Quote: (09-26-2013 07:31 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:
Quote: (09-26-2013 07:17 PM)soup Wrote:
Quote: (09-26-2013 04:53 PM)MrLemon Wrote:
Feminists always say they want a 50/50 marriage. But if a wife isn't submissive, by definition, it can't be a 50/50 marriage.
Marriage, by definition, is the man submitting to the woman. That's what marriage is and always has been for millennia. A social compact in which men agree to submit their assets -- their money, their freedom, and often their physcical safety -- to the needs of the women.
Just by getting married at all, a man is already contributing "his share."
So for that marriage to be 50/50, she must be willing to contribute back. She does that by making a specific decision to be a submissive wife.
When eastern european or south american women treat men to cooking and cleaning and say "ok husband, sit and watch football while I cater to you" they are essentially acknowledging that the man has sacrificed something important in their lives, to support her, and she has to give something back.
If she isn't going to be a submissive wife, it's not really marriage. You might as well just donate your time and spare cash to the nearest homeless shelter.
OP, times have changed. Women are supporting themselves and all that shit and don't need men for it. That's why marriage is fucked now. Don't bother with it.
This isn't remotely true. Women want the protection and provision of a traditional husband, but don't want to be subject to the authority of a traditional husband. They've thus rejected individual men, and have started making the state their husband instead.
Most government jobs are filled by women, and most service-based or retail jobs are filled by women. Women aren't driving the economy, they're enjoying the affluence of a predominantly male-driven economy (that is now beginning to wane due to a feminist pumping operation that disenfranchises men).
Women expect the government to pay for their birth control, abortion, health care, and to fund their reproductive "freedom." They want the state to make men pay for 18 years for an errant ejaculation, they want the state to confiscate the majority of a man's belongings when they decide to leave said man, they want the state to make men pay even after they're no longer with said men, and they want the state to make men pay for children they didn't even sire. Women also want the government to pay for daycare programs and all the rest of it.
In short, women want the government to fulfill the role of a traditional husband in order to facilitate an expansion of female sexual license. Of course the tax payer picks up the tab.
Women on the whole are not supporting themselves.
Further, feminists are demanding the state bend over backwards to fund programs to increase female participation in programs that women don't appear to be particularly interested in, a costly venture that is having a deleterious effect on many of these sectors (it is contributing, for example, to the doctor shortage, since many women take up the limited seats and then decide to work part time or become a stay-at-home parent). Not only is this costly, but it's another expansion of the size, scope, and control the state has over its citizens.
It is on the back of modern feminism that the size and scope of the state is expanding and making Orwell's vision look increasingly likely by the year.
I agree, but this thread isn't talking about the state. It's talking about a man and his wife.
Recent studies in NY "beta" times suggest that something like 45% of women are now earning the lion's share of income for their homes.