Why its almost always women putting partner's career ahead of their own
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
In 45% of dual-income marriages, the woman makes equal to or more than the man. |
Anonymous
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 |
Anonymous
|
In many families I know, it is derived from the man being more selfish. Most of my friends are at least as smart and accomplished as their DH but slowly deprioritized their career over time because their husbands did not truly rise to 50/50 partnership and something's gotta give. I feel like many of us are living the cliche that we were the generation that was told they could be anything and heard they had to do everything. As we are turning 40 and our kids' emotional needs get more complex, many are crying uncle and dropping the balls that can be dropped. If they are lucky and have their finances in order, that is most often work, whether it's stepping back entirely, working part-time, findng a lower key job or even staying in a stagnant job due to family demands.
I often wonder what this will look like for my DD's generation (she is a young kid). |
Anonymous
Yea, I studied biological anthropology and this is accurate. Women procure roughly 50% of calories, and men often spend just as much time on caring for children as women. Of course it varies from group to group, but very rarely is it as harshly divided with women caregiving and men providing as it is among western cultures. |
Anonymous
Given these examples you can't exactly say that this an adaptive strategy. |
Anonymous
I find it telling that no one is talking about their sons. |
Anonymous
| In my friend group I see more of the opposite, actually! The women are the high achieving ones. Of course they are all tired! |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
So first of all “pygmies” is a colonialist term. There is considerable diversity among peoples thusly called. None of them refer to themselves as pygmies. Of course they don’t. As with many populations who are distant from our understanding, we turn them into a Rorschach test, viewing them through the lens of our own culture. Picking and choosing elements of their practices to serve as fodder in our culture wars is just colonialism all over again. We subjugated them before; now they must serve us again as examples to prove a point, because it’s all about us, isn’t it. Leave them alone. And the !Kung and all the rest. |
Anonymous
Pun intended? |
Anonymous
It’s a chicken and egg. Women are drawn to teaching bc reflexively they want something flexible and less demanding, bc they are anticipating their future life. Men don’t feel so constrained. |
Anonymous
Women are drawn to big law. More than half of big law associates are women. |
Anonymous
Sure, there are plenty of women with high earning careers these days. The difference is that you see way more couples where the man is high earning and the woman low earning, than vice versa. High earning men date women of all earning levels. High earning women usually date only high earning men |
Anonymous
You’ll need to more clearly define what you mean by “adaptive”. The original PP asked for one. Now the goalposts keep moving and you’re asking for an “adaptive” one without clarifying what that means. Human behavior is ultimately meant to be extremely flexible and change to suit circumstances. There’s nothing that says we inherently need to split roles along gender lines. And we now know it’s actually quite bad for women to be reliant on a man, as the hand that feeds you can also starve you. The original statement made by a PP was that gender roles are biological. The very existence of societies where there are not clearly defined gender roles proves that it is not biological, especially since hunter gatherer societies are actually closer to what we biological evolved to live in. The “traditional housewife” model where men work outside the home while women stay home is extremely recent in human history and is the result of industrialization. Prior to that, couples usually worked and lived in the same place, such as the family farm, shop, etc. with women helping out. The housewife model was popularized after WW2 as more of a status symbol than anything. Women from lower classes still worked; having a housewife was a status symbol for men that they were middle/higher class. Interestingly, this was a result primarily of government backed policies and programs. The GI Bill, government-backed mortgages, strong unions, state investment into colleges to decrease tuition, strong labor protections. So in fact, it’s quite backwards from what most people believe. Most people believe traditional gender roles are “adaptive”, when in fact they are the result of intense government policy and spending. Certainly not biological! That is, of course, separating out the 1950s housewife stereotype from general patriarchy, where women are deprived of resources and autonomy, which has been around for a very long time and is more tied to agriculture, the accumulation of wealth and division of classes. So again, not biological, but the result of a societal system. |
Anonymous
| Because men know woman will eventually lament the lost time with kids and it will the man’s fault the woman “had to” work. Men will also miss the time away from kids and family, they just won’t complain about it. |