Gender equality - we have it all wrong

seven wrote:No sex. We're equal

If we continued to think doing things that guys do n making them do things that women do is the way to practice equality, sex in marriage will soon have to be outsourced.

seven wrote:Or we can continue to go the same path and marry our best friends. Outsource sex. That will work fine too.

So all the confusion is because we are transitioning. Neither here nor completely there. It's a phase. So couples are confused.

seven wrote:What's MCP?
Molycorp Inc?
Maritime communication partner ?

He can have one or ten side dishes. That's what I wrote.

seven wrote:What about folding laundry for he's made feel guilty about not helping around the house enough?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

seven wrote:What's MCP?
Molycorp Inc?
Maritime communication partner ?

He can have one or ten side dishes. That's what I wrote.

Good... I will change my views as of 22 hrs EDT today.

Kinnera wrote:
The wife should have the choice to work or not to work and the husband shouldn't have an eye on her salary. She should have the freedom to spend it however she wants. She is the child bearer. Isn't that enough?

As for sharing the chores, let the husband keep track of insurances, mortgages, credit card bills, investments, handyman stuff around the house, yard work, throwing out the garbage, catching and throwing out the bugs and spiders and killing the occasional cockroaches in the house.

As for the wife, she does most of the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, shopping and stuff like that.

It would make a good marriage if it works out like above.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
The wife should have the choice to work or not to work and the husband shouldn't have an eye on her salary. She should have the freedom to spend it however she wants. She is the child bearer. Isn't that enough?

As for sharing the chores, let the husband keep track of insurances, mortgages, credit card bills, investments, handyman stuff around the house, yard work, throwing out the garbage, catching and throwing out the bugs and spiders and killing the occasional cockroaches in the house.

As for the wife, she does most of the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, shopping and stuff like that.

It would make a good marriage if it works out like above.

Child bearer ?  Even benefits for that ends after 18 years.  She should be allowed to spend her money on whatever....whattt?

And woman's does cooking, taking care of children????  (notice the root cause of the problem - S E X - is never mentioned in your post.

seven wrote:No sex. We're equal

If we continued to think doing things that guys do n making them do things that women do is the way to practice equality, sex in marriage will soon have to be outsourced.

Kinnera wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
The wife should have the choice to work or not to work and the husband shouldn't have an eye on her salary. She should have the freedom to spend it however she wants. She is the child bearer. Isn't that enough?

As for sharing the chores, let the husband keep track of insurances, mortgages, credit card bills, investments, handyman stuff around the house, yard work, throwing out the garbage, catching and throwing out the bugs and spiders and killing the occasional cockroaches in the house.

As for the wife, she does most of the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, shopping and stuff like that.

It would make a good marriage if it works out like above.

Child bearer ?  Even benefits for that ends after 18 years.  She should be allowed to spend her money on whatever....whattt?

And woman's does cooking, taking care of children????  (notice the root cause of the problem - S E X - is never mentioned in your post.

Child bearing benefits have no expiration date. Man is the provider of the family and that's how it should be. He shouldn't depend on his wife to provide for the family.

My last sentence, *It would make a good marriage if it works out like above*. That means S E X, uppili. The whole article is also about that.

rawemotions wrote:

seven wrote:No sex. We're equal

If we continued to think doing things that guys do n making them do things that women do is the way to practice equality, sex in marriage will soon have to be outsourced.

What does this mean ? Advertisement for AshleyMadison.com ?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
The wife should have the choice to work or not to work and the husband shouldn't have an eye on her salary. She should have the freedom to spend it however she wants. She is the child bearer. Isn't that enough?

As for sharing the chores, let the husband keep track of insurances, mortgages, credit card bills, investments, handyman stuff around the house, yard work, throwing out the garbage, catching and throwing out the bugs and spiders and killing the occasional cockroaches in the house.

As for the wife, she does most of the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, shopping and stuff like that.

It would make a good marriage if it works out like above.

Child bearer ?  Even benefits for that ends after 18 years.  She should be allowed to spend her money on whatever....whattt?

And woman's does cooking, taking care of children????  (notice the root cause of the problem - S E X - is never mentioned in your post.

Child bearing benefits have no expiration date. Man is the provider of the family and that's how it should be. He shouldn't depend on his wife to provide for the family.

My last sentence, *It would make a good marriage if it works out like above*. That means S E X, uppili. The whole article is also about that.

I think the woman should hand over her salary to husband every month and take weekly allowance. Tat way she will have ownership of the family. That has worked great for me. I even increased the weekly allowance by 10% for 2014. Next I will implement Bittu policies and P711's leatherbelt treatment...

seven wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

I think the woman should hand over her salary to husband every month and take weekly allowance. Tat way she will have ownership of the family. That has worked great for me. I even increased the weekly allowance by 10% for 2014. Next I will implement Bittu policies and P711's leather belt treatment...

This kinda treatment n arrangement is what got us where we are today. The whole equalRus concept.
Don't learn from past mistakes n you will make modern men pay more.

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

Great plan.  Start implementing TODAY. Happy Ugadi....

Kinnera wrote:The article is too long. I got bored half way through, but got the gist of it. More than the so called feminine chores that the husband does, it is his dependence on her salary to pay the bills and mortgage that could turn her off. Man is the provider. He needs to earn enough to provide for his family and shouldn't have to depend on his wife to do so.

