The Salary problem

[Decade]

As a guy in society, I've been told constantly by other men that it's not ok for a woman to make more than her spouse in a relationship (that is if they agree the woman can work outside the house AT ALL).

My question for this topic is: Why?

I seriously have never gotten a decent answer out of this and cant really grasp my head around the notion.

Im told that a man has to be the provider of the family and that if the woman makes more than him, than he doesnt have a real purpose, role, and isnt actually considered a man.

But isnt the man still working and still contributing to the well being of the family?

I honestly dont get it, maybe someone else can shine light on the topic for me, but in all honesty, I've always believed that as long as I'm actually working and contributing to the relationship and I show my spouse that I am NOT dependent on her, meaning I dont need her to pay my bills, that would be ok.

If anything, I only find it more beneficial if your spouse makes that much money, or more than your own salary. Helps afford a better living, pay the bills, or at very least take vacations more often (or at least better vacations over all). Of course, I'm looking at this in a purely monetary point of view, but is this a wrong view to observe it from? Should I really look at a conservative view of "Women should be home doing housework and cooking my dinner" instead?

While I wouldnt mind a spouse who actually decided to stay home and do that, I would think not. :watson:

[Jay]

It's all about power. The man has to be the Big Man and provide for his wife and children; if she's providing MORE he feels inferior.

Or at least that's what society tells me. :watson:

Should I really look at a conservative view of "Women should be home doing housework and cooking my dinner" instead?

No. Because that's so 1938.

[Decade]

Isnt providing for the wife and kids though supposed to be about providing as much as possible? If the wife is doing that as well, isn't that a good thing? True, she's not the MAN in the relationship, but who really cares?

[Zensouken]

I don't think it matters as long as you're BOTH bringing in something...

[Roxie]

Decade, don't worry about them. You've got it right. You don't need to understand it. It won't enrich you at all.

[Jay]

Decade, don't worry about them. You've got it right. You don't need to understand it. It won't enrich you at all.

But he wants to understand it. Have you never had something that bugs you and you just can't work out? I have, and it's really annoying. :box:

[Jay]

Isnt providing for the wife and kids though supposed to be about providing as much as possible? If the wife is doing that as well, isn't that a good thing? True, she's not the MAN in the relationship, but who really cares?

You know what? That's mostly the way I see it too.

It's mainly a touchy subject with "men's men" who believe in the man's role in the workplace and as provider for the family and the woman as a contributing figure in some other way.

He brings home the bacon, she cooks it, y'know?

[FOBulous]

Well, I think he should at least understand why even if he doesn't agree. Especially when the rest of the society is used to the opposite.

But yeah, it's pretty much what's been said is true. In an old fashion society, the man's responsibility is to bring home the bacon. And even though you're okay with your woman making more than you, that doesn't necessarily mean the girl you end up with will be okay with that.

I've dated strong successful women who weren't happy with how much I made at the time. They wanted the security a man brings financially sometimes.

[Kuri]

I think the idea behind it is the man should provide for his wife and children and if she is doing it by herself maybe he feels useless or inferior..

But provided you can be happy that your wife is self sufficient I'm sure most any men now a days greatly appreciate the income of their better half.

[Rogue_7]

If I marry some high powered lawyer who can bring home 10x the bacon I can. I will f*kcn rejoice. Hello HDTV!

[ZaichikArky]

I dunno really. I just see it as men are VERY egotistical and need to have that security by making more money than their wife because if their wife was to make more money than them, it's a disgrace to their manhood. I don't think it's really much beyond that...

[Decade]

Well, I think he should at least understand why even if he doesn't agree. Especially when the rest of the society is used to the opposite.
True, thats really what I'm trying to get outta this thread. I dont agree with it, but what is it I'm missing that should make me?

But yeah, it's pretty much what's been said is true. In an old fashion society, the man's responsibility is to bring home the bacon. And even though you're okay with your woman making more than you, that doesn't necessarily mean the girl you end up with will be okay with that.

I've dated strong successful women who weren't happy with how much I made at the time. They wanted the security a man brings financially sometimes.

This is where I get confused though. I guess in these cases, women want to see a man who makes a lot more money than them and so they feel even more financially secure. But the methodology I've always had about money in general (at least in EARNING it) is "It's more than what I got." In that case, you're just getting more money out of this, so what's so bad?

Maybe I'm being to superficial and materialistic about it. Besides, I know this isnt your actual argument, it's just your personal experience. I just wish I could understand :box:

[Jay]

If I marry some high powered lawyer who can bring home 10x the bacon I can. I will f*kcn rejoice. Hello HDTV!

This man raises a good point.

[Decade]

Seriously. Hello perfect PS3/Xbox 360 gaming experience.

Woops, that's not very adult of me though, is it?

[Jay]

Xbox 360?

...burn the infidel.

