feminism not a variable? check splitting

[Big Stan]

24 minutes ago, Batya33 said:

Yes and my overarching point is I've never ever seen it as a math equation:  impart good values, reinforce good behaviors/consequences for others = easy child. Nope. Some children are easier.  Some children for whatever reason -parents are awesome, all the values, great discipline approach, teaching the child and..... the child is a handful or worse.  Sometimes there is a "reason" and honestly sometimes there is not (I worked in daycares, elementary schools and worked with children residing in homeless shelter for years).

And even if there is a reason -a diagnosis - sometimes meds work, sometimes not, same with therapy, same with different school environments and on and on and on.  Even with the most awesome, involved parents.  

If what you said was true all the school psychologists/therapists (including PT and OT), social skills groups, and on and on would simply not be needed -instead in all cases the parents would be to blame for not "imparting good values." Please.

It's all about odds isn't it.  The better job you do the better your odds are, just like how pretty much everything else works. 

[Cherylyn]

Yes, this thread is all about check splitting.  🙄

[Batya33]

14 minutes ago, Big Stan said:

It's all about odds isn't it.  The better job you do the better your odds are, just like how pretty much everything else works. 

I don’t agree when it comes to raising children because children are individual human beings so being a wonderful parent can have no real impact if the child as an individual does not or cannot absorb what you give and or how you give.
Certainly in extreme cases of abuse heaven forbid then chances are that even the strongest and healthiest and most resilient child decreases her odds of growing up into a healthy adult but I do not think it works in the reverse and I sure do hate when wonderful parents beat themselves up for their child’s poor choices or bad behavior. 

[Big Stan]

38 minutes ago, Batya33 said:

I don’t agree when it comes to raising children because children are individual human beings so being a wonderful parent can have no real impact if the child as an individual does not or cannot absorb what you give and or how you give.
Certainly in extreme cases of abuse heaven forbid then chances are that even the strongest and healthiest and most resilient child decreases her odds of growing up into a healthy adult but I do not think it works in the reverse and I sure do hate when wonderful parents beat themselves up for their child’s poor choices or bad behavior. 

So you honestly don't think that good values and a good household have a positive correlation with good outcomes?  I'm thinking statistics are going to disagree with you but you're entitled to your opinion. 

[Coily]

This has gone far a field from the is feminism causing problems in dating, specifically who pays the bill. Something about surgeons raising babies and male feminists being against mothers? Don't know any more.

Anywhom. To the OP, it's probably best not to make assumptions about someone's beliefs based on generation. It will lead to bad assumptions and foolish mistakes for all.

[HeartGoesOn]

Please keep this thread on topic...Thank you.

[reinventmyself]

When all is said and done evolving is never a straight line.  Especially when you take into consideration that a good number of our parents or grandparents were not much different than Ozzie & Harriet.

We won't even touch other cultures.  I think this thread is pretty spent by now to open that door.

Matrix's run deep.  Attempting to change the influence with what we grew up with isn't easy.  Some of it is subconscious.

Some things work, some cultures outgrow and none of us get there at the same time.   Dating becomes a minefield.

I personally struggle with having been Harriet to flip over to being exactly what's argued here. A fully independent, financially and otherwise, woman.

I was a woman with authority working in a man's field.  I can't tell you how often I could hear the undertone from them: 'Look here, Little Lady'. Yet they were contractors and specialists in their field, but more often than not I was the one with the common sense and experience (and authority). . that was not taken seriously. . .because I was a woman. 

One could argue maybe it was just me.  But you weren't there, and it was pervasive at all angles for two decades.  The word mansplaining comes into play.

Relations/Dating, I often walk a tightrope with men who on one hand want equality but on the other need to me acquiesce to anything remotely 'man thingy' or otherwise so they feel masculine. (I mean no disrespect) If I do it myself, (other than working on my car), I can pretty much handle it.  That maybe lifting really heavy things, I suppose.  But it never fails, my partner often feels injured if I don't need his help.

I often think it's the financial equality I'm only being asked for. Fair enough, I get that!  But you've got to meet me at least halfway and acknowledge my capabilities as well. . And not let it bug you at the same time.

