3 ms·

1. Many women want the option to stay home and raise their own children, at least for a few years. If a woman marries an otherwise-wonderful man who earns half

1. Many women want the option to stay home and raise their own children, at least for a few years. If a woman marries an otherwise-wonderful man who earns half her salary, she will not be able to easily stay home with her own child while maintaining their former standard of living. So there are some logistical concerns here that just aren't there for men. Perhaps in a country with a lot of paid maternity leave, these issues would not be as pronounced. 2. I have trouble with the blanket statement that women "want established males" "biologically and evolutionarily speaking." We live in a society. Peoples' behavior in a society is not some mystery that can only be deciphered by looking at chimpanzees. Our society has some very messed up rules about who gets to have the most power. People respond to and strategize around their current reality. If that reality were to change -- like, if we had free childcare or 4 years paid maternity leave, or some other radical shift -- many of these calculations would "magically" fall away.

taejo 9y ago
> Many women want the option to stay home and raise their own children, at least for a few years. > So there are some logistical concerns here that just aren't there for men. It's true that more women want this than men, certainly in the U.S., but you can't say the concerns "just aren't there for men" -- already in this thread there are men saying they want to be stay-at-home dads.
eighthnate 9y ago
> Perhaps in a country with a lot of paid maternity leave, these issues would not be as pronounced. No. It's just as pronounced in european countries with paid maternity leave. But then again, why should companies pay women not to work? > 2. I have trouble with the blanket statement that women "want established males" "biologically and evolutionarily speaking." It's a generalized statement. You can have trouble with it all you want. It doesn't change biological and evolutionary reality. > We live in a society. Today I learned. > Peoples' behavior in a society is not some mystery that can only be deciphered by looking at chimpanzees. Did I look at chimpanzees? I was talking about HUMAN biology and HUMAN evolution. > Our society has some very messed up rules about who gets to have the most power. Really? What are these magical rules? > If that reality were to change -- like, if we had free childcare or 4 years paid maternity leave, or some other radical shift -- What does paid maternity leave have to do with anything? We are talking human biology and human nature. > many of these calculations would "magically" fall away. Except for a women's innate desire for ESTABLISHED males and men's desire for YOUNGER women. You seem to think that liberal agenda somehow negates science. It doesn't. The country with the best maternity leave policy is finland. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Age_at_first_marriage_in_Finland.png http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... Even there, men are older than women when they get married. I hate that even speaking of basic biological and evolutionary science gets attacked by the liberals.

taejo 9y ago

> Many women want the option to stay home and raise their own children, at least for a few years. > So there are some logistical concerns here that just aren't there for men. It's true that more women want this than men, certainly in the U.S., but you can't say the concerns "just aren't there for men" -- already in this thread there are men saying they want to be stay-at-home dads.

eighthnate 9y ago

> Perhaps in a country with a lot of paid maternity leave, these issues would not be as pronounced. No. It's just as pronounced in european countries with paid maternity leave. But then again, why should companies pay women not to work? > 2. I have trouble with the blanket statement that women "want established males" "biologically and evolutionarily speaking." It's a generalized statement. You can have trouble with it all you want. It doesn't change biological and evolutionary reality. > We live in a society. Today I learned. > Peoples' behavior in a society is not some mystery that can only be deciphered by looking at chimpanzees. Did I look at chimpanzees? I was talking about HUMAN biology and HUMAN evolution. > Our society has some very messed up rules about who gets to have the most power. Really? What are these magical rules? > If that reality were to change -- like, if we had free childcare or 4 years paid maternity leave, or some other radical shift -- What does paid maternity leave have to do with anything? We are talking human biology and human nature. > many of these calculations would "magically" fall away. Except for a women's innate desire for ESTABLISHED males and men's desire for YOUNGER women. You seem to think that liberal agenda somehow negates science. It doesn't. The country with the best maternity leave policy is finland. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Age_at_first_marriage_in_Finland.png http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... Even there, men are older than women when they get married. I hate that even speaking of basic biological and evolutionary science gets attacked by the liberals.