So much for feminism! Women who arebreadwinners feel LESS respect for their husbands.

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+International

Women as the breadwinners: Turning the traditional model of gender roles in marriage on its head
Sarah Boesveld Feb 25, 2012 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 26, 2012 1:54 PM ET

Based on this incredible rise between 1987 and 2009, Ms. Mundy projects that by 2030, a majority of working wives and single mothers supporting their households will outearn the traditional breadwinning male. While men are still the top earners as a whole, today’s baby-boom executives will be retired in 20 years, she said, paving a clear path for the next generation of educated women.

Many of the women she interviewed for her book said they had harmonious homes — that of course times have changed and the household is run by pragmatics: Whose career is taking off, who has the highest earning potential, who actually likes cooking and cleaning and making the beds? They’d figure it out, and the house would run smoothly from there.

But some tensions were impossible to ignore: Sure, men had their insecurities, but the ones women expressed were most interesting, Ms. Mundy said.

“It can be disconcerting, even if you’re proud of it,” she said. “Some women don’t want to get trapped as the primary breadwinner. They feel they’re going to lose flexibility and choice in their lives — maybe if they want to stay home with the kids it’s going to be less feasible? They are getting their head around the idea that they’re providing.”

One woman told Ms. Mundy she had lost her feelings for her husband after she went to work and he became the caregiver at home, saying she “respected him less as a man.”

 

[eyer]

Let them eat crumbs...

 

[Lord_Steve]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+International

Women as the breadwinners: Turning the traditional model of gender roles in marriage on its head
Sarah Boesveld Feb 25, 2012 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 26, 2012 1:54 PM ET

please explain your position on men's rights and why you are so disparaging towards feminism. i'm genuinely interested.

 

[badbabysitter]

please explain your position on men's rights and why you are so disparaging towards feminism. i'm genuinely interested.

it's a conspiracy

 

[CandiCame]

please explain your position on men's rights and why you are so disparaging towards feminism. i'm genuinely interested.

You think that until you find out he's pissed about a bad joke that Sharon Osborn made. That's literally all this is.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

please explain your position on men's rights and why you are so disparaging towards feminism. i'm genuinely interested.

I want one set of rules for both genders.

Feminism sucks because they demand favoritism for women.

Women want to stay home - and men are expected to bring home the bacon. Yet women want to go to work - and men are expected to accommodate women. But when men do and they lose their jobs as a result they get called losers by women!

Women want to look after kids - and men are expected to take a back seat and accept their status as non primary caregivers. Yet women want men to be more involved with kids! Except when it comes time for shared custody rights.

Women want to be seen as dainty & incapable of harming others - men have to cater to that by being chivalrous. Yet women also want to be seen as strong & independent - and men have to accommodate.

Women demand that they be respected, as in not bombarded by sexist messages and behavior. But women feel they have a God given right to bash men as much as they want. And men have to accommodate.

Women don't want abortion laws because that violates their bodily sovereignty - but women won't hesitate to call men PUSSIES for demanding their bodily autonomy be respected when it comes to forced servitude (i.e., registration for Selective Service).

Women demand equality and equal rights. But when it comes to just about EVERYTHING, they demand preferential treatment. Women demand that the law not punish women who mutilate their husbands but they demand the severed head of any man who hurts a woman.

Women cry about misogyny while engaging in all sorts of male-bashing. They even question the male half of the species' right to exist.

In all? My problem with feminism is its absolute and shameless HYPOCRISY.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You think that until you find out he's pissed about a bad joke that Sharon Osborn made. That's literally all this is.

And what's wrong with being pissed about that? Women would be up in arms about it if the victim was a woman.

I have a right to be just as pissed as they would be. Or do you think you're tough enough to take that right away from me? Please. I wish one of you pussies would ever try.

 

[Lord_Steve]

I want one set of rules for both genders.

Feminism sucks because they demand favoritism for women.

Women want to stay home - and men are expected to bring home the bacon. Yet women want to go to work - and men are expected to accommodate women. But when men do and they lose their jobs as a result they get called losers by women!

Women want to look after kids - and men are expected to take a back seat and accept their status as non primary caregivers. Yet women want men to be more involved with kids! Except when it comes time for shared custody rights.

