Why don't women want to be subservient housewives anymore?
As late as the 60s, most women unironically wanted to be housewives. They looked up to their husbands as providers, protectors of the household and head of the family. They really were content to pop out kids and make house and serve their man.
What went wrong?
>They looked up to their husbands as providers, protectors of the household and head of the family.
Men aren't filling that role anymore. More women are in college than men, and too many young men are interested in loafing around playing video games than having any sort of career ambition.
Women now are only comfortable giving up their careers to raise kids, if the man is successful enough that it makes financial sense for her to do so.
The nuclear family is a form of social communism. For every working man, a family.
Women don't like this, they want alpha males, do they gravitate towards the more natural Alpha/Beta dynamic. Thus modern dating and sexuality.
Part of it probably has to do with the fact that finding a job that can support a whole second human and a kid or two is practically impossible if you want to live well. I don't know any single income families under 30 off the top of my head, but I know many married families with kids.
Plus, just like most millennials are shirking the idea that working 60 hours of the week is in any way satisfying, women are realizing that being locked in a house all day with kids, waiting for your husband to come home, isn't a particularly satisfying role in the world. There's a lot out there to do.
Probably spent too much time on a serious reply though.
>locked in a house isn't satisfying
>better go work 40-60 hrs a week instead
Men have given up because there's nothing for them. Wanting a virgin housewife is sexist and oppressive. Without a family to provide for why should they try?
> if the man is successful enough that it makes financial sense for her to do so.
Which was caused by women going into the workforce. If you double the labor pool wages will drop by half.
Not everyone has to work 40-60 hours a week if they're employed. Someone might have a part time job to contribute to the household, or some kind of business that lets them work flexible hours, or from home. My buddy makes good money, but he and his wife just had a kid - his wife's job kept her on as a consultant that works from home 15-30 hours a week depending on flexibility.
Some people find work satisfying.
Well first, there's no such thing as a Chad house husband, and most of the beta males are no longer interested in taking care of the house while their wife gets fucked on top of the copier every morning.
Read Charles Bukowski's Ham on Rye, then come back to tell us about how much better gender roles and sexuality were in the 20th century.
[spoiler]And read Women for the 1960's[/spoiler]
Because only like 10% of the entire population of guys could ever support two people and kids with their income.
Then you have elimination factors:
I would love nothing more than to be a traditional housewife. I already do all the housework between me and boyfriend, who I live with in his house that he acquired through family.
Except thanks to "feminism," "political correctness" and "equality" I'm playing on an uneven playing field. He expects me to pay for half of the mortgage and bills, despite the fact that I'm only working part-time right now but he's working full-time, while he spends all of his money on beer, video games, cigars and fast food, while I spend all of my spare money on what we actually need in the house, but I'm still cutting into my savings to live with this piece of shit. I sleep on the couch more than half the time just to not have to be in the same room with his disgusting cigar smoke. He contributes nothing to the housework and doesn't even take of his shitty dog that doesn't even respond to its own name because he didn't put in the time or effort to train it properly.
TLDR; Find a traditional woman and appreciate what you have. Don't be a fucking manchild, It's really that simple.
Or maybe 14 year olds fucking on the school yard, some lady sleeping with the milkman to pay off bills, unhappy marriages full were the dads beat the shit out of the kid while mommy drinks the pain away
If you idolize the culture from 1850 till 1960 please read some fucking books from that period. All those "vintage posters" are bullshit.
Here is something to get you started on life in England and America in the middle class in those years.
>The Guvnor (biography)
>Jack's London - The Road
>look up your own fucking books and put in some work
I'm not attracted to it. But things were different years ago. I fell for the initial lust, and then his parent passed away, and I agreed that I would help out with the house. Except back then we were both working part time, so we were equal. Now he expects the world of me while walking around with on a chip on his shoulder because he happened to be lucky enough to get a full time job thrown at him a few months ago. He talks down on me for only working part time, despite that I'd had two jobs for a long time. Plus, I'm just not sociable. By 4chan standards I'd be deemed an assburger. I have no friends. I keep to myself and am happy keeping myself busy with my own interests. I'm not demanding respect, but I do wish I had it better and actually was respected. I'm at a weird place in my life right now and it really sucks. I'm stuck.
business as usual
Why only use 50% of the population to build infrastructure, when you can simply hire the other 50% to do an easier job and pay them less. This is why you're not living a fulfilled life unless you have a career. Without a career your life has no purpose. Raising a family is now just a bi-product of getting fucked.
I don't know about your agenda OP, but as a guy in his very early 30's who divorced in his 20's and is currently dating a girl in her 20's I sort-of-don't-know-if-I-need-to-feel-that-feel.
My marriage broke because we viewed everything equally and as a result we didn't really work together towards anything which bound us. Traditionally a house, children, the usual trappings of marriage would do so, but we were fairly progressive and so just sort of drifted aimlessly self serving, self pleasing and being fairly cold and indifferent to supporting each others needs. She should have her own income to match mine. I shouldn't need her to contribution.
In a way I envy the religious nut jobs who view marriage in a traditional sense because it imbues within them a purpose as a family unit. We were just adults behaving like teenagers.
In my current relationship clearly my girlfriend doesn't act or speak for all women. But the difference between us is still there. We are expected to have independent goals outside and separate from the relationship. Our happiness isn't to be found in being vulnerable to and requiring the support of the other. I am financially independent, so is she.
I cook and clean and manage my own administration and general affairs. So can she. So why connect at all except for the basic need for companionship which is easier with those who are familiar and safe?
You need goals which compliment your relationship and require your cooperation. In a secular relationship without children this needs to be cherished and acknowledged because it will be the reward mechanism which binds you and allows you to share pleasure in mutual benefit.
Shit is complex. I think that women being pushed into the labour market benefits the holders of capital more than women. I think gender dynamics should change and have changed and should further, but we are in a transitional period where ideologically speaking concrete humanistic goals and purpose is harder to pin down.
The poor know how to live poorly and make just enough to get the government treatments. The UK is an easier pushover with assistance than we are because they were bombed to shit in both world wars.
I think this is why both genders can find it easier to focus on what they do not have and what they have lost rather than what they have gained. There is easy social capital in bitching about stuff which you feel powerless to change. Like most change though, to gain power over it you've got to acknowledge it.
I told my girlfriend that it was important to me that I'd mentally chosen to be with her. She responded by telling me that she isn't a possession to be chosen. I wasn't trying to imply that I'm some kind of super desirable Lothario, nor did I wish to be one. But I accepted that I'd chosen to close some doors I'd opened others and that put us in this situation.
That situation is where are you headed? How does that involve your partner? If her 10 year plan is to finish postgraduate education and take some time out to travel before considering a career and mine is to pay off a house and start a family you aren't going to make each other happy in the long run unless one of you was being factious with your original answer.
