Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Here's my answer to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. In divorce, custody, and child support gear the system to encourage men to be the primary caregivers. Reversing the US child support systems financial incentives for discriminating against fathers would be a good place to start.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
If this appears more then once my apologies the system is glitchy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
So, heres my solution to the "wage gap". Affirmative Action for men in the private sphere. Reverse the bias in family court, custody, and divorce court by switching the financial incentives states pursue around (reversing the genders). Once alimony payments and child support payments are a women's problem 97% of the time and men only have to pay 3% but still get to be the majority of those who default and never see a day in jail women will start having considerably higher lifetime earnings. This will also help them "break the glass ceiling".
It has some issues...
-We would have to have a campaign concerning "deadbeat moms" so as to silence the dissenters and derail any mothers rights groups.
-Like all of the past macro-level solutions it would ignore the personal choices of men and women.
-It's totalitarian, but that seems to be par for the course with "gender equality".
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Honestly I wouldn't be that upset if things were sharply turned around in family court as you suggested. I really wouldn't be down for it to simply be 90-10 (like it is now) in the other direction, but I can agree the current situation isn't any good either. I wouldn't mind if the default was something like 60-40 or 70-30 in men's favor for a while, if only to see how it would work out. After all we've done it the other way for a long enough time to know that giving children to the mother isn't always the best option.
One nitpick though:
-We would have to have a campaign concerning "deadbeat moms" so as to silence the dissenters and derail any mothers rights groups.
This point wouldn't be as much of a thing. Biology makes it much, MUCH harder for someone to be a "deadbeat mom" as opposed to a "deadbeat dad". A woman has to carry a baby to term, give birth to it, then find the father, dump the baby off, and then skip town, somehow. A father can just cut and run as soon as he finds out his girlfriend is pregnant. It turns out being physically attached to the baby matters a lot on this front.
Wolves don't have alphas in natural environments, alpha does not just signify highest rank there is a violent and domineering power struggle involved to be an alpha. So unless you are stretching the term alpha beyond any practical scientific use wolves can not be described to have alphas in normal environments.
No, it seems that you are the one who is confused about the word.
In all of my biology courses, which is quite a few credits worth of them, I have never seen a more strict definition for Alpha than the highest-ranking animal in the group. Klaus Immelmann's Dictionary of Ethology doesn't define Alpha, but explains it under Dominance. Let me quote:
Definitions aside wolves don't have these kinds of ranks you're imagining them to have, wolves just form dynasties. The only defining trait of the "alpha" wolf is being the eldest male of the family. Young males leave and form new families when they feel up to it. Apparent dominance struggles in captivity are territory disputes that don't normally happen (it actually makes wolf preserves difficult to maintain) not attempts to become the "alpha" wolf.
Because it's impossible. Because everyone can't rank higher than everyone else.
You might notice that these two sentences kill your whole theory (much as they killed Group Selection) but maybe you'd like an explanation.
If there are heritable to learnable "alpha" traits that correlate with success/attractiveness they will crowd out other traits in the long term. With attractiveness is just causes a bit of (inevitably hilarious) Fisherian runaway selection among women. With survival traits it would result in an effective loss of the trait of interest.
For example if 1% of lemmings don't kill themselves (not true but amusing) lemmings will quickly stop killing themselves as the non-suicidal group out breeds the others.
In humans, if you'd prefer, you might notice that that general population does not contain people with the intelligence of monkeys. Intelligence was a beneficial trait that was heavily selected for. We did not separate out into layers, even though its impossible for everyone to be smarter than everyone else, all humans (even the severely disabled) posses significant intelligence and useful skills.
Alphaness, like fitness, is a post-hoc thing not an trait.
Definitions aside wolves don't have these kinds of ranks you're imagining them to have.
I've heard the mantra about not arguing on the internet, but I'd still appreciate if people bothered to actually read through four pages of a thread before jumping in and drawing random conclusions based on one comment. Nowhere in this thread did I claim that this behaviour is present in wolves. The whole thing was brought in as an anecdote, regarding the etymological origin of the word alpha, by A guy who might post. It'd be delightful if you'd stop trying to form strawman arguments, either intentionally or due to laziness.
