I was reading a recently posted article here. It was about women who are the primary financial earners in their household, and resent the fact that they have to provide for their husbands. They said something that stuck a chord with me. "He's like an extra child." It's not like I've never heard this sentiment before, or understood it. It's basically just a representation of the disdain that the women holds for having to take care of her husband, the leech.

Now, I see new meaning in this. The basic premise is that she's providing for him as though he was he child. She's essentially equating proving for a man with providing with a child. The basic disdain for this demonstrates to me that she not only resents providing for him, she also resents providing for her children. Sure, he has an extra ounce of hate because she shouldn't have to provide for him, but she's explicitly showing that she doesn't want to have to provide at all. She resents having sponges on her resources, and her man like her children, are both objects of that resentment.

Women want be the care taker of children, they don't want to have to provide for them. They find the latter unfulfilling. You never hear a man talk about his no-earning-potential wife in the same manner. Men have an intrinsic reward system built in, they like providing for women, they feel useful when they provide for their children. Women don't have this, to her, anyone who takes her money is an ungrateful leech.

It just strikes me as another demonstration of the fact that when women go to work, and play "man", they don't have any understanding of the fact that being a man doesn't involve endless taking, it involves endless giving.