I just read an interesting article from a guy named John Zerzan. Now, while I don't believe in some (maybe alot) of things he says about our culture, he did say a few things in this article that I really agree with.<P>Anyway, here's the quote from this guy...<P>"It's important to understand the difference between the interdependence of a functioning community and a form of dependence that comes from relying on others who have specialized skills you don't have. They now have power over you. Whether they are "benevolent" in using is is really beside the point. <P>In addition to direct control by those who have specialized skills, there is a lot of mystification of those skills. Part of the ideology of modern society is that without it, you'd be completely lost, you wouldn't know how to do the simplest thing."<P>"...I think that at the base a person is not complete or free insofar as that person's life and the whole surrounding setup depend on his or her being just some aspect of a process, some fraction of it."<P>His theory, which is also something I've debated adnauseum here, is that the division of labor (usually divided down gender lines) is pretty efficient if mass production is the primary goal. However, to achieve wholeness as human beings, women can and should be financially independent and have work skills she can rely upon. Men can and should be nurturing and parent children. The division of labor as idealized in our current family structure is a strike against balance and wholeness alot of the time.<P>It cuts to the issue that I've touched on many times here...the men vs. women, heirarchial structure set up in lots of relationships. I won't even go into the argument about the man being the head of the household. Ok, just a little....parts of the country in which fundamentalist religions are the strongest, also display the highest divorce rate. Also, 75% of divorces are obtained by women. Following a divorce, women stay single much longer than men. What this means to me is that, at some point, women just decide they'd rather be alone than live with a dictator (whether benevolent or malevolent).<P>In our culture, the woman stays home, takes care of the kids. The husband goes off to work. I have huge problems with this setup, because the woman becomes completely dependent financially on her husband, which in our culture is more-or-less her very survival. The husband is completely dependent upon his wife emotionally and cut off from his children for the most part. This is not the way humans existed for millions and millions of years. It has only been the last 200 yrs or so where this division of labor was so distinct. So, my reaction has been to TRY and achieve balance, by getting an education and working to shore up myself financially while still TRYING to have an intimate relationship. However, I'm usually told that I'm not allowed to "have it all" (which to me means I can't be a whole person), and that I'm not really a woman unless I find a way to be pathologically dependent on a man.<P>In my own life, my refusal to allow myself to be this dependent is taken quite badly by the men in my life. My interpretation is that they get frustrated that they can't exert the kind of control over me that they otherwise could if I were totally dependent upon them. Their interpretation is that, if I loved them more, I'd be more dependent. If I loved them more, I'd throw my security to the four winds so that they can feel needed. <P>Bramblerose and New Beginning have posted on other threads about their financial situation. As much as I'd love to help (and I would) I find I have little or no advice to give them. What does it mean when to be self-sufficient (as a woman) means you are considered unloving and selfish? What does one say to someone who thinks throwing away all of their future security and self-reliance in order to be in a relationship is "sweet"--that is, if the person doing the throwing away is the woman. I can't tell them to go up against that. People think it is so admirable to stay home full time and take care of children for 10-20 yrs at a time. And while I'm glad that their children are raised by a loving parent, I shake my head at the risk these women are taking. <P>I don't propose people have their children raised by strangers at day-cares. I DO propose that we somehow find a way to reduce this division of labor by making it easier for fathers to incorporate their children's lives into their work and making it easier for women to incorporate work into raising children. We need to lose the double standard that it's not ok for men to stay home and raise their children if they want to, and that women who want careers are unfeminine. <P>

You and I just live in different worlds <P>While I agree wholeheartedly that a whole person should be 100% capable of taking care of him/her self, I just don't find that the world I live in prevents that. Maybe it is a function of the area & socio-economic bracket I am in...I live in a large city & am lucky enough to exist in a well-educated, upper income sphere. I have a masters degree & make more $ than my H, & I always have. I am surrounded by bright, capable women in my neighborhood who have had true careers, not just "jobs". Some continued after kids, some are taking time out because they wanted to do so...none seem oppressed or forced to do so. I'm in an all-women investment club & all of us have/earn our own money & spend it as we see fit. Most of the H's are very capable of taking care of kids & household (of course, most of us are also lucky enough to be able to afford some help around the house, which makes a two-income HH much, much easier to deal with).<P>And, it is easier too bcs most of the folks around me are professionals, who can flex their schedules some as needed. I think folks who do shift work or report to others have a much harder time juggling things...that is where I see that it would be great for more options to be made available. Our company recently offered flex-time to more employees (not just the professional tier)...a tiny step, but its a start...and more and more companies are starting to implement family-friendly policies...I think it will continue to grow.<P>My H and I <B>do</B> depend on each other for certain things out of choice, not necessity. Yeah, sometimes things do get out of balance temporarily, but we can always sit down and bring things back in line.<P>There are couples who are overly dependent in the world, and those who are (in my opinion) healthily inter-dependent by choice. A lot of it is finding a circle of friends & a mate who share your values...some folks think differently, of course, and yes, fundamentalist-heavy areas are probably not the best place for folks who think as I do.<P>You will end up with a good salary & the skills to be totally independent. And, belive it or not, there are men who will appreciate that...they are out there. Then, the issue becomes can you allow yourself to choose some areas to be inter-dependent in...not out of necessity, but out of choice. As for the world at large, I do see it becoming (slowly & stumblingly at times) better...<P>Ok, I've rambled enough <P>Kathi<p>[This message has been edited by kam6318 (edited April 25, 2001).]

