Traditional roles, Are they really....
Find a Conversation
Traditional roles, Are they really....
| 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
Paige
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?
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
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.
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.
Pages