Do you think feminism has been a net positive or net negative for relationships?

[Anonymous]

True feminism has been a positive.
The " feminism" of the last decade is a negative.

[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:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

Another person who isn't a SAHP but thinks we need to acknowledge the importance of the work they do. And respecting that importance is part of how we get men to participate more.

The more I discuss the deep value of a lot of parenting work with my DH, the more willing he is to do it. But when he perceives it as being "women's work" or frivolous, he avoids it. So for instance, he will not dust or vacuum. He just won't. I cannot get him to do it. When I've asked him to vacuum because I'm injured and physically can't do it (and even in that situation, I have to ask him to do it) he will complain and avoid it. He just doesn't think it's important. He won't admit it, but I think he just views it as beneath him because it's something he's only ever seen women do. And in UMC circles, a lot of people only ever see working class immigrant women performing those tasks, and this leads to even further devaluing.

However, he will do drop off and pick up at school, and in fact sometimes fights me for the chance to do it. Part of this is because he sees other UMC men doing it. Part of it is because I told him what a great time that is with the kids, to talk to them about their days -- it winds up being a big opportunity for parenting and offering guidance or support. That task has been okayed by the powers that be as "important" because enough high status men do it to make other men feel like it matters. Again, it's subsconscious -- my DH would never admit that this is part of what influences his desire to participate.

But we need to apply the same attitude towards other aspects of parenting and caring for homes. Stop seeing vacuuming, organizing closets, or checking to see if kids' clothes fit and ordering new ones the next size up if they don't, as meaningless. They aren't. It's part of how a household functions. The more we as a society (including women) put down these tasks as unimportant and beneath us, the more men also internalize that message and *really* don't want to participate.

So when we put down SAHMs (and likewise when we demean the work of nannies, childcare workers, early childhood education teachers, housecleaners, etc.), all we do is continue to demean *essential* work, which will lead to men shirking these duties. When a job becomes perceived as valuable, men volunteer to do it. It's like magic.

I think you are giving yourself way too much influence here. Maybe he just thinks vacuuming so frequently is stupid and needless and it's not that deep.

He will not vacuum at all. At one point I was laid up after surgery and the house had not been vacuumed in weeks. We had little kids and a dog, the floor was disgusting. I had to beg him to vacuum before he agreed and even then he put it off an extra day because he hates it so much. Same with dusting. Has literally never dusted. I showed him once how dust in the kitchen becomes sticky and greasy, to try and show him why wiping down cabinets at least occasionally is useful and actually saves you effort in the long run and can extend the life of your cabinets. Still won't do it. It's women's work.

I know many men like this. They will cook and grocery shop because of men like Anthony Bourdain and Alton Brown who helped to code these activities as masculine or at least gender neutral. They'll play with their kids, do drop off and pick up, coach kid's sports -- all activities that have been coded as sufficiently masculine. With some coaxing they will also change diapers and feed babies, those activities have been more recently converted to more gender neutral thanks to the rise of paternity leave and more UMC men taking it.

But they really struggle with cleaning and parenting activities still coded as female (somewhat arbitrarily). Organizing is still very female coded, probably more than ever because the rise of organizing as a business is completely female dominated. Anything having to do with kids clothes or shoes gets female coded (even buying shoes and clothes for boys, somehow, as though men do not wear clothes and couldn't possibly understand the concept of sizing? so baffling). PTA's and school-related activities continue to be heavily female-coded, I suspect because schools remain very female-dominated workplaces so men shy away from them. It might be changing some but not much.

Meanwhile women generally don't have issues doing traditionally male-coded activities like yard work, doing handy work around the house, getting the car fixed, handling money, etc. They may sometimes need more guidance on these activities if they grew up in gendered households where they were never taught how to do them, but there isn't a reluctance to do these things because they fear violating gender norms.

The reason why is that collectively people value male-coded activities and assume they are important, and women have been encouraged to aspire to men's activities for many decades now, by moving into the working world. But female-coded activities continue to be viewed as "lower" and even emasculating, and most men will avoid activities or behaviors that are perceived as feminine because society deems femininity as inferior to masculinity.

This is not a me thing, this is a documented phenomenon.

Ok, now I know you're just having a laugh.

Really? Because I do 100% of yard work, 100% of car maintenance, 75% of repair jobs around the home. DH handles the money because it’s adjacent to his field of work and I find it tedious. He does more laundry and cleans the toilets but has never cleaned the floor or kitchen in his life.

PP is spot on.

[Anonymous]

LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

...so?