So please don't give me that look when I grab for the check.  You can't have it both ways.  It's not easy to navigate!

Came back to add. . It's probably why this thread has triggered me.  I've been that stay at home mom and felt much like the sacrificial lamb in doing so.  My then husband wouldn't let me work or have life outside of the house.  So, I blew everything up so as to no longer be in that vulnerable one down position and had the freedom to work, just to have men talk down to me? 

(one of my first exchanges with Big Stan is him calling out my apparent 'struggles with anything rudimentary')  ??   < for example only

Anyhow. .  it seems the focus of things is financial equality?  I am all for that. . but all the other angles of this dilemma need to catch up and have some shared respect for all our contributions  . .male/female, in the home or otherwise.

[Big Stan]

55 minutes ago, reinventmyself said:

When all is said and done evolving is never a straight line.  Especially when you take into consideration that a good number of our parents or grandparents were not much different than the Ozzie & Harriet.

We won't even touch other cultures.  I think this thread is pretty spent by now to open that door.

Matrix's run deep.  Attempting to change the influence with what we grew up with isn't easy.  Some of it is subconscious.

Some things work, some cultures outgrow and none of us get there at the same time.   Dating becomes a minefield.

I personally struggle with having been Harriet to flip over to being exactly what's argued here. A fully independent, financially and otherwise, woman.

I was a woman with authority working in a man's field.  I can't tell you how often I could hear the undertone from them: 'Look here, Little Lady'. Yet they were contractors and specialists in their field, but more often than not I was the one with the common sense and experience (and authority). . that was not taken seriously. . .because I was a woman. 

One could argue maybe it was just me.  But you weren't there, and it was pervasive at all angles for two decades.  The word mansplaining comes into play.

Relations/Dating, I often walk a tightrope with men who on one hand who want equality but on the other need to me acquiesce to anything remotely 'man thingy' or otherwise so they feel masculine. (I mean no disrespect) If I do it myself, (other than working on my car), I can pretty much handle it.  That maybe lifting really heavy things, I suppose.  But it never fails, my partner often feels injured if I don't need his help.

I often think it's the financial equality I'm only being asked for. Fair enough, I get that!  But you've got to meet me at least halfway and acknowledge my capabilities as well. . And not let it bug you at the same time.

So please don't give me that look when I grab for the check.  You can't have it both ways.  It's not easy to navigate!

And no, Big Stan is not welcome to expound on what I just shared.  I'm tired and just finished a glass of wine 

Came back to add. . It's probably why this thread has triggered me.  I've been that stay at home mom and felt much like the sacrificial lamb in doing so.  My then husband wouldn't let me work or have life outside of the house.  So, I blew everything up so as to no longer be in that vulnerable one down position and had the freedom to work, just to have men talk down to me? 

(one of my first exchanges with Big Stan is him calling out my apparent 'struggles with anything rudimentary')  ??   < for example purpose only

Anyhow. .  it seems the focus of things is financial equality?  I am all for that. . but all the other angles of this dilemma need to catch up and have some shared respect for all our contributions  . .male/female, in the home or otherwise.

I will comment on whatever I please.  Don't call me out if you don't want me to respond.  Just like how now you seem to be struggling with your victim card.  Get over yourself, the fact that you think only women experience being talked down to is really sad.  It happens to everyone and it's not gendered.  

[reinventmyself]

2 minutes ago, Big Stan said:

I will comment on whatever I please.  Don't call me out if you don't want me to respond.  Just like how now you seem to be struggling with your victim card.  Get over yourself, the fact that you think only women experience being talked down to is really sad.  It happens to everyone and it's not gendered.  

shaking my head  . . 

[Seraphim]

This will be closed before long. 🍿

[Big Stan]

Just now, reinventmyself said:

shaking my head  . . 

You're the one who brought me back in here.  What did you think was going to happen with you needling me over this BS?  Why mention me by name if you didn't expect a response?  You don't get to antagonize people and expect them not to respond to you.  If you don't want to deal with me take my name out of your mouth.  Don't mention me and don't respond to my comments, it really is that simple.  

