Gender Tropes, Reluctant Truths

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-confident women don’t want “traditionalism”. That’s a mechanism to control women.

I have a “traditional” marriage there is nothing controlling about it. It was my choice. I have a very good life;

It's not really "traditional" if you chose it. Real traditional marriage is by people who think they don't have any other option that's acceptable to God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reluctant truth: women don’t want to “marry down,” including enlightened feminists. In fact, a woman will remain single or have children with donor sperm before they willingly marry down.

The opportunity cost and risk to a woman of having kids is extremely high (could end up a poor single mother) so we have to vet carefully.

Are you saying that women should not sleep with any men they wouldn't have children with? We can't really have it both ways without consequences.

Maybe that's the elephant in the room. Hook up culture is bad for both men and women- at all ages, but especially young adults. Not really sure how you get that cat back in the bag though. But well-educated elites can recover from the consequences far more easily than the working class.

OP, I'm the who recommended the Modern Wisdom podcasts. I also recommend subscribing to a Substack by a guy named Rob Henderson. Interesting background that I won't go into here but he popularized a term called "Luxury Beliefs," which are basically ideas, lifestyles and language that the elite develop to separate themselves from the masses. They're ideas that they espouse but don't actually follow or use $ to mitigate fall out from (like hook up culture, single motherhood) but that have trickled down to the working class and decimated their lives. The mainstreaming of toxic masculinity as meme in the nat'l zeitgeist has destroyed working class families in a way that most people who populate this board have no concept of.

The working class folks are the ones who are doing it wrong; that’s why they’re working class after all.

You don't get it. They have so many intergenerational problems stacked against them. The gendered social norms and traditional family structures that elites can get away with criticizing (think about how many ppl are pro-polyamory on this board) have decimated working class families.

https://open.substack.com/pub/robkhenderson/p/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure?r=5pwik&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Um, I'm poly, and literally no one on this board is pro-polyamory. Every time the topic comes up, everyone talks about how poly people are fat, ugly, who would ever sleep with them, they are immature sex maniacs, their relationship(s) will fail. So you and I must be reading two different boards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-confident women don’t want “traditionalism”. That’s a mechanism to control women.

I have a “traditional” marriage there is nothing controlling about it. It was my choice. I have a very good life;

Your poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-confident women don’t want “traditionalism”. That’s a mechanism to control women.

I have a “traditional” marriage there is nothing controlling about it. It was my choice. I have a very good life;

Your poor kids.

Why my poor kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reluctant truth: women don’t want to “marry down,” including enlightened feminists. In fact, a woman will remain single or have children with donor sperm before they willingly marry down.

The opportunity cost and risk to a woman of having kids is extremely high (could end up a poor single mother) so we have to vet carefully.

Are you saying that women should not sleep with any men they wouldn't have children with? We can't really have it both ways without consequences.

Maybe that's the elephant in the room. Hook up culture is bad for both men and women- at all ages, but especially young adults. Not really sure how you get that cat back in the bag though. But well-educated elites can recover from the consequences far more easily than the working class.

OP, I'm the who recommended the Modern Wisdom podcasts. I also recommend subscribing to a Substack by a guy named Rob Henderson. Interesting background that I won't go into here but he popularized a term called "Luxury Beliefs," which are basically ideas, lifestyles and language that the elite develop to separate themselves from the masses. They're ideas that they espouse but don't actually follow or use $ to mitigate fall out from (like hook up culture, single motherhood) but that have trickled down to the working class and decimated their lives. The mainstreaming of toxic masculinity as meme in the nat'l zeitgeist has destroyed working class families in a way that most people who populate this board have no concept of.

The working class folks are the ones who are doing it wrong; that’s why they’re working class after all.

You don't get it. They have so many intergenerational problems stacked against them. The gendered social norms and traditional family structures that elites can get away with criticizing (think about how many ppl are pro-polyamory on this board) have decimated working class families.

https://open.substack.com/pub/robkhenderson/p/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure?r=5pwik&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

"It’s remarkable that the twin giants of American leadership in the 20th century — FDR and JFK — were crippled or close-to. The modern sub-strand of wokeism concerned with 'ableism' looks very different...neurotic, feminised, victimhood obsessed"

Yeah he’s an idiot.

