Do we need to stop treating masculinity as a problem and make room for men to be provider figures again in the USA?

[SolitarySolace]

What Does Our Modern Economy Offer Men? - https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-does-our-modern-economy-offer-men

This article lays out a sobering reality: millions of young men are completely checking out of higher education, the job market, and family life because society has spent decades mocking their natural instincts.

As the author warns, we cannot 'shame and blame the boy out of boys' for modern economic shifts and not expect severe consequences. When traditional provider roles are devalued, marriages weaken and children grow up watching their fathers question their worth.

We don’t need to force men into a feminine mold; we need a culture that respects masculine strength as a vital asset for stable families.

Yes

No

[Dargil]

Within maybe 20 years, maybe sooner, the shit is going to hit the fan. The feminist social trend will disappear. They will realize that it is a man's world.

[SolitarySolace]

You are completely right that the current trajectory is unsustainable, and a major cultural correction is bound to happen sooner or later. Society simply cannot function long-term when millions of young men completely check out of higher education, the workforce, and family life. The structural fractures we are seeing now prove that these modern trends are pushing toward a breaking point. However, instead of waiting for everything to hit the fan or wishing for a collapse just to prove a point, our focus needs to be on actively rebuilding right now. From a Christian complementarian perspective, the ideal isn't one gender dominating the other or declaring it a 'man's world.' It is about restoring a healthy, functional partnership. We need to stop devaluing traditional masculinity today so that young men are given the cultural space, purpose, and motivation to step up, take heavy responsibility, and lead stable families. The goal isn't conflict or societal breakdown; it's restoring mutual respect where a man’s God-given drive to provide and protect is recognized as a vital asset to the team before things completely break down.

[Dargil]

Without some sort of cataclysm, such as war, revolution or financial collapse, I think the end of the experiment is near. Republicans do not have time to fix all the things that need fixing. Democrats want us to go down the drain in so far as they can loot us on the way down.

[SolitarySolace]

I hear your frustration with the political landscape. It definitely feels like human institutions are failing to fix the root issues. But that is exactly why the focus has to shift away from relying on Washington to save us. A political election cannot repair a broken family structure or restore a man's sense of purpose. The real change starts from the ground up—in our own homes, communities, and personal choices. When individual men step up to fulfill their responsibilities to provide and protect, they build micro-societies of stability. Strong, resilient families are what survive collapses and revolutions. Building that foundation today is the best protection we have, regardless of who is in office.

[Dargil]

I don't dispute anything you said. I just wonder what will be left when the smoke clears. My guess is self supporting city states and walled feudal micro societies. Kind of late dark ages/early middle ages.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s a completely fair historical parallel. When top-heavy centralized empires decay, power and organization naturally fracture back down to the local level. However, I think building strong families and high-trust local communities is exactly how we prevent that brutal 'feudal' outcome. Instead of waiting for a total collapse into walled micro-societies out of desperation, localized resilience acts as a buffer. It ensures that even if federal institutions fail us, basic order, civil society, and human dignity survive from the ground up.

[Dargil]

To maintain an orderly civilized society, it may require keeping our powder dry to hold off the anarchists.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s a critical piece of the puzzle. Physical security and community resilience have to go hand-in-hand. You can't build a stable civil society if you can't defend it from external chaos, but you also have nothing left to defend if you don't build high-trust families and local institutions first.

[msc545]

Masculinity will always be a problem until our family law courts start treating men with some fairness.

[SolitarySolace]

You hit on a massive, systemic piece of the puzzle that often gets entirely ignored. You cannot separate the cultural devaluing of masculinity from the legal realities men face. It is incredibly difficult to encourage young men to step up, take heavy responsibility, and invest in building a family when our legal institutions and family courts are perceived as fundamentally unfair or hostile to them. From a complementarian perspective, distinct family roles thrive on mutual honor and institutional protection. When family courts fail to treat men with basic fairness, they weaponize the family dynamic rather than safeguarding it. This institutional bias directly explains why millions of young men are checking out of the system entirely—they feel that the legal and emotional risk of stepping up to lead and provide far outweighs the cultural reward. For men to confidently fulfill their traditional purpose as provider figures, there must be structural fairness and security that treats them as equal, valued assets to the team.

[Phunk_Fenomenon]

yes, 110%.

its extremely hypocritical of our society to treat masculinity like a disease and then complain when men disengage. A man’s instinct to build, protect, provide, compete, and lead is not “toxic.” It only becomes toxic when it is corrupted by immaturity, entitlement, or lack of discipline.

The deeper issue is that men are expected to carry responsibility without receiving respect. Be the provider, but do not expect appreciation. Be strong, but do not be too masculine. Protect people, but accept being portrayed as dangerous. Commit to family, but accept legal and financial risk if it falls apart.

A lot of men are doing the math and walking away.

Restoring respect for masculinity does not mean enslaving women or dragging society backward. That is a lazy strawman. It means acknowledging that strong men are necessary for stable families, safe communities, and functioning civilization.

Men need purpose. Boys need fathers. Families need responsible male leadership. Civilization needs men who are willing to build and defend it.

Stop demonizing masculinity, and more men will have a reason to step up.

[4ngelic]

I do agree that men shouldn't be shamed for being men, and I don't think that masculinity is bad, but the 1950s provider/housewife is definitely not something that should be the norm again. The reasoning that women working is emasculinating to men, is really silly. Doing that anyways would mean women would have a lower status in society since they wouldn't be participating in it as much and won't be acquiring a social status and their own finances, they'd be dependent on men like a minor to their parents, and expected to lead dull lives of domestic labor by default. Sexist guys probably would love that, but I personally rather die than live in a society like that.

Besides that concept is a very recent thing anyways, not tradition. For most of history middle class and lower class women had to work, often full time, and bring money back to the house. Only wealthy women could afford to stay home. In some societies many wealthy women worked if they wanted to. It's only in the 19th century post industrial revolution, that most non working class women started staying home. By the later 19th, women couldn't work usually. Throughout most of history, women had a lower status than now, men weren't emasculinated by working women, two incomes is trad technically.

I don't get modern guys want to be providers so badly. Unless you're really wealthy, why do you rather bankroll (with a lot of difficulty if even possible), a full adult woman, children & amenities, and always be the credit card wherever you go, than split costs with another adult. It's also kinda useless to have the woman home, it's not practical. The full time working woman is probably still doing most of the cooking & cleaning and childcare, and the kids go to school all day and there's after school care and all that. For most of the day she'd just be laying on her ass anyways.

[SolitarySolace]

I appreciate that you agree masculinity shouldn't be shamed. Let’s look at the economics and the division of labor objectively:

On Interdependency vs. Dependency: From a complementarian perspective, traditional roles are not about treating a wife like a minor or a parent-child dynamic. It is a structure built on mutual trust and interdependency. The man shoulders the external financial risk and heavy labor to protect the household, while the woman protects and manages the foundational core of the family. Both roles carry equal worth and dignity.

On Historic vs. Modern Two-Incomes: While it’s true that lower-class women have always performed labor, historical 'tradition' involved families working cooperatively within a localized domestic economy. The modern two-income model forces both parents into separate, grueling 40+ hour corporate work weeks. This leaves families completely exhausted, with childcare outsourced to institutions, which isn't the same as historical family cooperation.

On the Value of the Home: Dismissing homemaking or full-time mothering as 'dull domestic labor' or assuming a woman is just 'laying on her ass' drastically devalues the profound developmental, psychological, and stability benefits of a present parent.

Why Men Want to Provide: You asked why modern guys want to bankroll a family with so much difficulty. It isn't about wanting to be a walking credit card. It is about purpose. Men thrive when they have a distinct, irreplaceable mission to build, protect, and take ultimate responsibility for the people they love. When you reduce a man's role to just 'splitting bills 50/50' like roommates, you strip away the very sense of purpose that motivates young men to step up and build families in the first place.

