Jump to content

Menu

Ah the "Real Women" wars again (sigh)


creekland
 Share

Recommended Posts

My apologies if this has already been posted, but I just saw it this morning:

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article134440999.html

 

It's a billboard in NC that claims:

 

"Real men provide

Real women appreciate it"

 

I suspect it was raised by "men."  :lol:  I've always wondered who the 8% are who didn't like Hidden Figures (movie).  I suspect they're in the group who feels it was so important to announce their definition of "real women."   :glare:

 

As an added note of my own, I think all of us are real men and women - no matter what our preferences are for working at a paid job or not.

 

I wish more people - that last 8% - could figure that out.

 

And if anyone has yet to see Hidden Figures... it's VERY worth watching... and makes a terrific "content" homeschooling movie if you need an excuse.

Edited by creekland
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies if this has already been posted, but I just saw it this morning:

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article134440999.html

 

It's a billboard in NC that claims:

 

"Real men provide

Real women appreciate it"

 

I suspect it was raised by "men."  :lol:  I've always wondered who the 8% are who didn't like Hidden Figures (movie).  I suspect they're in the group who feels it was so important to announce their definition of "real women."   :glare:

 

As an added note of my own, I think all of us are real men and women - no matter what our preferences are for working at a paid job or not.

 

I wish more people - that last 8% - could figure that out.

 

And if anyone has yet to see Hidden Figures... it's VERY worth watching... and makes a terrific "content" homeschooling movie if you need an excuse.

 

What are you talking about?  :-)       (I know what the movie is about, but... 8% of people who saw it didn't like it?  Or ??)

 

I read the article but that didn't help.  What am I missing?

 

I do think the billboard is strange, mainly because the group that paid for it doesn't want to be identified.

Edited by marbel
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are weird.

 

It's interesting to look at hunter-gatherer groups on this - it isn't the case that the men mostly provide.  IN some, the women who do the gathering provide most of the calories, and those are the most reliable sources too.  Meat of course is very concentrated and seen as particularly valuble, but it isn't like the women aren't out there bringing home the potatoes.

 

Where the men are really the main providers in such groups tends to be in climates where meat is a large part of the diet, like among the Inuit..

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth making a fuss.

The billboard could be interpreted to be a slam against men who avoid taking responsibility to provide for their families/offspring. Deadbeat dads are scum. And women do appreciate men who take their responsibilities seriously.

It does not have to be interpreted as "women belong in the kitchen".

 

 

 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 40
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, call me a traditionalist, but calling men to the carpet to step up and take fiscal and emotional responsibility for the women and children they're involved with? Good. I take the real woman part of it to be tongue in cheek.

 

But I'm not very feminist or PC, so I'm probably missing why this is outrageous. I can't say I've actually met a single female who doesn't want her partner or spouse to be a provider, regardless of whether *she* pulls a paycheck herself or not.

 

 

Flame away.

 

(ETA: I own all the typos. Ugh!)

Edited by Arctic Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth making a fuss.

The billboard could be interpreted to be a slam against men who avoid taking responsibility to provide for their families/offspring. Deadbeat dads are scum. And women do appreciate men who take their responsibilities seriously.

It does not have to be interpreted as "women belong in the kitchen".

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say with more coherency and less typos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?  :-)       (I know what the movie is about, but... 8% of people who saw it didn't like it?  Or ??)

 

I read the article but that didn't help.  What am I missing?

 

I do think the billboard is strange, mainly because the group that paid for it doesn't want to be identified.

 

The reference to Hidden Figures is my own - since that movie talks about the real life of three very important women in fairly recent history and shows some of what they had to go through to get accepted by many men as equals.

 

Rotten Tomatoes lists the fans approval of the movie at 92%.  Having seen the movie three times at the theater now (with my mom and two of my boys respectively), I've yet to figure out the other 8%... ;)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth making a fuss.

The billboard could be interpreted to be a slam against men who avoid taking responsibility to provide for their families/offspring. Deadbeat dads are scum. And women do appreciate men who take their responsibilities seriously.

It does not have to be interpreted as "women belong in the kitchen".