I don't consider having fully grown, capable adults, treated like dependents as a "net positive". Sorry you think infantilizing women is somehow a positive feature of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

I think you missed the point. I didn't say that SAHPs are a net negative - I said if SAHPs were properly compensated, it would be a net positive. Let's look at just your post. No women would have to forego having children to fulfill their ambitions - their husbands would simply value being at home and being a parent more. But because it's not compensated, it's seen as less than, it's seen as not as important as corporate or whatever "powerful men accomplish".

Why do you think SAHPs should not be compensated fairly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

I think you missed the point. I didn't say that SAHPs are a net negative - I said if SAHPs were properly compensated, it would be a net positive. Let's look at just your post. No women would have to forego having children to fulfill their ambitions - their husbands would simply value being at home and being a parent more. But because it's not compensated, it's seen as less than, it's seen as not as important as corporate or whatever "powerful men accomplish".

Why do you think SAHPs should not be compensated fairly?

Where did you get that?

My belief is that any person should be able to meet their basic needs (including properly saving for retirement) while working 20-30 hours a week and that we should live in proper communities where parents don’t have to pay $150/day per child for camp on days off of school so they can go to the office. The entire system is effed. And this leads to women taking a huge hit in their careers. Anyone who wants to lean out, should also be able to. And people are free to work more and make more at the cost of all the prices we pay today: hardly seeing your kids, minimal free time for friendship or hobbies, etc. Parenting would be far more egalitarian if we didn’t live in this capitalist hellhole where an illness can bankrupt you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

I think you missed the point. I didn't say that SAHPs are a net negative - I said if SAHPs were properly compensated, it would be a net positive. Let's look at just your post. No women would have to forego having children to fulfill their ambitions - their husbands would simply value being at home and being a parent more. But because it's not compensated, it's seen as less than, it's seen as not as important as corporate or whatever "powerful men accomplish".

Why do you think SAHPs should not be compensated fairly?

Where did you get that?

My belief is that any person should be able to meet their basic needs (including properly saving for retirement) while working 20-30 hours a week and that we should live in proper communities where parents don’t have to pay $150/day per child for camp on days off of school so they can go to the office. The entire system is effed. And this leads to women taking a huge hit in their careers. Anyone who wants to lean out, should also be able to. And people are free to work more and make more at the cost of all the prices we pay today: hardly seeing your kids, minimal free time for friendship or hobbies, etc. Parenting would be far more egalitarian if we didn’t live in this capitalist hellhole where an illness can bankrupt you.

So it sounds like you agree with me, you just didn't properly read my post. Cool. Thanks.

[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:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

Another person who isn't a SAHP but thinks we need to acknowledge the importance of the work they do. And respecting that importance is part of how we get men to participate more.

The more I discuss the deep value of a lot of parenting work with my DH, the more willing he is to do it. But when he perceives it as being "women's work" or frivolous, he avoids it. So for instance, he will not dust or vacuum. He just won't. I cannot get him to do it. When I've asked him to vacuum because I'm injured and physically can't do it (and even in that situation, I have to ask him to do it) he will complain and avoid it. He just doesn't think it's important. He won't admit it, but I think he just views it as beneath him because it's something he's only ever seen women do. And in UMC circles, a lot of people only ever see working class immigrant women performing those tasks, and this leads to even further devaluing.

However, he will do drop off and pick up at school, and in fact sometimes fights me for the chance to do it. Part of this is because he sees other UMC men doing it. Part of it is because I told him what a great time that is with the kids, to talk to them about their days -- it winds up being a big opportunity for parenting and offering guidance or support. That task has been okayed by the powers that be as "important" because enough high status men do it to make other men feel like it matters. Again, it's subsconscious -- my DH would never admit that this is part of what influences his desire to participate.

But we need to apply the same attitude towards other aspects of parenting and caring for homes. Stop seeing vacuuming, organizing closets, or checking to see if kids' clothes fit and ordering new ones the next size up if they don't, as meaningless. They aren't. It's part of how a household functions. The more we as a society (including women) put down these tasks as unimportant and beneath us, the more men also internalize that message and *really* don't want to participate.

So when we put down SAHMs (and likewise when we demean the work of nannies, childcare workers, early childhood education teachers, housecleaners, etc.), all we do is continue to demean *essential* work, which will lead to men shirking these duties. When a job becomes perceived as valuable, men volunteer to do it. It's like magic.

I think you are giving yourself way too much influence here. Maybe he just thinks vacuuming so frequently is stupid and needless and it's not that deep.

He will not vacuum at all. At one point I was laid up after surgery and the house had not been vacuumed in weeks. We had little kids and a dog, the floor was disgusting. I had to beg him to vacuum before he agreed and even then he put it off an extra day because he hates it so much. Same with dusting. Has literally never dusted. I showed him once how dust in the kitchen becomes sticky and greasy, to try and show him why wiping down cabinets at least occasionally is useful and actually saves you effort in the long run and can extend the life of your cabinets. Still won't do it. It's women's work.

