Because of the stupid ideology in the 40's to the 60's that a womans place was in the house being the homemaker. The barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen mentality.
Not necessarily wrong but it’s that many “independent” women conflate independence with being as insufferable as possible to their partner to the point where you are throwing plates at him if you ever dare to suggest a place he would like to go eat at.
Men and older women are often traditionalists. Men fear change because they associate that with lack of control. I suspect older women are often angry that after a lifetime of service to the patriarchy they don't get to be a revered matriarch lording their authority over daughters and daughters in law anymore.
@David_Kek and why is the a pussy beggar? He doesn't have a problem with independant women. My guess is that when you think of an independant woman you think of someone arrogant that isn't caring and puts men down. Am I right?
His comment was the verbal equivalent of giving a woman a rim job. No woman can respect a man like that, and women aren't attracted to men they don't respect. That's why statistically even feminists are more attracted to conservative like men than they are male feminists, because those are men that take care of themselves and are actually a challenge.
What I think of independent women is that they're statically the most unhappy women in society.
@David_Kek I don't think his comment was him lowering himself that much.
We definitely have different ideas of what independent means. The studies that say that career women are more unhappy than housewife include only women who dedicate ALL to their careers. Those don't have time for relationships.
A woman, just like a man, can have a decent career but also have a good house and social life. Independent women, as far as I am concerned, are just women with jobs who can take care of themselves.
Those are much happier than the one that got a black eye.
@ThisIsMyOpinion "that much" implies he did. A man who respects himself doesn't lower himself at all.
Well then clearly we do, because women have always worked, even the stereotypical 1950s housewife. Most of them had part time jobs, and those that weren't qualified still worked doing whatever they could from home to do their part. The only thing that really changed was technological improvement made work so much easier, reducing housework to almost nothing, and making workplaces much safer.
"women's liberation" and the notion of the "independent woman" came directly from the feminists movement, that asserts that woman don't need no man and can do everything for themselves, and the women that followed that advice only realised until after the fact what an incredible mistake they made. Really think about that term for just a second; "female independence": what exactly are they getting independence from if not men?
And you're incorrect, those statistics aren't just single women, they do include career breadwinning women with a husband and children.
@David_Kek "That much" was a figure of speech. I didn't understood in which way he lower himself at all.
There is no comparison between what those women had and independence. It was very hard for them to survive without a man. Today they can easily do that.
They are saying they don't need a man as much as before. Simply that. They are not saying they don't need us at all. Just like us. We need women. We don't need them to put food on our tables and we never did. Well now they don't need us for that either. Still both sides need each other for everything else.
Are you sure? Have you seen the research group? Do you know what they counted as "career women"? I really doubt they classified as that any woman with a self sufficient job.
@ThisIsMyOpinion If you don't understand, then you're as undesirable as he. Women do not want to be pedestalized, and told that their neurotic nonsense is correct.
That's irrelevant to the subject at hand; women do not want to survive on their own, they can mentally handle that shit far less than men can. I only brought them up because of your definition of "independence", for even those women most of the time had part time jobs. By your stretched definition, the average 1960s housewife could be described as "independent".
"as much as before" - Now that is reaching. You sure you don't want to redefine your definition of independence as just being a little bit better off thanks to technological innovation? Because again, even by that definition of "not as dependent on men as much as before" equally applies tot he 1950s housewife, as well as every other generation before them. I'm pretty sure women of the Victorian era weren't as dependent on their men as their mothers were before the invention of the steam engine.
That tells me you genuinely don't know what the statistics say. Well, allow me to enlighten you; do you know what the 2nd highest category of divorce is? The 2nd highest category of divorce is initiated by bread winning mums with a house husbands who maybe have a part time job, and do less than their "fair share" of house work, for the primary reason being "dissatisfaction". You know what #1 highest category of divorce is? Same thing, only difference is the husband does do his "fair share" of cooking, cleaning, etc. Do you understand that? The more "independent" a woman is in her relationships, the less happy she is.
@David_Kek He said there is nothing wrong with independent women. That was it.
How could she be described as independent? A low income, in a very uncertain job, a society outcast as single mothers were with kids to raise. Not to mention that only a few had those part time jobs.
Independence being not needing us to basically have a decent life. Women at that time couldn't even vote or aspire high paying jobs. Things changed a lot in the last decades.
Yes they iniciante divorce more. So what? Women who get beaten up by their husbands rarely divorce of leave them. Yet do you think they are happy? The reasons that make them divorce their partners may have nothing to do with what their partners do, more with their partners don't. Dissatisfaction is the reason right? That can include a lot. My guess is that the fact that the husband helps at home instead of slapping her face is not the reason they are less happy. Just maybe...
@ThisIsMyOpinion No... he passionately argued on women's behalf, and hence failed one of their shit tests.
1. I've just told you, the majority of them did have part time jobs. The postcard ideal of the 1960 midclass housewife with no job, was exactly that, a postcard dream most women wanted yet wouldn't actually want to happen in most cases. Just like how most people would like to win the lottery and quit their job; in reality we'd all grow bored without something to do. 2. You said "Independent women, as far as I am concerned, are just women with jobs who can take care of themselves", well i hate to break the news to you, but they could, ever since industrialization, and even before that to some degree. Are you even half aware there are women on the books as being black smiths as far back as the 1600s?
"Independence being not needing us to basically have a decent life" - You keep moving the goal posts. Furthermore, define "decent"; not having to work down a coal mine? Because guess what, there are women on the books who did work down coal mines back in the 1800s.
"Women at that time couldn't even vote or aspire high paying jobs" - Women couldn't vote in the 1960s? There were no high earning women back then? What are you talking about.
