Anonymous wrote:What data do you have to support these silly notions, OP?

DP.

it's not a silly notion. It's a readily-observable societal phenomenon.

If you don't see it, it's simply because you're an obtuse bubble dweller.

Traditional gender roles are appealing to many. The upper classes have more freedom to follow their preferences because they are less economically constrained.

Our kids are elementary school age and I would guess 80 percent of families are SAHM with the women doing traditional roles and men working. Mind you, I always assume it's because when women don't have to work full time they usually choose not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually some anthropologists have written about this. Wealthier men prefer more feminine women. Men who struggle prefer women who can take care of themselves.

Citations please.

Life

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you rather be a Viking Woman/Celtic Warrior or an English Lady of the Manor who can't fathom how to put the tea on? I know which I'd prefer for my daughter these days.

Given that the Viking / Celtic warrior woman lived in a highly patriarchal society where women were not only chattel but at high risk of rapes and brutal murders by a rival clan, and most likely lived a short and nasty and brutish and primitive live, I’m guessing you chose the lady of the manor in her safe and comfortable manor house with plenty of servants and a sense of order and respect and who occupied herself with the household management and organizing social events and leading charity endeavors.

Those ladies were married off at menarche to men two to three times their age. The manor houses were not luxurious. And there was pretty good chance that your children would die in infancy and you in childbirth.

The best deal was to be a cloistered nun. You could have books and music, the diet was better than that of the nobility, and they lived longer than women in the outside world.

Since tea didn't arrive in Britain until the 17th century and didn't become popular till the 18th century, we can safely assume the poster was referring to a lady of the manor (gentry or nobility) from the 18th century onward, probably a la Downton Abbey.

Definitely better to be a lady of the manor in the 18th-present than a Viking or Celtic warrior or a medieval nun. Too many historical revisionist fantasies have warped people of the realities of being a woman during the Celtic/Viking days.

I see two different trends.

On the one hand, a lot of UMC families I know have dual high wage incomes and these relationships are not absolutely not gender typical. In one, he does almost all the cooking and both he and she are light on cleaning and laundry as they have an au pair and weekly housekeeping. In another family, she travels a lot, he has a government job and does more kid pick ups/kid sick days, and they eat out a lot. In a third, she works a lot, he works a lot, they have a nanny, they have a food service (which she says saved their marriage) and their house is a wreck, so even though they have weekly housekeeping, I'm not sure either of them is spending time "picking up." She has told me he does a lot more laundry than she does (mostly because she admits with a laugh that he breaks down sooner than she does), but I've seen her do the yard work...

On the other hand, I know an equal number of UMC families with very gender typical division of labor with high paid executive men whose careers have been furthered by SAH wives who are socially graceful and helping their husbands work a million hours a week by doing all the kid/house duties. In one of these families, he makes several million a year and she is a bombshell, has a personal trainer and a personal shopper, their house is gorgeous (they do have a housekeeper, yard service, and a dogwalker) and she does 100% of the kid and home duties. In another family, he is a high powered lobbyist. She is really fun outgoing, goes to manicurist once a week, goes to hairdresser before each "do" (and they seem like they have 2-3 of them a week), she does all the cooking and shopping (they throw a do about once a week), and they have a nanny who does most of the kid duty. She plays a lot of tennis at a fancy country club. In a third family, she is a SAH mom, he travels a lot for some job in international finance, and I would not be surprised if he truly does not even know how to drive a car (he takes a company car to the airport, etc.) or do anything for himself. She maintains their calendar and he has a personal admin who reminds him about all his work stuff. She told me once that he phones his admin with her birthday/anniversary present lists...!

It’s easier to wield a pimp hand when you have money and influence. LOL

Poor people and UMC people generally lead much different family lives. On the one hand, you have people who are typically very close (for better or for worse) to family and friends, don’t work much, and don’t have extra money for entertainment or activities, so a lot of time is spent socializing. No one has as much money as they need, and it is expected that people will earn money when they can and share among the group.
On the other hand, UMC folks live in isolated nuclear families where at least one adult is gone a large portion of the day. There is plenty of money, and it is expected that the money will be spent on making sure everyone has the right house, clothes, car, activities, and planning for the future. There is no excuse for not having it. Since women are the ones judged if all of these things are not in order, you get women more focused on homemaking, preparing the correct food, wearing the right clothes, decorating the house the right way, etc.
So, you have poor women who are socially expected to work, and UMC women who are expected to maintain their homes and have children heavily involved in activities. Both of these things are about being in an inferior social position and wanting to “belong” to the group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The self-discipline required to conform to social expectations allows a person to prosper and advance to or remain in the upper classes.

“Upper classes”? You loon. Unless you received an invitation to Megan Markle’s wedding, you ain’t upper class. You merely have money in the bank.

The poster to which you were responding is correct. This is not England. Upper class in this country depends on the amount of money in the bank.

Money in the bank is somewhat coupled to self-discipline, but only some. And if you refer to yourself as belonging to the upper classes, you’re merely pompous.

People with money can afford to do what they want: follow the rules, bend the rules. That’s not profound. Nor is it obvious that conforming leads to prosperity. This ain’t The Crown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The self-discipline required to conform to social expectations allows a person to prosper and advance to or remain in the upper classes.

“Upper classes”? You loon. Unless you received an invitation to Megan Markle’s wedding, you ain’t upper class. You merely have money in the bank.

The poster to which you were responding is correct. This is not England. Upper class in this country depends on the amount of money in the bank.

Anonymous wrote:The self-discipline required to conform to social expectations allows a person to prosper and advance to or remain in the upper classes.

“Upper classes”? You loon. Unless you received an invitation to Megan Markle’s wedding, you ain’t upper class. You merely have money in the bank.

The self-discipline required to conform to social expectations allows a person to prosper and advance to or remain in the upper classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you rather be a Viking Woman/Celtic Warrior or an English Lady of the Manor who can't fathom how to put the tea on? I know which I'd prefer for my daughter these days.

Given that the Viking / Celtic warrior woman lived in a highly patriarchal society where women were not only chattel but at high risk of rapes and brutal murders by a rival clan, and most likely lived a short and nasty and brutish and primitive live, I’m guessing you chose the lady of the manor in her safe and comfortable manor house with plenty of servants and a sense of order and respect and who occupied herself with the household management and organizing social events and leading charity endeavors.

Those ladies were married off at menarche to men two to three times their age. The manor houses were not luxurious. And there was pretty good chance that your children would die in infancy and you in childbirth.

The best deal was to be a cloistered nun. You could have books and music, the diet was better than that of the nobility, and they lived longer than women in the outside world.

Most gender roles are entrenched in the poor bc they are less educated and bc often daycare expenses eclipse income. Also poorer folks often have shift work and inflexible jobs, making parenting impossibke and back up care is unaffordable

Because women who have or marry money are generally smarter.

Why do you claim this? Based on what? At a guess, women who marry money have mummy and daddy sending them to the right schools. The women might be dumb as plants, and they might have super BJ skills, but they ain’t necessarily smart. Just lucky.

Or those women are merely very pretty: Mrs. Tom Brady, or Westworld robot ex-Mrs. Elon Musk. Smart: who knows. Not fat: yes.