[4ngelic]

I didn't expect a smart nice response like this. I still disagree, and I don't think most of these men would see it the way you see it. I mean if men genuinely thought this wholesomely, 'traditional' genders roles wouldn't be as bad

[SolitarySolace]

@4ngelic, Thank you for the respectful dialogue. I completely understand your skepticism. Too many internet trolls twist traditional roles into toxic dominance. That gives it a bad name. But true, principled masculinity is inherently wholesome. It focuses entirely on duty, self-sacrifice, and protecting loved ones. When the focus is on mutual honor instead of control, the partnership works beautifully. Real men want to build up their families, not dominate them.

[slatyb]

Ok, but it's not a woman's job to provide purpose, it's a man's job to find one. Things have changed. What do you think we should do to make this easier? We aren't going back to the time when non-college men could work a union job while their wife stayed home. Those jobs are mostly gone, and women don't want to live that way.

[SolitarySolace]

@slatyb, You are jumping into a completely separate, respectful dialogue just to repeat the exact same clichés I already dismantled. Nobody said it's a woman's job to give a man purpose—I explicitly stated that true masculinity is about a man's own inner sense of duty and self-sacrifice. Furthermore, you are hyper-fixated on a 1950s caricature because you don't understand how to discuss modern dynamics. Restoring a culture that respects provider figures doesn't require a time machine to a bygone economy; it means valuing mutual honor and protecting the family unit within a modern team dynamic. Stop hijacking a civil thread with the same tired strawmen.

[slatyb]

"Both roles carry equal worth and dignity." -- women don't want the role you are assigning. They never did, but it was the only choice. Your complimentarian theory is just more patriarchal subjugation. Men need to be helped to adapt to the new reality, because they have been very badly raised in so many communities.

[SolitarySolace]

@slatyb, Calling complementarianism and a voluntary team dynamic built on mutual honor, duty, and family protection 'patriarchal subjugation' is a textbook example of the feminist delusion destroying modern relationships. As a complementarian, I recognize that men and women possess distinct, complementary strengths designed to fit together like a lock and key. Recognizing different traditional roles does not mean one is superior to the other; both carry equal worth, dignity, and value. I honestly don't understand why you are attacking complementarianism as 'subjugation' when a complementary structure is exactly what would benefit both a man and a woman in the real world. Nobody is 'assigning' or forcing anything—traditional, complementary strengths are what allowed families to thrive for generations based on voluntary choice, mutual honor, and shared duty. When modern feminist narratives condition women to view mutual interdependence and cooperative family structures through a lens of victimhood and oppression—while throwing out condescending slurs about men being 'badly raised'—it completely destroys any incentive for cooperation. You are proving my thesis perfectly: the collapse of modern partnerships isn't an economic or geographic issue. It is the direct result of a feminist ideology that views marriage as a battlefield and treats complementarian teamwork as the enemy.

[indissoluble]

What are you a Muslim man that puts ho wives in their own houses that you stole from some random people and then goes out in the desert to be butt fucked by 30 Black men? It sure sounds like it... Men and women have always had to work. Men are just physically stronger and smarter so we tend to take a leadership role and carry more of the burden, but women are always expected to help. Women have to work as hard as they possible can to help, with the understanding that men have to do the heavy lifting because women are not as capable. You work together to keep everything going. Guys tend to do more than women when it is all added up, but women are expected to perform to the best of their ability.

[indissoluble]

Does drawing 300 gallons of water from a well and carrying it sound like women are just sitting on their duff waiting form men to provide for them? But of course a Muslim like yourself thinks she was 3 years old...

biblehub.com/.../...ekah_water_10_camels_alone.htm

[indissoluble]

A gallon of water weighs 8.33 pounds. Tell me the last time you saw a modern women move 2500 pounds just to please a man.

[indissoluble]

If you are lucky they might move a bag of potting soil that weighs 20 or 30 lbs 2 or 3 times before they complain they are tired.

[indissoluble]

If anything we've allowed women to get too lazy and made life too easy for them, thus why they don't respect the hard work of men. When shit needs to get done in order to survive, and women physically or mentally can not do it on their own, then they respect a man that can do it and they value a guys that works hand in hand with them to accomplish what needs to be done to not die. When two people take care of each other and both give it there all there is an appreciation and comrade in accomplishment. When you just give women a free ride they don't respect shit.

[indissoluble]

Too many women have spoiled child syndrome and are narcissistic maniacs. That's why nobody wants to marry them...

[indissoluble]

It's also why women like a man that takes charge and why they get a kick out of DIY home improvement projects. When the guy knows what he is doing and is handy, and the women has to work hard to help him she physically experiences how hard the work is. She experiences how she can't do certain things on her own, and witnesses that the man next to her can do them with ease. At the end of the day she's tied, but she was involved in something, she accomplished something, she had a purpose, she was a team member, she helped out, and as a result she feels good about herself. In contrast in everyday modern society where everything is easy like getting her latte from the Starbuck's while sitting in the comfort of her g wagon in the drive through by just barking orders for someone to give her shit while she uses a piece of plastic to in-debt her husband with a credit card bill at the end of the month, she like many other women are in a constant epidemic of depression. She respects nothing...

[SolitarySolace]

@indissouble, We can disagree on history, but the vulgarity, slurs, and emotional lashing out right out of the gate show you aren't here for a good-faith debate. Let's look at your points objectively:

On History & The 'Free Ride': You are right that women have always performed grueling labor (like your well-water example). But you missed the point of the poll. Advocating for a provider role isn’t asking for a 'free ride' or laziness; it’s about a structured division of labor where masculine contributions are mutually appreciated.

On Capability & Taking Charge: You claim women are mentally and physically incapable on their own, yet modern educational and economic data shows young men are the ones disproportionately checking out of universities and the workforce. It isn't a lack of female capability causing a breakdown; it’s a lack of male engagement.

On Modern Finances (The G-Wagon Myth): Your stereotype of women simply 'barking orders at Starbucks' and putting husbands in credit card debt ignores modern economic reality. Millions of women are primary or equal breadwinners. The financial strain on modern marriages isn't from 'laziness,' but from an economy that makes a single-income household nearly impossible to maintain.

On the 'Epidemic of Depression': You mention a lack of camaraderie and a rise in depression. Real camaraderie requires mutual respect. When you reduce relationships to women being 'narcissistic maniacs' and men just showing off doing DIY projects, you guarantee a toxic dynamic. If you want women to respect the hard work of men, it starts by not writing multi-paragraph, bitter rants full of unprovoked insults against them.

[indissoluble]

Yep you are definitely a gay Muslim that likes to get packed by black guys. It's pretty obvious by you projecting your sensitivity and emotional state. We all know all know you wear a dress now.

[sage2021]

To be honest, I really miss men!! While watching the morning weather they all have a woman with big boobs and low cut dresses giving us our weather report. And all of the people reporting the news are women. I feel like I am watching news and weather for lesbians!! Bring the men back! I don't want to see your big boobs and big butt while I am sipping on my morning cup of coffee. ☕

Just a thought but also a fact that there are more girl babies born than boy babies. So that right there isn't really fair in such a competitive world 🌎 we live in.

When I hear a female voice narrating a professional football 🏈 game, I get the feeling that something is missing. Yes! It's Howard Cosell's voice making the game so much more exciting!!

I say BRING THE MEN BACK AND SEND SOME OF THESE BIG BOOBED, CLEAVAGE EYE CATCHERS WITH THE SEXY VOICE HOME!!