[FOBulous]

True, thats really what I'm trying to get outta this thread. I dont agree with it, but what is it I'm missing that should make me?



This is where I get confused though. I guess in these cases, women want to see a man who makes a lot more money than them and so they feel even more financially secure. But the methodology I've always had about money in general (at least in EARNING it) is "It's more than what I got." In that case, you're just getting more money out of this, so what's so bad?

Maybe I'm being to superficial and materialistic about it. Besides, I know this isnt your actual argument, it's just your personal experience. I just wish I could understand :box:
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

For me as I get older, I notice the women I meet look for different things in men then when I was younger. They tend to look for that security, ability to be a potential father, things like that.

And it's not only men who can be old fashion. Women can too. Some like and would choose to be not the financial equal to their husband.

It's a lot of conditioning and how people grew up. There's no right or wrong. Just what people are used to.

[Decade]

21 actually. I guess I'm thinking about this as I'm going out into the working world soon and am wondering whats really the penalty I'll face for having a working spouse. Maybe I'm supposed to see it differently once I start?

[Dresh]

The whole time I was growing up, my mother consistently made a significant amount more money than my father. Heck, she paid most of the cash for the family vacations. It never bothered either her or my father, though one could argue that my father's profession as a police officer compensated for the lack of financial income. Personally, however, I doubt this as my mother doesn't care about men in uniform. Anyway, her being the money maker never bothered anyone in the family.

[FOBulous]

Well the way I am, I work towards a future that I can offer my wife the opportunity to choose whether or not she wants to work. I think as men, that's the most we can do.

Well that and have a big penis.

[Decade]

Well the way I am, I work towards a future that I can offer my wife the opportunity to choose whether or not she wants to work. I think as men, that's the most we can do.

Well that and have a big penis.
That sir, is what badass truly is.

Uh...not just the penis part

[slinky]

I dunno really. I just see it as men are VERY egotistical and need to have that security by making more money than their wife because if their wife was to make more money than them, it's a disgrace to their manhood. I don't think it's really much beyond that...

That's a gross generalization, and pretty insensitive to boot.


For me as I get older, I notice the women I meet look for different things in men then when I was younger. They tend to look for that security, ability to be a potential father, things like that.

And it's not only men who can be old fashion. Women can too. Some like and would choose to be not the financial equal to their husband.

It's true that the tastes of women (and men) change as they mature. But also the definitions change as well. Security can mean several different things at different stages and points in someone's life - and it's not always financial. It depends on your priorities.

I'm going out into the working world soon and am wondering whats really the penalty I'll face for having a working spouse. Maybe I'm supposed to see it differently once I start?

Well, it depends on if you mean spouse in the generic or specific sense. Many women may want you to make more, some won't care, some are looking for a guy who can support the family so they can stay home later in the marriage so "working spouse" has a lot of meanings here.

Like Roxie said, you have the right idea. But as for the questioning of why? I think there's a few reasons that aren't related to the misogyny of men, in fact maybe it's due to the backlash against that.

In today's society women can work if they choose, be mothers if they choose, do both, etc. Their identities are rich and thanks to the efforts of women before them, now know fewer boundaries. But as a society men may not have quite adjusted yet to that. It's coming along but the thing is, if you take away the man's "breadwinner" role... what's his identity?

There are many men who are comfortable and who have developed a deeper sense of self than that, but there are many who haven't. And it's not cool nowadays for a guy to stand up and say "Hey! I'm a guy!". There's a lot of guys who feel like they have to apologize because they have a penis (or rebel against doing that and become dicks but I'm straying off the topic).

(wow, this next paragraph should probably be its own thread - I have a feeling it's going to stir the pot a bit)
It seems like in a lot of ways (Not all, not the majority, but it's not exactly the exception) women have empowered themselves by emasculating men. I'm not saying that empowering women is a bad thing, I'm saying that we haven't really left guys with a whole lot of things they're allowed to take pride in as men. Their sucess in their career is (tenuously) about the only thing left. So I don't really look at trying to preserve that as a big, bad, I-hate-women-and-must-dominate male ego thing but more of a preservation of identity thing.

That said, back to the topic. Some women will want their mate to make more then them for a couple of reasons:
1) Because they do, indeed, want the old-fashioned life. Which is perfectly fine if they and their mate agree on that.
2) Because they have expended a great deal of effort and time into developing a career and they want to have a mate who (for reasons listed above) is going to be OK with that. But also maybe it's because they, rightly or wrongly, believe that a workaholic, ambitious mate is going to be more understanding of their drive and their unavailability due to work hours than one who isn't quite as ambitious.
3) Or because (I say this in fairness, I'd be remiss if I didn't, it's ugly but it happens) because they're gold diggers.

