Conference quark::mennotes

    At first, no. Before the open rounds of the divorce, she took child
    rearing as some sort of men know nuthin, and women know it all to
    commmunications with children.
    

    
    We are a one income family so she does most of the "house" work. 
    However it is not simple as that.  She seems to have plenty of time to
    go "shopping" with her friend and next door neighbor at least  twice a
    week.  I do most of the "maintenance" work.  Mechanical work on the
    vehicles, construction/maintenance on the house (remodel  basement (read
    dig one), re-roof house, paint house, build storage shed, paint garage,
    build fence around yard for her dog, etc).  When working from home I
    usually fix my own breakfast and  sandwich/whatever for lunch (I'm
    probably just as  good a cook as she is) so she cooks one meal a day. 
    So whenever  she starts grumbling about doing "all the work" I offer to
    swap jobs with her any time she'd like.  Usually quiets things down
    fairly quickly.

    fred();

    I usually wouldn't get into this potential cat fight over the work load
    in the house, but......I work close to 60 hours a week, as does he, I 
    manage to cook, clean , do laundry,go to the dump, stock the house with 
    essentials and such, take care of his son every other week. Up until a 
    recent confrontation he used the following as his weak excuses for his 
    lack of participation: I mow the lawn(bit over 1/2 acre), I maintain the 
    cars, I do the outside work, I shovel the driveway I maintain the
    outside equipment, I paint and remodel what needs to be done.
    
    OK>>>>so what part of all of those things does he do daily? HMMMMMMMMM
    NONE! He mows the lawn once a week. He maintains the cars once a month
    because he's a mechanic, his workers REALLY maintain the vehicles. He
    does the outside work the same night he mows. He shoves the driveway
    ONLY in the winter. We only own a lawmover, so the only equipement he
    maintains are shovels and a mower he will dispose of at the first sign
    of failure. He painted only once, the bathroom! and the rest of the
    chores he does are to personal items HE alone uses....
    
    So re-roofing the house I assume isn't done daily, building a storage
    shed I guess would only be a one time event. Come on, how often are you
    painting the couse or the garage. If it's more than once you need
    better paint! How many dogs do you have to fence in. 
    
    Conversly, I shop daily to stock the house, you know the shampoo fairy
    doesn't fly in and drop toiletries in the bathroom. I cook daily or we
    eat frozen pizza. I do laundry every night, I clean the house daily. I
    do go to the dump, meaning I collect the garbage daily. I only drive to
    the dump once a week, and I only take care of his son every other
    weekend... so the equality of the workloads seems to elude me a bit. I
    have a good sense of humor about it, and I do rank on him about how
    little he does to help maintain our world of serenity..but since I made
    a real stink about it, the house either stays a mess now or he will
    help pick up. I don't immediately make dinner for him, we share laundry
    and the bathroom doesn't get stocked unless he helps. 
    And, as for shopping with my friends, I don't have much spare time to
    do any "shopping with friends" but niether does he.
    
     

    reply .3

>    So re-roofing the house I assume isn't done daily, building a storage
>    shed I guess would only be a one time event. Come on, how often are you
>    painting the house or the garage. If it's more than once you need
>    better paint! How many dogs do you have to fence in. 

    Those are only some of the things.  I've managed to keep busy for 
    about eight years.  I've got a few years to go before the basement
    is finished and she can deliver cold drinks to me in the built-in
    hot tub ;^).

    I get the distinct impression not only from you, but it seems to 
    be a central thread in the "division of labor" argument, that if he 
    isn't doing the traditional "house work" then he just must not be 
    working.  Also a distinct lack of knowledge/appreciation of the
    effort and labor it takes to do the "mens work".

    fred();

    A word of advice to women who get stuck doing all the cooking:
    
    It's amazing what a few "Tofu, Sprouts, and Lima Bean Specials" will do
    for restoring the balance!  I actually like this kind of stuff, so it's
    not hard to do---so whenever I'm doing more of the cooking than I want,
    all I do is make a meal or two of the stuff I like! Works every time.
    
    

    
    To answer your questions:
    
    1. I welcome Women in the workplace because it eases the financial 
       burden on men.
    
    2. When I was married we did share the division of labor to a very
       small degree but for the most part I fixed cars chopped wood
       fixed the plumbing and she tended the children and homeplace.
       I would have preferred to share the labors so we could be 
       together some of the time but it didn't work out that way.
    
    _ I don't personally know many men who come home and sit down with
      a drink while mom does all the work.
    
      I think the stat about women doing 2/3 of the work may reflect life 
      in some other countries but not the USA. -IMO-
    
                          bill  

    
    Addition to re:6
    
    I forgot to add that after our seperation and I had to do housework
    laundry shopping etc. I was amazed at how much work it turned out 
    to be.   I have lots more respect for those who do housework.
    
    Seems like men and women should swap jobs for awhile and maybe 
    we would understand each others point of view better.
    
                                             IMO    Bill                                                  

    Hey, 
    
    Give me the lawnmower, I'll paint he garage, I'll fix the cars,(if I
    knew how)..I'll shovel, I like to shovel I like doing the outside work. 
    But I can't do it all, because he hates the inside work as much as I do.
    But two work faster than one. That was my arguement and it seems to be 
    working. I don't berate what men do, but I don't expect to be
    "expected" to do the inside household labor. Not my bag, never has
    been. I was my dad's tom girl and could do heavy lifting and manual
    labor with out a complain, although I confess to using the "ooh I can't
    lift it thing" when I got tired. 
    
    I'll be happy to do the "mens" job!!
    
      

    I can see this note is going to be another note in the MENNOTES file
    where we spar about who is better, man or women.  It seems that most of
    the notes in here you have a choice couple of men that go to town on
    the women, probably because they went through a nasty divorce and then
    you get the few women noters out there who try and make some sense of
    all their anger.
    
    I hope this note does not become the same.
    
    As for myself and husband... its definately something that we could
    argue about daily.
    
    I remember less than a week ago I got home after working my eight hours
    and did a load of laundry, emptied the dishwater, reloaded it with
    the dishes from the night before, made our dinner, walked the dog,
    read to our son two of his favorite books, folded and put away the
    laundry, vacuumed the house and had our son fed and bathed by 7:30 
    (I was home at 4:45).  I made a comment to my husband as I rounded the
    kitchen to the living room, "I'm laying down and relaxing; I can't
    believe how much I have got down since I got home today."  Well he
    immediately said "I have done alot too you know" and I almost asked
    "what?"  He had taken the dog out and helped clean the dishes after
    dinner.  But I didn't.  
    