[SolitarySolace]

I couldn't agree more, especially about sports and broadcasting! Legendary, commanding voices like Howard Cosell brought a raw energy, grit, and standard to media that defined American culture. Trying to force a feminine mold onto traditionally male spaces or reducing broadcasts to cheap visual distractions leaves a massive void. As a fascinating side note, nature actually produces slightly more baby boys than girls globally—about 105 boys for every 100 girls. That scientific fact actually makes my post even more alarming. The vanishing of men from these major roles isn't a natural demographic shift; it is an artificial cultural problem. Our institutions are actively conditioning young men to check out of society. We absolutely need to stop treating masculinity like a problem, value our men, and bring that strong masculine presence back!

[sage2021]

I've always heard that there are more girl babies born than boy babies. When did this change?

[SolitarySolace]

It never changed. Biologically, the natural human sex ratio at birth has always been about 105 boys for every 100 girls globally. It is a permanent scientific fact, not a recent shift. It only evens out later in life because males have a higher mortality rate at almost every age.

[DonaldDarko]

No, that would be going backwards. There's probably more to the current cultural upheaval than ideology and politics. I think it's much bigger than that. I think it's evolutionary in origin. It could be that it's natural for an intelligent species like humans to evolve towards artificial reproduction. Developing tech like artificial wombs and genetic alteration could be as natural as the way birds evolved complex woven or mud nests to reproduce. It makes sense that a species that builds space ships might take the concept much further.

[SolitarySolace]

That is a fascinating perspective, but looking at it as an 'either/or' scenario might miss the immediate human element. Even if tech like artificial wombs eventually redefines reproduction, it doesn't change our fundamental psychology; children still need present, active fathers and strong family bonds for healthy emotional development. Replacing human relationships with artificial tech risks deeper social isolation rather than true progress. Furthermore, we have to look at the immediate reality. Millions of young men are struggling in the economy and checking out of society right now. We cannot afford to let current generations suffer while waiting decades or centuries for sci-fi tech to mature. In fact, if technology eventually automates both traditional labor and reproduction, the question of male purpose becomes even more urgent. If men aren't needed for physical labor or biological necessity, a healthy culture must work even harder to define a positive, constructive role for masculine strength so men don't feel entirely obsolete. We need answers for stable families today, not just theories for the distant future.

[DonaldDarko]

It shouldn't be a problem. There are enough people who reproduce organically to prevent immediate collapse. If artificial wombs and engineered humans ever do come along they will out compete ordinary humans in a short time though. Also, once people are changed genetically they will be a new species. They may not need sex or sexuality. Families aren t necessarily wholesome. Child abuse child molestation and child murder taint the whole system. We probably can't stop the spiral into divorce and men walking away from women. Personally the last thing I would want is some adult size child to look after or to divorce me and take everything including children that I love. Men have lost out that way even killed themselves over it. Women don't seem to even care. It isn't men that artificial wombs will render obsolete. Men don't have wombs.

[SolitarySolace]

It’s true that the darker realities of abuse and messy divorces break families apart, but using those failures to write off the entire system feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we assume artificial tech or genetic engineering will just 'out-compete' or replace ordinary humans, we are signing up for total isolation. Tech might change how a child is born, but it cannot manufacture emotional stability or purpose. The real issue isn't about who has a womb or who wins a divorce battle; it's that a society where men and women give up on cooperating entirely is a society that has already collapsed. The goal shouldn't be finding tech that lets us walk away from each other, but fixing the culture so that building stable, mutual bonds is actually achievable again.

[DonaldDarko]

My point is that we may not be responsible for this as much as it is a consequence of the human brain's ability to reason things out. I don't feel I owe woman anything. I'm not giving them any chances or putting up with them.

[SolitarySolace]

Hiding behind 'the brain's ability to reason' to justify completely quitting is just defeatism masquerading as logic. Building a stable family unit isn't about 'owing' someone or 'putting up with them'—that's a broken, transactional mindset. True partnership is about mutual honor, duty, and building a foundation bigger than yourself. Choosing total isolation because it's easier than doing the hard work of building a mutual bond isn't an intellectual victory; it's just proving the article's point about men completely surrendering to cynicism.

[DonaldDarko]

This assumes that I do desire such a relationship but gave up due to cynicism. What I mean by reason is discovering something better. I don't want to go back , I like this better.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s completely fair, and I don't blame you at all for making that choice. Given how toxic and broken the modern social contract has become, protecting your peace is logical. My point was less about judging individual choices and more about the macro level—it’s a shame the landscape is so dysfunctional that good men feel forced to choose isolation over partnership just to thrive

[DonaldDarko]

I think the landscape broke naturally the way continents drift apart. Nature tears down and rebuilds anew. The old system is going extinct as all things do in their time.

[Anonymous]

Men need to stop worrying about how women view them PERIOD!

Men have always been. And the only thing i see wrong with some of today's men is they don't understand they're enough just the way they are. Don't get me wrong, a man challenges himself and improves himself. That's how we built civilization! But take take money, assets and all trappings of success from a man an what is he? A ball of endless grit and determination. You cannot break a man you can only temper him. More men need to know and proclaim that. 👍💯

[BonzoInBitburg]

The modern economy or even the world doesn't offer you anything. If you have a provider mindset you go take it. If you want a high paying job, it's not hard. Lots of people in trades make 6 figures and there's a shortage of labor. There's tons of money to take there. The world doesn't owe you the job of your dreams with a high salary. The problem is guys have become pussies. I've failed more times than most guys have even tried. That is the only way to succeed. Guys need to stop worrying about the nonsense in that article and cowboy up.

[MrChinaski]

I have some sympathy that changes have trended away from rewarding skills and personalities traditionally associated with masculinity. But...

... as with everything else in life, when things change you gotta pick the ball up and run with it.

Viewing men as victims is not the path out of where we are.

[MrChinaski]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 ?

[MrChinaski]

Also, that website seems ultraconservative. Way more conservative than any Australian site I can recall viewing.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Why hello there!

Yeaaaah this question is just a sexist rage bait. Force men into a more feminine role? Fuck off with that noise. Women are not here to just serve men nor is it a "feminine" role to not be providers. We have always provided in our own ways. Even back to before women could have jobs in the workplace, we still provided in our own ways from taking care of the house and kids, doing chores to keep the family going where men just brought home money and food and then called it a day. Our work didn't end until it was bed time. Men worked for 8-10 hours day and called it quits. If that work is too hard for men and they want to go back to being lazier then that says more about that man than it does about supposed gender roles.

As MrChinaski said, painting men as victims is not a way out. That's because I believe there isn't an issue. If men are not getting into higher education and other things you listed it's because they aren't applying themselves the way women do and always have.

This sexist notion that women are weaker (physically yes, but mentally no), only here to take from men, or meant to be doing housework and be the ones taking care of the kids (which we also do while working 8-10 hours a day by the way) is pathetic.

Things HAVE changed. Women provide food and finances now too. It wasn't us who who "demasculated" men. Those men did it to themselves by getting lazier. There are still a lot of great men out there who are not threatened by a strong woman who provides. They see it as equality which is what it should be.

[MrChinaski]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 I never agree with everything you say, but it always has merit.