Back to my original point - it really depends on if you're speaking of spouse in the generic or spouse in the specific. I'd go with specific and choose someone's who's grounded enough to be OK with who you are and what you make, because it sounds like you're equally grounded in yourself.

[MNJetter]

Maybe this is old fashioned, but...

When I get married, I don't care if my husband makes more than me or less than me, but he ought to be making enough to let us survive on one income while our kids are young. I have absolutely no problem with the woman being the breadwinner and the man being the nurturer, or of both spouses trying to share all the jobs, when the kids have started school. But while I'm perfectly confident in my ability to earn money, I'm not so sure about his ability to breastfeed an infant....:P

edit: typo

[gyoza]

I agree with a lot of what slinky said. And at least from my experience, if you ask 100 people this question you'll get 101 answers. There are guys who want to make more than their wife to compensate for their small package; there are girls who want to make more than their husbands in order to prove they're "strong successful women"; there are women who want their husbands to make more because they're gold diggers; heck, there are guys who want their wives to make more because they're gold diggers.

It varies from individual to individual, and to me one of the most important things to consider when one is considering a long-term relationship is each person's view on gender roles.

[erbiumfiber]

I always wanted to make a really good salary (and now make way more than my ex-husband) because marriage isn't always forever. And with a child to raise on my own, well, if I weren't pulling in a lawyer's salary, I couldn't have had a decent quality of life since I lived in a high cost of living part of the country (Washington, DC metropolitan area). That's why I didn't drop out of law school even when I found out I was pregnant (found out three weeks before it started, worked and went to school at night). I didn't care one way or the other how my husband felt about it, I wanted the security of knowing that I could be a high salary earner.

[paul]

I agree with a lot of what slinky said. And at least from my experience, if you ask 100 people this question you'll get 101 answers. There are guys who want to make more than their wife to compensate for their small package; there are girls who want to make more than their husbands in order to prove they're "strong successful women"; there are women who want their husbands to make more because they're gold diggers; heck, there are guys who want their wives to make more because they're gold diggers.

It varies from individual to individual, and to me one of the most important things to consider when one is considering a long-term relationship is each person's view on gender roles.

You make everything sound... so... negative.
You're either a guy with a small package, a girl who is intent on impressing people with her strength and success, gold diggers, more gold diggers, or a guy who has a small salary, but a large penis.

[Decade]

or a guy who has a small salary, but a large penis.
...and wouldnt it be worse the other way around?

[gyoza]

Hahah, like I said there are hundreds of different viewpoints and reasons behind those viewpoints. Was just pointing out a few of the more absurd ones.

[slinky]

...and wouldnt it be worse the other way around?


Depends on your (and your partner's) motivations.

[Angelyne]

Some men are threatened by the modern idea that a women doesn't need a man in her personal life to survive. Women in our society have the chance to get a decent education and career on their own, can conceive children without having sex, and don't even need men to get off sexually. I'm not implying that a life like this is emotionally healthy or even practical--just that society has made it possible for a woman to live this kind of life if she so chooses. As has already been pointed out, it threatens a man's identity as a "breadwinner".

[FOBulous]

I'm worthless now??? T_T

[slinky]

I'm worthless now??? T_T


Meh. You always were... :P

[Kass]

As a guy in society, I've been told constantly by other men that it's not ok for a woman to make more than her spouse in a relationship (that is if they agree the woman can work outside the house AT ALL).

My question for this topic is: Why?

Whomever is telling you that has probably had his ego kicked in the groin a few times. It is okay for a woman to earn as much as her profession will pay her, just as it is for a man.

Yes, men and women are different and will always in some ways fill different roles in a relationship based on gender. Biology makes that a fact. Somehow I doubt a man will ever squeeze a baby out through his penis, so women will always be the childbearers, etc. There's nothing wrong with that either.

Most other roles are fluid and will always change from generation to generation.

It's true that the tastes of women (and men) change as they mature. But also the definitions change as well. Security can mean several different things at different stages and points in someone's life - and it's not always financial. It depends on your priorities.

No, not always financial, but almost always tied to employment and the ability to earn income. As long as women make on average less than men for the same work, women are going to put a priority on men being able to take care of themselves at the very least.

Consistent employment is a sign of stability, responsiblity and security and more mature (not just age, but women with a little practical wisdom under their belt) women will always want someone who can and will take care of them should the need arise. That doesn't mean it will ever arise, that they want it to arise or that they'll quit taking care of themselves, but there is reassurance in knowing that option is there.

The opposite extreme are the women who want bad boys so that they can take care of them, change them and make them into the responsible, secure man.

I would imagine that it is in some ways a relief for a guy that even though he could, he doesn't have to take care of his spouse.

In today's society women can work if they choose, be mothers if they choose, do both, etc.