    I didn't comment because I knew what I would get back for an answer. 
    He would remind me that he works in the city and has anywhere from an
    hour to two hour commute depending on traffic (and I have a two minute
    commute) and how he would rather be home with our son doing all these
    things than travelling to the City to make ends meat.  I knew that if I
    challenged that statement I would be reminded of the door that he fixed
    last month and the refrigerator that he fixes about every other month
    and the basement that took a whole day to clean out.  While I
    contemplated challenging those things that I knew he was dying to get
    out ...
    I also remembered the seven hours he took to make a stone patio for us
    the previous weekend and all the shoveling and spreading and digging
    that went along with it.  I remember all the pruning that he did to
    make our yard look nice so we could live comfortably in it.  I decided
    that it wasn't worth the arguement.  
    
    While the things that my husband does are not things that we *need* to
    live (as the things that I do) the things that he does are certainly
    appreciated by me and my family.  Sure, we didn't ask for the stone
    patio put in but we certainly think its terrific once its in place.
    Sure, my husband doesn't ask me to spend two hours cleaning our jacuzzi
    tub but the smile on his face when he enters to fill it after a hard
    days work and sees its sparkling is enough for me. 
    
    I have tried to keep the yard up by myself and it was too much work for 
    just me.  Having my husband do the real grunting work outside enabled
    me to be able to wander about and put various flowers and vegetables in
    their gardens so we could all enjoy the fruits of labor.
    
    There are days that he outdoes himself and there are days that I outdo
    myself.  Its called a compromise.  Its called marraige.
    
    cj  
                                                            

    
    
    >I forgot to add that after our seperation and I had to do housework
>    laundry shopping etc. I was amazed at how much work it turned out 
>    to be.   I have lots more respect for those who do housework.
    
    During the 3 odd years I was _single_, I did my own shopping, house
    cleaning, cooking, dishes, laundry, etc.  Still had time work a full time
    job and go out dancing nearly every night.  I never could see what the big
    deal was unless you figure that a job you don't want to do always seems 
    10 time harder to get done.  How many women actually hang laundry out on 
    a line these days?
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .10  Fred
    
    > During the 3 odd years I was _single_, I did my own shopping, house
    > cleaning, cooking, dishes, laundry, etc.  Still had time work a full time
    > job and go out dancing nearly every night.  I never could see what the big
    > deal was...
    
    You didn't have kids living with you full time (nor were you also doing
    these things for a spouse.)
    
    If women only had to do the physical labor for their own personal needs,
    the job would be a lot smaller (granted!)  :/
    

    
    I think another thing to consider here is that  the women who are 
    contributors to this file all work outside the home.  So we are going
    to get a bit of a skewed sample.  Another thing that I think should
    come into consideration is the fact that although many women do _have_
    to work outside the home, it is much easier for a woman to _choose_
    whether or not she wants to work outside the home.  I have a greater
    degree of sympathy for those who _have_ to work than I do for those
    who choose to work, then complain that _he_ should do more as a result
    of her choice.  

    fred();

    re .11
    
    
>    If women only had to do the physical labor for their own personal needs,
>    the job would be a lot smaller (granted!)  :/
    
    And a man could afford a lot more "toys" if the salary he made only
    went to support himself.  So I guess that one's a wash.
    
    fred();

    RE: .13  Fred
    
    >>> I never could see what the big deal was...
    
    >> If women only had to do the physical labor for their own personal needs,
    >> the job would be a lot smaller (granted!)  :/
    
    i.e., The 'BIG DEAL' was that you weren't doing the work for a FAMILY.
    You were doing the work for YOURSELF.  Work for a FAMILY is a much,
    much, MUCH bigger deal.
          
    > And a man could afford a lot more "toys" if the salary he made only
    > went to support himself.  So I guess that one's a wash.
    
    So could a woman.  Men get more money because they are perceived as
    needing to 'support families' with it.  If men didn't use this excuse,
    then women could buy a lot more 'toys' with their money, too.

    RE: .12  Fred

    > Another thing that I think should
    > come into consideration is the fact that although many women do _have_
    > to work outside the home, it is much easier for a woman to _choose_
    > whether or not she wants to work outside the home. 

    Do you regard men as "WALKING WALLETS" or something??  Why on EARTH
    would a woman have a 'choice' not to work simply because her husband
    works?  (Is that how it is in your family??)

    Women work because we have careers (just like men have careers.)
    Would you stop working if your wife got a job?  Career women don't
    stop working simply because someone else is working.  (Not hardly!)

    The point isn't just to make a buck or two, ya know.

    > I have a greater
    > degree of sympathy for those who _have_ to work than I do for those
    > who choose to work, then complain that _he_ should do more as a result
    > of her choice.  
 
    If a guy deliberately marries a doctor or a software engineer, it's 
    pretty much a given that his spouse will work outside the home.  I have 
    no sympathy for a man who marries a working woman and then complains 
    when he's asked to help around the house.

    I have even less sympathy for a man who complains bitterly about how
    men have to work while ALSO considering it his wife's inconvenient
    "CHOICE" if she works outside the home and expects him to help around
    the house.

    RE: -2(?)
    
    
    I'll be taking the clothes off the line tonight, as a matter of fact.

    
>    Do you regard men as "WALKING WALLETS" or something??  Why on EARTH
>    would a woman have a 'choice' not to work simply because her husband
>    works?  (Is that how it is in your family??)

    As you asked me a while back, What planet have you been on?
    What do you think the family life expectancy of a man would be who 
    decides, without the joint decision of his wife, to stay home and raise 
    kids.  Heck, women don't even have to have a husband to decide to stay
    home and let someone else support them.

    Somebody's sure as heck watching those day-time TV shows.
    
>    Women work because we have careers (just like men have careers.)
>    Would you stop working if your wife got a job?  Career women don't
>    stop working simply because someone else is working.  (Not hardly!)

    Not all women are "career women".  Just like not all dads are "deadbeat
    dads".  So again you are trying to define the rules to fit your
    argument.


>    > I have a greater
>    > degree of sympathy for those who _have_ to work than I do for those
>    > who choose to work, then complain that _he_ should do more as a result
>    > of her choice.  
> 
>    If a guy deliberately marries a doctor or a software engineer, it's 
>    pretty much a given that his spouse will work outside the home.  I have 
>    no sympathy for a man who marries a working woman and then complains 
>    when he's asked to help around the house.

    An anecdote that I think is pretty indicative of our society.  My
    wife's sister's husband got laid off a couple years back.  He caught
    hell from even his own family about why he didn't "get a job" even
    thought his lack of employment was certainly not his fault.  His wife
    was one of those "feminist" types who filed law suits to work in
    a mine,  Master Blaster license and all that.  A couple years ago
    she decided she'd rather stay home and raise kids.  Narry a word from
    the family or anyone else.  

    fred();

    RE: .17  Fred

    > As you asked me a while back, What planet have you been on?

    Obviously, you don't live on this one (Earth.)

