I know many households where the woman is the provider and goes to work, while the man is the one who stays at home. There is no such thing as a "traditional" role anymore and something that was disbanded many years ago
Indipendency or independence? The word you typed doesn't exist in the English language so that part of the question has no feasible answer.
If they are putting out then you must be also. What would you do if a woman you have "fun" with gets pregnant, are you going to disown the child saying that it was the womans fault cause your a man and she just wants your money. Maybe your the one who needs to take responsiblity for your actions and realise that not all women want to marry just to divorce and get alimony, and if ya that worried about it, get a prenuptial 1st. If ya don't want to pay child support stop putting out yourself.
2007-07-25 01:10:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by brat 5
·
8⤊
4⤋
I don't think women have broken out of their traditional roles so much as taken on multiple roles. These days, being a family means both partners share some of both roles.
If you are going to raise a family, you are not independent, you are part of a team and responsible to the rest of the team.
If personal happiness means being independent and having no responsibly, then a man can choose to be alone. But he can't have it both ways. The same is true for a women.
2007-07-25 06:04:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by mjmayer188 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
I think a more common scenario these days is that if a couple decide that one should stay home to look after kids, or for whatever reason, then it's usually the person on the lower income who opts to stay at home. That makes more sense when there's bills to pay & lifestyles to maintain. And, as you are fully aware, it's usually the woman who's the recipient of the lower wage!
2007-07-28 19:28:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tessa 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Women haven't broken out of their traditional roles at all. Look about you - wait outside a school to see how many motherly mums the children eagerly run towards. They are just a few of the millions around the world. You can't come here ignorantly trying to convince women otherwise. They can refute anything you dream up to support an invention that a male in the house was automatically a 'provider' Men are usually too expensive, too violent, too wasteful and too greedy to have anything left to support a family with. Threatening any women who held your imaginary family together, by suggesting she pays for it herself, is typical tightfisted husband talk.
2007-07-25 03:48:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Considering the fact that if women are not housewives they are contributing to half of the family income your question as usual is moot.
By the way is indipendency what you have when you order a double scoop.
2007-07-25 08:03:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Deirdre O 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Guys haven't been? I mean, I know you lot aren't as free to choose the stay-at-home caregiver as a woman is, which is something else that feminists are working for (feminism is not just for women anymore!). But how many of you really have to be the sole protector and moneymaker anymore? Most women, even those with children, work. Most of us have to, or else our families will starve. That's not enough to free y'all up? The safety net of another paycheck in the house? Jeez, guys, you still don't even have to do half of the housework. What do you want, exactly?
2007-07-25 04:28:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by random6x7 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
First, women have always been real-estate agents, manufactures, equestrians, winery managers, philanthropists, sales person, and teacher. It has been this way for at least 5,000 years (1)
Second, men of the 20th century wanted their women to enter the work force too. With inversions like the washing machine, vacuum cleaners, and automobiles ... it doesn't make sense to have a wife sit at home and be idol. This is bad for her psyche as well as her husband's psyche.
Even men who are wealthy enough to afford "Trophy Wives" find that they need their wives to be personal assistants, or find other important philanthropist roles to help his image which helps the family.
As for men breaking out of their roles ... well, many are not even stepping up to the plate to bat. "There's two things we can't stand ... one's a jive talk man ... the other's a jive talk man with no money ... can you dig it? (Click)"
2007-07-25 04:31:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Giggly Giraffe 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Those traditional roles were created by a male regime...both in governing systems & religious dogma...it negated the balance of life as a Whole.
It also became a necessity for women to go into the workforce during war times...family still needed support while the guys were sent to battles...as well as when our economy/cost of living skyrocketed beyond the single salary, as it remains today. The fact that women were paid extremely low salaries compared to their male counter-parts, and bucked every step of the way, exampled how lowly women were thought of, even though we held up the works during the toughest of times...big no-no to set a female's emotional strength into gear, and the fact that there was no logic involved, defaced our respect for the man-force altogether...the man-at-the-helm leadership has left a wake of destruction of our home planet, our society as a species, and a huge mess of human management all around.
The consequences of negating the balance.
We are each, male & female, here to be...as individuals, as couples, as families, as communities, as cultures, etc...and to each their own choices. We are now being called to re-group our situations...to respect each other, whether in relationships or business...we all have talents to contribute to the growth of the entirety. Balance is the key to prosperity & positive evolution of everything...communication & compromise being keys to relationshipping in all that...See???
2007-07-25 01:58:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by MsET 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
Hey, if that's what men want to do, more power to them. It's hardly as if women can't be providers. Or as if every man and woman intends to marry and have a family.
2007-07-25 03:46:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Rio Madeira 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
"...men of the 20th century wanted their women to enter the work force too."
LOL
Hey, make up your mind. One minute you complain that men want to keep women oppressed at home and out of the workplace, now you are trying to rewrite history by saying the opposite.
2007-07-25 04:40:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