Alphaness, like fitness, is a post-hoc thing not an trait.
Show me where I disagree with this? My argument is that attaining alpha status is desirable, and that it contributes to fitness. Since wealth is seen as a signifier of status in society, and more prominently so in men than women, men are under more pressure to succeed financially. This, in turn, contributes towards the wage cap, without being some patriarchy/oppression thing. (And therefore, the wage cap is about more than discrimination against females, though for the sake of future strawman argument potential, I should note that I do recognize that discrimination is another factor and that it exists.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Society and the current "princess culture" has raised 2 generations of women that think being pampered and fawned over is the solution. I married my wife partially because she isn't afraid to work. Instead of being "Wow I am amazing and special just for having certain genitalia" we should focus more on how hard work sets you apart in this world.
I know all about the princess culture, but there's another side to the female equation and a dark side to the male equation. The first with the feminist myth about women "being able to do it all," you have some people that simply take too much on themselves and get stressed out and the like early on. And then during mid career when the baby comes, they curb back their aspirations and stay at a comfortable level. That is something more women then men do, but more men are doing something. In the business community, for some conservatives, see this is a cardinal sin about advancing. I see that as an opportunity, for youngsters who do want to progress in a company farther and those who are older without children or grown children to be able to move up at a later career as well. However, we also see childrearing as not "business friendly" and that needs to change in how we evaluate stay at home Mom's that chose to stay at home but got divorced and because they were "out of the work force" for so long their actual real wage declined down to trivial levels. The same goes for some men who make the same decision.
Similar to how we use to treat the military like garbage, having that kind of reverence for a house wife/husband is something we need to evaluate. Those people made a sacrifice for their children, that make our nation strong. And we should respect that decision. Maybe not so much a pay raise, but realize that humans need to be raised and a man or woman cannot do everything or else burn out, like my wife did at a time. She was extremely over stressed when the children were younger, until we had a discussion about curbing back work to make the family needs come first while managing the finances. She curbed back her work, because it made more economic sense and has since as the children have become more independent and the like has increased work on her career and individual interests. For my brother and his wife, they took the opposite approach. He totally quit work, while she worked her way up the company ladder and moved several times. She now makes large bank, their children are through college with one starting their own business and skipping college, and he's going back to work in the non profit sector (kept up with volunteering and tabs to be able to do so).
People who can maintain a life outside of the home are necessary, but trying to hold down a full time job and a full time family even with a cooperative spouse is a burden that not every marriage can or should sustain. The income gap is a result of our inability to look at on/off ramps for society, as well as the current jobs market is a failure of our system to deal with job retraining and broadly applying traits to specific jobs. Essentially, in order to get through the robo-HR systems we have now you have to actually have specific things or lie on your resume to even get a human to see it. Which is just a system limitation to make people's lives easier.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Society and the current "princess culture" has raised 2 generations of women that think being pampered and fawned over is the solution. I married my wife partially because she isn't afraid to work. Instead of being "Wow I am amazing and special just for having certain genitalia" we should focus more on how hard work sets you apart in this world.
Princess culture is a direct result of America's industrialization. Prior to industrialization, women were expected to work from sun up to sun down to maintain their household as a matter of course. When whole families moved to the city jobs were scarce and so women were put in the position of not being able to contribute materially to their family and thus began the housewife/breadwinner dichotomy. For the first time lower and middle class women were assigned serious value based on previously less important traits such as looks or social factors. Imagine going from a world where a woman who could cook, clean, milk the cows, bring in the eggs, help with planting and harvesting, and bear 4 to 6 healthy children was the norm to a world where a woman's only contributions were expected to be a well kept home and children. Sure, go work in the factories while the men are at war but once they get back you're suddenly less competent and you should get married so your husband can support you. Then outsourcing became a thing and men suddenly said "We know we said you could stay home all day but now we need to work to help support the family. We still think you're incompetent so don't expect equal pay or promotions. Could you also continue to take care of the household and children too? Cuz that would be great!". We're in a dual earner economy but mentally many people are still in the housewife/breadwinner era, even though those attitudes are outdated and no longer apply.
