Post A2WMSbz444z4wX8SAK by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
(DIR) More posts by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
(DIR) Post #A2WMSYSLBI1e0AnmF6 by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-24T01:23:03.592242Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
One argument I used to see a lot from the less libfem-leaning women when I was on reddit was this: tradcon men are usually not tradcon because they don’t want to provide even though they want women to follow the gender role of cleaning, cooking, and being a housewife/sahm. REAL trad men are good decent people and providers that don’t mind if their wife works but prefer that she stay at home and are graciously willing to ‘make it happen’. Ergo, men should first do their traditional gender roles before they demand women do theirs. This argument is incredibly misleading and dangerous, because it implies many false notions: 1: that there is in fact a way for a man who believes in traditional gender roles to be anything other than a predator, misogynist, and an evil, evil man who will ruin his spouse’s life. 2: that the trad roles are fine for women as long as the men do their trad part. 3: that cooking, cleaning, and bearing children in return for the husband’s money is, in any scenario, a fair deal. 3a: That a trad man can demand a trad woman no problem. No there is not- because the traditional gender roles are in no way equal. Men who prefer women to take on the maid role in the relationship are not decent, even if they pay for it. The female gender role demeans her, demands time, labor, and health sacrifices that can never be compensated, and explicitly lowers her authority in every domain of life. The male gender role empowers men as they earn more money, more status, and improve their health. Men who believe in trad roles do so knowing that they give them huge amounts of power over society and women. Always follow the flow of money, not fluff words and empty notions. No, being a paid maid, nanny, and prostitute for your husband is not a fair deal, because the man is building his net worth, earning potential, intellectual skill, and expertise, as well as social reputation and economic record. The woman, or rather clown, is also building the man’s net worth, earning potential, intellectual skill, social reputation, health, etc., only she is also literally decreasing her wealth, intellectual skill etc. to do this.3a. Traditional men demanding traditional women will always be wrong and evil, because they are desiring the perpetuation of a gross power imbalance between themselves and all women, not just their women. It is always the better choice to earn your own money, focus on your own career, etc. than it is to do house chores for someone who houses and financially supports you. Remember: time and health are the two real resources that once spent can never come back, and money is just a receipt for time spent. The woman giving up her time for the man’s money will never get anything but a gross loss, and men know this. That the trad gender roles demand sacrifices of time and health from the woman but not the man is not a coincidence. The idea that being a sahm or trad woman is or was ever a good or even neutral choice instead of an explicitly demeaning and disempowering one is a libfem delusion.
(DIR) Post #A2WMSaQdqZr47U1Rs8 by notaclownfish@spinster.xyz
2020-12-24T03:22:34.005667Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SpiritKrabs with due respect, I believe this argument only works if you don’t value mothering as important work. Gender roles are stupid and harmful, yes, but I don’t agree that it is always better to make one’s own money if that means transferring the raising of one’s kids to a low-paid underclass. I believe too this perspective won’t be popular here, but there are ways that I see the nuclear family model working well for couples if the moneymaker pulls equal weight and if mothering (or fathering if the case may be) is respected as an equally important job.
(DIR) Post #A2WMSbz444z4wX8SAK by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-24T08:22:30.311315Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@notaclownfish This argument works precisely because I value mothering as important work-too important to be unpaid and treated the way it is in society. Money is the fundamental unit of value, and society has women take on the unpaid labor for a reason, so that they can be kept powerless. “Respected as an important job” means absolutely nothing unless the mother has the receipt for her time, labor, and health sacrifice-i.e. money. Society and the husband can bleat about how mothering is truly honorable and great and exalted but it’s just a delusion spun of words to keep women slaving away for nothing. From the perspective of the woman, it is absolutely better to make one’s own money-I am not denying the value of mothering one’s child, and I am not denying that in the event the mother makes a prenup stating that she will get half of her husband’s pretax income during her stay-at-home tenure transferred directly to her account (and her pregnancy-related expenses will come solely from his paycheck, even if she is a millionaire), the nuclear family might work out without hurting her too much. But your scenario, where the moneymaker simply “pulls equal weight”, still disempowers the woman.