I mean, we are both as always in transitional times. The moment is all we have, but where we want to be requires discipline within the moment otherwise tomorrow resembles today and yesterday and boredom, stagnation and generally feeling like you and your dreams die piece by piece results.
Tough one. In the next 10 years she wants to be living in a different area. Neither of us have the current income to make that happen. I hate work, but a promotion makes sense if that money will help towards her goal. Modern relationship dynamics says fuck her goal, my happiness is within my authority alone. She told me that she wouldn't support me if a promotion meant that she had to take on extra chores even if I hated the promotion which was for the benefit of helping her meet her goals.
I mean, holy fucking shit. Something is broken right there.
Because they realised that they don't have to suck their faggot husband's dick for allowance, they can suck Tyrone's for pleasure and be strong and independent from the alimony they get from their ex.
So what is happening and where are we going with it? I partially supported her during her post graduate studies because I earn more than her. I purchased a house and while it isn't a palace, it beats renting and I spend every spare penny and hour of my time on the place bringing it up to modern standards.
Currently I'm supporting her while she learns to drive and I'll have to financially assist her in getting a car on the road. This will hopefully allow her career to start and we will finally have the money to divert some of the pressure off of me and we'll be able to pay to get work done on the house. Once this is complete we can save quite rapidly and consider if we want to stay put or start over again with a better house and consider alongside this decision starting a family.
Like no shit, she wants to travel the world. She views her career starting as her disposable income quadrupling. If I don't want to travel, then I am suddenly the problem.
I mean, this is why we've been talking about 5 years, about 10 years, about goals which include the relationship and respect the mutual contribution which makes that relationship meaningful and satisfying. Otherwise she is just a lodger who pays low rent because I get to fuck her occasionally.
You sound like a great dude. I'm in no place to analyze since I'm this idiot >>16733167
but don't be taken advantage of because of >muh feminism >muh equality
I'm equally confused as to where this world is headed and I'm not liking it much.
Anyway. After a proper conversation about it what is important to both of us ..
>That work/life balance is sustainable for both of us.
>That she would prefer to work more than me, my skill set is much more hands on and practical.
>That if we want to be living in a nicer area without making life hell through taking hideous jobs our path has to become fairly unconventional.
>Once she secures a job in her field I'm working my job for a maximum of 5 years before we phase into a family and I'll reduce my hours.
>Once this house is primed to sell for a very good profit and some other financial stuff comes to fruition we are buying a plot of land and self building a house together.
>Once this is done she is going to part work, part be freelance. I'm going to get to be a stay at home Dad and generally enjoy my projects and hobbies and go back to being self employed.
This should last until I'm in my mid 40's, at which point we are both basically semi-retired from the professional world, closer to being self sufficient and close to living pretty off the grid in a semi remote rural location.
Things that will throw up challenges will be parents needing long term care, but we are cool with them living with us if needed. Obviously they've a choice to make there as well, but we'll build what is needed to accommodate.
This is circular. They don't want to try because they have no family so they don't want to try.
This causes unemployment, not wage cutting. Learn some macro.
Meet more women. Most don't want to be the main provider, but recession didn't give them a chance.
I'm fond of bottom up thinking. Establishing what you have and not what you wish you had. Working within your means to reach sensible goals which you can deconstruct and gain pleasure in meeting milestones along the way.
I agree, don't date someone who is basically a grown up child, but adults are all grown up children fundamentally. If I have to put myself in your partners shoes I suppose it is difficult to set concrete goals in the modern world. It is a consumerist playground where temporary solutions and distractions are are offered up everywhere. I can understand him not wanting to 'compete' because it is easier to join the crowd blaming the world for their situation and seek temporary respite within the moment.
I've had to get all randian with myself. It is either that or distract myself with bemoaning my situation in life until the day I become to infirm and scared of chance to actually accomplish anything which is meaningful.
Have a proper conversation with him. One that isn't "I'm unhappy", but one that is visionary and inspiring. Try and get the best out of him. Start off small, it becomes self sustaining once you realise what is within your ability and what you can take ownership of. Don't forget that you too get something by feeling like the superior adult who has their shit together taking care of him while he acts like a child and you might have some questions for yourself and your motivations and goals.
I'm a massive fan of action born of a positive self identity. Considering this is something produced during a bad existential acid trip take it with a grain of salt, but it basically means don't take actions in bad faith. Don't do things because of the negative self image of others or yourself or own perception of yourself. Be ruthless in analysing your motivations and strive to live an authentic existence.
Without religion ideology must come from some form of personal philosophy.
If your husband decides to leave you, you're shit out of luck.
My aunt is in a similar situation, she married right out of highschool, had kids and became a housewife. Never went to college and never had a job. So she's pretty fucked if her husband decides to split. She doesn't really have any assets or actual skills.
In my opinion as a female it sounds like hell. You have no control. Those women didn't have a voice and had to put up with being abused and cheated on because they weren't able to provide for themselves. They weren't allowed to voice their opinion, choose what they do with their time. A lot of women now don't even want kids or a family. I'm more interested in travelling myself and after being in controlling relationships it just sounds like a terrible life.
So basically so we don't have to put up with men's shit.
Also this. I don't want to depend completely on anyone so in case shit goes bad I have my own safety net to fall back on and do not have to worry about ending up like the most miserable in life. My mother also always thought like this too, she herself always worked and encouraged me to study and develop good skills so as to find a good job myself, as means of sustaining myself and as means to improve and expand my personal wealth, options and social condition. A man might declare he has the best intentions in the world but then he might change or turn out not to be so good or even compatible with me afterall, so better safe than sorry.
>Why don't women want to be subservient housewives anymore?
Because you just get shit on. No one respects a housewife, including her husband and children. You are generally considered a dumb leach regardless of how well you do your job, AND there is no upward mobility. You're stuck being a housewife for life.
Next to housework, most jobs are plenty satisfying.
Also, you're kind of expected to have a job nowadays unless your husband is very rich.
>most women unironically wanted to be housewives.
I'm not sure if it's that they wanted to be housewives, but rather that they were told they should want to be housewives and just conformed.
I mean, women can still want to be housewives, and many do make that choice. It's just that the ones who'd rather do something else stopped pretending.
>They really were content to pop out kids and make house and serve their man.
You don't genuinely believe that, do you? I'm pretty sure that if they'd really been "content" feminism wouldn't have taken off the way it did
Not OP, but I think it's reversed now. Sure, there probably were housewives back then who would have rather had a career, but today there are women who would rather be housewives and they have to work instead. Especially in the current economy. I'm one of them.
>why don't women want to be subservient housewives anymore
kids are raised to believe that a career can be exciting. unfortunately most are not, but by the time they realize it its too late.
on top of that, its almost impossible to find a man to comfortably provide for you. if a man was able to actually pay comfortably for my existence, id totally have him come home to a lady in heels and make up and a finished meal.
but the majority of men can't do this until they are in their thirties, so are we just not allowed to marry until we are adults?
and on top of that, even if a ma ncan provide, divorce is a thing, and jsut because he can pay some alimony doesn't mean its enough to live off of. its good to want to be self sufficient in a world where there is no guarantee a man wil ltake care of you. women living luxuriously off of a husbands alimony is mostly a TV meme.