[SolitarySolace]

@MrChinaski, I completely agree with you that a victim mentality won't fix anything. Wallowing gets us nowhere. Men absolutely have to take personal responsibility, pick up the ball, and run with it. Looking at this through a complementarian lens, advocating for traditional provider and protector roles is actually the exact opposite of playing the victim. It is a direct call for men to stop checking out, step up, and shoulder heavy responsibility for their families. However, diagnosing structural and cultural obstacles isn't about claiming victim status. When modern culture actively devalues or labels the natural drive to provide as a problem, it strips away the exact motivation men need to step up. As for the site, the Institute for Family Studies definitely leans conservative. But the underlying data—showing millions of young men dropping out of higher education—is a documented economic reality found globally, not just on American conservative forums. We need a landscape of mutual respect so that when men do step up, they are supported rather than met with hostility.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, You are mischaracterizing the intent of this poll. Advocating for a cultural space where men are respected as provider figures is not about forcing women out of the workforce, calling women 'weak,' or giving men a pass to be lazy. To your points:On History: You are completely right that women have always provided vital labor. A complementarian view doesn't diminish that; it emphasizes that a household operates best when both partners have distinct, mutually respected roles rather than competing for the exact same function. On Systemic Reality vs. 'Laziness': To claim there 'isn't an issue' and that millions of young men checking out of education and employment is just down to them 'getting lazier' is a massive oversimplification. When mainstream data across the globe shows a massive, generation-wide decline in male engagement, it points to a systemic, cultural loss of purpose, not a sudden outbreak of collective laziness. The goal isn't to threaten equality or take away choices. It is about recognizing that a stable family structure thrives when a man’s drive to provide, protect, and take responsibility is treated as a valued asset to the team.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

@MrChinaski that's ok to disagree! It makes for healthy debate and not living in an echo chamber.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

But that's exactly what it means. Those men have gotten lazier. Instead of adapting to change, they cling to outdated notions that somehow they should be the providers and women should revert back to being the ones in the home only. You can see it by those in conservative circles who are pushing so hard for tradwives and repealing women's rights to vote.

Those men who failed to adapt, gave up instead of working harder, learning to help provide in other ways in the home or applying themselves to things like education and the like.

Recognizing that it's both a man AND a woman's job to provide in today's society is a true sign of strength and is way more valuable.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, You are taking this to an absurd, hyper-political extreme that has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve said. To equate wanting men to be purposeful provider figures with 'repealing women's rights to vote' or forcing women to stay locked inside the home is a massive strawman argument.
Let's be completely clear: Christian complementarianism is about mutual honor, equal worth, and shared responsibility. It does not diminish a woman's strength or choices; it simply recognizes that a family team functions best when a man is actively stepping into his distinct role to protect and provide, rather than checking out. Shrugging off a massive, documented global drop in young men's workforce and educational participation as just collective 'laziness' is a complete denial of sociology and economics. True strength isn't about ignoring a generation-wide crisis or insulting men who are struggling to find their footing; it’s about addressing the root cultural issues so both men and women can build strong, stable families together.

[msc545]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 "men just brought home money and food and then called it a day" wow. You should just try doing that yourself and see how long you'll last.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

It's not a strawman argument. It's a reality that we are facing because those men who failed to adapt want to push women back down to a gender stereotypical role so they can feel more dominant and feel like they are better off as the sole provider. Problem with that thought process is that it completely denies what women want from their lives and it denies the reality of today's economic realities.

And I am sorry, but women stepping up to provide while maintaining their work at the home while some men check out and loaf and complain about women are weak and lazy.

Men need to step up and adapt in other ways. Have a career but also help with the kids and inside the home. That's still being a provider, just in a different way. This mentality that men are only useful if they are the ones bringing home the paycheck and food is outdated. Learn to adapt.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

@msc545 sooooo women who work and provide financially are NOT doing that to you? Talked about a warped way of thinking. I have worked since the age of 17 where I held 2 jobs at the same time. Please dont lecture me about see how long I last. Im 46 now. Nearly 30 years of doing just that. Being a provider of both food and finance.

[msc545]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 I don't know women who work and provide much of anything except occasional sex and a lot of complaining.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Sounds like the few women you know are not the right crowd. Expand your horizons.

And as I said in another question, men are not owed sex so occasional sex is better than no sex. Complaining, at least in a heterosexual relationship, is a sign that he is not pulling his weight and she is doing the majority of things, or that he is being neglectful in other ways. It also completely forgives men for doing the same thing when "out with the boys" or when they have locker room talk.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, You are projecting a desire for 'dominance' onto a desire for 'responsibility.' Wanting to be a provider figure isn't about pushing women down or feeling superior. True provision and protection require immense self-sacrifice, long hours, and placing the needs of a family entirely above a man's own comfort. That isn't dominance; it is duty.

To your other points: On the 'Loafing' Myth: Labeling the millions of young men checking out of society as just 'loafing and complaining' is identical to the unfair generalizations you claim to fight against. As a Christian complementarian, I look at the family as a cohesive team with distinct, complementary roles. Men aren't checking out because they are inherently lazy; they are checking out because society has systematically devalued their unique utility and told them their traditional contributions are 'outdated.' When you remove a man's sense of unique purpose, you destroy his incentive to build.

On Overlapping Roles vs. Teamwork: Your solution is for everyone to do everything—both partners working 8-10 hour shifts and trying to split identical domestic labor down the middle. This blurred, hyper-competitive model often results in the exact exhaustion, burnout, and deep resentment we see playing out in modern relationships today. A stable family structure functions best when both partners have distinct, mutually respected lanes of responsibility to support each other as a team, rather than constantly competing over the exact same functions.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Look, I totally respect your desire for a Christian ideal of relationships, but the reality is that it doesn't work the way you want it to in today's climate. There is no rolling back the clock on this one. It's not a competition for women to work along side men. It's just a reality and gives women a choice outside the home. We don't want to be in those roles you want us in. We want to expand our horizons, be educated and explore careers that interest us. Move away from tradition and learn to adapt to a new reality. Learn to find a new purpose and way to provide. Your purpose is greater than bringing home a paycheck. If anything I am trying to encourage men, not bring them down.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez_Bri-z_v2, I appreciate the respectful tone shift here.

Let's look at the reality of choices, encouragement, and societal outcomes: On Free Choice and Tradition: Moving forward doesn't mean erasing the past. True freedom means allowing women who want to pursue corporate careers to do so, while equally respecting and valuing women who choose a traditional family structure. Assuming that 'women don't want these roles' ignores millions of women who find immense fulfillment in focusing on the home.

The Reality of 'Progress' and Depression: You claim that moving entirely away from tradition is an unmitigated positive and that we just need to 'adapt.' But if modern feminism's corporate model is a total victory, how do you defend the actual outcomes? Sociologists and economists explicitly track this through a well-documented phenomenon known as 'The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness'. Data shows that since the 1970s, women’s overall life satisfaction has steadily plummeted both absolutely and relative to men.

[SolitarySolace]

Furthermore, current CDC health data shows that depression rates are significantly higher for women (16%) than men (10%). Forcing women into full-time corporate work while still expecting them to maintain a household—essentially creating a grueling 'double shift'—has resulted in widespread burnout, exhaustion, and a modern mental health epidemic, rather than the liberation that was promised. On True Encouragement for Men: Telling men to 'adapt' to a system that has devalued their utility isn't encouraging—it's dismissive. A man's purpose is absolutely greater than a paycheck; it is about the responsibility that paycheck represents. When a man works to provide, he is sacrificing his time and energy to sustain others. We agree that we can't literally roll back the clock. But we can absolutely change the cultural attitude. Encouraging men means restoring a culture where a man's willingness to shoulder the financial and protective burdens of a family is met with genuine appreciation and teamwork, rather than being labeled as outdated

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Oh, I think you misunderstood me a bit. Im totally for those who WANT to be tradwives. What i am not for is forcing women on the whole to be that.

Declining happiness and increased depression can be attributed to other things aside from just joining the workforce. For example, it could be that women take mental health more seriously than men do and seek therapy thereby increasing our rates of reporting.

And I fully agree about the double shift mentality. It just means men need to step up more and help around the house and stop relying on women to do it using this outdated mentality that "its a woman's job" to clean around the house and take care of the kids. This thought process can also contribute to that depression, exhaustion, and lack of happiness.

Society on the whole needs to do better about not demonizing men for stepping up and taking care of their children by calling them weak or "babysitters" when they are out and about with them. Men are not weak for helping around the house. They aren't "whipped" when they treat their wives as equals on decisions and assist with the house and kids.

