This is the first popular publication article I've seen that has given the very important cognitive overload aspect of nagging--and especially multi-pronged nagging litany, which seems to be the most common kind--the treatment it deserves:
But when it comes to nagging reminders about what your
spouse still has to do after a long day working for the
man—take out the recycling, walk the dog, write a
thank-you letter, defrost the chicken, fix the
stereo—keep a lid on it. Economists talk about
“information processing costs,” or the costs incurred
from processing, absorbing and filtering information.
When information processing costs get too high, we
tend to become paralyzed.
Now I just need to figure out a good way to pass that hint along to my wife without her inferring that I hate her and don't ever want to speak to her about anything.
You're thinking about it the wrong way... bartonfink's issue was that for this issue his input had a conflict of interest. You remove that by getting a separate person to lead the input... which you can reference later on.
This is not so different from the standard sales approach of gaining the confidence of an SME on the client side who advises the decision maker.
In my experience if I'm her largest influence, then something's gone horribly wrong. I don't mean to be offensive, but this concept sounds more like codependency than a partnership.
Yeah, sorry my initial reply was borderline knee jerk. I'm even questionable on even largest, but it's all on the back of my own experience.
The successful relationships I've had were always ones where my partner had their own, multiple criteria for happiness. I want to be at most say, a third of someone's life and contribute as much to their emotional state.
Between work, hobbies, social circles, working out, etc etc, I've always found relationships to fit into that but they place about no. 3-4, and anecdotally, its always made for better outcomes. When they hit no. 1 or 2, it means we're both giving up on something that's a significant part of our character, and I've never found it to be a positive indicator.
Family therapists know this stuff already. Tell her that you want to make your marriage everything it could be and more, etc, etc, and get her to a therapist, where she'll learn it for herself. Worked for me ;)
"Hunny, I appreciate that you want to help me remember what needs doing, but it's overwhelming if you tell me as soon as I come home from a long day at work. I know I have a habit of forgetting, so let's make a deal: if I forget to do something come 9 PM, I'll take on one of your chores the next day. Does that sound fair to you?"
Or if your SO can take the hint from humor:
"If I had a nickel for every time you told me to take out the trash when I was about to do it..."
Sounds a lot cheaper than suffering this though:
"No it doesn't sound fair!! What, you can't remember something like that either??" or "You are ALWAYS Tired, God I have to do everything, why did I marry you..." etc, etc.
- Not that I hear that from anyone. Perhaps different strokes for different folk applies here?
- (PS: I love you honey)
The other (unwritten) upside being that therapy can help with a lot of other problems too... Of course you should openly talk about it. But sometimes an appeal to authority does wonders to get the point across.
This doesn't actually take into account that the naggee can influence this. As a 12 year old, I remember finally getting so sick of my Dad nagging me to mow the lawn, that I started doing it before he had a chance to.
With my mother this failed miserably. After I gave up on her nagging for someone to do the dishes, she started nagging that the dishes weren't coming out as clean as they should. After I started scrubbing a lot longer and harder she started nagging that the drain and the sink weren't always pristine. After I started cleaning the drain and sink every time I did the dishes she complained the the countertop got wet. After I started drying the countertop, then the kitchen table had crumbs over it. After that, I broke down and had a really bad fight with her, and got her to shut up and just clean whatever it was that bothered her so much in the kitchen.
My mom used to (and occasionally still) do a lot of nagging. By the time I was five years old, I had learned to shut it out. Nagging just does not work over extended time periods unless the other person is completely submissive.
Like everything good in life it takes work to have a good relationship. If you make an effort to have a good relationship, applying thought and energy day to day, you will grow a healthy satisfying relationship.
In my experience, people who nag believe themselves to be "making an effort". Indeed, they think they're doing the right thing.
Willingness to put in the effort is a good first start, but it's not enough. Many people clearly don't understand why certain things do or don't work. And there's as much to be learned from study and experience in the right way to work at a relationship as there is in anything else.
That's a good insite. I guess nagging is often somewhere that the maxim about doing shit (OK, less of a maxim, more of a statement: If shit needs doing... do it) needs to be applied.
If you've not gone to the point of setting up areas of responsibility and some means of ensuring things get done, your choices are either do it yourself or nag about it. I think the tendency is often towards the latter, when it should be the former.
