Unemployed girlfriend of 3 years pressing to have a baby

runningwoman

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Yes, I know it's the Daily Mail but..

"But I do believe that any man who moves in with a woman in her late 30s or early 40s should take it as read that she will want to use them to procreate, by fair means or foul, no matter how much she protests otherwise.

A 2001 survey revealed that 42 per cent of women would lie about using contraception in order to get pregnant in spite of their partners’ wishes."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html#ixzz1cftXBLQ7

Not my line unfortunately, but in response to this I saw a chap write something along the lines of "the only way someone would convince me to be intimate with a Daily Mail writer is by force I can see his point.

runningwoman

embob74 wrote: »

I agree that the OP is supporting his OH and being a little browbeaten for it by people who would probably be more outraged if they were asking what benefits she could claim.
However it is the OP who seems most bothered by the fact his gf does not work or contribute to the finances.
It's great that you managed to find so many men to keep you and I am a little jealous as no man has ever totally supported me financially but in your case it seems the men were happy to do so.
I know from experience that when money is tight it is easy to feel resentful of a partners lack of contribution or overspending. I think the OP is wise to be dealing with the matter now as resentment can quickly grow and after many sleepless nights and worry of how you can afford the baby's nappies and milk there will come a time when things reach a head and a lot of relationships may not survive the fallout.

Ha ha, well my dubious looks are fading fast (regularly struggle cycling in as motorists see me and think "there goes the back end of a bus") so I suspect I may have to make some serious money soon to keep me in toyboys - I think relying on my nice supportive personality or my cooking skills might be a VERY high risk strategy

Of course I agree with everything you've written. You seem to be one of the few addressing the core issue sensitively, which is a lot better than the whole "flog her and burn her" approach that's made me go :eek:

I got the impression from the OP that the issue for him wasn't having a non-working partner in itself, but the situation it had led to. There's a difference. If the OP was on double his income and there were no money worries then one gets the impression the responses would still have been WHY ISN'T SHE CONTRIBUTING?!!!

I'd hope women's lib gave us more choices, not the chance to go "feel guilty if you're not in a PROPER JOB and bringing in money and you should validate your own choices by trying to make other women feel guilty if they're not in a PROPER JOB".

I went to a very good all girls school (hated it) and in my peer group, it was a bit like "if you DON'T want to be a doctor/lawyer/banker/serious academic then you're a failure". And this at sixteen? :eek: There wasn't much scope for girls like me who just wanted to play around for a bit, weren't sure of what they wanted to do with at the end of the line.

I went to see Germaine Greer speak a few years ago and she said that there seems to have been a minor post feminist backlash because women don't want to be doing EXACTLY the same jobs as men. Women aren't men! (checks underwear, nods :eek:)

And anecdotally, I'd agree with this. I had the impression my beaus HAD to be out negotiating contracts/doing something dull with property or shares/playing some hideous sport involving pain and bloodshed and mud and hitting other men - possibly all at once /representing our dubious foreign policy interests in Arab states/making a decent income because it made them feel more "them".

But I've never felt my identity to be as "tied" to a high status job or my bank balance or my ability to be a "provider" as any chap I've been with. I agree some women may be different - I knew girls at school who were determined to be doctors and pretty evangelical about the whole career woman thing, who wouldn't have been comfortable not having a "dual income, dual glittering career style family".

But everyone's different in what ticks their boxes. I'm....ahem....late twenties and there is no way I was even comfortable with myself as a person ten years ago let alone qualified enough emotionally to be able to say "look, this will be my wonderful career and what I will study towards for the next six years.".

I'm glad I've sort of shuffled into my vocation now but I don't think I, or any woman, should EVER feel ashamed about considering being a lower or non earning partner or one without a career.

(Don't get me wrong, If I was in a family unit where I had kids but had to work in a soul destroying job for some reason, I'd suck it up, do what I had to do, but I certainly wouldn't be happy about it and I wouldn't be ashamed to admit it wasn't what I wanted for myself :cool:. )

(Gawd I need tea, now.)