    NO WAY is it the 'default' that women stay at home unless they 'have'
    to go to work (or 'choose' to go to work even though their husbands 
    already do work outside the home.)

    > What do you think the family life expectancy of a man would be who 
    > decides, without the joint decision of his wife, to stay home and raise 
    > kids.  

    Perhaps YOUR wives decided to 'stay home' without talking to you about
    it, but it's a joint decision in most families.  (What a concept, eh?)

    > Heck, women don't even have to have a husband to decide to stay
    > home and let someone else support them.

    It's usually a recipe for abject poverty, though.

    > Somebody's sure as heck watching those day-time TV shows.

    A lot of people work SWING SHIFT and THIRD SHIFT, Fred.  (Men and women.)

    > Not all women are "career women".

    NO WAY is it the 'default' that women don't work unless they 'have' to
    work or unless they make some big 'choice' to work.

    The default is that women WORK these days.  It's unusual when women
    don't work.

    > An anecdote that I think is pretty indicative of our society.  My
    > wife's sister's husband got laid off a couple years back.  He caught
    > hell from even his own family about why he didn't "get a job" even
    > thought his lack of employment was certainly not his fault.  

    Women on Welfare catch a lot worse hell even though they don't usually
    have job experience or contacts which can help them get jobs.

    > His wife was one of those "feminist" types who filed law suits to work 
    > in a mine,  Master Blaster license and all that.  A couple years ago
    > she decided she'd rather stay home and raise kids.  Narry a word from
    > the family or anyone else.  

    In our society, women are often trashed if they DON'T want to stay at
    home to raise kids.  (Some people here trash women for this very
    reason, in fact.)

    You can't have it both ways.  If you want to trash women for not wanting
    to stay home and raise kids while the husband works, DON'T ALSO trash
    women for WANTING to stay home and raise kids while the husband works.

    Re suzanne.
    
    You are still trying to define the rules to fit your argument.  Under
    those circumstance I find it extremely difficult to hold any kind of
    rational debate.
    
    fred();

    Fred, "trying to define the rules to fit your argument" is nothing
    more than your newest 'CLICHE' to launch when you'd really rather
    cry 'Uncle'!
    
    If you can't discuss this, fine.
    
    It doesn't matter anyway.
    

    
    I like to play football, but I'd also rahter not play in a game
    where the other team gets to decide what the rules are after 
    each play.
    
    >                      <<< Note 233.20 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
    >            -< You're about as progressive as Fred Flintstone.  :) >-
    >
    >    Fred, "trying to define the rules to fit your argument" is nothing
    >    more than your newest 'CLICHE' to launch when you'd really rather
    >     cry 'Uncle'!
    
    And resorting to personal attacks seems to be something you seem to
    do when you run out of logic and evidence to support your argument.
    
    fred();

    RE: .21  Fred

    > I like to play football, but I'd also rahter not play in a game
    > where the other team gets to decide what the rules are after 
    > each play.

    One person writes a note, then another person writes a note (unless
    the topic gets closed.)  These simple rules have been in place for
    almost 10 years.  No one is changing them (least of all, me.)

    The thing about 'changing the rules' is just some nonsensical thing 
    that you've started saying.

    >> Fred, "trying to define the rules to fit your argument" is nothing
    >> more than your newest 'CLICHE' to launch when you'd really rather
    >> cry 'Uncle'!
    
    > And resorting to personal attacks seems to be something you seem to
    > do when you run out of logic and evidence to support your argument.

    You don't think that YOU engage in personal attacks when you launch
    accusations at me?  (Hopefully, you don't see it as your PLACE to
    do so.)

    
    rep .18
    
    Suzanne, how can you expect to carry on any kind of rational debate
    when you make statements like:
    
>    NO WAY is it the 'default' that women stay at home unless they 'have'
>    to go to work (or 'choose' to go to work even though their husbands 
>    already do work outside the home.)
    
    Bedause the 'default' _is_ "whatever she decides goes".  That includes
    working, not woring, haveing an affair, running up huge debts, or just
    about anything that does not demonsterably put the kids in mortal
    danger.  Especially if there are children the man has two choices 1)
    Put up with it and support the wife and family, 2) get a divorce and
    support the wife, the family, _and_ her boyfriend.  Because the
    "default" is _the_ _court_ _will_ _give_ _her_ _custody_ _of_ _the_
    _kids_.  
    
    fred();

    RE: .23  Fred

    > Suzanne, how can you expect to carry on any kind of rational debate
    > when you make statements like:
    
    >> NO WAY is it the 'default' that women stay at home unless they 'have'
    >> to go to work (or 'choose' to go to work even though their husbands 
    >> already do work outside the home.)
    
    > Bedause the 'default' _is_ "whatever she decides goes".

    IN YOUR HOUSE, maybe.  This isn't how it works in every family in
    America.  These days, women are expected to work unless there is
    a good reason (such as raising small kids) for women to stay home.
    (In the case of 'small kids', women are pressured to want to stay
    at home - otherwise, women are expected to work.)

    > That includes working, not woring, haveing an affair, running up huge 
    > debts, or just about anything that does not demonsterably put the kids 
    > in mortal danger. 

    Again, AT YOUR HOUSE!!!

    Most families talk about their financial situations.  

    > Especially if there are children the man has two choices 1)
    > Put up with it and support the wife and family, 2) get a divorce and
    > support the wife, the family, _and_ her boyfriend.  Because the
    > "default" is _the_ _court_ _will_ _give_ _her_ _custody_ _of_ _the_
    > _kids_.  

    Fred - never in a MILLION YEARS could you consider a woman to be your
    partner.  So, instead, she can do whatever she wants (and you're just
    the hapless foil who can't do anything about anything.)

    Never in a million years would I consider it my 'right' to stop working
    just because I'd rather do something else (like FINISH GRADUATE SCHOOL,
    even though it would probably help our finances a great deal if I were
    to finish my Masters in Computer Science faster by doing it full-time.)

    It's something families discuss!!!  My income is roughly half the money
    that keeps us afloat.  I don't have the real 'choice' to stop being a 
    bread-winner any more than you do.  

    If you're in a situation where your wife doesn't work even though you
    guys do NOT have small children at home - this is your choice.  If you
    and your wife got together (AS EQUALS) to make a different decision,
    you two might agree that it would be nice to afford a better retirement
    for the TWO of you by having both of you work now.

    Or perhaps you two just don't talk at all about family decisions.
    
    Unless your situation at home has changed, I thought that your only
    children were the 'grown' and 'almost-grown' children from your first
    marriage.
    
    What 'children' would the courts give to your current wife if you
    decided to make changes in your life?

    Look, Fred - your marriage works well for you.  I'm happy for you.
    
    Most women these days are expected to work, though, whether you
    realized it or not.
    