I guess I simplified it a little to far. "Making an effort" also involves continually examining your own behavior, testing if it is constructive and helping the situation. This sort of self examination is a very useful tool and can be applied in all facets of life, social and career.
Making an effort means thinking about your relationship, if that means thinking about it and deciding to put a problem aside for a better time, that is still making an effort.
You can be thoughtful and accommodating without being a doormat which is what you appear to be alluding to.
Breaking this down to an evolutionary biology standpoint, what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman? It has the opposite effect on the intended outcomes, that of security and stability from which to raise offspring.
The whole treat em mean, keep them keen mentality might work in the short term and get you laid but a happy productive relationship it will not build. Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.
...what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman?
It leads her to believe your genetic material is of a higher quality than she could normally gain access to.
Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.
Sometimes. But that's a better outcome than if she stays with you and goes elsewhere for higher quality genetic material, which is far more common than most people believe.
I recommend The Red Queen if you want to start learning about this. The short answer: men largely choose mates based on looks; women choose based more on social status. Signalling low social status reduces male attractiveness; signalling high social status raises it.
n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the majority of breakups and divorces, so you're not risking much if you risk a breakup.)
I love pop psychology books that tell me it is fine to be lazy and uncaring. /sarcasm
We aren't talking about dating here, we are talking about long term relationships. The whole Red Queen thing breaks down when we add artificial human constructs such as marriage and monogamy.
We are not a Silver Back leading a band of gorillas, we are far more complex than that. Sure, signalling plays a roll in initial conditions, impressions and attractiveness. However once we get past the monkey brain and into the far more complex social behaviors humans have developed there aren't just a couple of sliders to adjust to determine how successful a relationship is.
I would love to hear of anyone having a successful and above all healthy long term relationship using the ideas you espouse.
Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting that once one has consciously elected to enter into a long-term relationship, one's biological drives and genetic predispositions immediately shut down?
Genetic expression and disposition toward gene-propagating behaviors do not cease to operate, no matter how far removed we think we are from the "lowly" Silverback.
Your other points regarding human social behaviors are being quite a bit more complex than that of gorillas is correct, but I don't think recognition of that fact is sufficient basis for assuming that all other factors are suddenly irrelevant.
Not at all, I am contending that there are far more complex social dynamics going on beyond the simplistic ape view that others are espousing. The fact we evolved from apes so our social brains are rooted in that make up is significant, however others seem to be treating it as significant to the exclusion of all else.
My original response to the whole "treat em mean, keep em keen" comment in fact makes a reverse argument using evolutionary biology. That is that this sort of behavior actually precludes building a successful relationship as the woman doesn't get the security she needs to raise her offspring.
I know. I often fear a nightmarish reality in which women spend minutes or even hours per day carefully disguising natural facial features, odors, and hair--or even exercising at a gym--just so they can manipulate men into wanting to be with them. I pity the guys who get suckered into preferring women who engage in such behaviors. It's almost as bad as men altering their behavior to be more attractive to women.
Empirically, prior girlfriends have been unimpressed with my slavish devotion to their every-moment's well-being. My current girlfriend is much more devoted, and much more enthusiastic.
I am fairly overt about this. I told her to read The Red Queen after our first date. And I don't lie about this. But when I'm asking myself what's better for the relationship, and what's going to make the person I'm with happier, I have to take into account that my behavior affects her happiness indirectly, too. You'd have to be a real jerk to make her date a nebbish.
"My personal belief is that if a woman chose you for your social status, you made a mistake getting involved with her."
I'd suggest reading the book cited by the grandparent. You're a little naive on the topic. The vast majority of women marry for social or financial status, but it's an unconscious mechanism.
In the end, it's all about optimizing genetic fitness and resource availability. Our genes do this automatically, and it's not limited to humans.
The vast majority of women marry for social or financial status, but it's an unconscious mechanism. In the end, it's all about optimizing genetic fitness and resource availability. Our genes do this automatically, and it's not limited to humans.
Are you saying that the book cites research to backup these extraordinary claims? While I'm little more than a dilettante, I can't see how I could completely avoid hearing that a social behavior as complex as marriage had been pinned to genetics.
What I've heard is that surveys have shown women will find a man more attractive if they believe he's wealthy. I have not seen it shown that this is wholly unconscious, let alone genetic (rather than cultural). And I have not seen it claimed that this effect dictates why women marry particular men.
So let's turn it back to Hacker News for a moment.
