Why are gender roles viewed negatively?

[reddragon7]

I read and see so many threads and real life examples, where men and women feel the need to be “equal.” The man about to become a father, refuses to become the main earner, even when he has the means, and insists that his wife also work and contribute financially. Doesn’t this seem imbalanced to anyone, and that society is being brainwashed to accept this as the norm.

I have nothing against a woman wishing to work post-children, however, I don’t understand why society and some men put pressure on their wives to work, if she would rather stay home with the children. This has now become and expectation. If a woman is contributing financially, it is never really 50/50, as she is also doing most of the domestic work.

People condemn gender roles as though they are ancient, but seem to forget that, biologically and psychologically, women are naturally better caregivers to children. They are the ones pregnant, produce all these hormones, and better equipped to raise a child than a man. Of course, there are exceptions, but as a general fact, people seem to ignore this.

In view of all this, I believe more men should offer to be financial providers, giving women the option to not work after children, as childcare costs aren’t exactly saving them much anyway. Otherwise, it feels we are moving away from our gender roles, which may actually be more helpful in a marriage, than people make out.

Gender roles cause issues for women who want to work.

They often aren't paid as well as men in the same role
They are often overlooked for promotion because it is assumed at a certain age they will get pregnant, have a years maternity leave and then either not return at all or go part time
Senior roles are full of men, even in traditionally 'female' occupations such as nursing and teaching

How would this be enforced? If the husband said he didn't want to pay anymore and thought she should contribute financially, would the government take the money off him and give it to her? Force him to get a better paying job somehow? Pay for her out of state funds?

I don't even want to think about how the right to sex would be enforced.

How doesn't it apply? They still both have to have an income and look after any children and if women aren't suited to work and men to caring, they're stuck? And you are also saying that the women in lesbian relationships have less rights than their heterosexual equivalents which is blatant discrimination.

I do understand what you're saying but a marriage is a relationship and not a formal business set up. These are the things people should discuss before they marry and have children otherwise you could be heading for conflict and not having an emotionally stable home for the child.
I think you're asking that society values these traditional set ups so it becomes an acceptable choice.

I'm hazarding a guess that the OP doesn't believe in same sex marriages.

Like @AnorLondo, I'm curious as to how the OP envisages that the right for women to be supported could be enforced if the man was unwilling. And also whether there might be circumstances when he would be released from the duty to financially support his wife if he felt that she wasn't holding up her end of the bargain? If so, what might that look like? Could he withdraw financial support if she refused to have his children? What if she didn't look after the kids well enough? What about if she wasn't keeping house according to the standards that he expected? Or what if she wasn't having sex with him as often as he would like?

If there are no conditions that need to be fulfilled on the woman's side, is it surprising that not so many men seem to think that this model is a good deal? Surely, they are just taking on a financial burden with no guarantee of any benefits.

Can people get divorced in this scenario? If so, how is a woman expected to support herself after this. Will her ex be required to carry on paying spousal maintenance for life?

I'm surprised you need to ask why some men wouldn't go for this, OP!

It's already an acceptable choice. Lots of people do it. Expecting society to value this kind of set up is unrealistic.

OP, you can't enforce this kind of things unless you want to go back a thousand years on women's rights.

How would you force a man to earn more for starters ? You can't make it a law that a man has to earn X amount as a minimum (unless you want to hugely discriminate against women who wouldn't be earning the same). And you can hardly enshrine it in law that a man must go for promotions at work, or work longer hours, or have a long commute because he is obliged to take work opportunities far away from home.

So if two incomes are needed then two incomes are needed.

Reinforcing gender stereotypes will be harmful to women's career either way. They are suffering as it is from a number of assumptions/stereotypes such as was mentioned by a pp who was passed over for a work opportunity. Women of child-bearing age are already discriminated against, regardless of whether they even want children.

I hear what you're trying to say but any attempt to make it reality would hugely hurt women, and bring few if any benefits.

Anything like what you're suggesting can only happen if/when both partners agree on it. The law should stay well out of it.

Why would your opinions not apply to same sex marriages. Why could the woman who carries the baby (assuming thats the route they take) not demand the other woman supports her finacially

One of the arguments you gave that was because a woman carries a baby , gives birth, feeds it etc she deserves to be financially supported. Why is this not still the case in a same sex marriage?

In your ideal world OP, would you allow same sex marriages?

Well, I actually didn’t expect people to be so outraged by opinions and get so offended to be frank.

Your views and preferred set up negatively impacts women and sets our progress towards equality back decades (something you've repeatedly refused to acknowledge or address) so yeah, people feel strongly about this so will respond robustly.

Okay, well in that context, I feel I would prefer if it was a marital right that women can choose not to work post-children, if they feel they would benefit the family more from staying home with their children. This is just my ideal proposal.

Obviously, since this ain’t the case in the UK, it would have to be agreed on beforehand, should couples wish to.
You're muddying the waters again here.

Couples in the UK can already choose to have a SAHP should they wish to or need to. They can make this decision at any time and can choose their spouse for any reason (including their views on how they want to structure a family).

