So...
If I've read this correctly,
you'd be ecstatic with a man taking
the traditional male role in life, and relationships?

No, the new kind of empowered masculine which is vastly different from that old type.

Oh go further. I offered that dynamic to my ex. When things got tough, I had to work more. Then she went to work. I got to pay for the insurance for her car, put gas in it. Plus pay for everything like normal. Her paycheck paid for what she wanted to spend it on. Not once did she offer to pay a bill, buy groceries, or even pay for a meal if we went out.

What did I get for her working? Griped at. I was too tired to go out. I didn't have the time to work on home projects, or too tired to. I didn't clean up enough, or didn't do it right. If I got sick, or pulled something and couldn't work? You now have time to do stuff around the house.

So my reply to-"I want a divorce." Buh-bye

And what is the new kind of feminine that compliments that man? In old school language, what do YOU bring to the table for that man that he may want and accept?

You're vague on a lot of important details from the conversation.

I mean what kind of hypothetical relationship is it?
Are they married? Living together? Or just dating and living apart? If just dating, how long? How far apart do they live? Basic things.

Not to mention an extremely key phrase:
" if I had enough for that."

IMO/IME most people don't care about a lack of altruism, reciprocity, or consideration if it doesn't really affect them in any way whatsoever and they are happy and focused on something else entirely (in this case their job or whatever they're doing).

Unfortunately, in real life, relationships are going to be tested and affected when "I don't have enough for that."

How about a conversation of "Son, if you couldn't afford to keep your woman, be the breadwinner without her contribution, how would you feel if she quit her job and wanted to just 'do her own thing' to try and maybe bring in money, or not? and possibly didn't? so you were the sole breadwinner under mounting debt and poverty?"


Also, why is this true? "- If nothing else I'd feel more of a man! "
Social reciprocity? Cooperation is a basic tenet of human nature towards individual goals. To rely on others. Be herd creatures.
Built into that is social reciprocity. Someone does something for you (buys you a coffee, makes change, opens the door, barn raise, compliments, gives a present, protects your flank, whatever) it automatically engenders some type of emotion and/or feeling(s) which influence behavior. People say "thank you," or reciprocate with a like gesture in order to assuage that feeling, to fulfill the social contract.

So why would he "feel more of a man?"
What does that mean? That due to natural human nature it presents an increase in "power" for him in the relationship because he's now "owed?"
Because it reduces a feeling of owing her something? What does he owe and why? What stress is it reducing, or what elation or security is it increasing?

Another important bit missed:

What value? Based on what's in the OP the only "value" she seems to have is needing to be taken care of financially and restricting his behavior in regards to trips and holidays he may want to take.

Is the OP simply a means to convey that women have intrinsic social and emotional value whereas men do not so have to make up for it by catering to women?

The op just isn't all that informative or useful for anything except maybe expressing or drawing out certain biases and/or emotional masturbation.

I mean:

Would she be awed and very proud of her son if the woman was fired due to a drug addiction, got pregnant by some other guy, and decided she was never going to work again because she didn't feel like it and demanded the son "take care of her," and he said "well, I have enough for that. I don't mind going to work and working. I like my job and going there. If my partner doesn't feel the same way I don't mind at all about her not working." So stuck around and "took care of her?"

Would the mother be in awe and proud if his relationship was one of sugar daddy and baby and she decided to drop out of school and just live like a Kardashian on his dime except during the times he dropped by the apartment he rents for her for sex?

Because those relationships are just as likely as any other based on the info in the OP.
There are no definitions, boundaries, or limiting conditions on anything in the OP.


"I'd start?"
Why would a guy trust that when his experience is/may be showing him that she isn't doing her own thing if she has to "start" doing it?

If the son is dating a crack head and she said "I need a man who will trust I will get off crack just as soon as we move in together..." why would he trust her to do so? Wouldn't he be an idiot to trust her? Nothing in the OP about why she should be trusted to "start" something if she's not doing it already, especially if he starts dating her in that condition.



Those hypothetical random views seem like lip service to a mother that is asking him emotional questions and he knows how to tell her what she wants to hear in order to stroke her need to emotionally masturbate.


