PDA

View Full Version : Do feminists hate househusbands THEY created?



Tomenable
14-07-17, 14:14
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467390/Househusband-backlash-high-flying-wives-ditch-men-em-em-wanted-stay-home.html


Househusband backlash as high-flying wives ditch men they wanted to stay at home
By DIANA APPLEYARD
Last updated at 09:00 10 July 2007


It's the bitterest of ironies: thousands of men who've given up work to care for their children are being ditched by their high-flying wives - who wanted them to stay at home in the first place.


At the time it seemed like a good idea. After all, Richard Dean told himself, he was earning less than his wife Louise, a high-flying marketing executive. And did it really matter who was at home to look after their children?


With that in mind, it was not such a difficult decision for him to give up his career as a manager in the manufacturing industry to look after their ten-month-old son, Jack.


He hoped it would bring them closer together as a family. In reality, it sounded the death knell for their marriage.


"I sensed that Louise was becoming more detached and less interested in me sexually within a year of becoming a househusband," says Richard, 50. "She was always picking on me for silly little things she said I hadn't done, like the washing up or not tidying away the toys.


"It was as if she was losing all respect for me, just because I was the one at home, doing the domesworktic duties. Then, one day two years ago, she announced she was leaving me - and taking the children with her. She told me she was going to go and live with her mother 20 miles away. To say I was devastated does not do my feelings justice. It was as if the bottom had fallen out of my world."


For five years Richard, from Watford, Herts, had worked hard to become a perfect "mother" to their sons, Jack, who is now nine, and Edward, seven. But from the moment he gave up his job, Richard says Louise, 47, failed to see him as a "man".


The phenomenon of the househusband is an increasingly popular one. The number of men deciding to become househusbands has increased by a staggering 83per cent since 1993. According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, there are more than 200,000 fathers in the UK choosing to give up their careers and raise their children at home.


But are the couples who go down this domestic route sowing the seeds of marital disharmony? It seems that in many cases the rise of modern career women has had an unexpected - and disastrous - knock-on effect on many husbands who assume the traditionally 'female' role.


In short, having a man whose primary function is not as alpha male breadwinner, but domestic drudge just ain't sexy.
Divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says that in her experience, the decision to allow the wife to be the main wage earner will have a detrimental effect on as many as half of these relationships, and that divorce statistics in these cases have risen by at least five per cent in the past two years.


"My warning would be to think long and hard about letting the man stay at home,' she says. 'I know it is very trendy for the wife to be the breadwinner, but in my professional experience this decision will strain the marriage. It may be fun at first to say 'I have a househusband', but the wife will quickly begin to resent the fact the man is not pulling his weight financially.


"She will think: 'You're not supporting me' - within all of us I think there is still a very deep-seated belief that men should be the protectors. A gradual lack of respect begins to eat into the relationship, and it puts men in a very vulnerable position.


"The role these men are performing at home is, of course, very valuable, but women can find it very hard to recognise and respect a man who is doing it."


It's a marital timebomb which exploded under Richard Dean's relationship with little warning, yet he and his wife embarked on their "househusband" experiment with high hopes.


Richard says: "Our elder son was just a baby and I was intrigued by the thought of spending all day, every day, with him. It didn't offend my masculinity at all - we'd also just moved into a bigger house and there was a lot of renovation work to be done, so when the baby was asleep I would don my hard hat and do some building work.
"I know my grandfather and my father could never have been househusbands, but I didn't see why there should be a social stigma in this day and age."


Balance quickly shifted


But Richard says the balance in their relationship quickly shifted.


"I was happy to do all the cooking, cleaning, shopping and washing, but I began to feel that Louise was taking me for granted," he says. "She'd come home exhausted after a ten-hour day, and I'd be desperate to chat, to have some adult conversation, but she'd say she was too tired."


He says he poured his heart and soul into being a good "mother", more so after their second son was born two years later. 'I made sure I structured my days with the children - I took them swimming, we went to the park and I did lots of activities with them, like reading and crafts. I lived and breathed those children, but not once did I regret the decision to put my career on hold.


"Yes, it's hard not making your own money, but I was doing the essential job of bringing up our children."
But then the hammer blow fell, and Louise walked out, taking the boys with her.


"I begged her not to go, but I think she had simply decided she could find someone more dynamic than me," he says sadly. "Suddenly, the children I'd cared for since they were babies were being taken away.


"It's all very well to be a househusband, but she had come to look down on me, to think of me as not very masculine, and not hard-working. It was as if all the things I did around the house didn't count - that was nothing compared to how hard she had to work in her mind, which was so unfair.


"And the great irony was that we'd decided together that I should stay at home with the children."
While the pain of the separation was humiliating enough, worse was to follow when Richard attempted to establish proper contact with his children.


For two years he fought through the family courts, desperately trying to gain full access to Jack and Edward. And at the same time, he was forced to find to meet maintenance payments. Having effectively quit his career five years earlier, he had to start at the bottom all over again.


"I was left out in the cold," he says. "It left me in an impossible situation, because I'd been out of the workplace for five years, caring for my children, and yet now I was expected to get straight back to work and start paying her some maintenance."


The moment Richard's wife said she was leaving him and taking the children, she changed her working hours from full to part-time so she could spend more time with the boys, while her mother helped with the rest of the childcare.
"It was very cleverly done," he says. "I've had to take a series of menial part-time jobs just to keep me going financially, and on top of all that I've had two years of solicitor's bills in taking my wife to court to get better access to the children, which has cost me at least £12,000.


Stress


Richard is still desperately fighting for better access to the two children he did so much to raise, but now sees only every other weekend. 'It's no wonder I am suffering from stress, and have gone from living in the lovely home we owned to a two-bedroom flat in a much rougher area of town.


Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says there is a huge problem built into the legal system at a time when more and more fathers are becoming primary carers for their children.


"There has been a massive turnaround in roles within a marriage, but there is still a very strong belief in the legal system that allowing the father to have residency of the children is somehow against the natural order of things, and many judges still believe the children will be better off with their mother."


It's a conundrum which is all too familiar to 46-year-old James Thomson, who works as a mechanical engineer, but prior to this was a stay-at-home father to his three daughters, Alice, 14, Chloe, 11, and Amy, eight. He lives in Manchester, and like Richard, he found that his marriage to Angela - a 43-year-old who runs her own communications company - began to crumble once he had given up his job.


James says: "We made the decision that I should stay at home when Alice was 18 months old. Angela was earning twice as much as I was. Up to that point we'd had a child-minder, but it felt as if neither of us was spending much time with our child.


"Alice would scream when we dropped her off with the child-minder, so it was obvious that all was not well. We then had a two-week family holiday in Greece and talked about the future. It became obvious that by the time we'd paid a child-minder and both of our petrol costs, there wasn't a lot left from my wage. It actually made financial sense for me to be at home.


