My husband believes we seriously live in a matriarchy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband too! Any time I point out discrimination against women, he immediately counters with how oppressed white men are these days, and how the tables have turned against him.

My husband too!! When did white men become oppressed? I thought they were the oppressors?

In what way? I’m trying to understand how woman are paid 83.1% of what men are paid (per 2021 numbers), don’t have rights over their own reproductive system in at least a third of the states (as of 2023), are 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs (as of 2023) , dropped out of the workforce more when COVID hit due to family responsibilities AND still handle most of the household tasks even when working full time per every survey I’ve seen. How can white men be the most oppressed and still on top by every metric or is this a “compared to 1950 when it was okay that women made 60% of what men made …”.

My favorite is the “oh you can’t say anything without …” and yet do you think people in the past didn’t have to hold their tongue against true injustice to keep their jobs or even their lives? My parents definitely had to in order to stay employed.

Women earn less because they, by choice, select careers and jobs that pay less. Typically because they are less unpleasant and more flexible jobs.

This has been asked and answered in DOL studies since as early as the Clinton era.

The careers that pay less do so because they’re traditionally considered “women’s work” and women weren’t the ones who supported the family. Nursing, teaching, child care, social work. How are those easier? Even if women choose flexible jobs, why do they do that? Because they’re also expected to be the primary parent.

Pay isn’t based on difficulty. It’s based on the amount of money the labor makes and the perceived value by the one signing the pay checks.

Roofers work really hard, but they’re not paid very much. Same with landscapers.

On the other hand, lobbyists are paid very well.

It’s not about “traditional gender roles” at all. We just don’t value “hard work” we value ROI, and usually roi measured in the quarter or year… not even long term.

If it’s done by men. The reality is that most people still perceive men > women and every thing women do Ie work, art etc is considered to be less than.

This. And there are clear statistics showing how once a profession becomes dominated by women, its pay decreases in real terms. It has occurred both in teaching, which, when a male
Profession, was considered decently paid, and it occurred in reverse in computer coding, which, which a female profession, was considered clerical and therefore was low paid.

Do you ever stop to do a tiny bit of research and question your priors when you encounter outright propaganda like this? Or do you just swallow it up without a second thought?

To be clear, you’re saying The Atlantic is “outright propaganda” now?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-programmings-past-reveals-about-todays-gender-pay-gap/498797/

Yes, a "computer programmer" back then was akin to a data entry specialist and not very much like what a software engineer does today. They are playing word games and engaging in dishonest sleight of hand, as usual.

Don't let that stop your train though!

Wow tell me you didn’t read the article
Without telling me you didn’t read the article.

You read what makes you feel good and proclaim it as truth to the world.

…which is why you didn’t read the article.

I read everything.

Then you’re aware your prior comments about computer programming are directly contradicted in it. It’s ok if you read something that diverges from your worldview every once it awhile— it doesn’t make it incorrect or untruthful.

No, I've read the history of this prior to this tendentious wave of propaganda. What a "computer programmer" did then is not the same as what it is considered now.

Nor is what a nurse did the same. Nor is what a pilot did the same. No job is identical now to what it was 50 years ago because of the same thing that makes programming different: technology.

Really and truly just read the article and go back to hating women later. Alternatively find a moderate source that disputes the trend in male participation to salary like in teaching.

[Anonymous]

Sorry that your husband is an idiot. Hope the kids get their brains from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband too! Any time I point out discrimination against women, he immediately counters with how oppressed white men are these days, and how the tables have turned against him.

My husband too!! When did white men become oppressed? I thought they were the oppressors?

In what way? I’m trying to understand how woman are paid 83.1% of what men are paid (per 2021 numbers), don’t have rights over their own reproductive system in at least a third of the states (as of 2023), are 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs (as of 2023) , dropped out of the workforce more when COVID hit due to family responsibilities AND still handle most of the household tasks even when working full time per every survey I’ve seen. How can white men be the most oppressed and still on top by every metric or is this a “compared to 1950 when it was okay that women made 60% of what men made …”.

My favorite is the “oh you can’t say anything without …” and yet do you think people in the past didn’t have to hold their tongue against true injustice to keep their jobs or even their lives? My parents definitely had to in order to stay employed.

Women earn less because they, by choice, select careers and jobs that pay less. Typically because they are less unpleasant and more flexible jobs.

This has been asked and answered in DOL studies since as early as the Clinton era.

