Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
My Reasons for Support Traditional Gender Roles and Wanting a More Traditional Relationship (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
29Opinion
Oh, I think traditional gender roles in marriage is great.
I also think women flushed that down the toilet. Look at women today, for instance. They want to go to college, get married, work for 5-8 years, then retire to be a mom or just work part time. Then they complain about how men can't earn enough or such.
Talk about irony. Ever wonder why men in the 50's literally could graduate high school, then get married, buy a house, and support a wife+kid?
Let's put it in economics. Workers are "selling" themselves to companies. What happens when you flat out double the supply? Companies can afford to pay much less. Women want to marry up or get to be stay at home mom's... as they take the jobs of men who could be supporting them.
Not to mention no-fault divorce. Simply put, why on earth would I support a stay at home wife, when I know she can then divorce-rape me in court, and literally get a heftier pay off because I was supporting her ass instead of her working?
The economics behind that is far more complicated. Women have always worked. Unless you were a privileged class, but the vast majority of women have always worked. And women DID work in the 40s especially but also the 50s and 60s. Women in germany basically rebuild the country after ww2.
So why are the 50s so often seen as the age of housewives? Because the economy was up. People had money. The government taxed top earners with over 90% and redistributed the money through i. e. the GI bill. So having only one breadwinner suddenly became achievable to middle class households, which had previously been a privilege to the rich.
Women still worked though. In fact the vast majority of women in low income households worked. The key point here is an existing and flourishing middle class. A lot of people are under the wrong assumption that a middle class is a normal byproduct of capitalism. It is not. It's a fluke in history. Europe temporarily had one, in the middle ages, when
the plague wiped out half the population, leaving workers (both male and female) at a higher bargaining power. So you can do that or you can do what the U. S. did in the 50s, which tax the rich and give to the poor. And now that we're not doing that anymore you see what you would expect, a widening wage gap, a diminishing middle class and women working to support their families. Nothing revolutionary about it. It's pretty much ancient history
Divorce with her not working sucks for both parties. Obviously you choose to look only at one perspective but it's not a piece of cake from hers either.
@Izzy2102
Pardon... we don't tax from the rich and give to the poor? Really? My dad makes about 85k a year, and has a great accountant and claims 5 dependents. He still loses about 35k a year before he gets his paycheck. And that's just income taxes. I lose about 20% of my shitty paycheck before it even gets to me.
You're really going to say we don't have welfare programs to help the poor?
Our government in the USA doesn't even want to deny welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. That's how much we tax from workers to give to the poor and/or the lazy.
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...-country-illegally.html
We do tax the rich, but ronald reagan infamously cut the top tax rate into a third and it hasn't recovered since.
People talk talk about the 50s and 60s so romantically. Families could live with one breadwinner, everyone was wealthy and happy. Well that is because we taxed the rich at over 90% and gave the money to the people. And we ARE moving away from that. When you cut taxes for the rich, which we did, you're not seriously doubting that, are you? you get what you would expect which is a widening wage gap img-9gag-ftw.9cache.com/photo/avZYKqX_460sv.mp4 a dieing middle class and people needing two incomes to feed their families.
It doesn't all happen overnight, but unless something changes, give it a few decades and we'll be back to industrial revolution standards.
Point was, your little theory about women starting to work and decreasing men's wages is incomplete at best. There's much more to it that you fail to see. Or don't want to see
@Izzy2102
I'll bite. how were we taxing from the rich/giving to the poor in the 50's that we aren't now? link, please? an economy based on that seems like a snake eating it's tail.
I mean it's not rocket science 4.bp.blogspot.com/.../TMTR%2Bto%2Bdebt.png
Reagan in the 80s cut the top tax rate from something like 70% to 28% and we've been around 30% -40% since. After WW2 it was around 95%. That's the historical perspective. In international comparison we're also at the bottom cdn.static-economist.com/.../20111001_WOC714.gif for an income of 100 000 bucks a year. Top tax rates in some countries are much up to 60% in some European countries such as belgium, denmark or sweden.
The issue of houses is a bit more complicated. House prices were roughly 2 annual salaries. At an all time low because houses were there as the government gave out cheap loans to people
www.ritholtz.com/.../...rices-vs-median-income.png
The GI bill applied to almost half to population in the 50s, so they could get free college, free work training, cheap mortgages, cash outs, money to start a business, unemployment pay... . And people did buy build houses. People more and more moved to the suburbs, because they could afford it
Now you can argue whether or not
you think that is a good thing, but it DID happen. And guess who paid for it? The millionaires who paid 90% of their salary in taxes
Division of labor is always more efficient. This is why two different genders evolved in the first place.