His writing has a thin patina of erudition and learnedness, but ultimately it is pretty tendentious, callow and undercooked. He repackages a well-trodden concept as "luxury beliefs" and then ascribes to this concept explanatory powers that far outstrip his willingness, or ability, to enact the intellectual labor to accord his concept with such status (pun intended). He is flitting from one name or idea to another without properly building a solid foundation and connecting these disparate themes in a way that undergirds his ultimate thesis, which remains flimsy at best.

Veblen goods most definitely still do exist. Moreover, the idea of luxury beliefs as some sort of substitute for such goods is a little difficult to swallow given that they retain little value as markers of status because of their ephemeral nature. A lot of the things he deems luxury beliefs are here today, gone tomorrow. And any joker on twitter can adopt them and drop them with ease, as he rightly notes. They lack the exclusivity and inaccessibility that typically mark Veblen goods. Are the elite really going to rest their status on something so fickle? Does this sound like a class that is typically concerned with long time horizons, legacy and permanence?

It you want to make the claim that politics is downstream from culture, fine. If you are going to make the claim that phenomena that only bubbled up in earnest less then a decade ago are material drivers of patterns that have been at play for many decades, I'm gonna have a harder time buying it. The 80's and 90's were the height of the era of luxury goods as status symbols, at least in recent history. The timing of this luxury goods/luxury beliefs displacement theory doesn't add up as a means of explaining what he wants it to explain. The timing is all off.

It's gonna be a no for me, dawg.

Well he just pointed out that Adam Smith made a similar observation of human nature in 1776. No ideas are new--just repackaged for the current moment.
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1631772059721187328

I think your timing argument would historically be true but basically since the 1950s we've been in a medical and technological revolution (mainly the invention of hormonal contraception and the internet) that has sped up the speed of social change to an essentially lightening-fast pace. The fact that we can refer to the past 6-7 decades as their own definitive "eras" speaks to that real change. Huamns are obsessed with social status and maintaining distinctions between the classes so it's really not that far-fetched that we adapt our social barriers at a similar pace.

I take your point, and I think I agree with you that those sorts of things (medical advances, technology, globalism, etc.) are accelerating the rate of social change. I just view them a different from luxury beliefs as a primary driver. Perhaps your point is that all of these things are interrelated? We are not too far removed from a time when luxury goods were the predominant, visible signifier of status (I would suggest they still are) and, given this, it's harder to reconcile "me too", "polyamory" and "toxic masculinity" as thoroughly explanatory of single motherhood, alternative family structures and the immiseration of lower classes, especially in light of the things you have flagged.

Perhaps I was harsh in my assessment. Thank you, appreciate it.

Wow you compare the me too movement to polyamory.

How about this, stop writing essays trying to disguise your misogyny in flowery language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reluctant truth: women don’t want to “marry down,” including enlightened feminists. In fact, a woman will remain single or have children with donor sperm before they willingly marry down.

The opportunity cost and risk to a woman of having kids is extremely high (could end up a poor single mother) so we have to vet carefully.

Are you saying that women should not sleep with any men they wouldn't have children with? We can't really have it both ways without consequences.

Maybe that's the elephant in the room. Hook up culture is bad for both men and women- at all ages, but especially young adults. Not really sure how you get that cat back in the bag though. But well-educated elites can recover from the consequences far more easily than the working class.

OP, I'm the who recommended the Modern Wisdom podcasts. I also recommend subscribing to a Substack by a guy named Rob Henderson. Interesting background that I won't go into here but he popularized a term called "Luxury Beliefs," which are basically ideas, lifestyles and language that the elite develop to separate themselves from the masses. They're ideas that they espouse but don't actually follow or use $ to mitigate fall out from (like hook up culture, single motherhood) but that have trickled down to the working class and decimated their lives. The mainstreaming of toxic masculinity as meme in the nat'l zeitgeist has destroyed working class families in a way that most people who populate this board have no concept of.

The working class folks are the ones who are doing it wrong; that’s why they’re working class after all.

You don't get it. They have so many intergenerational problems stacked against them. The gendered social norms and traditional family structures that elites can get away with criticizing (think about how many ppl are pro-polyamory on this board) have decimated working class families.

https://open.substack.com/pub/robkhenderson/p/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure?r=5pwik&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

"It’s remarkable that the twin giants of American leadership in the 20th century — FDR and JFK — were crippled or close-to. The modern sub-strand of wokeism concerned with 'ableism' looks very different...neurotic, feminised, victimhood obsessed"

Yeah he’s an idiot.

