OT - Couples and buying stuff together

NGale

lost_in_thought wrote:

@DDD

You know it's a 'pre-nup' not a 'pre-nump', right? I don't know what numptials are exactly...

And actually I think there's a real element of truth in the 'it's the feminists' fault' line. Women can't have it both ways.

Too true! I would love to be able to give up work or go part time, but financially it cannot be done, I have to work to pay my debts

will I ever be in a position to give up work? maybe, but then I will be most likely have to continue working beyond retirement in order to maintain a decent style of living.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

@DDD

You know it's a 'pre-nup' not a 'pre-nump', right? I don't know what numptials are exactly...

And actually I think there's a real element of truth in the 'it's the feminists' fault' line. Women can't have it both ways.

Eh? (and this is weird that I'm arguing this point with LiT, who might otherwise have been married off to a suitable family) What the hell is both ways anyway? If you mean have children AND have a career, then, assuming they can either afford the childcare, or find themselves a househusband (they do exist, we have a number as clients) then it's perfectly possible. I don't think you can take several years out of full time employment to bring some children up and not expect it to have an effect on your career trajectory, but this applies to both sexes. Any particular evidence that 'having it both ways/all' is the central goal of feminism or is it just a load of reactionary nonsense that has been repeated so much that people take it as Gospel?

And breathe.

Aidy

rjsterry wrote:

Any particular evidence that 'having it both ways/all' is the central goal of feminism or is it just a load of reactionary nonsense that has been repeated so much that people take it as Gospel?

And breathe.

I know it doesn't count as evidence, being anecdotal, but I have "spoken" to a number of feminists who have the opinion that they should be allowed to take years out for children, be paid the same as men, and expect the same career progression.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I sometimes wonder how this all relates to 'feminism' and 'consumerism'

My grandfather worked every day as a bricklayer while my grandmother stayed at home in the traditional wife role.

His role in the family was to bring home his wage packet which he would literally hand over to her on a Friday so the bills etc could be paid, he would not see it again, save for a couple of pounds for green fees and the odd flutter on the horses

She did everything around the house, that was her role in the family, the kitchen her domain and was a virtual no go area for him. From the day she got married she never worked a day outside the home.

The were blissfully happy for 50 years until she passed away.


I can't help thinking that due to a combination of feminism and the consumerist desire for more stuff we have lost something

Yes! That's it! It's the fault of the bloody women!

Tell you what - I'll build the pyre, while you round 'em up. Snap to it though - time is money!

No! I've got one better, lets just revert them back to being 'barefoot and pregnant'.

You two take the shoes off. I'll...er...do the other task... :P

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

@DDD

You know it's a 'pre-nup' not a 'pre-nump', right? I don't know what numptials are exactly...

And actually I think there's a real element of truth in the 'it's the feminists' fault' line. Women can't have it both ways.

Eh? (and this is weird that I'm arguing this point with LiT, who might otherwise have been married off to a suitable family) What the hell is both ways anyway? If you mean have children AND have a career, then, assuming they can either afford the childcare, or find themselves a househusband (they do exist, we have a number as clients) then it's perfectly possible. I don't think you can take several years out of full time employment to bring some children up and not expect it to have an effect on your career trajectory, but this applies to both sexes. Any particular evidence that 'having it both ways/all' is the central goal of feminism or is it just a load of reactionary nonsense that has been repeated so much that people take it as Gospel?

And breathe.

Hmmmm, that should have been explained more, eh?

What I meant was more that women can't decide to stop working and expect their life to carry on around them as if nothing has changed.

I also don't think it's fair or right that anyone expects to take months or years out of their work and come back to the same job/promotion etc.

I don't know what the central goal is of feminism any more, but I do know that for me and most of my female friends it's become a dirty word.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Women can't have it both ways.

They can, I've seen it on the internet.

Ooooowww! That's a LiT rolled up newspaper thumping offence, and no mistake...

*rollrollrollTHWACK

NGale

Aidy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Any particular evidence that 'having it both ways/all' is the central goal of feminism or is it just a load of reactionary nonsense that has been repeated so much that people take it as Gospel?

And breathe.

I know it doesn't count as evidence, being anecdotal, but I have "spoken" to a number of feminists who have the opinion that they should be allowed to take years out for children, be paid the same as men, and expect the same career progression.

women are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they decide to have children and take a few years out of work they are seen by the feminist brigade as a sell out to male sexism, if they decide not to have kids and concentrate on their careers they again seen as selling out, this time by women who say they are denying their femininity

DonDaddyD

NGale wrote:

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

On the strength of this post, especially about beef!

You and I could never work.

rjsterry wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

For it to both be 'ours' surely we would need to pay for the item together?