    Maybe I just inherited my Mother's Protestant Work Ethic or something
    (or the work ethic from my Roman Catholic upbringing on my Dad's side),
    but I can't imagine a situation where it would be ok for me to stop 
    striving to be one of the two bread-winners in the house (unless I won 
    the lottery or unless I could replace my income with some other earning
    strategy.)
    
    It may SEEM as though women aren't expected to strive in our society,
    but we are expected to do so (and the vast majority of us DO strive.)
    
    Sorry if I hit some sort of hot button in your actual life.  

    
    hmm ...
    
    I think what happens in Emmy's and my relationsip is not that unusual.
     
    We both have full time job and we made a series of decisions (job for
    Emmy, job for Greg, where to buy a house) that left it where Emmy does
    more of the home related stuff.  She does 80% of the slepping to day
    care, virtually all of the shopping, and virtualy all the cleaning. 
    She also has the kids a couple hours a day when I'm not home.  A couple
    times a year this flairs up as she complains she does most of this
    stuff and I don't help enough ... and she is correct.
    
    When I'm a good spouse a agree with her and try to do more.  When I'm
    feeling combative the conversation takes this turn.
    
    Both our lives involve kids, home care, commuting, and working.  Emmy
    you certainly do most of the kid and home care stuff.  However if you 
    include communting and work time I don't think you're being fair.  We
    both get up at 6:00 am and go straight out until 8:00 pm. Then 3-4 days
    a week I put in another 1-2 hours of work or laundry or painting or
    etc.  If you look at overall time I do more than you so if anyone
    should be getting more help it's me.  Now this incredibly articulate
    rational argument is not usually well recieved but that may have
    something to do with the even calm delivery I give ... 8^(.
    
    Bottom line Emmy does more of the (IMO) tougher more stressful stuff
    while I do lots that's invinsible to her.  The issue is not really who's
    doing what but the choices we have made that make us this busy in
    total; choices we control.
    
    Greg
    

    
    a second reply on statistics in general.
    
    I don't know if I believe the 30% more work for women number but I
    absolutely believe across the whole population that women do more than
    men.  Besides any imbalances in current two income families there are at 
    least two factors involved.  
    
    One there are many more stay-at-home moms than stay-at-home dads and 
    I would expect any stay-at-home parent to do a lot more around the house 
    than the parent heading to a job.  I would expect any average across
    all families to show women doing more home stuff.  
    
    Second the stats usually included all families and this includes a huge
    pipeline of older traditional families that this imbalance was probably
    the norm.  An imbalance that I would expect is getting much better as
    you look at younger and younger couples.  This issue is prominant in a
    lot stats like these.  If you use 1970 as a marker of the beginning of
    more equality/similarity of women and men's roles then I would only
    expect a big change in folks 45 or younger and that leaves a 20 year
    pipeline of folks doing it the old way. We can't change the past but we
    can look at the present and see if it's gotten better.
    
    GReg
             
                            

    re .25
    
    It is _not_ just my personal life.  Take a good look at the court
    system these days.
    
    >   Most women these days are expected to work, though, whether you
    >    realized it or not.
    
    Not to many notes ago you were complaining about the pressure being
    put on women to stay home.  Which is is going to be?
    
    fred(); 

    
    re .24

>    Fred - never in a MILLION YEARS could you consider a woman to be your
>    partner.  So, instead, she can do whatever she wants (and you're just
>    the hapless foil who can't do anything about anything.)

    Suzanne, if anybody is trying to judge the world by their personal
    experience it is _you_.  I have never said anything about any of
    this being the problem in my _current_ marriage or my _current_
    personal life at all.  That of which I speak of the court system
    is from not only my personal experience, but of _hundreds_ of men
    that I have helped and dealt with over the years.

    fred();

    RE: .28  Fred

    >> Most women these days are expected to work, though, whether you
    >> realized it or not.
    
    > Not to many notes ago you were complaining about the pressure being
    > put on women to stay home.  Which is is going to be?

    It's BOTH (and that's the hell of it, as I've stated here many times.)

    Women with small children (and a husband!!) are pressured to want to
    stay home to raise children.  Other women are expected to work.
    (The small children who would be ruined by daycare if the woman had
    a husband are suddenly going to be ruined if they do NOT go to daycare
    when the Mom has no husband.)  We've gone over all this before.

    
    So...Some women may have to do something they would rather not do?
    WELCOME TO LIFE!
    
    fred();

    RE: .31  Fred

    > So...Some women may have to do something they would rather not do?
    > WELCOME TO LIFE!

    No, women are pressured to go in DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS (180 degrees
    apart).

    They're told that their children will be ruined if they send them
    to daycare in one situation, but they're also told that their children
    will be ruined if they do NOT go to daycare in another situation.

    Some in our society just seem to like to slap women around this way.
    (I suspect that it's some sort of power trip.)

    
    Suzanne,  
    
    What you are asking is for a world in which women don't have to
    do anything other than what they darn well please.  We _all_ have
    pressure to do things that we don't necessarily want to do.  There
    are 47 gazillion laws on the books for people to do things they
    don't necessarily want to do.  Again you provide us with a much
    better example than an argument.
    
    fred();

Actually, according to the courts, it's perfectly ok for a
working woman to decide to simply retire and stay home with her
child(ren).  In fact, it's so OK, that the woman can then sue
for (more) child support and no one will dare question it.

I know this for a fact.  I just went through it.

But reverse the circumstances, and a man who decides to
voluntarily stop working is labelled a deadbeat and sent to
jail.

I have no doubt that there are conflicting pressures upon women
to either work or stay at home with kids, but frankly,
Scarlet....

tim

    And men who ask for more child support money are considered crude and
    greedy slimes. For the old bias stats that women make less than men.
    
    

    .32 Re day care thelogical question: With all the people in todays work
    force I find this a darn lame excuse. There are moms and dads whose
    children are in day care and are doing very well socially when the go
    into school or into the work force. Seldom do you hear about some kid
    whose live is driven to crime and drugs because they went to day care.
    Its more of the stay at home welfare folks that seem to have a problem.
    And I am not trying to bash these women either. Just find that is most
    lame.
    

    RE: .33  Fred

    > What you are asking is for a world in which women don't have to
    > do anything other than what they darn well please.

    Rubbish!!!

    I want a world where women aren't unfairly pressured to go in 
    OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.

    How about a world where families are left to judge for themselves
    whether it's better for them to raise their children with two incomes
    instead of one.

    How about a world where women have equal opportunities in the workplace
    so that they aren't treated as people who probably OUGHT to be at home
    anyway.

>    I want a world where women aren't unfairly pressured to go in 
>    OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.