So what? Have you ever known a happy woman married to a beta house husband? Because i haven't. If that's not the common factor, then that's a hell of a coincidence. Luckily i have talked to a number a women, including one independent woman which I'd routinely fuck while he slept in his subordinate spare bedroom position, and I've yet to find a single women find any of this men attractive or worthy of respect. In her words "women can't respect a man like that, you just can't. Women use them for convenience but you can't respect them". On the flip side, i used to work in domestic violence activism, studying the work of women like Erin Pizzey, and I've seen no shortage of women who love, desire and look up to men to the point of addiction, that treat them like complete shit. There was even video of a few years ago Islamic woman saying her husband occasionally beats her when she's a little out of control, smiling as she said it, and saying how she feels secure and safe with him keeping her in line. And to be clear before you misinterpret what i'm saying, making that point as not the same as condoning wife beating, with many examples women not wanting that at all, and i know the difference, but i can't be bothered to explain because it's not relevant. The point is the data indicates the more "independent" a woman is, the less happy she is.
Now at this point, given the specific way in which you're arguing, my reckoning is you are one of those men, and are likely married to a woman fucking someone else while you do your "fair share" of domestic responsibilities. Sound about right?
@David_Kek You consider that to argue on women's behalf? I call that him giving his opinion.
Do you really want to compare the opportunities and freedom that had on that te to the ones they have today? It's way easier for them to have that independence today.
My defenition didn't changed. I can say it in many ways. I define a decent job as one that can give them enough for a living.
The first country to give women the right to vote was around 1890, New Zealand I believe. In my country they couldn't vote before 1931. That is way later then what it should have been. Again do you want to compare the amount of high paid women there and now? No comparison.
Do you that the beta and alpha bullshit was disproved by the very guy that came up with the idea not long before right? Guys don't need to be all brawl and no brain on their wives to keep them happy.
You live in another world. You really think that if a guy has a normal job, comes home and cares for his woman that she won't be happy? You probably haven't met many people.
And let me guess you are a guy who wants to keep his woman in line, but hasn't find a single one that will put up with his shit.
@ThisIsMyOpinion he is arguing on women's behalf, as are you, far more passionately then most women do themselves. Only women that do to that degree are feminists, and even they don't want to fuck you.
Again, independence from what? Men? Or are we going to move the goal repeat ourselves again repeating that said women in the past fit your nonsense definition too. Ok, i guess we will.
"I define a decent job as one that can give them enough for a living." - Then by that definition a lot of men aren't independent, unless you want to pick a choose what you consider the definition of living. Lot's of spinsters 100s of years ago lived their whole lives by themselves with no one to support them (not even state welfare), and they didn't die of starvation or the elements, though i don't think you'll deny there's been no shortage of men in history that have died homeless and starving, right? Again, are you listening to a word i'm saying? THERE ARE LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF WOMEN IN THE PAST WORKING TRADES SUCH AS BLACK SMITHS AND EVEN COAL MINERS. By your nonsense definition if those women weren't independent, then neither was pretty much the entire working class population, men and women alike. And if they were independent, then what does that say about the 1960s housewife with her part-time job? That she's more oppressed than women 100s of years before her?
If you're not considering the housewives of the 1960s with their part time jobs as not fitting your definition of independent, than women not voting decades before them is a pretty moot point. Though if you want to talk of independence using suffrage; in my country women got the vote in 1928, for free merely 10 years after men got the vote after dying in their millions in ww1 against their will after being conscripted. How's that for No comparison?
@ThisIsMyOpinion "beta and alpha bullshit was disproved by the very guy that came up with the idea not long before right?" - No it wasn't, and there's more then enough data to prove the original model which is far more obvious in enclosed zoos than in wild populations, but still exists int he wild non-the-less.
"Guys don't need to be all brawl and no brain on their wives to keep them happy." - Quite right, they need to have brains and know how to use them, because in male dominance hierarchies in humans women select for intelligence in men as much as they select for genetic health. I don't take you as being an intelligent man, and i very much doubt you play aggressive sports to prove how strong, fast and healthy you are. Generally it's the stupid men that beat their wives who end up getting divorced and in the back of a police car, while the intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death.
I guess that means I'm right. You have kids? Presumably a couple of them being some other mans?
And i guess that means you're wrong. Currently I've got two women on the go, and they both love me to bits, one of them more than she's ever known.
@David_Kek Defending women? Just like him I am defending my opinion. Look around this question, there is a girl with a different opinion than me and I am defending it. I have my opinions and I defend them against men or women. And don't worry I don't want crazy feminists either. The sane ones I don't mind.
On a financial level yes from us.
On that defenition many people aren't independent today I agree. But it's no longer defined by your gender.
Oh yes many men died homeless and they still do. Due to their life choices, because they had them. Don't bullshit me! Today there are also women working many of those jobs. Doesn't mean there are a lot of them. You want to compare the freedom that women and men had? Even if the working class was struggling men were still way more independent than women were.
You are comparing the deaths of men to the rights and freedom that women had. Of course war was mandatory and bad for men. But that is not a related issue with women's rights. You have to compare women then and women now.
Not really. It was adopted by the population because people wanted to say they were alphas or whatever. But it was debunked soon after.
No you are not. I don't have kids yet and neither does my wife. I don't worry about her cheating but you should. I actually know how to make a women that has half a brain happy.
@David_Kek Oh right I forgot about the other part. We share the same opinion from each other. From your retrograde views I don't take you as an intelligent man either. The simple fact that you just said "intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death." is enough prove that you don't have much inside your head. I was a muay thai fighter actually, not anymore since I can't appear in my job with a scar on my face or a black eye.