Women are working hard and often against our natural instinct to avoid conflict. We have to deal with normal workplace issues, home life, AND gender stereotypes from peers of both genders or maybe its more accurate to say that we actually try to deal with those things rather than ignore them the way many men do. Basically we're expected to be totally well rounded while men are allowed to kick back and only do as much as they want to do.
Society needs to balance its expectations of both genders for the continued health of our nation. Women are becoming more educated and thus more affluent but we aren't necessarily reaping the benefits they provide. If a man works hard because he has children he is seen as a responsible person but a woman who works hard because she has children is seen as irresponsible because she had the children in the first place.
Important questions that need answering are: why are women asked to choose between parenthood and career when men are not? Why are women's childbearing capabilities balanced against her work experience and qualification before she's even hired? What men's real concerns and problems with their female coworkers?(this is so hard to get a firm grasp on because men don't often speak candidly about what's going on in their minds) Why aren't men demanding more fringe benefits(paternity leave, day care stipends, etc) from employers to ease the burden on their partner/spouse?
Society and the current "princess culture" has raised 2 generations of women that think being pampered and fawned over is the solution. I married my wife partially because she isn't afraid to work. Instead of being "Wow I am amazing and special just for having certain genitalia" we should focus more on how hard work sets you apart in this world.
Princess culture is a direct result of America's industrialization. Prior to industrialization, women were expected to work from sun up to sun down to maintain their household as a matter of course. When whole families moved to the city jobs were scarce and so women were put in the position of not being able to contribute materially to their family and thus began the housewife/breadwinner dichotomy. For the first time lower and middle class women were assigned serious value based on previously less important traits such as looks or social factors. Imagine going from a world where a woman who could cook, clean, milk the cows, bring in the eggs, help with planting and harvesting, and bear 4 to 6 healthy children was the norm to a world where a woman's only contributions were expected to be a well kept home and children. Sure, go work in the factories while the men are at war but once they get back you're suddenly less competent and you should get married so your husband can support you. Then outsourcing became a thing and men suddenly said "We know we said you could stay home all day but now we need to work to help support the family. We still think you're incompetent so don't expect equal pay or promotions. Could you also continue to take care of the household and children too? Cuz that would be great!". We're in a dual earner economy but mentally many people are still in the housewife/breadwinner era, even though those attitudes are outdated and no longer apply.
Women are working hard and often against our natural instinct to avoid conflict. We have to deal with normal workplace issues, home life, AND gender stereotypes from peers of both genders or maybe its more accurate to say that we actually try to deal with those things rather than ignore them the way many men do. Basically we're expected to be totally well rounded while men are allowed to kick back and only do as much as they want to do.
Society needs to balance its expectations of both genders for the continued health of our nation. Women are becoming more educated and thus more affluent but we aren't necessarily reaping the benefits they provide. If a man works hard because he has children he is seen as a responsible person but a woman who works hard because she has children is seen as irresponsible because she had the children in the first place.
Important questions that need answering are: why are women asked to choose between parenthood and career when men are not? Why are women's childbearing capabilities balanced against her work experience and qualification before she's even hired? What men's real concerns and problems with their female coworkers?(this is so hard to get a firm grasp on because men don't often speak candidly about what's going on in their minds) Why aren't men demanding more fringe benefits(paternity leave, day care stipends, etc) from employers to ease the burden on their partner/spouse?
Look at South American racial and gender relationships with regard to the Spanish. That's also a partial key difference between what it means to be black in America and say a black in South America. Equally, a part of these sensibilities come out of the Victorian Era and the concept of chivalry from the medieval era that permitted to be raised. We must also contend that at times throughout history there have been different sections associated with different kinds of female culture. An urban woman would have different life than a woman on the frontier, equally class had a part to do with how they were raised during the age of gentility in how women were educated and trained prior to industrialization from the Founding towards the Industrial Revolution through to Second Reconstruction/Civil Rights Era.