 

It could be, but I seriously doubt they meant it that way.  If they did, they could have certainly done it better.  I've seen it done better with slogans like, "Any man can be a father, but it takes a real man to be a dad."

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reference to Hidden Figures is my own - since that movie talks about the real life of three very important women in fairly recent history and shows some of what they had to go through to get accepted by many men as equals.

 

Rotten Tomatoes lists the fans approval of the movie at 92%. Having seen the movie three times at the theater now (with my mom and two of my boys respectively), I've yet to figure out the other 8%... ;)

There were some pretty good representations of men with progressive attitudes, too. I have decided I need to read the book. Was John Glenn really like that?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be, but I seriously doubt they meant it that way.  If they did, they could have certainly done it better.  I've seen it done better with slogans like, "Any man can be a father, but it takes a real man to be a dad."

 

sure. But I'd save my energies protesting something else. It's not as if there aren't plenty of issues.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, call me a traditionalist, but calling men to the carpet to step up and take fiscal and emotional responsibility for the women and children they're involved with? Good. I take the real woman part of it to be tongue in cheek.

 

But I'm not very feminist or PC, so I'm probably missing why this is outrageous. I can't say I've actually met a single female who doesn't want her partner or spouse to be a provider, regardless of whether *she* pulls a paycheck herself or not.

 

 

Flame away.

 

(ETA: I own all the typos. Ugh!)

Well, now you have. I don't want a provider. I want a partner. I am thankful I have one. There have been times when I have earned more, times when he has earned more. Forget gender roles. Men and women should appreciate one another for what they bring to the relationship. Not on the $$ they bring to the table.

 

You may not be very feminist but you can thank the women who came before you for your right to vote, your right to own property, your right to have a credit card in your name, your right to higher education, your right to have your rapist brought to justice, your right to have your husband convicted of marital rape (should you be married to such a person). None of these things would have happened without the feminists who suffered beatings, insults, force feedings, the humiliation of going in front of a jury of men, and fought for your right to be equal.

 

If the billboard was aimed at deadbeat husbands and fathers it is a spectacular fail. If it is exactly what it appears to be it patriarchal bull.

Edited by kewb
  • Like 28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a marriage book about emotional needs in a marriage. It discusses the top 10 needs. Financial support is one of them and statistically is one of the top 'needs' of women. Not all women of course. Every human is different but there are statistical averages.

 

I do want my husband to provide for us and I would not tolerate him deliberately not providing. But I don't judge other's marriages. ( not too much ;))

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now you have. I don't want a provider. I want a partner. I am thankful I have one. There have been times when I have earned more, times when he has earned more. Forget gender roles. Men and women should appreciate one another for what they bring to the relationship. Not on the $$ they bring to the table. l.

But $$ is part of what he brings to the relationship.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But $$ is part of what he brings to the relationship.

 

Not necessarily. When I was a child, my mother earned the money and my father kept the house. He didn't "bring money to the relationship", but they were still equal partners. It made more sense to do it that way - they believed young children benefited from having an at-home parent, and her earning potential was higher.

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing's just stupid to me, and I am in a fairly traditional relationship.  But does that mean I don't have to appreciate my husband if he gets laid off?  Do I have to display greater appreciation if he gets a raise?  Can I reduce my appreciation if I go and get a job? Should I make sure it's proportional?

 

 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. When I was a child, my mother earned the money and my father kept the house. He didn't "bring money to the relationship", but they were still equal partners. It made more sense to do it that way - they believed young children benefited from having an at-home parent, and her earning potential was higher.

Same my in-laws. She was a director of nursing on a pediatric floor; he was an elementary school teacher. You can guess who always made more. So when babies came along, he took a break from his career because they did not want to find childcare. She cooked and did some laundry on the weekends as well as grocery shopping on the way home from work, and he took care of cooking and other household stuff during the week. They made it work without negative repercussions about stereotypical roles.