Not dividing your labor is inefficient and leads to a less stable family. That's why I support gender roles.
I admit, I didn't know that taxes were like that. So yes, you just schooled me on that, @Izzy2102
But I have to ask, how does taxing the rich drastically affect the economy? There was not a heavy welfare state in the 50's. The house point is interesting, but I'd say we just did the exact same thing in the 90's that resulted in the 2009 Recession, thanks to the housing bubble. Welfare itself hasn't helped many people, from what I've learned. For example, Section 8 housing/government housing quickly turned into dens of drug dealers and criminals, and have remained that way ever since.
www.theatlantic.com/.../
For another, the rich don't have enough wealth, from what I understand. According to this source, if American's income was capped at 1 million, and the rest was taxed 100%, and people *still* worked just as hard, the take would be 616 billion. 1/3 of our current deficit, roughly. That's pretending people will work just to donate tax money.
www.forbes.com/.../
See, the government doesn't really grow the economy... they can only spend what they first steal or borrow. Business grows the economy, or trade. So how does the government taxing the rich help, especially with our trillion dollar deficit, that the rich can't pay for?
For instance, if the government put tariffs on all foreign goods to help domestic industry compete better, and mandated minimum wage tied to inflation, that would help. I don't see how currently, taxing the rich highly helps the middle class or poor. The government needs to do what it can to stop encouraging manufacturing and business to go overseas, sure.
There was welfare in the 50s, it was just selective, to white soldiers. But that's the 50s, what did you expect? One of the major criticisms of the GI bill today is that back then it didn't include black soldiers, increasing income disparity between black and white
It doesn't even really matter. As I said the GI bill applied to 50% of the population that's almost all households. And it included large government hand outs which forged the American middle class. It didn't really exist before the 40s and it's going to die unless you work for it.
At the same time in the 50s economy was up. West germany recovered from war in record time ( the marshall plan by the way, another taxpayer handout that we couldn't afford today), opening new markets in Europe for American products.
That a small percentage of people were left out and had no help with it, is tragic but it doesn't make a difference to the countries development.
To answer your question, taxing the rich doesn't affect the
economy. I don't know where people get that idea from? Seriously you'll have to explain that me! If we were talking about cooperate tax (and we do have the highested in the industrialized world ) I'd get it. But you do realize that income tax is essentially taxing profits that a company may have made to get passed on the it's president/owner/CEO. It doesn't affect the company itself at all.
And obviously income tax doesn't apply to entrepreneurs only. Think Jersey Shore ! www.mtv.com/.../hot_tub_902.jpg every member of the jersey shore cast makes millions annually. What do you think would happen if they have to pay a bit more taxes? ... nothing
What it would lead to is more tax revenue, more money to spend. What the article says is that taxing the rich at a marginal tax rate of 100% over one million, wouldn't fix our deficit. I believe that I guess. It also says it would fix about a third of it. Isn't that a big amount? would discourage productivity. But 70%? Ask bill gates, 70% of 15 billion is still a lot
more than 70% of 5 million.
How does it help it economy? It doesn't necessarily. It depends on what the government does with it. Helping the rich DOES help the people. That's the whole point of it. You take it from the rich and you give it to those who need through unemployment benefits, free education , free healthcare... that is what happened in the 50s and that's what build a middle class. That's part of why, to get back to your original point, women didn't have to work.
If you exclude the Marshall though, it didn't help the economy only indirectly, because if people have security they buy more. In any case it didn't hurt the economy and it kept wealth disparity low. So why not do it? And I'm not sure it's fair to exclude the Marshall plan, because it gave the American economy a huge boost but I have no hope of today's politicians having that much foresight
let's not forget though that we are in a huge deficit today because for decades we didn't have enough money to
to pay for shit. Reagan's whole policy was based on the idea that you can cut taxes for the rich and keep revenue stable, but you can't. The reagan administration saw a huge drop in revenue and couldn't fill it with anything.