Encouraging men means bringing out the best in them. Not rolling them back to what they were in the past. Men have more potential than that just like women did when we took on careers and still maintain our homes.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2,

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness' study did not look at clinical diagnoses, therapy seeking, or medical reporting rates. It utilized decades of consistent, direct tracking datasets asking women to rate their overall life satisfaction ('How happy are you these days?'). The documented decline in absolute and relative happiness isn't an artifact of 'talking about mental health more'; it is a genuine, self-reported drop in life satisfaction over a 35-year period.

On the Transactional Marriage Failure: Your solution to the 'double shift' is to simply demand that men split domestic chores exactly 50/50 while both partners work full-time corporate jobs. While teamwork is essential, treating a marriage like a transactional business contract where chores are micromanaged down the middle doesn't reduce structural stress—it multiplies it. Forcing two separate adults to compete in the career market while simultaneously trying to run a household evenly is exactly why modern couples are facing record burnout, exhaustion, and relational friction.

[SolitarySolace]

On Complementarian Teamwork: From a complementarian perspective, a home functions best when partners operate in distinct, mutually respected lanes of responsibility rather than trying to perform identical functions simultaneously. No one is saying men shouldn't step up or lead in childcare—true fathers are completely invested in their children. The point is that the home needs a dedicated anchor, not two exhausted corporate workers trying to split a second shift at 6:00 PM. On 'More Potential' than the Past: To claim that traditional provider and protector roles represent a lesser form of potential that men need to 'move past' is highly dismissive of history. Stepping up to single-handedly shoulder the financial, structural, and protective weights of a family requires immense self-sacrifice, accountability, and endurance. That isn't a lack of potential; it is potential channeled into its highest, most responsible purpose.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Ok so it didn't track therapy which is fine, but it still doesn't say that the workplace is why we are unhappy does it? Also, again, we are more likely to take mental health seriously and report more accurately than men would.

No, I dont believe it would cause any more burnout than it was when women were maintaining the home and children alone. We were not paid and we worked longer hours. We then had to deal with people like msc that thought that it just made all women only want men for their money just because he went through a bad divorce. So we went out and made our own money and now it's causing more burnout because we are having to do both. If men took more responsibility around the house then women wouldn't feel so depressed or burnt out. Sure, men might feel it a bit more but it would even out the balance.

Let me ask you this, why can't men be the ones to care for children and the home while women work careers that we want to? It would cover your bases about needing self sacrifice and complimentary teamwork. Why do women need to only be the ones to sacrifice our potential to make men feel better about themselves?

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez_Bri-z_v2, The Yale study explicitly isolated variables. It directly shows that the decline in female happiness tracks alongside the massive pressure to balance full-time corporate careers with family life [w14969]. It isn't a reporting bias; it's a documented economic reality.

You asked why men can't just stay home while women work. Roles aren't arbitrary, and they aren't about making men 'feel good.' They align with distinct, complementary strengths. True provision and protection require an aggressive, external focus to shield the home from economic and physical risks. True maternal nurturing provides the essential, internal stability a family needs to thrive. Reversing these roles goes against our natural wiring.
You admitted that doing 'both' is causing massive burnout. Your solution is to force men to split domestic chores 50/50 after an 8–10 hour workday. That doesn't fix burnout; it just ensures both partners are equally exhausted. A household operates best with distinct, specialized lanes of responsibility—not a corporate roommate model where everyone is burnt out at 6:00 PM

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

You basically kinda proved my point. We are stuck having to do both because men aren't picking up the slack. That's what is so depressing and causing burnout. It shouldn't be our job to do both without help from the man.

Depriving us of the things I've already mentioned (career and education) just so the home is taken care of, isn't complimentary at all, it's free forced labor for men to enjoy. Men aren't beholden to work. They could stay home and take care of things there. You advocate for tradwives but not for men who want to do the same? You call it feminizing men. That's insulting to those men and is insulting to women who don't want that lifestyle. It's no big surprise why more women are opting to stay single. Some of us dont want to roll backwards just to "fit tradition".

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I also gotta go for a while. I'll respond to your next post when I can, but it's been a fun debate with you either way! Thank you for that

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez_Bri-Z_v2, I appreciate the civil sign-off. Have a good break!

To close out on the economics of the household:

The Core Duty: Men are absolutely beholden to work in a traditional setup. If the provider doesn't work, the household collapses. It isn't 'forced labor' for a woman; it is an interdependent partnership built on mutual trust.

The Intimacy Death Spiral: The real flaw in the transactional 50/50 corporate roommate model is that it completely destroys intimacy. When both partners return home completely drained from a 10-hour corporate workday, survival mode kicks in. Chronic exhaustion kills romantic connection, which actively stalls family formation.

The Scorekeeping Trap: Instead of a cohesive team, relationships managed like business contracts turn spouses into accountants. Constant scorekeeping over every dish washed and every chore handled breeds deep resentment. This model doesn’t create equality—it creates chronic arguments, kills intimacy, and directly drives modern divorce rates. A family needs a balanced, complementary structure to survive, not a business contract.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Sorta back temporarily lol

Let me ask you this, if men were asked to stay at home, give up their careers, refrain from any sort of higher education, take care of the household and raise the children, men everywhere would be screaming about how that's a woman's responsibility. Simply put, it's not.

We have moved beyond as a society that those gender roles are accepted. Each generation moves further and further away from that mindset and I think it's a good thing. There shouldn't be male and female gender roles. It should just be roles that can be filled by whoever can do the work whether it be men or women. It shouldn't just fall on women to do those old school traditional things unless she wants to. It shouldn't fall on men to be the breadwinner.

A lot of that is ego to be honest. It pains a lot of men when women succeed where they fail. They see us with a better career or education and the more extreme right wing people start screaming about DEI. The less extreme talk about tradition. Those of us in the middle though believe things should be equal. Equal as in either person can fill any role needed. If she is better at yard work, then she should do it. If he's a better cook and more prone to cleaning, then go for it. Play to your strengths I guess, but not to your gender if you get what I'm saying.

[MrChinaski]

That time when you wake up and have 19 notifications...

I'm a simple guy and will make two simple comments.

First, happiness is a function that maps life into the interval [0,10] on a scoresheet. As a rough approximation, you might reasonably expect 10 means something like 'I'm achieving the outcomes I want' and 0 means 'I'm not achieving the outcomes I want'. A reasonable interpretation of (downward) convergence of female happiness to male happiness is that wants have converged. So the logical answer is that women, indeed people in general, should want less. That sounds facetious, but Tibetan monks are the happiest people on the planet for this reason. BUT there is a huge gulf between preaching that people find inner worth free from material and cultural expectations and running social policy with the objective of forcing that outcome.

Second, moving away from happiness, most group human endeavours can be characterised as a sine wave with trend. There are cycles up and down, but a curve towards progress overrall. (Yes, I'm that optimistic). You need to climb foothills to get the start of the next mountain. Point being that if you liked a previous era and found it to be the top of a cycle, the way to a better society going forward is not to go back, it is to go forward. While I wouldn't focus on gender roles, I think society has lost important strengths over the past 50 years. Social capital, if you will. Loving thy neighbour if you prefer that language. But rebuilding what was good doesn't mean throwing out what has improved: freedom, acceptance of diversity, different ways of thinking, control over ones life path, etc. Nostalgia is not what it used to be.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez_Bri-Z_v2, you are still arguing against a complete caricature of tradition where women are forbidden from education. Nobody is advocating for that. The point isn't about rigid restrictions; it's about respecting distinct, complementary responsibilities. When roles are completely erased in favor of a 50/50 corporate roommate model, you end up with the constant scorekeeping trap that breeds resentment. Valuing male provision isn't about male ego; it's about establishing a clear, dependable foundation for a team.

