If that's what you're in to, then go for it, nothing wrong with it, I am sure guys do the same with women in a lot of ways (financially, etc), so if a woman wants to do it for a man, I see no problem with it.
Personally, I like the idea of women such as yourself. Obviously not like I would want all women to be like that, however it is nice to hear a woman say that she would want to take care of a man rather than have a man take care of her. Quite opposed to gender roles, which I think is pretty cool.
That being said, I don't think it's how it "should" or "shouldn't" be, I think we can be people such as yourself if we like and not be if we so choose.
Maybe it is a bit extreme to say he shouldn't have to do anything, though.
I don't think her role is in opposition to traditional gender roles at all. My image of the OP was of a woman who did all the cooking and cleaning and housework, which is exactly traditional gender roles. She even used the word "serve", a strongly submissive word, which I thought was a dead giveaway. In traditional gender roles the men and women do vaguely equal amounts of working and caring; it's the type of work and care that is divided by gender. In her ideal situation, it would only be the man who wasn't fulfilling traditional gender roles.
Totally agree that there is no "should" or "should not" about this, of course. Be who you want.
I need a lazy guy in my life!
← View full post
If that's what you're in to, then go for it, nothing wrong with it, I am sure guys do the same with women in a lot of ways (financially, etc), so if a woman wants to do it for a man, I see no problem with it.
Personally, I like the idea of women such as yourself. Obviously not like I would want all women to be like that, however it is nice to hear a woman say that she would want to take care of a man rather than have a man take care of her. Quite opposed to gender roles, which I think is pretty cool.
That being said, I don't think it's how it "should" or "shouldn't" be, I think we can be people such as yourself if we like and not be if we so choose.
Maybe it is a bit extreme to say he shouldn't have to do anything, though.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
I don't think her role is in opposition to traditional gender roles at all. My image of the OP was of a woman who did all the cooking and cleaning and housework, which is exactly traditional gender roles. She even used the word "serve", a strongly submissive word, which I thought was a dead giveaway. In traditional gender roles the men and women do vaguely equal amounts of working and caring; it's the type of work and care that is divided by gender. In her ideal situation, it would only be the man who wasn't fulfilling traditional gender roles.
Totally agree that there is no "should" or "should not" about this, of course. Be who you want.
--
Anonymous Post Author
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well someone understands