The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Galloism]

So men work 62 hours per week to support the household while women work 61 hours per week to support the household? They need an extra hour to do every week so they spend one hour per week filing for divorce?

I can see why women would want to be doing more paid work considering that paid is what has opportunities for advancement. You'd also have to see how it came about that women mostly stepped out of the workforce. Were these conversations they had, or automatic? Whose needs were more respected in the conversation, etc.

Ultimately we need more stay-at-home dad representation, that doesn't demean them.

We do, to your latter point.

One thing that happens a lot (and may be a major factor) is that men are punished much more harshly for taking time off work for family than women are. Also, men are typically older in the relationship (women tend to prefer older more established men, men tend to prefer younger more attractive women), and age and earnings are very positively correlated.

Therefore, for each family, the most rational thing is to sacrifice the earnings of the lower earning spouse - which is typically the woman.

I’m not sure how you fix that, tbh.

[Ostroeuropa]

I can see why women would want to be doing more paid work considering that paid is what has opportunities for advancement. You'd also have to see how it came about that women mostly stepped out of the workforce. Were these conversations they had, or automatic? Whose needs were more respected in the conversation, etc.

Ultimately we need more stay-at-home dad representation, that doesn't demean them.

We do, to your latter point.

One thing that happens a lot (and may be a major factor) is that men are punished much more harshly for taking time off work for family than women are. Also, men are typically older in the relationship (women tend to prefer older more established men, men tend to prefer younger more attractive women), and age and earnings are very positively correlated.

Therefore, for each family, the most rational thing is to sacrifice the earnings of the lower earning spouse - which is typically the woman.

I’m not sure how you fix that, tbh.

There's also gatekeeping behaviour from women in terms of childcare and housework. It's not merely a passive acceptance. there is an effort to prevent men taking on these houseworking roles while at the same time whining about how men don't do them.

[The Black Forrest]

We do, to your latter point.

One thing that happens a lot (and may be a major factor) is that men are punished much more harshly for taking time off work for family than women are. Also, men are typically older in the relationship (women tend to prefer older more established men, men tend to prefer younger more attractive women), and age and earnings are very positively correlated.

Therefore, for each family, the most rational thing is to sacrifice the earnings of the lower earning spouse - which is typically the woman.

I’m not sure how you fix that, tbh.

There's also gatekeeping behaviour from women in terms of childcare and housework. It's not merely a passive acceptance. there is an effort to prevent men taking on these houseworking roles while at the same time whining about how men don't do them.

News to me. Excuse me while I go vacuum......

[Ostroeuropa]

There's also gatekeeping behaviour from women in terms of childcare and housework. It's not merely a passive acceptance. there is an effort to prevent men taking on these houseworking roles while at the same time whining about how men don't do them.

News to me. Excuse me while I go vacuum......

It's a statistical trend not necessarily true in all partnerships.

Like imagine I whined at you that you never do the cooking, but gave you nothing but constant negativity and criticism every time you tried before just taking it off you and saying i'll do it. Men aren't allowed to develop these skills because women gatekeep them. In cases where men do have the skills already developed, because womens identity is partially based around viewing men negatively (See WAW), they'll view those skills as inferior in any case and find reasons to criticize and take over until the habit and skills degrade.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So rather than sitting around doing nothing, what should we in our own lives to to create a better, more equal world? And how do we combat the rise of gender reductionists and other such identitarian phlegm?

[Galloism]

So rather than sitting around doing nothing, what should we in our own lives to to create a better, more equal world? And how do we combat the rise of gender reductionists and other such identitarian phlegm?

Me, personally, I continue to scream to the ceiling about men being raped and abused by women so that the sexism of previous domestic and sexual violence campaigns can be countered.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So rather than sitting around doing nothing, what should we in our own lives to to create a better, more equal world? And how do we combat the rise of gender reductionists and other such identitarian phlegm?

Me, personally, I continue to scream to the ceiling about men being raped and abused by women so that the sexism of previous domestic and sexual violence campaigns can be countered.