To discount that beauty wasn't looked at as a trait even on the frontier, isn't true. Beauty was quite valued, and sexual stimulus was seen ostentatiously. Whenever Mary Todd wore a low cut dress, Abe was staring at her breasts. It's always there, and if you consider the women that many people married the results is that people are more aligned with a "level of looks" or so from what we've seen with social sciences, anyway. Equally, we must entertain that aspect of cousins marrying cousins and so on.
But with the rich and elite, the princess culture was quite apparent and with the rise of gentility and educating women as a part of that trend were diametrically related to the middle class wanting to emulate the rich.. just like in our own current era. The rise of spoons, forks, gentility, and the like even prior to industrialization were well under way and were already being cultivated in some urban settings such as New York, New Orleans, and slower to set in some midwestern cities when we consider culture. I agree, though, that the rise of industrialization allowed for the proliferation of princess culture and yet it was well before that we see the rise in these spoiled brats. Even then if you read Tocqueville there's an observation about young persons in the Americas that paints the path from childhood to adulthood as a straight line and that working age children were opinionated and snarky yet seen as future democratic leaders. So we also have to portend that it is American culture to overindulge children, even for the working class.
To be "candid" more men are speaking up and asking for more benefits and the like, however the economy has made it an employer's market so these saturation points have come to become less "necessary" and "struggling to just pay the rent" leaves more profit for larger companies. This has occurred in every major economic financial recession we've had, and why these things are so enervating when it comes to increasing liberty against profit maximization.
Also, as I've pointed out stay at home fathers, such as one of our moderators here, are seen with disdain by society and women pregnant are seen as a company liability. The good old boys club still reigns, while women who "Lean In" are a part of the new order of women who find success and leave their children to a nanny or play super mom and get little sleep and thus heart disease later in life. The simplest form I come down to is our egalitarian, money seeking ways are inherently anti-family as an American culture. Whereas the Northern Europeans value family more and therefore prioritize it much higher.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
women who "Lean In" are a part of the new order of women who find success and leave their children to a nanny or play super mom and get little sleep and thus heart disease later in life
Now there's the Princess Culture mentality. Men have been giving up family life and killing themselves to provide for their families since time immemorial but we don't call every coal miner and executive "super dad". It turns out that working and maintaining a family life is hard. We can just acknowledge that as the truth it is.
Bitsy-I cannot stress enough that the idea that men can have it all is total BS. Men who work to support a traditional family are making sacrifices just like their partner.
Important questions that need answering are: Why are women asked to choose between parenthood and career when men are not?
Men have always been expected to be the breadwinner, so the feminist (somehow turn having all the options into victomhood) reframing you've done here misses the point women can have 2 modes here men can only have 1 mode here (the vast majority of the time). Studies have shown that while 95+% of men will support a stay at home partner or a partner that wants to work less and serve as the primary caregiver only 26% of women would agree to the same. That said in the aftermath few women are happy with the arrangement (working while their partner is the primary caregiver) while men are largely happy to go either way.
Why are women's childbearing capabilities balanced against her work experience and qualification before she's even hired?
I suspect this much like "stereotype threat" is just an attempt to shoehorn different outcomes into a oppressor/victim narrative.
What men's real concerns and problems with their female coworkers?(this is so hard to get a firm grasp on because men don't often speak candidly about what's going on in their minds)
I cant imagine why, we only tell them to shutup and that they have had to much time in the spotlight (privilege) the instant they try to open up.
Why aren't men demanding more fringe benefits(paternity leave, day care stipends, etc) from employers to ease the burden on their partner/spouse?
You mean like some sort of movement to empower the everyday man, like some sort of Mens Rights Movement?
Prior to industrialization, women were expected to work from sun up to sun down
YESSSS and it wasnt until the point that changed that traditional gender roles could even be questioned. Men created the technology that freed women from that crushing load that necessity had created. Now it's time for feminists to give up the petty tribalism and peevish rancor and let men escape their oppressive role.
