Unrealistic Expectations - Women - Entitlement Mentality

[mendeleyev]

I would be wary of any woman whose primary needs don't include love and respect. If the priority is merely not working and somebody else for one's children's education, that would not be appealing to me

Again, I'm curious as to where we disagree.

[Donna_Pedro]

f you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of the income, then you can't afford a RW. If you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of whatever those future needs are (college, dental, second family car, etc) then you can't afford to bring home that particular woman. Don't shop for what you can't afford.

how very true. these words are true regardless of what kind of relationship you are planning to have.

[Misha]

Again, I'm curious as to where we disagree.

What you are saying now, does not seem to coincide with your original statements in your post    However, I was a bit surprised to read the prior post, as it was somewhat overly categorical for you 

[mendeleyev]

Misha, I've not changed, but I do think you were reading into my post. That is okay, and yes it was firmly worded because I have strong feelings on the issue. 

[Donna_Pedro]

Nobody has a crystal ball or even capable of reading one to "know" any or all expense they may incur and that's not even what he said.

you dont need a crystal ball, you need to ask questions. a lot of questions.  and listen to answers and be truthful yourself. if a woman tells you she wants her child to go to college and you cant afford it (at least as it it is for now) - say so- I can not afford it. If you want your child to go to college he will have to count on him(her)self. Yes, if 5 years from now I hit lottery, I will put your child through school but as it is now - I can not. If your woman is telling you she does not want to work and you can not afford it - say so. She is probably not your woman. You need to start looking for someone who is willing and has an ability to work right off the plane, which  would be extremely rare and which boils down to mendeleev's statement "if you can not afford to keep a woman at home (at least for a a year) dont bring her at all".

[Faux Pas]

you dont need a crystal ball, you need to ask questions. a lot of questions.  and listen to answers and be truthful yourself. if a woman tells you she wants her child to go to college and you cant afford it (at least as it it is for now) - say so- I can not afford it. If you want your child to go to college he will have to count on him(her)self. Yes, if 5 years from now I hit lottery, I will put your child through school but as it is now - I can not. If your woman is telling you she does not want to work and you can not afford it - say so. She is probably not your woman. You need to start looking for someone who is willing and has an ability to work right off the plane, which  would be extremely rare and which boils down to mendeleev's statement "if you can not afford to keep a woman at home (at least for a a year) dont bring her at all".

There's nothing about that I can disagree with.  My crystal ball statement was a bit facetious and on purpose. The point being; it doesn't matter what the hopes and dreams of the man or woman, working or being a housewife. The man must be prepared IMHO. Mendy's post was on the mark. If you can't afford her, leave her alone. The chances are great that she won't transition right into the workforce or be the breadwinner when/if she does. Sure there are exceptions but as you mentioned, they are quite rare.

[Misha]

Misha, I've not changed, but I do think you were reading into my post. That is okay, and yes it was firmly worded because I have strong feelings on the issue. 

In that case, we clearly don't agree. How do you know that in 10, 15 or 20 years you won't be able to pay for everything? To follow your logic to the end, no man should ever get married 

[mendeleyev]

Misha, are we reading the same post?

The first part of my post wasn't just about money, but about attitude and about two people giving it 100% each. If someone is foolish enough to read that 100% as only about money, then I can't help them. In fact, I said that at the outset:

I absolutely reject the idea of a 50-50 marriage, and I'm not talking only about money. Marriage is a partnership of 100-100

I wasn't writing about a blank check or a man affording every whim and in fact acknowledged that both are involved financially, yet at any time either should be prepared to take up the slack as necessary, whether in earning ability, child rearing, washing dishes, or whatever.

How do you know that in 10, 15 or 20 years you won't be able to pay for everything?

My crystal ball isn't that bright and I carefully worded it for such. 

However for what I did say, read the post.

at certain times one of the parties may be called on to carry the 100.

Car accidents happen, children are born with extreme handicaps requiring one parent to become a round the clock caregiver while the other handles the income, the dishes, the errands, etc, jobs are lost during recessions and such.

Did I say that a woman should be pampered and catered to at every turn no matter her desires? Nope, but here is what you obviously missed:

the other spouse cannot sit on his/her arse and only do 50%

I also very purposefully resisted the mistake of measuring her contribution solely to money.