I don't understand why you believe that this is a problem unique to
women.  It isn't.  Such is the paradox of a life of choices.  If you
want to have choices, well, then you have to be prepared to actually
think about what to choose.

The right to choose incurs the responsibility for making tough
choices.  If you'd rather not have to deal with the pressures of
conflicting objectives, then would you prefer to go back to having
it all taken care of for you?  It is, after all, your choice.  It
sounds like you'd like to have all your choices be easy ones.  That
won't happen, at least not after about the age of 9.

tim

    I have to comment. 
    
    Some women make their own choices to go in the opposite directions. 
    Some don't have a choice. Some men don't like their jobs and seek new
    ones. Some stay at the old one and moan about what a bum wrap they got.
    
    So the boat does float in both directions. Hey, I'd go to work and do
    all the traditional guys stuff, if the economy allowed that. I think
    he'd be fine at home. However, the 1990's isn't offering the option to
    too many people to have a child and one parent stay at home. But there 
    is no one making anyone go in a different direction. If you work for a 
    company that will send you back to school, change your career. If you 
    think there is NO WAY you can manage having a family, taking care of 
    the house and the kids...then you need to re-org your priorities. If you 
    are educated, work as well as your counter part males, you should be 
    fighting for that job...and I say fighting, cause I want to know I EARNed 
    that job as well as deserved that job. The 90's is different than it
    was when our parents were growing up. My brother barely afforded to
    have his wife stay at home and raise the three kids(one kid,then twins)
    But they gave up a lot of things. Lot of things. Sanity was one of
    them. But now my sil is working and they are paying their bills getting
    some sanity back. 
    
    No one told my sil to stay home. She opted to do so, with that they
    opted to give up some of the finer things they were used to. However,
    my brother NEVER had that option. They made roughly the same amount of
    money. So why did he keep working, cause he was told by my dad that was
    the way. There is a two way street on this matter. 
    
    
     

    RE: .38  Tim

    >> I want a world where women aren't unfairly pressured to go in 
    >> OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.

    > I don't understand why you believe that this is a problem unique to
    > women.  It isn't.  Such is the paradox of a life of choices.  If you
    > want to have choices, well, then you have to be prepared to actually
    > think about what to choose.

    If it's REALLY a simple matter of making a choice, then our society
    should treat it as such (instead of telling women that they'll 'RUIN'
    their children unless they make *THE ONE CHOICE* that society wants 
    women to make in a given situation.)

    If it's really a simple matter of making a choice, then let families
    make the choice (without all the rest of the crap about how horrible
    they'll be if they don't make the "POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE CORRECT"
    choice.)

    > The right to choose incurs the responsibility for making tough
    > choices. 

    If society beats the crap out of people for making a 'different'
    choice, then more is involved than simply 'making a tough choice'.

    > If you'd rather not have to deal with the pressures of
    > conflicting objectives, then would you prefer to go back to having
    > it all taken care of for you?  It is, after all, your choice.  It
    > sounds like you'd like to have all your choices be easy ones.  That
    > won't happen, at least not after about the age of 9.

    Not at all.  I'd like some in our society to stop slapping women
    around while women and families *contemplate* their choices in life.

    re .40
    
    First of all I take offense to your constant reference that society
    "beats the crap out of" and "slapping women around".  Such gross
    exagerations would be termed "hate speach" coming from nearly any other
    group.  Those statements are not only outrageous, but are a detriment
    to women who have real problems.

    Second, society is going to put pressure for people to behave in ways
    that will benefit society (make laws for instance).  I'm sure  you can
    name a few pressures that you would like society to put on a few
    people. The "I want my cake and eat it too" attitude you appear to be
    projecting is more a determinate to gaining sympathy for your  desires
    than a support.

    fred();

Re: .40

I never said it was a simple matter.

I agree that people deserve the privacy to have their decisions
respected without being second guessed or judged.  I think people
who judge others for the decisions they make about the direction
their family should take are just meddling in other's private
business.  However, I don't believe it is a problem that is unique
to women, because I know men have also faced the same dilemma for
centuries.  I do believe that it is a matter of maturity to face the
facts of life and make the hard decisions that are necessary without
inflicting others with a litany of whining about how unfair life is.
Nobody said life is fair, and we have no right to expect it.

Personally, I've had to make a lot of very difficult decisions
lately, and my attitude has been to try to keep a sense of humor
about it - perhaps in the process, that has led to blowing off some
steam or jokingly complaining about how silly life can become, but
it has never been my style to publicly feel sorry for myself.  Tough
decisions happen to us all - sometimes in droves.  Eventually, it's
just comical, but fair has nothing to do with it.

It could be worse.  You could have no choices at all.

tim

    RE: .41  Fred

    > Those statements are not only outrageous, but are a detriment
    > to women who have real problems.
            
    These 'real problems' (which I also experienced in my first marriage)
    are a direct RESULT of the attitude of people trying to exert power 
    over women. (So the statements are appropriate to describe this dynamic.)

    > Second, society is going to put pressure for people to behave in ways
    > that will benefit society (make laws for instance).  I'm sure  you can
    > name a few pressures that you would like society to put on a few
    > people. 

    When society pressures women to go in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, it doesn't
    benefit anyone.  It only makes things worse.

    > The "I want my cake and eat it too" attitude you appear to be
    > projecting is more a determinate to gaining sympathy for your  desires
    > than a support.

    How does a request for CONSISTENCY amount to wanting to have cake and
    eat it, too?
    
    I *supported* my son on my own as a single Mom.  I did what society
    demanded that I do in my specific situation.  You want to trash me
    anyway (so obviously, our society is really looking to push women
    around no matter what we do.)

    RE: .42  Tim

    > I do believe that it is a matter of maturity to face the
    > facts of life and make the hard decisions that are necessary without
    > inflicting others with a litany of whining about how unfair life is. 
    > Nobody said life is fair, and we have no right to expect it.

    So when do you plan to stop whining?  Or don't you call it that
    when you talk about yourself?

    > Personally, I've had to make a lot of very difficult decisions
    > lately, and my attitude has been to try to keep a sense of humor
    > about it - perhaps in the process, that has led to blowing off some
    > steam or jokingly complaining about how silly life can become, but
    > it has never been my style to publicly feel sorry for myself. 

    Well, just be sure to call it 'blowing off steam' when women talk
    about 'how silly life can become' at times.

    I've been very lucky in my life to make a life for my son in difficult
    circumstances.  I still speak out about the things I see around me,
    though, because I'm a thinking, feeling human being (like you.)

    
    re .44
    
>    So when do you plan to stop whining?  Or don't you call it that
>    when you talk about yourself?
    
    As if you have all that room to talk, Suzanne.
    
    fred();

    re .43

>    These 'real problems' (which I also experienced in my first marriage)
>    are a direct RESULT of the attitude of people trying to exert power 
>    over women. (So the statements are appropriate to describe this dynamic.)

