let me know how that works out.

For one partner to believe that the other 'must' have gender-specific responsibilities is a little bit sexist. It can be forgiven in some cases due to the influence society has on people's perspectives, but that doesn't excuse people from learning to think for themselves and establish a perspective independently of cultural ideals.

"For one partner to believe that the other 'must' have gender-specific responsibilities is a little bit sexist. "


THAT is precisely what women have expected of men for years and years without realizing it or examining it.

Women wanting equality in the workplace (as they should) is the flip side of the same coin.

If a woman wants to have a career, I believe that she should be afforded the same opportunity and compensation of a man with the same skills. Given that negotiation is a skill, then it is reasonable to believe that a woman with the same skills as a man will negotiate comparable compensation.

If a woman wants to be a home maker, then so be it. But let's have that expectation out in the open.

If on one hand a woman states that a man should be the sole provider, but on the other that women should be treated equally in the work force, that's not a diametric contradiction, but it could represent an internal conflict. That can easily be reconciled with the reality that there are unmarried women or women in 'manless' relationships.

I really don't see it as much of a contradiction, but I do know where you're coming from. It is definitely sexist to assume that because someone is male/female, then they must have gender-specific responsibilities.

One of the reasons this mindset persists, I imagine, is because men and women are different and tend to gravitate more easily to gender-type roles due both to wiring and culture. I know that my little girl is very 'girlie' wired. Her first word, at the age of 1, was "Shoe". Why shoes are practically hard-wired into the female psyche isn't something I've figured out yet, but she left me no doubt that many behaviors are gender-associated.

Because there's an underlying assumption in your post, which I get is satire and a statement and not really advice to anyone, ever, on how to conduct an actual relationship (at least I hope)

But, from your OP:

willing to cook, wash and take care of the kids while they stay at home and then pursue jobs out of interest

I'm going to lay it out, because here's something a lot of people don't get. I've seen both sides of the coin. I've stayed home with kids and done the domestic angle and I've been the one with the full time job. And I've seen a lot of other people of both genders fill both roles.

Guess what? Generally- but not always- the stay at home parent works harder. This idea that someone "Gets to" stay at home and deal with babies and toddlers all day, etc. that it's some kind of a break or a freebie or a calgon-take-me-away moment? It's absurd. For the most part, it's WAY harder. Every single parent I know who has done both, given the choice, acknowledges that it's a VERY hard gig, and that most "real" jobs- unless you're a rock breaker at a quarry- are in most ways easier.

There are a lot of people who put their kids in day care expressly because one parent (often the dad) isn't willing to put up with being the stay at home, not to mention the fact that many dads just won't take what they see as that social stigma, even if it's in their own heads.

Yes, it's nice to be able to have that time with one's kids, but really- like I said; the ones who have tried it as "Mr. Mom" thinking it's going to be a cakewalk invariably are like, PLEASE, GOD, GET ME BACK TO THE OFFICE!!!


I agree with the fundamental premise (at least as I see it) of your OP: People should be free from unspoken or other expectations of roles in relationships, and they should be openly communicated and everyone should go with what works best. But this idea that it's some great, lazy, follow-your-bliss break to be a stay at home parent... not true.

I spent on the job (in the plant or traveling on business) spiked during the years when my kids were between 3 and 5. One of life's strange coincidences, I'm sure.

When I get off the golf course that she paid for. I am appreciative and say thanks.

We provide to the family that which our aptitudes, skills, training and resources can best provide.

Women are now better educated than their husbands. I anticipate most women soon taking on the role of "provider" and judged on the basis of how much money they bring in.

If that doesn't work out, then maybe those families will demand education for their sons.

that working in the business world was more fulfilling than raising your kids.

In the mid-80's, they found that this talking-point wasn't all that convincing, so they modified it to say that they just women to have a "choice."

What they didn't count on was that the feminist position in the 70's would so perfectly match the economic agenda of the so-called "patriarchy" who could mask stealing wages from employees by having TWO wage earners make slightly more than ONE used to.

In case anyone's wondering, the other fundamental lie of paleo-feminism is that they were really only concerned about professional - academic women. Improving wages and benefits for blue-collar, wait-staff, and cashiers by UNIONIZING them (say) was not nearly as important as gender inclusive language, which never put a loaf of bread on the table.

Interesting. Can't really disagree.

I don't quite buy that lower pay necessitating, in many cases, 2 paychecks along with women entering the workplace was some orchestrated conspiracy move. I think Corporate America wanted to squeeze more out of the worker, that's for sure. Maybe having women entering the workforce gave them additional cover for people to not notice, but a lot of things have changed in the past few decades; this is the nature of big changes, they often happen simultaneously.

I do agree that the priorities of some small isolated pockets of radical, as you put it, paleo-feminists, have been excessively focused on quite the wrong things (to the point of enabling right wing culture warriors, but that's a topic for another thread) but those groups have always engaged in an almost absurd amount of echo-chamber navel gazing, and have never had that much of an audience, much less a demonstrable effect on the larger culture.

I think it was just a confluence of events that more women entered the marketplace at the same time that feminists insisted that women entering the marketplace was essential for their ultimate happiness.

It was very telling however that feminists did not focus on the economic factors driving women to enter the world of wage work.

As for the second point, the small isolate pockets of rad-fems were far more influential than their numbers would suggest--they completely infiltrated academia with an entirely new department, "women's studies," which no one had even thought of before 1975 or so.

The academic feminists quickly established themselves as high priests of the movement and ordinary grass-roots feminists need not apply--then came the inevitable slide into dogma and irrelevancy.

Labor is a supply/demand thing. For all practical purposes, there's a limitless supply of labor now - conditioned to work as many hours as possible to the detriment of everything else.

It's in capital's interest to maximize the size of the workforce and to regulate the economy to keep 15% unemployed. Maybe not "conspiracy" as you mean it, but definitely intentional.

So to answer your question; No. We can't have decent pay so long as labor is in such huge oversupply. Working harder only depresses its value further.

People should spend less time on the job and more time at home, and it should be government policy to make it happen.

the board. Not only is the labor pool different than it was 30 years ago, the labor pool is competing for a whole different batch of jobs requiring a whole different batch of skills to participate in a completely different world, both domestically and globally.

I think you're oversimplifying, but I also am a firm believer that everyone should have the opportunity to pursue the life they desire. I think it's better for families if incomes (and benefits) are good enough that one parent can stay home with small kids, but I also think it's better for everyone that we live in a world where little girls can grow up to be anything little boys can.

I agree with you about government policy and families; if you look at, say, Germany or France, the family-friendly policies they have compared to the US.. it's no contest.