>unironically wanted to be housewives
because they were raised to believe they could. thats not really seen as an option these days. people consider it weird that marge and lois and other animated sitcoms that lasted the generation dont work. cuz all of our moms do.
but then the economy crashed (not the recent one, back in the 70s) and women needed to work. but they didnt want grunt work so they pushed for ERAs so they can make real money.
except for women had no choice. this isnt the first time the economy crashed anon. it has several times, and when that happens women have no choice but to find jobs to support the family. but why should they want to settle for shit tier jobs?
>Why don't women want to be subservient housewives anymore?
50 year campaign to pussify young males, which robbed women of manly presence. Modern women are like plants without sunlight.
You don't have to work though, you can always get yourself a man to provide for you if you've got what he wants. Muslim men for example tend to expect their women to be housewives and would have no problems providing for you, you just have to abide by their rules.
Christian doesn't end up treating Ana like trash though. He starts rough but in the end he's trained to treat her like a princess. That's the ideal man who provides both excitement and comfort.
I can only hope to find a man who will work and let me be with the house work. That's the golden dream for me and a lot of some I know.
Even so I didn't settle for a shit tier job but I do work a lot. I wish I didn't had the NEED to work. But I have to help my parents put my brother into medical school. So I work because I have no option and most women work because they have to. Lets be honest.
>I wish I didn't had the NEED to work
I wish I'd win the lottery too but between working and having/keeping control over my own life and depending on someone else's whims I'd rather the former.
>What went wrong
The leftist policies and ideologies have completely destroyed all traditional values in the western world including the subservient housewife.
>women don't want to be homemakers
>but they don't want to support men who will take on the role
Fucking women make up your damn minds
if youre still around, i would suggest you get out of that situation as soon as you can.
paying this guys mortgage for him is entirely different than splitting rent with someone. youre not both giving money equally to a landlord, youre giving money to HIM. theres no sort of equality in that. youre spending all your savings buying him a house that you have no say or rights in. hes charging you to be his "gf"
stop paying and see what happens. if he dumps you and kicks you out than its abundantly clear hes only using you for your money.
Hey my professor has a house maker husband and they're pretty happy. It can work.
I just personally prefer a two-income household, just in case one of us gets laid off or sick or something.
Other women told them not to be housewives. Women are much more social than men and they don't want to appear "inferior" to other women.
Most women are happy being housewives, as long as you respect them.
This will turn around at some point, women can't stand being breadwinners.
The first self help books were invented for people moving to cities. Suddenly humbleness wasn't great social skill it was not having a job. I don't know about purity but having a confident attitude was push as a direct result of increase urban living.
I will agree that some feminists will shame women who are housewives (which is a shitty thing to do), but it's not really about respecting them. When two people take on different burdens, they will naturally resent each other. Grass is greener fallacy, basically.
>wahh I have to deal with my bullshit boss and all this stress while you get to relax at home!
>wahh I have to slave over a hot stove all day while you get to sit in your cushy office!
The only way to make your housewife happy is if you regularly pitch in with the housework and reduce her workload, but what would be your compensation for doing that?
I have a well paying job in a low income cost of living area. I work 40hrs per week in a house we built on a lot of land my grandfather willed to me. Have a toddler son, a 7/10 blonde wife with 11/10 ass. Literal fucking white picket fence in the back.
Wife works an online sales business from home but only puts about 6 hours a week into it. Homemaker and mother the rest of the time.
Come home, and greeted with a loving kiss and warm home cooked dinner. Play with my son for a few hours before we get him ready for bed. Then we snuggle up on the couch, watch a movie and sometimes fuck. Fall asleep in each others arms.
My life is a fucking Norman Rockwell painting. Shit is cash. I highly recommend this lifestyle.
I do. The older I get, the more I'd rather be a stay at home housewife/mom. That dynamic just works. I grew up in a family where my dad was the sole earner, and my mom stayed home. She had it made, man. Too bad my husband doesn't make enough for it to be feasible.
It's not that we don't want to be housewives, it's that we don't know how to be housewives. We don't have that mentality of the 60's, we have been tsught differently so obviously we will feel differently.
I already have a good job, income and family. I welcome the return of the traditionalist family where the subservient wife becomes part of the husband's family because as a future mother-in-law that means I get a new little slave to use and abuse at my leisure. That's what the traditional family is over here in Europe - husband, wife, kids and parents-in-law whom the son is bound to look after as they age. Traditionally the wife obeys and respects the mother-in-law and she is subservient to her too. I can't wait to housework and bully bitch to death Wicked Stepmother-style.
Didn't they used to teach that shit in school? Like, it was the only point of a girl going to school at all?
I get that it's important for women to be taught all the skills outside of home making to broaden opportunities, but couldn't they have just expanded, y'know, basic life skills, to EVERYONE?
Now we live in a generation where everyone can recite the timeline of WWII but have no idea how to make a responsible budget or a good pasta sauce.
Maybe rose tinted goggles, I have no idea how it used to be. I'm just pissed that high school never taught me literally anything useful, like how fuse box works or what taxes are or that sugary drinks somehow turn into fat (I WAS UGLY ALL HS, THAT DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN! STOP JUST SAYING IT'S OK TO BE FAT!)
I took a DT/Shop class but instead of learning something useful like how to reupholster a chair or build a book shelf, we learned how to make architecture models! Such useful! Because certainly more of us will become architects than ever need a cheap book shelf!
Attention future parents: Don't send your kids to private school, it's an expensive joke and everyone just does piles of drugs, make dioramas, and develop unrealistic dreams of being paid bank to contribute nothing to society.
Cheap out and go public, or maybe send them to one of those fancy alt education things like Waldorf or Montessori, they sound cool and one of them even rhymes with Corey.
(Just glancing at one now and to my surprise it's also even SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the shitbox I went to - which only taught me that outgrowing childish dreams makes you a failure and being innately special is they key to success, all while simultaneously peeling away any original thinking until we all morphed into obedient parrots with no life skills).
THIS RANT WENT WEIRD PLACES
TL;DR I REALLY NEED A BOOK SHELF, HOW DO I MAKE A FUCKING BOOK SHELF, I DON'T WANT TO GO TO IKEA, I HAD THAT NIGHTMARE AGAIN LAST NIGHT WHERE I CAN'T FIND MY LOCKER
Oh, one more thing! 1/3 kids growing up these days genuinely believes they're going to be famous one day, I have a friend from HS who's faked his way into becoming a professional journalist despite never learning how a comma works, and I spent my entire adolescence learning how to conjugate verbs in multiple languages despite having no idea what 'conjugate' or 'verb' meant.