[boltnrun]

😆😆😆😄😄😄

[itsallgrand]

1 hour ago, reinventmyself said:

 Anyhow. .  it seems the focus of things is financial equality?  I am all for that. . but all the other angles of this dilemma need to catch up and have some shared respect for all our contributions  . .male/female, in the home or otherwise.

I actually strongly disagree with the idea that there can be financial equality if one adult (doesn't matter gender) is left carrying the financial burden of providing for everyone for any significant time. It doesn't matter if one is providing the bulk of childcare and/or household chores, there's still financial inequality. Things happen that can go beyond savngs for emergencies and other backups, where things aren't always equal, but it should more or less even out in giving both ways financially imo. Financially. 

I really believe it is everyone's responsibility to be able to afford their share of any kids they choose to have. Stay at home parent for a time shouldn't mean no financial contribution ...it's still the person's responsibility even if they choose to opt out of the workforce for a time. I know it's controversial still to say. But we really need to move past this idea that staying home with your own kids is something someone else (including spouse) is meant to pay for. No. If you want something, it should be default to expect to pay for it oneself. 

 

[Cherylyn]

It doesn't matter who pays for what as a generalization because every household and couple are different and they do what works best for THEM and their arrangement.  It really isn't anyone's business to have any expectations for whatever other people do.  They'll do it anyway regardless if you agree with them or not. 

Check splitting,  one person paying or treating the other,  taking turns,  household expenses,  who provides individually or jointly and division or unity of family responsibilities are all based upon very personal preferences. 

As for me,  I believe in some feminism but I don't agree with all of its ideology just as I believe in some traditionalism but again,  I'm not a proponent of all of it.  I pick and choose what I agree with and what I'm against.  Regarding who pays for what,  it's very individual and what the comfort zone is between people in a relationship which are personal and private preferences. 

For some couples,  this is not worth arguing nor engaging in heated arguments.  We simply do what works for us and we're fine with whatever other people do as long as it does not affect nor involve us.  By all means,  have at it as you please. 

In my lifetime,  I've received a lot of flak regarding different phases and stages of my life from dating,  motherhood,  SAHM vs. WOHM,  who pays for what,  splitting finances,  sharing jointly regarding checks or check splitting and household finances,  deferring to my then boyfriend now husband regarding dating or dining out to this day,  questions such as:  "Gee, what do you do all day?"  I eat bonbons.  🙄  Who cares?  My husband,  sons and I will conduct our lives the way we prefer anyway economically and otherwise.  No one needs approval from society nor social media.   

[mylolita]

I agree @Cherylyn!

How couples choose to do things is their personal decision - financial or otherwise. It's a bit like peoples sex lives - private and up to them, as long as no one is getting harmed! Crack on!

Money, especially here in the UK, is a very taboo topic and no one discusses it if you have any manners, so it's something that's worked out between a couple in private, and actually, a lot of couples don't seem to have a sit down type conversation, and whatever situation they have going on, plays out as they grow and their lives change together.

I have to admire you @Batya33 for being so responsible, hard working, and thinking ahead - and creating a large savings nest egg in prep for your maternity leave and goal to stay at home for a good while. Not many people have the luxury or the work ethic to create savings that would see them through 7 years, and I think this is very admirable! 

It's very difficult if you don't want to put your child in part or full time paid care, to also work, and be present, and also have a life outside of that and run a household, it really is. It's hard to equally input the same money as your partner if you can't work because you want to raise your babies full time. It's a rare thing. And if your partner out earns you massively, by £100,000 plus, that would mean you would only be able to date or marry someone who was going to always financially match you, and you would have to right out anyone who was a high earner, or vice versa, for the sake of total and complete financial equality. 