"To my surprise, I slipped into the role with real ease. I shopped, cleaned, washed and cared for Alice, and then Chloe and Amy once they came along. Alice was with a childminder for just under a year before I gave up my job, and I was a househusband for about 11 years until we split."


James says that as a househusband 12 years ago he was very much in the minority, and many mothers were very distrustful of him.


"There weren't many couples doing this when we first made the decision, and I think some other mothers thought I was trying to seduce them when I'd chat to them at coffee mornings and play groups,' he says.
"In the park, they'd all be sitting chatting to each other while I rushed around physically playing with my kids and they ignored me.


"Then when my wife came home she'd plonk herself down in a chair and put on the TV or read a magazine and ignore me, too, while I was still running round with the children.


"I suppose I did resent this, but I thought that was the trade-off. The children meant the world to me. But then, in 2005, our relationship broke down completely. We were hardly talking to each other, and she was spending longer and longer out of the house.


"One day she came home suddenly and told me that she didn't love me any more, and she was fed up with being the main breadwinner.


"It came out of the blue to me - we'd jointly agreed that this was the best plan, and it was as if the rug was being pulled from under my feet to be told that she was not happy and deeply resented having to earn all the money.
"Further arguments followed and over the course of several months they got more and more heated until in the end I told her to pack her bags and get out if she was so miserable. At first the children stayed with me and she visited them, but then she took me to court."


As both Richard and James were to discover, the British courts still favour the mother when it comes to deciding where the children should live in divorce cases, even if the father has previously been the primary carer.
James has 50-50 care of his children - he has them for one week, his wife the next.


"I suppose I should be grateful that I have a half-share in my children, but it doesn't feel like that to me at all - I miss them so much," he says.


"I just have to put up with what little time I have with them, and be grateful for that.


James says: "It's madness that in this day and age fathers do not have more rights over their children. I think it's appalling that courts should be able to rule that a father's needs are somehow less than those of a woman. Just because someone gave birth to the children doesn't mean they love them more.


"I cope by working very long shifts when my children aren't here, and my company has been really helpful and understanding in letting me work flexible hours when I need to pick them up from school."


David Williams, 48, from Cardiff, is still fighting his wife Mandy, 39, for custody of their four-year-old daughter, Alexandra, after they split up two years ago.


He used to work in social services, but is now retired through ill health. His wife used to work as an administration officer, but has given up full-time work to care for their daughter.


Like Richard and James, he feels much of his masculinity and power in the relationship was lost when he gave up his job to become a househusband.


"It is ironic, given that for hundreds of years women have been perceived solely as housewives and mothers, and yet their role has been regarded as essential to society and they have been respected and valued for it," he says.


"But once I gave up my career, I lost prestige both in society and in the eyes of my wife. It was as if I had no value.
"There were times in our marriage when I felt as if I was being treated like a subservient Victorian housewife. I'd be criticised if the washing wasn't hung out exactly how my wife wanted it and she used to check to make sure that I had cleaned the house perfectly, checking for dust and badly-washed plates.


"My wife was a real control freak and she wanted everything to be done perfectly. My standards weren't good enough, even though I had run a house perfectly successfully on my own before I met her. I spent my days cooking and cleaning, as well as doing everything for our daughter."


David is still very bitter about the outcome of their divorce.


"Even though I had been looking after my daughter for two years, when it came to our divorce the judge assumed my wife should be the one to have custody of our child - just because she's a mother," he says.


"This was despite the fact she was working full-time, and I had been the primary carer. Now that she has full custody of Alexandra, she works part-time from home. It is a situation that makes me weep - I miss my daughter so much."


He now lives alone, in the little cottage he owned before he married, and sees Alexandra only every other week.
"She lives 110 miles away from me, away from the friends she made when she lived in our village, and my family, in the area that was her home. I'm allowed to see her for two weekends a month. That means a round trip for me of more than 200 miles. It is annihilating me, both emotionally and physically."


If current trends are anything to go by, the number of men deciding to become househusbands is set to rise even more dramatically.


But how many of those men - who no doubt start out by regarding themselves as paragons of sensitive modern manhood - will end up wishing they had never left the office at all?


• Names have been changed to protect the identity of the children involved.

Fire Haired14
14-07-17, 14:45
Tomenable always finds the most interesting articles. Stay at home Dads shouldn't exist and no early childhood should be spent in a daycare. But moms shouldn't be forced to stay at home.

EDIT: I'm pro-capitalist, but if you think about this little controversy exists because of capitalism.

Bergin
14-07-17, 15:53
"Even though I had been looking after my daughter for two years, when it came to our divorce the judge assumed my wife should be the one to have custody of our child - just because she's a mother," he says.

It is a puzzling topic actually. I am not the judge, but a tough call to make.

LeBrok
14-07-17, 16:57
Tomenable would be the happiest in Saudi Arabia, where women know their place, and everybody is religious and traditional.

I1a3_Young
14-07-17, 17:08
If you know much about the basic psychology of men and women, you would understand why house husbands will almost always fail.

Unfortunately today it is popular to forget and even censor thousands of years of human evolution due to political correctness.

LeBrok
14-07-17, 17:13
Tomenable always finds the most interesting articles. Stay at home Dads shouldn't exist and no early childhood should be spent in a daycare. But moms shouldn't be forced to stay at home.

EDIT: I'm pro-capitalist, but if you think about this little controversy exists because of capitalism. What capitalism has to do with staying home women? Patriarchal tradition of our societies are behind it, though actually capitalism created jobs for women and made them independent. If there were no paying jobs outside households, there wouldn't be independent women. As soon as they made their own money they started to decide about their own lives, make their own choices, and grew independent.
Surely socialist ideology stands for equality of women, but it doesn't mean that capitalism is against it. It gave women jobs and self support, even though capitalism doesn't have social ideologies.

The best times for traditional role of women were feudalism and hunter gatherer societies.

LeBrok
14-07-17, 17:18
If you know much about the basic psychology of men and women, you would understand why house husbands will almost always fail.


Good excuse for every lousy husband or father.


Unfortunately today it is popular to forget and even censor thousands of years of human evolution due to political correctness.How about 4 million years of evolution and sticking to pure hunter gatherer way?

Fire Haired14
14-07-17, 17:48
Surely socialist ideology stands for equality of women, but it doesn't mean that capitalism is against it. It gave women jobs and self support, even though capitalism doesn't have social ideologies.

I should have specified what controversy I think capitalism caused. The controversy I was referring to is: Should mom's stay at home or go to work, should kids spend their days in a day care, or should even some Dad's stay at home.

In the olden days everyone stayed home all day. People made their living at home. And so parents were always with their kids. This changed during the industrial revolution-explosion of capitalism. And now even moms are pursing capital and leaving their kids at day cares.