Can, but it is a royal pain in the ass, primarily because in large part, the vast majority of responsibility at home is not divided equally and that burden still falls to the woman, so she's holding down two fulltime careers. while many men are open to women earning a livingoutside the home, far fewer are comfortable accepting responsibility for more feminine household duties.

There's a lot of guys who feel like they have to apologize because they have a penis (or rebel against doing that and become dicks but I'm straying off the topic).

(wow, this next paragraph should probably be its own thread - I have a feeling it's going to stir the pot a bit)
It seems like in a lot of ways (Not all, not the majority, but it's not exactly the exception) women have empowered themselves by emasculating men. I'm not saying that empowering women is a bad thing, I'm saying that we haven't really left guys with a whole lot of things they're allowed to take pride in as men. Their sucess in their career is (tenuously) about the only thing left. So I don't really look at trying to preserve that as a big, bad, I-hate-women-and-must-dominate male ego thing but more of a preservation of identity thing.


I think you are bang on here. I'm sure a lot of the tetosterone overload that you see in movies and television and sports nowadays is a backlash.

This is one of my primary gripes with the current state of the "women's movement." Anymore, it isn't equality that they fight for, but superiority and stupid PC causes.

If a man and a woman apply for the same job and the man has more experience and is more qualified, NOW still thinks the woman should get the job because some woman somewhere didn't get a job for which she was more qualified. This isn't a matter of balance, but a matter of fairness. Balance and fairness aren't the same thing. Soemtimes the fair thing is that three men get promoted because they deserve it before a woman does. Sometimes fairness dictates that three women get promoted and so do two men. Sometimes only the women get promoted.

As for their absurd PC causes like wanting new words for 'man' and 'woman' because 'woman' is based on the word 'man,' get a frickin' clue. I'm more worried about getting paid the same as the guy across the hall doing the same thing as me and being able to apply for and have a fair shot at any job I'm qualified for. If getting those things means I'm called woman and that's an extension of man, I really don't care. There are more important fish to fry.

Many of their tactics involve making light of and belittling accomplishments that men have made.

"Jonas Salk was a brilliant scientist whose inventions led to improved health around the world."

"Well a woman could have done that if men hadn't held her back."

It's said like Salk would not have been so brilliant because a woman was more brilliant and just didn't have the opportunity. It's not the point. A woman didn't do it. A man did. Get over it. It doesn't make Madame Curie any less brilliant to say Jonas Salk is brilliant.

You don't have to make others look bad or any less to make yourself look good and many feminist organizations (not necessarily individuals or even close to all women who could be considered feminist) behave as though men are the enemy to be defeated, not the other half of the human population we have to co-exist with.

That said, back to the topic. Some women will want their mate to make more then them for a couple of reasons:
1) Because they do, indeed, want the old-fashioned life. Which is perfectly fine if they and their mate agree on that.
2) Because they have expended a great deal of effort and time into developing a career and they want to have a mate who (for reasons listed above) is going to be OK with that. But also maybe it's because they, rightly or wrongly, believe that a workaholic, ambitious mate is going to be more understanding of their drive and their unavailability due to work hours than one who isn't quite as ambitious.
3) Or because (I say this in fairness, I'd be remiss if I didn't, it's ugly but it happens) because they're gold diggers.

You forgot lazy. ;)

I think it is less about earning more, and more about earning enough. Women want men to earn enough to take care of them if they HAD to do it, even if women don't WANT men to take care of them.

[Decade]

I'm worthless now??? T_T

According to anthropologists, all men are expendable. :(

[Trump]

Well, nature provides a good reason. When a woman has a child, she is usually out of the work place for several weeks (if not longer). If the woman in the relationship is the breadwinner, this can put a lot of strain on the finances especially since children add many expenses to a household even before they are born. Even if the man and the woman make similar amounts, losing half their income can involve major changes to a couple's lifestyle.

[Praetorian]

Kass, I have to say I was impressed by your post and agree.

Also, let's remember that the way we viewed men as breadwinners and men as caretakers has been like this in most cultures and civilisations since the dawn of mankind. Men were the hunter/gatherers and women looked out for the children. This has always been the case, for literally (hundreds of) thousands of years. Only in the last fourty or so years a part of the world (not even all or even most of the world) have we begun to slowly but surely dispute this literally ancient idea. You could say that it may even be evolutionaly ingrained in us. As such, I do think it'd have some growth problems over a couple of generations. This isn't a slight change, this changed and is still changing our every way of thinking. Of course there are going to be some people - both men and women - who'll have problems adapting to that.

And to Decade saying that men are expendable.

I ask you this. Not just to you, but to everybody here. Is your father expendable? Are your sons, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, uncles and grandfathers or other loved ones expendable?