@ThisIsMyOpinion "On a financial level yes from us." - Then by that definition unless a woman is the soul breadwinner, she's not independent.
"Don't bullshit me! Today there are also women working many of those jobs. Doesn't mean there are a lot of them." - Your argument genuinely doesn't have a leg to stand on now. The number of them is irrelevant, the fact some of them do exist is proof that there is nothing stopping them. Women, most women, do not truly care about getting careers as opposed to jobs, because they do not care about independence and all the responsibility that comes along with it. You give most women the choice between a nice guy with a good income or a 9 to 5 job is a shitty office that doesn't fulfil them so one day in about 10 years they can become a CEO or some shit, they'll take the nice good provider nearly every time. What did you said about "Due to their life choices" or something? Oh that's right, those women's choices don't count, because reasons.
"You want to compare the freedom that women and men had? Even if the working class was struggling men were still way more independent than women were." - Yes, i do. When i see lies and half-truth, i feel the need to call bullshit. A man who is conscripted and sent to die in a war for his woman's protection, is more free than she is? You're honestly going to claim that?
"Of course war was mandatory and bad for men. But that is not a related issue with women's rights. You have to compare women then and women now." - Nope, that's not how it works. Gender rights by definition exist compared relatively to their opposite sexes rights, not to their same sexes rights in x amount of time in the past.
"Not really." - Yes really, the hard biological, anthropological and ethological sciences have been pretty conclusive the last few decades. Feel free to read "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" sometime, it's a hoot.
"The simple fact that you just said "intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death." is enough prove that you don't have much inside your head." - Well with a stunning counter-argument like that i really can't disagree, genuinely because you're counter-argument being little more than another way of saying "you're stupid", is genuinely a non-argument. With that i mind, i guess there's nothing left to say about that, other than the proof is in the pudding, and if you're wrong then i wish you all the best in raising your wife's lovers children, and if i'm wrong... i don't actually know tbh. If i'm wrong then nothing happens.
And for the record, if you haven't heard, for anyone to say they "used to be a fighter", is another way of saying they failed at being one.
Of course that matters. The initial point was that women could not be independent. To prove me wrong you said that women also worked those jobs in the past just like men. So yes the amount of them matters since it's not an amount that actually allows women to be independent.
Do you listen to yourself? Yes they do want that responsibility! They have as much desire for a prestigious job as we do. Being a doctor is one of the most prestigious jobs in the world. Guess what gender most of medical students are.
If those men are the same, yes they will pick the one with more money. Of those men are not the same they will pick the one they like more. This is a no brainier. Now they have that choice! And they make it instead of having to be with the provider that treats them bad.
For his women's protection? Are you trying to make me laugh? Men were sent to war to fight for their country. On the command of their leaders because of quarrels they had. Paraguay went to war with three of it's neighbors at the same time for no other reason than its leader at the time having a greatness complex. Half of the male population died on that war and definitely not to protect women.
We evolved way past our cave ways. But if you want to believe that we still behave as such be my guess. That would actually explain a lot about you.
If you don't know why what sentence alone proves how empty your head is then I don't know what to tell you. You are a lost cause.
So your logic is that everyone who is a retired fighter failed as a fighter. Ya sure...
@ThisIsMyOpinion "The initial point was that women could not be independent" - I've not once made that claim. My reply was men who rim women's assholes and put them on pedestals of oppression, to be the white knight in shining armour, are truly undesirable to women. You then asserted that i think independent women are man haters, and i responded i think they're the most unhappy women in society, and this advice is bad for everyone. At which point you gave your non-sense definition of independence, and i replied saying by the same logic those women of the past were independent. There is nothing stopping women, today more than ever, and women do not care. You're trying to sell ice to eskimos; in practice they don't give a shit.
"Yes they do want that responsibility!" - Says who? Feminists? Beta white knights such as yourself? Neither group counts. Again, deep down even those feminists don't genuinely want it, but they don't have much of a choice because no man that they want wants them.
"Being a doctor is one of the most prestigious jobs in the world. Guess what gender most of medical students are." - I think you mean GPs or ER staff, for almost no female medical student decides to herself that she wants to be a surgeon or something. The prestigiousness means fuck all to them, all that matters is the paycheck, the ability to work with people one to one or hopefully children, and the ability to get really close to high earning male doctors that they can trap into a relationship. It's the same story in nearly every career you can think of; they get in, trap one of the high earning men in the profession, get pregnant, and then get out part time as a housewife. Point to as many medical students as you like, what matters is what they do after they leave school.
"If those men are the same, yes they will pick the one with more money. Of those men are not the same they will pick the one they like more." - You're half right. They try to get the most desirable man they can get into a relationship (aka, men who are successes in what they do that shows their genetic health and ability to provide), and if they can't then they're settle for the best provider they can, while they breed with said desirable man they wanted in the first place behind their beta's back. Look it up; paternity fraud is at about 30% among the working class, and about 10% among the upper class.
"Now they have that choice!" - They've always had that choice, they just didn't want it.
"And they make it instead of having to be with the provider that treats them bad." - Again they've always had that choice, if a woman hated her man that treated her badly, she's always had options. There are records that go back to the 1800s of wife beaters being punished by the law via whipping post. And it was the wife's option to ask the local law enforcer to do it for her if she wanted, because his arm could whip his back harder than she could. You are genuinely oblivious to just how much feminists have lied about our history, it's almost funny.
"For his women's protection? Are you trying to make me laugh?" - Oh no, you're not using semantics to get out of that corner you've painted yourself in. I said are you really going to claim that a man who's been enslaved and likely sent to his death has more freedom than a woman who has not?
