Reply to What feminists don't understand about men

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "What feminists don't understand about men"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Men are judged almost entirely on their socioeconomic status. They have little incentive to worry about keeping things tidy and be a great housekeeper when people (including many posters here) "lose respect" for men who "only" make low six figures, and have unimpressive jobs, even if they are full-time. Men are ranked on a steeper bell curve than women. There are more "winners" and "losers" among men, and a relatively small number of "average." When was the last time you heard anyone other than a man called a "loser"?

Humans evolved in a way such that men are more "expendable" than women. They are more socially "stratified," and the "low" ranking males are "killed off" in wars, or other violence that is more commonly associated with low social status. "High" ranking males take their place by having more children. Women, due to the fact that that they can only have a smaller number of children, have evolved to be less stratified.

The "loser" males are the chronically unemployed, have dead-end jobs, or are in prison or homeless. The "winners" are corporate C-suite, IB guys, rock stars, etc. Women aren't living on this sharply polarized, socioeconomic knife's edge. In order to complete for higher socioeconomic status, men must focus on higher-stakes, higher-reward activities. Women can simply be physically fit and have a pleasant personality and they are generally accepted. There is less incentive among women for high-risk, high-reward activity because there is more room in the "middle" for women. This why women consistently become the "primary" housekeepers, the quintessential low-risk, low-reward activity.

Men make more money, on average, but this is partly skewed by the fact that the "losers" -- the homeless, unemployed, etc. -- are not included. They is also skewed by the fact that the "winners" make up for a disproportionate amount of the "advantage" among men. This is not a "privilege"; it is a requirement. Women are largely uninterested in settling down with men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. They want an "equal (or greater than) partner." Women are active enforcers of the social pressures that result in men making more money and doing less housework.
[/quote]

I'm a feminist.

I don't judge men based on their SES. Your post full of random air quotes is stupid. Gender roles have evolved in our culture over centuries. There are many reasons that traditional gender roles are what they are. Some of those reasons are sexist. Some are practical - for example, historically, it's made sense for women to be the primary caregivers of young children because women are physically able to breastfeed while men are not. Women's work has also historically been restricted to the domestic sector, while men have had more options professionally for a longer period of time. I don't disagree that women end up in domestic sector professions and that men are judged on their professional accomplishments over their personal appeal a lot of times. I think that what you are failing to understand is that the reason that women are judged on their personal appeal is that they have been restricted from having professional accomplishments. They are judged on personal appearance and ability to produce children. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics