Traditional relationships

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of working women have a job because they need two salaries to pay the mortgage, or they like a luxurious lifestyle, or to gain respect in a liberal society.

I'd say there's a lot of both types of women.

Nontraditional relationship roles does not necessarily equal enlightened. Traditional may work for many people. It's all just up to what works for you.

I have to say that I don't quite understand the vehemence with which some are attacking the traditional view. Since when is taking care of ones family oppressive, demeaning, and unfulfilling? I highly doubt many people are 'forced' into such situations. There are many women who want to take care of their family domestically. Regardless, someone has to do it. It is not demeaning for a man, woman, or for both to share it. It is simply a necessity that these things get done one way or another. It's not a punishment.

^ I agree and I am one of them. I left a job I loved in '98 to be home with my kids and I never went back. The difference for me is whether it's by choice, or by expectation. I chose to stay home with my kids and my husband supported that. But if I changed my mind at any time and wanted to go back to the industry I was in, he would have fully supported that too. I think that no matter who works in the house or who works outside of it, taking care of the home is a shared responsibility. Some people don't think that taking care of kids is a lot of work and that is so far from the truth.

From the OP's post:

"I think that this makes most people happy. Many (not all) of the problems discussed about on this L&D forum would, in my opinion, be solved with traditional relationships."

You're right, mitharatowen, that these relationships CAN work (my sister-in-law, for example, enjoys being a stay-at-home mom and running the day-to-day household), but only if they're based on mutual respect. The OP's post smacks, *imho*, of the smug, self-righteous sexism typically found in crude, uncultured, discriminatory patriarchal societies, where women are second-class citizens/chattel/property, existing (in men's minds) as simply glorified maids/whores/baby-making machines with no other purpose in life than to serve men. As a product of a very dysfunctional family, in which Dad figured that his familial responsibilities *ended* when he got home from work each night, I'm naturally biased against this sort of arrangement.

Certain aspects of traditional femininity appeal to me, particularly the strong interpersonal skills and willingness to act as a kind of bridge between people. Plus, I must admit, there's something about a "sweet girl" personality that appeals to me.

Women who are very brainy in the scientific sense do tend to turn me off on average in a romantic sense, mainly because I tend to be drawn to women who are kind of opposite to myself. Women who are too similar to me, while impressing me in an intellectual manner, tend to feel like competitors, and at the same time lack the kind of deep attractiveness and exoticism of someone who has a great knack for things where I feel I struggle. This certainly doesn't mean that I want someone whose highest aspiration is to cook and clean, nor do I like stupidity, just I prefer intelligence that manifests itself in a way that's refreshingly new to me.

For casual sex partners and/or friends with benefits, which is a lot of what I look for these days, my preferences are somewhat different. For that I can tolerate even more drastic difference, but I also can find beauty in those who are a lot more similar to myself. I still don't want a clone, though. And I hate how people seem to think that it's demeaning if the only interaction you have with someone is sexual, as if that means neither of you are good for anything else.

And I totally don't care who earns more money. To me, money is a very matter-of-fact real world thing that we all need to survive, but that otherwise doesn't make me look up to, or down on, other people in the way that many mainstream people do. There are many more interesting ways to measure my own success and that of others.

And in regards to having children, that's totally not on my radar screen now, as it's a huge responsibility and frankly I don't think I could make them a priority over my interests. So for the good of those hypothetical children as well as myself, I am not even considering that.

My mother allways said: 'a mother should be with her children'.

The views of celticg and sinister are utter garbage.

i think it depends entirely on the situation. some women are business minded, while some men would prefer to do the domestic things. i had a friend in elementary school, her mother did all the providing and hardcore business, her dad stayed at home and cleaned and stuff. they seemed happy.
while i also know families who have a blissful marriage in the "traditional" sense.
i myself cant decide. some parts of me want to tend to the home and kids, whilst others are nagging me to go out and live....i guess ill figure out when i'm older, heheh.
but yeah, it depends on the people in the relationship. in a "traditional" relationship, if the man is selfish and sees the wife as his servant, you're gonna get lots of problems. if he respects his wife and understands she is doing a job as hard as his, and is greatful for her, then it's a good situation. same with the woman. she needs to respect her husband's work and make sure she doesnt get mad at him if he comes home tired. but both should help each other within reason when asked. i'm for any sort of relationship as long as it works.
if the couple have kids, they need to make whatever sacrifice of work or roles to ensure the mother and father are there for them. kids arent a mother's duty, they are both parent's duties.

sorry, i sorta rambled on there, i dont even know if i stayed on topic .