Why its almost always women putting partner's career ahead of their own

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

I didn’t have a choice as a woman. My exH was 11 years older and requested I choose a less demanding job because he traveled. I personally think it’s best for women when they don’t sacrifice their career. Husbands would be more involved in raising their kids and more bonded with their children reducing the risk of divorce.

But the crucial career years late 20-early 30s usually is when women are expected to birth children. And given the corporate environment these two things are incompatible.


Btw if your wives were truly successful in their careers they would be already retired by mid 50s

You had a CHOICE not to marry that guy. Seriously, stop with the woe is me stuff, it's so annoying.

Accountability is kryptonite. Every failing is externalized (no choice, systemic, patriarchy), unless they want to cosplay as empowered and full of agency. The same person will take on each persona at different times, depending on what suits them situationally. You have to laugh.

Why not ask why these men don’t take accountability for their own choices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On average, women don't want to work outside of the home as much as men do. It's that simple.

I don't know who these average women are - 95% of my friends that I've known from age 5 to now work because they want to.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your friend group and immediate circle may not be representative? Try to look past your own nose. You're doing that thing that women do again.

So cite your sources that women don't WANT to work outside the home. Maybe your group of either uneducated friends? But take a look around the DMV, which is where this website is based, for a second.

Soooo many biglaw/banker/girlboss women secretly moan about hating their jobs and prefer having some rich man so they don't have to work. Constantly hearing this in "educated" circles. It's laughable.

Put it this way, if you factor in a rich spouse, more men would still prefer to work than vice versa. Men and women are just built different and have different impulses, drives and incentives. A bit stupid and delusional to deny this, even though such thought processes are all the rage these days.

lol ok. Well don’t come crying here when your “built differently” man has to pay alimony and 1/2 his net worth to his ex wife and see his kids every other weekend after the divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On average, women don't want to work outside of the home as much as men do. It's that simple.

I don't know who these average women are - 95% of my friends that I've known from age 5 to now work because they want to.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your friend group and immediate circle may not be representative? Try to look past your own nose. You're doing that thing that women do again.

So cite your sources that women don't WANT to work outside the home. Maybe your group of either uneducated friends? But take a look around the DMV, which is where this website is based, for a second.

Soooo many biglaw/banker/girlboss women secretly moan about hating their jobs and prefer having some rich man so they don't have to work. Constantly hearing this in "educated" circles. It's laughable.

Put it this way, if you factor in a rich spouse, more men would still prefer to work than vice versa. Men and women are just built different and have different impulses, drives and incentives. A bit stupid and delusional to deny this, even though such thought processes are all the rage these days.

I’m a biglaw girlie and my male colleagues joke constantly about not wanting to work, wanting to retire immediately, wanting a trust fund, and wishing they’d married rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women do periods, pregnancies, labor, breastfeeding, birth control, menopause. If they are also earning her money, least a man can do in addition to earning his money is to be an equal partner in parenting and household.

If he can't then he needs to increase his earning potential to provide hired help.

Not all women give birth.

Yes, but 90% of women do. We are not here to discuss outliers.

A) 10% isn’t an outlier
B) discussing how we treat moms who don’t give birth identically to moms who do give birth illustrate that the treatment isn’t actually about birth giving. It’s about attitudes towards motherhood.

Well, it is a very small minority. We are talking about general human behavior.

[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:This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it?

Because many people still have common sense. Men are providers by nature. Household and children are the primary responsibilities of women. This type of lifestyle is closest to the human nature.

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955.

Name a society in history where men cared for the home and children, and women went out and procured the food and resources.

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.

If that's the best you can do, I think you're coming up short.

You’re moving the goalposts. You said to name a single society in all of human history. Done.

But I’ll name a few more.

!Kung
Hadza
Trobriand Islanders
Khasi
Mosuo

Perhaps it is societal conditioning, but it’s societal conditioning that has successfully built on top of existing human nature. Do you want to live in the society the !Kung or Trobriand Islanders built? Feel free to pack your bags and move to Papua New Guinea and live your best life. Find a man to take care of your home and children there. Let us know how that goes.

Being a lesbian in the U.S. has worked fine for me. Oh, wait, are there western subcultures that aren’t interested in and don’t need male providers? Gasp.

Lesbians are 1.4% of the population. Maybe we could visit the isle of Lesbos to see what a majority of women making the same choice as you looks like at scale! There are examples of societies where majority of women choose to be single mothers and let their men be shiftless at home to visit as well.

So just to be clear, you agree that it’s not a universal truth that all cultures involve women being primary caregivers and men primarily providing economically?

