4 ms·

well, somehow the society at large has no problem with exactly opposite generalization: that women prefer to work over staying home with their kids. It is an i

well, somehow the society at large has no problem with exactly opposite generalization: that women prefer to work over staying home with their kids. It is an individual matter, I agree. With most women definitely having the preference of staying at home. But for that the right partner is needed, i.e. one who provides enough resources for her and her kids. If this is not present she will go to work. We decided as a society to frame it different just not to face difficult truth, which is society becoming poorer. It's just so much easier to say that somehow nowadays women prefer working to following their maternal instinct. As a man you are wired to compete with other males for resources to be brought to your partner and offspring. I'm sorry but this is just how it works. Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. She on the other hand, can but she doesn't need to. It's not like you or pretty much anyone will look down at her for not working. Current social fashions aren't going to change five milion years of evolution of the species.

watwut 7y ago
Women marched for right to work and education. It was not males forcing them to, it was literally movement by women.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  Of course they did. So that they can work. But don't have too. Great deal if you ask me.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  The right to do something is different from the want to do something. How many people have fought for their right to vote? And yet how abysmal is voter turnout every year? The desire for education is very different from the desire for work. I am not saying there are no women (or even the majority of women) who want to work because it is their choice. But I think we are making it a gender issue when really it isn't. Do most men want to work or do they have to? Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia. I think it depends on the individual more than the gender.
  - watwut 7y ago
    > Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia. That is kind of not true. 1.) That is what happens when there is no war, country is rich and when industrial revolutions take people to factories. When they worked on small family farm, both genders had to tend animals, do crafts and so on. Most of things had to be made. The work was gendered, physical strength mattered, but it was not women twiddling fingers at home painting pretty pictures out of boredom. 2.) During economically bad periods, women had to work to survive. Their chances and options were just inferior. Victorian england required male to provide for women, but economics was bad - marriages not happening. (A lot of prostitution tho.) 3.) Plenty male occupations killed males soon. Miners were old by 40 and dead. Women lived longer and used to live from crafts they made and sold. 4.) And obviously, as men die in wars (and some wars killed a lot of men) or are just away then you cant possibly have all women having male provider. Plus, women were raped making them less viable partners. 5.) Take California gold fever - demographics very heavily skewed toward males (and very violent). That means, other places necessary lack males. There is no way for all women to be provided by males, social mores or not. Because males are not there, they are in California and anyway are killing each other. Not coming back. Some women were provided for by family and brothers etc, but the less rich family was the more they had to figure out how to make themselves some money.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      Those are all valid points, but aren't those all (edit: mostly) examples of women being forced to work instead of choosing to work? Also I'd say those are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. If anything I'd say you bolstered the top comment's argument (I do not know your stance and am not trying to be combative).
      - watwut 7y ago
        Aren't majority of men forced to work instead of choosing by that definition? These are examples women people living real lives. Wast populations. There was such a thing as idle lifestyle of aristocracy in places where the situation allowed that to male aristocrats. Spending most of their time socializing with each other. Also, overall they easily make majority of population. Combination of family farms, non-aristocracy, poor people, war situations, dangerous or far away occupations for males, pre-industrial are largely majority of "centuries if not millenia". Can I add former slaves who would be significant part of population here? The "we expect the half of population to be mostly idle and mostly unused" is unnatural exceptional situation. And in case of muslim countries considerable physical violence is used to keep it that way. When you talk about what was happening and was feasible for centuries, you cant skip over such was populations. They did not had power, had less control over own lives, but they did existed and count. Also, most of those feminists marches were middle class or rich women. Poor women worked already, they however had sucky jobs and had completely different needs. Turns out that when women are actually in that supposedly great optimal situation, they want to get out, significant percentage is discontent and unhappy.
cortesoft 7y ago
I have a problem with either generalization. I think we, as a society, need to support all choices a family makes (both parents working, or either parent staying home with the kid), and not judge parents for making any choice that works for their family. I find it very troublesome that you keep referring to women staying home to care for the kids as 'following their maternal instinct' and men working outside at an office as the natural state for men. Saying that "Women define male attractiveness based on his socio-economic status" is downright offensive, and is getting into red-pill incel territory. There is nothing 'natural' or 'evolutionary' about how we divide up labor in our society. Up until 100 years or so ago, we didn't even have the idea of 'childhood' that we do now. Parenting was not a full time job, kids were just expected to basically raise themselves and tag along while mom and dad did real work. In evolutionary terms, men haven't 'evolved' to work away from home while women raised kids; both parents did work (varying by society type, e.g. hunter-gatherer or farming) to provide resources for the family. Both men and women worked to provide those resources, and kids just hung around. Obviously, women fed babies the first year or two, but after that kids were pretty much on their own. Your view that men and women naturally live together like a family in the 1950s for all of our history is a great example of a 'just so' explanation for our current gender politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
- haihaibye 7y ago
  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/women-really-do-prefer-rich-men-study-finds-f2gjhr5gh https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/women-really-do-pref...
Dobbs 7y ago
> I'm sorry but this is just how it works No this is not how any of it works. This is extremly sexist, and has no evidence to support it.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  Ever been in a serious relationship with a woman?
ng7j5d9 7y ago
>Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. Yikes, what is wrong with me? One of my best friends quit his job to become a stay-at-home dad because his successful lawyer wife made more money and wanted to keep working. I've been supposed to look down on him this whole time? Sorry society at large, I guess I missed that memo.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  You think his parents, his dad specifically don't look down at him? You think people, some people, don't laugh behind his back? And final, really important point: Do you think his wife finds it sexy that she supports her stay-at-home hubby? You alone don't define it. His parents, his mom-in-law, his kids (nice male model for his boy if he has one, btw, pathetic), neighbors -- this is where the pressure builds. The looks. The remarks. Him asking money her for a nice car he always wanted. Him asking her for vacation as he's tired after months with kids. I mean, you might find it OK, but somehow most people won't. I feel bad for him. For you too, as your only argument is pretending you don't get it. What, you're a five year old now, not knowing how adult partnerships work?