 

Dh is not my paycheck. Due to an agreed upon an education plan of homeschooling, I have been out of the work force for a while. But that has nothing to do with relationship; it has everything to do with shared goals and mutual respect. We appreciate each other.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That billboard is local to me. I've heard speculation about both ways of interpreting it. But I really don't think most people care much about it one way or another. I mean really . . . it's a billboard. Anybody who wants to spend the money can put whatever they want on one.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now you have. I don't want a provider. I want a partner. I am thankful I have one. There have been times when I have earned more, times when he has earned more. Forget gender roles. Men and women should appreciate one another for what they bring to the relationship. Not on the $$ they bring to the table.

 

You may not be very feminist but you can thank the women who came before you for your right to vote, your right to own property, your right to have a credit card in your name, your right to higher education, your right to have your rapist brought to justice, your right to have your husband convicted of marital rape (should you be married to such a person). None of these things would have happened without the feminists who suffered beatings, insults, force feedings, the humiliation of going in front of a jury of men, and fought for your right to be equal.

 

If the billboard was aimed at deadbeat husbands and fathers it is a spectacular fail. If it is exactly what it appears to be it patriarchal bull.

 

I find this kind of statement pretty maddening.  The implication seems to be that I am ungrateful or hypocritical if I have basic issues with a particular 20th century movement - based of course on particular beliefs and assumptions and goals - because I have benefited or inherited ideas from them in some way.

 

And I don't think we can know that, had some other set of events happened, similar ideas might not have come to be, or maybe even better ones.  The English never had a revolution as the French did, and yet they managed to create many of the same kinds of change over time - you don't have to identify as a supporter of the French Revolution because you believe in some of the same things and are French.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do women really consider earning potential a factor when they choose their husbands?

I don't think my DH's earning potential ever crossed my mind when I chose to marry him.

It did to my sister in law and men making less than $150,000 per year did not get another date once she figured that out. She actively seduced a married man - so I have this brother in law as well as a sister in law I have no respect for - because he was making a quarter million in salary per year. Had the affair, made sure the wife found out about it, married the day after the divorce was final, and lived high off the hog for five years due to his many investments. (Her "allowance" for just spending on whatever she wanted...not household budget...was $6000 a month.) Then karma acting in its ever so predictable pattern bit her right in the hind end. He got caught sexually harassing several women in his division and was fired for cause. Could not get another job in his field for two years and then when he found one, took a fifty percent pay cut! They lost their Palm Beach house, and ended up in a modest rental while she went back into the work force. His investments tanked at the same time - I think that he had some of it in risky portfolios - so since he had given up half to the ex, his retirement suddenly didn't look quite so fun.

 

My other sister in law openly said after she married my brother that it was for his earning potential because she was tired of being low income. He is in a rut career wise and has said to many that she would never have married him if she had known that 16 years later he would not be making low to mid six figures.

 

So yeah...some shrews do marry with the dollar signs in mind. That said, it isn't like marrying for money, dowry, land, prestige, political position, and treaty is a new thing. Women have been sold for such male desires for thousands of years so it probably should not be surprising that a few women have jumped on the bandwagon of marriage for money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he would be less of a husband if he could not bring $$ to the relationship?

:confused:

 

How sad for men who are disabled or lose their jobs.

For me the language is he would be less of a husband if he wouldn't work and bring money.

 

Huge difference between a man who won't work and a man who becomes disabled or loses his job.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do women really consider earning potential a factor when they choose their husbands?

I don't think my DH's earning potential ever crossed my mind when I chose to marry him.

 

Ambition and a strong work ethic are attractive qualities in a man. It doesn't necessarily have to be about earning a high salary, but I would not want a lazy mooch in my life.

 

During the Great Recession when my DH was between permanent positions he turned a short story he had written into a full-length novel that is now under consideration at a major publisher. He may or may not ever sell it, but that shows the ambition and work ethic that attracted me to him decades ago.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do women really consider earning potential a factor when they choose their husbands?

I don't think my DH's earning potential ever crossed my mind when I chose to marry him.

Earning potential? I don't think that term...,but yes when friends set me up with Dh one of the questions I asked was about his work history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about how much $ a partner brings to a relationship. It's how much value. A sound partnership works to figures out their set of talents and then determines how to apply those values and skills to, together, provide for their families.