You're slaving away in a startup, working insane hours and getting paid way less than what you're worth. There's equity in there somewhere. Maybe. You've finished up another 12 hour day and there's the wife glaring at you at the kitchen table: "When is this job going to get us somewhere? Why can't we be doing/having <x> like your friend Bob who works at <consulting firm y>?"
The social status thing makes sense. And you're working your ass off to try to make that next step up, or cash out, or whatever.
Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst people who tend to irrationally believe magical romantic things about evolved bags of meat.
It's a fairly well established biological fact( caveat - there are of course exceptions )that female primates, including humans, respond sexually favorably toward high status behavior on the part of males.
The Red Queen is a good book, but there are countless others. Sperm Wars, Sex At Dawn, The Evolution of Desire, and myriad academic papers that these books reference, paint a very clear picture of female sexuality that few will ever want to believe.
n=1 is irrelevant in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the actual scientific evidence is quite clear on this matter.
Edit: removed reference to emo hipsters. Not constructive.
Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of falling for cynical pop-science just so stories. This evolutionary psychology and biology stuff applied to humans is still pretty new and pretty far from "well established biological fact", and it comes with all the caveats of human behavioral research plus the added trappings of being a scientific fad.
In particular, there is plenty of room in evo-psych for pair bonding and long term relationships. Historically and across diverse cultures these relationships have generally been the dominant method of producing children, so I'd say it's a pretty OK evolutionary strategy. The 'scientific' evidence is all around you, evolved bag of meat.
And in long term relationships, effort is not optional.
Note that for many of us human males, it takes a huge effort to avoid seeming needy, predict our significant other's desires, and act to fulfill those desires in a dominant and take-charge kind of way. It's quite a bit harder than making an effort and showing it.
Men who have gone through a divorce actually have more children nowadays (when you add up all kids from all relationships). So in evolutionary terms the long term relationship is less successful.
The problem though is that not all women think like this. And if you actual are humble and not "manly" you may have actually bagged a woman who values that. Likewise, if you're an overweight woman, the man your with may actual like you being overweight. Losing 50 pounds could make you LESS attractive.
There's a big difference between optimizing behavior when you're single and trying to score as much as possible vs being in a relationship and trying to optimize your relations with that one particular person. You're no longer dealing with a population.
> Both you and yummyfajitas are making the classic error of espousing an unpopular opinion amongst the emo hipsters of HN.
No offence, but if you actually had the facts on your side you probably wouldn't feel the need to resort to insulting everyone who doesn't share your opinion. Emo hipsters, really?
I edited my post. The hipster reference was not constructive.
Re: fat nerds and social value:
In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power. This can make them attractive to females by virtue of the fact that they can be utilized as resource providers for their future offspring.
However, it should be noted that sexual attraction and attraction to resources are generally two independent drives in female primates. Many female primates utilize independent strategies, procuring resources and genetic material from different men simultaneously. See the citations in "Sperm Wars" for references to the research on this phenomenon.
> In 2011, "fat nerds" can wield quite a bit of financial power.
While that's true, "fat nerds" (or skinny nerds, or greasy nerds) don't generally do things which display this power. I've met nerds who are effectively retired at 30, fat and happy, who are entirely off the radar of women looking at suits, cars, and Stanford MBA attitudes.
My point is that even though socially we understand that "nerds" have good odds of being reasonably affluent, there's still an awful lot to the "sexy" equation that they don't have.
It's a bit oversimplified, but thinking of there being four areas helps for me. Physical, mental, financial, and emotional/relational. "Nerds" tend to do fine in the financial and mental areas, but they are generally lacking in the physical, and tend to be terrible at relational (which is arguably the most important for attracting women.)
You overlook the fact that making effort (and most importantly following through) gets you sex. Happy wife = happy life. It's not beneath you to try to make your partner happy. And if she responds the way you're implying - I'm sorry, something is probably wrong with her.
I hate this phrase, it's the battle cry of those who do whatever their wife says and laugh with their buddies about how whipped they are. Marriage is a balancing act. Of course you have to change and give in where appropriate but if you do everything she says she wants you will lower her opinion of you (as it should, since you're a coward).
Happy wife = happy life only works if your wife thinks "Happy husband = happy life". The premise of the phrase, for me, is that you're actually married to the right person.
But way to read too far into a silly little phrase and call me a coward, Mr. Anonymous Internet Man.