[Bob]

Tradition. When cavemen were around the men would go out and hunt and the women would have sex with them for food, wich is kinda similar

[Kass]

Well, nature provides a good reason. When a woman has a child, she is usually out of the work place for several weeks (if not longer). If the woman in the relationship is the breadwinner, this can put a lot of strain on the finances especially since children add many expenses to a household even before they are born. Even if the man and the woman make similar amounts, losing half their income can involve major changes to a couple's lifestyle.

It is virtually impossible to live on one income or one large income and one small income. It doesn't change your lifestyle when you lose part of it due to childbirth. It can bring it to an abrupt halt. To argue that this is justification to pay a woman less is beyond insulting. Just because a woman can bear children doesn't mean she will bear children.

Men can get all sorts of cancers and health problems that can lead them to being out of work for weeks at a time. You should pay them less because of it. Pay women more because men might get sick. One of my dearest friends was out for a couple of months because his kidneys failed and he had a transplant. Are you arguing that that potential for absence is justification for paying him less for the same work someone else in the same position would make?

There will always be unforseen circumstances that could lead to someone being out of work that will cause catastrophic damage to a family's financial well-being. That is no justification for paying anyone less.

On the other hand, it is entirely a justification for paying a woman equal to a man. Because she might be out and the family income might be impaired, women need to earn more to set aside money for that possible eventuality. Forget equal. Pay them a higher salary.

The only justifications for variances in salaries are skills required, skills available, experience and performance. Race, gender and the remote possibility that someone might be out for several weeks due to a medical condition aren't among them.

[Kash]

Having a wife that could/would/does make more than me would be a great thing. Men who would oppose this don't have any clue or don't have a grasp of the real world. True, some might be misogynous neantherthals but I'm betting who ever told you this doesn't have a wife, a job, or a secure position.

Nothing would make me happier than a wife with double my income. Women might seek out men with quality jobs because they want to take time off to have children, but that's not the question. Why don't men want a wife with a greater income? They do.

[Balain]

According to anthropologists, all men are expendable. :(

That is a little out of context. Back in the early days of man, the women were the caregivers and nurturers. After all, as was said once here, the men would have a hard time breast feeding the infants. This left the men to take on tasks with a lot more risks, like fighting off sabbertooth tigers to protect his family. This way there was some chance for his offspring to still surivie if the mother was left to feed the children if he did happen to die fighting the sabbertooth tiger.

[Decade]

"Well a woman could have done that if men hadn't held her back."


You're actually giving me another topic idea now :D

Also, let's remember that the way we viewed men as breadwinners and men as caretakers has been like this in most cultures and civilisations since the dawn of mankind. Men were the hunter/gatherers and women looked out for the children. This has always been the case, for literally (hundreds of) thousands of years.

Actually, it's the "Man the Hunter," "Woman the gatherer" theories. Men hunted but needed other forms of food as well that they wouldnt generally have time to get or get as much of since they were hunting while women would be gathering plants and herbs. As such, many anthropologists believe this lead to a sharing of food system which is eventually what had evolved into society and the family units.

And to Decade saying that men are expendable.

I ask you this. Not just to you, but to everybody here. Is your father expendable? Are your sons, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, uncles and grandfathers or other loved ones expendable?
THANK YOU!! Seriously, I used this kind of argument against my anthropology teacher in class last week when she told us this. Her response?

"Oh, you're thinking of it on a personal level though, we have to look beyond that to see what this anthropologists are saying."

...women are all bitches and ho's. Try not to take THAT personally and look beyond it to see what Riley Freeman is trying to say

...bitch.

And just for reference, yes, this is the same class from the "Independent Movies" thread I made in the entertainment section.

That is a little out of context. Back in the early days of man, the women were the caregivers and nurturers. After all, as was said once here, the men would have a hard time breast feeding the infants. This left the men to take on tasks with a lot more risks, like fighting off sabbertooth tigers to protect his family. This way there was some chance for his offspring to still surivie if the mother was left to feed the children if he did happen to die fighting the sabbertooth tiger.

...regardless I'd still like to think I'm worth something :box:


It is virtually impossible to live on one income or one large income and one small income. It doesn't change your lifestyle when you lose part of it due to childbirth. It can bring it to an abrupt halt. To argue that this is justification to pay a woman less is beyond insulting. Just because a woman can bear children doesn't mean she will bear children.

I've heard the argument that, "But women can choose NOT to come back to work/Women cant take on as stressful tasks near end of pregnancy/Women could leave abruptly anytime during pregnancy, even in the middle of a very important task."

Your argument is AWESOME though, I have never thought of using that (and isn't that sad?).

[Kass]

Men can choose not to come back after an illness, they can retire, they can't take on stressful or strenuous tasks while ill, can die suddenly at anytime during the illness, even in the middle of a very important task. Men have been known to kill themselves because they felt their masculinity slipping away during an illness.

[Praetorian]

...women are all bitches and ho's. Try not to take THAT personally and look beyond it to see what Riley Freeman is trying to say.

