Additionally, this is a very anecdotal example which doesn't explain why reports are found as early as prepubescent girls. Reports stating girls on average do indeed feel more pressure from social media than boys do.
Isn't the effect that one would use to support this, the same effect one sees if instead "women prefer to look after their children than immediately return to full-time work after child-birth"?
It seems that in Western democracies often women may [amongst other options] choose their own career vs. support a husband to enable greater closeness with children. Men seldom have that option.
Aside: "> and have her pick up after him": Father's who get no veto on abortion, or pregnancy get to live with the mother's choice. Sure, they share responsibility for the pregnancy too, but twisting that situation to (what appears to be your contention, paraphrased) 'men bear a grudge against alimony because they can't enslave women for menial work' is going to need some hard proof if you're going to convince me that this isn't unwarranted sexism. I think you'll find men "bitch" about it because they're denied any say but are expected to pay because "a man's role is to work".
No. Well before there are children, women will fairly often do things like follow her husband or boyfriend to a new city when he gets a job offer there. When a person moves to a new city because they got a job offer there, they tend to be getting a promotion and a pay raise.
When a person moves to a new city to follow someone else and then start their own job hunt, they tend to be hurting their career and will typically get a less prestigious job with less pay than what they left. Do that sort of thing often enough along gendered lines and the cumulative effect is pretty harsh.
(what appears to be your contention, paraphrased) 'men bear a grudge against alimony because they can't enslave women for menial work'
Please don't do this. It's hard enough to participate here as a woman without someone intentionally twisting my comment in such an ugly manner.
It takes two people to create a baby. There is a long human history of placing various expectations on both men and women to account for that reality. The expectations related to that are long and varied and tend to be gendered, such as expecting women to be virgins on the wedding night but not expecting the same of men.
The reason for expecting virginity for girls is it's a form of birth control and it's the only one that's really reliable and it wasn't that long ago it was the only one a lot of people really had ready access to.
One college, I think in the UK somewhere, used to give scholarships to "virgin girls" and their test historically was "a girl who had never been pregnant." They had to update their criteria at some point.
The last time I saw data on it, a "normal, healthy fertile woman" was defined as a woman who would get pregnant within a year if she was sexually active and not using protection.
Someone asked explicitly for "a personal perspective" and I gave some of that. The degree to which I am being given crap for having done that is quite aggravating.
You don't have to care what a woman thinks, but I give a woman's take here from time to time simply because this is an overwhelmingly male space and I post as openly female. Sometimes, that goes okay. Sometimes, it's appreciated and respected, but it's never an easy thing to do and it always opens me up to being given a ridiculous amount of crap for making a good faith statement.
It never matters how carefully I word it, someone will inevitably have a problem with a woman daring to give the female side of the equation here.
It always sucks when a baby is conceived that wasn't actively and intentionally wanted and planned by both parties. This is part of why there is so much societal baggage concerning human sexual stuff and why the entire world wants to be judgy about things like how many people you sleep with, did you do it before marriage, is it a serious relationship or a casual one and on and on and on.
That's not because women are awful bitches to men and it's not because men are awful bastards to women. It's because when 1 + 1 suddenly and unexpectedly = 3, that impacts many lives, not just the two poor fools who bumped uglies one night without thinking too much about it (as just one scenario -- I'm well aware there can be others).
I'm already finding this discussion amazingly tiresome on a day when I already feel incredibly raw about men being assholes to me, so I think I probably need to walk away. It's really, really hard to constantly be expected to be the one who worries about the feelings of nine zillion men on this forum while it sometimes seems like not a single soul gives a damn about me, my feelings, my life, my welfare -- anything.
So if people want to just downvote my comments to hell and then have some giant pile on of ugly takes outright twisting my words, I guess y'all can have at it. Because nearly twelve years of posting here in good faith under incredibly difficult circumstances seems to have made not a damn bit of difference in how my words get interpreted here. I can still count on getting openly hated on for simply being a woman who dares to open my damn mouth.