Hmmmmm,<P>I must be one of the "minotity" men. I don't need to have someone "dependent" on me to feel complete. I think there are areas where one partner or the other may have stronger abilities, but not the point of domination in a relationship.<P>My STBX and I had a reasonable division of labor and participated equally in the raising of our son. Now that she's departed, we are both surviving on our own, although my financial situation is considerably better that hers. (her choice) If anything, I was more dependent on her, but I've found my path to self suffiency a reasonably simple trail to follow <P>While I admire the stay at home moms, it does seem to set them up to be financially dependent on their husbands, and given the divorce rate, that's very thin ice to skate on indeed. I think that a child can be raised to be healthy and happy when both parents work, but it requires an equal division of parenting responsibilities, which, unfortuanately, is not the norm. I'm almost always the only man in the waiting room at the doctor or dentists office.<P>I think there are a lot of guys out there who appreciate independence and aren't intimidated by a woman who can take care of herself. It seems to me that a realtionship can function more efficiently if both partners can depend on each other to be able to handle whatever comes up. That doesn't mean they don't love or care for the other, it just means they're capable of surviving on their own, which is important these days, given the marriage survival rate <P>------------------<BR>nick<P>it's only time that heals the pain <BR>and makes the sun come out again

Well... isn't this an interesting thread!<P>I've been really thinking about this division of labor thing lately... But, I'm not so stymied or bothered by the gender question - because I'm wondering if that is the central question to be asking...?<P>Here's my take: For the past six months, I've been reflecting off and on about the Gospel of John chapter 21 - where Jesus asks Peter three times, "Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep." That had me curious... why? First of all, why did he ask that THREE times? Secondly, why would he ask Peter, a fisherman by trade, to suddenly become a shephard? I'll address my thoughts on the 2nd question...<P>I'm in the field of Human Resources so this "career change" struck me as something interesting. This was clearly illustrated to me in a recent business trip in Austria when I sat in a regional conference while one of the speakers talked about micro-finance/banking programs in all the countries the organization is working in E. Europe and Middle East. One of the countries he was speaking about was the one where we just left and my H was the executive director of that program - after having spent 6 years of our life there... we've only been gone for three months and here I was looking at some dumb powerpoint presentation describing the program in terms of numbers. It made me sick and I was so close to tears during the whole presentation... my gosh, six years of blood, sweat and tears reduced to numbers on a powerpoint... What about our memories, what about our friends, what about our colleagues, the people we related to and cared so passionately about!!! Suddenly the verse in John came to me as if the Lord were directly whispering into my heart... "My dear, what you see on the screen is about fishing - your yield, how efficient you did it, etc. what I'm asking you to do this weekend is called shepharding..." You see, after the conference I was heading back to that country where we lived for a short visit with our dear friends and colleagues... it suddenly struck me that <B>meaning of life</B> is NOT about working/ fishing BUT about being in relationship with others - loving others. This simply CANNOT be captured in a powerpoint presentation.<P>So, what does this have to do with this discussion on division of labor... by my choice, I have to decide what is <B>IMPORTANT</B> to me - fishing or shepharding? Yes, work (fishing) is important but clearly this is NOT the most important thing. Yes, I am to do it and work as hard as I can but it's not the bottom line (end justifying the means)-the MEANS are what I'm called to do; what life is about - the WAY I relate to others is sheparding and loving.<P>God calls us to do two things really: To love HIM and to love our neighbor. So, how does division of labor come into this? I wonder if we're not asking the wrong question - It's not about M/F and dependence upon each other - it's about ME choosing this day whom I will serve... it's about deciding HOW I will work today - WHOM I will love and show compassion for... This eliminates the gender question because we're all called to do the same thing - and this obedience will bring us the most unbelievable adventure daily... WHO will you love today? The loveable or the unloveable? We're NOT to make the distinction...<P>So, work - work as efficiently and effectively and productively as possible... but the REAL calling is to be in relationship one with each other... to promote peace and love.<P>As for me, I have three small children. If I don't get it right at home, I will NEVER get it right in the workplace. I'm CHOOSING to raise my children in the way THEY should go (identifying their gifts and interests and encouraging their distinct path). If this means sacrificing my career path now, so be it... when it's all said and done, the question asked to me will be <B>HOW</B> did you do it NOT <B>WHAT</B> all did you do? So, the MEANS make all the difference.<P>I once read an article in a United Airlines mag once about Sandra Day O'Connor, US Supreme Court Justice, and she left her field for five years while her children were young... AND YET, she now is at the pinnacle of her career as a lawyer and as a woman. THAT was inspirational to me... <P>Anyway, my random thoughts on this...<P>------------------<BR>We cannot do everything at once... but we can do something at once

