Do you want classic gender roles or 50/50?

[Anonymous]

What do you think is best the classic man/woman gender roles or 50/50 on everything work/housework or an in between the two.

In between could be like both work but maybe the man works more and the woman does more of the housework than the man

Gender roles

In between the two

50/50 on chores/work

Updates

1 y

I choose the in between one

[LazerBean]

We are pretty close to gender roles, but mostly because that's what works best for us and our ideal lifestyle. If it suited us better for me to work as much as him, we would be fine with that too. Until we had kids anyway. Once we have kids, I will stay with them.

[mobiusforniner]

All these guys saying classic gender roles…. lol.

let’s flip the table. Would you be ok with classic gender roles for a modern man? Like being handy? Knowing how to fix things? How to repair the car or washing machine? Or do you want to have the modern conveniences of sitting before a screen playing video games and no real practical skill while all the while demanding your partner behave like a 50s trad wife?

can’t have it both ways.

[elaphe]

A lot of guys (and some women) are handy around the house.

[mobiusforniner]

@elaphe indeed there are. My response isn’t aimed at them.

[CheeseMonster]

What's better is whatever works better for that couple. In general where I live both people must have a job outside the house, which makes traditional gender roles impossible. I chose something between because that's the most flexible option of the remaining two.

[JSkye]

I mean, whatever works for the couple I guess?

I don't see in what world it is fair for both men and women to work, but then women also have to run the house and take care of the kids on top of that?

If the woman's job was actually running the household, I could see it. But, especially in this modern era, most women work a full job AND are expected to fully run the house. That's not fair at all.

[MrOracle]

Most women in a relationship don't HAVE to work - or at least not full time. Most work full-time by choice.

Also, why do we only ever discuss the indoor work, as if that is the only work that needs to be done? Why does no one mention the yard, the fences, the cars, the exterior of the house? What about plumbing, electrical, and other infrastructure? The stuff that is considered "men's work"? How many women are snaking drains, installing new water heaters, or crawling in the crawlspace to fix leaky pipes?

It's very disingenuous to pretend that men do nothing besides work their job, and leave "all the house work" to the women.

[JSkye]

@MrOracle In my marriage, I did all the inside AND outside work, thank you.
This woman mows lawns, landscapes, snakes drains, goes in the crawlspaces, the trash, fixes and checks the cars, all of the above.
Thank you for making a whole bunch of assumptions about me and a whole bunch of other women, but thank you for the unfounded scolding and accusation of being disingenuous.
But, you did get me: I have not installed a water heater before. I have, however, helped build a couple houses. Have you? (And no, I have not worked in construction)

[MrOracle]

Great. How typical would you say your situation is? You think the majority of working women are out mowing laws, snaking drains, and all of that other stuff? Because I certainly don't see it and most of the women I know would laugh at the idea that they'd ever do such work.

[JSkye]

@MrOracle I think it is as typical and frequent as men who refuse to believe that they should do anything other than work to support the household. I believe it is more common than you seem to think it is.

[Apple1996]

Definitely gender roles. The 50/50 thing is a joke. If men want that then they might as well find another man to be with

[Nifrayu]

That doesn't even make sense. Men can want to go 50/50 and find a woman to be with too.

[Apple1996]

@Nifrayu 50/50 in a woman and man relationship can never work because women always end up giving more. It can only work for gay relationships

[Nifrayu]

That's not true. It can work why any kind of relationship.

[Apple1996]

@Nifrayu you are free to have that opinion 🤷‍♀️

[Nifrayu]

I'm not stating this as an opinion. It's a statement of fact. I'm curious to know what you believe prevents this from being possible?

[Dreymondgreen]

I'm wondering how your brain functions. Because what you just said absolutely makes no sense.

