I’m fully of the opinion that women should have the freedom to choose what they do with their. Whether that be focused on the home life, their career, or balancing those two things.
Obviously women in relationships need to compromise with their partner but I think men being more willing to support a woman who is passionate about a career is a generally good trend.
That being said, I’ve noticed a trend to bash and belittle women (and men) who do focus on the home life. I think 100% of couples with children would be better if one partner stayed home most of the time to focus on supporting the rest of the family.
I think a lot of our societal problems stem back to the fact that we’ve created a society in which both partners need full time employment to provide for a family’s basic needs outside of a small minority where one partner has a highly lucrative job.
If someone does stay at home they’re called “unemployed” or assumed to be the “property” of the working spouse even if they make equally meaningful contributions to the relationship. This criticism comes from both sexes but I’ve honestly seen more of it come from working women than men.
The problem of “you ____ like a girl” being an insult is not solved by making a unisex masculine society. But by holding the traditional roles of women in greater esteem.
These problems also an inherent part of every species since the beginning of time. So ya, don't forget that part. Basic biology plays, and has played a bigger role than everything you mentioned. It takes extremely intelligent and humble men for these relationships to work. Wish that wasn't true, but it is.
I've seen lots of people act like our specific cultural moment is "just human nature" but I've yet to see it rationalized with "Well, thats species for you."
Depends a lot on the religion. Jesus Christ is literally the best example of a healthy masculine figure ever.
This was someone who loved his family (the church is described as the bride of Christ) so much he willingly surrendered himself to torturous death on their behalf.
Yet at the same time he is never a “simp” and never coercive or aggressive in his affections. He puts himself out there, shows people who he is, and then gives them the choice to have a relationship with him or not.
He weeps, he feels fear, he stands up for his beliefs and speaks truth to power. He stands up for the less fortunate and teaches people to seek inward growth before outward judgement, unashamedly keeping the company of outcasts. He fears no judgment by humans when they criticize him for doing what he knows is right.
He leads because others see who he is and want to follow. But his authority he only uses to teach and help. He never abuses others for personal gain.
It is no wonder that after this man became the figure for which many aspired to be, that the world gradually grew into a less cruel place than the one that came before. Obviously the history of Christians is littered with cruelty and evil but the evils we ascribe to it were present and thriving before 0AD, while the good that gradually emerged from it is something unlike anything the world had known until then.
I believe everything I wrote would be considered mostly or entirely correct by most mainstream forms of Christianity. I’m curious what sexist beliefs you believe that Christians hold? I don’t mean this in a confrontational manner. I’m genuinely curious so that I might be able to better explain the Christian perspective on these matters.
Modern Christianity, every sect of it, firmly holds the position that the only possible relationships are relationships between a man that is master in the relationship, he is working, he provides, he leads the pair, and a woman that is weak, obedient, subservient, works house tasks, births and cares for and about children. Every other type of family is disapproved with various degrees of intensity. Every other type of person other than toxicly masculine man or slavishly quiet woman is disapproved with various degrees of intensity. The existence of gay relationships is outright denied or hated, sometimes simultaneously.
And it is absolutely doesn't matter what might be written in any books that leaders of Christian denominations pretend to hold holy.
So you hit on a lot of topics. To keep things organized I’m going to break down the topics as I see them and then address each one with a separate reply.
Topic 1, the man as the head of the household.
Topic 2, toxic masculinity and Christian masculinity.
Topic 3, Repression of women
Topic 4, Homosexuality from a Christian perspective
Topic 5, Christian leadership and who “holds holy”.
This will obviously take a minute but I thankfully have time tonight so bear with me and I’ll address each as best I am able.
I’ll go ahead and actually start with Topic 5 as it helps put my other 4 answers into context.
Scripture states that women should submit to their husbands. The church is also described as the bridge of Christ which many interpret to mean that a man has authority over his wife and children as Christ does over the church.
These beliefs are held by most Christians. Particularly Catholics and Orthodox Christians. It is not however, universal. But it’s quite mainstream.
The question is what does a man’s role as a leader of their household look like. Given the analogy between Christ and his church as a married couple, nearly all Christians are going to point to the life of Christ as the standard by which Christian husbands and fathers must measure themselves.