ps. Student... what are you studying in your doctorate?<P>------------------<BR>We cannot do everything at once... but we can do something at once

Wow Student, interesting thread!<P>I have some boggled-up thoughts I'd just like to throw out there...<P>I **chose** to quit my job and depend on a man for the time being. I knew that it would take time to find something else (due to immigration concerns, etc.)... this is not my lifelong choice...<P>I raised three children while (for most of those years) working outside the home. I was never a superMom... I COULDN'T do it all, because I was too tired!! <P>I had SAHM friends who I respected completely. Now they seemed REALLY TIRED to me! I never thought them lower than me, because they weren't.<P>If we're gonna talk feminism, that's a whole other story... but I don't think you're going there... are you? You're speaking about the division of labor...<P>Student, you have not been a parent yet... but let me tell you a little secret that I have found to be true, and it might help you see this in a different light:<P>When a baby cries in the middle of the night, MOTHERS hear it first. Dad's might too... but... for most people I've known, it's the Mother. I think God made us that way. I, of course, could be wrong. <P>I am somewhat educated (as I have said on numerous occasion, that Liberal Arts degree and a dime could buy me a cup of coffee ), I have a career (although at the moment I am not working), and I am **equally important** as any man anywhere. There is a distinction there, Student. <P>I believe that men and women are DIFFERENT. And I think we're SUPPOSE to be that way.<BR> <BR>So, to get back to your original intent: there will always be an "unequal" division of labor, I think, if you are looking at it from a black and white list-like perspective (as in you do 30 things and I'll do 30 things). <P>I happen to consider a woman staying at home and caring for children EQUAL to her H who works to support her and the children.<P>I know about the financial concerns, and Lord knows I screwed up there -- BIG TIME. But that was not because I *couldn't* save per David, it was because I MISMANAGED the money... big difference, I think. I'm bad with money. <P>Okay, now onto reading what others have to say...<P>Nice to see you in a reflective mood Student. You always make me think... that's a good thing!

I don't find that I disagree with very much at all that you posted Student. But it's taken me 10 years and a lot of reality beating me on the head to come to understand it.<P>I grew up in a home where the idea of "women in the workplace" was said with disgust. These women were selfish!! They belonged at home raising the children and if they chose not too, well!<P>When I was going to college, I was pressured to get a liberal arts degree. I was told that I should go to college for a formation of myself, so I could be my future husband's intellectual equal and so that I could raise well-formed kids - but any concern about a career was completely stomped on.<P>I had no independence from my parents. I did whatever they said was the 'right' thing to do, and considered myself on moral high ground, way above all those other women who were selfish!!<P>I remember during college, getting a job with a local mortgage broker, and thoroughly enjoying my job. One of the women there trained me to do her job while she was on her honeymoon. I spent a month of full bliss, handling millions of dollars a day. I *loved* working.<P>I told my parents that I was considering dropping out of school for awhile and pursuing a career. (My parents were not contributing to my education, I had to pay for it myself). They flipped out - I *had* to finish college they said...and they didn't want me to get too "attached" to a career, because then I wouldn't want to stay home with my children after I got married...<P>That was my sole purpose in life, drummed into my head from childhood. Grow up, get married, have babies, stay home.<P>No provisions for being a "whole" person. No thought to anything but that very narrow morality.<P>Now this all being said, I do believe that raising the children is a fulltime job. And it's an important one!<P>BUT, there is no reason why we can't encourage women (as I will with my own daughter) to educate themselves with skills that are marketable and valueable. And keep those skills up even with part time work while at home. <P>My girlfriend has what I think is a great arrangement. She is a stay at home mom. But she has her RN for nursing...and she works 2 days a week to keep her career and experience active. Those days, her husband is home with the kids. Her husband has a full time job as a police detective.<P>They both have a lot of input into the children's lives. <P>I'm beginning to wake up from the fantasy land that I grew up in, and look around. Many of my ideas and expectations of what it is to be a woman were sadly mistaken. And I am paying the price now. <P>The reality is that men DO abandon their wives far more frequently than not. Or we women wake up and realize that we are being treated unacceptably as HUMAN BEINGS...and we file for divorce. <P>I don't know what all the answers are ... but I do know that years ago, when women stayed at home, they also were surrounded by lots of extended family for support and help. Even if the H walked out with the financial support...there were fallback positions.<P>I think society has changed far more radically, far faster than it ever has in history...and we are treading "new" territory here. The old ways aren't working, but neither are many of the current patterns either.<P>I don't know what the answers are....for today, I'm worried about undoing my OWN past mistakes - society will have to take care of itself. I know that my daughter will not grow up with the attitudes I did.<P>Thanks for the thoughts Student...as always, you have very valuable things to say.

