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.
I think that there are two different transitions going on simultaneously. There is the desire for more egalitarian relationships especially among women and there is the rise women having kids without being married. 40 percent of all births happen to unmarried women,
Women are far outpacing men educationally. Women are both more likely to go to college than men and the men that do go to college are more likely to drop out than women, so we are probably pretty close to a 60/40 female to male graduation rate from college.
I agree with this. First I agree with the points Sonic made here.
I don't have much faith in relationships being egalitarian in practice. I see a stay at home Dad as more likely to function in practice as an extra adult kid. I don't think a stay a home dad is going to be an aid in raising kids as much as just another task, I have to take on. So I am not real interested in it.
If a guy can support a wife to take care of the kids when they are young, that can work, but the opposite I don't trust. When the kids are young, I also don't trust daycare.The people who provide this service aren't paid well and I worry about what happens to my kids when I am not around.
There are also issues with guys in this situation being more likely to cheat. Who needs that?
I think these issues are are also behind the rise in women having kids without being married. If you are dating a guy but he makes less money than you, and you don't think he's going to do his fair share to help raise the kid, maybe you decide you're better off not actually married to him, but your fertility window is closing so you decide to have a kid anyways.
But there is also this problem where there are more young women than young men that are well educated So it's tough to find guys to date who are suitable to actually marry right now.
Yes I agree (except for the egalitarian thing). There are a lot of things going on moving us to a different norm.
I think that there are two different transitions going on simultaneously. There is the desire for more egalitarian relationships especially among women and there is the rise women having kids without being married. 40 percent of all births happen to unmarried women,
Women are far outpacing men educationally. Women are both more likely to go to college than men and the men that do go to college are more likely to drop out than women, so we are probably pretty close to a 60/40 female to male graduation rate from college.
I agree with this. First I agree with the points Sonic made here.
I don't have much faith in relationships being egalitarian in practice. I see a stay at home Dad as more likely to function in practice as an extra adult kid. I don't think a stay a home dad is going to be an aid in raising kids as much as just another task, I have to take on. So I am not real interested in it.
If a guy can support a wife to take care of the kids when they are young, that can work, but the opposite I don't trust. When the kids are young, I also don't trust daycare.The people who provide this service aren't paid well and I worry about what happens to my kids when I am not around.
There are also issues with guys in this situation being more likely to cheat. Who needs that?
I think these issues are are also behind the rise in women having kids without being married. If you are dating a guy but he makes less money than you, and you don't think he's going to do his fair share to help raise the kid, maybe you decide you're better off not actually married to him, but your fertility window is closing so you decide to have a kid anyways.
But there is also this problem where there are more young women than young men that are well educated So it's tough to find guys to date who are suitable to actually marry right now.
The only issue I've got with all this is the use of the word, "egalitarian." Egalitarian to me means that we stand on equal footing in the household, with equal decision making power and we treat one another like partners, not a superior and a subordinate. And personally, I don't think it really matters who is doing what, so long as those involved make agreements and uphold them, the workload is not ridiculously unbalanced overall, and things get done.
And to a certain extent, people can even negotiate to play unequal roles, but if they both came to it in the beginning as equal people who could speak for what they wanted and make an agreement, then fundamentally they are "egalitarian" at the core. Like...I know I don't want to get too deep into such things... I do know people who have "24/7 power exchange" dynamics, where in their relationship it is the accepted and agreed upon situation that one is "Dominant" and the other "submissive"...whatever that means to them. But if they came together in the beginning and discussed what they would and would not do, negotiating in good faith like that, then the decision to surrender or take on more "power" in the relationship was a choice they made from an egalitarian beginning. Nothing at all wrong with such things, people should be able to get whatever they want from somebody who genuinely wants to participate in it.