This isn't a capitalism vs socialism thing. It's more so a modern vs old thing. In a socialist society parents still have to leave home to go work.

I1a3_Young
14-07-17, 18:43
Good excuse for every lousy husband or father.

How about 4 million years of evolution and sticking to pure hunter gatherer way?

I'm not sure what your point is.

LeBrok
14-07-17, 18:45
I should have specified what controversy I think capitalism caused. The controversy I was referring to is: Should mom's stay at home or go to work, should kids spend their days in a day care, or should even some Dad's stay at home.

In the olden days everyone stayed home all day. People made their living at home. And so parents were always with their kids. This changed during the industrial revolution-explosion of capitalism. And now even moms are pursing capital and leaving their kids at day cares.

This isn't a capitalism vs socialism thing. It's more so a modern vs old thing. In a socialist society parents still have to leave home to go work. Yes, old ways versus new, for sure. With mom staying home it wasn't exactly what some grew up with during 50s and 60s. If you live on a farm, and most people did way back, mom had to go to do the field work very often. At this time older kids and grandparents took care of younger ones. Even if mom was around, she was working hard to take care of farm animals and garden, cooking, sewing, and didn't have time to read books even if she could read, or was too tired tell night stories every night. She just had time to occasionally wack kids with big ladle for misbehaving. The interaction with kids was mostly teaching them farming skills from being very small. Talking about child labour of the past. And of course, going back even further to hunter gatherer we will find more child labour. Mother spent time with kids doing daily functions. Collecting wood for fire, picking berries, cooking, skinning animals, making tools, and always taking care (feeding and changing) younger siblings.

If someone is missing "good old days", be a Ghandy and embrace it. ;)

Angela
14-07-17, 20:47
Yes, old ways versus new, for sure. With mom staying home it wasn't exactly what some grew up with during 50s and 60s. If you live on a farm, and most people did way back, mom had to go to do the field work very often. At this time older kids and grandparents took care of younger ones. Even if mom was around, she was working hard to take care of farm animals and garden, cooking, sewing, and didn't have time to read books even if she could read, or was too tired tell night stories every night. She just had time to occasionally wack kids with big ladle for misbehaving. The interaction with kids was mostly teaching them farming skills from being very small. Talking about child labour of the past. And of course, going back even further to hunter gatherer we will find more child labour. Mother spent time with kids doing daily functions. Collecting wood for fire, picking berries, cooking, skinning animals, making tools, and always taking care (feeding and changing) younger siblings.

If someone is missing "good old days", be a Ghandy and embrace it. ;)

It was usually wooden spoons that I would sometimes see the mothers wield in our villages, although they were handy with a slap too. The more brutal fathers used belts or switches. That was the reality of child rearing for many exhausted farmers with upwards of eight children to keep in order.

It's no good romanticizing the past. In order to know what to keep and what to throw away, you have to know what it was really like.

As you say, until very recently most people were farmers, and women had very large families. There was no "quality" time, sitting and reading to them, going for walks, imaginative play etc. Even more affluent people had no time for that. My grandmother had eleven children; my father said it was his oldest sister who actually raised him. Just supervising the household, cooking, and helping to run the properties was more than enough. Really affluent people, especially in places like England, rarely saw their children at all: it was all relegated to nannies and governesses.

Much of what people think of us as the "good" old days is really very recent, and it wasn't very "good" for a lot of women. There's nothing "good" about being totally dependent financially on another person. Even under the best of circumstances, where there is mutual respect and trust, what happens if the husband dies or becomes ill? What if he's abusive to her or her children, or a gambler or a drug addict or alcoholic? Should she have to stay because she can't support herself and her children? If a woman hasn't trained for a career or trade and hasn't kept up with it, she may think that's a better option than trying to support herself and her children with menial, low-paying jobs. Or what if he just looses interest, becomes infatuated with someone else?

Isn't that exactly what happened in the article in the original post? Some of you are just upset because now it's some men who are in this situation. This is what has happened to innumerable women in our society who bought the whole till death do us part bit. They bought it, they agreed to try to live the Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best lifestyle of the fifties, and woke up to find out that twenty or thirty years later they got traded in for a new model, and they were left with no current job skills and the prospect of living in semi-poverty for the rest of their lives. So much for the "good old days" for married women.

The reality is that marriages aren't forever anymore, and men don't have the same values anymore. You can't count on it, and so you have to take some prudent measures for your own protection. It's not very romantic, but it's the truth. Someone should have given these men this advice when they were contemplating such a change. The rules have changed for everyone.

It's also the reality that if people really valued the work involved in being a "stay at home mom", more women might actually want to do it. The reality is that they don't. In any society people are eager to do what brings them societal, including familial, approval. If you don't get it most people probably won't want to do it. What is valued is material success and power, and that has always been the case, so you can't blame women for finally figuring that out, or perhaps for seeing the opportunities that they could create for themselves because of new technologies, among them birth control.

I leave aside all the considerations tied to the fact that some women have minds too, minds that need some intellectual stimulus beyond cooking and minding children, even if that required sixteen hours a day, which, at least once the children go to school, it does not. Of course, you could always marry a relatively un-intelligent woman, but then you might get bored even quicker, and there's the fact that intelligence is inherited, so that has to be factored in as well. There's already enough less than gifted people procreating.

davef
14-07-17, 23:13
What's wrong with less than gifted people having children? It does nothing to boost the average intellect of society, but they can have other qualities.

davef
15-07-17, 00:09
But we're ok without those who would beat someone to death over a parking spot or who would give in to various conspiracies we see in anthro forums...lol

Curiocity
19-07-17, 16:22
I think it should be a balance between both men and women. I don't know if feminists getting angry over this makes sense, but there should definitely be a move towards a more equal sharing of the load when it comes to staying at home to raise kids.

Angela
19-07-17, 18:28
What's wrong with less than gifted people having children? It does nothing to boost the average intellect of society, but they can have other qualities.

Unfortunately, we're fast approaching a situation where, with automation and other changes, there will be no work for people incapable of sophisticated thought processes. These people will have to be supported by the productive members of society, which is a burden on them, and the consequences for people who will be on a form of welfare forever will just be more of the behaviors we already see in the underclass. If you don't have the mental resources for jobs that require high levels of functioning, you're not going to have the resources to make productive use of a life where you just collect a maintenance allotment.

Plus, I've never met a single person who, if they could control it, wouldn't want an intelligent child. Live is much easier that way for both the child and the parents. One way that you can control it to some extent is not to have children with a person who isn't very bright. It seems simple enough to me, but it doesn't seem to occur to some men, for instance, until after they've married and had children with such a woman and then can't seem to understand why Junior isn't doing as well at school as they did.

And yes, it does lower the average intellect of a society.

