6 ms·

It is almost never mentioned but most men won't respect other men who are stay at home parent. So there is also an expectation on the man to be the bread winner

It is almost never mentioned but most men won't respect other men who are stay at home parent. So there is also an expectation on the man to be the bread winner. Also many women tend not to want men who earn less then them: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rich-women-like-rich-men-and-rich-men-like-slender-women-2015-09-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/rich-women-like-rich-men-a...

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> It is almost never mentioned but most men won't respect other men who are stay at home parent. So there is also an expectation on the man to be the bread winner. That too, is sexism, of course. Sexism also harms men.
- uncle_j 7y ago
  I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regardless of the social engineering that is attempted. There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. > Sexism also harms men. Yes it does. But this is not one of those circumstances. However that is a completely different conversation.
  - wilg 7y ago
    Bad take! There's no distinction between "biology" and "social engineering". Our biology underpins us having these discussions. Our biology underpins our society. Our biology underpins our thinking that things can be better. Our biology encourages us to improve our own quality of life and that of others in ever larger social groups. Everything we do is true to our biology.
    - uncle_j 7y ago
      There is an obvious distinction between people trying to socially arrange society and our biology. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
      - wilg 7y ago
        You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". I am saying that the arrangements you seem to be for are no more rooted in biology than the arrangements you seem to be against.
        uncle_j 7y ago
        > You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". Nope. I didn't say that. > There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. I didn't make any statement on how to arrange society. I simply stated that I believe they would all eventually fail.
        wilg 7y ago
        You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing?
        uncle_j 7y ago
        > You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. No it isn't. It is a statement of what I believe to be the truth. All the evidence and arguments around the topic I have seen and heard seem to lead in that direction. If you disagree with that conclusion that is fine. However it doesn't mean that I believe that things should arranged in such a manner. > Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing? I don't know. I wasn't saying anything about that. I was simply disagree that it is sexism. I don't buy into this the notion of "unconscious sexism".
  - n4r9 7y ago
    How is it not one of those circumstances? Men find it extremely difficult to make a career as a nursery teacher, for example, because nursery schools and parents of young children don't trust men as a nurturing caregiver. It's a clear cut example of how a sexist view of men - biologically inspired or otherwise - is harmful to men.
    - uncle_j 7y ago
      That isn't sexism. There is a far higher likelihood that a sex offender is a man rather than a woman. While unfair it isn't unfounded fear and parents are naturally protective of their children.
      - n4r9 7y ago
        That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. An African American is much more likely to be a [edit: convicted] murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
        uncle_j 7y ago
        > That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded. It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. > An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one. * I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here. * If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road. It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.
        YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        >> It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. As usual, it's not the facts that are in dispute here, but their interpretation.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Which aspect of sexual dimorphism causes men to disrespect other men who care for children?
    - uncle_j 7y ago
      It isn't seen as "real" work by other men. Men have been the bread winners for almost all of human history and thus other men don't think they are doing their bit.
    - username90 7y ago
      The competitive aspect? Males in plenty of species compete for status and low status males are getting chased away from the pack, so evidently genes are expressive enough to encode gender norms.
      - rixed 7y ago
        You probably believe that your views about genders is coming from observations of "males in plenty of species", but have you considered that maybe your views about "plenty of species" could come from your views on genders?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        How is competition between males a consequence of sexual dimorphism? Note that males in species with low sexual dimorphism compete for mates as fiercely as males in species with high sexual dimorphism. Also note that the human species has very low sexual dimorphism relative to other species. E.g. our females are not many times the size of males, as they are in Black Widow spiders, our males don't have different colours of body coverage, like many species of birds do, etc etc. And of course many humans can easily pass for the other sex by changing their hair-style and clothing as evidenced by numerous cases in history where females passed as males by cutting their hair short and wearing pantaloons etc.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> It is almost never mentioned but most men won't respect other men who are stay at home parent. So there is also an expectation on the man to be the bread winner. That too, is sexism, of course. Sexism also harms men.

uncle_j 7y ago
I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regardless of the social engineering that is attempted. There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. > Sexism also harms men. Yes it does. But this is not one of those circumstances. However that is a completely different conversation.
- wilg 7y ago
  Bad take! There's no distinction between "biology" and "social engineering". Our biology underpins us having these discussions. Our biology underpins our society. Our biology underpins our thinking that things can be better. Our biology encourages us to improve our own quality of life and that of others in ever larger social groups. Everything we do is true to our biology.
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    There is an obvious distinction between people trying to socially arrange society and our biology. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
    - wilg 7y ago
      You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". I am saying that the arrangements you seem to be for are no more rooted in biology than the arrangements you seem to be against.
      - uncle_j 7y ago
        > You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". Nope. I didn't say that. > There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. I didn't make any statement on how to arrange society. I simply stated that I believe they would all eventually fail.
        wilg 7y ago
        You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing?
        uncle_j 7y ago
        > You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. No it isn't. It is a statement of what I believe to be the truth. All the evidence and arguments around the topic I have seen and heard seem to lead in that direction. If you disagree with that conclusion that is fine. However it doesn't mean that I believe that things should arranged in such a manner. > Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing? I don't know. I wasn't saying anything about that. I was simply disagree that it is sexism. I don't buy into this the notion of "unconscious sexism".
- n4r9 7y ago
  How is it not one of those circumstances? Men find it extremely difficult to make a career as a nursery teacher, for example, because nursery schools and parents of young children don't trust men as a nurturing caregiver. It's a clear cut example of how a sexist view of men - biologically inspired or otherwise - is harmful to men.
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    That isn't sexism. There is a far higher likelihood that a sex offender is a man rather than a woman. While unfair it isn't unfounded fear and parents are naturally protective of their children.
    - n4r9 7y ago
      That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. An African American is much more likely to be a [edit: convicted] murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
      - uncle_j 7y ago
        > That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded. It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. > An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one. * I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here. * If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road. It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.
        YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        >> It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. As usual, it's not the facts that are in dispute here, but their interpretation.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Which aspect of sexual dimorphism causes men to disrespect other men who care for children?
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    It isn't seen as "real" work by other men. Men have been the bread winners for almost all of human history and thus other men don't think they are doing their bit.
  - username90 7y ago
    The competitive aspect? Males in plenty of species compete for status and low status males are getting chased away from the pack, so evidently genes are expressive enough to encode gender norms.
    - rixed 7y ago
      You probably believe that your views about genders is coming from observations of "males in plenty of species", but have you considered that maybe your views about "plenty of species" could come from your views on genders?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      How is competition between males a consequence of sexual dimorphism? Note that males in species with low sexual dimorphism compete for mates as fiercely as males in species with high sexual dimorphism. Also note that the human species has very low sexual dimorphism relative to other species. E.g. our females are not many times the size of males, as they are in Black Widow spiders, our males don't have different colours of body coverage, like many species of birds do, etc etc. And of course many humans can easily pass for the other sex by changing their hair-style and clothing as evidenced by numerous cases in history where females passed as males by cutting their hair short and wearing pantaloons etc.