>Private school educated
Are you an orphan or something? My parents taught me most of that and they both worked. School is for higher learning. Lower classes shouldn't be taught anything past elementary stuff, you should be working for me instead, slave.
>Didn't they used to teach that shit in school? Like, it was the only point of a girl going to school at all?
Yes then they realized many girls were far more ambitious than that and wanted to learn much more than that crap. Like the lady CEO of IBM who learned computer science and electrical engineering. Today she is one of the top 50 most powerful and wealthy women in the world. Pic related, that's Ginni Rometty CEO of IBM. On a smaller scale (I know my limits) I want to be a powerful and well-off woman like that too.
I was born into wealth so financially I don't need a second income provider. Which means I want a housewife. My best friends girlfriend just wants to get married and have kids and I'm jealous that my friend got lucky.
I find too many women driven by career and I'd never marry nor even have a long term relationship with any women who is career driven since there would be no point.
I'd think online dating would help you out here in filtering out people who's goals don't align with yours. I'm sure there are plenty of people in a similar position who don't want to waste time building a career just so they can support themselves, just for it to take time away from trying to start a family, only to have to ditch all that hard work when the finally have some kids.
Why "ditch" as if you've gained nothing meanwhile?
You accumulate wealth so that you and your daughters can live comfortably and in luxury. The goal isn't work by itself, it's power and wealth and status for yourself and your daughters. That's how it is as a working woman and a future mother for me at least. Only people who've never worked don't understand this.
No but anyone who points to a top "x" in a very good financial ring and aspires to that is fucking retarded as things like climbing to the top in a business environment do not occur in a vaccum and things like connections, volatility of what youre getting involved in, and future outlook all play a huge role in that.
When you're on your death bed are you going to say "I wish I spent more time working?'
It's possible that a person loves to work; but would you sacrifice family, friendship and fun just so you can have a good career?
Never seen it work out. Usually the guy feels like less of a man and the woman feels the same about him as well because she's the bread winner.
More power to you if you get something like that rolling, but don't hold your breath.
>In my opinion as a female it sounds like hell. You have no control.
Varies on the family. In many ways my family is closer to a matriarchy, but it's still relatively traditional. The only difference is the women nowadays have more freedom to walk out I guess, but that was still a very real possibility in the 60's.
If you control the kitchen you control everything else, at least over here.
>TL;DR I REALLY NEED A BOOK SHELF, HOW DO I MAKE A FUCKING BOOK SHELF
Google it. They may not teach you that shit but most of the stuff you're lamenting about is basic stuff that you can look up on youtube.
theres still plenty of good women out there, more so in the country than the cities but you can still find a diamond in the rough. some advice i can give you is to just dont bother about all the strong empowered womyn because you wont be able to change their mind and by the time they realise their mistake (typically around age 45) its too late for them. youll bump into girls and be like, man i wish i could just show her whats going to happen, but it just doesnt work, even when its right in front of them.
for example, i was at a workplace with several older ladies (from late 30s to late 40s) who had never had kids or never even married, or were divorced or whatever. and then there were a few regular women with nice families and photos of their kids and stuff at their desk, and the pure malicious envy that reeled off those old lonely women was ridiculous. all these snide comments, behind the back bickering and the like, just to hide their own seething unhappiness. but even more ridiculous was the younger girl ~25 who, despite seeing the end result right in front of her face, was still determined to be a careerwoman
so just focus on yourself, you know what you want and you just have to find girls who want the same. dont be afraid to give girls who arent sure a chance because as above it can be hard to find the right person, but girls who are set on a career, dont bother with them as it will just be a wasted effort. but accordingly, you need to fulfill your end of the deal and be that strong man that she wants, so go to the gym and have a good job and moral fibre (ie, universalism)
No, but some people would say "I wish I had become somebody important," whether that means becoming a CEO, a famous artist, or even just a well-respected professor/scientist. You're thinking too much of the stereotypical pencil-pushing office job.
Not everyone wants kids, and you can still be successful in your career and make friends, especially within their own field. And you know what, it can be fucking "fun" to have your work published in an academic journal, to be acknowledged for an accomplishment, even if it's not all over the internet or whatever passes for fame these days.
Hell, some accomplished people have kids, too, although I will concede it's harder to handle that.
So someone could have it all, or someone could prioritize career accomplishments over having kids.
And I would argue that for men it's easier to have it all, because they aren't expected to stay home and take care of the kids. They could get busy with their career trajectory and expect the wife to handle the home stuff.
But a married woman, unless she's lucky enough to find that rare breed of househusband, has a tougher time juggling work and kids, so many of them indeed give up work and choose the kids, because if you don't choose the kids you're an asshole. And maybe a woman in a pencil-pushing job would have been okay with it, but a woman aspiring to be an author would be bitter if she couldn't find time to write in the middle of juggling all the demands that kids have.
>Google it. They may not teach you that shit but most of the stuff you're lamenting about is basic stuff that you can look up on youtube.
Back in my day, we didn't HAVE Youtube. They lucked out.
Not every career is the same, dumby mcdumb.
My mother started as waitress and worked her way up to bar owner. Didn't stop her from getting married and having a daughter too. Me, I want to develop videogames. I have no interest in becoming CEO or manager at my company but I am very interested in the fat income my cushy office job gets me and in the tech learning opportunities it gives me. I am learning about computer programming at work and that's fantastic for me who didn't have the opportunity to learn it in school. My husband supports me too and we plan to have at lest one kid in the next 5 years, we'll raise him or her (I'd prefer her) both. In fact I approve of him spending time with and bonding with the child because as mother worked and father had an unusual job (guitar player), he was the one who was home during the day and raised me, at least until I turned into my teenage years. That's when mom took over for obvious reasons, as a young woman I needed another woman to relate to. My husband reminds me of my father, he is a good, kind and loving man and he will be a good father for my kid.
Not gonna read through this thread but I've taken both roles before and here is my verdict:
Stay at home - I worked 2 days a week (it was actually high paying, I made as much or more than my girl who worked full time) and the rest of the days I stayed home and took care of the house, errands, no kids but we have cats, messy as fuck constant cleaning..... It was pretty much easy mode, played video games all day, or rode my motorcyle, or went to the gym, or worked on projects, etc. Errands/cleaning/etc took like no fucking time at all if you're efficient at it. It was super chill and a good life.
Working full time - Its work and it sucks, I actually like my job but you get no free time just to make ends meet, I work overnight so it's work>sleep all day>wake up>gym>dinner>work. Definitely a harder and less fulfilling life than staying at home.
If you have the chance to stay at home do it. I have no fucking idea why women WANT to go out and work if given the choice.... I'm a big advocate that I think women should BE ABLE to provide for themselves, independent, all that... but fuck man, if you're in a LTR and you have the option to just fuckin chill at home and go do errands occasionally who the hell would choose to work? I dont get it.