If you can only define her share of a relationship as either bringing in income or in washing dishes & cooking, then we live in two different worlds and I like mine a lot better

At the same time I'd very easily add that it would be a mistake to measure HIS contribution solely in income ability and performance.


I'll also easily stand by this statement:

If you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of the income, then you can't afford a RW.

There is no guarantee that the doctor can transfer her degree in a short time, or the lawyer pass a new bar quickly. A man must be prepared to shoulder the expense and if she ends up contributing more quickly than expected, you'll get no flack from me. But to bring someone over unprepared and underfunded is folly.

There were years when I was the main provider.

...kind of a clue that things can change.


Another clue:

These days, there are some years when she makes more than I do and that is okay, it goes into one pot anyway (which she generally manages, and manages very well).

If she stopped working on her art projects tomorrow, my mentality is to keep on doing what I was doing because that is what I do anyway, so we'll be fine.

Truth is, she is a professional and will keep on with what she is doing also.

[Misha]

Mendy,



Are you or are you not saying that you must be ready to provide 100% of income and be ready to pay for 100% of all future expenses indefinitely? Sure, you must be prepared, but both must work together to meet their future needs. Yes, she may not be able to work immediately, but in 2, 5 or 10 years this may change... At the end of the day, adults must be trusted to do what is right for them. If both know what they are getting into, then IMHO who is to judge?


Misha

[mendeleyev]

Misha, my friend...

Are you or are you not saying that you must be ready to provide 100% of income

At first of course. It is unrealistic to expect her to step out of the UPS packing, say hello to her new extended family, and head off to work.

and be ready to pay for 100% of all future expenses indefinitely?

How a couple moves forward as she adjusts is totally their call.

The fact is that none of us know what life holds and I'm ready for my wife to pay 100% of our expenses indefinitely.  I'm also ready to do the same if that is whats needed. It may not be steak and lobster (isn't that often now) but each of us needs to be prepared if that is what life hands us.

I still believe that if a man brings over a wife he knowingly can't afford, then they'll both be unhappy and as was pointed out earlier, money issues top the list in reasons for divorce.

[calmissile]

Vasilisa ,

I offer my most since  appology for my post that upset you.  I do hope that you return to the forum and resume posting.

While it is no excuse for my insensitive posting, I hope that you understand that most of the FSU women that post here not only can dish it out, but can take is as well.  My mistake for not being more sensitive to you.

[TheTraveler]

I am not a big fan of equal rights = equal responsibility in marriage.

I absolutely reject the idea of a 50-50 marriage, and I'm not talking only about money. Marriage is a partnership of 100-100 which often means that at certain times one of the parties may be called on to carry the 100. There are times when one spouse is sick, etc, and the other spouse cannot sit on his/her arse and only do 50%. When both are contributing 100-100 then love works, marriage works, kids grow up well adjusted and happy. And often 100-100 means that the man brings in all or a great majority of the income. If you can only define her share of a relationship as either bringing in income or in washing dishes & cooking, then we live in two different worlds and I like mine a lot better.

Gentlemen, the job market for most RW in the first few years is nil to minimum wage at best. In fact, the best investment you can make in the first few years is to provide English improvement classes and the chance to acclimate before she is thrown unprepared into the workplace.

A woman from your home country has advantages: She has some assets (even if just her personal clothing and "stuff"), she is fluent in the language and likely has a job history. A RW has none of this to speak of in your country.

If you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of the income, then you can't afford a RW. If you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of whatever those future needs are (college, dental, second family car, etc) then you can't afford to bring home that particular woman. Don't shop for what you can't afford.

There were years when I was the main provider. These days, there are some years when she makes more than I do and that is okay, it goes into one pot anyway (which she generally manages, and manages very well). She was paid on one project this January an amount that will take me to August or September to catch up. But there were years when she was paid little to nothing. If she stopped working on her art projects tomorrow, my mentality is to keep on doing what I was doing because that is what I do anyway, so we'll be fine.

The key word in that sentence is "we'll" be fine. I flat out reject any sense of mine versus hers. It is 100% ours or we have nothing. She is not expected to do "her share" because frankly gentlemen if we're honest when looking in the mirror, a woman usually brings more to the table in a relationship than most of men ever realize or could muster themselves. From loving us, loving our children, to improving the quality of our lives is something only a wife could manage and any attempt to define/reduce her "contribution" in financial terms is just plain silly.

