The rewards of marriage

[Riggz41510]

The rewards of marriage

 

 

Cheating.

If a married man cheats, he's the scum of the earth. A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she's conveniently portrayed as the victim. Poor thing. It's for her empowerment, or to help her self-esteem. Worse yet, her cheating can be the man's fault. How? He doesn't compliment her like her new man does. Or he works too much. (Yes, the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and cars she may have demanded is now considered negligent. The man who may be working 2 jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered negligent)

 

When a woman cheats, the first thing people ask is what he did (or didn't do) to drive her into the arms of another man.

When a man cheats, no one ever asks the same question.

 

When a woman cheats, sometimes the reaction can be, "Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband wasn't delivering in the bedroom".

However, if a man cheats, no one ever stops to think...."Oh poor fella, his wife was horrible in bed."

 

Also, if a man happens to leave his wife for a younger woman, it is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. If his wife was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or became grossly overweight, or was an incompetent mother, those realities are totally ignored. Ostensibly, the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. (Never mind if she is a better match for him) Because apparently, that's the only factor that motivates these Neanderthals.

 

Prenups

If a man insists on a prenup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a prenup was called "unromantic"? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenup, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenup, she has just shown her hand...) Why is it that a woman can refuse a prenup, and it's accepted. In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

 

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the reaction towards prenups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a prenup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage contract? Women do not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the money a man earns, and obligates him to support her if the event of a breakup. Why aren't men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, selection of dinner napkins, churches, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

 

Ironically, prenups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularized in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were "out for their money." Until the Married Women's Property Act of 1848, a woman's property, upon marriage, was transferred to her husband. (Correct, )

 

"Stupid, Irresponsible" Men

Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch TV commercials/sitcoms and see how many reflect men as idiots. (If they had commercials like that about women, people would have a fit.) If it wasn't for their wives they would be lost "animals". Other commercials who make it appear that men act without thinking, impulsively and irrationally, and the wife is the brains of the family, which in reality is not always true. Even many women will agree, women often are the ones who act on emotions, and make judgment solely based on emotional attachments, rather then logic and reason. Almost every "couples budgeting" article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man's childish spending.

 

Job Loss

If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position?? He would be crucified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her. However, when is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household/kids, while the wife is working, he can be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for!! Either role the man plays, he loses!

 

Traditional Roles

It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed "marriage material", and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman "marriage material"?

 

To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannys as their husband can afford. Yes, some wives stay at home, and hire someone else to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered "stay-at-home" mothers. This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?

 

Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. The concept of the pampered wife is relatively new. America was primarily an agricultural economy even up into the 1920's. American wives contributed to the well being of the household by helping on the farm. A man needed a wife as an equal partner. It was not until the 1950's that the first generation of American wives began to emerge as dead weight. Perhaps this coincides with the spiking of the divorce rate in America. Perhaps men have become tired of giving so much, while getting so little in exchange.

[TiredMan]

Uh oh! I can only imagine the reaction you will get for posting this.

 

Much of what is written here is very true, although there are plenty of people out there who do not follow (thankfully) this line of thinking. But there are many who DO unfortunately.

[Daddy Bear]

i'm glad i don't live on the planet you describe.

[southerngirl]

You sound very bitter and angry. I hope you can let go of all this anger and let your wall down so that you can see not every woman in the world is like you describe.

[TiredMan]

As i expected so far lol.

 

I'm sure he knows that every woman isn't what he described, He even does point this out in his last paragraph. But there ARE plenty who are and it's a travesty.

[pregnantkitty_1985]

Just like there's many MEN who are like that, and IT'S a travesty.

[Riggz41510]

All the "classic" reasons why a man gets married are a myth.

(aka: Don't believe the hype)

 

"I won't die alone"

Wrong. The simple fact is, that one spouse WILL die alone. (Unless you both die simultaneously in a car accident.) Your spouse may die 15 years before you. Or you may be on a hospital bed for your last year. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren't having the same thoughts as you are. You're contemplating your mortality, while they're wondering what pizza toppings the hospital cafeteria offers. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

 

Corollary: "I won't grow old alone"

Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 30, 35, 45, 50, 55, 60, etc. MANY married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. (But they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half of their life's assets, losing half their retirement/pension funds, and/or being assessed alimony payments) Also, experiencing final devastation from one divorce may preclude a man from ever marrying again. ie: He grows old alone (and poor)

 

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies a destiny of a solitary monk in a cave. However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you can't continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. In fact, a bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, b/c most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person. Again, my aim is to educate young men in their 20's and 30's to the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer.. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