    Not at all.  They are gross exaggeration you are using to try to gain
    sympathy for you victim-hood.

>    When society pressures women to go in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, it doesn't
>    benefit anyone.  It only makes things worse.

    Are you really so weak in your opinion of your own decisions that you
    must have the ok of society to know you made the right choice.

>    anyway (so obviously, our society is really looking to push women
>    around no matter what we do.)

    I think it more likely that there are a lot of people out there who
    want to claim victim-hood no matter what society does.

    fred();

    RE: .46  Fred
    
    >> So when do you plan to stop whining?  Or don't you call it that
    >> when you talk about yourself?
    
    > As if you have all that room to talk, Suzanne.
    
    As if *YOU* have any room to talk at all, Fred.
    

    RE: .47  Fred

    >> These 'real problems' (which I also experienced in my first marriage)
    >> are a direct RESULT of the attitude of people trying to exert power 
    >> over women. (So the statements are appropriate to describe this dynamic.)

    > Not at all.  They are gross exaggeration you are using to try to gain
    > sympathy for you victim-hood.

    This statement reveals quite a bit about you.  It explains a lot about 
    the things you write in your quest to promote MEN as the true victims 
    in our society.

    >> When society pressures women to go in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, it doesn't
    >> benefit anyone.  It only makes things worse.

    > Are you really so weak in your opinion of your own decisions that you
    > must have the ok of society to know you made the right choice.

    Not at all.  When women know they'll be damned if they do and damned
    if they don't, it doesn't benefit anyone.

    > I think it more likely that there are a lot of people out there who
    > want to claim victim-hood no matter what society does.

    Your name goes at the top of that list, Fred.

    
    re .48

    >As if *YOU* have any room to talk at all, Fred.

    Is this the place where someone says "nheanheanheanheanhea"?

    I've paid my dues, Suzanne.  And I certainly do not depend on your
    opinion, or much of anybody elses at this point, for approval.

    And I _still_ think you make a better example than anything else.

    fred();

    RE: .50  Fred

    > Is this the place where someone says "nheanheanheanheanhea"?

    No, it's "bwahahahahahahahahahaha" (and I say it to you.)  :)

    > I've paid my dues, Suzanne.  

    I've paid my dues, too.  And then some!!

    > And I certainly do not depend on your opinion, or much of anybody elses 
    > at this point, for approval.

    No, you just like to push other people around at every opportunity.

    > And I _still_ think you make a better example than anything else.

    I supported myself and my son without asking anyone for anything
    (and I'm working on my THIRD college degree since he was born.)
    If you don't WANT women to take a stand to make lives for their
    children without depending on unwilling taxpayers, just say so.
    
    By the way, I see that you gave up on your 'new' cliche about 'changing 
    the rules to fit the argument'.  You've now returned to one of your old 
    'standby' cliches.

    I'll expect to see the other one anytime now.  ("Hey, Suzanne, I'm
    not going to play the game where I have to prove I'm right to YOUR
    satisfaction.")  An oldie but a goodie, eh Fred?

    Yes, these "society says" and "society does" arguments tend to be
    totally political and generally much ado about nothing.  Saying
    that women (or men) are pressured from both sides is just another
    way of stating that there is a political faction standing behind 
    either side of the argument.  So what else is new?  The individual 
    still has the right to decide to live and work however he/she 
    sees fit.  In spite of much political rhetoric on either side,
    Suzanne's stated goal of "letting the family decide" is indeed the 
    norm in America.
    
    In the 1990s, no, I do not believe that women are the oppressed 
    class.  In the 1990s, no, I do not believe that fathers are the 
    oppressed class.  If you've stood up for yourself and you were
    successful, whither the supposed barriers?
    
    Glenn
    

    I would like to suggest a new notes conference: MALE_CONTROL_FREAKS
    
    Then, you wouldn't even have to waste your time dealing with uppity
    b!tches who actually think we have the right to be equals! 

    
    >    No, you just like to push other people around at every opportunity.

    I think this goes beyond the bounds of personal attack, even for 
    the standards that the mods apply to you, Suzanne.

>    I'll expect to see the other one anytime now.  ("Hey, Suzanne, I'm
>    not going to play the game where I have to prove I'm right to YOUR
>    satisfaction.")  An oldie but a goodie, eh Fred?

    Oldie, Goodie, and still true.

    fred();

    Fred, so you're a victim of the Mennotes moderators now, too?
    (Geeesh.)
    
    > Oldie, Goodie, and still true.
    
    Sometimes it really seems that you LIVE for the cliches you throw at
    me. :)
    

	Ya know ... if I didn't know better I would swear that Fred & Suzi 
	were a 'couple' !  (It's only a joke).

	Chuck

    
    Chuckie, the state of marriage in this country hasn't gotten to
    be *THAT BAD* yet.  :)
    
    

    
    >Fred, so you're a victim of the Mennotes moderators now, too?
    >(Geeesh.)  
    
    I've got email some place to prove that one.
    
    >Sometimes it really seems that you LIVE for the cliches you throw at
    >me. :)
    
    Hey, you threw that one first.  Anyways, throwing things is the
    girls way of fighting ;^).
    
    fred();

    aw, c'mon Suzanne, you know you and Fred secretly admire each other
    :-)))
    reminds me of the little boys who pull little girls pigtails in school
    to get their attention, but with you and Fred, I can't tell who does
    more pulling :-)))

    
    Yeah, we're a regular 'Bosnia' all by ourselves.  :)
    

    
    
    Well its nice to see this note has done what I thought it would.
    
    cj

    
    re .59

    Now your really _are_ trying to get me in trouble.  I have to work
    with her husband, but he knows I'd never be able to take Suzanne
    away from such a hansom hunk.  

    fred( 8^) );

    
    You're *extremely lucky* to get to work with my husband, Fred.
    
    And you know it.  :)
    

    re: hansom hunk
    
    Fred-
    
    I didn't know Eric (I hope I got the name right!) was a hansom cab
    driver!  What job code is that?
    