I know many men like this. They will cook and grocery shop because of men like Anthony Bourdain and Alton Brown who helped to code these activities as masculine or at least gender neutral. They'll play with their kids, do drop off and pick up, coach kid's sports -- all activities that have been coded as sufficiently masculine. With some coaxing they will also change diapers and feed babies, those activities have been more recently converted to more gender neutral thanks to the rise of paternity leave and more UMC men taking it.

But they really struggle with cleaning and parenting activities still coded as female (somewhat arbitrarily). Organizing is still very female coded, probably more than ever because the rise of organizing as a business is completely female dominated. Anything having to do with kids clothes or shoes gets female coded (even buying shoes and clothes for boys, somehow, as though men do not wear clothes and couldn't possibly understand the concept of sizing? so baffling). PTA's and school-related activities continue to be heavily female-coded, I suspect because schools remain very female-dominated workplaces so men shy away from them. It might be changing some but not much.

Meanwhile women generally don't have issues doing traditionally male-coded activities like yard work, doing handy work around the house, getting the car fixed, handling money, etc. They may sometimes need more guidance on these activities if they grew up in gendered households where they were never taught how to do them, but there isn't a reluctance to do these things because they fear violating gender norms.

The reason why is that collectively people value male-coded activities and assume they are important, and women have been encouraged to aspire to men's activities for many decades now, by moving into the working world. But female-coded activities continue to be viewed as "lower" and even emasculating, and most men will avoid activities or behaviors that are perceived as feminine because society deems femininity as inferior to masculinity.

This is not a me thing, this is a documented phenomenon.

Ok, now I know you're just having a laugh.

Really? Because I do 100% of yard work, 100% of car maintenance, 75% of repair jobs around the home. DH handles the money because it’s adjacent to his field of work and I find it tedious. He does more laundry and cleans the toilets but has never cleaned the floor or kitchen in his life.

PP is spot on.

You sound like a narc that makes themselves the center of the universe. Ever stop and think for a second that you or your situation might not be representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

Your bias is showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, the person saying SAHPs are net negative to society is living in lalaland. Without them, the vast majority of powerful men would not accomplish a fraction of what they do. Powerful women often have to forgo having kids to fulfill their ambitions.

Your bias is showing.

You missed PP’s point which is that men rely on women to reach heights and have a family too (which benefits them in the workplace we know). Women often have to do it without having a family or work 10x harder because they have a family. Not many men are willing to slow their career to support their wife. I know a handful of great guys who do, but it’s not the usual situation.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how "feminism" is still an issue in 2025. I think everyone agrees that people should be treated equally in the professional world and you rise and fall according to your talents. I think that's pretty settled. And in personal life, a good man likes spending time with their kids, and is usually very happy to take them to practice and whatnot. Huge bonus points if he's a foodie and likes to cook.

Looking at my friend group, most met in grad school. They are very much partnerships among equals who have the same values and goals. Sure, the man may take on more traditional gender roles - fixing things, mowing the lawn, dealing with car maintenance etc. And I think men as a species are inclined to do laundry only as needed and will happily pull clothes out of the dryer. But with time in a relationship, everyone settles into their responsibilities in a way that works for both partners.

The trick is to marry the right person. In my little friend group, it's not uncommon for the woman to have the bigger, more stressful, and demanding job. So these couples adapt and make it work. Childhood and all the demands that go with it is temporary. So you roll with that situation for those few years and adjust - because you have larger goals and prioritize a happy relationship and a happy family.

I think it's generally understood that women have careers and ambition. And our society is not ideally suited to two working professionals with kids. But that's a "system" problem, and not a relationship problem. In the meantime, people adapt and make the best of it.

Values and goals is something that should be very settled before you marry someone. It's not that difficult to avoid marrying a useless man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how "feminism" is still an issue in 2025. I think everyone agrees that people should be treated equally in the professional world and you rise and fall according to your talents. I think that's pretty settled. And in personal life, a good man likes spending time with their kids, and is usually very happy to take them to practice and whatnot. Huge bonus points if he's a foodie and likes to cook.

Looking at my friend group, most met in grad school. They are very much partnerships among equals who have the same values and goals. Sure, the man may take on more traditional gender roles - fixing things, mowing the lawn, dealing with car maintenance etc. And I think men as a species are inclined to do laundry only as needed and will happily pull clothes out of the dryer. But with time in a relationship, everyone settles into their responsibilities in a way that works for both partners.