Yes, but I (a DP) conceded that from the beginning. Perhaps it is societal conditioning. But it is a societal conditioning that maps onto human nature successfully, which we all on this website live in and enjoy the fruits of while the poor women of Papua New Guinea toil in misery as the most r*ped women in the whole wide world.

Ridiculous logic. The question was whether there was ANY society in HUMAN HISTORY that has males providing primary parental care. The answer is yes, and I provided MANY examples throughout human history of such societies. You have cited no evidence that men prioritizing their career over childcare is “human nature,” and that is contrary to the fact that there are many cultures and subcultures where men are primary caregivers or men are ignored entirely. There is no trade off such that a woman who wants a man to provide childcare must accept the entire environment of Papúa New Guinea as a result. And you know that, you’re just being obtuse because you want to insist that the evidence support you despite having cited nothing but your personal authority on “human nature.”

NP here. I'm sorry but your examples of societies where males provide primary parental are laughable..
Your are naming tiny remote cultures than represent less than 1% of the world population. This is so insignificant.

Yeah, Finland, Denmark, and Norway are so remote and insignificant.

What's your point? That the way of life in these countries reflects how most people live around the globe?
Let's break it down.
There are 195 countries worldwide.
The global population exceeds 8 billion.
Scandinavia has 5 countries with a combined population of under 30 million.
Indeed, your example is insignificant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women do periods, pregnancies, labor, breastfeeding, birth control, menopause. If they are also earning her money, least a man can do in addition to earning his money is to be an equal partner in parenting and household.

If he can't then he needs to increase his earning potential to provide hired help.

Not all women give birth.

Yes, but 90% of women do. We are not here to discuss outliers.

A) 10% isn’t an outlier
B) discussing how we treat moms who don’t give birth identically to moms who do give birth illustrate that the treatment isn’t actually about birth giving. It’s about attitudes towards motherhood.

Well, it is a very small minority. We are talking about general human behavior.

Actually this all came up with the demand that someone name literally any society in human history where men are primary or equal caregivers. There have been numerous societies across time and geography where that is the case. And the prevalence of such societies indicates that such behavior is not “contrary to human nature,” which was the argument raised.

If you want me to say that societies where women are primary parents are more common, you won’t hear me challenging that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stepped back from my career that I loved to raise the kids. The reasons were:

1) just being pregnant was really hard on me
2) giving birth and recovering from that took time
3) men cannot breast-feed, if you want to breast-feed your baby, it’s on you. Pumping doesn’t really solve that because you still have to wake up to pump.

Between #1 and #2, a year is gone. Then another year for the not sleeping through the night phase and #3. x3 kids and you have six years. At that point you have a two, four, and six-year-old, and it is really tough to have both parents working in demanding full-time non flexible jobs where you cannot work from home at all, possibly unless you have some reliable family help. In my experience, hired help isn’t the same, they’re just not as dependable, it’s tough to get them to work the hours that you truly need, and frankly they’re not as good. And then the kids get a little older and things get easier, but then something like Covid hits and they are home again, and since you’ve been the one home all along, it’s still you. Then you get into the high school where the demands, stress, and the drama increase, plus you have been out a really long time, and it just feels like it doesn’t make sense to try to go back.

What kind of nonsense is this? Your kids didn't sleep through the night FOR TWO YEARS? FFS. This is the kind of ridiculous rational that make work people come up with. Oh I couldn't possibly have a job because I have to hand make our soaps and that just takes so much time! Please.

Why are you denying the simple practical reality of child birth and early years ? My son didn’t start sleeping through the night until age 2. The PP with 3 kids is describing the real dynamic of early childhood. Add one neurodivergent child to your family - all career aspirations will change unless you institutionalize that child.

Also you didn’t respond to my stats that in fact American women do want to work, they do work and bring 45% of joint income WHILE also being primary parents to their kids. You keep insisting that women don’t take enough responsibility. You are spitting hateful BS not supported by mega data besides Finland (which is a result of a very long term crafted government policy).

[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:This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it?

Because many people still have common sense. Men are providers by nature. Household and children are the primary responsibilities of women. This type of lifestyle is closest to the human nature.

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955.

Name a society in history where men cared for the home and children, and women went out and procured the food and resources.

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.

If that's the best you can do, I think you're coming up short.

You’re moving the goalposts. You said to name a single society in all of human history. Done.

But I’ll name a few more.

!Kung
Hadza
Trobriand Islanders
Khasi
Mosuo

Perhaps it is societal conditioning, but it’s societal conditioning that has successfully built on top of existing human nature. Do you want to live in the society the !Kung or Trobriand Islanders built? Feel free to pack your bags and move to Papua New Guinea and live your best life. Find a man to take care of your home and children there. Let us know how that goes.