[SolitarySolace]

@MrChinaski, the idea that society follows an upward-trending sine wave is a comforting progress myth, but it doesn't match our demographic reality. The collapse in birth rates and family formation isn't a temporary dip—it is a structural failure of social capital. Monastic detachment works perfectly for individuals seeking inner worth, but a civilization cannot survive or raise a next generation on detachment. Rebuilding the high-trust social capital we lost over the last 50 years is mathematically impossible without first stabilizing the core building block of community: a cohesive, complementary family unit. It isn't nostalgia to look at a structural collapse and demand a stable foundation.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Fine, let's take out the education portion of it (though i see you didn't mention us not having a career of our own with something that interest us more than being a homemaker), the part about scorekeeping still happens in a "traditional" family.

"The kids are screaming, go deal with them."

"I worked all day, why is my dinner not ready when I get home?"

Both of these were my dad to a T. My mom was the primary breadwinner, worked longer hours than he did, and she was still expected to serve him dinner when he got off work and deal with my brothers and I if we got too loud.

A dip in birth rate is fine really. The reasoning behind that most people give is who will be there to help the elderly/pay for SS. I thought conservatives hated socialism?

I may be speaking out of bias since im married to another woman, but we manage to have careers and contribute around the house just fine. Why is that harder for men to do?

A stable foundation can be formed if men stepped up and did the parts they dont like doing just as women stepped up to do the parts men were doing before them.

This detachment you are referring to, and what a lot of incels rebel against, is that women have options now. We are no longer beholden to having to marry a guy just to have an income and survive as an adult. This means we dont have to rush a family. We can explore ourselves longer than we have in the past.

[MrChinaski]

@SolitarySolace

I apologise profusely for being the chatgpt told me so guy but it's the most time efficient way of making a simple point: marriage conventions have been constantly changing. If a stable foundation is what you seek I fear you will forever be disappointed.

A rough stylised time series for the US:

Approx year Male breadwinner + homemaker wife share of marriages/families*
1800 Low–moderate
1850 Rising
1900 Still not dominant
1920 Majority emerges
1940 ~57% (peak)
1950 Around peak
1960 Still very high
1980 Falling rapidly
Today Much lower

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, You are conflating an unequal anomaly in your own family with the actual baseline of traditionalism. True tradition is built on mutual sacrifice. If a man isn't carrying the primary provider weight outside the home, he has zero right to demand domestic service inside it. Your example isn't a traditional marriage; it was a dysfunctional one. Furthermore, claiming a birth rate collapse is 'fine' because conservatives oppose socialism is an absolute economic failure of logic. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where the current generation directly funds current retirees. When the birth rate completely collapses, the entire economic foundation of a nation vanishes, resulting in massive tax hikes, inflation, and a broken economy that ruins everyone's options. This has absolutely nothing to do with stopping women from having choices or careers. It's a mathematical reality. When a culture treats marriage like a gender-neutral corporate roommate agreement and completely devalues distinct male provision, family formation stops. Having individual 'options' doesn't matter if the real-world outcome is an unmitigated demographic crisis that completely breaks society for the next generation.

[SolitarySolace]

@MrChinaski, You are making a massive historical error by confusing a modern corporate paycheck with the timeless concept of complementarian roles. Before the industrial era you cited in the 1800s, families operated as highly interdependent agrarian units. Men and women didn't live like gender-neutral corporate roommates with separate bank accounts. They filled deeply distinct, non-overlapping duties: men handled the physically dangerous labor, clearing land, and external trade, while women managed internal homestead production and domestic stability. That is the definition of a complementarian structure—it was just adapted to a farm instead of an office building. Furthermore, every past convention shift you listed still successfully resulted in stable family formation and a replacement-level birth rate that sustained the culture. The modern 'roommate' experiment is the only model in human history that has resulted in an absolute collapse of family formation and plummeting birth rates. It isn't a harmless upward wave of progress; it is a structural failure that leaves a society unable to replicate itself.

[MrChinaski]

To make this simple -- maybe just because I'm in exam study mode -- the optimal control problem is to:
- maximise wellbeing by choice of production (including of children) and consumption
- subject to constraints in the form of social expectations

Sure, there are economies of scale and scope in 'traditional' households in production and consumption. I agree with you completely.

But a better (or at least strictly not worse) outcome flows from relaxing the constraints of the 1950s.

I feel bad ganging up on you, though. @Ez-Bri-Z_v2 and I disagree on a great deal, but I think we both have more non-traditional views of relationships than average.

[SolitarySolace]

@MrChinaski, Treating human relationships like a basic economic optimization model where children are just a 'choice of production' completely misses the point of systemic risk. Relaxing the constraints of the 1950s didn't yield a higher optimum outcome; it created a massive negative externality—the total collapse of the demographic replacement rate. In economics, when you maximize short-term individual utility and corporate consumption at the expense of long-term structural reproduction, the entire macro system eventually goes bankrupt. You can't optimize 'wellbeing' if the society fails to replicate itself.

And don't worry about 'ganging up'—the debate is about data, not feelings. Non-traditional models look great on a blackboard, but they are a structural dead-end in the real world. Good luck with your exams.

[MrChinaski]

@SolitarySolace Thanks, mate.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

The alarm bells won't be going off with the birth rate going down as long as we learn to adapt as a society, but based on this conversation where it's been brought up that some men are not willing to adapt with change, maybe you may have some merit... or perhaps those with that mentality should be phased out with each new generation.

The fact is AI is going nowhere anytime soon. If we keep this thought process that we have to have like 3 children per woman to keep the population up, you are going to have a LOT of unemployed, starving people as you can see now in the US with people losing their jobs to AI and now becoming homeless because the job market sucks and prices are skyrocketing.

By limiting the number who are dependant on the goverment for support we not only save money, but keep overpopulation at bay and allows the older generation to stay in the workplace longer since moat people are paycheck to paycheck anyway and their social security isn't going to be enough.

And about my experiences, yes, they are my own and absolutely it was a dysfunctional situation we were raised in where men were to be served by the women. Women could work, but were still expected to do the housework along with the kids. Hell, I remember my dad making my brother's pregnant girlfriend cut the grass because it needed to be done and my brother was at work. He couldn't wait, he had to have it his way.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

That aside, having children does derail some women from careers. We are taken less seriously for promotions in the corporate setting when employers know we have kids because it's assumed we will be missing time more often to deal with sick kids and the like. That is an example of why the newest generations are refusing to get married/have kids and the birth rate is dropping. Heck, in the US, we fail to even give a lot of men paternity leave to allow for equal care for their children and force a woman who just went through wrecking her body for 9 months, being torn open from giving birth, and giving up sleep to feed a newborn child, to do it all herself and not be able to recover.

Society has failed women in that regard. Heck, it's failed men too in a way. Why would we want to preserve a society that does that just because it's what we already know? A few other countries do it better and the model exists to modify what we do in the US to make it worthwhile to have children. Will it fix things completely? Of course not. Birthrates are down all over the globe. Things are just too expensive around the globe. Society as a whole isn't working right now but to blame that on women not having kids or learning their "natural" role in a marriage isn't the answer

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, Your personal experience with a dysfunctional family explains your frustration, but using an extreme example like your father forcing a pregnant woman to mow the lawn to write off the entire concept of family is a massive logical leap. Bad behavior by individuals doesn't mean the entire institution of family is obsolete. It certainly doesn't justify your deeply disturbing suggestion that entire generations of men should be 'phasing out' just because they don't conform to your worldview. That isn't 'adaptation'—it's standard anti-human authoritarianism.

On the economics, your theory that a collapsing birth rate fixes AI unemployment is completely backwards. A shrinking population doesn't prevent poverty; it accelerates economic collapse. A society with too few working-age people cannot fund the infrastructure, healthcare, or the Social Security system you mentioned. Forcing the elderly to work indefinitely because there aren't enough young taxpayers to support them isn't 'adapting'—it's a textbook sign of a failing civilization. You're right that data shows women are highly vulnerable to AI automation, mainly due to their overrepresentation in administrative and clerical roles. But tech, creative, and software engineering fields—which are heavily male-dominated—are also facing massive AI layoffs. Unemployment isn't a gender issue; it's a structural one. You make valid points about corporate penalties for mothers and the lack of paternity leave. But that actually proves my point. The solution to a broken system isn't to cheer for a population spiral or talk about 'phasing out' generations of people. The solution is fixing the culture and policy so that building a family doesn't wreck a woman's career or strip a man of his purpose. We should be fixing the system to support human life, not downsizing humanity to fit a broken system.