And vice-versa, do you feel there's some sexually skewed pressure here? Sadly for me I was the one who got a job first, so I won the chance to be stuck in a little box every day, yay!
> expecting women to be virgins on the wedding night but not expecting the same of men //
In the UK I think if you interviewed 10000 people you might get one that thinks that; honestly I've heard a lot of strange views but never anyone expressing virginity as a virtue only for women, it's always been for both sexes. I've no idea what you're leading towards or where you're getting this idea (assuming we're still talking Western Democracies)?
> It never matters how carefully I word it //
I hesitated to post that because you're one of the first people with a gendered name I've noticed, I don't notice many but overwhelmingly they're asexual names (temporal, rsync, whatever) and I've found your comments high value and definitely adding to the site in general. But, what did you mean there then, I couldn't work out a way in which it wasn't a terrible caricature.
You're complaining here about mistreatment, but you're dishing it too. You don't have to care about anyone's feelings to present your perspective - I don't know if you're getting downvoted, but ultimately it's fake internet points. Make your point ... but if you do it in a way that denigrates every divorced male then I think you've got to expect push-back.
> I can still count on getting openly hated on //
Disagreement ain't hate. I appreciate your posts, doesn't mean I don't disagree with some of their content.
The only reason you see it this way is because of your previous point regarding women and children being a "package deal". There are societal expectations of men who have children.
>women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development
This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children". It's specialization and symbiosis. Women can benefit from "supporting" their husband's career. Ideally people support EACHOTHER in a relationship, and that includes tradeoffs in many areas of life, financial/career/societal/emotional/children.
>cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot
What a revelation. You're right, if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create. /sarcasm
That's maybe half a step away from a personal attack. That's not "my opinion." That's how society tends to treat things and that observation is based on lots of reading of stuff with solid studies behind it.
This is like saying "men tend to support their wives children at the expense of their own children".
No, it's not. Not at all. For one thing, two people can be married and have their own children separately from a previous relationship.
if only men could wrap their mind around this one then they might be able to fix all the issues that they maliciously create.
Give me a break. This is not a position I am a proponent of. I rarely talk about the so-called "patriarchy." I do not advocate an idea that sexism is rooted in men being intentionally malicious assholes and I don't think I ever have.
This is not a good faith engagement of the point at all.
The fact that women can have babies tends to impact the lives of all women, whether they want babies or not. They get a lot of social expectations hung on them that are rooted in the idea of father as breadwinner and mother as full-time parent in part because that's a model that is more reliable than mother as breadwinner and father as full-time parent.
By reliable, I mean it tends to withstand things going wrong that you can statistically bet on happening in some percentage of cases. Pregnancy can really seriously impact a woman's body and health in a way that becoming a father doesn't do to a man's body.
As just one really minor example, she can be incontinent for a time after the birth and need to account for that, which is tougher to deal with if you have a paid job than if you are a homemaker.
I'm a woman. I didn't bend to social pressure until I actually had children. Once you have a child, the amount of crap society hangs on women and all the social pressure comes at you as a form of blackmail where the subtext is "And you and your child can both go die in a fire if you, little girlie, don't go along to get along."
Society generally treats mothers and their children as a package deal. Mothers tend to get custody. A woman can end up pregnant from a one-night stand and have her life irrevocably changed and the father may never know a child existed.
Men bitch about having to pay alimony and child support and how unfair that is if they are no longer getting to sleep with the woman and have her pick up after him and getting to enjoy the company of the children and it gets glossed over that both having kids and the threat of potentially having kids undermines female income on a regular basis. If nothing else, women tend to support their husband's career at the expense of their own career development, either without thinking about it (because it is just a social norm rooted in history) or because if you are woman and not an idiot, it is always at the back of your mind that an unintended pregnancy with unexpected health impacts (or resulting in a special-needs child) can derail your career in a way that it typically doesn't do to a male career.
This is an actual biological difference between cis women and cis men: cis women can potentially get pregnant and cis men cannot. It has profound impacts on many social things in ways that most people either don't readily see or don't want to admit because it's scary, I guess.