I'm not debating what "job" is better or worse. Nor am I debating what is the "proper" function of men and women. I have absolutely nothing against women who stay home. What I AM against is something more in line with what Bramblerose spoke about...and that is the idea that women must perform certain functions or else they are not women or that they are not feminine. This applies to men too. This single breadwinner thing puts alot of men under alot of pressure too. The fact that men are apart from their children 8-12 hrs a day and women are completely dependent upon a man for their survival was unheard of 200 or so yrs ago. It is not only considered the "norm" now, people are actually ashamed if they don't squeeze themselves into this category.<P>NB,<BR>You are right, I've never been a parent and that was exactly the way I planned it. Until I can be self-sufficient and be a parent on MY terms then I will not do it. <P>You said:<BR>"I happen to consider a woman staying at home and caring for children EQUAL to her H who works to support her and the children."<BR>Ah yes, but the rest of the world doesn't. Without adequate work skills, women are left at the mercy of the court system.

TS,<P>I don't know where you get the idea that women 200 years ago weren't dependent on men for their survival from. If anything it was even more so. Most women who lost husbands, for whatever reason, had big problems unless an extended family helped, she quickly remarried, or she abandoned her family.<P>It was absolutely a case of dependence. <P>Now to the today issue. I find it interesting that when you get your financial independence you will raise your children YOUR way. No input from H huh? So much for the role models of the H sharing the child rearing if he wants to. Or is it that the H must be in complete agreement with you.<P>Sounds a little like the very men you are chastizing. <P>I will say this my W is a stay at home W, if you can call it that. She is never home: Too many things to do with the kids. If I leave/die/whatever she will be very well off. I have no say in that matter. I see her as having all of the choices. I have never specified that she had to stay home or work. <P>You see from my end of the telescope, it seems that women get all of the choices. Isn't that interesting. She can be the whole person but I cannot (in your terms).<P>What I sense in your post is that you have not looked at things from all sides. If you do you will find that overall people organize their lives and their choices to maximize their needs being met. Over time these needs, expectations, change and new paradigms are tried. So work, others don't, and people adjust. But it has been my experience, that most systems ultimately meet both the male and female needs at the time of implimentation.<P>What is difficult to do is look back and see all of the subtle things that made the division of labor reasonable and acceptable to all parties. For the very one thing that I will argue with until my dying day is that women have ever been defenseless. The have and still to this day hold some very powerful cards and they know how to play them.<P>But yes, the division of labor is changing for many reasons, and you can bet it will change in ways that suit all parties best.<P>I'll give you an example. The last meal my W made for me was on Easter Sunday. Since then our schedules have been such that I eat left overs, get something to quickly heat at the store, or go out to eat ( on travel or with her and family). Now she is a stay at home mom that doesn't cook. Is that the old division of labor you are talking about? <P>So pick your poison, I am sure you will find people to agree, but I will say none of the divisions were the result of some mass conspiracy to hold down one group by another. <P>People do what they have to do.<P>God Bless,<P>JL