[Apple1996]

@Dreymondgreen I'm being pretty clear with what I said. Men and women are not equal so there is no possible way to be 50/50 unless both genders are the same so then it'd be fair

[Nifrayu]

But you're just plain wrong though. There is a way to go 50/50. There is nothing complicated about it. You just do it. It's a pretty common practice.

[Apple1996]

@Nifrayu it could only maybe be possible if a woman is thrown into a masculine state and ignores her biological nature but just with women hormones/having a cycle that is basically impossible. In a 50/50 a woman would still be giving more just due to her biology

[MisterWack]

50/50.
I like to wash the dishes with my girlfriend, cook for my girlfriend, and if she happens to have a job while I have a job I wouldn’t be upset / wouldn’t be against it either.

I don’t see gender roles or whatever, I see a beautiful relationship that can blossom into its own thing.

[genericname85]

like i don't care what artificial new roles people are trying to set. they're setting these rules in complete disregard for nature and what we were biologically equipped with for millenia of evolution. a greedy establishment that wannts to generate more tax by psychologically terrorizing women into going to work full time while also having children has sickened the entire society. i mean look at the birth rates. they speak for themself.

[juliaanita]

what exactly are the birth rates saying?

[genericname85]

@juliaanita they are saying that people are procreating less. the population is shrinking because women on average have less than 2 children. and i'm not aware of any western first world nation where this isn't the case. this is a general trend on the entire planet right now but actually the western world has a stronger decline.

and i'm also not saying that the "modern" gender roles are the only factor in this decline. this is obviously a very complex multy variate phenomenon but yeah. the advent of the dual earner house hold as well as the advent of more modern gender roles has significantly correlated with the decrease in number of children per woman. so as we all know: correlation doesn't mean causation but correlation is the best we can do in social science.

[juliaanita]

But is a sick society making women have less children? Or women having less children is sickening the society? Or maybe the society isn't so sick and having less children not so bad? And what's so 'artificial' about new roles for women? New roles for everyone as society progresses is, well, just progress. Someone flying an Aluminium tube at 700k/hr through the air would have been considered 'artificial' in 1901. Now it's not. Unless, I presume you will argue, one is a woman. I personally was never 'terrorized' into becoming a professional who works full time. I have never felt terrorized into pursuing my profession or my present lifestyle. But sometimes it feels as though letters like yours are trying to terrorize me into a different "'classic" lifestyle.

[genericname85]

@juliaanita well it's not a chicken or egg question. clearly the social change was first before women got less children. and by the way we also can calculate directional correlation and that correlation doesn't work the other way. just logically it can't cause time dictates what was first but yeah. it also doesn't mathmatically.

[genericname85]

also it's not just the ideological terror in the media that does compell women to do choices against their own intuition (lucky for you that this wasn't the case but we know measurable that this is a significant thing that happens to people). it's also the simple fact that economic decline forced more women into the labour marked. but as i said. it's amulit variate issues with lot of different compounding reasons. but gender roles are definitely a significant one of the many, tho i can not reproduce out of my head the mathmatical effect strength. i just recall that it was significant.

[juliaanita]

yes, I understand the difference between correlation/causation. but your assumption is that we live in a sick society. I maintain that society is no more or less sick than it was in 100BCE. I think that you have assumed a conclusion that I don't think is valid. And then you are searching for facts that support that invalid conclusion? And those 'fact's sound to me just a little misogynic, yes?

[genericname85]

@juliaanita oh if it's the word that bothers you. i basically define a society that shrinks as "sick". because humans nautrally wanna reproduce. and if they don't, there's something wrong with their society that drives them away from that decision, so simply by that simple metric, i call it "sick". i'm just doing that for theatric effect in a sense. and the fact is that they don't. i'm not attaching any moral value to it or judging the ways of lifes of people at all. obviously there's many problems that could need improvement but well people in the past had way more problems but they still had more children. so that's a thing.

