Let's face some facts here. Feminists only wish to change those parts of society which aren't beneficial to them. Men paying women to support them is beneficial overall even if it is demeaning.
"Women want an "equal or BETTER" partner".
No they don't want an equal or BETTER partner. They just want a better partner.
"Why don't women want to support men? Why is a women with no goals and no money not looked down on the way a man would be"?
Because that is a cultural problem that feminists don't want to change. They could care less if some man dies of cancer as long as no woman ever dies of breast cancer. So why should they give two s**ts about women being looked down upon for exhibiting a behavior that men could never get away with.
2007-12-09 17:26:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Zombie: Rebel Without a Pulse 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
I certainly have heard MANY men say they want a woman with goals and ambition, an education..."going somewhere in life." They are usually the men that are going somewhere in life.
I have heard plenty of men say they want a woman who can support herself...though, admittedly, few have ever said "I want a woman who will support me" (who didn't laugh it off as a joke).
It's simple really. Social norms and expectations still make it "okay" for a woman to depend on a man, but the same is not true for men. Men are supposed to be "self-sufficient" and "independent." These are throwbacks to the more "traditional" roles of earlier times. This seems obvious. Feminism seeks to dispel these biases and stereotypes.
2007-12-09 16:03:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by wendy g 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
Let's face it, women bear children. It is in their best interest, and the best interest of their children to find a man who is capable of supporting the family. Even if a woman chooses to work after having kids, there will be a period of time, when she will be unable to work, and will need her husband to keep the family afloat. I truly believe most men are o.k. with this. In fact, it is a big part of what makes a guy a man. When I met my husband, I was 20 years old, and hadn't really thought much about money, children, etc. I fell in love with him, not his paycheck. However, when it came to marriage, one of the deciding factors for me was that we both agreed that kids should be raised by parents, not day care centers or nannies. That meant we would be living off his earnings for several years. We were both o.k. with that. I worked until we had kids, and I work now that our kids are older, but when our kids were young, my husband's earning power was vital to our survival. Neither my husband nor I view my contribution to our family as anything less than necessary. Together, we are raising two outstanding human beings. How's that for no goals?
2007-12-09 16:15:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tiss 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
Men still are earning more than women do and they are generally offered more employment advancement compared to women. This puts more males in a position to offer financial support to their partners....There are still people out there who are sexist and they believe that all men have families to support, so they offer a lot more to the men. There are many people who believe that women should not need to worry about being self-supportive, and simply allow men to support them. I believe this concept came from the bible where it is mentioned that men are expected to work hard... People look down on men if they're lazy or they are not willing to work hard and be self-reliant. There are sexist expectations society has placed on men. There are plenty of women who also support their men. My mother has a career, a house, car, truck, swimming pool...But her husband is young, jobless, useless and lazy.
But there are also many men (and women) out there who are self-reliant and they too prefer a lady who is ambitous and independent.
2007-12-09 16:07:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
I know that I respect anyone ...of either gender...who has career goals and ambitions. I have never wanted to be supported by anyone, but I know that both my fiance and I are equally capable of supporting ourselves and each other if need be. If he was to be injured or fired or anything else, I would be more than willing to support him because I love him.
There are double standards everywhere. Women are sex objects. Men are status objects.
And it's really sad when people make uneducated claims about feminism (a few comments above.) Its wisest not to talk about things you don't understand. I don't know many feminists who want men to support them.
2007-12-09 15:48:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
I've heard quite a few men say that. They don't want to have to take care of a woman, or date one who depends on them. They like women who can take care of themselves.
This is the result of endless years of men supporting women. The idea of the reverse is so new that it's laughable. Either way, even the most progressive woman probably wouldn't want a husband who needed her money. She'd be OK with him staying home if he had saved his own, though.
2007-12-09 15:46:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rio Madeira 7
·
3⤊
4⤋
i offered to support my ex-fiance, and he refused. I do support my husband because i make more money than he does, and will graduate first, and therefore be heading into my career sooner.
2007-12-09 21:38:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by bluestareyed 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
just because of the roles that women and men have had over the years, but it is stupid if they both cannot work then so what? (ex; disability, taking care of (their) child,etc)
2007-12-09 15:50:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I see the double standard but it's actually to do with a woman's genetic makeup-- women are programmed to seek a man who can protect and provide for her and her subsequent offspring (9/10 women seek to marry up). Not the other way around.
2007-12-09 16:08:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
Men aren't offering looks or listening skills, and their feet stink. They have to offer SOMETHING to a relationship.
2007-12-11 03:35:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Fanny Blood 5
·
1⤊
2⤋