"retired fighter" - That's cute. Unless you was a prize fighter who won titles and enough money to retire on, then that's not retirement, that's failure.
@David_Kek Except they weren't independent by that logic since the actual numbers of independent women were incredibly small. "No more than ever"? Are you serious? They have far more opportunities today than before.
Says their actions. No need to look further than that.
Most of the cirgeons are men, but also most radiologist also are men. There are more women in oncology and internal medicine for example. And you if think the prestige means fuck all to them you clearly never spoke with one.
You actually believe that fantasy take don't you? I have a close family friend who is a doctor, is married, was a mother last year and she is already back to work. " get out part time as a housewife". Sure.
Again with the fantasy land. They will settle with a provider while they fuck the other right? So to you any women that can fuck a higher status man with a high income will inevitably cheat on her husband. Yet this is not true at all. If a single women has two choices, one is a rich abusive man and the other a regular earner that treats her right, she will go for the second guy and be loyal to him. She is much more likely to cheat on a man that doesn't make her happy.
No they couldn't. Look at the way things were back then. Look at the way things are now. Women have far more options now and they are taking them. If they could do as much in the past as they can now, why they didn't? I tell you why, because they don't have half the obstacles today.
Last year on my country on the first 3 months of the year around 12 women were killed at the hands of their husbands. You say that they could just press charges? Ya most of them had already gone to the police more than once and no one did shit. See how good things look on the paper and then on reality?
@ThisIsMyOpinion well this has been fun, but if you genuinely think men who have been enslaved and sent to their death has more freedom than a woman who hasn't and instead who's safety and wellbeing has been placed first ("women and children first", etc), then you are gneuinely retarded, and you deserve whatever you get. It's men just like you, who raise the bastard children of men just like me.
@David_Kek that coming from the guy that said "intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death." doesn't mean much. You are comparing times of war to everyday life. In times of war yes men are stronger so they we are needed to fight. When we were not at war yes men had more freedom than women.
Also don't be surprised when your girl one day gets tired of you and leaves for a guy like me. You are amusing at first but with time that amusement ends. As for me, what makes me great will always make me great.
@grega239 I agree with you that is not a big deal. Women have been getting degrees since many decades now. But some guys here are saying that it is wrong that women are independent. With that I don't agree.
Non traditional women and a man hating society is exactly why I'm moving to Russia. The short answer here is, I don't think of them, at all. I avoid women like the plague. Very rarely it's a hi or bye when it comes to women here in the states. And if they're a known progressive feminist, I will have absolutely nothing to do with or nothing to say to them on any level at all.
@NorthwestRider I'm sure there are those women in fact. I'm not going there looking for women. I'm going there to live in a society and isn't against and doesn't hate men.
You're making the same mistake many women do today, which is to assume men value and are attracted to the same things in women that women are in men. We're not. Women love a successful, independent man with a good career, a high income and high social status.
Those are NOT the things men are attracted to in women. In fact, they are kind of negatives because they are indications she will not be as good at the things that men actually DO value in women.
Because most " independent " women are not independent, the receive copious amounts of government assistance, and even the ones who pursue high paying careers seldom got thier jobs based on merit, you got it because they needed to fill a government mandated quota
Most of the time "independent women" are just annoying bitches who consider anyone, men especially, as inferior or not worth their time. The worst is their attitude, the more "independent" they're labelled, and celebrated for it. Most people don't like annoying people, but apparently it's a problem when those people are "independent women".
I disagree with your premise. A woman is allowed to be more independent than many men today, even. It's really being brainwashed because the powers that own the news media and institutions that be want to purposely divide us and keep acting the narrative that some groups are oppressed when that doesn't exist anymore.
Independent woman have more options. fact is that the most of the people's first impression is that they can hookup with anyone they want to.. they don't want to share their personal information which gives the impression that they're doing something wrong.
Because any woman who calls herself independent, but runs to daddy government as soon as she doesn't get what she wants, is not independent but a hypocrite; and society finds these cry babies annoying. It's good that you brought up feminism at the end because that paints a clear picture of the type of hypocrite you're talking about.
we don't my main issue if children growing up without a farther in the house I come to raising children both parents are important doesn't mean that a woman can't be independent or have her own independent thoughts
Most of society is used to the traditional way of women being housewives its hard to change the midset of people who have thought of it the same way since a long time.
It’s a reaction to cultural change. When people start doing things differently then what the culture tells them to do, a lot of people can’t accept change. Also add to to fact that people have the feeling of entitlement to their privilages.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
104Opinion
Because of the stupid ideology in the 40's to the 60's that a womans place was in the house being the homemaker. The barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen mentality.
Not necessarily wrong but it’s that many “independent” women conflate independence with being as insufferable as possible to their partner to the point where you are throwing plates at him if you ever dare to suggest a place he would like to go eat at.
Men and older women are often traditionalists. Men fear change because they associate that with lack of control. I suspect older women are often angry that after a lifetime of service to the patriarchy they don't get to be a revered matriarch lording their authority over daughters and daughters in law anymore.
then maybe society is wrong?
why in gods name do y'all have a problem with someone being independant?
ooh they are a female!
so they are, and?
your point is?
I get what you mean but
come on people dont hurt others ya ding bats!
Do you have a sex life?
@David_Kek do you?
@ThisIsMyOpinion yep
@David_Kek why did you asked him of he had a sex life?
@ThisIsMyOpinion Because I'd be surprised if he does. Not even feminists find pussy beggars fuckable.
@David_Kek and why is the a pussy beggar? He doesn't have a problem with independant women.
My guess is that when you think of an independant woman you think of someone arrogant that isn't caring and puts men down.
Am I right?