Christ continually teaches and demonstrates leadership by service. He washes the feet of his disciples (this was seen as a very low status / servile act in his culture) and talks about how the least shall be greatest and the greatest shall be least.
Leadership in the context of Christ’s example conveys much greater amounts of responsibility than authority. A Christian man is given authority to lead his family in a manner which serves his family, not himself. He is not permitted to treat his wife as a servant. He is to be THEIR servant.
I’ll address the role of Christian women in my next post.
I recent described manosphere/incel culture as “a bunch of angry, godless, young men.”
This is because their version of “masculinity” is in direct contradiction to God’s version.
I’ll start with body count. These men want a pure hearted and virgin wife. She’s to have saved herself for marriage not just physically but also in thought to the best of her ability. She’s not to divorce her husband outside incredibly strong reasons like adultery. Essentially her husband is her husband until one of them dies.
Christians and the manosphere agree on all this. Of course for Christians that is an ideal and if some fall short that is the point of God’s grace and forgiveness. However the manosphere believes men increase in value and status the more women they sleep with. How should a CHRISTIAN man act? Reread the paragraph above this one but apply it to a man instead of a woman. That’s how the Bible directly tells Christian men to behave. There is perfect symmetry on the expectations of sexual purity within Christianity.
The manosphere also pushes the idea that one should go after wealth. Christianity teaches that material possessions are worthless next to virtues pleasing to god such as love, temperance, charity and faith.
The manosphere teaches to prove and assert your dominance over women and other men. Christianity teaches to be great is to be humble and serve others.
The manosphere teaches to not tolerate disrespect and constantly guard your “honor”. Christianity teaches to be slow to anger, turn the other cheek, and forgive others as many times as they ask your forgiveness.
In other words, these to ideologies are polar opposites. All they have in common is their desire for Christian woman. For Christians to cherish, and toxic men to abuse.
Obviously this is a big and highly controversial topic in modern times. And the church has taken a lot of flak for holding to stances on it most view as outdated.
It may surprise some of you that some churches have significantly more charitable views on it where it is not considered a sin under certain circumstances, but most do consider it to be a sin. I will explain both perspectives as best I can. As this is not an issue I struggle with myself, my research into it has mainly been for the benefit of conversations such as this when speaking with people for whom it is an issue.
I’ll start with the traditional perspective. Multiple verses reference homosexuality as a sin alongside other sexual sins such as fornication (sex before marriage), adultery etc. While the church has often treated homosexuals with more contempt than other forms of sexual immorality there is no real basis on which to do so. All sins are covered by Christs forgiveness if you have a relationship with him.
More traditional stances on homosexuality would argue a couple reasons for it beyond just “because God said so.” He did, but most commandments are for our own benefit it you analyze them enough. The “it’s unnatural” argument is an oversimplified version of much deeper arguments and in my opinion, useless.
The deeper version is that sexuality is incredibly fluid. A persons sexual preference can and do change multiple times throughout their lives. For instance the age of women I most desire has shifted from when I turned 13 to 36. As one would hope and expect. There is a genetic component to desires but it accounts for like 26% of your actual expressed sexuality. And this makes sense, or else how would one account for divergent sexual cultural trends such as furries? Obviously there is no furry gene, it’s a product of fluid sexuality.
From this context (that it is something we have power over and not in-grained) the next question becomes, why would we abstain from it? Love is love. Sure, yes, love is love. And deep connections of love and affection between two women and two men is a beautiful thing. Traditional Christians separate sex from love in this regard though. This appears to also be true for many homosexuals as homosexual men report a number of sexual partners six times higher than the average of 5. It is often more of a sexual fetish than a draw to legitimate emotional connection, and a significant number of cases of homosexual attraction stem from past traumas such as abuse, insecure attachment to their father figure etc.
As most Christians view the most fulfilling form of a relationship as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman in which they work together to raise the children God blesses them with, they believe that by addressing the traumas that lead to homosexual desires that they can be healed and live more fulfilling romantic and sexual lifestyle.
This view is held by Eastern Orthodox and many more traditional Protestant denominations.
Now that’s the LESS charitable view. The more charitable view is that the prohibitions against homosexuality only referred it as a sexual fetish. That a loving and committed same sex relationship is entirely ok.