And in practice, I see mostly that whatever roles they role-play in those dynamics, truly each is acting in service to the needs and happiness of their partner as much as their own. In reality, most of the day to day in those relationships is just a matter of mindful loving behavior. In one older couple I know who adopted this structure late in their marriage, it pretty much saved their relationship. They had come to take one another for granted and lived like loveless roommates. But they worked on a plan, talked it through, and negotiated something new for themselves. One thing that the wife (who was submissive) loved to talk about is that she "has to" get up early and make her husband his smoothie and write on a post it note a new and unique reason that she loves him each day. And he will write the date on those notes and he keeps them in a little book. Thing is, at one point she admitted that she had slacked off in this, and she was VERY upset that he hadn't remarked on it. The point was that both of them were supposed to actively engage in these daily rituals, and his failure to hold her accountable in any way was just as serious a problem as her failure to do the task. Both roles require a deliberate effort to SEE your partner and be engaged with them. Which is far more the point, than any kind of sex kink, for such people who are doing such things.
But the "roles" should be something that one voluntarily chooses to engage with, for their own happiness and because they like how it makes their lives work...not because "that's just the way it is." Not because the other partner simply refuses to take any responsibility, not because anyone is USING anyone else. Not because "what I think I want is just nature/biology/wiring/tradition/how things are and I will be judgy of anyone who doesn't do this and say that failure to do what I think is right/good will cause the downfall of human society." Like that is a whole load of crap, in my opinion.
So while I observe these men who seem to think that "stay at home parent" could mean "extra oversized child who does minimal or no work"... I do not excuse that behavior by talking about gender roles or how things should or must be. Individuals who fail to step up and fulfill whatever role they agree to play in the household, deserve to lose all that they are likely to eventually lose, because that's a choice. It is not loving behavior, it's taking advantage. And lest I forget to say it, same goes for women who take advantage and give nothing back, and same goes for people who fail to see the effort that their partner DOES put in, when they do.
The only issue I've got with all this is the use of the word, "egalitarian." Egalitarian to me means that we stand on equal footing in the household, with equal decision making power and we treat one another like partners, not a superior and a subordinate. And personally, I don't think it really matters who is doing what, so long as those involved make agreements and uphold them, the workload is not ridiculously unbalanced overall, and things get done.
And to a certain extent, people can even negotiate to play unequal roles, but if they both came to it in the beginning as equal people who could speak for what they wanted and make an agreement, then fundamentally they are "egalitarian" at the core. Like...I know I don't want to get too deep into such things... I do know people who have "24/7 power exchange" dynamics, where in their relationship it is the accepted and agreed upon situation that one is "Dominant" and the other "submissive"...whatever that means to them. But if they came together in the beginning and discussed what they would and would not do, negotiating in good faith like that, then the decision to surrender or take on more "power" in the relationship was a choice they made from an egalitarian beginning. Nothing at all wrong with such things, people should be able to get whatever they want from somebody who genuinely wants to participate in it.
And in practice, I see mostly that whatever roles they role-play in those dynamics, truly each is acting in service to the needs and happiness of their partner as much as their own. In reality, most of the day to day in those relationships is just a matter of mindful loving behavior. In one older couple I know who adopted this structure late in their marriage, it pretty much saved their relationship. They had come to take one another for granted and lived like loveless roommates. But they worked on a plan, talked it through, and negotiated something new for themselves. One thing that the wife (who was submissive) loved to talk about is that she "has to" get up early and make her husband his smoothie and write on a post it note a new and unique reason that she loves him each day. And he will write the date on those notes and he keeps them in a little book. Thing is, at one point she admitted that she had slacked off in this, and she was VERY upset that he hadn't remarked on it. The point was that both of them were supposed to actively engage in these daily rituals, and his failure to hold her accountable in any way was just as serious a problem as her failure to do the task. Both roles require a deliberate effort to SEE your partner and be engaged with them. Which is far more the point, than any kind of sex kink, for such people who are doing such things.
But the "roles" should be something that one voluntarily chooses to engage with, for their own happiness and because they like how it makes their lives work...not because "that's just the way it is." Not because the other partner simply refuses to take any responsibility, not because anyone is USING anyone else. Not because "what I think I want is just nature/biology/wiring/tradition/how things are and I will be judgy of anyone who doesn't do this and say that failure to do what I think is right/good will cause the downfall of human society." Like that is a whole load of crap, in my opinion.