Very interesting topic TS<P>In my marriage and relationship with my H, I liked that we had that division. I did the cooking , cleaning, housework, most yardwork, raised the kids and either went to school full time, while working part time then worked full time while I did it all. Iwas way too young (18) and I had more energy then and slept only 4 hours a day. But then life changed.<P>I did give up my career to be with the kids. And I didn't want to lose all my independence so I worked from home. For me, I found it to be very unsatisfying, and I always felt like all he did was work and come home. He never noticed what work goes into a spotless house, clean clothes in the dresser, food in the cupboards or that his kids had straight A's. It was like having 2 full time jobs compared to his 1.<P>If he shared in the labor of our relationship and family, I wouldn't have been so tired at the end of the day that I'd fall asleep before enjoying my own husband. Over the years, resentments built up over this.<P>Now I feel that it is very important for a woman to have her own financial freedom and life of her own too. A woman CAN work full time and do all the tasks I did. Its hard, but lots of women do it. So if she can afford to be a SAHM then she should at the very least be in college over the years, or working part time in a career of some sort, just so she has a sense of importance and freedom. And men should take care of themselves, such as laundry and cleaning up and things. At the very least, help out more.<P>Maybe I'm different, but no matter how important I KNOW my role was while working at home, not stay at home, but working and all, I didn't get the fulfillment I needed or miss right now.<P>Ten years later, I have a different view of men, relationships and equality and frightening to me, I even have seen men the way TS does at times. Sometimes I have wondered why to even bother if I'm going to fall into the same life I had, because I am afraid I'll give and give and wind up with a taker again, and let my life revolve around him no matter how hard I say I won't.<P>I guess different careers, lifestyles, and views will make each relationship work or not work for various reasons, but for me, I'm trying to put my life together after giving it over to a man once before. I really don't want to do that again. <P>But I still can't help but miss being married, miss waking up next to that special someone every day, being told "i love you" every night, and just the special bond I shared with H that I don't get from my friends or family. I still loved being married in many ways, loved the family time and the couple time, and at the same time, I don't know now that I'd ever actually marry someone again. But no matter what I do, I'm going to try to stick to the most important thing, and thats never to give up my career again. Now that I'm DONE having kids (28 with a 10, 8 and 3 year old) , I am free to work on that goal again.<P>Interesting topic TS. I also think its interesting that there are women on the board with no kids, that still miss their H/exH tremendously and still gave up things for him, so I dont' think it's only having to do with "kids" but maybe different types of women.<BR>Dana<BR>

JL,<P>"I don't know where you get the idea that women 200 years ago weren't dependent on men for their survival from. If anything it was even more so. Most women who lost husbands, for whatever reason, had big problems unless an extended family helped, she quickly remarried, or she abandoned her family.<P>It was absolutely a case of dependence."<P>I'm not arguing that mens and women's lives weren't completely interdependent. They are and always have been and that is the way it should be. If a man lost his wife, his survival was also at risk--more so than it is today. The family economy that revolved around growing food, raising animals, and assorted other tasks that brought income to the family required that everyone pitch in. What I don't like is this "either/or" mentality these days. For women it is stay home or have a career. I would agree that men's choices are even more limited. I'm STILL not arguing about whose job is "better". Nor am I saying that this is a result of some big conspiracy to keep women in their place. I AM saying that this division of labor, while efficient, is not the path that promotes wholeness and a sense of belonging. But, I suppose we've become accustomed to it, so people don't imagine that there is any other way to do things.<P>In my line of work, I meet people from all over the world. Different cultures manage things differently. Some I don't particularly like, others I like a whole lot more. <P>"Now to the today issue. I find it interesting that when you get your financial independence you will raise your children YOUR way. No input from H huh? So much for the role models of the H sharing the child rearing if he wants to. Or is it that the H must be in complete agreement with you."<P>I did say on my terms, and that means that my survival and my children's survival will not be dependent upon the whims of one man. If he decides he wants to share in the child rearing, great. If he doesn't...if he's the kind that comes home and plops his butt on the couch and expects me to wait on him (like DanaB's H), he's out, and since I plan on adopting as a single person, sharing custody won't be something I am forced to do if he decides that twinkie du-jour looks more attractive either. I don't expect he be in complete agreement with me...I'm not that petty, but then I won't have to wrangle with the courts to make sure my child doesn't recieve visitation by a possible child molester, batterer, drug user, alcoholic, or any other pathological behavior I might otherwise be forced to deal with. <P>Fundamentally, JL, you and I argue over whether men are capable of being partners in a relationship. I think they can be, but I don't think they are expected to be (by either men or women), and that is my problem. I know my ex tried to be a good partner, and to his credit, I think he did a great job most of the time. My sensitive area is about my career, and that is where things broke down. It wasn't just my ex, it was all these people around us--both men AND women--who expected me to be some brainless appendage to my husband. For instance, very early in our relationship my best friend told my ex "I can't believe she's not quitting her school to be with you". Now, God only knows where she pulled that out of, because that is not something I would EVER do, especially since I'd only known my ex for about a month or two at the time. My ex jumped on it though, and we had a big fight. It ended when I told him he could also very easily quit his job and move to be with me.<P>When I wanted to go to GaTech, his female boss was mystified that I didn't want to get my PhD at FIT (a school that is not even ranked in the top 200, much less the fact that they didn't have the courses I wanted). But for some reason, by SO MANY people...even you JL, you think that him moving to support my school was this tremendous sacrifice--some terrible tragedy. Crap. Women do it every friggin' day. They are expected to do it. I didn't "expect" him to do it. I made absolutely sure that every possible concern he had was addressed...he was making more money, had a better job, his friends were here, I limited the number of classes so we could spend more time together, I got a full scholarship so that I would not be a burden on him financially. I purposefully knocked off every single one of his "excuses" in order to get to the real issue. It took me a long time to understand that, in the big scheme of things, this was not about my school. It was about power. He expected to be the one "in charge", the one to make the final decisions in the marriage, just like his father and his father's father. It didn't become clear to me earlier in our relationship because we agreed on so many things. How we negotiated about big things wasn't obvious. The one big thing, my graduate school, he apparently gave lip service to prior to marrying me. Wish I would have gotten THAT one in writing! <P>So, you could say my resentment is not just about men, it is about what the rest of the world assumes women are supposed to do too. I'm pissed at my friend for assuming I'd drop my goals for the first guy that strolled on by. I'm mad at his female boss too for assuming I'd go to a no-rank, no-future institution (when I could go on full scholarship to #2!!) just so that hubby wouldn't be the slightest inconvenienced.<P><BR>DanaB said:<BR>"Sometimes I have wondered why to even bother if I'm going to fall into the same life I had, because I am afraid I'll give and give and wind up with a taker again, and let my life revolve around him no matter how hard I say I won't."<P>Been there, done that. I miss the same things about marriage as you do. It is just not worth it to me if they don't want to negotiate and if they expect me to be the one who makes all the big sacrifices in the relationship. <P><p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited April 26, 2001).]