The wife should have the choice to work or not to work and the husband shouldn't have an eye on her salary. She should have the freedom to spend it however she wants. She is the child bearer. Isn't that enough?

As for sharing the chores, let the husband keep track of insurances, mortgages, credit card bills, investments, handyman stuff around the house, yard work, throwing out the garbage, catching and throwing out the bugs and spiders and killing the occasional cockroaches in the house.

As for the wife, she does most of the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, shopping and stuff like that.

It would make a good marriage if it works out like above.

Kris wrote:

Kinnera wrote:The article is too long. I got bored half way through, but got the gist of it. More than the so called feminine chores that the husband does, it is his dependence on her salary to pay the bills and mortgage that could turn her off. Man is the provider. He needs to earn enough to provide for his family and shouldn't have to depend on his wife to do so.

The wife should have the choice to work or not to work and the husband shouldn't have an eye on her salary. She should have the freedom to spend it however she wants. She is the child bearer. Isn't that enough?

As for sharing the chores, let the husband keep track of insurances, mortgages, credit card bills, investments, handyman stuff around the house, yard work, throwing out the garbage, catching and throwing out the bugs and spiders and killing the occasional cockroaches in the house.

As for the wife, she does most of the cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, shopping and stuff like that.

It would make a good marriage if it works out like above.

>>>The devil is in the details. Notice how slyly these items were slipped into the contract. Gentlemen, do not buy into this..Let's vet this out with the best legal minds on the planet before we sign

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

Great plan.  Start implementing TODAY. Happy Ugadi....

Whom was Tagore quoting?

seven wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

You said it's enough that she bears children n she shouldn't have to contribute financially.
I'm saying that's unfair. It's not like husbands can bear kids n are choosing not to. They can't do it even if they wanted to. So we shouldn't hold that against them n use that as an excuse to keep the financial contribution optional for women.

You are right about different roles though. Different roles don't mean unequal contribution. And we, all of us men women, shouldn't have undermined role women play in the first place.

Happy ugadi! Happy gudi padwa!

seven wrote:No sex. We're equal

If we continued to think doing things that guys do n making them do things that women do is the way to practice equality, sex in marriage will soon have to be outsourced.

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

You said it's enough that she bears children n she shouldn't have to contribute financially.
I'm saying that's unfair. It's not like husbands can bear kids n are choosing not to. They can't do it even if they wanted to. So we shouldn't hold that against them n use that as an excuse to keep the financial contribution optional for women.

You are right about different roles though. Different roles don't mean unequal contribution. And we, all of us men women, shouldn't have undermined role women play in the first place.

Happy ugadi! Happy gudi padwa!

Ya, it's not like the wife has the choice to say, 'Jeez! I don't want to do this child bearing and rearing stuff. Can you do it for me pls?' and not choosing to do it.
Unfair to men? Do you even realize that in this 'gender equality' frenzy the women are at the losing end?

They bear the kids, take care of them for the most part, work outside the home to contribute to the family income, have a hard time getting the husband help to them and if they do, feel less attracted to them. Where's the winning deal?

seven wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

seven wrote:If he's not allowed to work optionally, she isn't either. And vice versa.
If you think she's doing more by bearing children, then she can be the bigger contributor in the relationship.
Holding this against guys is unfair. It's biology. It's not like they can have babies n are refusing to.

The husband has the option to not work and sit at home instead. The wife also has the option to not bear children in a marriage and remain barren. (Options and choices....I am not talking about forced or uncontrolled situations). If such choices are made, how long will that marriage last? 

If man and woman have to perform the same roles, they wouldn't have been created differently......something on these lines was quoted by Rabindranath Tagore. When I first read that as a teen, i thought he was an MCP (male chauvinistic pig), but now i feel he is right.

You said it's enough that she bears children n she shouldn't have to contribute financially.
I'm saying that's unfair. It's not like husbands can bear kids n are choosing not to. They can't do it even if they wanted to. So we shouldn't hold that against them n use that as an excuse to keep the financial contribution optional for women.

You are right about different roles though. Different roles don't mean unequal contribution. And we, all of us men women, shouldn't have undermined role women play in the first place.

Happy ugadi! Happy gudi padwa!

Ya, it's not like the wife has the choice to say, 'Jeez! I don't want to do this child bearing and rearing stuff. Can you do it for me pls?' and not choosing to do it.
Unfair to men? Do you even realize that in this 'gender equality' frenzy the women are at the losing end?

They bear the kids, take care of them for the most part, work outside the home to contribute to the family income, have a hard time getting the husband help to them and if they do, feel less attracted to them. Where's the winning deal?

"Women on losing end. Where's the winning deal?"
In marriage, they say, either you both lose or you both win. Man n woman are both on same side. Idk which end you're talking about.
Bearing children is her primary role. Just like providing for family is husbands primary role.
She should take off work n take care of kids, if she's unable to do both.
Husband can be excused from helping around at home if his work demands his attention.

Now I'm not saying we should make kids or work an excuse to cut corners.

Also the confusion starts when we train our girls to do same things as guys like become lawyers n girls also want to go out n work. But biology didn't change. Nature has decided it for us. Women have to bear kids. So we better fix other things around it.

For now I guess we should just try n find balance between what we wanna do vs what's expected of us.