So while I observe these men who seem to think that "stay at home parent" could mean "extra oversized child who does minimal or no work"... I do not excuse that behavior by talking about gender roles or how things should or must be. Individuals who fail to step up and fulfill whatever role they agree to play in the household, deserve to lose all that they are likely to eventually lose, because that's a choice. It is not loving behavior, it's taking advantage. And lest I forget to say it, same goes for women who take advantage and give nothing back, and same goes for people who fail to see the effort that their partner DOES put in, when they do.
Well said Sonic. I think that about covers it.
And all the talk of divorces has, IMO, a lot to do with being in agreement on such things and upholding those agreements.
No one is suggesting that men and women are not different.
These GENERAL differences should not lock us in a rigid gender role box with restrictions and expectations.
At one time it was near unheard of for women to be surgeons, doctors, attorneys, astronauts, dentists, CEOs, soldiers, etc. or for men to be waitresses, secretaries, maids, daycare workers, hairdressers, etc. Not because of physical or psychological differences but because of rigid gender role boxes.
Same with relationships and marriages. Do whatever arrangement works and is compatible for both without restrictions and expectations based on gender. Just make sure both are on the same page before getting entangle and throughout the relationship.
I believe in and support equal opportunities for all Americans. I never want to go back to a time when women were restricted from entering certain jobs or professions because of their sex. That kind of system might work for a country like Afghanistan, but certainly not the United States.
Having said that, I also don't think we will see an egalitarian society where there is no sex differentiation or sex roles in familial relationships. I think this will continue whether it's in generation alpha or beta or whatever comes after that.
I believe in and support equal opportunities for all Americans. I never want to go back to a time when women were restricted from entering certain jobs or professions because of their sex. That kind of system might work for a country like Afghanistan, but certainly not the United States.
Having said that, I also don't think we will see an egalitarian society where there is no sex differentiation or sex roles in familial relationships. I think this will continue whether it's in generation alpha or beta or whatever comes after that.
I don't think anyone feels there will be NO differing roles. That is not what egalitarian relationships means.
If both spouses work outside the home then both spouses share in childcare and household chores including making sacrifices at work. Sex/gender is not the determining factor for who does what in the relationship. It should follow where each person's strengths lie and what works for everyone. Both spouses make decisions for the family, there is no head of household, but partners. That is egalitarian.
I believe more women will choose to be SAHMs than men, but men should not be made to feel like losers or less than men for doing so and women's job/career should not be considered lesser.
I don't think anyone feels there will be NO differing roles. That is not what egalitarian relationships means.
If both spouses work outside the home then both spouses share in childcare and household chores including making sacrifices at work. Sex/gender is not the determining factor for who does what in the relationship. It should follow where each person's strengths lie and what works for everyone. Both spouses make decisions for the family, there is no head of household, but partners. That is egalitarian.
I believe more women will choose to be SAHMs than men, but men should not be made to feel like losers or less than men for doing so and women's job/career should not be considered lesser.
I think we are pretty egalitarian already if that is how you deifine it, things like the domestic work gap, and wage gap exist almost entirely because men and women make different choices at home.
Here in Australia for instance, the number of people by sex reporting doing between 5-14 hours of unpaid domestic work is almost identicial between the sexes. Massive gaps start arising once you get to the more than 14 hours catagory.
In terms of empolyment the number of men and women working 35-39 hours a week is once again almost identical (The stard full time work week is 37.5 hours). However anything under 35 hours is dominated by women, and anything over 39 it dominated by men.
Statistically the total of both the paid/unpaid work nominated by full time workers is 52.2 hours for men and 52.9 hours for women, so the extra "burden" the femist movment love to talk about comes in at exactly 6 minutes a day.
It just that men are more likely to stick around in the paid job longer and put in the extra hours to get something done and earn that promotion etc, while the women are more likely to leave on time, and go home and do the domestic duties, so the total of each component that make up the whole is different.
Yes, I agree. Men want a woman can make good money at the same time listen to him.