Although thank you for complimenting me, I really don't like generalising like this at all. I hate it when people do it to men (like many people on this forum seem to like doing), and I hate it when people do it to women. I also hate it when people do it to black people, white people, asian people, short people and tall people. I just don't like generalising and thinks like that very much. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but for some reason it's kind of touchy with me.

Only 1 in 10 women I've met were "bitchy" and "hoes". Same as how only 1 in 10 men are asses.

Also, it is true that the common perception is that men hunt and women gather, but this is again, a generalisation.

Kass, can women not do the same thing, minus of course masculinity slipping away?

[Decade]

Although thank you for complimenting me, I really don't like generalising like this at all. I hate it when people do it to men (like many people on this forum seem to like doing), and I hate it when people do it to women.

...I was joking and showing contradiction in her argument using a reverse argument.

Know what? Nevermind :sarcasm:

[Praetorian]

I can't read sarcasm in text-form very well.

[Roxie]

But he wants to understand it. Have you never had something that bugs you and you just can't work out? I have, and it's really annoying. :box:
Oh yes, yes I have. But then I came to the conclusion that there are just somethings I don't need to understand. They only frustrate me and searching for an answer that is logically at all is just going to make it worse. I don't need to understand them, they're not going to help me at all.

I think a part of this whole ideology of men having to be the breadwinners is society's fault. It's men's and women's fault.

Yeah, we all have this idea in the US about what it is to be a man. But I question the descriptions. Like, why does "provider" have to mean "sole provider" or "top earner"? If you're bringing enough cash to contribute, are you not providing? Actually, now that I think about it's unfair to both men and women. It's puts pressure on men to fit this one, very strict, role (as women's roles tend to be more fluid in the issue) and ignores the idea of women being a provider (by that I mean simply providing, not sole provider).

Unfair to everyone. I really think we limit men's ideas of what it is to be a "good man" TOO strictly. I mean, really, why does it have to be money he's providing? Everyone hits hard times you know?

My father lost his job in the great IBM cutback of the mid 90's and my mom was the sole earner for quite a while.

See, I said earner, not "provider". This is because my dad did provide other things. He'd be there when I got home. Make me a snack, dinner, help me with my homework, make sure I did my chores, made sure I had all the books I could want to read. And because my mom was working 16 hour days, 6 days a week, my dad did all the chores (that I didn't have to).
My dad provided things of immersuable monetary value.

We definently need to get our heads out of the dark ages of these unforgivable strict roles for men.



This is one of my primary gripes with the current state of the "women's movement." Anymore, it isn't equality that they fight for, but superiority and stupid PC causes.
As for their absurd PC causes like wanting new words for 'man' and 'woman' because 'woman' is based on the word 'man,' get a frickin' clue.
I have a little issues with some of this.

Admitedly, I'm not sure about NOW's current objectives, however I think the idea of feminists wanting to (basically) be men is unfair. Alot of it comes from popculture, confused girls, and extremists. And yes, I'd consider just about anyone who agreed with your example of the scientist as a bit extreme (at least), and if that' NOW now, yikes.

I just would like to suggest some readings, Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation by Leora Tanenbaum and Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy. The last especially.

I can understand the want for a new word for "woman", because for so very, very long (and sometimes still) a woman was defined by her relationship to a man. I get it, but I agree with you, it's toothpaste choice.

What I mean by that is people are very quick to say that here (in America) we're lucky to have choice. Well, yes, we can choose between 33 types of toothpastes, but how about another political party or something?

Like you said, there are bigger fish to fry.

[Kass]

Praetorian, this:
Men can choose not to come back after an illness, they can retire, they can't take on stressful or strenuous tasks while ill, can die suddenly at anytime during the illness, even in the middle of a very important task. Men have been known to kill themselves because they felt their masculinity slipping away during an illness.

is a counter to this:

I've heard the argument that, "But women can choose NOT to come back to work/Women cant take on as stressful tasks near end of pregnancy/Women could leave abruptly anytime during pregnancy, even in the middle of a very important task."

The argument that women have an unpredictable work potential based on the ability to bear children is a fallacy based on the assumed invulnerability of men. Quite the contrary, with women, you get nine months notice of an absence.

[Roxie]

The argument that women have an unpredictable work potential based on the ability to bear children is a fallacy based on the assumed invulnerability of men. Quite the contrary, with women, you get nine months notice of an absence.
Yeah, like you said, "just because you can doesn't mean you will." This is definently one of the things that frustrate me the most.

I know a few women who do not want children. Not that they don't like them, they just don't want any. And many people find this shocking and not okay. They give them a hard time about it.

So you get a hard time if you ppl know you don't want any, yet you get paid less, b/c you might have some. And if you DO have some, you get paid less b/c you might be the one to take care of them at home.

