Gender roles in marriage. Do some men just have a problem with women?

[EmilyAlexandra]

Feminism is malign as long as it seeks to erase the difference between men and women.

I don’t think that that is what feminism tries to do. I don’t know of any feminists who believe that there are no differences between men and women. On the contrary, I think feminists would tend to identify quite strongly with their sex/gender identity. This is why there is a certain subset of feminists that is very hostile to trans women. I think that what feminism tries to achieve is equality between the sexes. I would say that key objectives for feminism would be things like the right to work, the right to own property, the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right to education, freedom from sexual assault and harassment, access to healthcare, and representation in culture, sport, and media.

Is there anything wrong with promoting marriage and family over career though? … Is it wrong to encourage a society where parents are enabled to stay at home rather than being forced into the workplace through financial necessity?

Not at all. I would say that marriage/family and career are two equally valid options and that everyone, men and women, should be free to prioritise one or the other or combine both. If it’s possible, I would agree that it is good if a parent is able to take a few years out to be with the children before they are in full-time education. However, I don’t think that childcare should automatically be the mother’s responsibility. Obviously the mother has certain inescapable roles such as actually physically producing the child and breastfeeding. But apart from that, I think parents should be able to split childcare in whatever proportions are best for their family.

What I am in favour of is people making the choices that best suit them. Obviously somebody has to earn the family income and somebody has to be the homemaker. It’s probably still the norm that husbands play more of a role earning the income and wives play more of a role being homemakers. Sometimes the wife is better at earning the money and the husband is better at the homemaking, and sometimes it’s split between the two. As I say, I am just for people making choices. If the husband is good at making money and the wife wants to stay at home with the children, that’s great.

The post to which I was originally referring was one in which somebody was claiming that the only reason why a woman would marry a man would be because of what she thinks he will be able to provide for her in practical ways. It occurs to me that this is one of those “horseshoe” scenarios in which two seemingly opposite ideologies end up meeting at the same point. On the one hand, there are those on the extreme edges of feminism who believe that marriage is a form of prostitution, and on the other hand, there are those on the perhaps not so extreme edges of misogyny who also believe that marriage is a form of prostitution. The only difference between the two is that the feminists think that the wives are the victims, while the misogynists believe that the husbands are the victims.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

The problem with discussing “feminism” is there is no accepted definition.

I could not agree more, and this is probably the main reason why more people do not identify as feminists. I think it’s probably a safe bet that most people living in the western world today would meet the criteria for some kind of feminism. The problem is that “feminism”, as you rightly identify, does not describe any single set of beliefs. Indeed, feminist points of view are sometimes not only incoherent, but in fact directly contradictory. It is sometimes not even possible to identify a single unifying point of agreement. I guess the closest you might get to a principle common to all forms of feminism would be a belief in improving the conditions of women. And, quite honestly, if feminism is just improving the conditions of women, one could say that that is just common sense.

 

[MNathaniel]

RolandThompsonGunner:

The problem with discussing “feminism” is there is no accepted definition.

I could not agree more, and this is probably the main reason why more people do not identify as feminists. I think it’s probably a safe bet that most people living in the western world today would meet the criteria for some kind of feminism. The problem is that “feminism”, as you rightly identify, does not describe any single set of beliefs.

Yes, I think this is key.

And I think different generations might be especially likely to talk past each other on this.

Because there are even more categories than this (and nuances between the categories), but just at a simplistic timeframe level, feminism often gets conceptually broken up by different decades into

1. First wave
2. Second wave
3. Third wave
4. Fourth wave

And there’s a big difference between what a ‘first wave’ feminist was talking about (“Women should have the legal right to vote!”) and what a ‘fourth wave’ feminist is talking about (“Drop your assumptions of a gender binary, man!”).

I personally just don’t use the word ‘feminist’, myself. I think it’s hopelessly corrupted at this point. I just try to talk about whatever specific ideas or values I have without putting that sort of a label on it.

 

[Peeps]

I think that in the U.S., many of our attitudes towards sex and marriage are influenced in a major way by our almost constant involvement with the entertainment media, especially television and/or our computers/phones, but also with our music that many of us are tuned into constantly (most of my co-workers wear headphones or ear-buds so they can enjoy their music all day long at work, since our lab doesn’t allow radios).

Children grow up hearing music non-stop, and watching TV or watching movies/youtube/ticktock, etc on their phones or computers almost constantly. In many homes, the TV is never turned off, and there are TVs in several rooms in the house, including the child’s room!

