3 ms·

Agreed. And I would even say that the traditional gender definitions will shift automatically if it's really the case that women can be the major bread winner i

by erikb 9y ago

Agreed. And I would even say that the traditional gender definitions will shift automatically if it's really the case that women can be the major bread winner in a relationship. The basic deal of "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" is a good one, no matter who's who in this relationship. It's just a transition that naturally takes 2-3 generations, and the people who are caught in the middle are a little F*d.

cimmanom 9y ago
Although I suspect it will end up taking more than 2-3 generations, I admire your optimism and hope you're right!
watwut 9y ago
I think that "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" deal does not really work in practice. The one that is supposed to give financial stability is very likely to end up spending so much time at work, that home does not really matter. And if the work ends up not liked by him/her, resentful. And the one at home is very likely to end up feeling unappreciated, useless and so on.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  That's a pretty pessimistic look at things. It sounds like something that could be pretty easily resolved with communication. Setting expectations for one another that have been clearly communicated. I know plenty of happy married couples where the man is the primary breadwinner and the woman is the homemaker. We are a sexually dimorphic species and have optimized our brains and physiology for that separation of labor. It is pretty obvious through something as basic as muscle mass. Men want to be the provider. Men take pride in that and I think that is a good thing. While I think most men are alright with their wives working, especially when the children get older and don't need as much attention, they'd prefer to be able to make enough to let their wives do as they please. While attempting to become financially independent enough to spend as much time with his family as possible. Perhaps this is a bit of a rosy view, but I think that it is much easier if couples swim with the stream of biology than attempt to fight against it.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Your theory does not take into account pretty normal human psychology and biology, both male and female. No, you can not communicate away resentment over what is rationally speaking unfair situation. It will not go away when you set expectations (and actually only one of partners is in position to set expectations), those can only prevent you speak which has tendency to just bottle things up. Yes, it feels good to be provider especially if you provide out of job you love and are successful in. It makes you feel important, capable, like you matters and so on and so forth. That is why even rich people don't want to retire all that much. Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Or at least dislikes feeling like dependent lazy incapable freeloader - which can be her own feeling independent of what man does (meaning not caused by his bad actions). If you however has to work long hours in job you dislike with boss that treats you like disposable dirt, pretty normal situation in bad economy, while actually capable adult person who depend on you watch tv/call with friends/does some hobby, then certain amount of resentment is absolutely normal human psychology. And this does not even have much solution, because if she starts to work, she is endangering his masculinity. Men happen to be human, which is not the same as idealized saints with zero consideration about themselves. But also practically speaking, even this discussion has men resentful over "loosing half of his money" in case of divorce in traditional family. And past stereotypes about women are full of what is basically resentment over the above. From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. It is fine to watch tv or do some home embroidery, but the real full focus on success endangers his pride and his status of provider. The feminism of 1960 did not happened because women were going against their biology. It happened because our biology and psychology has deep build in need to be useful, do something real, not just hang around coffee whole day. In other words, adult women need to be adults and cant be happy living as children. It was first time when large enough portion of population really did not needed that much home work, did not needed to sew their own cloth, did not needed to earn money (lower classes and peasants needed that always), cooking took much less time and so did shopping. And quite a lot of them were not happy and were quite vocal about that. They were not possessed by aliens nor on drugs. It was their psychology and biology in action, making themselves heard.
    - 9y ago

by erikb 9y ago

cimmanom 9y ago

Although I suspect it will end up taking more than 2-3 generations, I admire your optimism and hope you're right!

watwut 9y ago

I think that "I give you a home, you give me financial stability" deal does not really work in practice. The one that is supposed to give financial stability is very likely to end up spending so much time at work, that home does not really matter. And if the work ends up not liked by him/her, resentful. And the one at home is very likely to end up feeling unappreciated, useless and so on.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
That's a pretty pessimistic look at things. It sounds like something that could be pretty easily resolved with communication. Setting expectations for one another that have been clearly communicated. I know plenty of happy married couples where the man is the primary breadwinner and the woman is the homemaker. We are a sexually dimorphic species and have optimized our brains and physiology for that separation of labor. It is pretty obvious through something as basic as muscle mass. Men want to be the provider. Men take pride in that and I think that is a good thing. While I think most men are alright with their wives working, especially when the children get older and don't need as much attention, they'd prefer to be able to make enough to let their wives do as they please. While attempting to become financially independent enough to spend as much time with his family as possible. Perhaps this is a bit of a rosy view, but I think that it is much easier if couples swim with the stream of biology than attempt to fight against it.
- watwut 9y ago
  Your theory does not take into account pretty normal human psychology and biology, both male and female. No, you can not communicate away resentment over what is rationally speaking unfair situation. It will not go away when you set expectations (and actually only one of partners is in position to set expectations), those can only prevent you speak which has tendency to just bottle things up. Yes, it feels good to be provider especially if you provide out of job you love and are successful in. It makes you feel important, capable, like you matters and so on and so forth. That is why even rich people don't want to retire all that much. Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Or at least dislikes feeling like dependent lazy incapable freeloader - which can be her own feeling independent of what man does (meaning not caused by his bad actions). If you however has to work long hours in job you dislike with boss that treats you like disposable dirt, pretty normal situation in bad economy, while actually capable adult person who depend on you watch tv/call with friends/does some hobby, then certain amount of resentment is absolutely normal human psychology. And this does not even have much solution, because if she starts to work, she is endangering his masculinity. Men happen to be human, which is not the same as idealized saints with zero consideration about themselves. But also practically speaking, even this discussion has men resentful over "loosing half of his money" in case of divorce in traditional family. And past stereotypes about women are full of what is basically resentment over the above. From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. It is fine to watch tv or do some home embroidery, but the real full focus on success endangers his pride and his status of provider. The feminism of 1960 did not happened because women were going against their biology. It happened because our biology and psychology has deep build in need to be useful, do something real, not just hang around coffee whole day. In other words, adult women need to be adults and cant be happy living as children. It was first time when large enough portion of population really did not needed that much home work, did not needed to sew their own cloth, did not needed to earn money (lower classes and peasants needed that always), cooking took much less time and so did shopping. And quite a lot of them were not happy and were quite vocal about that. They were not possessed by aliens nor on drugs. It was their psychology and biology in action, making themselves heard.
  - 9y ago