One conversation that's constantly being thrown around in this 'gender war' is the the 50/50 question. Should a married couple split the bills 50/50 in a househould? Obviously there are many factors that come into play when asking this question, but, is this an acceptable standard?
In my personal opinion, it's kind of a nonsensical question on the surface as I believe that couples should go 100/100 in a relationship. 100/100 means that both parties bring their best to the relationship whether it is financial, emotional, or domestic support. From my perspective, this means it's like an 'all hands on deck' type of situation. Whatever talents or resources you have, it goes to the 'family' first as a general rule of thumb. Sometimes, this isn't possible or practical, but in most cases, you bring all that you have. Sometimes one person ends up bringing more and sometimes the other, but you give what you can if you have it to give. It's really more about equity than equality.
50/50 implies (to me anyway), that your job ends when you meet your partner half-way. To me, that's a losing strategy because in reality, there will be times in a lifetime of marriage where you or our partner won't be able to meet you halfway. It also seems selfish because your job is to sacrifice to family. It's not so much about how the marriage serves you, but how well you can serve the marriage. If both people take the onus on them and have the willingness to carry the load, then in theory, it works out better because grudges and score won't be kept. You just do what needs to be done. This of course only works if both people have the same intent. Both people have to the mentality of a 'giver' to the relationship even though there are times where you necessarily have to take. This is like any endeavor where you focus on the 'love' of the thing rather than the outcome. Typically, the more love you put into, the better the outcome is. But if your focus is more or less on the outcome than the love, then when difficulties come, you're discouraged and tend to walk away from it.
The provider male mentality where the man is expected to provide 100% of the lifestyle and income is just another manifestation of 50/50 in my opinion. The typical gender roles don't address situations where one person is unable to no longer provide the same things that they did. If the man loses his ability to provide the same lifestyle or income, then the woman no longer sees him 'holding up to his end of the bargain.' At the same time, it gets exhausting as a woman to have to carry the burden of doing everything around the house and raising the children. What if she gets sick and can't take care of the house. What happens if she's going through hormonal stresses and it's hard for her to get in the mood for sex (assuming she's not just being a selfish cunt about it).
Provider relationships also create scenarios where the woman has barely any negotiation leverage....especially if she doesn't have money and financial opportunity if he were to leave or become abusive. This is why you have so many women who's mentality is to have a savings that the man doesn't know about just in case he decides to leave her. I also think that this is why so many of our Grandfathers were cheaters and abusive. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
I am not a fan of thinking that a man should necessarily provide 100% of the income in today's age. If it makes sense in your household, then there are scenarios where this is perfectly reasonable. But in today's age, it's not always a necessary duty in my opinion.
It made sense when women did not have opportunity to go out and get money or resources. When I see women still advocating this, I think that many of them are just lazy and want a free ride. When I see men advocating this, I think that it's just power move. Single mothers have shown that they are perfectly capable of having a job and raising kids on their own. NO it's not easy to do alone, but it is and has been done. Many American men still believe that "a man's money is OUR money, but the woman's money is HER money.".... Again, this goes against the idea of equity and fairness in a relationship. Who is she "Cleopatra" or something? Does she want a husband or another daddy?
If a man is wealthy and can take on the financial load alone, then fine. I think that he would have a difficult time knowing if his woman is with him for him and the greater good....or if she's just with him for the lifestyle. But it's on him, good luck with that. The average person in today's society however doesn't have the luxury. I mean why should a man have to work extra hours to support a stay at home woman. Doesn't he also want to spend more quality time with his children? He also has to find time for quality alone time with his wife.
Some people like to use the bible to support the idea that a man should take on the responsibility of being the sole or primary breadwinner. I haven't seen any scripture that indicates this. It does say that a man should provide for his family. However, there is so much more that a man can provide other than finances and a lifestyle. Personally, I'd want to provide financially for my family, but I could see the scenario where IF MY WOMAN made way more than me and it was cheaper for me to stay at home and raise the children, then I could for a temporary amount of time until they got old enough to get out of daycare. But this goes back to the utilitarian/equity type of relationship. *The only caveat with this is that i truly believe that most women would end up losing respect based on her subconscious conditioning. It would probably end up detrimental to the relationship.
Another argument is that women say that since they have to bear the children, then they deserve the 'soft life'. They claim that since the man benefits off of her carrying his 'legacy' then he should shoulder most of the responsibility. First of all, most women ALSO want kids. It's not just his legacy, it's both of their legacy. That kid contains 50 percent of each person's dna. In most animals, the female is also responsible for providing resources for the offspring anyway so this isn't like men or looking for a shortcut to circumvent 'nature' or anything. IF anything, we're creating an artificial environment when we do stay and help raise the kids....if we are looking at nature. Single human mothers have shown that they are capable to doing it alone anyway. So I think that nature argument is bad. Don't me mad at males for not having to birth children. Argue that one with God. But as someone who loves, I take on the responsibility of raising and providing for OUR children. I am grateful, but it still doesn't make her a God or anything. She's just a female human/ woman to me. I love and care for her more, but it is what it is.