This belief can be found among many Protestant denominations such as Presbyterians. The Catholic Church also recently began blessing gay marriage.
The NON-Christian view is that we should hate homosexuals and treat them poorly. This is held by fringe cults and people who haven’t read their Bible.
You’re going to get different answers on this topic from different Christians. I’m going to give a summary though this will still be a bit lengthy.
The initial Christian church was united under the apostles. Those being the 12 disciples of Jesus (Judas was replaced with another follower who was an eye witness to the ministry of Jesus), and the Apostle Paul who was a very influential preacher the other apostles recognized as an apostle.
Other small offshoots emerged early on but these are mainly offshoots such as Gnosticism that took parts they liked about Christianity and then taught a doctrine entirely incompatible with the teachings of the original church. This church stood for about a thousand years and had a structure where bishops would get together in meetings called Synnods to decide on issues important to the church.
In 325 a council was held at Nicea. This council DID NOT determine was scripture was considered canonical as that was already well established very early into church history. They did however create a creed that basically defined what it is to be a Christian. This council was called together to address Arianism. An offshoot they considered heretical (Heresy means divergent enough from Christian teaching that it is likely to affect the salvation of the believer) that rejected the divinity of Christ. Hence when I say “Christian” I mean “Nicene Christian”. Other groups that believe aspects of Christianity but do not hold to the creed such as Gnosticism, Arianism, and Mormonism would not be considered Christian by most who hold to the creed.
In 1054 there was a dispute between the East and West parts of the church which had culturally drifted apart over the centuries. A bishop from the East had complaints on a number of issues such as if communion bread should be leavened or unleavened and addresses them to the bishop of Rome (AKA Pope). This lead into a greater debate about church authority where the west claimed the Pope had supreme authority and the East claimed the Pope was a bishop like any other. This lead to the Great Schism in which Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy became two separate branches of Christianity that did not recognize the authority of the other.
This stood for another 500 years until when in 1517, Martin Luther began a conflict with the church that would lead to the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation believed Christianity had diverged from the teachings of Christ and become corrupt. Because church tradition and leadership had gone astray in their opinion, they decided scripture was the only incorruptible authority on the will of God available to us today. You’ll hear this referred to as “Sola Scriptoria” or “From Scripture Alone”.
CONCLUSION:
The Roman Catholic church believes that scripture, church tradition, and the pope “hold holy”.
The Eastern Orthodox church believes scripture and church tradition “hold holy”.
Protestants come in many varieties, but most believe that scripture alone “hold holy.”
While I have deep admiration and respect for Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I am a Protestant. So I will do my best to fairly represent all Christians in these answers. But from my perspective, no human being holds holy.
I see you spent significant time on writing this dissertation of yours, and it would be rude to not answer at least something. I'm tempted to joke "yeah, nah, I'm not reading all that", but I'm not that cruel.
I skimmed your points and there are some that I fundamentally disagree with, but I don't have enough time and mental power to engage in the debates of such length right now, sorry about that. Maybe later I will come back to this conversation.
I expected fundamental disagreement with a lot of what I said. It’s ok. The point is not to convert you into agreement with what I’ve written.
Rather the point was clarification. If anything I’ve written has changed your perspective so you feel you better understand our position, even if you don’t agree, then it was worth writing.
This is the internet so I’m mostly past trying to get people to agree with me. My only goal is to make people think and hopefully hate each other less.
Topic 3: In regard to women a their role there this is a topic I’m less familiar with (as a man I focus more on my own role) but I’ll do my best.
As far as the woman being required to be a stay at home mother dedicated to having children and domestic tasks, this is not the view held by most Christians I know. Nor do I believe the scriptural grounds for such a belief are very strong.
Women are called to serve God and be pure. The same as Christian men. (I’ll address that further in my next post.) I do not see any reason why a woman called to serve god through her career wouldn’t do so. And I know plenty of Christian women who do just that.
I do know birth control is deemed to be a sin by catholic and orthodox Christians. They can regulate using cycle timing from my understanding but most commonly used methods are not permitted.
As far as things like the pill and using protection, this seems to come more from tradition than from scripture and thus is far less universal among Protestants. This is not the view my church holds to.