Looks like you're getting a bit defensive for some reason. I was using "you" as a generic pronoun (I could have said "one would be" instead but that's more wordy and is IMO less clear).
I think you're reading the parent wrong. They're not calling you a coward, they're classifying"[anyone who does] everything she says she wants" as cowards.
You overlook the fact that making effort (and most importantly following through) gets you sex
Not in my experience.
As for your "happy wife = happy life" theory, I'd strongly suggest running very fast away from women who implement this theory. You don't want people in your life who will drag you down to their level.
if she responds the way you're implying - I'm sorry, something is probably wrong with her.
In that case, something is probably wrong with most women.
As I responded above, happy wife = happy life has more to do with how you think about and treat your wife than being subservient to her. As long as you've found the right person that has your best interests in mind, I don't see how it's a bad thing to show her you love her by doing things for her.
It is known that in general, women respond most to emotional stimulation and men respond to sex. When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.
The entire premise of "happy wife = happy life" is that your wife is making you happy. This premise is false. A wife can marginally increase your happiness, or make you less unhappy, but happiness is fundamentally something you need to create for yourself.
However, many people fake the "happy me = happy you" by making you unhappy. That is often within their power to do. Then they give you respite when you do what they want. If you don't know better, you might mistake this for happiness. From what I've seen, this is how "happy wife = happy life" (or in it's more honest form, "if momma aint happy, nobody ain't happy") is usually implemented.
When my wife asks me to do something, she's really asking me to show her that I love her. And when she gets that feeling, she's very receptive to the idea of sex. Win-win, as they say.
It might be a win-win for you, but many people dislike trading labor/money/etc for sex (even when the trade is implicit). Personally, I prefer sex which is freely given for the sole purpose of mutual pleasure.
Or you can live up to the challenge posed by American women. If you can manage that, Brazilian and Columbian women will also be interested, so you'll get to pick.
Put your effort into things that are worthwhile. I've caught myself many times putting my energy into the aspects of our relationship that don't matter, while missing big big things because I thought I had the whole thing covered.
I think American women forget that marriage is a team sport not a struggle for feudal dominance of one partner over the other. It seems with American women there is always a very precise accounting of slights, perceived or otherwise, that are used to demand payment in humiliation or suffering of the other. It's like they're on the "Women team", always thinking to themselves what the "Women team leaders" will think of them in every situation in their struggle against the multiple centuries of male patriarchy-- instead of being on the family team. They destroy relationships to please the contrived abstract ideals they've been indoctrinated to worship and fight against their desires for a relationship based on team work and mutual shared goals.
> If there is dominance by either partner, the relationship will have difficulty staying healthy in the long run.
I think you mean, if there is dominance by both partners (i.e. one partner asserts dominance and the other resents them for it, or both partners vie for dominance), the relationship will have difficulty staying healthy in the long run. Well-defined D/s relationships, on the other hand, can be quite healthy.
Comparative advantage is the name of the game. My parents have been doing that for years, even when my mom ends up with some manly work (tall house + lots of Christmas lights) and my dad ends up with some non-manly work. It works pretty well for them.
They even optimized which kid helps them, I worked better with my mom (I was all about getting a list of chores and powering through them when I had time, and so is she), so I ended up working with her for the weekly chores. Shutting up and getting stuff done really does make one happy.
My wife and I just assign each job to whichever of us is less annoyed by having to do it, and somehow it all seems to balance out. She cleans the bathrooms and does the laundry, I sweep and vacuum and take out the trash, she makes the coffee in the morning and I turn off the lights at night. We certainly aim to be equal partners in our marriage, but instead of tallying everything up for some perfectly fair 50/50 division, we try to embrace our differences and specialize in what we're good at.
Sometimes the breakdown does look disturbingly similar to the old traditional gender roles, but sometimes it really doesn't - I do the mending, for example, and she takes the car in for service. I'm sure we are both influenced by the traditional sexism of the societies we grew up in, but whatever the reasons for our choices, each of us pretty much gets to do what we think of as the easy or inconsequential chores while our partner tackles the nasty, time-consuming, or obnoxious ones.
> Sometimes the breakdown does look disturbingly similar to
> the old traditional gender roles
That seems somewhat inevitable. A lot of those gender roles are there precisely for comparative advantage and "do the thing that annoys you less" reasons. It just happens that statistically fewer men are annoyed by trash (e.g. they never get pregnant, so don't have months-long periods when they just can't deal with it at all), women are better at taking care of infants (e.g. can often feed them more easiy), and so forth. On average, etc. ;)
The smell is part of it. For some women also the sight, or even just the thought of either one. On average, pregnant women tend to react much more strongly to anything rotten or possibly-rotten; the details will tend to vary from person to person, of course.