Women want to be seen as dainty & incapable of harming others - men have to cater to that by being chivalrous. Yet women also want to be seen as strong & independent - and men have to accommodate.

Women demand that they be respected, as in not bombarded by sexist messages and behavior. But women feel they have a God given right to bash men as much as they want. And men have to accommodate.

Women don't want abortion laws because that violates their bodily sovereignty - but women won't hesitate to call men PUSSIES for demanding their bodily autonomy be respected when it comes to forced servitude (i.e., registration for Selective Service).

Women demand equality and equal rights. But when it comes to just about EVERYTHING, they demand preferential treatment. Women demand that the law not punish women who mutilate their husbands but they demand the severed head of any man who hurts a woman.

Women cry about misogyny while engaging in all sorts of male-bashing. They even question the male half of the species' right to exist.

In all? My problem with feminism is its absolute and shameless HYPOCRISY.

oh my go d

i was going to engage you on some kind of intellectual level but this is much too funny.

you have literally just abstracted every possible way a woman could feel about gender relations under the vast heading of "feminism" and then viciously attacked that strawman (strawwoman?) with a vehemence that reveals your complete and utter insecurity.

women are just female humans you reprobate dunce, and yes, they want equality and no, they don't want unfair advantages. maybe, however, they would prefer not to be paid less, sexually menaced or domestically abused more than their male counterparts?

in case you don't want to click those links:

women are paid, on average, 77% of the wages of their male counterparts. 9/10 rape victims are female, and women are 6 times more likely to be domestically abused than men.

that's some equality right there.

 

[John Doe]

You think that until you find out he's pissed about a bad joke that Sharon Osborn made. That's literally all this is.

No. He's been like this for years.

 

[John Doe]

oh my go d

i was going to engage you on some kind of intellectual level but this is much too funny.

you have literally just abstracted every possible way a woman could feel about gender relations under the vast heading of "feminism" and then viciously attacked that strawman (strawwoman?) with a vehemence that reveals your complete and utter insecurity.

women are just female humans you reprobate dunce, and yes, they want equality and no, they don't want unfair advantages. maybe, however, they would prefer not to be paid less, sexually menaced or domestically abused more than their male counterparts?

in case you don't want to click those links:

women are paid, on average, 77% of the wages of their male counterparts. 9/10 rape victims are female, and women are 6 times more likely to be domestically abused than men.

that's some equality right there.

And how is that wage average calculated?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

oh my go d

i was going to engage you on some kind of intellectual level but this is much too funny.

YOU engaging anyone on an intellectual level? LOL that's like a meerkat engaging a mountain lion in a contest of strength.

Nothing I said was factually wrong. In fact I even provided a few iron-clad CITES to back it up. Not that you actually read the links. You couldn't have read the links. You lack the reading skills to do so.

 

[CandiCame]

And how is that wage average calculated?

Seriously?

Then I'm going back to the "in the closet" school of thought.

LT-

Come out, come out- where ever you are

 

[John Doe]

Seriously?

Then I'm going back to the "in the closet" school of thought.

LT-

Come out, come out- where ever you are

Seriously.

The way most people use the word "average" that 77% figure could be arrived at more than one way. For example, it could be calculated using data from all professions combined instead of comparing jobs to other jobs within the same profession.

 

[Lord_Steve]

And how is that wage average calculated?

a good and reasonable question! here is an example of how the wage gap is calculated, with canadian census data as the source of the raw numbers.

YOU engaging anyone on an intellectual level? LOL that's like a meerkat engaging a mountain lion in a contest of strength.

Nothing I said was factually wrong. In fact I even provided a few iron-clad CITES to back it up. Not that you actually read the links. You couldn't have read the links. You lack the reading skills to do so.

lol your "cites" are another literotica thread (anecdotal evidence at best?), a facebook group, and a link to the amazon review page of a book which, i am guessing, you have not read.

these are truly ironclad scholarly sources compared to mine. i can't believe i didn't even consider them worth mentioning.

 

[Lord_Steve]

Seriously.