His writing has a thin patina of erudition and learnedness, but ultimately it is pretty tendentious, callow and undercooked. He repackages a well-trodden concept as "luxury beliefs" and then ascribes to this concept explanatory powers that far outstrip his willingness, or ability, to enact the intellectual labor to accord his concept with such status (pun intended). He is flitting from one name or idea to another without properly building a solid foundation and connecting these disparate themes in a way that undergirds his ultimate thesis, which remains flimsy at best.

Veblen goods most definitely still do exist. Moreover, the idea of luxury beliefs as some sort of substitute for such goods is a little difficult to swallow given that they retain little value as markers of status because of their ephemeral nature. A lot of the things he deems luxury beliefs are here today, gone tomorrow. And any joker on twitter can adopt them and drop them with ease, as he rightly notes. They lack the exclusivity and inaccessibility that typically mark Veblen goods. Are the elite really going to rest their status on something so fickle? Does this sound like a class that is typically concerned with long time horizons, legacy and permanence?

It you want to make the claim that politics is downstream from culture, fine. If you are going to make the claim that phenomena that only bubbled up in earnest less then a decade ago are material drivers of patterns that have been at play for many decades, I'm gonna have a harder time buying it. The 80's and 90's were the height of the era of luxury goods as status symbols, at least in recent history. The timing of this luxury goods/luxury beliefs displacement theory doesn't add up as a means of explaining what he wants it to explain. The timing is all off.

It's gonna be a no for me, dawg.

Well he just pointed out that Adam Smith made a similar observation of human nature in 1776. No ideas are new--just repackaged for the current moment.
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1631772059721187328

I think your timing argument would historically be true but basically since the 1950s we've been in a medical and technological revolution (mainly the invention of hormonal contraception and the internet) that has sped up the speed of social change to an essentially lightening-fast pace. The fact that we can refer to the past 6-7 decades as their own definitive "eras" speaks to that real change. Huamns are obsessed with social status and maintaining distinctions between the classes so it's really not that far-fetched that we adapt our social barriers at a similar pace.

I take your point, and I think I agree with you that those sorts of things (medical advances, technology, globalism, etc.) are accelerating the rate of social change. I just view them a different from luxury beliefs as a primary driver. Perhaps your point is that all of these things are interrelated? We are not too far removed from a time when luxury goods were the predominant, visible signifier of status (I would suggest they still are) and, given this, it's harder to reconcile "me too", "polyamory" and "toxic masculinity" as thoroughly explanatory of single motherhood, alternative family structures and the immiseration of lower classes, especially in light of the things you have flagged.

Perhaps I was harsh in my assessment. Thank you, appreciate it.

Wow you compare the me too movement to polyamory.

How about this, stop writing essays trying to disguise your misogyny in flowery language.

As a misogynist, I am offended that you think my language is "flowery", but you are entitled to your opinion.

Another poster at 23:43 yesterday invoked #metoo as a luxury belief, grouping it with other so-called luxury beliefs like polyamory and toxic masculinity. I was responding to that grouping. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-confident women don’t want “traditionalism”. That’s a mechanism to control women.

I have a “traditional” marriage there is nothing controlling about it. It was my choice. I have a very good life;

Your poor kids.

Why my poor kids?

Reinforced stereotypes & lack of role models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man here. Father of two (girls, 11 and 13). And I’m enlightened yadda yadda. My mom worked full time forever with an advanced degree. But still I’d say a reluctant truth is that a lot of men just don’t have the makeup to be doting parents and raise kids. Really nurture and raise them. They just don’t want to do it. They could hit just don’t like doing it. They can and like to do tasks. But bro g responsible for the emotional crap with kids? Screw it. I’m sick of it and it is massively unpleasant work to do it. My own skill set clearly lies in things like: wooing and bedding women or a woman, making her and them safe, doing hard labor, thinking deep thoughts and clearly, being decisive, and I’d have been a damn good warrior if I had had to do that. But nurturing whiny kids? I just hate it.