His comment was the verbal equivalent of giving a woman a rim job. No woman can respect a man like that, and women aren't attracted to men they don't respect. That's why statistically even feminists are more attracted to conservative like men than they are male feminists, because those are men that take care of themselves and are actually a challenge.
What I think of independent women is that they're statically the most unhappy women in society.
@ThisIsMyOpinion even women that get a black eye for cooking tuna casserole are statistically happier.
This whole "women's liberation", is snake oil.
@David_Kek I don't think his comment was him lowering himself that much.
We definitely have different ideas of what independent means. The studies that say that career women are more unhappy than housewife include only women who dedicate ALL to their careers. Those don't have time for relationships.
A woman, just like a man, can have a decent career but also have a good house and social life. Independent women, as far as I am concerned, are just women with jobs who can take care of themselves.
Those are much happier than the one that got a black eye.
@ThisIsMyOpinion "that much" implies he did. A man who respects himself doesn't lower himself at all.
Well then clearly we do, because women have always worked, even the stereotypical 1950s housewife. Most of them had part time jobs, and those that weren't qualified still worked doing whatever they could from home to do their part.
The only thing that really changed was technological improvement made work so much easier, reducing housework to almost nothing, and making workplaces much safer.
"women's liberation" and the notion of the "independent woman" came directly from the feminists movement, that asserts that woman don't need no man and can do everything for themselves, and the women that followed that advice only realised until after the fact what an incredible mistake they made.
Really think about that term for just a second; "female independence": what exactly are they getting independence from if not men?
And you're incorrect, those statistics aren't just single women, they do include career breadwinning women with a husband and children.
@David_Kek "That much" was a figure of speech. I didn't understood in which way he lower himself at all.
There is no comparison between what those women had and independence. It was very hard for them to survive without a man. Today they can easily do that.
They are saying they don't need a man as much as before. Simply that. They are not saying they don't need us at all.
Just like us. We need women. We don't need them to put food on our tables and we never did. Well now they don't need us for that either.
Still both sides need each other for everything else.
Are you sure? Have you seen the research group? Do you know what they counted as "career women"? I really doubt they classified as that any woman with a self sufficient job.
@ThisIsMyOpinion If you don't understand, then you're as undesirable as he. Women do not want to be pedestalized, and told that their neurotic nonsense is correct.
That's irrelevant to the subject at hand; women do not want to survive on their own, they can mentally handle that shit far less than men can. I only brought them up because of your definition of "independence", for even those women most of the time had part time jobs. By your stretched definition, the average 1960s housewife could be described as "independent".
"as much as before" - Now that is reaching. You sure you don't want to redefine your definition of independence as just being a little bit better off thanks to technological innovation? Because again, even by that definition of "not as dependent on men as much as before" equally applies tot he 1950s housewife, as well as every other generation before them. I'm pretty sure women of the Victorian era weren't as dependent on their men as their mothers were before the invention of the steam engine.
That tells me you genuinely don't know what the statistics say. Well, allow me to enlighten you; do you know what the 2nd highest category of divorce is? The 2nd highest category of divorce is initiated by bread winning mums with a house husbands who maybe have a part time job, and do less than their "fair share" of house work, for the primary reason being "dissatisfaction".
You know what #1 highest category of divorce is? Same thing, only difference is the husband does do his "fair share" of cooking, cleaning, etc.
Do you understand that?
The more "independent" a woman is in her relationships, the less happy she is.
@David_Kek He said there is nothing wrong with independent women. That was it.
How could she be described as independent? A low income, in a very uncertain job, a society outcast as single mothers were with kids to raise. Not to mention that only a few had those part time jobs.
Independence being not needing us to basically have a decent life. Women at that time couldn't even vote or aspire high paying jobs. Things changed a lot in the last decades.
Yes they iniciante divorce more. So what?
Women who get beaten up by their husbands rarely divorce of leave them. Yet do you think they are happy?
The reasons that make them divorce their partners may have nothing to do with what their partners do, more with their partners don't. Dissatisfaction is the reason right? That can include a lot. My guess is that the fact that the husband helps at home instead of slapping her face is not the reason they are less happy. Just maybe...
@ThisIsMyOpinion No... he passionately argued on women's behalf, and hence failed one of their shit tests.
1. I've just told you, the majority of them did have part time jobs. The postcard ideal of the 1960 midclass housewife with no job, was exactly that, a postcard dream most women wanted yet wouldn't actually want to happen in most cases. Just like how most people would like to win the lottery and quit their job; in reality we'd all grow bored without something to do.
2. You said "Independent women, as far as I am concerned, are just women with jobs who can take care of themselves", well i hate to break the news to you, but they could, ever since industrialization, and even before that to some degree. Are you even half aware there are women on the books as being black smiths as far back as the 1600s?
"Independence being not needing us to basically have a decent life" - You keep moving the goal posts.
Furthermore, define "decent"; not having to work down a coal mine? Because guess what, there are women on the books who did work down coal mines back in the 1800s.
"Women at that time couldn't even vote or aspire high paying jobs" - Women couldn't vote in the 1960s? There were no high earning women back then?
What are you talking about.
So what? Have you ever known a happy woman married to a beta house husband? Because i haven't. If that's not the common factor, then that's a hell of a coincidence. Luckily i have talked to a number a women, including one independent woman which I'd routinely fuck while he slept in his subordinate spare bedroom position, and I've yet to find a single women find any of this men attractive or worthy of respect.
In her words "women can't respect a man like that, you just can't. Women use them for convenience but you can't respect them".
On the flip side, i used to work in domestic violence activism, studying the work of women like Erin Pizzey, and I've seen no shortage of women who love, desire and look up to men to the point of addiction, that treat them like complete shit. There was even video of a few years ago Islamic woman saying her husband occasionally beats her when she's a little out of control, smiling as she said it, and saying how she feels secure and safe with him keeping her in line.