For future presidents that was then the new normal. And ask every gambler once you're in dept, it's a downward spiral. We have spend almost a 1 trillion just in INTEREST on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
Another option to tax the rich by the way, and that is what bill gates is proposing is to tax consumption. If you can afford a yacht, you can afford to pay 90% tax on it
Now by all means I'm not an expert on the housing crisis but nonetheless there are some major difference between the 50s and now. The crisis now is primarily a wall st. problem only secondary a main st. one. The government gave low interest money to the banks who gave mortgages to people who couldn't really afford it. And they packed up a bunch of mortgages and traded them, just that when people
increasingly couldn't afford their mortgages, investors pulled out their money and banks that had spend millions on those packages were left with nothing.
In the 50s the government guaranteed stable and low interest for veterans by giving out loans themselves. Or even cash for buying a house. Banks weren't really involved and even if they were they would give the mortgage and that's it. They wouldn't play anymore with it
sorry my comments are a bit messy, I wrote it on my phone, I hope you still know what I mean
@Izzy2102
I'd daresay we still have quite a few government benefits for soldiers.
And did you click the Forbes link calculating that if we literally capped salary at 1 million dollars, taking the rest, it would only give us $616 billion, and that'd probably be a one-time grab?
Doesn't logic dictate that if the USA wanted a stronger economy, taxing the rich at 90% wouldn't be the way to go, unless the government plans on sending lots of paychecks to middle class workers? (Not to mention, they should try to stop jobs from going overseas)
I mean, there are two main options. Say the government basically has massive income taxes, and very high corporate tax. It will discourage business from getting big.
But if the government cut those taxes, and just raised minimum wage... companies would expand, with decent paying jobs, and then income/sales tax would be collected as the economy expanded?
As I said, taxing the rich has no direct effect on the economy. It does two things, it keeps the wealth gap reasonably low, by taxing the rich and then presumably handing that money back to the people through things like welfare, farm subsidies, free education, free health care, free nursing homes, free child care...
My brother is in the army and ya there are benefits for active soldiers, rather few for veterans. Nothing like in the 50s AND it's not as common as in the 50s. As I said pretty much all households were affected by it
I did read the article and i did comment on it, but reading it now I think it kinda got lost. I said, I don't think anyone proposes taxes of 100%, because as you said it discourages people from working harder. 70% -90% on the other hand, completely different story. Ask bill gates 70% of 15 billion is still a lot more than 70% of 5 million. And it couldn't fill or deficit, but the article also said it WOULD fil about 1/3 of it and that is a lot of
money.
Income tax doesn't affect business. That is the part I don't get, why do people think that? Where do you see the correlation? Income tax, taxes income. Logic doesn't dictate one way or another in that case.
Now if you look at our growing wealth gap then logic would dictate to tax the rich highly.
But even if you do think it does, we've basically been doing that the bast 40 years. Cutting taxes for the rich. For the past 40 years we have had one of the lowest marginal tax rates in international as well as historical comparison. And where did that get us?
Now minimum wage and cooperate tax rates, totally different topics
Taxes just take money out of your pocket to fund the building of 35 million dollar jet planes and tanks that will never see actual combat. What we are doing now in the Middle East is hardly a war that we'd need a stealth recon bomber for.. they're just a bunch of farmers and herders with rusted-out soviet era Ak-47's.
I also don't see how stopping people from making money is a good thing. How are we ever supposed to elevate ourselves from poverty if there are thousands of rungs on the ladder and people waiting to knock us off with their rule books?
@Izzy2102
Income tax affects business because it's made up of individuals, and their income is quite often linked to the success of a business. Lol. Simple example... say someone is... selling insurance. As common a business job as it gets. Let's say 10 salesman know how to rake it in, and make 500k each a year, earning 5 million yearly between the 10 of them. Let's say we raise income tax though, a lot. So once you pass the 300k bracket, anything extra is taxed at 90%.
What happens when those salesman decide, "Okay, if I earn any more than 300k, I'm basically just giving all my extra earnings to the government. So I'll hit 300k, then quit."
Do you see how that would impact the business, if the workers hit a mark and decided, "Okay, done for the year."?
Do you see how
No not at all.
first of all you're not saying it affects business or the economy directly, you're saying it would affect individuals productivity. That's a very different argument.
I partly agree, but by today's standard the top tax rate would have to be a lot higher. Even in the 50s, when median income was about 5k a year, the 90% tax rate didn't start at anything over 400K. Proportions matter! So if you were making 500K, the 100K that were taxed at 90% would still leave you with two times the median income.
If you were to roughly adjust numbers, median income today is 25k. So the 90% would start at 2 million. Leaving them with 100k more per million they make, which is 4 times the median income
Secondly, in your scenario, if they stop selling insurance, so what? Someone else will do it. Great it creates jobs ! How does it affect business?