I'm a woman and I agree with you. Feminism encourages women to access their masculine energy in order to have successful careers, but as an ideology just assumed that men would want to access their feminine energy in the same kind of way. We can both do this for short periods of time, but most of us don't want to spend decades accessing abilities that we're capable of but not really interested in making lives out of. Iand yes, I'm speaking of men and women on average, here.

1. You state that women must access masculine energy to have successful careers as if that's a universal truth. Please define your terms: masculine energy and successful careers. Furthermore, please define feminine energy.

2. No one wants to deal with whiny kids. No one. Not male or female. The difference I see is how men and women invest in learning how to deal with whiny kids because in general, learning how to deal with kids is learning how to deal with your own shortcomings and breaking the cycle of minimization of children. Minus the cohort that has SN, disabilities, or ND children. Mostly because that requires more intervention. Half of the problem- IMO- is that many people only see children as worthy once they are no longer children. I.e. they only get to have concerns or a voice once they are earning money/independence. As a nation, we are underfunded and underprotective of children and it is a representation of our culture in the US. You don't get consideration if you are not supporting the almighty capitalism. Same for the disabled. It is why the elderly are prioritized at the expense of other vulnerable populations because they have "contributed" whereas children and disabled do not.

3. People- men and women- need to stop having children if they aren't willing to invest in them, including emotionally. Flagged for me in the PP post was the following: " responsible for the emotional crap with kids? Screw it. I’m sick of it and it is massively unpleasant work to do it". Men don't like emotional labor in any context. They also don't like unpleasant work unless it is perceived as "manly" which pretty much falls into the toxic masculinity box. Getting stabbed or fighting to the death is pretty unpleasant. Working in sewage or on an oil rig is super unpleasant. But helping your child navigate their emotions- oh, well that's just too much and this is especially for men who deem themselves intellectually superior. You cannot be an intellectual person if you are not willing to intellectually view your child- who you willingly brought into this world and then willingly continued being a part of their life- and your affect on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reluctant truth: women don’t want to “marry down,” including enlightened feminists. In fact, a woman will remain single or have children with donor sperm before they willingly marry down.

The opportunity cost and risk to a woman of having kids is extremely high (could end up a poor single mother) so we have to vet carefully.

Are you saying that women should not sleep with any men they wouldn't have children with? We can't really have it both ways without consequences.

Maybe that's the elephant in the room. Hook up culture is bad for both men and women- at all ages, but especially young adults. Not really sure how you get that cat back in the bag though. But well-educated elites can recover from the consequences far more easily than the working class.

OP, I'm the who recommended the Modern Wisdom podcasts. I also recommend subscribing to a Substack by a guy named Rob Henderson. Interesting background that I won't go into here but he popularized a term called "Luxury Beliefs," which are basically ideas, lifestyles and language that the elite develop to separate themselves from the masses. They're ideas that they espouse but don't actually follow or use $ to mitigate fall out from (like hook up culture, single motherhood) but that have trickled down to the working class and decimated their lives. The mainstreaming of toxic masculinity as meme in the nat'l zeitgeist has destroyed working class families in a way that most people who populate this board have no concept of.

The working class folks are the ones who are doing it wrong; that’s why they’re working class after all.

You don't get it. They have so many intergenerational problems stacked against them. The gendered social norms and traditional family structures that elites can get away with criticizing (think about how many ppl are pro-polyamory on this board) have decimated working class families.

https://open.substack.com/pub/robkhenderson/p/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure?r=5pwik&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

"It’s remarkable that the twin giants of American leadership in the 20th century — FDR and JFK — were crippled or close-to. The modern sub-strand of wokeism concerned with 'ableism' looks very different...neurotic, feminised, victimhood obsessed"

Yeah he’s an idiot.

His writing has a thin patina of erudition and learnedness, but ultimately it is pretty tendentious, callow and undercooked. He repackages a well-trodden concept as "luxury beliefs" and then ascribes to this concept explanatory powers that far outstrip his willingness, or ability, to enact the intellectual labor to accord his concept with such status (pun intended). He is flitting from one name or idea to another without properly building a solid foundation and connecting these disparate themes in a way that undergirds his ultimate thesis, which remains flimsy at best.

