11 ms·

That's a pretty pessimistic look at things. It sounds like something that could be pretty easily resolved with communication. Setting expectations for one anoth

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.
- supreme_sublime 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. I don't really see how it is an unfair situation. Cleaning, cooking, and home chores in general aren't exactly easy. I know personally I'd definitely like to have someone at least help do those things. I wouldn't mind going to work all day helping provide for someone who was doing those things and I knew when I got home that I didn't have to worry too much about those kinds of chores. There is a reason a division of labor started among humans to begin with. > Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Yes, which is why having children and helping support her husband while also potentially doing volunteer work or part time work in something she is interested in are all very good things and part of living a fulfilled life. > 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. Yes, there is fear and resentment about losing half the life you helped build simply because she may not feel like continuing anymore. There is a reason why there weren't "no fault" divorces in the past. You actually had to have some kind of reason for getting a divorce. Now you can essentially do so on a whim, though of course the process isn't an easy one. > From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. I think that's a ridiculous notion. Caring for children is quite possibly the most important and useful job humans have. It is the reason why we create civilizations and why men go and try to provide for his family. I suppose if you don't have children there's no real reason to not try to have a career of your own. If both partners careers are going well (and thereby useful to continue pursuing) then it would make sense to hire people to help with things around the house. >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 I disagree, if you want to feel useful there are lots of things to do. Charitable organizations need volunteers, houses need people to make them feel like a home. How I see it is basically men made society too easy and some women felt the need to struggle still. These women convinced other women that men were somehow evil oppressors through building this society and it is women's turn to "dominate" society. When in reality men were simply doing things to make people's lives better, and women benefitted the most. All that said, I am not against women having careers and not being homemakers. I don't care if people in their relationships decide to have the women be the primary breadwinner. I'd just argue that you are going against how it has been for millennia and will likely have a rough time at it. If you want children there will be a decent amount of time where children will need a lot of care. If women decide to focus on their careers instead of child rearing, they will feel like bad mothers and that isn't just a result of societal expectations. The vast majority of women have very natural nurturing instincts. I think that feminism is encouraging women to go against these biological instincts with no real benefit or gain of happiness for these women.

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.

supreme_sublime 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. I don't really see how it is an unfair situation. Cleaning, cooking, and home chores in general aren't exactly easy. I know personally I'd definitely like to have someone at least help do those things. I wouldn't mind going to work all day helping provide for someone who was doing those things and I knew when I got home that I didn't have to worry too much about those kinds of chores. There is a reason a division of labor started among humans to begin with. > Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Yes, which is why having children and helping support her husband while also potentially doing volunteer work or part time work in something she is interested in are all very good things and part of living a fulfilled life. > 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. Yes, there is fear and resentment about losing half the life you helped build simply because she may not feel like continuing anymore. There is a reason why there weren't "no fault" divorces in the past. You actually had to have some kind of reason for getting a divorce. Now you can essentially do so on a whim, though of course the process isn't an easy one. > From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. I think that's a ridiculous notion. Caring for children is quite possibly the most important and useful job humans have. It is the reason why we create civilizations and why men go and try to provide for his family. I suppose if you don't have children there's no real reason to not try to have a career of your own. If both partners careers are going well (and thereby useful to continue pursuing) then it would make sense to hire people to help with things around the house. >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 I disagree, if you want to feel useful there are lots of things to do. Charitable organizations need volunteers, houses need people to make them feel like a home. How I see it is basically men made society too easy and some women felt the need to struggle still. These women convinced other women that men were somehow evil oppressors through building this society and it is women's turn to "dominate" society. When in reality men were simply doing things to make people's lives better, and women benefitted the most. All that said, I am not against women having careers and not being homemakers. I don't care if people in their relationships decide to have the women be the primary breadwinner. I'd just argue that you are going against how it has been for millennia and will likely have a rough time at it. If you want children there will be a decent amount of time where children will need a lot of care. If women decide to focus on their careers instead of child rearing, they will feel like bad mothers and that isn't just a result of societal expectations. The vast majority of women have very natural nurturing instincts. I think that feminism is encouraging women to go against these biological instincts with no real benefit or gain of happiness for these women.