Much of what we see is pure fantasy–the beautiful women (they’re beautiful even after a huge battle to save the world from terrorist or aliens or zombies!), the man who never seems to have any problem with money and affording things and never eat stuff like Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, but fancy foods in cozy little places that most of us can’t seem to find in our towns and cities!–

And always, always, everyone is ready on a second’s notice to have sex, even in the middle of the big battle to save the universe!

Of course, that could be a human instinctive reaction–I’ve read that when the Allies were right outside of Berlin during WWII and it was obvious that Germany had lost the war, all the people holding out in the Reichstag had sex, right in the offices, or wherever they happened to be, with people that they had never been particularly close to–they just hooked up with whoever was near. It was like a last-minute of life/freedom reaction, perhaps because of the human need to reproduce the species? Anyway, maybe that’s what those silly shows and movies are getting at when the hero and heroine have sex in the midst of the catastrophe.

It’s all fantasy, but we internalize it and expect ourselves and our spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends to be like this and life to be sweet and sexy!

I think a lot of those unmarried men hanging out in their parents’ basement have definitely internalized these fantasies and obsess over why all the other men are getting the beautiful women and sex. Their lives are all fantasy–they need to turn off the online and on-screen entertainment and get out there and learn what real life is like.

 

[blackforest]

Way back in the 1970s, a financial expert that we admired (and still admire–not Dave Ramsey!) stated that a married couple should live on ONE income, and if both spouses decide to work, that second income should pay for “extras” like vacations, children’s extracurriculars, hobbies, etc…

Ramsey has also said this, at least with regard to figuring out how much of a mortgage you can afford. So has Elizabeth Warren, believe it or not. I think it’s sound, sensible advice.

I’ll say this: I deny equality as commonly defined between men and women. Equality in dignity before God? Yes. Equity before the law? Yes. Equality as commonly meant? Nope.

Equality of what? Circumstances? Physical traits? Opportunity? Feminism - as I and countless others practice it - espouses the latter.

The Bible, written during times that were not exactly feminist, speaks quite frequently on the dangers of picking a wife poorly and how difficult finding a good candidate was.

In our time and culture, spouses pick each other. It’s a two way street. The Bible was written in a time of arranged marriages, when families picked out a bride like they were picking out china at Macy’s.

Don’t forget, the internet is self-selecting for people who have a hard time relating in the real world.

Me:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Just kidding).

Atheist/ agnostic men will be looking for women who are obedient based on their culture.

Or they’re just as prone to objectifying women - this time through porn and/or incel-like behavior - as their religious counterparts. These actions subjugate women as much as marrying them and treating them like barefoot-and-pregnant dirt.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Feminism is malign as long as it seeks to erase the difference between men and women.

I would add that one theme that has been highlighted by feminists recently has actually been the ways in which the differences between men and women have been overlooked. This is especially true in science, research, and statistics. This popular book covers the subject in some detail:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invisible-Women-Exposing-World-Designed/dp/1784741728

 

[DarkLight]

Now, of course, nobody is suggesting that traditionalist Catholics have that extreme a view of what the rest of society is like, but if one lives in a close-knit community that is somewhat separated from mainstream society, and if that is how one gets most of ones information, then one is obviously going to have somewhat distorted ideas about mainstream culture. If that person is single and perhaps involved with online communities like Incel/MGTOW/MRA etc, then it is possible that they will develop some strange ideas.

Selective attention is a thing too. If someone is already starting down the road of bitterness and anger, they’re likely to find themselves noticing people who seem to fit their model more and more often. I’ve noticed that to many of these men, they only notice women who are very attractive and often dressed revealingly. Basically they assume every woman is living the life of the celebrities they see who seem to get everything handed to them. With their minds so focused on sex, as well, they often assume that other men are doing exactly the same thing - and thus that women get everything handed to them because of course all men want sex with a hot young thing more than anything else.

There’s also often a lot of overinterpretation of women’s behavior, from what I’ve seen. When you’re already starting on the mentality that everyone except you is having sex, then it’s easy to interpret fairly neutral women’s behavior in a sexualized manner. For example seeing a woman wearing makeup and assuming the purpose is to tempt men. Or assuming any friendly interaction between a man and a woman is indicative of sexual involvement.

Basically, once you start down the road of feeling victimized, it’s easy to keep seeing more and more evidence of it.