watwut 7y ago

Women marched for right to work and education. It was not males forcing them to, it was literally movement by women.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Of course they did. So that they can work. But don't have too. Great deal if you ask me.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
The right to do something is different from the want to do something. How many people have fought for their right to vote? And yet how abysmal is voter turnout every year? The desire for education is very different from the desire for work. I am not saying there are no women (or even the majority of women) who want to work because it is their choice. But I think we are making it a gender issue when really it isn't. Do most men want to work or do they have to? Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia. I think it depends on the individual more than the gender.
- watwut 7y ago
  > Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia. That is kind of not true. 1.) That is what happens when there is no war, country is rich and when industrial revolutions take people to factories. When they worked on small family farm, both genders had to tend animals, do crafts and so on. Most of things had to be made. The work was gendered, physical strength mattered, but it was not women twiddling fingers at home painting pretty pictures out of boredom. 2.) During economically bad periods, women had to work to survive. Their chances and options were just inferior. Victorian england required male to provide for women, but economics was bad - marriages not happening. (A lot of prostitution tho.) 3.) Plenty male occupations killed males soon. Miners were old by 40 and dead. Women lived longer and used to live from crafts they made and sold. 4.) And obviously, as men die in wars (and some wars killed a lot of men) or are just away then you cant possibly have all women having male provider. Plus, women were raped making them less viable partners. 5.) Take California gold fever - demographics very heavily skewed toward males (and very violent). That means, other places necessary lack males. There is no way for all women to be provided by males, social mores or not. Because males are not there, they are in California and anyway are killing each other. Not coming back. Some women were provided for by family and brothers etc, but the less rich family was the more they had to figure out how to make themselves some money.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Those are all valid points, but aren't those all (edit: mostly) examples of women being forced to work instead of choosing to work? Also I'd say those are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. If anything I'd say you bolstered the top comment's argument (I do not know your stance and am not trying to be combative).
    - watwut 7y ago
      Aren't majority of men forced to work instead of choosing by that definition? These are examples women people living real lives. Wast populations. There was such a thing as idle lifestyle of aristocracy in places where the situation allowed that to male aristocrats. Spending most of their time socializing with each other. Also, overall they easily make majority of population. Combination of family farms, non-aristocracy, poor people, war situations, dangerous or far away occupations for males, pre-industrial are largely majority of "centuries if not millenia". Can I add former slaves who would be significant part of population here? The "we expect the half of population to be mostly idle and mostly unused" is unnatural exceptional situation. And in case of muslim countries considerable physical violence is used to keep it that way. When you talk about what was happening and was feasible for centuries, you cant skip over such was populations. They did not had power, had less control over own lives, but they did existed and count. Also, most of those feminists marches were middle class or rich women. Poor women worked already, they however had sucky jobs and had completely different needs. Turns out that when women are actually in that supposedly great optimal situation, they want to get out, significant percentage is discontent and unhappy.

cortesoft 7y ago

I have a problem with either generalization. I think we, as a society, need to support all choices a family makes (both parents working, or either parent staying home with the kid), and not judge parents for making any choice that works for their family. I find it very troublesome that you keep referring to women staying home to care for the kids as 'following their maternal instinct' and men working outside at an office as the natural state for men. Saying that "Women define male attractiveness based on his socio-economic status" is downright offensive, and is getting into red-pill incel territory. There is nothing 'natural' or 'evolutionary' about how we divide up labor in our society. Up until 100 years or so ago, we didn't even have the idea of 'childhood' that we do now. Parenting was not a full time job, kids were just expected to basically raise themselves and tag along while mom and dad did real work. In evolutionary terms, men haven't 'evolved' to work away from home while women raised kids; both parents did work (varying by society type, e.g. hunter-gatherer or farming) to provide resources for the family. Both men and women worked to provide those resources, and kids just hung around. Obviously, women fed babies the first year or two, but after that kids were pretty much on their own. Your view that men and women naturally live together like a family in the 1950s for all of our history is a great example of a 'just so' explanation for our current gender politics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

haihaibye 7y ago
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/women-really-do-prefer-rich-men-study-finds-f2gjhr5gh https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/women-really-do-pref...

Dobbs 7y ago

> I'm sorry but this is just how it works No this is not how any of it works. This is extremly sexist, and has no evidence to support it.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Ever been in a serious relationship with a woman?

ng7j5d9 7y ago

>Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. Yikes, what is wrong with me? One of my best friends quit his job to become a stay-at-home dad because his successful lawyer wife made more money and wanted to keep working. I've been supposed to look down on him this whole time? Sorry society at large, I guess I missed that memo.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
You think his parents, his dad specifically don't look down at him? You think people, some people, don't laugh behind his back? And final, really important point: Do you think his wife finds it sexy that she supports her stay-at-home hubby? You alone don't define it. His parents, his mom-in-law, his kids (nice male model for his boy if he has one, btw, pathetic), neighbors -- this is where the pressure builds. The looks. The remarks. Him asking money her for a nice car he always wanted. Him asking her for vacation as he's tired after months with kids. I mean, you might find it OK, but somehow most people won't. I feel bad for him. For you too, as your only argument is pretending you don't get it. What, you're a five year old now, not knowing how adult partnerships work?