I take it your message has been largely ignored? Have you considered alternative methods?

[Galloism]

Me, personally, I continue to scream to the ceiling about men being raped and abused by women so that the sexism of previous domestic and sexual violence campaigns can be countered.

I take it your message has been largely ignored? Have you considered alternative methods?

I’ve made some progress. Limited, but some.

I’ve been going around to the local police departments and giving trainings on hallmarks of abuse from a non sexist perspective. A couple of local women’s shelters opposed me for a while, arguing women only commit violence in self defense, but one (sort of) flipped sides and now accepts the 1/4 and 1/7 narrative (IE, 1/4 women and 1/7 men will experience DV), and has dropped the “only in self defense” line.

That’s still probably not 100% accurate, but it’s a hell of a lot closer. And I was overall pleased with them at least being open to the possibility.

It’s the only practical thing I can really do.

Well, and post on Nationstates. That’s changed a few minds (much to the chagrin of some).

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm a second wave confederate because I believe in states rights too. Those other guys? Those aren't real confederates because they don't believe in states rights properly and didn't think black people should vote. Watch me wave my confederate flag.

(Charlie brown noises.)

No, that's a strawman, see, a state is the representative of the population whether black or white, so they can't be confederates like me, because they don't represent the black people, they're just racists.

(Charlie brown noises)

The confederacy movement has always been about states rights and freedom.

(Charlie brown noises)

Well, that just wasn't real confederacy stuff, but all the bits I like were. Why don't you want the south to print its own money, what's wrong with that kind of independence? Why are you so opposed to freedom? Just look at all the wonderful things the confederacy did like that.

(Charlie brown noises)

That was the first wave though, we've changed since then in many extremely important ways, such as now believing the flag should be pink and having a major disagreement over free trade. Very crucially however, we've now rejected the first wave notion that white people can be seperated into different racial categories organized into a hierarchy, we're far more understanding of white peoples diversity and needs.

(Charlie brown noises)

What do you mean that the difference between us and the first confederates doesn't seem to address the matter you're calling us out on? We're obviously completely different and you shouldn't hold us to be the same, despite us acknowledging we come from the same place and have developed on their ideas, just not in the way you're demanding.

(Charlie brown noises)

No, you're misrepresenting me, that's a lie made by imperialists, you're an imperialist. Why do you love Britain so much?

(Charlie brown noises)

It just means states rights.

(Charlie brown noises)

Well, obviously, I believe in states rights so we can keep segregation, duh.

(One Generation Later.).

Hi, I'm a third wave neo-confederate because I believe in states rights.

(Charlie brown noises)

No no, see, we now agree that black people face a tough situation. It's one of the major differences we have from the second wave confederates.

(Shocked Charlie Brown noises)

Yes! It's the liberals keeping them on the democrat plantation that makes them languish in squalor and crime, it was never us, they just have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop having their bad attitudes. That'll fix their problems. The Democrats are the reason for all their racial problems.

(Sad Charlie brown noises)



And so on, and so on. It's so tiring sometimes.

If you believe in a defensible proposition like states rights or equality, okay. If you think the confederate movement is something to identify with because of that, you've got a problem. So it goes for feminism.

Imagine meeting someone like that. Imagine someone using the same insipid arguments feminists do on any other issue like this, and you'll realize why almost nobody likes feminists. Whether or not you think that's fair or accurate; this is how people see you. If that's how they see you, can't you even consider the idea that they might be right and you might be doing something wrong?

[West Leas Oros 2]

I take it your message has been largely ignored? Have you considered alternative methods?

I’ve made some progress. Limited, but some.

I’ve been going around to the local police departments and giving trainings on hallmarks of abuse from a non sexist perspective. A couple of local women’s shelters opposed me for a while, arguing women only commit violence in self defense, but one (sort of) flipped sides and now accepts the 1/4 and 1/7 narrative (IE, 1/4 women and 1/7 men will experience DV), and has dropped the “only in self defense” line.

That’s still probably not 100% accurate, but it’s a hell of a lot closer. And I was overall pleased with them at least being open to the possibility.