The trick is to marry the right person. In my little friend group, it's not uncommon for the woman to have the bigger, more stressful, and demanding job. So these couples adapt and make it work. Childhood and all the demands that go with it is temporary. So you roll with that situation for those few years and adjust - because you have larger goals and prioritize a happy relationship and a happy family.

I think it's generally understood that women have careers and ambition. And our society is not ideally suited to two working professionals with kids. But that's a "system" problem, and not a relationship problem. In the meantime, people adapt and make the best of it.

Values and goals is something that should be very settled before you marry someone. It's not that difficult to avoid marrying a useless man.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how "feminism" is still an issue in 2025. I think everyone agrees that people should be treated equally in the professional world and you rise and fall according to your talents. I think that's pretty settled. And in personal life, a good man likes spending time with their kids, and is usually very happy to take them to practice and whatnot. Huge bonus points if he's a foodie and likes to cook.

Looking at my friend group, most met in grad school. They are very much partnerships among equals who have the same values and goals. Sure, the man may take on more traditional gender roles - fixing things, mowing the lawn, dealing with car maintenance etc. And I think men as a species are inclined to do laundry only as needed and will happily pull clothes out of the dryer. But with time in a relationship, everyone settles into their responsibilities in a way that works for both partners.

The trick is to marry the right person. In my little friend group, it's not uncommon for the woman to have the bigger, more stressful, and demanding job. So these couples adapt and make it work. Childhood and all the demands that go with it is temporary. So you roll with that situation for those few years and adjust - because you have larger goals and prioritize a happy relationship and a happy family.

I think it's generally understood that women have careers and ambition. And our society is not ideally suited to two working professionals with kids. But that's a "system" problem, and not a relationship problem. In the meantime, people adapt and make the best of it.

Values and goals is something that should be very settled before you marry someone. It's not that difficult to avoid marrying a useless man.

It's not an issue for the vast, vast majority of people in 2025. It is just a stupid false dichotomy argument by a trolling OP that allows other trolls to be openly sexist, allows a platform for more mommy wars (WOHM v SAHM), and allows anonymous know-it-alls to assert statistics and facts with no actual citations. It is a dumb post that shouldn't have gotten any responses, let alone 27 pages and counting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re have been studies that the unhappiest people in society are moms and wives, which is probably why people don’t rush to do it.
Also, it’s why when a relationship breaks up, women are normally happier and most don’t want to get married again.

False. Recent research consistently finds married mothers happier than single women

https://ifstudies.org/press-release/married-moms-twice-as-likely-to-be-very-happy-than-single-or-childless-women

https://slate.com/life/2025/08/happiness-marriage-rates-women-taylor-swift-engagement.html

To be clear, are we taking Institute of Family studies as a credible source now? I don't know that you'll love what some of their other research suggests...

DP. They're right though. The data showing married women were unhappier than single women was a mistake.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness

DP. If you're trying to engage with the research and data in an honest way, then I encourage you to actually look up the studies and not rely on pundits engaged in advocacy.

Right back at you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how "feminism" is still an issue in 2025. I think everyone agrees that people should be treated equally in the professional world and you rise and fall according to your talents. I think that's pretty settled. And in personal life, a good man likes spending time with their kids, and is usually very happy to take them to practice and whatnot. Huge bonus points if he's a foodie and likes to cook.

Looking at my friend group, most met in grad school. They are very much partnerships among equals who have the same values and goals. Sure, the man may take on more traditional gender roles - fixing things, mowing the lawn, dealing with car maintenance etc. And I think men as a species are inclined to do laundry only as needed and will happily pull clothes out of the dryer. But with time in a relationship, everyone settles into their responsibilities in a way that works for both partners.

The trick is to marry the right person. In my little friend group, it's not uncommon for the woman to have the bigger, more stressful, and demanding job. So these couples adapt and make it work. Childhood and all the demands that go with it is temporary. So you roll with that situation for those few years and adjust - because you have larger goals and prioritize a happy relationship and a happy family.

I think it's generally understood that women have careers and ambition. And our society is not ideally suited to two working professionals with kids. But that's a "system" problem, and not a relationship problem. In the meantime, people adapt and make the best of it.

Values and goals is something that should be very settled before you marry someone. It's not that difficult to avoid marrying a useless man.

It's not an issue for the vast, vast majority of people in 2025. It is just a stupid false dichotomy argument by a trolling OP that allows other trolls to be openly sexist, allows a platform for more mommy wars (WOHM v SAHM), and allows anonymous know-it-alls to assert statistics and facts with no actual citations. It is a dumb post that shouldn't have gotten any responses, let alone 27 pages and counting.

OMG I love you!!!! I came back today and saw this drivel was still going on and couldn't believe my eyes.