Being a lesbian in the U.S. has worked fine for me. Oh, wait, are there western subcultures that aren’t interested in and don’t need male providers? Gasp.

Lesbians are 1.4% of the population. Maybe we could visit the isle of Lesbos to see what a majority of women making the same choice as you looks like at scale! There are examples of societies where majority of women choose to be single mothers and let their men be shiftless at home to visit as well.

So just to be clear, you agree that it’s not a universal truth that all cultures involve women being primary caregivers and men primarily providing economically?

Yes, but I (a DP) conceded that from the beginning. Perhaps it is societal conditioning. But it is a societal conditioning that maps onto human nature successfully, which we all on this website live in and enjoy the fruits of while the poor women of Papua New Guinea toil in misery as the most r*ped women in the whole wide world.

Ridiculous logic. The question was whether there was ANY society in HUMAN HISTORY that has males providing primary parental care. The answer is yes, and I provided MANY examples throughout human history of such societies. You have cited no evidence that men prioritizing their career over childcare is “human nature,” and that is contrary to the fact that there are many cultures and subcultures where men are primary caregivers or men are ignored entirely. There is no trade off such that a woman who wants a man to provide childcare must accept the entire environment of Papúa New Guinea as a result. And you know that, you’re just being obtuse because you want to insist that the evidence support you despite having cited nothing but your personal authority on “human nature.”

NP here. I'm sorry but your examples of societies where males provide primary parental are laughable..
Your are naming tiny remote cultures than represent less than 1% of the world population. This is so insignificant.

Yeah, Finland, Denmark, and Norway are so remote and insignificant.

What's your point? That the way of life in these countries reflects how most people live around the globe?
Let's break it down.
There are 195 countries worldwide.
The global population exceeds 8 billion.
Scandinavia has 5 countries with a combined population of under 30 million.
Indeed, your example is insignificant.

It’s an example of multiple modern, western societies with some of the highest standards of living in the world and highest rates of happiness successfully pulling of men serving as functional parents. It shows what’s obviously possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

I didn’t have a choice as a woman. My exH was 11 years older and requested I choose a less demanding job because he traveled. I personally think it’s best for women when they don’t sacrifice their career. Husbands would be more involved in raising their kids and more bonded with their children reducing the risk of divorce.

But the crucial career years late 20-early 30s usually is when women are expected to birth children. And given the corporate environment these two things are incompatible.


Btw if your wives were truly successful in their careers they would be already retired by mid 50s

Of course you had a choice to not quit your job.

Also, i made $2m last year. I work because i want to. You prove my exact point that a lot of women who so-called 'sacrificed' for their DH's career didn't actually sacrifice anything. Because your default position is that "work = bad" and that anyone who didn't need to work wouldn't work. You really didn't want to work, you don't like the idea of working.

Lots of people like work. Lots of women and men. But a lot of women don't like work. Hence, they stay home and call it 'sacrifice'.

Who told you I quit my job ? I make 400k/year working 20 hrs a week. I don’t need to earn $2m a year in law, if it requires placing my family second.

And no, women have no 100% choice in their 20s or 30s who to marry or to marry a younger man. Statistically average gap is 2-3 years for first marriage. That means spouses begin marriages with a salary gap and with her giving birth it will only expand.

Are you American? Or maybe you're from a culture that has arranged marriages? Seriously WTF are you talking about?

I’m indeed foreign born . In my home country girls are under high family pressure to marry before age 25 and have all kids by 30. My exH was the only man who proposed and I married him . Otherwise I wouldn’t have kids at all. So between choice of not having kids, being ostracized as a SMBC (with no family support at all), and getting married while having some career I obviously chose to marry. It was my best option among all available ones.
I do believe women should be allowed to prioritize career or family depending on their values.

But all my American born friends say the same about pressure to get married . Women do have biological clock that’s undeniable. If everyone was thinking like you most women won’t procreate at all. Not sure if that would make them happy though.

Parenting is hard but also most rewarding thing I’ve done in my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stepped back from my career that I loved to raise the kids. The reasons were:

1) just being pregnant was really hard on me
2) giving birth and recovering from that took time
3) men cannot breast-feed, if you want to breast-feed your baby, it’s on you. Pumping doesn’t really solve that because you still have to wake up to pump.

Between #1 and #2, a year is gone. Then another year for the not sleeping through the night phase and #3. x3 kids and you have six years. At that point you have a two, four, and six-year-old, and it is really tough to have both parents working in demanding full-time non flexible jobs where you cannot work from home at all, possibly unless you have some reliable family help. In my experience, hired help isn’t the same, they’re just not as dependable, it’s tough to get them to work the hours that you truly need, and frankly they’re not as good. And then the kids get a little older and things get easier, but then something like Covid hits and they are home again, and since you’ve been the one home all along, it’s still you. Then you get into the high school where the demands, stress, and the drama increase, plus you have been out a really long time, and it just feels like it doesn’t make sense to try to go back.