People also come into money, life happens - people loose money, end up in bad situations. The other persons financial situation will probably change and wax and wane through a marriage. Being in a marriage or partnership between a man and a woman is so much more than that and balancing the cheque book. You're a team. I would argue you almost become part of the same person. What they do right is what you do right, and what they do wrong ends up being what you do wrong - no one is ever left unaffected. I suppose the term soul mate is accurate here for old romantic me. You are one together! So splitting cheques and who earns £20,000 more or not or who does the dishes more becomes insignificant in the grand scheme of your life together. But that is my opinion of course and of course the small things matter as much as the big (often cause the most debate and argument anyway, ha!!!)

x

[Cherylyn]

8 minutes ago, mylolita said:

I agree @Cherylyn!

How couples choose to do things is their personal decision - financial or otherwise. It's a bit like peoples sex lives - private and up to them, as long as no one is getting harmed! Crack on!

Money, especially here in the UK, is a very taboo topic and no one discusses it if you have any manners, so it's something that's worked out between a couple in private, and actually, a lot of couples don't seem to have a sit down type conversation, and whatever situation they have going on, plays out as they grow and their lives change together.

It's very difficult if you don't want to put your child in part or full time paid care, to also work, and be present, and also have a life outside of that and run a household, it really is. It's hard to equally input the same money as your partner if you can't work because you want to raise your babies full time. It's a rare thing. And if your partner out earns you massively, by £100,000 plus, that would mean you would only be able to date or marry someone who was going to always financially match you, and you would have to right out anyone who was a high earner, or vice versa, for the sake of total and complete financial equality.

People also come into money, life happens - people loose money, end up in bad situations. Being in a marriage or partnership between a man and a woman is so much more than that. You're a team almost. I would argue you almost become part of the same person. What they do right is what you do right, and what they do wrong ends up being what you do wrong - no one is ever left unaffected. I suppose the term soul mate is accurate here for old romantic me. You are one together! So splitting cheques and who earns £20,000 more or not or who does the dishes more becomes insignificant in the grand scheme of your life together. But that is my opinion of course and of course the small things matter as much as the big (often cause the most debate and argument anyway, ha!!!)

x

I agree @mylolita Check splitting and division or joint responsibilities of all sorts is a very personal,  private decision. 

For the record,  I'm so glad,  relieved and grateful that my husband never said anything condescending to me regarding however way we chose to manage our finances,  save,  spend,  split checks,  take turns,  SAHM vs. WOHM unnecessary controversies and the whole lot.  Had he downgraded me in anyway (my job is harder than yours - blah, blah, blah),  he would've end up in the backyard doghouse 🐕‍🦺 🐶  !  haha 😉 Happy wife = happy life.  Smart man.  🙂

[TacticalLinguine]

@Big StanPlease be more condescending.

[Coily]

Here's how i am looking at things, and everyone is kind of dancing around it. Relationships are about striking a balance, and what form that takes is dependent on the individuals (pretty obvious right?). What this topic has laid bare is that relationships have moved from complimentary to competition, in large part due to politics infiltrating everyday life ( no need to debate the merits of any position). When the OP was horrified that women didn't share his view due to age group it really told me that they hadn't experienced a complimentary relationship.

On fiscal contributions to a relationship, again it should be complimentary as to what suits a couple. We all have our ideas, but everyone is wearing their blinders on this. I think the OP's position is that of a feminist absolutist, which I find cringe; but it reflects thier belief that everyone in the relationship has to pay their fair share, rather than finding a complimentary way of being equal.

Navigating the ever more mercurial world of dating and relationships what is complimentary today, may be the most vile dastardly thing to inflict upon someone tomorrow. Getting hung up on political identities is foolish, just like Average Stan making a comparison between stay at home mothers and sturgeons.

That's my $1.50.

 

[Seraphim]

5 minutes ago, Coily said:

Here's how i am looking at things, and everyone is kind of dancing around it. Relationships are about striking a balance, and what form that takes is dependent on the individuals (pretty obvious right?). What this topic has laid bare is that relationships have moved from complimentary to competition, in large part due to politics infiltrating everyday life ( no need to debate the merits of any position). When the OP was horrified that women didn't share his view due to age group it really told me that they hadn't experienced a complimentary relationship.

