To think a lot of women are worse off than 50 years ago?

[Tsort]

A certain type of person is nostalgic for the old days when ‘men were men, and women were women’. I am not. However, it must be noted that at the time when women were expected to be docile acquiescent homemakers, men were expected to foot the bill. They paid for dinner, sorted the mortgage and brought home the bacon. Not for me, but a fair division of labour.

Now, we have a generation of women who ‘pay their way’, go Dutch and refuse to let men pay for them as they don’t want to be indebted. Grand.

But, these same women also do the lion’s share of housework, because ‘men don’t see it’ and shoulder the emotional labour because ‘that’s just the way men are’.

So, women are now shouldering some of the traditionally male burdens while the traditional female burdens have remained firmly in place. How is this an improvement for women? And why do so many tolerate it? This is a profound misunderstanding of feminism and it hurts so many of us.

but I do anyway

Didn't you make a dig at me for choosing to work...?

We know that all other mammal species with the sex with higher testosterone (ie males) will be more aggressive on average across the board,

No we don’t. In fact in many mammal species the female is more aggressive than the male despite having lower testosterone: lemurs, antelopes, hyenas, lions. Interestingly, it’s the lactating female hyenas that are the most aggressive….do you think that breastfeeding mothers are hugely aggressive?

we know that this has also been true for the entirety of history of humans males

Correlation doesn’t equal causation. As in yes, human men are more aggressive on average and have more testosterone on average but this doesn’t mean that the testosterone caused the aggression. In fact there is more evidence for socialisation causing aggression than hormones as an abused boy is at high risk to become an abusive and aggressive man.

Higher Testosterone in males affecting their more prevalent aggressive and risky behaviour is a fact.

Its not a fact, but 200yr old hypothesis that is losing plausibility by the day.

You said in your quote that I quoted above that he “prohibited you from working”. That’s toxic sexist behavior.

you do not have equal roles and you know it. He makes the money and you make the tea.

@Discovereads

Im guessing you usually read books with a feminist bent on history and look to confirm your own beliefs. What the hell is a Viking “commander”? That is totally made up. How did this guy get the information that this woman was a commander? From the few etched Viking runes (none of which mention female “commanders”).

I really think your living in a fantasy. Seriously weapons and fighting back then were largely strength and physical ability based. Think about it realistically - there is little use or reason to have women in an army which does it’s fighting by bashing into each other with shields, axes and long spears (all of which take strength and constant exertion of force to use). Think of it this way - if all the men on a busy street and all the women on a busy street were given dark ages weapons what do you think would happen? Obviously the women would badly lose quite quickly. Why on earth do you think dark ages or ancient armies were looking to enlist women? This doesn’t make sense, it’s pure modern fantasy

YABU

Life is far better for women these days than 50 years ago, the stats you quote about women killed by their families etc. were just as bad, if not worse 50 years ago.

But back then women couldn't get divorced as easily, couldn't have access to their own money.

50 years ago women weren't seen or treated equally

Now on the most part they are, and it's getting better with each generation.

I am 32 and I have never been harassed at work, passed over for a promotion due to my genitalia, treated with disrespect due to my sex, and that's the same for every single one of my friends and work colleagues around the same age or younger.

I also don't know anyone married whose husbands don't contribute 50/50 to the running of their homes unless they're SAHPs. I also know a fair few SAHDs.

Just because some women put up with shit these days (eg husbands that don't pull their weight) doesn't mean women as a group aren't better off now than 50 years ago

No.

I was basically paraphrasing you, no of course he doesn't and yes that would be. Maybe that was my mistake.

Okay so then how am I being exploited if that's true?

Make the tea, funny.

Was it you who said the long list of duties I fulfil was practically nothing?

You're tying yourself up in knots.

So true!

@Discovereads

Your living in a fantasy land. It’s impossible to get reason out of someone who thinks that all human gender differences are “socialisation” (why did it even happen in the first place if we were all once the same, it’s nonsense).

Testosterone has been well studied in all animals including humans and is very much proven to be responsible for higher aggression.

I understand you have to believe this nonsense otherwise ideas about gender differences being “all socialisation” would fall apart but really, the only place testosterone being responsible for aggression is “losing plausibility” is in some feminist based social science perhaps and only the most extreme of them.

And male Lions are more aggressive actually, females actually have to show submission to (thankfully we’re not lions) and they get majorly pissy if it’s not done right, they also fight each other for dominance and patrol territory.

@TinaPoopsy52 how do you account for more women wanting to go out and get careers (be "providers") in the last few decades if you think it's against our nature?

I wanted to come on and add my twopence to this one. I am in the position of working most days in the business I run with my husband but also being the person who does all of the housework, the majority of the childcare and emotional support for the kids etc. Our business is based on my husband's profession, say for outing purposes, as a specialist lawyer so there are large chunks of the work I can't do as not trained. I do all of the house / childcare etc because my husband works from 7am until 10pm nearly 7 days a week to keep the business running well enough for us to have no money worries. I have my evenings free ish after 8 say but am at home looking after the kids. We have no major money worries so can afford takeaways or meals out sometimes.

I wanted to say that this lifestyle gives me personally many advantages - time with my kids being the main one,I drop into school and collect at normal times, we can treat ourselves to stuff, we can go away. But I do feel uncomfortable with the perceived gender roles and how my children will be learning these from us. I could go and get a full time job but that won't earn us more than we earn through me building up the business and my kids would have to go to wraparound care and we'd have to farm out a lot to help. I would feel under even more pressure as less time with the kids. So yep women have it tough but I think we always have.

