Well I’m not against women working lmao. I meant even if I had a wife that had a lot of guap, I wouldn’t want a penny. Like she spend on whatever but I think I’m too proud to take anything. I don’t even like random gifts for this reason cause I feel indebted lol, makes me wonder if it’s sexism or just a pride thing on my part?
[/quote]
Could it be rooted in sexist thinking? Maybe. But the fact that you do not want to do it because you feel indebted opens up a completely new pandora’s box. If the issue is not emasculation but instead “feeling indebted” then that is interesting cause I know a common pattern I noticed with desis is that they cannot accept gifts without having to give back (i.e. during Eid when your parents told you to not accept eidi). That attitude could possibly stem from that. Or do you feel like “emasculation” and “feeling indebted” are intertwined for you? One question you could ask yourself is, do you feel OK giving out gifts/money to her and why.
I don’t know dude. If you really care about this ~dilemma~ then you should probably analyze what you think and why you think what you think.
only difference is..its expected for the husband to provide…while if a guy is doing this. is watching tv and playing video games while his wife is out working…he is a burden on society… and his relationship…
Women want their guys to being doing something…not playing video games and watching tv…even if their are kids…that he has to take care of…cause i’ll tell you that if a guy is doing that and not bring anything else to the table..she’ll divorce and or leave him for someone better…
I’m laughing at how ahistorical this is. This is like..the ~idealized~ vision of the past for the two sexes that maybe existed for the upper classes (the minority in like every society). The vast majority of people were probably in the lower classes where both sexes had to work. Whether it be in the fields laboring on a farm (or maybe in a trade), or in the home taking care of 67 children while tending to the home (without the technological advances that make housework more bearable). Basically, I don’t see too many women comforting and pleasing their men and I suppose men did providing but uh…they didn’t exactly get comforted or pleased lmfao.
Where do you think the 67 children came from? not pleasing her man?
What you describe was probably 200 some years ago…before the 1700 hundreds, women stayed at home and tended to children…you might have those one outliers like during Prophets time with Khadija P.B.U.H also part of trade and business…
“Pleasing the man” in the idealized version of a traditional relationship is more than just laying under him once a year to pop out a kid. Also, I don’t think you read what I wrote, because if you did you would realize that “laboring in a farm (or a trade)” is implied to be where most men would work.
For once I agree with Isaid, women have been working for centuries. This “man being provider” and “woman being there to please him” was only limited to elites or middle class. If you look anywhere in history, right now China during the dynasty period comes to mind, the foot binding was status of elites because the rest of the women had to work in the fields, they couldn’t afford to bind their feet and not do anything. Personally, I don’t consider the guy thinking he is the provider, a sexist ideology. It can become easily sexist if he starts blocking her attempts to work and only cares about his own wishes.
Yes…of course their are more tasks and jobs a women does and can do…and pleasing a man can include cooking, cleaning, listening to his complaints…but, in terms of farms and trades in general there is a subtle difference
Women would be in the vicinity…where do you think everyone lived..on a farm (or rural area)..but just being at a farm..doesn’t mean equal work… I’m pretty sure men would do the heavy lifting, plow, mow, sheath…cut wood.. so to speak..and women would help out with with collecting, making hay, feeding animals etc…makes sense…division of labor, men take care of intensive labor (cause they are naturally stronger) while women take care of the more menial tasks…
But seeing as their are also 67 ****ing kids I’m pretty sure she has more important things to take care of. Not to mention their are and were more female friendly professions like making clothes/weaving and some other various trades she could partake in..but all in all..if she had a family to take care of..that is a side hustle
Still doesn’t change the fact that men were considered the “protectors” & “Primary bread winners…”
Yup, have seen that. I guess attraction dies since it works differently in men than in women. Attraction in a man?s heart toward his wife isn?t affected if she earns significantly less or not at all but it?s not the same for women. Stay-at-home dads who look after kids are indeed more likely to be divorced by their wives.
Did you still not get what my point was? It wasn’t a debate on what women did in the old days compared to what men did. It was that this idealized version of ~traditional~ relationships is not accurate in terms of what actually happened. That the poor masses of the time (who were the majority) did not have some kind of cutesy ~twadicional~ relationship where the men simply provided while the women spent a considerable amount of time getting dolled up to “please him.” It was basically a man taking in a wife so he could tend the land while she ran the household taking care of their children until their inevitable demise. You wrote all this and yet it amounted to nothing lmfao.
Answer to the topic: No its not being sexist. Men should be the primary earners under normal circumstances. However, say he is sick. Or he is studying etc. The woman should take the charge. Nothing wrong in that. Once you are a couple, there is nothing sexist. Its all a mutual understanding