The way most people use the word "average" that 77% figure could be arrived at more than one way. For example, it could be calculated using data from all professions combined instead of comparing jobs to other jobs within the same profession.

i cannot help but point out that "comparing jobs to other jobs within the same profession" would overlook one of the essential lessons of the wage gap: that women are less likely, statistically, to be hired for lucrative jobs.

there's a reason that men are thought of as doctors and women as nurses, or men as lawyers and women as secretaries, or men as pilots and women as stewardesses- institutional sexism is as big a problem as blatant wage inequality between men and women with similar jobs.

 

[John Doe]

a good and reasonable question! here is an example of how the wage gap is calculated, with canadian census data as the source of the raw numbers.

Did you read the second page of that pdf?

 

[John Doe]

i cannot help but point out that "comparing jobs to other jobs within the same profession" would overlook one of the essential lessons of the wage gap: that women are less likely, statistically, to be hired for lucrative jobs.

there's a reason that men are thought of as doctors and women as nurses, or men as lawyers and women as secretaries, or men as pilots and women as stewardesses- institutional sexism is as big a problem as blatant wage inequality between men and women with similar jobs.

When you say "women are less likely, statistically, to be hired for lucrative jobs" what exactly does that mean? Your second paragraph seems to indicate that you think it's because they apply for the more lucrative jobs and they're turned down. I'm sure that's true in some cases, but that's not the only possibility.

 

[Lord_Steve]

Did you read the second page of that pdf?

i sure did, friend! is there a problem? i'm not sure what you could take away from that besides "men can get better jobs then women and are, overall, better paid."

i hope you noticed the part where it pointed out that 7/10 of the top female professions paid less than the average income of the average woman worker as compared to 1/2 for men?

i'm all for calling bad data into question and holding people accountable for their sources, but i'm not sure what your point is. please let me know if there's something i'm missing.

 

[CandiCame]

i cannot help but point out that "comparing jobs to other jobs within the same profession" would overlook one of the essential lessons of the wage gap: that women are less likely, statistically, to be hired for lucrative jobs.

there's a reason that men are thought of as doctors and women as nurses, or men as lawyers and women as secretaries, or men as pilots and women as stewardesses- institutional sexism is as big a problem as blatant wage inequality between men and women with similar jobs.

Does it make you feel any better that my generation doesn't do that so much?

For example, I didn't know what a stewardess was. We say "flight attendant". I don't think of "doctor" as a gender-specific term, though I do nurses. I'd never thought of "pilot" as a gender-specific term either, but if I did, I picture pilots as women because I know in the military women are likely to be pilots- I don't know where or how I got that stereotypical conclusion, though. We still have the secretary steriotype, but I think that's why more people have "assistants" or "bookkeepers" then secretaries. I've never actually met a secretary in real life. "Lawyer" again- I'm pretty sure is gender-neutral. My lawyer is a woman, and I'm just as likely to picture her as Phoneix Wright. I think that might be more applicable to older people who remember that whole 'nuclear family' thing.

The wage gap is real, but a lot of the things that you're assuming are steriotypes are kinda... not. Or at least I'd never heard them, and I'm pretty sure that if you checked with other people my age, they wouldn't have heard them either. I learned in college that girls were presumably once thought of at being worse at school, rather then better at it. Our steriotype now is that girls are smart and boys are good at sports. I hate it, and I've always been a huge opponent of the feminization of the school system. Google it- it's a big problem. Which is why folk like LT piss me off. There are serious problems to be addressed- especially in child custody cases. This is a real thing. Him purposefully trying to be a jackass about it is NOT HELPING.

 

[Lord_Steve]

When you say "women are less likely, statistically, to be hired for lucrative jobs" what exactly does that mean? Your second paragraph seems to indicate that you think it's because they apply for the more lucrative jobs and they're turned down. I'm sure that's true in some cases, but that's not the only possibility.

uh, what would the other possibility be? that women are less likely to apply to those jobs in the first place? because that also strongly suggests a societal pressure on women to underachieve.

i'm just curious how you interpret data saying that women are paid less and have shittier jobs than men to indicate anything other than an unfair disparity in social and economic conditions between men and women.

 

[Lord_Steve]

Does it make you feel any better that my generation doesn't do that so much?