Alan
19-07-17, 18:41
It was clear that this would happen. I am sorry but modern era femninists have no idea what women (even they themselves) want. It is no suprise to me that the wife doesn't feel attracted to her submissive husband anymore. equal rights and opportunities is one thing. A man who cares for is children and looks after them for some period of time is also completely fine it strengthens the bound. But it becomes a problem when males and females change the roles just out of ideological reasons and the man plays the mother role. We are talking about ten if not hundreds of thousand years of evolutionary selection. few decades of feminism can't change what has been branded in our genetic memory throughout generations. The very large majority of females don't want a submissive man, because a submissive man creates a fear in her. The fear that the man can't defend/protect her when necessary.

And the worst part of all in the story above is that the man took the mothers role but didn't get the mothers rights. The children he raised could easilly be taken from him since "he is not the actual mother, who by the rule is better suited to raise the children", according to the laws.

Angela
19-07-17, 18:52
A woman living in a western, technologically based society doesn't need some macho "he-man" to protect her physically. For some, the more mercenary, they want a man with power and money. Most of us want a partner, and a relationship of mutual trust and respect where each person can fulfill his and her own potential and together raise a family.

Don't tell me it doesn't work, people, because I see it working all around me. Yes, some sacrifices have to be made, some compromises reached, but that's the nature of life. Each couple has to work out the best fit.

What is not wise is for either partner to completely put their careers on hold; life is too uncertain, and you have to always be prepared to shoulder the entire burden of supporting your family.

What is not going to happen is that intelligent women are going to agree to not pursue an education and meaningful work outside the home, so you're just going to have to get used to it. Well...I suppose you can seek out unintelligent women, who would be happy to live off you for the rest of their lives, but then you have to live with the consequences of that.

Alan
19-07-17, 19:07
This is the first time Angela where I almost completely disagree with you

A woman living in a western, technologically based society doesn't need some macho "he-man" to protect her physically. For some, the more mercenary, they want a man with power and money. Most of us want a partner, and a relationship of mutual trust and respect where each person can fulfill his and her own potential and together raise a family.

Sorry from my experience only romantic wishfull thinkins. I would bet all my money a woman would rather even have an a..hole than some submissive "househusband". While her best prefference would be a little dominant male that shows love and respect to her.

And who even talked about "Macho-Mans" anyways? Please only arguments that were used. As I wrote above. Equal opportunities and rights are one thing. Having respect for his wife should be given in a healthy partnership, but changing the gender roles. Will in most cases result in the other gender losing the interest. There is nothing more disgusting to me in this regard, than a female that acts completely like a male.

But thats just my opinion.

Angela
19-07-17, 19:42
This is the first time Angela where I almost completely disagree with you


Sorry from my experience only romantic wishfull thinkins. I would bet all my money a woman would rather even have an a..hole than some submissive "househusband". While her best prefference would be a little dominant male that shows love and respect to her.

And who even talked about "Macho-Mans" anyways? Please only arguments that were used. As I wrote above. Equal opportunities and rights are one thing. Having respect for his wife should be given in a healthy partnership, but changing the gender roles. Will in most cases result in the other gender losing the interest. There is nothing more disgusting to me in this regard, than a female that acts completely like a male.

But thats just my opinion.

I have no idea what that even means. Is a female attorney, prosecutor, judge, acting completely like a male? How about a cancer specialist? What about a university college professor, or, given our interests, a geneticist? Except for the last, those are jobs held by women in my own family. Let's take it down a notch. What about a teacher, a nurse, a social worker? Would pursuing these professions and working at them mean a reversal of gender roles?

Are you proposing to bar women from professions like this? If you're not, how, precisely, would that work in your preferred scheme? Who would stay home with the children all day? Who would do the laundry, food shopping, cooking, cleaning? Women can't work 24 hours a day, you know, although it sometimes seems like it. In order to not be accused of switching her "gender role" would she have to come home and do all that work on top of her job? What, precisely, would her husband be doing after coming home from work? Oh wait, what about child care? Who is going to care for them?

I'm a practical woman, so I like practical proposals.

Oh, and I generally think it's a better idea to ask women what they want than to assume you know what they want or what's best for them. And yes, we most certainly know when a relationship is not working.

Promenade
19-07-17, 20:49
It was clear that this would happen. I am sorry but modern era femninists have no idea what women (even they themselves) want. It is no suprise to me that the wife doesn't feel attracted to her submissive husband anymore. equal rights and opportunities is one thing. A man who cares for is children and looks after them for some period of time is also completely fine it strengthens the bound. But it becomes a problem when males and females change the roles just out of ideological reasons and the man plays the mother role. We are talking about ten if not hundreds of thousand years of evolutionary selection. few decades of feminism can't change what has been branded in our genetic memory throughout generations. The very large majority of females don't want a submissive man, because a submissive man creates a fear in her. The fear that the man can't defend/protect her when necessary.

And the worst part of all in the story above is that the man took the mothers role but didn't get the mothers rights. The children he raised could easilly be taken from him since "he is not the actual mother, who by the rule is better suited to raise the children", according to the laws.

I believe what we are seeing here in this article is simply that exact opposite of LeBrock’s quote- People who glorify the future and demonize the past. The future can be whatever we want it to be, but for some the future means the complete reversal of all past traditions. It’s a very narrow black and white way of viewing things.

There are many obvious biological differences in men and women that led to historical cultural norms regarding the relationship between husband and wife. Of course there is always leeway because of evolving societal factors and the relationship is malleable. For the western world at least we live in prosperous times and we can afford to critique traditional roles for the sake equality and improvement.

Despite this a complete reversal of roles is nothing but counter intuitive. There is not enough nuance to the critique and many of the people supporting and pressing it fervently hate everything about past traditions. We don’t stand any benefit from it, we know naturally we weren’t designed for it and we haven’t thought about how it will effect us personally and on a societal level. The man in this article should have thought more deeply about the consequences of his decision. He should've tested for a while how playing mom would turn out for his family and if it didnt turn out well go back to work to provide money for a decent live in nanny for his kids.

Angela
19-07-17, 21:02
I see no one has yet answered my questions, as is usually the case, except for paying a lower class woman to do it all including being a "mother" to the children.

How about the following...it's worked out very well for a family member...

Wife started out a practicing oncologist, and husband was an emergency room doctor with various esoteric specialties. When the children came, it was either turn over the parenting to a nanny and getting cleaning services, or come up with something more creative.

They decided that the woman would take a research job instead, although it was a wrench, and negotiate a four day, 10 hour a day minimum work schedule. He would do the same. They still needed to pay for help with all the household chores, but one of them would always be home. They overlapped one day a week, Sunday.

I think it was an inspired solution. They've been married thirty years and have raised two very intelligent, very accomplished daughters.

It can be done.