'mother' is the most important job in the whole world, dummy. you want to be ozymandias when you could live forever
video game development does not give you a fat income lol
what does college being difficult have to do with it? I'm in an objectively hard program and about to graduate in a year, to me that just makes me excited because I'm about to move on to the next stage of my life (family). I get that I'm different compared to most people, that's what I was lamenting in my post.
>what does college being difficult have to do with it?
98% of the women I talk to don't want anything serious, just casually date and talk about something serious after college. It's not like it's just me either, my friends have said the same.
You're definitely the exception in my experience.
Jane Austen's name will live longer than any of her descendants, I can tell you that, and Charlotte Bronte didn't even have kids, but people still know her name and have read her books. And even if you don't become quite that famous, knowing that your name is on some piece of research that is groundbreaking for the people in your field is pretty damn satisfying, and yes, that will live on forever in some form. Descendants? Descendants might very well turn out to be infertile, die early, or just gay, and then your biological line just dies out right there. It's not a guarantee of "forever," any more than career accomplishments are.
Anyway, why is "mother" a more important job than "father"? Like honestly, tell me that. What can a woman do for a kid that a man can't do, other than feed the the kid directly from her titty? (Which, you know, with breast pumps she doesn't even need to do that.) Why can't a father cook, clean, sew patches on clothes, drive the kids to soccer practice, whatever? Having a penis doesn't prevent him from taking care of a kid.
Like there are only two main reasons why it's unlikely for a woman to get a househusband:
1) Men just don't wanna be househusbands, because they've been raised with the idea that a jobless man is a loser.
2) Men tend to be in higher-paying jobs, so when you have to sacrifice a job for childcare, the lower-wage job is cut.
I think the whole feminist revolution thing was seriously one-sided and unfair to men, because it was half-assed. While it opened up career opportunities for women, it didn't help give men the opportunity to relax and rely on women, without having to worry about being "alpha" and earning lots of money. It also didn't change divorce laws so that men earning lower wages/having no jobs didn't still get stuck with alimony, and they're still way more likely to have their kids get taken away even if they were a better parent.
So sorry, ladies. No househubby for you.
Because women got the chance to realize themselves as individuals.
I don't think that there's something bad if a woman (or a man) wants to stay at home, take care of the house and the kids, as long as they're happy with that and it fulfils them. For me, it wouldn't be enough: I wouldn't be able to stay at home. I love working, getting the job done makes me feel better about myself. I'd be so unsatisfied if I was a housewife, which would make me unhappy, and a bad example for my kids.
I still want to have a family and kids, and it is my main ambition. I am not particularly ambitious career wise: I don't want to make a ton of money, be a CEO or whatever. I want a decent job, and a great family to come back to after work.
>I think the whole feminist revolution thing was seriously one-sided and unfair to men, because it was half-assed. While it opened up career opportunities for women, it didn't help give men the opportunity to relax and rely on women, without having to worry about being "alpha" and earning lots of money. It also didn't change divorce laws so that men earning lower wages/having no jobs didn't still get stuck with alimony, and they're still way more likely to have their kids get taken away even if they were a better parent.
It's slowly getting better, though.
In fact, a lot of those problems are fuelled by misogyny, because men don't want to be 'sullied' with 'womens' work'. It's a process to get attitudes to even out, but men are getting faggier every day, so it'll get there.
Especially due to
>So sorry, ladies. No househubby for you.
Women are rising the ranks high enough to WANT househubbies. And history shows that what women want, women get. In 100 years it'll be all you're good for.
>Never seen it work out
You don't know my family. My mother worked to buy my father his musical equipment, worked to pay off his debts, worked to support him and his passion (music) and they're still happy together nowadays. In fact she stills supports him because she has a pension and he doesn't, so he lives off her money. She doesn't mind. Dad was always very faithful and loyal and obedient to her and took it upon himself to raise me in my early childhood. He was the one to get me videogames :)
>video game development does not give you a fat income lol
I can deal with that since I'd be working with my passion and nothing gives me more joy and satisfaction than that.
you completely missed the point rofl
anyway as i said in my first post, theres little point trying to 'help' you, you know youre right after all. glorious anonette who knows better than 60000 years of psychological evolution. 'parent' is a various barebones model, and the roles of both the mother and the father (not the abstract 'primary care giver') are more important than you apparently care to realise
youre correct in that the 'revolution' was fucked because it gave freely and didnt teach the responsibilities that comes with the rights of citizenship, though thats a pretty general problem these days
yeah, right up until the civilisation collapses. see: vedas, rome, ottoman empire, christendom. which ofc resets the whole cycle and leaves you in a very unfeminist position; talk about 'all you're good for' ROFL
So fucking leave him. Move back in with your parents or a friend or your own place if you can afford it.
Sorry miss, but I've got 0 respect for someone who complains about their situation on adv, but does nothing to change it.
Do you honestly think a man gives a fuck about your college degree and professional aspirations? A woman who chooses to work rather than have a family is worthless, she might as well transition FtM instead. Women like you are fucked in the head and we would've burned you alive back in the day.
You've been given a unique opportunity to help raise the next generation and you throw it away for some feminist fantasy. Get a sex change if you want to be a man so badly.
That's icing on the cake desu, a woman can have a little career but I guarantee you no guy marries you because of your strong womyn fantasies
They had less monetary, professional and political freedom in the 60's. Women back then had wants and needs beyond what they were given in the standard housewife role just as they do today.
I don't study to please my man, but because I love learning and I am a curious person, with aspirations besides being impregnated.
Also, it is possible to work and have a family, it's purely a matter of time management.
You don't need to be a housewife to not let your child alone at home. I will work around 36 hours a week, mostly during the morning, which will give me a lot of free time to spend with my kids. I have a large family that can take care of a child if I'm busy at work. And my area offers afternoon programs, daycare and such.
My kids won't be fucked up just because I have aspirations.
Her kids will be fine. Those fucked up are the kids of single and unhappy housewife mothers. If I were forced to be a housewife because of kids I'd beat the shit out of them everyday and remind their existence is fucking disgusting and I wish they were dead. I am not willing to compromise my life for them.
Yeah whatever cunt, you'll try to live out your Gloria Steinem pipe dreams and then regret it one day too late when they don't pan out. Women are their own worst enemy.
Because thanks to the sexual revolution, women can now live consequence-free lives and don't really have to worry for settle for a guy.
I mean, that's the illusion that they get.
In reality they just live a wild life until their 30's and then, they either struggle being single mother or become bitter single women that no one would care to take care of.
For one, housework has been dramatically reduced thanks to capitalism and technology and women would be bored out of their skulls if they didn't do some sort of work. Secondly, the media has romanticized traditionally male pursuits so that women actually think working is some sort of fun privilege and the only reason it sucks for them is because men are oppressing them at every turn and that all men are paling around in the break room patting each other on the back, smoking cigars and talking about how they pay women less. Thirdly, many women still do want this, but they feel it's no longer socially acceptable for them to say so.