For example, I didn't know what a stewardess was. We say "flight attendant". I don't think of "doctor" as a gender-specific term, though I do nurses. I'd never thought of "pilot" as a gender-specific term either, but if I did, I picture pilots as women because I know in the military women are likely to be pilots- I don't know where or how I got that stereotypical conclusion, though. We still have the secretary steriotype, but I think that's why more people have "assistants" or "bookkeepers" then secretaries. I've never actually met a secretary in real life. "Lawyer" again- I'm pretty sure is gender-neutral. My lawyer is a woman, and I'm just as likely to picture her as Phoneix Wright. I think that might be more applicable to older people who remember that whole 'nuclear family' thing.

The wage gap is real, but a lot of the things that you're assuming are steriotypes are kinda... not. Or at least I'd never heard them, and I'm pretty sure that if you checked with other people my age, they wouldn't have heard them either. I learned in college that girls were presumably once thought of at being worse at school, rather then better at it. Our steriotype now is that girls are smart and boys are good at sports. I hate it, and I've always been a huge opponent of the feminization of the school system. Google it- it's a big problem. Which is why folk like LT piss me off. There are serious problems to be addressed- especially in child custody cases. This is a real thing. Him purposefully trying to be a jackass about it is NOT HELPING.

i doubt you are younger than me and if you are, it isn't by much. i certainly agree that our generation is less likely to gender professions than our predecessors but it's not a problem that has just magically disappeared- and there are plenty of older folks kicking around and they tend to be the ones in charge of hiring and actually, you know, paying workers.

i picked those stereotypes specifically so that readers who aren't cool + sexy 20-somethings like us could have something to relate to.

 

[CandiCame]

uh, what would the other possibility be? that women are less likely to apply to those jobs in the first place? because that also strongly suggests a societal pressure on women to underachieve.

i'm just curious how you interpret data saying that women are paid less and have shittier jobs than men to indicate anything other than an unfair disparity in social and economic conditions between men and women.

Wait- Canda still has an income discrepancy? Goddamn it, everything I thought about Canada as a promised land to aim towards is grossly exaggerated. They are supposed to be better then us!

 

[John Doe]

i sure did, friend! is there a problem? i'm not sure what you could take away from that besides "men can get better jobs then women and are, overall, better paid."

i hope you noticed the part where it pointed out that 7/10 of the top female professions paid less than the average income of the average woman worker as compared to 1/2 for men?

i'm all for calling bad data into question and holding people accountable for their sources, but i'm not sure what your point is. please let me know if there's something i'm missing.

Yes. I noticed that part. There are as lot of things you can take away from the page. That's my point. For example, the first thing I noticed when I compared the two lists of occupations was that most of the "male" occupations were more dangerous, more messy and/or more labor-intensive than most of the "female" occupations.

I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning your interpretation of the data.

 

[CandiCame]

i doubt you are younger than me and if you are, it isn't by much. i certainly agree that our generation is less likely to gender professions than our predecessors but it's not a problem that has just magically disappeared- and there are plenty of older folks kicking around and they tend to be the ones in charge of hiring and actually, you know, paying workers.

i picked those stereotypes specifically so that readers who aren't cool + sexy 20-somethings like us could have something to relate to.

But some of them are just wrong. Like I said, pilot is a pretty feminized job, stereotypically. Women bitch about it- that women are always depicted as pilots and never strait-out soldiers. I just have a hard time believing that there was a complete stereotype reversal. Men used to be teachers exclusively to, but for some reason, that job's stereotyped as feminine. It was never, to my knowledge, stereotyped as male. I just don't get that.

And I'm pretty sure that "doctor" was pretty much always gender-neutral. Why not pick something like "fireman" or "policeman" that were stereotypical, so much so that generations before us said "man" rather then "fighter" or "officer"?

 

[John Doe]

uh, what would the other possibility be? that women are less likely to apply to those jobs in the first place? because that also strongly suggests a societal pressure on women to underachieve.

Again, that's not the only thing that can be gleaned from that result. Isn't it at least possible that one reason some women don't apply for those jobs is because they sincerely, of their own volition, independently blah blah blah...don't want them?

i'm just curious how you interpret data saying that women are paid less and have shittier jobs than men to indicate anything other than an unfair disparity in social and economic conditions between men and women.

I'm not saying there isn't a disparity. I'm suggesting that there's more than one cause of that disparity.