On fiscal contributions to a relationship, again it should be complimentary as to what suits a couple. We all have our ideas, but everyone is wearing their blinders on this. I think the OP's position is that of a feminist absolutist, which I find cringe; but it reflects thier belief that everyone in the relationship has to pay their fair share, rather than finding a complimentary way of being equal.

Navigating the ever more mercurial world of dating and relationships what is complimentary today, may be the most vile dastardly thing to inflict upon someone tomorrow. Getting hung up on political identities is foolish, just like Average Stan making a comparison between stay at home mothers and sturgeons.

That's my $1.50.

 

Yes, my husband and I have reached a way that works for us for 30 years. It works for us . 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Batya33]

10 hours ago, Big Stan said:

So you honestly don't think that good values and a good household have a positive correlation with good outcomes?  I'm thinking statistics are going to disagree with you but you're entitled to your opinion. 

It depends on the individual child and the child-parent dynamic and what is meant by good outcomes - keeping a child alive and breathing is good obviously but what is a good outcome varies widely among households, communities, etc.. Also what is meant by good values and good "household" - so many variables- are the kids in daycare/homeschooled, etc.  Values around discipline vary widely and all are defined as "good."  

Depends on what the disabilities, learning differences, other issues are within the individual child, the accessibility to appropriate healthcare (even given financial stability), whether here are siblings and if so their issues, other kids in the home. 

Even if the child is typically developing, again if the parent-child don't connect either because they are just very different and/or the parent in this good household with good values is away a lot for work and the primary caregiver imparts "good values" but simply isn't good at connecting with the child (which doesn't mean it's not a good household -again, individual differences).  Therefore in the good household with good values the kid who is not connecting may go outside the home to find values and goodness.

I don't care at all about statistics because it would depend what the controls were and what the definitions were of all I wrote above - yes for specific outcomes for sure.  A child who is typically developing and read to from babyhood, and exposed to books in a positive way and reading is valued is more likely to be a fan of reading and take to reading in a positive way.  A child who is given nutritious food (or at least access) in a nonsmoking household and is encouraged to move their bodies/play/exercise etc likely will have better health outcomes/lower risks of obesity and other medical disorders.  But this started with "children raised in a household with good values are easier to raise." 

I disagree with that broad statement - it's easier if the child isn't constantly sick as a young child but good parents send their kids to daycare and preschool with nutritious food and many kids are constantly sick and it's not easy to care for a constantly sick child especially if it gets you sick and/or you work.  That's not an easy to raise child during those times. 

It's easier if the child isn't mercilessly teased or bullied for being short/wearing glasses/having a nervous tic/not wearing the right clothes/sneakers etc - but all those things in the outside world can only be controlled to an extent and then it counterbalances.  Yes you can homeschool but that's not easier for many families but much much harder/impractical.  

I have work projects now where if I did a statistical analysis I am positive that if I find a block of undistracted time to work on these particular projects when I am healthy, hydrated, not tired and use my solid work ethic values I've had since I don't know 1976, the outcome will be a better work product for sure.  I know that over many years in my own life and it makes the work easier to do too and more enjoyable and rewarding.  (And this is because these particular projects lend themselves to this sort of work put in =good outcome).  That's not how it works with kid raising IMO.

[Batya33]

10 minutes ago, Coily said:

That's my $1.50.

I'm willing to contribute my $.75 cents if it's fair to do so. 😉  In most relationships I don't think people are focused on causes to the exclusion of each other as individuals.  My husband again "forgot" to do a daily quick task he offers to do and I don't want it undone because of the resulting clutter.  So I did it. 

If I were an absolutist I'd "have to" "express" my consternation at the unfairness of now two -count it two -days in a row he has treated me unfairly by falling down on the job.  But he's my guy, we love each other and I know him well enough to know an apology is coming on his own initiative and if not - oh well - I've got bigger fish to fry (I loved your sturgeon as opposed to surgeon -got me thinking about fish).  

Same with dating -want to keep score? Yes if the Cause is more important than the individual have at it.  I'd get more basic than causes.  Does the person play nicely in the sandbox? As I've written here my husband on our first lunch date in 1995 chose a fairly nice restaurant near our office, I pointedly ordered the personal pizza as it was among the least expensive items (and I really wasn't sure if it was coworker lunch or date) and .... he forgot his wallet at the office. Hmmmm. 