You poor, poor thing. All of these things that just happened to you over and over again and made it so that you couldn't work. How sad that at no point did you ever have a choice about what you were doing.

Obliviously you have no kids or empathy.

DP. The vast majority of people posting have children. They also take responsibility for their decisions. Sorry that’s foreign to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so thankful I’m a lesbian married to a woman.

This thread makes me so thankful I'm a woman married to a real man, you know, one who actually cares for his children and doesn't treat his wife as an employee.

Now tell me about what a "real woman" does. Or better yet, let your husband tell me.

Sure, if you are still able to read after rolling your eyes so hard. A real woman does what a real man does, you know, actually care for their children and not treat their husband like an ATM. It's not difficult.

So a "real man" and a "real woman" do the exact same things? Interesting...

DP. They both take financial and logistical reasonsibility for the life they create.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On average, women don't want to work outside of the home as much as men do. It's that simple.

I don't know who these average women are - 95% of my friends that I've known from age 5 to now work because they want to.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your friend group and immediate circle may not be representative? Try to look past your own nose. You're doing that thing that women do again.

So cite your sources that women don't WANT to work outside the home. Maybe your group of either uneducated friends? But take a look around the DMV, which is where this website is based, for a second.

Soooo many biglaw/banker/girlboss women secretly moan about hating their jobs and prefer having some rich man so they don't have to work. Constantly hearing this in "educated" circles. It's laughable.

Put it this way, if you factor in a rich spouse, more men would still prefer to work than vice versa. Men and women are just built different and have different impulses, drives and incentives. A bit stupid and delusional to deny this, even though such thought processes are all the rage these days.

Well, as someone who spent a lot of time big law, I can assure you most men would quit if they had a rich spouse and it was socially acceptable to do so. They don’t stay because of some great drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On average, women don't want to work outside of the home as much as men do. It's that simple.

I don't know who these average women are - 95% of my friends that I've known from age 5 to now work because they want to.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your friend group and immediate circle may not be representative? Try to look past your own nose. You're doing that thing that women do again.

So cite your sources that women don't WANT to work outside the home. Maybe your group of either uneducated friends? But take a look around the DMV, which is where this website is based, for a second.

Soooo many biglaw/banker/girlboss women secretly moan about hating their jobs and prefer having some rich man so they don't have to work. Constantly hearing this in "educated" circles. It's laughable.

Put it this way, if you factor in a rich spouse, more men would still prefer to work than vice versa. Men and women are just built different and have different impulses, drives and incentives. A bit stupid and delusional to deny this, even though such thought processes are all the rage these days.

Well, as someone who spent a lot of time big law, I can assure you most men would quit if they had a rich spouse and it was socially acceptable to do so. They don’t stay because of some great drive.

My (mixed-gender) colleagues and I are currently all in a Teams chat about how we need to retire immediately and want sugar mammas/daddies as we stare down the barrel of billing 40 hours over the next three days to meet a key deadline.

[Anonymous]

As countries evolve, this trend evolves.

In animal species, the general form of reproduction is rape - the male species pins down the female species during copulation. The male species is stronger and strength dominates other traits.

Humans have evolved from primitive inclinations. We are thoughtful beings. We do not approve of rape as a form of reproduction. Men’s greater strength doesn’t result in more societal power.

Male and female roles may be rooted historically on biological functions, but as we evolve we lose those vestiges of historical imperatives. The Northern European countries of Sweden and Norway are some of the most evolved, egalitarian societies. Men and women live equally, earn equality, and hold power and status equally.

The more the US evolves, the less women will be dependent on men for economic survival. Women continue to attend college in greater numbers, and education is directly proportional to earnings. It has become normalized in society for women to work - and stay in the workforce once they have children. Men are expected to be equal partners in child rearing and home maintenance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so thankful I’m a lesbian married to a woman.

This thread makes me so thankful I'm a woman married to a real man, you know, one who actually cares for his children and doesn't treat his wife as an employee.

Now tell me about what a "real woman" does. Or better yet, let your husband tell me.

Sure, if you are still able to read after rolling your eyes so hard. A real woman does what a real man does, you know, actually care for their children and not treat their husband like an ATM. It's not difficult.

So a "real man" and a "real woman" do the exact same things? Interesting...

Yes, when they have kids they should. Sorry that’s such a hard concept for you to grasp.