Wait . OP you married this woman ?
Ehhhh

Anonymous wrote:I am dating my recent gf of 6 months and she is 42. Overall, talks a big game that she is a feminist and women's rights etc but never go 50-50 on anything. I am very liberal and progressive and agree with most of the things she says about women etc but don't understand why her walk is different than her talk. I like her and have no problem spending $s as I make a lot more than her but she sometime acts like an entitled person and wants man to take care of her like in traditional setting. Not only her, but she is also teaching her young daughter to not go 50-50 on anything with her bf and counts a small thing such as driving to see him for 50 miles as enough contribution that he should take care of all the expenses for the weekend such as hotel, food, going out for drinks, etc. Is she really a feminist if her beliefs and values are in such a way that she can't even afford her own self?

Neither feminist nor chauvinist want real equality, it seems they want to take advantage of each other.

I'm a woman, and I know many women who have extremely misogynist views but claim to be feminist. They are often openly very critical of other women for not conforming to beauty expectations, judge the worth of other women by looks, their husband's income, and material goods.

Most of them are college educated, liberal (I am also liberal), and UMC.

Their feminism is mostly performative. I do think they genuinely care about abortion rights for all women. But beyond that, they mostly want privileges for themselves, which they will call feminism, and don't think much about how women in general fare in the world. They might *say* they care, but they don't.

The part that bothers me the most is the willingness to exploit the cheap labor of poor and immigrant women in order to realize their career goals or "egalitarian" marriages. They will rely on this labor to care for their children, clean their homes, etc. Their husbands of course also consider themselves feminists, as they rely on a small army of other women to do all the caretaking. Sometimes their mothers also perform some of this work (almost never fathers).

If you ask them questions about this set up, they get mad. But they fervently believe they are feminists. It's fascinating.

She just isn’t hot enough to be pulling this kind of behavior. Men will tolerate a lot if a woman fits their ideal or hotness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here. Expecting the man to pay for everything is not cool. And it comes at a price, be it sexual expectations, loss of respect, weird power dynamic, or simply reinforcing stereotypical gender roles.

If one person makes more and both parties are comfortable, that person can pay more. But both parties should be paying and taking on that responsibility. It feels nice to be treated!

I am also a feminist and I agree with that approach. Particular after the exclusivity is established and the relationship is more long term. But OP's GF seems to be in a dare financial situation. Men usually cover everything when woman is that much in debt paying for kids college etc. It was OP's CHOICE to date another broke woman, after divorcing his ex-wife who, according to him, also couldn't contribute as equal partner.

Why does OP keep choosing women who cannot contribute financially at his own standards? He should be screening for women who have similar lifestyle to his

My guess. is that OP actually enjoys the sexual benefits, likes to control with money maybe even subconsciously. It's nice to always have a partner he can put down, blame her for something, tell her she's not worthy his greatness, and feels well above her, right?

Whoa, holy projection.

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here. Expecting the man to pay for everything is not cool. And it comes at a price, be it sexual expectations, loss of respect, weird power dynamic, or simply reinforcing stereotypical gender roles.

If one person makes more and both parties are comfortable, that person can pay more. But both parties should be paying and taking on that responsibility. It feels nice to be treated!

I am also a feminist and I agree with that approach. Particular after the exclusivity is established and the relationship is more long term. But OP's GF seems to be in a dare financial situation. Men usually cover everything when woman is that much in debt paying for kids college etc. It was OP's CHOICE to date another broke woman, after divorcing his ex-wife who, according to him, also couldn't contribute as equal partner.

Why does OP keep choosing women who cannot contribute financially at his own standards? He should be screening for women who have similar lifestyle to his

My guess. is that OP actually enjoys the sexual benefits, likes to control with money maybe even subconsciously. It's nice to always have a partner he can put down, blame her for something, tell her she's not worthy his greatness, and feels well above her, right?

Feminist here. Expecting the man to pay for everything is not cool. And it comes at a price, be it sexual expectations, loss of respect, weird power dynamic, or simply reinforcing stereotypical gender roles.