I don't know how women could be feminists when feminism was supposed to be about equality. I don't know how they could co-sign the idea of men being basically financial slaves and ATMs. If she can also work and help provide for the household, then I don't know why shouldn't have the responsibility of also sacrificing her resources towards the family as well. It's OUR FAMILY and therefore OUR responsibility to give what WE have.
I know that men and woman are not the same, but I do consider us as equals. So I expect to treat them with equality. I don't put them on pedestals. This means that I expect accountability. This also means that she can hold me accountable if I'm not doing the right things. Chivalry is great and all, and I do out of the kindness of my heart. I see it as a gesture of love, but I don't see it as my duty. Otherwise, we end up how we are today.....Women feeling entitled to it and not showing any gratitude for it.
Men who proclaim themselves as 'provider'/'traditional' men say it with pride. If that's what they want to do, then it's on them, but I think it's kind of stupid. We no longer live in 'traditional' times. You don't have to be a slave to a woman's whims. It's not noble. It's just you being doormat. In my opinion, it shows a lack of self respect along with a lack of respect for a woman's ability to contribute. How can you expect real respect if you have to buy it off of someone? These guys make it bad for the rest of us because they set up unrealistic expectations. They co-sign women's selfishness and make it seems as if they're supposed to be on a pedestal. It's just another form of prostitution if they have to buy their woman's love.
In reality, if a woman truly loves you, then she wants to build with you. Sure, you can buy one of these demons' love. But best believe it is transactional and based on superficial conditions. I'd go so far to say that 'love' isn't really a feeling. It's a principle that guides your actions. Someone can "love" you today and hate you the next. Most people who 'fell in love' once felt like they loved their object of affection, but because their feelings got less intense, then so did their dedication towards that person.
If most people's 'love' is just a feeling based on attraction or meeting someone meeting their wants or need at the time, then it's not something that I could recommend altering your life for. A starving person will eat trash out of the garbage can. But once that hunger is satiated, they aren't grateful for the food anymore. Love then (as practiced by most it seems) is just a temporary satiation of something they once desired. Transactional and 50/50 relationships therefore aren't based on the principle of love. It's based on a temporary feeling.
This is one reason why I'm no longer so "impressed" or "pressed" when a woman tells me that she "loves me". I believe her, but I also think that it's just an intense emotion that she's feeling at the time and that could change any day. There are certain principles at play for instance when we love our kids, real friends, pets, and even family members. Therefore, we are more inclined to operate with a certain sense of 'selflessness' when it comes to what we do for them. Just because they don't do what we want or they let us down sometimes, we still do what we must do to protect and provide for them.
For me, it's an automatic red flag when a woman is attracted based on money, status, or superficial reasons. This is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand how men with money AND clout really "fall in love" with a woman who knows about their status. I could feel intense attraction for a woman, but it's not like I'd put my heart and soul into her. I've been there enough to know that those feelings that she has for me are temporary at best and it's not based on a principle of now that I know you, I want the best for you even if I don't directly benefit off of it.
My ex-lover is a perfect example of this. We were "friends" for about 4 years. Things got intense, but I never go the sense that she truly loved me as a real friend. She said certain small things that made me aware of it at the time.....ie. she only dealt with me because of the sex and she liked my body.....as if that was supposed to make me feel more deeply for her. But regardless, we went through many things together and have a ton of stories (ups and downs, wins and losses) together.
After realizing that romantic relationship probably wasn't going to materialize, she decided to completely block me. I never abused her, always kept it real with her, usually there when she needed me to help. I supported her in her endeavors, never discouraged her. I was a listening ear. Dealt with her 'imperfections', attitude, mouth. Accepted apologies when she was wrong and apologized when I was. I was quite literally a shoulder she could cry on. I accepted her flaws as a person. But I wasn't a fool. I figured that despite her constantly telling me that in addition to a lover, I was a great friend to her, ....the love that she had was selfish and that someday....IF she ever had an opportunity for greener grass or if she FELT like I no longer served the needs that I was fulfilling in her life, she'd just abandon me. In the coldest way possible if convenient. Much like STBXW did.
4 good years and now I'm blocked. Not to say that we had to besties..... But if I had taken that 'pillow talk' seriously, I'd be really upset that in the end. She didn't really love me. I mean she did with her feelings at the time, but not in principle.
You'd think that she'd occasionally check up on me to see how things were. Not even to get together, but as a ya know..... friend. All that say that despite all of that, if she ever needed me for something, I'd still help if I could. I know that the sentiment of real love/friendship isn't reciprocated by her, but real love isn't always reciprocated. I'd just stand on the principle that I know who she is and I accept that. I'm just not foolish enough to trust her LIKE THAT with my heart.
I know that I probably come across as a pretentious 'nice guy'. But I'm ok with that. I am loyal, to a fault. I think that I truly do love. I accept people who they are, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to be a fool about it. I used to be a man who took "i love you's" at face value. But now that I understand what most women mean by it, it's hard for me to quite see them in the same way. I think this is why the mantra, "she's never yours, it's just your turn" resonates so well with me. Doesn't mean that I can't have love for her, but it does mean that her proclamation of "love" for me doesn't really say as much as it once did.
No comments:
Post a Comment