6 ms·

I admit that I haven't read much on the subject, but it feels to me that, at least in American society, it has long been considered more acceptable for men to h

by baddox 7y ago

I admit that I haven't read much on the subject, but it feels to me that, at least in American society, it has long been considered more acceptable for men to have various social arrangements than for women. My impression is that it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working and unmarried well past the average marriage age than for a woman. Compare the words "bachelor" and "spinster."

danbolt 7y ago
That's very true. We definitely are more lenient towards people in different ways depending on their gender, and there are a lot of relaxed social expectations that men have compared to women. Still though, I think there are dimensions of this where this is less true, perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. I wish I had better words to explain it.
- magduf 7y ago
  >perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit around complaining about "toxic masculinity" and how they're mistreated by men. >The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    > Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are designed to feel like sweat pants and a thick cotton button up shirt. Women have it pretty bad when it comes to clothes shopping. Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores. It's not like that for women. Women come in many different shapes. So you look and see that a clothing store has twice as many jeans for women as they do for men, but don't realize that all of those are split over four or five styles that are mutually exclusive: most women can only fit into one, maybe two styles. But for men, most of us can wear slim fit, regular fit, bootcut, etc jeans. This same phenomenon extends to stores as well. Lots of women's clothing brands specialize in a certain shape of woman.
    - riversflow 7y ago
      > Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape. I read this frequently, but it just seems flat wrong, I think men just have lower expectations about how clothes should fit, and there is less expectation that men stay slim. I’m trim and fit, and I can only buy from a couple of brands if I want clothes that fit me well without being skin tight. I’m not alone. There is a great variety of shoulder geometries for men, I remember hearing on JRE, but I can’t find a source to link, that their is a huge of amount of variation in men’s(everyone’s?) shoulders, probably due to Homo sapiens evolving to hunt with overhand thrown rocks. I could be flat wrong, but I detest this, “men’s bodies are mostly the same” attitude, you can definitely tell the difference between someone wearing a well tailored suit and someone who isn’t. I’m pretty sure men just have lower standards/expectations.
      - shantly 7y ago
bitL 7y ago
I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  >many men can have children in their 70s Just because you can have an erection and produce sperm at 70 doesn't mean you can have children and if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions. Having kids after 45 as a male carries risks for the children as well.
  - cmdshiftf4 7y ago
    >if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome Please cite something for this assertion or delete it, as it is not in line with anything I've read on the matter. Increased paternal age carries some potential for increased side effects for their children, but it is absolutely nowhere near the risks involved in a delayed pregnancy for women [0]. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers-more-likely-to-have-babies-with-health-problems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers...
  - blacksmith_tb 7y ago
    Though there's some biological risk[1], it seems obvious the real problem is that you'll be dead before your kid is in college (and I am skeptical about how involved you could be in parenting before that...) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
  - ewindal 7y ago
    > they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions An order of magnitude higher chance of genetic defects isn’t very significant when the initial risk is less than .1%
scarmig 7y ago
> it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working That last word is the key point. Men receive less judgment for remaining single than women, but they also receive more judgment if they don't work. That's a reason we're much more willing to code an unemployed or underemployed man as a "loser" than we are to do so a woman.

by baddox 7y ago

danbolt 7y ago

That's very true. We definitely are more lenient towards people in different ways depending on their gender, and there are a lot of relaxed social expectations that men have compared to women. Still though, I think there are dimensions of this where this is less true, perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. I wish I had better words to explain it.

magduf 7y ago
>perhaps in ways that men are expected to seem "confident" or "strong" or "independent" which I think can be stiffing. Yep, and women demand this too: many women's dating profiles talk about how they want a guy who's "confident but not cocky", who "makes a plan" for dates, who "takes the lead", etc. Basically, American women want hyper-masculine men who look like George Clooney (when younger), but then they sit around complaining about "toxic masculinity" and how they're mistreated by men. >The typical men's section of a clothing store normalizes a lot more conservative wardrobes compared to women. Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mywittyname 7y ago
  > Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. I don't wear either of these on a daily basis, nor my birthday suit, and people think that I dress nice. Men have a plethora of clothing options that are stylish, comfortable, and appropriate for work situations. I'm currently wearing slacks that are designed to feel like sweat pants and a thick cotton button up shirt. Women have it pretty bad when it comes to clothes shopping. Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape, so most of us can shop at the same stores. It's not like that for women. Women come in many different shapes. So you look and see that a clothing store has twice as many jeans for women as they do for men, but don't realize that all of those are split over four or five styles that are mutually exclusive: most women can only fit into one, maybe two styles. But for men, most of us can wear slim fit, regular fit, bootcut, etc jeans. This same phenomenon extends to stores as well. Lots of women's clothing brands specialize in a certain shape of woman.
  - riversflow 7y ago
    > Men take for granted that we all are roughly the same shape. I read this frequently, but it just seems flat wrong, I think men just have lower expectations about how clothes should fit, and there is less expectation that men stay slim. I’m trim and fit, and I can only buy from a couple of brands if I want clothes that fit me well without being skin tight. I’m not alone. There is a great variety of shoulder geometries for men, I remember hearing on JRE, but I can’t find a source to link, that their is a huge of amount of variation in men’s(everyone’s?) shoulders, probably due to Homo sapiens evolving to hunt with overhand thrown rocks. I could be flat wrong, but I detest this, “men’s bodies are mostly the same” attitude, you can definitely tell the difference between someone wearing a well tailored suit and someone who isn’t. I’m pretty sure men just have lower standards/expectations.
    - shantly 7y ago

bitL 7y ago

I think that comes from biology, many men can have children in their 70s, most women have problems past 35 (my piano teacher almost died in the age of 41 while giving birth, 3 years ago). Maybe medicine in the future would allow it, but as far as nature goes, there are different limits.

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
>many men can have children in their 70s Just because you can have an erection and produce sperm at 70 doesn't mean you can have children and if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions. Having kids after 45 as a male carries risks for the children as well.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago
  >if you do they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome Please cite something for this assertion or delete it, as it is not in line with anything I've read on the matter. Increased paternal age carries some potential for increased side effects for their children, but it is absolutely nowhere near the risks involved in a delayed pregnancy for women [0]. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers-more-likely-to-have-babies-with-health-problems.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/well/family/older-fathers...
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  Though there's some biological risk[1], it seems obvious the real problem is that you'll be dead before your kid is in college (and I am skeptical about how involved you could be in parenting before that...) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
- ewindal 7y ago
  > they'll most likely suffer from down syndrome or other conditions An order of magnitude higher chance of genetic defects isn’t very significant when the initial risk is less than .1%

scarmig 7y ago

> it's considered far more acceptable for a man to be working That last word is the key point. Men receive less judgment for remaining single than women, but they also receive more judgment if they don't work. That's a reason we're much more willing to code an unemployed or underemployed man as a "loser" than we are to do so a woman.