Of course others live differently. I am talking about the statistical likelihood. I don't see too many people being above falling into laziness. This would include the men if society accepted behavior like that from them.
Women aren't statistically likely to become deadbeats because they're stay-at-home mothers.
It wasn't rocket science for me to figure out that my mother and other single mothers I stayed with hardly did anything all day. Being an observer is more than enough.
You're conflating your common denominator of inactivity with the sex. All women don't behave like your mother or those you encountered. We have different standards.
Can you give me an example of what a mother with children beyond the toddler years needs to do all day that compared to a full time job? Keep in mind.. I want things that are necessary. A housewife in theory could be working hard all day.. but in reality what is the bare limit they really have to do?
That's laughable. Most people don't work 35 hours without fail every week. There's a lot of downtime in the 8.
A mother's schedule is dependent on the workload, help, and the number of children she has. If she assumes all household responsibilities she needs to attend to the home, run errands, get grocery, make meals, get them dressed, put them down for naps, spend time together, etc.
Add in the possibility of sickness, moodiness, and the unexpected and the load increases. Mothers don't need to justify their time management. Their husbands entrust the home to their care while they work.
Embittered types may nickel and dime. But they should be avoided.
The courts will order men not to be deadbeats. Women not so much..
Your original comment didn't mention the courts. You accused stay-at-mothers of being deadbeats and having nothing to do.
This looks like a classic case of transference. Instead of addressing the problem with the women you were raised with you've projected it onto others. The elephant in the room are your personal experiences. Not the way other women behave. You're trying to affix those encounters onto others. Maybe that's too difficult to confront. Blaming other women is easier.
That's good for you.. I worry about the statistics of other men who get into this arrangement.
You're not going to talk anyone out of this. Providers have an ethos and disposition that won't be swayed. It's a badge of honor to care for their family. Including her.
Mantra? This stuff is shoved down my throat constantly.
You lap it up willingly and regurgitate without provocation. You beat the anti-feminism stick to death. It has become your identity.
No.. the excitement was bdsm. That's what made the series stand out. As far as 50 Shades go.. it's pretty tame compared to a lot women's entertainment. Grey would rank low on abusive men. I find him more comical than anything.
That's always been available. The packaging made the difference. Good looks and money diminished the taboo because they're ideals. That's why most leading men in romance novels are wealthy. That's what sells.
Aspirational content is a cash cow. It never goes out of style. You can take it to the bank.
Most men don't want a partner that does the bare minimum. These women were nothing to look at, and they were not socialites. These men just fell into the fantasy and unfortunately had to wake up to the reality.
When you look at relational problems you have to see both angles. You can't allow biases to blind you. Bad choices don't eliminate personal responsibility. You're letting them off the hook because you empathize. But it takes two to tangle.
Most aren't privy to the nitty gritty details of any partnership. You may overhear a few things or someone shares a detail. But you're still in the dark. Nobody tells you everything.