People with your views already have the choice to live your life as you with with your spouse/future spouse.

Your views are being robustly challenged because your belief in weird gender based rights sets women back decades, and would remove rights of thousands of married men for no other reason than you think a woman should have the right to demand she's financed through life.

So if a women’s role is just a caregivers & homemaker- why bother sending them
to school, think of the money saved by not going to university. You happy for your son to provide & work (even if he would rather spend some time with his children )

As a working mother of two girls, whose father has been a hugely active role in their life. My eldest is 20, very proud of the independent person she is. I’d be happy with whatever she decided - what’s important is that’s it’s her choice & not forced just because of her gender.

How isn’t it an acceptable choice already?

overwhelmingly women sah or go pt after children. It’s completely normal and accepted.

what o/p is asking is that women have no financial responsibility once they have children, and should be completely dependent on a man. Whether that man wants to or not, he has no choice.

which is just a massive step back towards women are men’s property. They pay for them, right?

what o/p is asking is that women have no financial responsibility once they have children, and should be completely dependent on a man. Whether that man wants to or not, he has no choice.

One step further, actually. She doesn't want any married woman to have any financial responsibility after marriage. Whether there are children or not.

@reddragon7 are you labouring under the delusion that married women aren't abandoned by their partners? You do realise that even though it is a legal obligation, many fathers don't pay child support even if they were married to the child's mother?

I needed to work. I found the baby stage the most demanding. I had lost sense of who I was as a person.

Our solution was for both of us to go part time. I worked mornings, my husband afternoons and we had evenings together as a family.

My kids benefited from the care of a parent at all times though I did start to use a couple of hours at nursery to build social skills before school for my eldest.

We both had good jobs, his vocational, mine professional, and either one of us could have been stay at home parents but we both wanted that time raising our kids.

However, for this to work, both partners need to be feminists. You do seem to be fixated on gender roles and these are outdated in today's society.

I’d also like to hear your views on the research that you posted that concludes that children and women are often better off when mum works, and that societies that share child raising have better outcomes?

do you still stick with your 1938 research and something about oxytocin?

do you know what oxytocin is or does while you’re saying it’s so important for women (and women only, as if men don’t produce oxytocin)?

nobody disagrees that women, and men, should be able to choose how they raise their children. But when you state that it’s a woman’s “right”, and only a woman’s right, to stay at home and be financially supported by a man because that is what’s best for the children, you need to back it up with evidence, not some waffle about biology.

@Lastnamedidntstick, the OP has already clarified that she is basing her opinions on her observations of "real life" rather than any peer reviewed research. She has also said that she doesn't see why she should need to back up her opinions with evidence.

Quite why she thinks that any society would enshrine rights in law for one group over another, purely on the basis of the unsubstantiated opinions of a tiny minority, I can't quite fathom.

Oh and homophobic, let's not forget homophobic.

Quite why she thinks that any society would enshrine rights in law for one group over another, purely on the basis of the unsubstantiated opinions of a tiny minority, I can't quite fathom
Some people are rather willing to limit the rights of other people based on their personal opinions and preferences.

OP, should they wish, is free to find a spouse who agrees that women have the right not to work, that men should pay for everything and not have a say, and that a husband is entitled to sex.

For some weird reason they think that the ability for them to choose a spouse who agrees with them isn't enough.

As part of this ‘right’, how would you ensure that a man would be able to earn enough to support his wife and children. I don’t know many people that can afford a mortgage on one salary, let alone all the bills that come with it. Would men have a right to be paid more than women as they need to be the provider?

Yes, that's an interesting point, @LolaSmiles.

OP, is there a reason why you feel like this needs to be enshrined in law rather than just agreed between likeminded couples?

Good point.

o/p, if your opinions are based on “real life”, how are you assessing what oxytocin does or doesn’t do to the maternal bond?

you brought “science” into it, so you can’t justify yourself by saying it’s personal observation.

you are leaping all over the place from “observation”, to “opinion” to “science”, then doubling down or switching argument when your point doesn’t hold.

you’ve made a statement in your o/p which you have no coherent back up. This is why posters are asking you to explain yourself, but you can’t.

in the uk your ideal of women being completely financially irresponsible once married doesn’t work. Your culture may be different, I suggest you discuss it with other women within that culture, you may get more agreement.

At a guess because she would like to be able to force her DH into it

Just to add, my parents have not ingrained this into me. As we have all been given a good education and are working professionals among my siblings. So they like that I have my own career. Even I held the view that modern roles are better, up until a a few years ago, I realised I am strongly in favour of traditional roles, whilst retaining the woman’s right to work.

So essentially although this may be more normal in her culture she has been brought up to work, her family expect her to work and its quite possible when she got married her DH expected her to work. But now she's decided it's too much effort and she would like to force her DH to pay for her to not work

I'm not even sure it's women of her culture who are the problem here. Seems to be the OP is trying to force a change on even the people in her family who think differently