Don’t Blame Divorce on Money. Ask: Did the Husband Have a Job?

[Deleted]

May be, may not. But it's interesting with all these laws and rules we have. Are they ingrained like you said, or is it all social rules?

Gender roles are not social or cultural

I don't mean the meaningless aesthetic details like "should men wear earrings", those are clearly cultural -- but the deeper biological impulses that define what makes people happy, how they communicate and interact, how they pursue their desires and goals, and the roles to which they find themselves naturally attracted in society at every scale

Men and women are different, and those differences are observably caused by biology

Sounds simple enough and it's easily verifiable (like the idea that the Earth is round) and yet you find many people holding on to the idea that this is somehow not true, because that might imply that other ideas that they want to believe might be wrong

[Lady Dragonheart]

And I'm sure you'd agree that

a) all those previous relationships, where you were the primary breadwinner, ended

and

b) your current relationship, where the man is the primary breadwinner, is your favourite relationship so far

So you just proved the point

A) They ended, but it was from abusing me and my children. Not from me ending up being the breadwinner.

B) No, I'm actually still the breadwinner. I'm actually more the breadwinner than I ever was prior, and this is the best relationship that I've been in.

[May90]

Gender roles are not social or cultural

I don't mean the meaningless aesthetic details like "should men wear earrings", those are clearly cultural -- but the deeper biological impulses that define what makes people happy, how they communicate and interact, how they pursue their desires and goals, and the roles to which they find themselves naturally attracted in society at every scale

Men and women are different, and those differences are observably caused by biology

Sounds simple enough and it's easily verifiable (like the idea that the Earth is round) and yet you find many people holding on to the idea that this is somehow not true, because that might imply that other ideas that they want to believe might be wrong

The obvious mistake people like you make (and this mistake would be obvious for everyone, if math and logic were taught a bit better at school) is that you apply statistics to individuals. While it is true that biological differences make it more likely for one gender to exhibit certain behaviors than for the other, individuals may or may not exhibit those behaviors.

And existence of a large variety of sexual orientations and sexual identities demonstrates once more that genders are much more similar to each other than you think.

[Spectral]

Not irrelevant at all. Spend some time around kids, you'll see how much work they will be. Haven't been following your entire convo, just jumping in regarding the housework part of it.

I believe his point is that whether children are a lot of work or not, it's not "work". Something that someone chooses of their own volition because they think they'll enjoy it simply can't be classified into the same category as obligations that exist regardless of choices made.

- - - Updated - - -

A woman may not stay with a man who does not earn money or help with housework... more news at 11.

Important to note that the bolded was not predictive of marriage outcomes. The notion that female discontent in marriage is heavily driven by things like who does the dishes is pretty ridiculous.

[Phlegethon]

It's mostly just not watching laziness ^^

And when he has money it's about getting the most of it.
Marriage, ripping off men since..forever.

[Deleted]

The obvious mistake people like you make (and this mistake would be obvious for everyone, if math and logic were taught a bit better at school) is that you apply statistics to individuals. While it is true that biological differences make it more likely for one gender to exhibit certain behaviors than for the other, individuals may or may not exhibit those behaviors.

And existence of a large variety of sexual orientations and sexual identities demonstrates once more that genders are much more similar to each other than you think.

Then why is there such a grotesque difference in what career path people choose, on a statistical scale?

Compare work involving children, healthcare, taking care of people ; To that of IT.

Come back when you can explain that gap.

There exists Individuals, there exists women who do work in IT ; And the IT department of things, has at times, even prompted to give them free money for Studies - but they are still not interested in anything near the sum of 50:50 in a split.

The difference is HUGE ; So huge, in fact, that individual choosings, become Largely irrelevant, on the grand scale.

- - - Updated - - -

Important to note that the bolded was not predictive of marriage outcomes. The notion that female discontent in marriage is heavily driven by things like who does the dishes is pretty ridiculous.

level of equality in burden entails how equal the relationship ; It is a symptom of the equivilance.

