So angry at all these threads on useless and selfish men

[Winterday1991]

Off the back of the thread where the H refuses to care for his sick child so the OP can get some much needed rest as he is on annual leave from work 😡. I am seriously fed up of reading threads like this, why are so many men so selfish?

Why is it always women who have to do the lions share of caring, pulling themselves in all direction whilst their male counterparts glide through life uninterrupted? Why is it always women who carry the mental load for family life and the men just show up. Why is always women responsible for maintaining the household?

Even in the 21st century, why do so many men get such a bloody easy ride, whilst often their poor wives/partners are running around like headless chickens keeping on top of everything.

Many women's complaint seems to be that either men opt out of these responsibilities at all, or even if they pretend to do them the woman has to co-ordinate it all and effectively manage them. To use your work analogy: who wants a relationship where you have to treat your partner as a direct report? And not even a good one: one with no initiative who has to be constantly reminded of their responsibilities, who you have to micro-manage to check they have completed them, who asks you absurd questions about how to do their tasks which are both easy and when these questions have been answered previously? A poster earlier mentioned a partner asking her if there was milk in the fridge. Would a man behave like this at work? How embarrassing!

So men are totally capable of this. They just in many cases cannot be bothered and pretend to be incompetent so that women will do it for them instead. Why should we?

I certainly won't. And I will be raising my daughter to absolutely refuse to. An increasing number of women are no longer interested in feigned incompetence and such men will no longer be tolerated.

If you post in anger, you risk making comments that undermine the clarity of your argument - and it is clear from most of your other posts that your arguments have merit, so this is a pity.

And careful also with your assumptions and conclusions ... not all traditionalists are men. I also think you may be conflating several of the posters who disagree with you ... easily done when clarity of thought has taken its leave and red mist is controlling the keyboard ... but it is confusing for any others who might be following this thread nonetheless.

But, taking your points at face value ... buying a left shoe is 50% of the work, and buying a right shoe is also 50%, right? If partners agreed to buy shoes like this, life would be more equitable, right? LOL. And still you'd be complaining that one partner still has the worry about whether the other one got it right ... and therefore has more mental load to carry. The root cause is that some partners (the women, according to your prejudices) worry excessively about trivia and don't have the faculties to cope. Address that, and the problem goes away. Doesn't require anyone to hate on trad-wives or husbands.

Ah yes, I did. My apologies.

Mark is appears has children but believes that the "menial" task of taking care of them is not for him.

But, taking your points at face value ... buying a left shoe is 50% of the work, and buying a right shoe is also 50%, right? If partners agreed to buy shoes like this, life would be more equitable, right? LOL.

It's very clear that this is not remotely what I said so either you are attempting to make a joke that has not worked, or yet again you are feigning that you don't understand what has been explained to you very clearly.

Lol ING at Mark who keeps making huge sexist observations then claims the sex of the parent has nothing to do with it

😂😂

The op didn't mention sahp or breadwinners. It just mentioned lazy men.

Yet Mark is insisting the solution to lazy men is for women to stop wanting to be dental hygienists

😂😂

The sadness I feel is that there was, once upon a time, an equilibrium that achieved a pretty good work-life balance for many family units existed and had evolved organically, over thousands of generations, independently in many different societies - it was called the 'traditional family' but it was relentlessly attacked, undermined, and ultimately destroyed by a particular kind of feminist. Whilst there were certainly problems with that status quo, I am not sure that we've improved the lot of most women as a consequence of this change.

Here I can partially agree with you (if we set aside for the moment the legal situation, women as chattels, women unable to enter into contracts etc.)
A society which is set up for families to be supported by 40-odd hours of paid work , e.g. to have one working parent and one SAHP, a 'traditional family', would indeed in many ways be preferable. It would also be far more flexible, as the parents could then arrange for each of them to work 15 or 20 hours if they so desired.

You mis-diagnose the cause of why this is no longer the case in most Western countries - it was not the fault of feminism but of rampant capitalism, exacerbated by energy crises.

In the sixties or early seventies, a blue-collar worker (at least a unionised worker in the USA) could afford to pay for the house, have a full-time SAHP, a couple of children, run a car, and afford a modest two-week holiday each year.

(In the UK they may not have afforded the car, but the landscape is more compact and buses were the norm.)

Now a single childless person cannot afford all this. A childless couple can barely afford this.

The root cause is that some partners (the women, according to your prejudices) worry excessively about trivia and don't have the faculties to cope.