[juliaanita]

hmmm... but i think that globally, population is increasing>

[genericname85]

@juliaanita oh. sorry that was a little inaccuracy i made there. you're totally right. population is still increasing globally. historically there's never been a global decrease in population except for maybe very few global catastrophies millenia ago. but the growth is globally decreasing at a rate where there will be the first historically recorded negative growth rate (or decline) in approximately 2086. so yeas we are still growing but the rate at which we're growing is massively slowing down especially in the western first worlds nations. and natural population limits can't be the reason, cause the denest populated country with a significant population numbers (india) is actually still growing.

[molonski2]

Depends , if She is the CEO of BHP or something , its not going to be " classic gender " but nor would I have to worry about doing the dishes and cleaning up , I'd be very happy if she were a CEO , Board member , high net worth.

I voted B , this was closest , that I could relate to.

[MicahRaine]

In between.

Yes Raine and I would both prefer for her to be home taking car of the kids while I go make money, but both of us want me spending time with the kids and taking care of them. Not to mention that I enjoy doing some chores with/for her so she can visually see me doing acts of service for her.

[Benjiman19]

I'd prefer gender roles. However, I know that most families or new families or even just partners getting together are going to need a little extra on the money for living conditions or costs. Nothing wrong with that. Unless the guy is making more than 30k-45k a year, probably gonna need a little extra. As it would be a bit difficult for not only one but two people to live off of.

But I like the idea of the man working, as he should and the woman taking care of the home.

[ICanSmellTheCosmos]

I'm all for egalitarian.

It's funny, because women sometimes think I'm some red-pill knuckle dragger, yet here I am liking fit, taller, tomboyish gals and not caring if they make more money than I do. I just don't want her to be a self-absorbed arsehole. 🤷‍♂️

Funnily enough, in my experience chicks seem to have more of a problem with dropping old-fashioned gender roles than dudes do.

[WhitneySnow]

50/50 sounds ideal to me but I guess it depends on if you both work a full time job as well. If one of you doesn’t, then I guess that person should do more of the housework.

[Danzigdawson]

Whatever makes one feel comfortable. Beyond that, it becomes a stupid question for Gilead social etiquette theorists.

[Girlsontop]

For me at the moment it would be in between the two but if I had to choose a different option then Gender roles.

[ProbablyClueless]

Um... I think I would prefer more classic gender roles, but I'm also a very proactive partner with a high income and comparably flexible lifestyle. I'm a bit of rare breed.

[strateguy632]

I prefer man at work, ma with baby and natural feeding.

Not like film meet the fockers!

[TheLovelyIntrovert]

50/50 when it comes to chores if both people work. If one person works the person who stays at home should do the home chores and shopping.

[DrPepper12]

It's a partnership! Who gives a fuck if the task is traditionally considered male or female? You do what you can, where you are, with what you've got. Pragmatism rules the day!

[rienna888]

I like gender roles but I will many times contribute to the relationship financially because just to show that I’m not using him for his money

[bobby_bush_eater]

There's gotta be a balance at times, the easiest way to grow resentment is by being super strict or uncompromising in certain circumstances

[Anonymous]

The problems happen when the woman has babies. What are they going to do have the man take care of the babies all day while she's working? That's just not natural. I wouldn't want that.

[Ladsin2]

I'm more interested in a traditional lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

I don't like gender roles, not all women are the same, and not all men are the same.

Gender roles are just a social construct.

[kushumira]

There are ONLY two genders, male and female designated by XX and XY chromosomes.

[Nifrayu]

Those are sexes, not genders.

[Anonymous]

i will never understand why the man has to be the leader.

[Anonymous]

I want whatever benefits me the most. If I am a woman, I don't want anything traditional, except for men paying for dates.

[TheSpaceGnome]

50/50 on chores/work.

[Pete671]

Classic gender roles are 50/50 imho,,,

[Juxtapose]

I go with what seems more fair.

[LiamJHayden]

Whatever works for the couple.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Fifty-fifty with a few exceptions.