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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it? [/quote]
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.[/quote]

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955. [/quote]

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

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.[/quote]

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

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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Given these examples you can't exactly say that this an adaptive strategy.[/quote]

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. [/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