Wow, I didn't realize so many of us were still Neanderthals <P>I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal about being equal partners in a relationship is. It seems like a no-brainer to me. (of course, I'm pretty simple )<P>Perhaps I have a stunted level of testosterone, or maybe some stray estrogen running around , but it seems logical to me that a healthy successful relationship would have to be based on equality & shared responsibilities. Nobody should be expected to give up their identity or aspirations for their spouse. I find it amazing that there could still be that many men out there stuck in the '50s.<P>------------------<BR>nick<P>it's only time that heals the pain <BR>and makes the sun come out again<p>[This message has been edited by c00ker (edited April 26, 2001).]

Interesting topic and very cerebral. Although I agree with the main concept I'd like to throw my two cents in. Since men and women have been on the earth, 250k-500k years, looking at the last 200 years is a very narrow examination of roles. However, the last 200 hundred years have been the most accelerated in change and have made us look at our roles and interactions more than any other time. Marriage itself was not created for love but was a purely economical arrangement to ensure women wouldn't be abandoned without economic resources. In fact many marriages in today's world (especially outside the West)are still this way. And even in the West, many women (up to 80% in some polls) site money as the most attractive aspect of a man. I can't speak for women but most men I know don't view marriage as a goal. They don't read about it or plan for it until they meet someone they feel they can't live without. They are totally unprepared for marriage and have very little input in defining roles. Most women can define their own roles and have a great influence in defining their husband's. When you say that most women stay single longer than men when they get divorced may have more to do with the men than the women. A divorced woman will have a much harder time getting remarried than a man. There is still a stigmatism that society attaches to a divorced woman (almost as if she was responsible for everything that went wrong) where a divorced man is very acceptable. This reinforces the notion that marriage and keeping it together is the primary responsibility of the woman. Seems very unfair but I feel this is how many people feel about marriage and divorce whether they know it or not. With this all said, is the student correct in her analysis? I beleive so, since she is trying to define herself and her role in a society with all these underlying issues. Finally, I beleive that anyone that comes into a relationship with such ingrained thoughts about who he or she is going to be is doomed to fail. Marriage is all about negotiations (not compromise) and helping to shape and define it to both of your values and beliefs. You simply can't "have it all" in any relationship or win-win situation. You have to give up things in order to shape a unique relationship between two people. Just my thoughts.<P>Kirk

