Looking at men differently now I know too much?

You use the word narrative, yet are fundamentally reiterating your own narrative in your posts. I'm honestly not seeing much evolution in them - recent responses to some fairly subtle counter-arguments tend just to repeat suicide stats and anecdotal refs to a minority of privileged women. And your tone can be pretty sarkily dismissive. Hence Datun's cynicism...

when I see the types of people pushing it

I thought ad homs were beyond the pale?

And you read post after post by women saying they "feel so privileged to be ably to stay at home and indulge their hobbies due to hubby working 80 hours a week".

I really don't think I've ever seen such a post. But, tbf, this could be a kind of confirmation bias - what you're more likely to click on v. what I am? I certainly acknowledge such women exist - but I'd also say that they're a very privileged minority indeed, and think it would be hard to argue otherwise, even if only in the light of wealth distribution in the UK!

I also think it's hard to argue that patriarchy doesn't contribute to the financial pressures you see men experiencing and their challenges managing associated emotions. Our society has been shaped, and is largely still run, by males; they created the very economic systems and ideological constructs of masculinity that led to this. And feminism challenges that system to the benefit of all. Yes, its focus is (the clue's in the name) on how patriarchy harms women, and its priority has been winning women greater bodily and financial autonomy. I think it's hard to argue against this focus, either, without sounding like you genuinely see women as second-class citizens.

I acknowledge that this - terrifyingly recent - shift towards equality, has of course complicated this situation somewhat. No longer do we have the trope of the happy housewife and hardworking hubby, each with their respective role idealised in rosy-cheeked advertising propaganda. In this context, women enjoying the privilege of a life of leisure have the potential to create strong feelings on both sides of the debate. But to argue that the way through this interim period of rebalancing and reshaping society to value men and women equally is to uphold old patriarchal values and stereotypes like those lazy, grifting ladies-who-lunch, which are only applicable to a privileged minority in any case, feels tenuous at best.

As a previous poster has suggested, Gad, why don't you just try a little bit of square dancing.

And of course the good old "no true scotsman" fallacy. No woman could ever possibly disagree with a feminist, ergo they must be male.

The narrative just doesn't add up to me, and when I see the types of people pushing it, it all makes sense. It's just like the "forriners taking our jobs" bunch, whose arguments also don't stand up to scrutiny.

The narrative is that the poor oppressed women give up their careers so that the privileged men can dodge 'the real work' (as another poster put it) and experience the great privilege of spending their days in meetings.

Except in reality men are killing themselves at 3x the rate of women, with 'work stress', 'financial stress', and 'fear of failing to provide for the family' being identified by suicide orgs as the most common stress factors for men.

And then you come onto a forum like mumsnet with an overwhelming amount of mothers and SAHMs. A forum where posters aren't afraid to speak their mind. And you read post after post by women saying they "feel so privileged to be ably to stay at home and indulge their hobbies due to hubby working 80 hours a week".

Does hubby feel the same way working twice as many hours as most people or is he just putting on a brave face and trying to look after his family? 🤔

It makes no sense that the privileged ones would be killing themselves in such high numbers, with the supposed privilege being the biggest cause of stress, whilst the oppressed women are joyously posting about how lucky they feel to be able to escape office drudgery and indulge their social life and hobbies.

It's not an ad hominem attack, it's a description of your posts.

And not just on this thread. Your anti women bias is profound

Ad hominem attacks and resistance to fact checking/debate doesn't speak well to a poster's integrity tbh.

Do you know, I just looked on Trending a second after posting that in the knowledge that there was a fairly good chance there'd be one there... and there was. I won't quote or name it out of respect for the poster (and should acknowledge it looks to be a more complex situation than some - DH seems to be struggling a bit) but I do think the high likelihood of one or more coming up daily is potentially telling.

BTW, important disclaimer as the debate continues...:

I emphatically don't agree with misandry and am playing devil's advocate in these discussions to some degree; I could equally post at length about the difficulties men face. But, to extend the advocate metaphor, I'm posting as I am because I really don't think that women get remotely fair "representation" in these debates, nor have we for millennia. And right now, sexism, misogyny and MRA-thinking is becoming frighteningly prevalent. For women, countering such attitudes can be, quite literally, a matter of life and death.

