Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: No Job? No Date for You! [View all]4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)39. Thought you might be interested in this article
it goes along with the theme: http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/
At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out The End of Men, or Google gender paygap for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what wed like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what wed like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But its true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.
Whats more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.
I can't imagine any man who lamented his wife not earning enough so that he could not work would get much sympathy.
In fact I do believe he would receive a criticism or two for expressing such an opinion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
To the extent that "sex object" is a valid concept, it has a bookend: "success object". n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Sep 2012
#7
Even if you thought women exist solely as baby factories, it still wouldn't be "objectification"
Major Nikon
Sep 2012
#16
lets be honest no one wants to date a loser, a one night stand might be okay but long term hell no
loli phabay
Sep 2012
#9
we are talking dating, not stay at home fathers. i am a HUGE supporter of stay at home
seabeyond
Sep 2012
#25
Well, there really is no double standard and I think that's what's at issue...
ElboRuum
Sep 2012
#29
"It's not a double standard, it's just plain old self-gratifying bullshit"
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#38
Only a fool would look for reason in a concept that is completely unreasonable
Major Nikon
Sep 2012
#41
Well they seem to think they're just sooo much smarter than the average bear...
opiate69
Sep 2012
#34
Its the people who think "pro choice" means they get to be in charge of everyone ELSE'S choices
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#55
Once upon a time, men decided how to protect the women. This is called patriarchy.
lumberjack_jeff
Sep 2012
#57
because were entitled-y titled dooodley dooodz, silly! To be a dooooodly dood is to have a dastardly
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2012
#49