Diomedes
19-07-17, 22:40
One crucial question someone should ask here is whether feminism has actually added any value to women, first and foremost, and secondly to our society. A following question pertains to the role of feminism per se in western type societies vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Angela
19-07-17, 23:14
One crucial question someone should ask here is whether feminism has actually added any value to women, first and foremost, and secondly to our society. A following question pertains to the role of feminism per se in western type societies vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Well, I've never belonged to any "feminist" organizations, and there's lots I disagree with in terms of the Betty Friedans and Gloria Steinams of the world, but I absolutely would never agree to turning back the clock.

The changes in western societies mean that I was able to go to university, get advanced degrees after that, and pursue the profession of my choice, gaining a lot of intellectual and even emotional satisfaction, and contributing positively, I believe, to my community and society in general.

Then there are the practical aspects: I was paid handsomely for my work, which meant that our economic security was increased, and even luxuries were not beyond us. In addition, had things not gone so well, had my husband become ill, or, God forbid, died, or had I made a disastrous choice and he turned out to be an alcoholic or drug user, a gambler or abuser of me or our children, I could easily have supported myself and them. On top of all of that, I made my father very happy and proud by fulfilling some of his dreams for me.

The only downside was that I had to work very hard, be very organized, and I missed out on some sleep when they were younger. It was all worth it, and I wouldn't change it at all.

I don't understand what kind of communities some of you must live in that this all seems so foreign. It's quite commonplace in my world, and I assure you I don't know a single woman who would turn back the clock.

As to value to society, what about all the contributions of female scientists, doctors, jurists, professors and on and on...Do they mean nothing? And no, I don't think mothers working outside the home has ruined their children. Children raised by frustrated, unhappy women aren't going to do well. As for the so-called "good old days" on the farm, if anyone is under the illusion that farm women responsible for going out into the fields as well as taking care of the chickens, the cows, the house plot, the cooking, cleaning, and laundry for perhaps twelve people, and the supervision of ten children spent very much quality time with those kids they are much mistaken. Those kids basically reared each other or themselves and the results were by no means great.

Oh, and thank God for another invention that changed women's lives: birth control. No more pregnancies every 12 or 18 months until body, mind and heart are all shredded. Don't think any woman would want to get rid of that either.

I1a3_Young
20-07-17, 02:58
There are a lot of crossing opinions in this thread, so let's tread carefully. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same.

In no way do I advocate forcing women out of the workforce or chaining them to stoves. Women have a choice for the life they want to live and men also have a choice.

It is true that macho men are no longer required to protect women and children from other men nearly as much. We have police that do that for us, or at least attempt it.

We have machinery for any labor intensive tasks. Why then do the hunks get the chicks so much more easily? Muscles are so passe! Women are still attracted to strong men through biological evolution. Look at the ridiculous height preferences. Women prefer taller men. That is absolutely useless in modern society but the preference springs from somewhere in that brain.

It's not only strength though, but what that strength represents and it is only one component of what a lot of women are naturally attracted to: POWER. Women evolved to be choosy because they can carry one man's baby, so it should be the best man they can find. Men just want to spread their seed to as many women as possible and many men struggle with this urge. When I have seen women cheat it has usually been with a perceived "better" than what they had. I've seen men cheat with women less attractive than what they have.

Men overwhelmingly prefer youth and beauty. Women like looks but need to decide if you have the right attitude, demeanor, etc to go with it. They don't want to get conned by a good looking fool. This is part of the reason women wear makeup and try to look younger. There is either a conscious or subconscious awareness of the need to be pretty and young.

The above generalization illustrates the popularity of boss/subordinate affairs.

Attraction is felt at a base level in the subconscious. It cannot be arrived at logically or through negotiation. Keeping the attraction of a mate should be a priority of any long-term relationship. Women and men need to understand that they are different from each other and that what might work for one might not work for the other to maintain harmonious relations.

Men need to stay healthy and keep up the air of physical strength. They need to stand up for themselves rather than be submissive unless you are with a rare woman that prefers it. They need to strive for professional/financial achievement. Never set yourself out to pasture or rest on your laurels.

Women need to stay healthy and attend their beauty. They don't have to live up to biological standards of success in the community to keep their man attracted.


Angela made a great point about two doctors working together to make a wealthy and successful modern family. There is a key here, there was no "kept" man. I have seen "kept" men achieve the marital success of long-term, long-distance relationships. We all think we can make it work but it circles back around to biology and our inability to control our attraction using logic. I'm not saying it's fair or equitable, just that it tends to be true in a broad swathe of people. That is key.

Angela is a rare breed indeed - I can see why she would be offended by some things in this thread. There's many other points I could make regarding male/female psychological differences but I'll leave it there.

Relationships are hard enough work. Introducing a "kept" man scenario makes it much harder for most people. Some people will be fine.

Alan
20-07-17, 03:22
I have no idea what that even means. Is a female attorney, prosecutor, judge, acting completely like a male? How about a cancer specialist? What about a university college professor, or, given our interests, a geneticist? Except for the last, those are jobs held by women in my own family. Let's take it down a notch. What about a teacher, a nurse, a social worker? Would pursuing these professions and working at them mean a reversal of gender roles?
No, of course not. Did my comment gave you this impression? When I speak about changing roles I specifically speak about the characteristic features of the respective genders such as the behave. But also there are very few jobs that only fit one specfic gender better. But none of the above mentioned belong to these jobs I am thinking off.


Are you proposing to bar women from professions like this? If you're not, how, precisely, would that work in your preferred scheme? Who would stay home with the children all day? Who would do the laundry, food shopping, cooking, cleaning? Women can't work 24 hours a day, you know, although it sometimes seems like it. In order to not be accused of switching her "gender role" would she have to come home and do all that work on top of her job? What, precisely, would her husband be doing after coming home from work? Oh wait, what about child care? Who is going to care for them?

If the women has a job that requires equal times of work. Than both parents have to look after the children in part time. If necessary there are other ways too. But I am convinced even if the women has the better job the moment she is the only one bringing money in she will lose interest in her partner. I am speaking of experience, a very good friend of mine who I know since my childhood was left alone by his girlfriend with these arguments.

1. You are not earning enough money
2. You are too childish
3. I feel like I have to take care of you

To the backstory they both work at the same place, he was in his position above her and made it for her possible to reach higher position in her job. for over 2 years he brought most money home. Just 1 year she overtook his position in this regard and completely lost her interest in him.

Sounds familiar? Take a look at the stories in the opening post again. This is why I commented on this thread because I have seen exactly the same happen to my friend (who is Russian by the way).




Oh, and I generally think it's a better idea to ask women what they want than to assume you know what they want or what's best for them. And yes, we most certainly know when a relationship is not working.

Nah sorry Angela, I am not going to ask a women what she wants, not because I don't care of her opinion but because that is the first wrong step you could do as a man. I rather observe how she acts and make my decisions around her reaction. That will suprise her more and give a better response. ;)


Of course all my arguments are based on my experience and they don't necessary reflect what all women think.