Societal conditioning.

@TinaPoopsy52

I think maybe you need to ask yourself why you're so wedded to this belief that women have to be a certain way?

So much so you'll deny all the available evidence?

The limitations of sex (smaller, weaker, childbearing) may have led to sexist gender stereotypes being largely enforced in the past but they weren't exclusively limiting and certainly aren't now.

Are you worried if its not true that women have to act a certain way it invalidates your choices?

at the time when women were expected to be docile acquiescent homemakers, men were expected to foot the bill. They paid for dinner, sorted the mortgage and brought home the bacon. Not for me, but a fair division of labour.

men were ''expected to foot the bill'' because married women were barred from working without their husbands permission. Its really irritating to see this framed as an imposition on men.

Gender roles are nothing to do with fairness. Women often worked outside of the home, in lesser, less well paid, menial job. And they did that on top of the housework.

Women did war work during WW2 (only slightly more than 50 years ago), they did hard labour on farms and they worked in munitions factories. They were dropped behind enemy lines as spies. No one complained they were taking men's masculinity away - until the men returned and wanted their wives back in the home.

@keepmywifesnameoutchagoddammouth riiight so you're natural, you're the way women are supposed to be, but we're the wrong'uns eh? How do you account for the career women who are happy and choosing to work and not feeling pressured to do so? I know, I know you think they don't exist, but I assure they do, how do you account for them?

Well why does anyone want to work? It's so they feel secure and able to have financial security.

No. It’s not a “feminist book”, it is a history book.
Children of Ash and Elm: A History of the Vikings by Neil Price (c)2020
For your information Dr Neil Price is a well known and respected archaeologist who has studied the Vikings for almost forty years.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Price_(archaeologist)

What the hell is a Viking “commander”? That is totally made up.
A Viking commander would usually be captain of a ship (and lead the warriors on board on land-based campaigns) or higher- ie could command entire fleets.

If you want to know how archaeologists can tell who was important, read the book. I highly recommend it.

Seriously weapons and fighting back then were largely strength and physical ability based.. So no skill involved then….🙄

Think of it this way - if all the men on a busy street and all the women on a busy street were given dark ages weapons what do you think would happen? Obviously the women would badly lose quite quickly..

But this wouldn’t happen. You’d never have men vs women. It would be groups of men + women fighting groups of men + women. That’s not unrealistic.

@keepmywifesnameoutchagoddammouth that's one reason yes, but for many, career minded people especially, it's about what the work is, the enjoyment of it, the purpose it can bring, those people and careers exist too. Do you think doctors and nurses do that job purely for the salary? If so they made a peculiar choice of vocation! As I say I haven't always needed to work but have always chosen to, to progress my career.

I think though your point is women are natural home makers. We’re not. I’m hopeless at housework if I can be bothered anyway which I can’t. I would be horrified if my ex wanted to never work after kids and it’s no different if he felt the same about me. Women don’t gravitate towards being unpaid carers- it’s just expected of us still by a sexist society.

also some women have been socialised to expect men to “provide” for them (and thus accept such men will have a degree of control over them). I suppose that can work for women who otherwise might not have been able to achieve much career wise on an individual basis. But it’s no way to live imo.

Try suggesting that feminism is not about 'choice', as is so often claimed, but about resisting and dismantling a social structure that's been built and is maintained primarily to benefit the interests of men. 'Choice' might come as a consequence of this, but was never the real aim. You will receive hard pushback, suggestions that you're attempting to 'gatekeep' feminism, and a few choice insults, that I can guarantee.

Feminism is bitterly contested ground, and not all women are fighting for the same things. What they do have in common is a desire for a level playing field: for not experiencing discrimination, lower pay, fewer management opportunities, physical subjugation, etc., on account of the fact that we're women. I'd also take as a starting assumption the position that parenting is a two-person job, and any action or statement to the contrary from a partner would be a deal-breaker for me.

I'm not under any illusion that there was ever a 'sisterhood'. Talk of a 'girl code' or 'she makes me embarrassed to be a woman' is equally empty: shared biological sex doesn't implicate or obligate me any more than shared DNA compels me to accept behaviour from family that I wouldn't from anyone else.

20th century feminists have gained advantages our great grandmothers could only have dreamed of. It's now women's choice what we do with that outcome. If some are actively determined to continue maintaining the patriarchal structure, to 'Be Kind' when that is completely contrary to their own interests, then all I can conclude is on their heads be it.

You read the whole OP and you think that was framed as ‘an imposition on men’? Really?

Some do, some have a passion for it. I've met both types.
I'm not saying those people exist.
I've said throughout it's about choice.

I didn’t mention anything about your “long list of duties”. you’re making stuff up now.

I did quote your post where you said your husband “prohibited” you from working. That’s toxic sexism and you need help.

Some do, some have a passion for it. I've met both types.* I'm not saying those people exist. I've said throughout it's about choice.*

But this was in the context of nature and nurture, you have been saying the sexes are different and that men are naturally providers and women nurturers, I've challenged that as have others which you seem to be agreeing with here, that there are plenty of examples of the sexes doing and wanting the opposite, so you concede that it is a choice and there is no genetic conditioning determining what path we each go down in this specific context?