Veblen goods most definitely still do exist. Moreover, the idea of luxury beliefs as some sort of substitute for such goods is a little difficult to swallow given that they retain little value as markers of status because of their ephemeral nature. A lot of the things he deems luxury beliefs are here today, gone tomorrow. And any joker on twitter can adopt them and drop them with ease, as he rightly notes. They lack the exclusivity and inaccessibility that typically mark Veblen goods. Are the elite really going to rest their status on something so fickle? Does this sound like a class that is typically concerned with long time horizons, legacy and permanence?

It you want to make the claim that politics is downstream from culture, fine. If you are going to make the claim that phenomena that only bubbled up in earnest less then a decade ago are material drivers of patterns that have been at play for many decades, I'm gonna have a harder time buying it. The 80's and 90's were the height of the era of luxury goods as status symbols, at least in recent history. The timing of this luxury goods/luxury beliefs displacement theory doesn't add up as a means of explaining what he wants it to explain. The timing is all off.

It's gonna be a no for me, dawg.

Well he just pointed out that Adam Smith made a similar observation of human nature in 1776. No ideas are new--just repackaged for the current moment.
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1631772059721187328

I think your timing argument would historically be true but basically since the 1950s we've been in a medical and technological revolution (mainly the invention of hormonal contraception and the internet) that has sped up the speed of social change to an essentially lightening-fast pace. The fact that we can refer to the past 6-7 decades as their own definitive "eras" speaks to that real change. Huamns are obsessed with social status and maintaining distinctions between the classes so it's really not that far-fetched that we adapt our social barriers at a similar pace.

I take your point, and I think I agree with you that those sorts of things (medical advances, technology, globalism, etc.) are accelerating the rate of social change. I just view them a different from luxury beliefs as a primary driver. Perhaps your point is that all of these things are interrelated? We are not too far removed from a time when luxury goods were the predominant, visible signifier of status (I would suggest they still are) and, given this, it's harder to reconcile "me too", "polyamory" and "toxic masculinity" as thoroughly explanatory of single motherhood, alternative family structures and the immiseration of lower classes, especially in light of the things you have flagged.

Perhaps I was harsh in my assessment. Thank you, appreciate it.

Wow you compare the me too movement to polyamory.

How about this, stop writing essays trying to disguise your misogyny in flowery language.

As a misogynist, I am offended that you think my language is "flowery", but you are entitled to your opinion.

Another poster at 23:43 yesterday invoked #metoo as a luxury belief, grouping it with other so-called luxury beliefs like polyamory and toxic masculinity. I was responding to that grouping. Thanks.

Just to clarify my point wasn't that #metoo was a luxury belief but that the meme of toxic masculinity that it produced helps perpetuate the social standing of certain elite and status - seeking groups.

I think #metoo itself was a way for women to basically say that hook up culture sucks and us emotionally destructive but it's hard to say that bc as a PP eluded to, women's career and life choices are predicated on wanting the same things as men and being equal to men in all ways--including attitudes about sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-confident women don’t want “traditionalism”. That’s a mechanism to control women.

I have a “traditional” marriage there is nothing controlling about it. It was my choice. I have a very good life;

Your poor kids.

Why my poor kids?

Reinforced stereotypes & lack of role models.

How is this reinforcing stereotypes? I like being there/picking kids when kids up from school. I like entertaining/hosting/cooking. I enjoy spoiling my husband and he enjoys spoiling me, we have fun and have a great marriage.

Why I am I not role model? I was successful very young, DH is successful, there is no need for both of us to work. Prioritizing, my family time and doing things I enjoy has improved my mental health dramatically. I am not lazy and sitting around all day watching TV, drinking wine, eating cake.

We are specs in a huge universe, outside of very small group of people no one is gong to remember what we did in our careers or care what we accomplished. And in 1000 years even the legacy of current presidents will be mostly unknown.
Having a career outside of the home doesn’t make you a role model. Being a kind, empathetic and well rounded person is the type of role model I fell that I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question: When it comes to these marriage/relationship/gender discussions and debates, what is one trope that rings more true about your own gender than you would like to readily admit?

I'm often engaged in these discussions trying to provide a male perspective on a lot of the issues that are raised. I'm often called misogynist or MRA for some of the opinions I raise here, and that is to be expected on the internet and with such charged topics. I think one problem with these discussions is that people cannot separate their immediate circle, circumstances and experiences from broader set of actors and forces in the dating/marriage landscape. My circle of friends is largely responsible, respectful, self-sufficient, intelligent men, so it can be hard for me to fathom and really digest a lot of the complaints about men that I hear, because it is not reflective of my immediate surroundings. I have to do extra work to overcome my cognitive biases and ingest those possibilities (realities) and realize that there is an entire other universe of men out there that are not like my friend group or circle. This factors into how women conduct themselves, vet mates, follow certain "rules", etc.

