The lifestyle that many married couples could afford in the 50s/60s/70s from 1 working adult, is no longer possible and requires two adults working to maintain anywhere close to the same standard of living
I would think its just middle class and above where women have significantly started working more, and that women in poorer families have always had to work and couldn’t afford to be housewives - I see it as a sign of a shrinking middle class, that now “middle class” households have to act like “lower class/lower-middle class” households and have two working adults, in order to afford their lifestyles
[–]d_nijmegen 6 points7 points8 points (32 children) | Copy Link
I would love to hear feminists explain how they don't want to be house wife's and work but so want to be ceo's at the same time.
[–]benderXX[S] 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
Most feminists want break the glass ceiling but few want to start on the concrete floor.
[–]SubwayNapper 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
I don't think you understood the original meaning of the post - it was not a commentary on women's rights but a commentary on the state of the current economy.
As a woman with a planned career, I can't imagine having a stay-at-home husband, not because "it's unmanly" but because it's unsustainable. I would love for that to be the case. I just don't think it will be.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
as the writer of the original post, I agree that this person does not understand the meaning of the post, and has hijacked it to complain about women
[–]benderXX[S] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
I am capable of understanding. I am also employing the same tools in the feminist tool chest to decode meaning. So I have that be grateful, if nothing else. Not sure why you are lurking but it should be obvious that the great un-seeding of gender roles seems as their beneficiary only women which was the basis of my comment and repost. It’s ironic that some women (clearly you) feel entitled to complain the reconstructed world doesn’t deliver even more gifts as thought.
As a great man once said feminism is all about being responsible for nothing and entitled to everything. Must be a fun world.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
That guy sounds like he’s strawmanning feminism to meet the definition that anti feminists argue against.
Feminism means gender equality
Anyone who thinks feminism means female superiority is no better than a mysoginist
I feel like a lot of y’all strawman feminism into being the second one so that you can hate all feminists
[–]benderXX[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
If it means gender equality show me feminisms big push toward equality in the family courts, it’s abolition of spousal support, equal treatment of punishment when it comes felony crimes, and it’s encouragement of women in joining the dirty and dangerous jobs that make up about a quarter of the economy. The type of jobs that kill men about 13 times more than women and explain the wage gap y’all are trying to fix.
I could go on.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
youre just strawmanning shit to meet your own preconceived notion that feminists arent interested in eqaulity
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
what "great man" said this by the way?
[–]Bojack35 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
It's almost like they are a diverse group some of whom want different things...
[–]d_nijmegen 1 point2 points3 points (12 children) | Copy Link
As long as men lose, that's a pretty universal ideal.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
who wants "men to lose"? anyone who's motivated by that is just a misandrist asshole - are you implying that most women are like this?
[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points (10 children) | Copy Link
No I never pin something on just being a gender. But the loud feminists really do give me that impression.
So gender, no. political ideology, yes
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
gotcha, so it sounds like you have some awareness as to why many would group mens rights activists with their loudist most extremist hateful ideologues as well?
[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Sure. Every barrel has some rotten apples in it. It's just not fair to say they spoil the batch.
I'm opposed to the ideology of feminism, that makes me anti feminism.
I'm not 100% a follower of what I hear on mra subs as well. So you're speaking to a MRA that falls into the same category as the moderate feminists.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
So applying your logic you and men’s rights activists want women to lose
Thanks for confirming what most people think men’s rights activism is all about
[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Sure take the word of a internet stranger who self identified as a group to speak for the entire thing.
What a simpleton you must be.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
It appears you do the same about feminists #mirror
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
so you think all feminists want men to "lose" - sounds like you could appreciate why many would feel that most mens rights activists want women to "lose" by similar logic?
[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Sure. And whenever they speak up like that. They get flack from more moderate people.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Got it, so you would understand the flack you deserve from moderate people from painting feminists as wanting men to lose
[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure. But I won't give a single damn. I believe that feminists want men to lose because of what they say.
I personally don't want women to lose. I just want them om the same level
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
seems like youre doing the thing where you paint with a broad brush, and group all women passionate about gender equality as "want to be house wife's and work but so want to be ceo's at the same time"
ready for a big brain thought? maybe its possible that not all women interested in gender equality feel the same way about different things? Or are you suggesting that all conservatives are white supremacists, all liberals want guerilla warfare, and all muslims want sharia law?