I actually agree and sympathise with many of the issues for men that Gad's highlighting, and have made a point of repeatedly saying so (despite Gad's claims to the contrary) - but, as I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with what seems to be the attitude behind them.

And, ultimately, I do think women have it infinitely tougher overall, and I honestly find it hard to see how anyone could think otherwise in the light of stats re. eg. relative physical strength, rape & violent crime, and, well, the dark cloud of the entirety of global human history under which we still live, really! I certainly think that the kind of stoical resistance we often see here to showing the slightest bit of empathy for that is a certain sign of ignorance, privilege, extreme good fortune or something rather darker.

Unlikely to be on MN! But certainly in AIBU you can find a depressing number of such threads from the wife's perspective.

So despite this list being around for years, you have no actual examples of feminists "look[ing] down on these women for 'living off a man'". It's a completely contrived complaint.

What's the point of making stuff up so you can complain about it?

Not my point. My point is that your jealousy of women is pathetic.

And each of those women is doing great until "D"H hits her, and then she's trying to exit a marriage in which she has no unmonitored source of money to fund her escape.

Yup. Living a life of leisure funded by somebody else's hard work relies on that benefactor being happy to continue doing so. A man that works 80 hours as in some of these examples is essentially working the hours of two people so his wife can 'pursue her hobbies' and enjoy her spa membership/go for lunches.

It's usually ladies that lunch. Not lads that lunch!

A brief search shows that that list has been doing the rounds on Mumsnet for years.

Same with the Rules of Misogyny. People quote them like the old testament.

So where are all the posts by men opining about how great it is that they get to spend all day playing the xbox and going to the gym/pub while their wife works 80 hours a week?

A brief search shows that that list has been doing the rounds on Mumsnet for years. Amazing how that poster happened to chance upon it.

What kind of words? And do you think that is OK?

And each of those women is doing great until "D"H hits her, and then she's trying to exit a marriage in which she has no unmonitored source of money to fund her escape.

Which, statistically, is one woman in seven of those on that thread.

I don't fancy those odds, especially with the whole autism=vulnerable thing going on.

I also feel a definite aversion, to the point of horror, at the idea of being someone's pet. If you are a kept married woman without kids, that's kind of what you are, and I struggle to understand why other women would be OK with that. It's not dignified to be a human pet. It's not a full time salary's worth of work to clean and tidy a house, cook, launder, etc. A man without kids who didn't work would be called "cocklodger". For clarity, I'm not talking about SAHM who are raising children, nor disabled women who can't work, nor the wives of tradies who on paper "don't work" but in practice are answering the phone to book the jobs in and sending the invoices out.

I think many feminists would probs look down on these women for 'living off a man'

"Look down on" is the wrong term. "Be utterly puzzled by" and "be thinking 'you're taking a big risk"" is more accurate. Even my horror at the "human pet" aspect is not contempt but the "why would you do that?" type of utter bafflement. Some people abuse their animal pets. You take a risk if you choose to be a human pet.

"Contempt" describes how I feel about rapists and most politicians.

Just searching the first of those quotes and it's five years old.

Who the fuck trawls through years upon years of threads in order to find quotes that denigrate women?

It's all the tedious Stacey and Chad tropes.

And the latest one is women have got it so good, because they live off men.

''I think many feminists would probs look down on these women for 'living off a man'''

I think you are imagining what feminists think instead of actually engaging with feminists and finding out what they think.

@Galadriel,

I'm sure women like that exist, though among my friends only a few men have been lucky enough to not work. (No women unless you count people like me, men and women, who are totally disabled and get disability benefits. None of us have a luxurious lifestyle.) One of my male friends nominally cared for the young children, though he spent most of his time on the computer. Never did the housework, though he did fix the car occasionally. The others just played video games. But their wives (my friends) weren't wealthy.

I'm not sure what that proves. Did anyone say these particular women were victims? I don't think anyone disputes that staying at home works well for some women.

So, these are the types of women I'm talking about - pinched these quotes from another thread BTW, can't take the credit for compiling them myself.

I feel they present a side we don't often see discussed. I think many feminists would probs look down on these women for 'living off a man', yet reading these quotes I struggle tbh in seeing them as victims who sacrificed their careers so their men could enjoy a privileged life of working. Their lives sound extremely privileged.