I'm sorry if I'm not a miserable loser like you and I can manage my time well.
My parents both work full time and I grew up better than most of my friends who had a housewife mom. My mom was really satisfied with her self and her life, my dad could work less ad I got to spend a lot of time with him too. My dad worked early shifts so he could be home when I got home from school, my mom took me to school in the morning. We spent a lot of time together in the evening and during the weekends. When I grew up (14-15 year old) my dad got back to late shifts, I got to spend a lot of time alone, learnt to cook and clean the house. Plus double income meant a lot more "leisures", I could travel more, study in better schools. Honestly, I wouldn't trade my parents for a "traditional" couple.
Latch key children are a good thing, if you're not absolute filth (lower class) you learn to be self-reliable quickly and are no different from your middle and upper class peers. During middle school I was often left alone for extended periods for time but that wasn't a problem because 1) I wasn't stupid to do anything dangerous (my parents knew this and that's why they trusted me) 2) I was more than happy to occupy myself with my videogames and books. Time flew and when my parents came home and I was like "Oh, this late already?"
I dropped out because I felt like I wasn't learning anything and was just being passed along if I could do pointless tedious bullshit and swallow my individuality and regurgitate whatever feminist bullshit my professors wanted to hear.
Colleges are becoming openly hostile to straight white cisgendered males and common sense. They're just a test to see how good of an obedient wageslave you can be and have nothing to do with educating people.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I doubt the women will be interested in anyone who makes less than them.
>I doubt the women will be interested in anyone who makes less than them.
I pretty much always dated guys who made less money than me and it has never been a problem. As long as they make enough to be independent or pay half of the bills if we live together, why should I care?
What's the point of kids if you're going to abandon them at home/daycare while you're playing Strong Wymyn at your HR job?
Literally everything except STEM/business should be defunded desu
Also since the 60's, women's happiness levels have declined while men's happiness levels have increased. As it turns out, work isn't a privilege women were being denied. In fact, it's the other way around. Not having to work and getting money handed to you and being able to spend all your time with your family is actually a good thing. Who would have thought!
If a woman wants to help foot the bill, I'd be happy for her to help out but I have literally no idea why feminists seem to think that it will make them happier to have to also work and also pay for things with your own money.
>Honestly, I wouldn't trade my parents for a "traditional" couple.
I sure as hell would . My parents also worked full time ever since I was a small child and it fucked me up irreparably. I was basically neglected all my life and I have horrible social anxiety and low self esteem and want to kill myself.
Children need love. You can't just leave them and come back too tired to interact with them and too tired to deal with any of their shit without getting angry. Raising a child takes actual work and if the parents are away at their jobs all the time, they can't do that work and the children suffer.
Just because your parents were better able to handle it than most doesn't mean that the current system is a good one. People should not have to work 80 hours a week just to provide for their children.
i'm sorry what?
as a female i find this statement very very very wrong, my dream is to get five children and be a home mom/ soccer mom, cook clean and take care of my children, husband and animals.
i have the bf and 9 animals so i'm just waiting for the children, but my bf isn't ready jet so while i wait for that i might as well get educated , when the day comes and he tells me he wants children i will drop everything in my hands and provide for my children and hopefully husband at that time, because i'm not getting pregnant without a ring on my finger!
People don't do that? I work 40 hrs a week at a good job that doesn't leave me all that tired when I come home, I just make myself tea or grab something to eat and I'm good to go until late in the evening. You just had shit parents with no valuable skills to offer and therefore they had to work shit jobs to survive. That doesn't mean the system is bad, it just means you don't realize you're inferior. I was left alone too and I still grew up loved as my parents had all the energy to be with me after work.
I never spent a day home alone before I turned 14, and I've never been to daycare. My dad took time off work, and I got to spend time with my grandparents when they were busy.
I am sorry for your situation. Are you seeking help for your issues? Therapy?
The fact that both my parents worked meant that they could spend less time at work for a comparable income. They worked around 36 hours/week. My dad started at 6 AM and was back home at noon (I came back from school at 1 PM), he worked 6 days a week. My mom has a office job, she works 5 days a week, 9-5. They put a lot of energy into raising me, we played a lot together, they helped me study, took me to sports and everything. I have a wonderful relationship with both of them.
I agree that children need love, but people can provide that affection without giving up on their lives and their ambitious completely. My boyfriend's mom was a housewife and he was an emotional wreck when he left the house. Completely dependent on her for everything, a crybaby, socially anxious, unable to manage anger, etc. Over the last 7 years he grew up a lot but the first few months after he moved out were.. challenging, yeah.
It's purely a matter of time management. My parents are better than most for sure, but if you're not even able to manage your time schedule you surely aren't ready to have kids.
I hope you get better soon, by the way.
I did! But we're way too young to have kids. We moved in together 3 years ago and we couldn't be happier. Thank you and good luck :)
> I am not willing to compromise my life for them.
Thats the issue in a nutshell right there. No personal responsibility, you want to just fuck around and do what you like but not be liable for your actions
you dont get to decide to kill someone because they are inconvenient. the baby didnt choose how it was created, but you would execute it for something it had no part in
Actually, yes, people can decide that. Because a fetus is not a "someone" until it reaches the second trimester.
Sounds like you think really highly of yourself that you feel you can decide what is morally right or wrong. Tell me, what century did the Catholic church grant you your sainthood?
I wouldn't mind it, I'd prefer to raise my children myself. I don't want a daycare doing it. But my boyfriend doesn't make enough, and probably never will unless he gets a good job in a state with a much, much lower cost of living. Wages haven't kept up with inflation. My brother and his wife have three jobs between them, and are struggling to keep their one-bedroom apartment.
If I could be a housewife and focus on my family, maybe in a cute little apron, that would be fabulous. I'd love to learn how to cook something fancier than soup or mac 'n cheese. I don't see it happening, though. So I'm going to college for biology.
>The very fact that you'd be fine killing a baby shows you're not mother material period.
That's exactly what that person was trying to convey this entire time, you fucking dipshit.
im not religious at all, big swing no ding
why does a foetus suddenly roll over into a real person at the second trimester? why does that arbitrary line matter? you say im taking the moral high ground, but far from it, YOURE the one declaring who is worthy of human rights and who isnt, based on what? what they look like? you think just because the foetus has a head and hands now its a real person?
when the zygote first splits, that is when a new being has been created. with its own unique dna, it has performed the required steps to be classed as a living organism. logically, that is when a foetus is someone, a distinct person
There are a limited number of slots, these slots are additionally skewed away from men by things like woman only scholarships, diversity quotas, education reforms, initiative, drives, etc.
>why does a foetus suddenly roll over into a real person at the second trimester? why does that arbitrary line matter?