It took two groups to make that system work, women in the private sphere and men in the public sphere. Forced child support etc was the male half written into law. We need to complete the transformation but only going half way is terrible for all.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Honestly I wouldn't be that upset if things were sharply turned around in family court as you suggested. I really wouldn't be down for it to simply be 90-10 (like it is now) in the other direction, but I can agree the current situation isn't any good either. I wouldn't mind if the default was something like 60-40 or 70-30 in men's favor for a while, if only to see how it would work out. After all we've done it the other way for a long enough time to know that giving children to the mother isn't always the best option.
I don't get this mode of thinking. There's no "making up for" this problem or something like that, just pointlessly punishing innocent people who have nothing to do with it. If the woman is better positioned to raise the child or is the one who wants to do so there shouldn't be some kind of coin toss involved that could take that away. The distribution isn't the problem its the thought process involved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
This obviously has some flaws...
Macro solutions are often unsuccessful in regards to gender equality because they ignore the real world wishes of men and women.
Women and men have been taught that female privilege in the private sphere is a god given right and in the case of most feminists something earned.
It is obviously interventionalist in nature (if not totalitarian) but that seems like it is par for the course in these matters.
If this appears more then once my apologies the system is glitchy.
It has some issues...
-We would have to have a campaign concerning "deadbeat moms" so as to silence the dissenters and derail any mothers rights groups.
-Like all of the past macro-level solutions it would ignore the personal choices of men and women.
-It's totalitarian, but that seems to be par for the course with "gender equality".
One nitpick though:
This point wouldn't be as much of a thing. Biology makes it much, MUCH harder for someone to be a "deadbeat mom" as opposed to a "deadbeat dad". A woman has to carry a baby to term, give birth to it, then find the father, dump the baby off, and then skip town, somehow. A father can just cut and run as soon as he finds out his girlfriend is pregnant. It turns out being physically attached to the baby matters a lot on this front.
Definitions aside wolves don't have these kinds of ranks you're imagining them to have, wolves just form dynasties. The only defining trait of the "alpha" wolf is being the eldest male of the family. Young males leave and form new families when they feel up to it. Apparent dominance struggles in captivity are territory disputes that don't normally happen (it actually makes wolf preserves difficult to maintain) not attempts to become the "alpha" wolf.
You might notice that these two sentences kill your whole theory (much as they killed Group Selection) but maybe you'd like an explanation.
If there are heritable to learnable "alpha" traits that correlate with success/attractiveness they will crowd out other traits in the long term. With attractiveness is just causes a bit of (inevitably hilarious) Fisherian runaway selection among women. With survival traits it would result in an effective loss of the trait of interest.
For example if 1% of lemmings don't kill themselves (not true but amusing) lemmings will quickly stop killing themselves as the non-suicidal group out breeds the others.
In humans, if you'd prefer, you might notice that that general population does not contain people with the intelligence of monkeys. Intelligence was a beneficial trait that was heavily selected for. We did not separate out into layers, even though its impossible for everyone to be smarter than everyone else, all humans (even the severely disabled) posses significant intelligence and useful skills.
Alphaness, like fitness, is a post-hoc thing not an trait.
I've heard the mantra about not arguing on the internet, but I'd still appreciate if people bothered to actually read through four pages of a thread before jumping in and drawing random conclusions based on one comment. Nowhere in this thread did I claim that this behaviour is present in wolves. The whole thing was brought in as an anecdote, regarding the etymological origin of the word alpha, by A guy who might post. It'd be delightful if you'd stop trying to form strawman arguments, either intentionally or due to laziness.
Show me where I disagree with this? My argument is that attaining alpha status is desirable, and that it contributes to fitness. Since wealth is seen as a signifier of status in society, and more prominently so in men than women, men are under more pressure to succeed financially. This, in turn, contributes towards the wage cap, without being some patriarchy/oppression thing. (And therefore, the wage cap is about more than discrimination against females, though for the sake of future strawman argument potential, I should note that I do recognize that discrimination is another factor and that it exists.)