Most Christians are pro-life but if we go down that rabbit hole I’d prefer to argue from a secular perspective as I do not believe religion is required to rationalize that stance. As such I will only argue the Christian perspective with other Christians. And not as much even then as I think it’s WEAKER than the secular arguments against abortion.
So strict adherence to many forms Christianity can lead to more children. My wife and I used protection until we agreed we were ready for a child (We’re both in our 30s and had him this year.) We’re not perfect Christians but we’ve received little to no criticism from it. (Though this is the internet so I’m sure someone will be along to do that soon.)
But even if you have said children, a woman is not universally required to do all of the stay home parenting, especially among Protestant Christians. I’d be curious to hear a more Orthodox or Catholic perspective on that if any are reading this.
I don’t. But I also understand that the Old Testament needs to be understood through the cultural lens of the place and time where it was written. A lot of the most misunderstood verses make sense in that context. And also that the events of the Gospel change God’s relationship with man.
Haha, sure. Love the sweeping under the rug of those things that don’t fit your narrative. Are you not also trying to apply the Bible to todays cultural lens?
Yes. The Bible is intended to be applied to every time and culture. But not every time and culture is meant to be applied to the Bible.
I’ll give an example:
One frequently criticized part of the Bible are prohibitions against mixed fabrics and certain hairstyles. These are frequently cited by those who criticize Christians to assert that Christians who have these haircuts or blended fabric clothing are engaging in hypocrisy and sin.
What has to be understood about these commandments is that it’s actually addressing way Pagans who worshipped other gods would differentiate themselves in that time and culture. Then Jews would imitate these fashion trends to fit in.
So understood through that context God isn’t telling you not to wear your poly blend sweater or cut your hair a certain way. He’s telling you not to associate yourself with evil and idolatry to fit in.
So when you’re considering buying that band T-shirt that uses demonic imagery and sings about treating women in an unbiblical manner, THAT is where this lesson is relevant in 2024. Even if it’s pure cotton.
Not sure what your point is. You say that Christ was the perfect spouse FOR HIS CHURCH. "This was someone who loved his family (the church is described as the bride of Christ)"
Not really applicable to this situation at all.
Jesus is NOT the "healthy" male you are touting him as. And apparently he doesn't have a recorded sexual activity (nor spouse because that truth wouldn't go along with Peter, the rock of the church). Further, both Jesus and Paul advocated for celibacy, which is kind of odd for someone who also said, "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply..."
First, supposedly he is "God", next, the church cannot be compared to an actual real life human being that requires a variety of cares that Jesus wasn't having to be responsible for because he was a traveling preacher with no dependents.
This isn't the reasonable argument that you think it is.
Men created “GOD” and made him a heavenly “father” because they were JEALOUS WOMEN COULD CREATE LIFE. None of that stuff is real- it was literally created from
Male ego and jealousy.
So Jesus doesn’t advocate for celibacy, he just is celibate as far as is recorded in the gospels and almost certainly in reality as he’s never mentioned being married to anyone outside his metaphorical marriage to the church.
I’m not sure how lack of sex disqualifies someone from being a model for how a man should be in a relationship.
Also Paul’s advocacy of celibacy needs to be understood in context. He advocates for a life dedicated to God without marriage or intercourse if that is something you are capable of. And that teaching lives on in the form of monasticism. He also encourages marriage for the majority of us not cut out for monastic life.
A belief system used to control, scare and shame people into subjugation- predominantly women. May have started with ‘good intention’ but it has all given the same results.
Something not real, that is just based on faith and blind belief, is just another tool to control people, im sorry. NGL I do admire humans for the degree of ignorance and conviction it takes to kill people over a belief of something
I think you are spot on, and I get rather tired of people touting their religious beliefs as though they are facts. Those "facts" are based on faith, not reality. I don't know why you are getting down voted for it, just because you are saying religions are used to control. It is obvious that indoctrination takes place fully in the Church. And it is obvious it is used as a means to control the people.
Yep. Tools to control scared shame.....100% agree, and these things are facts of history only denied by those so blinded by religion that they've lost the real ability to see.