There's your trouble right there.

Indeed.

You may have a point, I am displaying only child syndrome. I suppose, if its something I really want I should get it myself and if its something the house needs we should get it together.

rjsterry wrote:

or find themselves a househusband (they do exist, we have a number as clients)

WTF? Dude, hook a brotha up!!!
What clients? Sounds kinky.
Hang on, you're don't run one of those clubs that requires 'sharing' do you...

rjsterry

Aidy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Any particular evidence that 'having it both ways/all' is the central goal of feminism or is it just a load of reactionary nonsense that has been repeated so much that people take it as Gospel?

And breathe.

I know it doesn't count as evidence, being anecdotal, but I have "spoken" to a number of feminists who have the opinion that they should be allowed to take years out for children, be paid the same as men, and expect the same career progression.

The error in this argument is that men don't have this luxury either. If I took, say, 5 years out to bring up my daughter, my career would stall, and I'd be at best 5 years behind my peers, and probably more, as most of my knowledge would be out of date. In fact, if I hadn't maintained my professional membership subscriptions and CPD, I'd probably have to re-sit some exams to prove I was still up to scratch.

The problem is that, as women are often less well paid, it usually makes financial sense for her to take a career break, and the father to keep earning rather than the other way round. In the case of the househusbands I mentioned, the reverse is the case: she earns a lot more than him, so he has taken the career break to raise the children.

NGale

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

On the strength of this post, especially about beef!

You and I could never work.

can't handle the stuff, can't stand the smell, makes me feel sick and eating the stuff makes me sick.

I also hate cooking, and don't like food as a whole. I eat because I have to not because I want to.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

or find themselves a househusband (they do exist, we have a number as clients)

WTF? Dude, hook a brotha up!!!
What clients? Sounds kinky.
Hang on, you're don't run one of those clubs that requires 'sharing' do you...

Nowhere near (sorry to disappoint). Her something high up in banking/corporate lawyer type, Him a writer/DJ/caterer - that kind of thing. Most of them are WAY out of your league DDD

DonDaddyD

So where does househusband as clients come into it?

Don't judge a man by his posts. I think my "league" would surprise many.

DonDaddyD

NGale wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

On the strength of this post, especially about beef!

You and I could never work.

can't handle the stuff, can't stand the smell, makes me feel sick and eating the stuff makes me sick.

I also hate cooking, and don't like food as a whole. I eat because I have to not because I want to.

:shock:

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

So where does househusband as clients come into it?

Don't judge a man by his posts. I think my "league" would surprise many.

We design their houses.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

On the strength of this post, especially about beef!

You and I could never work.

can't handle the stuff, can't stand the smell, makes me feel sick and eating the stuff makes me sick.

I also hate cooking, and don't like food as a whole. I eat because I have to not because I want to.

:shock:

While we're on the subject of food, Mrs RJS made the mother of all chocolate cakes last week. The cake itself contained about 300g of chocolate, with a further 200g melted and spread over the top. It was so rich you could only eat one small slice at a time. We thought it should be called CTFU.

NGale

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

On the strength of this post, especially about beef!

You and I could never work.

can't handle the stuff, can't stand the smell, makes me feel sick and eating the stuff makes me sick.

I also hate cooking, and don't like food as a whole. I eat because I have to not because I want to.

:shock:

While we're on the subject of food, Mrs RJS made the mother of all chocolate cakes last week. The cake itself contained about 300g of chocolate, with a further 200g melted and spread over the top. It was so rich you could only eat one small slice at a time. We thought it should be called CTFU.

:shock: :shock:

I can barely cope with a packet of chocolate buttons these days let alone chocolate cake.

By rights I should be about 8 stone with the amount I eat

Cafewanda

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

NGale wrote:

Jake has had to deal with the fact that I am rubbish at cooking, if he wants a proper meal he will eat in the wardroom and on a sunday if I'm not working I can just about rustle up a roast chicken. I'm also not bad at cottage pie and lasange. Anything else and I just can't be doing with it.

Beef no longer enters the house as I can't stand the stuff, so if he wants a steak then we eat out.

On the strength of this post, especially about beef!

You and I could never work.

can't handle the stuff, can't stand the smell, makes me feel sick and eating the stuff makes me sick.

I also hate cooking, and don't like food as a whole. I eat because I have to not because I want to.

:shock:

While we're on the subject of food, Mrs RJS made the mother of all chocolate cakes last week. The cake itself contained about 300g of chocolate, with a further 200g melted and spread over the top. It was so rich you could only eat one small slice at a time. We thought it should be called CTFU.

So where was I when this was being sampled? Me like chocolate tres muchas