Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

Never heard nor saw this “expectation.”

Who has this expectation?

I believe it was first pointed out in "The Second Shift." Have you read it?

If you're the same person who thought that women didn't have kids out of wedlock then you're just all over this thread being confidently wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

Never heard nor saw this “expectation.”

Who has this expectation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they're just going to find out no one wants to date or marry them with those attitudes.

Yes ,it’s going to be hard for a man to find a woman who wants to take care of kid, family and home instead of going into the workforce.

You’re delusional if you think that is going to be hard.

Well first those men have to actually get jobs that can fund that. So that's one. Second, men who feel strongly about "traditional" gender roles often just are terrible about doing their share at home and act controlling.

The reality is most men I've met who claim to want traditional gender roles are just lazy guys who don't actually make that much money but they want a woman to cook and clean for them anyway. The men I know who are doctors, lawyers and engineers are married to other doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Yes. But then they expect the female doctors, lawyers, and engineers to do the brunt of the housework and childcare. This is why female physicians make $100,000 less per year than their male counterparts.

In some ways, I think it would be a lot easier if everyone was realistic about what they wanted upfront.

I'm a female lawyer married to a male engineer, and no, he doesn't dump all the work on me. My mom worked part time and my physician father didn't dump all the work on her either, my Dad and I together would do the dishes and clean every single night.

Women make up more than half of enrollment colleges, law schools and medical schools. We're not going back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they're just going to find out no one wants to date or marry them with those attitudes.

Yes ,it’s going to be hard for a man to find a woman who wants to take care of kid, family and home instead of going into the workforce.

You’re delusional if you think that is going to be hard.

Well first those men have to actually get jobs that can fund that. So that's one. Second, men who feel strongly about "traditional" gender roles often just are terrible about doing their share at home and act controlling.

The reality is most men I've met who claim to want traditional gender roles are just lazy guys who don't actually make that much money but they want a woman to cook and clean for them anyway. The men I know who are doctors, lawyers and engineers are married to other doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neglect of social science is a huge factor in this kind of thinking. People who actually learn about history, gender studies, and social economics know that this vision of "traditional" roles with SAH spouse was never common. (Those people would also know what the words "feminism" and "patriarchy" mean, which I'm not sure OP does.)

In an aggragrian society, everybody works but mostly not for cash. There was no "going to work" vs staying home, although you might share labor among neighbors. As things urbanized and moved to cash, people almost immediately outsourced their meals and laundry, so there were women with businesses and working outside the home. In both scenarios there were a lot of people who never married: they lived with family, or worked for the rich, or went into religion or military.

The idea of widespread marriage where one man's cash wage supports a SAHM nuclear family was a thing for a very brief period in the US, and only for a faction of the population. A blip, not traditional.

This is not what labor statistics show. But this is often repeated on here. Women didn’t even have access to daycare or any sort of maternity leave so it was extremely difficult for a woman to hold down any sort of job outside of the home. Women working a man’s job is a recent thing.

Curious what you think are men's jobs in this context, but it doesn't really matter because we're talking paid work outside the home. Women historically worked as teachers, cooks, childcare providers, laundresses, cleaners, seamstresses, etc etc. When office work was invented they worked in offices. That's all working outside the home.

Women left their kids with relatives or brought them with, depending on the job. But, as I already said many didn't have spouses so they either didn't have kids or they gave them up (including to family). Marriage was not as common as the trad fantasy assumes.

You lost all credibility with that statement. Having children out of wedlock was incredibly uncommon. Why? The average woman couldn’t support herself and there was limited government assistance, if any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they will rapidly change their minds when (1) they discover how much housing costs, (2) they learn many very desirable partners have no interest in staying home and waiting on them, and (3) even the women who agree to this arrangement will sour on it when they discover having no independent economic power makes them feel unappreciated and used.

But go ahead a re-learn the lessons of prior generations I guess.

+1

Men earn more than women, men are better at investing and saving their money than women. Think again.

Anonymous wrote:Is tradition protection from divorce? What happens when a traditional housewife gets divorced 15 years from today?

Anonymous wrote:Is tradition protection from divorce? What happens when a traditional housewife gets divorced 15 years from today?

Anonymous wrote:Men are rejecting the unnecessary posturing anger in relationships. You say you're strong and independent and you don't need a man? Okay, gotcha. I'm going fishing, have a nice life, bye.

They're checking out on the nonsense. As men are saying now, "There are no more good women worth having".

Anonymous wrote:The unpopular but true opinion is that being a housewife is an amazing job. You don't have a boss. You can wakeup whenever you want most days. The lions share of chores are a cinch. Wow, throw in laundry and go run on the treadmill for an hour. Throw in dryer and stream Netflix vids.

Why would you want a stressful professional job that kills you and makes you die early?

Gen Z women have figure out that the working world is overrated and for suckers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a working woman with a husband who does 50/50 at home and is supportive of my career.

However if I could do it all over again I would look for a more traditional marriage with gender roles.

The vast majority of women seemed to get screwed over working a man’s job and also being a wife and mom. Now there is an expectation that a woman has a demanding career and do everything at home.

Never heard nor saw this “expectation.”

Who has this expectation?

I believe it was first pointed out in "The Second Shift." Have you read it?

If you're the same person who thought that women didn't have kids out of wedlock then you're just all over this thread being confidently wrong.

No I don’t care about neither of those other things.

That's fine. Have a great day.

Talking about a book and a baby momma thread isn’t answering the question.

I can live with that. I don't care what you know or don't know.

We all see 3x now how uncomfortable that question makes you. Since you refuse to answer it.

Let’s try again PP: Who has that expectation?

We?

I'm unwilling to work for you. I know it's a waste of my time to have this conversation with someone who doesn't care to read. Don't worry, I'm sure someone else will have more patience for handholding.

Anonymous wrote:I think they will rapidly change their minds when (1) they discover how much housing costs, (2) they learn many very desirable partners have no interest in staying home and waiting on them, and (3) even the women who agree to this arrangement will sour on it when they discover having no independent economic power makes them feel unappreciated and used.

But go ahead a re-learn the lessons of prior generations I guess.