    Serious question for you guys now-getting back to the base note topic:
    
    I have to agree that when I was married, I did most of the housework.
    He cooked during the week, I cooked on weekends.  When I cooked, I 
    cleaned the dishes.  When he cooked, I also cleaned the dishes.  I'm
    not sure he knew where the washer and dryer were in our house.  He
    wouldn't get a dump sticker,so I had to and wouldn't you know, he
    hated driving my car.  Our house was in move-in condition, so no 
    repairs were effected by him during the time we shared the space.
    I told him I needed more help.  We both worked full time, thank
    heavens, no kids.  I was told how much more work he had now that we
    had a house.  He had to mow the lawn.  He managed to do this once a
    month, no kidding-see personal name!  Oh, and he had to shovel in
    the winter.  We hired a plow guy and never owned a shovel.  Ok, so
    I didn't shop or do laundry or dust and vacuum every single day, but
    I'm the only one who did it.  It's not that I didn't value what he did,
    but I'm not convinced that the work he did was either invisible or
    equitable, but that was just my situation.  I've learned from that :-).

    re .64, etc.
    Just a quick comment (I didn't want to get involved in this one)
    
    Sometimes the only way to bring about a change is to just STOP doing
    some of the stuff that gets taken for granted, as uncomfortable as
    that may make things in the short-term. For example, if you just
    stopped doing his laundry, I'll bet he'd figure out how to use the
    washer and dryer eventually. Many of the women of our generation
    received a lot of 'programming', much of it on a subconscious level, 
    to be caretakers and put our own needs last. If we keep doing much
    more than our own share, it's really our own fault. I know from
    personal experience that you can beg, cajole, wheedle, yell, threaten,
    and plead, but if you keep doing whatever it is, you will continue to
    get stuck with it. You sometimes have to just stop--and let things
    reach crisis proportions, temporarily, to force a change. It's too bad
    that marriage sometimes has to be so confrontational, but if you keep
    being in denial about various resentments, they will erode your
    marriage until you'll have a divorce on your hands.
    
    

    
    On the other side of the coin, my first marriage taught me to never
    do as a favor something that you don't want to make your job. 

    fred();

    re: .65
    
    well, the marriage didn't last, but the division of labour was the 
    least of our problems at that point.
    
    I have to admit, there are some jobs I simply would not have turned
    over to him because I'm so anal about somethings, I'd drive him nuts
    correcting the way he was doing lots of things.  I also agree, I can't
    be superwoman, so if the furniture gets a bit dusty, too bad.  I can't
    let the kitchen or bathroom go, I'm still a bit too anal for that, but
    laundry, vacumming and dusting now get sacrificed when necessary :-)))

    re .67
    
    I went through that. My skin would crawl when I'd see him VACUUMING
    FIRST, then walk all over it to dust and put junk away! An absolute
    travesty! Or cleaning the toilet with Windex. Or one time he washed the
    floor with dish detergent. It was kind of cute, actually. I used to
    think he was pretending ignorance to get out of it, but then I
    realized, hey! He just needed a lot more practice! To be fair, I'd mow
    the lawn. I would just about examine it with a magnifying glass, and
    it would look perfect (I was really trying hard!) But, he'd take a look
    and say, "Hmmm...nice straight lines, but...What's THAT?" whereupon he
    would go waaay over to the far end of the lawn to pull up a tiny stray
    blade of grass that I'd missed. Guess I needed more practice too!
    
    I guess we finally learned to accept a little less than perfection from
    each other's efforts, as long as things were getting done and we were
    getting along. I think, if the relationship is basically good, these
    things get worked out to an agreeable compromise, but if there are lots
    of other problems, it becomes a major battleground. 
    
    

    
    I haven't had the time to read all the replies to this string, but..
    
    As far as division of labor goes, there are areas which I protected
    and that my ex protected. For example, she was always the better cook.
    I cleaned better than she did. But she was always expected to cook
    *and*
    clean. We were much happier when I took over the cleaning duties.
    
    She did what she was best at, I did what I was best at. The rest, we
    split up according to who had the most energy that particular evening.
    
    I was an early morning person, so I took the kids to Saturday morning
    soccer, etc. She would alwayss have Sunday afternoon dinner ready,
    smelling and tasting delicious.
    
    It was very nice, and comfortable. Too bad life intervened, in the form
    of another man.
    
    I will *never* date a married woman, regardless of how beautiful and/or
    anxiuos she is, because of my own personal experiences.
    
    Sorry to dump on you once again.
    
    John
    

    I do the housework.  Vaccuuming, cleaning, dusting, etc. weekly.
    Rug shampooing as necessary.  Wall washing and curtain turning in
    spring and fall.  I also do bill paying, checkbook management and
    taxes.  I am also in charge of scheduling doctor's & dentists' appts.,
    car repair and maintenance appts., furnace cleanings, vets' appts,
    animal maintenance (fish tanks), etc, etc......  I do the gardening 
    stuff (but I do not mow the lawn).  I buy groceries and cook occasionally 
    (I am not a particularly good cook, and I have about the same affinity 
    for food preparation as I do for ironing).  I do laundry, I do not iron 
    (ironing goes out every week).  
    
    He keeps the yard apparatus working (lawnmover, snowblower, etc),
    mows the lawn, does snow removal, does various home improvement
    type stuff.  He'll cook if he feels like it.  I always clean up 
    afterwards, regardless who cooks.  Basically, he does what he wants
    to do, I do what has to get done.
    
    I work because I refuse to depend on anyone else for a living.
    Dependence usually invites people who want to try and control your
    behavior using money as a lever.  I will not play that game.  
    
    Should I ever become independently wealthy :-), there are many
    things I'd do besides watch daytime tv (heck, I rarely watch
    nighttime tv),  I have more hobbies than I have the time to
    invest in them. :-)
    
    Mary-Michael
    
      

    My live-in girlfriend enjoys doing almost all the housework. I take out
    the trash, and do occasional odds & ends to help her out.  I'm really
    fortunate since I'm somewhat lazy by nature.  She doesn't mind doing my
    laundry, cooking almost every night, cleaning regularly. Oh, I mow the
    lawn unless she wants to (which she does often). She's a real busy body
    because she works full time and goes to school full time as well. So
    soon, she will be the major bread winner, and she'll be doing the
    housework. Should I marry her or what.
    -ss

    >>Should I marry her or what.
    
    Geez, don't ask that in here, the place is full of loosers when it
    comes to relationships, it seems. Ideas like love, trust, forgiveness,
    tolerance, compromise, conflict management, hope, seem to have lost out
    to hate, fight, bitterness, niggle, grudge.
    
    Kevin

    I earn the money in our family right now, and Frank keeps the home up,
    and watches kids during the day.  
    
    I try to give him at least an hour off to unwind as soon as I get home
    from work.  He needs the break.  Saturdays I take on the kids and get
    them off with me so Frank gets some "alone time" to do what he wants
    without kids and assorted other kids underfoot.  I either buy or make
    breakfasts on the weekends.  
    
    I do the grocery and assorted other shopping.  I fix half the evening
    meals, except during the weeks when work gets in the way.  Even then I
    usually get the prep work out of the way.  I can unload and load the
    dishwasher and run it, but Frank has it held together with some sort of
    Majick and he prefers running it, as when I do there is a guaranteed
    puddle in the kitchen.   His standards are higher than mine so he
    usually vacuums and declutters, he did this when we were both working
    outside the home as well.  
    
