Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I have shown, most women have a significant drop in their income when they have their first child.
If they’re staying home for several months or temporarily cut to part-time, of course; that said, it’s not at a point it can’t be recovered, so-to-speak, as a whole. Keep in mind we’re typically speaking to a timeframe of several months to a few years (for the average professional woman), and it often involves some sort of family leave for men as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Income is the elephant in the room.
Naturally, income plays a part in a couple’s decision i.e. many women who would choose to stay home can’t afford to do so. That said, I simply meant it doesn’t negate their ‘motherly instinct’ or desire to bond, breastfeed and so on, no matter their income; they either have it or they don’t, as most women under 35 have their own careers in this day and age.
LOL. That would be modern.
Would there be any particular roles attached as far as earning or domestic duties or childcare if you ever had children?
It depends on the situation. If we both wanted to keep our jobs and could afford and were okay with a nanny, then we'd hire a nanny.
If we could reasonably live off of one person's income and were okay with how things were divided- spending money, etc., then maybe one person would take on such a role. If there are no kids in the picture, I'd want both me and the other person to be working definitely and doing other things together on our off time.
Whatever would occur where everyone is ideally respected on all sides.
I’m not that hung up on looks, but she had better hang with me intellectually, and I also like “practical girls” who know how to at least change a tire or drive stick. It’s not a high bar, but I feel like it weeds out the helpless waifs.
It can be physically demanding for a woman to change a tire; if she can manage to call a mobile technician or (included) roadside assistance, from my perspective, it’s all good, lol.
Back in the 1970s, when universities were approaching 60/40 men to women, the country saw that as a problem and in 1972, Title IX was passed to rectify that. I view this legislation as the political system responding to the legitimate concerns of women as it really should.
But right now, we live in a world where the universities are approaching 60/40 women to men and the situation has now been fully reversed but there really isn't an effective political response to do anything about men falling dramatically behind women in terms of educational attainment.
Now the question is why isn't that the case? Why is the political system not responding here to what I see as a reasonable concern of men? Unlike Daniel, I don't think the problem is feminism. I really think women are reasonable and just want to be treated fairly themselves. I also don't think feminists are intentionally trying to keep men down here either. Women have sons, brother's, husband's and boyfriend's.
But I do think the misogyny of the manosphere really does self sabotage any attempts to talk about these types of issues. I think when women get exposed to stuff like the live streams of the whatever podcast and watch guys just treating women awfully with total disrespect and contempt, they emotionally associate that with any effort to discuss men's issues and absolutely want nothing to do with any of that. I also get why women feel that way. I see the misogyny of the manosphere completely derailing any effort to actually have a productive discussion on why some men are failing behind right now and this is the point that I am trying to get Daniel to see in this thread..
Since practicality was mentioned, though in context of working on car issues... (I would also call AAA, but practicality to me is just being capable of finding a solution to a problem, even if that's having the ability to call the right help)...
I love practicality. I am one hell of a practical human in my everyday life. I solve problems, strategize for the short, mid and long term, and get things done. Practicality is great! In anybody!
To swing it around to this, and to your points, as a practical person I get annoyed with what to me seems like a whole lot of intentionally divisive, pointlessly emotional, politically motivated antagonistic noise. I want practical solutions. If someone does not have a practical solution to a problem that they are trying to "raise awareness" of, then they are just blowing hot air in the wind.
Fact is if you are a sensible person in a good relationship, then you are not enemies or opponents in some sort of gender war or game of "mating strategy" chess. That's where a lot of the more extreme views of not only the manosphere but some of the nuttier corners of feminism I have (rarely) encountered in my life lose me. You can't look at half the people on the planet as your existential enemies and expect to get anything productive out of it.
I do think that the educational system at least in America and maybe elsewhere is not doing best for boys and men...but maybe has had a lot of issues that if they were resolved in a practical manner could benefit everybody. There are things that I've wished to see changed since I was a kid in school. More effort to work out at least a few basic categories of how students learn best, and then strategies to make completely reasonable accommodations that optimize the functionality of those with different brain types and learning styles, that's something I think would go a really long way. Rather than looking at certain things as "neurodivergent person = disordered" as though most students fit some standard of "normal" I prefer to think that there are many shades of normal that are all fine, and each one will perform best under slightly different circumstances.
Things like audio/visual/kinetic learners for instance. Brains that tend more to a technical or linguistical strength. All of the same information can be taught to the various kinds of people, just using different methodology that gets the best result. I also think that a whole reevaluation of what material is useful and practical is in order. But sadly in the States, we have some pretty determined political entities who actually want to see the end of public schooling in its entirety. A system whereby those who can afford it get to educate their kids and those who can't will have to put them into the labor market, with minimal knowledge and skills. This is the legacy of a political movement that has never stopped hungering for more exploitable labor in the last two+ centuries, they have just tried to find diplomatic ways to maneuver so as not to call it what it is. So if we are so busy just trying to fight for the basic right to educational opportunities for our kids, it's hard to step beyond that into best practices within it.
One thing, aside from ensuring that boys have adequate physical activity and seeking better alternatives to drugging them into compliance for the convenience of overworked and underpaid teachers, that I think would be great... More male mentorship programs. As I've mentioned I feel like boys and men do have a serious need for role models and people to identify with and look up to. No matter how hard a Mom tries, it is not common for a boy to be able to use her as a role model in quite the same way as he would a father or another man. I think that more programs for men to mentor boys, would not only be a great benefit to boys but it would help more men to be engaged with their communities.