It is not a prejudice that women generally do far more of caring for children and household management than men, it is substantiated by copious research. Even in the case if two parent households where both people work full time. In fact even in cases where the woman in the higher earner. This is fact.

You may believe that whether a child has appropriate medical/ dental appts scheduled/ problems with education dealt with/ emotional support/ clothes and shoes that fit/ food available for their packed lunch/ healthy dinners prepared to be trivia, but I'd say that has more to do with your suitability as a parent than to do with reality. It's disturbing that you think this is trivial and if you do really believe that then I question why you had children at all.

Address that, and the problem goes away. Doesn't require anyone to hate on trad-wives or husbands.

Nobody is "hating" on anybody. People can organise their lives however they like if both parents have freely agreed to this.

The way to address that is for men to understand that - unless there is a prior agreement to the contrary - if they decide to have children then the starting point is that 50% of all tasks and organisation relating to the running of the household is their responsibility. How could you argue otherwise? Only if, perhaps, you have your own prejudices.

🤣🤣🤣

buying a left shoe is 50% of the work, and buying a right shoe is also 50%, right? If partners agreed to buy shoes like this, life would be more equitable, right?

Reductio ad absurdum.
It really undermines your credibility. I thought you had started to argue your case sensibly in these last few pages, but perhaps you are just a troll after all.

I don't think Mark has actually said he does have children. I wouldn't assume so.

I don't think Mark has actually said he does have children. I wouldn't assume so.

Oh okay. Perhaps he doesn't. That would explain the callous way he has spoken about their wellbeing being "trivial".

The only benefits the sahp role has is allowing the non sahp to not do housework or childcare. The negatives of financial dependence and lack of secondary parental input totally outweigh those supposed benefits

Humans gain lots of advantages from being 'employed'

Both parents sharing the work load (whilst much harder to achieve) is the ideal

Not actually disclosed my sex, either. Not on this thread or on any other. I'm quite careful to keep things neutral. Not sure if it's the username that blinds you, or the views I express. You do know that avatars aren't literal, right?

I don't assume anything about the others posting on this thread apart from what they chose to disclose, and then I take it at face value. I don't think this thread's contributors are actually a timepiece, or royalty, or a Marxist class warrior, or beancounters (although I'd place a £1 bet on that one being an accountant).

I have a bugbear that the quality of an argument is judged based on the circumstances of the person making it. Being a parent or being childless have various underlying complex factors interacting with numerous other factors and a person's particular circumstances, which makes it impossible to generalise. Or at the very least, unwise. Doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion, what their circumstances are. The comments made upthread directed at @PrincessConstance are pretty gross, actually. But I do know some things, from first hand experience, about raising children, working, and managing a home. And I'm very happy with the outcomes that my choices have had for me and my loved ones. If that helps anyone accept my points as more valid, even if they are unappealing to them and their worldview.

Not actually disclosed my sex, either. Not on this thread or on any other. I'm quite careful to keep things neutral.

🤣🤣 If you think it's not obvious from your tone etc. quite apart from the content of your posts that you are a man then I am bemused.

Being a parent or being childless have various underlying complex factors interacting with numerous other factors and a person's particular circumstances, which makes it impossible to generalise.

And yet you make generalisations supported by no evidence. When I challenged these earlier in the thread you said you had no interest in engaging with requests for evidence to support your views.

And now you tell posters not to generalise, even when it's been pointed out that a huge body of peer-reviewed research supports the generalisations being discussed.

Hmmmm.

To continue the discussion about 'traditional' families, there were in fact lots of advantages to having a SAHP, especially pre-industrialisation.
For example, clothes were made at home instead of having to be bought with cash. A great deal of food was grown at home, or made from raw ingredients.

It could be possible even in today's society for a couple to make it work economically, if the SAHP could save enough money (avoid the need for earning and spending money) by growing food and making clothes from second-hand fabrics/clothes. (New fabric is hideously expensive and aimed at the hobby market.)

Indeed both parents were mostly 'at home', in the sense that traditional occupations were done from a workshop attached to the home, such as the baker, miller, priest or blacksmith. The majority of people worked in the fields and children came too if they weren't in school.

In modern industrial society, the non-SAHP suffers greatly from lack of contact with their children, and the SAHP suffers greatly from lack of adult social contact, and lack of financial independence/security.

I agree that sharing the workload, both paid work and unpaid, is the ideal.

an equilibrium that achieved a pretty good work-life balance for many family units existed and had evolved organically, over thousands of generations, independently in many different societies - it was called the 'traditional family' but it was relentlessly attacked, undermined, and ultimately destroyed by a particular kind of feminist.