On the other hand, women want to be financially protected by men like traditional women, at the same time get all the rights, freedom morden women get.
Everyone is greedy and selfish. That's the reason why relationship is hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sierraAZ
That's who they want:
Has a full-time job, earns approximately half of the household income, if she has kids she goes back to work by the time each child is 2-3 years old, cooks well, keeps the house very clean, wears very feminine clothing and keeps herself made up/hair done, etc, has sex whenever the husband wants, does more listening than talking, keeps her opinions to herself, is very aware of the economy, politics, the world, etc.
The only issue I've got with all this is the use of the word, "egalitarian." Egalitarian to me means that we stand on equal footing in the household, with equal decision making power and we treat one another like partners, not a superior and a subordinate. And personally, I don't think it really matters who is doing what, so long as those involved make agreements and uphold them, the workload is not ridiculously unbalanced overall, and things get done.
And to a certain extent, people can even negotiate to play unequal roles, but if they both came to it in the beginning as equal people who could speak for what they wanted and make an agreement, then fundamentally they are "egalitarian" at the core. Like...I know I don't want to get too deep into such things... I do know people who have "24/7 power exchange" dynamics, where in their relationship it is the accepted and agreed upon situation that one is "Dominant" and the other "submissive"...whatever that means to them. But if they came together in the beginning and discussed what they would and would not do, negotiating in good faith like that, then the decision to surrender or take on more "power" in the relationship was a choice they made from an egalitarian beginning. Nothing at all wrong with such things, people should be able to get whatever they want from somebody who genuinely wants to participate in it.
And in practice, I see mostly that whatever roles they role-play in those dynamics, truly each is acting in service to the needs and happiness of their partner as much as their own. In reality, most of the day to day in those relationships is just a matter of mindful loving behavior. In one older couple I know who adopted this structure late in their marriage, it pretty much saved their relationship. They had come to take one another for granted and lived like loveless roommates. But they worked on a plan, talked it through, and negotiated something new for themselves. One thing that the wife (who was submissive) loved to talk about is that she "has to" get up early and make her husband his smoothie and write on a post it note a new and unique reason that she loves him each day. And he will write the date on those notes and he keeps them in a little book. Thing is, at one point she admitted that she had slacked off in this, and she was VERY upset that he hadn't remarked on it. The point was that both of them were supposed to actively engage in these daily rituals, and his failure to hold her accountable in any way was just as serious a problem as her failure to do the task. Both roles require a deliberate effort to SEE your partner and be engaged with them. Which is far more the point, than any kind of sex kink, for such people who are doing such things.
But the "roles" should be something that one voluntarily chooses to engage with, for their own happiness and because they like how it makes their lives work...not because "that's just the way it is." Not because the other partner simply refuses to take any responsibility, not because anyone is USING anyone else. Not because "what I think I want is just nature/biology/wiring/tradition/how things are and I will be judgy of anyone who doesn't do this and say that failure to do what I think is right/good will cause the downfall of human society." Like that is a whole load of crap, in my opinion.
So while I observe these men who seem to think that "stay at home parent" could mean "extra oversized child who does minimal or no work"... I do not excuse that behavior by talking about gender roles or how things should or must be. Individuals who fail to step up and fulfill whatever role they agree to play in the household, deserve to lose all that they are likely to eventually lose, because that's a choice. It is not loving behavior, it's taking advantage. And lest I forget to say it, same goes for women who take advantage and give nothing back, and same goes for people who fail to see the effort that their partner DOES put in, when they do.
I the larger world, I acknowledge that an egalitarian relationship could include equal standing in a relationship even while operating under largely traditional gender roles, but that specific interpretation of egalitarian relationship is mudding the waters in the context of this specific thread.
Upthread, BigCityDreamer posed the question of why are traditional gender roles for men and women so commonplace in actual relationships when so much of the discourse in the larger society (and this forum) is that traditional gender roles are bad and we should be moving directionally toward relationships with more shared responsibilities and much less traditional gender roles in practice.
