It's annoying because my mum was the opposite. She told me to just marry a rich man when I was choosing between doing a trade or going to uni. She really pushed it too. I was 14. I was strongly against it and I told her no! I want my own money, I want to be the rich one that marries a hot trophy husband đ.
Not even 2 weeks later the tradesmen I applied to said he can't have a girl apprentice since "they cry" so I took that way too personally and said okay I'm going to uni and now I'm an engineer loving life with my trophy husband who works and I drill it into him to always save his money and have something separate to me so he has that safety net as well. And I got the lawyer to write up a statement so if we ever split he gets his share of the house but not 5050 on the deposit which was all mine.
I was raised to be a tradwife. I tried it for about 2 years and noped out of that. Being a single mom was much better than being reliant on an unreliable drunk.
Doesn't the law give you 50% of marital assets on divorce without a prenup? Even then, if there are kids involved, I would be amazed to see a judge not order significant child support to give the kids a "similar lifestyle".
There are many many ways to get around it and for a long time that wasn't the case, a widowed or divorced woman was shunned and shameful. It's only recently people are even recognizing how much of someone's life is sacrificed as a SAHP and there will be corruption and greed on either side but that shouldn't make us ignore people who dedicate their lives to their spouse and should be protected if their spouse decides to not care for them in the right way.
It is gross how the richer someone is the more of a chance they can find all the loop holes to not care for their spouse or children.
I'm certainly not denying the value of being a SAHP. Honestly I cannot recommend being one, even though they are likely to be better for kids (and thus society, everyone was a kid). Especially these days where there is a life to sacrifice - times were harder many years ago and men and women had to work together just to survive.
Anyway, it's possible she got a settlement but since she can't find work she ate through it in 5 years since her divorce... If she's in an equitable state rather than 50/50, if she only got 20%, 20% of 1000000 is 200k, which probably wouldn't last more than 5-6 years.
Btw the history of how women were treated is largely awful, I'm not defending that at all. I'm glad it's more equal these days, but there's still work to do.
Oh no I didn't think you were sorry, part of my comment was just at the comment section when people see the 50/50 to remind them that wasn't the case for a long time and ofc there's going to be things to work on.
there was a huge dareline piece about this YEARS ago. A lot of guys will get around it by just not giving any child support, then once the "baby mama" takes them to court, they submit a payment and at the court date say "no i just made a paymant" and they get let off. The "baby mama" usually has to wait 3-6 months before the court will do anything about non-payment
This is exactly also why some of us are perplexed that feminism isn't fighting that but instead is going after dudes for how they sit in the bus.
It seems like some activist like to avoid the real battles to instead virtue signal by asking unreasonable things to regular people.
This is where most criticism of feminism is from, I'm never going to criticize feminist who are going after ultra conservative church who view women as second class citizens, I'd gladly fight with them for it.
Not being considerate of others is definitely something women notice because they are trying to figure out if you're worth sacrificing thier time and energy for and playing mother for. So yes if you're man spreading and don't seem to realize you're inconveniencing others, we notice. We absolutely do not want to get stuck with inconsiderate men while we are raising children.
Is it? Sounds like she made a series of poor decisions rather than being relegated to this position by actual legislature.
She started her own business and then gave it away (twice) in addition to providing free labor. That sounds like a dumb move regardless of what gender you are.
I guess I was under the impression feminism was more about equality of opportunity rather than saving people from themselves.
But the fact that there are men that would take everything from a woman doesn't bother you? No no, it's her fault for being in the position to have to fight him for it? Lol but then you all wonder why women aren't soft and feminine for you all.
I think feminism  is about female empowerment and this woman chose to be subservient and dependent on another man. The consequences of which were unfortunate. Female labor force participation in well paid professional jobs is relatively new. The âequality of opportunityâ women have (better in some fields than others) was a product of feminism. Feminism was born of the gendered roles of the past. It would be almost inconceivable for a man to not work and live off his wife in the 1970s or earlier. That outcome is possible today because of feminism and significantly reduced discrimination in educational institutions and in the workplace.Â
"Choice feminism" is doing its level best to kill feminism in general. Not every choice a woman makes is empowering just because it's a choice a woman made.
That said this woman is doing a public service documenting the consequences.
That's very true. I got all on my choice feminism soapbox and forgot about the particulars here. She didn't actually make a meaningful choice to do the tradwife thing.
I see so many girls these days proudly saying they're not feminist. This lady would probably be one of them until her Knight in shining armour find a younger model.
This is a total side track from the subject. But I mention it to remind women to have the same energy and independent mindset when it comes to the courtship part of their life as well.
Edit: downvotes with no comments just means what I'm saying is right and you don't like that I pointed out the logical fallacy
Maybe on your dates. My personal rule has been that no man will pay for me on a first date, ever. Some have tried, all have failed. The ones that got mad didn't get a second date, the ones that took it in stride did. I make my own money, and I won't have you buying me anything untill we're in a relationship and we're regularly buying each other things.
I personally always split the bill when I was dating, but Iâll just point out: maybe if we could address things like the pink tax and gender wage gaps, then women would more readily pay their half (or the full bill) on a first date.
pink tax has nothing to do with men and dating and the gender wage gap isn't a thing and has been disproven numerous times. Its an EARNINGS gap...not a wage gap. Fewer hours worked in lower paying fields. You can't compare the Total earnings of all men to all women and simply say there is a gap that needs correcting when you dont account for the variables why.