 

 

 

"I'll get regular sex"

Not necessarily. There are plenty of "sexless" marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids. Also, it remains to be seen whether sex with 1 partner for 30 years is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

 

"I'll have someone to cook/clean for me"

Not necessarily. While a woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves a man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children. Today's woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties b/c she is not working, he can be labeled sexist or controlling, even if he is doing his "traditional role" of paying all the bills. (Besides, this is a stupid reason to get married. If that's what you want, then hire a maid)

 

"It's the proper religious thing to do"

Perhaps, but it is a complete farce to watch couples that haven't gone to church in 10, 15, or 20 years suddenly become church going regulars a few months prior to their marriage in order to gain approval of their church. (And in most cases, they don't step back into a church the day after their wedding) If you are not actively religious, why would you need your personal relationship to be endorsed by corrupt child-molesting, tax-exempt, money-soliciting, war-mongering thieves? (Who you will never see again) Religion today is nothing more than a way to socialize and network with neighbors on Sundays. Not a reason to be married. Of course, the Catholic church only allows you to be married once. So when remarrying, divorced people will get the marriage "annulled". A convenient man-made loophole to circumvent a man-made custom. A complete farce.

 

"I have to be married to have kids"

Really? Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at town hall in order to be fertilized by his sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. (Due to the gay rights movement) You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. It's ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than ineffective/inattentive/incompetent married (or divorced) parents.

 

Having a lifelong, faithful relationship has nothing to do with being "married".

Owning beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being "married".

Raising healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being "married".

All these things have been done by gay couples for years now, without marriage.

In fact, with the advent of gay marriage, gay couples have proven that the only tangible consequence of marriage is having a formalized separation process.

Otherwise, nothing else has changed in their relationship that existed before "marriage".

 

You do need to be married in order to throw a extravagant 3 hour party, and share the same last name, however.

Besides that, marriage does nothing but introduce lawyers and phoney, crooked religious figures into your life. (People that otherwise have nothing to do with your life or your relationship)

 

Men need to stop and ask, "Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today's world?"

It is hardly a lifelong commitment, b/c it can be reversed overnight.

 

Marriage was borne as a way for families to merge land/property, so maybe people should view it as just that. The rest of the hype is just bogus modern TV fantasy polluting the minds of today's impressionable youth, and a way to keep the $70 billion-per-year U.S. wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should really be "Am I excited to merge my finances with him/her?" Because, when all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. (Don't believe me? Spend a day in divorce courts, and you'll see exactly what is real and tangible about marriage. You'll also see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Boquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that's comin' to them!) The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes.....For better or worse.

 

The national divorce rate is 50%. (It's higher in some parts of the country, like CA) However, I ask you, consider of the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay. (Men who don't want to lose 50%, ....women who know they can't support themselves alone, etc) Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these, "forced marriages, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity. A shot in the dark, but I estimate the percentage of happy & monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture? Or even a raffle ticket? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday at the altar.

[rodeo-rider]

Oh my god your back on here saying the same stuff? With all the same generalizations? Have you have ever had anything deleted?

 

I thought you were in a good relationship and you were happy with your wife/girlfriend?

 

I am sorry you seem to have some hard and fast opinions as do I, but geez, I can blow so many holes into your statements.

 

My thinking is that you are basing this on your personal experiences, because really you are in-acurate.

 

I have had my attitude adjusted severly by reading posts made by men that blew holes I my statements, too.

 

Hence my opening sentence. Dead weight? I work 3 jobs, but, even so, if my only job was to run a household and raise a family, how the heck do you think that makes a woman "dead weight".

Based on your grammer you sound fairly educated...until the reader HEARS what your saying, and then, well.....

 

I am getting the impression that you are doing your best to insult us females who like this forum.

[Riggz41510]

Please. poke away!!

 

Tell me one thing that I've said that's not the truth? I never said all women in any thing I've posted..

[Riggz41510]

Its funny.. Most men seem to agree with my posts. The only people who get upset are women. Why is that?

[rodeo-rider]

How old are you? Are you an only child? Are you from a middle class family, or did you come from money? Do you have a degree?

I am very curious to understand what propels you to type what you do, really.

Seriously.

[rodeo-rider]

Please answer my question: What do you get out of this? What the heck have any women done to make you feel this way?

 

Cause, I just don't get it. And, instead of being mad at you, I would rather get into your head (the one that SUPPOSEDLY does the thinking for you).