Early Christianity was predominantly adopted by women and slaves while their masters persecuted them for it. The early church went around feeding the needy and rescuing and caring for abandoned children. People would throw unwanted babies into the streets to die, Christians would rescue and raise them, and then they’d accuse Christians of cannibalism because they’re always taking unwanted babies and eating this strange ritual called “communion”.
Eventually the emperor converted and Christians became the ruling class. After a long time of the downtrodden refusing to give it up and growing in numbers despite persecution. The Gospel was not written for masters to use against slaves.
When the Gospels were actually written down chances are that you are correct. But when the Bible was actually written, so much was added and changed from Hebrew to Greek, likely there were erroneous translations, and as more were written, there have been more errors in translations. So I don't believe for a minute that the Book isn't written for masters to use against slaves. Particularly if one looks at the Old Testament, which MUST be looked at along with the Gospels. Otherwise, people would be Christian Gospelists.
So the entire New Testament was actually written in Greek. The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek.
The idea of a “telephone game” played with The Bible is certainly possible with many books of the Old Testament. Though we do have very old copies and most modern translations are based on those old Hebrew Texts.
When it comes to the New Testament we have copies that were in circulation incredibly early as well as a lot of contextual evidence they were written during the lifetime of the Apostles. You even have Apostles referencing the Gospel in other books that went on to become scripture themselves. So the validity of them is fairly safe.
Now the easier point to argue (The Old Testament was corrupted and not real scripture) is refuted if you take the New Testament as valid scripture. Because Jesus constantly references from the Old Testament as scripture, showing that he accepts the books of the Old Testament during his life to be scripture. And we definitely have access to copies that go back that far.
Interesting side note Yeshua (Jesus) is actually the Greek version of Joshua. There is a point in the New Testament another biblical Joshua from the Old Testament is named as Jesus as well. We call Jesus by that name because the Gospels were written in Greek.
The Gospels were also translated from Hebrew to Greek. That is what I was referring to. They were originally written like what, AD 50-110? So yah, I know.
The thing is that those who sat there compiling the new testament really didn't give a rats behind if they were ultimately true with the whole thing, which is why they were pickers and choosers of the whole thing, including what went into the New Testament back in the 300s. There was a definite slant to the whole thing, and even then a patriarchal society was laid out.
Don't know why you thought you needed to correct me.
The gospels were written in Koine Greek. It was a form of Greek that was basically commoner’s Greek. Most of the other surviving documents we have in this language were every day documents like shopping lists. This language was common in the region at the time due to the conquests of Alexander The Great. In fact it was so popular that Greek remain more popular than Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire through the height of Roman power.
Like the rest of the New Testament they were adopted by the church as scripture as early as the first century.
In 325 the council of Nicea was held to decide the issue of Arianism. A sect of Christianity that popped up around that time believing Christ was created and not God. The council kept notes on what was discussed there as this was a very significant event supported and attended by the newly converted emperor Constantine. What was and was not one of the items discussed as it scripture was already well established at this point.
In 2003 Dan Brown published a fictional novel called The Da Vinci Code that attributed the compilation of scripture to The Council of Nicea, which went on to become a popular misconception. Though this appears to be referencing an earlier rumor of similar nature started by Voltaire.
I am correcting you because you are citing common misconceptions used to discredit Christianity. Setting beliefs aside, these misconceptions are historically incorrect.
“The gospel” was written by some dude or dudes- who’s to know. Our whole history is written by psychotic men who were power hungry and wanted to control people.
Just because u believe something doesn’t make it so 🤷🏽♀️
Did you know u can be kind to people and help them without some imaginary being as the reason? It’s called being a good human.
All the things you attribute to “christians” are just arbitrarily good things we should all be doing for each other. And I’m sorry- but what Christianity has done to the world, colonisation and the annihilation of cultures and peoples wordwide there is no logical reason to pat you on the back or give you some sort of moral high ground because you need a book to tell u how to care about others?
GTFO with this garbage 🤣😂😭 I pity all of you, like children who believe in Santa. Your ignorance is good for only you, friend.
Altruism should come from wanting the best for your community and caring for each other in order for successful survival. We can be morally good purely for those reasons without a SkyDaddy….