This is why a lot of women settle and a lot of beautiful women date really ugly guys.
Some women just love to be worshiped while providing absolutely nothing to anybody and having no real worth to anyone or anything outside of, maybe, a slight jackpot in the genes lottery so aren't that bad to look at.

Just like why does she have value, what exactly did he "win," what exactly makes her great? At the very least to the hypothetical guy?
Just her existence and decision to stick around?
Nothing in the OP of relevance to indicate she's any kind of "catch."
Again, is the OP just attempting to push the idea that women have ultimate intrinsic value and men have none so need to overcompensate?


Sorry. But it is.
It's even in the op.
"if I had enough for that."
" If nothing else I'd feel more of a man!"
Those are indications that he's getting something out of it, looking to getting something out of it, and making sure at the very least he's not losing anything.


No. It's human nature. It's built into human biology and the brain wanting to exert as little energy as possible for maximum gain, to maintain homeostasis and not exert effort and energy unless there's something to be gained. At the very least, to not lose.



So far all you've really described is some sort of magical masculinity where a guy automatically and immediately upon dating trusts and values a woman for no apparent reason, is willing to cater to her demands regarding expenditures for holidays and dates (possibly to assuage her guilt or insecurity about what she can pay for? Who knows. It's not in the op), and is willing to financially "take care of" a woman no matter what relationship they have, life situation they're in, or type of person she is.


You might try to at go "into it" at least far enough where it isn't just horribly subjective or meaningless and at best naive.

You deserve to be proud! That's what being a man is about! IMO
I've said this before but I'm the son of a third generation rancher and Korean war Marine and have the same values in this regard as he did. Very traditional I guess you'd say with my generations more progressiveness added. I've been lucky it seems, in my two LTRs totaling 25 years both where with great women and even if I was the breadwinner or major one I always felt like we were equal
partners.
It sounds like Steve here had a rotten one........

I wish I had a highlighter. This is what you wrote.

Now that's the kind of man I'm looking for. The man who wouldn't mind that as long as we date we can't do expensive outings and holidays and trips to far away places. Because he'd see, feel and know the value he has found.
Who'd trust that I'd start doing my own thing when we moved in together and bring in money. But who'd -even if I didn't or couldn't- wouldn't give a chit, instead feels like a winner for having me in his life as his partner.
And feeling more of a man for taking care of his girl.



No bitterness at all. I've never gone through a bitter break up. Never lost the house and family jewels in a divorce. I am not "damaged" or jaded. I was just responding to what you wrote. "My kind of man" "trust that I'd start doing my own thing when we moved in together". It all sounds like a woman looking for a free ride to me.

Well, maybe I should've left that bit out.
Like the son said, even if she DOESN'T want to work, I'm fine with that.

That last bit is personal to me as it's difficult for me now to do what I really want because I'm not allowed due to my benefit situation.
When I am out of that, for instance by moving in together with a partner, I haven't got that restriction anymore.
That would not be the reason for me moving in with someone though. THere's no need, I have an income, a car, a house and so on. And I wouldn't give that up easily as I would be the one at risk, not him. (almost impossible these days to get a council house).

Yes, and the difference with the old role pattern is mostly having a choice AND respect and equal rights & say, which you mention as well when you say you felt you were equal.

The kind of man for me wouldn't want me working a full-time job... He would want to spend quality time with me so would understand if I worked 40+ hours, took care of the household duties, and took the much needed downtime for myself, that there would be no room for Him!

I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to relationships. I prefer to only work part-time when living with a partner. Only I want the more empowered masculine energy in a man that Crystal talks about. One who is more consciously aware and isn't driven by money, power, and control.

In the past if I moved in with a man, he believed it was his house, not ours, and because he paid most of the bills that he had the say in what I could do and not do... that he somehow "owned" me. Didn't matter that I bought groceries and other things that the house needed, or that I had a hot meal on the table every night and most of the time also worked a full-time job. It wasn't a relationship where two people are sharing their lives together and have equal importance in their roles, whatever they decide that to be. It was his home, his rules. That doesn't work for me, which is why I'm still single and still waiting for that right one to come along.