 

So?

I do not care that you hate marriage. I wish that you found value in the men or women who choose to stay home and do the REALLY un-fulfilling job (at times) of taking care of home and family.

So, what gives?

[TiredMan]

Just like there's many MEN who are like that, and IT'S a travesty.

 

That is very rare though. Men, when it comes to this stuff, usually are getting the shaft end of it. Men have bad double standards as well. Like if a man has many partners, he is a stud. If a woman does, she is a tramp.

 

And I do find it humorous that this guy posts this and he gets attacked and analyzed.

 

The reason being that some people don't like to hear this stuff, no matter how true it is.

[Riggz41510]

Please answer my question: What do you get out of this? What the heck have any women done to make you feel this way?

 

Cause, I just don't get it. And, instead of being mad at you, I would rather get into your head (the one that SUPPOSEDLY does the thinking for you).

 

So?

I do not care that you hate marriage. I wish that you found value in the men or women who choose to stay home and do the REALLY un-fulfilling job (at times) of taking care of home and family.

So, what gives?

 

I don't understand how you're coming to your conclusions? What makes you think I hate women? I love women, you guys are some of the most beautiful creatures.

 

Its laws I hate, followers, and people who just do things without fully thinking of the reasons why?

[Riggz41510]

How old are you? Are you an only child? Are you from a middle class family, or did you come from money? Do you have a degree?

I am very curious to understand what propels you to type what you do, really.

Seriously.

 

I'm 29. Yes I'm an only child. I come from a middle-Upper class family. Yes I have a Degree.

[jengh]

That is very rare though. Men, when it comes to this stuff, usually are getting the shaft end of it. Men have bad double standards as well. Like if a man has many partners, he is a stud. If a woman does, she is a tramp.

 

And I do find it humorous that this guy posts this and he gets attacked and analyzed.

 

The reason being that some people don't like to hear this stuff, no matter how true it is.

 

While it all sounds very bitter and goes on and on and is a bit exaggerated, I'm not going to lie... he has a point with a lot of those things. Especially the cheating wife/husband thing. There are so many instances I have witnessed that prove this. Same goes for the prenup...

I'm also curious about the same things as rodeo-rider....

[Riggz41510]

My other question is, why are stay at home *DADS* frowned on upon, but its perfectly exceptable for a woman to be a stay at home *MOM*?

 

I've personally heard women tell other women to dump the guy, "he's a looser", "no man should make his woman work while he stays home all day". Keep in mind the guys I'm speaking of cooked, cleaned and cared for the youth. Why is that way of living only alright for women and frowned on in society if men do it?

[Riggz41510]

While it all sounds very bitter and goes on and on and is a bit exaggerated, I'm not going to lie... he has a point with a lot of those things. Especially the cheating wife/husband thing. There are so many instances I have witnessed that prove this. Same goes for the prenup...

I'm also curious about the same things as rodeo-rider....

 

How do I sound bitter? I'm just stating facts.

 

In the news right now look at Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. They are ripping Federline apart because he wants sole custody of the kids and spousal support. Women do it all the time though.

 

Look at Reese Witherspoon, she had the nerve to say she wants sole control over their home, sole custody of the kids and she doesn't want to pay him spousal support.

 

Let the tables turn and these were the men trying to do this to he women, we would hear how they're "NOT REAL MEN".

 

Tell me I'm wrong.

[TiredMan]

Riggz you are stating facts about some women, just not all thankfully. But there are SO MANY who believe in the things you described, it's funny.

 

How many "house-husbands" do you see? And in those few, are many of them respected?

[Ellie2006]

Hi Riggz,

 

I would first like to point out that I think you have the right to your opinions! I simply point out just some things that I did not feel was true. And I sincerely hope you do not feel as though I am attacking you or your views in any way.

 

My aim is to just give you my two cents worth (haha whether you want to hear them or not is another point, I suppose )

 

Anyway, here goes ...

 

The rewards of marriage

 

Cheating.

If a married man cheats, he's the scum of the earth. A selfish jerk who has jeopardized the family unit. However, when the woman cheats, she's conveniently portrayed as the victim.

 

But what about the term "homewrecker"? Isn't that term, more often than not, applied to women? I don't see how this term implies that she is a victim in any way ...

 

 

When a woman cheats, sometimes the reaction can be, "Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband wasn't delivering in the bedroom".

However, if a man cheats, no one ever stops to think...."Oh poor fella, his wife was horrible in bed."

