I believe in traditional gender roles. (People look at me like I’m an alien when I tell them this)

[rothaer]

Nothing wrong with such roles imo. I'm German and my first (German) wife was a housewife and that was fine for me. And now I do have a (German) wife that is working close to fulltime, which is fine for me as well. And I do have a number of children with both. So there are different models working.

And indeed it's a myth women did not work in middle ages in Europe (this was commented above). Just upper class did mostly not.

[Peterski]

And indeed it's a myth women did not work in middle ages in Europe (this was commented above). Just upper class did mostly not.

Yes, BUT (!) upper class males/men also did not work. In Poland it was true for both genders among the Szlachta (Nobility):

Hence the saying "Szlachta Nie Pracuje" ("Nobility Does Not Work") - and it applies to both men and women:

Nothing wrong with such roles imo.

IF she can find a guy who accepts this! But today most young men are feminists and require a woman who has her own money.

If what I'm saying was not true, this thread would not exist - because guys would not be blocking her. Right?

[rothaer]

[Question already answered]

[rothaer]

Yes, BUT (!) upper class males/men also did not work. In Poland it was true for both genders among the Szlachta (Nobility):

With upper class I also refer to wealthy citizens. These men did work.

[Peterski]

Can you also tell how it should be the best way in your opinion?

Having your own business is the best. Or working remotely from home. The IT crowd and so on.

With upper class I also refer to wealthy citizens. These men did work.

Yes but if they were looking for a housewife, they usually did not look for a 27 years old housewife, but for a younger one.

And by the way there was a thing called dowry in the past - a man received money from wife's parents for marrying her.

So daughters of wealthy parents had it better.

And there was no such high 50% divorce risk.

Today, marriage has become obsolete, I think.

[Peterski]

Can you also tell how it should be the best way in your opinion?

You're not wrong at all. All our ancestors used to be like that, rejecting this would be rejecting our lifestyle's ancestors. Men should sustain the house working while women sustain the family being happy with their children.

In the early 20th century before women en masse entered the workforce, men were earning 2x as much as now for the same job, relatively to living costs. Opening the workforce for women devaluated the value of work, so that everything became more expensive, and wages did not rise proportionately.

Today, most people do not earn as much that one person can sustain a family, hence usually both in a couple need to work.

In 1950s America, a man working as a factory worker could sustain a family. Today in America, it is impossible.

This is largely the consequence of feminism, that men started earning less for the same job, relatively to living costs.

In general everything is more expensive now than for the "Boomers" generation:





The world has changed you cannot have "traditional values" or whatever in a world that is very different than 100 years ago.

There are some women which want to be a housewife but don’t want to even do chores though. If it’s a prior agreement then fair enough but the housewife should contribute through cooking/cleaning if she won’t work and shouldn’t expect a free ride. It’s not an agreement I would personally want though,’and even if I did it isn’t really possible to live a comfortable life in a city like London with a family and one person working unless your job is incredibly well paid.


It’s also risky in our modern divorce heavy society to go into such an agreement as a man imo; when marriage was for life it wasn’t but chances are you could have a divorce one day and lose half your shit. At least when both individuals work this will be negated slightly.

There is a thing called prenuptial agreement.

[rothaer]

Yes but if they were looking for a housewife, they usually did not look for a 27 years old housewife, but for a younger one.

And by the way there was a thing called dowry in the past - a man received money from wife's parents for marrying her.

Today, marriage has become obsolete, I think.

- Correct, though my first wife was 28, but if you are willing then and do hurry a bit, you can still accomplish a lot.

- I've repeatedly made a topic of the lacking dowry, at least morally! ;-) ;-) But to be honest, I've even rejected larger contributions from her family's side (though not being wealthy myself), because I felt it would make me more unfree.

- As for a formal marriage I've actually somewhat changed my mind, when I realised that it very likely was an implemented tool by the church (as a "must") to then being able to enforce marriage bans, which had the sole purpose to destroy clan structures (as being competing power structures) in Central Europe. This has worked well and today Central European population now since centuries is atomised into unbound single individuals, that can not even imagine to be anything else anymore. However, this insight got me to somewhat see a formal marriage less a "must". Unregraded this, a at least somewhat enduring connection of man and woman seems natural and advantagous. Basically like it was before this oriental and intolerant monotheism intruded into Europe.

[Ranger0075]

In the early 20th century before women en masse entered the workforce, men were earning 2x as much as now for the same job, relatively to living costs. Opening the workforce for women devaluated the value of work, so that everything became more expensive, and wages did not rise proportionately.

Today, most people do not earn as much that one person can sustain a family, hence usually both in a couple need to work.

In 1950s America, a man working as a factory worker could sustain a family. Today in America, it is impossible.

This is largely the consequence of feminism, that men started earning less for the same job, relatively to living costs.

In general everything is more expensive now than for the "Boomers" generation:





The world has changed you cannot have "traditional values" or whatever in a world that is very different than 100 years ago.



There is a thing called prenuptial agreement.

I disagree. A man still can sustain their family alone in any part of the world. Cost of living is high, but mostly in big cities, not in the countryside and as long you aren't interested to have "comfort", I mean, the best TV, the best smartphone, the best house or being addicted to smth which makes you wasting your money, I am sure you can live pretty well with many children and wife. This generation issue isn't cost of living cause we don't actually need most things we use daily. People are just not prepared to make sacrifices.

[Ranger0075]

If you are prepared to make sacrifices why don't you find yourself a woman who, for example, is stuck in a wheelchair and cannot work ???

You didn't get the context of my post, I am clearly talking about material sacrifices.

I know Christian countries are usually degenerated for women but not looking exactly for western countries we have to find healthy (not wealthy) women to raise our children. I am not saying I would reject a woman in a wheelchair tho, as long she can reproduce and raise their children well, I'd rather to have a relationship with her than most of western women with materialistic mindset.

[Ayetooey]

Respect to Ranger0075 for abandoning materialism and hedonism in favour of Allah. True lion of the Sunnah.