This is just so laughable I can't get over it, if you genuinely actually believe this? That women not wanting to be house servants and wanting equal relationships and financial independence is what has destroyed work/ life balance.

We have had this conversation before, but you really must brush up on your understanding of economics. Even if all women were prepared to commit themselves to the subservient role you wish, this would not take us to what you are imagining in your head. What I believe you were referring to was a very brief period in history, and for a very small proportion of people. And even then was unsustainable and only achievable at that time by ineffectual financial planning on a societal level which has left future generations rather screwed no matter what they do. Not to mention how miserable it made many of even the "lucky" women in that situation utterly miserable, but perhaps from your perspective that doesn't matter.

As for thousands of generations, I can't even. 🤣🤣🤣 If we assume that the average woman over the last 1,000 generations had children pretty much as soon as they hit puberty at 15 and take the shortest generational path back to an ancestor 1,000 generations ago that would therefore be 15,000 years ago i.e. the end of the ice age. You are claiming you know of some kind of society with a stable social construct of men = work and women = home life going back to then? In pre-history? And you claim thousandS of generations? So what, you think we should model our lives on those of neanderthal women or what? Bet you wouldn't want to give up all of the scientific, technological or medical advances since, but apparently social structures should remain unchanged from when exactly, when we emerged from the sea?

You may believe that whether a child has appropriate medical/ dental appts scheduled/ problems with education dealt with/ emotional support/ clothes and shoes that fit/ food available for their packed lunch/ healthy dinners prepared to be trivia, but I'd say that has more to do with your suitability as a parent than to do with reality. It's disturbing that you think this is trivial and if you do really believe that then I question why you had children at all.

I'd just like to point out, invalidating my arguments because I do not have children of my own and DP only has his children 50% of the time is quite obviously a red herring. You yourself have admitted you are not living in a parental relationship with another. Does that exclude you from this discussion too?
These tasks are NOT equivalent to a full-time job.
Dentist twice per yr-administrated via email or text, brief telephone call.
School shoes twice per yr via physical choosing or internet browsing.
Food shopping meal prep is a general task and a basic requirement of being an adult.
School, drop off pick up, homework-playtime bed.
Household tasks such as washing clothes and utensils can be done if one so chooses to be automated. Washing/drying machine, dishwasher.

As Mark has quite rightly pointed out dual (Third party actors) administration of these tasks can create dilemmas and conflicts of interest. Compounding the issues.
I don't agree that circumstances make a difference, these can be changed to suit family lifestyles. What does make a difference is the individual mindset and individual ability. This of course covers a broad variety of skill sets and IQ levels etc, etc.
People are not equal. Whether that creates systemic unfairness is another debate.

You yourself have admitted you are not living in a parental relationship with another. Does that exclude you from this discussion too?

No. Because I did. And you never have. And because I do actually understand what is involved in parenting because I am a parent.

What does make a difference is the individual mindset and individual ability. This of course covers a broad variety of skill sets and IQ levels etc, etc.
People are not equal. Whether that creates systemic unfairness is another debate.

Ahhh, so now you're not just more organised than other people, more conscientious and better at scheduling: apparentl you have more skills and a higher IQ. 🤣🤣🤣

This thread has been very entertaining.

And ... once again you are conflating me with a different poster.

Nope. Not in this case.

Care to show me where I behaved in the way you described?

You understand what is involved in how you would parent.
I generalize because I'm actively involved as a step-parent with DP-Dp-ex and her partner. I also have a big job as someone up the thread mentioned.
You don't know how much mental load Dp carries because of dual parenting 50/50. Maybe he carries more responsibility because of his ex-wife's role. For instance, he drops off and picks up the children all of the time, he even drops off and picks up his ex's new children. OOOh, how stressful. In times of emergency, he carries the burden of the children. For example, they had logistical issues, his ex had an extended period of time on a project. Guess who steps in.
There's no resentment because these arrangements impinge on his leisure time.
That is because when children came along he decided what he thought would be the best way to facilitate children. He prioritized them.
Formulated a plan and carried it out.

Maybe just maybe people don't carry the baggage of logically fallacious beliefs rooted in feminism. Peer-viewed research based on non-empirical methodology.

It's not science-based is it?

You really do not get it do you? Picking up and dropping off children and letting them spend some time at your house is not what is involved in raising a child.