If one person makes more and both parties are comfortable, that person can pay more. But both parties should be paying and taking on that responsibility. It feels nice to be treated!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My ex-wife, the product of waspy boarding schools and a cushy upbringing, became a vocal "anti-white-patriarchy" progressive who believes women got and still get a raw deal.

Her raw deal included making $100k with summers off while contributing ZERO to mortgage, utilities, car payments / insurance, phone costs, college savings, vacation flights, hotels, college savings, tech equipment, kids' gear, and 95% of restaurant dinners. Yep, I made more -- but < $250k.

Maybe she is an outlier, but I'm not so sure.

Why did you marry her?

Some people are just users and act like a victim and hide behind any term whether it’s feminist or whatever else.

It's quite ironic that you say the woman is the user, but in reality men are the real users, displacing much of the work of home and life onto women in the relational sphere, and much other kinds of administrative and relational work in the work world.

Why would a man who earns more expect to go 50/50 instead of a prorated portion according to income? That is using the woman. Why would a man expect a woman to come over and cook for his kids when her kids are not there. That is using a woman to provide parenting services to children that are not hers. OFC, if I was invited to someone else's home, I wouldn't dream of cooking for them. If they weren't prepared to cook a meal in their home, I would expect them to order out.

It's weird how men with money don't recognize that when they expect a 50/50 financial contribution that's "equality" but they aren't willing to take care of their own business (their own children) fully on their own instead, expecting another woman to contribute, i.e. they aren't willing to recognize 50/50 in areas of life which require effort but that effort can't be measured by 50/50 in terms of payment.

LOL! where did you read that OP's gf is paying anything? She is paying 0 and not contributing in any other way either and that's why she is a fake feminist. She is just using OP and lazy that doesn't want to take care of anything.

Because she's in the red financially and OP is net positive. OP chose to date the woman in the red/large debts. I wouldn't expect a man pay anything if I knew they were in need and we were in love. Women support unemployed husbands all the time.
OP needs to date someone his age in his financial position if he wants equal contribution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My ex-wife, the product of waspy boarding schools and a cushy upbringing, became a vocal "anti-white-patriarchy" progressive who believes women got and still get a raw deal.

Her raw deal included making $100k with summers off while contributing ZERO to mortgage, utilities, car payments / insurance, phone costs, college savings, vacation flights, hotels, college savings, tech equipment, kids' gear, and 95% of restaurant dinners. Yep, I made more -- but < $250k.

Maybe she is an outlier, but I'm not so sure.

Why did you marry her?

Some people are just users and act like a victim and hide behind any term whether it’s feminist or whatever else.

It's quite ironic that you say the woman is the user, but in reality men are the real users, displacing much of the work of home and life onto women in the relational sphere, and much other kinds of administrative and relational work in the work world.

Why would a man who earns more expect to go 50/50 instead of a prorated portion according to income? That is using the woman. Why would a man expect a woman to come over and cook for his kids when her kids are not there. That is using a woman to provide parenting services to children that are not hers. OFC, if I was invited to someone else's home, I wouldn't dream of cooking for them. If they weren't prepared to cook a meal in their home, I would expect them to order out.

It's weird how men with money don't recognize that when they expect a 50/50 financial contribution that's "equality" but they aren't willing to take care of their own business (their own children) fully on their own instead, expecting another woman to contribute, i.e. they aren't willing to recognize 50/50 in areas of life which require effort but that effort can't be measured by 50/50 in terms of payment.

LOL! where did you read that OP's gf is paying anything? She is paying 0 and not contributing in any other way either and that's why she is a fake feminist. She is just using OP and lazy that doesn't want to take care of anything.

Anonymous wrote:I think, based upon this post alone, that your relationship is over and you should sever. You are a misogynist and full of hatred. She should be glad to be rid of you because you are looking for fault.