TS,<P>I guess what we are discussing here are several different things. <P>1. Is your right to define yourself as you wish.<P>2. The right of someone else, an H perhaps, to see the roles somewhat differently.<P>3. There is what I perceive to be an underlying tone of inconsistency, based on what you say you want, and what you say you expect from other people (men principally).<P>4. There is the belief that everyone somehow falls into their roles easily (the division of labor is mandated and so we do it.)<P>Now I will admit that I have several advantages over you. One, is age and experience. Two, living and visting many places around the world. Three, in some ways I am were you will be someday.<P>I have a few disadvantages, I am male, I have never been divorced, and I have children <P>I suppose what bothers me about what you have said is that my life nor the life of my colleagues has not been what you express. That your view is colored by past experiences, that while unique to you, do not lend themselves to overall generalization.<P>I agree with you about your need to define your life. Yet, I see the very attitude that you argue against in your very statements about a child and a perspective mate. The take it or leave it attitude, with no room for adjustment. For lack of a better way to say it. <I> You will do it my way or it won't be done. </I> approach to the division of labor.<P>So lets talk about item 1. Really not much to say I agree with you. But I will tell you this, I have yet to meet a person who set out to accomplish something that didn't meet with discouragement from family and friends. Especially,if what they were attempting was something no one in the family had done before. I can say that women somehow take this discouragement personally, whereas men seem to get the attitude, just watch me. This is especially true in technical fields (science, engineering, etc) where people don't see tv series about such careers. <P>I can say this with considerable certitude, since all of my colleagues have PhD's and many of my closest colleagues are women. This is a discussion I have had with many. Women feel going against the "traditional" roles sets them apart and makes them targets. Yet, in reality they receive pretty much the same level of discouragement as men. Men just receive the message differently. <P>All I am saying here, is if you try to achieve something a bit different from the norm, you can look back on your life and find plenty of discouraging comments, actions, and circumstances. Women are not unique here, and neither are you.<P>Item 2 is a bit tougher. Yes, there are "roles" templates for division of labor. But, many people devise their own template of leading their life, and sharing their life. You are free to do this within the bounds of the laws of the counrtry. However, the only happy people that I have met, who are designing their own template, are the ones that consider the other person in their life very very carefully. <BR>It sounds as if you tried to do that with your exH. But you didn't understand the situation, it was about power. You further misunderstand that sacrifces made for a persons career by another person are ALWAYS acknowledged and balanced in any successful marriage. Whether it is the woman making the sacrifice or the man. <P>Now I know I live in a strange world, but many times it has been the men who made the scarifice for the W. Why? the men could make it and the woman could not. I realize this is unusual, but here is where you see how to do it. In all cases the successful situation entailed the sacrificee (new word ) getting a considerable amount of respect, verbal praise, and honor from the other spouse. These people went out of their way to make sure that the person moving for them was acknowledged. And by the way, sometimes it takes a few years to smooth all of the ripples over from the transition. Make no mistake about it, this is a very difficult time for a marriage, but it can be handled if the person for whom the sacrifice is being made, knows their spouse well, and goes out of their way to acknowledge what the spouse did for them.<P>It is this aspect that I don't sense in your posting. It is the sense of "my way or the highway", that I am trying to talk you out of. You want to be independent, good. You want to run your own live, have your own money, make all child rearing decisions. Yet, you want someone in your life. I don't see where they get in, TS. By this assessment of your desires, you are just looking for a Giggolo (sp?). <P>I have sort of flowed into item 3. But you seem to be taking on the worst stereotypical attitudes of a male here.<P>Item 4 has been discussed by many of the posters here. The choice of roles is made on a individual basis. It has been for 1000's of years. Even in the most Ozzie and Harriet households, if you look closely, the division is not as clean as you think nor as a long "party" lines as you think. Roles are divided many ways and they change. <P>I have as friends a couple. She was a teacher, he ran a business. She had a stroke, some years ago, that left here paralyzed on one side and with no speech. He now does everything, the house, the school volunteer work, takes her to everything. He does the whole thing, but you never see him without a smile, and you see her smile a lot too. I asked him about it. He said well we have a daughter to raise, there is a house to clean, people need to eat, I need to make money, so I do it. I might as well enjoy it as this is how it is going to be. He does.<P>TS, your world view is right, but you seem to do the engineer (black and white) thing. Nothing is black and white, it is far more complex. You know this. But I think down you don't want to accept it. So you are going to make your life very sanitary. I will make the money. I will chose my child. I will not share my child with anyone. I will make all of the decisions in my life. I will be HAPPY.<P>I hope so, but I doubt it. For one thing, no matter how carefully you select your child, you won't be in control long. Second, you will miss one of the greatest things in life. SHARING IT.<P>Must go. God Bless,<P>JL