If you want to discuss traditional gender roles, it is also helpful to have a term to refer to relationships that do not operate under traditional gender roles and upthread multiple different posters, in addition to me, have been been using 'egalitarian gender roles' and 'egalitarian relationships' as a shorthand to refer to this alternative.
I am not interested in a power exchange relationship, nor am I advocating on behalf of them in this discussion.
Now also upthread 2mares was initially arguing that gender roles were evolving in a more egalitarian direction especially for younger people. I would say that is partially true. Among my female contemporaries there is definitely a rise in what I am going to refer to as girlboss feminist sentiments - this idea that because women are now on average better educated and often out earning male contemporaries, they have the power to set the terms of relationships in the way they assumed men did in the past.
But why that is not happening in practice is that these same women also expect to date and marry a man with the same or greater educational attainment as themselves with the same or greater earning power and there are three of these women for every two men, so something has to give.
One of the things that is giving is more women are dating longer and delaying marriage because they assume if they wait long enough they will find a man to meet their expectations and that sometimes happens but that sometimes doesn't happen. When it doesn't happen is both why some women never marry and have kids and why other women have kids without being married to their child's father.
I think young women are changing and want things to change but I don't think young men are changing. I also question women's ability to change men.I think women can change themselves, but the only person that can change men are the individual men themselves.
What women's increased educational attainment has done is make it easier to afford to exit bad relationships, but it hasn't actually changed men.
I agree that we are all accountable for our decisions, but the decision I would not agree to is to marry a guy with the assumption that he would agree to be a stay at home Dad while the children are small.
In practice I don't think most guys are as good as most women at taking care a domestic tasks for the family and more importantly I haven't met or dated a guy, that I thought could do this as well or better than me. Which is another reason I think traditional gender roles tend to be so persistent.
I agree that we are all accountable for our decisions, but the decision I would not agree to is to marry a guy with the assumption that he would agree to be a stay at home Dad while the children are small.
In practice I don't think most guys are as good as most women at taking care a domestic tasks for the family and more importantly I haven't met or dated a guy, that I thought could do this as well or better than me. Which is another reason I think traditional gender roles tend to be so persistent.
But would you expect to marry a guy who would change diapers and leave work and pick a sick kid up from school and get dinner started? That's the "modern" relationship that most women want--a functioning adult, not a child.
I'm not a clean freak myself, but it's giving men a pass to just say that they're "bad" at domestic chores. That's more them growing up not being expected to do those chores rather than being inherently bad at them. You mention that most people are getting married later, if at all, and as such these men should have been living on their own, doing their own laundry, making their own grocery lists, cleaning their own toilets, etc. We've been told by the manosphere for years that men created fire, hunted the mammoth, and built everything worthwhile in society, but we're also expected to believe that they can't unload the dishwasher properly without help? Please.
But would you expect to marry a guy who would change diapers and leave work and pick a sick kid up from school and get dinner started? That's the "modern" relationship that most women want--a functioning adult, not a child.
I'm not a clean freak myself, but it's giving men a pass to just say that they're "bad" at domestic chores. That's more them growing up not being expected to do those chores rather than being inherently bad at them. You mention that most people are getting married later, if at all, and as such these men should have been living on their own, doing their own laundry, making their own grocery lists, cleaning their own toilets, etc. We've been told by the manosphere for years that men created fire, hunted the mammoth, and built everything worthwhile in society, but we're also expected to believe that they can't unload the dishwasher properly without help? Please.
Change diapers yes. Be willing to pick up a sick child especially if I couldn't do it yes. Cooking sort of, my standard for him cooking is lower than my own standard for me cooking. If he is just reheating leftovers, that's fine. I would want to make sure that the kids have something to eat and aren't hungry. I would be upset if he was just feeding the kids junk food, but he doesn't have to prepare elaborate multiple course meals from scratch either. Giving the kids a PB and J with an apple and a glass of milk would be fine too.
Do you actually think the guys in the manosphere are ever getting married? I don't.
Do you think you can change men? If so in what ways?
Last edited by Damnitjanet; 11-12-2023 at 12:05 PM..
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.