My sil is 44, rich and has NEVER had a job, lucky her! She has no trouble filling her day and has a great life.

Dp earns the money then gives it to me. Why would I feel oppressed?

I haven't worked in 8 years and bloody love it! I got to go shopping without ds today and have a long lunch with a friend. Going to the gym now.

My friend is married to the son of a billionaire and sometimes I have to block her on social media because her life is one long holiday.

I dont work, I was able to be a sahm with my sons, both in 30s now. I lunch, dressmake, walk my dogs for miles, spend time with friends and family etc....
I also volunteer for a small homeless charity, something I am so passionate about, being literally close to home.
I feel totally fulfilled!

My DSis married a very high earner and has never worked a day in her life.

My DH works 80 hours a week for a signficant amount of money, which allows me to be a SAHM and indulge myself, allow me to do all of my volunteering and my hobbies.

I work just a few hours a week in a job I love doing, I don’t have to work for financial reasons. I’ve accidentally ended up with a really high earning DH. I enjoy having lots of time to myself, I have hobbies, an amazing spa membership and an extremely fortunate to have some really good friends whom I’m able to see nearly every week.

My SIL is lucky enough to not have to work due to DB’s income. She has nice things, goes out for lots of lunches.

I'm a SAHM who has teenage children and is fortunate to be married to a high earner so I haven't needed to work since having kids. We do have a lifestyle that most people would find impressive.

I choose not to work. DH works really long shifts and odd hours so can be out of the house either days or nights, with each week being different. When the kids are grown I'll go and get some post-sahm work. Maybe in a shop, factory, cafe or something similar.

The funniest post was Monday morning when she started by posting “it’s going to be a long week, hoping the nanny isn’t late” followed by “anyone know a place I can get nails done, not happy with the place I’ve been going as I think they overcharge and wanting a day to pamper myself a bit.”

I feel lucky that I don't need to work. I am not getting any benefits because dh earns enough.

I'm lucky in that I didn't have to carry on working.

I am lucky enough not to work and stay at home with my son, as DH is a high earner. I feel extremely grateful for this every day, and try very hard not to take it for granted.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amibeing_unreasonable/3764425-To-think-you-are-very-lucky-if-you-dont-have-to-work

@GaIadriel

I tried to get an apprenticeship. The reason I mentioned my male friends and brother was to show that it was possible for people like me as long as they were male. I agree that one usually needs to know someone or have some other connection.

Did you do an apprenticeship? That's the usual way into construction, unless you do something like an engineering degree. Often they'll fall over themselves to take on women as so few apply.

I initially worked as a HGV driver for a subcontractor that had contracts with companies like CEMEX/Aggregate Industries/Heidelberg/Tarmac/etc. It wasn't meant to be a long term thing. I just fancied it as I love driving pickups and it was an easy way to get on £40k with just a few weeks training and £2k outlay - to give myself some stability while I decided what trade I wanted to pursue (had just sacked off my graduate job as it was excruciatingly boring).

Then ended up getting a job directly with another division of Tarmac and just kept asking for training in my development plan meetings. Have done loads of heavy plant tickets now including loading shovels, tracked dumpers, 97 ton articulated dumpers, and sometimes tippers too. Also stuff like being a site first aider and countless other training courses which the big contractors make us do (Safe Urban Driving, eco stuff, etc). Can also do some plant maintenance stuff and am learning to batch concrete which can be quite technical with all the different properties/applications.

You can't usually walk into a decent job in civil construction without some manner of inroad IME.

Going back to the 'marrying into money' thing, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I don't mean inheriting wealth. I mean marrying somebody who goes on to be successful to the point you don't need to keep working. My sister had a senior defence job in a specialist area (only female in her entire building and managing 40 men) but her husband is now the MD of a big food company so she just contracts 2-3 days a week and has loads of free time.

I'll post some quotes from the thread I was talking about to give an idea what I mean.

most feminists are educated white women who prioritise ambition and sometimes (not always) look down on non-ambitious women/SAHM. But we have to consider the wider picture and include all women, even those whose life philosophies we don't share.

Woah. Provocative (and reductive) generalisation much?! Would that "most" include the women who built and maintain the structures that are arguably most significant to more deprived women? Like, I don't know... equal pay for factory workers; shelters; rape crisis centres; sex-segregated prisons; single-sex public toilets (for those unable to nip into a nice hotel) etc. I could go on...