The careers that pay less do so because they’re traditionally considered “women’s work” and women weren’t the ones who supported the family. Nursing, teaching, child care, social work. How are those easier? Even if women choose flexible jobs, why do they do that? Because they’re also expected to be the primary parent.

Pay isn’t based on difficulty. It’s based on the amount of money the labor makes and the perceived value by the one signing the pay checks.

Roofers work really hard, but they’re not paid very much. Same with landscapers.

On the other hand, lobbyists are paid very well.

It’s not about “traditional gender roles” at all. We just don’t value “hard work” we value ROI, and usually roi measured in the quarter or year… not even long term.

If it’s done by men. The reality is that most people still perceive men > women and every thing women do Ie work, art etc is considered to be less than.

This. And there are clear statistics showing how once a profession becomes dominated by women, its pay decreases in real terms. It has occurred both in teaching, which, when a male
Profession, was considered decently paid, and it occurred in reverse in computer coding, which, which a female profession, was considered clerical and therefore was low paid.

Do you ever stop to do a tiny bit of research and question your priors when you encounter outright propaganda like this? Or do you just swallow it up without a second thought?

To be clear, you’re saying The Atlantic is “outright propaganda” now?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-programmings-past-reveals-about-todays-gender-pay-gap/498797/

Yes, a "computer programmer" back then was akin to a data entry specialist and not very much like what a software engineer does today. They are playing word games and engaging in dishonest sleight of hand, as usual.

Don't let that stop your train though!

Wow tell me you didn’t read the article
Without telling me you didn’t read the article.

You read what makes you feel good and proclaim it as truth to the world.

…which is why you didn’t read the article.

I read everything.

Then you’re aware your prior comments about computer programming are directly contradicted in it. It’s ok if you read something that diverges from your worldview every once it awhile— it doesn’t make it incorrect or untruthful.

No, I've read the history of this prior to this tendentious wave of propaganda. What a "computer programmer" did then is not the same as what it is considered now.

Nor is what a nurse did the same. Nor is what a pilot did the same. No job is identical now to what it was 50 years ago because of the same thing that makes programming different: technology.

Really and truly just read the article and go back to hating women later. Alternatively find a moderate source that disputes the trend in male participation to salary like in teaching.

Some jobs get automated away, like what "computer programmers" did back then. It was considered dumb, rote labor back then. The existence of a few exceptional women who were key to the development of the field does not negate this.

Tell me what you consider a "moderate source".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband too! Any time I point out discrimination against women, he immediately counters with how oppressed white men are these days, and how the tables have turned against him.

My husband too!! When did white men become oppressed? I thought they were the oppressors?

In what way? I’m trying to understand how woman are paid 83.1% of what men are paid (per 2021 numbers), don’t have rights over their own reproductive system in at least a third of the states (as of 2023), are 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs (as of 2023) , dropped out of the workforce more when COVID hit due to family responsibilities AND still handle most of the household tasks even when working full time per every survey I’ve seen. How can white men be the most oppressed and still on top by every metric or is this a “compared to 1950 when it was okay that women made 60% of what men made …”.

My favorite is the “oh you can’t say anything without …” and yet do you think people in the past didn’t have to hold their tongue against true injustice to keep their jobs or even their lives? My parents definitely had to in order to stay employed.

Women earn less because they, by choice, select careers and jobs that pay less. Typically because they are less unpleasant and more flexible jobs.

This has been asked and answered in DOL studies since as early as the Clinton era.

The careers that pay less do so because they’re traditionally considered “women’s work” and women weren’t the ones who supported the family. Nursing, teaching, child care, social work. How are those easier? Even if women choose flexible jobs, why do they do that? Because they’re also expected to be the primary parent.

Pay isn’t based on difficulty. It’s based on the amount of money the labor makes and the perceived value by the one signing the pay checks.

Roofers work really hard, but they’re not paid very much. Same with landscapers.

On the other hand, lobbyists are paid very well.

It’s not about “traditional gender roles” at all. We just don’t value “hard work” we value ROI, and usually roi measured in the quarter or year… not even long term.

If it’s done by men. The reality is that most people still perceive men > women and every thing women do Ie work, art etc is considered to be less than.

This. And there are clear statistics showing how once a profession becomes dominated by women, its pay decreases in real terms. It has occurred both in teaching, which, when a male
Profession, was considered decently paid, and it occurred in reverse in computer coding, which, which a female profession, was considered clerical and therefore was low paid.