And to be clear before you misinterpret what i'm saying, making that point as not the same as condoning wife beating, with many examples women not wanting that at all, and i know the difference, but i can't be bothered to explain because it's not relevant.
The point is the data indicates the more "independent" a woman is, the less happy she is.
Now at this point, given the specific way in which you're arguing, my reckoning is you are one of those men, and are likely married to a woman fucking someone else while you do your "fair share" of domestic responsibilities. Sound about right?
@David_Kek You consider that to argue on women's behalf? I call that him giving his opinion.
Do you really want to compare the opportunities and freedom that had on that te to the ones they have today? It's way easier for them to have that independence today.
My defenition didn't changed. I can say it in many ways.
I define a decent job as one that can give them enough for a living.
The first country to give women the right to vote was around 1890, New Zealand I believe. In my country they couldn't vote before 1931. That is way later then what it should have been.
Again do you want to compare the amount of high paid women there and now? No comparison.
Do you that the beta and alpha bullshit was disproved by the very guy that came up with the idea not long before right?
Guys don't need to be all brawl and no brain on their wives to keep them happy.
You live in another world. You really think that if a guy has a normal job, comes home and cares for his woman that she won't be happy? You probably haven't met many people.
And let me guess you are a guy who wants to keep his woman in line, but hasn't find a single one that will put up with his shit.
@ThisIsMyOpinion he is arguing on women's behalf, as are you, far more passionately then most women do themselves. Only women that do to that degree are feminists, and even they don't want to fuck you.
Again, independence from what? Men? Or are we going to move the goal repeat ourselves again repeating that said women in the past fit your nonsense definition too. Ok, i guess we will.
"I define a decent job as one that can give them enough for a living." -
Then by that definition a lot of men aren't independent, unless you want to pick a choose what you consider the definition of living. Lot's of spinsters 100s of years ago lived their whole lives by themselves with no one to support them (not even state welfare), and they didn't die of starvation or the elements, though i don't think you'll deny there's been no shortage of men in history that have died homeless and starving, right?
Again, are you listening to a word i'm saying? THERE ARE LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF WOMEN IN THE PAST WORKING TRADES SUCH AS BLACK SMITHS AND EVEN COAL MINERS.
By your nonsense definition if those women weren't independent, then neither was pretty much the entire working class population, men and women alike. And if they were independent, then what does that say about the 1960s housewife with her part-time job? That she's more oppressed than women 100s of years before her?
If you're not considering the housewives of the 1960s with their part time jobs as not fitting your definition of independent, than women not voting decades before them is a pretty moot point.
Though if you want to talk of independence using suffrage; in my country women got the vote in 1928, for free merely 10 years after men got the vote after dying in their millions in ww1 against their will after being conscripted. How's that for No comparison?
@ThisIsMyOpinion "beta and alpha bullshit was disproved by the very guy that came up with the idea not long before right?" -
No it wasn't, and there's more then enough data to prove the original model which is far more obvious in enclosed zoos than in wild populations, but still exists int he wild non-the-less.
"Guys don't need to be all brawl and no brain on their wives to keep them happy."
- Quite right, they need to have brains and know how to use them, because in male dominance hierarchies in humans women select for intelligence in men as much as they select for genetic health. I don't take you as being an intelligent man, and i very much doubt you play aggressive sports to prove how strong, fast and healthy you are.
Generally it's the stupid men that beat their wives who end up getting divorced and in the back of a police car, while the intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death.
I guess that means I'm right. You have kids? Presumably a couple of them being some other mans?
And i guess that means you're wrong. Currently I've got two women on the go, and they both love me to bits, one of them more than she's ever known.
@David_Kek Defending women? Just like him I am defending my opinion. Look around this question, there is a girl with a different opinion than me and I am defending it. I have my opinions and I defend them against men or women.
And don't worry I don't want crazy feminists either. The sane ones I don't mind.
On a financial level yes from us.
On that defenition many people aren't independent today I agree. But it's no longer defined by your gender.
Oh yes many men died homeless and they still do. Due to their life choices, because they had them.
Don't bullshit me! Today there are also women working many of those jobs. Doesn't mean there are a lot of them.
You want to compare the freedom that women and men had? Even if the working class was struggling men were still way more independent than women were.
You are comparing the deaths of men to the rights and freedom that women had. Of course war was mandatory and bad for men. But that is not a related issue with women's rights. You have to compare women then and women now.
Not really. It was adopted by the population because people wanted to say they were alphas or whatever. But it was debunked soon after.
No you are not. I don't have kids yet and neither does my wife. I don't worry about her cheating but you should. I actually know how to make a women that has half a brain happy.
@David_Kek Oh right I forgot about the other part.
We share the same opinion from each other. From your retrograde views I don't take you as an intelligent man either. The simple fact that you just said "intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death." is enough prove that you don't have much inside your head.
I was a muay thai fighter actually, not anymore since I can't appear in my job with a scar on my face or a black eye.
@ThisIsMyOpinion "On a financial level yes from us." - Then by that definition unless a woman is the soul breadwinner, she's not independent.
"Don't bullshit me! Today there are also women working many of those jobs. Doesn't mean there are a lot of them." -
Your argument genuinely doesn't have a leg to stand on now. The number of them is irrelevant, the fact some of them do exist is proof that there is nothing stopping them. Women, most women, do not truly care about getting careers as opposed to jobs, because they do not care about independence and all the responsibility that comes along with it. You give most women the choice between a nice guy with a good income or a 9 to 5 job is a shitty office that doesn't fulfil them so one day in about 10 years they can become a CEO or some shit, they'll take the nice good provider nearly every time.