[–]d_nijmegen 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe don't expect people think binary thoughts.
I'm not going to be writing tldr essays on what I really think. I keep it short, you lose some definition. I accept that.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
what the fuck are you strawmanning snowflakes talking about? My post has nothing to do with that - I'm pointing out that the average married couple now needs to work 80hrs/wk to afford what used to require 40hrs/wk.
by the way what the fuck does my post about cost of living and women working have to do with men's rights? I thought that was rule number 1 of this sub
[–]skymonstef 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
It is often discussed here as an example of charging for a goal this being getting women to work therefore making them more free but not considering the dangers in this example women are arguably no more free now then before the chains just have different labels
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
what the fuck did i just read
[–]skymonstef 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
You asked
by the way what the fuck does my post about cost of living and women working have to do with men's rights? I thought that was rule number 1 of this sub
I answered
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
if by "answer" you mean write something completely unintelligible and incoherent, then ya, thanks for "answering" lol
[–]skymonstef 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
You inability to understand what i wrote is a reflection of your abilities not mine
Next time if you lack the ability to comprehend text ask for help
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
lol
[–]Bojack35 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
To be fair I agree with the premise of the title.
It is an issue that you basically need both people in a couple working to afford what used to be affordable with one of the two working.
Single people are fucked as they are competing in the housing market with people on 2 salaries not one.
As one of the comments in that post puts it' equality would be more men being stay at home parents and more women bring bread winners. Having both need to work is more reflective of economic issues than social progression.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
There are also next to no government benefits or tax offsets available to single people or couples without children
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
As the person who wrote the post, thanks for understanding what the meaning of the post is and not being a reactionary snowflake
[–]Oishiio42 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't consider it bad that women are in the workforce more. I consider it bad that in the average 2-parent household, both of them have to work full time just to get by.
Bad for quality of life. When a couple has kids, a full time job for one of the parents or part-time for both should be enough to at live off of.
[–]RyansPutter 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not surprising. Double the supply of labor, half the value of labor. Simple economics.
That being said, the idea that women never worked outside the home en masse until the 1960s is false. Housewives only existed in certain socioeconomic classes in certain societies. Poorer women have always had to work - whether it was working in the fields or tending livestock, working in a factory, working as a maid for an upper-class woman, selling fish or vegetables or whatever at the market, or working an odd job here and there.
Not to mention that even after industrialization, poorer women did not have the luxury of simply buying something at a store - they had to make everything from clothes to a loaf of bread from scratch.
[–]l0g1cm4rt 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I've worked from home for the last 3 or 4 years, and it's a life saver.
I was sick of working in office with women and their drama, gossiping, starting arguments over none-existent issues.
And the sex talk that women engage in, sitting in the canteen at lunch time talking about having anal sex with their boyfriend last night, or about whether to spit or swallow, or talking about their periods.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
what a fucking stupid interpretation of the post. I do not think "Women represented in the workforce more is now a bad thing", I think the opposite. I think women representing a higher percentage of the workforce is a good thing for gender equality.
[+]Ok-Tennis-57201 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
All the women in the OP sub, are just scratching their heads. How did this happen, they lament. FEMINISM you dopes. Feminists and women in the 70s fell right into the hands of big business. Sure they said, we'll hire you! They paid them less, and justified gradually reducing mens wages. As one man retired, his replacement got less pay. And here we are today. Fat management raking it in, everyone else gets peanuts. God job ladies, you screwed everyone because you were oppressed. Many women want to be homemakers now, but that ship has sailed.
[–]littleprincesszx 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't care I ain't staying home boo
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm OP, and this is fucking retarded take to blame women specifically for society-wide issues. What's next you gonna blame black people for doing crack while ignoring the government and its history of fostering racial inequality, law enforcement?
Things are not as oversimplified as the way you model them in your head.
[+]Ok-Tennis-57201 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Then you explain why it takes 2 incomes for a family to survive nowadays.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Stagnant wages since the 70s while cost of living has continued to increase. It’s a ridiculous assertion to suggest that women as a whole are specifically/squarely to blame for either of those causes