If a woman is already a low earner in a non-career job she has much less to lose in marrying a financially successful man. I always think of the boss I had after first graduating. A multimillionaire who married his father's carer. They ended up divorcing years later and I still see her driving around in her Bentley Continental sometimes when I visit my hometown. I doubt she would've ended up as comfortable as she is had she stayed a nurse. I also think a low earning male would likely have less chance of ending up in the same situation. Whether or not you would want to be 'a kept woman', some certainly do and benefit from it. But even those that give up their career aren't always oppressed. Another poster put it quite succinctly in a previous thread titled You're Lucky if You Don't Have to Work. She said "why would I feel oppressed? He earns the money and gives it to me.'

To misquote The Princess Bride, I don't think this anecdote means what you think it does!

• "Low-earner" = a reminder of the disadvantages women face as a class
• "Non-career job" = ditto
• "I also think a low earning male would likely have less chance of ending up in the same situation" = a rather hilariously inverted reminder of how proportionately fewer women are able to earn this kind of money themselves
• "those that give up their career aren't always oppressed" = an ironically helpful reminder of the sacrifice inherent in (your words!) "giving up" a "career"
• "...why would I feel oppressed? He earns the money and gives it to me" = a frightening reminder of the vulnerability of the financially dependent SAHM that seems to forget the wider picture / include all women, most of whom will be working themselves into the ground both providing for and bringing up the kids (without a Bentley in sight)

So...

• Pretty-Woman-fairytale-Bentley-driving divorcée = individual exception, who you seem to be using to represent a trend of some kind without really acknowledging how far removed she is from the average non-ambitious women...

Many good outcomes require an element of risk. Setting up a business. Leaving a steady job for a better paid one. Moving abroad. Admittedly these can maybe be reversed with less personal impact than a woman might experience in suffering a financially abusive relationship, but then the benefits if it works out are huge - having a high QOL without working, a bit like getting a significant inheritance/winning the lottery in some cases.

Another Woah! for the casually dismissive, "admittedly these can maybe be reversed with less personal impact than a woman might experience in suffering a financially abusive relationship..." And just like that, the value of full autonomy and independence for women is discounted.

I sometimes think it's a bit like two siblings sharing a considerable inheritance. One chooses to keep it as financial security and lives frugally for their remaining days. The other lives the high life and chases their dreams. The latter may fall on hard times and regret their decision, telling everybody to ensure that they always keep enough money to be independent. Or he might be more fortunate and have a great life, telling his sibling that they've wasted their chance by worrying about 'what might happen'.

I'll be honest, I didn't entirely follow this last analogy, (I think because I felt the argument had broken down so much earlier in the post?)

all that stuff about Chinese peasants

Nice. That's kind of what I mean about engaging with other POVs. You're very clear on your own opinions, and I'm enjoying (like you, always up for a debate!) posts that are longer and far more thoughtful than the usual... but they're feeling more and more like exactly what you accused me of earlier: that you've got your opinions and supporting facts and stats all worked out, and find it far easier to wax lyrical on this safer ground than fully engage with the counter-arguments.

Regardless, your job sounds tough by any standard. Hope you got to relax this evening.

Most of the people I know who married into money were men. I don't know him but Tim Kaine is a good example. Funny how men never get that reputation.

I tried to work construction but no one would hire me bc I was a woman. They hired some of my male friends and my brother. I think I would have been good at it. I liked to lift weights, run, and do other physical things. But I ended up at a top uni. I hadn't planned to go to uni but I couldn't find a good job. I had a whole range of classmates, from extremely wealthy to very poor. Very few people married up or down but the few who married up were mostly men.

I don't know any women who were SAHM except when their children were very young. The ones who didn't go to uni had to work to help support their families and the ones who went to uni were too ambitious, partly bc they would be seen as failures if they didn't work in a respectable job. Few of them loved their jobs but no one wanted to be seen as an utter failure or as being one of those women who wasted a space in uni, especially because some would use that as an example of why there should be fewer women at unis. Quite a few also needed to help support their families.

But without having properly read all that stuff about Chinese peasants my gut feeling is still that the sex that dies the most is the primary victim. With both spousal murder and suicide.