I was reminded of this last month when told story about a friend's husband who unilaterally scheduled an invasive procedure without consulting her that would immobilize him for a while, under the assumption that his younger wife just handle everything, including the finances, her own, time-consuming, full-time job, the kids and pets and her own ailing parent. Like...who does that?

Another problem is that people dig in their heels and just reject anything that goes against their team/gender, which completely belies the complexity and gray areas of some of these topics. So maybe for one thread we can not do that?

So the reluctant truth: A lot more men than I would like to admit do just want a wife to "mother" them and completely handle everything in their lives and they are kind of bummy.

Anyone have any?

I feel this is another way to bash women.

Exactly! We don't need a thread exclusively for women to bash other women (that happens enough on this forum already).

[Anonymous]

Men are more likely to behave inappropriately around children, so even though it sucks for men, it's justified to give them the stink eye when they want to be alone around kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple question: When it comes to these marriage/relationship/gender discussions and debates, what is one trope that rings more true about your own gender than you would like to readily admit?

I'm often engaged in these discussions trying to provide a male perspective on a lot of the issues that are raised. I'm often called misogynist or MRA for some of the opinions I raise here, and that is to be expected on the internet and with such charged topics. I think one problem with these discussions is that people cannot separate their immediate circle, circumstances and experiences from broader set of actors and forces in the dating/marriage landscape. My circle of friends is largely responsible, respectful, self-sufficient, intelligent men, so it can be hard for me to fathom and really digest a lot of the complaints about men that I hear, because it is not reflective of my immediate surroundings. I have to do extra work to overcome my cognitive biases and ingest those possibilities (realities) and realize that there is an entire other universe of men out there that are not like my friend group or circle. This factors into how women conduct themselves, vet mates, follow certain "rules", etc.

I was reminded of this last month when told story about a friend's husband who unilaterally scheduled an invasive procedure without consulting her that would immobilize him for a while, under the assumption that his younger wife just handle everything, including the finances, her own, time-consuming, full-time job, the kids and pets and her own ailing parent. Like...who does that?

Another problem is that people dig in their heels and just reject anything that goes against their team/gender, which completely belies the complexity and gray areas of some of these topics. So maybe for one thread we can not do that?

So the reluctant truth: A lot more men than I would like to admit do just want a wife to "mother" them and completely handle everything in their lives and they are kind of bummy.

Anyone have any?

I feel this is another way to bash women.

Exactly! We don't need a thread exclusively for women to bash other women (that happens enough on this forum already).

Huh? It’s mostly man bashing in here, per usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-confident women don’t want “traditionalism”. That’s a mechanism to control women.

I have a “traditional” marriage there is nothing controlling about it. It was my choice. I have a very good life;

Your poor kids.

Why my poor kids?

Reinforced stereotypes & lack of role models.

How is this reinforcing stereotypes? I like being there/picking kids when kids up from school. I like entertaining/hosting/cooking. I enjoy spoiling my husband and he enjoys spoiling me, we have fun and have a great marriage.

Why I am I not role model? I was successful very young, DH is successful, there is no need for both of us to work. Prioritizing, my family time and doing things I enjoy has improved my mental health dramatically. I am not lazy and sitting around all day watching TV, drinking wine, eating cake.

We are specs in a huge universe, outside of very small group of people no one is gong to remember what we did in our careers or care what we accomplished. And in 1000 years even the legacy of current presidents will be mostly unknown.
Having a career outside of the home doesn’t make you a role model. Being a kind, empathetic and well rounded person is the type of role model I fell that I am.

Your kids are learning that women take care of the kids/home/cooking and men work and “spoil” their families. They don’t see you as an independent, successful person. You are an accessory to your DH.

You are happy with your choices, but you are reinforcing stereotypes and not providing a role model of a strong, independent woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men are more likely to behave inappropriately around children, so even though it sucks for men, it's justified to give them the stink eye when they want to be alone around kids.

Ok, perv.