Seeing everything that she brings to our family and to my life personally, I'm more concerned about keeping up with doing my share.

If you disagree, let me know when you've accomplished almost two eventful and joyful decades with a RW and then perhaps I'll listen. Until then, I'm...

Grateful that the still lovely and talented Mrs. M chose me and not some other bloke,
Mendeleyev

Mendeleyev  -- What a great, great post!

Mods?  You should make it a sticky!

[Darth_Budda]

Mendeleyev  -- What a great, great post!

Mods?  You should make it a sticky!

Nothing like waking up next to a beautiful wife, giving her and your children a kiss and than slipping out of the house early in the morning while they are still sleeping too go to work...

It gives a man a sense of purpose in life,,,

 

[mendeleyev]

Thanks to each of your for the nice comments.

Thanks also to my friend Misha, whom I respect greatly and have tons of admiration. We may disagree from time to time but that doesn't change my respect for he and his beautiful wife.

[Misha]

Misha, my friend...

At first of course. It is unrealistic to expect her to step out of the UPS packing, say hello to her new extended family, and head off to work.

And where am I saying this? If anything you seem to be catering to the other stereotype: the Russian woman as the helpless but beautiful doll that must be put on a pedestal lest she break. Again, IMVHO, married couples are composed of two adults who will both put in 100% to ensure the success of their marriage. Sometimes it does mean that she will have to work. Sometimes it means that they will have to live quite modestly on one income. One cannot know what will happen tomorrow or next year, so planning with absolute certainty is never possible.  You come up with a plan together and hope for the best. I have known some women who married young men teaching overseas and the did know they would have to work and one was working almost straight off the plane. Yet, the are still married years later. Should they not have gotten married?

[mendeleyev]

I didn't say that you were. However I don't subscribe to the stereotype you mentioned either.

[Misha]

I didn't say that you were. However I don't subscribe to the stereotype you mentioned either.

No, but if you throw in such comment when replying to me right under a quote of what I wrote, then the implication is quite clear

[OlgaH]

At first of course. It is unrealistic to expect her to step out of the UPS packing, say hello to her new extended family, and head off to work.

Mendelyeyev, I also think that all reasonable men and women do understand it and nobody here was suggesting such scenario and expectations   

[mendeleyev]

If anything you seem to be catering to the other stereotype: the Russian woman as the helpless but beautiful doll that must be put on a pedestal lest she break.

That is an implication, especially after I'd explained in simple English that:

- Marriage contributions are about more than money, but just as much about attitudes.
- BOTH parties should contribute 100%, not just the man and not just the woman.
- That there will be times in a marriage when because of circumstances one party contributes more than the other (again not just about money).
- A guy should not bring home someone he cannot afford. If he knows she has certain extraordinary needs but works at Walmart for $8 an hour, he can't afford certain things. No exactly rocket science.

Seems pretty simple to me.

I also think that all reasonable men and women do understand it and nobody here was suggesting such scenario and expectations

 Good. Although I find it difficult to understand why it was brought up if all reasonable men and women do understand it. 

[Misha]

- A guy should not bring home someone he cannot afford. If he knows she has certain extraordinary needs but works at Walmart for $8 an hour, he can't afford certain things. No exactly rocket science.

Mendy, a man should only bring home a woman who believes that she can't afford living without his love and vice versa    The money things can be resolved if there is mutual love, and that is all I have to say on the topic.

[Donna_Pedro]

Mendy, a man should only bring home a woman who believes that she can't afford living without his love and vice versa    The money things can be resolved if there is mutual love, and that is all I have to say on the topic.

WRONG! you are trying to crew a perfectly good formula with something unstable and unpredictable as love. The rule should sound exactly as mendeleev put it - A guy should not bring home someone he cannot afford regardless if he is in love or not, or better yet - especially if he is in love. Do both f you a favor - do not uproot and bring here anybody you can not afford.

[mendeleyev]

and that is all I have to say on the topic.

We've disagreed on this one, but my respect and admiration for you remains the same as always.

