Class analysis...

Oh yeah of course. I am not devaluing SAHMs or their choice to do that at all.
But status is an externally imposed thing (i.e. it is the perception of other people/society) and SAHMs are lower status than earners.
So fms was talking bollocks. The guy earning £25k may be lower status than other higher earners but not than his wife.

Of couse his wife could potentially go to work and earn more than him but then she wouldnt be a SAHM so the point becomes meaningless.

Earning is percieved as more valuable than caring. She is financially dependent on her husband so more vulnerable to abuse. Out of the two of them, the SAHM is lower status and less powerful

I think you have a point here. SAHP are in a often in a more financially vulnerable position. A lot of SAHM choose this role though. And there are been plenty of threads where SAHM feel their role is not valued by society.
I’m sure many SAHM / SAHDs don’t see themselves as less privileged than their partners they feel they are luck to have a partner who earns enough to support them to stay at home. It only gets rough when the relationship breaks down and they find their financial position is fucked.

Sorry I’m a bit rambly there. Basically being a SAHP does put you in a financially vulnerable position. But people (mostly women) who are SAHPs feel they are privileged to be able to SAH.

If I had a big cash windfall I would be a SAHP, much easier than my full time job.

I guess we can think Jordan Peterson for bringing this particular anti-feminist to this forum?

But the woman is invisible to you. You are all about the poor men.

I've already referred to how the "patriarchy fairy" keeps being wielded, so I guess that's the same as talking to someone who believes in a supernatural being despite no tangible actual physical evidence for the existence of that fairy

A man on £25k a year supporting a wife and kids hardly has any status worth shouting about.

What can he do that she can't?

High fives bowl

The notion that your average father/husband on an average annual wage is somehow of higher status than his wife who is raising the kids and keeping the house in order is laughable.

Why would women be looking for a man to provide for them?

Because we just sit around like sirens waiting for a poor hapless Male to suck dry like a spider I think? SCIENCE SAYS SO,

This is a misunderstanding of the concept of resource provisioning (on which I’ve written at least one paper as a younger scientist )

Resources are stuff like food, space, water etc. externally but it can also be internal resources - if you’ve got a mammal that can be competing with womb mates for space and nutrients too.

So you get resource war and resource response and sex allocation differences in some of the following situations:

Low food year - red deer on Rum (the Scottish island, which is a lovely place to do fieldwork) seem to be able to bias the sex off their offspring so that they have more females in bad years. Even ‘poor quality’ runty females generally mate but the males need to be able to be in good condition so it makes more sense to have boys in good years

Genes expressed differently from maternal and paternal copies * can influence growth in line with what benefits the parent they are from, so the mother doesn’t want a massive foetus, she knows it’s her baby, so that pressure is to limit growth. The copy from the father may act to increase growth at the expense of the mother and future or current siblings because his genes are not present in them.

• but these are lady genes! One poster said a while back. No. No they are not.

The concept is often used as the ‘pretty ladies sit about manipulating males who do all the hunting’ crap but if you look at modern hunter gatherer populations the bulk of calories are provided by women and children anyway. Men tend to go further afield and bring back larger game which provides important protein but isn’t the predominant source of nutrients.

I’d like my fish gallop fried I think, with posh mushy peas and tartare sauce.

Fish gallop... yes... infinitely more appealing than fms’ ‘science facts’....

At least if they offered us a fish gallop we'd have something to snack on later.

Ha ha... fish?! gish... gish....

Is it that lady brain wants to be looked after and man brain is wired to provide? Is that why? Are we going to get a fish gallop of poorly understood science facts now?

Why would women be looking for a man to provide for them?

And why does the benefit system ensure that some women are forced to choose between a man abusing them or the state abusing them?

it’s just I see how utterly invisible most of this horrendous stuff that is going on is to most people and that really is a massive problem

I can't YY this hard enough.

Why would women be looking for a man to provide for them?

"Because what it says is men have more secure and better economic status than women and so it doesn’t really matter if they marry a women who is less able to provide financially than they are."

I guess that's one way to look at, the other would be that women want to marry someone that can provide for them. That doesn't say anything about their own ability/inability to provide for themselves (which incidentally many women, both single and not single manage quite well)

It doesn’t really though does it? Because what it says is men have more secure and better economic status than women and so it doesn’t really matter if they marry a women who is less able to provide financially than they are...

Although if we really wanted to throw the cat amongst the pigeons then I could bring up Petersons claim that women typically marry upwards in terms of social standing, whilst men marry in all directions

"I said that whatever the male counterparts are doing they will automatically be awarded higher politico-socio-economic status. "

Yes, and I said this is the "privilege fairy", you can't see it, taste it, touch it, smell it or hear it, but you're convinced it exists and will keep on pointing to it at any given opportunity

"And I think you just agreed with me

Working full time gives a person status and financial independence that being a housewife or a part time worker who makes her work fit around childcare or housework does not.

One person working full time and one person fitting in with that does not make for an equal exchange."

Except I didn't.

My point was that most relationships of that nature are reciprocal.

Anecdotal, but as soon as I was born my mother decided she wouldn't go back to work again even part time. Admittedly asthma probably played a part but if she really wanted to then she could have found something to do

The notion that your average father/husband on an average annual wage is somehow of higher status than his wife who is raising the kids and keeping the house in order is laughable.

I asked you what the men are doing, the implication being that they are offering something in exchange (the obvious thing being working full time to provide financially)

I answered your question. I said that whatever the male counterparts are doing they will automatically be awarded higher politico-socio-economic status.

And I think you just agreed with me.

Working full time gives a person status and financial independence that being a housewife or a part time worker who makes her work fit around childcare or housework does not.

One person working full time and one person fitting in with that does not make for an equal exchange.

And that's when things are at their rosiest. It is of course even more unequal when the man fucks off leaving the woman to bring up the kids. Or when he hits her or financially abuses her or pimps her, etc etc.

Virtually every single day there is something, you don’t even have to look for it.

Exactly. Thank you for what you do every day, Offred.

It’s quite normal for people to not be married and for everything to be in the man’s name only because they are the ones with the money to pay.

Well, she was entitled to the house but the HA tried to claim she wasn’t... because that’s the kind of shit the system pulls when people are poor...

Thanks! I don’t mean to be relentlessly miserable about it, it’s just I see how utterly invisible most of this horrendous stuff that is going on is to most people and that really is a massive problem. Two of my male neighbour died this year (there aren’t many anyway) one just dropped dead in his fifties and his partner wasn’t even entitled to the house or bereavement benefits because they weren’t married, the other was in his 70s but had had a long and slow slide into increasing disability...

I do very much care about it. But I also can’t escape the reality which is the main male representation here is one of conspicuous absence by choice... and then the good men die and the families are fucked.