The comments in that article are bizarre - there's a lot of frothing going on. Particularly from young, unmarried women who seem to have missed the point of the article. It's like they hate the idea of being a housewife so much they want to attack anything that even remotely suggests it.
The problem in all this venting is that the advice is given to both sexes - it just discusses using comparative advantage to split up tasks, don't nag each other and slip between the sheets as much as possible. If you realise that the advice could equally apply to a gay couple you can see there actually isn't any gender bias in the article at all.
You either compared incomparable things to begin with or ended up with a scalar value when you divided them. Units can be divided, too. The slash in m/s is there for a reason.
We'd do better to stick to the original point: that both partners should do their best rather than a half-ass job. A point I happen to agree with. Numbers just get in the way.
I admit it is innumerate slang to write "50/50" when really it means "(item/effort/task) is split 50% among 2 people" ... so given HN's general level of math ability, I should have phrased it better.
A lot of you are getting caught up in stereotypes. When I read this article I didn't see it as being specifically written for men or women-- shouldn't both parties be doing these things?
Having fun together rather than parsing out your problems is the key to success. Sometimes you have to do the Talk, but if it becomes the norm you're doomed.
You can hardly call that a 'marriage'. Its just another adjustment you would do even with your roommate.
I've been married for last 8 years and also have a kid. I feel, the best of marriage is lived when you share everything - talk out every feeling - help each other achieve the small dreams - LIVE together! Every relationship, even a mother-child/friends/brother-sister - they all have conflicts - and most of it because of expectations. Without 'expectations' there cannot exist a relation. The key is to achieve the balance - try to give enough space/freedom to each other so that both gets to do the things they enjoy the most - try to find your happiness in the same, if you can, or at least support it in some way.
For household responsibilities, it should be equally and mutually shared. But 'don't talk so much' is definitely not the approach to avoid conflicts. We are not machines; the whole point of 'living' is to 'share'; and Humans Do Need to Share. What else do you need to marry for? Better stay bachelor, if you don't think you can shoulder the responsibility to 'share' and handle 'expectations'.
Don't forget to do the minimum that's expected at least. eg cleaning up after oneself. Putting dishes in the sink != cleaning up. Especially if they have time to do it.
It's amazing how much ROI you can get from things like that. I lived in utter peace, harmony, and sanitation with 2 roommates for a while, and the $90 we paid to have a maid come by every two weeks and clean the townhouse was money well spent.
There's a huge difference between being commanded to "Do the Dishes, Put Out, Don’t Talk So Much" by other people, versus doing these things on your own initiative as part of your relationship.
If smallblacksun wanted to refer only to stereotypes about gender roles he/she should have said 'those stereotypes exist for a reason.' Instead he/she said 'stereotypes exist for a reason,' which is a much broader statement.
>Because it's [stereotyping is] easier than critical thinking?
In a way, yes.
In fact stereotyping is like writing a script rather than repeating the same process over and over. You may need to amend the script for a given situation of course, but it serves as a useful first approximation of a solution.
It is critical thinking that leads one to effective use of stereotypes: it's not always raining when it's cloudy outside but it's a useful indicator.
Basically, the author did studies and interviews and found that some couples who fight frequently do still have a healthy marriage.
This goes against some common-sense notions, of course.
The important thing was that each thought the other one heard and understood their point of view. I can't recall if the feeling that progress was made to resolve the dispute mattered as well.
My wife's take:
"huh! Didn't care much for the article coz though she makes some good points, I felt like it's putting it all on the woman!! Even if she says "spouse" several times, it's like she's saying spouse, but meaning wife... I have to agree with her sister about trying to put women back 50 years!! Not surprising you, meaning a guy, would like it though!! ;-D It has everything a husband would want his ideal wife to do!"
"But the real reason [married people gain weight] is moral hazard, or the tendency to take more risks and behave more irresponsibly when there are no consequences."
I'd never equated being overweight as behaving irresponsibly. If everyone thought this way, would we all be thinner? If my spouse can't nag me to lose weight (see #1), is there anything she could do to encourage it, or is it all on me?