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I know all about the princess culture, but there's another side to the female equation and a dark side to the male equation. The first with the feminist myth about women "being able to do it all," you have some people that simply take too much on themselves and get stressed out and the like early on. And then during mid career when the baby comes, they curb back their aspirations and stay at a comfortable level. That is something more women then men do, but more men are doing something. In the business community, for some conservatives, see this is a cardinal sin about advancing. I see that as an opportunity, for youngsters who do want to progress in a company farther and those who are older without children or grown children to be able to move up at a later career as well. However, we also see childrearing as not "business friendly" and that needs to change in how we evaluate stay at home Mom's that chose to stay at home but got divorced and because they were "out of the work force" for so long their actual real wage declined down to trivial levels. The same goes for some men who make the same decision.
Similar to how we use to treat the military like garbage, having that kind of reverence for a house wife/husband is something we need to evaluate. Those people made a sacrifice for their children, that make our nation strong. And we should respect that decision. Maybe not so much a pay raise, but realize that humans need to be raised and a man or woman cannot do everything or else burn out, like my wife did at a time. She was extremely over stressed when the children were younger, until we had a discussion about curbing back work to make the family needs come first while managing the finances. She curbed back her work, because it made more economic sense and has since as the children have become more independent and the like has increased work on her career and individual interests. For my brother and his wife, they took the opposite approach. He totally quit work, while she worked her way up the company ladder and moved several times. She now makes large bank, their children are through college with one starting their own business and skipping college, and he's going back to work in the non profit sector (kept up with volunteering and tabs to be able to do so).
People who can maintain a life outside of the home are necessary, but trying to hold down a full time job and a full time family even with a cooperative spouse is a burden that not every marriage can or should sustain. The income gap is a result of our inability to look at on/off ramps for society, as well as the current jobs market is a failure of our system to deal with job retraining and broadly applying traits to specific jobs. Essentially, in order to get through the robo-HR systems we have now you have to actually have specific things or lie on your resume to even get a human to see it. Which is just a system limitation to make people's lives easier.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Princess culture is a direct result of America's industrialization. Prior to industrialization, women were expected to work from sun up to sun down to maintain their household as a matter of course. When whole families moved to the city jobs were scarce and so women were put in the position of not being able to contribute materially to their family and thus began the housewife/breadwinner dichotomy. For the first time lower and middle class women were assigned serious value based on previously less important traits such as looks or social factors. Imagine going from a world where a woman who could cook, clean, milk the cows, bring in the eggs, help with planting and harvesting, and bear 4 to 6 healthy children was the norm to a world where a woman's only contributions were expected to be a well kept home and children. Sure, go work in the factories while the men are at war but once they get back you're suddenly less competent and you should get married so your husband can support you. Then outsourcing became a thing and men suddenly said "We know we said you could stay home all day but now we need to work to help support the family. We still think you're incompetent so don't expect equal pay or promotions. Could you also continue to take care of the household and children too? Cuz that would be great!". We're in a dual earner economy but mentally many people are still in the housewife/breadwinner era, even though those attitudes are outdated and no longer apply.
Women are working hard and often against our natural instinct to avoid conflict. We have to deal with normal workplace issues, home life, AND gender stereotypes from peers of both genders or maybe its more accurate to say that we actually try to deal with those things rather than ignore them the way many men do. Basically we're expected to be totally well rounded while men are allowed to kick back and only do as much as they want to do.
Society needs to balance its expectations of both genders for the continued health of our nation. Women are becoming more educated and thus more affluent but we aren't necessarily reaping the benefits they provide. If a man works hard because he has children he is seen as a responsible person but a woman who works hard because she has children is seen as irresponsible because she had the children in the first place.
Important questions that need answering are: why are women asked to choose between parenthood and career when men are not? Why are women's childbearing capabilities balanced against her work experience and qualification before she's even hired? What men's real concerns and problems with their female coworkers?(this is so hard to get a firm grasp on because men don't often speak candidly about what's going on in their minds) Why aren't men demanding more fringe benefits(paternity leave, day care stipends, etc) from employers to ease the burden on their partner/spouse?