Depends what you mean by tradition. At one time it was traditional to have several wives in many socities, and then there plenty of people to take care of kids, do finances, cook, etc.
You want to go back to that?
Personally, I prefer to just have pasta for dinner, that's easy, and do finances on the weekend. Too many wives would mean having to arbitrate disputes, and don't you have having to arbitrate disputes between girls, break up fights, and so on?
One woman is enough to deal with, two and I might lose my head!
I would literally rather die than be a servant my whole life, I want a partner not a master. The parenting thing isn't much of a problem if both men and women get time off when they have a kid. After a few months start working again and leave your kid at a daycare. As long as you don't work super late then both of you can have plenty of time with your child.
You're just making excuses for being a sexist pig.
I don't have to make excuses to anyone. You can call me a sexist all you want but it will never change my mind, it is just a buzzword.
I wasn't trying to change your mind. People like you are usually set in their ways.
Just like I wasn't trying to change yours by writing this.
/(
( :
__\ \ _____
(____) `
(____)
(____).__
(___)__.|_____
Lmao, this take, lol my sides.
Since us women have been so graciously "awarded" the task of being baby-making maids, care to expand your opinion on gay couples?
I don't think it'd be a bad idea but somehow egoistic of the women and it's always better to have more money than less, when my dad married my mom she quit her job because my father had a very good income and they wanted to raise a family so it'd be just Natural for the wife to stay at home, but anyway i'd stay at home if i'd be pregnant and have to raise the kids for a few years until they are old enough to go to the kindergarten, I'd work part-time then, pick my kids up and cook for my husband, a lot of women do that.
My mother worked from home when I was young, so did my dad. My dad still works from home, but my mom doesn't.
Kind of sucks not having her around
These are good reasons, very good reasons. The only problem is that society isn't that way anymore and these reasons, however good they may be, won't apply here. You will get attacked by many women and more feminists, and also white knights who think this is sexist. This is not sexist, these reasons are actually very honest and have worked very well in the past (but the past is gone). The best thing to do is to slightly blur the gender roles and alter them to adapt to this different lifestyle that we are forced to live in this society, then reapply them as new rules.
There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on there, with a little sexism thrown in for good measure.
Care to explain why?
I could type it out here, but @Mesonfielde seems to have covered many of my points for me. You certainly are entitled to your own opinion of what you want for your relationship and pursue that relationship with someone who shares your values. But this isn't the 1950's anymore. Many households need two incomes, or the woman may want to work, or the man may want to be a stay at home dad. Your comment that the job of cooking and cleaning was "awarded" to women because of their gender is, in my opinion, sexist and extremely controversial, as you noted. Choice is one thing, but you seemed to display a level of expectation of a woman's role in the family that just doesn't square with the reality in which we live in today. My mother was relegated to the role type you describe, and when my father died, she had to learn how to do all the "man's work" he had done for so many years. In the business world, we call it cross training, and both knowing how to do both roles seems best.
I know a lot of chicks are opposed to it, different things work for different people, though personally that's the kind of life style I would want to live. I agree with this take. Though if some women choose it different, that's them, whatever they're comfortable with.
I too am in favor of a traditional relationship for my girlfriend and I, however, for completely different reasons than you.
Your reasons just make you sound mega sexist.
Am I the only one who thinks having a family/children, being married, working full time and doing house hold chores sounds boring as fck lol
Life isn't an action movie... Unless you join the military
Well I wasn't planning on saving the world lol
Just the entire concept of marriage, working 9-5, coming home and dealing with kids all night, then being exhausted and doing it all over again the next day sounds so boring to me.
There are worse things I suppose
Get a motorbike. It makes the days infinitely more fun ;P
No I want to do this. Jobs seem boring...
They can be, that's why I included "working full time" as well.
I think you mean gender roles for those who could afford it.
My stepmother is a stay at home mom and I hate it.
I never have time alone, she's always there.
Everything is done, cleaning, cooking, washing. It doesn't feel like home it feel like a hotel.
She's like a maid my dad hired because he's too tired but doesn't he understand that if it goes bad between them and they get a divorce, she has nothing.
He have all the money, the house and because she has nothing the kids will probably go to the dad (or the mom which ever role it is).
I don't agree with it and it's not good for me as a young adult and the child. I need to learn to do stuff for myself.
So you'd want your step mom to take your dad's money and house?