Angela
20-07-17, 04:15
There are a lot of crossing opinions in this thread, so let's tread carefully. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same.

In no way do I advocate forcing women out of the workforce or chaining them to stoves. Women have a choice for the life they want to live and men also have a choice.

It is true that macho men are no longer required to protect women and children from other men nearly as much. We have police that do that for us, or at least attempt it.

We have machinery for any labor intensive tasks. Why then do the hunks get the chicks so much more easily? Muscles are so passe! Women are still attracted to strong men through biological evolution. Look at the ridiculous height preferences. Women prefer taller men. That is absolutely useless in modern society but the preference springs from somewhere in that brain.

It's not only strength though, but what that strength represents and it is only one component of what a lot of women are naturally attracted to: POWER. Women evolved to be choosy because they can carry one man's baby, so it should be the best man they can find. Men just want to spread their seed to as many women as possible and many men struggle with this urge. When I have seen women cheat it has usually been with a perceived "better" than what they had. I've seen men cheat with women less attractive than what they have.

Men overwhelmingly prefer youth and beauty. Women like looks but need to decide if you have the right attitude, demeanor, etc to go with it. They don't want to get conned by a good looking fool. This is part of the reason women wear makeup and try to look younger. There is either a conscious or subconscious awareness of the need to be pretty and young.

The above generalization illustrates the popularity of boss/subordinate affairs.

Attraction is felt at a base level in the subconscious. It cannot be arrived at logically or through negotiation. Keeping the attraction of a mate should be a priority of any long-term relationship. Women and men need to understand that they are different from each other and that what might work for one might not work for the other to maintain harmonious relations.

Men need to stay healthy and keep up the air of physical strength. They need to stand up for themselves rather than be submissive unless you are with a rare woman that prefers it. They need to strive for professional/financial achievement. Never set yourself out to pasture or rest on your laurels.

Women need to stay healthy and attend their beauty. They don't have to live up to biological standards of success in the community to keep their man attracted.


Angela made a great point about two doctors working together to make a wealthy and successful modern family. There is a key here, there was no "kept" man. I have seen "kept" men achieve the marital success of long-term, long-distance relationships. We all think we can make it work but it circles back around to biology and our inability to control our attraction using logic. I'm not saying it's fair or equitable, just that it tends to be true in a broad swathe of people. That is key.

Angela is a rare breed indeed - I can see why she would be offended by some things in this thread. There's many other points I could make regarding male/female psychological differences but I'll leave it there.

Relationships are hard enough work. Introducing a "kept" man scenario makes it much harder for most people. Some people will be fine.

Of course, I'd like to think I'm special, one of a kind. Don't we all? Anyway, my father certainly thought so, and my husband as well, most of the time, but I assure you that in terms of blending a career with marriage and parenthood I'm not at all rare. In my family of cousins we have, as I said, a female attorney/prosecutor, a doctor who is a cancer specialist, a professor, a couple of teachers, a guidance counselor, a psychologist, a couple of businesswomen, and on and on. In my neighborhood there are a couple of female doctors, a couple of college professors, a currency trader, a couple of women who work for a hedge fund, a couple of accountants, and what seems like dozens of lawyers, some at extremely prestigious firms. All have worked full time and yet raised children as well. Have they achieved as much professionally as they might have if they didn't have children? No, to be honest most of them didn't, and that includes me, because sacrifices have to be made, and usually women make more of them, sometimes choosing to go off partner track or not going after the next promotion or big position.

That doesn't mean that you want to give up your work, and none of these husbands would ask it of their wives. A lot of the younger men, in particular, have no interest in working eighteen hours a day so that their wives can stay home. They want someone to help with the finances. In my case, my father and my husband actually pushed me further than I might have gone on my own. It was my father's belief that you make use of the brains God gave you, no matter who you are.

As for the attractiveness part...it's undoubtedly part of the equation for both parties. However, it hasn't been my experience that intelligent, highly educated men seek out pretty imbeciles when it comes time to marry. Most of the time, they pick a woman they met at school or work, who has, therefore, the same kind of educational background. That's certainly the case for my family members and in my neighborhood. There are very few mismatches of that sort, and the few that there are usually end in divorce. Some men also look for women who are kind and compassionate, honest and sincere, come from a similar background, with similar values, who will fit in with their families. I think you sell men short to think all they are looking for is looks. That isn't what I see.

As time passes, of course, if you have a brain in your head you try to remain fit and attractive, not just for your partner, but for your own self-respect. In that respect, the women I know actually do a far better job on average than their husbands. However, no one looks exactly the same at 45 as at 25. It's life. If a woman married a man who is so superficial that at that point he wants to turn in his wife for a younger model, she chose badly and has to deal with the consequences. As I would advise leaving him with barely the shirt on his back, so does he. :)

There are the other kinds of men, and some women as well, the perpetual cheaters. The issue then is them, not the cheated upon spouse. I know a woman very well who unfortunately married a man like that. She was perpetually on a diet, got breast implants, a tummy tuck after the kids, injections, was at the gym as much as she could be, and spent hours and tons of money at the spa and salons. It worked in the sense that she was gorgeous and looked fifteen years younger than her age, but you know what, he still cheated. He would have done it no matter which woman he married and what she looked like. Despite all the bravado, he was a very insecure guy, and that's how he filled his void. Finally, she got sick of it, left, and is much happier. He's now cheating on wife number two. :)

The trick is to have a very sound idea of who you are and what you want from a spouse, and to be a very good judge of character when choosing a mate. Figure out who this other person is too, what makes him or her tick, how they are with work colleagues, and most importantly, with family. Don't ignore any red flags. Physical attractiveness is only one part of the package; you have to like and respect the other person too.

I just came back to this after a break. Related to all of this, when I was first married, my husband and I were at the home of another couple. The woman was a writer, very witty, and very funny. Her husband half jokingly started a discussion about this, and how men are hunters, and modern society has no room for that. After letting him wax prolific for awhile, she said, ok. Mr. Hunter, go hunt me a pizza! It says it in a nutshell. :)

I wonder if Bill Gates has muscles? Does his wife care? :) I would, but that's me. Looks have always mattered to me, perhaps too much so.

Bergin
21-07-17, 02:25
I don't know if you guys notice the same tendency,
but most of my male friends are looking for a stable relation with a divorced woman (possibly already having a child).
It makes things much easier and no clock is ticking.

The woman of the thread is actually a good example.
Would you pick her before or after the divorce?

Angela
21-07-17, 03:35
I don't know if you guys notice the same tendency,
but most of my male friends are looking for a stable relation with a divorced woman (possibly already having a child).
It makes things much easier and no clock is ticking.

The woman of the thread is actually a good example.
Would you pick her before or after the divorce?

I don't get it. Why would someone want a divorced woman who has already failed once at marriage, and why would he want to raise someone else's child?