 

We've all seen those statistics that come out every few years about what a stay at home parent's annual salary should be based on the services provided that would have to be hired out. A billboard like the one posted implies that the man provides all the value and the woman is to be grateful for it.

 

If they didn't mean for that to be the message, I have to agree with kewb, spectacular fail.

Edited by Seasider
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ambition and a strong work ethic are attractive qualities in a man. It doesn't necessarily have to be about earning a high salary, but I would not want a lazy mooch in my life.

 

Oh, I agree most definitely on this. These are character traits that I find attractive as well. And they do not necessarily translate into a high salary.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. When I was a child, my mother earned the money and my father kept the house. He didn't "bring money to the relationship", but they were still equal partners. It made more sense to do it that way - they believed young children benefited from having an at-home parent, and her earning potential was higher.

And I agree kids benefit from a parent being home. Heck I believe all families benefit from a parent being home......and if that is how my life worked out...,that I was able to make the most money and Dh was the one to stay home....then I would accept that as the best case scenario. But I wouldn't choose a mate who was looking for a wife to make the money and he stay home with the children.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But it is a factor.

Yes, but I should clarify what that factor means to me. It means someone with a good work ethic. When there is a good work ethic earnings tend to be steady and reliable. So yes, I looked at earning potential as a factor. I didn't want to marry a lazy, good for nothing, moocher.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's true.  Real men provide.  It doesn't say they are the main breadwinner.  I take it to include providing help at home, time with the kids, and/or a real role model.  And yes, I think real women appreciate that.  Well, I think all women do.  :)

 

Spoken by a single working mom.  :P

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree most definitely on this. These are character traits that I find attractive as well. And they do not necessarily translate into a high salary.

Not sure how others feel but I am not talking about a high salary. I am talking about a man who will work to provide for his family.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I should clarify what that factor means to me. It means someone with a good work ethic. When there is a good work ethic earnings tend to be steady and reliable. So yes, I looked at earning potential as a factor. I didn't want to marry a lazy, good for nothing, moocher.

Exactly the same way I feel.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read most marriage books and/or studies, it seems that a major need for most women is security. They only feel safe if their husband provides: money, emotional safety, etc. Don't know what they meant by the sign... maybe that??

I would like to see a break down by age. When I listen to high school girls, young college women, and up to mid twenties I find that security is a bigger issue for them than women in their thirties and beyond marrying for the first time. Life experience can play a key role in expectations.

 

Interestingly, marriage has brought less security for me. If I had not married and had children, chosen homeschooling but remained single longer while pursuing my music career, my financial situation, retirement savings, general situation as a whole would be in much better shape than it is now. I know tons of women in this boat.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth making a fuss.

The billboard could be interpreted to be a slam against men who avoid taking responsibility to provide for their families/offspring. Deadbeat dads are scum. And women do appreciate men who take their responsibilities seriously.

It does not have to be interpreted as "women belong in the kitchen".

I agree with this 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disgusting.

 

I appreciate all my husband provides. But I know the feeling is mutual. The tone implies it is definitely patriarchal. It's even in the visual here, with the font size.

 

I think it depends on the context.  There are certain populations where young guys think "real men" are those who participate in gangs and take what they want, when they want from women; some of them are proud to have a number of kids from multiple "baby mamas" where the moms are responsible to meet the kids' needs.  That would be a population where older guys from the same demographic often say things like this - "real men" don't act like that, real men grow up and take responsibility.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read most marriage books and/or studies, it seems that a major need for most women is  security.  They only feel safe if their husband provides: money, emotional safety, etc.   Don't know what they meant by the sign...  maybe that??

 

I think this is true, maybe of women especially, but of all people - and they often mistake the need for security with the need for high income.

 

I find this in economics discussions in general - it seems like the people running the economy put too much emphasis on the potential for some people to earn a lot, rather than the idea that most people will have security in terms of their lifestyle.  Most people probably don't want to be poor, but they may not mind being, for example, working class so long as they can live with dignity as a family through to their deaths, without undue stress over it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...