 

[blackforest]

Agreed. I don’t get where this women-want-to-be-just-like men thing is coming from. In many ways, we’re asking for recognition of differences in order to be treated accordingly. Here’s just one example among countless others. Gender gap in clinical trials doubles risk of women being overmedicated on prescription meds - Study Finds

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I also responded to a poster on another thread who believed that the reason why he doesn’t have a girlfriend is because “the lesbian culture” tells women that we have more fun without men.

That individual is mentally ill. I’m not saying that in a pejorative way; he’s literally mentioned before that he’s under psychiatric care.

You really have to remember that the internet can bring out some troubled people.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’ve noticed that to many of these men, they only notice women who are very attractive and often dressed revealingly. Basically they assume every woman is living the life of the celebrities they see who seem to get everything handed to them. With their minds so focused on sex, as well, they often assume that other men are doing exactly the same thing - and thus that women get everything handed to them because of course all men want sex with a hot young thing more than anything else.

THAT’S the puzzle piece I couldn’t figure out.
Good call.

You see this dynamic in the middle and high school milieu all the time.
There’s a certain type of social-climbing kid. Either they just want the power and perks of popularity, or they’ve come to the conclusion that popularity will make them happy, and they become blind to the middle-of-the-road, regular, normal and friendly kids that they could have been friends with.

There’s also a type of person who really doesn’t want to belong to a club that would have them as a member.
They feel like such losers that anybody who would be offer the hand of friendship must be a loser, too.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It was a thing during the Women’s Lib era of feminism.
A lot of women believed that they couldn’t be taken seriously in the workplace unless they behaved like men.
This was also the time that housewives lost a tremendous amount of status.

A lot of young people today don’t realize how revolutionary the Martha Stewart phenomenon was in the 90s because for the first time in years, domestic culture wasn’t being mocked and it was okay to enjoy cooking and crafts again.

 

[blackforest]

Oh, I understand the 70s feminism. I just don’t see as much of that mentality today. Now there’s a recognition that women are indeed different and shouldn’t have to compromise those differences in order to make it in a man’s world. The increasing demand for on-site childcare at work, paid maternity leave, and the expansion of after-school programs is all evidence of this. On the other hand, all of these things are helpful to dads, too. As one feminist put it, whenever we liberate a woman, we liberate a man.

The Second Wave meant well in many ways, (not with abortion advocacy, obviously), but where they got it wrong was with the simplistic notion that all of us going to work was somehow a “cure” for the ails of gender injustices. Women got back into the work force and ended up working the “double day,” working a “second shift” at night with all of the old expectations of traditional, stay-at-home motherhood. Then they noticed that by the time they were paying for daycare, gas, work wardrobe, and convenience foods, they were either coming out even or in the hole. Then we were supposed to get abortions in order to keep these careers?? How ironically patriarchal is that? And, guess what? Careers aren’t always “fulfilling.” When we go back to work, we just farm out all of those “tedious” jobs of stay-at-home motherhood to lower paid women. Indeed, 70s Second Wave feminism was largely tailored to upper-middle-class white women privileged enough to base their jobs on “personal fulfillment.”

I type all of this as a SAHM getting an updated resume in gear, so I’m fully aware that none of this is a black-and-white issue.

 

[Sarcelle]

Life happens and it changes all the time.

For women who are at home raising children, they more than anyone know that children grow up and leave home.

Circumstances change all the time. We really shouldn’t define ourselves by what we do. I used to do that and losing jobs several times has forced me to acknowledge that.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

a married couple should live on ONE income, and if both spouses decide to work, that second income should pay for “extras” like vacations, children’s extracurriculars, hobbies, etc… He said that living expenses like mortage/rent, groceries, car, insurance, etc. should be covered by just ONE income (not necessarily the man’s income).

I think that in theory that is a good idea. If one person’s income can cover basic living costs, the other person can cover all the other stuff (a) without having to worry that they are drawing on funds that should be used for essentials and (b) in the knowledge that should they lose their second income source, the essentials will still be provided for.

In reality, this is not possible for many people. It works for families where one person is earning a very good income and for families who live in a country or region where the cost of living is relatively affordable. E.g. I have a friend who is an NHS administrator and her husband is an NHS consultant. They probably earn about £140,000 p.a. combined. On that income, living in London, they can afford a 1-bedroom flat. You mention private school fees. A private school in London will cost about £25,000-£30,000 per child per year (fees alone, not including all the extras). A single friend who lives in Oxford estimated that he could not live on less than £200,000 p.a. In Greater Manchester, on the other hand, an NHS consultant could easily afford a 5-bedroom detached house on just one income. 3-bedroom terraced or semi-detached houses can be bought for as little as about £50,000.