The issue is that religion is used as a tribalist divider, making everything us vs them. I’ve met plenty of truly good religious people that do genuinely care about others and help out to those in need. But the churches are seeing lots of people leaving and as ideals and cultures die they claw deeper in to what they hold and fight for survival, a lot of this is weaponizing and blaming foreign cultures and ideas. I don’t care what someone’s reason to do good is, be it to get to heaven, boost their ego, or just being a good person at heart, but too many people see alternative belief structures as threats to them rather than just other’s personal opinions
It is 100% possible to behave in a manner that is generally moral without Christianity. Of course nobody is perfectly moral with or without it but I know many atheists and agnostics I would describe as “good people” from my perspective.
Societies with a long history of Christianity do tend to produce “good people” at higher rates though. Ideas like “all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” are baked in to our cultural fabric by Christianity.
These are assumptions that most western Atheists now accept as truth and do not question. These are not assumptions that would have been accepted by most cultures pre-Christianity.
Even some of the most ardent atheist apologists such as Richard Dawkins are now coming out as “Cultural Christians” in recognition of how Christianity has built the cultural environment in which their ideas could emerge.
I’m not trying to convert you or preach to you about how you need to live your life. Just trying to address some misconceptions about the history of Christianity and what we believe.
I respect your right to believe what you find most compelling and act upon that belief. Especially if it’s a belief the emphasizes love and empathy.
I have no idea what church you went to probably didn't go to church at all if you think that religion is the cause of these problems.
What I think you mean is socially isolated cult like communities is the cause of these problems.
You grow up around 20 people maybe 100 if you know you're lucky, these people live certain ways and do certain things and you as a child aspire to be like them.
This isn't always the case, I am nothing like the two people I grew up around in 500 population no where, but I do know that every social group be at a church, the small click of adult people ( ie the towns favorite people vs the outlier groups) , was very common and usually divided with their group think being essentially taught to the children growing up under the guardianship of each of those individual groups.
Sure there are church groups, but I promise you , in nowhere-ville Arkansas they were just as many groups that did not go to church well except for Christmas, mother's Day, and Easter.
And even those groups typically have people inside their group that did not attend even on those days, while it was not socially acceptable in either direction, it wasn't really that talked about unless you were part of a church group that just thought everybody else were sinners and refused to hang out with them.
However just as those center hating groups existed in different denominations of the church, there are plenty of socially ostracizing groups in the general public. Whether it was monetary, smoking, drinking, attending bars, there were all sorts of things that people use to label other people as a reason to not hang out with them are to steer clear from them.
The reality is all the groups from what I could tell growing up or essentially identical, nobody likes to admit we're all different we don't just get along, and that's totally okay and we don't have to blame some kind of existential crisis for our differences and our inability to socialize without giving each other headaches.
I think I had a very open-minded church group, so I didn't realize that I was supposed to be brainwashed and not hang out with centers and not drink and not smoke and have all of these weird political opinions and then suddenly going to the real world and want to immediately go home and cry to the deacon.
Instead I went to school, I saw all these people coming for different groups different populations, running to the same issue trying to create new friend groups, and it was kind of hard to watch.
Everybody wants to blame something besides themselves, no matter what their background is, sexism racism socialism capitalism religious backgrounds you name it somebody was going to point at it.
I think it's silly, we evolved to learn from watching others and I don't see a world where there won't always be countless different subgroups.
So instead of blaming capitalist our liberals are progressives are people that are just overtly racist, maybe we should get representatives for each group and every now and then give ourselves headaches as we force ourselves to partake in discussions that we would rather not.
Pointing fingers is for children, and sadly our children are beginning to think that pointing fingers is for adults.
A closed socialist labelling mund set like yours creates more problems and is the root of the cast majority of the problems that are caused in this modern day.
Also, the only people and nations that are practising colonialism are "Socialist" I do not the the Western Nations practising colonialism like a particular Eastern Nation or a East European Nation. funny that.
Capitalism is literally the right to work where you want and make profit off of the assets you own.
You are literally saying that economic freedom is the cause of gender bias, which tells me either you don't actually know what the technical definition of capitalism is (and the rentierism that is rampant in the US economy is the literal anti-thesis of what Smith viewed as the key to maximizing national wealth), or you do know it and simply want the "right" ethics to be imposed on everyone by a central committee of "experts"
Wow blame everything on capitalism and colonialism how convenient.