[therealbowser]

Cut the shit about 'women not having jobs are lazy'. Stay at home moms have to a large degree, worked as hard as men have, and have done so without being paid and without any kind of ambition outside of their family.

There is a such thing as a stay at home dad, but they are rare. And there's a huge difference between a stay at home dad and a lazy fucker who sits around drinking beer and playing video games all day.

As for what women prefer, I honestly don't know or care, it makes sense that women dislike lazy men. Personally, I would dislike a lazy woman, but some men don't care for... biological reasons. That's their prerogative.

You can't force your views on someone else because you disagree with them. You can, however, choose carefully who to spend the rest of your life with. I strongly recommend you do so.

[May90]

Then why is there such a grotesque difference in what career path people choose, on a statistical scale?

Compare work involving children, healthcare, taking care of people ; To that of IT.

Come back when you can explain that gap.

There exists Individuals, there exists women who do work in IT ; And the IT department of things, has at times, even prompted to give them free money for Studies - but they are still not interested in anything near the sum of 50:50 in a split.

The difference is HUGE ; So huge, in fact, that individual choosings, become Largely irrelevant, on the grand scale.

Exactly because of that: biological differences introduce a statistical bias, leading to a different statistical distribution. A given person of either gender still can end up at any point of the distribution, just with different probabilities for men and women.

Also, there is a societal, cultural, historical, traditional factor playing role in this. For example, men aren't any less able than women to be nurses, and women aren't any less able than men to be jazz pianists - but for a large variety of reasons (biological only being one of them, possibly insignificant, compared to other reasons) we see an obvious discrepancy in the numbers.

[Deleted]

Exactly because of that: biological differences introduce a statistical bias, leading to a different statistical distribution. A given person of either gender still can end up at any point of the distribution, just with different probabilities for men and women.

Also, there is a societal, cultural, historical, traditional factor playing role in this. For example, men aren't any less able than women to be nurses, and women aren't any less able than men to be jazz pianists - but for a large variety of reasons (biological only being one of them, possibly insignificant, compared to other reasons) we see an obvious discrepancy in the numbers.

The statistical bias isn't only that they are more likely, it's a conclusion of how the distribution is.

As in, how many are ACTUALLY doing said thing.

And assuming that Biology is a small factor, when workfields like IT Java System developers have a ratio of 85% men, 15% Women in the US.....

When women get stipendiums to read on IT universities, but the participation rate only went from 25% to 35%....

If money isn't changing it, people are INVITING them to get in, people are TRYING to get them in with incentives...

Then clearly, it is their own damn choise. And when we talk about SUCH A HUGE dislocation, that it's not even CLOSE to 50:50, then you can't assume it's "free will".

Unless you propose, they WANT to make much less money, or that someone is somehow propogating AGAINST women in said industries (When laws in some countries, actually can leave you with paying Fines, for having less Women than men, at your workplace.)

There already is a noted inherital matriacal instincts in women, to take care of people ; It stems from the fact of higher ostregyne levels. They are biologically favored, to WANT to take care of people. They are biologically favored, to AUOTMATE to that position - That's why mothers even have a special bond to their children ; Cuz matrial instincts.

Saying biology doesn't matter, is the pinnacle of trying to put yourself above your own body ; It's foolhardy.

[May90]

The statistical bias isn't only that they are more likely, it's a conclusion of how the distribution is.

As in, how many are ACTUALLY doing said thing.

And assuming that Biology is a small factor, when workfields like IT Java System developers have a ratio of 85% men, 15% Women in the US.....

When women get stipendiums to read on IT universities, but the participation rate only went from 25% to 35%....

If money isn't changing it, people are INVITING them to get in, people are TRYING to get them in with incentives...

Then clearly, it is their own damn choise. And when we talk about SUCH A HUGE dislocation, that it's not even CLOSE to 50:50, then you can't assume it's "free will".

Unless you propose, they WANT to make much less money, or that someone is somehow propogating AGAINST women in said industries (When laws in some countries, actually can leave you with paying Fines, for having less Women than men, at your workplace.)