 

[Peeps]

In reality, this is not possible for many people

I agree that it isn’t possible for all couples–which is why it is a good idea for individuals to seek out a partner who WILL be earning a decent income OR who is extremely good at living a "rich life on a poor income.:

Yes, living “high” on a “low” wage IS possible!

Food is one expense that can be done very cheaply, but still be satisfying and even delicious! My brother, who is quite well-off, spends $30/week at the grocery store. He does it by eating simply–oatmeal for breakfast, a peanut butter sandwich and canned fruit for lunch, and a hamburger and small salad for dinner. Everyday. It’s hearty, it’s yummy (for his tastes), and it’s very cheap, especially if you watch the meat prices and buy the ground beef on the day it is due to be pulled off the shelves (which in the U.S., is NOT the same as the “spoiled” date).

Please keep in mind that my brother owns many rental properties, and works as a welder (which brings in a salary of around $50/hour). So he’s not poor–he just chooses not to spend a lot of money on food–UNLESS he is out to eat at his favorite diner, and then he still eats cheap (saves half the meal for his supper at home), but he also picks up the tab for whoever he is talking with in the restaurant, and he’s a big tipper.

Another way to really cut expenses is to buy clothing at thrift stores. When I told my teen daughters (13 years old) that I would no longer buy clothing for them (other than required school gymsuits, and their underwear)–my older daughter started spending her babysitting money at the local thrift store down the street from our house. She was able to put together outfits that the “rich girls” in her school loved and envied!

There are many homemaking skilsl that can help men and women live really cheap. E.g., gardening–my other daughter and son-in-law excel at this, and have an abundance of food that they grow themselves.

Also sewing–both of my daughters have learned to sew through their involvement with theater! I don’t know if they can sew entire outfits, but they can repair their own clothing.

Another way to really cut expenses is to eliminate all kinds of home entertainment that others consider “necessary”. For example, no TV, or at least no cable (although cable TV is provided with almost all public housing units). No gym membership–use public parks to work out, or just work out at home.

It’s amazing how cheap people can live if they cut out a lot of unnecessary expenses. I could cut a couple hundred dollars a month from my expenses if I would just give up drinking soda (which I do almost constantly).

BUT…the main way to live on one income is to make sure BEFORE marriage that at least one of the partners has the potential and the PERSONALITY to earn a good income. If a man or woman chooses to marry an aspiring artist or actor, or a barrista, or a janitor–well, they simply have to come to terms with the fact that they will probably have a very low income and live a very “basic” lifestyle.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Yes, one can make a lot of savings. I am astonished by how much some of my colleagues spend on lunches and even coffee. The former MP Chuka Umunna once admitted that he spends “well over £150” per month on coffee. That’s almost 3% of his salary!

The killer in the south of England is the cost of housing. I have a friend who is a single woman in her 40s who is still renting a room in a houseshare because it’s just impossible for her to rent her own flat, let alone buy somewhere. She is from the US and seriously considering moving back there, having ruled out a move to the north of England.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I deny equality as commonly defined between men and women. Equality in dignity before God? Yes. Equity before the law? Yes. Equality as commonly meant? Nope.

Perhaps I don’t understand what “equality as commonly meant” means. Would you say that a white person and a black person as equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that a Jew and a gentile are equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that somebody with an IQ of 150 and a person with an IQ of 50 are equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that heterosexual person and a gay or bisexual person are equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that a Vanderbilt and a coal miner as equal “as commonly meant”? I am genuinely puzzled by the concept of “equality as commonly meant”, especially since you think that some human beings and some other human beings are not equal “as commonly meant”.

Some women do reject potential male partners because of their ability to provide for them and future children.

I’ve always liked to believe that loves conquers all things. Perhaps I am too much of a romantic, perhaps I have just been lucky that things have turned out okay for me so far, albeit with ups and downs, some tough decisions, and some sacrifices. Perhaps it’s because I grew up in a family where, well, I remember playing charades at a friend’s house one Christmas, and when I had to think of how to represent the word “parents”, the first thing that popped into my head was to act out two people arguing with each other, since I assumed that this was what everybody’s parents spent most of their time together doing. I guess security in a relationship was always the most important thing to me, and I didn’t mind taking responsibility for many of the practicalities. However, if somebody really wants to be able to be a stay-at-home mom, they will obviously have different priorities.