It’s the only practical thing I can really do.

Well, and post on Nationstates. That’s changed a few minds (much to the chagrin of some).

You’re doing good work out there. Although I’m not sure what NS posts will do to change the minds of the people who make the rules. I myself am hoping to pursue something like law, or maybe run for public office. Whatever I can to make a difference. But that’s all future goals. Right now I can’t do much but hope to convert people.

[Thepeopl]

Begin 2007 maakte de Franse arbeidseconome Hélène Couprie de resultaten van een onderzoek bekend waaruit bleek dat wanneer Britse vrouwen in het huwelijk treden of gaan samenwonen hun huishoudelijke bezigheden met vijftig procent toenemen, terwijl die van de mannelijke wederhelft met negenentwintig procent afnemen. De mannen gaven als reden aan dat zij meenden dat vrouwen liever de controle over de huishouding willen, vrouwen zeiden zich eraan te ergeren dat mannen rommel niet opruimen.[4][5] In 2005 was de wekelijkse urenbelasting zorg en werk van vrouwen en mannen vanaf 25 jaar bijna gelijk: voor vrouwen 48 uur per week en voor mannen 49 uur.[6] Vrouwen besteden echter veel meer uren aan onbetaald werk zoals het huishouden, de zorg voor de kinderen en dergelijke, terwijl mannen meer tijd aan betaald werk spenderen. Bij jonge ouders met kinderen onder de vijf jaar is dat verschil het extreemst: vrouwen besteden 47 uur per week aan onbetaalde arbeid en 14 uur aan betaalde. Bij mannen is dat 23 en 39 uur.

Dutch again, hasn't been translated into English yet.

But the reason more women file for divorce in marriage .

Women in a marriage with children under 5 years spend 47 hours a week on unpaid work (household chores and caring for kids) and 14 hours on paid work.
While their men spend 23 hours on unpaid work and 39 on paid.

This was a french research on British families.

So men work 62 hours per week to support the household while women work 61 hours per week to support the household? They need an extra hour to do every week so they spend one hour per week filing for divorce?

The other numbers are:
When heterosexuals marry, she has a raise of 50% in household chores/ time spend on them against a 29% decrease of the partner.
And no, they haven't discussed it beforehand.

Again french research on British couples. I don't have numbers on Dutch or American couples. (Yet?)

[Galloism]

So men work 62 hours per week to support the household while women work 61 hours per week to support the household? They need an extra hour to do every week so they spend one hour per week filing for divorce?

The other numbers are:
When heterosexuals marry, she has a raise of 50% in household chores/ time spend on them against a 29% decrease of the partner.
And no, they haven't discussed it beforehand.

Again french research on British couples. I don't have numbers on Dutch or American couples. (Yet?)

Sounds like women get the better deal to me.

[Thepeopl]

The other numbers are:
When heterosexuals marry, she has a raise of 50% in household chores/ time spend on them against a 29% decrease of the partner.
And no, they haven't discussed it beforehand.

Again french research on British couples. I don't have numbers on Dutch or American couples. (Yet?)

Sounds like women get the better deal to me.

This is without children. When they both have a fulltime job.

[Galloism]

Sounds like women get the better deal to me.

This is without children. When they both have a fulltime job.

But you just said men put in more hours per week working than women do. This must mean one of a few things:

1) Men are putting in more hours at work as a result, meaning they are also increasing their workload - and more than the women

Or

2) Women are putting in less hours at work as a result, meaning they get to stay home from work more but still just as much money to use, now that they get access to their husband’s.

Or

3) Some combination of 1 and 2.


Either way, sounds like she’s getting the better deal.

[Samadhi]

This is without children. When they both have a fulltime job.

But you just said men put in more hours per week working than women do. This must mean one of a few things:

1) Men are putting in more hours at work as a result, meaning they are also increasing their workload - and more than the women

Or

2) Women are putting in less hours at work as a result, meaning they get to stay home from work more but still just as much money to use, now that they get access to their husband’s.

Or

3) Some combination of 1 and 2.