[MrChinaski]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2

Okay. That's just flat out false. Things have never been so darn cheap. e. g. 520 hours of work required to buy a bicycle in 1901.
https://www.pc.gov.au/what-is-productivity/

The change is in choice. People have chosen to spend their wealth on stuff instead of more kids.

[SolitarySolace]

Exactly, @MrChinaski. People confuse a high cost of consumerism with a high cost of living. Our ancestors raised huge families in literal cabins with zero modern tech or luxuries. The birth rate drop isn't because people can't survive; it's exactly what you said—prioritizing lifestyle, subscriptions, and tech over family.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I'm not dismissing the concept of a family. I'm dismissing traditional gender roles within one. I also protest that all marriages have to look the same, one man, one woman and 3 kids. There are all kinds of family units.

My comment about phasing them out is that the mindset that we have to follow the traditional route only needs to be phased out.

And I think despite our differences we are actually pretty close on society needing to be fixed because of systemic issues. The problem is that my view is more progressive while yours is more traditional. Traditional obviously isn't working for women because we fought for rights we didn't have, breaking that mold of tradition. We entered the workplace and higher education breaking that tradition too. Tradition only works for those who benefits from it most and that's men. If tradition worked for everyone then why did women fight so much against it?

A man's purpose should be more than a paycheck and a protector in the face of danger. A man can be a nurturer. A man can do most things a woman can do too. Honestly aside from how reproduction works (and even that is being blurred by science) I'd say that our roles could be interchangeable for those who are willing and able.

Im also not saying we need to downsize to fix society. I am saying society needs to fix itself because like it or not, we are all downsizing.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, Claiming tradition only benefited men completely ignores history. It wasn’t a one-sided privilege; it was a brutal, interdependent survival strategy where men paid for their role with massive workplace fatalities, military conscription, and shorter lifespans to secure the family unit. If roles are as perfectly 'interchangeable' as you claim, then the global data shouldn't contradict you—yet the most egalitarian, progressive societies on Earth (like Scandinavia) actually show the widest, voluntary divergence in what men and women naturally choose to do. Finally, you went from saying we need to downsize to fix society to just claiming 'we are all downsizing' anyway. If you want to keep advocating for a progressive framework that modern data proves has directly led to a documented decline in female happiness over the last 40 years, go ahead. But you aren't fixing the system; you're just celebrating its decay, leaving women more stressed and unhappy, and calling it progress.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

@MrChinaski ok so you also need to take into consideration that the national minimum wage in Australia is $24.95 which is 17.82 and hour USD. In the US the national minimum wage is 7.25 an hour which is 10.15 AUD. So a lot of people are being priced out here. So no, not false. It's just different for Australia which is where your article is from and based on.

[SolitarySolace]

MrChinaski is correct. Directly converting wages without adjusting for local cost of living and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is a textbook economic mistake. You're confusing nominal exchange rates with actual wealth. Australia's minimum wage looks higher on paper because their currency is structurally weaker, but that advantage completely evaporates when you factor in Australia's massive cost-of-living premiums, housing prices, and taxes. Converting numbers on a basic calculator doesn't change the fact that your math is economically illiterate.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

You act like it was a cakewalk for women back then just because men died in war. We died during childbirth WAY more than we do now and it still happens today. We were also left to defend the home and kids alone when men went off to war. Not to mention help support the effort by taking on odd jobs here and there that gave even a little money. Some were even forced to give up their bodies for sexual favors to get even the simplest things for survival.

And divergence is fine if it's CHOSEN not forced upon a person.

You still haven't shown that dissatisfaction from women isn't related to having an increased workload that men haven't picked up the slack on.

[MrChinaski]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 Yes. Yes. The numbers don't matter specifically and there is a bigger issue in the US that median wages there haven't increased since the 1970s whereas ours have only stagnated since 2010 or so and we can have an intellectual discussion about what 'real' means, and so on and so forth... but... every country in the world that has introduced financial inducements to have children have found little or no effect, the nordics that have incredibly generous social supports around children have seen similar falls in total fertility rates (Aus 1.64 TFR, US 16.2, Sweden 1.44). And yes it's clear that recessions affect birth rates (though not clearly tfr) and yada yada yada... I'm not saying finances don't matter, but they have a very second order effect.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, Nobody said history was a cakewalk for anyone. But minimizing the fact that men were structurally treated as expendable labor—facing lethal conscription, total financial liability, and the vast majority of workplace fatalities—proves you only view history through a one-sided victim narrative. You completely forget that once women gained the right to vote, they participated equally in electing the very governments that enacted drafts and sent young men to die in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. As for your claim about an increased workload: the data completely rejects it. According to the Pew Research Center's American Time Use data, when you actually combine paid employment and unpaid domestic labor, husbands and wives work virtually the exact same total hours every week, with married fathers consistently logging slightly more total labor hours than mothers. The idea that women are unhappy because men 'aren't picking up the slack' is a mathematically false myth. Women are increasingly unhappy because the modern progressive framework forces them to compete in corporate spaces while cutting them off from the traditional support structures that historically protected them.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Illiterate huh?

Average Weekly Rent by City

The cost to rent a studio apartment in Australia typically ranges from $350 to $700 AUD per week ($230 to $460 USD). Prices vary drastically depending on the city, proximity to the city center.

The national average cost for a studio apartment in the U. S. is approximately $1,644 to $1,713 per month. The average size for these units is usually around 450 to 470 square feet whether the unit is furnished or bills are included

That would be between 411-428 usd a week in the US vs 230-460 usd in Australia

Now look back at what I said about pay rates and get back with me..

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

@SolitarySolace

Im not minimizing men's contributions, I'm saying dont discount women's as somehow being easier because we didn't see combat (which by the way we do now too).

Yes we voted for those goverments and those governments tried to deny us the right to serve as a thank you because men were queasy with the idea of watching a woman die on the battlefield. Instead we did eventually make it into the military ranks where men can't stop raping or sexually harassing us.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, It's completely transparent why you're pivoting to emotional rants about military crimes: you completely ran out of arguments to counter the actual Pew Research American Time Use data proving men and women work virtually identical total hours a week. Since you couldn't defend your 'unpaid workload' narrative with facts, you abandoned the topic entirely. Furthermore, you are rewriting history to save face. Governments didn't 'deny' women the right to serve out of pettiness; they spared them from mandatory lethal conscription—a legal and physical obligation that still exclusively applies to men via the Selective Service today. Bringing up horrific crimes as a shield because your sociological argument got dismantled is a desperate escape hatch. You lost the debate, and your complete pivot proves it.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Well, this certainly didn't end civil did it?

I wasn't ranting emotionally. Im pointing out yet another failure of men when women try to get on equal footing whether it be that example or them not picking up the workload at home. Sorry that wasn't clear enough for you.

Does your research say WHAT men and women are doing during that labor time? I mean if he is cutting the grass for 2 hours but she is taking care of the kids, then that's not fixing the issue of gender roles now is it? I'm not abandoning anything, im just having to debate about financial costs after being called illiterate while also trying to debate this within my 2000 character limit. Give me time for multiple posts.

They didn't spare us from anything. Some of us actually want to serve just like some men do. There are also others who dont want to serve. Maybe we should just go to mandatory 1 year military service so men can't complain they are the only ones forced to go to war.

If you feel like I've lost then so be it. No reason to continue when you are getting so defensive and borderline insulting me. Shame. I was having fun too.