It’s useful to be reminded of the fact that not everyone wants the same things in life. I remember my cousin was once dating a guy, and when she talked about him, basically, she thought that he seemed like a safe investment. It was all very pragmatic. He was a university graduate earning a little over the average wage, his parents were middle class, he had a foot on the property ladder, they had found a couple of shared interests, he had a tolerable appearance. It seemed like he scored above average across a range of criteria. She seriously thought they might get married, but she was fairly clear that she did not regard him as the love of her life, or even a love of her life. To me, it seemed strange, but I guess not everyone is looking for the same things.

 

[StudentMI]

Perhaps I don’t understand what “equality as commonly meant” means. Would you say that a white person and a black person as equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that a Jew and a gentile are equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that somebody with an IQ of 150 and a person with an IQ of 50 are equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that heterosexual person and a gay or bisexual person are equal “as commonly meant”? Would you say that a Vanderbilt and a coal miner as equal “as commonly meant”? I am genuinely puzzled by the concept of “equality as commonly meant”, especially since you think that some human beings and some other human beings are not equal “as commonly meant”.

To be honest I find this question more than a bit unfair. To bring race, IQ, class distinctions and such things into a discussion is unfair and quite an ad hominem.

Equality is the belief that through education and nurturing individuals can be raised to the same exact state as one another. I deny that, especially when you’re dealing with something as genetic and physical as sex differences. It is a procrustean bed that can only mutilate individual differences, not reconcile them.

I believe each individual is unrepeatable. I believe to stick to group differences whether of race or ethnic origin violates human dignity and suppresses the ability of individuals. I do not believe in inferiority or superiority, only differences. I believe in meritocracy.

When it comes to hard physical difference such as sex, human beings are not equal. A man cannot give birth and a woman cannot fertilize. Therefore they are unequal. Once you bring in testosterone and estrogen, it only complicates matters more. I believe in God given gender roles.

 

[Peeps]

The killer in the south of England is the cost of housing.

In the U.S., the price of housing varies hugely depending on the state and the city/town in that state.

In Illinois, our State Constitution includes an amendment added in the 1970s (my husband and I both remember when it was added; we were in high school and all the teachers were celebrating!) that requires that pensions for state workers (which includes public school teachers, state university employees and teachers, and many other people employed by the State of Illinois) can never ever EVER be reduced.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, when Illinois was still on top of the manufacturing world and many cities had dozens of huge factories all running 3 shifts and paying top wages (my dad retired from a factory in 1980, and at the time, he was making more per hour than I make now working in a hospital lab for over 30 years, plus he had an amazing health care plan and pension plan thanks to his active labor union.)

But as the State has lost many of its manufacturing base, and good jobs for people with high school educations only have been lost to overseas manufacturers, the population of Illinois has decreased greatly (we have one of the highest rates of people moving OUT of our state). This means less people paying State taxes…but those State worker pensions STILL have to be paid and we cannot do anything to cut them. So property taxes have been increased to the point where we pay the 4th highest property taxes in the nation! My son-in-law and daughter pay HALF of what we pay, and they live in one of the Top 50 Cities for Families in the country!

Anyway, even with all these problems, it’s still possible in Illinois to buy a very cheap house, or find an apartment that is around $500/month. I just saw an ad for one of my favorite houses in my city–an old Tudor with 3000 square feet in a great neighborhood–selling for $190,000. Oh, well, we are looking to move OUT of our city, not take on higher costs.

Our house cost $69,900, and the mortgage payment/tax payment is only around $700/month. We have about 1400 square feet.

If you move to a smaller town and buy an older home, it can be very very cheap–or very expensive if you move to one of the small towns that has a lot of Chicago people who have moved out of their city!

There are a lot of places in the U.S. where people can rent/buy very affordable houses or apartments/flats. The big cities like New York, Chicago, L.A., etc. are incredibly expensive–my daughter paid $1500/month for 400 square feet in New York City, and it was in a safe, decent neighborhood with shopping within walking distance and lots of restaurants and bars (decent ones). But 400 square feet!! My kitchen/living room/dining area is bigger than that!

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

If you move to a smaller town and buy an older home, it can be very very cheap–

The problem is finding a job in a smaller town. There are plenty of people in NYC/LA/DC who would love to move to a smaller, more affordable place but can’t because the type of work they do is concentrated in major cities.

So, sure, if you move from NYC to Paducah, your housing costs will plummet. But so will your income and job opportunities, most likely. In a lot of industries, anyway. Not everything is geographically based.