    We each handle our half of car care, lawn maintenance, although I do
    the vegetable garden on my own with other friends.  He isn't fond of
    that kind of gardening.  He does put up most of what I bring home to
    freeze or can, but I also pitch in on that.  
    
    Frank works his butt off on a daily basis.  When he goes back to school
    or work we will have to readjust who does what again, so he doesn't
    feel he is being taken advantage of.  If that means bringing in a
    housekeeper once or twice a week, so be it.  I don't know how anyone
    could think a full-time parent has time to do much else.  Oh yeah,  he
    takes Atlehi and Carrie out to see friends, shuttles the bigger kids to
    and from the pool, park and school and special events   I do the Girl
    Scouts for Carrie while he waches Atlehi in the evenings, and I work
    from home when he does volunteer work so there is a parental unit
    around.  This is a good way to get run ragged.  
    
    Where did I learn this sort of thing?  From my parents.  Although mom
    was a full-time homemaker, Dad also gave her a break on Saturdays and
    sundays, fixed breakfast for all of us, and would mess around with us
    for an hour or so when he got home from work, unless he was on a
    deadline.  He took us into work with him if there was no school and mom
    had something she needed to do without kids.  
    
    Maybe this was the secret to 50 years of marriage?
    
    meg

Re: .71 and .72 ("Should I marry her or what?")

|    Geez, don't ask that in here, the place is full of loosers when it
|    comes to relationships, it seems.

Au contraire.  This would seem to be the ideal place to ask.

First of all, Kevin, I resemble that remark...;-)

As for .71 (ss) - She sounds wonderful.  Congratulations.  Unfortunately,
nothing you describe gives the least hint as to how to answer your
question.  Keep looking - not elsewhere, necessarily, but within her,
yourself, both your needs, and how you relate to each other.  Chores aren't
THAT important! ;-)

tim

P.S. Bonus hint: neither is great sex. ;-)

    
    .71   I think the key here is that you both do what you enjoy doing
    and neither one minds the distribution of work. IF, on the other hand
    she was doing all this and felt you didn't do enough, then there would
    be a problem, in my opinion of course. I not only believe in 'sharing'
    of duties, but there can be compromises that may seem like one does
    more than the other at times, but if it's between the two that this
    is fine, I'm sure it comes out in the wash in other ways so to speak.
    If there's love and support towards each other the 'duties' are minor.
    
        Rosie
    
       p.s.  Marry her! It sounds like the two of you are fine with the way
    things are and that's what is important.

    We've only been seeing each other for little more than one year.  I
    think I should wait to see if she's the right one. When I get married I
    want it to be for good.
    -ss

    
      for good,,,,,   more ways than one!

    re .71
    
    Do you know for sure that she doesn't mind doing all this stuff? It
    sounds like she's setting herself up for serious burnout!!
    
    I think compromise is really important, and that both people feel that
    the distribution of labor is fair. Women need to get over the pressure
    to 'do it all' and be superwomen. A lot of us take on more than we can
    reasonably handle, and then wonder how we got so burned out. I'm sure
    there are plenty of cases where the woman takes on the extra housework
    herself, willingly, because we want to be able to handle everything.
    What is so wrong with admitting, "There are things I'd like to spend a
    little of my time doing, besides housework?" A fair-minded partner
    should encourage this. True partners really encourage each other to be
    happy, not over-burdened, able to enjoy life, and to equally split up
    the workload. I sure wouldn't feel right with my husband doing all the
    housework, as nice as it might be to not have to do it myself! Hey,
    then he'd be too tired for the fun stuff;-)
    
    It seems to take constant adjustments. And I've often heard that, in a
    good relationship, people don't give just 50% each, they give 100%
    each. This works. But not 100% for one, 25% for the other! 

    Clearly!! Your absolutely correct. But, in the same vaine, most seem to
    think that men come home, open a can of beer, rubb their bellies, watch
    tv and fart. I know that I was handling much of the outside work,
    shoveling snow, painting houses, detailing the fleet(cars, wash, wax,
    ensuring they are rolling stock vs dead stock), managing the apartment
    building, balancing the books, working extra hours at work, going to
    night school, trying to kick start a small business called a mini gym,
    being a good husband, being a good father to a new daughter... super
    what? 

    ...and mowing the lawns on two apartment buildings, helping the
    extended family and their heart burns, mowing their lawns, shoveling
    their snow, showing up for their problems.. super? 

    No, I wasn't advocating guys trying to be superman either. Part of the
    problem is that ALL of us seem to have overscheduled lives these days.
    We all need more R&R.
    
    I personally don't know any guys who come home, open a beer, turn on
    the TV, rub their belly, and fart. Well, at least not the first 4.

    .81 Yes, I will concure with this!! We all have stuck ourselves in the
    fast lane/lan for success and with it comes the pearls of life. Looking
    for utopia isn't what it once was. Looking for happiness is sometimes
    as close as your own back yard. Learning to live with less in a demand
    for all toys in the end isn't the final measurement. But we are all
    driven like this.
    
    

    
    re .78
    
    Nothing against you or your note, per se, but I tend to "turn off"
    when someone starts talking about the need to "compromise" because
    they are usually really talking about he need for _you_ to compromise.
    
    
    fred():

    re .83
    
    I personally don't care if you turn off or not. If you don't want to
    compromise in your relationship, that's your problem (and your wife's).
          
    

    re .83
    
    Oh, and one more thing: If a person _already is_ compromising, (as in,
    being fair) there's no need to talk about compromise, is there?

    
    re .84,

    Didn't say that I don't compromise.  Just that I've become somewhat
    cynical of people who go around talking about how everyone else
    should.  Sort of like what I mentioned a while back about 1990's 
    doublespeak (a note on that should cause some lively discussion ;^) ).

    fred();

                                                      
>    Didn't say that I don't compromise.  Just that I've become somewhat
>    cynical of people who go around talking about how everyone else
>    should.
    
    Sure, but Ms. Mattson's response to the original note (where the 
    guy admitted he was somewhat lazy by nature, with a girlfiend who'd
    soon be both the major breadwinner _and_ doing the housework) was
    completely reasonable, in context, and hardly a cause for any 
    cynicism.  The situation did sound more than a little unusual.
    
    In fact I'm still not sure if the comments were mostly serious or
    tongue-in-cheek or what... ;-)
    
    glenn
    

    No, they were serious.  I guess you just have to know my girlfriend. 
    She is a real busy body.  Always has to be doing something.  Even while
    relaxing she feels she should be doing the laundry, cooking, or some
    sort of cleaning.  She took her first semester off in 2 years from
    school this summer because she needed more time to get settled in our
    new place, and she is still pressed for minutes.  It's not that I don't
    do things around the house, rather, she just overly does her share.
    -ss