Traditional roles, Are they really....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Traditional roles, Are they really....
886
Tue, 09-21-2004 - 9:04am
healthy for women or men? Let me just preface this by saying I have been living in a traditional role my entire married life. Dh brings home the paycheck and I raise the kids. This past weekend we came from a family gathering that involved all the women working and all of the men sitting and watching sports. Frankly, I am sick of it.I am completely wiped out after those things! I have four kids, two of which are 3 and 5 and need to be supervised, so I am working twice as hard! Just this morning dh told me not to buy anything without clearing it with him first....bleck! I am beginning to feel as if the kids get short changed when families are traditional. Dads don't interact with their kids as much as they should. Moms get to feel like a slave to their families. I am beginning to feel as if it is best for families if the mom at least works part time because then the dh can be more active in parenting and keeping up the household. This is sort of a vent but a debate as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.~Lisa

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-19-2004
Tue, 09-28-2004 - 11:17pm
Right. I'd leave first. Divorce would be better for them to witness than a loveless marriage.

Paige

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 6:52am
You picked it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 10:41am
She's not denying him sex to punish him - she's just refusing to use sex to punish herself. Do you understand the difference?

The reality of life is that people have relationships to adapt and change once they are in each others faces all the time. Oh, and, mouthwash doesn't work wonders. It does nothing for the smell on skin, hair and clothing and bed sheets and and and. The problem in the relationship in question wasn't caused by the habit of smoking, but by the habit of complete lack of consideration. A man who refuses a request to take it outside, especially once there are kids involved, is deciding to disgust his partner - with his lack of consideration for the other human beings who must share his living space. If he can't bear the burden and inconvenience of smoking out doors (oh the horror) why would he expect his partner to bear the burden of having sex with someone who disgusts her. Nothing is more disgusting than blatant inconsideration. On one hand you are suggesting a book requiring Grimal to act to please her husband more often in some really trivial by comparison ways ... while defending his right to be consistently as displeasing as he wants, even at the risk of harming his children. You might want to think on that a little - why do you think you have this perspective? Why should woman be so much more willing to suffer than men?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 10:49am
Ita!Why are women always expected to take the high road to the tune of dehumanizing themselves? I can't just think of sex as an act, it's giving oneself to another. I would have a very hard time not feeling resentful if I gave of myself and my dh wasn't even willing to do one small thing to be loving and considerate of those around him.~Lisa
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 10:53am
You know, for some reason, I've recently come accross a number of women who went through one of the same things I did. It was the "I'm taking a job out of town whether you come with me or not" experience, and the wife was in the "or not" camp. Now most husbands weren't so blantant as that...they just saw benefits to the move which perspective their wives didn't share. Of the half dozen or so cases there is a clear difference. Wives with real jobs didn't go, or didn't go until the concept had proven itself as a good idea. These are all happy with the outcome now, as of course, in the end, whether the wife moved, or the husband moved back, the thing was done based on actual truth - what WAS better. Wives with no income, or trivial jobs, had to go. For some reason, they all are disatisfied with their current locations and begrudge the husband his decision. Still. I'm not sure why they *had* to go, unless they couldn't afford an apartment for the husband in the new city. But they don't say that. They say something else. It seems there was a dependancy perspective in the at home wives that the working wives never had, which goes like "I had no choice...I couldn't manage all by myself with my young children!" I find it very interesting.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-29-2004
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 11:39am
I have to agree that the traditional role for women is exhausting. Especially now when most women work and fulfill the other roles as well. It's like having two jobs. Sociologist refer to it as the "second shift." I don't have any kids yet, but I think discussing roles previous to marriage and children is very very important. Before me and my husband got married, we had a lot of issues to work out. He comes from a really traditional family. Basically the men work and the women do everything else (including work, for many of them). I grew up in a family where the roles were more shared, and if my mother didn't feel like doing something when she got off work, she didn't do it. Either my dad did it when he got home, or it got done later in the week. I basically told my husband that I'm not going to work and do everything else as well. I'm currently in college, working on my law degree, so he works and I go to school. I work part time on the weekends, but it doesn't really contribute much, to be completely honest. When I get home from school in the afternoons, if I feel okay, I will make dinner, and straighten up, but if I don't then I don't. If I have homework to do, everything else gets put on hold, he can make his own dinner :)! I have no patience for this helpless view of men, who can't lift I finger to help around the house or with kids. Men are tough they can handle it. Relationships need to be roughly equal or someone's going to get burnt out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 12:42pm

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that relationships should NOT be reciprocal.


GMK's situation is an extreme example of a lack of reciprocity and respect on BOTH sides of the equation. . .and in my humble opinion a stalemate between BOTH partners of each expecting the other to 'give' first.

Virgo

Virgo
 
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 1:20pm
Nope. Some things just are more serious than others, and not all things are chicken and egg problems either. Smoking around children posses a health risk to the children. One adult, in this day and age, does not "earn" the right to have a smoke free home environment for her and her children. Its a given that any self respecting mature adult will comply with such a request. In fact, is a request even necessary anymore? Even back when smoking was acceptable, if smoke bothered one spouse, it was certainly expected that the smoking spouse would be willing to make that spouses life easier by letting them have a smoke free environment in which to live. Men have been smoking out back for generations because the wife didn't like it in the house.

On the other hand, no matter how married a person is...sex is not some kind of defacto right - "no matter how much of a sh*t I am to you...you'll be giving it to me". Well, I thought not, in this day, age and place, anyway. If it is, I suppose there is no such thing as rape within marriage. Sex is not something one gives to another to whom they are not attracted, as a courtesy.

There is no chicken and egg here. The husband should have taken it outside and kept it there...even if sex wasn't forthcoming.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 1:23pm
Really. Thats how it works? Where does Grimal live? I want to live there. Then I can send the peanut butter sandwiches and snacks to school with my kids. Even though they keep telling me I'm not allowed because 2 kids out of 500 have peanut allergies. Yet, it was done for years before and quite frankly, I'm accustomed to it and well...surely they knew they couldn't expect all us old dogs to learn new tricks ... for anyones benefit? I mean, if an adult can't be expected to modify behaviour at the request of a wife, in order to avoid harming his own children, what obligation does anyone have to avoid sending peanuts to school?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2003
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 1:37pm

My point wasn't that she owed it to him to allow him to smoke in the house OR that she owed him sex.


My point is that IF she felt so disrespected by his actions as to lose all attraction to him and all love for him, then she shouldn't have remained married to him.

Virgo
 

Pages