Do you ever stop to do a tiny bit of research and question your priors when you encounter outright propaganda like this? Or do you just swallow it up without a second thought?

To be clear, you’re saying The Atlantic is “outright propaganda” now?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/what-programmings-past-reveals-about-todays-gender-pay-gap/498797/

Yes, a "computer programmer" back then was akin to a data entry specialist and not very much like what a software engineer does today. They are playing word games and engaging in dishonest sleight of hand, as usual.

Don't let that stop your train though!

Wow tell me you didn’t read the article
Without telling me you didn’t read the article.

You read what makes you feel good and proclaim it as truth to the world.

…which is why you didn’t read the article.

I read everything.

Then you’re aware your prior comments about computer programming are directly contradicted in it. It’s ok if you read something that diverges from your worldview every once it awhile— it doesn’t make it incorrect or untruthful.

No, I've read the history of this prior to this tendentious wave of propaganda. What a "computer programmer" did then is not the same as what it is considered now.

Nor is what a nurse did the same. Nor is what a pilot did the same. No job is identical now to what it was 50 years ago because of the same thing that makes programming different: technology.

Really and truly just read the article and go back to hating women later. Alternatively find a moderate source that disputes the trend in male participation to salary like in teaching.

Some jobs get automated away, like what "computer programmers" did back then. It was considered dumb, rote labor back then. The existence of a few exceptional women who were key to the development of the field does not negate this.

Tell me what you consider a "moderate source".

It wasn’t though. In 1967 women were making the equivalent of $150,000 as programmers. That’s not the compensation for “dumb, rote, labor”

In 1953 Raytheon had a 50/50 gender ratio at their Army site in MD. Women and men with graduate degrees— again not “dumb, rote, labor”

Men in power viewing the work done by women as “dumb” isn’t new. It also doesn’t mean it is dumb.

(Here’s the citation for both: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html)

I would consider Atlantic, The Economist, WSJ (non-editorial) and London Times as moderate sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

Okay. Who is “society?” Men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not so sure about that...but the one thing I'm sure of, is that heterosexual white men are the single most attacked and hated group in large cities right now...

This comment beyond being false is just truly disgusting in light of the skyrocketing rates of bias attacks against Jews and Asians and the LGBTQ community in the last few years.

White heterosexual men are absolutely NOT the most attacked group of people in the cities, or in the suburbs, or in rural America. They are, however, the biggest whiners and ALWAYS have been.

100% this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

Okay. Who is “society?” Men?

You want me to define society for you? Go read some Hobbes maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow what planet is that guy living on where he thinks everything is a matriarch and how can I get there?

I hear my husband say stuff like no one takes care of him, or that no one cares if he is sad, or that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person, people only care about what you can do for them. And I think, “yeah. Welcome to being an adult.”

But I think he imagines that there is this other subset of people who are just loved and cared for unconditionally without anything being expected of them in return. I don’t know who exactly he thinks these people are (other than children) or who is doing all of this caring (men?). But it feels real to him.

That other subset is called "women". And the reason is because they are more inherently biologically valuable.

Way to invalidate your husbands feelings.

Who does he think takes care of women or cares if they are sick or sad? The kids? Their boss? Him? Who?

Society takes care of women, because they are more biologically valuable. That's why women consume the lion's share of social services and are generally treated more sympathetically in times of vulnerability.

A man has to become valuable, because he is not born with the same degree of intrinsic value as a woman. Your husband is describing the weight of contingent value that he feels. The safety nets won't care as much about him.

You lost me right there.

Not sure why you're getting lost. By and large, men have always been treated as more expendable by society.

In the United States, women who are “biologically more valuable” (fertile women willing to have children) are allowed to die in childbirth at rates not seen anywhere else in the developed world. Society does not take care of women.

You did not refute the point at all. Just came with a random non-sequitur. I wonder why...

Sorry I think perhaps it was too subtle.
Society doesn’t take care of women. White men (your victims) receive the highest social security payments— one might even call it the lions share.

Rape against women is prosecuted at an alarmingly low rate. Law enforcement in cases that were later re-opened because the rapist went on to commit further crimes said on the record that they simply had not believed the accusers despite DNA evidence.

That is not a society that takes care of women.

I did not say social security, I said social safety net (not to speak of general societal acceptability of female vulnerability). Have any stats on who pays the lion's share of taxes?

People are very reluctant to even acknowledge that men can be raped. Find some better examples.