Look at South American racial and gender relationships with regard to the Spanish. That's also a partial key difference between what it means to be black in America and say a black in South America. Equally, a part of these sensibilities come out of the Victorian Era and the concept of chivalry from the medieval era that permitted to be raised. We must also contend that at times throughout history there have been different sections associated with different kinds of female culture. An urban woman would have different life than a woman on the frontier, equally class had a part to do with how they were raised during the age of gentility in how women were educated and trained prior to industrialization from the Founding towards the Industrial Revolution through to Second Reconstruction/Civil Rights Era.
To discount that beauty wasn't looked at as a trait even on the frontier, isn't true. Beauty was quite valued, and sexual stimulus was seen ostentatiously. Whenever Mary Todd wore a low cut dress, Abe was staring at her breasts. It's always there, and if you consider the women that many people married the results is that people are more aligned with a "level of looks" or so from what we've seen with social sciences, anyway. Equally, we must entertain that aspect of cousins marrying cousins and so on.
But with the rich and elite, the princess culture was quite apparent and with the rise of gentility and educating women as a part of that trend were diametrically related to the middle class wanting to emulate the rich.. just like in our own current era. The rise of spoons, forks, gentility, and the like even prior to industrialization were well under way and were already being cultivated in some urban settings such as New York, New Orleans, and slower to set in some midwestern cities when we consider culture. I agree, though, that the rise of industrialization allowed for the proliferation of princess culture and yet it was well before that we see the rise in these spoiled brats. Even then if you read Tocqueville there's an observation about young persons in the Americas that paints the path from childhood to adulthood as a straight line and that working age children were opinionated and snarky yet seen as future democratic leaders. So we also have to portend that it is American culture to overindulge children, even for the working class.
To be "candid" more men are speaking up and asking for more benefits and the like, however the economy has made it an employer's market so these saturation points have come to become less "necessary" and "struggling to just pay the rent" leaves more profit for larger companies. This has occurred in every major economic financial recession we've had, and why these things are so enervating when it comes to increasing liberty against profit maximization.
Also, as I've pointed out stay at home fathers, such as one of our moderators here, are seen with disdain by society and women pregnant are seen as a company liability. The good old boys club still reigns, while women who "Lean In" are a part of the new order of women who find success and leave their children to a nanny or play super mom and get little sleep and thus heart disease later in life. The simplest form I come down to is our egalitarian, money seeking ways are inherently anti-family as an American culture. Whereas the Northern Europeans value family more and therefore prioritize it much higher.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Now there's the Princess Culture mentality. Men have been giving up family life and killing themselves to provide for their families since time immemorial but we don't call every coal miner and executive "super dad". It turns out that working and maintaining a family life is hard. We can just acknowledge that as the truth it is.
Men have always been expected to be the breadwinner, so the feminist (somehow turn having all the options into victomhood) reframing you've done here misses the point women can have 2 modes here men can only have 1 mode here (the vast majority of the time). Studies have shown that while 95+% of men will support a stay at home partner or a partner that wants to work less and serve as the primary caregiver only 26% of women would agree to the same. That said in the aftermath few women are happy with the arrangement (working while their partner is the primary caregiver) while men are largely happy to go either way.
I suspect this much like "stereotype threat" is just an attempt to shoehorn different outcomes into a oppressor/victim narrative.
I cant imagine why, we only tell them to shutup and that they have had to much time in the spotlight (privilege) the instant they try to open up.
You mean like some sort of movement to empower the everyday man, like some sort of Mens Rights Movement?
YESSSS and it wasnt until the point that changed that traditional gender roles could even be questioned. Men created the technology that freed women from that crushing load that necessity had created. Now it's time for feminists to give up the petty tribalism and peevish rancor and let men escape their oppressive role.
It took two groups to make that system work, women in the private sphere and men in the public sphere. Forced child support etc was the male half written into law. We need to complete the transformation but only going half way is terrible for all.
I don't get this mode of thinking. There's no "making up for" this problem or something like that, just pointlessly punishing innocent people who have nothing to do with it. If the woman is better positioned to raise the child or is the one who wants to do so there shouldn't be some kind of coin toss involved that could take that away. The distribution isn't the problem its the thought process involved.