What did you said about "Due to their life choices" or something? Oh that's right, those women's choices don't count, because reasons.
"You want to compare the freedom that women and men had? Even if the working class was struggling men were still way more independent than women were." -
Yes, i do. When i see lies and half-truth, i feel the need to call bullshit. A man who is conscripted and sent to die in a war for his woman's protection, is more free than she is? You're honestly going to claim that?
"Of course war was mandatory and bad for men. But that is not a related issue with women's rights. You have to compare women then and women now." -
Nope, that's not how it works. Gender rights by definition exist compared relatively to their opposite sexes rights, not to their same sexes rights in x amount of time in the past.
"Not really." -
Yes really, the hard biological, anthropological and ethological sciences have been pretty conclusive the last few decades. Feel free to read "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" sometime, it's a hoot.
"The simple fact that you just said "intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death." is enough prove that you don't have much inside your head." -
Well with a stunning counter-argument like that i really can't disagree, genuinely because you're counter-argument being little more than another way of saying "you're stupid", is genuinely a non-argument. With that i mind, i guess there's nothing left to say about that, other than the proof is in the pudding, and if you're wrong then i wish you all the best in raising your wife's lovers children, and if i'm wrong... i don't actually know tbh. If i'm wrong then nothing happens.
And for the record, if you haven't heard, for anyone to say they "used to be a fighter", is another way of saying they failed at being one.
@David_Kek She is more independent.
Of course that matters. The initial point was that women could not be independent. To prove me wrong you said that women also worked those jobs in the past just like men. So yes the amount of them matters since it's not an amount that actually allows women to be independent.
Do you listen to yourself? Yes they do want that responsibility! They have as much desire for a prestigious job as we do. Being a doctor is one of the most prestigious jobs in the world. Guess what gender most of medical students are.
If those men are the same, yes they will pick the one with more money. Of those men are not the same they will pick the one they like more. This is a no brainier. Now they have that choice! And they make it instead of having to be with the provider that treats them bad.
For his women's protection? Are you trying to make me laugh? Men were sent to war to fight for their country. On the command of their leaders because of quarrels they had. Paraguay went to war with three of it's neighbors at the same time for no other reason than its leader at the time having a greatness complex. Half of the male population died on that war and definitely not to protect women.
We evolved way past our cave ways. But if you want to believe that we still behave as such be my guess. That would actually explain a lot about you.
If you don't know why what sentence alone proves how empty your head is then I don't know what to tell you. You are a lost cause.
So your logic is that everyone who is a retired fighter failed as a fighter. Ya sure...
@David_Kek she is still more independent*
@ThisIsMyOpinion "The initial point was that women could not be independent"
-
I've not once made that claim. My reply was men who rim women's assholes and put them on pedestals of oppression, to be the white knight in shining armour, are truly undesirable to women. You then asserted that i think independent women are man haters, and i responded i think they're the most unhappy women in society, and this advice is bad for everyone. At which point you gave your non-sense definition of independence, and i replied saying by the same logic those women of the past were independent.
There is nothing stopping women, today more than ever, and women do not care. You're trying to sell ice to eskimos; in practice they don't give a shit.
"Yes they do want that responsibility!"
-
Says who? Feminists? Beta white knights such as yourself? Neither group counts. Again, deep down even those feminists don't genuinely want it, but they don't have much of a choice because no man that they want wants them.
"Being a doctor is one of the most prestigious jobs in the world. Guess what gender most of medical students are."
-
I think you mean GPs or ER staff, for almost no female medical student decides to herself that she wants to be a surgeon or something. The prestigiousness means fuck all to them, all that matters is the paycheck, the ability to work with people one to one or hopefully children, and the ability to get really close to high earning male doctors that they can trap into a relationship.
It's the same story in nearly every career you can think of; they get in, trap one of the high earning men in the profession, get pregnant, and then get out part time as a housewife.
Point to as many medical students as you like, what matters is what they do after they leave school.
"If those men are the same, yes they will pick the one with more money. Of those men are not the same they will pick the one they like more."
-
You're half right. They try to get the most desirable man they can get into a relationship (aka, men who are successes in what they do that shows their genetic health and ability to provide), and if they can't then they're settle for the best provider they can, while they breed with said desirable man they wanted in the first place behind their beta's back. Look it up; paternity fraud is at about 30% among the working class, and about 10% among the upper class.
"Now they have that choice!"
-
They've always had that choice, they just didn't want it.
"And they make it instead of having to be with the provider that treats them bad."
-
Again they've always had that choice, if a woman hated her man that treated her badly, she's always had options. There are records that go back to the 1800s of wife beaters being punished by the law via whipping post. And it was the wife's option to ask the local law enforcer to do it for her if she wanted, because his arm could whip his back harder than she could.
You are genuinely oblivious to just how much feminists have lied about our history, it's almost funny.
"For his women's protection? Are you trying to make me laugh?"
-
Oh no, you're not using semantics to get out of that corner you've painted yourself in. I said are you really going to claim that a man who's been enslaved and likely sent to his death has more freedom than a woman who has not?
"retired fighter"
-
That's cute. Unless you was a prize fighter who won titles and enough money to retire on, then that's not retirement, that's failure.
@David_Kek Except they weren't independent by that logic since the actual numbers of independent women were incredibly small.
"No more than ever"? Are you serious? They have far more opportunities today than before.
Says their actions. No need to look further than that.
Most of the cirgeons are men, but also most radiologist also are men. There are more women in oncology and internal medicine for example.
And you if think the prestige means fuck all to them you clearly never spoke with one.