Don't complain when men complain and then start following the Andrew tates fo the world because no one is listening to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775
If you ignore the issues, you just get more misogyny, - its a vicious cycle.
One of the dilemmas for men, who are feeling disempowered, is that there are a lot more antisocial, than prosocial, means of trying to make themselves feel more powerful.
So yes you could engage in petty misogyny or watch Andrew Tate or you could do a lot worse things like abusing your wife, your kids, join a street gang or become a mass shooter to try to feel more powerful. I think this is a reason so many guys just really blow up their lives.They are feeling disempowered and they follow an antisocial path to try to make themselves feel more powerful.
But the flip side to that is these antisocial acts are counterfeit signals of personal power. In the short term they might make you feel more powerful, but in the long term, they make you feel weaker. They are actually disempowering behavior.
The guys who are acting misogynistic around women aren't having successful relationships with women, because no women wants to date a man that they has issues with women. I don't blame women here.
If you hit your girlfriend, you aren't sitting around feeling better about yourself you are feeling worse, because if you were thinking she might leave before, well now she has a lot more better reasons to leave.
As your behavior gets increasingly antisocial, the criminal justice system is going to get involved. Being in jail or even an ex-convict isn't going to make you feel good about yourself.
We are a highly social species and if you look at what really raises your status, it is regularly engaging in prosocial behavior. Both the strength of your connections and number of people you have in social network predict both your happiness and your status. Helping others and being a better human is how we connect with others.
Sitting around berating women is not going to make you better with women, but befriending them will.
One of the dilemmas for men, who are feeling disempowered, is that there are a lot more antisocial, than prosocial, means of trying to make themselves feel more powerful.
So yes you could engage in petty misogyny or watch Andrew Tate or you could do a lot worse things like abusing your wife, your kids, join a street gang or become a mass shooter to try to feel more powerful. I think this is a reason so many guys just really blow up their lives.They are feeling disempowered and they follow an antisocial path to try to make themselves feel more powerful.
But the flip side to that is these antisocial acts are counterfeit signals of personal power. In the short term they might make you feel more powerful, but in the long term, they make you feel weaker. They are actually disempowering behavior.
The guys who are acting misogynistic around women aren't having successful relationships with women, because no women wants to date a man that they has issues with women. I don't blame women here.
If you hit your girlfriend, you aren't sitting around feeling better about yourself you are feeling worse, because if you were thinking she might leave before, well now she has a lot more better reasons to leave.
As your behavior gets increasingly antisocial, the criminal justice system is going to get involved. Being in jail or even an ex-convict isn't going to make you feel good about yourself.
We are a highly social species and if you look at what really raises your status, it is regularly engaging in prosocial behavior. Both the strength of your connections and number of people you have in social network predict both your happiness and your status. Helping others and being a better human is how we connect with others.
Sitting around berating women is not going to make you better with women, but befriending them will.
We are talking the manosphere here, which is far more a general fight against the feminist ideals of Patriarchy theory etc and how they are forced through by both the movement and government, rather than any dislike for women, Call it matricacy theory if you like, however as always it will attract men who genuinely hate women, just as feminism also attracts women who genuinely hate men, and there is virtually zero we can do about that.
The problem is that while nothing is done, the number of men who genuinally hate women continues to grow, making it even harder to sit down at the table.
I am not sure how many of the active participants in the manoshpere would even looking to date a girl, most would either be already in a relationship just concerned about the direction of society, in particular in raising boys, or have been in a bad ones and no longer want to associate with women due to said bad relationship. The INCEL component is really just a bit part of a whole, as is the part that genuinely hate women as mentioned above.
The bit about male antisocial behaviour, i largely agree with. However while I no psychologist, I don’t think its going to go anywhere. Its how men have naturally evolved over 1000's of years, and it could take just as long for it to go away.
I am sure we will both agree, that large groups of very unhappy young men in society, is simply not good for it. Living in the USA you would have far more experience with that than I.
Naturally, income plays a part in a couple’s decision i.e. many women who would choose to stay home can’t afford to do so. That said, I simply meant it doesn’t negate their ‘motherly instinct’ or desire to bond, breastfeed and so on, no matter their income; they either have it or they don’t, as most women under 35 have their own careers in this day and age.
Female-headed households are significantly poorer than male-headed households across society.
Without the income of her husband or male partner, a mother is at a big disadvantage financially.
These facts are well-established by decades of data.
However, I don’t know of any evidence that working at a job lessens a woman’s motherly instinct when she has her first child.
However, I don’t know of any evidence that working at a job lessens a woman’s motherly instinct when she has her first child.
It’s not about her job (as almost all women work in today’s world); it’s whether or not she has that ‘motherly instinct’ or selfless, loving ‘traditionally feminine’ desire to stay home with a baby for several months to a year or a two (and whether or not a couple can afford it). As a professional man (in a committed relationship with a professional, ‘modern’ woman), I’d prefer it - per the thread.
It’s not about her job (as almost all women work in today’s world); it’s whether or not she has that ‘motherly instinct’ or selfless, loving ‘traditionally feminine’ desire to stay home with a baby for several months to a year or a two (and whether or not a couple can afford it). As a professional man (in a committed relationship with a professional, ‘modern’ woman), I’d prefer it - per the thread.
Almost all? It's around 2/3 for the highest states in the US, MUCh lower in several others. Accorind to the BLS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