I actually saw something on tv that was talking about it women where paid for the convential occupations that would fall under "stay at home mom", their salary would be $500,000 a year.

Often I hear about how you have (the woman) have to choose between family & career. What I don't get is why this burden is placed on the woman's shoulders. Where's the father?! What is he doing? Shouldn't he be sharing in the family responsibilty as well? [/rant]

Yeah.

[TLab3000]

I've learned lately that specific cultural features, no matter how hard you try, can not always be understood or accepted. It's sad, but that's how it is.

Anyway, there's on thing that didn't get mentioned, yet, I think. In Japan, "(O)Miai", a kind of arranged marriage, is rather common. Those arranged marriages usually work out fine, and many people believe that those marriages have a higher chance of succeeding than "love marriages". There might be many reasons for this, and of them is that there are clear rules about how to live as a family. The man is the provider, the woman is the head of a household, in a way, and responsible for the education of their children. So, the concept of an arranged marriage sounds promising and like the way to go, even in a love marriage.

Apart from that, it might seem easier to proceed the "role allocationed" way. The wife doing the household being able to concentrate on the kids, the man just having to bring in the money. Managing the household plus a job seems like a bit too much, sometimes. I admit, that applies for me, my job is very demanding and i can't manage to keep house the way it's supposed to be.

Nevertheless, I don't agree with that way, for several reasons. For example, my income is not very high, but it's okay. But I couldn't imagine supporting a family with the money I earn; at least it wouldn't be a good or carefree life, moneywise.
What I find even worse is that I would be supposed not to do certain things. I can live without ironing my shirts myself, but I'd really like to have a word in the education of my children! A Japanese female friend once said, the husband is allowed to help with the kids from time to time, but raising them is clearly the wife's job. No can do.

I guess the role allocation has advantages, but it also comes with limitations. And us westerners just aren't good with (the idea of) limitations. It opposes our desire for personal freedom, which we regard as a fundamental right.

[Kass]

I have a little issues with some of this.

Admitedly, I'm not sure about NOW's current objectives, however I think the idea of feminists wanting to (basically) be men is unfair. Alot of it comes from popculture, confused girls, and extremists. And yes, I'd consider just about anyone who agreed with your example of the scientist as a bit extreme (at least), and if that' NOW now, yikes.

Exactly where did I say or imply women wanted to be men. I said that the "women's movement," not individuals, have lost sight of the goal of equality in favor of superiority. The goal is no longer equal opportunities and equal pay, but pay back for past wrongs or perceived wrongs. Their goal is domination, or less harshly, over-compensation.

Why an unqualified woman should be hired over qualified man because historically, somewhere a woman was denied a job based on gender escapes me. The best person gets the job, the raise, the promotion, the bonus. Breasts or penis, it doesn't matter.

Honestly, I know a few women I would never, ever bring onto a job site because they exemplify the very worst negative stereotypical traits of women. Catty, gossipy, whiny, weak, frequently absent... Were a man to display the same traits, I'd not hire him as well, but men are far less likely to display those particular traits. (There are traits more common to men that would rule them out as well.) When I am sitting in on interviews, I do watch for those traits in women.

While there is still some disparity in pay between men and women, that gap is consistently closing AND the statistics are misleading. When someone says that women only make $.76 on the dollar compared to men, that is based on the median income of all men and women who log at least 35 hours of work in all jobs.

Note what is left out:
Part time work.
Comparing like jobs.
An analysis of what jobs more men or more women hold.
Whether or not there is equal training, education or experience between employees.
The amount of overtime worked.
That women are more likely to choose lower paying professions.
Women leave and rejoin the workforce more than men.
women, on average, work fewer hours than men.

To point out that a computer programmer with a master's degree and 10 years of continuous experience makes more than a computer programmer with a master's degree and 6 years of interrupted experience. That the former is a man and the latter a woman doesn't matter. One person has better qualifications.

They are not comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

I just would like to suggest some readings, Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation by Leora Tanenbaum and Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy. The last especially.

I'll put them in line behind the 20 books I'm behind on reading now. ;)

I can understand the want for a new word for "woman", because for so very, very long (and sometimes still) a woman was defined by her relationship to a man. I get it, but I agree with you, it's toothpaste choice.

I will never understand this. Pick your damned battles. Intransigence and insistence on this belittles the struggle for equity in areas that matter. Do you know what a joke it is in the workplace when women insist on being called the chairperson instead of chairman, even among other women? It sets back efforts in other areas. Nevermind that it is a major accomplishment that a woman was appointed/elected to that position by men, she's just undone a large part of the respect that earned her the job in the first place. The boardmembers and shareholders, male and female alike, would prefer it if she had focused on things that matter, like the company's bottom line.

I demand not be called caucasian again. Caucasian associates me with the Caucasas and Caucasia, an area that my ancestors haven't been affiliated with in thousands of years. I refuse to be defined in terms of them.