Were I a feminist I may have trusted him but insisted anyway that I was not going to let him treat me and therefore would cover his "half" and he could pay me back later.  Because that would have been more important to me than how to treat this individual. Instead, I treated him in a no big deal way, reassured him that it was totally fine, then declined his offer to pay me back when we got back to the office. 

The next date I don't know if I offered to chip in for drinks/appetizers -don't recall - I did know this traditional guy would insist on treating (particularly since I'd treated him to lunch).  I don't know because.... I elevated him over a cause.

Two months later he planned a trip to Europe for us.  I gave him a check for half -airfare plus hotel.  He knew I didn't really balance my checkbook. He never deposited it.  6 months later we planned a trip to Disney.  I gave him a check -he declined -he said he wanted to treat because I was going to be starting a new job, etc and he wanted to.  I reminded him about Europe. Then he told me -I never deposited the check. 

So -he treated AND didn't feel the need to tell me he did - that to me is the ultimate thoughtfulness and giving nature.  Is it fair in a relationship that he spent thousands more than me on two of our vacations? Obviously it's not equal.  Obviously I could have said "no -you must deposit this check and I'm repaying you now for Europe too. We have to have an equal relationship!!" 

He would have been very personally upset -I know him.  Were I a feminist I suppose that would have raised a dealbreaker since he loved treating me -even secretly - and I was accepting this unequal financial balance. 

I can see a feminist walking away from such an attitude.  And that's ok.  No judgment. I just don't think that's how it works in reality and that's why I'm sure many "feminists" when faced with a generous man like this start twisting themselves into a pretzel.  I didn't have to. it made perfect sense to me in the personal relationship realm sans "feminist" label.

Oh and yes I was generous too over the years - I planned birthday celebrations, picked out very personal gifts, baked cookies, brownies, made homemade pudding, traveled all over the country just to see him when later we were long distance, supported him in his career, his business travel, sat by his mother's bedside for hours a week when she was in hospice and on and on.  We're not "equal" and we don't split checks but what we do personally works for us.

[mylolita]

29 minutes ago, Seraphim said:

Yes, my husband and I have reached a way that works for us for 30 years. It works for us . 🤷🏻‍♀️

Darn straight!

I've had so many women feel they can freely comment on the way me and my husband do things (some of them, never been married or had any children, and I doubt have any long running relationships at all!) which, they have every right to do, but they have a real strong opinion of it! It seems to rile them up!

At the end of the day, hey! It's just money... it's just paper... what's that saying? Money isn't real?!

It's a kill joy to get financially t*t for tat, and for anything else to do with relationships as well. Who wants to be keeping track of who did what, for how long, at this time, and what day, in the sake of this glorious pinnacle of perfect equality and pure balance for all involved?

This is life and human nature - it's never perfect, it's never completely fair. Someones always going to earn a bit more, unless you both do exactly the same job, for the same time, for the same hours. Someone is going to usually spend more, someone is going to save more. Do you then keep saving the exact same amount each? Spend the same amount each month? What if the saver doesn't want to spend the spending amount? And the spender doesn't want to save the agreed saving amount?

It's all too complicated!

Go eat dinner and throw the money on the table and have a good evening! Roll a dice if you have too!!!

Pete's sake! 

LOL!

x

[mylolita]

And @Batya33 ironically, whenever I'm out with friends, I mostly always pay - LOL!

I am a feminist when with my friends maybe? Hahahahaha! Or do I just have 5 actual legit girlfriends to take to dinner romantically? Who knows! WHO KNOWS! 😆

x

[mylolita]

I know this might sound totally crazy, but how about, like, if a guy is sweet and nice enough to pay for your dinner, and give you a lovely date - just saying, thank you?!

Wild, right!?!?!?!

x

[Big Stan]

5 hours ago, TacticalLinguine said:

@Big StanPlease be more condescending.

Yawn