wants to wait till their on their death beds, before finding that right one? its not right.

Perhaps you are attracted to some characteristic of these women that is also associated with "gold digging". I use quotation marks because that is not really the proper term, but we will leave it at that.

If I were in a relationship in which I had children with my partner, and I were the primary caregiver, then yes, I would expect them to be the primary bread winner. It would not be a gift, it would be a responsibility, just like me taking care of the house and children are not gifts, but me fulfilling my responsibilities. In these types of relationships, I feel men have historically taken the woman's role for granted because they do not realize how difficult a role it is, and see it as less important.

I would not, however automatically expect the man to support me if we did not have any children. However one must also recognize that in many relationship where there are no children and one individual is financially supporting the other, if that were not the case then the relationship wouldn't be feasible because both parties would have to work and one party might not earn enough to engage in much with respect to socialization, and might not be able to afford to live in the same area with their partner. Such lack of time together would likely strain the relationship and lead to it's failure.

Yes, "direct work" is as valid and useful as money from outwork, in fact to my mind it's better, because you cut out the middle man, and best of all, your "boss" is your best mate and you're naturally on the same page (if things are going properly), whereas there's an intrinsic conflict between employer and employee because you belong to separate communities and both want more from each other for less.

My only objection to what you've said is that I think we lose something when we monetarise loving relationships.......I was tempted to argue that the outworker only really gets half the cited child-related benefits generated by the in-worker, as the child carries half the DNA of each party, but that would just come over as devaluing homemakers, which isn't my intention at all. Just that it's hard to put a monetary value on the emotional impact of working for an equal who loves you compared to a boss who does not.

There is the problem that if you go and commit to a lifetime of inwork, the balance of power may shift in favour of the outworker, who could threaten to walk away from the deal and leave the inworker destitute and not easily employable after so long away from the market, but we have maintenance and child support laws these days, and if the inworker keeps their jobless years to a minimum, then there's no reason why this should worry them. It's a shame that marriage can't realistically be assumed to be for life, or the feeling of security would be wonderful.

I think the reason employers like workers with "support partners" is that such workers are trapped by their liabilities and so more scared of the sack. I need only half my salary to support myself, but when I was the sole breadwinner for a family of 4, we were hardly breaking even, and redundancy would have devastated us. I felt like there was a gun to my head and I tolerated more bullying, humiliation and sudden unpaid overtime demands than was good for me, because of that threat. These days, with only myself to feed and house, they can't scare me so easily.

Me, I never had the chance to quit the day job and do inwork. When I suggested it to a partner, I was told that I wasn't a proper man. I think the real motive for that comment was that my partner was scared of frugal living and had no empathy for my work-related stress. But I'm sure I could have done really well. I see inwork as a higher form of labour and I'd like to see more self-sufficient communities so that it could all be inwork.

My sons mother, had 5 other kids before I came along. and was working two part time jobs and did not have time for her kids so left them with her ex, often complaining she never had time for them. then I came along, went to work full time. she dropped one job and went full time with the other. then we had a child of our own. I understand the need to stay home and tend to the children as needed, but what work she did do she started to spend only on her self, where all mine went into bills. and as soon as I got home I took care of the kids and the cleaning/cooking in the home while she vanished out to her garden or onto her computer... in the end she took all the hard work I done at home and at work and with the kids for granted. then dumped me for some other guy who had a college education, but in the end she found was vary abusive and the kids hated. where the kids kept begging for me back but she never listened. she at one time told me she wanted someone with prestige. and yes, she was an Aspie too.

^
That's tragic.

I guess the one advantage of outwork is that the contract is quite formal and detailed. On the domestic scene it could be easier to end up freeloading like that. The communes and co-ops I saw had their share of trouble with people not pulling their weight, and the "gentle living" ethos made it difficult to challenge the problem. Friends and lovers don't like to keep a financial balance sheet on each other.