Either way, sounds like she’s getting the better deal.

Pretty sure you could add how much more likely he is to die in there somewhere.

If you're going to be weighing up who has it better.

[Galloism]

But you just said men put in more hours per week working than women do. This must mean one of a few things:

1) Men are putting in more hours at work as a result, meaning they are also increasing their workload - and more than the women

Or

2) Women are putting in less hours at work as a result, meaning they get to stay home from work more but still just as much money to use, now that they get access to their husband’s.

Or

3) Some combination of 1 and 2.


Either way, sounds like she’s getting the better deal.

Pretty sure you could add how much more likely he is to die in there somewhere.

If you're going to be weighing up who has it better.

One topic at a time.

[Thepeopl]

Toch blijkt het bij de huishoudelijke last niet om een puur rationele economische afweging te gaan. ‘We hebben onder bijna 30 duizend mensen in 28 Europese landen onderzocht wat er gebeurt als de man werkloos is, terwijl de vrouw werkt’, zegt Tanja van der Lippe, hoogleraar sociologie van huishoudens en arbeidsrelaties aan de Universiteit Utrecht. ‘Dan doet hij weliswaar meer in huis, maar zijn werkende vrouw óók.’ Waarom? ‘We denken dat zij hiermee de genderafwijking probeert te neutraliseren.’ Oftewel: door haar man het stereotiepe vrouwenwerk uit handen te nemen, herbevestigen ze beiden zijn mannelijkheid.

In gezinnen waar de vrouw kostwinner is, is de verdeling van huishouden en zorg gelijker dan bij gezinnen waar de man het meest verdient, maar nog steeds niet gelijk. Het idee dat het gezinslid met de betere baan de ander kan ‘dwingen’ thuis meer taken op zich te nemen, gaat andersom dus niet helemaal op. ‘Het laat zien hoe diep die genderovertuigingen zitten’, aldus van der Lippe.

Tl;dr or can't read Dutch, too much bother to translate.

In heterosexual relationships where the Male is unemployed and the woman is working, she still does more in the household than he. Less than in a both working scenario but still more.

[Galloism]

Toch blijkt het bij de huishoudelijke last niet om een puur rationele economische afweging te gaan. ‘We hebben onder bijna 30 duizend mensen in 28 Europese landen onderzocht wat er gebeurt als de man werkloos is, terwijl de vrouw werkt’, zegt Tanja van der Lippe, hoogleraar sociologie van huishoudens en arbeidsrelaties aan de Universiteit Utrecht. ‘Dan doet hij weliswaar meer in huis, maar zijn werkende vrouw óók.’ Waarom? ‘We denken dat zij hiermee de genderafwijking probeert te neutraliseren.’ Oftewel: door haar man het stereotiepe vrouwenwerk uit handen te nemen, herbevestigen ze beiden zijn mannelijkheid.

In gezinnen waar de vrouw kostwinner is, is de verdeling van huishouden en zorg gelijker dan bij gezinnen waar de man het meest verdient, maar nog steeds niet gelijk. Het idee dat het gezinslid met de betere baan de ander kan ‘dwingen’ thuis meer taken op zich te nemen, gaat andersom dus niet helemaal op. ‘Het laat zien hoe diep die genderovertuigingen zitten’, aldus van der Lippe.

Tl;dr or can't read Dutch, too much bother to translate.

In heterosexual relationships where the Male is unemployed and the woman is working, she still does more in the household than he. Less than in a both working scenario but still more.

That probably has to do with that gate keeping Ostro mentioned earlier.

[Albrenia]

It seems whenever Feminism comes up, both sides immediately assume the other is acting in bad faith. To me it seems pretty clear the gender equality is better now than in most of human history, if not all, but there are still a number of imbalances that need to be worked on. As with all things involving humans though, I doubt perfection will ever be achieved.

[Galloism]

It seems whenever Feminism comes up, both sides immediately assume the other is acting in bad faith. To me it seems pretty clear the gender equality is better now than in most of human history, if not all, but there are still a number of imbalances that need to be worked on. As with all things involving humans though, I doubt perfection will ever be achieved.