From the woman's point of view, I don't know know how divorced women bring another man into the house so blithely. Maybe my job has warped me, but I would never do it. Dating, enjoying yourself is fine, but I'd be very leery of sleep overs, marriage, or living together until the kids are 18 and out. Sorry, but I'd be particularly leery of any man who said he wanted a ready made family.

LeBrok
21-07-17, 04:39
I know few who hooked up with successful women for support and sex. They have never been fathers, or caring fathers. Still Peter-Panning, I guess, living life without much effort and responsibilities.

davef
21-07-17, 05:29
I don't get it. Why would someone want a divorced woman who has already failed once at marriage, and why would he want to raise someone else's child?

From the woman's point of view, I don't know know how divorced women bring another man into the house so blithely. Maybe my job has warped me, but I would never do it. Dating, enjoying yourself is fine, but I'd be very leery of sleep overs, marriage, or living together until the kids are 18 and out. Sorry, but I'd be particularly leery of any man who said he wanted a ready made family.

What's wrong with marrying a divorced woman if she's divorced due to an abusive husband (and she's an innocent little angel who wouldn't harm anyone)? I'd go for her if she's my type. Why not? Seriously, why not?

If she were to marry me (or at least be my bae) I would buy her flowers, perfume, dresses, a membership to Curves, a cross or dream catcher she can hang from her rear view mirror, a smoothie machine, a gluten free cook book, a watering can,etc...

Bergin
21-07-17, 12:30
I don't get it. Why would someone want a divorced woman who has already failed once at marriage, and why would he want to raise someone else's child?

From the woman's point of view, I don't know know how divorced women bring another man into the house so blithely. Maybe my job has warped me, but I would never do it. Dating, enjoying yourself is fine, but I'd be very leery of sleep overs, marriage, or living together until the kids are 18 and out. Sorry, but I'd be particularly leery of any man who said he wanted a ready made family.

Once upon a time, virginity was considered a great value in a woman.
By now only a few macho would go for a sexually inexperienced partner .


Is it so stupid to find logic in a partner that:

- has already made the marriage experience ,
- went through pre/post pregnancy trauma,
- knows how to deal with a child, and
- knows how to be independent and make independent choices

?


I was not talking about playing around, but actually second marriage and kids.

Angela
21-07-17, 15:18
Once upon a time, virginity was considered a great value in a woman.
By now only a few macho would go for a sexually inexperienced partner .


Is it so stupid to find logic in a partner that:

- has already made the marriage experience ,
- went through pre/post pregnancy trauma,
- knows how to deal with a child, and
- knows how to be independent and make independent choices

?


I was not talking about playing around, but actually second marriage and kids.

Bergin, I never said it was stupid. I said I didn't understand it.

I'd just say that in this day and age a woman doesn't need to have been married to have some sexual experience, if that's a concern. Also, having already had some experience in running a household or raising a child doesn't necessarily mean that a particular woman is any good at it, although it's pretty easily determined.

So, if the woman in question is steady, runs a nice home, and is a good mother, I could see the logic in preferring her to some giddy, young girl who doesn't know what the heck she really wants.

I'd just say that divorce is not always the result of the husband's failings. Sometimes it takes "two to tango" as they say, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I've also known some women who were absolute horrors, and my thought was always that I had no idea why he stuck around, other than the children. So, there's that as well that has to be figured out.

Anyway, I was just curious as to the reasoning.

Bergin
21-07-17, 17:41
Bergin, I never said it was stupid. I said I didn't understand it.

I'd just say that in this day and age a woman doesn't need to have been married to have some sexual experience, if that's a concern. Also, having already had some experience in running a household or raising a child doesn't necessarily mean that a particular woman is any good at it, although it's pretty easily determined.

So, if the woman in question is steady, runs a nice home, and is a good mother, I could see the logic in preferring her to some giddy, young girl who doesn't know what the heck she really wants.

I'd just say that divorce is not always the result of the husband's failings. Sometimes it takes "two to tango" as they say, and there's plenty of blame to go around. I've also known some women who were absolute horrors, and my thought was always that I had no idea why he stuck around, other than the children. So, there's that as well that has to be figured out.

Anyway, I was just curious as to the reasoning.

Angela I agree with what you are saying.
Clearly this is a just discussion and not real life.

The reasoning:
Being a wife and a mother is a great school of life.
I think the same holds true also for a husband and father (maybe more).
The metamorphosis (and a bit of fun):

As a
honeymooning young woman who didn't know you were better off eating in foreign restaurants when in England, I had one horrific dinner after another. On the sixth night, when I ordered chicken and vegetables, and got a soggy mess of gelatinous chicken and soppy, tasteless vegetables (obviously they just threw everything into a pot of boiling water), I started to cry and demanded to go back to France.


Considering that her son runs it I thought it would be safe to order pasta that had a tomato based sauce on it. I was wrong: the sauce was absolutely tasteless except for the acidity, which was overpowering. I called the waiter over, told him I wouldn't eat it and we wouldn't be paying for it, and if the "chef" and "manager" wanted to know why I'd be happy to tell them. I left the waiter a tip, because of course none of it was his fault, and we left. I left a terrible review on every blog I could find, but to no avail.

Angela
21-07-17, 20:47
Angela I agree with what you are saying.
Clearly this is a just discussion and not real life.

The reasoning:
Being a wife and a mother is a great school of life.
I think the same holds true also for a husband and father (maybe more).
The metamorphosis (and a bit of fun):

As a
honeymooning young woman who didn't know you were better off eating in foreign restaurants when in England, I had one horrific dinner after another. On the sixth night, when I ordered chicken and vegetables, and got a soggy mess of gelatinous chicken and soppy, tasteless vegetables (obviously they just threw everything into a pot of boiling water), I started to cry and demanded to go back to France.


Considering that her son runs it I thought it would be safe to order pasta that had a tomato based sauce on it. I was wrong: the sauce was absolutely tasteless except for the acidity, which was overpowering. I called the waiter over, told him I wouldn't eat it and we wouldn't be paying for it, and if the "chef" and "manager" wanted to know why I'd be happy to tell them. I left the waiter a tip, because of course none of it was his fault, and we left. I left a terrible review on every blog I could find, but to no avail.

You remembered it! How nice. :) That was Becco near Times Square in NYC. I still get mad every time I think about it. Like most Italians and certainly the French, I take food seriously.

You're right...I changed a lot with the years, but then I was a 21 year old baby when I got married, going straight from my father to my husband. Still, it wasn't being a wife that changed me, so much. It was the children, and maybe even more so my job.