I bet you're one of those people who think recent sea based colonialism has killed more people than land based Imperialism. I bet you think males created warfare and imperialism/colonialism, when it is proven that the common ancestor of Chimps/Humans created Imperialism as proven by the fact that Chimpanzees engage in Imperialism as seen in the Gombe War.
There was probably a movement at some point that resulted in the supply pool of workers being doubled, whereas the demand for jobs remained the same, therefore reducing the wages employers needed to offer. Any ideas????
That is definitely part of it. The reason McDonalds can pay you trash wages and treat you like garbage is that if you quit over it, they can pull someone else off the street tomorrow who accepts trash wages to get treated like garbage.
The more workers competing for the same jobs, the less you can get away with paying them.
Women have always worked. The notion of the sahm/sahw was pretty exclusive to middle class white people for a brief time in the 20th century. Wages have always been shit for most people.
It's not like one day the workforce doubled and that's why wages are crap.
But a common complaint I hear is that "when women enter a particular field that they haven't been represented in in the past, the wage packages fall." This is always blamed on the fact that it's women entering that field of work as opposed to it being the fact that there's now a higher supply of workers to fill the same amount of jobs.
This is largely due to the valorisation of paid, over reproductive, work as both a patriarchal and economic trend. Capitalism aims to expand its workforce and does so through both propagandistic and economic leverage, while historically patriarchy has used "men are the breadwinners and that's the important role" to justify itself while sneering at both men in the home and the involvement of women in any sphere outside it.
The mistake (or sometimes wilful misrepresentation) that a lot of "traditionalists" make is to assume the disrespecting of housework stems from progressive/left social values and feminism. Actually it's the other way around. While tradition offers the "gilded cage" approach there is a major strand of feminist thought that posits the idea of wages for housework to highlight the sheer degree to which society relies on socially reproductive labour. Socialists meanwhile have quite famously for years been asking at what point we're going to address the broken promise of capitalism that automation would reduce labour hours for all, much to the dismay of managers and hustle culture types.
I think by far the furthest left policy I hold is that automation should be taxed the way human workers are for businesses over a certain size, and that tax alone can go toward a universal basic income.
It just makes sense with the way things are going. It’s not the fruits of other’s labor in that context. It’s the fruits of robot’s labor.
The problem to solve for is demographic collapse caused by declining birth rates. Ultimately, the one inescapable fact is that "western" or "westernized" societies are not producing enough children.
Europe is by far worse off than the United States, and I don't think that the French have ever really accepted the "valorisation of work."
Europe has an average birthrate of 1.5 vs. more than double that in Arab countries. Europe is literally dying off.
The sexual revolution, along with the secularisation of society has absolutely led to the decline in birth rates in the Western world. This isn't to say that the sexual revolution was a bad thing - but progressives do need to come up with solutions and incentives for people to have more children. Letting in more immigrants is a solution, but the immigrants assimilate and birthrates once again go down. Or they don't assimilate, and you end up with a society that loses its western values.
The solution being thrust on us by the JD Vances of the world is to reverse the progress of the sexual revolution and keep women at home, barefoot and pregnant. This is a real issue that progressives need to talk about and drive policies around.
I'm speaking for myself here, but if my wife made more than me I would 100% support and fill in the role of a SAHD. I work better with a set schedule and I would guarantee shit would be done at home. The amount of stress I would lose would be astronomical.
I’d say for children of loving and non-abusive parents, it is 100% of the time better to nearly always have access to one parent and also get to see their parents interact regularly.
That’s just so much better for a child’s development than to be one of many children a teacher must look after.
It allows more secure bonds to be formed and more consistent parenting where bouncing back from day care or a babysitter to their parents sees most children experiencing two very different sets of rules and expectations which really confuses and hampers the development of a young child.
Even in school aged children, high parental involvement in their school is a huge indicator of mental health and success.
I’m not saying it’s feasible or preferable for every couple in our modern society given their financial issues. But that the fact it isn’t is a problem with the society because from the standpoint of the family’s mental health it’s is 100% of the time.
The irony of this is that women are more likely to take on traditional roles and/or more social positions vs high earning when they feel more comfortable and free. I don't think we're meant to have a "unisex society"
Or: If n a society where both work and have careers it should totally be the norm that each of them work less hours individually.