Probably not, but we can work on it.

And for the record, I don’t assume anyone is acting in bad faith until they prove it. There’s a lot of misinformation out there - I can’t assume anyone’s not just taken in by it. Most people can have a polite discussion.

As for the bad faith posters.... they know who they are.

[Samadhi]

Pretty sure you could add how much more likely he is to die in there somewhere.

If you're going to be weighing up who has it better.

One topic at a time.

I dunno hey, I just feel like maybe people dieing should have a higher priority than people not getting enough parental leave.

Like we can do both, but we might be focusing on the lesser issue.

[Thepeopl]

This is without children. When they both have a fulltime job.

But you just said men put in more hours per week working than women do. This must mean one of a few things:

1) Men are putting in more hours at work as a result, meaning they are also increasing their workload - and more than the women

Or

2) Women are putting in less hours at work as a result, meaning they get to stay home from work more but still just as much money to use, now that they get access to their husband’s.

Or

3) Some combination of 1 and 2.


Either way, sounds like she’s getting the better deal.

These statistics are only for couples with children under 5 years.

I'm guessing the woman is the one who has to get out of bed during the night for feeding, nappy changing and when the baby / children are Ill.

And I'm guessing some women are pregnant or just delivered a baby, so the are physically unable to do more in the household.

If you look at the numbers in Iceland, parenting leave is equal for both parents.

In the Netherlands, young high educated women earn more than their male counterparts. Nevertheless most of those women drop in salary as soon as they become mothers.

[Galloism]

But you just said men put in more hours per week working than women do. This must mean one of a few things:

1) Men are putting in more hours at work as a result, meaning they are also increasing their workload - and more than the women

Or

2) Women are putting in less hours at work as a result, meaning they get to stay home from work more but still just as much money to use, now that they get access to their husband’s.

Or

3) Some combination of 1 and 2.


Either way, sounds like she’s getting the better deal.

These statistics are only for couples with children under 5 years.

I'm guessing the woman is the one who has to get out of bed during the night for feeding, nappy changing and when the baby / children are Ill.

And I'm guessing some women are pregnant or just delivered a baby, so the are physically unable to do more in the household.

If you look at the numbers in Iceland, parenting leave is equal for both parents.

In the Netherlands, young high educated women earn more than their male counterparts. Nevertheless most of those women drop in salary as soon as they become mothers.

So they’re getting the better end of this bargain. No one on their death bed wish they spent more time at the office. They wish they had been there for the first word, first steps, first day of school...

Notably, even in Iceland, men are forced not to take paternity leave for the good of their family.

http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/nyhe ... 4319266250

The wage gap is the result of sexism against men - where they must give up spending time with their families for the good of their families.

[Thepeopl]

https://www.oecd.org/gender/balancing-p ... eisure.htm

Yes! Found the English ones.

[Ostroeuropa]

The absolute cruelty of our societies imposing subjugation on all those people who reach retirement age.

Just imagine it. Providing for them. Expecting them to stay at home.

Such absolute horror. How on earth could socialists do this to people? The monsters.

And as we all know, retired people are very glad not to have contact with their children. It's the one thing they routinely bring up to explain how while they may be viciously oppressed by the government giving them pensions, at least they don't have it as bad as women.

But then again, we happen to know boomers have a victim complex and we can empirically prove they don't view these kind of topics rationally but have some sort of compulsion to view themselves as victims of a situation, so maybe they're full of shit and it's actually fine and just searching for reasons to whine and explain how nobody appreciates them because they have an overinflated impression of their own importance which we can scientifically measure. We know they think there's a conspiracy against them because they think their shit smells of roses and others don't agree, we can and have literally measured it. So maybe all this talk of the brutal oppression of retirees is nonsense.

( /s. I mean, imagine being worse than boomers? Jesus Christ, feminism has absolutely ruined some people.)

You know the whole thing with homophobic clergy and the expression; "Externalizing an internal struggle?"

Feminists will never be happy with society because society isn't the problem.