Ask the government, who decided, logically, that that was the point at which it is legal to do so. Not moral, legal. So if you have a moral argument of any sort, you have no ground to stand on. Because it is not a moral issue. It is a legal one. It becomes a moral issue if someone feels it needs to be due to their own beliefs. And no one cares what your beliefs are.
Yeah, except no. That's not what the study is about at all. It's about men not applying to begin with. As in, not ever wanting to go to college. Whereas women are applying and going in record numbers.
So no. Women going does not suddenly make men not want to go.
> the government said so, so its true
oh shucky ducky. its still a moral issue because the law is wrong, though like you say with much apparent smugness, that is how the law is so theres not much to be done. i dont really care if you choose to turn your womb into a gas chamber, or even that you define your behaviour along what is legal and not what is right, youre just a symptom
>why does a foetus suddenly roll over into a real person at the second trimester?
I think individual viability is a big factor in that. When the foetus is essentially a parasite that cannot exist individually from the host body, no matter how much medical attention it's given, its not considered a person, but when it starts to be a baby that could be viable on its own and support its own life system (even if it'd need to be in an oxygen incubator), it starts to be considered a baby, a person.
babies are completely reliant on care givers well up to their first birthday
lets say when you first take your baby out, how does it feed itself? with mothers tits, so that 'parasitic' relationship is still operating; therefore it is perfectly acceptable to drown your 4 week old baby because theyre not a person. does that sound right to you?
besides, are you saying that an 18 week old foetus can exist individually? ofc not, so ill ask again, what is the magical rollover line of the second trimester based on?
The law is not wrong. You are wrong. That's my moral belief. In fact I believe it would morally benefit society if people like you were ostracized completely, online and offline, as you clearly are willing to enslave othes and cause misery to others.
Making the choice of getting an abortion is being liable for your actions and facing their consequences though. It's retarded to think all women should be forced to carry the pregnancies to term no matter the circumstances. It's just a bullshit made-up moral outrage to go on about the "life" of a zygote, if you get the abortion early enough it's really got nothing to do with real babies or real lives.
The true cause behind the pro-life stance is that certain people are upset women are having sex and feel they should be punished for being promiscuous. That's the heart of the issue, and that's what's behind all the "liable for your actions" bullshit. Ha ha you whore, you had to have sex, you deserve to be saddled with a bastard. It's just cloaked under emotional mumbo-jumbo about children and their rights to make it sound less bitchy
It's not just that they'd be bored, they'd also feel unnecessary. Before housework was really crucial, in my country it was the work of the women that kept everyone alive through the long winter months when there's no fresh food, the women's pickling and preserving and whatnot was really important then. People were more equal in that everyone put down an important work effort that was necessary for mutual survival.
But these days, house work is a bit useless. It's nice, of course, to have clean home, but it's not as crucially vital in a way. And there's less of it.
People need to feel valuable, they need to feel like they're contributing and doing something significant. Housework doesn't feel significant and valuable, it's just a chore.
>women actually think working is some sort of fun privilege
My cousin had 2 kids 1 year apart and spent a couple of years at home with them. She says she was counting the days till returning to her responsible and stressful managerial position with 500 underlings because being home with the kids was just so maddening and exhausting and she felt she was going insane.
youre moral belief is wrong, you havent proven to me why foetuses are undeserving of human rights. youve said they dont count as people until x arbitrary date after conception 'because the government said they werent', that is a fallacy. for example, 300 years ago the government said you could own niggers, so from your logic that is ok because the government said so
meanwhile, i have given a reasoning for why the moment of conception, ie when a new genetic code is generated and a unique individual is created and begins to live, that is when a new person has begun to exist and so they should be afford the rights we all enjoy. you are a fucking idiot who actually has the temerity to think theyre euphoric in their own intellect, when you are irrational and uncritical about your thought process
why dont you at least try to prove youre right?
another dummy enters the fray, why dont you try proving what you just said? logical address my argument rather than spewing baseless emotional junk that you (wrongly) castigate others for
> people are upset women are having sex
this is what feminists actually believe
>ie when a new genetic code is generated and a unique individual is created and begins to live, that is when a new person has begun to exist and so they should be afford the rights we all enjoy.
Lol wut, you're seriously trying to argue that a fertilized egg is a person with rights just like you or me? Despite not having brains, thoughts, sense of self, limbs, organs? Seriously? "Genetic code has human rights"?
>completely reliant on care givers
Yes but the care giver is an external person who can change. They're not an integral part of someone else's body. They can be given formula etc, the mother can die but the baby will still be fine if someone is there to care for it, therefore they are an external, independent organism (that just needs a lot of support). However there's no way to keep a fertilized egg inside the womb alive if the mom dies.
Your comparisons are shit and you're trying to twist things to fit into your bullshit nonsensical views. A tsygote is not a person, end of story.
its a distinct being, which is also human, therefore it has human rights. i see youre dodging all my other points, looks like you lose
try addressing any of them lol, you know, with logical arguments rather than reaction faces
It is an unfeeling parasite. Nothing developed not even its gender. Do you want to:
1) Cause it the least pain and trouble by removing it when it is not even aware of its existence.
2) Cause it considerable pain and trouble by having the mother kill it or abandon it to die after it's born as mothers do with unwanted children.
3) Cause extreme pain and trouble to everyone by forcing people to raise unwanted children, which leads to broken households, crime, drug addiction, drug abuse, mental problems, alcoholism, affiliation with extremist movents, poverty and all sorts of other social problems.
I think the 18 weeks is just decided so that it's certain the fetus wouldn't have been viable. However, the line varies depending on how safe the legislators in each country wanted to play it, in some countries it's possible to get an abortion up to the 20. week of gestation, if there's some anomalies detected in the fetus.
Some babies start to be viable at week 23, whereas already 50-70% of babies prematurely born at 24-25 weeks gestation survive, so the vague line of viability is somewhere thereabouts. The further away and earlier the abortion is, the less of a moral qualm is there because it's so obvious the fetus wouldn't have been viable, so having roughly a generous month of buffer between the last abortion date and the beginnings of viability is probably there just to remove ethical difficulties.
answer the question, stop dodging
can a second trimester foetus survive outside of the body?
i want to give the person a choice to choose their own destiny. no one gets to decide to kill someone 'for their own good' or even anyone elses, without that persons consent
what "other points"? You're just spewing insults and memes and insisting that nothing an authority decides should mean anything because historically, a completely unrelated stance of an authority would be unsupportable today. You call that logic reasoning? "you lose", you're hilarious. And you have the nerve to bitch at others about not arguing properly.
The rest of your points I've addressed in other posts. You've no substance yourself, just edgy baiting and a stance that "if it's human tissue, it's human, and should have human rights hurr". Next you'll start arguing that cancer tumors should have human rights because it's a distinct being made of human cells, or something, sheesh.
A distinct being is viable on its own. Not so a fetus.
There is nothing logical about the social democrat notion of pretending the existence of some innate and secular thing called 'human rights' in order to replace questions of conscience, which require moral reasoning by individuals, with legal answers, which require administration by obedient clerks. Your rights will never be my obligations.
