"A man provides food and shelter for his family. A woman makes the babies and maintains the household. I don’t understand why a woman would have to work. You’re already paying rent and buying groceries. Why is it so much more expensive to have a roommate? You sleep in the same bed. Kids are virtually free, too. Public schools abound, food is cheap, and hand-me-downs are everywhere.
A woman gets up with the kids, prepares their lunches, and makes them breakfast. A man can lie in a little bit longer because he has to be alert to make money. Morning is a woman’s time to shine. Men must shine later in the afternoon.
A woman kisses the children good night every night and a man provides his children with a ‘force field’ that protects them from monsters and bad dreams. This is done by waving his hands over their bodies and making a sound that resembles a lightsaber.
A man takes the kids to school and kisses them goodbye. If a woman wants to nap after the kids leave, that’s nobody’s business. She can sip margs and watch Real Housewives for all we care.
All day a man has to be thinking, “Is what I’m doing right now providing income?” Within reasonable ethical boundaries, a man never refuses a job that will increase his family’s wealth.
When the kids come home from school, it’s a woman who nurtures them and deals with micro issues like bullying or the quality of their homework assignments. The man deals with macro problems like what school they go to. If private becomes the only option, it’s the man’s job to provide that. If he can’t afford local private schools, he must move and then commute to work. I know. It sucks.
When a man comes home from work he has to be “on” for the kids. He does not get a moment to relax and read the paper. The second he walks through the door, a woman is relieved of her duties and can go lock herself in her bedroom. She can zone out until dinner."
Read more at Taki's Magazine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any questions?
20 comments:
I thought that was excellent.
Totally wrong about it not costing more to have room-mates even if you stack the kids in one bedroom like people used to do. You need a bigger place.
And once the kids are out of the house I figure that the saved food bills will pay for some nice stuff and maybe world travel, too.
Read that over, girl, and imagine what a man might think of your plan that all he gets is a little time to sleep in, then he's pretty much responsible for everything while she watches TV and drinks margaritas.
Empathy?
If you're a guy like me who really can't sleep in, then just make her a martini for breakfast.
I'm sorry to be accusatory, flippant, coarse, and lazy, but I am a man, and that proves it.
Or you could read the whole article :) I think it sounds rather sensible . Show it to BG (bago's gal) and get her opinion.
A martini for breakfast...better make it a bloody Mary for the tomato juice.
Synova, we lived in CA until I was nine. Many two-bedroom houses, with three girls in a bunk bed. In fact, for several years in Ohio we three were in one bedroom till Uncle Bob finished the attic. But it was a big room.
I'm a guy, so I didn't read the whole thing.
"Show it to BG"
Maybe she would read it if she wasn't passed out from all the margaritas.
My Mom and Dad both went to work before we kids woke up. When all us kids woke up a little later, the older ones were around to help get the younger ones off. Sometimes we had a babysitter who helped. I thought it worked just fine.
"Maybe she would read it if she wasn't passed out from all the margaritas."
LUCKY LADY! You are aces, bags :)
Yes, it sounds pretty good. We used to come home about two hours before our mom got off work. We enjoyed the freedom. Sometimes she'd call and ask me to take the casserole from the fridge and put it in the oven. Good times.
The whole article was meant to be funny, in that it described a pretend perfect picture that never existed of what we imagine as "traditional."
All I really took from it was that whatever the division of labor, everything works better if it's all divided and if everyone is pretty much on board with those divisions.
I think that the parts that the guy actually meant for real is that if you're not up to inventing a whole new social structure, you might want to try some version of the traditional one, and when you make changes in the traditional responsibilities and rewards of one party, you've got to balance it with changes to the responsibilities and rewards of the other party.
Yes, a lot of humor, but a lot very practical. Divide the work and do the work.
It was an amusing article. I guess. But somewhat mocking too. The thing that might be missing is 'commitment', from/to the wife/husband, kids/no kids, etc.
Foundation is everything.
I think I'm up to inventing a whole new social structure, but so far I'm the only one signed up for it. ""Try it - you'l like it." Thought I was gonna die."
X, that's pretty harsh. The commitment is absolutely implied.
You and BG test it out, do marketing research, then get back to us.
women should be cleaning my house, ironing my shirt, wiping my ass and making my weekly organic meals.
they shouldn't be in the workplace at all.
take care of your kids and vagina on your dime whores. I aint going to pay for any of u being sluts.
hoppy loppy floppy coochie woochie.
oh and walk my rare clumber but I have a video recording on him so any funky wunky and I fire your hooker ass.
I would prefer women to be slaves who subject to their man like in the olden days.
And wax my floors with your saggy old tits.
tits.
Say good-night Titus.
Good night.
Good-night X :)
Post a Comment