Ofc not, that just silly to ask.
I just mean that this can be the situation for Woman wken they deside to depend on Someone else.
Eh, family court fucks men over a lot now. But it puts everyone in massive amounts of debt.
The key is that she wants to do it, and likes doing it though
I think the appeal to men part and to women part is not just one gender directed. A man who serves as a provider and protector of his family is more attractive to his wife, as is a wife who nurtures his children and waits for him at home with a warm meal is more attractive to her husband.
I think women can work, part time if nothing, if their kids grow up and they have extra time, but everyone will surely be happiest this way when raising kids. No exceptions.
Why would it have been so much happier If my mum was always at home?
And why would I prefer for my future wife to stay at home and have a meal ready? That's boring. Routine day on day out not to mention it's infinitely more attractive if she can support herself and 'adventures' out of the house herself.
@warumnicht Oh cut the crap. Housework is boring, but outside work is an adventure.
Obviously you've never done any outside, or inside work...
A housewife can leave her home if well organised, diligent and willing, while a working woman is fucked doing both work and home, barely getting sleep, let alone anything else.
No I have done work like that actually. You make opportunities for yourself you make it interesting. That's how you go from packing boxes to helping an Rand D department make prototypes. Or you educate yourself so your line of work is interesting. In the work place you come across more challenges than simply loading dishwashers all day. If things are done properly house work is shared. It may be more difficult but it's also more rewarding than just cleaning all day. You don't need someone at home all the time, not to mention two incomes which ultimately allowed my parents to do things they wouldn't have been able to even after childcare.
First most work is not glamorous. Yeah if it's something fascinating a CERN experimental physicist, sure it's better than cleaning and you do go out among people. But at the end of the day 90% of work is hard and it sucks as much as any other job.
Second there is nothing inherently worse about housework, or less valuable. It's good work and it's a relatively decent job all things considered.
Third I can't argue two paychecks bring in more money. They do. But raising your own kids... That I sure as hell can argue for and women who work, while with kids, especially young ones, while ABLE to live well on one salary are nothing short of selfish in my eyes.
Fourth couples where the husband provides and the wife supports while being taken care of by him primarily do better. There is more romance, more attraction, more fulfillment. It fucking WORKS. It's a superior arrangement for a marriage.
I don't understand why people insist on glamorizing outside work. That's retarded.
Oh and fifth... A housewife makes a big difference. I had a mother who worked and who stayed home. The quality of life her efforts, presence, attention and care brought to our home and our lives can never be replicated, replaced, let alone payed for.
A housewife working for her family is an invaluable luxury many families can afford, but choose not to because society tells them it's unneeded and for some reason "inferior".
I worked for a little company making electronics. Cern just because I mentioned the words R and D how ridiculous.
I don't want an easy job, I very much like using my mind. I enjoyed working there. Engineers design, build, run. The issue of titles in the UK is ridiculous where they think someone who repairs a boiler is an engineer. There Are lots of people that use there brain. They don't nessacarily come back beaming cheek to cheek but the works enjoyable because you have to think.
I do volunteer work at a place that runs camps for kids. On the support team you keep the place running, mop the floor, clean the plates whatever. I go there when I want to see certain friends that go there from other countries or whe n I spespecifically want mind numbing work so I can plug my music in and clear my head. I can do it for a few days I couldn't do it for long.
When the children are very young yes. I think it's good a parent stays home but again, why nessacarily the mother?
Yeah I'm not necessarily seeing reason for any of those being true. No question that it works but so will other methods. I don't see why it a superior. I've never grown up in the housewife environment. I don't see how it would be massively advantageous either. It's nothing to do with what society says.
"They don't nessacarily come back beaming cheek to cheek but the works enjoyable because you have to think. "
That's actually bullshit. People who think more on the job are more stressed. Happiest people are those who work repetitive work actually. Only if they love it for some other reason does a difficult intellectual job make them happy, and that's rarely the case.
Any job whether challenging, or mind numbing has it's good and bad sides. Being an engineer is not better than a plumber. It pays more, so you get more respect, pussy and money, but the job itself is just a fucking job.
"When the children are very young yes. I think it's good a parent stays home but again, why nessacarily the mother?"
They literally have nesting and nurturing instincts evolutionarily built in. That's why they overwhelm the medical and assistant professions.
"I've never grown up in the housewife environment. I don't see how it would be massively advantageous either."