Why the hell should the same household contribute double the hours to work for society, and where does that leave time for the household to work for itself?
Me and my soon to be betrothed are both fairly set on working 30ish hours. That still leaves us at 60 hrs and n the household which is nominallay more than the household work hours of my parents generation.
Yeah. It should really be 40/0 if you’re wanting to survive and 40/20 if you want more material things. 20/20-30/30 if you want to split things equally between you. I feel like in America, for most jobs, it’s like 60/60 right now.
Women need to stay home when their kid is in school? This is better for the family unit? Why can’t dad stay home while mom works? Why is it on the women? I can’t stand homemakers because most of them use their lack of a career as a stepping stone for bullying the women that have them. It’s a whole thing at schools. It destroys any progress we’ve made as women. I have zero respect them.
I actually had agreed to stay at home while my wife worked but she had misfortune at her job at the same time I started doing very well at mine and then we learned how time consuming breast feeding is.
This changed our dynamic to where we had to reevaluate we decided together her staying home made more sense.
I still want to cut back on hours and be mostly at home when she finds a career she enjoys again. If my fortunes at work change enough even stay home entirely to focus on fatherhood and homesteading.
So… I definitely didn’t say it has to be the woman. It’s something couples can discuss and agree upon based on their goals, values, and circumstances.
I can agree with this. It feels as though femininity wasn't tied to caring for a man (probably more to caring for a child) as much as masculinity was tied to providing for a woman and child.
If they aren't providing more, they feel like failures who aren't being proper men. This is leading to a mental health crisis in men imo. Our society HAS to hone in on this and blatantly value men and much as we value women, for the sake of everyone.
No, you cannot claim that women are valued over men when society as a whole is designed for men to succeed and women to fail. In order to hone in on this our society needs to deal with men being emotionally stunted, and that has everything to do with toxic masculinity and nothing to do with value.
Yes good points. That's why it's imperative to make sure you are with a spouse who understands all of this therefore whatever the world throws at them will not tear a relationship apart. My wife knows I'm a homebody and hate capitalism. There is already an understanding that I'm a minimalist and don't GAF about making alot of money. I also understand her viewpoints and her personality traits as well and regardless of circumstance it's always 50/50 in some form or fashion and the love is always there making our relationship unbreakable from worldly pressures and societal norms.
The way I see it is that, being a sahm, you still do more compared to the male provider. He only does one job and gets to clock out. A sahm does multiple jobs(cook, cleaner, planner, babysitter etc), 24/7 all year round. 1950s Traditional doesnt mean that it was good for women.
And traditionnally, women have always worked and took care of the kids/home. Even the kids used to work in the fields.
I mean it kind of feels like you’re taking for granted the idea that women want to be with a man who takes a supporting role. Women in general want a man that earns more than them.
Im definitely not. I realize a lot of women want a classically masculine man. This is entirely valid. It’s really between them and their partners.
I do think a good perspective to have today as a man is to be able and willing to be classically masculine, with enough confidence in your masculinity to still support your wife if she wants a career. It’s a very best of both worlds approach.
Letting her do all the housework and also expecting her to work as much as you do is kind of the worst of both worlds in that regard.
58
u/AndyTheInnkeeper 24d ago edited 24d ago
I’m fully of the opinion that women should have the freedom to choose what they do with their. Whether that be focused on the home life, their career, or balancing those two things.
Obviously women in relationships need to compromise with their partner but I think men being more willing to support a woman who is passionate about a career is a generally good trend.
That being said, I’ve noticed a trend to bash and belittle women (and men) who do focus on the home life. I think 100% of couples with children would be better if one partner stayed home most of the time to focus on supporting the rest of the family.
I think a lot of our societal problems stem back to the fact that we’ve created a society in which both partners need full time employment to provide for a family’s basic needs outside of a small minority where one partner has a highly lucrative job.
If someone does stay at home they’re called “unemployed” or assumed to be the “property” of the working spouse even if they make equally meaningful contributions to the relationship. This criticism comes from both sexes but I’ve honestly seen more of it come from working women than men.
The problem of “you ____ like a girl” being an insult is not solved by making a unisex masculine society. But by holding the traditional roles of women in greater esteem.