 

Also, if a man happens to leave his wife for a younger woman, it is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. If his wife was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or became grossly overweight, or was an incompetent mother, those realities are totally ignored. Ostensibly, the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. (Never mind if she is a better match for him) Because apparently, that's the only factor that motivates these Neanderthals.

 

Honestly, I think people are more inclined to comment about the marriage itself (i.e. it was good, bad, they were too different, etc.). I know you were just giving us an example here but I do not necessarily think people immediately think about how the husband or wife was in bed when things in a relationship go awry, though they may consider it as a contributing factor. Plus, I think people nowadays are discerning and wise enough to recognize that there's more than meets the eye when a marriage/relationship breaks up. Yes, if a man leaves his wife for a younger woman, the *immediate* response might be that he's shallow. BUT after becoming privy to the specific reasons (e.g. the problems on the wife's part that you mention above) that drove the husband away from the marriage ... while people may disapprove of the fact that he went beyond the marriage to solve the problems within the marriage ... I don't think the husband will continue to be villified in light of the wife's part in the demise of the relationship.

 

 

Prenups

If a man insists on a prenup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a prenup was called "unromantic"? On the contrary, if a woman requests a prenup, she is fiscally responsible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a prenup, she has just shown her hand...) Why is it that a woman can refuse a prenup, and it's accepted. In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

 

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the reaction towards prenups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a prenup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage contract? Women do not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the money a man earns, and obligates him to support her if the event of a breakup. Why aren't men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, selection of dinner napkins, churches, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

 

Ironically, prenups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularized in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were "out for their money." Until the Married Women's Property Act of 1848, a woman's property, upon marriage, was transferred to her husband. (Correct, )

 

I don't think I can add to the great (and varied) responses you received on your other thread

 

 

"Stupid, Irresponsible" Men

Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch TV commercials/sitcoms and see how many reflect men as idiots. (If they had commercials like that about women, people would have a fit.) If it wasn't for their wives they would be lost "animals". Other commercials who make it appear that men act without thinking, impulsively and irrationally, and the wife is the brains of the family, which in reality is not always true. Even many women will agree, women often are the ones who act on emotions, and make judgment solely based on emotional attachments, rather then logic and reason. Almost every "couples budgeting" article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man's childish spending.

 

Well, I ask you this: who's in charge of the media? Who determines that these STEREOTYPES have currency in our society? Yes, women's social status has risen over the past century BUT isn't it commonly recognized that we are still very much living in a male-dominated society?

 

For every stereotype about men, there's a corresponding one for women, I would say. For example, the one I can think of at the top of my head is the "dumb blonde" stereotype, which is just as prevalent as the "stupid, irresponsible men" stereotype you speak of, since so many female stars in the media spotlight seem to be perpetuating it these days ...

 

Job Loss

If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position?? He would be crucified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her. However, when is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household/kids, while the wife is working, he can be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for!! Either role the man plays, he loses!

 

Again, I don't think either party is ever perceived as justified if their ONLY reason is the job loss of their partner. To be honest, I have to think about this one a bit more

 

 

Traditional Roles

It's perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand a man make a certain salary, to be deemed "marriage material", and provide stability. Likewise, if a man demands the wife do the cooking/cleaning, he can now be labeled a sexist misogynist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially (just like he does), he can be criticized as an inadequate provider. What exactly deems a woman "marriage material"?

 

To top it off, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they hire as many nannys as their husband can afford. Yes, some wives stay at home, and hire someone else to raise the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered "stay-at-home" mothers. This is not all women, but certainly the odds increase if the man can afford it. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard earned money is squandered?

 

To me, this is more about social perceptions about what makes a man (and a woman too) "marriage material" ... but isn't society made up by both men and women? So not only women but men also buy into the stereotype that men who aren't good providers aren't *real* men. Likewise, not only men but women also buy into the preconceptions about "good" mothers that women who still work after having a child sometimes is marked as a bad mother ...

 

If women and men are both perpetrators and victims of these stereotypes, then I don't see what you aim to prove by pointing out these negative generalizations about men in particular? Aren't there equally devastating stereotypes about women? And we all know that stereotypes are reductive and a person is much more than the cardboard stereotype s/he is categorized into sometimes.

 

Anyways, I hope I am not adding fuel to fire with my comments.

These are only my opinions and I do not expect everyone to agree with me and I am sure that other people can make more valid points that I have been able to.

 

Just wanted to give you my two cents worth.

 

I was just wondering, though, what was your reason for pointing these out??