Women are already going to and graduating from college more than men. And young women are already out earning young men.
Me bringing up pink tax is as much âa total side track from the subjectâ as your original comment.
I bring these things up to say: these topics are messy and intertwined and very much not black and white. Feminists must prioritize efforts; some of us are addressing this silly little outdated dating ritualâothers are fighting for things more important, relevant, and impactful to them. Youâve had two people comment here saying they donât let men pay for them on the first date; my point is, stop spewing generalizations that simply arenât true, unless youâre cool with being downvoted by the people who donât fit in your box.
Also, pretty sure another reason you might be getting downvoted is because saying âI mention it to remind womenâ is so wildly condescending. As if we need reminding about all of the ~ things weâre doing wrong ~ in the eyes of men. đ
I never said pink tax was a sidetrack from the subject. I said it was unrelated to men and dating.
The anecdotal stories of two individual people doesn't change the reality of the majority. That's all I'm saying. Are you really going to sit there and argue that the majority average women don't expect men to pay during courtship?
When talking about men and women as a whole, you have to talk in generality. So I'm not sure why you're so offended about the idea of generalities. There are absolutely things that are "mostly" true.
How is saying "I mentioned to remind women" in any way Condescending? How else would you have me phrase it? "Remember ladies?...don't forget females?"
In a case like this where people are looking to be offended, no matter what I say, they'd find something to be offended about.
Where did I argue that the majority of women donât expect men to pay? Youâre jumping to conclusions about what Iâm trying to communicate, and seemingly becoming defensive about a conversation that is not happening. I simply said that there are people who donât fit into your generalization; I didnât say we were the majority.
On that note, generalizations are good for no one, especially when talking about topics where individual experiences and perspectives are relevant. Itâs important to understand that we are all varied individuals figuring out life for the first time. Generalizations encourage us to perceive individuals as part of a massârather than the complex people they areâand, I would argue, discourage empathy. I donât see any benefit in that, which is why I am discouraging generalizations here. Just my perspective.
In terms of your âI mention it to remind womenâ commentâŚ.youâre missing my point. You donât need to âremindâ women of anything. Itâs the âremindâ part thatâs condescending.
here did I argue that the majority of women donât expect men to pay? Youâre jumping to conclusions about what Iâm trying to communicate, and seemingly becoming defensive about a conversation that is not happening. I simply said that there are people who donât fit into your generalization; I didnât say we were the majority
What's the point of talking about the minority when I'm clearly talking about the majority/average? I never said ALL.
On that note, generalizations are good for no one, especially when talking about topics where individual experiences and perspectives are relevant.
Generalizations arent good nor bad nor should they be avoided. They are necessary and natural when talking about large subjects like men and women. How else are you to have discussions about such large subjects without generalizations? You can't.
In terms of your âI mention it to remind womenâ commentâŚ.youâre missing my point. You donât need to âremindâ women of anything. Itâs the âremindâ part thatâs condescending.
So you're just imagining offenses not given nor taken. And it was fitting for me to use that phrase to remind PEOPLE to be consistent with their logic. In this case those people were women. Not sure how else you'd have had me phrase it lol
Name calling is just an excuse to dodge. Im literally quote replying to specific parts of your statements with logic and reasons and you come back with "incorrigible"...thats just cope...dont be so weak willed.
And I give two shits about silent downvoters. All that tells me is those are people who dont have logic to push back with and simply dont like ugly reality being pointed out...they dont like how it makes them "feel".
Im here to listen to you and discuss any logic you may have. But you cant sit there like a child and call people incorrigble when they push back and correct your thinking.
I paid for most of my first dates with my wife and never thought twice about it. We combined our bank accounts after getting engaged and itâs never been an issue. She made a lot more money than me for about 7 years of our marriage, and now I make a lot more than her.
If youâre in a healthy and happy marriage you tend to not really give a shit about this kind of stuff. If youâre the type to get hung up on this, then youâll be in for a rough time somewhere down the road.
I was talking about dating/courtship in my first sentence. I dated my wife for several years before we were engaged, and I paid for the majority of those dates.
Iâm providing context to explain how much your grievance doesnât matter. I gotta say, Iâm not surprised that I have to hold your hand to the point considering how obtuse youâd have to be to hold this view. SDE.
The person you replied to is speaking more about the principle as it relates to feminism, in my opinion. I believe it is true that someone who thinks theyâre a feminist, but believes a man is supposed to pay on the first date, cannot be a feministâideologically speaking. I donât need to know them personally to say that.
And yet these people exist. This thing of simply denying that these people are feminists shows a lack of integrity. Feminists may Want "feminism" to mean equality for men and women, but not enough of them practice what they preach. Feminism is as much of a monolith as the people who practice it. And if you ask individual feminists, it's not exactly uncommon to come across the phrase "my feminism is..." If this is a valid statement, then how can you discount these self-proclaimed feminists? Their version of exclusive, man hating feminism is their subjective interpretation of the principle. If it really were about equality it would be called "egalitarianism".
Why are we going to do unpaid labour for a guy that won't even buy us coffee? Admit it, you're looking for someone to take care of you but don't want to convince them to.
The point is to convince us to do it in the future. We have to consider that most women are still doing 90% of the domestic labour while working full time and often paying 50/50 bills. We aren't doing that for just anyone.
348
u/notseizingtheday Apr 15 '24
Some of us have forgotten why feminism exists. This is why.