>i want to give the person a choice to choose their own destiny
Which should include the woman's choice to choose their own destiny, right? If you look at a woman with a fertilised egg in her womb, you don't have 2 persons, you have 1 person and one potential egg that could perhaps be a person in the future. Therefore, in that time, the actual person's right to decide over their body and their life and destiny trumps the supposed rights of a zygote. They're not a "person" or "someone" yet.
which still doesnt address the problem of an abstract definition of a person, this is all incidental reasoning
no, the only reasoning youve provided for a foetus being executable is because 'the government said its ok'. im asking to provide actual reasoning, thats my point. youre still trying force this catholic meme, ive already told you im not at all religious so try again dummy
no not just human tissue. a zygote is human tissue, but its also fairly unique in that it is also the entirety of all tissue of one particularly organism (a unique dna string); if you destroyed that zygote you have destroyed that organism just as if you destroyed your whole body you would be destroyed. a zygote and the foetus it grows into is its own animal and therefore owns itself, whereas a cancer tumour or even the individual sperm and eggs are just individual cells of a person
> read a post from the future
wow you sure are getting desperate
which leads us back to the young baby. a young baby is not viable on its own, the care giver is irrelevant. so then killing a baby is ok (it also doesnt even have a sense of self)
i agree rights are negative but child bearing is one of the few pinch zones where things overlap. for the record i dont advocate banning abortion, just that people understand what it is
> If you look at a woman with a fertilised egg in her womb, you don't have 2 persons, you have 1 person and one potential egg that could perhaps be a person in the future
prove it lol. just because you say something doesnt make it so. counter my assertion
A baby can breathe on its own, it's no more dependent than the rest of us. Yes, it's more fragile, but that's a difference of degree rather than kind. It can be starved to death, but so can all of us.
ive gone back and i do not agree that being viable on its own is a requirement for being a distinct being. i maintain that all that is needed is an organism with a new genetic signature (twins and similar not withstanding) which performs the basic life processes, ie respiration, reproduction, etc.
they can give them away if they like but i dont think murdering people is a good thing to do. i wouldnt outlaw abortion much like i wouldnt outlaw a lot of immoral stuff, its not the place of the law to do that, but the people themselves
Meant for >>16737169.
I am still opposed to the idea of being forced to give birth. Being pregnant is challenging physically and impedes lots of work, also it deformes your body in a way that requires even more time to get back to shape. Too many possible scenarios where being pregnant could backfire on me even if I just abandoned the kid after birth, it's easy to get fired when you're expecting. Also what if the kid is dangerous to my health? What if complications arise? I am not risking my life for some unwanted piece of shit. And that's not taking into consideration the more extreme cases like rape, I am not letting my rapist's offspring live and pollute the world some more, his existence dies with him. So no, I don't give a shit about your feelings, the piece of shit needs to die.
Woman don't want this?
as a femanon,
Let me say, that I want this more than ever.
But Anons don't like to go to collage and make enough money to pay the bills.
So femanons need to get a job.
Are you tall, handsome, entertaining, with a passion, social and good in bed?
My father was not some loser virgin autist. He had had girlfriends prior to my mother, he has a passion for music, he is a skilled guitar player who can rock an audience. He was very handsome in his youth and he's taller than my mother. He is witty and likes to make jokes which people do find funny, and he's always had plenty of friends. He's not the typical internet loser.
>Why don't women want to be subservient housewives anymore?
I wasn't really raised like that, my dad had me gutting fish, fixing flat tires on my bicycle from I was very young. They raised me to be able to do anything and be independent and get a career, both of them split up the housework. My dad is still pretty "manly" hunting and doing stuff with his hands, fixing things and running a business.
I think they would be disappointed if i married some rich guy and had five kids, not getting any education and just being totally dependent on another person. "sucking dick" for allowance comment in this thread was pretty fitting. I wouldn't mind a stay at home husband though, but I get that's equally sexist and unrealistic.
>all these outlandish claims with no evidence
Plenty of women want to be housewives, but if you want to have a pure virgin waifu who sucks your dick and cleans house, you better have the money to support the both of you.
Unfortunately, the cost of living has risen dramatically since the 50s. Single income households are dwindling because it just isn't financially feasible.
So what's a girl to do?
Answer: get a fucking job
I would absolutely love to be a housewife. I get to stay at home with the kids, clean, cook, and do some crafty things on the side? Sign me up!
Unfortunately, the cost of living is sky high. If a guy can't make enough for both of us, in addition to having enough for savings, it's just not going to work out. So, I do my best to do all of the above, in addition to working. But unlike the other anon that posted earlier, my guy appreciates what I do. I wouldn't put up with it if he didn't.
But again, they're right "men" these days have no economic libido, they want to play video games all day and only work their dead end job when absolutely necessary. Today's "men" have next to no aspirations to be great, how can you afford to feed a family when you work at home hardware.
It can all come down to a simple google search, titles of articles like:
Mass Killings in the U.S.: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity
Die Like a Man: The Toxic Masculinity of Breaking Bad
Why We Need to Reimagine Masculinity
Masculinity Is Killing Men: The Roots of Men and Trauma ...
Journeys Through Trans Masculinity - BuzzFeed
Toxic masculinity - Geek Feminism Wiki
Masculinity U | Rethink Masculinity.
How Feminists Can Do More to Fight Toxic Masculinity ..
This is popular thought now. Men are slowly fading away playing video games 8 hours a day, going on Japanese anime image boards for all hours. You need schooling to do anything, but schooling doesn't guarantee you a thing. So we're left with all this debt and 4+ financially wasted years. It's not like we learn much in school anyway most idiots are taking Philosophy and history and JUST passing them, so it's not like they develop a good work ethic either.
Again, thanks babyboomers.
So you'd force a woman to risk losing her job so that she can put two more burdens on the collectivity, herself (from losing her job thanks to pregnancy) and the baby (for needing foster care)?
You'd also force a woman to risk her life or inflicting damage to her body for giving birth to something she rejects?
You are the psychopath here. You do not care about women's well-being at all.
You don't get to kill a baby just because you don't like it
Also implying that people actually get fired for being pregnant
You are beyond hope, you honestly have mental issues.
I think that abortion should be 100% legal, But you should also be forced to have your tubes tied as soon as the process is over. Obviously they don't understand that life is precious and should lose rights to bearing life.
>ignoring health concerns
>ignoring that women do get fired over pregnancies
Psychopath and ignorant too.
On the contrary, it is because I understand better than you that life is precious that I am for giving birth to a child only when one is ready for it. I refuse your idea too. I do want children, but only when I am ready for it and on my terms, and since people like you would rather force to me to carry a pregnancy to term even though it may be extremely risky for me financially or heath-wise, or renounce having children at all, I reject you both. Both of you are extremes completely out of touch with reality.