No, this looks like the other way around. OP has been supporting his GF and has concerns which is what he is discussing here. If 1/2 of what he said is true then his GF is a user and she will never be able to find anyone to be in relationship. Being selfish and a user is the easiest way to kill a relationship. She would stay more bitter after the break-up before easy gravy train has stopped and now she has to work hard again to find another sucker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My ex-wife, the product of waspy boarding schools and a cushy upbringing, became a vocal "anti-white-patriarchy" progressive who believes women got and still get a raw deal.

Her raw deal included making $100k with summers off while contributing ZERO to mortgage, utilities, car payments / insurance, phone costs, college savings, vacation flights, hotels, college savings, tech equipment, kids' gear, and 95% of restaurant dinners. Yep, I made more -- but < $250k.

Maybe she is an outlier, but I'm not so sure.

Why did you marry her?

Some people are just users and act like a victim and hide behind any term whether it’s feminist or whatever else.

It's quite ironic that you say the woman is the user, but in reality men are the real users, displacing much of the work of home and life onto women in the relational sphere, and much other kinds of administrative and relational work in the work world.

Why would a man who earns more expect to go 50/50 instead of a prorated portion according to income? That is using the woman. Why would a man expect a woman to come over and cook for his kids when her kids are not there. That is using a woman to provide parenting services to children that are not hers. OFC, if I was invited to someone else's home, I wouldn't dream of cooking for them. If they weren't prepared to cook a meal in their home, I would expect them to order out.

It's weird how men with money don't recognize that when they expect a 50/50 financial contribution that's "equality" but they aren't willing to take care of their own business (their own children) fully on their own instead, expecting another woman to contribute, i.e. they aren't willing to recognize 50/50 in areas of life which require effort but that effort can't be measured by 50/50 in terms of payment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My ex-wife, the product of waspy boarding schools and a cushy upbringing, became a vocal "anti-white-patriarchy" progressive who believes women got and still get a raw deal.

Her raw deal included making $100k with summers off while contributing ZERO to mortgage, utilities, car payments / insurance, phone costs, college savings, vacation flights, hotels, college savings, tech equipment, kids' gear, and 95% of restaurant dinners. Yep, I made more -- but < $250k.

Maybe she is an outlier, but I'm not so sure.

Why did you marry her?

Because she presented herself as strong independent woman. During courtship, I felt obliged to pay for meals and trips. But silly me, it never occurred to me that she wouldn't step up to "partner" status once married. A strong, feminist adult dependent

Anonymous wrote:Op here. Her daughters are 24 and 20 and not young. Older one has a low paying job after a college degree and her mother expects me to cover some of the frivolous expenses for her daughter and I said NO.

She's bad with money and wants some. This is just a person who wants to use you. Get out now.

I think, based upon this post alone, that your relationship is over and you should sever. You are a misogynist and full of hatred. She should be glad to be rid of you because you are looking for fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not anti-feminist and (I’ll look for the link) where someone explains the non measurable items women contribute to when thinking about 50/50.

From women make $.67 to your dollar, cost of birth control, the safety issues women face dating and bringing you around her daughter, grocery shopping, eating at her home, the cost of her clothing/makeup/staying fit, the amount of unequal care they offer, on and on and on. Dating is very expensive for women financially, emotionally, etc.

I was just quoted $1500 for an IUd insertion. Not to mention the side effects, extreme pain, removal, etc.

Men really underestimate the BS we go through so they can get laid.

So, you don’t want sex for yourself?

Weird. I had an IUD inserted so I could have a piece of mind when I have sex.

PP. I prefer using condoms, because I don’t like the side effects of BC and I don’t like pain. It can also be quite expensive.

I’ve found about half of men are fine with condoms, the other half complain they can’t feel anything. Very difficult to find one willing to get a vasectomy, even if they don’t want kids.

It’s very weird to me that men can be okay with a woman they claim to care about go through excruciating pain or bad side effects, just so they don’t have to wear a condom.

So if I have to compromise and do something I don’t really want to do, and pay a lot of money for it, I expect men to do the same in some way. Or, they can wrap it up.

I have no interest in men who refuse to wear condoms and also want to split things 50/50. That’s entitlement, and it’s a total ick.