My only problem as a wife and mother, for me, not for my family, was that in addition to trying to keep a career on track, I also wanted a spotless, beautiful home and the same kinds of meals on the table as my mother had provided. Then, throw in entertaining for my husband's business, and homework, children's activities, gardening, etc. However, in the early years my husband did most of the cleaning and food shopping, and later on we were able to get some help. All the cooking, decorating, gardening, entertaining, homework, Parent-Teacher Association were all on me, though, and it stayed that way. As time passed, I did take on less onerous jobs, and he worked like a demon. Fair is fair. Still, sometimes I thought I'd never get a full night's sleep again! :)

Well, maybe in some ways it wasn't so good for my family, either. My son, in particular, is spoiled rotten. When he was very little he would usually refuse to eat at other people's houses. When he would come home he'd say, "It wasn't delicious, mommy." Not that he isn't a good cook himself, but he's turned off if he goes to a woman's apartment and it's a mess and there's nothing in the refrigerator, which is usually the case. I'm going to be ancient by the time he gets married. As for my daughter, she says we're a package deal. Any man she marries has to agree to what is called here a mother/daughter house. :) God spare us from that scenario. I could have had that with my parents, but my mother was a saint, and my dad was very mellow as he got older; I'm not a saint, and my daughter is headstrong, willful and domineering like her father, so it would definitely not work. A house down the block would be nice, though. See, I haven't really become American, even after all these years.

Seanp
21-07-17, 21:04
I don't think feminists ever wanted a husband or a partner. Their energy is all focused on work and competition with the other gender. Feminists desire to reform every cultural institution from family planning to house work. If there was a surgery which can change a woman to man I'd make a bet on how many woman would apply for it. Probably half or even more. We live in a society which was created by industrialists and snake oil salesmen and their desire were to reshape family and gender roles.
Women had to give up their traditional customs and households for profit and competition. Time for family planning is less and lost it's first priority for career and short time love.

Bergin
21-07-17, 22:03
I don't think feminists ever wanted a husband or a partner. Their energy is all focused on work and competition with the other gender. Feminists desire to reform every cultural institution from family planning to house work. If there was a surgery which can change a woman to man I'd make a bet on how many woman would apply for it. Probably half or even more. We live in a society which was created by industrialists and snake oil salesmen and their desire were to reshape family and gender roles.
Women had to give up their traditional customs and households for profit and competition. Time for family planning is less and lost it's first priority for career and short time love.

In my opinion, all women (feminist or not) can't endure a whining man that complains against the world. That has not changed over time.
It is all about being a strong person, but a pack mentality, a big car, aggressiveness, jealousy, and complaining, are typically signs of the opposite (lack of self-confidence).


Citing my own sister:
It is so damn hard to find a man that doesn't disappoint you even after 10 minutes. At the first sight of another male, most will get intimidated, defensive, or frustrated, instead of calmly understanding how proud they have to feel. And once it happen all the interest is completely gone.


I hope I don't offend you, but don't be scared of feminists so easily, they don't bite.

davef
22-07-17, 01:27
@Angela

Wow, was your meal that traumatizing? (If it was, it's ok, not judging you) I guess the simple fact that you went off to post bad reviews on whatever review site you could find indicates that it was :) ! Was the price as rediculous as the quality?

I'm just picturing you sitting there staring intensely at the screen with a furious demeanor pounding the keyboard while on Yelp :) !!

But seriously, was it just the acidity that turned you off or was there more to this?

Angela
22-07-17, 04:26
@Angela

Wow, was your meal that traumatizing? (If it was, it's ok, not judging you) I guess the simple fact that you went off to post bad reviews on whatever review site you could find indicates that it was :) ! Was the price as rediculous as the quality?

I'm just picturing you sitting there staring intensely at the screen with a furious demeanor pounding the keyboard while on Yelp :)

But seriously, was it just the acidity that turned you off or was there more to this?

Yes, I did post on Yelp, as well as others. :) It wasn't traumatizing, but it was certainly annoying.

The prices aren't like the two and three star restaurants, of course, but at 14 dollars for a starter plate of pasta it had better be edible! The glop they served me was not al dente, it was acidic, which they would have known and been able to fix if anyone had bothered to taste the sauce, and it was basically tasteless. Oh, and it wasn't hot. In other words, a mess.

This is it:
https://igx.4sqi.net/img/general/1600x1200/12183939_Xp1Nr0FVTKmyKiwwZrwAkdZdnaHIycMtdT9Y3e_jX yw.jpg

Spaghetti al pomodoro is a very simple dish, but precisely because it's so simple, each and every ingredient has to be of the highest quality. For the
"classic" recipe you need sweet, top quality tomatoes either fresh, in which case it's best to use cherry tomatoes imo, or peeled tomatoes, San Marzano if possible, and excellent olive oil and basil. If, for some reason, the tomatoes are acidic, you can resort to adding a little sugar if necessary. You also have to be sure you salt everything enough, including the water for boiling the pasta, and you put enough oil, for goodness' sakes. The taste has to come from somewhere.

I suppose I shouldn't have ordered it. When I make it myself I follow our recipe, which means using the peeled, canned tomatoes, a soffrito of carrot, celery and onion in it as well as one sprig of garlic and basil; I like the taste much better, and the onion and carrot take care of any acidity.

Sort of like this...the only thing I would change is that with both types I would include one clove of garlic with the green spine removed (and then take it out when golden). He's absolutely right...you have to use warm plates. And serve it immediately before it gets cold!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp3WqY3P0pM


When I post letters to the editor or even reviews, I channel my inner Oriana Fallaci. Nobody messed with her. :) She's the Italian journalist who complained to Khomeini about women having to wear chadors, and when he said it had nothing to do with her, it only applied to their women, she said something like "Great! So I don't have to wear this medieval rag" and yanked it off.

http://static.dagospia.com/img/foto/11-2013/foto-oriana-fallaci-279852.jpg

The gaze only became more withering with age...She certainly didn't tolerate fools, as I so often have to do...I have to practice "the look"...I seem too kind and compassionate most of the time, especially in my private life...easy to take advantage of...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Oriana_Fallaci_2.jpg

davef
22-07-17, 07:20
14 bucks for that???? That's barely enough to feed an anorexic chicken!!!! Around me, you can get a serving of pasta that would fill an elephant at that price!!!
There's a site called ripoffreport.com. If you haven't been there, it's never too late to use this platform and protect others from this snake oil kiosk.

And as far as quality assurance is concerned, every 1-3 starred restaurant needs to execute a davef test...if the item doesn't satisfy my palate (measured by the concentration of seratonin and dopamine released by my brain) the chef is automatically fired. 4-5 star restaurants would be better off with the Angela test! If this becomes a reality, lower chefs who perform poorly would tremble in fear when they see me escorted by their managers. They know the tale of the dreaded davef.

It should be easy for any chef to pass the davef test ..which is why you should avoid any restaurant caled "Davef's"...I can see it now...you running into my office to complain...moments later you write a bad review complaining about the food and the fact that the owner was found asleep, playing chess, etc...lol