[dawn515]

My other question is, why are stay at home *DADS* frowned on upon, but its perfectly exceptable for a woman to be a stay at home *MOM*?

 

Easy. (I'll stick to the US for this response, just to make clear I'm not talking about traditions in any other country.) Because traditionally, for hundreds of years, women were the primary caretakers of children. They bore them, nursed them, and raised them. The phenomena of the "house husband" is a new one. Like all new things, it is questioned, scrutinized, condemned, and so forth. It can take a long time for ANYTHING new to make strides in the mainstream. Remember, feminism and women in numbers in the workplace didn't even really happen until the '70s!

 

I'm a little miffed that this is being laid at the feet of all women. I'm sure LOTS of women would like to pursue their careers as their husbands stay at home and take care of the kids. I don't think I'm making anything up when I say that a lot of men simply don't want to do this. Again, this is society's antiquated views of traditional gender roles. Remember, just fifty years ago, a woman who wanted a career and put off having children was simply a freak, not normal, and sometimes even demonized. (That old canard about a woman who isn't a mother isn't a real woman, etc. Look at old psychology textbooks.)

 

Another problem is the fact of biology. Women will need time off from work for pregnancy, birth, and nursing. The caretaking of infants will always fall primarily on women because of this simple fact of biology. That does not mean that a man can't take over later on when the child is older, but dont overlook that working women who get pregnant NEED time off to -- at least temporarily -- be "stay at home" moms.

 

And for the record -- and just my personal opinion -- I love the idea of stay-at-home dads. I would love to marry one, really! I have educational goals, and I would LOVE to have a man that would take care of the kid while I'm pursuing a higher degree. But, alas, most don't want that job, so....!

[dawn515]

Can I just add that celebrity marriages, and their soap-opera-esque endings, are not representative of the standard population of the US? Multi-millionare pop-star princesses and their "dramatic" relationships and subsequent divorces are simply not a reflection of reality.

 

Please do not use them as fuel for, well, any argument, EVER!

[rodeo-rider]

My little brother is married to a millionaire. She has an awesome, hi profile job, and he stays home to take care of their 3 yr old.

 

My brother has always wanted to be a house husband...no chit.

 

He would rather fix up their old colonial and take care of his son than work, which he doesn't have to. Their son is in pre-school, so he has a lot of time on his hands.

 

He's gotten kinda fat, but other wise I have never seen him so happy! And she has the "reins" in the relationship, which is good because he is a tad lazy and not as pragmatic as his wife.

 

My husband and 3 brothers in law really jaw about his situation, they kinda make fun of him, but secretly they all envy him. And I don't think he feels weird at all. He is a fantastic dad, very close with his little guy, and I love to see them together. (My brother and I are 12 years apart).

 

To stay at home requires the utmost personal sacrifice. And patience. Traditionally women have been the ones responsible for making a house a "home".

 

I wonder if Rizz...and tiredman are fortunate enought to have someone to come home to...that you both have a "home".

 

That, my friends, is something that you cannot "buy". Home for me is the place where I am loved and nurtured. At least that is how I think of it. And yes, women are better at creating that.

[Riggz41510]

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what he may be getting himself into when he marries. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them in communicating frankly their concerns and expectations of marriage with their potential spouses. The aim of this writing is to also enlighten women with some of the reasons why increasing numbers of successful eligible unmarried men, who otherwise prefer monogamous long-term relationships, are turning their backs on marriage.

 

Society automatically paints a stereotype on men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry. They are labelled as:

a) womanizers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or

b) Selfish/childish/irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.

No other explanation is ever explored.

 

Except in professional sports and presidential elections, women are given the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Also, contrary to feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as their male counterpart. Despite this reality, many women come into a marriage with very little assets, and often, are saddled with substantial debt. In general, men are the ones who save and invest. (Don't believe me? Count the number of women of marrying age you know who subscribe to Fortune, Forbes, or Money magazine) A significant number of 20 and 30-something women spend most of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of clothing, purses, shoes, etc. Are all women like this? No. Could this be your future wife? Possibly. (Yet ironically, in the media, men are the ones who are portrayed as reckless, irresponsible spendthrifts)

[tictactoe2006]

Got to be honest with you - while I might not phrase things exactly as you have here, I tend to agree with your assessment.

 

another facet you may want to explore: I have found that women I've dated start clamoring for marriage within the first year of the relationship. I think this is also a huge factor into the high divorce rate - personally, I believe that maybe people should be together 2-3 years, regardless of loving together or not, before making that decision.