There already is a noted inherital matriacal instincts in women, to take care of people ; It stems from the fact of higher ostregyne levels. They are biologically favored, to WANT to take care of people. They are biologically favored, to AUOTMATE to that position - That's why mothers even have a special bond to their children ; Cuz matrial instincts.

Saying biology doesn't matter, is the pinnacle of trying to put yourself above your own body ; It's foolhardy.

I'm not sure what you are arguing against. First, like I said, biology matters statistically, but individuals may or may not be defined by it. Second, all the facts you've listed can be explained by a large variety of reasons, and biology is just one of them, unclear how important. Third, there is a large variety of sexual orientations and sexual identities - demonstrating that this all is much more fluid and arbitrary than some people tend to believe.

Ultimately, it is up to you to define how you are going to live, what your goals are, what your hobbies are, what (if any) partner you want to have... Biology or not, you are a free person.

[Theodarzna]

The obvious mistake people like you make (and this mistake would be obvious for everyone, if math and logic were taught a bit better at school) is that you apply statistics to individuals. While it is true that biological differences make it more likely for one gender to exhibit certain behaviors than for the other, individuals may or may not exhibit those behaviors.

And existence of a large variety of sexual orientations and sexual identities demonstrates once more that genders are much more similar to each other than you think.

If you are trying to realistically plan your life do you go by a case by case basis or start going by statistics? Like if I want to rent an apartment and I know apartments in X, Y, and Z neighborhoods are statistically shit, Should I shrug and give each one a chance or just quickly move on and search were I am most likely to find the good one?

[May90]

If you are trying to realistically plan your life do you go by a case by case basis or start going by statistics? Like if I want to rent an apartment and I know apartments in X, Y, and Z neighborhoods are statistically shit, Should I shrug and give each one a chance or just quickly move on and search were I am most likely to find the good one?

It depends on your approach, I guess. I don't care about statistics, when I decide what to do with my life. I want to live in a nice neighborhood, and a decent apartment in a terrible neighborhood won't do it for me. When looking for a place to live in, I will inspect every place individually before making a decision, not just say, "Oh, apartments here have a lousy reputation, so I want nothing to do with them".

[Theodarzna]

It depends on your approach, I guess. I don't care about statistics, when I decide what to do with my life. I want to live in a nice neighborhood, and a decent apartment in a terrible neighborhood won't do it for me. When looking for a place to live in, I will inspect every place individually before making a decision, not just say, "Oh, apartments here have a lousy reputation, so I want nothing to do with them".

Idk if you've ever lost an apartment and needed to find another one quickly.

- - - Updated - - -

Cut the shit about 'women not having jobs are lazy'. Stay at home moms have to a large degree, worked as hard as men have, and have done so without being paid and without any kind of ambition outside of their family.

There is a such thing as a stay at home dad, but they are rare. And there's a huge difference between a stay at home dad and a lazy fucker who sits around drinking beer and playing video games all day.

As for what women prefer, I honestly don't know or care, it makes sense that women dislike lazy men. Personally, I would dislike a lazy woman, but some men don't care for... biological reasons. That's their prerogative.

You can't force your views on someone else because you disagree with them. You can, however, choose carefully who to spend the rest of your life with. I strongly recommend you do so.

To quote Bill Bur, "any job you can do in your pajamas is not the most difficult job in the world."

[May90]

Idk if you've ever lost an apartment and needed to find another one quickly.

This situation is special. When I need to find something quickly, I might focus on statistics. When I choose what to do in my life though, I definitely won't focus on statistics that says, "Guys are more likely to choose this than that". Well, good for them!

[therealbowser]

To quote Bill Bur, "any job you can do in your pajamas is not the most difficult job in the world."

That's nice. When you actually have something to add to the discussion, though, please let me know. That has almost nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

[Incredibale]

We should dismiss these filler studies that rely on data sitting within a margin of error and look at what really happens in divorce. An unfaithful spouse sees someone with bigger tits or dick or more money. The men are too shallow and disloyal to be a good husband and the women have become liberated whores through decades of feminist propaganda. It's mostly the women these days, but why not throw a bone (kek) and give them a little credit.