My mum is old fashion and expects that any boyfriends I have should lavish me with expensive gifts and meals out and should be able to support/provide for me but I don't share her views.
When I date someone I'm more than happy to pay my own way and even support my partner. I had a boyfriend who had no source of income so I did pay for things and it didn't bother me. Love isn't about money or possesions, it's about the person and how much you care about them.

Statistically, the vast majority of women work, some of them multiple jobs.
The modern family cannot survive on one income alone anymore,
unless one person has a salaried career which usually requires (tens of thousands of dollars for) a degree.

Personally, I've always suspected I'd have to find someone willing to support me at least partially,
though that's nothing to do with my sex, as opposed to Autism-related shortcomings. I'd much-prefer to be independent, but until I have a degree, that's not likely to happen. If someone were to support me, I'd do my damndest to contribute in other ways via a fair division of labor- he provides income, I take care of all the homemaking, errands, etc.

I think it's sad that some women live this way because they're so convinced of traditional gender roles- financial dependence lends itself to all sorts of emotionally and physically-abusive dynamics. I'm a radical feminist, and believe the personal is political, and for those reasons it makes me extremely uncomfortable to be faced with being dependent on a man, even if it's due to having a developmental disorder and not my sex per se. My mother has her master's and had a fulfilling career she loved for over two decades, and I feel that I'm taking an enormous step backward.

If I understand correctly, she went to work, came home, took care of the kids and some house duties, and when you came home, took a break. If she is working part time she is not going to get all the domestic work done, especially with 6 children to look after. Concerning how she spent her money, there is rent and bills but there are also domestic expenses like personal hygiene/care items, household items, clothing and supplies for the kids, food, gas for driving them too and fro, and so on. How do you know she did not put her earnings towards such things?

I'm the primary bread winner in my living situation at the moment, but I would never accuse my roommate of not contributing. He buys things like dish soap, bath soap, cleaning supplies, toilet paper, household items I would never think of until I needed them, like scissors, tape, various kitchen supplies...in fact he has bought all of the kitchen supplies. He used to buy the cat food, he has frequently taken it upon himself to buy the cat litter, air fresheners, laundry detergent, paper towels, bath towels, and he provides transportation sometimes.

It's important to understand the situation of another person before you make claims against them.

I will, however tell him if I don't think he is living up to his share of financial responsibilities in favor of spending his money on things like movies, entertainment, or items he wants instead of needs, and this does happen on occasion as we have different money managing philosophies.

As for this woman leaving you, I don't think it's right to harbor the belief that your contributions oblige her to stay in a relationship with you. In fact I do not think that would be a healthy, or fair reason to either parties, for someone to stay in a relationship.

Actually, she spent most all of it on flowers for her garden. and no I most of the time did not take the break, she did. some was for food producing plants, but for the most part, FLOWERS.

And no I did not feel she had to obliged me by staying in our relationship, I just did not like being taken for granted when I was doing the best I could.

I think perhaps then there was a failure of communication and action. If I felt as if I were being taken for granted I would have said so. If the situation did not resolve, I would be the one questioning whether or not the relationship was sustainable. But it sounds like to a degree you took her for granted as well, in the sense that I'm not sure you are completely acknowledging effort she might have felt she put into the relationship. A lot of times these things are mutual. That you are upset about this indicates that you weren't happy in the relationship, and that she left indicates that she wasn't happy in the relationship, so this is not a problem that just came up suddenly one day but something that simmered for a while.

Does not matter anyways, that was years ago.
Now we may be getting into anther legal spiff, just because she cant always have things her way all the time. just like her, I have a life of my own, too.

What is this legal spiff over? Maybe some individuals here can offer you some perspectives you might find valuable.

I just want to move to where me and our son will have a better life. Not far, an hour from where she lives. just I want to transfer his schooling and therapy along with me. she feels I am doing it out of spite, where thats far from the truth, I just want to get on with our lives. nothing will change custodial wise then they have been for the last couple years. I been handling our sons education anyways. she is just paranoid.