Dictionaries usually go all PC in their definitions. Women in history needed providing for. That's a fact.
If someone else is grossed out by poor Asian women marrying up, that's their taste. I certainly don't agree with it.
He committed a strawman by claiming I was talking about marrying a woman who was only interested in moving to America and not for a loving marriage.
Let me get this straight, your defense against what someone said is "the dictionaries are all wrong"
Nothing wrong with marrying a poor Asian woman. If he's having a hard time finding a traditional woman in his country, he could go elsewhere. What's gross about that?
You do seem easily offended. Or did you assume I meant marry a woman who wanted only money and not a loving marriage as well? In that case, you committed a straw-man or false assumption. Whichever.
Wow. I'm disgusted by this forum. You guys actually think providing for a poor woman is gross.
Or did you think it's not possible for a poor woman to want a loving marriage AND to move to a wealthier country? I never said to marry a woman without love.
It's not. These white guys make all sorts of assumptions because they're scared to talk about race relations. I'm not.
I have absolutely no problems talking about race relations, I'm white and my last girlfriend was black. It was never an issue for me.
Maybe this forum is full of male feminists who think men shouldn't provide for women, and women shouldn't be housewives.
I don't think men SHOULD provide for their wife and I don't think women SHOULD be housewives. You keep talking about "a traditional woman" but there is nothing traditional about what your talking about.
Proverbs 31 describes the type of woman a person following God should look for.
"She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night."
Thats not a "traditional" woman, thats not a housewife either. Thats a woman who is working woman, who is taking the initiative, being involved in business and commerce, I mean trading back in the day was not like going to the store today yet it says her trading was profitable so apparently she is able to carry her own weight. THAT is a woman.
There is nothing wrong with a woman being a stay at home mom but at the same time she shouldn't be be doing nothing either.
But even THAT is not what I take the most issue with in your post. I have struggled to find the word, its been on the tip of my tongue, the reason your replies have left such a horrible taste in my mouth and I finally realized what it us.
What you are suggesting is predatory , and THAT is not only an unhealthy way to view a future life partner but its an unhealthy way to view people in general.