Do you see how absurd that is? Caucasian no longer always means someone for Caucasia. The meaning has evolved. Woman no longer defines a woman in terms of man. It now is only a word for a gender distinction.

What I mean by that is people are very quick to say that here (in America) we're lucky to have choice. Well, yes, we can choose between 33 types of toothpastes, but how about another political party or something?

Which is a perfect example of focusing on the real issues. I don't give a hoot if I am described as a woman, female, redhead or short person (all of which are true, undisputable facts) as long as I am treated with respect and compensated fairly.

Hell, since I got a 12.7% raise this year (the average was 3%), am one of five in 200 people getting bonuses this year, have numerous letters of commendation in my personnel file and have been recognized company-wide as a "stellar" employee, my boss can call me "the little, redheaded girl" for all I care. In all areas that matter, I am treated as good as or better than 97% of the company.

I recently got lambasted because I didn't really care and wasn't offended because a woman who had a wedding announcement published in a smalltown paper asked that the caption under her bridal photo read, "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith, Katy Jones."

That is technically correct if you look up the etiquette. Antiquated, perhaps, but okay. It is what she wants. If it makes her happy, go for it. It's no skin off my nose.

Several women were incensed. They accused Katy and me of being anti-women, a dinosaur, a slave, etc. Well, I read the announcement. Katy was a chief financial officer of a company with 2,500 employees. That is no small company and being a CFO of a company that size is quite an accomplishment for anyone, male or female.

My point was that it is HER choice to idnetify herself however she wants. Maybe she loves her husband and is proud to be identified with him that way. Maybe she wanted to offer a token gesture to her elderly, old-fashioned grandmother in the paper grandma reads everyday. Maybe that is the standard convention for the newspaper and she just didn't care--no one she knew read it anyway. It was only there because a relative lived in that town.

A couple of the women who were so angry flat out said they would be ashamed to take their husband's name because it set women back to change their name upon marriage. I fail to see what identifying one's self as aprt of a family unit is so shameful. I also pointed out that their last name was their father's name given to them without any choice and that keeping it continued to associate them with another dominant male in their life--their father. Pick a man. You get one or the other. I only know of one woman who has a last name truly of her choosing and she had a legal name change and picked a name she liked.

Odds are that in the highly unlikely event that I get legally married again, I'd probably legally change my name, but not professionally. It is a major hassle to change over business cards, email addresses and contact info. I'd just change the HR crap and leave the rest. Hyphenation just means my name wouldn't fit in any standardized forms.

That in no way implies that someone who doesn't change their name, hyphenates their name or changes it across the board is wrong. It means they made the decision right for them.

I tend to be exceedingly practical when it comes to things like that.

The point is that it was that woman's choice and no one else has the right to complain when there is finally a choice and someone makes one opposite of what is politically correct in the eyes of whatever group.

I choose to put as more important that it is okay that I tell the manager at the restaurant I worked at in college that I'd remove his arm at the shoulder if he grabbed my ass again. I choose to put it more important that he be disciplined for grabbing my ass in the first place. I choose to put it more important that the men I work with don't lean over and look down my shirt. I choose to put it more important that I am not passed over for anything I've earned based solely on gender. (If I'm passed over for someone more qualified, it sucks, but it's fair.)

Honestly, the toothpaste I choose matters more than if someone describes me as a woman.

[Roxie]

Exactly where did I say or imply women wanted to be men. Oh no, I didn't mean that that's what you said. I meant in general. I said that the "women's movement," not individuals, have lost sight of the goal of equality in favor of superiority.
I'm glad you clarified that, if for the simple fact, most ppl I discuss this with (men & women) don't.
The best person gets the job, the raise, the promotion, the bonus. Breasts or penis, it doesn't matter.


I agree with this and everything else...except the little part...but that probably has more to do with me being short. :gwitch:

[Trump]

Sorry Kass, you seem confused about what I said. It may be my fault for not being clear. I was answering the original question:

"I've been told constantly by other men that it's not ok for a woman to make more than her spouse in a relationship. Why?"

One reason (which does not discount any other reasons) is childbirth. I did not say anything justifying that they do get paid more or less because of this.

[Radiance]

Answer: Anyone that has an issue with "the salary problem" has a small penis. Well... maybe not a tiny penis, but deffinatly personal issues as far as their personal confidence goes. Hell, personally I plan on making as much money as I can and meet someone that makes as much if not more money than me so I never have to worry about wanting anything. We can both provide and enjoy it together. If we're both in similar fields or can work together, we could start our own company.

Really, as said previously in the thead, it will not enrich you to understand this any further than to know it is an old idea that is long overdue in being put out to pasture. Find a job you enjoy, meet someone you enjoy spending time with, enjoy your time and experiences together.