1057
Old person traits
(pawb.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
1057 points (98.3% liked)
tumblr
3452 readers
129 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My old person trait is a belief that anyone that works full time should be able to aspire to own their own home, support their wife and kids and still have a little left over to save at the end of the month.
Edit: It kind of sucks that I wrote a comment about making work pay like it used to and people are arguing about whether I'm a mysoganist that wants women back in the kitchen. (I'm not, I'm happy for women to work as much as they want too, it'd just be nice for double income homes to be doing it out of choice and thriving because of it, rather than having to do it out of necessity.)
Whoa there. Won't anyone ever think of the c~~hildren~~-level executives? How could they afford a new Lamborghini or a new yacht when they also have to pay you?
What about the executives' children? They need a ten grand a month per year they've been alive (so when they're three it's thirty grand a month) salary. We need someone anyone to sit on the scholarship boards run by the company.
Yeah but you said this so...
That's a fact, not an opinion that implies contempt, prejudice or a hatred of women.
You can try to deny millions of years of evolution if you want.
People don't like to admit it, but despite all the advantages of our modern society, our DNA is essentially unchanged from when we were all cavemen.
If you were a cave woman and you had the option of two cavemen who are essentially identical except for that one makes a successful hunt everyday and the other only makes a successful hunt every week. Who would you choose to help you raise a family? And vice versa, if you were the caveman and you knew that women were selective of men based upon who can provide well for the raising of children, would you want to be making a successful hunt daily, or weekly?
We can cry about how unfair it is, but the vast majority of women today, whether they want to admit it or not, absolutely consider economic status as something to weigh up when selecting a partner, men do also consider this, but not nearly to the same extent. Please don't misinterpret anything I'm saying here as resentful or hateful, it's not it's life, you can choose not to accept this, but it doesn't change the facts.
Inb4, yh but we're not cavemen any more. I've already addressed that.
Micdrop.
I was just using hunting as an example as a way that a man could provide for a woman that wanted to raise children in prehistoric times, the accuracy of which is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. I'm really not interested in challenging the traditional view, it was merely an example to help you understand how women evolved with a tendency to prefer men with a high, or at least stable economic status and why men evolved to want to have that economic status. Just in the same way that I was using the example of a man being able to own a home and support an entire family just a few decades ago to show how much less work pays today.
The semantics of this debate and how far off track it has gone, when I was just trying to make a point about how work doesn't pay as much as it used to is mind boggling.
Fucking Jesus.
As long as you've realised I don't hate woman, I'm happy.
So your old person trait is really that "wife stay at home with the kids" should be the norm?
It should be an option.
Dad works, and mum stays at home to focus on the home and kids. ✔️
Mum works and dad stays at home to focus on the home and kids. ✔️
Both work part time to both spend quality time with the kids. ✔️✔️✔️
All should be completely viable for an average income couple.
This. As a working woman I can't really upvote the "I wanna support wife and kids" stuff. Thanks, but I want to work.
I understand it from the women's point of view and I didn't mean to be mysoganistic in any form, but it is in the DNA of men to want to be a good provider and I think, if you're being honest, that many women look for that as an attractive trait in a male partner.
I understand that you weren't trying to be mysoginistic, but I am disagreeing with your premise that the provider role for men & women wanting it is some kind of natural state. These roles have been enforced, and can be unlearnt. It's also not binary. It may well be that in a perfect world without any societal pressure, more men than women want to provide. But how many? Having a higher probability doesn't imply that it's deterministic for all people.
The only biological aspect I agree with is that being pregnant changes women, because this is backed by studies.
I respect your opinion and thank you for tackling my point of view head on, rather than just picking the bones out of semantics the way that some others in this thread have.
I agree with you. But that's not what OP wrote. Now, maybe he's simply writing from his own perspective. But it does sound a bit weird imo.
How the hell did you come to that conclusion?
Wanting to support your family is sexist in 2024 /s
The lemmy, land of the contrarian.
"support their wife and kids" is right there in plain text.
Yes, shortly after "be able to."
Your reading comprehension astounds me.
The fact that one working man could support his whole family just a few decades ago didn't mean women shouldn't, couldn't or didn't work, just that they didn't have to.
Women worked fulltime, just unpaid. This is always forgotten. Household with multiple kids is not free time.
So “women” didn't have to work, but men had to, right? That's the model you want back?
You really haven't noticed that you have this role model of the breadwinner as the man and the stay-at-home-mother deeply ingrained into your thinking, right?
It's in that response as well. That's not an accusation, stuff like this is in everyone somewhere, it's just good to challenge oneself on such matters.
I'm not opposed to having a well-off working wife and being a stay at home dad, so all these accusations of mysogany when I'm just trying to talk about making work pay like it used to is rather tiresome.
Yes, I wrote using a traditional family model as an example, sorry it triggered you so much.
It should be an option for those outside the top 1%. Let's be honest, plenty of jobs suck and a lot of people who look after a children professionally are not the brightest sparks in the fire (at least where I am). Why should someone be forced to do a crap job then give all that salary to someone less cultures than the to look after their kids. Why not just do it themselves?
If one of you has a good, full-time job that should cover basic living expenses. It should also not be looked down. My wife is a stay at home mum, she is also a feminist and I certainly did not not force her to to work. The only thing we regret is the way people (especially other women but not only) look down on her.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I think having a stay at home parent is kind of yesteryear, and should probably be viewed as such for a multitude of reasons, but I think, full time salary and able to support what are basically three people's needs + savings is not an unreasonable demand. The more this is commonplace, the more everyone can afford to support everyone else collectively, since only a quarter of the total population would really need to be working at any given time, and the rest could be paylessly employed to manage each other. Beyond just stay at home moms or dads, it could entail any number of people in any number of living situations, but the free time means that taking care of the elderly, disabled, children, or whatever else could just be split among the local social network, instead of just kinda being foisted onto underfunded social systems which should more realistically not be the first option.
Probably this is the main driver of why the social fabric of america is coming undone, that I can think of, but it's also not so easy to solve, because none of this is really something you can solve long-term in a capitalist economy, where there are always incentives to undercut your competition by underpaying your workers, or outsourcing. Or really in any system that prioritizes short term gains over long term ones.
I’m an equal opportunity house person. I wouldn’t mind staying home taking care of the kids while the wife worked, living in our owned home and having something extra at the end of the month
Not necessarily the wife.
And not necessarily the same person all the time.
OP did specify "the wife". I would take him by the word.
It kind of sucks that I wrote a comment about making work pay like it used to and people are arguing about whether I'm a mysoganist that wants women back in the kitchen.
Then said