I saw that you said that, but I don't believe it, particularly.
Ok.
In my experience, women are open to and want more flexible and non-traditional sharing of family responsibilities, and men don't (largely because the status quo benefits them in ways to which they feel entitledOK.
Everything you said here is contradicted by the data.
"Heterosexual women are getting more choosy. Women “don’t want to marry down,” to form a long-term relationship to a man with less education and earnings than herself, said Ronald Levant, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Akron and author of several books on masculinity."
Basically everything from surveys to professional matchmakers agree....the scenario you're describing isn't happening. Basically as women get higher educations, higher salaries, and casually date men out of their league through their 20s...pop out a kid or two....and by 30 decide to settle down and don't understand why it suddenly seems impossible.
I don't want you to think I'm just saying this because you say things like "dismantling the patriarchy benefits men too" even though you can't really describe how that's going to work....
I think there's a very real likelihood that dismantling feminism will vastly improve women's lives regarding stable long term romantic relationships and marriage (at least in those aspects if not others). Ideas of "the body acceptance movement" and concepts like "sex work is real work" are both tertiary branches of modern feminism and they aren't helping women find or keep stable relationships at all. Even worse, the constant self indulgence, the narcissistic obsession with their own lives has made the modern dating scene a nightmare for both men and women.
Generally speaking....things like the WAWE cause our respective societies to treat men and women's romantic relationship problems wildly differently. The emergence of the two extreme groups....the incel males and the 35yo career woman with a body count of 100 who has overly ridiculous expectations (sorry, there's no catchy term for this group like incel) are a relatively recent phenomenon and they're both growing and both largely the result of feminism.
We don't care about men as a society....so the problems of this lonely, depressed, and suicidal group of men are generally mocked or disregarded until one of them goes on a murder spree. The women who fall into the category I described above? They'll get entire articles from online women describing how the problem must be men....not their wildly unrealistic expectations. Since neither group appears to genuinely get any useful help....the responses to their problems are adaptive. We now have the emergence of the "passport bro" which is a man unwilling to settle for promiscuous woman with children and a "career" and instead, travel overseas in search of younger more traditional women willing to have a family and grateful for a man who can provide for them. The women on the other hand, now increasingly find themselves in a "situationship" wherein they're sleeping with a mam they casually date who is likely dating multiple other women....none of which he intends to settle down with.....in the vain hopes that this will change and he will ultimately select her despite the statistical improbability. Of the two, the passport bros seem to be getting what they want more often and the women are either trying to get comfortable dying alone....and their depression and anxiety rates seem to be increasing rather quickly.
Just look at any professional matchmakers in the US and you'll find that more than a few have given up on female clients entirely.
Women want partners who will be true teammates in life. Before children, she's seldom going to be keen to financially support someone who seems to have no goals, no drive of his own.
That's a major difference between men and women. Men don't care how much a woman makes (generally) nor if she's driven towards some career goals.
In my experience, it's the men who refuse this kind of arrangement (even where their wives earn, or could earn, significantly more), not the women who don't want it.
I have, never in my life, met any man....nor known any man who knows of a man.....who had the opportunity for such an arrangement. I'm sure it's happened somewhere at some time....but it's so exceedingly rare that it's not worth considering.
The ideal, of course, is sharing both work and domestic life -
This is your ideal....not everyone's.
for a while we had an arrangement my peers called the "unicorn" set up of each parent working three days a week - but I will grant that logistically that can be harder to put in place, because employers are often reluctant to be flexible.
Yeah that's probably got less to do with inflexibility than it does productivity. The average person working three days a week here probably isn't going to have healthcare through their emplyer...as they wouldn't qualify for it. Consider an employer who has to choose between 3 employees working 5 days a week or 5 employees working 3 days a week and it's pretty easy to understand why those 3 day employees aren't getting healthcare benefits (along with many others).
You would demonstrate the ways in which I had neglected my duties.
Is there something quantifiable there? Or are we still talking vague abstractions?
Funny how nobody ever accuses working fathers of neglecting their children.
? Where? That happens all the time. If both parents work full time then someone else is raising those children....or nobody is. Most men prefer a parent to do the child raising.
I work full time, and my child is not neglected.
I know, you constantly defer to yourself for examples that don't seem remotely close to the norm for most people.
I'm less familiar with their arguments. I'll simply say, I'm familiar enough with the genetic/biological side of things to be quite confident the "nature" side of the argument isn't determinative.
Again, I'm not arguing for genetic determinism. I'm simply saying that if we look at advances in understanding genetics, we see an increasing body of factual knowledge that seems to be exponentially rising over the last 15 years or so and links to behaviour are included in that knowledge. On the other side of the coin....we see a lot of faked/poor research by sociologists and psychologists that is designed to cater more to political narratives than truth.
No, that's not what I asked for. I asked if women were ever rated higher on stereotypically masculine traits.
I don't know what sort of stereotypically masculine traits you're talking about. If we're talking about positive traits (like bravery) and not negative traits (like cowardice) then the answer is yes.
Why?
That doesn't mean it doesn't provide her with benefits in life, though.
So a privilege is anything that can result in positive benefits?
Because unequal results seem to indicate barriers in the way the one who is working harder.
I'm sorry but that's absurd. You understand we aren't truly equals, right? You have your talents, I have mine. In any arena wherein my talents are more valuable....you should expect to work harder to achieve the same results as me despite the complete absence of any obstacles.
Perhaps, in your hypothetical, with a bit of coaching or mentoring, the people you replaced could have done as well as you do now.
l learned the assignment from them lol.
It's not a particularly desirable detail.
Is it their fault they didn't come into the role with the knowledge, wisdom and experience you have?
As they had already been doing the detail for 2 years, it's hard to imagine any way in which I was more knowledgeable coming in. The other guy who got mandated the detail managed to secure a transfer at the same time....so while a replacement was searched for during the first month, and the previous 2 guys were still training me....
Before they left I convinced my superior I would be able to train a second better if I was given another month to get my feet under me (a lie) and when he voiced his concern about underperforming....I simply asked what the average output my predecessors were producing was and told him if I couldn't match it, I would put in extra days. It only took 3 weeks to outperform my predecessors and once I did....I pointed this out and told him I'd prefer the office to myself anyway. He thought this was funny when he understood what I'd done to secure my own office and said I'd tentatively keep it if I kept up my current performance. Now he pops his head in only once a day to ask if I need anything.
Or have they not had the opportunities you had to develop that insight and skill?
They were both senior to me. I couldn't possibly give their resumes if I wanted to.
Because she needed the money to live on. I suspect her income was covering a significant proportion of household expenses.
But couldn't study on her own?
One where other factors - such as disability or poverty or discrimination - don't hold someone back from achieving to their potential and desire.
This is utopian fantasy and it results in disaster.
Not just gender, but all the things which differ by gender.
Such as?
Not true.
You don't recall us having this discussion before? You don't remember me providing research on how often men approach women compared to the opposite. Nothing controversial here.
Given you're dismissing actual real personal experiences, rather than just assumptions, I suspect we're done here.
When you first related a personal experience, I related one back....which you dismissed by saying I must be living a sheltered life.
I can quote you if you like.