I did grow up there and seen both. Children of housewifes were more polite, got better grades, were healthier and more emotionally stable because their mothers weren't stressed as shit. They weren't raised by junk food and TV.
You can't use yourself as an example to know what it's like to maintain your home and raise kids. Women have ingrained nurturing instinct needed to find happiness doing that. Men often feel humiliated by it. Unless men get to prove themselves, they don't feel happy.
Women are full of shit when they say their gender doesn't define them, that's just social pressure, telling them they have to work to prove their worth as humans, talking. It does and it does the same for you so you can't compare your feelings.
Then why can you compare your experience Or feelings if I can't?
apart from those who are more religious I know 95% of women I know don't feel that way. What makes you able to speak for them?
I want to do engineering because I enjoy engineering, I'd enjoy it more. For me it's a better job than plumbing. Excluding the more financial freedom it gives. Just because it includes more stress doesn't mean you don't enjoy it.
You know believe it or not men can cook. Just because the mother isn't home doesn't mean people don't get fed Properly.
Yes of course there is a difference between men and women that's why they tend to go for different careers although some of it will still be because attitudes are still in the process of changing but that doesn't mean they want to stay at home looking after a shouty sprog and hovering the carpet all the time.
And do explain how you think I feel the need to prove myself? I'm curious as to how you believe you know me better than I do?
Oh and I dont believe this thing about kids of housewives being politer and better grades etc. I've seen nothing to suggest that's the case they can act spoilt quite a bit of the time I've found.
How do you know what is attractive to men exactly?
Nothing is better then coming home everyday with a woman waiting for you
"apart from those who are more religious I know 95% of women I know don't feel that way. What makes you able to speak for them? "
Because how a woman sees work and her life is shaped by others. 99% of the time she likes something or doesn't because that's what she was thought is good. That's why to make a woman crave traditional arrangements, you simply add God. Women are conditioned by culture to think a certain way and only a small number of them can actually see things for what they are.
Objectively observing housewives are happier, more relaxed, with better marriages and better behaved and accomplished children. I live in a country in the crossroad of cultures. Tradition and modernism. I know what I'm talking about.
"You know believe it or not men can cook. Just because the mother isn't home doesn't mean people don't get fed Properly."
If you think that was at any point claimed, you just may be too dumb for me to continue this conversation...
"but that doesn't mean they want to stay at home looking after a shouty sprog and hovering the carpet all the time. "
Again, you as a man can't speak for the wants of women. YOU don't want to do those things. Women are different in what they want, can handle and why they want it.
How do I know that?
Simple fucking gender observation. From the young boys who enjoy superhero stories, up to the grown men who describe a sense of achievement as success in business. Male pride is so plain and so obvious, it's only men who can't see it I guess.
"I've seen nothing to suggest that's the case they can act spoilt quite a bit of the time I've found."
Living in the UK I can't believe you've met that many. No to mention your whole culture is degraded and your children in general act like retarded brats.
Half the people I know were raised by housewives and they do far better on average.
I do think that a mother is more biologically suited for being a parental figure if there can only be one, since they are usually more emotionally savy regardless of gender policing. But those last two reasons are just for the sake of traditional gender roles, since following gender roles is always socially rewarded.
This was a beautiful piece of writing, brought a tear to my eye, and made my whiskers tingle with ecstasy.
However, we'll have to wait till the post a apocalyptic fallout to see it realize, because these bitches are going to destroy everything, and there's no stopping now.
Man blessings to you. :-)
I get your point but I this just isn't for me. I want to work, be good at my work and express myself through that. I don't feel happy if I have to clean and cook and look after kids all the time.
But it's good people can choose nowadays.
Are you from the 50s?
A woman can be the one who supports the family while the man stays home, you know.. it doesn't JUST have to be the man who has the job
Yes. Im from the 2050's, this is our future
I agree with everything you state and I already saw the top opinion saying that what you state is oppressive towards women. I didn't bother to look at the other opinions but I guess you got much hate because of what you wrote here.
And thats why I don't plan on getting married. The extinction of traditional family made women unsuitable not just for marriage but also unsuitable for any long term relationship.
Why leave cooking and cleaning to women? That's just being lazy on your part.
uuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh because if the man is at work how is going to simultaneously clean the house?
Don't be lazy. Help out when you can.
Come help me load 30,000 pounds of cargo onto an airplane and I'll help you with the laundry.
Honey, I used to work in a copper and nickel mine. Don't give me that bullshit. I'll work if I damn well please.
Whatever you say, dear