[SolitarySolace]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2, Yes, the Pew Research American Time Use data explicitly outlines exactly what both sexes are doing—it tracks paid employment, housework, and childcare. Men perform significantly more hours of paid employment to provide financial security, while women focus more on domestic responsibilities. Minimizing a man’s 40+ hour work week as just 'cutting the grass for 2 hours' is a desperate attempt to move the goalposts because the total workload math completely ruined your narrative. Furthermore, suggesting a mandatory draft for women just 'so men can't complain' is a complete self-sabotage of your own point. You just openly acknowledged that men bear an exclusive, lethal obligation of mandatory conscription. You can't claim tradition 'only benefits men' while admitting they are the only ones legally forced to die for the state. Resorting to tone policing and pretending to walk away because I cited peer-reviewed data is a textbook surrender. Just don’t be a complete and utter misandrist and be better. Take care.

[MrChinaski]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 @SolitarySolace

So to sum up. We should avoid treating masculinity as pathology and caregiving as weakness. And we all want a world where parents can raise children without burning themselves out.

That was easy!! 🤦‍♀️

[SolitarySolace]

Exactly. Well said, @chinaski. It really is that straightforward when you focus on mutual balance and respect instead of trying to force every family dynamic into a one-sided grievance narrative. Glad we could find the common-sense bottom line.

[itznatbruh]

It depends. If masculinity means taking care of his family, being able to protect, having the ability to let his lover know about his struggles, then of course. If masculinity means being violent, pressing people, and/or telling his wife/girlfriend to get back into her place, then fuck no.

[SolitarySolace]

Nobody defines masculinity as domestic abuse or mindless violence. That is a total strawman argument invented by modern feminism to pathologize normal men. True masculinity has always been about strength, protection, and provision, but the media intentionally highlights criminal behavior to claim masculinity itself is 'toxic.

[itznatbruh]

I was always taught by women and MEN that masculinity is violence. I’ve tried to change my thinking, but you always have to give options when answering a question to answer it correctly.

[SolitarySolace]

@itznatbruh, If you were taught that masculinity is inherently violence, you were taught wrong by people who completely misunderstood human nature. Violence is the chaotic breakdown of order. True masculinity is the exact opposite—it is the disciplined strength used to restrain violence, maintain order, and protect the vulnerable. When you equate a man's natural strength with criminality, you pathologize the exact traits a community needs to stay safe. We shouldn't define a necessary social structure by its worst criminal distortions. True strength protects; it doesn't abuse.

[slatyb]

To be provider figures? What does that mean exactly? Do you imagine that women will not want to have their own careers?

[SolitarySolace]

To clarify, the goal isn't to take away choices from women or imply they shouldn't have careers or ambition.
As a Christian complementarian, I believe that men and women are created with equal worth but with distinct, complementary roles designed to work together as a team. Advocating for men as provider figures is about restoring a culture where a man's distinct role to lead, provide for, and protect his family is respected as a vital asset, rather than being treated as a problem or mocked.
The article I linked highlights a sobering economic reality: millions of young men are completely checking out of higher education and the workforce because traditional male purpose has been devalued.
This isn't about restricting anyone's choices; it is about addressing that loss of purpose.
When society values a man's drive to provide, it strengthens families, allowing both partners to thrive with mutual respect in a true team dynamic.

[slatyb]

Ok, what do you think society should do? Women aren't going to sacrifice their lives because some young men can't get it together. We could agree that something isn't working, but it's not a woman problem, it's a man problem.

[SolitarySolace]

Calling a massive, structural collapse in male workforce and educational participation an isolated 'man problem' is incredibly short-sighted. When millions of prime-age men check out of society, it becomes a crisis that harms everyone—it means a shrinking tax base, collapsing family stability, and a severe shortage of stable, long-term partners for the millions of career women who actually want to build families. Furthermore, I explicitly stated that this isn't about asking women to 'sacrifice their lives' or restricting anyone's choices; it is about building a team dynamic where male purpose is actually valued rather than mocked. Shrugging off a massive demographic crisis as just 'men needing to get it together' isn't an argument; it's a refusal to understand basic sociology.

[slatyb]

So what do you suggest we do as a society? Do we need to reform schools to better suit boys? If so, how? Do we need affirmative action to help men compete in college admissions? More access to trade schools instead of forcing every teen into college-prep courses? "Complimentarian?" That's your religion, it's not reality. Women can bear children and nurse them. Men cannot. Everything else can be done by both women and men, and some women will choose to do them, and some men will not.

[SolitarySolace]

@slatyb, Yes, we absolutely need to reform early education to stop treating normal boyhood energy as a pathology, and we must drastically expand access to trade schools instead of pushing every young man into a corporate college track. However, dismissing complementarianism as 'just religion' ignores the functional blueprint of human thriving. A successful team isn't built on identical, interchangeable parts—it relies on unique, complementary strengths. Reducing the differences between men and women to just pregnancy ignores our deep psychological and emotional differences. When society treats men and women as completely interchangeable economic rivals rather than cooperative partners with distinct, specialized roles, the family unit destabilizes. That ideological shift is exactly why modern relationships are fracturing.

[slatyb]

"However, dismissing complementarianism as 'just religion' ignores the functional blueprint of human thriving." What evidence do you have for that claim besides historical European patriarchy that was imposed on women?

[slatyb]

You could hardly say that women in the US were thriving before they finally gained legal equality in the late 20th century.

[SolitarySolace]

@slatyb, You are conflating basic legal equality under the law with the cultural erasure of biological sex differences. No one is arguing against legal rights like voting or owning property. The issue is an ideological shift that demands men and women act as identical, interchangeable economic competitors rather than complementary partners.

Your argument misses the mark on two major fronts:

1. Anthropological Reality: Framing complementarianism as strictly "historical European patriarchy" ignores vast global history. Interdependent, specialized gender roles are a universal anthropological phenomenon found across globally diverse, non-European, and indigenous societies. Civilizations relied on complementary strengths because a natural division of labor reduces interpersonal friction and builds strong, stable family units. It wasn’t a European invention; it was a cross-cultural human constant for survival.

2. The Reality of Modern "Thriving": If the current cultural track represents peak human thriving, our societal metrics should reflect that. Instead, modern social science documents a profound global relationship recession, cratering birth rates, and skyrocketing levels of anxiety and loneliness.

In fact, well-known economic studies (like the Paradox of Female Happiness) show that self-reported female happiness has steadily declined since the 1970s, despite legal and financial gains. Replacing cooperative interdependence with corporate competition didn't liberate relationships—it isolated them. People are wealthier now, but emotionally fractured.

[slatyb]

You are not answering the only interesting question -- specifically which government policies should change? What changes should be made in public education? In taxation and other employment policy? Are there other laws that should be changed?

[exitseven]

you do not change thousands of years of evolution in a generation.

[SolitarySolace]

Exactly. You cannot social-engineer away thousands of years of human biology and evolution in a single generation. The modern narrative treats masculinity like a fluid social construct that can just be deleted or rewritten by a few decades of media messaging. But trying to pathologize natural male instincts and expecting men to override their deep biological programming is a recipe for disaster. You can't shame the provider and protector drive out of men without causing millions of them to simply check out of the system entirely. Biology always outlasts current political trends, and suppressing those natural traits doesn't change male nature—it just breaks the family structure.

[Chazmatazz269]

It’s been six generations. Feminism began in the mid nineteenth century.

[SolitarySolace]

Six generations is roughly 150 years—an absolute blink of an eye when human evolution operates on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years. Early feminism may have been about legal rights, but modern feminism has devolved into a radical social experiment that tries to pathologize basic masculine nature. You cannot use a few decades of academic theory to rewrite deep-seated biological reality.

[Mike_Hum]

Why would men let a bunch of fags and women tell them how they should feel and act?

[strateguy632]

we do