(note: HOW FAR HAS THIS THREAD DIGRESSED? :eek:)

Oldernotwiser

purple.sarah wrote: »

She said there is a word for children born out of wedlock (like me). I think we all know what that word is. How is that not judging those children and their parents? I feel judged.

The word exists and that's its definition - get over it.

MissMoneypenny

runningwoman wrote: »

Not my line unfortunately, but in response to this I saw a chap write something along the lines of "the only way someone would convince me to be intimate with a Daily Mail writer is by force I can see his point.

:rotfl:I can't see that happening.

Man goes out on the pull. Get's his chance then asks "are you a daily mail reader?" Girl says "yes". Man then just goes home to bed, alone.

Sixer

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I also think MC's posts are insightful. I don't think of them as particularly judgmental, though.

I said inciteful. You said insightful. Were you punning and I missed the tongue in the cheek? Each to their own, but I do not personally see MC's bar steward post as insightful. I see it as both inciteful and judgemental. Judgemental might be a matter of opinion, but the subsequent posts reacting to it seem to make any discussion about inciteful academic. If it hadn't been inciteful nobody would have responded.

You've also taken the specific to the general. I was commenting on one of MC's posts, not her entire MSE oevre.

MissMoneypenny

runningwoman wrote: »

I went to see Germaine Greer speak a few years ago and she said that there seems to have been a minor post feminist backlash because women don't want to be doing EXACTLY the same jobs as men. Women aren't men! (checks underwear, nods :eek:)

It makes me laugh when I hear things referred to as "mens jobs"; "mens sports" etc.

My aunt (born in 1898) earned much more than her husband. She was a senior manager and he was an electrician and it was her wages that bought the house and paid for all their staff that lived in. My female cousin is a plumber. My daughter is an Astrophysicist.

I worked in finance when there was very few women doing this job (and this is still the case) and earned much more than my OH. I competed in sports that were considered "mens sports". I did a degree with the OU that is considered to be a "mans degree" too by some and was even told to sit on the "female" side of the room at one exam, until they realised I was doing the maths paper and got a "how unusual for a woman to do that".

I had a house before I got married in 1980 and when my husband moved in, the Tax Office wrote and asked him if he minded me still getting the tax relief on the mortgage. He didn't earn enough to pay the mortgage!

It doesn't mean that we want to do what a man does; but rather that we want to have a job; degree; compete in sports, that we enjoy. The money is a bonus, as "womens jobs" pay less i.e nurses, speach therapists.

melly1980

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The word exists and that's its definition - get over it.

Great

So given that the word retard also exists then it is perfectly fine for me to brand her a retard for expressing !!!!!! views that are offensive to others?

Oldernotwiser

melly1980 wrote: »

Great

So given that the word retard also exists then it is perfectly fine for me to brand her a retard for expressing !!!!!! views that are offensive to others?

There's nothing !!!!!! about thinking that a planned pregnancy should take place within a marriage - unfashionable perhaps.

There's also nothing !!!!!! about the fact that the word b@stard (ooh, I've said it now!) is the correct word for a child born outside marriage.

If you choose to give that word a pejorative meaning then that strikes me as more representative of your views than anybody else's.

Sixer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

There's nothing !!!!!! about thinking that a planned pregnancy should take place within a marriage - unfashionable perhaps.

There's also nothing !!!!!! about the fact that the word b@stard (ooh, I've said it now!) is the correct word for a child born outside marriage.

If you choose to give that word a pejorative meaning then that strikes me as more representative of your views than anybody else's.

Oh come on, ONW!

I agree that someone has a perfect right to the opinion that children should be born within marriages.

But to suggest that bar steward doesn't have an overwhelmingly pejorative meaning today (and by extension that MC didn't know that perfectly well) is complete cobblers.

It's not of the same order as, say, partner and boy/girlfriend. At all.

melly1980

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

There's nothing !!!!!! about thinking that a planned pregnancy should take place within a marriage - unfashionable perhaps.
.

Its !!!!!! when you think it because your invisible friend in the sky told you that it should be that way :rotfl: