Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it?

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.

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955.

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

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.

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

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

Perhaps it is societal conditioning, but it’s societal conditioning that has successfully built on top of existing human nature. Do you want to live in the society the !Kung or Trobriand Islanders built? Feel free to pack your bags and move to Papua New Guinea and live your best life. Find a man to take care of your home and children there. Let us know how that goes.

Being a lesbian in the U.S. has worked fine for me. Oh, wait, are there western subcultures that aren’t interested in and don’t need male providers? Gasp.

Lesbians are 1.4% of the population. Maybe we could visit the isle of Lesbos to see what a majority of women making the same choice as you looks like at scale! There are examples of societies where majority of women choose to be single mothers and let their men be shiftless at home to visit as well.

So just to be clear, you agree that it’s not a universal truth that all cultures involve women being primary caregivers and men primarily providing economically?

Yes, but I (a DP) conceded that from the beginning. Perhaps it is societal conditioning. But it is a societal conditioning that maps onto human nature successfully, which we all on this website live in and enjoy the fruits of while the poor women of Papua New Guinea toil in misery as the most r*ped women in the whole wide world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it?

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.

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955.

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

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.

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

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

Perhaps it is societal conditioning, but it’s societal conditioning that has successfully built on top of existing human nature. Do you want to live in the society the !Kung or Trobriand Islanders built? Feel free to pack your bags and move to Papua New Guinea and live your best life. Find a man to take care of your home and children there. Let us know how that goes.

Being a lesbian in the U.S. has worked fine for me. Oh, wait, are there western subcultures that aren’t interested in and don’t need male providers? Gasp.

Lesbians are 1.4% of the population. Maybe we could visit the isle of Lesbos to see what a majority of women making the same choice as you looks like at scale! There are examples of societies where majority of women choose to be single mothers and let their men be shiftless at home to visit as well.

So just to be clear, you agree that it’s not a universal truth that all cultures involve women being primary caregivers and men primarily providing economically?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

I didn’t have a choice as a woman. My exH was 11 years older and requested I choose a less demanding job because he traveled. I personally think it’s best for women when they don’t sacrifice their career. Husbands would be more involved in raising their kids and more bonded with their children reducing the risk of divorce.

But the crucial career years late 20-early 30s usually is when women are expected to birth children. And given the corporate environment these two things are incompatible.


Btw if your wives were truly successful in their careers they would be already retired by mid 50s

Of course you had a choice to not quit your job.

Also, i made $2m last year. I work because i want to. You prove my exact point that a lot of women who so-called 'sacrificed' for their DH's career didn't actually sacrifice anything. Because your default position is that "work = bad" and that anyone who didn't need to work wouldn't work. You really didn't want to work, you don't like the idea of working.

Lots of people like work. Lots of women and men. But a lot of women don't like work. Hence, they stay home and call it 'sacrifice'.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it?

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.

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955.

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

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.

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

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

Perhaps it is societal conditioning, but it’s societal conditioning that has successfully built on top of existing human nature. Do you want to live in the society the !Kung or Trobriand Islanders built? Feel free to pack your bags and move to Papua New Guinea and live your best life. Find a man to take care of your home and children there. Let us know how that goes.

Being a lesbian in the U.S. has worked fine for me. Oh, wait, are there western subcultures that aren’t interested in and don’t need male providers? Gasp.

Lesbians are 1.4% of the population. Maybe we could visit the isle of Lesbos to see what a majority of women making the same choice as you looks like at scale! There are examples of societies where majority of women choose to be single mothers and let their men be shiftless at home to visit as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

Want to cite any empirical evidence? The wage gap is only 8-10% pre-marriage.

It's less about salaries and more about not playing the long game, making investments in your career, being strategic, putting in the hard work to create a valuable skill set. Young woman gets job in nonprofit admin. Young man gets entry level job in a corporate. She jumps in different nonprofits, all jobs with soft skills. He jumps a couple times but on an upward trajectory, focusing on jobs that have higher salaries. The salaries aren't that different in their 20s. But at 30, his resume is better placed to be a launchpad to start earning good cash through his 30s and 40s.

Basically, what is the fact pattern that leads all these women at age 30, with first baby and equivalent or better higher education than their husbands, to say: Oh, it just happened that he was in a position to make a lot more money than me long term. That doesn't just happen randomly in a vacuum at age 30. It happens because of choices both have been making since college.

Biglaw is a great counterexample because pay is lockstep industry-wide. Women outnumber men in associate ranks. Plenty of women raking in half a million a year leave after having a baby.

Yeah, because biglaw isn’t compatible with being a present parent. It just isn’t. The question isn’t why women leave, it’s why men don’t. It would ve great if parents could earn a UMC life on two parents working 30 hours a week vs one working 60.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just dont care that much about work. I do a good job (and sometimes a great job) but I dont need validation from my employer or to feel happy/fulfilled by my job. IF I wanted a high-paying or intense career then I would have not married or had children. Its not about my husband or his career. I dont have the bandwidth to do both. I would be totally fine with working Trader Joe's stock or checkout line if it paid enough for the lifestyle we have.

I had a delay with finishing college and by my later mid-20s when I completed my undergrad it was try for the MD/PhD route or not. I knew if I started that path then there wouldnt be time/energy for anything else- mostly because of my own shortcomings in energy levels and sleep needs. I also didnt want to have kids and then outsource all of their childrearing and I dont have involved parents so it wasnt going to be family looking after them.

Regardless of my husband's career, if we divorced, I would have the same career. I might pick up another low-key job PT, but the rat race is not for me. Sometimes its just not that deep. I want to be a present parent and wife and a more intense career would make it very difficult (for me, personally) to manage since I have some hyperfocus issues. I would resent the constant feeling of never being able to mindfully be where I am.

Amazing how many women don't take financial responsibility for themselves and their children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

Want to cite any empirical evidence? The wage gap is only 8-10% pre-marriage.

It's less about salaries and more about not playing the long game, making investments in your career, being strategic, putting in the hard work to create a valuable skill set. Young woman gets job in nonprofit admin. Young man gets entry level job in a corporate. She jumps in different nonprofits, all jobs with soft skills. He jumps a couple times but on an upward trajectory, focusing on jobs that have higher salaries. The salaries aren't that different in their 20s. But at 30, his resume is better placed to be a launchpad to start earning good cash through his 30s and 40s.

Basically, what is the fact pattern that leads all these women at age 30, with first baby and equivalent or better higher education than their husbands, to say: Oh, it just happened that he was in a position to make a lot more money than me long term. That doesn't just happen randomly in a vacuum at age 30. It happens because of choices both have been making since college.

Biglaw is a great counterexample because pay is lockstep industry-wide. Women outnumber men in associate ranks. Plenty of women raking in half a million a year leave after having a baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is 2026. Why aren't more men doing it?

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.

whaaaaaaa? Voice from 1955.

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

Aka Pygmies are one example I can think of off the top of my head.

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

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

Perhaps it is societal conditioning, but it’s societal conditioning that has successfully built on top of existing human nature. Do you want to live in the society the !Kung or Trobriand Islanders built? Feel free to pack your bags and move to Papua New Guinea and live your best life. Find a man to take care of your home and children there. Let us know how that goes.

Being a lesbian in the U.S. has worked fine for me. Oh, wait, are there western subcultures that aren’t interested in and don’t need male providers? Gasp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

Want to cite any empirical evidence? The wage gap is only 8-10% pre-marriage.

It's less about salaries and more about not playing the long game, making investments in your career, being strategic, putting in the hard work to create a valuable skill set. Young woman gets job in nonprofit admin. Young man gets entry level job in a corporate. She jumps in different nonprofits, all jobs with soft skills. He jumps a couple times but on an upward trajectory, focusing on jobs that have higher salaries. The salaries aren't that different in their 20s. But at 30, his resume is better placed to be a launchpad to start earning good cash through his 30s and 40s.

Basically, what is the fact pattern that leads all these women at age 30, with first baby and equivalent or better higher education than their husbands, to say: Oh, it just happened that he was in a position to make a lot more money than me long term. That doesn't just happen randomly in a vacuum at age 30. It happens because of choices both have been making since college.

Anonymous wrote:I just dont care that much about work. I do a good job (and sometimes a great job) but I dont need validation from my employer or to feel happy/fulfilled by my job. IF I wanted a high-paying or intense career then I would have not married or had children. Its not about my husband or his career. I dont have the bandwidth to do both. I would be totally fine with working Trader Joe's stock or checkout line if it paid enough for the lifestyle we have.

I had a delay with finishing college and by my later mid-20s when I completed my undergrad it was try for the MD/PhD route or not. I knew if I started that path then there wouldnt be time/energy for anything else- mostly because of my own shortcomings in energy levels and sleep needs. I also didnt want to have kids and then outsource all of their childrearing and I dont have involved parents so it wasnt going to be family looking after them.

Regardless of my husband's career, if we divorced, I would have the same career. I might pick up another low-key job PT, but the rat race is not for me. Sometimes its just not that deep. I want to be a present parent and wife and a more intense career would make it very difficult (for me, personally) to manage since I have some hyperfocus issues. I would resent the constant feeling of never being able to mindfully be where I am.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

Want to cite any empirical evidence? The wage gap is only 8-10% pre-marriage.

It's less about salaries and more about not playing the long game, making investments in your career, being strategic, putting in the hard work to create a valuable skill set. Young woman gets job in nonprofit admin. Young man gets entry level job in a corporate. She jumps in different nonprofits, all jobs with soft skills. He jumps a couple times but on an upward trajectory, focusing on jobs that have higher salaries. The salaries aren't that different in their 20s. But at 30, his resume is better placed to be a launchpad to start earning good cash through his 30s and 40s.

Basically, what is the fact pattern that leads all these women at age 30, with first baby and equivalent or better higher education than their husbands, to say: Oh, it just happened that he was in a position to make a lot more money than me long term. That doesn't just happen randomly in a vacuum at age 30. It happens because of choices both have been making since college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

I didn’t have a choice as a woman. My exH was 11 years older and requested I choose a less demanding job because he traveled. I personally think it’s best for women when they don’t sacrifice their career. Husbands would be more involved in raising their kids and more bonded with their children reducing the risk of divorce.

But the crucial career years late 20-early 30s usually is when women are expected to birth children. And given the corporate environment these two things are incompatible.


Btw if your wives were truly successful in their careers they would be already retired by mid 50s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

Want to cite any empirical evidence? The wage gap is only 8-10% pre-marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that a big chunk of women don’t play the long game on careers. The issue is entrenched long before kids happen. Having kids just highlights the issue, because by late twenties early thirties, it’s the exact time when you need to switch from the easy job hopping of your early career vs double down on a real career. A lot of women aren’t into that idea, and stepping back is a convenience for them at just the right time.

Many of these women will cite their fancy college degree and five years of work experience for the rest of their life as proof of all their sacrificed. Because that’s a better look than the reality that they were never really on a track to much of substance.

FWIW this is not me or any of my best friends in life, who all have full careers in our fifties. But we all met in college and clearly gravitated to a certain kind of woman. There are enough women who -don’t- sacrifice their careers that it’s clearly not required and it is clearly a choice for the vast majority of women who do so sacrifice. But they don’t want to admit they took the path of less work because they wanted to.

I didn’t have a choice as a woman. My exH was 11 years older and requested I choose a less demanding job because he traveled. I personally think it’s best for women when they don’t sacrifice their career. Husbands would be more involved in raising their kids and more bonded with their children reducing the risk of divorce.

But the crucial career years late 20-early 30s usually is when women are expected to birth children. And given the corporate environment these two things are incompatible.


Btw if your wives were truly successful in their careers they would be already retired by mid 50s