[OlgaH]

 Good. Although I find it difficult to understand why it was brought up if all reasonable men and women do understand it. 

and who did bring it up? not the OP as I remember 

[happyandstable]

I absolutely reject the idea of a 50-50 marriage, and I'm not talking only about money. Marriage is a partnership of 100-100

   So if she wants to stay at home and sit on her ass all day while you support her and send her kids (not yours) to college what percentage is she giving to the marriage? 0% by my reckoning

If you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of the income, then you can't afford a RW. If you can't afford to bring over a RW and provide 100% of whatever those future needs are (college, dental, second family car, etc) then you can't afford to bring home that particular woman. Don't shop for what you can't afford.

   So according to this view you “bought your wife”? Did you pay a fair price or did you get the proverbial “cheep cow”? Does she know that you “bought her” and you now own her and see her no more the any other possession you own like the carpet in your living room that you can walk all over any time it pleases you? And what about your daughters, will you sell them for what the market can bear or be offering a deal?


 Now before you go and get your panties in a wad. I am engaging in Reductio ad absurdum. The point being your whole argument is flawed right from the beginning. I do not believe any WM is shopping for a wife. They are looking for life companions to travel the journey we call life with. Now maybe you bought that cheep cow and think you owe it something because you got if for below market price ( why you would think this way about your wife is at the very least funny to me).

   For me I think OlgaH has got it right from the beginning it all depends on the individuals involved. What is right for one couple is not right for another. But to expect the man to give 100% while you sit on the couch eating bon bons and watch Married With Children reruns is a clearly entitlement point of view. Now it may be for some men this is what they are looking for. But clearly not all men are looking for that.
   As far is getting acclimated to a new country. It seems to me that if these women are looking abroad for a AM that they should already be taking English lessons as well as studding the culture. That is call taking responsibility for you future. This is a non entitlement attitude.

   Now you can say not everyone can give 100% all the time and this would be true enough. But, if all they want to do is give 0% then yes they can stay at home in the FSU. Why would any man incur all that expense when he can get there here for a fraction of the cost?

[mendeleyev]

  So according to this view you “bought your wife”? Did you pay a fair price or did you get the proverbial “cheep cow”?

First off, my wife is not a cow, cheap, expensive or otherwise.

Not at all and that was quite clear. The 100-100, as I've repeated again and again, is about ATTITUDE as much as it is about money.

I do not believe any WM is shopping for a wife. They are looking for life companions to travel the journey we call life with. Now maybe you bought that cheep cow and think you owe it something because you got if for below market price.

Apparently you didn't read the entirety of my post, as I agree that most WM are not there to buy a wife. A few perhaps but the vast majority not.

What is right for one couple is not right for another.

I've said that over and over so am glad to see you agree.

But to expect the man to give 100% while you sit on the couch eating bon bons and watch Married With Children reruns is a clearly entitlement point of view.

Wow, you really didn't read my post and could've saved yourself some time by reading it. Again, apparently we agree because here is what I said:

the other spouse cannot sit on his/her arse and only do 50%. When both are contributing 100-100 then love works, marriage works, kids grow up well adjusted and happy.

Now you can say not everyone can give 100% all the time and this would be true enough. But, if all they want to do is give 0% then yes they can stay at home in the FSU. Why would any man incur all that expense when he can get there here for a fraction of the cost?

I have no disagreement with you here either and plainly pointed that out in my 100% for BOTH parties. Looks like we both share the same "flawed" way of thinking.


I do have a question about this however,
 

Does she know that you “bought her” and you now own her and see her no more the any other possession you own like the carpet in your living room that you can walk all over any time it pleases you? And what about your daughters, will you sell them for what the market can bear or be offering a deal?

Frankly these are two of the most insipid questions I've encountered. I would challenge you to take the totality of my posts on any forum, in any article, in the Mendeleyev Journal, anywhere, and find just one place where I left the reader with the idea that I held anything but the greatest respect and devotion for my wife.

If there is one constant, and readers have cited it time after time, is my high opinion for her, her talents and her contributions to our family. I have been accused of putting her on a pedestal, but never until today has anyone said that I own her or that she is a mere possession. The fact that I've spent well over a decade warning men not to treat these ladies as a possession seems lost because of your flawed assumptions.

Finally, I didn't fly over and meet a lady for marriage. We met while working in Russia, we courted well over a year, married in Russia and lived in Russia. I complied with her family request that we practice old European courtship instead of modern "dating" and we had a blast that year! If that is your concept of "buying a wife" then we both need to go get drunk (and I rarely drink).