You actually believe that fantasy take don't you? I have a close family friend who is a doctor, is married, was a mother last year and she is already back to work.
" get out part time as a housewife". Sure.
Again with the fantasy land. They will settle with a provider while they fuck the other right? So to you any women that can fuck a higher status man with a high income will inevitably cheat on her husband. Yet this is not true at all.
If a single women has two choices, one is a rich abusive man and the other a regular earner that treats her right, she will go for the second guy and be loyal to him. She is much more likely to cheat on a man that doesn't make her happy.
No they couldn't. Look at the way things were back then. Look at the way things are now. Women have far more options now and they are taking them. If they could do as much in the past as they can now, why they didn't? I tell you why, because they don't have half the obstacles today.
Last year on my country on the first 3 months of the year around 12 women were killed at the hands of their husbands. You say that they could just press charges? Ya most of them had already gone to the police more than once and no one did shit. See how good things look on the paper and then on reality?
@David_Kek Yes I do think that. In times of war the men has to go, yes. When not in times of war, regular times, they didn't had the same freedom.
I never fought for a living. I did it because I liked it. So your point is?
@ThisIsMyOpinion well this has been fun, but if you genuinely think men who have been enslaved and sent to their death has more freedom than a woman who hasn't and instead who's safety and wellbeing has been placed first ("women and children first", etc), then you are gneuinely retarded, and you deserve whatever you get.
It's men just like you, who raise the bastard children of men just like me.
@David_Kek that coming from the guy that said "intelligent ones who beat their wives don't and are still loved to death." doesn't mean much.
You are comparing times of war to everyday life. In times of war yes men are stronger so they we are needed to fight. When we were not at war yes men had more freedom than women.
Also don't be surprised when your girl one day gets tired of you and leaves for a guy like me. You are amusing at first but with time that amusement ends. As for me, what makes me great will always make me great.
@ThisIsMyOpinion yeah, I'm bored with you now
@David_Kek since we have met recently for now you are still amusing.
As a member of "society" I can clearly state that I have never thought this.
It's not wrong. But some of these women seem to think being independent is some grand achievement to be endlessly applauded.
It's really not. It's been a standard requirement for men since forever and they don't get any Pat's on the back for it
@grega239 I agree with you that is not a big deal. Women have been getting degrees since many decades now.
But some guys here are saying that it is wrong that women are independent. With that I don't agree.
Non traditional women and a man hating society is exactly why I'm moving to Russia. The short answer here is, I don't think of them, at all. I avoid women like the plague. Very rarely it's a hi or bye when it comes to women here in the states. And if they're a known progressive feminist, I will have absolutely nothing to do with or nothing to say to them on any level at all.
You know that there are women in Russia who are non traditional, they are playing American Football
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAW2JKRWFjw
@NorthwestRider I'm sure there are those women in fact. I'm not going there looking for women. I'm going there to live in a society and isn't against and doesn't hate men.
Let me guess you have a huge fragile ego but a tiny dick as well lol
@NorthwestRider LOL you are a funny guy. I wouldn't know about the dick situation, I'm not a incel with a ruler measuring it.
You're making the same mistake many women do today, which is to assume men value and are attracted to the same things in women that women are in men. We're not. Women love a successful, independent man with a good career, a high income and high social status.
Those are NOT the things men are attracted to in women. In fact, they are kind of negatives because they are indications she will not be as good at the things that men actually DO value in women.
When men like and what men respect in a woman are sometimes also very different.
@MzAsh Not in this case. There is a reason why 30-something career women complain so much about not being able to get a man.
@MzAsh There are of course exceptions. But in general what I've said here is true.
Yes but it’s omitting important other factors.
@MzAsh Such as?
Because most " independent " women are not independent, the receive copious amounts of government assistance, and even the ones who pursue high paying careers seldom got thier jobs based on merit, you got it because they needed to fill a government mandated quota
Most of the time "independent women" are just annoying bitches who consider anyone, men especially, as inferior or not worth their time. The worst is their attitude, the more "independent" they're labelled, and celebrated for it.
Most people don't like annoying people, but apparently it's a problem when those people are "independent women".
I disagree with your premise. A woman is allowed to be more independent than many men today, even. It's really being brainwashed because the powers that own the news media and institutions that be want to purposely divide us and keep acting the narrative that some groups are oppressed when that doesn't exist anymore.
Independent woman have more options. fact is that the most of the people's first impression is that they can hookup with anyone they want to.. they don't want to share their personal information which gives the impression that they're doing something wrong.
Really? Married women have plenty of options too
Because any woman who calls herself independent, but runs to daddy government as soon as she doesn't get what she wants, is not independent but a hypocrite; and society finds these cry babies annoying. It's good that you brought up feminism at the end because that paints a clear picture of the type of hypocrite you're talking about.
People have their heads so far up their as$es that they can't understand where the people who disagree with them are coming form.
people are welcome to do there own thing.
so long as it does not negatively impact others. or cause harm onto others without there consent. *some people are into kinky / freaky stuff*
we don't my main issue if children growing up without a farther in the house I come to raising children both parents are important doesn't mean that a woman can't be independent or have her own independent thoughts
I dont see the world trying to stop women to be independent but I see those same independent women judging the other side
It doesn't. But every cultural choice is a trade-off. Despite the media advertisements, you can't "have it all".
Most of society is used to the traditional way of women being housewives its hard to change the midset of people who have thought of it the same way since a long time.
Maybe in saudi Arabia but this is America
It’s a reaction to cultural change. When people start doing things differently then what the culture tells them to do, a lot of people can’t accept change. Also add to to fact that people have the feeling of entitlement to their privilages.