1. I agree. Negative comments from others hasn't stopped me. I used to take it personally, but I don't anymore. What I do take personally is looking around and seeing so many men who have supportive wives and so many women who do not have supportive partners (which blends into #2)<P>"Now I know I live in a strange world, but many times it has been the men who made the scarifice for the W. Why? the men could make it and the woman could not. I realize this is unusual, but here is where you see how to do it. In all cases the successful situation entailed the sacrificee (new word ) getting a considerable amount of respect, verbal praise, and honor from the other spouse. These people went out of their way to make sure that the person moving for them was acknowledged. And by the way, sometimes it takes a few years to smooth all of the ripples over from the transition. Make no mistake about it, this is a very difficult time for a marriage, but it can be handled if the person for whom the sacrifice is being made, knows their spouse well, and goes out of their way to acknowledge what the spouse did for them.<P>It is this aspect that I don't sense in your posting. It is the sense of "my way or the highway", that I am trying to talk you out of. You want to be independent, good. You want to run your own live, have your own money, make all<BR>child rearing decisions. Yet, you want someone in your life. I don't see where they get in, TS. By this assessment<BR>of your desires, you are just looking for a Giggolo (sp?)."<P>JL, I did all of what you describe in that first paragraph. I cried when I told my ex I wanted to go to school, told him how much it meant to me and how I couldn't do it without him. Made every effort to accomodate his concerns. When he was still scared, I'd reassure him even more and offered to quit many times. Nothing was enough. I say I have it figured out, but I don't. All I know was that he did nothing he said he would do and every hurdle he put up for me to jump, I jumped... I guess he wanted me to stop jumping, just leave the race and declare him the "winner". I don't know. I'm not discounting the fact that he moved up here. I'd like to think he really tried, but you don't know what it was like living with him during this time. So, now it is "my way or the highway". I supported HIS education. I found a job and moved to live where he lived when we got married, even though I could have found much better jobs elsewhere. I changed jobs to one that was less time-consuming so that we could spend more time together. He took all of that for granted. None of my goals were even a surprise. He just decided he didn't "feel" like following through and thought he could intimidate me out of it. That is really what it boiled down to. Actually, I would have let him "intimidate" me out of it if I thought that would be the end of it, or if I thought it was ONLY about school. I did offer to quit multiple times. However, after awhile I developed a suspicion that this would not be the last time he used dirty tricks to get his way and I was right. <P>I know, you keep telling me other men aren't like my ex and I know that. Still, I didn't know my ex was "like that" till after we were married for quite awhile. So now I'm thinking that guys have figured out this new tactic (sure, sweetie, I'll support your career) and then just do what they want anyway. <P>Back to the division of labor thing...It is the easiest way to determine how men/women view sharing. If they (men or women) are insistent upon doing only particular roles then the kind of flexibility I would need to parent a child with a man would not be possible. Keep in mind that there aren't any "guy" roles that scare me either, so I'm not being a hypocrite.<P>I understand the thing about children and control. It is not my wish to "control" a child at all, which is quite contrary to healthy development in the long run. I don't want to "control" anybody, man, woman, child, or beast. I don't have that much energy.

Hi TS,<P>This is a fascinating thread. I just sat here and read it twice. How did anyone ever get the idea that in today's society men no longer have any idea what women really want of them?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanaB:<BR><B> "...So if she can afford to be a SAHM..." <P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What is the meaning of SAHM?<P>Clyde

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ClydeA:<BR><B> What is the meaning of SAHM?<P>Clyde </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>SAHM = Stay At Home Mom<P>EOW = Every Other Week<P>

double post...<p>[This message has been edited by TheStudent (edited April 27, 2001).]

JL,<P>I can tell you the reason why women take such discouragement personally...It is because their every failure is attributed to their gender, not them as individuals. OOPs! Guess I've been doing the same thing, huh! <P>If they are struggling in math they hear "women aren't good at math", not YOU aren't good at math. I was never raised to believe that men or women were intrinsically better at anything than the other. I learned about sexism after I started working.<P>The reverse is also true about men. When they get around children, other men and women reinforce the idea that he couldn't possibly know how to change a diaper or lull a baby to sleep. I really don't think it is in the child's best interest to propagate this belief that only women can nurture children. If men don't know how it is only because they haven't tried, IMO.<P>Ovrcs,<BR>sorry I missed your post. I'm getting my doctorate in mechanical engineering. My specialty is Mechanics of Materials. We do alot of stress/strain testing and failure analysis on different materials (right now I'm working on pure titanium) and try to come up with models for people to use in industry for designing stuff (like gas turbine engines). Yep. Fatigue and Failure is my job!!