Funny, I can't imagine being overweight as anything but irresponsible (mod specific health issues). And it is pretty much all on you.
One thing that can be very helpful is to schedule exercise with other people (e.g. spouse). It's easier to get going with a group, it's more fun, and there is a social cost to canceling. You don't even have to do the same exercises -- just go to the gym or pool or park or whatever and do your thing.
i.e. don't nag against bad activities, but support and encourage wholesome ones in their place.
In regards to equating being overweight and being irresponsible, I think you're right. I just had never seen it that way, and hopefully this can start a paradigm shift for me.
What this implies is that overeating/under-exercising should be taboo just like smoking cigarettes. These things aren't considered taboo by some people, but maybe that's the reason people aren't healthier.
I agree that in the end it's personal responsibility that determines whether you're overweight or healthy. But it has to be said that it has become more difficult to be thin (at least in western societies) given the ease with which most of us can obtain high energy/fat foods. Add to that the fact that most food producers have profit margins as their motivators instead of the population's health, and you can see why it's getting harder.
Agree completely. The point is that food producers are playing (wittingly or not) into the fact that our human biology is geared towards the storage of fat. Your body's primal survival mechanism is a hard thing to overcome. In more scarce times, people spent most of their energy in the pursuit of finding something to eat. Now you use about 8 calories to reach out your car window, grab your 1500 calorie supersized meal, and set it on your passenger seat.
Actually in some ways it is getting easier (for the geeks, anyway):
* adblock - no stupid commercials for fastfood places, etc
* Downloaded tv (whether brought from iTunes or downloaded from thepiratebay.org) doesn't contain commercials.
Add that a personal mp3 player means you are less likely to hear radio and it becomes that much more difficult to sell you stuff.
Recent research shows that obesity is caused more by the types of food that we eat than the amount that we eat. (And the types of food that surround us these days are increasingly the wrong kinds).
I would suggest that you and your wife do some research into obesity/nutrition and form a meal plan together. It is much easier to eat the right foods when you're doing it together. It's also fun to cook together. At least, that's working for me and my partner.
I suggest Gary Taube's or Mark Sisson's books for research.
Comparative advantage does not work in marriages. All hands on is much better. It is the same with family cookouts, spring cleaning, etc. More hands, less work, and there is less cognitive load whether work is being doled out fairly.
ETA: With the growing number of men who refuse to pick up every check, plan every date/event, act as sole provider for the family, purchase gifts regularly for their other half, etc. for fear of marrying a woman who is too focused on money... I'm really beginning to wonder what women are getting out of this marriage deal anymore.
Wow, I don't know, the same thing the men are getting, an equal life-partner who they have a very strong emotional attachment to? There's the legal benefits for both partners, social recognition of your relationship, legal benefits for any children, possibly the sanction of your chosen religion...
Sure, if what you want from a relationship is things, stuff, and to not have to work, more power to you... But I have no respect for you.
You are missing my point. The comment isn't about me. It's about men who have these old-fashioned expectations of women, but don't reciprocate by fulfilling the traditional role for a man.
That is, if I have to sit quietly, look pretty, and clean house, what am I getting in return? Not much these days.
I'd like to know why my comment pointing out the inherent flaw in the GP's argument (this advice works equally well for married people of either gender) was killed.
You're right, women DON'T have to feel like prostitutes because the options for women have greatly expanded. We no longer have to be confined to the "traditional" roles that encourage us to be passive doormats content to be totally dependent on our spouses.
My point, anyway, is that the men in the WSJ article cheering this drivel on are often the same guys who don't want to assume the traditional provider role for men. They don't want a wife, they want a maid that "puts out".
>>
My point, anyway, is that the men in the WSJ article cheering this drivel on are often the same guys who don't want to assume the traditional provider role for men. They don't want a wife, they want a maid that "puts out".
<<
I could roll with "fuck it, let's neither of us clean". I want a wife, not a barracks inspector.
I can only speak personally, but once you actually make the commitment, you personally feel more of a responsibility to work things out with your partner. Prior to marriage, you aren't necessarily 'tied down' and you could easily just break-up over something that could have been worked out if one (or both) of you decided not to be so pig-headed.
You do realize that the reason men no longer do those things is precisely because women changed their role first?
That said, you have a point. Outside of child-bearing (and even there...) marriage seems less and less useful. I don't see this as a bad thing, but YMMV.