I want a man who is proud to be the provider and embraces my being the nurturer... not a breadwinner! And for those of you who might ask... yes, if he became ill, of course I would work harder and take care of things... that's what nurturers do. :)

Agreed sis I read the book the love languages men and women are different in some aspects

I've had a relationship like that too. Man was a narcissist.
Feminine energy women are nurturers by nature. That's why most women can much easier take a step back from their career to take care of their family. They often put their career on hold, even if that means the end of their career.
The ones that don't often end up noodle doodle because they have to split themselves in half. Being a good mother and taking care of the household is a full-time job so doing that on top of a full-time job is exhausting

I've also given up my career for my family. If I hadn't our kids wouldn't have had a mom who was there for them to bring and take them to and from school, was there for them when there was a problem and so on.
It did also mean I lost the prospect of a very good career with a very high income. I could've made much more than my then husband. But the nurturing comes naturally.
And I'm quite sure he would've been unhappy to be a stay at home dad and not be the one to provide for his family.
I would've been unhappy too as I wanted to be there for my kids.

Natural instincts that are still valid today.
Just unfortunate that many people have gotten disconnected from that, I guess mostly due to bad relationship endings.

It sounds like a couple of ladies want the traditional male/female roles in life but expect the equality of modern feminism. Just remember that with equality comes responsibility.

We were equal before the feminism movement, which by the way has nothing to do with this... we are equal as human beings! We're evolve as times move forward... what I'm looking for is a relationship with a more highly evolved man... someone who is more interested in evolving as a human being rather than acting like a self righteous pompous jerk and throwing the "feminist" thingy out there every time he feels threatened about his place in the world.

^^^^ EXACTLY that!
(The whole message, but especially the bold part).

someone who is more interested in evolving as a human being rather than acting like a self righteous pompous jerk and throwing the "feminist" thingy out there every time he feels threatened about his place in the world.

Evolving as a human being is about how you view and treat others in life. It is about taking responsibility for yourself and your immediate family. It is about knowing and accepting yourself. It is about what you make of your life with the skills and resources you possess.

There is no equality in life that is just given because you are alive!! Equality is earned as most anything else in life is. The feminist ideology is just the opposite of this in that they believe equality is something deserved with birth. A failure is still a failure irregardless of gender.

I'm sorry to see you cannot open up to love and the new world. Your views are obsolete, part of a society that's dying out, the patriarchal one.
Yes, we are all equal at birth, it is not a right you have to earn. It is a right that often is taken away based on gender, religion, race.
That doesn't change the fact that everyone IS equal. It is our birth right!
That's why the culture that's now on its way out -the one you seem to be part of- was so immensely destructive as the one thing it was good at was taking away people's birth rights, including the one to be equal.

Feminism was part of the big change that is going on, which is moving away from that old world and stepping towards the new one where there IS room for equality and love and togetherness.
Feminism is barely a contemporary topic anymore. I never even heard about it since the 70s when I was a kiddie until I got here on these forums.
I know the US still has lots of work to do concerning equal rights for men & women, we are further in that. We're not completely there yet either, but I don't think anyone over here is busy with feminism anymore.
It served it purpose, and even though it may have been extreme in its hay day, it was very needed.
Because, contrary to your apparent beliefs, women ARE equal. It is sad that women had to put up such a fight for something that was our birth right. Always has been always will be.

Now if you want to argue about all this, please start your own topic on it and don't mess with the message of love that I was spreading here.
Would be much appreciated.

^^^ Very well said Crystal

I think the roles have always been there. It is part of the survival imperative, and hard wired in.
the woman has child , the child needs a lot of care for a long time, and needs protecting.
In simpler times it was enough to protect from predators and chase down fleet footed herbivores.
Then came agriculture and so we worked the fields. then civilization and many and varied work. but it is the same thing.
A man should provide for and protect his offspring and woman. Until the child has grown.
A huge amount of people then divorce.

It would be good to have a partner and both only work part time good for both.
Mutual respect is important.

Having children is tough on both sexes. But they are the important ones.
we cant escape that fact. I think you don't become a man until you realize and accept that there are more important things than your own desires.
Don't regret my marriage. she was a good wife and mother for all those years.
But the children grew and we divorced. New beginning.

Be proud Crystal. The boy starts to become a man..

What a wondeful son you have got! May God grant you a man who thinks and feel like your son.